Richard Jeffrey Newman

I am not a Zion­ist. For the first half of my life and then some, the idea that a Jew­ish man or woman could say those words and mean them was almost as far-fetched as the idea that Jews had horns. Israel – it had been drilled into me from the moment I was old enough to under­stand there was a place called Israel – was a cat­e­gor­i­cal imper­a­tive of Jew­ish exis­tence. To sug­gest the Jews were not a nation was not just to be in league with all those who had tried to wipe us out, not just to deny a cen­tral truth of how we’d man­aged to sur­vive in spite of those attempts, but also to cut your­self off from your own peo­ple, to make your­self like a limb sev­ered from its body, and what kind of exis­tence was that? Despite the fact that I’d never been there, that I had no inten­tion of mak­ing aliyah, Israel was my coun­try too, with­out ambi­gu­ity, but not with­out ambivalence.

Hav­ing two coun­tries that I could call my home – Israel and the United States – brought with it the ques­tion of divided loy­al­ties: Are you a Jewish-American or an American-Jew? If the United States and Israel went to war, on whose side would you fight? I remem­ber think­ing, when one of my Hebrew school teach­ers asked the lat­ter ques­tion – and if I was in Hebrew school, then I was still in ele­men­tary school – that it would depend on which side I thought was right, but I also remem­ber being afraid to give that answer, since I knew I would be told that I was wrong. The United States might be a good place for us to live as Jews for now, but not only did we have to remem­ber that it–mean­ing the Holo­caust – could hap­pen here too, and so Israel, the Jew­ish State, the place we could all flee to if we had to, was the only place we could really call home; the very fact that Israel was a Jew­ish state, founded in the blood of Jew­ish heroes, on the land that had been the king­dom ruled by David, our ancient God-given home­land, meant that it could claim, that we owed it, a com­mit­ment tran­scend­ing the acci­dent of our place-of-birth.

Mine, in other words, was not entirely a sec­u­lar Zion­ism. God’s hand could be seen every­where in the story of Israel’s found­ing, most espe­cially in its vic­tory over the sur­round­ing Arab nations when they invaded in 1948 after Israel declared its inde­pen­dence. Con­tem­po­rary Israeli his­to­ri­ans have been ques­tion­ing the tra­di­tional nar­ra­tive of that war – i.e., that the Arabs invaded to pre­vent Israel’s found­ing – but even if the alter­na­tive nar­ra­tives that some of those his­to­ri­ans have pro­posed are indeed closer to the truth than what I was taught, I doubt it would have changed sig­nif­i­cantly the con­clu­sion to which I was sup­posed to come: that God wanted to give Israel back to the Jews and that it was his right as the cre­ator of the world to do so. The fact of Israel’s exis­tence was all the proof any­one should need.

It wouldn’t have mat­tered, in other words, that Israel’s pro­vi­sional gov­ern­ment could have avoided the 1948 war – at least accord­ing to Simha Fla­pan in his book The Birth Of Israel: Myths and Real­i­ties–by accept­ing, as the Arabs had already done, an Amer­i­can pro­posal for a three month truce (cited here) and that this truce might con­ceiv­ably have led to a peace­ful dec­la­ra­tion of Israeli state­hood. My teach­ers, espe­cially once I’d entered yeshiva, would still, I believe, have quoted to me the com­men­tary given by Rashi on the very first word of the Torah, b’reisheet, which is usu­ally trans­lated as “In the begin­ning,” but which is more accu­rately ren­dered as “at the begin­ning of.” Rashi quotes Rabbi Isaac, who points out that since the Torah’s main pur­pose is to teach the com­mand­ments Jews are expected to fol­low, it was not nec­es­sary to begin the Torah with the cre­ation of the world. So why did God begin at the beginning?

For if the nations of the world should say to Israel: “You are rob­bers, because you have seized by force the lands of the seven nations” [of Canaan], they [Israel] could say to them, “The entire world belongs to the Holy One, Blessed Be He, He cre­ated it and gave it to whomever it was right in his eyes. Of His own will He gave it to them and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us.”

I read those words now and it’s hard for me to believe I actu­ally believed them; and I also, as I read, remem­ber very clearly when my belief started to unweave itself. I was an under­grad­u­ate argu­ing with another stu­dent in my dorm about the Palestinian-Israeli con­flict – which was then known as the Arab-Israeli con­flict – and I was cit­ing chap­ter and verse of every argu­ment I had been taught to jus­tify both Israel’s pres­ence in the world and its treat­ment of the Pales­tini­ans, includ­ing the hor­ri­bly racist canard of Pales­tin­ian moth­ers breed­ing their sons to become ter­ror­ists, which was repeated as com­mon knowl­edge in the cir­cles where I got my ini­tial Jew­ish education.

I don’t remem­ber exactly how I said it, but when I uttered what­ever words I uttered, my dormmate’s lower jaw dropped, and he looked at me with a mix­ture of speech­less pity and absolute dis­be­lief. “Do you really think,” he asked me, “that Pales­tin­ian moth­ers are any dif­fer­ent from your mother or mine? Do you really think they want for their sons any­thing other” – and here he began to count off on his fin­gers – “than a long and full and happy and pro­duc­tive life?” He went on to say some other things as well, but I don’t remem­ber what they were because I had stopped pay­ing atten­tion. It was my turn to stare, slack jawed and  filled with dis­be­lief. How could it never have occurred to me that Pales­tin­ian moth­ers and their sons were actual human beings?

///

» Read the rest of this entry «

Oy! So I was, with mild inter­est, read­ing over at Alas the con­ver­sa­tion that was begin­ning to develop around the post writ­ten by Julie about J Street open­ing local chap­ters. I say “mild inter­est” because I find so much of the pol­i­tics sur­round­ing the con­flict between the Israelis and the Pales­tini­ans – which also means the con­flicts between and among all the var­i­ous groups who have an inter­est in how that con­flict is, or is not, resolved – not only tire­some, but also, all too often, child­ish. It’s not that I think the issues are not pro­foundly, world-changingly impor­tant; it’s just that I no longer have the patience that I once had for sift­ing through the par­ti­san nit­pick­ing and polit­i­cal oppor­tunism, not to men­tion the out­right hatred, into which so many dis­cus­sions of those issues inevitably devolve. Still, the lit­tle bit that I have heard about J Street has sug­gested to me that they are try­ing to be adults by, at the very least, broad­en­ing the con­ver­sa­tion both in terms of con­tent and in terms of who gets to par­tic­i­pate, and that is refresh­ing, even though I don’t know enough about most of their posi­tions to say how much I sup­port them beyond the state­ment I have just made.

What caught my inter­est about the con­ver­sa­tion Julie’s post started was that it con­cerned lit­er­a­ture, the role of lit­er­a­ture in polit­i­cal move­ments, the stance polit­i­cal move­ments should take towards indi­vid­ual works of lit­er­a­ture, what it means to write polit­i­cally engaged lit­er­a­ture and what it means to engage lit­er­a­ture polit­i­cally. The first part of the con­ver­sa­tion is about the play Seven Jew­ish Chil­dren, writ­ten in 2009 by Caryl Churchill in response to Israel’s inva­sion of Gaza. The play con­sists of a series of sim­ple imper­a­tive sen­tences, each begin­ning with “Tell her” or “Don’t tell her”–her being a female of inde­ter­mi­nate age, though she is prob­a­bly pretty young. Col­lec­tively, these imper­a­tives rep­re­sent some of the posi­tions that Jews, as groups and as indi­vid­u­als, Israeli and not, have taken in response to both the Palestinian-Israeli con­flict and Israel’s exis­tence. In my own opin­ion, the play, which I have not read as care­fully as I might, and so I am will­ing to be con­vinced oth­er­wise, walks a fine line between expos­ing and cri­tiquing, but also human­iz­ing, the denial and hypocrisy of many who sup­port Israel’s poli­cies out of fear for their own and the Jew­ish community’s sur­vival, and pro­pa­gan­diz­ing that posi­tion as a tool to demo­nize both Jews and Israel. Ulti­mately, I don’t think the play crosses the line into pro­pa­ganda, though I can see how oth­ers might rea­son­ably say that it does. More­over, since it is a play, I sup­pose that what really mat­ters in terms of this ques­tion is how the play is pro­duced, not sim­ply how it reads on the page.

The first com­ment on Julie’s post is by Sebas­t­ian, who says:

I do not remem­ber see­ing any dis­cus­sion of J Street [on Alas]. Before you rush and sup­port them, check at least the Wiki entry… and maybe look into how main­stream Israel sup­port­ers feel about them. Maybe also read Seven Jew­ish Chil­dren and remem­ber that J Street endorses the play.

Ching­ona then points out that J Street did not “endorse” the play. Rather, the orga­ni­za­tion asserted that the play is not nec­es­sar­ily anti­se­mitic and they defended the the­ater com­pany that put the play on. Sebas­t­ian then admits not that he’d mis­read J Street’s posi­tion on the play, but that he hadn’t even both­ered to read the orig­i­nal state­ment; he also explains that he thinks “it’s worth read­ing and dis­cussing [Seven Jew­ish Chil­dren], but stag­ing it accord­ing to the terms of the author is tak­ing a stance with which I most cer­tainly do not agree.” Pre­sum­ably, since he does not spec­ify, the part of the terms of per­for­mance that Sebas­t­ian objects to is the text in bold­face below:

The play can be read or per­formed any­where, by any num­ber of peo­ple. Any­one who wishes to do it should con­tact the author’s agent (details below), who will license per­for­mances free of charge pro­vided that no admis­sion fee is charged and that a col­lec­tion is taken at each per­for­mance for Med­ical Aid for Pales­tini­ans (MAP), 33a Isling­ton Park Street, Lon­don N1 1QB, tel +44 (0)20 7226 4114, e-mail info@​map-​uk.​org, web www​.map​-uk​.org.

Cer­tainly, Sebas­t­ian is within his right to dis­agree with these terms, and he is within his right not to attend any per­for­mance of the play and to try to con­vince oth­ers not to attend; he also would be within his rights to orga­nize a boy­cott of the play in his com­mu­nity were some­one try­ing to put it on there. What I am inter­ested in, how­ever, is that the dis­agree­ment he expresses is not with the text of the play itself, which he thinks is worth read­ing and dis­cussing, but with peo­ple putting the play to polit­i­cal use, to serve a prac­ti­cal pur­pose in the world, one that involves human being, human bod­ies and the rela­tion­ships between and among them. Some might argue that med­ical aid is not polit­i­cal, or at least that it ought to be beyond politi­ciza­tion. In prin­ci­ple, I agree, if by politi­ciza­tion you mean the kind of par­ti­san­ship that is more about who wins and who loses than about find­ing solu­tions; but it’s not just that there is noth­ing about the Palestinian-Israeli con­flict that is not already, always, polit­i­cal and politi­cized; it’s that med­i­cine is itself, wher­ever and how­ever it is prac­ticed, is already, always, polit­i­cal sim­ply because it is about human being and human bod­ies; and to sug­gest that lit­er­a­ture ought not to be used to make med­ical care avail­able to peo­ple who need it, regard­less of the pol­i­tics of the orga­ni­za­tions involved, is to sug­gest that lit­er­a­ture needs to be con­trolled, hemmed in, fenced in, to be kept safe from those who would cor­rupt it, to pro­tect its purity, so that it can be read and dis­cussed, for exam­ple, with­out the taint of an overt polit­i­cal agenda. Or maybe it is to sug­gest that it’s us who need to be kept safe from lit­er­a­ture, because lit­er­a­ture has the power to move peo­ple to act, not just to think and to feel.

How­ever one under­stands the impulse to keep lit­er­a­ture out of the mate­r­ial real­ity of people’s lives, that impulse at its core is the impulse to cen­sor, to con­trol mean­ing and thereby to con­trol people’s imag­i­na­tions. Let me be clear, though: I am not accus­ing Sebas­t­ian of cen­sor­ship or of want­ing to cen­sor any­one. He is nei­ther mak­ing nor advo­cat­ing pol­icy in his com­ments on Alas; and let me be clear about some­thing else as well: I am talk­ing in this post about lit­er­a­ture, works that aspire to the level of art, the pur­pose of which is to explore human being and feel­ing, not – as pro­pa­ganda attempts, and is designed, to do – dic­tate it. I can imag­ine, for exam­ple, a pro­duc­tion of Seven Jew­ish Chil­dren that might qual­ify as pro­pa­ganda, one in which, say, the char­ac­ters were all wear­ing Nazi uni­forms and in which there was no irony to make that cos­tum­ing deci­sion any­thing other than a sim­ple equat­ing of Israel with Nazi Ger­many. I would not argue that such a pro­duc­tion should be cen­sored, but it is unam­bigu­ously a pro­duc­tion nei­ther I nor any­one I know would sup­port, no mat­ter how wor­thy the goal of fund rais­ing for Med­ical Aid for Pales­tini­ans might be – and from what I can tell that is a wor­thy goal. What if, though, the direc­tor of the play, the one who made the choice to put Nazi uni­forms on the actors, was Jew­ish, and let’s say he or she was mak­ing in this pro­duc­tion a seri­ous attempt to use that cos­tum­ing in an ironic way, as a ref­er­ence to the fact that the Jews – and I am assum­ing that the char­ac­ters in Seven Jew­ish Chil­dren are Jew­ish – who were the vic­tims in the Holo­caust, are now, in Israel, in the posi­tion of being an occu­py­ing oppres­sor, of vic­tim­iz­ing the Palestinians.[1. I wish I didn’t feel the need to add this foot­note, but I do: To make this ref­er­ence is, of course, not to deny that the Pales­tini­ans have also been guilty of vic­tim­iz­ing Israelis.] The point of the com­par­i­son, in other words, is not to say that Israel – and, by exten­sion, the Jews – are no dif­fer­ent from the Nazis, that the Israelis are com­mit­ting what is tan­ta­mount to geno­cide against the Pales­tini­ans, but rather to illu­mi­nate the dynamic by which vio­lence begets vio­lence, all too often turn­ing those who were vic­tims of vio­lence into per­pe­tra­tors of the kinds of vio­lence they suf­fered. Fur­ther, imag­ine that the pro­gram notes for this imag­i­nary pro­duc­tion make clear that it is intended to explore what it means that the vio­lence done by the Israelis to the Pales­tini­ans has become part of Jew­ish iden­tity, in the sense that if one is Jew­ish, one must be account­able in some way for one’s responses to that vio­lence. More­over, let’s even say that there is a note in the pro­gram explain­ing that the choice of Nazi uni­forms was because the Holo­caust, more than any other per­se­cu­tion the Jews have suf­fered, can stand for all the per­se­cu­tions through which the Jews have lived. The com­par­i­son to the Holo­caust per se, in other words, is not even the point. » Read the rest of this entry «

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.

Late last month, the Daily News pub­lished this arti­cle: Harry Pot­ter part of Zion­ist con­spir­acy, Iran­ian film claims. The ridicu­lous­ness of the video speaks for itself, and so, except for a cou­ple of points that I think bear mak­ing, I am loathe to spend too much time respond­ing to the analy­ses and accu­sa­tions the Iran­ian so-called experts make:

1. Note the sub­tle (and not so sub­tle) con­fla­tion of Jews with Zion­ists throughout.
2. Note as well the ref­er­ence to the idea of Jew­ish racial supremacy, which the film attrib­utes to the Zion­ists in a way that – at least as I read the trans­la­tion – could be read to sug­gest that the Jews (and not just the mem­bers of the pur­ported global Zion­ist con­spir­acy) do indeed believe in our own racial superiority.
3. Note the por­trayal of Judaism as a reli­gion of witch­craft and wiz­ardry, a trope that has a long his­tory in Euro­pean antisemitism.
4. Note the men­tion of Chris­t­ian Zion­ists, which I con­fess I almost missed. It’s inter­est­ing to think about the sig­nif­i­cance of that men­tion in light of the dis­cus­sion of Chris­t­ian Zion­ism in part one my anti­semtism series.

There are, I am sure, other things worth point­ing out. Please have at it.