Israel vs. Utopia
By Joel Schalit
Akashic Books, 250 pages, $15.95.
The Myths of Liberal Zionism
By Yitzhak Laor
Verso, 128 pages, $22.95.
A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement
By James Horrox
AK Press, 167 pages, $17.95.
A common theme in pro-Israel discourse is that critics of Israel are “obsessed” with the Jewish state. There’s certainly something to this argument: Israel seems to occupy a place in the pantheon of leftist bugbears out of all proportion to the size of the country and the (undoubted) wrongs it has committed. But obsession with Israel is not confined to the left; its defenders are equally convinced of its importance as a touchstone of moral and political rectitude. It isn’t just Israelis and Palestinians who have a stake in the conflict but, seemingly, everyone else, as well. Amid the cacophony of opinions, there are no disinterested “honest brokers” anymore.
All of which makes Joel Schalit’s “Israel vs. Utopia” a refreshing and clear-sighted perspective on the Israel conflict. Schalit, online editor of the journal Zeek and former editor of the magazines Tikkun and Punk Planet, does not conform to the more predictable positions on Israel. A progressive cosmopolitan — he has lived in Israel, Canada, the United States and now Italy — he does not reject his Israeli roots. He remains sympathetic and close to his father, a committed but thoughtful part of Israel’s Zionist establishment. His writing refuses the polarities of Zionism/anti-Zionism and embraces a position on Israel that is critical but nonetheless understanding of the complex motivations of the protagonists in the conflict. Schalit’s elegant, often digressive prose, together with his honest use of personal stories, further helps to break out of the sterile polemical style of much of the writing on Israel.
Schalit’s argument in “Israel vs. Utopia” is that “the Middle East has become a metaphor for the world,” where Western politics and the politics of the Middle East have become thoroughly enmeshed. Yet, Schalit also asks, “If the West has infiltrated the Middle East and vice versa, then how could Israel, one of the chief conduits for this transformation, remain something so thoroughly unknowable?” When Israel becomes a repository for the hopes and fears of people who will never live or even visit there, the multifaceted reality of the place becomes hopelessly obscured. Schalit argues that “Israel becomes a figure of speech,” a lightning rod for controversy, a confused sign of something that is never clear.
As an American-Israeli citizen, Schalit is particularly concerned with Israel’s relation to America and with America’s relation to Israel. He does not hide his frustration that the American Jewish community’s divisions over Israel — which, he argues, is becoming a kind of American Jewish “civil war” — are frequently accompanied by ignorance and lack of empathy with the people who have to live in the country. As he says, “The failure of both the Right and the Left in the Diaspora to see Israel as it actually is constitutes a subtle but pernicious form of intellectual imperialism.” In assuming that Israel is dependent on support from the United States, both right and left overestimate the extent to which Israel’s conflicts are reducible to American political conflicts. The situation with regard to Europe is perhaps even more dire. As Schalit shows, the distancing of Israel from Europe is a function of the troubled Jewish history on the continent in which the legacy of the Holocaust looms large.
Yitzhak Laor’s “The Myths of Liberal Zionism” also takes issue with the ways in which Israel becomes fantasy; however, whereas Schalit’s book is characterized by a deep empathy and humanity that seek to understand how we got into this mess, Laor, primarily a left-wing protest poet, offers an angry and uncompromising polemic. He seeks to demonstrate how liberal versions of Israeli Zionism seek to align Israel with the West and how they look for approval from the Western intelligentsia for the Zionist project. As he says, “There is something in modern-day Israeli culture that emphasizes more than ever a fantasy for Western homogeneity, side by side with a lack of will — or lack of ability — to cease to live by the sword.” The liberal peace camp, while it appears to offer compromise, is, for Laor, hypocritical in its willingness to perpetuate the Zionist causes of the conflict.
Laor’s main targets in his book are Amos Oz, David Grossman and A.B. Yehoshua. His argument is that while these writers are feted in Europe as courageous members of the peace camp, their work is ultimately an attempt to flatter European intellectuals’ deep-seated Islamophobia. Laor is certainly right to draw attention to the less-than-progressive aspects of Oz and the others that are often ignored by their European admirers, such as Oz’s support for the 2006 Lebanon War and (initially at least) for Operation Cast Lead. Ultimately, though, Laor’s problem is that these writers are Zionists and for him, Zionism is unacceptable, particularly when masked as liberalism.
Putting aside the question of whether Zionism really is unsalvageable, it is grossly unfair to ignore the ways in which liberal Zionism is under sustained attack by the ever more powerful Israeli right and how it offers at least the possibility of political compromise in the Middle East. In damning Zionism in its entirety and refusing to see its diversity, Laor reproduces the fantastic quality of the European views on Israel that he condemns. His project is an entirely negative one: While he bombards readers with often sarcastic attacks on those he despises for their ideological flabbiness, he fails to articulate how a non-Zionist agenda for Israel could work in practice.
If there is a vision of Israel that can avoid the polarization and mythmaking of much Diaspora and Israeli discourse, it requires an appreciation of the complexities of Israeli society. James Horrox’s “A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement” provides a welcome reminder that Israel wasn’t always seen by radicals as an outpost of Western imperialism. Horrox unearths the utopian, anarchist influences behind the growth of the kibbutz movement in pre-state Israel. Anarchism may be a highly flawed ideology, but at the very least it offered a vision of Zionism that, in not aiming to build a Jewish state, held out the possibility of a land in which Jews and Muslims could coexist peacefully. This was never likely to happen, of course, but at the very least it’s important to remember that Israel didn’t have to be the place that its contemporary detractors and defenders imagine it to be — and it doesn’t have to be that place now.
Listen to Joel Schalit, author of the new book “Israel vs. Utopia,” discusses what he sees as Diaspora misconceptions about Israel:
Keith Kahn-Harris’s forthcoming book is on the sociology of the British-Jewish community since 1990. He is the convener and editor of the project New Jewish Thought.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Laor's book was published by "Verso" an uber leftwing antisemitic publisher. This is all one needs to know about this self hating Jew.
The antisemitic Jewish left has become hysterical and very very dangerous.
What does the left have to do with liberalism?
The left is totalitarian, it is the opposite of liberalism
There is a wide spectrum in Zionism, but so is was in any other settler colonialist movement/project. Only the left leaning among the settler colonialists are outrageous when world wide humanists and liberal treat them as integral part of the unforgivable settler colonialist
Jews, especially those of us above a certain age, ought to be wary of generalizations. Specifically, calling Jewish critics of the right wing Likud led government "self hating Jews", is a too easy method of avoiding the fact that the current government, and those before it, have talked about peace, but have not moved the peace process forward one bit during the last 42 years. That the Palestinian leadership has been as foolish as its Israeli counterpart is beside the point. Millions of Palestinian civilians live wasted lives partially because of Israeli intransigence; that "self hating Jews" retain enough of classical Jewish ethic and recognize Israeli responsibility for our neighbors plight does not signal self hatred but only the realization hatred of the "other" is not Judaism, not healthy and not containable.
In the second-to-last sentence the author mentions "the possibility of a land in which Jews and Muslims could coexist peacefully." I'm pretty sure he meant "Jews and Arabs," as the Christian population was nearly as great in numbers as the Jewish population in the early days of the kibbutz movement.
Ever since the dawn of modern Zionism, virtually every attempt by the mostly utopian early sociaist Jewish settlers to clasp the hands in friendship with the Muslim Arabs was rebuffed by the clerics! They no more understood Islam a century ago than do their modern counterparts today. In the old days, my mother used to say regarding the Soviets, "From where the Russians put down their foot, they never retreat." Well, eventually that turned out to be wrong. But Islam is a much tougher adversary than the atheist Bolsheviks ever were. They have Allah on their side. There is no room, no matter how tiny it may be, for a Jewish state in Dar al Islam. Now it is possible that more and more Arabs will move away from rigid Islam, but that is a very long term proposition, if at all. Israel still has no choice but to exist as a Spartan Jewish state, if at all.
To Corra and Joshua:
Comments like these make me embarrassed to be Jewish. Dissent is not disloyalty. Criticism is not hatred.
To Corra and Joshua:
Comments like these make me embarrassed to be Jewish. Dissent is not disloyalty. Criticism is not hatred.
Get real, Alex. Dissent may not be disloyalty, but is more likely to be than agreement. Criticism may not be hatred, but is more likely to be than praise. Corra and Joshua happen to be correct, if superficial. Simply putting them down is evidence of a closed mind and refusal to examine their statements critically. To do so you would have to show that they are wrong in this particular instance. If you are ashamed to be a Jew after reading their comments, it is transparently clear that you were ashamed to be a Jew before reading their comments, and nobody can help you with that.
Get real, Alex. Dissent may not be disloyalty, but is more likely to be than agreement. Criticism may not be hatred, but is more likely to be than praise. Corra and Joshua happen to be correct, if superficial. Simply putting them down is evidence of a closed mind and refusal to examine their statements critically. To do so you would have to show that they are wrong in this particular instance. If you are ashamed to be a Jew after reading their comments, it is transparently clear that you were ashamed to be a Jew before reading their comments, and nobody can help you with that.
I appreciate the excellent writing of this piece. I quibble only with the singling out of Oz for criticism, and that for his views as expressed in his personal life, rather than his work.
It is very sad that over and over again the young Jews who grew up not knowing the ugly, true face of an open anticemitism, prove that they unable to relate to the realism of their forefathers who had reclaimed their long-lost land out of sheer necessity - they faced annihilation and demonstrated hatred or, at best, total indifference of the entire world. Creation of the State of Israel had helped the entire Jewish People to regain self-respect and self-sufficiency not present for millenia before.
I was born well after the events, but my half-literate grandparents who survived, TRULY survived the war, explained it simply: if there is no Israel, there will shortly be no more Jews left on ths planet. A few enclaves of fundamentalists might still be let live since they, being very selfish and exclisive, would not matter to our sense of statehood anyway. But the rest of us will become a game for the rest of the world.
I know that it sounds harsh, too dark and far-fetched. However, it pays off to listen to the experience of older generations. None of them escaped persecution. WHat makes you think that you are special?
I just listened to Joel Schalit pod-cast. He was asked the question about Obama's lack of popularity with Israelis. Joel Schalt's answer was that the Bibi Nethanyauh and the rightists have manipulated Obama's criticism of settlements to influence the Israelis. He compared the way Bibi manipulated the public to antagonize Rabin, which resulted in his assassination.
Now Joel Schalit has his American magazine where he admits 85% of the readers are American Jews. Further, as we read in this article, Joel Schalit attributes the confrontations about Israel by American Jews to ""ignorance"" (my emphasis) of the latter about Israel.
Mr Joel Schalit should have been better informed about the coolin off of Israel's toward Obama. Was amply reported and analyzed in both media Israeli and American. Haaretz, New York Times. Israelis were offended That Obama spoke to the Muslims in Cairo, and that he ignored speaking to Israelis. This was emphasized in New York Times (NYT) editorials. Because the NYT was shocked to find that Bibi Nethanyauh increased greatly in popularity. Also the great plan when Obama came in was to repeat President Clinton's treatment of Bibi that resulted in his loosing popularity and exit as prime minister, because of confrontation with America. Also the Israelis took it hard that after the Gaza war Cast Lead in self defense, They should be pushed around about the settlements by Obama. While at the same time Obama was being to kind to Abbas. Obama chastised Bibi for settlements loud and clear, while quiet and sweet asked Abbas to please try "reducing" hatred of Israel teachings to Palestinians. At an interview in the Washington Post Abbas said I am going to seat tight, will not talk to Nethanyauh and wait for his demise. Abbas is still waiting. In the meantime Bibi is more popular than ever. And Obama has retreated from the blunder he happened to make. Recently Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, declared that there have been significant progress on the settlements issue with the Israeli's. This was a shock to Abbas.
The bottom line is that Joel Schalit should do his homework and be better informed before making bombastic opinions. You see, he is right for the misunderstandings of American Jews about Israel, ignorance is tops and then abused by tendentious groups that are not really friends of Israel.
To Corra and Joshua I prefer to say extreme leftists that are not friends of Israel, Gideon Levy (Haaretz) , Roger Cohen (NYT), Tikkun magazine as examples.
And extremist like the Naturie Carter that insist we should wait for God to form Israel.
And to Alex you have said an Oxymoron. You should not be ashamed of being Jewish because you disagree with somebody criticizing the extreme left Jews that criticize self-defense by Israelis.
Dictionary:
oxymoron |ˌäksəˈmôrˌän| noun a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).
So far this paper, once again, failed to report an important and relevant to this discussion bold move by Hizballah to repudiate UN resolution 1559. As 'toothless' and useless as all UN resolutions are, at least it framed the continuous build-up of more sophisticated arms as illegal. Now Iran/Syria/Lebanon have made one more decision. If Israel does not respond adequately, it is 'doomed' from all persepctives. We all understand the difficult decisions that Israel is facing every day, but we here in US need to encourage them to stay the course instead of listening to the current US administration that lost steam right after their victory in 2008 and not capable of dealing with other countries' hostility.
Again, I keep repeating myself on this site, no one will ever care about the State of Israel and the Jews elsewhere. We should not count on other countries, as 'friendly' as they may appear - they will never interfere and rather let us perish than forget about their own interests. Just like people.
I agree with what Schalit says, but with one caveat that he ignores which is that despite the fact that there is no one singular Jewish ethnos in Israel, the ideology of the state defines the Jews as a singular ethnos and nation which is legally defined by religious origin.
So, yes, he is correct. Anglo Jews have this misperception that Israelis are a monolithic Jewish people but this false consciousness was also taught to them by official representatives of the Israeli government and their propagandists.
I agree with what Schalit says, but with one caveat that he ignores which is that despite the fact that there is no one singular Jewish ethnos in Israel, the ideology of the state defines the Jews as a singular ethnos and nation which is legally defined by religious origin.
So, yes, he is correct. Anglo Jews have this misperception that Israelis are a monolithic Jewish people but this false consciousness was also taught to them by official representatives of the Israeli government and their propagandists.
Ben Plonie responded to Alex's criticism of Cora's and Joshua's comments: "Simply putting them down is evidence of a closed mind and refusal to examine their statements critically."
Neither Cora, nor Joshua made any statements that could be examined critically: they only engaged in name-calling (based on who the publisher is, Cora concluded that the author is a self-hating Jew and declared that is all one needs to know; and Joshua declared that the left is "very, very dangerous.") It is obvious that they did not read either of these books; they merely had a stereotypical knee-jerk reaction to the review.
I read Israel vs. Utopia, and believe me, there is plenty in there for both the left and the right to argue about - Schalit critiques both sides in his book. If people actually read the book and discussed rationally what they agree and disagree with, a productive debate might begin.
Regarding Cora's and Joshua's statements making Alex ashamed to be a Jew, I have to agree with you there. I do not cede that kind of power to people like Cora and Joshua. Judaism is my faith and my legacy. However, I do understand what Alex was trying to say: he is ashamed of how people like Cora and Joshua can be so arrogant as to declare who is a Jew and who isn't based on individual political beliefs - giving the world the impression that "real" Jews are incapable of critical self-examination. Ironically, this is the complete opposite of what Judaism teaches.