Hot-diggity-dawg: ‘Harper’s’ says Zionism may be immoral

by on December 15, 2009 66
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Two friends tonight told me excitedly about Joshua Cohen’s review of Yitzhak Laor’s book, The Myths of Liberal Zionism, in the new Harper’s. This piece strikes me as a high watermark in the American mainstream press’s treatment of anti-Zionism as anything other than leprosy and proves if it needs re-proving that after 50 years of purdah, and abeyance and obedience to the lobby, anti-Zionism is coming back into the house. (When will the Atlantic get the news?) Not available online yet, but Jeffrey Blankfort got me this excerpt:

The Myths of Liberal Zionism is a work of political critique as literary criticism, a treatment of statecraft as an adjunct to poetic craft, and it is also an attack on the famous writers of Laor’s generation, whom he reads as providing humanitarian cover for Israeli abuses. Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua, even David Grossman, who lost a son in the 2006 Lebanon war— Laor accuses these and others of sanctioning, through impotent dissent and empty rhetoric, the tragic status quo. Novelists who pen pietistic eulogies but have never resisted their governance; public intellectuals who absolve liberal guilt but have never directly opposed the moral compasses of their readership—“They shall not be cleansed.” According to Laor, the singular Myth of Liberal Zionism is Liberal Zionism itself. Like the beasts Behemoth and Leviathan, a Zionis liberalis is inconceivable to Laor, because whereas his Liberal believes in openness and the policies of empathy, his Zionist—more than a century after Theodor Herzl recalled Palestine as the Judenstaat— believes that millions can be denied their patrimony, dispossessed, abused, and even murdered in the name of Jewish statehood.

And piece ends with this $60,000 question:





Can a Zionist act morally if morality dictates Zionism’s erasure?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, US Politics

{ 66 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Nevada Ned says:
    December 15, 2009 at 1:31 am

    I don’t think it’s especially productive to frame the struggle as Zionism vs. anti-Zionism.
    Does “anti-Zionism” mean racial equality between Jews and Palestinians? Or does it mean that Israelis Jews will somehow be forced out? (This won’t happen).
    This frame allows Israeli leaders to claim that their very existence is in danger, etc. etc.
    If racial equality is the goal, say so in those words.

    Again, consider whether free-swinging attacks on Zionism per se may be counterproductive.

    • MRW says:
      December 15, 2009 at 3:18 am

      Guess you’ll have to wait to read the article, NV Ned. I’ll be out the door early to pick up this issue from Borders.

      Worldwide, no one is buying this our “very existence is in danger” business anymore — Netanyahu tried that at the UN last September — these biblical fantasies dont fit the 21st C when modern statecraft offers myriad solutions; besides they’re all anti-Gentile. More importantly, nobody cares: Israel squandered its goodwill. Now it has to face reality.

    • Shmuel says:
      December 15, 2009 at 3:24 am

      NN: Again, consider whether free-swinging attacks on Zionism per se may be counterproductive.

      Counterproductive in what sense, NN? Western countries, and particularly the US, have been “playing nice” with Israel and Zionism for over sixty years – actually getting softer and softer all the time, to the point that long-standing principles of foreign policy have become polite suggestions or been abandoned altogether. Yet Israeli leaders have never stopped claiming that “their very existence is in danger” for one second. What will change in Israeli policies if we manage to step up criticism of Zionism itself a little (more than that is clearly impossible at this point)? Will Israelis elect an extreme right-wing government? Will they weasel out of any meaningful peace talks? Will they murder hundreds of innocent civilians and oppress millions? Decent people have to stop being afraid to criticise Zionism for what it is – whether for fear of being labeled anti-Semites, or for fear of being “counterproductive”.

      Engaging Israel and Zionists hasn’t worked, and has actually made things worse for Palestinians. It’s time we tried something else, and there is no more solid basis for criticism than human rights and the fundamental equality of all human beings. The Gaza Freedom March is a great place to start. I am unable to go, but will be attending a fundraiser tonight. Support the march, write about about it, support BDS. Some Israelis may become more intransigent (those who were never very flexible in the first place), but others may eventually wake up and smell those little cups of strong coffee. I repeat, it’s not as if softer approaches have not been tried, and it is not as if BDS or the Gaza Freedom March are acts of violence (as some defenders of Israel have tried to claim – while “wondering” why there is no “non-violent protest”).

      • tree says:
        December 15, 2009 at 3:50 am

        Another one of your stellar responses, Shmuel, as usual.

        If you don’t mind, I’ve been meaning to ask your opinion of this piece by Akiva Orr:

        Israel: Not a Jewish State, A Zionist State

        If you have the time, could you give me your opinion on his reading of Judaism, “lapsed Jews”, morality and Israel. Some of this, particularly his discussion of Judaism, is beyond my ken, and I’m not sure how to judge the accuracy of his analysis. I’ve read other things by Orr that I found compelling, but I’m at a loss on this one to some extent.

        • Shmuel says:
          December 15, 2009 at 3:57 am

          Thanks, tree. I’ll have a look at it a little later. Busy busy day.

        • tree says:
          December 15, 2009 at 4:02 am

          Thanks. And I, on the US West Coast, have had a long night and am ready for bed. I hope your busy day goes well. Good night.

        • Shmuel says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:38 am

          Good morning, tree,

          I’ve read Orr’s article, and frankly, there’s very little in it I agree with. He basically ignores over two centuries of Jewish religious, cultural and social development, in favour of an extremely narrow-minded vision of Judaism – both religious and secular – shared by only the most extreme of Jewish fundamentalists. The whole article is permeated by a classic Israeli attitude to religion (and consequently to Jewish secularism), often referred to as the “the synagogue I don’t attend is Orthodox” syndrome. Even his analysis of Jewish Orthodoxy is way off mark – historically, sociologically and theologically.

          In short, I may agree with Orr’s politics and attitudes to Zionism, but Ifind his analysis superficial and extremely inaccurate.

          If there are any specific points you (or anyone else) would like to discuss, I’d be happy to do so.

        • Shmuel says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:57 am

          By the way, I don’t think there is any denying the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. It’s not my kind of Judaism, and I believe it betrays many aspects of ancient and modern Jewish thought and experience, but then again, neither is the Judaism Orr touts as (exclusively) authentic, based on the rather illogical premise of universal recognition (i.e. accepting only the most extreme viewpoint).

        • potsherd says:
          December 15, 2009 at 11:35 am

          I am very surprised there isn’t more outrage in more liberal Jewish circles about the woman arrested at the Wall for wearing a prayer shawl and carrying a Torah scroll. In short, arrested for practicing Judaism in Israel.

        • Chaos4700 says:
          December 15, 2009 at 11:39 am

          There wouldn’t be, because they aren’t told about it. Or in the case of “liberals” of Witty’s strain, they just ignore it and pretend like it never happens.

        • tree says:
          December 15, 2009 at 5:37 pm

          Thanks for taking the time to read it and give me your thoughts. I suspected his take on Judaism might be wrong or too simplistic but I don’t have much of a theological background in any of the 3 Abrahamic religions to be a good judge on such matters. Growing up I always found it difficult to relate to any of them, as they all seemed too anthropocentric to be accurate or meaningful from my perspective.

          I think Orr may have a point somewhere in there about “lapsed Jews” and symbol-worship but this is probably not the place to get into such a detailed discussion, and I have to pack for the start of my vacation tomorrow. Again, thanks for your input and effort. Its much appreciated on my part.

        • potsherd says:
          December 15, 2009 at 5:44 pm

          A lot of secular apologists for Israel still insist it is a “secular state,” but I think they haven’t been paying attention for the last few decades.

        • Shmuel says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:18 pm

          My pleasure, tree. Have a good vacation.

      • James North says:
        December 15, 2009 at 9:27 am

        Characteristically brilliant, Shmuel. You point out that the Richard Witty approach — talk nicely to them — has had more than 60 years, and failed.

        • Richard Witty says:
          December 15, 2009 at 9:33 am

          Who talk nicely to whom (are you referring James)?

        • Chaos4700 says:
          December 15, 2009 at 10:05 am

          And what does “who” mean, really? It’s such a subjective term. And “subjective” is so… er, subjective, too. Maybe we should talk in circles some more and ignore the Wittypocrisy.

        • James North says:
          December 15, 2009 at 10:06 am

          (Re)read Shmuel’s post, the one that begins “counterproductive in what sense. By the way, it is not so cold in New York today.

        • Citizen says:
          December 15, 2009 at 10:50 am

          He’s referring to your strong stance that BDS is subversive of peace; leaving
          humanists with nothing but words, words ignored by our elected officials and our news media. And you know it. Why should we not to BDS when USA citizens have never even been told by our news media of the main motive for the largest direct attack on the USA in our whole history?

          link to youtube.com

        • Richard Witty says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm

          James,
          You didn’t clarify your post. I still don’t know who you are referring to.

        • Richard Witty says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:22 pm

          Citizen,
          You and others complain that your story isn’t being told in the mass media, whereas I suggest that it is, much moreso than has ever occurred in the past.

          The New York Times has published material, including an op-ed by a Hamas minister a few months ago, that never would have seen the light of day five years ago.

        • Chaos4700 says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm

          Witty? If you’re going insist upon acting ignorant, be prepared to be treated as such.

          And the NYT wouldn’t have been published even a year ago. It’s only because Israel’s actions have finally gotten so atrocious and visible (particularly Operation Cast Lead) that the NYT can’t really avoid it. The fact that you readily attest to the historic lack of exposure in the same breath that you disregard it (a fine example of Wittypocrisy, as it happens) pretty well attests to that.

          And lets not forget other avenues that are making Israeli intervention into American politics painfully visible. Such as Joe Lieberman, and Rahm Emmanuel, and their relationship to Democratic Party politic in general and health care reform specifically. Let’s be blunt — would Joe Lieberman still be the Committee Chair for Homeland Security if it weren’t for Zionist backing?

        • Donald says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:54 pm

          “The New York Times has published material, including an op-ed by a Hamas minister a few months ago, that never would have seen the light of day five years ago.”

          A tacit admission that the NYT has been biased. And still is. Witty didn’t really have a sensible response (except for that old standby “everyone sucks”) when someone brought out the contrast between the coverage of Shalit and the various peaceful Palestinians who’ve been locked up.

          Publishing a Hamas minister’s piece is nice, but actually, the NYT and the MSM often do allow some representative of “the enemy” to make a brief appearance. The rule is this–you let some Enemy spokesman make his sales pitch once in a while, but most of your coverage is given to Americans (or Israelis) who attack everything they have to say. You don’t have columnists who regularly cast doubt on the claims of the pro-Israeli side. The only NYT columnists who ever mention the I/P conflict are Friedman and Brooks, and both accepted the Gaza War as a just Israeli response–Friedman speculated in a coldblooded way as to whether dropping bombs on them educated the Palestinians.

          I remember how the Central American conflicts were covered in the MSM–it was the same thing. The only people on the McNeil/Lehrer show who were radically critical of US policy would be Sandinista officials. Oh, they’d have Democratic congressmen on too, but they were as spineless then as they are now, with rare exceptions. The unspoken message–if you are intensely critical of US policy you’re a Commie foreigner. The same unspoken message is sent when the only people in the NYT who are intensely critical of Israel are Hamas guest columnists.

    • Les says:
      December 15, 2009 at 7:25 pm

      Nevada Ned’s observation that this is about racial equality, assumes that the Zionists are white and the Palestinians are not. His is still another reminder of how racist the US media is.

  2. DICKERSON3870 says:
    December 15, 2009 at 2:25 am

    RE: “Can a Zionist act morally if morality dictates Zionism’s erasure?”
    MY COMMENT: A most “inconvenient” question!

  3. OhioJoes says:
    December 15, 2009 at 2:36 am

    I think we have to ask Phil to stop using the word Zionism for two days. Then we’ll see who really has ziocaine withdrawal!

  4. Richard Witty says:
    December 15, 2009 at 4:11 am

    Liberal Zionism is the best of possible worlds.

    Israel that is enough, not less than enough, not more than enough.

    Live and Let Live.

  5. Richard Witty says:
    December 15, 2009 at 4:46 am

    “Can a Zionist act morally if morality dictates Zionism’s erasure?”

    There is a partially analagous question, “Can a person in a body that will die act morally if entropy dictates that body’s erasure?”

    Zionism is Jewish self-definition, Jewish self-governance in a body.

    The only relevant question that I can see short of in some way urging that Jews not be Jews, is the question of whether that needs to occur in a specific place, or is better for Jews and the world, if more decentralized.

    The same question occurs with every “cult”. Chritianity faced it early. Yoga movements faced it. Anarchism faced it. Islam faced it.

    In the case of modern Jewish community, my sense is that BOTH is the most moral answer. Those that desire to assemble in Israel, should do so and confidently (even if that requires a state to be confident of it), and those that desire to do so in Massachusetts, or New York suburbs, or Seattle, should do so.

    And, those that cannot acknowledge that any Jews should be free to self-assemble, should acknowledge that “hidden” within their liberation ideology, is a very strong urge to suppress.

    • Citizen says:
      December 15, 2009 at 9:34 am

      Nothing inherently wrong with a very strong urge to suppress. Some things need to be suppressed. I’m sure you can think of some. And some things need to grow. Again, I’m sure you can think of some. Everybody should be free to”self-assemble”–perhaps the Maslow model is appropriate? How about a ringworm? A cancer cell? How about
      a neoNazi cell? How about beautiful vines that yet weaken the bricks they lace? How about a fetus? Were the crusades worthy of enabling or suppressing? Dandylions
      may be dug up as weeds spoiling the lawn, or they may be seen as pretty flowers, and also a source of food. Why do you question the word, as “cult”? What is
      a cult to you, Dick Witty? Your comment seems to say that the subject(s) are
      not dual in nature. Why so either/or in your thinking? The net effect of Zionism
      is there for all to see as a practical matter. Both enabling and suppression are
      viable options considering the real Golem come to life.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      December 15, 2009 at 10:11 am

      Zionism is Jewish self-definition, Jewish self-governance in a body.

      Can you implement that without either oppressing or ethnically cleansing non-Jews? Because if you can think of a way to do that, you really need to build a time machine and go back sixty years or so to fix that.

      Meanwhile, the rest of us have to deal with Zionism as it exists — the racism, the crimes against humanity, the targeting of innocent civilians with rhetoric AND bullets — while you’re off pursuing your wild daydreams.

      • Citizen says:
        December 15, 2009 at 11:22 am

        Bet you never knew Goldilocks carried an Uzi gun. And that the teddy bears were
        Palestinians. Dick Witty gets to be as he says, thanks to (nearly all non-Jewish) GIs; they volunteered, in that new sense of “volunteer” determined by the USA’s dismal
        economic conditions. There’s considerable archeological and sociological support for the claim that the biblical Jews were never actually slaves in ancient Egypt. There’s much more support that the average volunteer GI is not really a volunteer.

  6. jan_gdyn says:
    December 15, 2009 at 8:31 am

    Since when is Harper’s considered mainstream?

  7. Chaos4700 says:
    December 15, 2009 at 10:08 am

    Wow. Witty’s working overtime on this thread so far that he completely missed this and this thread.

    But hey! That’s the Wittypocrisy we’ve all come to know and love, right?

  8. Chaos4700 says:
    December 15, 2009 at 10:49 am

    And, perhaps debatable as far as topical value goes, but I think it’s still relevant to the exclusivity against liberalism (or really, any ideology) that Zionist fraternal society in the US imposes:

    link to msnbc.msn.com

    Take note — Lieberman threatens to filibuster health care reform entirely — a complete betrayal of his stated position several months ago. Rahm Emmanuel’s response? Protect Lieberman at the expense of health care reform.

    What do they have in common? I forget.

    • Citizen says:
      December 15, 2009 at 11:43 am

      The easy question is, why can’t we give all Americans the same health insurance and services Mr Lieberman gets? How does his flip-flopping address that question?

      • Chaos4700 says:
        December 15, 2009 at 12:01 pm

        Perhaps, but the more vital question is: Why does Lieberman dominate Democratic Party politics? Recall that at one point he was even a Vice Presidential candidate — that’s how much the party has bent over backwards for him. And now he’s not even a Democrat, technically, anymore. So… where is his influence coming from, exactly…?

        • James Bradley says:
          December 15, 2009 at 6:42 pm

          I wonder the same thing everyday.

          The guy betrayed his party, gave a speech against his parties presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention ALONGSIDE the opposing presidential candidate.

          He declared himself an independent but he is still given major positions in the Democratic party.

          wtf is going on.

  9. Citizen says:
    December 15, 2009 at 11:41 am

    I propose that all white male Americans enslave themselves to the reality trends, both in terms of individual rights and in terms of gender (and ethnic) priority (lumping all mothers as simply entitled because of the mere existence of kids, and the bias towards mothers in relation to kids, unfounded or not). It’s only fitting because white males
    today have been born with a debt owed to everyone else. Call it privilege, the privilege to pay for others’ lack of good practical judgement. Sound good? I knew you’d agree. We especially need to make sure those Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans pay their due.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      December 15, 2009 at 12:06 pm

      Ugh. I honestly don’t get it, Citizen. It’s like I can agree with you 80% and then you start talking like… this.

      Take a look at how many white males are up there in that 10% who control 90% of the capital of this country. Who’s really steering this debate? More importantly, who do you really need to be directing your attention to? Because in my view, it’s the other white males who oppress me, even though I’m a white male, that are the biggest threat to me.

  10. potsherd says:
    December 15, 2009 at 11:42 am

    What anti-Zionism does is to attack Zionist Israel’s legitimacy. This is the latest verse in the hysterical Zionist chorus, that Israel is being “delegitimatized” by attacks on its crimes.

    And so it is, and so it should be, except that it is Israel’s own actions that have eroded the acceptance of its legitimacy over the decades. Israel was never legitimate. It should never have been recognized as long as it persisted in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. From the outset, it was in violation of the terms of its recognition, and it has since gone from bad to worse.

    Delegitimatization of Israel won’t bring about its nonexistence. What it does is point out the truth – that Israel’s existence rests solely on military force, not right or law.

    • Citizen says:
      December 15, 2009 at 11:57 am

      Yes, Israel’s existence does rest on military power. But international recognition rests on Truman’s needing campaign financing, and the USSR-USA diplomatic cold war counterpoint tactics applied at the time, and the behind-the-scenes economic threat by the USA (and even by some Jews who pretended they were officials of the USA government) to a few
      small nations who desperately needed USA foreign aid (as a result of WW2), and so took UN recognition of Israel
      over the top as UN recognition.

      It’s true that from the outset, the newly recognized Israel was in violation of the terms of its recognition by the influential world (not the Arab world). The issue is,
      does Israel’s actions for many decades conform with the very UN, and originally American, blessing on what is an acceptable member of the world community?

  11. Pingback: Arab News Blog » Zionism is immoral …

  12. MHughes976 says:
    December 15, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    It’s clear surely that if morality calls for something the only moral thing you can do is comply with that call.
    I don’t know what definition of ‘Zionism’ is offered by Laor. To my mind, it’s ‘the belief that all Jews have, by divine donation or something of equivalent moral force, the right to a share of sovereignty in what some call ‘Palestine’; no other claim could have comparable validity’ . This really entails that no other claim, even one with the strongest foundation in normal morality, has any validity at all. It does seem extremely hard to pursue this idea in any liberal way.

  13. bigbill says:
    December 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Laor got Brother Daniel wrong. Orthodox Jews in Israel said he was a Jew. An apostate Jew, granted, but a Jew.

    Secure in their own identity, they accepted Brother Daniel’s return home to Israel, recognizing that he would have been killed by the Nazis under the Nuremberg Laws.

    Secure in their own ethnicity and religion, they knew that Brother Daniel could not harm them.

    The secular Jews, however, could not abide Brother Daniel, for they were secular. They were empty and vacant and unable to resist even the pathetic attempts of one old Christian priest to proselytize their children.

    The Supreme Court of Israel split the baby: it admittedthe painful truth (for seculars) that Brother Daniel was indeed a Jew, and therefore permitted to make aliyah. However, it said that Brother Daniel, as a Christian was a threat to the Jewish nation (!) and therefore could not become an Israeli citizen.

    All Christians should reflect deeply on this, the fundamental Jewish neurosis.. The Maskilim are the true neurotics., not the Orthodox. The Maskilim cannot tolerate the Orthodox because they are so un-Christian, so un-Western, so un-Modern, so … so … embarassing and unenlightened. Yet the Maskilim view the existence of one Jewish apostate priest is Israel as a threat to their very existence, when if fact the Orthodox Jews — the REAL Jews — are completely indifferent.

    • Shmuel says:
      December 16, 2009 at 4:16 am

      Bigbill,

      Where did Laor get Brother Daniel wrong? Have you read the Harper’s article?

      Regarding your comments: The Orthodox (or halakhic) view on the question of “who is a Jew” has nothing to do with Nuremberg or identity, but is a point of (religious) law. Halakhah shows little sympathy for apostates, although they are indeed technically considered Jews. I don’t know of any Orthodox leaders who sought to defend Brother Daniel’s right to Israeli citizenship as a Jew and, in fact, the minority opinion on the Supreme Court (Haim Cohn) accepted Daniel’s appeal on liberal, rather than religious grounds.

      Your assertion that secular Jews are “empty and vacant” is rather strange, unless you yourself are a religious fundamentalist who believes that any life without divine authority is “empty”. Secular Jews (or non-Jews), as such, are no “emptier” than their religious counterparts. Furthermore, the decisions taken by the Israeli government and Supreme Court with regard to Brother Daniel had little to do with fear of proselytization (as a matter of fact that has always been primarily an Orthodox bugaboo in Israel – see eg. the Orthodox “Yad Le’Achim” anti-missionary association), and everything to do with (secular) Zionist conceptions of a “Jewish state”.

      I agree that Christians (and everybody else) should reflect deeply on this – not because converted Jews are denied the privileges accorded to Jews in Israel, but because Jews are accorded such privileges in the first place! The problem is not secularism vs. Orthodoxy. The problem is Zionism and other forms of racism. Even non-Zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel sharply criticise the Law of Return for letting in too many non-Jews. You are right however, that secular Jews in Israel tend to hold Orthodox Jews in contempt (and vice versa).

      Your definition of who is a “REAL Jew” is rather ahistorical, to say the least.

      One final note: Your use of the word “maskil” is incorrect. The Haskalah was the European movement of Jewish Enlightenment. Although it contributed to nearly all subsequent Jewish streams and movements (including a number of Orthodox streams), it was neither inherently Zionist nor inherently secular. It’s founder (Moses Mendelssohn) was an Orthodox Jew, and many of its leading exponents were Orthodox or traditional. The Haskalah was about modernity, general education and integration into European society – values that many successfully combined with a commitment to Jewish religious tradition. The correct Hebrew term for secular Jews is “hilonim” (sing. “hiloni”). The term “maskil” is a historical one, and when used in a contemporary context simply means “widely educated”, and can refer to Jews or non-Jews of all religious convictions.

Leave a Reply