Why Israelis aren't Nazis

By

Gert Meyers (UK), owner of this blog

and

David Zarnett (Canada). David is a postgraduate student at King's College, University of London. His current research interests pertain to anti-war movements and, more specifically, Edward Said's writings on Iraq through the 1990s up until 2003 as well as the anti-war movement's response to Christopher Hitchen's endorsement of the Iraq War.

Recently, the Scottish branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign invited Gilad Atzmon to come speak at a fundraiser. Atzmon has been the target of much controversy for his likening Israel to Nazi Germany and at times argues that by calling Hitler the worst evil the world has ever seen lets Israel “off the hook.” The comparison between Zionism, Israel and even Israelis and the Nazis is commonly heard. Like Atzmon’s belief, it is not borne out of a desire to accurately describe Zionism but rather is a public relations tool used to simplify and demonize. Let’s take a look at this analogy.

In order to develop a singular description of Zionism, many confuse the terms they are using. Many who make the Zionist-Nazi analogy almost always make the Zionism-colonialism analogy as well. This is partially due to the fact that these people are at odds to show that the way Israel has treated the Palestinians is equal to the way the Nazis treated the Jews.

Colonialism was a historical process leading both Islamic and European empires to send their inhabitants, often against their will or through extortion, to settle and colonize an area to which they had no previous connection in an effort to bring that area under their political system. The relationship between the colony and the Mother Country was exploitative: the colony’s resources were extracted and sent back to the colonial power. Little investment was made in the colony itself. By contrast, Zionism was a voluntary social movement, consisting of people who actually believed in their connection to Palestine and were willing to invest in the land there. The European Jews who became Zionist felt that there was no other solution to an untenable existence in European society especially considering that during the rise of nationalism the Jew was identified as alien. Zionism was thus the product of two historical processes: the yearning to return to the Land of Israel that many Jews felt, as well as centuries of persecution in Europe. The comparison between Zionism and colonialism is misleading and confuses both of these social movements. The comparison only works if we ignore the context of Jewish life in Europe.

It should be said, however, that the comparison is not entirely flawed. In regards to the relationship between the Zionist-Jewish settlers and the local Arab-Palestinians there are some indications of a colonial relationship and this fact was exacerbated after 1967. But this was not predetermined. There were many Zionists, and prominent ones at that, like Arthur Ruppin and Yitzhak Epstein, who advocated against this type of relationship. Unfortunately, conditions on the ground such as a pervasive feeling of fear in the ‘Yishuv’, general but not wholesale ignorance of Arab culture, the inability of Ottoman authorities to preserve law and order, and banditry, led to a very undesirable relationship between Jews and Arabs.

One of the first to make the connection between Israel and the Nazi State was the British historian Arnold Toynbee. But this comparison did not stay hidden in academic discourse. When making this comparison, it is common for differences to be cast aside, and any trace of similarity to be used to make it as if Israeli and Nazi society are suddenly alike if not identical. For example, any reference to “improving the Jewish race” by Zionists in the early 20th century is used as evidence to show that Zionism and Nazism share an affinity for Eugenics. But many at this time all over the world shared an affinity for the study of Eugenics. Should we identify the universities that spent their resources on the study of eugenics as Nazi institutions? If so, then we are making Eugenics that exclusive preserve of the Nazis. This is not true.

It is quite clear that Israel has many serious problems in its relationship with its Arab minority as well as the Arabs living in the Occupied Territories. Widespread discrimination and racism do exist and, as in many countries, there is room for much improvement. Israeli writer, and Zionist, David Grossman recently called on the nation to wake up to racism in society. Can anyone imagine Himmler, Eichmann or Goehring saying such a thing?

Palestinian-Arab-Israelis, as they are most accurately called today, have Arab representatives in the Knesset, are able to mobilize politically as indicated by the many Arab NGO’s, like Adalah and Masawa, that exist today and have the right to petition the Supreme Court in defence of their rights. The Occupation worsens this relationship and needs to end.

Further dissimilarities exist. In regards to Israel's territorial ambitions, Nazi Germany strove to conquer the whole of Europe. Those unaware of the situation in the Middle East may make the claim that Israel has designs for the region. Like any state existing in our international system, Israel seeks to foster friendly governments in the region with which it can deal. This is not specific to Israel and is the law of nature in a system where a country’s main concern is its survival. Regardless, Israel has never expressed the same ambitions as the Nazi’s did. At worst some Israelis (and by far not all) want to make the whole of Israel and Palestine an integral part of the Jewish state. In Israeli society, there is very considerable debate and a broad range of opinions regarding the creation of a Greater Israel. But today, most mainstream political parties accept the reality of the two-state solution. In Nazi Germany such a debate would not have been possible and in Nazi circles it did not exist.

Furthermore, Zionists are frequently charged with the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs. One Zionist narrative says they left on their own volition and were also pressured out by the Arab Higher Committee as well as invading Arab armies in 1948. The opposing narrative says the Palestinians were subject to an ethnic cleansing resembling what happened with the Nazi invasion of Poland or even the Serb Chetnik attacks against Croats. Neither narrative provides the truth. The fact is that no outright plan of expulsion was adopted by the nascent Israeli government in 1947 who was prepared to have a large Arab minority in their state. Instances of ethnic cleansing did occur along side extensive voluntary flights by many Palestinians. Many of the elites also left when they heard of the possibility of war. This fractured Palestinian society and left it with no local leadership to lead them through a traumatic period. Further, the ethnic cleansing would have not occurred had UN Partition plan of 1947 come to fruition. What many refer to simply as the dispossession of the Palestinians is far more complex than the Zionist-Nazi analogy conveys and usually those who believe in such an analogy have never taken the time to really learn about the topic and its multiple nuances and complexities.

What is most unhelpful about this comparison is that it relies on reductionism. The comparison is one that is fit for mass political movements that rely on short, quick chants, placards and slogans. Mass political movements provide no room for nuance; the crowds simply don’t want to be hindered by the facts when marching for a cause.

Zionism is a diverse ideology with numerous schools of thought. Zionist ideology also includes the idea of bi-nationalism as well as the notion of shared racial characteristics with Arabs. Regarding mainstream Zionism as practiced in Israel, Nazi ideas don't come into play if we consider the widespread support for a two-state solution and the opposition to ethnic cleansing. Extremist ideas do exist within a certain fringe minority but Israel is hardly unique in that respect. There are also many progressive Zionists who desire complete equality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

The term Nazi is not only being levelled at Israel but also at its opponents as well as its major ally ("The Fourth Reich"). For instance, if we consider the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, history shows that crimes have been committed on both sides. A detailed reading of the events, from 1967 to the present, shows numerous instances where Hamas and other radical groups have committed acts of terror for the sole purpose of disrupting the peace process. With resistance to the occupation this has nothing to do: some extremists do indeed want to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic republic. These too could be compared to Nazis (by that definition) and many do (the “Islamonazis of Hamas”). But it isn’t likely to make these groups change their mind and accept a negotiated settlement. Use of the terms "Islamonazi" or "Islamofascist" is nonetheless strongly on the rise.

In some respects, by making such flawed comparisons, which are unhelpful as well as incorrect, the Nazis are awarded a posthumous victory which they do not in any way deserve. What this comparison also does is to soften the charge against the Nazis. It makes the term Nazi far less meaningful and powerful if it is used with such abandon.

And shouldn't sensitivity be shown for the fact that the Nazis did very actively try to exterminate the Jewish People as a whole? Therefore calling Jews Nazis is particularly offensive and will only lead to further polarisation, not the understanding and plurality which so many strive for. Those using the "Israel = Nazis" comparison are laying themselves wide open to accusations of xenophobia as one of the latter's main characteristics is the stereotyping of entire groups (ethnic, racial, religious or other).

Being critical of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories is perfectly legitimate and defensible but Israel is a democracy with a high degree of internal accountability, something which cannot be said of the Nazi regime which was totalitarian.