The climate group that could not share the stage with pro-Israel organisations

DAN COLEMAN: The decision by US activist Sunrise DC to pull out of a rally which would include pro-Israel bodies shines a light on the problematic reflexes that beset the Left

ON OCTOBER 23, a coalition of liberal American organisations came together to sponsor the Freedom to Vote Rally in Washington. They were joined by over 200 kindred organisations, all supporting the Freedom to Vote Act, a Congressional initiative designed to protect voting rights across the US.

Among the expected participants was Sunrise DC, a chapter of the Sunrise Movement, a nationwide youth movement on the frontlines of the fight to stop climate change and in support of the Green New Deal.

But, on October 20, just three days before the event, Sunrise DC stunned the organisers and sent shockwaves through the American Jewish community by pulling out.  The rationale for the decision was that one of its issues was support of statehood for the District of Columbia which it viewed as a matter of self-determination.

Sunrise felt that, in this light, it could not share the stage with organisations that espoused Zionism or support for Israel, singling out three participating organisations: the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, National Council of Jewish Women, and The Religious Action Center (RAC) of Reform Judaism.

Sunrise’s statement explained that, in its  view, “the fight for statehood and sovereignty are incompatible with Zionism”, entirely disregarding the fact that the three organisations to which they objected all support a two-state solution, i.e. a sovereign state for Palestinians alongside one for Israelis, Zionism being merely the expression of the Israeli part.

Sunrise’s complaint somehow overlooked non-Jewish organisations that are supportive of Israel. As Arno Rosenfield pointed out in Forward, “the coalition includes, for example, the Center for American Progress, which hosted then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015, the American Federation of Teachers, which has sent delegations to Israel, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which has released statements supportive of Israel.”

The reactions were swift, justified, and predictable. This was an incident rife with antisemitic overtones. Abraham Gutman, opinion writer with the Philadelphia Inquirer tweeted “it’s clear that they check the Zionist ‘cred’ of only the Jewish groups. That’s bad.” An onslaught of tweets found antisemitism in Sunrise DC’s identification of American Jews with policies of the State of Israel and in its focus on Israel-Palestine among all the injustices of the world. 

One tweet asked pointedly, “how’s your Chinese-made iPhone?” “If this isn’t blatant antisemitism, I don’t know what is” commented another. Several of the more reticent merely called it “disgusting”. Others pointed out that the District of Columbia was itself occupied land, its original owners long-since cleansed from the elite environs of Georgetown and Foggy Bottom.

A rebuke came from the Sunrise chapter of George Washington University, which said: “standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people is morally just and not antisemitic. Singling out explicitly Jewish organisations despite non-Jewish organisations in the coalition holding similar stances on Israel is unquestionably antisemitic and has no place in our movement.”

By the day of the rally, the national body of the Sunrise Movement had rejected the action of its branch, tweeting, “to be clear, Sunrise DC’s statement and actions are not in line with our values. Singling out Jewish organisations for removal from a coalition, despite others holding similar views, is antisemitic and unacceptable”.

Finally, on October 25, Sunrise DC issued what read like a  half-apology, clarifying that it  stands against both Zionism and antisemitism, never mind that, to many Jews, opposition to a Jewish homeland is itself antisemitic. The Left opposes many injustices around the world, but in no other case does it deny the statehood of the perpetrating people.

That the Israel-Palestine conflict is a confounding one cannot be overstated. It is made that much more complicated for progressive Americans by the fact that their government provides billions in aid to Israel and that, even today, only a minority in Congress are willing to put conditions on that aid by way of supporting the legislation offered by Rep. Betty McCollom or Rep. Andy Levin.

That aid and the historic close ties between Israel and the US justifiably give Americans a heightened feeling of responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians, more so than, for example, the Uighurs in China or Rohingya in Myanmar. Missteps like those of Sunrise DC will occur from time to time and are best treated as opportunities for education rather than merely for condemnation.

Part of Sunrise DC’s blunder lies in its failure to understand the nature of working in coalition. Melinda Jones, president of the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, pointed out in The Jewish Independent last week  that NCJWA’s policy on coalitions is that “NCJWA will collaborate with other organisations in order to further our agenda of the empowerment of women.

“Collaboration with another organisation does not indicate that NCJWA supports all initiatives, actions or beliefs of the outside organisation. It is crucial to distinguish between collaboration for a common goal and the endorsement of actions, policies or conversation the other organisations partake in,” she said.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Executive Director of Truah: the Rabbinic Campaign for Human Rights, agrees. In a discussion that Jewish Currents sponsored about the Sunrise controversy, she commented that “coalition means working with people you might not agree with on every issue… I don’t believe in purity tests on the Left.”

As a case in point, according to the Forward, The Religious Action Center works closely on certain matters with the Quaker-affiliated American Friends Service Committee, which supports a boycott of Israel.

For others, this controversy is an opportunity to reflect more deeply on American progressives’ stance in regard to Palestine. Youssef Munayyer, a policy analyst at the Arab Center in Washington, said in the Jewish Currents event: “the more you see Palestinians and the more you see what Zionism has done to Palestinians, the more you realise the direct values clash between values groups on the Left hold dear and the values that Zionism represents.”

Munayyer challenges the Left as follows:  “you cannot say ‘I support a two-state solution’ as a way out of addressing your complicity in the human rights abuses that are taking place today” and asks with clarity the question that Sunrise DC managed only ham-handedly, “what does it mean to march for voting rights when supporting a state that denies rights to millions of people under occupation?”

He might have found the answer to his question in RAC’s tweet on the incident, which pointed out that their support for voting rights is rooted in their Jewish values, that it does not conflict with their progressive Zionist principles, and that those principles are not an impediment to “their tireless work fighting for the human rights of Palestinians and for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Yet Munayyer’s concept of complicity is a daunting one. We are all complicit in myriad injustices every day. To respond to them all to the maximum of our capabilities and resources would be beyond exhausting.

If Munayyer’s challenge is that “justice, justice, you shall pursue”, the pursuit must be tempered by the precept of the “Pirkei Avot” (Chapters of the Fathers) that “you are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it”.

As for Sunrise DC, perhaps next time its organisers  are inclined to condemn a coalition partner, they might break bread and have a conversation with them first.

READ MORE
Antisemitism row forces Royal Court theatre to change name of character (Guardian)

Photo: Members of Sunrise DC march on a climate protest rally