Natan Sharansky, from Refusenik to Likudnik to Publicist

 

BY NOAH S.        

Natan Sharansky, the famous Soviet dissident and Israeli political leader, spoke yesterday evening at the University of California, Berkeley. Freshly appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu to head the Jewish Agency for Israel, Sharansky is touring college campuses in an attempt to foster a more positive image of Israel among American youth. The audience in the large lecture hall, however—considering the stature of the guest and the amount of publicity for the event—was surprisingly sparse and composed largely (in this author’s estimation, at least) of non-students who were old enough to remember Sharansky when he was a hero for Americans and Jews during the Cold War. But then, this is Berkeley—a “haven” for “anti-Israel forces,” as the student organizers put it—the speaker was Sharansky—famous now more as George W. Bush's favorite author than anything else—and the event was part of the dubiously titled “Caravan for Democracy” series, which is funded by such local favorites as Media Watch International (a group aligned with Likud) and the Jewish National Fund (among other things, since 1901 a major land-owner in Palestine/Israel which still refuses to lease its land to Arabs). It is a shame, though, that more students were not in attendance, because they would have been challenged by a trenchant thinker with a compelling personal story to think through some of the basic justifications for the existence of a Jewish state.

The talk was brilliantly composed and delivered, though problematic upon close scrutiny. Sharansky structured his argument around “two ideas” which he claims share a “deep connection”: “the desire to be free” and “the desire to belong,” or between “democracy” and “identity.” (The connection between the two forms the basis of a course Sharansky is leading at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.) Those familiar with his books The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror (2004) and Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy (2008) will recognize the argument. It is directed mainly against those “intellectuals,” as he called them, who believe in “post-identity,” “post-nationalism,” “post-modernism,” and “multiculturalism” - in other words, the relativists who believe that “nothing is different, that everything is equal.” (Berkeley professors?)  In order to illustrate this caricatured line of thought, Sharansky quoted (God help us) none other than the hippie-icon John Lennon, who asked us in 1971 to “imagine” a world in which there are “no countries,” “no religion,” and “nothing to kill or die for.” (Actually, Sharansky only quoted “nothing to die for.”). The logic of Sharansky’s unnamed intellectuals, represented here by the post-Beatle, holds that “strong identities” like nationalism and religion are “the enemies of peace.” Strong identities in Europe supposedly led to two world wars; war is evil; therefore, identity is evil. For them, being a human rights activist and a nationalist is an internal contradiction. And by this logic, the nation-state of Israel, which claims to be a leader of the free world yet retains its identity as the homeland of only one people, is an anachronism in a post-identity Western world. Sharanksy has set out to prove these critics wrong.

Born Anatoly Borisovich Shcharansky in Donetsk, Ukraine (then the Soviet Union) in 1948, Sharansky never saw any contradiction between the desire to be free and the desire to belong because under the Soviet regime both were stifled if you were a Jew. He was neither allowed to voice a dissenting political opinion, nor to learn anything about his religious and cultural heritage. When he attempted to immigrate to Israel in 1973 and was refused passage—thus acquiring the title of refusenik—he became an outspoken dissident and spent years in Soviet prisons. He realized that he had found something—his Jewishness—which he was “willing to die for,” and it gave him the strength to withstand the KGB. In this brief biographical narrative, Sharansky did not take time to discuss why the struggle to express one’s political views and the struggle to express one’s cultural identity publicly—which in his case did coincide—should resonate with people growing up in a free world. A tighter case would have to be made; perhaps those who have read his latest book could chime in here. In any case, the argument offers some insight into the psychology of this Soviet dissident turned militant democrat.

In fact, most of the talk was about Sharansky’s own story, and the move from the personal to the contemporary political came only at the very end, in a rhetorical flourish when he accused European intellectuals of “having nothing to die for.” As a result, he claimed, when faced with a very small minority of possible fundamentalist terrorists whose identity is strong and who are willing to die for their cause, they feel bewildered and defenseless. In the wake of World War II, just as Europeans vowed never to fight again, Zionists vowed never to not fight again. Israel has paid the price in its international image for the post-war move toward pacifism and post-identity among "intellectuals," Sharansky claimed, because it became a nation-state precisely at the moment when the idea of the nation-state became unpopular. The Western nations said accusingly, “We have given up our nationalism, our colonialism - why not you?” Sharansky’s answer is that Israelis need to have a strong identity to fight and die (and kill) for if they are to defend against “all these totalitarian regimes” in its region. One senses that Sharansky’s experience in the Soviet prisons has left its indelible mark upon this man’s political philosophy. 

German Leftists fight Antisemites and Anti-Zionists

The caption above Ahmadinejad's head reads "I want nuclear holocaust."
The text below calls for a demonstration against "the most dangerous politician of our time."
See I Like Israel for info.

Germany today is one of the few countries in the world in which committed groups of non-Jewish, left-wing activists actively support Israel. In other European countries, the kind of coalition behind the upcoming protest advertised in the poster above would have been impossible. Just imagine an alliance consisting of religious and secular Jewish organizations, leftist anti-fascist student groups, Israeli-German friendship associations, and foundations (run and funded by non-Jews) committed to fighting antisemitism. Only in America would the kind of action organized by "I like Israel" attract a significant amount of support from non-Jews; it would come almost entirely from the right of the political spectrum.

While elsewhere in the world, radical leftism is synonymous with anti-Zionism, a small but significant number of German neo-Marxists and anti-fascists, who maintain a number of impressive print publications, unequivocally define anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. Most of these pro-Israel German leftists define themselves as "anti-Deutsch" - that is, opposed to German nationalism. For several decades, they have been fighting what they perceive as the re-appearance of antisemitism and nationalism through the backdoors of leftist anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. They have also tenaciously opposed the self-serving equations of Nazi atrocities with Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories by some German intellectuals, in the process drawing attention to the convergence of Holocaust deniers, Muslim fundamentalists, and pro-Palestinian groups. Often, these young, highly-educated activists challenge neo-Nazi groups as well as the ubiquitous keffiyeh-clad shock-troops of the anti-globalization, anti-American, anti-Israel left on the streets of Germany's large cities. Unlike leftists in England, France, and Berkeley, California, they do not underestimate the virulent antisemitism sweeping through much of the Muslim world. They see it as the historical responsibility of Germans to oppose the genocidal rhetoric of individuals such as Iranian President Ahmadinejad and organizations such as Hamas.

Living in Berlin several years ago, at the height of the second intifada, I had the opportunity to meet a number of organizers from the ranks of the anti-Deutsche. Most of them emphasized that they are "unfortunately only a small part of the German left." They were often deeply critical and pessimistic about the German discourse on Israel and the Middle East, noting rampant bias against Israel in the media. At the same time, they also expressed fears about the resurgence of neo-Nazi groups in the former East Germany and the resulting increase in attacks on "foreigners." I was therefore pleased to read an article by Assaf Uni, "The good men of Leipzig ," in Ha'aretz a few days ago (thanks for the reference, Ima), which described the relative success of the anti-Deutsche in this city.

Berkeley Professor: Hizbullah and Hamas "Part of the Global Left"

Saba Mahmood Addresses the Crowd, Thurs., Sept. 7, 2006

A good friend of mine and loyal reader of this blog took issue with the cut-up of the Berkeley Teach-Ins Against War event, that I posted late on Thursday night. He charged that instead of crudely bashing the speakers, I ought to have engaged the "complex arguments" presented by them. I regret to say that I will not be able to do that. I simply did not hear any such arguments. Perhaps I entered the event with the wrong kind of attitude. But I came away with a very different impression of the teach-in than my friend.

It is true that the various panelists repeatedly pointed to the large number of Lebanese civilian deaths caused by Israel's air campaign. I do not object to this. From the first days of the war, we at Kishkushim have expressed our sorrow about the deaths of Lebanese and Israeli civilians in the conflict. The Israeli government and military cannot escape the soul searching that the loss of civilian lives requires of them. I want such soul-searching to take place with the aim of averting more civilian deaths. But that is simply not the type of discussion that I witnessed on Thursday. When all was said and done, I left that teach-in feeling as if I had sat through a sophisticated, two-hour commercial for Hizbullah. I say that not to discredit or smear those who criticize Israel but rather to provide some context for my admittedly harsh attack on the panelists.

Let me begin from the end. Ironically, during the question period after the five speakers had finished, one member of the audience asked Judith Butler why she had included any critique, however weak, of Hizbullah in her discussion. She responded with an astounding statement that N has already cited. “Understanding Hamas and Hizbullah as social movements that are on the global left is important,” she said, “but [it] doesn’t stop us from criticizing them.” I know that some of our readers would applaud such a statement. For them, the global left, in any case, represents hypocrisy, foolishness, terrorist appeasement, and antisemitism. But despite all the terrible things I have seen among movements that identify themselves as “leftist,” I still believe that the “global left” stands or ought to stand for values that are diametrically opposed to those of these two organizations.

In fact, speaker after speaker at the teach-in, made efforts to embrace Hizbullah as part of a “left” opposed to the right-wing forces represented by the US and Israel. Thus, Charles Hirschkind, claimed that “since the end of the occupation, most of [Hizbullah’s] activities have been focused on social services,” and that the movement “increasingly showed itself to be a positive force,” with no desire to create a theocracy in Lebanon. The United States, on the other hand, although it claims to be fighting al-Qaeida with its “war on terror,” is actually trying to liquidate Islamic activists worldwide. Hizbullah is at the top of its list, together with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which Hirschkind described as having been “peaceful since the 1950s” and as one of the key groups involved in the struggle to democratize Egyptian society.

Like a number of other panelists that night, Hirschkind scoffed at the notion that Hizbullah is a terrorist group. “The label ‘terrorist’ is radically inaccurate for describing resistance,” he said. Indeed, Hirschkind’s argument continued, most “terrorists” in the Middle East are not really terrorists, and certainly not Muslim fundamentalists. Suicide bombers share a commitment to resisting foreign occupation, not to Islamism. And suicide bombings are “the strategy of the weak against vastly more powerful adversaries,” which have nothing to do with “a culture of death.”

Saba Mahmood, who opened the talk, also did her best to rehabilitate Hizbullah. In a list of impressive achievements of the Lebanese in recent years, she included “successfully driving out the Israelis.” Of course, Hizbullah has claimed that particular achievement all for itself, so that heralding it as impressive, is another way of giving the organization kudos. But more perversely, she argued that Hizbullah had contributed positively to fashioning a new political ethic in Lebanon that ensured coexistence. As evidence, she cited the lack of Hizbullah reprisals against Christian militia men in southern Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. She also painted a rosy picture of the national dialogue in Lebanon before the 2006 war. Interestingly enough, she did not mention once the assassination of Rafik Hariri by pro-Syrian forces. Indeed, the only person who mentioned Hariri was Zeina Zaatari, in a derisive reference to “clientism.”

Zaatari’s talk, as N has already written, was the most blatantly propagandistic among the five that night. She extolled Hizbullah’s services, and reiterated that “its interest has always been driving out Israel.” Zaatari lauded Nasrallah: “He spoke to the people; he talked their language.” She also made a cryptic reference to the lands that Israel had taken from Lebanon in 1948! “The creation of the state of Israel was a hostile act not just against the Palestinians but also against other Arabs,” she said, “Lebanon lost 7 villages then.” Danny Rubinstein published an article about this claim during the war. Unfortunately, the full text is no longer available online, but an excerpt can be found here (it’s near the bottom of the page, search “Rubinstein”). Yoav Shtern also wrote a longer article about these villages in Ha’aretz, which I have only found in Hebrew. While the Sykes-Picot agreement allotted these 7 Shiite villages to Lebanon, the 1923 border demarcation assigned them to Mandatory Palestine, and the UN recognizes them as belonging to Israel. The point is that Zaatari’s claim, about the seven Shiite villages that Israel “stole,” is embraced by the most ardent rejectionists in Lebanon. It was employed specifically by Nasrallah to justify Hizbullah’s ongoing presence in the south despite Israel’s withdrawal.

Of all the speakers, Beshara Doumani, was the only one who refrained from being sucked into the Hizbullah-propaganda vortex – at least as far as I remember. I found his contribution deeply problematic for a number of other reasons. I hope to deal with these as well as with Butler in more detail in a future post.

Teachin'

Judith Butler, Zeina Zaatari, Beshara Doumani and Charles Hirschkind

I too attended Berkeley Teach-Ins Against War's event last night. I feel somewhat responsible for the admittedly inflammatory comment, "Judith Butler played the Jewish card." So I want to put that comment in context and offer my impressions.

I think there are two sides to Butler's presentation of herself as a Jewish critic of Israel. On the one hand, she argues that Jewish values motivate her critique of the state of Israel. That I can't argue with. And that I can respect. On the other hand, after hearing her spiel twice this year, I've gotten the sense that she -- and her partisans -- believe that the fact of her Jewish ethnicity in and of itself renders morally and intellectually credible any and all commentary she offers the public on Israel. It's no accident that her fellow panelists "conscripted" her (in absentia) to speak about Israel, rather than, say, the social services of Hezbullah.

So as a critic of Israel, we're to understand, Butler is authentic. Let me relate her opening words from last night: "To make a set of events thinkable is not to take a normative position. Yet all discourse as public discourse is normative." Is this a person I should take at her word? For me, she doesn't make her criticism relevant by couching it in platitudes about Judaism. But she'd make it relevant by laying bare her ethical stance; by acting as a responsible public intellectual. Her talk at the conference earlier this year on "Is there a New Anti-Semitism" opened with an equally sophistic preamble: "I'll leave questions of historical and social issues to those qualified to address them, but..." And she went on to lecture at length on Primo Levi's relationship to Zionism, cryptically advancing an anti-Zionist position of her own.

Now I went to this most recent Berkeley event because I'm perfectly willing to hear anti-Zionist positions expounded and, preferably, debated. Of course, this wasn't an "Organized Research Unit," or a department that hosted the event. This was a group of people who indeed come together for ideological solidarity. But this was a UC Berkeley-sanctioned event, and, at the risk of sounding like Grover Norquist or Benjamin Netanyahu, I don't think that the taxpayers of California should have to pay for the lights to be on while such vulgar propaganda is spread on a UC campus. The most egregious example of this was the "Hizbullah" speaker (Zeina Zaatari). That was her charge: to speak about the Shiite militia and social movement. So we heard "a message from a Hezbullah woman," who mourned the deaths of martyrs but vowed to continue resistance. Her womb could produce more. One might object: what's wrong with sharing the voice of this woman? Isn't there something to be gained in hearing a perspective? The problem is that this woman's voice was marshalled as part of a vigorous attempt to rehabilitate Hezbullah in the eyes of the audience. As Judith Butler later commented, "Hizbullah and Hamas are part of the global left." So the social service infrastructure of Hezbullah was rehearsed. They have hospitals and schools, all of which, our speaker claimed, were destroyed by Israel. Lest anyone look askance at the organization's finances, she detailed its sources of funding. Some funding, she was willingly to concede, came from Iran (she didn't mention Syria). But, she hastened to add, "They have businesses." It was a crowd that seemed pleased to mock the "mainstream media." So I doubt many will have noticed the recent Washington Post story that detailed just exactly what those "businesses" are.

I don't want to bore or offend anybody. And Asaf is right: group think is stupid, dangerous, and downright embarrassing. I, for one, agree with Butler's point that the line between soldier and civilian is less clear now than it was before the Lebanon War. I am deeply troubled by this. But I see it as part of a trend, a crisis in international politics to which Israel is indeed a party: what are the norms of warfare going to be in this new environment? I don't believe they've been sufficiently worked out yet. But I don't believe in Butler's Original Sin either.