Howard Jacobson in the New Republic on the new anti-Semitism in England, criticism of Israel post-Gaza:
The premise of Seven Jewish Children is a fine piece of fashionable psychobabble that understands Zionism as the collective nervous breakdown of the Jewish people; instead of learning the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust--whatever that might be, and whatever the even greater obligation on non-Jews to learn it too--Jews vent their instability on the Palestinians in imitation of what the Nazis vented on them. This is a theory that assumes what it offers to prove, namely how like Nazis Israelis have become. Furthermore, it dispossesses Jews of their own history, turning the Holocaust into a sort of retrospective retribution, Jews being made to pay the price then for what Israelis are doing now. Clearly, this exists at a more extreme end of the continuum of willed forgetting than Holocaust denial itself, its ultimate object being to break the Jew-Holocaust nexus altogether. Let us no longer deny the Holocaust, let us rather redistribute the pity. If there is a victim of the Holocaust today, it is the people of Gaza.
Given how hard it is to distinguish Jew from Israeli in all this, the mantra "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel" looks increasingly disingenuous. .. But, in the end, it is frankly immaterial how much of this is Jewhating or not. The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing--ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world's ills that was once ascribed to a people--is toxic enough in itself. The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that's what one can smell here. Infection.
Given how hard it is to distinguish Jew from Israeli in all this, the mantra "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel" looks increasingly disingenuous. .. But, in the end, it is frankly immaterial how much of this is Jewhating or not. The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing--ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world's ills that was once ascribed to a people--is toxic enough in itself. The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that's what one can smell here. Infection.
A lot of hot angry metaphor here, including "buckets" for the blood libel of Churchill's play. I remind readers that the international community was upset over segregation in the American South too, and racist violence there. And note Jacobson's statement that non-Jews have an obligation to learn the lesson of the Holocaust. Hasn't this process taken place? And isn't one of the lessons of the Holocaust that many societies have learned to dehumanize the Other to the point where mass murder troubles no one?
(Thanks to Aaron Walker)
This is a very important point Philip. The dehumanising of "Other " is essential to creating conditions for genocide. Those of us who see this progressive "ticking of the boxes" towards genocide-readiness in Israeli society can only recoil in horror how similar the developments are to those of pre-war Germany. It is not easy to kill humans but it is no trouble to eliminate cockroaches. If killing thousand is not trouble then killing ten thousand should be not much more of a tug of a conscience. It becomes a matter of logistics not principles.
The claim that "Seven Jewish Children" "assumes what it offers to prove" is either moronic or shamelessly dishonest. The play isn't trying to "prove" anything; it isn't a scientific paper, it's a work of art that aims to illustrate what its author perceives. Is Jacobson really that much of an idiot, or is he just a garden-variety liar?
Gawd, what a schmuck!
The wisest students of the Holocaust have been the Palestinians.
You won't find them meekly lining up at the station when the deportation order comes down.
The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that's what one can smell here. Infection.
Typical pretzel logic of ghouls: Accuse others of the self-same crimes you contemplate.
Resorting to the victim narrative?
How routine.
Thanks Phil for highlighting this piece. Surely it is Jabobson who is being disingenuous, since his comments imply he believes it is anti-semitic to be critical of Jews. Oh? He really believes Jews are above criticism?
The appearance of these sorts of articles are in some sense a sign of progress. It shows jewish colonialism on the defensive.
Re: learning from the Holocaust
It should be noted that it was/is a certain segment of the Jewish community that has warned us off ever learning anything from the Holocaust. I'm thinking of Eli Wiesel and others who have instrumentalized it for the Zionist cause.
There's a big difference between the Holocaust and its shameful disfigurement–what Finkelstein calls the Holocaust Industry: he may have been a bit over-the-top but he has a point. There's no getting in touch with whatever the Holocaust could have taught us.
As for Churchill's play, it's a PLAY–a piece of creative writing, not a political science paper from a refereed journal.
All of which is to say that it's the Palestinians we should be focussing on now, not some hysteria over a putative "new antisemitism." Much of the world has bent over backwards in an attempt to help Jews with the post-Holocaust healing–including colluding with the persecution of the Palestinians. How many more Palestinian lives have to be sacrificed on the altar of Jewish psychological fragility?
Typical antisemitic responses. Hats off to Phil for exposing his phools.
Chris HasBerel must have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that the canard of anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism is rapidly melting away as it morphs into an intellectually dishonest smashmouth tactic.
1400 dead in Gaza, yet Howard Jacobson and the rest of the neocon chorus are trying to distract us with Clean Break 2.0 — if you resist striking Iran, you're an anti-Semite. Read the comments posted in any of the Israel-first screeds in WaPo, TNR, HuffPo, etc. and you realize that the majority of posters refuse to be neo-conned anymore by the WINEP, JPPPI, AIPAC traitors. Not after Iraq, not after Gaza.
So once again the cry to overwhelm the Jews, and drive them in lamentations from their Holy City.
The problem is that the anti-Semites will fight to the last Palestinian.
When non-Jews learn the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust, they are better able to understand the horror Israel perpetrates on Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites. Humanizing compassion is not exclusively reserved for any particular victim, but is able to embrace them all. This compassion also empowers individuals to confront the oppressors, and demand justice.
This rant is the verbal equivalent of IDF Checkpoint logic: “The rules are what I say they are, when I say they apply, because I’m a Jew, and I’m an Israeli, and I can invoke any suffering I like from the past 3,000 years and claim my suffering is paramount to yours because God gave me this land and you should constantly have my suffering uppermost in your mind because I am a Chosen One, and I have a gun, and I set the rules, and I can change them daily, and I can destroy you.”
You know, I hope these Checkpoint Charleys get more outrageous in these anti-semitism screeds, and watch where it goes. This man is fucking obnoxious. “[T]he even greater obligation on non-Jews to learn it [the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust] too?” No. I dont have an obligation to learn it at all. I’ve learned enough: I know it happened. I know the cause, I know the result. C’est tout. It happened before my time. I wasn't responsible for it. And frankly, now, I don’t give a shit.
Berel, can you actually detect a true instance of antisemitism anymore? Reflexively accusing people of being antisemites when they question your pristine idea of Israel is exactly the type of accusation that may breed real antisemitism in the future. On top of that, you are exploiting Semites everywhere in order to gain leverage in an argument. Quite frankly, it is disgraceful.
Let me help you see the difference between antisemitism and the new anti-semitism.
Real anti-semitism: I think all Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth simply for being Jewish. They are all evil and not to be trusted; therefore they must perish.
The new anti-semitism: I think it is disgraceful that Israel prevents Palestinians from returning to their homeland. Israel's system of checkpoints is devastating and inhumane to the native population of Palestine.
Can you see the difference? (If not then I can't help you)
Am I anti-American because I think the Bush administration lied to the American people about our reason to go to war with Iraq?
Seems to me there's some good points but bad logic in Jacobson's piece.
Firstly there's his criticism of the play as trying to "break the Jew-Holocaust nexus."
I mean, there's clearly *some* nexus there, but once you accept same then why then isn't it appropriate to see modern victims of state ethno-religious aggression as "modern jews" suffering their own "Holocaust" of a sort? After all by arguing for that nexus what else is Jacobson doing other than arguing *for* that precise equation? Indeed, because of his very own *absolute* nexus when people see a state behaving in some Nazi-like ways isn't that the *only* equation that can be made?
So what does he want? You can't have a nexus between two things but then demand that it run in one way only.
Jacobson also inveighs against "failing to distinguish jew from Israeli" and he's got a big point there. But, still, that's a little difficult given that Israel was created as "the jewish homeland" and it *itself* now insists that it be recognized in those exact categorical words as a "jewish state" by the Palestinians and the arabs. For all those jews then who are the victims of anti-semitism by wrongfully being associated with what Israel does, seems to me at least one of their complaints ought to be directed against Israel for proclaiming that "nexus" with them.
The main problem with Jacobson's piece though seems to me to come down to his Holocaust-ology if you can call it that. And he himself recognizes that problem in the beginning when he disdainfully talks about the play trying to teach "the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust" by snarkily dismissing same by saying "whatever that might be."
But of *course* the Holocaust has humanizing lessons that mean more than just the simple but absolute "Jew-Holocaust" equation. Otherwise what's he to pretend, that the slaughter of people under the communists for instance didn't happen? Or that for whatever reason the victims of same didn't matter as much?
This isn't to say that the comparisons between the Nazis and the Israelis aren't overblown. They are, vastly, and tiresomely even. But instead of noting the oceanic gulf between the two factually Jacobson instead tries to thread an impossible needle saying that its logically impossible for those comparisons to *ever* be made, no matter what the facts and no matter how carefully circumscribed the comparison may be.
Nevertheless, one can still take his point that there can seem something more at work at this constant analogizing the Palestinians to the jewish victims of Hitler than a mere historicism.
sin
Rather than belabor Jacobson's infantile filth-etude for the left hand, why not have a look at Sara Roy's piece on the holocaust, which makes a very persuasive case than in terms of racist mindset and intent, the Israelis are plainly Nazis.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/roy_holocaust.html
And even longer Eurosabra. According to Jedi master Yoda the fight against evil will go on for ever. You see, evil will always be with us , because it is part of our nature. All it takes is a cause and somebody to tell us that our fight is sacred and the enemy is of lesser value.
That is the lesson from Holocaust and Nakba. A lesson we must never forget, because it will happen again and again.
It is the banality of evil.
Typical anti-gentile response. Hats off to Chris for exposing his stools.
So once again the cry to drown highest ethics, and drive them in lamentations from their highest Justice.
The problem is that the Likuddies will fight to the last Palestinian and last gentile American soldier while simultaneously relieving Uncle Sam of his ever thinner wallet.
"the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust–whatever that might be"
whatever… he's claiming he hasn't a clue
"The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing–ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world's ills that was once ascribed to a people–"
English speakers blame Israel for the whole world's woes?
I think this guy has had a mental breakdown–why publish his breakdown for all to see?
@ Sin Nombre, there is the historical Nazi and the Hollywood Nazi. Which one is it that is unlike the IDF? That is the Israeli Defense Force
A morbidly idiotic article—even by zionist standards.
"And isn't one of the lessons of the Holocaust that many societies have learned to dehumanize the Other to the point where mass murder troubles no one?"
I think the accusation is that Churchill is doing that as well?
You don't concur even an iota?
Perhaps Primo Levi was motivated to write a book about his experiences in the Nazi death camps to dehumanize Palestinians one iota. Perhaps all of the books written about the Nazi death camps by survivors were done with the purpose of dehumanizing Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites a little bit, but it is doubtful. Probably most authors who write about the horrors the oppressed endure and die from is to disseminate information and appeal to humanizing values in order to end or prevent oppression.
"Everyone is somebody's Jew. Today, the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis."
–Primo Levi
can't get much plainer than that!
A maximally-ethical response would have led to a grudging Palestinian non-acceptance non-belligerence in response to 181, with declaration of an Arab state, thus obviating the need for 194. "Israel" and "Palestine" would have existed as backwaters, but at peace. The State of Israel would have been split almost evenly between populations and would have had to implement the equality ideals of the Scroll of Independence immediately.
A maximally-ethical response to ending the conflict now would mean an Israeli withdrawal followed by real peace, even if only de facto. However, rockets have followed the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, and one or two scattered rockets from the West Bank and even Aqaba.
Again, the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza could have been followed by a non-belligerent non-recognition, and an open border between Gaza and Egypt that supplied Gaza's needs.
rykart wrote:
"sin
Rather than belabor Jacobson's infantile filth-etude for the left hand, why not have a look at Sara Roy's piece on the holocaust, which makes a very persuasive case than in terms of racist mindset and intent, the Israelis are plainly Nazis…."
Well I have now and you're right, it's just a wonderful, powerful piece of writing. And while all it takes is one anecdote of how this or that Israeli soldier humiliated this or that Palestinian or even shot an innocent one in fun to make one just boil I still think that anger isn't an excuse to throw intellectual care out the window.
Read closely what Roy herself wrote:
"Israelís occupation of the Palestinians is not the moral equivalent of the Nazi genocide of the Jews. But it does not have to be. No, this is not genocide, but it is repression, and it is brutal."
And then again later on:
"Occupation is humiliation. It is despair and desperation. And just as there is no moral equivalence or symmetry between the Holocaust and the occupation…."
And this, I think, is about exactly the right way to look at things. People are not being shoveled en masse into ovens in Palestine, and there are no roving bands of Israeli sondercommandos going from village to village searching them out and shooting every one of them.
While there were many aspects of "the Holocaust" of course, it seems to me when one talks about its moral dimension we mean it's *hallmarks,* which precisely are those ovens and sondercommandos.
And those just aren't the hallmarks of Israel's occupation. That has its own, terrible enough. And just as we laugh at the foolishness of some Israelis who equate every tinpot nut as threat on par with Hitler, I think we ought to not jump to equate the Israeli occupation with the Holocaust merely because one can find some less-than-hallmark comparison to make, which of course are inevitable to a certain degree.
But in any event thanks so much for the cite to that article. Really really good and quite an eye you have for spotting it.
Hi sin
That's been the article I've used to try to convert some members of my own Jewish family to an approximately human position regarding the Palestinians. To no avail, as yet. But yes..it's a terribly moving piece for those with ears to hear. Beautiful and heart-wrenching.
I agree with you (and Roy) that of course what is happening in Palestine is not the Shoah. I don't think people who compare the israelis with the Nazis intend to say that this is a shoah. Again, she talks about a Nazi mentality…one of racial superiority and remorseless cruelty. That to me is the essence of Nazism and the Israelis seem to me to have been infected with this potent mental disease. I don't think that they are ashamed of the comparison either, for all their feigned outrage. They cultivate a SELF image as muscle-bound brutes, determined to get their way.
I agree SO MUCH with Philip Roth when he says of the Israelis "This is their great Jewish achievement. To turn Jews into jailers and jet bomber pilots."
rykart wrote:
"Again, she talks about a Nazi mentality…one of racial superiority and remorseless cruelty. That to me is the essence of Nazism and the Israelis seem to me to have been infected with this potent mental disease."
Well and again, you spotted a gem of an article, no doubt about it. But I'd just ask you whether you don't think "remorseless" cruelty isn't a bit hyperbolic. I've never been to Israel or the occupied territories but from what I've read there's plenty of aspects of Israeli/arab life there which isn't filled with same.
And not being jewish I'm certainly in no position to claim any superior knowledge than you but do you really think that the "racial superiority" that you posit on behalf of the Israelis generally is indeed as deep and widespread over there as you apparently feel?
I definitely get the sense of Israelis feeling an "otherness" or difference, but of course at least part of that comes from just being a different culture splotch in the middle of an arab and moslem ocean. And then there's the feeling of "otherness" too that's miraculously kept jews a distinct "nation" of sorts throughout their Diaspora where so many other nations of peoples have just assimilated away. But I don't know if either of those arise to any greater feeling of "superiority" than the garden variety of human vanity found in any group. E.g., of *course* if you're a devout Catholic you feel that in a way you are on a better/superior path than others.
I just don't know and would like to hear more about this. I know of course there's the usual kind of nuts over there who feel jews are indeed somehow morally superior by blood, and that a good number of these settlers believe this too it seems. But the rank and file Israeli? The great bulk? Or at least enough of their bulk to make a reasonably valid generalization as such?
I just don't know. I guess if pushed I'd also bet against it since it's just so dumb and as a general matter people just aren't that dumb, but of course life always surprises you.
Interesting issues.
Hi Sin
Well, I don't think we have to speculate too much in this regard. The Israelis release accurate polls of public sentiment. While the world looked on in horror and disbelief as israel bludgeoned the Palestinians into submission in the Gaza massacre, killing 50 some odd police recruits in the opening minutes before turning their attention to 3 playgrounds for children, which they bombed with phosphorus, the Israeli public was ecstatically in favor—94%. Indeed, the election of Netanyahu and promotion of Leiberman is widely interpreted as a sign that the Tzipi Livni/ Ehud Barak massacre was insufficient to satiate the extreme bloodlust and racism of the average Israeli citizen. They wanted more. They complained quite vocally that the Palestinians weren't wiped out completely.
The Israelis are, overwhelmingly, vicious hoodlums and psychotics who belong behind bars. They are not even remotely normal people.
Genocide does not mean only gas ovens. It does not mean only machetes, it does not mean only lining people along the long lines of mass graves and opening fire at them.
It also means destroying the people – their culture, fabric of their society, their institutions, their way of life, their health, their sense of purpose, future and belonging, their connection with land. Killing them is just last step – when their humanity has been skilfully compromised.
That was meant to be "humanity" in inverted commas in that last sentence.
The poverty of the word "genocide" in this case is that it is meant to communicate, both to the world at large, and to Israelis and sympathizers.
The word though is wrapped in trauma, and in addition to being an exageration of the term, it is a word that is not hearable.
When Jews, when I, am described as "nazi", that is so far from the truth in fact, to dismiss 98% of your next posts.
I'm heartened that Rykart appeared to speak civilly to someone. Not to me though, I'm the enemy for caring about a community that he/she has described as demon rather than human.
I'm not going to discuss what the Nazi did or did not do, however, the same evaluation criteria used to judge the Nazis ought to be used to judge the IDF. Both armies seem to have a policy of humiliating their enemy. So whether scrubbing the ground with tooth brushes or stripping young boys at check point are used, the result is the same. Also lets not forget that the Nazis were at war, the IDF is at an occupation, so you may want to give the Nazis a bit more rope. Or would that just be thinking too far out of the box?
Roy's piece elicits emotion.
My comparison of Israelis with Nazis was removed by the moderator. Presumably, any quotes of Primo Levi, Albert Einstein, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Sara Roy, Philip Roth, etc—all of whom compared the Israelis with the Nazis will be likewise censored, unlike the transparently racist remarks of Richard Witty and other Israel advocates.
What I recognize as Jewish is being flushed down the drain so that Jewish criminals and Jewish filth can come to stand for who we are.
When that happens, anti-Semitism will become a moral imperative.
When non-Jews, when I, am described as "anti-Semitic", that is so far from the truth in fact, to dismiss 98% of Israel's critics as racists.
Many of Israel's critics, unlike many of Israel's supporters, do not support or advocate violence. Israel's critics do not belong to any one class or ethnic or religious or national group that wages war on civilians. Israel's critics are motivated by the suffering of Israel's victims, not the religion or ethnicity or nationalism of Israel's supporters and citizens. The community of Israel, like the community of America, has some small component that would like to end violent aggression, but both contain large majorities that want to escalate violence for the benefit of their nationalism or ethnic group or religion or class. Those who support violence against the weak to further the interests of their identity group deserve harsh criticism.
@ EVA S
"If killing thousand is not trouble then killing ten thousand should be not much more of a tug of a conscience. It becomes a matter of logistics not principles."
Stalin said the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of million is merely a statistic.
Eva knows this, which is why sometimes she merely responds by posting pics.
Then of course they attack her for sending in doctored or posed pics, or merely showing
anecdotal evidence. That's of course when Eva is not attacked simply by calling her names, ethnic slurs by the convinced chosen, those with the thinnest of skins themselves. She never reacts in kind–she doesn't even resort to calling people idiots like Witty, though she has
certainly suffered far more pure racist abuse on this blog.
And, BTW, speaking of singular tragedies, is Anne Frank these days Rachel Corrie? What's more courageous, being merely innocent victim, or being one who put her own life on the line when she didn't have to, to prevent more Anne Franks (just not Jews)?
Citizen
A fine point. Though I've never heard poor Anne Frank subjected to the stream of disgusting vitriol and sick jokes about her death that accompany the Rachel Corrie murder.
The depths of Israeli Nazism are as incomprehensible as they are horrifying. This young woman's story can't be told in a play in NY City because that would be "hurtful" to the monsters who ran her over with a bulldozer.
It boggles the mind.
"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
But Corrie did not put her life on the line. Unlike dealing with palestinians, Corrie counted on the western sense of morality that permiates israeli society.
It was a darwinian moment when she positioned herself in such a way that the driver did not see her and then she lost her balance when it was too late.
Corrie wasn't brave, she was just a useful litle idiot.
@CB
Interesting statement. Have you any explanation why such selective blindness and other unfortunate mishaps occur so often to people who happens to disagree with the zionists ?
Interesting accusation. Have you any explanation why such selective blindness and other unfortunate mishaps actually occur so infrequently to people who happens to disagree with the zionists?
Possibly, your blindness has affected your judgement.
RE: "Again, the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza could have been followed by a non-belligerent non-recognition, and an open border between Gaza and Egypt that supplied Gaza's needs.
Posted by: Eurosabra"
Yes. Why did that not happen? Does the non-event have anything to do with the open-air prison Pals find themselves in? Just asking.
"And isn't one of the lessons of the Holocaust that many societies have learned to dehumanize the Other to the point where mass murder troubles no one?"
I think the accusation is that Churchill is doing that as well? (richard witty)
How so, Witty? Seems to me Churchill is humanizing all players and their kids. How, exactly did Churchill dehumanize the Other?
@ Chris Berel
"But Corrie did not put her life on the line. Unlike dealing with palestinians, Corrie counted on the western sense of morality that permiates israeli society."
And we westerners found out that Israel is not a western society. That's it's a sham. Chris Berel
is merely a racist protected by that western society, a goy society. He is evil.
You found that Israel follows western morality and arab seem to follow a death cult.