Arising from this post and the comments that follow it I’d like to advise readers that from now on attempts to blame antisemitic behavior on the policy or activities of the Israeli government will be referred to in this blog as examples of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine. The term honors Yossi Gurvitz, whose article identifying Israel as one of the main causes of antisemitism I critiqued in the post, and Lisa Goldman who vigorously defended it in the comments.
This term will not be used when the writer or speaker in question criticizes the antisemitic behavior and focuses their attack on the government of Israel. Some examples may help to clarify how this term will be used. First, a clear example of the sort of statement which would fall within the terms of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine:
Enraged by the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank protesters in Buenos Aires rallied outside a hotel whose owner is Jewish.
Now for an example of the sort of statement that would not:
Enraged by the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank protesters in Buenos Aires compromised the campaign for Palestinian rights by rallying outside a hotel whose owner is Jewish.
glancing over the comment thread that gave rise to the G-G-Doctrine I was especially struck by this amazing remark by Mr. Gurvitz:
Minorities everywhere will always draw the hatred of the uneducated and the dregs of society.
as the example of my German 3rdReich ancestors proves again and again it is neither the uneducated nor the dregs (unless you want to call PhD-ed academics dregs) who relish their bit of minority-bashing, either in testifying to the minority’s lack or surplus of inherited intelligence (for most recent example google Sarrazin and Germany)or in the wannabe benevolent attitude of “the poor sods don’t know better and thus can’t help themselves persisting in honour killings and similar stuff” and no, that attitude isn’t racist ;-(.
and Jews who think that this time “it” is not going to hit them also value hope over experience.
Silke is absolutely right. Because some Hollywood pictures showed German and Austrian Nazis as stupid simpletons, one should not forget, that many intellectuals were Nazi and that Hitler’s Germany could not have functioned 12 long years without the help of such intellectuals.
Imagine the uproar, if somebody protested in front of a Turkish restaurant, because the Turkish army has occupied North-Cyprus?
Can anybody explain why those who condemn Israel because of Settlements have nothing to say about settlement of Turkish citizens in North-Cyprus?
A very good comment of Norm Geras:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/09/dickens-of-an-oversight.html
Eamonn - What an utterly childish, petty post.
Right on target, Eamonn. There are so many examples of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine that I don’t know where to start.
Lisa
what an utterly patronizing mommsie-ish finger wagging
Let me just state the obvious. It would be unthinkable for anyone on the Left(and even on much of the Right) to write or defend an article that asserts that,say,black people are largely responsible for anti-black racism, or that gays themselves provoke homophobia. It is equally unthinkable in most (certainly the Left) circles to suggest that Muslims are responsible for Islamaphobia. But when it comes to Jews and antisemitism, everything changes. How utterly pathetic and stupid. I can only surmise that it’s the only way that Gurvitz can make a case in favor of the Palestinians, i.e., Jews suck.
I suggest that Lisa Goldman don’t visit France. Enraged by the Canadian government policy against the Quebeqoise, she might possibly get hurt. And then she will have to justify the mob.
There is an endless number of analogies one can provide to show up the absurdity of Gurvitz&Goldman thesis. But, as melk said, when it comes to Jews or Israel the double standard seems to be a plausible and respected standard. The people who hold or support such an analysis not only don’t blink but actually will throw at you the accusation that you are playing the antisemitic card in order to screen Israel from valid criticism.
The idea of Israel being responsible for antisemitism was of course accepted as a bona-fide theory when Tony Judt proposed it.
“And what really seemed to have bothered Judt was his subjective feeling that, as an identifiable Jew, he was somehow being represented by Israel.
“The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews,” wrote Judt. His solution? Do away with the Jewishness of the state.
Yet as Judt himself noted, quoting Arthur Koestler (when writing recently about the Israeli lobby in the US), “fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.”
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=184098
If I can convince myself that it is women’s faults when they get oppressed/discriminated against I reap the benefit that I can believe that since I am smarter it is within my power to avoid that destiny.
So maybe one should call the “self-haters” cowards or better even delusional cowards. I have nothing against cowards per se. The solution in this case would be to stop being a Jew and cut all ties. But be careful to change your name or nobody will believe you as Nick Cohen has reported not so long ago (Cohen to his credit, doesn’t mind being “accused” of being a Jew)
(If my response is too long, you can post it in two or three parts.)
I read the Gurvitz article a few days ago but have too busy to comment on it. This gave me sometime to reflect on the article and Eamonn McDonagh’s excellent rebuttal:
“Gurvitz: Sick of Having National Rights And Blaming Jews For Jew Hatred.” I have also perused through the responses, not all of them but most.
Gurvitz is right to say that “… Jews living abroad are not Israeli citizens.”
But how it follow that it Israel “should publicly announce there is no relation between it and Jews living outside its borders, that it has no claims over them, that it does not pretend to represent them, and that it does not expect either their affinity or their charity; and accordingly, it ceases granting them privileges – such as an automatic Israeli citizenship whenever they wish it.”
Is Gurvitz aware that the President of Turkey recently said that he was the President also of Turks living in Europe? No Israeli government has gone this far. Moreover, Israel is not the only country with a law of return and many nationals of other countries living abroad have certain rights of citizenship.
Does Gurvitz wish to make an exception of the Jewish State when it comes to laws of citizenship? I am a secular American Jew and have no problem with Israel wanting to represent the Jewish communities in the world including my own. When I decide to take issue with it I will cease being a member of the Jewish community and opt as Philip Roth’s character does in “Counterlife” to pretend that I am a Jew devoid of any affiliation with any Jewish community; this I take it, is also Gurvitz’ views. (Roth is an unacknowledged influence on a generation of Jewish critics of Israel and Jewish communities in general. To them Jews should live as isolatos (to borrow Herman Melville’s phrase). This may be an interesting critical theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.
There is a counter theory espoused by among others the British proto-Zionist George Eliot who expressed it in her novel Daniel Deronda: Jews have the same right to a homeland as do the English, the Irish, or the Turks and Greeks: in their ancestral homeland. In her view a Jewish State should function the way England or France functions as a center of Jewish life. Not all Jews need live there any more than all English, Irish, or French live in England, Ireland or France.
Gurvitz further says that not all Jews want to live in Israel. This is irrelevant since polls only reflect people’s opinions and not their deep seated commitments. Opinions change even over the short term. Historical events drive one’s views and opinions and events are notoriously changeable. If Gurvitz could guarantee the stability of socio-political history then he might have a point. But I doubt that even he would say that he could.
Who would have guessed in the mid 1920’s that Europe would have almost destroyed the Jewish people on that continent? One can claim as Gurvitz no doubt would say that this will not happen again, but can he guarantee that it won’t? Antisemitism is a recurrent social phenomenon that expresses itself in many different forms, from massacres, to banishment to civil discrimination depending on the power peoples with endowed with Jews hatred have and depending on the powerlessness of Jewish communities. It’s never been an equal relationship.
Now, Gurvitz tells us that he hasn’t encountered many people who claimed to be antisemitic. This isn’t very reassuring. First, antisemites in Europe and in North America see themselves as powerless and the Jews as all powerful. (I have read of cases where that non-antisemites expressed fear of writing about Jews lest they would be seen as Jew haters. The Australian art critic Robert Hughes is a case in point.) Hence they are not likely to openly express their hatreds.
Finally, Gurvitz claims that the expression of antisemitism in the West is caused by Israel’s actions against the Palestinian Arabs. This too is wildly off the mark, not only because one should not blame a minority for the prejudices of the majority, but mostly because it is demonstrably false.
Take the most obvious cases: the well known American-Nazi David Duke, whose antisemitism is doctrinaire and not driven by socio-political events, has taken the same position and blamed Israel for antisemitism. Why had he done so? Because he perceives that this is a socially acceptable way to express one’s Jew hatred before. On most antisemitic supremacists websites you will find the same rationale offered for their Jew hatred.
Is the anti-Zionism expressed by a George Galloway that different? What of the anti-Israel positions taken by the well known philosopher Zizek? These people claim not to be antisemitic yet one endorses Hezbollah and Hamas and the other endorsed Stalin and has complained that most anti-Stalinists and anti-Communists in general today are Jewish intellectuals. (He has even attributed the exploitation of workers in the Gulags to Jews.)
See: “The Deadly Jester” by Adam Kirsch
http://www.tnr.com/article/books/the-deadly-jester
I could site many other obvious antisemites who when confronted with this fact deny it.
These are not powerless people or the dregs of society. There are many other people in positions of influence who share their beliefs but are not brave enough to say so openly.
Ironically, many of them will cite people like Jews like Gurvitz (Gurvitz may not think of himself as a Jew, but this is not how he is seen by others, especially anti-Zionists. Notice also that the anti-Zionist Shlomo Sand is cited on many, many anti-Zionist as well as pro Nazi websites) who love to cite Israeli Jews as allies in order to prove that they are not antisemitic.
Now, to the crux of the matter: Gurvitz claims that Israel is the cause of antisemitism and that it endangers the lives of Jew world wide. On the contrary I believe it can be proven that it’s anti-Zionist Jews, especially Israeli Jews who are in part responsible for the resurgence of a socially acceptable form of antisemitism. With their wild and wrong headed assertions, people like Shlomo Sand and Gurvitz have much to answer for.
My goodness, guys and gals, I get sidetracked with other business for some days and all hell breaks loose over here out of eye shot. Ben and Eamonn - my admiration for you both for engaging in argument so patiently such manifestly unserious thinkers. DavidS., you were a standout.
With Goldman, whose perceptions of reality are so skewed, that in her preposterously distorted representation of Israel as a state she refers to the IDF, quite arguably the most disciplined army in the world (but every perceived error of which is no doubt magnified a hundred fold for Goldman), as an “undisciplined” army - who could fruitfully be intellectually engaged?
And of Gurvitz, of whose existence I was happier being previously unaware, I note that on his blog he states of himself, “I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17.”
And there you have it. Choose atheism if one wishes -it’s an honorable judgment to reach. But to see “the light”! Ah, so hasn’t really changed. He’s changed gods. To appropriate Will S.: Beware of “the light,” my lord, it is the monster that doth mock the meat…
Glancing over the site where Yossi Gurvitz published his piece and to which Lisa Goldman also contributes, you quickly get a sense of the people it’s by and for.
Some of them are overgrown children who simply want to shock the grownups, like Ari Miller: http://972mag.com/holiday-spirit-ari-miller/
More seem to be like Gurvitz and Goldman (see http://972mag.com/author/lisa/) — members of that part of the left who, having had their chair kicked out from under them by the Palestinians’ second intifada, can never forgive Israel for it.
Okay, I am going to make one last attempt to add a little clarity. Deep breath…
Yossi Gurvitz wrote a thought-provoking piece that I think deserves discussion. Neither he nor I believes that Israel is the main cause of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism exists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred. Anti-Semitism will probably always exist and would exist with or without Israel’s help.
When Israel commits acts that are inexcusable - like shooting children while they are standing outside their school (e.g., Abir Aramin), or shooting blindfolded, manacled prisoners in the foot, or dragging 14 year-olds out their beds in the pre-dawn hours and jailing them without charge for months, those acts arouse anti-Semitic sentiment amongst people who are pre-disposed to anti-Semitism. This does not justify anti-Semitism. It does not explain anti-Semitism. It is simply an observation.
Nor does it detract from the gravity of Israeli policy and actions - which, I believe, *must* be acknowledged.
It is really very sad and upsetting to see that intelligent people respond to a rational observation with low, personal, vitriolic attacks, twisting words and making no attempt to engage in a dialogue.
I would like to add that I have observed a lot in Israel over the past decade. Some of the incidents I have seen were so appalling that I cannot find the words to write about them.
I am not a disappointed leftist, as Paul M says in his insulting, superficial comment. I am perhaps a disappointed humanist, but that is an existential discussion that does not belong here.
I am an Israeli citizen who spends a lot of time and effort witnessing all the aspects of what is going on both in the occupied territories and all over Israel, and writing about what I see as honestly as possible. Recently, I criticized the Israeli media for making a Palestinian rapist into a victim of racism; and for this I was praised by the same people who at other times have responded to my pieces that were critical of Israeli gov’t policies by telling me to go live in Gaza.
I’ve been accused by reflexively anti-Israel European audiences of being a Mossad agent and/or a (gasp!) Zionist; and I’ve been accused by reflexively pro-Israel types of being a post-or-anti-Zionist Israeli, or a self-hating Jew, or whatever the cliche de jour might be.
Sometimes I’m glad to shake things up a bit, because the rigid narratives of both sides are such self-serving crap. But mostly, lately, I’m really exhausted by the vitriol and the implacable refusal to engage rationally.
Eamonn, I really think this post of yours is low. I would like to think it is beneath you, but given the tone of your recent emails and your rush to disengage on Facebook and Twitter, after an acquaintance of more than five years, I fear I might be giving you too much credit.
Lisa Goldman, I am sure you have the best intentions. But as the saying goes the road to hell as well as utopia is paved with good intentions.
You state:
“When Israel commits acts that are inexcusable - like shooting children while they are standing outside their school (e.g., Abir Aramin), or shooting blindfolded, manacled prisoners in the foot, or dragging 14 year-olds out their beds in the pre-dawn hours and jailing them without charge for months, those acts arouse anti-Semitic sentiment amongst people who are pre-disposed to anti-Semitism. This does not justify anti-Semitism. It does not explain anti-Semitism. It is simply an observation.”
This is contradicts your earlier comment that:
“Anti-Semitism exists. Anti-Semitism is an irrational hatred. Anti-Semitism will probably always exist and would exist with or without Israel’s help.”
Moreover, there is hardly a country in the world in which you will not find incidents of the same type (usually a hundred fold worse) without arousing an irrational and a demand that the country be erased from the map.
And what is your point in making such decontextualized assertions?
Is it, as you conclude to,
“Sometimes I’m glad to shake things up a bit, because the rigid narratives of both sides are such self-serving crap?”
You are not shaking the narrative with such comments. On the contrary, you landing support to a one sided and anti-Israel narrative. You are also giving another excuse to the preachers of antisemitic hatred. Not because you point out that such injustices occur (and I am taking your word that your list of atrocities really occurred) but because those preachers of antisemitism will use your name when they preach hatred of the Jewish State.
It seems to me that it would be more productive to work for a two State solution. To do so you need to earn the trust of both sides. Posting irrational one-sided anti-Israel vitriol will only anger the Israelis and making it that much harder to achieve peace.
Finally, if as you say:
“But mostly, lately, I’m really exhausted by the vitriol and the implacable refusal to engage rationally.”
I suggest you take a long rest and rethink your views and the way you present them to the public. Eamonn is not the problem, Lisa. Your inability to empathize with one side of the conflict is the problem.
To add to what Jacob wrote, Ms. Goldman, the simple point to which you reduce Yossi Gurvitz’s article is banal. (And, no, that is not ad hominem. It is an attack on the idea you put forth.) If a nation, a culture, even an individual, is perceived to have done bad things (we ignore whether it really has in any instance), that is likely to produce negative feelings in some others. Well, of course. And this is why the international scene swells with anti-Chinese sentiment for what has been done in Tibet, anti-Russian sentiment for the carnage in Chechnya, and hatred for Sri Lanka for the brutal campaign waged to defeat the Tamils, all approximating the venomous attention to Israel - and Jews.
The point I have just made is a common one, made countless times by others. You cannot refute it, you do not incorporate it into your reasoning, and yet you accuse others of failing to engage in dialogue.
Nice, Eamonn.
Is this an example from Michael White in the Guardian?
“…Jews who claim that Israel’s unpopular policies have affected people’s perception of them.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/sep/28/michael-white-ed-miliband-religion
This is an old one, from Caroline Lucas: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2244
And a response from howard jacobson: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-another-act-of-terrorism-another-attempt-to-play-the-blame-game-1054446.html
Karl Pfeifer thanks for Normblog link - on the spot!
This quote seems to me to show what’s at the heart of what Eamonn is on about. The first paragraph lists a series of actions which are characterized as being done as the direct intention of the Israeli state. All are presented as self-evidently true and done on an apparently totally arbitrary basis. Each one listed, as far as I can tell, is in gross breach of Israeli laws or rules of engagement. It is typical of anti-semitic calumnies that they characterize illegal actions by individual Jews as acts committed by and on behalf of the Jewish people as a whole.
Remarking then that “those acts arouse anti-Semitic sentiment amongst people who are pre-disposed to anti-Semitism. and that’s a simple statement of fact” is, firstly a blatant misrepresentation of the Gurvitz line, which is that Israel causes anti-semitism, tout court. Secondly, it’s the equivalent of David Irving justifying the anti-semitism of anti-semites all over the world because he argues that people generally are pre-disposed to anti-semitism.
Calling the phenomenon of racism irrationally being built on irrational ascription of individual evil acts to a whole nation as “a simple statement of fact” seems to me to imply a complacency and moral indifference about anti-semitism in response to any act committed by individual Israelis in uniform or resident on the West Bank. It is in vivid contrast to the outraged denunciations which are made by both of these writers against those individual or small groups of Israelis who spray racist graffiti or commit racist acts against members of groups associated with attempts to destroy their country and culture.
Funny, that.
And, by the way, how is +972 funded? Another recipient of funding from the EU? The New Israel Fund? Truly wonderful to envisage a future for the Israelis and the Palestinians under the common flag of an international telephone dialling code. Says it all.