An Attempt at a Fisking of an Anti-Zionist

A recent self-righteous and rather childish rant in favor of "debating Zionism" has prompted me to make my first attempt at a fisking. Here goes:

The debate over Zionism going on in Jewish communities is as old as Zionism itself. It did not end after the Holocaust, and it did not end conclusively with the founding of the State of Israel.

So far as I know, it was settled, and the majority of Jews accepted the existence of Israel. The mere existence of a debate does not mean that both sides are equally legitamate, accepted or relevant. There are still people who argue in favor of the South's right to secede in the Civil War. The fact that there were still a few insignificant minority voices such as the ACJ is irrelevant. Moreover, I would like to see some evidence for this sweeping statement.

The champions of Zionism among Jews seem to have become a majority only after the 1967 war, but even then there was a significant minority of non-Zionists in any Jewish society.

Surely someone who participated in a debate knows that one needs to present evidence for their claims. Rather than do so, Baram simply claims that "it seems" this was the case. As such, there's nothing to refute.

However, it seems that the more powerful the Zionism trend has become among Jews, the more hysterical its supporters have turned. They engage in constant stable-cleaning, sniffing for dissidents behind every curtain, finding non-Zionists under each cupboard.

Once again, "it seems" that this is the case, and there's no need for evidence. If Baram had done any historical research at all, she would have known that arguments between Zionists and anti-Zionists were no less heated prior to 1967 (and the anti-Zionists gave as good as they got). One need only read Rory Miller's study on Jewish anti-Zionists in Britain during 1945-48, and the Zionists' fight aginst them, to know this. As they say, a little learning...

...Reading the responses of Emanuele Ottolenghi ("Jews against Israel," February 22) and Melanie Phillips (in her infamous blog) to the recent debate over Zionism held in Cambridge in which Brian Klug, Richard Kuper and myself argued for alternatives to Zionism, one would think that Israel was not a nuclear regional superpower possessing the fourth most powerful army in the world, but a shaky sanctuary where Jews are annihilated by the thousands every day.

Let's see, on the one hand "we" argue against the very raison d'etre of the State, and then we wonder why our opponents are jumpy (I wonder if they would feel the same way if people who debated "alternatives" to Palestinian nationalism countered that "one would think that the Palestinians aren't the darlings of the international community, and coddled at every turn"). Then we throw in an utterly irrelevant remark about the strength of the country's military, as if that has anything to do with the diplomatic attempts to dismantle it. Surely Baram knows the difference between apples and oranges.

BUT ARE WE really not strong enough to have such a debate? Abraham Leon's book arguing against Zionism was smuggled out of Auschwitz; Algerian dissident Abraham Sarfati held on to his non-Zionist criticism even after years of imprisonment in Algiers for his opposition to the local regime. Zionism is not an obvious response to suffering or to persecution. If those people, true Jewish heroes, kept on debating the subject while exposed to the most horrible perils, so, surely, can we.

Once again, so you get the point, the existence of a debate does not make it ipso facto legitamite. One must prove such a point. Appeals to authority (so and so debated Zionism) do not convince. The second point is even more laughable. Zionism was an obvious response to persecution - it remains an historic fact that many Jews became Zionists because of it, even prior to the Holocaust. Hovevei Zion was a reaction to persecution. Once again, however, this would require knowing history.

...One can only wonder what really poses a danger to fellow Jews - Brian Klug's suggestion that Jewish existence not center around Israel (he never said "There's no place in this world for nationalism")? Richard Kuper's revulsion over Israel's behavior in the West Bank? My own claim that Israel should belong to all its citizens? Or maybe, as one dead prime minister might tell us, were he able, it is those who wildly incite against anybody who dares divert from the party line.

Wow. Baram really pulls out all the stops on this one. First there's the support for nationalism for everyone except Jews. Then there's the "revulsion" over the West Bank, which does not have a bearing on the argument itself, which is about Zionism in general. We also get the obligatory support for a "state of all its citizens" without any explanation as to what that means. The icing on the cake is of course the not-so subtle "Rabin-murderer" smear that still has not gotten old.

FYI, Ms. Baram, Rabin, for all his faults, was a convinced Zionist to the end of his days, and he must now be rolling in his grave seeing you abuse his murder to render yourself immune to criticism so you can smear the country. It's very sad that this is the current level of intelligent debate at Cambridge...