Noel Ignatiev is one the last people you would expect to be authoring an entry on Zionism for an encyclopedia published under a well-known, trusted imprint. But open Volume 3 of the “Encyclopedia of Race and Racism,” which carries the names of both Macmillan Reference USA (now owned by the Michigan-based Gale, Cengage Learning company) and the Macmillan Social Science Library, and you will see that he has done just that.
Some of you will be wondering who Ignatiev is. I first came across Ignatiev’s name a few years ago, when the antisemitic writer who uses the name “Israel Shamir” referred to him as “our good friend.” Lest I be accused of damning by association, I should point out that Shamir and Ignatiev appear to have their disagreements, although these will be barely intelligible to those not familiar with the obscurantist doctrines they represent.
What strikes me is that Ignatiev, like Shamir, is a provocateur and a propagandist who relentlessly pushes themes shared by far left and far right alike. He makes statements like this one: “Osama bin Laden was no more than telling the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders.” And this one, from the same article: “Is one permitted to say above the level of a whisper that U.S. policy toward Israel has something to do with Jewish influence in the US?”
So why, then, is he writing for this encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is not, say, Counterpunch, the frequently antisemitic online magazine which Ignatiev has also contributed to, or Race Traitor, the strange online journal he started. One turns to an encyclopedia for an overview, a dispassionate account of the development of a particular subject, a summation of its key controversies. “The purpose of an encyclopedia,” wrote the French philosopher Diderot, who devoted himself to assembling the great work of the French Enlightenment called the Encyclopédie, “is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe.”
Judged by this yardstick, Ignatiev’s effort falls woefully short. Imagine a creationist writing about evolution and you will have some sense of the crackling errors and ugly distortions which litter the text. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Zionism entry was noticed by several academics and that it was brought to the attention of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the organization which sponsors Z Word.
AJC’s first concern was to establish the purpose of an entry on “Zionism” in an encyclopedia devoted to the subjects of race and racism. As AJC Executive Director David Harris pointed out in a memo to Frank Menchaca, the executive responsible for Macmillan Reference, USA, “Why, for example, do you include an entry on the Jewish form of nationalism when there is no entry for nationalism itself? Why, moreover, do you include the Jewish form of nationalism and not, say, Ba’athism, an Arab form of nationalism which was deeply influenced, as Elie Kedourie and other scholars of nationalism have pointed out, by Nazi ideology?”
The Nazi theme is particularly pertinent, because, as well as advancing the poisonous canard of Zionist-Nazi collaboration, Ignatiev’s entry claims that Zionists “shared the [Nazi] belief that the Jews were a racial community based on blood.” In his opening paragraph, Ignatiev states: “Because it defines ‘Jew’ not by religious observance, language, place of birth, or culture, but by descent, Zionism is an ideology of race.”
“Neither Zionism as an ideology nor Israel as a state can be reasonably categorized as racial,” wrote Harris in his memo to Menchaca. “Ignatiev asserts that Jewish identity qualifies as racial because children inherit it from their parents (as he says, ‘but by descent…’). But if this were true, then surely most other forms of human identity and community would also qualify as ‘racial.’ The term ‘racial’ would be stripped of its meaning, and your encyclopedia would be much lengthier than it currently is.”
I’ll return to the question of race momentarily, but first, a flavor of the rest of Ignatiev’s take on Zionism.
- Ignatiev portrays Zionism as an arm of the British mandatory power in Palestine. The reality was far more complex. “This would be the same British government that authored the 1939 “White Paper” on Palestine - yet another critical historical event which Ignatiev does not discuss,” wrote Harris in the AJC memo. “This White Paper stated, ‘His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.’ The White Paper also severely restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine to a total of 75,000 from 1940-44 - precisely the time when Nazi policy toward the Jews turned from persecution and deportation to extermination.”
- Ignatiev repeats the claim of Nazi-Zionist “collaboration.” After pointing to the Soviet provenance of this scandalous lie, Harris writes: “The term ‘collaboration’ implies two or more parties working together of their own free will towards a common, mutually agreed goal. This term is entirely inapplicable in a context where one party (the Nazis) regarded the other (Jews, whether Zionist in orientation or not) as untermenschen (subhuman). Is Ignatiev really arguing, in a book which bears the imprint of a reputable publisher, that the Zionists shared the Nazi goal of exterminating every Jew? Fantastical as it seems, this is exactly what he is arguing. This may explain why there is no mention, despite copious documentation in other sources, of the active collaboration between the Nazis and the Palestinian national movement led by Mohammed Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.”
- The term “Holocaust” is conspicuous by its absence. As Harris notes, this, “regrettably, is no accident. In an article for Counterpunch, a ferociously anti-Israel online journal - which, you should be aware, bears more than a passing similarity to the entry Ignatiev penned for your Encyclopedia - he writes, ‘…as is implied by a term like ‘The Holocaust,’ which takes anti-semitism out of history and relocates it the realm of natural phenomena.’ Such views are, to put it politely, eccentric at best. They certainly have no place in a publication which purports to be an objective reference work, particularly when the author of the entry does not showcase any views other than his own.”
- Ignatiev’s discussion of Israeli society and policy regurgitates everything from the “original sin” account of Israel’s creation to the claim that Palestinians are being expelled from the West Bank “without interruption.” Most glaring of all is his constant use of the term “Zionist authorities” to describe the Israeli government. David Harris again: “[This is] the tell-tale language of someone who does not believe Israel has a right to exist. Ignatiev is completely at liberty to believe this. What is not acceptable is his imposition of this belief upon an encyclopedia entry which many readers believe to be objective.”
Menchaca duly responded to the AJC’s memo. “After careful review of arguments from both sides,” he wrote to David Harris, “neither Mr. Moore (John Hartwell Moore, the encyclopedia’s Editor in Chief) nor I feel we can operate as arbitrators of these controversies.” In fact, it would appear that far from being a potential arbitrator, Moore endorses Ignatiev’s views. Later on his reply, Menchaca inserted a statement from Moore which justified the “racism” angle by claiming - much as Soviet propaganda used to do when completely distorting the Jewish theological notion of a covenant with God - that Zionism embodies an idea of racial superiority based on the conceptualization of the Jews as a “chosen people.”
Moore’s knowledge of Jewish history and Judaism would seem to be rather specious, to say the least. He goes on to say that Orthodox Jews prefer the term “Jewish race…as can be observed by browsing their web sites.” Go figure.
It is abundantly clear that Macmillan Reference USA has, unwittingly or otherwise, allowed itself to be hijacked by extremists pushing what academics might call an “eliminationist solution” to the questions of Zionism and Israel. Zionism, as AJC says, is not a subject for an encyclopedia on race and racism, particularly when the entire subject of nationalism is ignored. The only possible conclusion is that Macmillan Reference USA is trying to outdo the UN General Assembly, which rescinded its 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution back in 1991.
No doubt, this controversy will run. No doubt, Ignatiev will at some point repeat his statement that “not only does Zionism shape U.S. policy, it stifles discussion of alternatives.” But this is not about the vanity of anti-Zionists desperate to achieve dissident status with false claims of being muzzled. It is about an apparently reputable publisher promoting a concoction of myths, distortions and outright lies about Zionism as reliable scholarship, written by someone who doesn’t even think Israel should be there in the first place. And in a world where antisemitism continues to percolate (see here and here for very recent examples), there is much more than standards of scholarship at stake.
“Moore’s knowledge of Jewish history and Judaism would seem to be rather specious, to say the least. He goes on to say that Orthodox Jews prefer the term “Jewish race…as can be observed by browsing their web sites.” Go figure.”
This is insane and insanely ignorant. Has Moore ever visited Israel or any Jewish community? Hasn’t he seen that Jews in Israel come in different colors and body types that contradict the notion of race?
This is pretty serious. I wonder what the AJC or any other organization can do to have the McMillan book company change it sentry which is objectively false.
I believe it’s time to refer to people like Moore as antisemites. (They are either anti-Jewish nor else they are too ignorant and obtuse to be editing an encyclopedia.)
Rather than the label being used too freely people are too reticent to use it. It’s acceptable to refer to people as racist but not as antisemites. It is time we changed that.
“He goes on to say that Orthodox Jews prefer the term “Jewish race…as can be observed by browsing their web sites.”
I should add that by citing “orthodox websites” aside from it being a frivolous thing to do, he is targeting Judaism as a racialist religion and not just Zionism or the State of Israel. (Anti-zionism) often has this not so hidden agenda—they attack Zionist overtly but they covertly mean Judaism and the Jewish people.)
It would he useless to tell Moore and his ilk that the concept of “choseness” is a religious one that involves religious obligations and not a social or political one in which Jews are seen as better than others. (Too often Orthodox Jews accuse those of us who do not follow the commandments as worse than other people, btw.) Useless because one has the feeling that he knows this quite well already and that this article is part of a process of academic Jew baiting.
I would also suggest that we not be intimidated by accusations that Jews “stifle debate’ or censor their antisemitic enemies since by the very fact that an Ignatiev or a Wheatcroft, et al can make such accusations, and at great length in public forums and well read periodicals, means that they are not true.
Ben — thanks for highlighting this absolutely scandalous issue; I wouldn’t have believed that something like this is possible. I just checked out the advertisement of this “Encyclopedia” on Amazon, and there are also some protest-reviews posted there.
I do have one quarrel with your excellent post here: Given the exchange between the publisher and AJC, I don’t think there was anything “unwitting” in this clearly very deliberate resurrection of the “Zionism is racism” slur. As one of the reviews posted on Amazon says: a racist encyclopedia on racism…
I would simply like to point out that Gale, Cengage Learning company can be reached at esales@cengage.com and that Macmillan can be reached at http://www.encyclopedia.com/emailus.aspx
Regards,
Inna
Does any one know if it would be possible to sue the company?
If a school uses the encyclopedia and a Jewish student is traumatized by the anti-Semitic view of Jews then surely the parents should be able to sue.
Imagine an encyclopedia that argued that Homosexuals are child molesters wouldn’t a gay student have a right to sue?
Thanks for the links, Inna.
The Wikipedia entry for Noel Ignatiev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev
indicates that he is Jewish.
This has become the standard procedure. If you want to say something degrading and demeaning about Jews or Judaism, it is safer to find a Jew who is ready to do the job in the belief that, if a Jew says such things, nobody can charge you of being antisemitic.
The Swede Israel Shamir has even reinvented himself as a Jew: “He is a citizen of Sweden, where his legal name is Adam Ermash(previously Jöran Jermas). Critics (including several pro-Palestinian activists) have accused Shamir of antisemitism and of misrepresenting his background and career”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir
Noel Ignatiev, Jewish? Was he born with this name? It doesn’t seem plausible that a Jew would be named Noel unless his parents had converted which means he is not a Jew… And should not pass himself for one just because he thinks it adds an insider’s authority to his theories.
The wiki entry mentions that he founded “The sojourner truth” in 1970. I had some conversation with the blogger Mike who runs the blog:
http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/
Really, these people are so outlandishly surreal that I wonder what could possibly motivate such a publisher as MacMillan to entrust the job of writing anything for their project. It seems stranger and stranger as you delve more deeply.
“Does any one know if it would be possible to sue the company?”
In the US, the answer would, I believe, be in the affirmative. I say this because any number of video games companies and their distributors have been sued (and lost) for causing trauma to young children.
Given that the McMillan Encyclopedia is not rated (or does not have a warning label on it) that it may cause offense and trauma, I would think it’s fair game.
However, I am not a lawyer and this is really a question for a lawyer.
Regards,
Inna
The article is repellent, but in the US a lawsuit would almost definitely be thrown out on first amendment grounds. It is exceedingly rare that a pure speech act (which a written encyclopedia article qualifies as) can be suppressed without running afoul of the First Amendment, even when it is “hate speech” (which I’m also not sure this would qualify as, to the extent that a not black letter law concept like hate speech has a stable definition). The fact that this purports to be an academic text, put out by a mainstream publisher, makes the chance of any successful challenge virtually nil.
David–
Thanks for that. I had actually come back to say something that I had neglected to say yesterday–that even if a lawsuit were successful, the reaction to such a lawsuit would probably mirror the reactions to the various lawsuits against game manufacturers and publishers.
And the reactions vary from wry laughter (as in I guess if we can sue for coffee being hot, I guess we can sue for this) to disgust (as when indies are forced to close or in a really stupid case where a woman sued–successfully–because she played a physical game of Wii while wearing heels and hurt herself).
Regards,
Inna
Cengage Learning is a major textbook publisher (e.g., Brooks/Cole and Wadsworth are among several Cengage companies). Unless Macmillan Reference USA takes postive steps, the books the I order for the college courses I teach (several hundred copies a year) will be changing, and I will be telling their sales rep why.
Ben, have you considered informing Macmillan of Noel Ignatiev’s history of opposing facilities for Jews to prepare Kosher food on Havard premises?
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=223710
Also, Ignatiev’s 2004 edition of HIS journal, Race Traitor, included an article by Israel Shamir.
Some more from the Harvard Crimson article:
“At last night’s discussion, which was attendedby about a dozen Dunster residents, Ignatievresponded to arguments that the University’sfunding of the oven is not an issue of sectariandiscrimination.
“It’s not discriminatory against individuals,”Ignatiev said. “But [the oven’s] use is defined onsectarian grounds. There is nothing in themanufacturer’s instructions accompanying thetoaster oven saying that the oven will bedestroyed if someone lays a pork chop in it.”
Ignatiev said that the toaster oven isdifferent in several important respects from otherexamples of University sponsorship ofreligion-linked facilities, such as MemorialChurch.
“Anyone can use Mem Church for religious ornon-religious purposes,” he said. “The issue ofthe appliance is the first and only example I knowof that fits into this category at all.”
And the tutor said that providing food-serviceequipment for Orthodox Jewish students atUniversity expense should not be viewed as a formof affirmative action, despite the fact thatHarvard may in the past have discriminated againstJews.
“Being Black or being female is not a matter ofchoice,” he said. “Being Jewish is not a matter ofchoice, perhaps, but keeping kosher is.”
One student pointed out that Orthodox Jews arecharged mandatory board rates although theirdietary restrictions bar them from eating threefull meals a day at the College, since kosher mealservice is limited. Ignatiev responded by sayinghe opposes mandatory board “in the same way thatI’m against all taxes.”"
It’s quite clear that Ignatiev regards Judaism as ’sectarian’ i.e. racist.
Having just finished reading the encyclopedia entry in question I would say that aside from a few disagreements there is little there that I have not already read as fact in the Israeli press over the last ten to fifteen years. David Harris and the AJC are overreacting as to be expected, that is, worrying anything to death that strikes them as a threat to the unsullied reputation of Israel and Zionism.
Just one example: Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate? Of course they did, but, aside from the much disputed actions of Rudolf Kastner, not in the effort Harris dishonestly claims to have been stated in the article. While the Zionists did not directly collaborate with the Nazis in the Holocaust (although they weren’t nearly as concerned with rescue then as they claim today) they did actively and shamelessly collaborate economically with the Third Reich from 1933-1939 as has been extensively documented in Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement: The Untold Story of the Secret Pact Between the Third Reich & Jewish Palestine,” a work lauded by Yoav Gelber of Yad Vashem, among other Zionists. I would suggest finding the first edition for the striking conclusions of the Afterword, which was removed in later editions.
A few examples of collaboration: the clear rationale of the Transfer Agreement was to aid the Reich in undermining the 1933 Jewish-led boycott of Germany in exchange for German industrial goods to build Israel; the Jewish leaders of Palestine went to the extreme of even setting up a company whose sole purpose was to find customers for German goods in the Middle East; up until the outbreak of war in September 1939 the Palestinian Yishuv was using Nazi-flagged ships to transport their produce to Europe.
And, of course, as an aside, Yitzak Shamir’s attempt to form a second front in Palestine in an wartime alliance with Nazi Germany in exchange for recognition of Israel certainly falls within the realm of an unsuccessful attempt at collaboration, albeit one by the leader of a minority faction at the time (although, tellingly, it never stood in the way of him becoming PM). No doubt someone will claim this to be an anti-Semitic lie as well, but since Shamir himself openly admitted the act it is hard to deny.
Hi, I don’t know if this thread has gone so cold that no one will read my response, but just for the record:
Noel has Jewish heritage, but his parents were communists and liked the name Noel. He has never identified himself as a Jew and never practiced Judaism. Macmillan knows about the toaster incident.