For 108 years, the Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring has represented the best of the American Jewish progressive tradition. The Workmen’s Circle has been a champion of labor, a voice for social justice and a foe of communist totalitarianism. It fought for the freedom of Soviet Jews and for civil rights here at home. Though its roots were Bundist and not Zionist, it joined the American Jewish community’s postwar consensus in support of Israel’s security and well being. Today’s Workmen’s Circle stands forthrightly in support of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the best way to safeguard Israel’s future.
My admiration for the Workmen’s Circle has deep roots. My parents were longtime members; they are buried in a Workmen’s Circle cemetery plot. And for the past two years, I have been personally associated with the Workmen’s Circle through my involvement as a member of the editorial advisory council of Jewish Currents magazine, adopted in 2006 as the group’s official publication.
It is, therefore, in the spirit of friendship that I write.
On November 23, the Workmen’s Circle will host an ambitious gathering in New York, titled, “Jews Uniting to End the War and Heal America,” co-sponsored with the Shalom Center and Jewish Currents. Scheduled speakers include highly respected liberal voices, such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Still, the conference raises several concerns.
For starters, there is the conference’s focus on Iraq. With Barack Obama as our next president, a phased withdrawal from Iraq is clearly on the table. Yet even an Obama presidency will not result in an immediate end to America’s military presence there. Obama sensibly advocates a gradual and careful removal of American troops from Iraq and an increased military focus on Afghanistan. Mainstream liberals recognize that an abrupt withdrawal of American forces would likely trigger a renewal of bloody inter-communal violence — which would hardly be a progressive outcome. Yet the conference’s very name, its promotional materials (I received a mailing with the words “Stop the War” printed on the envelope) and some of the scheduled speakers suggest an uncompromisingly extreme posture.
One prominent activist scheduled to address the conference, Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, was regarded highly enough by the Workmen’s Circle to be invited to speak at its annual convention this past summer. While UFPJ is the country’s leading grassroots anti-war umbrella group, it has staked out extreme positions. On Iraq, it demands: “Bring the U.S. troops home now.” And whereas Obama vows to redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, UFPJ darkly warns that “the U.S. war machine tries to distract from its failures by shifting focus from the occupation of Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.”
On Israel, UFPJ’s views are similarly troubling. It consistently blames Israel for the conflicts with its neighbors and has adopted the slogan “Occupation: Wrong in Iraq, Wrong in Palestine.” While it certainly would be a good thing for America to be able to withdraw from Iraq, and for Israel to do the same in the West Bank, the two situations are entirely unrelated — and both defy the simplistic solutions that this slogan would suggest. What’s more, UFPJ does not take a position on whether it supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving the door open to questioning Israel’s right to exist. UFPJ is also an active member of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which supports boycotts and divestment efforts targeting Israel. With stances like these, one wonders how far the Workmen’s Circle can travel with UFPJ.
Even more disconcerting is the selection of radio host Amy Goodman as the conference’s keynote speaker. The extreme anti-Israel bias of her show “Democracy Now” should be clear to any even occasional listener. For example, Palestinian losses in Israeli attacks on Gaza are covered in graphic detail, while Palestinian attacks on Sderot or other Israeli towns are given short shrift. Her programs in May on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence were totally skewed against the Jewish state and stacked with fierce critics of Israel and Zionism.
With our world and our financial system in turmoil, we desperately need an active, mobilized progressive movement — and progressive Jews must make their voices heard. But the Jewish progressive movement we need is one that knows the difference between sloganeering and thoughtful foreign policy, and one that distinguishes between our friends on the liberal left and other “progressives” who never miss an opportunity to point an accusatory finger at Israel. In other words, we need a Jewish progressive movement that is true to the traditions of the Workmen’s Circle.
Ralph Seliger is a New York-based activist, editor and writer.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When will Jews come to grips with the FACT that most of the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic sentiment comes from the left. Their blatant bigotry against Christians who are among Israel's biggest supporters is shameful. The majority of Jews voted for a man who sat in a church for twenty years listening to an anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, racist, pastor. A man who is friendly with Farrakhan. A man who is friends with Arab terrorist Khalidi, not to mention the American born terrorist Ayers. I am embarrassed that my people are so strikingly stupid and self-destructive.
The ideology of the Bund was not merely progressive politics. The ideology included a certain Jewish cultural message as well: The Jews are a people defined by their Yiddish language. In fact, the Workmen's Circle maintained Yiddish schools on Sunday mornings, a true reflection of their Bundist roots. The movement, unfortunately, is an American Jewish failure. Yiddish is not a language of Jewish cultural expression in the American Jewish community; rather, despite the efforts of the Workmen's Circle, Yiddish has been abandoned as irrelevant. Mr Seliger's call for a Jewish progressive movement that identifies with Israel is indeed worthy, but all such activity should include a Jewish cultural message as well. That's the true spirit of progressive Jewish activism.
In response to this article... we youth on facebook are attempting to mobilize. For those who believe "it's over," lets take a breather for a second. The youth vote clearly supported Obama. To mobilize, a facebook group has been formed: 1 Million Progressives for Government Accountability This group is an attempt to mobilize younger citizens who can commit a little time every month.. just like we committed $25 at a time to the Obama campaign. The mission and ground rules of the group can be found at the facebook group page below: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=48192922016
Seliger's essay is very strange. I'm going to attend the gathering on Nov 23, and there is a whole panel of committed progressive Zionists to discuss the impact of peacemaking in Iraq on the rest of the Middle East. It's shocking that Seliger thinks it's a bad idea to have one commentator who is a major leader of the general antiwar movement and one extraordinarily able journalist among such a wealth of jewish experts, and that he's so willing to condemn the whole thing. NOBODY on the list is anti-israel; some are critical of some policies of its government. This is A REALLY important effort to bring progressive Jews together, looking toward having an effect on the Obama Administration. Workmen's Circle and The Shalom Center deserve enormous credit and support for doing it. People can register by going to (Make sure there's no extra garble when you clip and paste.) -- https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/602/t/7445/shop/custom.jsp donate_page_KEY=3732 -- Don
Ralph Seliger writes that the demand, "Bring the U.S. troops home now," is "extremist." He's kidding, right? He surely couldn't mean that the 61% of voters who cast ballots in nearly 200 American cities in 2005-2006 are extremists. And the editors of The Forward, in running his article, must not believe that either. Your own editorial policy for commentary, after all, bars the use of, "name-calling and personal invective." In the end, therefore, the reader is forced to conclude that Seliger's article was printed as a farce. The article is laughable, surely. If only it were funny and clever as well.
I want to post here some thoughts by Jeff halprin, an Israeli who works for peace in the middle east. I find that his arguments are the best response to the views cited here. Please read them carefully and then debate for yourselves who is right. jo tavener A BONE IN AMERICA'S THROAT Jeff Halper Even before the voting began, Israeli politicians and pundits were asking: Will an Obama Administration be good for Israel? "Be good for Israel" is our code for "Will the US allow us to keep our settlements and continue to support our efforts to prevent negotiations with the Palestinians from ever bearing fruit?" For Americans the question should be: Will the Obama Administration understand that without addressing Palestinian needs it will not be able to disentangle itself from its broader Middle Eastern imbroglios, rejoin the community of nations and rescue its economy? The Israel-Palestine conflict should be of central concern to Americans, near the top of the new Administration's agenda. It may not be the bloodiest conflict in the world – its minor when compared to Iraq – but it is emblematic to Muslims and to peoples the world over of American hostility and belligerence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not merely a localized one between two squabbling tribes. It lies at the epicenter of global instability. Go where you may in the world and you will encounter the same phenomenon: a sense that the suffering of the Palestinians represents all that is wrong in an American-dominated world. As Obama comes into office, he will encounter a global reality very different from that of eight years before: a multilateral one in which a weakened and isolated US must find its place. He will discover that much of America's isolation comes from the view that the Occupation of the Palestinian territories is, in fact, an American-Israeli Occupation. If restoring a weakened American economy depends on repairing relations with the rest of the world, he will learn that without resolving the Israeli-Palestine conflict he will not create those conditions in which the US will be accepted once more into the wider global community. To be more specific, the Israel-Palestine conflict directly affects Americans in at least five ways: · It isolates the US from major global markets, forcing it to embark on aggressive measures to secure markets rather than peaceful accommodation; · It thereby diverts the American economy into non-productive production (tanks not roads), making it dependent upon deficit spending which only increases dependency upon foreign financing while diverting resources into the military rather than into education, health and investment; · Support for the Israeli military costs US taxpayers more than $3 billion annually at a time of deepening recession and crumbling national infrastructure; · It leads to an American involvement in the world that is mainly military, thus begetting hostility and resistance which produce the threats to security Americans so greatly fear; and · It ends up threatening American civil liberties by encouraging such legislation as the Patriot Act and by introducing Israeli "counterinsurgency" tactics and weaponry developed in the West Bank and Gaza into American police forces. For many peoples of the world, the Palestinians represent the plight of the majority. They are the tiny grains of sand resisting what most Americans and privileged people of the West do not see. They are a people who are denied the most fundamental right: to a state of their own, even on the 22% of historic Palestine that Israel has occupied since 1967. For the majority of humanity that lives in economic and political conditions unimaginable in the West, the suffering caused by Israel's occupation – impoverishment and a total denial of freedom that can only be sustained by total American support – is emblematic of their own continued suffering. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians with the active backing of the US shows demonstrably the existence of a global system of Western domination that prevents others from achieving their own dreams of political and economic well-being. Like a bone in the throat, the issue of Israel's occupation can be neither ignored nor by-passed. To make things even more difficult, it is doubtful if a two-state solution is still possible, since Israeli settlement activity has largely eliminated that option. Whatever the eventual solution, if this most destabilizing of conflicts is not addressed, the US – even under Obama – will remain mired in conflicts with Muslim peoples and reviled by peoples seeking genuine freedom. Neither the US nor Israel will find the security they claim they seek. We live in a global reality, not a Pax Americana. The logic of the Bush Administration has run its course. No longer can the US throw its weight around in a War Against Terror. No longer can its involvement be purely military. The new logic that will accompany Obama into office can be summarized in one word: accommodation. And the US will not get to first base until it achieves accommodation with the Muslim world, which means ending the Israeli Occupation. What happens to the Palestinians takes on a global significance. Clearing the bone in the throat – that is, ending the Israeli Occupation and allowing the Palestinians a state and a future of their own – should be a top priority of the next American administration. Indeed, America's attempt to restore its standing in the world depends on it. In the global reality in which we live, the fate of Americans and Palestinians, it turns out, are closely intertwined. (Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. He can be reached at .)
Steven, I'm embarrassed that my people have folks like you in our ranks who essentially have no respect for any opinion other than their own and can't accept the fact that millions of Americans want nothing to do with the bigoted mindset they embrace.
Meretz USA wholeheartedly supports the “Jews Uniting to End the War and Heal America” gathering this coming Sunday, November 23rd, and we salute our immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin, who will be a panelist there, alongside many other friends in the pro-Israel/pro-peace community, including: Diane Balser of Brit Tzedek V’Shalom; Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street; M J Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum; Ann Toback of the Workmen’s Circle; and Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center. Meretz USA’s official statement in advance of the conference is as follows, and can also be found here: <a href="http://www.meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-proud-be-a-part-%E2%80%9Cjews-uniting-end-war-heal-america">http://www.meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-proud-be-a-part-%E2%80%9Cjews-uniting-end-war-heal-america</a> Meretz USA is proud to take part in this gathering of “Jews Uniting to End the War & Heal America.” The US misadventure in Iraq has not only been a bloody disaster for the Iraqi people; it's also been bad for the US, bad for Israel and bad for the Jews. As a progressive Zionist organization, Meretz USA wishes to address how bad the war has been for Israel and the American Jewish community. The five-year US occupation of Iraq has harmed Israeli interests - emboldening the enemies of Israeli-Arab peace and impeding the progress of peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. With America bogged down in Iraq, the war has expanded the influence of Iran in the region, as well as its rejectionist allies within Lebanon and Palestine. Additionally, the occupation has created new US-Syria antagonisms that have prevented Washington from taking any positive role in the reemerging peace process between Damascus and Jerusalem. The war has also sharpened Iran’s virulent anti-Israel posture. President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying utterances, his musings on a world without Zionism, his characterization of Israel as a "corpse," and other such provocative statements, coupled with Iran's insistence on an unmonitored development of nuclear technology, have understandably created deep concerns in Israel about its very survival. We hope that this conference cultivates an understanding that, although war with Iran is not a desirable response, Israel has a legitimate concern about Iran as a nuclear threat. In supporting this event, we would also express the hope that the conference does not fall into the trap of blaming the Jewish community and Israel for the Iraq war. Like most segments of US society at the time, a large proportion of the organized Jewish community did initially support the invasion of Iraq. However, Jews as a whole have been more critical and more opposed to this war than most other Americans. Following Iraq's defeat in 1991, Iraq ceased to be a realistic threat to Israel, but the 2003 war was initially sold to Jews as being in Israel's interest. Observers from both left and right have confused this cynical selling job to American Jews with the reason for the war. Unfortunately, anti-Semites -- and others who are not malicious in intent -- have blamed the Iraq war on an amorphous entity they call the "Israel Lobby." They have reduced a small group of Bush administration appointees, think-tank policy wonks and journalists known as neoconservatives into an all-powerful cabal of right-wing Zionists, whom they conflate with all pro-Israel organizations. This unfairly renders the Jewish identity of prominent neoconservatives into a problem -- rather than their politics -- making "the Jews," "Zionism," Israel or "the Lobby" a focus for vilification that unites the isolationist extreme right with the anti-Israel extreme left. Meretz USA salutes its immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin, who is participating as a panelist at this conference. We wish Ms. Rivlin and her fellow participants, and the co-sponsoring Workmen's Circle and Shalom Center, every success in conducting this impressive event, in the hope that President-elect Obama's incoming administration will soon relinquish the US military role in Iraq, as he has promised.
Meretz USA wholeheartedly supports the “Jews Uniting to End the War and Heal America” gathering this coming Sunday, November 23rd, and we salute our immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin, who will be a panelist there, alongside many other friends in the pro-Israel/pro-peace community, including: Diane Balser of Brit Tzedek V’Shalom; Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street; M J Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum; Ann Toback of the Workmen’s Circle; and Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center. Meretz USA’s official statement in advance of the conference is as follows, and can also be found here: <a href="http://www.meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-proud-be-a-part-%E2%80%9Cjews-uniting-end-war-heal-america">http://www.meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-proud-be-a-part-%E2%80%9Cjews-uniting-end-war-heal-america</a> Meretz USA is proud to take part in this gathering of “Jews Uniting to End the War & Heal America.” The US misadventure in Iraq has not only been a bloody disaster for the Iraqi people; it's also been bad for the US, bad for Israel and bad for the Jews. As a progressive Zionist organization, Meretz USA wishes to address how bad the war has been for Israel and the American Jewish community. The five-year US occupation of Iraq has harmed Israeli interests - emboldening the enemies of Israeli-Arab peace and impeding the progress of peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. With America bogged down in Iraq, the war has expanded the influence of Iran in the region, as well as its rejectionist allies within Lebanon and Palestine. Additionally, the occupation has created new US-Syria antagonisms that have prevented Washington from taking any positive role in the reemerging peace process between Damascus and Jerusalem. The war has also sharpened Iran’s virulent anti-Israel posture. President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying utterances, his musings on a world without Zionism, his characterization of Israel as a "corpse," and other such provocative statements, coupled with Iran's insistence on an unmonitored development of nuclear technology, have understandably created deep concerns in Israel about its very survival. We hope that this conference cultivates an understanding that, although war with Iran is not a desirable response, Israel has a legitimate concern about Iran as a nuclear threat. In supporting this event, we would also express the hope that the conference does not fall into the trap of blaming the Jewish community and Israel for the Iraq war. Like most segments of US society at the time, a large proportion of the organized Jewish community did initially support the invasion of Iraq. However, Jews as a whole have been more critical and more opposed to this war than most other Americans. Following Iraq's defeat in 1991, Iraq ceased to be a realistic threat to Israel, but the 2003 war was initially sold to Jews as being in Israel's interest. Observers from both left and right have confused this cynical selling job to American Jews with the reason for the war. Unfortunately, anti-Semites -- and others who are not malicious in intent -- have blamed the Iraq war on an amorphous entity they call the "Israel Lobby." They have reduced a small group of Bush administration appointees, think-tank policy wonks and journalists known as neoconservatives into an all-powerful cabal of right-wing Zionists, whom they conflate with all pro-Israel organizations. This unfairly renders the Jewish identity of prominent neoconservatives into a problem -- rather than their politics -- making "the Jews," "Zionism," Israel or "the Lobby" a focus for vilification that unites the isolationist extreme right with the anti-Israel extreme left. Meretz USA salutes its immediate past president, Lilly Rivlin, who is participating as a panelist at this conference. We wish Ms. Rivlin and her fellow participants, and the co-sponsoring Workmen's Circle and Shalom Center, every success in conducting this impressive event, in the hope that President-elect Obama's incoming administration will soon relinquish the US military role in Iraq, as he has promised.
I had three major reactions to Ralph Seliger's piece: 1) The writer presumes that the only legitimate anti-war position is a "gradualist" approach. The U.S. has already had occupying forces in Iraq for over five years, longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II. And even the U.S.-backed Iraqi government wants U.S. troops out before the end of Barack Obama's first term (by late 2011). Many more Iraqis want U.S. troops out now; and demanding an end to the war now is not tantamount to leaving Iraqis victim to "intercommunal violence." A withdrawal of U.S. troops will remove one of the flashpoints for violence, and hopefully open up room for political negotiatons among Iraq's warring factions. In any case, Iraq's future ultimately needs to be decided by the people of Iraq; a U.S. occupation of indefinite duration will not serve to promote that goal. How long would Mr. Seliger have U.S. troops stay in Iraq? Another five years? Another ten? What if the mythical stability that he claims to support cannot be achieved? Would he support a permanent U.S. military presence there? 2) On Israel and Palestine, of course the situations are different. By definition, slogans are not nuanced policy statements. At the same time, to equate the violence of some Palestinians against Israel with the Israeli government's violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is absurd, as independent Israeli human rights advocates will attest. But if there is one lesson from Israel that U.S. officials should take note of it is the following: military occupation is not the road to peace; it is the occasion for further bloodshed. 3) And, of course, the use of guilt by association is particularly egregious. Inviting a group or a particular speaker doesn't automatically imply support for everything they have ever said or done. In any case, both Leslie Cagan and Amy Goodman have been courageous advocates for peace and justice who do not deserve to be dismissed by way of distorted representations of their positions on major issues like Iraq and Israel/Palestine. Having them at your conference should be a point of pride for everyone involved.
I'm glad to see so many of my fellow progressive Jews on this board. Peace and justice are the real Jewish values. We are organizing, and we will win.
To jo tavener: You bring the comments of Jeff Halper without any criticism on your part. Jeff Halper raises the claim that the Israeli settlements remove the possibility of dividing the land into two states. So, do we now understand that in a one-state solution, the Palestinian side would come to recognize the legality of these settlements? Well, no. The settlements are illegitimate in the eyes of the Arabs, and there is no question that as citizens of the one-state they will demand the dismantling of these towns. How ironic it will be that the settlements are the excuse for disestablishing the State of Israel, and yet in the framework of the new one-state solution, the demand to remove the settlements will not be removed from the agenda (i.e. there will still be conflict). I should add that even after the removal of settlements, the conflict will not come closer to being solved. With or without the settlements, the conflict will continue under the framework of a one-state solution, as it will continue under the framework of a two-state solution (as it will continue under the framework of no-solution). This is a conflict about legitimacy. The Yishuv in the Land of Israel - whether as an independent state or as part of a binational state - is still regarded by the Palestinian narrative as a "colonial project". Only when the legitimacy of the Hebrew speaking community is self-evident will there be an end of conflict, and a lasting compromise may be achieved. Without recognition of legitimacy, the conflict will continue despite signed agreements. The agreements are simply part of running an ongoing conflict.
This article is disturbing and extremely problematic. This is evident of the most destructive thing facing the Jewish people today: the policing of Jews and their identity by other Jews. As Adrienne Rich said years ago: “beyond the loss of millions of minds in the death camps, I wonder if there has been anything more impoverishing to Jewish ethical and intellectual culture in the second half of the twentieth century than the idea of Jewish sameness, Jewish unanimity, marching under one tribal banner”. Instead of understanding that this is a conference focusing on the destruction that war causes for Jews and all Global citizens, Seliger takes this as an opportunity to police other Jews for not being nationalist enough. It is sad to me that parts of the Jewish community can be so blind in a time when understanding and anti-violence work is in such desperate need.
Regarding Meretz USA, Jeff Halper and the Workmen's Circle, who cares what a bunch of A-K's think?
It's the intolerance toward Ralph that is most telling -- and most troubling for the future of the Jewish left. Ralph is absolutely correct. If it would have any pride or power, a progressive Jewish left must draw lines. And it must have a Jewish heart -- or there's nothing "Jewish" about it all. At a minimum, a Jewish heart, he implies correctly, would mean sympathy for the people and state of Israel. Is there anything radical about that?