Is it worth the effort to debate those who question Israel’s legitimacy? In one sense, the answer has to be no. Israel’s right to exist should no more be a matter for debate than that of any other nation on the planet. If no one questions the right of Saudi Arabia to exist as a nation-state predicated on an extremist view of Islam (where practitioners of other faiths have no rights) or the rights of any European state, including those based on narrow ethnic identities (such as that of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, for whose benefit the United States went to war in 1999), then why should we bother even answering those who question whether the one Jewish state in the world is one too many?
And yet there are some instances in which there is no choice but to acknowledge such arguments and to answer them. The deluge of abuse directed at Zionism and Israel from much of the Arab and Muslim world is easily dismissed even if the sheer volume of these expressions and the way they have seeped into European popular culture have serious consequences. But when the New York Times devotes space on its website to an attempt by an academic to justify the position that Israel has no right to exist, attention must be paid. That’s what happened this past weekend when the Grey Lady published a lengthy article along these lines by University of Massachusetts philosophy professor Joseph Levine. Levine’s purpose was not just to try to prove that Israel shouldn’t exist but to claim that holding such a position was not anti-Semitic. He failed on both counts, calling into question not only the disreputable arguments that can be arrayed against Israel but also the Times’s decision to treat the question as one which is worthy of legitimate debate.
Levine’s basic position is that denying the right of Israel to exist is not the same thing as anti-Semitism. While he denies that the Jews are a people or that they have any particular right to Israel, he puts those points aside to concentrate his 2,000-word rant to the question of whether Israel has the right to be a nation. To do so he must draw a distinction between those like himself who merely wish there was no state of Israel and those who are trying to depopulate that state of its Jews. In the course of this strained argument he seems to be saying that he has no problem with Israelis being Israeli (i.e. the right to live in the country, speak Hebrew and have their own culture and national identity) just as the right of the French to be French is unquestioned. But he thinks the idea of a government that recognizes the particular rights of Jews to self-determination in the country is illegitimate. Doing so would acquit those who agree with him of any taint of would-be genocide, let alone prejudice. But these are distinctions without differences.
Levine’s basic argument with the Israeli state is that any country that grants a privileged status to a particular group—in this case the Jewish people whose existence he denies—is inherently undemocratic. His point seems to be that any nation that is not one in which all citizens are viewed as individuals has no claim on the world’s sympathy and ought to be replaced with something else.
It might be intellectually defensible, if unrealistic, to argue that all nation states ought to be disbanded and that the entire world should be governed under the principles of the U.S. Constitution. But that is not what Levine or the Times is debating here. His sole interest is in the one Jewish state, not the scores of other nations whose identity is based in other national identities or faiths. What he calls the “ethnic hegemony” of Jews in Israel is replicated in various ways in the vast majority of United Nations member states–though in almost all cases with far less concern for the rights of ethnic and religious minorities than is enshrined in Israeli law. Though he claims he is not judging Israel by a double standard, that is exactly what he has done.
Thus, any attempt to deny to the Jews what is not denied or even questioned when it comes to other groups is by definition a form of prejudice. Such prejudice against Jews is called anti-Semitism. That’s why the claim that to be anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-Semitic is mere sophistry.
But the truly contemptible aspect of Levine’s treatise is the disingenuous attempt to treat the question of Israel’s right to exist as separate from the real world consequences of anti-Zionism.
While Jews deserve the same rights of self-determination that are accorded to others, the particular importance of Israel stems not just from the Jewish demand for equitable treatment but from the consequences of 2,000 years during which they were denied statehood.
It is a popular misnomer to speak of Israel’s legitimacy as having stemmed from the Holocaust. Contrary to Levine, the right of the Jews to their ancient homeland transcends that tragedy and is rooted in history and law that existed long before the Nazis. But the legacy of Jewish powerlessness was 20 centuries of persecution that culminated in the murder of 6 million European Jews. Being deprived of sovereignty not only fueled contempt for the Jews; it made their defense and survival dependent on the whims of an international community whose lack of interest in their plight was a source of encouragement to Adolf Hitler.
Even if we take the Holocaust out of the discussion, the same paradigm applies today. Without an army and a state specifically dedicated to the defense of the Jewish people, the more than 6 million Jews who live in Israel (whose continued existence Professor Levine says he has no desire to interfere with) would be in a similar position to that of European Jewry 70 years ago. One need only listen or read the unceasing stream of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda emanating from Tehran, Cairo, Ramallah and half a hundred other centers of anti-Zionist agitation to understand what would happen to the Jews of Israel were they not protected by a sovereign Jewish state. In a majority Muslim state, Jews would revert to dhimmi status, and that means subjugation and persecution. Talk of the creation of a bi-national democratic state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza (the traditional demand of Palestinian nationalism) is merely code for the expulsion and slaughter of the Jews, something that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have no trouble affirming.
There are many aspects of the complex Middle East conflict that persons of good will may debate. But the notion that Israel should be eradicated is not such a notion. Support of this position, even when couched in academic or intellectual arguments such as those that Levine attempts to muster, always boils down to denying the Jews rights that are held sacrosanct and unworthy of discussion when applied to others. Moreover, the denial of these rights cannot be separated from the active desire of some to do more than merely replace one form of democratic government with another. One can no more debate Israel’s legitimacy without taking that into account and placing it in the context of the history of persecution and genocide of Jews than one can debate the merits of Stalin’s economic policies without mentioning the millions who died as a result of his schemes.
Levine’s piece is therefore not merely wrong but a disreputable intellectual gloss on a policy based in hatred. Those who deny the right of Jewish self-determination are aiding the cause of those who make war on the Jews and cannot be cleansed of the taint of that association. No one disputes his right to spew his bias wherever he can get it published, even if this is the sort of thing that ought to be beyond the pale in terms of the conduct of decent persons. But we don’t doubt that were he or any other employee of a state institution of higher learning to associate himself with support of segregation or South African apartheid, they would face serious consequences. That the New York Times would give so much space to it is a shameful reminder of the fact that prejudice against Jews (even when articulated by those who claim Jewish identity as does Levine) is alive and well even in the seemingly respectable corridors of our mainstream media as well as the academy.
This 'scholar' reminds me of the Jewish Italian professor a few years back who investigated the charge that Jews baked children's blood into matzo in medieval Europe, concluding that 'it was possible'. n nThe man is a horse's ass, only dumber, to allow himself to be used this way, in exchange for a byline in the very same paper that ignored the pleas of his relatives as they were turned into smoke and ash. n nAs for the NYTIMES, they must have figured that Tom Friedman's franchise licensing Israel hatred to non-Jews was expiring, and needed to goose things up a bit, now that the anointed one is winging his way to Israel, and will no doubt be reading the NYTIMES for cues as to what to do.
We can all go to the web site Myths and Facts to learn the history, archeology, comparative religion AND jurisprudence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the land, from the river to the sea, including ALL of Jerusalem, belongs to the Jews and only the Jews. n nExample:The first Temple was built 1500 years BEFORE the advent of Islam. nExample: There has never, EVER been an Arab/Islamic state where Israel ist today – NEVER.. nExample: The UN goes against its own charter rules AND against Article 242 AND against international law when condeming "settlements." nExample: The UN went against its own rules and against international law when it upgraded PA status. n nBest short book on subject: "History Upside Down, The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression" by David Meir-Levi.
Well said – I agree. I believe that individuals like Levine and Friedman epitomize: (i) the dangerous combination of insecurity and self-righteous articulation, (ii) the absence of playground rough and tumble activity as children, (iii) the projection of their own failings as men onto those who they blame for their lack of self-respect, (iv) internal loathing, self-hatred caused by their childhood tendency to run to mama and papa to fight their battles rather than fighting and losing and fighting and eventually winning respect from others, and (v) the psychology theory of "projection" whereby they assert that others are despicable and contemptible, precisely the traits that so afflict individuals like Levine and Friedman.
This particular anti-Semite/self loathing Jew, Joseph Levine, is a PHILOSOPHY "professor". No wonder he knows absolutely nothing on this subject and just used his hate to make it up as he went along! Here are the two experts on the jurisprudence of why Israel DOES have a right to exist as a Jewish state: Prof. Eugene Kontorovitz, Professor of Law, Northwestern University and Prof Luis Beres, Purdue University. Go on their websites and read for yourself. n nNY Times would never EVER publish an article on the subject by a real expert. NY Times insits that only rabid left wing ideologues write for them.
China. Japan. etc. etc etc etc. n nThe man should be soundly thrashed.
Professor Levine has no right to exist. None at all.
I'd like to ask the philosophy 'perfesser' why an infinite number of angels can fit on a the head of a pin, but there is no room for an uncontested Jewish state on .000001% of he earth's surface.
Jonathan has made him disappear…. poof! Stateless, homeless, friendless, witless
Only half of this comment got published in the Times' reply section for the story: n nIt's no accident that George Orwell (in his essay "Politics and the English Language") chose to illustrate over-inflated gobbledygook covering up muddy thinking in support of an indefensible agenda through the words of a hypothetical academic: n n"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, 'I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.' n nProbably, therefore, he will say something like this: n n'While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.'" n nIn the case of this column, Professor Levin's (who seems oblivious to a century of debate over the anomalous use of the term "Jew" to describe both a people and a faith, not to mention a century of Middle East history) is burying the following sentiments in an avalanche of philoso-babble: n n•That in a world of ethnically defined nation states, only the state of the Jews should be considered contingent n•That any practical ramifications of trying to rectify this situation (i.e., dead people) should be ignored in favor of determining what Israel (and Israel alone) does not deserve due to its inability to achieve democratic perfection n nAs it has with so many other slings and arrows, the Jews and their state will survive the latest Sophist employing high-minded language to further "smelly little orthodoxies." Sadly, as this essay demonstrates, one cannot necessarily say the same about hopes that philosophy will provide answers to the world's most challenging questions.
Exactly right. Good post.
Dear Mr.Leviner nI am baffled that an academic who is supposed to teach critical thinking lacks the skill himself. It is scary that you may teach my grand children self respect when you have not integrated respect for yourself as a Jew.r nAs a child in the midst of the holocaust running for our lives we never forgot that some day we may have a place where we can safely be as Jews.There is, there was, and always will be antisemitism. Israel must live so that there is a place for us even for Jews like you.
Interesting. n nAnyhow, any good lawyer can make any side of an argument sound reasonable, at least superficially. n nThat goes triple for a 'philosopher'. Most of whom are mediocrities, and demonstrably sophists, anyways.
The only country who has full legal recognition and standing according to the UN charter. nDenying the state of Israel existence is a form of antisemitism. This is the only place where Jews will not be abused, persecuted and victimized and will be able to defend their own. Nowhere else is this possible. It will be found sooner or later that the Palestinian refugees are no more than 50 to 75,000. Would that justify a state for the Palestinians? What will JL say? JL epitomizes simultaneously antisemitism and anti Zionism. But for me the difference is a matter of semantic.
This has become such a shock to me, as a Christian who found out long ago that its merely about faith, that I am flabbergasted by a Grey Lady I will not even mention in this commentary because it supports and leaks information such as Julian Assange at Wikileaks and should be prosecuted as aiding our terrorist enemies — but they take pride in that. The Professor is likely to lose something else before his job, because this Apartheid — on Crack
_WWI — The British offer the Jews a homeland if Russia stays in the war_WWI — Russian Revolution leads to peace with Germany and an atheist government loyal to Stalin_WWI — Ottomans lose, Middle East carved up between French and British. British have control of Palestine_WWI — German propaganda utilizes and exploits accomplishments of their own Jewish Soldiers__Skip WWII__1947 — Israel establishes independent state. Invaded by every country they shared a geopraphic border with immediately, and then more countries. __
A small, dedicated government fighting after the Holocaust defeats nearly 5+ nations that still don't recognize its existence__1967, 1973, Munich, Entebbe, Eichmann, Cold War, Nukes, voluntary pull out of Gaza Strip as a means of peace that is replaced by Hamas, the Goldstone Report for the 2009 invasion of Gaza that was a Holocaust committed by the Israelis themselves., only to have it rebutted and apologized for b liberal academics who must enjoy having hundreds of rockets shot at them every day at home with the children or at work, Iran, a closet anti-Semite US President, Im done…._
_I dare the New York Times to send this moron in between Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon to see what protecting youre own people is about. Im sure Hezbollah would actually invite him in for an interview to bash the Zionists rather than a random US citizen who would get abducted, shot, or hanged. I actually read earlier today that the Saudis were running out of Swordsmen to behead their own people — maybe he is fit to do the same to his own Jewish brothers.
"Why Debate the Jewish State?" n nWell for one thing, it gives guys like Tobin something to do.
is this article, and the others which have appeared, being sent to his students in his classes so they can be aware of their professor's biases and ignorance?
This rant is not new – reminiscent of the British Jewish assimilationists’ like Edwin Montagu, who feared the Balfour declaration, who denied the existence of a “Jewish people”, fearing he would be looked upon not as a Brit but as a Jew who needs to go “home.” This is a debate that won’t go away, and therefore worthy of regard:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Montagu_balfour.htm
It's no accident that George Orwell (in his essay "Politics and the English Language") chose to illustrate over-inflated gobbledygook covering up muddy thinking in support of an indefensible agenda through the words of a hypothetical academic: n n"Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, 'I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.' n nProbably, therefore, he will say something like this: n n'While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.'" n nIn the case of this column, Professor Levin's (who seems oblivious to a century of debate over the anomalous use of the term "Jew" to describe both a people and a faith, not to mention a century of Middle East history) is burying the following sentiments in an avalanche of philoso-babble: n n•That in a world of ethnically defined nation states, only the state of the Jews should be considered contingent n•That any practical ramifications of trying to rectify this situation (i.e., dead people) should be ignored in favor of determining what Israel (and Israel alone) does not deserve due to its inability to achieve democratic perfection n nAs it has with so many other slings and arrows, the Jews and their state will survive the latest Sophist employing high-minded language to further "smelly little orthodoxies." Sadly, as this essay demonstrates, one cannot necessarily say the same about hopes that philosophy will provide answers to the world's most challenging questions. n
The House of Saud, Saudi Arabia a "nation" of 3,000 cousins is legtimate while Israel is not staggers the mind. Nations throughout the world have different classes of citizenship bases on kinship, ethinic and class considerations to say they are legtimate while Israel is not goes beyond willfull blindness. It is at the very least asking for a perfection from Israel that would not be dreamed of in Europe or the US. No wonder it is an academic that is proposing it.
” But the legacy of Jewish powerlessness was 20 centuries of persecution that culminated in the murder of 6 million European Jews. “r nr nAnd how many were slaughtered during those 20 centuries?r nCulminated? If one looks at Europe, France, one sees that the Jews are still being persecuted today and killed.r n87 Jews killed in Buenos Aires when their community centre was blown up in 1994.
A Tobin bullseye.