Anti-semitism amongst the left and anarchists

i agree. but i do think the term has use to apply to e.g. conspiracy theories that make no reference to jews explicitly, but draw on the resonances of classical anti-semitism. i'm aware this is a partial redefinition of the term, but i think it actually makes more sense since it refers to arguments which have the structure of anti-semitism without the content of anti-jewish racism; whereas a truncated critique of capital focussing on finance may be just that, if anything an expression of commodity fetishism, a critique of capital that takes its most obvious form of appearance - money - as the root of all evil, so to speak. no necessary relation to anti-semitism at all.

Yes, but if you present reasoned criticism in a more diplomatic manner, it has a greater chance of getting through. Saying you're appaled, it's anti-semitic, and it's equivalent to far right propaganda is bound to be interpreted as an attack, especially given the tension between anarkismo and libcom. It all depends on whether you're content with being right or actually want to change people's minds.

This thing about people with different politics saying similar things is a thorny issue. Or has Ehud Olmert become a communist supporting the Palestinian working class:

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but even given the changes to the FdCA article it still contains some pretty bad politics. I'm not trying to say that the authors themselves are closet anti-semites, but the insinuation that a "Pro-Israel" lobby is shaping US foreign policy still clearly reproduces the logic of classical antisemitism.

I agree that it's easy to over-react on this issue, and I don't want to contribute to any hysteria, but I think that it would be a good idea for someone, hopefully more eloquent than myself, to issue a response statement if we are going to try to fix crap politics within anarchist circles. ToJ's statement is a good beginning to this process.

Also, the rest of the statement contains some very national-liberation/third-worldist stuff:

To be fair, there are definitely seeds of a sensible critique in parts of the article, but they're so buried in muddled politics along with populist and conspiracist reasoning and rhetoric, that it's near impossible to get any insight at all from it.

I largely agree, except that this defensive reaction is by no means limited to anti-semitism, calling people on sexism or racism of any kind can lead to that person resorting to defensiveness and personal abuse rather than acknowledging that they might have unknowingly said something racist or sexist. I've seen this first hand and it can make it almost impossible to discuss problems with unconcious racism or sexism within a group.

If we can't be anti-Zionist are we allowed to be Islamophobic? They certainly scare me.

To be honest this FdCA statement is the most extreme example of anti-semitic comments amongst anarchists I've ever seen (if you exclude the classical anarchists). So to react strongly to it isn't unreasonable, nor is it undiplomatic to call something appalling when it very clearly is. Like I said above, even the far right wouldn't say something like this because so many people, rightly would be repulsed by it. So I think pretending something isn't what it is in this case is more unreasonable than being overly tolerant of the intolerable out of "anti-sectarianism" or something. And if people want to let petty internet politics determine their judgment, well thats their problem.

I mean, do you think that the idea that the "Jewish economic lobby" drives US policy isn't anti-semitic? This isn't the same as saying FdCA are anti-semites, for the reasons Angelus has laid out above.

This is an interesting forum with some interesting, intelligent and calmly put views but the words are too big for me and the phrases too complicated to get my head around. I think I'd better go swallow a dictionary, an encyclopedia and the Dave Spart book of terminology. Only teasing with the Dave Spart folks, but the 'context of a neo-liberal "culturalisation of the social question"' is somewhat beyond me. I think I better go to The Sun forum where I can understand what they say. Serious point though - do remember at times to try to speak in language people can understand as then they might be able to agree with you.

I would never argue that the lobby is the sole determiner of US policy in the middle east, but to reject its influence totally seems to be just ideological. It may not fit neatly into one's conception of the state, but policy objectives and goals have to be framed by someone. Though I don't think it is the whole picture, in the case of Israel, those working in and around the lobby have been relatively successful at casting Israeli interests in terms of US interests.

While this may have once been true, Israel is anything but a dependent state. It enjoys favored nation status with the European Union, its largest trading partner, and its arms industry, is one of the world’s largest and competes with that of the US on the world market. Israel is hardly hostage to US demands, being among other things one of the major centers of the domestic high tech industry.

What are you referring to here? arm sales to China? I suspect that that continues while the US turns a blind eye.
As far as US 'interests' goes, every president since Nixon has pursued a two state solution, at least on paper.

For this analogy to mean anything, Hezbollah would have to be a heavily dependent ally of Israels.

exactly, doesn't this apply then to the state of Israel itself?

Yes I think it's anti semitic (although I still don't actually know what is meant by "economic lobby"). However I don't think that thinking that there are some US Jewish lobby groups that influence (not control) US policy in favour of Israel is the same as thinking there is a shadowy Jewish Cabal that runs the world behind the scenes. Both are wrong but they are not equivalent. Anyway, I've had enough of this, all I want to know is what "Jewish economic lobby" is suppposed to mean.

see the Chomsky links earlier in the thread, he talks about the US scuppering an Israeli arms deal to China because it was counter to US interests. and i think israel is still the number one recipient of US military aid.

there's a string of things, non-support over the Suez debacle springs to mind. the pressure to end the Lebanon intervention when it became clear it was strengthening not weakening Hamas is another. Chomsky's far more well read than me on these things. if your suspicions aren't backed by any evidence then they're no more valid than any other claims concocted according to ideological fancy, which is precisely what is at issue with the FdCA statement.

literally you're right, but my point is that you need evidence for such claims, you can't just suppose a lobby has a certain influence because it fits some just-so story.

i suspect we'll never know now the phrase has been retracted. apparently the synonym is 'pro-israel lobby' according to the amendment. i suspect the 'economic' related to the wealth of the lobby, since it's not like there's massive pro-israel trade unions flexing their industrial muscles to influence US policy in favour of Israel (unless i've seriously missed something!).

Surely "Western" secularism, of which we socialists, communists and anarchists are a product and a part, is better (as it is to catholicism which is also irrational and sexist and used to be barbaric too till secularists faced it down) and that it is politically incorrect to deny this? Or are you one of those relativists who say that cannibalism is a matter of taste?

Religious barbarism is by no means non-existant in Western countries, you try walking past loony Christians who're picketting an abortion clinic in the US or being gay in a small community with a strong, conservative Christian tendancy within it.

Secularism is not exclusive to the West, nor is the West necessarily secular, to acknowledge this is not cultural relativism.

also, secular states are not immune to barbarism. sure, they don't tend to stone adulterers and gays, but they do have cluster bombs and guantanamo bay (this is not relativism, but realism). the 'Othering' of islam has to be understood as part of a critique of religion and states per se. of course religious - and specifically islamic - barbarism is real, whatever anti-islamophobic leftists building electoral alliances claim, although its singling out is enmeshed in ideological agendas. that said i'm not convinced the british state really does this, 'the muslim community' is in large part a product of the new labour project and thus ministers are at pains to point out islamists are not like the 'majority of peaceful, law abiding muslims' etc. i think a lot of the cries of 'islamphobia' originate from trots pandering to nick the votes of 'the muslim community' from labour, but clealy racism does also take the form of attacks on muslims (as a psuedo-ethnic group, not a bunch of irrationalist spiritualists), like Kilroy's 'what have the arabs (sic) ever done for us?' gaffe.

Yeah, thats fair enough. I mean, I use different terms when discussing politics on here that I would talking to co-workers, etc. Thats at least in part to avoid being associated with the worst lefty politics (of the Dave Spart sort) that using certain words with people unfamiliar with the ideas could bring about, 'working class' being understood as being about factories, flat caps and whippets etc. On the other hand, if you want definitions, you have the entire internets and the dictionaries and wikis it contains to find them .

Off the top of my head theres two instances of arms sales to China being embarrassingly reigned in without a peep from the lobby (in one case including sanctions and the demand of a public apology from Israel), Bush vetoing Israel's planned strike on Iran's nuclear facilities last year, a cancelled satellite technology deal with North Korea, the Rabin government being forced to enter peace talks, and Israel's activities in the Lebannon being reigned in when they backfired. Chomsky's written about all these and more, and Stephen Zunes who is a high-profile leftist international relations scholar has debunked the lobby argument in great detail - I linked to a couple of articles of his earlier in the thread. He's worth looking at.

cut and paste error corrected!

The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.

why are chemists in bold in that Engels quote? is it because they are great? proletaire, ta meilleure amie, c'est la chimie!

Where does Engels say that it's impossible for you to have an interest in critical theory? Your trade unionist parents should have spent more time teaching you how to read.

In no way is that obvious.

from the text quoted

It is in no way obvious from the quoted text that Engels thought that workers could not have the capacity for intellectual pursuits, or that they were only capable of vulgar pastimes. Your posts don't have continuity, because you are wrong and trying to hide it through obfuscation.

Why did you even go on this tangent?

Let's get back on subject.

A question that was raised in discussing the Anarkismo article was whether the "Jewish economic lobby" paragraph was misguided and unfortunate - but incidental - or something more fundamental to the 'logic' of their argument.

the original paragraph again:

What ddid they proposed here? They write that the USA has to "deal with" the "Jewish economic lobby" - this implies conflict. So not only do they argue that "powerful US Jew(s)" has "strong influence on US foreign policy", they argue that this influence is exerted against the interests of the US state.

All of this is deeply irrational. By what means does this "Jewish economic lobby" boss around the most powerful nation on the planet? If one actually believes this, I cannot imagine it is merely incidental poor wording. Several supporters of the statement responded to criticism by saying "oh no! it's not anti-semitism - because the jewish lobby really does control things!!!" So, it seems that the anti-semitism in this case is more deeply rooted.

Of course, anti-semitism is just one of the problems with that article. Even without that paragraph, it puts forward a nationalist position on the war and falls into the regular line of leftist populism. I'm sure many others on the Left have published much worse about the current conflict, and one cannot really expect Left groups to do any different.

This poster is featured prominently in coverage of the Oscar Grant protest/riot in Oakland, CA. There are actually a bunch of anti-zionist posters and banners at the rallies.

Why? Zionism has nothing to do with the situation in Oakland.

What's disturbing to me is the use of the star of David, not even the Israeli flag. The first image does not even say Israel.

WOW. That is fucked up.

Is that slant coming from the RCP Yoshomon? I heard they were muscling in on the Oscar Grant protests...