The touted equivalence is usually with Jewishness, not with Judaism.
Here’s a guy [1] who professes to perceive equivalence:
“I am a Jew; therefore, I am a Zionist. Attack me as a Zionist, you attack me as a Jew. I write this not to insulate Israel from criticism but to assert the centrality of a Jewish state to my Jewish identity. … I wil…
The touted equivalence is usually with Jewishness, not with Judaism.
Here’s a guy [1] who professes to perceive equivalence:
“I am a Jew; therefore, I am a Zionist. Attack me as a Zionist, you attack me as a Jew. I write this not to insulate Israel from criticism but to assert the centrality of a Jewish state to my Jewish identity. … I will loudly proclaim my Jewishness and my Zionism, both of which are inseparable from each other, and from my progressive values.”
His working definition is:
“Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and independence from the authority and yoke of regimes that mostly tried to annihilate Jews for millennia. Zionism is the right and the necessity of the Jewish people to survive, and it is the need for a Jewish state to ensure that very survival.”
I really cannot see what logic he followed to achieve his conclusion that being Jewish is identical to being an advocate of “Jewish self-determination”, etc., and it actually looks that he’s fallen into an infinite recursion.
Nevertheless, taking his Zionism definition, being anti-Zionist clearly would be hostile to Jewish people (which many would then want to call “anti-semitic”).
So, the clarity that is often missing is that the thing to which billions of people are objecting is, strictly, “Palestine Invasional Zionism”. I can see, of course, why this is invariably shortened to “Zionism”; the current, variously recognised, State of Israel is the only place, since Biblical times, where most of us are aware of “Jewish self-determination” having been pursued. When Berger (as quoted above) refers to “a Jewish state”, it is the only extant place that is brought to our minds.
That's a good amendment; Jewishness is more accurate than Judaism for this phenomenon. It's more all-encompassing for describing the "Jewish identity" that I've been learning more about since October 7th.
I read the article. I'm going to read some of the other articles that Berger references, but I'm almost shocked by how clearly the cognitive dissonance is put on display here. It's a horrifying fusion between liberal identity politics and Zionist identity politics which is why it is very revealing. Thank you for the share!
I fear that disingenuousness and deliberate lies (even by omission) would be preferable to what is emerging in my ongoing study into all of this.
In fact, this article is the most direct reflection I've seen so far of the destructive thing that seemingly resulted from the merging of Critical Theory (Frankfurt school) and Zionist/Jewish identity politics.
The author is saying "I've put in the work for liberal identity politics, just look at my record! I've also put in the work for my Zionist identity politics, just look at my record!" And they seem to almost insinuate that they are a rare breed of a "true" Zionist progressive.
However, the reality is that both these forms of identity politics have been used in very destructive ways -- especially on the Zionism front.
I can see how Berger may be a victim of this gross identity politics abomination that is currently undergoing some sort of metamorphosis since October 7th. But I'm sure that Berger will think of my words as anti-Semitic even though there isn't a single trace of anti-Semitism.
I can see I probably misjudged Berger. I’d seen him billed as “Associate Professor Emeritus”, but it seems he’s really just been a medical doctor, who worked, in some capacity, in a “Department of Family and Community Medicine”. So, he’d probably never tried to take a serious approach to thinking.
However, that wasn’t a Facebook post, but something accepted for publication in an “online magazine” with a staff of dozens.
When Berger writes, “I write this not to insulate Israel from criticism”, is he not aware that insulating Israel is his purpose? Or, does he mean simply that he does not wish to shield Israel from such criticism he regards as fair to level at it?
If he was not being disingenuous, it is a poor reflection on his intelligence that he either failed to explore what he really meant, or considered it not worth explaining to the readership.
The compass of criticism of Israel includes criticising it for existing, but this would be in contravention of the unimpeachable legitimacy of Israel, as the Zionist realisation of a “Jewish state”, which he appears to assert.
Similarly, but more subtly, Israel might be criticised for not having exactly the characteristics we may envisage of a free Palestine. This, presumably, would include rejection of its instantiation of “[specifically] Jewish self-determination”, and, again, that seems to be an anathema to Berger.
I do still struggle to accept that he has been incapable of appreciating that Zionism, as he took the trouble to define it, and the current State of Israel, are discrete, though obviously related, concepts, and that the former has an existence independent of the latter.
I think he showed his colours in expecting us to accept that Israel is not “an apartheid, or white supremacist, state” on the basis that his “reading and personal experience in Israel stand in contradiction to these claims”, but he had some chutzpah to raise that prospect in proximity to “Jewish self-determination” without exploring the correspondence.
"Similarly, but more subtly, Israel might be criticised for not having exactly the characteristics we may envisage of a free Palestine. This, presumably, would include rejection of its instantiation of “[specifically] Jewish self-determination”, and, again, that seems to be an anathema to Berger."
This is the core which I was getting at in my original comment; the deeply embedded false equivalence between Zionism and the Jewish identity more generally (as Berger states: "Zionism is Jewish self-determination") appears to be the root of all cognitive dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, and fallacious thinking.
I think this is much more than just immunizing Israel from actual criticism; the framework for reality altogether is altered. Criticism aimed at Israel, according to Berger's views in this article, can only be limited to a specific domain since the all-defining view that "Zionism is Jewish self-determination" seems to be viewed as an unquestionable truth -- notice how it is never even remotely suggested that this is a subjective position -- hence there being no possible valid criticism against this core assertion.
"I think he showed his colours in expecting us to accept that Israel is not “an apartheid, or white supremacist, state” on the basis that his “reading and personal experience in Israel stand in contradiction to these claims”, but he had some chutzpah to raise that prospect in proximity to “Jewish self-determination” without exploring the correspondence."
You raise great points about the exploration of Jewish self-determination. I am highly skeptical of the Israel lobby because I've been critically observed the aftermath of October 7th, but that's only more reason for me to seek out constructive dialogue as well as the opinions of critical thinkers on the pro-Israel side. Your point reminds me that I would have absolutely welcomed a genuine breakdown of the all-encompassing statement that "Zionism is Jewish self-determination," for instance. It's a real shame that such sentiments are essentially never substantiated with anything other than pathos in today's public discourse.
It's entirely possible that Berger's true thoughts are buried beneath the pathos -- and that there might be logos beneath what appears to be blatant demagoguery. Unfortunately, that is entirely left to the imagination with an article such as this one.
Lastly, I want to add that Berger also betrays his own intellectuality not only through the lack of actual substance and depth in this article, but also due to the mathematical quantitative résumé he presents. Berger lists several liberal identity politics causes that he has publicly advocated, as well as some "pro-Palestinian" causes, which is implicitly supposed to "prove" his allegiance and integrity as a "progressive".
I suppose this is the where any semblance of actual reason may be found in this article. The reason why I fail to see how reason is genuinely at work here, however, is that the entire political binary is not just crumbling for everyone to see today -- the binary has been falling apart for a very long time. The human mind will rationalize, by itself, in order to understand the situation they are in. The less we understand the situation and all of its context, the more we are forced to rely on rationalization. The line between rationalization and reason may be paper-thin in our individual microcosm and conscious experience, but that same line becomes magnified and amplified, making it much easier to spot (which also comes with the risk of exaggerated perception) when it is given an expressed and/or publicized form in the macrocosm -- in other words, the public domain.
The touted equivalence is usually with Jewishness, not with Judaism.
Here’s a guy [1] who professes to perceive equivalence:
“I am a Jew; therefore, I am a Zionist. Attack me as a Zionist, you attack me as a Jew. I write this not to insulate Israel from criticism but to assert the centrality of a Jewish state to my Jewish identity. … I will loudly proclaim my Jewishness and my Zionism, both of which are inseparable from each other, and from my progressive values.”
His working definition is:
“Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and independence from the authority and yoke of regimes that mostly tried to annihilate Jews for millennia. Zionism is the right and the necessity of the Jewish people to survive, and it is the need for a Jewish state to ensure that very survival.”
I really cannot see what logic he followed to achieve his conclusion that being Jewish is identical to being an advocate of “Jewish self-determination”, etc., and it actually looks that he’s fallen into an infinite recursion.
Nevertheless, taking his Zionism definition, being anti-Zionist clearly would be hostile to Jewish people (which many would then want to call “anti-semitic”).
So, the clarity that is often missing is that the thing to which billions of people are objecting is, strictly, “Palestine Invasional Zionism”. I can see, of course, why this is invariably shortened to “Zionism”; the current, variously recognised, State of Israel is the only place, since Biblical times, where most of us are aware of “Jewish self-determination” having been pursued. When Berger (as quoted above) refers to “a Jewish state”, it is the only extant place that is brought to our minds.
1. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/progressive-except-palestine
That's a good amendment; Jewishness is more accurate than Judaism for this phenomenon. It's more all-encompassing for describing the "Jewish identity" that I've been learning more about since October 7th.
I read the article. I'm going to read some of the other articles that Berger references, but I'm almost shocked by how clearly the cognitive dissonance is put on display here. It's a horrifying fusion between liberal identity politics and Zionist identity politics which is why it is very revealing. Thank you for the share!
I cannot keep myself from suspecting disingenuity.
I fear that disingenuousness and deliberate lies (even by omission) would be preferable to what is emerging in my ongoing study into all of this.
In fact, this article is the most direct reflection I've seen so far of the destructive thing that seemingly resulted from the merging of Critical Theory (Frankfurt school) and Zionist/Jewish identity politics.
The author is saying "I've put in the work for liberal identity politics, just look at my record! I've also put in the work for my Zionist identity politics, just look at my record!" And they seem to almost insinuate that they are a rare breed of a "true" Zionist progressive.
However, the reality is that both these forms of identity politics have been used in very destructive ways -- especially on the Zionism front.
I can see how Berger may be a victim of this gross identity politics abomination that is currently undergoing some sort of metamorphosis since October 7th. But I'm sure that Berger will think of my words as anti-Semitic even though there isn't a single trace of anti-Semitism.
I can see I probably misjudged Berger. I’d seen him billed as “Associate Professor Emeritus”, but it seems he’s really just been a medical doctor, who worked, in some capacity, in a “Department of Family and Community Medicine”. So, he’d probably never tried to take a serious approach to thinking.
However, that wasn’t a Facebook post, but something accepted for publication in an “online magazine” with a staff of dozens.
When Berger writes, “I write this not to insulate Israel from criticism”, is he not aware that insulating Israel is his purpose? Or, does he mean simply that he does not wish to shield Israel from such criticism he regards as fair to level at it?
If he was not being disingenuous, it is a poor reflection on his intelligence that he either failed to explore what he really meant, or considered it not worth explaining to the readership.
The compass of criticism of Israel includes criticising it for existing, but this would be in contravention of the unimpeachable legitimacy of Israel, as the Zionist realisation of a “Jewish state”, which he appears to assert.
Similarly, but more subtly, Israel might be criticised for not having exactly the characteristics we may envisage of a free Palestine. This, presumably, would include rejection of its instantiation of “[specifically] Jewish self-determination”, and, again, that seems to be an anathema to Berger.
I do still struggle to accept that he has been incapable of appreciating that Zionism, as he took the trouble to define it, and the current State of Israel, are discrete, though obviously related, concepts, and that the former has an existence independent of the latter.
I think he showed his colours in expecting us to accept that Israel is not “an apartheid, or white supremacist, state” on the basis that his “reading and personal experience in Israel stand in contradiction to these claims”, but he had some chutzpah to raise that prospect in proximity to “Jewish self-determination” without exploring the correspondence.
"Similarly, but more subtly, Israel might be criticised for not having exactly the characteristics we may envisage of a free Palestine. This, presumably, would include rejection of its instantiation of “[specifically] Jewish self-determination”, and, again, that seems to be an anathema to Berger."
This is the core which I was getting at in my original comment; the deeply embedded false equivalence between Zionism and the Jewish identity more generally (as Berger states: "Zionism is Jewish self-determination") appears to be the root of all cognitive dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, and fallacious thinking.
I think this is much more than just immunizing Israel from actual criticism; the framework for reality altogether is altered. Criticism aimed at Israel, according to Berger's views in this article, can only be limited to a specific domain since the all-defining view that "Zionism is Jewish self-determination" seems to be viewed as an unquestionable truth -- notice how it is never even remotely suggested that this is a subjective position -- hence there being no possible valid criticism against this core assertion.
"I think he showed his colours in expecting us to accept that Israel is not “an apartheid, or white supremacist, state” on the basis that his “reading and personal experience in Israel stand in contradiction to these claims”, but he had some chutzpah to raise that prospect in proximity to “Jewish self-determination” without exploring the correspondence."
You raise great points about the exploration of Jewish self-determination. I am highly skeptical of the Israel lobby because I've been critically observed the aftermath of October 7th, but that's only more reason for me to seek out constructive dialogue as well as the opinions of critical thinkers on the pro-Israel side. Your point reminds me that I would have absolutely welcomed a genuine breakdown of the all-encompassing statement that "Zionism is Jewish self-determination," for instance. It's a real shame that such sentiments are essentially never substantiated with anything other than pathos in today's public discourse.
It's entirely possible that Berger's true thoughts are buried beneath the pathos -- and that there might be logos beneath what appears to be blatant demagoguery. Unfortunately, that is entirely left to the imagination with an article such as this one.
Lastly, I want to add that Berger also betrays his own intellectuality not only through the lack of actual substance and depth in this article, but also due to the mathematical quantitative résumé he presents. Berger lists several liberal identity politics causes that he has publicly advocated, as well as some "pro-Palestinian" causes, which is implicitly supposed to "prove" his allegiance and integrity as a "progressive".
I suppose this is the where any semblance of actual reason may be found in this article. The reason why I fail to see how reason is genuinely at work here, however, is that the entire political binary is not just crumbling for everyone to see today -- the binary has been falling apart for a very long time. The human mind will rationalize, by itself, in order to understand the situation they are in. The less we understand the situation and all of its context, the more we are forced to rely on rationalization. The line between rationalization and reason may be paper-thin in our individual microcosm and conscious experience, but that same line becomes magnified and amplified, making it much easier to spot (which also comes with the risk of exaggerated perception) when it is given an expressed and/or publicized form in the macrocosm -- in other words, the public domain.