Harry’s Place

That description seems to fit Noam Chomsky. I am sure there are others as well.

Struck me as spot on for Indymedia. Not anti-Semites, no no never no, just tying themselves in knots defending goosesteppers and Zündelistas they thought were merely ‘anti-Zionists’.

Norman Finkelstein comes to mind.

The distinction you make is well stated. Innumerable Western Jews fit the fellow-traveling profile. See, for instance, Ezra Levant’s blog on his persecutions by various Canadian “Human Rights” tribunals and the role played by the Canadian Jewish Congress in support of the tribunals.

(And by the way, anyone who hasn’t seen Levant on YouTube, appearing before a Canadian Human Rights apparatchik, is missing a treat)

Its the same old Leftist dookie. Hyper-ventilate against all 12 North American Nazis, but carry buckets of water for those who advocate jihad, executing gays, and blowing up Jewish kindergartens.

Pat Buchanan in his waning days on this mortal coil seems to be precariously close to falling off the divide (hell, many would say he has already dived into the abyss headfirst) from between being one who fancies himself as providing a “realist”critique of “Zionism” (however defined–which tends to be an in-the-eye-of-the-beholder thing) to that of a panting anti-Zionist ideologue, headed on over perilously close to what those not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt would call true “Jew bashing”–albeit “articulate” bashing if that makes it go down any smoother.

Samuel Stott: I wish I’d of thought to describe it like that(…against all 12 North American Nazis, but carry buckets of water…..) Perfect, says it all.

It’s a “You’re either with us oragainst us” argument and thus is false. It may well be describing accurately some untenable positions held by some people but it does also imply that any objection to Israel’s right to exist is anti-semitic. Which is not the case.

Antish

-did you actually read the article?

from paragraph 3 (pg1)

please note the last sentence…

The question arises, is it right to characterise as antisemitic those adverse stances towards Israel and the Zionist project that are derived from false facts, and / or are malicious, and / or are taken without regard to Jewish objections, and / or resonate with antisemitism’s history and / or deploy antisemitic tropes? Mostly, the answer is “yes” - particularly when several of these features are combined. But in certain instances, the answer might be, “no” - or “not quite.”

Perhaps your own views coloured your reading of the article?

ta - no I didn’t read the link. Apologies. However, none of the choices offered in the sentence you quote necessarily applies to everyone who questions Israel’s legitimacy (which I don’t, BTW - I’m prepared to accept a fait accompli from before I was born). I do agree that they probaly cover most of the people who do - good enough for a rule of thumb but not good enough for a priniciple.

“Similarly, FTASs tend to find violence against Jews acceptable in Israel, but not here. Indeed, not just acceptable, but justified.”
Mr Julius conflates antisemitism and antizionism here: the people he refers to think violence against anyone in Israel acceptable or justified. Such opinions may or may not be justified but they are not necessarily antisemitic. Equally, attacking known or supposed supporters of Israel outside Israel may not be justified or acceptable, but it is not necessarily antisemitic.
One problem with discussions of Israel/Palestine is that the terms are so vaguely defined by their users. A zionist could be someone who favours a two-state solution with a return to the 1967 borders, a two-state solution with new borders, an Israeli state from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan river or a Jewish state extending to its largest biblical borders. Equally, an antizionist can be anyone who rejects any of these solutions or even someone who rejects the very existence of jews in the Middle East. They may hold any of these attitudes without necessarily being antisemitic. Unless you know just what brand of zionist or antizionist you’re talking to it can be very confusing.

“Equally, attacking known or supposed supporters of Israel outside Israel may not be justified or acceptable, but it is not necessarily antisemitic.”

-and what would be the most identifiable feature of those supporters?

That they support Israel, of course.

…any objection to Israel’s right to exist is anti-semitic. Which is not the case.

Erm, yes it is. Objecting to policies or actions taken by the Israeli government isn’t.

I think you’ll find it’s up to Jewish individuals to determine when and why they’ve been offended, not the person doing the offending.

-and what would be the most identifiable feature of those supporters?

That they don’t criticise Israel with every passing breath?

Just strikes me as a flimsy tarry brush. The key distinction is that the fellow travellign intellectuals *were* sharing the same common support for the Soviet state capitalist model and its aims.

Try this on.

‘Atheists, such as Morgoth, are fellow travellers for communists. There are two kinds of communist. tehf irst kind consciously espouses the creed. For the second kind, communism is not relevant to the positions that they take; they do not recoil from commuinism when they encounter it; they are insensitive to the presence of communism in their own positions or in the positions that they support. They may not be communists themselves, but they collude with communism. They are often found defending communists - not guilty of the offence themselves, but quick to champion others who are guilty of it. The distinction I am drawing is between the culpable adoption of communism and a culpable indifference towards it. Many “Atheists” bear this latter, lesser responsibility. They share space with communists, untroubled by the company that they keep; they comprise a species of “fellow traveller”.’

I demand Morgoth comes clean about his links with communism, the bastard.

Gregg,

objecting to the existence of Israel is not necessarilly anti-semitic. There may be different grounds, such as the ones I hold to, which certainly admit of that fact.

“There may be different grounds, such as the ones I hold to, which certainly admit of that fact”

What fact? Red Deathy, if you’re going to use convoluted, old-fashioned language, at least have something to say behind it. Otherwise people will think you’re a pompous, pretentious moron.

Lucretiius,

“Objecting to the existence of Israel is not necessarilly anti-semitic.”

That fact.

“I think you’ll find it’s up to Jewish individuals to determine when and why they’ve been offended, not the person doing the offending.”
Doesn’t anyone have the right to determine when and why they’ve been offended? Is it possible for people not to determine when and why they’ve been offended? The important question is whether the offence is justified, not whether they’ve been offended. B.N.P. members are offended by being called fascists; that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t fascists.

I demand Morgoth comes clean about his links with communism, the bastard.

Roll D20. DC is 18.

Oh, and I’m not an atheist.

Doesn’t anyone have the right to determine when and why they’ve been offended?

Of course.

….that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t fascists.

Agreed, but it doesn’t mean you or I have a right to tell them when to feel offended or not. And in your example, it may not be the term ‘fascist’ that is offending them, it may be the fact that you are trying to denigrate and pigeon-hole their belief-set/politics. If they claim to be offended, ask them why and see if you can understand their rationale.

In my case, denying the right of Israel to exist is anti-Semitic because Israel represents the desire for Jews to govern themselves without relying on the graces of another people/government. To say Israel has no right to exist is to say that Jews should remain wanderers; they shouldn’t have an army or be able to defend themselves; they have no right to self-governance nor to live by their own rules, unlike almost every other creed or people in the world. Ergo it is anti-Semitic.

Objecting to the existence of Israel is not necessarilly anti-semitic

See above. The fact that you’re unwilling to give an example to justify your point is telling.

@Red Deathy

“There may be different grounds, such as the ones I hold to, which certainly admit of that fact.”

-could you elaborate a little on your views, I’m curious to read them.

Greg,

I did give an example: my own views. I hold that all nation states are abhorrent - and the world should be run without them. All nation states are illigitimate and have no right to exist. This opinion satisfies the criteria of suggesting that Israel (as a nation state) has no right to exist, without being specifically anti-semitic. Hence why you cannont necessarilly claim that opposing the existence of Israel is anti-semitic. There may be other valid opinions that meet these criteria too, for all I know.

Morgoth,

sorry - in which case I demand you come clean with your links with Ungoliant, you bastard!

V good article made difficult to read short of printing it out, because of no linking to extensive and valuable footnotes.

I guess there is also the religious view on Israel i.e. the state is illegitimate unless Moshiach establishes it. I don’t think this view is anti-semitic either (though it is an extremely minority position nowadays)
and talking of which, would the NK fit into the category after their Iran antics?

This opinion satisfies the criteria of suggesting that Israel (as a nation state) has no right to exist, without being specifically anti-semitic

No it doesn’t, it just means you are anti-lots of things as well as being anti-Semitic. Just because you don’t like being called the term doesn’t mean you aren’t.

I guess there is also the religious view on Israel i.e. the state is illegitimate unless Moshiach establishes it. I don’t think this view is anti-semitic either (though it is an extremely minority position nowadays)

Those haredim who are anti-Zionist aren’t actually against the state of Israel per se, as you correctly point out, but anti-Israel created by anyone who isn’t the Messiah in accordance with (their) religious belief. That’s a meaningful difference.

without being specifically anti-semitic

So that’s alright then, if you just happen to have a wide scatter-gun when denying the legitimacy of others? Communist tosh that was wrong 100 years ago, let alone now after the horrors of the USSR.

Many “new anti-Zionists” bear this latter, lesser responsibility. They share space with antisemites, untroubled by the company that they keep; they comprise a species of “fellow traveller” (”bystander” does not quite do the vice justice), the kind of person ready to overlook or excuse everything that is vicious in the cause he supports, the protagonists he admires

It seems that critque would apply equally well to those unreconstructed ‘left-wing’ supporters of the invasion of Iraq, who are content to share ideological company with right wing Republicans. Or indeed the muslim haters on the left, whose invective is often indistinguishable from that emanating from the BNP. Sauce for the goose, eh.

To say Israel has no right to exist is to say that Jews should remain wanderers

In what sense are Jews whose families have lived in the UK, perhaps for hundreds of years, wanderers, whether or not Israel exists a political entity? That sounds rather anti-semitic in itself!

“To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate, conservative, superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically).” john molyneux expressing much wof what is completely bankrupt about the cob left
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=456&issue=119

sorry - in which case I demand you come clean with your links with Ungoliant, you bastard!

Make a Sense Motive roll, Deathy.

In what sense are Jews whose families have lived in the UK, perhaps for hundreds of years, wanderers, whether or not Israel exists a political entity?

1) There are very few Jewish families in the UK that have been here for ‘hundreds of years’. Oliver Cromwell reversed the ban on Jews living in the UK but only a trickle of Jews came. The majority came in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s escaping Russian and eastern-European pogroms.

2) Jews in the diaspora have viewed themselves as ‘wandering’ since the destruction of Jerusalem. Partly because they were no longer in their homeland, but mainly because European law for most of the last 2000 years didn’t allow Jews to be landowners. As such their rights were minimal. The only professions open to Jews were trading jobs as everything else depended on landownership or joining a guild (which wasn’t allowed for Jews). Money-lending was a profession famously open to Jews because the church forbade Christians from doing it… until the Jews demonstrated how important and profitable the credit markets were. Usually the city would then tax the Jews out of existence (if they were lucky) or just kill them and turn over their jobs to the locals. Jews would move from city to city depending on how favoured they were with the local leadership.

After 2000 years of that it takes more than being a third or fourth generation Jew in the UK to lose that sense of wandering. Lest we forget the most settled, integrated and assimilated Jews ever were the Jews in Germany before WWII… not to mention the Hebrews in Egypt before the time of Moses.

If there’s one lesson every Jew knows it’s that it doesn’t take long for a host nation to turn from friend to enemy in a blink of an eye. Hence Zionism and Israel.

Greg,

So, a misanthropst is an anti-semite and Mysogynist, too? And a mysogynist is a semi-anti-semite (being against Jewish women?). It strikes me that positions that are defined as the partial detestation of a group cannot be said to be contained with a general detestation/opposition to a universal concept (saving, if it falls disproprtionately on one group). Morgoth was not anti-Hobbitt, he was opposed to all life on Middle Earth [fails sense motive roll - BTW], for example.

Finally, how is it anti-semitic to make the whole Earth the property of Jewish people, and to liberate everyone from the oppression of nation states and their inevitable concommittant wars?

Shame this post didn’t actually name any fellow travelling anti-semites.
But that would require facts,not insinuation.

Darren, many thanks for pointing this John Molyneux paragraph out:

“To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate, conservative, superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically).” john molyneux expressing much wof what is completely bankrupt about the cob left
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=456&issue=119

If ever anyone needed an explanation for playground left’s institutional antisemitism, Molyneux provdies it: every aspect of your identity is irrelevant if you dare to back Zionism in any way.

Where does that leave 95% (?) of world jewry? - deserving of having their synagogues burnt down; their community centres blown up; their shops boycotted; their children isolated at university; and all until they reject their right to self-definition.

Shame this post didn’t actually name any fellow travelling anti-semites.
But that would require facts,not insinuation.

Read the piece and check the footnotes.

RD wrote:

“I hold that all nation states are abhorrent - and the world should be run without them. All nation states are illigitimate and have no right to exist.

Taking the above, there are two main points:

1. statelessness
2. complete lack of historical analysis

RD make some very bold statements, this point of view is often heard from anarchists and rather old-fashioned Marxians, who believe that all states are illegitimate.

However, the exponents of this position don’t really follow it through logically.

If their disgust at the existence of nation states was so profound and total, then it follows that they wouldn’t deliberately continue to be members of the nation-state, which they hate? These advocates would make themselves stateless. Obviously, an extreme measure but a logical consequence of their principled views.

Now if you were to suggest to these anarchists or Marxians that to show their sincerity in this matter they should tear up their passports and become stateless, then you’d probably receive a look of incredulity, at the absurd notion of deliberately disadvantaging themselves in this hostile world.

Yet that is what they are suggesting to others.

if we consider the parallel, those who find nation states so abhorrent are mostly to be found in Western countries, living comfortably and without too much stress, but compare that to the grandfather and mothers of modern day Israelis, many had been Stateless, left in camps at the whim of others, suffering because no nation was around to protect them.

that’s a stark difference and it is understandable why the latter don’t wish to resume that terrible stateless existence, but it does say something of those advocates of “No States”, that they don’t understand the sensitivity or historical issues surrounding this question.

2. What is so apparent from this proposition is how historically illiterate it is.

It does not take into account the millions who were made stateless after the Second World War, nor does it even acknowledge the problems of statelessness, still less does it take account that there are people living today who have been stateless, and would not wish to return to it at any cost.

Nor does this scheme acknowledge the long history of the Jews, their precarious existence in many societies, the pogroms, the special anti-Jewish laws, the long history of racial hatred towards the Jews, and more importantly for Marxists, the social forces which brought these about and the movement of peoples.

So all in all, the advocates of “No States” have a lot of convincing to do on

1) their own sincerity
2) their grasp of history
3) an acknowledgement of how these issues affect real people in the real world.

Until that happens I think they should be regarded as the political equivalent of flat Earthers.

And a mysogynist is a semi-anti-semite (being against Jewish women?).

Nice try but wrong. You say Jews have no right to a nation state. You may not be singling out Jews as you believe that no-one is entitled to a nation state, but then the BNP doesn’t distinguish between Africans and Afro-Caribbeans, does it?

Just because you have lofty intentions it doesn’t mean the practical up-shot of your philosophy isn’t descrimination. It also puts you in bed with balls-to-the-wall racists/fascists/etc. which is kinda what this whole post is about.

The article can be viewed in total here, http://z-word.com/z-word-essays/the-company-they-keep%253A-antisemitism%2527s-fellow-travellers.html?print

Modernity,

statelessness is a condition of the existence of states - to try and live as a stateless person while there are states would be futile and counterproductive.

The point is to build stateless world, in the first place, in which there is no place for states.

This argument is as empty as the one about why people who want to abolish money don’t just stop using it themselves.

Greg,

what you say would hold *if* what was being proposed was simply to deny Jewish folk a state in the here and now, the point is not so - simply that the immeidate need is peace and democracy irrespective of where the actual borders lie.

The abolition of states is a goal tht is to be worked toward.

To be a fellow traveller of the BNP I’d have to be singling Israel out for special treatment, which I do not, I emrely argue that Israelis have a better interest in working towards a world commonwealth than they do in defending a small patch. I’d say as much to Palestinan workers.

The BNP may not distinguish between Africans and Afro-Carribeans, but is still a partial and specific disrcimination in favour of Whites they advocate.

p.s. Mod, your comments about the ills of beign stateless illustrate that it was nation states that were the problem, creating another one would not end the problem.

Israelis have a better interest in working towards a world commonwealth than they do in defending a small patch.

Lots of the original Bolsheviks were Jewish folks who disagreed with Zionism on a similar basis to you - they believed Jews didn’t need a special homeland to get equality; everyone should get equality everywhere, starting with Russia.

They were the first against the wall after the revolution.

Greg,

yes, and they fell as socialists opposed to the bolshevik tyranny - what better memorial than to realise their dream? Freely and democratically.

In practical terms, there is little real difference between being against the existence of Israel and anti-Semitism. The Islamic Terrorists who blew up the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aris and who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg did not make any such difference. That is the most important factor, what those who resort to violence believe, not what sort of rationales various intellectual types come up with.

About those who say they are against Israel because they are against the idea of separate nations dividing humanity: Seems funny that the latter usually is mentioned only in connection with the former.

RD,

noticeably, you failed to address the points that I made.

Of course, for those safe in Clapham it wouldn’t make a lot of difference one way oe the other, but for those stateless Jews kept in camps in Cyprus held by the British state that was another matter.

so if you can lower yourself to address these real human issues then I would be grateful and rather surprised

As I recall a comrade in Clapham being profoundly moved by a book entitled “Why did 6 million ddie” which, if I recall laid a great deal of the blame of nation states that didn’t allow refugees into their borders - the whole idea of holding people in camps rather than welcoming them wheresoe’re.

They were made stateless by states, by the wickedness of boundaries and borders, by the evil of nationalism - what they were owed was redress not the continuation of the same rotten system. (lets not forget the role that nationalism and national boundaries played in the pointless madness of the second world war).

Just because you have lofty intentions it doesn’t mean the practical up-shot of your philosophy isn’t descrimination. It also puts you in bed with balls-to-the-wall racists/fascists/etc. which is kinda what this whole post is about

Then I guess we could say the same about those who have posted articles condemning ‘clerical fascism’ as occupying the same bed as those in the BNP and other far right organisations, which specialise on attacks on muslims and asians. Just because you have lofty intentions it doesn’t mean the practical up-shot of your philosophy isn’t descrimination.

Then I guess we could say the same about those who have posted articles condemning ‘clerical fascism’ as occupying the same bed as those in the BNP…

A fair retort but I would argue that folks on this site, on the whole, are attacking the imperialist, elitist, racist, totalitarian nature of Islamism, rather than Muslims per se. In fact folks on this site have acknowledged that those frequently most at threat from clerical fascism are moderate/progressive Muslims. Some do claim the problem is Islam itself, but I don’t as I believe a religion is defined by the actions of its adherents rather than its ancient texts.

However, left-wingers banging on about ‘the illegal criminal terrorist state’ are indestinguishable from foaming-mouthed jew-haters like Hezbollah etc. and their actions (e.g. UCU) are as divisive and bigoted as anything the BNP has done. “We are Hezbollah” says it all, really.

“However, left-wingers banging on about ‘the illegal criminal terrorist state’ are indestinguishable from foaming-mouthed jew-haters like Hezbollah etc. and their actions (e.g. UCU) are as divisive and bigoted as anything the BNP has done.” I agree, ebcause, in effect, they are talking the same language as the BNP.

RD wrote:

“They were made stateless by states, by the wickedness of boundaries and borders, by the evil of nationalism - what they were owed was redress not the continuation of the same rotten system. (lets not forget the role that nationalism and national boundaries played in the pointless madness of the second world war).”

Again, this spiel does not address the issues

you state redress? how exactly were stateless refugees forcibly detained in Cyprus by the British state going to achieve redress?

how?

By allowing them into Britain, mayhap? By the states that had cruelly denied them refuge opening their borders, ending the whole nonsense of passport controls, inaugurating a free world in memory of the ills that the old restrictions had caused?

RD wrote:

“”By allowing them into Britain, mayhap? By the states that had cruelly denied them refuge opening their borders, ending the whole nonsense of passport controls, inaugurating a free world in memory of the ills that the old restrictions had caused?”

your above statements do not tally with your previous comments

how exactly is a stateless and powerless refugee who is held behind barbed wire in a concentration camp in Cyprus able to seek redress?

they can’t, they were powerless.

and what if they didn’t want to go to Britain? what would you have done? forced them at the point of a bayonet?

they were used to that for years

this is the problem with your approach it is utopian, idealistic, unrealistic and objectionable.

And the latter point you won’t understand why, because you are safely ensconced within a nation state which protects you, whether you like it or not, which provides an infrastructure for you, etc

yet the Jewish refugees had none of that, still you can’t understand why, can you?

Can I suggest that you make an elementary study of pre and post-war attitudes towards Jewish refugees, and then you might understand why your comments come across as offensive, ignorant and meaningless.

“Jews in the diaspora have viewed themselves as ‘wandering’ since the destruction of Jerusalem.”
Then do jews in the diaspora hold no loyalties to the countries they live in or the people they live among, Greg? Os should jews in the diaspora hold no loyalties to the countries they live in or the people they live among? Or if they do hold such loyalties or if they refuse to return to Israel are they traitors to Israel? You are mistaken in your claim that antizionism denies jews the right to self-goivernment, unlike every other creed or people in the world: are mormons entitled to re-establish an independent Utah? Are moonies and scientologists entitled to establish a state for themselves? Are jews entitled not to be Israeli? If not, why not and how?
As with zionists and anti-zionists there are compications with the very definition of who is jewish. InKurt Lueger’s absence, who decides who’s jewish?

There is a common perception that it is not anti-semitic to repudiate the right of Israelis to maintain their own jewish state. This stance is tenable if you similarly repudiate the right of other states established to enshrine an ethnic or religious identity. Such other states would include large swathes of the OIC.

There was continued support and apologetics for the Soviet Union in “fellow travelling” circles despite the accumulating evidence about the real nature of the regime. Due no doubt to a reluctance to break with cherished illusions about the Soviet Union as ultimately a progressive force in the world (surrounded by enemies). It is usually more comfortable to try to explain away problems than face reality when fundamental beliefs about the world and emotional identifications are challenged.

I have always been struck by the analogy with people of otherwise sound progressive views who continue to try and explain away the behaviour of Israel despite all the evidence about the nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The similarities are uncanny.

Doubtless this reply won’t be read:

“how exactly is a stateless and powerless refugee who is held behind barbed wire in a concentration camp in Cyprus able to seek redress?”

Preferably by not being a stateless powerless refugee in the first place - i.e. Britain should not have been committing that crime.

“and what if they didn’t want to go to Britain? what would you have done? forced them at the point of a bayonet?”

Not at all, they should have been free to go anywhere on Earth that they chose, their inability to do that is a crime against humanity, and remains one today.

A great many British died in the war perhaps if they’d had a British state, oh, no, hang on, they had a state, it didn’t protect them.

My point is entirely that a great crime was committed by refusing the refugees before and after the war, but that crime is not redress by perpeutuating the system that caused it, and recreating the obnoxious restrictions of freedom of movement by establishing a state with passport and imigration controls - a crime against humanity.

It is the job of the workers’ movement to redress this situation, and put a stop to the crime.

I find this rather reminescent of arguments I had with lefties in the 1980s, when all manner of right wing organisations and people would be attacked as ‘fascist’. I used to say, if you condemn Thatcher as a fascist, then what do you call John Tyndall or the Grand Wizard of the KKK? That’s the problem of Anthony Julius’s approach. By making anti-semitism so broad a church that it can conceivably contain Noam Chomsky and the KKK, you rob the term of most of its polemical charge.

RD wrote:

““how exactly is a stateless and powerless refugee who is held behind barbed wire in a concentration camp in Cyprus able to seek redress?””

another Monty Python type argument

I am talking about the material conditions that real people found themselves in and yet you can’t be troubled to engage with that

it’s like the old Irish joke:

“which is the quickest way to Kerry? “straight down the road, on the left, but I wouldn’t be starting from here, if I were you”

you wrote:

“My point is entirely that a great crime was committed by refusing the refugees before and after the war, but that crime is not redress by perpeutuating the system that caused it, and recreating the obnoxious restrictions of freedom of movement by establishing a state with passport and imigration controls - a crime against humanity.”

your point is an irrelevance, it is as germane to the plight of Jewish refugees in British concentration camps in Cyprus as “yogic flying”

your points have conspicuously avoided dealing with the material circumstances which people found themselves in, your arguments do not relate to people, they are mere abstracts and as such they are worthless

but as I said there is something peculiarly contradictory and hypocritical, for smug westerners to lecture stateless refugees that they shouldn’t have a State

Mod,

well, you’re question is itself fairly abstract - you’re giving a concrete historical situation and saying What do you [i.e. me] think could have happened other than did happen?” To answer that I would, necessarilly, have to change the conditions surrounding that circumstance, otherwise the same outcome, necessarilly, would occur.

Even “Starting from here”, it was possible through solidarity to find a different course.

Short story: a comrade was in prison as a CO (IIRC), the prison used to hand out shaving mugs - one day, they stopped just handing them out when they broke. So people instantly started stealing to replace broken (and stolen mugs).

If someone steals from me, I am not entitled to commit theft myself. If everyone is stealing from everyone else, the concrete, rational course is to put a stop to the material conditions of theft, not to carry out more of the same.

RD,

my questions were political questions, and despite the obvious conclusions, instead you replied with political dogma and abstracts

you can’t really see the issue, can you?

it is that smug invertedness which is so politically debilitating and morally vacuous

and the reason it is morally vacuous and worthless is because it does not provide any real answers to real questions, real human difficulties, there is just some vague future pie in the sky

people have real problems and these need to be addressed in real ways not by meaningless political abstractions, trotted out in the same way that any cultist from the Mormons to the Moonies would do, parroting lines without understanding what would have happened had such a course of action been taken (the extinction of Jews)

and because you can’t follow this line of thinking, and seemingly no little of the history of the period it is worthless to discuss these points with you, as you have nothing to contribute, other than political dogma

shame, really.

Mod,

well, I am going to have to admit that despite offering what I thought to be quite concrete answers (that stateless people should have been able to find and settle in any state they so chose without discrimination or detriment - i.e. that all states should have been capable of becoming “their” state - a not unreasonable nor impossible temporary solution), I might not be understanding your question.

RD wrote:

“despite offering what I thought to be quite concrete answers (that stateless people should have been able to find and settle in any state they so chose”

I understand that you are a librarian? or at least slightly connected with books?

can I suggest that you look up the fate of Jewish refugees returning to Poland and Eastern Europe after WW2?

you will find that they were killed, they were murdered for doing exactly what you stated.

after that there was an increased impetus amongst Jewish refugees to move to countries where they wouldn’t be killed for merely existing, but please don’t take my word for it, look it up.