Against Exceptionalism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an astute, highly critical essay. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot. I think it will make a contribution to the debate about Israel, the Palestinians, an the discourses related to genocide, the Holocaust, and race. I think you could certainly expand it to discuss more about how the German government has approached the Palestine-Israel conflict, beyond discussion of intellectuals of the Frankfurt school , such as Slavoj Zizek. Also, why not engage with the arguments of Omer Bartov's Genocide, the Holocaust, and Israel-Palestine. He discusses how any historical debates have to be subject to context and comparability, something that challenges how some scholars believe that Israel's assault in Gaza can't be described as a genocide. You may also want to address his open letter in the New York Review of Books arguing against the misuse of the Holocaust.  

Author Response

Thank you for this review and your suggestions. I have incorporated Bartov's work in my revised piece, and also added some discussion of the German context (along with supporting references).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The only suggestion I have is to perhaps add a comment, perhaps even an extensive note, on the US vis-a-vis the compulsion of Manifest Destiny regarding its own indigenous native populations.

1. The issues of exceptionalism by way of comparison between the Zionist enterprise (highly critical negatively) and the Maafa (more positive assessment) is unique and valued.
2. This is most assuredly original as most are unfamiliar with the Maafa.
3. It opens the door to another dimension of discussion.
4. It is both well written and clear.
5. Conclusions are consistent if uncomfortable.
6. Authors answer the questions posed at the outset.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and your suggestion. I have incorporated some discussion of Manifest Destiny in my revised piece.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submission’s centre of gravity is represented by the last two sections (4 and especially 5), which represent the scholarly core of the article. Luckily, these last two sections are also by far the strongest parts of the submission. Sections 4 and 5 are knowledgeable, sophisticated, compelling, politically and ethically vibrant whilst at the same time scholarly in tone. I have no substantial objections or recommendations to make.

Unfortunately, the first three sections are much less convincing. I will therefore spend the bulk of the review discussing issues with these sections.

-        First of all, the article should make an effort to introduce concepts before assessing them. A couple of examples just to illustrate the point:

o   Line 4: ‘these rivaling paradigms’: which ones?

o   Line 35: explain why Wilderson’s reading of Fanon is narrow. You do so much later in the article. At the very least, state that the article will engage with Wilderson’s reading of Fanon and argue that it is narrow.

-        The Introduction is quite dense and unclear, which is a shame because, if I understood the argument correctly, it makes an interesting point: the essentialisation and ontologisation of the position of victims of antisemitism or antiblackness makes room for claims of exceptionalism (and I imagine provides political capital in the age of identity politics), but makes it impossible to develop multidirectional and non-invidious comparative approaches. This, in turn, inhibits the development of more progressive alliances between different victims groups built around their shared experience of having been placed in the ‘zone of nonbeing’. Is that the argument?

-        The entire section The Shoah and Israel is very problematic. It fundamentally shows limited knowledge of the topic but volunteers very strong opinions. The author makes no effort to provide any nuance to the categories of Zionist and Liberal. The discussion of the use of the Shoah is limited to the Habermas et al note, but the article does nothing to situate that note within its context – Germany. The author could at least engage with the ‘Catechism’ debate following Dirk Moses’ article in response to attacks on Zimmerer and Rothberg in Germany (https://geschichtedergegenwart.ch/the-german-catechism/). The point is that Germany presents specific peculiarities and blind spots. The author seems to conflate everything (Zionists, Liberals, Habermas, Western Powers) into one blob.

-        Following from the above point: the categories and tone of the earlier parts of the submission are not scholarly and cheapen the quality of the overall argument. The submission adopts a vernacular language that does not work at all for a peer-reviewed article submitted to an academic journal. Categories like ‘Zionists’, ‘liberals’ would require much more sophistication instead of being used as sweeping generalisations – often in disparaging terms. IOF is just unacceptable in a scholarly publication. Some examples:

o   Lines 49 and 51: is weaponised, is deployed: by whom? Avoid using the passive voice: it obfuscates.

o   Line 85: Zionists: define.

o   Line 95: new antisemitism: define (also, see lines 391-392)

o   Lines 85-98: I get the point, but there is extensive literature on all of this. The author must engage with it, otherwise this is an opinion piece in an already overcrowded field.

o   Line 103: ‘brutishly accusing without evidence or arguments’. Here, too, I see the point, but the author is writing in shorthand, signalling to an ideal reader who already knows and agrees with what is being argued. In thus doing, it runs the risk of ‘‘brutishly accusing without evidence’ the counterpart. Give examples and reference literature.

o   Line 105: ‘are frequently made’: by whom? Once again, avoid using the passive voice. Who cynically deploys baseless charges of antisemitism to distract the public from Israel’s crimes? The wording is loaded, and a reader deserves clarity on who the target is. It should not be left to the reader to figure out who the author refers to.

o   Lines 116, 119, 125, 131: what does 2023 refer to? Segal’s article, or the Habermas et al note, or a combination of both?

o   Lines 136-138: the definition of antisemitism deployed here is quite distinctive. Did the author come up with it? It is very narrow, being focused on ‘hatred’, ‘sadistic enjoyment of Jewish pain’ and ‘demonisation’ of Jews. Why not draw on the very extensive literature on antisemitism?

o   Line 169: ‘gatekeepers of Western modernity’: quite a jump here. Does this refer to Habermas etc? Are all gatekeepers of western modernity in line with the Habermas argument? Does Western modernity entail supporting Israel? Why?

o   Line 178: Israeli Offensive Forces: in a scholarly article, things should be called by their name. SO IDF instead of IOF.

o   Line 187: ‘revolting’. General point: I suggest using loaded adjectives very sparingly. Overuse cheapens the argument.

o   Lines 259-260: Western liberals. See Line 262: liberals of all shades. Be more specific.

o   Line 243: IOF: avoid.

o   Lines 262-269: so the author claims that ‘Liberals [..] still believe in a moderate Israel’ because ‘Zionists and liberals’ struggle to accept that Israeli leaders have never wanted to make peace with the Palestinians. This is an illustration of the overgeneralising use of the two categories in the article. Apart from Gideon Levy, how familiar is the author with the long history of debates on Israel, both in Israel and in the diaspora? Who does the author refer to when they use the term ‘Zionists’? Is it supporters of Netanyahu and this government?

o   Line 276: liberals can still feign ignorance: so liberals are also intellectually dishonest? How does the author know?

o   Lines 324-325: ‘Corporate media […] can only parrot Israel’s talking points’. All corporate media? Is Al Jazeera not corporate media? Is the media really simply parroting Israel’s talking points?

o   Lines: 326-327. ‘mainstream journalists betray their mission’ and ‘cowardly camp’. Examples? Names? What is the point of these sweeping allegations? Also, it would help if the author stated where they are based. Are their comments about the US media?

Other points:

-        Line 60: Zimmerer, not Zimmer. See also the bibliography.

-        Line 63: more expansive examples of substanceless universals: what does that mean?

-        Line 387: the Khalidi article was published in Journal of Palestinian Studies not in Institute for Palestinian Studies. It was published in 2014, not 2014-15.

-        Line 388: Western leaders are envious of [Israel’s] unrestrained exercise of sovereign power: evidence?

 

The combined effect of all the points listed above is to deliver a semi-fatal blow to the submission. The point is not about whether the reviewer agrees with the author or not. For the record, phrased more precisely many of the points made here can be valid. At the same time, how much of this is really needed in order to develop the argument put forward in sections 4 and 5?

My advice is to revise, shorten and rewrite everything up to line 402. This is for two main reasons: the first one is clarity. The article needs a much clearer introduction (and an abstract that makes sense before ones has read the article). The second reason is even more important: if there needs to be a discussion about the war in Gaza, it needs to be scholarly. Lines 209-220 are good and can serve as a model for the rest of the section. In other words: intellectual content presented in less charged tones and with fewer sweeping generalisations.
I find the real argument (sections 4 and 5) compelling and much clearer.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed review and line-by-line suggestions. I accept your criticism of the tone and the way in which the piece assumes prior knowledge or a shared horizon in some places. Accordingly, I have revised the piece significantly after reading it with some distance, through the lens you provide. I have reworked the first three sections to adopt a more scholarly tone, to clarify how I am using terms like Zionism, to shorten pieces of the argument that are not as directly relevant (condensing the extended gloss of Hartman's critique of empathy, to take one example), and to add multiple references both to back up my existing claims and to extend them. I have incorporated the Dirk Moses discussion you suggested (along with work by Omer Bartov) and reframed the discussion of Habermas et al. I have also rewritten the abstract to provide a clearer summary of the article's aims.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is significantly better than the first version! Not just the tone, but also the quality of the argument in the first part is scholarly throughout. I really enjoyed re-reading this and I hope the article finds its readers!