factvalue, what Reddebrek wrote was the impression that you gave me. All I heard was 'Jew' this 'Jew' that. Perhaps your arguments went over my head?
I will give my answer to the original question posed: Yes, unless you are a worker inside Israel/Palestine.
I thought you were citing it to bolster the assertion or question about "Jews being disproportionately well-connected.' If that is the issue in question, then passage by Finkelstein is irrelevant.
If the argument is that Jews are not systematically and systemically denied access to education, housing, medical care, professions, economic advancement because they are Jews, then it is relevant.If the argument is that Jews exert some special, oversized influence, based on, and in the interests of their "Jewishness" then I think the passage is completely irrelevant..
I don't see any contradiction between the first two of these, unless that 'disproportionate' is taken normatively as 'unjust' or whatever and you're concerned that I'm suggesting number three, which I'm not.
Perhaps you should explain then what you mean by disproportionate representation in fields like publishing, or law. Do you simply mean a ratio greater than that which appears in relation to the general population? If so, then why the connection of that frequency to Zionism?
Do virulently anti-semitic societies produce numbers anything like those Finkelstein was readily able to cherry pick?
No, not at all. Did someone claim the US was a virulently antisemitic country? If so, I missed it. I think that people are reacting to the implication, which you don't intend to make, that these higher numbers provide "Jews" with a disproportionate influence on policies, programs, and politics in the US, and not just disproportionate based on numbers, but disproportionate based on an assumed shared, special interest attached not to economic position but to "Jewishness." This is where it all gets really difficult, and tropes, memes, stereotypes, codes, etc. are perceived even where and when you think there are none.
Given that those most directly affected have conceded this already -
Really? So that concession is immutable? Certainly not to the Israelis, who want to expand. To the Palestinians? Well let's do more than hope that the nature of this struggle is not-containable within the framework of UN resolutions. We are talking about class struggle, aren't we? Is there a realistic alternative to a worker-led social revolution that dismantles the Israeli military force, and the military forces of the Arab states? I don't think so.
This by Reddebrek
In the past comments you've stated or taken for support statements that
1) The Jews have most of the money
2) The Jews control the media
3) The government of Israel is the leadership of the world Jewish community
is garbage.
What even vaguely are you dribbling about?
Your own words.
If anything doesn't mean anything in this thread so far it's this ill considered flapdoodle. Ed made a claim about the number of Jews supporting Zionism, true or false?
Again doesn't matter either way. I don't see how I can be any clearer.
Where did anyone 'equate' anything?
???? You did that right here.
Does not Israel represent itself as the State of the Jewish People and thereby implicate Jews collectively in its massacres? Does Netanyahu not describe himself as representative of all of the world's Jews? And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism,
And virtually every comment you've made on the last few pages have been about "The Jews" no distinction or qualification. You are treating an entire group of people as a bloc or monolithic entity.
When did you place this 'call' you imagine yourself to have made? Did you read the quotation from Tel Aviv Uni? Maybe you should 'call' the Kantor Centre and leave a message if you don't like their description of the contiguity of Israeli massacres and anti-semitic upsurges.
When the hell did I say anything about the Kantor Centre? It has nothing to do with your absurd equations.
See my comments to SA but I have to say, this is taking a stupefyingly predictable path.
Yes it is stupid that you're denying anti-Semitism whilst using one of the oldest and most blatantly anti-Semitic lines in the book.
In the past comments you've stated or taken for support statements that1) The Jews have most of the money
2) The Jews control the media
3) The government of Israel is the leadership of the world Jewish communitySo far the only thing you haven't used yet is blood libel.
Sorry but I don't speak in plain, blunt phrases like this, as anyone on here not completely blinded by an agenda (in which case I might be in trouble) can attest to. 'The Jews have all the money' is too cheap to respond to and the others are dull misunderstandings at best and deliberate but inept at worst.
No its a fair summary of your behaviour and comments, or the comments you have taken to support your world view.
'As anti-Semitic barriers quickly fell away after World War, Jews rose to preeminence in the United States. According to Lipset and Raab, per capita Jewish income is almost double that of non-Jews; sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are Jews;
What is the point of this quotation? what does it even have to do with Israel and Palestine? The rest of the extract doesn't link back to it, its just a laundry list of wealthy Jews and an accusation of community psychology. You were taking criticism so in response started writing about how Jews have more money.
2)
are Jews excluded from networks of power and privilege? And if they aren't but, on the contrary, are disproportionately well connected, as the leader of the ADL recently said regarding e.g. media and publishing
Again you personally are stating that the Jews (again note the Jews) are "disproportionately" well connected in e.g. media and publishing.
So yes you are stating that the Jews(as a group) control the media, that is literally what you're saying. If you don't believe that Jews are a group working in concert then this statement just doesn't make sense, how does the existence of powerful and influential individuals reflect on a group they're nominally connected too? Does the Murdoch family prove that the Australians (as a group) are disproportionately well connected in global media and publishing? If not why not.
3)
We've already covered this,
Does not Israel represent itself as the State of the Jewish People and thereby implicate Jews collectively in its massacres? Does Netanyahu not describe himself as representative of all of the world's Jews? And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism,
Again we have the monolithic Jew. First you state that Israel represents the Jewish people, and that this implicates the Jews collectively in its crimes. You don't question the validity of this representation at all. On the contrary you support this link.
If you really need to get into caricature to discuss anything then we've really nothing to say to each other, these are tabloid headlines, not arguments.
Yes they are tabloid headlines but unfortunately they are your arguments not mine. I notice despite all your harrumphing you've not actually been able counter any of my allegations. The best you've done is tried blanket denials which are easy to debunk.
I rarely get reduced to this but here goes: try looking at the quotations again, if you feel so strongly, but without prejudice this time. Good luck.
I did actually, and no your arguments haven't gotten better with age.
Thanks for the wee tutorial but I kind of knew all that already. It's not exactly rocket science nor is it relevant to the issue I'm concerned with at the moment.
If you really did know all this then why are you constantly and still referring to Jewish people as if their a monolithic entity, and if it isn't relevant then why on earth did you bring it up? Oh a I get it once someone takes issue with what you say it's no longer relevant, right.
What interests me, and I really don't know how this could have escaped your notice, is whether or not ALL of these people should feel warranted in a belief that we are in the middle of a massive rise in anti-semitism,
??????
Okay, then where is your proof that these people that you brought up do actually think that? I've read your comments again and I don't see where these privileges media controlling types think this, did you cut an extract a bit too short?
Oh wait, by ALL did you mean the entire Jewish population? Because if so then you really were wasting time on anti-Semitic caricatures. The existence of a privileged group within a group does not negate the experiences of the rest. I don't honestly understand why you would think it would.
which does not distinguish between any of them,
So you actually are talking about the Jewish population as a monolithic entity, without qualification or distinction. So I guess your complaints about me being unfair to you were just hurt feelings.
This is a sensitive subject full of hazards and difficult to explore patiently while avoiding giving offence or anticipating subject positions to the point of stereotyping and closing our minds. It is also a very relevant and interesting issue, certainly to me, which demands discussion on these forums.
Really, that's funny I'm discussing this with you, so far all you've done is moan and declare you're refusing to talk further.
This by Reddebrek
Quote:
In the past comments you've stated or taken for support statements that
1) The Jews have most of the money
2) The Jews control the media
3) The government of Israel is the leadership of the world Jewish communityis garbage.
Gee I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit hey buddy.
Resolute Reddebrek!
Don't no one say, sloppy seconds Schmoopie!
I'll widen the question to state that anyone who talks about Jews in this context is just repeating the bourgeois lies.
Fuck Nicky Campbell, and as for the retarded question, is anti-Zionism Antisemitic? Ofcourse fucking not.
factvalue wrote:
What even vaguely are you dribbling about?
Your own words.
Bless you my dear comrade. ¡Olé! ¡Qué interpretación más maravillosa!
factvalue wrote:
If anything doesn't mean anything in this thread so far it's this ill considered flapdoodle. Ed made a claim about the number of Jews supporting Zionism, true or false?
Again doesn't matter either way. I don't see how I can be any clearer.
I am pleased to confirm that it’s just about as clear as it could be that you’d rather not address what I’m writing. (Btw, is that a windmill over there or a great big fucking anti-semitic giant?)
factvalue wrote:
Where did anyone 'equate' anything?
???? You did that right here.
factvalue wrote:
Does not Israel represent itself as the State of the Jewish People and thereby implicate Jews collectively in its massacres? Does Netanyahu not describe himself as representative of all of the world's Jews? And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism,
And virtually every comment you've made on the last few pages have been about "The Jews" no distinction or qualification. You are treating an entire group of people as a bloc or monolithic entity.
Alright, let's take them one at a time:
Does not Israel represent itself as the State of the Jewish People and thereby implicate Jews collectively in its massacres? Does Netanyahu not describe himself as representative of all of the world's Jews?
These comments were about the actions and nature of the Israeli state in engendering and promulgating genuine, although unwarranted, anti-semitism, which if I recall correctly has a connection, however tenuous it may appear to you, with the theme of this thread.
And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism.
This was about the effect that unqualified support for ‘zionism’ (understood as encompassing an original ethnic cleansing together with an ongoing colonialist aggression) might be having in propagating: anti-semitism.
Why did you decide to leave out the end of this quotation, which reads ‘given that Israel's leading historian Benny Morris has written that zionism implies ethnic cleansing, that it was 'inevitable and in-built into zionism' from the beginning'? The whole question, written in this way, with this context, with this meaning, was put to Ed in the hope of getting his opinion, but as with all other questions from me to Ed it remains unanswered as yet. He did suggest that I needed to back up my entirely uncontroversial claim that Israeli atrocities have some connection with genuine (as opposed to fabricated) upturns in anti-semitism but presuming Ed doesn’t want to discuss the datum I’ve offered (from the Kantor Centre itself no less) then if you read the paragraph above again (!) you may notice the phrase ‘Does Israel NOT REPRESENT ITSELF AS the State of the Jewish People' (it doesn't distinguish) and thereby implicate Jews collectively all round the planet in its massacres.? Go ahead, have another look…. Do you see it yet? That was me pointing out that when Israel does this, it implicates Jewish people everywhere in its massacres (particularly in the minds of those who are hard of thinking) while Jewish zionists are in turn, however unintentionally, unavoidably linking themselves to these massacres through their support for zionism in such a context, and if what Ed reported was correct, in overwhelming numbers.
And virtually every comment you've made on the last few pages have been about "The Jews" no distinction or qualification. You are treating an entire group of people as a bloc or monolithic entity.
How embarrassing for you, you've put a fabricated quotation in. I haven't mentioned 'The Jews', although I have been talking about Jews because, well of course I’d have to check back, but I’m fairly certain that it was because it seemed to me that the thread, this thread, was concerned with something known to many as ‘anti-semitism’.
factvalue wrote:
When did you place this 'call' you imagine yourself to have made? Did you read the quotation from Tel Aviv Uni? Maybe you should 'call' the Kantor Centre and leave a message if you don't like their description of the contiguity of Israeli massacres and anti-semitic upsurges.When the hell did I say anything about the Kantor Centre? It has nothing to do with your absurd equations
This is a remarkable example of its kind, an authentic closed-and-feeble-mindedness fuelled by a pre-set agenda, indicating to me that you are clearly following some internal script disconnected with anything I’m actually posting. I salute you! But no, you’re right of course, no one could accuse you of mentioning the Kantor Centre, or even of reading the thread properly before lurching forward and belching out idiocies of this quality. Hint: It was me, I mentioned the Kantor Centre, now, show them what they could have won Sancho: A fully functioning reasoning faculty, yey!!
factvalue wrote:
See my comments to SA but I have to say, this is taking a stupefyingly predictable path.Yes it is stupid that you're denying anti-Semitism whilst using one of the oldest and most blatantly anti-Semitic lines in the book.
How about you back away from the horse, put down the lance and go off somewhere nice and quiet and..I d’know..read the thread properly?
factvalue wrote:
In the past comments you've stated or taken for support statements that
1) The Jews have most of the money
2) The Jews control the media
3) The government of Israel is the leadership of the world Jewish community
So far the only thing you haven't used yet is blood libel.Sorry but I don't speak in plain, blunt phrases like this, as anyone on here not completely blinded by an agenda (in which case I might be in trouble) can attest to. 'The Jews have all the money' is too cheap to respond to and the others are dull misunderstandings at best and deliberate but inept at worst.
No its a fair summary of your behaviour and comments, or the comments you have taken to support your world view.
Righto!
factvalue wrote:
'As anti-Semitic barriers quickly fell away after World War, Jews rose to preeminence in the United States. According to Lipset and Raab, per capita Jewish income is almost double that of non-Jews; sixteen of the forty wealthiest Americans are Jews;What is the point of this quotation? what does it even have to do with Israel and Palestine? The rest of the extract doesn't link back to it, its just a laundry list of wealthy Jews and an accusation of community psychology. You were taking criticism so in response started writing about how Jews have more money.
Thank you for trying to teach me the secrets of this great wisdom but don’t you have anything? If you were running let’s say the ADL, and you'd assigned yourself the task of making a lot of money and gaining a lot of influence and respect by whipping up paranoia using anti-semitism, both in the US and worldwide, with the added effect of creating support for aggression and slaughter by the Israeli state in Palestine, it would be more than a little inconvenient if simultaneously Jewish people were demonstrably able to swim so well in this sea of prejudice and hatred that you were busy conjuring up, don’t you think?
2)
Getting a little ahead of yourself there again aren't you, what happened to 1) ?
factvalue wrote:
are Jews excluded from networks of power and privilege? And if they aren't but, on the contrary, are disproportionately well connected, as the leader of the ADL recently said regarding e.g. media and publishingAgain you personally are stating that the Jews (again note the Jews) are "disproportionately" well connected in e.g. media and publishing.
So yes you are stating that the Jews(as a group) control the media, that is literally what you're saying. If you don't believe that Jews are a group working in concert then this statement just doesn't make sense, how does the existence of powerful and influential individuals reflect on a group they're nominally connected too? Does the Murdoch family prove that the Australians (as a group) are disproportionately well connected in global media and publishing? If not why not.
So yes you are stating that the Jews(as a group) control the media, that is literally what you're saying. If you don't believe that Jews are a group working in concert then this statement just doesn't make sense
Wrong again but my goodness you’d better be careful, in your leap of prejudice you’re reaching so elliptically you’re in danger of impaling yourself on your lance. My source for the media comment was Abe Foxman, the recent head of the Anti-Defamation League. I’m asking if Abe and Co. should be allowed to push the urgency of the need for extreme vigilance and paranoia within a society where such things as successful Jewish people are simple matters of fact, as well as asking what the purpose is of the deliberate raising of the level of fear among Jews which is the bread and butter of things like the ADL. If you didn't like an implication you perceived in the quotation take it up with Abe, he said it.
how does the existence of powerful and influential individuals reflect on a group they're nominally connected too? Does the Murdoch family prove that the Australians (as a group) are disproportionately well connected in global media and publishing? If not why not.
Irrelevant straw wrt the issue I’m addressing, try feeding it to your horse.
3)We've already covered this,
..with straw, more for the old nag before your next charge Don Reddebrek de la Mantra
factvalue wrote:
Does not Israel represent itself as the State of the Jewish People and thereby implicate Jews collectively in its massacres? Does Netanyahu not describe himself as representative of all of the world's Jews? And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism,Again we have the monolithic Jew. First you state that Israel represents the Jewish people, and that this implicates the Jews collectively in its crimes. You don't question the validity of this representation at all. On the contrary you support this link.
Ah yes, repetition, the life blood of advertising. What I’m asking is: if this linking oneself to Israel is really such a good idea, given the terms and conditions imposed by the Israeli state merely as a concomitant of its existence. I’m not implicating anyone, for the simple reason that I don’t believe that Judaism and Zionism are implicate, since they aren’t. Is it so easy to make the same case for that part of international Jewry that is zionist, particularly while Israel describes itself as 'The State of the Jews' as it wades through Palestinian blood, and while its prime minister is busily claiming to represent all Jews everywhere? Is that too much for you?
factvalue wrote:
If you really need to get into caricature to discuss anything then we've really nothing to say to each other, these are tabloid headlines, not arguments.Yes they are tabloid headlines but unfortunately they are your arguments not mine. I notice despite all your harrumphing you've not actually been able counter any of my allegations. The best you've done is tried blanket denials which are easy to debunk.
That's dismal, sure you're not even trying (I hope). But then I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all you did begin with “Here’s my position, what you say simply doesn’t matter!” I can just hear you now: “???? When did I say that?!!!” You’re just very crudely demarcating a subject area and reacting to any encroachment by galloping off to the big anti-semitic windmill on your own round at the fantasy end of the playground with the child friendly surfaces where you can continue to fulminate about anti-semites under the bed without that pesky comprehension thing nagging away at you. You’re a perfect example of everything I’ve been going on about.
factvalue wrote:
I rarely get reduced to this but here goes: try looking at the quotations again, if you feel so strongly, but without prejudice this time. Good luck.I did actually, and no your arguments haven't gotten better with age.
Oki-doki, but at least they could be classified as arguments. On the other hand they are magnificent, how dare you sully their honour with this filth!
factvalue wrote:
Thanks for the wee tutorial but I kind of knew all that already. It's not exactly rocket science nor is it relevant to the issue I'm concerned with at the momentIf you really did know all this then why are you constantly and still referring to Jewish people as if their a monolithic entity, and if it isn't relevant then why on earth did you bring it up? Oh a I get it once someone takes issue with what you say it's no longer relevant, right.
..erm…..the subject of th…fuck me this is heavy going..ah...’anti-semitism’ (is kinda monolithic) (?), (hello?!).. I need a drink.
factvalue wrote:
What interests me, and I really don't know how this could have escaped your notice, is whether or not ALL of these people should feel warranted in a belief that we are in the middle of a massive rise in anti-semitism.??????
Okay, then where is your proof that these people that you brought up do actually think that? I've read your comments again and I don't see where these privileges media controlling types think this, did you cut an extract a bit too short?
Then, ahem, you need to read it again (are you drunk or something? your mind is like some rusty old mangle with a pair of underpants hanging on it) because I don’t claim that any media controlling groups think anything. For several reasons really, such as that I don’t think a ‘media controlling group’ exists in the first place although Abe Foxman, who made the original statement, seems to think along these lines, and also because what I’m actually saying is that the ADL and Co. would need a lot more evidence than they seem to possess if they were going to convince ALL Jews (they don't distinguish) that they should believe that another holocaust was just around the corner.
Oh wait, by ALL did you mean the entire Jewish population? Because if so then you really were wasting time on anti-Semitic caricatures. The existence of a privileged group within a group does not negate the experiences of the rest. I don't honestly understand why you would think it would.
I don’t. What I claim is that a society simply can not be as seriously anti-semitic as the ADL would have everyone believe if such successes are possible within it. Is it legitimate for the ADL to suggest to ALL these people (they don’t discriminate..) that they need to always beware an imminent holocaust, or is it seriously fucking reprehensible?
factvalue wrote:
which does not distinguish between any of them,So you actually are talking about the Jewish population as a monolithic entity, without qualification or distinction. So I guess your complaints about me being unfair to you were just hurt feelings.
O dear o dear, ah,…’ANTI-SEMITISM DOES NOT DISTINGUISH. ANTI-SEMITISM, NOT ME, ANTI-SEMITISM!! HELLO!! But yeah, you’re right, you’ve pierced my straw deeply comrade, I don’t know how I’m going to pick up the pieces, your horse could probably do with them after so many charges, now where did I leave my copy of the Protocols?
factvalue wrote:
This is a sensitive subject full of hazards and difficult to explore patiently while avoiding giving offence or anticipating subject positions to the point of stereotyping and closing our minds. It is also a very relevant and interesting issue, certainly to me, which demands discussion on these forums.Really, that's funny I'm discussing this with you, so far all you've done is moan and declare you're refusing to talk further.
This is looking clinical. Sorry mate, it's not me you need to be talking to if this is truly your understanding. But that’s what a fundamentalist mind-set breeds, an identity logic that’s second to none.
S. Artesian wrote:
This by Reddebrek
Quote:In the past comments you've stated or taken for support statements that
1) The Jews have most of the money
2) The Jews control the media
3) The government of Israel is the leadership of the world Jewish community
is garbageGee I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit hey buddy.
Well guessing does seem to be your precision analytical tool of choice.
Oi veh, what a spieler:
Why did you decide to leave out the end of this quotation, which reads ‘given that Israel's leading historian Benny Morris has written that zionism implies ethnic cleansing, that it was 'inevitable and in-built into zionism' from the beginning'? The whole question, written in this way, with this context, with this meaning, was put to Ed in the hope of getting his opinion, but as with all other questions from me to Ed it remains unanswered as yet. He did suggest that I needed to back up my entirely uncontroversial claim that Israeli atrocities have some connection with genuine (as opposed to fabricated) upturns in anti-semitism but presuming Ed doesn’t want to discuss the datum I’ve offered (from the Kantor Centre itself no less) then if you read the paragraph above again (!) you may notice the phrase ‘Does Israel NOT REPRESENT ITSELF AS the State of the Jewish People' (it doesn't distinguish) and thereby implicate Jews collectively all round the planet in its massacres.? Go ahead, have another look…. Do you see it yet? That was me pointing out that when Israel does this, it implicates Jewish people everywhere in its massacres (particularly in the minds of those who are hard of thinking) while they are in turn are, however unintentionally, unavoidably linking themselves to these massacres through their support for zionism in such a context, if what Ed reported was correct... That's dismal, sure you're not even trying (I hope). But then I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all you did begin with “Here’s my position, what you say simply doesn’t matter!” I can just hear you now: “???? When did I say that?!!!” You’re just very crudely demarcating a subject area and reacting to any encroachment by galloping off to the big anti-semitic windmill on your own round at the fantasy end of the playground with the child friendly surfaces where you can continue to fulminate about anti-semites under the bed without that pesky comprehension thing nagging away at you. You’re a perfect example of everything I’ve been going on about...
Oi Schmoopie, why have you stuck together two paragraphs to make a longer one and then started shouting about how long it is?
So I've been really busy and I've kind of lost track of the thread of this discussion so I'll do my best here.
Firstly, I think the factvalue has gone off on a complete tangent and started talking about 'how are Jews succeeding in the supposed sea of prejudice?' or whatever.. the discussion here isn't whether Jews are the most persecuted ethnic group in society, it's not about whether we live in 1930s Europe, it's not about whether America is virulently anti-semitic.. what we're discussing is whether the pro-Palestine movement (as a movement within the trad territory of the left/anti-war movement), which I think to various degrees we have all been involved in, has a significant tendency to slip into using anti-semitic arguments, imagery etc.. and more so than most (if not all) other left-wing movements/campaigns..
If I may quote my old friend S. Artesian here (assuming I've understood him properly, as we've ascertained I'm not great with details):
If the argument is that Jews exert some special, oversized influence, based on, and in the interests of their "Jewishness" then I think the passage is completely irrelevant.
He then goes on to explain (well, imo)
I think that people are reacting to the implication, which you don't intend to make, that these higher numbers provide "Jews" with a disproportionate influence on policies, programs, and politics in the US, and not just disproportionate based on numbers, but disproportionate based on an assumed shared, special interest attached not to economic position but to "Jewishness." This is where it all gets really difficult, and tropes, memes, stereotypes, codes, etc. are perceived even where and when you think there are none.
I mean, we obv still have our differences but I think those quotes sum up quite nicely the issue with what's wrong with factvalue's argument (and I'd also note that you haven't responded to S. Artesian on these either). Do you think these wealthy/powerful US Jews hold America to a foreign policy against its interest? If not, then what is your point?
I would also add that the context you wrote it in also raises eyebrows. If the argument is about how the left repeats anti-semitic tropes, such as about having 'tentacles everywhere in society', and your response is to start a tangentially-related discussion about how Jews being disproportionately represented in the higher strata of society, then that does make you look like you're giving credibility to the argument that Jews in high places pursue a 'Jewish agenda' over, above and against the interests of the non-Jews (of any class) in that society. At best, it makes it look like you think using anti-semitic arguments isn't a big deal because Jews don't need protecting..
Ed - Again, in your extrapolation from Israelis in (the odious) Galloway's remark, to Jews, you seem to be quite directly rehearsing the 'anyone attacking Israel is actually attacking Jews' malarky that has become so familiar a ruse through over-use.
Well, no, I'm not. If he had said, 'we want to make Bradford an Israel-free zone' and then only specified products, companies and institutions then he'd have been on much more solid ground. The point is he specified individual Israelis coming in a non-military, non-institutional capacity i.e. tourists just having a fucking look around Bradford! That is not attacking Israel, that's attacking Israelis even in their most benign capacity. The question then becomes: why the most benign Israeli but not all Jews? Why even an anti-Zionist Israeli but not an Israel-sympathising British Jew? Even you make the swift slip from one into the other when you ask:
And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racism
Because here you seem to be implying that it would be okay to say 'Jews aren't welcome in Bradford', as there is significant support for Zionism in the Jewish community and support for Zionism is support for racism. Would it be acceptable to say Jews aren't welcome in Bradford? Why is it any different from saying Israelis aren't welcome?
And since when did we blame individuals for the actions of their governments? The overwhelming support for Turkish nationalism in Turkey doesn't lead us to the same conclusion regardless of what the govt does to the Kurds, or the fact that many Turkish people don't recognise the Armenian genocide or the oppose the occupation of Cyprus. Similar with the overwhelming support for Chinese or Russian nationalisms, or Serb nationlism, regardless of their atrocities..
Anyway, I'm done, going to bed.. will try to keep up with this as best I can..
Its obvious that Israeli colonialism will make anti Semitism more acceptable to people than it would otherwise be, but atrocities by Israel don't convince people of anti Semitic tropes like Jews control the banks, or Jews control government policy behind the scenes, if someone based there entire view of Jews on Israeli they might think Jews where violent fanatics who picked on weaker people, but they wouldn't conclude that they secretly ran the media. Israeli violence doesn't explain anti Semitism, anti Semites learn anti Semitism from other anti Semites, Israeli treatment of Palestinians only makes that easier.
Attempting to dismiss anti-Semitism within anti Zionism or the left helps anti Semites and makes claims for Israel supporters that all criticism is motivated by anti-Semitism appear more legitimate.
the claim that a large proportion of anti proportion of anti-Semitism is faked is at best exceedingly dodgy bullshit, and bringing up these claims when people are talking about anti Semitism they have encountered, and not claims of anti-Semitism made by pro Israeli organisations looks like its motivated by anti Semitism
Oi Schmoopie, why have you stuck together two paragraphs to make a longer one and then started shouting about how long it is?
To demonstrate what a spieler you are, factvalue. I just haven't figured out what you're flogging.
...what we're discussing is whether the pro-Palestine movement (as a movement within the trad territory of the left/anti-war movement), which I think to various degrees we have all been involved in...
We have never been pro-Palestine or pro-Israel. We have only ever been pro-working class.
FOR THE WORLDWIDE INTIFADA! TO SHAKE OFF THE YOKE OF THE BOURGEOISIE!
OK, I failed to divert this thread again.
But consider this: a discussion about anti-semitism is necessarily a discussion about personalisation, about the need to look for the evil face that embodies the abstract, apparently mysterious force of capital, a power which communists recognise to be founded on a social relationship, a relationship between classes.
And it would help if the debate on his thread was also less personalised, as several comrades have already pointed out.
Perhaps you should explain then what you mean by disproportionate representation in fields like publishing, or law. Do you simply mean a ratio greater than that which appears in relation to the general population? If so, then why the connection of that frequency to Zionism?
And
factvalue wrote:
Do virulently anti-semitic societies produce numbers anything like those Finkelstein was readily able to cherry pick?No, not at all. Did someone claim the US was a virulently antisemitic country? If so, I missed it.
The fact that Jews (of all classes and persuasions) make up 2% of the US but are represented in many different fields in much higher percentages lends some much-needed perspective to the contrived hysteria which in recent times led to, for example, the huge pressure to convict numerous professors who were alleged to have been part of a cabal of Jew-hating academics at Columbia, a university supposedly rife with anti-semitism, but who were later exonerated by the final report, which did find that there had been one case in which one of these crazed madmen had 'responded heatedly' to a student's question at the time of the massacre at Jenin, not exactly Krystallnacht but apparently sufficient to accomplish the fear-mongering at the heart of this ideological gambit.
Or indeed to let loose almost any of the fabricated nonsense in Commentary Magazine about Jews being targeted for murder or the worrying upsurge of antisemitism on university campuses generally which is currently being used to crush BDS, besides influencing state governments to refuse to do business with companies engaging in BDS. A periodic extravaganza of 'new anti-semitism' is announced by the ADL every fifteen years or so, usually in tandem with a book launched with the same title, with the 'new' variety taking the old form of any criticism of Israel, and it works quite well for those whose memories go back no further than a week, which is fine although I prefer to see anything I'm looking at in some kind of historical context if it's available.
I think that people are reacting to the implication, which you don't intend to make, that these higher numbers provide "Jews" with a disproportionate influence on policies, programs, and politics in the US, and not just disproportionate based on numbers, but disproportionate based on an assumed shared, special interest attached not to economic position but to "Jewishness." This is where it all gets really difficult, and tropes, memes, stereotypes, codes, etc. are perceived even where and when you think there are none.
Sure, it's a mine field, never mind the idea of using the 'J' word so often on an anarchist communist forum and potentially sounding like the fash. But on the other hand I thought I'd already covered all this earlier when I wrote:
Just to be clear: If the Israeli state stopped being a strategic asset, if American capitalism required rich right wing Jews in the Holocaust industry to abandon support for Israel, that is what would happen, tails don't wag dogs.
Firstly, I think the factvalue has gone off on a complete tangent and started talking about 'how are Jews succeeding in the supposed sea of prejudice?' or whatever.. the discussion here isn't whether Jews are the most persecuted ethnic group in society, it's not about whether we live in 1930s Europe, it's not about whether America is virulently anti-semitic.. what we're discussing is whether the pro-Palestine movement (as a movement within the trad territory of the left/anti-war movement), which I think to various degrees we have all been involved in, has a significant tendency to slip into using anti-semitic arguments, imagery etc.. and more so than most (if not all) other left-wing movements/campaigns..
'the factvalue', yes indeed, I liked that, yeah!, but the 'or whatever' didn't fill me full of hope. 'Anti-semitism' abstracted from all context, not context which excuses but rather enriches understanding, is of no more use to me than saying 'we're concerned here to discuss whether or not certain people have a tendency to use 'offensive' language'. Well, yes, I'm sure they do, so? What about it? I'm interested in exploring the nature of exactly what it is that we're discussing and why we're discussing this subject in this way at this time. Is the labour party anti-semitism production being put on now from any perspective other than a timely party electoral one? Just look at how easy it is to do this to any group or anyone. Not because I give a shit who gets in but what's actually taking place, and by what means is it achieved?
I mean, we obv still have our differences but I think those quotes sum up quite nicely the issue with what's wrong with factvalue's argument (and I'd also note that you haven't responded to S. Artesian on these either). Do you think these wealthy/powerful US Jews hold America to a foreign policy against its interest? If not, then what is your point?
See the comments above about tails wagging dogs quoted from an earlier post. I think they have a far more controlling and destructive influence on Israeli foreign policy than on the US, and they are a disaster that has befallen all of the people of the region. This was from my post immediately after your 242:
which atrocities are themselves being encouraged and enabled by Israel's connections with a destructive, right wing gang of war mongering, rich Jews in the US who like to destroy any chance of peace in Palestine and the rest of the region from their threatened bunkers in the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Beverly Hills or Florida, and who have a vested interest in a holocaust industry that imprints death ('remembrance') deeply into the minds of Israel's young people, conditioning them to a paranoid, spartan, siege and conquest mentality in order to perpetuate a situation that they believe will accomplish their insane objectives and those of their ultra right wing allies in Israel, such as, most recently, a war with Iran.
I would also add that the context you wrote it in also raises eyebrows. If the argument is about how the left repeats anti-semitic tropes, such as about having 'tentacles everywhere in society', and your response is to start a tangentially-related discussion about how Jews being disproportionately represented in the higher strata of society, then that does make you look like you're giving credibility to the argument that Jews in high places pursue a 'Jewish agenda' over, above and against the interests of the non-Jews (of any class) in that society. At best, it makes it look like you think using anti-semitic arguments isn't a big deal because Jews don't need protecting..
For a start, and with respect, your argument is more impartially speaking about WHETHER OR NOT the left (all of it?) - however defined - repeats anti-semitic tropes. Again, although I've encountered the phenomenon you are engaged with, I'm much more interested in why this discussion is taking place at all at this time and what social forces and actors are moving it. And, recognising the inherent potential for misinterpretation resulting from the massive brainwashing time that has been put in to confuse what should be straightforward, namely that anti-Zionism is anti-dispossession and anti-ethnic cleansing, there's nothing tangential about a simple syllogism (the immature part of me still titters when I use that word, damn it!): 1. As stated by you, most ('overwhelmingly') of the Jewish community are Zionist 2. Jews are extremely well represented (in proportion to their population size) in positions of influence 3. Therefore Zionists are well represented in such positions. No moral is being drawn here, it's just an empirical observation. You can take a view on why the person said it, but you can also, I was contending, interpret it quite differently. That's all. And what is so surprising about people who have similar points of view on certain issues or familiar cultural referents having an influence on things where they are? One of the problems for me is that since the '67 war the holocaust argument – unique suffering, therefore can't be held to account by standard means – accompanied by the 'worrying rise in anti-semitism' gambit have been played so often and with such success that they have skewed and obfuscated all discussion. I'm not hiding any of the Elders of Zion in my attic because before June 1967 Israel was of no interest to western Jews, and the holocaust was not spoken of, because in the post-war era such things as the kibbutzim etc. would have been offensive to our new allies, the former nazis running West Germany, and then there was the ever-present threat of being seen as a nation state within the state, as with the third reich. That all changed when Israel acquired strategic asset status.
Where does that last sentence of yours come from? Do you believe Jews need protecting any more than any other section of society? Why is that?
The question then becomes: why the most benign Israeli but not all Jews? Why even an anti-Zionist Israeli but not an Israel-sympathising British Jew? Even you make the swift slip from one into the other when you ask:factvalue wrote:
And if these same Jewish people, as you have said, overwhelmingly support zionism, don't they also automatically support racismBecause here you seem to be implying that it would be okay to say 'Jews aren't welcome in Bradford', as there is significant support for Zionism in the Jewish community and support for Zionism is support for racism. Would it be acceptable to say Jews aren't welcome in Bradford? Why is it any different from saying Israelis aren't welcome?
Are Israelis all Jews? Should that be? If Israel stopped calling itself the Jewish state wouldn't that help protect Jews around the world each time it got dark behind its eyes again and it just had to rush off and commit yet another slaughter in Gaza, to show them who's boss in that giant open air prison, where 80% are refugees and 60% are children? A quotation from the doyen of Israeli historians Benny Morris completes that last sentence you quoted from my post, just after the word racism (do you think 'Zionism' is a useful word any more, what do you mean by it?) to the effect that ethnic cleansing was inevitable and built into Zionism from the beginning. He thinks that this is a positive thing, in the same way he thinks that the Native American genocide was positive, to make way for the wonders of modern America. Did American Indians resist it because of their inherent anti-Europeanism? They certainly committed atrocities later having learned anti-Europeanism the hard way. I've never agree with Galloway on anything but I can understand what might motivate such an outburst. Can you not?
If we are talking about polls in regards to how USA Jews view Israel, there's this:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitud...
Obviously, it's important to remember that the phrasing and the presuppositions of questions affects answers, and there're certain questions Pew won't ask in the first place.
Sure, it's a mine field, never mind the idea of using the 'J' word so often on an anarchist communist forum and potentially sounding like the fash.
Fair play factvalue. I feel at ease now to get it off my chest:
Jew Arab Jew Jew Jew Jew Arab Arab Arab Jew....
Long live the civil war of the proletariat against the BOURGEOISIE!
OK, I failed to divert this thread again.But consider this: a discussion about anti-semitism is necessarily a discussion about personalisation, about the need to look for the evil face that embodies the abstract, apparently mysterious force of capital, a power which communists recognise to be founded on a social relationship, a relationship between classes.
And it would help if the debate on his thread was also less personalised, as several comrades have already pointed out.
Alf, are you suggesting something similar to the 'socialism of the fool'?
https://cst.org.uk/data/file/5/5/Incidents-Report-2014.1425053165.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-gaza-conflict-anti...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/antisemitic-attacks-uk-com...
In the Jewish community in the UK, the Community Security Trust provides advice on security and volunteer marshals for Jewish community events as well as a reporting mechanism for antisemitic incidents that has a stable and well thought out methodology for evaluating incident reports to ensure that they are properly classified as antisemitic, and for categorising them. Its annual incidents report is the most authoritative information available on the scale of actual antisemitic activity (as opposed to antisemitic thinking) in the United Kingdom.
With respect to the globalisation of Israel-Palestine, the CST takes the unambiguous view formed as a result of collecting data for many years, that there are clear correlations and patterns of spikes in anti-semitic attacks whenever there is a “trigger event” overseas involving Israel.
On page 11 of the linked report for 2014, it mentions the conflict with Lebanon in 2006, the Gaza conflict of 2009 and the Gaza conflict of 2014 as trigger events, each of which led to a significant increase in antisemitic incidents in the UK.
But then comes the usual, unsettling (and quite possibly unconscious) fraud. After demonstrating that there is a massive spike beginning in July of that year, following the onset of Operation Defensive Edge (8 July – 26 August) it asserts that 2014 is a record year for such incidents, suggesting that anti-semitism is on the rise. This would be true if you didn't take into account that CST has only operated an incident exchange programme with Greater Manchester Police since 2011, and since 2012 with the Metropolitan Police in London.
So for example comparing the 931 incidents in the UK during the 2009 Israeli operation in Gaza with the 1,168 during the 2014 Gaza operation, it looks like things are getting much worse, but subtracting the 349 incidents received from the police via the information exchange programme which didn't exist in 2009, you get 819, i.e. a reduction, rather than a massive increase. Unfortunately such numbers have been used by all kinds of media to present a systemic rise in anti-semitism as an established 'fact'.
Good last post
Jef - yes, that's exactly it - Bebel's "socialism of fools". It's extremely widespread, though not always in an overtly antisemitic form: the deformation of class consciousness into an incoherent hostility against 'the elite' is central to the current wave of populism.
Zionism – nationalist movement of the ‘Jewish People’. Although Israel is described as the ‘Zionist State of Israel’ in our bulletin we do not see the Israeli state as simply the offspring Zionist ideology for ‘it has functioned throughout according to the logic of capitalism’. For example, the expulsion of Palestinians from the land and their transformation from peasants to proletarians is best understood as a form of primitive accumulation. This process of looting and land grabbing has been a feature of capitalist development everywhere (see, for instance, the highland clearances in Scotland in the Nineteenth century). It is not enough, however, to attack particular frameworks for exploitation such as Zionism; we need to attack the whole basis of these phenomena – capital and the state.
Worldwide Intifada, #1
This film,The Lab, illuminates the value of 20% of the Israeli economy contributed by the iterative 'operations' (experiments) carried out by the IDF in Gaza (the lab) using interviews with those most directly involved, the ex-officers who are now contractors, mercenaries and sought after trainers of other armies and police forces around the world. In tandem with the spikes in anti-Semitic attacks with each new 'experiment', Israeli weapons sales peak as well.
Saw Finkelstein speak on Israel/Palestine in London a few years ago and he was excellent-also describes himself as a Communist
This is a passage from the memoirs of Aghis Stinas, the Greek revolutionary who, in the 1930s and 40s, was one of the few militants of the time to stand against the vast tide of democratic and nationalist deception, and to oppose the second imperialist war without any compromises, above all about the character of the anti-fascist Resistance.
I cite it here because he expresses in very lucid terms certain basics of the communist position on anti-semitism and the trajectory of Zionism (and, by implication, its mirror image, anti-Zionism).
I will try to come back to some of the points raised by Stinas in another post.
The English translation of the memoirs is in the libcom library. https://libcom.org/history/revolutionary-defeatists-greece-world-war-ii-...
The extract, on p 41 and 42, comes in the opening chapter, giving an account of the impact of the international revolutionary wave on Greece, and the formation of the Greek Communist Party. He gives numerous examples of the high level of class consciousness among the workers in Greece in those years, and one, referring specifically to events in Thessaloniki between 1917 and 1921where he was active, shows that the most combative parts of the working class had a very good grasp of the Jewish question, opposing both Zionism and anti-Jewish pogromism from the only standpoint that really can offer a way out of this dilemma – the standpoint of working class internationalism.
********************************************************************
"I want to emphasise some events which illustrate the high level of class consciousness of the workers of Thessaloniki.
We knew about the “Balfour declaration”, the official promise made to the Jews by the British government during the First World War that it would set them up on the soil “of their fathers”. The Jewish community and the Thessaloniki synagogue had called the Jews together to celebrate the news. The gathering took place in the morning, and behind closed doors. The afternoon of the same day masses of Jewish workers and intellectuals took to the streets, waving red flags, with these slogans: “It is not in the state of Israel but in the world socialist society, united fraternally with all the peoples of the world, that we, the Jews, will guarantee our lives, our security and our well-being”, “Long live the world socialist revolution”, “Down with Zionism”.
There is something we should note here. It was not only the Jews of Thessaloniki but millions of Jews across the world who put all their hope in socialism and struggled for it. The socialist and revolutionary parties could count within their ranks a large number of Jews, out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. The greatest theoreticians of Marxism, Marx, Luxemburg, Trotsky, were Jews.
How can these same Jews, the most authentic internationalist revolutionaries, have been metamorphosed into nationalists? How could Zionism, originally an insignificant sect of religious fanatics, transform itself into a mass movement? How could millions of Jews who lived with the grand vision of a world society of free producers decide to make the creation of a little national state their aim in life? Were those who employed a language against Israel little different from that of Goebbels ever able to ask these questions?
The movement for the foundation of the state of Israel, which at the start only gathered an insignificant number of fanatical bigots in quest of a utopia, became a matter for large masses of Jews in the years before the Second World War and the Hitlerian genocide. When already the hope of a social emancipation within a global community had begun to evaporate. When it had become clearer that the realisation of the age-old dream of the oppressed of the whole world looked more like a hideous nightmare. Then came the war, and the camps, the crematoria, geno-cide, the holocaust of Warsaw with the benevolent neutrality of the Russians, the disgraceful attitude of France and Britain towards the refugees. The whole world participated in the pogrom. In an era when the socialist ideal had drowned in a sea of nationalist hatred, how can we not understand that all of the Jews should fix on the aim of finding a corner of the planet where they
could settle, or at least die defending themselves with guns in their hands. But people already lived in the place where they settled, poor people like them, workers and peasants. Thus, with the blessing of the two superpowers, the conditions were created for a permanent war between Jews and Arabs. Can’t those on the left who call for the destruction of Israel, that is to say the achieve-ment of the work of Hitler, not imagine another politics? Haven’t they ever thought about the fraternisation of peoples, their common struggle against their respective governments and for the republic of workers’ councils in the Middle East?"
"......One morning in February 1921, we were told at the union centre that a pogrom was being prep-ared against the Jews. Word had gone round that they had kidnapped a little Christian girl with the aim of killing her and using her blood in their religious rites. The criminals, adventurers and bigots had begun to gather, to shout, to insult the Jews, and were openly pushing for a pogrom. The union centre buglers sounded the alarm and called the workers to stop work and to get together. It was an alarm known to the workers, and when it rang out they had to immediately stop whatever they were doing, arm themselves with whatever came to hand and rush to the union centre. Some young people headed for the factories and the workers’ neighbourhoods. In less than half an hour, thousands of workers had assembled in front of the union centre and an enormous human mass set off in the direction of the pogromists, with a sign at its head: “Hands off the Jews”. The whole bunch of vagabonds, thugs and cretins, along with the traders and priests who had stirred them up, scattered at the sight of the popular torrent. Following this we formed a committee and demanded that the Governor General arrest the instigators. They were arrested and imprisoned. Two months later, we met them again in the new prison, when it was our turn to be granted its hospitality".
The union centre buglers sounded the alarm and called the workers to stop work and to get together. It was an alarm known to the workers, and when it rang out they had to immediately stop whatever they were doing, arm themselves with whatever came to hand and rush to the union centre. Some young people headed for the factories and the workers’ neighbourhoods. In less than half an hour, thousands of workers had assembled in front of the union centre and an enormous human mass set off in the direction of the pogromists, with a sign at its head: “Hands off the Jews”.
If only we had that kind of organisation and solidarity
Thanks Alf
Thus, with the blessing of the two superpowers, the conditions were created for a permanent war between Jews and Arabs. Can’t those on the left who call for the destruction of Israel, that is to say the achieve-ment of the work of Hitler, not imagine another politics? Haven’t they ever thought about the fraternisation of peoples, their common struggle against their respective governments and for the republic of workers’ councils in the Middle East?"
.
Come on, opposing the existence of Israel is NOT "achieving" Hitler's "work," or goal or purpose. That's just playing the Holocaust card. I certainly can imagine another politics. I certainly have thought about the fraternization of peoples, and a republic of workers' councils in the Middle East. But I can't imagine those things, think those relations are possible as long as Israel exists, no more than such relations were possible as long as the apartheid state in South Africa existed. Yes, the overthrow of the white apartheid state in South Africa, and the overthrow of the zionist/religious state of Israel are necessary. No, they are not sufficient. But you're not getting anywhere as long as Israel exists as Israel, as an homeland "exclusively" for Jews, i.e. meaning expropriating and exploitating other ethic groups and the basis of an enforced ethnicity.
. In less than half an hour, thousands of workers had assembled in front of the union centre and an enormous human mass set off in the direction of the pogromists, with a sign at its head: “Hands off the Jews”. The whole bunch of vagabonds, thugs and cretins, along with the traders and priests who had stirred them up, scattered at the sight of the popular torrent.
Indeed. And how many Zionists assembled at the union centre at the sound of the alarm? In 1921? Clearly it's the defeat of the workers' revolution that makes extermination an economic policy, and makes Zionism appear as the "humanitarian" alternative.
And this:
Following this we formed a committee and demanded that the Governor General arrest the instigators. They were arrested and imprisoned
.
Gets you to this, and always gets you to this:
Two months later, we met them again in the new prison, when it was our turn to be granted its hospitality".
If you were able to form defense militias to suppress the assault, then the step is not to demand that the existing government incarcerate the goons, but that the militias arrest the goons themselves, and that goons be subjected of revolutionary tribunals, not government prisons, where you will undoubtedly wind up, and remain, long after the goons are released.
Artesian is right to criticise the demand made to imprison the pogromists. But that's not the main point. The point is that the working class in 1921 had sufficient sense of its class needs to organise against the pogromists on its own terrain, not the terrain of the ruling class. This was very far removed from the later descent into democratic anti-fascism, which was indeed a product of the defeat of the revolution.
Regarding the destruction of Israel: what Stinas, the thoroughgoing defender of 'revolutionary defeatism' against all imperialist war, is surely saying in his criticism of the 'left' is that it supported the military destruction of Israel in an imperialist war against the surrounding Arab states. And that this went in completely the opposite direction to the proletarian conception: that the goal of the working class is neither the military victory of the Arab states over Israel, nor some transitional regime in which Israel remains capitalist but not Zionist, but the destruction of all the states in the region, whatever national or religious flags they drape themselves in, by the revolution of the workers' councils. It is moreover impossible to imagine such an overturn of the present status quo in the Middle East without the inspiration of a proletarian revolution in the centres of world capitalism.
Wild Socialism examines the rise, development, and decline of revolutionary councils of industrial workers in Berlin at the end of the First World War.
An analysis of the strike waves of the late-1970s Brazilian working-class movement, and the important role which car factory workers played in it.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
▶ Can comment on articles and discussions
▶ Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
▶ Bookmark articles to your own reading list
▶ Use the site private messaging system
▶ Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
What even vaguely are you dribbling about? If anything doesn't mean anything in this thread so far it's this ill considered flapdoodle. Ed made a claim about the number of Jews supporting Zionism, true or false? Where did anyone 'equate' anything? When did you place this 'call' you imagine yourself to have made? Did you read the quotation from Tel Aviv Uni? Maybe you should 'call' the Kantor Centre and leave a message if you don't like their description of the contiguity of Israeli massacres and anti-semitic upsurges.
See my comments to SA but I have to say, this is taking a stupefyingly predictable path.
Sorry but I don't speak in plain, blunt phrases like this, as anyone on here not completely blinded by an agenda (in which case I might be in trouble) can attest to. 'The Jews have all the money' is too cheap to respond to and the others are dull misunderstandings at best and deliberate but inept at worst. If you really need to get into caricature to discuss anything then we've really nothing to say to each other, these are tabloid headlines, not arguments. I rarely get reduced to this but here goes: try looking at the quotations again, if you feel so strongly, but without prejudice this time. Good luck.
Thanks for the wee tutorial but I kind of knew all that already. It's not exactly rocket science nor is it relevant to the issue I'm concerned with at the moment. What interests me, and I really don't know how this could have escaped your notice, is whether or not ALL of these people should feel warranted in a belief that we are in the middle of a massive rise in anti-semitism, which does not distinguish between any of them, and to what extent such a belief is being engineered by something like the Holocaust industry as described by Finkelstein. This is a sensitive subject full of hazards and difficult to explore patiently while avoiding giving offence or anticipating subject positions to the point of stereotyping and closing our minds. It is also a very relevant and interesting issue, certainly to me, which demands discussion on these forums.