To the Jerusalem Station

Tony Judt. Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century.
Penguin Press. April 2008. 

You would be forgiven, upon reading the panoply of negative reviews of Tony Judt's Reappraisals,for thinking that Judt's latest book was a book-length screed, a Kassamrocket of scorn and derision directed at the state of Israel. Imagineyour surprise when on cracking the spine of Reappraisals youfind all of three essays, out of twenty-four, dedicated to Israel andthe Israeli-Palestinian conflict—one of which is primarily about thelife and work of Edward Said, himself neither exclusively norprincipally concerned with Israel. The gap between the perceived andactual subjects of Judt's work is startling. In fact the book dealsmostly with the shameful intellectual history of European Communism,western and eastern versions. It expresses Judt's desire to form a newleftist canon purged of communist influences, yearnings, and ideas. Yet the critics are not wholly wrong that Israel, too, is part ofthe puzzle.

What sunk the Communists and their fellow-travelers in the West? Judtargues that it was their inability to acknowledge or understand theconsequences of their beliefs. "Irresistibly drawn to the underlyingethical message … of an idea and a movement uncompromisingly attached torepresenting and defending the interests of the wretched of the earth,"the crusaders for a better world unilaterally disabled their ability tocritique their own Communist colleagues with the same ferocity theydemonstrated in probing fascism and liberal democracy. Whether it wasWalter Duranty of the New York Times, who won a Pulitzer Prizefor reporting that "village markets are flowing with eggs, fruit,poultry, vegetables, milk, and butter at prices lower than in Moscow"from Ukraine in 1933, the year millions were deliberately starved todeath by Stalin, or Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that "the sacrificesof the Russian people had proved that its leaders embodied its wishes,"intellectuals and writers sympathetic to Communism chose to ignore whatthey preferred not to see. Long after it had become impossible to doso, many Marxist intellectuals defended Communism to the last. This isan old story but Judt retells it in these essays with a passion thatbespeaks a present commitment.

What is it? Judt's desire to "purge" the party of theleft of all Communist sympathizers bears an obvious resemblance to theactions of the Communists themselves in regards to "bourgeoisintellectuals." Well, an eye for an eye, but now that internationalCommunism is no longer a threat, why is Judt still going around thevarious book reviews gouging eyeballs? The answer lies in his vision, expressed best in Reappraisals'final essay "The Social Question Redivivus," for the future of theleft, in Europe and elsewhere. In that essay, Judt comes up with anessentially refurbished Euro-socialist approach to the modern problems of thewelfare state under the pressure of globalization—those problemswhich rose almost immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, whenthe Eastern Bloc became suddenly open to the flow of internationalcapital. Like the platforms of the Socialist parties of Europe, whichhad, towards the end of the Cold War, engaged in a Lady Macbeth-like"cleansing" of their own Communist bloody hands to become sustainablepolitical parties, it bears little allegiance to any Communist past.

This is because, in Judt's view, the "Communist Idea" canalways, like a vampire, rise again even after being stabbed to death.What has always bothered Judt about Communism is not merely its past(though, for most, that would be enough), but also its problems as aphilosophy: its attempt to be completely systematic and unstoppable, amagnificent fantasy posing as science, which ruthlessly subjugates anddestroys any erratum of dissident reality, bound like a mob victim tothe tracks ahead of it. This is an attitude he draws from, above all,the Polish ex-Communist Leszek Kolakowski, author of the comprehensiveand damning Main Currents of Marxism, which indicts Communismas a political practice through a deconstruction of its philosophicalbasis. In the warm and reverential essay on Kolakowski included in Reappraisals,Judt warns that the dangerous inequalities exacerbated byglobalization's onward march may seed the field left fallow by the endof Communism, thereby preparing a potential renewal of Marxism ingeneral. The rise of modern socialist movements in Latin America, ofMaoist revolts in Nepal and northeastern India, and the minor flurry ofessays in the advanced capitalist nations that proclaim, "Marx wasright," in the wake of the current financial crisis, modestly confirmJudt's insight. For those sympathetic to Judt's fear of a Marxistrevival, moderating the process of globalization ("globalization with ahuman face") is still anti-communism: by tempering a destructivecapitalism, it preserves the left's most lasting achievement—thewelfare state—against destruction from the left. Judt, then, ispurging a certain style of thinking, still smoldering in the ruins ofcommunism, which is always ready-at-hand, though unable to accommodateor readjust in the face of something it cannot account for: itsphilosophical inadequacies confirm its political history, and viceversa.

So where does Judt's notable, and prolonged, interest in Israel fit alongside his passion for righting the left's wrongs? Bornthe same year as the state, in 1948, and raised in a labor-Zionisthousehold in Britain, Judt displays a fervent disdain for Zionism thatis the mirror image of a disappointed Marxist's anti-communism. Hisincreasing disillusionment with the Israeli enterprise—in particularits savage treatment of the Palestinians—has led him to refer toIsrael as "the country that wouldn't grow up." Withthe image of those leftists unwilling to atone for communism freshly inmind, the onetime Zionist pokes and prods at Zionist ideology, hopingto deflate its myths—and possibly clear a path for a more honestversion of the Jewish homeland he once admired. Judt paints anunremittingly dark portrait of the country, and documenting apropensity for Orwellian doublespeak that fails to reflect the truehorrors of state-sponsored injustice, finds

a place where sneering eighteen-year-olds with M-16carbines taunt helpless old men ("security measures"); where bulldozersregularly flatten whole apartment blocks ("collective punishment");where helicopters fire rockets into residential streets ("targetedassassination"); where subsidized settlers frolic in grass-fringedswimming pools, oblivious of Arab children a few meters away who festerand rot in the worst slums on the planet; and where retired generalsand cabinet ministers speak openly of bottling up the Palestinians like"drugged roaches in a bottle" (Rafael Eytan) and cleansing the land ofits Arab cancer.

Reappraisals has been lambasted by many reviewersfor its supposed anti-Israel bias, a fact which has more to do with anessay not included in the volume. In "Israel: The Alternative"(published in the October 23, 2003 edition of the New York Review ofBooks), undoubtedly the most hotly disputed of Judt's essays, he calledfor a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—aposition that led to the American Jewish Committee referencing himprominently in a pamphlet on "the new anti-Semitism."

Judt never articulates a philosophical basis for hisinterest in Israel, but there is a logical affinity between Communismand Zionism, as he sees them both. American Zionists (of which I countmyself one) are running the very real danger of becoming the newCommunists—passionately committed, endlessly energetic, andthoroughly, incontrovertibly wrong.

The analogy is imperfect, of course, but the mysteriouslack of interest, especially among Zionists outside Israel, in theyawning gap between officially sanctioned ideology and the unpleasantreality on the ground is eerily familiar. For Zionist leftists likemyself, it is deeply frustrating that the most basic facts about dailylife in the occupied territories never penetrate, and that populardiscourse about Israel in the United States is generally limited toLikud talking points. Criticism of Israel, even from a solidly Zionistperspective, is seen as inherently pro-Palestinian, or the unnecessaryairing of dirty laundry. Closed-minded systems of thought become closedsystems of rule; Judt's critique of Communism is equally applicable toAmerican Zionists' inability to acknowledge Israel's gaping flaws.Being a Zionist means never having to say sorry for Israel.

Communists, and their sympathizers, gloated over Sovietsuccesses while ignoring the nightly arrests, the show trials, and thegulags; many American Zionists have created an Israel-of-the-mind inwhich Palestinians only play a shadow role, as terrorists or silentlycomplicit non-citizens. The daily life of Palestinians—the lack ofaccess to medical facilities, the shortages of water and food, theIsraeli home demolitions and acts of collective punishment, one of thehighest population densities on the planet—remain curiously unreal tothem. The recent incursion into Gaza has only strengthened their devotion to Israel's carefully tailored narrative. Theissue is not so much the moral or political justifications for the Gazaincursion, or Hamas' undoubted perfidy, as the almost-complete lack ofdissenting voices wondering what the purpose of all this death might be. Sderot,where Hamas rockets cause terrible anguish, looms large in theirworldview; Zeitoun, where 27 members of the Samouni family were killedby Israeli shelling, is a blank spot on the map.

Like the Western Communists of yore, American Zioniststend to be rabid in their support and hazy in their awareness. Zionismabroad has grown calcified and creaky, its arguments as illogical andunconvincing as those of the Communists burdened with explaining whySoviet tanks on the streets of Prague were in the best interest ofCzechs. When newspapers report unflattering news, change yournewspaper; when politicians argue for difficult-but-necessaryadjustments of attitude, vote for someone else. Above all else, whereideology and reality part ways, stick closely to theory. "From where hestands, much of the rest of the world is upside down," Judt remarks ofthe great British historian and Communist Eric Hobsbawm, and much thesame could be said of the unreflective wing of American Zionists. As apersonality type, Judt's old-guard Communists would be right at home asdefenders of Israel.

Ever since the Six-Day War, and Israel's acquisition ofthe West Bank, Gaza, and the Old City of Jerusalem, the unofficialpolicy of the state of Israel, whether sanctioned by the ruling partyat the time or not, has been to create a series of permanent facts onthe ground in occupied territory. Contravening well-establishedinternational law, Israel has persistently and deliberately torpedoedany chances of a permanent, or even temporary, settlement of theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict by maintaining the pace of newconstruction in the occupied territories. If you were to ask any one ofthe post-'67 pioneers who people the pages of the brilliant, deeplyunsettling history of the settlers' movement, The Accidental Empire,written by Gershom Gorenberg (perhaps the most articulate Israelicritic of settlement policy), what the purpose of their struggle was,the answer would be couched in terms of the Torah: the Jews, the peoplewithout a land, had finally returned to the land promised to them byGod. The Torah serves astheir Marx and their Engels, with divine favor coming to serve the samerole that history's favor once had for their Communist forebears. Thepro-settler status quo—no peace talks, no easing of themisery-inducing restrictions on Palestinian life, a relentless focus onsecurity that never addresses the underlying causes of insecurity—hasbecome the consensus among American Zionists, even as Israeli politicsremains a raucous free-for-all. As of the end of 2007, 282,000 Israelislive on the West Bank, with the numbers steadily increasing, and nosign of a settlement freeze on the horizon. The possibility ofexchanging land for peace grows ever more unlikely as the Israelipresence on the West Bank increases—which was precisely the point ofbuilding the settlements. Rather than slowing down, the pace ofsettlement construction has doubled in 2008, as compared to 2007.Meanwhile, a demographic time bomb sits under those charged withsecuring Israel's future: taking into account the entirety of the stateof Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, the population of the region ismade up of 5.8 million Jews and 4.9 million Arabs. Demographics spellIsrael's doom as surely as any Iranian nuclear bomb ever could—so whydo right-wing supporters of Israel reference it so rarely?

"The day will come when the two-state solution collapsesand we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights,"one noted Israeli, in favor of direct negotiations with thePalestinians, recently pointed out. "As soon as that happens, the stateof Israel is finished." No less a Palestinian figure than former primeminister Ahmed Qurei only recently suggested that the lack of tractionin negotiations could push them away from two-state agitation, andtoward a binational, one-state solution. Israel's religious Zionists,and those Americans who support them financially, politically, andemotionally, love Israel so much they are in danger of destroying it.They also must stand in opposition to centrist Israeli politicians. Thename of that Israeli agitating for a two-state solution? PrimeMinister Ehud Olmert. After announcing his resignation, Olmert wenteven further, stating in an interview with an Israeli newspaper that"We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning ofwhich is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all theterritories, if not all the territories … without that there will be nopeace."

In "Israel: The Alternative," Judt argues that aone-state solution is the only workable alternative to the untenablestatus quo. Judt himself describes it as "an unpromising mix of realismand utopia," knowing that the very possibility is anathema to theoverwhelming majority of Israelis, in addition to meaning the effectiveend of the state of Israel. Yet in Judt's view, Israel as it once wasis already finished. He sees its downward spiral beginning immediatelywith its triumph in the Six-Day War: "A historic victory can wreakalmost as much havoc as a historic defeat." Inthe wake of the Six-Day War, Israel lost its European character as ademocratic socialist enterprise, and became just another problematicMiddle Eastern country, with "crazed clerics, religious devotees,nationalist demagogues, and ethnic cleansers." The only way to get backto a semblance of decency, and utility, is to once again recreateEurope by the Jordan. Reappraisals' tenderness toward thatlumbering behemoth, the European welfare state, and its antipathytoward American neo-conservatism and third-way moderation, leads towardits European-style multicultural vision for this theoreticalIsraelstine.

Judt's argument leans heavily on the assertion thatIsrael would never, and could never, voluntarily leave any of theoccupied territories, making a true land-for-peace settlementimpossible. Written in 2003, Judt's essay appeared before the 2005Israeli pullout from Gaza, which proved that an orderly, peacefuldisengagement from occupied territories was indeed possible, ifimmensely difficult. "It may be that over a quarter of a millionheavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave Arab Palestinevoluntarily," Judt argued, "but no one I know believes it will happen.Many of those settlers will die—and kill—rather than move." Withthe Gaza disengagement, Israel showed it could—with extraordinarycare and diligence—extricate itself from a nightmarish quandary witha minimum of loss of life. Gaza had only 8,000 settlers; the West Bank,with a Jewish population nearly 35 times greater, is far thornier.Israelis have grown attached to the West Bank, but the only questionthat really matters, at this late hour, is this: would Israelis prefera two-state solution, or a one-state solution? Given that the latter means the erasure of the state of Israel as it currently exists, the choice is illusory.

One might be led to note that Judt's essential rightnessabout Communism leads him toward a parallel that, while correct in thegeneralities, is too crude to handle the particulars. Opening one'seyes to the cruelty and callousness of the Israeli occupation shouldnot entail closing one's eyes to the religiously fueled violence thatan ever-growing segment of the Palestinian population has embraced.Rightly horrified by the Israeli occupation, Judt gives short shrift tothe equally horrifying pathologies in the Palestinian community. LikeEdward Said, whom he admires, he is eager to tell the truth to his owncommunity, and this is laudable. But in his zeal to right Israel'swrongs, he neglects one of the truths of revolution, familiar to anystudent of Communist history: a bad regime can always be replaced by aneven worse one.