Sadly, our celebration of dyke, queer and trans solidarity was partially overshadowed by our decision to ask three individuals carrying Israeli flags superimposed on rainbow flags to leave the rally. This decision was made after they repeatedly expressed support for Zionism during conversations with Chicago Dyke Mark Collective members. We have since learned that at least one of these individuals is a regional director for A Wider Bridge, an organization with connections to the Israeli state and right-wing pro-Israel interest groups. A Wider Bridge has been protested for provocative actions at other LGBTQ events and has been condemned by numerous organizations (http://tarabnyc.org/cancelpinkwashing) for using Israel’s supposed ‘LGBTQ tolerance’ to Pinkwash the violent occupation of Palestine...The Chicago Dyke March Collective is explicitly not anti-Semitic, we are anti-Zionist. The Chicago Dyke Mark Collective supports the liberation of Palestine and all oppressed people everywhere. From Palestine to Mexico, border walls have got to go!!”--The Chicago Dyke March@Twitter as reported by Pinknews
On Facebook, my blogging buddy, Mark Norris Lance, shared a statement by People Artists Collective (FTP) defending "the decision of Dyke March Chicago (DMC) to protect Palestinian participants of the march by removing a group of openly Zionist marchers from yesterday’s event in La Villita." My exchange with Mark prompted the reflections that generated this post.
Let me start by noting that, according to most reports I have read, the number of folk that seem to have been removed is three. These were seen to be "carrying rainbow flags with a blue six-pointed star in the center." This was taken to be an expression not of Jewish Gay Pride, but Zionist Gay Pride. This latter inference is not silly: for at least one of the three works for an organization (A Wider Bridge) that is self-consciously (pro-Zionist). [I quote from one of its own press releases, "A Wider Bridge has been building a movement of LGBTQ people and allies, Jews and non-Jews, with strong interest in and commitment to Israel and its LGBTQ community."] It does not follow, however, that a rainbow flag with a Star of David needs to be a statement of support for Zionism.
I have defended the legitimacy of Zionism and often post my reflections on contemporary Zionism and its history as part of a wider, immanent conversation about the future of Zionism today; but, because I take freedom of association very seriously, I also recognize that DMC has every right, even a moral right, (i) to prevent its message from being hijacked by those whose policies it does not approve* of or (ii) "to protect Palestinian participants" from exposure to Zionist imagery. I would prefer an intersectional universe in which Jews, who wish to express their Gay Pride and their favorable view of Zionism, would not be forced to choose between them, but Zionists need not be told that the world we inhabit is imperfect.
As an important aside, the history of the Star of David as a Jewish symbol is an interesting one and is generally dated to late middle ages among Ashkenazi Jews in Central Europe. (The Star was used prior to that by Christians and Jews alike.) Perhaps it had a role earlier in Jewish Kabbalah, but that was always self-consciously an exclusive enterprise even among Jews. Due to the influence of Herzl (recall these two posts) it was also adopted as a Zionist symbol in the late nineteenth century, but that did not prevent Franz Rosenzweig, who was (to put it mildly) decidedly lukewarm about Zionism, to organize his (Jewish) philosophy around the Star in The Star of Redemption. That is to say, while the Star of David as a Jewish Symbol is itself a modern phenomenon, it predates Zionism. The early Zionists chose the Star of David because they wanted a Jewish symbol that did not, I think, emphasize Judaism (as a religion), otherwise they could have chosen a Menorah.
Let's return to DMC's decision and rhetoric (in non-pejorative sense). While allowing that the DMC has the right to prevent its message from being hijacked by those whose policies it does not approve* of or "to protect Palestinian participants" from exposure to Zionist imagery, I cannot help thinking that the DMC also thereby prevented the visible, public expression of Jewish Gay Pride. Now, DMC claims that "QUEER AND TRANS ANTI-ZIONIST JEWISH FOLKS ARE WELCOME HERE...WE LOVE YOU AND NEED YOU.” (Caps in original.) So, it would be interesting to learn -- I don't mean this cynically -- how such Jews can, if they so wish, self-present themselves publicly as Jews in a DMC organized march. (I have no doubt that Jews that keep their identity low profile are surely welcome.)
Before I get to why, given that I allow that the organizers of DMC have the right to prevent its message from being hijacked (etc.), I care about the potential effacement of public expressions of Jewish identity, I should note that I am not writing this in a vacuum: there are plenty of forces, both among many of my Zionist friends as well as by those (among which I include many that are my friends) that support the BDS movement, that will happily encourage a Manichean battle in which no genuine conversation between those that support Zionism and those that criticize it is possible. That's familiar enough.
But I am also writing this at a historical moment when American Jewry is confronting some uncomfortable truths. The revival of American White nationalism,** encouraged by President Trump [whose administration is, let's stipulate, pro-Zionist]],+ is also re-opening and undermining the public role of Jewish life in American politics and civil life. This revival occurs precisely when the State of Israel is increasingly understanding its own interest as independent and distinct from the survival of American Jewry in America (recall this post and this one). This last point is illustrated by the Israeli government's refusal to embrace the Western Wall compromise (one promoted by Natan Sharansky with backing of American Jewish organizations);*** the Israeli government's rejection generated the extraordinary statement by the new head of the Jewish Agency that 'Support for Israel doesn't necessarily mean support for the Israeli government.' The Jewish Agency is the largest Jewish non-profit organization (and traditionally funded primarily by American Jewry) and, also, an umbrella organization for worldwide Zionists (it played a central role in the founding of Israel and it is connected to the Corporatist elements of Herzl's vision).
So, American Jewry finds itself at a a complex cross-roads. A generation long drift away from unquestioned support for Zionism coincides now with a renewed urgency about safe-guarding civil rights for Jews Stateside and thereby a renewed receptivity for developing coalitions with others looking to secure civil rights for all. For American Jews this means both an international struggle within international Jewry to secure a Zionism that reflects its humane values -- including a desire to come to a historic, even if elusive, compromise with Palestinian self-determination -- as well as a national struggle to prevent the further erosion of civil rights Stateside. Such a two-fold struggle is unlikely to succeed because of lack of focus and thus its energy is likely to be diluted. It is surely doomed to fail if the most energetic and politically savvy would-be-interlocutors among existing American civil rights movements show themselves unwilling to be receptive to Jews, who publicly express themselves as Jews, as fellow-travelers in the march for civil rights and dignity.
This leads me to a final observation. I have already noted above that among certain Zionists and supporters of the BDS movement there is a long-term Manichean battle, which is designed, in part, to force a choice among American Jews for or against Zionism. Many college campuses and, as the debates over DMC indicate, other areas of civil engagement are now the sites of contestation. But in Trump's America, it is an urgent task to end this Manichean battle for the only ones that gain from this battle are those that support a resurgent White nationalism.
*This desire is acknowledged by FTP: "we know that visuals are incredibly communicative tools that have the power to both help and harm us. Imagery that either intentionally or unintentionally invokes Zionism without any attempt to acknowledge or subvert those visual associations only serve to bolster support for Israel."
**Of course, in some parts of the United States it never went away.
+I personally think Trump's support for the State of Israel is tactical, dispensable when a better offer (in cash) comes along.
***This is not the place to explore the details of the compromise which would would have allowed a space for (so-called) egalitarian prayer, that is, prayer that does not fall (modern) under Orthodox-Jewish guidelines. The vast majority of American secular Jews (which are the majority of American Jews), which tend to politically liberal, do not identify with the various strands of Orthodox Judaism.
Comments