In a paean to Tony Judt and Edward Said, Jerónimo Páez has the following to say about the former in today’s El País:
He was born in Great Britain and proud of being Jewish. Nevertheless, he considered himself to be a citizen of the world. He didn’t like nationalism. “Identity”, he said, is a dangerous word.
The word “nevertheless” in that sentence is really quite something. Apart from that - at least in that part of his writing aimed at an audience outside academia - I don’t recall Judt as having been greatly exercised by the problem of nationalism in general but rather that of one people’s nationalism in particular, a nationalism that he saw as being peculiarly evil in nature.
Páez’s article finishes like this
It’s hard to know which to admire most in these two exceptional human beings; their intellectual rigor or their strength of character in the case of death. Both died without seeing the dream for which they had struggled so hard achieved; peace between Israelis and Palestinians. […] Those who are called to build peace should read these two exceptional thinkers - who put their political, intellectual and moral commitments before their own lives - with care.
This kind of blather does a gross disservice to the memory of both men. Neither of them dedicated their efforts to achieving “peace”. Said did what he could to have the national rights of Palestinians recognized and how right he was to do so. Judt, on the other hand, dedicated his final years to the struggle to extinguish the national rights of the Jews.
I completely agree about that racist “nevertheless”, and the blather (both men might have dreamed of peace, but peace was certainly not the dream that animated their actions.)
However (or do I mean nevertheless?), I think you are a little unfair to Judt - if rather generous to Said. First, I think most anti-anti-Zionists overemphasise the weight of his commitment to one state. You say he “dedicated his final years to the struggle to extinguish the national rights of the Jews”, but his last book, Ill Fares the Land, has little to do with Iz/Pal, and he commented in his final years on quite a range of subjects, of which Iz/Pal was far from the most prominent.
Second, I think it is wrong to suggest he reserved his venom for one nationalism only. I don’t think of the NY Review of Books as an academic-only publication, but his long 1994 there was a wide-ranging attack on the dangers of nationalism in general http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1994/may/26/the-new-old-nationalism/ This became one of his main themes from then on.
P.S. Judt in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle: “I don’t hate Jewish nationalism any more than I hate Italian nationalism, but obviously Jewish nationalists hate me more than Italian nationalists do.” http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/interviews/32457/interview-tony-judt
Fair enough. However, I’d still maintain that, overall, he was only really bothered by one sort of nationalism. I don’t recall any stinging attacks on the ideology of “Italianism” or calls for the numerous languages and cultures swept away or merely suppressed by reunification to be restored to their former glory in a new post-Italian state.
“Jerónimo Páez has the following to say about the former in today’s El País:
‘He was born in Great Britain and proud of being Jewish. Nevertheless, he considered himself to be a citizen of the world. He didn’t like nationalism. “Identity”, he said, is a dangerous word.’
Apart from that - at least in that part of his writing aimed at an audience outside academia - I don’t recall Judt as having been greatly exercised by the problem of nationalism in general but rather that of one people’s nationalism in particular, a nationalism that he saw as being peculiarly evil in nature.” Eamonn McDonagh
I agree that Judt’s antinationalism targeted mostly the Jewish State. As for Said he was a Palestinian nationalist, a member of the PLO and until the Olson accords he supported Arafat. After the accords he “discovered” that Arafat was a tyrant. What he really “discovered” was that he hated the idea of a two State solution of the Arab Israeli conflict.
I wonder also what kind of internationalist Jerónimo Páez is? Is he for the disintegration of Spain? Does he support Basque and Catalan claims to independence. Will he support Muslims claims to Cordoba and other areas of Spain? Will he allow North African Muslims and non Muslims to settle in Spain unimpeded? Does he want a Spain without borders?
Those who use the antinationalist card to delegitimize Israel need to show they would first of all support the dismemberment of their own country.
Judt may have been an anti-Nationalist but as Eammon said he didn’t attack the legitimacy of Great Britain nor any other country. He supported the European Union (as if super States were exempt from nationalist sentiments) and made fantastic and unrealistic claims for multicultural enclaves like Alexandria before the British withdrew or a frontier city like Trieste which could only exist under the protection of some Imperial power and only for a short while.