A Liberal, Anti-War Jew Troubled by the Anti-Semitism of the Left

Cornell Daily Sun ^ | 4/1/03

[governsleastgovernsbest]

COLUMN TUESDAY, APRIL 01, 2003

Does Antiwar Mean Anti-Israel?

The Bully Pulpit By JEREMY WEINBERG

Those who know me or read my column regularly can tell you that the only thing I am more unabashed about than my progressive political views is my heritage. I am a Jew and I'm very proud of that. Throughout time, my people have embraced some of the values that I hold most dearly: scholarship, perseverance, compassion and social consciousness.

Historically, Jews have more often been thought of as people of the book rather than the sword. Following expulsion from their homeland thousands of years ago, many Jews went to Europe and settled on the lands of noblemen. This afforded post-Diaspora Jews some protection from their enemies, giving them time to exercise the priority they valued more highly than fighting: study. Yet this docility, along with nearly everything else in Jewish life, changed following the Holocaust.

Concern for the protection and autonomy of Jews begat Zionism, a movement that sought the establishment of a Jewish state and relatedly, a new "get-tough" attitude for the Jewish people. Zionist leaders had enough of being pushed around and felt that the only way to end the victimization of their people was for them to stand up for themselves.

This toughness was an asset to Israel in its early years, when unfriendly neighbors waged war on her and sought her destruction. Israel's ability to take on a fight and win garnered her legitimacy and respect in the world community.

That fortitude persists in today's Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a hard-liner who refuses to negotiate with Palestinians as long as they attack Israel. Sharon has sought to line up with U.S. President George W. Bush's "War on Terror," claiming that force is needed to stifle the actions of groups who seek to use murder as a means to achieve political objectives. He has responded to suicide attacks from militant Palestinian groups like Hamas with stern, decisive military retribution.

I've grown up with discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since I was in grade school. The situation seems as ridiculous to me now as it did then. Some lunatic straps dynamite to his chest and blows up a bunch of people in the name of Palestinian liberation. Israel responds with military action of its own in an effort to weaken the terrorist network that spawned the original attack. In response, another crazy person blows himself up on a bus. The cycle seems to repeat itself indefinitely.

Perhaps it is my experience seeing this cycle of violence and destruction that has lead me to believe that war is rarely a practical solution to diplomatic problems. I had hoped that America's hawks would have looked to the case of Israel as an indication that problems are perpetuated rather than ended by bloodshed. But alas, this has not been the case.

Those who follow The Bully Pulpit will know of my vocal opposition to sending troops into Iraq. In the past two semesters, I have frequently discussed the antiwar movement and reflected on it as it developed. While I have generally found myself agreeing with it, I have often felt isolated within the antiwar camp over the issue of Israel.

A frequently heard argument related to this war has gone something like this, "Why Iraq? Why not North Korea or Syria or Iran?"

What disturbs me is the fact that added to those frequently asked questions has been "why not Israel?"

At a town meeting with Congressman Maurice Hinchey last Friday, the mostly liberal audience gave a sizable round of applause when one man asked what the United States was going to do with what he described as "the worst terrorist state in the Middle East, Israel."

The amount of anti-Israel sentiment I have seen within the antiwar movement has shocked me. I share the disagreement that these people have with the way Israel and the United States have gone about diplomacy. Yet I am disturbed when the antiwar people begin to bash Sharon and Israel.

I see antiwar protests that chastise President Bush as a way for Americans to voice their belief that this country should follow a different course than the one it is taking. Yet the discussion of Israel I have heard has rarely been about influencing it to tread a different path. They have not so much come out against Israeli policy as they have come out against Israel.

The U.S. is so strong and well rooted that negative public opinion towards it can easily be shouldered. However, as a young state that has experienced a history of hostility against it, Israel is far more sensitive to these types of criticisms. Anti-Israel sentiment could make people question whether or not "keeping Israel around" is a good idea. I personally fear that Zion's perceived legitimacy, and by extension the desirability of her continued existence, is still up for question in many people's minds. In my mind, there is no question. The Israeli state is necessary as a place where Jews know they can go if anti-semitism springs up anywhere in the world.

Perhaps that is the paranoid, Holocaust mentality in me -- the one that gets me chastised by Jews and Gentiles alike. "Get over it," they implore. "Things are fine. We live in a freer time and in a freer place. Quit emphasizing your differences. You just make things worse that way."

But I'm still scared. Hating this war, I must turn away from the ideological right. But it seems to me that the left is fighting against the Jewish home state that I value so dearly.

I feel like I'm fighting moral battles on two fronts. And that's a tough thing to do, especially since all I want is peace.

Jeremy A. Weinberg is a senior in the College of Human Ecology. He can be contacted at jw236@cornell.edu. He is sorry to be participating in the media's recent wave of self-obsession. The Bully Pulpit appears Tuesdays.

Copyright © 2003 by The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc. All rights reserved.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I'll go out on a limb here, and guess that in Human Ecology, one studies man's (er, um, or woman's) natural place in both the immediate and cosomological environment. How he (or, cripes, she) should nurture rather than ravish the otherwise harmonious surroundings.

People like PFC Jessica Lynch ravish, while Saddam Hussein nutures, I'm guessing.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

But then I just described the basic curriculum at most public universities.

[Kenno]

What the hell is Human Ecology? Sounds like a copout major to me. There actually is a real science of ecology, in spite of the fact that the envirofreaks have stolen the name; but I can't shake the feeling that "human ecology" is like the "environmental humanities" program at the university here.

[Mr. Mojo]

People like PFC Jessica Lynch ravish

I agree, she's quite ravishing ;)

[nopardons]

He doesn't know history ( Zionism was already a thriving, active, well atriculated position , as well as something actively pursued by Jews in Europe, since the 1870s ! ), hasn't a glimmer of an idea about diplomacy, Muslims' hatred of Jews AND Israel , and doesn't even know about anti-Semitism...except as it now treads upon his own toes. What an effet, silly child !

[weegee]

Being "antiwar" doesn't mean "antiIsrael" per say... it does mean "proPalestinian war" though. There has even been support in the "peace movement" for suicide bombers (the plea being, "they are desperate, they are using the only weapons they have, their bodies).

This is not a peace movement and never has been.

[cherry]

"'Yet this docility,"

gee....I read here on FR somewhere or heard from somewhere that the top 500 officers of the Russian revolution were all Jews......don't think there was much "docility" then.....

[Spirited]

Historically, Jews have more often been thought of as people of the book rather than the sword."

That's only because the Christians have romantic notions about what a Jew believes or knows or even lives in regard to the Word.
Unfortunately those who know more Jews do not believe this.

A great deal of the monetary support for leftist endeavors has traditionally come from Jewish pockets.

[Spirited]

I can see by what he writes that he has the prerequisite brand of "fuzzy logic" to fit right into the course however.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

You know, for a minute there I thought I totally didn't know what "ravish" meant, but according to Merriam-Webster, both of our seemingly opposite meanings are correct:

Main Entry: rav·ish
Pronunciation: 'ra-vish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English ravisshen, from Middle French raviss-, stem of ravir, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin rapire, alteration of Latin rapere to seize, rob -- more at RAPID
Date: 14th century
1 a : to seize and take away by violence b : to overcome with emotion (as joy or delight)

[Mr. Mojo]

both of our seemingly opposite meanings are correct:

I know; I was just having some fun with you :)

[Kenton]

What the hell is Human Ecology? Sounds like a copout major to me.

That's why I gave him the mean snicker. Hey, this guy's a senior, any Freepers know of any job openings at their companies for Human Ecologists?