Scan barcode
idrees2022's review against another edition
5.0
The following are excerpts from a review that I wrote for "Fear and Loathing", the third issues of Critical Muslim.
The treatment of Jews who have remained in the Muslim world is no better or worse than that of any other minority. Since the founding of Israel their numbers have dwindled. Except for countries like Iran, where a substantial Jewish population still thrives, few in the Muslim world ever encounter a Jew. Most know Jews only through scripture or news reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All Jews as a result have been cast unwittingly as adversaries by a conflict with which most of them have no connection, which many even oppose.
There is no point denying that anti-Semitism exists in the Muslim world today and that Holocaust denial is not uncommon. This is deplorable. But the anti-Semitism of the Muslim world is an epiphenomenon of a political conflict; it doesn’t have social roots. ‘It is functional and political, not social,’ says Yehoshafat Harkabi, the leading Israeli scholar and former head of the military intelligence, no friend of the Arabs. For most Muslims, anti-Semitism is a function of ignorance and unfamiliarity; it is also an abstract means of participation in a conflict where Jews have been cast as the oppressor by virtue of a state which adorns its instruments of war with Jewish religious symbols. In this respect it is quite different from European anti-Semitism; it does not involve any actual contact with a Jew. It is also different in so far as it comes from a position of weakness, whereas European anti-Semitism was born of strength and directed against a vulnerable minority. It is comparable less to the racism of the Ku Klux Klan than to the reaction of the Black Panthers. Both kinds of hatred were totalizing, but only the former existed without a stimulus. Harkabi again:
Arab anti-Semitism is not the cause of the conflict but one of its results; it is not the reason for the hostile Arab attitude toward Israel and the Jews, but a means of deepening, justifying and institutionalizing that hostility. Its rise is connected with the tension created as a result of Zionist activity, and especially of the traumatic experience of defeat…Anti-Semitism is a weapon in this struggle.
[...]
But since the Holocaust is bandied about as a justification for the creation of Israel—and the dispossession of the Palestinians—some Arabs have assumed that the legitimacy of this enterprise could be undermined by questioning the Holocaust itself. Instead, writes Achcar, such partisans merely display an inhumanity which undermines their own cause, painting opposition to Zionist colonization as being based in anti-Semitism rather than in sympathy for its victims. Achcar notes that these attitudes, which have hardened as the conflict between Israel and the Arabs has escalated, sit in striking contrast with the Arab reactions contemporaneous with the Nazi genocide. He quotes many Arabs denouncing the genocide and professing sympathy for its victims, even as they affirmed the Palestinians inalienable political and national rights. Some even expressed a willingness to accept more Jewish refugees so long as the rest of the world was willing to accept their share.
All of this, however, has been erased from memory in no small part due to the Arabs own willingness to forfeit this admirable legacy. As Arabs and Muslims have abandoned this tradition in favour of clumsy flirtations with anti-Semitism, they have made it easier for their detractors to paint them as later-day Nazis. Trying to fight one alien import, Zionism, with another, anti-Semitism, was never likely to succeed. They seem to have overlooked that the former always relied on the later for its survival.
[...]
But where Achcar’s otherwise systematic, thorough and fair-minded work is lacking is in pointing to any reason other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for explaining why anti-Semitic views prevail in places which have little investment in the conflict. Why even an otherwise astute politician like Gamal Adbul Nasser found it necessary to reference The Protocol , as he did in an interview with an Indian journalist. Might it be because discussions of Jewish power are so suppressed that people simply don’t know how to talk about it and inevitably turn to myth? There is a large disparity between Jewish political influence in the most powerful Western states and the amount of attention it gets in mainstream discourse. Consider the American electoral process: while it is commonplace to hear about the excessive influence of Wall Street over politicians, or the deleterious effect of the Citizens United legislation which allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money while enjoying all the protections of individual citizens, the fact is rarely mentioned that the the two biggest donors to both political parties–Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban–are rich Jews who are on record as saying that the issue they are interested in most is Israel. Both have supported intransigent policies in the Middle East. Yet few people even know their names. Why this silence? Is it the fear of being labelled an anti-Semite? Is it dogma, which recognizes no agents, only structures and processes?
Every time the US president is brow-beaten by an Israeli prime minister or his American allies, political discipline mandates that the mainstream intellectual not notice; but ordinary people do. However, unlike the intellectual, they are not equipped with the analytical tools necessary to assess this skewed balance of power. It is not entirely surprising then that some of them end up indulging in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ascribing mythical powers to Jews, who are treated as an undifferentiated and coherent social bloc. The only way to disabuse them of these notions would be to present them with an analytically sound, sociological explanation which recognizes both the sources and limits of Jewish power and accepts the diversity of their class, cultural, and political affiliations. John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Tony Judt have done this with insight and rigour. But Achcar makes a single, somewhat disparaging, reference to the former two and does not discuss the Israel lobby at all. This is unfortunate since a scholar of Achcar’s calibre could have certainly elevated the debate. This small quibble notwithstanding, Achcar has made an invaluable contribution, and Muslims would do well to make a gift of his book to anyone who makes another reference to the Protocols.
The treatment of Jews who have remained in the Muslim world is no better or worse than that of any other minority. Since the founding of Israel their numbers have dwindled. Except for countries like Iran, where a substantial Jewish population still thrives, few in the Muslim world ever encounter a Jew. Most know Jews only through scripture or news reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All Jews as a result have been cast unwittingly as adversaries by a conflict with which most of them have no connection, which many even oppose.
There is no point denying that anti-Semitism exists in the Muslim world today and that Holocaust denial is not uncommon. This is deplorable. But the anti-Semitism of the Muslim world is an epiphenomenon of a political conflict; it doesn’t have social roots. ‘It is functional and political, not social,’ says Yehoshafat Harkabi, the leading Israeli scholar and former head of the military intelligence, no friend of the Arabs. For most Muslims, anti-Semitism is a function of ignorance and unfamiliarity; it is also an abstract means of participation in a conflict where Jews have been cast as the oppressor by virtue of a state which adorns its instruments of war with Jewish religious symbols. In this respect it is quite different from European anti-Semitism; it does not involve any actual contact with a Jew. It is also different in so far as it comes from a position of weakness, whereas European anti-Semitism was born of strength and directed against a vulnerable minority. It is comparable less to the racism of the Ku Klux Klan than to the reaction of the Black Panthers. Both kinds of hatred were totalizing, but only the former existed without a stimulus. Harkabi again:
Arab anti-Semitism is not the cause of the conflict but one of its results; it is not the reason for the hostile Arab attitude toward Israel and the Jews, but a means of deepening, justifying and institutionalizing that hostility. Its rise is connected with the tension created as a result of Zionist activity, and especially of the traumatic experience of defeat…Anti-Semitism is a weapon in this struggle.
[...]
But since the Holocaust is bandied about as a justification for the creation of Israel—and the dispossession of the Palestinians—some Arabs have assumed that the legitimacy of this enterprise could be undermined by questioning the Holocaust itself. Instead, writes Achcar, such partisans merely display an inhumanity which undermines their own cause, painting opposition to Zionist colonization as being based in anti-Semitism rather than in sympathy for its victims. Achcar notes that these attitudes, which have hardened as the conflict between Israel and the Arabs has escalated, sit in striking contrast with the Arab reactions contemporaneous with the Nazi genocide. He quotes many Arabs denouncing the genocide and professing sympathy for its victims, even as they affirmed the Palestinians inalienable political and national rights. Some even expressed a willingness to accept more Jewish refugees so long as the rest of the world was willing to accept their share.
All of this, however, has been erased from memory in no small part due to the Arabs own willingness to forfeit this admirable legacy. As Arabs and Muslims have abandoned this tradition in favour of clumsy flirtations with anti-Semitism, they have made it easier for their detractors to paint them as later-day Nazis. Trying to fight one alien import, Zionism, with another, anti-Semitism, was never likely to succeed. They seem to have overlooked that the former always relied on the later for its survival.
[...]
But where Achcar’s otherwise systematic, thorough and fair-minded work is lacking is in pointing to any reason other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for explaining why anti-Semitic views prevail in places which have little investment in the conflict. Why even an otherwise astute politician like Gamal Adbul Nasser found it necessary to reference The Protocol , as he did in an interview with an Indian journalist. Might it be because discussions of Jewish power are so suppressed that people simply don’t know how to talk about it and inevitably turn to myth? There is a large disparity between Jewish political influence in the most powerful Western states and the amount of attention it gets in mainstream discourse. Consider the American electoral process: while it is commonplace to hear about the excessive influence of Wall Street over politicians, or the deleterious effect of the Citizens United legislation which allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money while enjoying all the protections of individual citizens, the fact is rarely mentioned that the the two biggest donors to both political parties–Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban–are rich Jews who are on record as saying that the issue they are interested in most is Israel. Both have supported intransigent policies in the Middle East. Yet few people even know their names. Why this silence? Is it the fear of being labelled an anti-Semite? Is it dogma, which recognizes no agents, only structures and processes?
Every time the US president is brow-beaten by an Israeli prime minister or his American allies, political discipline mandates that the mainstream intellectual not notice; but ordinary people do. However, unlike the intellectual, they are not equipped with the analytical tools necessary to assess this skewed balance of power. It is not entirely surprising then that some of them end up indulging in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ascribing mythical powers to Jews, who are treated as an undifferentiated and coherent social bloc. The only way to disabuse them of these notions would be to present them with an analytically sound, sociological explanation which recognizes both the sources and limits of Jewish power and accepts the diversity of their class, cultural, and political affiliations. John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Tony Judt have done this with insight and rigour. But Achcar makes a single, somewhat disparaging, reference to the former two and does not discuss the Israel lobby at all. This is unfortunate since a scholar of Achcar’s calibre could have certainly elevated the debate. This small quibble notwithstanding, Achcar has made an invaluable contribution, and Muslims would do well to make a gift of his book to anyone who makes another reference to the Protocols.
unisonlibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
This book is myth-dispelling of the highest order. It takes long held prejudices of Arab-Jewish relations and turns them upside down. The central theme of Holocaust reactions in the Arab world is an area that has required some tidying up over the years and here we have it. He recognises that now Holocaust denial is common throughout the middle east, and surmises that this is a reaction to events than a genuine belief. How does one go about hurting the people of Israel when all recourse to action has been taken away, you revert to name calling. Where this book excels its analysis of Arab reactions at the time of the Shoah, as well as prior and post hoc. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in his anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi discourse was the exception to, rather than example of, the rule followed by many in the Arab world with regard to the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. The shadow of Palestinian nationalism, rather than being the elephant in the room, is the explanation for subsequent attitudes. Arab leaders at the time were not averse to Jewish immigration but they believed this to be a shared burden. The request was for western nations such as The US and Britain to take their fair share of the refugees. Due to their own intolerance of Jews these nations took far fewer than they should have, even when they knew the level to which German intolerance had got. It is documented meticulously with statements from Zionist leaders during the war who in certain ways supported Nazi behaviour since they knew that such persecution in the end would push them straight in to the protecting arms of the Zionists who even then wished to colonise Palestine from “the river to the sea”. The Nakba vs the Shoah is an unending argument. Statistically we all know which was worse, but both sides invoke the right and refusal of language when it comes to such terms. Indeed Israeli ministers routinely threaten a “shoah” on the Arabs of Palestine. Likewise Palestinian leaders call in to question the number of people killed in the Holocaust. This tit-for-tat is essentially a pathetic attempt at reduction and impact. One tried to keep its sacred tradition of victimhood while the other uses primitive playground taunts as a substitute for power. This book offers no answers to the current problems in the middle east but it does set the record straight on the history of Arab Holocaust denial. The only group that advocates it are the pan-Islamists who we now call fundamentalists, but who are also part of regimes that we in the west, as well as Israel have propped up for decades under the “anything-but-communism” polices of the Cold War. Now these regimes are biting modernity in the posterior and they have become the enemy that most sensible people always knew they would. Real Arab national leaders of war-time nations and people in the middle east were incredibly sympathetic to the plight of the Jews in Europe and stood aside their fellow Semites in condemning the German atrocities. Indeed many Muslims risked their own lives to protect those of the Jews in various occupied territories. They saw the Germans as the next great colonial power, knowing that under Nazi rule they would be no better than under British rule and possibly worse. This is an excellent and well researched work with the references running to scores of pages, the bibliography likewise. Well worth reading for anyone who wants a clearer understanding of modern middle-eastern history.
More...