Te all of dialectics and its stop

The all of dialectics and its stop

I have been trying some years to understand the effort of Slavoj Zizek to capture the problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict using Hegelian dialectics. (See for example, perhaps still in this site: “Dialectics as superstition”).
This includes of course the core: the Shoah of European Jewry. I must confess that every time has been impossible. This conflict and its core is somewhat resistant to Hegelian-Marxist dialectics.
Karl Marx , who lived in 19th century, did not see this black hole of history, Auswichtz. So, it was not part, it could not be a part, of his work on the “Jewish question”, not even as a distant shadow. Sigmund Freud wrote a line when his books were burned by the Nazis—“There is some progress, in other times they would have burned me”—. He didn’t see the Shoah, but it was present, he smelt the danger. Heidegger saw it and did as it was nothing important, he continued with his metaphysics. Jacques Lacan not only saw it, he lived it. He listened. He wrote that there is no chance to understand it with dialectics. Dialectics, that means we can make the contraries meet by some sublime magic. We can for example say “the Palestinian question”, and it sounds as “the Jewish question.” It is a sound, a resonance.
We may also write, as Zizek, “the Germans tried to kill all the Jews”. But this does not stand as a definite description for “Shoah”. Jean-Claude Milner, quoted by Zizek, uses another, different word: “annihilation”. This word is a non-dialectical word. No chance for Hegel of even dreaming of something like this. Hegel saw everything when he saw Napoleon, his “aleph”. He didn’t see the scientific annihilation. Not Absolute Knowledge, but Absolute Annihilation.
By the way, Zizek uses the “obliteration” (soft reminder of the more sincere “erase of the map”) word when he points to the most radical anti-Zionist Arabs calling for the “obliteration of the state of Israel”. Israel as a state, not its citizens, stands supporting as an object the non-dialectical verb and its consequences.
Analogous problem we face with the expression “West Bank free of Palestinians”. The Nazis coined the term “Judenrein”, to specify their purpose of purify all of Europe, and so to give a solution to their problem, “the Jewish problem”. In Israel, it is not so uncommon the use of Nazi language resonances for public dialectics and discourse. There is a sign of stop, however, waiting in every corner for this rhetoric, a sign addressed to the rhetorician, more than to his audience or his readers.

Let’s take the book of Norman Finkelstein “The Holocaust Industry”. He essentially points to Israel and some Israel politicians as using the Holocaust to obtain political gains. It is a book that certainly has caused many waves, and it may have a point: from the moment the Shoah enters public discourse, it enters the field of truth and the “surplus value of truth”. There is a use value and an exchange value. The silence of the Shoah survivors, a known phenomenon—silence that may persist till their last days– is surely not without relation to the social echo, even to the remembering of its horrors. But this “surplus value of the Holocaust” has its limit in its own excess, and it is exemplified by Norman Finkelstein’s “boomerang achievement”: he himself has been also named by his detractors or disputers as another “Holocaust Industry” producer, but now his own, private industry, Norman’s Finkelstein “Holocaust Industry”. Such is the field of dialectics. You sell-say a truth, and this very truth includes your personal truth price tag.
And this is why I find very difficult for me to understand the attempt of dialectization of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its transformation in a intellectual field, a competition in the “truth market”. In this sense, I find some points of silence in Jean-Claude Milner’s argumentations more close to the “intractable” nature of the conflict. It may even be that the so-called “the Jewish name” by Milner is a sort of name of the intractable (and so, more akin to Francois Regnault’s “notre petit a”, than to Zizek’s “fetish”). The humorist Biderman put it very precisely in a caricature in “Haaretz”, the day that the so called “Judas Gospel” surfaced somewhere in the sands of Egypt. Here was the Pope, very concerned, looking at the newspaper with one of the Cardinals at his side. A little sentence read: “These Jews, they are making trouble once more”. Some years before, James Baker, the former American Secretary of State, called the Arab-Israeli conflict “the most intractable of all conflicts”. Being himself a man of the south, he probably knows something about this. Dialectics, very probably, turns intractable problems even more difficult: it obscures them.