Ken Loach and dubious "anti-semitism" claims

[durruti02]

1)really? are you so forgetful that you forgot what you wrote minutes earlier? i guess you got so excited about writing 'you don't understand' again that everything else went out of your head. hey ho.

actually, i dont believe you are that forgetful, or that dumb, i suspect you know full well what i'm on about but have to play dumb, because otherwise you'd have to accept the very simple point.

The holocaust obviously gave a massive impetus to the creation of Israel, but it would probably have come into being anyway, because that's what the brits and the americans (and even the russians due to their own narrow self-interest) wanted

1)first half of your post is just nonsense .. and insulting but hey we are all used to it from you .. i honestly do not understand what point you were making or how it related to anything i had said .. if you wish to think i am lying then you can just fuck off ..

2) no this is simply not true .. just look at immigration figures up to say 1933 and then post 1933

also note britain almost stopped refugees from the Nazis getting into palestine

and what is more important is the % of moslems to jews in 1931, 75% and 17% .. forget Balfour .. without first the Nazis and the Holocaust there was no Israel

by the way are you aware of the attacks by the British on refugees from fascism?

 

[durruti02]

good article by furedi ( and replys as well on spiked on line )

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6117/

"After Gaza: what’s behind 21st-century anti-Semitism?
Anti-Israel sentiment is morphing into anti-Jewish sentiment, as more and more people project their disdain for the modern world on to ‘the Jew’...

 

[laptop]

Having asked durutti to come clean on his motivation on another thread, and been ignored, it's time to offer an hypothesis.


When do we see these denials that the actions of the state of Israel instigate, promote or encourage hatred against Jews in general?

We see them when the state of Israel is in the news for its atrocities. Not much at other times.

Somewhere out there, there are people who are worried for themselves and their families precisely because they know full well that the actions of the state of Israel instigate, promote or encourage hatred against Jews in general.

But they remain attached to the idea of the state of Israel - perhaps because of the family strife that would result from doing otherwise.

So their denials are not an argument: they're a plea. "Please make it not so."

Strike any chords?

 

[durruti02]

and good and relevent article on Zionism

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6118/

"..In truth, Zionism is a modern movement, forged not by Biblical dreams but by a desperate desire to escape the consequences of anti-Semitism in decadent capitalist society...

...In the 1920s, Zionism looked like an eccentric, minority belief. In revolutionary Russia after 1917, where once the Tsar had exploited anti-Semitism to divide workers, Jews such as Trotsky took on positions of responsibility and power. The revolutionary government declared freedom of religion for all and abolished earlier restrictions on the education and residential rights of Jews. Any individuals or mobs that attacked Jews were severely punished (14). Meanwhile, Jews continued to migrate to Western countries, showing their belief that, for all the evils of anti-Semitism, a better life could be forged there. In 1927, at least as many people emigrated from Palestine – namechecked by Herzl and other Zionists as the place where Jews should remove themselves from the world – as migrated to it (15). Political Zionism looked like a losing card.

So what changed? How did Zionism emerge victorious in the three strands of thinking amongst twentieth-century European Jews? It became the beneficiary of political degeneration, and the outbreak of war...This is the tragedy of Zionism. It emerged in response to anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century, and was further popularised by the intensification of anti-Semitism and the decline of the left in the 1920s and 30s. The victory of Zionism amongst European Jews speaks to the degeneration of capitalist society and the failure of the left to uphold internationalism..."

p.s. i did not write this!

 

[durruti02]

and this particulalry relates to Loach ( from above article)

"..Today, the discussion of Zionism has been utterly separated from any knowledge of its historical origins or any understanding of its changing, 100-year relationship with imperialism. It is also utterly separated from any humanistic debate about the place of the Jews in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Instead, the Z-word has become a cheap, lazy codeword for ‘evil’, for wickedness, for murder; simply saying it out loud sounds like a terrible thing. That is because the contemporary politics of anti-Zionism is not based on an appreciation of history or meaningful solidarity with either the Jewish or the Palestinian people, but rather has become an outlet for the expression of all sorts of grievances, and, amongst Western officials, for back-covering..."

 

[durruti02]

and " ..If discussing Zionism as ‘expansionist, lawless and racist’ would have been inaccurate in the past, it is way off the mark today. Contemporary Zionism is defensive. It is underpinned not by visions of the future but by ideas of Jewish victimhood, by the necessity of halting ‘future Holocausts’ against the Jews from their various mortal enemies. This has given rise to an even more physical, closed-off form of Zionism, where Israel builds monumental brick walls covered in barbed wire to protect Jews from the external world. This is a tragedy, not only for Palestinians, but for Jews, too .."

 

[durruti02]

Having asked durutti to come clean on his motivation on another thread, and been ignored, it's time to offer an hypothesis.


When do we see these denials that the actions of the state of Israel instigate, promote or encourage hatred against Jews in general?

We see them when the state of Israel is in the news for its atrocities. Not much at other times.

Somewhere out there, there are people who are worried for themselves and their families precisely because they know full well that the actions of the state of Israel instigate, promote or encourage hatred against Jews in general.

But they remain attached to the idea of the state of Israel - perhaps because of the family strife that would result from doing otherwise.

So their denials are not an argument: they're a plea. "Please make it not so."

Strike any chords?

sorry that passed me by .. apologies .. what was the question? my motivation? that sounds loaded! LOL ..

i think you are suggestting i am jewish and defensive cos i know what Israel is doing is wrong and that is hard to come to terms with? yes ?

 

[goldenecitrone]

There always have been anti-semites who will use any excuse to attack Jewish people. The Israeli action in Gaza is just the latest and most media visible excuse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The "Spiked" article is exactly what one could expect on Zionism from a group of post-modern "reformed Marxists" who make a living by being controversialists; some facts, some half-truths and some surmises, all tied together by the theme of necessity. The fact that they refer to "Zionism" rather than Zionism(s) is fairly indicative of the shallowness of their thesis, IMHO.

 

[laptop]

i think you are suggestting i am jewish and defensive cos i know what Israel is doing is wrong and that is hard to come to terms with? yes ?

Interesting that you should put it that way.

The people I had in mind were, at least, stuck between their fear and their ideological/family commitment. And therefore desperate to deny the fact that the latter was increasing the former.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There always have been anti-semites who will use any excuse to attack Jewish people. The Israeli action in Gaza is just the latest and most media visible excuse.

Of course, and I suspect there always will be. That doesn't, however, mean that it's legitimate for any and all opposition to certain policies and actions of the state of Israel to be tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism.

 

[durruti02]

The "Spiked" article is exactly what one could expect on Zionism from a group of post-modern "reformed Marxists" who make a living by being controversialists; some facts, some half-truths and some surmises, all tied together by the theme of necessity. The fact that they refer to "Zionism" rather than Zionism(s) is fairly indicative of the shallowness of their thesis, IMHO.

ok ok ok spiked are what they are BUT then what is it you actually disgree with?

 

[durruti02]

Of course, and I suspect there always will be. That doesn't, however, mean that it's legitimate for any and all opposition to certain policies and actions of the state of Israel to be tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism.

totally agree .. but i am not sure that has been said

 

[durruti02]

Interesting that you should put it that way.

The people I had in mind were, at least, stuck between their fear and their ideological/family commitment. And therefore desperate to deny the fact that the latter was increasing the former.

well in my case you are wrong then .. while on my mothers side there is a jewish connection even the nazis i think would have left us alone .. so no there is no family hang ups

no, my motivation is the same as with all issues i talk about .. how to solve them and that to do that you must be radical i.e. go into the roots of problems

.. i hate superficiality and headline judgements .. so here imho gaza is taken out of context .. (as was put very well in one of the spiked articles)

i hate how so many who make judgements re the dispute in palestine do so from a real lack of knowledge of causes and effects ( before BB has a go here, some people like i guess him, do have knowledge but still come to what are imho the wrong conclusions .. there will always be more than one opinion and i respect that even if i disagree with them )

.. e.g. people on this thread have been reluctant to acknowledge the driving force of zionism in the 20ts and 30ts was overwhelmingly fascism and the holocaust .. yet this is so fundamental to the whole debate that i find it hard to accept they understand what is going on even if they do know lots of facts ..

 

[laptop]

well in my case you are wrong then ..

You certainly argue/rant like someone with an ideological commitment to Zionism, though.

.. e.g. people on this thread have been reluctant to acknowledge the driving force of zionism in the 20ts and 30ts was overwhelmingly fascism and the holocaust ..

* wipes coffee off screen *

Zionism: let's say it starts with Herzl's writings of 1871.

Fascism: serious threat in Germany from the early 30s - hardly driving anything in the 20s.

Holocaust: dates from 20 January 1942.



Meanwhile: your uncritical quoting of that contrarian, free-market-fundamentalist fruitoop Furedi?

Is that stupid, ignorant, a sign of your support for him, or a desperate search for "supporting text" without regard to its source in the conspiraloon manner?

You've achieved one thing: I now have Hackney Independent marked down as a group to be opposed, until it shows that you are not/no longer involved.

 

[Knotted]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6216/

The irony is that it is this widespread and dishonest Islamo-obsession amongst the political and cultural elites that is most likely sustaining radical Islam in Europe today. The anti-Islamophobia industry can be seen as providing some alienated young Muslims with the narcissistic victim mentality required to indulge violent fantasies or launch a terror tantrum. And the end-of-days handwringing of the anti-Islamofascists might give some of them the fanciful idea that they are engaged in a ‘clerical war’ against the West that is rattling the ‘whole free world’. To the extent that Islamic terror exists in Europe today, it increasingly looks like a performance, with the script and the costumes provided by the Islamo-obsessives who rule over us.

Its interesting that Spiked complain about victim mentality amongst Muslims but stay shtum when it comes to Zionist victim mentality. The whole protracted Zionist whine about the holocaust is forced and pathetic.

No to the excuses of victim mentality. Rights for all.

 

[belboid]

1)first half of your post is just nonsense .. and insulting but hey we are all used to it from you .. i honestly do not understand what point you were making or how it related to anything i had said .. if you wish to think i am lying then you can just fuck off ..

2) no this is simply not true .. just look at immigration figures up to say 1933 and then post 1933

also note britain almost stopped refugees from the Nazis getting into palestine

and what is more important is the % of moslems to jews in 1931, 75% and 17% .. forget Balfour .. without first the Nazis and the Holocaust there was no Israel

by the way are you aware of the attacks by the British on refugees from fascism?

patronising twat

Funny how we should 'forget' everything that doesnt fit wuith your daft, ahistorical and reactionary thesis.

And, oh look, you go on to quote arch reactionary knob Furedi!

 

[belboid]

Its interesting that Spiked complain about victim mentality amongst Muslims but stay shtum when it comes to Zionist victim mentality.

contradictory contrariness from Spiked?? Never!

 

[Knotted]

contradictory contrariness from Spiked?? Never!

I don't think they are contrarian anymore. That would at least make them interesting. Nowadays they're just dull centre-right mediocrities.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

and " ..If discussing Zionism as ‘expansionist, lawless and racist’ would have been inaccurate in the past, it is way off the mark today. Contemporary Zionism is defensive. It is underpinned not by visions of the future but by ideas of Jewish victimhood, by the necessity of halting ‘future Holocausts’ against the Jews from their various mortal enemies. This has given rise to an even more physical, closed-off form of Zionism, where Israel builds monumental brick walls covered in barbed wire to protect Jews from the external world. This is a tragedy, not only for Palestinians, but for Jews, too .."

I agree it's a plauge on both houses in this case as more people are killed in sucides from being forced into the IDF via national service than are killed in terrorist actions and also more people are certified medically unfit by reason of insanity for not wanting to be conscripted as an unwilling particpant and are ultimately tarred with the mental illness brush (thus affecting employment prospects etc) than are injured or killed in the conflict in isreali terms.

just as the injuries and death wreaked ont he palestinians caused social destruction and destallises social cohesion so does condeming your countries youth into eihter enforced military service or mental homes...

neither is good...

 

[ViolentPanda]

ok ok ok spiked are what they are BUT then what is it you actually disgree with?

Just in the first section:

Section 1: "Critics of Israel often argue that one can be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite. They are absolutely right."

Para 1:
Stating that Zionism is an ideology misses the point that Zionism isn't merely a political position, but can be a religious position too, and that the label "Zionism" is unhelpful without contextualising what the author actually means by the label.

Para 3:
Using Pilger's description of "Zionism", given his taste for florid and overwrought prose, is not a definition shared even by some anti-Zionists, and is disingenuous when the author could easily (if he wished) have found a more neutral description of the form of Zionism Pilger generally talks about.

Para 4:
The author makes claim to the depth of feeling against the state of Israel's policies and actions being somehow unique (very few anti-Zionists of my experience believe that Israel exercises a unique form of depravity) and that the state's actions are defined by words that are inapt. However, if a state, any state, acts in a manner consonant with being describable as "fascism", "apartheid", "evil" or "nazi-esque" then by their nature the words are apt.

Para 6: The only people who claim that Zionism is different/a uniquely "wrong" form of nationalism are people who don't look at the facts. To attempt to paint the argument this simply is disingenuous at beast, dishonest at worst.

Para 7:
I'd argue that anti-Zionism grounded in a critique of the policies and actions of the state of Israel in perpetuation of that state is progressive, because it attempt to take issue with things that may cause harm not only to Israel, but if perpetuated, to the Middle East in it's entirety.
As for the claim that a demand for an anti-Zionist position made to European governments by their citizens allows those governments to whitewash their own colonialist endeavours, that's foolishness. Can those governments successfully whitewash the consequences of colonialism, or whitewash history? Of course not.

There's similar criticism that can be made of the rest of the article, too.

 

[durruti02]

You certainly argue/rant like someone with an ideological commitment to Zionism, though.



* wipes coffee off screen *

Zionism: let's say it starts with Herzl's writings of 1871.

Fascism: serious threat in Germany from the early 30s - hardly driving anything in the 20s.

Holocaust: dates from 20 January 1942.



Meanwhile: your uncritical quoting of that contrarian, free-market-fundamentalist fruitoop Furedi?

Is that stupid, ignorant, a sign of your support for him, or a desperate search for "supporting text" without regard to its source in the conspiraloon manner?

You've achieved one thing: I now have Hackney Independent marked down as a group to be opposed, until it shows that you are not/no longer involved.

ideological commitment to zionism? .. sorry but you are thick if you pick that up from what i am saying .. simply thick .. and hackney independent will be at a total loss with the loss of your support lol

 

[durruti02]

patronising twat

Funny how we should 'forget' everything that doesnt fit wuith your daft, ahistorical and reactionary thesis.

And, oh look, you go on to quote arch reactionary knob Furedi!

here we go the perennial ninotis .. and incapability of seeing past authors ( though you ALL love to qoute Benny Morris even though now he argues all the arabs should have been ethnically cleansed .. idiot)

.. IF you disagree with someones position .. DISPROVE IT! don't just start jumping abut going " hey pop he qouted furedi! pop furedi! .. wank wank wank etc"

 

[durruti02]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6216/



Its interesting that Spiked complain about victim mentality amongst Muslims but stay shtum when it comes to Zionist victim mentality. The whole protracted Zionist whine about the holocaust is forced and pathetic.

No to the excuses of victim mentality. Rights for all.

maybe you should have read first?

" ..If discussing Zionism as ‘expansionist, lawless and racist’ would have been inaccurate in the past, it is way off the mark today. Contemporary Zionism is defensive. It is underpinned not by visions of the future but by ideas of Jewish victimhood, by the necessity of halting ‘future Holocausts’ against the Jews from their various mortal enemies. This has given rise to an even more physical, closed-off form of Zionism, where Israel builds monumental brick walls covered in barbed wire to protect Jews from the external world. This is a tragedy, not only for Palestinians, but for Jews, too .."

 

[durruti02]

The whole protracted Zionist whine about the holocaust is forced and pathetic..

i am not sure if this is disgusting, sad or ignorent? i thought you were more clued up mate

 

[durruti02]

Just in the first section:

Section 1: "Critics of Israel often argue that one can be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite. They are absolutely right."

Para 1:
Stating that Zionism is an ideology misses the point that Zionism isn't merely a political position, but can be a religious position too, and that the label "Zionism" is unhelpful without contextualising what the author actually means by the label.

Para 3:
Using Pilger's description of "Zionism", given his taste for florid and overwrought prose, is not a definition shared even by some anti-Zionists, and is disingenuous when the author could easily (if he wished) have found a more neutral description of the form of Zionism Pilger generally talks about.

Para 4:
The author makes claim to the depth of feeling against the state of Israel's policies and actions being somehow unique (very few anti-Zionists of my experience believe that Israel exercises a unique form of depravity) and that the state's actions are defined by words that are inapt. However, if a state, any state, acts in a manner consonant with being describable as "fascism", "apartheid", "evil" or "nazi-esque" then by their nature the words are apt.

Para 6: The only people who claim that Zionism is different/a uniquely "wrong" form of nationalism are people who don't look at the facts. To attempt to paint the argument this simply is disingenuous at beast, dishonest at worst.

Para 7:
I'd argue that anti-Zionism grounded in a critique of the policies and actions of the state of Israel in perpetuation of that state is progressive, because it attempt to take issue with things that may cause harm not only to Israel, but if perpetuated, to the Middle East in it's entirety.
As for the claim that a demand for an anti-Zionist position made to European governments by their citizens allows those governments to whitewash their own colonialist endeavours, that's foolishness. Can those governments successfully whitewash the consequences of colonialism, or whitewash history? Of course not.

There's similar criticism that can be made of the rest of the article, too.

and you are probably right .. spiked always over egg stuff imho .. i thought though that a lot of what was in that article was pretty good

 

[Knotted]

maybe you should have read first?

" ..If discussing Zionism as ‘expansionist, lawless and racist’ would have been inaccurate in the past, it is way off the mark today. Contemporary Zionism is defensive. It is underpinned not by visions of the future but by ideas of Jewish victimhood, by the necessity of halting ‘future Holocausts’ against the Jews from their various mortal enemies. This has given rise to an even more physical, closed-off form of Zionism, where Israel builds monumental brick walls covered in barbed wire to protect Jews from the external world. This is a tragedy, not only for Palestinians, but for Jews, too .."

Why is it way off the mark to say that "Jewish ideas of victimhood" are racist, but it is just assumed that Muslim ideas of victimhood are anti-semitic. I don't believe half of this stuff about anti-zionist anti-semitism. Its just paranoid Zionist stuff grabbed from the usual suspects.

When discussing the Zionist 'cult of the victim' (to use a Spiked favourite phrase) Spiked go into weasley apologetics. When it is the anti-war movement or Muslims Spiked all of a sudden get all ballsy. Its not that their analysis isn't interesting its just applied so it suits their Tory readership.

I agree with much of what they say its just that they miss out everything important. Hidden deep under all this bollocks is their old position of r-r-radical anti-imperialism. Its just had the anti-imperialism removed. You do know that they are still against the peace processes in the Middle East and Ireland etc?

 

[durruti02]

Why is it way off the mark to say that "Jewish ideas of victimhood" are racist, but it is just assumed that Muslim ideas of victimhood are anti-semitic. I don't believe half of this stuff about anti-zionist anti-semitism. Its just paranoid Zionist stuff grabbed from the usual suspects.

When discussing the Zionist 'cult of the victim' (to use a Spiked favourite phrase) Spiked go into weasley apologetics. When it is the anti-war movement or Muslims Spiked all of a sudden get all ballsy. Its not that their analysis isn't interesting its just applied so it suits their Tory readership.

I agree with much of what they say its just that they miss out everything important. Hidden deep under all this bollocks is their old position of r-r-radical anti-imperialism. Its just had the anti-imperialism removed. You do know that they are still against the peace processes in the Middle East and Ireland etc?

you see knotted ( bb and nino and laptop etc) i am sure you are right about spiked .. i quite liked the rcp but am well aware of where the have gone via lm and tioi and so ..

but those articles had some goods stuff in and again 'good stuff' does NOT mean i agree with it entirely .. when i qoute someone ( or is see someone else qoute someone) it does NOT mean i accept every fucking thing they say ( and ditto i do not instantky beolieve that because someone qoutes someone it means THEY support everythig that perosn says ) .. it means i believe there are interesting points made .. and certainly that is undeniable with spiked! ..

i will check out what you say re the peace processes .. that is idiotic imho

 

[Knotted]

i will check out what you say re the peace processes .. that is idiotic imho

Here's a particularly nutty article:
Gaza: Imprisoned by the Peace Process

 

[frogwoman]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6352/
<-re northern ireland