I have lectured and tutored in courses that cover the question of the nation and nationalism. I have yet to conduct a class in which the issue of whether Jews generally, or Israeli Jews in particular, are a nation with the right to self-determination has been brought up for discussion, but I don't enjoy the prospect of being required by a university policy to shut down students wishing in good faith to question or critically discuss either proposition.
If Universities Australia took those words seriously, they would need to advocate for replacing Australia with an ethnostate (or ethnostates) governed by indigenous Australians. Given that they do not advocate for those positions (they do some work to help indigenous peoples, but it’s certainly not working toward an ethnostate), we must assume that they don’t actually mean the words that they’re saying and are instead taking a stance based on politics.
Compare: Anti-Putin vs Anti-Russia. Being anti-Putin is understandable, and some Russians themselves are anti-Putin and anti-the idea of greater Russia. It isn't anti-Russian to be anti-Putin.
It isn't anti-semitic to be anti-Netanyahu. It isn't anti-semitic to be anti-Likud's vision of Israel. However, it may be anti-semitic to be anti-Israel tout court, to be anti-*any* conception of Israel. One finds this kind of Antisemitism in Hamas's charter.
How do ethno-nationalists define "people"?. Cynically, in practice they construct lists of communities deserving self-determination (eg Jews, Ukrainians) and those not (Palestinians, Kurds.) On which side do you put Sudeten Germans in 1938? Catalans today? Ulster Catholics and Protestants?
If there is a justiciable collective right to self-determination, which I doubt, it has to be complemented by an individual right to opt in or out, as in ideal feudalism. Under half the world's Jewish population of ca. 15 million live in Israel. The other half have opted not to live there, which would be their right under Israeli law, but usually in their countries of birth. They do not elect the government of Israel and are not responsible for its actions. Does the alleged right of self-determination apply to all Jews, or just Israeli ones? It's not a workable concept without a lot of fudge and special pleading. Multicultural empires like the Austro-Hungarian one or the EU are looking better all the time.
An important nuance to add. Many people who identify as Jewish are not accepted as citizens by the state of Israel, which requires an Orthodox conversion and rejects Reform and Conservative Jews as Jewish citizens eligible under the problematic Law of Return. This is because the Israeli government is beholden to the right- wing settler movement. The majority of American Jews are not Orthodox. Many of them are married to non-Jews. That's millions of people with Jewish history, identification and sometimes practice who are not eligible to be citizens of the ethnonationalist Jewish State. This açcounts for the ambivalence of many American Jews to Israel, which is even more pronounced among the younger generations.
Jews in Australia are a tiny minority, and 80% Zionist with strong links to Israel. In the US by contrast being Jewish is very common in some towns and cities. There is a wide spectrum of Jewish opinion, as much as politicians would like to force it into one position. There's Jewish Voice for Peace, there's YIVO, there are non-Zionist Satmar Orthodox Jews. Huge variety of opinions!! There are Jews who reject the IHIRA definition of Antisemitism.
Professor Quiggin's discussion is excellent. However, in general,
I am so very, very tired of discussions in Australia about Israel/Palestine that proceed in the abstract by people who probably know very few Jews and very little Jewish history.
The issue is that the same ethno nationalist claim is made by the Palestinians to the same patch of land for the same historical roots from way back when: both Canaanites and all that. So for Universities Australia to say one claim supersedes the other is inherently problematic. The Likud Party policy is very clear on this and that is Israel is the sole claimant to the land is likewise problematic and should also be called out.
The statement seems to just explicitly sidestep the fate/fact of the occupied territories, which are uncontroversially claimed by senior representatives of the Israeli government.
Nice JQ, always refreshing to read your insights. Solid logic yields clarity of conclusion.
As the globalist phase of capitalist market fundamentalism screeches into a messy reverse, it resurfaces the conditions on which ethnonationalism thrives.
Granted, Israel is its own particular basket case of hyper-aggressive grievance and the other colonial states in North America, parts of South American and Australia present complications, but the world seems to be on an historical arc toward settling backwards into ‘civilisational’ origins. As all of this is overlaid on top of an epoch-defining technological inflection point, things are about to get very ‘interesting’. And of course each civilisation has its own origin story which typically conflict with and is defined in relation to another’s, which you point out. Kind of feels like a bad dose of revanchism, like the counter-reformation but with nukes and social media.
One thing sticks out quite clearly: the West is being extremely poorly led and has lost purpose, agency and moral authority.
To be fair to UA, they do differentiate between the state of Israel and Jews as a people and allow criticism of the acts and policies of the state of Israel.
If it wasn't clear before it is now, the state of Israel was formed by acts of terror on a people and this terror on those people continues to date, with the support of the West.
The taboo is to suggest an outcome that does not involve the continued existence of Israel as a specifically Jewish state, for example by advocating a unitary state in which all religions and races have equal rights.
Israel's existence lacks definition; it has no constitution and the debate as to the degree to which religion plays a role in governance continues without resolution. This has allowed the charge of anti-semitism to be broad - the lack of clarity hasn't been of use to anyone.
Good to see John Kilcullen pointing out the involvement of fundamentalist ('dispensationalist, hard line evangelicals) *Christian* Zionists in the creation and maintenance of the Israeli state. Both 19thc Britain and 20thc US had a big hand in supporting an ethnonationalist Israeli state out of the conviction of Christian Zionism.
Well said, John Quiggan. The powers that be - like Universities Australia - need to be constantly challenged if a different but more accurate historical picture about Palestine and Israel is to be presented. Those academics and university students who want to speak out (as they surely must) against the genocidal atrocities committed by the State of Israel against the Palestinians, should not have their voices suppressed by an institution which wants to do nothing more than maintain the status quo - perhaps out of fear of being called anti-Semites themselves. Moral courage is what called for here with regards to Universities Australia (meaning the well paid Vice-Chancellors themselves).
Great post ! I hadn’t quite thought about it in such definitive terms but it leads me to wonder if Israel, as a constitutional democracy, guarantees its residents freedom of worship etc as we would normally expect of a democracy? I must say I have always assumed it did but would be interested to know.
I have lectured and tutored in courses that cover the question of the nation and nationalism. I have yet to conduct a class in which the issue of whether Jews generally, or Israeli Jews in particular, are a nation with the right to self-determination has been brought up for discussion, but I don't enjoy the prospect of being required by a university policy to shut down students wishing in good faith to question or critically discuss either proposition.
If Universities Australia took those words seriously, they would need to advocate for replacing Australia with an ethnostate (or ethnostates) governed by indigenous Australians. Given that they do not advocate for those positions (they do some work to help indigenous peoples, but it’s certainly not working toward an ethnostate), we must assume that they don’t actually mean the words that they’re saying and are instead taking a stance based on politics.
John. Well said.
I've been asking media to stop using the emotive word antisemitism and move to anti-Israel. So far no luck.
How about anti-Likud? Anti-Netanyahu?
Compare: Anti-Putin vs Anti-Russia. Being anti-Putin is understandable, and some Russians themselves are anti-Putin and anti-the idea of greater Russia. It isn't anti-Russian to be anti-Putin.
It isn't anti-semitic to be anti-Netanyahu. It isn't anti-semitic to be anti-Likud's vision of Israel. However, it may be anti-semitic to be anti-Israel tout court, to be anti-*any* conception of Israel. One finds this kind of Antisemitism in Hamas's charter.
How do ethno-nationalists define "people"?. Cynically, in practice they construct lists of communities deserving self-determination (eg Jews, Ukrainians) and those not (Palestinians, Kurds.) On which side do you put Sudeten Germans in 1938? Catalans today? Ulster Catholics and Protestants?
If there is a justiciable collective right to self-determination, which I doubt, it has to be complemented by an individual right to opt in or out, as in ideal feudalism. Under half the world's Jewish population of ca. 15 million live in Israel. The other half have opted not to live there, which would be their right under Israeli law, but usually in their countries of birth. They do not elect the government of Israel and are not responsible for its actions. Does the alleged right of self-determination apply to all Jews, or just Israeli ones? It's not a workable concept without a lot of fudge and special pleading. Multicultural empires like the Austro-Hungarian one or the EU are looking better all the time.
An important nuance to add. Many people who identify as Jewish are not accepted as citizens by the state of Israel, which requires an Orthodox conversion and rejects Reform and Conservative Jews as Jewish citizens eligible under the problematic Law of Return. This is because the Israeli government is beholden to the right- wing settler movement. The majority of American Jews are not Orthodox. Many of them are married to non-Jews. That's millions of people with Jewish history, identification and sometimes practice who are not eligible to be citizens of the ethnonationalist Jewish State. This açcounts for the ambivalence of many American Jews to Israel, which is even more pronounced among the younger generations.
Jews in Australia are a tiny minority, and 80% Zionist with strong links to Israel. In the US by contrast being Jewish is very common in some towns and cities. There is a wide spectrum of Jewish opinion, as much as politicians would like to force it into one position. There's Jewish Voice for Peace, there's YIVO, there are non-Zionist Satmar Orthodox Jews. Huge variety of opinions!! There are Jews who reject the IHIRA definition of Antisemitism.
Professor Quiggin's discussion is excellent. However, in general,
I am so very, very tired of discussions in Australia about Israel/Palestine that proceed in the abstract by people who probably know very few Jews and very little Jewish history.
The issue is that the same ethno nationalist claim is made by the Palestinians to the same patch of land for the same historical roots from way back when: both Canaanites and all that. So for Universities Australia to say one claim supersedes the other is inherently problematic. The Likud Party policy is very clear on this and that is Israel is the sole claimant to the land is likewise problematic and should also be called out.
The statement seems to just explicitly sidestep the fate/fact of the occupied territories, which are uncontroversially claimed by senior representatives of the Israeli government.
A balanced statement. Well done.
I would be glad to see UA stand up for more stuff but this one is wrong. Thank you for saying so 🙏
Nice JQ, always refreshing to read your insights. Solid logic yields clarity of conclusion.
As the globalist phase of capitalist market fundamentalism screeches into a messy reverse, it resurfaces the conditions on which ethnonationalism thrives.
Granted, Israel is its own particular basket case of hyper-aggressive grievance and the other colonial states in North America, parts of South American and Australia present complications, but the world seems to be on an historical arc toward settling backwards into ‘civilisational’ origins. As all of this is overlaid on top of an epoch-defining technological inflection point, things are about to get very ‘interesting’. And of course each civilisation has its own origin story which typically conflict with and is defined in relation to another’s, which you point out. Kind of feels like a bad dose of revanchism, like the counter-reformation but with nukes and social media.
One thing sticks out quite clearly: the West is being extremely poorly led and has lost purpose, agency and moral authority.
Because its leaders are too occupied with power and money?
I think corruption is a major part of it, but there is a deeper malaise to it.
To be fair to UA, they do differentiate between the state of Israel and Jews as a people and allow criticism of the acts and policies of the state of Israel.
If it wasn't clear before it is now, the state of Israel was formed by acts of terror on a people and this terror on those people continues to date, with the support of the West.
The taboo is to suggest an outcome that does not involve the continued existence of Israel as a specifically Jewish state, for example by advocating a unitary state in which all religions and races have equal rights.
Israel's existence lacks definition; it has no constitution and the debate as to the degree to which religion plays a role in governance continues without resolution. This has allowed the charge of anti-semitism to be broad - the lack of clarity hasn't been of use to anyone.
Considering that the Palestinians are also a "semitic" people, I find agreeing with Israel is also a form of antisemitism.
I agree with your page.
Two of my own, to the same effect:
https://johnkilcullen.net/IsraelAndPalestine.html,
https://johnkilcullen.net/HelsinkiB.html
Good to see John Kilcullen pointing out the involvement of fundamentalist ('dispensationalist, hard line evangelicals) *Christian* Zionists in the creation and maintenance of the Israeli state. Both 19thc Britain and 20thc US had a big hand in supporting an ethnonationalist Israeli state out of the conviction of Christian Zionism.
Well said, John Quiggan. The powers that be - like Universities Australia - need to be constantly challenged if a different but more accurate historical picture about Palestine and Israel is to be presented. Those academics and university students who want to speak out (as they surely must) against the genocidal atrocities committed by the State of Israel against the Palestinians, should not have their voices suppressed by an institution which wants to do nothing more than maintain the status quo - perhaps out of fear of being called anti-Semites themselves. Moral courage is what called for here with regards to Universities Australia (meaning the well paid Vice-Chancellors themselves).
well said JQ
Great post ! I hadn’t quite thought about it in such definitive terms but it leads me to wonder if Israel, as a constitutional democracy, guarantees its residents freedom of worship etc as we would normally expect of a democracy? I must say I have always assumed it did but would be interested to know.