In his latest work, “The Isolation of Israel,” as well as in his media interventions that followed the publication of his book, the French philosopher and writer Bernard-Henri Lévy objects to describing Israel as a “colonial reality,” as presented by the French orientalist and historian Maxime Rodinson in June 1967 in a text bearing that significant title, Without anyone objecting to the strange and misleading arguments that Levy mobilizes for this purpose.
With this introduction, the “Orian 21” website opened an article by the writer specializing in the Middle East, Alan Gresh, in which he discussed a book by the philosopher Levy in which he defends Israel, by referring to another book by the orientalist Rodinson.
Gresh begins to wonder: Is Levy’s latest work worth these few lines and the time wasted in reading it? Especially since his author has many unobjectionable interviews, which helps him in his routine defense of Israel, the war crimes it commits, and its “very moral” army.
He also expressed his regret for the isolation that Israel suffers from, before adding that this country enjoys strong support from the United States and most Western countries, and its conscience is not affected by the approximately 35,000 dead, most of whom were civilians killed in besieged Gaza.
Communist sentiments
The writer adds, “Therefore, we could have despised this booklet, which is a miserable collection of elements of the prevailing political and media discourse. However, this work deserves to stop at one point in it, which is that it brings to the surface a forgotten text by the orientalist Rodinson, whose title is: Is Israel a colonial reality?” ?
Levy quotes from the book as saying, “The formation of the State of Israel on Palestinian land is the culmination of a process that fits perfectly with the major European-American expansion movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, or control over other lands,” pointing out that the Zionists at that time were essentially communists.
But the author discusses this idea, showing that the Zionist leaders – according to Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell – were able to manipulate “old communist sentiments” to create highly militarized kibbutzim (agricultural colonies) with “one hand on the plow and the other on the sword,” and whose real goal was attachment to the Palestinian lands. As a step towards its occupation.
He pointed out that European supremacy implanted in the consciousness of people, even the most deprived among those who participated in the migration to Palestine, the idea that any region outside Europe is likely to be occupied by a European element, which means – according to Gresh – that it is a matter of finding an empty region, Not necessarily because of the real absence of the population, but because of a kind of cultural vacuum.
To oppose the colonial character of the Zionist project, Levy repeats many of the theses already responded to in Rodinson’s long text, without bothering to re-read it, even if only to challenge it.
The Old Testament is a title of kingship
Gresh pointed out that Levy argues that Jews have always existed “in the land that is known today as the State of Israel” for thousands of years, before and after the destruction of the “Temple” in 70 AD, but they did not form a nation.
In the same vein, Levy says, “The original Arabs were not a nation,” and they did not gain this status until the 1940s, that is, simultaneously with the Jews – as he claims – which made it possible to promote a hoax in which Levy places the aspirations of the Palestinians and the aspirations of these Jews in Palestine at face value. par.
Gresh: Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, had envisioned the settlement of Jews in Argentina or the Congo.
As for the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Palestine, Gresh mentions that Theodor Herzl (the founder of political Zionism) had envisioned the settlement of Jews in Argentina or the Congo, but Levy cites the Bible to justify his claim, so Gresh asks, with the exception of a few enlightened people: Who can consider the covenant Old title deed?
Invoking the historical rights of Jews in Palestine, Rodinson quips, “I will not insult my readers by thinking they have been fooled by this argument,” otherwise we would open the doors to the “historical” claims of Russia in Ukraine, Serbia in Kosovo, and even France in the French-speaking part of Belgium, demonstrating the absurdity of Claim based on myths developed by nationalist movements.
Levy then says, “There is one point on which everyone agrees, which is that colonialism is theft,” stressing that there is no theft or fraud in the issue of (Israel), because the lands obtained by the immigrants, as the original Jewish population obtained, were not taken away, but rather were purchased with some exceptions. , denying that the lands that make up Israel were seized by force or in defiance of the law.
Here again – as Gresh says – Levy did not read what Rodinson wrote in which he explained how in Africa, as in Tunisia, the acquisition of land by settlers was often carried out legally, explaining that 72% of the lands that became in the hands of Israeli Jews on the eve of the war 1967, it was Palestinian-owned before 1947.
An advanced center for colonial interests
Levy insists: “Whoever says colonialism says a colonial metropolis, and in this case Great Britain was opposed with all its might to the disintegration of its empire, so the birth of Israel came to represent a historical moment, not for a (new) empire, but rather for the moment of its dissolution, and Zionism (in reality) is not imperialism, but rather the moment of its dissolution. “Anti-imperialist.”
But this abbreviation, which will find its place in the Israeli sacred texts – according to Gresh – obscures the central role that London has played since 1922, as the British not only encouraged mass Jewish immigration, but also helped the Jewish community in Palestine to establish itself as a separate body, with its own political institutions and economic life. Britain soon armed the Jewish militias.
The writer points out that the United Kingdom did not do this out of its “love for the Jews,” as many of the defenders of the Zionist project, led by Lord Balfour, were anti-Semitic, but because London saw in these European settlers an “advanced center of civilization” and a point of support for defending its interests in the region. .
The writer concluded that he does not advise Levy to re-read “Thoughts” of Rodinson, whose dense text, despite its age, destroys what Levy believes, indicating that readers will find material for contemplation at a time when the colonial character of the Zionist project with all its horrors in Gaza appears.
