Zionism is tired

Two weeks ago I attended a book talk involving the creation of the state of Israel at the Center for Jewish History in New York whose theme as far as I was concerned was: Zionism is anachronistic. For it was the main speaker’s claim that the issues at stake in 1945-1947, of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine and Arab opposition to it, are as relevant today as then. And he was convincing. But the answers the Zionists came up with were white man’s burden arguments.

The main speaker was Norman J.W. Goda, the Norman and Irma Braman professor of Holocaust studies at University of Florida. Norman Braman also funds Senator Marco Rubio in his bid to lead the country, and this didn’t seem all that surprising after hearing Norman Goda’s comments.

The subject of the talk was the third volume of James G. McDonald’s papers. McDonald was a philo-Semite and Christian Zionist and served several official roles for the United States in the runup to Israel’s creation. At every turn, he fought back arguments against Jewish emigration to Palestine and then against Jewish nationalism in Palestine.

There were three other scholars on the panel that night, but Goda had the most to say and the others did little to modulate his views. His main villain was Britain. The British looked on the matter from an imperial strategic perspective. If the Brits gave in to the Jews on Palestine they figured they would have trouble all over the Middle East, but if they gave into the Arabs they would only have trouble in Palestine, from the Jews (here Goda echoed his co-editor Richard Breitman); and so they chose the latter.

But there was a changing of the guard. Roosevelt died, Truman came in, and there was a “Jewish resort to force.” In particular the killing of Lord Moyne in Egypt in 1944. The British “really never get over, and never really forgive” Moyne’s killing, Goda said quizzically, as if they should have forgiven the Zionists that assassination.

This use of force demonstrated “a complete change in the ways that Jews are expected to behave,” Goda said with metal in his voice. I.e., we were helpless during the Holocaust.

So the British gave up on Palestine. And while the U.S. and Britain were allied in two other strategic arenas, Berlin and East Asia, they broke over Palestine.

The historian had many such wise observations, but as he mocked British and Arab attitudes, I found myself agreeing with the British and Arabs. The British argued that there was zero connection between the Holocaust and Palestine. One was a humanitarian problem, the other a strategic issue, Zionists had wrongly conflated the two. Zionists were nationalists and nationalism had been delegitimized by World War II. The Arabs said that anti-Semitism was a calamity for them because the immigrants were coming to Palestine, and they weren’t accepted by any western country. The Arabs said that the Jews had more financial and media influence than they did in western societies. “Please!” Goda said with exasperation, as if the argument had just been advanced– then he described all the legations and interest groups Arabs had in the west.

Goda also seemed to deny the Palestinian experience. He pointedly referred to the Nakba, or Palestinian catastrophe of 1948, as a Palestinian “flight.” He said that all the Zionists wanted was a Jewish majority in the new state, because as Moshe Shertok said, “minority status for us hasn’t worked out terribly well.” But they never wanted to expel the Palestinians. The Zionists were going to achieve their majority through immigration, and the Palestinians ought to have accepted the immigration as a good deal. “No one’s expecting Palestinian flight. No one’s expecting expulsions either. As Ben Gurion and others kept saying in 1948, The reason this happened is that we were attacked.” Ben Gurion was repeatedly cited as an authority. It is a complete fallacy to say that the Zionists intended to mistreat Palestinians. The Palestinians would get to be part of a “modern” state with a higher standard of living. The Zionists had “very interesting” ideas for the development of Palestine that the Palestinians and the British ignored. The evil mufti of Jerusalem and the Arab Higher Committee had other ideas, a war the Zionists never wanted —the mufti “completely screwed up” that war, and “was completely discredited,” Goda said.

These are colonialist ideas. The modern Jews were going to bring up Palestine to western standards and the Palestinians would all benefit, but some crazy-ass Palestinian leader who had supported Hitler got them to rebel and so it all came down on the Palestinians’ own head.

There was no sense in any of Goda’s remarks that a great number of Palestinians genuinely were opposed to Zionist immigration for the same reason that so many societies limit immigration: they do not want their societies changed dramatically. This was obviously a reasonable fear on the part of Palestinians, and one that haunts the world to this day.

There were thoughtful people on the panel, but they didn’t pipe up during Goda’s colonialist speeches. Though Ronald Zweig undercut the Jewish-people-crave-Palestine talk with a funny story about a Displaced Person who had applied to go to Uruguay but voted in a poll that the Jewish people should go to Palestine.

The best thing about the talk was that the audience was more enlightened than the panel. The first question was about whether McDonald had any sympathy for the Palestinian refugees. That’s the next volume, said the moderator (but the answer I am told is, Yes, he did). The next question was about Palestinian national identity. The third one was about how much pressure the Zionists put on the U.S. government, to “manipulate” policy. The fourth question was, How did you editors deal with the fact that McDonald was widely seen as being in the Zionist camp? By the way McDonald was paid by the Zionist Organization of America for a while. But they didn’t tell us that at the talk.

The fifth question was the only straight-up Zionist one. So the discussion felt a little like the New York Times comment section. The civilians aren’t eating their rations.

Goda didn’t seem to perceive this. He warned us not to fall into the trap of “Bad Roosevelt, Good Truman,” because Roosevelt was less sympathetic to Zionism than Truman. But I think the sentiment was actually running the other way.

The message of the evening for me was that Zionism is in amber; the same colonialist arguments that were made for Zionism in 1946 are being made today: look at all our amazing achievements, the chip in your telephone, drip irrigation– so why would Palestinians want to resist us, they are terrorists. This tired discourse is under assault a great number of places. Even on 16th street in a Jewish space in New York. Though not from the Norman Braman professor.