Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Book on Hold

September 11, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many university presses in the United States distribute books for publishers from other countries -- and vice versa. The University of Michigan has recently discovered that such an arrangement can land a university in the middle of a controversy over a book neither written by one of its professors nor published by its press.

The University of Michigan Press last month halted distribution of Overcoming Zionism, which argues that the creation of Israel was a mistake and urges adoption of the "one state" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country, without a Jewish character. The book was written by Joel Kovel, distinguished professor of social studies at Bard College. The publisher is Pluto Press, a British outfit that describes itself as having a left-wing focus and that publishes books by and for scholars in the social sciences. The University of Michigan Press is the American distributor for Pluto.

Michigan halted distribution last month after "serious questions" were raised about the book by "members of the university community," according to Kelly Cunningham, a university spokeswoman. Cunningham said that the faculty committee that oversees the press has been reviewing the matter, as well as the relationship between the press and Pluto. An announcement will be forthcoming, perhaps this week, she said. Cunningham stressed that "the expression of diverse points of view on this and other issues is one of the most deeply held values is the university."

There are signs that Michigan may be getting ready to resume distribution of the book. The author and a senior official at Pluto said that they had been informed that the review of the book had concluded and that distribution would resume. Phil Pochoda, director of the press, declined to comment. But when asked what would happen if someone called the press to try to order the book, he said that while it wouldn't be shipped immediately, an order would be taken. Cunningham said that the university was not prepared to announce whether the book would again be distributed.

The controversy comes at a time of intense debate on many campuses in the United States about the Middle East and professors' views about Israel.

Several pro-Israel blogs have been publishing criticism of Overcoming Zionism, calling it full of "hate speech," and questioning why the University of Michigan would have any role in its distribution. The Michigan chapter of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel group, has issued a statement calling the book an "unscholarly propaganda text" and complaining that it could not get press officials to say why it was being distributed.

A blog sympathetic to Kovel -- Dissident Veteran for Peace -- has printed what it says is an e-mail from Pochoda, the press director, to Kovel, explaining why distribution was halted. Pochoda declined to comment on the e-mail, but Kovel said it was accurate. The e-mail reads: "Because it is a distributed title for Pluto Press, no one at UMP had read Overcoming Zionism prior to the Stand/With/Us diatribe. I and others read it after that assault, and had fully expected to gear up for, at least, a free speech defense. Though I had no trouble with the one-state solution your book proposes nor with a Zionist critique, per se ... I (and faculty members I asked to read the book, as well) were apalled [sic] by your reckless, viscious [sic], and unmodulated attack on Zionism and all Zionists.

"For us, the issue raised by the book is not free speech but hate speech. Perhaps such vituperative and aggressive rhetoric works for the barricades, but it cannot be countenanced or underwritten by the university or the university press, even in this peripheral, distributed capacity. Even worse for me, as a result of your book, the university is in the process of reassessing our relation as a whole to Pluto (and that has been a four year relationship that I have cherished, both personally and professionally). While that review goes on (and I am only marginally involved), we have ceased shipping Overcoming Zionism."

In an interview, Kovel called his work "a very carefully reasoned book" and said it was "most certainly not hate speech." He said that the ideas he supports are "not part of the American discourse, but are much discussed around the world." To get a flavor of Kovel's language in talking about Israel, this is a Q&A he did with Briarpatch Magazine about his new book (an interview Kovel said was reflective of his views).

He said things like this: "There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be on the left and also Zionists. It is a contradiction, however, to advocate the cause of universal justice while still supporting the Zionist project of conquest. This is an untenable position that must be ideologically and politically combated because it weakens both the overall struggles of the left and the struggle against Zionism." And this: "I understand the desire to smash Zionism, for after all, Israel is an abomination and has caused endless suffering to innocent people. I believe, however, that humanity is capable of escaping these endless cycles of violence. The desire to lash out against those who have oppressed us is understandable, but it is a dead end."

Anne Beech, managing director of Pluto Press, defended the book and its publication, saying "he's a scholar of standing -- not a ranting madman."

In Britain, Beech said the book has received some criticism and some praise, but has not been the source of major controversy. "To be honest, the cultural differences between the U.K. and the U.S. are so profound that we've been astonished at the intemperate criticism of this book. You don't have to accept the argument in full, but I would unreservedly support Joel 's right to express his carefully thought out opinions," she said.

She noted that she was at a conference over the weekend where some American scholars were on a panel discussing the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and they remarked about how it was "so nice to be able to discuss this issue without being shouted down," as they said would have been the case in the United States. "I feel sorry for publishing colleagues and academics who have to contend with this manic pressure."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group, has also called on Michigan to resume distribution. In a letter sent last week to Mary Sue Coleman, the university's president, the center questioned why a review "based upon the content of the writing" of Kovel's book would take place when the press had agreed to distribute Pluto's works. "We are sure you appreciate the gravity of such a decision for one of the most prestigious publishing houses in the country, particularly at this juncture in our history when outside pressures threaten a full and open discussion of one of the major foreign policy issues of our day."

Laurie A. Brand, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who heads the academic freedom committee of the Middle East Studies Association, said she had not read Kovel's book but had recently been informed that Michigan had suspended distribution. "It does sound very disturbing," she said.

Whether the book is good or bad, she said, "let him publish it and let people talk about it," and if people condemn it or ignore it or praise it, that would be their choice, Brand said. "But what we should not do is to try to prevent its arrival on the market."

Jonathan Schwartz is a blogger who has been urging people to demand that Michigan stop distributing the book. A Michigan alumnus, Schwartz publishes Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses. In an interview, Schwartz rejected the idea that he was encouraging censorship. "I'm a free speech advocate. People can say whatever they want to, and I'm not saying that nobody should distribute it or that it should be banned from libraries," he said.

"But for the University of Michigan to be associated with racist hate speech is not a good idea," he said, adding that he would feel the same way about anti-black or anti-Asian books. He stressed that while Kovel had a right to be published, the university didn't need to help him in any way.

"It seems like the university did not know what it was distributing," Schwartz said. "I personally have my opinion about the book, but what's most telling is the letter from the director of the university press. So why, if after reading it, would he distribute it? The university is not obligated to distribute a book like that. Look at the director's own words."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Book on Hold

  • A Book on Hold
  • Posted by Rick Propas on September 11, 2007 at 8:05am EDT
  • As an American Jew (though possibly not a very good one), I am and have been disturbed by the tendency of pro-Zionist groups to denounce their opponents as anti-Semites.

    To oppose Zionism is not the equivalent of hating Jews, racism or agreement with Ahmadinejad.

    It is simply opposition to what has become a brutal, repressive garrison state, one that many Israelis (such as Avrum Berg) have, themselves, come to question.

    It's time for the Zionist lobby to come out from behind the smokescreen and defend or critique the state of Israel for what it is and has become and not what happened sixty years ago.

  • U of M Press should not associate itself with hate speech
  • Posted by Pete Fulton , Kovel's Book is Offensive on September 11, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • Joel Kovel's book is hate speech, plain and simple. A publicly funded University that cares about its reputation should not be connected to his book in any way.

    It is amazing that Joel Kovel even has a job. Would a school give a teaching job to David Duke. Joel Kovel's racism is no different.

    U of M should stop distribution, and let someone else pass out Kovel's anti-Jew propaganda.

  • Who gets to decide what I read?
  • Posted by David Mazel on September 11, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • I'd like to read this book and evaluate its merit myself, rather than relying solely on the judgment of its critics. Mr. Schwartz, step aside.

  • Hate speech?
  • Posted by Terry M. on September 11, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • Only a person blinded by ideology could call this a work of hate. For a full sampling of Kovel's thoughts, click here. Kovel is calling for one democratic state, to be peacefully developed BY ALL citizens of the area and ON BEHALF OF all citizens of Israel/Palestine.

    http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=475

    Terry M.

  • No Censorship from UM
  • Posted by Steve on September 11, 2007 at 10:20am EDT
  • A University Press should not attempt to stop the distribution of a scholarly book. Censorship is no longer acceptable in the academic world. What purpose does censorship serve, any way? I look forward to reading this book.

  • re: "Who gets to decide what I read?"
  • Posted by GeekGirl on September 11, 2007 at 10:25am EDT
  • The answer is simple: Editors. Publishers. Booksellers.

  • Israel: Head or heart?
  • Posted by Ron George , Technical Writer at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi on September 11, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • The premise of Mr. Kovel's book is true, but its perspective (one-sided) and tone(strident) erode its credibility. Too bad; otherwise, it might have had some traction.

    My heart is with Israel but not my head. What could have been more wrong-headed than planting a colony of European Jews in the Arab Muslim Palestine? Anti-Semitism was virtually unknown in the Arab world until 1948 and the founding of Zionist Israel, which, incidentally, socially discriminated against the Sephardim, Jews who had lived in Palestine for centuries before the postwar "Exodus" crowd showed up.

    The matter of the heart is empathy with the Zionist yearning for safe haven after what Mr. Kovel calls "The Spectre of Shoah," which can not be minimized or dismissed by Israel's critics. Most Zionists probably don't "pray" when they say it, but I do: "Never again."

    Which doesn't excuse it's having been done badly and at the expense of the Palestinian people. The one-state solution ought to be the basis for peace negotiations. It's the most fair way to settle longstanding grievances -- and it's not "hate speech" to say so.

  • Joel Kovel's Book
  • Posted by Kamran Nayeri , Who Stands for Democracy? at University of California on September 11, 2007 at 11:45am EDT
  • What is so wrong with the idea of a democratic secular Palestine where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others (non-believers) live together in perfect equality? The Zionist opponents of academic freedom use the charge of anti-Semitism against Kovel to derail any consideration of this democratic solution to the problem that the establishment of Israel in Palestine has created for the peoples of the Middle East and the world.

  • Kovel
  • Posted by Robert Weissberg , Kovel on September 11, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Kovel is the Alger Hiss Professor at Bard College. That a decent college like Bard would allow an endowed chair to be named after a convicted traitor tells you something. He is also a crank. He argues, for example, that America's fear of "Reds" during the Cold War reflected our horrible treatment of Indians.

    I am a graduate of Bard (pre-Kovel) and refuse to give them any money. It was (and still is) a wonderful place to receive a first rate education, but enough administrative stupidity is enough. Not giving money is the only way I can register my disgust.

  • Re: Who gets to decide what I read?
  • Posted by Jeff Braun , U of M shouldn't dirty their hands with this racist book on September 11, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • I agree that the University of Michigan should not have any part in distributing this book. As an alumnus, I agree with Mr. Schwartz that the University shouldn't tarnish it reputation by distributing it. Who better than alumni like Mr. Schwartz to take a stand? He has free speech rights too, which many seem to be forgetting.

    (U of M, Class of 2004)

  • Posted by Bertell Ollman , Prof. of Politics at NYU on September 11, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Thank you for allowing a reasoned, albeit sharp exchange, on such an important topic. Thank god, you're not being distributed by the Univ. of Michigan Press.

  • Many problems with this book
  • Posted by Allyson Rowen Taylor on September 11, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • This book in not just about free speech, it is about calling for an end to the Israeli State by creating a one state solution, in essence majority ruels, and Jews again would be displaced. This is a book that would only be taught by anti zionist professors, and there is no guarantee that a balanced course would be taught. This is not a scholarly work, this is an opinion, taught as a solution that is not viable. This book has no place in the University.

  • Kovel, racism, and the rigged marketplace of ideas
  • Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT
  • You know, I have met Mr. Kovel a few times, and spoken to him (though I never talked to him about his book), and he never struck me as a racist. Sure, I don’t agree with all his ideas (and you don’t have to agree with mine), but he is far from a racist. But, so what? Suppose he was a racist? Does that disqualify his ideas? What about people that don’t like fat people? Do they not get to write books. What about people that refuse to hang out with uneducated people (like me)? Are my ideas less valid because I am really prejudiced against them, and I have often called for the “re-education” of “uneducated” people into “educated people” via publically-funded institutions. (Actually, a valid critique can be levied about his credentials to teach, but nobody seems to be doing this.)

    Secondly, Ms. Taylor, Just because you disagree with his proposed solution doesn’t mean that his ideas are the not the “best” and your ARE the best. You are free to write a book explaining why they are different. Moreover, dealing with “majority rule” v. “equal protection” has been a constant problem in all republics, and we, in the US, have not even come close to mastering it.

    Third, Mr. Kovel does point out that there might be contradictions between American-style liberalism and Zionism. This is a fairly common critique, and it is hardly anything new. So, to act shocked by it, really is strange. In fact, I would really like to see a book addressing this criticism. Ms. Taylor has not written one. I checked.

    Fourth, I am pretty sure that University of Michigan and Ms. Taylor virtually guaranteed that more people will read his book! In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if U. Michigan deliberately postponed it, and then had people condemn it, just to attract attention. You can’t buy that kind of publicity. Mr. Kovel hasn’t has that much recognition since Ms. Coulter went nuts on him a couple of years ago.

    Fifth, If I write a book calling for the disenfranchisement of fat people, will Ms. Taylor denounce it, so that more people will buy it?

  • read the book before commenting, please
  • Posted by uh...clem on September 11, 2007 at 2:25pm EDT
  • i have read kovel's book and it is an eye-opener, besides being thoroughly documented. i wish those hostile to it would quote just one sentence and tell us where he goes wrong. an intellectual of kovel's depth is one of the few things americans can be truly proud of.

    since zionist sympathizers lurk even in these open forums, it is not surprising that their "hasbara" will crop up here, but none of them so far have quoted from "overcoming zionism".

    and i see this attempt at the suppression of kovel's ideas as part of the zionist campaign to not allow debate about israel to surface in american public discourse. unfortunately for them, you can't cry "wolf" forever without people catching on.

    the good news is that kovel's book continues to be available in canada and can be ordered at amazon.ca.

    you can also get it at chapters.ca but i support the boycott against their operation, since it is owned by two strong zionists, heather reisman and gerry schwartz. to find out more on the boycott, go here: http://caiaweb.org/node/1

  • Secular & Democratic?
  • Posted by Mike Perry , Editor at Inkling Books on September 11, 2007 at 2:45pm EDT
  • On a visit to Hebron, I met a Palestinian medical student and had the shortest debate I've ever engaged in:

    He: "I believe the solution is a single secular, democratic state."

    Me: "Where in the Middle East is there a secular, democratic state?"

    Silence....

    He'd gotten my point in an instant. If the Arabs can't create a working secular, democratic state among themselves, how can they sustain one across the enormous divide that separates Palestinians from Jews?

    Forget about hate speech, this book is the political equivalent of a geography book advocating a flat earth. What it advocates is simply stupid. Don't denounce the author, laugh at him.

    The best solution is what's already half-happened, two countries with everyone who doesn't like the one they're in relocating to the other. The Jews who lived in the Arab world have already done that and created in Israel a prosperous democracy. The world now needs to lean on the Palestinians to do the same, to give up their whining, bitterness, and hate, and focus on building their own country on their own land. The Jews aren't their problem, their own dysfunctional culture is.

    Notice what's happening in Palestine. The Jews are much too clever to provide much of a target for Palestinian violence and aren't responsible for the Palestinians many woes--corruption and incompetence bankrolled from abroad. So the Palestinians are turning their hatred and violence on themselves. They've sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind, or, as Jesus put it two-millennium ago, they're learning that those who live by the sword eventually die by it.

    --Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War by G. K. Chesterton, out in October.

  • This is about a book, not the middle east.
  • Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 at 3:30pm EDT
  • With all respect, this debate doesn’t has nothing to do with politics in the middle east. It has to do with the timing of publication of a book in the middle east. To me, the values of free expression and the marketplace of ideas are a million times more important than anything that goes on in the middle east. They can all kill each other for all I care, so long as adults in the US can read books like this, go to church, and view pornography, the world is doing fine.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that clem and Mr. Perry already had their minds made up before they read (or did not read) the book, so the marketplace of ideas does them very little good, anyway.

  • reductio ad hitlerum
  • Posted by cultivate on September 11, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • Astonishing as it is depressing that here we are, on the day of a key anniversary in a terrible and necessarily defensive war waged against us by the jihad, and contributors to this august journal's website are actually calling for a boycott of a foremost Canadian bookseller on account of the proprietors' allegedly Zionist associations.

    Makes one understand how European academics so overwhelmingly and all too easily bought into the Nazi's anti-Semitic agenda, as elaborated by Saul Friedlander's new book, reviewed in this week TNR. Oh yeah, I forgot: that there's no relationship, nada, between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, and that Kovel is probably a Jew. Like Tony Judt, his predecessor useful idiot in this bizarre illusion that somehow a Muslim majority polity (as the demographics of the one state solution would mandate) somehow will enfranchise its Jewish minority

    I too am a pre-Kovel Bard graduate and have found the "Alger Hiss endowment" more than a bit much to swallow.

    Oh yeah, I forgot again..."speaking truth to power".

  • Freedom of Press does not require UofM Press to publish
  • Posted by Elliott A Green on September 11, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • Larry seems to be confused about the meaning of a free press and the absence of censorship. Censorship is performed by a state or a body with state power. No one on the forum, certainly not Mr Schwartz, is advocating censorship. Nevertheless, he and I have the right to urge UofM Press not to publish or distribute a book that outrageously and unscientifically calls Israel an "abomination." The sentence with this word is quoted above. This fact is the answer to one defender of the book who complained that none of the book's critics had quoted from it. Here is a quote.

    For those who want a freer marketplace of ideas, let's have the ME Studies Assoc [MESA] urge that more strongly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist scholars be brought in to teach Israeli and Middle Eastern history. For those who don't believe that such exist, I offer, among others, Benzion Netanyahu, the most eminent living historian of the Spanish Inquisition. The late Prof SD Goitein was a Zionist who participated in the edition of the Encyc of Islam published in the 1960s. Moshe Sharon, Moshe Gil, and Rafael Israeli are eminent scholars of Middle Eastern history after the Arab-Muslim invasions. Etc.

    Now, those who oppose censorship should criticize the British libel law that allowed a judge to forbid publication anywhere [this law cannot be enforced in the USA, yet] of a book by an American professor [Ralph Collins?] that documented funding by an ultra-rich Saudi of terrorism. This Saudi sued in a British court. The Cambridge U Press was ordered to destroy all copies in stock and ask libraries & book dealers to destroy or return their copies. That is censorship --but curiously our champions of a free press took no note of the case. Not even the British woman speaking for Pluto Press. If censorship bothers her, what is she going to say publicly about that case?? It is no surprise that views like Kovel's are considered "mainstream" in the UK, a country where the state media [ie, BBC] smear Israel almost every day. Further, the Royal Institute of Int'l Affairs was anti-Zionist and pro-Arab and pro-Muslim way back in the 1920s. British policy during the Holocaust was to prevent Jewish refugees from entering the internationally designated Jewish National Home, in violation of the mandate given to Britain for the purpose of promoting the JNH. Further, the RAF refused to bomb the gas chambers, crematoria, or the railroad tracks leading to them. Thus, the UK played a role in the Holocaust. There is something unwholesome about the Brit Left, methinks.

    As to Ron George [correct name?] who thinks that Arabs/Muslims never oppressed Jews. This is a very ignorant view. George can correct his ignorance by studying the works of Bat Ye'or, Bernard Lewis' Semites and anti-Semites, and other works. Defenders of the Kovel book should also bear in mind the collaboration of the chief Palestinian Arab leader, Haj Muhammad Amin el-Husseini, in the Holocaust. On this see books and articles by Lukasz Hirszowicz, Joseph Schechtman, Daniel Carpi, Jenny Lebel, etc.

  • the book
  • Posted by kurtosis on September 11, 2007 at 5:10pm EDT
  • i have read overcoming zionism, and i think it's a well-argued book. i found the strongest sections to be those in which the domestic problems in israel and the internal contradictions of zionism were drawn out. a lot of the other critiques i have read tend to focus on israeli political and military actions against palestinians. these are no doubt important and worth analysing, as are palestinian attacks against israel, but concentration soley on this tends to end in unseemly rows over body counts which don't advance understanding at all. it's good to see a more sophisticated analysis attempted

    god knows what ump were up to with their cave/uncave. perhaps it was an attempt to introduce the reverse ferret into american parlance.

  • Kovel's qualifications?
  • Posted by clare spark , Independent Scholar on September 11, 2007 at 6:25pm EDT
  • The issue is whether or not an academic press should associate itself with a book that has not been vetted by specialists in the field. To my knowledge, Kovel is not such a specialist. Especially in the heated context, we need work that is authoritative and uses primary source materials, is in command of the secondary literature, etc.
    It looks as if Kovel is simply replicating the Arab-Stalinist line (that was briefly interrupted during 1947-1948 when the Soviet Union believed that the Jewish State would go red. It didn't and that was the end of Soviet support for Zionism.

  • Posted by M. Oz , Larry - lamerican "liberalism"? on September 11, 2007 at 6:25pm EDT
  • Dear Larry,
    You claim that some people may think that there is a contraditction between American liberalism and the idea of a Jewish state.
    It seems that you forget that America (USA) was founded on the expense of Indians (yes, "native Americans" as you call them now). American "liberalism" applies only to colonists who dispalced others. If you think Israel is morally wrong, then do the right thing: give 48 states out of 50 back to their original residents.The other 2 can wait...
    I wonder.

  • Kovel's book
  • Posted by jw on September 11, 2007 at 6:25pm EDT
  • (1) For the University of Michigan Press not to publish a book, in this case, Kovel's, is not a suppression of free speech. That Press, like all other publishers, turns down books for publication all the time.
    (2) Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, hatred of Jews; see Natan Sharansky's essay about this. The only reason that Arabs have attacked Jews, in the Palestine Mandate and then in Israel, has been religious - because they are Jews and not Muslim.
    (3) Kovel is following the Communist anti-semitic line on Israel.
    (3) To call any Arabs "Palestinian" is phony history, from propaganda of the Anti-Zionism" bureau of the U.S.S.R. ("Zionist" being another term for "Jew.") "Palestine" has been synonomous with "land of the Jews" since the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Palestina in 135 A.D., after suppressing the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. "Palestinian" was synonomous with "Jew," until the U.S.S.R. began its propaganda efforts by inventing the "Palestine Liberation Organization" in 1964.

  • A Book on Hold
  • Posted by Helmut Schwarzer on September 11, 2007 at 6:25pm EDT
  • I have not (yet) read the book and thus will refrain from entering the ideological and racist vs non-racist debate. But the discussions/comments about distributing/not distributing the book, are missing the point. The distribution agreement that Michigan has with Pluto Press is for the imprint and NOT for particular book(s)that you might have cherrypicked to suit your or your readers' particular taste. Thus you distribute the good with the mediocre and the controversial. If you cannot live with that, get out of the distribution business.
    It is uncanny though to observe how many otherwise intelligent and reasonable individuals become somewhat hysteric when encountering criticism about Israel. I'm certain that, had Prof. Kovel "attacked" Palestine and Palestinians with similar language, nary a ripple it would have caused.

  • response to Mr. Green
  • Posted by Larry on September 11, 2007 at 6:25pm EDT
  • Mr. Green, While I am not saying that this is censorship per se, I should note that the University of Michigan is a state entity and as such is bound by the First Amendment. If the press was choosing books on the basis of a political viewpoint, there would be First Amendment issues. The contours of this area of the First are somewhat murky at the moment (and usually I bore people with it), and I don’t know if they are directly implicated, but they cannot be ignored. I really don’t have a position about the book, or about the usual people that constantly complain about one side or the other in the middle east.

    And yes, Mr. Green, I think that the British law on libel is crazy. But, I am not a Brit, and I only have so much time.

  • Kovel is a lefty psychoanalysis and activist
  • Posted by clare spark , Independent Scholar on September 11, 2007 at 8:05pm EDT
  • I checked Kovel's biography and it is stellar for a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst vigorously operating within the parameters of the New Left/Old Left. Which supports my point that academic presses should not associate themselves with ideologues. Readers here should check out the credentials of the U. of Michigan editorial board and its editors. Also its various departments that teach the humanities and social sciences. The outcome should not be surprising.

  • Is. Ms. Spark suggesting an ideological test?
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2007 at 5:20am EDT
  • Ms. Spark, There are a few problems with your argument. First of all, for better or worse, Professor Kovel is a professor. Maybe you or I might be jealous that he doesn’t have a PhD in political science, but credentials-wise, he does have a high enough rank. (He doesn’t have to say “independent scholar” which most people think means “unworthy of employment.”) Secondly, while it is nice to say that someone is an “activist,” that doesn’t really mean too much, and it certainly does not mean that the substance of his book is any less worthy of discussion. You seem to propose a strange criteria for publication of books: the ideological pedigree of the writer. Are you really suggesting that the prior political history of a writer be scrutinized before a manuscript is read?

  • Response to Mr. Oz
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2007 at 5:20am EDT
  • M. Oz., To be clear, I don’t think that Israel is morally wrong. I just don’t care. However, I think that there is an everpresent tension (everywhere) between nationalistic feelings (and feelings similar to them) and support for Democratic ideals. This is nothing new or radical. Most countries (including my own, the USA) face this issue.

  • Right to speech, with better choice of words
  • Posted by Tom McCool on September 12, 2007 at 7:50am EDT
  • After reading the article, I would support Mr. Kovel's right to put forth the proposition of a secular state of Israel. Isn't the situation in Israel at the point where we need to put all possibilities on the table, sift through them, and reject or accept them on their own merits?

    What bothers me is Mr. Kovel's use of words like "abomination" when referring to the existence of Israel. That word dances around the fringes of hate speech. Just enough that Mr. Kovel and his supporters can comfortably claim it isn't. If Mr. Kovel is truly not a racist, he should choose his words more wisely.

  • question to Tom
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2007 at 8:15am EDT
  • Tom, What is hate speech? Please provide citations to any relevant law (e.g. Supreme Court opinions) that would place this into such a category.

    But, let’s say that there is such a thing as “hate speech” (i.e. words that can be criminally punished or are exempt from 1st-amendment protection), does calling a foreign country an “abomination” even come close to that? Are the people that read this book so hypnotized by the word that they are compelled to commit acts of violence?

    Finally, is my comment to you hate speech?

  • Kovel's views
  • Posted by Michael Brenner on September 12, 2007 at 11:50am EDT
  • I recommend reading the Briarpatch interview. It shows that Kovel neither has the credentials nor the basic knowledge to be opining on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He states:

    "Political Zionism insists that the historical destiny of the Jewish people is to be the masters of an ethnically pure nation-state in historic Palestine."

    Inaccurate. Most Zionists believe in a state with a Jewish majority as a safe haven for Jews given centuries of antisemitism, not an "ethnically pure nation-state", which is another way comparing Zionism to Nazism. And it is biased to call the land "historic Palestine." It is also "historic Judea" and "historic Israel." The use of the term "historic Palestine" is a political adoption of a partisan narrative.

    "Zionism asserts that the Jewish claim on that land, which is over 2,000 years old, overrides anybody else’s claim, all legal considerations, and any respect for human rights."

    And the Palestinians assert that their claim, which is almost as old as that, overrides anybody else's. As far as human rights is concerned, I'll leave it up to Kovel to decide whom he would trust to protect his human rights, Middle Eastern Arabs or Middle Eastern Jews.

    "Indeed, significant sectors of the Jewish population have rejected Zionism from the beginning."

    Yes, generally ultra-religious Jews who believed Jews should remain oppressed and in exile until the coming of the Messiah and communist Jews who believed all Judaism was archaic. Both were morally bankrupt points of views and thoroughly discredited by the Holocaust and the antisemitism of the Soviet Union.

    "I do not reject my Jewish identity, but it is only a part-and in fact a rather small part-of my identity as a human being."

    It would be interesting to know exactly what part of his Jewish identity Kovel does embrace outside of his opposition to Zionism.

    "We need to challenge the bizarre notion that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic"

    Why should we challenge a notion that is not advanced by any mainstream group?

    "Zionism is such a betrayal of everything that is worthwhile in the Jewish tradition. . ."

    If it's the tradition of sitting in the ghetto and letting the gentiles dump on the Jews, I wholeheartedly agree, even if the gentiles are more comfortable with Jews as victims rather than as inhabitants of a sovereign democratic state in which they are the majority.

    It's hard to understand how scholarly people can say this:
    "When you overcome Zionism, you overcome the logic of victimhood and retaliation."

    and in the next sentence, say this:

    "We need to be clear that the Palestinian right to resist occupation is enshrined in international law, and that the Palestinian armed struggle against occupation is legitimate."

    Personally, I believe anyone who argues this without condemning suicide bombing is an advocate of terrorism and should not be supported by a university press.

    "Historically, the two-state notion refers to UN Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which divided historic Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states. The Palestinian majority (67 percent of the population) were given 45 percent of the land while the Jewish minority (33 percent) were given 55 percent of historic Palestine."

    This is classic pro-Palestinian propaganda. The Jewish portion included the Negev desert, thought to be uninhabitable at that time. This view also fails to note that Mandate Palestine included what is today the country of Jordan, and that this territory was already an Arab state in 1947. Jewish acceptance of the partition plan involved a major compromise on the part of the Yishuv. And all of the evidence of the period tells us that had the General Assembly given 75 percent of the land to the Arabs and 25 percent to the Jews, the Arabs still wouldn't have accepted it, because it was non-Muslim sovereignty they were opposed to, not the size of the land given to the Arabs.

    "To put things in perspective, Barak’s so-called “generous offer” to the Palestinians in 2000 was premised on giving Palestinians only 65 percent of the 22 percent of historic Palestine, which is one major reason the Palestinians rejected it."

    Now it's 65 percent. The number seems to shrink each year. It was in fact over 90 percent, with land swaps to make up the difference.

    "The attainment of this goal is not possible, however, unless there is a profound challenge to the capitalist-imperialist system itself."

    A predictable statement from an Alger Hiss professor.

    " . . . Zionism is racism and that Israel is racist in the fullest sense of the word."

    Not under any definition of racism I've ever seen. Israel is by far the most racially diverse society in the Middle East.

    "People need to understand that the situation in Israel is worse than South African apartheid."

    Again, with inflammatory statements like these, who wouldn't want to put their imprint on a book written by this guy?

  • Mr. Brenner's argument
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2007 at 1:25pm EDT
  • Mr. Brenner, Your arguments are no better. Here is why.

    First of all, you attack Professor Kovel’s credentials. He does not claim to be an area specialist. Instead, his arguments are more in the realm of political theory.

    Secondly, you rely on generalizations like “most Zionists.” However, since I really doubt you read the book, it is unclear whether Kovel really differs with you as to whether “most Zionists” think the way they do or not. Likewise, your characterization of “Zionists” and what you believe was his characterization of “pure Zionism” are not necessary contradictory. It may well be that “most” Zionists do not subscribe to a “pure” form of Zionism. Whatever the case, you don’t really provide any evidence as to what “most” people want, wheras Kovel at least identifies an ideology that he provides as a baseline.

    Third, whether Kovel is “biased” or not isn’t really a matter of “basic knowledge” or credentials, but rather something you would need to illustrate. Unfortunately, when dealing with questions of the middle east, no matter what you call a patch of land will open you up to challenges of bias from someone. You would need to address what to call a patch of land that would not show any bias to anyone.

    Fourth, It is very difficult to determine what “Jews” think. In the US, as in many other countries, a religious status is not “official” in any sense of the word. One does not have an “official” religion in the US, and the government will generally not ask (though they will ask soldiers this question, mainly so they know how to bury them - -but they are under no obligation to tell). But, even if you could ascertain what Jews think, you do not provide the source of your knowledge of what Jews want.

    Fifth, Along the lines of my above statement, in the US, Kovel is free to embrace as much of, or as little of, his Judiasm as he wants. He is under no obligation to support Israel or pay a tax to support a synagogue.

    Sixth, You, and other posters, have still not offered a definition of political legitimacy. Seriously, what countries are indisputably legitimate? The US? (We illegally broke away from England, after they illegally stole the land from the Natives)? France? South Africa? Perhaps if you could offer an operative definition of political legitimacy, the conversation could be advance.

    Seventh, Just because an argument appears to be “classic pro-Palestinian propaganda” doesn’t mean that it is academically illegitimate. By the same token, just because a UN Resolution is passed doesn’t mean that there is a moral or legal obligation to follow it, without more.

    Eighth, Again, just because you find the name of Professor Kovel’s chair to be offensive does not mean that his arguments are incorrect.

    Ninth, There are many statements made in books. But that doesn’t mean that they are not worthy of serious study. Your dismissive attitude sounds a tad anti-intellectual.

  • Kovel's qualifications and the larger issues
  • Posted by clare spark , Independent Scholar on September 12, 2007 at 3:50pm EDT
  • I am sorry that no one here has addressed the underlying issue of this debate: the growing legitimacy of the activist as academic and foreign policy commissar in the universities. Since the 1980s when the post-60s generation began to dominate the humanities and much of the social sciences, the idea that scholarship should seek the truth by uncovering hitherto inaccessible or unknown primary sources has virtually disappeared, except as promoted by the hated David Horowitz and associated "neocons."
    Anyone can now become an historian/pundit whatever their graduate degrees may have been. For instance, Kovel is an accredited psychoanalyst, but he believes he can piggy-back on an academic press (U.Michigan)to distribute his Pluto Press work. I do not blame Pluto Press for being a Marxist outfit. So is Verso and other trade book publishers. I blame the University of Michigan for betraying the very notion of professional accreditation and standards by associating themselves with an activist press, just as I am horrified when, as is so often the case today, that students are pressured by "progressives" to take sides in polarized situations without the necessary training in critical thinking, i.e. learning to evaluate competing arguments and narratives by examining the source materials deployed by the authors they read, and learning to distinguish between honest research (that creates new narratives) and ideology (that appropriates convenient facts only, erasing those that cause a reconfiguration of the past that might challenge the tenets of the ideology in question).
    As for Joel Kovel, who has been reading these comments, I am recalling an essay by Frank Manuel that commended him for his first book _White Racism_ and its use of Freudian psychoanalysis. Were Manuel alive today, I wonder what he would think of this latest Kovel work, for it was Frank Manuel who wrote a timely work in 1949, _The Realities of American-Palestinian Relations_, one which recognized the importance of oil companies in the diplomacy that followed the end of the second world war. For shame, Joel Kovel. Psychoanalysts were to help uncover the irrational sources of mental suffering through the reconstruction of a personal, family, and social-political history so that the patient could discern patterns of choice, cease idealizing love-objects, etc., not to foist the analyst's possibly narrow politics and interpretations on the patient.
    UCLA has the book. I will read it (as I am writing in this field now, that is, of how the history of the Mid-East and the founding of Israel is being taught), and then write to Kovel personally.

  • Response to Larry
  • Posted by Tom McCool on September 12, 2007 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Larry, I don't suggest Mr. Kovel should be arrested and tried. I'm referring to a his inclinations towards Israel. I can determine how people feel towards me and others by their choice of words when they describe me. When Kovel describes the existence of Israel as an "abomination," it reveals his thoughts and feelings towards Israel.

  • Abomination
  • Posted by Madrid on September 13, 2007 at 5:20am EDT
  • I am not sure whether Israel is an "abomination" or not, but it is clear that its government certainly is. All you have to do is read the Human Rights Watch Report that was recently issued and be a reasonable person (ie, not blinded by ideological, nationalistic rage) to conclude that this is so. (For that matter, I would add that the current US gov't is also an "abomination").

    My problem is not with Israel's existence per se, but US gov't support for that existence. From the time I was 6 years old, I was taught that the US was a country that did not discriminate against people based on religion, creed, or color. That is part of our fabric as a country-- it is how we survive as a polity and it is also part the deepest values that we espouse (even if we did not live up to them in the past). In Israel, all of us (not just Israel's supporters) have to pay our taxes to support a state that discriminates in favor of certain people based on their religious beliefs and their ethnicity. Now I have a problem with that, and I figure that if more Americans understood what Israel was about, they would have a problem with it as well.

  • Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • Madrid, I see that you don’t like Israel’s policies. How does this figure into the debate on Kovel’s book? Secondly, I should note that Israel is far from unique in engaging in discrimination on ethic lines. The original form of the US Constitution did not contain an equal protection clause. Many countries offer special protections for some minorities, including an immunity from military service or taxation. Moreover, many developed democracies have state religions, and routinely tax people for religious purposes.

  • Hate Speech?
  • Posted by VFPDissident on September 13, 2007 at 3:55pm EDT
  • Curiously, for all the claims about "hate speech," there are still no takers for "The Pochoda/SwU-M Hate Speech Challenge" at http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2007/09/pochodaswu-hate-speech-challenge.html or http://tinyurl.com/2ph585

  • Larry
  • Posted by Madrid on September 14, 2007 at 10:00am EDT
  • I was responding to other posters who were offended by Kovel's use of the word "Abomination" to describe Israel. I've not read his book, but when one describes a country as "abominable," it is unclear if they mean the people, the gov't, or the state apparatus, etc. I think a fair and reasonable case can be made for describing Israel's gov't and its actions as "abominable." One would be speaking about its foreign policy and how it treats Palestinians living in Israel and in the Occupied Territories.

    As to your other point about out original constitution, our original constitution forbids exactly what Israel does. The first amendment reads,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Israel descriminates in a whole host of ways in favor of one religion. I hope I don't have to enumerate here all the ways it does so. From your other posts, I assume you are smart enough to research those yourself. In addition, this country has made very necessary amendments to an original constitution that was passed more than 200 years ago, and was flawed by late eighteenth century ideas about race and slavery, etc, etc.

    As for other countries, I could care less how they treat their minorities or majorities. I am not a citizen of those countries. (Ill revise that: I care a little bit about how France does so, since my wife was born and raised there.) I simply don't think the United States should be giving aid to the tune of 4.5 billion a year (per Walt and Mearsheimer) to any country that discriminates on the basis of religion, creed, and color. Period. I hope I am not alone in that.

  • Kovel's agenda
  • Posted by Lawrence Besserman , Professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem on September 17, 2007 at 5:25am EDT
  • Though I have not read the book, I begin to suspect Kovel's anti-Jewish agenda when he speaks in an inteview about "the Zionist project of conquest"--conquest from whom? Why is Jewish sovereignty in the ancient homeland of the Jews unacceptable? Why do Muslim sensitivities trump Jewish ones? Jacques Maritain said that if there is such a thing as the legitimate claim of any people to any specific territory--a dubious claim ab initio, Maritain said--then the Jews' claim to Palestine would be one such legitimate claim. Kovel's seeking to deligitimatize the Jewish national liberation movement as "conquest" is antisemtism.

  • Hobgoblin of Little Minds
  • Posted by rivka on September 18, 2007 at 4:45am EDT
  • "In Israel, all of us (not just Israel’s supporters) have to pay our taxes to support a state that discriminates in favor of certain people based on their religious beliefs and their ethnicity. Now I have a problem with that, and I figure that if more Americans understood what Israel was about, they would have a problem with it as well."

    I assume you're against the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia as well?