At a recent debate in London, radical Israeli leftists and their fellow intellectuals debated whether “Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews.”
Filed under:
Middle East
Utopia: Woodcut from the 1518 edition of Thomas More's book
Intellectuals generally inhabit ivory towers isolating them from tough realities. These used to protect them from the sound and fury of the madding crowd, insulating them from the dangerous partisanships of dogmatic faith, religious or secular. But ever since intellectuals assumed the mantle of their nation’s conscience, their isolation from life—and their love for abstractions and utopias (which they confuse with reality)—has become dangerous. More so since they have convinced themselves that as the select few who traffic in ideas, their views and judgments, including about politics, are informed by a higher wisdom, when in fact they often only defy common sense and are marred by a terrible naiveté.
A recent debate in London on a motion asserting that “Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews” saw radical Israeli leftists and their fellow intellectuals leading the attack, illustrating the infection of many intellectuals with nihilistic post-modernism and neo-Marxist fantasies. Many intellectuals perversely criticize nowadays their own countries for failing to observe some abstract utopian notions of ideal justice, while supporting the most horrendous tyrannies, simply because these “represent” an aggrieved third world.
So it is not surprising that many intellectuals have chosen to ignore the genocidal ethnic wars in Africa or in the Balkans and focus exclusively on the least bloody ethnic conflict, the Arab-Israeli one, because Israel has come to represent the West, or America, in their eyes. They have become so obsessed with anti-Israel sentiment, that trying to help the Palestinian people they have actually come to support a Palestinian terrorist regime that in actuality oppresses the Palestinians and harms them in a worse manner than Israel ever would.
To sustain such perversity, intellectuals from Noam Chomsky down resorted to misrepresentations, to denial of fact, even to lying.
Thus Avi Shlaim, a former Israeli and an Oxford “historian”, condemns Zionism by building his case against it beginning with Israel’s 1967 “illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories”. The historian Shlaim omits to mention that murderous Arab attacks on Zionism preceded 1967 by a century, when no settlements existed, and when Zionism, even he admits, was a legitimate liberation movement.
Sneakily ignoring what transpired prior to 1967 helps Shlaim invent a false narrative that in 1967 an expansionist Israel suddenly and capriciously decided to wage a ”savage war against the Palestinian people”. Shlaim does not disclose that it was serious Arab threats to destroy Israel when no Arab lands were to be liberated that caused war to erupt; nor that “occupation” was really a figment of Arab propaganda, because since Oslo most Palestinian Arabs live under the sovereignty of the “Palestinian Authority”. Israel periodically exercises its natural right to defend itself from terrorism by temporarily entering Palestinian territory. But to call this an occupation, and to claim that the “occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem” is a lie.
Shlaim calls Israeli nationalism “a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community”. He even claims that it “explains” anti-Semitism. But he and his “liberal segment” apparently have no qualms supporting a most aggressively jingoistic Arab nationalism or its xenophobia, its oppression of women, children and anyone with less power. He is not bothered that by attacking Israel he helps military dictatorships that have not only fomented massacres, suicide bombings and other atrocities against their own minorities, but have exploited nationalism in order to oppress their own people in the most horrendous ways. In this he follows, of course, the tradition of his intellectual mentors who supported every murderous dictator, from Stalin and Mao to Castro and Arafat.
Shlaim, who as an historian ought to know better, helps peddles the big lie of Arab propaganda about Israel stealing “Palestinian Lands”. This lie took root by being reiterated so often by Arab propaganda and by Israel foolishly failing to challenge it. But the disputed West Bank Territories were never “Palestinian” either by habitation or by private or national ownership. Less than 4% of them were ever occupied by Arabs, or privately owned by them, nor was there ever, historically or legally, a Palestinian entity of any sort with claim to this land. The lands of Palestine as well as all the lands which Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq occupy, belonged for centuries, until the end of World War I, to the Turkish Empire. They were taken from Turkey in the post-First World War peace agreement. 99% of them were allotted to the Arabs, while the 1% that made up Palestine (including what is now Jordan) was entrusted by international agreement to Britain because it undertook to build there a Jewish national home. It was agreed then that the Jews had an overwhelming claim to this territory. So if anyone has a residual legal claim to the essentially empty government owned West Bank lands, it is the Jews, not the Arabs. The Arabs received their part of the bargain, and some, and now they demand the rest.
We cannot, of course, expect leftists like Shlaim and his “liberal segment”, true believers in an autistic liberation theology, to respect for legal rights. All that counts for them are the “rights” that derive from being an oppressed third world member. They believe these rights justify all the horrors third world rulers have committed, and their own lying on behalf of these rulers.
Log in or Register
Shooting from the ivory tower
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’05
At a recent debate in London, radical Israeli leftists and their fellow intellectuals debated whether “Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews.”
Filed under:
Middle East
Utopia: Woodcut from the 1518 edition of Thomas More's book
Intellectuals generally inhabit ivory towers isolating them from tough realities. These used to protect them from the sound and fury of the madding crowd, insulating them from the dangerous partisanships of dogmatic faith, religious or secular. But ever since intellectuals assumed the mantle of their nation’s conscience, their isolation from life—and their love for abstractions and utopias (which they confuse with reality)—has become dangerous. More so since they have convinced themselves that as the select few who traffic in ideas, their views and judgments, including about politics, are informed by a higher wisdom, when in fact they often only defy common sense and are marred by a terrible naiveté.
A recent debate in London on a motion asserting that “Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews” saw radical Israeli leftists and their fellow intellectuals leading the attack, illustrating the infection of many intellectuals with nihilistic post-modernism and neo-Marxist fantasies. Many intellectuals perversely criticize nowadays their own countries for failing to observe some abstract utopian notions of ideal justice, while supporting the most horrendous tyrannies, simply because these “represent” an aggrieved third world.
So it is not surprising that many intellectuals have chosen to ignore the genocidal ethnic wars in Africa or in the Balkans and focus exclusively on the least bloody ethnic conflict, the Arab-Israeli one, because Israel has come to represent the West, or America, in their eyes. They have become so obsessed with anti-Israel sentiment, that trying to help the Palestinian people they have actually come to support a Palestinian terrorist regime that in actuality oppresses the Palestinians and harms them in a worse manner than Israel ever would.
To sustain such perversity, intellectuals from Noam Chomsky down resorted to misrepresentations, to denial of fact, even to lying.
Thus Avi Shlaim, a former Israeli and an Oxford “historian”, condemns Zionism by building his case against it beginning with Israel’s 1967 “illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories”. The historian Shlaim omits to mention that murderous Arab attacks on Zionism preceded 1967 by a century, when no settlements existed, and when Zionism, even he admits, was a legitimate liberation movement.
Sneakily ignoring what transpired prior to 1967 helps Shlaim invent a false narrative that in 1967 an expansionist Israel suddenly and capriciously decided to wage a ”savage war against the Palestinian people”. Shlaim does not disclose that it was serious Arab threats to destroy Israel when no Arab lands were to be liberated that caused war to erupt; nor that “occupation” was really a figment of Arab propaganda, because since Oslo most Palestinian Arabs live under the sovereignty of the “Palestinian Authority”. Israel periodically exercises its natural right to defend itself from terrorism by temporarily entering Palestinian territory. But to call this an occupation, and to claim that the “occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem” is a lie.
Shlaim calls Israeli nationalism “a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community”. He even claims that it “explains” anti-Semitism. But he and his “liberal segment” apparently have no qualms supporting a most aggressively jingoistic Arab nationalism or its xenophobia, its oppression of women, children and anyone with less power. He is not bothered that by attacking Israel he helps military dictatorships that have not only fomented massacres, suicide bombings and other atrocities against their own minorities, but have exploited nationalism in order to oppress their own people in the most horrendous ways. In this he follows, of course, the tradition of his intellectual mentors who supported every murderous dictator, from Stalin and Mao to Castro and Arafat.
Shlaim, who as an historian ought to know better, helps peddles the big lie of Arab propaganda about Israel stealing “Palestinian Lands”. This lie took root by being reiterated so often by Arab propaganda and by Israel foolishly failing to challenge it. But the disputed West Bank Territories were never “Palestinian” either by habitation or by private or national ownership. Less than 4% of them were ever occupied by Arabs, or privately owned by them, nor was there ever, historically or legally, a Palestinian entity of any sort with claim to this land. The lands of Palestine as well as all the lands which Arab states, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq occupy, belonged for centuries, until the end of World War I, to the Turkish Empire. They were taken from Turkey in the post-First World War peace agreement. 99% of them were allotted to the Arabs, while the 1% that made up Palestine (including what is now Jordan) was entrusted by international agreement to Britain because it undertook to build there a Jewish national home. It was agreed then that the Jews had an overwhelming claim to this territory. So if anyone has a residual legal claim to the essentially empty government owned West Bank lands, it is the Jews, not the Arabs. The Arabs received their part of the bargain, and some, and now they demand the rest.
We cannot, of course, expect leftists like Shlaim and his “liberal segment”, true believers in an autistic liberation theology, to respect for legal rights. All that counts for them are the “rights” that derive from being an oppressed third world member. They believe these rights justify all the horrors third world rulers have committed, and their own lying on behalf of these rulers.
More recent commentary
The New Republic
19 May ’11
Economic Miracle
A Middle East peace strategy that could actually work.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Mar ’11
The government-tycoons-media triangle
Israel needs to slash its state budget by as much as possible if it wants a chance at fighting waste and corruption.
The Jerusalem Post
9 Mar ’11
Welfare and rebellion: The economic factor in the Arab uprisings
Too little attention has been paid to how Egypt’s socialist past and welfare-state present shaped the current rebellion.
The Jerusalem Post
7 Feb ’11
Is all quiet on the economic front?
The Herzliya Conference has become an important international event, but one central issue is absent: Israel’s debilitating economic concentration.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’11
Teaching an elephant to dance
It’s highly unlikely that government can ever learn to make long-term plans and execute them efficiently.
The Jerusalem Post
23 Dec ’10
Hellenization and Enlightenment: Post-Hanukka ruminations
How can one dare compare narrow-minded religion with the all-embracing faith of universality and equality that is socialism?
The Jerusalem Post
1 Dec ’10
Would Milton Friedman have approved?
Many of the social and economic troubles we are experiencing are due to the public’s lack of understanding of the need for economic literacy.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’10
Perverting public discourse
The PM’s courageous decision to tackle economic concentration was misrepresented by several of our media publications—owned of course by tycoons.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Oct ’10
Breaking Israel’s monopolies
Economic concentration hurts the country’s viability and the chances for peace.
The Jerusalem Post
4 Oct ’10
Israel’s progress undermined
A damaging ethos of ‘welfarism’ and distributive politics has come to dominate not only academia but our cultural, military and even our business elites.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Aug ’10
Unable to decide
The reformers must know the importance of the reform’s success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails.
The Jerusalem Post
13 Jul ’10
Elana Kagan, terrorism and the law
Kagan’s admiration for Justice Aharon Barak’s philosophy may have revealed her own predilection for radical judicial activism.
The Jerusalem Post
30 May ’10
Yes, break them up
We must dismantle the oligarch-owned monopolies that impoverish the Israeli consumer and choke our economy.
The Wall Street Journal
18 May ’10
Land of silicon and money
The OECD’s invitation to Israel is a “seal of approval” but the country still needs more reforms.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Feb ’10
The surprise of it all
The world’s astonishment at Israel’s response to the Haiti disaster is insulting. What we saw there was Israel’s true face.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Jan ’10
Hi-tech prospects and pitfalls
Individual initiative and freedom are essential for creativity—in hi-tech as in all other spheres.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Oct ’09
A woman who knew her worth
As far as Rose Friedman was concerned, public kudos did not matter that much. She persisted in being a rose, no matter what.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Sep ’09
Movies in Nablus, dramas in Bethlehem
Lasting peace must grow from the bottom up, from an “economic peace process” that proves what advantages peace has to offer on a daily basis. It cannot come from signing peace agreements with radical and corrupt entities propped up by corrupting Western handouts.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Aug ’09
Israel’s ‘scrambled’ economic system
A courageous recent film has exposes the strong connection between Israeli oligarchs and bureaucrats. Unfortunately however the film’s simplistic pseudo-Marxist treatment is more misleading than revealing.
The Jerusalem Post
24 May ’09
The economy: look to the future
Netanyahu paid heavily to pass a budget in time; his “partners”’ bargaining tactics, bordering on blackmail, reflect poorly on our politics.
The Jerusalem Post
4 May ’09
Reform: prospects and pitfalls
Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent economic plan has great promise but faces obstacles—such as the media and the Histadrut—that may undermine its success.
The Jerusalem Post
11 Apr ’09
Big government? Yes, but there’s a reason
Is Binyamin Netanyahu’s government too big? Yes. So why would Netanyahu create such an unwieldy beast?
The Jerusalem Post
30 Mar ’09
To bail or not to bail
Should the government bail out those of our tycoons who cannot redeem NIS 100 billion worth of bonds?
The Wall Street Journal
12 Mar ’09
Mideast peace can start with economic growth
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians has resulted in war not peace. There’s a better way.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’09
Warning cries from Herzliya
The government is dysfunctional. The question is why—and how to mend it.
The Jerusalem Post
2 Feb ’09
A lesser economic evil
All government deficit spending is bad. But sometimes deficits are unavoidable. And some deficits are better then others.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Dec ’08
Spinners and cheaters
Why not exploit the crisis to destroy what little freedom Netanyahu’s reforms brought to the economy? Why care if the country will lose its only hope of deliverance from the economic retardation caused by our statist heritage?
The Jerusalem Post
3 Dec ’08
Precipitating the next collapse
Focusing on a putative pension crisis distracts our attention from the real serious crisis that a worldwide recession is bound to create here.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Oct ’08
The panic-mongers’ one-note chorus
The country, the pundits conclude, must return to the good old days of “social democracy.”
The Jerusalem Post
15 Jul ’08
The banks are bamboozling us again
In the name of stability the comptroller has ignored many of the banks’ offenses.
The Jerusalem Post
29 Apr ’08
An Irish-style banana republic
It must be either naiveté or cynicism that allows “Israel 2028” to recommend a reform that will make government a larger and a more efficient instrument for economic growth.
The New York Sun
29 Apr ’08
Israel still doesn’t get economy
Israel’s elites—especially the chattering classes in the press and the academy—are hostile to capitalism because our universities’ social sciences and liberal arts departments are dominated by post-modernist and neo-Marxist professors.
Ideas matter. Hostility to capitalism exacts a great price from the Israeli economy and from its hapless workers.
inFocus
2 Apr ’08
US charity to Israel reconsidered
Jewish institutional efforts must now undergo a period of reform and greater accountability. Some charitable efforts should be privatized. Individuals or groups of donors must take personal responsibility for specific projects, to ensure that funds are dispensed in a responsible and cost effective manner.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Mar ’08
Israel’s no-win strategy
Israeli politicians are preoccupied with political machinations designed to buy support from powerful interest groups by distributing government largesse. This causes not only the factionalization of politics and growing corruption, but consumes time and energy that leadership should use to address life and death issues.
The Jerusalem Post
20 Feb ’08
Dangerous infatuation
Government can no more control powerful economic forces than it can the rise and fall of tides. To effectively fulfill its nightwatchman role—to protect us from internal and external violence and to enforce contracts—government must be kept limited.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’08
What’s ‘public’ about their broadcasting?
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
The Jerusalem Post
21 Nov ’07
A year without Milton Friedman
This man did more good for humanity than any other.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’07
Getting beyond the teachers’ strike
As long as education remains a government monopoly, it is bound to function like all other government monopolies, where union bosses fill the vacuum that lack of defined ownership creates, and monopoly power allows them to blackmail the public.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Sep ’07
A healthy dose of skepticism
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, there is hope that the phenomenal performance of the economy will finally make Israelis realize the crucial role it plays in their lives.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Aug ’07
How to grow Israeli hi-tech
At the recent Merage Foundation conference to help Israel’s hi-tech sector grow, calls were heard for more government “direction”. This despite sixty years of massive government intervention and “development efforts” that have led mostly to massive failures and waste.