I’ve been spending all of my free time in Cairo being either sexually harassed (more on that on a future post) or finishing up an academic article for publication that was due almost four weeks ago (Sorry Giorgio! I hear Maytha just turned hers in, too, which means she’s only slightly less of a slacker than I am.) The article is about the border between Syria and Israel along the Occupied Golan Heights.

I gotta say, academics haven’t really had any interest in borders until recently. Shameful. Symptomatic of their golden passports? Perhaps that, combined with the border proliferation across the globe as immigration is at its highest levels in history.

The academic literature that does critique borders almost always does so in the capitalist context, almost never in the colonial one. For me, this doesn’t pose much of a problem as far as my literature review is concerned as I don’t see much of a difference between colonialism and capitalism. In the final analysis, Marxist examinations are less about capitalism in and of itself and more about the social relations produced by it. When abstracted up to the level of Modernity, Reason, Enlightenment, etc, etc, the justifications and processes for both are similar. At the very least both colonialism and capitalism thrive off of inequality, are characterized by differentiation of space, are expansionist in nature, produce subjects for its own maintenance and legitimacy and, ultimately, articulate their existence through the threat and use of violence. Such have been Israel’s characteristics since its creation in 1948 and, as is the focus of the paper I’m currently penning, its relationship with the land, people and resources of the Golan Heights since its violent occupation in 1967.

A gem of a writer I recently found out about is Egyptian Marxist scholar Samir Amin who has gone as far as saying that colonialism and capitalism are not only inseparable, colonialism’s “economic and social logic… must be called by its real name: capitalism” [See interview in L'Humanite].

And another jewel I stumbled across in the Winter 1980 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies was a reprinted piece written by none other than Fredric Jameson addressing Zionism specifically in an article entitled “Capitalism, not Zionism is the Problem”. Here, Jameson makes the case that the conflict is intractable as long as there is no radical social transformation within Israel.

Both of these pieces are worth the read. Jameson’s I’ve reprinted here as it’s not available anywhere easily accessible. The article is long (for a blog post; short for academic writing), but worth reading. Don’t miss his take on Edward Said’s (then) new books Orientalism and The Question of Palestine.

(His was a particularly scathing piece and because he’s so damned famous, I think he needs to be encouraged to talk about Israel like this more often.)

“‘But Their Cause Is Just’: Capitalism, not Zionism, is the Problem’s Real Cause,”
- Fredric Jameson, September 28, 1979

The PLO has made it very clear that it would “accept” an independent Palestine on the West Bank of the Jordan River, connected to the Gaza Strip (only some twenty miles distant) by an appropriate corridor. PLO spokespeople don’t say it quite this way, and their formulation is ingenious: We are willing, says Abu Jihad, one of the PLO’s top military leaders, to establish a Palestinian state on any territories evacuated by the Israelis. Recognition of Israel? “It is a card I have,” says Arafat. “The Israelis have many cards to play. When will they play them? For now I am waiting for the right time to play my card.”

“Ther is no such thing as a Palestinian.”
- Golda Meir, 1969

“We have nothing whatsoever to talk to them about on the two basic issues they want to raise: (1) the creation of a Palestinian state; (2) the fate of Palestinian refugees.”
- Moshe Dayan, October 1977

“We don’t want the PLO to recognize us.”
- Ezer Weizman, Israeli Defence Minister, July 1979

The intransigence of the Israeli position masks increasingly complex attitudes toward the PLO. A decade ago it was perhaps possible for the majority of Israelis to believe that providentially the Jews, a “people without a land” had found themselves “a land without a people.” (Local Arabs, being Arabs, ought to feel equally at home anywhere in the Arab world.) The shift in awareness is exemplified in the words of a young Israeli woman on military service in Upper Galilee, front line in the Israeli struggle against war-torn South Lebanon: “Arafat is a murderer. I hate the Palestinians and everything they’re doing, but their cause is just.” It is equally apparent in a recent poll showing that 89 percent of the Israelis are against the creation of a Palestinian state, whose eventual existence 50 percent of Israel’s population believes “inevitable.”

Israeli broodings about the justice of Arafat’s cause, about the inevitability of a Palestinian state, plainly reflect a growing appreciation of Palestinian “identity.” That five-year-olds in Lebanese refugee camps are raised to understand that they “come from” this or that village in pre-1948 Palestine (as likely as not long since bulldozed out of existence by Israeli authorities) is a fact whose implications Israelis at all levels of society have come to grasp. Not, of course, in such a way as to render any less rigid their hostility to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Quite the contrary. A well-informed Israeli (an ex-leftist who once opposed the Vietnam war and has since gained top-level experience in journalism and the military) confided his sudden illumination on the matter of Palestinian identity. “PLO prisoners never answered our routine question, ‘Where do you come from?’ by mentioning where they were living or training,” he said. “It was always, ‘I come from Safad,’ or ‘I come from Jaffa,’ or some other town where their families had lived before 1948.” Then, he went on to draw that what is apparently a widespread moral: “There is no solution possible, these people want our homes. Our backs are to the wall, and if our throats are going to be cut, we’ll take everything with us. The Palestinian state wil never be a solution for them. It will only be a beginning, the first step toward repossessing all the rest of so-called occupied Palestine.”

So, despite an appreciation of Palestinian identity and despite the well-publicized claims of the leading theoreticians within the umbrella organization which is the PLO that “armed struggle as such will cease with the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank,” the Israelis remain as instransigent as ever.

On the surface this persistent inflexibility can seem a bit of rational realpolitik. But matters are complex. Listen to the further remarks of our ex-leftist Israeli informant: “It is better to live thirty, fifty, even one-hundred years like this, on a constant war footing, than to live five years in a concentration camp or ten years in an Eastern European ghetto or fifty years in an anti-Semetic US small town… Actually, the best way to get rid of Arafat, though, is to give him his state! Look at the violence of Arab politics; those people will start to kill each other off. With the enormous and insoluble problems of a Palestinian state on the West Bank, Israel will have ten years of peace.”

On the one hand, an anxiety-ridden sense of powerlessness and victimization: We’re absolutely alone, abandoned by everybod
y, surrounded by 100,000,000 enemies. On the other hand, supreme confidence; the PLO is absolutely insignificant as a military force, hopelessly confused, unable in the end to do any better than they have done before.

It is these contradictory attitudes which at the moment underlie Israeli intransigence. And, any understanding of the Middle East situation that avoids the classical conclusion of exposure to Middle East politics — the whole thing is hopeless, both sides are right (or wrong) — must temporarily bypass the temptations of diplomatic suggestions for boundary lines and formulas acceptable to both sides to examine the “psychological” import of the new Palestinian sense of “identity.”

No one can doubt that the Arabs, the Arab world and Islam, are frequently the objects of a kind of racism. What Edward Said shows, in his recent book Orientalism, is that this racism is no mere matter of individual bigotry or prejudiced opinion. It is a system for thinking about the Islamic “Other,” which organizes the very academic disciplines of “Oriental studies” and “Middle Eastern Studies” themselves. Not merely a set of offensive thoughts, “Orientalism” is a conceptual system designed to control and to repress this alien reality, a conceptual system intimately related throughout its history with the actual political control over Arab lands by the European imperialist powers.

The core of Said’s most recent book (The Question of Palestine) appeared in the new Marxist periodical Social Text. It ran under the title “Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims.” And, true to this title, Said’s complex arguments explore the dialectic between the view of the dominant Israeli powers — their subjects are (undifferentiatedly) “orientals” — and the view of those oppressed subjects who cannot help but see their masters exclusively in terms of a global, monolithic identity — Zionism.

As thus perceived, Zionism (and it is this “Zionism,” not the multifaceted historical movement, that the PLO so vociferously promises to annihilate completely) is a specific historical variant of classical late-nineteenth century imperialism, of “Orientalism,” a complex apparatus designed to implement and enforce control over a colonial population (the Palestinians) in a colonial space (Israel).

Said, of course, is well aware that Zionism as perceived by its victims is woefully unfaithful to the real nature of Jewish men and women and even to Israeli society with its undoubted democratic tradition and varied currents, including the recent peace movement. But Said’s aim is to allow us to hear the voices of people who have not been able to speak. And Zionism for them is a matter of their experience of the Israeli state — forced exile, systemic expropriation of their lands, discrimination in education and social services, the awesome might of the Israeli Army, and (as abundantly documented by the report of the National Lawyers’ Guild) police brutality and torture. Zionism has thus produced “Zionism” — an understandably horrific image of itself — and an anti-Zionism that mirror exactly the strategies of Zionism’s originators.

Thus, Zionism, ironically in view of its roots, comes to generate a mirror image of itself. Terrorism? The life of the prime minister of Israel is the greatest success story of terrorism in modern history. It is this terrorism which Palestinian terrorism mirrors. And with uncanny accuracy. The two facets of Begin’s terrorist heritage, IRA-type terror against the foreign oppressor (the bombing of the King David hotel) and its more grisly acts against an indigenous civilian population (the infamous Deir Yassine massacre) — are faithfully reproduced in Palestinian terrorism, with its romantic commando-suicide raids, and its very different acts of individual protest and desperation by a people living under military occupation, as when an anonymous Arab workman throws a grenade into a bus full of people on the West Bank.

Collective identity? The glorious reaffirmation of an authentically Jewish and Zionist identity spells out in advance all the dynamics that the reawakening of properly Palestinian identity will undergo in the years after 1967: Mystique of the homeland; mirage of a history of past grandeur; the financial tithes of a wealthy diaspora, as well as the virtually inalienable political backing of powerful foreign states (in the one case, the United States; in the other, the Arab bloc); virtual unanimity of internal public opinion against the enemy; the (sometimes doubtful) ideological strength of a unique religious orthodoxy; the authority of incalculable collective suffering; the list could be indefinitely extended. It should not be taken as fuel for more endless, undecidable, and sterile judgments as to what came first and who bears the “ultimate” responsibility. Rather, it should mean something quite different: That those who have been able to grasp and feel profound sympathy for the sufferings and struggles of the Jewish people are paradoxically also in the very best position of all to understand the sufferings and the struggles of the Palestinians.

Indeed, once the objective situation which has generated anti-Zionism is grasped, it’s clear that what is at stake is far from a matter of anti-Jewish racism. Just as “diplomatic” solutions must inevitably dead-end in the Middle East, so too must those which overemphasize the “psychological” — pitting Palestinian “identity” against Jewish “identity.” The problem can only be solved by considering the social relations in which the anti-Zionism of the PLO is rooted.

Israel — this lush and beautiful place, the California of the Middle East, with its glittering hotels along the gorgeous beaches of Tel Aviv, its fertile and prosperous kibbutzim, its fruit farms and extraordinary light, the liveliness of its citizens and the well-nigh of Tuscan beauty of the ancient city of Jerusalem — Israel lives in an anxiety deeper than that of foreign intervention by inefficient Arab armies or insignificant handfuls of Palestinian freedom-fighters. It lives the anxiety from within: the anxiety of class conflict — fear, not of external enemies, but of the sullen and menacing presence of a Palestinian underclass in its own midst, a class socially manageable only because so many of its numbers have been driven out into the refugee camps beyond the border. The Palestinians are the Blacks and Chicanos of the Israeli capitalist system. “What do these people want?” the Israelis ask themselves. “Do they want to come into our luxury hotels or be able to buy posh houses in our neighbourhoods or maybe even to take over our own houses for themselves?”

The problem’s real name, in other words, is not Zionism, but capitalism. For a genuine solution to the Middle East “problem” to be thinkable, the possibility of radical social transformation within Israeli society would have to become a real one. This is the sense in which the familiar slogan — anti-Zionism means anti-Semitism — is to be rejected. Anti-Zionism in this sense is rather to be understood as opposition to a whole unjust social system, that of the United States fully as much as that of Israel. It means, not hostility to a people or a religion, but resistance to racism, oppressive social relations, imperialism, monopolies, consumerism — resistance, in short, to an enemy that the American Left has long since identified here at home.

- Fredric Jameson

Related posts:

1. Reason #12,033,343,343,01 why capitalism sucks
2. Zionism Must be Defended (or, Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech)
3. Zionism: Pitting The West Against Islam
4. We Are Not Anti-Semites!
5. Ahlan Wa Sahlan