Ben Cohen writes: This is a guest post by Jonathan Hoffman. Keen-eyed readers will spot that he links to Ben White’s blog; as a guest writer here, that’s his prerogative. However, the comments policy outlined in my brief post of yesterday, Chutzpah, still stands. Meanwhile, readers wading through accusations of censorship on this blog are referred to this post on Seismic Shock, which elegantly summarizes the situation.
On Z Word last week, I reviewed a new book by Ben White, ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’.
White responded to my comments yesterday.
He begins with comments about various anti-Israel meetings in the UK in recent weeks. With antisemitic (that is, racist against Jews) incidents in the UK (as monitored by the Community Security Trust) running at record levels, I would expect that all antiracists (of whom White presumably regards himself as one) would agree that the demonisation of Israel and the expression of antisemitism in public fora are completely unacceptable. These things must be rebutted as soon as the offence occurs. It is not sufficient to wait until the Q and A at the end of an anti-Israel meeting, since as often as not the opportunity to protest then is not offered. This was proved at the meeting in Portcullis House (UK Parliament) to launch White’s book (17 June). As I said in my writeup on Harry’s Place
the Chairman (Brian Iddon MP) said he would take statements after the questions - then refused to let me talk, saying they were out of time.
My message: “Zero Tolerance For Antisemitism”. By banning me from the meeting on 9 July, the British charity ‘War on Want’ was simply shooting the messenger. Its message: “We are selective about antiracism - we do not care about racism against Jews”.
Turning to White’s comments on my review, there are several points which he concedes, either explicitly or implicitly.
Explicitly he accepts that David Ben-Gurion never said “We must expel Arabs and take their places!”
Implicitly he accepts most of the points I make in my review, since he does not challenge them. For example he does not challenge my contention that ‘transfer’ has never been a policy ‘advocated by more than a tiny minority of Israelis’. This was a rebuttal of his assertion (p18) that ‘it is important to realise just how central the idea of ‘transfer’ (the preferred euphemism) was to Zionist thinking and strategising’. Neither does he challenge my rebuttal of his assertion that ‘Israel is not a state for all of its citizens … but rather a State for some of its citizens: Jews.’. Nor my evidence that his assertion about the Absentee Property Law is wrong. Nor my counter to his claim that the separation fence is ‘illegal’. Nor my contention that the references are circular, including many authors well-known to be detractors of Israel. Nor my challenge to his justification for the full voting rights of Arab-Israelis (he says that had it been otherwise, ‘outside support would surely have been jeapordised’…..).
Now to the six points of contention.
(i) Basis of my ‘Big Lie’ allegation
White says that my assertion that the ‘whole book is a Big Lie’ is based on the claim that the book is full of ‘doctored quotations’ and ‘false quotes’, a veritable ‘catalogue of falsehoods’. This is a ‘straw man’ argument. That was not the basis of my claim. The basis of my claim was (as can be seen from the sentence that followed it in my piece) that central contention of the book - that Israel is an apartheid state - is a Big Lie.
That it is indeed a Big Lie is demonstrated by the five paragraphs in my review beginning ‘Of course the whole book is a Big Lie’ and ending ‘…….. life expectancy is considerably higher’.
(ii) ‘Doctored’ quotations
White claims that he only includes one doctored quotation (see above). Even on his narrow definition of ‘doctored’, there are two: He fails to concede that Benny Morris never said the things in the Siegman passage that he quotes.
But as I explained, my phrase ‘doctored quotations’ goes much wider. It includes ‘partial quotes or quotes taken out of context or isolated from important supporting quotes’.
White’s book includes five, not one: the Ben Gurion one (p12); the ‘Land without a People’ one (pps 16 and 22); the ‘transfer’ quote of Ben Gurion (p19) (because White fails to put it the context of the Peel Report); the Siegman quote (pps 22-23); and the Ben-Porat quote (p44).
Regarding the ‘Land without a People’ quote, White asks ‘In what way can this be considered a false quote?‘.
This is pure disingenuousness. First, it is used as a subheading (in capital letters) on p16. Is White really trying to tell us that in a book entitled ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’ - and thus marketed to students, including young people - it was not his intention to imply that this quote reflected the policy of the early Zionists, with the clear inference that it was said by one of them? And if he is, how does he explain the reference on p22 where he describes the phrase ‘land without a people’ as ‘the old propaganda slogan’?
(iii) Genocide of Israeli Arabs
Another point where White disagrees with me is my assertion ‘White claims the Israeli government planned the genocide of the Israeli Arabs’. He protests ‘I never wrote that in the book’. He did. On page 8 he quotes Moshe Machover uncritically: ‘the native population was to be eliminated; exterminated or expelled rather than exploited’.
(iv) Plan Dalet
White does not dispute my contention that Plan Dalet was not something which played ‘an important role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine’ (p25). He simply says he did not describe it as a ‘masterplan’. It’s simple: if White thinks it represented malevolence towards the Arab population then he’s wrong. The fact that he did not use the term ‘masterplan’ is a pure red herring.
(v) The pullout from Gaza
I stand by what I said in the review. The text says nothing about the pullout from Gaza. The title of the section where it should be mentioned, ‘Land Theft’ (p58) maybe gives a clue as to the reason for the omission. The map on p61 does - it is true - mention the evacuation, but it never enters into the narrative. The reference on p62 is to ‘dismantling’ of settlements, not disengagement from Gaza - moreover it is in the context of the number of settlements that have been established. The Gaza pullout is mentioned in the FAQs but it is dismissed as a ‘televised PR stunt’. Further I said in my review that the pullout is not discussed ‘in this section’ (the section from p57 to p93) - and the FAQs are indeed not ‘in this section’.
(vi) Settlements
Finally the question of the legality of the settlements. White misquotes me. I never said ‘it is untrue that the settlements are illegal’. I said ‘White repeats the untruth that the settlements are illegal’.
In support of his contention that the US government has - since 1966 - considered the settlements illegal, White quotes a telegram from the State Department to the US Embassy in Israel. As I say in my review, Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention includes the word ‘forcible’ - and the settlers were not ‘forced’ to go to the West Bank. That is not inconsistent with the telegram cited by White. White also cites a Jimmy Carter quote from July 1977. But Carter said ‘characterised as … illegal’ which is not the same thing at all as asserting they are illegal.
White suggests that the International Court creates international law. It does not. It is an arm of the UN with no legal power. And the ‘High Contracting Powers to the Fourth Geneva Convention’ are simply the nations that signed the Treaty. They have no jurisdiction over its applicability.
The untruthfulness of the statement that the settlements are illegal was well demonstrated in a recent BBC Trust judgment.
After exhaustive investigations, the Trust found that BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen breached the BBC’s accuracy guideline in writing that Israel was ‘in defiance of everyone’s interpretation of international law except its own.’
Well done, Jonathan; I think it is important that you responded to Ben White’s entirely disingenious response to your review (though, how you manage in a 24hour day is a riddle to me).
I read Ben White’s response at his blog after he left a link at Harry’s Place, and I was left wondering how he felt playing dumb when he pretended to misunderstand the point you were making with the “Big Lie”.
Petra, in my opinion, Ben White is both “disingenious” and “disingenuous”.
Congratulations Jonathan on taking the time to expose this weasel for what he is. White’s “rebuttal” was pathetic but hey what would you expect from someone that defends Ahmedinijad’s holocaust denying speech.
Great review.
Ben White is now the most disgusting example of the fresh faced antisemitism seen creeping up in Europe again.
Rarely can one see a person so devoted, so committed to just slander Israel and Jews full time and all the time.
Excellent article, Jonathan.
I am not surprised that White himself had the front to argue with you - it is evidence of his narcissism and your article represented narcissistic injury. You really did get under his skin for daring to question his skewed view of the world.
White is possessed of the very mindset which Tarek Heggy describes in his excellent paper, “The Arab Mind” - he has merged with his love object to such an extent that he has adopted its worst aspects, including, particularly in this case, what Heggy calls the tendency towards “Big Talk” which comes from a deep-seated sense of inferiority.
It would take years to reach conclusions as to why such a person should knowingly tell lies which he knows that other more intelligent people will find him out in, and then to persist that those others, not he, are wrong!
This may well stem from his overidentification with his love object and its predilection towards conspiracy theories, the more outlandish the better and from the attendant massive cognitive egocentricity which makes him rigid in outlook, and in this, too, he has adopted the mind set of his love object.
Or, of course, he may just be a bog standard antiSemite flying under a false flag of antiZionism.
Well done Jonathan, your points are irrefutable. There’s a commenter over at Mondoweiss citing the literary/poetic antisemitism of Ezra Pound about usury, and the antisemitism of Marx, as justification for negative attitudes towards Jews. Surely our favourite Marxist poet Ben White will condemn this.
“I am not surprised that White himself had the front to argue with you - it is evidence of his narcissism and your article represented narcissistic injury.”
What’s this obsession with ascribing everything White does to his “narcissism”? It’s “narcissistic” for an author to respond to a review of his book? Really? Are you sure it’s not just, like, standard practice?
“White is possessed of the very mindset which Tarek Heggy describes in his excellent paper, “The Arab Mind” - he has merged with his love object to such an extent that he has adopted its worst aspects, including, particularly in this case, what Heggy calls the tendency towards “Big Talk” which comes from a deep-seated sense of inferiority.”
Wow, and you can tell all this about Ben White’s mind without even leaving your computer screen? And it’s not like you can be bullshitting either because you’ve used words like “cognitive egocentricity” and “overidentification with his love object”. That’s really, really impressive.
“Surely our favourite Marxist poet Ben White will condemn this.”
Oh yeah, I forgot he doubled up as Policeman of teh Internets in his part time. He’s been slacking, though - I sent him a list of over 10,000 YouTube comments to condemn the other day, and he’s barely 10% of the way through.
“Oh yeah, I forgot he doubled up as Policeman of teh Internets in his part time.”
Well, War on Want did call the police on Jonathan Hoffman for daring to turn up at Ben White’s book launch!
JOnathan’s response is excellent.
There is a paragraph in White’s response which needs further fisking:
‘The quotation which I am quite prepared to reconsider is from the beginning of Part I, when I cite Ben-Gurion writing, “We must expel Arabs and take their places”. The first prominent historian to include this quotation was Benny Morris, in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. This quotation was subsequently questioned by historian Efraim Karsh, who analysed the meaning of the hand-written edits in the original document. Morris accepted this point, and in Righteous Victims (2001), cited the quotation as: “We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places”.’
It is unclear whether White became aware of Karsh’s challenge to Morris and Morris’ concession before or after reading Jonathan’s review. If White was aware of Karsh’s challenge and Morris’ concession of the point before he wrote his book, why did he include the false quote? That would point to a lack of integrity on White’s part.
Alternatively, White was not aware of Karsh’s challenge and Morris’ concession of the point before he wrote the book. If this is the case, then this surely demolishes any claims White has to be taken seriously. After all, White him self acknowledges that Morris conceded the point as long ago as 2001. So if White was not aware of an important debate within Israeli historiography, why should he be taken seriously as a commentator on any other issue?
The other point I would make even more forcefully than Jonathan does is about the sources White uses. Jonathan rightly points out that the likes of Pappe, Uri Davis, Charles D Smith, Tom Segev, Tanya Reinhart, Jeff Halper, Hussein and McKay, and Maxime Rodinson are ‘detractors’. That is true, but more can be said: many of them are also ‘discredited’.
Pappe’s scholarship has been exposed as being woefully inept by Karsh, Frantzman, Yoav Gelber and (ironically) Morris. Davis, as well as being an observer member of the PLO, helped to promote the antisemitic play ‘Perdition’ in the 1980s, which claimed that Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis in perpetrating the Holocaust. One of the central claims of his 1987 book ‘Israel: An Apartheid State’, namely that Arabs are banned from buying or leasing land in 92% of pre-1967 Israel, has long since been shown to be false (http://www.meforum.org/370/can-arabs-buy-land-in-israel). The work of the late Tanya Reinhart is pulled apart in Paul Bogdanor’s and Edward Alexander’s book, ‘The Jewish Divide over Israel’. Segev’s accoun t of 1967 has been taken to task by Michael B Oren. So why does White treat all these sources as authoritative? Either it is because he knows they are discredited but decided to cite them anyway (which would suggest a lack of integrity) or it’s because he didn’t know they were discredited (which would suggest he is not as knowledgeable a commentator as he would like to think). Either way, his use of them is a damning indictment of his work.
Forgot to mention:
Pappe’s interview with the neo-Nazi newspaper seems not to have deterred White either:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1856#
Those of you who so vehemently disagree with the characterisation of Israel as apartheid would be much better served by engaging with the debate (as you sometimes do of course) but - my point - whilst absolutely avoiding at all costs the temptation to undermine the character and legitimacy of your opponents.
It simply does not serve your interest to try and label people with labels such as “anti israel” or “antisemites” or “self hating” or whatever hackneyed phrase you dredge up so frequently, because overuse simply saps the power of those accusations. It’s just crying wolf and in itself it puts us Jews further at risk.
It demonstrates weakness if you have to stoop to such tactics and makes it look as if your arguments cannot stand up on their own.
You seem sure of your points. So why not try according some respect to those whose views you oppose and have the guts to debate the issues rather than try to discredit them?
Surely a real debate is much more satisying than a playground-style slanging match anyway?
Aaron Dover
Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Aaron Dover,
Given the extensive range of *factual* criticism which has been shown concerning White’s book, you might address the issue of why JfJfP chose to push this faulty book?
Whilst doing that you might want to consider the five doctored quotes which White used to marshal his arguments and whether or not you think that Roger Garaudy is a legitimate source?
Again, White’s book is based on numerous falsehoods (that’s factual errors) so why did JfJfP decide to push it?
Aaron
“Surely a real debate is much more satisying than a playground-style slanging match anyway?”
You mean like Stephen Marks one of the leaders of your own organisation who writes comments in debates such as the following :
“Mikey is a two-faced lying streak of shit, as was clearly demonstrated the last time he showed his face at Jews sans Frontieres and continued to repeat Efraim Karsh’s lie that Benny Morris had deliberately distorted the text of a Ben Gurion letter, despite it being clearly demonstrated that the claim was false.”
Or “What Slimeball Mikey fails to point out is that the photograph is one of a series relating to the Dir Yassin Remembered event of 2001 - several years before Eisen and McGowan came out with their present bizarre and indecent ‘holocaust denial’ notions, as a result of which most of the original sponsors of DYR have resigned.”
Hypocrits
Well done Jonathan Hoffman for exposing White for the liar that he is.
War on Want should not be allowed charitable status and their fear of facing the truth is shown by their refusal to allow you in.