There’s much to recommend in this review by Christopher Hitchens of Globalising Hatred, Denis MacShane’s new book on antisemitism.
I particularly like this bit,
And meanwhile I would never expect to read the sort of criticism of Pakistan that I read every day about Israel. Yet of these two states, born at almost the same moment at the close of Britain’s imperium, can it really be said that Israel is so much the greater offender in terms of democratic rights for citizens, invasions of neighbors like Afghanistan, oppressions of non-Punjabi minority inhabitants, massacres of co-religionists as in Bangladesh, and illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons? One can just about picture a worldwide campaign to redress the injustices of Pakistan, in which unions of British teachers and journalists would join with their own courageous boycotts, but I confess to a slight difficulty in picturing the same level of enthusiasm and commitment. There is some sense in which any challenge to what can be viewed as specifically Jewish power is more exciting and possibly more “transgressive”, and we might be more honest if we admitted as much.
However, I’d like to take issue with this,
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has a different definition. For him, anti-Semitism is revealed not when someone criticizes the state of Israel, but when someone denies the right of Israel to exist. This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.
The idea that opposition to the existence of Israel can’t be classed as antisemitic doesn’t stand up to a little serious thought. It’s not difficult to think of examples of members of historically oppressed groups, such as black people in apartheid South Africa, or women today in countries dominated by oppressive religious ideologies, expressing contentment with their own oppression and denying interest in receiving equal rights with their masters. In spite of this, it’s not usually said that such people, simply by virtue of being black or female, couldn’t or can’t be held to be expressing racist or sexist opinions.
It’s the content of the opinion that matters, and not the ethnicity or gender of the person expressing it. That goes as much for Jews as anyone else. And what can on earth can Hitchens be trying to say when he emphasizes that some Orthodox and Marxist Jews opposed the foundation of Israel? Can he possibly believe that adherence to Orthodox Judaism or Marxism gave their opinions some kind of special weight?
Jews aren’t under any obligation to take any interest at all in Israel. However, if a Jewish person denies that the Jews have the same right to self-determination as Albanians or Burmese, he or she is expressing an antisemitic opinion, regardless of whether their motivation is to be found in religion or ideology or, as often seems to be the case these days, an excess of self love.
Hitchens does not accept Foxman’s definition of A-S because he himself might be tainted by it:
“Do I sometimes wish that Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann had never persuaded either the Jews or the gentiles to create a quasi-utopian farmer-and-worker state at the eastern end of the Mediterranean? Yes. Do I wish that the Israeli air force could find and destroy all the arsenals of Hezbollah and Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Yes. Do I think it ridiculous that Viennese and Russian and German scholars and doctors should have vibrated to the mad rhythms of ancient so-called prophecies rather than helping to secularize and reform their own societies? Definitely. Do I feel horror and disgust at the thought that a whole new generation of Arab Palestinians is being born into the dispossession and/or occupation already suffered by their grandparents and even great-grandparents? Absolutely, I do.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2191193/?from=rss
What nonsense:
“The idea that opposition to the existence of Israel can’t be classed as antisemitic doesn’t stand up to a little serious thought.”
Of course “adherence to Orthodox Judaism…gave their opinions some kind of special weight.” It was based PRECISELY on their Judaism and Torah and Jewish tradition that they were opposed to it. If that doesn’t give who they are some special weight, then I don’t know what does.
And I guess the Bund, Orthodox Jews, and others who thought a Jewish state was a bad idea were all antisemites if you give them a little serious thought?
“And I guess the Bund, Orthodox Jews, and others who thought a Jewish state was a bad idea were all antisemites if you give them a little serious thought?
Yes, David, give the Bund some serious thought?
Where is the Yiddisher Bund now? (Or the bulk of pre war Orthodox Jewry, David?”
I come from a family of Bundists on my father’s side so I know something about it. (On my mothers side the family was Orthodox like most of the Jews of Poland.)
For those who are not familiar with its history, the Bund in Eastern Europe mostly went up in smoke during the Shoah. Those Yiddishe bundists lucky enough (or unlucky) to have lived in the Soviet sector were persecuted by the Soviets.
My father like most surviving Bundist became pro-Zionist.
David doesn’t seem to understand that someone may that something is a good or bad idea at one time only to come to realize that opposite is the case; history like life as a way of changing people’s minds.
Now, not all Orthodox were anti Zionists. Those that were were also anti-modernist.
If David accepts their anti-Zionism as an expression of correct social thinking does he also accept their other beliefs as social norms to be emulated?
I am keeping this short.
In sum, an Orthodox Jew who is anti-Zionist is not antisemitic but he is anti-modern (i.e. anti-democratic, etc.) Besides his anti-Zionism is only anti secular Zionism: he has not shed his religious belief in the restoration of Zion. He merely wants the Messiah to take him there in his magical Merkavah.
Leftists today (and I stress “today”) on the other hand, whether Jews or not who are anti-Zionists are antisemitic; this is because they are antagonistic not only to the a Jewish State but to any social expression of Jewish identity. The goal of leftist anti-Zionists is the assimilation, which is to say the disappearance, of Judaism and Jews.
David, take note of the tone of Shriber’s reply. He didn’t insult you, demean you or patronize you. He dealt with your arguments. Now, perhaps you didn’t see my last comment to you on the Burg post. Have a look. If you continue to refuse respectful exchange, you’re out of here.
Coming back to Hitchens’ tendentious comment:
“This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.”
It is really tiring have to explain to supposedly intelligent people that the struggles of a hundred years ago, pre-WW1, pre-WW2 and the Shoah, pre-Bolshevik antisemitism. Pre the establishment of the State of Israel is determinate of belief today.
Lots has happened since the early days of the Zionist movement: before the bulk of Jewry lived in Eastern Europe, today the bulk of Jewry lives in Israel or the US. Before there was no Hebrew speaking Jewish State.
Before the arguments about Zionism were academic, today they are existential.
Need I go on?
In any case with friends like Hitchens who needs Hamas! I wish he’d go back to defending David Irving. He was so much more believable as a haughty antisemite than as a “friend of the Jews.”
Hitchens writes: “This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.”
This argument has always struck me as quite spectacularly stupid.
The argument is that Jews who oppose Zionism are not
anti-semitic so gentiles who oppose Zionism are not
anti-semitic. In brief, the sylogism goes as follows:
Major Premise: The members of Neturei Karta oppose Zionism
because they believe that only the Messiah can return the
Jews from exile.
Minor Premise: David Duke opposes Zionism.
Conclusion: David Duke believes that only the Messiah can
return the Jews from exile.
Hitchens’s argument only works if you believe that two people who
maintain the same position must do so for the same reason; which is clearly false.
All these postings make a point that relies on a clear distinction between opposing Israel’s existence “then” and opposing it “now.”
This is not a distinction made by Hitchens, nor by Eamonn McDonagh. I was commenting on what was originally written, not on what the responders would prefer had been written.
Shriber, the fact that the Bund is no more, is irrelevant to the issue of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Anyway, you seem to agree with me when you state “In sum, an Orthodox Jew who is anti-Zionist is not antisemitic…”
That’s all I was saying.
Why does a Leftist who adopts coherent and consistent positions opposed to Zionism and other forms of nationalism have to be an antisemite, even if they are for complete assimilation?
(My understanding is that the accusation of antisemitism is reserved for those who single out Israel for special treatment. And even that’s pushing it if you ask me. It’s not as though anti-apartheid campaigners didn’t single out South Africa for a unique level of attention over other countries that did worse things. But that didn’t make them irrational and evil “Boer-haters” or some such thing. (I don’t mean to compare the actions of Israel qwith those of apartheid S.A. before you jump all over that one).
I like to see something a little more concrete and a little less abstract before I call someone a racist or antisemite.
David said: “All these postings make a point that relies on a clear distinction between opposing Israel’s existence “then” and opposing it “now.” ….This is not a distinction made by Hitchens, nor by Eamonn McDonagh. I was commenting on what was originally written, not on what the responders would prefer had been written.”
Do you have a problem reading, David?
This is what Hitchens said:
“This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.”
“Were opposed,” “ab initio” do these phrases refer to present day opposition?
“Why does a Leftist who adopts coherent and consistent positions opposed to Zionism and other forms of nationalism have to be an antisemite, even if they are for complete assimilation?”
This is a good question unrelated to your earlier faulty remark.
The answer is that a leftist who is consistent in opposing all nationalism including Jewish nationalism may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but he is objectively antisemitic nonetheless.
Here I am writing as a Jew. Were I writing as an Armenian or an Irishman I would see his views as anti-Armenian or anti-Irish.
Now, you may think that the higher goal of a universal humanity not broken up into different languages, religions, cultures, histories, etc would be a good thing. My reply would be that the attempt to create a universal humanity will always entail the destruction of specific humanities. It would involve genocide on a horrific scale.
Again, now as a Jew I would further ask you, ‘why does your anonymous leftist wish to start with the Zionists and not with say the British, or the Russians, or Pakistanis?’
My answer then is that no a leftist who consistently hates all of human specificity would not be an antisemite but he would be at the very least a misanthrope. In case, you haven’t noticed humanity has always come in many different languages, cultures and human flavors.
I would also ask your anonymous leftist to read Hegel who said “the universal is in the particular.”
Do you have a problem reading, David?
Shriber, what I said to David applies equally to you and everyone else. I do not want to keep writing these notes. Apart from anything, it communicates the impression that I’m uptight. Which I’m not.
Argue respectfully or argue somewhere else. Finis.
The answer is that a leftist who is consistent in opposing all nationalism including Jewish nationalism may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but he is objectively antisemitic nonetheless.
Here I am writing as a Jew. Were I writing as an Armenian or an Irishman I would see his views as anti-Armenian or anti-Irish.
Well, I’m Irish and a leftist, and whilst I doubt it makes sense to say I’m writing ‘as an Irishman’ since I don’t know how I could possibly write as someone of any other nationality outside fiction, I do not care much for nationalisms, Irish nationalism included.
However, I recognise that historically speaking, certain forms of Irish nationalism have be good for Irish people, just as certain forms of Jewish nationalism have be good for Jewish people. And I recognise that it is possible to have forms of both Jewish and Irish nationalism that are fundamentally in keeping with those enlightenment principles everyone is so fond of.
The problem arises when you have forms of nationalism that, when acted out, go against basic principles of dignity and solidarity with all people. Like when, for instance, the provisional IRA used people as proxy bombs. The people who did that were Irish nationalists, inspired by Irish nationalism. If being against that form of Irish nationalism subjects me to accusations of being ‘objectively anti-Irish’, I simply cannot take those accusations seriously. They’re ludicrous.
What I get from reading this blog, however, which as far as I can see is supposed to be about how progressive Zionism really is contrast with the received images, is a sense that Zionism never gets examined here for the criminal acts that it has inspired and continues to inspire. Everything is the fault of Hamas and others: the state of Israel is never to blame. But a truly critical approach to Zionism from a progressive Zionist perspective would call into question, before addressing any other topic, the failures of Zionism as exemplified in the form of the ongoing brutality of the Israeli state toward Palestinians, just as one would expect a truly progressive Irish nationalist to put his/her house in order with regard to, say, the murderous crimes of the Provisional IRA before blaming the Brits and so on.
But that isn’t what we get here at all, I’m afraid.
‘have been’: sorry.
“Well, I’m Irish and a leftist, and whilst I doubt it makes sense to say I’m writing ‘as an Irishman’ since I don’t know how I could possibly write as someone of any other nationality outside fiction, I do not care much for nationalisms, Irish nationalism included.”
That’s your choice, SF STOOP, however, you must be aware that while people may attack the IRA behavior in Northern Ireland, very few people are attacking either the idea of an independent Ireland.
“The problem arises when you have forms of nationalism that, when acted out, go against basic principles of dignity and solidarity with all people. Like when, for instance, the provisional IRA used people as proxy bombs. The people who did that were Irish nationalists, inspired by Irish nationalism. If being against that form of Irish nationalism subjects me to accusations of being ‘objectively anti-Irish’, I simply cannot take those accusations seriously. They’re ludicrous.”
You are describing terrorist acts. I am sure that most Irish people (who are nationalists in the sense that they do not wish to be ruled by the British or anyone else) would condemn such acts. Ireland is also an independent country today and it doesn’t sanction terrorism.
These are the real nationalists. Every community has some deranged individuals who would carry out criminal acts in the name of some idea or other. That doesn’t mean that the whole community is responsible.
The same applies to Israel.
“What I get from reading this blog, however, which as far as I can see is supposed to be about how progressive Zionism really is contrast with the received images, is a sense that Zionism never gets examined here for the criminal acts that it has inspired and continues to inspire.”
I have to take issue with this.
First there have been posts that were very critical of certain lawless behavior by Jewish settlers on the West Bank.
Second, Zionism doesn’t inspire criminal acts rather certain people use Zionism in order to justify their criminal behavior. Those people have been roundly criticized not just on this blog but by Israeli authorities including the Prime Minister.
Israel has many problems some of which have been discussed here. Some of these problems are not that different from problems found in other modern States; some of the problems are unique to Israel (the acculturation of diverse diasporic communities of Jews which have immigrated to Israel); and some of the problems the State faces has to do with its unique situation of having been under assault for most of its existence by its neighbors as well as ideological antagonism it faced from Communists now also from Islamicists.
Finally, S.F. Stoop
“But a truly critical approach to Zionism from a progressive Zionist perspective would call into question, before addressing any other topic, the failures of Zionism as exemplified in the form of the ongoing brutality of the Israeli state toward Palestinians,…” SF STOOP
You assume that Israel is solely responsible for the “ongoing brutality” against the “Palestinians.” The reality is a lot more complex than that.
Most posters here have endorsed a two State solution which means the Israeli withdrawal from the West bank. Israel withdrew from Gaza some time ago and has been under constant bombardment from the strip.
There hundreds of blogs out there who do nothing but criticize the Jewish State with different degrees of ferocity.
Assuming that Zionism, and only Zionism, is at fault in the ongoing conflict is what “anti-Zionists” do. This is what this blog was set up to counter. Thanks for you input, though.
Thanks for the reply Shriber.
Every community has some deranged individuals who would carry out criminal acts in the name of some idea or other. That doesn’t mean that the whole community is responsible.
The same applies to Israel.
Yes, I agree 100%.
Second, Zionism doesn’t inspire criminal acts rather certain people use Zionism in order to justify their criminal behavior.
I’m less certain about this. I mean, thinking about Zionism, or any other form of nationalism originating in the 19th century, I don’t think it’s possible to draw a complete separation between an ‘official’ nationalism and criminal acts performed with that nationalism as its justification. If I might refer to Ireland once again: the Easter Rising is a founding component of the modern, ‘official’ Irish nationalism that takes the form of the Republic of Ireland. But it has also served as the inspiration for many wild acts of criminal savagery on the part of Irish republicans. So whilst it might be tempting to say ‘but that’s not what Irish nationalism is all about: it’s really about this’, to do so would not be delivering the full picture.
The difficulty arises, I think, when you identify a given nationalism as authentically and officially embodied in a particular form of state, as is often done with Israel, by, it seems to me, both defenders and detractors of Zionism.
And the specific difficulty for Zionism, it seems to me, is that the vision of a ‘yearning for moral and spiritual fulfillment’ (which to my mind is fair enough), say, does not sit easily with a state built on the destruction of another society, and one which continues to punish those whom it expelled.
To repeat, I am not at all implying that Israelis, or Zionists, are collectively responsible for crimes committed by the state of Israel, whatever the uniqueness of its situation. But it seems to me there is a danger, for Zionists, in identifying the present state as an immutable vehicle through which the aforementioned moral and spiritual fulfilment can be delivered. For instance, I don’t see how administrative detention or house demolitions fits in with a society ‘rooted in the vision of the prophets’ to use the WZO’s phrase from the JP article posted on another thread. In the end I fear the state of Israel’s current path will bring catastrophe for Jews (and Arabs too) who live within its territory. To me that might mark the state of Israel as objectively anti-Zionist, and perhaps even, to use your phrase, ‘objectively anti-Semitic’.
I doubt you’ll agree, but I wish you all the best nonetheless.
“I doubt you’ll agree, but I wish you all the best nonetheless.”
The same here, SF Stoop.
Here what I disagree with.
First I disagree with your principle of singling out “nationalism” as a particular evil which inspires criminal behavior.
The same can be said of almost any doctrine.
Is communism a form of nationalism? No. Yet it inspired many of its adherents to commit many more murders than nationalism did.
Is Christianity a form of nationalism? No. Yet how many people where murdered in its name?
Is Islam a form of nationalism? No. Here again the religion has motivated thousands of acts of martyrdom which were nothing but criminal acts.
Other smaller religions including Judaism have inspired acts of violence.
Even people associated with environmental movements have been known to break the law in the name of its beliefs.
Any social movement, any organized ideal can and has inspired violence. Why not indict these other social movements too and not just nationalism?
It seems to me that you have singled out Nationalism because you want to target Zionism.
The problem is the way you frame the argument against nationalism.
You see individuals use Zionism, Irish Nationalism to justify their criminal acts and you are ready to indict these national movements.
For the sake of logic we need to distinguish individual use of violence and its endorsement by the groups it claims to represent.
While it is true that nationalists as they are fighting for their cause tend to use violence to achieve their aims it isn’t true that once the Irish or the Jews achieved independence they sanctioned criminal behavior.
However, in the case of Zionism you go on to level some specific charges:
You go from a generic and general indictment of nationalism to a very specific indictment of Zionism. Moreover your indictment is based on criteria which wouldn’t apply to other nationalist movements:
“For instance, I don’t see how administrative detention or house demolitions fits in with a society ‘rooted in the vision of the prophets’ to use the WZO’s phrase from the JP article posted on another thread.”
Firstly, you fail to recognize that Israel is engaged in a war against people who wish to destroy it.
Second, “house demolition” as a punishment was used by the British and was part of the legal code left from the days of colonial rule. In any case, house demolition was meant as more lenient form of punishment than what used to be the norm in other parts of the world which included the killing of anyone associated with people engaged in terrorist activities.
Have you for example heard of Hama in Syria? Yet, I don’t see you calling Syria a criminal country.
House demolition is not the same as killing people. You may disagree with its use but it’s hardly a sign of “criminal behavior.”
You also say,
“In the end I fear the state of Israel’s current path will bring catastrophe for Jews (and Arabs too) who live within its territory. To me that might mark the state of Israel as objectively anti-Zionist, and perhaps even, to use your phrase, ‘objectively anti-Semitic’.”
This is quite a leap, S. F. Stoop.
It seems that your previous indictment of “nationalism” was merely an excuse for you to attack the Jewish State.
In any case, to call the Jewish State antisemitic is just playing with words. On the other hand, to demand that Israel be held to a higher moral or legal standard is a sign of antisemitism.
“The answer is that a leftist who is consistent in opposing all nationalism including Jewish nationalism may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but he is objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”
Sorry Shriber, please explain what you are trying to say here. I think it’s somehow the heart of your case, but I think you’re playing with words. To accuse someone who, in some sense, is “anti-everything” as being therefore antisemitic is as ridiculous as saying that this person is therefore a woman-hater, a racist etc.
It is disturbing to me that you seem determined to uncover evidence of “treating Israel differently” (which according to you seems to equate directly to antisemitism) by parsing words to a degree that seems quite obsessive.
Israel may be treated differently for many reasons, running the spectrum from ahavas yisroel (love of, and between, Jews) to vicious antisemitism.
Treating Israel differently in itself does NOT equal antisemitism, any more than the Law of Return makes Israel a Nazi state.
And please don’t tell us that even though Jews who love Israel and hold it to a higher standard “may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but …(are).. objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”
As for Hitchens, Shriber, you have your logic completely twisted the wrong way around.
Hitchens’ point is that the fact that because some opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (e.g. by Orthodox Jews in the past) is clearly NOT antisemitic, therefore opposition to Israel today is not necessarily antisemitic. i.e. he DOES NOT make a distinction between people who opposed Israel’s existence in the past and those who oppose it’s existence now. AS I WROTE.
Your point, AS I ALSO WROTE, depends entirely on making such a distinction.
So I would not be quite so quick to rush with the insults, if I were you.
“Sorry Shriber, please explain what you are trying to say here. I think it’s somehow the heart of your case, but I think you’re playing with words.”
Not playing with words at all (which is what I said the previous poster S.F. Stoop was doing).
I said that: “a leftist who is consistent in opposing all nationalism including Jewish nationalism may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but he is objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”
In plain language what that means is that someone my not intend his comment or his views to be antisemitic (subjectively he may believe that he is not being antisemitic) but the view or the comment may objectively still be antisemitic.
For example, Stalinists who opposed all ethnicities in the Soviet Union didn’t think they were singling out Jews when they closed down all Yiddish newspapers in the late 40’s imprisoned and shot many Yiddish writers, etc. After all they did the same to may other nationalities. Yet they were antisemitic nonetheless since antisemitism doesn’t mean that one hates only Jews, but that one hates Jews period. In the same way if you hate all religions and ban Christians along with other religions you are anti-Christian.
What you are suggesting is if one is an equal opportunity hater then one can’t be called a hater of any particular group. That is false.
This isn’t plaing with words, it a fact as the death of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union showed.
“Treating Israel differently in itself does NOT equal antisemitism, any more than the Law of Return makes Israel a Nazi state.”
Well your comparison doesn’t hold because “the law of return’ is in effect in many other societies besides Israel.
Second, Treating Israel different in order to delegitimize the Jewish State is antisemitic. You can’t have different legal standards for different people or peoples and consider the laws just. The idea is that Jews (either individually or collectively) have to be better than other people in order to be allowed to exist is on the face of it an injustice.
“It is disturbing to me that you seem determined to uncover evidence of “treating Israel differently” (which according to you seems to equate directly to antisemitism) by parsing words to a degree that seems quite obsessive.”
“Israel may be treated differently for many reasons, running the spectrum from ahavas yisroel (love of, and between, Jews) to vicious antisemitism.”
“And please don’t tell us that even though Jews who love Israel and hold it to a higher standard “may not be acting out of antisemitic principles but …(are).. objectively antisemitic nonetheless.”” David
There is a huge difference between those who want to see something they love improved or made better and those who because the object of their love doesn’t measure up to their ideal standard want to destroy it.
(I don’t want to become Freudian here but from a psychoanalytic point of view the first kind of love is realistic and is governed by the life principle the second is governed by the death instinct.)
Most of us work every day to make what we love better without calling for its destruction.
David
“As for Hitchens, Shriber, you have your logic completely twisted the wrong way around.
Hitchens’ point is that the fact that because some opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (e.g. by Orthodox Jews in the past) is clearly NOT antisemitic, therefore opposition to Israel today is not necessarily antisemitic. i.e. he DOES NOT make a distinction between people who opposed Israel’s existence in the past and those who oppose it’s existence now. AS I WROTE.”
Sorry that is not what you wrote. Earlier you said:
“And I guess the Bund, Orthodox Jews, and others who thought a Jewish state was a bad idea were all antisemites if you give them a little serious thought?”
This is what I was replying to above. (No need to repeat what I said.)
Moreover Hitchens anchored his views entirely on past opposition:
“This, however, will not do, since many Orthodox Jews and Marxist Jews were opposed ab initio to the founding of a Jewish state, and indeed, for the first few years of the Zionist movement’s existence, almost all its enemies were Jewish.” Hitchens
I should also note that each of you writes as if “the Bund” had only one view about Zionism, it didn’t. Nor were all adherents to Torah Judaism of the same mind. Some were and are opposed to Zionism and some are not opposed to it. (The proportion of opponents was larger in the past and is smaller now.)
In other words, the Torah has been used to oppose as well as to endorse the Zionist project.
Finally, I made a distinction between those who opposed Zionism in the past and in the present because not to take the history of the intervening years (the holocaust, the expulsion of the Mizrachi Jews from Arab lands, Soviet and Islamic inspired antisemitism, etc) is suicidal.
It is a blog about Zionism after all, as far as I want to ‘target’ it, and what I tried to do is consider Zionism as a form of nationalism, which is what it is, and consider how it is similar to other forms of nationalism.
You see individuals use Zionism, Irish Nationalism to justify their criminal acts and you are ready to indict these national movements.
It’s not a question of indicting these national movements or otherwise. I would note here that my own view on nationalisms is far less judgemental than yours. For me, nationalism can’t be rendered official. You appear to see the state of Israel as the official embodiment of Zionism, and an Irish independent state as an official embodiment of Irish nationalism, whereas I see them as no such thing.
I see both nationalisms as forces that resulted in the creation of a state, but the state is not their definitive expression, because it’s impossible to come up with such an expression, since nationalisms change over time. Perhaps that sounds a bit wishy-washy, I’m sorry. I just don’t buy into the whole narrative of states being the ideal expressions of the aspirations of peoples, or of dead generations having an active part in proceedings happening today.
While it is true that nationalists as they are fighting for their cause tend to use violence to achieve their aims it isn’t true that once the Irish or the Jews achieved independence they sanctioned criminal behavior.
Well that depends how you define nationalism and nationalists, and it also depends how you define independence. Even after the foundation of the Irish Republic, you had a substantial number of Irish nationalists engaging in acts of violence against the British state and its agents. In terms of criminal behaviour, you may choose to talk about ‘the Jews’, but I prefer to talk about the state of Israel, since I don’t believe that the actions of a state are really the actions of the sum of its citizens.
Moreover your indictment is based on criteria which wouldn’t apply to other nationalist movements
No, it isn’t.
House demolition is not the same as killing people. You may disagree with its use but it’s hardly a sign of “criminal behavior.”
We can agree to differ on this. But if I might provide a personal example that might illuminate. I was at school with a boy whose uncle was a terrorist, a mass murderer. Would it have been criminal for the state to demolish my schoolmate’s grandmother’s house? After all, she had done nothing wrong. I think it would have.
Have you for example heard of Hama in Syria? Yet, I don’t see you calling Syria a criminal country.
We weren’t talking about Syria. But if you want me to admit that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are exceedingly nasty states guilty of many crimes, I have no problem with that.
You should be starting to see that I don’t like states very much, on the whole.
It wasn’t. As above, I don’t like states very much, so I see no reason why I should single out Israel for special treatment on account of the fact that the majority of its citizens are Jewish.
SF Stoop, yours is a very long very rambling and repetitive reply. I’ll just make a few points by way of comment.
I’ll start with your last points:
“You should be starting to see that I don’t like states very much, on the whole.”
So you say, and you also say that you have no special problem with Israel. However, even though this is a web site for discussion about Israel if you so don’t like nation States, why not for the sake of fairness pick three or four countries that you would like to see dismantled first along with Israel.
Pick, say Ireland, Great Britain, the US and France or Canada.
Had you don’t so you would have some credibility.
In any case if you don’t like nation States, which is your right, it’s not enough to say why you must also tell what form of governance if any you do approve of and show how it could replace the nation State.
In any case when I brought up Hama you replied that
“We weren’t talking about Syria. But if you want me to admit that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are exceedingly nasty states guilty of many crimes, I have no problem with that.”
This isn’t good enough since we were talking about countries taking action against terrorists. We know countries go overboard in trying to pursue and stamp out terror. I brought up a particularly nasty example of how another country dealt with it.
Can you offer me an example of a different approach milder than that of Syria or even Israel which worked against terrorists? Something which is analogous to the kind of terror Israel faces and not just an occasional attack.
You also said:
“I was at school with a boy whose uncle was a terrorist, a mass murderer. Would it have been criminal for the state to demolish my schoolmate’s grandmother’s house? After all, she had done nothing wrong. I think it would have.”
I don’t who that person was or what the circumstances of the attack. I also don’t know when the attack took place and how it was resolved. Lot’s of unanswered questions here.
Now, given the information you gave me I don’t think you expect an answer. It’s just a rhetorical exercise on your part.
Still, from what you said it is clear that if the terrorist lives in “the grandmother’s” house and she knew about the attacks in advance and if…. Lot’s of if’s there, S.F. Stoop.
Finally,
“I see both nationalisms as forces that resulted in the creation of a state, but the state is not their definitive expression, because it’s impossible to come up with such an expression, since nationalisms change over time. Perhaps that sounds a bit wishy-washy, I’m sorry. I just don’t buy into the whole narrative of states being the ideal expressions of the aspirations of peoples, or of dead generations having an active part in proceedings happening today.”
This is an interesting précis for a paper on “the ironies of the idealization of nationalisms.”
However, from where I sit the problem isn’t an abstract one but a concrete existential one.
The Jewish State isn’t there because of it is the ideal expression of the Jewish people. It was created to solve a real existential problem which the survival of the Jewish people in a world which doesn’t want to see Jews survive as a people and a culture.