[Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Mort, 

 

I would make a few points that I think should be taken into consideration.

 

First, ironically, Zionism was initially and still to a large extent is a
Western and Eastern European (and probably predominantly an Ashkenazi - not
a Sephardic)   phenomena and definitely not a general Jewish phenomena per
se.  

 

Secondly, Jews from Africa, Asia, and other Middle Eastern countries - while
allowed to immigrate and accepted into Israel - are treated as second and
third class citizens as compared to Jews from Europe and North & South
America.  They are often regarded with racial and ethnic discrimination and
often have a status only slightly above that of Palestinians.  

 

Thirdly, nationalism as an umbrella category for naming attitudes and
orientations is a collection of many different practices.  Not every example
of it will be characterized by all those practices or even the same subsets
of them.  While Northern Ireland was not Catholic Ireland but both Catholic
and Protestant Ireland with the English and Protestants controlling
governmental functions and policies for the most part for a very long period
of time, there were formal and informal restrictions on where one could go,
live, and own property (and probably who would be allowed to migrate to the
country) based on religion and possibly race and ethnicity.  I am sure that
the Irish of both religions saw Northern Ireland (if not all of Ireland) as
a country primarily for the Irish and would object to a large influx of
non-Irish immigrants who wanted to settle in Ireland with  alien cultures,
traditions, languages, and beliefs; but for the most part they were not in
control - the British were similar to the British Mandate in Palestine prior
to their pulling out.  Other countries partake of nationalism which involve
practices that restrict property ownership to nationals of their country.
Until recently, I understand that one could not own property in Mexico
unless one was a citizen of Mexico - most of whom were Spanish speaking
Mexicans with  native Indian peoples being treated as second class
minorities who frequently were restricted in what land they could own - even
after the Mexican Revolution and the later land reforms.  In short, Israeli
nationalism may have its own peculiar collection of nationalist practices
which differ in specifics and sameness to that of other instances of
nationalism; but it is nationalism none the less.

 

Lastly, I would  suggest from the stories that I have heard from relatives
who lived in Europe during that period and what I have read during those
student days when I did most of my reading many Jews obtained a false sense
of security in the appearance of assimilation; but beneath the surface there
was a deep current of discrimination, isolation, and even hatred that
defines an informal caste system. Overt anti-Semitism did come to the
surface to varying degrees and ways with some frequency.  In North America
(the US and Canada), that was also the case as illustrated by the KKK
popularity and its views of Jews, the WASP control over public positions and
private jobs in which anti-Semitic policies and attitudes permeated at both
a formal and informal level below the surface only to break through from
time to time.  One only has to look at the restrictive covenants that
limited the neighborhoods that Jews could live and that limited college
admissions and admissions to medical and law schools as well as many
professions up until the 1960.  In fact, much of this discrimination still
exists beneath the surface with respect to Jews, Afro-Americans, Latinos,
etc. in the US despite appearances.  Needless to say it is probably the
history of having been fooled into a false sense of security in Europe and
the US as to their assimilation that probably feeds the underlying current
of suspecting that everyone who disagrees with them is an anti-Semite which
many Jews embrace. 

 

As for me, I don't trust anyone very much anymore with respect to anything.
I think that maybe some of the other species may be worth extending the
benefit of doubt to but not the human species, which has turned out to be
more of a plague on the world than a benefit.  I sincerely think that human
beings will destroy each other if they do not destroy themselves first; and
that this might be for the better.

From: Morton K. Brussel [mailto:mkbrussel at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:28 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: David Green
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism

 

Thanks for your thoughts, David and Laurie,

 

I am not convinced by David's distinctions. The nationalism as was seen in
places like Catholic Ireland has not invoked such things as immigration
restrictions to non-Irish, or had property ownership restricted to Catholic
Irish, but Zionism, i.e., reserving Israel as a nation for the Jews (as well
as its initial goal of bringing the world's  [or Europe's] Jewry to the
Promised Land) , has instituted such measures. It's not just the usual
nationalism in my view. It is a very prejudicial nationalism of the Jews,
which I think the word Zionism conveys. One hopes that under the pressures
of Palestinians, humane Israelis and the surrounding world, perhaps the
fervent nationalism, or Zionism, will gradually fade. The unfortunate fact
in my mind is that Israel is a western excrescence inflicted upon the Middle
East, a kind of affliction, and unless it changes from its extreme
nationalism, Zionism, it will continue to be troubled, to have its fears
made manifest in inhumanity to the non Jewish members of the Land of Canaan
. 

 

On the issue of the ability of Jews to be accepted as citizens in the
nations of Europe, I'm not particularly  well informed, but I've seen
arguments claiming that this had already been accomplished to a large
degree. Some think that the Nazi persecution was a dreadful discontinuity in
a gradual process of amalgamation. 

 

And of course, you may be right about Chomsky's recent silence. I just would
have expected him to speak out in any case, given the extremity of behavior
now taking place. But, as David has signaled, Chomsky is speaking out at MIT
today about Gaza events, and more broadly I'm sure. 

 

Mort

 

 

On Jan 13, 2009, at 10:31 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:





I think, in Chomsky's defense, he is quiet because he probably is in
mourning for his wife who recently died and is involved in not only making
all kinds of arrangements but in readjusting to her death. I think that
David is probably saying that Zionism, these days, is just another form of
nationalism similar to the sort of nationalism that that the Irish express
for Ireland even if they were born and raised in another country.  Like the
Irish, it is probably also deeply infused with religious identifications as
well as nationalist ones.  But David can speak for himself and much better
than I can speak for him. J 

 

The difference, as I see it, between early and current Zionism is that the
early Zionists did not have a modern  existing state to be in charge of and
identify with; now they do.  Where they once were ostracized in the
countries that they lived prior to the establishment of Israel and had no
home base to call their own or escape to, they sought to fight for the
establishment of one; now they have one and are paranoid of losing it,
fearing that the Arab world will do unto them what they did unto the Arab
world in order to establish their nation-state, while the rest of the world
over time withdraws its unquestioning support for Israel and forgets its
quilt over historic treatments of the Jewish population down the ages.
Unfortunately, now that the Jews have power and authority over a territory
in the form of a nation-state, they have become power politicians (political
realists) who are as bad if not worse at ruling than those who mistreated
them with respect to dealing with their minorities (including non-Western
Jewish immigrants), their neighbors, and their paranoia.  Now it appears
that the Palestinians have become the Jews of the Middle East and many in
authority in Israel are hell bent on exercising the "Final Solution" on both
Racist grounds and out of fear of the demographics and what it portends for
Israeli government, society, and theocratic pretentions of its religious
right wing components.  Hearing and watching the Israeli settlers and those
who support them reminds me of the attitudes of Amerikan settlers and their
behavior toward the Native Americans and of their talk about "Devine
Destiny" to justify their expansion and occupation of the Amerikan West.

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K.
Brussel
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 5:55 PM
To: David Green
Cc: Peace Discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Another Jew talks about Zionism

 

David,

 

You say Zionism is no longer the problem, but I associate Zionism with the
construct of and adherence to a Jewish state, a state for the Jews. And the
laws of the country still emphasize that. And in what sense is Zionism
finished? Can it be distinguished from the nationalism of a Jewish state?
You also mention the blatant anti-semitism of certain commenters. Who are
they? What are they saying?

 

Chomsky seems to be uncharacteristically subdued these days with regard to
Israel. I sometimes think he has too soft a spot in his heart for that land.
I wonder, after all that has happened to Palestinian infrastructure, if he
still thinks a two state solution is the only feasible solution.
Finkelstein still speaks up powerfully, as he did on DemocracyNow! with
Indyk recently. 

 

--Mort

 

On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:12 PM, David Green wrote:






Mort,

 

This is an incisive post by Philip Weiss, who spends most of his energy on
discourse with other Jews in New York. I'm not as interested in this issue
as I once was, which will come as a relief to most of the people on this
list who haven't yet pressed the delete key. Zionism was a powerful ideology
toward establishing a Jewish state, and up to 1967 in attracting Jewish
immigrants, absorbing Jews from Arab and other non-European countries,
assigning Arab non-Jewish Israelis to 4th class citizenship at best, and
maintaining the siege mentality that led to the 1967 war and subsequent
occupation. Obviously, it still is a powerful motivator among settler
fanatics, in a religious manifestation that was of course not intended by
the founders (although territorial expansion was).

 

Ideologies outlive their usefulness, and its harder and harder to attribute
Israel's behavior to Zionist ideology, in my opinion. In fact, I would see
Zionism per se as having almost nothing to do with Israel as it now exists
and behaves. The ideology is greatly overshadowed by material realities,
facts on the ground, power and domination--and, of course, it's choice to be
an American surrogate. The Jewish state is like any other state at this
point; the people who run it do so for their own aggrandizement; along with
that goes racism, militarism, neoliberalism, etc. Zionist ideology is now
windowdressing, intended more for American Jews than Israeli Jews. 

 

I understand that those dissenters who seek an alternative need to
articulate their positions and address the problems of Zionism and a Jewish
state, especially those who are Jewish, especially in discussions with other
Jews. Your post is from Philip Weiss, on whose blog I've attempted to
participate. It's extremely informative and has become quite popular, if one
can tell by the greatly increasing number of individuals who participate in
the comments sections. In spite of all the nutcases it attracts, I think
it's a positive interaction. The blog is also run by a guy named Adam
Horowitz, who is more to my liking than Weiss, who is much too giddy about
Obama, JStreet, etc.; and who is also obsessed with the Lobby.

 

What's concerns me, however, is that a basic Chomsky/Finkelstein leftist
Enlightenment orientation is not often clearly and plainly articulated (in
my comments, I started referring to myself as a boring whitebread leftist
socialist). There's too much time wasted on the Lobby, dual loyalty, etc.
There's obvious and blatant anti-Semitism by some frequent commenters. Add
to that the anti vs. post Zionist discussion. Having a state based on Jewish
domination of non-Jews has obviously turned out to be a horrible idea, a
moral and humanitarian catastrophe. But now we've got 6 million Jews living
with five million Arabs in Israel and Palestine. Anti or post, Zionism is
finished. The choice is either continued state-sponsored terrorism and a
national security state vs. the Enlightenment and human decency.

 

If one has to make choices, anti-Zionism implies correctly that it's a
racist ideology, and disregards the minimal (sadly) influence of bi-national
Zionism as endorsed by Einstein, Chomsky, etc. Post Zionism asserts the
validity of the original necessity of a homeland for the Jews, which was a
terrible idea but now is a fact on the ground that we all have to deal with.

 

Just my 2 latkes.

 

DG

 

  _____  

From: Morton K. Brussel <mkbrussel at comcast.net>
To: peace-discuss Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Cc: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:11:00 AM
Subject: Another Jew talks about Zionism

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-weiss/rethinking-zionism_b_156955.html

 

Dana Goldstein
<http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_n
ame=draft_draft_draftthe_idea_of_i> , whose thoughtful condemnation of the
Gaza slaughter after years of reserve I welcome, is a little uncomfortable
with the embrace.
<http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_n
ame=postzionism#112060> She points out that I have identified myself as a
non- or anti-Zionist, and says that anti-Zionism is redolent of
antisemitism. She's a post-Zionist, she says. Goldstein's comments deserve a
response, especially at this moment in intellectual life, when so many
people are crowding the doorways of this conversation.

I also used to say post- or non-Zionist to avoid being negative. The
playwright  <http://www.davidzellnik.com/> David Zellnik told me that
anti-Zionist felt to him like a denial of Israel's considerable achievements
and I respected David's view. Now I've come to say that I'm an anti-Zionist
for several reasons.

First: My feelings are not neutral about Zionism; I don't like it. As a Jew,
I think about it a lot and there is nothing I can really feel positive about
outside of the Jewish pride and its historical significance of it and its
visionary component. All these elements have lost their value: Zionism
privileges Jews and justifies oppression, and this appalls me. Saying I'm
anti-Zionist is a sincere expression of my minority-respecting worldview.

Second, Post-Zionist strikes me as an evasion. At this moment, Zionism
reigns in historical Palestine and in American Jewish leadership. To say
you're a post-Zionist is like saying you're a post-Communist during the
Stalin purges. You are tastefully separating yourself from the world, dainty
as an English person drinking tea with their little finger in the air.
Zionism remains a very powerful force in Middle East affairs and American
society. It's not helpful to those who are trying to understand these
matters to evade this fact or suggest that post-Zionism is actually a real
factor in, say, the life of Gaza City. I urge people to take a stand if they
find Zionist beliefs that privilege 6 million Jews over 5-6 million non-Jews
and that have entailed apartheid on the West Bank and ethnic cleansing a
supportable ideology, especially in the age of our mutt president-to-be.

Third, anti-Zionism is an idealistic Jewish tradition. In fact, it draws on
the same visionary and If-you-dream-it feeling that Zionism did 100 years
ago, before the militants ruined it, and engages the same young restless
sensibilities and liberationist feeling as Zionism did by imagining Israel
as a state of its citizens, not a Jewish state. We anti-Zionists can say
with honor that anti-Zionists like Rabbi Elmer Berger identified the
problems with Zionism 60 years ago, accurately when he said that Zionism
meant contempt for the Arab population, dependence on a backroom lobby in
the United States, and the introduction of dual loyalty into American Jewish
life. All true. Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin and Norman Mailer all
opposed Zionism to one degree or another out of concerns with
ethnocentrism--didn't like its Is-it-good-for-the-Jews backbeat. These
problems are larger today than ever, especially post-Iraq-war and the Iraq
war's idiot stepson, Gaza.

Finally, declaring I'm anti-Zionist is a way of trying to make room in
American life for this view. Right now being critical of Israel means that
you can hurt your business, as a Bay Area professional told the
<http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/sf-chron-says-breakup-of-jewi
sh-monolith-on-gaza-will-give-obama-room-to-move.html> San Francisco
Chronicle. True and disgusting. As Jimi Hendrix said when he was changing
attitudes: I'm going to wave my freak flag high!

As to the antisemitism point, the American Jewish Committee has said the
same thing: anti-Zionism is antisemitism. It thus conflates Jewishness with
Zionism, and this conflation is damaging the Jewish experience around the
world. When Dana says she worries about the antisemitic suggestion of
anti-Zionism, I feel a shadow of censoriousness. There are things you can
and can't say. Well, I am an empowered Jew who has never experienced
functional antisemitism ever in my life, and my empowerment is also part of
this conversation: I insist on speaking about Jewish cultural/financial
power in the U.S. as a component of my Zionist critique. Do I think that
Jews should be denied power? No! Do I think that there should be quotas on
Jewish inclusion in elite institutions? No! Well: I would like Jewish
participation in mainstream media roundtables on the Middle East held to 50
percent. That is my quota. These ideas have made some of my readers
uncomfortable. They've made me uncomfortable. I grew up in fear of lurking
antisemitism. But I have decided in my 50s that these are things I think
about all the time as a mature person, however flawed I am, and I think
they're important--so I am going to talk about them.

And I would add that shutting down debate in the name of "antisemitism"
strikes me as selfish. Our phantom worries about a second Holocaust take
precedence over the real evidence that surrounds us of man's inhumanity to
man, not just man's inhumanity to Jews. And our phantom worries mean that we
cannot address the incredible, everyday, real suffering of Palestinians that
has been perpetrated politically in large part by empowered American Jews
who are all over the media and political establishment, some of whom limit
debate of the issue by citing a possible infraction of our tremendous
freedoms. Believe me, when our freedoms are encroached upon, I will howl.
Today and tomorrow I howl for the Jewish leadership's actual crushing of the
Palestinian right of self-determination.

 

_______________________________________________

Peace-discuss mailing list

Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090113/fe64a09e/attachment.htm