Anti-Semitism from the Left
Comments from a friend who is a professional historian, full professor of history and life-long Democrat:
This concerns me as a Democrat, and as an observer that antisemitism today comes mostly from the left (Pat Buchanan excepted).
Excerpted from elsewhere:
When the House voted 410-8 in favor of a resolution “condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, [and] supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.” Here’s a list of the 12 congressional reps. who declined to support Israel:Voting “no”
Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii)
John Conyers (D., Mich.)
John Dingell (D., Mich.)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D., Mich.)
Jim McDermott (D., Wash.)
Ron Paul (R., Texas)
Nick Rahall (D., W.Va.)
Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. (D., Calif.)Voting “present”
Marcy Kaptur (D., Ohio)
Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio)
Barbara Lee (D., Calif.)
Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)
Except Ron Paul, who was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988 and who essentially opposes all foreign policy, all of these are liberal Democrats.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
50 Responses to “Anti-Semitism from the Left”
HAH! No Holly they decided to support THEIR OWN country instead.
How many Jews voted to support Israel? 100%! How do we know they are not Mossad agents? I say we kick down their doors and look for a transmitter!
We should immediately take the entire Israeli lobby out and shoot them.
Supporting Israel is supporting the USA – in fact, it’s NECESSARY for the USA to survive, let alone thrive.
Presumably Holly would also argue that the 410 who supported this resolution hate Arabs. If disagreement with Israel is to be equated with anti-Semitism then let’s just make it easier and have the votes mailed in from the Knesset.
I certainly support “Israels’ right to defend itself,” but that is an abstraction and there are lots of specifics. I am uncomfortable with the destruction of power plants and other infrastructure, the terrorization of Beirut and other events setting the economy back years and threatening to rekindle civil war.
While I am not fond of the congree critters listed I don not think concern about Israel’s choices and their potential to destroy the cedar revolution is always anti semitism.
The repetition of these charges like the repetition that anyone who questions the way Bush wages the Iraqi war is a traitor are shifting me increasingly away from the position of the bullies. Holy I sympathize with Israel and believe it has mantained a democracy, a vibrant economy and culture, I think it has made some attempt to be civilized in an ugly war, but this later has depended on allowing questions, but you don’t believe, you have demonisd me and this is the last time.
I think we need to tell Isreal to destroy it’s nuclear weapons and return to the boundaries we recognize or cut off aid and possibly diplomatic relations. i’ve been called a Nazi far too many times.
I am concerned about this incursion. I believe honorable people can expose it without being called anti semitic.
Israeli sympathizer after Israelis sympathizer has taken this step or is drifting towards it. Like the “war supporters” who considered any questioning of Bush policy treason, even questions designed to increase the chances of success, your position is going to act to destroy support for Israel.
And unlike the fanatics you are going to find yourself allied with I believe that God hears a Jew’s prayer. Also a Muslims.
Not true. I don’t hate Arabs either.
“Presumably Holly would also argue that the 410 who supported this resolution hate Arabs.”
It is OK to disagree with something Israel does. It is NOT OK to say that Israel does not have a right to defended itself or does not have a right to exist.
If Israel chose to destroy its nuclear weapons (which, unlike the rest of the world, they actually use responsibly), it would immediately be attacked by several neighbors who don’t believe it has a right to exist. Israel’s nuclear weapons are all that has prevented several wars.
“I think we need to tell Isreal to destroy it’s nuclear weapons”
We should avoid comments like taking the Israeli lobby out and shooting them, even in jest, on this site in the future. There are other ways of criticizing pro-Israel legislators that are equally effective but don’t raise the red flag. Thanks!
“Supporting Israel is supporting the USA – in fact, it’s NECESSARY for the USA to survive, let alone thrive.”
Yeah, again THIS stupid argument. I never heard any valid reasons for it, though…
Gray, we have posted many valid reasons – why don’t you read our posts?
Is Holly suggesting that not supporting the resolution is tantamount to being anti-semitic? What absolute nonsense. Very similiar with the false claim that anti-semitism is behind anyone attacking the naive stu;idity of the neocon world view. Perhaps those that voted against the resolution weren’t saying that Israel didn/t have a right to defend herself but that killing hundreds of totally innnocent arabs is not “defending oneself”. Stop playing the victim all the time holly.
I thought our representives are suppose to vote for their US constituents(sp). This was a meaningless resolution. I don’t see where there was any condemnation of Israel. Like an earlier post, where is the evidence of anti-Semitism? I know why Dingell voted Yes – his vote represents his constituents. Where is the support for the soveriegn government?
It serves the same American political interests to back Israel without qualification as to wave the Stars and Stripes and call out dissenters from applications of the Bush Doctrine as traitors.
Israel’s fate is in no way whatsoever related to the resolution voted on in Congress. The resolution was an instrument of domestic politics, and nothing more.
To fail to understand the voting on this resolution in the context of the American political scene is to be willfully obtuse.
The cause of Israel is almost certainly being set back by overly enthusiastic wrong-headed supporters constantly calling out anti-semitism in the same way Ann Coulter calls out treason.
“Anti-Semitism from the Left”
Now where is the anti-semitism among the naysayers. Aren’t there any valid reasons why someone might not want to support this resolution? You seem to think that’s not possible. What are your reasons for that strange idea?
Holly missed a not present vote fron arch conservative Duncan Jr. He is to the right of Jones and Paul and now opposes the Bush doctrine and our position in the ME. From his website:
IRAQ WAR IS AGAINST TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE POSITION
March 9, 2006
House of Representatives
Mr. Speaker, William F. Buckley has often been described as the godfather of modern-day conservatism. In 2004, he wrote that if he had known in 2002 what he now knew, that he would have opposed the war in Iraq. Last June, he wrote that if we stayed much longer there, it would soon become misapplication of pride rather than steadfastness of purpose. Now, in one of his most recent columns, Mr. Buckley wrote that, “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. “
Many conservatives said before this war started that it would mean massive foreign aid, huge deficit spending, and would place almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, when traditionally conservatives have been the biggest critics of the U.N.
The so-called neo-con architects of this unnecessary war have led people down a primrose path in the opposite direction of and very much against every traditional conservative position.
Oh, Holly doesn’t need any “reasons” just attack someone you don’t politically agree with with being anti-semitic or being a traitor or supporting terrorists. I guess this is what passes foro political discourse in some quarters these days. Disgracefull. It diminishes the insidiousness of true anti-semitism of which there is plenty. For example.
Another Holly issued fatwah.
Could it be that some people just don’t approve of innocent peoples being killed?
I’m of the belief that Hezbollah’s rocket launchers were all within 20-30 miles of Israel’s border. Not in Beirut, or roads and bridges in the extreme north, or at Beirut’s airport. The pitiful excuse that Hezbollah might use the bridges, or airport to whisk away the 2 IDF soldiers is assuming they need to use modern means to remove them at all. They might use a donkey cart, and high mountain pass, but that’d make sense and wouldn’t be a good target to bomb. This is punishment of the Lebanese people for not having a civil war to please Israel. It would take a civil war to remove Hezbollah, and I’m quite sure Israel still wouldn’t recognize, or help Lebanon after if they did that. So lets assume anyone not on board with bombing neighborhoods with people that have nothing to do with Hezbollah are anti-semitic. And I’ll assume those that are, are war loving monsters that get a boner from seeing dead Muslims since it’s only par for course.
Btw Holly, I’ve read your rants and believe you are defiantely anti-Muslim/anti-Arabic, all day, all the time. You only have to read between the lines to see the barely hidden seething hatred.
Again I feel it necessary to point out, as have others, that less than full-throated support for the actions of the Israeli government does not necessarily equate with anti-semitism.
The bill in question had rather more provisions than those regarding Israel’s right to self-defense (which to my mind is clearly inalienable).
Which language could well be construed as ratcheting up the rhetoric towards Syria, Iran and, any and all governments that have provided any support (humanitarian aid NOT excluded) to either Hamas or Hezbollah.
Now I’m not saying that I personally find the bill terribly objectionable, (though gosh, taking time away from those vital flag-burning and gay-bashing debates seems an incredible waste of Congress’ time) however I can easily see that a liberal, parsing words as finely as the admin is wont to, might find some of the language objectionable.
Which, again, to my mind, makes throwing about such hot-button terms as anti-semitic a tad irresponsible.
Summary of HR 921 here.
So liberal anti war activist in the US could not be supporting liberal anti war activist in Israel , noooo it has to be anti Semitism, that is the only possible answer.
And now Holly, a lesbian Jew, becomes just another Rethuglican tool…..
Oy vey.
I’ll be with you as you pull that “Râ€? lever, Holly!
There’s no doubt that most of the anti-Semitism today comes from the left. On the bright side though, the vast majority of Dems did vote for the resolution.
Holly, please explain how (in detail) “it’s NECESSARY for the USA to survive, let alone thrive.”
I’m not against Israel, I do believe it has a right to exist, but the unwavering support we’ve shown of late is inexplicable.
Thank you.
Actually, what’s interesting is where 3 of the 12 “no” votes came from – Michigan. Home of Dearborn, the largest Lebanese (and Arabic) community in America.
There’s no doubt that most of the anti-Semitism today comes from the left.
No, you’ve got anti-Semitism confused with treasonous anti-Americanism, which we all know does come from the left.
In my suburban “community”, we had swastikas spray-painted on garage doors over the week-end. Not likely this was the work of liberals.
I’m hoping we soon get to the point where charges of anti-semitism are the rhetorical equivalent to comparisons with Hitler. Whoever does it loses. Period.
“So liberal anti war activist in the US could not be supporting liberal anti war activist in Israel , noooo it has to be anti Semitism, that is the only possible answer.”
………………
I take it you are not at all familiar with what goes on at “anti-war” demonstrations. It’s not that the far left is opposed to war, its that it actually takes sides with the enemies of America and Israel. If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the photos from “peace” demonstrations. For example in London yesterday, the anti-Israel, pro-terrorist march consisted of speeches praising hezbollah, such as the one from george galloway, and chants like “hezbollah is here to stay, Zionism go away”, or something to that effect. These people are anything but anti-war, they are anti-American, anti-Israel and yes, anti-Semitic. Read the protester’s signs. They are in fact pro-war, and have clearly taken sides in the war against America and Israel.
“HAH! No Holly they decided to support THEIR OWN country instead.”
……………….
Really? How ironic a statement considering those Congressmen gave their tacit support to a terrorist group which has murdered hundreds of Americans. Have you forgotten the murder of 241 Marines, the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, hijackings of American airplanes, one in which resulted in the murder of navy diver Robert Stethem, among other atrocities? Tell me again that helping a hezbollah victory over Israel is in America’s interest.
These people are anything but anti-war, they are anti-American, anti-Israel and yes, anti-Semitic. Read the protester’s signs. They are in fact pro-war, and have clearly taken sides in the war against America and Israel.
Two problems here.
First, lets grant that they’re anti-American and anti-Isreal. Chances are this is true of many if not most of the people you’re talking about. Doesn’t mean they’re pro-war or anti-Semitic, not even if they are pro-hezbollah. Mostly means they haven’t accepted your view of hezbollah. Quite a large number of people in Israel’s neighborhood, people who aren’t themselves terrorists, haven’t accepted your view of hezbollah. A reasonable person would entertain the notion that maybe they know something about the situation you don’t, something you would be unlikely to know being exposed to predominantly pro-Israeli reporting and politicians. Something like that the allegedly surgical strikes are aruably brutal in a disturbingly indiscriminate way.
Second, even assuming for the sake of argument that everything you say about these people is true, it’s plainly unfair to generalize from these people to the left in general. That is, unless you equate hesitation to condemn them as tantamount to supporting them, which if you do so equate, makes you much the same as the relentlessly propagandizing right-wing demogogues who wave the bloody flag to silence the opposition and provoke as much war as they can get.
Israel was born under the gun. I’d hate to be them and I can’t claim that I’d do different if I were. It may not be humanly possible to do what they need to do to achieve a lasting peace, but it is unfortunately up to them, an unfair but inevitable burden, to make peace happen, because they have the most to lose.
I suspect those demonstrators lack the inclination to try to be fair to Isreal. Unfortunately for Israel, that disinclination doesn’t justify anything, and it’s pointless to keep insisting that opponents of Israel clean up their act, and even more so to accuse them of bigotry when they are likely guilty of nothing more than political opposition.
I’m shocked to see the narrow-mindedness of blaming anyone opposing the Israel actions with anti-semitism. And Laura’s words that speak of “taking sides with the enemies of Israel and USA” are complete and utter BS.
This shows that you do not judge this situation using your ratio but by the simple fact that there are allies and enemies. May I remind you that this is not a war we are in?
We should judge every situation by itself. We may side with Israel on most occasions because that seems fair to us but if Israel is out of line and -hypothetically speaking- bombs the heck out of innocent people, then we should stand up and take action for the sake of justice.
Yes, I too have sympathy for Israel in most conflicts because my rational judgment tells me to, but we should not be blinded by ignorance and choose sides, unconditionally.
Is this a joke? Anyone who’s been following the history of this conflict understands that Israel is not “defending itself” and merely not supporting this resolution isn’t tantamount to anti-semitism.
Let’s pretend this same resolution were being debated, except instead of Israel, it was in support of the Palestinians right to defend themselves. Would anyone support that?
holly,
do you know the definitions and differences of the words anti-semite and anti-zionists? your writings and therefore your thinking show you don’t and it’s embarrassing and frustrating reading your ignorance.
joe,
would you allow an anti-semite to co-blog on your site? how about other extremes?
Clint, good point. Is anyone supporting Israel in this conflict by definition anti-Muslim? I suppose so, according to Holly.
True. However; I don’t believe Israel is crossing the line at this point of time.
That’s why it was a hypothesis
Ok…now that we got all that anti-semitism idiocy cleared up, Holly/Laura would you like to present a rational argument as to why one should not believe that Israel’s actions are ultimately self-defeating creating far more terrorists throughout the Muslim world than they could ever hope to eliminate? Didn’t they learn their lesson in Lebannon where their very actions created the dreaded Hezbolla? Present your intellectual arguments Holly/Laura and we’ll have a nice civil debate, but when you hurl vicious and unfounded insults at those that don’t share your very narrow view of the world you lose all right to be taken seriously.
I know, just wanted to emphasize that before people would deliberately or not, use it in a different way than you intentioned it to be.
Joe Albanese: the error I think you are making is that Hizbullah will go away if Israel wouldn’t do anything anymore. That is not true. Instead, Israel withdraw from Lebanon six years ago already. Did Hizbullah’s power become less? Did it stop fighting? Did less people become members of Hizbullah after Israel withdrew from Lebanese soil?
The question to those answers is “no”.
You see, these people are not fighting to liberate their country (how can they, there is nothing to liberate it from). They fight because they want to destroy Israel completely.
Israel’s withdrawel from Gaza (although that’s about Hamas of course, the principle stays the same) was intended to be a step towards a lasting peace. It would have shown the Palestinians that Israel was willing to withdraw and let the Palestinians live in peace.
However; at the moment Israel withdrew, palestinian terrorist organizations began using the abandoned areas to fire rockets at Israel from (on a daily basis).
Hamas leaders have said it themselves that they considered Israel’s withdrawel to be a sign that terrorism works.
Other terrorist organizations understood that lesson as well and got even more aggressive due to it.
Do you know why they keep on kidnapping Israeli soldiers? BEcause it worked in the past.
No, Israel must simply deal with Hizbullah.
The Lebanese government was instructed by the UN – the International Community demanded it of Lebanon – to disarm Hizbullah and regain control over it’s entire territory. Lebanon did not do so. It failed (heck, it didn’t even try).
Now, because the Lebanese government didn’t do what was demanded of it, Israel must do it.
Michael- Yes, its true that the Lebanese government did not suppress Hezbollah-but from what I’ve read they lack the strength and resources to do so. Its sort of like saying that Maliki deserves to be attacked because he hasn’t been able to keep the insurgency under control in Iraq. Hezbollah is the biggest terrorist organization in the world-sponsored by Iran and Syria.It is bigger and better funded than Al Queda.
I don’t believe that the U.S. provided much support to the fledgling democracy in Lebanon. If we can see that unbridled U.S.support is necessary for democracy to succeed in Iraq (and is a tall order even with our support) how can we expect the Lebanese government to control Hezbollah all on its own?
Not helping the situation is the fact that Hezbollah has done in Lebanon what Hamas has done in Palestine-won the hearts and minds of the people. They have built hospitals and schools and provided social services to the populace. If we expect to win the war on terror why do we not actually help provide these things? Or is winning hearts and minds just more Bushie rhetoric?
Kim, the thing is that if the Lebanese government couldn’t do it herself, she could have asked the international community to help out. Lebanon did not, at all, have to do it all alone. There were other countries who were willing to help.
Why didn’t the Lebanese government simply ask for help? That would have actually given the impression to everyone that she was willing to do what resolution 1559 demanded of her.
My guess is that she simply wasn’t that dedicated to it. Which might be understandable to a degree, but understandable doesn’t equal ‘the right decision’.
Also: I agree that Israel cannot simply bomb the heck out of Lebanon, but Israel is not doing that either. If Israel wanted to, her soldiers could be walking on the streets of Beirut by now. She doesn’t want that, it’s not her goal, not at all.
I saw an interview with foreign ministry spokesman Mark … something don’t remember last name at CNN. He confirmed what I thought: Israel will attempt to destroy Hizbullah, or at least severely weaken it and remove it from the southern Lebanese border (thus remove the threat to Israel), after that she wants international forces to step in and make sure Hizbullah isn’t able to return. In the long run the hope of Israel is that Lebanon will be able to send sufficient troops to the border to take it over from the multi-national forces.
That’s the plan and I find it difficult to disagree with it.
Via Wikipedia
But thats not bombing the heck out of something?
Why is it that the Right and the pro-Israel crowd keep telling us about UN resolution 1559. There is over scores of UN resolutions that both Democratic and Republican UN ambassadors have vetoed for Israel’s benefit, The US is fast approaching the veto record of the USSR for vetos. And why not a cease fire in Lebanon, start negotiations and end hostilities. The US is siding with Israel and turning a blind eye on Lebanon. If a cease fire was put in place today my guess is that Hebelloh would be the first to break the cease fire. This would allow Israel to claim the PR advantage instead of bombing Lebanon back to pre-1982.
I agree that Israel cannot simply bomb the heck out of Lebanon, but Israel is not doing that either. If Israel wanted to, her soldiers could be walking on the streets of Beirut by now. She doesn’t want that, it’s not her goal, not at all.
Israel trops would be about as welcome and safe as US reporters and tropps in Baghdad.
Antisemitism from the left. Antisemitism from the right. Antisemitism from the middle.
Criticism Criticism Criticism Criticism Criticism
Its like noone is entitled to their own personal opinions anymore without being crucified for having them, by somebody else.
From my center seat I can see that both sides to the issue have some degrees of merit….neither side right or wrong except the actual parties involved, the Israli’s and their Arab neighbors that refuse to sit and negotiate, haven’t yet discovered that two wrongs don’t make a right and both using battle as first, not last choice at their equally spiteful “you did me so I do you more” leisure, repeat ad infinitum, until all hell breaks loose and gets everyone else involved in their mess.
But thats the bullshit professions and effects of nationalism, “globalness” and global thinking…every nation sticking their noses into every other nation’s everything.
While still living in the country, I had a neighbor that had a doberman pincer that jumped my four foot high chain link fence and killed one of my stud/show toy poodles worth and insured for $8000.00.
I suppose as first choice I could have shot my neighbors dog, I was more than pissed, even shot the neighbor, he was an asshole, but I didn’t.
I resolved the issue by suing him for damages, winning enough to heighten my 468 foot long fence to eight feet, electrify it with 24 volt 100 amp DC, and afterward ignored both him and his dog except for every time I caught him or his agressive dog touching the fence at which time I turned the electricity on the fence on…then I laughed my butt off. After he complained to the county sheriff about my juiced up fence all the sheriff did was tell him to keep himself and dog away from the fence or be cited for trespassing. I made sure when I had the fence built, that it was 24″ inside my property line.
These charges of anti-semitism remind me of the charges of racism leveled against Republicans when they didn’t want to support voting a voting rights act in which some provisions were no longer necessary. They remind me of charges of people who stood up for our First Amendment rights being anti-American because they voted against a flag burning amendment. I could go on but hopefully people get the idea.
It’s easy to look at one’s vote on something, not looking deep into the legislation or the reasoning behind one’s vote and throw out names. It’s much harder to pour over the legislation as well as the reasoning behind every vote for and against the legislation and gain a true understanding of why the votes were cast as they were. Once again, it’s sad that the anti-semitism stone has been cast so quickly and without looking deeply for the real reason the votes were cast as they were.
Ryan, exactly my point. To ascribe the most vile motives for the other side is what the left and right do to each other, this is not where moderates need to be. It was wrong to describe Republicans as racists, and Democrats as anti-Semites.
Need I say more?
” I agree that Israel cannot simply bomb the heck out of Lebanon, but Israel is not doing that either.”
Michael, when this is all over you are going to have retract this statement because you apparently aren’t paying attention, or are so biased reality is escaping you.
Holly, as a long time reader of TMV, I’ve enjoyed this site because while I don’t agree with all of the views and arguments posted, they are generally very well thought out and reasonable.
IMHO, your posts: are emotionally charged, use language very loosely, and routinely fail to demostrate solid analytical thinking.
You need to kick it up a notch if your posts are going to keep up with the well thought out posts of your co-bloggers.
I Agree with Gray62
I noticed that a number of the names are congressional black caucus members.
Voting “no”
John Conyers (D., Mich.)
John Dingell (D., Mich.)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D., Mich.)
Voting “present”
Barbara Lee (D., Calif.)
Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)
I’m not sure if you can equate anti-semitism with the vote these respected legislators made. I know they have very valid reasons why they voted no or present regarding the resolution. I know they support Israels right to defend itself, yet I’m sure like many Americans they are very uncomfortable with the destruction hospitals, homes, libraries, radio and TV outlets, power plants, bridges, other infrastructure, and most importantly the killing of women, children, elderly and non-combatants civilians in order to uproot Hizbullah, is like Israel creating a trail of tears for the Lebanese people. As Pyst wrote, Could it be that some people just don’t approve of innocent peoples being killed?
Chippedchips, that was an excellent story! You made me laugh. We need some laughter after talking all this serious stuff.
There is a history of anti-Semitism on the left going back to the early French utopian socialists and continuing through the anarchist, democratic and revolutionary socialist movements to the contemporary left. In other words, left-wing anti-Semitism far predates the foundation of the state of Israel. I high recommend reading David Cesarani’s “The Left and the Jews/ The Jews and the Left� (London: Profile 2004). I don’t have a url at hand but it is available on the Internet.
jjc writes:
“In my suburban “community”, we had swastikas spray-painted on garage doors over the week-end. Not likely this was the work of liberals.â€?
I concur. It was most likely the work of clueless kids, wannabe fascists, or some combination of the two.
However, next time you are at an anti-war rally or next time you visit a pro-Palestinian website—if you do that sort of thing—take a look at who is carrying the posters equating the star of David with the swastika. The fact of the matter is it is the Islamists and the far left, not liberals, who are using anti-Semitic rhetoric and images these days. Again, to be clear, I’m not talking about Democrats I am talking about the far left.
Many left-wingers are parroting the claims of left-wing public intellectuals who state that supporters of Israel (Zionists) condemn any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. What matters is the nature the critique. Is Israel held up to a double standard? Are anti-Semitic tropes and caricatures used in left-wing media? etc.
TMV tries to obscure things by bringing up the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism because it denies Jewish people the right to self-determination while. Leftist anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic because they deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination while supporting the struggles of every other ethnic and religious minority on the planet.
Anti-Zionism is unique in that it is directed against Jews who live as a democratic nation in Israel, seeking to undermine and destroy the legitimacy and legality of the Jewish State and all communal Jewish national activity. To a certain extent this is a discrimination of Jews qua Jews.
Besides Israel and Zionism I am not aware of a single case in leftist ideology where the self-determination of a people has been achieved and the left wishes to cancel it. But, if you do not view Jews as a “people� it makes it easier to deny them a national home.
Zionism, with all its faults, is held to be a legitimate political aspiration by most Jews and as racism, colonialism, and fascism by most of the organized far left. Given this context, it is extremely unlikely that the radical left will reassess their position on Zionism. Either the radical left will need to abandon their formulation that Zionism equals fascism and racism or Jews will have to accept it. Neither is likely to happen in the near future.
My understanding of the unfortunate strain of anti-Semitism running through various left-wing ideologies comes from studying the intellectual and social history of leftist movements in Europe, Latin America and the United States for the past 15 years or so and seriously examining anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on the left for about five. Over the past two decades I’ve been on both sides of the debate regarding whether anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism and have concluded that anti-Zionist anti-Semitism derives from its ideological foundations in the revolutionary socialist movement.
In the contemporary context, much of the leadership of the alphabet soup left: ANSWER, ISO, UFPJ, SWP, etc. were politically educated during the heyday of the New Left when the widespread adoption of a synthesis of revolutionary “third-worldist� ideology combined with elements of pan-Arab and black nationalism was in vogue. This ideological posturing—in addition to some particularly nasty “direct actions� and statements made in leftist and black nationalist organs about Jews and Israel—distanced liberals in generral, and Jews in particular, from the radical left. It also spurred some radical leftists to leave the left for good. Some shifted towards liberal centrism others neo-conservatism.
A similar process is occurring today. At this point my evidence is anecdotal but the explicit anti-Semitism and affinity among large sections of the organized far left for Islamist terrorism combined with the impact of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 and subsequent bombings in London has led liberals in general, and Jews in particular to reconsider their relationship to and with the radical left. We’re beginning to see some movement in this direction in the UK with the establishment of Communities United Against Terror (http://www.unite-against-terror.com/) and the Euston Manifesto. It would be encouraging to see similar endeavors emanating from the United States and elsewhere.
People on the far left make an error is in assuming that Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah are concerned with self-determination. They are not. Evan Daniel, reviewing Efraim Karsh’s “Islamic Imperialism: A History� has this to say:
http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=32
“After independence, and amid increasing terrorism from secular nationalist and Marxist organisations, including Fattah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, successive Israeli governments ignored the danger posed by the Islamists of Hamas in the hope that they would pull support from the other radical groups. This proved disastrous. As Hamas’ militancy earned it increased support during the First Intifada of the 1980s, the organisation’s grip in the Occupied Territories deepened due to the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. However, the nature of Hamas is often misunderstood. Unlike the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Hamas is neither the embodiment of pan-Arab aspirations nor of Palestinian self-determination. It is not a political movement for national liberation that contains an armed wing. Hamas has articulated the far broader goal of establishing a global Islamist empire. This is in line with it’s ideological parent organisation, ‘which viewed its violent opposition to Zionism from the 1930s and 1940s as an integral part of the Manichean struggle for the creation of a worldwide caliphate rather than the defence of the Palestinian Arabs’ national rights’ (p. 213-4). According to Karsh, for Hamas, the issue of Palestine is ‘neither an ordinary territorial dispute between two national movements not a struggle by an indigenous population against a foreign occupier. It is a holy war by the worldwide Islamic umma to present the loss of a part of the House of Islam to the infidels’ (p. 214).â€?
Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism.
“Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism.”
I think most people–Jews included–would agree with you. Even Abe Foxman at the Anti-Defamation League agrees with you.
As I wrote above:
“What matters is the nature the critique. Is Israel held up to a double standard? Are anti-Semitic tropes and caricatures used in left-wing media? etc.”
A brilliant synopsis. However I have one question concerning a portion of your post
Wevs1 said :
Over the past two decades I’ve been on both sides of the debate regarding whether anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism and have concluded that anti-Zionist anti-Semitism derives from its ideological foundations in the revolutionary socialist movement.
Do you conclude this is a result of the inherent antipathy revolutionary Socialist have with religion? (“Religion is the opiate of the masses ” Karl Marx) But how or why did this evolve when much of Zionism is secular?
And how odd that they should find themselves in agreement with Orthodox Jews .