Before syphilis was baptized with its modern name, it used to be called the "French disease" in Italy, Poland and Germany, the "Italian disease" in France, the "Spanish disease" in the Netherlands, the “Polish disease” in Russia and the “Christian disease” in Istanbul. Something quite similar appears to be today the fate of overt racism. Bad people always seem to be bringing it from elsewhere. For some unfathomable reason nobody wants to claim ownership.
Thus, of all places in Israel, Yossi Gurvitz informs us that “disregard of human rights, contempt for democracy and the democratic process, and rampant racism towards 'uncivilized people', such as Asians or Muslims” are symptoms of the Soviet system, the portrait of a homo sovieticus.
To be clear, I don’t call Gurvitz “a racist,” a term that I believe should, for reasons of discursive hygiene, be reserved to those who advocate racial discrimination. “Identify the racist” is often a loser’s game, and merely replacing the figure of the homo sovieticus with that of a homo ashkenaz would achieve little that is worth achieving. What is worth achieving is understanding how racializing reinforces relations of power and domination. To do that one must start with dismissing Gurvitz’s defense, not in order to prove that he is indeed a racist, but to understand the work expressions such as homo sovieticus perform.
Gurvitz’s main defense is that he cannot be a racist because he has the facts on his side. Russian immigrants have measurably more racist attitudes. To argue with such facts would be to defy common sense. But racism almost always proceeds from facts. To be sure, fictional racism exists, witness Joan Peters, Alan Dershowitz and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These however are the exceptions. Racist arguments are generally based on facts, badly selected, misused and misinterpreted, but nonetheless facts. Racism is not ignorance of the other. On the contrary, it is a form of knowledge.
Russian immigrants do hold more authoritarian and racist news than average Jewish Israelis, but what Gurvitz does with facts such as this is crude. He presents a one tone stereotype of a “Lieberman voter.” Do really people vote for Lieberman because they are “isolated from the outside world?” Do issues of class, resource allocation, power and identity have nothing to do with that vote? Then he attributes that caricature to “the soviet system.” Is “blind acceptance of claims made by authority” really the result of living under the soviet system? I was born in a communist country, and the people I know took from the experience a general belief that claims made by state authorities are lies. Perhaps I am not as well informed about Soviet life as Gurvitz. Finally, he asserts that these racist attitudes inherent in Russians made Israel more racist, a very questionable claim. What motivates Gurvitz’s anger?
Gurvitz assures us that he knows all about Israel’s history. Unfortunately he shows little effort to draw insight from this knowledge. Let us begin with the end: Gurvitz says that “there is something exceptionally loathsome in an émigré whose politics are based on the idea of expelling the native population.”
Israel exists by virtue of Jews arriving from Europe and expelling the native population. Granted that what Lieberman is proposing is loathsome, how is it exceptionally loathsome relative to the very foundation of Israel and its continuing refusal to allow the return of the expelled Palestinians? Were not the Palmach troops composed of and led by émigrés? Isn’t the very expression of “exceptional” outrage here a mean to normalize and naturalize the original outrage?
The expulsion of 1948 is not only the foundational act of Israel’s creation. Crucially, it is the foundation of the distribution of wealth in Israel. By and large, Israelis possess wealth to the extent that they or their families were close to this act of original dispossession. The wealthiest, most powerful, most connected Israelis, which Gurvitz identifies, following Kimmerling, as “ahusalim” (secular Ashkenazi veteran socialist nationalists), were those whose families directly profited from the expulsion. The domination of this group over other subordinated groups was and is based on the control of the resources primarily grabbed through that expulsion. Itzhak Laor, reviewing Kimmerling, explains what happened next:
One by one, Kimmerling enumerates the sequence of cracks that appeared in Ahusal rule: Gush Emunim, the ultra-Orthodox, the Mizrahi Jews who have their origins in the Muslim countries and Shas, the immigration from Russia, the deprived Arabs. All these groups were created by the Ahusalim, or more precisely, were shaped by the Ahusalim into dependents, potential voters in return for loyalty, and turned into forces that at one stage or another shook off the need to kiss the hand of the Ahusal.(http://www.haaretz.com/
culture/books/wiped-out-1. 70743 )
Gurvitz thinks that being an “ahusal” is a pejorative. It needn’t be. It is the naming of a sociopolitical configuration. If you want to change a society, a good starting point is understanding it, mapping it, and indentifying how power flows in it. Political strategies follow from political analysis. For Gurvitz, the reason Israel is becoming more and more racist is because of the rise of various groups that are inherently more racist than the original ethnic cleansers. These groups are primarily religious Jews and Russians.
A clear political strategy follows from this racialized analysis of racism in Israel: we need to strengthen the power of the original ethnic cleansers and the people who benefitted most from that ethnic cleansing. The more power they have, the more liberal and democratic Israel will become. This is the upshot of Gurvitz’s homo sovieticus putdown for Lieberman. It is a plea for people outside Israel to support “ahusal” domination.
The alternative analysis that I propose, following Kimmerling, Laor, and others, is that, rather than other Jews being inherently more racist, it is precisely the various maneuvers of the ahusalim seeking to defend their privilege against challenges that has progressively moved Israel to ever increasing racism and violence. The original settlers opened the country to Arab Jews in order to avoid having to let the Palestinian refugees back in. Then the elite chose the economic path of militarization and war primarily to avoid having to share wealth with these same Arab Jews. Militarization lead directly to the occupation of 1967. After 1967, the territories became the tool for keeping the peace between the different sections of Israeli society, and in particular for building an alliance with religious Jews. This became even more important during Oslo, when settlements became an alternative welfare system while Israel itself went the neoliberal way, allowing the wealthiest Israelis to become ever wealthier. Finally, the Russian immigration itself was welcomed and encouraged in order to check the rising power of Shas and restore white power.
The often noted absence of a class and race perspective from the analysis of the conflict presented by the Israeli left is not merely a matter of a moral failure. The Israeli “left” cannot deal critically with its own class and race position because it is the political expression of racially constituted elite. This elite is looking for “peace” when and to the extent that it perceives it as a useful strategy for maintaining power and privilege, not only vis-à-vis Palestinians but also vis-à-vis all other sectors of Jewish society. Unfortunately, this very strategy explains why reconciliation with Palestinians has such a small constituency in Israel and why challenges to the power of this elite manifest themselves primarily as expressions of anti-Arab racism.
The upshot of this analysis is also clear. Supporting white Ashkenazi (ahusalim, if one prefers) domination in Israel, in addition to having no moral justification, is, to the extent that the past is any indication, a recipe for further disaster. That is a good reason why the racialization of “fascism” in Israel as a Soviet import that Gurvitz offers as analysis should be politely turned down.
Gabriel Ash is an activist and writer. Ash is a core member of IJAN (Inrternational Jewish Anti-Zionist Network), and he co-writes the blog Jews Sans Frontieres. He writes because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword and sometimes not. He welcomes comments at g.a.evildoer A T gmail D O T com.
Gabriel Ash writes a compelling argument. The bottom line is that singling out one group of Olim from another group of Olim, as though the latest are more culpable than the previous, is no different than harping over 1967, while ignoring the events of 1948 in regard to the Israeli-Palestinain issue.
I’m glad you wrote this article, Gabriel. Thank you.
“Gabriel Ash writes a compelling argument.”
He almost always does!
The truth is that all people are racist. Racism is an extreme form of nationalism and is in that respect an inevitable product of nationalism.
Racist feelings are not the problem– institutions that discriminate against certain populations and ethnicities are the problem. Racist institutions cause the problems for Israel, not racist people.
We would do a better job of fighting systemic discrimination by acknowledging that racism is a fact of modern existence– a product of culture and language and history that we will never eradicate. National literary traditions are premised on nationalism and thus to some degree racism. So when we teach our children English lit. or French lit or Italian lit, we are teaching them, in some respects, to be racists.
Set up institutions that are premised on non-discrmination and you will have done more to fight systematic racism than trying to argue that this or that population are the true racists. Racism is in the system of Israeli governance. Smash the system of governance– institute a new system, and eliminate the institutional racism.
“Racism is in the system of Israeli governance. Smash the system of governance– institute a new system, and eliminate the institutional racism. ”
When there is a peace agreement, a lot of these problems will evaporate.
“When there is a peace agreement, a lot of these problems will evaporate.”
That’s true. If only Israel wanted peace.
“The expulsion of 1948 is not only the foundational act of Israel’s creation. Crucially, it is the foundation of the distribution of wealth in Israel. By and large, Israelis possess wealth to the extent that they or their families were close to this act of original dispossession.”
A devastating sentence.
Excellent point. Explains US power too: An entire continent, moderate climate, ports on both oceans, got for a song!
“The Israeli “left” cannot deal critically with its own class and race position because it is the political expression of racially constituted elite. ”
I don’t see this in the parts of Israeli left I’m familiar with: East for Peace, Alternative Information Center, Hadash, Gush Shalom, Anarchists Against the Wall.
Perhaps you mean the Israeli center, the ruling class that runs Labor, Likud and Kadima. We have to be careful not to refer to any part of that as ‘left’ lest folks get confused.
The Israeli left is not part of the project of preserving Ashkenazi hegemony. They are part of undermining it by participating in projects like the (long past) Black Panters, supporting Mizrachi renewalists like Sami Shalom Shitreet, funding and supporting NGO’s that address problems of new immigrants, poor neighborhoods and development towns (often with Shatil/NIF help), and so on.
Of interest to any class and race analysis in Israel is that American immigrants are not part of the Ahusalim because they were generally speaking not party to the spoils of 1948. They arrived much later. And in large numbers, they form the backbone of staff at human rights and social justice organizations and funding organizations, not to mention the environmental movement. (And of course, among the settlers.)
When American Jewish olim join the struggle against racism and occupation in Israel, what ethnic trajectory are they following? Support for Ahusalim? I think not.
Gush Shalom:
How can you avoid undermining the foundations of Jewish supremacy and still allow refugees the right to return? It is called having one’s cake and eating it too – or perhaps living in a fantasy land. It is also not just the refugee problem that plagues Israel – rather it is the foundations of Israel – a theocratic “democracy” that are the problem – exactly that which they wish to avoid changing.
Do you understand what a theocracy is? It is rule by religious leaders. Israel is a state with a religious identity, but it is not a theocracy.
Allowing a right of return allows the Palestinians to have their cake and eat it, not the Jews, who would be at the mercy of Gentiles as they were for thousands of years before. We all know how that turned out, even if the lot of you couldn’t care less.
“not the Jews, who would be at the mercy of Gentiles”
But not you, Hophmi, you’re to smart to ever be in that position. And oh yeah, too tough! Yes sir, no Gentile is gonna push Hophmi around!
“We all know how that turned out” Yup, better keep away from those Gentiles. I’m sure you have nothing to do with them, and besides, some people enjoy being insulted.
“Of interest to any class and race analysis in Israel is that American immigrants are not part of the Ahusalim because they were generally speaking not party to the spoils of 1948. They arrived much later.”
A Canadian traveller to Palestine in 1938 noted in his diary that Tel Aviv was full of Americans (not necessarily all Jewish)
On the subject of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans in Ottoman/Mandate Palestine see pp. 20- and 179- in:
link to books.google.ca
A serious study of the history of modern Israel will show that the emergence of Netanyahu and Lieberman was perfectly predictable. They are the natural successors of David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin. As one looks at the political map in Israel one can see that future Zionist leaders, be they from Labor, Likud, Meretz or the religious nationals, will be no different and offer no change. The problem is Zionism and the solution is dismantling the Zionist framework and instituting a secular democracy that does not discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians.
Miko Peled in prior mondoweiss post.
predictable but not necessarily inevitable.
“predictable but not necessarily inevitable.”
Exactly! Don’t let the fact that it is, in fact, exactly what did happen, and (in case you didn’t know) nobody can go back and change it affect your arguement at all.
Agreed, racism is not the issue. It is the nature of the State.
The people of France are encircled by the French Border. They could be anything, of any culture, race, ethnicity and so on. Can the same be said of “The Jews”. Israel the so-called State replies, “We are diverse too. Every sort of complexion, hair color and texture, is on display.” And this catches most people up. It does me and I want to say Israel has a point. But something nags at one: French are not French the same way Jews are Jews. “Jew” is an arbitrary distinction and has nothing to do with the borders of any “State”. A Frenchman lives in France. He may or may not be, a Jew. Apparently, their are Chinese Jews, does this make them citizens of two states at the same time?
American Ashkenazis making their aliyah to Israel, upon coming face to face with Jews native to the Middle East, recognized them to be “Schwarze Jews.”
“The expulsion of 1948 is not only the foundational act of Israel’s creation. Crucially, it is the foundation of the distribution of wealth in Israel. By and large, Israelis possess wealth to the extent that they or their families were close to this act of original dispossession.”
Numbers to back this up? It makes sense. The people who have been around the longest in a society are often its wealthiest members.
But there are bigger problems with this Marxist analysis, which as usual is a vast oversimplification.
Question 1 for Ash to answer: If this “fascism” is really based in the Ashkenazi elite, why were laws like loyalty oaths and the like not offered until now? Why are members of the old guard, like Benny Begin, opposed to them? The answer is that this kind of authoritarianism is foreign to Israel, but not to the Soviet Jews who immigrated there.
The tribalism that sometimes characterizes FSU Jews is a byproduct of the persecution they faced in the Soviet Union, where, despite the deprivation of religion they faced under Communism, they were repeatedly reminded of their Jewishness through glass ceiling, militant anti-Zionism in state newspapers, political prisoners, and general societal antisemitism, all of this following the Holocaust, where their countrymen often turned on them. It is the same with FSU Jews in the US, who are generally more conservative than the rest of the American Jewish community. This is also, in part, similar to the hawkish attitudes one sees in former Communist countries; it is not an accident that countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are more likely to support hawkish US foreign policies than, sorry, Old Europe.
Lieberman’s views are typical for the FSU community. They are not typical of the Ashkenazi community. It’s as simple as that.
“Then the elite chose the economic path of militarization and war primarily to avoid having to share wealth with these same Arab Jews. ”
This is a very silly claim. Israel militarized because it is surrounded on all sides by enemy states. No militarization equals no Israel. There are a lot of arguments to be made about how the Ashkenazi elite looked down at the Jews from the Arab world (it was certainly par for the course back then given their background), but militarization is not one of them.
“Militarization lead directly to the occupation of 1967. ”
I’d say Egyptian militarization played as least as big a role.
“Finally, the Russian immigration itself was welcomed and encouraged in order to check the rising power of Shas and restore white power.”
This is, again, pretty silly. Russian immigration was welcomed because the state in the Jewish state, and there are over 3 million Russian Jews, most of them highly educated, and many of them proudly Jewish, if not observant.
“This elite is looking for “peace” when and to the extent that it perceives it as a useful strategy for maintaining power and privilege, not only vis-à-vis Palestinians but also vis-à-vis all other sectors of Jewish society.”
Do you have any evidence at all to back this up? Maybe, just maybe, the left wants peace because they’d like to have peace, you know? Not everything is a conspiracy.
“Unfortunately, this very strategy explains why reconciliation with Palestinians has such a small constituency in Israel”
It has a big constituency, but, you know, not everything with the Palestinians has been hunky-dory.
“That is a good reason why the racialization of “fascism” in Israel as a Soviet import that Gurvitz offers as analysis should be politely turned down.”
The analysis that there is fascism in Israel period should be turned down, because it isn’t true. Those who claim it do so simply so that they can argue that peace isn’t possible, providing a justification for killing Israelis in service of a one state bloodbath.
But you have no evidence. As I scroll back to the ends of your own paragraphs I see only opinions.
“You’re fond of saying that some sort of “marxist analysis” is a “vast oversimplification”. Fine, Mr Fukuyama, enlighten us. I don’t quite get your point with the little you’ve given us. ”
Not every Marxist analysis is a vast oversimplication. Perhaps vast oversimplication is the wrong word, becuase it implies that there is a kernel of truth in these assertion. But it’s mostly nonsense. The underlying fact that Israel has an Ashkenazi elite is of course true. They were the founders of the state for the most part, and many societies have a founding elite. And it’s also true that this has manifested itself ethnocentrism toward Jews from Arab countries, though that has greatly improved over time.
But the rest of it is nonsense.
“But you have no evidence. As I scroll back to the ends of your own paragraphs I see only opinions. ”
Evidence of what? Where exactly was the evidence in the piece I was responding to? It was a bunch of assertions, not citations. I tried to explain why the author was wrong. No evidence is offered for anything the Ash claims, from his amusing “Russian Jews were invited to check Shas” to his ridiculous “the elitists want peace to preserve white power” to the ludicrous and uber-silly “Israel militarized to keep down the Arab Jews.”
These are all conjecture with little basis in truth or fact.
You’re fond of saying that some sort of “marxist analysis” is a “vast oversimplification”. Fine, Mr Fukuyama, enlighten us. I don’t quite get your point with the little you’ve given us.
“I don’t quite get your point…”
Whatsamatter, kapok, didn’t go to Hebrew School? His point is simple, and simply wonderful! You frown darkly, and declaim in stentorian tones “The Jews, who would be at the mercy of Gentiles as they were for thousands of years before. We all know how that turned out, even if the lot of you couldn’t care less.”
Who needs a point with lines like that? The man is a veritable fountain of Ziocaine.
The Jews, who would be at the mercy of Gentiles as they were for thousands of years before.
yes, but where is the sympathy for the jews at the mercy of other jews for thousands of years before? everything would have been chocolate pudding and jazz records if not for the gentiles. just ask spinoza and his contemporaries about the tolerance in their community.
“yes, but where is the sympathy for the jews at the mercy of other jews for thousands of years before?”
Oh, really? Is that your big concern? What a bunch of nonsense, and what irrelevancy to this discussion.
Persecution generally leads to insularity among minorities. That’s not a big surprise. Of course, that insularity was more than equalled by the Catholic Church, who excommunicated people left and right during the same period. You know, when they weren’t accusing us of deicide and the like.
We didn’t massacre ourselves, chief.
In French there is an expression :
It can be translated as : “Resetting the clocks”, meaning, setting things straight.
The Russians are merely in the forefront of the current racist activity, or they merely fulfill the wish of the elite. This is why they were chosen for entry (other than being white), they were taken from desperate straits. They were the fall out from the wonderful capitalist salvation for Russia, which plunged people down 88% in their standard of living. One must know the difference between the puppets and the puppeteers, but that is as far as the analogy can go because both groups are culpable. This is what you tell a group of people who have been victimized – everywhere where the sole of your foot touches can become yours.
HOW TO CREATE BILLIONAIRES AND MASSIVE POVERTY
Read the section about the Russian “experiment” in capitalism