will it be read?

Does this mean that people will read it, and perhaps write books in response? Or will it be more insults?

Larry, at 5:20 am EDT on September 12, 2007

I can’t wait for Michigan to republish “Mein Kampf” and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Hans Gesund, at 6:40 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Whatever what might think of Israel, Joel Kovel is a distinguished scholar and comparisons with creationism, the KKK, Mein Kampf, etc are inappropiate and baseless.

Levon Chorbajian, Professor of Sociology at University of Massachusetts Lowell, at 7:10 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Why do Anti-Semites think they are exempt?

Why do Anti-Semites think they are exempt from being called bigots and racists?

Every anti-Semite who comes crawling out of the sewer is immediately defended by those who think it should be prohibited to call a racist a racist when that racist simply hates Jews.

barbara, at 7:50 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Protocals and Kovel

Sagi, The “Protocols” was likely not written by an academic, and likely does not contain discussion of ideas that are widely discussed in academic literature. It was not subject to peer review. However, perhaps a literary analysis of the book would be of interest.

Barbara, Do you really think that Professor Kovel is a racist or an anti-semite. He works at a school with a large Jewish population, and whose president (Leon Botstein) is extremely vocal about his Judaism. If he hated Jews he sure picked the wrong place to work and the wrong set of friends. For better or worse, discussion of Israel, nationalism, and democracy are going to be studied academically.

Larry, at 8:10 am EDT on September 12, 2007

cultcrit has me baffled. It seems that he/she says that in a certain article Nadia Abu al-Haj is merely complaining about the political use of misuse of scientific information, in this case, genetic info about the descent of modern Jews from ancient Middle Eastern people. Cultcrit seems to think that such info or the use of such info is not important.

On the contrary, for many years Arab diplomats, journalists, politicians, spokesmen, etc., as well as some Western supporters of Arab anti-Israel policies, have been claiming that the modern Jews are descended from ancient Jews, or that perhaps the Jews whose families were living in Middle Eastern countries in recent generations may be descended from ancient Jews but not those Jews called Ashkenazim who, the Saudi UN ambassador once claimed, were really descended from the Khazars, a people living around the northern Caspian Sea in the early Middle Ages, ruling an empire including part of the southern Ukraine of today, and some of whom converted to Judaism. The Khazar empire long blocked Islamic/Arab expansion to the north. They were hardly Europeans, it should be mentioned. After defeat of their empire this people disappeared.

Anyhow, recent genetic research has disproven the Khazar theory of Ashkenazic origins, rather confirming Ashkenazic proximity to other Middle Eastern/Mediterranean peoples, thus vitiating one of the Arab nationalist arguments against Israel. I am sure that if the research had confirmed Khazar origins, then Nadia Abu al-Haj would be broadcasting this confirmation as widely and loudly as possible. Thus, I don’t take her argument that such scientific info is out of place in politics to be sincere.

Now, if Abu al-Haj argues that ethnicity is more a matter of feelings, identity and history, then why should Jewish/Israeli identity be any less valid than any other, even if Jews from farflung places did not share a common ancestry?? As far as the so-called “palestinian people” is concerned —& I suggest that R Silverstein take note— the bodies supposed to represent the “palestinians” actually claim to be merely a part of the Arab nation. Abu al-Haj & Silverstein might profit from reading once again [or for the first time] the PLO charter. Article One of the charter states that the Palestinian Arab people is part of the Arab Nation and Palestine is part of the great Arab fatherland [watab]. So if the PLO in fact represents the Palestinian Arabs, then they are NOT a separate people, according to their own claim. As for the Hamas, which seems to be the rising star among this group, they too see the Palestinian Arabs as part of the Arabs in general, but the Hamas is more concerned with the whole Islamic nation, the Umma Islamiya.

Silverstein might do well to also read the Hamas charter’s Article seven [7] which includes a medieval Muslim fable to the effect that at Judgement Day, the Muslims will fight the Jews who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him. Condi Rice believes that the Hamas is a “resistance movement.” The Hamas also regularly charges Jews with having betrayed Muhammad. Hence, the Hamas identifies the modern Jews and Israelis with ancient and medieval Jews. That is the Hamas position, not the position of alleged Israeli propaganda. I suggest that the defenders of Abu al-Haj take note.

Elliott A Green, at 8:50 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Silly

James’ comment about a pro-Israel wave swamping any critical debate in the U.S. is laughable. Jimmy Carter on “apartheid,” Mearsheimer/Walt on “Jewish power,” and now Joel Kovel on Israel as a “mistake” — give me a break. The sickness already visible in Britain is making its way to the USA. Absent from any of these works is a critical view of Palestinian history and actions and an empathetic view of Jewish/Israeli history and actions.

Ken, at 9:00 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Broken Promises, Broken Dreams

Alice Rothchild’s book is another book distributed under such an arrangement by the same principals. Rothchild is an American Jew and a physician whose concern for human rights and social justice leads her to be critical of certain Israeli policy and certain attitudes of American Jews, and supportive of a two-state solution. Were the book not positioned properly and were Rothchild not so disarming in recounting her own background, it might just has easily have been attacked as “hate speech,” and Rothchild as a “self-hating Jew.”

This book is not scholarly per se, but rigorous in recounting personal experience, including that of travel to Israel and to the Occupied Territories. Yet I would have no hesitation in assigning it to any of my classes to which the subject matter was appropriate. Books like this need to exist, and publishers and distributors must countenance them.

I think this points up two issues. First, given the track record of this sort of rhetoric, I’m dubious of too facilely dropped charges of “hate speech.” I’d want to read the book. If it was censored or suppressed, I’d how could I?

Scholarly vetting and bowing to the political pressure of moral entrepreneurship are separable issues. Understanding that Michigan only distributes for Pluto, which is not an academic publisher, I think Michigan is on firm ground, and I commend them for the resumption.

Lastly, I think that allowing expression of alternatives to a two-state solution might recommit reasonable people to support more intensive efforts for justice and peace in the region.

Richard Hudak, at 9:30 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Re: Sam’s remarks — without going into the debates the book’s content, Sam’s confusion about UM Press’s decision to distribute the book shows a misreading of the situation and and the nature of book distribution. UM Press is distributing the book, not publishing it, and as the article states UM Press’s “arrangement with Pluto Press is for distribution only; the UM Press never intended to review individually every title published by Pluto.” To criticize UM Press is to ignore the basic contractual agreement they have with Pluto Press. If you want to criticize a publisher for publishing the book, Pluto Press should the critic’s target. If UM Press ceased distribution, they could have opened themselves up to a lawsuit from Pluto.

Karl, Re: freedom of speech and academic standards, at 9:35 am EDT on September 12, 2007

cake is racism !

Maybe I am getting old, but after the “zionism is racism” comment, I can never tell if this is an inside academic joke, a form of Gen-X sarcasm, or some strange bit of political rhetoric.

Larry, at 9:50 am EDT on September 12, 2007

The issue at hand

The action in question is U of Michigan’s decision to continue distributing the book, not whether its ok to be racist, what is racism, should racists be allowed to write books or carry pencils. Judging by the U of M Press’s reputation, the book must be fairly good, not a piece of propaganda but an in-depth discussion on an interesting issue. There are many sides to issues, and my guess is that Kovel’s book takes a better look at one side. An educated person knows that discourse on a subject is offered for consideration. The book will assist is attaining a more comprehensive view, and that should be welcomed.

Mitch O, at 10:20 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Pluto Press

As an acquaintance of both the President of Pluto Press and Joel Kovel, I am pleased that the U. of Michigan has not caved in to Zionist pressure. I am less pleased, however, with the prospects of them severing ties with Pluto. In the course of reviewing books for Pluto Press, I have had email exchanges with the folks at U. of Michigan. I am quite sure that they understand Pluto’s high quality and that they would regret being pressured into severing the relationship. Right now I am reading “The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational,” a Pluto book written by Nick Robins. Robins is an historian by training and has nearly 20 years experience running socially responsible investment funds. I am also very familiar with Kovel’s writings on ecology, which are highly respected in both academic and activist circles. The smears that have been directed at Pluto and at Kovel here speak more about the ugly and ignorant mindset of those who make them than their targets.

Louis Proyect, at 10:20 am EDT on September 12, 2007

When did Zionists experiment on human beings?

When was the time that Zionists experimented on human beings, killed them in concentration camps, broke all the glass in Jewish or ANY stores? When did they round up people like cattle on trains and transport them to gas chambers? Etc., etc????

Since history shows that idiots continue to hate Jews, then why is it so horrible for Jews to want their own society, away from all the hate? Funny how people hate Jews, yet is other groups who commit most of the heinous crimes in the streets, rape the most, kill the most.

If everyone hated Icelandics, for example, would people think it weird that they wanted their own place? Oh, that’s right...they have their own place.

Nanette Rayman, Writer, at 11:05 am EDT on September 12, 2007

question for Lapides

Mr. Lapides, 1) Did you read the book?; 2) Does Professor Kovel state that Israel has no “right” to exist; and 3) how do you tell if a “nation” has a “right to exist”?

I seriously think that 1) You did not read the book; 2) Professor Kovel doesn’t touch the issue of whether Israel has a “right” to exist (but perhaps he makes normative judgments); and 3) you have no criteria for the legitimacy of a nation.

Larry, at 11:40 am EDT on September 12, 2007

Palestinians

Just a quick note: I believe that someone can be ethnically “Palestinian” and an Israeli citizen. So, perhaps the “Native American” analogy, while useful, is somewhat flawed simply because the determination of who is eligible for Israeli citizenship really is based on a bunch of political choices made in the past 60 years.

Larry, at 1:25 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

hate speech — and what it isn’t

Michael, Can you tell me more about this concept of “hate speech”? Are you saying that Kovel’s book is not entitled to 1st amendment protection and a state or the federal government can ban it, and outlaw its possession or distribution? (If so, can you cite to any Supreme Court authority that supports your point.) Are you telling me that Kovel’s writing is so persuasive that anyone that reads it will instantaneously internalize everything he says without reflection or analysis? Are you telling me that academics are that gullible? If so, can you tell me how you were able to avoid the book’s hypnotic qualities?

And really, so what if it is racist? Unless Kovel is refusing to hire people on the basis of religion or race, he can pretty much be as racist as he wants.

Finally, are there any non-Zionists that call opponents of Zionism “racist"?

Larry, at 2:25 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Mazel’s postings

There’s a rather cynical epithet in modern Hebrew which translates to “noble soul": a term more or less politically parallel to “useful idiot", of which Mazel is an exemplar.

Forget the “next year in Jerusalem” bit if the abolitionists have their way; it will be “next year in Al-Quds".

cultivate, at 3:45 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

USA #1

Well, look on the bright side. In the US, a healthy academic environment, and a robust 1st amendment effectively prevents the squelching of any debate.

Larry, at 4:20 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Clem, Seriously, doing more than alluding to blogs and talking about how wonderful “Zionists” are and how bad their detractors are does nothing to address the debate, which is about publication of a book.

Larry, at 9:50 pm EDT on September 12, 2007

Appropriate bases and standards of comparison

All of which I have noticed various Zionists arguing for Israel come-hell-or-high-water tend to forget and/or ignore.

Firstly, my position — I’ve been slowly coming to the same position Joel Kovacs has, on the basis that while the past cannot be undone, it can be put right. And the basis that this will draw the teeth of the haters on both sides — if Muslims and Jews are treated impartially with respect to their High Holy Sites, there will be less room for dissension. Etc, yada yada yada ...

Secondly, Zionism isn’t an ethnicity, though judging from some of the comments on this blog, it may well be turning into a religion, one that some of my ancestors — from the land formerly called Canaan — tried to stamp out, calling it idolatry. Disagreeing with the crimes against humanity committed by the Yishuv during the 1947-48 war, is therefore a disagreement with the policies and the actions of certain people in the Yishuv. I find I can disagree with people without wishing their extermination. If certain of the commentators on this blog disagree, it is therefore their problem ... and it’s not a problem I tolerate.

Thirdly, I am sick to death of a certain attitude I find too often among Zionists, which holds that Israel is sui generis — so completely different from any other nation, that things which they condemn in others are perfectly all right for Jews to commit in creating and maintaining a modern state. I know a bit too much of colonial history for that to be believable. Israel’s a second-rate copy of Australia; it’s got a number of unsavoury features — ie, the high integration of the military in the political process — that were and to some degree are still endemic in Indonesia; the Balfour Declaration is typical British Empire Colonial Charter, and I can mention similar (human rights) provisions on self-government for the Dominion of NZ mentioned in NZ history books, but it’s remarkable how difficult it is to find the texts of the parallel BE Colonial Charters for comparison ...

Fourthly, I find too many people seem to be so ignorant of history that the Hitler/Nazi analogy is the first thing that springs to their minds ergo their mouths, in relation to this, whether it’s the anti-Zionists’ “purported wish” to see such crimes visited upon Jews again, or the Zionists’ crimes against Palestinians .... The better thing is to find an accurate basis for comparison, and cast the net as widely as possible in the hope of finding accurate analogies that will stand up to hostile examination. I don’t see too much of that taking place, and that does infuriate me.

Lastly, please, University of Michigan, etc, please open up debate on this topic. As you can see, I’ve found a number of quite severe academic deficiencies in the standard Western approach to it, amongst them the worst being the total ignoring of the “other side", that of the Palestinians. Keeping the discussion open gives us the opportunity to regain self-respect.

(Oh, and did I forget to mention — Israel’s political system, which tends to focus on personality rather than issue, except for the Palestinian issue, has numerous parallels, the two coming to mind right now being Papua New Guinea and Fiji.)

Wesley Parish, Univeristy of Canterbury, at 7:40 am EDT on September 14, 2007

MICHIGAN’S ACT OF COWARDICE

Is John Kerry now running the UM press (first I voted for the war, then I voted against it)?

The UM press decision to resume distribution of the Kovel book while also reviewing its relationship with the purveyor of hate that published it is an act of moral cowardice disguised as “defense of academic freedom.” Which side are you on? For hate or against it?

Perhaps the Michigan Legislature should examine the use of public funds to support the UM press.

And to the Michigan faculty: have you no decency?

—Sheldon

Sheldon, at 4:05 pm EDT on September 15, 2007

More Zionist Censorship Attempts

Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, Jimmy Carter and now Joel Kovel and of course, in a different age, Hannah Arendt. The Zionist movement and its creation, the Israeli State, never cease their attempts to silence speakers and ban books. I guess we must be grateful that they don’t burn them too!

And of course we have this nonsense about ‘hate speech’. Now why is Overcoming Zionism engaging in hate speech? Does it advocate hatred of Jews, discrimination against them, attacks on them? No. Maybe it advocates applying to them a few of the measures applied to Israeli Arabs? You know, things like banning Jews from renting or leasing land in the US or the West? Is Joel advocating the equivalent of the recent JNF Law which was passed at the first stage by 64-16 and which would allow, following a court ruling, the Jewish National Fund not to seel to Arabs once again?

I doubt all these things. The problem with this book is that it OPPOSES all these things. It certainly says that a Jewish, just like an Aryan or any other state based on arbitrary ethnic/racial attributes should be dismantled. That a state which accords privileges depending on whether or not you are Jewish (white, Aryan etc.) is illegitimate. Isn’t it legitimate?

As for anti-Semitism, well Zionism has always held hands with anti-Semites. As Theodore Herzl (founder of Political Zionism) wrote ‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people.’ (Diaries pp. 83/4). Or as the Israeli novelist, A B Yehoshua wrote, ‘Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist.’And why? Because ZIonism accepted that Jews did not belong in the lands where they had lived. Read some of these early Zionists. If you didn’t know who wrote the stuff you’d think they were died in the wool anti-Semites.

The attack on Joel Kovel has nothing to do with hate speech, anti-Semitism etc. It has to do with opposing a movement that hates free speech, which shoots its opponents in Palestine and seeks to suppress them outside. You only need to look at how they are treating Mordechai Vanunu to see that Zionism and free speech are polar opposites.

It’s no wonder George Bush loves ‘em so much!

Tony Greenstein

tonygg, Mr at Sussex University, at 7:15 pm EDT on September 19, 2007