I want to find a language that transforms language itself into steel for the spirit – a language to use against these sparkling silver insects, these jets. I want to sing. I want a language . . . that asks me to bear witness and that I can ask to bear witness, to what power there is in us to overcome this cosmic isolation. —Mahmoud Darwish
Mahmoud Darwish (1941–2008) was born in the village of al-Birwa, in the Galilee, Palestine. He became a refugee at age seven. He worked as a journalist and editor in Haifa and left to study in Moscow in 1970. His exilic journey took him to Cairo, Beirut, Tunis, Paris, Amman, and Ramallah, where he settled in 1995. He is one of the most celebrated and revered poets in the Arab world. He published more than thirty books, and his poetry has been translated into thirty-five languages.
Even if you are a lover of poetry, you may not have heard of Mahmoud Darwish, despite his work—poetry and prose—being celebrated and translated into thirty-five languages. Translation into English was late in coming. And there is so much culture to taste and consume that it may be incidental ignorance of Arab poetry in general and Palestinian poetry in particular that has kept it out of sight.
Sample praise:
“Darwish’s poetry is an epic effort to transform the lyrics of loss into the indefinitely postponed drama of return.” —Edward Said
“The most celebrated writer of verse in the Arab world.” —Adam Shatz, The New York Times
“Did as much as anyone to forge a Palestinian national consciousness.” —Peter Clark, The Guardian
“No poet in our time has confronted the violent tides of history with greater humanity or greater artistic range than Mahmoud Darwish. ―Michael Palmer, author of Company of Moths
“A world-class poet . . . Darwish has not only remade a national consciousness; he has reworked language and poetic tradition to do so.” ―Fiona Sampson, The Guardian
“Darwish, beloved as the beacon-voice of Palestinians scattered around the globe, had an uncanny ability to create unforgettable, richly descriptive poems, songs of homesick longing which resonate with displaced people everywhere.” ― Naomi Shihab Nye
“No list on Palestinian literature is complete without the acclaimed poet Mahmoud Darwish.” —Esquire
“Mahmoud Darwish is perhaps the foremost Palestinian poet of last century.” —Tablet
There are too many books to feature just one. Please consider giving Mahmoud Darwish a try.
Hind Rajab, age six, senior kindergarten graduation, killed by tank fire in Gaza
The rapper Macklemore just released the new track Hind’s Hall, about the war in Gaza and the protests.
Macklemore is a hugely popular artist. On Spotify, he has 32 million monthly listeners, making him 128th in the world. His tracks have been streamed 13 billion times.
Eleven years ago, his track Same Love celebrated the right of relationships between all people, at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet fully allowed or protected in America. It was a hit and has become an anthem.
His new track about the Gaza war is another powerful statement.
Hamilton Hall/Hind’s Hall, Columbia University
Artists in various media have taken on the war in Gaza. Slowly, tentatively, because many are concerned about being dropped or rejected. Musical artists have been the slowest. Macklemore, who has built a career independent of record labels, laments:
Yet the music industry’s quiet, complicit in their platform of silence What happened to the artist? What do you got to say? If I was on a label, you could drop me today I’d be fine with it ’cause the heart fed my page
Macklemore isn’t a hater, except of thoughtless war and repression. The millions who will stream this track (all streaming proceeds going to UNRWA) are not haters, except of thoughtless war and repression. It is notable that Spotify, in today’s New Music Friday playlist, doesn’t include Hind’s Hall.
Thank you Macklemore. Thank you all artists—writers, filmmakers, musicians—who have stood up and those who haven’t yet but will.
Hannah Arendt was a genius of twentieth century political philosophy. Her book The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) is a seminal work. She was also one of the great Jewish thinkers of her time.
She faced obstacles. As a Jew, she once had a relationship with renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger, who was disgraced as a Nazi sympathizer and supporter. As a Jew and journalist, she covered the trial of Adolf Eichmann (Eichmann in Jerusalem), her analysis including the infamous term “banality of evil”. She suggested that Eichmann and others were not necessarily unique monsters, but were ordinary thoughtless people doing horrific things as a matter of course. This view did not sit well with many in the Jewish community. She also believed that Zionism, which she appreciated, had lost its way. Because of her perspectives on Eichmann and Zionism, she remains for some a pariah.
Hannah Arendt’s greatest contributions to Humanist Zionism are summoning a sophisticated historical context for the European Jewish experience, assessing the dangers of statist nationalism and imperialism, articulating a federalist alternative to nation-states, and diagnosing root pathologies in mainstream Zionism. She linked the onset of Zionism to the evolution in Europe of nationalism, the nation-state system, imperialism, modern antisemitism, and internal political and social dynamics in Europe’s Jewish communities. Although Arendt credited Zionists for giving Jews agency, she diagnosed the prevailing wing as suffering from two underlying maladies. First, it subscribed to a belief in an eternal antisemitism unaffected by broader historical developments or the choices made by Jewish communities. Consequently, mainstream Zionists regarded all outsiders as suspect and adopted a persecution complex. What followed was the second malady of a “tribal” nationalism, which rejects collaboration with the outside world as futile given unrelenting antisemitism.
Controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt is not going away.
A German foundation has said it will no longer be awarding a prize for political thinking to a leading Russian-American journalist after criticising as “unacceptable” a recent essay by the writer in which they made a comparison between Gaza and a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.
Masha Gessen was due to be presented with the Hannah Arendt prize for political thought on Friday. But the award ceremony will now not take place as planned after the Green party-affiliated Heinrich Böll Foundation (HBS) said it was withdrawing its support. The HBS said it had reached its decision in agreement with the senate in Bremen, the northern port city where the ceremony was scheduled to take place….
The HBS said it objected to and rejected a comparison made by Gessen in a 9 December essay in the New Yorker between Gaza and the Jewish ghettos in Europe.
In the essay, Gessen, who uses they, criticised Germany’s unequivocal support of Israel, drawing attention to the Bundestag’s 2019 resolution condemning the Israel boycott movement BDS as antisemitic and quoting a Jewish critic of Germany’s politics of Holocaust remembrance as saying memory culture had “gone haywire”.
In the paragraph the HBS draws attention to, Gessen wrote that “ghetto” would be “the more appropriate term” to describe Gaza, but the word “would have drawn fire for comparing the predicament of besieged Gazans to that of ghettoized Jews. It also would have given us the language to describe what is happening in Gaza now. The ghetto is being liquidated.”
The foundation said Gessen was implying that Israel aimed to “liquidate Gaza like a Nazi ghetto”, adding that “this statement is unacceptable to us and we reject it”….
Supporters of Gessen, who is Jewish, and whose grandfather and great-grandfather were among family members murdered by the Nazis, have been quick to point out the irony of suspending a prize awarded in memory of Arendt, the German-born Jewish-American historian, philosopher and antitotalitarian political theorist who coined the phrase “the banality of evil”, in connection with the trial of leading Nazi Adolf Eichmann, which she covered as a journalist for the New Yorker.
Samantha Rose Hill, author of the profile Hannah Arendt and editor of Arendt’s collected poems, called it “an affront to Hannah Arendt’s memory. By their own logic, the Heinrich Böll Foundation needs to cancel the Hannah Arendt prize altogether.”
Another academic said that according to the reasons given for the decision, “Hannah Arendt wouldn’t get the Hannah Arendt award in Germany today.”
In an interview with Die Zeit published on Tuesday, Gessen spoke of the backlash Arendt had faced as one of Israel’s initial critics, warning against establishing a purely Jewish state in Palestine and in so doing excluding the Arab population.
In an open letter written with Albert Einstein and other Jewish intellectuals in 1948, Arendt had, Gessen pointed out, even compared the Israeli Freedom party to the Nazis after they used racially motivated violence against civilians.
“I am aware that this type of comparison, especially in Germany, is quickly seen as relativising the Holocaust. That’s why it’s so important to me that such a differentiated and intelligent thinker like Arendt didn’t shy away from this comparison,” Gessen told the newspaper.
Referring to people in Germany being wary of challenging “the logic of German memory policy” for fear of being accused of antisemitism, they added: “The problem is that criticism of Israel is often seen as antisemitic, which I think is the real antisemitic scandal. This overlooks the actual antisemitism.”
We are experiencing the most public and powerful discussion of antisemitism in generations. Claims that particular speech and actions are antisemitic are having substantial consequences—including the loss of opportunities, business and jobs.
What exactly is antisemitism? Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives weighed in. And like everything else in the current environment, the result was divisive and controversial.
Fourteen House lawmakers voted against a GOP-led resolution Tuesday “denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and around the world after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, with many of the detractors accusing the legislation of conflating criticisms of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
The resolution stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The chamber cleared the resolution in a 311-14-92 vote, with 13 Democrats and one Republican voting “no.”
Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” after three prominent Jewish Democrats urged members of the conference to do so. They called the legislation “the latest unserious attempt by Republicans to weaponize Jewish pain and the serious problem of antisemitism to score cheap political points.”
The resolution, which spans four pages, “strongly condemns” all forms of antisemitism; reaffirms the House’s strong support for the Jewish community in the U.S. and around the globe; calls on elected officials and world leaders to condemn and fight all forms of antisemitism; rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination and harassment against individuals in the Jewish community; and “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
Little reported is that Republicans sponsoring the resolution relied upon and included the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). In the absence of a consensus working definition, in 2016 IHRA drafted a definition, including examples:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Members of Jewish communities, including leading rabbis and scholars, found this definition too broad, particularly in absolutely equating criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression. Initially signed by 210 scholars, it has now around 350 signatories.
Preamble
We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem. We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil society.
Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we hold that while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.
Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.
The IHRA Definition includes 11 “examples” of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine. We do not all share the same political views and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda. Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.
The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15) should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic (whether or not one approves of the view or action)
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
God of Moses God of Jesus God of Mohammed God of infinite names Sitting by the desert sea Pained and grieved. This is madness. These people Every inclination Is only evil All the time.* They take our names In vile vain.** There is the water Let us drive them in And start again Just like days of old Do better next time. But how would they learn? Hard hearts may soften Dissolved in blood and tears. We won’t abandon We don’t approve.
The Jews killed Jesus. The Palestinians started the Holocaust. So who’s the scapegoat now?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that in the early days leading up to World War II, Hitler visited the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and it was that Palestinian leader who came up with the idea of the Final Solution:
“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them.’
Historians have already weighed in heavily on how historically bogus this is, given that, among other things, Hitler published Mein Kampf three years before that meeting. The assertion has been described as “jaw-dropping”, with even friendly politicians “agog” at this dark nonsense.
Just when you thought it was the Jews who have for centuries been scurrilously blamed for every terrible thing, Netanyahu goes and turns the tables and scapegoats somebody else. Not just any somebody else. The enemy within and on the borders, the one that you could happily live without.
It appears that the very unpopular Prime Minister is trying to take lessons from Donald Trump, with whom he shares the kinship of attending Wharton. The strategy: Demonize those unwanted immigrants and/or natives. Say anything, no matter how incendiary, explosive, ridiculous or unrelated to fact about the enemies within, and people will love it. And you.
Just one glitch. Trump doesn’t lead a nation at the center of global conflict; actually he doesn’t lead any nation at all. And if America has a history of scapegoating, which it does (take your pick among religious, cultural, political and ethnic groups), it doesn’t compare in long-term viciousness to what the Jews have endured.
Starting, of course, with the big one. In fact, if you look closely at Netanyahu’s indictment, it is not that the Palestinians actually ran the death camps. They just planted the idea, whispering in the ear of an emperor, who was happy to carry out the deed. This time a German emperor, instead of Roman one.
Bob Schwartz 