Today's Washington Post has a piece by author Saree Makdisi about his censorship by the bookstore Politics and Prose, and also a piece by bookstore-owner Carla Cohen, a vigorous opponent of the Israeli occupation, explaining her decision to disinvite Makdisi, then rescinding it, and reinviting him.
When I finally got a chance to read his book, especially its
conclusion, I was very disturbed. As an American Jew, I support Israel,
but I disapprove of its policies in the West Bank…. Makdisi's critique of Israel was not what bothered me; it was his
solution.
He advocates one state in the place of the partition that was
established by the United Nations
in 1947. His solution would result in the elimination of the state of
Israel. What could not be accomplished militarily would be accomplished
demographically, since Palestinians outnumber Israelis. What is more,
there is no guarantee that such a state would be democratic since,
except for Israel, there is no history of democracy in the Middle East….
I feel that we in America, both Jews and Palestinians, have an
obligation to lean on the United States to be a mediator to promote a
peaceful conclusion to hostilities. My opposition to Makdisi’s book is
that I found no such commitment. He is highly critical of Israel but
not of the Palestinians or the Arab nations… Nevertheless, I now believe that I was mistaken to cancel Saree Makdisi’s presentation at Politics and Prose.
Cohen’s piece raises a few questions. She obviously feels very strongly about her politics in this area. Why then did she change her mind? She doesn’t say. Was it simply embarrassment at all the criticism? Did her role as activist supersede her role as bookseller, as I believe? I wanted to hear. Also, if it is so bad what she did, why didn’t she apologize?
But let’s move to substance. I think Cohen’s piece is important because she is expressing the attitude of a large segment of American Jewry. A fair solution, with a Palestinian state. And again, I’m now for the 2-state solution myself. Still, she does not acknowledge, and liberal American Jews generally don’t, all that has gone wrong with the Zionist enterprise. She lauds Partition. Well, Partition was 56/44 or so, percentagewise. And now the Palestinians might be given about 20 percent, 60 years and a lot of footdragging later. She lauds the Israeli democracy, and fails to mention the second-class status of Israeli Arabs. She worries about the demographic threat to Israel–and doesn’t seem too concerned about the apartheid-like consequences of separating colonizer from indigenous populations. Makdisi presumably addresses all these issues. Maybe (like me) he tends to be too critical of Israel because all we hear in this country is criticism of Arabs. Maybe we should listen to his ideas, after witnessing the unending landgrabs of the Jewish state. Though, yes, I agree, Arab states have not much to recommend them politically, or in civil rights–still, the Palestinians have been stateless for eons on the grounds that Arabs can’t govern themselves.
At least Cohen has been there. Most liberal American Jews haven’t. This is the bigger issue. We love America. We get to have real power in America, great lives, lives of privilege and some pleasure. Politics and Prose, serving the elite. And we are minorities. But when it comes to the Middle East, Arabs are too degraded to be trusted to provide anything like that freedom to Jews. Again I’d note what John Mearsheimer and Rabbi Yisroel Weiss have said, that Jews lived better in Muslim societies than they did in Christian ones, when you look at history. I met a guy at AIPAC who grew up in Tehran. Jews were there for 2000 years, he said, still are (now only a few thousand of them). We were there because it was a good place to live, and we got along, more or less, he said. Let’s try and unpeel the clash of civilizations a little bit, before we’re all toast.
