Results 21 to 40 of 224
Identifying as anti-aparthied is anti-white, and identifying as anti-fascist is anti-European because you can just identify as anti-capitalist and thus oppose everyone! This like your example, is non-sequitur. You can identify as something particular even when it is already encompassed within your views.
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
No, this whole "Arabs are semites too" thing is complete bullshit. Yes Arabic is a semitic language, but calling someone a "Semite" makes no sense. Antisemitism was just some bullshit term which the German journalist Wilhelm Marr gave to Jew hatred (which he shared). The term antisemitism has only ever meant the hatred towards Jews, in particular the very specific and unique hatred that came about in the late 19th century culminating in the Shoah. Just because some stupid 19th century Journalist, influenced but the pseudoscientific discourse surrounding race at the time, gave his hatred of Jews a sloppy term like antisemitism it does not mean the term that encompasses all semitic speaking people. This is a stupid semantic game. Arabs can be antisemitic according to how the term is popularly understood in both academia and everyday use. A better term is perhaps needed but the term has gained such popular currency now it seems pointless.@Psyco:
Yes, I know, that, the same is in Spanish:
But that doesn't chage that semites are a linguistic and etnological entity, which is mainly asociated with jews, but they are not the only ones. Because of that I prefer to use the term judeofobia instead of antisemitism, it's more clear and accurate. And that's my two linguistics cents
Since freepalestine is accusing me of being a "Zionist" over personal chat (before and after calling judaism a "false religion") repeatedly for simply saying that the historical Jewish narrative might have some truth to it the way pretty much every other people's historical narrative does, I am a little more sympathetic with the thread's title ... I think that it is important to remember that some anti zionists take a principled stand against Israel without making this an issue of the Jewish people and religion, while others are going on about how every Jewish scholar in history was a liar or that the protocols of the elders of zion are accurate (I certainly hope that no "anti-zionist" believesin the accuracy of the elders of zion on this forum, but you never know). There are people who are taking a stand against a nationalist and statist project, and there are others who just don't seem to like there being too many Jews in the Levant or people who sympathize with Jewish folks I guess.
The sad thing is that the only thing that will liberate that part of the world is the greater body of Palestinian and Israeli workers overcome their differences and unite around a common social/political/economic program the way the Bolsheviks tried to unite the various national groupings of the Russian Empire.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
That not all opposition to Zionism is antisemitic is, i think, undeniable. However it does seem that the Left downplays or ignores that a lot of "anti-zionism" is rooted in antisemitism.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Many left thinking people are against the fascist crimes of the illegal state of Israel, on the Palestinian people. Like I opposed Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of opposing war crimes.
It is interesting to here what people have to say about Zionism before the state of Israel. I remember a few years ago reading some book about Palestine and Zionism by some (I assume) SWP hack printed by Bookmarks. The way it spoke of European Jews emigrating to Palestine in the late 19th century and early 20th century and simply buying land to farm, you would think the idea of open borders and freedom of movement for all people was something the author did not support. Not that I think it was a particularly good or progressive idea for Europe's Jews to "return to the land" and become farmers in the Levant (although it did save them from the horror of Europe), but there is nothing inherently wrong with a Jewish guy from Poland wishing to emigrate to another part of the world. Sometimes people cite the prejudiced attitude of Jewish pioneering Zionists towards the Arab inhabitants, and even attacks. But this just reminds me of the anti-immigrant discourse we get today ("Muslims think less of British people" "These Muslims only like their own kind", "these Muslims beat up white kids, rape white girls" etc), so it doesn't hold weight. THe actions and private thoughts of some European Jews towards Arabs in the pre-Israel days is of course deplorable (although it went both ways; look at the pogroms and riots of the 1920s), but the fundamental point is there was nothing wrong or inherently bad about arguably the most oppressed and downtrodden people in Europe deciding to leave Europe and buy land from the Ottoman's in the Levant in the late 19th century to the early 20th.
However, the Zionist movement included racist and colonialist strands from the beginning (see the infamous "land without a people for a people without a land" quote).
Sure. I think this largely speaks to the context within which it developed. Emerging in the late 19th century it obvious that it would use the dominant discourse of the time of the pioneering colonist in far away lands. However, I don't think that the wretched of Europe buying land in the Southern Levant to farm and create a new home can be compared to the Colonialism of the big powers in the same time.
That quote comes from a non-Jewish British guy if I recall correctly though.
Also, I just realised i keep using the word "discourse" in this thread and Im not sure why. I'm not a pretentious "academic" person, I promise.
Let's check ourselves for a minute here: anti-Zionism =/= antisemitism. However, there are antisemitisms which clothe themselves in anti-Zionism and anti-Zionisms that employ antisemitic rhetoric (though I tend to deny that anti-Zionisms that make use of antisemitism are anti-Zionisms at all, so perhaps there is only the former, and the latter is what the former pretends to be), and anybody who wants to deny that should start going to Palestine solidarity marches in a kippah, the worms will crawl out then. Needless to say anybody on the left would have to oppose such currents if they want to retain credibility - some do, some don't (or oppose it with their tongues alone).
Problem is we've got a bit of a boy who cried wolf situation going on. There are some who can't distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (which - despite the fact that one can masquerade as the other - are wholly distinct, not ever occupying a single continuum), and they tend to shout pretty loud when they're making their accusations. Still, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Some don't notice this because - in classic boy who cried wolf fashion - the villagers dismiss it out of hand; there are even supposed anti-racists who simply laugh in the face of every accusation of antisemitism, they treat it as a big joke and never think to question where the accusation comes from. I've even known Jews who have been active in anti-Israel struggle for almost a decade, pointing out that a particular slogan is antisemitic and being greeted by a barrage of abuse from young upstarts, 'all you Jews always trying to defend Israel, calling all criticism antisemitic!' Arguably antisemitic itself, but you can't point that out because that would only 'prove' the claim. Typical.
But then the waters get muddy. Even in this thread, 'it's because Israel controls the US to get all the money!' Any decent leftist would realise that the US is pushing its own imperialist interests, backing its various pawns. Some would call the accusation that Israel controls western foreign policy (as we saw here, but also in things like 'the US went to Iraq and Afghanistan to push Zionist interests, Israel forced us!' - the right makes all such claims, and something tells me they won't soon decide it was Kurdish influence what did it) antisemitic in itself, in representing the classic Jewish domination myth, but maybe it's just a matter of having shitty political analysis. Which one is it? Be fucked if I know! The most sensible suggestion would be that it depends: some who make the claim are antisemitic, others are ignorant. Problem is distinguishing between the two requires some serious consideration, which can prove either difficult or uninteresting to some...
Other immigration movements in this time, however, didn't include colonial strands. There was nothing like that in Irish or Jewish immigration to the US, for example.
The fact that Zionism (with the possible exception of some uninfluental pacifistic flavors) wanted to create a nation-state is what distinguished it from other immigrations and set it on a road of conflict with the local Arab population.
Why? It's better to just define anti-Zionism as "opposition to the existence of a nation-state only, or dominantly, for Israeli Jews".
All of the above are recognised as states on the basis of their people's legitimate right to sovereign territory.
Israel came to be recognised as a state through a process of military expansionism and even those parts of historical Palestine it successfully annexed are colonised under a racist division between Jewish settlers and Palestinian arabs, the latter of whom lack access to the most basic rights. Aggressive war is the worst of all crimes and Israel does it with impunity. What also makes Israel extraordinary is that the pretext for setting up a Jewish state in Palestine was to protect jews from the very same acts persecution visited upon Palestinians today.
From wikipedia : "The crimes committed during an ethnic cleansing is similar to that of genocide, but while genocide includes complete extermination of the target group as the stated goal, ethnic cleansing may involve murder only to the point of mobilizing the target group out of the territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
Wut? Now i would be the first to acknowledge that Israel is a deeply racist society, and that this also seeps through into the political and juridical system but Arabs within Israel "lack acces to the most basic rights?" Orly?
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
Oh, so I suppose the formation of the Turkish state did not involve forced deportation of Greeks in Anatolia and the mass killing and deportation of Armenians.
All ethnic based nation states are formed through violence and disposition as ethnic nationalism is a zero sum game where different nationalities are living in the same area and making competing claims to a bit of land. This is why ethnic nationalism itself is what should be opposed.
i'd like to see what some of the israel-supporting rightists would say if some governing force invaded and took over romania in order to "give" it to the romany (who have been persecuted exactly the way jewish people have been throughout history) see whether it'd strike a chord with them if the people being torn from their homes happened to be WHITE people.
There has never been a shortage of reasons as to why the Left should criticize the Israeli government. However, all credibility is lost when anti-Zionists make sweeping indictments of all the people of Israel and are completely hostile towards Israeli culture and civil society. At that point, it's not a stretch to say you've crossed the line between reasoned criticism and bigotry. To make no distinction in your arguments between the machinations of the Israeli bourgeois and the average citizen requires, for the sake of being consistent, you must also believe that as an American citizen you too are guilty of every crime your government has committed. For a group that likes to pride itself on thorough analysis, most of the Left takes such a myopic black & white approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, easily one of the most complex and nuanced, that their arguments come off as incredibly anti-semitic. Something which only strengthens the conservative reactionary stratum of Israeli society and assists in winning it support. I've always believed that the number of people on the Left who are so uncompromisingly anti-Israel indicates that it has become "fashionably Left" to be pro-Palestine. The near complete level of uniformity in opinion and lack of debate on this subject, particularly among the younger people on the left who may know next to nothing about the situation, isn't helping anyone. It's high time we stop stoking the flames of Arab and Israeli nationalism and instead focus our efforts on helping both groups realize the true enemy- the capitalist class.
Or you could just look at the mass expulsion of the German populations of Romania and much else of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s
Fine, if you want to be the one to say that genuine anti-Zionism can, in fact, be antisemitic, be my guest. I didn't say it, but if you want to take that approach, I won't be the one to stop you because I don't really care enough to regulate everybody's thoughts. But in my personal opinion it's advantageous to maintain a distinction between opposition to Israel based on a principled critique of nationalism, imperialism, the concrete actions of the Israeli state etc. (ie anti-Zionism) and an opposition to Israel based on hatred of Jews (ie antisemitism); doing so has many potential benefits, the most obvious of which is that it excludes antisemites from the anti-Zionist camp, in the same way we would exclude those who oppose 'Jewish bankers' from the anti-capitalist camp - because their opposition is not based on a critique of Zionism/capitalism/etc. itself (which would allow it to be equally applied as a general principle even if Zionism had been a movement of Roma or the banker happens to be a Frenchman), but is a simple manifestation of their antisemitism. I cannot personally see how an opposition to Israel based on antisemitism deserves to be called anti-Zionism when it hasn't even engaged with Zionism itself (beyond noticing it's kinda Jewish therefore it's bad), nor would I call those who don't engage with capitalism anti-capitalists, it's as simple as that.
Considering certain elements of the left seem far more willing to embrace antisemitic critics of Israel as 'fellow anti-Zionists' than they are to embrace antisemitic critics of Jew-finance (no matter how much they may attempt to paint this as a principled opposition to capitalist economic forms) as 'fellow anti-capitalists,' I feel that my approach is very useful, but as I said, you're free to collapse the distinction if you wish. I don't know if maybe you'd find it a little harder to challenge the accusation that anti-Zionism is antisemitic if your response is 'well yeah sometimes, but if you oppose Israel you oppose Israel, that's more than enough, so welcome to the anti-Zionist club!' but I guess that's not really my problem and I can't exactly live everybody's life for them now, can I? For me genuine anti-Zionists and antisemitic opponents of Israel are not and will not ever be 'on the same team,' and an uncompromising recognition of that fact (something which has by no means been axiomatic in the anti-Zionist movement, neither historically nor today, when antisemites have either been outright defended or simply brushed under the carpet, under the misguided assumption that drawing attention to and criticising antisemites masquerading - in my eyes, at least, even if you disagree - as anti-Zionists would discredit anti-Zionism itself) would be of great benefit for the credibility of the movement, and should therefore be of utmost importance...
That just sounds like insisting that only leftish anti-Sovietism is truly anti-Soviet, and a neo-Nazi that hates the USSR is "not really anti-Soviet". Furthemore, anti-semitism and anti-semitic anti-Zionism are related but different beasts, who should not be wantonly confused.
Crypto-Zionists love to pretend to oppose Israel.
Considering that the Original Jews are the Palestinian people, this is true.
See professor Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People for details.
“Communists of sorts,” lol.
Interesting for crypto-Zionists, perhaps.
“Communists” that don't recognize it aren't communists at all, but mouthpieces of white racism.
This is, of course, nonsense.
There is nothing “peculiar” about opposing genocidal European Settlerism.
That this “comes to mind” shows that you're basically a vile racist apologist of White Power.
All the enemies of Israel “come to mind” when you're trying to figure out which states are “even more racist” than Israel?
You're a crypto-Zionist advocate of White Power.
Only in the mind of crytpo-Zionist neo-Nazi radicals like yourself is the liberation of Tibetan people from the murderous rule of the Llamas equal to what the Euro-Settler genocidal nation of Israel is.
The House of Saud and Zionism are best friends, so that makes sense.
What a horrendously racist question.
The Real Jews are the Palestinian people.
This is, of course, moronic nonsense. You neither know nor care what communists “recognize.”
Last edited by Labor Aristocrat Killer; 15th March 2013 at 19:02.
