Chomsky’s ‘nostalgia’ and our own – Mondoweiss

This is part of Marc H. Elliss Exile and the Prophetic feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Charlottesville and white nationalism. Are the KKK and its neo-Nazi affiliates nostalgic for a world that may or may not have existed? Thinking of the past as better and to be brought back in the present is dangerous on many levels. Often those who want the past back are fooling themselves and others, too.

In a very different matter the nostalgia question has recently been broached in relation to Noam Chomsky. With all his still-evident analytical powers, is Chomskys view of Israel tainted by his generations pull of a displaced people finding a haven in Palestine? Is Chomsky pining away for the Jewishly-inspired vision of Israel articulated by the founders of Israel in 1948?

Chomsky is, as always, a force to be reckoned with. Just when you have explained him, or think you have, his arguments return in full glory. It may that we need Chomskys thought and the thought of others, too.

A Hungarian-Israeli now living in America, using the pseudonym, Danaa Marec, thinks that Chomskys thought about Israel has more than a touch of nostalgia. She knows that nostalgia well. She had it, too, once upon a time.

Marec is respectful of Chomsky, as she should be. Her questions about Chomsky are real ones, though mostly for the future.

Marecs view of Chomsky and Israel opens up a fascinating terrain that Chomsky may or may not inhabit. Stated boldly, Marec suggests that Chomskys view of Israel is the romantic one he embraced in his younger years. Now, at eighty-eight years of age, Marec believes Chomsky is trapped there.

Whether Chomskys Israel ever existed is debatable but Marecs main point is that such a view would color our vision of a possible solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. A nostalgic sense of Israels founding might render commentary on a possible solution of Israel and Palestine misleading, if not irrelevant.

In Marecs view, Chomsky thinks Israel can be brought back to the founders vision if only the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem ends, with freedom for Gaza, in an internationally recognized two-state solution. This is why Chomsky is indifferent to BDS or against it his analysis goes back and forth on the subject. Or rather, this is why Chomsky seems adamant when discussing BDS, almost emotional, whereas keeping his cool on matters of justice is part of Chomskys famed repertoire. This is also why Chomsky continues to call on international law as the way forward and dismisses the issue of the return of Palestinian refugees as impossible and, thus, wrong to insist on.

Marecs Chomsky is trapped in a time warp; the Israel she and others experience, whatever it once was, is nothing like Chomsky wants it to be. In any case, whatever it once was, Israel wont be returning to this vision. Israel and Israelis have gone too far. Though Marec doesnt spell it out in detail, she seems to view Israel much as Max Blumenthal does in his book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.Blumenthals book was published before Israels latest and devastating invasion of Gaza. By all accounts, things in Israel have only become worse in the years since.

Marec leaves her solution, if there is one, for another day. My own take on Chomsky is that you have to admire him for many reasons but listening to him on Israel as it has become is only piece of the puzzle. Though Marec doesnt address Chomskys America-centric view of Israel Israel can do little or nothing without American support I think this, too, needs further exploration. Chomskys basic America-centric view of the world has its merits; at times, though, it seems self-involved and myopic. In my view, America-centrism tends to diminish other international, state and local actors. This can become a self-fulfilling prophesy or at least a self-fulfilling rhetoric, as if all the world is America or America-less.

Have I have made Chomsky-like nostalgia mistake in my writing, albeit from a different angle? Marec might think so.

Being more than two decades younger than Chomsky, thus from a different generation, I didnt grow up with enthusiasm for Israels founders. I did live through the 1967 war and its effect on American Jewish identity. However, this was tempered by my university study of the Holocaust and my involvement in justice movements on the Lower East Side of New York City and in the projects of New Orleans, all in the 1970s. My travel among Palestinians in the early 1980s ended any lingering romance I might have had with Israel. Still, I never believed in international law as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor do I think full equality, though desirable, is the issue, a case Robert Cohen forcefully argues in a recent, much circulated, speech.

None of these nostalgia for Israels founding, international law or full equality are the way forward. Though I support BDS, I remain agnostic about its claims or its possibility for actual political success in ending the occupation. Instead, I have argued for some years that if BDS were successful it would more likely bring about an Israeli-Palestinian deal that allows direct Israeli occupation to morph into a quasi-autonomy for areas of Palestine. These Palestinians areas would be surrounded and controlled by Israeli power and other interventionist military and international monitoring forces.

My take on Israel is different. I believe the foundational way to understand Israel is within the broad arc of Jewish history, especially in relation to the history of European Jews culminating in the Holocaust. Israel has little or no meaning outside of Jewish history and should be resolved within that context. I do believe that outside measures can and should be applied to make that internal resolution possible even to force it upon Israel. But it is obvious, as well, that the broader Jewish historical context I argue for has failed and will continue to fail. This means, in my view, that Israel is fated, Palestinians are fated and that Jewish ethical history is fated as well.

By fated, I mean that over the next decades it is unlikely, if not impossible, to foresee any political constellation that brings us close to what many people involved in the plight of Israel-Palestine think is sensible, right and just.

Is it best, then, to stay with Merecs sense of Chomskys nostalgia, that is hope against hope, even if that hope hardly existed? After all, the currently argued secular democratic one state solution has its own portion of nostalgia and thus is fated as well.

In Jerusalem, as in Charlottesville, the struggle between nostalgia and reality is often confusing. We made need a little of both. History is like that sometimes. Often.

Here is the original post:

Chomsky’s ‘nostalgia’ and our own – Mondoweiss

Related Post

August 21, 2017   Posted in: Max Blumenthal |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."