12/8/2019
Facing Reality
The book deals with various Jewish leftist thinkers’ viewpoints on Israel. Pictured: Hannah Arendt, Maxime
Rodinson, and Noam Chomsky
Review
Facing Reality
October 15, 2019 Shaul Magid
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
1/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
Discussed in this essay: The Lions’ Den: Zionism and the Left from Hannah Arendt to
Noam Chomsky, by Susie Linfield. Yale University Press, 2019. 400 pages.
SUSIE LINFIELD S NEW INTELLECTUAL HISTORY The Lions’ Den: Zionism and the Left from
Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky, is a fascinating examination of the attitudes of a series
of Jewish figures identified with the left on the question of Zionism and Israel. Linfield
defines herself as a liberal, and thus The Lions’ Den might be best understood as a liberal
critique of leftist perspectives on this question. All of the thinkers she examines—
Hannah Arendt, Arthur Koestler, Maxime Rodinson, Isaac Deutscher, Albert Memmi,
Fred Halliday, I.F. Stone, and Noam Chomsky— at some point had a deep intellectual
and personal engagement with their Jewish identity, Zionism, and Israel. All were or are
leftists who for a variety of reasons came to criticize , and in some cases reject or
abandon, the Zionist project.
’
,
Linfield’s subjects can be divided up into two basic groups, although this is not how she
chooses to organize them. The first group (Arendt, Koestler, Deutscher, Rodinson, Stone,
and Chomsky), which serves as the crux of her critique, comprises intellectuals who
came to see Israel as a failed experiment, largely as a result of their leftist ideologies.
The members of the second group (Memmi and Halliday) serve as Linfield’s
counterexamples; they too held leftist beliefs, yet they also remained dedicated to Israel
as necessary and legitimate, even as they openly criticized its policies and social
structure. These counterexamples are the linchpin for Linfield’s thesis that leftist
political commitments need not result in a rejection of a Jewish nation-state.
In Linfield’s view, the figures in the first group reject Israel because they cannot quite
integrate their leftist political frameworks with what she calls “reality”—specifically, the
“reality” of the situation on the ground in Israel /Palestine. Throughout the book,
Linfield employs a notion of “realism” that is never adequately explained, even as the
purported threat of an ideological war against realism serves as the book’s centerpiece.
At one point, late in The Lions’ Den, Linfield remarks that for her, “realism is what
enables” ideological values “to move beyond theory into lived actuality.” In the book’s
last lines, she writes, “ The opposite of realism isn’t principle; it is pathology. To reject
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
2/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
realism makes you — and your children—into slaves of the past and strangers to the
future .” But what is the “real” in this “realism”? One can only infer that Linfield is
referring not to realism in a developed philosophical sense, but rather to a version of
what one might call common-sense realism, which involves presuming that certain
empirical observations about the world are obvious and incontestable . The problem
with this kind of realism is that it’s a subjective category disguised as an objective one;
despite the complex nature of politics and human society, the common-sense realist
argument asserts that things “really” are precisely the way that I interpret them to be—
and that anyone who see things differently is mistaken or deluded.
Arendt, the first figure Linfield considers (her chapter takes up almost a third of the
book), serves as the measure against which all Linfield’s other subjects are compared.
Linfield clearly respects Arendt, and finds much common ground with her: she fully
acknowledges Arendt’s Zionist credentials, her battles against Jewish assimilationism,
and her devotion to the figure of the pariah (the Jew who refuses to abandon her
Jewishness to become a part of the larger world in which she lives). But for Linfield,
Arendt’s many mistakes—such as her conclusion that Jews were not ready to abandon
the status of being the most victimized victim and her unwillingness to “confront the
contradiction between the risks of statelessness and the risks of nationalism”— all rose
from one fundamental error: the inability to subordinate ideology to history, or the
“real.” It is for this reason that Linfield judges Arendt a marvelous political theorist and a
lousy interpreter of politics.
Linfield’s summation of Arendt hints at her idiosyncratic definition of the word “real”:
“Arendt’s Zionist writings,” Linfield writes at the end of the chapter, “are a model of the
pitfalls into which so many commentators of Israel fall: arrogance, ignorance,
remoteness, abstractness, and the tendency to see the country, and its conflicts, as a
replication of previous histories rather than as uniquely themselves.” Linfield’s critique
of Arendt implicitly demands that political theorists—who often work comparatively, as
do most political scientists— abandon the notion that Israel can be understood
according to any previous histories and, by extension, to accept that Zionism is an
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
3/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
exceptional nationalism, not easily comparable to any other. If, for Linfield, it is an error
to understand Israel within the context of the webs of history and ideology, as Arendt
does—if to do so is to retreat from “reality”—then the “real” is simply Israeli
exceptionalism.
In her examination of Koestler, a different version of Linfield’s “reality” argument is
deployed. Linfield correctly identifies Koestler as someone who was quite Jewishly
militant, Zionist even in his antagonism to Judaism (“I became a socialist because I
hated the poor,” he wrote in a novel, “and I became a Hebrew [Zionist] because I hated
the Yid”), but who still, in the end, could not see Israel for what it was. Koestler wanted
Zionism to become a substitute for Judaism, which he felt was a religion “unlike any
other”: “racially discriminatory, nationally segregative , socially tension-creating.” He
was later disappointed when Zionism failed to transform these tendencies. As Linfield
reads Koestler, he took Zionism too seriously. He fails her “reality” test, because reality
would tell us that Zionism comes not to replace Judaism, but to serve as part of its
fulfillment, or else arises out of a contingent, historical necessity for Jewish survival.
The latter idea might or might not be empirically legitimate; the former is pure
conjecture.
When Koestler writes that the Bible designates the Jews as a “Chosen Race” to whom
God had promised “preferential treatment”— and thus that Judaism is intrinsically racist
—one can rightly contest Koestler’s reading , but it’s certainly unfair to dismiss it, as
Linfield does, as “[r]adically misunderstanding the Biblical covenant.” Anyone who
knows the Jewish tradition (and many Zionists knew it well ) knows that this is far from
the case. Here, then, the “real” is expressed as a liberal Jewish sentimentality that views
Judaism as the “ethical monotheism” par excellence. Whatever one may think of
Koestler’s views, he clearly knew more about Judaism than Linfield.
Communists such as Rodinson and Deutscher are easier targets for Linfield’s analysis,
since their Marxist commitments were overt, which allows her to simply deploy a
standard, readymade liberal critique of Marxism. Each articulated their criticisms of
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
4/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
Israel from a place of complexity, at the nexus of their Jewishness and universalism—
unwilling to abandon a positive sense of their own Jewishness, yet insistent that this
Jewishness is best expressed in universalist, non-nationalist terms. As Deutscher noted
(and Rodinson echoed in his own work), “[t]here is a touch of un-Jewishness about
Israel.” Israel was, for them, a move away from this universalist Jewishness, even as
many lauded the kibbutz movement and its attempt to inculcate Israel with socialism.
Deutscher, writing in 1958, implored Israelis to “take a more sober view of their
predicament and chances, and beware being carried away by their new-fangled and
already red-hot nationalism” and “to get used to the idea that their state is not above
criticism: it is an earthly creation not a Biblical sanctity.” Linfield avoids acknowledging
the prescience of these statements by pointing out that Deutscher’s and Rodinson’s
predictions—for instance, that socialism would eliminate or at least minimize
antisemitism—did not come to pass in their totality, and by asserting a standard
critique of Marxism as being unrealistic with regard to how societies function. In her
treatment of these figures, it’s clear that Linfield is as blinded by her view of “reality” as
she claims her subjects are by their “ ideology.”
Linfield concludes her study with the work of Chomsky, whom she sees as an ultimate
exemplar of the critical tendency she denounces. “Many of the authors discussed in this
book,” she writes, “ have refused the harsh, complicated realities of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, preferring to project their a priori theories, hopes, wishes, and antipathies onto
it. This has hobbled them as analysts and activists. With Noam Chomsky, the flight
from reality reaches its apotheosis.” In some ways, Chomsky provides a perfect
counterpoint to Linfield, as his thoughts on these matters—like hers—comprise a selfenclosed system that one either accepts or rejects. Linfield writes that “Chomsky’s
ironclad anti-imperialism makes him one of the least useful analysts of the Middle
East,” later explaining that, in her view, “ his loyalty to principle has morphed into a
crippling ideological rigidity that prevents him, time and again, from apprehending
what is happening in the world around him.” One can surely poke holes in Chomsky’s
analysis of the fusion of the liberal state and imperialism, but pointing to historical
fallacies or inconsistencies does not by definition undermine his structural critique . To
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
5/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
do so would require a more systemic unraveling of Chomsky’s premises. (And of course,
any reader of Chomsky will know that he hardly ignores the world around him.) But for
Linfield, because world events are interpreted through the lens of his ideological antiimperialistic commitments, he cannot see “the real” as she understands it: that
liberalism is good, and that its deficiencies are easily corrected with incremental
change. Mistaking liberalism for “the real,” Linfield simply cannot hear what Chomsky
has to say.
Thus, the eight case studies in The Lion Den represent not so much a rigorous
accounting of the left’s critique of Zionism and Israel, but a scorecard of how much
each figure fails or succeeds in apprehending the “real,” which amounts to no more
than Linfield’s own liberal view of the situation in Israel /Palestine combined with her
vision of gradualism as the only solution. Arguing in this way allows Linfield to avoid
actually engaging with the thinkers she critiques, making her own ideology the primary
measure by which to weigh the subjects’ commitments to theirs. The book suffers
greatly from this facile acceptance of her version of the “real,” which asserts its selfevidence without ever arguing for its accuracy.
s’
If Linfield were to engage in a more honest mode of argument, with more selfawareness and attunement to the changing facts on the ground, she might find that her
own strong criticisms of Israeli policy and society—she openly condemns the Israeli
occupation and Israel’s nation-state law— align with the various structures and
conditions identified in the critiques of many of her subjects. Many of these critics
challenged Zionism’s initial aspirations to be both a humanistic and ethnonational
state as structurally and practically impossible. Liberal Zionists disagreed, and still do;
Linfield is among them. But whatever one’s current view on Zionism, I don’t think it is
provocative to propose that in Israel today, ethnonationalism is effacing Israel’s
aspirational humanism; in this regard, some of Linfield’s subjects proved to be less
unrealistic than she claims, and she is guilty of being more unrealistic than she thinks.
In the final analysis, committed leftists will have a problem with an ethnocentric
nation-state founded on the exclusion or marginalization of an indigenous population.
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
6/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
Some will make peace with such a state, for a variety of reasons; others will not. But in
the end, the structural critiques are manifest in the severity of current conditions— and
those interested in a better Israel, including Linfield, ignore them at their own peril.
Shaul Magid is the Distinguished Fellow in Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College and a
Kogod Senior Research Fellow at The Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. His
latest two books are The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament: Elijah Zvi’s Commentary
to the Gospel, and Piety and Rebellion: Essays in Hasidism. He is presently completing a
cultural biography of Meir Kahane.
Further Reading
How to Fight Antisemitism
Meditations in an Emergency
Changing the Climate
Written After a Massacre in the Year 2018
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
7/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
Bari Weisss Unasked Questions
’
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
8/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
Share this article
Further Reading
How to Fight
Antisemitism
Meditations in an
Emergency
Changing the Climate
Written After a
Massacre in the Year
2018
Keep it current
Subscribe
!
—->
!
Subscribe to Jewish Currents and get four
print issues a year for 30
$
.
Subscribe Now!
Bari Weisss Unasked
Questions
’
Sign up for our very occasional mailing
list
(
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
)
9/10
12/8/2019
Facing Reality
ign Up!
S
By submitting this form you are consenting to receive marketing emails from
Jewish Currents POB 111 Accord NY 12404 US http jewishcurrents org You
can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the
SafeUnsubscribe link found at the bottom of every email
,
,
:
,
,
®
Jewish Currents
https://jewishcurrents.org/facing-reality/
Contact Us
,
,
,
,
://
.
.
.
Privacy Policy
10/10