Israel wasn’t created because non-Jews loved Jews but to
protect Western interests
James Baldwin who died in 1987
aged 63 was a Black American essayist, novelist, playwright, poet and social
critic.
With the novel Go Tell It on the Mountain (1953), a distillation
of his own experiences as a preacher’s son in 1930s Harlem and the essay
collection Notes of a Native Son (1955), Baldwin established himself as
a prophetic voice of his era. Baldwin remains not only a chronicler of his
epoch but a thinker who helped shape it. One of the great modern prose
stylists, he applied his passion, wit, and relentlessly probing intelligence to
the fault lines of American society while remaining true to his early credo:
“One writes out of one thing only—one’s own
experience. Everything depends on how relentlessly one forces from this
experience the last drop, sweet or bitter, it can possibly give.”
“I fell
under the spell of Baldwin’s voice. No other black writer I’d read was as
literary as Baldwin in his early essays, not even Ralph Ellison. There is
something wild in the beauty of Baldwin’s sentences and the cool of his tone, something
improbable, too, this meeting of Henry James, the Bible, and Harlem. I can see
the scratches in the desk in my room where I was reading ‘Notes of a Native
Son,’ Baldwin’s memoir of his hated father’s death the day his father’s last
child was born in 1943, one day before Harlem erupted into the deadliest race
riot in its history. I can feel the effects of this essay within me still.”
For a
biography of Baldwin see here
My
attention was drawn to Baldwin, Israel and the Jews by an essay by Stephen
Salaita, James
Baldwin and the Jewish State. Salaita was subject to a Zionist witchhunt at
Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign in 2014 when critical remarks he made
on social media about Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza were used as a pretext
to withdraw a tenured job offer. After a major campaign by Palestine solidarity
supporters and academics, including being censured by the Association of
American University Professors and a boycott by visiting professors, a
settlement was reached. University of Illinois OKs $875,000 settlement
to end Steven Salaita dispute
The
whole episode, including the lies and destruction of email evidence by former
Chancellor Phyllis Wise, who was a casualty of her own witchhunt, was
extensively detailed by Electronic Intifada at the time. See
Steven
Salaita settles lawsuit with Univ. of Illinois
Univ.
of Illinois official who fired Steven Salaita admits to destroying evidence
Salaita’s article was based on Baldwin’s ‘The Cross of Redemption – Uncollected Writings and in particular an essay Blacks and Jews.
The essay consists of a transcript of a
remarkable discussion held by Baldwin, who was a professor at the University of
Massachusets-Amherst. As Salaita notes, Baldwin’s ideas on Zionism and
Israel arose in the context of the 1984 Presidential election in which Jessie Jackson, a civil
rights campaigner who stood for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988, had
used the epithet “Hymietown” to
describe New York City in what he thought was an off-the-record conversation
with a journalist. (“Hymie” is an
anti-Jewish slur.) When the comment was reported, it erupted into a scandal.
Baldwin claimed
that “Jesse is singled out for particular
reasons.” Hymietown, is hardly
the most anti-Semitic slur that has ever been levelled. New York is famous for
the large number of Jews, some 2 million, who live there. Hymie, a reference to
a typical Jewish name simply emphasised the Jewish presence in New York. It
reminds me of Jo Bird’s play
on words – ‘Jew process’ rather
than ‘due process’.
It was an
artificial controversy in which the Zionist lobby sought to weaponise
anti-Semitism against a radical Black candidate. As Nathan
Perlmutter the neo-liberal Executive Director of the Anti-Defamation League, a Zionist
organisation that had previously spied on anti-Apartheid activists on behalf of
BOSS, the South African secret police, said of
Jackson’s apology for the remark:
“He could
light candles every Friday night and grow side curls, and it still wouldn’t
matter. He’s a whore,”
.
The controversy was a forerunner of the attacks on Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar
and Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. The difference this time around is that instead of
apologising they stood up to their detractors and that is why they all won
their primaries. If Corbyn had done the same instead of cowardly throwing his
supporters under a bus then he might be Prime Minister now.
They say there's no Zionist lobby! |
Blacks, Jews and America
What is remarkable about Baldwin’s comments are how
perceptive he was about the reasons for the establishment of Israel and the
relationship between Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Noting how ‘the black American singles out the American Jew because so
much of the black inheritance comes from the Old and New Testament’ Baldwin observed how Black people
‘unconsciously
tends to expect more from a Jewish person than he expects from anybody else.
And because the American Jew in this country is essentially a white man, this
expectation is always defeated with a resulting accumulation of bitterness.’
Baldwin put it down to American Jews ‘acting on the minor inheritance and rejecting the major one’,
which I interpret as meaning that Jews, instead of looking to their past role
in the fight against racism and exploitation, instead choose the ‘minor’ issues of slavish obedience to
Israel’s dictates and their own material situation.
Baldwin emphasised that
‘a black man
does not expect from an American white man what he expects from an American
Jew, and when that expectation is defeated, a certain bitterness ensues’
whereas if Jews were like William Buckley, a well-known neo-liberal ‘from whom
obviously I expect nothing.’ [Laughter from audience.]
In remarkably perceptive off-the-cuff remarks Baldwin
remarks on how ‘Whenever Israel is mentioned one is required, it appears
sometimes to me, to maintain a kind of pious silence. Well, why? It is a state
like other states.’
Think of the Labour Party 36 years later. You can say what you want about Chile, South
Africa and France and no one will pay a blind bit of notice, but mention Israel
and the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunters of Starmer and they will be all over you.
If you criticise Israel for poisoning a well then this will
be immediately deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ because historically Jews were accused of
poisoning wells. The 2nd example
of the IHRA states:
Making mendacious,
dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the
power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth
about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy,
government or other societal institutions.
No matter that the Zionist poisoning of water is a demonstrable
fact. In 1948 the Zionists poisoned the water
supply of Acre with dysentery. The evidence for this comes from the files of
the International Committee of the Red Cross files, which became available,
50 years after the event , under the reference G59/1/GC, G3/82, sent by ICRC
delegate de Meuron from 6 May to about 19 May 1948.
Baldwin spoke about how Israel ‘came into existence as a means of protecting Western interests at the
gate of the Middle East.’
Bearing in mind how Corbyn and McDonnell didn’t get it after
5 years of abuse, Baldwin reached for the heart of the problem that caused so
much confusion in the Labour Party:
in
order to be a Zionist, it is not necessary to love the Jews. I know some
Zionists who are definitely anti-Semitic. And to be a Jew is not necessarily to
be a Zionist.
Referring to the confected Hymietown remark of Jesse
Jackson, Baldwin again realised what was happening:
There is something about the
whole anecdote which rubs me the wrong way, something that —I smell a rat
somewhere, it doesn’t seem entirely—can we use the word?—kosher. [Laughter
from audience.] Be that as it may, the press, the media... is now saddling
Jesse Jackson with the label or the suggestion of being anti-Semite, of being
an anti-Semite. I think I know Jesse well enough to say that that seems to me
exceedingly unlikely.
This exactly mirrors the fake campaign in the Labour Party.
Any remark, however humorous, about Jews was interpreted as ‘anti-Semitic’
whereas the racist troll, Luke Stanger, could be suspended for two years for
saying that Travellers and Gypsies are a ‘nasty
blight’ on society. If he had referred to Jews he would have been fast-tracked
out of the Labour Party but idiot Corbyn and the servile McDonnell never got
it.
We only have to think of Donald Trump’s remarks: “I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I
think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” And who
were they disloyal to? Well Trump clarified this too.
Israel! But Netanyahu and the Zionist
chorus showed no interest in genuine
anti-Semitism. For the Zionists Trump’s support for Israel trumps his
anti-Semitism.
Baldwin
noted that
‘for
the most part the American Jew is simply, in the black person’s life, nothing
but another white American, who goes to church on Saturday instead of Sunday.’
Speaking of
the weaponisation of anti-Semitism and how the Zionist lobby uses trivial
examples of anti-Semitism, which Jackson’s certainly was, to mount an attack on
a radical Black candidate:
‘it
would seem to be a pity if it [Jackson’s campaign] can be destroyed by this
ancient red herring of anti-Semitism which I’ve seen drag through so many
discussions with such disastrous results over so many years.
Baldwin’s comments on White
liberals, many if not most of whom were Jews, was telling in view of the
conflicts
that arose in for example New York between Black parents and White, mainly
Jewish school teachers.
when
the civil rights movement was in Alabama... they were very indignant. And then
I watched what happened imperceptibly but fatally when that same movement moved
north to Brooklyn, to Pittsburgh, Detroit, and New York. And their attitudes
changed.... Their attitudes changed because they began to feel more and more
threatened, and a liberal facade or even a liberal attitude was not enough to
deal with the speed with which the movement was moving
When a student questioned Baldwin’s assertions about the
foundation of the Israeli state and misattributed to him the suggestion that
Israel was founded to protect oil interests, Baldwin replied that:
I said
to protect the vital interests of the Western world... but I would be lying to
you and lying by my own experience if I said to you that the Europeans—the
English, the Dutch, the Germans, the French—impressed me as having any very
vivid concern for Jews. The French are still anti-Semitic, so are the British,
so are the Dutch, so are the Poles, so are the French. They’ll probably be
anti-Semitic until the nation disappears
Baldwin immediately gets what Corbyn and his gaggle of sycophants,
from Seamus Milne to Karen Murphy and Jennie Formby didn’t get. Israel was not
established because of any concern for Jews. It is only a Jewish state in its
racial make up, not its values or ethics. Baldwin elaborates upon this
declaring that:
Part
of the hazard of being a Jew, historically and... actually, morally,
historically of being a Jew, is finding yourself doing the Christian’s dirty
work. You see what I’m saying? It’s not a condemnation; it’s simply a fact. So
it is in that sense to say that Israel is useful to the Western interests.
Unlike many people these days and organisations like If
Americans Knew which portray the United States as the pawn of Israel,
Baldwin understood very well that Israel is ‘doing
the Christian’s dirty work.’
The only disagreement I would have with Baldwin was on the
question of Israeli sales of arms to South Africa where he said:
‘As
far as I know, Jesse has said nothing about arms sales to South Africa, and I
don’t think he will, you know. The arms sales to South Africa on the part of
Israel are again an example of the traditional role that Jews have often played
in Christendom.’
That isn’t quite true. Even when the West imposed an arms
embargo on the Apartheid state Israel still supplied it with weaponry,
including nuclear arms.
However all in all it was an extremely interesting lecture,
even more so because many of these issues were barely visible back in 1984.
Tony Greenstein
Blacks and Jews – extracts – James Baldwin
Because the most awful
thing about the black American relationship to Jews, to the American Jew, is
that the black American singles out the American Jew because so much of the
black inheritance comes from the Old and New Testament—so much of our imagery:
“Let my people go,” all of those legends black people have lived with and made
real up until this hour—and that means that unconsciously a black person tends
to expect more from a Jewish person than he expects from anybody else. And because
the American Jew in this country is essentially a white man, this expectation
is always defeated with a resulting accumulation of bitterness, because the
American Jew is acting on the minor inheritance and rejecting the major one.
a black man does not expect from an American white man what
he expects from an American Jew, and when that expectation is defeated, a
certain bitterness ensues. I might feel very differently about my ex–running buddies
if in fact they were all Calvinists, if they were people like William Buckley,
from whom obviously I expect nothing. [Laughter from audience.]
What is behind it, in another way, has to do with something
else— something else which no one ever wishes to discuss. And that is the actual
role in the Middle East of the state of Israel. Whenever Israel is mentioned
one is required, it appears sometimes to me, to maintain a kind of pious
silence. Well, why? It is a state like other states. It has come into existence
in a peculiar way. But it does not, does not, become a state because people who
wrote the Balfour Declaration, or Winston Churchill, or for that matter anyone
in Europe, or in the Western world, really cared what happened to the Jews. I
wish I could say differently, but I would be lying if I did—it came into
existence as a means of protecting Western interests at the gate of the Middle
East.
In any case, in order to be a Zionist, it is not necessary
to love the Jews. I know some Zionists who are definitely anti-Semitic. And to
be a Jew is not necessarily to be a Zionist. I’m putting it to you this way in
the attempt to clarify something which is happening all around us. All of this
is triggered by the incipient attack on Jesse Jackson, who allegedly made, or
has confessed to having made, an anti-Semitic remark in a private conversation,
while a reporter was listening. There is something about the whole anecdote
which rubs me the wrong way, something that —I smell a rat somewhere, it
doesn’t seem entirely—can we use the word?—kosher. [Laughter from audience.]
Be that as it may, the press, the media, to which we owe so much, which is
so enlightening for us all, is now saddling Jesse Jackson with the label or the
suggestion of being anti-Semite, of being an anti-Semite. I think I know Jesse
well enough to say that that seems to me exceedingly unlikely.
it is true that for the most part the American Jew is
simply, in the black person’s life, nothing but another white American, who
goes to church on Saturday instead of Sunday.
What I myself may think of Mr. Jackson, Reverend Jackson, in
the privacy of my own house has nothing to do with this possibility, and he’s
the only candidate which offers us this possibility. And it would seem to be a
pity if it can be destroyed by this ancient red herring of anti-Semitism which
I’ve seen drag through so many discussions with such disastrous results over so
many years.
it is not enough to be a liberal, to have the right
attitudes and even to give money to the right causes. You have to know more
than that. You have to be prepared to risk more than that. I am telling you
this because I have watched what happened to many of my liberal friends when
the civil rights movement was in Alabama, let us say, in the Deep South, and
they were [inaudible] very indignant. And then I watched what happened
imperceptibly but fatally when that same movement moved north to Brooklyn, to
Pittsburgh, Detroit, and New York. And their attitudes changed. I really hate
to put it to you that way, but that is what happened. Their attitudes changed
because they began to feel more and more threatened, and a liberal facade or
even a liberal attitude was not enough to deal with the speed with which the
movement was moving
In talking about Israel before, you said that Israel wasn’t
set up because anyone else [cared] about the Jews, but you implied it was set up
to protect oil interests in that area. And I would argue that point and say
that I think after centuries of despoil that there was a bit of that, [but]
that this was an area that the Jews did deserve as their homeland, and I just
find it hard to accept that it was set up to protect oil interests.
BALDWIN: I said to
protect the vital interests of the Western world, and I don’t mean to be
sardonic or cynical, but I would be lying to you and lying by my own experience
if I said to you that the Europeans—the English, the Dutch, the Germans, the
French—impressed me as having any very vivid concern for Jews. The French are
still anti-Semitic, so are the British, so are the Dutch, so are the Poles, so
are the French. They’ll probably be anti-Semitic until the nation disappears
why do they think that the Jews are going to protect Western
interests and Israel doesn’t even have the oil?
BALDWIN: Oh! Yeah, I know that. I didn’t say oil, I said the
vital interests of the Western world. Part of the hazard of being a Jew,
historically and actually, and part of precisely the danger I was talking about
when I began about the way a Jew intrudes himself on a black person’s attention
because he is the only white man you see. But then part of the hazard, actually,
morally, historically, of the Jewish … of being a Jew, is finding yourself
doing the Christian’s dirty work. You see what I’m saying? It’s not a
condemnation; it’s simply a fact. So it is in that sense to say that Israel is
useful to the Western interests.
STUDENT: I have a question on anti-Semitism and Israelis or
Jews doing America’s dirty work. Has Jackson made any censorious remarks about Israeli
arms sales to South Africa? And could you maybe talk about how Jackson might
take a position on Israel and arm sales to South Africa?
BALDWIN: As far as I know, Jesse has said nothing about arms
sales to South Africa, and I don’t think he will, you know. The arms sales to
South Africa on the part of Israel are again an example of the traditional role
that Jews have often played in Christendom. It is, uh … After all, the state of
Israel, as a state, that is to say, in terms of who is responsible for it,
where the money comes from, is a—what is a polite word we use?—it is a Western
state, it is a Western creation, it is a Western responsibility, isn’t it? And
Israel selling arms to Israel, selling arms … I mean, South Africa, well, we
all know that. I think it would serve very little purpose to single out Israel
as the supplier of arms to South Africa when the real supplier of arms, not
only to South Africa but to many, many other parts of the world, is not the
state of Israel, but France, England, this country above all—you see what I’m
saying? The state of South Africa, the state of Johannesburg, cannot be blamed
on Israel—you see what I’m saying?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below