#yes it is possible (and even good!) to critique Israel and not be antisemitic

[butwhypants]

if your solution to the conflict in Israel/Palestine is the complete and total destruction of the Jewish state, you are in fact antisemitic and no amount of Kapo hand wringing will change that.

[iswearbyalltheflowers]

Woah that's so interesting.

I have so many questions because I really do love your account and how you think. You are very wise!

Why do you think anti Zionist Jews fail so terribly at creating a better alternative to Zionism? Would you say part of the reason is because they tend to be completely assimilated therefore lacking any sort of Jewishness and depth of knowledge about Judaism? Do you think the Left requires that Leftist Jews do not have a Jewish identity?

2. Has there been any interesting approaches to anti Zionism that has caught your eye? Do you know of any Zionists who wrote critiques of Zionism in a "I want this to be better and improve" type of way? You mentioned Bundism and how it failed while Zionism is still here. Why do you think Zionism survived? Are there any leftist/progressive/communist Zionist pieces you can recommend in general?

3. This is off topic but do you know any books articles etc that talk extensively about the theft of Jewishness especially through the two major world religions Christianity and Islam?

4. What makes Zionism so different from the Black Power Movements and Pan Arabism? People are fine with the latter but obsessively hate Zionism. Why? I mean, yes antisemitism but why is Jewish pride such a threat to people especially communists and the like? Why do the most intelligent POC and queers etc hate Zionism while supporting Islamism and Muslim extremist groups? Why are we such a threat to other marginalized groups?

1) I do think assimilation as well as lack of knowledge as to how assimilation is both infeasible and anti-jewish as a solution to jewish oppression leads many anti-zionist jews to erroneously believe assimilation is a viable alternative to Zionism, yes. When I said anti-zionist jews currently have no real remaining credible alternative to zionism though I meant that even anti-zionists who aren't assimilationists don't really have an answer to it and this isn't through any unique failing of theirs so much as there simply aren't good alternatives to nationalism generally at this point in time. Anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism largely mean nationalism in practice. When Russia launches a war to conquer Ukraine, the only meaningful way to protect Ukrainians from that oppression is to support the continued existence of their sovereignty.

I don't think it's remotely leftist to require that jews sacrifice their jewish identity. When I criticize leftists for essentially requiring this of us, this is a criticism I am making from the left, of the left, as a leftist jew.

2) I'm primarily interested in anti-zionism as an iteration of antisemitism, namely identifying the reasons why it's politically useful across various contexts, because the functions it serves are relevant to being able to understand and combat it. These for instance.

As for the second question really that's every zionist's critique of zionism. Sometimes they're even right.

As for zionism's survival, prior to Israel's establishment jews being a tiny, fractured people meant our political movements were largely impotent in the face of any opposition from non jews. Then as now, non jews hostile to us are far more numerous, far more electorally and politically significant, and far better resourced than we can ever be, let alone the non jews indifferent to us. Being unable to simply impose ourselves, anything we sought to accomplish politically required sufficient non-jewish buy-in. Zionism was the only political solution of ours that due to its being possible to align with their own interests could garner meaningful support from even antisemitic non jews. A good book on this subject.

As for leftist zionist recommendations, there's no more comprehensive treatment I know of than Albert Memmi's trilogy on the subject:

Portrait of a Jew

The Liberation of the Jew

Jews and Arabs

For something shorter here's a collection prepared in the wake of 10/7:

Additional piece I feel should be included on account of I think the failure to recognize the dynamic described is the source of a lot of confusion:

And I am not an ideological leftist so for socialist perspectives I will defer to others I know:

3) Check out Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition and Islamic Imperialism: A History.

4) Pretty much all of that originates in the 1960's and derives from the soviet anti-zionist campaign in conjunction with the ascending political power of postcolonial states in Asia and Africa. The chief concern of the African states was anti-colonialism, epitomized by the fight against apartheid, and the arab states seized on the opportunity to broker an alliance: in exchange for the support of the arab states on fighting apartheid, African diplomats would accede to arab demands that Israel be treated like a western colonial power in UN human rights matters.

[continuations]

Israel/Gaza

I have not personally commented in public on the Israel/Gaza conflict until now (USV signed on to a statement). The suffering has been heartbreaking and the conflict is far from over. Beyond the carnage on the ground, the dialog online and in the street has been dominated by shouting. That makes it hard to want to speak up individually.

My own hesitation was driven by unacknowledged emotions: Guilt that I had not spoken out about the suffering of ordinary Palestinians in the past, despite having visited the West Bank. Fear that support for one side or the other would be construed as agreeing with all its past and current policies. And finally, shame that my thoughts on the matter appeared to me as muddled, inconsistent and possibly deeply wrong. I am grateful to everyone who engaged with me in personal conversations and critiqued some of what I was writing to wrestle down my thoughts over the last few weeks, especially my Jewish and Muslim friends, for whom this required additional emotional labor in an already difficult time.

Why speak out at all? Because the position I have arrived at represents a path that will be unpopular with some on both sides of this conflict. If people with views like mine don’t speak, then the dialog will be dominated by those with extremely one-sided views contributing to further polarization. So this is my attempt to help grow the space for discussion. If you don’t care about my opinion on this conflict, you don’t have to read it.

The following represents my current thinking on a possible path forward. As always that means it is subject to change despite being intentionally strongly worded.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. I am basing this assessment not only on the most recent attack against Israel but also on its history of violent suppression of Palestinian opposition. Hamas must be dismantled.

Israel’s current military operation has already resulted in excessive civilian casualties and must be replaced with a strategy that minimizes further Palestinian civilian casualties, even if that entails increased risk to Israeli troops (there is at least one proposal for how to do this being floated now). If there were a ceasefire-based approach to dismantling Hamas that would be even better and we should all figure out how that might work.

Immediate massive humanitarian relief is needed in southern Gaza. This must be explicitly temporary. The permanent displacement of Palestinians is not acceptable.

Israel must commit to clear territorial lines for both Gaza and the Westbank and stop its expansionist approach to the latter. This will require relocating some settlements to establish sensible borders. Governments need clear borders to operate with credibility, which applies also to any Palestinian government (and yes I would love to see humanity eventually transcend the concept of borders but that will take a lot of time).

A Marshall Plan-level commitment to a full reconstruction of Gaza must be made now. All nations should be called upon to join this effort. Reconstruction and constitution of a government should be supervised by a coalition that must include moderate Islamic countries. If none can be convinced to join such an effort, that would be good to know now for anyone genuinely wanting to achieve durable peace in the region.

I believe that an approach along these lines could end the current conflict and create the preconditions for lasting peace. Importantly it does not preclude democratically elected governments from eventually choosing to merge into a single state.

All of this may sound overly ambitious and unachievable. It certainly will be if we don’t try and instead choose more muddling through. It will require strong leadership and moral clarity here in the US. That is a tall order on which we have a long way to go. But here are two important starting points.

We must not tolerate antisemitism. As a German from Nürnberg I know all too well the dark places to which antisemitism has led time and time again. The threat of extinction for Jews is not hypothetical but historical. And it breaks my heart that my Jewish friends are removing mezuzahs from their doors. There is one important confusion we should get past if we genuinely want to make progress in the region. Israel is a democracy and deserves to be treated as such. Criticizing Israeli government policies isn’t antisemitic, just like criticizing the Biden administration isn’t anti-Christian, or criticizing the Modi government isn’t anti-Hindu. And yes, I believe that many of Israel’s historic policies towards Gaza and the Westbank were both cruel and ineffective. Some will argue that Israel is an ethnocracy and/or a colonizer. One can discuss potential implications of this for policy. But if what people really mean is that Israel should cease to exist then they should come out and say that and own it. I strongly disagree.

We must not tolerate islamophobia. We also have to protect citizens who want to practice Islam. We must not treat them as potential terrorists or as terrorist supporters on the basis of their religion. How can we ask people to call out Hamas as a terrorist organization when we readily accept mass casualties among Muslims (not just in the region but also in other places, such as the Iraq war) while also not pushing back on people depicting Islam as an inherently hateful religion? And for those loudly claiming the second amendment, how about also supporting the first, including for Muslims? I have heard from several Muslim friends that they frequently feel treated as subhuman. And that too breaks my heart.

This post will likely upset some people on both sides of the conflict. There is nothing of substance that can be said that will make everyone happy. I am sure I am wrong about some things and there may be better approaches. If you have read something that you found particularly insightful, please point me to it. I am always open to learning and plan to engage with anyone who wants to have a good faith conversation aimed at achieving peace in the region.