Ben Gurion University
Gender Studies' Henriette Dahan Kalev detects a 'Fear of
Arabness in Zionism' in her Post-Zionist Perspective - no Arab
Hatred of Jews though
Mansfield
College,
Oxford
Tuesday 11th September 2007
09:00
http://www.wickedness.net/Fear/f1/s3.html
Political Science and Chair of Gender Studies, Ben Gurion
University, Israel
Orientalist practices were and still are articulated through
processes of Othering produced in concrete daily encounters.
Clearly, they conceal deepest fears between the interacting groups
involved in the processes. Encounters of this type, immersed in fear
of Arabness are demonstrated in the relationship between Ashkenazi
Jews (Jews of western origin) and both Arab-Jews (Jews of Arab
origin, usually termed Mizrahim) and Israeli-Palestinians in the
state of Israel.
How
did the fear of Arabness articulated by the Israeli Zionist
establishment affect those Israelis who were both Jewish and Arabs?
What methods the Zionist founding fathers employed while coping with
this fear? How did the fear of Arabness affect the Israeli-Plestinian
citizens? What did the Arab-Jews do when realized that they live
amongst people who envision their Arabness as contradicting their
Jewishness? What did the non-Jewish Arabs do with their being
envisioned as threatening just because they were Arabs?
Unlike the Palestinian whose Arabness was regarded by Zionist nation
builder as compatible with their enmity, the Jews of the Arab
countries confused them. As the Zionist project saw itself as the
Jews redeemer, the idea of redemption in the case of Arab-Jews was
taken further to redeem the Arab-Jews of their Arabness whereas in
the case of the Palestinians they employed blunt methods of
oppression usually practiced against enemies, in order to keep them
down.
In
this talk I discuss the fear of Arabness of the Ashkenazim, the way
in which it has affected Mizrahim as well as Israeli-Palestinians. I
explore this topic from a post Zionist perspective and examine the
difficulties to trace the roots of the fear of Arabness.
I
argued than, that although Mizrahim and Ashkenazin are Jews, they
differ profoundly from each other. Fear of Arabness is the sediment
lying in their daily encounters amongst themselves and with the
Israeli-Palestinian. I conclude by explaining how this approach
opens new context with new options for the understanding of the
Israeli Palestinian conflict.
http://www.wickedness.net/Fear/f1/kalev%20paper.pdf
Zionism, post Zionism and
fear of Arabness
Henriette Dahan Kalev1
Prepared for the
Conference on
Fear Horror and Terror
Oxford 10-12 2007
In this talk I shall
discuss the fear of Arabness of the Ashkenazim (Jews of European
and American origin) and
its impact on the Mizrahim. I shall explore the Mizrahim's
reaction to the fear of
Arabness and examine it in the light of the post Zionist critic of
Arab-Jewishness.
I begin by relating to
two incidents with two episodes.
When I was 10, there was
a boy in my class whose name was Baruch (in Hebrew it
means blessed). He had
dark skin, black eyes and curly hair. He lived in Beit Saffafa,
an Arab village in South
Jerusalem. At school he spoke very little but when he did
one could hear his Arab
accent. His family name was Salman – a name common both
to Arabs and Jews. This
has always puzzled me: How come an Arab boy was given a
Jewish first name
'Baruch'.
It was only many years
later when we met on the street that I dared asking him about
it. He told me that the
teachers changed his name from Muhamed to Baruch
explaining that it would
make it easier for him in a class where he was the only Arab
pupil amongst 35 Jewish
pupils. As our conversation went on both of us agreed that
while changing his name
made it easier for Jewish children and the teachers to relate
to him it certainly did
nothing to ease his social difficulties in the class.
1
Dr. Henriette Dahan Kalev is a political scientists and the
Director of Gender Studies Program at the
Ben Gurion University.
2
A colleague of mine once
told me this second episode. She is a woman of Ashkenazi
origin. As a child, she
said, her parents have always warned her to never cross the
street but did not
explain to her why. She grew up in a middle class Jewish
neighborhood in the
Arab-Jewish mixed town of Lead [in Hebrew Lod] and left it
after she had completed
her mandatory military service. Only when she became a
peace activist, a couple
of decades later she recall, that her parents reason not to
allow her to cross the
street was because Arabs lived on the other side of the street,
and like all the Jews in
this street, they did not want their children to mingle with
Arab children.
These two incidents,
minor to Jewish young girls and critical to Arabs who lived
amongst them demonstrate
Orientalism1
at work. Clearly, these incidences conceal
deepest fears that
Ashkenazi Jews have both of Arabness and of the Palestinians who
lived around them and
amongst them. They show how easy it was to erase Arab
names, bodies, entire
neighborhoods while simultaneously living in their midst.
But could they eliminate
the fear of the Arabs who lived inside them, the fear of the
Arab-Jews? And what did
the Arab-Jews do with this fear? In other words, how did
the fear of Arabness,
fueled by the Israeli establishment, an establishment consisting
largely of Ashkenazis,
affect those Israelis who were both Jewish and Arab? What did
the Arab-Jews do when
they realized that they lived amongst people who envision
their Arabness as
frightening and as contradicting their Jewishness?
Unlike the Palestinian
whose Arabness was regarded by Zionist nation builder as
compatible with their
enmity, the Jews of the Arab countries confused them. As the
Zionist project saw
itself as the redeemer of the Jews, the idea of redemption in the
3
case of Arab-Jews was
taken further to redeem the Arab-Jews of their own Arabness2
(Dahan-Kale 2001).
*
For a couple of decades,
that is untill the late 1960s, some success had been achieved
in separating Arabness
from the Jews. Assimilated Mizrahim showed loyalty and
condemned the Arab enemy,
internalizing the derogatory sense of Arabness.
Moreover, they
participated in national tasks that the decision makers had place on
the
Israeli agenda – they
contributed their share to the militaristic efforts, occupying the
territories, and
governing the Palestinians people's lives. For a while this helped
to
create an illusion
amongst many Israelis - both Ashkenazim and Mizrahim - a belief
that Arabness was finally
being tamed and that the source of the fear within them was
under control. But this
went for only one decade.
Some post-Zionists in the
late 1980s involved attemption to bring Arabness back in
and to problematize it
within the Israeli discourse, has shacked up this belief and
reawakened
the old fears.
The catalyst for this was
publication of the breaking through paradigm of Edward
Said, Orientalism.
The Iraqi-American Jewish scholar Ella Shohat was among the
first to apply
Orientalism to the analysis of the Mizrahi-Ashkenazi social
tension in
Israel. Shohat has
treated the Israeli cinema and film industry as texts and
narratives,
that display the deepest
fears of Arabness that is embedded in the Zionist project
(Shohat 1989)3. Shoat claimed that Zionism was more or less a particular case
study
of Orientalism,
saturated in fears of Islam and Arabness. Her genuine contribution
to
the criticism of Zionism,
in The Israeli Cinema in1991, was later continued in her
post-Iraq war article
"Dislocated Identities"4
(1992). In both
these works she put
forward an analysis with
which she laid stress on the idea of erasure of the hyphen
4
that joined Arabness to
Jewishness, and demonstrated it as an Orientalist project.
Moreover, what was
threatening to the Ashkenazis and the Ashkenazified Mizrahim
in her works was that she
has re-hyphenated it ruining Zionist tireless efforts to dehyphen
the connection between
Arabness and Jewishness for decades (Ibid, 1992).
Shohat's bringing the
hyphen back in has re-inflamed the hibernated fears of the
Arabness of Israeli Jews,
both Mizrahim and Ashkenazim. This brought to
consciousness hurtful
experiences of the past which began to occupy public
intellectual discourse in
Israel.
Nevertheless, Shohat's
views were criticized from all sides: from Ashkenazified
Zionist seculars to
Mizrahi activists; right wing nationalists as well as left wingers,
and the Ultra-Orthodox
Mizrahim of the third largest political party Shas. This
multifacetedcriticism
of Shohat's view of the
Mizrahim did touch a nerve of fear but did it
in a monolithic and
anachronistic in nature5.
Her view spurred a debate which showed
that Mizrahim do play an
active role in the intellectual public discourse in Israel and
that they are not not
necessarily ashamed or contemptuous or afraid of their Arabness.
Indeed, I find it
difficult to understand the absence of the discussion of what seems
to
be the 'Mizrahim's'
consent and not just subordination, or Mizrahi dispute with the
Zionist de-hyphenization
in Shohat's work. The Mizrahim's position is very difficult
to be summed up. Shohat
insists on the Arab-Jews victimization, as the title of one of
her article's announces:
“Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Victims”(1988).
Shohat reduces the
Mizrahim's diverse reaction to one that is politically passive and
uniform. Mizrahim appear
to be objects who accepted the Zionist imposition of the
'de-hyphenization'. This
is a monolithic standpoint which does not coincide with
possible political
heterogeneity and cultural diversity, which Shohat herself
attributes
to them. Moreover, she
treats all varieties of the Arab Jewishness just the same, and
5
what Zionism has done to
the Jewish Arabness she also treats in a monolithic manner.
Shohat hardly discusses
Jewish religion and Jewish tradition in itself. She discusses
negation of the Diaspora
only in the context of Zionism's goal to eliminate the Arab-
Jews history from the
school curricula. Shohat' attempt was to bring it back. She
argued that Jewishness
when related to the Arab-Jews it was presented in civilian and
cultural terms, as Jewish
Iraqi language, family life, customs and space (See for
example Shohat 1992).
Jews distinguished them selves as a community only from the
Moslems but not from the
Arabs. This was a religious distinction which divided the
Arabs into groups of Jews
and Moslems (Ibid). Her conclusion is that in the Diaspora
the Arabs-Moslems and the
Arab-Jews were not alienated from each other. This
indeed was the common
description repeatedly mentioned by Israeli Jews who came
from the Arab world.
But while Shohat and
other scholars such as Shlaim give us a peaceful description of
the community life in
Iraq till the emergence of the Zionist movement, even
somewhat nostalgic, Alber
Memmi, the author of the powerful work The Colonizer
and The Colonized6, discusses his Jewish-Arabness rather furiously insisting that
fear
of Arabs was part of the
Jews experience, back there in the Arab countries. In an
article titled "Who is an
Arab Jew?" published in
Israel Academic Community
on the
Middle East
in February 19757,
he responded to Muammer Khadafi's (the Libyan
leader) call to the Jews
to return to the Arab countries, rhetorically asking them "Are
you not Arabs like us -
Arab Jews?"
Memmi agrees with Shohat
that the similarities between Jews and Moslems are rooted
in their Arabness and
that Arabness is a cultural similarity. But while Shohat sees
culture with a capital C
and includes history, geography politics and space, Memmi's
6
culture is written with a
small c. He claims that Jews Arabness was displayed in
habits, music and menu.
But he also claims that "Jews were at the mercy not only of
the monarch but also of
the man in the street." (ibid) Thus pointing to the constant
threat, on Arab-Jews,
politics is being drowned as at least two histories.
Memmi's different view of
culture, I want to suggest, results from the time in
which he wrote his reply
to Khadafi, the mid-70s. Shohat on the other hand, is
writing in the post- era,
post modernist, post colonialist and post Zionist era. To
use Shohat's brilliant
explanation of the post- in the article "Notes on the 'Post
Colonial' (1992)8, the focus in the idea of the post here is on new modes and forms
of colonial actions
rather then on something that moves beyond. When applied to
the above point, this
results both in continuities and in discontinuities. In other
words, experiencing a
phase of othering within what is imagined as one's own
country, as the Mizrahim
did, had a sobering effect of post naiveté. And therefore
we can conclude that
Mizrahim from Arab countries have indeed suffered both
from being Jews in Arab
countries and from being Arabs in
Israel.
Zionism looked
down upon then,
racializing them for being partly Arabs, and in this sense they in
Israel were Jewish
victims of Zionism and Jewish victims of Arabness. However,
they have learned how to
survive both in the Arab countries and in the Zionist
country. That is to say
that they suffered because of being classified along racial
lines.
What I center on here is
how they have survived this racialization in Israel.
Although severely
economically deprived, in three decades they have learned how
to play the Israeli
political game and have became a significant if not the
significant actor on the
political arena.
7
This talk is in a way a
continuation of the paper "The Israeli Palestinian Conflict
and the Israeli
Arab-Jews" which I delivered in a conference in Al-Kuds
University in January
20059. Then I argued than, that the Mizrahim – the Jews
who came to Israel from
Arab countries are a diverse social category, and their
political orientation, in
general, and their position towards the Israeli Palestinian
conflict, in particular,
ranges from the right to the left of the political parties map.
Unlike their political
image as right wingers, their political considerations are
complex and influenced by
factors which are connected to the peace process
directly and indirectly
and in any case are influenced by economic factors and
bitter experience of
deprivation.
Therefore it would be
myopic to see them as Shohat does only as passive and victims
and not to consider their
impact on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, though indirect
impact. Today they are
scattered across the political map although their voice is
mainly heard from the
right wing. Why it is so is a question that still needs to be
studied .From this point
of view Shohat's proclamation of Arab-Jewish victimization
of Mizrahim remains an
abstract idea that might attract intellectuals but is
contradicted by daily
life practices. As their racialization experience was completely
different from that of
the Palestinians from within and from out of the green line,
therefore I suggest
seeing them exclusively neither as Arabs – victims of Zionism nor
as Israelis identical to
the Ashkenazis. This turns the gaze to the Palestinians, and to
how they see them?
This complication was
fairly well discerned by many Palestinians who have been
impatient with the
abstruse arguments surrounding epistemological foundations of
post-Zionism. They have
concentrated instead on more historically informed studies
8
of the political
conditions and biases of particular knowledge claims, as works of
Bishara, for example,
demonstrate (1993)10. Such works ultimately derive from Said
and they usually want to
preserve some kind of distance from Mizrahim as well as
from the post-Zionist
discourse. The Mizrahim post-Zionist, like Shohat however,
who want to bring
Arabness back in to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, deny this
impatient to exist or to
be contestable.
In conclusion the
Arab-Jewish idea offers no model of conflict resolution beyond
disputes as to how to
remove from Zionism the fear of Arabness or how to move to
political action. Given
this contested position, relations between Palestinians and
leftists Mizrahim, have
been wary. Mizrahim in the left wing organizations such as
Mizrahi Democratic
Rainbow and Ahoti – Mizrahi Women Organization have paid
little explicit attention
to the issues raised by Palestinians outside the academic
world11. Like Shohat,
the Mizrahi intellectuals in Israel enjoy the game of pulling
Zionism from the hands of
the mainstream establishment and delivering it to the
hands of critical,
perhaps post-Zionist activist. But the problem is that this does not
accurately mirror the
complex relations between the Mizrahim and Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Thus the belief
that Mizrahim who hold Arab-Jewish views and who are
often identified as left
wingers do not enjoy the sympathy of the Palestinians on the
common ground of being
Arabs while other Mizrahim want the occupation in the
territories to continue
the oppression of Palestinians. Such belief would be both
misleading and synthetic
as there is no such a single Mizrahi view of the Israeli
Palestinian conflict. It
is impossible to ignore Mizrahim right wingers who contest
from the extreme right
and from religious and Orthodox the idea of Arab-Jews. Shas,
the Ultra-Orthodox Party
representing religious people of Arab-Jewish origin, whom I
did not include in this
analysis, proclaim being the true Zionists. They don't even call
9
themselves Arabs or
Mizrahim but Sepharadim. Zionist Sepharadim. However, it
would be too easy and
superficial to put all of them in the same pot as right wingers.
It is my contention that
understanding the fear of Arabness as it is expressed in Israeli
society both among,
Ashkenazim as well As among Mizrahim, can help throw some
light on the exploration
of the fear of Islam and Arabness in general as it is expressed
in other places in other
historical times such the writings of Bernard Lewis and
Samuel Huntington, and
the making of political decisions such as the invasion to Iraq,
are not in vain rooted in
the fear of Islam. The fear of Islam is not imaginative only, as
Said himself points out:
"Yet where Islam was
concerned, European fear, if not always respected, was in
order. After Mohammed's death in 632, the military and later
the cultural and
religious hegemony of
Islam grew enormously".
P.59 [my emphasis]
10
1
Said, Edward, 1978, Orientalism, Vintage, NY
2
Dahan-Kalev, Henriette, 2001. “You Are So Pretty, You Don’t Look
Moroccan”,
Israeli Studies,
Vol. 6:1-14.
3
Ella Shohat,
1989 Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of
Representation,
Univ. of Texas Press,
4
Ella Shohat,
"Dislocated Identities: Reflections of an Arab-Jew," Movement
Research: Performance
Journal # 5 (Fall-Winter, 1992) p. 8.
5. See the Left Bank internet site
http://www.hagada.org.il/hagada/
article on
the Mizrahi woman trial
charged for accusation of Mizrahi woman for
collaboration with
Palestinian terrorists, Taly Fahima 25.9.04. For religious
Mizrahim discourse on
Jewish tradition and religion see for example Zvi
Zohar, "Sephardic
Rabbinic Response to Modernity: Some Central
Characteristics", in: S.
Deshen and W.P. Zenner (eds.), Jews Among
Muslims: Communities in
the Pre-Colonial Middle East,
London,
Macmillan and New York
University Press, 1996, pp. 64-80. For left wing
Mizrahi discourse see for
example the Democratic Mizrahi Rainbow internet
site
www.hakeshet.org.il
For social justice issues see internet site
http://www.haokets.org/
For
national-religious position see for example Avi
Picard's Book Review:
Were the Sephardim Religious? In Shasha's internet
site The Shepharadic
Heritage September 2004:
http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/journals/SephardicHeritageUp
date.php
6
Memmi Albert, 1967 The colonizer and the colonized
Boston: Beacon
Press
7
Albert Memmi, 1975, "Who is an Arab Jew?"
Israel Academic Community
on the
middle East, February
1975.
8
Shohat Ella, 1992 "Notes on the 'Post Colonial', in Social Texts
31/32
9
Henriette Dahan Kalev "The Israeli Palestinain Conflict and the
Israeli Arab-Jews",
The Faculty For Israeli –
Palestinian Peace, FFIPP, The 4th International Academic
Conference on An End
to Occupation, A Just Peace in Israel-Palestine :Activating an
International Network
January 3rd –
5th, 2005 Al Quds University East Jerusalem
10Bishara, Azmi, 1993, "On the Question of the Palestinian Minority
in Israel"
Theory and Criticism,
vol. 3 (1)
11
From a recent draft published in the
www.keshet.org.il
internet site one can
immediately identify the
Zionist middle class spirit blowing in it. There is not even
one issue of the
conflict, be it Jerusalem, the right of return or the refugees, that
is
talked.
|