PARIS: Jews flee as Jewish businesses are being smashed, burned and looted over Gaza [Archive]

Hexen

22nd July 2014, 15:31

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/france-jewish-shops-riot_n_5608612.html

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/359024/slide_359024_3996831_free.jpg (http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/359024/slide_359024_3996831_free.jpg)
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53cced66ecad04a0632b4052-768-500/france2.jpeg

France's politicians and community leaders have criticised the "intolerable" violence against Paris' Jewish community, after a pro-Palestinian rally led to the vandalizing and looting of Jewish businesses and the burning of cars.

It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city's Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of "Gas the Jews" and "Kill the Jews", as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as "little Jerusalem".

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2014, 15:34

'You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressors tho'

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

22nd July 2014, 15:47

As people migrate to the west, their views which are unfortunately bolstered by actions committed by Israel, come along with them. The anti-semitism in my own family was too much for me and they aren't even from a country that gives much attention to the Palestinians, I can only imagine what hatred others can bring with them. As I said in another post, these views will only grow as the conflict does and they can eventually influence western policy in the long term. For Israel's sake it is necessary for them to make a fundamental change in their society. We live in frightening times and it seems that we are all being pulled into something we will be powerless to stop.

Rosa Partizan

22nd July 2014, 15:51

'You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressors tho'

best argument ever.

Oh, wait a second...in the early-mid 90s, Bosnian Serbs/the Yugoslavian ("Yugoslavian") army killed several ten thousands of Bosniak civilists, hundreds of thousands (also me and my family) became war refugees and left their homes. What if in the wake of the war, Bosniaks in Germany had burnt down Serbian shops, cars and whatsoever? Would it make any difference to me? Would I justify it in any way? Would I make a difference in terms of guilt and responsibility? Hell no.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

22nd July 2014, 15:53

Those are scare quotes

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2014, 18:04

Venting my frustration with some Maoists who supported the right for Palestinians to use indiscriminate violence against Jewish workers and civilians (including randomly directed rocket attacks and suicide bombings) under the pretext that this is a nationalism of the oppressed. Doesn't really apply here, I know, but I'm still frustrated with their logic. Also, one called me a Nazi for opposing these indiscriminate attacks on all Israeli civilians (because they may or may not be Zionists that happen to live in Israel).

Raskolnikov

22nd July 2014, 21:38

I do dare wonder what your view is on the Haitian Revolution is then. Gaza's at war, it's being torn apart, invaded, and laid to siege upon for..well, years. That's the fundamental fact of this situation. And, like it or not, Israel is a settler state. Meaning those of the settler "class"/caste have a greater variety of political rights, economic rights and social maneuverability than, say, those who aren't apart of that.

African Migrants, Ethiopian Jews, Arabs, etc. So it comes to an age old-question of "what happens when the slave attacks the colonial worker?" Or when the Black Panthers arm themselves to prevent police attacks, and so on. It's pretty complicated.

Irregardless of this, or your views on the actions, or the acts themselves - just continue to oppose the war in Gaza, oppose Israel and it's warcrimes. That's the fundamental point. After the invasion? Have at it with a theoretical discussion of the class and ethnic relationships within a settler state.

Rafiq

22nd July 2014, 21:53

The problem is the pathology of anti-semitism - not prejudice of even aversion towards Jews, but anti semitism as a definitive ideological universe (that Jews are "in control" and people can think and act like "the Jews") The death of all reason - that there are only those who oppose the Jews and the lackeys of Jews ("Zionists"). The difference with other 'anti colonial' phenomena is that this can't be changed with conscious political correctness. We have seen politically correct anti semitism on Iranian state TV or Hamas propaganda. Not to say all who oppose Zionism are anti Semitic, but that often Zionism is used as a replacement for the word Jew (For example, "Zionists control America").

Five Year Plan

22nd July 2014, 21:58

'You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressors tho'

Since when was a Jewish shopkeeper in Paris a member of the Israeli nation? Both the petty act of vandalism, and your snarky failed attempt at wit in this thread, presuppose the Zionist view that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable labels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rafiq

22nd July 2014, 22:04

Since when was a Jewish shopkeeper in Paris a member of the Israeli nation? Both the petty act of vandalism, and your snarky failed attempt at wit in this thread, presuppose the Zionist view that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable labels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well that's the point. If Jews outside Israel are being deliberately targeted for the actions of the Israeli state, what does this reveal?

Five Year Plan

22nd July 2014, 22:09

Well that's the point. If Jews outside Israel are being deliberately targeted for the actions of the Israeli state, what does this reveal?

It reveals that the people targeting them are buying into Zionist propaganda. To twist this into an attack on people who support armed resistance against the Israeli occupation is absurd, because we are the ones who actually see through that propaganda and wouldn't make the same mistake as the idiot who smashed the window.

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2014, 22:25

I do dare wonder what your view is on the Haitian Revolution is then. Gaza's at war, it's being torn apart, invaded, and laid to siege upon for..well, years. That's the fundamental fact of this situation. And, like it or not, Israel is a settler state. Meaning those of the settler "class"/caste have a greater variety of political rights, economic rights and social maneuverability than, say, those who aren't apart of that.

African Migrants, Ethiopian Jews, Arabs, etc. So it comes to an age old-question of "what happens when the slave attacks the colonial worker?" Or when the Black Panthers arm themselves to prevent police attacks, and so on. It's pretty complicated.

Irregardless of this, or your views on the actions, or the acts themselves - just continue to oppose the war in Gaza, oppose Israel and [its] warcrimes. That's the fundamental point. After the invasion? Have at it with a theoretical discussion of the class and ethnic relationships within a settler state.

I'm not sure what your point is.

MarcusJuniusBrutus

22nd July 2014, 22:26

Idiotic. Jews are not synonymous with Israelis or their government. This does not exactly help the cause of Arabs living in France.

Slavic

22nd July 2014, 22:28

I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't think he realizes that the attacks occurred in Paris, otherwise I have no clue.

bropasaran

22nd July 2014, 22:43

There's a quote I like from Kant about the French Revolution: "No rational person will approve of violence and terror, and in particular the terror of the post-revolutionary state that has fallen into the hands of a grim autocracy has more than once reached indescribable levels of savagery. At the same time, no person of understanding or humanity will too quickly condemn the violence that often occurs, when long subdued masses rise against their oppressors or take their first steps toward liberty and social reconstruction."

Yes, violence is bad. Violence that is an unnecessary and excessive response to aggressive violence and oppression is bad, yes, but it can never be worse then that aggressive and oppressive violence that it is the response to, and those who condemn the the former more strongly then the latter, or condemn just the indignant and reactive but ignore the aggressive violence deserve just one big- "fuck you, mate" and maybe an added "you hypocritical, brain-washed tool".

Zukunftsmusik

22nd July 2014, 23:20

Yes, violence is bad. Violence that is an unnecessary and excessive response to aggressive violence and oppression is bad, yes, but it can never be worse then that aggressive and oppressive violence that it is the response to, and those who condemn the the former more strongly then the latter, or condemn just the indignant and reactive but ignore the aggressive violence deserve just one big- "fuck you, mate" and maybe an added "you hypocritical, brain-washed tool".

Um. What oppressive violence are jewish shop owners guilty of, exactly?

Zukunftsmusik

22nd July 2014, 23:23

Slavic

23rd July 2014, 00:13

Um. What oppressive violence are jewish shop owners guilty of, exactly?

Israeli by association.

Bala Perdida

23rd July 2014, 00:26

#FF0000

23rd July 2014, 00:31

bropasaran

23rd July 2014, 00:33

Decent quote, yeah, but what the fuck does it have to do with this situation?
Yes, sorry, has nothing to with it. This was just random violence, plain anti-semitism, it is no way a indignant protest against settler colonialist brutality against it's semicentennial victims that got heated and carried away.

LiaSofia

23rd July 2014, 00:39

I never know how to feel about this. I am concerned because of the racism, but I don't care for business.
I'm not advocating for the destruction of ethnic businesses themselves, but for the indiscriminate destruction of business.

I remember Golden Dawn doing something similar to middle eastern stands in a farmers market. I felt sad, but them being businesses really confused me.

I don't like money! :confused:

The result was that some businesses were destroyed, but the vandals were motivated by racism rather than a desire to end capitalism so it's hardly something to celebrate. All that's happening here is that people's lives are being made more difficult due to them being blamed for something they're not doing. I mean, look at the photo at the top. It looks like kristallnacht!

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 00:46

Kristelnacht was preemptive anti-imperialism. They understood the impending doom that loomed over Palestine at the hands of the British.

It all makes perfect sense now.

#FF0000

23rd July 2014, 00:47

Yes, sorry, has nothing to with it. This was just random violence, plain anti-semitism, it is no way a indignant protest against settler colonialist brutality against it's semicentennial victims that got heated and carried away.

So violence against Jews is understandable, because they all represent or are represented by Israel? And this episode is completely incidental to the very real and rapidly growing anti-semitic attitudes in France?

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 00:50

oh jesus christ, vox.

Hey, I thought we were all being anti-Semitic assholes I just wanted to be apart of the group. I sorry. :(

Zukunftsmusik

23rd July 2014, 00:53

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 00:56

Did antisemittism come with the bakunin package or

You leave Bakunin out of this.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

23rd July 2014, 00:59

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 01:02

Of course Bakunin was anti semitic, so it makes sense that Impossible is also one.

Lemme repeat myself, leave fucking Bakunin out of this God damnt.

#FF0000

23rd July 2014, 01:03

bakunin was a nerd

Rosa Partizan

23rd July 2014, 01:06

Zukunftsmusik

23rd July 2014, 01:10

Lemme repeat myself, leave fucking Bakunin out of this God damnt.

"Oh no my sacred bakunin!"

Yes, sorry, has nothing to with it. This was just random violence, plain anti-semitism, it is no way a indignant protest against settler colonialist brutality against it's semicentennial victims that got heated and carried away.

So what settler colonialist brutality were those jewish shop owners guilty of? It getting "heated" and "carried away" is of course not linked to anti-semittism at all. And neither is this mentality that these kind of actions were somehow justified or merely accidental. Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

consuming negativity

23rd July 2014, 01:11

I'm sure the Parisian Jews are big fans of Israel. They're probably being trained as part of the IDF right now.

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 01:13

bakunin was a nerd

Oh you double FF, you silly goose.

bropasaran

23rd July 2014, 02:27

The people on this thread defending this in any way should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. "hur dur they were businesses tho". Like, shut the fuck up. This is obviously anti semitism. Do you fucking idiots think that Jews have to be representatives of Israel? Because that's the logic that fascists use.

Of course Bakunin was anti semitic, so it makes sense that Impossible is also one.

Fuck you, you lying asshole, accusing me of being anti-semitic and of defending violence when I explicitly condemned the violence and just added a "fuck you" to those who condemn this violence more then the violence against which the protest was in the first place.

Violence that is an unnecessary and excessive response to aggressive violence and oppression is bad

those who .. condemn just the indignant and reactive but ignore the aggressive violence deserve just one big- "fuck you, mate"

an indignant protest ... that got heated and carried away.

Also "fuck you" to the other idiots implying that i'm anti-semitic. I mean really how stupid do you have to be have accusations of anti-semitism as the only response to something, and to make it worse, you wrap those accusations up is some stupid hipster attempt of sarcasm.

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 02:32

Fuck you, you lying asshole, accusing me of being anti-semitic and of defending violence when I explicitly condemned the violence and just added a "fuck you" to those who condemn this violence more then the violence against which the protest was in the first place.

Also "fuck you" to the other idiots implying that i'm anti-semitic. I mean really how stupid do you have to be have accusations of anti-semitism as the only response to something, and to make it worse, you wrap those accusations up is some stupid hipster attempt of sarcasm.

Who you talkin bout foo?

#FF0000

23rd July 2014, 02:43

Fuck you, you lying asshole, accusing me of being anti-semitic and of defending violence when I explicitly condemned the violence and just added a "fuck you" to those who condemn this violence more then the violence against which the protest was in the first place.

You aren't saying the violence is okay, but is "understandable" because of Israel. It's "understandable" that people attacked jewish people and businesses because of Israel. That's absurd and is one hundred percent anti-Semitic.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd July 2014, 03:02

'You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressors tho'yeah you do, actually. But unless you think "Jews" are the oppressor, the snarky analogy doesn't really work.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

23rd July 2014, 03:11

Quit comparing this to Kristallnacht. Seriously.

Sasha

23rd July 2014, 05:36

Edit; Double

Sasha

23rd July 2014, 05:37

its all a fucking mess, there is no excuse for attacking jews for the actions of isreal, but indeed israel is partly to blame for it. also, the story of the attack on the synagogue (not the fire bomb one but the "attack" during a pro-palestine march in paris) started when a group of JDL fash provoked and attacked algerians in that street and promptly got their ass kicked. its a complicated mess where disgusting thing happen, both ways, but are also misused and inflated to serve to enrage people and frame the debate, pretty much as the conflict it self...

Bala Perdida

23rd July 2014, 09:16

I don't know if I'm making things worse by commenting again, but I hope not. Anyways, based on the overwhelming emphasis on racial discrimination (both by the forum and those who committed the act) I feel that the best position to take on this, is to be concerned. I feel sorry for the victims of the tragedy, I feel sorry because they suffered violence because of something that is out of their control (race). I recognize that the assailants acted out of racism, not against capitalism.

What I will say is that while I do feel sorry for the victims, I do not care for their lost profit. Profit is ugly when it comes from exploitation, or when it exists at all. Profit can only result from exploitation. So I do not care about a petit-bourgeois crying over their loss of profit. I just hope the employees are okay, and the exploiter (if he is to be persecuted over race).

If this was an act against capitalism, it would not be in an ethnic enclave. Personally, I would pick something like a Burger King to destroy, much more symbolic than a small shop. However, if a small shop happens to be in the way, then that's a different story.

Also, this is not nearly to the degree of Kristallnacht. They're not an organized force, accompanied by raging chauvinism. It's just raging chauvinism and racism at best, with no possibility of attaining state authority like the Nazis did. However, if it turns out that way, I will hate myself for the rest of my life.

:blackA::star3:No border, no nation, no color of skin. Divided we fall, united we win.:star3::blackA:

:hammersickle:Fuck business!:hammersickle:

Sorry for the corny ass lines, I'm bad at conclusions. I love Jewish people and Arab people. I hate money.

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/054/f/1/united_israel_palestine_flag_2_by_bullmoose1912-d5w0p91.png

I personally think it's an ugly design, but it's symbolic I guess.

consuming negativity

23rd July 2014, 09:41

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/054/f/1/united_israel_palestine_flag_2_by_bullmoose1912-d5w0p91.png

I personally think it's an ugly design, but it's symbolic I guess.

It shows Israeli checkpoints dividing up the colors of Palestine and making a weird situation out of what was formerly a fine Palestinian flag.

khad

23rd July 2014, 11:48

I don't know if I'm making things worse by commenting again, but I hope not. Anyways, based on the overwhelming emphasis on racial discrimination (both by the forum and those who committed the act) I feel that the best position to take on this, is to be concerned. I feel sorry for the victims of the tragedy, I feel sorry because they suffered violence because of something that is out of their control (race). I recognize that the assailants acted out of racism, not against capitalism.

What I will say is that while I do feel sorry for the victims, I do not care for their lost profit. Profit is ugly when it comes from exploitation, or when it exists at all. Profit can only result from exploitation. So I do not care about a petit-bourgeois crying over their loss of profit. I just hope the employees are okay, and the exploiter (if he is to be persecuted over race).

If this was an act against capitalism, it would not be in an ethnic enclave. Personally, I would pick something like a Burger King to destroy, much more symbolic than a small shop. However, if a small shop happens to be in the way, then that's a different story.

Also, this is not nearly to the degree of Kristallnacht. They're not an organized force, accompanied by raging chauvinism. It's just raging chauvinism and racism at best, with no possibility of attaining state authority like the Nazis did. However, if it turns out that way, I will hate myself for the rest of my life.

:blackA::star3:No border, no nation, no color of skin. Divided we fall, united we win.:star3::blackA:

:hammersickle:Fuck business!:hammersickle:

Sorry for the corny ass lines, I'm bad at conclusions. I love Jewish people and Arab people. I hate money.

I personally think it's an ugly design, but it's symbolic I guess.

Seriously, Internet commies need to stop speaking like

"HERE IS MY DECREE ON X"

What you "officially" say on revleft is not going to influence anything, either with regards to the people doing violence or the people suffering from it. All it does is answer to questions of your own political identity so that you can sleep better at night.

And that flag, what is this? Nationstates and political roleplay? Burger King, you mean the only one in Paris in Gare St-Lazare?

Deal in facts, observe, and analyze. Don't speak from generalities and buzzwords just to make a generic point.

Trap Queen Voxxy

23rd July 2014, 16:29

It shows Israeli checkpoints dividing up the colors of Palestine and making a weird situation out of what was formerly a fine Palestinian flag.

Exactly, the Jews must be driven out so that not even a single lizard shall live their desert.

Bala Perdida

23rd July 2014, 17:02

Seriously, Internet commies need to stop speaking like

"HERE IS MY DECREE ON X"

What you "officially" say on revleft is not going to influence anything, either with regards to the people doing violence or the people suffering from it. All it does is answer to questions of your own political identity so that you can sleep better at night.

And that flag, what is this? Nationstates and political roleplay? Burger King, you mean the only one in Paris in Gare St-Lazare?

Deal in facts, observe, and analyze. Don't speak from generalities and buzzwords just to make a generic point.
I was aiming to answer questions about my political identity after accusations that I was racist. I don't want people thinking I support vandalizing ethnic enclaves as a means of fighting capitalism, or thinking that I see kristallnacht as liberation or something.
Also the flag is basically my position on the whole Israel-Palestine conflict. One-state solution, unless the people of either nation wishes to have no state or abolish it. The flag I just found online.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 17:39

Seriously, Internet commies need to stop speaking like

"HERE IS MY DECREE ON X"

What you "officially" say on revleft is not going to influence anything, either with regards to the people doing violence or the people suffering from it. All it does is answer to questions of your own political identity so that you can sleep better at night.

And that flag, what is this? Nationstates and political roleplay? Burger King, you mean the only one in Paris in Gare St-Lazare?

Deal in facts, observe, and analyze. Don't speak from generalities and buzzwords just to make a generic point.

Your decree on "how to post on revleft" is duly noted, Herr Moderator. Maybe next time you can deal in the substance of what Fuerte was attempting to convey.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 17:58

Antisemitism at its finest in this thread.

Imagine arguing on revleft that jews attacking Arab Israeli stores because of hamas rockets being "understandable". You would get banned in a second.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 17:59

Antisemitism at its finest in this thread.

Imagine arguing on revleft that jews attacking Arab Israeli stores because of hamas rockets being "understandable". You would get banned in a second.

In fact, your shilling for Israel all over this board proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:01

In fact, your shilling for Israel all over this board proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.

I support the destruction of the Israeli state and all other states, how is that supporting the israeli state.

It is like saying i defend captain crunch because I find fruity pebbles equally whack and both bad for your health.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:02

I support the destruction of the Israeli state and all other states, how is that supporting the israeli state.

It is like saying i defend captain crunch because I find fruity pebbles equally whack and both bad for your health.

We've been over this before. Saying you support treating an oppressor state and oppressed state equally is reactionary, and gives a free pass to the oppressor state to just keep on oppressing.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:05

We've been over this before. Saying you support treating an oppressor state and oppressed state equally is reactionary, and gives a free pass to the oppressor state to just keep on oppressing.

All states are oppressor states to the workers within them, I do not acknowledge your views on"oppressor states" being a correct analysis. Your belief in a fairytale does not compel me to root for Hamas and palestinian nationalism.

Also how would an "oppressor state" keep on oppressing if all states were sone away with? Which is what I propose, instead of your game of thrones roleplaying game you play vicariously through the following of geopolitics and choosing which houses you support in order to have a just reign.

Obviously the king of the North's militarism is not the same as the oppressors and to act like the lannisters and the Starks are the same is to allow the lannisters oppression to continue.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:07

All states are oppressor states to the workers within them, I do not acknowledge your views on"oppressor states" being a correct analysis. Your belief in a fairytale does not compel me to root for Hamas and palestinian nationalism.

And I have also already explained to you how, while all states oppress people within their boundaries, only some states oppress people outside of their boundaries. As in: have tanks in their backyards, checkpoints in their neighborhoods, and so on. You don't really pay attention, do you? You ignore the international behavior of states so that you can give a free pass to one the world's worst international offenders. What a surprise.

Devrim

23rd July 2014, 18:09

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:10

And I have also already explained to you how, while all states oppress people within their boundaries, only some states oppress people outside of their boundaries. As in: have tanks in their backyards, checkpoints in their neighborhoods, and so on. You don't really pay attention, do you? You ignore the international behavior of states so that you can give a free pass to one the world's worst international offenders. What a surprise.

Why is a state worse for oppressing its own workers aswell as others as opposed to just oppressing its own.

How about any state oppressing any workers is one we could do without?

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:12

And does whatever position you take somehow stop Israel oppressing?

Devrim

Does any of us taking a position on anything on revleft somehow stop anything bad from happening? Is there a purpose to your question, besides to show off your obtuseness?

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:15

Why is a state worse for oppressing its own workers aswell as others as opposed to just oppressing its own.

How about any state oppressing any workers is one we could do without?

Your position is analogous to saying that a rapist and a rape victim should be treated equally because they've both have drug convictions in their past. The purpose of pointing out the distinction between domestic oppression and international oppression is so that both forms of oppression can be opposed. You want to bracket aside international oppression, and talk about how only domestic oppression should come into play when we determine what needs to be done. We can all guess why.

Devrim

23rd July 2014, 18:19

Does any of us taking a position on anything on revleft somehow stop anything bad from happening? Is there a purpose to your question, besides to show off your obtuseness?

My point is that the left's constant arguing about what position to take about Palestine is essentially meaningless.

Using big words to insult people doesn't make you clever, just pretentious.

Devrim

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:20

My point is that the left's constant arguing about what position to take about Palestine is essentially meaningless.

Using big words to insult people doesn't make you clever, just pretentious.

Devrim

The same argument can be said about any other position the "left" (whatever that is) argues about. Or at least, the same can be said on the basis of the rationale you've provided: none.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:21

Your position is analogous to saying that a rapist and a rape victim should be treated equally because they've both have drug convictions in their past. The purpose of pointing out the distinction between domestic oppression and international oppression is so that both forms of oppression can be opposed. You want to bracket aside international oppression, and talk about how only domestic oppression should come into play when we determine what needs to be done. We can all guess why.

No it isn't, it is saying a rapist and a rapist are both scumbag rapists. How on earth is it what you said. That made you sound kind of disturbed.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:23

No it isn't, it is saying a rapist and a rapist are both scumbag rapists. How on earth is it what you said. That made you sound kind of disturbed.

No, actually, it's pretty simple, so I understand why you're doing your best to muddy the waters here. If you oppose oppression, and a state is oppressing the people of another state, your goal should be to oppose not just the domestic oppression within all states, but also the international oppression of people by foreign states. To say, "Well, all states oppress people within their own boundaries!" misses the point entirely, and is deliberately designed not to account for international forms of oppression, as a transparent way of apologizing for it.

To bring it back to my analogy, just because the victim of a crime might be a criminal himself does not mean that the crime should be ignored.

Sasha

23rd July 2014, 18:25

Because its called the people's stick....

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:26

No, actually, it's pretty simple, so I understand why you're doing your best to muddy the waters here. If you oppose oppression, and a state is oppressing the people of another state, your goal should be to oppose not just the domestic oppression within all states, but also the international oppression of people by foreign states.

Which opposing all states and destroying all states does, not supporting one over the other, if Hamas make israel withdraw from the occupied terrir=tories, Palestianian workers will still be oppressed.

Supporting the end of states via workers revolution is the only choice that ends without a state oppressing someone.

Sasha

23rd July 2014, 18:29

or in other words there is little difference between getting shot by hammas or by the IDF, other than that hammas is for now not so good at shooting you.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:29

Which opposing all states and destroying all states does, not supporting one over the other, if Hamas make israel withdraw from the occupied terrir=tories, Palestianian workers will still be oppressed.

Supporting the end of states via workers revolution is the only choice that ends without a state oppressing someone.

Let's be clear here: when you say "opposing all states," you mean opposing Israel by supporting the Israeli working class against Israel, although the Palestinian working class are also oppressed by Israel. You don't think the state of Israel should be opposed by the Palestinian working class, despite the fact that the Palestinian working-class is being oppressed by that state. How does this not put you on the side of the Israeli state in regards to their oppression of Palestinians?

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:39

Let's be clear here: when you say "opposing all states," you mean opposing Israel by supporting the Israeli working class against Israel, although the Palestinian working class are also oppressed by Israel. You don't think the state of Israel should be opposed by the Palestinian working class, despite the fact that the Palestinian working-class is being oppressed by that state. How does this not put you on the side of the Israeli state in regards to their oppression of Palestinians?

I think workers should organise for the destruction of their state and all other states. I don't get what is so hard. I don't support states fighting other states.

Lets go back to game of thrones.

Tommen, Khaleesi, The one true king of the house of Baratheon, we comin through your window, snatchin up yo princess.

The lannisters now once more control and occupy the north despite ovewhelming support in the North for their defeat.

Now supporting the young wolf failed, but even if it had succeeded and the North was won by Rob Stark, the people of the north would still be oppressed. There would still be serfs and peasants beneath farmers, merchants and craftsmen, underneath knights and vassals, underneath nobles and the monarchy underneath the church.

We need to do away with all states and the hierachal class societies they maintain.Not just support the weaker ones in beating the bigger ones to then become the biggest ones.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:42

I think workers should organise for the destruction of their state and all other states. I don't get what is so hard.

If you agree that workers should aim to overthrow all states, and in particular those states that are directly oppressing them, then I'm not sure why you would have a problem, in principle, with armed Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation, since the Israeli state is in fact oppressing the Palestinian working class.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 18:46

If you agree that workers should aim to overthrow all states, and in particular those states that are directly oppressing them, then I'm not sure why you would have a problem, in principle, with armed Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation, since the Israeli state is in fact oppressing the Palestinian working class.

Because supporting workers uniting and fihting the state in order to abolish states and capitalism is not the same as supporting palestinians who belong to Islamic militant groups or "secular" statist and nationalist groups who want state control over palestine.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 18:49

Because supporting workers uniting and fihting the state in order to abolish states and capitalism is not the same as supporting palestinians who belong to Islamic militant groups or "secular" statist and nationalist groups who want state control over palestine.

I see what you did there. You don't want to talk about the Palestinian working-class resisting all states that are oppressing them. Instead, you want to talk about "Islamic militant groups."

It's a simple series of questions you will try to dodge and troll your way around, as you have in a handful of other threads.

Does the state of Israel oppress the Palestinian working class? Yes or no?

Do you support the armed resistance of the Palestinian working class against that oppression? Yes or no?

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 19:08

I see what you did there. You don't want to talk about the Palestinian working-class resisting all states that are oppressing them. Instead, you want to talk about "Islamic militant groups."

It's a simple series of questions you will try to dodge and troll your way around, as you have in a handful of other threads.

Does the state of Israel oppress the Palestinian working class? Yes or no?

Do you support the armed resistance of the Palestinian working class against that oppression? Yes or no?

I do support palestinians fighting all states that opress them, I don't support them fighting one state, for a group or state who would oppress them and other workers in palestine.

Same as I would support the German working class against the state but not if they were fighting the state as brownshirts for the national socialist party.

Rosa Partizan

23rd July 2014, 19:32

why don't they fight an organization that's holding back supplies from them, that wants to build a totalitarian theocracy oppressing women and minorities, that uses their children and women as shields and gives a fuck about if they live or not? Does anyone really believe that this is a class-conscious worker's struggle?

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 19:32

I do support palestinians fighting all states that opress them, I don't support them fighting one state, for a group or state who would oppress them and other workers in palestine.

Same as I would support the German working class against the state but not if they were fighting the state as brownshirts for the national socialist party.

In light of the fact that Palestinians do not have their own state, but instead are a people militarily occupied by a foreign state, I fail to see how working-class Palestinians can fight their own (non-existent) state power. Do you have some other state in mind that are oppressing the Palestinians besides the Israeli state?

But let's ignore for just a moment that there is not, in fact, a sovereign Palestinian state power. For the sake of advancing our argument, let's say that there has been one for decades, until it was occupied by the Israeli military. The role of revolutionaries should be to support the military struggle by any force with mass working-class participation or support. If that force has a reactionary political leadership, the goal of revolutionaries should be to politically criticize the reactionary leadership while offering support to the military struggle as a whole. The rationale behind this course of action is the awareness that any aspiring bourgeois leadership in an oppressed state is bound, by the very nature of monopoly capitalism, to fall under the way of the international bourgeoisie and their political representatives, to try to cut deals that the international bourgeoisie of monopoly capital will inevitably offer as it feels its grasp is slipping more and more. In so doing, the fight or national independence exposes the nature of the nation-state itself under capitalism, and offers an object lesson, learned through struggle, of the need to fight all state oppressors, both foreign and domestic.

If you deride this model, or find it too abstract, just recall that this peeling away of the working-class base from the leadership is precisely what torpedoed the Palestinian Authority, when the PA was exposed as careerists seeking to contain the goals of the Palestinian workers to crumbs under joint Israeli-PA authority. At that time, a revolutionary workers' party was not strong enough to assume a leadership role, which then fell to Hamas. Even so, in the course of military struggle, the exact same process will occur whereby the working-class Palestinian base is pried from its reactionary bourgeois-friendly leadership, as a result of the configuration of international and domestic class forces, and how they invariably play out in struggles for national independence.

This is what is known as a class analysis of the conflict, not moralistic grandstanding that pretends that there are monolithic blocs called "Israel" and "Palestine" whose violence should be stripped of their context and equated, and not the sad exercise in imperial apologia and victim-blaming that comes across in practically every one of your and Rosa's posts.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

23rd July 2014, 19:39

I urge both sides to refrain from continued posting and to adhere to previously established posting guidelines

Devrim

23rd July 2014, 19:41

The same argument can be said about any other position the "left" (whatever that is) argues about. Or at least, the same can be said on the basis of the rationale you've provided: none.

I think that the same can not be said for anything that the 'left' argues about. There are many struggles in which revolutionaries can intervene, and even occasionally have some influence.

The situation in Palestine in one which the left is constantly going on about, and also one upon which it has absolutely no influence at all.

I think itis actually important to understand what is going on there, but berating somebody on the Internet as "giv[ing] a free pass to the oppressor state"is vaguely ridiculous. Israel has a 'free pass'. The comment of one person on an internet forum are not necessary for Israel to have this 'free pass'.

Even more absurd are those who think that having the correct position matters, or has any effect on what goes on there.

Devrim

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 19:42

In light of the fact that Palestinians do not have their own state, but instead are a people militarily occupied by a foreign state, I fail to see how working-class Palestinians can fight their own (non-existent) state power. Do you have some other state in mind that are oppressing the Palestinians besides the Israeli state?

But let's ignore for just a moment that there is not, in fact, a sovereign Palestinian state power. For the sake of advancing our argument, let's say that there has been one for decades, until it was occupied by the Israeli military. The role of revolutionaries should be to support the military struggle by any force with mass working-class participation or support. If that force has a reactionary political leadership, the goal of revolutionaries should be to politically criticize the reactionary leadership while offering support to the military struggle as a whole. The rationale behind this course of action is the awareness that any aspiring bourgeois leadership in an oppressed state is bound, by the very nature of monopoly capitalism, to fall under the way of the international bourgeoisie and their political representatives, to try to cut deals that the international bourgeoisie of monopoly capital will inevitably offer as it feels its grasp is slipping more and more. In so doing, the fight or national independence exposes the nature of the nation-state itself under capitalism, and offers an object lesson, learned through struggle, of the need to fight all state oppressors, both foreign and domestic.

If you deride this model, or find it too abstract, just recall that this peeling away of the working-class base from the leadership is precisely what torpedoed the Palestinian Authority, when the PA was exposed as careerists seeking to contain the goals of the Palestinian workers to crumbs under joint Israeli-PA authority. At that time, a revolutionary workers' party was not strong enough to assume a leadership role, which then fell to Hamas. Even so, in the course of military struggle, the exact same process will occur whereby the working-class Palestinian base is pried from its reactionary bourgeois-friendly leadership, as a result of the configuration of international and domestic class forces, and how they invariably play out in struggles for national independence.

This is what is known as a class analysis of the conflict, not moralistic grandstanding that pretends that there are monolithic blocs called "Israel" and "Palestine" whose violence should be stripped of their context and equated, and not the sad exercise in imperial apologia and victim-blaming that comes across in practically every one of your and Rosa's posts.

Should working germans supported the Nationalist putsch lead by hitler and just criticised the leasership too, in hopes of somehow making a thorougly antisemitic and reactionary party a radical one?

I don't agree with the anti semitism, homophobia, sexism and racism of the putsch but I support them militarily.

Creative Destruction

23rd July 2014, 19:49

I never know how to feel about this. I am concerned because of the racism, but I don't care for business.
I'm not advocating for the destruction of ethnic businesses themselves, but for the indiscriminate destruction of business.

I remember Golden Dawn doing something similar to middle eastern stands in a farmers market. I felt sad, but them being businesses really confused me.

I don't like money! :confused:

You can say that it's wrong because it is reactionary violence. It's like the Weather Underground leading a stupid Days of Rage "uprising" in the 60s that only hurt their cause rather than helped it. It wasn't in service of any revolutionary action... it was just dumb, thuggish, reactionary violence.

More over, this action didn't help the workers inside the businesses. It hurts them now because they are going to have to delay business, which means delayed wages. And it was done because for racist reasons.

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 20:14

Should working germans supported the Nationalist putsch lead by hitler and just criticised the leasership too, in hopes of somehow making a thorougly antisemitic and reactionary party a radical one?

I don't agree with the anti semitism, homophobia, sexism and racism of the putsch but I support them militarily.

Classic trolling. I make an argument about the nature of anti-imperialist struggles, then you respond by bringing up a scenario that has nothing to do with an anti-imperialist struggle. Could you be any more evasive? I ask you whether you support Palestinian workers struggling against a state that is oppressing them, and receive the response, "No, not if Palestinians aren't fighting their own [non-existent] state."

I think that says all that anybody here might need to know about your revolutionary politics.

Patrice O'neal

23rd July 2014, 20:17

Classic trolling. I make an argument about the nature of anti-imperialist struggles, then you respond by bringing up a scenario that has nothing to do with an anti-imperialist struggle. Could you be any more evasive? I ask you whether you support Palestinian workers struggling against a state that is oppressing them, and receive the response, "No, not if Palestinians aren't fighting their own [non-existent] state."

I think that says all that anybody here might need to know about your revolutionary politics.

Kind of like you equating me saying I don't support any states over any others despite intra-statist conflicts as viewing a rapist and rape victim as equal because they both took drugs?

And no, I don't support palestinians fighting for anything other than workers revolution. Same as I don't support the English workers or the Saudi workers or the Israeli workers supporting anything but workers revolution.

It a wierd anarchist hang up I know, so 1930's

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 20:18

I think that the same can not be said for anything that the 'left' argues about. There are many struggles in which revolutionaries can intervene, and even occasionally have some influence.

The situation in Palestine in one which the left is constantly going on about, and also one upon which it has absolutely no influence at all.

I think itis actually important to understand what is going on there, but berating somebody on the Internet as "giv[ing] a free pass to the oppressor state"is vaguely ridiculous. Israel has a 'free pass'. The comment of one person on an internet forum are not necessary for Israel to have this 'free pass'.

Even more absurd are those who think that having the correct position matters, or has any effect on what goes on there.

Devrim

Your opinion is duly noted. You think clarifying revolutionary principles through discussion of scenarios and events we're not currently personally involved in is a waste of time. Some of us disagree, and think that past events, and events far away, are important to discuss in order to prepare for events in which similar questions might arise.

Now do you have anything else to add to the discussion, besides your opinion that people shouldn't be having it?

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 20:22

Kind of like you equating me saying I don't support any states over any others despite intra-statist conflicts as viewing a rapist and rape victim as equal because they both took drugs?

It was a perfect analogy to capture your logic: if two entities both do bad things, then neither of them should receive any support in any context. Period. So I raised a couple of analogies in which a criminal is victimized, in order to point out that according to your principles, nothing should be done, lest we fall victim to "supporting crime," when in fact doing nothing gives a free pass (ironically) to the commission of a crime.

And no, I don't support palestinians fighting for anything other than workers revolution. Same as I don't support the English workers or the Saudi workers or the Israeli workers supporting anything but workers revolution.

It a wierd anarchist hang up I know, so 1930's

The fact that you think workers' revolution in Palestine (and in Israel) has no relationship to the Israeli occupation is pretty telling, I think.

hatzel

23rd July 2014, 21:38

ITT:

FYP comes into a thread about the situation for French Jews accusing people of conflating Jews and Israelis, then fails to make even a single post on the situation for French Jews, but an awful lot of posts about Israelis (though I admit this situation may not have been helped by the othersssss)

Nice (<<< sarcasm) to see people still can't talk about antisemitism without refusing to talk about antisemitism and demanding that the conversation be about Israel. My absolute favourite bit, though, was when we were all told that 'past events, and events far away, are important to discuss in order to prepare for events in which similar questions might arise,' proving beyond any doubt that discussions in preparation for hypothetical future situations in which it is necessary for everybody to have a well-developed line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for some reason are more valuable than discussions about the very much non-hypothetical present situation where Jews are being attacked on your fucking doorsteps you bellends. And that's something, by the way, that certainly shouldn't be seen to fall under Devrim's 'things the left can't have any influence over' category, unless of course the absolute inability to even engage with it has placed it there...

Lily Briscoe

23rd July 2014, 21:46

Five Year Plan

23rd July 2014, 23:40

Delusional Kid

24th July 2014, 02:00

Anti Semetic actions like this is absolutely atrocious.
But what pisses me off is how the right wing media and "anti-Germans" are going to use this to distract from Israeli war crimes.

Revolver

24th July 2014, 07:02

This violence against French Jews should of course be condemned. But the convoluted genesis of this violence is also interesting; over at Mondoweiss, Sam Knight reported that the violence was provoked (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/synagogue-attributed-semitism.html)by the actions of the Jewish Defense League, and unsurprisingly the Zionist outlets have responded as you might expect. The Algemeiner Journal immediately warned (http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/13/violent-anti-jewish-riots-rock-paris-activist-says-french-jews-are-in-serious-danger-video/) that French Jews were in "serious danger" because of anti-Jewish riots. Earlier this week, the Times of Israel praised the Jewish Defense League and other vigilantes (http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-riots-jewish-self-defense-groups-in-france-gain-traction/) for street violence in defense of French Jews. As Diana Johnstone at the Centre for Research on Globalization noted this week (http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-israel-needs-anti-semitism/5392756), this not only plays well for Israel as a distraction but, just as importantly, dovetails with a pre-existing policy of promoting French Jewish migration to Israel.

I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea that Palestinian resistance should be re-directed into a more class conscious analytical framework. This is a sentiment that you find among a number of Palestinian intellectuals and NGOs, and is increasingly reflected in the critique of the PA and other nationalist institutions. But the Palestinians have the right to resist the continual violence being visited upon them by their Jewish oppressors, including the right to violently resist Israeli military aggression. This includes suicide bombings against military targets (actual military targets, not the civilian targets Hamas sometimes likes to pretend are military targets). But all of this is rather beside the point of the thread, with respect to the riots in Paris. What this situation reveals more than anything is the utter bankruptcy of the Socialist government, which preemptively foreclosed pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and which has proven itself quite the imperial (and of course capitalist) heir to its predecessor.

There is a curious subtext here: While Israel's apologists point to this as a demonstration of the anti-Semitism behind all criticism of Israeli policy, isn't the very use of this as an example of Arab hostility a reflection of Zionist racism? After all, unless you believe that Arabs are an undifferentiated mass of zealots, why would you suppose that this reflects on the Palestinian struggle at all?

Devrim

24th July 2014, 22:39

Your opinion is duly noted. You think clarifying revolutionary principles through discussion of scenarios and events we're not currently personally involved in is a waste of time. Some of us disagree, and think that past events, and events far away, are important to discuss in order to prepare for events in which similar questions might arise.

Now do you have anything else to add to the discussion, besides your opinion that people shouldn't be having it?

No, I don't think that people shouldn't be discussing it, or that events far away are unimportant. I think that the left's discussions on the situation in Palestine have very little connection to reality, and are overridden by an overwhelming sense of self importance (re:You are handing Israel a free pass).

Devrim

Devrim

24th July 2014, 22:41

My absolute favourite bit, though, was when we were all told that 'past events, and events far away, are important to discuss in order to prepare for events in which similar questions might arise,' proving beyond any doubt that discussions in preparation for hypothetical future situations in which it is necessary for everybody to have a well-developed line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for some reason are more valuable than discussions about the very much non-hypothetical present situation where Jews are being attacked on your fucking doorsteps you bellends. And that's something, by the way, that certainly shouldn't be seen to fall under Devrim's 'things the left can't have any influence over' category, unless of course the absolute inability to even engage with it has placed it there...

Of course Jews being attacked in Europe, often by people on the same marches as the left, should be something that they are able to engage with.

Devrim

LuÃs Henrique

24th July 2014, 23:38

fuck you

Watch, the rape culture is still alive and well in revleft!

Luís Henrique

Revolver

24th July 2014, 23:44

No, I don't think that people shouldn't be discussing it, or that events far away are unimportant. I think that the left's discussions on the situation in Palestine have very little connection to reality, and are overridden by an overwhelming sense of self importance (re:You are handing Israel a free pass).

Devrim

I think that the developments over there are very important, but I think that the world historical importance of those developments are often lost in the discussion. After all it isn't just about Palestine, but also the Arab Spring, the collapse of Syria/Iraq as distinct entities, and (a point often not discussed much at all) the internal dynamics within Israel (behind the green line), including the isolation of the ultra-orthodox and the middle class protests in 2011. And of course the use of Israel as a model or laboratory for the nascent security state. All of this is extremely important, and insufficiently explored.

Five Year Plan

25th July 2014, 00:07

No, I don't think that people shouldn't be discussing it, or that events far away are unimportant. I think that the left's discussions on the situation in Palestine have very little connection to reality, and are overridden by an overwhelming sense of self importance (re:You are handing Israel a free pass).

Devrim

Yes, when it is pointed that the Israeli state is oppressing the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians, including the workers, are fighting back, and somebody opposes it because there supposedly isn't "equal" opposition to a non-existent Palestinian state, that person is giving the Israeli a free pass to do as it pleases.

If you think anybody here is reciting facts that bear no connection to reality, point it out. I don't think anybody here would oppose you clarifying the empirical realities of life on the ground in the Occupied Territories or in Israel.

Revolver

25th July 2014, 00:27

I agree with Five Year Plan. The "proportionality principle" is a distraction that is intended to mask the underlying nature of Palestinian oppression by the Israeli state. The absurdity of treating Hamas and Israel as though they were on equal footing is one example, the insistence that "Palestinian" atrocities be condemned with equal vigor is another. Operation Protective Edge or whatever they call it is as much of a one-sided massacre as was Cast Lead. The protests to the contrary are not attempts at solid analysis, but obfuscation and crude propaganda.

Devrim

25th July 2014, 00:46

Yes, when it is pointed that the Israeli state is oppressing the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians, including the workers, are fighting back, and somebody opposes it because there supposedly isn't "equal" opposition to a non-existent Palestinian state, that person is giving the Israeli a free pass to do as it pleases.

Do you genuinely think that the Israeli state has even noticed this guy's opinion?

Devrim

Revolver

25th July 2014, 00:55

Do you genuinely think that the Israeli state has even noticed this guy's opinion?

Devrim

Unlikely, but that is not the point. It is not about Israel's awareness of the opinion, but the dissemination of false equivalencies to third parties, and the creation of political confusion. And Israel absolutely cares about controlling the media narrative because Israel fears BDS more than it fears any possible third intifada, and certainly more than it fears rockets from Hamas.

Five Year Plan

25th July 2014, 01:53

Do you genuinely think that the Israeli state has even noticed this guy's opinion?

Devrim

I refer you to my previous post, where I mentioned that the purpose of the discussion here on Revleft isn't about making Israel "notice" the opinion of anybody. It's about hammering out principles that, in different periods or contexts, might actually not just be noticed, but make a tremendous difference in advancing a working-class struggle.

But if you want to keep harping on the irrelevance of revleft, while continuing to post here, by all means, continue. I'm not going to stop you. I'm going to laugh at you.

LuÃs Henrique

25th July 2014, 02:21

I never know how to feel about this. I am concerned because of the racism, but I don't care for business.
I'm not advocating for the destruction of ethnic businesses themselves, but for the indiscriminate destruction of business.

I remember Golden Dawn doing something similar to middle eastern stands in a farmers market. I felt sad, but them being businesses really confused me.

I don't like money! :confused:

Can we abolish Jewish capital today, and perhaps Catholic capital tomorrow, and Islamic capital next Wednesday? Can we abolish capital gradually, step by step?

If not, it should be clear that the vandalisation of shops owned by Jews in Paris cannot be a step towards socialism. On the contrary, if the vandalisation of shops owned by Jews in Paris is a step towards the abolition of capital, then it seems that capital can be abolished gradually. In which case a revolution would not be necessary. And if so, why would we need violence to proceed to such gradual abolition of capital? What would the point of violent destruction of Jewish property?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

25th July 2014, 02:23

Do you genuinely think that the Israeli state has even noticed this guy's opinion?

Quite certainly not, but by this reasoning anything goes; were one of us to sing praises to the Confederacy and slavery, would that be justified by the fact that Confederacy and slave owners, being defunct for century and half by now, cannot notice that opinion?

Luís Henrique

blake 3:17

25th July 2014, 19:55

From +972:

Anti-Semitism has no place in Palestine advocacy
Anyone who claims to speak for Palestine while condoning acts of bigotry against our Semitic brothers and sisters should not be speaking on our behalf at all, let alone for those suffering in Gaza.

By Yasmeen Serhan

Amidst heart-wrenching death tolls and news accounts of the recent escalation in Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza, reports of violence in a Parisian protest against the Israeli military operation began to shower my newsfeed. Articles detailed how hundreds of participants in a pro-Palestinian demonstration allegedly took to the streets of Sarcelles – home to one of France’s largest Jewish communities – and wreaked havoc on the surrounding community.

Accounts described how protestors allegedly threw Molotov cocktails near a synagogue and set fire to local businesses and vehicles. Such actions came at the heels of Paris’ recent citywide ban on all pro-Palestine activity, including demonstrations. The protests, according to these accounts, were supposedly in the name of Palestinian “advocacy.”

Though it is still unclear as to exactly what transpired in Paris and who was responsible for the acts, what remains clear is that what occurred in there did not mirror the actions of pro-Palestinian activists elsewhere. In countries like Australia, Chile, Spain, and countless others, thousands of people stood up in solidarity with the people of Gaza and against the Israeli military’s escalating operation, which has thus far claimed the lives of more than 655 Palestinians – mostly civilians – and 31 Israelis, 29 of them soldiers. In London, 15,000 demonstrators took to the streets to demand Israel end its attacks on Gaza. In Chicago, 10,000 protestors marched for 10 blocks in protest of the Israeli assault. Yet, unlike Paris, such large protests did not succumb to violence.

The reason is simple: Such acts of violence simply have no place in Palestinian advocacy.

Pro-Palestinian advocates must continue to ardently oppose the siege in Gaza, as well as the brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people. However, we, as supporters of the Palestinian people, too must actively push back against any form of bigotry or violence against Jewish communities. This type of behavior, as exemplified in the events in Paris, is antithetical to what Palestinian advocacy stands for – a movement of freedom, equality and human rights. Such actions only perpetuate the misguided paradigm that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on religious bigotry, and only provides fodder to those who use such incidents to depict all Palestinian supporters – many of whom Jews – as anti-Semites. Ultimately, such violent actions are no better than the right-wing extremist “Death to Arabs” protests taking place throughout Israel. It is a mockery of Palestinian advocacy, and something that should never be tolerated.

Full article: http://972mag.com/anti-semitism-has-no-place-in-palestine-advocacy/94201/

consuming negativity

25th July 2014, 20:18

Not so subtly accusing users ITT of condoning anti-Semitic violence because we're tired of pretending that a few idiots in France are the equivalent of a state-sponsored ethnic cleansing campaign.

Oh wait, never mind, sorry, what I meant to say was "we think all states are equally bad, therefore we don't care if the Nazis or Allies win because it doesn't matter if you call it 'the people's club'".

See, I can make bad comparisons, too. Thanks are to the right #correctopinion #revleftswag -->

Devrim

26th July 2014, 11:56

Quite certainly not, but by this reasoning anything goes; were one of us to sing praises to the Confederacy and slavery, would that be justified by the fact that Confederacy and slave owners, being defunct for century and half by now, cannot notice that opinion?

It would mean, Luís, that their position was wrong and quite possibly historically reactionary, and racist. It would not mean that they were 'giving a free pass' to the Confederate government. If somebody were to say that someone else's position on the question of Palestine were reactionary it may well be true. However, the extreme hyperbole which accompanies this questions and the idea that people are giving a free pass to the Israeli state is absurd in the extreme.

Unlikely, but that is not the point. It is not about Israel's awareness of the opinion, but the dissemination of false equivalencies to third parties, and the creation of political confusion. And Israel absolutely cares about controlling the media narrative because Israel fears BDS more than it fears any possible third intifada, and certainly more than it fears rockets from Hamas.

I don't think Israel fears the BDS in any way. It might be annoyed or irritated by it, but I don't think that it in any way offers an existential challenge to Israel. It is more of a minor annoyance to them.

Devrim

IllumiNaughty

26th July 2014, 21:17

what the hell did Israel think was gonna happen, after theyve been shitting on the palestinians for the past century.

Rosa Partizan

26th July 2014, 21:24

what the hell did Israel think was gonna happen, after theyve been shitting on the palestinians for the past century.

yes, it was just a logical consequence of Israeli politics that Jews living in Europe get attacked and their property smashed by nazis. Absolutely incomprehensible that they themselves didn't see that coming and surrendered to nazi scum beforehand.

Alexios

26th July 2014, 21:45

yes, it was just a logical consequence of Israeli politics that Jews living in Europe get attacked and their property smashed by nazis. Absolutely incomprehensible that they themselves didn't see that coming and surrendered to nazi scum beforehand.
Most of the perpetrators in these acts aren't nazis, though. They're Muslims.

Rosa Partizan

26th July 2014, 22:00

Most of the perpetrators in these acts aren't nazis, though. They're Muslims.

no (necessary) contradiction there.

https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/p480x480/10494593_764357190252128_3940279096836753631_n.jpg

a fabulous guy marching for peace in Palestine.

Ever heard of SS Handzar? Or (less probable non-Yugoslavians know it) some current movement in Bosnia called BPNP? Young muslims adoring Hitler, which is logical for many of them when you have the same sworn enemy.

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 22:06

Guilt by association. The last refuge of a scoundrel...and troll.

Hagalaz

26th July 2014, 22:18

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 22:28

So since it is mostly muslims that are attacking these jews in Europe is it fair to say that they are part of the fascist enemy?

Apologies to all but I'm confused by some of the posts on this thread.:confused:

Yes, I think that is the argument that the closeted Zionist sympathizers on this thread are making. Hamas = anti-Israel = fascist = Nazi. So if you "support" Hamas, construed in abstraction from any class forces in Palestine or Israel, then you are supposedly facilitating a second Holocaust. They don't want to make the argument too directly and explicitly, because then they'll be called out on it for its obvious ridiculousness. It's sort of the way George W. Bush's administration and the media convinced about 75% of the American population that Saddam was behind 9/11, just by repeating Saddam and 9/11 together in the same sentence, and letting people making the connection themselves.

Rosa Partizan

26th July 2014, 22:34

Five Year Plan

26th July 2014, 22:39

we were talking about people that smash Jewish shops and businesses in the middle of Europe, and I presented a guy with NAZI tattoos. I think it is not too risky to call such people fascists, so what's basically the deal? Are they some freedom fighters or what?

No, the window-smashers are obviously not freedom fighters. As I stated earlier, they're buying into the same bullshit propaganda that you are peddling in this thread: that the Israeli state represents "the Jews," and that therefore a threat to the state of Israel is a threat of ethnic cleansing against "the Jews."

If you want to find the long-range causes for the pointless and reactionary vandalism that is victimizing some Parisian Jews, look no further than your bathroom mirror.

blake 3:17

27th July 2014, 22:17

please skip the personal attacks, ok?

French protest against Gaza war despite government ban
#GazaUnderAttack
France's riot police use tear gas and baton charges on thousands of pro-Palestinian protestors in Paris at demo denouncing Gaza war

A pro-Palestinian demonstration which the French government tried to ban turned violent in Paris Saturday.

Riot police used tear gas and baton charges on thousands of protestors who had defied the authorities by turning up to protest against Israel’s land and air offensive in Gaza.
"There are widespread disturbances – everything is being done to bring them under control," said a CRS riot police officer in place de la Republique.

Masses of officers gathered around the Nazareth Synagogue in a side street, as groups chanted "Israel-Murderer".
The scenes made a mockery of a nearby meeting at the French foreign ministry, where world leaders including US Secretary of State John Kerry and British foreign minister Philip Hammond were involved in Middle East peace talks

Amnesty International was among those who had issued a stern rebuke to France’s Socialist administration for banning the pro-Palestine demonstration.
It came as 1500 riot police flooded the city as protestors pledged to take to the streets anyway.
Despite a legal ban confirmed in the courts on Friday night, vast crowds gathered to express their outrage at the ongoing killings in Gaza.
Amnesty expressed concern about "the threat in France to the fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly."
Spokesman Genevieve Garrigos said the ban appeared to be an admission by France that it could not control its own people, and that the "peaceful intentions" of the vast majority of protestors should be respected.
A banned pro-Palestine march also ended violence in Paris last Saturday, while one which was allowed on Wednesday involving around 15,000 people was entirely peaceful.
Despite this, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said he wanted to "prevent more hate from spilling out on the streets of Paris," adding: "I urge the organisers to abandon the event on Saturday."
But Omar Alsoumi, a lawyer involved in the protest, said: "The government is trying to ban a fundamental right."
Olivier Besancenot, a former presidential candidate and leader of the new anti-capitalist party, had called on "all democratic forces, political, trade unions and associations to protest against the ban and to converge on" the Place de la Republique, where the demonstration will take place.
Israel's offensive in Gaza has killed up to 900 Palestinians, including numerous children, and 37 Israelis, the vast majority soldiers.
The conflict has stirred up huge passions in France - home to the largest Muslim and Jewish communities in Western Europe.
Jews have complained about synagogues being targeted, while Muslims say that pro-Palestine supporters are deliberately being demonised as anti-Semites.
Vigilantes from a group called the Jewish Defence League (LDJ) have drawn demonstrators into fights, while their opponents have burned Israeli flags.
There are more than five million Muslims in the country, and half a million Jews, many of them living in Paris.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/french-protest-against-gaza-war-despite-government-ban-634047605

Rafiq

29th July 2014, 18:01

It reveals that the people targeting them are buying into Zionist propaganda.

That's really a bunch of nonsense. When for example anti-semitic conspiracy theories are being made by the "resistance" is this buying into propaganda too because they forgot to replace "Jew" with "Zionist"? It doesn't matter. deliberately targeting Jewish businesses is not simply anti-semitic because Jews are being targeted, it is anti-semitic because it falls in line with the historical connotations of such acts within Europe. Again, anti-semitism is far beyond aversion towards Jews. David Icke's theories on Reptilian shapeshifters is infinitely more anti-semitic than some uneducated peasant saying he thinks Jews are smelly.

Rafiq

29th July 2014, 18:02

No, the window-smashers are obviously not freedom fighters. As I stated earlier, they're buying into the same bullshit propaganda that you are peddling in this thread: that the Israeli state represents "the Jews," and that therefore a threat to the state of Israel is a threat of ethnic cleansing against "the Jews."

It isn't Israeli propaganda. Association of Jews with the Israeli state would happen with or without Israelis officially claiming to represent Jews globally. Any idiot can see this.

Rosa Partizan

29th July 2014, 18:06

That's really a bunch of nonsense. When for example anti-semitic conspiracy theories are being made by the "resistance" is this buying into propaganda too because they forgot to replace "Jew" with "Zionist"? It doesn't matter. deliberately targeting Jewish businesses is not simply anti-semitic because Jews are being targeted, it is anti-semitic because it falls in line with the historical connotations of such acts within Europe. Again, anti-semitism is far beyond aversion towards Jews. David Icke's theories on Reptilian shapeshifters is infinitely more anti-semitic than some uneducated peasant saying he thinks Jews are smelly.

I don't know if that same term is that commonly used in English-speaking countries as in Germany, but we call it "structural anti-semitism", which means that Jews actually don't have to be mentioned, but that the same reasoning and arguments are used as in "classic" antisemitism, like, distinction between financial capital and productive capital.

Five Year Plan

29th July 2014, 18:32

It isn't Israeli propaganda. Association of Jews with the Israeli state would happen with or without Israelis officially claiming to represent Jews globally. Any idiot can see this.

The attempt to conflate the entire Jewish ethnic/cultural group with the state of Israel is what is known as Zionism. Anybody who buys into this fable is buying into Zionism, whether it is critics of the state of Israel or its opponents. It's not difficult to comprehend.

Five Year Plan

29th July 2014, 18:34

That's really a bunch of nonsense. When for example anti-semitic conspiracy theories are being made by the "resistance" is this buying into propaganda too because they forgot to replace "Jew" with "Zionist"? It doesn't matter. deliberately targeting Jewish businesses is not simply anti-semitic because Jews are being targeted, it is anti-semitic because it falls in line with the historical connotations of such acts within Europe. Again, anti-semitism is far beyond aversion towards Jews. David Icke's theories on Reptilian shapeshifters is infinitely more anti-semitic than some uneducated peasant saying he thinks Jews are smelly.

People who smash the store windows of non-Israeli Jews, in retaliation for anger about what the Israeli state is doing, are in fact buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is the rightful Jewish homeland, representative of and home to all Jewish people. Some who buy into the myth do so to support Israel, and others do so in a way that leads them to engage in anti-semitic behavior.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

29th July 2014, 18:40

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2014, 18:42

I don't know if that same term is that commonly used in English-speaking countries as in Germany, but we call it "structural anti-semitism", which means that Jews actually don't have to be mentioned, but that the same reasoning and arguments are used as in "classic" antisemitism, like, distinction between financial capital and productive capital.
I explained in another thread, actually the one on "structural antisemitism", that most of the time when leftists distinguish between productive capital and financial capital (supposedly parasitic) this has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism; they aren't closet Strasserites but social democrats through and through since the unhinged financial flows and deregulated global finance sector are seen as the biggest liability for continued progress (and continuation of capitalist society).

Rosa Partizan

29th July 2014, 19:05

Google doesn't seem to know a whole lot about it, can you post a link to something about it in english?

it was quite difficult to find something that deals with it in more than 2-3 lines. I found an academic essay called "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns", it was only viewable via my university lib account, I downloaded it. If you wanna get it sent, drop me a PN with a mail add.

Leo

29th July 2014, 19:18

'You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressors tho'

Who is oppressing who in Paris?

blake 3:17

29th July 2014, 20:28

but that the same reasoning and arguments are used as in "classic" antisemitism, like, distinction between financial capital and productive capital.

So a making a distinction between finance capital and productive capital is anti-Semitic?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

29th July 2014, 20:33

I think there may be some merit in that, the existing populist liberal segment of the population definitely does make a distinction between finance capital vs. productive capital in their attacks and is at the same time drawn to conspiracy theories that are clearly anti-Semitic in origin and character if not explicitly aimed at Jews. I think that's what Rosa is referring to.

Rosa Partizan

29th July 2014, 20:33

So a making a distinction between finance capital and productive capital is anti-Semitic?

that's why it's called structural. It's the same arguments that were applied to Jews throughout history, when finance capital was a synonym of Jewish people and if you look at that whole Rothshild discourse that's taking place nowadays, especially in Germany, basically with a statement like "A Jewish family is controlling the world capital", it's everything but far-fetched.

Thirsty Crow

29th July 2014, 21:17

that's why it's called structural. It's the same arguments that were applied to Jews throughout history, when finance capital was a synonym of Jewish people and if you look at that whole Rothshild discourse that's taking place nowadays, especially in Germany, basically with a statement like "A Jewish family is controlling the world capital", it's everything but far-fetched.
Rosa you're not listening really and instead disregarding simple facts. No, it isn't true that this represents "the same arguments that were applied to Jews". This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The simple fact is that a whole lot of the modern left is based on an analysis emphasizing the role of finance capital, financial deregulation and so on without even bordering on something antisemitic. They do not involve Israel for instance here. Nothing that can be reasonably be seen as even bordering on antisemitism.

I can only conclude that adding "structural" is a cheap trick that enables one to see antisemitism absolutely anywhere and legitimate it by seriously sounding phrases (it seems that whenever one wants to sound serious, all that is necessary is to slap the "structural" label as modifier of, well, pretty much anything).

Sasha

29th July 2014, 22:20

Your both right, context is key here, obviously in the context of a discussion on debt and shockdoctrine etc etc one could very wel talk about finance capital and don't mean anything suspect, on the other hand, only yesterday one of our own conspiracy crackers was talking about "international finance capital" in the sense of an evil, plotting cabal in the shadows which was definitely anti semitic in origin while the user in question would probably fiercely denie that.

LuÃs Henrique

30th July 2014, 04:01

So a making a distinction between finance capital and productive capital is anti-Semitic?

What kind of distinction?

An economic distinction? Most certainly not.

A moral distinction? Quite probably so. In this case "finance capital" is probably a code word for "Jewish capital", or will be interpreted by antisemites as such, even if not intended in that way.

Luís Henrique

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 17:42

People who smash the store windows of non-Israeli Jews, in retaliation for anger about what the Israeli state is doing, are in fact buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is the rightful Jewish homeland, representative of and home to all Jewish people. Some who buy into the myth do so to support Israel, and others do so in a way that leads them to engage in anti-semitic behavior.

Or perhaps if we ground ourselves in actual reality we can see that association of Jews with the Israeli state is tied to the notion that Jews are international agents of Israeli interests with no regard for their "host" countries - or that perhaps Israel is an embodiment of Jewish Masonic whatever international interests. While Zionism may propose that Israel seeks to protect Jews across the world it does not propose that it is part of an international conspiracy, or that all Jews within their respective countires owe allegiance to Israel. If they do, I'd be interested in seeing where they have said this. Speaking as someone who has experience with Arab anti-semitic sentiments I highly doubt such attacks were made because of the influence of Zionist rhetoric.

Sure it sounds flowery, but overall your explanation is weak and I think you know that too.

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 18:15

Or perhaps if we ground ourselves in actual reality we can see that association of Jews with the Israeli state is tied to the notion that Jews are international agents of Israeli interests with no regard for their "host" countries - or that perhaps Israel is an embodiment of Jewish Masonic whatever international interests. While Zionism may propose that Israel seeks to protect Jews across the world it does not propose that it is part of an international conspiracy, or that all Jews within their respective countires owe allegiance to Israel. If they do, I'd be interested in seeing where they have said this. Speaking as someone who has experience with Arab anti-semitic sentiments I highly doubt such attacks were made because of the influence of Zionist rhetoric.

Of course some people associate Jews with "international agents of Israeli interests, with no regard for their host countries." And to the extent that they do so, they are buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is synonymous with "the Jews."

You seem to want to redefine Zionism so that it only encompasses people who view it positively.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 18:23

Of course some people associate Jews with "international agents of Israeli interests, with no regard for their host countries." And to the extent that they do so, they are buying into the Zionist myth that Israel is synonymous with "the Jews."

You seem to want to redefine Zionism so that it only encompasses people who view it positively.

It's like saying that racism derives from people buying into black nationalist propaganda a la NBPP or the Nation of Islam that proclaims Africans ought to be separated or whatever. The source of their sentiments has nothing to do with Zionism, regardless of whether Zionism entails association of Israel with the Jews - that may be the case, but it is far from why.

Sasha

1st August 2014, 18:25

somewhat related: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/202924/when-anti-israel-looks-like-anti-semitism/

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 18:31

It's like saying that racism derives from people buying into black nationalist propaganda a la NBPP or the Nation of Islam. The source of their sentiments has nothing to do with Zionism, regardless of whether Zionism entails association of Israel with the Jews - that may be the case, but it is far from why.

Firstly, Zionism and black nationalism really can't be analogized fairly here, since black nationalists aren't claiming ownership of a settler-colonial state anywhere in the world. But setting that aside, I'm not saying Zionism is the origin of anti-Jewish sentiments any more than black nationalism was the origin of racism against black people.

I would identify both Zionism and black nationalism as responses to anti-Jewish and anti-black sentiments, but they are reactions that actually reinforce some of the basic assumptions of those racists: namely that race and ethnicity point to anything beyond ideological abstractions. What you end up with is not only the absurd practice of a Brooklyn boy born "Jewish," being granted automatic citizenship to a state, while old Arab women born within the boundaries of that state aren't allowed to return to their place of birth because they aren't of the right ethnicity. You also end up with people smashing shop windows of Jews who might actually be anti-Zionist, but are unfortunate enough to live in a world where a highly oppressive settler state is claiming to represent them regardless of their feelings.

Rafiq

1st August 2014, 19:42

Five Year Plan

1st August 2014, 20:25

I think you're ignoring the psychological dimension of anti-semitism, FYP which associates Jews as actively attempting to support the Israeli state, making that connection has nothing to do with Zionist rhetoric. The notion that Jews are supporting the Israeli state from different "fronts" (which leads to theories about ZOG) has absolutely nothing to do with the identification of the Israeli state with Jews posited by Zionism. And I'm arguing from experience with people like this, I know the mentality a lot better than you do.

Where do you come away with the idea that I am "ignoring" the psychological dimensions of anti-semitism? All political ideas intermingle with and are shaped by the unconscious, which itself is shaped by conscious experiences. My point is a simple one, and not really disputable, which is why you're trying to change the topic to psychology. Advocates of Zionism reinforce the same racialized reification that anti-semites latch onto, for whatever psychological or political reasons, in their reactionary behavior.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 15:15

Advocates of Zionism reinforce the same racialized reification that anti-semites latch onto, for whatever psychological or political reasons, in their reactionary behavior.

More evidence of the poverty of your understanding of anti semitism. No Zionists do not propose that they are out for world domination, or that they actively try to infiltrate societies on behalf of Israel and so on. What you say is as valid as saying black gangsters reinforce the same stereotypes that form a component of racism - is this the CAUSE of racism though? I think not.

You don't understand anti semitism - it is a form of paranoia. Again, you obviously have no experience engaging Arab anti Semites or their pervasive attitudes. It is not about biological race or any such drivel. You sound like every ignorant liberal who wants the conflict to conform to their bankrupt sensitivities.

To say Zionism is responsible for anti semitism is not only refutable, it is undeniably wrong.

Deep Sea

3rd August 2014, 16:37

I had read on Counterpunch this was a setup by the JDL.

counterpunch.org/2014/07/22/why-israel-needs-anti-semitism/

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 17:11

More evidence of the poverty of your understanding of anti semitism. No Zionists do not propose that they are out for world domination, or that they actively try to infiltrate societies on behalf of Israel and so on. What you say is as valid as saying black gangsters reinforce the same stereotypes that form a component of racism - is this the CAUSE of racism though? I think not.

You don't understand anti semitism - it is a form of paranoia. Again, you obviously have no experience engaging Arab anti Semites or their pervasive attitudes. It is not about biological race or any such drivel. You sound like every ignorant liberal who wants the conflict to conform to their bankrupt sensitivities.

To say Zionism is responsible for anti semitism is not only refutable, it is undeniably wrong.

When did I ever say that Zionists propose that they are out for world domination? I said that both Zionists and anti-semites share the same assumption about reified racial and ethnic categories that they then link to the existence of a nation-state.

At this point, you are once again just disagreeing with my posts for the sake of disagreeing with them, without even bothering to read them. I'll be happy to continue playing this game for as long as you are, though. People far more disciplined than you have tried to break my focus and patience, and have failed miserably.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:17

When did I ever say that Zionists propose that they are out for world domination? I said that both Zionists and anti-semites share the same assumption about reified racial and ethnic categories that they then link to the existence of a nation-state.

They both have assumptions about the ethnic implications of the Israeli state on a global level - but how important, or relevant is this? They might both think the sky is blue, too.

Well almost all adherents of bourgeois ideology have some assumption about "reifed racial and ethnic categories that are linked to the existence of a nation-state". You seem to be under the impression that anti-semitism is solely defined by association of Jews with the israeli state. The point is what exactly such an association constitutes as, what the nature of such a conflation is. Is it Israel as a homeland and protector of the world's Jewry, or are the world's Jewry secret agents of the external other (in this case the Israeli state) infecting their host countries with their interests in world domination. The archetype is the same, if we replace Israel with international banking, masonry, or what have you, the pattern is still the same.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:28

They both have assumptions about the ethnic implications of the Israeli state on a global level - but how important, or relevant is this? They might both think the sky is blue, too.

Condemning bourgeois-nationalist assumptions is pretty damned relevant if you consider yourself a Marxist. The working class having no interests apart from the (global) proletariat as a whole, and all that stuff.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:49

Condemning bourgeois-nationalist assumptions is pretty damned relevant if you consider yourself a Marxist. The working class having no interests apart from the (global) proletariat as a whole, and all that stuff.

Like what the FUCK are you talking about? They are irrelevant as far as anti-semitism (and its relation to zionism) goes. There are real distinguishable characteristics of anti-semitism that go beyond bourgeois-nationalism. For fuck's sake! Why do I have to explain myself like this, as though im ACTUALLY revising my positoin?

What the fuck were we talking about Five Year Plan? Was it bourgeois-nationalism and it's relationship to the global proletariat, or how Zionism isn't responisble for anti-semitism?

So within the context of that discussion, if I say "This is not relevant", ITS NOT RELEVANT AS FAR AS ATTEMPTING TO DRAW SOME KIND OF CONNECTION BETWEEN ZIONISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM, IT DOESN'T SIGNIFY THAT ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER.

you ACTUALLY turned this into another semantic argument. if you're trolling, you win, you actually pissed me off. Just admit you're trolling. I don't want to believe someone actually possesses such a bizarre and infantile thought process.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 18:50

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:55

To add insult to injury, he COMPLETELY took it out of context by ignoring this, which explained the initial sentence:

Well almost all adherents of bourgeois ideology have some assumption about "reifed racial and ethnic categories that are linked to the existence of a nation-state". You seem to be under the impression that anti-semitism is solely defined by association of Jews with the israeli state. The point is what exactly such an association constitutes as, what the nature of such a conflation is. Is it Israel as a homeland and protector of the world's Jewry, or are the world's Jewry secret agents of the external other (in this case the Israeli state) infecting their host countries with their interests in world domination. The archetype is the same, if we replace Israel with international banking, masonry, or what have you, the pattern is still the same.

Actually, all I said is that it's important to critique reified notions of race and ethnicity, especially when they are linked up to nationalist ideologies, whether they are pro-Zionist or anti-semitic. BOTH deserve to be critiqued. I'm not going to address the laundry list of things you mention in that paragraph because they address things I didn't say (like the supposed claim that anti-semitism is ONLY about associating Jews with the Israeli state). By all means, keep straw-manning to your heart's content.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 18:57

Like what the FUCK are you talking about? They are irrelevant as far as anti-semitism (and its relation to zionism) goes. There are real distinguishable characteristics of anti-semitism that go beyond bourgeois-nationalism. For fuck's sake! Why do I have to explain myself like this, as though im ACTUALLY revising my positoin?

In a thread about a Jewish shopkeeper who had his windows smashed out of anger over the Israeli incursion into Gaza, I think it's pretty obvious that people's linking reified ethnic constructs to nation-states is, in this case anyway, relevant to outbursts of anti-semitism.

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 20:30

In a thread about a Jewish shopkeeper who had his windows smashed out of anger over the Israeli incursion into Gaza, I think it's pretty obvious that people's linking reified ethnic constructs to nation-states is, in this case anyway, relevant to outbursts of anti-semitism.

Anti-semitism existed long before the Jews were a part of any sort of nation-state, so again what the fuck are you talking about? It's not relevant, it's not relevant to my posts, It's not relevant to my actual argument either. Zionism does not "reinforce" anti semitism, even if they both carry underlying presumptions about nation-states and their legitimacy. K?

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 20:41

Anti-semitism existed long before the Jews were a part of any sort of nation-state, so again what the fuck are you talking about? It's not relevant, it's not relevant to my posts, It's not relevant to my actual argument either. Zionism does not "reinforce" anti semitism, even if they both carry underlying presumptions about nation-states and their legitimacy. K?

We're talking about an incident where Jewish Parisian shopowners are having their windows smashed out of anger over the Zionist Israeli state's incursion into Gaza. You're right that anti-semitism isn't necessarily caused by any nation-state, but in this case it is. That you are puzzled about why I am connecting the two in this thread shows you wandered, yet again, into a thread you had not even bothered to read for the sole purpose of picking a fight with me rather than really addressing the topic of the thread. Having fun yet?

Rafiq

3rd August 2014, 21:35

We're talking about an incident where Jewish Parisian shopowners are having their windows smashed out of anger over the Zionist Israeli state's incursion into Gaza. You're right that anti-semitism isn't necessarily caused by any nation-state, but in this case it is.

While Arab anti-semitism in general could have derived from existence of the Israeli nation-state (which is debatable, considring the Damascus affair as well as the relationship Arab anti-colonialism and Fascism during WWII) that does not mean the nature of this anti-semitism is simply defined by anger or hatred towards Israel. Anti-semitism develops and it reacts cyclically with anti-Israel sentiment but that does not mean they are the same. For example many Arabs outside of Palestine are born and raised absolutely despising Israel. Even those who are completely unaffected by Israel's endeavors in Palestine. Islamists in general are inherently anti-semitic as well.

Such acts of anti-semitism are not caused by "Zionist propaganda" but by the pathology of anti-semitsim itself which existed long before Zionism. The adoption and adherence of anti-semitism by some Arabs could very well be a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict but that does not mean it doesn't go beyond simply being angry towards Israel itself. Islamist and Nationalist anti-Zionism is unquestionably and undeniably synonymous with anti-semitism. Quite frankly it's naive, Idealist and lazy to claim that attacks on Jews is a result of "Zionist propaganda" as though it's a double whammy equating anti-Jewish sentiments with Pro-Zionist propaganda.

Five Year Plan

3rd August 2014, 21:45

While Arab anti-semitism in general could have derived from existence of the Israeli nation-state (which is debatable, considring the Damascus affair as well as the relationship Arab anti-colonialism and Fascism during WWII) that does not mean the nature of this anti-semitism is simply defined by anger or hatred towards Israel. Anti-semitism develops and it reacts cyclically with anti-Israel sentiment but that does not mean they are the same. For example many Arabs outside of Palestine are born and raised absolutely despising Israel. Even those who are completely unaffected by Israel's endeavors in Palestine. Islamists in general are inherently anti-semitic as well.

Such acts of anti-semitism are not caused by "Zionist propaganda" but by the pathology of anti-semitsim itself which existed long before Zionism. The adoption and adherence of anti-semitism by some Arabs could very well be a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict but that does not mean it doesn't go beyond simply being angry towards Israel itself. Islamist and Nationalist anti-Zionism is unquestionably and undeniably synonymous with anti-semitism. Quite frankly it's naive, Idealist and lazy to claim that attacks on Jews is a result of "Zionist propaganda" as though it's a double whammy equating anti-Jewish sentiments with Pro-Zionist propaganda.

Who here claimed that "attacks on Jews is the result of Zionist propaganda"? You sure are adept at making strawman. I'll repeat myself one more time: Zionism reinforces an element of anti-semitic thought, insofar it affirms the notion of refied racial and ethnic categories, and links those categories the actions of a particular (settler-colonialist) state.

You may now carry on having Gollum-like arguments with some non-existent person making the points you're trying to counter.

Rafiq

4th August 2014, 16:21

Zionism reinforces an element of anti-semitic thought, insofar it affirms the notion of refied racial and ethnic categories, and links those categories the actions of a particular (settler-colonialist) state.

This is not unique to Zionism. All forms of nationalism then reinforce "an element" of anti-semitic thought, "insofar it affirms the notion of refined racial and ethnic categories". Anti-semitism is not distinguished by the association of Jews with Israel. Can you get that through your head? The association of all Jews with the Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism. While if we just stare lazily at words, sure it is the same. However the social, and ideological realities do not accommodate for our empty and baseless words. The character, the very nature of this association is completely different - therefore no, it does not "reinforce an element of anti-semitic thought".

Now if you want to claim that they are both nationalist in nature (This is not necessarily true - hardcore Islamist anti-semitism is hardly nationalist with its objection to nationally based identities) that's fine, however you would then have to claim that French, or any other nationalism reinforces anti-semitsm, too as they both see legitimacy in the notion of a nation state.

Predictably you will claim that this is false, because Zionism denotes a Jewish nation state while anti-semitsim falls close within this proximity (with Jews as a subject). But as we have already revealed such an association to be completely different - then Zionism "reinforces anti-semitism" just as much as ANY other form of nationalism.

What's the point? Zionism does not uniquely reinforces anti-semitism, there is nothing unique about Zionism that does this. Anti-semites might believe the sky is blue, and Zionists might too. That doesn't mean anything, however.

Five Year Plan

4th August 2014, 17:26

This is not unique to Zionism. All forms of nationalism then reinforce "an element" of anti-semitic thought, "insofar it affirms the notion of refined racial and ethnic categories".

No, all nationalist thought reinforces reified notions of ethnic and racial constructs. Not all of them reinforce Zionism or anti-semitism.

Anti-semitism is not distinguished by the association of Jews with Israel. Can you get that through your head? The association of all Jews with the Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism. While if we just stare lazily at words, sure it is the same. However the social, and ideological realities do not accommodate for our empty and baseless words. The character, the very nature of this association is completely different - therefore no, it does not "reinforce an element of anti-semitic thought".Who here argued that anti-semitism is distinguished purely by the association of Jews with Israel?

Now if you want to claim that they are both nationalist in nature (This is not necessarily true - hardcore Islamist anti-semitism is hardly nationalist with its objection to nationally based identities) that's fine, however you would then have to claim that French, or any other nationalism reinforces anti-semitsm, too as they both see legitimacy in the notion of a nation state.Why would I have to claim that French nationalism reinforces anti-semitism? Does France claim to represent all the Jewish people? If they did, then they would reinforce a reified notion of "Jewishness" that is a necessary ingredient in anti-semitism.

Predictably you will claim that this is false, because Zionism denotes a Jewish nation state while anti-semitsim falls close within this proximity (with Jews as a subject). But as we have already revealed such an association to be completely different - then Zionism "reinforces anti-semitism" just as much as ANY other form of nationalism.Your argument doesn't logically follow. If people went around bashing in the store windows of Americans that were of French ethnicity, but had never been to France, because of things the French government was doing, I would say that the French government's proclamation that it represents all the French people of the world should be implicated as a causal variable, don't you?

Depardieu

5th August 2014, 06:24

While Arab anti-semitism in general could have derived from existence of the Israeli nation-state (which is debatable, considring the Damascus affair as well as the relationship Arab anti-colonialism and Fascism during WWII) that does not mean the nature of this anti-semitism is simply defined by anger or hatred towards Israel. Anti-semitism develops and it reacts cyclically with anti-Israel sentiment but that does not mean they are the same. For example many Arabs outside of Palestine are born and raised absolutely despising Israel. Even those who are completely unaffected by Israel's endeavors in Palestine. Islamists in general are inherently anti-semitic as well.

Such acts of anti-semitism are not caused by "Zionist propaganda" but by the pathology of anti-semitsim itself which existed long before Zionism. The adoption and adherence of anti-semitism by some Arabs could very well be a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict but that does not mean it doesn't go beyond simply being angry towards Israel itself. Islamist and Nationalist anti-Zionism is unquestionably and undeniably synonymous with anti-semitism. Quite frankly it's naive, Idealist and lazy to claim that attacks on Jews is a result of "Zionist propaganda" as though it's a double whammy equating anti-Jewish sentiments with Pro-Zionist propaganda.

i would say that european anti-semitism in this day and age is closely tied to zionism and israel in the sense that many Western anti semites deny the rightful existence of a jewish state altogether. not to say that anti-zionism is antisemitic necessarily. but israel is very often singled out as the one state that has no right to even exist. perhaps as though, in the mindset of the Western antisemite, the archetypal jewish villain is inherently stateless. and israel and zionism are an affront

Rafiq

6th August 2014, 22:21

Who here argued that anti-semitism is distinguished purely by the association of Jews with Israel?

Did I say purely distinguished, or distinguished? Furthermore it is evidence enough that you do not recognize that the association of all Jews with the Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism

Evidence? This here:

Why would I have to claim that French nationalism reinforces anti-semitism? Does France claim to represent all the Jewish people? If they did, then they would reinforce a reified notion of "Jewishness" that is a necessary ingredient in anti-semitism.

Because other than recognizing the legitimacy of nation-states and ethnic based politics Zionism does not reinforce anti-semitism. It's irrelevant that Zionism concerns Jews as again such an association is completely different than that with anti-semitism

If people went around bashing in the store windows of Americans that were of French ethnicity, but had never been to France, because of things the French government was doing, I would say that the French government's proclamation that it represents all the French people of the world should be implicated as a causal variable, don't you?

Well you would be right if the situation was so simple. The French government does rule over France as a country, so even if there were Americans of "French ethnicity" (really what a stupid thing to say, let's just assume you mean first or second generation Frenchmen) they still derived from France, it is reasonable that people would identify them with France even if French nationalism didn't exist - France as a country has existed for quite a long time.

Even if that argument doesn't hold up. It's still nonsensical to claim that the attacks on Jewish businesses were a result of "zionist propaganda" that associates Israel wtih Jews, or in your words that claims to "represent Jews worldwide". It doesn't make a difference as to whether Zionism specifically entails this - this is clearly a case of anti-semitism, and not just because Jews were attacked - it's WHY they were attacked, because they are seen as agents of Zionist interests.

Arabs aren't stupid animals. French Arabs, most of them Algerians have very little to do with Palestine, they don't have relatives there, it's clearly not a personal issue of emotions. They're not going to indiscriminately attack Jews simply because there's a david star on the Israeli flag. You have to understand YES psychologically WHAT PROMPTS THEM TO DO THIS.

ZIONISM does not claim Jews as its international agents. Zionism doesn't claim that Jews across the world serve Zionist interests. It claims to protect or represent the interests of Jews - it doesn't claim all Jews represent the interests of Zionism. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

So again, you claim the relevancy here is that Zionism represents the Jewish people. Well Jewish people weren't attacked because Zionists claim to represent them, they were attacked because to the perpetrators they represent the interests of Israel and Zionism rather than the other way around. This has fuck all to do with the conscious declarations of Zionists (who by the way, DON'T claim the latter as true). You don't properly understand how logic works, Five Year Plan, and if you do you're simply ignoring it in order to desperately "cover your ass" regarding an incredibly ignorant and stupid claim you made.

The Modern Prometheus

6th August 2014, 22:49

Five Year Plan

7th August 2014, 02:48

Did I say purely distinguished, or distinguished? Furthermore it is evidence enough that you do not recognize that the association of all Jews with the Israeli state by anti-semitism is wholly, and completely different from the association of Jews with the Israeli state by Zionism

Anti-semitism is analytically distinct from opposition to Israel, but the fact cannot be ignored that virulent feelings against an ethnicity are exacerbated when a nation-state that claims to speak on behalf of all people of that ethnicity commits crimes against humanity. You keep presenting a dichotomy of insisting that I either reduce all anti-semism to anti-zionism, or of having to admit that they are completely unrelated. It's a ridiculous dichotomy, and I suppose I can just keep repeating this over and over again until it sinks in. I am a patient man.

Because other than recognizing the legitimacy of nation-states and ethnic based politics Zionism does not reinforce anti-semitism. It's irrelevant that Zionism concerns Jews as again such an association is completely different than that with anti-semitismYou think that Israel's actions in Gaza have nothing to do with a spate of Jewish businesses being vandalized in Paris? Yeah, I think this is the part of the conversation where I just let you have the last word and pretend that you've "won" something, because if you can't recognize a fact as simple as this, we're never going to be in a position where we have a basis for continuing discussion.

Even if that argument doesn't hold up. It's still nonsensical to claim that the attacks on Jewish businesses were a result of "zionist propaganda" that associates Israel wtih Jews, or in your words that claims to "represent Jews worldwide". It doesn't make a difference as to whether Zionism specifically entails this - this is clearly a case of anti-semitism, and not just because Jews were attacked - it's WHY they were attacked, because they are seen as agents of Zionist interests.Where did I say that the attacks on businesses were the direct result of Zionist propaganda? You seem hellbent on responding to statements nobody in this thread has made. It's pretty bizarre, really, and seems to indicate a really destructive desire to just disagree with me as strongly as you can. Would it make you feel any better if I just let you curse me and call me names in as big of font as you want, while promising not to laugh at you? I'm sure people in this thread who want to have a serious discussion would appreciating having their thread back.

The argument I have made, to repeat it for the fourth time, is that violence against non-Israeli Jews, who may in fact be anti-Zionist, is reinforced by Zionist propaganda that claims that the actions of a belligerent nation-state represent every Jewish person on the planet. It's a much more mediated and indirect relationship than this caricature you've presented, which might lead unsuspecting posters here to think that I claim Zionist newspapers are telling anti-semites to go out and smash the windows of shops owned by Jewish people.