Thursday, June 10, 2010
[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]
Apart from being Jewish and having lost family members in the Holocaust (why that should bestow credibility on anyone's analysis of Middle East history and politics I don't know but it seems to be the case), Tony Judt's chief claim to credibility as a critic of Israel is that he is a renowned historian of modern European and is therefore, one would imagine, capable of getting his facts right and arguing in a rigorous and convincing manner.
However, that's not what he does in this piece in the New York Times.
1.
Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist - that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain.
Basque nationalists, even those with the most extreme views, are indifferent to the existence of Spain, they just want to break away from it. None of them think that Madrid is the rightful capital of the Basque country or that Euskera should be spoken from Bilbao to Cadiz. Likewise with Flemish nationalists in Belgium, they only seek the dissolution of Belgium in so far as that would allow them to be shot of the Walloons; they don't want to send them "back" to France and establish themselves as the rulers of all the territory of what is now Belgium.
Of course, not all Palestinians want to replace Israel with Palestine, but Hamas most certainly does.
2.
Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is "the only democracy in the Middle East." This is largely true: the country has a constitution, an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today.
Israel doesn't have a constitution. And it would be nice to see some rational argument about the last claim.
3.
And we should not forget that Gaza is another "democracy" in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.
The Palestinian Legislative Council elections were held in 2006, not 2005. Gaza isn't independent from the rest of the Palestinian territories, its part of them. Hamas won a majority of the seats on the PLC in those elections but has no mandate to govern Gaza. And, according to the PA's Foreign Minister, far from being democratic, Hamas rule in Gaza might better be described as fascist.
4.
Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long - the easy victories of the country's early years are ingrained in folk memory - Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond.
The War of Independence cost Israel 6373 lives. The Sinai Campaign was indeed relatively cheap in blood but it was blood spilt entirely in vain. The Six Day War was a relatively easy victory but still, 778 soldiers lost their lives in less than a week. The Yom Kippur War was very nearly lost and cost 2688 lives. That's a funny idea easy victories.
5.
From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the "terrorists," thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table.
The Provisional IRA was allowed a graceful surrender in exchange for the early release of its prisoners. It's most senior members are now administering the state that they spent 30 years trying to destroy.
6.
And that's just factual errors. He also says,
But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism.
How can he know? How can anyone?
One can acknowledge Israel's right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or "post-Zionist").
Hmm, if you find think that statement makes sense try these: "I'm against self-determination for the Irish but Ireland has a right to exist.", "I'm in favor of a Basque state independent from Spain but I oppose the idea that there is a separate Basque people with the right to rule itself" and "I believe that there is an urgent need for a Palestinian state but that state can't be based on the various forms of Palestinian nationalism."
7.
We should beware the excessive invocation of "anti-Semitism."
Indeed we should. We should also be aware of attempts to to trivialize it or pretend it doesn't exist.
A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. "If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially 'anti-Semitic,' why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?" they ask, and "What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?" The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.
I don't want to go on too much about this but look at these two sentences: "The Gaza blockade is a grave error by Israel, causes unnecessary suffering and may be illegal" and "The Gaza blockade is yet another example of the intrinsic cruelty and heartlessness of the Jews, characteristics that they have displayed throughout their history." Clear?
Judt's last sentence is particularly troubling. It takes Jews, not "some Jews", to be deliberately seeking to distract attention from their own crimes by pointing to their past sufferings and warns of the possible consequences if they don't stop doing it. It would be interesting to know what Judt thinks those consequences might be. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he thinks that if Jews don't stop misbehaving someone is going to teach them a lesson they won't forget.
