Why people on the far-left are very anti Israel?

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
Drakula25
Offline
Joined: 20-02-14
Feb 28 2014 21:27
omen wrote:
I have an idea for one more, but I haven't drawn anything yet. If he comes back again I probably will.

Keep 'em coming

Edit: I also made one for you but I don't make drawings for internet people so I just did a quick 5 min PS:

Worth noting, the original version of that picture is from this article about how the Israeli Foreign Ministry is paying students to go online and post propaganda without disclosing their employer. But then again, seeing as how everyone here is totally honest and how none of us could possibly be lying about who we are -- after all, this the internet where everyone always tells the truth -- I'm sure that program and similar internet propaganda programs to control and co-opt dissent have no relevance here. Surely, Khawaga's comments that "every state is settler-colonial" or Black Badger's posting Zionist pamphlets or Malva posting Israeli propaganda dressed up in "leftist" garb from the AWL is all just honest commentary from people who don't know better.

Drakula25
Offline
Joined: 20-02-14
Feb 28 2014 20:59
cantdocartwheels wrote:
personally I think if you say you are ''alienated'' from the left because its ''dominated'' by ''priviliged'' jews you're obviously an anti-Semite, I have little time for that sort of poisonous shite.

Then you won't have time for this wonderful article:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/does-nation-have-problem-palestini...

Quote:
As the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel gains traction across the United States, progressive media outlets are being forced to acknowledge Israeli apartheid like never before.

While it’s certainly an improvement from just five years ago, when pro-Palestine views were relegated to the most marginal corners of the left, the coverage has still been problematic, most notably for its near-blanket exclusion of Palestinian and Arab voices.

This dynamic was on full display in recent days when a debate erupted at The Nation over the National Council of the American Studies Association’s decision to endorse the academic boycott of Israel. In the end, The Nation published a total of five pieces on the topic.

Four were written by Jewish Americans (Michelle Goldberg, Judith Butler, Alex Lubin and Ari Y. Kelman, and just one by a Palestinian (Omar Barghouti). The Nation hosted a similarly disparate forum last year featuring three Jewish Americans and again just one Palestinian.

To be fair, the majority of pieces in the latest debate were in favor of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). But that doesn’t excuse the fact that when it comes to Israel and Palestine, The Nation habitually reinforces Israeli apartheid by privileging Jewish voices over Palestinian ones.

It’s highly unlikely that The Nation would ever host a forum on rape culture featuring four men and one woman, or a panel on racism made up of three white people and one African American. Yet somehow, four Jews and one Palestinian qualify as a “diversity of views,” according to its editor and publisher.

It doesn’t help that, based on a review of bloggers and columnists, it appears that The Nation employs no Palestinians or Arabs, and, as far as I could tell, none of their writers identifies as Muslim. Whose fault is that?

Hasbara playbook

It’s also telling that the first to write about the American Studies Association vote at The Nation was Michelle Goldberg, whose piece was filled with so many inaccuracies it required two major corrections and prompted a fiery response from Judith Butler.

Though Goldberg claims to be “ambivalent” about BDS, she expresses far more concern for how a boycott might inconvenience Israeli academics than she does for the brutal consequences of Israeli apartheid on occupied, terrorized and dispossessed Palestinians.

Echoing anti-BDS propaganda taken right out of the hasbara playbook, Goldberg writes: “It’s repellant to contemplate Israeli professors being shut out of conferences or barred from journals for no reason other than their ethnicity, or forced to prove sufficient opposition to the occupation to be part of international intellectual life.”

It takes several paragraphs of similarly unfounded speculation before Goldberg bothers to mention that the boycott applies to Israeli institutions, not individuals, and therefore does not violate academic freedom. Then again, Goldberg’s distaste for BDS should come as no surprise given her ideological attachment to Israel, which she fails to mention in her piece.

Goldberg has spoken openly on more than one occasion about the “inherent contradictions … between Zionism and liberal democracy,” but nevertheless argues that the “continuing existence of Israel is more important than the reconciliation of all of our ideals” (“Michelle Goldberg: ‘Everyone knows’ journalists sacrifice their careers by taking dissenting views on Israel/Palestine,” Mondoweiss, 22 March 2009).

Writing in The Guardian in 2009, Goldberg claims, “history has shown the necessity of the Jewish state, and Israel is the only one there is,” therefore “the end of Zionism would merely be the beginning of a new nightmare.”

In other words, she is willing to at least for now overlook the horrific consequences of Zionism on the indigenous inhabitants of the Holy Land for the sake of maintaining a majority Jewish state.

Invested in Zionism

Goldberg can claim neutrality on BDS and sympathy for Palestinian suffering all she wants, but it won’t change the fact that she is invested in Zionism, an ideology that requires the erasure of Palestinians. With that in mind it becomes clear that her distaste for BDS is likely rooted in her commitment to an indefensible ideology that she admits is at odds with the equality she enjoys in the United States.

Compared to Goldberg’s pseudo-ambivalence, it’s almost refreshing, though still inexcusable, when The Nation publishes anti-BDS rants by writers who are more forthcoming about their intentions.

Last year, Nation staff writer Ben Adler, whose beat consists of “Republican politics and conservative media,” used his column to trash BDS and denounce the Palestinian right of return.

“Calling for a Palestinian ‘right of return,’” complained Adler, “is … calling for the demographic abolition of Israel as a Jewish state” (“The problem with BDS,” 31 March 2012).

He then took to Twitter to double down on his racist framing of Palestinian bodies as “demographic” threats — in what can only be described as the language of a bigot emotionally invested in Israel’s maintenance of ethnic and religious supremacy to the detriment of its indigenous inhabitants. It’s difficult to imagine The Nation, or progressives more generally, tolerating such bigotry against any other minority group. Yet at The Nation, Palestinians are fair game.

Worse still is the continued employment of The Nation columnist Eric Alterman, whose well-documented racist hostility toward Palestinians is regularly praised by right-wing outlets like Commentary and the Washington Free Beacon.

“Acceptable resistance”

There is no shortage of Jewish American writers at The Nation lecturing Palestinians about what constitutes acceptable resistance to Israeli apartheid. The Nation justifies publishing these opinions in the name of diversity. But that certainly wasn’t the case at in the days of South African apartheid.

A search through The Nation’s archives reveals unflinching condemnation of South Africa’s apartheid regime and editorial support for the divestment movement in its earliest days.

In the 16 August 1965 issue, Stanley Meisler (who would later become an LA Times foreign and diplomatic correspondent) refers to South Africa as an “evil” and “neo-Fascist state” (“Our Stake in Apartheid”). Fast forward to 2013, and the magazine is printing Eric Alterman’s tantrum-induced smears of Max Blumenthal for having the audacity to write a book about Israel’s descent into fascism.

In what could just as easily be reprinted today to describe Israel, an 18 June 1983 Nation editorial reads, “It is degrading to regard South Africa in terms of US interests rather than in terms of principles. But the crisis in that country is a challenge to America as a multiracial society with (presumably) a multiracial foreign policy. It is a challenge to any country that spouts fine words about the ‘leadership of the free world’ — however that freedom may be defined” (“By Brute Force”).

An article in the 24 January 1987 issue opens with: “The appalling intransigence of the South African government in the face of worldwide pressure to abandon its apartheid laws, its brutality and violence, its censorship of the press, have combined to elicit a dramatic resurgence of corporate-action campaigns in mainstream America” (“Corporate Accounting: Give Your Dollars a Political Spin”).

That The Nation feels compelled to continue hosting debates on the merits of BDS is troubling given that no such debate existed at the magazine during South Africa’s apartheid regime. The existence of apartheid was not subject to debate then, and it shouldn’t be now.

Mother Jones recently chastised Liz Cheney for a 1988 editorial that argued against divestment from the apartheid regime. Unsurprisingly, much of her argument mirrors those being peddled by anti-BDS writers today.

The Nation should take notice, otherwise decades from now it will be the subject of ridicule for giving a platform to Israel’s apologists.

Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Feb 28 2014 21:12
Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Feb 28 2014 21:42
Drakula25 wrote:
Worth noting, the original version of that picture is from this article about how the Israeli Foreign Ministry is paying students to go online and post propaganda without disclosing their employer. But then again, seeing as how everyone here is totally honest and how none of us could possibly be lying about who we are -- after all, this the internet where everyone always tells the truth -- I'm sure that program and similar internet propaganda programs to control and co-opt dissent have no relevance here. Surely, Khawaga's comments that "every state is settler-colonial" or Black Badger's posting Zionist pamphlets or Malva posting Israeli propaganda dressed up in "leftist" garb from the AWL is all just honest commentary from people who don't know better.

Even on libcom we're been infiltrated by paid agents of Zionism! Is there any realm these people don't have their claws in? 3/10 for the cartoon.

Drakula25
Offline
Joined: 20-02-14
Feb 28 2014 21:51
Tyrion wrote:
Drakula25 wrote:
Worth noting, the original version of that picture is from this article about how the Israeli Foreign Ministry is paying students to go online and post propaganda without disclosing their employer. But then again, seeing as how everyone here is totally honest and how none of us could possibly be lying about who we are -- after all, this the internet where everyone always tells the truth -- I'm sure that program and similar internet propaganda programs to control and co-opt dissent have no relevance here. Surely, Khawaga's comments that "every state is settler-colonial" or Black Badger's posting Zionist pamphlets or Malva posting Israeli propaganda dressed up in "leftist" garb from the AWL is all just honest commentary from people who don't know better.

Even on libcom we're been infiltrated by paid agents of Zionism! Is there any realm these people don't have their claws in? 3/10 for the cartoon.

Obviously not! Everyone on here is being honest. Btw I'm 18/f/in your area. pm me 4 hawt pix lol

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Feb 28 2014 23:01

Drak, (damn, been drawn back in!) I have met a few libcom posters irl, and had personal chats online with them in a few cases (though afaik not met the ones you cite as evidence of our zionist infiltration). I think we are all genuine/legit proles who express their real analysis of situations and are capable of reflection and engaging in rational debate.

otoh, you're a new poster who no one here knows, who seems hell-bent on deliberately misrepresenting and befuddling us. If anyone's acting like a state asset it's you (though perhaps not an Israeli asset).

I don't think that's the case, I just think you're, for whatever reason, utterly wedded to your position. That's fine (sort of..) but this is all getting a bit silly (well, it got silly pages ago).

We do all oppose the state of Israel (and all others and so on) but wtf are we supposed to do about it, afaik only epk has a direct relationship with that area and I'm sure they make a difference where they can (and have given their honest view).

You're still clinging to one leaflet, and the standard anarchist position of opposition to all states, as proof of something that's all in your head. It ain't proof, it ain't even supporting your argument slightly afaict. At no point have we said anything to support the actions of Israel. Nor has anyone denied that its a colonial fucked-up state doing fucked up things to the Palestinians and trying to justify it with propaganda.

When I was at Uni there were pro-Palestinian rallies, talks, petitions etc very regularly. It was talked about constantly by radicals and leftists. Israel was singled out as especially oppressive by many who were less/ barely critical of other states or not even aware of how states function, and aren't aware of the other atrocities going on in the world or of the history of how all states engaged in similar shit at some point.

I can see why some might single out Israel for criticism. It gets more attention because of the recent history, stuff like the wall, apartheid and the fact that it only began existing fairly recently so is still more active in enforcing colonial shit but I do also think anti-semitism plays a part in many cases of why people are not blind to the shit Isreal does but are less aware of other states actions... (fuck, this point has been made, why am I bothering). I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. I feel a bit disappointed you haven't been able to get your head around why we keep rehashing the same ground instead of moving on. Why not talk about some other topics, we got loads of oppression in the world to discuss, is your state asset crib-sheet only currently geared to spreading confusion amongst anarchists on this topic alone. (I jest... I think)

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 2 2014 17:56

OMG one of the admins just send me this my mistake, so I'm gunna leak:

------------Eyes only--------------------------------
Notes for agents infiltrating libcom to spread zionist propaganda:

Golden Rule: Keep Drak posting. While he's posting he's not smashing the state of Israel.

MO: Say you oppose Israel, but crucially, also say you oppose other states. He will be able to tell you really support Israel, and will spend ages trying to prove it (see Golden Rule).

-------------------Eyes only--------------------------

edit3: initially felt that I'd contributed to unfair mockery and harmed the possibility of a constructive exchange of ideas. I posted 2 edits which attempted a conciliatory tone. Having seen the quotes pulled out below by Standfield, I now no longer wish to offer to engage in a comradely fashion with someone who seems to be an anti-semite. Have some mixed feelings about resorting to jokes or insults, especially where many of us pile in on one person.

laborbund's picture
laborbund
Offline
Joined: 1-03-10
Mar 1 2014 03:11

I don't know about anyone else, but drak has convinced me that libcom.org is a front for hasbara and that the best course is to stop organizing for class struggle and to start attending rallies protesting the evil state of Israel and the jew-run media.

cresspot's picture
cresspot
Offline
Joined: 8-09-13
Mar 1 2014 09:54
Drakula25
Offline
Joined: 20-02-14
Mar 1 2014 15:18
A Wotsit wrote:
I have met a few libcom posters irl,

Hmmm, guy on the internet says other guys on internet are fine.

Do you honestly operate this way? Forget about Israel for a second, do you really believe that people who present themselves this way in anarchist circles, on the internet or in real life, are "legit"? I remember finding out that several of my comrades in the US had been baited by a federal agent who had been doing radical organizing for 10 years. The internet is not safe, and if you think an internet forum where literally ANYONE can sign up and post things is some kind of serious standard for "legitimate" radicals then I would caution you to be more careful.

As for all this stuff about Israel, it seems like everyone is going over everyone else's heads. I recognize that the posters in here officially oppose the state of Israel. The problem is mainly the fact that nobody here seems to have a sophisticated view of white supremacy, settler-colonialism, or racism. The fact that someone can say "all nationalisms are settler-colonial" and then get 100 upvotes or whatever is ridiculous. That is a lie, and a fairly blatant insult to people who are on the not-so-white end of that equation -- including me.

You may feel that your suspicion of anti-Semitism on the left is legitimate. It's hard to argue with people who believe their suspicions are grounded in reality, especially when they are suspicious of something that is legitimately bad (like anti-Semitism). But conversations like these (which I've had on and off the internet, with people who claim to be leftists and people who claim to be conservatives) make it clear to me that the suspicion is not based on that. Instead, there is a consistent pattern of trying to ignore, bemoan, downplay, or stigmatize Palestine solidarity and other work regarding Arabs and Muslims. If these issues are addressed, they are always watered down, where dissent is only acceptable after jumping through a series of arbitrary hoops that have nothing to do with avoiding oppression (i.e. Don't criticize Zionism, make sure you have Jewish voices in your circle, XYZ).

You yourself mention a series of reasons why Israel would be singled out, and then randomly add "anti-Semitism" on top. To which I say: WTF? The effect of your added suspicion, which is literally based on nothing, is that now anti-racist activists involved in Palestine Solidarity have to pander to your suspicions by adding in token Jewish voices, releasing statement after statement that they don't hate Jews, silencing dissident voices that have said nothing wrong simply because it "sounds" anti-Jewish to leftists like you, etc. The effect is the extension of the core principle of Zionism: the privilege of Jews and the erasure of the Palestinian indigene. This is how it makes its way INTO the movements for Palestine. That does not have to be something people do consciously (i.e teeheehee I'm a nefarious Zionist and I want to fuck with Drak's head!). It can be done the same way white privilege entered African-American organizing circles: fear that anything "too radical" would alienate Southern whites and their ingrained and often exaggerated fears that the blacks would come and lynch/kill them all and their children if given too many rights. This manifested itself (and still manifests itself) in fear of black people and concerns about "minority rights" being used to trample the poor white man.

That is where my comments are coming from. I don't see a single post that has addressed this concern -- which is what confirms my views.

libcom's picture
libcom
Offline
Joined: 20-03-05
Mar 1 2014 15:23

Ok, Drakula25 banned. libcom is not a platform for antisemitism.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 1 2014 15:35
libcom wrote:
Ok, Drakula25 banned. libcom is not a platform for antisemitism.

I think this is wrong actually. I don't think that he is an anti-Semite, nor has he been putting forward anti-Semitism. He has put forward a pretty widespread view on the left about the Palestinian topic , which is tinged with Americanism modernism such as privilege theory. I don't think he is an anti-Semite though, and personally I think people have been shockingly rude to him.

Devrim

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Mar 1 2014 17:58

As much as I disagree with drakula25's conclusions and interpretation, I also don't agree with their being banned for anti-semitism. What is the reasoning behind it?

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 1 2014 18:30
Quote:
I don't think that he is an anti-Semite, nor has he been putting forward anti-Semitism.

I made the case that he calls for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis. He did not choose to deny this. Surely that alone is enough.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Mar 1 2014 19:51

drakula25 tried to prove that there were zero anti-semitic leftists. But I guess s/he forgot to count him/herself.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 1 2014 20:04
Malva wrote:
I made the case that he calls for the ethnic cleansing of Israelis. He did not choose to deny this. Surely that alone is enough.

Lots of people on the left, including some anarchists, support national liberation movements. I don't. I think they are anti-working class. There have been people on here supporting Kurdish nationalists in Syria, a group which is openly talking about ethnic cleansing of Arabs. I don't recall any calls for those people to be banned.

Also, I don't think that calling for the abolition of the State of Israel, and it replacements by a Palestinian state is the same as calling for ethnic cleansing, even though the implications of that happening may well be ethnic cleansing.

If Libcom has a policy of banning people who support national liberation movements, then yes, he should be banned. As far as I know it doesn't though. Personally, I think that it is better to argue these things out, without falling down on outright abuse, as on this thread if possible.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 1 2014 20:20

Devrim, Drakula accused nearly everyone of being Zionists agents, that anyone disagreeing with him/her essentially is an anti-Arab. First thing he said to me was that my nick was "probably anti-Arab" and so on and so forth. He started the abuse right away, and me calling him anti-semitic was due to his use of some very common anti-semitic tropes. From the get-go s/he wasn't interested in discussion, only in forcing his views on everyone else, which is likely a tactic that s/he likely has deployed successfully before. Arguing it out with someone who is in essence a bully just won't work. Drakula didn't really engage with most of the points posters made, but rather selectively cherry-picked stuff he disagreed with and ascribed some form of Zionist content to it.

Standfield's picture
Standfield
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Mar 1 2014 20:32
Malva wrote:

But 'abolish Israel' can mean two radically different things from different people. If it means "abolish the totality of capitalist social relations so that we can live in peace and harmony", then so be it, but if it means any shade of "destroy the nasty and malicious Israelis, bulldoze their cities and erase their peculiarly pernicious presence in the middle east" then that is antisemitic.

Drakula25 wrote:

The latter is simply a particular and exaggerated-sounding version of the former.

I don't know Devrim, I may be reading this wrong or taking it out of context, but that does sound like Drakula's equating, "peace and harmony", with "bulldozing Israelis".

laborbund's picture
laborbund
Offline
Joined: 1-03-10
Mar 2 2014 01:33

Devrim and Gram, everything that dude posted from their first post onward suggested that they were completely obsessed with opposition to israel in particular, but not too concerned with achieving communism. They repeatedly asserted that antisemitism on the left was a myth, that antisemitism wasn't a problem more generally, that we were all zionists or at least zionist sympathizers for disagreeing with them, and finally insinuated that regular libcom posters are agents of hasbara. If that isn't antisemitic, surely you would agree that it is very shit politics? They adopted an insulting, accusatory tone from their first post onwards, and when some posters (admittedly myself not among them) responded to them thoughtfully they did not respond in kind, but instead continued with their accusations of zionism. So they didn't seem interested in putting their shit politics up for discussion either. So really, why allow such a person to continue to post?

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 2 2014 01:37

Please can people check the new thread started by a new? poster questioning the ban decision on this thread. I suspect it may be Drak. Though I am not sure.

http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/palestine-israel-thread-010320...

Standfield's picture
Standfield
Offline
Joined: 13-04-11
Mar 2 2014 03:07

Nothing personal, just really bored.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Mar 2 2014 17:26
Khawaga wrote:
Devrim, Drakula accused nearly everyone of being Zionists agents, that anyone disagreeing with him/her essentially is an anti-Arab. First thing he said to me was that my nick was "probably anti-Arab" and so on and so forth. He started the abuse right away, and me calling him anti-semitic was due to his use of some very common anti-semitic tropes. From the get-go s/he wasn't interested in discussion, only in forcing his views on everyone else, which is likely a tactic that s/he likely has deployed successfully before. Arguing it out with someone who is in essence a bully just won't work. Drakula didn't really engage with most of the points posters made, but rather selectively cherry-picked stuff he disagreed with and ascribed some form of Zionist content to it.

laborbund wrote:
Devrim and Gram, everything that dude posted from their first post onward suggested that they were completely obsessed with opposition to israel in particular, but not too concerned with achieving communism. They repeatedly asserted that antisemitism on the left was a myth, that antisemitism wasn't a problem more generally, that we were all zionists or at least zionist sympathizers for disagreeing with them, and finally insinuated that regular libcom posters are agents of hasbara. If that isn't antisemitic, surely you would agree that it is very shit politics? They adopted an insulting, accusatory tone from their first post onwards, and when some posters (admittedly myself not among them) responded to them thoughtfully they did not respond in kind, but instead continued with their accusations of zionism. So they didn't seem interested in putting their shit politics up for discussion either. So really, why allow such a person to continue to post?

Yes, he was rude. Lots of people are. Personally, I think communists should try not to be. This is still true when others are being rude and insulting. In fact I would say it is especially true in those situations.

He also had politics that I am quite opposed to.

I don't think he was an anti-Semite though. I think that this s a term that means more than rude and opposed to the State of Israel.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 2 2014 17:34
Devrim wrote:
I don't think he was an anti-Semite though. I think that this s a term that means more than rude and opposed to the State of Israel.

Come on, Devrim. That's pretty weak. He employed several anti-semitic tropes. He wasn't necessarily an anti-semite, but some of his arguments were in that territory.

laborbund's picture
laborbund
Offline
Joined: 1-03-10
Mar 2 2014 17:59

From the other thread, which Im going to refrain from:

Khawaga wrote:
Nobody disagrees that Israel is attempting ethnic or political cleansing of the Palestinians. At one point or another all states have (some still are) busy getting rid of unwanted elements in their countries by either killing them off, completely assimilating them, destroying their culture or some form of that. This is what nation-states do; they are per definition racist. All the anti-immigration stuff is just an extension of that; not wanting to "dirty" the nation with impure people's. On that level Israel is not any different from any other state. That's a principled stance on Israel based on opposition to all nation-states, not on some exceptionalism that Israel is much much worse than anyone else because [insert anti-semitic trope here].

Pretty much this. It was pointed out again and again that there are many other states which recently have or currently are engaged in ethnic cleansing with the Western support and that the left devotes little if any attention to these states. The Turkish–Kurdish conflict and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor were among the examples. In light of this, Drak offered that Israel is worse because it is settler–colonialist, which to me seems to be arguing that ethnic cleansing is worse if perpetrated by people whose ancestors arrived more recently. A very arbitrary cop–out for Draks antisemitism, imo, and one that ignores the historical circumstances that led millions of Jews to Israel in the first place.

Draks creative variation on the denialism trope was particularly infuriating; while making frequent references to the holocaust, Drak kept repeating that antisemitism no longer exists in society, and that it certainly doesnt exist on the left. Anyone disagreeing, according to Drak, must have been a Jew “playing the race card.” Its also pretty typical for antisemites to excuse their antisemitism by denying the reality of antisemitsm as distinct movement and using esoteric definitions of antisemitism as an evasion. That was all pretty evident in Draks posts. Additionally, Drak made constant reference to zionist propaganda, accusing all of us of being its agents, and Israeli attempts to sway US public opinion. A not very subtle spin on “the Jews control the media, and youre not allowed to speak negatively of Israel.”

And I feel good about being rude to him. Being polite wasnt going to change anything, and as I said before, I have to deal with this shit all of the time. So, I dont feel like I owe any respect to weird antisemitic activists on the internet.

Sinuhe
Offline
Joined: 2-03-14
Mar 4 2014 19:25
Quote:
Nobody disagrees that Israel is attempting ethnic or political cleansing of the Palestinians.

I disagree.

I think Israel needs Palestine to be a constant trouble.

The same can be said IMO of the instability in the Middle East in general. I think that instability in the Arab countries is a positive thing to the state of Israel.

I’ve seen people compare Israel /Palestine with Sparta and the Helots. Yet I don’t like these easy comparisons and I am not an expert in the Israel /Palestine conflict.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 4 2014 20:48
Quote:
I think that instability in the Arab countries is a positive thing to the state of Israel.

The Israeli government disagrees; see how they flip-flopped on Assad's Syria, and how they were concerned when Mubarak fell. Some instability is good, but what they really want are good Arab disctators that keep their populations in line and use Israel as diversion.

Also political cleansing means that Israel eradicates Palestine as a political project, not necessarily the people known as Palestinians. This is an alternative way of understanding what Israel is doing to Palestinians (and was covered quite well by the book Politicide, which focused on Sharon's approach). With politicide Israel can have their cake and eat it; eradicated the possibility of a Palestinian state, but can still rely on the threat of Palestine to close domestic ranks.

Sinuhe
Offline
Joined: 2-03-14
Mar 4 2014 23:13

I disagreed with the “ethnical cleansing” you mentioned.

Egypt and Israel coexist in a different sphere IMO.

I think the “Arab menace” surrounding Israel gives much strength to the Israeli State. It seems to me that it helps to justify its existence and its actions.

Maybe the reasons for the “anti-Israel” in the far-left (if that is even 100% true) are: The US support for Israel and the Israeli version of the “Apartheid” and occupation/colonization of Palestinian territories.

I am neither against Israelis nor Palestinians. In fact I am in favor of both.

gram negative's picture
gram negative
Offline
Joined: 24-11-09
Mar 5 2014 01:32

After reading a number of the follow up posts from laborbund and khawaga, as well as rereading drak's posts, I retract my concern over their banning. Thanks for the context, everyone.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Mar 6 2014 14:17
cresspot wrote:

but

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
May 5 2015 09:53

noclass, I sympathise with the underlying intention of your post 181 but it surely ignores the fact that 'ideology' has material roots also which have to be challenged in our practice as part of the class struggle.