Go to source
Zionism, like capitalism, is losing its aura
of beneficence and inevitability, as its fangs become harder to hide.
Israel is not the Upper West Side overseas. (No matter what many people on the
Upper West Side may like to think.) It is a violently racist colonial
enterprise, with all the ideological and practical viciousness that
implies.
This is the implicit conclusion of Max Blumenthal's
latest book,
Goliath: Life and Loathing
in Greater Israel, based on four years of reporting in Israel, which has
touched a raw and festering nerve in the American liberal community.
Chris
Hedges, who spent seven years as a correspondent in the Middle East,
including Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, calls
Goliath "one of the most fearless and honest books ever written
about Israel. Blumenthal burrows deep into the dark heart of Israel."
By "racist," I mean, first of all, fundamentally ethno-religious supremacist: The
inescapable premise of Zionism is that the lives, property, security, fears,
hopes, and aspirations -- all that constitutes the humanity -- of Jewish settlers in historic Palestine trumps that of
the indigenous non-Jewish population. Of
course, this kind of supremacism is inevitably unconfined. Until the next plane hits a building, Americans
-- even American liberals -- might not be overly discomfited by the discounting
of Arab Palestinians' humanity, but Israeli Zionism is becoming increasingly
"racist" in a sense that Americans can easily recognize, and liberal Americans
not so easily dismiss:
Send them to the
camps! Oops, I mean "accommodation centers."
Notice the curious locution. Africans fleeing oppression are not refugees,
they are
infiltrators, "an
enemy
state of infiltrators." They (along with Israeli dissidents, if former
MK (member of parliament) Yulia Shmuelov-Berkowitz has her way) will be sent to the
Saharonim detention facility, which Max Blumenthal
tells us, is "a vast matrix of watchtowers, concrete
blast walls, razor wire, and surveillance cameras that now comprise what
the British
Independent has
described as "the world's
biggest detention center.'" Deluxe "accommodations."
As that roundup proceeds apace, the Israeli government will
also be executing the Prawer Plan, a scheme, as Blumenthal describes it
on
TomDispatch, for
"the expulsion of 40,000 indigenous Bedouin
citizens of Israel from their ancestral Negev Desert communities." These
citizens
of Israel are being herded into "American-Indian-reservation-style
towns constructed by the Israeli government,"
and
"small
Jews-only communities will be constructed on the remnants of the evicted
Bedouin communities." The organization coordinating Jewish settlement in the
Negev actually
refers to this, without irony or shame, as a project
"to concentrate the Bedouin population." Chilling.
Citizens of Israel, forcibly removed and "concentrated" -- because, as Blumenthal
says, "As the fastest growing group among the Palestinian citizens of
Israel, the Bedouins have been designated as an existential threat to Israel's
Jewish majority." Did I mention, citizens
of Israel?
Looks like we have to turn for a moment to address the
rather complicated Zionist construction of "citizenship" vs. "nationality." In
Israel, citizenship is not the same thing as nationality, and having the same citizenship does not mean
having the same rights.
Every Israeli citizen
carries an identity card on which is marked their nationality. The state ID categorizes your nationality as either
"Arab" or "Jewish," and it is your nationality, not your citizenship, that
determines your rights and entitlements within Israel, the Jewish State.
No one in Israel carries an identity card identifying them as
"Israeli," because
there is no such thing as Israeli
"nationality." In fact the courts have strictly forbidden Israeli Jews from
changing their nationality to "Israeli" (
here
and
here). As one judge pointed out: --a ruling on
the existence of an Israeli nationality would have far reaching and crucial
implications for the identity of the state, its character and its
future." Recognizing an "Israeli
nationality" would undermine the whole structure of
ethnic
discrimination/supremacism. (Based, it should be said, on an entirely fictional
"ethnicity," since, as Shlomo Sand has shown, there's a good case that
the Palestinians are the Jews,
that Palestinian Arabs are more likely the descendants of the original inhabitants
of ancient Judea than are the Ashkenazi Jews who were the vanguard of Zionism.)
As Tali Shapiro, "a rail-thin writer and activist who could
have passed for any other glamorous Tel Aviv bohemian," explained to
Blumenthal: "There is no such thing as an Israeli nationality. According to the
Interior Ministry, you are either Jewish or Arab. Your citizenship [even she's
caught up by the confusion, meaning "effective citizenship"] is defined here by
the ethnicity, and your privileges are afforded to you accordingly. That's the
basis of apartheid." (Heavens! The "A"-word,
from an Israeli Jew. No wonder, as she says: "They call me a yafeh nefesh now, That means a beautiful
soul or a do-gooder. It is one of the biggest insults in Israel.") Tali here
echoes Uri Avnery: "Israel is a "Nation
state' of the Jews, and therefore it has the right to do anything that serves
Jews and harms non-Jews, even when they are Israeli citizens."
Thus, any Jew,
living anywhere in the world, can come to the "Nation-state of the Jews," get
an Israeli citizen's identity card imprinted with their Jewish nationality, and
be instantly endowed with full rights
and entitlement by the state of Israel; whereas, no Arabs, even those born and
living all their lives as "citizens" of the state of Israel, have the same set
of rights as Jewish n
ationals. What are some of the rights that
Jewish nationality confers that Israeli citizenship doesn't? Little things, like the right to get land (the
Land Authority holds 93% of Israel's land for the Jewish nation), and, oh yeah,
the
right
to
get
married.
It is not
Israeli-ness (citizenship), but Jewishness (nationality), defined by the
Orthodox rabbinate as a matter of ethnicity (kinship and descent trumping even
religious conviction), that is the marker of full rights in Israel. Every
Israeli understands this, though few Americans do. This convoluted discursive
and legal structure, enforced through the passbook identity card, is
necessary to police the ethnic boundaries in a situation where the people who
are supposed to be so essentially different often look very much
alike. The confusion, in which a category of equal, but trivial,
citizenship masks the category of unequal, and substantively significant,
nationality, also helps to market Israel to Americans and Europeans as some
kind of "democratic" polity like theirs.
But it really isn't the Upper West Side.
Back to the Bedouins, and the plan for their "concentration."
As Blumenthal points out: "being born in Israel as non-Jews relegated them " to
something like Type D citizenship, if not in letter, then in practice. Though
many of them served with distinction in the army as elite trackers who helped
regular units through densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip, engendering
widespread resentment from Palestinians in the process, the state has always
treated them as criminal invaders who had no property rights on their own land." Not only Israeli citizens, but elite forces
who gave important service to the IDF. Not good enough. Wrong nationality. Eligible for expulsion.
Per Avnery, the "Nation
state of the Jews," doing what "serves
Jews and harms non-Jews, even when they are Israeli citizens."
Please take a look at
this video of the plan in
action, and think hard about what American Zionist liberalism makes possible:
Note well that this is not about "the occupation." As Blumenthal points
out, this ethnic cleansing is taking place "well behind the Green Line " and
inside the part of Israel that will be legitimized under a U.S.-brokered
two-state solution." These practices are not an unfortunate effect of the
post-1967 occupation, which has somehow tainted a previously innocent Zionist
project. They are fundamental to the Zionist project per se, which must
look upon any significant community of non-Jews within Israel as an incipient "enemy
state of infiltrators":
The maintenance of the Jewish state demands the engineering of a
demographic majority of nonindigenous Jews and their dispersal across historic
Palestine through methods of colonial settlement. "Because indigenous
Palestinians and foreign migrants are not Jews, the state of Israel has legally
defined most of them as "infiltrators," mandating their removal and permanent
relocation to various zones of exclusion.
There's a reason why, as Blumenthal remarks: "Western media consumers
will find details about the Prawer Plan and the Saharonim camp hard to come by."
That is because it's the US government's unconditional political,
financial, and military support of Israel and the Zionist project which makes all
this possible; and because that support itself depends on the overt or implicit
(silence is enough!) assent of
Zionist-tolerant American liberals and their conservative Christian Zionist
confrà ¨res.
The liberals, for long the strongest linchpin, are becoming
the weak link here.
Thanks in large part to the new voices of intellectually and
ethically consistent progressive American Jews like Blumenthal, and Philip
Weiss (and his colleagues at
Mondoweiss),
following on the long-standing work of thinkers like Noam Chomsky and Norman
Finkelstein, American progressives are coming to realize that that Israel is, without
exaggeration, more like the Jim Crow South at its worst than the Upper West
Side. It's a polity fighting a nasty battle to maintain Jewish (which turns out
to look an awful lot like White) privilege.
Liberals are realizing, too, that this supremacist and
anti-democratic dynamic is intrinsic to Zionism. As former MK Michael Ben-Ari
put it in the clip above: "Our country is a Jewish State. A Jewish and
democratic state. It's a very delicate balance. In some cases, the two
contradict each other."
Ya think? Rayyan Al-Shawaf summed it up succinctly on
Mondoweiss: "Israel has already subverted its democracy
for the sake of maintaining its Jewishness." Actually, Zionism intrinsically
subverts democracy for the sake of Jewishness.
American liberals, who delight in loudly and proudly
excoriating the racism of reactionary Republican attitudes toward voting rights
and immigrations, don't like to think of themselves as being part of an
inherently anti-democratic and supremacist political project, built on ethnic
cleansing. Well, Blumenthal
makes
quite clear that "the philosophy of Zionism as applied in historic
Palestine is a recipe for ethnic cleansing." That now-undeniable fact, along
with scenes like those in Blumenthal's video of the anti-African street rally,
and in this video, taken in in Tel Aviv in 2009, and filled with ranting about
Obama, presents Zionism's association with the kind of racist arrogance that
identity-politics liberals cannot ignore:
Along with scenes like this, what Blumenthal calls "the
Republicanization of pro-Israel support," in which we see billionaire Republicans
and Christian Zionists becoming the staunchest base of support for Israel, may
also help erode liberal Zionism. This is not the company liberals like to keep.
To be clear, I'm not talking here about liberal politicians.
Stalwart Zionism has been, and remains, a hallmark of Democratic-party
liberalism (including
Bernie
and
Elizabeth).
I'm talking about the sincere base of
progressives, the "beautiful souls and do-gooders" like Tali, who are coming to
understand how rotten the old political formulae and allegiances are, and who are
willing to consider radical alternatives. We are far from the end of liberal
Zionism, but we are, I think, in the midst of its erosion.
I also think that progressive Americans are becoming less
intimidated. Everyone knows that the vast majority of (and certainly of the
most extreme) Zionists in the world and in the US are not Jewish (and many are
in fact anti-Semitic), and that many of the strongest anti-Zionist and
critical-Zionist voices are Jewish. There is no critique of Zionism that is not
being fiercely debated in Israel, in American Jewish communities, and in the
world at large -- with no holds barred, including the A-word. The only people
being kept out of this debate are the general American populace, which also
happens to be paying for Zionism, in so many ways. Given the US-Israel "special
relationship" (which in practice means America's unconditional financial and
military support of Israel), every American, including the 97% who are
gentiles, has not only the right but the responsibility to think and speak up
about, the colonial policies in which we are all implicated. Critical- and anti-Zionist American gentiles
and Jews have as much right to be heard on the atrociousness of those policies
as their Christian Zionist cousins have to proclaim their glory.
The fear of Zionist politicians and opinion managers, especially
in the context of domestic socio-economic crisis, is that, when American
liberals see Zionism for what it is -- when they realize that
Benjamin
Netanyahu ("mass expulsions among the Arabs of the Territories [is] a policy
that I proposed, and which I still propose should be implemented.") is
infinitely more racist and murderous than, say, George Zimmerman -- they will
increasingly withdraw their support from this enterprise, and their tolerance of
their government's unconditional military and political support of Israel.
Which is why the media goes to great lengths not to let them see it. (YouTube
made Blumenthal take down that last video. Of course, someone put it back up,
for the moment.)
As Blumenthal describes, in a
Democracy
Now interview, his motive for writing
Goliath:
"I was most surprised at the banality of the racism and violence that I
witnessed and how it's so widely tolerated because it's so common"And I'm most
surprised that it hasn't made its way to the American public ... that's why I
set out to do this endeavor, this journalistic endeavor, to paint this intimate
portrait of Israeli society for Americans who don't see what it really
is."
What it really is, as
Blumenthal recounts, is: "'Twelve [years old] and up, you are allowed to shoot.
That's what they tell us,' an Israeli sniper told Haaretz correspondent
Amira Hass in 2004 at the height of the Second Intifada "'This is according to what the IDF [Israel
Defense Force] says to its soldiers. I do not know if this is what the IDF says
to the media,' the sniper was quoted as saying."
What it really is, is IDF soldiers getting "rabbinical
guidance on the rules of engagement" in a book that says: "There is justification for killing babies if
it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may
be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults"; and that
the commandment against murder "refers only to a Jew who kills a Jew, and not
to a Jew who kills a gentile, even if that gentile is one of the righteous among
nations."
What it really is, is "Unarmed civilians .. torn to pieces with flechette darts sprayed from
tank shells; several other children covered in burns from white-phosphorous
chemical weapon rounds," a few "found dead with bizarre wounds after being hit
with experimental Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) bombs designed to dissolve
into the body and rapidly erode internal soft tissue."
What it really is, is the inexorable logic, and ethic, of
colonialism, whose pretty garments burn off in the light of day.
Blumenthal's own trajectory was profoundly affected by those
images of unarmed civilians in Operation Cast Lead. He gives us another emblematic story of
transformation, that of David
Sheen, whose profile matches millions of North American Jewish liberals. Sheen had
grown up in Toronto, "heavily immersed in the tribalistic culture of Zionism." He
had also "cultivated strong leftist views through his participation in
anti-globalization protests." Like a million others: "With every other issue besides
Israel, I was on the left side of the spectrum. I was a PEP -- a Progress Except
for Palestine." As Blumenthal recounts, however: "Within a month of arriving in
Israel, that began to change. He realized that everything he had known about
Israelis and Palestinians was a fantasy cultivated through years of heavy
indoctrination."
Truth is, in the 21st century, there is no such
thing as "Progressive Except Palestine Colonialism" any more
than there was "Progressive Except Birmingham" in 1963. Those who
don't get that, eventually will. Progressives can no longer pretend that
Zionism-as-colonialism, the elephant in the room, is something we just
can't bother talking about, something not great but OK, something tolerable,
not that bad. It's not that bad; it's worse. And it's unavoidable -- something
we cannot avoid taking a position on. Silence gives assent.
That is why Max Blumenthal's work may well turn out to be a
decisive turning point in the American narrative about Israel and Zionism, an intervention
that brings us much closer to the day when a critical mass of liberals and
progressives do finally get it. His
videos bring the full, decrepit body of Zionism into the light of day, and Goliath threatens to drive a stake
through the heart of liberal Zionist mythology. It is therefore being furiously
ignored by the gatekeepers of mainstream American culture. But that's
not going to work either, in the 21st century.
Furthermore, Blumenthal's previous book, Republican
Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, was a from-the-inside
critique of the Republican Party, that was hailed as sly and righteous by American
liberals. So when, in Goliath, he
drops the dime on Israel and Zionism with another from-the-inside critique -- quite
a bomb indeed -- it may be considerably more discomfiting to the liberal
audience (most of whom would just rather not), but it cannot be entirely
ignored.
So
Goliath is also
being furiously attacked by the gatekeepers of liberal Zionism, by those who,
as a self-identified "Israeli, American, and Orthodox" Jewish studies professor
put
it: "can't accept the unstated conclusion of the reportage that some of the
fundamental problems of Israel are not due to a bunch of right-wing religious
fanatics and nationalist Russians -- not even due to Bibi and his crowd -- but,
on the contrary, to core Zionist principles of the Ben Gurion school."
The Nation's Eric Alterman has been the point man on this. In his first
critique, he at once says that Blumenthal's book "could
have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club," and, at the same
time, criticizes it for "do[ing] nothing to advance the interests of the
occupation's victims." This ignores, of
course, Blumenthal's precise point that Palestinians are not victimized just by
"the occupation," but by Zionist ideology as a whole. It also implies that holding
such a harsh mirror up to Israelis, who hold the fate of the Palestinians in
their hands, is not the way to "advance the interests" of Zionism's victims.
I'll make two points about this kind of argument. First, while it is of course important
to address individual persons in a way that is aware of, and sensitive to,
their feelings and preconceptions, the sensitivities and preconceptions of a
privileged, ethno-religious supremacist, colonial elite -- or of those who, for
whatever reasons of tribal identity or religious dogma, sympathize with that
colonial elite -- cannot limit or determine the positions we are willing to take
in support of the people who are that elite's victims. The struggle against
colonization cannot be determined by the feelings of the colonizers! In
the Israel and US, a lot of people are going to have to deal with some heavy wounds
to their narcissism, which will be nothing like the hardships suffered for
sixty years by Palestinians.
Second, as I have been arguing here, Blumenthal is not primarily
addressing Israelis, to tell them to lighten up a bit on "the occupation" and all.
He is primarily addressing American liberals, confronting them with the ugly reality
of actually-existing Zionism. If he succeeds in that, nothing will help Zionism's victims more. It's the connivance of
the American state, premised on the acquiescence of the American public, and
particularly American liberals, that makes the atrocities of Israeli
colonialism possible. Undermine that,
as Blumenthal's work is doing, and Israelis' arrogant presumption of eternal
supremacy, along with the seemingly invincible Zionist project, will begin to
crumble. That's what's at stake, and everybody knows it.
I'll leave it to Chris Hedges, in his usual passionate way, to
summarize what's at stake:
Liberal supporters of Israel decry its excesses. They wring
their hands over the tragic necessity of airstrikes on Gaza or Lebanon or the
demolition of Palestinian homes. They assure us that they respect human rights
and want peace. But they react in inchoate fury when the reality of Israel is
held up before them. This reality implodes the myth of the Jewish state. It
exposes the cynicism of a state whose
real goal is, and always has been, the transfer, forced immigration or utter
subjugation and impoverishment of Palestinians inside Israel and the occupied
territories.
Liberal Jewish critics inside and outside Israel, however,
desperately need the myth, not only to fetishize Israel but also to fetishize
themselves. Strike at the myth and you unleash a savage vitriol, which in its
fury exposes the self-adulation and latent racism that lie at the core of
modern Zionism.
The work of Max Blumenthal and others has irreversibly
opened the curtain.
Don't think about the
elephant! no longer works. It's way past time for American progressives to
dispense with the fantasy of Zionism, and of our own innocence (or even
virtue!) in supporting it, that has been cultivated through years of heavy
indoctrination, and to confront the reality of the supremacist, colonial
violence in which we, as Americans, are so heavily implicated.
Works Cited
Blumenthal, Max. Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.
Nation Books.
Uri Avnery, "The Future of Israel as
Nation State"