"Patronizing and even Orientalist"
Perceptive analyses of the chaos since October 7 are starting to emerge
Last week Robert Habeck, the Vice-Chancellor of Germany, diagnosed the state of Western discourse since Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack on Israel in a remarkable speech. Habeck said that public debate since the attack has been aufgeheizt and verworren (‘heated up’ and ‘muddled’). Certainly he is right about much that I have heard and seen, including from those of us who might think we have something useful to offer to the discussion.
Two weekends ago in a short column titled “Writing in chaos” I asked how long we would need to wait until we would encounter perceptive analyses of the first two weeks after October 7. Since then I have indeed begun to see expressions that seem to me to bring some light and reason to the situation.
One is an article by Simon Sebag Montefiore titled “The Decolonialization Narrative is Dangerous and False,” published by Atlantic October 27. Another is a 10-minute speech by Herr Habeck, posted to X by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz on November 2. An English translation and transcript of Habeck’s speech is accessible here.
Some readers will no doubt disagree with the article, the speech, and my comments about them here. At the time of writing, the Hamas terrorism of October 7 has become an incredibly divisive subject. I simply want to highlight what I find helpful in these expressions, and will limit myself to three brief points from each.
Wrestling “zombie history”
The main argument in Montefiore’s article, as the title indicates, is that the Western ideology of “decolonialization” is a woefully inadequate grid through which to understand and analyze what is going on in Israel and Gaza at this time. This ideology is dangerous because it is currently being used as a justification for killing civilians. And it actually rules out the negotiation of two states, which is what Montefiore and others consider the only solution for the present conflict.
The ideology of decolonialization, Montefiore insists, also fails to reflect the history of Israel authentically. The author of Jerusalem: The Biography gives most of the central part of his article to sketching out that history in a very illuminating way. Israeli Jews are being misrepresented as settlers and colonists, he argues — and thereby designated by some as “ripe for murder and mutilation.” One of many relevant facts here is the proportion of Israelis that are Mizrahi, in fact “people of the Middle East.”
Particularly well-worded in this piece is Montefiore’s tussle with the “zombie history” that presents terror sects such as Hamas as “sincere forces for good” and Western democracies as always bad actors. Ultimately, he asserts, “this zombie narrative is a moral and political cul-de-sac that leads to slaughter and stalemate.” Montefiore argues that that “our academies” are largely responsible for the spread of “this poisonous ideology,” and drops a fascinating quip for Western journalists who are afraid to challenge Hamas and its massacres. “Nothing is more patronizing and even Orientalist than the romanticization of Hamas’s butchers.”
I agree that it is patronizing, also condescending, to characterize Hamas in the terms of an ideology that is alien to Gaza and the region instead of describing Hamas in its own terms. But the sting in Montefiore’s use of the word Orientalist comes from Edward Said’s famous accusation that Western scholars in the past represented the Middle East in ways that Said claimed embodied a colonialist attitude. Montefiore’s analysis raises the question of a new attitude arising from the ideology of decolonialization and its representation of the world in its own Western terms and jargon.
Series of clear distinctions
The first thing that strikes the viewer/listener to Robert Habeck’s speech is the surprising sense of straightforward principle. “Israel’s security is essential for us as a country.” “Germany is compelled to help insure that this promise can be fulfilled.” “Tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance here. This is the core of our coexistence in the Federal Republic of Germany.” Wow. Maybe it’s the last eight years of life under Canada’s political leaders that makes this sound so fresh to me, almost shocking.
Also quite striking is Habeck’s warning against relativizing. Again, when have we last heard this kind of language? Habeck engages the slippery term contextualization and insists that “contextualization must not lead to relativization.” “What is needed now is clarity, not a blur,” he says. In particular, he addresses current attempts to trivialize the Holocaust as a “minor incident,” which he calls “a slap in the face of victims and survivors.” Made on behalf of Germany, the speech contains a humble acknowledgement of wrongdoing, even repentance, and a pledge to do right by Israel and Jewish people now and in the future.
Habeck then makes a series of clear distinctions to separate what is permitted and reasonable from what is prohibited and false. Anti-colonialism must not lead to antisemitism. The “both sides” argument is misleading: “Hamas is a murderous terrorist group fighting for the annihilation of the state of Israel and the death of all Jews,” Habeck specifies. Criticism of Israel and standing up for the rights of Palestinians is freely permitted in Germany, he says, “But calling for violence against Jews or celebrating violence against Jews is prohibited — and rightly so!” The present death and suffering of the people of Gaza is “terrible,” Habeck observes, but that does not legitimize systematic violence against Jews.
One thing I noticed in the article and the speech, as much as I find many of their points helpful, is that neither addresses Islam. As I wrote last week in “The Hamas Covenant,” Islam is absolutely foundational to the worldview, intentions, and actions of Hamas as Hamas itself explains them. The apparent reluctance in the excellent expressions described above to touch this essential component of the present situation in Israel and Gaza — as well as of public demonstrations across the West — is counterintuitive and seems to invite its own interrogation.