Raz Segal: A "Liar-for-his-Cause"?

One Raz Segal, an Assoc Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Stockton Univ, writing in the UK Guardian, once a very pro-Zionist newspaper in Manchester before it moved down to London, among other things describes Israel thus:

"a self-proclaimed exclusionary settler state – what Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the father of revisionist Zionism, described in his well-known essay from 1923 as a settler colonial project that can only work with an “Iron Wall.”

As readers of my blog know (and others can use the search engine), Jabotinsky did not advance an "exclusionary" character for the Jewish state or the idea of "racial supremacy". Moreover, the usage of "Jewish" indicates a nationality just like all other countries. Jabotinsky, a liberal democrat, envisioned full civic equality for all resident citizens of the future Jewish state. His last testament on the matter is his 1940 "The War and the Jew".

One can read the book here.

Here's p. 215:

216

217

218

Any fair reader would necessarily come to the conclusion that Segal is either an ignoramus, or unintelligent or, most likely, a liar-for-his-cause.

The idea of an "Iron Wall" was simply an expression of a firm, impenetrable defense system, not a physical structure, that would not allow the repeat of the 1920 and 1921 Arab murderous riots against Jews in Jerusalem and Jaffa. His idea was replacing unreliable British forces with Jewish soldiers and police. And as we saw on October 7, 2023, that wall was still necessary and continues to be.

UPDATE

Although Raz mentions the "Iron Wall" essay, he leaves out the opening lines that contradict his charaterization of Jabotinsky, who wrote:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations –

polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of

all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will

always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we

shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall

never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a

peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to

Zionism. 

^

Peter Beinart: Before and After

 Peter Beinart tweeted:

Tonight, I’m going to speak at Tel Aviv University. I know many people who I respect will think this was the wrong decision given that Israel—as widely recognized by experts on international law—practices not only apartheid but genocide. I support full equality for Israel’s Palestinian citizens, an end to the occupation and the right of Palestinian refugees to return. I support many forms of boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel and Israeli institutions. I have repeatedly advocated implementing the Leahy Law, which would radically restrict—if not end—US arms sales to Israel. I support the European Union ending its free trade agreement with Israel. I support ending Israeli participation in sports and cultural arenas like FIFA and Eurovision. I support these things because I don’t believe that Israel will end its oppression of the Palestinian people and move towards equality under the law and historical justice without outside pressure. But I believe there is value in speaking to Israelis about Israel’s crimes. I have spent much of my adult life speaking to Jews about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In that effort, I have conducted public discussions with many people whose views I consider immoral and spoken at many institutions that are based on principles with which I profoundly disagree. These include institutions like Tel Aviv University that are in various ways complicit in Israeli oppression. I do so because I want to reach Jews who disagree with me—because I believe that by trying to convince Jews to rethink their support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, I can contribute, in some very small way, to the struggle for freedom and justice. I don’t have many opportunities to speak to Israelis. As it is, right-wing Israeli organizations have pressured Tel Aviv University to cancel my talk. I felt I should take advantage of this opportunity to say in Israel what I’ve been saying elsewhere for the last two years. I know many people I admire will disagree with this logic. But it stems from my desire to challenge Jewish supremacy and see the end of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

and then tweeted:

By speaking earlier this week at Tel Aviv University, I made a serious mistake. In the past, when formulating my views about Israel-Palestine, I’ve sought out Palestinian friends and interlocutors and listened carefully to their views. In this case, I did not. I really wanted to speak to Israelis. In the US, I’ve cultivated conversations with Jews with whom I strongly disagree, both to listen and in hopes of changing their minds. Over the horrifying last two years, I’ve hoped for more conversations with Israelis, to explain why I believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and why I believe Jewish supremacy is fundamentally wrong. My motivation for giving the talk wasn’t financial; I didn’t receive an honorarium. I wanted to say certain things to an Israeli audience. Speaking at Tel Aviv University seemed to offer that chance. I let my desire for that conversation override my solidarity with Palestinians, who in the face of ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide have asked the world boycott Israeli institutions that are complicit in their oppression. As Noura Erakat and others have pointed out, there are ways for me to talk to Israelis without violating BDS guidelines and undermining a collective effort against oppression. I could have had the exchange I desired while respecting a non-violent movement based on human rights and international law. Had I listened more to Palestinians, I would have realized that earlier. It’s embarrassing to admit such a serious mistake. I dearly wish I had not made this one, which has caused particular harm because international pressure is crucial to ensuring Palestinian freedom. This was a failure of judgment. I am sorry.

That reminded me of a Soviet show trial confession

^

UPDATE:

Read this blog post.

And this one.

^

The Jewish/Israel Left in the Eyes of Efraim Kishon

"The overt and joyful instinct for self-destruction is the national trait that has accompanied the conflicted Jewish tribe since its exodus from Egypt. The tradition of self-hatred has been woven like as a thread throughout Jewish history with its horrific consequences, as if it were a pathological curse passed down from father to son and son to grandson until the end of time. These days, this Jewish tendency is expressed in the fashionable, overt and covert skepticism regarding our right to resettle in the Land of Israel. Many people ask themselves whether the Palestinians are not entitled to demand our departure from here, and those with a conscience are tormented by the injustice we did to the refugees at the end of the Arab war of extermination that turned into a Jewish war of liberation. The Russians have no scruples about having conquered vast territories after their last war, which never belonged to them or their ancestors, and they have no scruples about tormenting the Czech people for the organized deportation of three million Sudeten people. The Poles also have no noticeable pangs of conscience about their cheerful annexations, the Turks have no scruples about wholesale 'population transfers', the Greeks have none, the Bulgarians have none, the Indians have none, the Pakistanis have none, and the Americans have none. Only the Israelis possess them.

The intellectual of conscience among us sees the expulsion of the million Jews from Arab countries as a historical process that cannot be reversed, while the flight of the Arabs, due to their campaign of killing along the lines of the Gush Etzion bloc, he sees as a terrible crime. The conscientious man believes that the twelve million square kilometers of Arab countries, an area larger than that of Europe, are not enough to absorb the refugees. The conscientious man finds that the residents of Bir'am and Ikrit were uprooted from their homes and transferred to another place in stealth and deceit, while the Jews of Hebron were massacred in a brutal manner, and therefore the people of Bir'am must be returned, but the residents of Hebron are forbidden. 

The Israeli-with-a-conscience understands the spirit of Yasser Arafat; is remarkably matter-of-fact and realistic about the national motives of this mass murderer; about our cruel and vile enemy and he is impressed by the legitimate right of the Palestinian liberation movements to chop off the heads of our children in schools with axes...

The Israeli-with-a-conscience is full of universal understanding. He hates only one thing: hate.

The Israeli-with-a-conscience is mentally ill."

From "A Smile Amidst a Drought", 1978

^

The Beinart/Nerdeen conversation

Within Our Lifetime/Palestine Nerdeen Kiswani tweeted, reacting to Zohran Mamdani's condemnation of the swastika daubings:

There’s no “scourge of antisemitism” in NYC. Acts like these, while reprehensible, are often weaponized to justify Zionist narratives and repression of Palestine solidarity. Many past “antisemitic” scares turned out to be fake, like the Israeli Jewish teenager who made hundreds of bomb threats to U.S. synagogues in 2017. Norman Finkelstein has spoken about how “antisemitism” in the U.S. is largely a political tool, not a real social phenomenon. Mamdani shouldn’t be validating this framing.

Peter Beinart responded:

Your response to a swastika at a yeshiva is to condemn the mayor for condemning it? Because that might imply that antisemitism is a "real social phenomenon?" Yes, like other bigotries, it's a "real social phenomenon." If you don't believe me, ask the 1 million people who follow Nick Fuentes on this platform

Nerdeen reacted:

Antisemitism is not a systemic structural issue in the U.S. everyone knows this except for professional victims. There is a nazi problem in the U.S. and sadly many of these Nazis are Jewish people. In fact many Jewish people proudly proclaim that 95% of Jews are Nazis (zionists) which even I said was a bit much. If you want to truly fight against the nazi problem, I suggest you start with your own community. 

 

Nerdeen continued:

You really have some nerve, grifting and writing books about “after” the genocide of my people as it’s still ongoing, to completely reframe what I was saying. I never condemned his condemnation of the graffiti, I explicitly called it reprehensible myself. I took issue with the implication that there’s an antisemitism problem in NYC and cited Norman Finkelstein on the idea that it’s not a social phenomenon. He talks about it in the context of the US, I referenced NYC.
There’s no structural disadvantage to being Jewish like there is to being Palestinian, and you know that. You’re being purposely obtuse. You can pander to the anti genocide line but you’re still a liberal zionist.

Nerdeen adds:

For those who are new here, especially the self-proclaimed anti- or “non-Zionists” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), antisemitism is not a structural issue in the United States. Jews are positioned as white in America, holding access to power, wealth, and protection under the same systems that oppress Black, brown, and Indigenous people. That doesn’t mean antisemitism doesn’t exist in individual attitudes, but it isn’t systemic in the way anti-Blackness or Islamophobia are. It’s not upheld by the state or capital, it’s weaponized by them to silence criticism of Israel and uphold Zionism.  

It may be still going on.

P.S.  Nerdeen's core belief:

For those that are new here, saying “Israel has a right to exist, just not as a Jewish state” isn’t anti-Zionism, it’s liberal Zionism. The question isn’t what kind of Israel, it’s how Israel came to exist, which is through genocide. Anti-Zionism necessitates decolonization.

P.P.S.   But is she really that bad? Here:

^