Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic?

Wait, what book did I recommend?

Bullshit. You know that's bullshit. And as Chilli would put it-- all of "libcom's regular poster"s know that's bullshit.

"of a labour leader likening Israelis to Nazi sympathisers"

So at least we now have a partial answer-- the same answer that the pro-Israel factions give-- that it's anti-semitic, or at least trivializing anti-semitism, to compare Israel's actions to those of Nazis-- despite the use of collective punishment, assassinations, destruction of civilian areas, use of chemical weapons-- yeah white phosphorous is a chemical--, interdiction of medical supplies.

And when members of the Knesset endorse camps for Palestinians "somewhere in the desert" until Israel can figure out what to do with them.... oh that's not Nazi like, and that's not even a real indication of what is intrinsic and inevitable in Zionism, and Israel. Nope, don't try and trivialize anti-semitism by pointing out how Israel adopts and adapts the programs of the anti-semites.

If that pisses you off, then let me throw this into the mix: If Hitler were in power today, the Israelis would be selling him ovens and using the proceeds to buy white phosphorous from I.G. Farben.

Sure thing, and inflicts what % of the damage on Israelis that the Israelis inflict on the Palestinians? And does so in the face of continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territory; continued denial of water rights to those in the occupied territory; continued interruption of vital supplies to a civilian population. Because our "anti-semites" do all those things like.....the Algerians did to the French colonialists, the armed struggle wing of the ANC did to the whites in South Africa... ? If only those Algerians had changed their discourse, there could have been a peaceful resolution of the conflict....

Fucking priceless-- obsessing about 'this single issue'-- right, oh yeah, that's what all the left does, abstract Zionism from the world as a whole, from all its connections to reaction in the world; making it out as if only Zionism exists-- right like there really isn't capitalism at all-- only Zionism. What bullshit. And to call the opposition to settler capitalism, to fucking apartheid like treatment of a population an "obsession"-- yeah you sure got a good grip on what's healthy and what's a pathology. Sure thing, because all those on that left "saturated" with anti- Zionism aren't ever concerned with things like austerity, increased rates of poverty, unemployment, lay-offs, militarism...

And still you don't have the spine to answer the direct questions directly. Quickest way to shut up an ideologue is to ask him or her to answer a concrete question.

Nice to see, Malva, that you no longer wish to pursue the assertion that I mis-characterize what you said in the earlier posts.

My apologies Chilli-- I meant to direct that to Reddebrek,

You had an answer already. No one on here thinks that anyone has the right to erect a state and to assert ethnic authority over any piece of land. What you object to is the fact that I don't want to play your stupid little game of focusing on Israel above all other states that do just that.

Really? perhaps you should try to be more coherent, if you genuinely want answers to your questions, because that's just a big jumble of words. My reading comprehension isn't very good after all.

Sorry if I come across as controversial but it is my personal opinion that every one of us that has posted a comment on this topic of discussion is of one mind. We all look forward to the overthrow of the Israeli/Palestinian bourgeoisie by it's united working class; and for this shaking off of bourgeois social relations to be reproduced globally.

Never mind what the British Labour Party or the left-wing generally say! Let the dead bury the dead!

This is too gilb, since it ignores both the specifics of the situation and the difference of opinions on this specifics. For instance, there's a thesis that states that the peculiar nature of Israeli state makes the grand majority of Israeli Jews either capitalistic or a reactionary (settler colonialist) subsection of working class that is, in the whole, unable to be revolutionary. Obviously, the disagreement between this and the opposing views - e.g. that the "settler" property of Jewish-Israeli working class is not an insurmountable obstacle to its revolutionary potential, or that it doesn't possess any particular "settler property" at all relative to many, if not most, other states - can't be solved by your method.

Where has that thesis been proposed in this thread?

Just a couple of obvious things:

Malva wrote:

Schmoopie wrote:

So is the rightward lurch just reality now, and the Labour party is part of the left? I wasn't aware that the labour party ws part of 'social opposition to capitalism,' when did that happen, I need to start watching TV again. Or maybe this 'left wing of capital' stuff has been dealt with already on the thread? - I haven't really been paying attention since it became obvious that people were just reactively popping up to defend their trenches and then refusing to engage with questions.

S. Artesian wrote:

It's reminiscent of the old notion which came up again earlier that the student movement in the US somehow stopped the Vietnam war. Wank-wank.

Bit of light relief

This is why the American Indian Movement gets no support. Cop a walk!

Rurkel:

I concede that the action of the working class inside Israel proper and the action to be taken by the working class inside the Palestinian Territories may take different forms; rebellion in the former will likely take the form of mass desertion from the armed forces, whilst in the latter it will take the form of a general strike and mass movement across the 'borders' of divided Palestine. This scenario presupposes a seachange in the balance of forces between the classes worldwide.

Rurkel:

These are not opinions that have been expressed in this discussion and properly not as this is a communist forum, not a glib bourgeois one.

A little more light relief:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18FCFMUcO6Y

Settle!

In case you had forgotten this entire discussion began as a reaction to the accusations of Antisemitism aimed at the Labour Party. I don't vote and I've never voted Labour. I have never said that it in anyway embodies social opposition to capitalism. However, to claim that the Labour Party is not part of the Left in any normative sense is just bad faith.

Please tell me how demanding that social movements against Israel's treatment of Palestinians not be Antisemitic is the same as claiming that protest movements ended the war in Vietnam. I'd love to see your logic.

Edit: I'd rather speak of social movements against 'Israel's treatment of Palestinians' more generally as I'm not particularly interested in the legality of the competing claims of different nationalisms.

Not so. The OP and subsequent posts, up to #17, were exclusively about whether or not anti-Zionism was an expression of anti-semitism. Then there were a couple of posts about the recent actions of the Labor Party member, and then the discussion went right into anti-semitism connected to anti-Zionism on the left.

She/He's arguing that your notion that "changing the discourse" and using different language to criticize US/Israel actions will facilitate a "peaceful resolution of the conflict" disregards the actual forces at work in the conflict and how those forces resolve themselves, this matter akin to arguing that anti-war protests in the US so undermined the US military that it could not achieve its military goals, thus ignoring the actual battlefield itself, and the successful strategy of the NVA and the NLF.

Both "assertions" might be charitably described as "idealistic."

I hadn't realised that my original wording of 'help to aid in' was synonymous in English with 'panacea for'. Thank you for enlightening me. I equally hadn't realised that, all the while I thought I was arguing against Antisemitism, I had inadvertently been arguing that people simply needed to speak to each other nicely and 'give peace a chance'. /s

I've made my position clear to you. I think that there is Antisemitism on the left. I think it is a problem. You clearly don't. The fact that you are unwilling to even allow the possibility of such a reality, well, that really is the end of the thread for me. The rest is bluster.

Admittedly, SA did say there is anti-semitism in the anti-Zionist movement, just that it's no more or less than anywhere else. Though it is noticeable he hasn't provided any other examples of movements whose demonstrations regularly feature anti-semitic placards and the waving of flags of anti-semitic groups..

Anyway, I've really enjoyed this thread. My personal highlight has been S. Artesian's switch from "So is Cynthia McKinney anti-semitic?" to "It doesn't matter if she's anti-semitic, I'll defend her... like the Nation of Islam!".. lol, ok mate.. at least you can sing the blues..

Or round here, regularly end up outside three of the city's four synagogues, which are clustered around a square demonstrations virtually never otherwise go to.

.

Happy to be of service, Ed. Except I never said that it doesn't matter if she's anti-semitic. I said I'd defend Cynthia McKinney from the likes of AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby because her anti-semitism, real or imagined, has nothing to do with the AIPAC and pro-Israel attack; like I'd defend anti-semitic black people and the NOI during Watts from attacks by the state police and white terrorist National Guard attacks, because the anti-semitism has nothing to do with the police and racist attacks; like I'd defend those who don't like Jews but are crewing ships to bring supplies to Gaza from attacks by the IDF, because the like or dislike of Jews has absolutely nothing to do with the reason for the attacks, or the actions being taken that produce the attacks.

Makes me an anti-semite? Sure thing. Just as much as your refusal makes you a racist, or a supporter of the police, or a zionist.

Or, alternatively, makes me a trivializer of anti-semitism? Sure thing. Just as much as your your refusals make you a trivializer of racism, of police repression, of zionism.

Clearly, there's a lot you don't realize about the meaning of what you say. You did say that changing the discourse would facilitate a "peaceful resolution" of this conflict. Please tell me how that works? Did it work after 1993, the period initiated by the Oslo negotiations, when discourse was clearly "milder" prior to the 2nd Intifada?

Or did the economics of settler-capitalism both trigger the attempt at accommodation, and then, overwhelm the possibility of accommodation by the reaction of the settler-capitalists themselves?

Well, yes, you've made it clear that's what you think, but you haven't provided evidence. You provided evidence regarding the views held by the French population. Unless and until you show those views are a result of, or are manifest in, the actions of the left in France, you have an unsupported hypothesis.

I have an alternate explanation-- the numbers of French people admitting to anti-semitism is conditioned by the history of France, irregardless of the actions of the left. Large numbers of French people have held anti-semitic views for centuries. They've even acted upon them. Those views, and actions, have not been shown to have anything to do with pro-Zionism or anti-Zionism, but everything to do with the historical enmity of the French petty-bourgeoisie towards Jews.

Malva wrote:

Normative is a slippery little word at the best of times so just to be clear: Are you saying that I should be claiming that the Labour Party is part of the left on ethical - as opposed to purely descriptive - grounds, if I want to avoid the ignominy of being accused of that other vacuous and lazy little ambiguity 'bad faith'? - in other words: you didn't really like what I wrote? Or are you saying that Labour are part of the left in some culturally normative sense? If so, then I'm sorry that I don't partake of 'the' culture in the same way you do. Since when, for example, did the left include the right? Since when did UK parliamentary politics encompass anything other than two right wings?

But you did say 'of obsessing about this single issue as if it were the be all and end all of social opposition to capitalism, and so on,' having just finished within the same paragraph describing actions by members of the Labour party which you found objectionable: 'If none of these 'concrete' actions are a problem for you then clearly there is indeed no empirical evidence of Antisemitism on the left!' Forgive me if I misinterpreted your intention, or perhaps this was just more 'bad faith' on my part, or yours?

You can find anti-semitic placards in any left-wing demonstration (or non-left demonstration). Look at any right-wing blog that monitors these things (zombietime's old stuff comes to mind). Occupy Wall Street was endorsed by the American Nazi Party. Not irreverent, but neither emblematic of some sort of "saturation."

"Anti-semitic groups" just seems like a code word for Arab in this conversation. Your not going to find too many groups that think that Jewish colonialism is ok.

To answer your question about examples of movements:

Zionism: The Christian wing of zionism has a an anti-semitic logic to it (as does zionism itself really) and theres plenty of anti-semetic tropes popular amongst the membership/leadership of the organizations that make it up. Jewish colonists where the main sponsors of the Nazi-inspired Phalanges during Israels occupation of Lebanon, had a close relationship with anti-semite and fascist collaborator Sadat, are the main financial backers of Abu Mazen today (who has a history of anti-semetic words and actions), and are one of the main sponsors of anti-semitic Al-Qaeda in regions near the border with Syria today.

You could use guilt by association to do the same thing for any ideology, movement, or country. As is done regularly.

Libcom was pretty sympathetic to the Syrian Revolution in 2011 (incidentally another European colonial movement, judging by its use of the mandate flag) until limits to Western power made it an unviable project. Plenty of anti-semetic groups, supporters, etc there.

teh, it's late in the day and I'm about done with this thread but this comment really irked me:

I think I've been pretty clear that by anti-semitic groups I mean Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that have anti-semitism encoded into their constitutions (Hamas even reference the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!). I've got no problem with people waving PFLP or Fatah flags (I mean, I don't like either but they're not, as far as I know, anti-semites) or other Arab groups that regularly turn up at pro-Palestine demos. I think I've been very clear that being against Israel is not anti-semitic. I really don't know what gave you the idea that 'anti-semitic groups' just meant 'Arab groups', unless you think all Arab groups hate Jews (as opposed to just hating Zionism).

Re: movements. I meant progressive movements (otherwise we could just say Nazism or Islamic fundamentalism!). Your point about Occupy Wall Street is actually pretty good, there were really strong undercurrents of anti-semitism there as well (not just in the US but UK as well).

.. so what do you think of Shlomo Sand Ed? Answers on a postcard to 'The Temple to the Great God 'The Holocaust'', Argument Close, The New Metaphysics for the Masses Avenue, Gaza.

Anyone who hasn't read it yet can find The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering here for free.

Dont understand your distinction between PFLP/Fatah and Hamas/Hezbollah here. Rhetoric about 'Hamas charter' is just a rehash of the 'PLO charter' controversy before Oslo. Dont necessarily agree with him but its worth noting Chomskys comments on it:

Again dont necessarily agree with him. In addition Hamas is now funded by US potentates in the Gulf (all very anti-semitic) so its only two or three steps away from going the route of Fatah. The Hamas/Hezbollah grouping (ie Iranian backed groups) is dated. Ive already noted the past public anti-semitism of Fatah leader Abu Mazen.

PFLP, on the other hand, is funded by Iran, which funds Yemens Houthis, whose anti-semitism goes beyond general anti-semitic tropes and is extreme in the European meaning of anti-semitism. PFLP is also currently engaged in joint armed struggle with Hezbollah in Syria, so you've inadvertently come to S. Artesian position re critically joining with Nation of Islam in the Los Angeles rebellion.

Also if PFLP/Fatah engaged/engage in terrorism and the object of their armed struggle is Jewish wouldnt that make them anti-semitic? I would lean towards no, but the vast majority of Jews certainly wouldn't (and western christians for that matter). PFLPs hijacking of Air France to Uganda was particularly notorious, more recently PFLP murdered four Jewish Anglo colonists in Israel as they were praying (I should note these various acts of murder were pretty regular for anti-colonial movements in Africa,Asia,and L.A. and its only because they failed to a greater extent in MidEast that they stick out in public memory).

Well Hamas and Hezbollah are Arab and they are the most effective anti-Israeli forces. Your counter examples, Fatah, is obsequious and pro-colonial, and, PFLP, is irrelevant to the point of being considered harmless by outsiders.

Reason I brought it up though is because the French anti-semitic stats which were posted earlier. If these ADL statistics are correct (and these global polls are always questionable but Ill take it as is) then the majoriy of Middle Easterners hold anti-semitic views http://global100.adl.org/#map . Of course believing in anti-semitic tropes doesnt mean you hate jews as other public polling shows: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/02/faith-in-european-project-reviving/e... .

But if anti-semitism is not greater in Zionism then anti-Zionism then why single the latter out, especially if anti-semitism is as marginal as Nazism or Islamic fundamentalism is in the United Kingdom (start of the thread)? Dont think the goals of most anti-zionism is generally "progressive" (from a left view). Most of these groups are (liberal) nationalists who think Israel is a liability to their states self-interest and they want a South Africa solution where the Palestinian elite is integrated (albeit in a separate but equal fashion) into the "international community." The rise of the Israeli "right" is also offensive to them because the latter is seen as moving away culturally from the "european" Israel of the last century to something Oriental and ungentile.

Point is if you dont want to be associated with shady people you should march alone. But sectarianism of this sort is generally frowned upon, for some reason. Guilt by association inevitably comes otherwise. FBI front group posted above SLPC does it all the time for right-wingers but it could easily be done to the left as well.

Factvalue, the quote attributed to Einstein (incidentally, whilst in Israel I worked alongside a man named Sella who told me that he was Einstein's brother but I suspect he was lost in mysticism) is in fact falsely attributed to him.

Albert Einstein, 1929

Albert Einstein, 1938

Apologies for jumping back into this thread rather late and only quickly running through the more recent contributions but I thought this discussion was useful in helping me to clarify some of the issues even if that had to involve some temporary misunderstandings and irritability and a diversionary argument on definitions of 'the Left'. I wanted to say earlier that it struck me that, for instance, both Ed's and S.Artesian's contributions demonstrated that both were equally opposed to anti-Semitism in principle but were disagreeing more about strategy and tactics in relation to the practical effects of social movements that oppose the actions of the Israeli state and it's Zionist ideology, though it does seem to me that SA concedes too much to expressions of anti-Semitism (and indeed nationalism) within those social movements on a simplistic 'which side are you on' basis in any immediately critical confrontation, as others have suggested. What we say and what we do has to be consistent in our practice - or at least aimed at being so.