Anti-Semetism and the German left

[gorillafuck]

Someone told me that in Germany, the movement against zionism is almost all anti-semetic. Is that true? I'd be surprised, since that would contrast to America quite a lot, where really outwardly pro-Israel people are often extremely racist (I'm not referring to just someone who is pro-Israel but doesn't really pay attention, I mean pro-Israel activists are notoriously racist people), and people with anti-zionist views are generally leftist and anti-racist people who aren't anti-semetic.

Can the Germans of revleft give me an answer? Thanks.

[Rafiq]

(Lol widerstand) I don't know, I hear the German left is split between anti Germans and anti imps.

But I don't believe ALL the German anti zionists are anti semites

[hatzel]

I can state that a German veganarchist told me that there have been incidents in which certain unnamed leftist groups have vandalised synagogues with anti-Zionist graffiti and so on. I can't remember the exact details of which town he was talking about (and all German towns sound the same to me), but I see no reason to doubt him. I don't think a German leftist would want to make up stories of the German left smashing up synagogues and stuff (though I must stress that he said it was only a few marginal groups, and the vast majority of leftists in Germany did not view these attacks as acceptable or anything like that). Of course, as Chapayev has identified, Widerstand would be the best person to ask about this, I feel...might have more exacting information than I have...

Speaking from a personal perspective, I find Germany a bit depressing. I've only been there once, but I saw far too many police guards in front of bagel shops and graffiti on Holocaust Memorials, and one too many people shouted mindless slogans about how great Germany is at me from their passing cars to make me want to go back. I have heard that Germany has (or at least had, a few years ago) the highest incidence of antisemitic incidents compared to the size of its Jewish population in western Europe. I doubt that's still true, though, because personal experiences suggest I feel far less safe a little bit further north in Sweden than I ever did in Germany. But I doubt that the left plays that great a roll in that. I still hold Greece up as Europe's capital of leftist antisemitism...


Anyway! I think a potential issue, from my point of view, is the reluctance of the German left to stand up against antisemitism coming from anti-Zionist rhetoric. That is to say, outside of the anti-German movement, I don't think there are many groups who really want to expend that much effort to preventing anti-Zionist activity directed towards the Jewish community, in case they themselves get accused of being Zionists themselves. Of course I could carry on complaining that this is a big issue in many countries in Europe, but my gut instinct is that the anti-Germans accidentally contribute to this sentiment in Germany. That is to say, it's feasible to see how a German leftist group standing up against antisemitism might be very quickly grouped in with the anti-Germans, in the public consciousness, so those groups who do not want to be considered anti-Germans might shy away from such activity. In other countries, of course, where there is no analogous movement, there isn't the same...what's the word...repellent, maybe. So maybe leftist groups in other countries will take more pre-emptive steps to prevent anti-Zionism realised as antisemitic activity, whilst the non-anti-German left is somewhat more content to let it happen and just condemn it afterwards...


I admit that I don't have any facts and figures or anything to back this up. It's just a gut feeling coming from my experiences as a Jew in Germany, and amongst the German left. Because, of course, if you walk into a bunch of leftists wearing a kippah, you're going to find yourself dragged into a conversation about Israel and, if in Germany, Auschwitz, irrespective of whether or not you really want to talk about that. Of course this could be seen as proof of the association between diaspora Jews and the modern state of Israel in many people's eyes, rightly or wrongly, and it's not so great a leap to believe that even some leftists, sure in their minds that there is a unbreakable connection between the Jewish people and Israel, may then apply their anti-Israeli opinions to their domestic Jews. Remember of course how many Jews in France and Germany found themselves slaughtered during the Crusades because they were the closest thing to the then-hated Muslim invaders in the Levant a Bavarian peasant would ever come across. Same story during the Mongol invasions. But of course I agree that very few leftists, in Germany or elsewhere, would really subscribe to this thought, as it's more the forte of the right-wing and certain Muslims. But it doesn't mean none do, and it doesn't mean that some leftist in some little town somewhere in Germany, too far from an Israeli embassy or anything, couldn't have found himself targetting the local synagogue, as 'the next best thing' or 'the closest thing to Israel in town'...I just don't have the exact details of which synagogue in which town in Germany this was, I just know that the German left itself admits to its having happened...

[gorillafuck]

(Lol widerstand) I don't know, I hear the German left is split between anti Germans and anti imps.
If the left in Germany is divided between people who are sympathetic to Israel and Hamas/Taliban supporters then the German left is in a fucking awful state.

I could imagine that the anti-Germans (probably should be referred to as the German pro-colonialist left, to make their views clearer. "Anti-Germans" doesn't make much sense) could actually contribute to anti-semetism in Germany quite a lot, since they interpret criticism of Israel as anti-semetic, and therefore it's on their agenda to reinforce the conflation of the Israeli government with the Jews as people. Then again, I don't know how much influence they actually have.

[Palingenisis]

Can the Germans of revleft give me an answer? Thanks.

Anyone is who against Israel and doesnt believe that just because someone is jewish that gives them a free pass to do anything is labelled anti-semitic by the Anti-German nut cases.

[Widerstand]

Someone told me that in Germany, the movement against zionism is almost all anti-semetic. Is that true? I'd be surprised, since that would contrast to America quite a lot, where really outwardly pro-Israel people are often extremely racist (I'm not referring to just someone who is pro-Israel but doesn't really pay attention, I mean pro-Israel activists are notoriously racist people), and people with anti-zionist views are generally leftist and anti-racist people who aren't anti-semetic.

Can the Germans of revleft give me an answer? Thanks.

Okay, first, stop twisting what I said. I said that large parts, I may have even said "the majority" at one point, are anti-semitic. That's not the same as "almost all." Second, you need to realize that German Anti-Zionists aren't confined to the revolutionary left, there are social democrat Anti-Zionists, green Anti-Zionists, liberal Anti-Zionists, conservative Anti-Zionists, far right Anti-Zionists, etc. What is remarkable however is that no Anti-Zionist really gives a shit about it unless someone is openly Anti-Semitic, which most aren't. Because attacking "the Jewish state" / "Jewish Fascism" works just as well. This is important for any Israel discourse by the way, that despite the fact that there are non-Jews in Israel, even in the IDF, it is always identified as a "Jewish state" primarily, and only after that as a colonialist, apartheid, racist regime.

Then you have to realize that a survey had shown that about 40% of Germans are sympathetic to Anti-Semitism, and another that about 15% are openly Anti-Semite. Then there's also the rather notorious survey conducted in the years after reunification which found no difference in attitudes between West German Anti-Semites and East German Anti-Zionists.

However, large parts of the German radical left close their eyes to this, don't consider Anti-Semitism important, or simply refuse to accept that Anti-Zionism acts as a scapegoat for Anti-Semitism.

Protesting Israel is quite fancy in Germany, and in fact Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism runs deep in German society. The mossad is a popular hate figure of sorts, and guess why? Because they tracked down ex-Nazis after WW2. Israel related conspiracy theories (which aren't much different from Jew-conspiracy "Protocols of the Elders" style bullshit) are, and the "reverse holocaust" rhetoric as well as comparing Israel to the Third Reich (which usually is accompanied by either downplaying death camps or exaggerating what Israel does) are rather popular amongst "Anti-Zionists" here. Now individually these may be "minor threats", but if you throw them in a pot and twirl them around, they are pretty worrying.

Some Articles on the topic:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=88
http://www.signandsight.com/features/434.html
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-32.htm < (comprehensive, but biased)


(Lol widerstand) I don't know, I hear the German left is split between anti Germans and anti imps.

But I don't believe ALL the German anti zionists are anti semites


If the left in Germany is divided between people who are sympathetic to Israel and Hamas/Taliban supporters then the German left is in a fucking awful state.

I could imagine that the anti-Germans (probably should be referred to as the German pro-colonialist left, to make their views clearer. "Anti-Germans" doesn't make much sense) could actually contribute to anti-semetism in Germany quite a lot, since they interpret criticism of Israel as anti-semetic, and therefore it's on their agenda to reinforce the conflation of the Israeli government with the Jews as people. Then again, I don't know how much influence they actually have.

The Anti-Germans aren't pro-colonialist, and that you refer to them as such speaks volumes of your ignorance. Anti-Germans originally are what the name says (just as Anti-Imps originally were what the name says). They came about as part of the German radical left, particularly the Autonomen, as a reaction to growing nationalist attitudes in Germany after the reunification, which included large parts of the German left. Before long they also started criticizing Anti-Semitism within the German left, something they were amongst the first ones to do.

I'm not exactly sure when, but at one point some Anti-Germans started supporting Israel, and a few (Bahamas) even were in favor of American interventionism. These are minority positions however (in fact I know no Anti-German that supports Israel let alone the USA, most evoke Israel support, if at all, in a symbolic and provoking manner). However in recent years, due to the massive slander done against the Anti-Germans, most moderate Anti-Germans, eg. those who are really just against nationalism, have started calling themselves Anti-Nationals. Luckily enough, in recent years, some non-strictly Anti-German groups have started analyzing and criticizing leftist and "Anti-Zionist" Anti-Semitism, yet I doubt this would've happened without the Anti-Germans kicking off a shitstorm first.

Anti-Imps were part of the backlash against Anti-Germans, and they, together with Anti-Germans, constitute the split that divides the German left nowadays (some tendencies such as the Autonomen more affected than others). Minorities of them, too, have been driven to absurd positions over the years, such as unconditional support for the Taliban, Hamas, or even "Iran's struggle against Israel."

I guess it makes also sense to quote a post of psycho on the topic here:


German anti-imp urban guerillia groups got their training mostly in libanon/syria and got there so exited about running with the big boys (palestenian black november mostly) that they jumped the palestinian bandwagon with a bit over enthausiasm.
during some solidarity actions with the palestinian cause some shit happend that stank more than a bit of anti-semitism. Some idiot RZ members attacked an german synogoge during the night of the kristalnacht remembrance, an bus carying israeli toerists to an former concentration camp got shot at and during several joint RAF/black november hostage actions jews got seperate from the other hostages and shot first.
this triggerd an valid debate in the german left about leftist anti-semitism and terrorism in general, this evolved into the anti-german critique.


its important to note though that the anti-germans are not an homogenious group.
for example you can already define 3 very distinct kinds of anti-germans that all deserve an difrent approach.

1- moderate anti-germans/anti-nationale;
(although mostly marxists they hold on nations/israel opinions not that far removed from mine)
in short: all nations states are bad and need to be done away with, the reforming of an strong, big nation state in the midle of europe was an bad idea. The existence of the state of israel is by now an hystoric fact. As long as nation states exist, israel has as much right to exist as anyother state. And an war won by its arab neighbour states will propably have catastrofic consequences for the israeli proletariat.
The kibutzim project was an intresting experiment in "socialist" autonomus comunity forming. And no mather what, israel is still one of the only democratic nation state in the midle east (besides libanon and turkey) surrounded by authoritarian nation states, there is no reason to support the latter over the former like some/most anti-imps do.
(note that i, and so do some moderate anti-g's, vehermently oppose the occupation and israels apartheid system)
very OK people to be on an antifa demo with, just dont go into any political discussions with them afterwards.

2. egotronic kiddo's
teens with an blackblock fetish and and preference for electro (egotronic is an populair anti-german electro band), lifestylists who wave israeli flags and glorify the dresden massacar and the RAF because it winds up their parents and pisses of the nazi's big time. actual political knowledge close to zero.
the fad is dying out, greek style insurectionism is the new israel.

3. Bahama's crowd
the hardcore anti-germans, during the whole anti-german debate they took such weird positions that someone, expressing the feelings of the majority of the autonomus left, asked them why thei didnt "fuck off to the bahama's"?. They then started their own critical magazine called bahama's and like any isolated group completly radicalised. By now they support the EDL as an proletarian movement against islamofascism, write positve articels about former hitler jugend member pope ratzinger because he is an force against islamification etc etc.
beyond help, best to ignore them, they are now getting in their 40's so very soon no'one takes them serious anymore anyway.

edit: It's also just a matter of time before freepalestine will negrep my posts in this thread and call me zionist or racist.

[gorillafuck]

Okay, first, stop twisting what I said. I said that large parts, I may have even said "the majority" at one point, are anti-semitic. That's not the same as "almost all."
My mistake. I should have said that you said "the majority" instead of "almost all".


Second, you need to realize that German Anti-Zionists aren't confined to the revolutionary left, there are social democrat Anti-Zionists, green Anti-Zionists, liberal Anti-Zionists, conservative Anti-Zionists, far right Anti-Zionists, etc. I know, but we're the far left. So we discuss far left, working class politics. We discuss anti-war politics too, even though fascists oppose the wars. We discuss strikes, there are social democrats who support certain strikes.


What is remarkable however is that no Anti-Zionist really gives a shit about it unless someone is openly Anti-Semitic, which most aren't. Because attacking "the Jewish state" / "Jewish Fascism" works just as well. This is important for any Israel discourse by the way, that despite the fact that there are non-Jews in Israel, even in the IDF, it is always identified as a "Jewish state" primarily, and only after that as a colonialist, apartheid, racist regime.The Jewish state should be attacked because it is a nationalist, racist, capitalist state, yes. I don't see the difference between attacking the Jewish State and attacking The Islamic Republic. Is a Jewish bourgeois state less bad than an Islamic bourgeois state?


Then you have to realize that a survey had shown that about 40% of Germans are sympathetic to Anti-Semitism, and another that about 15% are openly Anti-Semite. Then there's also the rather notorious survey conducted in the years after reunification which found no difference in attitudes between West German Anti-Semites and East German Anti-Zionists.That's shocking, show me the survey.


Protesting Israel is quite fancy in Germany, and in fact Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionism runs deep in German society. The mossad is a popular hate figure of sorts, and guess why? Because they tracked down ex-Nazis after WW2. Israel related conspiracy theories (which aren't much different from Jew-conspiracy "Protocols of the Elders" style bullshit) are, and the "reverse holocaust" rhetoric as well as comparing Israel to the Third Reich (which usually is accompanied by either downplaying death camps or exaggerating what Israel does) are rather popular amongst "Anti-Zionists" here. Now individually these may be "minor threats", but if you throw them in a pot and twirl them around, they are pretty worrying.Okay. This is the kind of answer I want. There's a clear problem when the mossad is attacked for anti-semetic reasons rather than the very clear actual reasons that it should be opposed.


The Anti-Germans aren't pro-colonialist, and that you refer to them as such speaks volumes of your ignorance.If they are in favor of Israel, a colonialist settler state, they are pro colonialists. If they are sympathetic to Israel, they are sympathetic to colonialism.


I'm not exactly sure when, but at one point some Anti-Germans started supporting Israel, and a few (Bahamas) even were in favor of American interventionism. These are minority positions however (in fact I know no Anti-German that supports Israel let alone the USA, most evoke Israel support, if at all, in a symbolic and provoking manner).They carry them to provoke people?

Gee, what a clever bunch. Maybe they should carry pictures of children with white phosphorus burns. That'd be provocative. And maybe Turkish leftists who are against Kurdish nationalism should carry Turkish flags, to show solidarity with the Turkish state in their treatment of Kurds. For provocation, of course!


However in recent years, due to the massive slander done against the Anti-Germans, most moderate Anti-Germans, eg. those who are really just against nationalism, have started calling themselves Anti-Nationals. Luckily enough, in recent years, some non-strictly Anti-German groups have started analyzing and criticizing leftist and "Anti-Zionist" Anti-Semitism, yet I doubt this would've happened without the Anti-Germans kicking off a shitstorm first.Fair enough. But this is no reason to excuse Israeli colonialism, genocide, and atrocities. All capitalist governments are to opposed and exposed.


Anti-Imps were part of the backlash against Anti-Germans, and they, together with Anti-Germans, constitute the split that divides the German left nowadays (some tendencies such as the Autonomen more affected than others). Minorities of them, too, have been driven to absurd positions over the years, such as unconditional support for the Taliban, Hamas, or even "Iran's struggle against Israel."That shows problems with the left in Germany (it shows a weak class conciousness in Germany). Radical workers who oppose capitalism should oppose Iran and Israel and call for revolution against both as soon as possible.

This is a problem with the German class conciousness if there is a dividing line over whether which bourgeois group to support.

[Kotze]

This is important for any Israel discourse by the way, that despite the fact that there are non-Jews in Israel, even in the IDF, it is always identified as a "Jewish state" primarily, and only after that as a colonialist, apartheid, racist regime.Gee, could that "Jewish state" thing mayhaps be related to the fact that the main line of discrimination in Israel is the Jew/Non-Jew thing? :rolleyes:
The Anti-Germans aren't pro-colonialist, and that you refer to them as such speaks volumes of your ignorance.Calling oneself Anti-German, like calling oneself Marxist, is different from calling oneself a dentist, everybody can do it. So you might say this or that person is not a true Anti-German, but among people who call themselves Anti-German there have been many supporters of the Iraq War and many of these self-identified Anti-Germans talk about the "necessity" of going to war against Iran.
I'm not exactly sure when, but at one point some Anti-Germans started supporting Israel, and a few (Bahamas) even were in favor of American interventionism. These are minority positions however (in fact I know no Anti-German that supports Israel let alone the USA, most evoke Israel support, if at all, in a symbolic and provoking manner). However in recent years, due to the massive slander done against the Anti-Germans...Okay, first you admit in an euphemistic way that some Anti-Germans are in favour of imperialism ("interventionism"), then you talk about those who "support" Israel for the lulz ("in a symbolic and provoking manner"), then you complain about "massive slander" against Anti-Germans? WTF?

What a muddle. You should have focussed on the surveys. :closedeyes:

[Widerstand]

I know, but we're the far left. So we discuss far left, working class politics. We discuss anti-war politics too, even though fascists oppose the wars.

We can discuss anti-war politics, but then we have to realize that there are fascists who oppose it. The German Anti-Zionist radical left closes it's eyes before the existence of Anti-Semite Anti-Zionists, and to say that there are no Anti-Semites in the radical left is wishful thinking at best.



The Jewish state should be attacked because it is a nationalist, racist, capitalist state, yes. I don't see the difference between attacking the Jewish State and attacking The Islamic Republic. Is a Jewish bourgeois state less bad than an Islamic bourgeois state?

But do you see the difference between attacking a state because it is bourgeois or apartheid and attacking it because it's Islamic or Jewish?



That's shocking, show me the survey.

Considering that I linked it to you yesterday and you didn't care much. Anyway, I'll link you to the two original articles (they are in German though):

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-24534.html
http://www.taz.de/1/politik/deutschland/artikel/1/das-buergertum-verroht/



Okay. This is the kind of answer I want. There's a clear problem when the mossad is attacked for anti-semetic reasons rather than the very clear actual reasons that it should be opposed.

But there is no problem with saying that Israel should be sepecifically opposed because "the Jews should know better" or similar crap? And there's also no problem with opposing "the Jews" because of Israel (as if the diaspora Jews and Israelis were somehow the same)?



If they are in favor of Israel, a colonialist settler state, they are pro colonialists. If they are sympathetic to Israel, they are sympathetic to colonialism.

So if you are sympathetic to a homophobic person you are a homophobe? If you're sympathetic to the USSR you're sympathetic to the gulag? Guilt by association, isn't it?



They carry them to provoke people?

Some do. As I said, it's not a homogeneous mass.



Gee, what a clever bunch. Maybe they should carry pictures of children with white phosphorus burns. That'd be provocative.

I'd be baffled if the majority of German "Anti-Zionists" even knew what white phosphorus is.



Fair enough. But this is no reason to excuse Israeli colonialism, genocide, and atrocities. All capitalist governments are to opposed and exposed.

But the majority of Anti-Germans does not excuse them. Do you read anything I post?



Do they really complain about being "slandered" when their marches feature Israeli flags?

Well yes, I complain about being slandered because I don't carry Israeli flags and because the vast majority of Anti-Germans don't do either, but of course that is totally negligible as long as you can take a few nutjobs and claim they represent the majority.



That shows problems with the left in Germany (it shows a weak class conciousness in Germany). Radical workers who oppose capitalism should oppose Iran and Israel and call for revolution against both as soon as possible.

Actually most German radical workers have more pressing problems at hand than to worry about Israel or Iran.



This is a problem with the German class conciousness if there is a dividing line over whether which bourgeois group to support.

Well the left loves to split, Anti-Semitism/Imperialism are just more issues about which it can be done.


Gee, could that "Jewish state" thing mayhaps be related to the fact that the main line of discrimination in Israel is the Jew/Non-Jew thing? :rolleyes:

You're misreading what I wrote though. You focus on the fact that there is racial/ethnic discrimination in Israel. The Jewish state focuses on the fact that Israel is Jewish (as if a Jewish state was to be more opposed than an Islamic or Christian state).



Calling oneself Anti-German, like calling oneself Marxist, is different from calling oneself a dentist, everybody can do it.

[quote]So you might say this or that person is not a true Anti-German, but among people who call themselves Anti-German there have been many supporters of the Iraq War and many of these self-identified Anti-Germans talk about the "necessity" of going to war against Iran.

That's like saying that all Marxists support Pol Pot. Whether or not there have been "many" expressing these views, these views aren't representative of the Anti-German movement at large.



Okay, first you admit in an euphemistic way that some Anti-Germans are in favour of imperialism ("interventionism"), then you talk about those who "support" Israel for the lulz ("in a symbolic and provoking manner"), then you complain about "massive slander" against Anti-Germans? WTF?

Well you equate the whole of Anti-Germans with a few nutcases. Besides, as long as Nazi imagery is used against Israel, I'm not going to be terribly upset about those using Israel imagery against Anti-Semitism.

Also, interventionism is hardly euphemistic for imperialism. It's rather a specific form of imperialism.

[scarletghoul]

Wow, reading this is pretty shocking. Why do Germans seem to get so stuck in the nationalist paradigm, that even when opposing German nationalism they can only do it by endorsing another form of genocidal nationalism (zionism) ? Its also outrageous that anti-semitism is so strong in Germany and especially on the left..

Are there any groups that speak out firmly against anti-Semitism and Zionism ? Or is that logic not existant there ?

[Sasha]

Esp towards the dutch border/ruhr area more and more anarcho authonomist groups pop up that for example use there ties with AATW to challenge both

[Palingenisis]

Its also outrageous that anti-semitism is so strong in Germany and especially on the left..


Is it though?

http://www.ceia-sc.org/page5/page7/page7.html

[hatzel]

From the article cited by Widerstand:


So stimmten in diesem Jahr 38 Prozent der Befragten der Aussage zu: "Bei der Politik, die Israel macht, kann ich gut verstehen, dass man etwas gegen Juden hat."
And people still say new antisemitism doesn't exist? I say fuck that bullshit...

[FreeFocus]

I was always under the impression that anything that had to do with Jewish people was (rightly) very sensitive in Germany, given the Holocaust and the Nazis. I also thought that this lead to the political spinelessness towards Israel.

[Palingenisis]

And people say new antisemitism doesn't exist? I say fuck that bullshit...

If you want to seriously fight against antisemitism fight against the existence of the state of Israel...The biggest promoter of it in the world today.

[Palingenisis]

I was always under the impression that anything that had to do with Jewish people was (rightly) very sensitive in Germany, given the Holocaust and the Nazis. I also thought that this lead to the political spinelessness towards Israel.

Thats out there in the real world where that is true.

[hatzel]

If you want to seriously fight against antisemitism fight against the existence of the state of Israel...The biggest promoter of it in the world today.

That is to say, "the Jews themselves are to blame for us hating them" or "it is only natural for us to hate Jews, we have no choice"...?

Ah...yeah...because that's not racist...

(Just to let you all know, I'm deeply offended at this very suggestion)

[Widerstand]

Its also outrageous that anti-semitism is so strong in Germany and especially on the left..

Well what do you expect after years of indoctrination and a very shitty job of investigating and fighting the Nazi remainders in Society? It wasn't until the late 60s and 70s that the fact that many ex-NSDAP or ex-SS members where in high positions of the German bureaucracy was made public and attacked. Also many Germans were/are fed up with the holocaust remembrance and such, and according to German politicians and certain media "Germany is a peaceloving nation except for 12 bad years."

But the first anti-semitic backlash in the German left really came with the 6-days war. As well, I partially blame unrealistic expectations of Israel somehow being a stronghold of peace, that may have existed in the German left until then (some report that the German left was very fond of Israel until the 6-days war).



Are there any groups that speak out firmly against anti-Semitism and Zionism ? Or is that logic not existant there ?

Firmly against both? Not that I'd know of, no. Every now and then there are events (talks, discussions, demos, workshops, etc.) about Anti-Zionism in relation to Anti-Semitism or about Anti-Semitism within the left, but as far as I know, the last local demo against leftist Anti-Semitism (which had a banner reading "beat up Anti-Semite bullies - those on the left, too") ended in Anti-Germans and Anti-Imps beating each other up (though apparently over personal issues rather than political).

Personally I prefer to not bring up the topic of Israel at all, as do many of those who refuse to be categorized as either Anti-German or Anti-Imp.

[gorillafuck]

We can discuss anti-war politics, but then we have to realize that there are fascists who oppose it. The German Anti-Zionist radical left closes it's eyes before the existence of Anti-Semite Anti-Zionists, and to say that there are no Anti-Semites in the radical left is wishful thinking at best.
That's a problem in Germany, then.

We don't think about that much in the US since the anti-zionist movement in the US has not very much anti-semites. The pro-Israel groups are the ones that are full of extreme racists.


But do you see the difference between attacking a state because it is bourgeois or apartheid and attacking it because it's Islamic or Jewish?It wouldn't be an apartheid state if it wasn't a Jewish state, the apartheid is on the lines of Jew/Non-Jew


Considering that I linked it to you yesterday and you didn't care much. Anyway, I'll link you to the two original articles (they are in German though):

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-24534.html
http://www.taz.de/1/politik/deutschland/artikel/1/das-buergertum-verroht/I don't remember being linked to those, so sorry. And I can't read German.




But there is no problem with saying that Israel should be sepecifically opposed because "the Jews should know better" or similar crap? And there's also no problem with opposing "the Jews" because of Israel (as if the diaspora Jews and Israelis were somehow the same)?When have I come out in favor of opposing the Jews? All throughout arguing with you I deliberately separated Jews as people from Israel.

You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you attribute fake opinions to me. I never said anything about how it's okay to oppose the Jews because of Israel, I spoke against that. Very explicitly. I referred to your conflation of Jews and Israel as offensive to Jews, as a matter of fact.


So if you are sympathetic to a homophobic person you are a homophobe? If you're sympathetic to the USSR you're sympathetic to the gulag? Guilt by association, isn't it?You don't understand. The basis of Israel is colonialism. That's what it was founded upon. If you are sympathetic to someone who's primary opinion and what they base their views on is homophobia, then yes I'd say your probably homophobic. Israel was founded on and is based on colonialism. The USSR wasn't founded on the idea of gulags (I'm not sympathetic to the USSR, though).


But the majority of Anti-Germans does not excuse them. Do you read anything I post?Yes I do. Cut out the indignation, it's really annoying me. I have been responding to what you say. But you said some are sympathetic towards the Israeli capitalist state.


Actually most German radical workers have more pressing problems at hand than to worry about Israel or Iran.Obviously. But radicals have opinions. Left communists seek working class organisation, doesn't mean they have never published or spoken of anything on why they oppose nationalist politics.


You're misreading what I wrote though. You focus on the fact that there is racial/ethnic discrimination in Israel. The Jewish state focuses on the fact that Israel is Jewish (as if a Jewish state was to be more opposed than an Islamic or Christian state).saying the "Jewish state" aspect of iIrael doesn't cause oppression is like saying that the whiteness of the south African political system didn't have to do with the oppression that occured there.


Just because someone is a jew they have a right to rob land and murder kids without criticism or any come back...Thats not racist?
There's a difference between settlers (utter scum) and normal Israeli citizens.

[Palingenisis]

That is to say, "the Jews themselves are to blame for us hating them" or "it is only natural for us to hate Jews, we have no choice"...?


Ah...yeah...because that's not racist...

So Israel's genocidal policies from day one arent a cause of anti-semitism? :lol:

Just because someone is a jew they have a right to rob land and murder kids without criticism or any come back...Thats not racist?

[Sasha]

If you want to seriously fight against antisemitism fight against the existence of the state of Israel...The biggest promoter of it in the world today.

and the last thing you should do then is getting yourself cought into the "all critique on israel is anti-semitism" the israeli goverment likes to present.
attacking synagoges, displaying signs equaling the star of david to the swastika, let alone supporting groups who openly call for an second holocaust is even more moronic than the anti-german position of "away with all nations, but israel last"

[Palingenisis]

(Just to let you all know, I'm deeply offended at this very suggestion)

If you are deeply offended by the suggestion that the state of Israel's existence and its policies contribute to anti-semitism you are deeply offended by reality.

[Palingenisis]

and the last thing you should do then is getting yourself cought into the "all critique on israel is anti-semitism" the israeli goverment likes to present.
attacking synagoges, displaying signs equaling the star of david to the swastika, let alone supporting groups who openly call for an second holocaust is even more moronic than the anti-german position of "away with all nations, but israel last"

All the jews that I have known in real life have very kind to me...Most genuinely Orthodox jews are opposed to the state of Israel as much as I am...However everytime Israel does another one of its psycho acts I hear anti-semitic comments in work, in the pub, etc...Which I argue against....But if Israel wasnt there and wasnt being so psycho those comments wouldnt be made.

[hatzel]

So Israel's genocidal policies from day one arent a cause of anti-semitism? :lol:

Just because someone is a jew they have a right to rob land and murder kids without criticism or any come back...Thats not racist?

Did you...even read the quote I referenced? 38% of Germans understand why people would hate Jews for the actions of Israel. That's antisemitism. If I said that it's okay to hate black people here in London because there's a lot of shit going on in the Congo, I would be instantly branded a racist. Not least because I think it's okay to hate people for being black for any reason. Trying to blame the worldwide black community for being so detestable that we have to hate them is deplorably racist. You have suggested, by arguing against the statement I made, that it is acceptable to hate Jews because of the actions of Israel. Putting you in with the 38% of Germans. And also making you a bit of a racist, I'm afraid.


And before you start, this has nothing to do with Zionists trying to discredit anti-Zionists by claiming that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. This is just an impartial individual claiming that arguing that racial hatred can ever be legitimate for any reason is deplorable, and has absolutely no place on this forum.

[Sasha]

So Israel's genocidal policies from day one arent a cause of anti-semitism? :lol:

Just because someone is a jew they have a right to rob land and murder kids without criticism or any come back...Thats not racist?

thank you for proving krimkrams point, israel is an deeply ingrained racist state, israel is an defacto apartheid state, but its not genocidal and the fact that people who are nuanced about fucking pollpot and supported NI sectarian murdurous violence based on peoples religion/cultural backgound instead of their actions is fucking rich.

[Widerstand]

Esp towards the dutch border/ruhr area more and more anarcho authonomist groups pop up that for example use there ties with AATW to challenge both

Such as?


Is it though?

http://www.ceia-sc.org/page5/page7/page7.html

From the article:


Since Zionists claim to speak for all Jews is it any wonder that some folks would fail to differentiate between religious Judaism and nationalist Zionism? between Jews and Israeli policy?

Does the author actually suggest that it's okay to be Anti-Semite because of what Zionism claims?


I was always under the impression that anything that had to do with Jewish people was (rightly) very sensitive in Germany, given the Holocaust and the Nazis. I also thought that this lead to the political spinelessness towards Israel.

It's the exact opposite though. German media jumps on Israel whenever there is the opportunity. There are few events that gathered as much media attention in recent years as the attack on the flotilla and operation cast lead.


If you want to seriously fight against antisemitism fight against the existence of the state of Israel...The biggest promoter of it in the world today.

Haha oh wow, I mean, yeah. You can't blame people for hating "The Jews" if the "Jewish Project" is that bad, right?

Seriously what the fuck?

[gorillafuck]

thank you for proving krimkrams point, israel is an deeply ingrained racist state, israel is an defacto apartheid state, but its not genocidal
Israel was founded by an ethnic cleansing of Palestine, though.


and the fact that people who are nuanced about fucking pollpot and supported NI sectarian murdurous violence based on peoples religion/cultural backgound instead of their actions is fucking rich.I'll agree that that's weird.

[FreeFocus]

It's wrong for people to blame Jews in general for the crimes of Israel, but to be fair, Israel has done a masterful job of propaganda in terms of projecting itself as the state incarnation of world Jewry to the world. When people see an overwhelming support of Israel from Jews and no significant Jewish opposition, they will conclude that what Israel says is the truth (it represents world Jewry).

It isn't a coincidence that every major Israeli crime sparks a wave of anti-Semitic violence and crimes. Israel is the biggest driver of Antisemitism today.

[Sasha]

All the jews that I have known in real life have very kind to me...Most genuinely Orthodox jews are opposed to the state of Israel as much as I am...However everytime Israel does another one of its psycho acts I hear anti-semitic comments in work, in the pub, etc...Which I argue against....But if Israel wasnt there and wasnt being so psycho those comments wouldnt be made.


did you even notice i fucking agreed with that part in your post? my grandpa would everytime the leader of the dutch jewish pro-israel group CIDI came on television would shut down the telly saying "that man breeds anti-semites", but so are the people that present bollox like you.
There is an actual genocide going on in Sudan but even while this is an conflict devided by clear relegious lines no one is mentioning when talking about the perpetrators "muslim muslim muslim" (while they are) while talking about israel they always go "jews jews jews".
israel is an racist imperialist colonist apartheid state and they love to present this an jewish thing, last we should do is follow their discour.

[Palingenisis]

thank you for proving krimkrams point, israel is an deeply ingrained racist state, israel is an defacto apartheid state, but its not genocidal and the fact that people who are nuanced about fucking pollpot and supported NI sectarian murdurous violence based on peoples religion/cultural backgound instead of their actions is fucking rich.

When have I ever done that?

:blushing:

[Sasha]

Israel was founded by an ethnic cleansing of Palestine, though.


yes but they are not genocidal, some of the israeli extreme right might want to be but as an state israel is not genocidal. While a lot of palestinias got killed during that time i dispute that it amounted to genocide

you know that israel is officialy secular by the way? (defacto offcourse not, but still)

[gorillafuck]

It's wrong for people to blame Jews in general for the crimes of Israel, but to be fair, Israel has done a masterful job of propaganda in terms of projecting itself as the state incarnation of world Jewry to the world. When people see an overwhelming support of Israel from Jews and no significant Jewish opposition, they will conclude that what Israel says is the truth (it represents world Jewry).
Well, at least in the U.S., right wing media deliberately covers up any criticism of Israel that comes from Jews, because the media wants all criticism of Israel to be seen as anti-semetic.

Norman Finklestien, Jewish radical

Q7tupJRSi7M

This would never, ever show up in mainstream American media.

[Sasha]

When have I ever done that?

:blushing:

i rember you suproting an sectarian atack in belfast somewhere that targeted protestants in an revenge action uncontected to the incident whre revenge was taken for, but to be fair i maybe have you confused with someone else, in that case my apollogies

[Palingenisis]

Psycho can show evidence of sectarianism from any of my posts?

I think I have been clear that I regard sectarianism as a majior problem. And certainly do not support random attacks on Protestants or members of the Protestant community. My dad is Protestant for fucks sake...Where did you get such an idea that support things like the Kingsmill massacre?

[FreeFocus]

I mean, yeah, obviously I'm familiar with people like Finkelstein and Chomsky who are Jewish and oppose Israeli actions, but there aren't any mass-based Jewish opposition groups, at least to my knowledge; and if there are, they clearly aren't visible in any meaningful way.

Also, I'd just like to point out that ethnic cleansing is part of genocide. So is systematic killing (Operation Cast Lead, for example. Or the blockade of Gaza). It might not be a severe genocide, like in Rwanda, where millions were just massacred on the spot, but there's an argument that it's a slow genocide, which I can agree with.

[Palingenisis]

i rember you suproting an sectarian atack in belfast somewhere that targeted protestants in an revenge action uncontected to the incident whre revenge was taken for, but to be fair i maybe have you confused with someone else, in that case my apollogies

Thats a pretty serious allegation.

I would presume hopefully people would be restricted or banned for such things.

You made it...Where is the evidence?

[gorillafuck]

yes but they are not genocidal, some of the israeli extreme right might want to be but as an state israel is not genocidal. While a lot of palestinias got killed during that time i dispute that it amounted to genocide
Ethnic cleansing is genocide, though.


you know that israel is officialy secular by the way? (defacto offcourse not, but still)I know

[Sasha]

Well, at least in the U.S., right wing media deliberately covers up any criticism of Israel that comes from Jews, because the media wants all criticism of Israel to be seen as anti-semetic.

Norman Finklestien, Jewish radical

Q7tupJRSi7M

This would never, ever show up in mainstream American media.

ever read anything by hayo meyer? he is an german/dutch jewish holocaust survivor who is very critical of israel.
try to get his book: http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/02104judaism.htm
well worth it.

[Sasha]

Ethnic cleansing is genocide, though.


no its not if the mayority was forced to flee, the aim of the israeli's was to clear the palestinians of their land, from the beginning their tactic was primarly to chase them over the borders. not "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (dictionary definition), it was/is an war of (forced) displacement.
wich again affirms my point that the israeli conflict is primarly about land/nation and secundairly racist. Not religious.
this is also strengthend by the fact that discrimination within israel doesnt target only palestinians. There is an whole pecking order where palestinians are just on the bottom rung.
roughly:
-liberal azkhenazi
-liberal sefardi
-orthodox
-recent rusian immigrants
-israeli christian
-etheopian jew/israeli arab
-palestinian

very similair (albeit less racial) to south africa where it went: english white->(dutch) boer->asian->collored->black->township black->homeland black

[Sasha]

i'm trying to find it but i think i have you confused with someone else, looking at your join date it doesnt seem your where around yet when we discussed that. again my apollegies

[Palingenisis]

I mean, yeah, obviously I'm familiar with people like Finkelstein and Chomsky who are Jewish and oppose Israeli actions, but there aren't any mass-based Jewish opposition groups, at least to my knowledge; and if there are, they clearly aren't visible in any meaningful way.

.

Not true...They are religious nutbars but decent skins.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

[hatzel]

Can I make an accusation now, because I have...you know...I've got the proof right there! :rolleyes:

[Kotze]

I can't check the Spiegel link ATM (req. Flash), but here is the survey stuff from the TAZ article Widerstand linked to:

In 2010, 38% agreed with the following statement: "Bei der Politik, die Israel macht, kann ich gut verstehen, dass man etwas gegen Juden hat." --"Given the politics of Israel, I can understand that you have something against Jews."

57% agreed with the following: "Israel führt einen Vernichtungskrieg gegen die Palästinenser." -- "Israel wages a war of extermination against the Palestinians."

The article states that islamophobia is increasing, in particular among the richest quintile. 21% in 2009 and 26% in 2010 agreed with this: "Muslimen sollte die Zuwanderung nach Deutschland untersagt werden." -- "Muslims should be barred from immigrating to Germany."

In the last couple of years, there has been a reduction in sexism and homophobia.

49% (same in 2009) agreed with this: "Es leben zu viele Ausländer in Deutschland." -- "There are too many foreigners in Germany."

[Widerstand]

That's a problem in Germany, then.

Maybe. Or maybe it's just that there is more/a different attention on these issues in Germany than in other places.



We don't think about that much in the US since the anti-zionist movement in the US has not very much anti-semites. The pro-Israel groups are the ones that are full of extreme racists.

That's certainly not what it is like here. Not to mention that aside from Anti-Germans, a few intellectuals and the Jewish Council I wouldn't know of any Pro-Israel groups.



It wouldn't be an apartheid state if it wasn't a Jewish state, the apartheid is on the lines of Jew/Non-Jew

While I agree to some extent, this formulation is problematic, because it can be read as "apartheid state" being a feature of "Jewishness", as if somehow it was integrated into "the Jews".



I don't remember being linked to those, so sorry. And I can't read German.

I linked you to a thread in which they were posted. But very well, I will translate the relevant passages that Krimskrams has not translated yet:

17,2% of Germans agree that "Even today the Influence of Jews is too big", 24,9% "partially agree."
14,8% agree that "Jews work with evil tricks more than others to reach their goals", 21,8% "partially agree."
14,9% agree that "Jews have something strange and unique about them and don't really fit with us", 24% "partially agree."



When have I come out in favor of opposing the Jews? All throughout arguing with you I deliberately separated Jews as people from Israel.

Well if you don't think so then I don't see us as being in disagreement?



You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you attribute fake opinions to me. I never said anything about how it's okay to oppose the Jews because of Israel, I spoke against that. Very explicitly. I referred to your conflation of Jews and Israel as offensive to Jews, as a matter of fact.

In fact you didn't, because I was citing a survey (the part Krimskrams translated). You spoke up in favor of the opinion presented in the survey (that it's okay to oppose Jews because of Israel, which 38% of Germans agreed to), in fact you defended two posters who agreed with it in the thread I linked you to yesterday.



You don't understand. The basis of Israel is colonialism. That's what it was founded upon. If you are sympathetic to someone who's primary opinion and what they base their views on is homophobia, then yes I'd say your probably homophobic. Israel was founded on and is based on colonialism. The USSR wasn't founded on the idea of gulags (I'm not sympathetic to the USSR, though).

Is the basis of Israel colonialism now or is it it's Jewishness? Or is this Jewishness the same as colonialism? I'm confused, what's the essence of Israel according to you?
`


Yes I do. Cut out the indignation, it's really annoying me. I have been responding to what you say. But you said some are sympathetic towards the Israeli capitalist state.

So you complain about how I attribute fake opinions to you, yet you have no issue with attributing a minority opinion to the majority of Anti-Germans?



saying the "Jewish state" aspect of iIrael doesn't cause oppression is like saying that the whiteness of the south African political system didn't have to do with the oppression that occured there.

So do all Jews and all Whites cause oppression? Surely you wouldn't think so, yet this is what your wording reads like.


It isn't a coincidence that every major Israeli crime sparks a wave of anti-Semitic violence and crimes. Israel is the biggest driver of Antisemitism today.

And you honestly believe that these Anti-Semite attitudes weren't there before the Israeli crime that gave them a platform to openly emerge?

[Sasha]

Also, I'd just like to point out that ethnic cleansing is part of genocide. So is systematic killing (Operation Cast Lead, for example. Or the blockade of Gaza). It might not be a severe genocide, like in Rwanda, where millions were just massacred on the spot, but there's an argument that it's a slow genocide, which I can agree with.

while murder, maybe even large scale murder takes place you cant argue that the aim of these campaings is to exterminate the palestinians (wich would be very stupid as the israeli state is largely dependant on cheap palestinian labour) its about keeping the palestinians devided and in submision.
No matter what you say the fact remains there hasnt been an rwanda, there are no palestinian killing fields, there is no palestinian sebrenica let alone an palestinian auswitch.
the key for an succesfull strugle against the actions of israel is understanding their motivations. gross assumptions about your enemy make you lose the war.
or primair concern for now should be stopping the occupation and the apartheid, just like the south africa regime would never have fallen if our primair rethoric would have been that zimbabwe should invade and kill all the whites there is no point calling for the destroying of israel (other than through the ultimate position that all revolutionary leftists should have that in the end we should do away with all nation states).

[Palingenisis]

Can I make an accusation now, because I have...you know...I've got the proof right there! :rolleyes:

"I sure as hell (oh, wait, that's a goyish concept) should be a rabbi, I'll tell you that! Or...an alternative rabbi...stand-up rabbi, maybe...sounds like an interesting concept!"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=30223&u2=26695&page=3

Proof of your racism.

:crying:

[hatzel]

And you honestly believe that these Anti-Semite attitudes weren't there before the Israeli crime that gave them a platform to openly emerge?

That would be the issue now. Go online and look for anti-Zionist websites. Blogs that call themselves 'anti-Zionist'. Notice how many are flagrantly antisemitic. Because calling yourself and anti-Zionist is socially acceptable, and calling yourself an antisemite isn't. Hell, even the guys over at Stormfront have cottoned on to that little ruse: http://www.***************/forum/t622141/


Of course this isn't to say that all anti-Zionism is antisemitic, which is what people seem to argue about. It's all or nothing. Either they're exactly the same, or exactly different. No anti-Zionists brave enough to say 'you know what...some anti-Zionists are antisemitic, but I'm not'. Get some fucking balls, people!

[FreeFocus]

Not true...They are religious nutbars but decent skins.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

From my experience, the mainstream Jewish community doesn't take them seriously and views them as a fringe group. By no stretch of the imagination are they visible in a meaningful way. You might see a protest here or there that they are at, but you're arguing that they have a mass base? Where at?

And Widerstand, Israeli crimes give groups who never had any meaningful history of Antisemitism a base to build such feelings. Where did Jews go when Christian Europe was persecuting them during the Spanish Inquisition? They went to Muslim lands. Antisemitism is a European tradition that comes out of Christian fundamentalism. Israel's crimes and its insistence that it represents world Jewry now makes people outside of the region, with no real ties to the region, take on Antisemitic attitudes. This isn't justified, but you need to put it into context.

I don't think anyone in this thread is excusing Antisemitism. I do think, however, that not a few people are acting as apologists for Israeli imperialism.

[Sasha]

I mean, yeah, obviously I'm familiar with people like Finkelstein and Chomsky who are Jewish and oppose Israeli actions, but there aren't any mass-based Jewish opposition groups, at least to my knowledge; and if there are, they clearly aren't visible in any meaningful way.


AATW (anarchist, see the link in my sig) is very active and are repoted on daily (they do mass civil disobiediance actions together with the palestinians), gush shalom (reformist anti-occupation) are still around and while not as massive as they used to be still have several thousand supporters, while in jerusalem there are now very intresting grassroots "dont touch my neighbours" iniatives springing up.

[hatzel]

"I sure as hell (oh, wait, that's a goyish concept) should be a rabbi, I'll tell you that! Or...an alternative rabbi...stand-up rabbi, maybe...sounds like an interesting concept!"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=30223&u2=26695&page=3

Proof of your racism.

:crying:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!


Haha.


The minute using Yiddish words is racist is the day I throw myself in front of a steamtrain. My apologies for not using the word 'gentile':



gentile (adj.)
mid-13c., "noble, kind, gracious" (mid-12c. as a surname); late 14c., "of noble rank or birth, belonging to the gentry," from L.L. gentilis "foreign, heathen, pagan," from L. gentilis "person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman," from gentilis (adj.) "of the same family or clan," from gens (gen. gentis) "race, clan" (see gentle).



gentile (n.)
late 14c., "chivalrous person; member of the nobility;" see gentile (adj.). Also used during 14c. to mean both "one who is not a Christian" and "one who is not a Jew." The Latin word was used in Vulgate to translate Gk. ethnikos, from ta ethne "the nations," which translated Heb. ha goyim "the (non-Jewish) nations."

[Palingenisis]

So Goy isnt a racist word? :blushing:

Sure....

[gorillafuck]

While I agree to some extent, this formulation is problematic, because it can be read as "apartheid state" being a feature of "Jewishness", as if somehow it was integrated into "the Jews".
It is a state that elevates the Jews above Palestinians, creating a racial hierarchy. Apartheid state isn't a feature of Jewishness, but apartheid is a feature of the only "Jewish State" in existence.


I linked you to a thread in which they were posted. But very well, I will translate the relevant passages that Krimskrams has not translated yet:

17,2% of Germans agree that "Even today the Influence of Jews is too big", 24,9% "partially agree."
14,8% agree that "Jews work with evil tricks more than others to reach their goals", 21,8% "partially agree."
14,9% agree that "Jews have something strange and unique about them and don't really fit with us", 24% "partially agree."Alright.


In fact you didn't, because I was citing a survey (the part Krimskrams translated). You spoke up in favor of the opinion presented in the survey (that it's okay to oppose Jews because of Israel, which 38% of Germans agreed to), in fact you defended two posters who agreed with it in the thread I linked you to yesterday.I never said it was okay, at all. I specifically tried to make sure you knew that I wasn't of that opinion. I said that I see where it does come from, and I do. Do you not? Israel causes anti-semetism among the people that a supposed Jewish state is taking the land from. It's not good, but it's not hard to understand. Especially when we know that class consciousness is weak in Palestine.


Is the basis of Israel colonialism now or is it it's Jewishness? Or is this Jewishness the same as colonialism? I'm confused, what's the essence of Israel according to you?It is a colonial state that seeks for Jews to colonize Palestine, just like past colonialism sought for whites to colonize the Natives. It is not a bad thing about the Jews at all. But it would be denying reality to say that it does not seek for Jews to be colonizers.


So you complain about how I attribute fake opinions to you, yet you have no issue with attributing a minority opinion to the majority of Anti-Germans?Everything I've read about indicates that Anti-Germans hold solidarity with the state of Israel (even if they do not mean for it to be permanent solidarity).

Name me an anti-German organization, I'll look 'em up.


So do all Jews and all Whites cause oppression? Surely you wouldn't think so, yet this is what your wording reads like.No, but Jewish supremacism does and so does white supremacism, and the RSA was based on white supremacism and Israel is based on Jewish supremacism. The problem is racial hierarchy, which Israel very obviously practices in a very brutal way.

[hatzel]

Oh, I forgot you spoke Hebrew...


From Yiddish גוי (goy, “gentile”) < Hebrew גּוֹי (goi, “nation”).Cf. Exodus 19:6: ממלכת קהנים וגוי קדוש (mamlekhet kohanim v'goy kadosh) "... a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (referring to the Jewish people). The word "goy" technically refers not to non-Jews, but rather to a nation per se; the Jews are said to constitute a "goy". But through common usage - namely referring to "the [other non-Jewish] nations" - the word came to colloquially refer to non-Jews.




I think it's strange to be lectured on what Hebrew words are and aren't racist by somebody who was just telling us all how antisemites are justified, because their racism isn't their fault...

[Widerstand]

And Widerstand, Israeli crimes give groups who never had any meaningful history of Antisemitism a base to build such feelings. Where did Jews go when Christian Europe was persecuting them during the Spanish Inquisition? They went to Muslim lands. Antisemitism is a European tradition that comes out of Christian fundamentalism. Israel's crimes and its insistence that it represents world Jewry now makes people outside of the region, with no real ties to the region, take on Antisemitic attitudes. This isn't justified, but you need to put it into context.

If Anti-Semitism is as you say a "European tradition" (which I agree with, for the record), if we agree then that Anti-Semitism has existed in European society predating the existence of Israel, how can you then possibly argue that the Anti-Semitic nature of these responses are a result of Israel's politics or rhetoric or claims?



I don't think anyone in this thread is excusing Antisemitism. I do think, however, that not a few people are acting as apologists for Israeli imperialism.

Where exactly are people apologizing for Israeli imperialism?

[Sasha]

It is a state that elevates the Jews above Palestinians, creating a racial hierarchy. Apartheid state isn't a feature of Jewishness, but apartheid is a feature of the only "Jewish State" in existence.

[...]

It is a colonial state that seeks for Jews to colonize Palestine, just like past colonialism sought for whites to colonize the Natives. It is not a bad thing about the Jews at all. But it would be denying reality to say that it does not seek for Jews to be colonizers.

[...]

No, but Jewish supremacism does and so does white supremacism, and the RSA was based on white supremacism and Israel is based on Jewish supremacism. The problem is racial hierarchy, which Israel very obviously practices in a very brutal way.

like i already pointed out israeli society is infested by racism, not only against palestinians but also against other jews. some jews rank even lower than christian arabs or well off islamic arabs.
i dont know what causes it, could be the focus on judeaism but could just as well be the siege mentallity.
if its the former than the jewish aspect of the state might be to blame, if its the latter it might aswell be that the kind of sentiments expressed by some in this thread who contribute. i dont think any off us should even atempt to answer that question here.

[hatzel]

Where exactly are people apologizing for Israeli imperialism?

It's quite strange...one minute people are complaining that certain people seem to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, but if you take half a second to point out how new antisemitism is unjustified, you're apologising for Israeli imperialism, or even a Zionist yourself, because they're apparently as good as the same thing...strange world we live in...

[Widerstand]

It is a state that elevates the Jews above Palestinians, creating a racial hierarchy. Apartheid state isn't a feature of Jewishness, but apartheid is a feature of the only "Jewish State" in existence.

So we agree then that it's a feature of the specific state Israel, because that's how it turned out to be, not caused by it's Jewishness?



I never said it was okay, at all. I specifically tried to make sure you knew that I wasn't of that opinion. I said that I see where it does come from, and I do. Do you not? Israel causes anti-semetism among the people that a supposed Jewish state is taking the land from. It's not good, but it's not hard to understand.

Again, this is a matter of interpretation, but I think anyone speaking German would agree that, the way this survey is formulated, it's unlikely that those answering thought of Palestinians holding Anti-Semitic views, and even then I don't think it's excusable to be Anti-Semitic even if you're a Palestinian.



It is a colonial state that seeks for Jews to colonize Palestine, just like past colonialism sought for whites to colonize the Natives. It is not a bad thing about the Jews at all. But it would be denying reality to say that it does not seek for Jews to be colonizers.

I don't deny that Israel is a colonial state, where have I said anything to indicate such?



Everything I've read about indicates that Anti-Germans hold solidarity with the state of Israel (even if they do not mean for it to be permanent solidarity).

Maybe that's because no one bothers with Anti-Germans except when some of them do something spectacular, such as swinging Israel flags at demos?



Name me an anti-German organization, I'll look 'em up.

I'm not aware of such a thing existing, sorry. The few openly Anti-Germans I know are in the FAU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Workers'_Union



No, but Jewish supremacism does and so does white supremacism, and the RSA was based on white supremacism and Israel is based on Jewish supremacism. The problem is racial hierarchy, which Israel very obviously practices in a very brutal way.

So the problem isn't so much that they are Jews or Whites but that they are supremacist.

[gorillafuck]

It's quite strange...one minute people are complaining that certain people seem to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, but if you take half a second to point out how new antisemitism is unjustified, you're apologising for Israeli imperialism, or even a Zionist yourself, because they're apparently as good as the same thing...strange world we live in...
That isn't how this has been going down, though.....


Where exactly are people apologizing for Israeli imperialism?
I don't think anybody is now, but to be honest I definitely feel like you've softened your stance and you might have been before. In a thread you linked me to you were throwing accusations of antisemitism left and right at people who clearly aren't, and you were reiterating many pro-Israel arguments (even "there's arabs in the IDF"). Even if you didn't mean for it to be, you seemed extraordinarily apologetic or sympathetic towards Israel.

[gorillafuck]

So we agree then that it's a feature of the specific state Israel, because that's how it turned out to be, not caused by it's Jewishness?
I never once said it was caused by Jewishness. I said it's caused by the zionist political movement.


Again, this is a matter of interpretation, but I think anyone speaking German would agree that, the way this survey is formulated, it's unlikely that those answering thought of Palestinians holding Anti-Semitic views, and even then I don't think it's excusable to be Anti-Semitic even if you're a Palestinian.It's not excusable, but it ought to be understood.


I don't deny that Israel is a colonial state, where have I said anything to indicate such?You asked me what it's essence is, I was just explaining.


Maybe that's because no one bothers with Anti-Germans except when some of them do something spectacular, such as swinging Israel flags at demos?Alright. fair enough. maybe all information on them is wrong. I'm skeptical, though. Are there really no groups?


So the problem isn't so much that they are Jews or Whites but that they are supremacist.I never said Judaism was a problem. The problem is that the Israeli government is a racist colonialist (capitalist) government.

[Sasha]

this is getting wildy offtopic but


So Goy isnt a racist word? :blushing:

Sure....

no, its not. it just means non-jewish.
there is actualy an really good gentile kletzmer band called die goyim here.

[hatzel]

this is getting wildy offtopic but



no, its not. it just means non-jewish.
there is actualy an really good gentile kletzmer band called die goyim here.

Oh, I know them well! I've got a few of their songs on compilation albums...but let's not get off-topic :rolleyes:

[Widerstand]

I don't think anybody is now, but to be honest I definitely feel like you've softened your stance and you might have been before.

I don't think so at all. I used to be strictly Anti-Imp and opposed to Anti-Germans when I first came to this website.



In a thread you linked me to you were throwing accusations of antisemitism left and right at people who clearly aren't, and

I may be guilty of that, but that's more of general RevLeft trend to call everyone racist, sexist, liberal, genocidal, whatever, isn't it?


you were reiterating many pro-Israel arguments (even "there's arabs in the IDF").

But there are Arabs in the IDF, that's a fact. :confused:


Even if you didn't mean for it to be, you seemed extraordinarily apologetic or sympathetic towards Israel.

If you would be so mild as to point me where I have been sympathetic towards Israel beyond saying I don't favor it's immediate abolition by an outside force?

[Palingenisis]

But there are Arabs in the IDF, that's a fact. :confused:


20 per cent of the Black and Tans were Irish Roman Catholics...Does that means that the Black and Tans were not a Imperialist terrorist force in Ireland?

[Sasha]

Name me an anti-German organization, I'll look 'em up.



I'm not aware of such a thing existing, sorry. The few openly Anti-Germans I know are in the FAU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Workers'_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Workers%27_Union)


well, bahamas ofcourse, but like said, they really are the lunatic fringe (http://www.redaktion-bahamas.org/)
i believe these are quite hardline anti-germans too: http://www.isf-freiburg.org/ & http://www.cafecritique.priv.at/
there is an hardline anti-german group within die linke (bak shalom: http://bak-shalom.de/)
more moderate anti-germans are more hard to point out as they are not as obsesed about israel and dont organise in uniform groups and because of the many shades of grey. within groups like FELS/interventionistische linken, antifasitsiche action etc etc you will find people ranging from moderate israel supporters to anti-imps and anarchists. while post/neo-marxist/critical theory group krisis (http://www.krisis.org/) rejects the whole anti-german current yet also holds pro-israel positions.
moderate anti-german postions can for sure be found in magazines like Phase 2, jungle world (http://jungle-world.com/) and konkret (http://www.konkret-verlage.de/kvv/kvv.php).

[Widerstand]

It's not excusable, but it ought to be understood.

Right, but Fascism can be understood too, yet I fight it.

The issue with the survey is that German word "verstehen" doesn't just mean "understand" but also "sympathize" (the noun is "Verständnis", which can mean both "sympathy" and "understanding").



Alright. fair enough. maybe all information on them is wrong. I'm skeptical, though. Are there really no groups?

Well as psycho said in the post I quoted, there are many different strains of Anti-Germans. If we are to apply your criticism to the Bahamas crowd, it would certainly be correct. Perhaps even if we apply it to parts of the Egotronic crowd - though many, many people who listen to Egotronic have never even heard the word Anti-German. They make party music popular amongst many even remotely left leaning persons. If we apply it to all who sympathize with Anti-Germans, identify as Anti-Germans or express believes reminiscent of other Anti-Germans, then no, I'm afraid, it's simply wrong. Just like not every Marxist is a Pol Pot apologist, not every Anti-German is a Bahamas fan.

As for Anti-German groups, as I said, I'm not aware of there being any openly Anti-German groups aside from the Bahamas, and as psycho mentioned certain newspapers taking Anti-German positions from time to time.



The problem is that the Israeli government is a racist colonialist (capitalist) government.

Exactly. So I must inquire, why reduce all of this to Israel being a Jewish state?

[Widerstand]

well, bahamas ofcourse, but like said, they really are the lunatic fringe (http://www.redaktion-bahamas.org/)
i believe these are quite hardline anti-germans too: http://www.isf-freiburg.org/ & http://www.cafecritique.priv.at/
there is an hardline anti-german group within die linke (bak shalom: http://bak-shalom.de/)
more moderate anti-germans are more hard to point out as they are not as obsesed about israel and dont organise in uniform groups and because of the many shades of grey. within groups like FELS/interventionistische linken, antifasitsiche action etc etc you will find people ranging from moderate israel supporters to anti-imps and anarchists. while post/neo-marxist/critical theory group krisis (http://www.krisis.org/) rejects the whole anti-german current yet also holds pro-israel positions.
moderate anti-german postions can for sure be found in magazines like Phase 2, jungle world (http://jungle-world.com/) and konkret (http://www.konkret-verlage.de/kvv/kvv.php).

Never heard of Cafecritique or the ISF-Freiburg, but from a quick glance they strike me as groups heavily into Critical Theory? krisis certainly is. The whole Anti-German critique of the holocaust and Anti-Semitism is heavily inspired by Critical Theory, so it makes sense that groups focusing on either hold similar positions.

The last three newspapers mentioned are moderate, but yes, definitely sympathetic to Anti-Germans.

The part about Antifa groups certainly is the most important. Many, and I believe it's safe to say the majority of, Anti-Germans are of the Autonomen spectrum, which is rather reluctant to form organizations (the various local and informally organized Anti-Fa groups and those in the iL being an exception to this).

I'm not so sure about the iL though, I'm under the impression that many of it's groups (such as Avanti, I'm not sure about FELS) are more leaning towards the Anti-Imp spectrum, or at least come from an Anti-Imp background.

[Widerstand]

20 per cent of the Black and Tans were Irish Roman Catholics...Does that means that the Black and Tans were not a Imperialist terrorist force in Ireland?

If you will find me where I said that Israel is not an imperialist, racist force in the middle east?

[freepalestine]

while murder, maybe even large scale murder takes place you cant argue that the aim of these campaings is to exterminate the palestinians (wich would be very stupid as the israeli state is largely dependant on cheap palestinian labour) its about keeping the palestinians devided and in submision.
No matter what you say the fact remains there hasnt been an rwanda, there are no palestinian killing fields, there is no palestinian sebrenica let alone an palestinian auswitch.
the key for an succesfull strugle against the actions of israel is understanding their motivation...ive seen this on here before-i wish people wouldstop using massacres/genocide/ethnocide in form of some sort of 'league tables'.
the ethniccleansing of palestinians,as being on going for well over 60 years,and is still to this day


no its not if the mayority was forced to flee, the aim of the israeli's was to clear the palestinians of their land, from the beginning their tactic was primarly to chase them over the borders. not "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (dictionary definition), it was/is an war of (forced) displacement.
wich again affirms my point that the israeli conflict is primarly about land/nation and secundairly racist. Not religious.
this is also strengthend by the fact that discrimination within israel doesnt target only palestinians. There is an whole pecking order where palestinians are just on the bottom rung.
roughly:
-liberal azkhenazi
-liberal sefardi
-orthodox
-recent rusian immigrants
-israeli christian
-etheopian jew/israeli arab
-palestinian

very similair (albeit less racial) to south africa where it went: english white->(dutch) boer->asian->collored->black->township black->homeland blackget your facts right-youre sounding like one of those apologist for israel.


----
this thread has descended into the 'antizionism is antisemitism'line spewed by mainstream zionism.

as leftists we should be against all forms of racism,antisemtism,bigotry, zionism.etc
and as krumskrims tell us "get some balls people"-as leftists

[Palingenisis]

If you will find me where I said that Israel is not an imperialist, racist force in the middle east?

Given that you have been thanking a Zionists posts....:rolleyes:

[Sasha]

ive seen this on here before-i wish people wouldstop using massacres/genocide/ethnocide in form of some sort of 'league tables'.
the ethniccleansing of palestinians,as being on going for well over 60 years,and is still to this day

get your facts right-youre sounding like one of those apologist for israel.


and you should learn how to read, i dont dispute there being ethnic-cleansing, i dispute there being an genocide.
like said, the only way to succesfully counter the israeli agenda is to properly analyse it and dont let us being drawn into the by them wanted discour. it will discredit us and wont bring any relief to the palestinians, the contrair i would say as it helps them put away all valid critism as anti-semitism and excuses their siege mentallity.
as explained above the line all anti-zionist should take is "end the occupation and the apartheid", the radical left than can follow up with "and ultimately all nation states need to be done away with". Any sloganeering about "whipe israel from the map" is at best stupid counter productive rhetoric and at worst an call for an actual genocide.


----
this thread has descended into the 'antizionism is antisemitism'line spewed by mainstream zionism.
have you even read the thread? do i really need to point out that both me, widerstand and krimkrams reject zionism? do i need to point you to the several anti-zionist action groups i have in my signature.
sheesh, i expected better from you man.


as leftists we should be against all forms of racism,antisemtism,bigotry, zionism.etc
and as krumskrims tell us "get some balls people"-as leftistsdont want to boast about my balls but i think that the fact i introduced the slogan "racism, fascism, apartheid and zionism - murder murder murder" at an german antifa demo dominated by thousands of israeli flag waving anti-germans should speak volumes about my Beitsim :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Right, but Fascism can be understood too, yet I fight it.
Of course it's to be fought, but is understanding why an oppressed people would have bigoted viewpoints an endorsement? No, it's not. That's my point.


The issue with the survey is that German word "verstehen" doesn't just mean "understand" but also "sympathize" (the noun is "Verständnis", which can mean both "sympathy" and "understanding").
I don't understand German so this I don't know any of this.


Exactly. So I must inquire, why reduce all of this to Israel being a Jewish state?I never reduced it to a Jewish state issue. At all.

I only even referred to it as a Jewish state when you did first. I have referred to Zionism and Israel. It's an issue of capitalism and zionist colonialism. That's what I've put forward all along, the entire time.

[Widerstand]

Given that you have been thanking a Zionists posts....:rolleyes:

Ah I see, you are right. Zionists are psychos, therefore psycho must be a Zionist. I will only non-visibly add to his rep from now on. :rolleyes:

Or is it Krimskrams? Is it that they are Jewish and speak Hebrew that makes them Zionist? Have I been fooled by the ZOG machine? :crying:

[Sasha]

Given that you have been thanking a Zionists posts....:rolleyes:

ooh, please tell...

[Palingenisis]

ooh, please tell...

KrisKrams is a zionist...Its become quite clear in his debates with freepalestine and others.

If someone came on here advocating that "Prods" and "Planters" should be cleansed from Ireland I would be the first to call for them to be banned. Racial nationalism is racial nationalism and racial nationalism is bloodstained and reactionary.

[Wanted Man]

Why do people always start shouting within one page of these threads? Despite all the back-and-forth accusations, it seems pretty doubtful to me that anyone in this thread is racist, anti-semitic, pro-imperialist or whatever. If there were, the right thing to do would be to try and get them banned. Maybe everything isn't so drastic?

@Widerstand and Krimskrams: I doubt there are many people on Revleft who were aware of the second meaning of the word "verstehen". The only thing that people in this thread meant is that they understand the relation between Israel's actions and new anti-semitism, not that it was somehow justified or acceptable.

You say that people need to get balls (what about the women?) and denounce anti-semitism, but people here have by and large already grown them, and consider fighting anti-semitism as the duty of communists by default. It's not something that needs to be reaffirmed every week, except for the really insecure people who are afraid of the little anti-semite in their minds.

So anyway, what's wrong with understanding something, in order to better fight it? It certainly beats the anti-German tactic of putting your fingers in your ears and saying one of the following: "Lalalalala, I can't hear youuuuu...", "This is a result of your underlying anti-semitism as a European" or "Me and my mates are going to fucking beat you up for that". If you think that people's "understanding" is wrong, then just have the fucking decency to explain it to them.

Lastly, psycho mentioned the whole "right to exist as long as other nation-states do" thing from "moderates". What kind of sense does that make? Why can't one be the first to collapse under the weight of sufficient pressure? This argument needs to rely on one of the following:

A) Israel is a nation-state like any other, and to oppose it is anti-semitic exceptionalism.
B) Israel is a special case because of the Holocaust. Israel is a safe haven for Jews, and it should be sacrosanct, and it should only be the very last nation-state to be abolished.

In the case of A, we would be toothless against any kind of settler state, including in cases besides Israel. If A, then Morocco also has a "right" to colonise the Western Sahara, the UK, Netherlands, France, etc. have a "right" to their colonial possessions, the sectarian statelet in Northern Ireland has a right to exist, white majorities in countries like Australia have the right to disenfranchise the native population, etc.

If B, well, then we're heading into some wacky territories that I'll leave up to others to explore, because it's already past 2 AM here, but hopefully people can figure it out. Hint: when you and your buddies put on police uniforms, raid a Hells Angels pub, barricade yourselves behind the bar and shoot any bikers who get too close, would you say that the bar is a safe haven for coppers?

[Widerstand]

KrisKrams is a zionist...Its become quite clear in his debates with freepalestine and others.

If someone came on here advocating that "Prods" and "Planters" should be cleansed from Ireland I would be the first to call for them to be banned. Racial nationalism is racial nationalism and racial nationalism is bloodstained and reactionary.

Can you find me one of these Zionist posts made by KrimsKrams which I have thanked?

[gorillafuck]

I don't think so at all. I used to be strictly Anti-Imp and opposed to Anti-Germans when I first came to this website.
Oh.


I may be guilty of that, but that's more of general RevLeft trend to call everyone racist, sexist, liberal, genocidal, whatever, isn't it?That doesn't matter to me, if someone throws untrue accusations I say they're wrong, even if there are more frequent accusations thrown.


But there are Arabs in the IDF, that's a fact. :confused:It is. But I recall you bringing it up, and I don't understand why you would if not to make a point about how Israels racism is "exaggerated" or something. if that was not your point in saying it then your point went over my head.


If you would be so mild as to point me where I have been sympathetic towards Israel beyond saying I don't favor it's immediate abolition by an outside force?You never said outside force, you just said "immediate abolition". I was pretty confused why a radical leftist wouldn't want the abolition of Israel as soon as possible ("immediate" isn't worth considering right now, the question is not "immediate" but revolution as soon as possible)

As for what you actually said, well, last night you accused me of being a wannabe Jew Killer on the basis of my want for Israel to be abolished asap. That's sort of what I was thinking of when I said that.

I was also thinking of this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1913281&postcount=217

and specifically in that: "and it is likely that an Arab non-PLFP regime will be apartheid and oppressive as well."

I think that it's absurd to say that Israeli shouldn't be fought on the basis that what follows it could be oppressive. All authoritarian and non-socialist governments are oppressive. That doesn't mean that the specific Israeli state, which massacres palestinian people daily to make settlements, should get slack of some kind in it's treatment.

[Widerstand]

@Widerstand and Krimskrams: I doubt there are many people on Revleft who were aware of the second meaning of the word "verstehen". The only thing that people in this thread meant is that they understand the relation between Israel's actions and new anti-semitism, not that it was somehow justified or acceptable.

Whether or not people on here are aware of the meaning of the survey or capable of grasping it doesn't change the fact that according to this survey 38% of Germans are sympathetic towards Anti-Semitism.



You say that people need to get balls (what about the women?) and denounce anti-semitism, but people here have by and large already grown them, and consider fighting anti-semitism as the duty of communists by default. It's not something that needs to be reaffirmed every week, except for the really insecure people who are afraid of the little anti-semite in their minds.

Yes, and all communists agree that sexism is bad, yet sexism continues to exist in leftist groups. That they regard it as bad is no excuse not to critically examine how much they may be affected by it. I see no such examination happening amongst the Anti-Zionist crowd, except for maybe a few small groups.



So anyway, what's wrong with understanding something, in order to better fight it? It certainly beats the anti-German tactic of putting your fingers in your ears and saying one of the following: "Lalalalala, I can't hear youuuuu...", "This is a result of your underlying anti-semitism as a European" or "Me and my mates are going to fucking beat you up for that". If you think that people's "understanding" is wrong, then just have the fucking decency to explain it to them.

Anti-Germans actually were the first ones (in Germany) to analyze and "understand" Anti-Semitism within the left, but oh wonder, people don't like hearing that their rhetoric and tactics stink of Anti-Semitism, and denying it along with slandering those bringing it up is more convenient than facing it and applying self-critique.



Lastly, psycho mentioned the whole "right to exist as long as other nation-states do" thing from "moderates". What kind of sense does that make? Why can't one be the first to collapse under the weight of sufficient pressure? This argument needs to rely on one of the following:

By "under the weight of sufficient pressure", do you mean from within or from outside? If we are talking about the working class of Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories overthrowing the Israeli state, then I'm all for it. If we are talking about an outside force such as, say, Iran, invading, then I fail to see how that is at all desirable.

[gorillafuck]

By "under the weight of sufficient pressure", do you mean from within or from outside? If we are talking about the working class of Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories overthrowing the Israeli state, then I'm all for it. If we are talking about an outside force such as, say, Iran, invading, then I fail to see how that is at all desirable.
Iran is not even close to being capable of invading Israel.

[Palingenisis]

Whether or not people on here are aware of the meaning of the survey or capable of grasping it doesn't change the fact that according to this survey 38% of Germans are sympathetic towards Anti-Semitism.
.

No they arent....They just realize that Israel's actions causes anti-semitism...Different thing.

[Widerstand]

It is. But I recall you bringing it up, and I don't understand why you would if not to make a point about how Israels racism is "exaggerated" or something. if that was not your point in saying it then your point went over my head.

I don't remember the context of this exact incident you mention, but usually I do bring Arab involvement in the IDF up is when people try to portray the IDF or Israeli violence as a thing done only by Jews.



You never said outside force, you just said "immediate abolition". I was pretty confused why a radical leftist wouldn't want the abolition of Israel as soon as possible ("immediate" isn't worth considering right now, the question is not "immediate" but revolution as soon as possible)

I may just be imagining things, but I'm very certain that many people, at least those not living in the region, who call for the abolition of Israel think of military intervention by an outside force.



As for what you actually said, well, last night you accused me of being a wannabe Jew Killer on the basis of my want for Israel to be abolished asap. That's sort of what I was thinking of when I said that.

Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I consider "abolish Israel" to be synonymous with "invade Israel."



I was also thinking of this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1913281&postcount=217

What about that post do you disagree with? That a Hamas regime would oppress Jews living in the region? That this is undesirable? That a two state solution would be a good thing? That a one state solution is problematic to achieve?



and specifically in that: "and it is likely that an Arab non-PLFP regime will be apartheid and oppressive as well."

I think that it's absurd to say that Israeli shouldn't be fought on the basis that what follows it could be oppressive. All authoritarian and non-socialist governments are oppressive. That doesn't mean that the specific Israeli state, which massacres palestinian people daily to make settlements, should get slack of some kind in it's treatment.

Well if you leave everything as it is and just disband Israeli state along with the IDF there will be all sorts of groups such as Hamas and the Israeli settlers fighting for dominance which will lead to a rather bloody civil war.

And where are Palestinians MASSACRED DAILY? Are there really large numbers of Palestinian deaths through military force every day? If so, I'd love to see any sources on this.

[Widerstand]

Iran is not even close to being capable of invading Israel.

Which is totally besides the point.


No they arent....They just realize that Israel's actions causes anti-semitism...Different thing.

So what you are saying is that I am wrong and that there is no Anti-Semitism in Germany?

Will you believe me if other Germans testify that my interpretation of the passage in question is correct, since obviously our disagreement seems to be about German semantics?

In fact the one that drew my awareness to the survey was Rjevan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fremdenfeindlichkeit-im-trend-t145997/index.html), maybe he could tell us how he interprets this passage?

[Sasha]

Why do people always start shouting within one page of these threads? Despite all the back-and-forth accusations, it seems pretty doubtful to me that anyone in this thread is racist, anti-semitic, pro-imperialist or whatever. If there were, the right thing to do would be to try and get them banned. Maybe everything isn't so drastic?

+1



You say that people need to get balls (what about the women?) and denounce anti-semitism, but people here have by and large already grown them, and consider fighting anti-semitism as the duty of communists by default. It's not something that needs to be reaffirmed every week, except for the really insecure people who are afraid of the little anti-semite in their minds.yet threads like these show that when it comes to the state of israel sane leftist sudenly loose all rational and swim fast in some very very murky waters.
there seem to be an special hate for israel, and i'm not saying that anyone here has that out of deep seeded anti-semitism but there is nothing wrong with aknowledging, analysing and critiqueing the fact that sometimes/often it is so in the broader (radical) left.
an infuential radical leftist group did put an bomb in an synagogue during the kristalnacht remembrance, they did single out and excecute people for being jewish, etc etc
these are facts, horrible facts that need to be aknowledged


So anyway, what's wrong with understanding something, in order to better fight it? It certainly beats the anti-German tactic of putting your fingers in your ears and saying one of the following: "Lalalalala, I can't hear youuuuu...", "This is a result of your underlying anti-semitism as a European" or "Me and my mates are going to fucking beat you up for that". If you think that people's "understanding" is wrong, then just have the fucking decency to explain it to them.wich is what i have been saying allalong, and stupid rhetoric about "genocide" (wich is not hapening), "the new nazi's", "whipe israel from the map", etc etc and an over focus on israels jewishness instead or its imperialism, capitalism and its, with those conected, racist apartheid and colonialism makes us more inept to fight it.


Lastly, psycho mentioned the whole "right to exist as long as other nation-states do" thing from "moderates". What kind of sense does that make? Why can't one be the first to collapse under the weight of sufficient pressure? This argument needs to rely on one of the following:

A) Israel is a nation-state like any other, and to oppose it is anti-semitic exceptionalism.
B) Israel is a special case because of the Holocaust. Israel is a safe haven for Jews, and it should be sacrosanct, and it should only be the very last nation-state to be abolished.

In the case of A, we would be toothless against any kind of settler state, including in cases besides Israel. If A, then Morocco also has a "right" to colonise the Western Sahara, the UK, Netherlands, France, etc. have a "right" to their colonial possessions, the sectarian statelet in Northern Ireland has a right to exist, white majorities in countries like Australia have the right to disenfranchise the native population, etc.

If B, well, then we're heading into some wacky territories that I'll leave up to others to explore, because it's already past 2 AM here, but hopefully people can figure it out. Hint: when you and your buddies put on police uniforms, raid a Hells Angels pub, barricade yourselves behind the bar and shoot any bikers who get too close, would you say that the bar is a safe haven for coppers?
well, actually i think its an combination of both, we need to activly opose the occupation and the apartheid (like we would in northern ireland, western sahara etc etc) but also aknowledge that the exsistence of the nation state israel is by now an fact, an sad fact but calling for its destruction (other than through worldwide revolution) is as pointless as calling for the destruction of the United States, Australia etc etc.

as quoted by widerstand at very begining of this thread my position is quite similair to that of moderated anti-germans:


1- moderate anti-germans/anti-nationale;
(although mostly marxists they hold on nations/israel opinions not that far removed from mine)
in short: all nations states are bad and need to be done away with, the reforming of an strong, big nation state in the midle of europe was an bad idea. The existence of the state of israel is by now an hystoric fact. As long as nation states exist, israel has as much right to exist as anyother state. And an war won by its arab neighbour states will propably have catastrofic consequences for the israeli proletariat.
The kibutzim project was an intresting experiment in "socialist" autonomus comunity forming. And no mather what, israel is still one of the only democratic nation state in the midle east (besides libanon and turkey) surrounded by authoritarian nation states, there is no reason to support the latter over the former like some/most anti-imps do.
(note that i, and so do some moderate anti-g's, vehermently oppose the occupation and israels apartheid system)


so again, the occupation and the apartheid need to be don away with yesterday, but the destruction of israel through any other means than an worldwide revolution or an internal proletarian socialist uprising i reject as i'm pretty sure what the outcome would be of that.

[gorillafuck]

I may just be imagining things, but I'm very certain that many people, at least those not living in the region, who call for the abolition of Israel think of military intervention by an outside force.
I've never seen support on this website for it nor have I heard support of that from the American left. I don't know about other countries.


Well I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but I consider "abolish Israel" to be synonymous with "invade Israel."of course those aren't synonymous.


What about that post do you disagree with? That a Hamas regime would oppress Jews living in the region? That this is undesirable? That a two state solution would be a good thing? That a one state solution is problematic to achieve?Why would a radical support a reformist solution that maintains a Jewish supremacist state, props up another capitalist state as well (which would most likely be a puppet, as the PA is a puppet), and is in no way anti-capitalist?

Is this the approach you take towards all states?:confused: Since you claim to treat capitalist states equally....


Well if you leave everything as it is and just disband Israeli state along with the IDF there will be all sorts of groups such as Hamas and the Israeli settlers fighting for dominance which will lead to a rather bloody civil war.Obviously if Israel was overthrown it would be in the context of a different political situation.


And where are Palestinians MASSACRED DAILY? Are there really large numbers of Palestinian deaths through military force every day? If so, I'd love to see any sources on this.http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Look at all the statistics. Massacred daily, I guess I'm wrong. That's probably a stretch. Massacred very routinely? Have their homes demolished routinely? Injured by IDF daily? Absolutely.

[hatzel]

KrisKrams is a zionist...Its become quite clear in his debates with freepalestine and others.

If someone came on here advocating that "Prods" and "Planters" should be cleansed from Ireland I would be the first to call for them to be banned. Racial nationalism is racial nationalism and racial nationalism is bloodstained and reactionary.

Did I do that? :confused: I only remember defending the right for the Jewish people, as well as all other people, to settle wherever they want, including in the Levant, without people coming and telling them that their ethnicity prohibits them from doing so. As a Zionist would have to advocate the creation of a Jewish state, that is to say a state for the Jews, whilst I, as a Libertarian Socialist, do not advocate the creation of any state, instead the abolishment of all states...well...I think you might be confusing my 'I oppose kicking the Jews out of Palestine for being the 'wrong' ethnic group' with supporting an explicitely Jewish state. It just so happens that the state of Israel prevents Jewish expulsion, so that's a matter of principle for me. Whilst I do not advocate the continued presence of states, as far as I'm concerned, whilst states do exist, I would hope for them to defend their citizens. Prevent them from dying and stuff. I think you'll find that my posts have all involved defending the right for Israel to defend its citizens from reactionary forces like Hamas and Hezbollah - at no point have I supported aggression on the part of the Israeli military for any other reason, at no point have I supported any form of discrimination against anybody for any reason. And, as an avid reader of Ha'aretz, I hardly think it's fair to claim that I support such actions.


It might be a good idea for us to think about the differences between being a Zionist and being pro-Israeli. I should also point out that I'm not so stuck in dogma to go around approving of or disapproving of every act the state makes. For some reason other people decide that much for me.


I should also point out that avid followers of my posts may remember my comments arguing against supporting any form of nationalism, including national liberation movements. As my 'debates with freepalestine and others' often boil down to being sent a load of articles and texts positing that it is the Palestinians, not the Jews, who have a genetic heritage in the Levant dating back 2000 years, because all the Jews are converts, as if their bloodline makes the slightest difference to where they can and cannot legitimately live, as well as a few articles about how it was the ancient Palestinians who pretty much came up with everything, the cradle of civilisation...well, this strikes me as a bit right-wing, and any suggestion that a specific ethnic group, through nothing other than their blood, can claim exclusive ownership of an area of land...well, that's the definition of 'racial nationalism', last time I checked. So yes, I argue against this, and these ideas, and if that's the Palestinian national liberation movement, then I sure as hell argue against that. As I argue against any claim that it is ever acceptable to say that a particular person, by their ethnicity alone, should not be allowed to live in a particular area. That is to say, I consider it a right for Afrikaaners to live in South Africa, as I consider it a right for South Africans to live in Holland. That isn't quite the same as supporting racial discrimination and white oppression of the blacks in SA. It also means that I oppose black discrimination against the whites, whilst a lot of people in the left seem happy to dismiss it as perfectly legitimate, as the Afrikaaners are 'foreigners', 'colonists', however you want to term it. I don't accept this. I consider it racism, and I fight against racism.


You'll also notice that the majority of my posts on the topic of Israel concern themselves with two things:




Opposition to destructive actions undertaken by the Palestinian liberation movement. This includes acts which harm Israelis as well as Palestinians, and even foreigners. For instance, I do not approve of the tactics of war employed by some groups, which seem to 'sacrifice' Palestinians for the eventual PR win. I don't consider this a legitimate tactic (if there was ever a legitimate tactic in waging war). I have, however, gone on record, and will go on record again, in saying that I can tolerate Palestinian attacks on Israel, be they rocket launches, suicide bombings or running up to a random Thai farm worker and stabbing him in the neck if (and only if) the target of these attacks is allowed to retaliate in self-defense. Notice how I do not say that I support these actions. My avatar alone should be enough to show that I am an avowed pacifist, though I admit that I dedicate more of my energy in opposing the systems and attitudes which make conflict inevitable, rather than carping on about the conflict itself, which, for whichever reason, had somehow become a necessity. That is to say, I view the situation as an endless chain of two groups defending themselves against the other, and then taking the retaliation as another attack, to retaliate to. I couldn't care less who we consider to have started it, as that was a hundred or so years ago. Still, merely telling one group 'hey, stop bombing people!' won't do anything if the other side will continue in their attacks. Thus, opposing the systems which draw the two groups into conflict. This, by the way, doesn't mean that I support complete segregation, or the cleansing, by either side, of the 'enemy'.
Fighting antisemitism which comes from anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli sentiment. This thread is a perfect example of this. Though Israeli Jews face a number of dangers, they are still the majority. Here in the diaspora, you may notice, we are the minority. Maybe the situation is different in America, thanks to a larger and stronger Jewish community there, but here in Europe...there's a dire situation. And a situation which stems from certain individuals using anti-Israeli ideas as a front for antisemitism, or as a springboard. Unlike some people, I don't think it's a fair thing to say 'it's the Jews' fault as a group' or 'just get rid of Israel and the antisemitism will stop'. We'll remember that antisemitism is much older than the state of Israel, and is a pretty dirty tradition in all compass directions from Israel. This I oppose, this I find terrible. Hence I take great care in ensuring that the line between legitimate anti-Zionism and totally illegitimate antisemitism, is not blurred. Anybody who's gone to Malmö, for instance, only to be told by the rabbi that it is suggested, for ones personal safety, not to wear a kippah, may well believe that the lines are blurred in some people's minds. People who sit at home reading Mein Kampf, then grab and sign and roll along to an anti-Israel march. People who vandalise Jewish gravestones with anti-Israeli graffiiti. People who make a list of their potential bombing targets, to include a number of tourist attractions, some governmental buildings and a synagogue. There's no doubt in the mind of a Jew who finds it normal to see armed guards outside his synagogue that there's a problem. Go to Berlinand try to go to a therapist funded by the local synagogue. You'll find yourself, like my friend did, being patted down and asked to walk through an x-ray machine, almost as if you're trying to get on a plane. There's a problem. This I fight. I couldn't care less what people have to say about Israel, good or bad, Israel as a concept or Israel based on its actions, but when people start claiming that the increased threat to diaspora Jews is a natural result of Israel as a state, reducing it to mere consequence of the actions of a government half way round the world, rather than a symptom of a racist mind, I draw the line. This is why, I think you'll find, I suggested that anti-Zionist activists don't just take to the streets for their anti-Israel demos, which they are free to do, but also to put in a bit of effort to fighting the antisemitism which is, apparently, justified by their anti-Zionist activities. This is what I suggested, this is what I requested. This is a part of manning up and taking responsibility, in case some right-wing xenophobic nutjob decides to listen to the anti-Zionist shpiel about this and that, and decides to respond with a brick through the nearest synagogue window. Merely trying to shirk these responsibilities, by claiming that it's down to Israel to dissolve itself, in order to end antisemitism, is a far from legitimate tactic in opposing the state of Israel. Because that's what it comes down to. This is a matter of saying 'the state of Israel is bad because it makes Jews suffer'. What's this, to convince Jews to rise up against Israel, in order to end their own suffering? I don't find this acceptable. There's a lot of islamophobia in Europe, too. How many of us are there saying 'well the Afghans should just roll over and let the Americans do whatever the hell they want out there, because they're making Muslims in the West suffer by resisting'? Nobody? Didn't think so...



End of quasi-rant...

[Rafiq]

If the left in Germany is divided between people who are sympathetic to Israel and Hamas/Taliban supporters then the German left is in a fucking awful state.

I could imagine that the anti-Germans (probably should be referred to as the German pro-colonialist left, to make their views clearer. "Anti-Germans" doesn't make much sense) could actually contribute to anti-semetism in Germany quite a lot, since they interpret criticism of Israel as anti-semetic, and therefore it's on their agenda to reinforce the conflation of the Israeli government with the Jews as people. Then again, I don't know how much influence they actually have.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ordinary German leftists who oppose Imperialism, The Israeli state, Hamas and the Taliban.

However, there are, as Widerstand has once told me, two split factions in Left Politics, Anti Germans and Anti Imps.

Both are constantly fighting each other, debating with each other, ect.

The Anti-Germans tend to be (and I'm merely assuming this) Pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist, Pro-Bomber Harris and sometimes Pro-US policy's.

The Anti-Imps on the other hand, tend to sometimes support the Taliban, the Iranian regime, Hamas, but to be honest, I don't believe they have all out support for them.

I hold the belief that they simply have "Critical support" for these reactionary's, and more along the lines support the PFLP and even the Iranian Workers opposition when it comes to situations regarding them.

But against US military intervention, they support the Iranian regime, the Taliban, and Hamas.

Of course, I would disagree on there stance 100%, but I'm simply stating their views.

If you want my opinion, It would be wise to disregard both the Anti-Germans and the Anti-Imps as Pro working class.

[Widerstand]

I've never seen support on this website for it nor have I heard support of that from the American left. I don't know about other countries.

So you claim. Why can't people call for a socialist revolution in Israel then? Why do they have to call for it's "abolition?" When have people ever called for the "abolition" of Germany, England, the USA, China, etc.?



Why would a radical support a reformist solution that maintains a Jewish supremacist state, props up another capitalist state as well (which would most likely be a puppet, as the PA is a puppet), and is in no way anti-capitalist?

Why would I support replacing a Jewish supremacist state by an Arab supremacist state?



Is this the approach you take towards all states?:confused: Since you claim to treat capitalist states equally....

Yes, my approach to all capitalist states is that removing them and leaving a void where they once were is a stupid idea, as is having another state invade them. I am in favor of socialist revolutions in all states.



Obviously if Israel was overthrown it would be in the context of a different political situation.

That's not an "immediate abolition" then.



http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Look at all the statistics. Massacred daily, I guess I'm wrong. That's probably a stretch. Massacred very routinely? Have their homes demolished routinely? Injured by IDF daily? Absolutely.

Aha, so you were using a hyperbole.

[gorillafuck]

So you claim. Why can't people call for a socialist revolution in Israel then? Why do they have to call for it's "abolition?" When have people ever called for the "abolition" of Germany, England, the USA, China, etc.?
Because much of the opposition to Israel is non-socialist.


Why would I support replacing a Jewish supremacist state by an Arab supremacist state?
The Palestinian resistance is definitely not all Arab supremacist. I think it's ignorant of you to assume that.

Do you not reject all capitalist solutions? I'm a radical leftist, so I only argue for anti-capitalist solutions. Just like how I don't think that you have to either support NATO or The Taliban, you don't need to support Hamas to want Israel overthrown by revolution as soon as possible. Your drawing a dichotomy that's based on the idea that the working class will always be weak.


Yes, my approach to all capitalist states is that removing them and leaving a void where they once were is a stupid idea, as is having another state invade them. I am in favor of socialist revolutions in all states.
That's what I've been arguing for. In Israel. But why adopt reformist demands about how to best create and maintain capitalist states in arguing for revolution? That's flat out stupid.


That's not an "immediate abolition" then.
I want it abolished and replaced with a solution that empowers workers as soon as possible and think Israel should always be opposed in it's entirety and exposed always, and we can never cut it any slack. Like all capitalist states. Colonialism should never be allowed to rear it's head again.


Aha, so you were using a hyperbole.
I was incorrect. But I corrected myself.

[Widerstand]

The Anti-Germans tend to be (and I'm merely assuming this) Pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist, Pro-Bomber Harris and sometimes Pro-US policy's.

The Anti-Imps on the other hand, tend to sometimes support the Taliban, the Iranian regime, Hamas, but to be honest, I don't believe they have all out support for them.

I hold the belief that they simply have "Critical support" for these reactionary's, and more along the lines support the PFLP and even the Iranian Workers opposition when it comes to situations regarding them.

Both of these extremely absurd positions exist, sadly, but on both sides there are large numbers of moderate persons, however even the moderates seem to fight each other. The best thing to do in Germany is refuse those categories, really.

[Widerstand]

Because much of the opposition to Israel is non-socialist.

So it's okay for socialists to fall in line with Neo-Nazi rhetorics? I see no opposition from any leftist Anti-Zionist group to non-leftist Anti-Zionists, at least not in Germany.



The Palestinian resistance is definitely not all Arab supremacist. I think it's ignorant of you to assume that.

Are Hamas not Arab supremacist?
Are Hamas not the leading faction of Palestinian resistance likely to seize power?



Do you not reject all capitalist solutions? I'm a radical leftist, so I only argue for anti-capitalist solutions. Just like how I don't think that you have to either support NATO or The Taliban, you don't need to support Hamas to want Israel overthrown by revolution as soon as possible. Your drawing a dichotomy that's based on the idea that the working class will always be weak.

I reject reformism as a road to socialism, I don't reject reform or realpolitik as a means to end horrendous situations like Israeli apartheid as soon as possible. Whether or not the working class will always be weak, a revolution right now is very unlikely, and to ask everyone to wait for world revolution until their suffering can be addressed seems a bit cynical, doesn't it?



That's what I've been arguing for. In Israel. But why adopt reformist demands about how to best create and maintain capitalist states in arguing for revolution? That's flat out stupid.

I don't think these reformist solutions are ideal ways to go about, but if they were to be put into place I wouldn't call for them to be reverted.

[gorillafuck]

So it's okay for socialists to fall in line with Neo-Nazi rhetorics? I see no opposition from any leftist Anti-Zionist group to non-leftist Anti-Zionists, at least not in Germany.
Non-socialist =/= Neo-nazi

Germany has a much different situation from much of the world I think. In the US and Britain there aren't really these problems among the opponents of zionism. I don't know how to "fix" the German situation outside of develop class consciousness.


Are Hamas not Arab supremacist?
Are Hamas not the leading faction of Palestinian resistance likely to seize power?Hamas control Gaza. They don't control the west bank. The West Bank is much larger.

You want the US to pull out of Afghanistan, I assume? The Taliban are leading the resistance. The Taliban will likely gain from the US leaving. Is that an argument for US involvement for anti-capitalists?

No, of course it's not.


I reject reformism as a road to socialism, I don't reject reform or realpolitik as a means to end horrendous situations like Israeli apartheid as soon as possible. Whether or not the working class will always be weak, a revolution right now is very unlikely, and to ask everyone to wait for world revolution until their suffering can be addressed seems a bit cynical, doesn't it?A two state solution would probably not end the oppression, it would most likely be Israel and a puppet since Israel only negotiates with puppets. This is why Hamas gained power in Gaza, Fatah weren't standing up to Israel. Also, the only solution in the context of the one state or two state solution question that supports the right of return for palestinians would be the one state solution.


I don't think these reformist solutions are ideal ways to go about, but if they were to be put into place I wouldn't call for them to be reverted.Nor would I call for them to be reverted.

[Widerstand]

Non-socialist =/= Neo-nazi

But there are Neo-Nazi Anti-Zionists, of which I have seldom heard any critique. Most prolly wouldn't even recognize them from the usual Anti-Zionist lot at Anti-Israel protests.



Germany has a much different situation from much of the world I think. In the US and Britain there aren't really these problems among the opponents of zionism. I don't know how to "fix" the German situation outside of develop class consciousness.

I am truly doubtful that Anti-Semites using Anti-Zionist discourse is something limited to Germany. Also, refer to psycho's post to see what "class conscious" Anti-Zionists have brought us: Murder of diaspora Jews. Sounds like a great fix. Maybe we should just actively oppose Anti-Semitism and stop acting like it was something that is the fault of Israel (as said by others, it predates Israel by ages) or that it is a thing of the past (which some "Muslims are the new Jews" rhetoric suggests).



Hamas control Gaza. They don't control the west bank. The West Bank is much larger.

And who controls the West Bank?



You want the US to pull out of Afghanistan, I assume? The Taliban are leading the resistance. The Taliban will likely gain from the US leaving. Is that an argument for US involvement for anti-capitalists?

Well I want Israel to pull out of the occupied territories and to end the settlements, and yes, I want the USA to pull out of Afghanistan. I don't want the Taliban to take control of the USA though, and I don't want Hamas to take control of what now is Israel, either. Similarly, I'm in favor of socialist struggle against both the Taliban and the Hamas from within their respective areas of reign.



A two state solution would probably not end the oppression, it would most likely be Israel and a puppet since Israel only negotiates with puppets. This is why Hamas gained power in the West Bank, Fatah weren't standing up to Israel. Also, the only solution in the context of the one state or two state solution question that supports the right of return for palestinians would be the one state solution.

If a two state solution automatically involves oppression or puppet states, how does a one state solution automatically exclude an apartheid regime over all of Israel AND Palestine?

[gorillafuck]

And who controls the West Bank?
Before I respond to anything else I'd like to point out that i edited that, I accidentally wrote that. Fatah controls the west bank, hamas controls the gaza strip.

[gorillafuck]

I am truly doubtful that Anti-Semites using Anti-Zionist discourse is something limited to Germany.
I also doubt it is, but it is clearly much higher in Germany than much of western Europe.


Also, refer to psycho's post to see what "class conscious" Anti-Zionists have brought us: Murder of diaspora Jews.Because of that stupid fucking guerilla group are you now saying that class conscious people shouldn't oppose zionism? That's what your post reads as.


Sounds like a great fix. Maybe we should just actively oppose Anti-Semitism and stop acting like it was something that is the fault of Israel (as said by others, it predates Israel by ages) or that it is a thing of the past (which some "Muslims are the new Jews" rhetoric suggests).I never suggested we don't oppose anti-semitism at all. Not once.


And who controls the West Bank?I mistakenly wrote that Hamas controls west bank, I meant to write Gaza. My mistake, typo.


Well I want Israel to pull out of the occupied territories and to end the settlements, and yes, I want the USA to pull out of Afghanistan. I don't want the Taliban to take control of the USA though, and I don't want Hamas to take control of what now is Israel, either. Similarly, I'm in favor of socialist struggle against both the Taliban and the Hamas from within their respective areas of reign.Alright. So then why are you discussing this saying you are wanting Israel to continue for the time being on the basis that you think Hamas would take power? That's inconsistent compared to your (in my opinion good) approach on Afghanistan.


If a two state solution automatically involves oppression or puppet states, how does a one state solution automatically exclude an apartheid regime over all of Israel AND Palestine?When people say one state solution they almost always mean one palestinian state, since Palestinians are the ones who are being colonized.

[Crux]

well, bahamas ofcourse, but like said, they really are the lunatic fringe (http://www.redaktion-bahamas.org/)
i believe these are quite hardline anti-germans too: http://www.isf-freiburg.org/ & http://www.cafecritique.priv.at/
there is an hardline anti-german group within die linke (bak shalom: http://bak-shalom.de/)
more moderate anti-germans are more hard to point out as they are not as obsesed about israel and dont organise in uniform groups and because of the many shades of grey. within groups like FELS/interventionistische linken, antifasitsiche action etc etc you will find people ranging from moderate israel supporters to anti-imps and anarchists. while post/neo-marxist/critical theory group krisis (http://www.krisis.org/) rejects the whole anti-german current yet also holds pro-israel positions.
moderate anti-german postions can for sure be found in magazines like Phase 2, jungle world (http://jungle-world.com/) and konkret (http://www.konkret-verlage.de/kvv/kvv.php).
Is there a difference between "hardline anti-german" and zionist? Because bak shalom definitely are zionists. I am not to read into the other groups, but I find that there is a strange, and indeed quite german, phenomenon to make excuses for zionists. As someone said before, if this is the result of prevailing anti-semitism the situation in germany is sad indeed.

[Widerstand]

I also doubt it is, but it is clearly much higher in Germany than much of western Europe.

Possible, I don't live in much of western Europe so I can't really tell.



Because of that stupid fucking guerilla group are you now saying that class conscious people shouldn't oppose zionism? That's what your post reads as.

I'm not saying that class conscious people shouldn't oppose Zionism, I'm saying that class consciousness doesn't protect from Anti-Semitism.



Alright. So then why are you discussing this saying you are wanting Israel to continue for the time being on the basis that you think Hamas would take power? That's inconsistent compared to your (in my opinion good) approach on Afghanistan.

Why? I said I don't want the Taliban taking control of America, which is in my eyes the "Afghan equivalent" of Hamas taking control of Israel. Perhaps the analogy between the two situations is a rather bad one, perhaps we should rather draw an analogy between the USA and Israel. I would support for the indigenous population to regain a lot of it's rights and former lands, maybe even an own state. I am aware that this is reformist, but it is under the assumption that no socialist revolution happens in the US. I would not support to replace the USA government with an indigenous state.



When people say one state solution they almost always mean one palestinian state, since Palestinians are the ones who are being colonized.

In which case it still isn't a given that there would be no apartheid.

[Widerstand]

Possible, I don't live in much of western Europe so I can't really tell.



I'm not saying that class conscious people shouldn't oppose Zionism, I'm saying that class consciousness doesn't protect from Anti-Semitism.



Why? I said I don't want the Taliban taking control of America, which is in my eyes the "Afghan equivalent" of Hamas taking control of Israel. Perhaps the analogy between the two situations is a rather bad one, perhaps we should rather draw an analogy between the USA and Israel. I would support for the indigenous population to regain a lot of it's rights and former lands, maybe even an own state. I am aware that this is reformist, but it is under the assumption that no socialist revolution happens in the US. I would not support to replace the USA government with an indigenous state.



In which case it still isn't a given that there would be no apartheid.

So hey freepalestine, how come you never post your accusations in public? I'm sure you can explain to all of us how this post is Zionist? I'm sick of your endless accusations and namecalling.

[FreeFocus]

Did I do that? :confused: I only remember defending the right for the Jewish people, as well as all other people, to settle wherever they want, including in the Levant, without people coming and telling them that their ethnicity prohibits them from doing so. As a Zionist would have to advocate the creation of a Jewish state, that is to say a state for the Jews, whilst I, as a Libertarian Socialist, do not advocate the creation of any state, instead the abolishment of all states...well...I think you might be confusing my 'I oppose kicking the Jews out of Palestine for being the 'wrong' ethnic group' with supporting an explicitely Jewish state. It just so happens that the state of Israel prevents Jewish expulsion, so that's a matter of principle for me. Whilst I do not advocate the continued presence of states, as far as I'm concerned, whilst states do exist, I would hope for them to defend their citizens. Prevent them from dying and stuff. I think you'll find that my posts have all involved defending the right for Israel to defend its citizens from reactionary forces like Hamas and Hezbollah - at no point have I supported aggression on the part of the Israeli military for any other reason, at no point have I supported any form of discrimination against anybody for any reason. And, as an avid reader of Ha'aretz, I hardly think it's fair to claim that I support such actions.


It might be a good idea for us to think about the differences between being a Zionist and being pro-Israeli. I should also point out that I'm not so stuck in dogma to go around approving of or disapproving of every act the state makes. For some reason other people decide that much for me.


I should also point out that avid followers of my posts may remember my comments arguing against supporting any form of nationalism, including national liberation movements. As my 'debates with freepalestine and others' often boil down to being sent a load of articles and texts positing that it is the Palestinians, not the Jews, who have a genetic heritage in the Levant dating back 2000 years, because all the Jews are converts, as if their bloodline makes the slightest difference to where they can and cannot legitimately live, as well as a few articles about how it was the ancient Palestinians who pretty much came up with everything, the cradle of civilisation...well, this strikes me as a bit right-wing, and any suggestion that a specific ethnic group, through nothing other than their blood, can claim exclusive ownership of an area of land...well, that's the definition of 'racial nationalism', last time I checked. So yes, I argue against this, and these ideas, and if that's the Palestinian national liberation movement, then I sure as hell argue against that. As I argue against any claim that it is ever acceptable to say that a particular person, by their ethnicity alone, should not be allowed to live in a particular area. That is to say, I consider it a right for Afrikaaners to live in South Africa, as I consider it a right for South Africans to live in Holland. That isn't quite the same as supporting racial discrimination and white oppression of the blacks in SA. It also means that I oppose black discrimination against the whites, whilst a lot of people in the left seem happy to dismiss it as perfectly legitimate, as the Afrikaaners are 'foreigners', 'colonists', however you want to term it. I don't accept this. I consider it racism, and I fight against racism.


You'll also notice that the majority of my posts on the topic of Israel concern themselves with two things:




Opposition to destructive actions undertaken by the Palestinian liberation movement. This includes acts which harm Israelis as well as Palestinians, and even foreigners. For instance, I do not approve of the tactics of war employed by some groups, which seem to 'sacrifice' Palestinians for the eventual PR win. I don't consider this a legitimate tactic (if there was ever a legitimate tactic in waging war). I have, however, gone on record, and will go on record again, in saying that I can tolerate Palestinian attacks on Israel, be they rocket launches, suicide bombings or running up to a random Thai farm worker and stabbing him in the neck if (and only if) the target of these attacks is allowed to retaliate in self-defense. Notice how I do not say that I support these actions. My avatar alone should be enough to show that I am an avowed pacifist, though I admit that I dedicate more of my energy in opposing the systems and attitudes which make conflict inevitable, rather than carping on about the conflict itself, which, for whichever reason, had somehow become a necessity. That is to say, I view the situation as an endless chain of two groups defending themselves against the other, and then taking the retaliation as another attack, to retaliate to. I couldn't care less who we consider to have started it, as that was a hundred or so years ago. Still, merely telling one group 'hey, stop bombing people!' won't do anything if the other side will continue in their attacks. Thus, opposing the systems which draw the two groups into conflict. This, by the way, doesn't mean that I support complete segregation, or the cleansing, by either side, of the 'enemy'.
Fighting antisemitism which comes from anti-Zionism or anti-Israeli sentiment. This thread is a perfect example of this. Though Israeli Jews face a number of dangers, they are still the majority. Here in the diaspora, you may notice, we are the minority. Maybe the situation is different in America, thanks to a larger and stronger Jewish community there, but here in Europe...there's a dire situation. And a situation which stems from certain individuals using anti-Israeli ideas as a front for antisemitism, or as a springboard. Unlike some people, I don't think it's a fair thing to say 'it's the Jews' fault as a group' or 'just get rid of Israel and the antisemitism will stop'. We'll remember that antisemitism is much older than the state of Israel, and is a pretty dirty tradition in all compass directions from Israel. This I oppose, this I find terrible. Hence I take great care in ensuring that the line between legitimate anti-Zionism and totally illegitimate antisemitism, is not blurred. Anybody who's gone to Malmö, for instance, only to be told by the rabbi that it is suggested, for ones personal safety, not to wear a kippah, may well believe that the lines are blurred in some people's minds. People who sit at home reading Mein Kampf, then grab and sign and roll along to an anti-Israel march. People who vandalise Jewish gravestones with anti-Israeli graffiiti. People who make a list of their potential bombing targets, to include a number of tourist attractions, some governmental buildings and a synagogue. There's no doubt in the mind of a Jew who finds it normal to see armed guards outside his synagogue that there's a problem. Go to Berlinand try to go to a therapist funded by the local synagogue. You'll find yourself, like my friend did, being patted down and asked to walk through an x-ray machine, almost as if you're trying to get on a plane. There's a problem. This I fight. I couldn't care less what people have to say about Israel, good or bad, Israel as a concept or Israel based on its actions, but when people start claiming that the increased threat to diaspora Jews is a natural result of Israel as a state, reducing it to mere consequence of the actions of a government half way round the world, rather than a symptom of a racist mind, I draw the line. This is why, I think you'll find, I suggested that anti-Zionist activists don't just take to the streets for their anti-Israel demos, which they are free to do, but also to put in a bit of effort to fighting the antisemitism which is, apparently, justified by their anti-Zionist activities. This is what I suggested, this is what I requested. This is a part of manning up and taking responsibility, in case some right-wing xenophobic nutjob decides to listen to the anti-Zionist shpiel about this and that, and decides to respond with a brick through the nearest synagogue window. Merely trying to shirk these responsibilities, by claiming that it's down to Israel to dissolve itself, in order to end antisemitism, is a far from legitimate tactic in opposing the state of Israel. Because that's what it comes down to. This is a matter of saying 'the state of Israel is bad because it makes Jews suffer'. What's this, to convince Jews to rise up against Israel, in order to end their own suffering? I don't find this acceptable. There's a lot of islamophobia in Europe, too. How many of us are there saying 'well the Afghans should just roll over and let the Americans do whatever the hell they want out there, because they're making Muslims in the West suffer by resisting'? Nobody? Didn't think so...



End of quasi-rant...

If Israel prevents the expulsion of Jews, who prevented and who prevents the expulsion of Palestinians, from the original ethnic cleansing crime in 1948 to what Israel is doing now in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

If Israel wanted to defend Israeli citizens from Hamas or Hezbollah rockets, they should stop killing Arabs. Were Arabs massacring Jews in the 1800s in Palestine? Razing villages? Firing cannons? No. You "would hope that states defend their citizens," yet Palestinians aren't even afforded that right since Israel (and the US, its benefactor) prevents the formation of a Palestinian state.

Well, yeah, the Palestinians are directly descended from Hebrews. Hebrews come from that region. Many European Jews were simply converts, but I think the vast majority are descended from Hebrew immigrants to Europe (despite mixing with local populations). The people who are now "Palestinians" were Jewish back during the Roman occupation of the region and were converted to Islam when it expanded. This is why I say that, if European Jews immigrated to historic Palestine seeking to reintegrate themselves into the region that they feel is their homeland by reaching out to its inhabitants and building a Pan-Semitic identity, great! I wouldn't have opposed that at all; in fact, I would have encouraged it. Instead, what we ended up getting was Zionism - "a land without a people for a people without a land," a doctrine that denies Palestinian/Arab personhood. I don't favor expelling Jews from Palestine. It is still possible for that reintegration to happen, although the scars of the past hundred years make it exceedingly difficult. But as long as Arabs are denied justice - namely, the dissolution of the settler state of Israel - the region will not know peace.

I also don't support cleansing Afrikaaners from South Africa, although, yes, they are settlers. It would have been perfectly just to kick them the fuck out when they first got there. But centuries later, people have ties to the land and are there through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, equating perfectly understandable sentiments from native South Africans to reclaim their homeland with apartheid White supremacist racism speaks volumes about the bankruptcy of your own politics. You should disagree with those who posit such "solutions" (e.g., Palestinians who want to send Jews away) to bring them to a more proper, humanist political stance, but it is NOT the same, one of the reasons being they lack the power to do so, while apartheid South Africa and Israel had and has the ability to forcefully move, control, or cleanse populations. You desperately need to read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe (http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670) and learn what vile, racist things came out of the mouths and writings of Israel's founders and other leading Zionists.

You're right. Antisemitism won't disappear if Israel disappeared tomorrow. It's a recurring, omnipresent feature of European society now, thanks to Christian fundamentalism. But everywhere else around the world? The Arab world? Latin America? India? China? A lot of it stems from people's improperly channeled anger against Israel's crimes.

And if it doesn't matter "who started it," I hope you take the same position if someone were to knock all of your teeth out and wail on you. I hope that you don't fight back at any point and just try to hobble to your feet and escape as they continue to beat your ass, just so your ethics are consistent, you know? And it's not just about the original ethnic cleansing, or refusing the rights of refugees to return, it's the Israeli INSISTENCE on rejecting peace and security. They want control. That's why they don't want a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood now. Why the fuck is Palestinian independence dependent on Israel's approval? People with that attitude can piss off.

Also, fun fact: the original Zionists were looking at other places besides historic Palestine to found their settler state. South America was one of these places. That would be utterly and completely unacceptable. They chose Palestine because they knew they could play up Jewish fundamentalism about Biblical Israel.

[Wanted Man]

Whether or not people on here are aware of the meaning of the survey or capable of grasping it doesn't change the fact that according to this survey 38% of Germans are sympathetic towards Anti-Semitism.

Yup, but all I'm saying is that people on Revleft didn't understand that until you explained it to them, since most of us aren't proficient enough at German. You could also wonder how many of those 38% are "sympathetic" and which ones are "understanding". Of course, every "sympathetic" percent is one too many.


Yes, and all communists agree that sexism is bad, yet sexism continues to exist in leftist groups. That they regard it as bad is no excuse not to critically examine how much they may be affected by it. I see no such examination happening amongst the Anti-Zionist crowd, except for maybe a few small groups.

That's too bad. Perhaps this differs by organisation or by country. Our organisation has several members with some form of Jewish background, yet is also pretty clearly anti-Zionist. It's good to examine one's attitudes here, but how should people do that in your opinion? Turning everything into a formalised "policeman" session, trying to root out the reactionary thoughts in your mind, is certainly not my idea of a good critical analysis.


Anti-Germans actually were the first ones (in Germany) to analyze and "understand" Anti-Semitism within the left, but oh wonder, people don't like hearing that their rhetoric and tactics stink of Anti-Semitism, and denying it along with slandering those bringing it up is more convenient than facing it and applying self-critique.

Again, I don't know enough about the internal workings of German anti-Zionist leftists, but I can quite imagine why people would be hostile to the anti-German "analysis". Making a counter-argument that is also radically wrong, but on the opposite side of the spectrum, may lead to some thought-provoking discussions, but it isn't going to solve anti-semitism.


By "under the weight of sufficient pressure", do you mean from within or from outside? If we are talking about the working class of Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories overthrowing the Israeli state, then I'm all for it. If we are talking about an outside force such as, say, Iran, invading, then I fail to see how that is at all desirable.

Well, this is so hypothetical and unlikely that it's difficult to argue. I don't think Iran or any other country will ever invade Israel. In this case, I would certainly say internal pressure.


yet threads like these show that when it comes to the state of israel sane leftist sudenly loose all rational and swim fast in some very very murky waters.
there seem to be an special hate for israel, and i'm not saying that anyone here has that out of deep seeded anti-semitism but there is nothing wrong with aknowledging, analysing and critiqueing the fact that sometimes/often it is so in the broader (radical) left.

I agree with this to some extent, but would be cautious with this line of argument. This "special hate" is due to the fact that the Israel/Palestine question receives a lot of attention and is on the public consciousness here, but not because Israel happens to be a "Jewish state". Where Israel is concerned, anyone who takes a strong position on it could be said to be engaged in either "special hate" or "special love" for it, because I doubt any other similar question is debated so often in the west.

In other countries, people might debate a lot more about different things. The danger with the "special hate" line is that anyone can use it to attack people who are too critical. What if we started doing more with the West Sahara issue? The Moroccan government could launch propaganda along the lines of: "Well, that's just because Dutch people are generally racist towards Moroccans, and now even the left is getting involved."


an infuential radical leftist group did put an bomb in an synagogue during the kristalnacht remembrance, they did single out and excecute people for being jewish, etc etc
these are facts, horrible facts that need to be aknowledged

Agreed, but I'm also convinced that these were different people at different times in different countries. The potential anti-semitism that pro-Palestinian activism today faces is of an entirely different level.

The people who started shouting anti-semitic bullshit at a demonstration last year were, to my knowledge, a tiny minority not part of any leftist group. Their anti-semitism was the dumb, kneejerk emotional one derived from Israel's actions in Gaza. Quite different from knowing, calculated anti-semitism from people who should really know better, as in your examples.


wich is what i have been saying allalong, and stupid rhetoric about "genocide" (wich is not hapening), "the new nazi's", "whipe israel from the map", etc etc and an over focus on israels jewishness instead or its imperialism, capitalism and its, with those conected, racist apartheid and colonialism makes us more inept to fight it.

Agreed.


well, actually i think its an combination of both, we need to activly opose the occupation and the apartheid (like we would in northern ireland, western sahara etc etc) but also aknowledge that the exsistence of the nation state israel is by now an fact, an sad fact but calling for its destruction (other than through worldwide revolution) is as pointless as calling for the destruction of the United States, Australia etc etc.

as quoted by widerstand at very begining of this thread my position is quite similair to that of moderated anti-germans:

so again, the occupation and the apartheid need to be don away with yesterday, but the destruction of israel through any other means than an worldwide revolution or an internal proletarian socialist uprising i reject as i'm pretty sure what the outcome would be of that.

Yes, your post quoted by Widerstand is what I referred to. Why though? I don't see how this follows at all. I absolutely think it would be a step forwards if states like NI, Israel, etc. were to be abolished in favour of those not founded in national oppression.

I'd say that to deny this is to deny the ability of human beings to coexist without that kind of oppression. It's the same with people who oppose Irish unification: "What, won't that mean that all Protestants will be killed or deported to Britain?" No of course not, that's never been the issue.

With Israel, this is not as easy, and I also don't agree with the idea that everything would be fine and dandy if a faction like Hamas could somehow conquer the entire area (which is an unrealistic scenario) and "wipe Israel from the map". But that doesn't mean that Israel should somehow be protected and preserved at all costs until the bitter end. I don't see why at all.

The entire idea of national liberation is that a nation which oppresses another nation cannot be free itself, therefore the abolition of Israel would also, on the long-term, be beneficial for the Jews in Israel and the rest of the world. When do you think a group of working-class people have the most potential to free themselves?

A) When they live in a settler state, which sends them to die for its preservation at the expense of other groups, all the while proclaiming that it is indeed fully representative of the entire group, which many of its opponents around the world do believe.
B) When they don't.

It's for the same reason that a construction worker has more revolutionary potential than a cop, because the cops become the enforcers of a reactionary system as long as they are employed by it. They are the ones actually wielding the baton, and people will, for better or worse, treat them as the representatives of the system, rather than the government itself. Cops have quite a higher mortality rate than Ministers of Justice...

If the justice system could be somehow derailed or sabotaged, then that would also be helpful for a vast amount of people, even if socialism hasn't been achieved yet, even if it causes increased crime rates until then, at least an essential part of the system has been turned against itself, and this will have an emancipatory function for a larger amount of people. This increases consciousness and therefore also bring revolution closer.

[Sasha]

i'll reply later more indept to the rest of your post, but shortly this;


I agree with this to some extent, but would be cautious with this line of argument. This "special hate" is due to the fact that the Israel/Palestine question receives a lot of attention and is on the public consciousness here, but not because Israel happens to be a "Jewish state". Where Israel is concerned, anyone who takes a strong position on it could be said to be engaged in either "special hate" or "special love" for it, because I doubt any other similar question is debated so often in the west.

i think you are grosely underestimating the traditional anti-semitism over here.
the CDA estimates that they lost, mostly in traditional catholic area's, about six parlement seats to the VVD just because rightwing christians wanted to prevent at all costs Job Cohen to become prime minister. While i would never say all of these voters are all out anti-semites i am afraid that an big part of them where more adversed to Cohen for being jewish than for being an social democrat.

[hatzel]

If Israel wanted to defend Israeli citizens from Hamas or Hezbollah rockets, they should stop killing Arabs.

Easy thing to say, but one could also point out that if the Arabs don't want to get killed, they should stop killing Israelis. Simple solution. And this is exactly what I meant with:



I view the situation as an endless chain of two groups defending themselves against the other, and then taking the retaliation as another attack, to retaliate to. I couldn't care less who we consider to have started it, as that was a hundred or so years ago. Still, merely telling one group 'hey, stop bombing people!' won't do anything if the other side will continue in their attacks.


There's a reason I say things. And clearly, in this case, we have a situation whereby you are assigning blame to one side. Though I ask, why don't we seem to accept the suggestion that Israel kills Arabs (though really we should say 'people', so that we don't think that they are targeted for their ethnicity) because of the rockets? For some reason this idea is totally illegitimate, whilst it's fair to say that Arab groups target Israel because of Israeli attacks in Arab territory. Which all links in with:



I can tolerate Palestinian attacks on Israel, be they rocket launches, suicide bombings or running up to a random Thai farm worker and stabbing him in the neck if (and only if) the target of these attacks is allowed to retaliate in self-defense


Once again, a reason why I say things. Some of us are actually trying to look at the situation subjectively and see a shared blame, which is clearly the case. Some of us are stuck in the 'but the guys I like are angels who never did anything wrong, they're forever the innocent victims'. But I'll tell you a secret. 1920 was bad. 1920 was racist. 1920 saw the massacre of parts of the old Yishuv, Jews who had lived in Jerusalem for centuries. No matter what opinion one has of new immigration to an area, attacking people for their religion / ethnicity / whatever is never an acceptable solution. One could easily argue that events like this were fundamental in installing a 'the Arabs want to kill us all'-mentality in the Zionist mindset, which could have shaped the later interaction between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. This isn't saying that the Zionist response to this was, in its turn, justified, I'm just pointing out that trying to push all the blame onto one side is more than just narrow-minded - it's pure stupidity.



Were Arabs massacring Jews in the 1800s in Palestine? Razing villages? Firing cannons? No.Strange how you ask me a question, and then give the incorrect answer. There were anti-Jewish pogroms in Jerusalem in 1847, 1870 and 1895, and one in Jaffa in 1876. Look it up. I really wish I knew where this 'there was no pre-Zionist antisemitism in the Muslim world' idea comes from, but it's definitely not based on fact. Maybe it's just a question of scale. Europe was more antisemitic, that is to say, more Jews were killed in Europe (though of course there were more Jews overall), so therefore nowhere else was antisemitic at all. More on this idea of scale and comparison is to come, if you read on...


Well, yeah, the Palestinians are directly descended from Hebrews. Hebrews come from that region. Many European Jews were simply converts, but I think the vast majority are descended from Hebrew immigrants to Europe (despite mixing with local populations). The people who are now "Palestinians" were Jewish back during the Roman occupation of the region and were converted to Islam when it expanded.Did I deny this? I only denied that it makes the blindest bit of difference to the whole situation, and anybody who uses it in a discussion on the state of Israel is clearly expressing their strongly right-wing ideas, that ones ethnicity plays any roll in determining where one can and cannot settle. This is what I said. I didn't deny it as a statement. If I'm going to bother typing all this shit out, it might be nice if people read it and responded to what I actually wrote, rather than responding to something totally different. Though of course if you'd like to defend the suggestion that the Israel has no right to exist because the Jew's don't have the pure, uncontaminated genetic make-up of the ancient Judaeans, be my guest.



This is why I say that, if European Jews immigrated to historic Palestine seeking to reintegrate themselves into the region that they feel is their homeland by reaching out to its inhabitants and building a Pan-Semitic identity, great! I wouldn't have opposed that at all; in fact, I would have encouraged it. Instead, what we ended up getting was ZionismThis is actually what we did get. Actually we got it twice. From the Zionist perspective, we had people like Einstein, who supported the establishment of a 'shared' Jewish-Arab socialist state in Palestine. Of course there were a great many Zionists who supported exactly that, the establishment of a state based on the complete cooperation between the Zionists and the native population. One could link back to my previous comments about the 1920 riots, and one could argue that these currents of Zionism were effectively stamped out when it was noticed that the native population weren't particularly interested in cooperation with the newcomers. Had they welcomed the coming Jews, and worked together to build a state, perhaps the situation would have been different...


The name of the other movement which fits this description...well, I've forgotten it. It was all basically based on the idea that the populations of the Levant were descended from the inhabitants of the Biblical Kingdoms, and therefore advocated the establishment of a Greater Israel, reuniting these people into one state, proud of their heritage. Needless to say, they looked quite favourably on Mussolini, and the idea died out quite quickly when Jews decided that fascism wasn't a great thing.


Nonetheless, equating perfectly understandable sentiments from native South Africans to reclaim their homeland with apartheid White supremacist racism speaks volumes about the bankruptcy of your own politics.Excuse me? When did I equate anything with anything? Do people not read my posts? I stated quite clearly that anti-white discrimination in SA is racism. This is a fact. Irrespective of its reasoning or supposed justification, it is racism, and should be actively opposed. What part of this is difficult to understand? Why is everything in comparison, some competition? Is it okay for the blacks to be racist towards the whites because the whites were somehow more racist towards the blacks. Or, because they had to power to institutionalise this racism. If the black government of SA were today to set up a system of apartheid, merely reversing the roles of whites and blacks, I would hope that it would raise a few eyebrows. Then I would equate the two. At present, though, I merely state what is and isn't racism. Irrespective of anything else that has ever happened at any point in the history of civilisation, if a black South African discriminates against an Afrikaaner, it is racism. Why would it stop being racism just because this Afrikaaner's ancestors came from elsewhere and set up a pretty naughty system. Racism as retaliation is still racism. There is nothing bankrupt about my politics. The bankrupt politics are those which claim that racism or other forms of discrimination can ever be justified.


And if it doesn't matter "who started it," I hope you take the same position if someone were to knock all of your teeth out and wail on you. I hope that you don't fight back at any point and just try to hobble to your feet and escape as they continue to beat your ass, just so your ethics are consistent, you know?Read. My. Fucking. Post. Just to help you out:



I have, however, gone on record, and will go on record again, in saying that I can tolerate Palestinian attacks on Israel, be they rocket launches, suicide bombings or running up to a random Thai farm worker and stabbing him in the neck if (and only if) the target of these attacks is allowed to retaliate in self-defense. Notice how I do not say that I support these actions. My avatar alone should be enough to show that I am an avowed pacifist, though I admit that I dedicate more of my energy in opposing the systems and attitudes which make conflict inevitable, rather than carping on about the conflict itself, which, for whichever reason, had somehow become a necessity. That is to say, I view the situation as an endless chain of two groups defending themselves against the other, and then taking the retaliation as another attack, to retaliate to. I couldn't care less who we consider to have started it, as that was a hundred or so years ago. Still, merely telling one group 'hey, stop bombing people!' won't do anything if the other side will continue in their attacks. Thus, opposing the systems which draw the two groups into conflict.


There it is again. Maybe it will be read this time. At no point in this do I say anything about 'turning the other cheek' or anything like that. These are my ethics on this subject. I have quite clearly outlined that I do not oppose the conflict itself, but the systems that lead to that conflict. I said quite clearly that I tolerate attacks, and the subsequent self-defense. In fact, I even said, if we use your little story, that I can tolerate this guy coming to punch me in the face if (and only if) I can then kick him in the nads or something. As this attack in self-defense has been made necessary by the initial attack. To continue the analogy, let's pretend that he punches me for some antisemitic reason. Sees me out and about, decides he doesn't like Jews, punches me in the face. I would oppose the antisemitic attitudes in society which make him want to punch me, rather than concentrating merely on his actual act of violence. But I wouldn't support the suggestion that antisemitism can be overcome by merely ensuring that Jews and non-Jews never come across one another. Although this solves the problem of Jews getting punched in the face, it doesn't really solve the underlying issue. Solving antisemitism which uses anti-Zionism as a springboard or as justification cannot be overcome by merely removing Israel, as this is flawed logic.



Also, fun fact: the original Zionists were looking at other places besides historic Palestine to found their settler state. South America was one of these places. That would be utterly and completely unacceptable. They chose Palestine because they knew they could play up Jewish fundamentalism about Biblical Israel.It's a rather well-known fun fact. Though I don't see why it would be so devilishly unacceptable to set up a state out on the Argentinian plains or something...but of course the majority of Zionists questioned why exactly Jews would want to go out to Argentina or Kenya or Australia or wherever. The failure of territorialism did kind of prove that there was little desire to set up a state anywhere else. I'm sure that this was a cause of great concern for the Soviets with their alternative Zion out in Birobidzhan. Quick question...is the Jewish Autonomous Oblast also 'utterly and completely unacceptable'?






Anyway, why does this keep happening to these threads? This thread is about antisemitism and the German left. We might be able to claim that it is something which can be expanded to include the interaction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism in Europe today. But for some reason, no, this whole topic is always totally swerved by all and sundry. Why does this debate always have to turn into accusations about just how terrible Israel is...does this justify antisemitism? That's the issue, I keep seeing people on threads like this who seem to subscribe to this theory. 'If only I can say just how bad Israel is, surely he'll see that Israel is to blame for all this'. Maybe this is why the second point on my post was almost entirely ignored. Because still, people seem to refuse to entertain the idea that there is a problem with antisemitism in Europe today...a problem which cannot be swept under the rug by just claiming that it's all Israel's fault. Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, in bold: anybody who claims that antisemitism is justified because of the actions of Israel, or claims that antisemitism is the fault of Israel, is no different from those people who claim that islamophobia is justified due to the actions of Al-Qaeda and other 'radical' Islamic groups, that is to say a tacit, or perhaps even active, supporter of racism. Thanks.

[Rafiq]

If you want to seriously fight against antisemitism fight against the existence of the state of Israel...The biggest promoter of it in the world today.

That's like saying

If you want to fight Islamophobia, join the army and fight the Taliban, the biggest promoter of it today

[gorillafuck]

Which is totally besides the point.
Then why'd you bring it up?

I'd oppose Australia invading Israel.

Doesn't mean it has a remote chance of happening.




So what you are saying is that I am wrong and that there is no Anti-Semitism in Germany?
No.....not at all.......how did you get that from what I said?


Will you believe me if other Germans testify that my interpretation of the passage in question is correct, since obviously our disagreement seems to be about German semantics?
I don't disbelieve your statistics, not at all. You constantly think I mean things that I think I clearly don't.

[gorillafuck]

Easy thing to say, but one could also point out that if the Arabs don't want to get killed, they should stop killing Israelis. Simple solution. And this is exactly what I meant with:
But Israelis are the ones colonizing Palestinian land. Is violence against a colonialist state worse or equal to violence against people being colonized?


There's a reason I say things. And clearly, in this case, we have a situation whereby you are assigning blame to one side. Though I ask, why don't we seem to accept the suggestion that Israel kills Arabs (though really we should say 'people', so that we don't think that they are targeted for their ethnicity) because of the rockets? For some reason this idea is totally illegitimate, whilst it's fair to say that Arab groups target Israel because of Israeli attacks in Arab territory. Which all links in with:They're not targeted for their ethnicity, but the the reality is that arabs are having their land stolen and getting shot at by IDF soldiers. Settlers aren't.

Israel doesn't target Arabs because of their rockets, they do it for imperialist expansion. You seem to know nothing of colonialism or imperialism.







Strange how you ask me a question, and then give the incorrect answer. There were anti-Jewish pogroms in Jerusalem in 1847, 1870 and 1895, and one in Jaffa in 1876. Look it up. I really wish I knew where this 'there was no pre-Zionist antisemitism in the Muslim world' idea comes from, but it's definitely not based on fact. Maybe it's just a question of scale. Europe was more antisemitic, that is to say, more Jews were killed in Europe (though of course there were more Jews overall), so therefore nowhere else was antisemitic at all. More on this idea of scale and comparison is to come, if you read on...Notice how 1847, 1870, and 1895 all happened half a century before Israel was established.

Oppression isn't an excuse for colonialism.


Did I deny this? I only denied that it makes the blindest bit of difference to the whole situation, and anybody who uses it in a discussion on the state of Israel is clearly expressing their strongly right-wing ideas, that ones ethnicity plays any roll in determining where one can and cannot settle. This is what I said. I didn't deny it as a statement. If I'm going to bother typing all this shit out, it might be nice if people read it and responded to what I actually wrote, rather than responding to something totally different. Though of course if you'd like to defend the suggestion that the Israel has no right to exist because the Jew's don't have the pure, uncontaminated genetic make-up of the ancient Judaeans, be my guest.
That's not the argument. The argument is that we oppose what is objectively colonialism, whereas you do not. Yeah Palestinians target Israel with rockets. What else should they do? Is some European pacifist saying that if people that are rampantly oppressed use any violence against the state that oppresses them, they should expect white phosphorus in their windows?


This is actually what we did get. Actually we got it twice. From the Zionist perspective, we had people like Einstein, who supported the establishment of a 'shared' Jewish-Arab socialist state in Palestine. Of course there were a great many Zionists who supported exactly that, the establishment of a state based on the complete cooperation between the Zionists and the native population. One could link back to my previous comments about the 1920 riots, and one could argue that these currents of Zionism were effectively stamped out when it was noticed that the native population weren't particularly interested in cooperation with the newcomers. Had they welcomed the coming Jews, and worked together to build a state, perhaps the situation would have been different...Albert Einsteins views were probably the best, he was also an anti-imperialist and he'd rabidly oppose Israel today. The zionist movement should have been one of simply moving to an area to live side by side, that'd be fine. But it wasn't. It was always racial supremacist.


Excuse me? When did I equate anything with anything? Do people not read my posts? I stated quite clearly that anti-white discrimination in SA is racism. This is a fact. Irrespective of its reasoning or supposed justification, it is racism, and should be actively opposed. What part of this is difficult to understand? Why is everything in comparison, some competition? Is it okay for the blacks to be racist towards the whites because the whites were somehow more racist towards the blacks. Or, because they had to power to institutionalise this racism. If the black government of SA were today to set up a system of apartheid, merely reversing the roles of whites and blacks, I would hope that it would raise a few eyebrows. Then I would equate the two. At present, though, I merely state what is and isn't racism. Irrespective of anything else that has ever happened at any point in the history of civilisation, if a black South African discriminates against an Afrikaaner, it is racism. Why would it stop being racism just because this Afrikaaner's ancestors came from elsewhere and set up a pretty naughty system. Racism as retaliation is still racism. There is nothing bankrupt about my politics. The bankrupt politics are those which claim that racism or other forms of discrimination can ever be justified.I agree with what you said about racism, but I would like to point out that it's pretty untrue that your politics aren't bankrupt.

You're a pacifist who supports the "right" of imperialist militaries to "retaliate", which is laughable in regards to your pacifism. How does that aid any sort of liberation for anyone or promote class politics?

You also say arabs shouldn't attack Israel if they don't want to get attacked. You're putting blame on the colonized for the violence of the colonizers. Maybe the cops wouldn't have attacked black panthers if they weren't black panthers, by your thinking.


There it is again. Maybe it will be read this time. At no point in this do I say anything about 'turning the other cheek' or anything like that. These are my ethics on this subject. I have quite clearly outlined that I do not oppose the conflict itself, but the systems that lead to that conflict. I said quite clearly that I tolerate attacks, and the subsequent self-defense. In fact, I even said, if we use your little story, that I can tolerate this guy coming to punch me in the face if (and only if) I can then kick him in the nads or something. As this attack in self-defense has been made necessary by the initial attack. To continue the analogy, let's pretend that he punches me for some antisemitic reason. Sees me out and about, decides he doesn't like Jews, punches me in the face. I would oppose the antisemitic attitudes in society which make him want to punch me, rather than concentrating merely on his actual act of violence. But I wouldn't support the suggestion that antisemitism can be overcome by merely ensuring that Jews and non-Jews never come across one another. Although this solves the problem of Jews getting punched in the face, it doesn't really solve the underlying issue. Solving antisemitism which uses anti-Zionism as a springboard or as justification cannot be overcome by merely removing Israel, as this is flawed logic.There it is again. You support the "right to self defense" for an imperialist army.



It's a rather well-known fun fact. Though I don't see why it would be so devilishly unacceptable to set up a state out on the Argentinian plains or something...but of course the majority of Zionists questioned why exactly Jews would want to go out to Argentina or Kenya or Australia or wherever. The failure of territorialism did kind of prove that there was little desire to set up a state anywhere else. I'm sure that this was a cause of great concern for the Soviets with their alternative Zion out in Birobidzhan. Quick question...is the Jewish Autonomous Oblast also 'utterly and completely unacceptable'?That depends, was the Jewish Autonomist Oblast set up through ethnic cleansing and colonialism?


anybody who claims that antisemitism is justified because of the actions of Israel, or claims that antisemitism is the fault of Israel, is no different from those people who claim that islamophobia is justified due to the actions of Al-Qaeda and other 'radical' Islamic groups, that is to say a tacit, or perhaps even active, supporter of racism. Thanks.Nobody here said it is "justified" because of Israel, that should be clear. And I don't think it's the "fault" of Israel, but it has to be understood in the context of the situation. Anti-semitic attacks do increase when Israel acts out, such as the semi-recent attack on Gaza. That's reality. It's not okay, and just so you don't start balling and accuse me of justifying it, I want to make sure you know that it's not okay or justified.

[Palingenisis]

That's like saying

If you want to fight Islamophobia, join the army and fight the Taliban, the biggest promoter of it today

Thats true...Political Islam does contribute to the EDL and can be extremely divisive in working class communities in the Imperialist nations.

[Widerstand]

Yup, but all I'm saying is that people on Revleft didn't understand that until you explained it to them, since most of us aren't proficient enough at German. You could also wonder how many of those 38% are "sympathetic" and which ones are "understanding". Of course, every "sympathetic" percent is one too many.

If I am to judge by the image I get in the media and on the street, every single one of them is sympathetic.


That's too bad. Perhaps this differs by organisation or by country. Our organisation has several members with some form of Jewish background, yet is also pretty clearly anti-Zionist. It's good to examine one's attitudes here, but how should people do that in your opinion? Turning everything into a formalised "policeman" session, trying to root out the reactionary thoughts in your mind, is certainly not my idea of a good critical analysis.

Well it's hard to examine Anti-Semitism at all if you can't even bring it up without instantly being called Zionist, racist and Bahamas-groupie. It's also pretty hard for a group to actually examine where it's rhetoric is Anti-Semite if they simply refuse to see that there can be a connection between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism.



Again, I don't know enough about the internal workings of German anti-Zionist leftists, but I can quite imagine why people would be hostile to the anti-German "analysis". Making a counter-argument that is also radically wrong, but on the opposite side of the spectrum, may lead to some thought-provoking discussions, but it isn't going to solve anti-semitism.

But you realize that the extreme Anti-German positions didn't form in a void, but rather that they were a response to the open hostility of large parts of the German left? Initially (that is, in the early 90s), the Anti-Germans did a good job analyzing how certain rhetoric and actions used by the German left carry Anti-Semite connotations and how they provide a platform for Anti-Semites to project their hatred on Israel. It was much later that the Bahamas were formed, that people started marching with Bomber Harris flags, or that Anti-Imps called for unconditional support of the Taliban.


I agree with this to some extent, but would be cautious with this line of argument. This "special hate" is due to the fact that the Israel/Palestine question receives a lot of attention and is on the public consciousness here, but not because Israel happens to be a "Jewish state". Where Israel is concerned, anyone who takes a strong position on it could be said to be engaged in either "special hate" or "special love" for it, because I doubt any other similar question is debated so often in the west.

But why does Israel/Palestine receive a special amount of attention?



Agreed, but I'm also convinced that these were different people at different times in different countries. The potential anti-semitism that pro-Palestinian activism today faces is of an entirely different level.

All of those were in the late 60s/70s and in all of those were German leftists involved (the ones bombing the synagogue were related to RZ and Movement 2nd June; the ones with the bus were related to the RAF).


Then why'd you bring it up?

Clarification: Whether or not my example is a particularly realistic one is besides the point, the scenario for which it was an example isn't.



No.....not at all.......how did you get that from what I said?

I don't disbelieve your statistics, not at all. You constantly think I mean things that I think I clearly don't.

Are you Palingenisis?

[gorillafuck]

Clarification: Whether or not my example is a particularly realistic one is besides the point, the scenario for which it was an example isn't.
I can't imagine any country invading Israel. Every country knows what would happen to them if they did. Maybe countries like Iraq in the 90's may have targeted Israel with missiles that don't quite work for the purpose of retaliating against the United States, but nobody could invade Israel.


Are you Palingenisis?
oh whoops!

[hatzel]

I won't quote from the first bit, I'll just point out that I don't support all these actions everybody keeps talking about, and seemingly accusing me of supporting. I would welcome the immediate creation of a fully independent Palestinian state in the West Bank (working on the assumption that this is the most workable short-term solution), and they can do whatever they want with that. If they want to exist just like that, they can. If they want to become part of Jordan, they can. If they want to apply to be an overseas territory of the United States, they can. Despite this, I oppose any Palestinian organisation which has as its aim to bring down Israel and absorb this territory into their own state. Because I see this as counter-productive. Now, to quote a few things in turn, and hopefully address everything...

Notice how 1847, 1870, and 1895 all happened half a century before Israel was established.

Oppression isn't an excuse for colonialism.The original statement was that Arabs didn't kill Jews in Palestine in the 1800's. I pointed out that they did. I didn't make any reference to it being an excuse for colonialism or anything, I was just stating that the original statement was false. If people lie, though ignorance or malice, I call them up on it. Problem with that?


Albert Einsteins views were probably the best, he was also an anti-imperialist and he'd rabidly oppose Israel today. The zionist movement should have been one of simply moving to an area to live side by side, that'd be fine. But it wasn't. It was always racial supremacist.Einstein was, in his own words, a Zionist. He also, however, opposed the partition plan, and advocated the establishment of a single state in the Mandate, equally Jewish and Arab. Where the two would live side by side, as you yourself requested. Where is the racial supremacy here, as it seems that Einstein's Zionism was exactly what you were asking for. As was Martin Buber's Zionism, and a host of other individuals' Zionism. So no, it wasn't always racial supremacist, unless you are yourself advocating a racial supremacist system. But of course you're not, so it's inaccurate to claim that Zionism was always about racial supremacy. Being a Zionist and supporting a bi-national solution are in no way mutually exclusive.


You're a pacifist who supports the "right" of imperialist militaries to "retaliate", which is laughable in regards to your pacifism. How does that aid any sort of liberation for anyone or promote class politics?I'll quote myself again:



Notice how I do not say that I support these actions.


Maybe you notice that I said that I didn't say that I support these actions. I also find it strange that you pick out that I "support" the "right" of imperialist militaries to "retaliate"...why don't you point out that I "support" the "right" of national liberation movements to themselves attack? I do not support either as "rights", despite your claims, but I'm not stupid enough to say "even if somebody hits you a thousand times, you should never strike them back". The world doesn't work this way, and I accept that. Which is why I outlined quite clearly that merely calling on Israel / the Palestinians / both to lay down their arms isn't a solution. Because, of course, if only one side does, then the other will eventually strike, and the struck will feel the need to retaliate. Which is an understandable response, and whilst I do not support the right for anybody to attack anybody else, I am opposed to a situation whereby one side is seemingly forbidden from retaliating in kind, in the unfortunate event that the military option is taken. Back to the point, even if both sides were disarmed, even if we went over and took every gun, every missile, every tank, everything, from Israelis and Palestinians alike, and somehow set up some impenetrable force-field around the whole area, to prevent even a single bullet re-entering the territory...this still doesn't solve the issue. There are still two groups with the mentality which previously fostered war, but will now just be realised in a different way. This is what I target. The underlying mentality, the systems, which are unfortunately realised as military conflict.


If we want to do everything in little analogies, let's consider I go to a doctor. He doesn't treat the symptoms - he treats the disease. Sure, he might give me a little something to ease the symptoms, calm some swelling or whatever, but he's not going to just give me a few cough sweets when I've got throat cancer. That's the issue. I don't aim at the symptoms, I aim at the disease. These attacks are the symptoms, which almost cannot be helped, as they are the natural consequences of the disease. For me, this is the difference between what seems to be your idea of a pacifist, somebody who treats the symptoms, with my idea of a pacifist, somebody who targets the disease itself.


You also say arabs shouldn't attack Israel if they don't want to get attacked. You're putting blame on the colonized for the violence of the colonizers.I think it was quite clear that I expressed this view as a point in opposition to the suggestion that Israel are to blame for being attacked, for their own attacking. I was merely pointing out that these attacks themselves may be retaliatory in nature. In doing so, I was hoping to point out how it was totally futile to blame anybody, as that's counter-productive.


That depends, was the Jewish Autonomist Oblast set up through ethnic cleansing and colonialism?One would assume so. Though in this case it would be actual colonialism, that is to say, an 'empire', in this case the Soviet Union, unilaterally claiming that this plot of land out there in the east would now be an oblast for the Jewish people, and telling all the Jews to move there. Now that, that is a colony, in the truest sense of 19th century empire-building. So for me it's strange how the Soviet Union, and, subsequently, a wide variety of Soviet-inspired / -funded groups would complain about the idea of a people deciding for themselves to declare independence in a given territory they have chosen to inhabit, namely Israel, whilst they themselves were setting up ethnic entities without consulting popular opinion, and subsequently suggesting the Jews move to colonise this previous Jew-free oblast, so that it might live up to its billing. Of course the difference is that Birobidzhan was under the Soviet yolk, whilst Israel wasn't.


I want to make sure you know that it's not okay or justified.I want to make sure you know that I was not accusing you of claiming that at any point :)

EDIT: why the hell am I still being interrogated on Israel in an antisemitism thread? Why are the parts of my posts which are on topic relegated to second place in favour of the 'juicy' stuff, namely, Israel-bashing? This was a side point. The discussion should still remain, irrespective of anything involving Israel, what can do we about the problem of antisemitism. Or, for some of us, the question still seems to be whether or not Israel can be directly blamed for causing antisemitism. Either of these two, talk to me about that, not about Israel. Save that for the situation in Palestine thread...

[gorillafuck]

I won't quote from the first bit, I'll just point out that I don't support all these actions everybody keeps talking about, and seemingly accusing me of supporting. I would welcome the immediate creation of a fully independent Palestinian state in the West Bank (working on the assumption that this is the most workable short-term solution), and they can do whatever they want with that. If they want to exist just like that, they can. If they want to become part of Jordan, they can. If they want to apply to be an overseas territory of the United States, they can. Despite this, I oppose any Palestinian organisation which has as its aim to bring down Israel and absorb this territory into their own state. Because I see this as counter-productive. Now, to quote a few things in turn, and hopefully address everything...
You support a solution of creating a capitalist state as long as it has no hostility towards Israel. You propose a reformist capitalist solution involving what would effectively be the creation of a puppet state.


The original statement was that Arabs didn't kill Jews in Palestine in the 1800's. I pointed out that they did. I didn't make any reference to it being an excuse for colonialism or anything, I was just stating that the original statement was false. If people lie, though ignorance or malice, I call them up on it. Problem with that?My mistake, I read it incorrectly. But I have definitely heard that before 1948 that there was a relative peace between Jews and Muslims in Palestine.


Einstein was, in his own words, a Zionist. He also, however, opposed the partition plan, and advocated the establishment of a single state in the Mandate, equally Jewish and Arab. Where the two would live side by side, as you yourself requested. Where is the racial supremacy here, as it seems that Einstein's Zionism was exactly what you were asking for. As was Martin Buber's Zionism, and a host of other individuals' Zionism. So no, it wasn't always racial supremacist, unless you are yourself advocating a racial supremacist system. But of course you're not, so it's inaccurate to claim that Zionism was always about racial supremacy. Being a Zionist and supporting a bi-national solution are in no way mutually exclusive.Einstiens zionism is far different from the way the zionist political movement actually went about itself. The zionist political movement today is what it is, regardless of what dissident left wing zionists wanted.




Maybe you notice that I said that I didn't say that I support these actions. I also find it strange that you pick out that I "support" the "right" of imperialist militaries to "retaliate"...why don't you point out that I "support" the "right" of national liberation movements to themselves attack?Because you stated that you think that Israel can retaliate against aggression from palestinians.


I do not support either as "rights", despite your claims, but I'm not stupid enough to say "even if somebody hits you a thousand times, you should never strike them back". The world doesn't work this way, and I accept that. Which is why I outlined quite clearly that merely calling on Israel / the Palestinians / both to lay down their arms isn't a solution. Because, of course, if only one side does, then the other will eventually strike, and the struck will feel the need to retaliate. Which is an understandable response, and whilst I do not support the right for anybody to attack anybody else, I am opposed to a situation whereby one side is seemingly forbidden from retaliating in kind, in the unfortunate event that the military option is taken.Yes, so when colonialists fight wars with the colonized (regardless of the reactionary leadership of the colonized), you think that when the colonists are attacked by those that they colonize, the colonists should have the right to wreak havoc on the territories they colonize. This is deeply anti-worker and is apologist for Israeli crimes, by using the justification of retaliation.

The problem is probably not that you support colonialism, but rather that you are a pacifist who cannot differentiate colonialist violence from violence of the colonized.


Back to the point, even if both sides were disarmed, even if we went over and took every gun, every missile, every tank, everything, from Israelis and Palestinians alike, and somehow set up some impenetrable force-field around the whole area, to prevent even a single bullet re-entering the territory...this still doesn't solve the issue. There are still two groups with the mentality which previously fostered war, but will now just be realised in a different way. This is what I target. The underlying mentality, the systems, which are unfortunately realised as military conflict.What makes their mentalities? The mentalities of the palestinians is that they're being brutalized and colonized, so they fight. Was the Warsaw Uprising wrong because there was a violent mentality on both sides? I am not comparing palestine to Jews in WWII, but making a point about how violence of the oppressed is not equivalent to violence of the oppressor. Palestinians are colonized, Israel colonizes. So the violence of the palestinians is not equivalent to the violence of Israel.

I'm not in favor of Hamas or Fatah violence because it's not anti-capitalist and is not class concious, which is the problem with national liberation. The mere idea of oppressed people attacking Israel is not a problem at all, though. Obviously a working class organization in Palestine would also oppose Israeli colonialists and the Israeli bourgeois in it's entirety.


If we want to do everything in little analogies, let's consider I go to a doctor. He doesn't treat the symptoms - he treats the disease. Sure, he might give me a little something to ease the symptoms, calm some swelling or whatever, but he's not going to just give me a few cough sweets when I've got throat cancer. That's the issue. I don't aim at the symptoms, I aim at the disease. These attacks are the symptoms, which almost cannot be helped, as they are the natural consequences of the disease. For me, this is the difference between what seems to be your idea of a pacifist, somebody who treats the symptoms, with my idea of a pacifist, somebody who targets the disease itself.Colonialism and capitalism is the disease, not a mentality. We're radical leftists here, not centrist pacifists.


I think it was quite clear that I expressed this view as a point in opposition to the suggestion that Israel are to blame for being attacked, for their own attacking. I was merely pointing out that these attacks themselves may be retaliatory in nature. In doing so, I was hoping to point out how it was totally futile to blame anybody, as that's counter-productive.The Israeli colonialist capitalist state are to blame for being attacked because they are brutal colonialists.


One would assume so. Though in this case it would be actual colonialism, that is to say, an 'empire', in this case the Soviet Union, unilaterally claiming that this plot of land out there in the east would now be an oblast for the Jewish people, and telling all the Jews to move there. Now that, that is a colony, in the truest sense of 19th century empire-building. So for me it's strange how the Soviet Union, and, subsequently, a wide variety of Soviet-inspired / -funded groups would complain about the idea of a people deciding for themselves to declare independence in a given territory they have chosen to inhabit, namely Israel, whilst they themselves were setting up ethnic entities without consulting popular opinion, and subsequently suggesting the Jews move to colonise this previous Jew-free oblast, so that it might live up to its billing. Of course the difference is that Birobidzhan was under the Soviet yolk, whilst Israel wasn't.Did the Soviet Union displace indigenous people to create that? If so, they were certainly wrong in doing so. I am not a Marxist-Leninist, btw.

When Native American nations were being colonized in what would become the US, would you consider it morally equivalent to say that violence against settlers by Natives was equal to violence against Natives by settlers?

[FreeFocus]

This thread is extremely frustrating, to be honest. When there's a situation of injustice and you stay neutral, indifferent, or impartial, you're effectively siding with the oppressor. No other way to spin it. What I know in my heart is that Palestine will not be under the oppressive boot of imperialism forever; demographics favor Arabs over the long term and there are signs that Palestinian strategy is shifting towards the creation of a binational state. Even a 2009 CIA report concluded that Israel is basically in its death throes (http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/88491.html). When a binational state is created and the demographics change, we will have a new battle on our hands, namely, channeling Arab anger about being dispossessed and oppressed for 100+ years into non-violent, more productive areas, like just rebuilding Palestine and completing the healing process. The healing process is the most important thing, which is why I get excited when I see Jews and Palestinians working together today.

I typed my response in Word because Krimskram’s post was long (3 pages in Word), so I didn’t quote your post here. I’ll just respond to your points though and probably be done with this, I don’t want to write books in my posts to be frank.

Even when Palestinians stop firing on Israel - as Hamas made sure of prior to Operation Cast Lead - Israel still conducts raids to kill Palestinians. Israel hasn't honored ceasefires and has refused their extension when Hamas was willing.


The type of “Zionism” advocated by the likes of Einstein and even the family of Noam Chomsky was not the exclusivist Zionism that we got in reality. Even some of Einstein’s comments could be interpreted as supporting a Jewish state. Nonetheless, you need some context, once again. The region was controlled by the British at the time, and the British Mandate encouraged Jewish settlement in Palestine, promising them a state. Arabs knew this meant that their land would be stolen and directed their attacks at Jewish settlers (manifested in, for example, the 1920 riots that you mentioned). The Zionist political program was intimately tied to British colonialism in the Middle East. Yes, these pogroms carried out were wrong. But anytime you have mass immigration in the context of a state, there’s always the specter of a shift in power. Arabs saw European colonialism siding with European Jewish migration, and (rightly) concluded that this was an extension of European control. Moreover, Western interests backed the formation of a Jewish state, and give aid to Israel today, precisely because it is a Western outpost in the Middle East. Even the Ottoman Empire is culpable, because it would sell Palestinian land to European Jews without Palestinian consent. This also led, understandably, to resentment. Their land was stolen.


If Jewish migration was done independently, without collusion with European colonialism, without talk of forming a “Jewish state,” peaceful coexistence would have well been possible. Arabs were rightly very suspicious when they read in Zionist papers about Jewish settlement and the goal of a Jewish state in Palestine.


Plans to create a Jewish state in Argentina would be criminal because Argentina is already built on stolen, occupied Indigenous land; if the Zionists settled in Argentina, they would be displacing probably not Argentinians, but Mapuches – one of the largest Native nations in the area – because it would be more probable that their land would be given up and opened to foreign settlement (given the racism against Indigenous peoples). And setting it up in Kenya? Really? Another region under British control that would require intimate involvement between Zionism and British colonialism. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast was acceptable because from my understanding, no people were displaced, no nation uprooted and ethnically cleansed for it to exist.


On a side note, I disagree with Hamas and Hezbollah indiscriminately firing rockets (but people who militantly denounce it, why don't you lobby governments to provide fighter jets and precision missiles to Hamas, AQMB, and the PFLP so they can target only military installations?). But I see the bigger crime of Israel bombing civilian areas and the Israeli public largely not giving two shits when Arabs are killed. So I'm not going to be raising hell about what Hamas and Hezbollah do when there's no comparison between the crimes. No self-proclaimed socialist should be equating Palestinian resistance with Israeli imperialism. The roots of the conflict run deep, which is why it's difficult to solve the problem. But I am not confused at all about who suffered the historical crime. Hint: it sure as hell wasn't Israel.

[Widerstand]

Before I read anything by FreeFocus or Zeekloid written in response to Krimskrams, will anyone remind me how exactly is whether or not Zionism is bad related to the topic?

There is no single post here disagreeing that Zionism, with all it's facets of racism, ethnic supremacy, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. is something to be opposed. I will then assume that your posts about Zionism are either here to

a) suggest that criticizing the Anti-Zionist movement at large is a taboo because Zionism is so bad that everyone opposed to Zionism is to be supported.
b) suggest that any critique of the Anti-Zionist movement is inherently Zionist and as such can be reduced to an uninformed/euphemistic view of Israel.
c) suggest that Zionism is so bad that it indeed justifies Anti-Semitism. And that the critique brought up may be right, but under this aspect the greater evil must be fought by all means.

[FreeFocus]

I don't know where the thread shifted gears, but it happened in the early pages because a discussion of global Antisemitism needs to talk about Israel, because it does drive quite a bit of it internationally. But in Germany? I admitted early on that I was under the impression that talking about Jews was a sensitive topic in Germany because of the Nazis and the Holocaust. Some polls showed that I was wrong, and that the undercurrent of Antisemitism is still there (as it is throughout Europe). I can't speak about the situation in Germany, I've never been there, and I don't really know anyone from Germany.

If the German left has currents of Antisemitism, of course that needs to be combated. The point was that this should never lead to spinelessness about Israel, because the most prominent Jews in the West equate opposition to Israel as Antisemitic. So the popular conception in most people's minds is that the Jewish community as a whole, more or less, backs Israel (which is generally true, in the US. I won't speak about Europe because I could be wrong). Some people erroneously take this and conclude that the average Jew walking down the street is as culpable for Israeli crimes as the pigs dropping bombs, shooting children and farmers, or settling in Palestinian territory in violation of international law. They erroneously deem innocent (some Jews who get attacked don't support Israel; others do, and are as innocent as someone can be while backing crimes) Jews as legitimate targets to attack. That's unacceptable. I've never justified hate crimes in this thread. My contention is that Israeli crimes drive a considerable amount of Antisemitic sentiment, and speaking seriously about fighting Antisemitism requires acknowledging this fact. To the extent that Antisemitism is a recurrent, underlying feature of European society, it needs to be combated, obviously, but I can't navigate the intricate histories of each European country to understand the cultural origins of the sentiment and how to best combat it within that context. European Leftists have to examine the histories of their countries and dispel wrong notions about Jews, and look for examples where cooperation and coexistence bettered everyone's lives as a base for fighting Antisemitism today.

As I noted before, when in history was your random person in a native South African village or a random person in an Indonesian slum Antisemitic before the establishment of Israel? The majority of the world's people never had any interaction with Jews, didn't even know they really existed, because they lived on the other side of the world. But now you see hate crimes happening in these places. Part of it is because Europeans have spread Antisemitism around the world, whether directly themselves (as Christians), or via capitalist globalization.

[hatzel]

I'd just like to clarify my position, because I feel I'm being misunderstood...

The point I'm getting at here isn't that I support Israeli attacks, nor do I support Palestinian attacks. I mentioned a few pages back that I accept states, Israel included, defending their citizens. It's an expectation from the state, as long as it exists. I also said that I opposed any other act of aggression on anybody's part, anything which wasn't made a quasi-necessity for means of self-defense (or defense on behalf of a people).


When it comes to the question of retaliation...we can explain it with the face-punching analogy from before. Me, I oppose punching people in the face. I consider this counter-productive. However if I did go up to somebody on the street and punch him in the face, I would have to understand that, by doing that, he might punch me back. And if that guy happens to be Mike Tyson or somebody, I can expect it to hurt like hell. I don't see how somebody can punch somebody on the street, only to complain about their broken nose 5 minutes later. This is what I was saying. And this is why I don't support violent acts onanybody's part. Because of the risk of it just escalating into some bloody fistfight, which is where we are now. This doesn't mean I support somebody punching somebody just for being punched, but I might argue that it's to be expected that the fellow will punch back. And one should be aware of this potential for retaliation before one throws the first punch. This also doesn't mean that I don't think people can ever throw punches, if they're put in a really tough position, making it necessary to throw a punch, for preemptive self-defense, but one should be still remember that, if it's not a strong enough punch, there's a chance you'll get the shit kicked out of you.


I hope this has gone some way to clarifying my opinions of the situation, apologies if I haven't made myself particularly clear. I'm under the false illusion that everybody else already understands exactly what I'm talking about, whilst actually people...don't...:blushing:

[hatzel]

Okay! New thought (as I was thinking last night):

Now, some of us seem to think that that Israel is the main cause of antisemitism today, whilst others seem to consider it the main excuse for antisemitism today. I was trying to think of comparisons here...it's been mentioned, for example, that this might be similar to blaming the Taliban or Al-Qaeda for islamophobia, though nobody who has claimed that we should fight antisemitism by fighting Israel has addressed the question of whether or not we should fight islamophobia by supporting the American troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or calling for the invasion of Yemen. Working on the assumption that nobody would take this position, I wonder what the difference is...?


Anyway, I was trying to think of a sensible analogy, and I came up with one but it might be disregarded as downright offensive, but I thought I'd send it up the flagpole anyway and see if it flies, to use some annoying business-speak:


So, as we're talking about Germany, let's take 1930's Germany as an example. And, of course, there was a lot of antisemitism going about, maybe you remember. Now, most of us would claim that this came from some kind of ingrained racial hatred, and it is stupid to think about why exactly people would hold these views, just that they're racist. Now, of course, I'm going to make a big statement and suggest that communism caused antisemitism in 1930's German, as well as other countries in Europe. That isn't to say that I believe it did, but I'm wondering if we agree that it's comparable to claiming that Israel causes antisemitism. Remember of course that the Poles even have a specific word, Żydokomuna, to describe the idea that communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world-domination. I'm sure we're all aware that many of the era's fascists talked about the Rothschild-Marx conspiracy, that communism and a future banking monopoly were working in cahoots to dominate the world. Now, in fact, for somebody in 1930's Germany, in particular, this would seem logical, that socialism in all its streams was a Jewish movement. If we only think back to the Novemberrevolution after WWI, and the Bayerische Räterepublik, we'd notice it was a largely Jewish affair. Almost all the famous names associated with it, such as Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, Eugen Leviné, Gustav Landauer, Erich Mühsam, were Jews. Add in to that the presence and important of Marx and Rosa Luxemburg in the movement as a whole. What I'm trying to say here is that this 'Jews = communism' idea isn't actually a totally irrational idea. The German people could hold up this 'evidence' as definitive 'proof', in the same way we might hold up Israel as 'evidence'. However, I would presume that we would all agree that it would be false to claim that communism caused the antisemitism in 1930's Germany, and, subsequently, the Holocaust. There are obvious reasons we wouldn't take that hit, even if it were true, but I wonder if we agree that they are the same. That is to say, is claiming today that one should fight Israel to fight antisemitism comparable to a 1930's German saying that one should fight communism to fight antisemitism? As we happily dismiss the fascist propaganda that used anti-communist sentiment to excuse antisemitism (as well as, admittedly, using antisemitic sentiment to discredit communism), and breed a society in which mass realisations of antisemitism would be possible, what is the difference between this situation and the situation today, where some of us consider Israel as the cause, rather than the excuse?


I know that I personally consider anti-Zionism to function as a front for antisemitism (I'm not saying in all cases, before anybody jumps on that), as racism must always be somehow 'justified'. Nobody can just say that they hate Jews or blacks or any other group of people for no reason. The history of the Jews in Europe has suggested that an excuse is always needed, be it accusations of well-poisoning during the Great Plague, or a claim of murder before the Kishinev pogrom. Once again, these accusations came from observation, rather than wild imagination. That is to say, it's true that Christians during the Plague didn't see the Jewish dead piling up (there's a wonderful poem by Shaul Tchernichovsky about that, randomly), and Mikhail Rybachenko was murdered (though obviously not by the Jews). Those today who speak negatively of black people will happily carp on about crime rates, which may or may not have any basis in fact (though of course are grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented), but still it acts as an excuse. Therefore, of course, we don't accept the crime rate argument, we just dismiss them as racists who are clutching at straws looking for justification. And rightly so. So is there some reason some of us aren't so quick in dismissing the new excuse for antisemitism, namely Israel, and instead suggest that the excuse itself should be tackled? Is there any reason for this other than a misguided and rather tasteless anti-Zionist argument?


My apologies if I've offended anybody by claiming that communism may have 'caused' antisemitism, but...well...you know how it is...


http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/Kedem/09/296509/H4044-L20060092.jpg?h=7907AF0403860D3F3994742615F2756C&e=prod

I look forward to enlightenment on how the situations differ, if at all...

[gorillafuck]

There is no single post here disagreeing that Zionism, with all it's facets of racism, ethnic supremacy, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. is something to be opposed. I will then assume that your posts about Zionism are either here to


a) suggest that criticizing the Anti-Zionist movement at large is a taboo because Zionism is so bad that everyone opposed to Zionism is to be supported.Nobody suggested that, dunno where you get that idea from. One thing that's been put forward by me, um, throughout the entire thread, is that zionism is to be critiqued through the lense of anti-colonialism and class politics. This would obviously exclude anti-semetic anti-zionists.


b) suggest that any critique of the Anti-Zionist movement is inherently Zionist and as such can be reduced to an uninformed/euphemistic view of Israel.No. people have been thinking your a zionist due to your past rhetoric, and your support of setting up what would effectively be an Israeli puppet state. The two state solution inherently involves a puppet state because Palestinians want the right of return and two state solutions don't give that, and even more important than that, it's a capitalist solution.

I don't think your a zionist, I think you're very sensitive to anti-semitism due to the situation in Germany (though you are probably at time over sensitive, i.e., calling me a Jew Killer. How 'bout an apology for that?). Nothing wrong with being sensitive to anti-semitism, but it can just never let you be spineless towards Israel, that's all.

Krimskrams I do think holds terrible views because he supports the right of the IDF to attack the people it colonizes when they retaliate, out of some bizarre idea that violence of colonizers and violence of the colonized is equal.


c) suggest that Zionism is so bad that it indeed justifies Anti-Semitism. And that the critique brought up may be right, but under this aspect the greater evil must be fought by all means.Show us a post that justifies anti-semitism. And keep in mind, I can't stress this enough, that justify and try to understand are completely different concepts.

I don't think Israel is the cause of anti-semitism worldwide, however. So nobody assign that view to me. I think it causes antisemitism among people who live in the open air prison that's referred to as "Palestine". It isn't the main cause of anti-semitism worldwide.

[hatzel]

Krimskrams I do think holds terrible views because he supports the right of the IDF to attack the people it colonizes when they retaliate, out of some bizarre idea that violence of colonizers and violence of the colonized is equal.

Why did I ever bother saying that I don't support violence by anybody against anybody? Merely looking at the situation, I see that violence on the part of the Palestinians promotes violence on the part of the Israelis. It's technically unjustified to claim that an entity which is attacked is unable to then react to prevent attack. I consider this a fact of nature. I was earlier lampooned by FreeFocus for apparently suggesting (through an interpretation of what I'd said) that people who are punched in the face should just take it, rather than punching back. People, please come to a consensus as to whether or not somebody who is punched is or isn't supposed to punch back, and then get back to me. Working on the assumption that groups firing missiles into Israel give the Israelis reason to believe that the Palestinians are trying to kill them, this could then be seen as a reason why the Israeli military might be pretty keen to put down these movements. Through an accident of Israel having, man-for-man, probably the most advanced and able army in the world, this is destructive. I was merely pointing out that aimless Palestinian violence towards Israeli citizens is next to pointless, as it causes very little damage, and is retaliated to by massive and destructive actions. If this is a war of attrition, I really can't see Palestinian partisan groups triumphing over a devilishly sophisticated and powerful army. As continuing violence just leads to a seemingly endless list of Palestinian casualties, I cannot see how anybody pro-Palestinian can honestly support these acts of violence, rather than trying some other path. Violence against Israel didn't work in 48, didn't work in 56, didn't work in 67, didn't work in 73, the first Intifada didn't work, the second Intifada didn't work, and each of these conflicts has dragged the Israeli mentality further and further towards the right, and increased anti-Arab sentiment. How exactly is this productive? This is nothing to do with equating violence of the coloniser with violence of the colonised (though if it is, it's through calling both equally despicable), and there's no talk of supporting anything, but opposing both equally. This might well fit in with Widerstand's suggestion 'b'. It seems that anybody who doesn't support Palestinian actions must automatically 'support' each and every Israeli action against them, irrespective of what they say.


Anyway, this remains totally unrelated to the discussion at hand, which is why my post just above Zeekloid's was put in, to try to turn this discussion somewhat back to something relevant to the thread, which is about antisemitism, not to do with the actions of Israel. To that end, as this point was specifically directed at Palingenisis, who had reveled in telling us how Israel was to blame for antisemitism, and those who wish to fight antisemitism should work to destroy Israel, I would appreciate if this user might actually respond to any of the questions posed. Rather than just floating through the discussion thanking various comments, how about actually participating to answer the questions asked of you? If everybody else has to clarify their statements and standpoints over the course of several pages, even when trying to put up with being accused of whatever the hell their fellow debater wants to imagine they were saying, I see no reason why Palingenisis should be any different. Therefore I direct this user to my post above Zeekloid's, and ask that clarification may be given, and this thread might get back on topic. As the topic, I would argue, is a very important one.

PS. I'm aware, Zeekloid, that you never claimed that Israel was the cause of worldwide antisemitism. This is an opinion to be attributed to Palingenisis, and it is this I feel it would be more productive to discuss. My apologies if you thought I or anybody else was accusing you of this (as I never noticed it personally), it's just a shame that the actual accused party seems to have decided to hush up for a while, so it seems as though you're the target, as the representative of the de facto 'team', so to speak...

[Palingenisis]

You are really slippery (but sooner or later your mask will slip good and proper)...The existence of the state of Israel is to blame for the political violence in Palestine. Basically you are saying its wrong for the oppressed to rebel if they keep "losing", but resisting oppression is always morally right regardless of whether you win or lose, the sacrifice and courage will inspire other generations and even if it didnt its existentially superior to submission to evil...By your logic the working class internationally should just give up. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Israel will fall.

[gorillafuck]

Why did I ever bother saying that I don't support violence by anybody against anybody?
You've said that, yeah. You also said you think it's alright if Israel responds to being attacked. Do you think that if Native Americans attacked settlers, settlers would be justified in attacking back?

You say you don't justify any attacks, but then you say that you can't deny Israel the right to "retaliate". This is you justifying it, regardless of whether you've convinced yourself it's not.


Merely looking at the situation, I see that violence on the part of the Palestinians promotes violence on the part of the Israelis.Really? Because when Hamas were consciously not firing rockets and being nonviolent, you know what happened?

Palestine was still brutalized and colonized and attacks from Israel didn't stop.


It's technically unjustified to claim that an entity which is attacked is unable to then react to prevent attack.If a person is raped by another, and the person responds by punching their assaulter, is the assaulter justified in responding to this "attack"? Because that's a good analogy when referring to violence of the colonialist vs. violence of the colonized.

Pacifism is centrism.


I consider this a fact of nature. I was earlier lampooned by FreeFocus for apparently suggesting (through an interpretation of what I'd said) that people who are punched in the face should just take it, rather than punching back.You say Palestinian violence causes Israeli violence, which has been disproven and also is justifying (yes, you are justifying it through statements about how Israel should be allowed to retaliate, even if you somehow don't think that's you justifying it) the military actions of colonialists. Get this through your thick pacifist head.

Your problem is, aside from pacifism, you have no analysis aside from pacifism, so you think it's a matter of "who attacked first" rather than "who's being brutalized and colonized, and who's doing the colonizing".

What do you think of Americas retaliation to 9/11 by invasion of Afghanistan, btw?

What do you think of American retaliation to the bombing of Pearl Harbour by going to imperialist world war?

Do you follow the same line on those that you follow for Israel's "retaliation"? If you do, then you probably shouldn't be here.

[gorillafuck]

The existence of the state of Israel is to blame for the political violence in Palestine.
This is true, but I'd also like to recognize that violence is also caused by the bourgeois groups like Hamas and Fatah, in their attacks on workers and strikes (which are obviously significantly less than the assaults by Israel, but still).


By your logic the working class internationally should just give up.
He's not saying they should "give up", he's just saying we should respect that, in Greece for example, the bourgeois are just attacking the working class in retaliation to anarchist violence, ya know. We need to respect that the bourgeois should be allowed to retaliate against the working class, elsewise we'd be violating a fact of nature!

[FreeFocus]

Okay! New thought (as I was thinking last night):

Now, some of us seem to think that that Israel is the main cause of antisemitism today, whilst others seem to consider it the main excuse for antisemitism today. I was trying to think of comparisons here...it's been mentioned, for example, that this might be similar to blaming the Taliban or Al-Qaeda for islamophobia, though nobody who has claimed that we should fight antisemitism by fighting Israel has addressed the question of whether or not we should fight islamophobia by supporting the American troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or calling for the invasion of Yemen. Working on the assumption that nobody would take this position, I wonder what the difference is...?


Anyway, I was trying to think of a sensible analogy, and I came up with one but it might be disregarded as downright offensive, but I thought I'd send it up the flagpole anyway and see if it flies, to use some annoying business-speak:


So, as we're talking about Germany, let's take 1930's Germany as an example. And, of course, there was a lot of antisemitism going about, maybe you remember. Now, most of us would claim that this came from some kind of ingrained racial hatred, and it is stupid to think about why exactly people would hold these views, just that they're racist. Now, of course, I'm going to make a big statement and suggest that communism caused antisemitism in 1930's German, as well as other countries in Europe. That isn't to say that I believe it did, but I'm wondering if we agree that it's comparable to claiming that Israel causes antisemitism. Remember of course that the Poles even have a specific word, Żydokomuna, to describe the idea that communism was a Jewish conspiracy for world-domination. I'm sure we're all aware that many of the era's fascists talked about the Rothschild-Marx conspiracy, that communism and a future banking monopoly were working in cahoots to dominate the world. Now, in fact, for somebody in 1930's Germany, in particular, this would seem logical, that socialism in all its streams was a Jewish movement. If we only think back to the Novemberrevolution after WWI, and the Bayerische Räterepublik, we'd notice it was a largely Jewish affair. Almost all the famous names associated with it, such as Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, Eugen Leviné, Gustav Landauer, Erich Mühsam, were Jews. Add in to that the presence and important of Marx and Rosa Luxemburg in the movement as a whole. What I'm trying to say here is that this 'Jews = communism' idea isn't actually a totally irrational idea. The German people could hold up this 'evidence' as definitive 'proof', in the same way we might hold up Israel as 'evidence'. However, I would presume that we would all agree that it would be false to claim that communism caused the antisemitism in 1930's Germany, and, subsequently, the Holocaust. There are obvious reasons we wouldn't take that hit, even if it were true, but I wonder if we agree that they are the same. That is to say, is claiming today that one should fight Israel to fight antisemitism comparable to a 1930's German saying that one should fight communism to fight antisemitism? As we happily dismiss the fascist propaganda that used anti-communist sentiment to excuse antisemitism (as well as, admittedly, using antisemitic sentiment to discredit communism), and breed a society in which mass realisations of antisemitism would be possible, what is the difference between this situation and the situation today, where some of us consider Israel as the cause, rather than the excuse?


I know that I personally consider anti-Zionism to function as a front for antisemitism (I'm not saying in all cases, before anybody jumps on that), as racism must always be somehow 'justified'. Nobody can just say that they hate Jews or blacks or any other group of people for no reason. The history of the Jews in Europe has suggested that an excuse is always needed, be it accusations of well-poisoning during the Great Plague, or a claim of murder before the Kishinev pogrom. Once again, these accusations came from observation, rather than wild imagination. That is to say, it's true that Christians during the Plague didn't see the Jewish dead piling up (there's a wonderful poem by Shaul Tchernichovsky about that, randomly), and Mikhail Rybachenko was murdered (though obviously not by the Jews). Those today who speak negatively of black people will happily carp on about crime rates, which may or may not have any basis in fact (though of course are grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented), but still it acts as an excuse. Therefore, of course, we don't accept the crime rate argument, we just dismiss them as racists who are clutching at straws looking for justification. And rightly so. So is there some reason some of us aren't so quick in dismissing the new excuse for antisemitism, namely Israel, and instead suggest that the excuse itself should be tackled? Is there any reason for this other than a misguided and rather tasteless anti-Zionist argument?


My apologies if I've offended anybody by claiming that communism may have 'caused' antisemitism, but...well...you know how it is...


http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/Kedem/09/296509/H4044-L20060092.jpg?h=7907AF0403860D3F3994742615F2756C&e=prod

I look forward to enlightenment on how the situations differ, if at all...

Here's why the two situations aren't comparable: Communism in the 1920s and 1930s wasn't a state, armed group, or even organization talking about killing vast amounts of people. Any Antisemitism that was connected to communism originated from underlying European Antisemitism. There was nothing "logical" about the idea merely because a large number of Jews were communist - more non-Jews were communist, at every point in the history of communism. The European bourgeoisie played up Antisemitism to discredit and undermine the legitimate communist threat at the time. In other words, racist propaganda.

Israel is a state founded on ethnic cleansing. It is actively carrying out settlement projects in violation of Palestinian land rights, international law, and their professed interests in a two-state solution. It routinely kills Arabs. Whatever propaganda out there equating world Jewry and Israel came from Israel, not Antisemitic Nazis or Westerners. It is an equation that world Jewry has, sadly, largely accepted as well.

Anti-Zionism can sometimes be a front for Antisemitism. But, oddly enough, the biggest Antisemites historically now fully back Israel. Europe and the US are lock-step behind Israel; the US never denounces Israeli actions and for a European country to do so is a big deal anyway, so it happens only rarely.

[Widerstand]

Nobody suggested that, dunno where you get that idea from. One thing that's been put forward by me, um, throughout the entire thread, is that zionism is to be critiqued through the lense of anti-colonialism and class politics. This would obviously exclude anti-semetic anti-zionists.

Then why do we keep discussing Israel?

The question was whether or not Anti-Semitism exists within the German left and whether or not Anti-Zionism served as a way for Anti-Semites to project their views in a socially acceptable manner, the answer to both of which is yes. I fail to see how the details of Israel's aggression have any bear on either of those, unless it were to deny either of the two answers I've given, which in one way or another would involve denying that the observable Anti-Semitism existing in the German left is either existing or a bad thing.



No. people have been thinking your a zionist due to your past rhetoric

No actually people have called me a Zionist on this website first when I said I don't support the immediate abolition of Israel (which is a view that is quite close to psycho's or your own actually, so are you a Zionist, too?).



, and your support of setting up what would effectively be an Israeli puppet state. The two state solution inherently involves a puppet state because Palestinians want the right of return and two state solutions don't give that, and even more important than that, it's a capitalist solution.

Why is a two-state solution a "capitalist solution", and a one state solution isn't?

You are right, it does not necessarily involve the right to return, but that is under the assumption that a two-state solution would necessarily involve current boundaries, which I have in no post be supportive of, and have in fact explicitly opposed.



I don't think your a zionist, I think you're very sensitive to anti-semitism due to the situation in Germany (though you are probably at time over sensitive, i.e., calling me a Jew Killer. How 'bout an apology for that?).

I'm not going to apologize for that unless you apologize for equating Anti-Germans to Zionists and imperialists.



Nothing wrong with being sensitive to anti-semitism, but it can just never let you be spineless towards Israel, that's all.

And then, how am I spineless towards Israel? Because I am not in support of an attack war against it? Because I am not in support of external abolition of it? Because I am in support of a two state solution (not that I'd support EVERY two state solution)? Because I'm critical of supporting every form of one state solution (not that I'd OPPOSE every one state solution)? Because I'm in favor of a socialist revolution in Israel? Because I'm not willing to join Anti-Semites in their opposition to Israel? Because I'm critical of Anti-Zionism seeing how it serves well to make Anti-Semitism socially acceptable?

Tell me, please.



Krimskrams I do think holds terrible views because he supports the right of the IDF to attack the people it colonizes when they retaliate, out of some bizarre idea that violence of colonizers and violence of the colonized is equal.

To be fair I think you're putting words in his mouth here, or rather, misreading his posts. It doesn't matter who of the two sides is morally right, it's a fact that the IDF exists and it's a fact that they will retaliate, to think any law could take that from them is absurd hippie idealism.



Show us a post that justifies anti-semitism. And keep in mind, I can't stress this enough, that justify and try to understand are completely different concepts.

Yes but as I've shown before, the German survey I linked to is rather obviously talking about sympathy/justification than just mere analysis of how it came about, yet Palingenisis for example seems to agree with the view observed that one should be sympathetic towards Israel-related Anti-Semitism and to deny that Anti-Semitism exists in Germany (despite another study I provided which more explicitly proves it).



I don't think Israel is the cause of anti-semitism worldwide, however. So nobody assign that view to me. I think it causes antisemitism among people who live in the open air prison that's referred to as "Palestine". It isn't the main cause of anti-semitism worldwide.

So you would disagree that Anti-Semitism in Europe, even when it only surfaces in response to Israeli actions, was caused by Israel?

What's your view of Palestinian Anti-Semitism, acceptable? Necessary evil?


You've said that, yeah. You also said you think it's alright if Israel responds to being attacked. Do you think that if Native Americans attacked settlers, settlers would be justified in attacking back?

It's not about whether or not it's just, but whether or not you are idealistic enough to think that anyone will not retaliate because you tell them it's unfair or because they are the wrongdoers. As long as Israel exists in the manner in which it exists today, any attacks against it will be retaliated. To scream about how this is unjust and expect them to stop is a bit like throwing copper in a well and expecting to get rich.



He's not saying they should "give up", he's just saying we should respect that, in Greece for example, the bourgeois are just attacking the working class in retaliation to anarchist violence, ya know. We need to respect that the bourgeois should be allowed to retaliate against the working class, elsewise we'd be violating a fact of nature!

While respect may be a wrong word, and I'm not sure if Krims or you used it first, the Greeks should definitely expect the bourgeois to retaliate, and it's perfectly absurd to expect the bourgeois to forfeit defending their class interest because it's "unjustified." That's a fact of class war, like it or not.

[gorillafuck]

Then why do we keep discussing Israel?
Because the discussion has obviously turned into one about Israel. If you're so mad that a thread on a forum had a discussion change (which happens constantly) then, um, leave?


No actually people have called me a Zionist on this website first when I said I don't support the immediate abolition of Israel (which is a view that is quite close to psycho's or your own actually, so are you a Zionist, too?). I support the immediate abolition of Israel through revolution. I don't think it will happen (nobody whatsoever thinks Israel will immediately be abolished), but I want it to. I want all capitalist states and all colonialism abolished immediately.


Why is a two-state solution a "capitalist solution", and a one state solution isn't?Because Israel and the PA can't just become non-capitalist states, whereas creating a whole new system of governance in the one new territory could. And a new system of governance, if internationalist, obviously wouldn't feature an artificial divide in the form of a border.


You are right, it does not necessarily involve the right to return, but that is under the assumption that a two-state solution would necessarily involve current boundaries, which I have in no post be supportive of, and have in fact explicitly opposed.Israel would have to shrink a real fucking lot, then.


I'm not going to apologize for that unless you apologize for equating Anti-Germans to Zionists and imperialists.Lol, because calling a specific person a Jew Killer and calling a certain political current imperialists are definitely equally bad?

I apologize. I'm still going to look up anti-Germans.


And then, how am I spineless towards Israel?I didn't say you were, I said you need to avoid being it. You're really annoyingly defensive and on edge, chill out.


Because I am not in support of an attack war against it?I explicitly opposed that.


Because I am not in support of external abolition of it?I explicitly opposed that.


Because I am in support of a two state solution (not that I'd support EVERY two state solution)?That is somewhat spineless and reformist. Would you be in favor of a two state solution in Korea? In Germany back when it was divided? In Ireland? Obviously we want these territories united in a socialist world. And I'm aware that a capitalist nation-state one-state solution doesn't do that. But Palestine and Israeli borders would necessarily be abolished in a socialist revolution.


Because I'm critical of supporting every form of one state solution (not that I'd OPPOSE every one state solution)?I didn't support every kind of one state solution.


Because I'm in favor of a socialist revolution in Israel?I have explicitly been supporting that and arguing for it throughout this entire thread.


Because I'm not willing to join Anti-Semites in their opposition to Israel? I didn't advocate that.


Because I'm critical of Anti-Zionism seeing how it serves well to make Anti-Semitism socially acceptable?You should fight anti-semitism. I never said you shouldn't.


To be fair I think you're putting words in his mouth here, or rather, misreading his posts. It doesn't matter who of the two sides is morally right, it's a fact that the IDF exists and it's a fact that they will retaliate, to think any law could take that from them is absurd hippie idealism.He's been arguing that Israeli and Palestinian violence are equivalent. It's blindingly obvious. Also, I'm the one with hippie idealism whereas he's the one who's a pacifist who wants to combat the violent mentalities of colonized people, and he's not the hippie idealist one?


Yes but as I've shown before, the German survey I linked to is rather obviously talking about sympathy/justification than just mere analysis of how it came about, yet Palingenisis for example seems to agree with the view observed that one should be sympathetic towards Israel-related Anti-Semitism and to deny that Anti-Semitism exists in Germany (despite another study I provided which more explicitly proves it).Maybe I shouldn't change my name to Palingenisis.


So you would disagree that Anti-Semitism in Europe, even when it only surfaces in response to Israeli actions, was caused by Israel?It is sometimes, obviously. To deny that would be to deny reality. But it goes deeper than that, it's more influenced by history than by Israel. And jews shouldn't suffer due to what a brutal colonialist government does, it's not like the Jews that are attacked in Europe are the brutalizers. The IDF are.


What's your view of Palestinian Anti-Semitism, acceptable? Necessary evil?Not acceptable but not understanding why is counter-productive. Racism in situations like that is indicative of low class conciousness.


It's not about whether or not it's just, but whether or not you are idealistic enough to think that anyone will not retaliate because you tell them it's unfair or because they are the wrongdoers. As long as Israel exists in the manner in which it exists today, any attacks against it will be retaliated. To scream about how this is unjust and expect them to stop is a bit like throwing copper in a well and expecting to get rich.That's not what he's been arguing, and if it is, he needs to learn how to communicate thoughts much better.


While respect may be a wrong word, and I'm not sure if Krims or you used it first, the Greeks should definitely expect the bourgeois to retaliate, and it's perfectly absurd to expect the bourgeois to forfeit defending their class interest because it's "unjustified." That's a fact of class war, like it or not.Widerstand, read what he said....


I am opposed to a situation whereby one side is seemingly forbidden from retaliating in kind, in the unfortunate event that the military option is taken.This is blatantly saying that he's opposed to a situation where Palestinians can attack Israel but Israel can't attack Palestinians. That is equivocating Israeli and palestinian violence.

Wider, you're twisting Krimskrams words to defend him. Just because he's been on your side for part of this thread doesn't mean you need to justify him equivocating violence of the oppressor with violence of the oppressed, justifying IDF actions through the "they were attacked first" argument, etc. you obviously don't agree with what he's very clearly saying.

[hatzel]

My thanks to Widerstand for actually reading my posts on the subject and thinking about what they actually mean. I think it's strange to be accused of supporting attacks in the same post that I'm accused of having a 'thick pacifist head'. This is what we call an oxymoron, and makes no sense. And, as such, the questions asked of me are pointless. Am I supposed to say 'I, as a pacifist, supported the American decision to go to war against Japan / Afghanistan'. Any remotely critical reading of my posts would answer that question. Though, if we're going to summarise it again, talking about WWII, I will:

The minute Imperial Japan were foolish enough to resort to violence in bombing Pearl Harbor, they must surely have known that there was a rather high possibility that America would retaliate in kind against them. It's nothing out of the ordinary to suggest that, when a state or group declares war on another state or group, and actually goes as far as to bomb their territory, the attacked state or group usually retaliates with military force. That is to say, if the Japanese declared war and bombed Pearl Harbor expecting the Americans to just say 'okay, well, we won't do anything but sit here and tut about it', then they'd be living in a dream world. And it doesn't matter who started it, it doesn't matter if American activity had somehow provoked that attack, or if it was entirely unprovoked. I would have opposed the attack on Pearl Harbor, as I would have opposed any retaliation on the American part, and, these things having happened, I would have supported the ending of the war as soon as possible. I didn't know these were such controversial positions to hold.


By the way, here's some proof that people aren't reading what I'm saying, even when they quote it directly:




It's technically unjustified to claim that an entity which is attacked is unable to then react to prevent attack.


If a person is raped by another, and the person responds by punching their assaulter, is the assaulter justified in responding to this "attack"? Because that's a good analogy when referring to violence of the colonialist vs. violence of the colonized.




This question needn't be asked. I can easily plug this quote in to my quote:



It's technically unjustified to claim that an individual who is raped is unable to then punch their attacker to prevent rape.


This is exactly what I have been saying all along. But it seemed to me that you for some reason expected me to say that they can't punch back, or try to wiggle my quote round, to try to claim it meant something else. But no. Look how easy it was to answer that exact question. It didn't even have to be asked. And this is the issue. For some reason my statements are being read as if they only apply in one direction. Well I'm sorry, but I don't have these double-standards. I'm never going to say that killing an innocent Palestinian can ever be justified, nor am I going to say that killing an innocent Israeli can be. The movement behind it cannot justify it. No matter how noble a political or social or whatever movement is, killing a innocent people can never be justified. And why oh why do we all seem to be having a go at me for claiming that? Am I supposed to say that missile after missile can be fired at some little town somewhere in Israel, killing people, but that's to be excused because the missiles come from the 'right' people and for the 'right' reasons? Fuck that shit...


I'll also point out that this condescending 'oh, he's just saying let's all give up' bullshit is wide of the mark. Since when was there any one way to get stuff done - by beating people up? By killing people? By whatever other violent act? Apologies, by suggesting that people don't just go around killing random people for being in the wrong group, whether that group is a nationality, class, political ideology, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to enact social change, or achieve anything. This is a narrow-minded view. This should be more than just a bit obvious. If you want somebody to paint your fence, and you go up to some guy and start punching him in the face, saying 'paint my fucking fence, *****, paint it!', and he refuses to, and then I come over and say 'hey, how about you stop punching him', would you then say 'I won't stop punching him, because I want my fence painted, don't tell me to just give up' (which is what's happening here), or would you think 'okay, I'll ask him nicely, promise to buy him a beer if he does it for me, or maybe I'll even paint it myself'? I would hope you'd do the second. Why, oh tell me, is this situation any different? Why in this situation 'don't do it like that' synonymous with 'don't do it at all'?


Actually, don't tell me. If you want to debate / learn / whatever about anarcho-pacifism, I suggest starting up a thread in Learning, and I or somebody else might voice an opinion over there. This isn't the thread for that discussion.


Try as I might, I can't get this whole thing back on tracks. FreeFocus at least has acknowledged my attempts to get this somewhat back on track, which I appreciate, though still it seems to have got somewhat sidetracked back into talkingabout what Israel does, which is just going to start this whole cycle up again, and we'll just keep debating Israel in a thread that's supposed to be about antisemitism. Addressing the issues at hand, though...



The European bourgeoisie played up Antisemitism to discredit and undermine the legitimate communist threat at the time. In other words, racist propaganda.


Perhaps. I mean, I acknowledged this one, but the picture I posted seems to be working in the other direction. That is, you seem to focus on using antisemitism to discredit communism. This sticker seems to be based on the accepted idea that communism is bad (c'mon, surely an American would do anything in their power to prevent the depicted scenario), and trying to reignite antisemitism on that basis. Of course it's provoking hostility towards both at the same time, which makes it difficult to pick through which of the two is supposed to be the 'accepted' truth, and which one should come from it...


On that note, I'm sure that there are a great many posters and other items of propaganda today that encourage both antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the same way as the antisemitic / anti-communist propaganda of yore. I'll try to find a good example sometime, to see if it can be compared...


Still I'm waiting for Palingenisis to approach the issue...

[FreeFocus]

Perhaps. I mean, I acknowledged this one, but the picture I posted seems to be working in the other direction. That is, you seem to focus on using antisemitism to discredit communism. This sticker seems to be based on the accepted idea that communism is bad (c'mon, surely an American would do anything in their power to prevent the depicted scenario), and trying to reignite antisemitism on that basis. Of course it's provoking hostility towards both at the same time, which makes it difficult to pick through which of the two is supposed to be the 'accepted' truth, and which one should come from it...

On that note, I'm sure that there are a great many posters and other items of propaganda today that encourage both antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the same way as the antisemitic / anti-communist propaganda of yore. I'll try to find a good example sometime, to see if it can be compared...

The propaganda poster was conflating Antisemitism and anti-communism. Anti-communism was certainly nowhere near as ingrained in the Western political imagination; obviously anti-communism had just come about in the late 1800s, while Antisemitism had like a 1500 year history in the Western political imagination. It was by far the stronger force. Moreover, when you consider that it was an American propaganda poster, you'll have to look at the conditions at the time it was made. I don't believe you cited a date for it, but I'm going to assume it was from the early 1900s. There was a lot of southern and eastern European immigration to the US at this time. Many of these immigrants had radical sympathies, but Antisemitism was still ingrained in their societies back in Europe. If Antisemitism was played up and a hatred of Jews linked to the then-real communist threat, it would be possible to undercut support for communism or radical alternatives. To European immigrants, yeah, the Statue of Liberty and American exceptionalism might have been important, but the notion that Jews were evil was likely more powerful.

Also, looking at the poster, you have only one communist symbol: the hammer and sickle. However, you have more anti-Jewish imagery: the nose on the Statue of Liberty, the (probably) Jewish man in the suit (might be a banker), and the largest text on the poster says, "Boycott the Jew!"

I'm interested in the other examples that you can give.

[hatzel]

I don't believe you cited a date for it, but I'm going to assume it was from the early 1900s.

I admit I don't have a date, but I could believe it was maybe even slightly later. Perhaps pre-war, but clearly it's not from the 60's or anything...this much we agree on.


Also, looking at the poster, you have only one communist symbol: the hammer and sickle. However, you have more anti-Jewish imagery: the nose on the Statue of Liberty, the (probably) Jewish man in the suit (might be a banker), and the largest text on the poster says, "Boycott the Jew!"This would be why I considered it more concerned with encouraging antisemitism. I mean, working on the assumption that the one communist symbol would be enough to put the scare up somebody. I mean...I'm not an expert in making posters like this, but to me, the syntax suggests to me that it's saying 'fight communism by boycotting Jews', assuming already that communism is something to be fought. However, you may also be right that it's intended to grab the attention of the antisemite, and just point out that these people should also hate communism. Tough to know.



I think there are notoriously murky waters around anti-Zionist propaganda, and that causes great issues. For instance, we might look at something like this:


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6k/SWgUssGYQeI/AAAAAAAAEYg/P788HjZHJDU/s400/anti-semitic+cartoon.jpg


It is a serious question whether this is antisemitic in nature. I mean, clearly it's a Jew, nose, hat, beard, star, it's all that. But then there's the issue of whether or not the artist intended to portray a Jew, or just an Israeli. I mean, how else can one depict Israel in a cartoon, other than as a Jew? That might be the issue. However, I think it's clear that, if an antisemite (or somebody sympathetic to antisemitism) were to have done this, on some antisemitic website, it wouldn't be at all out of place, and antisemites who see it would probably associate the deaths in Gaza with all Jews. So it's a very sensitive issue, I think we'll agree.


On the other hand, there are some which clearly address Israel, rather than the Jewish people, for example:


EDIT: image server prevents hotlinking. The direct link is http://www.ultimatum.20m.com/8_ultimatum8/sharon-bush1.jpg so copy-paste it in, folks!


However, even this could easily be seen as playing in to some kind of ZOG conspiracy stuff, which all Jews are usually included in. The suggestion that we all support this global domination idea or whatever. Again, murky waters. I will mention that in cases such as these, it can be understood how anti-Zionism can so easily be taken as antisemitism. I mean, knowing where the line is is very difficult. We look at this pictures, unaware of their context and their intentions. We could easily argue that both are antisemitic, or neither are. I'm sure it depends on the context in which they appear.


Of course it's a difficult issue when Jews have historically been represented in such cartoons, and elsewhere, by the Magen David, which also just so happens to be the easiest way to represent Israel. I acknowledge this makes it really difficult to tell which of the two groups is the intended subject / target of the cartoon, and opens up a situation where individuals decide for themselves which of the two, based on which they want it to be...

[gorillafuck]

My thanks to Widerstand for actually reading my posts on the subject and thinking about what they actually mean. I think it's strange to be accused of supporting attacks in the same post that I'm accused of having a 'thick pacifist head'. This is what we call an oxymoron, and makes no sense. And, as such, the questions asked of me are pointless. Am I supposed to say 'I, as a pacifist, supported the American decision to go to war against Japan / Afghanistan'. Any remotely critical reading of my posts would answer that question. Though, if we're going to summarise it again, talking about WWII, I will:
Your posts say wildly contradictory things about how you oppose violence but also don't want a situation where one side is forbidden from violence, so I don't see the problem with my posts.


The minute Imperial Japan were foolish enough to resort to violence in bombing Pearl Harbor, they must surely have known that there was a rather high possibility that America would retaliate in kind against them. It's nothing out of the ordinary to suggest that, when a state or group declares war on another state or group, and actually goes as far as to bomb their territory, the attacked state or group usually retaliates with military force. That is to say, if the Japanese declared war and bombed Pearl Harbor expecting the Americans to just say 'okay, well, we won't do anything but sit here and tut about it', then they'd be living in a dream world. And it doesn't matter who started it, it doesn't matter if American activity had somehow provoked that attack, or if it was entirely unprovoked. I would have opposed the attack on Pearl Harbor, as I would have opposed any retaliation on the American part, and, these things having happened, I would have supported the ending of the war as soon as possible. I didn't know these were such controversial positions to hold.Actually Japan didn't think America would retaliate, but that's besides the point. Of course America would retaliate. But should we should never be "opposed to a situation whereby one side is seemingly forbidden from retaliating in kind, in the unfortunate event that the military option is taken.", when one side is colonized and the other colonize. We should hope for a situation when the colonized cast off colonialism, and all cast off capitalism.


By the way, here's some proof that people aren't reading what I'm saying, even when they quote it directly:

This question needn't be asked. I can easily plug this quote in to my quote:

This is exactly what I have been saying all along. But it seemed to me that you for some reason expected me to say that they can't punch back, or try to wiggle my quote round, to try to claim it meant something else.You completely misunderstood me. Israel is a rapist. Palestine is being raped. Palestine punches back, then Israel retaliate for being punched, despite that Israel was raping Palestine to begin with. That's the point that went completely over your head.


But no. Look how easy it was to answer that exact question. It didn't even have to be asked. And this is the issue. For some reason my statements are being read as if they only apply in one direction. Well I'm sorry, but I don't have these double-standards. I'm never going to say that killing an innocent Palestinian can ever be justified, nor am I going to say that killing an innocent Israeli can be. The movement behind it cannot justify it. No matter how noble a political or social or whatever movement is, killing a innocent people can never be justified. And why oh why do we all seem to be having a go at me for claiming that? Am I supposed to say that missile after missile can be fired at some little town somewhere in Israel, killing people, but that's to be excused because the missiles come from the 'right' people and for the 'right' reasons? Fuck that shit...If settlers are attacked, that's obviously alright because they're settlers. But of course innocent Israelis shouldn't be attacked.

The RSA or Israel retaliating to attacks was/is not justified, because the Israel/RSA was/is the oppressor. The PA are bourgeois, but they do not do national oppression in the same way that Israel does.


Since when was there any one way to get stuff done - by beating people up? By killing people? By whatever other violent act? Apologies, by suggesting that people don't just go around killing random people for being in the wrong group, whether that group is a nationality, class, political ideology, I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to enact social change, or achieve anything.You don't have a problem with attacking the bourgeois during revolution?

Ummm........


This is a narrow-minded view. This should be more than just a bit obvious. If you want somebody to paint your fence, and you go up to some guy and start punching him in the face, saying 'paint my fucking fence, *****, paint it!', and he refuses to, and then I come over and say 'hey, how about you stop punching him', would you then say 'I won't stop punching him, because I want my fence painted, don't tell me to just give up' (which is what's happening here), or would you think 'okay, I'll ask him nicely, promise to buy him a beer if he does it for me, or maybe I'll even paint it myself'? I would hope you'd do the second. Why, oh tell me, is this situation any different? Why in this situation 'don't do it like that' synonymous with 'don't do it at all'?.....What?


Actually, don't tell me. If you want to debate / learn / whatever about anarcho-pacifism, I suggest starting up a thread in Learning, and I or somebody else might voice an opinion over there. This isn't the thread for that discussion.Ghandi was a pacifist. He thought Jews would be wrong to kill the Nazis and he let Indians die at the hands of British colonialists in the name of non-violence. Is that the kind of pacifist you are?

You should never refuse to take militant action against oppression when it's called for.

[Widerstand]

Because the discussion has obviously turned into one about Israel. If you're so mad that a thread on a forum had a discussion change (which happens constantly) then, um, leave?

I'm not mad about a discussion change, I'm perplexed that every time Anti-Zionism's relation to Anti-Semitism is discussed someone jumps in, yelling "BUT LOOK AT ISRAEL!" as if that would somehow change anything.



I support the immediate abolition of Israel through revolution. I don't think it will happen (nobody whatsoever thinks Israel will immediately be abolished), but I want it to. I want all capitalist states and all colonialism abolished immediately.

An immediate abolition of Israel cannot be achieved through revolution because there is no revolutionary situation in Israel right now. An immediate abolition in Israel through revolution is only possible if the political climate rapidly where to undergo drastic changes, which is highly unlikely.

The only realistic way an immediate abolition of Israel can be achieved is through external force.



Because Israel and the PA can't just become non-capitalist states, whereas creating a whole new system of governance in the one new territory could. And a new system of governance, if internationalist, obviously wouldn't feature an artificial divide in the form of a border.

Why can't the PA become a non-capitalistic state? Why can't Israel?

Why can't a one state solution prodce a capitalistic state?



Israel would have to shrink a real fucking lot, then.

Yes so? :confused:



Lol, because calling a specific person a Jew Killer and calling a certain political current imperialists are definitely equally bad?

Would you expect a specific Anarchist to not be offended if someone said "all Anarchists are rapists?"



I apologize. I'm still going to look up anti-Germans.

I apologize as well.



I didn't say you were, I said you need to avoid being it.

I don't see the difference really?



That is somewhat spineless and reformist.

Explain how a two state solution is in anyway "wanting to reach socialism through reform?" The word you are looking for seems to be realpolitik, and I'm not per se opposed to realpolitik, so I guess I'm guilty of that charge.

I don't see how it is in any way, shape or form spineless however.

I'd like to remind you that I have not ever said that I think a two state solution necessarily is the best or most favorable solution, but that a two state solution could potentially be better than both the current situation and a great lot of one state scenarios.



Obviously we want these territories united in a socialist world. And I'm aware that a capitalist nation-state one-state solution doesn't do that. But Palestine and Israeli borders would necessarily be abolished in a socialist revolution.

I don't see how, where the PA to undergo a socialist revolution, this would abolish Israel's borders in any way? Only a socialist revolution overthrowing the Israeli state will have that effect, and only a socialist revolution in Israel will do so.



I didn't support every kind of one state solution.

Just like I don't support every kind of two state solution!


He's been arguing that Israeli and Palestinian violence are equivalent. It's blindingly obvious.

Nope, sorry, I don't see how this is obvious.


Also, I'm the one with hippie idealism whereas he's the one who's a pacifist

Yes, I find that absurd, too, but I can't help it that you act in such a way. :crying:



Maybe I shouldn't change my name to Palingenisis.

Seeing how you answered for her before, maybe you should :lol:



Not acceptable but not understanding why is counter-productive. Racism in situations like that is indicative of low class conciousness.

Nobody said you shouldn't analyze it, where do you take that from?



That's not what he's been arguing, and if it is, he needs to learn how to communicate thoughts much better.

I think you both need to. The whole fact that you two talk about this in terms of "rights" is grossly mystifying and obstructing what anyone really means.

Does a rapist have a "right" to punch it's victim if it defends itself? Well, does the person have a "right" to be a rapist in the first place. Sure as hell you would expect a rapist to use force against a resisting victim. Sure as hell you wouldn't go around and asking for the rapist to be stripped of the right to do so (through law?) - you'd ask of the rapist to not fucking rape anyone to begin with.

This discussion is massively irrelevant semantic bullshit:



This is blatantly saying that he's opposed to a situation where Palestinians can attack Israel but Israel can't attack Palestinians. That is equivocating Israeli and palestinian violence.

Will you tell me how the fuck you expect a situation to look like in which Palestinians can attack Israel but Israel can't attack Palestinians? I mean let's be realistic for a moment, if we were to strip Israel of any means to attack Palestinians (which seems to be what you are arguing for), they would also have lost all means to uphold the occupation and apartheid, which would also strip Palestinians of any reason to attack Israel, ergo would remove Israeli retaliation.

There just isn't any real situation in which you can restrain an aggressor from retaliating to defense but not from the aggression evoking that defense.



Wider, you're twisting Krimskrams words to defend him.

I think you are twisting his words to attack him.

[freepalestine]

.... I mean, how else can one depict Israel in a cartoon, other than as a Jew? ...
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/misuse_of_anti_semitism_4_by_latuff2.jpg









http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/351183116_9fcfac42c3.jpg?v=0




http://gaza.haimbresheeth.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Ethnic_cleansing_in_Palestine_by_Latuff2.jpg




from the 70s


http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Naji%20Al-Ali%20Israeli%20tank%20shoots%20dove.jpg

[gorillafuck]

I'm not mad about a discussion change, I'm perplexed that every time Anti-Zionism's relation to Anti-Semitism is discussed someone jumps in, yelling "BUT LOOK AT ISRAEL!" as if that would somehow change anything.
Don't complain to me about it, forum topics change a lot. We could split the thread, I guess.


An immediate abolition of Israel cannot be achieved through revolution because there is no revolutionary situation in Israel right now. An immediate abolition in Israel through revolution is only possible if the political climate rapidly where to undergo drastic changes, which is highly unlikely. The only realistic way an immediate abolition of Israel can be achieved is through external force.
Then drop the discussion if we both concede it won't happen. But I'd like an immediate socialist revolution in every country. That's what I want. You asked what I want, not what I think will happen.


Why can't the PA become a non-capitalistic state? Why can't Israel?

Why can't a one state solution prodce a capitalistic state?
Because the PA is Fatah, and for Israel I should say current Israeli govt can't become non-capitalist since that would be reformism. And I never said a one state solution couldn't be capitalist. That's why I said there needs to be a socialist revolution.


Yes so? :confused:
Expansionist colonialists don't take well to shrinking (no states do, but especially rabid expansionists), they'd probably start a war. But it's hard to tell.


Would you expect a specific Anarchist to not be offended if someone said "all Anarchists are rapists?"
If someone says "all socialists are scum" I'd be less offended than if someone said "Zeekloid, you're a scum"


I don't see the difference really?
If you drink a lot you need to avoid being an alcoholic.


Explain how a two state solution is in anyway "wanting to reach socialism through reform?" The word you are looking for seems to be realpolitik, and I'm not per se opposed to realpolitik, so I guess I'm guilty of that charge.
It's not wanting to reach socialism through reform, but it's supporting the establishment of a bourgeois state.


I don't see how, where the PA to undergo a socialist revolution, this would abolish Israel's borders in any way? Only a socialist revolution overthrowing the Israeli state will have that effect, and only a socialist revolution in Israel will do so.
The PA isn't really a nation state, tbh.

And if there is a socialist revolution in one there'd probably be a revolution in both.


Just like I don't support every kind of two state solution!
Why would you support any nation state solution with a divide between Israelis and Palestinians?! THAT'S WHAT I AM ASKING.


Nope, sorry, I don't see how this is obvious.
I've demonstrated it.



Yes, I find that absurd, too, but I can't help it that you act in such a way. :crying:
dude, quit it. I'm not in any way acting like an idealist hippy at all.


I think you both need to. The whole fact that you two talk about this in terms of "rights" is grossly mystifying and obstructing what anyone really means.
He justifies imperialist militaries retaliating. Justification is what I argue against, not that they'll actually do it. I know they will. But it can't be morally justified like he's doing (see bottom quotes of this post to see how he's doing that)


Does a rapist have a "right" to punch it's victim if it defends itself? Well, does the person have a "right" to be a rapist in the first place. Sure as hell you would expect a rapist to use force against a resisting victim. Sure as hell you wouldn't go around and asking for the rapist to be stripped of the right to do so (through law?) - you'd ask of the rapist to not fucking rape anyone to begin with.



Will you tell me how the fuck you expect a situation to look like in which Palestinians can attack Israel but Israel can't attack Palestinians? I mean let's be realistic for a moment, if we were to strip Israel of any means to attack Palestinians (which seems to be what you are arguing for), they would also have lost all means to uphold the occupation and apartheid, which would also strip Palestinians of any reason to attack Israel, ergo would remove Israeli retaliation.
Of course I argue for that, I want to strip imperialist militaries of their means of imperialism. Then capitalism would be a hell of a lot easier to overthrow.

And yeah, if Israel stopped aparthied and brutalizating then they wouldn't be attacked. Yeah.


There just isn't any real situation in which you can restrain an aggressor from retaliating to defense but not from the aggression evoking that defense.




I think you are twisting his words to attack him.
I've demonstrated what he's said through directly quoting him.


It's technically unjustified to claim that an entity which is attacked is unable to then react to prevent attack.
I am opposed to a situation whereby one side is seemingly forbidden from retaliating in kind, in the unfortunate event that the military option is taken.

See?

[FreeFocus]

I admit I don't have a date, but I could believe it was maybe even slightly later. Perhaps pre-war, but clearly it's not from the 60's or anything...this much we agree on.

This would be why I considered it more concerned with encouraging antisemitism. I mean, working on the assumption that the one communist symbol would be enough to put the scare up somebody. I mean...I'm not an expert in making posters like this, but to me, the syntax suggests to me that it's saying 'fight communism by boycotting Jews', assuming already that communism is something to be fought. However, you may also be right that it's intended to grab the attention of the antisemite, and just point out that these people should also hate communism. Tough to know.

I think there are notoriously murky waters around anti-Zionist propaganda, and that causes great issues. For instance, we might look at something like this:


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6k/SWgUssGYQeI/AAAAAAAAEYg/P788HjZHJDU/s400/anti-semitic+cartoon.jpg


It is a serious question whether this is antisemitic in nature. I mean, clearly it's a Jew, nose, hat, beard, star, it's all that. But then there's the issue of whether or not the artist intended to portray a Jew, or just an Israeli. I mean, how else can one depict Israel in a cartoon, other than as a Jew? That might be the issue. However, I think it's clear that, if an antisemite (or somebody sympathetic to antisemitism) were to have done this, on some antisemitic website, it wouldn't be at all out of place, and antisemites who see it would probably associate the deaths in Gaza with all Jews. So it's a very sensitive issue, I think we'll agree.


On the other hand, there are some which clearly address Israel, rather than the Jewish people, for example:


EDIT: image server prevents hotlinking. The direct link is http://www.ultimatum.20m.com/8_ultimatum8/sharon-bush1.jpg so copy-paste it in, folks!


However, even this could easily be seen as playing in to some kind of ZOG conspiracy stuff, which all Jews are usually included in. The suggestion that we all support this global domination idea or whatever. Again, murky waters. I will mention that in cases such as these, it can be understood how anti-Zionism can so easily be taken as antisemitism. I mean, knowing where the line is is very difficult. We look at this pictures, unaware of their context and their intentions. We could easily argue that both are antisemitic, or neither are. I'm sure it depends on the context in which they appear.


Of course it's a difficult issue when Jews have historically been represented in such cartoons, and elsewhere, by the Magen David, which also just so happens to be the easiest way to represent Israel. I acknowledge this makes it really difficult to tell which of the two groups is the intended subject / target of the cartoon, and opens up a situation where individuals decide for themselves which of the two, based on which they want it to be...

Again I think it's more likely that it was trying to discredit communism by linking it to the underlying Antisemitism of Western societies, especially considering the number of immigrants at the time, who constituted to bulk of the radical movement then.

The poster of the Jewish man with skulls in his hat is probably Antisemitic. Do you have a source for that one (like who made it)?

The Sharon & Bush one is not Antisemitic. Without a proper political analysis, some people could legitimately make the mistake of thinking that Israel runs the United States - American politicians support Israel through all of its crimes, are blackmailed into submission by AIPAC/the Israel Lobby when they might raise concerns, etc. Of course, it's the other way around - Israel is part of the American Empire.

I think this just proves that Israel's insistence that it represents world Jewry needs to be opposed fervently. A poor Arab who only knows of Jews through Israeli soldiers murdering the people in his village might assume that all Jews are like that. Just like an African-American in the Jim Crow south might have assumed that all Whites are racist and support the KKK.

I won't condone cartoons that use Jewish caricatures. One of my favorite pieces of political art is this (I don't read Arabic so it might say something bad, I don't know, but the image is great):

http://img717.imageshack.us/i/intifada.jpg/http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8124/intifada.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/intifada.jpg/)

Israel has appropriated Jewish imagery, symbols, etc, so could using the Star of David in a political cartoon be considered Antisemitic? It's on the Israeli flag. It's just even little stuff like that. If Israel was a secular, democratic state and didn't use all of this imagery and language to conflate itself with world Jewry, it would be easy to tell who is Anti-Zionist and who is Antisemitic. It's in Israel's interest to have the two confused, connected, and blended, because Antisemitism isn't considered acceptable. If Antisemitism can be linked to Anti-Zionism, Anti-Zionism will then be labeled unacceptable. So I think it's more in Israel's interests to conflate the two than it is for Antisemites. In fact, this shows that Israel makes it very easy for Antisemites to spew their shit.

[hatzel]

Your posts say wildly contradictory things about how you oppose violence but also don't want a situation where one side is forbidden from violence, so I don't see the problem with my posts.

What's difficult to understand here? I don't want people to shoot people. Simple statement. However, I would rather see a situation whereby a group of armed people open fire on another group of armed people, rather than a situation whereby a group of armed people open fire on a load of people with their hands and legs tied to their chairs, with no way of retaliating. Reasoning: because this would be a massacre, rather than a conflict. If a group decides to open fire on another group, for whatever reason, then that other group should be allowed to defend themselves in the same way. I oppose the decision to open fire in the first place, but as I am aware that such things happen, because other people do whatever the hell they want, I cannot find a single good reason to support the idea of permitting only one side of the conflict to engage in violence. If one side does, then the other should surely be allowed to if they so wish, within the bounds of human decency. Opposing and prohibiting are different things.


You yourself agree that innocent civilians should not be attacked...the issue here is that, if the attacked party does not retaliate, or have the means or permission to retaliate, then they are, for all intents and purposes, civilians, rather than military or paramilitary or anything else. If this is the case, and they are attacked, then civilians have been attacked, and this is a deplorable act on the part of the attackers. If it is, as we agree, totally forbidden to kill civilians, then the only way a 'legitimate' conflict can occur, if a conflict can ever be legitimate, is if the attacked can themselves take military measures, or call on another group to take these measures on their behalf. This isn't anything to do with pacifism, this is surely to do with what I thought was a pretty well-accepted axiom. Namely, shooting the unarmed is immoral. I thought even soldiers were supposed to obey by these rules, and not shooting those who have dropped their weapons and raised their hands.


The issue is that it seems to be taken that I staunchly support the violence taken in retaliation, or consider this a 'right'. This isn't true. This is effectively a concession. It is best to avoid war, but if it does rear its ugly head it's a nice idea to accept a few basic outlines, one of which involves refraining from attacking the defenseless. Because I don't really have the power to enact some kind of sweeping judgment prohibiting all acts of violence anywhere, so I see no problem with looking outside the movement and forming opinions about how 'evil' acts should best to undertaken, to reduce the impact, or make it that teeny weeny bit more acceptable. Much like a vegetarian might say 'I don't eat meat, nor do I support eating meat, but as there are people who eat meat, I think it would be better if the animals were ethically-reared, free-range...' blah-de-blah, you get the idea. I don't think it would be fair to question this individual's ethics, just because they accept that people farm and slaughter animals, and therefore have opinions and preferences about how this 'evil' act should best be undertaken.


We should hope for a situation when the colonized cast off colonialism, and all cast off capitalism.


This I agree with, and have not argued against at any point. I just don't support the idea of casting off colonialism and capitalism by shooting it with a shotgun until it's been knocked to the other side of the room. Different paths, same intended destination.


You completely misunderstood me. Israel is a rapist. Palestine is being raped. Palestine punches back, then Israel retaliate for being punched, despite that Israel was raping Palestine to begin with. That's the point that went completely over your head.


This didn't go over my head, actually. But unfortunately, despite the fact that I said several pages ago, and several times since then, that I don't care about who started it, I keep getting accused of being obsessed with this idea. Apparently it's all about who started it with me. Or so I've been told. So I thought it would be best to avoid any talk of who started it, but now I see that you've addressed that issue for me, and told me exactly who started it and all that. I would appreciate if this means that I will no longer be accused of being obsessed with the origins of the situation, as clearly it's a lot less important to me than it is to some others...


You don't have a problem with attacking the bourgeois during revolution?

Ummm........


Welcome to the world of anarcho-pacifism. Unless you're using 'attack' in the broader sense, to include acts of affront as 'non-violent attacks'. Though even then it's a whole issue which I won't bog this thread down with.


.....What?


What? I don't think there was anything particularly difficult to understand in that. Though the allegorical example of getting a fence painted was, I admit, rather random. It's symbolic of making a change, simply enough. I'm not actually talking about painting fences, that would be far too off-topic even for me :rolleyes:


Ghandi was a pacifist. He thought Jews would be wrong to kill the Nazis and he let Indians die at the hands of British colonialists in the name of non-violence. Is that the kind of pacifist you are?


Actually I don't follow any Indian religion, so his exact brand of ahimsa isn't particularly deeply ingrained in my mentality. However, I will point out that pacifism and anarcho-pacifism are somewhat different movements, and probably shouldn't be bundled together into one and the same box. For the sake of accuracy.

[hatzel]

Israel has appropriated Jewish imagery, symbols, etc, so could using the Star of David in a political cartoon be considered Antisemitic? It's on the Israeli flag. It's just even little stuff like that. If Israel was a secular, democratic state and didn't use all of this imagery and language to conflate itself with world Jewry, it would be easy to tell who is Anti-Zionist and who is Antisemitic. It's in Israel's interest to have the two confused, connected, and blended, because Antisemitism isn't considered acceptable. If Antisemitism can be linked to Anti-Zionism, Anti-Zionism will then be labeled unacceptable. So I think it's more in Israel's interests to conflate the two than it is for Antisemites. In fact, this shows that Israel makes it very easy for Antisemites to spew their shit.

I'm actually going to bed, so I'll address your post better tomorrow, if needed, I promise, but I feel that it should be remembered that the Israeli flag, with its star and all, dates back about 120 years. And, of course, this was at a time when antisemitism was much more acceptable than it is today. So we should make sure that we don't accidentally think that this kind of imagery was specifically picked because Israel wanted to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism for any political reason. Merely that...the Zionist movement needed a flag, it would surely have to be something Jewish :rolleyes:


Further to this, I do oppose the flagrant accusations of antisemitism that seem to fly around at anti-Zionists. This I don't consider particularly productive, but that's a product of the Zionist mentality, really, dating back to its earliest days. I mean, if you're going to suggest a seismic shift in order to escape antisemitism, you're probably going to have to be pretty concerned about it. Though sure, as I mentioned, there are a lot of issues. There are a lot of people who specifically oppose Israel for antisemitic reasons, I think we can all agree this. So it's the big problem, really. But it's difficult for us to know. I mean, we don't really have any reliable statistics on this. I would be very interested to know statistics, percentages and stuff, about how many people who consider themselves opposing Israel also hold other antisemitic beliefs. Of course its difficult to tell who is and isn't antisemitic, because they might deny it :laugh: But still. If it's only 1% or something, worldwide, it might be a lot easier to lampoon the Zionist paranoia around antisemitism than if it's a considerably higher number. We only know about our own people, the circles we float in, but most of us don't have a deep insight into the right-wing community, nor do we know how the situation is in other parts of the world. I don't think we'll ever know, though...

[Widerstand]

Don't complain to me about it, forum topics change a lot. We could split the thread, I guess.

But I just told you it's not about the topic change.



Then drop the discussion if we both concede it won't happen. But I'd like an immediate socialist revolution in every country. That's what I want. You asked what I want, not what I think will happen.

Fair enough, it's just that I've heard too many of this "THE UN MUST INTERVENE IN ISRAEL" / "IRAN MUST INTERVENE" bullshit from Anti-Zionists.


Expansionist colonialists don't take well to shrinking (no states do, but especially rabid expansionists), they'd probably start a war. But it's hard to tell.

As would the settlers and bourgeois in case of a socialist revolution, yes.



It's not wanting to reach socialism through reform, but it's supporting the establishment of a bourgeois state.

Which still would be better than a racist, apartheid and supremacist regime in power.



The PA isn't really a nation state, tbh.

Then what is it?


Why would you support any nation state solution with a divide between Israelis and Palestinians?! THAT'S WHAT I AM ASKING.

Because I think it's preferable than subjecting either to the supremacist rule of the other. Of course a one state solution in which both are treated equal is preferable to a two state solution. I have never claimed otherwise.



He justifies imperialist militaries retaliating. Justification is what I argue against, not that they'll actually do it. I know they will. But it can't be morally justified like he's doing (see bottom quotes of this post to see how he's doing that)

I don't read that out of the quotes you presented at all, but do I agree you two should stop talking about this in terms of morals.

It's logically justified that an aggressor will use further aggression if resisted.



Of course I argue for that, I want to strip imperialist militaries of their means of imperialism. Then capitalism would be a hell of a lot easier to overthrow.

And Krimskrams wants for the Israeli aggression to end, so I guess you two don't really have a disagreement, huh?

What I don't get is this cryptic talk about whether or not Israel has a "right" to retaliate. Israel has no right to evoke the action to which it retaliates, and no one here disagrees with that.



I've demonstrated what he's said through directly quoting him.
See?

No. None of what you ascribe to him is inherent in these quotes, so I assume it must be in your interpretation of them.

[freepalestine]

And Krimskrams wants for the Israeli aggression to end, so I guess you two don't really have a disagreement, huh?

What I don't get is this cryptic talk about whether or not Israel has a "right" to retaliate. Israel has no right to evoke the action to which it retaliates, and no one here disagrees with that.


.retaliates?isreal instigates the violence.
the israelis have used that as propaganda for decades.
peace for isreal would be the end of politcal zionism.
as things are ,they dont want peace.

[gorillafuck]

As would the settlers and bourgeois in case of a socialist revolution, yes.Good point.


Which still would be better than a racist, apartheid and supremacist regime in power.true, but I just think that there have been too many "anti-imperialist" movements that went bankrupt due to capitalism. Look at South Africa. I don't want Palestine to end up like a capitalist hellhole like South Africa.


Then what is it?

And if there is a socialist revolution in one there'd probably be a revolution in both.
The "governing authority" of Palestine, but Palestine isn't really a state right now (or else there'd be two states). Palestine is under control of Israel for the most part, so it's sort of part of Israel.

I'm going to respond to Krimskrams with one statement, alright. Because I'm sick of this argument. I also didn't respond to widerstands stuff about krimskrams for this reason.

I understand you, Krimskrams. But I support liberation and socialism and anti-authoritarianism, so I want colonialists and bourgeosie to be defenseless in maintaining their oppression and exploitation. Simple as that. I'm not arguing it any further because it's getting nowhere. I want the imperialist militaries defenseless against revolution against capitalism and imperialism, I want all colonialists and neo-colonialists defenseless when Native peoples empower themselves and fight back (such as in Palestine), I want the bourgeoisie defenseless when their property is expropriated.

Ya dig?

[Widerstand]

retaliates?isreal instigates the violence.
the israelis have used that as propaganda for decades.
peace for isreal would be the end of politcal zionism.
as things are ,they dont want peace.

Israel retaliates to Palestinian attacks. That's not really a disputable fact, and it certainly isn't a moral statement or a statement about who started or who is to blame or who is right or even about why Palestinians make these attacks in the first place. But I'm sure YOU of all people will not deny that Israel does violently respond to Palestinian attacks?


true, but I just think that there have been too many "anti-imperialist" movements that went bankrupt due to capitalism. Look at South Africa. I don't want Palestine to end up like a capitalist hellhole like South Africa.

That danger always exists, just look at what "socialism" has turned out to be in China.

[freepalestine]

Israel retaliates to Palestinian attacks. That's not really a disputable fact, and it certainly isn't a moral statement or a statement about who started or who is to blame or who is right or even about why Palestinians make these attacks in the first place. But I'm sure YOU of all people will not deny that Israel does violently respond to Palestinian attacks?

.this bs about retaliation is propaganda.just look at gaza-now.the isrealis just need a good enough excuse to present to western media to obliterate the fkin place.
also the 'retaliation' in lebanon -since the 70s.
in the wars against egypt-so called retaliation.

away from what we hear from the media in the west-the situation is completely different.
isreal is getting more right wing-and ethnic cleansing is still going on .
full stop

[gorillafuck]

Israel retaliates to Palestinian attacks. That's not really a disputable fact, and it certainly isn't a moral statement or a statement about who started or who is to blame or who is right or even about why Palestinians make these attacks in the first place. But I'm sure YOU of all people will not deny that Israel does violently respond to Palestinian attacks?
But when Palestinians don't attack Israel still attacks and carries out what it does. This happened last time there was a ceasefire. Hamas obeyed it, Israel didn't. And Israel still makes settlements regardless.

Israel responds to violent attacks I suppose you could say, but while both are technically correct it's generally more accurate to say Palestinians respond to Israeli attacks/actions.


That danger always exists, just look at what "socialism" has turned out to be in China.
Mao-Tse Tung thought is crap, maybe?:closedeyes:

Anyway I'd rather have a risk than a guarantee.

[Widerstand]

this bs about retaliation is propaganda.just look at gaza-now.the isrealis just need a good enough excuse to present to western media to obliterate the fkin place.
also the 'retaliation' in lebanon -since the 70s.
in the wars against egypt-so called retaliation.

away from what we hear from the media in the west-the situation is completely different.
isreal is getting more right wing-and ethnic cleansing is still going on .
full stop

Where the fuck did I say that ALL of Israeli aggression is retaliation? Stop putting words in my mouth.


But when Palestinians don't attack Israel still attacks and carries out what it does. This happened last time there was a ceasefire. Hamas obeyed it, Israel didn't. And Israel still makes settlements regardless.

Where the fuck have I ever said anything against that? You too, stop putting words in my mouth.


Israel responds to violent attacks I suppose you could say

Then why the fuck do you even argue? Is this one more attempt to portray me as a Zionist?

[gorillafuck]

Where the fuck have I ever said anything against that? You too, stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why the fuck do you even argue? Is this one more attempt to portray me as a Zionist?
Shut up about me trying to portray you as a zionist, honestly. I said I don't think you are, in this thread. And in private when someone referred to you as one I said I don't think you are so obviously I'm not covertly accusing you of zionism or trying to make you seem like one. I barely even "argued", I acknowledged that your statement is sometimes true but I added on that it usually is the other way around, as a point of clarification for the purpose of the thread on general and in case you were unaware. Just to clarify and make sure.

[hatzel]

I'm actually going to bed, so I'll address your post better tomorrow, if needed


Okay, here's a potentially interesting thing that we could all stick our teeth into:


Who is it who decides what is and isn't antisemitic? For instance, I know that the Jewish community in Venezuela feels very threatened about what is going on in the country. There's an article (http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/42067/wikileaks-reveals-dark-horizon-venezuelan-jews) in the British Jewish newspaper about exactly that. We may read it and claim that the community is wrong to believe that there is government-sponsored antisemitism in Venezuela, rather government-sponsored anti-Zionism, and I'm sure this is the line that supporters of the Chavez regime will take. However, if the Jewish community feel threatened, is it automatically antisemitism? Is it similar to bullying, whereby one can merely ask somebody, 'do you feel like you are being bullied?', and, if they say yes, the bully has no choice but to accept this fact, rather than saying 'but I was just...'. Or, on the other hand, is the line between antisemitism and something else something that can be determined externally, a concrete thing, 'this is antisemitism in all cases, and this never is'? Of course this would be a difference. In the first case, the same act could be antisemitic, or it could not. It merely depends upon whether somebody considers themselves a target of it, or considers it an affront to their security. In the second case, of course, there is no such leniency, and it's a concrete statement: this is antisemitic, this is not. In the latter case, I wonder who it is who writes the rulebook, and who is in charge of deciding where the lines are. As an example, if we were to look at the two cartoons I posted a while back, we actually came to opposite conclusions. I mean, I would probably more likely consider the Bush and Sharon one as antisemitic, just thinking about context, and what I read into it, than I would the one with the hat and the skulls. So of course it's always hideously difficult to decide what exactly deserves to be called racist, sexist, homophobic, anything...


Hopefully this will go some way to turning this thread into something which I might be interested in :rolleyes: That is to say, if we talk about the original idea, we can't declare one way or the other whether there is antisemitism on the German left, or how much, if we don't know what is and isn't antisemitism. So we'd have to decide how to define that, before we can even approach the question...

[FreeFocus]

Okay, here's a potentially interesting thing that we could all stick our teeth into:

Who is it who decides what is and isn't antisemitic? For instance, I know that the Jewish community in Venezuela feels very threatened about what is going on in the country. There's an article (http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/42067/wikileaks-reveals-dark-horizon-venezuelan-jews) in the British Jewish newspaper about exactly that. We may read it and claim that the community is wrong to believe that there is government-sponsored antisemitism in Venezuela, rather government-sponsored anti-Zionism, and I'm sure this is the line that supporters of the Chavez regime will take. However, if the Jewish community feel threatened, is it automatically antisemitism? Is it similar to bullying, whereby one can merely ask somebody, 'do you feel like you are being bullied?', and, if they say yes, the bully has no choice but to accept this fact, rather than saying 'but I was just...'. Or, on the other hand, is the line between antisemitism and something else something that can be determined externally, a concrete thing, 'this is antisemitism in all cases, and this never is'? Of course this would be a difference. In the first case, the same act could be antisemitic, or it could not. It merely depends upon whether somebody considers themselves a target of it, or considers it an affront to their security. In the second case, of course, there is no such leniency, and it's a concrete statement: this is antisemitic, this is not. In the latter case, I wonder who it is who writes the rulebook, and who is in charge of deciding where the lines are. As an example, if we were to look at the two cartoons I posted a while back, we actually came to opposite conclusions. I mean, I would probably more likely consider the Bush and Sharon one as antisemitic, just thinking about context, and what I read into it, than I would the one with the hat and the skulls. So of course it's always hideously difficult to decide what exactly deserves to be called racist, sexist, homophobic, anything...


Hopefully this will go some way to turning this thread into something which I might be interested in :rolleyes: That is to say, if we talk about the original idea, we can't declare one way or the other whether there is antisemitism on the German left, or how much, if we don't know what is and isn't antisemitism. So we'd have to decide how to define that, before we can even approach the question...

I'm not familiar with the history of Antisemitism in Latin America. Have there been pogroms in Venezuela? I read the article you linked to. First off, these things were expressed by a US diplomat in the leaked Wikileaks cables, that alone makes it suspect. If the US can paint Venezuela as some type of Antisemitic pariah state, like they're trying to do with Iran, then the international community will gasp in horror.


The diplomatic source quoted also said there was concern amongst Jews about President Hugo Chavez's increasingly close alliance with Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and over what the country’s “suspiciously inefficient Iranian factories for bicycles” were really producing.

...

In November anti-extremist campaigners criticised the Venezuelan embassy in London for glorifying terrorism by holding an event to mark 10 years since the outbreak of the second intifada.

I mean, you have the whole hysteria about Iran. Iran is not going to nuke Israel, that's just silliness. If Iran wanted to kill Jews, why doesn't the government target its Jewish population? Why do Iranian Jews denounce Israel and reject its offers for them to emigrate? Ahmadinejad himself might hold some suspect views on the Holocaust, but is he the Iranian Hitler like the West paints him as? I don't think so. And frankly it's gold to have the West painting other people as Hitlers, given Hitler was a product of the West. WWII didn't happen because of the Holocaust. People knew about what Germany was doing to the Jewish community before the war started. It didn't concern the governments of the US, UK, France, etc. They, frankly, didn't really care, or like Jews either.

Venezuela is not producing Zyklon-B in its factories. Moreover, trying to discredit the anti-imperialist nature of the Second Intifada is a disgusting position that they're taking, to be honest.

I mean, if you want to say, "We can't be decisive about determining the nature of this cartoon, that position, this rally, these words, etc," then we just end up doing nothing. You need to look at likelihood, intention, history, and context. If we just sit around and say, "Oh, it could be A. No wait, it could be B. Still, it could be C. Ahh, I can't decide," then things are just pointless. Look at facts, context, make an informed decision, and stick by it unless you're proven wrong. That's all you can do if you want to possibly be effective in this world.

So in the context of the German Left, when people are harping on Israeli crimes, look at what language they're using. Are they saying "Israelis," or are they saying "Jews?" If they're saying Jews, ask them what they think about the cause of Israeli crimes, and point out that not all Jews support Israel. To the extent that a majority of Jews support Israel, we need to be honest with ourselves and not shy away from the question and that fact. Is opposing Israel while a majority of Jews support it Antisemitic? That would be a ridiculous position to take, it's like saying that because a majority of African-Americans supported OJ Simpson in the murder trial, saying that he was a criminal was racist. To be sure, there were racists who said OJ was a criminal just because he was African-American. Just as there are undoubtedly Antisemites who oppose Israel because it claims to be Jewish. That's where context, facts, and reasoning come in. It's not difficult for intelligent, diligent people to tease through bullshit.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The problem with anti-semitism as it is being discussed here (with regards to the above Venezuelan example) is a socio-economic construct.

I've not checked this for empirical validity, but i'm fairly sure, having lived in the hub of UK jewry my entire life, that in terms of the socio-economic scale, many jews after often in the petit-bourgeois or ruling class category. This is often down to a cultural attitude of hard work and assimilation which is often instilled into jews (I would know, having been raised as one) at a young age. The problem is that some on the left (and obviously on the right) seem to simplify this rather complicated social construct into Jews = Ruling class.

In actual fact, it is cultural coincidence, and of course not every person raised jewish is not working class, i'm sure there are many, but the cultural oddities of judaism that encourage 'getting on in life' (I say that in a complimentary, not a derogatory way), often lead them more towards being haves than have-nots, economically speaking, and thus a plurality of jews in any one nation will often be opposed to economic ideologies like Socialism.