a cautious comment on the "not in our name" demo

"Not in Our Name"?
What about, NOT AT ALL…?

First, let me explain why I'm writing this entry: I think it's important for us, as Jews, to be able to critique our own organizing strategies & slogans. I also think it's important for these discussions to happen in a public forum, rather than behind closed doors & over personal phone calls & emails. I realize my blog isn't exactly a "public forum," (even though anyone can read it, I guess) but it's the most public forum that I have access to, so that's why I'm posting this here. It's about accountability. I'm not calling out other people and my tone is not accusatory towards any of the organizers of Monday's demonstration. Instead, I'm bringing up an issue that I think is important to discuss.

Personally, I think it's great that a Jewish demonstration was organized in NY against the massacre in Gaza. I think it's great every time a demonstration is organized against the massacre in Gaza (or in solidarity with Palestine in general), and the variety of options here in New York has been, for me, a real source of hope. The demonstration on Monday was organized with urgency and desperation, and, I think, without much debate around the specifics of slogans and framing. This urgency makes sense. However, I think it's important that even in times of crisis, we think strategically about our messaging and how we are framing our voices, and the situation/struggle in general.

"Not in Our Name" can be interpreted in various ways:
"You're not doing this in our name," directed at the Israeli government, doesn't sound problematic. However, "This is not in our name," directed at the world seems…well…is that really the message we want to prioritize?

At the demonstration, I overheard a conversation between a few people attending. One of them was explaining how she was glad this Jewish demonstration was organized – she opposed the massacre in Gaza, but did not feel comfortable at the larger, Palestinian-organized demonstrations.
Why?
I think there was talk of "anti-Semitism," etc. You know, the usual.
But why really?
In my opinion, racism. Racist fear of being surrounded by Palestinians and, probably, discomfort with signs like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." (I call that discomfort racism too, because it's based on Zionism, which, I believe we all know, = racism).
So what does it mean for us to be creating space for people like this without challenging them directly through our messaging, flyering, and talking points?
Is this really helpful?
To whom?

Then, there is the overall difference in messaging between the demonstrations. At the Jewish demonstration, very few signs referenced Zionism itself as a violent ideology. There was a focus on "End the Massacre" – which is important – but what about the right of return for Palestinians? What about an Apartheid framework? What about an anti-imperialist framework? When we say "end the occupation" are we talking about 40 years or 60 years? I've said before, "it's all occupation," but is it perceived this way when we don't specify? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

So how does this present us? As the "rational" and "reasonable" Jews, of course, in contrast to the "angry," "radical," and "irrational" Palestinians. In other words, it provides fuel for the fire of racism and reinforces the very stereotypes that we're supposedly trying to challenge. This is a problem. We need to recognize that this is a problem and strategize around it.

It's a question that's been asked time and time again: How do we use our voices/privilege not only to express our own opposition Israel & it's actions, but to highlight and carve out space for Palestinian voices?
And if that isn't what we're doing…then what ARE we doing?