We’ve already gone after Colin Shindler’s irresponsible piece in the New York Times yesterday that rubbed out the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism because he relied on a dubious quote attributed to Nasrallah.
The piece is also irresponsible because it whitewashes the Nakba and the occupation, by framing contemporary anti-Zionism in an earlier generation’s dewy-eyed vision of Israel:
Given the deep remorse for the misdeeds of colonialism, it was easier for the New Left of the 1960s to identify with the emerging Palestinian national movement than with the already established social democratic Israel….
AMID this rising hostility toward Israel, the French philosopher and political activist Jean-Paul Sartre advocated a different way forward. He was scarred by the memory of what had happened to France’s Jews during World War II — the discrimination, betrayals, deportations and exterminations. He understood the legitimacy of Israel’s war for independence and later commented that the establishment of the state of Israel was one of the few events “that allows us to preserve hope.” Yet Sartre also strongly supported Algeria’s fight for independence from France.
This double legacy of supporting Israel and the Algerian struggle symbolized the predicament of the entire postwar European left.
The obvious answer to this is, That was a long time ago. We’ve learned a lot since about the virgin birth of Israel involving the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians. Ilan Pappe’s book about this is a core text at any anti-Zionist gathering. And today there is apartheid in a colonized Palestine and even Jeff Halper warns that the Algeria model is gaining ground among activists.
More of Shindler’s blindness:
as Israeli settlements proliferated after 1977, strengthening the left’s caricature of Israel as an imperialist power and a settler-colonial enterprise.
Why is that a caricature? It’s not. Palestinians talk about ethnic cleansing because they are being forced out of their homes in East Jerusalem and in Area C. Why isn’t settler-colonial a precise characterization– with some messianism thrown in?
Then this mischaracterization of the left:
Sartre understood that the conflict was not simply between Israelis and Palestinians, but between those advocating peace on both sides and their rejectionists. This conflict within the conflict is something that many on Europe’s left, as they ally themselves with unsavory forces, still fail to comprehend.
This is inaccurate. The organized left I associate with is generally for BDS, a call that originated in 2005 and is a nonviolent means of seeking to resolve a conflict that involves the destruction of a historic consensus on partition (Oslo) by the fact that one side has occupied the entire land.
The piece identifies Shindler as “author of ‘Israel and the European Left: Between Solidarity and Delegitimization.’” But as the late sociologist Daniel Bell said in the 1970s, post-Vietnam, delegitimization is an inevitable tool of critics when a society faces an insoluble fundamental problem that involves racial discrimination and militarism.
And again I’d point out, there’s an op-ed editor at the Times, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who wrote a fine book on Israel and South Africa in which he stated that Israel was a “pariah” state. He ascribed this status to Israel’s policies, not to anti-Semitism.
Weiss writes: “Palestinians talk about ethnic cleansing because they are being forced out of their homes in East Jerusalem and in Area C. Why isn’t settler-colonial a precise characterization– with some messianism thrown in?”
Yes, ethnic cleansing includes on-going, current crimes.
But never forget the ethnic cleansing that produced the exiles (called refugees) of 1948 and 1967. Palestinians remember these, too, even if “dewy-eyed” romancers of “the virgin birth of Israel” prefer to forget them or to say that because the creation of Israel was justified (as they claim), the means adopted to create it (terrorism 1945-5/1948, war after 5/1948) were likewise justified.
The moral problem for Zionists who say that BDS is correct as to ending the occupation and all other current (i.e., post 1967) Israeli crimes, is to say that it is wrong to seek to correct the Israeli crimes of 1945-48.
One help for Zionists (of the “a Jewish State was needed” sort) would be to observe that the “need for a Jewish State” is not (when so expressed) a recipe for a Jewish state of any particular size (or place). And if it is all but universally agreed that Israel has no right (and no need) for the territories it captured in 1967, it may also be agreed — in time — that Israel has no need for ALL of the territory it captured in 1948. If Israel would agree to withdraw from all its post-1967 gains and also from a significant chunk of its pre-1967 territory, then the “return” of Palestinians called for by BDS would be far less onerous to Israelis since a part of the Palestinian exiles would “return” to the “significant chunk” (their own particular ancient homeland) and fewer would seek to “return” to reduced-Israel, and the Jewish Character of Israel would thereby be protected from the (as Israelis see it) onslaught of the “returning” exiles.
(Boy, did Judah Magnes call it right when he said the attempt to create a nation built on bayonets and oppression was not worth doing even if it succeed.)
Israel’s and Zionists’ anticipated refusal to consider such a minimized Israel shows that their project was not just for a “necessary” Jewish State. but for the biggest Jewish State they could (by force of arms, propaganda, and otherwise) achieve. That being so, it may be time to stop listening to exculpatory explanations of the “dewy-eyed” “virgin birth” folks.
The best response to those who dismiss the settler-colonialist nature of Zionism/Israel as a figment of the leftist imagination is to point to the mass of historical evidence showing that from Herzl right up until the interwar period the Zionists saw themselves as engaged in a colonialist enterprise. It did not enter their heads to deny such an obvious fact. They were even proud that Jews too could be colonialists. Of course, at that time colonialism was a respectable and admirable thing for the European ruling classes among whom the Zionists sought support. Then after WW2 colonialism became disreputable and — hey presto! — all this is wiped from the slate as though it had never been. Suddenly associating Zionism with colonialism becomes an obscene leftist slander. But the sleight of hand can only work where people are deeply ignorant of history.
I think there is a sustantial difference between a traditional colonial project and the Zionist one. The traditional colonialists – also the settler colonialists in America or South Africa – they had a parent-country. The Zionists wanted early on and to this day (RE)CEATE their parent-, mother-land by INGATHERING all Jews. – I think that’s unique and uniqueness is what befits the Zionists.
You mean the Jews who came to Palestine had no parent countries? No citizenship or nationality? I mean I know they were treated like crap by those countries but to deny that they had nations/states that they came from seems a stretch to me.
And in terms of the effects on the local Palestinian population – well that’s been just as devastating hasn’t it? Oops, sorry to mention that – I forgot that we must only support the narrative of Jewish self-determination without ever looking at the costs. After all, that’s the normal, colonial way to look at it. If only those natives didn’t have such high birth rates!!
” The Zionists wanted early on and to this day…”
Klaus, what the Zionists “wanted” is irrelevant. What they said they wanted is also pretty irrelevant. What actually happened is what we use to define the Zionist effort as “colonialism”.
I don’t want to shock you, Klaus, but it’s much easier to try and figure out what actually happened, and name it, than what people “want”. And even more shocking, Klaus, Jews don’t always get what they want.
And, uh, BTW, didn’t many, many colonial exploits stem from private means (nobility) or non-state (even if “chartered”) agencies, you know, “companies”? Why wouldn’t the world-wide Zionist effort (well delineated with proffesional organisations) towards political minipulation and fund-raising count as a parent agency? I mean, just saying, you know.
“I think that’s unique and uniqueness is what befits the Zionists.”
“Unique” Klaus? As little as I like the entire thing, I am forced to admit they are just people. In what way “unique”?
Of course, I can’t get get away from the fact that you may have meant to write “benefits” instead of “befits”. Why not save a few key-strokes?
-“Unique” Klaus? … In what way “unique”? [the Zionists]
- “benefits” instead of “befits” ?
————————————-
Mooser,
I meant “uniqueness is what befits the Zionists” – in their own minds.
I hate to say also that’s why they stress the ‘uniqueness’ of the Holocaust.
(Not because the way the Holocaust was carried out was unique – but because its victims were ‘unique’ – See Abe Foxman on the Holocaust.)
couple of problems with that. their “parent-state” never existed. there was not ever a unified monarchy in palestine as a jewish state. secondly the Israel than was about anywhere from a half to a fifth of the size of modern day Israel. if state rebirths in the past couldn’t encompass the extent of their previous territory why should a jewish state of Israel be getting more than it ever encompassed. thirdly their parent states weren’t the mythical united kingdom but the countries they came from. there was nothing unique in regards to zionism. it was just another attempt to use force to steal from others.
There was no “parent state” and in that sense it was an unusual sort of colonialist project. But there was a series of “patron states” — foster parents who looked after the child in succession. Britain was the first patron or foster parent, then the Soviet Union (late 1940s to early 1950s), then France and finally the USA.
I’ve read the claim to the Americas read out by Vasco de Balboa as he founded the colony of Panama: ‘Long live the high and mighty princes Don Ferdinand and Dona Juana, in whose name I lay claim to all these coasts and islands’ (from memory). It was situated rather fittingly in a hotel that has taken over the former premises of the famous School of the Americas. There’s a difference between claiming new land for your existing country and claiming land for colonists without regard to their existing countries and between an intention to exploit (or even to ‘civilise’) the existing population and an intention to remove it. There’s a difference between belief in divine right and belief in a right which can be divine or secular according to preference. In these differences we find the unique atmosphere that surrounds Zionism and the uniquely determined, uniquely angry commitment that sustains it.
Yes Stephen. And as you said in your first comment on the matter, colonialism wasn’t a bad thing at the time of early Zionism. They sold their project as ‘bringing the Orient closer to Europe by civilizing the primitive Arabs, getting them modern agriculture, sanitation etc.’ (there is some truth to that).
By the way, since you are Jewish, is your name the anglicised version of the German ‘Schönfeld’ (beautiful field)?
Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End
Daniel Gordis
2009 National Jewish Book Award
Clearly, peace is not a national priority for Israeli Jews.
“conflict was not simply between Israelis and Palestinians, but between those advocating peace on both sides and their rejectionists”
Rejection won in Israel, and the book prize I am citing is merely an example. Rejection won because inside Jewish community there are no rational arguments why Palestinians should be accommodated: an extreme fringe argues that this would be a moral thing to do — a rather extreme position to include moral consideration regardless of the national interest — while the moderate opposition for years was arguing that rejection would undermine Israel standing among the nation — which it did not.
It follows that
1. unconditional support of Israel is the support of rejectionists in Israel and opposition to moderates in Israel, in other words, it is the support of “war that may never end”
2. the fight for the unconditional support of Israel uses labels like “new anti-Semitism”, “delegitimization”, “Lefto-Islamofascism” to preserve the “war that may never end”.
3. our Establishment (which apparently includes Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations while the leaders of major Protestant churches are in extreme opposition as defined above) form a War Party. At this point I like to link to link to youtube.com
Colin Shindler’s irresponsible … rubbed out the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism … dubious quote attributed to Nasrallah. – Phil
—————————————————————————-
I don’t understand why Phil goes along with Shindler’s interpretation of the supposed Nasrallah quote – rubbing out a distinction. The quote is opaque on the distinction between “the Jew” and “the Israeli”. Whether the quote is authentic is an alltogether different matter.
One has to point to Shindler’s own rubbing out the distinction when he writes:
“a majority of Israelis happen to be Jews.” What counts is obviously not their Israeli citizenship but their being Jews. (See my comment above.)
“a majority of Israelis happen to be Jews.”
Not, of course, as a result of any sort of planning or conscious decision. It was just chance that it worked out that way.
“I don’t understand why Phil goes along with Shindler’s interpretation of the supposed Nasrallah quote – rubbing out a distinction.”
You sir, spend way too much time on distinctions without differences.
I’m going to forward both this and the other piece to the NYT public editor. I suppose the justification the NYT might give is that it is an opinion piece, but there ought to be some standards of accuracy for these things and apart from the Nasrallah quote, to ask why Israel was criticized before the 1967 occupation without mentioning the Nakba is like asking why people criticized Mississippi for its treatment of blacks before Jim Crow was established. (Well, you see, there was this institution called “slavery”).
On Nasrallah and Jean Paul Sartre
——————————————————
The supposed Nasrallah qoute on the Jews reads:
- “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice I do not say the Israeli.”
And here is a quote by Jean Paul Sartre from his “Anti-Semite and Jew”, 1946:
- “The Jews are the mildest of men, passionately hostile to violence.”
Does anyone see a big difference between Nasrallah’s description and Sartre’s?
Sartre was an idiot who praised Stalin after his death in a poem for having been ‘the father of the world’s proletariat’, or something like that (I can’t remember exactly).
It wasn’t Sartre who praised Stalin in a poem after his death, it was Brecht.
You are spreading disinformation, Bloemker, one has to consider that you may even be unaware of it. Didn’t Brecht when he returned to Germany go East? That’s all you need? Correct? So he must have been a Stalist? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Could you give us the exact title of the poem? That already crossed over from Sartre’s pen to Brecht’s? Other items reminiscent of his Stalin “hero worship” in his work?
Bertolt Brecht and Joseph Stalin
———————————————–
This is of no particular interest to MW, but I answer your question about my “disinformation” on Brecht anyway. After Stalin’s death in 1956, the literary paper of East Germany ‘Sinn und Form’ published a letter of condolence:
“… we want to tell you that we too, the writers and art-workers (Kunstschaffenden) of Germany, have lost, with Stalin’s death, our great teacher, … the best friend of our people. We, the writers and art-workers of Germany pledge to bring Stalin’s teaching to fruition in our work and will stay faithful to this genius of peace …”
- signed by 18 writers, the most famous among them Bertolt Brecht
————————————
Now to Brecht’s poem. It is ambivalent, flipping between admiration and criticism of Stalin. One typical stanza reads:
“The sun of the people / burned its worshippers.
The greatest scholar / forgot the Communist Manifest.
The most ingenious pupil of Lenin / slapped him in the face.”
———————————————————————
Gert Koenen, ‘Die großen Gesänge’, 1991; pages 263 and 299
@LeaNder
Here is my comment to you on Bertolt Brecht and Joseph Stalin. (I wrote it on Oct.30 but it was held up – it has nothing to do with the new comment policy.)
————————
After Stalin’s death in 1956, the literary paper of East Germany ‘Sinn und Form’ published a letter of condolence:
“… we want to tell you that we too, the writers and art-workers (Kunstschaffenden) of Germany, have lost, with Stalin’s death, our great teacher, … the best friend of our people. We, the writers and art-workers of Germany pledge to bring Stalin’s teaching to fruition in our work and will stay faithful to this genius of peace …”
- signed by 18 writers, the most famous among them Bertolt Brecht
————————————
Now to Brecht’s poem. It is ambivalent, flipping between admiration and criticism of Stalin. One typical stanza reads:
“The sun of the people / burned its worshippers.
The greatest scholar / forgot the Communist Manifest.
The most ingenious pupil of Lenin / slapped him in the face.”
———————————————————————
Gerd Koenen, ‘Die großen Gesänge’, 1991; pages 263 and 299
“Sartre was an idiot who praised Stalin after his death in a poem for having been ‘the father of the world’s proletariat’, or something like that (I can’t remember exactly).” October 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm
“It wasn’t Sartre who praised Stalin in a poem after his death, it was Brecht.” October 30, 2012 at 7:36 am
Twelve hours gets you a distinction with a difference.
Mooser,
see my comment above – you might like Brecht’s poem.
@ Lea and Mooser
One more note on Jean Paul Sartre and Bertolt Brecht
- Brecht held Austrian citizenship (via his wife) when he lived in communist East Berlin. He was entitled to leave any time – unlike the rest of the residents of East Germany (they might get shot at).
- Sartre realized rather late (in 1956) that there was something wrong with Soviet Communism. Albert Camus, who was a friend of Sartre, realized it much earlier (in the 1930s). I like Camus much better than Sartre.
He said – comparing liberal capitalism to communism – “I prefer a half-truth to a complete lie.” – I don’t know what Camus would have said about Israel.
- Is it a half-truth or a complete lie?
Delegitimization, – Israel has a RIGHT to exist.
All these terms mean NOTHING in reality and are merely linguistic tricks to stifle criticism. They’re empty meaningless sound-bites hauled out whenever the criticism is too intense and Israels criminality is too obvious to hide.
I’ve been listening to Nasrallah and Hizbullah for a long time now and I’ve noticed a shift in their discourse on Jews and Israelis. I remember them being quite anti-Jewish in the 1990s but that has shifted since the end of the occupation in 2000. Hezbollah and Nasrallah’s public speeches and pronouncements now make a distinction between Jews and Israelis and really identify the issue as a political one rather than a sectarian one. A lot of things have changed about Hezbollah as it has grown and matured as disparate terrorist groups who coalesced and became a political and social movement as well as a resistance force.
The thing is though that in the Arab world, this type of criticism of Nasrallah by westerners plays really badly. The view is why are they so concerned about what Nasrallah says but not what Israel does to Palestinians or Lebanese? Please try talking about this stuff to someone from southern Lebanon tortured in Khiam prison and see what they say.
“Please try talking about this stuff to someone from southern Lebanon tortured in Khiam prison and see what they say.”
It must have been tough for this guy to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism
link to magnumphotos.com
Ah, good old days of humane early Zionism! The prisoners are not bound and hooded. The interrogation looks almost polite. I recall an Israeli journalism reminiscing service in Lebanon, how they were capturing terrorists, binding their hands behind back and feeding them from bowls with hands bound, so they had to lift bowls with teeth.
We had a wave of astounding savagery of Israel in Lebanon and TOTALLY unrelated wave of intense anti-Semitism immediately afterwards. The proper way to analyze it is to concentrate on the statement and remove the confusing context from the picture.
I read a very interesting article today about US decline :
link to irishtimes.com
“One writer has described the US’s loss of some 30 per cent share of world output as a far greater loss of relative power in a shorter time than any power shift among European great powers from the end of the Napoleonic wars to the second World War.
The tacit agreement to deny US decline was echoed in Obama and Romney’s unreal policy convergence during the one presidential debate devoted to foreign policy. Remarkably it concentrated on only a few parts of the world and a few issues: China, Iran, the Middle East, Israel, Afghanistan and terrorism. This left Europe, Nato, Japan, other parts of Asia, climate change, energy and poverty untouched
‘
The grip the Zionists have on foreign policy is one symptom. Plutocracy is another.
The overall picture looks very challenging .
If the US were in rude health it wouldn’t be Israel’s servant.