letztlich auch uns (Beinart + Grass)

Peter Beinart (whose book is on my list) gets at another aspect of the fear or premonition that, as I was just suggesting, must be heard in Grass’s poem:

Zionism has not always been a consensus position in American Jewish life. Before Israel’s creation, and even to some degree before 1967, substantial elements within American Jewry questioned the notion of Jewish sovereignty.

I fear that unless something changes, those earlier divisions will reemerge in the years to come. The more permanent Israel’s occupation of the West Bank becomes, the more American Jews will be forced to choose between a Jewish state that is not fully democratic and a binational state that loses its Jewish character. And faced with that choice, a great chasm will divide American Jewry: with most older American Jews on one side, and many non-Orthodox, younger American Jews on the other.

Saving Israel as a democratic Jewish state and preserving the Zionist consensus in American Jewish life are two sides of the same struggle.

Keeping in mind that “not fully democratic” is too anodyne for what that future and the measures to stabilize and protect it already entail, the question being put to us is whether Israel is or will remain the promise as it was envisioned by those – in effect all of us, by international-legal proxy – who bought in at its founding.  If the creation and recognition of the Jewish state was not a foundational act within a new and more just global democratic dispensation, then it is a guarantee of worsening oppression and a standing threat of new wars up to and including world war, and there is no middle ground between the two alternatives:  The latter one is the middle ground up until the day that this manifestation of the Jewish state follows prior ones on the geopolitical path of least resistance to extinction.

To connect the apostate Beinart to the declared enemy Grass, and both of them to everyone else:  While we may fear a radically illiberal enemy state gaining possession of nuclear weapons, we may also wonder if we’re witnessing the slow transformation, with our aid and under our own protection, of our ally into a radically illiberal state, one that already possesses a nuclear arsenal. This fear that Israel may be becoming or had to become, has been made into or was always destined to be, something different from what it was supposed to be, from what liberal Zionists believed it was or wanted to believe it could be, haunts all of us.  (Would-be defenders, too:  Guilty consciences might help explain the fits of “infantile pique” directed at critics.)  We call this illiberalization, this impossibilization of Israeli democracy, a nightmare, yet the dream frightens me not because it’s full of monsters, but because I’m the one they’re after.

Grass’s poem, widely denounced if not yet burned in literary effigy, ends as a plea for help – for Israelis, Palestinians, for “those living together as enemies in this region under occupation by madness,” and finally for the rest of us, too (“letztlich auch uns”). The fear of catastrophe extending beyond that “region” is not also mad, though either the fear or the catastrophe itself might lead that way, as they converge.  The slouching birth of nightmare Israel, conversion of the Holy Land to just another Hell on Earth, is our own drawn-out death by exposure. We know, by species-memory – or, if you prefer, we know in our souls – or we know by historical study all the way back to the beginnings – that moral exhaustion is not an endpoint, but typically a prologue.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

5 comments on “letztlich auch uns (Beinart + Grass)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. We know, by species-memory – or, if you prefer, we know in our souls – or we know by historical study all the way back to the beginnings – that moral exhaustion is not an endpoint, but typically a prologue.

    That’s quite a warning.
    I’m torn between the idea that it would be better for you to stick with poetry and ideas about poetry (because you get philosophy and politics well enough to write truly meaningful poetry and because you have the creativity necessary to pull off some great poetry), and the idea that it’s a good thing you don’t write poetry any more because your psychological splitting habit makes it very dangerous for you to be politically philosophizing at all–especially (or maybe exclusively) for yourself. I think you should focus on poetry because I think it would be better for you. Splitting and Hegel are a bad mix in my (relatively uneducated, but highly informed through energetic sensitivity) opinion. Of course, that comment will send you running back to political philosophy. So I’ll weigh in on the completely different point that Grass reminds me of one of my favorite painters: Anselm Keiffer. He expressed similar opinions about Germany and Israel without getting into trouble because they were never put into words exactly–just painted.

    • Dunno, Scott. Can’t always decide what you ought to be interested in or able to do – say, what’s going to capture your interest enough to keep you doing it despite the fact that it’s not good for you or going to lead to anything, and in every practical sense is in fact probably harmful, not to mention avoidant.

  2. So Zionism wasn’t the consensus Jewish position in 1948, I must have missed something, you know those settlements in Texas were certainly provocative, the Alamo one, just made it difficult for that nice fellow Santa Anna, who only had our best
    interests at heart.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins