Žižek and Israel: what limits to criticism?
Posted on Wednesday 26 August, 2009
Filed Under International
SLAVOJ Žižek seems to be taking over from the ageing Noam Chomsky as intellectual superhero of choice for the more academically-inclined sections of the far left.
The fact that he got top billing on the extensive fly posting undertaken for the recent Marxism 2009 conference, organised by the Socialist Workers’ Party, is surely illustrative of the almost exclusively postgrad student audience that organisation seems to crave right now.
Force the average office drone or angry NEET to hazard a guess, and a goodly proportion would probably tell you is was a midfielder for Newcastle United.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not coming on all crudely workerist and I’m not belittling the intellectual endeavour involved in using Lacanian psychoanalysis as a privileged intellectual tool to reactualise German Idealism. Gosh, I wouldn’t do that, even if I knew what it meant.
I’m merely suggesting that union reps looking for a smartarse one-liner for use against HR next time they take a personal case may be better served looking elsewhere.
I digress. Žižek has attracted plenty of flack of late for an article – carried in a number of other outlets – in which he accused the state of Israel of seeking to make Palestinian territory ‘Palestinian-frei’. The neologism can only have been purposely intended to invoke the official Third Reich term Judenfrei, applied to an area from which all Jews had been removed.
That is how the piece initially appeared on Comment is Free, anyway. Two days later, the print edition of the Guardian redacted the phrase to the less emotive ‘Palestinian-free’. Retrospectively, the website was similarly altered:
The state of Israel is clearly engaged in a slow, invisible process, ignored by the media; one day, the world will awake and discover that there is no more Palestinian West Bank, that the land is Palestinian-free, and that we must accept the fact.
Some feel that our sophisticated philosopher is here crudely equating Israel with Nazi Germany, in the same manner as the Star of David = swastika stickers produced by some Islamist organisations. I am going to argue that Žižek stays on the right side of the line, if only just.
Israel, of course, disposes of an extensive ‘my mother, drunk or sober’ fan club, for whom any suggestion that Israeli conduct is ever anything than impeccable is tantamount to virulent anti-semitism.
Thus they defend Israel’s documented resort to extrajudicial killing and administrative detention, and fiercely deny that the IDF incursion into Gaza was anything other than an entirely proportionate response to rocket attacks on Sderot.
To take such stances is obviously to deny reality, and evinces a light-minded selectivity inconsistent with genuine belief in human rights, which has either to be universal or not at all.
Moreover, it is perfectly intellectually consonant broadly to support any given state while being critical – even sharply critical – of its internal or external policies.
Serious debate demands that it is admissible to mount polemic directed against Israel, and aiming childish chants of ‘anti-semitic! anti-semitic!’ against everyone who does so is by now a well-worn and thus patently see-through tactic.
Exaggeration is widely recognised as a legitimate polemical device. Only yesterday, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling compared gang crime in inner Manchester to Baltimore. This was surely intended as a persuasive trope rather than a truth claim.
The meat of the charge against Žižek is that he has resorted to implicit Nazi analogy. For anybody in possession of even elementary historical literacy, that is something that can never be done lightly. Moreover, he faces earlier accusations of anti-semitism, even overt fascist sympathies.
Then again, there are elements of Israel’s coalition government that would undoubtedly like see a Palestinian-free West Bank, and have openly called for mass murder to advance ultranationalist political ends.
Reputable newspaper Ha’aretz claimed in 2003 that Avigdor Lieberman – now foreign minister – demanded that thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel be drowned in the Dead Sea.
There are also reports that he has demanded that 90% of Arabs be expelled from Israel, maintaining: ‘They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.’ I have not been able to source the widely-used quote, although by the same token, I am unaware of any denials.
Just talk, you say? Well, yes. Lieberman fortunately remains in no position to instantiate what he obviously desires. But this is a mentality seen before in history.
Likewise, Žižek’s remark is ‘just talk’. His jibe is certainly contentious, maybe unpleasant and perhaps unjustified. But it remains a jibe, and cannot be read as the meaningful identification of Israel with Nazi Germany.
In any case, with Mr Lieberman on board, Israel’s more sensitive friends are in no position to feign outrage over a loose formulation from a loose cannon philosophy prof.
<<Go back
Comments
90 Responses to “Žižek and Israel: what limits to criticism?”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
The Chomsky/Faurisson stuff can be summed up simply. Chomsky, whatever his merits, gets an attack of liberalism reguarly.
The idea that he’s a postmodernist is a bit odd though. http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
Some fine debate on Chomsky but does anyone wish to discuss the systematic abuse of Palestinians by the Israeli state?
Modernity, how many times do I have to say that I agree with you on the holocaust issue and that I would not have signed this petition if I had been Chomsky?
I prefer to fight!
Given that no-one here has defended Chomsky’s mistake (and indeed I think it was a mistake, which flowed out of his anarchist libertarianism) its very hard to work out what Modernity is waffling on about. Its also unclear why, if we’re not supposed to listen to anything anyone else said, why we should pay the blindest bit of notice to him. He never says anything interesting anyway.
Its also true that Modernities comments on the Hitch give us something of an insight into his dogmaticism. If a question is posed in an argument he will demand evidence. If he does not like the evidence he will simply dismiss it on the basis that he disagrees with the author. Its a remarkable case study of a closed mind.
I disagree with the conclusion of Zizek’s article because I believe the Palestinians are forced by circumstances to develop terrorist tactics. I do not believe these tactics to be counter productive because I do not believe for a second that Israel would have conceded anything whatever the Palestinians did. Zizek even alludes to this himself in the article.
I think the extreme nature of the Israeli oppression means that the fight against it has no other choice but to be brutal and this is a reason I support a boycott of Israel and, despite my western liberal sensibilities, fully understand the tactics of the Palestinians.
I disagree with the conclusion of Zizek’s article because I believe the Palestinians are forced by circumstances to develop terrorist tactics.
An addendum like “for example, by using nailbombs on women and children,” would really help you grasp the implications of what you’re saying here, Dean.
By way of analogy, there are terms for the type of person who is too afraid to fight back against the toughs who push him about, and takes it out on women, kids and others who can’t fight back instead. Hint – “freedom fighter” isn’t one of them.
Er excuse me someone is posting under my name. The piece suggesting I disagree with Zizek because Palestinians are forced to adopt terrorist tactics, was posted by someone pretending to be me. Could you remove it Dave (it does go to show the commitment to rational debate and argument that the right has doesn’t it?). Thanks.
sorry did i misread that or was it changed?
johng
Sorry, which comment are you refering to?
Unlike some SWP-affiliated blogs, my practice is never to edit comments, other than very occasionally for libel law reason.
JimD you wrote:
“Now you claim that listening to other people who have ideas and opinions is somehow middle class or capitalist thinking and that ‘intelligent’ people should ‘think for themselves’, this is beyond me.”
Oh JimD, silly me, I had supposed, wrongly, that you could read the points that I make and render them half sensibly. But clearly that is not the case.
I imagine that if I wrote “four”, you would read it as “five”, or if I typed “purple” that you’d confuse it with “magenta”.
Sadly, you are creating imaginary arguments of what I said. But suppose that I’m wrong on the point concerning Chomsky, Hitchens, etc
You might try an experiment, pop over to some Chomsky forum and make a few mild critical comments about him and see how people react? Probably with hysteria for their demi-god, Noam.
Equally, if you were in Lenin’s Tomb and made some critical comments about the cackhanded SWP leadership, your comments would probably last 5-10 seconds.
Finally, if you manage to navigate your way toward Will’s site and through the numerous adoring posts on Hitchens you might eventually see a common theme.
It is not an open hero worship, but that’s what it comes down to, seeking guide from noble figures as if their very utterances are political pearls.
[JimD, you've probably lost track of the original discussion so I'll repeat the main point]:
“Why there is this compunction to look up to these ham-fisted would-be political seers (Chomsky, Zizek, the Hitchens Brothers or other public school rejects, etc) is a curious phenomena.”
Now **if** you are brought up in that middle-class mentality, or have accepted its social influence then my above point will be largely incomprehensible to you.
If you think that hierarchies and pecking orders are the way to go, even under socialism, then I imagine your grasp of politics is probably a bit shaky.
If, however, you can see the fault in that organizational method and attitude, then you might also be able to see why its wrong and a product of capitalist development.
To the Middle Classes, these structures seem natural, almost predestined, with them carefully deposited in a nice position part way up, but to the working class these structures are artificial, restrictive and a product of class thinking.
Therefore, if you proclaim yourself to have some knowledge of capitalism, its workings, its failures and interactions then you might ponder the role of leaders, class structures in perpetuating those leaders and ruling elites, as they do not exist in isolation but are a product of capitalist thinking, the boss and the workers, etc, and of capitalist relations.
Me? I favour an autodidactic approach to life. I favour working class self-education. I don’t like political movements which are dominated by the lumpen petty bourgeoisie and their mates
Also more importantly, I favour you reading about the Middle East, you, JimD, making up your own arguments without reference to Zizek, Chomsky or anyone else.
So had you, JimD, made your own argument without middle-class sneering and in a semi-civil fashion,
If you had argued that, on your own, then I might have agreed with you, but like a lot of the working class/underclasses I don’t respond to what I perceived to be middle-class snottiness.
I will gladly discuss the problems of the Middle East with Dave Osler, Coatsey, people who have political maturity and can think for themselves, but I don’t respond too well to baiting, thickarses, sloganeering or petty bourgeois smirking.
I hope my views are clear enough? Please do tell me which ones are confusing you?
Hint: if you cut and paste my particular statements, engaging with them along the way, then that might make any exchange of views easier and less prone to misunderstanding.
Rodent,
I will rephrase. I think Zizek’s article was contradictory. On the one hand he tells us about a state hell bent on expansion and ethnic cleansing while paying lip service to peace processes and then he concludes that the tactic of armed resistance (my words) against Israel (in the form of rocket attacks, bombings) is inexcusable. But it isn’t inexcusable if the oppressor you fight is not interested in any peace because violence becomes the only weapon that changes the pace of the situation.
The unequal balance of power means that the violence used by the vastly weaker party may sometimes upset western sensibilities. This unequal balance of power renders your guy afraid to fight back analogy, frankly, laughable.
How do you explain the use of these tactics , if not driven by circumstances? Do you think it part of their culture, their race?
Dave,
I believe that the JohnG comment of “johng | 12:02, 28 August 2009″ is a fake.
It is too coherent and it lacks johng’s typical linguistical ticks (Modernities, Nazies, etc).
Modernity…
“You might try an experiment, pop over to some Chomsky forum…[blah-de-blah-de-blah - ed]…on Hitchens you might eventually see a common theme.”
This is irrelevant to the discussion. Will quoted Hitchens in rebuttal to your comments re: Chomsky & Faurisson. You responded with an attack on Hitchens, cheerily demonstrating the ad hominem fallacy.
If someone quotes an argument, you should, naturally, engage with the argument.
“Why there is this compunction to look up to these ham-fisted would-be political seers (Chomsky, Zizek, the Hitchens Brothers or other public school rejects, etc) is a curious phenomena.”
Some people – in certain areas, at least – are more worth engaging with than others – because of the quality of their arguments, their elevated platform, whatever. Zizek has both a) arguments of quality, and b) elevated platforms, and is, thus, probably worth engaging with (positively, or, as with many in this thread, critically).
“I favour you reading about the Middle East, you, JimD, making up your own arguments without reference to Zizek, Chomsky or anyone else.”
Irony.
Modernity,
You said: “You might try an experiment, pop over to some Chomsky forum and make a few mild critical comments about him and see how people react? Probably with hysteria for their demi-god, Noam.”
Sadly there may be people who hang on every word that some recognised authority says without any questioning but I insinuated from your comments that I was one of these people. If you were not saying that then I apologise but would ask you to make that more explicit. And I hope you recognise that citing someone’s work is not automatically kneeling before them in divine worship. After all this is one of the fundamental aspects of how science works!
I also prefer sites where all views can be expressed and are expressed; there is nothing worse than visiting a site where everyone sings from the same hymn sheet (Harry’s place is such site). This site is one of the most pluralistic around.
Workers self education is a nice concept but this has to be backed up with resources to give it a qualitative meaning. Well financed bourgeois research should not be automatically discarded out of some misguided purity.
As for making up my own arguments, this is an illusion. All arguments are formed in a society, by individuals involved in social relations. When I express my opinion all those factors come into play, as well as my human capacity for imagination.
For what it’s worth, I think, sadly, the 2 state solution is the only option on the table but believe the Palestinian state has to be viable and I doubt Israel will accept this unless forced to do so.
Bensix,
You missed off the key line, first and last point:
“I don’t respond too well to baiting, thickarses, sloganeering or petty bourgeois smirking.”
Granted, you’re an expert at the latter
Now fuck off.
Devastating, Modernity. Before I – clutching the shreds of my soul – retreat, broken, to end it all, could you clear something up for me? Does “petty bourgeois smirking” = “something you can’t answer“?
JimD you wrote:
“Sadly there may be people who hang on every word that some recognised authority says without any questioning but I insinuated from your comments that I was one of these people.”
NO, that is not what I am saying, rather my point is that there is too much hero worship, in general.
The point concerning Chomsky was just one example, NOT specially related to you.
JimD, one thing, please, can you *stop* reading meanings into my words that are *not* there.
I am direct, if I wish to say something I’ll say it, I won’t beat around the bush, got that?
You wrote:
“Workers self education is a nice concept but this has to be backed up with resources to give it a qualitative meaning. Well financed bourgeois research should not be automatically discarded out of some misguided purity.”
You are counterpoising the two, that is unnecessary, and no workers education doesn’t cost a lot, it is an attitude of mind, a desire not to take as gospel the pronouncements of would-be leaders who have been shown to be less than perfect.
“As for making up my own arguments, this is an illusion.”
That assumes a lot.
Well, if you can’t do that, then often you end up parroting the half digested arguments of others and they don’t sound too convincing when regurgitated.
An example, go find an SWP paper seller and ask them about Tibet (or something important, but *not* in the news, say Burma) see what answer you’ll get?
I’ll bet they won’t be too original or convincing. They’ll parrot what they’ve been told and probably not too coherently.
“For what it’s worth, I think, “
Now JimD, don’t you see the disadvantages of assuming a lot? Coming across with a hard-on attitude on Israel hasn’t helped you put across your points, has it?
Next time maybe you need to re-think your approach.
morality opines:
“An example, go find an SWP paper seller and ask them about Tibet (or something important, but *not* in the news, say Burma) see what answer you’ll get?
I’ll bet they won’t be too original or convincing. They’ll parrot what they’ve been told and probably not too coherently.”
You are,or were a school teacher, weren’t you?
You love being more knowledgeable than children, don’t you, you sad fuck.
For once (?!!!!!#@@@***!!^^//=-+++!!!!) I agree wholeheartedly with Slobby Fudge.
Next!
The unequal balance of power means that the violence used by the vastly weaker party may sometimes upset western sensibilities. This unequal balance of power renders your guy afraid to fight back analogy, frankly, laughable.
The American revolutionaries were massively outgunned, as were the Maquis. Nonetheless, both managed to direct almost all of their operations against Men With Guns rather than women and kids. Both major Palestinian movements could concentrate on the IDF, but they don’t. Why?
Really, just say “nailbombing civilians” then we’ll talk, Dean, assuming “nailbombing civilians” is what you mean by “sometimes (upsetting) western sensibilities” – and fuck me, it is.
I have lots of time for people who say what they mean, and none at all for those who gild the lily with trite phrases. Cock.
Vermin,
“Really, just say “nailbombing civilians” then we’ll talk, Dean, assuming “nailbombing civilians” is what you mean by “sometimes (upsetting) western sensibilities” – and fuck me, it is.”
Who said anything about talk, the whole point of my argument is that whatever the tactics of the Palestinians talk will be futile. I said speed up events, this could mean the pace of settlements. This situation, the history of the nature of violence on all sides in that region and the immensely unequal power explain what Zizek calls inexcusable acts. I think his conclusion is too moralistic and contradicts the materialist explanation in the rest of the article. Now the violence can’t in itself bring about change, some political process must do this but to my mind Zizek’s conclusion was wrong.
Here are a few points to back up my argument,
Palestinians HAVE taken on the IDF, studies have shown that many suicide attackers included a large number of Palestinians who had a prior history of violent encounters with the Israel Defence Forces that resulted in an immediate family member being killed or in some cases the attacker him/herself was injured or arrested.
Economic reality also plays a significant role.
Because of the closure policy enforced by Israel on the Palestinian Territories since 1993, fluctuations in the unemployment rate are a result of direct political policy of Israel rather than business conditions. This affects employment in two ways. First, because the Palestinian economy has long depended on Israel for absorbing from a third to a half of its labor force, such policies leave unemployed thousands of workers. Second, closures disturb gainful employment within the territories. Consequently, Palestinian unemployment statistics are fixed in a unique pattern: the rate varies considerably within a given year due to closures, not as a result of cyclical or seasonal fluctuations in business conditions. As collective strategies of repression, these closures deepen the stress borne by Palestinians and increase participation in violent resistance.
Prior research posits correlative links between economic damage and violent outcomes in conflict scenarios.
The reality is they are up against armoured tanks, fighter jets, helicopters and lately state of the art security. This overwhelming technology wasn’t a problem for American revolutionaries and the combat scenarios were totally different. Again another piss poor analogy.
@Dean
I’m going to type this slowly to make sure you understand what I’m saying.
If you have constructed an argument that ends with the conclusion …Ergo it is fine to send suicide bombers into pizza restaurants that are full of women and kids, you have fucked up your reasoning in some basic, fundamental way.
Further attempts to clarify or reinforce the arguments that led you to that conclusion only serve to expose how fundamentally fucked up your reasoning is.
This isn’t football, son. You don’t have to pretend that Boruc might have clipped Eduardo before the latter dived like Jacques Cousteau, nor do you have to invent elaborate justifications for nailbombing civilians. It is perfectly acceptable to say I support the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against their oppressors, but I’m not really into this pizza restaurant bombing thing.
It’s easy – try it.
Flying Plague carrier,
Zizek concluded they were inexcusable acts, this is a value judgement that betrays the materialistic argument of the article and betrays a materialist approach.
Your reasoning is to ignore all factors that may lead to violent struggle and conclude that the Palestinians only have a right to defend themsleves. The Israeli’s make all the moves and the Palestinians just react, defensively. My support for the Palestinians does not come with these strings attached.
Your moral outrage is very admirable but it won’t change reality.
The footy analogy was designed to make my position look simplistic and yours nuanced. The opposite happens to be true.
Zizek concluded they were inexcusable acts, this is a value judgement that betrays the materialistic argument of the article and betrays a materialist approach.
This is an odd way to describe basic humanity.
Your reasoning is to ignore all factors that may lead to violent struggle…
Indeed it does. This is because, no matter how bad things are, there are just some lines you don’t cross. This category of unforgiveable crimes definitely includes blowing up kids with nailbombs.
The footy analogy was designed to make my position look simplistic and yours nuanced.
It was designed to make the point that you can support one side in a conflict without waving pompoms for everything they do. Not a hard point to grasp, I think.
I notice you seem far more interested in soaring rhetoric about armed struggle than you do in writing sentences that start “It’s okay to murder women and children because”. If I asked nicely, would you give that a try?
Sky Rat,
Basic humanity does indeed make moral judgements, even when engaging in immoral actions!
Zizek should ditch his materialistic approach and just spout moralism then. He should follow your method and ditch all facts, all analysis and just give each event the moral thumbs up or thumbs down.
My sentence would begin, “The violent nature of the struggle is due to the fact……” and my end sentence would be “This violence can only end when real conditions change”.
Your postion can be summed up in a single sentence “I can feel your pain and it makes me feel good”
We’re not really getting anywhere here, are we? I’ll settle for this point…
Your postion can be summed up in a single sentence “I can feel your pain and it makes me feel good”
If your response to the argument It is wrong to murder civilians is that the very idea is some kind of puffed-up, Oprah-esque emoting, you really need to take your opinions back to the drawing board. They are clearly All Fucked Up.
Dean,
Please could you clarify your views on something?
1. As I understand it, you find it acceptable for Israeli civilians to be attacked and killed?
2. Would you support a situation where someone aggrieved, from the Middle East, decided to bomb pizza restaurants in Britain, for some perceived crimes committed by the British over the past 90+ years, in the Middle East?
Would you support the murder of British civilians in those circumstances?
I am just trying to work out where you draw the line?
Do you think killing Israeli civilians is acceptable but not Brits, or is it legitimate to kill both, in your mind?
Which is it?
Post Modernity/Hovering Hamster
I have tried to explain this as best I can but will give it one more go and then allow you the final say. (Cos I am that kind of guy)
I am not being judgemental, either of Israel’s actions or those of the Palestinians. I am simply saying that Zizek’s conclusion was contradictory and betrayed his materialist approach. From a purely academic point of view the materialist method is the correct one in my opinion, you obviously disagree.
Until the peace process moves beyond its current parameters the violence will continue on BOTH sides. All the moralising in the world won’t change that fact.
I had similar views on the situation in Northern Ireland, so my opinions (however much they may upset your moral code or your academic approach) are not based on any form of racism against the Israeli people, who are also victims of this failure.
However, my sympathy and support is for the Palestinians.
Dean,
Understood, but you didn’t address my point 2:
Funny you should mention aggrieved people from the Middle East blowing up British citizens. One immediately thinks of Eitan Livni’s role in blowing up the King David Hotel. And it can fairly be said that Tzipi Livni is her father’s daughter.
It’s lucky for Morality Blog that the Irgun’s murder of British citizens is quite some time in the past. Otherwise he might find himself subjected to a condemnathon.
Splintered Sunrise,
I shouldn’t have to explain this, to you of all people, but my question to Dean is a political one.
This is a political blog, I asked a political question, I wondered if he could justify his stance, politically.
As for the King David hotel bomb, you will no doubt remember that it killed Jews and Arabs and the British, etc
Also, if you had informed yourself of the period you would then know that it was roundly condemned by the Yishuv and the majority Zionists.
Further, had you familiarised yourself with Irgun you would know that they were a minority, within a minority, probably equivalent to the real IRA or something like that.
Now would you wish to blame the mainstream republican movement for the actions of the various splinter groups including the real IRA, then please do, but I’m sure you’ll see the parallel?
I wouldn’t dream of politically, morally, or militarily justifying the bombing of the King David Hotel.
Now this is a point you might remember:
As for Tzipi Livni, she seems to have moderated her views a lot? Still on the Right, but probably Left of Thatcher or many member of the DUP, etc?
Of course, Splintered Sunrise if you wish to attack the off-spring of Irgun, sins of the father stuff, then you’ll have to widen your scope.
You will, of course, remember the numerous Irishman that fought on Franco’s side during the Spanish Civil War? Would you similarly attack their offspring? Sins of the father?
Or even those fanatical right-wing Irishman that fought on the eastern front as proxies for the Nazis, will you be attacking their children too?
I somehow doubt it.
You really should get into the habit of talking politics, not personalities, otherwise it is so petty bourgeois, and I am not going to mention O’Duffy, etc
PS: Don’t get me started on the Brits that helped the Nazis. (and yes, I know many Irishmen and women fought on both sides too.)
Yes, Tzipi Livni has moderated her views quite a lot. If dropping white phosphorus on civilians in Gaza is to be considered moderation. Or her interview on Israeli army radio last year when she advocated the two-state solution on the grounds that this would facilitate “transfer”.
You do know what Zionists mean when they say “transfer”, don’t you?
ahh fuck off, Splintered Sunrise, I am not interested, you are a political waste of time.
Moralityyblog is the distilled essence of hP saUCE cuNts.
Just saying lijke.
Modernity,
Suddenly you want to discuss the Israel and Palestinian issue. Something you earlier told us you would not do because and I quote:
“I am not interested in discussing the Middle East with thickarses, who don’t know the political basics.”
Now you want to debate with Dean who Flying Rodent rightly chastises for ‘fucked up reasoning’.
What Modernity means when he says he doesn’t want to discuss the discuss the Israel/Palestine issue is that he doesn’t want to discuss anything that might recognize or even acknowledge Israel’s systematic structural violence against the Palestinians (the actual topic of Zizek’s article in fact) – just like all other sauce donkeys will not engage with that topic.
On the other hand, if the topic involves the sporadic acts of Palestinian violence committed against Israel and whether or not they are sufficiently condemned, mod and the saucers will jump right in there. I mean, anybody would think they had an agenda.
as if there isn’t enough coverage about I/P on other blogs and Cif, etc, the volume of replies about this speaks volumes about the priorities of the left in this country.
The only comments policy this blog has is that apolitical abuse is strongly discouraged.
‘Fuck off’/'no,you fuck off’ exchanges take us nowhere. Can some of the commenters above please note.
Fuck off Dave.
Sorry, I’ll get me coat.
Dave,
You are correct, I shouldn’t have said “ahh fuck off”, my apologies, a better reply to Splintered Sunrise would be:
Splintered Sunrise,
I tried, momentarily to engage with your issues, you disregard my replies, so I have to conclude that you are not interested in the actual issues of facts of the matter, just bickering.
Because if you had truly been interested then you would understand why Jews in Palestine were a bit annoyed at the British. If you had been interested you would have known about the MacDonnell White Paper which effectively repudiated the Balfour declaration and probably contributed to the death of tens of thousands of Jews in Europe, as the British put up immigration controls in Palestine.
The MacDonnell White Paper along with the inaction of the Allies towards the mass killings in Europe during WW2 is probably more than enough reason why Jews in Palestine would be angry at Western powers, but I suspect like many others, Splintered Sunrise, you are not too concerned with the fate or feeling of Jews in Palestine or anywhere else, so that doesn’t factor into your discussion.
Instead, Splintered Sunrise, you indulge in a bit of rather predictable baiting.
Far right web sites are full of this kind of thing, it is tedious, predictable and lows the level of political debate to the floor.
I can’t help wonder if the bitter, acrimonious and largely apolitical discussions of the Middle East are rather off-putting, for anyone wishing to take up socialist or left ideas.
Splintered Sunrise, your continued inability to discuss these matters in an analytical and political fashion does your expensive education a discredit, it is a lumpen petty bourgeois characteristic that you possess, and for that I pity you.