Information about Michael Neumann

Michael Neumann (born 1946), son of the eminent political sociologist of Nazism, Franz Leopold Neumann, is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. ^[1] He is the author of What's Left? and The Rule of Law and has published papers on utilitarianism and rationality. ^[2]

Education and career

Neumann graduated summa cum laude with a B.A. in English and History from Columbia University in 1968, and in 1975 was awarded his Ph.D. in philosophy by the University of Toronto. ^[2] His current interests at Trent University include ethics, political philosophy, formal logic, philosophy of logic, and metaphysics. He has also published papers on utilitarianism and rationality.

Israel-Palestine conflict and anti-Semitism

Neumann has written on anti-Semitism and the Israel-Palestine conflict in several controversial opinion essays published by the CounterPunch website/newsletter. ^{[3] [4] [5]}

Neumann warns against the dangers of abusing the charge of antisemitism to deflect any criticism of Israel. Strategies that attempt to conflate a political and humanistic critique of Israel's policies towards the Palestinian people with the vice of antisemitic prejudice devalue a potent term that should be reserved for those who show real animosity against Jews, as a group and as individuals, wherever they live:-

Inflating the meaning of 'antisemitism' to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don't control the facts. In particular, no definition of 'antisemitism' is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans. ‘ ^[6]

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Neumann holds ^[4] that it is dangerous to label as anti-Semitic the conclusion that "Jews, generally, had some responsibility for war crimes and human rights violations." He writes:-

The best way to reserve anti-Semitism as a term of condemnation is to define it as hatred of Jews, not for what they do but for what they are. It is to hate them just because they belong to a certain ethnic group. Foxman is right to suggest that you can be an anti-Semite without expressing any racist sentiments: Many anti-Semites confine themselves to expounding false claims about Jewish control. But you can also, without harboring anti-Semitic hate, criticize Israel and even the Jewish community for its failures.'

In his essay 'What is antisemitism?' he argues that, given the earlier distinction he made, one should treat lightly accusations of antisemitism in the specific context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:-^[3]

'We should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues."

He then states that Israel's goal is the extinction of the Palestinian people, adding:-

'True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.'

Thus Neumann discounts Arab antisemitism as a significant issue in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict:

"Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee's last letter.'

He concludes:

'In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn't, but who cares?"

Neumann takes the position ^[5], not substantially different from that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, that support of Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is against US interests. He also considers it a primary cause of terror against the US:

'Just imagine if the US stopped backing Israel and gave even moderate support to the Palestinians. Suddenly Islam and America would be on the same side. The war on terror would become a cakewalk. The credibility of American democracy would skyrocket in the Middle East.'

And again:-

‘America does not at all want what Israel wants, and it never did. America never had the slightest desire to kill Palestinians, take their land and homes, drive them to despair. America tolerated these outrages as a mob boss might tolerated the sadistic, deviant sexual tastes of an underling. But, also like the mob boss, it did not share these tastes.’^[7]

Neumann favors an eventual one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, preceded for practical reasons by a two-state solution. ^[8]

Neumann's position has been attacked both by spokesmen for Jewish communities and by antisemites, from diametrically opposed positions.

Responding in part to some of these essays, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) wrote a letter of complaint to the president of Trent University. ^[9]

Equally, antisemites have also attacked Neumann's classical and nuanced stance precisely because of the distinction he has made between a political critique of Israel and hostility to Jews per se on racist grounds. According to this extremist view, there is no such distinction to be made:-

‘Neumann's approach is . . . a double-edged sword since it reinforces the notion that Israel/Zionism -- not Jews/Judaism -- is the source of the problems facing the Mid-East.’^[10]

Neumann is a contributor to Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's 2003 collection The Politics of Anti-Semitism. ^[11] ISBN 1-902593-77-4

Jewish Tribal Review controversy

Jewish Tribal Review (JTR) is a website which claims to "document Jewish and Zionist influence on popular culture, economics and politics." JTR became interested in Michael Neumann's writing, and in late 2002 started an email dialogue with him. JTR asked for Neumann's participation in their activities, but Neumann, who considers JTR anti-Semitic, ^[12] refused to participate, explaining his position as follows:-

"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it."^[13]

Subsequently JTR created a page publishing their alleged email exchange [1]without Neumann's permission ^[14]. This email got widespread attention in August 2003 when the National Post published one of Neumann's most passsionate passages about Jews and Israel. In particular, Neumann was quoted as writing:

"If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy [of helping the Palestinians] means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."^[13]

In the ensuing controversy, Neumann clarified exactly what he intended by this statement:-

'I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse.'^[15]

Nonetheless, the publication prompted complaints from the Canadian Jewish Congress. ^[16] In September, 2003, Neumann sent a letter of regret to the CJC. According to the Peterborough Examiner, ^[17] "Congress chairman Ed Morgan, who accepted the letter of regret from Neumann, told The Examiner he wants the letter to close the matter." On his Israel-Palestine page [2], Neumann includes a detailed "reply to the Canadian Jewish Congress concerning objections to material which appeared on the Jewish Tribal Review web site". [3].

Bibliography

• "What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche." 1988. Broadview Press. ISBN 0-921149-22-0
• "The Rule of Law: Politicizing Ethics." 2002. Ashgate Press. ISBN 0-7546-0525-6
• "The Case Against Israel." 2005. AK Press. ISBN 1-904859-46-1

External links

• Neumann's faculty webpage at Trent
• Neumann's Israel-Palestine webpage

References