Looking for the "freaks" of the J Street Conference. | Photo by Flickr user jstreetdotorg CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
I came to the J Street Conference looking for allies. As a queer Jew who is sternly critical of Israel, but still a staunch Zionist, I was looking forward to meeting some like-minded folks. Folks who can’t help but discuss privilege, minorities, and oppression. Folks who are obsessed with identity politics. Folks who face the annoying problem that inevitably comes when they can’t seem to leave their education at school, branded by their families as the one who always talks “politics.” I was looking for the black sheep, the outsiders, the radicals, and the freaks.
Before the conference, a friend of mine listed off some of the speakers she thought I’d find most engaging. The crème de resistance, she told me, would be Anat Hoffman. Truth be told, it was a fairly good assumption to make: Jewish, feminist, and definitely interested in speaking truth to power, Hoffman certainly represents a step in the right direction for Jewish female leadership.
Regrettably, I was less than impressed. Was I really supposed to be inspired by her stories of arrest? Call me meshugga, but I prefer not to judge an activist’s resume by their number of arrests, felonies, or criminal charges. That kind of talk sounds too much like a version of manarchism, a phenomenon in which male activists prove their stripes by getting arrested for a cause. Aside from being mostly disinterested in symbolic actions, I’m also left wondering… What about the people who can’t risk arrest? Let’s not forget about the single mothers, the elderly, undocumented workers, and other marginalized folks. If risking arrest is the way we show our dedication to a cause, then we’re not going to be a very colorful or diverse crew.
But earlier during the weekend, I blogged about how J Street is an exercise in “letting things go.” So I let go of my dissatisfaction with Hoffman’s lackluster call to action. I woke up bright and early for the “Bringing Women to the Fore and Advancing the Peace Process” session in which Rachel Levine and three other feminists gave a report-back on their trip to Israel. The trip brought five women from US Congress to Israel to meet with Israeli and Palestinian business people, lay leaders, citizens, and activists. The goal of their trip was to see how the conflict would be discussed if the participants were all women.
Again, I was disappointed. Their words fell flat when I asked them to what extent did intersectionality play a role in the “feminist manifesto” they created prior to the trip. They brushed off the question as a generational issue and a Second-wave feminist reprimanded me for using overly-academic jargon. Needless to say, this crowd did not want to discuss “radical politics.” Where were my freaks?
After grinding my molars to smithereens, I took a couple of deep breaths and joined the “LGBT Issues & Israel: Pinkwashing or Legitimate Advocacy?” session. It didn’t take long. As soon as Idit Klein opened the session, I knew I’d found my freaks. The three panelists had me sitting on the edge of my seat, hungrily eating their words like sufganiyot during Pesach. I couldn’t contain myself.
Amichai Lau Lavie’s two anecdotes got the analytical ball rolling. He told us how he was perceived as a bad Jew when he wouldn’t attend an Israel advocacy event because they wouldn’t accept J Street. But then he was bad gay when he allowed his son to wave Israeli flags at a Gay Pride Parade. Message received. Progressive Jewishness and Jewish queerness are not yet commensurable.
But Jay Michaelson was the hero of the panel, maybe even of the entire conference. He first acknowledged that the panel was skewed because it didn’t include a hard-left perspective (or a non-white male perspective, for that matter). He then argued that if there is pinkwashing in hasbara, then there is also techwashing and greenwashing. He was also the first to mention intersectionality, explaining how for some folks, the occupation isn’t just a facet of Israel, it IS Israel. “It’s not a very sophisticated lens,” he said. “It’s a wild oversimplification.” And he left us with the mind bomb, “When you go through a checkpoint, your sexuality doesn’t matter.” The audience took a moment to react before applauding as they chewed on the sentence.
I was thrilled. Perhaps it’s not about letting things go. Perhaps it’s about storing your analytical weapons in your cranial holster and being ready to whip ‘em out when the time is right. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that I finally found my freaks at the LGBT panel. After all, who better to discuss power, privilege, and accountability than a couple of progressive feygeleh? So to the leaders and staff of J Street, I’d like to offer the following advice for next year’s conference: Don’t be afraid to invite the freaks. They just might know a thing or two.
Haha “like sufganiyot during Pesach.”
Sorry Shani, but these “freaks” you speak of who think touting Israel’s gay rights record is “pinkwashing” and that “the occupation is Israel” are never going to be an influential force in American politics. You don’t speak for your generation, you speak for a small hard-left fringe of your generation.
Progressive Judaism?
It seems you would be happier in a Marxist system where as we all know Jews are treated with respect.
Get a life and take a step outside your crazy leftist echo chamber.
The “freaks” are what is keeping J Street on the fringe of the pro-Israel scene.
Maybe you should start your own conference so you can analyze and analyse over and over and think and think… an academic conference…
J Street needs tio reach out and expand its message into the core of American Jewish and gentile society and it can’t if it fills itself with “the freaks”
Another criticism:
NOT saying that it is you. BUT – many people who are concerned with social critique and are involved in Israel advocacy/criticism sometimes lose sight of the main issues – THE OCCUPATION OF THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. We can talk about the strategies of pinkwashing, greenwashing, blah blah but you’re missing a big part of it. You need to understand the center of the conflict and figure out a resolution, not just sit and mentally drool over (important) but less-than-huge issues.
You seem to have gone to J Street more interested in the politics and academic discussions within a small section of the Jewish community than in examining US support for Israel and redefining “Pro-Israel”
It’s sooooo surprising to hear a lefty nutcase like Shani revile Israel but exempt the brutal ideology of Islamism which makes a strong Israeli military essential for survival.
Note to all: THERE IS NO PALESTINE, PERIOD.
Uhhhhhhhhh….
Hate to break the news but there is no such thing as a Palestinian and there will NEVER be a Pale “state.”
This is of course bad news for the left but very good for freedom and liberty.
I DARE THIS AUTHOR, SHANI, TO VISIT RAMALLAH WITH HER OPENLY GAY BUDS…TRY KISSING OR MAKING OUT IN THE STREETS AND FIND OUT WHAT TRUE REPRESSION IS ALL ABOUT.
It seems that the previous commentors are more familiar with this authors viewpoints than I am, but I was largely at a loss. Of course, I have no idea what intersectionality is, so perhaps I’m not the audience, but I think those feminists were right about canning the academic jargon. If you can’t communicate your thoughts to most (educated) English speakers, you can’t communicate.
At any rate, I didn’t see anything anti-Israel here. Is it better to have a government that oppresses everyone (Palestinian Authority, Hamas, every Arab or Muslim state), or one where only a small group are oppressed (for the purpose of argument let’s say Israel – it’s ludicrous to call anything they do “oppression,” but I know J Street disagrees). Which government would you support and which would you try to tear down? Work on injustices form the inside, but delineate for outsiders which is clearly better.
David Z – a quick note. Perhaps before blaming Shani for using a word you don’t understand, you should look up the word. Shani isn’t saying that academic feminism is the only acceptable basis for a conversation, she’s just using a term that she thinks is applicable.
From Wikipedia:
You’re obviously free to disagree that this is applicable, but at least find out what it is before you dismiss it out of hand. It’s really not that hard.
Wow. I cannot believe the hate these comments have rained down upon a fellow jew, a person struggling for meaning and community within her people. Shame on all of you for your finger pointing, your harsh judgments. Before you judge others so harshly at least be reflective enough to stand in anothers shoes. Jeremiah and Amos also were also considered freaks because they said things the jewish people did not want to hear.
You who turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteoeusness to the ground. Amos 5:7. They hate the arbiter in the gate and detest him whose plea is just. Amos 5:10
The author of this column was disapointed for feeling like an outsider among jews. Shame on you who continue to ostracize her for views that are different than your own. J street is about changing the conversation on israel and the stories told at the lgbt panel are cruical in this fight. Jay Michaelson articulated two camps of activists which this can be applied more broadly here. There are those who believe in only one type of oppression or fight (say that of lgbt folk or the fight for human rights for palestinians) and there are those who believe that people who are oppressed share certain experiences of being outsiders, being ostracized by their own people or ridiculed for their beliefs. How ironic that you participate in silencing a voice who did nothing other than articulate her experience at this conference.
Shame on you who point fingers at others instead of engaging in actual dialogue. Shame on you who seek to ostracize the already marginalized among us. For those who thing being a queer jew is unrelated to the conflict, please read books on the nature of oppression and don’t hate on an idea because you don’t understand it. This a college publication and you condemn someone who speaks with academic language. would you prefer your rhetoric vague and with actual examples. Take your hateful comments elsewhere and new voices, shame on you for letting these hateful comments stand unchallenged on your blog with no response on how this just contributes to the silencing of people who already don’t feel welcome in our people. I invite your comments to me in fact call me up if you’ve got something to say. And we can talk about your concerns but stop pointing fingers and hurling hate at someone being honest about her experience.jgsimon@gmail.com or 240 450 3483 bring it
Jessica, J Street says it wants to create space for constructive criticism of Israeli policies, and believes that criticism of Israel doesn’t necessarily equal hatred. So its ironic that you accuse commenters of this blog of “hating” Shani, when in fact they’re just criticizing the (sophomoric) argument she’s making. Criticism doesn’t necessarily equal hatred.
As I understand it, most commenters aren’t objecting to Shani’s discussion of intersectionality because intersectionality is “academic language.” The major issue with Shani’s discussion of intersectionality is her willingness to uncritically label the Palestinians as victims, and compare their struggle (for a state? for Israel’s destruction?) to the struggle of black Americans, women, and LGBT people. Many of the commenters have pointed out that Shani’s commitment to Palestinian rights is somewhat unrequited, since few Palestinians seem passionately committed to LGBT rights or Jewish rights.
In the last paragraph of your comment, you accuse commenters of trying to “silence” Shani, and then criticize New Voices for not silencing the commenters’ voices. You also accuse the commenters of not treating Shani with respect, and then patronizingly announce that any criticism of Shani’s argument should be directed to you personally (by phone or email) instead of to a public forum that would allow Shani to actually respond to her critics.
J Street and its supporters say they want to create space in the Jewish community for criticism of Israel. Its a shame you’re so thin skinned when it comes to criticism of your allies.