The Wandering Who: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (6 page)

Chapter 5

Fagin vs. Einstein

Jews are often proud to define themselves as Jews. Some Jews may, for instance, proudly carry the Jewish banner (Jews for Peace, Jews for Justice, Jews for Jesus and so on) as if they believe that the ‘J’ word contains special righteous attributions. However, they will also be gravely offended if they are called a ‘Jew’ by others. Suggesting to a Jew that ‘he is a Jew’ or ‘behaves like a Jew’ can be regarded as a serious ‘racist’ offence.

It is linguistically noteworthy that the symbolic identifier ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ operates as both noun and as an adjective. As much as the term points to a ‘thing’ it is also descriptive. Symbolic identifiers associated with ideological and identity politics tend to function in dual grammatical mode. The words ‘feminist’, ‘socialist’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘white supremacist’ can point to a human subject but they can also be descriptive. For instance, a feminist who proudly carries the feminist flag may also accept that being called ‘a feminist’ also assigns particular characteristics and ideological beliefs. Crucially, we also accept that being a feminist, a socialist or a Nazi are matters of political choice. People are not born feminists or socialists. They adopt those ideologies or identities later in life.

From this perspective the ‘Jew’ signifier or symbolic identifier is slightly different for the Jews, who are born into a collective identity. Almost like any case of biologically-determined conditions, such as ‘women’, ‘men’ or ‘blacks’, some people are born Jews. However, here there is an interesting twist. First, European Jews can easily disappear into a white Western crowd by means of assimilation and integration and leave their Jewish identity behind, whereas black people and
women have to live their life accepting and enjoying who they are. Second, the duality between the noun and the adjective in the case of ‘black’ and ‘women’ is not necessarily realised as a gulf. Neither black people nor women are offended by being called ‘black’ or ‘women’.

As discussed before, it is rather enlightening to find out that, to a certain extent, the manner in which ‘Jew’ as a signifier operates within the discourse may be similar to the case of the ‘gay’ symbolic identifier. While many gay people are proud to exhibit their gay identity, they may also be offended when being labeled as ‘gays’ by others. In different cases of identity and marginal politics we can notice a parallel and simultaneous tendency to ‘own’ and ‘disown’, an inclination to ‘identify’ with a collective yet a refusal to be ‘identified’ as such by others.

In multicultural reality we tend to believe that this contradictory mode of behavior is something to do with the usage and misusage of stereotypes.

A stereotype is commonly defined as a public or common belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. It is often the product of an essentialist generalisation by the means of induction: it involves a nonscientific assumption about the properties of a class of subjects based on an accumulation of observations or anecdotal encounters, which become reinforced with time and repetition.

The concept of ‘stereotype’ is often confused with the notion of ‘prejudice’. We notice that a stereotype attached to ethnicity, class or any group is a means of forming an opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge and irrational feelings.

On the face of it, it would seem as if Jews are over-sensitive to the ‘racial’ discriminatory implication of the ‘J’ word. However most Jews are not that concerned when being associated collectively with some great minds, adorable violin players or conductors. In short, to safely apply the ‘Jew’ category, you just
have to make sure you say the right things. No one will ever cause you any trouble for mentioning Albert Einstein in reference to Jewish intelligence or even bringing up Anne Frank as an exemplary motif of Jewish innocence but you may get into some serious trouble once you mention the following list of real and fictional characters: Bernie Madoff, Fagin, Wolfowitz, Lord Levy, Shylock, Alan Greenspan, Netanyahu and Nathan Rothschild.

All of the above depicts an obscure, yet far from surprising picture. It looks as if many Jews do not mind racial generalisations and essentialist stigmas as long as they are positive.

It occurred to me recently that by juxtaposing Jewish stereotypes (those which Jews seem to hate versus those which Jewish ethnic campaigners try to promote) we may be able to throw some crucial light over issues to do with Jewish collective identity. It would also suggest to us how Jews might see themselves and, even more importantly, it may also help us to grasp how they prefer to be seen.

Some Jews are rather unhappy with Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock, who they regard as ‘anti Semitic’. I get the impression that the prominent Zionist enthusiast and London solicitor Anthony Julius would like to see these cultural iconic characters removed from popular discourse. On the other hand, the British Holocaust Education Trust (HET) has managed to plant Anne Frank within the British curriculum.

It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians seems to be just a further event in an endless hellish continuum. However, it is also obvious why the HET is so thrilled by Anne Frank. On the face of it, and for obvious reasons, Frank is there to convey an image of innocence. And indeed not a single moral system could ever justify the
ordeal this young girl went through along with many others.

Yet, Anne Frank wasn’t exactly a literary genius. Her diary is not a valuable piece of literature. She wasn’t exceptionally clever either. She was in fact a very ordinary girl and this is exactly her power within the post WWII Western cultural discourse. She was just an innocent, average girl. In fact, the attempt to make Anne Frank into a cultural hero may be a genuine reflection of the Jewish ideological inclination towards sameness. Frank mirrors the desperate attempt to prove to the world that ‘we, the Jews’ are people like other people. Moreover, the success of Anne Frank’s Diary is there to suggest the West’s willingness to accept Jews as people amongst peoples.

Yet, once again, the Jewish discourse is caught in a limbo. Jewish people can never achieve their task. They can never be like ‘other people’, for those who demand to be seen as equal must feel inherently and categorically different. Once again we face a repetition of the Jewish identity’s collective unresolved chasm between ‘who one claims to be’ and ‘what one happens to be.’

In Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius attacks those whom he labels as ‘anti-Semites’ for being anti-Zionists. The problem with anti-Zionism, says Julius, is that ‘it denies the Jews the right that it upholds for other comparable people, it adheres to the right of self-determination except in the Jews’ case…. It affirms international law. Except in Israel’s case. It regards Jewish nationalism (i.e. Zionism) as uniquely pernicious, rather than merely another nationalism.’
³⁵
The cry for legitimacy and sameness in Julius’ text is pretty embarrassing
,
especially due to the fact that the Jewish ‘right of self-determination’ is celebrated at the expense of someone else (the Palestinians). Zionism
is
uniquely pernicious, at least for being devastating to the indigenous population of the Holy Land.

For Julius to win his argument, Jews have to prove that they are truly the same rather than demand to be seen as similar. For Jews to be genuinely respected as a collective, self-reflection is of
the essence. Instead of pointing out what is so wrong with the
Goyim
, Jewish ideologists may want to consider looking in the mirror.

Chapter 6

Think Tribal, Speak Universal

At a certain stage, around 2005, I thought to myself that I might be King of The Jews. I have achieved the unachievable, accomplished the impossible. I have managed to unite them all: Right, Left and Centre. The entirety of the primarily-Jewish British political groups: the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, Jewish Socialists, Tribal Marxists, The Board of Deputies, Jewish Trotskyites, Jews for this and Jews for that, for the first time in history all spoke in one single voice. They all hated Gilad Atzmon equally.

“Pretty impressive,” I thought to myself, “I must have done something right.” Yet, I was slightly confused by my own achievement. When it comes down to it, I was not the canonical enemy – I was a jazz musician and author. I was not a politician, nor was I a member of any party. I did not present or support any political agenda or power. I wasn’t supported by any party either. I have never been involved in any act of violence (not even as an Israeli soldier) nor had I ever called for violence. I was what some call an ‘independent critical thinker’, I may also be what some Jews regard as a ‘proud, self-hating Jew’. Could it be that it was my comprehension of the Jewish political identity that brought so much Jewish animosity to my door?

At the time I came across an interesting insight into the subject of anti-Semitism. It goes like this: ‘While in the past an “anti-Semite” was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.’ The politics of hate can be effective, as well as being vicious. And you’d think tribal Jewish activists would be the first to understand this. We all know that Jews have been suffering hatred and discrimination for centuries. Yet the Jewish ethnic activists seem
to have learned hatred from their enemies so well that the secular Jewish political discourse has been totally shaped by it.

Moreover, hate has become the main matrix of negation: the Israelis hate the Arabs, the Zionists hate the Goyim (in general), Jews against Zionism also hate the Goyim but they also hate Israel as well as Atzmon (in particular). But why do they hate so much? The answer is simple. Once Judaism is renounced, what remains of Jewish identity is pretty threadbare. Once stripped of religious spirituality, all that is left of Jewish-ness is a template of negation fuelled by racial orientation and spiced up with some light cultural references such as
matza
balls and chicken soup.

Sadly, I have to say that though very many emancipated and assimilated Jews have adopted universal humanist ideas and intermingled with humanity, secular collective Jewish identity has never matured into adopting a universal humanist ideological standpoint or even a philosophical insight.

The reasons are simple:

A.   Racial, tribal or even ethnic orientation cannot form a basis for a universal ethical argument.

B.   Chicken soup or even Jewish humour (culture) does not make an ideological, ethical or political argument.

It was Moses Mendelssohn, an 18th century Jewish ‘progressive’ scholar, who coined the famous
Haskalah
(Jewish Enlightenment) insight: ‘Be a Jew at Home and a
Goy
on the Street’. Mendelssohn’s revelation for the modern Jew doesn’t leave much room for doubt. Rather than encouraging the modern Jew to genuinely assimilate into a homogenous authentic universal ethos of equality, the
Haskalah
Jew is destined to live in a dual, deceptive mode, if not practically a state of schizophrenia. He is split between the solitary pleasure of a cosy, homely Jewish identity and the public appearance of the surrounding reality. The
Haskalah
Jew is deceiving his or her God when at home, and misleading the
Goy
once in the street.

In fact, it is this duality of tribalism and universalism that is at the very heart of the collective secular Jewish identity. This duality has never been properly resolved. Instead of redeeming the Jews it imposes a certain level of dishonesty.

A few attempts have been made to brush it off but they have all failed. Zionism for instance, offered to abolish the ‘abnormal’ condition of the ‘Jewish Diaspora’, in other words, it suggested that in a ‘Jewish State’ (intended as being for Jews Only) the differences between the ‘home’ and the ‘street’ would disappear. Though it managed to do this, at least for a while, there is no trace of universalism in either the Zionist’s ‘street’ or in his ‘home’.

The carnage Israel left behind in Lebanon (2006) or Gaza (2008) doesn’t leave much room for doubt – Israel doesn’t really offer us any lessons in universal cosmopolitanism. Marxism also attempted to make people look equal. In other words, it promised to make all ‘homes’ and people look the same. This idea was very appealing to a few West European and many East European Jews who even formed the Bund, a Jewish Socialist Party. Marxism was indeed successful for a while, however, nowadays it is actually consumerism that makes us all look homogenous (iPod, coca-cola, jeans etc’). Clearly, there is not much to celebrate there either.

It is from within the failure of these two competing grand ideologies that the matrix of negation marched triumphantly. The search for a contemporary, collective, secular Jewish identity is a perplexing endeavour. Just as in Mendelssohn’s time, it aims at integrating the opposing categories of tribalism and universalism. But this can never be achieved, and this is exactly where ‘hate politics’ starts to play its part.

If you don’t know who you are, just find yourself an enemy. In other words, ‘tell me who you hate and I will tell you who you are.’

Mendelssohn must have understood the intrinsic clash between the ‘cosmopolitan man’ and the ‘Jewish home’. He must have realised that universalism and tribalism are opposing categories. Being trained as a rabbi, Mendelssohn offered a pragmatic and practical solution – but this solution led to false and deceptive behaviour. Either you pretend to be a cosmopolitan while in the street or you lie to your creator at your dwelling. This behavioural code, though being very pragmatic, happens to be non-ethical by definition. It is based on deception – both self-deception and deceiving the other.

As we know, it was Mendelssohn’s insight that was the cause of many Germanic Jews eventually converting to Christianity or just departing from any connection with Jewish collectivism, Jewish life or culture. Ethically, at least, Mendelssohn’s middle way between orthodoxy and modernity failed to provide an answer. The third category Jewish leftwing activist falls straight into Mendelssohn’s trap. They try desperately and unsuccessfully to bridge the gap between tribal commitment and the universal call. Like Mendelssohn, they are doomed to failure.