The 30th anniversary of Orientalism has brought with it numerous publications aiming to weaken Edward Said's project. As I see it they seek to disqualify the writer rather than engage with his arguments, and do not contribute to scholarly debate about his work. I would like to bring forward a contemporary political debate to remind us that Orientalism's political arguments are still alive and kicking.
As a journalist in Israel, my home country, I frequently found Orientalism to be an effective tool for understanding Israeli discourse, knowledge-construction and the media's work. In a society which gathers around the army as its focal point and which sees Judaism as a national identity, the Jewish-military discourse emerges almost naturally.
Within this discourse, which becomes the society's common sense, certain (positive) behaviours are linked to the Jews, and certain (negative) behaviours are linked to the Arabs. Giving the media as an example, one needs to remember that within Israeli common sense, the themes of violence, aggressiveness, propaganda and incitement are Arab-oriented, while self-defence, response, restraint and morality are Jewish-Israeli-oriented, and rarely represent Arab behaviour or ways of thinking.
Following this, and in order to understand how a hegemonic Jewish discourse is being shaped in a country with 1.4 million Palestinian citizens (who can speak Hebrew and are educated in the state's schools and universities), it is indeed helpful to come back to Orientalism. According to Said:
"In discussions of the orient, the orient is all absent, whereas one feels the orientalist and what he says as presence ... We must not forget the orientalist's presence is enabled by the orient's effective absence".
The process of producing sociopolitical knowledge about Arabs in Israel could prove the validity of this notion, mostly due to the fact that within the Israeli spheres where this knowledge is being made, Arabs are not allowed.
Despite the fact that one-fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs, the establishment has always preferred to understand the region through Jewish-Zionists' eyes and to assume the task of representing the same Arabs.
The prime ministers' advisers for Arab affairs, emissaries dealing with Arab delegations, thinktanks seeking political solutions concerning the Palestinians, the media's Arab affairs correspondents and Israeli-Arabic radio, television and newspapers outlets have practically been controlled, run and presented by Jews from the state of Israel's very beginning.
Interestingly, due to the sensitivity (or even danger) of adding indigenous "Arab" knowledge and understanding to the Israeli-Jewish perception of "the Arabs", the Palestinian citizens of Israel emerged as being more suited to "non-Arab" positions. For example, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem Universities, there are no Palestinian citizens of Israel who are regular lecturers in the Middle East faculties, but, surprisingly, they can be found in the faculties of medicine, pharmacy, education, law, sociology and others. Taking high schools as another example for knowledge-construction, it is interesting to note that teachers of the Arabic language in Jewish-Israeli schools are rarely Arabs; an Arabic supervisor from Israel's ministry of education explained their absence by saying that Arabic is the least suitable subject to be taught by Arabs.
These examples show that knowledge about the other was constructed in Israel not only by ignoring it geographically or politically, but also personally. This assisted with the creation and preservation of a discourse which was and still is Jewish and Zionist-oriented, and that immunises Jewish society from being challenged by different or opposing ideas.
The discourse described here cannot explain all processes in Israeli society, but deals with "big practices" that are the general themes in Israeli society. Indeed, out of 160 participants in the 2007 Herzliya conference, addressing Israel's strategic challenges in the region, one could find two Palestinian citizens of Israel; in the department of Arabic at the Hebrew University there has been one permanent academic staff member who was an Arab during its 82 year history; and Israeli Channel 2 actually has one Arab correspondent in Gaza.
However, these exceptions prove the rule since this hybridity, of Palestinians who penetrate Jewish-controlled spheres, is essentially a western-Jewish notion that emerges from its own complexity, understanding and limits. At the end of the day, the minimal presence of the Arab-east in western-Jewish hegemonic discourse in Israel does not make it any less absent.
Since you’re here...
... we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many new organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.
The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.
We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
View all comments >
comments (28)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
YONATON
.
## certain (positive) behaviours are linked to the Jews, and certain (negative) behaviours are linked to the Arabs. ##
.
Thank you for this YONATON , this narrative is strictly followed here on CIF as well.
You take care.
B
Yes, I fully agree. Israel is a country that discriminates against Arabs. Recent video footage sowing human rights violations by Israeli settlers as they beat up an old Palestinian lady with baseball bats because they want her off her land are testimony to this. Ironic really when you consider the terrible persecution of Jews throughout history. I guess once the underdog gets the boot on the other foot it kicks.
Now, now Mr. Mendel. Read the Hamas Charter. Perhaps RogerInTheUSA might enlighten you. It absolves Israel of any wrongdoing. I believe the limited liability clause is somewhere towards the back ........
However unjust the situation that Mr. Mendel describes (and it is plenty), I don't think you need Edward Said to explain it. Majorities from time immemorial have discriminated against minorities, especially those with some recognizable ethnicity etc. The fact that some of the rhetoric used to deny rights to Israeli Arabs comports with Mr. Said's analysis does not make the case for Said's analytical brilliance. Very few people say "I discriminate because I simply feel like it; instead they find some frame of reference that is invariably demeaning and trumpet this justification as some universal anthropological/sociological truth. Don't tell me that Mr. Said now gets credit for discovering the phenomenon of prejudice.
I just don't follow this - is there any difference of substance between Western Imperialist representations of the East and those of any powerful imagination towards those whom they subjugate and oppress?
Mendel here says "within Israeli common sense, the themes of violence, aggressiveness, propaganda and incitement are Arab-oriented, while self-defence, response, restraint and morality are Jewish-Israeli-oriented, and rarely represent Arab behaviour or ways of thinking".
Well, of course ... Is this not obvoius and banal, and hardly the stuff of a brilliant theory? Or, is it Said's suggestion that other imperial or hegemonic powers explicitly DO/DID NOT set out to represent those whom they exploited and oppressed as benighted barbarians?
Said's thesis is quite simply unremarkable - why would an imperial power NOT reflect the very strength (military, economic, technological etc.) that enabled it to subjugate others in self-confident assertions of that very supposed "superiority", and hence inferiority (cultural, educational, evolutionary, racial) of those who have proved unable to resist?
"in order to understand how a hegemonic Jewish discourse is being shaped in a country with 1.4 million Palestinian citizens "
This sentence is incorrect.
For starters, this 1.4 million number includes about three hundred thousand East Jerusalem Arabs who are residents of Israel, but not citizens (they are eligible for Israeli citizenship but most refuse it).
Second, a large number of Arab citizens of Israel are Druze or Bedouin. These groups generally don't consider themselves "Palestinian" and they are quite distinct from Palestinians.
Arcane
Discrimination occurs in all countries. In the UK there is racism against Indian people, despite the fact that Indian people fought for the UK against facism. In Israel Arab states have been waging war on Jews for 60 years. If and when you remove this 'wild card' I will be prepared to accept that Israels treatment of Arabs is any worse than the treatment of minorities across the world
I may add to it, that in Russia Jews were not allowed into anything close to Middle Eastern politics, since they were considered sympathetic to Israel.
Arcane
"Yes, I fully agree. Israel is a country that discriminates against Arabs."
This article is not about discrimination, and I doubt it actually shows any discrimination.
properBostonian
"Don't tell me that Mr. Said now gets credit for discovering the phenomenon of prejudice."
Exactly, and thanks to bmurphy for making the same point.
My antipathy to Said (in Orientalism at least) has nothing to do with my views on the injustices of the ME one way or another, but to the fact that redescription of perfectly comprehensible (even if regrettable) historical situations in the Baroque language of "discourse" is unnecessary, pretentious and cumbersome.
I'll give it to Foucault, for example, that by arguing that disciplines such as psychiatry were historically relative things that tended to produce "knowledge" rather than discover it and were partly about the exercise of power, he was actually saying something quite startling to anyone who had adhered to the "history of science as advance of objective knowledge" line, previously common in medical history. But apply that to political ideologies that everyone knows are ideologies not science and the whole thing becomes banal. Yes, political ideologies involve power. Yes, they are ideological. Big big deal! What next, "Cameronite conservatism definitively exposed as ideology not science by Terry Eagleton!" "Russian views of Stalinist Past Not Objective Shock Horror!", "Sensation as Philosophers Reveal that Czech History Books have Pro-Czech Bias!"
"Pope is Catholic and Sinister Catholic Discourse Discourages Protestant Appointments in Vatican, Cultural Specialists Disclose"...
Give us a break. Theories of discourse, like many other concepts, have their place in hist., lit. and social science - and any place where they are creatively used to point something out that we did not know already. When used redundantly, they are a pain. It is almost comic. As my old professor of history of ideas used to quip, watching someone who insists on this terminology trying to make an obvious point is a bit like watching turtles mating.
One exception does not necessarily disprove a rule, but the late Suliman Bashear was a distinguished orientalist (in the pre-Said sense), a graduate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where he also later taught, and, I believe, an Arab Israeli.
sarko hi , your last comment was outstanding. Also I just noticed that my reply to your very sensible and perceptive criticism of what I was saying on the other thread was very patronizing ; I am quite shocked and sorry for being such a jerk , best zdenek.
Until sixty years ago there were large Jewish communities in all the Arab nations neighboring Israel. They had been in those areas since long before the advent of Islam. Iraq's Jewish community, for example, numbered about 150,000. Now fewer than 1000 remain. In 1948 most of the Jews in those communities were force to flee persecution at the hands of their Arab neighbors and their governments. Most lost everything. One might say that ever since then they have been "frozen out" of the "discourse" in the areas were they and their ancestors had lived for thousands of years.
I like hegemonic discourse with my muesli. It adds crunch.
The construct 'orientalism' is a contraction of oriental colonialism and though the Orient was intially the Middle East latterly it has been used for the Far East- WOG- wily oriental gentleman. Rather like the use of Orientalism the word Oriental has varied over time and even differs in nuance between USA & UK English.
Colonialism in action varied over time as policies for whatever reason varied. As Said wrote primarily about the effect of Israeli colonialism on the Palestinians rather than purposefully analytic historic accounts about Israeli policy. In fact it is primarily his take on the colonisation of Palestine by the Israelis.
Since his views or insights aren't Israeli friendly or indeed supportive of certain personalities in Palestinian Government circles it isn't surprising that his work is dispauraged.
Zdenko
Nevadi. No offence taken. I was just trying to stress that the historian can perhaps forgive a certain philosophical wackiness or obvious inconsistency if a theorist manages to do some useful historical thinking or research along his wacky way. Which isn't the case with Said.
And more's the pity. Said is overrated because of the political situation, the poetic pathos of his "analysis", but actually the very last thing that is needed in the ME or specifically Palestinian/Israeli situation is grand, ungrounded, accusatory theory about the relationship of the West to the Arab or Muslim world. It offers no exit, but merely the ventilation of complexes.
Yonatan's article is very precise and based on sharp observations.
This said, the Israelis' perception of Arabs, although filtered by the Jewish way of observing it, is much broader and more accurate than the Arabs' peception of Jews and Israel.
With exception of only a part of Israeli Arabs, the Arabs as a whole see Israel through the sights of the gun.
Yonatan, I guess that you probably wouldnt care to reply, but all the same I was wondering about your statement that within Israeli common sense, the themes of violence, aggressiveness, propaganda and incitement are Arab-oriented, while self-defence, response, restraint and morality are Jewish-Israeli-oriented, and rarely represent Arab behaviour or ways of thinking.
Do you believe that you have stated something profound? In most violent conflicts each side perceives their own actions as being just and the other sides actions as being unjust. If, instead, you had written:
Among the Palestinians common sense, the themes of violence, aggressiveness, propaganda and incitement are Israeli-oriented, while self-defence, response, restraint and morality are Palestinian-oriented, and rarely represent Jewish behaviour or ways of thinking.
…wouldnt it be equally true?
I wish the Guardian's new software didn't remove quotes and apostrophes from the postings.
I dissagree with Yonatan because Said's Orientalism is intellectually and culturally a disater. What it stands for ultimately is the following : First, political correctness : Said
holds that political criteria should be deployed to pre-empt or override scientific
reasoning based on evidence, in order to suppress truths that are inconvenient
to his agenda, and promulgate falsehoods congenial to it.
Second, tribalism: Said thinks that all opressed people do, or should, think alike. In particular, they do or ought to adopt some common "political" anti-western epistemic style or methodology, applicable to all fields of inquiry, held to be superior, both in generating more objective knowledge and in serving 'colonized' peoples interests.( we can see this in Yonatans own pronouncements here : while Israel is locked into a 'discourse' which prevents it from sayng anything true about Palestinians and Arabs in general , his own claims are capable of being true because he enjoys some previledged perspective ).
Third, self-defeating conservatism: Said's epistemology defeats its own aims in taking nonwestern values as an uncriticized given, even when these values underwrite
variety of oppression.
Fourth, cynicism: Said influenced work in social science rejects the quest for objectivity and truth as an impossibility, and regards the claim to pursue it is a mask for a power play that in practice serves the interests of "Western imperialism" at everyone else's expense.
Culture and Imperialism by Said is a much better work than Orientalism, probably because Said sticks to his specialist areas (comparative literature, critical theory) to show how Western imperialism was indeed a structured and complex cultural enterprise which was and is present in the imagination of Western artists.
The main issue with Orientalism is that which blights all deconstructive works - the insistence on endless displacement, relativism and contradiction undermines any claims to authority on the part of the author (!!!). In Said's particular case, it's a simple case of the pot calling the kettle black - in order to sustain his thesis that the orient is merely representational, an essentialist Western stereotype, he has to do exactly the same with the West, setting up a reductive stereotypical orientalising westerner. Thus we have "the Orient was Orientalized in all those ways considered commonplace by an average nineteenth-century European".
Said is calling what appears to be an essential part of human nature 'Orientalism' as he is taking one piece of an overall (historical) jigsaw ie the perception of the 'East' by Western 'colonialists'. However similar attitudes to the other have persisted throughout history.
The example of the 'Dhimmi' as applied by various Muslim 'empires is a case in point.
With regard to the specific example of Jewish attitudes to Arabs in Israel, Yonatan fails to apply any context. I am not for one moment suggesting that Israeli Arabs are a threat to the state but given the fact that Israel is in a de facto state of war with their brethren then clearly it is only natural that many Israeli Jews will uncomfortable with Israeli Arabs holding i certain (security related) roles. Stating an obvious example - most Palestinians with the exception of the Bedouin don't serve in the IDF -( Druse also serve).
One only has to look at every other state in the Middle East and they way that Jews are treated there to see that there is nothing exceptional about Israel and any attempt to explain what is happening in terms of a theory that had its hay day 30 years ago is not particularly instructive.
To EhadHaam and similar comments
First, thank you for your comments which all make a lot of sense.
Second, I guess I need to explain my point a bit, in order to be better understood. The relations between Israelis and Palestinians (in this case - both Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians living under the occupation) are indeed shaped of and are the result of a violent political conflict, of weak and strong relations, majority vs. minority (at least within Israel) and so and so.
However, what I tried to show is the total disappearance of the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are citizens, who speaks and read Hebrew, and who makes a fifth of the country's population, is indeed very weighty. This disappearance is profound, as I see it, since it exists in all spheres, military and civilian alike, in which knowledge about the Palestinians citizens of Israel, Palestinians as a whole and the Arab world is being produced. The fact that this disappearance exists also between the State's citizens, and also in the civilian-educational spheres (Arabic in intermediary school, for example) is connected to my humble opinion to Orientalism, even though it could not be explained with Orientalism alone.
Second point, which I could not elaborate on, due to the article's scope, is to do with the actual knowledge that is being produced. I would argue that the knowledge that was produced in those spheres (media, education, political establishment) supported, preserved and strengthen the 'knowledge' that was already known and that was needed for Israeli political aims. The fact that the Palestinians are 'aggressive' or 'violent' assisted with justifying violent Israeli acts. The political establishment, and this I believe corresponds well with Said, imagined the Palestinian people as its negative-picture, or – as everything which they are not. By this "Israel's enlightened occupation" could have been explained, the importance of imposing a military regime on this "kind" of people was stressed, and so. I believe Prof. Eyal Gil's analysis of the role of the "Arab village" in Israeli society strengthens the use made with this "knowledge" for political understandings and acts.
I will end with an updated contemporary example: Tomorrow at 6 in the morning a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel supposes to start. The Arabic term Tahdiya is being explained and analysed by experts, and they all conclude that this Arabic term means that the ceasefire will last till Hamas will be strong enough to hit again. "This is what the Arabs really mean by saying Tahdiya". This knowledge, I argue, which ignores deliberately the modern-political notion of Tahdiya (meaning practically – ceasefire) penetrated Israeli common sense and will serve Israeli establishment. It will give Israel very soon a justification, even a false one, for starting another circle of violence in the Gaza Strip, and would prevent it from reaching a real agreement with Hamas.
First, Yonatan, I applaud your responding to your critics – a noble act practiced by all too few of the Guardians columnist (Petra Marquards-Bigman does it too).
I have not read Edward Saids Orientalism; its on my list of books to read, but nowhere near the top. I fear that Western culture has taken such a beating from the Orient of late, that I thought Id take a hiatus from the subject before picking up another book on the subject. But seeing as your column (and posting) is not strictly about Orientalism, I believe that I can justifiably respond even without reading the book.
First, regarding your use of the term Israeli Palestinians. Though many Israeli Arabs feel an affinity with the Palestinians, it would be a stretch to claim that they all perceive themselves as Palestinians. Of course you, Yonatan, are free to define ‘Palestinians in whatever way serves your purpose, but one of the more common definitions refers to those people who are struggling to establish an Arab country in place of, or alongside, Israel.
Second, Yonatan, Jewish Israelis relationship with Arab Israelis is vastly different from their relationship with Palestinians.
Despite the claims of discrimination against Israeli Arabs (and certainly some of it is true), there are Israeli Arabs who are university professors and students, judges (one is a Supreme Court justice), members of Israels parliament (one is a government minister), police officers, industrialists, Israeli ambassadors and consuls, civil servants, and some even serve in the Israel army. In short, in many ways Israeli Arabs ARE integrated into Israeli society, though, admittedly, in many ways they are not.
Clearly, Israel has to do a lot more to improve equality. The situation is better than it was, and it is getting better (though I would like to see the improvements moving faster). But in this discussion, the elephant in the room is the Israel-Palestinian conflict – you cant ignore it. It fuels tensions between Israeli Arab and Jew and it hinders social integration. Under similar circumstances other countries have treated similar minorities dreadfully, and this has not happened in Israel. This does not justify a pat on the back for Israel, but it doesnt justify denigration either.
Arab Israelis have not lost their culture and they have certainly not lost their national identity. When there was a discussion in Israel recently about swapping Israeli land for Palestinian land (as part of a peace agreement), someone proposed swapping the Israeli Arab town of Umm El Fahm (and its surrounding villages) for the Jewish village of Gush Etzion (on the West Bank). The outcry from Umm El Fahm was deafening – residents there didnt want to live in a Palestinian state (even though it would not require them to move an inch). They wanted to continue to be part of Israel.
I wont go into the relationship between Jewish Israelis and the Palestinians, because this comment is getting way too long. Suffice it to say that I believe that the Palestinians could build a society just as successful as Israel if they ever wanted to. The problem is that they are investing too much of their energy in trying to destroy Israel, rather than in trying to build Palestine (alongside Israel). This is particularly true in Gaza.
And, having mentioned Gaza, Id really like to discuss your statement that It will give Israel very soon a justification, even a false one, for starting another circle of violence in the Gaza Strip, and would prevent it from reaching a real agreement with Hamas., but at this point I dont think I have many readers left. But just in case youre still with me, Yonatan, let me say that you really need to break free from even a false one, if you want to be taken seriously.
Yonatan, though I really can't afford it right now, I just spent the last hour reading and pondering your stuff from your LRB Diary writings, of which your piece here is just a meager summary. You're doing your Ph.D., and I have no doubt about your talents and your very bright prospects for a career as an intellectual who believes he is speaking "truth to power".
But the truth is (in my admittedly not so humble opinion) that outside of an aesthetically appealing intellectual bubble, your ideas ignore some very basic facts and some very solid building blocks of any society, not just Israeli society. Let's look, e.g. at your statement here:
Well, for one, a "Jewish and Zionist-oriented" discourse is part and parcel of a Jewish state, much as a French/German/British/American-oriented discourse has arguably a valid place and function in France/etc. You may dislike the idea of a national/ethnic identity and the discourse that goes with it, but it's plainly a quite popular thing, and many people regard it as a very important part that defines who they are.
And then I wonder on what basis you set up a dichotomy between the "Arab east" and the "Jewish west"? I live just on the border to Jaffa – do you think I can tell if the cars passing by with blaring loudspeakers are driven by Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Jewish youngsters? They like the same kind of music, it seems to me, and I can tell you, it's definitely not "western (I can tell you that with authority, because I grew up and lived for most part of my life in the real west: Europe (Germany) and the US) And when have you last time been to an average Israeli-Jewish wedding? Nothing "western" about it, I can assure you, I just was last week, the next one is looming tomorrow.
Secondly, as an Israeli, you will be well aware that all you have to do to be challenged "by different or opposing ideas" is to subscribe to Haaretz, study at Tel Aviv university, or join/support any of the innumerable groups that protest any of the innumerable problems we are grappling with. And how, e.g., would you explain the heated debate about the "Future Vision" documents? Nothing "frozen" about that...
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, when you want to analyze the Israeli-Jewish "discourse", I would think that you have to take into account the fact that Israel is still a relatively young state that, from day one of its existence, has been challenged and had to fight: as you well know, since you studied history, in the 1948 war, one percent of Israel's Jewish population lost their lives, and before the 1967 war, public parks were consecrated as cemeteries, because tens of thousands of casualties were expected. Israel's history quite simply means something different for Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, and it will take a very long time to find ways to deal with these very antagonistic perceptions; but there are attempts, and if anything is surprising, it is that, as a recent poll shows, 10 percent of Israeli Arabs would define themselves first and foremost as Israelis, and only then as Muslims/Palestinians or whatever.
And, BTW, how open is the Israeli-Arab discourse to the Israeli-Jewish one?
You ignore all this very real context in your Diary pieces, which, far from speaking truth to power, conform in each and every aspect to the rules of the game you have to play when you want to be accepted as an intellectual who wants to be praised by his fellow intellectuals as somebody who is speaking truth to power. And I would submit that in the process, you are practicing "Orientalism", because as far as you are concerned, there is plainly nothing those "Orientals" surrounding Israel can do that would explain why the Israeli-Jewish "discourse" refers to them as "terrorists" or "extremists" or dangerous demagogues whose threats to give the Israeli "cancer" some "radiation therapy" should perhaps be taken very seriously. And if there is any such thing as Orientalism at its best, you sure practice it when you claim that a thoroughly discredited theory like Orientalism is "an effective tool for understanding Israeli discourse, knowledge-construction and the media's work", while you completely dismiss the possibility that this discourse simply reflects some very real factors in the very real world.
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment