Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic?

438 posts / 0 new
Last post
factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
May 18 2016 19:42

Along with Hannah Arendt, Stefan Wolpe and others, Einstein in a letter to the New York Times (December 4, 1948), condemned the Likud party of Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir as “fascist” and espousing “an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority.”

Rachel
Offline
Joined: 18-07-09
May 18 2016 23:06

Thank you Malva and Ed and a few others for some thoughtful comments and for taking this seriously. I missed the moment to come in with my experiences and examples and perhaps I wouldn't have, but sadly I do think anti semitism or anti Jewish bigotry, mixed up with and sometimes disguised by anti-zionism, is a real problem on the left. I've come to this reluctantly and I find it hard to talk about or even think about it, because it's so full of traps; e.g. I don't want to align with many of the other people who are attuned to it or involved in 'rooting it out' i.e. people who genuinely do want to redefine anti-semitism to include any criticism of Israel. But I also find I want less and less to do with the left that can't see the problem.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
May 20 2016 16:52

The problem I had with this thread is the usual one of separating bullshit from reality because any time Israel starts feeling some heat invariably 'a media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is immediately mounted'.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
May 20 2016 17:02

Sure anti-Semitism is misused, but that doesn't change the fact that it does exist and is alive and well, however unconsciously it may be for some, on the left.

That book is great btw. I also recommend it together with his earlier Holocaust Industry book.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
May 20 2016 18:02

I agree, and would add that the misuse of antisemitism is both consciously and unconsciously used to intimidate and distract respectively by people of all political persuasions.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 10 2016 19:54

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 21:30

On the latest version of the 'new anti-semitism'.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 21:59

A much more extensive demolition of the latest round of claims for the rise of a 'new anti-semitism' can be found here.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 11 2016 22:35

It's not a demolition though, is it. Links to Norman Finkelstein on YouTube isn't really proof of anything, apart from what Norman Finkelstein thinks and I really can't be arsed watching. Why do you think ťhat claims of a recent rise in anti-semitism are unfounded? Make your case.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 22:41

If I'm going to be arsed to reply (it wouldn't be 'til the morning) then tell me, do you think they are well-founded and on what?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 22:46

... on the other hand, if you haven't watched it how do you know it isn't a demolition? Why would you do that, eh?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 11 2016 22:47

I'm not the one making the claim here about the rise in anti-semitism being unfounded. You are. So surely the onus is on you to support that view. Expecting us to sit through a couple of hours (which we'll never get back) watching Finkelstein is just sloppy.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 22:59

It's a wee bit spooky that you think that's sloppy as you insist that others do all your research for you while dismissing an extremely well-researched presentation without even having seen it.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 11 2016 23:13

What I'm saying is, state your case and construct an argument. Don't just provide links to a two hour video of some professor with an agenda and whose research methods are in themselves seen as controversial - and (even though he may occasionally hit the spot) somewhat one-sided. Expecting us to construct your argument for you is what's sloppy. Come on, pull your finger out and do some work.

Zeronowhere
Offline
Joined: 5-03-09
Jun 11 2016 23:33

They were basically describing that video as a 'demolition' of claims of a 'new anti-Semitism' in a general social context. They weren't claiming that they had given the talks which they called a 'demolition,' so as they say if you're saying that it's not a demolition, then that's an issue with Finkelstein, not something that 'Factvalue' can change in that case. They are citing something relevant to this topic, not claiming to enact a 'demolition' on their own part. This whole discussion seems to be attributing to them something that they never said in order to turn the focus back on them, which overall movement seems common here and has also happened to 'Sleeper,' in a more casual context, among others.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 11 2016 23:29

'Seen as controversial' by who? Vague phraseology to suggest objectivity is not helpful. You might at least show me the sources you're relying on to insist on the unreliability of this researcher. Watch the presentation and let me know your thoughts or don't if you can't be arsed. But if that's the case then you have nothing to say about it, so what's this about?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 12 2016 00:17

Controversial by who? Right, you don't seem to know much about the research or researcher you're touting. Or you don't find him controversial. Obviously he's controversial to the pro-Zionist lobby but also controversial to anyone not just ticking off a generic anti-imperialist checklist. Shit, you've lured me out now and I made some comments on what I know about Finkelstein to fill the spaces you left. Clever. Now, Finkelstein aside, if you think recent claims of anti-semitism are over rated, please explain your reasons rather than linking to a two hour video of someone I'm familiar with. Show us your working. Obviously, if you don't think this, then forget about it.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 01:15

Sorry, controversial 'to anyone not just ticking off a generic anti-imperialist checklist'? And 'the spaces you left. Clever' Again, eh? There is no 'Finkelstein aside', my post was entirely about asking people to listen to the Finkelstein talk (which takes up about an hour, the second hour being Q and A). I do indeed think the recent round of 'new anti-semitism' claims is massively exaggerated, for the reasons given in Finkelstein's talk and also in his Beyond Chutzpah - where as you may know he demonstrates that the 'evidence of a new anti-Semitism comes mostly from organizations directly or indirectly linked to Israel or having a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism,' such as American Jewish organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center and their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere. Such sources would like us to believe that e.g. reading Finkelstein is evidence of anti-semitism: 'The annual reports of Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism serve as a major source of data and analysis. Its 2000–2001 Antisemitism Worldwide survey highlighted this ominous development: “Prof. Norman Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry, [was] enthusiastically welcomed, especially in Germany, and by the extreme right in particular. . . . His arguments, even though completely refuted by serious researchers and publicists, have rekindled the image of the manipulative, greedy, power-hungry Jew.” None of these refutations is cited, perhaps because none exist; Raul Hilberg (the world expert on the Nazi holocaust) did praise the book’s key findings as a “breakthrough.”'

I think that genuine spikes in anti-semitism occur concurrently with public revulsion with massacres carried out by the Jewish state and that Israel could prevent these by giving up both the massacres and the exclusivity (I'm none too fond of states and religions tbh). Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities'. In the words of (the unbalanced) Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry 'With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, alluring prospects opened up in the former heartland of European Jewry. Cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of "needy Holocaust victims," the Holocaust industry has sought to extort billions of dollars from these already impoverished countries. Pursuing this end with reckless and ruthless abandon, it has become the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe.

The Holocaust industry has positioned itself as the sole legitimate claimant to all the communal and private assets of those who perished during the Nazi holocaust. "It has been agreed with the Government of Israel," Edgar Bronfman told the House Banking Committee, "that helpless assets should accrue to the World Jewish Restitution Organization." Using this "mandate," the Holocaust industry has called on former Soviet-bloc countries to hand over all pre-war Jewish properties or come up with monetary compensation. Unlike in the case of Switzerland and Germany, however, it makes these demands away from the glare of publicity. Public opinion has so far not been averse to the blackmailing of Swiss bankers and German industrialists, but it might look less kindly on the blackmailing of starving Polish peasants.'

Watch the video and let me know what you think would you?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 02:46

This film called Defamation is good too (but I didn't make this one either).

Schmoopie's picture
Schmoopie
Offline
Joined: 28-04-16
Jun 12 2016 08:20
Quote:
The Holocaust industry has positioned itself as the sole legitimate claimant to all the communal and private assets of those who perished during the Nazi holocaust.

In much the same way that the Jamaican State is laying claim to reparations for African slaves transported to Jamaica. They're sicko.

I visited The Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. At the entrance they gave me a little cardboard kippel to put on my head. When I got to the exhibit of a map of Europe laid out on the ground with the Concentration Camps marked on it I leaned over to look and my cap fell on to Italy. Bwoy, I laughed so much, me almost bust me head!

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 12:29

With the slight difference that at least some of those most directly affected are still around, so there would be at least a chance of them benefiting from the process, if the Holocaust industry wasn't pocketing nearly all the proceeds for their own use, and leaving to one side arguments over the merits of such a procedure if carried out at the cost of the destruction of the lives of poor working people in the here and now.

EDIT:

The following is taken from a review I recently read of a 2013 Polish language anthology entitled We Have No Financial Obligations to the Jews - I have not been able to get hold of a translation:

'HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY CLAIMS

Ireneusz T. Lisiak debunks the myth, promoted by the likes of neo-Stalinist Jan T. Gross, that Poles have been reluctant to return Jewish properties to their Holocaust-surviving Jewish owners, and that they did so owing to (what else?) anti-Semitism. Fact is, some 150,000 Polish Jews re-acquired their property before selling it and emigrating to Palestine and elsewhere. (p. 168, 170). Furthermore, the vast majority of Jews had no problem whatsoever in the reacquisition of their property. (p. 157, 173, 184).

However, the new post-WWII Soviet-imposed Communist puppet government was opposed to the return of large-sized Nazi German-seized property to their rightful Jewish owners because, after all, this property was soon to be nationalized. Perhaps ironically, one of the main enforcers of this nationalization policy was Mieczyslaw Mietkowski, a Jewish Communist official. (p. 167, 173). More on nationalized properties later.

JEWISH CLAIMS AGAINST POLAND--ALL SATISFIED IN 1952

Germany is the nation that unilaterally developed and implemented the Shoah, and Germany has been paying billions of Marks to the Jews, as reparation, since 1952. These payments cover ALL the Jewish property seized by the Nazis from the Jews. (p. 169, 171). That alone makes it obvious that Poland owes nothing to the Jews.

JEWISH CLAIMS AGAINST POLAND--ALL SATISFIED IN 1960

As if the foregoing had not been enough, there was the July 16, 1960 agreement involving Poland, and western nations, which included Poland paying a then-considerable sum of 40 million U. S. dollars. It explicitly covered all the properties that had been nationalized as part of the Communization process immediately after WWII. (p. 183, 185). (For details on the 1960 agreement, see the Appendix in this book: pp. 295-on).

The large properties nationalized by the Communists had included breweries, mills, and factories that had once belonged to Jews. (Of course, it also included large properties that had been owned by non-Jews). The 1960 agreement between Poland, the USA and Canada, and 12 western European nations specified that, once Poland had paid restitution, which she did, NO nation had any further claims upon Poland for these properties. (p. 173, 187). This entire process was closed in 1981. (p. 186). In fact, a U. S. Congressional resolution stated, in 2008, that the 1960 agreement completely satisfies all property-restitution claims regarding Communist-seized properties.

The issue is unambiguous. Ireneusz T. Lisiak categorically states that Poland has no unrealized property-restitution obligations to the Jews whatsoever. (p. 169, 181).'

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jun 12 2016 12:31

factvalue, i don't see how anything your posting has any relevance to the subject of the thread

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 12:34

I don't believe you.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 12 2016 13:10
radicalgraffiti wrote:
factvalue, i don't see how anything your posting has any relevance to the subject of the thread

Well if this is anything to go by...

factvalue wrote:
I think that genuine spikes in anti-semitism occur concurrently with public revulsion with massacres carried out by the Jewish state and that Israel could prevent these by giving up both the massacres and the exclusivity (I'm none too fond of states and religions tbh). Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities'

...as atrocities by 'the Jewish state' are apparently a cause of an increase in anti-semitism and as 'Jewish "charities"' are a cause of anti-semitism in Eastern Europe, then... er... hang on... I'm confused now... beyond victim blaming, what is factvalue trying to say???

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 13:57

SF, in the film Defamation (Were you able to be 'arsed' enough yet to look at any of the links in your careful preparation of this impressive cross-examination?) there's an episode in which some Israeli students, on a visit to Majdanek concentration camp, say that they believe that having had the full horror of the Nazi holocaust described to them ad infinitum they feel that their 'limit' is too high, so that when they see Palestinian homes being demolished they just think 'That's nothing compared with what happened to us'. At one point on their trip, the Israeli filmmaker asks them why they don't go outside, and they tell him that they have been warned by the secret service guy that the country they are in is full of anti-semitic lunatics who want them dead, so they stay inside. But there are so many other Jewish voices represented in the film which deny and demonstrate how ludicrous this is that they make your lazy comments above look completely politically illiterate and beside the point. Who are the 'victims' you refer to? The simple question of who are all the victims of the (ab)uses of anti-semitism seems entirely lost on you. Why is that?

Does Israel not describe itself as the Jewish state and claim to represent all of the world's Jews? Are Jewish organisations whose sole reason for existence is to fight anti-semitism not on public record as having fabricated numerous charges in order to extort money and have they not been prosecuted for it? In the film Defamation one rabbi in Brooklyn says that when anyone's livelihood depends on there being something to be afraid of, he immediately suspects their motivations. Another rabbi in Kiev believes that the reasons the orthodox Jews in his synagogue don't worry about antisemitism at all is because, unlike some secular Western Jews, their identity as Jews doesn't depend on it. Is that somehow controversial or hard to grasp? Do you have evidence which proves that there is no link between e.g. Israel's last eight 'operations'/massacres in Lebanon and Gaza and an upsurge of anti-semitism, particularly among disaffected young Moslims in Europe (never mind in Gaza and Lebanon)? Perhaps you need to stop posting until you've done at least a little leg work?

noslavery
Offline
Joined: 6-01-16
Jun 12 2016 14:29

Antisemitism, arabophobia, islamphobia, christianophobia and all other other kinds of stupidities, including sexism, racism, nationalism, have potential to become wide spread and dangerous to humanity. Capitalists will propagate these kind of hatred to put workers against each other to avoid addressing the real issue which is wage-slavery. Nothing is better than international, multi-national and multi-cultural love, friendship and solidarity among wage-slaves of the world. We are several billions, they are several thousands. We can win.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 12 2016 16:03

This is a better version of the film Defamation: Anti-Semitism The Movie and The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy addresses the question of the separateness of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as well documenting the baleful influence of the likes of American organisations like the ADL on the people of Israel, Palestine and the rest of the region.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jun 12 2016 17:05

Factvalue, I'm sorry you've taken my off the cuff "can't be arsed" comment to heart. It would have been more accurate for me to have said I don't have the time at the minute to watch a two hour video of Prof. Finkelstein's lecture plus Q&A, or to watch the hour and a half long Defamation film (which I admit does look very interesting). In truth, I only pop on t'internet for a few minutes at a time, usually by phone, so am not in a position to watch any lengthy videos.

Of course there has been an upsurge in anti-semitism, particularly since 2008, related to the situation in Gaza. Why are you telling me this as some of your posts have attempted to demonstrate that a rise in anti-semitism is somewhat overplayed? Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be suggesting where there is a rise in anti-semitism, then this is because of actions by Israel (or 'the Jewish State' as you prefer to call it) or the holocaust lobby. While I accept the connection, I nevertheless find that sort of reasoning disturbing.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jun 12 2016 17:25

If I might butt in here, and spread some gasoline on troubled waters-- the original issue was/is anti-Zionism antisemitic? The answer, we (almost) all agreed was, "no, it is not intrinsically, inherently antisemitic." Then we got into this: "Is the left saturated with antisemitism?"

And that's where we still are, right? Is it? I, trivializer of all things that I am, asked for evidence that the current left is so saturated. I was referred to a book from 30 years ago, (updated with a new introduction), a reference to a 12 year old article from the "spirit" moving the Occupy demonstrations,... oh yes, and chants of "we are all Hamas" from demonstrations precipitated by Israel's acute, chronic, perpetual assaults on Gaza.

Well, if chanting "we are all Hamas" is indicative of the saturation of the left with antisemitism, then those arguing that point have in fact proven factvalue's point: that the increase in antisemitism is connected to, associated with, a product of, in reaction to, Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Now personally, since I haven't seen any evidence that the left is "saturated" with antisemitism (the general population of France not qualifying as "left" IMO); since I don't think chanting "we are all Hamas" is necessarily a manifestation of antisemitism, I don't buy that an increase in antisemitism in general is dependent upon Israel's actions--- but all my friends out there who do think the left is so saturated, that the chant is antisemitic-- you need to get your "line" together, because all factvalue has done is to pick up the mirror and turned it your way.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 12 2016 19:08
S. Artesian wrote:

Now personally, since I haven't seen any evidence that the left is "saturated" with antisemitism (the general population of France not qualifying as "left" IMO)

Where is this coming from?