Connect with us

Uncategorized

Changing Jewish views on Zionism could scramble the antisemitism debate

Should hostility toward Israel be understood as an expression of animus toward Jews? That question sits at the center of most contemporary debates over antisemitism, and the views of Jews themselves are often cited by partisans on both sides.

Many Jewish leaders have argued that because Zionism — meaning general support for the existence of a Jewish state in Israel — is so widespread among Jews, those on the left should accept that anti-Zionism is at least sometimes a form of antisemitism.

There are other arguments that rest on merits divorced from identity, including that Israel is held to a double standard for antisemitic reasons, or that it’s offensive to deny Jews an independent homeland following the Holocaust. But the claim that support for Israel is a core part of Jewish identity is especially important for both legal and moral reasons — legally, it’s what allows the government to place limits on anti-Zionist campus protests, for example, while morally it suggests that respecting Jews as a group means respecting their attachment to Israel.

The fact that this argument has failed to resonate among many liberals has become itself presumed evidence of antisemitism. “It is a progressive article of faith — much heightened during the Black Lives Matter protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 — that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences,” David Baddiel, a Jewish comedian, said during his book tour for Jews Don’t Count. “Except, it seems, when Jews do — non-Jews, including progressive non-Jews, are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not the utterance about them was in fact racist.”

Progressives often respond that the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists negates this argument — they are in fact listening to Jews, and those Jews agree with them.

And so the question of who the representative Jews are — those who view attachment to Israel as an important part of Jewish identity, or those who insist there is no inherent connection between the two — has become central to how to understand antisemitism.

The Jewish establishment long held up statistics claiming that 95% of American Jews were Zionist, a claim that always rested on a shaky foundation but one that became widely repeated and helped marginalize the vocal minority of anti-Zionist Jews.

More recently, the Jewish Federations of North America has distributed data acknowledging that only a minority of American Jews identify as “Zionist,” but arguing that other proxies for Zionism — like supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state — still approach 90% agreement.

Other data, like the American Jewish Committee’s finding that 83% of Jews in the U.S. consider the statement that “Israel has no right to exist” to be a form of antisemitism, appear to confirm that the vast majority of the Jewish community subscribed to at least a passive form of Zionism.

But a new survey has called this assumption into question. It found that 24% of Jewish adults want to replace Israel with a binational state, nearly double the share who expressed that preference the last time the question was polled a few years ago, and that figure jumps to 44% of Jews under 35 and 51% among non-Orthodox Jews in that age group.

The general trend of younger Jews drifting away from Israel — even as a majority of the overall population remains attached — has been consistent for many years, and if the surge of support for a binational state among Jews under 35 continues, the Zionist majority among American Jews may evaporate over the next 20 or 30 years.

This has serious consequences for who gets to speak on behalf of these Jews. If anti-Zionist Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace represent 5% of the community, it is easy to treat them as fringe voices. Even at 10%, 15% or 20%, they’re still representing a small minority of Jews. But this becomes impossible at 45% or 50%, with significant consequences for who is understood to be a representative Jew in debates over Zionism and antisemitism.

The data itself is solid.

It comes from Jim Gerstein, a Democratic pollster with expertise in polling American Jews for organizations like J Street and the Jewish Democratic Council of America (both of which are Zionist organizations).

Gerstein and his sponsors have long been willing to poll questions that other Jewish organizations won’t, and it was his firm that found in 2021 that 38% of U.S. Jews under 40 believed Israel was an apartheid state.

But there are important caveats.

The current polling suggests that a significant minority of American Jews both say the best resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves replacing Israel with a binational state — widely considered to be an expression of anti-Zionism — while still saying that Israel should be allowed to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and that opposing Israel’s “right to exist” is antisemitic.

This underscores the failure of terms like “Zionist” and “anti-Zionist” to capture how American Jews really feel about Israel.

What does it mean for someone to support the premise of Zionism — a Jewish state in Israel — while simultaneously advocating for its eradication? One possibility is that they might support the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, but believe that Israel is failing as a democracy and prioritize restoring its democratic status over maintaining its Jewish majority.

That might suggest a roadmap for pro-Israel Jewish organizations in the U.S. to focus more on addressing Israel’s far-right shift, rather than simply on defending the country against its American critics.

And what could it mean that some Jews want to replace Israel with a binational state but, at the same time, believe that denying Israel’s “right to exist” is antisemitic? Perhaps they understand a binational state as a legitimate reconstruction of the government, while denying Israel’s “right to exist” sounds like support for the country’s violent destruction.

That could mean that anti-Zionist leaders should do more to condemn the growing share of the left that is expressing support for organizations like Hamas.

Either way, the evidence points to an American Jewish community that is fracturing along generational lines, but the fallout from those divisions could be softened if leaders are willing to open the door to more honest and nuanced conversations than they’ve been ready to have to date.

The post Changing Jewish views on Zionism could scramble the antisemitism debate appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

In the course of his 104 years, he resisted the Nazis, fought against blood libel and became a towering Jewish intellectual

Today, in a public ceremony held at Les Invalides, President Emmanuel Morin led the French Fifth Republic in paying its last respects to one of the nation’s great public figures, Edgar Morin, whose 104 years spanned the Third and Fourth Republics as well. He was a sociologist, philosopher, writer, film director and screenwriter. But Morin’s real profession was as an intellectual.

There is a vast literature on the character and career of the French intellectual — much of it written by intellectuals — just as there is much disagreement on when this social type first appeared. Some historians reach back as far as the Enlightenment and the role played by les philosophes like Voltaire in their struggle for political liberty and religious toleration, while other historians argue that the modern intellectual burst onto the scene more than a century later with the Dreyfus Affair.

It was at that pivotal moment in late 19th century France that the word “intellectuel” gained currency. Used as a term of scorn by antisemites like Maurice Barrès, they believed Captain Alfred Dreyfus was guilty of treason precisely because he was Jewish. As for those “intellectuals” who defended Dreyfus, Barrès dismissed them as “aristocrats of thought who boasted they did not think like the vile crowd.” Yet those same intellectuals, led by the novelist Émile Zola, gladly embraced the description. Convinced that objective reason and truth made Dreyfus’ innocence clear, they believed, as Zola famously declared, that “truth is on the march.”

But, as Morin always insisted, truth is complex. So, too, was his career, which in many ways reflects the origin story of the French intellectual. Born as Edgar Nahoum in Paris in 1921, his parents were Jewish immigrants from Salonica, a city that had been home to Greece’s largest Jewish community until World War II. (Nearly 90% of the community, some 54,000 men, women, and children were eventually murdered in Nazi death camps.) A precocious student, Nahoum spent his days in libraries studying German philosophers like Hegel and his nights in cinemas studying French films directed by the likes of Marcel Pagnol.

Yet everything changed, including his name, come France’s defeat and occupation by Nazi Germany in 1940. Making his way to the Unoccupied Zone, the 20-year-old Nahoum, who had been a pacifist before the war, soon joined both the banned Communist Party and the French Resistance. By 1944 and liberation, Nahoum had not only become a lieutenant in the Free French Forces, but due to a typo that turned his combat pseudonym “Manin” into “Morin,” the young man was renamed. In fact, he was remade. “What would we have been without the Resistance?” Morin later wondered. “It was thanks to the Resistance that we were given a life.”

And what a life it turned out to be. In 1951, the rebellious Morin, who was outraged by the Soviet show trials, was invited to leave the French Communist Party. At the same time, though he did not have a graduate degree, Morin was nevertheless invited — thanks to the recommendations of the philosophers Vladimir Jankéklévitch and Maurice Merleau-Ponty — to join the prestigious National Center for Scientific Research in Paris in 1950. It was there that he launched a career that fused his academic interests as a sociologist with journalism.

For the next three quarters of a century, Morin seemed to be everywhere all at once. (When I lived in France, I had the impression that, whether on the shelves of bookstores, pages of newspapers, or sets of television shows, I was always bumping into him.)  When he was not being interviewed in documentaries, he was making them; when not publishing one of his more than 40 books, he was reviewing books written by others; when seismic events occurred, he was there before anyone else — and got a book out faster. And the books, the work of an intellectuel engagé, were often themselves events that left their mark on Morin’s contemporary audience and future scholars.

One of the most notable of these is La Rumeur d’Orléans, or Rumor in Orléans. In May, 1969 — just one year after the student rebellions that had swept across France (and about which Morin had already published a book) — a rumor started to sweep across the small city of Orléans, famous for being defended against the English by Joan of Arc in the 15th century. The rumor that took flight in Orléans in 1969 — a variation of the blood libel against Jews — was as old as Joan’s achievement. In the dressing rooms of several local clothing stores, so the rumor went, young women were being drugged and sex trafficked. Moreover, the owners of all these stores were, of course, Israëlites (the frequent moniker for French Jews since the 19th century.)

That there was not a single reported case of a missing, much less abducted, woman had little effect on the crowds that gathered outside these stores. As the crowds grew, along with the fear of the store owners and their staffs, the news media picked up on the event. Politicians and pundits expressed outrage and confusion over the rumor — how could this be possible just a quarter-century after Auschwitz, they asked — and the police began to investigate. They could not find a single culprit.

Within weeks of the news reaching Paris, Morin had collected a half-dozen colleagues and set up shop in Orléans to make sense of the rumor. The team, who described their work as la sociologie événementielle, or “event-based sociology,” interviewed locals, met with officials, and rifled through archival documents. Their conclusion reflected a truth dear to Morin: the complexity of any single event. By complexity, Morin did not mean “complicated,” a word we often use when we refuse to engage a subject. Instead, a complex event spans not only the many factors that made this event possible, but also encompasses the way in which our own theories and thoughts alter our understanding of the event. This complex event, Morin concluded, was partly the work of rapid modernization and the great changes it wrought: urbanization, consumerism, and sexual rebellion. It was as if, one historian remarked, “miniskirts were taking people back to the Middle Ages,” and back to the Jew as the traditional scapegoat for these vast social and economic disruptions.

But only partly. The man who described himself as “Judeo-Gentile” always insisted that events often take not just ordinary folk, but also specialists by surprise. Just as no one predicted France’s defeat in 1940, Morin never thought he had the courage to become a resistance fighter. Yet he did. This is a lesson in humility, of course, but also a lesson in humanity. “Let us make our way in uncertainty,” Morin always insisted, “but also in fraternity.” If only we could make this motto our own.

 

The post In the course of his 104 years, he resisted the Nazis, fought against blood libel and became a towering Jewish intellectual appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

That time Allen Ginsberg wrote a Socialist poem — about Bernie Sanders

Last June, while digging through 50 boxes of archival material about Bernie Sanders’s four terms as the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, a reporter for the British newspaper the Guardian found a poem by Allen Ginsberg. Written by hand on a 1986 visit to the city, “Burlington Snow” didn’t name Sanders, but he was clearly the populist muse that inspired it.

Ginsberg wrote, “Socialist snow on the streets / Socialist talk in the Maverick Bookstore / Socialist kids sucking socialist lollipops.” Then he turned outward, questioning with almost Elizabethan wit: “—aren’t the birds frozen socialists? / Aren’t the snowclouds blocking the airfield Social Democratic appearances?”

After Ginsberg shares the city’s governing idea, the poem itself is shared: “Isn’t this poem socialist? It doesn’t belong to me anymore.”

The iconic Jewish-American poet was writing about the Jewish-American socialist almost exactly 30 years ago, on a February day in snow-covered New England like the one on which Sanders won in New Hampshire. Spreading online, the poem has delighted both poetry people and Sanders loyalists. No one combines those two groups like Eliot Katz; a leading “post-Beat” poet and Ginsberg protégé, Katz has spent 20 years, on and off, working on a book caled “The Poetry and Politics of Allen Ginsberg.” Published by the independent Beatdom Books in December 2015, it addresses both Ginsberg’s career as a poet and life as an activist.

Absurdly, the unearthing of the Sanders poem from an overlooked archive came after Katz’s manuscript was ready for print, too late for him to write about it. But it reflects his thesis about Ginsberg and his pleasure in Sanders’s success. Katz has written seven books of poetry, including “Space and Other Poems for Love, Laughs and Social Transformation” (1990) and “Unlocking the Exits” (1999), but I hadn’t heard of him in 2005, when an editor at the San Francisco Chronicle asked me to review a collection of essays about “Howl.” I pretty much panned it, saying too many pieces presented facile claims by Ginsberg admirers about his relevance in the 21st century.

Katz, whose readable book expands on his insightful essay, says Ginsberg’s forward looking focus defines how he “challenged the boundaries” of poetry’s political potential. After years of digging into “Howl,” “Kaddish” and “Wichita Vortex Sutra, he was startled a few weeks ago when he found “Burlington Snow” online, recognizing a vivid example of how a Ginsberg poem could illuminate political changes long before they happen.

“Ginsberg told me that prophetic poetry doesn’t work like someone making a prediction,” Katz said when I visited him in his Hoboken apartment. “Instead, he would say that political poetry ‘touches a common key,’ allowing the reader to feel something that somebody will feel in a hundred years. Here, he wrote a poem that praised the democratic-left tradition we’re seeing in Bernie Sanders. No one could have predicted that Sanders would be waging such an effective campaign to move the Democratic Party in more progressive directions.”

A frequently smiling man with shaggy, graying hair, the 59-year-old Katz lives amid countless books on Ginsberg and progressive politics. Taped to one wall is a newspaper clipping about his late mother, Toby Katz, an Auschwitz survivor who went on to hold elected office for 12 years as a councilwoman in West Orange, New Jersey, where Katz grew up. She helped to inspire his work as an activist, including jobs with organizations for the homeless in New Jersey and Washington, DC. He displays posters of readings he gave with Ginsberg, and his book combines his personal feeling for the poet with critical analysis of his work.

Of a poem called “Why I Sit,” Katz writes that Ginsberg used a technique learned from Greek poetry called anaphoric repetition, the rhythmic echoing of a word to “sew together” his personal and political concerns. He quotes from the poem:

“I sit because the Dadaists screamed on Mirror Street / I sit because the Surrealists ate angry pillows… / I sit because Lunacharsky got fired & Stalin / gave Zhdanov a special tennis court I became a / rootless cosmopolitan / I sit inside the shell of the old Me / I sit for world revolution.”

“Why I Sit,” Katz writes, highlights how “Stalin’s deplorable actions caused [Ginsberg] to become a citizen without solidly existing roots.” Katz said the poet’s attraction to socialism transcended his disillusionment with Soviet communism, and that ”Burlington Snow” reflects his lifelong contemplation of counter-pulling influences of his youth, his troubled communist mother and his socialist poet father. “Allen appreciated democratic socialism,” Katz told me, when we spoke. “But he opposed the kind of authoritarianism of the Soviet Bloc. Czechoslovakia is a country he got kicked out of.”

“I don’t call Allen a democratic socialist in the book,” he added. “I think he believed more in being politically pragmatic than in holding any specific ideology — so that he supported anarchist movements when they were doing positive things, and trade union movements when he agreed with them. He remained a progressive his whole life, and he defied the conservative myth that radicals from the 1960s era all became conservative in their old age.”

Ginsberg’s “open support of Sanders,” Katz said, prompted him to give a reading to raise money for one of the Vermont politician’s congressional races in 1992. In fact, in a lengthy footnote, Katz says he helped to organize it. “It was at a restaurant called Nadine’s,” Katz told me. “I always thought I introduced them for the first time. Allen and Bernie talked, but I don’t know what they said, because I was too busy helping to coordinate things.”

Bob Rosenthal, longtime manager of Ginsberg’s office, says Ginsberg had Bernie Sanders on his radar through the years. “I always knew who Bernie Sanders was, and I had to know that through Allen, because Allen was where I got all my news,” Rosenthal told me. “I don’t think they hung out together, but Allen always had an awareness of him.”

The Allen Ginsberg archive at Stanford University holds a letter Sanders sent Ginsberg in 1989, thanking him for the “time, energy and creativity” Ginsberg gave “to me and the City of Burlington throughout my administration,” citing an art auction with which Ginsberg helped in some unspecified way.

With the resurrection of “Burlington Snow,” Ginsberg’s friends wonder if the poet and the politician actually met for the first time when Ginsberg visited Burlington in 1986.

Huck Gutman is pretty sure that didn’t happen, and he should know. Gutman is one of Bernie Sanders’s closest friends, serving for years as his chief of staff in Washington. He’s also a professor of English at the University of Vermont, where he often teaches “Howl,” and he spent recent days getting ready to give a class on how the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky influenced Ginsberg.

Asked about “Burlington Snow,” he replied in an email: “Ginsberg, as you know, grew up in a socialist milieu (I guess I am clear about this mostly from his poem, ‘America.’) and would have been interested in, even entranced by, the fact that Burlington had a socialist as its mayor.”

Still, he wrote, “I do not think Allen and Bernie met at that time. That they might have met at a NYC fundraiser years later — in 1992 he was running for his second term in the US Congress — could certainly be possible.”

In a telephone interview, Gutman said he himself spent memorable time at the university talking with Ginsberg about poetry during the 1986 visit. Gutman didn’t attend the bookstore reading but heard that the poet wrote the poem (with 14 lines, it is an informal sonnet) “quickly,” and immediately read it to an audience. Did Sanders ever see it? Gutman didn’t know, but said Bernie Sanders generally doesn’t read poetry: “He reads biography, history, novels — not poetry.”

Based on his observations of Ginsberg and Sanders, though, he says they share a lot.

“Ginsberg was writing in a way that a lot of people were not writing, and he had to believe in his own vision and his own voice,” he said. “I think Bernie has that. He understands that the test of what one says is not the political pundits and the political base — not what the critics and professors said, in Ginsberg’s case — but whether one speaks one’s own way and in a language that reaches people.”

Recently, Grove Press published “Wait Till I’m Dead,” a new gathering of Ginsberg’s uncollected poems. It doesn’t include “Burlington Snow.” Bill Morgan, a Ginsberg biographer and archivist of his papers, edited the volume and says the poem “came too late,” explaining that “Grove had the (finished) book for about a year.” Morgan, who lives in Vermont and “would vote for Sanders for anything,” says he believes the poem “wasn’t strong enough” to make it into the book.

Morgan worries that the poem’s visibility could hurt Sanders, though he said that isn’t why it got left out. “I worry that people will see that line — ‘It doesn’t belong to me anymore’ — and will read that to mean, ‘I have to give up something,’ the second car or something, that Bernie wants to take their possessions away.”

Eliot Katz believes that the way Ginsberg animates socialism as a form of sharing in “Burlington Snow” could have a positive effect. “I think it can help educate younger voters that democratic socialism, as Sanders practices it, is a form of inclusiveness, of expanding democratic rights, not taking them away, which would be the view of an older generation raised in the Cold War. Everything in the poem is shared — even the environment, something Sanders talks about a lot — and that message can only be helpful.”

Allan M. Jalon won two 2015 Simon Rockower Awards for his Forward feature stories, “My Opa’s Story of World War One’s Other Fight” and “A New Jersey Tale of Two Alfred Doblins.”

The post That time Allen Ginsberg wrote a Socialist poem — about Bernie Sanders appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

The real reason Jews care about Marilyn Monroe

To the editors:

As someone who loves film, Judaism, and history, I found PJ Grisar’s article on why so many Jews find Marilyn Monroe fascinating somewhat lacking.

It is certainly true that Monroe “didn’t look Jewish,” but there were plenty of Jewish beauties to admire—Lauren Bacall, for example. I suspect the fascination goes deeper than appearance.

Monroe did not merely represent beauty. For many Americans, she represented America itself.

Three years before her conversion, all eyes were on two other Jews for very different reasons.

While the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had nothing directly to do with Monroe, the broader zeitgeist may help explain why so many Jews took her to heart.

This was still an era shaped by immigration quotas, university restrictions, social-club exclusions, housing covenants, and lingering questions about whether Jews could ever be fully accepted as Americans.

I also think the article glosses over the significance of her marriage to Arthur Miller, reducing it to a story of beauty and brains. Miller was one of the most important Jewish intellectual and cultural figures in America.

He was also a highly controversial figure during the McCarthy era and one of HUAC’s top targets.

In 1957, he was convicted of contempt of Congress and sentenced to a fine and a prison term, though the conviction was overturned the following year.

Monroe could have distanced herself from Miller and the controversy surrounding him.

She did not.

I agree that Elizabeth Taylor ultimately lived a more publicly and explicitly Jewish life. Yet I think Monroe’s conversion remains meaningful because of its symbolic weight. For many Jews, it represented a moment when one of the most famous women in America chose to join a community that was still fighting for full acceptance.

Perhaps that is why so many Jews continue to find her story compelling. The fascination may indeed say something about Jews—but it also says something about the place Jews were coming to occupy in American life.

The post The real reason Jews care about Marilyn Monroe appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News