Sociable

Thursday, September 29, 2005

In a Lighter Vein: The New York Review of Books and I

I maintain my subscription to the NYRB because it is a vital source for following the recent publication of important books and intellectual trends in liberal academia. NYRB content is always intelligent, usually liberal but rarely radical. In short, it is serious stuff and generally cannot be dismissed irrelevant. However, it must be analyzed and criticized. Easier said than done, especially as the NYRB somehow conveys that any serious student of a pertinent subject would actually need to read most of the books mentioned in the articles or featured in the no less impressive ads of the distinguished academic publishing houses.

So you come out of reading the NYRB with a troubling sense of inadequacy, uncertain that you could really critique what needs criticizing and frustrated by the certainty that you just don’t have anywhere near the time (or maybe not even the talent) required for what appears to be an almost Herculean task.

My senses of inadequacy and frustration (and I am quite certain that I am the only one with this kind of response) were heightened and deepened when thumbing through a the recent issue (NYRB – September 22, 2005). Staying on top of the NYRB is almost a personal challenge for your correspondent, a progressive Israeli Jew in the Middle East, and an activist in the peace movement. In short, I should be abreast of what intelligent people are saying and writing on the ME and related subjects.

Thumbing through a recent issue of the NYRB (September 22, 2005) will help in understanding my “problem”.

Here Goes

On the cover: Banner: Adam Shatz: ‘The Jewish Prison’;
Selling September 11 by Jonatah Raban;
Christian Caryl: Why Suicide Bombers Do It.

So it is clear from the beginning that the mission is not going to be easy – there are already three major articles related to my subject and who knows how many books will be scanned. Inside the front cover: University of Michigan Press presents new titles. The first is ‘The One State Solution by Virginia Q. Tilley with a warm recommendation from Tony Judt, who has written much of excellence on the subjects of our interest.

September 11: The article by J. Raban is rather disappointing. Its main point is that the Bush administration has used 9/11 to gnaw away at democratic foundations in the United States. However, there is arather exaggerated attempt to analyze all these effects from a Seattle-specific perspective. The author’s residence in that city is insufficient to justify such a narrowness of approach. Raban doesn’t deal much with the ME and that is really not a fault, but there is very little new thinking on what’s happned in the United States. One senses an editorial need to feature something on 9/11.

Nothing of relevance is advertised by Yale UP. Palgrave Macmillan publisher presents ‘Future Jihad – Terrorist Strategies against America’ by Walid Phares. There are short blurbs from a Fox news analyst and a West Point lecturer. Maybe we can get along without this one.

A new periodical is on its way with the vulgar and provincial name: The American Interest. One assumes that the goal is to identify the American Interest in order to pursue it. It may not have occurred to the promoters that others might be interested in defining the American Interest precisely in order to oppose it. There are quite a few big names on the editorial board and on the global advisory council, but not a single liberal or progressive one. The presence of Professor Itamar Rabinowich, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, whose main claim to fame is his ability to parley his academic status into high profile jobs, provides very little comfort.

The University of Pennsylvania Press has issued a collection of articles under the title “Exile and Return Predicaments of Palestinians and Jews. Two academics of note – Ann M. Lesch and Ian S. Lustick are probably involved in an attempt to balance seemingly mutually exclusive rights. I think to myself that the predicaments are, or should be, clear by now. Rescue should be the name of the game. The same publisher is offering “Landscape of Hope and Despair –Palestinian Refugee Camps’ by Julie Peteet, for those who are weak on the Palestinian side of the predicament. This may be hard reading for some of our [patriotic] Jewish brethren and hence is recommended especially for them. Less directly related, but of relevance for the broad view, is the book, ‘Crimes of the Holocaust’, by Stephan Landsman on the difficulty of prosecuting crimes against humanity. Three books worth serious attention from one publisher!

Columbia University Press is publishing ‘Portrait of Jacques Derrida as a Young Jewish Saint’ by Helen Cixous. Here is an example of a link that we simply had not noticed before. It doesn’t appear related to the ME conflict. But since we know so little about Jewish Saints, young or old, we cannot be certain that there are no important insights to be gained therein.

We hit the jackpot at the University of California. Six (!) out of ten books advertised deal directly with our subject and yet another deals with Iraq: ‘Beyond Chutzpah’, by Norman G. Finkelstein should be able to make a decent case for the ‘misuse of anti-semitism.’ Recommendations by Amy Goodman and Baruch Kimmerling will not prevent a barrage of hate reviews, which should make the book all the more relevant. Willian B. Quandt writing on the ‘Peace Process’ will represent that wing of the United States diplomatic thinking exiled by GW and the neo-cons. ‘100 Myths About the ME, by Fred Halliday will, I guess, turn out to be required reading’. David Cook on ‘Understanding Jihad’ and Melani Mcalister on ‘Epic Encounters or Culture Media and U.S. Interests in the ME’ come with serious recommendations. Knowing Dan Rabinowitz, ‘Coffins on Our Shoulders’ by him and Khwala Abu Baker should be a definitive exposition on the subject of ‘Israeli Palestinians’. Six out of ten books from the University of California Press!

Four books from Cambridge deal with Jihad, Al Qaeda, The Conservative Debate on Iraq and the Torture Debate. It might be safely assumed that if we ‘are not in the heart of the ME’ in these books, we are not too far off.
A particularly fascinating title comes from Cornell University Press; ‘Orientalism and the Hebrew Imagination’ by Yaron Peleg. This is a narrative around the politics and culture of early Zionism. I really cannot tell if Einstein on ‘Race and Racism’ from Rutgers has anything on Zionism and the ME, but Einstein is important enough to see if and how he deals with the Jewish-Zionist complex.

Why Suicide Bombers Do It

In one of those excellent review essays at which the NYRB excels, Christian Caryl surveys seven (7!) books that deal with the suicide bomber phenomenon. One of the books, still to be published, is by an Israeli author, Ami Pedahzur. There is one clear lesson from the survey for us in Israel. The Israeli tendency (part natural, part manipulation) to see suicide bombing as a uniquely horrific expression of the warped Palestinian mind’s peculiar attraction to violence is baseless. Pedahzur’s book, it seems, fits into this general demystifying approach. It seems that some important observers, such as University of Chicago political scientist Robert A. Pape feel that the suicide bombers can present a coherent, even compelling case for their actions and methods. At any rate Pape doesn’t hesitate to suggest withdrawal as the best answer to this kind of protest against occupation. Now a Marxist would argue that suicide bombing against civilians is counter productive since it would tend to solidify support for the occupier, but Pape doesn’t hesitate to vindicate the horrible tactic by suggesting that the best thing for any occupier confronted by a serious wave of s/b/ is to get the hell out of there.

The University of Florida Press has published ‘Biblical Interpretation and Middle East Policy’ by Irvine H. Anderson. Perhaps it might be helpful in analyzing the poisonous impact of U.S. Christian fundamentalism on U.S. policy.

Self-Imposed Prison

The Jewish Question is the name of a delightful and insightful review article by Adam Shatz, the literary editor of the Nation on ‘The Jewish Prison: A Rebellious Meditation on the State of Judaism’ by 85 year old, Jean Daniel

It is undoubtedly the jewel in the crown of this issue. Daniel’s secular Jewish trajectory is not all that rare in the Jewish world. Jews on the left who had enough ideological independence at their disposal were uncomfortable to say the least when the Soviet Union and Arab nationalism got into bed together. The June 1967 War was a watershed event and many Jewish intellectuals were horrified that Israel, whatever its transgression would pay the ultimate price for one of the twists and turns in world politics. Somewhere along the line, those same intellectuals had to come to grips with the new realities of Israel’s resulting ‘liberal occupation.’

To make a very long story short, Israel was increasingly giving the Jews and Judaism a bad name. No wonder that more and more secular humanist Jews, of whom Jean Daniel is an outstanding and stirring example were impelled to disassociate themselves from Israel’s ruling politicians and the official leadership of organized diaspora Jewry, which opted for the total confinement within the walls of a chauvinist Israeli identity. This is the prison referred to by Daniel who charts the various paths by which Jews renounce their moral stature and their independence of judgment.

Unfortunately or not, when the Zionists crack the whip, almost anyone who wishes to survive within the organized Jewish community stays in line. Many Jews who really know better prefer the good will of their neighbors and communal brothers and sisters to getting into a bitter, always emotional and often hysterical, confrontation with their neighbors.

One of the additional reasons that humanist Jews have become disgusted with Zionism is that its representatives keep on insisting that nothing radically wrong has happened and that somehow all the smashed pieces will be reassembled. In comparison, the disappointment over the failure of the Soviet regime was greater, harsher and deeper. But there was nobody around who kept insisting that this was a momentary shift in national strategy. In this sense, the failure of the Soviet Union paved the way for new beginnings. In Israel-Palestine, we are encouraged to believe, a slight shift in parliamentary politics would be enough to put the country back on a moral trail. There is very little, if any, sincere soul searching among the Israel boosters over how Zion’s light unto the gentiles has turned into the long dark night of occupation.

Thus we arrive at that absurd point where any criticism of Israel is categorized as blatantly anti-Semitic, or unconsciously anti-Semitic, or anti-Semitic, in practice, whatever the intention of the critic. It may be difficult to include Jean Daniel in the growing legions of the anti-Semites, but have no fear the campaign is on. The Israeli lobby doesn’t want any humanist and independent Jews, however prominent, in the Jewish community. You either line up or get out.

Jean Daniel has, as Adam Shatz so brilliantly writes, refused to prefer tribal loyalty to the universal application of justice. And the pursuit of justice happens to be a core belief of Judaism.

One Last Book that Has to Be Read

Alan Dershowitz is an author who does very well in the commercial bookshops. So his ‘The Case for Peace – How the Conflict Can be Resolved’ (Wiley) has to be closely monitored. Amos Oz tells that he ‘read it with thrill.’(?) I will be quite surprised if this book is anywhere as even handed as it presents itself to be.

I would like to stress that the few lines of response from me about the books mentioned are not intended to come in place of a genuine review. But that is an important aspect of the problem.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Anti-Communism and Opposition to Communism

Many progressives and even liberals have often joined Communists in making a distinction between opposition to Communism and anti-Communism. Quite obviously, the clarification of this distinction is not a simple cut and dried matter. However, the political and theoretical importance of the distinction is a serious matter.

Opposition to Communism is the more easily understood category. Communism as a major political and ideological force could not but arose opposition on every level. For the most part this opposition stemmed from a clear system of values and interests. The rational element of the opposition was dominant, and as a rule it did not need to distort Communist to base its opposition. Religious people could, for example, base their opposition to Communism on its negation of religion, and the same principle holds true down the line. Supporters of free-enterprise and the divine right of private property did not need to distort Communism to explain their opposition to the system and the idea. This did not mean that the opponents of Communism abstained from distortions and slander, but that their core position was based on a rational analysis of authentic factors.

Over the years, as a result of fierce ideological and political struggle another current of analysis grew prominent in reactionary circles. This analysis was based on the demonization of communism and everything that it represented. From this vantage point, Communism was simply the incarnation of evil. It had to be fought the way one fights the devil, by ascribing it supernatural and insidious qualities. Real history and the complex play of historical forces that produced Communism and imparted it with gigantic moral and political impact are ignored and or disregarded by anti-communism. Instead of rational historical analyses that can even be found in sources bitterly opposed to Communism, anti-communism becomes the symbol, motivating force and explanation of evil and its ramifications.

Anti-Communism is built around a set of dogmas, which often contradict one another. The regimes are always a product of political terror, but the clear expression of popular support is a product of brain washing. The regime is interested only in military strength and squelching political opposition, but somehow manages to record serious progress in education, health and social security for the overwhelming mass of the people. The lack of political options and opportunity are always the product of the communist regime and never related to the conditions and the historical development connected with the Communist regimes. Anti-communism is that ideological trend that sees the communist regimes as a result of the arbitrary imposition of brutal dictatorships by power hungry cliques. The crises of capitalism, the brutal suppression of communism and all reformist tendencies, the isolation of the Communist countries, the fierce ideological, political, and economic conflict against Communist regimes by stronger and more developed countries - all these important historical elements. The racism, militarism and exploitation endemic to the capitalist system are all eliminated from the historical equation.

The blood of millions of martyrs in the struggle against fascism, racism and national oppression are erased from the historical record and their aims and aspirations are derided and ridiculed because they were Communists and as such the instrument of evil.

The history of Communism and the communist experience is not a complex of successes and failures, but the stern revenge of history for those who leave the path of parliamentary democracy and civil rights.Those unfortunate nations who never had the options of following that path either then or now are advised to get a book on U.S. constitutional law. The anti-communist abandons all historical analysis in favor of a manual of absolute criteria and the victory of capitalism is the final and unequivocal proof of the superiority of liberal values. At any rate, the past and current crimes of imperialism pale in comparison to the crimes of Communism. Simply said, the crimes of reaction are opposed to the essence of democracy and the crimes of communism are the legal offspring of the regime.

Tuesday, September 6, 2005

CPIraq Praises New Constitution

To: Iraqi Communist Party - Central Information Bureau
From: Reuven Kaminer*

Dear friends,

I have received, and have every reason to consider authentic, your recent statement on the recently adopted draft constitution. Over the years, I have heard and learned of many brave chapters written by your party. The Iraqi CP was known for its intense internationalism, for its struggle against imperialist machinations to ‘divide and rule’ your country, and for your courageous opposition to the brutal and cruel Baathist regime of Saadam Hussein. I know also that you have paid for your principles with the blood and suffering of your finest people.

I also appreciate that there are many complexities in the given situation in Iraq. There is a wide array of forces aligned against the occupation, and I can appreciate that many of them are motivated by questionable objectives. This being said, it is my duty to tell you that I was concerned and saddened to read your recent declaration – a copy of which I am enclosing below.

International public opinion and almost all serious commentators on the situation in Iraq are clear about the main purpose of the draft constitution.
The adoption of this draft is a clear component in the campaign of the Bush government to prove that the main purpose of the occupation of Iraq is to bring democracy to your country. Therefore, I was pained and concerned to read that you believe:

“The declaration of this document, and the forthcoming referendum, constitute an important development in the on-going political process in the direction of consolidating democracy and its institutions, completing the transitional period, restoring security and normal conditions, and achieving our country’s full sovereignty and independence. “ (My underlining – RK).

This is manifestly untrue in two essential aspects. First of all, according to all reliable reports, the draft does not enjoy any serious support among the Sunnis in the country. There are also signs that large segments of the Shihite community oppose the constitution. How can you speak about ‘consolidating democracy’ when all objective observers express anxiety that the draft constitution is deepening the divisions in the country and creating a danger of civil war?

Second of all, you refuse to relate to the role of the U.S. occupation in manipulating each and every significant development concerning the draft constitution. How can a document ‘made in the U.S.A.’ be the harbinger of democracy in Iraq, and how can you separate the analysis of any development in Iraq from the demand for an immediate withdrawal of the U.S. forces and an end to the occupation? Unfortunately, this seems to be a consistent approach on your part. In the past, I tended to ascribe your ‘welcoming’ position to the U.S. invasion to your understandable shock and relief over the end of the long night of horrific Baathist repression.

Today, your equivocal position regarding the U.S. occupation (and this is an understatement) is unacceptable in every sense. You must be aware that in addition to its inherent contradictions and lack of logic, your position can only be of help to the chief enemies of peace and the Iraqi people. It is painful to see you make every effort to ignore the U.S. occupation. You write:

“The draft constitution has emerged out of a protracted process, due to the fact that it has taken place under difficult conditions in our country, on political, security and socio-economic levels, as well as a balance of forces that has developed out of abnormal and exceptional circumstances. It is the outcome of a struggle between different visions and opinions with regard to the future of Iraq.” (My underlining – RK)

Here we have the most distressing and saddening example of this intentional disregard. We have here ‘protracted process’…’difficult conditions’…’abnormal and exceptional circumstances’, but we do not have a clear and unequivocal denunciation of the occupation.

Here in Israel, the first principle of progressive politics is the priority we grant to ending the occupation of the Palestinian territories, a thirty seven year old occupation, which would be impossible without the support and the connivance of the United States. Our experience has proven the importance of acknowledging the real role of U.S. interests and imperial motivation.

I write with the fervent hope that not too much time will lapse before the Iraqi Communists take their rightful place in the world-wide movement for peace and against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. This is also the key to democracy and independence in Iraq.

Yours / Reuven Kaminer

Enclosed:

Iraqi Communist Party - Central Information Bureau
29 August 2005

Statement About Draft Constitution

The text of the adopted draft constitution of the republic of Iraq, which will be put to a public referendum in mid October 2005, was read out yesterday in the National Assembly in Baghdad.

The declaration of this document, and the forthcoming referendum, constitute an important development in the on-going political process in the direction of consolidating democracy and its institutions, completing the transitional period, restoring security and normal conditions, and achieving our country’s full sovereignty and independence.

The draft constitution has emerged out of a protracted process, due to the fact that it has taken place under difficult conditions in our country, on political, security and socio-economic levels, as well as a balance of forces that has developed out of abnormal and exceptional circumstances. It is the outcome of a struggle between different visions and opinions with regard to the future of Iraq.

All this had its direct and deep impact on the process of drafting the constitution that we had wanted, and strived for, to be one that enjoys consensus among the various constituents of our people: ethnic, religious, confessional and political, and also express a spirit of equal citizenship for Iraqis.

While viewing positively the draft constitution in its general context, we stress at the same time our reservation regarding many of its articles, especially those that, in some of their clauses and formulation, encroach upon the desired civil-democratic character of the constitution, and those that restrict women rights and do not allow them to achieve equality with men.

Finally, we had hoped that the process of writing the constitution, presenting it to the people and for referendum, would take place in a more transparent manner and in more conformity with the need for respecting parliamentary traditions and norms.

Iraqi CP, Statement On Draft Constitution 29-8-2005

Thursday, September 1, 2005

Israelis Against Pat Robertson meet with Venezuelan Ambassador to Israel

His Excellency,
Mr. Angel Rafael Tortolero,
Ambassador of Venezuela in Israel

Dear friend,

Please accept the following declaration by more than 100 Israeli citizens who wish to express their solidarity with your country and President Chavez in response to the vile and dangerous provocation emanating from the ultra-right in the U.S.A.

We are certain that the people of Venezuela will know how to reply to Robertson and his sponsors in high places by strengthening the independence and the progressive nature of their country.

Declaration:

On his widely broadcast television program of August 24, 2005, Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, openly called for the assassination of President Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela. The Christian fundamentalist activist politician and media figure – who is also an enthusiastic supporter of the Israeli settlers and the Greater Israel movement - had the temerity and impudence to explain the ‘advantages’ of such a murderous step for the United States

Public opinion in the United States and all over the world was justifiably shocked and dismayed. Robertson’s declaration is an open and unalloyed act of terror. It is a dangerous and inflammatory criminal act in every sense. It is the duty of international public opinion and every concerned citizen to condemn this brazen act and demand that Robertson face the full weight of both international and domestic law. .


List of signers:

Anson, Yonatan;
Abrahami, Guy;
Abdu, Safa;
Abu-ras, Thabet
Agnon, Amotz;
Altman, Colman;
Altman, Yenina;

Bahat, Amira;
Bar, Iris;
Bar Yoav;
Baram, Haim
Bar-Dina Talma;
Bar-Haim, Yoram;
Bar-Or, Osnat;
Ben Ami, Eyal;
Bendersky, Nora;
Berger, Tamar;
Blanc, Judy;
Bresheet, Haim;

Chadad, Rafram;
Cohen, Elliot;
Cohen, Veronika;

Dascal, Marcelo;
Davidi, Efraim;

Eviatar, Zohar;

Firestone, Pnina;
Fischer, Mickey;
Fogiel-Bijaoui, Sylvie;
Freund, Elizabeth;

Garti, Hagar;
Giladi, Avner;
Goldfarb, Pedro;
Goldreich, Oded;
Gonen, Benyamin;
Gozansky, Tamar
Gozansky, Yoram;

Harari, Ido;
Halevy, Meidad;
Halperin,Yuval;
Hemed, Rola;
Hirsch, Aharon;

Indig, Eran;

Kaminer, Dafna;
Kaminer, Matan;
Kaminer, Noam;
Katriel, Jacob;
Katriel, Tamar;
Kim, Yuval;

Law-Yone, Hubert;
Lehan, Tamar;
Leibner, Gerardo;
Leshem, Micah;
Livneh, Yonatan;
Loss, Yossie;

Maor, Adam;
Matar, Anat;
Matar, Haggai;
Michaeli, Eytan;
Mekyton, Yossefa;
Merhav, Lily;


Naffa, Hisham;
Nehab, Smadar;
Nitzan, Aviv;
Neiman, Ofer;
Nissen, Alex;
Noach, Haia

Pade, Guy;
Peter, Dani;
Podjarny, Einat;
Polak, Monica;
Prezma, Matan;
Puterman, Israel;

Rahat,Dolev;
Ram, Haggai;
Ravon, Ada;
Raz-Krakozin, Amnon;
Reinhart, Tanya;
Ritter, Dan;
Ron, Dana;

Seroussi, Ruben;
Shachar, Itamar;
Shabtai, Aharon;
Shir, Nomi;
Shmuelof, Mati;
Silberstein, Bruria;
Silver, Talmon;
Sivan, Daniel;
Shuldiner, Zvi;
Steinfield, Nurit;
Swirsky, Gila;
Sztyglic, Carlos;

Traubman, Lily;

Uziel, Ehud;

Wagner, Roy;
Warchawsky, Michael;
Weitmann, Uri;
Wesley, David;
Wesley, Elana;

Yacobi, Rama;
Yahalom, Ofer;
Yaron, Tamar;
Yerushalmi, Shmuel;

Zackheim, Uri;
Zbik, Tami