Žižek Black Hole of Truth: Antisemitism and the Limits of Marxist Analysis

Unraveling the Gaps in Žižek’s Critique of Global Conflict and the Overlooked Reality of Antisemitism.

This article is my response to

Slavoj Žižek

's post titled “Against the game of Total war” which can be found here.

I want to make it clear from the outset that I have no intention of plagiarizing Žižek's words. My approach has been to carefully dissect and analyze the passages of his text one by one, and as a result, I have included these passages as quotes in my article. These are his words, his intellectual property, and I do not seek to gain any financial benefit from my article.

I understand that dissecting Žižek's essay in this manner might seem unconventional, but I felt it was the most effective way to make my point. I acknowledge that this approach may not do full justice to his article and certainly not to his entire body of work, and I welcome any critique on that front - and on all fronts.

Additionally, I want to clarify that I do not inherently endorse Bezalel Smotrich, and when I refer to Iran, I am specifically addressing the regime of the Ayatollahs, not the Iranian people.

Let’s start!

The fluidity of moral standards

On August 5 2024, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said: “It is impossible in today’s global reality to wage war – no one in the world would let us starve and thirst two million citizens, even though it may be just and moral until they return our hostages.” He added that if Israel controlled aid distribution instead of Hamas, the war would have ended by now and the hostages would have returned. It is easy to discern the roots of Smotrich’s reasoning: he longs for the good old times when it was normal to starve the population of a country we are at war with (in WWII Germany did this to the UK and the UK to Germany)… By saying this, Smotrich inadvertently produced the best argument for globalization: it is because we dwell in “today’s global reality” that such good old brutalities are impossible – even the US, which provided Israel with bombs to destroy Gaza, was simultaneously parachuting food parcels into the besieged city.

I don't agree that Smotrich's statement inadvertently produced the best argument for globalization. Assuming Smotrich's good faith and capacity for rational thought (though I acknowledge that some may find this a stretch), his remarks might actually touch upon a deeper issue I would label “the fluidity of moral standards”.

Throughout history, moral standards have been established, debated, and continually re-examined, reflecting the core of human introspection - a core value in Judaism, I might add. Globalization, the rise of social media, and of course, propagandist efforts, have intensified these debates, perhaps making them more democratic and accessible to everyone, but also more susceptible to manipulation, ideology, and demagogy. Despite these changes, the underlying question remains: How do we define and apply moral standards, especially in times of conflict?

Perhaps the more profound issue behind Smotrich’s statement is the nature of these moral standards, which today seem more categorical and absolute - more evangelical than Kantian, perhaps. In this climate of absolute morality, there's often little room to accommodate reality or to acknowledge the complexities and challenges Israel faces in trying to uphold its values under extremely trying circumstances, to say the least.

The irony is that this absolute moral scrutiny is often unevenly applied, especially within the oppressor/oppressed framework that dominates much of the discourse. While Israel is held to rigid moral expectations, the same level of scrutiny is not always directed at those who act aggressively, further complicating the moral landscape.

One could argue that the issue isn't about globalization per se, but rather how globalization impacts the fluidity of moral standards. In fact, it might be the reverse -globalization influences how these standards are set, perceived and applied. And this might not be the only instance where things are not as straightforward as they seem.

Regarding Smotrich's statement about controlling the distribution of aid, one could argue that if aid were to bypass entities like Hamas and its supportive organizations, and instead be channeled directly through neutral or internationally supervised mechanisms, it could not only alleviate immediate humanitarian crises but also reduce the leverage of groups that exploit control over such resources for power. This approach might weaken these groups' hold on the local population, thereby diminishing their influence and potentially contributing to the release of hostages and - to end this in a positive way - to a more stable and peaceful resolution of the conflict.

A more ambiguous approach?

Smotrich’s statement perfectly fits what is going on now in Israel. 50 or so people die daily in Gaza, and the West Bank terror against Palestinians goes on unimpeded – but this is now reported as bottom-of-the-page small news since it is part of a new normality. Human rights group B’Tselem rendered public reliable testimonies about how “violence, extreme hunger, humiliation and other abuse of Palestinian prisoners has been normalised across Israel’s jail system”, but even such a clear case of “institutionalised abuse” is either ignored or mocked by Israeli stand-up comedians… These days (early August 2024) the focus is on the tension between Israel and Iran: will the eventual Iran’s revenge for the killing of Ismail Haniyeh trigger a large-scale war in the Middle East? So forget the Israeli terror – the US immediately confirmed that they will unconditionally defend Israel in the case of an Iranian attack.

Frankly, who wrote this - Slavoj Žižek or a hermit intern? Certainly not someone engaged with the globalized world. The claim that news reports are buried at the bottom of the page is untenable. News outlets and social media are overflowing with these reports. Not a single incident goes unreported, let alone completely distorted. Reports of abuse are taken very seriously by most Israelis and their judiciary system - which, by the way, is not based on the Hamas Charter (or is there a new version?). That’s why these reports - if correct - have consequences.

You speak of “institutionalized abuse.” I’m surprised you didn’t use “systemic” - it would have fitted your narrative more neatly. But you throw in a bit of nuance, which is almost humorous. I understand that, given how horrific the situation is, one might turn to humor as an escape. That should also address the humorous part.

Of course, the attention is now on Iran - for most rational thinkers, it has always been. This isn’t a sudden act or an attempt at camouflage; this is where the attention should be! Of course, the USA confirmed its support of Israel in case of an attack - the rhetoric until now wasn’t that clear at all. It had to be done, or would you suggest a more ambiguous approach would be more moral and nuanced? How in the world can you write something like that - it’s appalling.

Bending Einstein’s theory of relativity

Rarely mentioned is the fact that the winner of the 2024 Iranian presidential election is Masoud Pezeshkian, a very moderate figure who promised the end of Iran’s combative stance and the integration of Iran into international community. A sad conclusion imposes itself: what if this was the true reason Israel killed Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran? What if Israel’s true goal was to prevent at any price the normalization of Iran? Israel obviously succeeded, also with regard to Hamas: now that Hamas elected Yahya Sinwar as its new leader, Israel refers to this (expected) choice as the ultimate proof that Hamas is a terrorist organization with which no negotiation or peace are possible.

I’m not sure how to adjust Einstein’s theory of relativity to make Masoud Pezeshkian a “moderate” - perhaps in another parallel universe, or maybe within a singularity in your philosophy? Am I the only one who has discovered this singularity yet? My theory is that you don’t want the light of truth to escape - let’s call it the “Žižek Black Hole of Truth.”

Israel’s decision to shift focus onto Iran was both spectacular and necessary - or how I see it: desperate. This isn’t a case of camouflage; it’s a call to overcome globalized gravitational blindness. Hamas is merely the executor, not the mastermind. By directing attention to Iran, Israel is responding to the real source of the threat.

Now, not only is Israel criticized for its actions against Hamas, but also for allegedly orchestrating a coup against Haniyeh and, even more absurdly, for potentially being held responsible for a global conflict. As for Yahya Sinwar, the conclusion is evident - there is no peace possible with him at the helm. In this case, there’s no relativity to be found - just cold, hard reality.

A clear recipe

In today’s messy times, one should prefer hypocrisy to brutal reality, plus one should prefer the moderate center to the radical Right: yes, this center swims in hypocrisy, but this very hypocrisy leaves the space open for criticism (attacking those in power for not living up to their proclaimed principles); yes, the new populist Right is a symptom of the failures of the moderate center (it is the hypocrisy of the liberal center which enabled the growth of new Rightist populism), but the direct reign of Rightist populism nonetheless remains the threat of an unimaginable catastrophe. In the late 1930s, Communists and Marxists were tirelessly repeating that Fascism was an organic outgrowth of liberal capitalism (Adorno’s insight – and the essential motif in the Frankfurt School’s dialectical assessment of fascism – is that fascist movements are not exceptional to liberal democracy but rather are internal and structural signs of its failure), but this didn’t prevent the radical Left to join liberals and even conservatives like Churchill in a battle against fascism. This lesson holds today more than ever. It is easy to claim, from a comfortable “radical” Leftist position, that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are ultimately the same, instruments of the financial elites; however, who will win the 2024 US elections is a matter of life and death for millions of blacks and women. Just one – in no way minor – case: if Trump wins, poor black women will be the main victims of the further limitation of abortion rights, etc.

It took me a while to fully grasp this passage. Initially, I was struck by the sudden shift in focus, but as I delved deeper into the content, I began to see the strategic reasoning underlying Žižek’s words. He’s not just presenting his version of facts; he’s outlining a strategic approach to navigating complex political realities. Anecdotally and on a more practical level, it feels like more than just strategy - it’s almost a clear recipe for his disciples and followers on how to approach these issues. Even as he acknowledges the hypocrisy in his reasoning, he justifies it as a necessary compromise - balancing short-term pragmatism with long-term ideological goals. I won’t even venture into the rabbit hole of Marxism and Communism, and how these ideologies have failed in almost every conceivable way.

What stands out to me is how Žižek, while starting on the moral high ground, reveals a pragmatic, almost utilitarian side. He makes assumptions, labels certain groups, and is confident in these labels, even when they lead to actions that are hypocritical. This is accompanied by a touch of drama, likely intended to stir emotions and underscore the gravity of the situation - essentially propaganda with a strong call to action. It’s marketing at its best!

In recognizing this, I see Žižek as a human being, complete with flaws and complexities. I can respect his pragmatism (though not his ideas), but I’m left wondering: why doesn’t he extend the same understanding to Israel? Why is there a different standard when it comes to their strategic decisions for survival? Žižek seems willing to justify the hypocrisy of the liberal center as a necessary evil to prevent the rise of what he sees as a greater threat - right-wing populism. Yet, when it comes to Israel, he appears to apply a much stricter, less forgiving lens, as if their strategic decisions are less justified or morally acceptable.

This inconsistency raises a troubling question for me: is there an unconscious bias at play here? Could Žižek’s criticism of Israel be influenced by a deeper, perhaps unacknowledged, prejudice? Or is it possible that this is something more deliberate and insidious, where Israel is held to a different standard not because of the specific context of their actions, but because of a broader narrative that unfairly singles them out? If Žižek can justify hypocrisy and strategic compromise for others, why is Israel not afforded the same consideration in the complex geopolitical environment it navigates? This discrepancy is hard to overlook and deserves careful reflection.

Scapegoating

The same holds for the latest terrifying sign of the moral decay in the public space of the UK: the large anti-immigrant protests in the UK that exploded in late July of 2024, after the murderous assault and stabbing of dozens of young children attending a dance class in Southport. With regard to these protests, their moment of truth occurred in Belfast where Unionists were joined by some nationalist Catholics, and this unity was celebrated by racist protesters: “Finally we are united against the real enemy.” We know this logic from the old anti-Semitic Fascism: instead of our inner antagonisms, we should all (workers and capitalists) unite against the Jews, our real enemy.

I understand and agree with Žižek’s underlying point that societies misdirect internal conflicts by uniting against a scapegoat, which is a troubling strategy. This kind of rhetoric can indeed lead to the “moral decay” he warns about (or, as I would put it, impacts the “fluidity of moral standards”), as it oversimplifies complex societal issues and fosters division and hatred.

However, I find the literal comparison to anti-Semitic fascism somewhat jarring. While it’s historically accurate to say that fascists used Jews as a scapegoat to unify disparate groups, invoking this specific example so directly feels too blunt. Given the weight of that history, there’s a risk that such a comparison, if not handled with sensitivity, could come across as offensive or overly reductive. I believe the point could have been made just as effectively, and perhaps more thoughtfully, by framing the argument in a way that acknowledges the sensitivity of the historical context while still conveying the dangers of scapegoating in today’s world.

Additionally, it’s interesting to note that Žižek chose to focus on racists as his example. In today’s complex social landscape, there are other groups - such as segments of the LGBTQ community who have shown solidarity with Hamas ideology or its perceived struggle - that could also serve as examples of unlikely alliances based on perceived common enemies. By not addressing these more contemporary and nuanced alliances, Žižek might be missing an opportunity to engage with the broader spectrum of globalized political dynamics.

This selective focus raises uncomfortable questions about the narrative being constructed. It’s hard not to feel that the choice of example might be deliberate and potentially reflects an anti-Israeli bias. If so, this not only skews the argument but also risks contributing to a one-sided view that overlooks the complexities of today’s socio-political environment.

In any case the framing is odd, and I cannot help but wonder - though I hope I am wrong - whether Žižek’s positions are constrained by a recurring struggle between Marxist/Communist ideals and the specter of fascism, where the anti-Israel bias is just another strategy to achieve his ideals.

Let’s pray!

Enough was being said and written about these protests by the Left: the power elites who condemn their brutal obscenity are de facto complicit in their rise. Elon Musk, the owner of X, posted to the platform on August 4 2024 that “civil war is inevitable” in response to a post blaming the violent demonstrations on the effects of “mass migration and open borders.” It was easy for the anti-racist reaction to his message to point out that Musk himself is part of the problem here: his decision to open X to hate speech contributed seriously to the atmosphere that created the terrain for the racist protests. Owen Jones was thus right: the elites which are now disgusted at the riots solicited them, laying the ground for them, by way of blaming the crisis on immigrants, not themselves. The unpleasant fact is that, if immigrants were to be thrown out of Western Europe, the economies of Germany, Italy, UK… would stop to a halt: Western Europe needs new workers, and even if local inhabitants are unemployed they are not ready to take certain jobs (manual labor, personal care…). With their economic and military politics, our elites directly caused immigration – suffice it to mention the key role of the US attack on Iraq, the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya and the mess in Syria. What goes on now in Gaza and the West Bank is just the tip of the iceberg which comprises more than a century of the Western violence in Arab countries.

Ok, ok – I guess that was the missing piece to Žižek’s puzzle, the one we see in every debate. Let’s shuffle all the blame onto the colonial West – repent and shut up! But where do I buy my absolution certificate? Or can I redeem myself by reciting a few - or even a thousand - “mea culpas”? I suppose that’s not enough! It’s never enough. I’m expected to buy into the narrative as it’s presented, without any room for nuance. Honestly, I’m tired of this, so let’s just pray!

Dear Marx and Engels
I accept the grand conspiracy of the elites! 
I refute the legitimate fears of my fellow citizens and disregard the importance of societal cohesion! 
I acknowledge that automation, artificial intelligence, and other modern factors should be completely ignored when discussing economic change! 
And, of course, I apologize to all minorities for the actions of my forefathers, especially to all Arabs.
And why not adding a little bit of Sascha Baron Cohen… Throw the Jew down the well!
Amen!

I'm not sure Marx and Engels would appreciate this - though I believe they had a sense of humor. I'll leave the research and conclusions to the interested reader.

Hallelujah

However, while all this is true, it is not the whole truth – two things should be added, at least. Protests have an authentic core, ordinary people do suffer, they are just misdirected against a wrong target. Plus Islam also harbors fundamentalists whose stance is incompatible with the Western liberal way of life (why leave the use of this term to the Right?), so the misdirection is in some sense well grounded – why would otherwise so many African and Middle Eastern countries complain that the West is destroying their way of life, imposing on them liberal individualist values?

Hallelujah! The nuance in this passage is truly impressive - a rare depth of understanding? It makes me wonder, though: in a region where democracy is an exception rather than the rule, isn’t it inevitable that Israel would feel threatened by neighbors who openly seek its destruction?

A non-happy ending

The sad conclusion is thus that Israel and Hamas/Iran, UK anti-immigrant racists and Muslim fanatics, they all play the same game: the game of total war which can only end in their mutual destruction, and which is a false conflict obfuscating the true cause of troubles, the dynamic of global capitalism. In other words, I am not advocating a soft gradualist politics – quite on the contrary, the only way to lay the foundation for a radical change to come is to avoid false conflicts like a vampire is avoiding garlic.

Yeah, a non-happy ending without surprises, hey? Of course, no one can escape themselves! Žižek frames all issues within the context of globalization and global capitalism, consistent with his Marxist ideological stance. He even draws an equivalence between disparate groups such as Israel, Hamas, UK anti-immigrant racists, and Muslim fanatics, arguing that they are all engaged in a destructive “game of total war” that obscures the true underlying cause: the dynamics of global capitalism.

However, lumping Israel together with Hamas, UK anti-immigrant racists, and Muslim fanatics to make his point conveniently overlooks the profound differences in their ideologies, goals, and the contexts in which they operate - yet it supports his narrative!

Žižek’s analysis is deeply flawed in one crucial respect: it fails to acknowledge the universal and persistent nature of antisemitism. By reducing the complex geopolitical and ideological tensions in the Middle East and beyond to merely symptoms of capitalist dynamics, Žižek overlooks the deep-seated and historical roots of antisemitism, which have long fueled animosity toward Israel and the Jewish people. Antisemitism was globalized even before globalization existed!

It is more than evident that antisemitism is not merely a byproduct of capitalist structures; it is an enduring ideology that has manifested across various economic systems and cultural contexts throughout history. To fully understand the conflict involving Israel, one must recognize that antisemitism is a significant and independent factor that far transcends the economic critique Žižek offers. This misdirection of focus begs the question: why is antisemitism so deeply anchored in our psychology?