Strenger than Fiction / Tony Judt's Jewish identity
Despite accusations to the contrary, Tony Judt represents an important tradition of Jewishness.
By Carlo Strenger Tags: Israel news ZionismTony Judt died on August 6 after struggling for two years with Lou Gehrig’s disease. Even when he could no longer move a single limb, he continued to write haunting texts about his illness, memoirs, and his final book "Ill Fares the Land," a spirited defense of the ideals of social democracy. He was, first and foremost, an internationally acclaimed historian, whose magnum opus "Postwar Europe" is likely to remain the standard work on its subject matter for many years to come. Like most academics, Judt would probably have remained unknown to the wider public had it not been for an essay he wrote in 2003 in the New York Review of Books entitled "Israel, the Alternative."
The essay’s main thesis was that Israel had created so many facts on the ground in the West Bank that the two-state solution was gradually becoming impossible. Judt therefore suggested taking the one-state solution seriously, and considering a federative structure could unite Israel and Palestine into one state.
 |
Tony Judt at his New York home, December 2009 |
| Photo by: Shahar Azran |
The essay created huge outrage in Jewish circles in the U.S. The story turned into the full-fledged "Tony Judt affair" after a talk he was supposed to give at the Polish consulate in New York about “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” was cancelled an hour before it was scheduled. It turned out that the Anti-Defamation League and some other Jewish organizations had put pressure on the consulate to cancel. This in turn triggered a storm of protest by intellectuals and academics who felt that Judt’s right to freedom of speech had been infringed, and that silencing dissent was profoundly un-Jewish. It also raised, once again, the question why Jewish critics of Israeli policies are automatically accused being anti-Semitic or at least anti-Israel. Ever since, Judt was known as "the controversial Tony Judt" or "Tony Judt, the well-known critic of Israel."
My point here is not, whether Judt’s proposal to take the possibility of a bi-national state seriously is politically and intellectually sound. I don’t think it is and I had written so publicly and privately to him. Judt had been an ardent Zionist in his youth, spent a lot of time in Israel and spoke Hebrew, and he was deeply angry at and disappointed by Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. I think this anger clouded his otherwise acute political judgment and led him to endorse the one-state solution that I believe to be thoroughly unrealistic.
The outrage around Tony Judt reminds me of another Jewish intellectual who became the target of ferocious attacks by American Jewish and Israeli organizations. In 1963, Hannah Arendt published "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil." The book created a storm, and Arendt was subjected to a systematic campaign of delegitimization.
Arendt never denied that Israel had the right to try Eichmann, and she didn’t oppose his execution. There were three elements in the book that created outrage: the first was Arendt’s criticism about how the Eichmann trial was turned into a justification of the State of Israel. The second were some passages in which she commented unfavorably on the function of the "Judenräte," which cooperated with the Nazis, often in the hope that they could save some lives in doing so. The third was her use of the term "the banality of evil" to describe Eichmann, whom she saw as a highly limited human being devoid of moral imagination. The tenor of the accusations against her was that she didn’t sufficiently identify with the Jewish people and the goals of the State of Israel.
In 1996 an international conference on her work took place in Jerusalem that ended the period in which she was anathema in Israel. Arendt is today hailed as one of the twentieth century’s great political thinkers and as an intellectual capable of keeping a mind of her own, even when criticized and attacked ferociously. In this she is similar to Tony Judt, and they exemplify a form of Jewish identity that evolved in the nineteenth and twentieth century: the irreverent, critical thinker and writer who maintains independence of religious, national or political group pressures.
As a result both Judt and Arendt were accused of being "self-hating Jews" or even anti-Semites, an accusation that is ignoble, intellectually shallow and ultimately dangerous, because it is used to delegitimize the majority of Jews worldwide, whether secular or religious, who are liberal. Many Jews subscribe to the political and moral values of the Enlightenment that were so dear to Arendt and Judt. This is the standpoint from which they are often critical of Israel; but it is also a proud and creative tradition within modern Jewish history.
It is, I believe, also profoundly un-Jewish to delegitimize these views instead of arguing with them: the spirit of plugta, of incisive, uncompromising debate is as much an essential part of the Jewish tradition as tribal loyalty. There are moments in which these values conflict, and no side should have a monopoly on claiming whether critical thought or unquestioned loyalty must prevail at any given point.
For all those who think that Tony Judt was a self-hating Jew - but even more for those, who, like me, feel a deep sense of loss for this incisive, humane and deep thinker, I want to share the words he wrote to me in an email on April 28, 2008 about his Jewish identity:
“More than I sometimes understand, I think, I am both writing in and about the tradition and spirit of Jewish cosmopolitanism: caught somewhere between Marx’s ‘ruthless criticism of everything existing’; pil-pul; zahor!; bearing critical witness; social responsibility; and perhaps a certain davka. I’ve never written about this directly, but I think it informs the tone – and probably the subject matter – of much of my work. I also makes me smile when American ultras accuse me of being ‘un-Jewish’ in my criticism of Israel, etc. It seems to me that, for good and ill, I am decidedly Jewish and in a long and worthy tradition.”
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Perhaps Mr. Judt knew the history of Europe but as far as the Middle East is concerned, his ignorance is astounding. Anyone who proposes a single secular State where Arabs tolerate Jews living among them peacefully is delusional. No such State exists now among the neighbouring Arab countries. When secular Arab countries show themselves willing to tolerate Jews in their midst, then one may begin to take Mr. Judt's views seriously. No Jews are allowed to live without discrimination at best or extermination at worst in any Arab country. He will be remembered only by the Jew haters who flock to Haaretz talkback like bees to honey.
I'm not sure at all that Arendt was right in most of what she said. She was against the founding of the state of Israel, and she had a rather unrealistic view about political cooperation between Jews and Arabs, which, at the time, was utterly impossible. She's celebrated for the acuity of her mind and the interest of her positions -- and the same will hold true for Judt -- not for the onestate solution, but his emphasis that Israel is going in the wrong direction by moving towards ethnocracy. To RafaelMoshe: could you imagine that Judt did not internalize any negative stereotypes about Jews (a very standard accusation against Jews from the left), but simply had certain values that he believe in? High times for those on the right to stop doing pop-psychoanalysis to the left. It happens to be my profession, and I don't do this to the right (which would be easy), but argue with them!
Arendt was definitely not right in most of what she said. I was only referring to the part that stung -- that hit close to the bone for which she was vilified (and others were ashamed deeply) namely that the hated Germans and the Jews agreed on one thing: that one life might be worth more than another. That some in the Judenrat wheeled and dealed to save "professor so-and-so" or "Herr so-and-so" In reality they got the Judenrat to cooperate in their own demise. Shameful, but apparently true in some instances. They would not have been nearly as effective in killing without the unwitting cooperation of some people in the various Judenrat. Might it better to have refused to negotiate with those who would kill us? this is the question Arendt made us ask in the 1960s.
It is a common phenomena that an individual from an opressed minority group willabsorb the prejudices and bias of the opressor, essentially internalizing the "other". In African-American culture, such individual's are referred to as an "Oreo cookie" or an "Uncle Tom." For reasons that I don't grasp, this pheomena seems to dominate Jews of the political "left."
certainly, but so useful and easy for zionists.
cetatainly ,but so useful and easy for the Free French
The writer conflates Arendt with Judt. Their un-popularity does not render them the same. Arendt was vilified because of her (damning) observations about the Judenrat, but she is remembered because she was right. Judt, on the other hand, was an intelligent, brave man in some respects, but wrong. There is too much at stake to forgive him for being wrong.
Judt's objection to the imperfection of the Jewish state disturbs me since the US is a land conquered from its natives who still live there as a defeated minority. I can imagine the humiliation Indians feel seeing the image of a chief on a cheap nickel. America is a great country, yet no one should forget it's origin. Israel is great too, and it's the land of our actual ancestors, not just defeated natives. Let the US become bi-national first! I wish Judt lived long enough to realize this.
Besides being still alive that is. They have no such academic pedigree as him but spit on Israel just as he was doing..
I greatly enjoyed most of the talkbacks; Judt was a truly dear man and great intellectual and I'm glad to see how many of you appreciate him. This being said, two rejoinders. Abtalyon: Would you say that any intellectual who writes about a country he doesn't live in suffers from an 'enhanced sense of self-worth' or only about those that you don't agree with? I don't see an argument, just another form of disqualification... Mike: could you conceivably imagine that neither Arendt nor Judt wanted to sell out, but actually thought that they were arguing for a position more conducive to Jews in general and Israel in particular? Why do you think that the right has a monopoly on understanding what is in Israel's interest in the long run? I say this even though I disagree with Judt's defense of the one-state solution.
My comment related to intellectuals, irrespective of where they live, whose belief in their own views can sometimes lead them to downplay or even ignore situations which conflict with the "reality' of those views. Examples from the distant past are the Haldanes, British pro-communist fellow travellers whose starry-eyed vision of Stalinist Russia was unshaken even after their visit to that socialist paradise. A more recent example is Noam Chomsky who sometimes makes himself out as more infallible than the Pope.
Being a member of an ethnic minority myself in Holland (a so-called Indo who always have one Dutch and one Indonesian parent), this Jewish tradition of independent and autonomic thinking about right and wrong, fair and unfair, has profoundly strenghtened, shaped and also sometimes saved me. It is the cause of my enduring interest in Jewish ethical and moral philosophy and the basic assumptions in that (like the profound adagium 'do not do to another what thou not want another to do to thouself)'. It is also the cause of my dismay and sadness when often reading the way this is heading to in rightist Zionist Isareli/American Jewish communities. The awareness that is so dear to me that says that one's ethical and moral convictions must be felt and come from within oneself independent of the interests of the specific etnical, national and religious group one may belong to is replaced by: 'in fighting and war with others, they decide how we will be, for if they are inhuman and immoral, we will be too'. You don't need to be a Jew to see that such thinking is profoundly un-Jewish and denounces the basic assumptions of the Enlightment where methodical checking on logical reasoning started . Cheking that is whether the reasoning was truly free of serving special interests as motive and therefore acceptable. Is not the freedom of will the essential human asset in Judaism? Are the duty and responsibility to always use and uphold that as the source of how to be and act not essential rules deriving from that? Does that not 'doom' Jews to criticize in honesty if needed, to speak up where others are silent out of fear or calculation?
Many don't see it that way at all
I would agree with Abtalyon's comment about "enhanced sense of self-worth" and go further in saying that Tony Judt's autobiographical comments about his engagement with Israel when younger were inflated (I know; I was there at the time ...) to match a large ego and intellect. His engagement as a Zionist was relatively transitory. Nonetheless, his refusal to kow-tow to any particular party political line made for very valuable reading - and hsi work will be remembered long after a great many self-serving hyper-egotistical Israeli politcians' refusal to take risks for the good of Israel will mean that those politcians are deservedly consigned ot the dustbin of history. Bibi, Lieberman, Barak - this means you!
Judt's achievements as an historian certainly deserve the accolades he got. My point is, that as no doctor can make the right diagnosis every time, so no historian can be 100% correct in his historical analyses. Concerning Israel, Judt's predictions turned out to be inaccurate.
it is a sad occasion as I thought him one of the better public intellectuals. I remember he hosted Charlie Rose once and it was refreshing to see someone of intellectual calibre on the TV instead of the usual bumbling bimps. It is a pity that the Israel furore will own his legacy as his history of postwar Europe was truly seminal.
The damaging of the group with whom one identifies seems a form of mental illness. Unless there is a individual payoff. Here it made his career high profile and got him strong support and money. You also gain from hot topics.
the term “self-hating Jew” to be at best misleading, at worst a complete misnomer. First, because we typically have no way of knowing these writers‘ inner-thoughts. But, more importantly, I never thought that it was an apt description of the anti-Zionist Jews I’ve met over the years. If anything, most seem to possess a belief that they are indeed “better Jews” for being hyper-critical of Israel, opposing their own community, and rejecting the very idea of a Jewish nation-state. Many seem singularly focused on being seen as a “progressive”. And, as the progressive movement has moved further and further away from identification with Israel – and, to some degree, further away from identification with Jews as such – the need to be seen as progressive (“righteous”) in the eyes of others, has taken precedence over the seemingly parochial desire to identify with, and defend, their own community. And when hooked up with Arab scapegoating gives us the toxic marriage of pre-modern sadism and post-modern masochism. That’s why the encounter between the western left and Islam is so damn dangerous — and why the collapse of the west is so acute and fast.
Maybe only here he received some "honorary mention" posthumously but nowhere else pity the anti zionists and jew haters lost their leader
At a time when Israel Bashing is the favorite sport of the Intellectual Elite a truly caring Jew would not indulge in this hypocritical game. Tony Judt did not understand or didn't care about Israel's difficult position, but instead indulged himself. If you don't agree with his position, don't rationalize his motives. tell it like it is.
Though a Jew, Tony Judt was a truly enlightened man who came to realize that Jewish sovereignty anywhere, but especially in the Holy Land would not, in the last analysis, be tolerated by Islam or Christendom. Please bear in mind that he was a person who took great personal losses at the hands of the Nazis. He will be sorely missed.
You put it very succinctly
The late Prof. Judt was no doubt an honest and brave academic, who expressed views that did not please his ethnic group, mostly let by Jewish paranoids who demand adherence to their single-minded views in support of what they perceive as the best interest of Israel and the Jews. He was condemned by this (his) group for his views. But let it be said that his academic position, and life, were not threatened. The bravery he had to employ was not on the scale required of Galileo Galilei. This reminds one of the Jewish treatment of Hannah Arendt, but also of other academics, in the US and in Israel (where the condemnation is more hurtful). I respect all of these people who insist on reasonable views, even when condemned. Hannah Arendt deserves special praise, because she made sensible observations concerning the Eichmann trial and her observation of the "banality" of evil stood the test of time. The problem with Tony Judt is that he did not produce such a good idea. (I am not dealing here with his work on European history which I am not familiar with.) If he promoted a bad approach (the one-state solution), this is bad academics and is not worthy of praise. Galileo was correct, which is also why he is remembered. Judt became a celebrity during his life. Take it for what it is worth, but it is not enough to make him very memorable.
...at all "kindly" to being faced with "nuances."
american mainstream is a constant revolution a search for liberty, and support for the oppressed people. not the predatory hamas. or at least an exercise in decency. judt joined the edward said camp. not a positive step.
We neeed, " irreverent, critical thinkers and writers who maintains independence of religious, national or political group pressures. " Otherwise, we are Jewish carbon copies of every other ethnicity that constantly attacks others and protects itself on the world stage.
Like Strenger, I do not believe that Judt and Arendt were "self-hating Jews." On the contrary, my impression from reading their work is that both had an enhanced sense of self-worth which led them to pontificate on matters, concerning Jews other than themselves, which transcend mere intellectual discussion. Had they chosen to live in Israel rather than among the US intelligentsia, their views might possibly have carried some weight, though in substance, those views showed no real understanding of what makes Israel tick.
Arendt and Judt follow in the great tradition of Baruch Spinoza--Jews who think for themselves--regardless of what lesser minds may think. As we are admonised in Pirkei Avot: "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man." And, as we say three times a day : Thank you G-- for giving us intelligence and understanding! . May Tony Judt rest in peace.