The Anti-Zionism Canard

OK, Michael, you can stop looking at your watch. Here I am.

First, let me congratulate you on your working yet another fearless denunciation of Stalinism into a post bearing zero relevance to that lunatic's depredations. You may rest assured that we all understand how little you care for Uncle Joe, and may perhaps consider looking for another historical moment to which to endlessly analogize. 

I won't repeat the arguments I've made before when the issue of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism has come up, but a couple of other things come to mind.

 You say, "In fact, there is already a term in the lexicon to describe people who advocate the physical or demographic destruction of a state: anarchists. But those who target only Israel for such destruction seem to be, at their very best, selective or discriminating anarchists."

No one I know would support the physical destruction of a state, and if by demographic destruction you mean anything other than extending to all a state's citizens precisely the same standing in the eyes of the law (which is to say, refraining from individuating citizens on the basis of religion, genetics or culture), I don't support that either. But then, neither does anyone else, save the genuine wackjobs who wish harm to Jews qua Jews or Arabs qua Arabs and the imaginary denizens of Cohen's fevered internal landscape.

On the other hand, increasing numbers of people think that the Israeli model, like the former South African one, is inherently unfair. So it is the system, not the physical state or its people, that we'd like to see sharing space on history's scrapheap alongside apartheid and similar excrescences of colonialism.

As for Judt, I'm not familiar with the comments Cohen mentioned, but may I suggest that a scholar of Judt's accomplishment probably knows that scoundrels have sometimes used "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably? I'd push for a more generous understanding of his comment that the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is an historical recency-perhaps that within both the diaspora and the yishuv, Jews argued the merits of Zionism energetically until the Zionists sadly prevailed and embarked on the project of equating Zionism with Judaism-rather than the self-serving and less credible one Cohen proposes. 

Which brings me to my next point; why this article now? Here's what I think: Judt represents a sort of sea-change in thinking about the Middle East. In the last couple of years, the notion of a one state solution has gained unprecedented exposure. Along with Judt's articles, Virginia Tilley, Joel Kovel, Ilan Pappe and Ali Abunimah have produced books on or related to the subject, and even two-staters like Ilan Pappe have expressed their doubts about the realism of their preferred course at this juncture. Enter Cohen, performing the useful intellectual work of challenging a threatening political tendency. 

As I said, I won't repeat the obvious objections to Cohen's little Dershowitzian maxims intended to guide the perplexed on spotting the anti-Semitism lurking within criticisms of Israel. But why in heaven's name are you carrying this guy's water? 

Here's my suggestion: if you disagree with someone's analysis of Israeli behavior, challenge him or her on the merits of their case. Refrain from name-calling, which is all the cry of anti-Semitism in this case is. 

I'll be writing to Dissent detailing the absurdities in Cohen's ridiculous attempts to shoehorn criticism of Israel into the confines of historical anti-Semitic tropes. Interested parties may look for this in a future issue's letters section, unless the heavy, lekvar-stained hand of the International Zionist Conspiracy silences my...oops, have I said too much?

just one quip... zionism is not outdated.  it is a movement that supports the idea (not just the establishment) of a jewish state.  Modern zionist support the idea of a jewish state the same as irish nationalists support the continued existence of an irish state.  this is clear in the debate over a one state solution where the zionists oppose it.  if zionism were obsolete there would be no opposition.  a one state solution after all is not calling for anarchy, its calling for a bi-national state.

First, let me congratulate you on your working yet another fearless denunciation of Stalinism into a post bearing zero relevance to that lunatic's depredations. You may rest assured that we all understand how little you care for Uncle Joe, and may perhaps consider looking for another historical moment to which to endlessly analogize.

Judt's point that equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is an invention of the Israel lobby or whatever knee-jerk Jewish chauvinists he's mentally assembled outside his own besieged fortress of moral and intellectual solitude is patently false, as he himself well demonstrated in his book Postwar, which I commend highly to you. I wasn't analogizing Stalinism with today's Blame Israel First crowd; I was using one aspect of Stalinism to show that there is indeed a long history of using Zionist as a sinister synecdoche for Jew.

No one I know would support the physical destruction of a state, and if by demographic destruction you mean anything other than extending to all a state's citizens precisely the same standing in the eyes of the law (which is to say, refraining from individuating citizens on the basis of religion, genetics or culture), I don't support that either. But then, neither does anyone else, save the genuine wackjobs who wish harm to Jews qua Jews or Arabs qua Arabs and the imaginary denizens of Cohen's fevered internal landscape.

Cute, coming from someone who argues that Hamas at least gets the trains to run on time, and never you mind about that driving Jews into the sea business. All bluster, right? I thought the genuine wackjobs are running Gaza.

On the other hand, increasing numbers of people think that the Israeli model, like the former South African one, is inherently unfair. So it is the system, not the physical state or its people, that we'd like to see sharing space on history's scrapheap alongside apartheid and similar excrescences of colonialism.

The invocation of South Africa customarily refers to Israeli hegemony in the occupied territories. Assuming, then, that Israel completely withdrew to the 1948 borders, would the shambolic apartheid label have any merit? Of course not, not while Arab-Israeli representatives retain seats in the Knesset and enjoy rights that blacks never did in South Africa.

As for Judt, I'm not familiar with the comments Cohen mentioned, but may I suggest that a scholar of Judt's accomplishment probably knows that scoundrels have sometimes used "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably? I'd push for a more generous understanding of his comment that the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is an historical recency-perhaps that within both the diaspora and the yishuv, Jews argued the merits of Zionism energetically until the Zionists sadly prevailed and embarked on the project of equating Zionism with Judaism-rather than the self-serving and less credible one Cohen proposes.

Well, you might familiarize yourself before dispatching that letter to Dissent. But as for your more "generous understanding," that's quite kind of you, and your "perhaps" is unnecessary because diaspora Jews did indeed argue feverishly over the prospect of a Jewish homeland. (Trotsky was notably against it until shortly before his assassination.)  Cohen is not arguing that anti-Zionism is, ipso facto, a cloak for anti-Semitism; he's arguing that it can be when a certain set of argumentative conditions are met by the putative anti-Zionist. (I began my post by quoting these conditions.) Is this really such a controversial thesis? Do you suppose there might be even a handful of Jew-haters out there with enough savvy not to come right out and endorse the Protocols but to describe themselves merely as "critics" of the Israeli government as a government and not as a government consisting of and governing Jews?

Here's my suggestion: if you disagree with someone's analysis of Israeli behavior, challenge him or her on the merits of their case. Refrain from name-calling, which is all the cry of anti-Semitism in this case is. 

Interesting. You recently called one of our contributors a racist for suggesting that perhaps the viability of a Palestinian state ought to be questioned given recent Palestinian electoral and administrative behavior. What's the Arab version of anti-Zionism? And why can't that be advanced without all the name-calling?

Here's my generous understanding of you: the double standards you evince don't make you an anti-Semite. They just make you blind to anti-Semitism.

"I was using one aspect of Stalinism to show that there is indeed a long history of using Zionist as a sinister synecdoche for Jew."

All you've shown is that Stalinists were guilty of this linguistic shell game. To claim that this demonstrates a long history, by which we are meant to understand numerous expressions of this tendency cropping up in different places and times, is to beg the question under discussion. Besides, it suggests a positively Goldhagenesque ahistoricism, which does no one any good. 

"Cute, coming from someone who argues that Hamas at least gets the trains to run on time, and never you mind about that driving Jews into the sea business. All bluster, right?"

The Likud charter still talks about Israel including Judea and Samaria. Israel Beiteinu wants to kick Israeli citizens of insufficiently Hebraic maternity out of the country. Sadly, these guys, despite being nothing but huge puffs of taint stink, are who the Palestinians must come to terms with. Sucks for them, sucks for the Israelis that they've got to talk with Hamas. As I've pointed out before, there are two main differences between Israeli bluster and Palestinian bluster; the Israelis are actually enacting their sociocidal wishes, and you get more upset about the subjunctive (sic) crime than the genuine one.

"The invocation of South Africa customarily refers to Israeli hegemony in the occupied territories. Assuming, then, that Israel completely withdrew to the 1948 borders, would the shambolic apartheid label have any merit? Of course not..."

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. I'm actually constraining my remarks to reality here. Israel/Palestine is now effectively one country. It operates in a manifestly unfair fashion towards those under its control. 

More to the point, though, you failed to apprehend the substance of my remark, which did not in any sense depend on one's agreement with the proposition that Israel is an apartheid state. Once again; describing support for a binational state as calling for the destruction of Israel is like describing the end of apartheid as the destruction of South Africa. It's the malignant political system that's being attacked. Note that you needn't share my opinion of Zionism to understand this concept.

"... your "perhaps" is unnecessary because diaspora Jews did indeed argue feverishly over the prospect of a Jewish homeland."

I used "perhaps" to suggest that this was one alternative way to read Judt, not to suggest that there was any doubt about the controversy among Jews over Zionism. And, sadly for you, I'm not made of straw and of course recognize that some anti-Semites cloak their bigotry with claims of anti-Zionism. The interesting part of Cohen's fever dream is not that anti-Semites exist and that some of them call themselves anti-Zionists in an attempt to conceal their foundational animus towards Jews (although there seem to be few of these-most anti-Semites who make Israel a central feature of their ravings are unabashed  about embracing the Protocols, etc.).

It's Cohen's rules for differentiating permissible from anti-Semitic criticism of Israel that I find ridiculous-the arbitrary limits on how vigorously I may express my disapproval of Israel, the bogus double-standard claim, et al- as well as that preposterous set of parallelisms at the end of the piece; really, now, if I denounce the history of Israeli expansionism, I'm simply recycling the blood libel? Do you really endorse such an embarrassment?

"...to describe themselves merely as "critics" of the Israeli government as a government and not as a government consisting of and governing Jews?"

Why this sentence, when you know a) that the Israeli government includes Arabs, and b) that the Israeli government governs Arabs ?

"You recently called one of our contributors a racist for suggesting that perhaps the viability of a Palestinian state ought to be questioned given recent Palestinian electoral and administrative behavior."

As I've noted here previously, I suggested that Karol's comment was "borderline racist" (using the qualifier to give her the benefit of the doubt) because, by making no reference whatsoever to the conditions that Israel has imposed upon the OT, it seemed to imply that the problems there were somehow inherent to the population. Additionally, the Olympian tone ("we gave them a chance, but the poor beggars just weren't up to the task") is familiar to those acquainted with the tropes of colonialist thinking. 

"Here's my generous understanding of you: the double standards you evince don't make you an anti-Semite. They just make you blind to anti-Semitism."

I believe that Israel bears overwhelming responsibility for the mess in the Middle East, and that this is not a result of myopia or misjudgement but is instead the ineluctable result of conscious Israeli policy. I don't buy for a minute that consistency requires me to mitigate my opposition to these policies because the planet harbors other malefactors, nor am I obligated to pair each denunciation of these policies with an equally vigorous condemnation of some other villain in order to prove my bona fides.

You seem to think these beliefs come perilously close to anti-Semitism, but in your magnanimity you are willing to downgrade the accusation to mere blindness.

Let me give you some advice; lay off describing such a reluctant and hesitant gift as generous, lest you give unwitting support to the anti-Semitic notion that all Jews are stingy.