Civil Disobedience and Democracy (Haaretz – 1999)

I would like to respond to Naama Carmi’s review of the book ‘Civil Disobedience and Democracy,’ published by ‘Shalem,’ which appeared in the newspaper on March 24.

I had never heard of Naama Carmi, nor am I familiar with the ‘Shalem’ publishing house, but from reading the review one can once again see, for who knows how many times, the one-sidedness that characterizes a left-wing political position, which often hides behind an academic cloak. The author is presented as a doctoral student in political philosophy, and without shame or hesitation she exploits that title, or academic cloak, to preach (usually without argument) specific political positions. Interwoven throughout the review are political assertions, some of them slanderous and demagogic, which, because they belong to the ‘correct’ and ‘just’ side, of course require no substantiation.

Terminology such as ‘the self-righteousness of the settlers’ and ‘the legitimate uprising of the Palestinian people’ (including all the murders and terrorism) are presumably ‘objective determinations’ derived directly from Carmi’s ‘scientific’ research, or from that of her equally ‘objective’ comrades.

The book under review is presented in its entirety as a fig leaf for Elikim Haetzni’s single article on civil disobedience. On the face of it, this seems no small effort, and one that carries a heavy price. To cover their nakedness, supposedly, the editors of the book are willing to include articles by Shlomo Avineri and Haim Cohen, who, as is well known, do not belong to their political camp. Carmi does not mention at all that their articles appear in the book, even though she discusses Avineri’s remarks on the subject of civil disobedience.

Contrary to Carmi’s claim, Haetzni’s article is not at all confused, even if he does not trouble himself to use the inflated formulations that usually serve in this field of ‘research.’ I would recommend that she address his arguments substantively, and I assume that a political philosopher as self-assured as she is is well acquainted with the fallacy known as ‘ad hominem,’ although her review suggests that she has probably never heard of it in her life. In ‘ad populum,’ by contrast, she displays remarkable mastery.

Carmi cites Haim Gans’s book as an exemplary antithesis, which, according to her, explains systematically (there is one political camp that is always ‘systematic’ and ‘rational’) why the settlers’ refusal cannot be considered civil disobedience by any criterion. To my misfortune, I too have read Gans’s book, and I was not persuaded by his arguments at all. They generally beg the question, in the manner of ‘mobilized scholars’ like Gans, and presumably Carmi herself as well. Incidentally, to my surprise, he does not cite Haetzni.

From Carmi’s review one gets the impression that there is not a single bright spot in the entire book. It is one long fig leaf for the Right. It should be noted that ‘the Right,’ in the terminology of Carmi and her friends, is a group in which there are no intellectuals at all; naturally there is no rationality or rigor either, and what does exist is merely a collection of superstitions, political interests, and sheer malice. I cannot see how any creative and original statement could emerge from an academic world in which such intellectual rigidity prevails.

It is saddening and disappointing to see once again the monolithic character of the ‘elites’ (academic, media, and artistic), especially against the backdrop of the sense of ‘openness,’ ‘enlightenment,’ and ‘rigor’ that always accompanies this intellectual obtuseness. It is this ongoing terror, of which this review is a clear expression, that in fact compels the other camp (the ‘Shalem’ Institute and the like, which I suspect almost none of Haaretz’s readers has even heard of) sometimes to resort to techniques and arguments of which I myself am also critical.

Other institutes for political research, almost all of them populated by people of the Left, are of course not funded by any wealthy patron or interested party, like the wicked Ron Lauder. Parallel academic collections from the Left use no fig leaf at all, simply because they have no need of one. Although they are generally tainted by a political one-sidedness that makes the ‘Shalem’ Institute look positively splendid, and presents it as a symbol of rigor and neutrality, there is no sense of any need to examine alternative positions. All criticism is silenced immediately. This is a tried-and-true recipe that can lead, and indeed does lead, to the corruption and intellectual rigidity that now prevail in Israeli political research, as well as in the Israeli media.