Israeli Prime MinÂisÂter BenÂjamin Netanyahuâs push to forcibly annex up to 30% of the occuÂpied West Bank is exposÂing the vioÂlence inherÂent in imposÂing a JewÂish ethÂno-state on an indigeÂnous PalesÂtinÂian popÂuÂlaÂtion.
While the plan is delayed for now, the human rights orgaÂniÂzaÂtion BâTselem reports that, in prepaÂraÂtion for annexÂaÂtion, Israel already ramped up its demoÂliÂtions of PalesÂtinÂian homes in the West Bank in June, destroyÂing 30 that month, a figÂure that does not include demoÂliÂtions in East Jerusalem.
We can see the emptiness and barrenness of aligning ourselves with an American imperial project.
The theft and destrucÂtion of PalesÂtinÂian homes and comÂmuÂniÂties, howÂevÂer, is just one piece of a much largÂerâââand oldÂerâââcoloÂnial project.
As PalesÂtinÂian orgaÂnizÂer SanÂdra Tamari writes, ââPalesÂtiniÂans have been forced to endure Israelâs poliÂcies of expulÂsion and land approÂpriÂaÂtion for over 70Â years.â
Today, this realÂiÂty has evolved into an overt apartheid sysÂtem: PalesÂtiniÂans withÂin Israel are secÂond-class citÂiÂzens, with Israel now offiÂcialÂly codÂiÂfyÂing that self-deterÂmiÂnaÂtion is for Jews only.
PalesÂtiniÂans in the West Bank and Gaza are subÂject to milÂiÂtary occuÂpaÂtion, siege, blockÂade and marÂtial lawâââa sysÂtem of vioÂlent domÂiÂnaÂtion enabled by politÂiÂcal and finanÂcial supÂport from the UnitÂed States.
Anti-ZionÂists argue that this bruÂtal realÂiÂty is not just the prodÂuct of a right-wing govÂernÂment or failÂure to effecÂtiveÂly proÂcure a two-state soluÂtion.
Rather, it stems from the modÂern ZionÂist project itself, one estabÂlished in a coloÂnial conÂtext, and funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂly reliant on ethÂnic cleansÂing and vioÂlent domÂiÂnaÂtion of PalesÂtinÂian peoÂple.
Jews around the world are among those who call themÂselves anti-ZionÂists, and who vocifÂerÂousÂly object to the claim that the state of Israel repÂreÂsents the willâââor interÂestsâââof JewÂish people.
In These Times spoke with BenÂjamin BalthasÂer, an assoÂciate proÂfesÂsor of mulÂtiÂethÂnic litÂerÂaÂture at IndiÂana UniÂverÂsiÂty at South Bend.
His recent artiÂcle, ââWhen Anti-ZionÂism Was JewÂish: JewÂish Racial SubÂjecÂtivÂiÂty and the Anti-ImpeÂriÂalÂist LitÂerÂary Left from the Great DepresÂsion to the Cold War,â examÂines the erased hisÂtoÂry of anti-ZionÂism among the JewÂish, workÂing-class left in the 1930s and ââ40s.

BalthasÂer is the author of a book of poems about the old JewÂish left called DedÂiÂcaÂtion, and an acaÂdÂeÂmÂic monoÂgraph titled Anti-ImpeÂriÂalÂist ModÂernism.
He is workÂing on a book about JewÂish MarxÂists, socialÂist thought and anti-ZionÂism in the 20th century.
He spoke with In These Times about the coloÂnial oriÂgins of modÂern ZionÂism, and the JewÂish leftâs quarÂrel with it, on the grounds that it is a form of right-wing nationÂalÂism, is funÂdaÂmenÂtalÂly opposed to workÂing-class interÂnaÂtionÂalÂism, and is a form of impeÂriÂalÂism.
AccordÂing to BalthasÂer, this politÂiÂcal traÂdiÂtion underÂmines the claim that ZionÂism reflects the will of all JewÂish peoÂple, and offers signÂposts for the present day.
ââFor Jews in the UnitÂed States who are tryÂing to think about their relaÂtionÂship not only to PalesÂtine, but also their own place in the world as an hisÂtorÂiÂcalÂly perÂseÂcutÂed ethÂno-culÂturÂal diasÂporic minorÂiÂty, we have to think of whose side we are on, and which globÂal forces we want to align with,â he says.
ââIf we do not want to side with the exeÂcuÂtionÂers of the far-right, with coloÂnialÂism, and with racism, there is a JewÂish culÂturÂal resource for us to draw onâââa politÂiÂcal resource to draw on.â
Sarah Lazare: Can you please explain what the ideÂolÂoÂgy of ZionÂism is? Who develÂoped it and when?
BenÂjamin BalthasÂer: AÂ couÂple of things need to be disÂenÂtanÂgled.
First of all, there is a long JewÂish hisÂtoÂry that preÂdates the ideÂolÂoÂgy of ZionÂism that looks at Jerusalem, the ancient kingÂdom of Judea, as a site of culÂturÂal, reliÂgious and, you can say, mesÂsianÂic longÂing.
If you know JewÂish liturÂgy, there are refÂerÂences that go back thouÂsands of years to the land of Zion, to Jerusalem, the old kingÂdom that the Romans destroyed.
There have been attempts throughÂout JewÂish hisÂtoÂry, disÂasÂtrousÂly, to ââreturnâ to the land of PalesÂtine, most famousÂly, SabÂbatai Zevi in the 17th cenÂtuÂry.
But for the most part, through much of JewÂish hisÂtoÂry, ââIsraelâ was underÂstood as a kind of a culÂturÂal and mesÂsianÂic longÂing, but there was no desire to actuÂalÂly physÂiÂcalÂly move there, outÂside of small reliÂgious comÂmuÂniÂties in Jerusalem and, of course, the small numÂber of Jews who conÂtinÂued to live in PalesÂtine under the Ottoman Empireâââabout 5% of the population.
ConÂtemÂpoÂrary ZionÂism, parÂticÂuÂlarÂly politÂiÂcal ZionÂism, does draw on that large reserÂvoir of culÂturÂal longÂing and reliÂgious text to legitÂimize itself, and thatâs where the conÂfuÂsion comes.
ModÂern ZionÂism arose in the late 19th cenÂtuÂry as a EuroÂpean nationÂalÂist moveÂment. And I think thatâs the way to underÂstand it. It was one of these many EuroÂpean nationÂalÂist moveÂments of oppressed minoriÂties that attemptÂed to conÂstruct out of the diverse culÂtures of WestÂern and EastÂern Europe ethÂniÂcalÂly homogeneous nation-states.
And there were many JewÂish nationalism of the late 19th and earÂly 20th cenÂturies, of which ZionÂism was only one.
There was the JewÂish Bund, which was a left-wing socialÂist moveÂment that rose to promiÂnence in the earÂly 20th cenÂtuÂry that articÂuÂlatÂed a deterÂriÂtoÂriÂalÂized nationÂalÂism in EastÂern Europe.
They felt their place was EastÂern Europe, their land was EastÂern Europe, their lanÂguage was YidÂdish.
And they wantÂed to strugÂgle for freeÂdom in Europe where they actuÂalÂly lived.
And they felt that their strugÂgle for libÂerÂaÂtion was against oppresÂsive capÂiÂtalÂist govÂernÂments in Europe.
Had the HoloÂcaust not wiped out the Bund and othÂer JewÂish socialÂists in EastÂern Europe, we might be talkÂing about JewÂish nationÂalÂism in a very difÂferÂent conÂtext now.
Of course, there were SoviÂet experÂiÂments, probÂaÂbly most famous in BiroÂbidzhan, but also one very brief one in Ukraine, to creÂate JewÂish autonomous zones withÂin terÂriÂtoÂries that Jews lived, or elseÂwhere withÂin the SoviÂet Union, rootÂed in the YidÂdish idea of doykait, diasÂporic hereÂness, and YidÂdish lanÂguage and culture.
ZionÂism was one of these culÂturÂal nationÂalÂist moveÂments.
What made it difÂferÂent was that it graftÂed itself onto British coloÂnialÂism, a relaÂtionÂship made explicÂit with the BalÂfour DecÂlaÂraÂtion in 1917, and actuÂalÂly tried to creÂate a counÂtry out of a British colonyâââManÂdate PalesÂtineâââand use British coloÂnialÂism as a way to help estabÂlish itself in the MidÂdle East.
The BalÂfour DecÂlaÂraÂtion was essenÂtialÂly a way to use the British Empire for its own ends.
On some levÂel, you could say ZionÂism is a toxÂic mixÂture of EuroÂpean nationÂalÂism and British impeÂriÂalÂism graftÂed onto a culÂturÂal reserÂvoir of JewÂish tropes and mytholoÂgies that come from JewÂish liturÂgy and culture.
Sarah: One of the underÂpinÂnings of modÂern ZionÂism is that itâs an ideÂolÂoÂgy that repÂreÂsents the will of all Jews.
But in your paper, you argue that critÂiÂcism of ZionÂism was actuÂalÂly quite comÂmon on the JewÂish left in the 1930s and ââ40s, and that this hisÂtoÂry has been largeÂly erased.
Can you talk about what these critÂiÂcisms were and who was makÂing them?
BenÂjamin: The funÂny part about the UnitÂed States, and I would say this is mostÂly true for Europe, is that before the end of World War II, and even a litÂtle after, most Jews disÂparÂaged ZionÂists.
And it didnât matÂter if you were a comÂmuÂnist, it didnât matÂter if you were a Reform Jew, ZionÂism was not popÂuÂlar. There were a lot of difÂferÂent reaÂsons for AmerÂiÂcan Jews to not like ZionÂism before the 1940s.
Thereâs the libÂerÂal criÂtique of ZionÂism most famousÂly articÂuÂlatÂed by Elmer BergÂer and the AmerÂiÂcan CounÂcil for Judaism.
The anxÂiÂety among these folks was that ZionÂism would basiÂcalÂly be a kind of dual loyÂalÂty, that it would open Jews up to the claim that theyâre not real AmerÂiÂcans, and that it would actuÂalÂly frusÂtrate their attempts to assimÂiÂlate into mainÂstream AmerÂiÂcan culÂture.
Elmer BergÂer also forÂwardÂed the idea that Jews are not a culÂture or a peoÂple, but simÂply a reliÂgion, and thereÂfore have nothÂing in comÂmon with one anothÂer outÂside of the reliÂgious faith.
This, I would argue, is an assimÂiÂlaÂtionÂist idea that comes out of the 1920s and ââ30s and tries to resemÂble a ProtesÂtant notion of ââcomÂmuÂniÂties of faith.â
But for the JewÂish leftâââthe comÂmuÂnist, socialÂist, TrotÂskyÂist and MarxÂist leftâââtheir criÂtique of ZionÂism came from two quarÂters: a criÂtique of nationÂalÂism and a criÂtique of coloÂnialÂism.
They underÂstood ZionÂism as a right-wing nationÂalÂism and, in that sense, bourÂgeois.
They saw it as in line with othÂer forms of nationÂalÂismâââan attempt to align the workÂing class with the interÂests of the bourÂgeoisie.
There was at the time a well-known takeÂdown of Vladimir JabotinÂsky in the New MassÂes in 1935, in which MarxÂist critÂic Robert GessÂner calls JabotinÂsky a litÂtle Hitler on the Red Sea.

Jewish labor Bund
GessÂner calls the ZionÂists Nazis and the left in genÂerÂal saw JewÂish nationÂalÂism as a right-wing forÂmaÂtion tryÂing to creÂate a uniÂfied, milÂiÂtarisÂtic culÂture that aligns workÂing-class JewÂish interÂests with the interÂests of the JewÂish bourgeoisie.
So thatâs one criÂtique of ZionÂism. The othÂer criÂtique of ZionÂism, which I think is more conÂtemÂpoÂrary to the left today, is that ZionÂism is a form of impeÂriÂalÂism.
If you look at the pamÂphlets and magÂaÂzines and speechÂes that are givÂen on the JewÂish left in the 1930s and ââ40s, they saw that ZionÂists were alignÂing themÂselves with British impeÂriÂalÂism.
They also were very aware of the fact that the MidÂdle East was colÂoÂnized, first by the Ottomans and then by the British.
They saw the PalesÂtinÂian strugÂgle for libÂerÂaÂtion as part of a globÂal anti-impeÂriÂalÂist movement.
Of course, JewÂish comÂmuÂnists saw themÂselves not as citÂiÂzens of a nation-state, but as part of the globÂal proÂleÂtariÂat: part of the globÂal workÂing class, part of the globÂal revÂoÂluÂtion.
And so for them to think about their homeÂland as this small strip of land in the MediterÂraneanâââregardÂless of any culÂturÂal affinÂiÂty to Jerusalemâââwould just be against everyÂthing they believe.
As the HoloÂcaust began in earnest in the 1940s, and Jews were fleeÂing Europe in any way they posÂsiÂbly could, some memÂbers of the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty advoÂcatÂed that Jews should be allowed to go to PalesÂtine.
If youâre fleeÂing anniÂhiÂlaÂtion and PalesÂtine is the only place you can go that is natÂurÂal.
But that doesnât mean you can creÂate a nation-state there. You need to get along with the peoÂple who live there as best as you posÂsiÂbly can.

There was a comÂmuÂnist parÂty of PalesÂtine that did advoÂcate for JewÂish and PalesÂtinÂian colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion to oust the British and creÂate a binaÂtionÂal stateâââwhich, for a host of reaÂsons, includÂing the segÂreÂgatÂed nature of JewÂish setÂtleÂment, proved hardÂer in pracÂtice than in theory.
In any case, the JewÂish left in the 1930s and 1940s underÂstood, critÂiÂcalÂly, that the only way ZionÂism would be able to emerge in PalesÂtine was through a coloÂnial project and through the expulÂsion of the indigeÂnous PalesÂtiniÂans from the land.
In a speech by Earl BrowÂder, chairÂman of the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty, in Manhattanâs HipÂpoÂdrome, he declares that a JewÂish state can only be formed through the expulÂsion of a quarÂter-milÂlion PalesÂtiniÂans, which attenÂdees thought was very shockÂing at the time, but it actuÂalÂly endÂed up being a draÂmatÂic undercount.
Sarah: You wrote in your recent jourÂnal artiÂcle, ââPerÂhaps the sinÂgle most perÂvaÂsive narÂraÂtive about ZionÂism, even among scholÂars and writÂers who acknowlÂedge its marÂginÂal staÂtus before the war, is that the HoloÂcaust changed JewÂish opinÂioin and conÂvinced Jews of its necesÂsiÂty.â You idenÂtiÂfy some major holes in this narÂraÂtive. Can you explain what they are?
BenÂjamin: I would alter that a bit to say Iâm realÂly talkÂing about the comÂmuÂnist and MarxÂist left in this conÂtext.
I grew up with in a left-wing famÂiÂly where opinÂion was defÂiÂniteÂly dividÂed on the quesÂtion of ZionÂismâââyet, nonetheÂless, there was a perÂvaÂsive idea that the HoloÂcaust changed opinÂion universally, and everyÂone fell in line as soon as the details of the HoloÂcaust were revealed, ZionÂist and anti-ZionÂist alike.
Itâs undeÂniÂably corÂrect to say that withÂout the HoloÂcaust there probÂaÂbly would have been no Israel, if just for the sinÂgle fact that there was a masÂsive influx of JewÂish refugees after the war who would have undoubtÂedÂly stayed in Europe othÂerÂwise.
WithÂout that influx of Jews who could fight the 1948 war and popÂuÂlate Israel just after, itâs doubtÂful an indeÂpenÂdent state of Israel could have succeeded.
HowÂevÂer, one thing IÂ found most surÂprisÂing going through the JewÂish left press in the 1940sâââpubÂliÂcaÂtions of the TrotÂskyÂist SocialÂist WorkÂers ParÂty, the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty, and writÂings by HanÂnah Arendtâââis that even after the scope of the HoloÂcaust was wideÂly underÂstood, their offiÂcial posiÂtion was still anti-ZionÂist.
They may have called for Jews to be allowed to resetÂtle in the lands from which they were expelled or masÂsaÂcred, with full rights and full citÂiÂzenÂship, be allowed to immiÂgrate to the UnitÂed States, or even be allowed to emiÂgrate to PalesÂtine if there was nowhere else to go (as was often the case).

But they were still wholÂly against parÂtiÂtion and the estabÂlishÂment of a JewÂish-only state.
What is imporÂtant to underÂstand about that moment was that ZionÂism was a politÂiÂcal choiceââânot only by westÂern impeÂrÂiÂal powÂers, but also by JewÂish leadÂerÂship.
They could have fought more strenÂuÂousÂly for JewÂish immiÂgraÂtion to the UnitÂed States.
And a lot of the ZionÂist leadÂers actuÂalÂly fought against immiÂgraÂtion to the UnitÂed States.
There were a numÂber of stoÂries reportÂed in the JewÂish ComÂmuÂnist press about how ZionÂists colÂlabÂoÂratÂed with the British and AmerÂiÂcans to force Jews to go to ManÂdate PalesÂtine, when they would have rather gone to the UnitÂed States, or EngÂland.
Thereâs a famous quote by Ernest Bevin, the British ForÂeign SecÂreÂtary, who said the only reaÂson the UnitÂed States sent Jews to PalesÂtine was ââbecause they do not want too many more of them in New York.â
And the ZionÂists agreed with this.
While this may seem like ancient hisÂtoÂry, it is imporÂtant because it disÂrupts the comÂmon sense surÂroundÂing Israelâs forÂmaÂtion. â
âYes, maybe there could have been peace between Jews and PalesÂtiniÂans, but the HoloÂcaust made all of that imposÂsiÂble.â
And I would say that this debate after 1945 shows that there was a long moment in which there were othÂer posÂsiÂbilÂiÂties, and anothÂer future could have happened.
IronÂiÂcalÂly, perÂhaps, the SoviÂet Union did more than any othÂer sinÂgle force to change the minds of the JewÂish MarxÂist left in the late 1940s about Israel.
Andrei Gromyko, the SoviÂet Unionâs ambasÂsador to the UnitÂed Nations, came out in 1947 and backed parÂtiÂtion in the UnitÂed Nations after declarÂing the WestÂern world did nothÂing to stop the HoloÂcaust, and sudÂdenÂly thereâs this about-face.
All these JewÂish left-wing pubÂliÂcaÂtions that were denouncÂing ZionÂism, litÂerÂalÂly the next day, were embracÂing parÂtiÂtion and the forÂmaÂtion of the nation-state of Israel.
You have to underÂstand, for a lot of JewÂish comÂmuÂnists and even socialÂists, the SoviÂet Union was the promised landââânot ZionÂism.
This was the place where they had, accordÂing to the proÂpaÂganÂda, eradÂiÂcatÂed antiÂsemisitm.
The RussÂian Empire was the most antiÂseÂmitÂic place throughÂout the late 19th and earÂly 20th cenÂtuÂry, before the rise of Nazism.
Many of the JewÂish ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty memÂbers were from EastÂern Europe, or their famÂiÂlies were, and they had very vivid memÂoÂries of RusÂsia as the cruÂcible of antiÂsemitism.
For them, the RussÂian RevÂoÂluÂtion was a rupÂture in hisÂtoÂry, a chance to start over.
And, of course, this is after World War II, when the SoviÂet Union had just defeatÂed the Nazis.
For the SoviÂet Union to embrace ZionÂism realÂly sent a shockÂwave through the left-wing JewÂish world.
The SoviÂet Union changed its polÂiÂcy a decade or so latÂer, openÂly embracÂing anti-ZionÂism by the 1960s. But for this brief pivÂotal moment, the SoviÂet Union firmÂly came down in favor of parÂtiÂtion, and that seems to be what realÂly changed the JewÂish left.
WithÂout this kind of legitimization, I think we are all startÂing to see the JewÂish left such as it exists return back in an imporÂtant way to the posiÂtions that it had origÂiÂnalÂly held, which is that ZionÂism is a right-wing nationÂalÂism and that it is also racist and coloÂnialÂist. We are seeÂing the JewÂish left return to its first principles.
Sarah: Thatâs a good segue to some quesÂtions I wantÂed to ask you about the relÂeÂvance of anti-ZionÂist hisÂtoÂry to the present day. For a lot of peoÂple, Israelâs plan to annex huge amounts of PalesÂtinÂian land in the West Bank, while delayed, is still layÂing bare the vioÂlence of the ZionÂist project of estabÂlishÂing JewÂish rule over a PalesÂtinÂian popÂuÂlaÂtion. And we are seeÂing some promiÂnent libÂerÂal ZionÂists like Peter Beinart pubÂlicly proÂclaim that the two-state soluÂtion is dead and one state based on equal rights is the best path. Do you see now as an imporÂtant moment to conÂnect with the hisÂtoÂry of JewÂish anti-ZionÂism? Do you see openÂings or posÂsiÂbilÂiÂties for changÂing peoÂpleâs minds?
BenÂjamin: In a way, Beinartâs letÂter was 70 years too late.
But it is still a very imporÂtant culÂturÂal turn, to the extent that he is part of a libÂerÂal JewÂish estabÂlishÂment.
I would also say that weâre in a difÂferÂent hisÂtorÂiÂcal moment. In the 1930s and ââ40s, you can realÂly talk about a kind of globÂal revÂoÂluÂtionÂary senÂtiÂment and a real JewÂish left thatâs locatÂed in orgaÂniÂzaÂtions like the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty, the SocialÂist WorkÂers ParÂty and the SocialÂist ParÂty.
And you can see that again in the 1960s. StuÂdents for a DemoÂcÂraÂtÂic SociÂety, which also had a very sizeÂable JewÂish memÂberÂship, forÂmalÂly backed anti-ZionÂism in the 1960s, along with the SocialÂist WorkÂers ParÂty, and formed alliances with the StuÂdent NonÂviÂoÂlent CoorÂdiÂnatÂing ComÂmitÂtee, which had also takÂen an offiÂcial anti-ZionÂist posiÂtion in the late 1960s.
You could think about a globÂal revÂoÂluÂtionÂary frameÂwork in which PalesÂtinÂian libÂerÂaÂtion was an articÂuÂlatÂed partâââyou could think about the PopÂuÂlar Front for the LibÂerÂaÂtion of PalesÂtine and the PalesÂtine LibÂerÂaÂtion OrgaÂniÂzaÂtion as part of the fabÂric of globÂal revÂoÂluÂtionÂary movements.
Today weâre in a much more fragÂmentÂed space.
On the same note, though, weâre seeÂing the rebirth, or maybe conÂtiÂnuÂity, of PalesÂtinÂian civÂil rights moveÂments, with PalesÂtinÂian civÂil sociÂety putting out a call for decolÂoÂnizaÂtionâââboth out of their own traÂdiÂtions of libÂerÂaÂtion, but also lookÂing to modÂels from the South African freeÂdom strugÂgle.
For conÂtemÂpoÂrary Jews who are proÂgresÂsive and see themÂselves on the left, theyâre sudÂdenÂly realÂizÂing that there realÂly is no cenÂter anyÂmore, there is no libÂerÂal ZionÂist posiÂtion any longer.
The cenÂter has realÂly fallÂen away. And weâre faced with this very stark deciÂsion: that either youâre going to be on the side of libÂerÂaÂtion, or youâre going to be on the side of the Israeli right, which has elimÂiÂnaÂtionÂist and genoÂciÂdal intent that has always been there, but is nakedÂly apparÂent now.
And so I think peoÂple like Beinart are wakÂing up and sayÂing, ââI donât want to be on the side of the executioners.â

The hisÂtoÂry of the old JewÂish left and the new JewÂish left of the 1960s shows us this isnât new.
Any libÂerÂaÂtion strugÂgle is going to come from the oppressed themÂselves, so the PalesÂtinÂian libÂerÂaÂtion moveÂment is going to set its terms for strugÂgles.
But for Jews in the UnitÂed States who are tryÂing to think about their relaÂtionÂship, not only to PalesÂtine, but also their own place in the world as an hisÂtorÂiÂcalÂly perÂseÂcutÂed ethÂno-culÂturÂal diasÂporic minorÂiÂty, we have to think of whose side we are on, and which globÂal forces we want to align with.
If we do not want to side with the exeÂcuÂtionÂers of the far-right, with coloÂnialÂism and with racism, there is a JewÂish culÂturÂal resource for us to draw onâââa politÂiÂcal resource to draw on.
This hisÂtoÂry of the anti-ZionÂist JewÂish left demonÂstrates that an imporÂtant hisÂtorÂiÂcal role in a diasÂpoÂra has been solÂiÂdarÂiÂty with othÂer oppressed peoÂple.
Thatâs the place from which weâve gathÂered the most strength hisÂtorÂiÂcalÂly. So IÂ look at this not as sayÂing, ââWeâre not going to reproÂduce the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty of the 1930s and 1940s.â
Weâre sayÂing, ââWeâll proÂduce someÂthing new, but the past can be a culÂturÂal resource that we can use today.â
Sarah: Who or what is responÂsiÂble for the eraÂsure of this hisÂtoÂry of JewÂish, left anti-Zionism?
BenÂjamin: IÂ wouldnât blame the eraÂsure soleÂly on the SoviÂet Union or ZionÂism, because we also have to think of the Cold War and how the Cold War destroyed the old JewÂish left, and realÂly drove it underÂground and shatÂtered its orgaÂniÂzaÂtions.
So I think we also have to see how the turn toward ZionÂism was underÂstood as someÂthing that would norÂmalÂize Jews in a post-war era.
With the exeÂcuÂtion of the RosenÂbergs, the Red Scare of the late 1940s and ââ50s, and the virÂtuÂal banÂning of the ComÂmuÂnist ParÂty, which had been throughÂout the 1930s and ââ40s half JewÂish, for much of the JewÂish estabÂlishÂment, alignÂing themÂselves with AmerÂiÂcan impeÂriÂalÂism was a way for Jews to norÂmalÂize their presÂence in the UnitÂed States.
And hopeÂfulÂly that moment has to some degree passed. We can see the emptiÂness and barÂrenÂness of alignÂing ourÂselves with an AmerÂiÂcan impeÂrÂiÂal project, with peoÂple like Bari Weiss and Jared KushÂnÂer.
Why would someÂone like Bari Weiss, who describes herÂself as libÂerÂal, want to align herÂself with the most reacÂtionary forces in AmerÂiÂcan life?
Itâs a bloody matrix of assimÂiÂlaÂtion and whiteÂness that emerged out of the Cold War subÂurÂbanÂizaÂtion of the 1950s. Israel was part of that devilâs barÂgain.
Yes, you can become real AmerÂiÂcans: You can go to good U.S. uniÂverÂsiÂties, you can join the subÂurbs, enter into the mainÂstream of AmerÂiÂcan life, as long as you do this one litÂtle thing for us, which is back the AmerÂiÂcan Empire.
HopeÂfulÂly, with the emerÂgence of new grassÂroots orgaÂniÂzaÂtions in the UnitÂed States, among Jews and non-Jews who are quesÂtionÂing the U.S. role supÂportÂing ZionÂism, this calÂcuÂlus can begin to change.
With the rise of JewÂish Voice for Peace, IfNotÂNow, the DemoÂcÂraÂtÂic SocialÂists of AmerÂiÂca and the MoveÂment for Black Lives all takÂing a seriÂous stance against U.S. supÂport for ZionÂism, the comÂmon sense in the JewÂish comÂmuÂniÂty has begun to move in a difÂferÂent direcÂtion, parÂticÂuÂlarÂly among the younger genÂerÂaÂtion.
The batÂtle is very far from over, but it makes me just a litÂtle optiÂmistic about the future.