The latest edition of CQ Global Researcher, published by the Congressional Quarterly, is devoted to the question of antisemitism in Europe. It contains a debate between myself and Antony Lerman - director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research - on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
The report, which is meticulously researched and carefully written, is well worth reading and can be purchased here. It serves as a good introduction, regardless of where you stand.
(Z Word is grateful to CQ Global Researcher for allowing us to republish the “At Issue” section of the report. Note that we are spelling “anti-Semitism” with the hyphen, as it appears in this report.)
At Issue
Is anti-Zionism a cover-up for anti-Semitism?
YES - BEN COHEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT ON ANTI-SEMITISM AND EXTREMISM, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE; EDITOR WWW.Z-WORD.COM
“Anti-Zionism” is a term which has gained greater visibility over the last decade, but it is not an unknown phenomenon historically. In communist Europe, the remnants of those Jewish communities which perished during the Nazi Holocaust were frequently persecuted in the name of anti-Zionism.
These days, anti-Zionist views are heavily concentrated among the educated elite. If you regard anti-Zionism as one more expression of hatred towards Jews, this is somewhat puzzling, because anti-Semitism – particularly after the Holocaust – is widely perceived to be more beer hall than bistro.
Anti-Semites regard Jews as a malign social force, the bearers of a shadowy power which courses through the banks, the media and the government. But the majority of Zionism’s mainstream critics say that their focus is on the Jewish state, not demented fantasies about what Jews supposedly get up to.
If we concede that such individuals are not motivated by a loathing of Jews, can we then construct an unbreachable partition between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? The answer is “No,” and here is why:
- You can’t disavow anti-Semitism as a vulgar form of bigotry and then invoke the age-old themes of antisemitic conspiracy theory. US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt assured us that their argument was not anti-Semitic, but then up-ended decades of political science research by advancing a monocausal theory of US foreign policy in the Middle East: the “Israel Lobby,” they said, cajoles the US into doing things which it otherwise wouldn’t do.
- Anti-Zionism is founded upon a caricature of the State of Israel as the apartheid-like child of a colonial enterprise. But the aim of Zionism is to secure political arrangements which guarantee, after centuries of horrendous persecution, the freedom and security of Jews, not the subjugation of non-Jews.
- Prior to Israel’s creation in 1948, there was a vibrant debate about the desirability of a Jewish state. But to be an anti-Zionist now is to say that, out of nearly 200 states in the international system, the legitimacy of only one – Israel – can be questioned. Why should Israel, in a world of disintegrating polities from Iraq to the Democratic Republic of Congo, be the only state whose very existence is a subject of discussion?
No serious supporter of Israel has ever claimed that mere criticism is anti-Semitism. There is, however, a vital distinction between rational critique of Israeli policies and demonization which, too often, is either stimulated by or evokes anti-Semitism.
NO - ANTONY LERMAN, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH POLICY RESEARCH
Anti-Zionism and hostility to Israel can be anti-Semitic if they are expressed using the symbols of the anti-Semitic figure of the Jew or of Jewry as whole. For example, if Zionism is characterized as a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, or a plan straight out of the forged , anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” that is anti-Semitism.
But to believe that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same ignores the history of Zionism.
For decades Zionism was supported only by a minority of Jews. The rest were either indifferent or manifestly opposed to the whole idea of the establishment of a Jewish state. Anti-Zionism was therefore a perfectly respectable position to hold, and one that continues to be held today, by hundreds of thousands of strictly orthodox Jews and many secular Jews with left-liberal perspectives.
Equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism - what has become known as the “new anti-Semitism” - fundamentally subverts the shared understanding of what anti-Semitism is, built up painstakingly through research and study by scholars over many years: It drains the word anti-Semitism of any useful meaning. The advocates of the concept of a new anti-Semitism argue that it is anti-Semitic to either criticize Israeli policies or deny Israel’s right to exist, even if one does not hold beliefs historians have traditionally regarded as an anti-Semitic view: hatred of Jews per se, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, belief the Jews created communism and control capitalism, belief the Jews are racially inferior and so on.
Those who argue that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one claim they don’t say criticism of Israeli policies is illegitimate. However, in practise, this view virtually proscribes any such thing.
As the Oxford academic Brian Klug has written, anti-Zionism and hostility to Israel - if based on a political cause or moral code that is not anti-Jewish per se - is not anti-Semitic. And arguing that it is harms the all-important struggle to combat anti-Semitism. If people feel unfairly stigmatized as anti-Semitic simply for speaking out about the plight of the Palestinians and the Israeli government’s role in causing their suffering, they could become cynical and alienated whenever the problem of anti-Semitism is raised.
I agree with Ben Cohen’s view that “no serious supporter of Israel has ever claimed that mere criticism is anti-Semitism. There is, however, a vital distinction between rational critique of Israeli policies and demonization which, too often, is either stimulated by or evokes anti-Semitism.”
Antony Lerman’s counter argument that “Anti-Zionism and hostility to Israel can be anti-Semitic if they are expressed using the symbols of the anti-Semitic figure of the Jew or of Jewry as whole. For example, if Zionism is characterized as a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, or a plan straight out of the forged , anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” that is anti-Semitism. But to believe that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same ignores the history of Zionism.”
Is pretty weak for a number of reasons:
First it ignores the fact that many anti-Zionists and not just Mearsheimer and Walt end up conjuring up theories of disproportionate “Jewish world” power in order to explain the existence of a small State in overwhelmingly hostile environment. Hence while in principle anti-Zionist need not be antisemitic in practice they tend to resort to traditional antisemitic tropes.
Secondly, while Lerman invokes the history of Zionism in order to justify his claim he does not invoke the history of antisemitism which led to the Holocaust. Here one should note that while the suffering of the Palestinians are a required trope in the discussion of Zionism the Holocaust or the displacement of the Jews from Arab lands are almost set aside as by some sort of “gentleman’s agreement.” Hence the history invoked is a truncated one and invariable put to use in order to justify anti-Zionism.
You can see this even in Lerman’s argument when he mentions the fact that for “decades Zionism was supported only by a minority of Jews.” But omits to tell us what happened to the majority of Jews, especially in Europe, especially the “hundreds of thousands of strictly orthodox Jews” as well as the “many secular Jews with left-liberal perspectives” in Eastern Europe who fell under the communist rule.
One can argue abstractly that being anti-Zionist is be the same as being anti-Jewish but in concrete terms those that make such arguments often end up using anti-Semitic tropes as well as using selective historical facts to make their case.
Finally, being critical of Israeli policies is not antisemitic, but being critical of Israel’s existence is.
This argument/debate is simply ridiculous. Of course anti-Zionism does not equate to antisemitism. One would have to denounce not just the fringe Neturei Karta but possibly hundreds of thousands of ultra religious Jews including the Satmar sect and others of antisemitic. One would also have to denounce those who simply do not agree with the idea of country borders and immigration controls as antisemitic. The list goes on.
Yes, we all can point to examples where anti-Zionist argument either is antisemitic or lends weight to antisemitism. However, even if if this is a general case, the general case does not equal the rule.
Hence the three bullet points by Ben Cohen do not follow as a rule.
1. The ultra-religious anti-Zionists do not ramble on about the Israel lobby, they ramble on about the Three Oaths, a Jewish religious requirement for the coming of the Messiah.
2. the ultra religious anti-Zionist do not use a “caricature of the State of Israel as [an] apartheid-like child of a colonial enterprise.” They argue that the State of Israel is wrong as it is in breach of these oaths.
3. The ultra-religious objection to Zionism has been consistent both prior to and post 1948.
If anyone seriously thinks that a number of those guys living in or parts Brooklyn, New York or Stamford Hill, London wearing black hats and strictly observing the sabbath and all Jewish holidays are anti-semitic because they do not agree with the idea of Zionism then I would have to say it is the accuser who is deluded.
Purely because of this, I have to take the side of Tony Lerman in this “debate.” This does not mean to say that I have much time for the position that Anthony Lerman in this short piece.
Below I quote from Research Report No. 20, “The Abuse of Zionism,” published by the Institute of Jewish Affairs in December 1981:
“abusive references to ‘Zionism’ … go far beyond direct reference to Israel. An ideology of national self-determination, applicable in one tiny part of the world, has become a universally applied epithet, a fundamental evil responsible for most of the worlds problems…. The ways in which Zionism is referred to are so far-fetched and have such little bearing on the real world that what is needed is a correct meaning and use of the word…. The distortion of Zionism is deliberate and calculated and not just a product of sloppy thinking.”
The author of these words was Tony Lerman.
In support of the claim that anti-Zionism is “a cover-up” for anti-Semitism, or, that it is impossible to “construct an unbreachable partition between antisemitism and anti-Zionism”, Ben makes three main points.
1. “You can’t disavow anti-Semitism as a vulgar form of bigotry and then invoke the age-old themes of antisemitic conspiracy theory.”
The evidence here is the Mearsheimer and Walt study (though I wasn’t aware that they are anti-Zionist). Moreover, for this particular point to make sense, one would need to show that appealing to anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is somehow essential or central to anti-Zionist thought. Personally speaking, I condemn anti-Semitism as a vulgar form of bigotry and I am also an ‘anti-Zionist’ – and I don’t feel the need to invoke age-old themes of conspiracy theory.
2. “Anti-Zionism is founded upon a caricature of the State of Israel as the apartheid-like child of a colonial enterprise. But the aim of Zionism is to secure political arrangements which guarantee, after centuries of horrendous persecution, the freedom and security of Jews, not the subjugation of non-Jews.”
This is where the argument becomes revealing, since in order to claim that anti-Zionism is simply anti-Semitism, one is inevitably forced to whitewash Israel’s past and present. That is primarily done – and this short argument is a good example – by ‘disappearing’ the Palestinians. We could debate the ‘aims’ of Zionism (varied) but the consequences (unintended or otherwise) are there for all to see. Except, of course, if one suffers from an ideologically-motivated selective blindness.
3. “Prior to Israel’s creation in 1948, there was a vibrant debate about the desirability of a Jewish state. But to be an anti-Zionist now is to say that, out of nearly 200 states in the international system, the legitimacy of only one – Israel – can be questioned.”
This is a highly plausible argument, but ultimately a hypothetical one, because the Palestinians do actually exist. An inconvenience, admittedly, but if one is interested in examining the ‘legitimacy’ of Israel, or the issue of anti-Zionism as a whole, then it would be better to ask why a Palestinian might refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.
Ben White is being disingenuous with his argument. I am not sure if he is doing so deliberately or as a result of a biased reading of historical matters.
There is no need in Zionism to “whitewash Israel’s past and present..by ‘disappearing’ the Palestinians.” The record of Israel is indeed “there for all to see” and I suspect it is Ben White who “suffers from an ideologically-motivated selective blindness.”
If Ben White wished to he could examine Israel’s Proclamation of Independence. This states quite clearly that the State of Israel:
Ben White goes on to suggest that “it would be better to ask why a Palestinian might refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.” Given White is a self-declared anti-Zionist we can ask him why does not question the existence of over 20 different Arab states but does question the existence of a singular Jewish State smaller than the size of Wales?
We can ask Ben White why he does not have a problem partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 but he has a problem with the United Nations decision in 1947 to create a Jewish state and an Arab state?
This thread is about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Despite Ben White’s claim that he condemns antisemitism, it might be appropriate for him to reflect on why he is treating one nation in the world different to other nations and why that nation is the only Jewish State.
According to Mikey, orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists cannot be antisemitic. Anyone who argues that they are is “delusional.”
I’m curious, then, as to what Mikey makes of the statement issued by Congregation Yetev Lev in Brooklyn, a Satmar community, following Neturei Karta’s pilgrimage to Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial conference. The Satmar said, inter alia, that NK had “embraced the disciplines and followers of their murderers.” That sounds to me like an accusation of antisemitism.
Are they delusional too?
Hi Ben,
I simply do not believe that NK are antisemitic. However even if you believe they are, and I accept many do, then you quote Yetev Lev who is a follower of the Satmar sect. Now, whilst Satmar want nothing to do with NK, Satmar themselves are anti-Zionist! It was members of the Stamar Sect who in the 1970s were seen burning the Israeli flag in Brooklyn. (New York Times June 1, 1977)
The leader of the Stamar sect was, for many year Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum. He thought that Zionism was a terrible sin and that God’s punishment for Zionism was the Holocaust. As he said in his book Vayoel Moshe (And Moses Agreed):
[Cited by Dina Porat, “‘Amalek’s Accomplices’ Blaming Zionism for the Holocaust: Anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel during the 1980’s” (Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 27 No. 4 (Oct., 1992) pp. 695-729]
There are many more such quotes and they are made by some of the most highly respected rabbis in the ultra-Orthodox community. Are you seriously suggesting that the Satmar community, numbering over 100,000 orthodox Jews are antisemitic because they are anti-Zionist?
Mikey
Let me firstly reiterate my basic point. As I made clear in the debate with Lerman, anti-Zionism and antisemitism are analytically distinct. But I also argue that there is - and this is especially true since 1948 - a significant overlap between them, to the extent that anti-Zionists can advance antisemitic arguments while simultaneously denying that they are motivated by hatred of Jews. This is a position, it seems to me, which you accept.
Now, when it comes to NK, all of this is relatively uncomplicated. The motivation issue doesn’t even enter into it, because NK has been willingly coopted by some of the world’s worst antisemites, such as Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah and Hamas. They are participants - minor and pathetic ones, it’s true - in the project to violently destroy the State of Israel. Importantly for our purposes, this is how they are now perceived by the vast majority of the ultraorthodox community. When Aryeh Friedman, one of the NK participants in the Holocaust Denial conference, checked into a Brooklyn hotel one week later - in pursuit of his wife and children, who abandoned him after his kiss with Ahmadinejad was broadcast across the world - there was nearly a riot.
What of Satmar and the other sects? I think they can and do make antisemitic arguments. The most glaring example is what they say about the Holocaust. Just like the Soviet antisemites and quack historians like Lenni Brenner, they transfer responsibility from the Nazis to the Zionists, so that the Holocaust becomes, as historian W.D Rubinstein once observed, an “autogenocide”.
Just because they dress it up as divine punishment doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
Hi Ben,
I doubt we necessarily differ on the point that a substantial amount of what masks as anti-Zionism can be seen to be antisemitic.
It is not that the actions of NK that I wish to discuss here as I think that clouds the point I am trying to make. It is the other ultra-Orthodox groups that have a similar outlook on Zionism but do not flaunt it in the way that NK do.
What I want to discuss is the fundamental point that these groups are anti-Zionist. They oppose Zionism on religious grounds. These are Jewish religious grounds and based upon an interpretation of Scriptural verses known as the Three Oaths. It is not necessary for me to get into the complex debate as to whether these oaths are part of Halakhah (Jewish law) or Aggadah (Jewish ethics, legends, wisdom etc)as this debate goes on between rabbis and other Talmudic scholars. Nevertheless, these groups are using their interpretation of these oaths to say that Zionism itself is not consistent with Jewish law and that Zionists are trying to force the hand of God. Being a Zionist for these sects is as much as an anathema to them, and against Jewish law, as eating a pork sausage is for large sections of the Jewish community. It is wrong and it is a sin.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing antisemitic about this argument. It is a theological argument and Jewish law does not tend to change. Hence, in one of your points when you compare being an anti-Zionist in 1948 with being an anti-Zionist now, it is simply not a question for these sects as the scripture has not changed since the days of the Talmud let alone in the last sixty years.
[For any readers interested to learn more on this subject, I suggest the following article:
Norman Lamm, “The Ideology of the Neturei Karta: According to the Satmarer Version,” Tradition Vol. 12 1971 pp. 38-53
Norman Lamm was the Erna Michael Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Yeshiva University and Rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York and hence highly qualified to comment.]
I now wish to comment on the following part of your post:
I believe that a substantial difference can be made between the arguments of the Soviet anti-Zionists and those that follow their line of blaming Zionists for the Holocaust and the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists who do the same thing.
In the first case, the Soviet anti-Zionists try and use historical facts. What they do is to distort historical information that is available and use dubious and questionable sources and out of context quotes to paint a picture which is thoroughly dishonest. Anyone with a good understanding of the background of Zionists in the Holocaust can easily quote from reliable sources to pull their arguments apart.
In the second case, the ultra-Orthodox claim that the Holocaust was divine punishment. How can I, or you, or anyone for that matter disprove it? In order to attempt to do so, one would have to immerse themselves in different interpretations of the scriptures. Now there are those rabbis, and there are many, who would say that this argument is wrong and you can receive a theological lesson that would include post-Talmudic sources such as the MaHaRaL of Prague and other noted rabbis. For those Jews who have not devoted their life to studying the Talmud, it may well be a bit too much information.
Aside from this, it is also true that in some cases the same ultra_Orthodox sects makes claims about the Holocaust or Zionist leaders that are not subject to an interpretation of the Talmud but can be checked by reliable historical sources if available or checked for consistency against other known information if not. An example of this is an alleged letter that Nathan Schwalb, a Zionist in Switzerland during the Holocaust, sent that suggested, if the letter was true, that Schwalb at least believed that more Jewish blood would mean a higher chance of obtaining a State. This letter, if it existed, was lost. It appeared in a book that was published posthumously by anti-Zionist Rabbi Weissmandel.
This letter has been the subject of much controversy. It has been used by anti-Zionists of all forms ever since to suggest that the Zionists actively wanted dead Jews and is used in conjunction by anti-Zionists to suggest that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. It is not surprising that the letter appears in Lenni Brenner’s ideologically motivated tract Zionism in the Age of the Dictators and also appeared in the early versions of the play Perdition that caused a scandal when it was due to be staged in London, England in 1987.
Numerous historians including Dina Porat, Yehuda Bauer, Shabtai Teveth and others dispute this letter. No one thinks that Weissmandel was a liar and Bauer goes to far as to say that Weissmandel was unable to lie. They have tried to find other explanations, pyschological or otherwise for the inclusion of this letter in this book or even suggest that as the book was published posthumously that it may not have been actually claimed by Weissmandel but by some of his fanatical followers.
However, whatever way we look at it and even assuming that Weissmandel was wrong, to suggest that he is an antisemite is ludicrous. Anyone who has studied Jewish rescue efforts in the Holocaust will know that Weissmandel devoted his life during that terrible period of history to saving Jews.
“This argument/debate is simply ridiculous. Of course anti-Zionism does not equate to antisemitism. One would have to denounce not just the fringe Neturei Karta but possibly hundreds of thousands of ultra religious Jews including the Satmar sect and others of antisemitic. One would also have to denounce those who simply do not agree with the idea of country borders and immigration controls as antisemitic. The list goes on.”
Mikey,
You are missing the point about antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Neither the Satmar not Neturei Karta are antisemitic in the sense that they want to see the destruction of the Jewish people, but their anti-Zionism gives cover to those antisemites who want to see the Jewish State destroyed and as part of their campaign against “Jewish power.”
Moreover, the anti-modernist religious ideology of NK and the Satmar sect is similar to that of the Islamicists which is why they can make common cause with Ahmadinejad against Israel.
Those on the anti-Zionist left who claim that NK’s anti-Zionism means that they too are not antisemitic are being hypocritical since they do not endorse any other view about religion and society held by these Jewish religious extremist. Is there one anti-Zionist leftist who endorses NK view of women’s place in society? Do they endorse their reluctance to educate women or the complete separation of the sexes not to mention their separation from the general non Jewish populace?
I think not. In an extreme leftist ran society NK and the Satmars would be condemned as enemies of progress and repressed as they were in Communist societies.
In their way, the Satmars and NK are also Zionists. They too believe in the eventual resettlement of all (religious) Jews in Israel in the time of the Messiah. The disagreement between say the religious Zionists and the anti-religious Zionists is one of tactics and not one of belief. One is content to wait till the arrival of the Messiah while the other side believes that Jews must work to make that happen by settling the land of Israel.
That anti-Zionist left has taken the side of one side in this metaphysical debate which is of no interest to them could only mean that they are using it for their own political goal which is to delegitimize the secular Jewish State. Their goal is antisemitic.
The real question then is not whether the Satmars or NK are antisemitic they are not (they are not even anti-Zionists); the real question is why would presumably secular leftist embrace the ideology of a groups of religious Jews whom they would otherwise repress?
Ben:
Firstly, I hope you can respond to my comment and criticisms about your original post.
Secondly, in a subsequent comment, you say the following:
“Let me firstly reiterate my basic point. As I made clear in the debate with Lerman, anti-Zionism and antisemitism are analytically distinct. But I also argue that there is - and this is especially true since 1948 - a significant overlap between them…”
Well, you actually wrote that it is impossible to “construct an unbreachable partition between antisemitism and anti-Zionism”. To me, that seems different than an ‘overlap’ - since overlap implies that there is anti-Zionism which is not antisemitic. Is that a fair summary of your position?
Mikey:
“If Ben White wished to he could examine Israel’s Proclamation of Independence.”
I’m not sure how much comfort the fine words of the ‘Proclamation’ would be for a Palestinian who can no longer live in Palestine. It’s also worth remembering that many of those who wrote the words “all men are created equal” in the USA Declaration of Independence were slave owners.
“Ben White goes on to suggest that “it would be better to ask why a Palestinian might refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.”"
Ah, here we go, now to address the real issue…
“Given White is a self-declared anti-Zionist we can ask him…”
Oh. Well, we weren’t allowed to ponder on that question too long.
Ben White, let’s stick to the issues dealing with anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
If you insist on bringing up the Arab Israeli conflict then you should tell us why you endorse the Arab point of view as opposed to the Jewish one?
“It’s also worth remembering that many of those who wrote the words “all men are created equal” in the USA Declaration of Independence were slave owners.”
Yes they were, but they also created a society in which an African American can become the President of the US.
If Israel hadn’t been involved in a life and death struggle with the Arab world for sixty years the possibility of equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel would be a lot closer than the possibility of equality between Christians and Muslims in say Lebanon or any other part of the Arab world.
In any case, show me one Arab country where Jews have the kinds of rights afforded to Israeli Arabs?
Shriber,
I am sorry but your post has a substantial problem. You have evaded the issue of the anti-Zionism of the Satmars by making a perverse argument that “they are not even anti-Zionists.” They are very much anti-Zionist and in fact they would regard Zionists as heretics and the Zionist state as Satanic. In fact, the Satmar Rabbi Teitelbaum even names the particular demon as “Samael.” As Norman Lamm explains, for the Satmarer,
Hence, they believe that the State of Israel must be dissolved.
Regarding your point about ultra-religious “anti-Zionism gives cover to those antisemites who want to see the Jewish State destroyed,” with the exception of NK who purposely court such attention from whackos of the left and Islamist right, the rest of the ultra-religious anti-Zionist movement cannot be blamed for their beliefs even if their beliefs make comfortable reading to antisemites. When the Rebbe Moses Teitelelbaum (leader of the Satmars and nephew of the by now deceased Joel Teitelbaum) visited Jerusalem in 1994, the coordinator of his trip was asked if Moses Teitelbaum was to meet the P.L.O. on the trip (something that NK did). The response was that he would not because the Rebbe “sees it as an organization that has killed, and anyone who associates with it a killer.” He added that whilst the Rebbe did not have time for Zionists, “he loves Jews.” (New York Times June 8, 1994)
In fact the historical Marxist anti-Zionist argument uses your argument against Zionism. The veteran British Marxist anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein argues in vile pamphlet Anti-Semitism and its Zionist Shadow: the reactionary roots of Jewish seperatism (London: PSC, 1986) pp. 2-3:
The logic of Greenstein is as bizarre as the logic of the following old set of statements:
1. Socrates is mortal
2. All cats are mortal
2. Socrates is a cat.
Unless they set out to court it in the way that NK do, the ultra Zionist ultra-Orthodox cannot be held to account for the actions of a loony British trade unionist who wishes to boycott Israel.
Finally, you ask, “why would presumably secular leftist embrace the ideology of a groups of religious Jews whom they would otherwise repress?” In response I would say that leftist anti-Zionists do not tend to embrace the ideology of the ultra religious anti-Zionists. The left arrive at their anti-Zionist position from a completely different perspective to that of the ultra-religious. The left may use some ultra-religious anti-Zionist sources such as the alleged Shwalb letter mentioned before or a completely fictitious quotation that was incorrectly alleged to have been made by Jewish Agency Executive member, Yitzhak Gruenbaum: “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”. Depite the use of some of these sources, the Marxist left do not embrace the ideology of the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox.
On a different matter, Ben White states:
Mikey
Shriber, “I am sorry but your post has a substantial problem. You have evaded the issue of the anti-Zionism of the Satmars by making a perverse argument that “they are not even anti-Zionists.” They are very much anti-Zionist and in fact they would regard Zionists as heretics and the Zionist state as Satanic. In fact, the Satmar Rabbi Teitelbaum even names the particular demon as “Samael.” As Norman Lamm explains, for the Satmarer,
The picture is two-tone: black and white. The Zionists are defiled, reshaim (wicked); we are tzaddikim. It is as simple as all that.”
I am sorry Mikey, that is only half the story. To the Satmar’s all Jews who don’t follow the life of Orthodoxy are wicked. They single out Zionism because they believe to entice Jews who would otherwise devote themselves to the study of Torah into non Jewish and hence wicked ways.
You are right, then, to point out that they are anti-political Zionism. However, they too like all religious Jews adhere to the notion expressed in the prayer “next year in Jerusalem” that in time the messiah will come and the temple rebuilt and the Jews transported to Jerusalem. They just don’t believe that secular political Zionism (or even the religious political Zionism) is the expression of that Messianic hope.
But it’s not just political Zionism they hate; they are also against Jews embracing any secular ideology. This is something that one should keep in mind when speaking of their anti-Zionism. It is something that leftist anti-Zionists tend to elide for reasons I outlined above.
Next, your point about the Satmar avoiding giving cover to leftist anti-Zionists is also half the story. They do overtly reject such associations. Nevertheless their views are used by leftists anti Zionists. Hence they are objectively part of the discussion about the meaning of anti-Zionism.
The fact that we are having a conversation about meaning of their anti-Zionism says a lot about their place in such a debate.
Finally, I consider as I think you do, the veteran British Marxist anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein, both illogical and insane. Your own brief proof of his illogicality disqualifies him from being taken seriously.
Their view that “Zionism accepts the main thesis of the anti-Semites, namely that the Jews do not belong in the societies they were born and grew up in” is both historically inaccurate (Jews turned to Zionism precisely because the political establishment in the countries in which they resided failed to protect them from murderous antisemitism and discrimination—I believe that these folk are guilty of a double fallacy: that of cum hoc ergo propter hoc – and of affirming the consequent—) as well as insincere since the aim of most of these leftists is to assimilate Jews and hence to erase them from the societies in which they reside. This is what the Leninists, Trotskyites and Stalinists wanted to achieve and this is what is behind the hysterical anti-Zionism of people like Greenstein.
Robbins:
“Ben White, let’s stick to the issues dealing with anti-Zionism and antisemitism. If you insist on bringing up the Arab Israeli conflict…”
That’s definitely the most unintentionally instructive remark of the thread.
Shriber:
“In any case, show me one Arab country where Jews have the kinds of rights afforded to Israeli Arabs?”
If only I had a pound for every time an apologist for Israel said, “Yeah? But what about them - they’re a lot worse than us!”
Ben:
I’m sorry you are not able to respond directly in this thread, but I look forward to your future post.
Mikey:
Earlier, you wrote, “There is no need in Zionism to “whitewash Israel’s past and present..by ‘disappearing’ the Palestinians.””
More recently, however, you wrote, “I see Ben White fails to explain why he believes it is perfectly acceptable for him to single out the State of Israel as the only country on earth that should be destroyed.”
My original question, then, about why a Palestinian would object to Zionism, has suddenly become why ‘I’ do. Looks like some kind of disappearance has taken place…
Hopefully concluding on this matter, I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a community out there who are virulently anti-Zionist and not in the slightest antisemitic. There has been much talk about the left on this thread but the question was not “Is anti-Zionism emanating from the left a cover-up for anti-Semitism,” but “Is anti-Zionism a cover-up for anti-Semitism?”
The ultra-Orthodox may be a small part of the Jewish community but they are an important part. They do not express their views on Zionism “as a Jew” and have nothing else to do with Jewish life or community like some Jewish leftist anti-Zionists. They live a life according to how they interpret Jewish religious law and their own Jewish customs from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep every day of the year.
Ben,
You ask why a Palestinian may object to Zionism, yet you do not give a reason. I might object to the person living in the flat next door mine, but I do not strap a suicide belt on and try and kill him. Maybe you think the Arab desire in 1948 to “drive the Jews into the sea” was perfectly legitimate?
Ben White, so far all your responses have been very evasive.
You haven’t explained, as was legitimately asked above, why you side with the Arabs rather than the Jews in this conflict.
Your extreme pro Arab and anti-Jewish bias is shown in a recent article you wrote where while acknowledging attacks on Christian Arabs in Gaza you the proceeded to suggest that Israel record on that score was “even worse.” Now, you say:
“If only I had a pound for every time an apologist for Israel said, “Yeah? But what about them - they’re a lot worse than us!” Ben White
Your comments about Christians in the Arab world ignore the problems they have encountered in places like Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq.
In your writings Israel comes off an archetypical villain.
Anti-Zionism may not start off as anti-Semitism but very often those who hold such beliefs tend to inadvertently fall into familiar antisemitic tropes.
“Hopefully concluding on this matter, I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a community out there who are virulently anti-Zionist and not in the slightest antisemitic.”
Mikey I agree that the Satmar’s are not antisemitic. Where we disagree is in your characterization of their views as anti-Zionist. They do not accept the secular Jewish State and hate political Zionism because of its secular nature. However, they too like all Jews subscribe to a form of “zionism” albeit of a mystical kind.
Hence their form of anti-Zionism is very different from that held by the left, be their advocates “Jews” or Gentiles.
Mikey:
“I might object to the person living in the flat next door mine, but I do not strap a suicide belt on and try and kill him.”
I’m sorry, but your arguments - and analogies - are getting increasingly poor, if not nonsensical.
“You ask why a Palestinian may object to Zionism, yet you do not give a reason.”
Sorry, that was simply because I presumed you were aware that Zionisn for the Palestinians has meant dispossession, enforced exile, subjugation and second class status in their own land.
Incidentally, it’s interesting that as we get a bit too close for comfort, inevitably out come the time honoured classics: Arabs can only blame themselves, never miss an opportunity etc, push the Jews into the sea…
shriber:
“You haven’t explained, as was legitimately asked above, why you side with the Arabs rather than the Jews in this conflict.”
Firstly, I’m not sure that it’s a question of ’siding’ with the ‘Arabs’ against the ‘Jews’, unless we’re conducting this discussion in a playground. However, if you’re asking me why I am an anti-Zionist, part of the answer is in the penultimate paragraph of my comment to Mikey.
Shriber,
Seriously, which ever way you look at it, you can not deny that Satmar are anti-Zionist. You seem to want to make them not anti-Zionist as it may fit in better with your own political outlook, but I can assure you they are very much anti-Zionist and I refer you to the quite authoritative article by Norman Lamm that I have referred to.
For a second very credible reference please read the following book:
Harry Rabinowicz, Hasidim and the State of Israel(East Brunswick N.J. and London: Associated University Presses Inc., 1982.)
Specifically chapter XXII, “The Love-Hate Syndrome of Satmar,” pp. 228-242
As far as Teitelbaum was concerned, the Jewish State was ” an abomination” and Zionism is evil. Satmar followers have gone so far to picket the United Nations and carry placards with slogans against the State of Israel and Zionism.
Despite your claim, they do not “subscribe to a form of ‘zionism.’” For the Satmarer, Jews are a light unto the nations and nationalism is a “an imitation of the Gentiles.”
Ben White it would be very easy to turn your gnomic posts against you.
But as you said we are not on a school playground, so I won’t bother.
You have so farevaded any serious discussion of the issues. You assume that the “Zionist” are bad and the Arabs are “victims.”
This may be gospel truth in Great Britain but here in the US you need to prove your assertion with facts.
If you want to talk to yourself or to other like minded anti-Zionist Christians your blog is the perfect place to do so as you already know.
Mikey “Seriously, which ever way you look at it, you can not deny that Satmar are anti-Zionist. You seem to want to make them not anti-Zionist as it may fit in better with your own political outlook, but I can assure you they are very much anti-Zionist and I refer you to the quite authoritative article by Norman Lamm that I have referred to.”
Mikey, I grew up around Chassidim in New York and am familiar with the Satmar anti Israel doctrines. Not all Chassidim share the Satmar’s view of Zionism.
In any case, my point isn’t that the Satmar are not anti-Israel (what I called anti political Zionism which they identify with secularism which they despise) but that as Jews they too have a special reverence and longing for Zion.
If the Satmar’s are not antisemitic, and they are not, it’s because they are part of a heymish quarrel.
This is my only point.
Btw: interestingly enough, Hizbollah call themselves anti-Jewish and not just Zionist precisely because they see Judaism as the source of Zionism.
“What is interesting is that Saad-Ghorayeb sees Hezbollah’s animus against Jewry as not deriving from its anti-Zionism (Lewis’s view), but from a deeper source: its inveterate hostility to Judaism. The enemies of the movement are Jews who adhere to Judaism and to Zionism, which, Hezbollah believes, has its source in Judaism, despite the existence of secular Zionists.” http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=733
Hezbollah’s hatreds aside it is correct to suggest that Zionism either political or mystical has its source in Judaism.
Finally, the problem we are having, Mikey, I believe stems from the assumption that there is only one kind of Zionism when in reality there many types of Zionisms as well as subtypes.
@ Shriber,
I have not for one moment suggested all religious Jews are anti-Zionists but that there are those that are. I am also not denying that religious Jews of all types have a longing for redemption in Eretz Yisrael (The biblical land of Israel. This does not conform geographically to the modern State of Israel.) This, however is not Zionism. Zionism came about, as we understand it, in the 19th century and is thus a comparatively new ideology. Do not get me wrong, I am not knocking Zionism in the slightest but I am insistent that certain sects of the Ultra-Orthodox, of which Satmar are prominent, but there are others under the Eda Haredit anti-Zionist umbrella, are anti-Zionist. It is bizarre to say otherwise. You can say that there are “many types of Zionisms as well as subtypes” but an organisation that did not want the State of Israel established in the first place, believes the State is a devil state and wants it dismantled, whose members have burnt the Israeli flag and who also admit they are anti-Zionist is not a Zionist organisation. I really do not see why you are continuing to press the point.
@ Ben White,
I have been quite patient with you but when you dismiss the Arab argument of wishing to “drive the Jews into the sea” as a “time honoured classic” rather than face the truth that that is precisely what they admitted they wanted to do, then it is you who are in denial.
You claim:
In this sentence you are denying a historical reality. Firstly when you say “their own land” you may do well to look in a history book as to who controlled the land before the State of Israel was created. Feel free to check this point but you will find that Palestine was under a British mandate. Feel free to also check that the British handed the matter to an international body and the United Nations decided to split the land into two states. Feel free to check the point but you will find that the Jews accepted this partition but the Arabs did not and started a war.
But with this point about Palestinians, it is you who wishes to see Jews disappear as you are implying that in 1947 that the Palestinians were all Arabs. What you fail to admit is that in 1947 there were numerous Jews living in Palestine who wanted a Jewish state. This is a straight fact however inconvenient it is for you.
So now I ask yo questions that you have not provided us answers to. - why is it that the only state on earth that you wish to see smashed is Israel? Why are you singling out the Jewish state for destruction? Why is it when there are over 20 Arab states in the Middle East of a large land mass that you refuse to allow one Jewish state that is about the size of Wales? Why is it that you accept and support the Palestinian Arab right to national self determination but deny that right to the Jews?
This thread is about anti-Zionism and antisemitism. I think we are now due some answers from you.
@Mikey
“Firstly when you say “their own land” you may do well to look in a history book as to who controlled the land before the State of Israel was created. Feel free to check this point but you will find that Palestine was under a British mandate.”
By this logic then, when peoples are ruled by a foreign or colonial power, they are suddenly no longer living in their ‘own land’.
Interestingly, this is your central response to my point that Zionism has meant “dispossession, enforced exile, subjugation and second class status” for the Palestinians. Rather than deny this (which would be, let’s say, tricky), you try and play a word game with “their own land” (and not very successfully).
“Feel free to check the point but you will find that the Jews accepted this partition but the Arabs did not and started a war.”
This is not really the place to have an in depth discussion about this point. However, there is plenty that upsets this propaganda classic, e.g. the Zionist leadership’s intention to use partition as an initial staging post on the way to a more comprehensive conquest of Palestine, your (repeated) use of the term ‘Arab’ to cover a whole range of different peoples and leaderships, and the important question of whether you or I would ‘accept’ our own dispossession.
“But with this point about Palestinians, it is you who wishes to see Jews disappear as you are implying that in 1947 that the Palestinians were all Arabs. What you fail to admit is that in 1947 there were numerous Jews living in Palestine who wanted a Jewish state. This is a straight fact however inconvenient it is for you.”
Another word game. If you want to describe the population of Palestine pre-1948 as Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs, that’s fine by me. It doesn’t change anything of substance in our discussion.
“why is it that the only state on earth that you wish to see smashed is Israel? Why are you singling out the Jewish state for destruction?”
‘Smashed’? ‘Destruction’? Very emotive language that I don’t think is helpful for debate, particularly since you can’t find anything I’ve written or said that would justify this kind of violent rhetoric.
“Why is it when there are over 20 Arab states in the Middle East of a large land mass that you refuse to allow one Jewish state that is about the size of Wales?”
Are you reading from a sheet? It’s like going through an Israeli apologist’s guide to one-line ripostes. There it is, all in one sentence: all the Arabs are the same, plucky little Israel surrounded by horrible enemies, the Palestinians don’t actually have any ties to Palestine…
“Why is it that you accept and support the Palestinian Arab right to national self determination but deny that right to the Jews?”
Well, actually, I support the rights of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews in the land that is dear to them both. The right to be treated as equals, for example. The difference between us is that you think that in Palestine/Israel, Jewish rights are superior to those of the Palestinian Arabs.
Mikey you are correct about the Satmar’s organizational hatred for political Zionism.
The reasons for my insisting that it’s important to point out that they are spiritual Zionist is that I know some former Satmars who have broken with their sect over this issue and embraced political Zionism. There also cases of former religious political Zionists who have embraced an anti political Zionist point of view.
What I am suggesting then is that there is no iron curtain between the two stances and that the door while opening infrequently is a revolving one.
This may explain why the Satmars while anti-political Zionists are not antisemitic in any sense of the term.
This wouldn’t apply to leftist anti-Zionists “Jewish” or not.
@Ben White
Your knowledge of history seems to be somewhat lacking. It is a straight fact that the Jews accepted the partition plan and the Arabs rejected it. It is also a straight fact that in so far as the Palestinian Arabs, David Ben Gurion commented in December 1947:
It is also a fact that Fawzi Qawuqji, the local commander of Arab Liberation Army forces pledged “to drive all Jews into the sea.” Abdel Qader Husseini of the leading Palestinian Arab clan said that “the Palestine problem will only be solved by the sword; all Jews must leave Palestine.” The contrast is stark.[2]
When you suggest that the Palestinian Arabs suffered “enforced exile” again you are distorting history. Palestinian Arabs were fleeing cities in advance of any hostilities in 1948 getting ready for the Arab Armies to “drive the Jews into the sea.” An example is the city of Haifa, where according to British intelligence, nearly 1/3 of all Arabs residing in that city had left by December 1947.[3]
When you talk of the “Zionist leadership’s intention to use partition as an initial staging post on the way to a more comprehensive conquest of Palestine” I note you do not provide a source. You have a problem with accepting the historical reality that the Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it. It is true so get to grips with it.
I stated the following:
You respond by accusing me of using “Very emotive language” and saying that have not used “violent rhetoric.” But, the facts remain that you claim to be an anti-Zionist and hence you do not agree that Israel should exist irrespective of the wishes of the Israeli population and if it were to cease to exit it would have been destroyed. It seems to me that it is you who are playing the word games.
I asked the following:
You did not answer the question but accused me of being an Israeli apologist! In your next response you may try and answer the question and also why the Israel is the only country in the world which you wish to see disappear off the face of the map.
You state:
So do I. I am glad we agree. Now why do you want one country wiped off the map?
Finally you state:
This final sentence is of course a pure fabrication but why let the truth get in the way of the distorted picture you wish to create?
References
[1] Efraim Karsh, “Rights and Wrongs: History and the Palestinian ‘Right of Return’” The Review June, 2001
[2]Efraim Karsh, “1948, Israel, and the Palestinians,” Commentary May, 2008
[3] Efraim Karsh, “Nakbat Haifa: Collapse and Dispersion of a Major Palestinian Community,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 25-70
Mikey you are wasting your time with Ben White.
He is an anti-Zionist true believer and judging from his blog a Christian anti-Zionist.
Now Christian anti-Zionism is by definition antisemitic since it embraces overtly or covertly the notion of Christian Supercessionism.
His answers to you and me, such as they are, are short, curt and full of self righteous indignation. He assumes all the points he is trying to prove and his screed reads like a set of talking points put out by some Palestinian rejectionist group.
He contests all historical data that doesn’t suit his case and accuses you of using emotive language. This is funny since his all case is based on the emotive issue of the Arab refugees.
He ignores, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, the persistent anti Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world, and of course he nary a word about traditional Christian antisemitism which contributed to the destruction of most of European Jews.
Jewish suffering means nothing to him while Arabs in refugee camps are the supreme victims of a diabolic Jewish force. No other refugees in the world count since none of them are fighting Jews.
Finally, he doesn’t so much deny his one sided views but gets indignant when it is pointed out. Just as he eschews compromise in the Arab Israeli conflict so too does he shy away from honest debate about the conflict.
It is clear that Ben White is used to speaking only to people who share his censoriousness of the Jewish State, whether in person or in print.
Ben White - on the point about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, one can make the case that, theoretically, they are distinct. Placed in historical context, it’s clear as daylight that much of the time they are virtually indistinguishable.
The reason I often refer to official Soviet anti-Zionist doctrine is that this was a prime example of pure antisemitism dressed up in the language of anti-Zionism. Check the historical record and you will see that involved a) the persecution of Jews, as evidenced by the elimination of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the USSR, or by the campaign against Zionists in Poland in 1968, b) an attack on Zionism premised on the demonization of Judaism as a racist doctrine (see Skurlatov or any of the numerous anti-Zionist pamphlets churned out by the Soviet authorities during the 1960s and 1970s).
Western anti-Zionism today echoes many of these Stalinist themes: the notion of Zionism as a unique form of evil, the denial of Jewish national identification and so forth.
More broadly, you make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims about the Zionist leadership in 1948, and you ignore the record of the Arab leadership. If I ask you about the antisemitic atrocities in Jaffa in 1911, or in Hebron in 1929, or during the strike of 1936, or the role of Palestinian leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini in provoking the farhud in Baghdad in 1941, am I reciting from an Israeli propaganda sheet? If I remind you that Judah Magnes, a prominent advocate of binationalism before 1948, despaired at the lack of dialogue partners on the Arab side, is that propaganda too?
The problem, Ben - as Mikey and Shriber have observed - is that you assume that your interpretation of the event of 1948 is self-evidently true. It isn’t.
One more question: it is striking that nowhere in your comments do you address the issue of Hamas, despite the fact that this is the critical factor in Palestinian politics right now. Perhaps you would care to explain to us just how their version of the one-state solution is compatible with your declared commitment to the rights of both peoples? Because my understanding is that, if the Hamas flag (and yes, I mean the Hamas flag, which is NOT the Palestinian flag) was ever to fly in Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv and other towns, there would be lots of dead Jews beneath the parapet.
I doubt Ben White will answer this, but other readers should how selective his outrage is.
The Arab-Israeli (Jewish) conflict is hardly the only one in the 20th century which led to refugee problems and the killing of civilians.
Yet people like Mr. White like to focus their outrage only on the Jewish (Zionists).
Here are some examples:
In the 40’s India was divided between Hindus and Muslims leading to the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim State.
The parition was neither bloodless nor was it peaceful. It lead to the repatriation of millions upon millions of people.
It also led to war and the killing of millions. This conflict is ongoing and it recently threatened to turn into a nuclear exchange.
Still no one, least of all Ben White, has called for a one State solution to this conflict. Why is that?
The number of casualties in the Arab Israeli conflict is minuscule compared to other conflict.
Take the Greek-Turkish wars of the 20’s which also led to the death of tens of thousands and the repatriation of millions.
In Smyrna alone an ancient city burned by the Turks more than 200,000 people lost their lives.
Yet no one has suggested that Turkey, much less Greece is an illegitimate State, and least of all Ben White.
I could go on; the least is long, but I won’t bother since neither Ben White nor anyone of his anti-Zionists confreres would ever take note of any other conflict than the one involving Jews.
Finally, more Jews were murdered on a typical single day during the Holocaust than died in all the Arab Israeli wars combined.
Ben White needs to keep this in mind if he thinks that his crocodile tears about the victims of this conflict will have an effect on any one except convinced anti-Zionists.
Shriber,
Please, give it up. The Satmarer are anti-Zionist in whatever way Zionism is normally defined. You are inventing the term “spiritual Zionist” to try and make them Zionist but they are not Zionist, they are anti-Zionist. I have already provided you with very credible references that show they are very anti-Zionist. As the sources I have given you so far, despite their credibility, do not seem sufficient to convince you, I will provide a further quote from another reliable source:
Source:
Zvi Jonathan Kaplan,”Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Zionism, and Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy,” Modern Judaism Volume 24, Number 2, May 2004, pp. 165-178
It can therefore be seen that even from a spiritual point of view, the Satmar Rabbi was virulently anti-Zionist. How many more sources do I need to provide from reputable authors in scholarly publications on this matter before you finally accept that the Satmar sect is anti-Zionist; that they are not just against political Zionism but against Zionism full stop?
Mikey, I already said that the Satmars are anti-Israel and anti-Zionism taken in the usual political sense.
No disagreement there.
Where I disagree with you and this is based on conversations and arguments I had with a number of Satmars, is that any one who prays for restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem through the agency of Moshiach is a “Zionst,” not a political zionist to be sure, and not someone who supports Israel, but a zionist in the traditional pre-Herzl sense.
If a Satmar could, not only see the point I was making, but agree with me, I don’t see why you can’t see the point I am making. I am not asking for agreement.
I suggest you visit a Satmar oriented Shul on Tisha B’Av to see how they pray for the lost temple and for its restoration.
Lisa Kats expressed this very succinctly when she wrote:
“Despite their opposition of the Zionist State, they love the Holy Land and aim to protect it from secularism and bloodshed. Many Satmar Hasidim visit and even live in Israel, but they do not vote, pay taxes, accept benefits, serve in the armed forces or recognize the authority of the court.”
http://judaism.about.com/od/denominationsofjudaism/a/hasid.htm
It should be pointed out, btw, that the Satmars also irrationally blame secular Jews for the Holocaust.
To me they are just another anti-modernist sect that hates the modern world, and like the Amish, want to keep their distance from the treifene secular world of which Israel is a part. Like many Jews I have a soft spot for them, but not to the extent of endorsing their fanatical and irrational beliefs. (I have a hunch that here too we are not in disagreement.)
Shriber,
You can have as many conversations wityh Satmars as you like but the scholarly sources all point one way - The Satmars are anti-Zionist. You have not provided me a single source that suggests that they are Zionist. Even your own source, which contains very limited information, states quite categorically::
What next from you; will you be telling us that Ronald Reagan was a communist of sorts or that Margaret Thatcher wanted more powerful unions?
“Ben White - on the point about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, one can make the case that, theoretically, they are distinct. Placed in historical context, it’s clear as daylight that much of the time they are virtually indistinguishable.”
So what would you say then, to a Palestinian who said to you that s/he is anti-Zionist because for him/her, Zionism has meant the loss of a village, land, expulsion, enforced exile, and collective dispossession? “You are anti-semitic”? And to the person who sympathises with them? An anti-semite as well?
Behind the explicit and implicit accusations of ’singling out’ Israel or “the Jews” (ranging from the direct to the “we know why you focus on Israel wink wink” type) that many Zionists and Israeli apologists express, is in fact, a different kind of objection. It is an objection to ’singling out’ the Palestinians for sympathy, support and solidarity.
Who would jab their fingers at a Tibetan or Tibetan solidarity activist and say accusingly, “Well, why do you keep picking on China? What about Mugabe?” It would sound absurd.
But when it comes to Israel, there’s no distraction too obscure, no human rights issue too irrelevant. ‘Look’, they say, ‘there are other bad things in the world too. Why pick on us?’
Thankfully, it is an indication of the extent to which Zionist propaganda has been undermined in recent times that this has become such an automatic defence.
Ben White asks:
I would say that they, like him, do not have a proper grasp of history and that they, like him, should read some scholarly papers on the subject. I would also say that they, like him, should look not to Zionism to blame but to the Palestinian leadership.
Ben White also states:
Can Ben White name a “Tibetan or Tibetan solidarity activist” that says that China should disappear from the map? Those that want to free Tibet do not simultaneously argue that China should cease to be a sovereign country. What White has continually failed to do is to justify why he thinks that Israel is the only sovereign country in the world that does not have the right to exist.
It would be helpful if White did not denounce my post as “propaganda” but answer the points raised.
Again, Ben, you are not dealing with the problem. You think it’s self-evident that “Zionism” is solely responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians. That’s an interpretation which allows you to say that opposition to Zionism is based not upon an intangible hatred (antisemitism) but upon opposition to a tangible colonial project (Zionism).
But you don’t demonstrate the case for your “original sin” theory.
You are also rather selective in what you define as solidarity with the Palestinians. Is expressing solidarity with the Palestinians only about attacking Israel? Should you not, at some point, consider the massive impact which Hamas rule is having upon Gaza?
In that regard, I think it’s interesting that you mention Mugabe. Mugabe spoke the language of liberation and now presides over a disintegrated, starving, inflation-ruined country. The only way he can get people to chant his name is when the thugs of ZANU-PF force them at gunpoint to do so. So who do you give your solidarity too? To Mugabe’s regime, with its frankly foul bluster about British imperialism being to blame? Or to the Zimbabwean people struggling to free themselves from his rule?
I ask you to think about this in the Zimbabwean case because you may have, sooner rather than later, to answer a similar question in which the object of analysis is not ZANU-PF, but Hamas.
Mikey:
“I would say that they, like him, do not have a proper grasp of history and that they, like him, should read some scholarly papers on the subject.”
Yes, if they only they just sat and down and read some scholarly papers about it all, their inability to return home and the Jewish town built on their village would all just become a figment of their imagination.
Ben:
“Again, Ben, you are not dealing with the problem. You think it’s self-evident that “Zionism” is solely responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians. That’s an interpretation which allows you to say that opposition to Zionism is based not upon an intangible hatred (antisemitism) but upon opposition to a tangible colonial project (Zionism). But you don’t demonstrate the case for your “original sin” theory.”
Sorry, are you saying that it is simply not true that for a Palestinian, Zionism has meant the loss of a village, land, expulsion, enforced exile, and collective dispossession? If so, I will happily sit down and type out a list of books you could try.
Secondly, I’d be happy to discuss Hamas, but I can’t help feeling that’s a distraction from the focus of this discussion - namely your claim that anti-Zionism = anti-semitism (as well as, it would seem, your denial of what Zionism has actually meant for the Palestinians - though I’ll wait to see your reply to that). If you do a blog post on Hamas, I could always come back for a relevant chat.
Don’t be ridiculous, Mikey.
I already said that the Satmars are anti-Zionists and oppose the State of Israel. They oppose it as a religious sect. You want to say that someone can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. I even agreed to that.
I am trying to figure out why the Satmars are anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. The reaons as I stated is that they still work within the Judaic paradigm which they have in common even with the Zionists they hate.
You seem unable to process this point, let’s drop it, then.
Ben White “what would you say then, to a Palestinian who said to you that s/he is anti-Zionist because for him/her, Zionism has meant the loss of a village, land, expulsion, enforced exile, and collective dispossession?”
Simple, I would ask them why the Palestinian Arabs made war on the Jews who had accepted the UN partition plan. I would also ask them why they refused then and still refuse to accept the legitimate claims of the Jews to the land of their ancestors.
However, Ben White, this is no an innocent question. It is a question posed by an Englishman who has taken the side of the Arabs in their struggle against the Jews.
My question to you, then, is why did you choose one side in this struggle?
It’s also not a simple question because most Palestinians today did not lose their villages or land to the Jews some of their parents and grandparents did for reasons I stated above.
This question begs another: why is there still a “Palestinian Arab refugee problem” and not say a Muslim or Hindu refugee problem in the subcontinent. Whey is there no German refugee problem in Europe or a Greek and Turkish refugee problem?
The answer is simple the Arabs refused to repatriate their refugees while all the other peoples did. The Jews repatriated a half a million refugees from Arabs lands.
The Palestinian refugee problem is weapon used by the enemies of the Jews (including you) in order to continue their war against the Jewish State.
Ben White,
Let us see them then - a serious of quotes from scholarly books that suggests that “for a Palestinian, Zionism has meant the loss of a village, land, expulsion, enforced exile, and collective dispossession.” I argue that it the Palestinian leadership at fault, not Zionism. To quote directly from a leading scholar on the matter:
Source:
Efraim Karsh, “Were the Palestinians expelled?” Commentary Vol. 110, Iss. 1 (Jul/Aug 2000) pp. 29-34
Mikey, come on - there is no need to be so sarcastic towards Shriber. Nowhere has he argued that the Satmar are political Zionists - had he done so, your quip about Reagan being a communist might have had some validity, but since he didn’t, it’s just silly, no?
For me, the most important point which Shriber makes relates to how the Satmar represent an anti-modernist ideology which, among other things, puts the responsibility for the Holocaust on the Jews. That, perhaps, is the real issue we should be debating.
Also, since both of you seem to know your onions on this one, I am genuinely interested to know more about the fallout of NK’s Iran trip on the other ultraorthodox groups.
Ben White, I do not subscribe to the Ilan Pappe version of events (he, I assume, would head up your reading list).
Regarding your remark about Hamas being irrelevant to a discussion about antisemitism and anti-Zionism, are they really? I raised them in terms of their contribution to the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people, but they are also a wonderful example of how anti-Zionism can be indistinguishable from antisemitism.
Mikey, if you think I’m going to sit down and write out quotes for you, I’m sorry to disappoint you (yes, that’s right, it’s just because they don’t really exist! You’ve caught me!)
Ben:
Sorry, simply saying “I do not subscribe to the Ilan Pappe version of events” is not particularly revealing about your view on a fairly fundamental point here. So I’ll ask again:
“are you saying that it is simply not true that for a Palestinian, Zionism has meant the loss of a village, land, expulsion, enforced exile, and collective dispossession?”
If so, it’s amazing that all these years later, a ‘Z-Word’ blog still boils down to the same point: “It never happened”. (Which doesn’t even have the honesty of the position that says, ‘Yes, it happened, and it was jolly well worth it’.)
Left, Right and Islamists have all converged on essentially the same definition of Zionist - its a catch all term meaning anyone who’s against their ideologies, and it alleges a worldwide political, media, military, financial conspiracy (headquartered in Washington and Jerusalem) to control the world for alien, nefarious ends.
Its all but indistinguishable (bar literary floursihes, such as meetings in Prague cemetery) from the antisemitic compendium that is the Protocols.
This is antisemitism in the 21st century. It is re-packaged and newly branded as anti-Zionism, but our great grandmothers would have known it exactly for what it is.
There are some people who have far better reasons than others for hating Zionists. I’d certainly include Palestinians & Neturei Karta in that category. I don’t hate these people for their hatred, because its largely understandable: unlike their fellow travellers who claim to know better, but who have allowed their failed ideological rhetoric to lead them down antisemitic one way alleys, and who now reflexively dismiss and deny all mainstream majority Jewish perspectives on identity & antisemitism.
New Statesman’s editor Peter Wilby didn’t know why a gold star of david piercing a union jack was antisemitic. He wouldn’t apologise to mainstream Jewish community groups, and only did so when Jewish anti-Zionists occupied his office. - And we are expected to respect the opinion of Wilby et al as to what is and is not antisemitic. What a sad joke.
Ben
I apologise, you are correct. I may have been overly sarcastic but it was because I was getting a bit annoyed. Quite early on in this thread, I said I was “Hopefully concluding on this matter.” It is absolutely clear that Satmar are anti-Zionist. I ideally wanted to stop there but Shriber came back. Ultimately I requested of him to “Please, give it up.” He did not but continued and gave a source to try and justify his position. I went to the trouble of reading his source. His own source states that “Satmar Hasidim oppose all forms of Zionism.” I am happy to drop the matter now.
Regarding Satmar’s blaming Zionism for the Holocaust, this is indeed very concerning but fits in with their general thesis. To explain why they do, it is necessary to have some background:
The 16th century Talmudic scholar, the Maharal of Prague, warned that “the prohibition against returning from the Diaspora is as strict as any apostasy.” The reason for this is that Jewish exile is a punishment for Jewish sins. God scattered the people of Israel amongst the nations and they must await the coming of the Messiah for their redemption.According to the great eleventh century Jewish scholar and commentator, Rashi “he who leads one to sin is worse than one who kills since killing puts an end to ones existence in this world, but sinning puts an end to it also in the next world.”
The Satmar Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum,believed “sin is the cause for all suffering.” Zionism was a great sin and would lead to a terrible disaster. In his book Vayoel Moshe (And Moses Agreed), which Teitelbaum composed in the late 1950s: “six million of Israel were killed… for this is the bitter punishment as the Talmud makes it clear when it says ‘I am permitting your flesh [to be devoured] like the flesh of the deer and the gazelle’.” He drew the inevitable conclusion: the Holocaust itself was a direct result of Zionism and divine punishment for the Zionists’ sin: “For their hands are stained with blood, and they are the reason for the terrible disaster of the killing of the killing of six million Jews.” He believed Hitler to be a messenger of divine wrath sent to chasten the Jews because of the bitter apostasy of Zionism against the belief in the eventual Messianic redemption.
[NB. I have used a number of sources for this, but it is explained very well and in some detail in Dina Porat’s article, “Amalek’s accomplices” that I have referred to earlier on in this thread. Her essay has also been republished in her recent highly acclaimed book, Israeli Society, the Holocaust and its Survivors (London: Valentine Mitchell, 2008)pp. 358-387]
I am not saying that I agree with any of this, but it explains the theological reason as to why the Satmarer blame the Holocaust on the Zionists.
Regarding Neturei Karta, they are in a world of their own. To the best of my knowledge, other ultra-Orthodox sects want nothing to do with them. According to a report published onynetnews.com in the week of the Tehran conference:
Ben White,
It seems absolutely clear to me that you have a belief that Zionists created a great crime in 1948 and that you do not recognise any fault in the Palestinian Arab leadership at that time. But it is also clear to me that you have no justification for that belief apart from propaganda that has been fed to you that you lap up. You stated that you would “happily sit down and type out a list of books” to try and justify your position but when subsequently challenged to provide some quotes that backed it up you ran away from the challenge.
Despite numerous requests you have also failed to explain why you believe that Israel is the only country in the world not worthy of existence. Your position is morally bankrupt.
Ok, Mikey you can have the last word on this issue.
Yes, Ben, it would be interesing to discuss the Satmar take on the Holocaust. I have been in debate with them and others on this issue, since my bar Mirtzvah, but I suspect we should do so on a different thread.
Why anyone is still bothering with Mr. White is beyond. He is a man full of foul opinions about the Jewish State and nothing else.
He has no facts, not figures, just some emotive notions about “evil Zionists.”
Until he answers any of the many questions (I’d settle for his answering three questions) posed to him by posters there is no need to take anything he says seriously.
What strikes me about the debate about anti Semitism and ant Zionism is that no one seems to recognize that one need not be an anti Semite to be irrational.
Neturei Karta and other ultra religious sects that hate Israel are irrational on many issues. Why should they be different on the issue of Israel?
If you consider that other religious groups like the Jehovah Witnesses who don’t recognize any State or government are also probably anti-Zionists than you would have to consider them as another group that is not anti Semitic.
But do these religious groups live in the real world?
The real question should be are people engaged with the real world also anti Semitic if they are anti Zionist. The answer is yes.
Mikey’s positions are well argued but his insistence that quoting a group’s doctrines proves his case is in error.
I could quote the Soviet constitution about equal rights all day long, but that doesn’t mean that there was such a thing in the Soviet Union.
Of course, his use of evidence is a lot better than Ben White’s questionable appeal to emotions to make his case.
Until there is a satisfactory definition of anti-Semitism, the argument of what is or is not anti-Semitism will rage on unabated. I happen to believe that Antony Lerman represents the more reasonable (and better reasoned) position, but it won’t make any difference to those who see a country and a nation as necessarily coextensive. The nation of Israel (that is, the Jewish people) have a right to exist and be protected from molestation. This right is one that was discovered, as it was for other vulnerable peoples, in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Having been discovered it is now widely, though not universally, accepted — a right not just for Jews, but for all vulnerable peoples. But it does not mean that particular countries and plots of land are inviolate. The intricate arguments used to tie modern Israel, a country, to the Jews, a nation, and to ancient Israel, another country different from but in a place similar to modern Israel are generally smoke and mirrors. The modern country of Israel is no more inviolate than any other modern country — all rest on political and economic considerations, as well as often on the cynical manipulation of ancient suspicions and hatreds.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he had plausible arguments that Kuwait had always been part of Iraq. But the world didn’t care much for his arguments, for obvious reasons. When the modern state of Israel was formed, it was with the acquiescence rather than the enthusiasm of much of the rest of the world, which rightly imagined that Arabs wouldn’t like it much, but wrongly imagined they would get used to it and wouldn’t be able to do much about it. Sixty years later, in a world thirsty for oil and desperate for stability, if the cause for modern Israel were to be argued again, knowing what we know now, it would fail. The fear of another Holocaust, like the fear of another 9/11, has not come to pass. The Jews do not NEED a homeland anymore than any other people needs a homeland. The Jews in America, Britain, France, etc., are generally as safe as the Jews in Israel, and frequently safer.
Is it wrong, then, to think that a Jew can be a Jew (particularly a secular or semi-secular, assimilated Jew) in these countries as well as in Israel? I would think that inviting Israeli Jews to return to Europe might well be interpreted as “anti-Semitic” by persons with vested-interests in modern Israel, but is it really anti_Semitic? Is modern Israel really different from anywhere else? If so, how and why? Keep in mind that arguments based on uniqueness are particularly vulnerable to arguments based on analogy.
If I don’t like countries dominated by right-wing or overtly religious governments, then isn’t it hypocritical of me to make an exception for modern Israel as currently constituted? How different is Israel from, say, Poland? — another corrupt country dominated by a dysfunctional right-wing government too closely allied with the USA and too much dominated by un-elected religious leaders? If I can say that Poland is a mess, and that letting it into the EU was a premature gesture and therefore a mistake, why can’t I say similar things of Israel? That it, too, is a mess, that it is disruptive and overly dependent on the USA, that its bellicosity is destabilising and unhelpful to its patrons and the western world generally, and that in respect of the Palestinian people and the Occupied Territories it has behaved and continues to behave deplorably, in fact has behaved and continues to behave in ways that essentially demand and certainly invite the terrorist activities it complains of? Why should the Palestinians be peaceful and patient when they very understandably see themselves as victims?
Thank you, Mr Lerman, for putting these points better than I have been able to put them myself.