Well, not precisely, but read on.
Burston is a Haaretz columnist with a set of quirky progressive ideas and a maverick streak. You can’t pin him down precisely. Sometimes he writes columns that make me proud and sometimes I want to throw a shoe at him (his phrase from a talk he delivered tonight) or at least his column on the computer screen. A few months ago during the Anat Kamm case he wrote to me some lovely compliments about my coverage of the story. He said I was brave and I was gratified to hear him say that. Then I found that he’d been a very close friend of David Twersky, a former Jewish journalist and press officer of American Jewish Congress, who recently passed away from cancer. Twersky and Burston were part of a garin that lived on Kibbutz Gezer in the 1970s. I had spent a summer month on Gezer with an earlier American garin in 1972. We had things in common.
So when I read that J Street would be hosting a talk by Burston tonight at my shul, I e mailed him and invited him to join me for a cup of coffee (which unfortunately didn’t happen). I was looking forward to meeting him for the first time and made plans to attend his talk. I was hoping to like him and his views as much as I had over the past few months. But I was disappointed. Not in Burston the person, but in his talk.
There are Israelis who, when they speak abroad deliver talks they never would in Israel. They think their job is to rally the troops, to get them not to give up hope. And I understand this impulse, I really do. I too used to be a liberal Zionist (I’m still a Zionist, but that’s another blog post entirely). But it doesn’t do anyone any good. It sugarcoats Israeli reality. It in a sense infantilizes the Diaspora audience by presuming that it either can’t take or wouldn’t understand a full-bore analysis of the extremity of the political situation in Israel.
At the present moment, an Israeli speaking in the Diaspora does a disservice when he makes things appear not quite as bad as they really are. Only the truth suffices in the present situation. Perhaps in 1972 or 1982 or 1992, one could perhaps understand the impulse to truncate one’s message. But such bowdlerization of truth can no longer be justified.
So what did Burston say? That brings me back to my title. At one point, Burston said:
About the progressive Jew who sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world, but who cannot allow the Jews to have a single state of their own anywhere in the world, I say that person is an anti-Semite.
That’s why I say that Burston called me an anti-Semite, though he didn’t do so personally. But let me clear about my own views. I do support an Israel that has a Jewish identity, just as I support an Israel that has a Muslim and Christian identity for those religious groups. I do not support an Israel which affirms Judaism as its sole or primary national religion to the exclusion or detriment of others. If Israel is to be a true democracy it must not favor one religion over others. It must treat religions equally. That does not mean that Judaism or Jewishness will be disrespected or ignored or subordinated. But it means that this particular religion will take its place as one of several religions practiced by the nation’s citizens.
That’s why I believe Brad Burston called me an anti-Semite.
There were other parts of his talk that troubled me as well. When Israeli liberals speak here they usually try to tell audiences things aren’t as bad as they are. So did the Haaretz columnist. He told his listeners that things weren’t as bad as they might seem, that Israeli democracy was strong. As proof, he used a Yediot poll which asked respondents which Israeli politicians they felt most embodied ultra-nationalist, even fascist views. 60% named Avigdor Lieberman. The speaker used this poll result to say that not only didn’t Lieberman represent a “real and present danger” to Israeli democracy, but Israelis saw through him and would never support him.
What Burston neglected to acknowledge was that the entire premise of the poll and accompanying newspaper articles about it was that fascism was a real and present danger in Israel. There were other questions in this same poll whose results actually proved precisely the opposite of what he claimed: that is (for one example), that Israeli by large margins support curbs on free speech and democratic rights even when the issues addressed are NOT security related.
Burston argued that while it was true that the Israeli liberal concept of “land for peace” was dead, so was the far right vision of Greater Israel. He denigrated the notion of the power of the Israeli right over Israeli political life by claiming that it doesn’t even truly represent its ideological legacy. As proof, he cited the fact that by party, 96 of the 120 Knesset members support a two-state solution. I find such a claim to be so weak and unpersuasive, I’m surprised anyone with Burston’s clear level of political intelligence would use it. This presumes of course that every Likud MK supports a Palestinian state, which is ludicrous and Burston should know it.
In fact, the vast majority of Israelis say they support a two state solution but few are willing to actually make the compromises necessary right now to make it happen. The same is true of Knesset members. There are very few that, if you asked them–do you support a return to 1967 borders, sharing Jerusalem, and a negotiated resolution of the Right of Return allowing some refugees to return–would say yes. So saying you support a two state solution means nothing in this case, since you’re not willing to face the compromises necessary to achieve it.
I left Burston’s talk during the Q&A when the local Stand With Us board member, David Brumer, began his question with the lie:
I don’t disagree with anything you said tonight.
I knew it could only go downhill from there, and I didn’t have the heart to listen to the rest of a statement from someone who once wrote me an e mail saying I should be spanked for my views.
I’m also struck by the phrase “love for Israel” bandied about by so many liberal Zionists including Burston tonight. One of the reasons (there were others as well) I didn’t attend Daniel Sokatch’s (he is the CEO of the New Israel Fund) talk here in Seattle this month was its title, Loving Israel in Challenging Times. I find the notion that one must profess love for Israel before criticizing it to be preposterous. It’s one thing in a marriage to criticize one’s wife while doing so in the context of the love you have. But Israel is not a wife. It is a country. Wives don’t kill people (not usually), countries do. I don’t want to make love to Israel. I don’t want to have children with Israel. I want it to be a country of which I can be proud as a Jew. But what’s love got to do with it? Love is a red herring. It disables critical debate. Love means that Israel cannot be something I think it should be, a normal state. Love puts Israel on a pedestal just as traditional male attitudes toward women put them on similar pedestals that prevented them from being normal human beings.
In the time when I was still on e-mail terms with Leonard Fein, he practically made a fetish out of my supposed lack of love for Israel. To him, it proved I had left the Zionst reservation because you could only express criticism of Israel out of such deep concern and affection, that your criticism would clearly be couched as that of a concerned parent for a loved one gone astray. Naturally, I don’t have patience in this hour in which Israel finds itself in extremis for such mollycoddling.
To me it is self-evident that I would not write this blog unless I loved Israel. It would simply be a waste of time to devote as many tens of thousands of hours to this enterprise as I have unless there was deep emotion attached to the subject. And there is. Many decades of my life have been devoted to Israel. I could not do so unless I loved it. But I will not trot out such love as if it were a stamp on a passport in order to prove my Zionist bona fides.
It’s the same way with the American far right which accuses the left of hating America and similar nonsense. No one on the American left owes any explanation, justification or defense to their political opponents on this matter. I don’t need to confess my love for America in order to criticize it. In that sense, criticism is love.
It shouldn’t be surprising that Burston has been touring the U.S. on behalf of J Street. This type of pulling of punches regarding Israel is J Street’s trademark. I have pretty much given up on J Street as having any useful purpose regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict. But I had hoped for more from Brad Burston and his talk tonight.
It’s possible that Brad Burston would not deliver the same address to an Israeli audience. That he would speak more unguardedly, more forthrightly, more directly to such an audience. That I would admire the penetrating analysis he would bring to bear before such a group. It’s possible that there’s a Brad Burston in there I can still admire politically. But I don’t think tonight he did Israel or himself any favors.
When the Israelistan of the Lieberman, Shas and other tyrants came about, DEMOCRACY PASSED AWAY.
These tinpot despots, just as their Arab confreres, use democracy to come to power only to kill it after them so as to hold on to their seats.
Current Israelistan is no different than Iran style of democracy.
Neither do I want to live in a Jewish country.
Religion isn’t a shield it is something to be proud of.
1/ Your congregation no longer holds its services in a church like it used to. Why the change?
2/ On its website it lists 13 staff for a congregation with a sanctuary that holds maybe 60 people. Is this because 13 is a good number in Judaism or because the congregation is wildly mismanaged?
You’re confusing my synagogue with Eitz Or. My shul has never held its services in a church. On the High Holidays there are nearly 1,000 in the sanctuary. I don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you.
Richard,
I’m not sure if he mentioned you by name or if he intended his argument for you “indirectly”, and you got the message loud and clear. First, let me start by making you feel like you’re still part of a community that above all cherishes its humanity, and we are all brothers and sisters first and foremost in justice and humanity and then individuals, because sometimes our individual beliefs and nationalism make us check our compassion at the door.
Yesterday Phil Weiss paid you a glowing compliment in this article, check it out!:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/10/caterpillar-freeze-and-jewish-voice-for-peace-honor-show-irresistible-advance-of-boycott-movement.html
So, you know, some people are more concerned with your integrity and commitment to this struggle, than your patriotism, and I imagine Phil Weiss sees a good person writing some pretty courageous stuff and making a pretty remarkable contribution although there is still much to be done.
I’ve always believed that people who give with one hand and take with the other, like Burston, often merely for appearances sake, not only lack integrity, but I just don’t trust them. My opinion is that they do this because they’re weak and not completely honest with themselves.
I agree with you about the “love” thing. I can’t stand when people try to manipulate me with the loyalty, religion, race, country or LOVE thing! Even Einstein called patriots dangerous fools:
“”He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
“How I wish that somewhere there existed an island for those who are wise and of goodwill! In such a place even I would be an ardent patriot.” [ME TOO!]
“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” Lol! I agree 100%!
So I hope I made you feel better; you’re in great company.
I should however take exception with one thing. I know once you tried to explain to me the difference between religious and political Zionism, in a way that describes one as violent and unjust and the other not so, but I believe that Burston is coming from the latter opinion and yet if it were up to him and others who believe that there is a good Zionism, NOTHING, would change. You see this is why he is so filled with DENIAL (ie it’s not as bad in Israel as everyone thinks). Even the founders of Zionism, Herzl and Jabotinsky, believed that violence and injustice were necessary “evils” for Zionism to flourish and survive.
I’ve found you to be very discreet and sensitive with this issue, and I understand why, given the topics discussed here. I still believe however that one day you will be disillusioned even with the Zionism you believe is harmless. As a matter of fact, I think part of the reason you don’t address the issue is because you’re just not so sure about it yourself and you’re waiting for the best side of Zionism to triumph and prove you right. It would be nice, but reality and facts on the ground are proving there is nothing salvageable about Zionism. The “scaffolding of Zionism” that Avrum Burg refers to that is no longer necessary because the house has been built is actually “tearing the house down”.
I’ll admit, it’s a dicey subject. It’s all rolled up with faith and superstition.
Again, we are citizens of the universe first. Therein lies our loyalty.
No, Brad is a nice guy. He didn’t address me by name & I’m sure he doesn’t believe that about me personally. But I used that headline in order to dramatize the issue & show that there are perfectly reasonable Jews who have serious problems w. calling Israel an exclusively Jewish state to the detriment of any other religion observed by other citizens.
It is hard for me to prioritize my loyalties. I feel a strong bond for my religion and ethnic identity as a Jew, while feeling a similar feeling toward all of humankind. But for me Judaism & Jewishness are more tangible than humankind.
I don’t know what will happen in the long-term to Zionism. It would be fine with me if in 50 years Israel was such a normal, secure state that Zionism became a historical concept which was studied in the classroom. But that time is not here. A classical Zionist of course would say that such a time will not come until every Jew makes aliyah to Israel. That isn’t my belief (nor is it the reality of Diaspora Jewry), which is what separates me from such Zionists.
Thanks too for yr kind words. They mean a great deal.
“I left Burston’s talk during the Q&A when the local Stand With Us board member, David Brumer, began his question with the lie:
I don’t disagree with anything you said tonight.
I knew it could only go downhill from there, and I didn’t have the heart to listen to the rest of a statement from someone who once wrote me an e mail saying I should be spanked for my views.”
How do you know what he stated in Q & A? Isn’t it prejudicial to form judgment of another on an incomplete view?
why did you leave and not ask him to clarify his statement?
im sorry, but i find it the height of american arrogance when we decide what is and what isnt a democracy
canada and germany do not allow for pure freedom of speech…are they not democracies?
britain has the church of england…is it not a democracy
part of the new iraqi constitution is based on islamic law…is it not a new democracy?
there are still blue laws in many states right here in the us….are we not a democracy?
I’ve e mailed him the link to my post & he plans to respond to it when he gets home.
Oh, I see, because one of the most functional democracies in the world we aren’t allowed to judge the democracies of other nations? Perhaps we should let North Korea or Moldova rate Israel’s democracy since they have none of their own & would therefore find Israel likely a paradise. It’s all relative. If you want to be compared favorably to North Korea, be my guest. I’d rather be compared to a true democracy, even if found wanting. At least, if anyone really cared, they could improve it.
Canada & German do not throw their citizens in jail for espousing legal political views, which is what the Shabak does.
Britain happens to be a country full of religious, class, & ethnic prejudices some of which may relate to the fact that it has a state religion. BTW, non-CoE religions in England are treated far better than non-Jewish religions are treated in Israel.
If Iraq is a democracy it is barely functional. It’s legislature hasn’t met in months if not a year or more due to ethnic political stalemate. Is that what you want to compare Israel to?
I have followed Burston’s writings over the past years and all I can say: he’s something like the little brother of Nethanyahu. Burston is a shill.
That’s lame.
Lame?
Consider this: if a not so very informed person will have conversation with Nethanyahu about achieving peace with the Palestinians…Nethanyahu will be judged as a fair man, however if one had followed Nethanyahu’s acts over the past 15 years, one could have known that he’s a blatant liar.
Avigdor Lieberman isn’t vague on his stance and neither is Gideon Levy regarding the issues with the Palestinians.
So what about Burston’s agenda and opinions? IMHO he’s just a little Nethanyahu, people consider him to be fair but I have never witnessed a straight line in his writings. Its just a little to much a fair guy today and tomorrow the right-wing hawk.
Real and honest people have a certain clear / straight political stance – which may be either reasonable or extreme – but they do have it. Though how about the agenda’s of guys like Bradley Burston, Ehud Barak, Bibi Nethanyahu and Shimon Peres…??
Today they claim to want peace and tomorrow they endorse the wildest dreams of Lieberman.
That’s why Burston is a shill to me.
Burston wrote this commentary on Palestinian non-violence.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell-a-prayer-for-the-gazan-armed-only-with-a-flag-1.287857
And here he says, “”God protect you from us, and from your own people. You will be scoffed at even as you are shot at. There are people on both sides for whom non-violence causes a sense of unease, a sense of being, forgive me, emasculated.
Teach us to grow up.
Teach us what we have lost. Our sense of shame.”
So I ask myself, if he knows the IDF is capable of shooting unarmed Palestinians in cold blood, does it cross his mind that maybe there’s something he can do to prevent this, or at least attack the ideology that produces these soldiers, instead of disparaging anti-Zionist Jews in American. Burston still views himself as part of a nationalist conflict with the Palestinians even those who practice non-violence. His conflict should be with the ideology that views the native population as a demographic threat. Palestinians, teach us to grow up, but not yet.
Thank you for posting the material above.
Exactly articles like that one by Burston reveal the fact: he’s a double faced guy.
What he wrote: “God protect you from us, and from your own people.” If a Palestinian had wrote instead:…god protect you from Israel and the Jewish people, such would be marked as “the Palestinians are no partner for peace because they obviously hate Jews.”
Burston writes in the same article following phrases: “Someday, because of you, Gaza will be what it was meant to be. The pearl of Palestine.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am well such was exactly the vision of Ariel Sharon and when one would ask Lieberman…he will agree promptly.
So Burston portray’s himself as the empathic mr. Nice Guy who tells to the world “A prayer for the Gazan armed only with a flag”, but in the mean time he’s not showing any genuine compassion at all. His words are IMHO proof that the guy is just full of himself.
Forgive me, but I just dislike such people. IMHO real people have a real opinion and that’s why I have ceased reading Burston’s opinions long ago.
Let’s have a prayer for Bradley Burston and his white Apple laptop?
Just in today at Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-intelligence-chief-israel-s-next-war-will-see-heavy-casualties-1.322484
Burston may soon get his special place in hell?
RE: At one point, Burston said: About the progressive Jew who [1] sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world, but who [2] cannot allow the Jews to have a single state of their own anywhere in the world, I say that person is an anti-Semite. – R.S.
MY COMMENT: I wonder what he meant by part 1. I see plenty wrong with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt etc. But I don’t know whether I necessarily have a problem with there being so many “Muslim nations” (or Christian nations) in the world. Perhaps I should.
As to part 2, what does he mean by “anywhere in the world”. Iowa? That would suit me, but some people in Iowa might object. Uganda? Same deal. Okinawa? Ditto. I wonder why he can’t be a bit more specific about the location. Between the Nile and the Euphrates, perhaps? Part or all? What part?
At any rate, I suspect that I would not qualify as a “progressive Jew”, so he can’t very well be calling me an “anti-Semite”. Consequently, I suppose it’s no skin off my (or Helen Thomas’ humongous) nose(s).
From what I know of the early Zionist movement, the notion that a Jew against Zionism is an anti-Semite (Props for saying what it is and dispensing with the euphemism of “self-hating”) is not just laughable, it’s an insecurity. Zionism was superfluous at the turn of the century which is evidenced by how Jewish emigres from E. Europe chose America over Palestine around 100-1. And America wasn’t exactly a stopover on the way to Palestine, it should go without saying. It essentially took the Holocaust to give Israel the population it has now. So in claiming to be the rightful heir of the Holocaust victims, Zionists get to throw their weight around at anyone who dissents from the need for a Jewish state, even though Zionism did no more to save Jews than any given gentile effort. The yishuv survived because they were defended by the British, not because of their location.
This is before going into how the views of notable leaders such as Herzl, Nordau and Ruppin overlapped with anti-Semitic nationalism. People who say what Burston said are covering a lot of baggage they’d probably rather not deal with.
Also, I have to note that qualifier of his, “who sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world.” By this wording, I can’t tell if his problem is with self-defined Islamic states or simply having a Muslim majority. Either way, the only time someone’s opinion on the existence of a state matters is when they are affected by that state. Palestinian refugees have the greatest say in whether Israel should exist because they are paying the price for it. Jews outside Israel get to reject the benefits of Zionism because their identity is expropriated for moral support.
I like Bradley BECAUSE he can carry in himself two conflicting themes, and still choose the humane one.
Noam Chomsky stated a few months ago in an interview, that he was a strong dissenter particularly focused on Israel/Palestine because it is personally close to him, that he loves Israel and wants it to be the best (integrity) that it can. (I’m paraphrasing).
Radical approaches to Israel often claim to be pursuing “tough love”, but sadly neglect to convey their love, so rational observers become very confused.
Also,
Did Bradley even infer “anti-semite”, even indirectly, or is that solely your projection of language?
He told me he doesn’t believe I’m an anti-Semite & I believe him. But his language hit a little too close to home for me.
Harvard Professor Noah Feldman seems to be the first to have come up the idea with justifying the existence of an extremist organic nationalist racist ethnic Jewish state by analogy with the plethora of states that take religious and occasionally legal inspiration from Islam and therefore declare themselves to be Islamic.
A Jewish state like Israel simply is not comparable in any way shape or form to an Islamic state like Egypt, and it makes sense to object categorically to the existence of a Jewish state as defined by Zionism while merely demanding reforms from Egypt.
I have found Burston a little baffling sometimes. What is a “garin” Please? Anti Semite label is weak and some may feel not even worth responding to. Its ludicrous to put on a Jewish man living in Israel in my opinion. I have met Israelis critical of their government or pro human tights. None were anti Semites! Maybe this form of zionism in place now will fall prey to Jewish morale in the info age?
“Garin” is seed or in this case the group that got together to settle in the Kibbutz. It’s usually a group that join together & move to a Kibbutz en masse.