Let's Make This Burg vs. Sharansky
I am joining this late, and having read the previous posts and comments, I'm tempted to suggest that a more dissenting voice may be needed. I will not be that voice--my appreciation of the book The Holocaust is Over and its author are immense (even if I would take issue with points here and there and for instance critique Burg's suggestion of creating a "World Religion Organization"). But I not only share the central thread of Burg's critique of, as he calls it, "catastrophic Zionism", or the "imperial Israel of the Seventh Day" (i.e. what Israel became after the 1967 Six Day's War), I also consider the elaboration of this narrative and of the alternative to be both critical and urgent.
I have framed this post as Burg vs. Sharansky, partly because two of the most polemically delightful pages of this book are when Avrum is dissing the former refusenik-turned-"typical nationalist, chauvinist Israeli" and icon of Bush and the neocons, but mainly to suggest that Burg can be a central component of the intellectual antidote to Sharanskyism. If Sharansky's The Case for Democracy was required reading for the right and Bush's Whitehouse in their framing of the Middle East, then The Holocaust is Over can play a similar role for progressives.
Washington thinkers and policy-makers are spending a lot of time right now thinking through the mechanics of how to address the Bush-made (and Sharansky-made) mess in the Middle East--how to enhance stability, peace, and security. That's an interesting conversation and one that I often partake in, sometimes here at TPM Café--when and how to engage Iran or Syria; should an envoy get appointed; whether de-occupation or Palestinian institution-building come first; etc. But there is another conversation that needs to take place just as, if not more important, than process and mechanics. And that is the conceptual reframing of how we think about the Middle East, an intellectual counter-insurgency against the neocons and the Global War on Terror packaging which is still so ubiquitous.
That's not the central theme of The Holocaust is Over; it may though be considered the subtext. When contrasting the history of Zionism and of American Jewry, Burg suggests that "being Jewish could be achieved in two different ways...isolation or integration; a ghetto of belligerent colonialism or Jewish universalism. " Israel obviously represented the former and the Goldene Medina of America the latter.
The challenges, and Burg begins to address them, are both how to connect the driving ethos in Israel with the values of Jewish universalism and how to stop the minority who dwell in the ghetto of belligerent colonialism from being the more listened to Jewish voice in American political discourse (Jeremy Ben-Ami's post begins to flesh this out). That can only be done by building an alternative intellectual framing in both Israel and the U.S, and then aggressively promoting it.
Bernard Avishai has of course also contributed to this endeavor, and the blogosphere in places like TPM, as MJ Rosenberg constantly reminds us, is an effective echo chamber.
The importance of Burg's book is not just in the particular trends it highlights or its hopeful, ethical, value-infused vision of the future, but rather in its providing a stepping stone toward developing a progressive narrative on Israel, the Jewish world, and the Middle East that is about more than a two-state solution averting demographic disaster for Israel or being in Israel and America's security interest, etc.
As the gap between the values guiding occupation, settlement, and discrimination policies in Israel and those guiding what will hopefully be a more liberal and ethical global engagement of the U.S. under Obama become greater, and as the campaign against Israeli policies is likely to take on an evermore anti-Apartheid quality, clear and powerful progressive voices from Israel will hopefully gain more prominence. He may not become required reading at the White House, but Burg will be one of those voices, a leading one.
And finally, those voices will also point the way in suggesting some of the changes that will be necessary to make real progress toward peace. The Holocaust is Over already gives us two such suggestions when Burg talks about the Green Line being "not just a phrase; it is a cornerstone for a new language and a new Israeli imagination". And just as importantly, when Avrum discusses the Palestinian refugee issue: "what is most important is the recognition of the suffering and assuming of responsibility, even partial and belated, for the distress of the Palestinian refugees." These are both good starting points.
The intellectual discourse promoted by Sharansky and others had practical policy implications and they were an unmitigated disaster; the intellectual counter-insurgency which must be launched, and of which Burg should be a part, will also of course produce our own policy ideas, and they will provide us, all of us--American, Arab, and Israeli alike--with a far brighter future.
Excellent, Mr. Levy!
Here...
"The challenges, and Burg begins to address them, are both how to connect the driving ethos in Israel with the values of Jewish universalism and how to stop the minority who dwell in the ghetto of belligerent colonialism from being the more listened to Jewish voice in American political discourse (Jeremy Ben-Ami's post begins to flesh this out). That can only be done by building an alternative intellectual framing in both Israel and the U.S, and then aggressively promoting it."
And here...
December 10, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The importance of Burg's book is not just in the particular trends it highlights or its hopeful, ethical, value-infused vision of the future, but rather in its providing a stepping stone toward developing a progressive narrative on Israel, the Jewish world, and the Middle East that is about more than a two-state solution averting demographic disaster for Israel or being in Israel and America's security interest, etc."
December 10, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. I don't the Palestinians are mere shadows of Zionism, the modern "Invisible Man." A shadow as in, when Condi Rice bragged about US aid to the Palstinians, which included building a security fence and checkpoints. As if walling off Palestinians is "aid."
This mixed quote from Levy and Burg, both of whom I admire greatly, is particularly moving:
"And just as importantly, when Avrum discusses the Palestinian refugee issue: "what is most important is the recognition of the suffering and assuming of responsibility, even partial and belated, for the distress of the Palestinian refugees."'
After 60 years....let's start now.
December 11, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Levy, welcome. That's a fab take, to juxtapose Burg with Sharansky. Really makes the choice apparent. Thanks.
Your seventh para is the one which grabs me as does your final one -- an intellectual counter insurgency...
Yeah.
December 10, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know some American Jews were involved, and not in a good way, in matters related to recent clashes in the city)--and not those on the left thinking they have the key for Middle East peace (your recent interviewee, Daniel Levy, is such an example).
To all those I'll say: you think you have a solution? Come and convince Israelis. And if you happen to fail, don't go and work behind their backs to advance your cause by making America pressure Israel.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/
December 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it amusing that people view Burg as some sort of proponent of "ethical values" when you know what kind of a man he really is. While he was growing up as part of the priviledged "socialist elite" of Israel, Sharansky was in solitary confinement in the GULAG in the USSR. Sharansky played a role in the bringing down of the totalitarian regime in the USSR. But since Burg is an Israel basher, and Sharansky a "right-wing" Israeli, none of this matters in these circles where political correctness reigns and morality goes down the drain.
I am reposting a comment I made in a lower down thread to inform readers of what sort of person Burg really is:
It is important for everyone reading the comments about Burg's book here at TPM to remember that, Burg is a marginal player in Israel. He has no following in the country. Most Israelis, including those on the Left, view him as an unprincipled, greedy, deceitful politician who never would have been heard of if he had not been the son of a prominent religious politician. The fact that he wears a kippah and turned to post-Zionism or anti-Zionism and joined the Labor Party made him a curiosity piece which led to much unwarranted coverage in the media. He was pushed ahead in the Labor party because it was believed, wrongly, that he would attract religious voters from the Right-wing camp. After his departure from politics which came as a result of his incessent antagonizing of his Labor Party colleagues, realizing that his future was behind him, he decided to go into one of the favorite pastimes of former politicians...influence peddling, where he hooked up with some figures from organized crime and they tried to get their hands on a government-owned defense company for far less than it was actually worth. The deal almost went through, but fortunately, the workers at the plant went to the State Controllers who intervened and stopped the sale. Burg's connections with the organized crime figures was investigated, but they came to the conclusion that "he didn't know about them". He also got involved in an unseemly fight to have a chauffeur-driven car provided to him for life because of his role as head of the Jewish Agency (which is part of his deceit because as a post-or-anti-Zionist he had no business running an organization whose whole purpose he ideologically rejects). He lost the case but he still goes around whining about how he "deserves" this chauffer-driven car. When his mother says that Israel didn't become the kind of state her generation wanted, she was referring to this type of behavior.
Finally, there was his abortive attempt to become the head of the Labor Party in 2001. A vote was held and he came in first, ahead of Benyamin Ben-Eliezer. It turns out that there was massive ballot-box stuffing that put Burg over the top. A revote was held and he lost. This was the beginning of his downfall.
It is important that these facts about Burg be kept in mind when reading the rantings of this self-appointed "prophet".
December 11, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Levy says:
-------------------------------------------
when Avrum discusses the Palestinian refugee issue: "what is most important is the recognition of the suffering and assuming of responsibility, even partial and belated, for the distress of the Palestinian refugees." These are both good starting points.
---------------------------------------------
Wrong. These are disastrous starting points which can only lead to more Arab extremism and war.
Why should Israel accept responsibility for the refugee problem when it was the Arabs who started the war? Is Burg so dense that he (and Levy and Avishai and all the other progressives) doesn't realize that if Israel accepts blame for the refugee problem than it is admitting that the creation of Israel is a historic crime? Anyway, from the point of view of the Palestinian, what good would a "partial" acceptance of responsibility do? If Israel lets a "symbolic" 50,000 or so return, then the others who are left out will say they were betrayed, the Arab leaders who signed off on this are traitors and all the claims of the Arabs against Israel will still be open. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami who was the FM during Barak's gov't and negotiated with the Palestinians said clearly (and I should point out that his views are not far from Burg's) that the Palestinians were not interested in a political solution, they want Israel put in the dock as a criminal nation.
December 11, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD
As you probably agree , neither of these biographical facts is conclusive. FDR,JFK, Teddy Roosevelt and both Bush presidents grew up as parts of priviledged elites. Fidel and Hitler spent time in jail.
It's irrelevant that Burg's particular priviledged elite was socialist. So was ,e.g. William Kristol's and any number of present day conservatives here, and probably in Israel. Perhaps even you.
Thanks for mentioning Burg was exonerated. Sadly many readers are apt to remember the charge you made rather than the resolution. But, taking into account that resolution there's no reason that the readers here should 'keep in mind when reading'...his writings. Disproved charges in politics are as numerous and fleeting as the flowers in May.
Yawn.
A serious,if implied, charge which we should keep in mind.If true.
Could you elaborate? Was he in fact shown to have been responsible for this abuse? Your statement this was "the beginning of his downfall" contributes to that implication but falls short of a direct accusation. As a matter of fairness you should fish or cut bait. Was he responsible. Or not.
I'd be pleased to see your respose.
December 11, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason I mention these things is because he sets himself up as some sort of national nanny who rebukes Israelis for things he himself did. He complains that Israel has become too materialistic and has lost its idealism, and yet he demands the taxpayer give him things he is not entitled to (at one time the ex-head of the Jewish Agency was given a driver and car for life but the rule was changed yet he demanded it anyway. A judge ruled he was not entitled to it.) Most Israelis have to make do with their own car, he is wealthy yet he wants the taxpayer to foot the bill for his comfortable lifestyle.
Regarding his connections with organized crime figures, I seriously doubt he didn't really know about it. Because Israel is a small country, organized crime can move fast and infiltrate all sorts of institutions. Wouldn't someone as moralistic as Burg be careful about who he hangs around with, who his business partners are?
The ballot-box stuffing is the same...wouldn't someon like him demand from his campaign staff that they steer clear of that sort of thing?
There are numerous other scandals about him I have heard about but I don't have sources so I didn't mention them. The bottom line is that he is a typical sleazy politician. Sure, he can have fine, exalted ideas (if you want to consider his Israel bashing to be these things), but wouldn't he be taken more seriously if he actually lived up to the ideals he says everyone else should have? This is the reason that he is not taken seriously in Israel. He recently came out in support of the MERETZ party. Let's see how much that helps them.
December 11, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I used up enough space here so I'll have no further comments.
December 11, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just trying to catch up myself. Wasn't even aware that this discussion was taking place until my morning Informed Comment read today. I look forward to catching up on all posts and comments
December 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink