Pluto Press has been attacked by a pro-Israel lobby group, Stand With Us (SWU), which has described it as publishing ‘anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda’. In particular, SWU has targeted a new book by Bard College professor Joel Kovel, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, which it claims is ‘a polemic against Israel’ and ‘laced with contempt for Judaism’.
Pluto Press is distributed in the US by the University of Michigan Press (UMP), and SWU has claimed that Kovel’s book, and much of Pluto’s list, is of no scholarly merit and therefore unsuitable for distribution by an academic press. SWU and numerous supporters have been pressurising the university to cease its relationship with Pluto, and for a brief period UMP suspended distribution of Overcoming Zionism. UMP is currently re-examining its relationship with Pluto in the wake of SWU’s attack.
I have been getting through a mountain of book's including the Diane Raby book 'Democracy and Revolution', Joel's other recent book 'Overcoming Zionism' (subject to banning moves by those who dislike criticism of Zionism!), novels have included 'Kafka on the beach' from Murakami (which I have yet to finish but is very good, sublime and nasty horror by turns) and I have also started 'The Master_and_Margarita' which is really good fun so far, Mikhail Bulgakov was the only author to have written to Stalin to complain about censorship and been given an apology by phone and a job offer rather than the normal ice pick treatment, bullet to the brain or holiday down a salt mine!
A mountain of books is possible on an avalance of train journeys...and I pretty religiously watch no TV other than a bit ch4 simpsons, the odd News Night and DW when it is on screen...so more time for film, books, blogs, criticising Joshka Fischer, etc.
The strain of lets not think about ideas what the public needs is personalities line of 'green politics' continues to cause me dismay, come on people the planet is in crisis, we do need to be thinking a bit more deeply about strategy/change/tactics for survival. It isn't all about looking good in Permaculture weekly
Political parties do seem to involve a bit of strife, at least I am not in RESPECT it sounds like 100% stress at present, I get the impression that he has divided into two with a Renewal RESPECT here and an SWP RESPECT here.
Oh that's too much wittering...will post on 'Cool it' the Lomborg book on climate change, which is important to look at, another day.
here is more about Overcoming Zionism from Dave Castle at Pluto, yes Joel is my friend and so is Dave but read and think about this!:
Radical scholarship
Pluto vehemently refutes the accusations made by Stand With Us. Pluto publishes from within many traditions of radical scholarship – Marxist, anarchist, feminist, green, and others – which, while often marginalised within the academy, represent vital, critical strands of academic debate. Although their loss might satisfy some on the political right, it would certainly narrow the terms of academic discourse, and weaken intellectual endeavour as a whole. Many prestigious scholars have published with Pluto; Joel Kovel himself is a widely respected radical thinker, author of a classic text of eco-Marxism, The Enemy of Nature, and editor-in-chief of the eminent journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism.
Overcoming Zionism itself is certainly partisan in the sense that it argues that the present Zionist Israeli state is illegitimate and should be replaced by a new, secular democratic state for both Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Kovel argues his case through a well-documented critique of the history of Zionism and the modern Israeli state.
Of course, many will disagree with Kovel’s argument. The question is, is it unscholarly? Kovel argues forcefully for a particular point, and takes a stance in a political conflict – should this be out of bounds for academic writing? The fact is that many academic texts argue unreservedly for certain principles – the benefits of the free market (in economics), or for flexible working practices (in management) or for international law based on principles of human rights (in law). But within today’s political climate, these principles are so widely accepted as to be uncontentious. Kovel’s sin is to argue for something that is not only unpopular, but regarded by many as beyond acceptable discourse.
Pro-Israel lobby
The reason that Kovel’s argument is so controversial is not for any scholarly reason – the reason is purely political. The pro-Israel lobby is an extremely powerful force in US politics – highly organised, very well funded, with influence in the heart of government – and through persuasion, chastisement and not a little bullying, the lobby has managed to establish in many people’s minds that criticism of Israel and Zionism is no less than anti-semitism. That is to say that criticism of the actions of a state and a political ideology is equivalent to an attack and denigration of a whole people.
It is a dangerous line of argument, because if extended to any state and people it would mean that criticism of any state other than one’s own should be considered a racist attack. Indeed, in the case of Israel, being Jewish does not seem to give you any more right to be critical of the state that claims to be your homeland, as Kovel himself has found out.
The controversy surrounding Overcoming Zionism is only one example of what happens when an academic crosses the line of acceptable discourse set by the Israeli lobby. Campus Watch, another lobby organisation, is in the business of identifying scholars who are critical of Israel and attempting to discredit them. It is widely accepted that Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, lost his permanent position at De Paul University as a result of pressure from the lobby. There is currently a similar dispute over tenure for Nadia Abu El-Haj, an anthropologist at Barnard College, Columbia University, who has written a book about how archaeology is deployed to support political ends – specifically, to demonstrate the veracity of Israel’s supposed origins in a biblical past, a claim at the heart of Zionism.
Open discussion
Israel is at the heart of today’s conflicts in the Middle East. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians enrages fellow Muslims across the world, and incites animosity towards both Israel and its main sponsor, the US. If it is not possible to discuss Israel freely within the US, how can the US come to develop a considered and just policy in the Middle East?
In the face of the controversy surrounding Overcoming Zionism, a group of scholars, campaigners and lawyers have established the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, which aims to defend the principle of free speech on debate over Israel. The committee asks for your support - you can find them at www.codz.org
Finally, for all that is currently being said about the book, both in favour and against, it is clear that few people engaging in this debate have actually read it. I would encourage you to do so, and make up your own mind on what constitutes racism, propaganda and reasoned critique.
David Castle is a commissioning editor with Pluto Press
Footnote
Update (24 October 2007): The University of Michigan Press announced that it would continue its distribution contract with Pluto Press.
A statement said the board unanimously agreed to maintain its contract under existing terms.
5 comments:
Joel Kovel is advocating for the destruction of Israel, putting millions of Israeli citizens at risk. How can you defend that?
The Green Party supports a two state solution, I personally think although it is a long way off peace and security for all will come from a one state solution...other than holocaust denial/advocacy of abuse/racism/homophobia etc I am against banning books and shocked that people want to silence Joel.
You are for banning books on holocaust denial, advocacy of abuse, racism and homophobia? Is that a slip of the keyboard or are you really as much of a stasiesque ultra-PC fanatic as you sometimes/often come across?
I don't see any reason to ban holocaust denial books, even though I don't subscribe to the views they contain. As soon as the state starts deciding what is freedom of speech it's a slippery slope.
I once got into a furious row with an 'angry lesbian' when I suggested that in the 60s and 70s paedo-advocacy was situated at the heart of gay liberation. Even when I provided examples where this seemed to be the case she just foamed at the mouth some more and mumbled something about 'helping gay children'. Say I published a book documenting this stuff, would I be subject to a banning under the Derek Wall Stasi State for promoting homophobia? Imprisonment? Re-programming?
I almost want to ban paedo-rights abuse advocacy material but even here I think it's better that their stuff is out in the open not packaged into brightly illustrated children's books about gay penguins and quietly slipped into schools. Like holocaust denial, shouldn't 'bad' stuff be countered by rebuttal and outcry not nazi-style bannings?
If a gay rights campaigner suggested the age of consent should be abolished - as many do - and published this in a book, should that be banned as 'advocacy of abuse'? I have a nasty suspician that it would be all okay in PC stasiland.
I have no problem with gay people and don't suggest any more than a small minority sympathise with paedophiles. I work with gays. I wouldn't turn one down for a job if they were qualified. I like John Waters films. Still, if I penned a passage that made it seem as if the actual act of bum banditry gave me the EBGBs should that be banned? Should schoolkids be banged up for calling their mates uphill gardeners? Perhaps banned from school or sent for groom... sorry... re-education by a state-funded gay awareness councillor?
Should religious texts criticizing homosexuality be banned? Obviously, you're not going ban any Islamic texts about slaughtering gays as that's the only allowable religion under the Derek Wall/Respect/Wacky-commie State, but milder Christian or ones Jewish say? Do they need a ban? Perhaps some fundamentalist-style book burnings is in order?
I hope the Green Left constitution causes a Respect-like split in the Greens as the planet really needs a proper environmental party that real world people want to vote for.
you are a sad homophobe....perhaps you need to get out more
Thank you for not banning my comment.
Yes, I'm a 'homophobe' and I don't care what labels a bunch of sourfaced PC-fanatics want to slur me with anymore. I find it hilarious that many gays are now appalled that kids have co-opted the word 'gay' to mean 'naff' or 'rubbish' and now sound exactly like the old duffers who used to moan that a word for bright and happy had been pinched from them.
I don't think gays should face discrimination and support gay marriage but I'm massively against the forced, increasingly state-funded promotion of homosexuality to minors. It smacks of grooming. So put me in the gulag.
Ironically, while I support the right of gays to publish whatever they like (but not with tax payer's money) the reverse isn't true in your stasiland?
As an anti-free speech marxist why are you even bothered that a group is trying to ban an anti-Zionist book. You clearly agree with banning any view you happen to find unpalatable so what's your beef?
I take it from your response that you would indeed ban a whole host of speech if your Khmer Vert ever managed to seize power and create the usual totalitarian marxist hell?
Post a Comment