OPEN UNIVERSITY OCTOBER 27, 2006
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
by David Greenberg
There's something inescapably irksome about intellectuals signing petitions. Maybe it's the self-serving implication that our florid, somber enunciation of weighty moral tenets will (or should) be taken seriously by the public--when it's usually only other intellectuals who even hear about these manifestoes. Maybe it's the self-congratulation in imagining that this relatively effortless act of affixing our names to noble sentiments counts as an important exercise of democratic responsibility. Or maybe it's my sneaking suspicion that the stands we take on some issue--Bush's support of torture, the impeachment of Clinton--are, at some level, bound up with the kinds of partisan loyalties and visceral emotions that we profess to be rising above.
To be clear: I don't condemn intellectuals who sign petitions. I've signed a few over the years, such as to protest the Supreme Court conservatives' power grab in Bush v. Gore. But even then I did so with ambivalence, sensing the inadequacy of a petition in the face of that travesty of justice.
Yet I feel hope, comfort, and reassurance in reading about the Euston Manifesto and its American counterpart, which Jeffrey Herf has discussed on this blog and which Michael Kazin and Casey Blake have greeted somewhat skeptically. These statements haven't made the splash stateside that they seem to have in Britain, but I sense that they're slowly making an impact.
There are some false notes in the American document, such as this comic juxtaposition: "We agree ... that the Geneva conventions concerning treatment of prisoners of war should apply wherever the United States is holding prisoners captured in the effort to contain, thwart and defeat the terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism. We support higher mileage-per-gallon requirements for cars and a national gasoline tax (with relief for low-income drivers) ... " And other lines, such as those insisting on the need to use military force against jihadists, strike me as protesting too much. In fact, in contrast to the Euston statement, the American corollary seems to focus too much on Islamist terrorism at the expense of other issues.
Yet looking at both statements I find it heartening to see the broad willingness to stand up to the anti-Israel and (in some cases) anti-Semitism gaining traction on the left. At a time when sympathy for Israel's plight increasingly comes from the right, many of the signatories are liberals or leftists who remind us that supporting the Jewish state is fundamentally a liberal position, even when its government veers farther to the right than many of us would like. It's also good to see that many self-described socialists (as well as liberals) still share these sentiments.
One also would have thought it obvious that we can fervently oppose the Bush administration's encroachments on human rights while continuing to decry tyranny and terrorism of the left, right, and Islamist varieties. Still, it's bracing to hear it said so confidently.
Finally, in reply to Casey and Michael's criticisms, I actually think the Eustonites' lack of a party line on Iraq is not only justified but probably necessary. All along Iraq has divided liberals of good faith and decency. There were sound liberal arguments for supporting the war--arguments I didn't ultimately find persuasive (for reasons best enumerated elsewhere), but which nonetheless shouldn't excommunicate their champions from a new liberal alliance. Those of us who opposed the war should recognize as comrades-in-arms people like Paul Berman, Peter Beinart, and George Packer--and even those who remain dubious about a rapid withdrawal today, such as Peter Bergen.
I encourage our Open U faculty to discuss the Euston Manifesto--as well as the Gitlin-Ackerman statement in The American Prospect that Casey mentioned--in the weeks ahead.
10 comments
David Greenberg writes:
The entirety of this statement is falsehood, wrapped in lies and bound with calumny.
It is not the left which is anti-Israeli, David Greenberg, but those who continue to appease Israeli depravity towards the Palestinian people exemplified by this brutal decades-long occupation. It is not the left which is anti-Semitic, David Greenberg, but those who continue to appease the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people because it is a Jewish state.
David Greenberg would never dream of appeasing let alone supporting an Islamic Israel that was subjugating a Jewish Palestinian people. Yet he appears troubled by and is willing to slander those who condemn equivalent Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people. We should all be thankful that an understanding of the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people is finally gaining traction. The people that deserve slander are those whose intellectual and moral failure is demonstrated is by their continued support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.
David Greenberg writes that sympathy for Israel's plight increasingly comes from the right. This should not surprise us given that the core Israeli ideology is a racist subjugation of the Palestinian people. The right has always been home to the racist, the Nationalist, the fascist and the Nazi. There is and must be no room in liberalism for these vile ideologies regardless of attempts by so-called friends of Israel to include a racist subjugation of the Palestinian people in liberal orthodoxy.
I was not surprised to read in his biography that David Greenberg is a former managing editor and acting editor of TNR. I encourage David Greenberg to spend the weekend reflecting on the paragraph I discussed here and perhaps, with enough time and thought, he will find all the lies, the falsehoods and the calumnies it contains.
- ndmackenzie
October 27, 2006 at 3:07pm
This should not surprise us given that the core Israeli ideology is a racist subjugation of the Palestinian people. For the love of Peter, Paul, and Mary... Look, I'm happy to call myself a left-leaning, atheist-leaning, loudmouth liberal, and I find this ridiculous. Support for Israel's right to exist and be safe from harm does not automatically equate with embracing everything about that country, and David Greenberg doesn't begin to imply that it does. The entire accusation of "calumny" - Ms/Mr. Mackenzie appears to enjoy that ten dollar word so - is itself a reactionary statement, smacking of unreflective thinking. As far as I can tell, Ms/Mr. Mackenzie fails to realize that there are no falsehoods contained in Mr. Greenberg's statement: He makes no assertions of fact - he at most expresses a desire that more people will not conflate disgust at certain Israeli policies with Israel having no right to exist. That is a profoundly liberal position. Ms/Mr. Mackenzie reminds me of nothing so much as those people back at UC Davis a few years ago who protested David Horowitz's right to speak there on the grounds that a racist doesn't deserve free speech. Well intentioned, but ultimately ignorant of the tradition of political thought they claimed to embody. -James F. Elliott
- jfelliott
October 27, 2006 at 3:31pm
James F. Elliott writes:
David Greenberg explicitly referred to the anti-Israel and (in some cases) anti-Semitism gaining traction on the left. This is a despicable slander because he is alluding to an increasing willingness of moral Americans to recognize the fundamental evil of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the consequent oppression of the Palestinian People. To describe such criticism of Israel as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic is a base calumny.
I absolutely support Israel's right to exist and the rights of its citizens to live out their lives knowing they will be safe and secure from harm. But I also support equivalent rights for the Palestinians. Through three decades of occupation the Israelis have failed (deliberately) in their legal and moral responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the Palestinian people. The reflexive defense of Israel by TNR always ignores the reality of this failure.
There is nothing liberal about the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians. There is nothing conservative about the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories. There is nothing American about allowing Israelis to oppress Palestinians. Yet, David Greenberg slandered those who would say these things as anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. There, sadly, lies the rotting core of American Zionism.
- ndmackenzie
October 27, 2006 at 4:11pm
ndmackenzie, you'll note that Greenberg wrote "in some cases" in referring to anti-Semitism. So to make your point stick, you'd have to argue that *in no cases* are criticisms of Israel anti-Semitic. Is that your position? Yes, Israel's more right-wing defenders are too quick to level anti-Semitism accusations. But the reverse dynamic is also in play: left-liberals who even so much as mention anti-Semitism, like David Greenberg, tend to get jumped all over by blowhards like you.
- dadler
October 27, 2006 at 4:23pm
Matthew Yglesias is also less than happy with David Greenberg's assertions. Yglesias ends his comment with the fine statement that Israel should be supported by liberals insofar as the things Israel does are worthy of support.
- ndmackenzie
October 27, 2006 at 5:57pm
Yglesias is correct, but that doesn't answer my point about antisemitism. You say there's nothing liberal about supporting Israel's oppression of Palestinians. That's right. But there's also nothing liberal about supporting Hezbollah, which is exactly what a good many influential "antiwar" activists did this past summer. I think that's the context in which Greenberg's comment should be understood.
- dadler
October 29, 2006 at 11:51am
Not supporting the Israeli killing of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians is not the same as supporting Hezbollah.
Not supporting the Israeli use of cluster bombs in Lebanon is not the same as supporting Hezbollah.
Not supporting the Israeli destruction of large swathes of Lebanon is not the same as supporting Hezbollah.
It is not liberal, conservative or moral to support the disastrous war that Israel visited upon the Lebanese people in the summer of 2006.
It is sheer mendacity to write, as you do, that a good many influential "antiwar" activists [supported Hezbollah] this past summer. There is nothing liberal about being a liar.
- ndmackenzie
October 30, 2006 at 2:16am
Is that so? Did George Galloway and Norman Finkelstein, people revered by the street-protest left, not make unambiguous statements in support of Hezbollah? Did not a significant crowd, Galloway among them, march in London proclaiming "We are all Hezbollah now"? Did not Noam Chomsky travel to south Lebanon in May and endorse Hezbollah's right to retain arms in violation of UN resolutions? Or do you simply not pay attention?
- dadler
October 30, 2006 at 11:56am
I absolutely support Israel's right to exist and the rights of its citizens to live out their lives knowing they will be safe and secure from harm. But I also support equivalent rights for the Palestinians. I also support the right of the Palestinians to live out their lives safe and secure from harm. Unfortunately, for too large a cross-section of Palestinian, the question about any manifestation of this right being granted is "how can this be exploited in order to murder Israelis and Jews?" Whenever Israel makes exceptions among Palestinians excluded from entering Israel proper, the Palestinians react by doing their utmost to disguise suicide bombers as one of those exceptions. Another point is that Israeli society has a thriving debate on exactly the issues you raise, with groups like Gush Shalom and B'tselem just as stridently opposed as you are to Israel's actions against the Palestinians. Could any Palestinian in the territories safely take a position remotely approaching a mirror-image of such Israeli groups?
- sighthnd
October 31, 2006 at 10:14am
David Greenberg would never dream of appeasing let alone supporting an Islamic Israel that was subjugating a Jewish Palestinian people. Ok. What's your view on the 1929 pogrom in Hebron that changed that city from being almost equal Jewish/Arab to predominantly Arab and the subsequent action of Jordan in 1948 making Hebron, along with the rest of the West "Bank," judenrhein? Do you hold that 1929 created a fact on the ground that was solidified in 1948 which should therefore be respected?
- sighthnd
October 31, 2006 at 10:24am