A friend just contacted me to send Jewish New Year greetings (and I should take this opportunity to wish Shana Tova to all JWN readers who would appreciate the greeting, too. I hope the next 12 months are good ones for all JWN readers.)
My friend also told me that she has been put on something called the S.H.I.T. list— which stands for Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening Jews.
It turns out this is a magnificent list of some 7,000 or so Jewish people from around the world who have expressed open criticisms of the policies of one or more governments of Israel. Many of my Jewish friends are on it, it turns out… Scrolling through it indicated to me just how widely criticism of Israeli government policy has been expressed among Jewish people worldwide.
How come I never heard of it before? Here, you can learn about such people as (quite randomly):
- Al Kagen… a professor of library administration at the Urbana campus of the University of Illinois, [who] has been active in the movement to get that institution to divest from investing funds in the Israel, as well as with firms that do business with the Jewish state, or
Holly Kosisky, who (shockingly!)… “signed a petition calling for Israel to remove its security wall so that PLO Arab sharpshooters and bus bombers can more easily murder Jews.”
…I’m sure you get the drift. Some of these people are principled leaders in the struggle for human equality in the Holy Land… Others have merely “signed a petition against the Wall”.
In case you want to know more about the organization that keeps this list, Masada 2000, you can go to its home-page, which is graced at the very top by a quote from the late Meir Kahane and then spends most of that page explaining to readers why There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as “Palestine” (bolded in the original.)
Read here about the organization’s truly scary Solution(s) to the Israeli-“Palestinian” Conflict:
Or you can contact the folks to at the website to send on the names of any Jewish people you know who should be included on the S.H.I.T. list. (“You will remain anonymous.”)
But there’s something else about this site that’s even more intriguing…. Many of the people on the S.H.I.T. list only have their names listed. Others have hyperlinks to their email addresses– I suppose, to make it easier for the Kahanists who created the site to send hate-mail to them.
Around 10% of the names listed have their jobs or place of residence identified, and a little description of their supposedly “Israel-threatening” activities. Many of these descriptions have some extremely sarcastic “editorial comment” attached: “Lady, you should feel embarrassed and inferior but mostly ashamed of yourself! ” (Or this, for Noam Chomsky: ” In other words, Chomsky is a thoroughly despicable human being.”)
But sometimes, the sarcasm and nastiness in these listings take on a distinctly feminophobic and even faintly pornographic coloration. I was a little puzzled by this. Then I found a link to this truly disgusting page on the M2000 site. It’s quite a long page, so keep on scrolling down. [Warning: this page reportedly includes sound, too.]
You will see, respectively:
- * a female sexual-pleasuring object in the image of Yasser Arafat,
* an “endorsement” for this product from a supposedly satisfied customer (presumably one of the women on the S.H.I.T. list?)
* a list of the different “designs” in which this product is available, including “The Monster Mohammed”, etc etc, then–
* a poster-type display with photos, that is titled A few leftist chicks in need of a good reaming — these ones, again, taken from the S.H.I.T. list .
This stuff is revolting. It’s a rampant call to woman-hatred, the physical abuse of women, and the demeaning of all women who attempt to enter the public discourse.
In this latter respect, I can recall some of the terrible cartoons that were published by the genocidaires in Rwanda, in the lead-up to the genocide, in which lewd sexual suggestions were made about the (generally pro-coexistence) female Hutu prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana. The pro-genocidaire publications ran cartoon after cartoon after cartoon of this genre in those weeks…. And then, as one of the first acts during the genocide, the genocidal militias stormed Ms. Uwilingiyimana’s home, took her out, and subjected her to the most grotesque forms of sexual mutilation (in front of her children) before finally they killed her.
The people who run this Masada2000 website should take down this page immediately… Spewing hate in the way they do on their other pages is bad enough. But spewing hate with an incitement to rape is, I think, even worse.
Helena, I think you might warn people that the page in question has sound as well: I was reading this in a room with my teenage daughter and clicked through …
Oops. sorry. That’s so terrible. I just don’t use sound on my computer, so I had no idea. I’ve put in a warning about that.
testing the comments here
My first impression of that website was how much that picture of a maze resembled a swastika.
My subsequent impressions were even less kind.
I think we should call it the HONOUR list.
Ray, what does HONOUR stand for?
A recent letter to the editor by a professor at Carnegie Mellon:
http://www.thetartan.org/forum/2005/10/03/controversialspeakers
My first impression of that website was how much that picture of a maze resembled a swastika.
Yeah, I got the same impression. The site as a whole gives the impression of being created by teenage terrorist wannabes with far too much time on their hands. Aside from the fact that the author doesn’t know the meaning of “Judenrat” and uses terms like “Jewess” that are otherwise used only by anti-semites, there’s something fundamentally juvenile about its presentation and especially what passes for its “sense of humor.” It reminds me of nothing more than the chatrooms frequented by wannabe jihadis of the same age and maturity – not that this makes it any less dangerous, given what Kahanist (and jihadi) youth have shown themselves capable of doing.
Anyway, I’m surprised I haven’t made the list yet. Many (even most?) of the people on it are Zionists like me, who have a different idea of what Israel should be than Kahanist bastards have.
Jonathan, hi. I too was surprised by their use of terms like “Jewess” … and I thought, oh heck, maybe I always hitherto misunderstood the term Judenrat. (I’m glad to learn from you that I did not.)
Ifyou’d like I could “anonymously” nominate you… It’s probably not a good idea, though, to engage with them at all, on their own terms– even satirically.
I really would like to mount a campaign to have them take down their incitement-to-rape page, however… and also to find out more about these sad, sick people who think this way– about women, and about the world in general.
Any ideas, anyone?
Hi Helena. I’m so glad your blog is back on song.
I posted a URL and some words not long ago about Allister Sparks’ article in the Johannesburg Star on the two-state (which SA has in the past encouraged) and one-state solutions. It was followed by a quite extraordinary attack in the form of another article. Minister Ronnie Kasrils came to Sparks’ defence in a letter to the editor. Now Sparks has written another column. I will quote some of it. Why I think it is relevant is that Sparks is alleging that this kind of totally unrestrained attack is orchestrated by the Israeli government, in the way that he describes:
“It is sad but unsurprising. My last column, in which I suggested that a two-state solution in the Middle East was no longer viable and that Israelis should start facing the prospect of a single, shared state with the Palestinians, has brought a torrent of personal attacks from Jewish readers.
“Sad because none of the letters dealt with the substantive points in the column, which reflects a distressing state of collective denial.
“There was no response to the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he will not remove the Jewish settlements on the West Bank as he has done from Gaza, and my contention that this renders the putative Palestinian state unviable.
“Unsurprising because the abuse hurled at me instead is part of a pattern. I was called “an insidious and dangerous anti-Semite”, and American academic Virginia Tilley, whose scholarly book The One-State Solution I reviewed in the column, a “pro-Hamas ideologue” – which equates her with terrorism.
“Such personal attacks on anyone who criticises Israel emanate routinely from the South African Zionist Federation and are clearly intended to intimidate the critics into silence by smearing them with the odious charge of anti-Semitism.
“This comes from a body that is an affiliate of the World Zionist Federation, which in turn is an arm of the Israeli government, and so the tactic bears the stamp of state approval.
“Thus the chairperson of the South African branch of this official state body, Avrom Krengel, wrote to the editor of The Star claiming the right of reply to what he called “the injustice of (my) anti-Semitic tirade”.
“Actually, I thought my column was quite mildly worded and not unsympathetic to Jewish sensitivities. Also, that Krengel misspelled my name and got the date of publication wrong had me wondering whether he had actually read the column or just shot off a pro forma missile.
“I also wonder whether it is wise for an arm of the state of Israel to be so free with the smear-term “anti-Semite”. Is there not a danger, in slapping it on anyone who criticises Israel’s actions, of diluting a term which should apply to the most odious and discredited of all human prejudices?
“Be that as it may, since I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, let me return to the subject at hand. (Which he does at http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=225&fArticleId=2904307 ).
Helena:
I really would like to mount a campaign to have them take down their incitement-to-rape page, however… and also to find out more about these sad, sick people who think this way
The owner seems to have hidden his identity at least to superficial examination – the WHOIS information for the site resolves to a Sacramento mail drop, a Spokane cell phone number and a defunct email address. This is, to say the least, not surprising.
This article gives the owner’s name as Rockwell Lazareth, but I suspect that’s also a pseudonym. That name doesn’t come up under any of the sources available to me, and in any event “Lazareth” isn’t a Jewish surname. (It may provide a clue to the author’s hometown, though, if there’s a Rockwell Hospital anywhere in the United States.)
If I have some time, I’ll try to do a bit more digging.
Dominic:
This comes from a body that is an affiliate of the World Zionist Federation, which in turn is an arm of the Israeli government
Except it isn’t, which undermines Mr. Sparks’ theory of governmental orchestration regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of his other points.
Also, the fact that the South African Zionist Federation is an affiliate of the World Zionist Organization isn’t really meaningful, given that the WZO is an umbrella group of organizations that pursue independent policies. Meretz USA is also a WZO affiliate, and I doubt they agree with the SAZF on very much. Describing the SAZF as a WZO affiliate is a little like saying that the PFLP-GC is an affiliate of the PLO – i.e., that may be true, but it doesn’t mean that the PFLP-GC’s activities carry a stamp of approval from the government of the Palestinian Authority.
a few notes on the masada 2000/SHIT list folks:
(beforehand, though, an apology for dropping out of the state/anti-state/nation-state conversation a while back, just as it was getting interesting; my computer access is mad sporadic, sadly – i expect that jonathan and i and the others involved will get a chance to resume it at some point, though)
the SHIT list is a strange one. it’s got a batch of radicals and liberals ranging from mild critics of the sharon government to non- and anti-zionists to diasporists (full disclosure: including me and a batch of my friends). but it covers the whole distance over to some vehement-not-to-say-vicious right-leaning zionists, including henry kissinger himself, last time i looked.
which says something about the purist mindset of the u.s. zionist right.
the incitement to rape page, and the rest of the sexualized violence throughout the list and site, though, is typical well beyond that right edge of u.s. zionism. at practically every ‘pro-israel’ event of whatever political tendency i’ve attended in new york as part of a critical jewish presence (along with palestinian and other friends, or not), and at anti-occupation street events, the most common response has been in that vein.
from the well-heeled bareheaded ‘moderates’ at Jewish National Fund fundraisers; from the haredi kids at gush khatif street events; from older modern orthodox guys at the Salute to Israel parade; from gung-go teenage boys walking by the Women in Black; from women of a certain age in parks; from college kids on Broadway; from pastrami-buyers at Zabar’s… that’s the constant theme. some standard lines i’ve heard from more than one of the above: “you’re ugly” “arafat’s whores” “commie dykes” “you just need some jewish dick” “arab faggot” “fat bitch” “you suck arab cock” etc.
i’m pretty sure that i’ve heard this come out of the mouths of folks who’ve made the SHIT list for being insufficiently pure in their faith, too…
in any case, this blend of woman-hating, queer-hating, racist, and redbaiting is the usual substitute for any kind of political assertion, much less argument, much less engagement. it’s the answer to a leaflet, to a “stop cutting down olive trees” sign, to an offer of homemade hamantashn, to a khay pendant on a picketer. which to me confirms the analysis anti-occupation feminists in israel have been doing for years about the interweaving of these patriarchal (both anti-woman and anti-queer), racist, nationalist, and militarist strands within the zionist project.
the similarities to the pre-genocide agitation in rwanda and bosnia-herzegovina are pretty plain, as helena pointed out. another key parallel, though, is in klaus theweleit’s “male fantasies”, which looks at exactly this interweaving in the thinking of the officers of the german freikorps, who became key to the rise of nazism.
getting the psychos at masada 2000 to take down their incitement to rape page would be worthwhile. but to me, the larger problem is how deeply rooted the same attitude is in the zionist mainstream. i’d love to be part of figuring out how to interrupot *that*.
…the incitement to rape page, and the rest of the sexualized violence throughout the list and site, though, is typical well beyond that right edge of u.s. zionism…. which to me confirms the analysis anti-occupation feminists in israel have been doing for years about the interweaving of these patriarchal (both anti-woman and anti-queer), racist, nationalist, and militarist strands within the zionist project.
Oh, come on! How can you possibly make such grossly generalized statements?
Jonathan, might I suggest that the “Rockwell” comes from George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the US Nazi Party during the 1960s? I think, by the way, that your posting was too kind. The question we should be asking is: What is the purpose of picking out this single, sick Web site for showcasing here? I’m sure that I, too, would qualify for this SHIT list had I had my 15 minutes of fame. So what? In the meantime, I don’t see anybody stringing up Noam Chomsky on an electric pylon or putting a burning tire around Norman Finkelstein’s neck.
Jonathan, Allister Sparks is a very distinguished journalist, well known internationally, and a liberal, not unlike yourself. I believe him as much as I believe you, or perhaps just a little more, to be honest, because I think your PFLP/PLO analogy is plain daft. But you could be right, maybe the Israeli government has absolutely nothing to do with the organised denigration of the mildest of comments on that nation, wherever they may occur.
But why are you, as you put it, “regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of his other points.”? Why are you selective? How are you any different from JES in this case? JES who sees no problem at all? Who exceptionalises each case, as you are doing with this one? Special pleading is the phrase for it.
I feel cheated when somebody looks for an apparent weakness, trumps it, dusts off his hands and walks away. This may be a debate, but it can’t just be a point-scoring exercise. I’m deeply shocked that Allister Sparks should be smeared as anti-semitic for simply debating the merits of two-state and one-state, of which we know plenty in South Africa.
JES writes:
“Oh, come on! How can you possibly make such grossly generalized statements?”
from the experience i summarized in the post. and ‘grossly’ is putting it a bit strong…
it’s certainly not universal, as anyone who reads JWN knows – there are folks who identify themselves with zionism (from jonathan edelstein to mobius ‘orthodox anarchist’ to some of the israeli anti-occupation feminists i mentioned) who have nothing to do with this kind of sexualized violence.
but it is typical. and all you have to do to find that out is spend some time doing anti-occupation work in jewish contexts.
the real question, to me, is how inevitably and inextricably it is bound up in nationalist projects of all kinds. or, from another angle, to what extent those who strive for a zionism (or a u.s. patriotism, or a turkish nationalism, etc.) free from these strands are trying to reconcile irreconcilables.
i’m inclined to think that no nationalism that seeks or gains state power can separate itself from these patriarchal, militaristic, and ethno/racial-supremacist ideas. i would say “no nationalism” period, but for some of the powerful writing on nationalisms by Ashanti Alston and other folks from the anarchist people of color circles here in the u.s., and some of the cultural-autonomist writing by bundistn back in the early 1900s.
which makes me both appreciate the resistance of dissenting zionists all the more, and understand their inclination to remain within a zionist framework all the less.
perhaps more to the point, JES continues:
“In the meantime, I don’t see anybody stringing up…”
again, try doing some anti-occupation work in u.s. jewish contexts.
on the high-profile end, adam shapiro’s parents had to flee their home in brooklyn a few years ago due to repeated death threats and harrassment from, among others, the kahanist jewish defense organization. lest you dismiss this as unnecessary fear, it’s worth pointing out that just last month a member of the JDO’s parent group, the JDL, got 30 years in a bombing plot that targetted an LA mosque, an Arab-American congressman, and a muslim organization. the FBI says they’ve only succeeded in carrying out about 40 such operations since 1968.
no ‘mainstream’ jewish organization condemned the threats against the shapiros. in fact, a ‘progressive’ synagogue refused to rent its space to nyc’s Jews For Racial and Economic Justice when the group decided to honor them for their courage in standing by their son’s peace work. the event was eventually held in a church, since no other jewish institution would break ranks, including those with on-paper anti-occupation zionist positions.
on a more mundane scale, at a columbia university ‘forum’ sponsored by the david project, both speakers on the podium and audience members on the floor called for the rape and murder of audience members who asked questions revealing an anti-occupation stance.
and, finally, a friend of mine had a scab on her neck for weeks after a woman dove for her throat in union square, manhattan, tearing off her ‘khay’ and screaming something along the lines of “you are not khay! go back to dachau!”. why? she was carrying a sign saying “jews against the occupation”.
and that’s all in nyc – home, supposedly, of one of the more progressive u.s. jewish communities. would you rather wait until someone does get killed before challenging those who openly advocate murder and those whose silence is complicit, JES?
dos gezunt iz in dir – la salute e in voi
I believe him as much as I believe you, or perhaps just a little more, to be honest, because I think your PFLP/PLO analogy is plain daft.
I’m not sure what’s daft about it. The PLO is an umbrella organization of Palestinian nationalist groups. Some of them are represented in the PA government and others aren’t, they all reserve the right to set their own agenda, and they all can and do pursue independent policies.
The WZO is an umbrella organization of Zionist groups. Some of them are Israeli political parties and others aren’t, they all have their own ideologies, and they all can and do pursue their own policies. The WZO, like the PLO, is a non-governmental organization with its own governance structure, and has no authority to legislate for Israel or vice versa.
The relationship of the WZO and its member organizations to the Israeli government actually seems quite similar to that of the PLO to the PA. Certainly, the fact that an organization is a WZO affiliate, by itself, isn’t sufficient to impute its activities to the Israeli government. The Israeli government may or may not be involved in what the SAZF is doing, but Mr. Sparks’ theory of guilt by association isn’t nearly enough to prove that.
But why are you, as you put it, “regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of his other points.”? Why are you selective?
I was referring specifically to the merits of his argument about two-state versus one-state, because I didn’t want to hijack Helena’s thread with a discussion of that subject.
I’m as appalled as you are that Mr. Sparks was branded an anti-Semite. In that respect, I agree wholeheartedly with the merits of his column.
which makes me both appreciate the resistance of dissenting zionists all the more, and understand their inclination to remain within a zionist framework all the less.
Here’s my answer to that; take it for what you will.
thanks, jonathan – i look forward to reading it, and having it spur my thinking along…
Jonathan, the PLO is a national liberation front of different political parties built on a unity-in-action basis for a minimum result, namely national liberation. I wouldn’t call it a “non-governmental organisation”. It’s not like Oxfam.
The SA Zionist Federation is organised to rebut quickly whatever they don’t like to see in the South African Press. Their official complained, as Sparks reports in the extract above. The article that appeared, smearing Sparks and others, was by another person, Debra Mankowitz, “a Middle East researcher for the SA Zionist Federation”. This is what I would call a lobby. In other words institutionally funded people who watch and pounce whenever something appears that they want suppressed. There are plenty such organisations in South Africa but we do not confuse them with mass-membership political parties. That’s chalk and cheese. You must surely be aware that an alliance of parties is not the same as a string of funded lobby groups (or TWACs as they used to be called here, standing for “two wankers and a computer” – please excuse the slang).
I think Sparks’ conclusion that this Zionist reactionary lobby is concerted is not unreasonable. But that is only part of his point. The rest is that this funded advocacy has gone so far over the top that it has begun to cheapen its own core values. And this is where the SAZF stands in danger of falling into the S.H.I.T. syndrome, because there is no sense of constraint. The maximum response has become the first response.
Dominic, I actually agree (or at least I don’t disagree too much) with most of what you said in your last comment. I could quibble somewhat about the nature of the PLO and the WZO, the latter of which includes political parties and multi-purpose charities as well as TWAC-type organizations, but that’s really beside the point. And I agree that baseless accusations of anti-semitism and other S.H.I.T.-list tactics represent a cheapening of political discourse (not to mention libel).
My quarrel was with one particular aspect of Mr. Sparks’ argument – that the WZO, and therefore the SAZF by implication, is an “arm of the Israeli government.” As I said above, the WZO and its affiliates are not part of the Israeli government, and many of the affiliate organizations in fact disagree with various Israeli government policies. Some disagree from the right – for instance, I believe it was you who pointed out that many of the South African Zionist groups opposed the Gaza disengagement – and some, like Meretz USA, disagree from the left. In either event, their policies and actions aren’t directed from Jerusalem.
The campaign against Mr. Sparks may have been organized by the SAZF. It may be reasonable, from the evidence you cited, to make that conclusion. But this fact, without more, doesn’t warrant an imputation of guilt by association to the government of Israel.
The SA Zionist Federation is organised to rebut quickly whatever they don’t like to see in the South African Press.
Yes, simply you will be marked and called a anti-semitisim…
“If we think that to criticise Israeli violence, or to call for economic pressure to be put on the Israeli state to change its policies, is to be ‘effectively anti-semitic’, we will fail to voice our opposition for fear of being named as part of an anti-semitic enterprise.”
Judith Butler
Nice to see so many friends on the S.H.I.T. list.
The mysogynist tint to nationalism does seem pretty universal.
Rozele,
Excuse me, but providing some anecdotal evidence and then generalizing based on that is not what I call a credible argument.
Being a long-time member of the Israel Labour Party and an even longer-time opponent to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as an Israeli citizen residing in Israel, I believe that I am in as good a position as any to guage the extent of “sexual violence” among Zionists, and I don’t see – based on my own anecdotal evidence – any clear correlation, although I am open to seeing some substantiated scientific evidence of this.
Now, let me give you an example. If I were to take the number of “honor” killings in Palestinian Arab society and generalize this to the Palestinian national movement, would that indicate to you further proof that sexual violence “inevitably and inextricably it is bound up in nationalist projects inevitably and inextricably it is bound up in nationalist projects of all kinds.” I suspect not.
Contrary to what our friend Dominic suggested, I am not “special pleading” here. I do find the site in question revolting. I just don’t think that it is of any more consequence than any of the other thousands of similarly revolting sites on the Internet. (You may want to check out Radio Islam sometime.) Further, I find it disturbing that Jews might engage in sending hate mail or making threatening phone calls, but I don’t find it indicative of anything greater simply because it has happened on occasion. You dredge up the single example of the JDL (which, by the way has never been a Zionist organizaiton), and display this as “evidence” of something. Of what? Sure, there are Jewish and even Zionist racists. So what? Jews are human too.
But why argue with Bundists. Geh wachsen vie a tsiboleh! – tihyi b’riyah!
I made the masada list some time ago. I think because I appeared on Alan Sokol’s “open letter” some time ago.
Rozelle’s claim that this is “within the mainstream” of American Zionism is bizarre. I certainly have not seen such a thing, and I’ve seen plenty of anti-Israel protests and responses.
With respect to what Dominic and Rozelle have said. It seems that there is plenty of harsh rhetoric all around. One thing I have noticed is that critics of Israel regularly level accusations of racism, colonialism, and other such brickbats. And then are shocked, shocked when some people on the other side response that such criticsm may be anti-semitic in nature (which it quite often is, even if it is not always so).
Thanks for the respect, Joshua. I do say that Israel is currently a settler colony and that it is constructed on a “racial” basis, insofar as it discriminates against “Arabs”. These are not brickbats. This is a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.
So what’s it to be? Respect, as you say, or accusations of anti-semitism? Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Let me finish by quoting Allister Sparks’ concluding paragraphs:
“Or is Sharon going to proclaim his own “two-state settlement” unilaterally, annexing the settlements as part of Israel and telling the Palestinians they can have little Gaza and the twisted scraps of land left over in the West Bank as their nation state?
“If that is what Sharon has in mind, it won’t work – any more than Hendrik Verwoerd’s vision of fragmented bantustans as the way to realise the Afrikaner dream of having their own “tuiste vir die nageslag” (a home for posterity) could. The Palestinians won’t accept it, and it won’t bring peace.
“Which brings us back to what is meant by a “Jewish state”? Does it really require a permanent Jewish majority to exist? Not all early Zionists thought so; some actively resisted the idea. But they were swamped by the emotional intensity of the Holocaust.
“One can empathise with the impact of that terrible event on Jews everywhere, but the fact remains that many ethno-nationalisms grapple with the problem of other ethnic groups in their midst. Israel, South Africa and Northern Ireland have long been bracketed together as particularly intractable examples of this dilemma, which is why I believe we have some experiences to share.
“The new South Africa has not required the forfeiture of the “Afrikaner homeland”. I well remember the dark warnings, uttered from pulpit and platform over more than half my working life, that “one man one vote” would mean the “national suicide” of the Afrikaner volk and that they would never, ever contemplate it.
“Well, they did contemplate it, and the volk are surviving, their language, church and culture still intact, the tuisland still there for the nageslag. And the Afrikaners are in a far weaker position, numerically and politically, than the much more substantial Jewish population of a greater Israel would be with vastly greater international support to boot.
“I am not suggesting it would be easy. Ethno-nationalism is a powerful factor in human affairs, which liberals like myself are prone to underestimate.
“But then again the Jewish people have more experience than anyone else in the art of living among others. Sooner or later they will have to confront the facts on the ground – and stop yelling at caring people who urge them to do so.”
JES:
Excuse me, but providing some anecdotal evidence and then generalizing based on that is not what I call a credible argument.
It occurs to me that the difference between your, my and Joshua’s experience on the one hand, and Rozele’s on the other, may have a great deal to do with points of friction. There’s quite a bit of self-selection among those who seek out and confront counter-demonstrators at rallies, so even if 99 percent of Zionists would never sexually denigrate or threaten violence against those who disagree, the other 1 percent will be disproportionately represented in such confrontations.
I’ve often encountered the same sort of incredulity among pro-Palestinian activists who are surprised to learn that supporters of Israel are sexually defamed, threatened and even physically attacked at their rallies. Most activists for the Palestinian cause – like most of us – would never resort to such things, but because they stay away from the front lines, they don’t see the people who do.
Does that validate Rozele’s generalizations? Certainly not. But I can understand how she came to that impression, and I believe it imposes something of an obligation on us to prevent such impressions from being made. The next time I find myself at a demonstration of whatever sort (which isn’t often these days), I think I’ll be the one to go over and talk to the counterdemonstrators, and respond if anyone on “my side” reacts to them with violence or insults.
Dominic:
But then again the Jewish people have more experience than anyone else in the art of living among others.
As I said above, I don’t want to hijack Helena’s thread with off-topic discussion, so I’ll confine myself to a few brief observations:
First, I think Mr. Sparks misreads the Israeli political situation, particularly the willingness of the Israeli public to accommodate a contiguous Palestinian state. He reminds me of the people who, two years ago, argued that the settlement process was irreversible and that Israel could never summon up the political will to evacuate any settlements. Right up to this year, many people claimed that the withdrawal from Gaza could never happen. But it did, and the myth of the settlers’ political invincibility has been shattered. At this point, the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state seems not so much impossible as inevitable.
Second, neither Israelis nor Palestinians particularly want to share a state, and the track record of states that incorporate two hostile and unwilling peoples isn’t a very good one. And this track record is particularly bad where the internal conflict is between a politically dominant majority and a market-dominant minority. South Africa, where everyone involved was willing to share a country at the end of the day, is very much the exception; for every South Africa, there are many more Fijis, Cypruses and Lebanons.
And finally, Mr. Sparks’ observation that the Jewish people have more experience than anyone else in the art of living among others is precisely why so many of us feel the need to hold onto a nation-state. Unfortunately, we live in a world that privileges nation-states and affords them rights that other groupings don’t have. One of these rights – and one that Jews have often keenly felt the lack of during the past two millennia – is that of self-defense.
I don’t intend any insult to you personally or to others on this blog, who I’m sure have the best of intentions for all humanity. But after the past nineteen hundred years of “living among others” – and after witnessing the world’s reaction even now to the atrocities in Chechnya and Darfur – I think we can be forgiven for not believing those who say “trust us, it’ll work out this time.” I’m unwilling to bet my life on the assumption that the rest of the world will act morally, given the frequency with which it has failed (and still fails) to do so.
“We Jews from Islamic lands did not leave our ancestral homes because of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims. And we Arabs-I say Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home-we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the Jews. And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, let me say that we Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and the Golan Heights. -Naeim Giladi (former Israeli now US citizen of Jewish-Iraqi descent)
Salaam
Ash
How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews
the past nineteen hundred years of “living among others” – and after witnessing the world’s reaction even now to the atrocities in Chechnya and Darfur – I think we can be forgiven for not believing those who say “trust us, it’ll work out this time.” I’m unwilling to bet my life on the assumption that the rest of the world will act morally, given the frequency with which it has failed (and still fails) to do so.
Jonathan Edelstein, you’r right with your unwilling and I with you in this point, but one point I would like to put here, what did the creation of Jews State in Palestine? is it a similar atrocities with people in Palestine? Did Israel feel safe with all here neighbours now?
Jonathan, there’s me, there’s Allister Sparks, and then there’s your invention: ‘those who say “trust us, it’ll work out this time.”‘.
The great thing about imaginary people is that you can have your own conversation with them and ignore everybody else.
Or is this your way of trying to say I’m anti-semitic? And if not, what is your point, exactly?
The nation-state was only invented recently, and has never existed, anywhere, in the form that you suggest, which is also not the reality in Israel. Israel is not that archetypal nation-state. It is something else. It is a settler colony.
Let’s use your own example. When was Darfur ever a nation-state? It could not be, and will never be. If there was any use for the case of Darfur in this argument, it would be as an illustration of the plight of the minority in Israel, which is to say: the Palestinians.
That’s the hell of it, Jonathan. We know you can’t have your crazy anachronistic 19th-century dream of exclusive nationhood at all, and even to attempt it is to create an unspeakable atrocity for some other people. We know this from our own experience, not yours. Nothing you say can change our South African experience. We’ve already been there, tasted the folly and smelt the blood and snot.
Allister Sparks as a young, brave reporter was out in the Transkei eye-witnessing the nonsense more than 40 years ago, and bearing witness to it. He really has got something to say. I don’t know if you have read his whole article. All I can see is that you have used my quotation from him as a kit from which to selectively re-build your own argument, not to comprehend his one. You’ve even lost the ability to listen. We’ve seen that before, too.
The above by Dominic is actually a very good example of how criticism of Israel often neatly blends into his anti-semitism.
I pointed out in the past that the categorization of Israel as a “settler colony” is a grossly offensive term. It is indeed racist in that Dominic is essentially saying that Jews are not allowed to assert a claim to an ancestral homeland, or for that matter a homeland which they arrived at through migration. Presumably Dominic considers the numerous waves of Arab migration and invasion as something different and somehow “indigenous.” And when you point out the longstanding history and and ancestry, it is smugly dismissed as “national myth.”
The short of it is that, far from being a concrete observation, Dominic’s language is the language of insult and demonization. It puts Jews on the level of a people unworthy of a nation, or perhaps not a people at all.
Dominic insists that nation-states are recent investions. Not entirely correct. The nation-state has become formalized worldwide only recently. However, several places in the world have been nation states or the functional equivalent for quite some time. Egypt has been one for 8000 years or so.
In any event, this misses the point. Even if the “nation state” is a recent concept, the concept of groups of individuals forming distinct “nations” or “people” is not. And in this day and age, most nations have a functioning nation state. The Jews are entitled to no less.
If a Jew is opposed to Zionism, the solution is simple. Don’t live in Israel. I myself don’t. What is unacceptable, and what begins to bleed into racism, is to deny the choice to other Jews who may decide so. It is a perversion of discourse to say that those who have made that choice are the racists, when such a label belongs to those who try to deny the choice to others.
Jonathan, there’s me, there’s Allister Sparks, and then there’s your invention: ‘those who say “trust us, it’ll work out this time.”‘
Dominic, anyone who advocates that a state dissolve itself, and that a majority of its inhabitants become a minority in a historically hostile population, is saying “trust us, it’ll work out this time” whether he intends to or not, and no matter who the two peoples in question might be. Every now and then, with rare goodwill and a great deal of effort, that sort of arrangement works. Most of the time it doesn’t.
That isn’t my opinion, that’s the experience of about six thousand years of recorded human history. There may, in some cases, be reasons to take the plunge regardless, but that past experience can’t simply be wished away. If nothing else, that sort of decision shouldn’t be made without regard for all the possible consequences. Even Salah concedes me that point.
Or is this your way of trying to say I’m anti-semitic? And if not, what is your point, exactly?
Where the hell did that come from? At no point in this thread, or in any other thread, have I even suggested that you might be anti-Semitic. In fact, I will state for the record that I don’t consider you an anti-semite, and that anyone who calls you one is out of line.
BTW, if I want to call someone an anti-semite, I don’t dance around the subject. If I ever decide to call anybody that, you’ll know.
The nation-state was only invented recently, and has never existed, anywhere, in the form that you suggest, which is also not the reality in Israel. Israel is not that archetypal nation-state. It is something else. It is a settler colony.
Come on, Dominic, you know as well as I do that when I talk about the privileges of nation-states, I’m using that term in its legal sense. A nation-state is a political entity recognized as independent by the international community (either de jure or de facto) and having the rights thereof under international law. An independent country falls into this category whether it began as a settler colony or whether its people sprang forth from the grass.
I suppose that “nation-state” can be construed as an ambiguous term in the context of a discussion about nationalism. The trouble is that other terms are at least as ambiguous – “state” and “country” are both used as terms for subnational units, and “nation” doesn’t always imply political statehood.
How about “Westphalian state?” Read the above as “Israel is a Westphalian state, and Westphalian states have certain rights under international law that other political, social and economic units don’t have.”
Let’s use your own example. When was Darfur ever a nation-state? It could not be, and will never be.
Well, that’s my point, isn’t it? The Darfuris and Chechens don’t have Westphalian states, so whatever atrocities the Sudanese or Russian governments decide to perpetrate against them are regarded as internal matters. In practical terms, there are no international guarantees for minorities within Westphalian states. That has been proven time and again during the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first.
If Israeli Jews become a minority within a Westphalian state composed of the entire Mandate, they will be in exactly the same potential position as the Chechens and Darfuris. That’s the risk that Mr. Sparks, with the very best of intentions, is asking them to assume. I understand the historical and personal experiences that led Mr. Sparks to advocate this solution, but I think you can see why those most affected by it might be wary.
And no, I’m not advocating that Israel become a “crazy anachronistic 19th-century dream of exclusive nationhood.” You’re well aware that I’ve never advocated that, and that I give concrete (excuse me, material) support to those organizations that fight for minority rights within Israel. I do, however, believe that there are reasons other than racism why Israeli Jews might not favor the one-state solution. Can you see those reasons, or have you lost your ability to listen?
Nothing you say can change our South African experience. We’ve already been there, tasted the folly and smelt the blood and snot.
You don’t have a monopoly on that by any means. Israelis and Palestinians have both drunk that cup to the dregs. The majority of them, as evidenced time and again by polls of both populations, would prefer a solution different from South Africa. Maybe – just maybe – their views on the matter are as valid as those of Mr. Sparks or yourself.
You say that I’ve “lost the ability to listen.” The funny thing is that I’ve occasionally got the same impression from you – that you view everything through the lens of South African history, and that you regard any suggestion that ZA’s experience might not be universally applicable as “special pleading.” Why don’t you try looking at the Israeli-Palestinian national question without South African preconceptions, and try to understand how the great majority of both peoples have come to prefer separate states? The world isn’t one size fits all.
At this point, I should mention that I continue to have the highest respect for you as a person, and that no aspersions on your character are intended by the above.
One more thing: Listening doesn’t always lead to agreement, or even mutual understanding. I doubt, for instance, that you and I will ever agree on very much. 🙂
Let me try this from a different direction.
Ruth First, Wolfie Kodesh, and Govan Mbeki were communists working for “Guardian” (or was it “New Age” at that stage? It had to change its name more than once after being banned), a newspaper in South Africa. The Communist Party of South Africa was banned by then. Together, they exposed a shocking racket. People, detained for the artificial offence of not having the right papers, were being shipped off to work for nothing on potato farms. There were clothed in sacks with holes for head and arms, and slept in sheds. The paper published photos and organised a potato boycott, with some success.
Govan Mbeki, with Ruth first’s help (she now in exile, he about to go down for life in the Rivonia trial) published a great classic called The Peasants’ Revolt (it’s on the Internet at the ANC site). In it he quotes the work of the young Allister Sparks about the Transkei, published in the Johannesburg Star. Govan Mbeki passed away some years ago. His son is the current President of South Africa.
Ruth First was killed by a letter bomb in Maputo, sent by the policeman Craig Williamson from South Africa. Wolfie Kodesh died in South Africa after liberation. Not all the old-timers have gone. Sparks is still working. Esther Barsel is 80 and still active in my Communist Party Branch. When she was young her family had one side of a semi-detached in the Johannesburg suburb of Yeoville, and in the other was the Slovo Family. Joe Slovo later married Ruth First and was General Secretary of the SACP.
Another survivor is Ronnie Kasrils, who is a Minister in our government still. He is attacked in today’s Johannesburg Star by one Jack Bloom, of the Democratic Alliance, a mainly white party, led by Tony Leon. Bloom accuses Kasrils of anti-semitism, because Ronnie supported Sparks against the same charge by Debra Mankowitz.
With the exception of the Mbekis, father and son, and Allister Sparks, all the people I have mentioned here are Jewish South Africans. I wonder if you can sense how closely intertwined we all are? And how absurd it is to speak of “monopoly of experience” under the leadership of these great people (and even the not-so-great like Tony Leon and Jack Bloom)? Not only are we in the same world, we are often the same people.
Jonathan,
Your previous refers, concerning anti-semitism. This whole thread is about organised Jews using the charge of anti-semitism wildly, not only against gentiles and “Arabs”, but most particularly against other Jews, running the risk of devaluing the term altogether.
The case of the Johannesburg DA (Democratic Alliance) Councillor Jack Bloom’s use of the charge today against the ANC Minister Ronnie Kasrils is a good example. Although Bloom starts by referring to Kasrils’ defence of Allister Sparks against the charge, his letter digs up obscure past statements of Kasrils referring to other times and people, obviously from his own or perhaps the SAZF’s files. This is systematic, behaviour, not spontaneous, and it is done to score points for the DA against the ANC in South Africa, and not to defend Israel. Clearly the charge of anti-semitism is becoming a general political weapon and being devalued, even desecrated.
Thanks for defending me against the charge. On the other hand, as you must have seen, Joshua has no doubt that I am guilty.
On the question of Israli settler colonialism, I am not referring to what the Jewish or Palestinian population may want if polled, for the moment. I am referring to the “facts on the ground”, a phrase which old Sparksy used in his article, obviously knowing that thereby hangs a tale.
The concrete situation of the settler state inhabiting the same territory as the colonised people is what the South African communists called “colonialism of a special type”. It defines the problem, but not necessarily the solution to that problem. Joshua is not even recognising the problem. He demands a right for one side without considering the rights of the others.
All the sovereign states recognise equal rights for citizens, and grant citizenship to all residents (even if “terms and conditions apply”) in principle. Israel does not meet this definition. It remains a colony of a special type. What happens next must be the subject of debate, and not more war. The debate is obstructed by wild charges of anti-semitism.
On the question of Israeli settler colonialism, I am not referring to what the Jewish or Palestinian population may want if polled, for the moment. I am referring to the “facts on the ground”, a phrase which old Sparksy used in his article, obviously knowing that thereby hangs a tale.
The concrete situation of the settler state inhabiting the same territory as the colonised people is what the South African communists called “colonialism of a special type”. It defines the problem, but not necessarily the solution to that problem. Joshua is not even recognising the problem. He demands a right for one side without considering the rights of the others.
All the sovereign states recognise equal rights for citizens, and grant citizenship to all residents (even if “terms and conditions apply”) in principle. Israel does not meet this definition. It remains a colony of a special type. What happens next must be the subject of debate, and not more war. The debate is obstructed by wild charges of anti-semitism.
Just a note on “anti-Semitism”.
Different people sometimes have different understandings of what it is. It’s not a simple concept. Historical European anti-Semitism was all about converting to Christianity. Hitler’s was not about conversion, but about genetics and race and eugenics. And some people get hung up about the fact that ethnically, Arabs are apparently Semites.
Some people hold Israel to impossibly high standards, lie about Israel, or criticize Israel for things nobody else gets criticized for. Many Israelis and Jews call this sort of bias anti-Semitism. While it is certainly unfair, unrealistic and prejudiced, it is also different from the desire to convert Jews to Christianity and the racial theories of National Socialism.
I sometimes see irrational Jew-Hatred or wildly biased attitudes against Israel. It’s hard to know enough about the attitudes of the people who hold these views so I’m reluctant to use the word anti-Semitism. Usually I just call it Jew-hatred or wildly biased attitudes…
The origin of these despicable attitudes nowadays is usually the result of Arab propaganda and influence. The Arabs have widely taken on a very anti-Jewish and anti-Israel point of view and push sanitized versions of that onto their useful idiots. Helena Cobban is a perfect example of this.
How can I say that? There are tons and tons of racist and anti-Semitic articles in the Arab press and on the Web that Helena ignores. But when Helena comes across this one Zionist website that offends likewise, she features it. Nobody ever heard of it until Helena Cobban wrote about it. This sort of selectivity is pure prejudice and verges on Jew-hatred.
Hamas is clearly an anti-Semitic organization. Just read their charter.
Also see this fascinating article about Arab anti-Semitism and Nazism.
Dominic, I think we sometimes tend to talk past each other on this particular subject. It’s only natural and isn’t the fault of any one of us, given that it implicates some fairly heavy ideological investments on both sides. I’ll do my best to overcome, as I know you are doing.
With the exception of the Mbekis, father and son, and Allister Sparks, all the people I have mentioned here are Jewish South Africans. I wonder if you can sense how closely intertwined we all are? And how absurd it is to speak of “monopoly of experience” under the leadership of these great people
When I said that South Africans didn’t have a monopoly of experience, I certainly didn’t intend to claim such a monopoly for Israelis, or to denigrate the sacrifice of the heroes of the South African liberation struggle. My point was much simpler than that: nobody has a monopoly of experience, and there are often several equally valid responses to similar historical situations.
What does this mean in practical terms? Certainly, experiences can be shared, and people with different histories (including South Africans and Israelis) can and should learn from each other. As I’m sure you are aware, South Africa has recently hosted Israeli and Palestinian delegations, and has sent its own delegation to Israel and the PA, in the hope of sharing peacemaking and nation-building strategies. I happen to know a couple of the people who took part in this process on the Israeli side, although I’m unfortunately not personally acquainted with any of the South African participants.
At the same time, this sort of experience-sharing often brings home the differences as well as the similarities between local conditions – the “facts on the ground,” if you will, and also the facts inside people’s heads. You may describe this as “special pleading,” but I frankly regard any attempt to plan a solution without accounting for local conditions as unfeasible. For this reason, I think the South African experience can only go so far in pointing to a solution for the Israelis and Palestinians – some of the tactics may be transferable, but the overall strategy doesn’t map so easily onto the geographic and psychological landscape.
This is systematic, behaviour, not spontaneous, and it is done to score points for the DA against the ANC in South Africa, and not to defend Israel. Clearly the charge of anti-semitism is becoming a general political weapon and being devalued, even desecrated.
Like the charge of racism, possibly? I agree that the invocation of anti-semitism in this context was highly inappropriate and indeed libelous. Unfortunately, this sort of libel is hardly rare in electoral politics.
On the question of Israeli settler colonialism, I am not referring to what the Jewish or Palestinian population may want if polled, for the moment. I am referring to the “facts on the ground”, a phrase which old Sparksy used in his article, obviously knowing that thereby hangs a tale.
Therein also lies the rub, because facts (on the ground or otherwise) are subject to varying interpretations. Take, for instance, one particular fact on the ground that Allister Sparks mentioned in his article: the fact that Israel is now out of Gaza. One possible interpretation of this fact – and the interpretation that I think Mr. Sparks is advocating – is that, given the difficulty of evacuating 8000 settlers from Gaza, the removal of 250,000 settlers from the West Bank will be well-nigh impossible.
But there’s also at least one other interpretation of the same fact – that the Gaza evacuation proves how easy it is to remove settlers with public support. Before the evacuation, there were many apocalyptic predictions: that it would take months, that it would spark a civil war, that soldiers would refuse orders en masse and that it would end Sharon’s political career even if it succeeded. In fact, it was accomplished in six working days without Israeli fatalities, about a dozen soldiers refused orders and Sharon emerged politically stronger than before. This collection of facts could be interpreted as proof that the “irreversibility” of the settlement project is and always was a myth, and that it is entirely possible to evacuate the West Bank as part of a peace agreement.
Which of these interpretations is correct? Obviously, without a crystal ball, it’s impossible to tell at this time. But this is the very danger of a focus on the “facts on the ground,” and of pronouncements based on extrapolation of current conditions. An analysis must also account for the political and social facts, which in the Israeli-Palestinian case includes the desire of overwhelming majorities on both sides for separate states.
BTW, this brings to mind one thing I forgot to say in my previous comment, in response to your allegation that used [your] quotation from him as a kit from which to selectively re-build your own argument, not to comprehend his one. One thing that may not have occurred to you is that I’ve heard Mr. Sparks’ argument many times before. It isn’t a new one – the notion that “the facts on the ground have made a two-state solution impossible” has been circulating for years. Mr. Sparks seems to believe that the most recent facts on the ground are proof of this theory, while I interpret those facts the opposite way. I know Mr. Sparks only by his work, and I have no idea if he approached the I-P conflict with any preconceptions, but the debate is an old one at least from my standpoint.
The concrete situation of the settler state inhabiting the same territory as the colonised people is what the South African communists called “colonialism of a special type” […] All the sovereign states recognise equal rights for citizens, and grant citizenship to all residents (even if “terms and conditions apply”) in principle. Israel does not meet this definition.
Except Israel does meet this definition. The equality of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens is a basic constitutional principle upheld by the Israeli courts. This equality is often denied in practice, of course, and the citizenship of Arab-Israelis (or Palestinian-Israelis) is of the “terms and conditions” type, but they are and always have been citizens of the state.
I’d argue that “colonialism of a special type” should be defined a different way – as a system in which the settlers exclude the indigenous population from the state. I believe one of the goals of grand apartheid was that South Africa would have no black citizens, and Africans certainly weren’t allowed any institutional participation. Possibly the United States before 1924 or Australia before 1962 could also be rgarded as colonialism of a special type. But this is a political system that, from the indigenous standpoint, is qualitatively different even from second-class citizenship. In Israel (as elsewhere) there is racism and discrimination, but that doesn’t amount to colonialism or grand apartheid – it is, instead, a point on the continuum of which apartheid and colonialism are endpoints.
The occupation in the West Bank, of course, is colonialism – not “of a special type,” but colonialism plain and simple. Which is why I think the occupation isn’t viable over the long term while Israeli proper is viable – but this is where we came in, isn’t it?
Hi Jonathan,
I’m flattered with all the attention.
I hope you are right about Gaza being the precursor of the evacuation of the West Bank, and that Allister Sparks and Virginia Tilley (whose book he was originally reviewing) are wrong.
I realise that the argument for one-state is old hat, but then so must two-state be old hat. We, and outspokenly Ronnie Kasrils, have supported two-state up to now, and yes, I have heard about the various exchanges between our country and Israel which I am basically very happy about.
Just a small quibble. The theory of “Colonialism of a Special Type” (CST for short) was an attempt to characterise an objective situation as opposed to the “goals of grand apartheid”, say. Actually there was never any possibility of removing all the blacks and no intention of doing so. CST was never uncontroversial. At its least, CST a good critical yardstick. Ask the question from time to time: is Israel CST?
Warren W, hi. I don’t think it’s courteous or friendly for you to refer to me as an idiot, of any variety. If you really thought I was one, why would you spend time hanging around here?
I have never for one moment denied that there are some very hateful and dangerous anti-Semites out there. Luckily, though, there are many well-funded organizations that do a good job of exposing the anti-Semitic networks. (Not to forget: there are also, unfortunately, individuals and networks around the world dedicated to many other kinds of race- or religion-hatred as well.)
Nearly all anti-Jewish race-haters are opposed to the government of Israel and all its policies but it is not true that all (non-Jewish) critics of Israeli government policies are anti-Semites. Your formulation on that issue seems very slippery to me.
I got interested in Masada 2000 firstly because my friend Stevie Krayer had been told she was on it. (So obviously some people had heard of it before me, hadn’t they? There wouldn’t be much point in the compilers of that “list” doing the considerable amount of work involved in pulling it together and publishing it so widely if no-one knew about it.) But then when I looked at it, that whole attempt at intra-Jewish self-silencing and intimidation and its strong feminophobic aspect certainly seemed worthy of further attention.
Warren, you were so busy positioning yourself (and trying to position me) on the “anti-Semitism” issue that you forgot to express any reaction to the actual content of the Masada 2000 site. So we still don’t know what your views on the site are?
Dominic and Jonathan, go ahead please, do continue your conversation here. It’s a good one even it’s just a touch tangential. It’s sort of a continuing conversation anyway, not limited to one thread.
(Maybe I could introduce a special JWN page called “Dominic and Jonathan talk about Israel, South Africa, colonialism, the nation-state, and the nature of the world.” Do you think people would read it? I know I would. On the other hand it might confine you to a little ghetto rather than having your engagement suffused widely throughout the site… Also, Shirin and others should rightly be in the conversation as well…)
Thanks, Helena, hostess with the mostest.
WarrenW sort of praised you with faint damnation, didn’t he? I mean: “Nobody ever heard of it until Helena Cobban wrote about it.”
That’s what journalist DO, isn’t it?
Please, please don’t put me in a ghetto, not even with such a good companion as Jonathan. Nobody deserves to be in a ghetto.
“Colonialism” is one of those words that is so emotional and vague that I hate to use it or read it. Are the Arab and Israeli cities in the West Bank colonies of somebody else? Who — Syria?
The West Bank and Gaza are currently areas that are outside of any nation. They are disputed territories. Gaza City is not a colony of Egypt. Tel Aviv is not a colony of the US (or of Brooklyn). Ramallah is not a colony of Jordan. Ofra (a Jewish town in the West Bank) is not a colony of Israel.
If you need to invent categories such as CST it’s because your ideas were not crisp and realistic in the first place.
Where Alistair Sparks goes wrong is in comparing the Africans to the Palestinians. Their ideology and goals are not similar. He is also wrong to compare Apartheid South Africa and Israel, as their ideologies and goals are very different. It is perfectly natural for a South African or an Irishman to see a similarity where none exists — it makes him (or her) an expert in an area where previously he was a dilletante.
The call to unite Israeli and Arab under a single nation between the river and the sea is a call for a very bloody civil war that will make the last 50 years look like a tea party. The beliefs of the two groups make them totally incompatible. And neither group wants to change. Separate states offer the possibility of peace. A single state solution offers only the peace of the grave.
“Clearly the charge of anti-semitism is becoming a general political weapon and being devalued, even desecrated.”
So are charges of racism, colonialism, and apartheid.
It just amazes me how some people like to dish it out and then get all indignant when they have to take it.
Helena:
The phrase ‘Useful idiot’ is I believe an invention of Lenin’s as a description of fellow travelers manipulated by an ideological vanguard. I never meant to impute your IQ. Just that you have become a tool of the Islamists. You probably started as a pacifist who thought you could wean them from their violent ways (a guess, I admit).
I actually believed you when you said the web site was disgusting and pornographic so I didn’t spend much time looking at it. So I didn’t look enough to form an independent opinion. Maybe now I’ll have to take a better look.
Some criticism of Israel seems so outragous that one automatically looks for some psychological or ulterior motive. For example, the idea of building Israeli only roads is a response to sniper attacks from innocent looking Arab villages in the west bank. Anybody else (any other country) would simply arrest, evict, or kill the entire village. Israel peaceably lets it be and builds a road further away with an anti-sniper wall up against it so they can get back and forth without being shot at. And the left shrieks! Just for Jews trying to stay alive!
Likewise, Israelis go through checkpoints all the time. Americans go through checkpoints at the airport. Neither group thinks it’s a good reason to start killing people. Yet the anti-Israeli left thinks the Palestinians are justified in waging war and terrorism because of the discomfort of checkpoints! All just for Jews trying to stay alive!
Likewise, the charge of “Genocide” against the Palestinians. Whose numbers are increasing.
Likewise the peace wall. Norweigans adjust to their fiords, why can’t Palestinians get used to wiggling around a little, if it means saving human life? I am truly disgusted by those who say that olive groves must be preserved even at the cost of killing more Jews.
Helena:
The phrase ‘Useful idiot’ is I believe an invention of Lenin’s as a description of fellow travelers manipulated by an ideological vanguard. I never meant to impute your IQ. Just that you have become a tool of the Islamists. You probably started as a pacifist who thought you could wean them from their violent ways (a guess, I admit).
I actually believed you when you said the web site was disgusting and pornographic so I didn’t spend much time looking at it. So I didn’t look enough to form an independent opinion. Maybe now I’ll have to take a better look.
Some criticism of Israel seems so outragous that one automatically looks for some psychological or ulterior motive. For example, the idea of building Israeli only roads is a response to sniper attacks from innocent looking Arab villages in the west bank. Anybody else (any other country) would simply arrest, evict, or kill the entire village. Israel peaceably lets it be and builds a road further away with an anti-sniper wall up against it so they can get back and forth without being shot at. And the left shrieks! Just for Jews trying to stay alive!
Likewise, Israelis go through checkpoints all the time. Americans go through checkpoints at the airport. Neither group thinks it’s a good reason to start killing people. Yet the anti-Israeli left thinks the Palestinians are justified in waging war and terrorism because of the discomfort of checkpoints! All just for Jews trying to stay alive!
Likewise, the charge of “Genocide” against the Palestinians. Whose numbers are increasing.
Likewise the peace wall. Norweigans adjust to their fiords, why can’t Palestinians get used to wiggling around a little, if it means saving human life? I am truly disgusted by those who say that olive groves must be preserved even at the cost of killing more Jews.
Helena is in good company. The phrase “useful idiot” was once used by the Papacy to smear Monsignor Bruce Kent, a great leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
This is part of the Wikipedia entry on “useful idiot”:
“The term is sometimes claimed to have been coined by Vladimir Lenin… Lenin never wrote it in any published document, no one has claimed to have heard him say it first hand, and it contradicts the opinions expressed in Lenin’s published documents in reference to the Comintern.”
I realise that the argument for one-state is old hat, but then so must two-state be old hat.
Absolutely. In fact, both arguments (in nearly all their multifarious forms) began before there was ever a state to begin with, and it’s remarkable how little of the underpinnings of either has changed. So to some extent, barring a genuinely irreversible and decisive change in the facts on the ground, it’s inevitable that people will respond to old questions with old answers.
Just a small quibble. The theory of “Colonialism of a Special Type” (CST for short) was an attempt to characterise an objective situation as opposed to the “goals of grand apartheid”, say.
Point taken, although there’s still the matter of defining the set of objective facts that it describes. As stated above, I’d argue that CST describes a form of colonialism – i.e., rule over a disenfranchised population that is regarded as “foreign” to the state and has no meaningful access to the state’s political institutions.
Liberia was CST. Apartheid South Africa was CST. The Jim Crow South was arguably CST. But the mere presence of institutional discrimination doesn’t establish CST without the element of disenfranchisement. Malaysia, for instance, isn’t CST despite the prevalence of bumiputra ideology. Israel may have had some CST features during the period when Arab villages were under military administration, but it was never fully CST and certainly isn’t so now. But more on this below.
Actually there was never any possibility of removing all the blacks and no intention of doing so
Not physically removing them, at any rate. But wasn’t the intention to “constructively remove” them from the body politic by assigning all of them bantustan citizenships and making their residence in ZA a matter of sufferance?
At its least, CST a good critical yardstick. Ask the question from time to time: is Israel CST?
What does “Israel” mean in this context? Israel proper? Israel and the occupied territories? Israel’s relationship with the Arab world at large? I’ve seen the term used in all three senses when discussing matters related tot he conflict.
In any event, I prefer to ask a different question, for two reasons. First, I tend to think in terms of continuums (continua? continuii?) rather than precise boundaries. If CST is 90 or above on a scale measuring settler-indigenous relationships, then the fact that a state rates 89 is no reason for self-congratulation. Second, I prefer to look at trends rather than present positions, because the meaning of where we are now is highly dependent on the direction we’re going. So my question of any settler state is a compound one: “how much is it like CST, and is it becoming more or less so?”
This will often be a hard question to answer, because trends within single countries aren’t always uniform. That’s certainly so in Israel’s case. There are many social trends within Israel that are moving away from CST: there are more non-Jews at high levels of government and business, the non-Jewish population is urbanizing, the principle of equality has become firmly entrenched in the law and progress is even starting to be made on land issues. But there are also some trends that may potentially move Israel closer to CST: the increasing penetration of the counterinsurgent mindset into domestic politics, the mutually radicalizing effect of the intifada on local nationalisms and the “pied noir effect” of the Gaza withdrawal.
I would argue, also, that both sets of trends are directly correlated to the conflict. While I don’t accept the equation of Israel with apartheid ZA, I will in this one respect draw an analogy between it and the former Rhodesia. A few years ago, I read the memoir of one of the British participants in the 1980 transitional process (I don’t remember who), and I was struck by his account of how Rhodesian society had been frozen by its fifteen years’ war. He observed that superficially non-conflict-related matters like the role of women, the education system, even language and dress, seemed to have frozen in 1965. The only social trends that didn’t seem to be frozen were those relating to militarism and the construction of a garrison state.
This is also true, at least to an extent, of both Israelis and Palestinians. Granted, Israel has never been as isolated or economically weak as Rhodesia, so it has always been more dynamic to change. However, social advancements (whether in civil rights or other areas) do tend to coincide with periods where the conflict is less intense, and social regression with periods where it is more so. This is even more true of Palestinian society, which is relatively isolated and weak, and which has missed out on many of the trends that have caught hold elsewhere in the Arab world. In a very real sense, the conflict and the occupation have put many necessary social changes on hold, on both sides of the Green Line.
And as far as I’m concerned, this is yet another reason to support a two-state solution. (You were expecting that, weren’t you?) Continuing the occupation is obviously untenable, for the reasons discussed above as well as many others. But creation of a binational state at this juncture would effectively reinvent Rhodesia. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians won’t end; it will simply be recast as an internal one, and its demographic aspects will become even more prominent.
Such a state might settle into a binational modus vivendi in time, but that would be at minimum a generational process, and can either side really afford to have its social progress frozen for that much longer? In contrast, two states would give both parties the leisure and breathing space to resume and intensify their social progress. Let’s work toward a solution that will reinforce the social revolution of the 1990s, and not (in the immortal words of Dov Weisglass) freeze it in formaldehyde.
Jonathan,
I don’t want to disagree with any of what you have written. I agree with what you say about CST. I’ve seen for myself the peculiar freezing of Rhodesia in time. The same was true of South Africa.
Where I would tend to want to go from here with this discussion is to questions of class. I do believe that it is the workings of the class struggle that generate development. The class struggle is not abolished in time of war but is relocated into the war itself. I think that’s what happened in Rhodesia, anyway. Perhaps it is what is happening in Israel/Palestine.
My own idea of two-state, and why it can’t work, is not the same as the empirical point of view of Virginia Tilley, as I understand her through Allister Sparks. Mine is to say that a confessional/ethnic state cannot compete with a secular one. Let me explain.
If there was a Palestinian state it would be constitutionally a secular and democratic one, and therefore friendlier to capital than the Jewish state which is saddled with all sorts of entitlements and restrictions, having to do with the a priori claims of its Zionist definition. Capitla, including Jewish capital, would migrate and the Palestinian state would quite quickly put the Zionist state in the economic shade.
From a Marxist point of view this seems pretty clear. And then as evidence that this is also apparent to the Israeli government I would note the inordinate hatred of the bourgeois Fatah, and all of the economic cruelties which only make sense if seen in this strategic light. What is being systematically smashed is the possibilty of a competing bourgeois state.
It also explains the policy towards the other neighbouring countries and especially Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The problem with these countries is that they are (or were) becoming bourgeois and prosperous. Hence Iraq is being sent back to pre-modernity, and in that way saddled with the same anachronistic handicaps that Isreal has adopted for itself.
If Israel were to become a standard bourgeois state there would be no impediment to progess in relations with the Palestinians. There would be a de facto unity of economy under the rule of capital. Pecuniae non olet. Such a situation would only stand to be challenged by the possibility of proletarian revolution.
There’s a relevant article on Counterpunch by Jeff Halper, the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD).
See http://www.counterpunch.org/halper10082005.html .
You two are having such a nice discussion, I hate to interrupt, but I do have two questions.
First, what does the discussion gain by use of CST? Actually, I think this is a case of what Dominic called “special pleading” earlier, except in this case Dominic, you appear to be using it to try and salvage Marxist theory – a 19th century creation that’s as “anachronistic” as they come – into situations for which its Western European ethnocentric underpinnings simply do not fit. What I am trying to say here is that just being able to classify something within the theoretical framework does not, in and of itself, validate the theory!
I found Dominic’s description of the SACP very interesting. What I would be interested in knowing is what Esther Barsel has to say about Artur London and Rudolf Slansky. You might want to ask.
As to my second question, Dominic asserts that:
If there was a Palestinian state it would be constitutionally a secular and democratic one, and therefore friendlier to capital than the Jewish state which is saddled with all sorts of entitlements and restrictions, having to do with the a priori claims of its Zionist definition.
On what, Dominic, do you base this? Have you read the draft Palestinian constitution?
Finally, Jonathan, I agree very strongly with your final paragraph. Yes, I believe that, eventually, there will be something like a bi-national state, but it must be something that evolves, and will definitely be a generational matter. This is very much due, in my opinion, to what you stated earlier in the discussion:
“I think we can be forgiven for not believing those who say ‘trust us, it’ll work out this time.’ I’m unwilling to bet my life on the assumption that the rest of the world will act morally, given the frequency with which it has failed (and still fails) to do so.”
That is very much to the point!
I just got home; it’s my 34th birthday, and for some unfathomable reason my wife insisted on making much of the occasion. Dominic, I intend to respond to your last post in detail, but you’ll most likely have to wait for tomorrow.
I do, however, have one concluding thought on the original topic of this thread. It occurs to me that the S.H.I.T. list is not a means of silencing critics of Israel, because the author is himself a harsh critic of Israeli policies. For instance, he criticizes Israel for allowing Arabs to be citizens, for not ethnically cleansing the West Bank, for tolerating the peace movement, and of course for evacuating Gaza. He describes the Israeli Declaration of Independence as “insane” and urges the IDF to refuse orders, which seems at least as “Israel-threatening” as anything his chosen targets might do.
So the S.H.I.T. list isn’t aimed at critics of Israeli government policy. It is, instead, an attempt to silence critics of the author’s ideology – a category which likely includes at least 90 percent of the world’s Jews. Ariel Sharon is as much S.H.I.T.-list material as any of us. One might almost characterize the list as anti-Semitic in effect, which puts an entirely new light on the author’s use of anti-Semitic terms like “kike” to describe Jewish leftists.
Many happy returns for yesterday, Jonathan.
Man, what a great thread. I “talk” alot on JWN, but it’s a real pleasure to just sit back, read and learn. And think some more. Thanks to everyone for it.
And happy birthday, Jonathan.
Thank you for the kind words, Dominic. Unfortunately I must disagree with at least four of the arguments made in your previous comment:
In fact, the character of a state is determined as much by its political movements as by its constitution, and neither of the two main political movements in Palestine are what you would characterize as ‘bourgeois.’ Fatah is certainly secular, but it’s also at least as ethnonationalist as Likud, Avoda and other secular Israeli parties. Hamas is an outright theocratic movement. The non-nationalist movements, whether bourgeois or leftist, are a distant third. So I would guess that a Palestinian state would, in practical terms, be as ethnonationalist as Israel if not more so.
I’d argue that Israel’s policy toward Syria and Iran is exactly what it appears to be: a clash between competing nationalisms. I suspect that Israel would actually be much more comfortable accommodating a bourgeois Palestinian state than one governed by a nationalism that (in some strains albeit not in others) seeks to negate its own.
So the question to be asked of any state is not whether it is “saddled with entitlements and restrictions.” Instead, what must be examined is the nature of the entitlements that exist, and the degree to which they impinge on economic development. It seems that in at least some cases, the entitlement structure of ethnonationalist states isn’t in fact hostile to capital. In Israel’s case, for instance, foreign direct investment is at an all-time high, exports are growing and economic integration with Europe is increasing. Israel has also managed to outcompete bourgeois Turkey and Tunisia (and also Greece, which may or may not qualify as bourgeois by your definition). For that matter, ethnonationalist Malaysia has outcompeted bourgeois Thailand, and confessional Lebanon has outcompeted Syria despite the latter’s effective control over much of the Lebanese economy.
The bottom line is that I’ve heard Israelis complain that their political economy is sclerotic and I’ve heard bourgeois Italians tell them they’re crazy. I’d actually argue that Israel’s main economic problem is that it’s too bourgeois rather than insufficiently bourgeois, and that its social safety net is in danger from neoliberal orthodoxy. But that’s another discussion.
For these reasons, I regard the Marxist theoretical framework as flawed when it comes to predicting the future of Israel. Of course, as an empiricist, I tend to regard any theoretical framework as flawed…
There’s a relevant article on Counterpunch by Jeff Halper
Hmmm. Mr. Halper seems to make the common mistake of conflating Sharon with Israeli politics as a whole, and not treating him as a politician subject to constraints (which these days come mostly from his left). He also makes quite a few conjectures (some contrary to evidence and few supported by any) about the extent of the “settlement blocs” that Sharon wants to keep, the contiguity of the remaining area, the United States’ willingness to accept Israeli maximalism, Israel’s willingness to cede Arab East Jerusalem, etc. And while the wall is mentioned, there’s no discussion of its route, which is probably the best physical evidence of where a unilaterally-drawn border would lie.
I’d say that the article is typical of Counterpunch, but that might be unkind… hell, why should I be kind? It is typical Counterpunch. I’ve found over the years that Counterpunch’s fact checking on Israel-related issues is abysmal, and that many of its articles rely more on a priori assumptions about Israeli character than on evidence. Your mileage may vary.
JES:
I believe that, eventually, there will be something like a bi-national state, but it must be something that evolves, and will definitely be a generational matter.
I tend to think that the long-term future of the be multinational rather than binational – that Israel and Palestine will become part of an expanded European Union, a similar confederation comprising the Middle East, or a global supranational entity. I also think we won’t live to see it. There needs to be a period of adjustment and reconciliation before a binational or multinational solution will become possible, and the only realistic way for that to evolve seems to be through separate statehood.
I see that my reply to JES went through but my response to Dominic is being held for moderation, possibly because of its length. Don’t worry, Dominic, it’s in the pipeline. 🙂
Jonathan, many happy returns! (I have a birthday coming up too– which makes me nearly 19 years older than you…)
Sorry about your comment going into a special “to-be-moderated” buffer. I still don’t know what that’s about but maybe I’ll get the hang of this new comments-management system soon.
Jonathan,
Nationalism is bourgeois. The nation-state is designed as a home turf for a bourgeoisie.
It is true that the bourgeois revolution is never complete. The bourgeoisie will always prefer to retain elements of pre-rational forms of society. That was the case in England and even in France, which Marx regarded as the most thoroughly revolutionised bourgeois country.
Therefore when you write of ethno-nationalism you are starting from the wrong end. All nationalism is primarily bourgeois. Yes, even Israel’s. Before nationalism there were no nation-states resembling the present ones. People who maintain that there were, are simply projecting backwards.
This has little to do with political movements or constitutions and a lot to do with the disposition of class forces, or in other words the political economy.
I think you are completely innocent of the Marxian explanation of the state. A quick read of the first two or three chapters of Lenin’s 1917 “State and Revolution” would sort that out (it’s on the Internet). Not that you are necessarily going to agree with it, but at least we would not be talking past each other so much.
I’m a bit short of time so forgive me if I paint with a broader brush than usual. I find that your arguments are full of elisions from the major to the minor, from the rule to the exception, and of course from the concrete to the abstract. I guess it’s fairly glaring to anyone who is in the habit of noticing such things, and I put it to you that it is a weakness of style, let alone anything else.
Concerning Counterpunch, saying that anything is “typical” of that great variety show is a low blow. I read it for its breadth. There is nothing stereotyped about it.
Clearly you don’t like the article I referred you to. I hardly expected you to. I think my point was that the Tilleys and Halpers (Halper by the way being an Israeli activist in Israel) are saying these things about the empirical situation. You attack their credibility as witnesses and then I’m bound to think: He would have to do that, wouldn’t he? Not being in Israel myself, and never having been there, I have to judge the evidence like an actual judge. Your accusations about Halper’s facts are not disinterested. It’s not enough. You strike to wound. It’s a dangerous policy.
Therefore when you write of ethno-nationalism you are starting from the wrong end. All nationalism is primarily bourgeois. Yes, even Israel’s. Before nationalism there were no nation-states resembling the present ones. People who maintain that there were, are simply projecting backwards.
I agree; in fact, I’ve never said anything different. My impression was that you were the one who was making a distinction between bourgeois and ethnonationalist states, arguing that the one was destined to outcompete the other, and stating that Israel was the latter rather than the former. Now you are evidently arguing that Zionism is bourgeois after all. Maybe I’ve been misunderstanding you all along; I’ll make sure to read the Lenin (for my historical education if nothing else) and see if I understand your arguments somewhat better.
I find that your arguments are full of elisions from the major to the minor, from the rule to the exception, and of course from the concrete to the abstract.]
If by this you mean that I tend to point out the places where theories don’t work, you’re absolutely correct. As you’re aware, the word “prove” in the saying “exception proves the rule” means “test” rather than “establish.” Rules are tested by their exceptions and, more specifically, by whether the exceptions can be explained in a manner consistent with the rule. If there are a sufficient number of exceptions that can’t be so explained, then the rule is no rule at all.
My purpose in pointing out exceptions is precisely that: to test the rule. I’m quite open to the possibility that the rule might pass the test, and that there’s a consistent explanation for Israel’s policy toward Jordan or for Malaysia’s economic performance vis-a-vis Thailand. But I can see how a non-empiricist would find that style of argument disconcerting.
Concerning Counterpunch, saying that anything is “typical” of that great variety show is a low blow. I read it for its breadth.
It does have breadth about many subjects, but it tends to have a konseptziya (to use the Israeli term) when it comes to Israel. I’m morally certain that this has a good deal to do with the preconceptions of Alexander Cockburn, who I’ve met.
Halper by the way being an Israeli activist in Israel
That doesn’t necessarily make him right. Kahane was also an Israeli activist in Israel. (And I don’t by any means equate Halper with Kahane; I’m just making the point that living in a country is no guarantee of being correct, unbiased or well-informed about that country).
You attack their credibility as witnesses and then I’m bound to think: He would have to do that, wouldn’t he? […] Your accusations about Halper’s facts are not disinterested.
Was your citation of Halper’s article disinterested? Clearly not. You cited it in the course of an argument, because it supported your position. Given that situation, I doubt you read it as critically as I would. Not that I’m blaming you for that, given that you are quite correct about my own conflict of interest. I don’t think it’s possible for human beings to be perfectly objective; the most we can expect in practical terms is to recognize our biases and control for them. I have my preconceptions, so I’m hardly in a position to criticize others for theirs.
But in any event, disinterested or not, the fact remains that Halper engages in a great deal of conjecture. To take just one of his assertions, what is his evidence that the withdrawal of 20 to 30 percent of the West Bank settlers would leave “at most 15 percent” of the Mandate to the Palestinians? The Taba proposal of 2001 involved the removal of about that many settlers, in a manner that would leave the Palestinians with a contiguous state on 21 percent of the Mandate. Maybe Taba is no longer possible, but if so, I’d like to know why, because I’m certainly aware of no reason why it wouldn’t be feasible today. This appears to be simply assumed on Halper’s part.
I could make similar arguments about his other assertions, but this is hardly the place to do it. I’ll point out that I also don’t particularly care for reasoning from a priori assumptions when “my side” does it. Or when Warren W. does it, but I don’t consider him “my side.”
Jonathan,
I’m thrilled to think you might read some of Lenin!
The impulse towards a nation-state is always bourgeois, I think, but it might require several convulsions to achieve something approaching a fully consummated bourgeois revolution.
For example, the revolution of the American colonies against British rule only succeeded in creating a state which was compromised with the anachronism of slavery. The “freedom” of the wage-slave is crucial to capitalism so the USA had to have another revolution, the Civil War, before it could become properly bourgeois and compete with the other bourgeois states. This Civil War was not a small matter. One can’t say this is a matter of inconsequential nuance.
Similarly, in the old set-up in South Africa, capitalism was saddled with a bureaucratic control of labour which in some ways helped it and in other ways held it back. What we have done with our liberation is to set capital free as is very plain to see for any South African. We could say that people fought and died over many years just so that capital could get a bit more comfortable by shifting its weight from one fat buttock to the other.
It is quite possible, and not trivial, to say that Israel is basically bourgeois but also encumbered with non-bourgeois attributes. In my opinion this is the whole problematic of Israel and the driver of the conflicts that Israel feels compelled to prosecute, as I have explained above. It would be solved if Israel would become completely bourgeois.
Marx and Lenin in particular often urge the proletariat to push the bourgeoisie towards the full consummation of its (bourgeois) revolution.
You hold that an exception disproves a rule. Usually the reverse is the case. When we are looking for an overall understanding, we must know that there will be contradictions. The question is, what is the dominant analysis? What is material and what is trivial? Especially, what concrete and what abstract?
The world view that I have is expounded in quite a lot of books. Even so, one does not want to complain at the requirement that one should present in each small piece of writing, an unchallengeable, watertight, and organice argument. That urge in itself is quite Marxist. Lenin, for example, was a wizard of brevity. In 1913 he almost succeeded in explaining the whole deal in four pages (“The 3 Sourses & 3 Component Parts of Marxism”). Engels after finishing the tome which is “Anti-Duhring” wrote “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific” (1880) which is four times longer than Lenin’s at 16 pages, but still concise, succinct and reasonably comprehensive. And then there is the famous 1848 Communist Manifesto.
However, this tendency has caused big problems because it cannot be done without to an extent codifying what cannot being codified. Lenin in the “3 Sources” is obliged to write of Marx’s “economic doctrine”, for example, although Marx, who denied being a Marxist, would have repudiated any idea of doctrine. As we know this tendency towards doctrine got much worse after Lenin (who was actually a very nimble thinker and not in the least bit dogmatic).
The extreme reaction to dogma is also disastrous. Marxian theory and practice is nothing if not scientific. Meaning that it establishes truth and before that, establishes what scientific truth is. So it is not the case that anything goes, as the Eurocommunists used to think.
Always, we make history, but not in circumstances of our own choosing. That is a quote from Marx’s “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (1852) – a great read, by the way.
The saying combines an appreciation of the distinction between the subject and the object, and the concrete relation between the two.
Thus it is that I can quote somebody like Halper without violating any scientific principles of evidence. There are no disinterested people. I am not disinterested. I am a free-willing subject wanting to change the world (and not just “interpret”) it, as Marx had it.
There is no disinterested evidence in political affairs, as in a court. You always have to reckon people’s point of view and motives. You must, I’m afraid, trust people less when they are claiming disinterestedness than when they give witness in the full frankness of their beliefs.
It is only necessary to be able to distinguish between the subject and the object. The inability to do so is the most obvious deficiency of the WarrenWs and the JES’s of this world.
I don’t want to belabor the Halper article, but I would like to discuss one more of his assertions, which is (1) more easily checked against fact, and (2) the assertion that initially rang my alarm bells about the piece. Specifically, Mr. Halper states that there are or were “some 200 settlements (almost 400 if you include the “outposts”) on land expropriated from Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.” In fact, according to B’tselem, there are 123 “official” settlements in the West Bank (of which four have been evacuated, leaving 119). Adding the 21 settlements formerly in Gaza and counting East Jerusalem as one settlement, that makes 145. And according to the Sasson report (which is a far more devastating indictment of the Israeli settlement project than Halper has written), there are 105 outposts. Granted, Sasson believed that her figure understated the truth, but even allowing her a one-third margin of error, that still leaves 140 outposts, resulting in a maximum combined total of 285. This means, in turn, that Halper is off by 40 percent.
I didn’t know these exact numbers until I looked them up just now. However, I’d read both the B’tselem and Sasson reports before and knew the approximate figures, which is why Halper’s article rang false from the beginning. More to the point, if I were the one writing an article about settlements, I’d have made damned sure to look up the numbers before I hit the “send” button, and if I were a Counterpunch editor, I’d have checked before letting the piece see print. You may think I’m getting obsessed with details, but the number of settlements is both easily ascertainable and one of the central facts of the article. If the author gets it wrong by 40 percent because he can’t be bothered to do research, that hardly inspires confidence in the rest of what he says.
I acknowledge your point that my interest in refuting Halper was due in part to my ideological position. That is no doubt the case. However, the article is also factually wrong, and I’d like to think that I’d have noticed such a serious error in an article with which I agreed. Certainly, if I ever made such an error myself, I’d want it pointed out. And now I will leave this subject and move on.
Sorry, comments crossing in the mail.
In any event, after all this time, it seems we’ve never really disagreed. I can’t quarrel with your assertion that “Israel is basically bourgeois but also encumbered with non-bourgeois attributes.” However, this is also true of most if not all other nations commonly described as bourgeois. As I mentioned above, the United States is also riddled with entitlements and restrictions engendered by factors other than bourgeois capitalism. There aren’t nearly as many of these as there were in the days of slavery, of course, but they still exist. The same is true of Europe, East Asia and Latin America.
So I think we can agree that there is indeed a continuum and that, assuming for the moment the validity of Marxist theory, the question to ask is not “is a country bourgeois” but “how bourgeois is it?” I would argue that, if Israel and its neighbors are examined in this manner, its relationships with said neighbors (including the Palestinians) are cast in a different light from what you previously described.
You may also have misunderstood my argument about exceptions. I didn’t argue that they disprove the rule; instead, I argued that they prove – i.e., test – the rule. In some cases, exceptions may validate the rule. The deciding factor is whether the exceptions can be explained in a manner consistent with the rule, such that the rule itself remains sound. A rule may also be validated by showing that the exceptions aren’t really exceptions. With respect to the topic under discussion, for instance, you might respond to my citation of Malaysia’s performance vis-a-vis Thailand by arguing that although Malaysia is ethnonationalist, Thailand has other non-bourgeois attitudes that handicap it equally. If you can show that, then the rule stands (or at least is not disproven by Malaysia).
Also, given that you applied the rule to Israel, I think it’s only fair to point out the instances where Israel itself is exceptional.
Finally, I completely agree that one must “trust people less when they are claiming disinterestedness than when they give witness in the full frankness of their beliefs.” I hope I’ve been clear about my own beliefs, and that I’ve been diligent in trying to see past them.
Gosh Jonathan!
This has been a heavy slog. I wonder if people are still reading it.
I’m sorry to have to continue to disagree with you on this hot night in Johannesburg. We had our first highveld thunderstorm yesterday and there are flickers of lightning tonight again. I’ve just got my first mosquito bites of the year. I suppose we mustn’t complain. Some people pay a fortune for such weather, and this is only the equivalent to your April, and not even summer yet.
But I digress. You talk of continuum. You must know that is a red rag to an old Marxist bull like me. I’ve been trying to show that the efforts of bourgeois states to complete their bourgeois revolution are violent, convulsive events. Even though, for example, the Great French Revolution that began in 1789 was considered by Marx to be the most thorough, the French still had to got through slaughter and mayhem in 1848 and 1871.
I don’t want to repeat myself but must at least say that I still think the crisis in Israel is at root a matter of defending anachronism against the tide of history, and if Israel becomes fully bourgeois it will be able to resolve the present difficulties. Which will not be the end of Israeli history, but should be the beginning of peace.
Funny you should mention Malaysia. I have never thought of Malaysia in your terms. The resolution of colonialism was generally achieved by setting up bourgeois states, of which Malaysia was one, from my point of view. Their peculiar arrangements were not in general terms different from what is called at the moment in South Africa “BEE”, or Black Economic Empowerment. This is not a return to ethnicity but on the contrary an effort within the bounds of bourgeois possibility to co-opt the previously excluded fully into the bourgeois normality, in South Africa as in Malaysia.
As to Malaysia’s superior “performance”, we would note that Malaysia has defended its bourgeois-nationalist and anti-imperialist sovereignty against neo-liberal so-called globalisation, and we would applaud that. That sort of anti-imperialism is nothing to do with what you call ethno-nationalism from our third world point of view. It is only what we fought for, namely independence.
Well, I will take Dominic’s criticism to heart and start paying more attention to subject and object. I hope that he will also pay more attention to predicate and object before lecturing on the use of passive voice.
Jonathan, the two issues you brought up – the conjecture about the percentage of land (which by the way is also factually questionable) and the number of settlements – also caught my eye immediately. In addition there are also other issues of fact that Jeff Halper should have been confronted with. These come in two flavors. The first are just erroneous statements. The second appear to what Dominic would call “eliding”.
In the first category, we have Jeff stating that Sharon “has finally fulfilled the task with which he was charged 38 years ago by Menachem Begin”. Now what is this supposed to mean. In 1967, Sharon was still an officer in the IDF. If he had any political leanings at that time these were to the Mapai party, and certainly not to Menachem Begin! Begin didn’t “charge” Sharon with any tasks, and their political association did not really start until 1971 or 1972 with the formation of the Likud party. At any rate, Sharon wasn’t in any position to actually facilitate the settlement process until 1977, when the Likud party formed its first government. Jeff and I had the same graduate advisor at that time, and Jeff’s son was my daughter’s first serious boyfriend. He’s been around here long enough to know better, and not simply to make up history to serve his purpose.
Another case of out and out fabrication is when Jeff states that Sharon has referred to the areas of Palestinian Arab settlement as “cantons”. This is simply not the case. As far as I know, Sharon has never advocated a policy of “cantonization” or referred to “cantons”. This policy has been put forward by Avigdor Liberman, who is neither a member of the Likud, or of Sharon’s government or a supporter of Sharon or of his disengagement policy. But the idea does serve Jeff’s argument, even if factually in error.
Now for the second type of false statements. These are not, as Jonathan generously categorizes them, simply conjecture. No, they appear to be examples of “eliding” the telling of the facts to support a polemic case with false evidence. For example, Jeff maintains that “a system of twenty-nine highways was constructed in the Occupied Territories to incorporate the settlements into Israel proper”. Well, that certainly may have been an effect, but was it the cause. Certainly, we here in pro-Palestinian propaganda that these are “Jewish-only” roads, implying that they were built to restrict traffic to Jewish Israelis only. Actually, however, these highways were classified, from the start, as “bypass” roads (kvishei okef), whose purpose was to allow Jewish traffic to avoid areas heavily populated with Palestinians. (Remember, these roads were constructed immediately at the end of the first intifada.) But I do agree, this money was wasted on infrastructure, and could have been much better spent within Israel.
I think that a far more serious breach of fact is when Halper describes the separation fence as “concrete walls twice as high as the Berlin Wall and electrified fence.” Not only is his description of this barrier highly misleading (I believe that something like 5% is actually walled – mostly where the border runs by major highways, to prevent sniping. I have seen these walls, and, from my personal observation, they look much more like the acoustic barriers placed beside towns within Israel to keep out the noise than they do like the Berlin wall. But even more egregious is Halper’s depiction of the fence as being “electrified”. I guess that technically there is electricity in the fence, in the form of sophisticated sensors, but one can’t help but get the feeling that Halper (echoing, again, pro-Palestinian propaganda) is trying to evoke images of Stalag 17 (or perhaps the Soviet border). It’s a cheap trick.
Finally, I’m glad that you two have agreed on what is or isn’t a “bourgeois state”. My response is: So what? Again, just because you can classify something, does not mean that the theoretical framework from which the classification comes is thereby validated. As Jonathan has gently implied, Marxist theory – an ethnocentric theory, largely devised during, and reflecting, Victorian England, with its liberal imperialism – does not appear to predict anything.
BTW, any word about Rudolf Zlansky and Artur London? I bet that they too believed that they were working for the betterment of mankind when they fought with the International Brigades, even when they saw what was happening to the P.O.U.M in Barcelona.
Take a look at http://www.counterpunch.org/morris10112005.html, a tour de force by Roger Morris and Steve Schmidt.
This has been a heavy slog. I wonder if people are still reading it.
Well, there’s at least the two of us and JES. But since this thread is about to age off the front page, I’ll respond to a couple of points here and save the rest for next time.
You talk of continuum. You must know that is a red rag to an old Marxist bull like me. I’ve been trying to show that the efforts of bourgeois states to complete their bourgeois revolution are violent, convulsive events.
Which isn’t necessarily consistent with a continuum – each of a series of convulsive events might move a country from point X to point Y. As you point out, few countries escape with only one revolution.
I also wouldn’t discount the existence of gradualist change. The United States has certainly had its convulsive moments – the Civil War, the Indian wars, parts of the trade union and civil rights struggles – but there have also been achievements such as the New Deal that were obtained through the political and judicial process. Isn’t one of the marks of a successful revolution that it creates the mechanisms for its own completion?
Anyway, I’ll probably get to the Lenin this weekend. I don’t expect I’ll agree with much of it, but I should understand better where you’re coming from.
The resolution of colonialism was generally achieved by setting up bourgeois states, of which Malaysia was one, from my point of view. Their peculiar arrangements were not in general terms different from what is called at the moment in South Africa “BEE”, or Black Economic Empowerment. This is not a return to ethnicity but on the contrary an effort within the bounds of bourgeois possibility to co-opt the previously excluded fully into the bourgeois normality, in South Africa as in Malaysia.
Malaysian bumiputra ideology is quite a bit different from BEE. Its central premise is that bumiputras – “sons of the soil” – are the owners of the state, and that non-bumiputras can be citizens but not owners. Bumiputras are ethnic Malays who profess Islam (the constitution provides that Islam is a qualification for Malay status) and the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak. Much of the country’s land, including most rural land, can only be owned by them, and they also benefit from restrictive quotas for jobs, scholarships, credit, university admissions, business and professional licenses, and permits. Many Chinese and Indians end up studying abroad or emigrating because they are denied university places or the right to practice their profession. And all this is entrenched in the constitution and enforced by law, making it considerably more rigid than Israel where discrimination is informal and the courts will generally enforce equality between citizens.
Also, the primary targets of the bumiputra policy – the Chinese and Indian communities – weren’t colonial settlers. They were colonial subjects like the Malays, and the Chinese in fact fought their own anti-colonial guerrilla war during the 1950s. Moreover, given that the British ruled Malaya via a princely-state system rather than direct colonial administration, the colonial-era Malays exercised a considerable amount of control over their relationship with the Indians and Chinese. The non-bumiputras didn’t get voting rights until 1951 and were, in almost all cases, precluded from owning land.
So I wouldn’t equate bumiputra ideology to BEE. I’d argue that it’s more akin to Fijian taukei ideology or the East African campaigns against the Asians. Malaysia is one of the more rigidly ethnonationalist nations in the world, certainly more so than Israel.
But all this begs another question. You do realize, don’t you, that Zionism can also be described as “an effort within the bounds of bourgeois possibility to co-opt the previously excluded fully into the bourgeois normality?” Jews in 1948 were certainly a historically excluded population. Six million had recently been excluded from life itself, having been deemed unworthy of it by the powers that be. If it was and is legitimate for Malays, as a “previously excluded” people, to secure their self-determination at the expense of the Indians and Chinese, then why was it illegitimate for Jews to secure the same thing at the expense of the Palestinians? What makes bumiputra ideology anti-imperialist and Zionism imperialist? Is your defense of bumiputra ideology, dare I say, special pleading?
I don’t intend by this to demonize Malaysia. There are quite a few things about Malaysia that I find admirable, including not only its successful defense against the 1997 currency crisis but its achievements against poverty and development of a high-tech economy. I like the Malays and I like their culture. And of course, given that I have no particular objection to ethnonationalism in general, I don’t regard bumiputra ideology as inherently bad although I object to the way it is currently practiced. But I’m curious to know why you regard Malaysian but not Israeli ethnonationalism as a positive good.
Take a look at […] a tour de force by Roger Morris and Steve Schmidt
Not bad, actually. I could quibble with some of the premises and a few of the conclusions, but overall it looks like a decent plan.
Hi Jonathan,
Quickly before we scroll beneath the edge of the box, let me put down some markers for next time.
1. There is both quantitative change and qualitative change. Our contention is that qualitative change (change in nature as opposed to degree) tends to happen in a revolutionary way, as a more-or-less precipitate event, or series of events. The gradualists have said otherwise. We disagree with them and believe we can show why we are right. This is why we are revolutionaries.
As a matter of fact bourgeois revolutions do not contain “mechanisms for their own completion” and I’ve tried to give you examples already to show that. The US revolutions have been two and only two. The rest of what you mention are reforms, perhaps very welcome, but marginal, incremental, and not having a substantial effect on the balance of class forces.
2. What “bumiputra” may be as ideology is the subjective side of it. So is the constitution. I’m more concerned with the political economy, or in other words the state of play as between the contending classes. I’m convinced that these arrangements are designed to accommodate the interests of capital just as South African BEE is, and also our own land restitution measures. The intention is strictly to establish the hegemeny of capitalism, and not any ethnic principle. The point is, what is dominant? Why decides the main things, like prices? Who profits?
3. Let me emphasise, I am not defending “bumiputra” and did no do so above. I am not particularly attacking it, either. I’m saying, that’s not where it’s at. I am saying that no country can escape the logic of state and revolution for ever. In the case of Israel the crisis is here. It must become fully bourgeois or it will not have peace.
4. I was careful to point out that above that it is not bumiputra that makes Malaysia to be anti-imperialist. The event that we both see is the 1997 crisis when Malaysia bet against globalisation and won big-time. That was an option that is available to all of us third world countries, bumiputra or no bumiputra. It is just a matter of telling the Imperialists where to get off.
I could keep the thread on the front page if I (a) forebore from posting much in the next few days (fat chance) or (b) increased the “n” of posts shown here, or (c) kept it up as a special feature in the sidebar…. H’mmm
Dear Helena,
a) Please don’t cut your posting by even one word.
b) Probably “enough is as good as a feast”.
c) This discussion is going to return for sure, in one way or another.