Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.
-- William Shakespeare, Macbeth
Anti-Semitism has always had its ebbs and flows, But a bitter past teaches that it is always latent, and today it is resurgent. In the wake of October 7 2023 when Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacked Israel, butchering 1200 mostly young people, and taking more than 250 hostages. Israel responded by bombing Gaza into oblivion, killing 35,000 people, mostly civilians but with a significant minority of Hamas fighters. More than 1 million people are facing famine and it doesn't help to warn those in Gaza and Rafah about impending attacks if they have no place to go. Especially in light of Israel's measured response to Iran's missile attack of April 13, 2024, other strategic options were available. Israel's actions in Gaza were disproportionate and strikingly unsuccessful. They did not produce release of the hostages; those still alive will undoubtedly gain their freedom but, just as undoubtedly, at a ratio unfavorable to Israel. Hamas has not been destroyed, and Hezbollah with its 150,000 missiles is waiting in the wings. The bombing of Gaza has made Israel into a pariah state, sparked a worldwide wave of anti-Semitism, frayed its relations with the United States and Europe, and turned the Jewish homeland into a house divided.
Attacking Rafah can only make things worse for Israel. However, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has identified its national interest with the aims of his even more reactionary coalition partners, his base in the religious orthodox and Islamophobic settler communities, and staying out of jail after being indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu's morally and pragmatically indefensible. Israel's settler colonialists and biblically inspired orthodox zealots are setting the stage for annexing the West Bank, shattering Gaza, and undermining any possible two-state solution. Exploitation of Holocaust-guilt to insulate Israel from criticism also appears increasingly disingenuous. There is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about outrage at the plight of the Palestinians, questioning the United States' $14.3 billion emergency aid package to Israel (on top of the $40 billion promised over the next ten years), and demands that universities cut ties with their Israeli counterparts, and disinvest from its economy.
Such views are open to debate. Whether right or wrong, they focus on Israeli policies and a political leadership as corrupt and self-serving as that of Trump and his gang--not "Jews". But it is illegitimate to give Hamas a free pass for its retrograde politics. Western protestors have turned a blind eye to its contempt for civil liberties, repression of gays and LGBTQ individuals, brutal attacks on political rivals, claims of a Jewish world conspiracy, use of blatantly anti-Semitic tropes, and attempts to excuse the inexcusable massacre that triggered the current crisis.
October 7th shocked the world and the slaughter of innocent lives, the rapes, and the hostage-taking was roundly condemned--at first. With Israel's merciless bombing of Gaza, however, changes in public opinion took place. Suddenly it no longer mattered that Hamas ignited the war and intentionally put the lives of its subjects at risk by building hospitals, schools, and the like over tunnels, useful for military purposes. Mixing soldiers with civilians, who became collateral damage, served the organization's purposes, but surely not those living in the rubble. Hamas' leadership might not have anticipated the extent of what was coming. But it had to know that the Israeli response would prove brutal and, if Hamas' leaders really had no idea, then they are even more culpable. Either way, Hamas' premeditated decision--and it was premeditated--to unleash the savagery of October 7th resulted in its citizens being forced into what television crime-shows refer to as "suicide by cop".
Western supporters avoid dealing with any of this in order to protect Hamas. While the citizenry lives with the nightmare set loose by its sovereign, and ruefully watches the wrangling over a cease-fire that neither leadership actually wants, Hamas waits for the best possible rate of hostage exchange. While losing on the battlefield, indeed, Hamas is undoubtedly winning the war of public opinion--and that is sufficient. This must have been its strategy all along. After all, it would have been delusional for Hamas' leadership to believe that the initial atrocities would trigger the conquest of Israel. However, there was nothing delusional about wagering that an attack on Israel would put Hamas and the Palestinian question back in the spotlight.
Call it what it is: October 7th was not an act of heroic resistance, but rather a sensational--and successful--publicity stunt that relied on using a barbarous act to provoke an ever more barbarous response. In terms of realpolitik, this tactic was rational and, perhaps, that is also the case for igniting a regional war in which others do the fighting. In ethical terms, however, it is another matter entirely. The more that terror is normalized as a tactic, and used against the oppressor, the more it usually comes back to haunt the oppressed. Those Zionist and orthodox religious fanatics mirror the thinking of their enemies and, so far as I am concerned, Hamas' leader, Ismail Haniyeh, and Netanyahu deserve one another.
Western protests have generally been peaceful. It is manipulative to paint the majority of protestors as anti-Semitic and call upon the police to squash them. Spouting liberal sound-bites, while prostrating themselves in the face of reactionary politicians, university presidents and administrators ignored how the present crisis offered a "teaching moment"; educators could have sponsored "teach-ins", zoom dialogues, and more. Administrators could even have set up faculty-student tribunals to determine whether free speech really was being used to preach genocide and advise on the consequences of screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater.
No university campus can tolerate Zionist extremists who explicitly condone the starvation of 1 million people, or mimic the explicitly genocidal goals of reactionary Israeli politicians such as Itamar Ben-Gver. But that is also true regarding slogans like "Death to the Jews!" or welcoming some half-wit "leader" of the Columbia University protests who insists that no Zionist has the "right to live"--and then follows it up with the usual claims that he was "misquoted" before finally offering a half-hearted "apology". Hate crimes against Jews have risen 96%, and anti-Israeli protestors should be the first to condemn them unconditionally just as "Zionists", who so righteously reject being called Islamophobic, should be the first to condemn Jewish extremists.
Bigotry has always been a plank in Trump's platform. His victory would strike at the heart of American democracy and impact the world. Talk by some American Muslim leaders of opposing the re-election of "genocide Joe" in 2024, especially in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, is irresponsible, sectarian, and contrary to their constituency's interests; such talk is reminiscent of left-wing extremists whose politics derived from the assumption "the worse the better". In a pluralistic society, no single issue should serve as a "litmus test". However, too many activists on both sides of the barricades believe that this battle should take precedence over all other struggles and issues, which is appalling and egotistical. Zionist fanatics seem to think they are living among the mythical settler-heroes of the movie "Exodus" (1960), which triggered American support of Israel while pro-Palestinian extremists embrace the romantic anti-imperialism of the 1960s, and indulge in what Theodor Adorno appropriately termed "crypto anti-Semitism", in order to liberate the oppressed masses.
Confusion abounds. Supporters of a two-state solution chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." However, translating that slogan into reality calls for collapsing Israel (or Palestine) into a single state thereby making a two-state solution impossible; indeed, if they are to be taken seriously, advocates of a one-state solution on both sides must finally explain how their ideal can become real--other than by violence. Substituting the fashionable idea of "non-territorial autonomy" for "national self-determination" sounds great, but it doesn't help matters. Such a move de-couples peace from land, and allows Jews and Arabs to govern themselves separately. Nevertheless, the new state will immediately experience a legitimation deficit.
Lacking a sovereign with a monopoly over the means of coercion, separate paramilitary formations will fill the vacuum in each "autonomous" region, and the threat of renewed violence will reappear. Nor is there any guarantee that this emasculated sovereign can prove willing or able to sanction minority rights. Expecting Jews to roll the dice and dissolve Israel in favor of a new state in which they would be a minority, and whose democratic character remains unclear, is not only unrealistic, but dangerous to both sides. Creating a single Palestinian state might provoke civil war, not only between Jews and Palestinians, but orthodox-settler and secular-liberal Jewish constituencies on the one hand and Fatah and Hamas, who are currently engaged in a fierce rivalry, on the other.
Embedded in the dogmatism of extremists on both sides is the fear of somehow aiding t hem by criticizing us--and thereby providing what communists used to call an "objective apology", whatever the person's intentions, for the enemy. Confronting the corrosive cynicism of both governments calls upon protestors--as first steps--to demand an i mmediate cease-fire and humanitarian relief for a beleaguered Gazan citizenry. No cease-fire is an end unto itself, however. Matters will then revert to what they were on October 6th--all the death and destruction would have been for nothing. Moreover, only the most naïve can possibly believe that Israelis and Palestinians will not re-arm and re-organize in preparation for future battles.
Imagination and pragmatism are necessary to envision what the reconstruction of Gaza would require: perhaps a national bank guaranteed by the Arab League to secure investments; international monitors; a buffer between Israel and Palestine; and two states based on a single economy. Nor should the importance of introducing a critical cultural pedagogy be underestimated. One-state, two-states, perhaps we should even consider a "three-state" solution: Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. In any case, new ideas must resist both illusions and disillusionment and, for that to occur, they require a dose of clarity; such a dose has never hurt anyone.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
