Labour & Anti-Semitism.

[JuanTwoThree]

A single, secular, state of Palestine, with a full right of return for all those driven out, and their families. Bog standard stuff.

Run past me and past probably quite a few other people how that might be achieved. I can't be the only person who thinks that it's intractable.

 

[butchersapron]

So where to now? All the whowaswhat and whosaidwhat doesn't alter the fact that the Israelis are now there and the Palestinians are where they are. My use of these terms is just a shorthand, it has no special significance. The support that each faction within these two camps has is also a reality.

You can rake over the ashes of history all you like and I'm not saying you shouldn't but I'm not seeing any way forward. For example, some kind of cantonic secular state in the region isn't going to happen.

Could you stop your discussions for a moment and indulge me with a few solutions that might even partly work? You're all obviously clued up on the background and I'd genuinely be interested.

Or we could discuss allegations of labour party anti-semitism, if there's any evidence, what motivates the claims or the anti-semitism, what constitutes anti-semitism and why, how it developed and relates to the present day etc rather than waste the thread further on a wild goose chase consisting of competing statements and re-statements of entrenched positions with no real world impact.

 

[redsquirrel]

Run past me and past probably quite a few other people how that might be achieved. I can't be the only person who thinks that it's intractable.

If you really want to discuss that take it to another thread - there's already a load of different strands present on this one. Adding a huge topic like that is going to do nothing for sensible discussion.

 

[Pickman's model]

no thanks. what are you trying to say, anyway, is it a bit like the other side of this latest from Ken?
Leaving the link complete can't resist.
Ken Livingstone’s shock claim: I can’t be an anti-Semite because I've romped with Jewish women

tell you what, why not read the Hillsborough thread.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think a better comparison is finklestein in the days when he was ignored, couldn't get his books and work reviewed, get academic work or find influential publishers, in fact was under an informal boycott and was painted as a holocaust denier and Irving style crackpot. And that was for a very very long time.

Well, that's kind of what I was wondering.

All the so-called rebuttals (of Brenner's books, rather than his journalism or still less Ken's idiotic gloss on it) that I've seen so far look more like political smear jobs or off the cuff dismissals (like Prof Evans above) rather than sober, academic critique.

I'm open to the idea that the latter exists, but I'm beginning to think that I should have found traces of it by now if it does ... (still sifting through PM's link though)

Which pertains to the topic insofar as Brenner is being portrayed as a trot David Irving whose views Ken was accurately representing, which wasn't my impression of his stuff when I read it (admittedly a while back)

 

[butchersapron]

Here's the book.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's the book.

Ta.

 

[Cid]

Oh, and just to be clear, he was not a Jew then. He was simply a bloke trying to stop a fight and got way out of his depth.

That's great, you'll do well writing the taglines for his biopic. What the fuck relevance does he have here?

 

[butchersapron]

...and remember everyone going to skim it now, Brenner does not agree with Livingstone that Hitler was sane until 1932/3 and then went mad and became an extreme anti-semite. He merely accurately documents the various agreements and negotiations of some organisations and leaders of classical Zionism with various nasty people (not just the nazi state). Livingstone is using Brenner dishonestly as cover for the wild extrapolations that he himself made - and that Brenner is now under attack for.

 

[Knotted]

...and remember everyone going to skim it now, Brenner does not agree with Livingstone that Hitler was sane until 1932/3 and then went mad and became an extreme anti-semite. He merely accurately documents the various agreements and negotiations with some organisations and leaders of classcial Zionism with various nasty people (not just the nazi state). Livingstone is using Brenner dishonestly as cover for the wild extrapolations that he himself made - and that Brenner is now under attack for.

If I remember rightly Brenner states that Hitler was always opposed to a Jewish state.

Edit here:

But for Hitler the validity of Zionism only lay in its confirmation that the Jews could never be Germans. In Mein Kampf, he wrote:

[For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national
consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state,
the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim. It doesnt even enter their heads to
build up a Jewish state for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central
organisation for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign
rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted
scoundrels and a university for budding crooks. [4]]

Jews lacked the essential racial character to build a state of their own. They were essentially leeches, lacking in natural idealism, and they hated work. He explained:

[For a state formation to have a definite spatial setting always presupposes an
idealistic attitude on the part of the state-race, and especially a correct
interpretation of the concept of work. In the exact measure in which this attitude is
lacking, any attempt at forming, even of preserving, a spatially delimited state fails. [5]]

In spite of any early musings about Zionisms efficacy in eventually promoting emigration, the Nazis made no effort to establish any relationship with the local Zionists. On the contrary, when the Zionist Congress met in Vienna in 1925, the Nazis were among those who rioted against their presence. [6]

 

[Idris2002]

Someone on Cedar Lounge made the point that "Zionism" was a very heterogeneous movement with a lot of internal ideological diversity, and differing, competing, and even contradictory elements within it.

 

[belboid]

Run past me and past probably quite a few other people how that might be achieved. I can't be the only person who thinks that it's intractable.

Which would be your response to any 'solution' - which makes it a bit pointless asking, no?

 

[Idris2002]

Criticising Israel is not the same as being anti-Jewish
Opposition to Israel must not be confused with the evil hatred of Jewish people
about 9 hours ago
Ronit Lentin, David Landy

6





The recent calls to expel former London mayor Ken Livingstone from the British Labour Party have created a worrying alliance between those who use accusations of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israel and those who use them to attack supporters of the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The calls for his expulsion came after Livingstone said in a BBC interview that Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. The claim itself was clumsy but based on historical fact – Hitler originally sought to expel rather than exterminate European Jews. As part of this, he negotiated the Haavara Agreement with Zionist organisations which allowed some Jews to escape to Palestine with some of their property in return for Zionist opposition to the global boycott of German goods. This was hardly “support for Zionism”, but Livingstone’s critics went further with fellow Labour MPs accusing him of anti-Semitism.

In response, Livingstone cautioned against “confusing criticism of the Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism”, and defended Corbyn, who had been accused of not taking firm enough action against anti-Semitism in the party, which, he said, was part of a smear campaign against the party leader.

Europeans need to face their history of anti-Semitism that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust. Ireland has its own part in that history, the Irish government only admitted 60 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution between 1933 and 1946. Anti-Semitic sentiments continue – this was clear during the attack on the Hyper Casher supermarket in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Israel vs Jews
However, supporters of Israel have sought to widen the definition of anti-Semitism to include those who call themselves anti-Zionist and most recently, those who support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In this, they use an obsolete formulation from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) which includes as a possible sign of anti-Semitism: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”. The EUMC has since abandoned this wording as it was being used to launch attacks on critics of Israel, rather than to tackle real anti-Semitism.
Such efforts to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism follow the state of Israel in conflating Jews with Zionists, even though not all Jews are Zionists or Israel supporters. Growing numbers of Jewish people in and outside Israel – international groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, as well as Israeli groups such as Boycott from Within – oppose Israeli policies, do not define themselves as Zionists and support the BDS movement. The growing accusations of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel are aimed primarily at discrediting the successful BDS movement.

Israel has announced a $26 million investment in an anti-BDS campaign. Accusing its non-Jewish critics of anti-Semitism and its Jewish critics of being “self-hating Jews” is a central element of this campaign.

Accusations as
weapons
Returning to the Labour Party, the Jewish Socialist Group has attacked the “weaponising” of accusations of anti-Semitism by forces intent on undermining the leadership of Corbyn. Likewise the group Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods worries that “the pro-Zionist lobby – Jewish and non-Jewish – deliberately and maliciously seeks to associate Jew-hatred with criticism of Israel in the public mind”, despite the insistence by Corbyn’s team that “anti-Semitism is a vile prejudice that is not permitted in the Labour Party” and its pledge to expel anyone found guilty of it.
The expulsions have taken on the character of a witch hunt. For instance, Jewish activist Tony Greenstein who has long campaigned against anti-Semitism in Palestine solidarity circles, has been accused of anti-Semitism and suspended from the Labour Party. The collection of scalps has emboldened supporters of Israel with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre seeking to whip up animosity and tweeting followers to “save your pitch fork for Corbyn”.

Such cynical political acts cheapen the grave charge of anti-Semitism. In this atmosphere where such allegations are used to silence political opponents, it is tempting to reject any and all accusations of anti-Semitism. This too must be guarded against – anti-Semitism needs to be tackled wherever it exists. In this battle, there is an urgent need to resist conflating opposition to Israel with anti-Jewish racism.

David Landy is an assistant professor of sociology and Ronit Lentin is a retired associate professor of sociology at Trinity College Dublin

 

[Idris2002]

I've cut and pasted the above because Irish Times stuff is usually behind a paywall. I've never heard of Landy before, but I've met Dr. Lentin on and off over the yers - she's Israeli herself. I can't say I agree with much of the piece, also: Ken should be expelled for the reasons DotCommunist outline earlier in this thread.

 

[oryx]

We are veering amazingly close to Holocaust denial now

Who is? Someone on here?

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, that's kind of what I was wondering.

All the so-called rebuttals (of Brenner's books, rather than his journalism or still less Ken's idiotic gloss on it) that I've seen so far look more like political smear jobs or off the cuff dismissals (like Prof Evans above) rather than sober, academic critique.

I'm open to the idea that the latter exists, but I'm beginning to think that I should have found traces of it by now if it does ... (still sifting through PM's link though)

Which pertains to the topic insofar as Brenner is being portrayed as a trot David Irving whose views Ken was accurately representing, which wasn't my impression of his stuff when I read it (admittedly a while back)

i'll start you off with j. rose's 'the myths of zionism' (london: pluto, 2004):

p.221

 

[Pickman's model]

david hirsch, in his 'anti-zionism and anti-semitism: cosmopolitan reflections' states that

http://research.gold.ac.uk/2061/1/Hirsh_Yale_paper.pdf (p. 74)

 

[goldenecitrone]

Asked some Hasidic jews in Stoke newington what they thought about all this. They said that they weren't bothered as they all vote Tory anyway.

 

[Pickman's model]

in

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[bimble]

You see that bit where it says "they use an obsolete formulation ...which includes as a possible sign of anti-Semitism: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
I only just learnt the other day that, in 1974, the UN adopted a resolution which stated that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", which was only revoked in 1991. Does that mean the UN was antisemitic?
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[Pickman's model]

You see that bit where it says "they use an obsolete formulation ...which includes as a possible sign of anti-Semitism: “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
I only just learnt the other day that, in 1974, the UN adopted a resolution which stated that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", which was only revoked in 1991. Does that mean the UN was antisemitic?
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or does it mean the zionists were racist or perceived to be racist?

 

[JuanTwoThree]

I completely accept the criticism that I tried to derail the thread somewhat. Casual anti-semitism, of the "he jewed me out of some money" type, is presumably not the issue (it's important to change attitudes there though, too) because you all seem to be talking about the existence or not of a confusion/conflation/nexus between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism in the Labour party. However, to be Labour and even a bit pro-Hamas is to align oneself in part with people who do more than flirt with anti-semitism in terms of their solution, while to be a Socialist friend of Israel is to have another view of the outcome. So it's about the outcome too. It is though too massive to embark on here.

 

[Coolfonz]

Listen - I have a close friend who spent two years converting from a Christian background to Judaism .In fact many Jews to this day would not regard him as a "yid" despite the fact that he was circumcised without any anaesthetic at the age of 31.

I went to his wedding - it was amazingly lavish.

And it was everything that antisemites hate.

And if my Muslim gf, who was not available, had attended you would have found it very confusing.

What do you mean '"yid'" you cunt? What do you mean "lavish"?

 

[Pickman's model]

journal for the study of anti-semitism, 2:1 (2010)

 

[mystic pyjamas]

I can tell you a lot more detail about my pal - personal trainer/stabbed several times on an underground train in Brixton when around 21/now an estate agent in North London if he likes...

I think you're going off topic now.
Not relevant to thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

And if my Muslim gf, who was not available, had attended you would have found it very confusing.

tbh i find your repeated wheeling out of this unfortunate woman confusing

 

[Idris2002]

tbh i find your repeated wheeling out of this unfortunate woman confusing

It's probably the only time she sees daylight.

 

[Pickman's model]