The pornography of anti-imperialism
Israel’s military action was always going to send the pro-faith left into what Nick Cohen calls ‘one of its periodic beserkers’. But I don’t think anyone realised things would get this bad.
The line on the January 3 demo was that the protest was organised by concerned peace activists and that the ‘We are Hamas’ signs were carried by a disruptive minority. That may have been plausible at the time, just about, but last weekend’s demonstrations were addressed by Hamas spokesman Azzam Tamimi, who regaled the crowd with the words ‘Hamas is our leader to liberation’. The rally itself teemed with Nazi iconography and flags of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda, and rang with chants advocating the destruction of Israel.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.
There have been calls to ban Israeli academics from giving lectures, the SWP union factions have called yet again for academic and journalistic boycotts, there have been calls to shut down Israeli shops, and now an Israeli business has been firebombed. Well, I say, ‘Israeli business’ but actually Starbucks has fuck all to do with Israel. And related or not, there have been racist assaults on British Jews and an arson attack on a synagogue.
Still, no worries. The pro-faith left cheer them on, using the most disgusting antisemitic tropes under the prophylactic of the word ‘Zionist’, and the ecstasy of their own sanctimony. The evil historical resonances don’t bother them.
Lots of people thought they were doing the right thing by marching on those fascist rallies. My question is: how is any of this helping the Palestinians? How does any of this aid the civilians killed, injured, incarcerated and starved by Israel’s forces in Gaza? How does it prevent such atrocities happening again? And how will it contribute to a withdrawal from Gaza, an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a secure and vibrant Palestinian state?
The answer of course is that Hamas’s Western cheerleaders couldn’t care less about the future of the Middle East. They will never have to live under movements that persecute trade unionists, gay people, women, socialists, democrats, writers and anyone who is the wrong kind of Muslim. They are not stupid – they know exactly who they are dealing with. As David T says:
Gaza has become, in effect, a spectator sport for those on the far Left. They stand on the sidelines, cheering their side. Whatever the outcome, it makes no difference to them. This is entertainment, for struggle-junkies.
And what’s next? How long before Allahu Akbar becomes Viva la Muerta?
Fortunately there are still people on the left who are genuinely interested in peace, and the contrast is like night and day. There are still those that know fascism when they see it, and recognise that the fascists are not their friends. People who can tell the difference between a fascist rally and a peace demo. Who know the true meaning of comradeship, resistance and solidarity.
It’s a good thing because – to coin a phrase – what Gaza desperately needs is hope, not hate.
What an actual peace demonstration looks like
Shiraz Socialist 
resistor said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I see this site is now a colony of Harrys Place. I hope they treat you better than Israel treats Gaza.
maxdunbar said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Anything to say on the substance of the post?
Euripides Trousers said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.
…
fascist rallies
Are you serious? I can only presume this posting is a joke.
I was on that march. I didn’t see or hear any Hamas speaker, though in fairness from where I was stood I couldn’t see or hear any speakers.
I didn’t see any Nazi iconography and I heard two brief anti-semitic chants from small groups of young men who were soon told to shut up and did. That’s out of the 50,000+ people on the demo, including hundreds of banners from various Jewish organisations opposing Israel’s actions.
But I suppose if you get your information from Harry’s Place I can’t blame you for being completely misinformed.
Euripides Trousers said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:28 pm
By the way, re Starbucks, their chief exec is a high-profile zionist who is often in the news and does a lot of newspaper articles and fundraisers for Israel and the IDF.
However, any attacks at all on Starbucks shops are stupid, misguided, counter-productive and can form no part of a coherent strategy to oppose Israeli military actions.
maxdunbar said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Azzam Tamimi spoke at the demo. He is a Hamas special envoy.
HP has loads of photos of the Star of David entwined with a swastika.
Maybe my statement you quoted was a little bold but I wonder why people don’t think twice before going on a march hosted by a clerical fascist organisation.
I mean it’s not as if there aren’t genuine peace demos to go on.
If the BNP organised a demo against Pakistan’s military dictatorship at which people chanted ‘Pakis go home’ what would you think?
maxdunbar said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:31 pm
But that was a good point about Starbucks. Surely there is a better way to protest Israel’s actions that by endangering the lives of low-paid cafe workers and their customers.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“Are you serious? I can only presume this posting is a joke.”
Unfortunately not. The author is simply insane.
And those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, to coin a phrase.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 15, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.”
Well I saw several people selling the AWL’s ‘Solidarity’. Jeremy Corbyn also spoke on the platform.
All these people are Nazis, according to Dunbar, who is right off the deep end. If this is a fascist demonstration, it must be the largest fascist demonstration in British history, dwarfing anything Moseley managed to produce in the 1930s. It is rather on the scale of the Cable Street demonstration that stopped Moseley from marching into the East End. Truly frightening, if it really was a fascist demonstration.
Or on the other hand, the author is the author of the most pathetic and demented false use of the term ‘fascism’ since Trotsky was declared to be a Nazi and sentenced to death by Stalin.
This is the self-destruction, in political terms, of Zionism, and its nonsensical smear of how those who oppose their colonial-settler aparthied state are motivated by Nazi-style anti-semitism. This has now died in Gaza, as the IDF committs massacres on the same scale as Sabra-Shatila. But this time they can’t blame it on the Falange. It’s 100% made in Israel.
Get used to it: – this has exposed the real nature of Zionism the way Krushchev’s Secret Speech and the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution exposed the nature of Stalinism. If Dunbar really thinks that the mass odium that Zionism has now fallen into is a sign of a mass fascist development, then all I can say is …. the average crack addict is more rooted in the real world than Dunbar.
(Cue images of Corbyn and Martin Thomas doing impressions of John Cleese doing impressions of Hitler with hankerchieves on their heads).
Shabba Goy said,
January 15, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“It must be the largest fascist demonstration in British history, dwarfing anything Moseley managed to produce in the 1930s.”
Correct.
By the way, does anyone recall the Blackshirts actually turning over Jewish shops, attacking Jewish workers? I’ve been googling and I haven’t found anything yet.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 15, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Shabba goy gooo gooo gooo dribble dribble slurp (men in white coats enter and place unfortunate man in straightjacket, then cart him off to place of safety where he can’t harm himself).
'resistor' said,
January 15, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Julie Burchill Chas Newkey-Burden Begin Zionist tentacles Julie Burchill Begin Zionist Chas Newkey-Burden Zionism Julie Burchill fascist Begin (You’ve done this. Ed.)
maxdunbar said,
January 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Wally
Yes, because there has never been a large, well-attended fascist rally in any European country ever, has there?
I credit most people with the intelligence and political nous to know who Hamas are and what they stand for. I appreciate that there will be a few genuine peace lovers who have been sucked into the madness.
KB Player said,
January 15, 2009 at 8:26 pm
For more about the fascist & anti-semetic element (and I do mean only an element) in anti-Israel protests, see here:-
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/01/nothing-extraordinary-going-on-here.html
I don’t know if you’ve linked to it already Max – I haven’t checked all your links.
Jamie said,
January 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The War in Gaza
The UN defines a major war as an excess of 1,000 battlefield deaths in a year. There have been around 10 such wars going on in the world each year for the past half century. Around two dozen lower intensity conflicts bubble on around the world.
We rarely hear of them because war has become so normal it fades into the news background. Only sudden bouts of violence, in areas where our local capitalists have a particular interest seem to make the headlines.
The current war in Gaza attracts attention because of the oil interest in the Middle East, and its threat to the stability in the region. Palestinian and Israeli workers are being used as pawns in a struggle for control of a strategically useful patch of land. A very wealthy war machine confronts a poor one with abundant human resources.
Neither Palestinian nor Israeli workers will benefit from any victory – the only victory for them will be the cessation of violence, the removal of the threat of death from their lives. That matters more than any borderline.
Any peace, though, would only be temporary. In a world of continual warfare over access to trade routes and resources, violence will flare up again there or somewhere else – and you will be called out onto the streets once more in the name of peace.
The only rational response to a world of continual warfare is to deal with the global conditions that produce warfare. The division of the world into units of property by competing profiteers means someone will inevitably cheat and resort of violence to boost their profits.
Around the world, there are billions who own nothing but their ability to work, and who take no share in these profits, but who are compelled to fight or die in these wars. These people, the working class, live by their labour, their co-operation. Their interest does not lie in the division of the world into property, but the emancipation of their labour from the chains of private property.
The world should be a common treasury for all – a worldwide cooperative commonwealth would mean an end to the causes of this war, and all wars. Don’t let yourselves be sidetracked into who started what, when or why; nor by those who ask you to “support Hamas”, call out for “Victory to the resistance” or chant “No justice, no peace”. The cause of the workers is the only route to lasting peace: the world for the workers!
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/
maxdunbar said,
January 15, 2009 at 8:45 pm
KB
Thanks for those links.
From Terry’s site I found a great post by Johnny Guitar that contains this classic:
http://yourfriendinthenorth.blogspot.com/2009/01/left-wing-fascism-infantile-disorder.html
davidbroder said,
January 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm
– Someone wrapped in the flag of the hugely stronger aggressor in the conflict (or at “best”, one of the two aggressive powers) does not look much like a peace demonstrator.
– The reporting that the Starbucks attack on the demo and the BICOM raid were “anti-semitic” or “targetting Jews” is crazy. The idea that this is targetting Jews (for being Jews) is insane.
– I don’t have any time for InMinds, which has written stuff with pics of me and slanderous comments after the Al Quds demo/counter-demo, but I don’t believe Spiked! either.
– I was at the demos,arguing with and booing with anyone who I saw making anti-semitic or otherwise offensive statements. I am not ashamed of raiding BICOM and the scurrilous misrepresentations of the action in the Jerusalem Post and Israeli chauvinist websites.
'resistor' said,
January 15, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey-Burden yap yap Begin yap yap Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey-Burden yap yap Begin yap yap Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey-Burden yap yap Begin yap yap (You’re fired. Ed.)
modernityblog said,
January 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
well Dave Broder,
what are your thought on the fire bombing of that Starbucks?
resistor said,
January 15, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Well Modernity Blog what are your ‘thoughts’ on the fire bombing of the UN in Gaza?
Dunbar, why are you covering up your fascist links?
Alan Laurence said,
January 15, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Dave,
You say- The reporting that the Starbucks attack on the demo and the BICOM raid were “anti-semitic” or “targetting Jews” is crazy. The idea that this is targetting Jews (for being Jews) is insane.
Quite so. I am sure you didnt attack them because they were Jews. You attacked because they are Jews who share the opinion of the majority of Jews.
The reason why the perpetrators attacked Jewish owned or led businesses is not the only criteria agianst which it should be judged. It is not necessary for the perpetrator to want to attack Jews to make the attack anti-semitic. Attacking Jews because they are zionists is, in practice – and standing no denials – still attacking Jews.
Take an analogy. A man beats his female partner. He does not do this because she is a woman but because she has – lets say, slept with another man. the assault is still best understood as violence against women, even though a defence is entered that the man felt himself to be attacking a specific woman because of her actions.
The justification of your attacks on Starbucks and BICOM is on the same level as the wife-beater denial. You didnt attack because they are Jews but because they are zionist Jews. They are still Jews.The wife beater beat his partner because she was unfaithful – it was still violence against women.
Where do you intend to draw the line between legitiamate and illegitimate targets? I assume you have no interest in attacking Jewish kids or graves, so lets rule out those targets. What about M and S, or a restaurant, or the jewellers shop opposite my flat? Do I need to sleep with my phone left on because the anti-racist action group might call me tonight? What will I say when they to organise a show of solidarity after an attack on the shop. Should I say, dont worry – its not an attack on Jews its an attack on their politics?
A second question: What is your demand on Starbucks? It doesnt send money to Israel, it doesnt make propaganda so you cant demand a change of policy. Its only connection to Israel is through the CEO who is Jewish. Is your demand that Starbucks sack its CEO?
modernityblog said,
January 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm
resistor,
in case you haven’t learnt by now and I appreciate that neo-Strasserite scum like you are a bit dense:
I am a “no platform” type bloke, so fuck off
I am not interested in your Jew baiting ways, I have seen fascist filth like you for decades, just so you get it: fuck off
Alan Laurence said,
January 15, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Resistor,
Fancy getting a group of your pals together and I’ll round up the lads in the local pub. We can make a big gang and go smash up Starbucks, then we can cross over to M and S and daub ‘zionist scum – go back to New York’ on the windows. Then, if the fascist pigs have not arrived – and I bet the zionists have a direct line into the police so its likley they will have arrived – we can do down to the deli and get ourselves a bagel or two. Ive always liked bagels. And that woman who works there – she’s ok. Her lad was in my class at school.
When we are arranging our defence we need to be careful which brief represents us. I would like to get one of those smart Jewish lawyers – I know one who is in the anti-racist group with us. I’m sure he will defend us. But he might not as his neighbours work in M and S and you know how these Jews stick together.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 15, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Actually, Max Dunbar is not a fascist either. If he was, he would have a more sober attitude to these things and not peddle idiotic hallucinatory lunacy about how the Jan 10 Palestine demo was some kind of mass fascist movement. He is a saddo.
The Yvette Doll character on the prostitution thread is actually more in tune with reality than that. This ain’t fascism on Dunbar’s part, just desperation because his pet project is being discredited beyond repair and he hasn’t the slightest inkling what to do about it. The howling about fascism is tragi-comic. “Please take pity on me in my nakedness, otherwise you’re a nasty fascist!!!”
septicisle said,
January 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Is there a reason why you’re more or less relying entirely on Harry’s Place for all of the links on this piece? Were you actually on the march last weekend? I was, and yes, there were a few Hizbullah flags, hardly any Hamas flags and I don’t know whether those black flags are al-Qaida’s banner or not, but considering the people carrying them I saw were women who were only wearing headscarves and not anything more cumbersome my assumption was that there were some other, possibly caliphate related iconography.
I didn’t however hear a single chant either in support of Hamas or in favour of the destruction of Israel, and if you’re basing that on the “from the river to the sea” chant, then I’d bet that 99% of the marchers don’t realise that they’re potentially calling for all of Israel to become Palestine. I don’t know whether I either missed Tamimi’s disgusting speech, as I left after Galloway’s rant or it was beforehand, but I bet there were numerous people shouting him just as some were clearly shouting along with him. So no, I’m not a supporter of “clerical fascism”, I was instead expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people while wanting peace and opposing the indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of civilians by those had been first tried a siege, then starving without causing actual starvation and now finally turning a distinct minority of that territory into rubble. You would have thought those supposedly on the socialist left would have something to say about that, but instead they’re too busying denouncing others for standing shoulder to shoulder with a people even if they’re doing so with some individuals that they personally don’t like.
resistor said,
January 16, 2009 at 12:59 am
Moddy and Laurence have nothing to say about the real violence inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza (children, women, men, schools, hospitals, universities, clinics food, medicine – all put to the flame), so I assume you’re both in favour of it. I always thought you would be.
By the way, I’m not in favour of firebombing anywhere (even Starbucks despite their scummy pro fascist CEO) – but BICOM is part of the Israeli war effort and Lorna Fitzsimons (who is not Jewish) should be facing a war crimes tribunal. Let’s call that peoples justice shall we.
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 1:06 am
fair enough, then do you think it was purely coincidental that an SWPer was shouting racist chants around Speakers corner?
and why invite a Hamas’s London rep, Tamimi to speak at all?
Rebecca said,
January 16, 2009 at 1:25 am
I find this charge about Starbucks odd. As far as I know when they tried to open up cafes in Israel a few years ago they didn’t succeed and ended up closing all of them. (Israel has plenty of good local cafes of its own).
Back to our regularly scheduled foaming at the mouth about the evil Zionists.
septicisle said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:26 am
modernity – that’s yet another unsubstantiated claim. I was around Speaker’s corner for over an hour looking for Sunny and didn’t hear any racist chants. It’s also doubtful it was an SWPer – there were plenty of people with megaphones, including one annoying sod who was near me for a while who kept chanting “THE PEOPLE, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!”.
It’s similarly daft to complain about the speakers which the organisers ask to come along. Half the people on the march didn’t go anywhere near the end rally where Tamimi and Galloway spoke, after holding us at Hyde Park for over an hour listening to deathly dull speeches already. Along with Tamimi there were plenty of others saying the opposite – Brian Eno, Annie Lennox, loads of union representatives, some guy out of Babyshambles playing a bad song. As said, if you objected to some of the people that came on these marches then these movements would have never began in the first place. I find it bizarre that so many want to pick on the few rather than accept the message of the many – and the message was certainly not clerical fascism.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:50 am
To be clear, I wasn’t on the march (apart from anything else, I don’t have the cash to do London demos) so this is based on a combination of what I’ve read online and eyewitness reports from people I trust.
Max, do you honestly not even recognise that Harry’s Place is a partisan source on this? As a blog, they’ve consistently supported the attack on Gaza. Therefore, for you to rely on them so heavily, particuarly entirely uncritically, calls your judgement seriously into question. In precisely the same way as I wouldn’t take seriously anyone who’s main source was a Hamas supporting site.
I’m not suggesting they faked those photos. But have you not even considered the possibility that they might, just, have picked out those photos that supported their political line?
Neither am I saying that there aren’t real issues here. There certainly was antisemitic chanting and imagery at the protests. I think David Rosenberg is a far more significant source here then HP. Politics aside, it’s self evident to anyone who isn’t merely propagandising for ‘their side’ that Rosenberg does not have the motivation to discredit the protests that HP do.
There is also a problem for me with both some of the organisers of these demonstrations (some of whom I do think it’s fair to say are either supporters of Hamas or fellow travellers of it) and an element that goes along to them. However, to go from there to insinuate, as you do, that the bulk of people on these demonstrations are there because they are a “supporter of clerical fascism” is a massive stretch. And one you have provided next to no evidence for. Even moreso your claim it was a “fascist rally”. It seems overblown fascist analogies are one thing you and your ‘opponents’ share. I don’t believe it’s the only similarity in your approaches to this. As I’ll come back to.
Your claim that the pro-Israel rally was “what an actual peace demonstration looks like” is highly disingenous.
Firstly, it seems rather hypocritical for you to back a rally specifically called by religious group while also attacking the “pro-faith left”.
More importantly, it was a Israel solidarity rally and it’s dishonest to pretend otherwise. If that wasn’t the case, why would the chief excutive of Liberal Judaism (a supporter of Israel and no friend of Hamas) have dissociated himself from the tone of the rally?
Actually, a real peace rally would look more like this one in New York. And it would put out statements like the hoax email from Jewdas
It certainly wouldn’t take “peace” to mean supporting one side over the other.
On the other hand, a genuinely internationalist perspective (which is my position) would condemn both sides. It might look a bit like this. Or possibly this.
Because I see very little to chose between you and the “anti-imperalists”. Both of you have absolutely no interest in applying a class analysis to the war in Gaza. Both of you choose to act as cheerleaders for the bourgeoise and their war. And both of you are prepared to ‘accept’ civilian (and overwhelmingly working class ones) deaths as necessary for your chosen army to win.
You may argue you don’t support the attack on Gaza. Bluntly, that means fuck all when you’re openly applauding a march that even its supporters describe as an “Israel solidarity rally”.
So David T’s quote of “Gaza has become, in effect, a spectator sport for those on the far Left. They stand on the sidelines, cheering their side” is very true, apart from the fact it’s the case way wider then the far left. But it doesn’t just apply to the anti-imperalists. It applies to him and it applies to you. He certainly doesn’t have the self-awareness to accept that. You probably don’t.
So to conclude. Fuck those who support Hamas. And fuck those who support the attacks on Gaza. Directly or indirectly.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:55 am
@septicisle
Modernity is right on that one. (And I’m sure Mod will be the first to acknowledge he and I are hardly friends). As I’ve cited, it comes from David Rosenberg, who’s likely to be a reliable source on this. Weekly Worker also mention it and name Weyman Bennett of the SWP central committee as the person saying on a megaphone that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever”. I’m normally highly dubious about the reliability of Weekly Worker, but that would fit with my (thankfully limited) experience of Bennett, to be honest with you. The man’s an utter cock of the first order.
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:38 am
indeed Waterloo
there was a LONG discussion of the incident at SU blog and later at Stroppyblog
granted SU blog admins filleted the thread but there is still enough to see how Dave Rosenberg’s wise words were initially attacked, but substantively confirmed by others later on in that thread.
Sue R said,
January 16, 2009 at 11:19 am
‘The Workers’ United will never be Defeated’. Something the Palestinians could do well to ponder upon.
maxdunbar said,
January 16, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Septic Isle
Do you think there is no better way of showing solidarity with Palestinians than by marching on a demo organised by a theocratic fascist organisation, and addressed by a Hamas special envoy.
I mean there have been actual peace demonstrations happening that have no fascist links at all.
I am assuming here that people who marched on January 10 were, like you, intelligent people who knew what they were getting into.
The ideological contortions on this thread seem to support that.
Great if people are challenging the racist statements expressed at these rallies, but I’ve seen little evidence that this is happening.
How would you feel if there was a protest against immigration, organised by the BNP and addressed by Nick Griffin or David Irving.
Would you condone it because only a few people were shouting ‘Get back to Poland!’
Right, now I’m off to firebomb my local Asian-owned newsagent as a daring protest against the Pakistan military dictatorship.
David Broder said,
January 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I do not accept that attacking someone who simply happens to be a Jew (i.e. not “because” they are a Jew) is necessarily anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is attacking people because they are Jews. We ought to wholeheartedly condemn all anti-semitic attacks, whether or not they use the Gaza war as an excuse.
See http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/anti-semitism-and-the-assault-on-gaza/ and communard’s comment/link, showing that such attacks do take place.
Alan Laurence said,
January 16, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Dave,
You say: Anti-semitism is attacking people because they are Jews.
This is not the full picture. Discrimination is not necesarily premised on a ‘because’. Racism is more complex than that. Of course some racism is driven by conscious decision but probably most racism is accidental or incidental. It is a result of this or that policy or practice which does not start with a desire to do down the victim.
I would be interested to hear why you think this is not true. After alll, it is a fairly basic understanding of how racism works at levels beyond the one to one, beyond simple matters of motivation.
And you are disengenuous: the attacks on Starbucks are because the CEO is a high profile Jew who’s views are broadly representative of conservative Jews in America.
Attacking BICOM – as you so proudly did was a stupid thing to do. It contributes to a climate where attacking Jews is an aceptable practice for the left. No matter how often you say you want to attack zionist offices/shops/people it amounts to the same thing – attacking Jews and/or Jewish institutions.
Where will you draw the line? Which Jews will you not attack? Is there a sign-up sheet somewhere that good-Jews can add their name to so you know not to go knocking on their door?
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Honest, it is so difficult to see someone politically decline in the space of a few months, but Dave Broder, you and your comrades should step back and do a bit of thinking, and maybe actually read something about antisemitism (as this is a very well trodden path)
so let’s examine your point:
“I do not accept that attacking someone who simply happens to be a Jew (i.e. not “because” they are a Jew) is necessarily anti-semitic.”
suppose instead we drop the word anti-semitic and use the term “racism”?
hypothetically speaking, how does it sound if the words change to:
“I do not accept that attacking someone who simply happens to be Black (i.e. not “because” they are Black) is necessarily racism. “
doesn’t that make you stop and think a bit?
davidbroder said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Not really. I doubt you would have made so much hue and cry had we done the BICOM action at some ZanuPF office or a Press TV office. I would happily do the same at either. Alan L doesn’t understand the difference between a person’s politics – ‘conservative’ and their ethnic background, a very grave error.
maxdunbar said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Modernity
We have a new Livingstone Formulation:
‘Kicking the shit out of Jews is not, as such, antisemitic’
Andrew said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I wonder if David Broder can help me ?
I’m Jewish , i’m a zionist although i don’t agree with what Israel is doing in Gaza. I also have family in Israel (in Tel Aviv) and i visit them at least once a year. I run a retail business (i’m the managing director).
So i need your help David – i’m worried that my business might be attacked. I understand that it will only be an anti-zionist attack if it takes place and that i should be responsible for the Israeli government as i’m a zionist (even though i don’t support them). So is there the possibility of setting up a database to ensure that your attacks are only against certain Jews ?
I hope you can help David , i’m prepared to grovel , i’m prepared to walk down the street banging a big derum saying that i’m against what Israel is currently doing. I’ll obviously also hold a big sign saying this.
Hopefully this will stop me or my business from being attacked. Maybe i could report in to Mpac or Mab once a day in order to calm any supsicions.
Euripides Trousers said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Can I suggest this as a formulation? I am willing to amend if suggestions are put forward that I agree with.
1 Attacking known (not suspected) high-profile known supporters of the Israeli government and apologists for Israeli military actions, including their property, is under the current circumstances acceptable and not anti-semitic (if you think that any physical attacks are going to do the cause any good, which is another question).
2 Attacking a jewish person because of Israel’s behaviour, other than under circumstances described in paragraph 1, is anti-semitic and unacceptable.
'resistor' said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey Burden yap yap yap Zionist menace yap yap yap Protocols of the Elders yap yap Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey Burden yap yap yap Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey Burden yap yap yap Julie Burchill yap yap Chas Newkey Burden yap yap yap (You really are fired this time. Clear your desk. Ed.)
Andrew said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Euripides Trousers : Why not colour coded stars of david to differentiate.
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Dave Broder,
Andrew asks a good question:
“I hope you can help David , i’m prepared to grovel , i’m prepared to walk down the street banging a big derum saying that i’m against what Israel is currently doing. I’ll obviously also hold a big sign saying this.
Hopefully this will stop me or my business from being attacked. Maybe i could report in to Mpac or Mab once a day in order to calm any supsicions.”
well Dave, what would you do? attack him? as a “Zionist”, but not a “Jew”?
SP said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:08 pm
David
A couple of comments on this blog is hardly a hue and cry. Being accountable for your political actions is a central requirement of a collectivist left you should be prepared to justify this “demonstration”.
I would tend to regard attacks on either Press TV and Zanu PF as similarly self serving, egotistical and attention seeking. (I also doubt that you posses Tatchells courage with regard to the latters thugs).
That said neither of those targets exist in either the historical of contemporary context of anti-semitism. Were you to undertake such attacks this would not contribute to what are deemed acceptable tactics by the anti-zionist mob. You do not have to look far for the extent and pace of developments in this direction including, in addition to your own contributions, recent events at SOAS and even a church with “Zion” in its name being vandalised.
One of the positive things about the group you recently left is that they recognise the need to try and sanitise the left against its own anti-semitism, be that conscious or otherwise. You seem to have lost such sensibilities very quickly indeed.
Euripides Trousers said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Euripides Trousers : Why not colour coded stars of david to differentiate.
I suppose if you’re a complete fucking deranged lunatic then that might seem like a logical conclusion to draw from what I wrote.
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Euripides Trousers,
would you exercise your not inconsiderable mind thinking up such formula to excuse attacks on ANY OTHER ethnic or social minority?
if not, why do it now? you are better than this
Euripides Trousers said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Why? You may not have noticed but this is a blog thread on that subject.
septicisle said,
January 16, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Max: I’m sorry, where have these “actual” peace demonstrations been taking place? Because that one on Sunday certainly wasn’t if that’s what you’re referring to. There’s a massive difference between an anti-immigration rally organised by a party which has a policy on repatriation and a peace rally organised mainly by organisations against war and which just so happens to have someone on the bill who you don’t much like. If you’d bothered to so much as read other reports on the rally you’d have noted that people expressing sentiments such as “KILL ALL THE JEWS” were quickly booed and argued with, but that it seems might also deflect from your view that anyone who isn’t completely ideologically pure can be dismissed as a “clerical fascist”. Another example: the Grauniad on occasion runs column by those with Hamas links; just because I buy the paper doesn’t make me a Hamas supporter or a “theocratic fascist”, however much those of you who want to deflect attention from what’s really happening in Gaza seem determined to do.
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 16, 2009 at 4:28 pm
resistor, will you fuck off, you neo-Nazi scumbag? Go and troll around on some website with the word ‘Storm’, ‘Werewolf’ or ‘Combat 18’ in its address, so that you can find some like-minded filth to play with.
Volty, Jim, Max – why can’t you just ban this turd?
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Mod- “I do not accept that attacking someone who simply happens to be a Jew (i.e. not “because” they are a Jew) is necessarily anti-semitic.”
suppose instead we drop the word anti-semitic and use the term “racism”?
hypothetically speaking, how does it sound if the words change to:
“I do not accept that attacking someone who simply happens to be Black (i.e. not “because” they are Black) is necessarily racism. “
Actually, I think that’s the case. There was a black counciller in the Front National at one point. (I don’t remember if they’re still a member). And there is the case of the BNP’s Jewish counciller (Pat Richardson).
I don’t think physical attacks on either of those two would be racist. Equally, are verbal attacks on Hamas supporters of asian ethnic origin (as Max does in his post)) necessarily anti-asian racism? I think that’s laughable, but it would be the logical conclusion to follow from your argument here.
That’s the problem with absolutist proscriptions. There’s always exceptions.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 16, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I agree with S&A on Resistor, mind. Fuck off, Resistor. Nobody cares what you have to fucking say. Kill yourself.
Alan Laurence said,
January 16, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Dave Broder – you really are getting pompous.
AL doesn’t understand the difference between a person’s politics – ‘conservative’ and th’eir ethnic background, a very grave error.’
You twist and turn trying to escape your responsibilities. Smashing up Starbucks because the CEO holds a conservative postion on the war is still targeting a Jew. How many non-Jewish right wing conservatives are on your list compared to the number of Jews on your hit list? The vast majortiy of people you think are legitimate targets and might get around to doing something to are Jews. Which other businesses are you in favour of attacking. Give us a list.
You have not the first idea – well, more literarly a second idea of what racism is. It is quite reasonable to consider a practice or policy racist even if it disbenefits some other people too. Thats how racism works – in this case its not about your intentionsbut the consequences for the group of victims – you have a responsbility for the outcomes of your actions as well as for your motivations.
.
And if you mean what you say and repeat or encourage others to attack pro-Israel conservatives then you will contribute to an antisemitic momement where Jews are attacked. What will you say to j people you are close to? Will you tell her not to worry because the attack she experiences in Starbucks is only a protest against the Zionist CEO?
What are your demands on Starbucks? They do not donate to Israel or make pro war propaganda in the shops – so there is no policy you want to see reversed. Do you think they should sack the CEO?
Alan Laurence said,
January 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm
ET
I get the logic of what you are saying.
The trouble is that its not possible to police such a distinction. There is a real danger of widespread attacks on Jews. The people who do this have no time for such distinctions – if the left carries on attacking pro-war Jews it will contribute to the threat against all Jews. There will be a divsion of responsibility – the self-avowed right wing or communalists will attack all Jews, the left will just attack the prominant ones who they disagree with.
modernityblog said,
January 16, 2009 at 5:09 pm
so septicisle, you don’t even have the good grace to acknowledge when you’re wrong, as above?
pity, I thought you were a bit smarter than that
still just so you can’t claim complete ignorance of events here are the links, bear in mind the SU blog admins deleted the most egregious comments:
Dave Rosenberg’s initial report:
Andy Newman made it into a full post:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3348 (the thread was filleted later on)
I posted an annotated summary of that thread in the comments box at Stroppyblog, which shows how Dave Rosenberg’s observations was initially treated to derision but substantively confirmed by others. Exactly who shouted the racist chants is not clear, however, that it was shouted is, as is the proximity of various SWP higher ups.
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/guest-post-by-david-rosenberg-left-need.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mandel/1545546333612845366/?src=hsr#97534
[see my comments of 14.01.09 – 2:18 am onwards]
Readers will remember the SWP? they are largely behind the StWC with their top members holding leadership positions.
I wonder how these SWP chants will be rationalised away ?
Euripides Trousers said,
January 16, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Would you agree then that no action should be taken against Islamic extremists in case it encourages the threat against all muslims? As you argue, there would be some who use the targeting of radical Islamist extremists as cover to attack all muslims, so best not to attack any of them.
KB Player said,
January 16, 2009 at 6:13 pm
The action that is taken against Islamic extremists is by the police and the courts, not a self-appointed lynch mob.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The action that is taken against Islamic extremists is by the police and the courts, not a self-appointed lynch mob.
In which case, you’re against trying to isolate Islamic extremists in the wider movement? It’s extra-legal activity after all. The whole ‘rule of law’ argument is just a philsophical justification for not doing anything.
KB Player said,
January 16, 2009 at 7:05 pm
When you say “attack” do you mean with arguments, criticism, denunciations in whatever media, or do you mean “kicking the shit out of” or “burning down their place of work” or what have you? Yes, I’d be totally against Tamini and that barmy lot on MPACUK being physically attacked.
Seán said,
January 16, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.”
No it is not. Reasonable how? In an unreasonable way, perhaps?
Fuck me…The most stupid sentence I have read this year. I’ve feeling it won’t be topped either.
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 16, 2009 at 7:34 pm
‘No it is not. Reasonable how? In an unreasonable way, perhaps?’
If you mix a vat of ice-cream with a dollop of dogshit, you’re going to have a product that will smell and taste more like the latter than the former. It will be tainted, repulsive, and utterly unpalatable.
If you say that you are a pacifist and a socialist, and yet you are happy to march with hate-mongers who show genocidal intentions towards a specific ethnic group, you are either criminally naive, or you have implicitly decided that the racist views of your ‘friends’ are either of no consequence (or actually quite desirable). Either way, your credentials as a leftist and as a peace-lover are completely tarnished.
It is possible to oppose Israel’s war in Gaza and not be a shill for Hamas. It is possible to call for an end to air strikes and rocket attacks, and to oppose both Likudniks who call for a Greater Israel and religious maniacs who call for a ‘peace’ based on ethnic cleansing. It’s called supporting a two-state solution. I cannot understand why that option is so hard for some people.
‘Fuck me…The most stupid sentence I have read this year. I’ve feeling it won’t be topped either’.
Your next comment might set the record, and it’s only January.
'resistor' said,
January 16, 2009 at 8:21 pm
How eloquent. You sound like a member of the ‘Menachem Begin fan club’ too. Obviously I’ve hit a nerve, neither Volty nor Jim are willing to defend Max’s choice of ‘Book of the Month’ with its embarrassing dedication (This comment from Comrade Resistor has had to be abridged as it is too tedious to be displayed in full. Ed.)
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Just fuck off, ‘resistor’. What part of Foxtrot Oscar don’t you understand? Are you stupid as well as obnoxious? Go and play with your pals with the pointy hoods who marry their sisters. This is a left-wing site, you do not belong here.
charliethechulo said,
January 16, 2009 at 9:38 pm
David Broder has lost the plot. He’s now part of a hysterical anti-Jewish “left” that, in effect advocates a new Kristallnacht. The fact that he’s a supposedly “educated” young man and from a Trotskyist background makes his crime against working class unity and common decency all the worse and more shameful.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 16, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Anyway, who cares what Dunbar or any of the other Muslim-hating lunatics on this site (or its big brother Harry’s Place) have to say. Another more prominent Zionist nutjob expressed Dunbar’s thesis on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/elizabeth-wurtzel-antisemitism-israel-gaza
Take a look at the comments below it. Not just the actual arguments that point out the absurdity of her views, but the number of recommendations those ridiculing comments got. Point of information: It is pretty rare for the number of recommendations on any comment on CIF to get into three figures. Here the critical comments reached 400 recommendations in one case – the one pointing out that the authors thesis that the mass wave of disgust at Israel’s atrocities was simply a manifestation of ‘anti-semitism’ was ‘ the sickest thing I have ever read’.
This is probably one of the best barometers of broadly progressive popular opinion you can lay your hands on. Think for a bit what this means, idiots.
It means that those pushing this bizarre view have comprehensively and massively lost the argument. Quantity has turned into quality for the squeezed lemons arguing this line. Those who attack critics of Israel or those revolted by its crimes in general as anti-semities have little more popular authority among decent, broadly liberal or socialist minded people than Goebells or Vyshinsky.
So who fucking cares what Dunbar thinks? Perhaps only Buffy. ‘Cos he is one of the living dead, and they don’t count for much in the real world.
David Broder said,
January 16, 2009 at 10:16 pm
What the fuck?
The argument being made by Alan L, Dunbar, Modernity, Charlie the Chulo etc. goes
– I took part in an action against an IDF-supporter PR office, BICOM
– It is presumed that several of the people working there are Jews
– Lots of Jews support the IDF too… and/or individual Jewish people’s political actions reflect their ethnicity not their own subjective will, unlike all other nations/”races”
– Therefore it was an action “against Jews”
– So I am an anti-semite.
I do not “go round attacking Jews”. I have not “attacked” anyone, and despite hysterical reports in J-Post etc the protest at BICOM was entirely non-violent. The fact that the people who work at BICOM are Jewish is neither here nor there. These individuals are very active and vocal defenders of IDF policy, who could equally have been Fox or Daily Mail journalists, from whatever background.
Along your logic noone could ever criticise the Israeli army leadership, or the Israeli government, or similarly the Mugabe regime, the Iranian regime, etc., etc., since they could all just say that it was “racist” and an attack on the whole of their people.
I am against anti-semitism. Earlier I wrote condemning the anti-semitic slogans daubed on Whitechapel Tesco and linked to an article condemning anti-semitism, commenting that the war in Gaza is no excuse. We should adamantly oppose racism in all forms. There is no such thing as “collective responsibility”. I strongly oppose attacks even on passive supporters of the Israeli government. But that is nothing to do with BICOM or the Starbucks CEO.
(I have no “demands” on Starbucks, no more than I “demand” that the US government shut itself down. I am a communist….)
charliethechulo said,
January 16, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Stop wriggling, David Broder: the charge against you is that you support physical attacks on businesses (eg Starbucks) on the grounds that they are “held to be supportive of Israel”; you then went on to bury yourself still deeper in the mire by stating, “its (ie: Starbucks’) CEO is an outspoken Zionist”. That’s sufficient grounds for you to advocate smashing the joint up. Think it through you stupid idiot!
PS no-one (as far as I know) thinks you are personally anti-semitic. just an irresponsible populist who hasn’t thought through the horrible logic of what he advocates. David Broder is a disgrace to socialism, but not, personally, an anti-semite. Learn to think, Broder!
modernity said,
January 16, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Charlie, you wrote:
“He’s now part of a hysterical anti-Jewish “left” that, in effect advocates a new Kristallnacht. “
you are too cruel, why explain with malice that which can be understood as ignorance?
Dave Broder and his comrades at the Commune are young, inexperienced and unwilling to acknowledge their own ignorance
I suspect that they are not bad people, just somewhat immature and incapable of admitting that they don’t know everything, etc or when they are in the wrong
That article on the Commune is a prime example:
“Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and the vast majority of our movement is not anti-Semitic, but it is a terrible reality that some anti-Semitism has been pulled along in its wake [1].
[1] Technically, Palestinians are ‘Semitic’ too: but ‘anti-Semitism’ is commonly understood to mean hatred of Jewish people, and I use that conventional understanding here.”
so, taking that first sentence if a tattooed neo-nazi skinhead or David Duke were to scream the most foul abuse about Israel then seemingly, based on the Commune’s formula it wouldn’t be antisemitic??
very sloppy thinking, as obviously it is. I suspect that the author didn’t mean that, but was too clumsy to express him/herself adequately
as for the ridiculous footnote, there are NO semitic people unless you believe all of that 19th century pseudo-science nonsense about racial types? There are semitic languages but that’s another story.
Antisemitism (note the lack of hyphen) comes from German and was coined by Wilhelm Marr as a euphemism for Judenhass (Jew hatred). So it is best to skip the dodgy stuff about semites/semitic people etc and read some decent historical works.
If the Commune asks nicely I’ll draw up a reading list for them, it is complex topic and deserves to be read before blundering into it.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 17, 2009 at 1:12 am
Antisemitism isn’t understood to mean hatred of Jewish people. That’s what it means. It’s not an antonym of semitism, despite the linguistic similiarities.
To try and clarify, David, is what you actually mean this?
Criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic.
The “necessarily” makes all the difference there. It’s entirely possible that some criticism of Israel is primarily motivated by antisemitism. More subtly, it’s also possible that criticism of Israel that is not in itself antisemitic is couched in language that plays to old antisemitic tropes.
On the subject of Starbucks specifically. In theory, I actually think Euripides Trousers formulation is justifable. But only in theory. Practically, I’d agree with Alan Laurence. There is no way to police the distinction. Considering the current Islamist influence on sections of the anti war movement, I think this kind of action is politically untenable. Because we’re not in a situation where the bulk of the people who might consider this kind of physical attack are actually going to be making the kind of distinction being talked about.
Yes, Schultz’s personal position is actually a fair bit more then simply supporting the right of Israel to exist. There’s a strong argument that he’s both anti Palestinian and acts as an unoffical spokesman for the Israeli right.
In 1998, Mr Shultz was awarded the “Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award” from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which is strongly critical of Yasser Arafat and insists that the occupied Palestinian territories should be described only as “disputed”.
In a speech to Jewish Americans in Seattle earlier this year – at the height of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon’s, reoccupation of West Bank towns – Starbucks’ top man condemned Palestinian “inaction” and announced that “the Palestinians aren’t doing their job – they’re not stopping terrorism”. Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, complimented Mr Shultz for helping American students to hear “Israeli presentations on the Middle East crisis”.
Source
However, in the current political climate that kind of nuance isn’t going to be understood. And there’s far too high a risk of it being read (by both sides) as “attack any Jew who doesn’t want to abolish Israel” for supporting this kind of action to be sensible.
David Broder said,
January 17, 2009 at 2:00 am
Video of subject of argument – http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/stop-the-propaganda-machine-activists-disrupt-israels-pr-operation/
Mystery Dyke Squadron (Bombing Division) said,
January 17, 2009 at 4:52 am
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.
This includes member of the AWL, dear. Are you going to stick around in an organisation filled with “supporter[s] of clerical fascism”?
Seán said,
January 17, 2009 at 10:02 am
“Your next comment might set the record, and it’s only January.”
I like a challenge. Here goes:
Israel is committed to peace and wants a viable, two state solution with a functioning and flourishing Palestinian state, too.
I know it’s early, but that has to be in with a chance.
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The problem is that most people on the kitsch left, as we’ve seen on this thread, have an unshakeable sense of moral superiority.
They also consider motives as much more important than outcomes – as Marko Atilla Hoare said, ‘salvation through faith alone, rather than salvation through good works’.
Because they believe so strongly in their own goodness, they feel that they can’t possibly be racist, even when they are saying and doing racist things.
So they can boycott Jewish shops, attack Jewish businesses, discriminate against Jews because they are Jews and tell Jews to ‘go back to New York’.
But none of that is racist, because the people saying and doing these things don’t consider themselves racist. See?
Septic
Like Modernity I have read your blog and am disappointed. You are better than this.
I’m amused by the idea that there is something fussy and pretentious in the choice not to go on a demo because it is organised by clerical fascists, was addressed by a clerical fascist and at which people shouted racial abuse.
modernityblog said,
January 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Dave Broder,
so that’s it??
when faced with difficult arguments you simply post a link?
well it is a very novel approach, argumentation by URL?
please, can you engage with the arguments that’s what politics is about
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm
‘This is probably one of the best barometers of broadly progressive popular opinion you can lay your hands on.’
If this is what passes for ‘progressive’ opinion in your world, then you have lost the plot, completely. Maybe we should refer to members of the SWP as the Harpics, because they’ve all gone completely round the bend.
Sean, there’s a typo in your sentence which needs correcting, in order to make your statement truly ludicrous (which is what I believe you intended to do). I’ve made the appropriate amendments:
‘Hamas and its external backers are committed to peace and wants a viable, two state solution with a functioning and flourishing Palestinian state, too.’
chjh said,
January 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Israel’s military action was always going to result in the killing of hundreds of civilians, the targeting of ambulances, hospitals and schools, the bombing of United Nations facilities, and war crimes such as the use of white phosporous. And it was always likely that people who approve of all this, but can’t quite bring themselves to say so, would try to deflect the righteous anger felt by millions of people by pointing out that a tiny minority of protesters have impure motives.
Max Dunbar could have made a very good living as a Mafia lawyer: “It may be true that my client had people shot, illegally imported drugs, demanded money with menaces, paid off corrupt politicians and dominated a huge gang empire, but one of the officers who arrested him called him a wo’, so he’s the victim here”
modernityblog said,
January 17, 2009 at 3:32 pm
chjh,
so what about that SWPer chanting:
“One solution revolution, join the Socialist Workers Party. Destroy capitalism, destroy Israel. They have no right to be there. They are a settler state. Go back to New York, or wherever it was you came from.”
did you agree with it ? or find it offensive?
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm
CHJH
That second para made me laugh.
For the record I’m against Israeli war crimes and want an immediate ceasefire.
Again, I love the assumption that the only way of showing solidarity with Palestinians is by attending a fascist rally, and that anyone who disagrees with this is being overly fussy or priggish. Or a Zionist war criminal.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 17, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Well, Max, how are you suggesting that people show solidarity with the Palestinans then? Are you planning to organise your own rally, like the one in New York I linked too earlier?
And was that comment made before or after Marko decided to attack the whole concept of pro working class politics, just out of interest?
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Exactly. Why not start your own demo that’s not organised by a clerical fascist organisation?
I don’t agree with Marko on class but the line I quoted encapsulates the mentality of the kitsch left.
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I take your point on that. It’s actually already happened. In Manchester, there was a counterdemo to a pro Israel demo on January 11th. On top of the main counterdemo, there was also a third group of seperate anarchist demonstrators, who refused to join the main counterdemo because it was nationalist. And it was… 9 people.
And there’s the problem.
Much as I’d love to think that my milieu are influential enough to be able to be significant if we stand apart, the honest truth is that isn’t the case. Even if you got every member of the British ultraleft to mobilise (a logistical impossiblity. I’ll admit freely that kind of organisational skill isn’t our strong point) you’d be lucky to fill the back room of a pub.
So there’s two choices.
Either we
1) Have a tiny, ideologically pure demostration of our own. Which isn’t going to be anything more then the ultraleft standing round talking to each other.
or we
2) Join the mainstream Palestinian solidarity demonstrations, despite the fact there are some really dodgy fuckers involved, including at the organisational level. And try to put our own analysis across. While refusing to join in pro Hamas chants. And maybe even heckle the more objectionable speakers if we have the numbers to do so safely.
Honestly, do you think option one is more effective?
On Marko, I have two observations. Firstly, I just find it amusing that you’re uncritically quoting someone who has made it very clear he’s hostile to any ideas of class politics, while condemning others for lining up with reactionary forces. More importantly, the only way we’re going to get out of this whole “anti-imperialist” mess is with a return to a genuine class analysis. Marko is the enemy of that, as much so as the “We are all Hamas” crowd.
septicisle said,
January 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I think Waterloo Sunset has just rather succinctly made the case I would make. Alternatively I’m sure that Max, modernity and the writers on Harry’s Place could get together at a Euston pub and have their own little demo, or is that already happening anyway?
modernityblog said,
January 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm
nah septicisle, that would be a bit too middle class for my taste!
Lobby Ludd said,
January 17, 2009 at 10:43 pm
septicleisle and waterloo sunset have made the points, so I won’t.
What they don’t pick up on is the statements from Max D that the demonstrations are organised by ‘clerical fascists’. They aren’t. They are organised by a coalition of organisations (themselves coalitions).
Make the argument that leftist should not work with certain organisations, fine, but don’t write off all demonstrators as automatically tainted because of the objectionable politics of some on the demonstrations, the only ones being organised.
So what is the AWL position in all this? My guess is paralysis, because they are seeing their idealist solution to the situation disappearing before their eyes.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 17, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Sackcloth and Ashes
“If this is what passes for ‘progressive’ opinion in your world, then you have lost the plot, completely.”
Well, if you’re from another world, of course, you may well think that. But don’t expect any normal earthling to take you seriously ever again.
Dickhead. This is what happens when you cry wolf once too often, while stealing sheep yourself. Now the world has twigged that you are the real wolf.
KB Player said,
January 17, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Another shop smashed.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/17/kristallwoche-continues/
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 17, 2009 at 11:40 pm
‘Well, if you’re from another world, of course, you may well think that. But don’t expect any normal earthling to take you seriously ever again.
Dickhead. This is what happens when you cry wolf once too often, while stealing sheep yourself. Now the world has twigged that you are the real wolf.’
If you harpics in the SWP think you’re ‘normal earthlings’, I honestly can’t help you. I’ve only got one little reminder – ‘RESPECT’. What happened to that great plan of yours?
Let’s face it, you teamed up with the MAB and George in a hopeless bid to be anywhere other than on the fringe of the political fringe. And look where that got you?
Enjoy oblivion, you fuckup.
septicisle said,
January 18, 2009 at 1:11 am
KB player – deplorable, of course. But really, still calling it “Kristallwoche”? And David T and others still defending it in the comments:
“I think that a campaign to smash supposedly Jewish businesses, fueled by the racist and lying rhetoric of as significant a figure in Islamist politics as Qaradawi, is justly compared to Kristalnacht.”
None of us who went on the protest are defending the explicit linking of current Israeli policy with the Nazis – that’s ludicrous, including Lenin, by the way, who did so on the Socialist Unity comments. It’s just as ludicrous to compare what’s a few morons are doing to Starbucks’ windows to Kristallnacht.
More from David T:
“Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza and the Jewish community in Europe is not suffering a pogrom.
A Jewish man, who lives down the street from my father, was beaten up on his doorstep last week.”
Ah, so one man being beaten up on his doorstep is a pogrom now. Better not venture out tonight, because they’ll plenty of them happening at 2am.
modernityblog said,
January 18, 2009 at 3:53 am
S wrote:
“None of us who went on the protest are defending the explicit linking of current Israeli policy with the Nazis”
NO?? then maybe you should READ the SU blog with greater care, it is littered with comparisons, see the Dave Rosenberg thread for a starter.
tis a strange old world when would-be “radicals” start taking the piss over racially motivated attacks, I doubt you would sneer if it was ANY OTHER ethnic or social minority that was attacked in Britain
as for comparisons, see http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3405
but hurry up before the SU admins go around and do a bit of political “tidying up”
as for attacks on Jews, etc, see
http://www.thejc.com/articles/worst-wave-hate-quarter-a-century
“Since the start of the Israeli offensive into Gaza on December 27, more than 150 incidents across the country have been recorded.”
Wally Wibbywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 10:23 am
sackcloth and ashes
“harpics in the SWP”
Funny how our paranoid nutjob thinks all his critics are in the SWP. Wrong, dimbo.
I think you will find revulsion at your support for the mass murder of Palestinian children (including with chemical weapons) goes rather a lot wider than the membership of the SWP.
maxdunbar said,
January 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I don’t compare what’s happening to Kristallnacht.
However I think we need more of a response than ‘Well, it’s hardly Kristallnacht,. is it?’
If a few London mosques were firebombed we would not say, ‘Nothing to see here, I mean, it’s hardly Fallujah’
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm
You may not carry the party card, but you’re still a harpic, WW.
‘I think you will find revulsion at your support for the mass murder of Palestinian children (including with chemical weapons)’
Wow, the IDF are doing to Gaza what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds. How did I miss that one?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“the IDF are doing to Gaza what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds.”
Actually, firing white phosphorus shells at civilian houses is a form of chemical warfare and has already resulted in agonising deaths and terrible, crippling and life threatening burns, including for young children. Since you obviously find that amusing and something to joke about, you deserve a similar fate, as do others who think like you.
Your wonderful brave Israeli army also fired these weapons at a UN building that was acting as a safe haven for Palestinians during the visit of Ban Ki Moon to Egypt. Olmert was compelled to utter some words of ‘apology’ for this, so don’t try to pretend this didn’t happen.
As for the ‘pornography of anti imperialism’, I think that was a Freudian slip by Dunbar, revealing his proclivity for jerking off at pictures like these:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/01/child-victims-of-war-on-terror-pictures.html
charliethechulo said,
January 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
williwanker: what’s with the “your” Israeli army? Please explain… or withdraw what appears to be a libel.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm
No need to explain. People who promote pro-Israel demonstrations over Gaza are demonstrating their approval for chemical warfare involving white phosphorus. The commentary and picture at the top of this posting promotes a pro-war demonstration approving of the side that has been accused of such war crimes by leading figures in the UN. A UN building housing refugees was fired on with white phosphorus shells. Olmert was so embarassed by this happening when the Secretary General was directly involved in talks with Israel that he publicly apologised for this specfic incident. But it was one of quite a number of similar attacks on buildings housing refugees. These are cold hard facts.
charliethechulo said,
January 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Bollox: firstly, speaking for myself, I’m “pro Israeli” in the sense that it has the right to exist, like any other nation. The denial of Isreal’s right to, exist is the surest sign of modern anti-semitism. And where and when has this blog “promoted” (ie publicised in advance and built for) “pro-Israeli demonstrations over Gaza”?
If you bothered to read what’s been written here (eg this: https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/gaza-catastrophe/) instead of wanking over your own prejudices, you might learn something. But you’re probably one of those sickos who think that opposing war isn’t enough: you must also support the clerical fascists of Hamas.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“And where and when has this blog “promoted” (ie publicised in advance and built for) “pro-Israeli demonstrations over Gaza”?”
Interesting sleight of hand. The picture, caption, and text at the top of this thread clearly promote a pro-war demonstration in support of Israel. Or perhaps you don’t understand that the caption “What an actual peace demonstration looks like” is promoting that ‘support Isreal’ demonstration.
Don’t look at the murdered Palestinian kids, says charliethechulo. Look at Hamas.
And as for the Shiraz Socialist article he posts a link to, I was responding to Max Dunbar and his Harry’s Place mate ‘Sackcloth and Ashes’, not to the authors of that piece. Dunbar’s article … at the top of this thread … clearly promotes pro-Israel demonstrations at the time Israel was not only bombing Gaza to hell, but also using white phosphorus against civilian targets, including buildings run by the UN that were supposed to provide safe havens to refugees.
Fact – this article – by Max Dunbar, promotes pro-war demonstrations and recommends them as genuinely for peace, as opposed to the ‘fascist’ anti-war movement.
I doubt that Charlie the Chulo actually 100% agrees with that. But Dunbar does. So does ‘Sackcloth and Ashes’. And our Chulo dares not acknowledge the truth about their support for murder because he needs to keep them on board. So much for his, and others on this blog, pretentions to be for the Palestinians. If your allies are those who support bombing, burning and poisoning them, then the Palestinians need that kind of ‘support’ like a hole in the head.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm
This is the kind of demonstration Max Dunbar and Sackcloth & Ashes say are the ‘real peace demonstrations.
maxdunbar said,
January 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Wally. The people at the Israel demo were shouting ‘We want peace’. The people at the Hamas demo were shouting ‘Go back to New York’.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“We want peace”
In the sense of ‘create a desolation and call it peace’.
What utter bollox. Do your fellow bloggers endorse this? I doubt it somehow. But they haven’t the guts to actually denounce it, that’s pretty obvious.
charliethechulo said,
January 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Wiily -the-wanker is the one who wants war: permanent war on Israel.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 18, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Can’t answer the point, can you? See this for instance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/16/gaza-israel-khan-yunis-white-phosphorus
This is what that ‘Sackcloth and Ashes’ saw fit to joke about. Can’t the chulo and his mates, who claim to oppose this slaugher, denounce those like Dunbar and ‘Sackcloth & Ashes’ who support this, and the latter who even thought it suitable to joke about?
What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue?
Lobby Ludd said,
January 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm
“Wally. The people at the Israel demo were shouting ‘We want peace’. The people at the Hamas demo were shouting ‘Go back to New York’.”
Which ‘Hamas’ demo’ was that then, Max?
Do you not think, Max, that the veracity of your statement might be improved by use of qualifiers like ‘some’, ‘a few’ etc?
Lobby Ludd said,
January 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Oh, and by the way, Max, ‘we want peace’ is in itself empty of meaning.
What kind of peace do you think supporters of the state of Israel’s actions actually envision?
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 19, 2009 at 9:59 am
WallyWanker, I’ve got one word for, ‘Jenin’. There’s a bit of a history of false war crimes allegations being raised in Middle Eastern conflicts, and fuckwits like you going off one without trying to establish the facts first.
If you don’t mind, I’m actually going to wait and see if these allegations are going to be verified independently. You see – that’s the difference between you and me. I don’t start shrieking war-crimes once someone makes an allegation against either the IDF or Hamas. I wait and see what the facts are before I make my mind up. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, then go fuck yourself. Because I know full well that genuine atrocities are recorded and verified in other war zones (e.g. the Sudan, Sri Lanka or the Caucasus), but that doesn’t get you out marching and protesting. The bottom line for you pseudo-leftists is that if you can’t blame the Jews, you ain’t interested.
Sacha Ismail said,
January 19, 2009 at 10:28 am
“I think it’s reasonable to conclude that anyone attending such a rally is a supporter of clerical fascism.”
I have no idea who Max Dunbar is. As an AWL member, I would like to disassociate us from this and most of the rest of the article.
Yes, much of the criticism of the far left is correct. But the conclusion is radically wrong.
Firstly, we need to sharply oppose Israel’s war.
Secondly, many of those who take part in the demos are doing so purely out of solidarity with the Palestinians, while holding no brief for Hamas. Do you think I’m a supporter of clerical fascism?
Thirdly, in so far as the general tone is/is becoming pro-Hamas, drawing in many of the young Muslim activists and many others too, that is because the Islamists have been allowed to become hegemonic by the far left – some of which is cheering Hamas more loudly than anyone, and most of the rest of which is hiding its criticisms to blend in.
The idea that internationalist socialists shouldn’t be there with a visible presence, having the arguments, attempting to establish a different political framework for people’s legitimate solidarity etc is ridiculous and offensive. It assumes that the young Muslims who are rightly outraged about what Israel is doing can never be won away from political Islam and to socialist politics.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 19, 2009 at 10:39 am
Oh yes, of course, Jenin – like here, the IDF banned journalists and investigators. But the Jenin massacre was in a dicrete area that Sharon could have his forces seal off so they could remove the corpses, burn them, and pretend nothing happened. They can’t do that with Gaza, its much too big for that.
I’m not interested a ‘debate’ with garbage like ‘Sackcloth and Ashes’. The genocidal mentality they personify was clearly shown by the scum on the video of the pro-Israel demonstration I posted – openly advocating wiping out all the Palestinians. ‘Sackcloth and Ashes’ and Max Dunbar recommend these pro-Israel demonstrations and say that they were the ‘real’ peace demonstrations. That’s evidence enough of the genocidal character and bloodlust of these people.
More to the point is why genocidal racists like this are posting on a left-wing site, and why their supposedly left-wing allies who claim to be opposed to this slaugher cannot bring themselves to speak up against this filth.
Where are they? Has the cat got their tongues (or their typing fingers)?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 19, 2009 at 10:42 am
“I have no idea who Max Dunbar is. As an AWL member, I would like to disassociate us from this and most of the rest of the article.”
At last! That’s a start, anyway.
Sacha Ismail said,
January 19, 2009 at 11:24 am
Read the debate with a supporter of the pro-Israel “peace” demos on the AWL site – we explicitly accuse them of being pro-war demonstrations, ie pro-Israel’s colonial war against the Palestinians.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“we explicitly accuse them of being pro-war demonstrations”
That’s only part of it. They are not just pro-war, they are pro-genocide, as the clip I posted above shows only too clearly.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I agree with Sacha’s comments.
I was delighted to see the AWL come out in full opposition to Israel’s actions, and I pretty much agree with their position of backing the pro-Palestinian demos whilst reserving the right to criticise the STWC etcetera. It just goes to show that you really can walk and chew gum at the same time.
maxdunbar said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:40 pm
If by colonial war you mean the occupation, then you are pushing at an open door with me.
I did think that Israel needed to have some kind of response to people chucking rockets into its civilian areas, but yes, the response itself has been massively disproportionate.
It seems to me though that the demonstrations are pro-Hamas rather than pro-Palestinian. Go on them and challenge the racists on them, fine, but I’ve seen no evidence that this is happening.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Which demonstrations Max? I’ve been on three (the first one in London, one in Coventry and one in Birmingham), and I wouldn’t call any of those “pro Hamas”.
Mikey said,
January 19, 2009 at 12:57 pm
voltairespriest,
I went along to observe the Jan 10 demonstration in London and I distinctly heard Azzam Tamimi chant on three occasions “Today, we are all Hamas.”
See section between 21 seconds and 35 seconds of the start of the following video
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IVHyhkVq1aY
It is bizarre that you can say if you can watch that video and say it was not a “pro-Hamas” demonstration.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Mikey: I was on the Jan 3rd one, not Jan 10th. That having been said, if I were you I would hesitate before characterising tens of thousands of people on the basis of a 14-second excerpt from one man’s speech.
Mikey said,
January 19, 2009 at 1:18 pm
voltairespriest,
Azzam Tamimi was given a major speaking slot at that demonstration. He is in effect the spokesperson for Hamas in the UK. Why can you not accept that it was a pro-Hamas demonstration. It clearly was or the organisers would never have given him a slot.
maxdunbar said,
January 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I should say, and should have said in the main post, that I was talking about London.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 1:54 pm
By that logic Mikey you could say it was also a pro-every other organisation with a speaker demonstration.
I wasn’t there on the 10th, as I say. However I can’t say that I saw Hamas on the list of organisers, nor did I see “Support Hamas” on its list of demands.
Mikey said,
January 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm
voltairespriest,
That demonstration seemed to pro anyone who wanted to smash the state of Israel. They did not really seem to care who. The most common chant was “From the river to sea, Palestine we’ll set you free” [Sometimes, “we’ll set you” was replaced with “will be.” ] I once heard someone from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign comment that if the Palestinians have voted for Hamas, then they should support them also as that is what the Palestinians want. It is indeed a ludicrous logic and something that self-respecting members of the left should thoroughly reject.
What I want to know is that if those on the left claim that they do not support Hamas why are they not writing articles in their newspapers (AWL aside – as they have made their position clear) saying clearly why they oppose Hamas? Why can’t they also do this on their demonstrations?
Waterloo Sunset said,
January 19, 2009 at 3:27 pm
We are Mikey. See the last two links in my post at 29. I’m not a member of either of the groups that put those out, but my politics are roughly the same on this issue, particularly the statement in the second link.
Alan Laurence said,
January 19, 2009 at 9:44 pm
There seems to have been very little pro Gaza activity on the West Bank. This amazes me – despite the Fatah-Hamas hatred I would have expected a greater demonstration of outrage.
It seems, from the Israeli press, that West Bankers think Hamas have made a right royal mess of things.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Or indeed that there’s a mite of a power struggle between Fatah and Hamas, and that one gets better treatment than the other from Israel at the moment…
Sacha Ismail said,
January 19, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I think we need to understand the character of the Gaza demonstrations in a slightly more nuanced way.
The hegemonic politics are undoubtedly Arab chauvinist, Islamist chauvinist and something approaching clerical fascist – certainly extreme right-wing conservative. This is possible in large part because the socialist left is either going along with these politics (eg SWP) or keeping its head down (eg Socialist Party). Many of the Muslim youth taking part are pulled in this direction, as are many people who you would never expect to be sympathetic to Hamas.
But underneath that is a genuine surge of sympathy with those being slaughtered and with the Palestinians in their oppression – a sentiment that is, in my view, legitimate and to be encouraged. It seems to me therefore that the job of socialists is to be on the demonstrations, intervening sharply in order to try sort through the various political strands which often co-exist even in people’s heads, opposing and seeking to destroy some while helping others develop. A much more difficult job than standing on the sidelines, but the one that is necessary.
voltairespriest said,
January 19, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Agreed – to a point. I suppose it depends on exactly how those sharp interventions happen: it’s a bit much for instance to expect a 16 year old Asian kid who’s just come on the demo out of a sense of anger to go straight on into the Left vs Islamism debate. Better to prove first that one is worth listening to.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 21, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Sackcloth and Ashes:
“There’s a bit of a history of false war crimes allegations being raised in Middle Eastern conflicts, and fuckwits like you going off one without trying to establish the facts first.”
Oops. Now the IDF have been forced to admit it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-shells
modernityblog said,
January 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Wally,
did Hamas admit to deliberately endangering civilians?
did Hamas admit to importing rockets and spending precious R&D money on building weapons?
did Hamas admit to throwing handcuffed cooks off of buildings?
oh and will YOU admit that Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians IS a war crime???
furtherm will you admit that Hamas have achieved NOTHING since taking over Gaza?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hasbara hasbara and more hasbara. And pretty feeble. You can froth at me as much as you like. The wider world has now seen what Zionism is really all about – the cold-blooded masscre of the oppressed … including the mass slaughter of their kids with chemical weapons.
Phosphorus is supposed to be limited to use as a smoke-screen. Firing it at actual combatants is a war crime – a form of chemical warfare. Firing it at civilians is doubly a war crime. Firing it at civilians who have already been made refugees twice over and are under UN protection is triply or even arguably quadruply a war crime.
All the froth above from Modernity, of course, is another kind of smoke-screen. He can’t address or admit Israel’s crimes. It’s all Hamas’ fault, apparently. And since the Palestinians elected them, the logic of this is that these mass killings are all the fault of the Palestinians themselves.
This shows that Modernity and his ilk are no different to the Zionist psycho in the clip of the New York demo I posted earlier who opined that “They’re making us kill their children to protect our children” or words to that effect.
Simply obscene.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 10:13 am
More evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jan/21/gaza-sraelandthepalestinians
Comment is superfluous.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Try this – something wrong with previous link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jan/21/gaza-israelandthepalestinians
modernityblog said,
January 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Note to readers:
That is why trying to discuss these complex issues with “anti-Zionists”, like Wally Wibblywellies, is futile.
They’d rather blame all of the Middle East’s ills on the Israelis than honestly examine the political issues or admit how their heroes, Hamas, could be at fault.
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“They’d rather blame all of the Middle East’s ills on the Israelis than honestly examine the political issues or admit how their heroes, Hamas, could be at fault.”
Still nothing to say on the use of chemical weapons against civilian refugees by the IDF. It’s rather difficult to blame Hamas for this, but cynics like Modernity will never give up trying.
modernityblog said,
January 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm
wally,
I am against ALL forms of attacks on civilians, Israelis or Palestinians
ALL of them
I am against rocket attacks on Israelis or Palestinians
I am against chemical attacks on Israelis or Palestinians
I’ll repeat that, as I appreciate that some “anti-Zionists” like you can’t read or think too well,
I am AGAINST attacks on Palestinians
I am AGAINST attacks on Israelis
did you get that???
I am against chemical or rocket attacks on Israelis or Palestinians
but on another radical front, I am against excessive military expenditure in the Middle East (or elsewhere) that includes Israel or Hamas wasting money on rocket technology or useless armaments
not that an obsessive like you would understand….
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm
For someone who says he is EQUALLY opposed to attacks on civilians from Israel or Palestinian ‘terrorists’, Modernity spends an inordinate amount of time denouncing Palestinians and very has very little criticism of, and no denunciation of, Israel. Despite the fact that the civilian casualties caused by Israel are vastly more than any Palestinian group could even dream of. Getting people like him to acknowledge wrongdoing by Israel is more difficult than pulling teeth.
I make no pretence of being neutral – I am on the side of the Palestinians. Which does not mean I support attacks on Israeli civilians, by the way, but though they are wrong in principle as well as counterproductive, they are a product of enormous provocation coming from Israel’s many decades of brutal oppression of the Palestinians.
One cannot equate the actions of Hamas or any Palestinian group with the actions of the Israeli state – to do so is repulsive. In fact, Modernity does not do so either – that is just a fallback position now his type have been cornered on this. He stands with Israel, albiet with some mild misgivings, but is afraid to openly say that as Israel’s crimes are becoming more and more apparent.
Modernity always squeals with the most nauseating fake outrage when cornered about questions like this. His usual ploy is to pretend that his interlocutor cannot read, or is incapable of understanding him, or refuses to ‘engage’ with his supposedly profound insights.
Truth is, he and his type are apologists for oppression and cannot stand that fact being pointed out. Any diversion will do.
modernityblog said,
January 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Modernity spends an inordinate amount of time denouncing Palestinians and very has very little criticism of, and no denunciation of, Israel.”
listen, “Wally”, you illiterate nob
I do not denounce Palestinians
I criticise Hamas and other genocidal groups that wish for a Jew free Middle East
that’s the difference
it is a political difference which many Western supporters of Hamas might not understand
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Modernity
“I do not denounce Palestinians
I criticise Hamas and other genocidal groups that wish for a Jew free Middle East”
The Palestinians elected Hamas.
And note Modernity does not dispute that he never denounces Israeli war crimes, which are really genocidal. Ask the kids suffering chemical burns.
And of course, anyone who attacks this hypocritical tripe is ‘illiterate’. Even if that were true, better to be ‘illiterate’ than an apologist for racist massacres.
modernityblog said,
January 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“And of course, anyone who attacks this hypocritical tripe is ‘illiterate’”
no, Wally, I was wrong, you are POLITICALLY illiterate because, again, you left off the key part of my argument:
“it is a political difference which many Western supporters of Hamas might not understand”
But I appreciate that you might not be able to comprehend that notion, so I’ll give you a few examples:
1. if, hypothetically, the continuity IRA or similar were to start a bombing campaign in London, or even Newry, then I’d be AGAINST it
however, that does not make me anti-Irish
2. if, hypothetically, some poor Tibetans made it to Beijing and blew themselves up as suicide bombers, then I’d be AGAINST that too
however, that would not make me anti-Tibetan or change my view of China’s brutal rule in Tibet
rather it means that I view these issues as POLITICAL problems, and using this type of violence against civilians is NOT the way to resolve them
I appreciate that many might not share that view but I’d prefer such problems to be resolved without mass murder, bombing, killings or unnecessary bloodshed
it is a political way of looking at humanity’s problems, instead of cheering on when every pizza parlour is blown to bits or kids shot in a library as a triumph for “anti-imperialism”
again, the conflict in the Middle East is essentially a political issue, therefore, has its long term resolution in political means, not by either side, or anyone else, blowing the bejeebers out of each other.
so in my view, ANYONE (that includes Israelis, Brits, etc) that consciously suggests that military solutions are the only way forward in the Middle East (or Tibet, the Six Counties, etc) is either an ideologue, a sociopath, mindless, indoctrinated, clueless or so deranged that it is not worth discussing.
I hope that’s clear?
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 22, 2009 at 10:18 pm
More diversionary, irrelevant rubbish. The implication is that something, somewhere in my above posts I indicated approval of people blowing themselves and other people up. Pity he can’t quote me on that. Because I quite clearly said the opposite.
He still can’t bring himself to say that Israel’s leadership are guilty of racist massacres and war crimes on qualitatively greater scale than any Palestinian could ever dream of, or that the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is that of oppressor and oppressed. For him, the main enemy is Hamas, and since Hamas were elected by the Palestinian people, the main enemy is the Palestinian people.
Still no condemnation of Israeli chemical warfare and masscres. Three blind monkeys – see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil. But Hamas are evil incarnate. That is pure hasbara.
modernityblog said,
January 22, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“More diversionary, irrelevant rubbish.”
there you go, Wally, I explained by views, with examples, only to be told they are rubbish
that’s why I don’t bother with wallies like you, as your grasp of politics is abysmal, your projecting offensive and your social skills stupendously poor
so please excuse me if I return to my New Year’s resolution of ignoring apolitical malcontents and gobshites, such as yourself
you have nothing to add to these debates except sneering and middle class condescension, but you’ve probably been told that before 🙂
Wally Wibblywellies said,
January 23, 2009 at 9:50 am
“you have nothing to add to these debates except sneering and middle class condescension, but you’ve probably been told that before”
Oh yes, that the other technique Modernity uses – I left that one off my list. The most pathetic class-baiting against people he doesn’t know from Adam and can’t answer politically. Like so many who use this line of argument, he’s probably an old public schoolboy in any case.
Or maybe like his mentor ‘Harry’ he learned this from the Communist Party. That was the ‘line’ after Hungary 1956, wasn’t it, that only middle class elements were concerned about Stalin’s terror – ‘real’ working class people were not bothered about such things. Modernity has adapted this reasoning to Israel. He has a very low opinion of working class people … he thinks they’re all prejudiced bigots like him!
Swap ‘Israel’ and ‘Zionism’ for ‘USSR’ and ‘Stalinism’ and the narrative is well nigh identical. And similar also is the odium that the Gaza massacre, and the public, conspicuous and documented use of chemical weapons against civilians, that Israel and Zionism has brought on themselves to the blow to Stalinism’s authority that Hungary represented. The whole world now knows that Israel’s mainstream political class is composed of racist sociopaths with a similar mentality to the Nazis.
And Modernity is an apologist for that …. for racist massacres. His main thrust is to blame the victims, which is obscene.