Perry Anderson on the Left and the ‘Israel lobby’

Perry Anderson, the leading Marxist scholar of the day, confounds the vulgar Marxism that US policy is about “oil” and “profits”, a view that would reduce Nazism to a matter of Russian oil and wheat. These excerpts are followed by a link to the piece.

“The Middle East is the one part of the world where the us political system, as presently constituted, cannot act according to a rational calculus of national interest, because it is inhabited by another, supervening interest. For its entire position in the Arab—and by extension Muslim—world is compromised by its massive, ostentatious support for Israel.”

“The outstanding work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has finally broken this silence… In striking contrast has been the general pusillanimity of the American Left, prone to emphasizing the role of its bugbear the Christian Right as a more acceptable culprit, when the latter’s function has clearly been in effect a force d’appoint.”

These remarks are in section IV.7 of this article, and in the note in that section.

New Left Review, n. 48, November-December 2007
Perry Anderson
Jottings on the Conjuncture

Posted in Timeless

Theses on Zionism

by Harry Clark

On CounterPunch January 17, 2014

In response to Joseph Massad’s  “Theses on Zionism” in Electronic Intifada on December 9, 2013.

On this site

Continue reading

Posted in 2013

Reboot the Left on Palestine

What is to be done?

Worldwide, it is Israel Apartheid Week, 2013, a worthy expression of solidarity with the Palestinians suffering under Israel’s occupation of the territories it conquered in the June, 1967 war. However, the leading lights of the anti-apartheid struggle said a decade and more ago that Israel’s regime is much worse than South African apartheid. After 46 years, “the occupation” is clearly not temporary as the word implies. It is wrong to use this language, which privileges the oppressors and further oppresses the victims. This language is universal and long-standing, reflecting habits of thought and action long overdue for replacement. The following was written as notes for a discussion, about 2100 words.

entire article on Dissident Voice or keep reading here

Continue reading

Posted in 2013

Noam Chomsky and BDS: the ‘responsibility of intellectuals?’

Noam Chomsky’s critique of the boycott/divestment/sanctions movement against Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinian people, attracted wide attention. The Nation, where his article appeared, published five responses, to which Chomsky responded, and at least five appeared independently. Chomsky’s views were not new, but were first expressed during a BDS initiative in 2002, at Harvard and MIT. The wide attention his recent remarks earned was due to the growth of the BDS movement since.

Harvard/MIT 2002

The Harvard-MIT initiative was a response to Israeli suppression of the al-Aqsa intifada, the Palestinian uprising that began in September, 2000. It was provoked by the swaggering entrance to the Islamic shrines in Jerusalem of then-defense minister Ariel Sharon, accompanied by a thousand Israeli police. There was a demonstration, an Israeli massacre, and resistance across the West Bank that Israel attacked with utmost ferocity. The uprising expressed seven lean years of frustration with Israel’s exploitation of the 1993 Oslo accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization to further engorge the occupied territories and suffocate Palestinian life. As prime minister, Sharon ordered Operation Field of Thorns, the lavishly violent reconquista of Palestinian areas of the West Bank, including the drunken bulldozing of the center of Jenin refugee camp, and its inhabitants.

Against this sanguinary backdrop, a Harvard-MIT petition called for “the US government to make military aid and arms sales to Israel conditional on immediate initiation and rapid progress in implementing the conditions listed below. We also call on MIT and Harvard to divest from Israel, and from US companies that sell arms to Israel.” The petition called for Israel to comply with UN Resolution 242 and withdraw from the territories conquered in the June, 1967 war; stop torturing, as called for by the United Nations Committee Against Torture Report of 2001; comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting settlement and other practices in the occupied territories; and acknowledge in principle the Palestinian right of return as expressed in UN Resolution 194 (and related international law).

The petition garnered 443 signatures from Harvard and MIT faculty, staff, students and alumni, while a counter-petition garnered more than 3,200 signatures, amidst animated discussion. Then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers opined that “Harvard should not be an organ for advocacy on an issue as complex as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He did exactly that by stating: “The suggestion that [Israel’s] defense against terrorist attacks is inherently immoral seems to me to be an unsupportable one.” At a prayer meeting on campus at the start of fall term, Summers stated: “Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent…. Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities.”

Chomsky could have defended divestment as amply justified by Israel’s conduct and denounced Summers as unfit to lead an institution of higher education. He would have been vindicated resoundingly by Israel’s ongoing atrocities, and by Summers’ later claims about women’s inability in science, faculty no-confidence votes, and his resignation in 2006 after the shortest presidential term at Harvard in 144 years. Instead Chomsky was as upset as Summers that Israel could be sanctioned. In November, Chomsky told a Harvard audience: “I am opposed and have been opposed for many years, in fact, I’ve probably been the leading opponent for years of the campaign for divestment from Israel and of the campaign about academic boycotts.” One witness told this writer that the audience was “astonished.”

Full article at Noam Chomsky and BDS: the ‘responsibility of intellectuals’? See also a partial transcript of a November, 2014 panel on BDS at Harvard at which Chomsky spoke.

In his memoir, The Lost Traveller’s Dream, the late Joel Kovel cited this article as an example of how “active critics have intervened to hold Chomsky to account before a higher tribunal.” (333, n 12). Thank you Joel, of blessed memory, for that and other encouragement, and for your clarity over Palestine. See Joel’s Overcoming Zionism, reviewed here.

Posted in 2015 | Tagged , ,

The End of Modern Jewish History

The Jewish state of Israel and the organized Jewish communities abroad have constituted the Zionist Jewish people, whose aggrandizement has replaced liberalism as the Jewish social principle. This outlook has also deeply affected the Jewish left, who have abandoned the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment and emancipation, which rejected Zionism categorically, for a minimal critique of Israel’s “occupation” of the territories conquered in 1967, etc.

The article has three sections, “The Establishment,” “The Jewish Left,” and “Noam Chomsky.”  It is 17,000 words plus notes, the merest introduction to the subject. It is in the final issue (#38) of Left Curve. The article is online, in PDF form, at The End of Modern Jewish History. A summary of EMJH was read at a publication party held at the Emerald Tablet Gallery in San Francisco on July 9.

“The End of Modern Jewish History” is an emerging theme. See Enzo Traverso, La fin de la modernite juive (Paris, 2013). An English edition was published by Pluto Press in 2016:

The End of Jewish Modernity

An English review of the French edition is at

The end of Jewish modernity?

Judaic Studies at Brown offers a course, “The End of Modern Jewish History”. See JUDS 1716, 2/3 of the way down this page

JUDS 1716. The End of Modern Jewish History

Publication of Left Curve #38 was delayed by the passing of the editor, Csaba Polony, on March 9, 2014.

“A memorial to Csaba last night at an SF art gallery was SRO … The audience was a who’s who of who remains ambulatory in the North Beach culture scene,” wrote a friend in an email. RIP Csaba, you have gone to your reward.  Alas, #38 proved to be the last issue


Number 38 also contains an article by Rahela Mizrahi: “Usurping Art: Patterns of Expropriation, Conversion & Appropriation of Palestinian Heritage by Israeli Fine Arts.”

LC #37 contained a fine poem on the 30th anniversary of the Sabra/Shatila massacre by James Scully.

Posted in 2014 | Tagged ,

No Cockburn, No Voice

Alexander Cockburn was probably the most distinguished left journalist in his adopted land. He was fortified by his father Claud’s career in British journalism and the Communist Party, above all in the crucible of the late 1930s, when the British government abandoned the Spanish Republic to Franco’s Nationalists, and appeased Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

I knew Alex only as an editor, one with a light but sure touch. He ran one piece of mine in the CounterPunch newsletter, titled “Suez 1956, Iran 2007?” It described how Israel, in invading the Sinai peninsula, provided the excuse for Britain and France to invade the Suez Canal Zone. It was intended to draw parallels with Israel’s role in fomenting the crisis with Iran. Today, alas, only the title would need updating, as Alex would have agreed.

Continue reading

Posted in 2012 | Tagged , , ,

Liberal Citizenship, not ‘Jewish Identity’

An abiding feature of the Palestine question in the United States since 1967 has been a “Jewish left,” which combines Jewish affirmation with criticism of Israel’s occupation of the territories it conquered in that war. A 1973 anthology of writings from the “Jewish radicalism” movement stated: “in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War of 1967, an upsurge of Jewish consciousness hit the campuses, and a new voice—what we call the ‘Jewish Left’—appeared. Young Jews began to make demands for ‘Jewish studies’ programs, to publish Jewish underground newspapers, to criticize Israeli policies while defending Zionism against Arab and pro-Arab attacks, and to confront the Jewish Establishment for ‘selling out’ to the ‘American dream’ while ignoring the needs of the Jewish community.”

Thirty years later, journalist Esther Kaplan described “the old school of Jewish activism on Palestine…organizations from Breira in the 1970s to New Jewish Agenda, International Jewish Peace Union, the Road to Peace and Women in Black in the 1980s and early ’90s.” These activists followed “the star of identity politics;” they felt personally implicated by Israel’s deeds, saw a strategic role for themselves, and felt that changing the views of the US Jewish community was possible and necessary. After the second Intifada (Palestinian uprising) began in 2000, Kaplan found all this “anachronistic.” She described new organizations such as the International Solidarity Movement, and the boycott/divestment/sanctions movement (BDS). and concluded: “We Jews can join in—many of us will—but we don’t own this movement any more.”

Yet the Jewish left has thrived. It is not uniform, and exists in more and less sophisticated forms, but it is noticeable. It is the subject of a new book by David Landy, Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights. Landy is the former head of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and earned his PhD at Trinity College, Dublin. Landy’s main focus is the British “Israel-critical diaspora Jewish movement,” in his careful phrase. He notes that the UK movement became important only after the second Intifada, while elsewhere in Europe and Australia, movements arose only after Israel’s assaults on Lebanon in 2006, and especially on Gaza in 2008-9. Obviously that is not true in the US, whose movements’ “size and dynamism” make them the most important case.

In his introduction, Landy states that this movement seeks “to challenge Zionist hegemony among fellow Jews and to challenge Israel, speaking as Jews…who oppose Israel” so that we “do not conflate the two.” This formulation at once raises questions, beginning with the meaning of “Jew.” A religious definition is clear, as one who practices Judaism, but a secular definition is not, in fact, secular Jewish nationality is precisely what Zionism claims, and what many in Landy’s movement claim.

Landy’s background is Jewish, but he states that being a “movement activist is more important than shared Jewishness.” He also notes that many people of Jewish background are “active in society-wide groups…rather than specifically Jewish ones,” so that his study understates diaspora Jewish opposition to Israel. More important, the choice to work in “society-wide groups” sets a universalist benchmark to judge the choice to work in Jewish groups. The book is a sustained critique of identity politics, yet Landy does not fully comprehend his subject, in part because the UK movement, his main focus, is not the most illustrative example, which is in the US. Still, Landy’s rigor and honesty inevitably raise wider questions, and his book is a welcome contribution.

Entire article (PDF, 21 p + notes) at
Liberal Citizenship, not ‘Jewish Identity’

The entire piece appeared on DissidentVoice on February 14, 2012.
Liberal Citizenship, not ‘Jewish Identity’

Posted in 2012