Jewish leftism in London

[hatzel]

Comrades!

I've just had the idea that, as I feel that traditional Judaism contains many elements of leftism, from socialism through to anarchism and beyond in all directions, and as I am also somewhat discontent with the left's portrayal of Israel at the moment, it might be a good idea to form an organisation for Jewish leftists. At the moment, I'm leaving it relatively open to exactly what ideology will be followed (as I don't want to be totalitarian and start telling my group what to believe!), and how the balance will be made between the Torah and modern leftist writings. My only requests are that the group will not be anti-religious or atheist, as this would undermine the point of it being a Jewish group, and that it will pay particularly attention to Jewish and other minority affairs, without forgetting the needs of the majority working man. I'm currently searching for a few people, a central core team, so to speak, who live in the London area and might be interested in getting involved to get this movement off the ground. Interested? Just contact me, and we can discuss our approach.

Regards.
Pinye.

[The Douche]

The left's "portrayal" of Israel?

[hatzel]

Well, it seemed that little bit less inflammatory than "the rising 'leftist' anti-Semitism", but of course you can pick whatever phrase suits you best :thumbup1:

[Communist]

...And if you bring up the holocoust to defend zionism, me and N finklestien will punch you in the fucking face
Trashed.
Even a laughable threat such as that is not permitted.
And by the way, you are a top-notch writer!
Enjoy your infraction.

.

[The Douche]

Well, it seemed that little bit less inflammatory than "the rising 'leftist' anti-Semitism", but of course you can pick whatever phrase suits you best :thumbup1:

Do you think opposition to the state of Israel is inherently anti-semitic? Do you think the left should defend the state of Israel?

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Identity politics is a waste of everyone's time, I mean an exiled group that was called the Israeli communist party might make sense but this is just identity politics, there is almost certainly nothing progressive that could come out of such a grouplet.

I live in London and the Jewish identity and pretty much every other minority identity, routinely involves putting yourself down, making fun out of yours and other races (including the British I would add, its all about ridiculous stereotypes), it's a load of prattle. You're just as Jewish as me regardless of "your mother being Jewish", I use loads of Jewish phrases and according to marxist-leninists I have "anti-imperialism in [my] your blood" by virtue of being Asian. :rolleyes: What a load of codswallop.

[jake williams]

"Traditional Judaism" is a backward, reactionary Abrahamic religion which, according to its original books, was actually much more backward than its major descendants (Christianity and Islam, respectively). Insofar as religious Jewish scholars have made important progressive steps, much like other religious scholars, they've done so by deviating from religious tradition.

As for secular Jews (religious believers or otherwise), they're already quite well represented in progressive activism and really don't need a group like this to help them out.

[hatzel]

The issue here is nothing to do with claiming that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic (though it can of course be). The issue is more to do with the leftist bias against Israel (which might be seen by the fact that a post about Judaeo-leftism descends into a somewhat derogatory conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working on the assumption that this has anything to do with the topic. And it is this same sentiment which has lead leftist groups in Europe and America to vandalise synagogues, for example, in the name of anti-Israelism. This, I am afraid to tell you, is doing a lot to isolate Jews in many leftist groups, scared that maybe it will be their group or their synagogue next. I mean, right-wing actions are still right-wing actions, even if the reasons for them are left-wing.

The issue here is nothing to do with Israel, this was only one point mentioned, and it was mentioned due to the effect it has on non-Israeli, even anti-Zionist Jews in Europe. In fact, this suggestion for a movement is nothing to do with Israel, more to do with creating a synthesis of Rabbinic and leftist beliefs. The claim that Judaism is backwards, by the way, is somewhat laughable. Remember that long before the feminist and animal rights movements started in earnest, for example, Europe's Jews, as well as those in Islamic lands, were deriding the Christians' and Muslims' 'barbaric' treatment of their animals and their women. 3.000 years ahead of its time, actually, the Torah :thumbup1:

Ps. Did I or anybody else ever say that jihad against Zionism is illegitimate? Even the most potent pro-Israeli will tell you: "sure, they can fire missiles, bomb our towns, lie about this and about that, kidnap our soldiers, shoot our school-kids, do what they want. It's only a problem if we can't retaliate" Ds.

[Steve_j]

The issue is more to do with the leftist bias against Israel

I wouldnt call it bias, strong criticism of Isreal is completely justifiable and aslong as the state of israel remains the oppressing force it will have to justify (or atleast attempt to, because it cant) its actions.


And it is this same sentiment which has lead leftist groups in Europe and America to vandalise synagogues, for example, in the name of anti-Israelism.

Evidence of this please.


In fact, this suggestion for a movement is nothing to do with Israel, more to do with creating a synthesis of Rabbinic and leftist beliefs.

Whats the point?


The claim that Judaism is backwards, by the way, is somewhat laughable...... 3.000 years ahead of its time, actually, the Torah :thumbup1:

Have you read the Torah? War, genocide, slavery, muder, sexism, homophobia, racism ect

Maybe they hand out revised censored editions where they edited that stuff out, although i guess it would be more of a pamphlet than a book.

[hatzel]

I wouldnt call it bias, strong criticism of Isreal is completely justifiable and aslong as the state of israel remains the oppressing force it will have to justify (or atleast attempt to, because it cant) its actions.



Evidence of this please.



Whats the point?



Have you read the Torah? War, genocide, slavery, muder, sexism, homophobia, racism ect

Maybe they hand out revised censored editions where they edited that stuff out, although i guess it would be more of a pamphlet than a book.

So...well, some might say that there is a bit of a difference between strong criticism of Israel and complete pandering to the Palestinians. Which is strange, because the left aren't really supposed to cosy up to right-wing islamonationalist entities, which is exactly what they are doing in supporting the Palestinian actions against Israel. Criticism of Israel is accepted, as long as criticism of the Palestinian government, which is equally deserved, comes hand in hand, rather than being totally ignored.

Evidence of leftist anti-Semitism? Well, a quick search online gave me two articles which I'm not allowed to post links to, because I don't have the post-count high enough yet (hah!). So, one is entitled "The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left" and another "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union - Sweden" - both mention the radical left with regards to anti-Semitism, and only two days ago I was talking to a veganarchist who acknowledged leftist actions against synagogues in Germany. Unfortunately I can't find any news articles about these, due to my poor German, but if a leftist himself admits that there have been certain groups who partake in such actions, I think we can take it at face value.

The point is that there are people who feel that Judaism and leftism go hand in hand. Wikipedia can tell us, just search for 'Anarchism and Orthodox Judaism' - assuming also that many leftist groups are fundamentally anti-faith (how many protests have we been to that involve chants of 'no God, no state, no oppression' or whatever?), those who wish to reconcile their religion with their political opinion, feeling that both are intermingled, may feel out of place amongst radical atheists. Is this not point enough, or should a Jew who believes in some leftist ideology be forced to suppress his religion? This hardly seems to be in the spirit of anti-oppression, if you ask me...

Of course only a non-Jew would suggest we read the Torah, rather than the Tanakh and the host of writings about interpreting what is written in the Torah. Remember also that, compared to non-Jewish teachings of a similar and even much later time, Judaism is much more forward thinking. Yes, there is war in the Torah, but, unlike in any other set of rules I know, the Torah teaches that it is forbidden to attack a city without first confirming their willingness to fight, and allowing all those who do not wish to fight to leave the city. Such ideas, of sparing the non-combatant in war, wouldn't be suggested in Europe until well after the civilian bombing campaigns of the second world war, for instance.

As for the comment under this...well, it seems I might not be the only person on this forum who thinks that this is a too bit right-wing! Going as far as to wish death upon a Jew, living in Europe, having expressed NO Zionistic tendency at all. Nice, very nice...however, I do not know if it is appropriate to ban such a user. Not to be the guy to sit here and sing about free speech and so on, as I'm fully aware that saying such things are clearly outlawed in the user agreement, but I for one wouldn't wish to silence somebody with differing opinions to mine, no matter how offensive or flawed I may see them to be. I would much rather watch as this imagined 'enemy' exposes themselves as a bit of a fool ;-)

[Steve_j]

So...well, some might say that there is a bit of a difference between strong criticism of Israel and complete pandering to the Palestinians. Which is strange, because the left aren't really supposed to cosy up to right-wing islamonationalist entities, which is exactly what they are doing in supporting the Palestinian actions against Israel.

For starters you have thrown a big blanket over the left, some support organisations like the PLO and Fatah, other condem them quite harshly, others support the elements within the PLO that have a socialist agenda, and again others condem them for placing that agenda on the back burner. Some even support Hamas to an extent whilst others support grass roots activists like the AAW.

Furthermore you just blanketed all palestinians as "right-wing islamonationalist" and is ridiculous. To me that is no better than someone labeling all jews as right wing zionists.


Criticism of Israel is accepted, as long as criticism of the Palestinian government, which is equally deserved, comes hand in hand, rather than being totally ignored.

Criticism should not come with conditions, if the criticism is legitmate then it is just. However i do agree that the Palestinian authorities should be criticised (and the often are) however Isreal (the state) is opressing another people (i use the term "another people" in regards to the fact that isreal will not grant them citizenship and equal rights because they view them in this manner), whilst isreal likes to justify this under the pretext of "defence" this is an illgitimate claim defence is not a justification. Isreal holds the balance of power and can introduce equality at anytime it choses, yet it choses not to so therefore should be the target of most criticism. Elements in the palestinian movement that are opposed to equality should be criticised, but seeing the dont have the balance of power play a lesser role in maintaing inequality.



Evidence of leftist anti-Semitism? Well, a quick search online gave me two articles which I'm not allowed to post links to, because I don't have the post-count high enough yet (hah!).

You can break the links and it will let you post, or pm them to me if you like and i will post them.


So, one is entitled "The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left" and another "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union - Sweden" - both mention the radical left with regards to anti-Semitism

I will have a look at them and get back to you in due time.


only two days ago I was talking to a veganarchist who acknowledged leftist actions against synagogues in Germany. Unfortunately I can't find any news articles about these, due to my poor German, but if a leftist himself admits that there have been certain groups who partake in such actions, I think we can take it at face value.
It is a possibility, and even more stupid things have been comited by the left, however it did occur then it was no doubt by a small marginalised minority of which i (and im sure everyone on this board would) condem.


The point is that there are people who feel that Judaism and leftism go hand in hand.........those who wish to reconcile their religion with their political opinion, feeling that both are intermingled, may feel out of place amongst radical atheists. Is this not point enough

You are welcome to do as you please, however i dont see the point of trying to reform something that is oppressive (capitalism, the state, religion ect) and the fundamental of judaism is supremacist. It is that you are the chosen ones, and everyone else is sub you, they have no soul ect. I see nothing to reform in this i would rather see it eradicated.


or should a Jew who believes in some leftist ideology be forced to suppress his religion? This hardly seems to be in the spirit of anti-oppression, if you ask me...

Strawman.


Of course only a non-Jew would suggest we read the Torah, rather than the Tanakh and the host of writings about interpreting what is written in the Torah. Remember also that, compared to non-Jewish teachings of a similar and even much later time, Judaism is much more forward thinking

So does that justify it? it doesnt matter how forward thinking it was for its time, it contains many horrid and opressive teachings and as such i oppose it.



As for the comment under this...

That poster has been banned and rightfully so. We do get alot of trolls on here, aplogies but they individual in no way even resembles the posters on this forum.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

A member called "GracchusBabeuf" took it upon him/herself to neg rep me as an anti-worker fascist imperialist something. Bizarre, maybe they would like to explain themselves?


The issue here is nothing to do with Israel, this was only one point mentioned, and it was mentioned due to the effect it has on non-Israeli, even anti-Zionist Jews in Europe. In fact, this suggestion for a movement is nothing to do with Israel, more to do with creating a synthesis of Rabbinic and leftist beliefs. The claim that Judaism is backwards, by the way, is somewhat laughable. Remember that long before the feminist and animal rights movements started in earnest, for example, Europe's Jews, as well as those in Islamic lands, were deriding the Christians' and Muslims' 'barbaric' treatment of their animals and their women. 3.000 years ahead of its time, actually, the Torah :thumbup1:

Ps. Did I or anybody else ever say that jihad against Zionism is illegitimate? Even the most potent pro-Israeli will tell you: "sure, they can fire missiles, bomb our towns, lie about this and about that, kidnap our soldiers, shoot our school-kids, do what they want. It's only a problem if we can't retaliate"

Criticism of Israel is accepted, as long as criticism of the Palestinian government, which is equally deserved, comes hand in hand, rather than being totally ignored.


This is just identity politics as Israeli-Jewish exceptionalism, actually the Israeli government is responsible for the deaths of millions of workers and as any genuine communist or anarchist will tell you "workers have no country". All religions, abrahamic, non-abrahamic are equally barbaric and have led to religious slaughter, with Judaism being no exception in this regard.

The problem with being a "leftist" and not being firmly left is that most leftists support movements that are on the verge of being genocidal, no matter what country or identity they are tied to. Movements that would become genocidal if they could get away with it commonly enjoy support from leftists too, so really think about what you have in common with the Israeli middle and upper-class.

[bricolage]

This, I am afraid to tell you, is doing a lot to isolate Jews in many leftist groups, scared that maybe it will be their group or their synagogue next.
I don't think is true at all. I am Jewish and have been regularly involved in 'leftist'(*) political activity, including occupying a lecture theatre at my University following the 2008/2009 attacks on Gaza. There were other Jews there too and on the demonstrations called in London against the attack it is reckoned there were more Jews present than on the pro-Israeli ones called at the same time.

The kind of Jewish organising might have had a place back in the 19th/early 20th century with the Bund but those times are gone and there is no positive role for it now.

Although if you are really interested there is this lot, although they are equally critical of Israel as most left groups so they might not be to your liking; http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/

* Ignoring the problematic nature of 'leftism'

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Although if you are really interested there is this lot, although they are equally critical of Israel as most left groups so they might not be to your liking; http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/

* Ignoring the problematic nature of 'leftism'

It's good that you've recommended a group the person may like to be involved in, although according to wikipedia, they have joined in with the GLC to launch 'multiculturalist' activities, which at the very least is class-collaborationist, although there may be some voices in there which are probably against that..

[bricolage]

It's good that you've recommended a group the person may like to be involved in, although according to wikipedia, they have joined in with the GLC to launch 'multiculturalist' activities, which at the very least is class-collaborationist, although there may be some voices in there which are probably against that..
Yeah I don't know that much about them, I had a drink with a guy from them once who was big on Frankfurt School and I know they are involved with Hands Off the People of Iran but thats about it. I don't they are as socialist as their name implies and I don't like the idea of 'Jewish socialists' being somehow separate from non-Jewish socialist, although their idea of 'diasporism' is something I can relate to;

[Die Neue Zeit]

Have you read the Torah? War, genocide, slavery, murder, sexism, homophobia, racism ect

Maybe they hand out revised censored editions where they edited that stuff out, although i guess it would be more of a pamphlet than a book.

Whether Jammoe's suggestion above of religious revisionism ("Insofar as religious Jewish scholars have made important progressive steps, much like other religious scholars, they've done so by deviating from religious tradition") is correct or not, I don't know.

For example, there are rabbinic interpretations that state that Amalekites didn't have to convert in order not to fall to genocide (http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/03/judaism-amalek-and-racism.html). There's a rabbinic anecdote or two saying that some leading rabbi in the time of the Pharisees was in fact a descendant of the hated anti-Semitic official Haman.

Then there are recent CPGB articles on ancient Israel before its kings (i.e., during the era of the "judges") as radical peasant egalitarianism:

Religion, class struggles, and revolution in ancient Judea (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004034)
Peasant socialism and the persistence of polytheism (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004042)
Royalist nationalism, opposition prophets, and the impact of exile and return (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004052)

I don't think the OP is a Zionist, but as bricolage pointed out may instead be a Bundist. Given what's needed to restart the worker-class movement, and given the various cases of "leftist anti-Semitism" (not typical left anti-Zionism re. opposing the existence of the Israeli state as a Jewish state) that cannot be ignored, I do think that the Bundist question needs to be reopened.

[scarletghoul]

Jewish leftism of course has a fine history; producing innumerable great Marxists and Anarchists and everything in between, contributing richly to the struggle for human freedom. This is no doubt due to our historical position as outsiders in most societies.

However the moment you base your things around 'discontent with the left's portrayal of Israel' you become a reactionary.
I am also somewhat discontent with the left's portrayal of Israel
...
My only requests are that the group will not be anti-religious or atheist, as this would undermine the point of it being a Jewish group, and that it will pay particularly attention to Jewish and other minority affairs, without forgetting the needs of the majority working man.
There are 2 kinds of Jews in the post-1948 world: those who view themselves as Israeli, as part of a national identity separate from others, with all the religious zeal that comes with that; and those who remain outsiders-within-other-societies, who don't consider themselves Israeli, who don't really care about the torah etc.. Only the latter are really able to carry on the Jewish leftist tradition.

When you insist on using religious heritage and rejecting atheism 'as this would undermine the point of it being a Jewish group', you have already missed the point completely. Atheist Jews from Marx to Chomsky have always been the life blood of the Jewish Left, precisely because they don't get caught up in the bullshit religious identity stuff

[bricolage]

I don't think the OP is a Zionist, but as bricolage pointed out may instead be a Bundist. Given what's needed to restart the worker-class movement, and given the various cases of "leftist anti-Semitism" (not typical left anti-Zionism re. opposing the existence of the Israeli state as a Jewish state) that cannot be ignored, I do think that the Bundist question needs to be reopened.
In what way do you think it needs to be reopened? Are you advocating a Bundist strategy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am not advocating a Bundist strategy. I am merely advocating a debate on whether to reopen it, in light of past groups like the Black Panthers, present groups like assorted left-leaning Native American organizations, and potential future groups like left-leaning Hispanic organizations.

[black magick hustla]

there where many fine jewish cotiommunists, and all of them were for the destruction of world capitalism and its states, which is incompatible with defending a murderous, capitalist state.

[hatzel]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that this thread doesn't actually have anything to do with defending Israel or Palestine or whatever. Of course a good leftist should disapprove of both the Israeli AND Palestinian governments (remember, incidentally, that Israel actually allows leftist protests, whilst the Israeli leftist press: haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-hamas-is-really-afraid-of-1.308264 - points out that the rulers in Gaza are somewhat more reluctant to let such things happen. Still, the intention of this thread was not to debate whether or not Israel are attempting to bring down this regime, or whether or not we, as leftists, should support actions to bring down such a regime which is so potently opposed to our ideologies), yet [going back to what was before that very long section in brackets] the only reason Israel was mentioned was because fringe leftist groups, and certain sections of the Muslim population in Europe, are joining the traditional right wing in being anti-Semitic or committing anti-Semitic actions against European Jews with anti-Zionist reasons. I think that we can all agree that a Jew in Britain or Sweden, for instance, shouldn't suffer for the actions of a wholly unrelated state half a world away. This was the intention, for the proposed group to take actions to protect Jews, as well as, for example, Pakistani and Indian minorities who may suffer at each others hands because of the animosity in Kashmir. Such issues are hardly at the centre of most leftist groups, whilst I was proposing a group which would pay more attention to such minority affairs.

Also not open to debate is the Jewish religion itself. Nothing in this thread suggested that it was intended as a place where people could debate the rights and wrongs of Judaism. Nothing here suggested anything about supposed Jewish supremacy, either in the group or in Judaism in general. One could easily argue, quoting the rabbis, that the Jews were not 'chosen', as somebody here has claimed, but that they were the only people who were willing to accept the laws and the religion, whilst many others had already turned down the opportunity. Equally important is to remember that the rabbis claim that the Jews were chosen because they were a weak and feeble people, who would be considered by the other nations to be totally incapable of ever achieving anything. As such, any achievement they would make, it is suggested, would be seen by the other nations as a divine act. Still, as said, this isn't the thread to debate anything about Jewish supremacy, and merely suggesting a Jewish leftist group isn't suggesting that the Jewish people are somehow superior to other peoples. Far from it, it is merely suggesting a group, as a few people who have commented seem to have understood, that recognises the fundamentally leftist aspects / suggestions of Judaism (shared ownership; public law-keeping, instead of a central police force; 'fair' treatment of animals; communal responsibility etc) and implements such things into a wider leftist context. Nowhere was it suggested, as many seem to argue, that this group is intended to 'progress' the wider leftist movement. No, this is intended as a somewhat separate leftist movement, which would seek to cooperate with other leftist movements, striving towards shared interests. I don't see why taking suggestions from the words of rabbis 2.000 years ago, and trying to fit them into modern society, considering the changes of the last few millennia, is (or could be considered) any more or less suitable or useful than taking the words from philosophical or ideological texts written 10, 50, 100 years ago. If Judaism suggests, for instance, that farmers must leave a portion of their fields unharvested, so as the poor and landless can come and take food, is it for some reason considered a less viable or appropriate suggestion than if a modern leftist writer suggested a system of food redistribution? Merely because Judaism is a 'religion' (which isn't saying that political ideologies aren't quasi-religious in themselves, being based on various 'normative' texts which dictate correct and proper action in various situations), should its suggestions be deemed worthless? I debate this.

Also somewhat redundant is the debate about the need for such a group. Saying that there are Jews in mainstream leftist groups is of no interest, particularly if other posts claim that European Jews are effectively secular, whilst Israelis are entirely non-secular. Remember, of course, that Israel has a religious make-up not unlike any other western country. There are the ultra-religious, yes, but there are also completely secular Israelis. These immigrants didn't come to Israel because there were religious (and in fact, as has been half-mentioned, many of the Jews considered most religious are, in fact, anti-Zionist), as in their old countries, anti-Semitism didn't care whether or not you observed Judaism or not, merely whether or not you were a Jew. Islamophobia today acts in a similar way, with non-religious people of Arabic descent discriminated against as well as the religious Muslims. So there are secular and non-secular Jews in Europe, America and Israel, and in fact all over the world. Where, then, do the non-secular, Torah-observant, left-leaning Jews go? This is the purpose of the proposed group, to meet the needs of non-secular, Jews, who haven't been entirely assimilated into the surrounding society and still think that the lifestyle and world-view outlined in their faith is a decent suggestion of what to fight for.

Now, with this said, I would appreciate it if the thread could try to return to something at least vaguely resembling the topic. Die Neue Zeit, for instance, seems to have grasped the concept well enough, and made some comments of substance...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, we had a Christian Communist around here by the name of Kwisatz Haderach, and since you framed the scope of debate well like he has (not about Israel or the Jewish religion), carry on.

Perhaps you can start by posting other topics in the other forums? This forum isn't exactly the best one to garner responses like, say, Politics or History. :confused:

P.S. - As I see it, the more leftist impulses of Jewish halakha or law tend to gravitate more towards a pre-industrial distributism than towards pre-industrial communism (like that of the early Jewish Christians).

[hatzel]

P.S. - As I see it, the more leftist impulses of Jewish halakha or law tend to gravitate more towards a pre-industrial distributism than towards pre-industrial communism (like that of the early Jewish Christians).

We might even be able to agree that pre-industrial distributism has a place in post-industrial communism, don't you think? :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

You've got me confused. :confused:

Pre-industrial distributism is based on private property, while pre-industrial communism was based on common property.

[hatzel]

Well, one could argue that distributism suggests that there is no innate ownership of the property in question. If one is obliged to share out ones produce, then can't we argue that this produce is inherently common property? Take loans, for instance. Now, loans can be monetary, but can also be loans of food or other items. In Judaism, it is heavily encouraged (though not mandatory) to give a loan, or even an outright charitable gift, to somebody in need of the money, food, lawn mower, whatever. However, it is taught that charging interest on this loan is morally detestable, and it is also written that it is forbidden for the lender to badger and harass the borrower for the repayment of the loan. Adding in the fact that any loan which hasn't been paid back within 7 years must be entirely written off and forgotten...well, this is pre-industrial distributism, yes, but does suggest that the lender, or in fact anybody with money, food or a lawn mower, has no innate ownership over it, and it is instead common property which just so happens to be in a certain person's possession at any one given time. Or, to get religious (though I don't think such an argument will really fly with most of the people on this forum), this money, food or lawn mower is inherently just a part of the world, a part of creation, and as such is owned by G-d alone, and as He can't really make use of it, we are free to utilise it as we wish, with only imagined ownership. Or something like that :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Distributism's main principle is equal ownership of private property. Your example of loans proves this point. Why have private lenders in the first place when you can instead have a national-democratized financial monopoly along with the extension of this public monopoly on money supply control into the general provision of commercial and consumer credit, as well as the full application of “equity not usury” towards such activity?

["Equity not usury" being my catch-all phrase for something like Islamic banking but without the mullahs or the prohibitions re. pork and alcohol businesses]

Think instead of one huge public banking monopoly that combines central banking, retail banking, and investment banking.

[hatzel]

Well, I'm not entirely sure that the two are mutually exclusive. This 'national-democratized financial monopoly', for instance, could provide a given amount of money to each person (to prevent uncontrollable over-extraction of imaginary money, of course), and all other financial needs could be organised by individuals amongst themselves, as per the aforementioned rules. Still, this system would lead to decentralisation, which might be a positive thing, to prefer the financial monopoly being able to assume too much power. Still, there could be a fundamental problem with the whole idea, that is to say that it relies on the good morality of the participants. There isn't really a system in place to prevent people from freely deciding whether or not to repay the money / food / lawn mower at any point. As such, it relies on the good-will of people, to do what it is right. This might be too idealist, even I admit, in the modern world, where a conman could easily travel from place to place, and may not necessarily be known as a danger before it's too late. Let's just call it legalised theft; not really a great prospect, I think you'll agree :laugh: Some kind of safeguard would have to be put in against it...

[freepalestine]

Comrades! I've just had the idea that, as I feel that traditional Judaism contains many elements of leftism, from socialism through to anarchism and beyond in all directions, and as I am also somewhat discontent with the left's portrayal of Israel at the moment, it might be a good idea to form an organisation for Jewish leftists. At the moment, I'm..you could ask marxist/leftist comrades on here from isreal etc.
Or maybe the israeli labor party may suit ,instead

[leninfan]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that this thread doesn't actually have anything to do with defending Israel or Palestine or whatever. Of course a good leftist should disapprove of both the Israeli AND Palestinian governments (remember, incidentally, that Israel actually allows leftist protests, whilst the Israeli leftist press: haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-hamas-is-really-afraid-of-1.308264 - points out that the rulers in Gaza are somewhat more reluctant to let such things happen. Still, the intention of this thread was not to debate whether or not Israel are attempting to bring down this regime, or whether or not we, as leftists, should support actions to bring down such a regime which is so potently opposed to our ideologies), yet [going back to what was before that very long section in brackets] the only reason Israel was mentioned was because fringe leftist groups, and certain sections of the Muslim population in Europe, are joining the traditional right wing in being anti-Semitic or committing anti-Semitic actions against European Jews with anti-Zionist reasons. I think that we can all agree that a Jew in Britain or Sweden, for instance, shouldn't suffer for the actions of a wholly unrelated state half a world away. This was the intention, for the proposed group to take actions to protect Jews, as well as, for example, Pakistani and Indian minorities who may suffer at each others hands because of the animosity in Kashmir. Such issues are hardly at the centre of most leftist groups, whilst I was proposing a group which would pay more attention to such minority affairs.

Also not open to debate is the Jewish religion itself. Nothing in this thread suggested that it was intended as a place where people could debate the rights and wrongs of Judaism. Nothing here suggested anything about supposed Jewish supremacy, either in the group or in Judaism in general. One could easily argue, quoting the rabbis, that the Jews were not 'chosen', as somebody here has claimed, but that they were the only people who were willing to accept the laws and the religion, whilst many others had already turned down the opportunity. Equally important is to remember that the rabbis claim that the Jews were chosen because they were a weak and feeble people, who would be considered by the other nations to be totally incapable of ever achieving anything. As such, any achievement they would make, it is suggested, would be seen by the other nations as a divine act. Still, as said, this isn't the thread to debate anything about Jewish supremacy, and merely suggesting a Jewish leftist group isn't suggesting that the Jewish people are somehow superior to other peoples. Far from it, it is merely suggesting a group, as a few people who have commented seem to have understood, that recognises the fundamentally leftist aspects / suggestions of Judaism (shared ownership; public law-keeping, instead of a central police force; 'fair' treatment of animals; communal responsibility etc) and implements such things into a wider leftist context. Nowhere was it suggested, as many seem to argue, that this group is intended to 'progress' the wider leftist movement. No, this is intended as a somewhat separate leftist movement, which would seek to cooperate with other leftist movements, striving towards shared interests. I don't see why taking suggestions from the words of rabbis 2.000 years ago, and trying to fit them into modern society, considering the changes of the last few millennia, is (or could be considered) any more or less suitable or useful than taking the words from philosophical or ideological texts written 10, 50, 100 years ago. If Judaism suggests, for instance, that farmers must leave a portion of their fields unharvested, so as the poor and landless can come and take food, is it for some reason considered a less viable or appropriate suggestion than if a modern leftist writer suggested a system of food redistribution? Merely because Judaism is a 'religion' (which isn't saying that political ideologies aren't quasi-religious in themselves, being based on various 'normative' texts which dictate correct and proper action in various situations), should its suggestions be deemed worthless? I debate this.

Also somewhat redundant is the debate about the need for such a group. Saying that there are Jews in mainstream leftist groups is of no interest, particularly if other posts claim that European Jews are effectively secular, whilst Israelis are entirely non-secular. Remember, of course, that Israel has a religious make-up not unlike any other western country. There are the ultra-religious, yes, but there are also completely secular Israelis. These immigrants didn't come to Israel because there were religious (and in fact, as has been half-mentioned, many of the Jews considered most religious are, in fact, anti-Zionist), as in their old countries, anti-Semitism didn't care whether or not you observed Judaism or not, merely whether or not you were a Jew. Islamophobia today acts in a similar way, with non-religious people of Arabic descent discriminated against as well as the religious Muslims. So there are secular and non-secular Jews in Europe, America and Israel, and in fact all over the world. Where, then, do the non-secular, Torah-observant, left-leaning Jews go? This is the purpose of the proposed group, to meet the needs of non-secular, Jews, who haven't been entirely assimilated into the surrounding society and still think that the lifestyle and world-view outlined in their faith is a decent suggestion of what to fight for.

Now, with this said, I would appreciate it if the thread could try to return to something at least vaguely resembling the topic. Die Neue Zeit, for instance, seems to have grasped the concept well enough, and made some comments of substance...

Why on a later post did you write god G-D? or however you wrote it?
"Don't use gods name in vain? I just don't understand.
BTW, a majority of the true Socialist and Communist were Jews, but left the religion.

[freepalestine]

also werent the ancestors of the palestinians the original jews?even some left zionists said this.and that jewstoday converted to judaism,as 'palestinians' did to christianity/islam,or whatever+

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why on a later post did you write god G-D? or however you wrote it?
"Don't use gods name in vain? I just don't understand.
BTW, a majority of the true Socialist and Communist were Jews, but left the religion.

He has religious beliefs.

[Bilan]

I've never heard of any leftists attacking a synagogue, and I call bullshit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There were Soviet closures of synagogues during the Stalin era and beyond. Orthodox churches weren't the only religious institutions affected.

If you're referring to punk vandalism against synagogues, though, I haven't heard of those myself. :huh:

[hatzel]

I've never heard of any leftists attacking a synagogue, and I call bullshit.

Let's take a few situations from Greece a few years ago, after the whole Gaza conflict, 2008. These quotations are taken from a word document I've been sent, but a quick search online should be able to give you confirmation of the events in question, if you think I'm making it up:


The Jewish Community of Volos was targeted by leftist protesters which sprayed graffiti on the exterior wall of the synagogue [On the front façade of the Synagogue, slogans reading “The State of Israel Murders! Which side do you take?” and «“Neutrality” and “equal distances” do not fit with Genocide».]
The Greek Communist Party once again decided to end its protests in the Holocaust Memorial that had been vandalized in 2006, while leftist parliamentary party Syriza declined to participate in the Holocaust Memorial Day, as it has done frequently the past years.
[Larissa:] The town in which the antisemitic madness of both Left and Right was emblematic. During a protest on 1/17 anarchists and Palestinians tried to vandalize the Synagogue. Other autonomous protesters from a specific group managed to stop them despite the general resentment. Riot Police protected the Synagogue for several days...For anybody interested in this topic, there is a PDF file about the Greek reactions to the 2008 invasion of Gaza [tandis.odihr. pl/documents/05793.pdf without the space]. It makes quite interesting reading. Particularly check out page 5, which is a list of anti-Semitic incidents in Greece in the month after the invasion. Only a few of the slogans have no apparent connection to the whole Jews = Israel idea, and many of them equate Jews with Nazis, suggesting that it wasn't neo-Nazis who committed the offences. I don't think any of us can truly believe that there aren't some people who equate diaspora Jews with the Israeli state, and who then use this as 'justification' for their mistreatment of Jews. Sure, these might may be neo-Nazis, and many are Muslims, but there are elements on the left, as we can see, who treat Jews as they would treat the Israeli government. There can never be any excuse for political party, such as the Greek Communist Party, to involve the Holocaust memorial in their political rallies. Nor can it be seen as anything other than repulsive that a party, such as Syriza, would boycott a Holocaust commemoration because of the problems they have with the wholly unrelated Israeli government. I'm sorry, but this all stinks of anti-Semitism! But hey, maybe I'm just paranoid, and maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe I should be able to hear leftists badmouthing Israel without thinking that they might equate me with Israel, or look down on me because of it. The risk is there, and is too high. 'New' anti-Semitism, if you don't know, is based almost entirely around anti-Zionism. Sure, there are anti-Zionists who aren't anti-Semitic, I'm not doubting that for a second, but it's totally impossible to make the distinction between an anti-Zionist comment made for purely anti-Zionist reasons, and one which has been coloured by, or even fuelling, anti-Semitism.

In addition, if you want to know what I mean, go out and buy yourself a skull cap, grow a beard, whatever. And then go into a bunch of Leftists, chat with them, and see how long it takes until they start quizzing you about Israel. As if your mere status as a Jew (or so they think) means that you are somehow involved in this whole affair. The tie, in some people's minds, between the diaspora Jew and the state of Israel is already too strong, so I have no reason to believe that there aren't leftists, as well as Muslims and (of course) neo-Nazis who dislike or distrust me, as a Jew, because of the actions of the state of Israel. So I suggest we all get out of our little bubbles and admit that there's a problem, instead of hiding behind some disbelief that any leftist individual or group could ever commit anti-Semitic, Islamophobic or otherwise discriminatory acts. Even worse when the anti-Semitism is based on the actions of Israel, and the Islamophobia is based on Islamic extremism. Both totally removed from the vast majority of Jews and Muslims here in Europe, many of whom, in fact, oppose the state of Israel, or Islamic fundamentalism respectively. Step back, look at your own movement, look at the other movements on the left, extreme leftism, and think whether or not you could ever imagine anybody in any of these groups vandalising a synagogue, before you start coming round accusing me of bullshitting you...

[hatzel]

also werent the ancestors of the palestinians the original jews?even some left zionists said this.and that jewstoday converted to judaism,as 'palestinians' did to christianity/islam,or whatever+

It's a pretty fringe theory. Sure, some of the Jews in Europe are descended from, for instance, the Khazars, who were converts, yes. Those who never even got to Europe, the Jews who have lived in Israel for the last 2000 years, as well as those from Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Persia...well, they don't really fit in with this whole theory. Anyway, in Judaism any convert is considered as integral and as Jewish as any other person, so this is hardly an issue. The only reason people would bring up this whole suggestion is if they're talking about which people have a historical 'right' to the land. Claiming that Europe's Jews don't because some where converts is going against the teachings, that converts to Judaism would have as much right as natural-born Jews (I only say this, because people who say that the Jews have no rights because they are converts must be accepting the Biblical writings that the descendants of the Jews alone have eternal right to the land). In addition, I think that anybody who claims that either the Jews or the Palestinians have right to the land by their blood alone is getting dangerously close to this whole idea of there being some unbreakable link between ones blood, genes, ethnicity etc., and a certain patch of ground. I didn't know anybody, particularly not the left, had really bought in to national romanticism since...when, 1918? Personally, I'm not here to argue whether or not the fact that the Bible and Qur'an teach that the territory of Israel has been promised by G-d to the descendants of the Israelites actually means anything, and I'm not here to say whether or not this whole area is (or should be) Dar al-Islam or anything like that. Just that I suggest we don't slip into "your genes suggest you are from this land, so you can own this land". I would suggest we keep the whole idea into one of "we were here first, and then you came invading us", so that we don't let anything descend into a religious war, of whose book is 'right' :thumbup1:

[Bilan]

sources, please.

1 source is not enough.

From the article:


The Parties of the Left: The Greek Communist Party and the Party of “SYNASPISMOS” made severe anti-Israel statements. Communist Party Secretary Aleka Papariga urged Israel to “unconditionally stop the bombings in Gaza because the attacking party cannot pose any conditions”. The leader of SYNASPISMOS Party Alexis Tsipras spoke of “genocide against the Palestinian people”, stating that “the Israelis have turned Gaza into an immense concentration camp, exterminating civilians, women and small children” and asked the Government “to annul the agreement of military cooperation between Greece and Israel”. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of SYNASPISMOS Alekos Alavanos asked the Government to recall the Greek Ambassador from Israel. Alekos Alavanos, in his statements defined the Israeli attacks as a “crime against humanity”. He also submitted an interpellation to the Greek Parliament on the intermediation of the Greek Government in Gaza conflict. He also made statements pointing out that “the E.U. should condemn -instead of encouraging- the Israeli pogroms against the Palestinian people”.
M.E.P. of SYNASPISMOS, Dimitris Papadimoulis, submitted an interpellation to the E.U. Council asking the E.U. to bring Israel before The Hague International Court under the accusation of war crimes.

hmmmmm


ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS IN GREECE related to GAZA CONFLICT (Dec. 31, 2008 - Jan. 23, 2009)
December 31, 2008 – VOLOS, graffiti :
On the front façade of the Synagogue, slogans reading “The State of Israel Murders! Which side do you take?” and «“Neutrality” and “equal distances” do not fit with Genocide».
December 31, 2008 – CORFU, graffiti :
-On the entrance of the Synagogue: “Sheet on Israel” “Jews Nazis” and “Murderers”. -On the Holocaust Monument: “Gaza 2008 – Why?”. -On the Prefecture offices: graffiti picturing the Star of David, reading “Gaza 2008 – Dead Youngsters”.
January 8, 2009 – ATHENS, graffiti :
At the Jewish Cemetery: “Israelites – Jews – Murderers”
January 10, 2009 – VEROIA, violent attack :
Attempt to set fire to the Synagogue of Veroia. The Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece filed a complaint against persons unknown.
January 10, 2009 – KOMOTINI, graffiti :
Desecration of the Holocaust Monument with graffiti picturing: “the Star of David = swastika”
January 10, 2009 – DRAMA, graffiti :
Slogans and swastikas on the wall of the Jewish cemetery.
January 18, 2009 – DRAMA, graffiti :
Desecration of the Holocaust Monument and the dedicative plaque with graffiti reading “Greece - Palestine no Jew will remain” & “Zionism murderers of children”
January 16, 2009 LARISSA, graffiti :
- On the Holocaust Monument
Violent attack:
- Attempt to remove the Star of David from the door of the Synagogue and also to violate it. The attack was prevented at the last minute by the police.
January 18, 2009 IOANNINA, violent attack :
Desecration of the Jewish cemetery - three tombs damaged.
February 16, 2009 IOANNINA, graffiti :
Swastikas on the gate of Jewish cemetery

Where's the evidence it was by leftists?

[hatzel]

Ah...I don't understand here. You quote that the Greek Communist Party made anti-Israel statements. This is perfectly acceptable, they can think what they want. As my post mentioned, these same people who said what you quoted ended their anti-Israel / pro-Palestine protest march at the Holocaust Memorial, a clear political statement. And, as said, Syriza (who would no doubt agree with every word of that said by the GCP) chose to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, once again clearly making some kind of link between the current situation in Israel, and those Jews who died before this state even came into existence. By quoting the list of synagogues, cemeteries and memorials which were vandalised, often with anti-Israel slogans, it almost feels as though you are legitimising the idea of a group vandalising synagogues, because of what they believe, as per the citation above. I sincerely hope you aren't taking this opinion, though, and I'm sure that I've just misunderstood...

However, as one source (well, two sources, with more available online, but yes, one country and one time, that's true) doesn't seem to be enough, let's look at an excerpt of story from that bastion of equality and tolerance, Sweden, specifically Malmö:


When asked to explain why Jewish religious services often require security guards and even police protection, [city council chair Ilmar] Reepalu said much of the violence directed toward Malmö’s Jewish community come from members of extremist right-wing groups, a theory which baffles Sieradzki.

“I’m not saying we don’t have problems with neo-Nazis, but the threats aren’t as concrete,” he explained.

“More often it’s the far-left that commonly use Jews as a punching bag for their disdain toward the policies of Israel, even if Jews in Malmö have nothing to do with Israeli politics.

“It’s shameful and regrettable that such a powerful politician could be so ignorant about the threats we face.”

...

One of the things that bothers Sieradzki most, however, are Reepalu’s statements about a pro-peace rally arranged by the Jewish Community in Malmö in response to the December 2008 Israeli incursions, which came under attack from members of a violent counter demonstration.

According to Reepalu, the organization “sent the wrong signals” by holding the demonstration instead of distancing itself from Israel’s actions.

“If you read between the lines, he seems to be suggesting that the violence directed toward us is our own fault simply because we didn’t speak out against Israel,” Sieradzki explained.

The 'violent counter demonstration' was predominantly Leftist and / or Muslim, and pro-Palestinian. To violently oppose a pro-peace rally...can we really think that a non-Jewish pro-peace rally would be opposed by pro-Palestinians? No, because Jews are automatically considered Zionists, supporters of Israeli policy and so on. So now Jews cannot merely call for peace, they have to actively join those who vilify and demonise Israel, or it's their own fault for getting involved? Disgusting...

Carrying on this idea, let's look at a picture from a pro-Palestine protest in Edinburgh last year: upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Protests_Edinburgh_10_1_2009_5.JPG

I hope you won't claim that the wording on this sign is remotely acceptable. It's one thing to claim that the Israeli state is murderous, but this sign goes beyond that. Well into anti-Semitism, I think we can all agree. I'm sorry, though, that this 'source' doesn't actually concern the vandalism of synagogues, although I don't think it's too much of a jump between this obvious anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitic actions against Jews or synagogues. Also, I admit that we have no proof that the holder of this sign is leftist, but I think we can all agree that it's more than possible.

I will quote myself here, though:


Step back, look at your own movement, look at the other movements on the left, extreme leftism, and think whether or not you could ever imagine anybody in any of these groups vandalising a synagogue, before you start coming round accusing me of bullshitting you...

I still think you, and others, are hiding behind the actions of the Israeli government, rather than coming out and saying, clearly, that nobody deserves to suffer because of things which have nothing to do with them. Hindu and Muslim populations here in Europe often quarrel whenever there is a skirmish in Kashmir. I even remember a local Portuguese family's house getting a brick through the window after the England-Portugal game, the one with Ronaldo's infamous wink. Both of these are clearly instances of unfair discrimination, made even more unfair by the fact that the people in question may not even identify with, for instance, India's military excursions against Pakistan, or Portugal's desire to win some football game. Equally, for diaspora Jews to suffer because of the actions of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. As various groups and individuals, Leftist or otherwise, happily claiming that there is a link between the two, almost legitimising acts against Jews in the name of anti-Zionism, I think I am well within my rights to claim that there is a problem.

It is more than understandable for a Jew to be uncomfortable if members of their group hold such signs, or if the group as a whole acts as the GCP. It is equally understandable that a Jew be somewhat critical or apprehensive of any anti-Zionists, due to the chance, be it 1%, 10%, 80%, whatever, that this anti-Zionist may think that it is acceptable to vandalise synagogues, or even actively participate. Which is obvious anti-Semitism. The only way, I argue, for a Jew to be certain that neither their group, nor any member of their group, supports or participates in anti-Semitic activity, under the guise of anti-Zionism, is to be in a group free of anti-Zionists.

[bricolage]

And, as said, Syriza (who would no doubt agree with every word of that said by the GCP) chose to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, once again clearly making some kind of link between the current situation in Israel, and those Jews who died before this state even came into existence.Boycotts of Holocaust Memorial Days are usually done on the grounds that they exclude other genocides and ethnic cleansings that have taken place. Less commonly are they do on grounds relating to Israel. That being said it is of course the case that Israel exploits the events of the Holocaust as part of its legitimising myth, just go to Yad Vashem!
Although I don't know the exact details of Greece.


By quoting the list of synagogues, cemeteries and memorials which were vandalised, often with anti-Israel slogans, it almost feels as though you are legitimising the idea of a group vandalising synagogues, because of what they believe, as per the citation above.S/he was asking where was the evidence that the acts were committed by leftists.


So now Jews cannot merely call for peace, they have to actively join those who vilify and demonise Israel, or it's their own fault for getting involved? Disgusting...I don't know about Sweden but here in the UK the Jewish Board of Deputies called a 'pro-peace' rally, what is actually was was a pro-Israel rally, supportive of Operation Cast Lead.


I hope you won't claim that the wording on this sign is remotely acceptable.Not least because the spelling mistake!
Also linking things to the Nazis is just lazy, Israel can be opposed on grounds other than crude parallels (that don't really hold up).


Equally, for diaspora Jews to suffer because of the actions of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic.Ok, but the fact is that Israel in attempting to legitimise itself and gain support of diaspora Jews consistently claims to be speaking for all Jews everywhere, eg;

"This is a war which is fought by all the Israelis. I believe that this is a war fought by all the Jews. This is the time when all of us can show the kind of solidarity which is so unique to the Jewish people. This is the time when we expect you, our friends from across all the communities in America and in the world, to come over here, and share with us the burden and the challenge."

In doing so more and more Jews (as Israel conflates attacks on it with 'anti-semitism') find themselves supportive of its state actions. As such when the Israeli state links itself to the totality of Judaism is it really surprising anti-semites do the same? The only way to end this is to break to bloody cycle thus the struggle against zionism IS the struggle against anti-semitism.

Attacks on synagogues etc should be condemned but we have to accept these to not take place in a vacuum, we have to look for route causes.


due to the chance, be it 1%, 10%, 80%, whatever, that this anti-Zionist may think that it is acceptable to vandalise synagogues, or even actively participate.I'm sure 1% of any group/ideology whatever have views as reprehensible as vandalising synagogues. Take this website for example, a whole bunch of people here claiming to be 'communists' like to justify Stalinist massacres, the North Korean state, Pol Pot etc etc. I'm still a communist.


The only way, I argue, for a Jew to be certain that neither their group, nor any member of their group, supports or participates in anti-Semitic activity, under the guise of anti-Zionism, is to be in a group free of anti-Zionists.Because all semites are anti-zionists right?
I've met anti-semitic people in my life, most of them didn't give two shits about Israel, in fact they were happy there were Jews there instead of in the UK.

[Die Neue Zeit]

'New' anti-Semitism, if you don't know, is based almost entirely around anti-Zionism. Sure, there are anti-Zionists who aren't anti-Semitic, I'm not doubting that for a second, but it's totally impossible to make the distinction between an anti-Zionist comment made for purely anti-Zionist reasons, and one which has been coloured by, or even fuelling, anti-Semitism.

I don't know how to commend you for this precious gem of geopolitical insight here. :blushing:


The only way, I argue, for a Jew to be certain that neither their group, nor any member of their group, supports or participates in anti-Semitic activity, under the guise of anti-Zionism, is to be in a group free of anti-Zionists.

You mean non-Jewish anti-Zionists, right?

Yep, you've raised the Bund question once more.

[hatzel]

Boycotts of Holocaust Memorial Days are usually done on the grounds that they exclude other genocides and ethnic cleansings that have taken place.

This...ah...hardly warms the whole idea to me, you know? I don't really see why a day intended to commemorate the deaths of up to 15 million people within living memory, particularly in a country such as Greece, where it actually happened, should be ignored because it doesn't, for instance, commemorate the Armenian genocide. I do think it's acceptable to dedicate different days to each of these major events. Still, this doesn't excuse the GCP for choosing to involve a Holocaust Memorial in its Palestinian solidarity marches. Unnecessary and offensive, whatever the reasons...


S/he was asking where was the evidence that the acts were committed by leftists.

Ah, sorry. I didn't notice that line. I feel it may have been added, for clarification, in an edit after I'd read it. Apologies. Still, I mentioned two, namely the events in Volos and in Larissa. In Volos, the graffiti was the accredited of a leftist group by the name of Antiexousiastiki Kinisi, whilst in Larissa, there was no doubt that leftists were involved, as the events mentioned took place during a protest, which leftists were present in.


I don't know about Sweden but here in the UK the Jewish Board of Deputies called a 'pro-peace' rally, what is actually was was a pro-Israel rally, supportive of Operation Cast Lead.

The Board of deputies did indeed organise a rally, yes, but it was always advertised as 'intense advocacy for Israel', intended to show support for Israel. The Swedish example was a pro-peace march, mainly as a response to the fact that the community had been suffering greatly from Israel-orientated violence. The synagogue in Malmö has even suffered from explosive attack, even though it was more of a conversion of a firework into something explosive, rather than a bomb capable of causing severe damage (I'm not claiming that this was leftists, by the way). The intention of the rally in this case was to show that the Malmö community were calling for peace in Israel, trying to reduce the stigma they suffer from. Didn't work, by the way.


Ok, but the fact is that Israel in attempting to legitimise itself and gain support of diaspora Jews consistently claims to be speaking for all Jews everywhere

Seems as though people are picking and choosing which bits of Israeli 'propaganda' they believe. I've very often heard people disregard any statement made by Israel as 'Zionist propaganda' (though, strangely, Palestinian propaganda is taken without question), so why is it in this case considered true? No excuse. Of course I'm happy that you agree that synagogue attacks are unacceptable, and the point that I'm getting at is that they don't take place in a vacuum, as you rightly said. This is why I want my proposed group (if you're aware of the beginnings of this thread) to fight against anti-Zionism becoming anti-Semitism.


Because all semites are anti-zionists right?
I've met anti-semitic people in my life, most of them didn't give two shits about Israel, in fact they were happy there were Jews there instead of in the UK.

Did I ever say that? And, nowadays, there doesn't have to be a single Jew in your whole country, you can still be anti-Semitic with a variety of conspiracy theories. What I said, though, was that anti-Zionism can be a front for anti-Semitism. The right-wing are pretty happy, actually, that they can oppose the Jews for something more socially acceptable than mere hatred of Jews, instead of Israel. I never suggested that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are the same, or that they must exist together, or anything like that. What I intend to say is that anti-Zionism can lead to / be a front for anti-Semitism, as it in many of the cases I've mentioned, irrespective of whether or not it is leftists, muslims or the right-wing who have these feelings. In addition, acts that would generally be considered anti-Semitism, such as vandalising synagogues, can and are being committed in the name of anti-Zionism. I'm suggesting that anti-Semitic acts for anti-Zionist reasons are as bad as anti-Semitic acts for anti-Semitic reasons. The same as Soviet anti-Semitism for anti-Fascist / -Capitalist reasons, and the Nazi claims that Communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. Neither of these are 'pure' anti-Semitism, they take something else as the excuse. So the reason I mentioned this was, as said, because some Jews may feel more comfortable in a group without anti-Zionist rhetoric, so that they can be certain that none of this is a front for anti-Semitism, or will lead to it. Do you really think you could distinguish between the two in 100% of cases?

EDIT: We do realise that my problem with the sign mentioned in a previous post wasn't the Nazi-comparison, but the suggestion that Jews are murderers, right?

[hatzel]

I don't know how to commend you for this precious gem of geopolitical insight here. :blushing:

Why thank you!


You mean non-Jewish anti-Zionists, right?

I was going to say that, but I was scared it might get into the idea of the so-called 'self-hating Jews', but I guess if we mean Jews as those who still consider themselves somehow distinct from the majority, then...well, that makes a difference. I think only a seriously assimilated Jew would vandalise a synagogue. However, it is true that there are very virulent anti-Zionists who are Jews. Both the secular, left-wing Jews, and the Ultra-Orthodox. Strange, that image we have of a typical Jew, perhaps the one most likely to suffer from anti-Semitism, just so happen to be the same ones who consider the state of Israel a sin and a rebellion against G-d. Because of their sects interpretation of the scripture, I could go into this further if anybody cares...might be easier if you just Google it, though :thumbup1:

[9]

Originally Posted by Krimskrams http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1856314#post1856314)
'New' anti-Semitism, if you don't know, is based almost entirely around anti-Zionism. Sure, there are anti-Zionists who aren't anti-Semitic, I'm not doubting that for a second, but it's totally impossible to make the distinction between an anti-Zionist comment made for purely anti-Zionist reasons, and one which has been coloured by, or even fuelling, anti-Semitism. I don't know how to commend you for this precious gem of geopolitical insight here. :blushing:


The whole concept of "the New Anti-Semitism" is absolute nonsense, concocted by pro-Zionists as a means of silencing opposition to the state of Israel:


Originally posted by wikipedia
Writing in the American Jewish Congress' Congress Bi-Weekly in 1973, the Foreign Minister of Israel, Abba Eban, identified anti-Zionism as ‘the new anti-Semitism’, saying:
"[R]ecently we have witnessed the rise of the new left which identifies Israel with the establishment, with acquisition, with smug satisfaction, with, in fact, all the basic enemies … Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism. One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism. The old classic anti-Semitism declared that equal rights belong to all individuals within the society, except the Jews. The new anti-Semitism says that the right to establish and maintain an independent national sovereign state is the prerogative of all nations, so long as they happen not to be Jewish. And when this right is exercised not by the Maldive Islands, not by the state of Gabon, not by Barbados… but by the oldest and most authentic of all nationhoods, then this is said to be exclusivism, particularism, and a flight of the Jewish people from its universal mission."
In 1974, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein of the Anti-Defamation League published a book entitled The New Anti-Semitism, expressing additional concern about what they described as new manifestations of antisemitism coming from radical left, radical right, and "pro-Arab" figures in the U.S. Forster and Epstein argued that it took the form of indifference to the fears of the Jewish people, apathy in dealing with anti-Jewish bias, and an inability to understand the importance of Israel to Jewish survival.

Historian Robert Wistrich addressed the issue in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Israeli President Chaim Herzog, in which he argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, distinguishing features of which were the equation of Zionism with Nazism and the belief that Zionists had actively collaborated with Nazis during World War II. He argued that such claims were prevalent in the Soviet Union, but added that similar rhetoric had been taken up by a part of the radical Left, particularly Trotskyist groups in Western Europe and America.

[hatzel]

The whole concept of "the New Anti-Semitism" is absolute nonsense, concocted by pro-Zionists as a means of silencing opposition to the state of Israel:

You see, this has pushed me into a difficult position. If I claim that this seems like a bit too much like a typical conspiracy theory, where 'Zionists' somehow...I don't know, control the world, control people's thoughts and force international human rights committees and the EU monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia to write about the problem of new anti-Semitism, giving examples of where this happens, then I'll be accused of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and apparently this isn't good. I'm not allowed to accuse people of being anti-Semitic, even if they use arguments straight from Mein Kampf, merely adapted into the current society. Kosher tax, anybody?

I'm also not allowed to suggest that this user has quoted or referenced four people. One of whom is Israeli, the other three of whom are American. But still it's a 'Zionist' idea. Which is also quite typical of anti-Semitic, right-wing rhetoric, referring to all Jews as Zionists. ZOG, anybody?

So if I'm not allowed to do that...what am I allowed to do? Oh, that's it, I have to keep my mouth shut. Because if a Jew writes anything about the situation in Israel, then his opinion is instantly invalid. Because it's just sucking up to Zionist causes. I remember reading an article by Frenchman Bernard-Henri Lévy, who happens to be a Jew but is strongly critical of the Israeli government. The article was entitled 'It's time to stop demonizing Israel', it can be found on the Ha'aretz site. The majority of the comments claimed that it was typical for a Zionist to defend his precious homeland, that he was involved in attempts to brainwash the people into supporting the Zionist cause.

Now, I wonder how I can magically transform my posts into something legitimate...of course I would just PM them to somebody else, somebody who isn't Jewish, and ask if they can post them for me. That would instantly improve their reliability, I'm sure. Problem is that then, accusations of Zionist Occupation Forum would be bandied about, suggesting that the posters on this forum are merely puppets to the evil Zionist, by which I mean Jew. Yeah...let's not do that...

I apologise for my tone here, I do try to keep calm, but when such ill-founded, misguided twaddle is served in my direction, it's difficult to keep the lid on...

[Die Neue Zeit]

This...ah...hardly warms the whole idea to me, you know? I don't really see why a day intended to commemorate the deaths of up to 15 million people within living memory, particularly in a country such as Greece, where it actually happened, should be ignored because it doesn't, for instance, commemorate the Armenian genocide. I do think it's acceptable to dedicate different days to each of these major events. Still, this doesn't excuse the GCP for choosing to involve a Holocaust Memorial in its Palestinian solidarity marches. Unnecessary and offensive, whatever the reasons...

He's not referring to the Armenian genocide. He's referring to other Holocaust victims, like gypsies, gays, political dissidents, etc.

Cute avatar, btw. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The whole concept of "the New Anti-Semitism" is absolute nonsense, concocted by pro-Zionists as a means of silencing opposition to the state of Israel:

I'm against the apartheid state of Israel (triangle of "democratic" state, ethnically Jewish state, and secular state). I'm for a post-Zionist state in which Jews or at least the "white" Jews accept their status as a demographic minority among Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, Druze, etc. but in which all ethno-cultural groups interact with one another for protection against ethno-cultural discrimination.

[freepalestine]

It's a pretty fringe theory. Sure, some of the Jews in Europe are descended from, for instance, the Khazars, who were converts, yes. Those who never even got to Europe, the Jews who have lived in Israel for the last 2000 years, as well as those from Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Persia...well, they don't really fit in with this whole theory. Anyway, in Judaism any convert is considered as integral and as Jewish as any other person, so this is hardly an issue. The only reason people would bring up this whole suggestion is if they're talking about which people have a historical 'right' to the land. Claiming that Europe's Jews don't because some where converts is going against the teachings, that converts to Judaism would have as much right as natural-born Jews (I only say this, because people who say that the Jews have no rights because they are converts must be accepting the Biblical writings that the descendants of the Jews alone have eternal right to the land). In addition, I think that anybody who claims that either the Jews or the Palestinians have right to the land by their blood alone is getting dangerously close to this whole idea of there being some unbreakable link between ones blood, genes, ethnicity etc., and a certain patch of ground. I didn't know anybody, particularly not the left, had really bought in to national romanticism since...when, 1918? Personally, I'm not here to argue whether or not the fact that the Bible and Qur'an teach that the territory of Israel has been promised by G-d to the descendants of the Israelites actually means anything, and I'm not here to say whether or not this whole area is (or should be) Dar al-Islam or anything like that. Just that I suggest we don't slip into "your genes suggest you are from this land, so you can own this land". I would suggest we keep the whole idea into one of "we were here first, and then you came invading us", so that we don't let anything descend into a religious war, of whose book is 'right' :thumbup1:i like how youve spun that,youre constsntly trying to prove it to yourself.jews in iraq,europe hejaz,morrocco were also converts,or not?and that palestinians were converts to christianity,islam from whatever old religions.
were judeans expelled from palestine,back 2000years ago?obviously the shlomo sand book has brought this story up-again.

[hatzel]

i like how youve spun that,youre constsntly trying to prove it to yourself.jews in iraq,europe hejaz,morrocco were also converts,or not?and that palestinians were converts to christianity,islam from whatever old religions.
were judeans expelled from palestine,back 2000years ago?obviously the shlomo sand book has brought this story up-again.

Ah...what?

I have said, there are converts, but to claim that all are converts is false. The claim that I mention, of all Jews being converts, is based upon the fact that the Khazar Khaganate, a medieval state in the north Caucasus, converted to Judaism in the 11th century. Or, the leaders did, it is unclear how much of the general populace converted. I've heard that this fact is bandied around in the Muslim world, with a claim that all Jews are converts. This isn't true. An unknown number of Jews already present in Central Europe, moving eastwards, presumably came across the remnants of the Khazar Jews, who themselves comprised of converts of various nationalities, in addition, one might assume, to descendants of Judean exiles and merchants. These two communities then merged, creating one community. The Eastern European Jews were descended from this mixture. However, even with this, the genetic make-up and haplotypea of Eastern European Jews, taken as a group, show strong similarities to all other groups of Jews, and also to other Semitic populations. So if they are all descended from converts, these converts were probably from the Levant, too. However, the spread of Judaism isn't merely about the one-time expulsion of Jews from Judea. In fact, Jewish merchant communities had already been established on the coast of India, as well as in Ethiopia and probably in various port cities around the Mediterranean, 500 years before the destruction of the last Jewish state in the Levant before the establishment of Israel, the state of Bar Kokhba. And these groups, many of whom have now relocated to Israel, cannot be called converts; their blood reveals their overwhelmingly Semitic origin. The same can be said of Jewish communities throughout Eurasia. The theory thrown around in Islamic circles, that all Jewish communities are converts, has no currency in mainstream genetic studies.

Not that I think genetics should come in to this, as the Jews are a cultural / religious grouping, not an ethnic one (despite what the Nuremberg Laws may have you believe). And, working on this basis, if the Muslims in Palestine self-identify as Arabs, then they would be considered in the Abrahamic religions as (spiritual) descendants of Ishmael, and if they self-identify as Palestinian, a name taken from the Biblical Philistines, then they're probably Hellenic, but definitely an invading people, with ancestry only in the area now covered by the Gaza strip, reaching northwards as far as Ashdod. Either way, the Abrahamic faiths are united in claiming that the land of Israel has been promised by G-d to the descendants of Ishmael's brother, Isaac, through his son, Jacob, later known as Israel. So, if the Palestinians want their claims of 'ownership' of the land to be confirmed by their religious teachings, I think they'd better change their name to the Israelites. Can't see that happening.

Still, didn't I say that I didn't want a conversation about the genetics, ancestry and so on of the populations in the Levant? This has no impact on the situation in the Middle East, except for those who believe in the idea of a Promised Land for a patriarch's descendants. Which I believe would be the minority of people on this forum. So, please, back to something productive, which isn't set in Israel, but is instead set in Europe. London, to be precise, and the impact that all of this is having on diaspora Jews.

I will be ignoring any other posts about Jewish and / or Palestinian genetics, their religiously mandated right to the land and so on. I will also do my best to ignore any other unrelated topics about Israel in general, as this thread was about potentially founding a group in London, but has now morphed, sensibly, into a discussion about diaspora Jews, and their relationship to the Middle East conflict. Try to keep it on topic, and save the other stuff for the appropriate threads. If that's not too much to ask. Thank you!

[freepalestine]

youre a religious zionist(n.b. grafic),i mention the shlomo sand book.all socalled semites are from arab lands,regardless of religion.the palestinians are the descendents of the judeans,morrocans,russians aint.if you think a stupid book such as torah etc gives you the deeds to my house,village or town ,then you shouldnt be taken seriously.keep to historical facts

[hatzel]

youre a religious zionist(n.b. grafic),i mention the shlomo sand book.all socalled semites are from arab lands,regardless of religion.the palestinians are the descendents of the judeans,morrocans,russians aint.if you think a stupid book such as torah etc gives you the deeds to my house,village or town ,then you shouldnt be taken seriously.keep to historical facts

Oh. My. F*cking. Cheesenuts. :confused:

It is suggested to me that today's Jews are converts. I know that this is a common thing thrown about in the Arab world, to try to get around the fact that the Qur'an teaches that the land of Israel has been exclusively promised to the Israelites. Thus, it is inherently religious, based on, to quote, 'a stupid book', namely the Qur'an. However, I decide to point out that there are flaws in this theory, tell the historical facts about this, before saying that I don't want the discussion to be about anything to do with genetics, religion, or any suggestion of either group having some divine ownership of the land. And I'M the one accused of being a religious zealot, and I'M the one told to keep to historical facts?! I won't even address the totally false claim that all Semitic peoples are from Arab lands, though, because I've already promised not to reply to anything about genetics....

This is not the thread for such discussion. If you want a discussion about how genetics and / or religion do or don't make a difference in the Middle East conflict, make a thread somewhere, and maybe I'll post a few historical facts about this topic on there. Keep it off this thread, some of us are trying to have a serious discussion about how the Middle East conflict affects minority populations in the West.

[9]

The whole concept of "the New Anti-Semitism" is absolute nonsense, concocted by pro-Zionists as a means of silencing opposition to the state of Israel:

You see, this has pushed me into a difficult position. If I claim that this seems like a bit too much like a typical conspiracy theory, where 'Zionists' somehow...I don't know, control the world, control people's thoughts and force international human rights committees and the EU monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia to write about the problem of new anti-Semitism, giving examples of where this happens, then I'll be accused of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and apparently this isn't good. I'm not allowed to accuse people of being anti-Semitic, even if they use arguments straight from Mein Kampf, merely adapted into the current society. Kosher tax, anybody?

I'm also not allowed to suggest that this user has quoted or referenced four people. One of whom is Israeli, the other three of whom are American. But still it's a 'Zionist' idea. Which is also quite typical of anti-Semitic, right-wing rhetoric, referring to all Jews as Zionists. ZOG, anybody?

So if I'm not allowed to do that...what am I allowed to do? Oh, that's it, I have to keep my mouth shut. Because if a Jew writes anything about the situation in Israel, then his opinion is instantly invalid. Because it's just sucking up to Zionist causes. I remember reading an article by Frenchman Bernard-Henri Lévy, who happens to be a Jew but is strongly critical of the Israeli government. The article was entitled 'It's time to stop demonizing Israel', it can be found on the Ha'aretz site. The majority of the comments claimed that it was typical for a Zionist to defend his precious homeland, that he was involved in attempts to brainwash the people into supporting the Zionist cause.

Now, I wonder how I can magically transform my posts into something legitimate...of course I would just PM them to somebody else, somebody who isn't Jewish, and ask if they can post them for me. That would instantly improve their reliability, I'm sure. Problem is that then, accusations of Zionist Occupation Forum would be bandied about, suggesting that the posters on this forum are merely puppets to the evil Zionist, by which I mean Jew. Yeah...let's not do that...

I apologise for my tone here, I do try to keep calm, but when such ill-founded, misguided twaddle is served in my direction, it's difficult to keep the lid on...

Right, well thank you for proving my point.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Krim, a few posts above you said you couldn't post links. I think you're just one post away from being able to do so (since some readers don't like to do their references homework).

[hatzel]

Right, well thank you for proving my point.

Ah, yes, so eloquently argued. How did I ever doubt your axiomatic truth, silly me...

If you feel like elaborating, though, I'd be very happy. I mean, of course you're right, nobody's doubting that for a second, but still I feel as though I lack some knowledge of the truth. Tell me, oh wise prophet! One could easily consider the vandalism of the synagogues in Greece as a typical example of new anti-Semitism, as anti-Semitic actions with anti-Zionist justification. Personally, I can only think of two ways this can fit in with your little theory, but as you know the truth, you can tell me. Okay, so here come the options:

1. Attacks or vandalism targeting synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, Jewish businesses, Jewish homes, Jewish people etc. is not anti-Semitic.

2. The attacks or vandalism targeting synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, Jewish businesses, Jewish homes, Jewish people etc. are actually committed by 'Zionist' agents, in order to harm the image of any group who opposes the Israeli government. Because Mossad don't have anything better to do.

So, which is it going to be? Or is there some third option that I've overlooked? Enlighten me!


Krim, a few posts above you said you couldn't post links. I think you're just one post away from being able to do so (since some readers don't like to do their references homework).

Yeah, I noticed! I've been pretty excited about reaching that magnificent milestone :thumbup1:

[bricolage]

This...ah...hardly warms the whole idea to me, you know? I don't really see why a day intended to commemorate the deaths of up to 15 million people within living memory, particularly in a country such as Greece, where it actually happened, should be ignored because it doesn't, for instance, commemorate the Armenian genocide.
I was mainly responding to your view that it was being boycotted because it was being linked to Israeli actions. I do think there is a problem with Holocaust 'exceptionalism' though, in that a lot of people if you ask them what is genocide will reply 'the Holocaust' and nothing else. I don't think there is any harm linking various atrocities across time. I'm not sure what the Greek Communist Party was doing in its march, maybe it was trying to do this.


Still, I mentioned two, namely the events in Volos and in Larissa.
Ah well I don't know much about Greece but I'll have a look...


In Volos, the graffiti was the accredited of a leftist group by the name of Antiexousiastiki Kinisi,
This is the AntiAuthoritarian Movement which from what I can gather is less of a coherent movement and more of a label people attach to various actions, similar to say the ALF or Antifa, or even C18. I'm perfectly willing to accept that this event did take place but who did it who knows, they probably just put AAM grafitti at the end for some reason.
To be honest this is a big problem of decentralised, disunited groups, the lack of accountability of action.


whilst in Larissa, there was no doubt that leftists were involved, as the events mentioned took place during a protest, which leftists were present in.
I'm not sure this really proves it, leftists are present at lots of protests, does that mean they are automatically to blame for anything that might happen?

That being said I am perfectly happy to distance myself from much that passes for leftism, to be honest to a lot of people here leftism is more a pejorative term than anything else.


The Swedish example was a pro-peace march, mainly as a response to the fact that the community had been suffering greatly from Israel-orientated violence.
Ok, I don't know anything more about Sweden either so I'll have to leave it there. What I would say though is that peace is a very vague and ultimately meaningless term, its what you mean by peace that matters. For example do we live in peace now? Of course not, even if there were no wars, no bombs, no guns, there would be no peace. The structural violence of capital exploitation is violence enough. There is no zero level.


Seems as though people are picking and choosing which bits of Israeli 'propaganda' they believe.
I wasn't talking about Israeli 'propoganda' just direct quotes that illustrate how Israel tries to conflate itself with all Jews in the world. I used the Olmert quote, here is another one from Netanyahu the other day where he called on Palestinians to 'recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people'.


So the reason I mentioned this was, as said, because some Jews may feel more comfortable in a group without anti-Zionist rhetoric, so that they can be certain that none of this is a front for anti-Semitism, or will lead to it.
And what good will this do? How are you going to challenge anti-semitism if you are not engaging in wider 'ant-Zionist' activity and start reinforcing the idea of Jewish exceptionalism. Additionally if Jews start engaging solely with groups devoid of anti-Zionist rhetoric then surely we are going to be involved with groups that are either tacitly or overtly pro-Zionist?

[hatzel]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that this event did take place but who did it who knows, they probably just put AAM grafitti at the end for some reason.

...

I'm not sure this really proves it, leftists are present at lots of protests, does that mean they are automatically to blame for anything that might happen?

For me, this is besides the point. I would argue that the problem exists as soon as it's believable. Of course I'm not claiming that there's some kind of rot throughout the whole political left (no matter how happy I am to point out where there is a bit of a problem), but if I hear that some group, be they antiauthoritarian, communist, anarchist, liberal, fascist, has committed such an act, and don't even doubt it enough to check the details, then I think there might be a bit of a problem with that particular group, for me. Not to say I'm imposing this idea on anybody else :)



And what good will this do? How are you going to challenge anti-semitism if you are not engaging in wider 'ant-Zionist' activity and start reinforcing the idea of Jewish exceptionalism.

I think this might be a fundamental issue, that Jewish exceptionalism 'feeds' anti-Semitism or so on. In truth, there are two ways to fight discrimination, and only one of those ways involves totally equalising everybody, to create one contiguous group. But this, really, doesn't fight the discrimination, it merely removes the possibility of discrimination, by totally integrating the minority into the majority, so that they lose their distinctive status, and, in the process, free themselves from discrimination. This, though, is far from the best solution. I don't oppose to the idea of reinforcing Jewish exceptionalism, as I hope Europe's Muslims, Indi ans, Africans and others all maintain their distinctive identity, too. As a Jew, in a post-Haskalah (Enlightenment) society, I'm perhaps naturally sceptical. Seeing that Haskalah had as it's central tenement the idea of secularising and integrating into the wider society, in order to reduce discrimination and increase their chances in the mainstream society. And many Jews have claimed that no genocide or discrimination could ever kill off the Jewish people as completely and effectively as the Jews own decision to integrate entirely, become no different from their 'host' population and, eventually, lose any semblance of Jewishness, and become entirely unlike anybody else. I would stand against this, not only with regards to the Jews, but also for other minority populations. I would advocate pushing towards a society in which different communities can coexist in peace, without having to homogenise. Any suggestion of a group avoiding discrimination by downplaying their distinctive nature will never fly in my books...


Additionally if Jews start engaging solely with groups devoid of anti-Zionist rhetoric then surely we are going to be involved with groups that are either tacitly or overtly pro-Zionist?

I think this all depends on what we mean by pro- and anti-Zionist. There's an interesting article (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/strenger-than-fiction-to-a-martian-zionism-could-be-confusing-1.311924) about these definitions on Haaretz. There's no reason to think that a group devoid of (European) anti-Zionists would automatically be Zionist by the Israeli definition. Problem is, as the article touches on, certain 'anti-Zionist' Israelis would be considered Zionist by European standards. Or would at least be brandished as such. So I think this is all a matter of definition...in addition, why is there necessarily a problem to be involve in tacitly or overtly pro-Zionist (by any definition) groups anyway? This isn't an opportunity for this whole thing to return to the 'Israel is bad!' thing, more why this needs to be mentioned at all, unless we mean that there is no choice on the matter, and all must be in agreement. Which would be part of the issue, perhaps...

[bricolage]

For me, this is besides the point. I would argue that the problem exists as soon as it's believable.
Well ok, but...


but if I hear that some group, be they antiauthoritarian, communist, anarchist, liberal, fascist, has committed such an act, and don't even doubt it enough to check the details, then I think there might be a bit of a problem with that particular group, for me.I think people should check the facts. That they don't is problematic.
Case study. Last year there was an occupation of a lecture theatre at my University over Israeli attacks on Gaza. At the same time (actually I think it was before) somebody put a boycott Israel sticking on the Jewish Society notice board. The Jewish Society immediately claimed a link between the two despite the fact there was no evidence of it and there was no link there at all. If people had checked the facts, and had checked the statement we released from 'Jewish activists' then they would know that. But they didn't.


I think this might be a fundamental issue, that Jewish exceptionalism 'feeds' anti-Semitism or so on.By Jewish exceptionalism I was referring to the idea that Jews need to organise separately (inb4DNZmentionsBundism). Because then what? Arguably many other groups, Muslims, Roma, black people... are oppressed far more than Jews in society so they should organise separtely too? What about women? Queers? We then immediately find ourselves split into various single issue identity groups, failing to present any viable challenge to capital. Divide and rule at its finest.

People can retain their identity all they want, I have every reason to believe that most of what we speak of as identity today (especially the various nationalities) of the world would wither away once class society does. And no this isn't some grey homogenous world but a new one in our hearts that does away with near to all of what persists today. As for the present sure people can hold whatever identity they want, I'll be having a meal for Rosh Hashanah this week I just don't think Jews need to start splitting into their own niche groups.


I think this all depends on what we mean by pro- and anti-Zionist.Well yes, I think it is quite obvious what passes for anti-Zionist in Israel would probably not do so in Europe, so...


There's no reason to think that a group devoid of (European) anti-Zionists would automatically be Zionist by the Israeli definition.That seems to be because the Israeli definition is quite skewed

[Bilan]

Ah...I don't understand here. You quote that the Greek Communist Party made anti-Israel statements. This is perfectly acceptable, they can think what they want. As my post mentioned, these same people who said what you quoted ended their anti-Israel / pro-Palestine protest march at the Holocaust Memorial, a clear political statement.

Irrelevant. That isn't tantamount to anti-semitism. If anything, it's an attempt to demonstrate the parallels, albeit in a (relatively) crass way.
That doesn't make the GCP anti-semitic in any sense, and I find that characterisation misleading.



And, as said, Syriza (who would no doubt agree with every word of that said by the GCP) chose to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, once again clearly making some kind of link between the current situation in Israel, and those Jews who died before this state even came into existence.

Why would a separate political party agree with "every word said by the GCP", and also, you haven't shown where Syriza have done that (or at least, I have missed it) or why.



By quoting the list of synagogues, cemeteries and memorials which were vandalised, often with anti-Israel slogans, it almost feels as though you are legitimising the idea of a group vandalising synagogues, because of what they believe, as per the citation above. I sincerely hope you aren't taking this opinion, though, and I'm sure that I've just misunderstood...


That was a chosen interpretation. I quoted the list because, at least to me, they were all evidently not by 'the far left' or even the left. It is also well known that fascist groups are commonly in opposition to Israel.



However, as one source (well, two sources, with more available online, but yes, one country and one time, that's true) doesn't seem to be enough, let's look at an excerpt of story from that bastion of equality and tolerance, Sweden, specifically Malmö:
“I’m not saying we don’t have problems with neo-Nazis, but the threats aren’t as concrete,” he explained.

“More often it’s the far-left that commonly use Jews as a punching bag for their disdain toward the policies of Israel, even if Jews in Malmö have nothing to do with Israeli politics.

“It’s shameful and regrettable that such a powerful politician could be so ignorant about the threats we face.”


Proof?




The 'violent counter demonstration' was predominantly Leftist and / or Muslim, and pro-Palestinian. To violently oppose a pro-peace rally...can we really think that a non-Jewish pro-peace rally would be opposed by pro-Palestinians? No, because Jews are automatically considered Zionists, supporters of Israeli policy and so on. So now Jews cannot merely call for peace, they have to actively join those who vilify and demonise Israel, or it's their own fault for getting involved? Disgusting...[quote]

There is an obvious blending of opposition to this rally. Why did they oppose the rally? Was there consensus amongst the left, Palestinian and Muslim people on what was wrong with this rally? Was their conflict? Why? What were the goals of the Jewish community in this demonstration? Were their conflicts within the Jewish community who supported this demonstration? Why?

You're taking everything at face value, and not actually uncovering anything. You are simply manipulating things without assessing them.
That or you're not actually explaining the depth.

[quote]
Carrying on this idea, let's look at a picture from a pro-Palestine protest in Edinburgh last year: upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Protests_Edinburgh_10_1_2009_5.JPG

I hope you won't claim that the wording on this sign is remotely acceptable. It's one thing to claim that the Israeli state is murderous, but this sign goes beyond that. Well into anti-Semitism, I think we can all agree. I'm sorry, though, that this 'source' doesn't actually concern the vandalism of synagogues, although I don't think it's too much of a jump between this obvious anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitic actions against Jews or synagogues. Also, I admit that we have no proof that the holder of this sign is leftist, but I think we can all agree that it's more than possible.


Who cares if it is possible? It is possible in the sense that some leftists find it necessary to make parallels to Nazism all the time, and that some leftists are painfully thick.
But it is not likely, nor is it a representation of the general politics of the left, the far left, or communists.
And on top of that, it is one placard from one demonstration by one person with no knowledge of their actual politics.
In a word: it's useless.





I still think you, and others, are hiding behind the actions of the Israeli government, rather than coming out and saying, clearly, that nobody deserves to suffer because of things which have nothing to do with them. Hindu and Muslim populations here in Europe often quarrel whenever there is a skirmish in Kashmir. I even remember a local Portuguese family's house getting a brick through the window after the England-Portugal game, the one with Ronaldo's infamous wink. Both of these are clearly instances of unfair discrimination, made even more unfair by the fact that the people in question may not even identify with, for instance, India's military excursions against Pakistan, or Portugal's desire to win some football game. Equally, for diaspora Jews to suffer because of the actions of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. As various groups and individuals, Leftist or otherwise, happily claiming that there is a link between the two, almost legitimising acts against Jews in the name of anti-Zionism, I think I am well within my rights to claim that there is a problem.

It is more than understandable for a Jew to be uncomfortable if members of their group hold such signs, or if the group as a whole acts as the GCP. It is equally understandable that a Jew be somewhat critical or apprehensive of any anti-Zionists, due to the chance, be it 1%, 10%, 80%, whatever, that this anti-Zionist may think that it is acceptable to vandalise synagogues, or even actively participate. Which is obvious anti-Semitism. The only way, I argue, for a Jew to be certain that neither their group, nor any member of their group, supports or participates in anti-Semitic activity, under the guise of anti-Zionism, is to be in a group free of anti-Zionists.

This is largely presumptuous, and drawing links where there aren't any. Just because you join the dots doesn't mean it'll turn into a picture: sometimes you can join the dots poorly, and it'll just be a squiggle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The general before the specifics:


I think this might be a fundamental issue, that Jewish exceptionalism 'feeds' anti-Semitism or so on. In truth, there are two ways to fight discrimination, and only one of those ways involves totally equalising everybody, to create one contiguous group. But this, really, doesn't fight the discrimination, it merely removes the possibility of discrimination, by totally integrating the minority into the majority, so that they lose their distinctive status, and, in the process, free themselves from discrimination. This, though, is far from the best solution. I don't oppose to the idea of reinforcing Jewish exceptionalism, as I hope Europe's Muslims, Indi ans, Africans and others all maintain their distinctive identity, too. As a Jew, in a post-Haskalah (Enlightenment) society, I'm perhaps naturally sceptical. Seeing that Haskalah had as it's central tenement the idea of secularising and integrating into the wider society, in order to reduce discrimination and increase their chances in the mainstream society. And many Jews have claimed that no genocide or discrimination could ever kill off the Jewish people as completely and effectively as the Jews own decision to integrate entirely, become no different from their 'host' population and, eventually, lose any semblance of Jewishness, and become entirely unlike anybody else. I would stand against this, not only with regards to the Jews, but also for other minority populations. I would advocate pushing towards a society in which different communities can coexist in peace, without having to homogenise. Any suggestion of a group avoiding discrimination by downplaying their distinctive nature will never fly in my books...

To what extent can different communities "coexist in peace"? I have a thread in the OI Religion subforum about an anti-religious critique that incorporates a critique of multiculturalism. One of those critiques is self-imposed ghetto-ization.


By Jewish exceptionalism I was referring to the idea that Jews need to organise separately (inb4DNZmentionsBundism). Because then what? Arguably many other groups, Muslims, Roma, black people... are oppressed far more than Jews in society so they should organise separtely too? What about women? Queers? We then immediately find ourselves split into various single issue identity groups, failing to present any viable challenge to capital. Divide and rule at its finest.

People can retain their identity all they want, I have every reason to believe that most of what we speak of as identity today (especially the various nationalities) of the world would wither away once class society does. And no this isn't some grey homogenous world but a new one in our hearts that does away with near to all of what persists today. As for the present sure people can hold whatever identity they want, I'll be having a meal for Rosh Hashanah next week I just don't think Jews need to start splitting into their own niche groups.

Yeah, the constant problem with separate political organization a la Bundism (I already mentioned the Bund earlier, so I don't understand your joke) is one of identity politics, something which some left corners are thankfully beginning to discard.

[bricolage]

Yeah, the constant problem with separate political organization a la Bundism (I already mentioned the Bund earlier, so I don't understand your joke)
You mentioned it quite a few times which I why I thought you might like to mention it again :)

(Oh by the way have you ever read 'Live Working or Die Fighting' by Paul Mason, its got a good chapter on the Bund, also one on the SPD 'world within a world' - actually all the chapters are good, its an excellent book - you'd probably quite like it.)


is one of identity politics, something which some left corners are thankfully beginning to discard.
Indeed.

[hatzel]

People can retain their identity all they want, I have every reason to believe that most of what we speak of as identity today (especially the various nationalities) of the world would wither away once class society does.



To what extent can different communities "coexist in peace"? I have a thread in the OI Religion subforum about an anti-religious critique that incorporates a critique of multiculturalism

I call foul play! I can't see this ever viably happening, the equalisation of all communities in to one. For one reason because this is tantamount to cultural imperialism. If all the nationalities became one, and there was no difference between one community and the next...effectively, the most dominant world culture, probably American, would be shared by all. Perhaps with some influence from other major cultures, but what of the Pacific islanders, for instance? Or the oft-persecuted Roma? Their culture would be totally absorbed by this new global culture, leaving little if any mark on the rest. And even if a single global culture would come about, unless there was also a single global language, there would automatically grow differences between different language groups, as ideas spread amongst one language community are severely slowed down, or even halted entirely, by language boundaries. So we would also have to accidentally impose one single language on all of the world's population. And even if we did this, and there was only one language spoken identically world-wide, this language would, eventually, develop according to normal linguistic laws into a variety of regional dialects, some of which may eventually be mutually unintelligible. Which would just lead to the recreation of different communities. I can see no option but to defend individual minorities against the wave of cultural imperialism, which is, in my opinion, one of the more destructive forces in the world today.

Maybe I'm in the minority in advocating community governance. Well, community law-enforcement may be a more correct term. Free establishment of separate courts for minority affairs and so on. So maybe this is something important that should be throw out into the ring, if we're going to address the idea of identity politics :thumbup1: I would also say that, unlike Bundism, I wasn't originally talking about identity politics. I was talking about Talmud politics, totally different thing. This isn't just a suggestion of Jews gathering together and doing generic stuff everybody else does, this is basing the stuff that these Jews do on the scriptures. I think that's distinct from identity politics, it's just a coincidence that most non-Jews don't base their thoughts around the writings of the old rabbis :laugh:

Also, whoever it was who accused this whole idea of being single-issue, I suggest we all remember that the discussion turned towards one particular issue. It's an important issue, sure, but not the only one, by any stretch of the imagination! It's not my fault if the discussions circles around one distinctive issue, ignoring other areas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I call foul play! I can't see this ever viably happening, the equalisation of all communities in to one. For one reason because this is tantamount to cultural imperialism.

I was advocating a middle-of-the-road solution in that OI thread. Please read the part on Quebec's culture policy.


Unless there was also a single global language, there would automatically grow differences between different language groups, as ideas spread amongst one language community are severely slowed down, or even halted entirely, by language boundaries. So we would also have to accidentally impose one single language on all of the world's population. And even if we did this, and there was only one language spoken identically world-wide, this language would, eventually, develop according to normal linguistic laws into a variety of regional dialects, some of which may eventually be mutually unintelligible.

Well, if you read my post there on Quebec's culture policy, the middle-of-the-road solution does involve fluency in the majority language. I understand the problem with emerging dialects, but so far English has yet to have multiple dialects. So far the distinctions are at the level of idioms.


Free establishment of separate courts for minority affairs and so on. So maybe this is something important that should be throw out into the ring, if we're going to address the idea of identity politics. I would also say that, unlike Bundism, I wasn't originally talking about identity politics. I was talking about Talmud politics, totally different thing. This isn't just a suggestion of Jews gathering together and doing generic stuff everybody else does, this is basing the stuff that these Jews do on the scriptures. I think that's distinct from identity politics, it's just a coincidence that most non-Jews don't base their thoughts around the writings of the old rabbis :laugh:

But this is unrelated to your stuff on separate Jewish political organizations. What would these political organizations do then, or are you suggesting a Jewish disengagement from the general politics?

[Fietsketting]

So...well, some might say that there is a bit of a difference between strong criticism of Israel and complete pandering to the Palestinians. Which is strange, because the left aren't really supposed to cosy up to right-wing islamonationalist entities, which is exactly what they are doing in supporting the Palestinian actions against Israel. Criticism of Israel is accepted, as long as criticism of the Palestinian government, which is equally deserved, comes hand in hand, rather than being totally ignored.



Exactly my point. And that goes for alot of other causes as well.

[9]

Ah, yes, so eloquently argued. How did I ever doubt your axiomatic truth, silly me...

If you feel like elaborating, though

Sorry, I'm just not interested in discussing with you any further.

[hatzel]

I was advocating a middle-of-the-road solution in that OI thread. Please read the part on Quebec's culture policy.

...

Well, if you read my post there on Quebec's culture policy, the middle-of-the-road solution does involve fluency in the majority language. I understand the problem with emerging dialects, but so far English has yet to have multiple dialects. So far the distinctions are at the level of idioms.

Okay, I'll check that out :thumbup1: However, English does of course have multiple dialects, and even though most of them are mutually intelligible, the strong dialect of Shetland, for instance, is pretty impenetrable for me. In addition, I would say it's a relative thing. At the moment, it's pretty easy to know who's from London, and who Liverpool, and who Birmingham, whilst we can also distinguish a few American accents from one another (and, presumably, Americans are better than us), and we know who is from Australia. At the moment, we consider these all to be the same language, though, because we have French or Chinese as a comparison. If everybody were to speak English, then, relatively-speaking, Texan English, Auckland English or the English spoken by French Canadians, would take the place, from a London English perspective, of French or Chinese today. Sure, we would at least understand what they're saying, but they would, I would argue, be considered a distinct language community in all other affairs. Plus, I think that, in such a community, the distinctions would actually be intensified. People from Leeds would start using more typical Leeds slang, as would those from Miami, in order to assert the separation of their group. This relies on my assumption that there's something in the human psyche which demands to be part of a group, much like wolves are in packs and lions in prides. Whilst there are only humans, subsets of these humans will develop, to fulfil that group mentality. The only way to unite all of mankind into one huge group / pack / pride would be in the face of some non-Earthly being comparable to us, that we could communicate with. Or, it wouldn't have to be non-Earthly. If the monkeys start speaking English and building houses, then there's a chance humanity might be able to unite as a group. But that might just lead to discrimination against the monkey population...I don't know :laugh:




But this is unrelated to your stuff on separate Jewish political organizations. What would these political organizations do then, or are you suggesting a Jewish disengagement from the general politics?

Quite the opposite! The organisation would be...well, let's call it Torah Bundism. On the one hand, sure, it would protest for Jewish related affairs. If anybody tries to ban public sector workers from wearing religious symbols, such as the skull cap, we'd be there straight away to protest that! So, in some respects, it would be like the Bunds. In addition to this, I would also advocate more attention to general minority affairs, such as the construction of mosques or (and this might be controversial) the right for African immigrants to continue their traditions of female genital cutting*. And this is where the minority courts come in. Because, if a Jew were to do this, it would be against the scripture, against the laws of Judaism, and he would rightfully be punished for it. This is a suggestion of mine, which may not represent where I would want to take the organisation, that minority groups should be allowed the right of autonomous law-making. So I would advocate the free application of Shariah law in religious Muslim communities in Europe, at least for Muslim-Muslim affairs, and at least the minor issues. So, for instance, I would support any suggestion that dedicated Islamic courts may be officially allowed to rule on property disputes in the Muslim community. And the same for Jews, with their own courts, and the Roma.

Anyway, back to the issue...the difference between secular Bundism and my suggested Torah Bundism is that, in addition to Jewish minority affairs, this organisation would be based on Halachic rulings. I think I've already written long ago on this thread that the group shouldn't be considered a socialist / communist / anarchist / whatever group, with bits of the Torah thrown in here and there, but a group which is based entirely on the wealth of religious scriptures written over the last few thousand years. I just happen to believe that traditional Judaism advocates a socialist, perhaps even anarchistic outlook, which is why the texts would be interpreted with left-leaning eyes, and filtered through such a mind, as opposed to normal religious groups, which are clumped more usually on the more conservative wing of politics. Which I don't think fits in with Judaism, as a central tenant is waiting and praying for the coming of the Messiah, who will pretty much just be the leader of the revolution to end all revolutions. However, to achieve a good lot for the Jews in the time between now and the aforementioned revolution, I feel as though religious Jews may have to somewhat disengage from general politics. Or, from general groups. An example of this is tza'ar ba'alei chayim, the religious prohibition against cruelty to animals. With this in heart, I have personally taken part in protests organised by animal rights groups against the proposed construction of a huge slaughterhouse in Germany, and also a protest against the use of animals in the circus. However, as it is because of animal rights proliferation that shechita, that is to say kosher slaughter, is illegal in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and perhaps soon in a few other countries in Europe, a Jew would be foolish to join such a group whole-heartedly and without condition, and should be free to participate in a counter-protest, without being considered a traitor by his animal-loving buddies. And a Jew who believes that the eventual 'true' revolution, under the command of the Messiah, will be G-d-given, would find it counter-productive to be involved in revolutionary groups which deny the existence of G-d, as this would do nothing to speed up the onset of the revolution :cool:

In summary, this is Torah Bundism. Based in the religion and influenced by those parts of leftist writings which fit in with the essence, rather than based in leftism and influenced by those parts of the scripture which fit in with the essence. But not forgetting the importance of defending the minority, nor forgetting the fine traditions of labour Zionism and the Bund...strange to say that, as they're pretty well diametrically opposed :confused:



* This is a tough issue. I don't think it's necessarily right to limit the population from doing this as we have. Remember how it worked...they came, we noticed they did that, so we made it illegal. Then we noticed that they often just went home on holiday, and it was done whilst there. So we made it illegal for somebody to take their daughter out of the country for that purpose. But that didn't stop it, so now it's being made illegal in Africa, too. Look at Egypt, which made FGC illegal a few years ago. Even though something like 96% of Egyptian women have undergone the procedure (in Egypt, by the way, the traditional way of cutting, and what is cut, is the least 'intrusive' and damaging of all the traditions. I've heard that there are even some white European women who get similar procedures done for cosmetic reasons. As if anything would really make it look that much better :laugh:). I can't consider Egypt's ban on FGC as anything other than bowing to European demands, or trying to be more European. Which is unfortunate.

Also I think it's selfish that user 9 doesn't want to share his wisdom with me. Now I'll be stupid forever. That sucks :thumbdown:

[Die Neue Zeit]

And this is where the minority courts come in. Because, if a Jew were to do this, it would be against the scripture, against the laws of Judaism, and he would rightfully be punished for it. This is a suggestion of mine, which may not represent where I would want to take the organisation, that minority groups should be allowed the right of autonomous law-making. So I would advocate the free application of Shariah law in religious Muslim communities in Europe, at least for Muslim-Muslim affairs, and at least the minor issues. So, for instance, I would support any suggestion that dedicated Islamic courts may be officially allowed to rule on property disputes in the Muslim community. And the same for Jews, with their own courts, and the Roma.

I'm not sure I can support a minority courts system. There's something like this in Ontario, but at least there the secular law mandates an opt-out option for those preferring sharia law. Moreover, without the opt-out option, this kinda goes against separation of church and state, in that the church gets into state-sanctioned legal affairs.