Israel, Palestine, the West, and the Rest
Type: IntraViewService: MSANEWSDate: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:25:02 +0200 (WET)Title: With Israeli Sociologist Prof. Baruch Kimmerling
* * * * * * * * Introduction: Welcome to IntraView, a newly established section of MSANEWS. ThroughIntraView we hope to produce/conduct first grade interviews and study guides with leading figures in academia and politics. Our first IntraView is with leading Israeli social scientist BaruchKimmerling. Prof. Kimmerling teaches at the Hebrew University SociologyDepartment. He is the author of several books on Israeli society and thePalestinian conflict. Amongst them : Zionism and Territory: TheSocio-Territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics (University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Institute of International Studies Research Series,c1983); The Interrupted System: Israeli Civilians in War and Routine Times(Transaction Books, c1985); and with Joel Migdal, The Palestinians: TheMaking of a People (The Free Press, c1993, and Harvard University Presspaperback, c1994). Hailed by leading Israeli human rights activist Prof. Israel Shahak, as an"outstanding social scientist," Prof. Kimmerling was attacked by a classof Israeli authors as a debunker of Zionism. He was attacked by leadingIsraeli novelist Aharon Megged as a "re-writer [of Zionist history], [the]like of Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe, [who] mostly publish in English togain the praise of the West's 'justice seekers' [and whose] works arequickly grabbed for translation into Arabic and displayed in marketplacesin Damascus, Cairo and Tunis. Their conclusion is almost uniform: that inpractice Zionism amounted to an evil, colonialist conspiracy to exploitthe people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, steal their land anddisinherit them." Part of the class of Israel's "new historians", DavidBar Illan, former Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief and now Netanyahu's chiefadvisor included Prof. Kimmerling with the list of authors offered byMegged and expanded on it to include: Joel Migdal, Ze'ev Sternhell, YigalEilam, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Amos Oz and A.B. Yohoshua. A would-be"debunker of Zionist 'myths'" in the words of Yosef Goell. Prof.Kimmerling opinion is sought with respect to these accusations leveledagainst him and his colleagues. Without delay, here is the candidIntraView for which we hope all success. * * * * * * * * IntraView: Q. Can you share with us a brief biographical record and enlighten us onthe nature of your research? A: As you mentioned in your flattering introduction I am a sociologist.My major fields of interest are political sociology, sociology of war andconflict, and Israeli and Palestinian society, politics and culture. Ingeneral my work is informed by a conviction that macro-sociology should becomplemented by social history. I also actively participate in the ongoingpublic discourse in my society about its internal problems, which includesthe reshaping of Jewish-Arab (mainly Palestinian) relations. Oh, yes, I'm58 years old (born in Transylvania), am married with three kids (15, 18,21) and two dogs. I'm also a disabled person, born with cerebral palsy. Ilive in Mevaseret Zion, a suburb of West Jerusalem and have spent severalyears in the United States (MIT and University of Washington at Seattle,which made me a fan of the Supersonics). * * * * * * * * THE NATURE OF ISRAELI SOCIETY Q. You have been branded as part of Israel's "new historians." Prof.Shahak argues that Benny Morris coined the term in the 1990s, whilereports as far back as 1989 quote Prof. Eric Cohen as declaring that"Zionism is a 'spent program'." Can you shed some light on this academicclass and how it came about? A: Personally, I don't like and don't believe in such labels. There is aprofessionally "good job" done by academic historians and socialscientists and those that are "less than good". One major quality thatmust be the property of any "good" social scientist (including historians)is his/her ability to produce value and ideologically free output. So farmost of the Jewish, Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian historiography andsociography are examples of a politically and ideologically mobilized"science." This is not a quality unique to Jews or Arabs, as considerableportions of any "national" history is biased and constructed to "serve"particularistic interests. In telling their "histories" both Arabs and Jews used and abused thathistory for the sake of strengthening their search for internal andexternal legitimacy. In this context, in various measures thehistoriography and the sociology of the Arab-Jewish conflict became a partof the conflict rather than study of conflict. I'm aware of the tremendousdifficulty of producing "objective" history and social science, but thismust be one of the major aims of the scientific community. From this pointof view I'm more a modernist than a post-modernist, even though I am anenthusiastic supporter of some of the other ingredients of what iscommonly thought of as 'post-modern' methodology, such as deconstructionof texts, reflexivity and constant self-criticism. Some of the "old"historians and social scientists did a pretty good job, especially ingathering raw material, while some "new" historians have producedideologically loaded products. In all other qualities, the groups labeled as "new historians" or"critical (or radical) sociologists" are a highly diverse bunch, to thepoint that it is impossible to talk about a coherent group of "newhistorians". In fact, this categorization is really the construct of theiropponents in academia and politics. In fact, in the past four or fiveyears an almost coordinated campaign, on the scale of a McCarthyisticwitch-hunt has been waged against particular academics in Israel who donot accept the basic ideological premises of mobilized research, or whoare critical of some of the paradigms of the elder generations. Here an intergenerational struggle intermingles with academic andideological struggles. Since Benny Morris proclaimed himself as a "newhistorian" the term is used mainly by conservative historians and socialscientists as a stigma and equated by manipulation as "revisionisthistory". On one hand, there is indeed a new generation of moreopen-minded and critical scholars who are ready to reconsider any previous"self-evidences" and myths; on the other hand intellectual work is veryindividualistic and the "new historians" or "critical sociologists" arefar to be a homogenous group which possess a common agenda. Q. In this context you have argued that Israeli historians and socialscientists severed their connections with the political system with theelection of Likud in 1977 and this stance was consolidated even after theupheaval of 1992. Has this position been shattered by Rabin'sassassination and the election of Likud in 1996? A: Correct. The Israeli Jewish intellectuals and academics, or at leastthe vast majority of them were part of the "nation building" project, asconceived by hegemonic Labor Zionism (historically, Achdut Ha'avoda andMapai parties). From this point of view they were a part of the "rulingclass". When the alternative Likud (historically, ultra-nationalisticZionist revisionist party) came to the power, most of the intellectualsand academics felt themselves to be "under foreign occupation". Theseparation of the intellectuals from the power foci was very "healthy" forIsraeli intellectual life, because for the first time critical views couldcome from the center and not only from the periphery (Communists,Trotskyist, and other small leftist or rightist fringe groups). Eventhough most of the fundamental questions were still avoided, the change ofregime triggered more critical and fresh thinking, including therecognition of the very existence of the Palestinian people and theirright for one or another kind of self-determination. When in 1992 theLabor returned to power, some of this "new thinking" persisted whileother tendencies were again suppressed. Q. Tell us a little about the culture that created the likes of YigalAmir; its religious and social context in light of the debates withinIsraeli society, and in light of your understanding as a social scientist? A: To make a very long story short, Israel has witnessed the creation of amessianic religious-Zionist ethnocentric "bubble". The people within thiscultural-mental milieu believe in the absolute right of the Jewish peopleover the whole territory their god "promised" to the Jews. They also fullyequate Judaism with a special and exclusive interpretation of the Jewishreligion. The "Jewish state" should be "purely Jewish" not only ethnicallybut also according to its basic ruling principles. The only rule is therule of religion, and the state must be a theocracy. Jews who opposedthese principles, and especially those of the political elite, are"traitors" and should be eliminated. This is a well known phenomenon whenreligion is politicized and politics is religionized. Q. Outsiders, including the many "neighbors" and "keen" around Israel, donot understand the dynamics of Israeli society. Most blend Jewish, Zionistand Israeli in one category. Prof. Shahak has also argued that classicalpolitical divisions of right vs. left cannot stand when it comes toIsraeli society. Can you map Israeli society, the interaction of religiousand secular, universal and tribal, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi. etc. A: Of course the Israeli society and polity is a complex entity thatincludes many kinds of societal, political and cultural groups and strata,with different backgrounds and interests. Basically, it is animmigrant-settler society (as are for example the US, Canada, LatinAmerican countries, Australia, and even today's South Africa, FrenchAlgeria, etc.). It regards itself as a Jewish nation state (which includesadditional minorities - the major one being the Muslim-Arab or Palestinianpopulation), without a precise definition of what "Jewish" means and howto determinate "Jewishness". The major segments of Israeli society are: (1) Secular middle-class, mainly from second or third generationdescendants of European or American immigrants (so-called Ashkenazim[pl.]), including a margin of immigrants with Middle-Eastern origins(mainly from Iraq and Egypt). (2) National religious Ashkenazi middle class. Here is the majorpolitical, cultural and demographic reservoir of the settler-societybuilt-up in the West-Bank. (3) Ashkenazi Orthodox or ultra-religious sub-culture. Originally thisgroup was not considered Zionist, and their members are excluded from themilitary service, which is a central institution and cultural code inJewish-Israeli militaristic society. Recently, this segment developed a"new nationalism" focused around purely religious symbols, and had acentral role in the election of Netanyahu for premiership, as a part oftheir concern about the "de-Judification" of Israel (i.e., itssecularization and the giving up the Occupied Territories). (4) Traditionalist Mizrahi (mainly of North-African origins) petit-bourgeois and lower class. The appearance of this segment as a politicalpower and a separate sub-culture is a relatively new manifestation, and aresult of the growth of ethno-religious conscience and identity amongstthe Mizrahi population. (5) During the last 10 years or so, almost one million new immigrantsarrived from the former Soviet lands, generally coined as "Russians". Aconsiderable amount of the "Russian" new immigrants are still livingwithin a separate cultural "bubble" and consider themselves as a"distinct" group. It is expected that in the future most of the "Russians"will be "absorbed" into the Ashkenazi educated secular middle class, buthow long this process will take is unpredictable at this stage. (6) The Arab (or Palestinian) citizens of Israel. This is a heterogeneousgroup (including Muslims, Christians, Bedouins and different classes andstatus groups), but the common fate and history of living as an oppressednon-Jewish minority in a "Jewish state", has turned them into a distinct(bi-lingual and bi-cultural) group. Today, this population of close to amillion people (up from approx. 150,000 in 1948) are regarded as a growingpolitical power and some of them are now claiming the need for culturalautonomy within the Israeli state. What is interesting today in Israel, is that these six major socialsegments constitute changing coalitions and are making various longstanding or ad-hoc social contracts amongst themselves on various issues.One can find one coalition around a specific issue and another coalition -which will include the Arab segments - on another issue. The vast majority of Israeli Jews consider themselves as one or anotherkind of "Jewish-nationalists". Only a very few and narrow strata orindividual groups should be regarded as "anti-Zionists". * * * * * * * * ISRAEL AND PALESTINE: COLLECTIVE TRAUMAS, THE QUESTION OF REVISIONISM Q. Do you find parallels to these phenomena within Palestinian society? A: Well, one can find parallels between any two societies... :-)However, maybe the most salient similarities are: 1. Both societies are still acting under the shadows of collectivetraumas. The Palestinians are living the individual and collectiveconsequences of al-Nakbah, and the Jews the Holocaust. Despite the manydifferences among these historical events, both destroyed the "normalcy"of these societies for generations, making these "abnormalities" intomajor social codes. The code of anxiety. 2. Both are societies with large diasporas and both are based on an ethosof "return". However, the "return" of the one is perceived as being at theexpense of the other. Q. To what do you attribute the proliferation of "anti-Semitic" literaturewithin the Arab world, especially the translation of Hitler's Mein Kempf? A: It is an appalling phenomenon. The Arab world must understand that not*any* anti-Jewish movement or ideology is necessarily an ally of the Arabcause. Alliance with the most reactionary and racist powers and ideas arevery harmful for the Arab cause. As a rule, I never preach to the "other side" about what is "good" or"bad", but as a humanist these manifestations cause me great concern. Italso damages the power of the individuals and groups within the Israelisociety that are working for a historical rapprochement between Jews andArabs. One additional point is that there is almost no difference betweensome expressions of "anti-Zionism" and antisemitism - this from one with"certified" credentials as a critic of Zionism from an insider's perspective. Q. What about the issue of revisionism, both from a philosophical andacademic stand point and also in real terms? For instance some Islamistsuse the works of Israel Shahak to, rather than deconstructing Zionism,re-enforce the picture of the "evil Jew". A: Revisionism is a very large term, that hides different and evencontradictory meanings, and depends on its political, sociological andcultural context. Everything and anything should be the subject ofrevision, critique and deconstruction, from philosophical and academicstandpoint. The question is to the intentions and the output ofrevisionism. If it is made as a one sided political tool and is recruitedfor waging wars against "the other", I'm very doubtful about itsobjectivity, sincerity and benefits. Revisions must be done fromintellectual integrity and honesty. As for the uses of Shahak's works byIslamists. Shahak himself is an impeccable intellectual. Those who use hisworks, have to ask themselves if the same ethno-and religio-centrism andhorrors do not exist in certain interpretations and practices of Islamand Christianity, just as in some parts and versions of the Jewishreligion. * * * * * * * * THE "WEST" AND THE "REST": UNITY WITHIN A LEGITIMIZED DIVERSITY Q. Reviewing your book, "The Palestinians: The Making of a People,"Basheer Nafi argued that your reading of Palestinian society isexclusively "western", "dissecting it around the themes of "disunity,internal conflict, and inner incoherence." The same universal approach(read "western" in Nafi's definition) can be found in your analysis ofIsraeli society which you compare to America in its early days. Youdismissed, in Nafi's words, "centuries of established traditions, customs,modes of living and deeply rooted systems of values, in which Palestiniannarrative is imbued and by which it is nourished and sustained." Againparallels can be drawn with respect to Jewish society and traces of it canbe found in Megged's criticism. Is this dilemma rooted in the nature ofthe discipline of sociology (macro-study) in contrast to anthropology(micro-study) or say political science (dynamics). Is this a call for thefusion of various disciplines or a valid sociological contention? A: A very good and important question (and I say that without anyintention of paternalism!). Yes, all the above mentioned disciplines aremainly "western" today, but do include a layer of non-western thought(take for example one of the founding fathers of modern sociology, such asIbn Khaldun). Ideas should be universalistic by virtue, and civilizationsnot only clash but are also mutually fertilized. The "west" and "rest"are, or should be, one unity within a legitimized diversity. From this pointof view, macro and micro approaches are indeed dialecticallycomplimentary, just as the individual sphere is separate, yet at the sametime part of the public sphere. As for our book Palestinians. Knowing that the authors are not Arabs,and moreover are Jews, posed challenges and dilemmas not only for theauthors, but also for readers. Can "western-Jews" write an impartialsocial history of people who are supposed to be their enemies? One of myPalestinian colleagues noted with a deep bitterness and indignation: "You[the Jews] took my land, now you confiscated my history?" All I can say isthat Joel Migdal and me wrote this book as scientists and not as Jews. Arethese separable? We strongly believe "yes". Otherwise sociology cannotexist as a science. Otherwise, everybody can "research" only himself andnever "the other." The major compliment for me is that neitherPalestinians nor Jews were very happy about the book. Even some of mycolleagues at the Hebrew University accused me of "treachery". To my bestknowledge Palestinians: The Making of a People is the only writtenPalestinian social history that covers about 150 years. We tried hard toinclude aspects of the material and spiritual culture of Palestinians,including popular culture, poetry, literature, as we are followers of theAnnal school of social history. But it is never enough and we neverregarded this work as a "definitive" one. I hope that Basheer Nafi, orsomebody else will continue the job. And yes, amongst others, I'm aproduct of so-called "western culture" (just as Edward Said and BasheerNafi are too - for example). Mea culpa. Q. How do you read the re-emergence of religion as a major player (if notthe major) in late 20th century politics? This is with respect to Israelisociety and the larger context of the Middle East, that is the phenomenonof Islamism. Has religion ever been absent? What are we missing in thisanalysis? A: I'm a purely secular person. However, as a sociologist I know thatreligion is a part of human societies. Religions aren't "good" or "bad",it depends on how collectivities use (or abuse) them, and what*interpretations* they receive. If religion is used to oppress people -anypeople -it is an evil way to use them. Catholic priests as Catholics werefor example central figures in social and national liberation movements inLatin America and Poland. When religions are fused with politics, or whenthey pass personal responsibility to transcendental entities, they havevery destructive potential. When religion is used as a tool of politicalcontrol over people they really turn into secular totalitarianism maskedas religion. Q. What about messianic expressions be they Judaic, Christian or Islamicwhich reverberate here and there. Assess for us their danger (if any)? A: Any messianism, secular or religious, promising salvation here andnow detach societies from this worldly reality and are tremendouslyself-destructive and contain immense danger to their "surroundings". Q. Can one make sense of the term "religious nationalism" to describe thisfin de siecle phenomenon? A: It is as good a term as any other to "describe" a period.By the way, It is too simplistic for my taste. Q. Communist pockets in England and Germany talk of "reflexive modernity,"the "Risk Society" [*] . Here, in the U.S. we have been subject to various"buzzwords". Some have been hyped, and some like the "clash ofcivilizations," "New World Order" and other exotic terminology revolvingaround the same concepts have found many enthusiasts among the very grouptargeted by it. Can you assess for us, as a cultural analyst and a manwho studies the dynamics of societies, what's hype and what's not? A: We are trying to understand our world by "name calling". If somebodyis satisfied and feels comfortable with such terms -it is good for him andgood for some pseudo-intellectuals who are writing bestsellers and makingsome money. I envy them. :-) Q. How do you read the coming of a Pasha in Ankara and the appeal ofBazaar culture, whether one considers Turkey, Iran or Israel (and to acertain extent Lebanon) in contrast to other states in the region whereideology still governs, such as in Syria and Iraq. Are we seeing the deathof ideology and the coming of realpolitik? A: Realpolitik is also an ideology. But I like ideologies as long as theydon't make claims for collective salvation. Q. You have been quoted by Prof. Tanya Reinhart as having called to voteblank in the last Israeli elections. Can you clarify this issue for us? A: Oops! Back to Israel. Well, during and after the Israeli "Operationgrapes of wrath" in Lebanon, I seriously attacked Shimon Peres in thedaily press for his evil, militaristic and power oriented policy. Prof.Reinhart reading my articles presumed that I called for blank votes.However, while voting for Mr. Peres was morally wrong in that context.Voting blank meant to split the vote between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Peres.This seems equally evil and politically wrong. To vote for Netanyahu wasboth evil morally and a mistake politically. The "world" is complex. Q. Do you think there will be peace between Arabs and Jews? A: In a nuclear world, do we possess any alternatives? Q. What is your advice for the hundreds of youth on this list, Muslims,Christians and Jews, committed and not. Do you have any particularreadings that emphasize universal themes? Should they? A: I'm not in any way a kind of Guru. If they will read and try tounderstand the text and the subtext of this interview with open mind -this effort has been worth my while. Q. Any final thoughts? A: You're so pessimistic and macabre... final thoughts ? Hmmm...I hope there are not final. * * * * * * * * References [Chronological] [*] In reference to the works of German Industrialist Ulrich Beck and hisEnglish colleague Anthony Giddens. Search on the Web under any of thefollowing keywords will yield many useful summary articles and reviews oftheir ideas: "Anthony Giddens", "Reflexive Modernity", "Risk Society".Living Marxism (LM) has a couple of very useful reviews which you mightwant to check out. [1] Marcia Kretzemer, "Academics bemoan policymakers' lack of creativityin 'Post-Zionist' Israel," Jerusalem Post, December 24, 1989. [2] Roza I.M. El-Eini, "Problematic Relations," Jerusalem Post , August13, 1993. [3] Ruth W. Mouly, "Palestinians: The making of a People," Book Reviews,International Journal of Comparative Sociology , Jan-April 1994 v35 n1-2p156(2). Electronic copy available via Infotrac 2000 (R). [4] Israel Shahak, "Is a civil war between the Israeli Jews forthcoming,"Report No. 136, 6 April 1994. Available on-line at URL:<gopher://gopher.alquds.org:70/11/reports/Israel%20Shahak%20Reports> [5] Israel Shahak, "The influence of xenophobic ideologies on the IsraeliJews," Report No. 138, 22 April 1994. Available on-line at URL:<gopher://gopher.alquds.org:70/11/reports/Israel%20Shahak%20Reports> [6] Aharon Megged, "One-way trip on the highway to self-destruction,"Jerusalem Post , June 17, 1994. [7] David Bar-Illan, "A spectacular indictment of anti-Zionist Israelis,"Jerusalem Post, June 17, 1994. [8] Yosef Goell, "Debunkers and defeatists," Jerusalem Post , June 24,1994. [9] Basheer M. Nafi, "Palestinians: The Making of a People," BookReviews, The Muslim World, Jan-April 1995 v85 n1-2 p188(3). "A Journaldevoted to the study of Islam and Christian-Muslim relations in past andpresent, Sponsored by Hartford Seminary since 1938." Snail Mail: 77Sherman St., Hartford, CT 06105. [10] Israel Shahak, "The 'New Israeli Historians'," Report No. 150, 12February 1995. Available on-line at URL:<gopher://gopher.alquds.org:70/11/reports/Israel%20Shahak%20Reports> [11] Christina Zacharia, "Palestinians: The making of a people," BookReviews, Social Forces, June 1995, v73, n4 p 1639 (2). Electronic copyavailable via Infotrac 2000 (R). [12] Susan Sachs, "Reading, writing and hate: God and Country: In Israelischools, the 'promised land' is a given," Newsday, October 24, 1995. [13] Patrick Cockburn, "Can Israel put out the flames," The Independent,November 8, 1995. [14] Patrick Cockburn, "Israel's 'Ayatollahs' make no apology," TheIndependent, November 11, 1995. [15] Patrick Cockburn, "The two-year plot to kill Rabin; Israel isdiscovering how a deadly mix of God, guns and nationalism claimed the lifeof its leader," The Independent, November 12, 1995. [16] Geneive Abdo, "Rift between secular, religious Israelis has shatteredsociety," The Dallas Morning News, 24 November 1995. [17] Micheal Lerner, "Orthodoxy and Assassination: A roundtablediscussion; Special Section: The Rabin Assassination; Panel Discussion,"Tikkun, January 1996. [18] Geneive Abdo, "Israeli election heads down the wire," The DallasMorning News, May 29, 1996. [19] Patrick Cockburn, "The end of a 'terrible, dangerous' peace," TheIndependent, May 29, 1996. * * * * * * * *
Home | Profile | CV | Publications | Interview | Zionism | Religion, Nationalism & Democracy | Legislation | Palestinian Identity