A few days ago, Ynet (the biggest Israeli media outlet) reported that the American progressive movement has come to acknowledge the problematic role of its Jewish elements. The Israeli outlet revealed that in the eyes of emerging progressive circles within the American left, Jews are perceived as “white oppressors” at the core of America’s social injustice. The Ynet report is based on a recent study made by Dafna Kaufman, an analyst at the Israeli Reut institute.

“The contemporary discourse of the American left divides society into (identitarian) squares: you are either with us or against us – and the Jews are left out.” Ynet sums up Kaufman’s argument. “Although the vast majority of American Jews support the Democratic Party, progressive circles no longer really allow Jews to be part of the struggle for social change, as long as they continue to be pro-Zionist and actively express their Jewishness.” You may have already noticed that the Israeli outlet doesn’t refer solely to ‘Zionists’ as most Palestinian solidarity campaigners do out of fear of the ‘Jews in their movement.’ The Israeli news outlet refers to ‘Jews,’ ‘Jewishness’ and also to ‘Zionists’ as an integral organic spectrum of Jewish life, culture, identity and politics.

Ynet stresses that the American Left has developed an intolerance towards Jewish politics and Jewish identitarianism. “The report further indicates that the radical progressive faction contributes to the growing exclusion of Jewish community organizations from the American left by denying Jews the right to complain about their discrimination or anti-Semitism.” Ynet quotes Kaufman’s report, “Jews are being identified as strong white oppressors, and so is the State of Israel.”

Ynet asks, ‘can I be white, Jewish, liberal and Democrat?’ Kaufman answers “Of course you can be, but some of your rights are pretty much revoked. You can be an ally in social struggles, but you can’t be at the center of the issue.” I guess that what Kaufman is telling us here is that you can be a ‘Jew’ and a ‘Lefty’ but your role as controlled opposition might have come to an end.

Ynet stresses that “it is important to remember that Jews have made progress in American society through the establishment, and this is a significant part of the influence of Jews on the United States, yet the progressive movement is very anti-establishment. Therefore, the conclusion is clearly that the Jews are the oppressive white. Of course, the real picture is more complex, but this binary division puts the Jews in certain boxes.”

The above Israeli discourse reminds me of an old Israeli joke:

An Israeli arrives at Heathrow. The immigration officer asks “occupation?”

“No” replies the Israeli, “just visiting.”

In the joke, the Israeli sees himself as an occupier, and also accepts being perceived as one, but most significantly, he is totally at ease with his role as an occupier. The British immigration officer is obviously blind to all of that, as he is engaged in routine questioning. He might even miss the joke. In the American reality as depicted by Ynet’s article, the progressives are awakening to the reality that has been openly inflicted on their movement by some powerful and loud lobbies, well-funded think tanks and pressure groups.

The Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is exactly that moment of awakening, the tormenting thought that the immigration officer actually understands the joke and even allows himself to laugh loudly. This is exactly what the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan meant by ‘the unconscious is the discourse of the other.’ It is the fear that the other sees you for what you are and even dares to share his/her thoughts about you with everyone else. Accordingly, if Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power, then the fear of anti-Semitism is the tormenting thought that this power wanes off: the thought about people starting to call a spade a spade and even worse: leftists sticking to their principles of equality and justice.

The other day, I asked a progressive member of my family to define history: “we learn about our past mistakes so we don’t repeat them in the future,” he cleverly said. I corrected him slightly. ‘We learn about our past mistakes so we can understand our future mistakes within context.’ Delving into this complexity from a psychoanalytical perspective brings to light the notion of ‘Repetition Compulsion.’ Repetition Compulsion is often defined as a psychological phenomenon in which a human subject repeats an event or its circumstances over and over again. This entails putting oneself in situations where the event is likely to happen again. The concept of repetition compulsion was first introduced by Freud who pointed at a situation in which “the patient does not remember anything of what he has forgotten and repressed, he acts it out, without, of course, knowing that he is repeating it …”

Yet, the Freudian concept fails to accurately describe the emerging dangerous circumstances as described by the Ynet article. As we know, self-identified Jews are fully aware of and actively identify with Jewish past suffering. But, for one reason or another, some people do not learn from their past mistakes. They keep repeating the same mistakes and expect different outcomes.

Those who follow my work are probably familiar with the idea that there is no modern Hebrew word for peace (meaning harmony and reconciliation). The Hebrew Word Shalom (שלום) is interpreted in modern Hebrew as ‘security for the Jews.’ In Israel the reference to ‘shalom negotiation’ is construed as a premeditated set of conditions that guarantees ‘security’ for Jewish Israelis by means of: secure borders, disarmament of the Arabs, an American commitment to supplying arms to Israel, economic expansion and so on.

It would be unreasonable to expect a culture that lacks a lucid notion of peace and reconciliation to lead the region towards harmony and human brotherhood. The truth of the matter is that even in the delusional heydays of the Oslo Accord, when some were foolish enough to believe that peace was about to prevail, the so-called peace enthusiasts amongst the Israeli decision makers (Shimon Peres & co) advocated the phantasy of a “New Middle East,’ a vision of a regional new order: an economic cooperation with the Jewish State at its very centre. The ‘dream’ of a ‘new Middle East’ entailed a coalition of so called ‘democratic states’ defying ‘Khomeinism’ by means of Western orientation and hard capitalism. Though the globalist agenda was clear to Shimon Peres, the one ingredient he managed to skip was the Palestinians and their prospects of returning to their land, orchards, fields, villages and cities.

Shalom in its contemporary Hebrew meaning, is a judeo-centric concept that is blind to otherness.

The recent conflict in occupied Palestine (especially the clashes in Israeli/Palestinian mixed cities) brings to light another crucial concept that has been lost in translation into modern Hebrew.

Often enough we hear from Israelis officials and Hasbara spokespersons about ‘Israeli/Arab coexistence.’ Yet, bizarrely enough, there is no Hebrew word for coexistence. While the English concept of coexistence refers to an harmonious and peaceful existence of two entities or more, the Hebrew word for coexistence is du ki-yum (דו קיום ). Du ki-yum literally translates as twofold – existence, it refers to two entities that live side by side. Du ki-yum sustains the differentiation and particularity of its elements. In du ki-yum the elements stay apart, separated or even segregated. The notion of du ki-yum practically sustains the binary distinction between the ‘Jew’ and the ‘Goy.’ While coexistence is a synonym for harmony, togetherness and assimilation, du ki-yum, defies the possibility of human brotherhood. It points at success in ‘conflict management,’ presenting a prospect of living ‘alongside’ rather than ‘together’.

I guess that at this point no one will be surprised to find out that there is no word in Hebrew for harmony either. The first Israelis, who worked day and night to revive their biblical language and rename every possible Latin and Greek concept, didn’t bother to find a Hebrew word for harmony. When Israelis refer to harmony they deploy the Latin word harmonia (הרמוניה).

When we attempt to delve into the prospect of peace in the region, we may have to accept that a culture lacking notions of peace, harmony and coexistence may not be able to lead the region towards harmonious and peaceful coexistence. If peace ever prevails between the river and the sea, it is because Israel has surrendered to accepting its meaning.

A few weeks ago I was approached by an ultra Zionist from Jerusalem named Lowell Joseph Gallin who invited me to give a talk at his online conference next year. I warned Lowell that I probably won’t fit with his agenda. Lowell insisted that he was familiar with my work and welcomed the challenge. I suggested that we conduct an early zoom session. I expected to be interrupted and abused. Surprisingly, the talk and the Q&A went smoothly. Unlike my foes within the Zionist circles and the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists, the Zionists in the (zoom) room kept quiet and attentive.

I actually believe in free speech and open dialogue.

Update: on 27 May, Mr. Joseph Gallin decided to remove the video from youtube. My views, i guess, made too much sense . I have now uploaded the Zoom discussion to a few platforms.

If winning a military battle is defined by the accomplishment of one’s military objectives, then Hamas won the current round of violence with its very first ballistic barrage on Jerusalem ten days ago. Israel, on the other hand, won’t win, can’t win and doesn’t even dream of winning. Like in recent ‘rounds’, all Israel hopes to achieve is an ‘image of victory.’ Despite its military might and destructive enthusiasm, Israel can’t prevail militarily because it doesn’t even remember what military objectives are or what they look like.

In the last seven decades Israel has worked relentlessly to divide the Palestinians in an attempt to dismantle their ability to resist as one people. This project had been so successful in the eyes of the Israelis that many of them started to believe that the Palestinian cause had evaporated into thin air. But then, completely out of the blue (as far as the Israelis are concerned), Hamas managed to unite the Palestinians into a unified fist of resistance: on Tuesday every Palestinian between the River and the Sea joined a strike called by Hamas. Such a collective, multi-sectorial strike didn’t happen in Palestine since 1936.

Military victory is not measured by the carnage you inflict on your foe. It isn’t measured by the number of casualties or the residential towers one reduces into dust. Admittedly, there is no room for comparison between Israeli military capabilities and Hamas’ firepower. Israel is one of the most technologically advanced military forces in the world. Hamas is decades behind, yet it wins over Israel in every round of violence.

The reason is simple. Hamas’ military objectives are simple and modest. Hamas has vowed to keep the resistance alive. It fulfills its promise. By achieving this goal Hamas has positioned itself as the Palestinian unifier. Israel, on the other hand, can’t decide its military goals. We hear Israel’s Defence Minister vowing to bring security to the Israelis but Hamas proves him wrong, continuing to rain Israel with rockets at a growing rate. Israel brags about its precision bombing of Hamas’ tunnels, yet rather cynically, Hamas keep operating from tunnels that seem intact and operational.

It doesn’t take a military genius to grasp that in order to stop Hamas, Israel needs to deploy ground forces and to engage in a fierce battle in the streets of Gaza. But this is exactly the one thing the IDF refuses to do and for a manifold of very good reasons. Firstly, the Israelis are fearful of a house-to-house battle. Second, Israel doesn’t want to control 2.5 million Gazans. Third, not one Israeli military leader is willing to face the relentless Israeli mothers brigade. In the region, however, Israel’s reluctance to send foot soldiers to Gaza is understood as cowardice and weakness.

For Israel, Gaza in particular and Palestine in general is a no-win situation.

But there is a deeper reasoning behind Israel’s hopeless situation. Israeli decision makers (both within the political realm and in the military) subscribe to the power of deterrence. For Israelis, the power of deterrence means punishing the Arabs so heavily that their will to fight would practically stop existing. For one reason or another, the Israelis manage to clumsily zigzag through their troubling history in the region in an attempt to validate this doctrine. For instance, Israel works hard to convince themselves that despite their military fiasco in Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah has been reluctant to enter a new round of violence with Israel because it is intimidated by the consequences.

Examination of Israeli history actually defies the Israeli doctrine. When Arabs are defeated and humiliated in the battlefield they keep fighting until they win. When Arabs win, they often lose their motivation to keep fighting. They occasionally seek peace and harmony in accordance with the Islamic teaching.

In 1967 Israel defeated 3 Arab armies in just 6 days. Israel performed a perfect Blitzkrieg operation. The Israeli air force surprised and destroyed the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian air forces on the ground in less than four hours. Simultaneously, Israeli Panzers raided into Sinai, within hours the Egyptian forces collapsed. The humiliation of the Egyptian army was unprecedented in military terms.

If the Israeli doctrine carried any validity, Egypt wouldn’t consider any military confrontation with Israel. But the reality on the ground proved the opposite. Just a few months after their June 1967 defeat, the Egyptian Army launched a war of attrition against Israel, one which exhausted the Israeli forces (including the air force). In the War of Attrition (1967-70) Egypt displayed new capabilities, relying on new Soviet ground-to-air missiles that obliterated Israeli air superiority. Yet Israel refused to draw the necessary conclusions. It was suffocated by hubris that prevented it from reading its neighbors and their intentions.

On 6 October 1973 (Yom Kippur) at 2 PM, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated attack on Israeli forces in the Suez Canal and in the Golan Heights. Within hours the two Arab armies managed to obliterate the Israeli defence lines. A few days later and thanks to a close American airlift Israel recovered. It gained its lost land in the occupied Golan heights and even managed to conquer some new territory in Syria. In the South, Israel managed to establish bridgehead over the Suez Canal. It encircled the Egyptian 3rd army and cut its supply lines. But Israel failed to push the Egyptian 3rd and 2nd armies back. The Egyptian army ended the war, claiming a narrow strip of Sinai back. It was this victory that empowered Anwar Sadat to launch a peace initiative four years later (1977).

Hafez al-Assad, the Syrian leader at the time, didn’t manage to claim a victory. Syria remained a defiant enemy of Israel. It is reasonable to speculate that if Assad was allowed to cling to some of his territorial gains in October ‘73, Israel and Syria could have proceeded into further reconciliatory talks.

The same logic can be applied to Hezbollah. The Lebanese Shia resistance movement is reluctant to fight Israel not because it is afraid of the consequences, as Israelis delude themselves, but because it already won significantly over the IDF. A war with Israel is dangerous for Hezbollah not because Israel will do its best once again to destroy Lebanese infrastructure and flatten half of Beirut, but because the outcome of such a war is unknown. Hezbollah is in a much better position retaining its status as the Arab military force that made the IDF run home with its tail between its legs (2006).

One may wonder whether Israeli strategists are so thick as not to grasp the most obvious facts about their neighbors and what fuels their motivation to fight. It may of course be possible that Israel’s decision makers aren’t as excited by tranquility as some of us want to believe. Gaza is where Israel tests its new weaponry and tactics. Gaza rockets are a necessary ingredient in the Iron Dome’s public relations. Most importantly, the Gaza crisis emerged when Netanyahu’s political options were running out. It was the Gaza current conflict that made the political powers in Israel subside and then crystalize lucidly within the realm of the hard right. This war made both Netanyahu and Hamas stronger.

It would be fair to argue that Hamas is operating within the modernist perception of conflicts as devised by Carl von Clausewitz. For the German military philosopher “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” In ‘postmodernist’ Israel, it seems war is one of the means that keeps some politicians out of prison.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Yom Kippur War (1973) was that it marked a sudden switch from Israeli manic ‘hubris’ to melancholia, apathy and depression.

Following their outstanding military victory in 1967, the Israelis developed an arrogant disrespectful attitude towards Arabs and their military capabilities. Israeli intelligence predicted that it would take years for Arab armies to recover. The Israeli military didn’t believe that the Arab soldier had the ability to fight, let alone score a victory.

But on 6 October 1973, the Israelis faced a devastating surprise. This time the Arab soldier was very different. Israeli military strategy, built on air superiority and fast ground manoeuvres supported by tanks, proved ineffective within hours. Egypt and Syria, helped by new Soviet antitank and ground-to air-missiles, managed to dismantle Israel’s might. In the first days of the war Israel suffered heavy casualties. It’s leadership and high military command were in a state of despair. Yet, this type of crisis wasn’t exactly a rare event in Jewish history.

The Israeli military fiasco at the first stage of the war was a repetition of a tragic syndrome that is as old as the Jews themselves. These repetitive scenarios involve Jewish collective hubris driven by a strong sense of exceptionalism (choseness), and lead to horrific consequences. I call this ‘the Yom Kippur Syndrome.’

In 1920s Berlin, the Jewish elite boasted of its power. Some rich Jews were convinced that Germany and its capital were their playground. At the time, a few German Jews dominated banking and influenced Germany’s politics and media. In addition, the Frankfurt School (as well as other Jewish school of thought) were openly dedicated to the cultural uprooting of Germans, all in the name of, ‘progress,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ eroticism,’ ’phenomenology and ‘cultural Marxism.’ Then, almost ‘from nowhere,’ a tidal wave of resentment appeared, and the rest is known.

But was there really a sudden shift in German consciousness? Should 1930s German ‘anti-Semitism’ have come as a surprise? Not at all. All the necessary signs had been present for some time. In fact, early Zionists such as Herzl and Nordau correctly predicted the inevitable rise of European anti-Jewish sentiments at the end of the 19th century. It was the Yom Kippur Syndrome, that same hubris that prevented Berlin’s Jewish elite from evaluating the growing opposition around them.

What we see in Israel at the moment is obviously a tragic manifestation of the same syndrome. Once again, the Israelis have been caught unprepared. Once again mania of omnipotence is replaced by melancholia. Once again the Israelis failed to estimate Hamas’ military capabilities. They failed to recognise the growing frustration of Israeli Arabs and acknowledge the possibility that their frustrations could escalate into street fights or even civil war.

The Israelis have succumbed to the delusional thought that the Palestinian cause had evaporated. They were convinced that cracking the BDS and starving Gazans had dismantled the Palestinian aspiration. Yet it is Hamas that has managed to win the most crucial victory uniting the Palestinians in Palestine, in the camps and in the Diaspora, alongside Muslims from around the world. This unity is significant especially in the light of Israel being politically divided heading towards a fifth election.

Once again, Israeli arrogance is replaced by deep sadness. Israel could ask itself some necessary questions: What is it that we do wrong? Why is our history repeating itself? Is there something we could do to change our destiny? Rather than this necessary introspection, Israel is actually doing the opposite. Instead of dissecting the present crisis in the light of similar events in the past, Israel repeats the same mistakes. It refers to the current crisis as just another ‘round of violence. It delves into the strategic and tactical possibilities that will ‘enforce a ceasefire on Hamas’. Israel basically speculates over the level of carnage that will bring the ‘Arabs on their knees’ once again.

Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and its tragic mistakes are naturally determined by that fact. If Yom Kippur is a Jewish day of introspection, the Yom Kippur Syndrome is the direct outcome of a total incapacity to self-reflect. Yet one may wonder whether the Jew can be emancipated from the Jewish destiny and the Yom Kippur Syndrome in particular? Like early Zionist Bernard Lazare, I believe that all it takes is drifting away from exceptionalism. But once stripped of exceptionalism, not much is left of contemporary Jewish identiterianism.

I guess that we are touching upon the most devastating existential aspect of the Yom Kippur Syndrome; there is no Jewish collective ideological escape for the Jew. We are basically dealing with a cultural and spiritual limbo.

I tend to believe that the only escape route from the Yom Kippur Syndrome is individual: self-imposed exile. Leave the ghetto late in the night, crawl under the fence, dig a tunnel under the ‘separation wall’. Once out on the land of the free, proceed quietly and modestly in search of the humane and the universal.