There follows my response to certain matters raised in the third post, titled “Racism and Anti-Semitism”, in a series by Samuel Fleischacker - hereinafter referred to as SF - about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, currently appearing over at Normblog. My responses to the two previous posts can be found here and here.
1.
SF kicks off his remarks by saying,
a) Many Jews portray opposition to Israel - opposition to the existence of a Jewish state - as an expression of anti-Semitism: a blind hatred of Jews.
In some cases a blind hatred of Jews is exactly what antisemitism is. However, as I have argued here and here, some people may reasonably be classified as antisemites even if they do not blindly hate Jews and suffer only from a refusal to admit that Jews may legitimately seek to vindicate national rights for themselves. Reducing the definition of antisemitism to blind hatred of Jews lets these people right off the hook as they can say, usually with justification, “I am not a believer in the blood libel or the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or whatever. They can then move on to claim that there is, therefore, no basis for describing their opposition to the existence of Israel as racist and antisemitic. They shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
SF would probably say that the kind of antisemitism he is referring to is of the crazed variety described later in his post and that this kind is of greater importance in the Israel-Palestine conflict than the more limited Guardianista sort. In terms of events on the ground in the Middle East he is probably right. However, the rejection of national rights for Jews, or the allowing only of an attenuated version of them, forms a growing part of the dinner party discourse of those who perceive themselves to be political progressives and it needs to be identified and combated.
2.
Moving on to deal with the question of the degree to which Israel serves as a solution for antisemitism, SF goes on to say,
One can oppose anti-Semitism vehemently while thinking the proper solution to the problem is better laws, or policing, or education, in the countries in which it takes place, not a separate state for the Jews. One may also hold, reasonably and humanely, that these alternative solutions would be better than establishing a Jewish state: both because a Jewish state, like all states favouring a particular ethnic or religious group, imposes costs on people outside the group it favours, and because it might be better for Jews themselves to have full equality wherever they live rather than just in one country. It is not unreasonable to suggest, indeed, that concentrating all or most Jews in one place could in the long run turn out to be dangerous to Jewish survival.
This paragraph makes antisemitism sound like a problem akin to the ill-treatment of domestic animals, with the non-Jew (or the Jew anxious to ingratiate himself with the non-Jew) being allowed to decide, “reasonably and humanely”, what would be best for the Jew. No position that holds that the Jews, individually and/or collectively ought to rely on non-Jews to decide on the limits of their rights, or watch over their welfare, is going to resist the test of a brief consideration of modern history or, no matter how well intentioned it might be, be able to entirely escape a charge of antisemitism.
Furthermore, I feel that SF risks confusing antisemitism as a problem for the Jews with antisemitism as a problem of the Jews. The existence of antisemitism in the world is, quite obviously, a problem for Jews and they have an interest in seeing its extent and gravity reduced. However, it is not their problem; its existence cannot be legitimately attributed to their existence or activities. If, therefore, the existence of Israel tends to reduce the virulence of antisemitism in certain countries then that is well and good but the legitimacy of Israel as a member of the community of nations cannot depend on it, nor would it be diminished even if it could be shown that its existence tended to aggravate the problem of antisemitism in the Middle East or elsewhere.
The last sentence of the paragraph quoted above deserves special attention. The only basis on which such a belief might be regarded as “not unreasonable” would be a premise that there exists a very great deal of genocidal antisemitic sentiment in the world and that Jews should, therefore, avoid drawing attention to themselves by living in great numbers in one place, lest they facilitate the genocidal intentions of those who would seek to destroy them. This is supposed to be a “not unreasonable” view? And if the premise that it is based on is correct - the presence of a great deal of latent genocidal antisemitism in the world - might not the opposite conclusion be more credibly drawn from it; that Jews should build a state for themselves and acquire the means to visit terrible consequences on those who would seek to slaughter them? Also, the view expressed in the paragraph as a whole - that it might be thought to be better for Jews to seek the protection of the states where they live as miniscule minorities rather than build a state for themselves - is radically inconsistent with the belief that there is such hostility in the world to Jews that their gathering together to live in one place might call their survival into question.
3.
SF then says,
There are people who oppose all nationalism, in the name of liberal or socialist ideals, and they are quite right, if they do, to oppose Zionism as well. Anyone who thinks that no state should favour an ethnic or religious group, that states should treat all their citizens equally, regardless of group identity, has good reason to oppose Zionism. One should suspect anti-Semitism only when a person has no problem with Arab or Finnish or Muslim or Christian states, but gets apoplectic about the idea of a Jewish state.
Perfectly good points and the last sentence is right on the money. It would be interesting to know why SF thinks that there is such a great number of people who live in a permanent sate of apoplexy about the existence of a Jewish state and whose liberal or socialist consciences don’t trouble them at all on the question of the existence of so many other nations based on varying degrees of ethnic, religious or linguistic favoritism.
His argument begins to go a bit astray here though,
Even here, however, there is room for an opposition to Zionism that is not anti-Semitic. A person might reasonably hold that nationalism is acceptable, even a good thing, where a group of people who already live together want to express their group identity politically, but not where one people needs to be displaced by another. Such a person might grant that a Jewish state is in principle acceptable, but not in the way it was actually established .
I suppose such a person might exist but if they wanted to be able to hold this opinion without falling into antisemitism they would have to similarly reject the existence of the great number of other actually existing states which were created by mass immigration from elsewhere and the expulsion, or more usually, the extermination of the existing population.
And now things start to get a bit odd,
So anti-Zionism need not be anti-Semitism, and the accusation of anti-Semitism should not be used to shut down debate over Israeli policy, or even over the existence of Israel, as a Jewish state.
Has anybody noted debate on Israeli policy being “shut down”? I sure haven’t. What I have noticed is the question of antisemitism sometimes being raised when criticisms of Israeli policy are made. It may be justified to do this in some cases and not in others. It depends on the criticism and who is making it and the response to the criticism and who is making it . Ruling out in advance the possible existence of antisemitism as a motivation for, or as a relevant component of criticism of Israeli policy is as unjustifiable as would be an attempt to claim that all criticism of Israeli policy was antisemitic in nature. Neither position can be justified.
SF’s position is even more questionable on the issue of Israel’s existence as a state for Jews. As I have argued elsewhere, it’s just possible to conceive of a non-antisemitic anti-Zionism but such a position is entirely absent from the debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict and I therefore believe it justified to hold that, absent evidence to the contrary, the great bulk of current anti-Zionism is in fact antisemitic in nature.
4.
A final point: SF says,
There are power asymmetries that favour Israel, for instance, and there is no symmetry between the quite comfortable lives of Jews in Israel and the lives of millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule or in refugee camps. Jews, and others who support Israel, need to recognize these asymmetries.
A critical point is elided here. Israel has a direct and grave responsibility for those Palestinians it rules on the West Bank and it could reasonably be regarded as having some responsibility for the situation in Gaza. However, I can’t see how, 60 years after its foundation, it can it can be held to be responsible for the serious discrimination and oppression suffered by Palestinians in some Arab countries, especially Lebanon. Some would respond to this by saying, “But what about the right of return?” Well, what about it? Why should Israel and only Israel be expected to take responsibility for those who left or were driven from their homes on its territory at the moment of its foundation and not those countries where they have resided since? Are there no comfortable elites in Arab nations as indifferent, if not more so, to the fate of Palestinians living on their territory as the most right-wing Israeli might be about the conditions of Palestinians on the West Bank? Furthermore and though I know that SF has said that he does not favour the implementation of the so-called Right of Return; blaming Israel for the situation of Palestinians in Arab countries today only makes sense if based on an implicit acceptance of this supposed right. So why, of all the countries that have come into existence in the last 60 years and with all the millions and millions of refugees created in the process, should Israel and only Israel be expected to accede to the exercising of such a supposed right?
Petra, in last week’s discussion, was quite right to say that those who read my pieces should not wait until they are all done to comment. But on the whole I do need to refrain from saying much for a while, since it’s important to what I’m trying to do in this exercise – the construction of “a shared moral narrative,” an account of the rights and wrongs of the conflict to which both Zionist Jews (like me, in case you’re wondering) and Palestinians might agree - that I lay things out in a certain order, and maintain a balanced tone that can be hard to manage in ongoing give and take. (I don’t know yet how well the exercise is succeeding, by the way, but I have had favorable responses to the posts from readers in Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as American Arabs and Muslims.)
That said, I think I can add the following clarifications of what I’m saying in response to Eamonn’s latest post without violating the role I’m trying to take on:
1) I don’t agree that a “non-anti-semitic anti-Zionism is … entirely absent from the debate” on Israel-Palestine. Each of the types of anti-Zionist positions I represent as something a person might hold without being anti-Semitic is something that I have actually heard from quite a number of people who seem to me clearly not anti-Semitic (and I’m not shy about finding people anti-Semitic). They do tend to be positions held mostly in the academy, where nationalism is widely despised, rather than in the general population. But I think Jewish communities go wrong by simply labelling every professor who opposes Zionism an anti-Semite (as happens here in Chicago all the time: see 3, below), instead of recognizing that in some cases, at least, the professor who holds the view opposes all nationalism, including Arab and Muslim nationalism, and has an at worst naive belief that everyone can and soon will live in wholly liberal or socialist states. One can and should argue with these people, but calling them anti-Semites is not the right ground for that argument.
2) Nevertheless, I do think anti-Semitism plays a major role in explaining why there is widespread criticism of Israel for favoring a particular ethnic/religious group when many other states do the same thing. I don’t think it’s the only factor, but it’s probably the most important one – as I say both in “Cool Hour 3” and in the piece on anti-Semitism referenced therein.
3) Here in the US, at least, the organized Jewish community quite often does try to shut down debate over Israel, and often employs the accusation of anti-Semitism to do so. Twice in the past year, Jewish groups have tried to prevent anti-Israel professors from getting tenure, and just this past Spring, the Jewish Federation here in Chicago, with the help of a local Jewish newspaper, pressured the Jewish museum in town to close a show it deemed anti-Israel. I’m a fervent opponent of the proposed British boycott of Israeli academics, but I’m sorry to say that the assault on free speech on this issue doesn’t come just from the anti-Israel side.
4) My point about the asymmetries between Israelis and Palestinians was not meant to suggest anything about Israeli *responsibility* for Palestinian suffering (I don’t think I said anything even hinting at that). It was just a point about *asymmetry*: about the fact that, even in an attempt to write a balanced, potentially shareable, moral narrative, one can’t always find equal fault on both sides. And the reason for making the point is one I’d imagine Eamonn would like: that I wanted to stress the fact that anti-Semitism plays a far greater role in the opposition to Israel than racism does in support for Israel.
I don’t think that “a balanced, potentially shareable, moral narrative” is the task for today. People don’t make peace with words, they make peace with results over time.
I think that in the process of getting to a shareable narrative, Fleischaker is bending so much to the side of the Palestinians that it is an ahistorical narrative.
One could very well say: Palestinians had their chance to make peace or kill the Jews in 1948 and missed it. Now they live with the consequences of their bad choice. Not every minority has to have a state. Lets remind the Palestinians that most of them in the West Bank keep their Jordanian passports in a drawer in the night table.
And that will be justice too.
Or not?
I don’t believe “a balanced, potentially shareable, moral narrative” is the (lone) task for today, but, depending upon definitions applied to “balanced,” etc., it can and should be one of the tasks for today.
After all, that perspective, properly understood, is simply (or perhaps not so simply) one that seeks to advance coherent, cogent and responsibly clarified grounds for discussion, along with arguments based upon that grounding. Absent that perspective and cogency parties will essentially, to put it in simplified terms, be abandoning better conceived discussions and arguments for discussions that are based upon mutual misconceptions. In attempting to make as much of the discussion as is possible accessible to the mind, in all its multivaried and particularist manifestations, there is no inherent necessity to change one’s positions on various topics. The only truly inherent necessity involved in such a general endeavor is the necessity to make an earnest and responsible attempt at better clarifications, cogency, etc.
I.e. at the base of this is the idea to throw more light, rather than less light, on the multifaceted, multilayered, etc. complexities involved. It’s a challenge, but it’s very much a worthwhile challenge, rightly conceived it’s a necessary challenge, one needing to be responsibly and conscientiously faced. At least that’s how I approach this set of exchanges at Norm’s blog and here, and it’s how I approach the topic in broader terms as well.
There are cautions involved in such an endeavor, as is alluded to directly above, but they are cautions only, they are not inherently stopping points. One of those cautions is that, in attempting to understand “the other” and in approaching them in a manner that is at least intellectually “sympathetic” to their view, there is the risk of being forgetful of one’s own and one’s compatriots subjective, real-world concerns. That is a problem, however, that inheres to virtually any process of abstraction/conceptualization; it’s an issue, a part of the challenge, a part of the task being attempted and one that needs to be consciously born in mind, but it does not inherently represent a contradiction or a terminal point, beyond which it is somehow not safe to venture.
That’s specious reasoning Fabian. Your logic is full of holes: if these are the consequences of war, then further “consequences” should not be deplorable for your sake, ie more lives lost, meaning more Israelis dead for the sake of “consequences” that Palestinians want to inflict on Israel for a “war” they want to “win”.
PS Not every minority or ethnic group has a state. The state structure is certainly a ploy used by powerful states in a post-colonial world. Israel and Palestine really is no exception to this. But what every other minority did not have was a UN Mandate for a state called Palestine, still unimplemented.
I definitely do not believe that there is a vacuum of anti-Zionist expression free of anti-semitism. In fact, that would immediately make me anti-semitic.