Ken Loach and dubious "anti-semitism" claims

[Combustible]

If the justification for Israel's creation was the holocaust then surely it would have been more just to carve a Jewish enclave out of Germany after WW2. Creating a state anywhere would have required a degree of ethnic cleansing. Once you have accepted the necessity of ethnic cleansing surely it would have been better to have done it to a population where many people had a role in their genocide rather than inflict on a people who did not. Of course this would have probably stirred up anti-semitism again in surrounding areas but that's exactly what happened in Palestine too.

There is something quite perverse about using the legacy of primarily European anti-semitism to beat the Palestinians with.

 

[Groucho]

Many people who look at it seriously recognise that there can not be an equitable distribution of land and resources in any two-state settlement, and think that this will only lead to further strife. It isn't a solution at all.

This is absolutely right. It is also clear that Israel's rulers will never accept a viable Palestinian state. The very idea of a state founded on racial exclusion (even given for inclusivity of all backgrounds so long as they are Jewish) will always lead to aggression, and intolerance, especially when founded on land from which people have been violently displaced. The Israel/Palestine conflict cannot be seen in isolation from the middle east as a whole. The corrupt regimes need displacing and a democratic (I would argue socialist - it is another argument but without socialism there can be no real democracy and vice versa) society needs to be founded with rights and protection for all religious and racial groups. A two state solution appears to be a reasonable compromise but ends up being a dangerous dillusion that permits the status quo, including the (not so) gradual erosion of Gaza and the West Bank to continue - a situation that can only give rise to continuing conflict.

 

[Groucho]

If the justification for Israel's creation was the holocaust then surely it would have been more just to carve a Jewish enclave out of Germany after WW2. Creating a state anywhere would have required a degree of ethnic cleansing. Once you have accepted the necessity of ethnic cleansing surely it would have been better to have done it to a population where many people had a role in their genocide rather than inflict on a people who did not. Of course this would have probably stirred up anti-semitism again in surrounding areas but that's exactly what happened in Palestine too.

There is something quite perverse about using the legacy of primarily European anti-semitism to beat the Palestinians with.

Yes, but the small cabal of Zionists could not have founded Israel without the support and colusion of the major Imperialist powers. Britain had quite a significant role to play! It is worth bearing in mind that Britain closed its borders to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. Big Business in the US helped fund anti-semitic publications in Germany in the 1920s and 30s.

 

[danny la rouge]

permits the status quo, including the (not so) gradual erosion of Gaza and the West Bank to continue - a situation that can only give rise to continuing conflict.

But why has the two state solution not been done and dusted? It's been UN policy since the 70s. The reason is that the US (and a maximum of 4 tiny island states) support Israel in ignoring the UN. The US is the stumbling block.

What therefore needs to happen is for the US to be persuaded to change its stance. Then Israel would have no choice.

By contrast, how do we get to a one state solution? What are the steps? Far more, I suggest.

 

[belboid]

How many steps would be required to get the US to change its stance tho? Probably just as many, ie a massive change in the whole nature of the middle-eastern regimes and balance of power. Once that happens, then the US might change its view, but by that point the impediments to a single state solution would also probably have been greatly reduced.

It’s like apartheid South Africa, in that the only way the relevant powers would change their minds is when they have no real alternative anymore.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sure, but we have the entire world community, including the Arab states, already behind the two state settlement. I'm not sure what work would need to be done to get that degree of unanimity on a single state.

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes .. i am not arguing that Isreali policy that has over the years become increasingly ultra zionist can help create amnti semitism .. i am disagreeing with

" ..nothing has been a greater instigator of antisemitism than the self-proclaimed Jewish state itself..." Ken Loach

the point is where the fuck were the jews suppose to fucking go? what the fuck were the supposed to do?? they were driven out of europe and africa and the middle east .. so they go to israel and end up rowing over land with people there and low and behold the jews are creating anti semitism all over again ..

You know what really pisses me off about threads like this?

The sheer volume of weepy-eyed ahistorical fuck-nuts who post shite like the above.
Some facts:
1) A Jewish homeland is a product of Zionism pure and simple.
2) There has not been a monolithic anti-Semitism relentless forcing Jews to journey whole continents to get away from it. Anti-Semitism of a scale large enough to cause population movement has been a fortunately infrequent occurrence.
3) To use emotive terms like "driven out" misses the point that, in most cases (the shoah excluded), most Jewish populations haven't been "driven out", a core has always remained to start anew .
4) In the middle east of the second half of the 20th century, much "Jewish flight" was a result of provocation actions by Mossad, designed to destabilise Jewish communities in Arab countries in order to convince them that the state of Israel was their only safe haven.
5) If a state that claims to represent Jewry (as the state of Israels so claims), and then carries out actions that are highly likely to promote ill-feeling against that state, then they're also likely to promote ill-feeling against those that they claim to represent. The state of Israel's actions do indeed encourage Judaeophobia in this way.

 

[ViolentPanda]

fuck off .. a minority of zionists were complicit .. but you know EXACTLY my point

.. the maj who got out and lived were zionists .. the Bund supporters stayed .. and were wiped out .. WIPED OUT belboid .. almost totally wiped out .. there is story after story of those who said they should get out and did and survice leaving behind bund who were anti zionists and who were gassed

More ahistoricism.
Economic circumstance was a far greater determinant of who was able to flee than one's position on Zionism.

btw your comment agian makes me think you do not have a total understanding of what went on then .. you have ficused on the tiny minority of zionists who were complicit .. this does not suggest a good understadning or it suggests a bias

And you believe that you have a "total understanding"?
G-d save us from holy fools.

 

[ViolentPanda]

and as a jew in 1945 who would you have thought had been shown to have had the right strategy .. the Zionists or the Bund? hmm

If I were looking at the numbers honestly, I'd say neither, and your attempt to set the issue as a binary opposition between Bundists and Zionists shows that you don't know or understand your history well enough to be able to realise that.

 

[durruti02]

If I were looking at the numbers honestly, I'd say neither, and your attempt to set the issue as a binary opposition between Bundists and Zionists shows that you don't know or understand your history well enough to be able to realise that.

really? well they zionists who had emigrated were alive and the bundists who stayed were dead .. it was a no brainer at the time .. am i wrong?

 

[durruti02]

You know what really pisses me off about threads like this?

The sheer volume of weepy-eyed ahistorical fuck-nuts who post shite like the above.
Some facts:
1) A Jewish homeland is a product of Zionism pure and simple.
2) There has not been a monolithic anti-Semitism relentless forcing Jews to journey whole continents to get away from it. Anti-Semitism of a scale large enough to cause population movement has been a fortunately infrequent occurrence.
3) To use emotive terms like "driven out" misses the point that, in most cases (the shoah excluded), most Jewish populations haven't been "driven out", a core has always remained to start anew .
4) In the middle east of the second half of the 20th century, much "Jewish flight" was a result of provocation actions by Mossad, designed to destabilise Jewish communities in Arab countries in order to convince them that the state of Israel was their only safe haven.
5) If a state that claims to represent Jewry (as the state of Israels so claims), and then carries out actions that are highly likely to promote ill-feeling against that state, then they're also likely to promote ill-feeling against those that they claim to represent. The state of Israel's actions do indeed encourage Judaeophobia in this way.

VP sorry but this ^^ is rubbish ..

1)Israel does NOT exist but for european anti semtism and particuarly the holocaust .. there would have been a few thousend fanatics living in the desert

2) absurd .. frankly absurd .. what other group has had to up sticks so many times thru history? and wtf was whitechapel about at the turn of the 20thC .. you know as well as i do it was jews fleeing pograms in russia .. and then was the nazis

3) name me another group in europe who has sufferred so much

4) ah the mossad myth .. yes there is some evidence of this but the overwhelming fact was jews being driven out as a reaction to the creation of the state of israel .. see it was the jews fault again

5) i have never said israels actions are not to blame .. this is a thread about KL .. i have concentrated on what KL said " ..nothing has been a greater instigator of antisemitism than the self-proclaimed Jewish state itself..." .. do you agree with that statement?

 

[belboid]

really? well they zionists who had emigrated were alive and the bundists who stayed were dead .. it was a no brainer at the time .. am i wrong?

how come the Bund fought the 1947 election then? And Marek Edelman became a leading figure in the Workers' Defense Committee and in Solidarity?

You really are incredibly ignorant concerning this period of history

 

[durruti02]

Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that they cannot expel or subjugate or kill the indigenous non Jewish people with impunity, nor can they do so without provoking resistance, and that resistance is not anti-Semitism, but the resistance of people against their dispossession, expulsion, and subjugation.

To think otherwise is analogous of saying that the resistance of Native Americans against European encroachment was motivated by anti-Europeanism.

Durruti, I frequently agree with you, but on this I can't figure out where you're coming from.

ah but resistance is not the same as anti semitism is it danny? KL was not saying resistance is good .. he was talking of anti semtism

danny i use the same, to me, logic for this as other things i talk about .. i try to think of the whole picture the whole context .. IF we just look at what Israel does then we are against Isreal .. simple .. it appears racist and utterly wrong .. so we need to try to understand why israel behaves as it does ( well i guess we do if we want to resolve the situation) .. so we need to look at history and context .. THIS is where i think my POV is differing from other peoples .. and what must their conclusions be .. that simply Israel is racist? what just like that? with no context? .. no imho we must always look deeper ..

 

[danny la rouge]

ah but resistance is not the same as anti semitism is it danny? KL was not saying resistance is good .. he was talking of anti semtism

He didn't say Antisemitism was good, either. He said it was plain to see how the actions of the Israeli state fed it.

 

[durruti02]

how come the Bund fought the 1947 election then? And Marek Edelman became a leading figure in the Workers' Defense Committee and in Solidarity?

You really are incredibly ignorant concerning this period of history

no i am not and please stop being patronising

"The massacre of Polish Jewry during the Holocaust destroyed both its base as well as the vitality of Jewish communities sapping the desire of most of the survivors to remain in eastern Europe. Following the war many of the survivors emigrated to Israel or to America.
However, the Bund took part in the post-war elections of 1947 on a common ticket with the (non-communist) Polish Socialist Party (PPS) and gained its first and only parliamentary seat in soviet dependent Poland, plus several seats in municipal councils. Under pressure from Soviet-installed Communist authorities, the Bund's leaders 'voluntarily' disbanded the party in 1948-1949 against the opposition of many activists. The latter included Marek Edelman, who, in 1976, became an activist with the Komitet Obrony Robotników (Workers' Defense Committee) and later of the Solidarity movement. During the period of martial law in 1981, he was interned. He took part in the Round Table Talks and served as a member of the Sejm (Polish parliament) from 1989 until 1993."

yes some bundists survived .. but few .. you are nit picking .. my basic point stands ..

 

[belboid]

no i am not and please stop being patronising

so sorry Mr Pot

yes some bundists survived .. but few .. you are nit picking .. my basic point stands ..

No, it doesnt. Roughly as many Bundists survived as did people who fgled to palestine with the zionists. Your point is....bollocks

 

[durruti02]

He didn't say Antisemitism was good, either. He said it was plain to see how the actions of the Israeli state fed it.

danny i am ot saying he said either of those things and we agree the actions of israel are destructive .. i am simply disagreeing with

" ..nothing has been a greater instigator of antisemitism than the self-proclaimed Jewish state itself..."

 

[belboid]

well, you're not simply disagreeing with that, you are disagreeing with a whole host of things, including the reasons why israel was established, whether it was a good diea, whether it was widely recpognised to be a good or bad idea, etc etc

 

[durruti02]

so sorry Mr Pot



No, it doesnt. Roughly as many Bundists survived as did people who fgled to palestine with the zionists. Your point is....bollocks

FFS the point is IF more had fled MORE would have survived .. yes?? as someone pointed out few could afford to emigrate and anyway it was not always easy to do so .. and as a % of zionist who fled er 100% survived the holocaust and as a % of bundists who stayed what 80% died ( that is a guess maybe 90% )

 

[durruti02]

well, you're not simply disagreeing with that, you are disagreeing with a whole host of things, including the reasons why israel was established, whether it was a good diea, whether it was widely recpognised to be a good or bad idea, etc etc

with you maybe

 

[danny la rouge]

" ..nothing has been a greater instigator of antisemitism than the self-proclaimed Jewish state itself..."

Please, in context. He was talking about "recent decades". I already put this to you: do you agree the actions of the Israeli state have provoked a (misdirected, inappropriate ) backlash? If so, can you think of any other series of events in recent decades which compare in that respect?

 

[belboid]

FFS the point is IF more had fled MORE would have survived .. yes?? as someone pointed out few could afford to emigrate and anyway it was not always easy to do so .. and as a % of zionist who fled er 100% survived the holocaust and as a % of bundists who stayed what 80% died ( that is a guess maybe 90% )

you ignorant fucking moron. This is the single most stupid post I've read in a long time. it's not worth the waste of time and energy to reply to.

 

[danny la rouge]

Durruti, please do some reading before contributing more. You're a smart guy, but you've clearly not really looked into this topic very closely.

The book I recommended you is a good start.

 

[durruti02]

How many steps would be required to get the US to change its stance tho? Probably just as many, ie a massive change in the whole nature of the middle-eastern regimes and balance of power. Once that happens, then the US might change its view, but by that point the impediments to a single state solution would also probably have been greatly reduced.

It’s like apartheid South Africa, in that the only way the relevant powers would change their minds is when they have no real alternative anymore.

1) agree .. it needs a regional change imho

2) disagree here .. NO one supportted apartheid south africa .. unlike Israel, that has massive support in the US and elsewhere .. i used to think the same about NI .. that the unionist should suffer so much violence that they will change .. imho this does not work .. change came about in NI due to both sides tiring and the first generation PIRA realising that their strategy just did not work .. somein the plo think this .. hamas is the equivalent of the CIRA/RIRA

with the history of the jews in europe ( and the arab countries) i simply do not think they will 'give up' UNLESS they have guaranteed protection in this area ( which they and i do not believe they have )

 

[durruti02]

Durruti, please do some reading before contributing more. You're a smart guy, but you've clearly not really looked into this topic very closely.

The book I recommended you is a good start.

danny i know all about ilan pappe and benny morris .. i am saying all this with all that in mind

 

[danny la rouge]

danny i know all about ilan pappe and benny morris .. i am saying all this with all that in mind

Sorry, but that makes it worse.

You had the benefit of the doubt before.

 

[durruti02]

you ignorant fucking moron. This is the single most stupid post I've read in a long time. it's not worth the waste of time and energy to reply to.

go on big man, try to explain why .. you are good with the insults less good with showing why you think someone is wrong

 

[durruti02]

Sorry, but that makes it worse.

why? you know what morris says now?

 

[durruti02]

Please, in context. He was talking about "recent decades". I already put this to you: do you agree the actions of the Israeli state have provoked a (misdirected, inappropriate ) backlash? If so, can you think of any other series of events in recent decades which compare in that respect?

yes they have rightly provoked anger and resistance .. whether that is the same as instigating anti semitism is an entriely differrent matter ..

 

[danny la rouge]

why? you know what morris says now?

What about? Pappe? Yes, I know.

Morris is an interesting read, but (to quote Finkelstein) "politically, a thug".