You're exactly right. I saw an image this morning of a Palestinian mother holding a shirtless child in her arms. His spine and shoulder blades were protruding through his thin skin and my immediate thought was that it looked just like the horrific pictures of Holocaust survivors we have seen and abhor.
I, as a person who for whatever reason does not care a whit for religion of any kind, can at least acknowledge the point that there are people who just want to kill everyone who opposes them, or even simply disagrees with them, whilst cloaking their tribalism with a sanctified shroud...
I'm absolutely speechless in the face of what I'm seeing happen amongst Americans who are on the Israeli side.
So far as I can tell, certain American Jews (be they "Zionists" or not) believe that anyone who does not use certain words in an approved way is impinging on their personal safety. I just read an article in Slate by a Palestinean-American author who did a reading at a bookstore from his new memoir about parenthood, which was combed over by the people I'm describing (Zionists? Certain American Jews) for the purpose of determining that he said the correct things about Gaza; his book was apparently insufficiently eloquent about October 7th and described the murdered Gaza children (in the context of the author thinking about his own young child) without what they considered to be sufficient commentary about Gaza's crimes, so the reading was protested and police were brought in and, because the author and several specific others were there, Israeli-Americans declared that the bookstore was "not safe," physically, for American Jews. (The bookstore owner, after attempting to negotiate beforehand with the protesters, told the Slate reporter that "These people are not rational.")
The situation here in New York with Mamdani is similar insofar as he is considered a "threat" (in the most direct, physical, we-may-have-to-leave-the-city way) because of his use of the words "genocide" and "intifada" (meaning, nothing to do with his actions or policies; simply that his use of those words does not conform to the strict template imposed by, again, those certain American Jews in whatever group they may be said to belong to).
All of this is extremely upsetting, because, even setting aside the actual atrocities in the Middle East, I am an American citizen and I do not want to live in a society in which only certain statements about a foreign régime are permitted; it conjures very troubling historical echoes and, frankly, scares the hell out of me.
It's really bad. I'm constantly tempted to disbelieve those who say they "feel unsafe" on, say, the Columbia campus, to the point where I feel guilty--who am I to doubt it? Do I think antisemitism doesn't exist in the US?(I think it's fundamentally right-wing, but that's a different matter). And yet a huge proportion of the Columbia protesters were Jewish themselves, as I keep insisting--they obviously didn't feel unsafe, except from the cops. And the same goes for the Mamdani supporters, they include all the Jews under 45 alongside many of us older ones.
But the criteria has shifted, we all have to acknowledge, right? I mean, that city in Michigan with the Muslim mayor is held up as a scare image (in the context of Mamdani) and it turns out that the big transgression is, again, using the word “genocide” which instantly translates into the primal fear we’re discussing; “I don’t feel safe” etc. I mean, at a certain point I think we’re permitted to say, this stinks.
Yes, and I don't think I've made the connection before, that it's the tabu words themselves that are so frightening, and as you say that's kind of un-American. (I'm like Mamdani, my instinct is to patiently explain what "intifada" means and be surprised when the explanation doesn't work).
It will never work, because we're up against a closed system of thinking in which anything that can be described as a refusal to acknowledge Israel's absolute moral imperative to do literally anything — and, I don't mean in any present-day context; I mean, one must not be opposed to anything the nation does — means that one is antisemitic and therefore equal to Nazis.
I am not exaggerating in the slightest: this is the equation as it's presented to us: the nation of Israel literally can do no wrong; to disagree is to be a Nazi.
(I am simply describing the rhetorical environment as I see it; I would love to be argued against and proven wrong, but I don't see any counterargument anywhere.)
The "not feeling safe" assertion is crafted to be non-answerable, like assertions of "deeply held religious beliefs" used to justify refusal of services, from cake making to miscarriages. Because it is so deliberately vague it is difficult to muster sympathy and impossible to counter. You either accept, reject, or express skepticism. Ther is nothing to engage with otherwise. That's why it is used.
For what it's worth there are multiple ways for institutions to address assertions of "not feeling safe", noting which ones are adopted is telling.
Exactly, and (as I'm trying to say all along this discussion) it's specifically non-answerable to the "out-group," meaning, I am not a Jew so I can never understand, full stop; I must lose the argument, each time.
Another element that we haven't covered here is the equation of support for Israel with being Jewish; if you are an American Jew, you are told that you must support Israel (in all conflicts; in all situations; no matter what the circumstances — a categorical license, as I wrote earlier). This is less widespread, but it's frequently expressed by non-Jewish American conservatives (Evangelicals; Donald Trump, who blatantly scolds American Jews for not having sufficient allegiance to what he sees as their "real" nation). Again, this is rarer, but it's a problem; it amplifies the conflict and makes it even harder to resolve.
It's possible to regard all of this as having happened in good faith; as an escalation into complete bloodthirsty irrationality and barbarism brought on by precisely the rhetorical "absolute power" I'm discussing. The foundations of the position that I'm excoriating could not be stronger: Elie Wiesel and Hannah Arendt and Sartre (the "historical exception" point) are unimpeachable. I know Holocaust survivors (I was talking to two of them just last weekend) and I think I understand, to the extent that any 21st Century non-Jew can, the sheer scale of the moral question; the continued urgency of not forgetting; not repeating.
But, whether the positions and attitudes are well-intentioned or not, the ground has shifted, and we are now living in a world where a single nation is literally infallible: we are not allowed to take exception to its actions; it cannot be done without invoking the Holocaust, which trumps every counter-argument...and that is not fair; it's not right. I have no idea how to solve this problem, but it must be solved; world peace depends on it.
I mean I'm sorry but by the terms of the current debate you, Yastereblyansky, are making American Jews unsafe because you agree with the use of the term "genocide" to describe what's happening in Gaza. You can try to argue against this but you will lose.
I'm not trying to "win" some kind of contest. I'm trying to carve out a moral position I'm comfortable with and help guide others who are interested in guidance. I'm an American Jew, at least enough of one to have experienced "not feeling safe" on plenty of occasions, and that's why I'm entitled to make the argument. You're not, but you can quote those who are, which is why I supply you with so many references to Jewish observers. Here's another one, which particularly engages with some of the issues I think may be bothering you. https://www.lifeisasacredtext.com/gazaletter/
Thanks for responding. I don't mean to overstep that boundary in a problematic way.
Of course I understand and respect (exactly to the degree that I can, as a non-Jew) the "not feeling safe" phenomenon, and of course I'm aware of the near impossibility, no matter how much time goes by, of eradicating antisemitism: it just seems to come back, with each successive generation, in both the boldest and most insidious ways.
What I object to — what has me angry, which is maybe why I'm overstating my point here — is as much a formal objection as anything else: I don't like infallible positions or entities; I don't like categorical licenses (as civilization has been trying to get past since the Magna Carta).
So, what I'm saying in terms of "winning" or "losing" is simply that, as I see it, the people whose positions I object to — the people who both defend Israel's actions across the board and, in particular, seem to want to disallow any discussion of the tragic catastrophe in Gaza (whatever word gets used) — are people who 1) simply will not accept any other position but their own as legitimate; 2) go much further than this, in that opposing arguments and viewpoints are not just "antisemitic" but antisemitic in a non-abstract, dangerous way that engages their deepest physical-safety responses (as in, "This bookstore is not safe" because an author is speaking there) and 3) justify all of this using the most incontrovertible moral compass that exists in the modern world (the Holocaust).
So, again, apologies for rankling you or being insensitive (if I am). I'm simply saying, when I read your description of your own frustrations at attempting to "patiently explain" your position, I'm trying to get you to agree that no "patiently explained" position seems to work in this context (whether from a Jew or a non-Jew): the direct line from objecting to Israel's military actions to literally associating oneself with Nazis in the context of the Holocaust (and, therefore, making Jews unsafe — not "feel unsafe" but actually unsafe) makes all discourse impossible.
Hopefully this is both clear, and sufficiently sensitive, to undo the damage of my previous comment.
I've always admired your superpower of rationalism, but I consider this a superhuman effort. Staring atrocity in the face and asking simple questions may not be as satisfying as protests and demonstrations, but it does a better job of showing the monstrosity of it all. Thanks.
This is so sad, a continuation of the violent history based on "an eye for an eye" with vengeance and cruelty as the result. We could be better and do better, but not with our current abasement of morality and empathy. Thanks for publishing this, even if it is very painful to read and witness, as the suffering is so much worse.
I would suggest that, according to people who know these things, "an eye for an eye" was meant as a maximum, not a minimum. Though I have no connection to any religion, the use of this phrase as a lower bound for calculated atrocities is intolerable to any sane person.
A maximum is exactly what it is. The rabbis say it's more about compensation (usually financial) than retaliation or revenge; if you're responsible for somebody losing an eye, you should do something for them that makes up for it. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/118470/the-meaning-of-an-eye-for-an-eye The broad ethical principle, which does cover revenge too, is that the damage suffered by the offender must be *proportional* to the damage suffered by the victim. In the case of Gaza, IDF would have done well to stop in November 2023 (as they almost did in the first ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange). Netanyahu's formulation of his war aims was really designed for disproportionality; it could never be achieved and therefore the war could never end (except with the annihilation of the enemy, i.e. genocide, as in the myth of Amalek). Of course I think his real motivation was political, as you know, but you could say the same for Hitler or Milošević or the Rwandan Hutus.
You're exactly right. I saw an image this morning of a Palestinian mother holding a shirtless child in her arms. His spine and shoulder blades were protruding through his thin skin and my immediate thought was that it looked just like the horrific pictures of Holocaust survivors we have seen and abhor.
I, as a person who for whatever reason does not care a whit for religion of any kind, can at least acknowledge the point that there are people who just want to kill everyone who opposes them, or even simply disagrees with them, whilst cloaking their tribalism with a sanctified shroud...
I'm absolutely speechless in the face of what I'm seeing happen amongst Americans who are on the Israeli side.
So far as I can tell, certain American Jews (be they "Zionists" or not) believe that anyone who does not use certain words in an approved way is impinging on their personal safety. I just read an article in Slate by a Palestinean-American author who did a reading at a bookstore from his new memoir about parenthood, which was combed over by the people I'm describing (Zionists? Certain American Jews) for the purpose of determining that he said the correct things about Gaza; his book was apparently insufficiently eloquent about October 7th and described the murdered Gaza children (in the context of the author thinking about his own young child) without what they considered to be sufficient commentary about Gaza's crimes, so the reading was protested and police were brought in and, because the author and several specific others were there, Israeli-Americans declared that the bookstore was "not safe," physically, for American Jews. (The bookstore owner, after attempting to negotiate beforehand with the protesters, told the Slate reporter that "These people are not rational.")
The situation here in New York with Mamdani is similar insofar as he is considered a "threat" (in the most direct, physical, we-may-have-to-leave-the-city way) because of his use of the words "genocide" and "intifada" (meaning, nothing to do with his actions or policies; simply that his use of those words does not conform to the strict template imposed by, again, those certain American Jews in whatever group they may be said to belong to).
All of this is extremely upsetting, because, even setting aside the actual atrocities in the Middle East, I am an American citizen and I do not want to live in a society in which only certain statements about a foreign régime are permitted; it conjures very troubling historical echoes and, frankly, scares the hell out of me.
It's really bad. I'm constantly tempted to disbelieve those who say they "feel unsafe" on, say, the Columbia campus, to the point where I feel guilty--who am I to doubt it? Do I think antisemitism doesn't exist in the US?(I think it's fundamentally right-wing, but that's a different matter). And yet a huge proportion of the Columbia protesters were Jewish themselves, as I keep insisting--they obviously didn't feel unsafe, except from the cops. And the same goes for the Mamdani supporters, they include all the Jews under 45 alongside many of us older ones.
But the criteria has shifted, we all have to acknowledge, right? I mean, that city in Michigan with the Muslim mayor is held up as a scare image (in the context of Mamdani) and it turns out that the big transgression is, again, using the word “genocide” which instantly translates into the primal fear we’re discussing; “I don’t feel safe” etc. I mean, at a certain point I think we’re permitted to say, this stinks.
Yes, and I don't think I've made the connection before, that it's the tabu words themselves that are so frightening, and as you say that's kind of un-American. (I'm like Mamdani, my instinct is to patiently explain what "intifada" means and be surprised when the explanation doesn't work).
It will never work, because we're up against a closed system of thinking in which anything that can be described as a refusal to acknowledge Israel's absolute moral imperative to do literally anything — and, I don't mean in any present-day context; I mean, one must not be opposed to anything the nation does — means that one is antisemitic and therefore equal to Nazis.
I am not exaggerating in the slightest: this is the equation as it's presented to us: the nation of Israel literally can do no wrong; to disagree is to be a Nazi.
(I am simply describing the rhetorical environment as I see it; I would love to be argued against and proven wrong, but I don't see any counterargument anywhere.)
The "not feeling safe" assertion is crafted to be non-answerable, like assertions of "deeply held religious beliefs" used to justify refusal of services, from cake making to miscarriages. Because it is so deliberately vague it is difficult to muster sympathy and impossible to counter. You either accept, reject, or express skepticism. Ther is nothing to engage with otherwise. That's why it is used.
For what it's worth there are multiple ways for institutions to address assertions of "not feeling safe", noting which ones are adopted is telling.
Exactly, and (as I'm trying to say all along this discussion) it's specifically non-answerable to the "out-group," meaning, I am not a Jew so I can never understand, full stop; I must lose the argument, each time.
Another element that we haven't covered here is the equation of support for Israel with being Jewish; if you are an American Jew, you are told that you must support Israel (in all conflicts; in all situations; no matter what the circumstances — a categorical license, as I wrote earlier). This is less widespread, but it's frequently expressed by non-Jewish American conservatives (Evangelicals; Donald Trump, who blatantly scolds American Jews for not having sufficient allegiance to what he sees as their "real" nation). Again, this is rarer, but it's a problem; it amplifies the conflict and makes it even harder to resolve.
It's possible to regard all of this as having happened in good faith; as an escalation into complete bloodthirsty irrationality and barbarism brought on by precisely the rhetorical "absolute power" I'm discussing. The foundations of the position that I'm excoriating could not be stronger: Elie Wiesel and Hannah Arendt and Sartre (the "historical exception" point) are unimpeachable. I know Holocaust survivors (I was talking to two of them just last weekend) and I think I understand, to the extent that any 21st Century non-Jew can, the sheer scale of the moral question; the continued urgency of not forgetting; not repeating.
But, whether the positions and attitudes are well-intentioned or not, the ground has shifted, and we are now living in a world where a single nation is literally infallible: we are not allowed to take exception to its actions; it cannot be done without invoking the Holocaust, which trumps every counter-argument...and that is not fair; it's not right. I have no idea how to solve this problem, but it must be solved; world peace depends on it.
I mean I'm sorry but by the terms of the current debate you, Yastereblyansky, are making American Jews unsafe because you agree with the use of the term "genocide" to describe what's happening in Gaza. You can try to argue against this but you will lose.
I'm not trying to "win" some kind of contest. I'm trying to carve out a moral position I'm comfortable with and help guide others who are interested in guidance. I'm an American Jew, at least enough of one to have experienced "not feeling safe" on plenty of occasions, and that's why I'm entitled to make the argument. You're not, but you can quote those who are, which is why I supply you with so many references to Jewish observers. Here's another one, which particularly engages with some of the issues I think may be bothering you. https://www.lifeisasacredtext.com/gazaletter/
Thanks for responding. I don't mean to overstep that boundary in a problematic way.
Of course I understand and respect (exactly to the degree that I can, as a non-Jew) the "not feeling safe" phenomenon, and of course I'm aware of the near impossibility, no matter how much time goes by, of eradicating antisemitism: it just seems to come back, with each successive generation, in both the boldest and most insidious ways.
What I object to — what has me angry, which is maybe why I'm overstating my point here — is as much a formal objection as anything else: I don't like infallible positions or entities; I don't like categorical licenses (as civilization has been trying to get past since the Magna Carta).
So, what I'm saying in terms of "winning" or "losing" is simply that, as I see it, the people whose positions I object to — the people who both defend Israel's actions across the board and, in particular, seem to want to disallow any discussion of the tragic catastrophe in Gaza (whatever word gets used) — are people who 1) simply will not accept any other position but their own as legitimate; 2) go much further than this, in that opposing arguments and viewpoints are not just "antisemitic" but antisemitic in a non-abstract, dangerous way that engages their deepest physical-safety responses (as in, "This bookstore is not safe" because an author is speaking there) and 3) justify all of this using the most incontrovertible moral compass that exists in the modern world (the Holocaust).
So, again, apologies for rankling you or being insensitive (if I am). I'm simply saying, when I read your description of your own frustrations at attempting to "patiently explain" your position, I'm trying to get you to agree that no "patiently explained" position seems to work in this context (whether from a Jew or a non-Jew): the direct line from objecting to Israel's military actions to literally associating oneself with Nazis in the context of the Holocaust (and, therefore, making Jews unsafe — not "feel unsafe" but actually unsafe) makes all discourse impossible.
Hopefully this is both clear, and sufficiently sensitive, to undo the damage of my previous comment.
I've always admired your superpower of rationalism, but I consider this a superhuman effort. Staring atrocity in the face and asking simple questions may not be as satisfying as protests and demonstrations, but it does a better job of showing the monstrosity of it all. Thanks.
Thanks for that. Very much appreciated.
This is so sad, a continuation of the violent history based on "an eye for an eye" with vengeance and cruelty as the result. We could be better and do better, but not with our current abasement of morality and empathy. Thanks for publishing this, even if it is very painful to read and witness, as the suffering is so much worse.
I would suggest that, according to people who know these things, "an eye for an eye" was meant as a maximum, not a minimum. Though I have no connection to any religion, the use of this phrase as a lower bound for calculated atrocities is intolerable to any sane person.
A maximum is exactly what it is. The rabbis say it's more about compensation (usually financial) than retaliation or revenge; if you're responsible for somebody losing an eye, you should do something for them that makes up for it. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/118470/the-meaning-of-an-eye-for-an-eye The broad ethical principle, which does cover revenge too, is that the damage suffered by the offender must be *proportional* to the damage suffered by the victim. In the case of Gaza, IDF would have done well to stop in November 2023 (as they almost did in the first ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange). Netanyahu's formulation of his war aims was really designed for disproportionality; it could never be achieved and therefore the war could never end (except with the annihilation of the enemy, i.e. genocide, as in the myth of Amalek). Of course I think his real motivation was political, as you know, but you could say the same for Hitler or Milošević or the Rwandan Hutus.