“The Myths of Liberal Zionism,” by Yitzhak Laor — I want to read this book

Writ­ing in the Jan­u­ary issue of Harper’s Mag­a­zine, Joshua Cohen wrote this at the end of his review of Laor’s book:

It often seems that the Israeli-Palestinian con­flict is just […] a tex­tual prob­lem. If so, then the mud­dle of mean­ing that must be ana­lyzed lies in pars­ing not Pales­tin­ian from Israeli, but “Israeli” from “Jew.” Only once those epi­thets have been dis­sev­ered can some sort of dia­logue begin, between two polit­i­cal enti­ties and not between two (or three) reli­gions or Peo­ples. Until then, “Israel” will con­tinue to be vil­i­fied as a word that means some­thing other than what it should, while all crit­ics of Israel will be accused of anti-Semitism.

It is not clear to me from the review how much of this is Cohen, how much of this is Laor and how much of it is Cohen putting into his own words what he agrees with in Laor’s book, but any book that leads to this kind of think­ing, to ask­ing these kinds of ques­tions, whether I ulti­mately agree with the book or not, is a book worth read­ing. Now, if there were only 36 hours or more in a day. Sigh.

Reading Joshua Kryah’s Glean

“My faith lies else­where.” When I fin­ished read­ing Joshua Kryah’s Glean (Night­boat Books, 2007)[1. This review was orig­i­nally posted on a lit­er­ary blog that no longer exists called The Great Amer­i­can Pinup. My under­stand­ing is that the blog was hacked and that attempts by the peo­ple who ran the blog to resolve things using Google’s help screens were unsuc­cess­ful. I am repost­ing the review here because I think the books are impor­tant enough that the review should con­tinue to be avail­able.] and started think­ing about what I would write in my review of the book, that is the sen­tence that came to me, almost as if it had been wait­ing — who knows how long? — somewhere in the back or just below the sur­face of my con­scious­ness for me to read the final lines of “Come Hither,” the last poem in Kryah’s book:

Who will draw you out, now
that you’ve given your­self over?

Who dis­solve
your body like a host on their tongue?

What stop­ping place will be pro­vided, what
rest?

Where am I in this emer­gence—
who comes?

The “you” here is God, or, rather, the god that faith places on the other side of the absence that is all, accord­ing to the monothe­ism I was taught grow­ing up, human beings can ever really know of the one divine being. Yet the first two ques­tions here are not about this god per se, but rather about those whose task it is to draw this god out into the world and take him into them­selves. In the face of the absence that is also the divine — and that is, there­fore, in itself per­haps the deep­est and most fun­da­men­tal test of faith — who will those peo­ple be? At the same time, the speaker of the poem is clear that some­thing is emerg­ing — some­thing which, based on the first two ques­tions, we can assume the speaker believes to be God. Then, out of that clar­ity another ques­tion emerges. What is the speaker’s posi­tion in the emer­gence, not in rela­tion to it, as if he were stand­ing out­side of it, watch­ing what was hap­pen­ing, wait­ing to see the end result, but in it, as part of it, and once the speaker places him­self within this emer­gence, who is emerg­ing is no longer clear. The pos­si­bil­ity exists in the lan­guage that it is the speaker who is emerg­ing, that he is watch­ing him­self become, that he has dis­cov­ered his god within him­self, that he has come to accept that he is him­self, some­how, within his god.

Ques­tions of faith have been impor­tant to me since I was a teenager and I believed my future lay in the rab­binate. When I set aside the faith that being a rabbi would have demanded of me, how­ever, I did not set aside the strug­gle to come to terms with the final, indif­fer­ent and absolute absence that will fill the space where I used to be in the moment after my death. It is a mea­sure of Kryah’s suc­cess that, despite the fact my faith lies some­where very other than his — and since this is a review of his book, I am not going to turn it into an essay about my own spir­i­tu­al­ity — the poems in Glean nonethe­less con­fronted me with the ques­tion of just where, pre­cisely, my spir­i­tu­al­ity does lie. In large mea­sure, the poems accom­plish this through metaphors that ground the issues they raise firmly in the body. Here, for exam­ple, are the first few lines of “My Easter:”

Breath­bloom, the res­ur­rec­tion lily
spent on its stem,

the pale throat thrown back
announcing — what?

Behold, all at once,
the flesh-like knot
undone, each petal released, their beauty un–
mis­tak­ably and

already gone.

And here is “O Hiero­glyph (for­got­ten word, spread your lips around me)” in its entirety:

As if the wet vowel might speak.

As if, plun­dered,
it might give up its blank stare, and
sud­denly, shud­der in my mouth.

We exchange a lan­guage
dumb as flesh, pressed into and bruised
beyond recog­ni­tion, its only response the black eye’s dull cir­cle of speech.

Blue, blue-brown
each color off­set by the sur­round­ing skin,
the cal­cite thought of your return­ing again.

I can­not muster
what I should have lost, and in the wish gained
more stead­fast: your curio, what swings from a locket upon my chest,

a mes­sage that now only speaks
with its fist.

The note I wrote to myself on the page below this poem says, sim­ply, “Donne?” The fist in the final line recalled for me Holy Son­net #14, “Bat­ter my heart, three-personed God,” and, indeed, I found myself think­ing of Donne’s Holy Son­nets often while read­ing Glean, so much so that I read through the sam­pling of them in the edi­tion of the Nor­ton Anthol­ogy that I have on my shelf before I sat down to write this review. Donne’s poems, too, are rooted in the body, though very dif­fer­ently than Kryah’s. For while Kryah metaphorizes — if I can coin a term — the body, and the phys­i­cal world in gen­eral, to give pres­ence to the absence in the face of which he ques­tions, asserts and main­tains his faith, Donne posi­tions the body in his poems as Other to his god, whose pres­ence in the world the poems them­selves — at least the ones I read — do not doubt for a minute. I also thought of Donne’s Holy Son­nets while read­ing Glean because, despite the fact that Kryah’s poems are writ­ten in a very free verse — the sen­tence frag­ment and the uncon­ven­tional spac­ing of the poems seemed to me just about the only two for­mal devices used con­sis­tently through­out the book — his poem’s share with Donne’s a sense of lan­guage as some­thing phys­i­cal, some­thing to be felt, held in the mouth, savored and then released.

In all hon­esty, I don’t know that I will pick this book of poems up again. It has said to me what it has to say, and it’s not some­thing I need to hear again. Still, I admire, deeply, the craft and com­mit­ment, the hon­esty and courage that went into writ­ing it. It is the kind of book I think every­one should have to read once, the kind of book that those to whom it truly speaks will trea­sure for the rest of their lives.

Reading Suheir Hammad’s ZaatarDiva and Kazim Ali’s The Far Mosque

Talk about two very dif­fer­ent books by two very dif­fer­ent poets, but there are con­nec­tions, and since I read the books back to back, I want to talk about them side by side.[1. This review was orig­i­nally posted on a lit­er­ary blog that no longer exists called The Great Amer­i­can Pinup. My under­stand­ing is that the blog was hacked and that attempts by the peo­ple who ran the blog to resolve things using Google’s help screens were unsuc­cess­ful. I am repost­ing the review here because I think the books are impor­tant enough that the review should con­tinue to be avail­able.] I first met Suheir Ham­mad some years ago when she came to Nas­sau Com­mu­nity Col­lege (NCC), where I teach in the Eng­lish Depart­ment, to give a read­ing as part of a day-long pro­gram on the Palestinian-Israeli con­flict. The pro­gram was spon­sored by NCC’s Inter­na­tional Stud­ies Com­mit­tee and it gen­er­ated, even in the plan­ning, a lot of con­tro­versy. I was not involved in putting the day together, so I do not know the specifics of went on, but I do know that the col­lege admin­is­tra­tion voiced con­cerns about ade­quate secu­rity, about who the pan­elists would be and whether a bal­anced view of the con­flict would be pre­sented. What they meant by “bal­anced,” how­ever, at least as I under­stand it, was that no one who spoke for the Pales­tin­ian side should express views that were overtly hos­tile to Israel. It did not seem to bother them that peo­ple rep­re­sent­ing the Israeli side might express views overtly hos­tile to Pales­tini­ans and/or Arabs, and, sure enough, one of the speak­ers was a woman rep­re­sent­ing a far-right Jew­ish orga­ni­za­tion — not Israeli, but Jew­ish — who spoke quite force­fully about the Arab/Muslim plot to take over the world. It was almost as if she were quot­ing from the Pro­to­cols of the Elders of Zion,[2. The link is to an edu­ca­tional page about the Pro­to­cols that con­tains a link to a pdf ver­sion of the text, if you want an html ver­sion click here] except that all the ref­er­ences to Jews had been changed to Arabs.

Dur­ing lunch that day — her read­ing was in the evening — Suheir and I spoke about “One Stop (Hebron Revis­ited)” a poem from her first book, Born Pales­tin­ian, Born Black, that I had used in a class I’d taught the pre­vi­ous semes­ter called Intro­duc­tion to World Jew­ish Stud­ies. The poem is a response to Baruch Goldstein’s Feb­ru­ary 1994 mas­sacre of 29 Mus­lims — approx­i­mately 100 were injured — in which the speaker, a woman, imag­ines the vio­lence she would have done to a Jew­ish man she sees had she “caught [him] on the train/on an empty car into flat­bush.” The poem is painful to read, not only for the spe­cific details of the vio­lence it describes, but also for the naked­ness of the rage it expresses. The speaker is in pain, and it is hard not to feel implicit in the details of what the woman describes how much she hates her­self for even imag­in­ing that she would per­form those acts.

When I taught the poem, I asked my stu­dents, all of whom hap­pened to be Jew­ish and most of whom came from con­ser­v­a­tive and ortho­dox reli­gious back­grounds, if they thought it was anti-Semitic. I was truly sur­prised when they said no, that if they were in the writer’s shoes, they would have felt a sim­i­lar anger and that Suheir Ham­mad there­fore had every right to express her­self in the way that she did. I told Suheir this and she also was shocked and then she told me that “One Stop” was a poem she never read when she gave read­ings. I don’t remem­ber her pre­cise words, but I think she told me she was afraid to. It was so angry and so vio­lent that she was not sure how her audi­ences would react. I told her I thought it was a poem that peo­ple needed to hear, that she owed it to her­self and to her audi­ences to read it, pre­cisely because the pain and the vio­lence in the poem are so deeply embed­ded in the emo­tional cen­ter of the con­flict between Israel and the Pales­tini­ans, and no one should be spared a con­fronta­tion with that center.

My own opin­ion is that, to the extent the speaker in “One Stop” holds the Jew­ish man she sees on the train in New York City respon­si­ble for the views of Baruch Gold­stein and, by exten­sion, the poli­cies of the State of Israel, the poem is anti-Semitic, or, to be more pre­cise, the speaker expresses her rage in anti-Semitic terms. Because her rage is com­pre­hen­si­ble, how­ever, it is also an excus­able moment of Jew-hatred, no dif­fer­ent than the way, say, the rage of a Black South African dur­ing apartheid might be directed at all South African whites, despite the fact that there were many whites in South Africa who opposed apartheid. What mat­ters is whether the speaker, once she has calmed down, takes respon­si­bil­ity for that moment. In “One Stop,” she does not, nor do I remem­ber, frankly, whether Ham­mad takes on the ques­tion of that respon­si­bil­ity in any of the other poems in Born Pales­tin­ian, Born Black, and since I do not have the book handy, I can’t go back and check. My over­all rec­ol­lec­tion of the book, though, is that it is more angry than it is about com­ing to terms with anger. I remem­ber a cou­ple of with­er­ing poems protest­ing the way Mid­dle East­ern women are exoti­cized in the US, and I remem­ber poems that were clearly intended to con­front the reader with the phys­i­cal hor­rors of occu­pa­tion. (It occurs to me as I write this that I also should state explic­itly that I am not accus­ing Suheir Ham­mad of Jew-hatred in any form. Not only is it a mis­take to con­fuse a poet with the speak­ers of her poems, but I have met her and talked to her, and I just don’t think she har­bors that kind of hatred for any­one.) Con­tinue read­ing