Gaza under attack yet again.

[butchersapron]

Is writing Free Gaza on a synagogue anti-semitic? I think its simplistic to say so. Even the Rabbi in that link made the distinction

It conflates Jews with Israel.

 

[laptop]

It conflates Jews with Israel.

Which is precisely what Zionism as a political movement tries to do.

So PSC should have had the wit to realise, at the very least, that they should - must - do the opposite

 

[ska invita]

It conflates Jews with Israel.

yes but is it anti-semitic?

 

[butchersapron]

yes but is it anti-semitic?

Of course it can be, formally. Or anti Semitic in result rather than intention.

 

[J Ed]

I think the above article highlights a dilema and requires some more thought. You have on the one hand an anti-semitic attack on a synogogue and on the other a progressive political group recommending that the victims of the attack speak out in order to diffuse the situation. This option is dismissed here as pointing to collective guilt.

Why should they have to speak out? As butchersapron pointed out, we do not hold Spanish Catholics responsible for the IRA, as someone baptised as a Protestant I do not feel the need to speak out against Evangelical homophobia and the Jews, collectively, who go to that synagogue are as responsible for the actions of the Israeli state as I am for the UDA. In what world are we even assuming that every single person at that synagogue's congregation knows all that much about the Israel-Palestine conflict?

 

[J Ed]

Also, just take a step back and think about what a pig headed thing spray painting that on the side of the building is. Who is going to be won over with that? What is it supposed to achieve other than upset and an entrenchment of views? Do they think that they're going to get think "well, I was cautiously supportive of Israel although the violence of the Israeli state was starting to turn me against them but having someone graffiti my synagogue was what really pushed me over the edge into supporting BDS"?

 

[ska invita]

Of course it can be, formally. Or anti Semitic in result rather than intention.

maybe this is an issue of semantics, but there's no reason why someone couldn't be deeply non anti-semitic, conflate Jews with Israel, and be moved to write Free Gaza on a synagogue. "Free Gaza" cannot be in and of itself an anti-semitic statement, whether conflation has happened or not. Which it seemed to me is what the Rabbi said in the link. Anyhow, not worth arguing about. I take the points already made above.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

maybe this is an issue of semantics, but there's no reason why someone couldn't be deeply non anti-semitic, conflate Jews with Israel, and be moved to write Free Gaza on a synagogue. "Free Gaza" cannot be in and of itself an anti-semitic statement, whether conflation has happened or not. Which it seemed to me is what the Rabbi said in the link. Anyhow, not worth arguing about.

If nothing else, graffiti-ing/vandalising etc a synagogue (or a mosque, or a church, or a gudwara etc) is a physical desecration of a religious space. And by someone vandalising a Jewish religious space in this manner, I think it's accurate to state that this was effectively an anti-Semitic attack.

 

[Anudder Oik]

This is how the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign justify their statement. I don't necessarily agree with it but would like to hear people's opinions.

A spokesman for the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign said: “The real issue here is that there needs to be a political solution to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. “We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done - to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”

Also, are the 150 in Brooklyn or the Survivors who signed a manifesto, somehow mistaken in what they have done?

 

[laptop]

there's no reason why someone couldn't be deeply non anti-semitic, conflate Jews with Israel, and be moved to write Free Gaza on a synagogue.

But if such a person existed, the Probability Police would have rounded them up to restore the universe to likelihood.

 

[J Ed]

“We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done - to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”

The subtext of this is that all Jews must agree with us and those Jews who refuse to are a problem and a cause of division. Not a million miles away from something that the EDL might say about Muslims.

 

[butchersapron]

maybe this is an issue of semantics, but there's no reason why someone couldn't be deeply non anti-semitic, conflate Jews with Israel, and be moved to write Free Gaza on a synagogue. "Free Gaza" cannot be in and of itself an anti-semitic statement, whether conflation has happened or not. Which it seemed to me is what the Rabbi said in the link. Anyhow, not worth arguing about. I take the points already made above.

No action like the one under discussion happens context free and in and of itself. It exists within and is produced by a context and motivations. That's exactly why it can be anti-semitic but isn't necessarily anti-semitic. Politics (or part of it) is deciphering that context and motivation.

 

[DotCommunist]

This is how the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign justify their statement. I don't necessarily agree with it but would like to hear people's opinions.

A spokesman for the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign said: “The real issue here is that there needs to be a political solution to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. “We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done - to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”

Also, are the 150 in Brooklyn or the Survivors who signed a manifesto, somehow mistaken in what they have done?

I don't think so, no. No ones saying that jewish people shouldn't decry the actions of Israel should they want to, but for others to demand it, that's whats dodgy.

 

[butchersapron]

This is how the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign justify their statement. I don't necessarily agree with it but would like to hear people's opinions.

A spokesman for the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign said: “The real issue here is that there needs to be a political solution to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. “We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done - to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”

Also, are the 150 in Brooklyn or the Survivors who signed a manifesto, somehow mistaken in what they have done?

That isn't the justification for the statement, it's part of the statement. It's not saying that this slogan was daubed to achieve the ends in bold. The bolded aims could be read another way, not as a demand for jews to show their is no divide between them and non-jews over gaza, but that there should be no divide between the range of positions that jews and non-jews may hold and no divide between the assumptions that are made between the two. That jews are not obliged to publicly take a stand on **** or *** .That would be a better more productive reading/statement - based at that would be on a different conflation. Not that of jew=israel, but jew=citizen.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

This is how the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign justify their statement. I don't necessarily agree with it but would like to hear people's opinions.

A spokesman for the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign said: “The real issue here is that there needs to be a political solution to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. “We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done - to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”

Also, are the 150 in Brooklyn or the Survivors who signed a manifesto, somehow mistaken in what they have done?

I think Brighton PSC should have a look again on the national PSC site w/regards to anti-Semitism, and think through the implications of what they are suggesting. I also refer Brighton PSC to the multiple statements made at the London demo on Saturday about this very same thing.

 

[ska invita]

No action like the one under discussion happens context free and in and of itself. It exists within and is produced by a context and motivations. That's exactly why it can be anti-semitic but isn't necessarily anti-semitic. Politics (or part of it) is deciphering that context and motivation.

agree 100% .... thats why i think to immediately say it was anti-semitic isnt helpful, especially when there's an oft-repeated line that goes "any criticism of israel is anti-semitic" that comes from some quarters.

 

[Pickman's model]

agree 100% .... thats why i think to immediately say it was anti-semitic isnt helpful, especially when there's an oft-repeated line that goes "any criticism of israel is anti-semitic" that comes from some quarters.

what about if i said 'the zionist entity doesn't do enough for its jewish population'. would they still witter on about it being anti-semitic?

 

[butchersapron]

I apologise if my probing on this question has made people feel uncomfortable. The posters who have calmly explained the situation ( about diaspora and zionist entity) have put things to rights for me and I understand the sensitivity of the question, however, not everyone out in the wider world will be aware of the facts that have been thrashed out here on this thread and may continue to have a different perception. Hence the bad news reported in the article above about an attack.

One poster said that the people who conflate will have to educate themsleves, but in general people aren't exposed to countercurrents to their way of thinking, and their perception, if left unchallenged, just chugs along the same way as always. it is not a crime to be ignorant about an issue.

I think the above article highlights a dilema and requires some more thought. You have on the one hand an anti-semitic attack on a synogogue and on the other a progressive political group recommending that the victims of the attack speak out in order to diffuse the situation. This option is dismissed here as pointing to collective guilt.

So, what is the alternative? To avoid conflation, the representatives of the mentioned synogogue must remain silent? But what in turn does this silence fuel amongst the people who have attacked the Synogogue?

The manifesto written by the holocaust survivors is extremely potent, and will, if read widely, contribute to diminishing anti-semitism stirred up by the Israeli state's actions.

Demanding/suggesting/imploring that the victims of what you characterise as an anti-semitic attack produce evidence of their lack of of support for Israeli state actions lest they further provoke the wrath of those who committed the anti-semitic attack is a really dangerous thing to do. The comparison with the holocaust survivors statement doesn't stand up as they were not attacked and coerced into making their statement under fear of worse attacks on them to come.

 

[brogdale]

Some UK polling on 'Gaza' from ICM...

The headline stat is that majority, (52%), of those polled think the Israeli assault disproportionate...good...but...

It found that 19% thought Israel had acted proportionately...

One in five of "us"

 

[laptop]

Some UK polling on 'Gaza' from ICM...

The headline stat is that majority, (52%), of those polled think the Israeli assault disproportionate...good...but...



One in five of "us"

No breakdowns - can't find it on http://www.icmresearch.com either.

E2A: was looking for age & voting intention.

 

[teqniq]

PM tries to persuade cabinet to support truce

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett says he will try to sway his colleagues in the cabinet against supporting such a move.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade cabinet ministers to support the long-term truce with Gaza being negotiated in Cairo – while Economy Minister Naftali Bennett is trying to build opposition to it....

Worth a read inasmuch as it sets out what demands of Hamas Israel is (presently) prepared to accept. In a way it makes Netanyahu look positively benign, if he cannot garner enough support for the current proposals the alternatives look to be dire. Sad state of affairs really.

 

[teqniq]

Government announces findings of review of licensed exports to Israel

The government has today announced the findings of a review of licensed exports to Israel. It has found that the vast majority of exports currently licensed for Israel are not for items that could be used by Israeli forces in operations in Gaza in response to attacks by Hamas.

Twelve licences have now been identified for components which could be part of equipment used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza. Currently there is a ceasefire in place and the government continues to urge both sides to respect this and to secure a lasting end to hostilities through the negotiations taking place in Cairo. However, in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities, the government is concerned that it would not be able to clarify if the export licence criteria are being met. It would therefore suspend these licences as a precautionary step.....

 

[ska invita]

It conflates Jews with Israel.

has this thought on the commute home...

Part of the reason people might make that conflation (!) is because the messages from Israeli representatives increasingly conflates the two...
Repeated from another thread:

"In the early years of statehood, the meaning of the term “Jewish” was national and secular. In the eyes of Israel’s founding fathers, to be a Jew was exactly like being an Italian, Frenchman or American. Over the years, this elusive concept has changed; today, the meaning of “Jewish” in Israel is mainly ethnic and religious.

With the elevation of religious solidarity over and above democratic authority, Israel has become more fundamentalist and less modern, more separatist and less open to the outside world. I see the transformation in my own family. My father, one of the founders of the state of Israel and of the National Religious Party, was an enlightened rabbi and philosopher. Many of the younger generation are far less open, however; some are ultra-Orthodox or ultranationalist settlers. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/israels-fading-democracy.html?pagewanted=all"

... the demarcation between Church + State is muddied

Likewise when legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy are deflected as being anti-semitic/acts of religious persecution it further deepens the association.

It doesn't surprise me that with those messages going around some people may then think of synagogues as equivalent of Israeli embassies.

I'm not saying thats what happened on this occasion in Brighton, but I'm sure there are lots of people who understand Israel as a 100% religious state, where church and state are united.

 

[Pickman's model]

The subtext of this is that all Jews must agree with us and those Jews who refuse to are a problem and a cause of division. Not a million miles away from something that the EDL might say about Muslims.

not only that but suggests all zionists jews, which is far from the truth

 

[butchersapron]

has this thought on the commute home...

Part of the reason people might make that conflation (!) is because the messages from Israeli representatives increasingly conflates the two...
Repeated from another thread:

... the demarcation between Church + State is muddied

Likewise when legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy are deflected as being anti-semitic/acts of religious persecution it further deepens the association.

It doesn't surprise me that with those messages going around some people may then think of synagogues as equivalent of Israeli embassies.

I'm not saying thats what happened on this occasion in Brighton, but I'm sure there are lots of people who understand Israel as a 100% religious state, where church and state are united.

Of course the Israeli state tries to foster this impression (as noted on this thread many times and even around this incident) in order to draw non-Israeli jews behind/in front of it. It's a transparent tactic that it's important to highlight and reject and important to say why it should be rejected. It's not a state/church question here though, as the the same demands to condemn Israeli state actions are are made of secular jews - it's a simple question of people treating jews differently, of having different and unsupportable expectations and assumptions of jews.

So this brighton thing, rather than being an opp to make demands of the people who attend the synagogue is better seen as an opp to clarify precisely why no one has any right to make such demands.

 

[DrRingDing]

Depends who i am. That it doesn't happen beyond rhetoric whilst taking actions that work against it shows a) Ibn Khaldoun is talking out of his hole and b) that power (possession and pursuit of it) tends to disrupt and undermine glib little analysis like "No Arabs are on the opposing side of Palestinian freedom."

That was the laziest strawman i've seen in a while. You're getting past it.

Go on then where did I say "No Arabs are on the opposing side of Palestinian freedom."? I won't expect an apology.

 

[butchersapron]

That was the laziest strawman i've seen in a while. You're getting past it.

Go on then where did I say "No Arabs are on the opposing side of Palestinian freedom."? I won't expect an apology.

Try and follow the conversation a bit more closely. I was quoting ibn Khaldoun - i even made that clear by mentioning that i was criticising his pathetic posts.

*Whines: where's my apology*

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Not Gaza per se, but....just seen this video taken in Hebron :

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Just came across this on Twitter just now - will state comptroller Whitewash be officiating this inquiry, I wonder?:

 

[rekil]

1:09 P.M. An Italian journalist was among the six killed when an unexploded Israeli missile went off in the northern Gaza Strip, Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qedra says.

Reports saying they were trying to dismantle it.