Musings About Israel Ch. 2: Exoticization and Empathy

What follows are observations, speculations, and wild generalizations, and in any case only apply to my little left-wing college town. Please not to be taking very seriously.

The stereotypical pro-Palestinian college peacenik, in my neighborhood, at whom accusations of antisemitism are often leveled, is white, economically privileged, and often atheist. Not that there aren't non-white, working-class, and religious pro-Palestinian peaceniks, but they're not as often visible, perhaps because they don't tend to assemble in rallies on the college campus in as significant numbers. As a demographic, they enjoy their social and intellectual liberty, they appreciate ethnic food and ethnic music, and they feel affirmed in their own identity by having friends of a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

The stereotypical pro-Israel college activist, on the other hand, is white, economically privileged, perhaps a cultural Jew or an atheist. Not that there aren't non-white, working-class, and religious
pro-Israel activists, but they're not as often visible, perhaps
because they don't tend to assemble in rallies on the college campus in
as significant numbers. As a demographic, they enjoy their social and
intellectual liberty, they appreciate ethnic food and ethnic music, and
they feel affirmed in their own identity by having friends of a variety
of ethnic backgrounds.

One thing that distinguishes them, in my anecdotal experience, is that I've often heard pro-Israel activists use "we" where pro-Palestinian activists use "they". And that leads me to speculate that pro-Palestinian activists are generally speaking not as often drawn to the cause of Palestinian freedom because they identify with the Palestinian people. On the contrary, differences may be more compelling to them. Whereas pro-Israel activists are more likely to empathize with people they identify with rather than people they see as other.

Fundamentally, there's no problem with either of these things. It's good to have empathy for people you see as different from you, and it's good to have empathy for people you see as like you. If you have a tendency to one or the other, that might mean nothing in particular or it might mean one of the following things:

1) Fetishization of the exotic other. This is the problem with white people who listen exclusively to rap, hip-hop, and ethnic world beat, would prefer to hang out only with people of color, and wear a "White Anti-Racist" badge on their hoodie, but can't actually acknowledge and deal with their own racist baggage. (Not, however, any problem with white people who listen etc etc and are well on their way to sorting through their own racist baggage; kol ha kavod.) It's the problem with white new agers who build their spirituality around the wisdom of the mysterious Asian culture (of which there is only one, encompassing everything from Shaivism to Shinto, apparently). Or the heterosexual man whose idea of being feminist is to elevate women to a position of exalted purity far above his lowly self. It's idealization, but not true empathy, because it doesn't extend to seeing a person or group's similarity to you--only so far as praising their differences. 

2) In-group vs. out-group mentality. This is the problem with people who would harshly repudiate any attack on their own group, but see no inherent contradiction in allowing, supporting, or even initiating an identical attack on someone else. It's the neoconservative mindset--get your own first, never mind who you step on on the way up. It's understandable... the deaths of a hundred strangers have less emotional effect on us than that of one family member, and that's just a reality of human existence. Someone we've come to identify with even in a superficial way will mean more to us than someone we think we have nothing in common with. If I am not for myself etc.  At the same time, however, being unbalanced on this side of things means not being able to empathize with the stranger. Mishpatim commands us to treat the stranger well by telling us that we know the stranger, for we ourselves have been strangers. It appeals to our commonality in order to help us empathize with those with whom we think we have nothing in common.

Not that there aren't, of course, people who identify with the Palestinian position so thoroughly that they can never empathize with someone they categorize as pro-Israel, or people who are pro-Israel because Israel seems exotic and exciting. My point, I think, insofar as I have a point, is that I'm suspicious of either of these motives.