Pogrebin Mischaracterizes Rosenfeld's Essay on "New Anti-Semitism"

by Lee Green

In the April 2007 issue of Moment magazine, Letty Cottin Pogrebin critiques an essay by Alvin Rosenfeld, 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism."  Her characterization of Rosenfeld's work is way off the mark, filled mostly with rebuttals of arguments that Rosenfeld never made. For example, she wrongly alleges that Rosenfeld "opines that all 'progressives' share 'a suspicion of Jews' and 'an emphatic dislike of the Jewish state.' " 

Here's what Rosenfeld actually wrote:

"One manifestation of the new anti-Semitism can be found right here - in a conflation of interests among those on the far right, segments of the intellectual left, and radical Islam. While formal alliances among these otherwise disparate groups are not readily apparent, they share one thing in common: a suspicion of Jews and,
especially, an emphatic dislike of the Jewish state."

Repeatedly, Rosenfeld made clear that he was not condemning Jews who are simply critical of Israel, but was instead focusing on Jews, many of whom think of themselves as "progressive," who demonize Israel as being apartheid or Nazi-like and/or question Israel's very right to exist as a Jewish state. Pogrebin ironically emphasized Rosenfeld's distinction by lamenting that Rosenfeld intentionally ignored her and other progressives who are critical of Israel but support Israel's right to exist.  

Rosenfeld also notes that anti-Israel progressives' concerns for peace and justice are often quite shallow, usually reserved for excoriating Israel, and rarely extend to concern for hideous human rights abuses going on elsewhere in places such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Palestinian Authority.  On this, Pogrebrin is silent. 

Pogrebin is mystified as to why Rosenfeld would include the likes of Tony Judt, Tony Kushner and Richard Cohen in his essay along with outright anti-Semites.  Perhaps she is unaware that Richard Cohen wrote in one of his columns: "Israel itself is a mistake," and "has produced a century of warfare and terrorism." Or that Tony Judt wrote that Israel is an "anachronism" due to its predominantly Jewish character, yet is untroubled by the many countries with a distinctly Muslim or Catholic culture. Or that Tony Kushner has made numerous controversial comments about Israel, including: "the founding of the State of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity...I've never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened."   

It's a shame that Pogrebin prefers to shoot the messenger, Rosenfeld, rather than engage in debate with her fellow progressives. After all, she stated that she did not share the views of those who condemn Israel's existence as a Jewish state.   

CAMERA has long been concerned about the role of Israel's extreme Jewish detractors in media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Often such individuals are quoted and cited as though their allegations, however false and distorted, are especially credible by virtue of their Jewishness. It's important that Pogrebin, and others who seemingly seek to avoid full debate about the factual merit of commentary by these detractors, be challenged and the discussion be full and open as would be the case regarding any party leveling erroneous, incendiary or bigoted accusations.  

[To read CAMERA's blog item about an earlier unfair critique of Rosenfeld's essay by the New York Times, click here. ]

Below is Pogrebin's column.

Opinion
by Letty Cottin Pogrebin

Who Dares Criticize Israel?

It is no surprise Alvin Rosenfeld's article [created] a furor. The casualties of his onslaughts are rational dissent and language itself.

If you're a Jew who has ever said or written anything critical of Israel, then you may be contributing to an "intellectual and political climate that helps to foster" hostility toward the Jewish state and exacerbates hatred against Jews, according to Alvin H. Rosenfeld, professor of English and Jewish studies and director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University. Last winter, the American Jewish Committee published Rosenfeld's essay, " 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," creating a furor among Jews that has spilled into the mainstream press and refuses to die down.

Like many others, I take issue with Rosenfeld's basic thesis. But what concerns me most is his pernicious misuse of the word "progressive," and the collateral damage caused by his lumping respected cultural figures - like historian Tony Judt, playwright Tony Kushner, poet Adrienne Rich and columnist Richard Cohen - with rabid anti-Zionists and execrable anti-Semites. 

Rosenfeld blurs the distinction between views that deserve critical analysis and serious rebuttal with the work of attack dogs who seek an end to the Jewish state. He also either misrepresents or totally ignores pro-Zionist writers and other passionate Americans whose devotion to Israel inspires protest against policies they consider misguided. 

Furthermore, he conflates a broad spectrum into a narrow stripe, then opines that all "progressives" share "a suspicion of Jews" and "an emphatic dislike of the Jewish state." Worse yet, from its title on, his paper links the "P" word with the "A" word, defining the "new anti-Semitism" as "denigration, derision, scorn, and rebuke directed against the Jewish state," and "an aggressive mood of censure and hostility" that has "led to an outbreak of malicious activities" against Jews around the world. 

Notice how his sly quotation marks around the "P" word effectively belittle the term? The word "progressive" has become a shorthand descriptor for the politics of social change, the last socially acceptable label for dissent. I think the word is important enough to defend. Labels build solidarity and make it easier to organize collective action around common goals. (Think "pro-life," or "family values.") Take our vocabulary away from us and activist forces are crippled from the start. If "Jewish progressive" becomes synonymous with "Jew-hating," then concerned Israel-watchers, already hard-pressed to define their nuanced positions in the face of the right's sledgehammer slogans, will have to find a new term, and the English language doesn't offer many alternatives. 

In Rosenfeld's hands, "progressive" has become a defamatory weapon. Case in point: He repeatedly smears the anthology edited by Kushner and Alisa Solomon, Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. You'd never know the book contains opinions of all sorts, including those of Ahad Ha'am, Martin Buber, Rabbi Judah L. Magnes (the first president of Hebrew University), Henry Siegman (director of the U.S./Middle East Project of the Council on Foreign Relations), Blanche Weisen Cook (Eleanor Roosevelt's biographer), and Susannah Heschel (professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth). And yours truly: My contribution is an explicitly "pro-Zionist" piece justifying the Jewish right of return. It is symptomatic of Rosenfeld's flabby methodology and intellectual irresponsibility that he "disappears" our voices. 

Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel's "sometimes harsh treatment of Palestinian Arabs," are acknowledged in the AJC paper, not to probe the rightness of those policies but because they've "drawn a great deal of negative attention." Rosenfeld concedes that "criticizing such policies and actions is, in itself, not anti-Semitic." Yet his constant association of progressives with Jew-haters makes this a hollow disclaimer. He dismisses the large category of pro-Israel, pro-Zionist Jews who challenge the actions of the Jewish state but never its existence. He ridicules thinkers who argue from the prophetic tradition; rather than address their points on the merits, he calls them "pious," or "self-validating," on the grounds that they use "high-sounding terms like 'peace,' 'justice,' and 'reconciliation.' " He does not mention a single critic whose views he considers marginally within the pale.

The casualties of his onslaught are rational dissent and language itself. Rosenfeld has applied a scholarly gloss to a trend that for years has proliferated in certain precincts of the Jewish community - the silencing of anyone who contradicts the establishment line. The AJC, sadly, is his enabler. That such a respectable institution would publish this broad attack on "progressives" is especially troubling in light of two parallel developments. In January, when Jimmy Carter was invited to speak at Brandeis University, major funders withdrew their support for the school. And that same month, the Zionist Organization of America attempted to expel the Union of Progressive Zionists from the Israel on Campus Coalition because the union brought Israeli army veterans to colleges to speak about alleged Israeli abuses of Palestinians.

The Talmud records that Rabbis Hillel and Shammai had more than 300 differences of opinion. From their time to the denominational schisms of today, Jews have always been a contentious people. Properly so. In "The Ethics of Rebuke," published in The Journal of Textual Reasoning, Boston University professor Michael Zank highlights the rabbinic obligation "to rebuke or reprove one's neighbor 'or you will incur guilt yourself,' " and emphasizes that this "refers to one's fellow Israelite. There is no legal obligation to reprove the stranger." 

So I want to be clear: I fault the AJC for publishing this paper not because it fuels communal conflicts but because its demonizing rhetoric has a chilling effect on open debate and reasonable dissent. Likewise, I fault Alvin Rosenfeld not for rebuking other Jews, but for doing so by means of distortion, innuendo and guilt-by-association. On these points, I believe Rabbis Hillel and Shammai would both agree.

Letty Cottin Pogrebin is a writer, lecturer, and the author of eleven books.

Published Originally on 4/11/2007 for CAMERA