Progressive Jews: Lifting Up the Prophetic Voice in a Time of Propoganda

The AJC's essay on Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism has provoked an intense debate in the American Jewish community. Rosenfeld's paper has its flaws, the most serious one being its conflation of virulent anti-Zionism with more benign a-Zionist navel gazing. However, the essay's core insight regarding the dangers of anti-Zionist rhetoric and hyperbolic criticism of progressive Jews in the context of the recent wave of anti-Semitism is fundamentally correct. With a few notable exceptions (Gershom Gorenberg in particular) the response of progressive Jews has been universally dismissive. The AJC is charged with trying to silence "all criticism" of Israel by equating it with anti-Semitism. The charge is wholly unfounded. Rosenfeld's principal targets in the essay criticize Israel's legitimacy, not its policies. But his sloppiness leads his endorsement of debate over Israeli policies to ring hollow and pro forma.


The AJC paper raises a particular dilemma faced by Justice-seeking Jews – how to maintain faith with the universalistic, prophetic elements of Judaism while avoiding the providing of rhetorical cover for the new anti-Semitism. For genuinely progressive Jews (as opposed to leftists who claim their Jewish ancestry when convenient for rhetorical purposes), the prophetic imperative is central to our identity. The Jewish people are chosen (whether by G-d or through their unique historical experience) for the task of tikkun olam (repairing the world). We are made holy through our righteousness. The Jewish state therefore should be more than merely a state like any other, it should be an or l'goyim (light unto the nations).


Accordingly, justice-seeking Jews are compelled to point out where Israel has missed the mark. The widening gap between rich and poor, the neglect of the environment and rampant corruption are all blights. The discriminatory short-changing of budgetary resources for Israel's Arab citizens is a travesty. Moreover, Israel's fighting of its just war of self-defense is not without blemish. The occupation of the West Bank is corrosive. There is acquiesence to settlement expansion and degradation of Palestinian civilians that is untethered to Israel's security needs. These problems are all pressing, and cannot wait for the resolution Israel's security problems or the emergence of the Arab and Islamic worlds from their current state of dysfunction. This too, is a requirement of the prophetic imperative – the time for righteousness is always now, not in some messianic future.

And yet, Israel is in a war in which its enemies seek not merely its retreat, but its elimination. Israel's enemies understand the modern battlefield, and they have conducted a ideological offensive to complement the spasms of terror that for now is all they can marshal against Israel. This propaganda campaign seeks to de-legitimize Jewish sovereignity and to legitimize the killing of Jews as valid response to the "crimes" of Zionism. Anti-Zionist propaganda exploits progressive biases by the selective embrace and cooption of liberal and progressive values. Anti-Zionists do not stop with attacking Israel, but cleverly train their rhetorical fire on Diaspora Zionists as well.

Progressive Jews are particularly susceptible to the themes of anti-Zionist propaganda. In particular, they are highly supceptible to what Richard Landes has brilliantly termed as Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome - "it is all our fault; and if we can only be better, we can fix anything/everything." This is after all, what the prophetic tradition teaches us - that we as Jews are to focus on our failings, our failure to live up to our high moral standards. Yet, as Landes aptly notes such self-criticism "leads to a kind of self-absorption in which one loses any sense of the other side of any conflict." The result is a prophetic narcissism - criticism of Israel without context in the name of meeting the moral perfectionist needs of the progressive Jews, rather than seeking a just solution to the conflict. This one-sided focus on the sins of the Jewish state meshes perfectly with anti-Zionist narratives. The words of progressive Jews are wielded as tools to convince non-Jewish progressives to opppose Israel.

Right-wing Zionists, such as Morton Klein of the ZOA, would take the last point to a logical,extreme conclusion - because any criticism of Israel could play into the hand of anti-Zionists, no public criticism (except that of insufficient hawkishness) by American Jews is warranted. This, however, is simply an unacceptable answer for a progressive Zionist. If Israel can survive the intense, lively internal debate regarding its policies and values, it can surely survive participation in these debates by concerned Diaspora Jews. The following are some guidelines for how to think about responsible criticism of Israel.

Anti-Zionism Is Out of Bounds

This is a pretty easy red line to follow. Now is simply not the time to debate the merits of a Jewish state. Perhaps in some distant post-nationalist future where anti-Semitism in the Diaspora is a distant memory the merits of the Zionist project can be debated, but in the here and now the elimination of Jewish state will cost the lives of far too many Jews.
This does not rule out a-Zionist (or for the semantically challenged "post-Zionist") navel gazing – progressive Jews should feel free to talk all they want about how Israel doesn't "speak" to them.

Avoid Anti-Zionist Buzzwords

The prophetic voice lends itself to hyperbole, especially in the face of inertia. The problem is that when progressive Jews channel their inner Jeremiah – excoriating Israel's failings in the sharpest possible language they wind up repeating anti-Zionist talking points. Terms like "Nazi" and "apartheid" draw inapt comparisons and their value for shock effect and hyperbolic intensity is outweighed by the harm. The "Nazis" represent the highest form of evil and the greatest threat to civilization in modern times. A state that engages in "Nazi" policies is one that should be eliminated. Similarly, an "apartheid" regime that is constructed around racism, and therefore should be an international pariah. There are accurate ways to condemn the vices of Israeli policies without resorting to language that denotes Israel as beyond redemption.

Fight Both Fronts With Equal Passion

Progressive Jews should be just as willing to face the wrath of progressives by denying dishonest tropes about Israel as they are willing to face the anger of other Zionists by speaking unpleasant truths about Israel. Taking a "no enemies to the left" stance results in progressive Jews staying silent in front of slanderous attacks on Israel and other Jews. The alleged imbalance of power between right-wing Zionists and anti-Zionists is not only myopic given the strength of anti-Zionism outside Jewish circles and the United States, but also an abdication of responsibility.

Commit to Intellectual Honesty

Similarly, progressive Jews need to be intellectually honest in their criticism. This means acknowledging facts that exculpate Israeli actions as much as those which incriminate them, regardless of whether these fact facts support right-wing Zionist narratives. In particular, progressive Jews need to self-diagnose for Masochistic Omniopotence Syndrome - to acknowledge the limitations of Jews and Israel in unilaterally making peace. (Camp David revisionism is a particularly egregious example - progressive Jews would much rather uncritically adopt Palestinian spin on the talks than deal with the serious obstacles to peace raised by Fatah's strategic decision to respond to Barak's offer with violence.)

Have Some Humility

Unlike Amos or Isaiah, modern progressive Jews don't have direct Divine guidance when we engage in prophetic rhetoric. Just as the Israelis making policy are falliable in their judgment so are the critics of these policies. The command to pursue justice is blindingly obvious, but the route there is not always clear.

King of the GMs

In an article that sets quantative analysis in sports back by at least a decade, Forbes.com has declared 76ers GM Billy King to be the 3rd best General Manager in professional sports. (The same survey ranked T-Wolves GM Kevin McHale, who has repeated failed to assemble a decent supporting case for Kevin Garnett, at #1.) Forbes arrived at its results through a ridiculous "formula" which compared a team's regular season winning percentage under its current GM against the last three seasons of the GM's predecessor, factoring in salary "containment." King ranks near the top of Forbes list because (1) the 76ers won a whopping .260 of their games in the three seasons before he formally became GM in 1997, and (2) Larry Brown and Allen Iverson led the 76ers to the playoffs for 5 of the next 6 seasons. Thus, according to Forbes, King is a genius. Therefore, according to common sense, Forbes has no idea what its talking about.

The most obvious problem with the Forbes formula is that it wholly ignores championships or post-season success. For example, the Forbes system would rate the 2005 Super Bowl champion Steelers as less succesfull than the previous year's 15-1 team that fell short. But the central assumption that skews Forbes' results is that a team's prior record is a useful surrogate for the challenges faced by an incoming GM. To the contrary, many critical factors of future success (e.g. the age of key players, avaialbility of high draft picks and cap space) vary radically between teams with similar won-loss records. These are all reasons why the Forbes model cannot compare GMs within sports, let alone between them.

So what then can we say about the Billy King years? Forbes is right that a GM should be judged based not only the ultimate results, but also on the resources he had to work with. Absent a complex statistical model the best we can do is simply evaluate the actual moves he made - the draft picks, contracts and trades that he made.

Any analysis of King needs to put aside the Larry Brown era from 1998-2003, where Brown was de facto GM. King deserves neither the credit for Brown's on-court brilliance nor the blame for Brown's myopic personell decisions. King inherited from Brown a flawed squad that had been eliminated in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Iverson was in his prime, but the 76ers principal additional "assets" were Keith Van Horn, who had recently flamed out in the playoffs, undersized power forward Kenny Thomas and defensive stalwarts McKie and Snow, both on the wrong side of 30. In addition, Brown left King with no cap space and no draft picks in 2 of the next three drafts. On the whole, a perfect time for Brown to jump off a sinking ship.

The Draft

King has had only 2 first rounders in 4 years, none higher than #9. With these picks, King has found a very good (if not great) player in Andre Iguodala and legitimate shooting specialist/6th man in Kyle Korver. Rodney Carney has not impressed in his rookie year, but along with Louis Williams has potential. Grade: B+.


Contracts


King inked three outright horrible deals - resigning Coleman to $9 million a year at age 36, commiting more than $50 million plus over 7 years to the mediocre Thomas and a mid-level deal to end-of-bencher Brian Skinner. (Only Willie Green's injury saved King from adding a fourth to that list.) King's arguably overpayed enigmatic center Samuel Dalembert and Korver as well, but given their youth and the market for players with their skills these deals are defensible. The extension of Iverson to a max deal was something than any GM in the league would have done. Grade: D+.


Trades


The only reason why Van Horn and a 1st rounder for a washed up Glenn Robinson and Marc Jackson wasn't a complete disaster was the provision that kicked in this year that let the 76ers substitute cash for the pick. The Webber deal didn't work on the court, but cleaned up King's messes by getting rid of the Thomas, Skinner and Corliss Williamson (who was acquired for Coleman). Finally, King waited far too long to trade Iverson and in return received Andre Miller, Joe Smith and 2 late 1st round picks - which if the 76ers post-trade .500 play has shown to be too much present talent and not enough potential. Grade: C-


Overall


An exceptional GM might have rebuilt a contender around Iverson; a good GM certainly would have gotten more in return for the Answer. But King's inclusion in the Sports Guy's Bad GM Summit may not be fully earned either. The post-Iverson 76ers appear to be a good draft away from competing for a playoff spot in the East. On the other hand, the odds of the 76ers landing a player they can build another championship run around seems very long. Grade: C-