Israel: it’s apartheid – but not as we know it…
That strange combination of people calling themselves the Palestine Solidariy Campaign (PSC), have long had a strategy of trying to delegitamise Israel in the eyes of decent, liberal people, by making out it’s essentially the same as apartheid South Africa. They also want to discredit the traditional socialist position on the Middle East, for “two states” – a position they dislike, because they object to the very existance of Israel, in any shape or form, even behind pre-1967 borders.
Some supporters of the PSC genuinely believe the “apartheid” libel to be appropriate, because they regard Archbishop Desmond Tutu as the ultimate arbiter in such matters. Others, having had a Marxist education of sorts, know that the “apartheid” analogy is rubbish but hate Israel and relish any stick to beat her with. Some are simply good old fashioned anti-semites who’ve latched on to the idea that it’s best to now call themselves “anti-Zionists”, and go with the liberal flow on this one.
The “apartheid” analogy is great for old-time anti-semites because it allows them to attack the very existence of Israel and not come over as the Nazis they are… indeed, they can even team up with the likes of Gilad Atzmon and win the approval of sections of the far-left!
But back to that “apartheid” analogy: serious Marxists and Israeli peace activists have repeatedly explained how and why it’s not an appropriate analogy, and that “boycott” tactics are not appropriate. Now a leading figure in the “Boycott Disinvestment and Sanctions” (BDS), campaign, Omar Barghouti explains that calling Israel an “apartheid state” doesn’t mean it’s like Apartheid South Africa…but “Rather, it asserts that Israel’s bestowal of rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious criteria fits the UN-adopted definition of apartheid”... a definition of “apartheid” that is not (shall we say) very widely understood. And could, indeed, be applied to a very large number of states apart from Israel. Saudi Arabia, for a start.
In other words, this is a thoroughly dishonest campaign, and even Mr Barghouti seems to recognise that, when he comes up with his obscure definition of “apartheid.” The point about the “apartheid” analogy that everyone (pro- or anti-boycott) understands, is that it is saying that Israel is essentially the same as Apartheid South Africa. Once you concede that the nature of the Israeli state is quite different from Apartheid South Africa, then the political and moral case for the “BDS” campaign diminishes, and at the very least, has to be thought through without the politically illiterate comparison with Apartheid South Africa.
Here’s Barghouti’s Guardian article; and here are his weasel words about “apartheid”:
“Characterising Israel’s legalised system of discrimination as apartheid – as was done by Tutu, Jimmy Carter and even a former Israeli attorney general – does not equate Israel with South Africa. No two oppressive regimes are identical. Rather, it asserts that Israel’s bestowal of rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious criteria fits the UN-adopted definition of apartheid.”
Jenny said,
August 14, 2010 at 6:46 am
I still think an economic boycott is called for, but not an academic or cultural boycotts. Cept for maybe the Toronto film festival.
Cuntrelle said,
August 14, 2010 at 8:50 am
`Some are simply good old fashioned anti-semites who’ve latched on to the idea that it’s best to now call themselves “anti-Zionists”, and go with the liberal flow on this one.’
In any normal person’s mind that would be a victory against anti-semitism but in the fetid Zioinist shit pit which passes for a brain in Jim Denham’s drunken cadaver it is another opportunity to abuse the Palestinians and their supporters. I’m pretty convinced now that Jim Denham is himself an anti-semite for two reasons 1) He’s not jewish (a dead giveaway that he has something against the religion) and 2) nobody who is not jewish could possibly be such a zealot on the question. He must want the jews out soooo badly.
skidmarx said,
August 14, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Thoroughly dishonest, politically illiterate, weasel words: all better describing Jim Denham than Barghouti. Rather than address the question of whether Israel’s bestowal of rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious criteria fits the UN-adopted definition of apartheid he starts with a rant about anti-semites and finishes by saying that if there are any differences between Israel and South Africa they can’t possibly be compared. Not what one would expect from self-styled “serious Marxists”.
And it’s “delegitimise” and “arbiter”. You’d lose a spelling bee against johng.
sackcloth and ashes said,
August 14, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I see Mr Akazu is back.
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 3:29 pm
For goodness sake give up this pathetic aping of the lowest common denominator of troll speak at HP. One thing one can be absolutely sure of. Not a single person involved in BDS accepts the Apartheid analogy ‘because they think that Tutu is the ultimate arbitrator on such matters. However I do recall the hatred and contempt displayed by the Apartheid regime towards Tutu, which is rather similar to the hatred and contempt displayed towards him by the same type of troll. Another thing one can be sure of. Its probably true that not everyone who favors the apartheid analogy is an expert either on South African Apartheid or the apartheid system imposed on Palestinians (continues for thousands of pages)
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 3:40 pm
On Skidmarx rightly pointing out the sheer absurdity of suggesting that if things are different they can’t be compared: again a consequence of thoughtlessly borrowing arguments from right wingers. Its a feature of their mostly pointless diatribes on the subject not to understand that comparison does not imply identity. If it did comparison would be a pretty fruitless activity.
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Notice as well that Jim has adopted the habit of viewing the growth of solidarity movements as ‘the liberal flow’, presumably one we should stand up to.
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Oh and Jim you might want to remove this link. It effectively repeats arguments that there are no such things as Palestinians (by utilizing the absurd argument about ‘Palestinian wanna-be’s'). If these are the kinds of sources you get your information its little wonder that you have so little understanding of anything much. Your seriously not ashamed to link to that kind of dreck?
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 4:16 pm
here is the link:
http://www.naomiragen.com/Columns/Who%20is%20Omar%20Barghouti.htm
johng said,
August 14, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Oh how nice. Jim loses the argument and decides to censor posts….
Shiraz Moderation Ombudsman said,
August 14, 2010 at 6:45 pm
If you feel your comments have been censored please write to us at our PO Box address in Bolton.
Please include the original text of the comment, the date and time posted, your IP address and a photo of yourself in a silly hat.
We will consider your complaint over an indeterminate period and at public expense
charliethechulo said,
August 14, 2010 at 10:36 pm
” He’s not jewish (a dead giveaway that he has something against the religion) and 2) nobody who is not jewish could possibly be such a zealot on the question. He must want the jews out soooo badly”.
The creature that wrote that is obviously not an anti-semite. Anti semites, for all their sickness, are usually at least capable of a semblance of coherent thought. The creature that wrote that is, simply, sub-human.
jim denham said,
August 14, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Skidders sez: ” You’d lose a spelling bee against johng”:
I say: probably so. But not a Marxist politics test.
skidmarx said,
August 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm
No then you wouldn’t even get past the starting line.
jim denham said,
August 14, 2010 at 10:44 pm
To the madman Game, who wrote: “Oh how nice. Jim loses the argument and decides to censor posts…”
Explain yourself, Game. I’ve not censored anything. But you *are* a nutter.
resistor said,
August 15, 2010 at 10:09 am
The censoring is the work of Max Dunbar.
The Apartheid analogy only fails in that most people who have suffered under Apartheid and have observed the Israeli regime’s treatment of Palestinians agree that the latter is worse.
johng said,
August 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Ah. So Max Dunbar is another one who prefers debate about Israel/Palestine to avoid rationality. As it happens its always important to remember that comparing things that are identical is pretty pointless. The notion that because there are differences between the situation of Israel and Apartheid South Africa comparisons should not be made is therefore not only to demonstrate (goes on like this)
jim denham said,
August 15, 2010 at 11:17 pm
One half-way serious point, worth a reply, that the nutter Game makes is, “the sheer absurdity of suggesting that if things are different they can’t be compared…”
Clearly, Game would be correct if all he was saying is that as no two things (entities) are *identical*, then it would be ludicrous to object to comparisons on the grounds of (relatively) secondary or trivial differences. It would make any and *all* comparisons impossible, and therefore, reasoned argument impossible.
That is not my case with regards to the Israel/Aparthied analolgy.
My case is that the comparison is positively misleading; that the differences are so massive and important, that the analogy isn’t just false: it’s positively misleading and gives succour to some very malign, anti-semitic, forces. Unfortunately people like Gameboy play into the hands of such forces (eg Atzmon, who Game and his SWP comrades still haven’t formally broken with).
Shiraz Moderation Ombudsman said,
August 16, 2010 at 5:18 am
Resistor
Would you like to make a formal complaint?
skidmarx said,
August 16, 2010 at 11:12 am
@ Jim Denham – then maybe you should address the question of whether Israel’s bestowal of rights and privileges according to ethnic and religious criteria fits the UN-adopted definition of apartheid which I asked you to do at the beginning of the thread. All you do in your latest point is to say it’s so different without supporting your argument with anything like a fact, and then launch back into your “anyone who doesn’t cheerlead for the IDF is an anti-semite” nonsense. And the Atzmon card is getting tiresome, he’s not a member of the SWP and has had less of a connection with it than this blog and the AWL have with Harry’s Place and Terry Fitzpatrick. I noted on the Degenerate Socialists thread that this post swiftly followed on the heels of a similar HP one, when are you going to admit that you’re just an outreach movement of their vile politics of alleging that that anyone who supports the Palestinians is an anti-semite?
jim denham said,
August 16, 2010 at 11:42 am
Skidders: for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking like yourself:
1/ The “UN-adopted definition of apartheid” is so broad as to potentially include *every* nationm in the world. Professional Israel-haters like the PSC do not specify this “definition” when denouncing Israel as an “aparheid state” – they compare it with Apartheid South Africa. That’s the central dishonesty that my post was about.
2/ Where, exactly have I or anyone else on thism blog suggested *anything* that could reasonably be interpreted as ““anyone who doesn’t cheerlead for the IDF is an anti-semite”? That’s just a product of your fevoured imagination.
3/ The “Atzmon card” may be becoming “tiresome” to you, but some of us think the fact that an avowedly “socialist” organisation actively promoted an anti-semite and holocaust denier is rathger important.
4/ On this blog (and the AWL, though this is *not* an AWL blog) having *any* connection with Harry’s place, let alone Terry Fitzpatrick: your evidence, please? I’ve already had to call out Mr Game for spreading this lie. Now, “Socialist Unity” and Mr Newman, did indeed give a platform to Fitzpatrick. When has “Shiraz”?
5/ We do *not* allege that ” anyone who supports the Palestinians is an anti-semite”: again that claim aginst us is just a hyusterical lie. After all, *we* support the Palestinians: that’s what two states means…
Skidders, your contributions are usually serious even though they tend to be on the kitsch-Trot/SWP-lite side. This latest one (above) is a pack of lies and distortions. Calm down, get a grip and try to distinguish between your silly prejudices and the facts of the case, eh?
skidmarx said,
August 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm
1. “Professional Israel-haters” – there’s a dishonest description if I ever heard one. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid is pretty specific, in particular section(d):
Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof.
2.The demonisation of those that resist it, Matgamna’s support for nuking Tehran…
3.Atzmon has denied being as racist or a holocaust denier. I can see that it’s rather important to you.
4. Reprinting their posts (again this one seems to follow hard on the heels of a similar one there). For all my dislike of Andy Newman, he left up your mate’s post so that it could be seen what a vile racist he is, not because he agreed with the content.
5. Apatheid South Africa gave states to the blacks too, they called them bantustans. You hypothesise sometimes that there might be those who actually support the Palestinians who you wouldn’t call anti-semites, but in practice (see 1/).
I’d love to be able to distinguish between your prejudices and the facts of the case. Why not start now (see 1.).
Harry Tuttle said,
August 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm
2.The demonisation of those that resist it, Matgamna’s support for nuking Tehran…
Could you provide a source for that?
3.Atzmon has denied being as racist or a holocaust denier. I can see that it’s rather important to you.
He may deny it, but he isn’t verybelievable. Is Gilad Atzmon an antisemite, Skidmarx?
skidmarx said,
August 17, 2010 at 12:10 pm
2. On the first I think the evidence is all around us. On the second:
if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?…The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity
He covers himself with an of course we don’t want that, perhaps as a slight corrective I should endorse one of the comments on the article:
This isn’t the same as advocating nuking Iran but certainly an attack by Israel should be condemned not given ‘good reason’.
3. Ah the old heresy hunt. Let’s not discuss Jim Denham’s pitiful attack on BDS, let’s ask you to condemn people you’ve never met. I think he should be killed, but then I think that about all jazz musicians. Having seen the track record of your (plural) attempts to make out the SWP to be anti-semitic, from the banning of overtly zionist UJS groups to Tony Cliff’s telling of ethnic jokes, I’m not inclined to pay much attention (and the attempts to claim a continuous anti-semitic theme in history to explain away opposition to Israel is seriously unmarxist and ahistorical) to this latest swipe. As a Jew, or ex-Jew or whatever, he feels the right to use the laguage of anti-semitism in a way I’d feel really uncomfortable with, and maybe he crosses the line into unacceptability, but he’s obviously not a neo-nazi or trying to re-write WWII (as far as I know, your link doesn’t go anywhere informative).
You could still discuss the issue raised in the post, if you’re not frightened of a debate.
Harry Tuttle said,
August 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm
1. Thank you for providing the link, it shows you misrepresented what Matgamna wrote. No where in that article does he state he would support the nuking of Iran. The main problem I see with his reasoning is the assumption that Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel, I don’t believe they would be that suicidal. If, on the other hand, Iran were planning just such an action and there was credible proof showing their intent, then Matgamna is right.
Should the United States decided to launch a nuclear attack on Iran next month, would you argue against the Iranians using whatever means available to them to preempt such an attack?
2. I’m not asking you to condemn anyone. I asked, based on the evidence provided, whether or not you believe Gilad Atzmon to be an antisemite based on what he has written. Nor have I described the SWP as antisemitic. I don’t believe it is, rather for reasons of political expediency and a general ignorance of the many ways in which antisemitism manifests itself, the SWP has on occasion made mistakes. I believe your comrade JohnG admitted as much with the banning of the UJS. Nor do I believe anti-Zionism is antisemitism, so that won’t fly either.
3. I’m not sure why you continue to misrepresent Gilad Atzmon. He is not comfortable “use[ing] the laguage of anti-semitism” because of his ethnicity, but rather because he hates what he describes as Jewish ideology. This goes beyond an opposition to Zionism. For Gilad, Jewish ideology is at the very heart of what makes Jews the people they are today and why they are persecuted. Nor do I understand how you can dismiss his racism by saying that “maybe he crosses the line into unacceptability.” Read this:
“we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously…. ‘On Anti-Semitism’… “American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy…”
Maybe he crosses the line? There is no maybe about it, he doesn’t just cross the line, he jumps across it. As for Holocaust denial, here’s your proof.
If you won’t listen to me, then listen to Michael Rosen, a friend of the SWP, who warned you what Atzmon represented. The SWP and anti-Zionists should have nothing to do with this man.
johng said,
August 16, 2010 at 5:14 pm
If the Shiraz moderators are frightened of a debate about the apartheid analogy (evidenced by their repeated censoring of anyone who engages with the question raised by the post) I’d suggest they stop Jim from posting about it.
maxdunbar said,
August 16, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Thing is, these idiots on our threads and at SU couldn’t care less about the racial harrassment that Lee Jasper’s been subjected to. They see the Harry’s Place/Jasper thing as a chance to spread some shit around, score some ideological points and stampede for the moral high ground.
Shiraz Moderation Ombudsman said,
August 16, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Dear Mr [John G]
Many thanks for your complaint.
Unfortunately your complaint did not meet the Ombudsman’s acceptability criteria because [it was too tedious for the Ombudsman to consider].
If you would still like us to consider your complaint please revise your submission (please note the upper limit of 10,000 words).
If you would like to appeal this decision please contact us in writing at our Bolton PO Box or our customer service centre on the dark side of the sun.
jim denham said,
August 17, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Skidders you say, amongst much other nonsense:
“3.Atzmon has denied being as racist or a holocaust denier. I can see that it’s rather important to you.
“4. Reprinting their posts (again this one seems to follow hard on the heels of a similar one there). For all my dislike of Andy Newman, he left up your mate’s post so that it could be seen what a vile racist he is, not because he agreed with the content.”
I say, re #3 (above): so that’s good enough for you, is it? Atzmon simply denies being a racist and holocaust denier and you accept it at face value? Including his stuff about the Protocols and “reassessing” the holocaust?
Re #4: we have only ever republished pieces from Harry’s place when we agreed with their contents, eg: in opposing the execution (by stoning or by any other means) of the Iranian woman Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani: were we wrong to have done that?
As for your suggestion that Terry Fitzpatrick is my “mate” (never mind your pathetic excuse for Newman publishing him), that is a downright lie, and a filthy, libellous one at that. I challenge you to produce one single solitary shred of evidence for that lie. Like for instance, that I *know* Fitzpatrick (let alone am “mates” with him), have ever published anything by him, have ever defended him or people who *have* published him, in even the slightest way?
Skidders, vigorous debate is one think: downright lying is another. On the basis of that last comment from you, I say that you are a liar, plain and simple. The only other possible explanation is that you are hysterical.
skidmarx said,
August 18, 2010 at 10:15 am
Jim Denham – <I.we have only ever republished pieces from Harry’s place when we agreed with their contents
And you agree with them rather a lot. Including in this piece, which follows on from a very similar one there.
As for your suggestion that Terry Fitzpatrick is my “mate” (never mind your pathetic excuse for Newman publishing him), that is a downright lie, and a filthy, libellous one at that.
Somewhat hypocritical given your comment on the other thread:
Is that supposed to frighten us?
Recourse to the bourgeois courts is, of course, the standard MO of your hero Galloway, isn’t it? You do have an awful lot in common with him (despite his having fucked over your organisation, the SWP), don’t you?
Let’s say he’s been intimately connected with your frequent source at that Place. Certainly a lot closer a connection than I’d have to say Gilad Atzmon.
vigorous debate is one think There’s a spelling mistake I make a lot as well, over-thinking the thing. If you want vigorous debate, why don’t you get back to it, write a post that actually examines the UN definition of apartheid and whether Israel’s racially divisive policies bear comparison to it, and cut out the downright lying of claiming that BDS is just an excuse for anti-semitism.
martin ohr said,
August 18, 2010 at 12:37 pm
skidmarx,
I think the issue here is that the UN definition of appartheid is not the thing most of us think of when that word is used, most people automatically associate apparthied with South Africa.
So the objection I have to the common formula of
Israel=apparthied therefore solution=boycott
is that it implies that there is a close resemblance between apparthied south africa and current Israel/Palestine. Which -I glad to see you know happily concede- there is not. Further that there is equally a similar solution which the left can apply – which ignores all the careful work that was done in building genuine trades union links and practical solidarity, which it seemed to me had more effect than not banking with Barclays.
All that said, I do believe that 1) plenty of the people involved in the BDS campaign are genuine anti-semites by anyones definition
2) even if that wasn’t the case then BDS would be one of the worst possible ways helping the palestinian struggle
moreover 3) if Israel wasn’t a jewish state then most of the world would pay about as much attention to it as they do to all the others that meet the UN criteria.
Can I recommend this to readers: http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/08/16/solidarity-delegation-israel-palestine
I’d like to go myself but I can’t. I’ll sponsor Skidmarx or any other shiraz regular with a (very) modest contribution if they wish to go in my place.
martin ohr said,
August 18, 2010 at 12:40 pm
grrrrrr, sorry about my typing- I’ve been on holiday for a few weeks, can’t seem to do the simplest of tasks any more.
I meant to type:
..is that it implies that there is a close resemblance between apparthied south africa and current Israel/Palestine. Which -I’m glad to see you now happily concede- there is not….
etc
Will said,
August 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm
re this shite
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/aug/18/bbc-weatherman-tomasz-schafernaker
if only he’d have signed off from his weather forecast by saying ‘now back to the newsdesk for a load of over-hyped bullshit produced by some preening tosspots who wouldn’t know a fucking story if it bit them on the cock’. And then scratched his chin.
Will said,
August 18, 2010 at 4:36 pm
further to the ‘news’ and journo scum…see this
http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins
How the “Ground Zero mosque” thing became an issue: it came from a needing-to-be-exterminated Randian cunt blogger who rescinded her opinion that Malcolm X was Obama’s father because it contradicted her opinion that Obama wasn’t born in the US. Fuck me. I am half completely into this sort of thing happening because if Americans were rational the American right is heading for certain and rapid destruction but a) that isn’t the case; b) American liberals (because there is no American left) are just as bad, though in different ways.
jim denham said,
August 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm
The liar/hysteric Sklidders writes (starting with a quote from me):
“‘As for your suggestion that Terry Fitzpatrick is my “mate” (never mind your pathetic excuse for Newman publishing him), that is a downright lie, and a filthy, libellous one at that.’
“Somewhat hypocritical given your comment on the other thread:
“‘Is that supposed to frighten us?
Recourse to the bourgeois courts is, of course, the standard MO of your hero Galloway, isn’t it? You do have an awful lot in common with him (despite his having fucked over your organisation, the SWP), don’t you?’
“Let’s say he’s been intimately connected with your frequent source at that Place. Certainly a lot closer a connection than I’d have to say Gilad Atzmon.”
Skidders, the above doesn’t even make sense, let alone answer my challenge to you to produce one single, solitary piece of evidence that Terry Fitzpatrick can *In any sense* be considered my “mate”.
I’m afraid that on the evidence of your non-reply and non-argument I must repaet my description of you as either a liar, plain and simpl, or a hysteric who cannot disinguish between truth and lies..
skidmarx said,
August 20, 2010 at 10:04 am
Jimbo – here’s the sense: rather than responding to repeated requests to address the issue of whether there is a comparison to be made between Israel and apartheid South Africa, you choose to pursue me over my attitude to Gilad Atzmon, and then call me libellous when I point out that you are much more closely linked to Terry Fitzpatrick than I am to Atzmon, and looks a little odd when you link johng to Galloway and suing for libel. Given that Fitz was a regular poster at HP and you frequently take posts from there without alteration (you could always have taken an anti-stoning post from Socialist Unity, but then you don’t share such ideological agreement with them (Dislike of political Islam.Check.Making out left to be full of anti-semitism.Check.Making out anti-semitism to be behind all opposition to Israel.Check.)), calling him a friend of a friend would at least be appropriate.
Now if this isn’t just a diversion to avoid the subject (Jesus, avoiding the subject of your own post, that’s weak) why don’t you get back to talking about BDS, but perhaps with a rational argument and tone.
johng said,
August 18, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I see the high standard of debate HP is famous for on its threads is very influential in blogdom.