New manifestations of anti-zionist fundamentalism on the Australian left

In an earlier ADC Special Report, I discussed the three principal views regarding Zionism and Israel on the Australian Left.

One perspective is balanced in terms of supporting moderates and condemning extremists and violence on both sides. A second perspective supports a two-state solution in principle, but in practice holds Israel principally or even solely responsible for the continuing violence and terror in the Middle East. This perspective holds that an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the key prerequisite for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation. In general, adherents of this view recognize that not all Israelis are the same, and understand the difference between particular Israeli government policies and the Israeli people per se.

Some components of this second perspective may reasonably be characterized as unbalanced and naïve at best, and as failing to offer a corresponding critical analysis of contemporary and historical Palestinian actions and strategies which have acted as serious barriers to peace. But their criticisms of Israel are generally not illegitimate per se given that they are related at least in part to real everyday events in the Occupied Territories.

A third perspective - held mainly but no longer exclusively by the far Left sects - regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist.This perspective reflects what may be called a position of anti-Zionist fundamentalism that is akin to religious fundamentalism. Adherents hold to a viewpoint opposing Israel’s existence specifically and Jewish national rights more broadly which is beyond rational debate, and unconnected to contemporary or historical reality. Particular emphasis is placed on excluding from progressive debate those labelled ‘Left Zionists’, who hold more complexviews, and reject the negative stereotyping of all Israelis.

In place of the fundamental and objective centrality of the State of Israel to contemporary Jewish identity, anti-Zionist fundamentalists portray Israel as a mere political construct, and utilize ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis and all Jewish supporters of Israel in order to justify their claims.iii

In the following paper, I discuss some recent manifestations of anti-Zionist fundamentalism on the Australian Left. It should be noted that these views almost certainly represent a minority of Left opinion. Nevertheless, their adherents have succeeded in promoting an anti-Zionist orthodoxy in key sections of the Left that is too rarely challenged by supporters of the first two perspectives.

Case Study One: No democracy in Israel

In late 2004, two Queensland journalists Martin Hirst and Robert Schutze penned an attack on the conservative foreign editor of the Australian newspaper Greg Sheridan.iv The purpose of the attack was to discredit  Sheridan’s views on the Iraq war, and the associated war on terror.

In the middle of this hyperbolic critique, the authors offered the following: - Israel was guilty of “war crimes by assassinating Palestinian religious and political leaders” - “Sheridan parrots the absurdity that Israel is the only democracy in the region”

- “Where is the democracy in Israel? On the one hand, Iraq was a dictatorship with limited electoral participation under Saddam Hussein…Compare this with Israel which has a limited parliamentary system under the effective dictatorship of Ariel Sharon. People are regularly beaten, tortured and killed tomaintain the Zionist regime”.

These passages typify the anti-Zionist fundamentalist viewpoint. The reality of the Middle East is not only distorted, but effectively denied. Instead of taking an evidence-based approach that recognizes the political complexity and plurality (both good and bad) of Israel’s liberal democracy, the authors stereotype both the government and people of Israel. The government of Israel is judged to be as bad if not worse as that of Saddam Hussein. And the nation state of Israel – rather than a real state with real people - becomes a mere political construct which lacks any independent existence beyond its alleged role in the American global empire.

Case Study Two: The State of Israel as Oppressor

In late 2004, a retired Queensland academic Ulf Sundhaussen authored a long discussion of the debate on international terrorism. v Within this thesis he  suggested that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the tackling of terrorism, and offered the following comments:

- “The West – the Jews, with the very active help of particularly the USA - has turned most of Palestine into the Republic of Israel without providing any compensation to the people they displaced, and has kept the rest of Palestine colonised for the last 37 years”;- “When in November 2003 an opinion poll revealed that most Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace the reaction of Israeli and American leaders was utterly predictable.

Because of what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust they are exempt from any criticism for eternity, and any dissent over this principle constitutes anti-Semitism”.

Sundhaussen’s argument is not as bad as the first case example. In other parts of his long essay he does implicitly defend Israel’s right to exist. But the above citations show how easily he falls into using the language of anti-Zionist fundamentalism. Firstly, he seems unable to distinguish between the Jewish national narrative and experience, and western global schemes. Secondly, he reinforces the assumption that the Israelis are inherently powerful oppressors, and the Palestinians are merely powerless and oppressed. Thirdly, whilst rightly critical of the notion that Israeli actions should be beyond criticism, he fails to challenge the equally simplistic (and arguably prejudiced) argument that Israel threatens world peace.

Case Study Three: A Moment of Truth for the NSW Greens

In an earlier ADC Special Report, I discussed the views of the Australian Greens on Israel.vi I noted a division in the Greens between those who advocated a relatively balanced approach to Israel (roughly conversant with the second perspective discussed above), and overt protagonists of the Palestinian cause.

The pro-Palestinian lobby seemed to be particularly prominent in the New South Wales branch as reflected in the passage of an April 2002 motion by the State Delegates Council calling for sanctions against Israel. One of the strongest supporters of that motion was Jamal Daoud, a Palestinian activist who is the Greens NSW Immigration and Refugees Spokesperson, and Convenor of their Ethnic Communities Committee.vii

In August 2005, Jamal Daoud presented a proposal for the formation of a standing committee titled “Greens for Peace and Justice in Palestine” to the NSW State Delegates Council. The proposal included the following statements:

- “Zionism is a form of racism”;

- “We recognize the historical rights of the Palestinians, as the  indigenous people of that land, for independence and self determination” (and conversely don’t recognize Israel);- While acknowledging the deep feelings underlying Zionism, we cannot accept it in a modern, secular, democratic, non-discriminatory and equitable state”.

In short, the NSW Greens were being asked to endorse a motion that called for the physical destruction of the State of Israel, and its replacement by an Arab State of Palestine. Yet the language was typical of anti-Zionist fundamentalism in that no actual reference was made to the war of partial or total genocide that would be required to end the existence of Israel. Instead the author disingenuously constructed a subjective fantasy world in which Israel is miraculously destroyed by remote control free of any violence or bloodshed under the banner of anti-racism.

At the time of writing this motion has not been accepted by the NSW Greens, but it is unclear whether this delay is due to principled opposition or on other grounds. The August SDC meeting referred the motion back for further consultation with the Ethnic Communities Committee on the grounds that: 1) It was partisan, and the Committee should be renamed either “in Palestine/Israel” or “in the Middle East”; 2) That it may be preferable to have a committee on foreign affairs rather than a committee concerned with one particular country. Stay tuned for the NSW Greens moment of truth.viii

Case Study Four: Ali Kazak and friends demand the right to criticize Jews

In early 2005 Ali Kazak, the head of the General Palestinian Delegation to Australia and New Zealand, penned an attack on those who associate criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism.ix Kazak’s article included the following arguments:

- That the 1948 Palestinian Naqba (Catastrophe) was the same as the  Holocaust
- That allegations of anti-Semitism were used unfairly to silence criticisms of Israel and Zionism
- That Israel was created at the behest of the colonialist powers
- That Israel is not a democracy
- That Israel imposes concentration camps on the Palestinians.x

All these arguments were typical of anti-Zionist fundamentalist rhetoric. The historical reality of the Middle East was denied by removing the link between the Jewish experience of oppression in both Europe and the Middle East and the creation of Israel. The Palestinians were depicted as intrinsically innocent victims. Deliberate attempts were made to diminish and trivialise the extent of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust by comparing Jews with Nazis. And the reality that many hardline anti-Zionists do use ethnic stereotyping of Jews and Israelis to justify their opposition to Israel’s existence was denied.

In response to Kazak’s hyperbole, I penned a brief response distinguishing between what I called legitimate criticisms of Israel that were not anti-Semitic, and illegitimate criticisms that were based on a direct convergence of anti- Semitism and anti-Zionism.xi

What happened next was interesting. Three different authors penned synchronized letters denouncing my critique of anti-Semitism.xii Their arguments included the following:

- Jews and Zionists enjoy an unfair and exclusive entrée to Arena  Magazinexiii
- Philip Mendes was trying to dictate the editorial policy of Arena  Magazine
- Criticism of Jews was not anti-Semitic- Hard-core Zionists including Philip Mendes believe in Jewish world supremacy.

Hyperbole aside, the three letter writers seemed to be saying that it was inappropriate for a Left journal to publish any views critical of anti-Semitism or supportive of Israel. And that all defenders of Israel’s existence – whatever their actual political positions on solutions to the conflict – were to bedemonised.xiv This attempt to impose an anti-Zionist orthodoxy on the entire Left is typical of anti-Zionist fundamentalism.

Case Study Five: The Socialist Alliance and their “Jewish” Uncle Tom

The Socialist Alliance, Australia’s foremost radical left group, is based on a coalition of a number of smaller Left groups. The two largest affiliates, the International Socialist Organisation and the Democratic Socialist Party, have long opposed Israel’s right to exist. However, some of the smaller affiliates such as the Workers Liberty group hold a more balanced two-state position on Israel. Nevertheless, the general posture of the Socialist Alliance is one of unequivocal support for the Palestinians.xv

In mid-2005 the Socialist Alliance published an article by the veteran US Jewish Marxist academic Bertell Ollman.xvi This article fits into a long historical pattern whereby sections of the Left expediently parade unrepresentative Jewish radicals who are willing to exploit their own religious and cultural origins in order to vilify their own people.

Much of the article was a fairly predictable radical Left critique of Zionism including allegations of Israeli war crimes against the Palestinians, and the contentious suggestion that Jews have exchanged what was traditionally a relatively unprejudiced cosmopolitanism for a narrow racist nationalism not dissimilar to Nazism.

Ollman at least acknowledges that Jews are a historically oppressed people, but what he fails to add is that the Left would never condemn other oppressed peoples in this way. It is unthinkable, for example, that the Socialist Alliance would publish an article titled ‘Why I resigned from the Aboriginal community”, or “Why I no longer wish to be part of the East Timorese people”. This is because true socialists/internationalists do not use binary opposites of good and bad peoples.

Of course the likely comeback is that the Aborigines and the East Timorese are not oppressing another people whereas the Jews in Israel are suppressing the Palestinians. However, this misses the precise point which is that the Jews were not inherently good when powerless victims, nor are they inherently bad when powerful. To argue the opposite is simply to indulge in ethnic stereotyping which the Left claims to fundamentally oppose.

Case Study Six: David Glanz applies Ethnic Stereotyping to Israel

In September 2005 David Glanz, a spokesperson for the Socialist Alliance, authored a critical reflection on his recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories.xvii Glanz, who is of Jewish background, predictably presented  himself as a good Jew who is willing to dispassionately criticize his own oppressed national group as opposed to those bad Jews who place national solidarity ahead of the class struggle.

But what was most interesting was Glanz’s ethnic stereotyping of the Israelis he met. The border guards were tough, unfriendly, rude and aggressive. The taxi drivers were dishonest. The populace all carry guns, and are inherently militaristic. They are also rude and fearful. This is because (according to Glanz) they represent merely an European enclave in the Middle East responsible for the oppression of the Palestinians. That this fear might be both rational and justified given the hatred that many Palestinians express towards Israel and Israelis does not seem to enter into this convenient and patronising narrative.

There is none of the cultural or political complexity or diversity of Israeli society in this presentation. Glanz suggests that Israel is a white racist society, but makes no reference to the approximately 50 per cent of Israeli Jews who are dark-skinned refugees (or the children or grandchildren of such) from Arab countries. Nor does he refer to the major ideological cleavages within Israel over the recent Gaza withdrawal, or to the many Druze and other Arabs who choose to serve in the Israeli army.

Here we have simply a parroting of the anti-Zionist fundamentalism that Glanz admits learning from his Palestinian friends at university 30 years ago. All Israelis are powerful oppressors, and all Palestinians are powerless and oppressed. No sign of a truly internationalist Left perspective which recognizes the good and bad of both peoples.

Case Study Seven: Julia Irwin abuses the Holocaust

The federal ALP MP Julia Irwin has a long history of using extreme language to attack both Israel, and its local Jewish supporters. In July 2003, for example, she implied that Australian Jews had used financial intimidation to unduly influence the ALP’s Middle East policy.xviii

Now Irwin has added the Holocaust to her armoury. In September 2005 she told the Federal Parliament that Israel had turned the Gaza Strip into a “walled ghetto…a concentration camp”.xix Irwin’s use of Holocaust imagery in order to  bash Israel is typical of anti-Zionist fundamentalism. The leadership of her own party has since condemned her statement.

Case Study Eight: Bob Ellis labels Israel a Terrorist State

Bob Ellis is a prominent playwright, intellectual and Labor Party speech writer. In November 2005, he authored a semi-ironic frontal attack on Israel in the pages of the Byron Bay Echo. Ellis claimed the following:

- Israel was as “unruly state” no better than Iran;
- Israel assassinates Arab leaders every month, and was responsible for poisoning the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat;
- Israel regularly kills Palestinian civilians without any provocation.

Ellis’s diatribe reflected a simplistic analysis typical of anti-Zionist fundamentalism. No evidence was produced to support his unfounded allegations concerning assassinations and poison. No broader context was provided to establish the relationship between Palestinian terror and violence, and Israeli military responses. And no reference was made to the regular statements by the new fundamentalist Iranian President calling for the elimination of Israel, and denying the Holocaust.

Conclusion

The above examples demonstrate that sections of the Australian Left engage in an unfortunate subjective and fantasy-based approach to the issue of Israel/Palestine. This anti-Zionist fundamentalism involves a unique demonisation of the Israelis as a bad people, the blanket construction of all Jewish supporters of Israel as the enemy, and an overwhelming denial of the complex realities of the Middle East.

There is no inherent reason why this should be so. It is about time the sober majority on the Left raised their voices above those of the anti-Zionist fundamentalists in favour of recognizing the merits and limitations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

I am grateful to David Hirsh of UK Engage, Ari Sharp, Paul Gardner of the ADC,  and Mark Zirnsak of the Uniting Church for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.ii Philip Mendes, “A Case Study of Ethnic Stereotyping: The Campaign for an Academic Boycott of Israel”, ADC Special Report, No.27, July 2005.iii Philip Mendes, “Much Ado About Nothing? The Academic Boycott of Israel Down Under”, Midstream. Vol.50, No.2, February-March 2004, p.9.iv Martin Hirst & Robert Schutze, “Duckspeak Crusader: Greg Sheridan’s unique  brand of seculo-Christian morality”, Overland, No.176, 2004, pp.18-25.v Ulf Sunhaussen, “Terrorism and America”, Social Alternatives, Vol.23, No.2, 2004, pp.6-29 & 44-47.vi Philip Mendes, “The Australian Greens: Taking Sides on the Israel/Palestine  Conflict”, ADC Special Report, No.22, September 2004.vii Jamal Daoud, “NSW Greens respond to Palestine Crisis”, Greenmail, May 2002,  pp.8-9. Daoud is also the convenor of the Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine, which recently protested outside a Jewish National Fund function in Sydney. SeeJennifer Sexton & Elizabeth Gosch, “Protest as Gore speaks to Jews”, The Australian,  8 November 2005.

viii I’m grateful to a former Greens member for providing this information.

ix Ali Kazak, “In search of a Just Peace”, Arena Magazine, No.75, February-March 2005, pp.13-14.

x For similar language see Ali Kazak, “Israel’s threat to world peace”, The Age, 5 September 2005.

xi Philip Mendes, “Reply to Ali Kazak”, Arena Magazine, No.76, April-May 2005,  pp.24-25.xii Denis Ross, Mary Riajansky, and Iqbal Muhamed, “Reply to Philip Mendes”, Arena Magazine, No.77, June-July 2005, p.22.

xiii This is actually quite funny given that Arena have regularly published contributions  from anti-Zionist fundamentalists such as John Docker, Ned Curthoys, Jeremy Salt, and Ali Kazak. To be sure they have also granted space to rebuttals from more balanced contributors such as Doug Kirsner, Geoffrey Levey, and myself.

 

xiv It is perhaps worth noting that I have been a supporter of a two-state solution to the  Israeli/Palestinian conflict for over 20 years. My views have not always been popular with some of the more conservative Zionists within the Melbourne Jewish community. See also Philip Mendes, “Philip Mendes responds”, Arena Magazine,  No.78, August-September 2005, p.28.

xvxv “Policy on Palestine”, www.socialist-alliance.org, accessed 13/9/05. For internal  SA debate, see Socialist Alliance Discussion Bulletin, January, April, May and  November 2003.

xvi Bertell Ollman, “Letter of Resignation from the Jewish People”, Seeing Red, No.4,  June 2005, pp.34-37. An earlier version appeared in Tikkun, 20(1), January/February 2005, pp.10 & 58-62.

xvii David Glanz, “Stranger in a strange land”, Eureka Street, 15(7), September- October 2005, pp.20-21.

xviii Philip Mendes, ”The Australian Left and Anti-Semitism”, ADC Special Report,  No.15, November 2003.

xix House of Representatives, 13 September 2005, p.62.

xx Bob Ellis, “In danger of encouraging terrorism”, The Echo, 8 November 2005 &  “Well-meaning good guys unburdened by conscience”, 22 November. See also replies by Julie Nathan, 15 November, and Paul Gardner, 29 November.

Copyright ©. ADC Special Report is a publication of the B′nai B′rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc (ADC), the human rights arm of B′nai B′rith Australia/New Zealand, which is dedicated to researching and combating all forms of racism. PO Box 450, Caulfield South, Victoria, Australia 3162.Tel: Int + 61 3 9572 5770 Fax Int + 61 3 9572 5775 Email antidef@bigpond.net.au

Editor: Geoffrey Zygier