Showing posts with label Hannah Arendt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hannah Arendt. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2007

A Bit of Intellectualizing

One of the icons of anti-Zionist thinking is Hannah Arendt (previously dealt with in these pages [and here, too]), adored by the radical and progressive Left.

Here are some excerpts from an article, fair and balanced, on her Jewish writings and positions that clarifies some of her core problems.

Hannah Arendt and the modern Jewish experience

What is it about Arendt’s Jewish writings and persona that have rendered them so peculiarly divisive, and emotionally and ideologically charged?...

...Of her relationship to her second husband, the German radical and non-Jew, Heinrich Bl? she wrote in 1946: “If I had wanted to become respectable I would either have had to give up my interest in Jewish affairs or not marry a non-Jewish man, either option equally inhuman and in a sense, crazy”. Her Jewish identification was strong and passionate – “I belong to the Jews”, she declared, “beyond dispute or agreement” – but was never absolute.

...It is precisely this deep yet ambiguous involvement in existentially crucial Jewish matters, indeed, her partial “insider” status that still endow her, for many, with a troubling, even threatening, relevance. As a “connected critic”, a member of the family rather than an outsider or enemy, her arguments have standing and authority; they demand engagement rather than simple dismissal.

...Whereas nationalist historiography is based on the uncritical assumption of a distance on principle between Jews and their host nation, assimilationist historians opt for an equally uncritical assumption of a 100 per cent correspondence between Jews and their entire host nations. The advantage of the nationalist hypothesis over that of the assimilationists is a purely practical one: it does not lead to illusions that are quite so absurd . . . . But for Zionism – as for nationalist historiography – status as a “nation of foreigners” is just as undifferentiated as 100 per cent correspondence is for the assimilationists. Instead of one abstraction – the German people – we now have what are more or less two opposing abstractions: the German people and the Jews. This likewise strips the relationship between the Jews and their host nation of its historicity and reduces it to a play of forces (like those of attraction and repulsion) between two natural substances, an interaction that will be repeated everywhere Jews live . . . . Assimilationists were never able to explain how things could ever have turned out so badly, and for the Zionist there still remains the unresolved fact that things might have gone well.

...Arendt’s Jewish national politics were consistently couched in terms of the priority of popular needs, and a critique of self-serving and manipulative elites. Her withering comments on “notable”, “educated” and “exceptional” Jews and their contempt for East European Jews pervade these pages. Moreover, she regarded with wonder and admiration those national historical forces that “taught both Eastern and Western Jews to see their situation in identical terms” and, in 1944, showered praise on the Jewish underground movements for their elimination of “any difference between Western and Eastern Jews, between assimilated and unassimilated . . .”.

...One dimension of her dissent flowed from her belief that Jewish national rights and politics had to be conducted in worldwide rather than Palestinocentric terms. But the real gist, and the contemporary relevance, of these essays lies in the conviction that the relationship with the Arabs constituted “the only real political and moral issue” of Zionist and Israeli politics.

...Her notions of an intact Jewish nationalism on a federative or a binationalist basis have thus far proved illusory, given the ongoing lack of political will on all sides for such an arrangement. Yet her fears about the inherent problems and consequences of the conventional national route were realistic enough.


This, of course, recalls what was said of Phillip Roth:-

Roth, like his favourite character, Nathan Zuckerman, appears to be “a Jew without Jews, without Judaism, without Zionism, without Jewishness, without a temple or an army or even a pistol, a Jew clearly without a home, just the object itself, like a glass or an apple”. But a Jew nonetheless.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

More on Hannah Arendt

Elchanan Yakira has a new book out - Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust. Three essays on denial, repression and delegitimation of Israel - [Post-tsionut post-shoah] Am Oved, 2007,270 pp, Softcover (in Hebrew). His new theme, expounded in the book is The Holocaust as an Argument in a Comprehensive Ideological Negation of Israel and of Zionism.

In it, he examines how anti-Zionists and those who suffer Judeaophobia use the Holocaust to attack Israel. Hannah Arendt figures prominently in it. In a previous article, he wrote:-

For some time, Hannah Arendt has been considered a major thinker, regarded by some as perhaps the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century. She is now becoming a major figure in Israel as well, in light of which, this article reexamines Arendt's attitude towards the "Jewish question", notably Zionism and the State of Israel. The article shows, through looking at Arendt's work as a whole, that she has never succeeded in overcoming her own Jewish problem. Fundamental tension between a typical universalism and a deep feeling of Jewishness marks all of her work, but explodes in her report on Eichmann's trial. Attending this was, for her, in her own words, a "late cure"--perhaps from this unresolved tension between Jewish identity and particularism and universalistic aspirations. The result was the book on the Eichmann trial which was, as the article tries to show, a moral failure in the strict sense of the word.


And see my previous post as well as my letter and correspondence.

And now, there's this:-

[Arendt] she seeks to underscore the political paradoxes of the nation-state. If the nation-state secures the rights of citizens, then surely it is a necessity; but if the nation-state relies on nationalism and invariably produces massive numbers of stateless people, it clearly needs to be opposed. If the nation-state is opposed, then what, if anything, serves as its alternative?

Arendt refers variously to modes of ‘belonging’ and conceptions of the ‘polity’ that are not reducible to the idea of the nation-state. She even formulates, in her early writings, an idea of the ‘nation’ that is uncoupled from both statehood and territory. The nation retains its place for her, though it diminishes between the mid-1930s and early 1960s, but the polity she comes to imagine, however briefly, is something other than the nation-state: a federation that diffuses both claims of national sovereignty and the ontology of individualism. In her critique of Fascism as well as in her scepticism towards Zionism, she clearly opposes those disparate forms of the nation-state that rely on nationalism and create massive statelessness and destitution. Paradoxically, and perhaps shrewdly, the terms in which Arendt criticised Fascism came to inform her criticisms of Zionism, though she did not and would not conflate the two.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Insight on Arendt

UNKIND TO ARENDT
By Walter Laqueur, Reply by Jeremy Waldron
In response to What Would Hannah Say? (March 15, 2007)

To the Editors:

Jeremy Waldron ["What Would Hannah Say?" NYR, March 15] quotes me attributing Hannah Arendt's alleged misjudgments about Israel and things Jewish to the fact that she had read too much anti-Semitic literature for her own good. I attributed nothing of the sort, the reference was to Ms. Arendt's streak of paranoia believing that the Jewish establishment was out to get her by foul means including bribing a well-known New York judge to write a negative review of one of her books...

Walter Laqueur
Washington, D.C.

Jeremy Waldron replies:
Walter Laqueur did make both the observations about Hannah Arendt that I reproached him for. On page 492 of his article "The Arendt Cult" in the Journal of Contemporary History (October 1988) he wrote (concerning Arendt's response to a negative review of the Eichmann book): "There was a streak of paranoia in Arendt on such occasions; perhaps she had read too much anti-Semitic literature for her own good."...