I am deeply disappointed with Vera Schwarcz’s response to the Activism workshop Students for a Free Palestine held on Feb.7; however, I am not surprised by it. Unfortunately, over the past four years, Schwarcz’s attitude towards SFP and the work it has done has been narrow minded and dismissive. For a professor of History, Schwarcz displays an impressive lack of critical analysis of both the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the current situation. As a professor of History, especially at a university such as Wesleyan, one would assume Schwarcz to be familiar with subaltern histories and be willing to engage them. Rather, she falls back on the nonsensical charge that any criticism of Israel is an act of anti-Semitism.
Schwarcz puts forth the notion that being critical of a country is tantamount to hating those people who inhabit it. Such an argument is blatantly ridiculous. While there may be those who criticize Israel because of their own prejudiced beliefs, the majority of critiques against Israel are based not on hatred towards Jews, but on the policies Israel implements in regards to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian-Israelis. Israel is criticized for building an apartheid wall that is not so much for Israel’s security, as the Israeli government declares it to be, but for the purpose of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians that remain in the West Bank. Israel is criticized for imposing collective punishment on Palestinians and for carrying out extra-judicial killings. Israel is criticized for passing laws that declare that Palestinians who are married to Palestinian-Israelis are not allowed to live in Israel. Anti-Zionist arguments arise from the fact that Zionism is a racist ideology which privileges the Jewish people above the indigenous Palestinian people. These criticisms and arguments are not based on hatred for a people, but on a critical analysis of the Israeli government’s actions. Saying that any criticism of Israel is an attack on Jews not only detracts from the seriousness of real acts of anti-Semitism, but reinforces the idea that Israel is a state for Jews, and that its Palestinian citizens do not really count. Professor Schwarcz reduces the conflict to a one-sided attack on Israel, not even acknowledging the incomprehensibly brutal, Israeli imposed, realities of Palestinian life. She draws the analogy between a woman who has been sexually assaulted and Israel as two victims who should not be blamed for the violence that befalls them. The analogy between the two is deeply flawed and offensive to me as a woman. It is reductionist and superficially victimizes Israel without looking at the deeper causes for the violence in Israel/Palestine.
To be able to better engage oneself in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one must be able to be critical of the state of Israel. The actions of Israel do not represent each and every Jew—as can be seen by the multitudes of Israeli soldiers who are refusing to fight in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, just as any other act of racism or prejudice is, and should be properly addressed. However to mislabel a conference whose focus was to teach activists new methods of activism as “a forum for the covert advocacy of violence” and anti-Semitism is wrong. I am also interested to know how it is exactly that Professor Schwarcz knew what the conference was and was not advocating when she herself did not even bother to come. Critically analyzing the evidence put before you is a key part of being a historian, one that Professor Schwarcz will hopefully not overlook in the future.
Leave a Reply