Precarious Life by Judith Butler

Author:Judith Butler
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781789602425
Publisher: Verso Books

4

THE CHARGE OF ANTI-SEMITISM: JEWS, ISRAEL, AND THE RISKS OF PUBLIC CRITIQUE

Profoundly anti-Israeli views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University,

September 17, 2002

When the President of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, remarked that to criticize Israel at this time and to call upon universities to divest from Israel are “actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent,”1 he introduced a distinction between an effective and intentional anti-Semitism that is controversial at best. Of course, the counter-charge has been that, in making his statement, the President of Harvard has struck a blow against academic freedom, in effect, if not in intent. Although he himself made clear that he meant nothing censorious by his action, and that he is in favor of these ideas being “debated freely and civilly,”2 his words nevertheless exercise a chilling effect on political discourse, stoking the fear that to criticize Israel during this time is to expose oneself to the charge of anti-Semitism. He made his claim in relation to several actions which he called “effectively anti-Semitic” which included European boycotts of Israel, anti-globalization rallies in which criticisms of Israel were voiced, and fund-raising efforts for organizations with “questionable political provenance.” Of local concern to him, however, was a divestment petition drafted by MIT and Harvard professors who oppose the current Israeli occupation and the treatment of Palestinians. Engaging with this initiative critically, Summers asked why Israel was being “singled out … among all nations” for a divestment campaign, suggesting that the singling-out was evidence of an anti-Semitic aim. And though Summers claimed that aspects of Israeli policy “can be and should be vigorously challenged,” it was unclear how such challenges could or would take place without being construed in some sense as anti-Israel, and why those foreign policy issues, which include “occupation” and are, therefore, given the dispute over legitimate state boundaries, domestic policies as well, ought not to be vigorously challenged through a divestment campaign. It would seem that calling for divestment is something other than a legitimately “vigorous challenge,” but we are not given any criteria by which to adjudicate the difference between those vigorous challenges that should be articulated, and those which carry the “effective” force of anti-Semitism.

Of course, Summers is right to voice concern about rising anti-Semitism, and every progressive Jew, along with every progressive person, ought to be vigorously challenging anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, especially if it occurs in the context of movements mobilized in part or in whole against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. It seems, though, that historically we are now in the position in which Jews cannot be understood always and only as presumptive victims. Sometimes we surely are, but sometimes we surely are not. No political ethics can start with the assumption that Jews monopolize the position of victim.3 The “victim” is a quickly transposable term, and it can

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.