As a contributor to the film Cruel but Necessary: Israeli Opinions about the Settlements and Obama, I wanted to add some perspective on the debates that have developed on Mondoweiss.
With an afternoon of filming interviews, we had to exclude a higher percentage of those that had what most would identify as a "Zionist" perspective compared to perspectives critical of Zionism (but this should be obvious, no?). The two critical perspectives you see in this video come out of a total of three that we heard - and these were the only responses that lacked qualifications, i.e. usually pro-Zionist catches or exceptions. We had three responses by hippies, as one might call them, and they were excluded because they're nonsensical and often contain qualifications. That being said, we have more Zionist responses sitting in the film bin - if a second video was made of unaired footage, it would be even more unevenly Zionist.
Those who find the interviews unfair seem to fit into two categories: the first disagree that the views shared in the video are representative of Israelis, and the second agree that they are, but think these perspectives should be kept private. I want to respond to both of these.
With respect to the first group, I think these people need a wider education, perhaps more experiential, or their arguments are just failing to win me. As someone who has worked with Americans in Israel who have been exposed to the reality and begun to change their minds, I've noticed the hermetic character of the information bubble most American Zionists hold. Barely anything else gets in besides self-supporting arguments and where there exist openings on fundamental issues of justice that force American Jews to ask questions about Zionism, there is a fudge-ton of "team sport" type propaganda, imagery, and mythology that fills in.
I've toured American Zionists throughout Palestine and I've found that seeing the reality is very traumatizing for them because of the total righteousness their false justifications had given them. Sometimes it's painful to learn you were lied to and I believe for some this series of films has been pushing that button.
As to those holding the "keep this stuff private" view. It is impossible. Networked society has seen an explosion in communication channels that fall outside of the predominating restrictions and influences. Legitimation in a networked society is a much more difficult task for those who wish to peddle untruths. Networked communication has spawned a very real and immanent sense of universalism amongst human beings. This is why, in part, while fully functional, but perhaps archaic tribalisms seem so absurd and offensive on the internet.
I believe that those who simply want to keep this private are still relying on tribalism. It's very clear from the outtakes and editors cuts of Max's videos as well. People will speak for a bit and when they realize that this is the outside world, questions get asked. I'd say 50% of the interviews, more with Israelis behind the mic, Max or Joseph or Antony will be asked if they're Jewish - asking him details and assessing his acceptability. Following this the result is: (1) comfort and more spouting of tribalisms or (2) further questions as to either the intent or perspective of the interviewer (Interviewee: "Well, what do you think?" Interviewer: "I'm a journalist asking people here what they think.") These are met with a continuance of the perspective, perhaps with reservations, or an attempt to end the conversation. Max had a brilliant moment when a guy realized he's Jewish and tried to take him aside, ex camera, to tell him "what's really going on". This isn't at all an uncommon experience for journalists covering the issue amongst Israelis.
Even those who support Israel need to see that the world as it exists will support neither of these tactics. Education on issues is becoming more accessible and the tribalisms and us/them dichotomies have been increasingly challenged on a number of fronts, with humanism taking a greater hold.
Our website, www.thedailynuisance.com, is not up yet, but as TDN develops we will be producing video and hope to continue the conversations about them on Mondoweiss. Chief among the questions right now are: If these perspectives are so prevalent, where is it that they're coming from? Max and TDN are currently in production of a mini-doc "Siege on Dissent" that explores these questions, here is the trailer:
“”Barely anything else gets in besides self-supporting arguments and where there exist openings on fundamental issues of justice that force American Jews to ask questions about Zionism, there is a fudge-ton of “team sport” type propaganda, imagery, and mythology that fills in.”"
>>>>>>>
Absolutely true, and that is why on the internet, which is the only communication venue where it’s possible, people have been beating like h*** on that wall of denial.
“” I’ve found that seeing the reality is very traumatizing for them because of the total righteousness their false justifications had given them. Sometimes it’s painful to learn you were lied to and I believe for some this series of films has been pushing that button.”"
>>>>>>>>>
Also true by my observation. When a Jew or zionist does meet reality in places like Gaza they come back either incensed and start speaking against it or they go into a personal crisis funk trying to find some rational or excuse for it.
Selecting from American Zionists in Israel would be a very limited audience. Most Americans that are new to Israel (not all by any stretch), are there because of their new motivation to leave their relatively comfortably home in the US. To make aliyah, is already a high bar in commitment, and given the degree of criticism of Israel among the left, it would be unlikely to attract many that aren’t ideologically zealous.
If you undertook similar interviews of older non-American citizens, residents, immigrants, I would expect a much wider range of perspectives. Certainly, many would be similar, even more aggressive, but many would be far more liberal or have far more CURRENT conditional attitudes towards Israeli politics, and towards Arabs.
I’ve seen many film clips that demonstrate little or not discomfort, or feeling of threat between individuals on the street from different cultures, MUCH less than I would have expected after some period of actual terror on civilians, in cafe settings historically.
It was striking how much the street cafe scene was almost a resort setting.
I would be curious as to some filming of street scenes in Palestinian settings, what range of attitudes you’d encounter.
I’d bet that every American who “ascended” to Israel took a very leftist attitude chocked full of support for diversity and multiculturalism while they resided in the USA.
Richard,
I would also like to see similar interviews with Palestinians. It would show the degree of polarization and, I suspect, dehumanization of the Other that comes about from this increasingly festering situation. It might well provide enough balance to get the conversation going. This situation cannot continue without really severe consequences to both sides.
My experience with most Israelis on two occasions separated over a 20 year period were similar to what we see in that video. If one wants to argue with that, as Richard Witty can be counted on to do, all one needs to do is refer to the fact that 94% of Jewish Israelis were reported to have supported the war on Gaza, some even going so far as to bring lawn chairs to the border to watch as if they were at a 60s light show. When Israelis and their supporters express their concern about losing the “Jewish character” of the state, it is clear that has already happened. Israel is truly the blight among the nations and with itscollective mindset represents one of the greatest threats to the future of the planet.
Pingback: David Jacobus Responds to the Critics | ibn Ezra
Pingback: Twitted by witchescauldron
Yeah! Israel is about so much more … [via Twitter … where else?}
These little town Jews
Are melting away
back to the very heart of it
in old, New York!
I want to wake up…in a city that doesn’t THINK.
What if you get a person with split personalities? lol
For those who think the views in the video are untypical, check out this from 2007:
Racism in Israel on the Rise
Another poll by the Geocartography Institute came up with similar findings.
‘Marriage to an Arab is Treason’
Great piece, David. I’m looking forward to seeing your new website.
The Internet is indeed breaking down barriers. I just came across a blog by an ex-Zionist, Christian Evangelical who’s seeing the I/P conflict and Islam from a whole new perspective after talking to Arab-Americans on the web.
Shafiq–Do you have a link?
here
The internet really is breaking down barriers! I just saw a website by a former Jee Zionist who is now so dedicated to the Palestinian cause he’s going to go into a Holon pizzaria and blow himself up!!!! Inshallah.
This post violates one of the conditions set down by Phil and Adam as to commenting here. Stealing an ID, yet alone a real name, is verboten and just cause for kicking the offender of the blog for good.
Yet some tribalism has led the way in the evolution of human rights. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (including Palestinians) was the result of three decades of work begun by the World Council of Indigenous Peoples meeting in British Columbia in 1979. What could be more cosmopolitan than tribal leaders and scholars from all continents unifying to protect conservation cultures from states, markets, and transnational criminal enterprise?
I’ve noticed the hermetic character of the information bubble most American Zionists hold.
Had to stop reading and agree with this. If the Stl Jewish Light didn’t throw the occasional bone at a liberal reader (averaging once every three months or 12 issues, and even then a Zionist response inevitably follows), it would be like something out of North Korea.
On the headline.
The internet increases factionalism and tribalism as much as it confronts it or replaces tribalism with humanism.
No. The internet increases information available to average Americans that is not otherwise available–most especially as to the I-P issue. True, some of it is BS, way off kilter, but just as much is real fact
not otherwise available to average Americans who depend on the US MSM and
their governmental representatives, both elected and appointed.
Except that a GREAT deal of “facts” presented on the web are false, true only to the converted.
I do find it easier to read publications from multiple perspectives which is a help. But, its a help because I seek multiple perspectives, while MANY that read the interview don’t get that far, instead preferring repetition of supporting “fact”.
You are right, Witty. I think ideological divisions on the internet are as strong as ever. Browsing between a conservative blog, the NY Times, and a Zionist blog is like visiting three separate planets.
I would also like “humanism” to be better defined. It sounds too much like a floating signifier for “something good that we are that our opponents are not.”
Face to face respectful and respectable interaction with the “other” is THE primary means to break down tribalist excesses.
Sounds nice in theory, except if you’re in a relationship of power, contact may give you little more than the opportunity to be an a*hole.
But the USA MSM and the USA government has demonstrated to date nothing but
ass-kissing for the Hasbara POV.
The point is that SEEING a respectable real person is what breaks superstitions and prejudices in FACT.
I reject a thousand statements of rhetoric, even a thousand selectively cropped pictures.
A person is a “fact”.
Face to face interaction with the ‘other’ is rarely possible and even more rarely done. The Internet has changed all this and made it possible for people to interact with almost anyone.
Tribalism and humanism are, of course, not mutually exclusive. As Mr. Witty observes, respectful relations based on generosity are key. With reciprocity as an operating principle, tribal sovereignty and identity can be part of the strengthening of humanity through diversity. Multiculturalism, as such, brings with it the traditional knowledge essential to the survival of humankind.
What exactly is the operating component that makes tribalism and humanism equal in morality and ethics?
In the 1890′s following the acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory, people started applying it to modern social constructs. The Social Darwinists argued for the racial superiority theories of individual characteristics in races that survived, characteristics like bravery, ability to withstand pain, physical characteristics.
In contrast, Kropotkin (an anarchist) described that the most valuable evolutionary characteristic was the ability to cooperate, in all species, but most specifically advanced in human empathy and ability to communicate.
That is tribal.
The universal humanist characteristic may or may not enhance evolutionary social characteristics, or if applied rigidly, may hinder them (in the form of dogma).
In terms of evolutionary psychology it is *adaptive* to be altruistic to other members of a group who share many of one’s genes and who are likely to be altruistic in return.
Universalism is not very evolutionarily adaptive. In the long run, universalists are likely to be overrun and supplanted by groups that are happy to benefit from the altruism of the universalists, but then only reciprocate with members of their own group.
The oldest distinctive national/ethnic groups, (Jews and the Chinese, for example) have been extremely morally particularistic, and not at all altruistic to members of outgroups.
The Western intelligencia that support moral universalism most enthusiastically are part of a shrinking demographic.
But, the form of it that is “think globally, act ‘tribally’”, is both universalistic in attitude, and tribalistic in mutually aiding application.
One of the things the Internet has helped facilitate is a shared universal identity as members of a species under threat from man made disasters: climate change, microbial metamorphosis, and nuclear annihilation comprising the most overwhelming. Adapting organizationally to meet these challenges requires cooperation, even beginning from a point of self-interest. Solidarity in this sense, forms a nexus where self-interest and universal demands overlap; working with others who demonstrate a commitment to the shared values inherent in bedrock nations is simply common sense. Were this not so, tribal societies would not have bothered to develop such inclusive global networks in order to deal with these challenges. What is holding us back is not the extant aboriginal nations that preceded modern states, markets and religions by millenia, but rather the immature industrialized societies that have largely supplanted them. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.
1. ‘With an afternoon of filming interviews, we had to exclude a higher percentage of those that had what most would identify as a “Zionist” ‘
Your opening lays bare both the ideological prejudice and ignorance of the writer. He doesn’t define ‘Zionism’. To be accurate (not that that’s a priority with this series of videos), one would describe the anti-Arab/pro-settlement voices as ‘right-wing’ or ‘right-wing Zionist’.
2.” Max had a brilliant moment when a guy realized he’s Jewish and tried to take him aside, ex camera, to tell him “what’s really going on”. This isn’t at all an uncommon experience for journalists covering the issue amongst Israelis.”
It never happened to me in 2 years of reporting in Israel. Although I can remember a Palestinian preaching to me ‘off-the-record’ post-interview.
Pingback: Why the web is breaking down Zionist tribalism | Antony Loewenstein
Thank you so much for putting the flip side to the last video to show what is happening in Israel that is also not being show, the resistance movement against Israels policy.
It is so important that ALL the truth get out, not just some of it, so that the people can make a decision. My hats off to you Max for all your hard work.
What the internet is doing is showing a lot of people how utterly irrelevant tribal considerations are to them in the final analysis. This is an adaption that is sorely needed and that advantages those who see themselves as being the same as everyone else, and not separate from anyone or any group, by virtue of their shared humanity. This is the more advantageous perspective in the long run because it vastly increases the amount of resources available to those who hold it as opposed to those who don’t. Sharing resources cooperatively through a sense of shared humanity eliminates the need to use conflict in order to gain access to resources.
Tribal heritage — including original languages, songs, dance and art — contain within them the stories of the journey of man. More than anything else, they are essential to what it means to be human. Erosion of this identity through diaspora, industrialization and colonization has diminished our collective humanity. The recovery of this heritage in the Americas and elsewhere has begun to heal the historical cultural traumas, and indeed, formal tribal engagement with international institutions like the EU, UN and OAS, has demonstrated the benefit of formerly excluded traditional knowledge to the survival of humankind. Even for Euro-Americans, discovering tribal heritage can be an enriching and enlightening experience. One which illustrates the importance of autonomy in such things as education and governance for ancient nations like Sami, Scotland, Pais Basque and Slovenia. Celebrating diversity in tribal heritage is the foundation of multiculturalism; mandating the homogeneity of industrialism is not only anathema to indigenous values, it is also suicidal for all humankind.
It’s not necessary for anyone to turn their back on their tribal identity and culture in order to embrace shared humanity and for shared humanity to be the driving force behind decisions about how to behave towards fellow humans who come from different backgrounds. Just the opposite, in fact. We can each embrace our own cultural heritage (if we have one) while at the same time celebrating that of everyone else. The point is not to eliminate cultural differences, but to eliminate the “us versus them” mentality for the purpose of making decisions about how to behave toward our fellow humans who come from different cultures and tribal origins.
In the ongoing conflict between industrial and indigenous societies, it is helpful to remember who initially attacked whom. Conflict resolution requires acknowledging past wrongs by making amends in the present. Until industrial societies stop attacking tribal peoples, nothing fundamental can be achieved by international institutions.
I think we are using the term “tribal” in two different ways in this discussion. I think the term “tribalism”, in the larger context of this discussion, refers to an expression of behaving differently toward people who are from different cultures or backgrounds (or skin colors) than one behaves towards those like oneself, rather than the idea of people who live in tribal cultures. That’s certainly the meaning I had in mind in my two posts above – tribalism as an expression of an attitude toward other groups (as opposed to people living in tribal cultures). The kind of tribalism I am talking about is the source of the attitude that it’s ok for rich and powerful countries to do whatever they like to people who live in tribal societies. The tribalism in question in the context you mention in your post above is the attitude that people the rich and powerful societies deem primitive and/or backward don’t have the same rights of self-determination as those who live in rich and powerful countries, by virtue of being different and not belonging to the same group.
Since tribalism as a form of governance and way of life is under constant assault by states, markets and international institutions, it is probably better to refer to double standards of morality and ethics as exceptionalism. Given the pervasive sense of superiority of dominant societies toward indigenous peoples, less critical thinkers — liberal and otherwise — will often conflate these distinctions. Always best to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Prior to your post, I have never seen or heard the term “tribalism” used to refer to anything other than what you are calling exceptionalism. I have not ever heard or seen it used to refer to tribal societal structures. Websters dictionary doesn’t use it the way you are using it, either. If you have in mind to change the way the rest of the English speaking world is using the term, I think you have a very long job ahead of you.
Thank you for pointing this out, Sarah. Language, of course, changes over time along with consciousness. Definitions developed by dominant societies evolve as minorities acquire sufficient dignity in the minds of agents of dominion to alter old relationships. It appears that the derogatory sense of the term is now being challenged by the structural sense. Wikipedia has attempted to address this link to en.wikipedia.org
distinction.
Pingback: Fourth World Eye » Blog Archive » Tribalism