Jewish student groups: the 1985 banning campaign
Posted on Sunday 7 March, 2010
Filed Under Israel
A MOMENT from my past has just caught up with me. Last week I received an email from Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, the Jewish-led charity that monitors anti-semitism in Britain.
Rich informed me that the CST is currently researching the campaign conducted 25 years ago - with the involvement of at least some Socialist Worker Student Society branches – to get campus Jewish societies disbanded, on the grounds that they were ‘racist’. Such a stance is in obvious contrast to SWSS’s overtly friendly attitude towards comparable Islamist-dominated Muslim student groupings over the last period.
He added, quite correctly, that I had spoken in support of a resolution to scrap the JSoc at a meeting of City of London Polytechnic students’ union in 1985. Yep, that long-haired skinny Trot kid on the platform was me. What’s more, Rich requested a meeting to talk about this episode.
Now, I am aware that the CST is held in some suspicion by many on the Jewish left, who dismiss it on grounds of its self-appointed nature. I am also bewildered that anybody has kept records of such minutiae, decades after the event.
But throughout my journalistic career, I have often written articles contrasting the actions of present-day politicians with what they said and did as college radicals. Therefore logical consistency dictates that the I should apply the standards I apply to others to myself.
So I will be getting together with Rich at some point in the week ahead. I have his assurance that the object of the exercise is not to paint me as some kind of swivel-eyed anti-semite.
In brief, I was in 1985 a member of both the Socialist Workers’ Party and City Poly SWSS, and as such, had no qualms about arguing for SWP politics. Nor can I claim to have been an ingenue; I was a young man of 24, overly booked up on Marxist theory, and well aware of what I was doing. But I was too far down the food chain to know whether hostility towards the JSoc flowed from a national or a purely local inititive.
My attitude had very much been shaped by the war in Lebanon three years earlier, especially the Sabra and Shatila massacre. So I saw things in black and white.
Zionism, I then believed, was a form of racism. Self-evidently, no student union should permit a racist student group to function under its auspices. Ipso facto, City Poly JSoc had to go.
This is not a position I now hold. I am, of course, still critical of the state of Israel from a leftwing socialist perspective, and remain convinced that a democratic secular state is the only basis on which lasting peace is possible in the Middle East.
But I have had the benefit of the intervening years to think things through. In particular, I have read Theodor Herzl’s ‘The Jewish State’, the founding manifesto of Zionism. Clearly it is a nationalist work, and I excoriate nationalism in 2010 as I did in 1985. However – and crucially, in this context – ‘The Jewish State’ is equally clearly not a book premised on racism or Jewish supremacism.
Although it would be wrong to call Zionism a racist doctrine per se, that adjective may fairly be applied to some components of the current political leadership of Israel, who define themselves primarily as Zionists. On top of that, the establishment of the state of Israel represents, in historic terms, an injustice against the Palestinian people.
Just to complicate this picture, the borderline between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is sometimes illegitimately crossed by sections of the far left. But by the same token, supporters of Israel frequently conflate the terms for base polemical advantage. While I now consider my support for the JSoc ban a gross mistake, I remain on balance an anti-Zionist.
In short, I guess I am not expecting a meeting of minds when I do get together with Mr Rich. I naturally hope we can have a reasoned exchange of views. But some differences, as they say, are too important to split.
UPDATE: I have slightly amended the original text of the post in the light of comments below from johng, who insists that the SWP did not co-ordinate a national attack against JSocs. He is evidently better placed to comment on this than I am. But the line taken by City Poly SWSS is beyond dispute.
<<Go back
Comments
197 Responses to “Jewish student groups: the 1985 banning campaign”
Leave a Reply
-
- 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
-
I’m not sure if this has already been answered but it seems to underline the points made by so many commentators on the question of antisemitism.
Skidmarx asks
“The only answer I can come up with given the absolute failure to accept that no one is lying for advantage comes from at least unconscious antisemitism.
Why?”
some people have said skidmarx (and others) are antisemitic. Rather than being racist skidmarx is simply ignorant; ignorant of history, religion and culture.
I don’t really expect skidmarx and others who don’t have a specialist interest in the subject to know this but it is a long-standing antisemitic trope that Jews lie when it suits them. This trope originates in church doctrine because the church needed (and still needs) to explain why Jews reject Jesus.
It can’t be (at least from a christian perspective) that the Jews reject Jesus because Jesus is not who the church claims he is; the church needs to find an alternative explanation. The explanation given (read the New Testament) is that the Jews know Jesus is the messiah but rejected him anyway because he threatened the status of the powerful Jews of the time, i.e. Jews will lie when it suits them (note the context; Jews will lie when it suits them even if this means rejecting G-d).
If Jews can lie when it suits them even in the context of rejecting their own saviour then the Jewish capacity to lie out of self-interest has no limitations. Over time the specific allegation against powerful Jews from the time of Jesus became generalised to the idea that all Jews lie when it suits them.
Contemporaneously this allegation (of Jews lying when it suits them) would be denounced by most when stated explicitly. However, when presented implicitly it resonates with existing cultural assumptions and is accepted unconsciously. People such as skidmarx accept this without question and don’t see that the origin of the allegation is a racist stereotype. In most cases they don’t even know that its a long-standing racist stereotype.
The problem is that people who think of themselves as anti-racist and educated don’t like being confronted with the possibility that they may be racist and ignorant and so tend to prefer to deny rather than investigate themselves. Pride is a very powerful inhibitor to truthfulness.
Without delving too deeply into the inane ramblings of Tony Greenstein appears to demomstrate very well the dangers of racism.
Tony Greenstein is an example of how damaging racism can be when the racist allegations are internalised by those on the receiving end. Tony seems to internalise every single antisemitic trope contained in christian theology; conspiracy, deceit, murder and torture being just a few which lept from the page when considering his excuse for reasoned argument.
It reminds me of the story of a black professor who when sat on a plane which was delayed for technical reasons, admitted his relief when he spotted the engineer carrying out repairs was a white man. At least this professor was smart enough to realise what he was doing; thinking about black people in the same negative ways that racists do.
Despite self-identifying as Jewish, Tony Greenstein seems to do the same thing where Jews are concerned. This is one of the worst aspects of racism; where the victims come to think of themselves in the same ways that racists do.
Dave Rich said,
“Most British Jews feel a basic emotional connection to Israel, whatever their precise political views. They should be able to express this in a democracy without being physically attacked or racially abused.”
The left should be unrelenting in its criticsm of this position. Democracy or no democracy.
Stephen said,
“Tony Greenstein is an example of how damaging racism can be when the racist allegations are internalised by those on the receiving end.”
This makes no sense whatsoever. Explain yourself more precisely.
Or we have to assume this is dishonesty of the worst kind.
Johnno- If you can be bothered read (or re-read) Greenstein’s posts. Read for yourself what he believes about Israelis (who mainly happen to be Jews) and then ask yourself if it is merely coincidence that all the negative things that Greenstein currently accepts unthinkingly about Israelis are the very same things that people have historically associated with Jews.
Does that make more sense? If not, then I think you need to learn about antisemitism, it sources, manifestations and history.
Out of interest why the assumption of dishonesty? Did you not read my first post?
Johnno
Another thing your post is not clear. Do you mean that Jews should not be able to express their emotional attachment to Israel and that the left should unrelentingly criticise those who do? Or do you mean the left should defend the rights of Jews to express their emotional connection with Israel regardless of whether you agree or not?
I will take your contributions as basic dishonesty then.
The left should criticise the notion that an action by a state should be justified, supported simply because of racial, nationalistic attachment. The left, whether they be Jews or not should be critics of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
On the war with Iraq the left were critics of the action, they didn’t bring emotional attachment to Britain into the equation. We leave that sort of thing for the right wing. So this isn’t about Jew or non Jew this is about left and right.
Johnno raises an interesting point when he writes:
“The left should be unrelenting in its criticsm of this position. Democracy or no democracy.”
I think most people would find the above statement reveals an offensive position:
1) clearly because there’s no political content to that criticism
2) it displays an intensely unsympathetic understanding of British Jews
3) it achieves nothing but creating animus towards British Jews
4) it fails to understand interpersonal dynamics
Let’s examine the statement that Johhno considered so offensive:
“Most British Jews feel a basic emotional connection to Israel, whatever their precise political views. They should be able to express this in a democracy without being physically attacked or racially abused.”
Which basically argues that people, any people, should be able to express a connection to a country without being physically attacked or racially abused.
A reasoned position, but let’s frame it in a different way, to show the absurdity of criticising it.
Suppose instead, hypothetically speaking Dave Rich had written:
“Most Jamaicans/Irish/French, etc feel a basic emotional connection to Jamaica/Ireland/France, whatever their precise political views. They should be able to express this in a democracy without being physically attacked or racially abused.”
I think that illustrates the point.
I very much doubt if the Left would want to show unrelenting criticism towards Jamaicans, the Irish or the French when they show an emotional connection to a particular country.
In fact, if you go further you could find many expatriate British in Spain who feel a basic emotional connection to Britain, and a lot of them would be on the right of the political spectrum.
Yet no one on the British Left would ever suggest that British ex-pats be criticised for holding that view and certainly not, as happens with Jews in Britain, being physically attacks and racially abused.
So that’s just four examples, where the contradictions of such an argument are illustrated.
Modernity is pulling his usual con trick here.
Dave Rich’s statement needs to be seen in the context of a reply to Tony Greenstein. He was clearly saying that emotional attachment meant justifying the actions of that nation, so any Jew defending Israels actions in Gaza for example should be allowed this view. Well yes they should be allowed the view but the left cannot let this view/mentality go by without unrelenting criticsm. Anymore than we would accept support for the war in Iraq based on nationalism. Which is where a lot of the support for that war comes from.
So this is not a Jew/non Jew issue, this is about what it means to be on the left. Something you would know fuck all about.
If Jamaicans justified barbarity from their government out of some ‘emotional’ attachment then the left would be relenting in criticism of them also. Or to give an example you lot might apporve of, if an Iranian justified anti union legislation out of emotional attachment to Iran we on the LEFT would not be sympathetic to such views.
The left do not view the world through these specatcles.
Jonno
I have no desire to re-read the tripe written by Greenstein, I (and also apparently you also) have better things to do. I asserted that I believe Greenstein thinks about Jews in the same ways that racists do. The question is why you choose to impute a dishonest rather than a mistaken intention on my part?
As for your further point; Jews in this and any other country are entitled to express their support for the state of Israel and their emotional attachment to it (you say I brought the emotional aspect into it but please re-ead your quote as this is what you were objecting to) without being beaten up or threatened for it.
The converse position which is what you appear to be endorsing is that Jews have the right to express their support and/or emotional attachment to the state of Israel but should expect to be beaten up or threatened if they do so. I don’t think this is what you meant to say but if it is then this is racism pure and simple.
Beating up Jews in London is not justified by what other Jews in Israel are doing. If you don’t accept this clear principle you are racist. Which is it?
Stephen,
“The converse position which is what you appear to be endorsing is that Jews have the right to express their support and/or emotional attachment to the state of Israel but should expect to be beaten up or threatened if they do so”
Please don’t be under that impression. All of us (no matter what our backgrounds) hold views that are tied to our upbringing etc and we should recognise the material conditions that lie behind all points of view. But developing an objective leftist viewpoint is a different matter.
Johnno
I agree that material conditions play a role in shaping people’s attitudes- probably less of a role than you would think
However, part of the material conditions is the antisemitism faced by Jews throughout history. A big part of this is that for 2,000 years Jews have been told that their view of the world is incorrect. In many places Jews have been shunned and expelled because they refused to change their view of the world. In many places Jews were physically tortured or killed because of their views. The worst form of antisemitism (nazism assumed a Jewish view of the world which was genetic, hence the need to kill every Jew, regardless of their professed belief). Thank G-d such treatment is extremely rare these days (a few recent cases Ilan Hamimi, Daniel Pearl, for example) but there are still examples quite common where Jews are marginalised and shunned because of their views, e.g. UCU where many Jewish academics are leaving the union because they feel the union discrimiates against them.
Telling Jews their view of the world is wrong has a long and inglorious history and Jews rightly or wrongly connect modern incarnations of this with the historical ones. If you disagree with Jews about their attachment to the state of Israel that’s fine but don’t expect everyone to agree with you and given the history don’t expect Jews to respond to hectoring or anything that can be intepreted as antisemitic.
The point is that Jews may mistakenly identify something as antisemitic but when someone claims something is antisemitic they do so because they genuinely believe this is so.
Ask yourself, where does this idea that Jews lie for polemical advantage (a form of self interest) actually come from? Have you heard even once a Jew or zionist admit to having made a bad-faith allegation of antisemitism. Have you heard Jews and Zionists admit to bad-faith allegations of anti-semitism so often that you can understand why others might believe that when Jews or zionists complain of antisemitism that they are most likely lying? Have others told you about circumstances where there was concrete evidence that the accusation of antisemitism was not made in good faith. If not, then you must assume good faith. If not then why is the assumption of Jewish/Zionist bad-faith so widespread?
In history, few antisemites (I don’t mean you btw) have acknowledged that they are motivated by an irrational hatred of Jews. It is almost always pinned on this or that aspect of Jewish belief or behaviour. A sensible analysis recongnises that in many cases the so-called reasons are in fact excuses. Many prominent anti-Zionists from pre-state times fervently denied they were antisemitic (glubb pasha is just one example) but their personal diaries, published posthumously, told a different
story.
I am an ex-kibbutznik, left to the core, but I am actually quite frightened by the discourse concerning Israel in some left-wing circles. The left is supposed to identify nuance and subtely and does so in most subjects except that of Israel. There seems to be an irrational hatred of Israel which to many Jews appears an extension of the irrational hatred of Jews which has existed for thousands of years. That might be a misconception but it is an honest one.
Stephen
“So this is not a Jew/non Jew issue, this is about what it means to be on the left. Something you would know fuck all about.”
Dave Rich was very specific in his words, and so were you.
Obviously, given the nature of anti-Jewish racism, “Jew/non Jew issue,” does come into it. As illustrated by Skidmarx comments concerning David Aaronovitch’s ethnicity.
It’s noticeable how one set of expectations are applied to Jews/Israeli and then other nationalities and ethnicities
And that’s the problem.
For example, would there be unrelenting criticism from the British Left of any British Chinese if they defended, excused, etc China’s occupation of Tibet?
Or China’s violent suppression and measures against Uyghurs?
No, certainly, not, as is so often demonstrated on a leading British socialist log.
So the question is, why Jews/Israelis are seen as fair game for unrelenting criticism whereas other ethnicities and nationalities are not.
“I am an ex-kibbutznik, left to the core”
I hadn’t previously realised that having participated in a racially exclusionary capitalist enterprise was evidence of being “left to the core” but I am here to learn, after all.
Stephen – perhaps I should have been more precise in my question. It seemed to me that Susan was operating a double standard: people who support her view should have the honesty of their view accepted, while their opponents must have some underlying anti-semitism accounting for theirs.
Rather than being racist skidmarx is simply ignorant; ignorant of history, religion and culture.
Well at least you’re not calling me racist. Is it a precondition of not agreeing with you that one must be ignorant?
it is a long-standing antisemitic trope that Jews lie when it suits them. It’s a longstanding anti-socialist trope that communists lie when it suits them. Does that mean I should be able to reject any criticism you have by putting it down to knee-jerk anti-communism?
People such as skidmarx accept this without question
I’d accuse you of lying at this point if I didn’t realise I was falling unconsciously for an anti-semitic trope. You are mistaken,sir.
The problem is that people who think of themselves as anti-racist and educated don’t like being confronted with the possibility that they may be racist and ignorant and so tend to prefer to deny rather than investigate themselves.
Get with a mirror already.
pharisee-
Your trite comment may well give you an excuse to ignore the overwhelming majority of what I wrote but life is not quite as simple as you imagine. Nothing is perfect but there are shades of grey and Lotan where I lived has much to be proud of.
There was nothing racially exclusive about Lotan; we had Arab residents and though there were no members who weren’t Jewish there was no bar to them becoming members in the rules of the kibbutz. I don’t think that muslims or christians would want to become members of a religious Jewish community but had they wanted to they would have been considered for membership on the same basis as everyone else (Israeli citizenship, contribution to the community, etc)
I suppose all cooperatives operate in the capitalist world, but its still an improvement in my eyes because ownership is collective and there remains a strong committment amongst the membership to keep things that way despite the changes taking place on other kibbutzim.
We did lots of work to improve relations between Jews and Arabs in the region; hosting seminars for school-children from Jordan, Palestine and Israel, using Israeli Arabs as the bridge. Unfortunately, this stopped soon after the outbreak of the second intifada.
Lotan also has an excellent record in environmental education, establishing the first recycling centre in the country, building a whole neighbourhood and extensions to existing buildings using more sustainable methods. We also experiemted with homeopathic treatments for our herd of cows.
To sum up, I don’t think your description is particularly fair but it does demonstrate some of your prejudices.
modernity- As illustrated by Skidmarx comments concerning David Aaronovitch’s ethnicity.
What comments? I know you have some comprehension problems, but I only made a couple of points when responding to a diatribe from Mikey which included the statement that Aaronvitch was a non-Jew. You insisted that I was vexed by the issue and I insisted that I wasn’t. Personally I’m interested in what’s wrong with the views he expresses, on the Middle East and elsewhere,and not with his ethnicity. I told you the point I was making and you simply ignore the explanation.
stephen – There seems to be an irrational hatred of Israel which to many Jews appears an extension of the irrational hatred of Jews which has existed for thousands of years. That might be a misconception but it is an honest one.
When the dislike of Israel is grounded again and again in explanations of the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians, and the exclusionary nature of the Israeli state, it should be possible for anyone with honesty to distinguish that from the irrational hatred of Jews. When this misconception occurs over and over, it seems natural for the question to arise of whether it is honestly held.
Ask yourself, where does this idea that Jews lie for polemical advantage (a form of self interest) actually come from? Probably as you stated earlier, from Christian anti-semitism. But you seem to be committing a fallacy of false polarisation. What is suggested is not that “Jews” have it in their nature to lie for polemical advantage.[Incidentally I think there are an awful lot of gentiles who do so to one extent or another]. It is whether anti-Zionism should be conflated with anti-semitism, and whether, given the rational explanations given by anti-Zionists for their views, a reasonable person would conclude that there must be anti-semitism hiding behind what they say.
Have you heard even once a Jew or zionist admit to having made a bad-faith allegation of antisemitism.
I don’t recall even once hearing anyone of any race or creed admitting to making a bad-faith allegation about anything.
modernity -For example, would there be unrelenting criticism from the British Left of any British Chinese if they defended, excused, etc China’s occupation of Tibet?
Or China’s violent suppression and measures against Uyghurs?
No, certainly, not, as is so often demonstrated on a leading British socialist log.
I think there should be criticism, but not violence. And it is dishonest of you to pretend that one more British than socialist log stands for the whole anti-Zionist left.
We also experiemted with homeopathic treatments for our herd of cows.
Homeopathy isn’t considered that rational.
skidmarx-
You’ve misunderstood me. You asked why something was antisemitic and I explained it to you.
You say there is a double standard at work but I don’t see it. A double standard would be saying I want you to accept my position in good faith but I don’t accept your position is made in good faith. This isn’t what Susan or I was complaining about. The problem is when someone assumes that a Jew/zionist makes an accusation in bad faith this is grounded in antisemitic ideas, not that the person making the allegation of bad-faith is a foaming at the mouth racist or dishonest themselves. They honestly believe that jews and zionists make bad-faith accumsations. I say there is no evidence for this claim and that when people make this assumption they are unconsciously participating in a centuries old stereotype about Jews. The idea of implicit stereotyping is not even controversial.
Its not a condition of disagreeing with me that someone be ignorant but you asked a question; why is something antisemitic? As I understood things this meant that you don’t know why something is antisemitic. You didn’t say “I know why people say that’s antisemitic but I disagree for reasons x and y”. Your very question acknowledged your ignorance. In any case, there’s no shame in being ignorant; its simply being unaware of something and nobody can be aware of everything.
I wouldn’t even expect you to be aware of the history of antisemitism, its a specialist subject. I am wholly ignorant of Tibetan history and many other subjects I’m sure. I’m not embarrassed about this because I find other things more interesting. However, I wouldn’t wade into a debate on Tibetan history given my ignorance.
There is no history of treating communists as inherrently dishonest, so your argument doesn’t hold. Of course you could still dismiss criticism as being based on some imagined history but it would be foolish. However, there is an established history dating back approximately 2,000 years of thinking about Jews in this way (and others). People have made cogent arguments as to why certain aspects of left-wing discourse in respect of the Israel/Palestine dispute are coloured with antisemitic tropes. To dismiss these arguments as a rhetorical device is to evade having to think about your position or to engage with what people are actually saying.
I have no interest in making racists out of people who are not but at the same time I will challenge antisemitic ways of thinking when I encounter them. People can be unconsciously and unintentionally racist. I’m sure I sometimes do that myself but I’d hope that if someone pointed it out I’d have the good grace to take their offense as serious and to consider my own thoughts and behaviour.
As for my saying “people such as skidmarx accept this without question” I take it back; it was a poor choice of words. I meant many on the left. I am happy to admit my mistake.
skidmarx
1) Homeopathy- I agree its appears to be totally irrational and it wasn’t my idea. However, it worked and saved both money and the need to use harmful chemicals so I suppose I can live with that
2) Its true that some people attempt to ground their criticism of Israel on a rational basis and then a sensible discussion is possible. However, any discussion of the oppression and dispossession of Palestinians has to take place in the context of Palestinian rejectionism. Much anti-zionist or anti-Israeli discourse (in my experience) ignores or minimizes this when attempting to explain Israeli behaviour; this is clearly not rational.
Rejection of Jewish sovereignty has been the default position of Palestinian nationalism for most of its history and is still the case with regards to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and parts of Fatah. You may agree with their positions but its not rational to expect Israelis or the majority of Jews to do so any more than its rational to expect Palestinians to join Yisrael Beitenu.
Many anti-zionists seem to think that Israelis should agree that we have no right to our homeland. If Palestinians wish to violently oppose Jewish sovereignty as opposed to accepting a fair partition this is their right but its not rational to expect Jews in Israel to paint targets on our backs or sit on our hands when under attack.
There are two sides to this dispute both of which have done horrible things. However the conflict is often painted in simplistic terms. All Palestinian actions are excused whereas Israeli actions are magnified and often exagerated. It is common to hear that Israel or zionism is a unique form of evil or words to that effect. This is not grounded in any rational principles, but there is a historical notion (again it originates in the church) that Jews are a uniquely evil force in the world working against the good of humanity.
I don’t wish to minimalise Palestinian deaths or suffering. Yet it is not rational (unless you are Palestinian) to be concerned with Palestinian suffering over all other suffering in the world. The conflict has claimed something like 80,000 lives over 60 years. In the same time period mllions of Muslims have been killed in other conflicts in the region at the hands of other muslims. But the world only seems bothered when it is Jews doing the killing.
When fellow British people go on demos chanting “we are all Hezbollah now” how do you expect British Jews to experience this? Hezbollah are avowedly antisemitic and opposed to peace with the state of Israel. The only way Jews can end the conflict with Hezbollah is to leave Israel (they don’t mind if we kill ourselves or just move).
These are just some examples of how Jews connect the irrational hatred of Israel with the long history of the irrational hatred of Jews.
Johnno
Firstly, there is a difference between having a basic emotional attachment to a country, and supporting this or that action or policy of that country’s government. I tried to make that distinction earlier but I am clarifying it now in case you or anyone else missed it.
Secondly, there is a difference between being unrelenting in your criticism of a particular position, and physically attacking or racially abusing the person or people who (you perceive) hold that position. I presume you can see the difference.
I see Stephen, in the normal dishonest Zionist approach to any debate, dismisses my contribution as ‘tripe’ without having anything substantive to say. it is the normal response of Zionist afficianados.
As for Dave Rich’s emotional attachment. Now where have we heard this before? Well it the first line of defence of the bitterenders, those who refused to accept Black majority rule in southern Africa. It was the ‘kith and kin’ argument, as of course many white families in Britain had emotional (& financial!) relationships with their nearest and dearest in Rhodesia and South Africa.
This is exactly the argument that is being used with Israel. jews have relatives there, so for some unknown reason we must take account of these racist sympathies.
And the idiot, because he really is an idiot, says this:
‘Read for yourself what he believes about Israelis (who mainly happen to be Jews) and then ask yourself if it is merely coincidence that all the negative things that Greenstein currently accepts unthinkingly about Israelis are the very same things that people have historically associated with Jews.’
It is of course a lie that what I say about Israel is the same as what was said about Jews historically. But of course you can twist anything so that everything becomes everything.
I’m not aware that jews historically were settler colonials, or that they denied access to land to non-Jews, or that they maintained a super-exploited labour pool in the occupied territories, or that their welfare services discriminated against non-Jews.
I am well aware that Jews were held to be associated with money. Unsurprisingl since they were associated with trade, a people-class. Is this the major attribute of anti-Zionist criticisms of israelis? I doubt it. Israel is a parasite state, it lives off the US in return for strategic services. Where is the comparison? Of course Stephen gives no examples because only a complete fool would compare the inhabitants of Nalweki Street in Warsaw to those of Tel Aviv today.
Indeed most Jews today would run a mile from their ghetto cousins if they ever met up with them. And as for the ancient Hebrews, they’d probably be mistaken as Palestinians (& with good reason). But generalities that Stephen and his ilk come up with are the modern day equivalents of Goebels, without the bells of course.
And this myth of a 2,000 year uninterupted period of jewish persecution is exactly that. A myth. A rewriting back into history of the recent past. I really do suggest for the Zionist ignoramuses, because most of them have never read anything about the subject, that they read Abram Leon’s ‘Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’ and then maybe they can pick up a few books like Gabriel Piterberg’s Returns of Zionism rather than resorting to the kind of cliches which lead to the banning of Jews like Tony Judt on the grounds of ‘anti-Semitism’.
What is most sickening is that those who defend the military repression, killing and human rights abuses of Palestinians do it in the name of the victims of the Holocaust. Of course the Nazi genocide makes a Jewish oppressor feel self-righteous as s/he swings the baton, but it is still an example of the deep Zionist sickness. You use the victims of one form of racism to justify another form of racism.
The irony is of course that if anyone has anything in common with anti-Semites and anti-Semitism it’s Zionism. It too had an utter contempt and hatred for the Jewish diasporah. it was called ‘negation of the Galut’ and at times their descriptions of the Galut mirrored, indeed was worse than that of the worst anti-Semite. Little wonder that Alfred Rosenberg, hanged at Nuremburg, sought to justify Nazi anti-Semitism by reference to Zionist writings.
Well, the ‘kith and kin’ argument has some validity except to people who have no consciousness whatsoever of their identity or culture.
“Winds of Change” blow; times change, for better or worse. Now that straighforward genocide is no longer an option, as it was in Tasmanian days, some “settlers” have had to cut and run.
Despite the Utopian provisions of the Evian Accords, the colons [many of whom were Jewish] have fled Algeria: “The Coffin or the Suitcase” was the choice given to the colons of Oran, Camus’ graceful Mediterranean city.
As everyone except unswerving Al-Guardianistas know, Rhodesia-Zimbabwe is now in the toilet, a begging-bowl Third World despotism, and South Africa is – remorselessly, undeniably and increasingly rapidly – going the same way. As Tony Greenstein probably knows, the Jewish population of South Africa has halved since the joyful advent of Majority Rule and the better-off Asians are fleeing, too; an amusing paradox being that liberal Jews were among the noisiest of opnionated whites whenever the joys of a future South Africa ruled by the Bantu majority was discussed.
Is Tony Greenstein REALLY advocating the voluntary liquidation of the State of Israel, the return of the three – or four – generations of tear-stained Palestinian refugees from their camps and the joyous advent of an Arab-Jewish binational state?
If he believes such an entity could survive for even a decade, he has to be one of the silliest and most deluded people on the planet.
Dave Rich,
“Firstly, there is a difference between having a basic emotional attachment to a country, and supporting this or that action or policy of that country’s government. I tried to make that distinction earlier but I am clarifying it now in case you or anyone else missed it.”
But lets be clear that from a LEFT WING perspective if that ‘emotional’ attachment means supporting the barbarity of Israels treatment of the Palestinians that is unacceptable. And do you think this ‘emotional’ attachment leads to an apologist position for the actions of the Israeli state and do you think that is acceptable?
“Secondly, there is a difference between being unrelenting in your criticism of a particular position, and physically attacking or racially abusing the person or people who (you perceive) hold that position. I presume you can see the difference.”
I was the one who proposed unrelenting critisism so I obviously see the difference. For what it’s worth I have already said I regard the organ harvesting story as pure anti-semitism and totally unacceptable. I also have no problem with people like you documenting and reporting racist crimes against Jews and racist attitudes to Jews. I am fully aware that elements of the anti war movement use anti semitic arguments and would not seek to hide it and do not hesitate to criticise it.
I’d recommend all who can afford it and have some time to travel in Syria, Jordan and Israel. Forgive me for mentioning that I write from the Arabian Peninsula.
Ever willing to bring enlightenment to the unenlightened, this is a site I heartily recommend:
http://www.palwatch.org/
Another one is MEMRI
“unrelenting criticism”
Whilst the discussion has moved on somewhat, and Stephen’s contributions have highlighted many elements of anti-Jewish racism I just wanted to return to this question of unrelenting criticism.
And I fully appreciate Johhno’s candour in that last paragraph, it is most welcomed.
But does China come in for unrelenting criticism, despite having one of the worst human rights records on the planet, from the British left?
Certainly not.
In fact, it would be fairly easy to find people (and articles) on the British Left who defend the Chinese state and ruling bureaucracy.
Does China come in for unrelenting criticism in terms of its occupation of Tibet, rape of the countryside and continuous environmental pollution?
Certainly not.
Well, not for many on the British Left (see the StWC’s statement on the topic!). There is a small degree of critical commentary on China, but certainly not unrelenting criticism.
So clearly there is a documented double standard, which is unrelenting criticism for Israelis from most of the British Left and excuses and apologies for barbarism carried out by the Chinese state.
In this case, China was just an example, you could equally make the case for other regimes with terrible, terrible human-rights records.
Tony Greenstein’s letter to Executive Members of Brighton Polytechnic Students Union, September 8, 1981
“The main charge against BAZO at NUS Conference was that it distributed The Zionist Connection by A. Lillienthall [sic]… Whilst it is true that he considers the Anne Frank diary to be a forgery, he is not alone in this and two courts in the US and W. Germany have ruled to this effect.”
DISGUSTING.
Tony Greenstein mentioned South Africa somewhat earlier. This is of interest but from a doubleplusungoodthinkful source:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/03/girls_hands_sto.php
An Afrikaaner victim, not one of the – fewer and fewer – remaining Greensteins in South Africa, mind you.
Tony
Since you bemoan a lack of exmaples, this one leapt from the page…
“I am well aware that Jews were held to be associated with money… Israel is a parasite state, it lives off the US”
Now remind me who were the last group of people reknown for referring to Jews as parasites? If only the irony were not lost on you.
Anyway, Pesach is coming up, perhaps you’ll find time to search for the chametz in your soul?
Ah, life is full of ironies as Stephen and his sidekick Mikey will appreciate. But since they are so disgusted and outraged by my ‘anti-Semitism’ [pity Redwatch isn't more appreciative of such!] I will set them a little test.
But first yes Israel, as a state is parasitical. As Moshe Machover, Haim Hanegbi and Akiva Orr described in their article in New Left Review some 40 years ago, Israel is subsidised by imperialism without being exploited by it. That to me is a parasitical relationship.
But now to my question to them and others. If someone refers to Jews as ‘vermin’ is that or not anti-Semitic? Ah, I hear Stephen jumping up and down saying, ‘of course, it’s a no brainer’. Mikey doesn’t know what to think but then that’s not unusual given his association with Gilad Atzmon.
And I agree. To describe Jews as ‘vermin’ is to adopt the language of Mein Kamp. So, then, who described Palestine “an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin.”
I can see Stephen contorting with rage even now. It’s obvious he says. It must be one of those Islamic Arabs full of hatred for Jews. ‘Fraid not.
In fact it was the description of one Pinhas Felix Rosenbluth, (Pinhas Rosen) Israel’s first Minister of Justice of the State of Israel. This, and similar comments, go under the heading Negation of the Exile. It was because of this deep hatred and contempt for the Jewish diaspora that Zionism believed in the necessity of setting up its state, and as Rabbi Joachim Prinz said, such a state would be set up on the principles of race so beloved of his Nazi audience.
And where is this quote to be found? In Joachim Doron’s ‘Classic Zionism and Modern Anti-Semitism: Parallels and Influences (1883-1914)’ printed in that well known anti-Zionist journal Studies in Zionism No. 7 Autumn 1983 (now the Journal of Israeli History)!
And of course Rosenbluth was not alone. People like the co-editor of the Encyclopaedia Judaica and the Zionist Organisation paper Die Welt, Jacob Klatzkin, were equally anti-Semitic. Although probably the worst possible example is the friendly meeting that Arthur Ruppin, father of land settlement in Palestine, after whom roads and monuments are named, had with Professor Hans Gunther, the ideological mentor of Himmler, who Goebbels ensured was appointed as Professor at Jena University. According to his diaries this was a very pleasant and enjoyable meeting.
Just 3 examples of the real accommodation to anti-Semitism that Zionism represents.
Tony Greenstein is a dab hand at digging through the archives. Well done!
Making a fuss about who said or wrote what to whom decades or generations ago is of no importance except to those obsessed with the footnotes of history.
These are the facts:
Israel exists.
Israel has a right to exist.
Israel will continue to exist, unless – almost inconceivably – the Israelis, collectively, have an existential crisis of conscience and decide to haul down their flag and cobble together a meaningless – and temporary – ‘Kumbaya’ binational state with people on a totally different cultural and cognitive level.
That’s all that need be said.
I am more worried about what Greenstein has said and done over the years. On April 19, 2007 he justified the mass murder of pro-Israeli Jews:
“If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn’t lose a minutes sleep…
“However the problem with Walsh’s article is that it locates the source of the poison firmly with AIPAC. Presumably if we could engineer a nuke that only devastated its offices and personnel then all would be well in Palestine.”
These words, written by Greenstein were written to a discussion group hosted on a web site by Haifa University and is available for those with password access on the following link:
http://list.haifa.ac.il/mailman/private/alef/2007-April/011028.html
Greenstein breaches his own boycott of Israeli Universities to write his anti-Zionist diatribes on an Israeli University hosted discussion group. He is therefore also a hypocrite.
Stephen- The problem is when someone assumes that a Jew/zionist makes an accusation in bad faith this is grounded in antisemitic ideas
I’m not sure where this started but I don’t think that is the problem. Sometimes when people say things that (I think) are well wide of reality I think they are made in bad faith, somtimes they are honestly held beliefs. I don’t see Zionists as any different in this matter.
you asked a question; why is something antisemitic?
Actually the intent of my question was to ask why something should be ascribed to unconscious anti-semitism.
I wouldn’t even expect you to be aware of the history of antisemitism
I think I’m aware some.
There is no history of treating communists as inherrently dishonest, so your argument doesn’t hold.
Here I do think you are a little ignorant of this perhaps now specialist subject.
However, any discussion of the oppression and dispossession of Palestinians has to take place in the context of Palestinian rejectionism.
I remember talking to several Israelis on different occasions in the early mid 90s, when they explained to me that it was impossible to deal with Arafat because, fistly he was a crook, and secondly the Fatah charter called for the destruction of Israel. I fruitlessly pointed out that Fatah had accepted two-states and that if Israel didn’t deal with Arafat, it would have to deal with worse down the line.
Many anti-zionists seem to think that Israelis should agree that we have no right to our homeland.
I think those born there have a right, but not to the exclusion of those dispossessed, and not to maintain it as a sectarian state.
All Palestinian actions are excused whereas Israeli actions are magnified and often exagerated.
During both the wars in Gaza and the recent one in Lebanon (and others), the casualties on the Israeli side have been far smaller than those on the other.Comparing a few firecrackers fired at Sderot with bombing from modern military aircraft would seem to be the exaggeration.
It is common to hear that Israel or zionism is a unique form of evil or words to that effect.
Not really. Maybe it is common in pro-Israeli circles for it to be said that this is what our enemies are saying. Israel is somewhat unique in its racial exclusivity, a friend who worked as a journalist in Pakistan once wrote that only that country was really comparable, and it is not greatly surprising that a lot of people in the Arab world focus on Zionism and Jews as the major problem they see in the world, but I don’t share your view that it is a background anti-semitism that gives rise to this,more the other way round.
When fellow British people go on demos chanting “we are all Hezbollah now” how do you expect British Jews to experience this?
To understand that the carpet bombing of Lebanon has given rise to this feeling,that people want to express solidarity with the oppressed and the propaganda they hear from Israel that it is the victim here is wrong.
Those quotes I gave earlier, were unattributed and I wondered if the participants in this discussion could actually distinguish between the two and see that both of them embody racism.
Can you see any prejudice or the undertone of racism in these comments:
1. “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips.”
2. “The government and media has worked mightily to keep the American people from fully realizing that the Zionist domination of our politics and support for the murderous Israeli regime…”
The first quote is from Baroness Tonge, Lib Dem.
The second is from David Duke, onetime ex-grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and professional antisemite.
On Arafat:
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery0922.html
Uri Avnery runs his own blog; in a moment I’ll provide a link.
How about this, Modernity
“It’s no secret that a wildly disproportionate part of the Democratic donor base is Jewish. While Jews are almost certain to continue to vote lopsidedly for Democrats, that doesn’t mean Jewish donors are going to open their checkbooks as widely as they have in the past three election cycles. A diminution in Jewish enthusiasm for Obama and the Democrats is a problem for them. This is not a good moment to be picking fights on an issue of major emotional concern to a key Democratic constituency, even if you know that many of its members are not disposed to support the building program.”
Quite a few classic anti-semitic tropes there, what? US Jews exert a disproportionate influence on US Democratic politics, US Jews place support for Israel, even when it is doing things they don’t support, above any domestic issue in US politics. What do you say we expose the vile anti-semite who is the author of these words?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery
Uri Avnery writes quite often for the Jeddah-published English-language ‘Arab News’*
He’s a sort of Israeli I.F. Stone – he was either the very first or one of the first Israeli Jews to meet Arafat – and he’ll send you mailings if requested:
uri-avnery@list.avnery-news.co.il
* In the eyes of unswerving True Believers, ‘Arab News’ is in the hands of backsliders and secularists.
I suppose it was a bit optimistic of me to assume that analysing racist tropes, particularly when they are used to attack Jews/Israelis would succeed here.
I think that is the Achilles heel of the British Left, leaving aside the sectarianism, three men and a dog in telephone booth type meetings and politics from another century, etc that is the Achilles heel, the inability of so many on the British Left to deal comprehensively with anti-Jewish racism, from all sources, including Baroness Tonge.
Analysing racist tropes Modernity? When did you do that? I thought it was smear jobs you were into? But instead of making facile comparisons between Israel as a parasitical (& murderous) state and Jews who’ve been called the same [note the difference - Israel does not equal Jews! repeat 100 times all the Zionist apologists].
Now Bill Corr is right Israel exists and yes, there are plenty of equally good quotes I can dig up to prove that Zionism was seen, both by Jews and non-Jews as the Jewish wing of the anti-semitic movement. As separatists this is not surprising as all separatist movements take on the ideological outlines of their opponents.
However where Bill goes wrong is in suggesting that all of this was then, this is now. Not so, unless you happen to be a devotee of that old Hitlerite, Henry Ford, for whom all history was bunk.
History is important because it shows where present day formations came from and how they were formed. Israel bears the imprint of its historical creation. That is why, 90 years after the policy of Jewish Labour was inaugurated by Histadrut and Poale Zion, there is still an obsession with Judaifying the Galilee and other parts of israel, why Jewish labour is preferred to non-Jewish labour in any high tech or important area of Israeli industry (e.g. the attempt to sack Arabs from Israel Rail last year).
And the anti-Semitic attitude of Zionism towards diaspora Jews has not gone away. That was one of the lessons from Argentina where the Zionist movement held, during the period of the Junta that the interests of the Israeli state trumped that of left-wing Jews who were, in any case, the ‘wrong sort of Jew’.
But to Mad Mikey, Stephen, Modernity and all the other cheap and repetitive propaganda (hasbara) merchants I asked a simple question. Surprise surprise. Despite wittering on about ‘anti-Semitism’ ad nauseum, they failed to respond. Now I can’t think why, so I will repeat it again. And anyone can join in.
Is it anti-Semitic to refer to Jews in the diaspora as vermin? If not, then presumably Hitler’s reference to jews as blood-sucking leeches was also acceptable? And Streicher’s Der Sturmer just another inoffensive comic? I only ask because those Zionists, the Modernities of this world, who pore over every syllable of supporters of the Palestinians seem to have lost the bigger picture. or maybe they never had it to begin with.
So once again – is it anti-semitic to refer to the fumigation of Jewish vermin (bearing in mind that Zyklon ‘B’ was officially their to fumigate the clothes of the Jews in the camps) or is it acceptable to Mikey, Modernity and co?
Or have you lost your tongues when it comes to real anti-semitism?
The point, surely, is that Israel – for all its many and glaring faults* – is a real country and will continue to exist.
* Faults which may be found, covered in some detail, online every day in the Israeli English-language press; ‘Haaretz’ and the ‘Jerusalem Post’
Being an anti-Zionist of Jewish antecedents must be far from easy; in any case, the imperative task is not to chew over the history of the First Aliya or the – far from complete – ethnic cleansing which accompanied the birth of Israel but to figure out what can and should be done in the future.
Is a binational state a ludicrous nonsense or a possibility?
Or is there ANY hope of us ever seeing a real two-state solution?
“they failed to respond. “
I didn’t fail to respond, I just reciprocated.
If you are not going to be courteous enough to engage with my questions then why the bloody hell should I trouble to read your tortured nonsense and make an effort to reply?
I asked you are very direct question, which you avoided answering:
“Do you have any documented proof that Israeli doctors harvested the organs of anyone in Haiti?”
See my comment of March 14th, 2010 at 23:14
Being an anti-Zionist of Jewish antecedents has to be a totally thankless task.
One might wonder why on earth Tony Greenstein has chosen such a role for himself. In his usual caustic manner, the late George Orwell would have put it down to self-hating neurosis.
In Ireland, those Irish people who cannot bring themselves to feel any hatred or resentment towards the English or the British Empire are called – by Republicans, unsophisticated provincial Fianna Failers and others with a chip on their shoulders about Strongbow, Cromwell, the Famine, the Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday, the H-Blocks and so on and so on and bloody so on – ‘shoneens’ – i.e. ‘Little John’ – as in John Bull.
Do Israelis have a term for those whom they would see as traitorous self-hating Jews?
“Do Israelis have a term for those whom they would see as traitorous self-hating Jews?”
Socialists?
Being a Jewish anti-Zionist [not an anti-Zionist of Jewish antecedents] is a very thankful endeavour. Note how Corr can’t say ‘Jewish anti-Zionist’ it is as if one’s race now depends on one’s allegiance to the Zionist national myth.
In fact it is very easy. Most Jews in Europe up till the Holocaust were anti-Zionists. The Warsaw Ghetto resistance was led by anti-Zionists (hence why the Israel State didn’t send any representives to the funeral last year of Marek Edelman who had had the temerity to compare Palestinian and Ghetto fighters).
I realise that Corr knows little about history, but the Loyalists i.e. Protestant Supremacists in the north of Ireland have always been pro-Zionist and the Republicans, those opposed to British imposed sectarianism and Parition, have supported the Palestinians.
But Corr asks: ‘Do Israelis have a term for those whom they would see as traitorous self-hating Jews?’ I wouldn’t know since I’m not and never have been Israeli. Why should Jews opposed to Israel be any more ‘traitorous’ than say Englishmen who support the unity of Ireland?
And Corr talks about ‘self-hating’. On the contrary not only do we love humanity but we hate fuckers like Corr and the other apologists for bigotry and racial supremacy – the Modernists and their ilk.
But if there is any substance to the Nazi charge of ‘self-hatred’ it belongs to the Corrs and the other Zionist gaggle. As Ruth Smeed, of the Board of Deputies, said in the Guardian of 10.4.08.: “The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web – it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race
Yes quite. Those who deny the Holocaust, those who have consistently demonised Jews as traitors and sub-human are, at the same time the most pro-Zionist. So what kind of Jew could be a Zionist? The one who accepts the anti-Semitic libel that says they don’t belong. Step forward Bill Corr, Modernity etc. Because of course in every Zionist heart there is a little wish that if only anti-Semitism would really start going again then these Jews would be forced to emigrate. And of course this is not theoretical. In Iraq Zionist agents went so far as to simulate anti-semitism by planting bombs outside Jewish synagogues & cafes.
So yes Bill, do find out that Israeli word and then you can change your name by deed poll!
Greenstein,
Don’t involve me with your battles with Bill Corr, I can’t stand the bigot, he’s off his trolley and should be just the type of foil you need.
You are made for each other.
However, I will proceed to ignore both of you, as I find your nonsense a bit too much.
I see that the Corrs of this world, whom even Modernity has called a bigot, seem to have some difficulty explaining whether the term ‘Jewish vermin’ is anti-Semitic. Strange the silence of the Zionists when you have them pinned to the wall.
Modernity asks if I have any proof Israeli doctors harvested the organs of anyone in Haiti? I never mentioned Haiti. I referred to the allegations, which were partly substantiated in the Swedish newspaper Aftonblet. Did they also do this in Haiti? You tell me, I wasn’t aware. But then doctors in a settler state, of which Israel is a prime example, do unfortunately become state servants in the worst possible sense and whereas in Britain it is mainly MI6 and the like who collaborate in torture in Israel it is its doctors, from the top of the IMA down. With the exception of Israeli Physicians for Human Rights with whom the Israeli Medical Association has cut its links.
Anti semitism is as contemptible as any other form of racism, including Islamophobia
Racism, colonialism and offences against human rights do not magically become acceptable when perpetrated by Israeli Jews and their allies.
Those who try to conflate zionism an anti semitism may be friends of Israel but they are no friends of the Jews.
Some people here find it impossible to exchange opinions in a civil manner. Pity.
“Dunno much about History …” went the song but my 1990s books ‘Adams the Pilot’ and ‘Orders for the Captain’ can be found on Amazon – not that I am thereby enriched at all.
Here is a tale Tony Greenstein will enjoy:
In line with the IRA’s internationalist pretensions and posturings, the Palestinian flag was one day flown on the Falls Road.
The Prods of the Shankill – ‘Loyalists’ are what they call themselves – are modestly-educated and not at all cosmopolitan; it took them a while for them to figure out what the unfamiliar red, green, black and white flag was.
When they did, however, their reaction was quick enough; they flew the blue-and-white of Israel next to the Red Hand of Ulster.
The symetric symbolism was just perfect!