Iran: missiles and nuclear sites
The news that Iran had another previously secret nuclear site came out last week. This site at Qum is apparently completely peaceful despite western concerns. Due to its completely peaceful nature there is presumably no need to be remotely concerned that Iran has test fired missiles with a possible 1,200 mile range (Iran seems quite into missiles).
The rest of the world has reacted pretty negatively to the news of the nuclear plant and there is the possibility thought by no means certainty that sanctions might be approved by China and Russia; the effect of the missile test is currently unclear. The Israeli reaction will of course also be critical. Previously the Israelis’ appeared to be preparing for possible military action against Iran. In 1981 they destroyed the Iraqi Osirak reactor possibly setting back Iraqi research on a nuclear weapon (though that has been denied by others) and intriguingly may have had some Iranian assistance. In addition last year Israel destroyed a possible Syrian nuclear site.
What will happen this time is of course highly unclear as although the Americans would no doubt be delighted to have Iran’s nuclear ambition thwarted (and the Israelis always present a useful and highly efficient proxy for such attacks) there are problems. If Washington is managing to bring together a consensus against Iran, an Israeli strike might well shatter that at least publically (the Russians and Chinese might be more sanguine privately). In addition an Israeli strike might actually help enhance Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s popularity at home at a time when his position has been weakened somewhat by the recent hotly disputed presidential elections.
A nuclear armed Iran would clearly pose a major threat to Israel which as everyone knows has nuclear weapons despite its sphinx like answers to such questions. The Arab world would also be likely to be concerned by Iranian nuclear weapons yet could not really support an attack on Iran least of all by Israel. The solution here is neither clear nor simple.
Barnshee whilst your links highlight the undemocratic nature of israel , i don’t think using the label ‘jews’ or ‘the jews’ in reference to immoral acts is particularly helpful. ‘Zionists’, ‘Israeli jews’ or ‘settlers’ would be a better description, because use of terminology like ‘the jews’ merely conflates judiasm with zionism. Something which should be avoided, and unfortunately people on both sides of the divide are guilty of it. There are many many jews in the world who are not zionists and they should not be in any way connected to the crimes of Israel.
Btw Brit, here are another few quotes for your consideration seeing as you dislike them so much…
“The major powers of the West and the East, losing sight of the true value of a friendly Arab World in the swirling clouds of Zionist propaganda, overran the rights of the indigenous population of Palestine the Arabs. Every step in the establishment of a Zionist state had been a challenge to justice.”
(Commander E. H. Hutchinson -United States Military, later chair of the Israel-Jordan Armistice Commission)
“Can it be that the disposessed will keep silent and clamly accept what is being done to them? Will they not ultimately arise to regain, with physical force, that which they were deprived off through the power of gold? Will they not seek justice from the strangers that placed themselves over the land?”
(Yitzhak Epstein at the 1905 Zionist Congress)
There is no example in history of a people saying we agree to renounce our country, let another come and settle here and outnumber us.’
(David Ben-Gurion, 1944)
“It was evident twenty years ago {i.e in 1891} that the day would come when the arabs would stand up against us.”
(Ahad Ha’am writing in 1911)
“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.”
(Theodor Herzl, founding ideologue of Zionism, wrote in his diary: 1895)
“I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain — especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state. We are no longer the Jews of the Maccabean period. A return to a nation in a political sense of the word would be equivalnet to turning away from the spiritualization of our community which we owe to the genius of the prophets.”
(Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore Hotel in New York City)
“The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it.”
(Albert Einstein In January, 1946)
“The slogan Jewish state … is equivalent, in effect, to a declaration of war by the Jews on the Arabs.”
(Judah Magnes)
“Though most of the leaders of Zionism in America are sincere and profoundly convinced of the compatibility of Zionism and Americanism, they are nonetheless profoundly mistaken. nationalistic Zionism demands not complete individual liberty for the jew, but group autonomy. …A national Jewish Palestine must neccessarily mean a state founded on a peculiar race, a tribal religion, and a mystic belief in a peculiar soil”
(American Jewish Philosopher Morris Cohen writing in 1919)
RS,
Thanks for your response. We are going round in circules again and I should probably just avoid this topic. It is clear that you are not going to change your perspective and neither am I. You’ll just have to forgive me, therefore, for not responding to a point by point rebtall. I do have some specific points to make however.
1. Your pathetic non-condemnation of the disgusting anti-semitism on this site shows that your position on anti-semitism is that at best you don’t take it seriously and quite possibly you don’t really care about it so long as it is part of the good fight against the Zionist entity. You think someone saying that the Jews are “truely a despicable race” is “not particularly helpful and should best be avoided but everyone does it. When I was a lad the Left and all right thinking people condemned racism forthrightly without equivocation or context and I am sure you would not react to a criticism (whether just or unjust) of an African or Asian country expressed in expressly racist terms in that mealy mouthed way. It demonstrates a real problem for the anti-Zionism movement and you should be ashamed of yourself.
2. You’re not a big fan of “foreigners” are you?
“do you put the ‘rights’ of foreigners above those of the palestinians”
“a bucnh of foreigners”
“Foreigners coming into a land, many illegally”
“an indigenous people living on their own land verusus a bunch of foreigners”
Sounds like a BNP party political broadcast and I think I see the link between your anti-Zionism and the opposition to the legitimate claims of those descended from the English and Scots foreigners who settled Ulster.
3. Proponents of a 2 state solution (which I think includes you and I) are de facto Zionists, in that they are proposing a solution which maintains the continued existence of the Jewish State.
4. I have not sought to use the Holocaust to justify the crimes and wrongs committed by the state of Israel and Zionists in our recent exchange, or ever. I have simply argued that any historical understanding of Zionism, the Jewish identity and the State of Israel is massively incomplete without understanding the history of Holocaust.
5. You have asked whether I am “saying all jews around the world should be wary and now move to Israel?”. I don’t say that and I don’t know why you think I might. I do say that in the aftermath of the Holocaust it was logical and understandable why Jews in displaced persons camps saw Israel as their only safe haven and the only safe haven for the Jewish people.
6. Can I say whether no one has every cried anti-semitism to defect attention away from Israel or for some other ulterior motive – personal or political. Of course not.
But the idea that any signficant proportion of such allegations are motiviated by an attempt (one which has manifestly failed if it was the case) to prevent or stifle debate on Israel, is at best preposterous and at worst sounds like conspiracy theorising. As I say some people have an inappropriate conception of what is anti semitism and see it where it doesn’t exist but that doesn’t mean that they are not motivated by a conern about anti-semitism.
Cont……
7. Yes I have heard these “quotes” before and I strongly encourage you to read a useful article which deals, amongst other things, with the use by anti-Zionists of quotes by Zionist to condem them on the basis of their own words. It deals expressly with the Weizmann quote (on page 3) and a number of Ben Gurion quotes. Read it for yourself but it is notable that Weizmann at the time of that diary entry did not even consider Palestine a viable location for the proposed Jewish state.
http://z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/false-confessions:-how-anti-zionists-incriminate-zionism.html?page=1
8. And now for some more quotes from Einstein your favourite anti-Zionist.
“Zionist cause is very close to my heart…. I am very confident of the happy development of the Jewish colony and am glad that there should be a tiny speck on this earth in which the members of our tribe should not be aliens” 1919
“I realized that only a common enterprise dear to the heart of Jews all over the world could restore this people to health…It was the great achievement of Herzl’s to have realized and proclaimed… the establishment of a national home, or more accurately, a center in Palestine…
All this you call nationalism… But a communal purpose, without which we can neither live nor die in this hostile world, can always be called by that ugly name. In any case it is a nationalism whose aim not power but dignity and health.If we didn’t have to live among intolerant, narrow minded and violent people, I would be the first to discard all nationalism in favor of a universal humanity”
9. And some other Zionist quotes
“Many point out the obstacles which we encounter in our colonization work. Some say that the Turkish law hinders our work, others contend that Palestine is insignificantly small, and still others charge us with the odious crime of wishing to oppress and expel the Arabs from Palestine…
When the waste lands are prepared for colonization, when modern technique is introduced, and when the other obstacles are removed, there will be sufficient land to accommodate both the Jews and the Arabs. Normal relations between the Jews and Arabs will and must prevail” Ber Borochov 1917
” Had we desired to disregard the interests of such workers of the land as are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon lands of the landlords, we could have acquired large and unlimited areas, but in the course of our conversation I have pointed out to you that this has not been our policy and that, when acquiring lands, it is our ardent wish not to prejudice or do harm to the interests of anybody. We feel it our duty to settle the workers and enable them to continue their agricultural occupation, either in the same place or elsewhere. But we have the possibility of acquiring 100,000 dunams without having to make any settlement for the tenants, since the acquisition of such an area will not cause harm to anybody and will not oust anybody from his lands; only after this area has been acquired we shall have to see to a proper settlement for the tenants . . . .” Yehoshua Hankin 1930
“There must not be one law for the Jew and another for the Arabs….In saying this, I do not assume that there are tendencies toward inequalirty or discrimination. It is merely a timely warning which is particularly necessary because we shall have a very large Arab minority. I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish State by what it will do with the Arabs, just as the Jewish people at large will be judged by what we do or fail to do in this state where we have been given such a wonderful opportunity after thousands of years of wandering and suffering.” Chaim Weizmann 1947
7
‘ We are going round in circules again and I should probably just avoid this topic.’
Thats because you keep putting forth the same immoral and illogical points to try and justify zionism as you did on other threads. And once you have been shown how they are wrong, you seem merely content with posting them anew on a fresh thread.
As can be seen here
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/its-going-to-run-and-run/P175/
And indeed here….
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/index.php/the-enduring-scar-of-sectarianism/
You seem to keep regurgingatating the same nonsense.
‘Your pathetic non-condemnation of the disgusting anti-semitism’
Where? I have advised Barnshee I don’t think his Language is helpful, and for the record I doubt he hates all jews. I have never before seen him intimate as much, and things said in anger often are a true reflecrtion of oneself. But you Brit seem to think there is no worse crime than anti-semitism. Its equal to islamaphobia, homophobia and the like, all wrong.
‘It demonstrates a real problem for the anti-Zionism movement and you should be ashamed of yourself.’
No I shouldn’t. Im not the one who supports a racist and sectarian ideology. This conflation of judaism and zionism is as much if not more the fault of the pro-Israel side who continually use the cry of ‘anti-semite’ to deflect criticism of Israel.
‘Sounds like a BNP party political broadcast and I think I see the link between your anti-Zionism and the opposition to the legitimate claims of those descended from the English and Scots foreigners who settled Ulster.’
Poor Brit, very poor. If you’ll trawl the threads on this site, you’ll see I’ve absolutely no problem with foreigners or immigrants of any description. Because I realsie it twas only a few generations ago it was we irish who were heading for the boats. Your sad little attempt to try and link the right of palestinains to refuse zionist coveting of their land by intimating i have a dislike of foreigners links in nicely with the Pro-Israel sides tendency to try and tar those they disagree with. I thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.
‘Proponents of a 2 state solution (which I think includes you and I) are de facto Zionists, in that they are proposing a solution which maintains the continued existence of the Jewish State.’
Iditotic to claim Palestinains are zionists just because they are tired of being oppressed and will settle for much less than that which they are entitled to. Its akin to saying those who support any war are defacto sadists because it involves commiting pain on fellow humans. A sad little pedant of an attempt there Brit to score a point.
“I have not sought to use the Holocaust to justify the crimes and wrongs committed by the state of Israel and Zionists in our recent exchange, or ever. I have simply argued that any historical understanding of Zionism, the Jewish identity and the State of Israel is massively incomplete without understanding the history of Holocaust.”
Zionism began many years before the holocaust so it in no way legtimises it. Which you seem to think it does by saying any anlysis of zionism is incomplete with out it. Have you forgot what you have written? Here let me remind you…
“The Holocuast did not only lead the Jews to conclude (reasonably) that their survival was contingent on establishing a nation state but it also meant that there was no going “back” to the European countries were the locals had stood by or actively welcomed the Holocaust and continued with anti-semitic violence after the end of WW2. There were huge numbers of persons in displaced persons camps. Israel was the only option fo rthem. Without the Holocaust I think there would be no Israel.” (Brit)
Sounds pretty much like you trying to legitimise the zionism and the state of Israel being plopped ontop of the palestinians, to me.
‘I do say that in the aftermath of the Holocaust it was logical and understandable why Jews in displaced persons camps saw Israel as their only safe haven and the only safe haven for the Jewish people.’
Early zionists and many of those who established the state of Israel were singularly unaffected by the holocaust. Again you seem to think this legitimises zionism and the state of Israel. And you ignore variuous zionist organisations manipulations which meant for many fleeing jews, Palestine was the only option for them. Something which I have mentioned to you before, but again you’re doing the moth thing.
‘But the idea that any signficant proportion of such allegations are motiviated by an attempt (one which has manifestly failed if it was the case) to prevent or stifle debate on Israel, is at best preposterous and at worst sounds like conspiracy theorising.’
Brit you seem unaware of the reception Jimmy Carter’s book recieved from powerful Pro-Israel and Zionist Organisations. And that is just one example among many. There are peltny more others would you like me to continue?
“Zionist cause is very close to my heart…. I am very confident of the happy development of the Jewish colony and am glad that there should be a tiny speck on this earth in which the members of our tribe should not be aliens’
‘the establishment of a national home, or more accurately, a center in Palestine…’
Brit you don’t seem to have p[icked up the difference here in Einsteins thinking. A colony as opposed to a state which he mentioned here…
“The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it.”
See the difference? I doubt you will.
As reagrds you other quotes it seems the history of the state of Israel has more closely followed the sentiments in the quotes from leading zionists which i have provided. I don’t think you will be able to deny this with a straight face Brit.
Btw your link doesn’t work, please post again, i’d be happy to look at it.
Some reading for you…
Israeli Apartheid – A beginners guide. Ben White
Blood and Religion – The unmasking of the jewish Democratic State
Image and Reality- Norman Finkelstein.
*said in anger often are’nt a true reflecrtion of oneself*
post 6
http://z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/false-confessions:-how-anti-zionists-incriminate-zionism.html
RS – try the above link.
You’ve said nothing new but I note your continued failure to condemn anti-semitic langugage with various bits of wriggling and blaming of Zionists.
Sorry link doesnt work again – just google Anthony Julies and fake quotes and you’ll get this in the first few hits
Anthony Julius even
Some aposite quotes from another Anthony Julius article on certain “fellow travellers”:-
“antisemitism is not relevant to the positions that they take; they do not recoil from antisemitism when they encounter it; they are insensitive to the presence of antisemitism in their own positions or in the positions that they support. They may not be antisemites themselves, but they collude with antisemitism. They are often found defending antisemites – not guilty of the offence themselves, but quick to champion others who are guilty of it. The distinction I am drawing is between the culpable adoption of antisemitism and a culpable indifference towards it. Many “new anti-Zionists” bear this latter, lesser responsibility. They share space with antisemites, untroubled by the company that they keep; they comprise a species of “fellow traveller” (“bystander” does not quite do the vice justice), the kind of person ready to overlook or excuse everything that is vicious in the cause he supports, the protagonists he admires. ”
“It is characteristic of much contemporary hostility to Israel and the Zionist cause that its antisemitic aspects are (i) denied, (ii) downplayed, or even (iii) justified by anti-Zionist polemicists. The denial is often frivolously advanced, without any real thought being given to the possibility that antisemitism might taint the defended anti-Zionist position. Even when it is pondered, the denial is often derived from a misunderstanding of antisemitism, which is typically considered to come only from the right, to be State-sponsored, and to speak German. The massive presence of the Holocaust, that is, has occluded the pre-Nazi history of antisemitism – that is to say, what might be termed a hypermnesia in respect of the former has promoted an amnesia in respect of the latter”
Often, when the antisemitic aspect of a particular remark or political programme is pointed out, the response is dismissive, as if antisemitism itself is of no consequence. The implication is that the characterising of the remark or programme as antisemitic is to miss their “point.” Parties who make these remarks, adopt these programmes, do not mean what they say when they use antisemitic language.Hamas’s Jew-hating desire to eradicate Israel, for example, is taken to be nothing more than a misconceived “maximalism,” a regrettable “weakness” of Palestinian nationalism, one that indeed is to the disadvantage of the Palestinians rather than their enemies.The appropriate tone in which to consider President Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threats and his Holocaust Denial is one of wry understatement And so on. “
‘You’ve said nothing new but I note your continued failure to condemn anti-semitic langugage with various bits of wriggling and blaming of Zionists.’
Brit, every type of reasoning you have put forward to try and lend some moral legitimacy to the ideology of zionism has been shown to be immoral and illogical in itself, on at least three seperate threads now. the fact of the matter is, it is you who says nothing new. Infact as readers on here can quite plainly see, it is you who time after time regurgitates the same tired old rhetoric in the attempt or vain hope, that…
A. It will not be challenged
B. I and others will get tired correcting you on it
C. That some readers may accept what you say in the old ‘tell a lie often enough’ trick Israel is notorious for.
Once your arguments have been shown to hold no water you resort to the
“We are going round in circules again and I should probably just avoid this topic. It is clear that you are not going to change your perspective and neither am I.”
As a means to avoid admitting your position is immoral and wrong and as a method of forcing yourself to learn nothing new about the conflict and its historical underpinnings, leaving you free and clear to keep repeating the same tired old nonsense. Honestly, anyone would think you are merely interested in winning an argument than actually bothering to learn anything and thus adjust your position, even slightly. But no. And that brings us to the continued inferring of ‘anti-semitism’ on those you disagree with. At various stages, you have claimed there is no attempt to police the debate about israel with the slur of ‘anti-semitism’, whilst you yourself have continously trawled through posts looking for the merest hint of anything which you could possibly label as such. And its patently obvious to any reader who has followed this and other threads of this topic which you have engaged in.
You then laughably go on to quote at length from Julius. A man who views zionism as good. A man who labels the academic boycott of Israel as being ‘against jews’ and then linked it to Hitler. (What was that you were saying about no such thing as attempts made to silence critics?)
A man who ridiculed the Independent Jewish Voices group (whose book ‘A Time To Speak Out’ I would urge you to read) and supported Israels collective punishemnt of the palestinians in Gaza strip. In short Julius is precisely the type of Israel supporter you keenly seek to pretend does not exist. Namely one who continually uses the accusation of hidden or covert or overt anti-semitism against critics of Israel and Zionism. You may as well quote Melanie Phillips or Dershowitz ffs. Whilst critics of Israel no doubt include anti-semites, undoubtedly its supporters contain anti-arab, muslim bigots. But does that stop genuine Israeli supporters? No. Do people who are critical of Israel and Zionism continually accuse its supporters of covert, hidden or blatant anti-palestinian/muslim racism? Very seldom compared to the other side of the divide. Why? Because critics of zionism have no need to resort to such scare tactics, their substantive points illustrating the inherent immorality of zionism and unsavoury history and current policies of the Israeli state stand on their feet without needing to be propped up with repeated slurs and accusations.
There are many examples of the Pro-Israel side labelling criticism of Israel anti-semitic.
For instance, in 2006 when the synod of the Church of England to divest from Caterpillar Inc. on the basis that it produced and sold to Israel the bulldozers used to demolish palestinain houses. This was neither anti-zionism or anti-semitism, just a protest at an israeli policy. Now what happened? Wellthe UK’s chief Rabbi cliamed it would
“have the most adverse repercussions on a situation over which it has enormous influence, namely Jewish-Christian relations in Britain.”
(Rabbi Jonathan Sacks)
Note how Rabbi Sacks conflated Israel with Judaism.
The head of the reform movement, Rabbi Tony Bayfield said…
“There is a clear problem of anti-zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the grass roots, and even in the middle ranks of the church.”
They actually inferred anti-semitism from the Church of England merely protesting against an inhumane policy of house demolitions.
Brit have a read of what Rabbi Micheal Lerner learned when he talked to some US politicians…
“We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to AIPAC and the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in American politics. When we talk to Congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out about the way Israeli policies are destructive to the best interests of the United States or the best interests of world peace–lest they too be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe.”
Or how about William Kristol (of all people) admitting…
‘The mainstream Jewish organizations have played the “anti-Semitism” card so often that it has been devalued.’
More wriggling RS and still a failure to give a straightforward condemnation of straightforward anti-semitism.
The fact that you solemnly assert that “every type of reasoning you have put forward to try and lend some moral legitimacy to the ideology of zionism has been shown to be immoral and illogical in itself, on at least three seperate threads now” does not make it true. And I can confirm that I have been utterly unpersuaded that your arguments and “evidence”, none of which is new to me. I have read and heard far more intelligent, nuanced criticisms of Zionism than your hysterical repetition of other peoples slogans.
I have been debating Israel and Zionism with Israelis, anti-Zionists, Zionists and people from all sorts of perspectives in between since about 1986. I come from the Left and was briefly involved in the Far Left, so I am very familiar with the various critical analyses of Israel. I have had lots of time to come to a settled view on the basics. I am a progressive Zionist and have always opposed the revisionist and Likudnik wing of Israeli politics and the construction and expansion of settlements. I empathise with the plight of ordinary Palestinians and am a two-state solution proponent. Were I an Israeli I would be a Labour or Meretz supporter.
Accordingly I find it very boring to have these debates and it is not what I come to this site for. But I struggle to refrain from challenging what are in my view irrational and illogical criticisms and demonizations. I don’t expect to persuade you of anything. You may change your position but it will be a gradual and slow process – if it happens at all. Others may, however, at least see there are two sides to the debate and that some of the charges thrown are unsustainable.
Jewish critics of Israel and Zionism are no better or worse that non-Jewish critics. Likewise supporters. I think the arguments should be engaged with in the same way no matter who is making them. And those who claim some greater insight or moral authority because they are speaking “as a Jew” are missing the point. Those non-Jewish anti-Zionists who are so delighted to have Jews on their side, likewise.
“And that brings us to the continued inferring of ‘anti-semitism’ on those you disagree with. At various stages, you have claimed there is no attempt to police the debate about israel with the slur of ‘anti-semitism’, whilst you yourself have continously trawled through posts looking for the merest hint of anything which you could possibly label as such. And its patently obvious to any reader who has followed this and other threads of this topic which you have engaged in.”
There are many examples of the Pro-Israel side labelling criticism of Israel anti-semitic.”
There are some complex and difficult issues when dealing with Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and in my view both Anti-Zionists and Zionists need to tread carefully and responsibly in these impassioned debates. My view is as follows:-
1. It is in my view self-evident that anti Zionism, or criticism of Israel (whether malicious, dishonest, genuine, fair, unfair, demonizing or friendly) is not necessarily anti-Semitic. I think we both agree on this.
2. It is also self-evident that anti-Zionism and /or criticism of Israel can be (as a matter of theory) and sometimes is (as a matter of practice) anti-Semitic. Furthmore expressions and practices within anti-Zionism can be enabling of anti-Semitism (by minimising, denying or apologising for it). Again I think we both agree on this.
3. For completeness I acknowledge that supporters of Zionism and / or Israel can be anti-Semitic.
4. So its common ground between us that within anti-Zionism there are anti-Semites, there is anti-Semitic language and thinking and there is an enabling of such thinking.
5. I am sure we differ markedly on how much of a problem or issue this is within anti-Zionism. I think it is a massive problem which infects much Arab and Muslim anti-Zionism and much western left-liberal anti-Zionism. Go to any anti-Israel march and /or go to any discussion thread on Israel (including those hosted by Leftists or Liberals) and you will see unquestionably anti-Semitic attitudes and expressions and modes of thinking. This fact does not nullify or invalidate the merits of the anti-Zionists arguments which are a separate question.
5. There is clearly a range of behaviours, thought processes, emotions and expressions which are anti-Semitic and there is not clear, and there is certainly no agreed standard,where to draw the line. I suspect you and I differ on where we draw, but both of us are opposed to anti-Semitism and (I assume in your case and know in mine) we both apply our definitions in good faith.
6. There are also a range of views as to how important or significant a problem anti-Semitism is per se; whether it is growing and whether or not Jews individually and as a people are under threat. Again I suspect we differ on this. But we both no doubt see it as something bad.
7. Accordingly we presumably both agree that anti-Semitism from anti-Zionists should be challenged and condemned and that, at the margins, there will be some debate as to whether something is or is not anti-Semitic. As I have said this is nothing to do with the validity of the anti-Zionists arguments.
8. I presume that you agree that Zionists (amongst others) have a right and obligation to identify and criticise anti-Semitism within anti-Zionism. Sometimes it may be an unconscious ignorant use of anti-Semitic tropes and language and the perpetrator can clarify his/her intended meaning, change the language and apologise. Sometimes the charge will fall into the grey area and there will be a debate whether the behaviour/language/etc is anti-Semitic. I think the area of discussion about the Lobby/lobbies, Jewish “supremacy” and comparison with Nazis throws up a lot of such borderline cases.
9. On the basis of the contentions with which I assume you agree, as set out above the fact that “There are many examples of the Pro-Israel side labelling criticism of Israel anti-Semitic” does not prove any wrongdoing or dishonesty amongst the “Pro-Israel” side.
10. I believe that Zionists are under a moral obligation to be very careful about alleging anti-Semitism. Racism is a taboo for most people and an unpleasant claim to face. I think some Zionists or supporters or Israel adopt too broad definitions of anti-Semitism. They contend that anti-Zionism, unless part of a perspective which seeks the removal or all nation-states and borders, is anti-Semitic, or that unfair or malicious criticism of Israel, or the singling out of Israel for criticism whilst abstaining from criticising far worse abuses is anti-Semitic. I understand the logic of these arguments and believe they are held and made in good faith but I strongly disagree with them. I think the kind of anti-Zionist and anti-Israel arguments referred to above are immoral and irrational and worthy of strong criticism, but I don’t think they are necessarily or inherently racist.
cont………
11. I also believe that anti-Zionists are under a moral obligation to be careful to avoid and condemn anti-Semitism. If people, Jewish or not, perceive anti-Semitism in their arguments they will switch off or consider the arguments to be motivated by evil intent. There is a long and powerful history of anti-Semitism and it has never gone away (“you know”). I don’t think I need to tell you what it looks like (exaggerations of power and influence, fears of secret conspiracies and Jews looking after their own, allegations of duplicity and dishonesty, amorality etc etc). It is, sadly, widespread in the Arab and Muslim world but by no means limited to that part of the world. There is a widespread perception that anti-Zionism includes significant number of anti-Semites or anti-Semitic arguments/expressions. Furthermore that many in the movement are, to a greater or lesser extent, soft on anti-Semitism, by; Denying it. Minimising it. Justifying it as an unfortunate reaction. Blaming the Zionists and seeing the word “Jew” as actually meaning “Zionist”.
12. This view is not limited to rabid Zionists but has been propounded by many others. Anti-Zionists like the late Steve Cohen (who probably agrees with 95% of your views on Israel), non-Zionists like the Marxist Alliance for Workers Liberty, and trenchant critics of Israel and its crimes like those on the Engage website have all identified this issue.
13. I absolutely deny that I have “continuously trawled through posts looking for the merest hint of anything which you could possibly label as (anti-semitic)” as you allege. I am (relatively) interested in debating the substance of your and others anti-Zionist arguments which are not anti-Semitic. I don’t need to show anti-Semitism to refute those arguments and indeed it is conceptually possible that a raving anti-Semite could make valid criticisms of Israel and or its policies. I am almost certainly more sensitive to anti-Semitism than you. I probably adopt a wider definition and think it is a more serious problem (generally and in the anti-Zionist movement) than you. I have challenged certain things you and Greenflag have said because they could be construed in a certain way (whilst always stating that I don’t think you or he are anti-Semites). I have criticised express anti-Semitism from other posters, most recently Barnshee.
14. I make no apology for doing this and will continue to do so. As I have said your failure to do so, your dismissal of his comments as unhelpful but probably brought about by Zionists conflating judaism and Israel, is a disgrace which confirms the kind of enabling or minimising behaviour that I referred to above.
15. So there is no reason, moral, intellectual or whatever why a Zionist should not challenge and condemn anti-Semitism, in any form, just because it comes from the mouth of an anti-Zionist or in the context of a criticism of Israel (whether justified or not). It happens and will continue because of the problem of anti-Semitism and because of the failure of the anti-Zionist movement (in general and with important exceptions) to properly acknowledge and condemn it. It will also continue to generate heat and controversy because of the nature of the charge and the grey areas where a comment is arguably but arguably not anti-Semitic.
16. Such condemnation or challenge does not mean or even suggest that the person making the challenge is motivated by a desire to defend Israel, stifle debate or deflect attention. It has probably happened on occasion but I don’t think it plays any significant role in these allegations. What you are suggesting is a complete lack of good faith and a calculated ploy by people who see legitimate criticism and pretend to see anti-Semitism when they are in fact motivated by a desire to close down discussion. I think this suggests some sort of unified and dishonest pro-Zionist hasbara enterprise which is a vision quite close to some of the worst old conspiracy theories. The Melanie Phillips’ of this world may well see anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist but that doesn’t mean that they are acting in bad faith, dishonestly to try to protect Israel from criticism. And I think the idea is fantastical. As I have said before if this was anyone’s strategy it has singularly failed given the vast and disproportionate amount of column inches, discussions on on-line fora, political demonstrations and UN time taken up by I/P. In the circumstances you wonder why anyone would try to continue with it (if indeed they every have).
17. Furthermore the use by anti-Zionists of what is called the ‘Livingstone Formulation’ in response to arguments that they or their arguments or fellow travellers are anti-Semitic is unjustifiable and intellectually dishonest. The formulation, named after my old MP who was an early exponent, goes thus:-
A) Anti-Zionism / criticism of Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism; and
B) You are just using this allegation to defect criticism or to muzzle debate on the Zionist crimes; and
C) (and Optional extra) I of course condemn anti-Semitism, because I am on the Left and / or how could I be anti-Semitic I am progressive, or I am a Jew or Jews support what I say.
This move ironically (because it is based on a charge that the allegation is motivated by a desire to shut down debate) avoids any need to engage with the specific allegation of anti-Semitism itself by deflecting attention away to the allegedly dishonest motives of the alleger.
18. If any non-anti-Semitic Anti-Zionist (like you) is accused of anti-Semitism or being some kind of enabler of anti-Semitism by one of the pro-Israel crowd they need not rely on the Livingstone Formulation. If they see no merit in the argument they should robustly say so , explaining why. If they see some merit in the argument (that the language could have been misconstrued, or did unintentionally draw and reinforce stereotypes, or failed to properly condemn one of their fellow travellers) then they could make the necessarily modification and, if necessary, apologise. In making any such concessions there is no need for them to withdraw their anti-Zionist stance and/or criticism of Israel.
Sadly I think that much of the anti-Zionist movement is unconcerned about anti-Semitism and the very best one gets it a kind of unfeeling token condemnation.
‘I have read and heard far more intelligent, nuanced criticisms of Zionism than your hysterical repetition of other peoples slogans.’
Sorry Brit, but every single reason you have put forth for the legitimacy for the ideology of zionism is easily refuted from a moral humanist viewpoint. And has been, whether you care to admit it or not is irrelevant. You support an ideology whose aim was/is to create a state for a narrowly defined group of people in a place where the vast majority of original inhabitants did not fit the envisaged format for a citizen of the proposed state. An ideology which to this day denies the return of refugees because of their ethnicity, but still permits people from the other side of the world to come and live there percisely because of their ethno-religious background. Those are the ‘brass tacts’ of Zionism.
Indeed its is such an ideology which encourages the likes of this…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/israel-jewish-arab-couples
Now as regards, the rest of your post. It seems you’ve taken a rather long winded way of stating that you merely believe i take anti-semitism less seriously than you. Perhaps this is true. But I think the problem lies not in me taking it less serious, because i equate anti-semitism with anti-arabism or islamophobia or homophobia or any kind of irrational dislike of any particular group of people, but in you putting anti-semitism on a peddlestool, you seem to emphasise its somehow more evil than the other types of irrational hate.
‘I have challenged certain things you and Greenflag have said because they could be construed in a certain way (whilst always stating that I don’t think you or he are anti-Semites).’
Herein lies the problem, I will not prevent myself (and I doubt Grennie would either) from speaking out, or pointing out historical realites simply because they may be construed wrongly by some idiots. And thankyou for illustrating yet again how the Pro-Israel lobby (which we both agree exists) seeks to censor criticism of Israel with the inference of possible anti-semitism.
‘As I have said your failure to do so, your dismissal of his comments as unhelpful but probably brought about by Zionists conflating judaism and Israel, is a disgrace which confirms the kind of enabling or minimising behaviour that I referred to above.’
Actually what i did say Brit was that his remarks conflate Judaism with Zionism ‘Something which should be avoided, and unfortunately people on both sides of the divide are guilty of it.’ You still however don’t seem to realise that Zionists are guilty of conflating the two, as evidenced by the Rabbi Sacks quote I provided you with.
Now as regards the need to examine Anti-semitism emanating from critics of israel, what you fail to recognise is that the Pro-Israel side continually infer it and suggest the other side ignore or enable it, even when no hard and fast evidence in any particular argument is present. The charge or inference of anti-semitism is brought up without neary a bit of evidence in many a discussion on I/P, which you actually demonstrated by your insistence that my or Greenies comments could be construed a certain way.
You also seem to deny that the slur of ‘anti-semite’ is an actual tactic of the pro-Israel side, because of the wealth of discussion or information surrounding the conflict. You claim ‘the idea is fantastical.’ right, mind if we have a little look at the evidence?
How about what a former spokesman for the Israeli consulate in New York, Menachem Shalev said…
“Of course a lot of self-censorship goes on. journalists, editors, and polticians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. the Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.”
Or how about when in 1998 the ADL attempted to prevent the publishing of a book by Finkelstein and Ruth Birn called ‘A Nation on Trial’ which critically analysed Goldhagen’s ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s’ in which Goldhagen didn’t just blame the nazis for the holocaust, he attempted to blame the entire german people. Pushing for Finkelstein and Birn’s book not to be published, Abe Foxman, head of the ADL said the issue wasn’t
“whether Goldhagen’s thesis was right or wrong but what is ‘legitimate criticism’ and what goes beyond the pale”
Leon Wieseltier, who was literary editor of the ‘New republic’(pro-Israel) actually intervened perosnally with the head of the publishsing firm telling him…
“You don’t know who Finkelstein is. He’s poison, he’s a disgusting self-hating Jew, he’s something you find under a rock.”
Birn, Finkelstein’s co-author was labelled as a ‘member of the perpetrator race’ (shes German), by the Canadian Jewish Congress.
Or how about in 2006, when Tony Judt was due to give a lecture at the polish consulate in New York. Cancelled because of pressure exerted in calls by the ADL. Which the consul general described as
“the phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure. That’s obvious—we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that.”
Good old Abe Foxman again.
How about the many cancellations of the play ‘My Name Is Rachel Corrie’, with the Miami Mosaic theatre cancelling plans to stageit…
“But Mosaic’s board of directors agreed to drop the play after phone calls, e-mails and comments on a special Rachel Corrie blog — which has now been removed from the company’s website — made it clear that an impassioned, vocal minority strongly objected to the play…”
Theres also the quote from Rabbi Lerner you seem to have missed earlier..here i’ll quote him again –
“We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to AIPAC and the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in American politics. When we talk to Congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out about the way Israeli policies are destructive to the best interests of the United States or the best interests of world peace—lest they too be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe.”
As you can see, there is plenty of evidence to show your assertion is wrong. Doesn’t sound too ‘fantastical’ to me brit eh?
The level of scaremongering (which whether you like it or not, your post is a wet dream of an example) has led the likes of Frank Rich from the New York Times to admit
“Like many other jews, I am perhaps all too willing to believe that the entire world is anti-semitic”
The continued tactic of the Pro-Israel crowd is one of ‘You need to be careful what you say here, anti-semitism may rear its ugly head’. Scaremongering to avoid proper discussion, plain and simple.
Now whist you and I will probably never agree, I still cannot fathom how anyone can support such an ideology, whether its ignorance, intullectual dishonesty, or simple racism, it may not even be any of those, but whatever it is, my mind boggles. As regards my non-condemnation of barnshee, I apologise, perhaps it wasn’t forthright enough for your liking, but having encountered barnshee on this site for a good while now, im not going to judge him from one comment which appears was said in anger. He has never before intimated anything of the sort.
“Now as regards, the rest of your post. It seems you’ve taken a rather long winded way of stating that you merely believe i take anti-semitism less seriously than you. Perhaps this is true.”
Not at all, that was a completely marginal to the main thrust of my post which attempted to set out, in a detailed and coherent way, my view on the impact of anti-semitism in the I/P debate, within anti-Zionism, and to identify what was just and reasonsble for those opponents of anti-semitism on either side of the divide. You have completely failed to engage with my comments – and simply regurgitated your personal version of the Livingstone formulaton – which is a shame.
I dont know why you are referring to scaremongoing and I dont know which comments of mine you claim fall into this category. Given your political concerns, the nature of your reading and the circles you move in it wouldnt be surprising that you do not understand the signficance of the problem.
Your half-hearted apology still falls short of a simple condemnation which any anti-racist would have made long ago and shows how far your anti-Zionism, which I know you feel emotionally is driven by the best of human emotions – sympathy for the dispossesed, justice, humanitariansiam – has taken you away from the basic tenets of decency and left-liberal universalism.
You’re no fool and I suspect your position will mature as you get older and wiser.
‘And I think the idea is fantastical.’
Thats what you said Brit in reference to people using the slur of anti-semitism to stifle debate on the I/P conflict.
As you can see there is plenty of evidence to show the idea is not fantastical, and is indeed an actual tactic employed by some of the pro-Israel crowd. Such as when Abe Foxman accused Ken Roth(himself a jew) of Human Rights Watch of employing “a classic anti-semitic stereotype about Jews”, this in response to a HRW report which was critical of Israel duirng the Lebanon war of 2006. I could keep going with the examples here Brit, but I get the feeling that for you, the idea will simply remain ‘fantastical’.
RS – you fail to distinguish between condemnation of anti-Zionists / critics of Israel by members of the “pro-Israel crowd” who are:-
1. Making a complaint about truly anti-semitic content, language, thinking and/or conduct which is truly enabling, minimising, etc of anti-semitism;
2. Making a complaint about content, language, etc which they (the complainant) genuinely believe to be anti-semitic but which is not (at least on most peoples definitions);
3. Making an inaccurate but ‘good faith’ complaint as per 2. above but in a way which is careless, negligent, aggressive, abusive, or contrary to values of freedom of speech or academic freedom; and
4. Dishonestly/falsely making a compliant with the sole or primary objective of defending Israel, deflecting criticism, stifling debate or de-legitimising the source of the criticism.
There are many examples of 1. and 2. (and I tried in my post – which you didnt seem to read -to explain why there will be lots of arguments which fall into the category of 2.) and certainly some examples of 3, but I think that the idea of 4 as widespread or commonplace is fantastical and you have failed to provide evidence of that. No. 3 is worthy of criticism but very different to 4.
Racism is about much more than overt hatred or expressly racist views; it is about unconscious peddling of stereotypes or use of racist language by someone who is not racist but just ignorant.
I think your idea (obviously taken from the likes of Finkelstein) that Zionists and the Pro-Israel crowd are some sort of coherent monolith which swings smoothly into concerted action to “muzzle” critics is very far from the truth. The huge range of Zionisms, and the differnt views, objectives, concepts of Zionism and definitions of anti-semitism, employed are completely missed by this approach. There are de-facto Zionists who accept they existence of the Jewish state (in the Western world at least this is mainstream thinking outside the far left and far right ), there are idealistic Zionists who think that a homeland for Jews in Israel was legitimate but not a state and / or that a Jewish homeland could exist in a majority non-Jewish state, there are secular progressives (like me) who think that all settlements should be dismantled and that Israel is guilty of many wrongs and crimes, there are broadly secular rightwingers like Bibi and extremely secular rightwingers like Lieberman, there are orthodox settlers who think Israel is God-given to the Jews and there are out and out anti-arab racists. This myriad of perspectives is found amongst the pro-israel crowd and diaspora Jews (as well as the small stratum of “as a Jew” “not in my name” anti-Zionst Jews). Your mob think one quote from an Israeli or Zionists somehow de-legitimises all those Zionists, just like me quoting from an anti-semitic holocaust denying Tory or Catholic shows that all Tory’s or Catholics are beyond the pale.
This essentialising approach to the all powerful and evil Zionists represents an abandoning of free rational enquiry and is just plain wrong.
Whilst the claim that some people alleging anti-semitism are oversensitive and/or employing inappropriate definitionss of anti-semitism is a reasonable one the suggestion that the cry of anti-semitism is used dishonestly and in bad faith is an incredible one. When the concept of a unified bloc of powerful Zionists and the concept of a dishonest false approach by this bloc are employed together I think we are not so far from the realms of the classic anti-semitic conspiracy theorising.
I genuinely think that you and a lot of the anti-Zionist crowd (who are clearly are not motiviated by any kind of overt anti-Jewish animus) are not properly schooled in the nature and history of anti-semitism and dont understand its long staying power its failure ever to go away. There is a lack of knowlege about the kinds of stereotypes and modes of thinking which are central to anti-semitism. It is, for example, uncontroversial that Stalinist “Left” made use of anti-Zionist language and rhetoric to make expressly anti-semitic arguments (in Stalins anti-semitic campaigns and subsequent arguments by Eastern bloc nations and mirrored in the pretty clear anti-semitism of the old Workers Revolutionary Party). Babel called anti-semitism the socialism of fools and for some it has always been the anti-imperialism or anti-zionism of fools.
For Jews to think that anti-semitism is all pervasive and that Jews and the state of Israel are under some existential threat may be objectively irrational but from the perspective of a proper understanding of the size and power of anti-semitism, it is not some sort of bizarre persecution complex but something which given the unbroken history of anti-semitism globally and in last 100 years or so in the middle east it is understandable and even reasonable.
I would strongly urge you to read at least some of the lenghty but excellent work by David Hirsch on anti-semitism and anti-zionism.
http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David Hirsh YIISA Working Paper1.pdf
‘I genuinely think that you and a lot of the anti-Zionist crowd (who are clearly are not motiviated by any kind of overt anti-Jewish animus) are not properly schooled in the nature and history of anti-semitism and dont understand its long staying power its failure ever to go away. ‘
I, nor any of the people I know who share my views, are NOT motivated by overt anti-jewishness, or covert, or hidden anti-jewishness. But thankyou once again Brit for demonstrating quite beautifully the exact kind of scaremongering you seem to deny exists. I am fully aware of the history of anti-semitism, but I don’t think the term anti-semitism should be even brought into the debate about I/P conflict unless one of the participants can be shown to be anti-semitic. The simple fact is that ‘anti-semitism’ is brought in routinely, time after time, by the Pro-israel crowd, without so much as a shred of evidence, to the point where they actually have the nerve to label jews who are also critical of Israel (many of whom had relatives who were holocaust victims) as ‘self-haters’ and enablers. Utter horseshite and representative of a paucity of argument and morality which is indicative of the pro-Israel crowd. You seem to think we anti-zionists need a better understanding of anti-semitism. In essence what you really want, is for us to be less critical by routinely stoking up the fear that ‘anti-semitism may rear its ugly head’. Nonsense. You seen the evidence of some in the Pro-Israel crowd labelling the Church of England as anti-semtic for oppossing the inhumane policy of house demolitions. Instead of lecturing those critical of Israeli policy, the pro-zionist side, need to take a long hard look at themselves.
RS your rant is just an extended version of the Livingstone formulation.
If you really think that “In essence what you really want, is for us to be less critical by routinely stoking up the fear that ‘anti-semitism may rear its ugly head” you have either failed to read, or failed to understand my quite lengthy posts on the distinction and interrelation between anti zionism and anti semitism. Neither you, nor the other anti-Zionists don’t need to abandon your anti-Zionism or be less critical of Israel to avoid being guilty of perpetrating, minimising, denying or enabling anti-semitism.
I note that you have said that you “don’t think the term anti-semitism should be even brought into the debate about I/P conflict unless one of the participants can be shown to be anti-Semitic.” Well even ignoring the fact that people have been undeniably anti-semitic whilst debating I/P on this site your approach has two flaws. Firstly it (implicitly) tolerates the use of language, expressions, modes of thinking which are anti-semitic (including ignorant / innocent conduct) so long as the person doing so is not an anti-semite. Second it places the burden of proof onto the person raising anti-semitism to show that their interlocutor is an anti-semite. It is not just a matter of the person showing that their interlocutor used an anti-semitic phrase (knowingly or not knowingly) or repeated an anti-semitic argument or failed to condemn something which is anti-semitic, they have to prove somehow what is going on in the head of the other person.
Most modern, and certainly progressive, analyses of racism understand that it is about much more than the hatred of the out-and-out ardent racist and hater. It is about expressions, stereotypes and myths which insinuate themselves and which become accepted and breed racist perspectives. It is possible for someone who is not racist to say something racist without any intention of doing so. Whilst their culpability is very different from that of an out and out racist the intention is not the sole determinant of whether the expression, etc is racist.
“You seen the evidence of some in the Pro-Israel crowd labelling the Church of England as anti-semtic for oppossing the inhumane policy of house demolitions”
Oh yeah this “evidence”
“For instance, in 2006 when the synod of the Church of England to divest from Caterpillar Inc. on the basis that it produced and sold to Israel the bulldozers used to demolish palestinain houses. This was neither anti-zionism or anti-semitism, just a protest at an israeli policy. Now what happened? Wellthe UK’s chief Rabbi cliamed it would
“have the most adverse repercussions on a situation over which it has enormous influence, namely Jewish-Christian relations in Britain.”
(Rabbi Jonathan Sacks)
Note how Rabbi Sacks conflated Israel with Judaism.
The head of the reform movement, Rabbi Tony Bayfield said…
“There is a clear problem of anti-zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the grass roots, and even in the middle ranks of the church.”
They actually inferred anti-semitism from the Church of England merely protesting against an inhumane policy of house demolitions.”
Sacks didn’t allege anti-semtisim or conflate anything, he just predicted that the Church of England choosing to punish the Jewish state in this way would be likely to harm Christian – Jewish relations in the UK. Given that, as a matter of fact, most British Jews are Zionists who identify with Israel, visit it and have relatives there, this prediction is likely to be accurate.
What Bayfield said was not directed at the divestment campaign but against a broader perspective of antizionist attitudes within the grass roots (and beyond) of the Church of England which verged on (which means mainly stops short of) anti-semitism. The last time he mentioned that divestment campaign (in the Guardian) he said:-
“The problem is the determination of the Church of England to invest ethically. From which, it is inferred, investing in Caterpillar, the makers of bulldozers used by Israelis to demolish Palestinian houses, is a bad thing. Disinvesting in Caterpillar has been on the agenda for some time, but when a resolution was passed by the Synod recently, Sir Jonathan went as ballistic as an urbane Oxbridge Jew ever goes”
As you will see no express criticism of the CofE’s policy and certainly no accusation that it is anti-semitic.
Is Bayfield right? I could make a coherent argument that the CofE with its simplistic anti-Zionism and historical Christian religious judeophobia has combined in exactly this way. But even if he is wrong this does not suggest, let alone prove, that his comments were intended to silence the debate or to protect Israel, or were made in bad faith in the absence of genuine belief in them. Perhaps he’s touchy, perhaps hes more perceptive and in-tune with the issues that you – either way none of that proves your arguments and all you have done is make the kind of misleading allegations that you accuse the Zionists of doing.
‘you have either failed to read, or failed to understand my quite lengthy posts on the distinction and interrelation between anti zionism and anti semitism.’
Brit you fail to realise it is exactly your lengthy posts which attempt rather crudely to conflate anti-zionism with anti-semtism. You continually refer to your beloved ‘formula’ and continually raise the spectre of anti-semitism. Infact the amount of times you have mentioned both ‘anti-zionism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ in the same breath anyone would think you are trying to equate the two.
‘Neither you, nor the other anti-Zionists don’t need to abandon your anti-Zionism or be less critical of Israel to avoid being guilty of perpetrating, minimising, denying or enabling anti-semitism.’
I assume that ‘don’t in the first sentence is misplaced? In any event, I would never temper or rein my criticism just because idiots might use it for succour. To do so would be intellectually dishonest. But your ‘legnthy’ posts on anti-zionism and anti-semitism are indeed scaremonerging whether you like it or not.
‘Well even ignoring the fact that people have been undeniably anti-semitic whilst debating I/P on this site’
Barnshee aside, who else are you accusing of it?
‘Second it places the burden of proof onto the person raising anti-semitism to show that their interlocutor is an anti-semite.’
Well don’t we live in a society where the burden of proof does indeed rest on the accuser? Surely its incumbent upon someone making an accusation to provide evidence for their claim.
“Sacks didn’t allege anti-semtisim or conflate anything, he just predicted that the Church of England choosing to punish the Jewish state in this way would be likely to harm Christian – Jewish relations in the UK. Given that, as a matter of fact, most British Jews are Zionists who identify with Israel, visit it and have relatives there, this prediction is likely to be accurate.”
Nice try, but Sacks is the chief Rabbi of the UK, among whose flock number plenty of Jews opposed to such policies and indeed non-zionist jews as well. Are you saying he is only the chief rabbi for Jews who support such policies? And anyway how is the CoE divesting from Caterpillar ‘punishing the Jewish state’? It seems after your unsuccessful attempt to deny Rabbi Sacks conflated Israel and Judaism, you yourself have gone right ahead and done it.
‘What Bayfield said was not directed at the divestment campaign but against a broader perspective of antizionist attitudes within the grass roots (and beyond) of the Church of England which verged on (which means mainly stops short of) anti-semitism.’
Actually its reported in the Times. Unless you have a link to where rabbi Bayfield said this before the divestment decision.
“Jewish leaders began planning a collective response to the synod move at a meeting on Tuesday called by Sir Jonathan and attended by representatives from the Jewish community in Britain.
Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Reform movement and a co-president of the Council of Christians and Jews, said: “There is a clear problem of anti-Zionist — verging on anti-Semitic — attitudes emerging in the grass roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.”
(Timesonline)
Your continued attempt to deny that the charge of anti-semitism is used to silence critics of Israel is absurd. With all the evidence there is, and your attempt to sink as low as pedantry in order to deny it, is quite entertaining.
but sure seeing as you’re such a fan I’ll provide some more…
How about when Ruth Wedgwood (neo-con and member of Defense Policy Board chaired by Richard Perle)
was aked by a German journalist why they should support the Iraq war…Wedgwood said..
“I could be impolite…and remind Germany of its special relationship with Israel.”
Perhaps Brit you’ll be so kind as to inform me what she meant?
Or how about when Haaretz coloumist Ari Shavit said Israel could act with impunity because “we have the Anti-Defamation League…Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Musem”.
Tell me what you think he meant?
Or how about when a bunch of real anti-semites were uncovered working for Bush the first in 1988 working for his Ethnic Outreach Committee? The likes of the ADL weren’t too bothered because their anti-semitism was ‘antique and anemic’ as they said in a New Republic article. ‘Hatred of Israel’ was the anti-semitism they should be worried about, apparently.
Honestly Brit, I have to laugh. You deny the slur of ‘anti-semitism’ is used, you think the idea ‘fantastical’ and ‘incredible’. But with zionist groups getting lectures cancelled, attempting to have scholarly works from going to publication, with the likes of Melanie Phillips labelling a group of liberal co-religionists as ‘Jews for Genocide’. You try and excuse it by saying that perhaps some people have too broad a definition of ‘anti-semitism’. What kind of defintion does it take to try and prevent work you’ve never even read from being published, or to demand lectures you haven’t even attended are cancelled? That coupled with your lenghty posts regarding anti-semitism and anti-zionism seem self-fulfilling.
Rs,
Please continue.The Brit(who misrepresents any real brit ) has me on the floor.The merry go round is going round!top class;
RS, I really think it is a shame that you have failed to engage with me and my arguments on this topic. I’m pleased, though surprised, that my comments give rise to hilarity.
Whilst we strongly and irredeemably disagree on the nature of the I/P conflict and a just solution to it I thought that as opponents of anti-semitism we could reach some basic common ground, that:-
1. Anti-Zionism / criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic.
2. But it sometimes is anti-semitic and/or enabling of or soft on anti-semitism. See David Duke as an example of the first and Neumann on the later.
3. That all right thinking people have a right and an obligation to identify and criticise conduct which falls within 2. above
4. More specifically the obligation in 3 applies to Anti-Zionists critics of Israel and also Zionists or pro-Israelis – however both sides must tread carefully to avoid (in the case of the Anti-Zionists) being soft on anti-semitism and Zionists must tread carefully as to how and whether such accusations are made.
5. Some such criticism of Anti-Zionists will occur when anti-semitic / enabling conduct per 2 has taken place
6. Some such criticism of Anti-Zionists will occur when such conduct is not anti-semitic (but genuinely believe to be so).
7. Some (I concede though consider it very rare and exceptional) erroneous criticism per 6 above will be solely or mainly motivated by a desire not to point out or criticise anti-Semitism but to stifle debate, deflect attention or de-legitimise the Anti-Zionist argument or advocate.
In my view these contentions are basically self-evident.
It is important for you and I and indeed for all reasonable people interested in the I/P debate to agree on these kind basic ground rules in order that we can have the debate without being side tracked into the emotional and highly charged scenario of Jews/Zionists feeling that bad faith and racism being used against them and non anti-semitic Anti-Zionists and critics of Israel feeling hurt by inaccurate accusations and a feeling that the charge is being thrown their way unfairly. If I consider my opponent an anti-Semite I will not engage or debate further with him/her and I would imagine that if you encounter someone making bad faith accusations of anti-semitism against you you would also switch off.
You still seem confused as to my basic position. Firstly suggesting that I am “conflating” AZ with AS. Conflating is a quite broad term but perhaps you are suggesting that they are similar or even equivalent.
“Brit you fail to realise it is exactly your lengthy posts which attempt rather crudely to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.”
“The amount of times you have mentioned both ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ in the same breath anyone would think you are trying to equate the two.”
I am mentioning them in the same breath because I am trying to disentangle them from one another and explore, in a fairly consensual way, the distinctions and overlaps. When I say overlap I do not mean a conceptional overlap but an overlap in people and or expressions. David Duke is an Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semite that doesn’t meant that all anti-Zionists are or that there is anything inherently racist or anti-semitic in anti-Zionism. I have said this, expressly, about five times now.
“I assume that ‘don’t in the first sentence is misplaced? In any event, I would never temper or rein my criticism just because idiots might use it for succour. To do so would be intellectually dishonest. But your ‘lengthy’ posts on anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are indeed scaremongering whether you like it or not.”
Your posts represent denial and enabling whether you like it or not. You allege scaremongering but I have not tried to identify the size and severity of the problem of anti-semitism, and have expressly said that there are reasonable differences of opinion about the nature of the beast. My posts have been about the abstract principles assuming that some anti-Zionism is anti-semitic and some isn’t.. The principles stand or fall whether it is 1% or 50%.
Yes the don’t was a typo. And I know you would never tempter your criticism – that’s just what I was saying FFS – that you don’t need to. You can argue that Israel is a cross between Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, the Deep South and Conquistador Mexico if you like without being inherently anti-semitic. Asking anti-Zionists to avoid and condemn anti-semitic conduct is not asking them to temper or rein in criticism. It is not content with “idiots might use for succour” that I am complaining about it is content which is expressly or borderline anti-semitic or conduct which denies, minimises or fails to properly condemn anti-semitism. It’s a reasonable request and its nothing to do with what idiots think. Nor does compliance with the request mean that you need to temper criticism.
Now I would argue strongly against arguments that Israel is, for example, like Nazi Germany or Mexico of the conquistadors is factually inaccurate and morally contemptible but not that is it anti-semitic. That is a separate point.
“Barnshee aside, who else are you accusing of it?”
I’ve no desire to re-open old allegations, because despite your beliefs to the contrary I am not interested in de-legitimising people and crying “anti-semitism” but rather in having the debate. In any event it is not material to the merits of my arguments.
“Well don’t we live in a society where the burden of proof does indeed rest on the accuser? Surely its incumbent upon someone making an accusation to provide evidence for their claim.” That’s a gross oversimplification of the general rules of law and morality. Proof, in the legal sense, will be established by the court drawing inferences but the proof you are talking about seems to be about getting inside someone’s head. In terms of evidence I am happy to rely on prima-facie evidence to make an accusation that an [removed]though not necessarily the person responsible) is anti-semitic. If someone criticism a corrupt black politician called him a fucking n*gger or a member of a despicable race I’m sure we could legitimately consider him a racist without having to go inside his head or get a copy of his BNP membership card. If someone criticising the same person made some reference to sexual prowess or rhythm or said “hes bananas” then I would challenge it not on the basis that the commenter is an out and out anti-black racist but that he is, consciously or unconsciously, drawing on or re-enforcing racist stereotypes. Note that in neither example does the criticism of the racism mean that the criticism of the individual as being corrupt is not a valid and legitimate one. I apply the same rules to all forms of racism (and as I have said before this is something that I grew up with being part of the Left, which should be axiomatic to all progressives).
“Nice try, but Sacks is the chief Rabbi of the UK, among whose flock number plenty of Jews opposed to such policies and indeed non-Zionist Jews as well. Are you saying he is only the chief rabbi for Jews who support such policies? And anyway how is the CoE divesting from Caterpillar ‘punishing the Jewish state’? It seems after your unsuccessful attempt to deny Rabbi Sacks conflated Israel and Judaism, you yourself have gone right ahead and done it.”
Nice try but you have missed my point again. You relied on Sacks’ comments as evidence that anti-semitism is falsely alleged to prevent criticism of Israel. When I showed that Sacks made no such allegation (still less an allegation which was shown to be made in bad faith to protect Israel) you have made a separate criticism of conflating Jews and Israel. Again that nice, stretchy word “conflate”. The relationship between Jews and Israel is that the large majority of Jews are Zionists (in the broadest sense), supporters of Israel, visit the country fairly regularly and have friends and possibly family there. This does not mean that Jews, as a race/collective entity, or as individuals are responsible for the actions of Israel (some of which they may vehemently oppose and some of which they may vehemently support). The first conflation is correct the second is false.
Bayfield made a comment on the existence of anti-semitism in the CoE. His arguments were not directed at the divestment campaign and did not allege that it was anti-semitic (which in any event would not mean that any such allegation was motivated by bad faith desire to protect Israel). This interpretation is totally consistent with the Times article
A journalist inserted a quote which made the article more juicy but which was not actually relevant – a bit of conflating for you – that’s all. Times journalist in spin / inaccuracy shocker!! The fact that a load of the kitsch anti-Zionists seized on the article to prove their conspiracy theory/fantasy of the crying wolf of Zionists does not mean that it is accurate.
Whether Bayfield’s view is right or even reasonable is not relevant to your contentions although from my perspective I think it is an arguable contention and I would not be amazed were it broadly accurate.
Presumably you know that Bayfield is a liberal Zionist to the left of Sacks rather than some baying Likudnik right-winger. He recently wrote that “occupation is always disastrous for both occupied and occupier. The Palestinian people have their right to make the universal journey from slavery to freedom.” The idea that he would have gone further than Sacks is ridiculous.
“but sure seeing as you’re such a fan I’ll provide some more…
How about when Ruth Wedgwood (neo-con and member of Defense Policy Board chaired by Richard Perle)
was aked by a German journalist why they should support the Iraq war…Wedgwood said..
“I could be impolite…and remind Germany of its special relationship with Israel.”
Perhaps Brit you’ll be so kind as to inform me what she meant?”
Not a “neo con”!!! This is a term of unthinking abuse like “Zionist”, when in the mouth of the kitsch undergraduate anti-imperialists, not sure what it is meant to prove here.
Given that I don’t know anything about her I cant inform you what she meant. Perhaps she was irritated by the journalist and thought that mentioning WW2 would humble or upset him/her. Perhaps she was of the view that the responsibility of the German state towards the Jews and the Jewish state was a relevant factor in Germany deciding whether to support a War which the Israeli government and most Israelis (then) supported (I think that Israeli opinion is pretty similar to that in Britain with most people thinking it was a mistake).
This has nothing to do with anti-Zionism, criticism of Israel and bad faith accusations of anti-semitism, however.
“Or how about when Haaretz coloumist Ari Shavit said Israel could act with impunity because “we have the Anti-Defamation League…Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Musem”.
Tell me what you think he meant?”
I’m not familiar with the journalist so don’t know what he meant. Perhaps we was suggesting that because of the huge stain of the crimes against the Jews that Israel should be given a free moral pass to do whatever they wanted. Maybe he was being satirical and criticising those (fellow) Israel Zionists who seemed to think that Israel had the right to do what it wanted. I’ll try to find the relevant materials in due course.
Again there is no allegation of anti-semitism being used against Anti Zionists dishonestly (or at all) to defend Israel here. Again this does not prove your contention.
“Or how about when a bunch of real anti-Semites were uncovered working for Bush the first in 1988 working for his Ethnic Outreach Committee? The likes of the ADL weren’t too bothered because their anti-semitism was ‘antique and anemic’ as they said in a New Republic article. ‘Hatred of Israel’ was the anti-semitism they should be worried about, apparently. ”
Some campaigners against anti semitism in the US apparently see the main vehicle and threat anti-semitism within the “liberal-left” Islamist anti-Zionism as opposed to the traditional Far Right / Nazi form. This is a respectable argument which is mainstream and found in recent Parliamentary and EU reports on anti-Zionism. However even if wrong it does not provide you with any kind of evidence to support your contention.
“Honestly Brit, I have to laugh.”
Good. You come across as very humourless and holier-than-thou. I think you could do with a laugh. (sorry for man playing)
“You deny the slur of ‘anti-semitism’ is used, you think the idea ‘fantastical’ and ‘incredible’”
I don’t deny that allegations of anti-semitism of made against certain anti-Zionists (I expressly said as much). Nor do I deny that the charge is sometimes misplaced (ditto). What I deny is that the allegation is made falsely and in bad faith with the main intention of defending Israel, protecting it from criticism and showing that its critics are motivated by anti-semitism.
The idea that this is a widespread and concerted phenomenon is a fantastical and incredible conspiracy theory which has sadly been repeated so many times by the anti-Zionists that lots of people (including many who are not even anti-Zionists) believe it to be true. What you are saying is that there are a large group of people (the large majority Jews) who see a comment or a paper or a pamphlet and think “Oh no these people are showing up the truth about Israel, that it is colonial-settler state based on racism and racial supremacism hell bent on denying the indigenous people any rights and to murder them into submission, what can I do…Oh yeah I will claim that they are actually a bunch of anti-semites”. It is a fantastical view of the world and one which, amongst other things, fails to understand that Jewish Zionists and non-Jewish supporters of Zionism (which encompasses a range from Marxists, social democrats, liberals, Conservatives, racists, Orthodox, Reform, Secular and Atheist and Christians) mainly believe that there is a moral justification for Zionism so there is no need to deflect attention away.
“But with Zionist groups getting lectures cancelled, attempting to have scholarly works from going to publication, with the likes of Melanie Phillips labelling a group of liberal co-religionists as ‘Jews for Genocide’.”
I am a free speech fundamentalist. I have no problem with the worst of Nazis and Islamists expressing their views in their own journals, websites and demos (many on the liberal-left are not). I can see both sides of the arguments for “no platform” against the Far Right and other racists. Racists may be free to peddle their filth but the Guardian or Oxford University are under no obligation to let them speak. Accordingly I think it is reasonable for Zionists to apply “no platform” approach to anti-semitic racism (whether from the AntiZionst Left, the Anti-Zionists Islamist Right or the traditional Far Right, although on balance I disagree. Where opponents of anti-semitism depart from a free speech commitment they will be on the other side of the argument from me, but even this does not amount to a false cry of anti-semitism as you allege.
And Melanie Phillips is a headcase who certainly doesn’t speak for most liberal or progressive Zionists but again if she considers that Jews who support the abolition of the state of Israel are proposing a policy which will lead to the mass murder or expulsion of the Israeli Jews (not a barking hypothesis) then this does not amount to a false allegation of anti-semitism to stifle debate.
“You try and excuse it by saying that perhaps some people have too broad a definition of ‘anti-semitism’.” The relevance of this is the huge difference, which you more or less brush aside, between good faith (but inaccurate) accusations of anti-semitism and bad faith false accusations motivated by a desire to protect Israel. It is arguable that a boycott, for example, because it discriminates disproportionately against Jews and cannot be objectively justified in the absence of similar approaches to other objectionable states is anti-semitic. Applying the relevant legal tests it probably is anti-semitic in the “institutional” sense but I have never argued that boycott campaigns are necessarily anti-semitic.
“What kind of defintion does it take to try and prevent work you’ve never even read from being published, or to demand lectures you haven’t even attended are cancelled? That coupled with your lenghty posts regarding anti-semitism and anti-zionism seem self-fulfilling. ”
Well I’ve dealt with the no platform and free speech issue and the reference to “self-fulfilling” seem a bit blame the victimish. Zionists are to blame by conflating Jews/Israel, but treating arabs like sh1t and by falsely crying wolf. Anti-semitism is wrong and the perpetrator should be condemned outright.
That should have read “What I deny is that *save for in very occasional one off instances* the allegation is made falsely and in bad faith with the main intention of defending Israel, protecting it from criticism and showing that its critics are motivated by anti-semitism.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23192
Even Vanessa Redgrave is a Zionist!
I’ve searched for the Avi Shavit quote on the Ha-aretz archives and on the internet generally and cannot track down the original source. I can only find a reference in the despicable book by the your hero Finkelstein. I note the material words “act with impunity” appear to have been Finkelstein’s rather than Shavit’s. In Finks book the footnote is a reference to Chomsky so sounds like he’s recycling without looking at original sources.
Though its not directly relevant to our discussion my search for that quote saw it repeated and relied on by lots of on-line crazies and out and out anti-semites (Islamist and Far Right)
Brit, jesus wept. You continually seem to know the intention of people you have never met and the meaning of what they say, which conflicts with the numerous academics and journalists who quote them, often after having been present when they said it or interviewed them face to face. You post at length, when you could cut your posts down by at least 2 thirds. You deny the slur of anti-semitism is used to stifle debate even though there are many politicians, academics and journalists who know better, and have been on the recieving end. Attempts at halting publishing of books, demanding lectures are cancelled, but the Grand Brit, can say with certainty, that it is never used even where there are actual Jews themselves who admit that it is. What a world you must live in Brit, truly amazing to know what people are thinking and what their intentions are, even though you’ve never met them and their actions and intentions conflict with your reality.
As other readers of this thread can quite clearly see, your version of reality is not exactly the real one. Your defence of the the Pro-Israel lobby is sterling, but your continued insinuation that you know what people mean (against the reams upon reams of evidence) is most entertaining.
‘“act with impunity” appear to have been Finkelstein’s rather than Shavit’s’
You’ll notice the “act with impunity” wasn’t in quotation marks Brit.
Heres the full quote if you’d like…
We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House and Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times, the lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not count as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now, when we have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the Anti-Defamation League, we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight hours they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to rain bombs on their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the right to kill without any guilt.”
Its from Haaretz coloumnist Shavits peice which appeared in the NYTimes.
And why do you think Finkelstein’s book is ‘despicable’?
A study by a Jew whose Mother survived the holocaust of the manner in which many holocaust survivors get little or none of the compensation paid to various groups entrusted to carry out such payment? What is dispicable about that? Is he not entitled to carry out such a study? Its pretty obvious you haven’t even read it, but merely accepted the ‘Dershowitz-type’ rhetoric on it.
‘Though its not directly relevant to our discussion my search for that quote saw it repeated and relied on by lots of on-line crazies and out and out anti-semites (Islamist and Far Right)’
It is directly relevant, because it demonstrates how Israel can with impunity, many politicians are afraid to speak out, why? And again it seems you think if a bunch of idiots latch onto something, we should not examine it. Scaremongering yet AGAIN.
Please Brit, as Guest said, more roundabouts
RS,
Again a total failure to engage with what I have said and I’m not going to continue this after today.
On the Shavit piece I cant find the article from the NYT on-line sources despite searching for a while. I’d be grateful for a link to the piece
The version I found (from some anti-Zionist site that I’d never heard of) which was based on a translation from Hebrew apparently read as follows:-
“We believe, in the most absolute manner, with the White House, the Senate, the Pentagon, and the New York Times on our side, that their lives do not have the same weight as ours. We are convinced that with Dimona (Israel’s atomic site), Yad Vashem and the Shoah Museum in our hand, we have the right to compel 400,000 people to evacuate their homes in 8 hours”
Interesting differences from ‘your’ version
The various US institutions are on the side of Israel (in the Lebannon War, which invoked huge opposition within the evil Zionist entity) rather than “in their hands”. The former proposition a reasonable one, the latter a bizarre conspiracy theory beloved of anti-semities across the world.
Also no reference to the “Zionist lobby” organisations.
Perhaps “my” version is inaccurate and yours is the right one but even if this is the case none of it supports your contention that Zionists make false accusations and insinuations of anti-semitism to deflect criticism away from Israel. And even if he did the fact that someone (Jew, Israeli, Muslim, Palestinian, American, Irish) claims that Zionists make such false accusations does not prove that it is the case. Lots of people believe and claim that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion represents the truth, lots of peoples religious beliefs are incredible and fantastical.
You’ve not engaged with my argument and all of your “proofs” have been shown not to prove your contention. You’ve been swimming in the Ant-Zionist waters for so long that you have just accepted the thesis of crying wolf as unquestionable. Much easier for you to do so, emotionally and intellectually, than having to acknowledge the possibliity that some of your fellow travellers are motivated by or reinforcing or enabling anti-semitism.
As David Hirsh, whose writings on this area I would commend to you said:-
“It is rare that Jewish communal or Israeli spokespeople make the evidently false claim that criticism of Israeli policies is necessarily antisemitic. Neither does anybody serious treat criticism as though it was demonization. The contention that criticism is denounced as antisemitic nearly always functions as a straw-man argument. The difficult arguments that some over-enthusiastic ‘critics’ of Israel are reluctant to deal with are that criticism of Israel is often expressed using rhetoric or images which resonate with antisemitism; or that criticism often holds Israel to higher standards than other states, and for no morally or politically relevant reason; or that it often employs conspiracy theory; or that it uses demonizing analogies; or that it casts Jews as oppressors; or that criticism is made in such a way as to pick a fight with the vast majority of Jews; or that the word criticism is really being used to stand for discriminatory practices against Israelis or against Jews, such as ‘boycotts’. These much more serious and realistic charges are too often brushed off by blithely employing the Livingstone Formulation: ‘For far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government.’”
And as for your reference to “actual Jews themselves who admit that it is” I’ve told to you before the fact that an argument or factual claim is made by “a Jew” does not make it valid or true. The same tests and methods of validitation apply whether Jew or gentile makes it.
This eager reliance on your “Jewish” sources has echoes, unconscious no doubt, of a long history of anti-semitic discourse which looks for the Jews to admit their evil consipiracies, from the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition to the Protocols.
As for the Fink I admit that I havent read the whole book. I wouldn’t want to support the man’s efforts by wasting money on his book and would be ashamed to buy the thing. I have, however, read extracts and I have read numerous reviews, including reviews by Zionists, anti-Zionists and people inbetween (de facto Zionists).
The main thrust of the book is not that he is concerned about how some survivors have not received their full reward and I’m afraid you are either making this contention dishonestly or you are a lot more stupid than I thought.
The book draws on and re-inforces the notion that the Holocaust is used dishonestly by Jews and Zionists to support their agendas. The greatest crime of the 20th Century and one of the very greatest crimes of humanity which should be studied in depth and understood for what it tells us about evil, human nature, modern politics and how we may prevent such crimes in the future, is used by him as a stick to bash Zionists. The Holocaust should be understood, accordingly to Fink, not as an event but as a series of myths and claims used by Israel to con money out of peole and to protect the Zionst state from criticsm.
The language used, like “chutzpah” and “holocuast industry” is exactly that used by the Far Right who talk about the “race relations industry” and some of his arguments would be found, pretty much unchanged, in any Far Right or Islamist anti-semitic text. And how they love a Jew who admits “the truth”.
He wants to be shocking and make a name for himself but I think it’s a disgusting book. Part of a spectrum of Holocuast revisionism and abuse of the memory of the Holocaust (see the attached article
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=14&article_id=58)
The scholarship and use of sources has also been heavily criticised across the board. Getting your undestanding of Zionism from the likes of Fink is like getting your German history from Irvine.
“Israel can with impunity, many politicians are afraid to speak out, why?”
Now its my turn to laugh. The terrified politicians, cowed acaedemics, scared populations, silenced journalists. No mention of Israel and certainly no criticism because The Lobby will falsely brand them anti-semites and get them sent beyond the bale of civilised debate.
Israel acting with impunity, doing what it wants, in the safe knowledge that The Lobby will protect it.
The Israeli government is criticised massively in Israel, the middle east, the West, the Third World, you name it. Search for Israel on the web, or on the archives of the BBC or New York Times or their equivalents around the world and see whether you find mention or criticism of Israel.
The chilling accusation of anti-semitism doesn’t seem to have stopped mass demonstraters protesting against the recent Israeli invasions of Gaza and Lebannon. Or many Trade Unions and other organistions from proposing to boycott Israel (and Israel alone).
Not only does Israel face loud and widespread criticsim and condemnation throughout the world (including in Israel!) but it faces much more criticsm and much more space than other similar or worse occupations, inter-ethnic conflicts, national disputes – China, Iran, Kurdistan, Sri Lanka, East Timor, Russia, Chechnya..the list could go on.
Much of the criticsm Israel faces is completely irrational in its intensity and scope – that it is the most evil state in the world or that it poses the biggest threat. People do criticise the USA and Russia and North Korea but rarely do such criticisms reach such apolyptic proportions nor do they involve the kind of demonisation and de-humanistion that Anti Zionists employ. From such people you would get the impression that North Korea and China are cuddly regimes compared ot the Zionist entity.
In much of the world, and particulary the middle east, the level of hatred of Israel is mixed up with anti-semitism and bizarre consipiracy theories about the power of world Jewry in the media, finance, in American government etc.
Israel gets much more than its fair share of criticism not less.
You think it takes bravery to criticise Israel. Try being a Russian journalist critical of Russia or any journalist critical of Islam. That is real bravery.