Love Labours Lost
By Israel Shamir
(A response to Seumas Milne's article in the Guardian: "Slur of
Anti-Semitism Used to Defend Repression", see below)
In civilised New York, a girl, eager to brush-off an insistent
admirer, does not have to be rude. She slips him a phone number
to call, and there, a recorded message informs him, 'the person
you are calling does not wish to remain in contact with you. If
you want to listen to a sad poem, press ONE, if you want to
cling to unrealistic dream of reunion, press TWO, if you want to
have counselling and advise, push THREE'.
The important article by the Guardian editor Mr Seumas Milne is
a rejected lover's complaint. Apparently, he can't overcome his
rejection by the Daughter of Zion. He laments the glorious days
of their alliance: "since the French revolution, the fates of
the Jewish people and the left have been closely intertwined.
From the time of Marx, Jews played a central role across all
shades of the left". Mr Milne and the Left are in need of some
advice and counselling (push THREE).
Everything that has a beginning, Mr Milne, has an end as well.
Before the French Revolution, the Jewish people supported
despotism against aristocracy, and the Magna Carta was signed by
King John despite their opposition. After Napoleon, the Jewish
people had had a long alliance with the Left. It was long, but
not forever. This alliance has been severed in the aftermath of
failed 1968 revolution. After that time, the Jewish people built
a new alliance, with Globalisation forces. One saw the new
alliance in action when it supported victory of Margaret
Thatcher, right-wing shift of Labour under Lord Levy's promoted
Tony Blair, and in the US, the programme of Globalisation and
World War Three ('clash of civilisation).
Give it a thought, Mr Milne: if Daughter of Zion could ally
herself with the Left, why could not she change her partners?
Should she be considered a permanently beneficial force, next to
God Almighty? Jewish leadership benefited from the union with
the Left as long as it was an aspiring force, struggling with
traditional upper classes. After their aspirations were
satisfied, they had no more interest in such an ally.
For thirty years, this major and obvious fact of the Jewish
people's re-alliance was not sufficiently discussed in the Left.
Like a ditched boyfriend, the Left hoped to re-forge the union
of old. One of the reasons was a sentimental belief expressed by
Mr Milne: "The left's appeal to social justice and universal
rights created a natural bond with a people long persecuted and
excluded by the Christian European establishment".
Why should one describe this relationship with the rich Jewish
bankers and newspaper owners, who had supported the Left, as a
'natural bond' rather than a marriage of convenience? It was
quite unnatural bond, formed against obvious class interests of
the involved sides, and its collapse was inevitable. The Left
accepted help of rich Jews, disregarding their motives. It paid
a heavy price - alienation from working classes who had a long
and painful history of Jew-Gentile relations, alienation from
the church, uncompromising hostility of the upper classes. The
Jews used the energy of the Left until it run out, and then,
ditched it. Now, the Left could dial a phone number in New York,
and listen to the pre-recorded message.
II
Mr. Milne objects to Jews calling the Left "anti-Semitic". He
thinks the Left does not deserve it. But it is mainly a point of
definition. In the eyes of Mr. Milne, 'anti-Semitism is an
anti-Jewish racism", and its use, 'a slur'. In the Jewish eyes,
'anti-Semitism' is a policy counteracting the policy of the
Jewish people. Thus, until 1968, the Right was 'anti-Semitic' by
definition, as "the fates of the Jewish people and the left have
been closely intertwined". After 1968, as time goes by, the
anti-globalist Left (and Right), or environmentalist groups had
become 'anti-Semitic' by definition. In 1953, McCarthy's
Committee for anti-American activities was 'anti-Semitic', but
in 2002, 'anti-American' means 'anti-Semitic', according to the
Commentary, the main ideological Jewish American magazine.
In Russia of 1990s, which I covered for Haaretz daily, any
movement against 'the market forces', for socialism and
preservation of the Soviet Union was considered 'anti-Semitic".
Anti-globalisation is 'anti-Semitic' as well as objection to the
Zionist policies. Thus, anti-Semitic labelling is not a slur,
but a definition of every policy at deviance with the present
ideas of the Jewish people.
If you are NOT called an anti-Semite, you should immediately
reconsider your writing, Mr Milne. But if you ARE called an
anti-Semite, it does not mean too much: even Wolfowitz, the
Jewish Zionist bigot hawk and supporter of Sharon, was booed as
anti-Semite by even more fervent American Jews. Even Ariel
Sharon, the mass murderer of Sabra and Shatila, of Qibya and
Jenin, was relegated into 'anti-Semite lefties' by the
bloody-minded supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu.
That is why there is no reason to incessantly apologise for
offending sensibilities. The Left can accept the offered
definition and to reply with a shrug while being called
'anti-Semitic', as it would certainly respond to accusations of
'anti-British' or 'anti-aristocratic' behaviour. The Jews are
not Les Misérables any more; after 1960s, they occupy (in the US
and Europe) a position similar to that of Brahmins in India. The
Left should try to undo their supremacy, while preserving and
using their talents and abilities.
Even more important, it should overcome its rejected lover
syndrome and reassess its positions vis-à-vis the Jews in the
light of Marxist teaching. Karl Marx (certainly not a biological
Jew-hater) rejected his ties with the Jews, and called for
emancipation of the world from Jews. Later, the Left chose to
forget these words of Marx, but they could be brought back.
Mr Milne writes, "Jews remain disproportionately active in
progressive political movements - including Palestinian
solidarity groups - throughout the world". There is a big
difference between Marx and many politically active Jews. Marx
and Trotsky were descendents of Jews who embraced the cause of
the working people and rejected that of the Jews. Certainly
there are descendents of Jews who emulate their behaviour, for
instance in the al-Awdah movement. But there are other Jews who
act as Jewish emissaries "in the progressive political movements
- including Palestinian solidarity groups". Their contribution
is but damage limitation control. The war in Palestine caused
these emissaries to reveal their hidden agenda and gave the Left
a chance to reassert its cause.
The Left free from its emotional entanglement with the Jewish
people should offer the Jews the same deal it offered after the
French Revolution, namely, equality everywhere, including
Palestine. Equality, not privilege. The Left fought aristocracy
and other traditional ruling classes not for benefit of the
Jewish privilege.
Mr Milne writes, "A two-state settlement (in the Middle East) is
now the only possible way to secure peace in the foreseeable
future". Au contraire, it is an impossible and unjust way, and
it will never take place. The condition of equality means
deconstruction of the exclusivist Jewish state and its
transformation into a state of all its citizens, like other
states. That is the way to peace, to justice and to new rise of
the Left in Europe and the world.
This slur of anti-semitism is used to defend repression. Ending
Israel's occupation will benefit Jews and Muslims in Europe
---------
Seumas Milne
Thursday May 9, 2002
The Guardian
Since the French revolution, the fates of the Jewish people and
the left have been closely intertwined. The left's appeal to
social justice and universal rights created a natural bond with
a people long persecuted and excluded by the Christian European
establishment. From the time of Marx, Jews played a central role
across all shades of the left. They were heavily represented
among the leaders of the Russian revolution - hence Hitler's
denunciation of communism as a "Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy" -
and the left-led underground resistance to the Nazis. It was the
Red Army which liberated the Auschwitz death camp. In Britain,
it was the left which fought to defend the Jewish East End of
London from fascists in the 1930s. In the Arab world, Jews were
crucial to the building of political parties of the left. And
despite the changed class balance of many Jewish communities,
Jews remain disproportionately active in progressive political
movements - including Palestinian solidarity groups - throughout
the world. But now the left stands accused of anti-semitism
because of its opposition to Israel's military occupation and
continuing dispossession of the Palestinians. As the Palestinian
intifada and Israeli repression rage on, rightwing commentators
and religious leaders have claimed the left is guilty of
"anti-Jewish prejudice", double standards towards Israel and
even apeing the anti-semitic "blood libels" of the Middle Ages
with the ferocity of its charges of Israeli massacres. Britain's
chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has widened the attack to the media
and equated any questioning of Israel's legitimacy with "calling
into question the Jewish people's right to exist collectively".
In the US, the denunciation of the left over Israel has been
extended to include the whole mainstream European political
system. There is little question that there has been a growth of
overt anti-semitism in Europe, especially since the collapse of
European communism more than a decade ago. That trend has
quickened since the start of the second intifada and Ariel
Sharon's election as Israel's prime minister. In Britain,
physical attacks on Jews have increased significantly - even if
they remain far fewer than assaults on black, Asian and Muslim
people - and now a London synagogue has been desecrated. With
the far right on the march across the continent, it is hardly
surprising that a community barely a couple of generations away
from the most devastating genocide in human history feels
beleaguered - a perception heightened by atrocities against
civilians in Israel, such as Tuesday's suicide attack in Rishon
Letzion.
No doubt some on the left have wrongly taken the comparative
wealth and position of Britain's Jewish community as a sign that
the social cancer of anti-semitism is somehow less dangerous
than other forms of racism. The graveyards of Europe are a
permanent reminder that it is not. The left is certainly not
immune from racist currents in society; and it needs
aggressively to police the line between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism,
taking into account Jewish sensitivities in the way it campaigns
for justice in the Middle East. But none of that excuses the
smear that left or liberal support for Palestinian rights is
somehow connected to resurgent anti-Jewish racism - an absurd
slur which is itself being used as an apologia for Israel's
brutal war of subjugation in the occupied territories. All the
evidence is that it is the far right, the traditional fount of
anti-semitic poison, which has been overwhelmingly responsible
for attacks on both Muslim and Jewish targets in Europe.
Violence from the Islamist fringe no doubt also poses a threat,
but not even in the wildest rantings of Israel's cheerleaders
has it been suggested that any group on the left could have had
anything to do with, say, the trashing of the Finsbury Park
synagogue. Nor is it hostile media coverage that is fuelling
criticism of Israel, but what is actually taking place on the
ground in Bethlehem, Nablus and Ramallah.
The reality is that, contrary to the claims of the supporters of
Israel's
35-year-old occupation, its existence as a state is not remotely
in danger. Nor by any stretch of the imagination does it "stand
alone", as some have insisted. Its security is guaranteed by the
most powerful state in the world.
There is, however, a very real and present threat to the
Palestinians, their national rights and even their very presence
in what is left to them of Palestine. Evidence of serious
Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention - war crimes - across
the West Bank has been collected by human rights organisations
in recent weeks. But Israel has been able to swat away the Jenin
investigation team, ordered in by the UN security council, with
impunity. To refuse to acknowledge these brute facts of power
and injustice is itself a reflection of anti-Arab racism and
Islamophobia, both currently more violently represented on
Europe's streets and more acceptable in its polite society than
anti-semitism. For the left to ignore such oppression would be a
betrayal. As the Zapatista leader Marcos has it, he is "a Jew in
Germany, a Palestinian in Israel".
Last week, Dick Armey, the Republican leader in the US House of
Representatives and a key Bush ally, called for Israel to annex
the occupied erritories and expel the Palestinian inhabitants.
In other words, he was proposing the ethnic cleansing of the
Arab population. His remarks aroused little comment, but coming
at a time when 40% of the Israeli public, as well as cabinet
ministers, openly support such a "transfer", it can only be
taken as encouragement by the most extreme elements in the
Israeli establishment. Ethnic cleansing is not of course a new
departure for Israel, whose forces twice organised large-scale
expulsions of Palestinians, in 1948 and 1967 - as documented in
the records and memoirs of Israeli leaders of the time - to
secure a commanding Jewish majority in the territory under its
control. But the refugees created in the process remain at the
heart of the conflict. It was the tragedy of the Zionist project
that Jewish self-determination could only be achieved at another
people's expense.
A two-state settlement is now the only possible way to secure
peace in the forseeable future. But for such a settlement to
stick there will have to be some reversal of that historic
ethnic cleansing. Those who insist there can be no questioning
of the legitimacy of the state in its current form - with
discriminatory laws giving a "right of return" to Jews from
anywhere in the world, while denying it to Palestinians expelled
by force - are scarcely taking a stand against racism, but
rather the opposite. They are also doing no favours to Israelis.
The latest suicide bombings have demonstrated the failure of
Sharon's strategy for dismantling the infrastructure of terror.
What is needed instead is a strategy to dismantle the
infrastructure of occupation. Not only would that open the way
to peace in the Middle East. It could also create the conditions
for Muslims and Jews in Europe to realise their common
interests.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
|
