For even the Economist (echoing Jacob Levy (here)) understands that BLM's "supporters oppose police brutality, mass incarceration, America’s drug war, police militarisation and civil-forfeiture abuses. All of those are causes that liberals, libertarians and conservatives—anyone who fears unchecked state power—ought to cheer." That is, lovers of liberty, least of all Jews, have nothing to fear from the success of BLM in promoting its primary aims.
I went on to suggest, pragmatically, that (i) even a wildly successful Black Lives Matter poses no threat to Zionism and (ii) vilification of BLM will only back-fire and prevents/halts lots of win-win opportunities for cooperation. I also suggested, more idealistically, that rejectionism toward BLM prevents much needed mutual recognition.
As my former student Phoebe Maltz Bovy reminded me, my response was a cop-out. First, it fails to acknowledge and scrutinize the moral grounds of BLM's critique of Zionism (and what/how Zionists may respond). Second, it tacitly concedes too much to those that insist that one must choose between (would be) rival views of the world. Because I am having trouble finding BLM's statement/critique of Zionism --I only found a lot of descriptions by hostile press (I welcome suggestions and leads) --, I focus here, briefly, on the second point.
For, BLM deserves suppport for many reasons. I think the Economist (inspired by Levy) above gets its right, although it is notable that it fails to mention White supremacy, that is, that BLM needs to exists because "Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise." (Whether BLM welcomes my arm-chair support and sympathy is another matter.) It is shameful that half a century after the civil rights movement this still needs to be debated and pursued in real life. That BLM also pursues some ends I might disagree with does not prevent me from supporting it wholeheartedly. Even if, at the end of the day, BLM turns every American into an anti-Zionist I would support it. (That's because I don't see that as an existential threat to Zionism and BLM's would-be-success improves America even if .) By analogy: I support the legitimacy of Zionism, including the imperfect, real world Zionism we have (even at moments when it is really falls short of minimal decency), but I also diagnose some strategic failures in Zionism and I reject a lot of Israeli policies, including its many cruel and inhumane policies toward Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.
That is to say, one can support, and warmly support, a group's aims while disagreeing with tactics and some/many of its specific goals.+ (As it happens, I don't disagree with BLM's tactics, and I think it has been unfairly maligned by hostile critics and those that should know better.)* To expect and demand full agreement with a group's aims and tactics is, in fact, totalitarian. It is totalitarian both when the group demands such extreme loyalty from its members and supporters, and it is totalitarian when outsiders insist that one's support for group X entails support for everything that X does or aims for.
For example, I have long ardently supported Ajax the the professional Amsterdam soccer team. I think its management and business practices are insipid and a species of insider rent-seeking. I am a card-carrying analytical philosopher (although it has been denied by others) in so far as I wish to extend the tradition, but I detest our smugness, historical amnesia, and the brutal hostility toward alternative philosophical approaches. In many respects I am a liberal (albeit NOT a liberal Zionist), but I know that my tradition has been implicated in, and many of its strands fully invested in, racialized imperialism. I am married, but have expressed misgivings about the institution. etc.***
I fully grant that each of the examples of the previous paragraph can be the start of a charge of hypocrisy or inconstancy and inconsistency. Maybe if I thought harder about the critique of Zionism I, too, would be cured from my support (or I would be more entrenched in it). But in our imperfect world, when it comes to our allegiance to groups, institutions, and ideologies we should allow, if we wish to avoid the vice of fanaticism, for less-than-complete buy-in while granting the possibility of wholehearted (or lukewarm) support.
*Recall yesterday's post in which I quoted how Yair Netanyahu calls BLM "thugs." I regret missing the significance of this at first because it activates racist tropes. I thank Lionel K. McPherson for calling it to my attention.
+That's compatible with disagreeing with a group in virtue of its tactics; some means may disqualify the end(s).
**Of course, one can also be a lukewarm supporter/adherent of Y, etc.
Comments