Notes on Zionism, anti-semitism and Jewishness

Prepared for the Radical Activist Network (London), spring 2004

[In response to a discussion on Palestine, I prepared notes on some of the questions that had arisen relating to Judaism, Jews, Zionism, and anti-semitism. ]

The Israel lobby routinely deploys the charge of anti-semitism against supporters of the Palestinians, and uses the sufferings of Jews to justify Israel’s behaviour. It’s clearly of some tactical importance to strip the lobby of this fig-leaf. Beyond that, we in the Palestinian solidarity movement need a political analysis that is accurate – we have to know who our enemies are (and who they aren’t) if we’re to defeat them. Precisely because the champions of Israel (and opponents of the anti-war movement) seek to muddy the water, we have to be careful about definitions.

Nature of Palestine-Israel conflict

The Israel-Palestine issue is not a conflict between Jews and Muslims (20% of Palestinians are Christians and a few are Jews). It’s not a conflict between Jews and Arabs – many Jews are Arabs (Sephardim), though it isn’t the done thing in Israel to say that. It’s a conflict between the state of Israel (with its imperial sponsors) and the Palestinian people. It’s not about religion. It’s not about culture. It’s not “age old”; in fact, it’s relatively modern. It’s a conflict about power, property; rights. In other words, politics.

What is (and isn’t) anti-semitism?

Anti-semitism is that form of racism that targets Jews. Like other forms of racism, it can take ideological, psychological, personal, collective, cultural, or political expression; it can vary in degree and seriousness.

It’s an unsatisfactory term in some respects, derived from 19th century European racial theory (itself a construct of colonialism). This posited the existence of separate, genetically-distinct “races” – “aryan” being one, “semite” another. Semites were the peoples of the middle east – principally Arabs. But while there were few Arabs in 19th century Europe there were millions of Jews – and they were designated “semites”. So in any meaningful sense anti-semitism refers to racism against Jews. Jews were not and are not attacked because they’re “Semites” but because they’re Jews. It’s a confusing term, but we’re stuck with it.

Let’s try to define the parameters of anti-semitism

First, criticising the policies of the Israeli government or the behaviour of the Israeli state is not anti-semitic. Nor is an objection to Zionism as an ideology or a movement.

Israel is a nation-state and can be criticised like any other nation-state.

Zionism is an ideology and a political movement; it can be scrutinised and criticised and rejected like any like any ideology or political movement.

Jews and Judaism are not equivalent to Israel and Zionism. To accuse people of anti-semitism merely because they oppose either Israeli policy or Zionism is to cheapen the term and demean the debate.

It’s sometimes argued that it is anti-semitic to oppose Zionism because to do so denies to Jews the same right to self-determination and statehood that is granted to other peoples. There are a number of objections to this. Opposing the Khalistan demand does not make one anti-Sikh (otherwise most Sikhs would be “self-haters”). Statehood is not the only or best or even a justifiable option for all ethnic, religious, cultural groups – if it were, there would be even more states than there are, and more wars. Many Jews over the years have rejected Zionism because they believe the essence of Judaism cannot or should not be transposed into a nation-state. And of course a Jewish state is open to all the objections to any confessional or sectarian state of whatever religious denomination. (It should be noted that there have been forms of Zionism, known as cultural or religious Zionism, that did not advocate a Jewish state.)

Perhaps most important: as it has evolved, Zionism is not merely an ideology favouring a Jewish homeland or Jewish state in the abstract. It is an ideology and movement to build and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine – and in my view that always implied doing so at the expense of the Palestinians. Zionism is not only a nationalist ideology, it is also a colonial ideology.

(But it’s important to remember that Jews who subscribe to it do not consider it to be colonial; they believe that it’s justified in its own terms because of the historical experience of Jews: we need a refuge, a place of safety, and to deny ourselves that is to expose ourselves to annihilation as a people. The reasoning is in error, but it’s how many Jews feel.)

As Azmi Bishara pointed out, Palestinians are not so much anti-Zionist as anti-colonialist. Zionism just happens to be the specific form of colonialism that afflicted them. They have no feelings one way or another about a Jewish state except in so far as it has trampled on their rights and their lives.

I don’t want to get into the merits of the one state v two state solutions to the conflict. But two points worth noting:

1. Supporting a one state solution is not inherently anti-semitic and does not necessarily imply “driving all the Jews into the sea” A democratic and secular state in the whole of Palestine would enfranchise Jews, but not at the expense of others. There are today several million Jews living in Palestine and whatever we think of their ideology or conduct, they too are victims of history. They have the same human rights as anyone else, including religious and cultural rights, and these could and should be respected in a one state solution.

2. Supporting a two state solution does not necessarily make one a Zionist; many people subscribe to this remedy not because it’s their preferred option but because it seems the only realistic one or because they view it as a necessary first step.

So what IS anti-semitic?

The bombing of the synagogue in Istanbul. Any attack on a synagogue. Desecrating Jewish gravestones. Shouting “Death to the Jews!”. Downplaying or denying the holocaust. Positing a “Jewish conspiracy” as an explanation for government policies. Stereotyping Jews as rich, greedy, duplicitous, etc. (in my view the positive stereotype of the Jew as intellectual, hard-working, successful, responsible, etc. is simply anti-semitism turned on its head.)

More subtly, judging or making assumptions about anyone simply because she or he is Jewish.

Blaming all Jews, everywhere, for the policies of Israel, or even for its existence, is anti-semitic – it scapegoats an ethnic group in its entirety. Jews live all over the world and the great majority do not live in Israel. Being a Jew does not mean you are necessarily a Zionist or a supporter of Israel. And while it’s my belief that all Jews should speak out against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, this cannot be levied as a duty upon Jews, a condition of their acceptance, any more than it can be demanded of all Muslims that they publicly denounce 9/11 or suicide bombers. Jews don’t have to make anti-Zionist declarations or criticise Israel in order to be entitled to the respect and equal treatment due any group or individual. Moreover, while it may not be anti-semitic it is at best unfair to assume someone is ‘soft on Zionism’ or ‘soft on Israel’ simply because she or he is Jewish (many non-Jewish liberals are soft on Israel.)

It is true and fair to say that most Jews are sympathetic to Israel. It’s also true that sections of the diaspora provide important political and financial muscle to Israel. But the problem here is not that they are Jews but that their politics are rotten, and would be rotten, even if they were Christians or Muslims or Hindus (and, by the way, the Hindutva lobby in the USA has forged a partnership with the Zionists). To repeat: the problem here is politics, not ethnicity – it’s the right wing that uses the one to obscure the other. If we believe the oppression of the Palestinians (or the war on Iraq) are the result of an ethnic conspiracy, our struggle will fail.

At anti-war meetings since 9/11 I have on a very few occasions encountered anti-semitic ideas or sentiments. Let me give some examples: The myth that thousands of Jews were forewarned about the twin towers. (In some versions it’s ‘Israelis’, not ‘Jews’, but for me it still carries dangerous overtones). The claim that the US/UK supports Israel “because of Jewish money”. The insinuation that Jews are somehow behind the whole imperial project. I heard one person at a meeting refer to the pro-Israel stance of the New York Times and say, “Well, what can you expect, look who the publisher is.” (Publisher has Jewish name). In fact, in US terms, the Times is relatively critical of Israel and is routinely attacked by the Israel lobby as “pro-Palestinian”. In contrast, the Wall Street Journal, owned by non-Jews, is ferociously pro-Sharon. On another occasion I heard a student complaining about the college head’s interference in a meeting on Palestine; it was a fair complaint, but then she added: “You know, his name IS Greenberg.”

For the most part, what’s reflected here is confusion and naivete. Usually it’s not difficult to explain why the idea or language in question is illogical or misleading or offensive; in my experience most people readily accept the distinctions once they’re pointed out to them. But you do have to make the effort, have the discussion, challenge the prejudice… and it’s been disappointing that, too often, it seems to be only Jews who are willing to do that.

Palestine is an issue of conscience for the world and supporters of Palestine should not be intimidated by the anti-semitism charge. We should answer it robustly, but we will only be able to do so if we have made the effort to draw distinctions, to be precise in our criticism and analysis. It isn’t always easy to make these distinctions and to police these lines. Jews themselves don’t agree on how and where to draw them. Nonetheless, the effort has to be made – by all of us.

Of course the hatred felt towards oppressors by the immediate victims of oppression is something else. In the West Bank and Gaza, the oppressors are seen and known – and present themselves – as ‘Jews’. I don’t expect people being shot at, blown up, beaten, bulldozed, tortured, humiliated, blockaded, pauperised to make careful distinctions. The only remedy for their hatred of Jews is the end of the oppression they experience on a day to day basis.

Tam Dalyell’s comments

I respect Tam but think his remarks about Jewish influence in US and UK politics had to be challenged. I don’t believe they were motivated by any personal hatred for Jews but they did reflect an unthinking acceptance of anti-semitic mythology, notably the idea that the establishment is controlled by a “Jewish cabal” (a venerable fantasy). Tam identified a number of individuals as Jews simply because he thought that they had a Jewish forebear – regardless of whether they had been raised as Jews or identified themselves as such (or the influence of their non-Jewish forebears). Having made one set of unwarranted assumptions, he further assumed that it was the alleged Jewishness of these individuals that determined their political behaviour. In other words, he substituted an ethnic characterisation for a political analysis. He treated Jewishness as both a genetic and political trait. To his credit, Tam apologised for getting this wrong.

The “new anti-semitism”

A well-publicised school of thought insists that there is a “new anti-semitism” abroad (especially in Europe). These commentators claim that this new form of the old disease is a left/ Muslim strain as opposed to the familiar right/ Christian variety. They define as anti-semitic not only any objection to Zionism per se but also “excessive” criticism of Israel. Because they view left and Muslim opposition to Israel as “selective” (i.e. ‘why aren’t they protesting against all the other injustices in the world?’), in practise they attack all pro-Palestinian efforts as “anti-semitic”.

The “new anti-semitism” is a myth propagated by apologists for US imperialism. It conflates Jews with Zionism/ Israel; it denies or minimises the reality of Israeli oppression of Palestinians; it’s a tool designed to witch-hunt dissenters and obfuscate the debate. Really, for me, it evinces a shameful disrespect for the Jewish victims of persecution and genocide.

That does not mean that there is no anti-semitism or that anti-semitism in Europe and the Muslim world is not on the rise. It certainly does not mean that every concern about anti-semitism is bogus or politically motivated. Or that every one who raises such a concern belongs to the “new anti-semitism” school of falsification.

In Europe, there has been an increase in the number of anti-semitic incidents – mainly grave desecrations. It cannot be compared – in scale, intensity, or (crucially) in its relation to state power – to Islamophobia, by far the more widespread and virulent form of racism. However, it should be a principle for all of us that any form of racism is intolerable, and that we all have to remain vigilant and never drop our guard when it comes to racism in any form (or xenophobia, etc.). That means arguing with and challenging anti-semitism where and when it arises.

Traditionally, anti-semitism has been an insignificant factor in the Arab and non-western world. That is not to say that there was ever a golden age where Jews and Christians and Muslims all loved each other but that the relations among the various communities were not marked by systematic hostility and violence. Anti-semitism is basically a European creation.

Inevitably, anti-semitism accompanied imperialism and Zionism into the middle east. In recent years, some of the rhetoric of traditional European anti-semitism has resurfaced in parts of the Muslim and Arab world (the Protocol of the Elders of Zion, for example, a forgery of the Czarist secret police). This nonsense should be exposed and opposed rigorously – not only is it predicated on irrational racist hatred but it is strategically bankrupt: it lets imperialism off the hook. Get rid of all the Jews in America or Europe and the Muslim and Arab peoples will still be under the heal of imperialism and globalisation.

But it also has to be recognised that the principal cause of the rise in hatred of Jews is the behaviour of the state of Israel. That is not a justification or an excuse but a statement of fact – a painful fact for Jews. Israel commits its atrocities in the name of the Jews. IN OUR NAME. In these circumstances, the more Jews who speak out against Israel, who stand with the Palestinians, the more people across the world are likely to target their anger in the right direction. To the extent that the diaspora is seen to support Israel uncritically, anti-semitism is further strengthened – but never justified.

Hatred of Israelis

Is hatred of all Israelis or Israelis per se anti-semitic? Well, hatred of a whole people or citizenry is always irrational – and futile. Some of the bravest opponents of the Israeli state are Israelis. At the WSF, someone objected loudly to the presence of Michael Warshawski on the platform – simply because he was an Israeli. He is, in fact, one of the most trenchant, well-informed and consistent critics of Israel and Zionism … . which the great majority of people at the WSF meeting appreciated. Hatred of Israelis in general is something like hatred of Americans in general. It’s politically pointless and a very crude way of looking at any society.

Is Zionism racist and should Zionists be treated as racists?

Zionism does have racist implications because the Jewish homeland has been planted in another country, and claims are made on behalf of Jews over the other inhabitants. As a European settler-colonial project, Zionism shares the racist assumptions inherent in all such phenomena. And, in practise, it has frequently taken racist form.

But that doesn’t make it the same as the BNP. ‘No platforming’ Zionism is at best problematic… . and in practise has always backfired. There isn’t a consensus about the racist nature of Zionism, even among people sympathetic to the Palestinian cause; and it is perfectly possible to subscribe to variants of Zionism without being a racist, or at least any more of a racist than most white people in western societies.

Who or what is a Jew?

The nature of Jewish identity has been endlessly debated and will never be resolved. Jewishness may consist in faith, ritual observance, ideas, “culture”, social affiliations, respect for traditions, or none of these. Jewish communities have existed at one time or another in most parts of the world and we are a genetic hodge-podge. As a religion, Judaism has various strains, traditional and modern, progressive and reactionary; some of these are quite sharply opposed to each other. And while Jewishness has a rich variety of cultural expressions, it is not a single culture – there are separate sephardim and ashkenazi cultures, to name only the two broadest groupings. For some Jews, Jewishness is a vital ethical inheritance, for others a reaction to anti-semitism or a respect for parents and grandparents. For some, a way of life; for some, a mystical identity; for some, a social club.

Really, this doesn’t make Jews different from most “ethnic groups” – these, like “races”, are social constructions. Those people are Jews whom history has made Jews.

I was raised (by leftist parents) in the consciousness that I was a Jew. I attended Jewish Sunday school and was bar mitzvah. But I’ve never been a believer. And if I’m pushed to define my social identity, I’d have to say that Jewishness was only one part of it and that I’ve been shaped by other sources, traditions, experiences.

Here’s what’s decisive for me. According to Hitler and Israel, I’m a Jew – inescapably, because my forebears were Jews. Whatever my personal beliefs or practices, I’m a Jew. And therefore either to be incinerated or granted extraordinary privileges. I’m not going to repudiate the label; it belongs as much to me as anyone and to deny it is a betrayal of those who suffered for it and a concession to the racists. But I also don’t make what I consider to be another concession to the racists – to consider myself only a Jew or “essentially” a Jew. All our identities are multiple.

That’s just my feeling. I wouldn’t claim to speak for anyone else.

On the broader issue: It’s vital for the movement to understand that expressing Jewish identity or being concerned about the Jewish community does not make one a Zionist or an apologist for Israel. Expressions of Jewish identity – like Rosh Hashanah or Pesach – are not the exclusive property of the Zionists and the right-wing Jewish establishment. One of the Israel lobby’s big lies is that they speak for all the Jews, that Jewishness and Judaism belong to them alone.

Jews and Zionism

There is a Jewish tradition of opposition to Zionism and criticism of Israel – a tradition that was weakened for several decades following the birth of Israel but is now once again gathering strength.

To cut a long story very short, modern anti-semitism erupted across central and eastern Europe (and in France and Britain) in the later 19th century – at precisely the moment Jews were moving out of the ghettos, struggling for equality and participation in society. In some ways the crisis that gripped the diaspora from 1880 mirrors the crisis in the Muslim communities in Europe and North America today. The rise of anti-semitism prompted all kinds of responses – ideological, political, spiritual, personal and collective. One of these responses was political Zionism.

Zionism is a European nationalism – based on making an analogy between Jews and Italians, Czechs, Poles, Greeks, etc. As such it was always problematic … . Where was our country, our territory? To find a country the Jewish nationalists had to fall back in theory on the Bible and in practise on colonialism.

Historically, Jews had been subject to special restrictions and formally denied equal rights in every European country until the French revolution. In the late 19th century, the greatest concentration of Jews was in the Czarist empire, where they were subject to a wide array of residential and occupational restrictions, and were victims of racist violence, frequently sponsored by the state. Anti-semitic ideas were widely propagated and enjoyed extensive support in mainstream European culture. There were anti-semitic movements and attacks on Jews in France, Britain and the USA, but of course the culmination of this was the systematic extermination of six million Jews by one of Europe’s most advanced capitalist states.

Until 1945, most Jews rejected the Zionist analysis – which was that anti-semitism was a permanent feature of non-Jewish societies, could not be challenged, and the only solution was a separate Jewish homeland. In Europe and North America, the bulk of Jews struggled to achieve equality as a minority group within larger societies. Many Jews went further and worked to change those societies as a whole, for the betterment of all minorities and oppressed people. Most Jews thought the “back to the Holy Land” types were irrelevant eccentrics – something like Back to Africa preachers among diaspora black communities.

Historically, anti-Zionism was a Jewish ideology long before the rest of the world had thought about the issue. Eminent Jews who rejected or criticised political Zionism included not only the Marxists Trotsky and Rosa Luxembourg, but also Freud, Einstein, Martin Buber (mystic philosopher) and Judah L. Magnes (founder of Hebrew University).

However, the holocaust profoundly altered the balance of Jewish opinion. While most Jews still did not want to emigrate to Palestine, they did now believe it was necessary for there to be, somewhere, a Jewish nation-state, a place of last resort, a refuge. The tragedy was that the Palestinians were made to pay the bill owed by Europe and North America (which had failed to aid the Jews in their hour of need).

From the 1960s on, Israeli propaganda within diaspora communities has been intense and unremitting and sometimes astonishingly ruthless. Anyone who steps out of line is a ‘self-hater’ or a ‘traitor’ to his people. Nonetheless, more and more Jews are stepping out of line and speaking up. The growth of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other groups, as well as Jewish participation in the broader Palestinian solidarity movement, is a hugely heartening development – for all of us. It needs to be nurtured, not undermined by careless or insensitive behaviour. I say this not because I feel that the sensibilities of Jews in the movement need special protecting but because Jewish opposition to Israel is among the most effective forms of opposition to Israel – it helps strip the mask from the oppressor’s face. And, of course, because Jews are entitled to the same respect as anyone else in the movement.

Jews and the left

When Jews haven’t been stereotyped as capitalists, they’ve been stereotyped as Reds and lefties. There is a long and rich tradition of Jewish left thought and action – Marx, Trotsky, Noam Chomsky, Abbie Hoffman, Bob Dylan… the fact that most of these people did not write or act specifically as or for Jews, but rather as and for the human race as a whole, marks them out as what Isaac Deutscher proudly called “non-Jewish Jews” – the Jews who belonged more to humanity than to their tribe. Throughout most of the 20th century, Jews in Europe and North America have been disproportionately committed to the labour movement and the causes of social justice. And though that tradition is now weaker than it was, partly as a result of the influence of Zionism, it still exists. There’s nothing mystical about it and nothing genetic – it emerges from the particular historical experiences that shaped European Jewry.

Some would trace it further back, to the prophets of the Old Testament, but much as I value their tradition, I don’t think it explains the Jewish presence on the modern left. My own view is that almost all the things people have admired in Jewish culture – critical thought, ironic humour, ethical universality, intellectuality, experiment, individualism – are the products of the movement out of the ghettos, away from Rabbincal governance, a result of the encounter between a marginal and oppressed people and an emergent and volatile modern society.

There are some Jewish traditions that are rooted in social justice and others that are not: much of “classical” Orthodoxy involves contempt for and discrimination against non-Jews, not to mention second-class treatment of women. Don’t trust anyone who claims that his tradition is the sole inheritor, the one authentic version – Jewish traditions are as diverse and contradictory as those of other religions.

Somewhat off-topic… a few thoughts about “religion” and “secularism”

Marxism has often tended to treat religion as entirely instrumental – i.e. a tool of the ruling class to dupe or dope or deceive the masses. “You’ll get pie in the sky when you die… ” Without doubt, religion has served that function throughout history and still does. But that is not all there is to religion. There are and always have been other religious traditions – anti-state, egalitarian, revolutionary, humanist, universalist, etc. Conversely, there are atheist traditions that have proved as repressive as the most reactionary religions. And I don’t think atheists should deny or decry the fact that some forms of religion have brought comfort, consolation, inspiration, moral guidance, valuable avenues of self-expression to huge numbers of human beings. The two most important and visionary leaders of the African-American freedom struggle of the 1960s, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, were both inspired by deeply held religious beliefs, by faith. They took that faith into the world; they worked with people who did not share it, they attacked people who did share it, but they never abandoned it. And in both cases it widened rather than narrowed down their view of the world and deepened their political radicalism (though the same faiths have had opposite affects on many others).

“Religion” is a multi-faceted social phenomenon. Faith, ritual, identity, culture, ideology, custom. Secularism should not be defined as its opposite.

As an atheist and secularist, I’m not convinced that secular atheism has all the answers to life’s mysteries. And those of us who advocate it must concede that at times it has assumed debased and authoritarian forms. As I understand it, the secular ideal does two things. 1. It guarantees and safeguards freedom to worship or not worship, believe or not believe, as each individual sees fit; 2. It establishes a common public space in which our common concerns can be discussed and debated in shared, democratic terms (not that these are always easy to define).

In so far as secularism is projected or practised as a “Western ideology”, it will fail to fulfil either mission. Historically (big over-simplification coming) secularism emerges on the human scene from two directions. In the west, from the struggle for religious freedom and toleration (Protestantism). In the south, out of anti-colonial struggles – as a necessary uniting principle against a common oppressor.