In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“What is bad for the Jews is better for Zionism.”

The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes by Avraham Burg
(Palgrave Macmillan)

When liberals and radicals discuss the occupation of Palestine, two soundbites tend to emerge: “How can Jews persecute Arabs when they themselves were persecuted? They know better!” and “It’s like when an abused child grows up to abuse their own children. It’s just something that happens.” There are elements of truth to both assertions, but each one shaves off so much of the complexity behind Israeli aggression that neither one is very useful in understanding how to end it. Auschwitz survivor Ruth Kluger, in her memoir Still Alive,, addresses the idea that “Jews should know better” in a scene where she takes a group of university students to task for comparing Israel to the Nazis. “Auschwitz was no instructional institution,” she scolds them. “You learned nothing there, and least of all humanity and tolerance.” And it’s true. When you experience violence, you learn violence. The idea that genocide turns people into enlightened beings is preposterous.

However, the opposite assertion – that Israel is like an abused child – can be shallow and insulting. A human being operates on emotion and impulse just as much as logic and rationality; we forgive individuals for acting without thinking. A government, on the other hand, must be held to a higher standard. To say that Israel is just an abuser and that’s all there is to it is to give up on Israel’s capacity for good, and to give up on that is to dismiss the possibility of a Palestinian state and peace in the region.

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, doesn’t flinch from the complex web of trauma, pride, anger, sadness, and paranoia that has led Israeli citizens to condone the slaughter of Palestinians. The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes doesn’t address the manipulation of Holocaust remembrance by Israeli and American politicians, the Christian Zionist movement, global anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment, or the other external factors that fuel Israel’s various military endeavors; instead, his half-memoir, half-polemic dissects the psychology behind Israel’s preference for violence over diplomacy, and makes the case for why Israel cannot achieve peace and stability until it stops seeing every threat as a potential Shoah.

“Absolutely nothing good came out of the concentration camps,” Ruth Kluger tells her students in Still Alive. “They were the most useless, pointless establishments imaginable.” This is, perhaps, one of the most important things we can learn from genocide – that despite our need to make sense of unfathomable cruelty by pulling narratives and morals out of it, sometimes a dark cloud just doesn’t have a silver lining. Even the idea that the Holocaust led to the creation of a Jewish homeland is partly a romanticization. By the time the first death camps opened, the Zionism movement was well underway. The thousand-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish civilization that was disappeared by Nazi death camps and assimilation into other cultures was meant to provide the population for the Jewish state; when David Grün changed his surname to Ben Gurion and started adding modern words to biblical Hebrew, he envisioned Israel as a country into which Yiddishkeyt could be transplanted more or less whole. (We can’t, of course, ignore the multiple layers of racism behind this plan, or the catastrophic effects on Palestinians.) When he and other Zionists found that there weren’t enough Ashkenazi European Jews left to build a viable state, they turned to North African and Middle Eastern Jews, who immigrated en masse and now make up the bulk of the Israeli population. Burg contends that while this was a positive move in terms of physical safety for Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews, the disintegration of their own cultures, coupled with a governing body that knew barely anything about them, resulted in a haphazard, jury-rigged national character that lacked the history and vision necessary for a healthy culture.

This clumsy beginning is compounded by the deep trauma of the Shoah itself – and the fact that international Jewry was forced to forgive Germany too quickly. Burg does, at one point, use the abused child comparison, but it’s in the context of a much more exhaustive study of the effects of trauma. “The [post WWII] negotiations, agreements, and diplomatic relations were decided on for cold and practical reasons and state interests,” he explains, “but they brought about emotional acceptance.” Israelis were still furious about the Holocaust – and, presumably, older patterns of pogroms and hostility – but since they weren’t furious at Germany anymore, they displaced their anger onto Palestinians. The angrier they became, the guiltier they felt, and the guiltier they felt, the angrier it made them. Meanwhile, no amount of violence brought the six million victims back from the dead. “Germany will never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust,” an Israeli psychoanalyst once said. Similarly, it’s doubtful that Israel will forgive Palestinians for the Naqba.

The other effect of the Holocaust on Israel’s inception is Israelis’ strange resentment of Diaspora Jews. In 1992, during a Holocaust Remembrance Day speech at Auschwitz-Berkenau, Ehud Barak claimed that “we, the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces, arrived here… fifty years too late.” It sounds poetic on the surface, but Burg unpacks the line to find a surprising amount of hostility towards the victims and survivors. “We,” according to Barak, are the tanned and chiseled Israelis. “We” have fighter jets and an army. “They,” on the other hand, are the weak, pathetic Yids who shuffled to their doom without so much as a fight (with the notable exception of the Warsaw Ghetto residents, who surely resembled Israelis more than Diasporaniks). Such posturing doesn’t bring Israelis closer to the Holocaust – it pushes them away. Israelis, it seems, would never have gotten themselves into such a mess.* Yet it’s in Israel where the obsession with the Holocaust seems to be the greatest.

The result of all these factors, according to Burg, is a country that functions more as a refuge than a society, built on panic and mistrust instead of a clear plan for the future. Every hostile neighbor is a potential Hitler; every criticism is a sign that the world hates Jews; every battle is a chance to demonstrate Israeli strength and superiority. “This is catastrophic Zionism at is worst,” he says when discussing Ezer Weizman’s assertion that Diaspora Jews should either make Aliyah or “go to hell;” “what is bad for the Jews is better for Zionism.” And it’s true.** If the sole purpose of a Jewish homeland is to escape persecution, then without persecution, Israel really has no reason to exist. It seems that on some level, Israel is compelled to see Hitler in every Arab child in order to justify itself to itself. In the minds of Israeli policy makers, when it rains it has to pour – only when it rains Qassam rockets, it pours Xyclon-B.

By now I’ve most certainly got many readers riled up, and I’m not even going to get into some of the toughest and most disturbing sections of the book. Many of Burg’s allegations come dangerously close to rhetoric spouted by well-meaning but ignorant activists or even outright anti-Semites. The difference, though, is twofold. First off, Burg doesn’t excuse the myriad other players taking part in the oppression of Palestinians, such as the Arab governments that have done nothing to alleviate refugees’ suffering, and the American war machine that bankrolls every Israeli attack. This book is written by an Israeli for Israelis, and it’s clear that the broader context of the problem is to be taken as a given. Secondly, Burg presents his case from a place of love – love for Israelis and Israeli culture, wounded as he thinks it is, and for Diaspora Jews and Arabs everywhere. Some of the most moving passages are the stories he tells about his family: his father, Knesset member Yosef Burg, the quiet and troubled German Yekke; his mother, Rivka, the Arab Jew who survived the 1929 Hebron massacre; his childhood in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; the deaths of both his parents. These stories don’t contain sweeping descriptions of the Israeli landscape, but Israel is very present in them – and through the tenderness with which he describes his life among both Jews and Arabs, we get a glimpse of the peace and tolerance that’s possible between the two groups. “Please open your ears, eyes, and hearts,” he begs us; his criticism is harsh because he believes that a just, compassionate Israel is worth fighting for.

And as hard a pill as it is to swallow, this type of criticism is better than the alternative: the demonization of Israel and the dismissal of the Holocaust’s imprint on modern Jewish identity. Make no mistake – there’s no shortage of cynical warmongerers milking the Holocaust for all it’s worth. But The Holocaust is Over seeks to sap their power by creating a middle ground between obsessions with the Shoah and demands to get over it. Burg wants to open up a place where Ashkenazis European Jews can mourn the loss of our families and culture without succumbing to destructive rage, a place where Israel can confront global anti-Semitism while treating Palestinians with dignity. In fact, in calling for an end to violence and suspicion, Burg mandates the reinvention of what it means to be a Jew. The use of Hitler’s definition, along with Orthodoxy’s monopoly over matters of citizenship, marriage, and identity, are too constrictive to accommodate a people that has been shaped by both Jewish and gentile civilizations. The Holocaust must become the world’s tragedy, not just ours, and we must accept all other genocides as equally important. If we continue to view our genocide as completely different than all others, then we’ll never be able to address the root causes of violence.

Many arguments are overly simplistic, as readers familiar with Israeli and Palestinian history have probably already noticed, and in terms of solutions, Burg’s ideas tend to range from the dippy to the unattainable. But this book peels away the layers of denial and self-righteousness that have infested Israeli politics for too long, while simultaneously reaching out to conservative Jews. A true Jewish hero, Burg reminds us, is one who turns an enemy into a beloved friend, and in that respect, The Holocaust is Over may prove itself to be one of the most ambitious and influential works to emerge from the Palestinian/Israeli debate.

__
* See Eli Valley.
** See Naomi Klein.

(A note for commenters: this thread is going to be heavily moderated. Only comment if you accept the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to respect and self-determination. Rude, intolerant, and inflammatory remarks will be deleted.)

Posted in War

21 thoughts on “What is bad for the Jews is better for Zionism.”

  1. Very insightful and penetrating post. I had a question about the context of the quotation from the Israeli psychoanalyst, “’Germany will never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust,’” an Israeli psychoanalyst once said. Similarly, it’s doubtful that Israel will forgive Palestinians for the Naqba. My first thought was that I had misread it, but my sense is that the meaning is that Germany (and Israel) will never forgive the people they’ve wronged for inspiring guilt?

  2. My first thought was that I had misread it, but my sense is that the meaning is that Germany (and Israel) will never forgive the people they’ve wronged for inspiring guilt?

    That’s how I read it. It reminded me of a quote from Golda Meir I read a while ago — something like, “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but will never forgive them for making us kill their children.” But Meir’s quote is a different perspective — the “making us” puts much more blame on the Palestinians.

    This was an interesting post. I’m definitely curious to check out this book.

  3. I can’t wait to read this book – I hope my library finishes “ordering” it soon. 🙂

    I need to mention that it’s implied in a couple places that only Ashkenazim experienced the Shoah – but that’s far from the truth. My grandmother, who is Sephardi, lost almost all of her family members who were in Greece and France. And those east of Edirne knew they would have been next.

    For those of you who like primary sources …

    Also RE: non-sequitor’s comment, they sound a lot like a quote by John Ross, who was chief of the Cherokee nation during the Trail of Tears: “The perpetrator of a wrong never forgives his victims.”

  4. Thanks, Ms Glassman, for this incisive review. Mr Burg has a remarkable background and insight and let’s hope that with perhaps a greater dose of pragmatism he plays some future role in Israeli affairs. To me it seems that the key lesson of the Shoah for Israeli national aims lies less in the details of events that occurred at Aushwitz or Nuremberg nor their enduring memory, but rather in the events that took place in Washington, London and Moscow. Allied leaders, clearly informed of the impending fate of European Jews, were unable or unwilling to act. They would act, however feebly or belatedly, to save Poland or Holland or Greece, but not the Jews, for the Jews lacked a state. This lesson is I think more profitably considered in terms of the logistics of international affairs rather than speculations of Roosevelt’s racism etc. I think this frame of thinking permits a much more charitable interpretation of Barak’s remarks. Having a state changes the whole range of a people’s possibilities and indeed makes many matters of individual courage or morality moot. This is the lesson. Yet to follow its logic implies that it must be equally applicable to the Palestinians. Therein lies the problem to be solved.

  5. Whoa.

    Does Burg say anything about Mizrahi attitudes towards Arabs? Because considering that a lot of Arab nations responded to Israel’s founding by expelling their Jewish populaces (a reaction I have a feeling was also based on psychological transference), I’d be interested in how this has affected Mizrahi attitudes towards Palestinians.

  6. Thank you for this.
    I’m an Israeli and read Burg’s book when it just came out and it caused a real backlash for him.
    I’m happy it’s been translated, as it really shows how Zionism has twisted (and been twisted by) the Holocaust.
    In Israel, the Holocaust it the actual religion, it is something that Ashkenazi Jews (and I am one myself) carry around like a weight around their neck – never forget why we have a country – and it sickens me at times. It’s the actual religion, because it is untouchable, it is a fixed point in our collective time and anyone who even begin to try and decentralise it or compare other genocides to it is considered disrespectful and maybe even antisemitic (self hating Jew is a term only other Jews use).

    Burg is seriously one of my heroes when it comes to being able to speak about the Holocaust, because of his book I feel I actually have a right to say “we’re using and abusing our tragedy by creating more and more victims”.

    Thank you for writing this thoughtful piece.

  7. This is definitely going on my pull list of books to buy.

    When worded by Burg, I was almost instantly reminded of how the Bush Administration used 9/11 to justify their plans and to constantly drum up both fear and hatred, especially since the reasons for the attack seem to be so much more than ‘they’re non-white and hate us.’

    I’ve always felt some frustration in thinking about Israel’s treatment of Palestine, considering the past treatment of the Jews, not just the holocaust but after it as well. I could never understand anti-semitism, and had come across it from other people, such as a former fellow co-worker who was SO SURE that the Jews controlled all the world’s money from their headquarters in Palestine.

    Yeah, so he had bad geographical knowledge as well as being crazy.

    But then again, how could Israel attack a country with so much overwhelming power that innocent citizens get hurt and killed in the crossfire? It only seems to beget more violence and hate, continuing a cycle that just can’t be maintained.

    This article really worked well to clarifying those points, as well as pointing out the complexity of such an issue in the real world, in that there is more than just the Palestinians against the Jews.

  8. Thanks, all!

    Maureen – no, he doesn’t really talk about that, at least not at length.

    J – you’re right, that was sloppy of me. My apologies. I’ll go back and change the wording in the post.

  9. Great review, Julie. I am lucky enough to not have any ties to the Shoah, but from what I’ve seen it sounds like Ruth Kluger had the right idea – that it was senseless and the Shoah is not a classroom.

    What else this really hit home for me and helped me to crystallize is the Shoah’s role in the creation of Israel, the definition of Israel as a refuge requiring oppression, and how this leads to Zionism run amok – rabbis, for example, praying for pogroms in the world abroad to force Jews to come to Israel and live under their thumb. Like Burg, I love Israel too much to want things to continue as they are with the abuse of Palestinians and the religious Ashkenazi establishment’s abuses of Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews. I think I should find this book and read it.

  10. Just have to say that this meta conversation about Zionism, Israel, and Palestine has been very instructive, not only on Feministe but on all the blogs inspired by it.

    “Germany will never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust,” took the breath out of me. Just, wow. Wow. WTF, wow.

    Fabulous review. Looking forward to reading the book.

  11. I really don’t get the crossing out of “Ashkenazi.” Other than to try to fit Israeli domestic social issues into the White Racism template. Plenty of Sephardim died in the Shoah and many more died at the hands of Arab Pogroms. There were and are lots of Ashkenazi/Sephardic issues in Israel, but to somehow allege that Israel was only supposed to be for Ashkenizim (I’m sure some early zionist somewhere put such ideas down on paper, but that is not evidence) is hogwash.

    Furthermore, to say that Jews need to stop thinking that everything is a potential Shoah is patronizing and insulting, even from an Israeli. Among the problems with it is that Israel’s enemies have been (and many are) absolutely open about a 2nd Shoah as their goal.

    Finally, on the Barak’s statements about arriving there 50 years too late. I think the dissection of the statements are pretty lame. There is a very widespread feeling among Jews that had their been a Jewish State before the 1930’s that the Holocaust would not have happened, at least never to any comparable degree. And it’ not a crazy theory. Jews would have had a place to go and they would have been empowered to defend themselves. They would have a reason to hold their heads up highL the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Beilski brothers would not have been such outliers but would instead have been common. But even if Barak’s statement is, on some level, meant in a way resembling Burg’s “unpacking,” it’s a perfectly understandable sentiment. If Jews did have F-16’s and were “chiseled, tanned and battle hardened,” it would have been a hell of a lot more difficult to crowd them into ghettos and exterminate them. Burg may see this as hostility towards victims, but it’s nothing of the sort. It’s the feeling of regret, sorrow and anger at the CIRCUMSTANCES (lack of F-16’s, etc.) that the Jews found themselves in at that point in history that rendered so many of them too weak or too unempowered to resist. And there’s nothing wrong with Barak having that sentiment. Looks like Burg is getting in Holocaust exploitation action himself.

  12. This is a great review, Julie. I’ve read a bit more about the book elsewhere, but now it’s going higher on my to-read list.

    While I was living in Israel, I took a course at Ben Gurion University on Holocaust Literature, and we spent a good deal of time talking about the position the Shoah commands in the Israeli public sphere – but with the political leanings of our professor, we never got anywhere near this kind of a discussion, though I wish we had.

    I don’t know that I can quite articulate exactly what I’m thinking about with this next bit, so I apologize if it doesn’t make sense. I’m also in the middle of reading for a queer theory class, which might explain things if it seems to be coming out of nowhere, and I might be the only person for whom the parallels are a useful thought exercise.

    “If the sole purpose of a Jewish homeland is to escape persecution, then without persecution, Israel really has no reason to exist. It seems that on some level, Israel is compelled to see Hitler in every Arab child in order to justify itself to itself.”

    That passage made me think about the way that heterosexuality operates in relation to homosexuality. I know this sounds like a bit of a stretch, and I’m not trying to say that Zionism is basically the same as heterosexuality, but I see parallels in the ways in which they assert and define themselves.

    If we take the above quoted characterization as true, both Zionism and heterosexuality are defined, primarily, oppositionally. And as a result, both depend upon the existence of the ‘other’ to continue to exist themselves. Heterosexuality, as a category and an identity (not as a set of behaviors), came into being with the classification and definition of homosexuality. Heterosexuality only exists insofar as it is that which is not homosexuality. Therefore, without homosexuality, heterosexuality becomes a meaningless and unnecessary category.

    Within Burg’s paradigm, Zionism functions the same way. If Zionism, and the vision of Israel, is defined only in relation to antisemitism, it ceases to exist (or at least be necessary), without the existence of antisemitism. Thus it has to seek out and identify antisemitism in order to justify its own existence. It is self-defeating in the worst way, because it takes out others in its wake.

    Now, note that I’m not saying antisemitism is Israel’s fault, per se. However, I do think that Zionism is inherently ill equipped to end antisemitism, because it, as a nationalist ideology, is simultaneously invested in its own continued relevance – and those two goals seem to be incompatible. At least as long as Zionism exists for the sole purpose of defending from, protecting against, or ending antisemitism.

    This has given me a lot to think about in terms of my own self-identification with Zionism, and has pushed me strongly toward rejecting it (as a label or ideology that I identify with) altogether. Many of my personal struggles with identifying or not identifying with Zionism have not been about whether I agree with the actions of the Israeli government, “support” Israel, or agree with the positions of the most vocal US Zionists – but rather about the possibility of changing Zionism, of changing Israel while operating from the position of a Zionist, and this makes me all the more doubtful of that. Perhaps there isn’t space within Zionism for a discourse or vision of Israel that is positive and productive, based on the highest ethical values within Judaism and Islam, toward the possibility of being or l’goyim in the least xenophobic, most idealistic way possible. Not because such a vision is untenable or impossible, but because Zionism, by definition, can not make space for it.

  13. @freddybak

    I’m not sure how what you’re saying isn’t victim blaming.

    The problem with framing the holocaust in the way that you have is that it elides the structural and institutional nature of antisemitism in Germany or the rest of Europe. “If only the Jews had been stronger, or had had bigger guns, none of this would have happened” places the blame for the holocaust on the victims of the holocaust. Rather than saying “If only the Nazis hadn’t been such antisemitic, racist, homophobic scumbags, none of that would have happened;” or, “if only antisemitism weren’t so deeply entrenched in European consciousness, the collapse of Germany’s economy following WWI couldn’t have been so conveniently blamed on the Jews, and the Nazi rise to power would have been much more difficult, and then maybe the holocaust wouldn’t have happened;” or, “If only the rest of the world, including the US, hadn’t been so complicit in the Nazi’s genocide, then 11 million people wouldn’t have died” – you place the responsibility for not being summarily slaughtered on the weak European Jews who couldn’t properly resist.

    This is a super pervasive attitude in Israel, and it’s exactly what Burg is describing. I get why it happens, too. There’s the nasty antisemitic trope of Jews being weak and powerless, and in order to resist the painful affects of antisemitism, we distance ourselves from “those Jews” rather than confronting the antisemitism at its face. It’s a technique of self-preservation, but it’s also really short sighted. It doesn’t actually challenge or diminish the antisemitism, it rather reinforces it by reasserting that “those Jews” were weak, and that’s why it all happened… but you’ll see, we’re stronger now!

    It’s the same sort of thing as saying “oh, I’m not one of *those* feminists” (ie those ugly, unshaven, fat, dykey feminists). You may not be any of those things, but it is still sexism to assert that they are lesser or bad. Maintaining the idea that there are good [insert marginalized group here] and bad [insert marginalized group here] doesn’t serve any of us, except those invested in our oppression.

  14. @freddybak

    oh, also, I think Julie crossed out Ashkenazim in response to J’s comment (@ #3) about the Shoah not just affecting Ashkenazim. As Julie said in #9, that was “sloppy” of her, so she changed it, but didn’t actually delete the text on which she’d been critiqued. (Presumably, so that those of us reading the post and comments after the fact wouldn’t be confused.)

  15. Jo-

    Re: the crossing out of Ashkenizim – cool. I thought it was one of those blogging tools where you cross something out to make a point. If it’s what you say it was, that is pretty reasonable stuff.

    Re: victim blaming – We definitely still disagree here, but I see where you are coming from.

    It seems we disagree on what should be emphasized. I don’t think you would be opposed to Jews defending themselves if they could, and I think the world would be a much better place if there was no anti-Semitism. There would be no Holocaust (of the Jews, at least) without anti-Semitism. It is also reasonable to argue that, had there been the same level of anti-Semitism in the 1930’s and 40’s but mass Jewish resistance combined with a flee to a Jewish state, there still would have been no Holocaust (at least nothing comparable).

    But I would argue that ONLY placing emphasis on the fact that anti-Semitism was the problem (If only the Nazis hadn’t been such antisemitic, racist, homophobic scumbags, none of that would have happened;”) you take the Jews out of the equation as actors but are just passive receptors of what the world decides to do to them based on how much anti-Semitism thereis at a given time. Unfortunately, much (yes, plenty of exceptions, but still..) of Diaspora Jewish history is filled with exactly this paradigm. That paradigm has changed with Israel’s coming into existence and that is precisely what Barak is talking about. Burg has to be disingenous to think that Barak is blaming the victim. And if he doesn’t think that, he shouldn’t be spreading such an interpretation. Barak is viewing the reasons for the Holocaust as what they are: very complex and multi-dimensional. But among the ways that it could have been avoided is the Jewish emplowerment BArak speaks of. Just because his point brings up uncomfortable stereotypes doesn’t mean we should avoid discussing it. There are plenty of Jews (and non-Jews) who think that talk of “If only X hadn’t been so evil to us and anti semitic” is fruitlesss pointless . People will always hate us, they say, and the important thing is to empower ourselves so we are not at their mercy. One can disagree with this view of history without calling it victim-blaming.

  16. Good, review. Though I disagree with a few points. I would, just to pick one, describe the role of Israel in Zionism to be so that the Jews can provide for their own safety – not to merely to escape persecution, but to have the power to respond to hatred. Here’s a story I think is under-represented when we talk about the Shoah. And there have been times, though with heavy and mixed emotions, I’ve really felt like Israel has already worked. Which has given me a lot more confidence to deal with antisemitism.

    But you’ve definitely given me a reason to read the book.

    But someone asked a question about the Mizrahi attitudes toward peace. Here’s a blog worth reading if you’re interested. It’s fairly right-wing at times, but so are most Mizrachim. In Israel, most vote Shas. One dynamic with the Gaza War was that many Mizrahim felt the Israeli establishment would have more readily defended Ashkenazim.

  17. @jo: i think you’d be very interested by daniel boyarin’s fantastic unheroic conduct: the rise of heterosexuality and the invention of the jewish man. it deals very directly and subtly with the interactions of sexuality, gender ideologies, and nationalism (zionism in particular)….

    @maureen: israeli mizrakhi attitudes towards non-jewish arabs are a complicated subject in themselves, given the ways that anti-arab racism in israel gets applied to them. over the past few decades, mizrakh political groups have covered the range from the Israeli Black Panthers, who struggled for unity with palestinians based on common arab identity and shared experiences of oppression by the israeli state, to Shas and mizrakhi members of Likud, who’ve actively promoted anti-(non-jewish)-arab racism in mizrakhi communities as a way of legitimizing themselves in ashkenazi-dominated israeli society.

    one of the more fascinating and disturbing aspects of all this is the tendency on the ashkenazi israeli left (and to some extent among progressive u.s. ashkenazim) to express racist ideas about mizrakhim through critiques of Shas and other right-wing mizrakhi organizations’ anti-palestinian politics. i’ve heard versions of “oh, those primitive mizrakhim, they’re hopelessly reactionary and not worth reaching out to, much less organizing” from folks as justifiably well-respected in anti-occupation circles as jeff halper (of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions). the dynamic is similar to the way some otherwise kick-ass white queer radicals in the u.s. dismiss latin@ and african-american communities as hopelessly homophobic…..

    and on the main piece…

    julie writes:
    The thousand-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish civilization that was disappeared by Nazi death camps and assimilation into other cultures was meant to provide the population for the Jewish state; when David Grün changed his surname to Ben Gurion and started adding modern words to biblical Hebrew, he envisioned Israel as a country into which Yiddishkeyt could be transplanted more or less whole.

    this is largely inaccurate, in rather problematic ways.

    sure, ashkenazim were supposed to provide the zionist colonial project with its human material, and ultimately be the core of the jewish state. but which ashkenazim matters a lot. the founding leaders of the zionism movement – herzl, nordau, et al – were all highly assimilated german (and austrian) ashkenazim. their attitudes towards the ashkenazim of eastern europe (the vast majority of ashkenazi communities) were deeply hostile and racialized. following western european and german racial theory of the time, they considered the “ostjuden” to be racially degenerate, culturally corrupted, and hopelessly “oriental” – perhaps a bit more salvageable than sefardim, but certainly much less purely “semitic” than those more exotic yidn. after herzl and his colleagues realized that the small and comfortable jewish communities of western europe and the german-speaking lands were unlikely to leave their homes, they turned to the more impoverished, more desperate, more religious “ostjuden” as a population reservoir.

    this was a decision based on hostility to ashkenazi culture and society. its basic premise was that ashkenazi “ostjuden” could only be remade into a properly human “nation” by being stripped of their culture and communities and transmuted into new “hebrews” through the zionist project. as herzl put it, only thus could jews become “true germans”. the zionist term for the process is “shelilat hagalut”, usually translated as “negation of the diaspora”, but more accurately rendered by zev jabotinski as “liquidation of the diaspora”. all of the connotations of the latter version fit the phrase. neither herzl nor grün/ben-gurion envisioned anything like a transplantation of yidishkeyt into their jewish state. both (along with almost every other strand of the zionist movement, past or present, saw a transplantation of jews, entirely stripped of their degenerate diasporic cultures, as the goal of zionism. the pre-state colony of zionists in palestine and the israeli state until 1957, in fact, enforced a legal ban on the use of yiddish for public purposes – including in the theater and in newspapers – despite (or, rather, because of) its status as the home language of a majority of the jewish population of the area at the time. the name changes pioneered by the likes of david grün, and later legally imposed on all israeli government employees (a huge chunk of the population, especially in the 1950s), are another blatant sign of the zionist movement’s active hostility and desire to eradicate, not transplant, yidishkeyt, along with other longstanding jewish cultures.

    finally, ashkenazi civilization has hardly “disappeared…or assimilat[ed] into other cultures”. while the yiddish language now has a mere 3 million speakers (making it one of the world’s 250 or so largest languages), primarily in ultra-orthodox communities, yidishkeyt is far more prevalent. despite the dominance of zionism in ashkenazi communities and educational institutions (which leads to an amazing absence of knowledge of jewish history and culture of any kind beyond the nazi attempted genocide, the zionist movement, and the mythic ‘history’ of the religious tradition), ashkenazish life goes on, and is actually enjoying something of a flowering of creativity at the moment.

    rokhl kafrissen’s blog, Rootless Cosmopolitan, is one of the best chronicles of that flowering’s new york city face. recently, she’s been zeroing in on the dogma that you present as fact here, of the recent death of ashkenazi culture. she summarizes and links to a number of past posts here. if anything, i think she understates the case. these “memes of the yiddish atlantis” are one of the things (along with zionism) which still place ashkenazi culture still in danger of disappearing.

Comments are currently closed.