“It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that many of the comments are driven by anti-semitism.”
Martin Bright, in the latest edition of the New Statesman, discusses “how the left and Israel fell out of love“. It’s not a particularly profound or insightful piece, but it’s worth noting because it’s a rare example of a liberal/left publication admitting that there might - just might - be such a thing as anti-semitism on the “left”:
“The internet has flushed out a whole subculture of left-wing hostility to Israel that should make even Marqusee (Mike Marqusee - an anti Zionist who makes much of the fact that he’s Jewish - JD) uncomfortable. This has a regular and willing outlet on the Guardian’s Comment is Free website and the New Statesman also suffers from it whenever we publish articles on Israel. Postings on our blog casually link Zionism to fascism or South African Apartheid. The language is so unpleasant that it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that many of the comments are driven by anti-semitism.”
And sure enough: visit the New Statesman’s website and you’ll see some choice examples of just what Bright is on about. You can, of course, comment there yourselves, but you have to register.
Another example of what he’s on about appears on the page following Bright’s article: a full-page ad from these people, who appear to deny Israel’s right to exist, and who seek to introduce a “long-overdue phrase into the English language:
“nakba denial: the act of denying, including legal and moral responsibility for, the on-going, systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine that was waged in order to create the State of Israel.”
A classic example of people whose primary motivation appears not to be solidarity with the Palestinians, but visceral hatred of Israel. No doubt they consider themselves “left wing” and would furiously deny being anti-semitic (as opposed to being “anti Zionist”).
modernityblog said,
May 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm
to be honest and it’s hard to articulate with sufficient subtlety, but I don’t actually think its antisemitism
that may sound strange but in truth you don’t find the same qualitative form as you would expect from the extreme right
I don’t think that the vast majority are motivated by antisemitism, I think it is ignorance of this form of racism which leads them into these positions
I would heartily agree that many of the posters at CiF, etc SEEM to be antisemitic in terms of their violent language, crude comparisons and (this is the key) persistence
I would argue that an antisemite, is someone for whom loathing of Jews is central to their being, that it consumes them, they are compelled to express it continually and that persistent obsession is a good indicator of their real attitudes
but I don’t think it’s just a simple as that, I think there are comparatively few people on the Left who are reallyantisemitic.
However, there is a much wider pool of people who are completely ignorant on the topic and will occasionally indulge in it, should circumstances permit, and in that, it is never as crude nor as visceral as so often seen on the extreme right
conversely, it’s possible to see certain themes which have worked their way across from the far right discourse into a mainstream point of view, why exactly that happened and under what circumstances I’m not too sure, but having spent years and years studying the far right it is possible to pick out particular elements and see the parallels in the rantings of the far right
I think this topic suffers from several issues:
1) identity politics
2) crude anti-imperialism
3) lack of historical understanding of the complex issues (Jewish history, nationalism, imperial policy, WW2, etc)
4) an almost complete ignorance of antisemitism
5) a natural desire to support the “underdog”
6) a certain lingering upper English middle class contempt for Jews
7) an inability to acknowledge the above
Whilst I agree with much of the above and Martin Bright’s points I think it is far too sweeping, of course we can all find examples of where certain organisations have indulged in borderline anti-Jewish racism (Aztmon, Tammani, etc), but is that that of the iceberg or just isolated political ignorance?
I am not too sure, but here’s two question to ask yourselves, in all the decades that you participated in politics:
how many times was there a full and open discussion of anti-Jewish racism?
how many books or pamphlets have you read on antisemitism?
I think compared to other topics (Russian history, Cuba, Eastern Europe, feminism, etc) you’ll find that very few real debates took place on anti-Jewish racism
That is not to say that they didn’t occur but compared to other topics anti-Jewish racism was probably seen as marginal at best.
modernityblog said,
May 16, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I should, of course, add to Martin Bright’s list that of SU blog, which hosts some decidedly unsavoury figures (John Wight, Mick Napier, etc) and it doesn’t take too long to find some nauseating comments, see http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2295 as just one example
but again I think if you asked a range of intelligent Lefties to pick out the expressly racist views in that thread, they might not be able to fully do it justice, not because they wouldn’t want to, not because they are lazy but rather their lack of familiarity with the terminology, the usage and the background themes, and above all where those arguments lead to
that certain sensitivity which many people on the Left have when dealing with ethnic minorities, and appreciating the nature of racist discourse and themes, is often put to one side when that ethnic/social minority is Jews
voltaires_priest said,
May 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I tend to agree with what Mod says about people’s motives. If you take the comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa for instance, then I really don’t think one has to be “motivated by anti-semitism” to make that (erroneous) equation. Whilst I would completely agree that there are all sorts of reasons why Israel is qualitatively not the same phenomenon as South Africa during National Party apartheid rule, it sure looks to the naked eye like there are a lot of similarities. I think this is something that we tend to overlook due to the fact that we spend more of our time arguing with the SWP et al, who should know better.
resistor said,
May 17, 2008 at 12:41 am
Ronnie Kasrils
Mail & Guardian 21 May 2007 11:59
Travelling into Palestine’s West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I visited recently, is like a surreal trip back into an apartheid state of emergency. It is chilling to pass through the myriad checkpoints — more than 500 in the West Bank. They are controlled by heavily armed soldiers, youthful but grim, tensely watching every movement, fingers on the trigger. Fortunately for me, travelling in a South African embassy vehicle with official documents and escort, the delays were brief. Sweeping past the lines of Palestinians on foot or in taxis was like a view of the silent, depressed pass- office queues of South Africa’s past.
A journey from one West Bank town to another that could take 20 minutes by car now takes seven hours for Palestinians, with manifold indignities at the hands of teenage soldiers. My friend, peace activist Terry Boullata, has virtually given up her teaching job. The monstrous apartheid wall cuts off her East Jerusalem house from her school, which was once across the road, and now takes an hour’s journey. Yet she is better off than the farmers of Qalqilya, whose once prosperous agricultural town is totally surrounded by the wall and economically wasted. There is only one gated entry point. The key is with the occupation soldiers. Often they are not even there to let anyone in or out. Bethlehem too is totally enclosed by the wall, with two gated entry points. The Israelis have added insult to injury by plastering the entrances with giant scenic posters welcoming tourists to Christ’s birthplace.
The “security barrier”, as the Israeli’s term it, is designed to crush the human spirit as much as to enclose the Palestinians in ghettoes. Like a reptile, it transforms its shape and cuts across agricultural lands as a steel-and-wire barrier, with watchtowers, ditches, patrol roads and alarm systems. It will be 700km long and, at a height of 8m to 9m in places, dwarfs the Berlin Wall. The purpose of the barrier becomes clearest in open country. Its route cuts huge swathes into the West Bank to incorporate into Israel the illegal Jewish settlements — some of which are huge towns — and annexes more and more Palestinian territory.
The Israelis claim the purpose of the wall is purely to keep out terrorists. If that were the case, the Palestinians argue, why has it not been built along the 1967 Green Line border? One can only agree with the observation of Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad, who has stated: “It has become abundantly clear that the wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers.”
The West Bank, once 22% of historic Palestine, has shrunk to perhaps 10% to 12% of living space for its inhabitants, and is split into several fragments, including the fertile Jordan Valley, which is a security preserve for Jewish settlers and the Israeli Defence Force. Like the Gaza Strip, the West Bank is effectively a hermetically sealed prison. It is shocking to discover that certain roads are barred to Palestinians and reserved for Jewish settlers. I try in vain to recall anything quite as obscene in apartheid South Africa.
Gaza provides a desolate landscape of poverty, grime and bombed-out structures. Incongruously, we are able to host South Africa’s Freedom Day reception in a restaurant overlooking the splendid harbour and beach. Gunfire rattles up and down the street, briefly interrupting our proceedings, as some militia or other celebrates news of the recovery from hospital of a wounded comrade. Idle fishing boats bob in long lines in the harbour, for times are bad. They are confined by Israel to 3km of the coast and fishing is consequently unproductive. Yet, somehow, the guests are provided with a good feast in best Palestinian tradition.
We are leaving through Tel Aviv airport and the Israeli official catches my accent. “Are you South African?’ he asks in an unmistakable Gauteng accent. The young man left Benoni as a child in 1985. “How’s Israel?” I ask. “This is a f**ked-up place,” he laughs, “I’m leaving for Australia soon.” “Down under?” I think. I’ve just been, like Alice, down under into a surreal world that is infinitely worse than apartheid.
Within a few hours I am in Northern Ireland, a guest at the swearing in of the Stormont power-sharing government of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Not even PW Botha or Ariel Sharon were once as extreme as Ian Paisley in his most riotous and bigoted days. Ireland was under England’s boot for 800 years, South Africa’s colonial-apartheid order lasted 350 years. The Zionist colonial-settler project stems from the 1880s. The Israeli ruling class, corrupt and with no vision, can no longer rule in the old way. The Palestinians are not prepared to be suppressed any longer.
What is needed is Palestinian unity behind their democratically elected national government, reinforced by popular struggles of Palestinians and progressive Israelis, supported by international solidarity. South Africa’s stated position is clear. The immediate demands are recognition of the government of national unity, the lifting of economic sanctions and blockade of the Palestinian territories, an end to the 40-year-old military occupation and resumption of negotiations for a two-state solution.
On a final note, the invitation to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh as head of a national unity government was welcomed by President Mahmoud Abbas, and will be dealt with by our government. As they say in Arabic: “Insha ’Allah [God-willing].” Ronnie Kasrils is South Africa’s Minister of Intelligence
resistor said,
May 17, 2008 at 12:53 am
From Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/862911.html
Last update - 21:59 25/05/2007
Twilight Zone / Cry, the beloved country
By Gideon Levy
Not in his name
At the conference luncheon, Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa’s minister for intelligence services, hurried over to grab a seat next to us. Kasrils, a Jew, had never been to Israel (where he has relatives) until his visit to the territories earlier in the month, when he invited Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to his country. He then made his first, quick trip to Tel Aviv, saw Rabin Square and ate fish in Jaffa. “It was the most pleasant evening I had,” he acknowledges.
Tom Segev once wrote that he is “a guy I wouldn’t choose to be stuck in an elevator with,” but I would be glad to get stuck with Ronnie Kasrils, inside or outside an elevator. He is a Jew in conflict with his people, perhaps also with his identity - a courageous freedom fighter and communist, who joined the oppressed race in its struggle, was exiled from his country for 27 years and is now a minister.
A son of Lithuanian Jews, who had a bar mitzvah and belonged to Jewish youth movements, Kasrils is one of the most fascinating characters to come out of the local Jewish community - which now thoroughly denounces him. He brandishes his Jewishness openly, perhaps defiantly, even when he recently made an official visit to Iran and Syria. He once founded a movement called “Not in My Name,” to underscore his disassociation from the injustices committed by Israel in the territories. Ronnie Kasrils hates the Israeli occupation.
When we talked he said the Israeli occupation is worse than apartheid: The whites never shelled the black neighborhoods with tanks and artillery.
Just like the pogroms
If this warm, outgoing 69-year-old has any personal security protection, it is invisible. We sat in a vacant room in a building on the University of Pretoria campus and talked. “You’re an Israeli and I’m a South African,” he emphasized immediately, as if to negate any common identity. “I’m confident that the circle will be closed one day and people will understand that I’m not anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli … It really pains me as a Jew that in this country such hostility has developed toward Israel, because of its treatment of the Palestinians …
“When we saw on television the drama going on in your country, the oppressive pictures of the methods you use toward the Palestinians, the uprooting of trees, the tanks entering Jenin, and the old woman weeping over the demolition of her house and crying ‘The Jews, the Jews’ - it’s just like what my grandmother used to tell me about the pogroms: The Cossacks are coming, the Cossacks are coming. I’m trying to say: It’s not the Jews, it’s Zionisms that’s doing this. So I decided to get up and say something. I found this in the Jewish tradition: to open your mouth, in the name of conscience.
“The man who greeted me when I returned to South Africa after the years of exile was Rabbi Cyril Harris … He gave me a red skullcap with a dedication: to the freedom fighter. When I started to express criticism of Israel, I thought that the Jews would denounce Ariel Sharon, but then I found out that I was naive. I was stunned to see that the Jewish community here didn’t care who was in power in Israel and how extreme the policy was against the Palestinians … They would blindly support any government. Rabbi Harris became my enemy. He called me a fringe Jew and my response was: We were the only ones who stood up against apartheid and now we’re the minority against the injustice.
“When I visited the territories I also passed through Israel and I saw the forests that cover the remnants of the Palestinian villages. As a former forestry minister, this was especially striking to me. I also went into a few settlements. It was insane. Young Americans spat on the flag that was on my car. The occupation reminds me of the darkest days of apartheid, but we never saw tanks and planes firing at a civilian population. It’s a monstrousness I’d never seen before. The wall you built, the checkpoints and the roads for Jews only - it turns the stomach, even for someone who grew up under apartheid. It’s a hundred times worse.
“We know from our experience that oppression motivates resistance and that the more savage the oppression, the harsher the resistance. At a certain point in time you think that the oppression is working, and that you’re controlling the other people, imprisoning its leaders and its activists, but the resistance will triumph in the end.
“We saw the entrance to Qalqilyah, the wall, the people standing hours in line at the checkpoints. It’s a beautiful country, I love its landscapes, but I know that it’s big enough to contain more people. Israel has developed very impressively, but how much more impressive it would be if you brought about a just solution … I don’t care if it’s two states or one - it’s up to you, the Israelis and the Palestinians, to decide.
“I had coffee with the commander of the Erez checkpoint. It reminded me of the central prison in Pretoria, a place I’ve visited many times. And it was so awful to go through this thing in order to get to Gaza. At first I said that I don’t want to speak with the man at the checkpoint, but then I decided that was foolish. The Israelis were actually very nice to me.
“What is Zionism to me? When I was 10 years old, it meant security and a national home for the Jews. I waved the Israeli flag at my bar mitzvah and I was very proud of my Judaism. The first book I received for my bar mitzvah was ‘The Revolt,’ by Menachem Begin. My biggest hero was Asher Ginsberg, Ahad Ha’am … Later on I started reading not only Herzl, but also [historians] Ilan Pappe, Benny Morris and Tom Segev, and I came to see 1948 in a different light. I understood that it was an ethnic cleansing.
“South Africa changed me and strengthened my South African identity. And then I began to understand that the main problem of Zionism is the exclusivity of the establishment of a national home and the concept of the chosen people. Very soon I started to oppose it. The establishment of a national home for Jews alone seemed to me like a parallel of apartheid. The apartheid leaders also spoke about a chosen people. In 1961, prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd said that Israel is like South Africa. That opened my eyes. For many years we were also aware of the military cooperation between Israel and South Africa - a joint offensive naval force, missile boats, the Cheetah planes and the big secret of the nuclear weapons. Prime minister Johannes Vorster, who had a declared Nazi past, received a hero’s welcome from you. This added to my feelings regarding Israel.
“I am very conscious of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism, but my experience here leads me to one conclusion: that all forms of racism must be fought by means of a common struggle. I have a dream: That you will change your outlook, as happened here, and that change will come. When politicians reach agreements, it’s amazing how fast ordinary folks can come to a change in thinking. Change the leadership and the economic conditions and you’ll see how easy the change is.”
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 1:53 am
Ronnie Kasrils is perfectly entitled to his opinions and many people (including Jews, South Africans, etc ) might well disagree with him.
Ronnie for all of his qualities is not a Plato, Aristotle or an ancient sage, nor are we compelled to agree with his assertions merely because he makes them, but further more the above does not address the issue of the creeping anti-Jewish racism which is entering the mainstream discourse in Europe and elsewhere.
Engage has highlighted some very nasty incidents recently:
‘Criticism of Israel’ is daubed on Synagogue walls in Hackney, London
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1892
Jim Denham said,
May 17, 2008 at 2:11 am
The comparison with apartheid South Africa is historically nonsense and ploitically illiterate. The fact that “resistor” can find a Jewish South African to make he comparison doesn’t change the stupidity of that comparison. Anti-semites, of course, simply love it when they can find a Jew to argue their case for them.
leigh said,
May 17, 2008 at 3:31 am
perhaps the initiators of ‘nakba denial’ can also come up with a phrase to summarise the foricble expulsion of almost 900,000 jews from arab states in the years after the establishment of the state of israel!
anti-karsh said,
May 17, 2008 at 7:22 am
‘Whilst I would completely agree that there are all sorts of reasons why Israel is qualitatively not the same phenomenon as South Africa during National Party apartheid rule, it sure looks to the naked eye like there are a lot of similarities.’
Quite so. While there are differences there are obvious similarities too. On the West Bank there are hundreds of kilometres of well-maintained roads which are reserved for one ethnic group, while another has to labour through myriad checkpoints on potholed roads. There are also separate justice systems on the West Bank, and obviously discriminatory double standards built into Israeli law, like the provision that allows for Jewish victims of terror to get state compensation, but not Muslim victms of Jewish terror (eg attacks by West Bank paramilitaries and anti-Arab nutters). It is the continuing settlement programme in the West Bank, and the dispossession of Arabs, which is worst of all. The settlements are now so populous and extensive that it’s hard to see how an Israeli government could ever muster the political capital to dismantle them, even if it wanted to. The irony is that successive Israeli governments have through their support for the carve-up of the West Bank undermiend the prospects for a viable two state solution, and therefore for the survival of a distinct Jewish state.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm
The resemblence with Aparthied has most recently been made by Israel’s prime minister. I don’t understand why this is considered ‘illiterate’.
voltaires_priest said,
May 17, 2008 at 1:25 pm
As Mr/Ms Anti-Karsh above points out, there are both similarities (most obviously at first glance) and differences. I think what is required is a cold, hard look at the systematic realities rather than a bandying around of emotive terms like “apartheid” and “nazis” etc - but that also doesn’t change the fact that the occupation is a disgusting and explotative thing on an economic as well as a political level.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm
turning to the major thrust of the article:
“The internet has flushed out a whole subculture of left-wing hostility to Israel that should make even Marqusee (Mike Marqusee - an anti Zionist who makes much of the fact that he’s Jewish - JD) uncomfortable. This has a regular and willing outlet on the Guardian’s Comment is Free website and the New Statesman also suffers from it whenever we publish articles on Israel. Postings on our blog casually link Zionism to fascism or South African Apartheid. The language is so unpleasant that it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that many of the comments are driven by anti-semitism.“
I wonder if “anti-Karsh”, etc could talk to those points directly ?
bearing in mind that it’s perfectly possible to disagree with Israeli actions in the West Bank, but also be against the vitriolic language used against Jews and Israelis in the mainstream discourse in Europe and elsewhere
anti-karsh said,
May 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I think the occupation of the West Bank inflames opinion partly because it is so obviously unjust. I would compare it, in this respect, to the occupation of Tibet by China - we have an obviously unpopular foreign power imposing itself, displacing the indigenous population, and setting up colonies in a manner so brazen it recalls the antics of European imperialists in the nineteenth century. (The example of Hebron, which gets discussed in The Guardian today, is particularly depressing - a large Arab city is paralysed because 4,000 soldiers move in to protect 500 religious nutcases who have set up camp in the middle of a town that doesn’t want them.) Many other cases of oppression are probably less obvious, because they aren’t so blatantly a case of one national group colonising another (that’s not to say they are less serious - just less obvious). Of course, to slide from opposition to the colonisation of the West Bank or Tibet to anti-Chinese or anti-Semitic ideology is of course not only wrong but totally counterproductive. It is ultimately only by winning a section of the Chinese/Israeli population that Palestine/Tibet is going to be freed. The more that the Chinese/Israelis are driven into the arms of their own ruling class by mindless demonisation the harder that task becomes. I wish I had some easy answer to the situation. It depresses me. I do take comfort in the Israeli anti-occupation movement and the refusenik troops who will not serve in occupied land. But after forty years, an with huge areas colonsied, one wonders if Israel will ever end the occupation of the West Bank. It is very hard to image hundreds of thousands of settlers being moved out, isn’t it? As I say, profoundly depressing.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm
generally speaking comparisons don’t imply identity. given the very real similiarities it is a perfectly legitimate comparison to make, and the attempt to argue that it is ‘emotive’ tends to be ‘emotive’ in itself. Someone not yet ready to make that comparison, but clearly thinking about it himself, demonstrates why the discussion emerges out of reality and not from an anti-semitic conspiracy divorced from reality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/17/israelandthepalestinians
The real objection to the use of the term is that it implies that Israel’s policies are so illegitimate as to deserve sanction from the international community in the same way that aparthied south africa did. In other words they are not based on a clear and hardheaded look at the occupation, but more generally seek to find justifications or excuses for that behaviour, whether on the basis of the unreasonableness of those who have been occupied for the last three decades or on the other hand seek to present what are clearly attempts to make a two state solution impossible (thus making olmert’s fears of an anti-aparthied style movement almost inevitable) as simply legitiamate responses to a security threat.
The fact that the security threat stems from a history of dispossession where asymmetrical warfare with refugee’s has from time to time pulled neighbouring states into conflict with Israel, and that therefore Israel’s refusal to recognise the existence of the Palestinians it dispossessed until it was strongarmed into doing so by, of all people, George Bush senior, is also usually not mentioned in such accounts.
I think changing perceptions of Israel began in the aftermath of the Lebanon war (where the first hostile reporting of Israeli military actions by western media really marked the beginning of campaigns alleging connections between journalists recognising that there were two sides to the story and ‘anti-semitism’
partly the consequence of western reporters for the first time witnessing the Israeli military from the wrong end of a gun, and deepening during the first intifada as increasingly Palestinian claims began to be treated with some legitimacy (this was regarded as absolutely outrageous by many and led to another wave of new discussions about ‘the new anti-semitism’ etc, a pretty heavy burden for Palestinians to have to carry given their already heavy burden of military occupation and repression), creating the cultural conditions for the production of much of the new historiography.
The peace process also seemed to represent a new dawn, but disapointments with a reality and the increasing worsening of the position of the palestinians (over decades let us remember) and the apparent unwillingness of anyone to take seriously what was being done to them, and the quite evident hypocrisy of western powers on the question, led to Israel becoming one of those issues, as South Africa was before it, which symbolised the astonishing double standards of the global system we live in. At the same time of course we invaded muslim countries and preached about democracy to them, just as Israel, with our support, besieged and blockaded an entire population for electing the wrong kind of government (the spectacle of a civilian population ‘escaping’ to go shopping of an afternoon, of course just DOES raise comparisons with say the warsaw ghetto, even if there is no sense in which the situation in Gaza is yet as bad, but again I believe people reach for parrallels like this because the equinamity with which people regard such things is just morally outrageous).
I think its really very unsurprising that there is rather a lot of abrasiveness around the issue. I think references to the Aparthied regimes were analytically quite wrong, and it is equally analytically wrong in the case of Israel. Both are democracies which restrict rights to large sections of the population and both do so through various kinds of constitutional fiction (so Aparthied designated ‘homelands’ as autonomous, and Israel claims its not responsible for what goes on in land under military occupation, or which it blockades and surrounds). Both therefore have and had independent judiciaries which could be used on occassion to mitigate the worst kinds of oppression. This would not be the case in a Nazi or a Fascist regime.
The idea that the use of the term ‘Nazi’ is designed to attack Jews as Jews I find unconvincing, both because such parrallels are regularly invoked inside Israel itself (Hebron settlers claiming that the building of a Palestinian supermarket was ‘worst then the holocaust’, its also a routine feature of political abuse inside Israel). I also don’t think arguments about immoral equivilants are particularly compelling either given that Israeli politicians have historically had no problems with, for example, repeatedly comparing Yasser Arafat to the Nazies, and today comparisons between representatives of the contemporary Palestinian national movements are routinely compared with Nazies, with no one complaining or raising any objection who is otherwise concerned with these immoral equivilances. Again the whole issue of a blind chauvinist hypocrisy springs to mind much more then the idea of any genuine moral shock. Nevertheless I would not make the comparison myself because I think its false.
However the real objections here are not to do with specific terminology, or indeed anything to do with anti-semitism, but with the idea that Israel may in this conflict not be one of the good guys. This is deeply shocking for many, in the same way that it was shocking for those Americans who came to oppose the Vietnam war. There is indeed a rather similar moral crisis amongst many who served in the occupied territories and indeed there have been a series of interesting documentries on the BBC about Israeli kids dropping out, going to India, having nervous breakdowns etc, and the rather extraordinary spectacle of therapists trying to attribute these young peoples sense of alienation from Israeli society as a kind of mental illness: something which struck me as a form of mental abuse, although some saw it as an example of extraordinary social solidarity. Its not unusual in these situations for things to look entirely different to people on different sides of a conflict, but I was struck by how different what I was watching would look to someone not prepared to accept that there might indeed be something deeply wrong with a society based on the expropriation of an existing population, and subsequently forced to fight an on-going real war and indeed an internal war of denial about it.
This brings me on to the rather absurd idea that talk of ‘nakba denial’ is somehow anti-semitic or an attempt to mock Jewish history. It is not. It refers to a real social phenomenan that one see’s on this very site very often, and produces the kinds of extraordinary diatribes I was subjected to for daring to object to people demonising historians without ever having read their books. Israel is based on a systematic denial of the reality that there was before 1947 an Arab society in Palestine just like today exists in Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon. And that that society was destroyed to create Israel. And that that is why there is a conflict. Think of the extraordinary attempts to ellide this reality, whether it takes the form of absurd theses about population movements (joan peters ridiculous book still treated like a sacred text by some on the blogs) or on the other hand a refusal to read any historiography whose central concern is what happened to the Palestinians (anti-semtism).
Of course what we are then left with is issues of ‘bias’. In the same way as activists against aparthied could be accused of ‘bias’ against South Africa. Importantly for those activists then, and most of these activists now, such accusations are laughable and meaningless.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm
incidently the emicon next to ‘anti-semtism’ wasn’t put there by me. i think they pop up automatically. ‘anti-semtism’ was in this case in inverted commas because i don’t think the reporting of the lebanese conflict was an instance of anti-semitism.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm
anti-Karsh,
could we move forward slightly? let’s agree from the outset that the occupation of the West Bank is wrong, let’s agree also that is ready incursions into Gaza are murderous and counter-productive
let’s agree all of that and much more, but it doesn’t quite explain the ferocity of attacks on places like Cif and the New Statesman blogs via the Internet
that’s the central point, anti-Jewish racism
so please let’s address that in the localised sense of Britain and Europe, etc
voltaires_priest said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
However the real objections here are not to do with specific terminology, or indeed anything to do with anti-semitism, but with the idea that Israel may in this conflict not be one of the good guys. This is deeply shocking for many, in the same way that it was shocking for those Americans who came to oppose the Vietnam war.
Hardly. The idea that “Israel is not one of the good guys” is the norm amongst the UK general public, let alone among the left where it is received orthodoxy (indeed an orthodoxy for which one is subjected to all manner of attacks for even being seen to deviate). This is straw-manning, JG.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Oddly Modernity begins by rejecting the idea that what is involved is anti-Jewish racism, and now is demanding that anti-Karsh addresses it. Why doesn’t it explain the ferocity of the attacks on Cif and the New Statesman incidently? (many of which I would not agree with). It all reminds me of the old accusations of premature anti-fascism. We’re really not suppose to be TOO angry about it. Its this I would argue that provides most of the explanation for the ferocity. Its morally repugnant to be spoken to like this (imagine any other conflict were really appalling human rights abuses stretching back decades are dismissed with reference to not quite liking the tone of some of the guardian comments: this just IS what this kind of thing looks like to those desperately attempting to get the suffering of Palestinians taking seriously and blocked at every turn by this kind of argument. It becomes absurd after a while).
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm
No, no Voltaire you misunderstand me. Its THIS which is objected to. Its also the case that whilst it might be common sense (in my view quite rightly) its certainly not reflected in the policies of the relevent IO’s, this government, or indeed anyone else with any power in the world. So the EU, the UK and the US government has actually been backing the blockade of Gaza: in OUR name. This makes people very angry indeed. They are absolutely right to be angry.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm
In other words you object to this concensus Voltaire. I regard it as entirely legitimate and a sign of the honourableness of ordinary people. This is not shared by our governments who collude in the violent suppression of the Palestinians right to self determination and the on-going theft of their land and their future, whilst, ridiculously, people on this blog complain about the tone of CiF comments. Its beyond surreal.
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Again you’re deliberately simplifying the discussion being had, in order to have a rant at Zionism. I’ve already said that I can see why people at first glance would think that Israel and apartheid South Africa have the same system (or at least one of the same type). I’ve also stated, as you must surely also know, that there are differences between those state systems which mean that if we are going to get into systematic points, they should be discussed in different terms. It is also the case that (silly doublespeak about “emotive is an emotive term” not withstanding) that the use of terms like “Nazi” and “Apartheid” have long been seen as automatic trump cards and/or terms of abuse in terms of intra-left discourse. But you know all this, so I don’t understand why on earth you’re persisting with such an obviously crude line of debate.
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Your comment #20 John is just utter nonsense from start to finish. It tells an outright lie about my views and draws concurrently erroneous conclusions. I’d come to expect better even in spite of your slavish devotion to the SWP’s sectarian and increasingly irrelevant political brand.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I posted on the recent attack on a synagogue, but I suppose that it was ignored as it didn’t fit into a prevailing “narrative”, so here’s the article:
“London’s Jewish community has been targeted by a wave of anti-Semitic graffiti.
Residents were today warned to look out for suspicious activity following the racist attack in north-east London.
Vandals sprayed shops, pavements and walls outside four synagogues in Clapton Common and Stamford Hill on Tuesday night. Worshippers were yesterday confronted with slogans such as “Jihad to Israel” and “Jihad to Tel Aviv”.
Hackney council is removing the graffiti, which consisted of 40 pieces of writing.
David Greenwald, 20, who visits the Chasidey Belz Beth Hemedrash synagogue in Clapton Common, said the close-knit community was shocked.
“This morning I went to synagogue to pray and saw the writing all over everywhere - walls, shops, traffic lights,” he said. “Everyone feels scared. Here we do not have any problem with Arabs - there has never been anything like this before, but now we are worried.”
Another worshipper said: “It makes us feel that we are in exile. It could be kids doing it but even so, it shows something.” The other synagogues were Satmar Beth Hamedrash Yetev Lev, Atereth Zvi Beth Hamedrash, and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. Yesterday further racist graffiti appeared in Bethnal Green.
A spokesman for the Community Security Trust, an organisation which looks after the safety of British Jews, said: “We are already on a relatively high state of alert due to pronouncements by pro-al Qaeda supporters relating to attacks on Jews, and this adds to the picture of threat.” Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney, said: “Hackney is a tolerant place and we’ve never seen anything like this before. Our graffiti removal teams are working with the police to remove it as quickly as possible to minimise any further distress.”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1892
the problem is that either:
1) people ignore this virulent anti-Jewish racism as it seeps into society and modern discourse
2) denied that it is happening
3) excuse it
4) or find reasons for it (other than those strictly germane to the point)
I think the gist of the main article is where discussions should be concentrated, for the moment
I think that the discussion of anti-Jewish racism is a neglected topic on the Left, and I like to see some intellectual effort exerted in that area
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hey Voltaire thats unfair. You stated that there was a concensus that Israel were not the good guys in this conflict and then went on to complain about the way people who resisted this concensus were attacked. I stated that i believed that this concensus is entirely legitimate but is not borne out by any government policies either at national or international levels. i do not think i have been ranting about zionism at all. I think that there are serious comparisons to be made between aparthied and the practices of the israeli state which do not deserve to be dismissed as emotive (and that indeed their dismissal is primarily emotive and demagogic and does not refer to facts of any kind).
I also think I made serious points in what I wrote which you are refusing to address.
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Which are?
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I think that the oppression of Palestinians by Israel is a neglected topic at the moment and should be the main subject of discussion.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
which are the points i made voltaire. i really do despair sometimes actually. part of the problem is that the article posted is obviously morally disgusting in the most appalling way. and you simply can’t see it. why is that?
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I think the oppression of the Palestinians is a widely acknowledged fact, and that the right way to deal with that fact should be a major subject of discussion. The irony of your sect’s position over the past few years is that by screaming down anyone who disagreed with its line, it has effectively helped shut down the debate that you apparently want to open up.
Your second comment’s hysterical tone merely goes further to my point. What is “morally disgusting” about pointing out that anti-semitism exists on the left? It clearly does.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm
what is morally disgusting is that someone who confesses to promoting the israeli government which is repressing and violently denying self determination to the palestinians is treated as a serious interlocuter with his utterly spurious accusations that the entirely justified outrage at the policies being pursued by israel are ‘driven by anti-semitism’ and his article actually posted on a socialist website. there is nothing hysterical or indeed emotive about it. its a disgrace.
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm
That isn’t what’s actually said in the article though is it John?
Have you been on the angry juice?
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I can see that this is a difficult topic for some people on the Left to grasp with, but I would have hoped that people could have dealt with the attacks on the synagogue, still I suppose that isn’t going to happen, so let’s turn to another issue: terminology
is it acceptable for a socialist/activist to go around using the term “international Jewry”?
as in:
“As soon as the scales fall from the eyes of international Jewry with regard to the racist and fascist ideology that is Zionism, the world will begin to emerge from the iron heel of war and brutality in the Middle East.”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627
and if so, why?
and if not, why not?
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“I was travelling in Israel with a group of four other journalists as a guest of BICOM, a British organisation set up to improve Israel’s image in the media”
Thats what it says in the article. The way in which he has set about this task is by presenting outrage about Israel’s actions as ‘hard to understand’ unless motivated by anti-semitism. The examples of such ‘hard to understand’ arguments are comparisons with aparthied and with fascism. The first set of comparisons are entirely legitimate in my view, and as stated, have been made by everyone from south africans to the israeli prime minister, and indeed many israeli sociologists. Nothing emotive about it at all. The second comparison is I believe emotive and analytically incorrect, but not motivated, as far as I can work out, by anti-semitism, for reasons I stated in what I wrote (which you might like to refer to again).
You also seem to have this view that ‘everyone’ accepts that the Palestinians are the victims. Well not our governments, not International organisations, nor the dominant imperial power, all of whom have continued to collude in the blockading and strangling of a whole society simply because they had the temerity to vote for the wrong people (importantly, there was a moment shortly after the election when it looked liked Israel and Hamas might negotiate: the speed with which the US moved to back the most chauvinist sections of the Israeli government ensured this would not happen, and the EU then fell obediantly into line with the starvation and further destruction of Palestinian society which finally led to the tragedy of civil war which was then blamed again on the victims).
That there might be a bit of anger about this doesn’t strike me as ‘hard to understand’ nor does it strike me that the only explanation for that anger is ‘anti-semitism’. The situation is not getting better. It is getting worse and worse. If it really is true that everyone accepts that the Palestinians are the victims why has nothing been done? And why is it the case that a group of socialists would spend their whole time recycling arguments designed to discredit those attempting to change this appalling situation, arguments which involve the most extreme and damaging slander imaginable against activists outraged by the vicious racism of the Israeli state and its brutal military occupation.
Its no different to the kinds of objections Stalinists had to the coverage of Chinese oppression in Tibet. It should be said though that if our own governments do collude in the more repressive policies of the Chinese state, in the case of Israel, that collusion is naked and open. Which does rather make a difference.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I would not use the term no. Although it is a term frequently used by Jewish organisations (just an example):
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:O1X6XIkiyiYJ:jewishmonmouth.org/section_display.html%3FID%3D29+%22international+jewry%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=uk
and does not have any neccessarily prejorative uses despite the fact that the Nazies picked up on the term. Discussions of “European Jewry” etc (cultural, social, political attitudes etc) can be found in plenty of entirely respectable jewish histories etc. There did used to be such a thing before Hitlers Holocaust and recognition of that was not always anti-semitic.
I would today say ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’ largely because of the later prejorative associations, although I suspect the term ‘Jewry’ is still in use by people who are by no means anti-semitic.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Here are some more usages. If you type in “International Jewry” to google you get loads of appalling nazi sites. If you type in “Israel and International Jewry” you get a long list of Jewish Zionist and Jewish cultural associations, interspersed with scattered nutty anti-semitic ones:
http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=1032
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:uXsLyMyDu9YJ:www.huc.edu/news/rage.html+%22Israel+and+international+Jewry%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk
If someone was to say that ‘when Jewish people wake up to the reality of the Israeli state the nightmare will end’ (importantly a sentiment which no real anti-semite would entertain) I would argue that this was politically mistaken, as we all have responsibilities for what the Israeli state is doing to Palestinians and that it is wrong to single out Jewish people as having a special responsibility. I would not however regard this as an anti-semitic argument. Just an argument that is wrong.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 6:49 pm
{sigh} I wondered what response that clear cut post would invoke
the term “International Jewry” is a common political expression amongst the far right, neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers and white power freaks, which essentially sees all Jews at one global entity conspiring against “Aryans” to implement some duplicitous master plan for world domination
should you be in any doubt of the origin of this term, search google with quotes marks around “international Jewry” http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=C6Q&q=%22international+jewry%22&btnG=Search
and you will see a whole host of very nasty neo-nazi and fascist web sites that use this term to mean the above
again, the term “international Jewry” peppers Hitler’s last will and testament, see http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/htestmnt.htm
And who can forget Henry Ford’s disgusting “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem”
http://www.amazon.com/International-Jew-Worlds-Foremost-Problem/dp/0766178293
So the term “international Jewry” is firmly attached to the extreme right, thus it is all the more surprising that an activist such as John Wight should see fit to use it?
It is, but one of many examples of the Far Right’s vocabulary seeping into the mainstream political discourse.
johng said,
May 17, 2008 at 6:55 pm
And rather shockingly I’ve just noticed jim denhams vicious attack on palestinian activists and their supporters right at the end of his article, where he refers to ‘these people’ http://www.nakba60.org.uk/about/ who he speculates ‘deny israel’s right to exist’, on the basis of the fact that they want to restore a Palestinian narrative and commemorate the nakba….why Jim? Why do you think its ok to slander the victims of real oppression in this way in the name of an article which seeks disgracefully to argue that objections to israels treatment of the palestinians are motivated by anti-semitism? Do you just hate Arabs? what is it with you?
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm
John if you’re saying that you think I object to anger over the treatment of the Palestinian people, then that’s clearly ridiculous as well you know. What I am saying is that there’s no need for your acting all naive in the context of this debate, here. “Grrr lots of people are angry about this” is not a sophisticated or interesting political stance in any context, and given that you’re in a debate where everyone’s basic sympathies lie with the Palestinians, I think you should therefore lay off doing that.
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Incidentally who exactly funds and supports Nakba60? I’ve never heard of it before.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Volty,
some bloke who lives in Princess Gardens, Kensington, one of the most expensive areas in London.
it is a very well done web site, highly polished.
still it is a shame that anti-Karsh, etc don’t feel up to addressing the Far Right terminology issue, let alone the attack on the synagogue
dealing with the issue of anti-Jewish racism in Britain seems very hard for parts of the Left?
Why’s is that?
voltairespriest said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Because it doesn’t fit with the plot of Star Wars - which is how most of them see politics in the world outside of the UK.
Sue R said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Considering that the Palestinians have received billions of dollars in International money, I’m sure they could build themselves beautiful roads, homes, hospitals, schools etc. Also, I don’t think the British public, not politicos, are particularly pro-Palestinian, they have a certain view where the violence is emanating from in that part of the world. Undoubtedly, some people will argue that this is mistaken, but impressions count for a lot in the world.
modernityblog said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:16 pm
surely people can divorce the two issues in their minds?
anti-Jewish racism existed in Britain long before the State of Israel was created, long before any Palestinian refugees
so the basic elements of anti-Jewish racism does not necessarily require grievances in the Middle East, for example, in parts of Eastern Europe there is still virulent anti-Jewish racism and yet not a Jew to be seen
in Russia there is a vibrant neo-Nazi skinheads movement, and I’ll bet that human rights in the Middle East is not probably high on their political programme, see http://www.mnweekly.ru/national/20070906/55273681.html
the point I am trying to get at is, that if you ask parts of the Left for an analysis of, say, feminism and women’s oppression, you’d get it in a tick
or if you wanted to know the Marxist view of black oppression and the State, then you could find reams and reams, etc
however, if you asked a simple question:
what cogent analysis exists on the Left for contemporary anti-Jewish racism in the West?
then you’d get blank looks, if you’re lucky someone would refer you to work written 50 years ago, but not very much exists, if at all, that is contemporary or lucid on the topic.
voltaires_priest said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Considering that the Palestinians have received billions of dollars in International money, I’m sure they could build themselves beautiful roads, homes, hospitals, schools etc.
Sure, if they had any realistic control over their own state - or rather, if they had any kind of state at all. Actually, if they had a state, then they would be able to run their own affairs and not rely on food aid at all - you know, the old “give a man a fish” argument.
John A said,
May 18, 2008 at 12:16 am
“what cogent analysis exists on the Left for contemporary anti-Jewish racism in the West?
then you’d get blank looks, if you’re lucky someone would refer you to work written 50 years ago, but not very much exists, if at all, that is contemporary or lucid on the topic.”
I hope very much that soon there is cogent work which fills this hole, but surely it isn’t evidence of systematic anti-semitism. The recent rise in anti-semitism will hopefully provoke some new work on the left, but to really fill the hole you need people specialising in it. To make a comparison which doesn’t really do the seriousness of anti-semitism justice, what work has there been on anti-Polish/anti-Eastern European sentiment in the UK, despite evidence of it being available direct from Becky, 18, from Lancashire in every morning’s Sun?
What cogent analysis exists at all for the synagogue vandalism, modernity? We don’t know who did it, first of all. It could have been some mad Muslim group, rabid followers of David Icke, the BNP, NF, Combat 18, I don’t know. What I will wager is that they don’t consider themselves part of a leftist anti-zionist intelligentsia, although they may have been influenced by it.
There are people who do consider themselves on the left and yet who are anti-semitic. I doubt that there are people who consider themselves both on the left and anti-semitic (unless they are completely confusing race and class in an extremely odd manner), so some form of false consciousness argument needs to be spelled out.
Anti-semitism on the left in the main seems to me very much an example of overstatement, the adoption of unsavoury and inappropriate rhetoric (especially the appropriation of Nazi imagery) and the worryingly common ridiculous essentialising about the Jewish people which has characterised anti-semitic discourses to this day. To say that this can add up to anti-semitism is not unreasonable. To assume that these people are likely to have vandalised a synagogue seems to be unfair.
Words do matter and do have contexts and impacts, and many on the contemporary left seem to forget this… Another worrying trend worth looking out for is the appropriation by those who would seek to defend secularism or Israel of essentialistic rhetoric about Islam as a religion or Muslims as a people, which seems far more prevalent than anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian sentiment, at least at the moment.
John A said,
May 18, 2008 at 12:18 am
A postscript:
The usage of the phrase “nakba denial” is particularly nasty due to the implicit equivalence to the holocaust.
modernityblog said,
May 18, 2008 at 1:36 am
John A wrote:
“I hope very much that soon there is cogent work which fills this hole, but surely it isn’t evidence of systematic anti-semitism.”
no, certainly not. I didn’t say it was, in fact, the opposite.
doesn’t it strike you as strange that this is probably the only topic that the Left have never finally got to grips with??
I’ll bet there is reams on Marxist psychology, anthropology, Marxism and the cinema, etc you name it but something comprehensive on anti-Jewish racism?
nope, hardly a sausage
you wrote:
but to really fill the hole you need people specialising in it.
agreed, but it is not exactly as if there is a shortage of base materials? a quick search of amazon brings up some 1644 books related to the topic, from basic histories to specialists works http://www.amazon.co.uk/antisemitism/s/ref=sr_nr_i_0?ie=UTF8&rs=&keywords=antisemitism&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aantisemitism%2Ci%3Astripbooks
you wrote:
“I doubt that there are people who consider themselves both on the left and anti-semitic”
certainly, ignorance means that people don’t necessarily understand antisemitic imagery or the themes, (see above on the “international Jewry” comment ) which can lead them to inadvertently articulate some outlandish things, but very few people would openly admit to being antisemitic, even the KKK wizard and neo-Nazi David Duke says he is not antisemitic (strange eh? but it is on his site, I can’t post the link)
I think overall it is a form of doublethink, many people don’t choose to think through the implication of their own views, and so end up uttering border line comments without a moment’s thought and if caught on the defensive, often have to employ the Livingstone formula as a result.
you wrote:
Anti-semitism on the left in the main seems to me very much an example of overstatement, the adoption of unsavoury and inappropriate rhetoric (especially the appropriation of Nazi imagery) and the worryingly common ridiculous essentialising about the Jewish people which has characterised anti-semitic discourses to this day
good point, but yes and no, I’d agree that there is an unhealthy essentialising which wouldn’t occur with any other social or ethnic minority, but is it really antisemitism? I’m not so sure, elements of it are, but the intensity of belief, of hatred isn’t there, in my view, with a few exceptions (see John Wight)
that’s why I prefer to reserve the term antisemitism for the genuine article, that particular fruitcake who can’t go a day without articulating some hatred towards Jews.
I think it’s better to use the term anti-Jewish racism, because people are more familiar with the complexities and nuances of racism so can frequently see the point without the necessity of belabouring it.
modernityblog said,
May 18, 2008 at 1:37 am
ops italics a bit off there
Sue R said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:53 am
Then, Voltaire’s Priest, let’s cease any sort of aid payment to the Palestinians as they can’t actually use it for aid. Good thinking. Perhaps it would be only kinder, because it might concentrate their minds on creating a viable society and state.
voltairespriest said,
May 18, 2008 at 8:48 am
I’m sorry but it takes a pretty twisted perspective on that part of the world to believe that reason there is not a viable Palestinian state is because they Palestinians have not “spent aid money correctly” on creating one. I presume you think Israeli occupation, settlements, blockades, etc, have no role in the lack of a “viable society and state” in Palestine? Not to mention that this so-called “state” you seem to expect them to magic out of food packages and charitable donations would be constructed (on current boundaries) on two pieces of land, one of which is the geographic equivalent of a postage stamp and an enclosed virtual prison to boot?
But yeah, it’s because “they haven’t chosen to be viable”. Whatever.
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:04 am
Well actually volty it does need saying. Because the premiss of the article posted above is that the anger can only be explained by anti-semitism. This is I believe entirely false. Its also connected to the way in which some find it perplexing why Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is regarded as a central issue (the whole singling out controversy). I find this as perplexing as the people who find it perplexing that people might regard it as a central issue. It seems to me that you are missing this, absolutely central disagreement, which largely determines the nature of arguments around this issue. The notion that talking about ‘nakba denial’ is ‘nasty’ because it recalls discussion of Holocaust denial, and the extraordinary attack Jim made on Palestinian nationalism simply because they use the phrase is an example of the kind of thing which unhelpfully drives people into a frenzy. There is indeed Nakba denial. It was a central part of the Israeli states ideology, and it influenced whole generations of people both inside Israel and outside of it. Still today you will find people who believe that Palestinians left Palestine because they were ‘instructed to’ by Arab regimes and their leaders (the fictional ‘radio broadcasts’ which are usually referred to) despite the fact that this has been refuted over and over again, since at least the middle of the 1950s. Ironically today, Benny Morris who proved that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled because of the military operations of the IDF and a series of massacres which spread terror, argues that this was not the result of a plan (despite the fact that he was the person who told us about Plan Dalat which involved precisely a plan for ethnic cleansing) but that it SHOULD have been, this shift being accompanied by statements about Palestinians being like animals who should be kept in cages. Other works speak of the systematic erasure of Arab names, villages, and land marks, not only from the map but also from the land itself. Ironically as one Israeli historian was to point out this has greatly compromised biblical archeology as, as any historian knows, etymology is of great importance for establishing sites of historical importance, and the erasure of not only most of the population, but of all the local knowledge of the land built up over a whole millenium, and its replacement by the (often) quite arbitrary renaming of sites in Hebrew, often for political and nationalist reasons these names referring to biblical places, has been treated as an act of enourmous violence towards historical memory itself, replacing a complex geographical sedimentation of history and culture with an entirely fictitious one, which then becomes yet another barrier between people and their past. Importantly during this period this vandalism co-incided with the rise of an Israeli archeology dominated by the military, and it was the fear of every palestinian family left in Israel that some IDF ‘archeologist’ would come along and discover a ’site’ under their village, which would result in their village being demolished: in other words this process of renaming was connected to a project of erasure of the Palestinian presence from history, despite the fact that as any archeologist knows, villages of great antiquity are of enourmous importance for any genuine archeology: any connection however between palestinian villages and ancient jewish history was however ruled out of court for political reasons: no continuity permitted. All of this speaks to an enourmous act of cultural as well as physical vandalism, which no Palestinian can be unaware of. Liberal Israeli’s, to their credit, are also often aware of it and you can read many personal memoirs about the sense of disquiet many felt as children about this eerie sense of a hole in their history, suddenly to turn a corner and find what look like the remains of antiquity, but which were actually recently deserted villages, now vanished from both the map and the land. To insult people seeking to overcome this violence and vandalism of their own history is I think wholly inappropriate on a socialist website. More importantly it reflects the same hysterical hostility to discussion of these very real issues which you find on the Israeli chauvinist right (as stated liberal Israeli’s often discuss these issues). I don’t think its the role of socialists to make concessions to the Israeli chauvinist right on these questions, to attempt to rule such discussions out of order, and generally do nothing to raise these issues, and when they are raised, attempt to associate organisations who do raise these issues with ‘anti-semitism’. I genuinely find it hard to understand how any socialist can have got themselves into such a position. No doubt someone will now come on and tell me that Palestinians were simply ’squatters’ or some lovely sentiment like that.
voltairespriest said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:30 am
Actually I think discussion of issues like this is entirely “appropriate on a socialist website”, especially when the issue under discussion is anti-semitism on the left and not (as you keep trying to shift the terrain towards) whether or not the Palestinians are the main victims in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Nobody is talking about “making concessions to the Israeli chavinist right”, this is your spin on what is being written. I think you do that because you need a Jabotinskyite straw man to attack here as part of a device to change the subject. It’s the politics of “look over there!” again; I really thought you’d gone beyond that. Further, you should be ashamed of the emotional blackmail that you constantly employ in order to shut down discussions about this issue - it is not “insulting” to Palestinians to discuss anti-semitism on the left.
The bulk of your argument is that there are Israelis on the right who deny the gross acts that happened in the course of the setting up of the Israeli state. Everybody in this debate right now, knows that to be true and knew it before you said it. If you could manage not to respond with “yeah but it’s really bad and Likud supporters are bad too” (or some such equally true-yet-banal statement) then that would be a step forward.
Your final sentence merely goes to show just how desperately you appear to be looking for a straw man.
Shachtman said,
May 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Jon G. You talk about Nakba Denial. How do you feel about the way parts of the left (such as the SWP) and antizionists ignore some of the actions taken against Jews in Palestine in 47 / 48. Obviously if your reading is limited to antizionists such as Pappe then perhaps you may not be aware that while atrocities were carried out by Israel (by no means by all Israelis), there was no shortage of atrocities carried out by Palestinians (by no means all Palestinians) against Jews.
Will you condemn this John ?
For instance
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1353
And if certain Palestinian leaders and ARab States had been more successful then judging by their own words and attempts,it is highly doubtful that many Israeli Jews would have survived.
Do you condemn this John ?
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 2:06 pm
In the first place the development of clashes between Arabs and Jews does indeed have a long history and is indeed documented by the ‘new historians’ in their accounts (its simply untrue that they do not speak about this). The balence of terror was however firmly on the side of the Zionist militia’s in this as is evidenced by the population movements. These population movements proceeded the invasion by external Arab armies, and indeed most of the literature produced in the last 15 years evidences the total disunity and lack of seriousness of the Arab armies in the war with Israel, save for Jordan’s Arab Legions, which were however concerned with territorial adjustments and indeed directed away armies under their command from confrontation with the Israeli forces on other fronts. These were however two seperate conflicts not one, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians outlined in Plan Dalet had begun before the invasion of Arab Armies (with the Palestinians themselves being given no independent command role in these operations).
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Shachtman,
please, you’ll NEVER get a straight answer out of SWP hacks, like JohnG, not least because:
1) SWPers and their allies are not concerned with anti-Jewish racism in the Middle East
2) they are happy to align themselves with anti-Jewish racists, such as Dr. Tamimi, etc
3) their grasp of Palestinian history is decidedly faulty
etc
had the SWP hacks known anything of the history of violence in Palestine during the 20th century, then they would have had to acknowledge how the Mufti, the Arab elites stoked up racial tensions, instigated assassinations and race riots but they can’t do that, it doesn’t fix their “narrative”
rather SWP hacks would seek to excuse racial attacks on Jews in the 1920s, 1929 and after 1936, as somehow “understandable” in the circumstances
and doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about the SWP’s “principles”?
if they are prepared to do that, what else would they do?
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’m sorry Volty, but Jim does not know this to be true, Modernity does not know this to be true, and if you have any evidence at all that they do please let me know about it. Similarly what is grotesque is the attempt to accuse a Palestinian organisation of being in some sense an example to which the article was pointing towards (motivated by anti-semitism) purely on the basis that it is devoted to uncovering the history which you suggest everyone is familiar with. Its also a bit strange that you can’t see this. I think the persistance of anti-Arab racism on the left and the inability of many on this site to even notice it is something which requires further discussion.
voltairespriest said,
May 18, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think “a Palestinian organisation” is an adequate definition. The DFLP is a Palestinian organisation, and so is Hamas. They’re rather different, and I don’t think that being critical of the latter’s politics is a symptom of “anti-Arab racism”. If that’s our point of difference then so be it.
Actually I do think Jim and Modernity would both “know” that there were human rights atrocities committed by Israel. It’s utter nonsense (of the extra-special po-mo tinged “there is no one with a special insight… except me” kind) to state otherwise when you clearly have no such knowledge.
Incidentally if you want to put together a guest post to discuss anti-Arab racism on the left, I’ll publish it here quite happily. And I’d anticipate no objections from Jim or anyone else.
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Why did Jim attack that organisation? Could that be explained? It was entirely gratuitous and unpleasent, and there was no justification for it offered. Is it too much to ask why an organisation which is simply examining the history of the Nakba should be attacked in this manner? Unless such an explanation is presented its hard to avoid the impression that this is motivated by anything else but anti-Arab racism.
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm
To adopt a turn of phrase.
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Volty wrote:
“Actually I do think Jim and Modernity would both “know” that there were human rights atrocities committed by Israel.”
yes, there are terrible abuses by the Israelis, and the recent incursions into Gaza were counterproductive and unnecessary in my view, although the Israelis felt something had to be done I think that it was murderous and unconscionable given the civilian casualties
turning to the question of Nakba60
indeed, I doknow them, because I have the ability to look up web sites and who runs them
I gave comparably limited details on Nabka60 because I didn’t think it was appropriate to give out the full name of the individual concerned nor his postal code
it is all freely accessible on the Web
but the technophobic idiots from the SWP wouldn’t know that
I know nothing else about the individual concerned nor his web site, although I’m sure I could find out if pushed, most stuff is freely available on the Web if you know what you doing (which clearly the mindless dimwits of the SWP don’t)
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm
PS:
Volty, that’s why I gave up arguing directly with most SWPers, a lot of them can’t even read, let alone comprehend what others write, they seem to live in an SWP bubble untroubled by the arguments or ideas of others
it is very strange
voltairespriest said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm
John: because Jim thinks that they appear to deny Israel’s right to exist, and he has a problem with that? It’s expressed in plain English in the article. I realise that’s a lost art in many Humanities departments (having studied in one myself, before you start off about “anti-intellectualism”), but I would have thought you’d have noticed.
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm
why does he think that though? I know he makes this allegation. On what does he base it? That they’re Palestinians?
resistor said,
May 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Jim Denhams seems to think Ronnie Kasrils is on his own in his identification of Zionism with Apartheid.
See here
http://www.endtheoccupation.org.za/index.html
We, South Africans who faced the might of unjust and brutal apartheid machinery in South Africa and fought against it with all our strength, with the objective to live in a just, democratic society, refuse today to celebrate the existence of an Apartheid state in the Middle East. While Israel and its apologists around the world will, with pomp and ceremony, loudly proclaim the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel this month, we who have lived with and struggled against oppression and colonialism will, instead, remember 6 decades of catastrophe for the Palestinian people. 60 years ago, 750,000 Palestinians were brutally expelled from their homeland, suffering persecution, massacres, and torture. They and their descendants remain refugees. This is no reason to celebrate.
When we think of the Sharpeville massacre of 1960,
we also remember the Deir Yassin massacre of 1948.
When we think of South Africa’s Bantustan policy,
we remember the bantustanisation of Palestine by the Israelis.
When we think of our heroes who languished on Robben Island and elsewhere,
we remember the 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.
When we think of the massive land theft perpetrated against the people of South Africa,
we remember that the theft of Palestinian land continues with the building of illegal Israeli settlements and the Apartheid Wall.
When we think of the Group Areas Act and other such apartheid legislation,
we remember that 93% of the land in Israel is reserved for Jewish use only.
When we think of Black people being systematically dispossessed in South Africa,
we remember that Israel uses ethnic and racial dispossession to strike at the heart of Palestinian life.
When we think of how the SADF troops persecuted our people in the townships,
we remember that attacks from tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships are the daily experience of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory.
When we think of the SADF attacks against our neighbouring states,
we remember that Israel deliberately destabilises the Middle East region and threatens international peace and security, including with its 100s of nuclear warheads.
We who have fought against Apartheid and vowed not to allow it to happen again can not allow Israel to continue perpetrating apartheid, colonialism and occupation against the indigenous people of Palestine.
We dare not allow Israel to continue violating international law with impunity.
We will not stand by while Israel continues to starve and bomb the people of Gaza.
We who fought all our lives for South Africa to be a state for all its people demand that millions of Palestinian refugees must be accorded the right to return to the homes from where they were expelled.
Apartheid was a gross violation of human rights. It was so in South Africa and it is so with regard to Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians!
* Ronnie Kasrils, Minister of Intelligence / End Occupation Campaign
* Blade Nzimande, General Secretary, South African Communist Party
* Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary, Congress of South African Trade Unions
* Ahmed Kathrada, Nelson Mandela Foundation
* Eddie Makue, General Secretary, South African Council of Churches
* Makoma Lekalakala, Social Movements Indaba
* Dale McKinley, Anti-Privatisation Forum
* Lybon Mabasa, President, Socialist Party of Azania
* Costa Gazi, Pan Africanist Congress of Azania
* Jeremy Cronin, South African Communist Party
* Sydney Mufamadi, Minister of Provincial and Local Government
* Mosioua Terror Lekota, Minister of Safety and Security
* Mosibudi Mangena, President, Azanian Peoples Organisation / Minister of Science and Technology
* Alec Erwin, Minister of Public Enterprises
* Essop Pahad, Minister in the Presidency
* Enver Surty, Deputy Minister of Education
* Roy Padayache, Deputy Minister of Communications
* Derek Hanekom, Deputy Minister of Science and Technology
* Rob Davies, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry
* Lorretta Jacobus, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services
* Sam Ramsamy, International Olympic Committee
* Yasmin Sooka, Executive Director, Foundation for Human Rights
* Pregs Govender, Feminist Activist and Author: Love and Courage, A Story of Insubordination
* Adam Habib, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Johannesburg
* Frene Ginwala, African National Congress
* Salim Vally, Palestine Solidarity Committee
* Na’eem Jeenah, Palestine Solidarity Committee
* Brian Ashley, Amandla Publications
* Mercia Andrews, Palestine Solidarity Group
* Andile Mngxitama, land rights activist
* Farid Esack, Professor of Contemporary Islam, Harvard University
* Elinor Sisulu, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
* Andre Zaaiman
* Virginia Setshedi, Coalition Against Water Privatisation
* Max Ozinsky, Not in my Name
* Revd Basil Manning, Minister, United Congregational Church of Southern Africa
* Firoz Osman, Media Review Network
* Zapiro, cartoonist
* Mphutlane wa Bofelo, General Secretary, Muslim Youth Movement
* Steven Friedman, academic
* Ighsaan Hendricks, President, Muslim Judicial Council
* Iqbal Jassat, Media Review Network
* Stiaan van der Merwe, Palestine Solidarity Committee
* Naaziem Adam, Palestine Solidarity Alliance
* Asha Moodley, Board member of Agenda feminist journal
* Suraya Bibi Khan, Palestine Solidarity Alliance
* Nazir Osman, Palestine Solidarity Alliance
* Allan Horwitz, Jewish Voices
* Jackie Dugard, legal and human rights activist
* Professor Alan and Beata Lipman
* Caroline O’Reilly, researcher
* Jane Lipman
* Shereen Mills, Human rights lawyer, Centre for Applied Legal Studies
* Noor Nieftagodien, University of the Witwatersrand
* Bobby Peek, Groundworks
* Arnold Tsunga, Chair, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
* Mcebisi Skwatsha, Provincial Secretary, ANC Western Cape
* Owen Manda, Centre for Sociological Research, University of Johannesburg
* Claire Cerruti, Keep Left
NB: Organisational affiliations above are for identification purposes only and do not necessarily reflect organisational endorsement
Organisational endorsements:
* African National Congress
* Al Quds Foundation
* Anti-Privatisation Forum and its 28 affiliates
* Azanian Peoples Organisation
* Congress of South African Trade Unions
* Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
* End Occupation Campaign
* Groundworks
* Media Review Network
* Muslim Judicial Council
* Muslim Youth Movement of South Africa
* Not In My Name
* Palestine Solidarity Alliance
* Palestine Solidarity Committee
* Palestine Solidarity Group
* Social Movements Indaba
* Socialist Party of Azania
* South African Communist Party
* South African Council of Churches
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Oh for goodness sake resister….a few individuals!
:).
Sue R said,
May 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I am not a ZIonist so I am not saying this from any pro-Israeli perspective, but it does sound from what is said above, especially by Johng, that the Palestinians actually LOST the battle for their land, whether they ran away, where ordered to evacuate or where frightened away. In which case, aren’t they being bad losers?
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm
there is a tactic employed by SWPers, etc. whenever the topic of the Left and antisemitism comes up, it is to bring up the Middle East and indirectly blame Israelis for the problem, it is a form of deflection
you will notice how conspicuously absent SWPers and their allies are from addressing the topic of antisemitism IN Britain, of course they want to talk about the Middle East, because it takes away any focus from their own support of racists (Atzmon, Tamimi, etc)
I’d suggest that we return the focus to antisemitism in Britain and not allow them off the hook?
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/ In…s_Report_07.pdf
Taken from the CST 2007 report:
Executive Summary.
* 547 antisemitic incidents were recorded by CST in 2007. This is the second-highest annual total since CST began recording antisemitic incidents in 1984.
* The total of 547 incidents is an eight per cent fall from the 2006 total of 594 incidents. However, this fall is not large enough to alter the long-term trend of rising antisemitic incidents in Britain since the late 1990s.
* The fall in the number of incidents in 2007 is due to the absence of ‘trigger events’ that can cause temporary increases in incidents. In 2006 there was a significant trigger event, the war between Israel and Hizbollah in Lebanon, which led to a large rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK.
* There were 114 violent antisemitic assaults in 2007, the highest ever recorded by CST. This included one incident that was classified as Extreme Violence, meaning that the victim’s life was endangered. Violent assaults were the only category of incident to increase in 2007 and make up an increasing proportion of antisemitic incidents in the UK, from 13 per cent of the total in 2002, up to 21 per cent in 2007.
* Incidents of Damage and Desecration to Jewish property fell by 11 per cent, from 70 incidents in 2006 to 62 incidents in 2007.
* There were 328 incidents of Abusive Behaviour in 2007, a fall of ten per cent from the 365 incidents recorded in 2006. This category includes verbal abuse, hatemail and antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property.
* September was the joint fourth-highest monthly total on record. Of the 78 incidents recorded during the month, 35 took place on the festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, when there are relatively large numbers of visibly Jewish people on the streets, walking to and from synagogue.
* In 59 incidents the victims were Jewish students, academics or other student bodies. This is a 228 per cent rise from 2006, probably because of increased reporting by students to CST. Out of 59 incidents, 31 took place on campus and 28 off campus. Six incidents occurred in the direct context of student political campaigning.
* In 282 antisemitic incidents the victims were individual Jewish people in public places. In 189 of these, the victims were visibly identifiable as Jewish.
* Synagogues were the target in 67 incidents, and congregants on their way to or from prayer were the targets in 64 incidents.
* Jewish schools or schoolchildren were the targets in 47 incidents, of which 31 were against Jewish schoolchildren on their journeys to or from school. There were six cases of Jewish or pro-Israel websites being hacked and defaced. In all six cases, the hackers appeared to be Islamist extremists based outside the UK.
* The lack of trigger events from the Middle East in 2007 meant the number of antisemitic incidents that included anti-Zionist discourse fell from 106 in 2006 to 46 in 2007, while the number that included neo-Nazi discourse rose slightly, from 125 in 2006 to 127 in 2007.
* In addition to the 547 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in 2007, a further 488 reports of potential incidents were received by CST, but not included in the total number of antisemitic incidents as there was no evidence of antisemitic motivation, targeting or content.
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 6:03 pm
ops, that link should be http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents_Report_07.pdf
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I don’t understand why I am ‘on a hook’ Modernity. You mentioned the fact that some youths scribbled jihad on a synagogue in London. I would condemn this utterly, as would any decent person. Is there anything else? (Incidently I really love the way you dodge the central issue: its admirable debating tactics but you don’t think this might be a trivialisation of the subject? That is if you really do take the issue of anti-semitism seriously and don’t just see it as a conveniant stick to beat the palestinian solidarity movement with?).
modernity said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Clearly, anyone serious about combating racist attacks would not dismiss the above as merely “…some youths scribbled jihad on a synagogue…”
as the CST report states “There were 114 violent antisemitic assaults in 2007, the highest ever recorded by CST. This included one incident that was classified as Extreme Violence, meaning that the victim’s life was endangered…”
“Synagogues were the target in 67 incidents…”
as above “Residents were today warned to look out for suspicious activity following the racist attack in north-east London.
Vandals sprayed shops, pavements and walls outside four synagogues in Clapton Common and Stamford Hill on Tuesday night. Worshippers were yesterday confronted with slogans such as “Jihad to Israel” and “Jihad to Tel Aviv”.
Hackney council is removing the graffiti, which consisted of 40 pieces of writing.”
That four synagogues, in probably a planned set of attacks.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484717-details/Synagogue+walls+daubed+with+anti-Jewish+graffiti/article.do
johng said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm
And I would condemn it utterly. So what has that got to do with ‘left wing anti-semitism’ exactly?
modernityblog said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:40 am
the above is another terrible example of why the SWP are not taken seriously when the topic of anti-Jewish racism comes up
I raised the point about the synagogue attack some 64 comments ago (May 17, 2008 at 1:53 am)
despite this being a very serious incident, that barely gets acknowledged
in fact quite the opposite, we are told by an SWP intellectual and professional academic that the attacks were “…some youths scribbled jihad on a synagogue in London…” when it is clearly a much more serious situation with the Council “…removing the graffiti, which consisted of 40 pieces of writing.”
my post of May 18, 2008 at 7:29 pm highlighted the serious nature of racist attacks on synagogues and how the most recent incident were not merely “…some youths scribbled jihad on a synagogue in London…” but in reality a serious planned attack on four synagogues, (repeat: FOUR), not one, two or three, but four
So instead of recognising the severity of the situation all we get back is “And I would condemn it utterly. So what has that got to do with ‘left wing anti-semitism’ exactly?”
Which is where we started, because if some people on the Left can’t acknowledge these terrible instances even when they are staring them straight in the face, then how can they be expected to fight them?
They can’t, as the above shows.
johng said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:45 am
Actually modernity I had not read your piece. Partly because I was involved in a discussion with someone else and partly because your entire modus oparandi consists in trying to smear any supporter of Palestinians as an anti-semite. Which is just rather tedious. Most of the time I don’t read your posts at all. Why would I given your vile record of spreading atrocious slanders about me personally over the net? (I take this as a great complement by the way, and also evidence that you have’nt a leg to stand on).
John Wight said,
May 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Modernity:
good point, but yes and no, I’d agree that there is an unhealthy essentialising which wouldn’t occur with any other social or ethnic minority, but is it really antisemitism? I’m not so sure, elements of it are, but the intensity of belief, of hatred isn’t there, in my view, with a few exceptions (see John Wight)
Reply:
Hatred, you’d better believe it - hatred of occupation, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, racism, and injustice.
Please now explain - do you agree that the Nakba constitued a crime against humanity that to this day has yet to be acknowledged by the state of Israel?
Do you agree that the Nakba took place?
And do you believe that the Palestinians have the right to exist without their land or resources being expropriated?
Do you think, in line with George W Bush, that the Jews are a chosen people? Or do you, like me, believe that they are no better, more chosen, or exceptional than any other people in our world?
Fraternally,
John Wight
John Wight said,
May 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm
On another level, anybody who hides behind a psuedonym when it comes to airing and stating their political views is gutless and unworthy of as much as a scintilla of respect.
Modernity Blog, or whatever your name is, try to be a little more subtle when it comes to peddling what is nothing more than reactionary, anti-Arab drivel.
At least David Hirsh manages to come across as halfway rational when he posts his pro-Israel views. You on the other hand…
Andrew Coates said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:38 pm
John Wright, I am not gutless myself and use my real name to tell you: there is anti-semitism (often wrapped up in poppycock about 11/9 Truth campaigns) on the ‘left’.
The problem many of us democratic socialists have in dealing with these issues is that we consider, deep down, that both the Israeli and Palestinains are, for the most part beautiful and brave peoples. We don’t want to choose between the peoples, only we have to reject the states and their armies.
On the subject of Mike Marqusee I have a slight exchange (think I mentioned it before) on his anti-Zionism, at the May68andallthat Event. He seems to live in different world to mine, or indeed any rational leftist, on the subject of the Islamists. Fluffy counter-cultural bunnies indeed…
johng said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm
9/11 truth campaigns to my knowledge have no connection with anything that most people woud call ‘the left’. The article was attempting to make this allegation about what are in fact standard themes in Palestinian nationalism (take for instance the Anti-Aparthied comparison). This is deeply offensive and one of the more extraordinary things is that people cannot seem to understand why. The low point was Jim Denhams vicious swipe at a group of Palestinians campaigning around the nakba for..as far as one could see, just being Palestinians.
modernityblog said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Andrew Coates wrote:
John Wright, I am not gutless myself and use my real name to tell you: there is anti-semitism (often wrapped up in poppycock about 11/9 Truth campaigns) on the ‘left’.
Andrew, by all means engage with stunted racists, such as John Wight, but I have found from bitter experience that they are impervious to reason and logic, plus the fact that anyone remotely connected with antifascism should know not to use the terminology “international Jewry”, as it is a loaded far right expression, as John Wight seems fond of using
not that John Wight or his erstwhile lickspittle JohnG would even have bothered to understand that
anyone interested in John Wight’s antics could do worse than look him up at the SU thread, OVERCOMING ZIONISM: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2295
swinton said,
May 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“On another level, anybody who hides behind a psuedonym when it comes to airing and stating their political views is gutless and unworthy of as much as a scintilla of respect.”
What pseudonym did Tommy use John?
Or did his phone go to Cupids alone?
Offering sermons when you’re a dim anti semite who ferries a perjurer to court is laughable.
John Wight said,
May 19, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Andrew Coates
What does the 9/11 truth campaign have to do with the left? No one I know personally, who is active in left wing politics, subscribes to the conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11.
And as for your nonsensical statement re rejecting ’states and their armies’, the point is that the Palestinians do not have a state, much less an army. What they do have is a right enshrined in international law to resist occupation.
Do you adhere to international law? Or, like the apartheid state of Israel, is your adherence to the principles of international law and human rights selective?
modernityblog said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:03 pm
after John Wight’s nasty comment about “international Jewry” and “a chosen people”, it wouldn’t be too surprising if he subscribed to some weird 9/11 Mossad type theory?
or if he ranted on about the Five Dancing Israelis and 9/11?
it is just a matter of time
johng said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Ah modernity is engaging in telepathy again.
modernityblog said,
May 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm
this is a fine example, a one time bright academic reduced to supporting a thick racist like John Wight
readers will remember John Wight’s infamous comment:
“The state of Israel is a hydra-headed monster, comprising Zionist ethnic cleansers, US imperialists, and Arab collaborationist regimes. Arrayed against this monster are the forces of human progress.”
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1627
Wight’s comments wouldn’t look out of place at Stormfront
John Wight said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Modernity, arsehole:
I’ve just looked at your blog by the way and it’s fucking shite. In fact, it’s the worst I’ve seen out there by far - really fucking crap.
If I’m an idiot I’m an idiot who’s had his work published in Counterpunch (twice), Scottish Left Review (twice), and on numerous occasions in the Morning Star. I’ve also spoken at meetings from Los Angles, to San Francisco, and the length and breadth of the UK.
No bad going for an idiot, wouldn’t you say?
As for your racist smear, read this and point out where I’m wrong, Mr Modernity, arsehole.
Fact:
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes.
Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid. Saudi Arabia receives US military hardware and expertise, the main aim of which is to protect the regime from its own people.
The dollar is currently the international reserve currency, without which the US economy would collapse.
Now, please refute any of the aforementioned facts and tell me how my previous statement was incorrect.
Now, let me ask you a question.
1. How many UN Resolutions has the State of Israel violated or ignored with respect to the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours since 1948?
2. Did the Nakba take place and were 750,000 Palestinians forcibly expelled from their homes?
3. Does Israel have the right to keep 1.4 million Palestinian civilians locked up in the open prison otherwise known as Gaza?
Sorry if you find my language a little intemperate on such matters, but I do tend to get impassioned over issues such as apartheid, racism, and ethnic cleansing.
But,of course, I forgot, as far as you and yours are concerned, who gives a fuck about a few million filthy Arabs.
By the way, and again, your blog’s shite. Try putting your mind to something more beneficial - like pissing on a toilet seat perhaps. Something tells me you might be good at that.
modernity said,
May 20, 2008 at 11:43 pm
anyone interested in the psychosis of John Wight’s racism could do worse than follow his disgusting comments on Holocaust Memorial Day, see http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1505 at SU blog
Jim Denham said,
May 21, 2008 at 12:16 am
Mr Wight: your poisonous, anti-Jewish shite has been published in the “Morning Star” and “Counterpunch”: hardly a recommedation. You also, I understand, are an activist in the Scottish PSC (more viciously anti-Jewish than the main, British PSC), who put on Jim Allen’s ignorant, revisionist and ahistorical play “Perditition”, to mark Holocaust Memorial day a couple of years ago. Even the SWP walked out of your campaign over that. I think that fact alone tells all decent people all they need to know about anti-semitic Stalin/Hitler pact-era shite like you.
Cupid said,
May 21, 2008 at 8:38 am
Wight has exposed himself as an anti semitic racist so often,one has to question his motives.
On his idiocy.
He thinks Tommy Sheridans phone went to a swingers club by itself.
John Wight said,
May 21, 2008 at 10:33 am
Denham
You are a repugnant human being, a man whose brain is clearly 2lbs lighter than a meringue.
You are a laughing stock on the left, leader to a gang of reactionary reprobates who populate your blog under silly psuedonyms because they’re too gutless to do anything else.
Your anti-Arab racism verily drips from every syllable of every word you write. The SPSC has plays an effective and proud role in providing international solidarity with the Palestinians and will continue to do so. My membership or non membership of any organisation is none of your fucking business. I am willing, however, to admit to being a fully fledged member of the human race. As such, I look forward to continuing to play my part against the barbarism of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and settler colonialism of which you are clearly a champion.
As for your disgusting smear of Communists, you would do well to remember that it was the Red Army that smashed the Nazis and the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz in 1944.
Again and again and again