The article below appears in the January/February 2024 edition of Against the Current (ATC). The author, Alan Wald, is an editor of that publication and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of Jewish Voice for Peace since 2016. ATC is a journal sponsored by the organization Solidarity. Wald is also professor emeritus of English Literature and American Culture at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Wald begins his essay as a review of the recently published book A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy by Nathan Thrall. From that starting point, he addresses some of the most urgent political issues arising from Israel’s increasingly genocidal assault on Gaza in response to the gruesome October 7 attack led by Hamas.

Wald writes: “Yes, antisemitism of the past was horrific, and new manifestations remain a real threat in the world that must be opposed; but the foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is different. The Holocaust was about a marginalized, powerless group facing an all-powerful army and state violence; today it is the Palestinians who are stateless and the Israelis who have the advanced military that places the Palestinians under siege and occupation.”

Wald’s article echoes some important observations made by Marxist scholars Isaac Deutscher and George Novack more than 50 years ago and amplifies them in light of decades of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since, as well as the ongoing discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel.^[1]

Of particular interest is the section discussing “The Right of Resistance” of oppressed peoples. Wald explains, “Radicals know that the right of armed struggle, which the Palestinians surely have, does not translate into ‘anything goes.’ Palestinian resistance is necessary, and a willingness to fight back should be championed. Nevertheless, robotically approving what Hamas did after its stunning breakout from the imprisonment of Gaza is as insupportable as endorsing the Hamas suicide bombings of buses during the Second intifada of 2000-2005.”

Wald’s article will be of interest to anyone opposed to the current horror unfolding each day in Gaza as well as those interested in learning more about the history of the issues posed today.

The article is republished by permission of the author. The original appeared here. The introduction, additional sub-headings, additional photos and captions, and footnotes are by World-Outlook. Due to its length, we are publishing the essay in two parts, the second of which follows.

(This is the second of two parts. The first can be found here.)

By Alan Wald

The Right of Resistance

Radicals know that the right of armed struggle, which the Palestinians surely have, does not translate into “anything goes.” Palestinian resistance is necessary, and a willingness to fight back should be championed. Nevertheless, robotically approving what Hamas did after its stunning breakout from the imprisonment of Gaza is as insupportable as endorsing the Hamas suicide bombings of buses during the Second intifada of 2000-2005.

On the other hand, West Bank Palestinians arming themselves for self-defense against the settlers and soldiers who are destroying their homes and livelihoods is perfectly reasonable; and many activists have made compelling arguments that the tactics used in the first Intifada of 1987-93 and the 2018-19 Great March of Return were far more successful in gaining much-needed world sympathy than any terrorist assaults.

Yes, bombings and kidnappings reap immediate attention and are headline-grabbing, but can be straightaway exploited to reinforce the racist image that the West always aspires to create of the colonially oppressed as immoral, irrational, and luridly inhumane.

For socialists, the aim is to win a massive number of supporters to the goal of permanently dismantling the political and economic structures of oppression. It is not to follow the Israeli state strategy of trying to kill one’s way out of this challenging situation, especially where the relationship of military force is so uneven.

We cannot make the Zionist mistake of closing our eyes to human suffering that one thinks is not ideologically useful. Only deluded zealots expunge ethical concerns and reduce everything to what they try to spin as immediate political gains.

The demand for a permanent ceasefire in the current Israeli slaughter in Gaza, and halting the escalating settler violence in the West bank, are now the paramount public priority — slogans, petitions, mass actions. Still, the Left within its own venues sorely needs to think about the future. What should be the next step in terms of our demands around which to mobilize and educate?

This surely means our discussing whether this type of violence — killing civilians, claiming they are occupiers — really moves the needle forward toward Palestinian liberation in some way. Or does it strengthen the hardline Zionist fanatics and weaken elements of the Israeli Left — the Peace Camp favoring dialogue, the Human Rights NGOs — who need to grow and become more militant?

In discussing what might be effective resistance, one is not talking about offering “moral instruction” from afar or blaming the victims for not coming up with one’s preferred political leadership. The germane and indispensable history of the Left is filled with informative debates examining and evaluating the various factions in national liberation struggles.

For example, in the Irish national struggle as it unfolded in the late 20th century, socialists were split in support of the “Official” Irish Republican Army, the “Provisional” Irish Republican Army, Peoples Democracy, and many other groups claiming to represent resistance.

During the Algerian Revolution of 1954-62, many on the Marxist Left were divided between support for the National Liberation Front (NLF) and the National Algerian Movement (MNA). In the case of Iraq, almost everyone on the Left was against the U.S. occupation but no one in their right mind supported ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

No Uncritical Acceptance of Hamas Strategy

Those who mistakenly believe that support for “resistance” translates into uncritical acceptance of the Hamas ideology and strategy are ignoring this rich legacy of Left debate and effectively trying to silence the discussion of crucial issues.

Nonetheless this discussion is essential, especially because we need to hear the voices of the many on the Palestinian Left who do not support Hamas, and other fully informed people; and they must be able to forward alternatives without being smeared as shills of Zionism.

For example, this is a crucial moment to read and discuss Rashid Khaledi’s indispensable The Hundred Years War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017. (2020), with its careful critique of the strengths and weaknesses of past resistance strategies by various organizations and movements, as well as the duplicitous role of the authoritarian Arab states in the region. And also, to take another look at the references to Palestinian resistance in Confronting Empire (2000) and The Selected Writings of Eqbal Ahmad (2006), works by a Pakistani political scientist active in the Algerian revolution and associated with anti-Zionism.

It is elementary Marxism, elaborated clearly by Lenin, that to unconditionally support the content of a liberation struggle in principle does not mean to uncritically support every strategy or tactic that emerges.

In the case of Hamas, there is also the matter of assessing its overall ideology; Hamas may, of course, evolve and certainly has contradictions among its statements, but can we simply shut our eyes when confronted with evidence that its past has been socially reactionary, brutal and antisemitic? Solidarity should not mean suppressing hard truths.

The alternative view, that support for a liberation or resistance movement requires that one refrain from criticizing its various leaderships only eliminates from consideration those constructive and honest opinions that are based on careful analysis. The result is uncritical cheerleading from the safety and comfort of social media, which is more in the style of the “useful idiots” of Zionist nationalism than critical-minded Marxist internationalism.

Moreover, unnecessarily inflammatory, cavalier and performative rhetoric to bolster one’s revolutionary credentials can be as unhelpful to building a mass movement now as the slogans “Burn Baby Burn” and “Bring the War Home” were during the Vietnam War. “Community Control of Police” and “Bring the Troops Home Now” were far more effective in reaching those not yet radicalized.

The Zionist War Against the Jews

However, the talking points of ready-made phrases promoted by pro-Israel partisans are a genre of cynical deception unto themselves. The constant iteration that Israel has the right to “defend” itself is an excuse for an indiscriminate massacre that will blot the reputation of the Israeli state for eternity, and its actual aim is to humiliate, demoralize and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population.

The Biden administration’s claim that it has pressured Israel to “do more to protect innocent lives” cannot be taken seriously. In fact, the constant mouthing of such pious platitudes is a sharp reminder that liberalism is not enough.

The “human shield” argument about Hamas has been shown to be a fig leaf to justify making everything in Gaza a legitimate target. The greatest no-brainer of all no-brainers is to fail to see that Israel’s slaughtering thousands of civilians is the surest way to recruit to Hamas, and guaranteed to drive the population into the arms of successor groups that will be even more desperate to revenge the human suffering imposed on them by the Israeli state.

Organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have long placed defending the Israeli state from criticisms of anti-racist activists above the fighting of the real, existing antisemitism of white supremacists. In their warped calculus, it is acceptable to hate Jews as long as one loves the Israeli state.

While allowing the antisemitic televangelist John Hagee to address their November 14 “March for Israel,” and praising the neo-Nazi conspiracist Elon Musk for “fighting hate,” they include among their main targets the mostly young Jewish supporters of Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now.

Knowing that these Jews, in collaboration with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and other pro-Palestinian social justice organizations, are anti-racists who revile antisemitism, these pro-Israel groups cynically use the threat of this accusation of antisemitism to intimidate and silence. The insistence that certain phrases, chants, or slogans — usually ripped out of context — constitute Jew-hatred are now so widespread on campuses, in businesses, within the Democratic and Republican parties, and even in the art world, that a resemblance to the blacklisting of the 1950s anti-radical witch-hunt is hard to miss.

At the same time, it is not quite accurate to say that the ADL and other pro-Israel forces declare “any critique of Israel to be antisemitic.” After all, liberal Zionists have many disagreements with the Netanyahu government, and some are opposed to expanding the settlements.

Even Senator Chuck Schumer made the point in the New York Times on November 29 that “criticizing the Israeli government isn’t inherently antisemitic,” and instead pointed his finger at “the denial of a Jewish state in any form.” Thus, the main (but not exclusive) focus for the accusation of antisemitism has been the call for some form of a “democratic” state in Palestine/Israel, precisely because the evidence is now so overwhelming that the ethno-state of Israel cannot be that.

This Zionist war against internationalist Jews is among the many reasons why Jews on the Left must fight back against the defamatory slanders propagated by those who falsely claim to be carrying out their monstrous activities in our name — thereby joining the future of Jews to Zionism’s iniquitous project. Here we must be aware of the language game carried out by Schumer and others to obfuscate our goals and values.

Our arguments to transform Israel as a modern secular state that treats all citizens alike are caricatured as “uniquely signaling out” and “demonizing.” And our appeal for a de-Zionized transformation of the Israeli state is regularly “interpreted” as “destruction of Israel” in a manner implying the elimination of the Jewish population.

This is a topic well-addressed in Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick’s Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics (2021). The gist can be summarized in this complete sentence: Israel does not have “the right to exist” in the form of an expansionist ethno-nationalist state that is based on the dispossession of and denial of equal rights for the indigenous majority. To equate this specific state form with “Jewish self-determination” is similar to claiming “states’ rights” as a cover for maintaining the Jim Crow South.

Of course, socialists are certainly not opposed to a Jewish state in principle, but, as with any other nationalist demand, the question is where and how. A colonial project of removal and deprivation of the indigenous people, who in this case were the greater part of the inhabitants, crosses the line anyplace it has occurred.

Zionist Juggernaut toward a ‘Greater Israel’

Moreover, the prospect for future Jewish security, dependent on an expansionist ethnostate, is very much in doubt because of what the present situation of Zionist hegemony has brought about. It’s no secret that, as the Zionist juggernaut continues to ruthlessly charge forward toward a “Greater Israel,” Israel is more controversial than ever before; the claim that Jews are safer there than elsewhere is less and less convincing.

Here I can recommend the fine 1969 pamphlet by Trotskyist George Novack, How Can the Jews Survive? A Socialist Answer to Zionism: “If the Israelis are not to be caught in a bloody trap of Zionist devising, they will have to abandon the exclusive and aggressive Jewish state and opt for a Middle East federation of the Arab and Jewish peoples.”

While the branding of anti-Zionism as antisemitism is an outrageous smear, socialists must acknowledge that an abhorrence of Israel’s Zionist behavior can slip into actual Jew hatred. This is something Zionists are doing their best to promote by equating Jewish identity with the self-proclaimed “Jewish nation-state.” Their goal is to make the public think that to be Jewish is to support the crimes of the Israeli state and especially the current killing campaign in Gaza and the West Bank.

Of course, Jew hatred anywhere must be aggressively opposed. If individuals or groups infiltrate pro-Palestinian activities with signs, memes, or chants like “Gas the Jews” or “The Jews Had It Coming,” we should categorically ban them — and remove them by force, if necessary. Holocaust-deniers, even ones who claim to be Jewish, should be cordoned off.

The false argument that Jews control U.S. government policy is a standard trope of white supremacists’ conspiracy theory and must be intellectually defeated. The United States has its own reasons for wanting an imperialist outpost in the region and would abandon Israel if a better option appeared.

When choosing a site for protest, there should be an effort to select ones that the public can understand as clearly tied to the Israeli state, such as the many embassies and consulates across the U.S.; one should not give the false impression that Jews per se are the target. One may think one has good reasons for an action against a pro-Zionist individual or business, but the result can be a very bad look when the national climate is so hostile and demagogic politicians are everywhere.

Nevertheless, the basis of Left unity during the invasion and bombing of Gaza ought to be to permanently stop Israel’s onslaught, reaching out to as many people as possible to build mass action. Personally, I dislike acceding to any demands of the pro-Israel partisans and am dubious about their dictating various political litmus tests for what language is acceptable on petitions and protest letters, when just about every sharp criticism is declared to be “demonization of Israel.”

While everyone’s situation is different, depending on their political community, it seems to me that characterizing Israeli policies as “genocide” (as defined by the United Nations in 1948) is appropriate, even if it raises hackles. On the other hand, anything suggestive of political support for Hamas would, for me, be out of the question, even as explicit condemnations of Hamas may not be necessary depending on the purpose of the statement.

A Reconstruction of the Entire Society

Finally, we might consider the fate of Thrall’s admirable A Day in the Life of Abed Salama. Would minds be changed if pro-Israel supporters could just see more of what the Palestinian reality is all about?

Although his book began to receive laudable reviews in several nationally respected publications, this attention dwindled after October 7 and at least a quarter of his scheduled public appearances and readings in London, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington were cancelled.

Ads were pulled for the book, and Thrall felt forced to withdraw from at least one university-sponsored event when it was demanded that he sign a pledge opposing any boycotts of Israel. Yes, his effort shows that another approach to this controversy is possible, one without invective, harsh denunciations of Zionism, references to settler-colonialism, or genocide. Still, activists may be justified in wondering if it can really make any difference.

In the end, activists must focus on building a social movement that can move us forward. Independent of the question of state forms that can be devised, both the Palestinian and Israeli populations are there to stay and significantly intertwined.

So, resolving the conflict in a lasting manner demands a transferal of perspective to some qualitatively new plan: whether two states (one Palestinian, one Jewish), one state (democratic and secular), or some sort of federation (with culturally autonomous regions), as long as Palestinians achieve self-determination and are no longer the stateless dependents of a hostile state power.

Peace and security for all is the goal, but these can’t come with the retention of Israeli colonial privilege, something that some liberal Zionists and two-staters seem loathe to acknowledge. Nevertheless, the Jewish population of Israel must be reached and won over on the grounds that equality is sounder for all; the Israeli-Jewish population cannot be coupled with its ruling group any more than can Palestinians be coupled with Hamas.

It won’t be easy, but an effort must be made to split the Israeli majority from its militaristic government and the present form of Zionist ideology. Simultaneously, a campaign for democratic revolution in the numerous dictatorships in the Middle East is also vital to the process.

As Martin Luther King pointed out in relation to the still-relevant U.S. civil rights movement, there are situations where a more dramatic transformation is required: “For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of the South, a little change here, a little change there,” King told the journalist David Halberstam in April 1967. “Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values.”

We need a post-Zionist world so that there can be a post-Hamas, fully liberated Palestinian population. “Never Again — for Anyone!” should be the watchword of the day.

(This was the second of two parts. The first can be found here.)

NOTES

[1] In a 1967 interview with New Left Review, Deutscher explained, “Paradoxically and grotesquely, the Israelis appear now in the role of the Prussians of the Middle East. They have now won three wars against their Arab neighbours. Just so did the Prussians a century ago defeat all their neighbours within a few years, the Danes, the Austrians, and the French. The succession of victories bred in them an absolute confidence in their own efficiency, a blind reliance on the force of their arms, chauvinistic arrogance, and contempt for other peoples. I fear that a similar degeneration—for degeneration it is—may be taking place in the political character of Israel.”

Readers can find more on Deutscher’s and Novack’s views in the World-Outlook article “How Can the Jews Survive? A Socialist Answer to Zionism.” World-Outlook has obtained permission from New Left Review to reprint the 1967 Deutscher interview. It will appear in the coming weeks.

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.

Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.