Home >> Middle East >> Israel

     Email   Print 

The Jewish Divide Over Israel

Eugene Schulman - 5/6/2006

Franklin Roosevelt, in an address before the American Bookseller's Association in 1942, said that books are weapons. Adolf Hitler certainly believed they were. He so feared books that he found it necessary to burn them. Books can be used for many purposes: entertainment, learning, propaganda, or even as doorstops. But above all, they are weapons.

A book that recently caught this writer's attention certainly fits the last category. I would even call it a weapon of mass destruction. "The Jewish Divide Over Israel - Accusers and Defenders", edited by Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, is a book of essays that attacks "Jewish liberals and radicals" for daring to criticize Israel and its policies. I first came upon this book in an advertisement that appeared in the Times Literary Supplement featuring articles on Jewish themes. The ad was placed as a sidebar to these articles by Transaction, which refers to itself as the Publisher of Record in International Social Science. I wish to cite the publishers blurb in full:

"Before 1967, Israel had the overwhelming support of world opinion. So long as Israel's existence was in harmony with politically correct assumptions, it was supported, or at least accepted, by the majority of "progressive" Jews, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. This is no longer the case. 'The Jewish Divide Over Israel' explains the role played by prominent Jews in turning Israel into an isolated pariah nation. The essays in this book seek to understand and throw back the assault on Israel led by such Jewish liberals and radicals as Tony Judt, Noam Chomsky, George Steiner, Daniel Boyarin, Mark Ellis, Israel Shahak, and many others."

The "others" who are accused, but not mentioned in the blurb, are such prominent names as Michael Lerner, Seymour Hersh, Norman Finkelstein, Thomas Friedman and Benny Morris.

It is easy to understand how one can be misled, as I believe I was, into thinking that this would be a book showing both sides of the divide, with essays by the accusers and by the accused. Indeed, there are essays by the accused, which are all previous writings published elsewhere, and over many years. But these essays are not included in this book. They are merely cited and used as targets for the accusers to take pot shots at. There are no rebuttals by the accused. Of what are the accused accused? Anti-Semitism!

Anti-Semitism has been been with us since the beginning of time. Or at least since the time beginning with the Christian era. There is no need to explain how it came about or even to recount its history over the past two thousand years. For most of that history anti-Semitism was focused within the tradition of Western culture. During the Ottoman Empire, Jews were certainly second class citizens, but they were not oppressed as they were in the west. Jews and Muslims lived side by side in a comfortable symbiosis: Muslims ruling, Jews serving. There was little antagonism, and both were free to exercise their spiritual traditions.

In Europe, from Iberia to the Urals, Jews have been the scapegoats for all of society's ills: war, pestilence, economic crises, even natural disasters, culminating during the Second World War with the Holocaust. With the founding of Israel in 1948 following years of Zionist preparation, it was thought that, finally, with a nation of their own, Jews would now be able to live in peace. Many survivors of the Holocaust elected to move to Israel to partake of that peace. Many decided that they could remain in their homes in Europe and the United States, where overt and institutionalized anti-Semitism would now be a thing of the past.

Israel, however, was born in violence. The Jews who had pioneered the country decided that the State of Israel had to be a Jewish state. The indigenous Arab population who had lived in Palestine for centuries objected to the imposition of a foreign culture in their midst and fought tooth and nail to prevent the founding of this new state. But with international western support, the Jews prevailed, and the State of Israel was founded and officially recognized. Most of the Palestinian Arab population was displaced and consigned to refugee camps. The surrounding Arab states sympathized with the Palestinians and, intermittently, have gone to war with Israel, in the hope that they could drive the Jewish state out of their midst and free the Palestinians to return to what they believe is their homeland. All of these wars have been won, with the complicity of Western powers, by Israel. The lands won in these wars have been occupied by Israel, to the frustration and detriment of the Palestinians, who continue in their attempts to destroy their enemy. Such is the situation at this moment in history.

Not everyone agrees, however, that the founding of Israel was a good thing. Many in the west, including many Jews, believed that a non-secular state was not the answer to Jewish existence, believing, rather, that Jews should assimilate into the countries of their origin. Many also agreed that by the founding of the new state, the Palestinians had been treated unjustly. Consequently, over the years, many European and American intellectuals (and non-intellectuals), many of them secular Jews, have sympathized with the Palestinians and have been highly critical of Israel and its policies. Even many Israelis, themselves, have sympathized and been critical of their country's policies toward the Palestinians. Debates, through articles and books, symposiums, electronic media, a full culture war, have been raging for years.

The most egregious essay (for me) in this book is the one written by Assif Sagiv titled "George Steiner's Jewish Problem." It is a reprint of an essay originally published in the summer 2003 issue of a magazine called "Azure, Ideas for the Jewish Nation."

"I have known George Steiner for over thirty years. I have audited his courses in Shakespeare and his poetry seminars at the University of Geneva when he taught there. He was a regular customer in my bookshop, and I was privileged to be his guest at the opening of his play "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H." when it premiered in London. I have read every book he has written. I have lunched or dined with him on many occasions and have had many discussions with him about many subjects. I have never considered that George Steiner might have a Jewish problem. And I doubt whether George, himself, thinks he has one. Steiner has indeed been critical of Israeli policies. I think he even believes that Jews might be better off assimilating into the culture of the countries of which they are citizens. And I know of very few people who are as erudite as he on Jewish culture, history, religion. In other words, I believe he knows wherefrom he speaks when he writes on Jewish themes.

Sagiv seems to find examples of Steiner's anti-Semitism throughout many of his writings, and he spends many words citing them. The main target of Sagiv's attack on Steiner is the fictional novel, "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.," subsequently adapted as a play. This novel tells the story of a group of Israeli Nazi hunters who have found Hitler hiding out in a South American country and who wish to bring the Jewish nemesis to trial in San Cristobal. The most important, dramatic episode in the book is Hitler's speech in defense of himself, in which he sees himself as a messianic figure in Jewish history. It is a very long speech and, although worthy of repetition, I shall not do so here. Needless to say, in the eyes of Jewish critics, the novel is one of Steiner's most controversial works. It would be a great pleasure to defend Steiner against the charges of antisemitism, but I think he is quite capable and certainly better qualified to do so than I. I only wish the editors of this book had given him the opportunity. On the other hand, he might find that this essay is not worth dignifying with a reply. That would be a shame because, although I feel this is a very one-sided book, it is also a very important one which should be read if only to understand to what lengths the Israel lobby is prepared to skewer the truth in defense of their state.

George Steiner is not the only one this book castigates. Noam Chomsky, every liberal's favorite radical and anti-Israel writer, also comes in for punishment. Norman Finkelstein who has written on the Holocaust and whose most recent book, "Beyond Chutszah," is an attack on Alan Dershowitz, one of the Israels most famous propaganda artists. Dershowitz has written a book called "The Case for Israel," and Finkelstein takes him to task for lying and faking statistics and history in defense of Israel. Finkelstein also complains about "the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history". He accuses the Jewish lobby of shouting "anti-Semitism!" whenever the Israelis are criticized for their policies. The lobby just cannot accept the fact that Israel can do wrong and, therefore, be judged on their actions, Thus, all criticism is equated with anti-Semitism.

But what is the motivating force behind anti-Semitism today? For years, ever since the fall of Nazism, anti-Semitism has been taboo and politically incorrect. If there does exist a long standing anti-Semetic sensibility among some peoples, a tight lid has been kept on it. Institutional anti-Semitism as existed in Germany and the former Soviet Union has become extinct. However, overt anti-Semitism has arisen with the antagonisms between Israel and its Arab (Muslim) neighbors. But the real animosity is against Israel. Because Israel is a Jewish state, and Judaism is its official religion, its neighboring Arab enemies equate all Jews with Israel and thus, they too, are enemies. The rise in recent years of ant-Semitism in Europe is not of the kind that existed prior to World War II. There has been a massive increase of Muslim immigration to Europe since the war, originally as a result of the need for guest workers to fill labor shortages. Many of these immigrants have remained in Europe, bringing their families with them.

Other circumstances, such as the French-Algerian war, and the desire on the part of the unemployed in their native lands to seek work in the West, or even the oppressed from these same lands seeking a freer life. Whatever the causes, there are now millions of Muslim believers residing in the European Union - Spain, France, Germany, Britain and elsewhere. Most are now citizens, as much as three generations worth, of the countries in which they now live. But their religious and cultural sympathies are for the people with whom they share roots. If the roots are against Israel, and Israel is Jewish, they are also against Jews. Thus, the anti-Semitism that has arisen in Europe is expressed by the immigrants, numbering many more than the indigenous population who might still harbor some smoldering anti.Semitism. Just think: if Israel did not exist today, or even if it were not a Jewish state, there might be no anti-Semitism ! I am not suggesting for a moment that Israel should cease to exist. But what if it didn't?

Many of the "Jewish liberals and radicals" accused in "The Jewish Divide Over Israel" have dared to think just this. Noam Chomsky who has expressed his antagonism toward Israel for years, believes that Israel is an artificial state created by the Western powers to do their bidding in the Middle East. Without the backing of the United States, for example, Israel would not have come into being. And without the financial aid and military assistance that the US has poured into that country, it would not survive today. Of course, Chomsky has long accused the US of being a military empire with its eyes on control of the world's natural resources. For him, the creation of the state of Israel is merely an extension of US designs. In light of recent history, i.e., the usurpation of power in the US by the neoconservative cabal, it is easy to sympathize with him.

Arthur Koestler, a much maligned thinker, once wrote a book called "The Thirteenth Tribe" in which he reports a theory that the Ashkinazi Jews of Europe were not descended from the original twelve tribes of Israel, but were, in fact, a people living in a part of the world that would now be included in Russia, called the Khazars. As the story goes, the Khazars were a mighty warrior tribe living in the seventh century, during the time that the nascent Muslim empire was trying to move in and take over Europe. At the same time Christian Spain was moving toward the east with her eyes on the same prey. Both of these opposing empires attempted to woo the Khazars to join forces with them in opposition to the other. Overtures were made to the king of the Khazars who, after studying the two enemies, decided he wanted no part of either, nor Islam nor Christianity. His solution was to convert to Judaism. For nearly a century the Khazars held forth, but were eventually defeated, upon which they dispersed throughout what is now eastern and central Europe. Hence, the people from whom European Jews descend, the converted Khazars, are known as the thirteenth tribe. I tell this story, probably apocryphal, not because it is interesting in itself, rather to show how Koestler was ostracized and accused of apostasy because of it. Koestler did not invent the theory, nor did he claim it valid. He was merely describing it. He was even concerned that some readers might take it as reason that Israel should not exist, because it was founded not by a people returning to their homeland, but by invaders who had no biblical claim to the land. In an afterword to the book, he explained exactly this. Unfortunately, and in spite of the afterword, some readers did use this story as a validation of their belief that Israel should not have been founded.. Much to my own dismay. In the course of a business trip to Saudi Arabia, I had occasion to meet with the prince Mohamed al Faisal, the son of the assassinated king, at his home outside of Riyadh. The meeting took place in his library, in which, during a recess, I was able to browse through his collection of Modern Library books, and fell upon a copy of Koestler's book. I asked the prince what he thought of it and he told me exactly what Koestler had feared; proof that Israel has no right to exist. Alas. Of course, the book was viciously attacked by all Jews who support Israel, calling Koestler a liar and apostate. I would be surprised if the editors of "The Jewish Divide" would not also be on his ass, if he were alive.

The Israel lobby, domiciled mostly in the US, has great political influence. Rather than try to explain just how powerful it is, and why, I will refer to an article, published recently in the London Review of Books (www.lrb.co.uk): "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard. In this article, which has aroused strong criticism, the authors describe how US foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Especially in the Middle East, where the Bush Administration has been attempting to transform the region into a community of democracies (sic). The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. However, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially the activities of the "Israel Lobby." No other other lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially the same. The article describes how the Lobby has accomplished this feat,and how its activities have shaped America's actions in the region. This is a very disturbing analysis of a very disturbing relationship.

In order to strengthen their influence, the Israel lobby has aligned itself in an alliance with another powerful movement in the United States; the right wing Christian Coalition. These Christian evangelists believe that Israel is the promised land where the Messiah shall one day return, and thus favor the continued support of Israel. Paradoxically, according to the "rapture" theory that evangelists believe in, the Jews will have to convert before they can be accepted into heaven. A devil's pact if there ever was one.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from this article a statement attributed to David Ben-Gurion, a former prime minister of Israel:

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country...We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"