A couple weeks back, I mentioned Noam Chomsky's assertion that the smear of Jews who criticize Israel as being "self hating" originated in 1973 in comments by Abba Eban in an American Jewish Congress publication. I looked up that old magazine (Congress Bi-Weekly) and Eban's complete statement was right where the MIT scholar said it would be.
Eban began by putting the new left position on Israel in a historical context:
Throughout the 19th century, the revolutionary left literature is full of invidious remarks about the Jewish insistence on self-affirmation and survival. The assumption was that in a free national society there would be no room for the maintenance of Jewish particularism. It was assumed that the destiny and duty of Jews was to disappear in the universal utopia. When Zionism came on the scene as the product not only of specific currents in Judaism but also of European nationalism, the phrase nationalism no longer had about it the fine glow that it possessed in the days of Garibaldi... recently we have witnessed the rise of the new left which identifies Israel with the establishment, with acquisition, with smug satisfaction, with, in fact, all the basic enemies... Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism. One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism. The old classic anti-Semitism declared that equal rights belong to all individuals within the society, except the Jews. The new anti-Semitism says that the right to establish and maintain an independent national sovereign state is the prerogative of all nations, so long as they happen not to be Jewish. And when this right is exercised not by the Maldive Islands, not by the state of Gabon, not by Barbados... but by the oldest and most authentic of all nationhoods, then this is said to be exclusivism, particularism, and a flight of the Jewish people from its universal mission.
I do not believe that any argument however sophisticated, can probably change the convictions of Noam Chomsky or of I.F. Stone, whose basic complex is one of guilt about Jewish survival. They feel themselves associated with our unpardonable audacity at not having been destroyed or eclipsed or, more accurately, at not having been merged into some homogenized universalist utopia.
A couple comments. This is a nationalist screed, from a great polemicist. And how interesting that Eban's concern with lecturing the gentile world about anti-Zionism has morphed, 30 years on, to the need to lecture the progressive Jewish world! For Eban's equation-- Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism-- was the theme of the American Jewish Committee's shameful report on Jewish progressives last December. I.e., Chomsky now has a lot of company. All these efforts speak to a misbegotten program of organized, Jewish life: Jewish identity is officially defined as involving, at its core, support for Israel.
Chomsky has to update his views on Israel, Islam and on the corporations.
Eban was a smart man, and it is very unfortunate that his moderation has not been adopted by the majority of Israelis. even the Palestinians should have listened to him.
The correct path would be to guide the Israelis, both Jews and Arabs gradually to a secular Israeliness.
and Cyhomsky should forgot everything he said in the past and start living in the present for the future.
we all need an update in our intellectual honesty
Chomsky has to update his views on Israel, Islam and on the corporations.
Eban was a smart man, and it is very unfortunate that his moderation has not been adopted by the majority of Israelis. even the Palestinians should have listened to him.
The correct path would be to guide the Israelis, both Jews and Arabs gradually to a secular Israeliness.
and Chomsky should forgot everything he said in the past and start living in the present for the future.
we all need an update in our intellectual honesty
I am an American Jew who is unapologetically all for Israel's existence, as well as for the existence of an independent Palestinan state living side by side with Israel in peace. I think it is absolutely true that many of the Jews that I know who are anti-zionist are universalists who are embarassed by Jewish nationalism. The interesting thing about these folks is that they don't seem to have a problem with any other groups nationalism. They actually celebrate it. But when it comes to Jews they feel ashamed. Many of them inter-marry, not because they don't find other Jews attractive, but because they are trying to erase their "jewishness." This motivation for inter-marriage does not apply to the majority of my jewish friends who are inter-married and who did so because of love for the other person, not because they were running away from their "jewness".
While I don't agree with your desire to see Israel not exist Mr. Weiss, I think you are fully entitled to your position. Of course, it makes me think you are a bit of a fool. I imagine you think the same of me. What I think is dangerous is your proclivity to see the world in a very narrow lens that posits zionists at the center of all things evil. I've read through your blog and it I believe you have some sort of internalized hatred that skews your perspective. Jews are neither better nor worse than any other group of people. Lets just hold them to the same standards.
Phil,
you hate wars and violence,
you are not justifying blind opposition to the nation of Israel?
We can only disapprove the unenlightened views of many israelis but we must also fully reject the very inhuman posture of the iranian junta, or hisbollah proxies, syrian tyrants…
so speak up, and be brave to support the oppressed and unite them against all oppressors everywhere…
Thanks.
"Lets just hold them to the same standards."
What other group are you supporting in their displacement of a land's original inhabitants?
And when you speak of an independent Palestinian state living "side by side" with Israel, can you be more specific about the borders you envisage. For example, does it include the Jordan valley? How about East Jerusalem?
"What other group are you supporting in their displacement of a land's original inhabitants?"
Well, given that the Jews trace their origins to this particular land, this would not really apply here, but I'll play along.
Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, and many others if you go back a bit further
And when you speak of an independent Palestinian state living "side by side" with Israel, can you be more specific about the borders you envisage. For example, does it include the Jordan valley? How about East Jerusalem?
1967 borders, albeit with some agreed upon land exchanges. East Jerusalem would either be in the Palestinian state or part of an internationalized and demilitarized Jerusalem.
I'm a "liberal" Jew who detests the neocon inspired war in Iraq. Although there seems to have been an increase in ultraconservative leanings by some American Jews, especially by those who publish or "opinionize" in the media, I think the bulk of American Jewry is probably still "progressive". My religious affiliation and "observance" are "active" within the Reform movement. I have never visited Israel. I wish there could be a peaceful interaction between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
But given these qualifiers, I guess I am still a Jewish "particularist" who feels an affinity toward my Canadian, South African, Israeli and Russian cousins- a "particularist" who greatly values a tradition that I have inherited.
As an inlaw of Syrian Jews, I am always annoyed when the poor, expelled Palestinians of 1948 are bemoaned by people who easily forget the plight of the Jews who had to flee Syria, Egypt, Iraq, North Africa and Yemen.
As one who recalls that my grandfather's cousins were slaughtered in Lodz, I appreciate the existence of Israel.
And as one whose non-Jewish ancestors came to these American shores in the 1600s, I am quite comfortable with my "dual loyalty" as a "loyal" American Jew of mixed ancestry who supports Israel.
It is a complicated world. Jewish self-doubt? Self-hating? Yes, unfortunately, they still exist and still threaten both Jewish identity and Israel.
Alain Finkielkraut, who has in France an almost unrivalled position as public intellectual and philosopher, came up with a new variation on this Eban-doctrine.
Now the equation is no longer anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism but anti-racism = anti-Semitism.
When Mr.Finkielkraut visited Canada two years ago he declared in an interview published in the Canadian Jewish News of 9/22/05 inter alia:
"…traditional French anti-Semitism is bloodless, tired, moribund….the new anti-Semitism is, by contrast, vigorous, lively and continuously expanding. The old anti-Semitism of French pedigree is in its death throes, the new developing anti-Semitism expresses itself in the name of the religion of humanity. Not, in name of the nation, against the belief in the equality of people and the equality of human rights, but in name of the religion of humanity. The Jews are reproached for betraying these rights. It is an anti-Semitism one cannot accuse by referring to the past because it has nothing to do with the past. It is not an anti-Semitism of a racial type, against which people generally mobilise. It is an anti-racist anti-Semitism."
And also,
"We are not dealing here with racial hatred against which Jews could protest by dragging their detractors before tribunals. How can one combat anti-racist hatred? That is very difficult."