Harry's Place

I’m sure Rabbi Lerner will explain it all away.

Even the Electronic Intifada won’t touch Shamir with a barge pole.

because these views will be completely mainstream and uncontroversial within progressive politics.

Will? Are. I’ve lost count of the number of liberal and progressive former-aquantances who are outright anti-semitic. Every single one of them a Guardian reader.

Tomorrow, it won’t need to: because these views will be completely mainstream and uncontroversial within progressive politics.

Then these “progressives” surely lose the right to call themselves “progressive”.

I was in the Post Office the other day, standing at the back of the queue.

A lady at the counter was posting a letter abroad.

‘Where to?’ she was asked.

When she replied ‘Israel’ every person in the Post Office turned sharply to look at her.

I don’t know if that means anything.

I have heard, very widely, from left, right, extreme, centre ground, the thesis that Israel controls America, and that Jews control the Press.

I think that is just broadly accepted by a lot of people who don’t regard themselves as racists at all.

“Then these “progressives” surely lose the right to call themselves “progressive”.”

Says you.

But that will show, to them, that you are under the control of Jewish Power.

‘Dimitri Zagoroff’ not sounds native english either.

‘They’d rather mock a foreigner’s spelling mistake, than engage with what is a pretty serious issue.’

Some of HP regulars must read these words.

I think that the response shows that Tikkun is entirely unphased at having published the Nazi, “Israel Shamir”.

But that will show, to them, that you are under the control of Jewish Power.

It is hard to argue the point – my mother is a powerful woman…

Simple Lefties, ‘progressive’ is just a word people use to feel better than average folk – it is MEANINGLESS.

I suppose you can argue it translates as being supportive of Leftist causes or something. But thats pointless as well because the Left has a long history of different types of discrimination, much like the Right.

DavidT:
I have heard, very widely, from left, right, extreme, centre ground, the thesis that Israel controls America, and that Jews control the Press. ”

I did heard it from conservative, neolibs, social-democrats, neither-left-nor-right, protestants, catholics ,atheists, black , brown, whitys, rich , poor…etc..

My protestant born boyfriend who use to vote for social-democrats and actually supports israel, told me that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’.

Whole Damn World Is Going Crazy !!

I hear it from middle class, largely apolitical lawyers

What basically is happening, is that there is a defaulting back to traditional racist theories about Jews. That has happened for a number of reasons. On the Left, I think that it is the result of the failure of Marxism, which provided an alternative conspiracist explanations as to how the world works. It also results from the fact that far Left groups have put a huge amount of energy into proving that Islamist groups, who openly express these sorts of ideas, are not racist at all.

Basically, racism is now simply not recognised, if Jews are its targets.

There are some exceptions. Andy Newman. That’s basically it.

“I’m sure Rabbi Lerner will explain it all away.” I would sure love to hear him on the despicable treatment of Mr Pfeifer, having had the benefit of a course of Lerner’s dreamy, love- and -respect -every -little- shining -soul- in -the- world talks at Limmud.

“Basically, racism is now simply not recognised, if Jews are its targets.”

I agree and it is a very widespread phenomenon. Remember Michael Meacher finding nothing wrong with ‘noticing’ how many Jews were in Bush’s cabinet? As far as I know, he never recognised that there was anything wrong in what he had said. What could possibly be wrong with ‘noticing’, after all?

Or Tam Dayell?

Morgoth is quite right.

However:
Tikkun claims that Shamir’s views represent a “growing sentiment among many Israeli secularists”

Tikkun are wrong, or are lying, or whatever. Well, changing from 0.0001% to 0.0002% is ‘growing’, but not in the sense they are trying to insinuate. The vast majority of Israeli secularists are sane, and dismiss this crap with the contempt it deserves.

what a terrible pity, the arrogance of the editor will be the downfall of Tikkun magazine

maybe they should read http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/for-ucu-activists-how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/

if Tikkun magazine like, I’ll do a special one just for them:

editors, how to avoid accepting articles from neo-nazis or their allies

‘And his hatred of Judaism itself might have been grounds to simply dismiss the article, except that it represents a growing sentiment among many Israeli secularists’

Excellent post, but I wouldn’t parse this passage in quite the same way you do. Tikkun refers to ‘Judaism’ (i.e. religion) rather than ‘Jewishness’ (identity). I suspect that what they have in mind here isn’t the apologetics of a small number of post-zionist academics, but the much more widespread antipathy of some secular Israelis to more observant Jews. That would imply that they see Shamir’s anti-semitism as comparable to the anticlerical politics of some secularists. Explaining why that is offensive and misguided would be redundant in this forum.

I could ask Tikkun for clarification on this point but, judging by the e-mail exchange you quote, it wouldn’t be worthwhile.

“Remember Michael Meacher finding nothing wrong with ‘noticing’ how many Jews were in Bush’s cabinet? ”

Meacher demanded disclosure of the political sympathies of each and every member of hospital trusts (this was in the early 1980s, IIRC). I mean, he demanded to know which way they voted in the previous GE. The 1984 attitudes of such ‘progressive’ people are pretty evident.

Yeah, but they don’t care.

They’re not neo Nazis, you understand. They just think that it isn’t that bad to publish neo Nazis, because neo Nazism is an important current within progressive thought that must be engaged with and taken into account.

“Or Tam Dayell?”

Was it? Maybe I have them mixed up because of Meacher’s equally barmy proto-troofer mutterings.

If in an economic crisis the Bank of Petaluma files for bankruptcy it is a proof that Jews control high finances, since it was not a Jewish Bank that fell and probably the Jews had something to do with it.

And If Lehman Bros files for bankruptcy it also proves that Jews control finances since “can’t you see that they are always on the top spots”.

Read the last one in the comments section of La Nacion, an Argentinian newspaper.

“I suspect that what they have in mind here isn’t the apologetics of a small number of post-zionist academics, but the much more widespread antipathy of some secular Israelis to more observant Jews.”

Fair enough, if that’s what they do mean. It’s not made very clear, though, is it?

I wouldn’t quite say that the antipathy is to ‘more observant Jews’ per se. I don’t believe that most secular Israelis care about hating religion as such, one way or the other. The antipathy is towards those who impose religion on others who prefer to live as free secularists.

I must say that the guy who wrote that signed as “Rudolph”.
Hardly an Argentinian name…

And it is not just that people will not recognise anti-Jewish racism, but that they see something sinister, or peculiar in those that point it out, especially if the pointer is not Jewish. “Why are you obsessed with antisemitism? You see it everywhere!”

The same people oftentimes do not think it strange to examine comments and actions for other kinds of racist content, in fact they seem to think it is a duty.

Nobody sane can accuse Tikkun of being a league with “Israel Shamir”. In all probability they published him without knowing, without checking, without an iota of professionalism. And, once they were caught out, instead of raising the hand and unreservedly, humbly apologising, they are making everything worse with mindless pomposity and inability to display the sort of humility that expect from everybody else.

It is not evil. It is just stupid. But stupidity and pomposity are only marginally more excusable than evil.

“And his hatred of Judaism itself might have been grounds to simply dismiss the article, except that it represents a growing sentiment among many Israeli secularists”

So they admit they are publishing an antisemite, but only because so many Israelis are themselves antisemites? What a remarkable and bizarre excuse. David T is absolutely correct. By framing the note as such, they are in fact making the claim that antisemitism is a mainstream current in Israeli culture and because this is so, publishing antisemitic propaganda written by non-Jewish or Israeli antisemites is legitimate. So weird.

“It is not evil. It is just stupid. But stupidity and pomposity are only marginally more excusable than evil.”

He, he. This is 100% pure Muffin.

You always assume stupidity first.

“But stupidity and pomposity are only marginally more excusable than evil.”

Plenty of evil can be explained by stupidity and pomposity. Its the failure to recognize this that results in the “Engage” left to tip-toe around “inadvertent” antisemites in a vain search for Nazi armbands in the UCU.

there is a way of getting articles into Tikkun via an electronic submissions page

http://files.tikkun.org/submissions/

maybe David T or John Meredith could rattle together a quick article for inclusion in the next edition?

something along the lines of the “Jenna Delich” phenomena and how to avoid it? or Why can’t you spot anti-Jewish racism when you see it?

They don’t give a toss about it.

The distinction between “evil” and “stupid” antisemitism is the difference between the founders of the Nazi party and their legions of supporters who made their rise to power possible. What Muffin and many others fail to recognize is that both sets of people are entirely responsible for their antisemitic actions.

David T, it seems that there’s an obvious “regression to the mean” with regard to Judeoscepticism. It is only surprising that anybody assumed that any contingent event, even one as significant as the Holocaust, could make any decisive difference to this.

David T,

maybe not but you or John M could try?

I think in your list of why this type of thing happens, you’ve got to factor in the decline of antifascism in Britain, people/activists are simply not attuned to spotting the tell-tale signs (which are obvious, but they don’t see them)

its not hard, but that type of laziness often prevails in the current climate of “anti-imperialism”

There’s no point.

I’ve got a bit tired of trying to persuade those on the Left who have decided that, actually, they’ve got a lot in common with Nazis and Islamists, that they shouldn’t.

I’ve given up on it.

There are some people on the Left (and indeed in the centre and the Right) who taken anti-semitism seriously, and will support liberal pluralism over racism and fanaticism. I’d rather spend my time and efforts on working with them, then trying to ’save’ people who have basically decided that their best mates are Nazis.

I’ve given up on it.

Welcome to the Conservative Party then, David?

sorry for link to neo-nazi’ website, but this is interesting

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=29409

Then these “progressives” surely lose the right to call themselves “progressive”.

I personally hate the term as not only has it become utterly meaningless, there’s also something unctuous about it, a bit like the term “bright”.

P.

OT a bit, but here is an excoriating look at the links between the left and nazism in Canada.

“Unfazed”, David T., not “unphased” (@ 1:11 pm).

Tikkun is a journal I used to enjoy but lately I think editor Michael Lerner has gone off the rails. In fact, he is attracted to the “9-11 Truth” conspiracy theory. See http://www.forward.com/articles/10024/

“Welcome to the Conservative Party then, David?”

No, there are lots of people in the Labour Party (and lots of people in other parties) who take anti-semitism seriously.

Similarly, there are people in the Conservative Party who are proponents of the “lets cut a deal with Islamists” view, and certainly those who hate Jews. You will see these fault lines emerge in the Tories, in power, very clearly.

Surely it should be mentioned that Shamir considers Tikkun itself part of the global Jewish conspiracy:
http://lerterland.blogspot.com/2008/09/amateur-hour-at-tikkun.html

Yes, I did notice that… forgot to put it into the article. I think I will, so the point isn’t lost

I’ve given up on it.
Welcome to the Conservative Party then, David?

Not at all. One can point out, and fight against Left antisemitism from a “liberal” orientation. In fact, its the best place to do it from. The point is that trying to convince these racists to change is futile. Ridiculing them is not.

Plenty of evil can be explained by stupidity and pomposity. Its the failure to recognize this that results in the “Engage” left to tip-toe around “inadvertent” antisemites in a vain search for Nazi armbands in the UCU.

Well, stupidity (or folly, if you prefer a more gentle phrase) is one of the most powerful motive forces of humanity. Barbara Tuchman memorably defined it as an action which is manifestly against the interests of the actor, yet is persisted over time and in face of protests and criticism. To which I’ll add an action which is manifestly against the values of the actor, yet is persisted over time and in face of protests and criticism.

This is an important point and it explains why Engage is performing such a valuable role. Tikkun is not anti-Semitic. Neither is, I believe, most of the UCU activists’ list (although I am sure that there is a minority of that ilk). But they are either indulging in, or allowing, an anti-Semitic discourse. Being self-righteous (as are many others, here but for a grace of FSM go I), they don’t accept criticism lightly. “What, an anti-Semite? I? Go away!!!”. So either they turn criticism into ridicule or shout louder. (Some, admittedly, being unwilling to question themselves, become anti-Semites in word and deed.) But once criticism is repeated, time and again, in a persistent, yet factual manner, without exaggeration, without hysteria, without hyperbole, at least some are bound to see the light. And if residual pomposity and self-righteousness will even then not allow them to admit to past wrongs, at least they might be more careful in the future. And yes, less stupid.

No, there are lots of people in the Labour Party (and lots of people in other parties) who take anti-semitism seriously.

Not by their track record in government, old bean.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/87951_comment.php

Not by their track record in government, old bean.

“Its 1938, and Gordon Brown is Hitler…”

This is so very weird. How can it possibly make sense that – in light of the latest Left-NeoNazi cross-pollination revelations – so many earnest & well-meaning people here seem determined to respond by handing these “accidental” racists a roadmap to deniability?

Cos that’s what it is, effectively, when you (try to) instruct them about which – sites, names, stock phrases etc. they should now avoid linking to, quoting, repeating – if they want to maintain their antiracist credibility.

Seriously, who really believes that upon learning to distinguish between their left ‘anti-zionist’ sources & their right ‘antizionist’ sources, the dickheads in UCU/Tikkun will promptly stop reading and watching the drek that gives them their fix of orgasmically righteous indignation?

Does anyone actually think that the ethical poison inside these dissembling activists will simply cease emanating from them if they invisibilise it by banning their least crafty comrades (like Delich) from the list…. or if they finally get clever enough to disguise their tackier influences? Aren’t the awful implications of enabling that increased sophisication pretty obvious?

So my point is: when they have the rope to hang themselves, how can it help to take it away from them?

“Seriously, who really believes that upon learning to distinguish between their left ‘anti-zionist’ sources & their right ‘antizionist’ sources, the dickheads in UCU/Tikkun will promptly stop reading and watching the drek that gives them their fix of orgasmically righteous indignation?”

SO Muffin does right above you:

“But once criticism is repeated, time and again, in a persistent, yet factual manner, without exaggeration, without hysteria, without hyperbole, at least some are bound to see the light.”

But can he provide a solid example of this happening in the real world?

I don’t think you can change people’s minds.

They don’t recognise open Nazi-style racism, sometimes because they hold similar views themselves, and sometimes because they’ve already accepted that such views are not racist when expressed by Islamist groups: so why not when Nazis say things?

If you object to racism, you’ll find that most of these people will have bought into the “Livingstone Formulation”: i.e. that you’re using accusations of anti-semitism to shut down debate.

If you actually prove that the person in question is a goose stepping Nazi, they’ll say “well, you’ve cried wolf over anti-semitism for so long, you can’t blame us for not believing you”.

If the person is a conspiracy theorist who takes care to rehash Protocols theories as “anti-Zionism”, they’ll suggest that the person is not a Nazi, but is merely “wrong”: but understandably so.

In short, some people will “get it”.

Others won’t.

Think of the effort people have put into persuading TheIrie to take racism seriously – and he hangs round here all the time. You might have moved him, perhaps, one milimeter in all that time.

If they don’t recognise racism, don’t waste your time on them. They’re not going to be persuaded by you.

Put your energies into finding allies instead.

“Today, Tikkun publishes a clumsy apologia when it is caught out publishing a neo Nazi who believes that Jews control the world. Tomorrow, it won’t need to: because these views will be completely mainstream and uncontroversial within progressive politics.”

Oh boo hoo hoo . This from people who link to Melanie Philips who pushes the idea of Eurabia -that Muslims control Europe!

This article is clearly an attempt by neo-fascist zionist to demonise a mistake by Rabbi Lerner a decent man who stands up against Israeli atrocities and other moderate Jews and force all into the far right zionists “perpetual war with Arabs/Islam” mode that HP has adopted.- who demand war against “Islamists” and appeasement of extreme zionists.

OK David, that’s good enough

Graham, better don’t remind Morgoth of “Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry and the British Road to War”

Comment by HP(anti)BNP is clearly an attempt by neo-fascist Antizionist to demonise
‘zionists’ and trying to play the ‘Jews’ against each other i.e.classical fascist’s tactic which promote hatred against non-white groups and Jews.

Yes having tried to “reason” w/U.S. anti-semites on the Far Left who cite “Israel Shamir” I agree it is as impossible a task as trying to debate old Stalinists about “Trotsky, that Fascist, ” or social democrats being, “Social Fascists.”
BTW, when I tried to post a comment on that Tikkun website, citing these websites http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/ http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

vs. “Shamir, ” it was blocked as spam, I assume because any URL’s in comments are disallowed.

HPBNP

You disagree with Israel Shamir then?

re: Shamir, there is a very simple tactic you can use.

Copy his text on a blank Microsoft Word document. Replace every appearance of Jews with “Orcs” and of Arabs or Palestinians with “Hobbits”. Do the same with all the derivatives, like Jewish: “Orkish”, etc. Israel is Mordor and Palestine is Middle Earth.
Paste the text again in the discussion and ask them if the story makes sense.
It will, because that is how Israel Shamir writes.
And everybody knows that LOTR is black and white good versus evil.

Now, if you don’t recognize yourself as an antisemite, you will feel very uncomfortable with the reworked story by JRRR Shamir.

If you do recognize your self as an antisemite you will continue to defend the nazi.

I just don’t understand how Tikkun could have made such a stupid mistake. The magazine has been around for years (I used to be a devoted reader), and so has Shamir. It is hard to imagine that they wouldn’t have researched Shamir’s background before publishing him. It’s hard to imagine that they wouldn’t have known about him in the first place. What went on there?

I’m utterly appalled at Tikkun’s treatment of Karl Pfeifer. It takes something to publish a neo-Nazi sympathiser and simultaneously ridicule a Holocaust survivor. That’s normally David Irving’s shtick.

“neo-fascist zionist to demonise a mistake by Rabbi Lerner”

No mistake of Mr. Lerner.

Tikkun replied with pointing out a mistake an Austrian journalist made, when he wrote than instead of then.

Only a moron can accuse Hurry up Harry or the Austrian journalist of being “neo-fascist”
.

So, let me get this straight. Tikkun publishes an article by an active antisemite, and justifies it by implying that this his views are representative of many secularist Jews.

That is a staggering assertion, and one that Tikkun would do well to back up with evidence.

The editorial states:

“We publish [Israel Shamir's article] because of our commitment to provide our readers with perspectives that they are unlikely to hear in the mainstream media and which present ideas with which we must grapple.In this case, the attempt to humanize the Palestinian is part of our discourse–a Tikkun commitment to see the spirit of God in every human being, even those who do hurtful or muderous acts. We only wish Shamir could do the same thing for Israelis as he does so well here for Palestinians. And his hatred of Judaism itself might have been grounds to simply dismiss the article, except that it represents a growing sentiment among many Israeli secularists.”

That’s pretty muddled. Are they grappling with difficult ideas the better to ultimately reject them, as the attack on an the vague group of secularist Jews suggests? Or are they endorsing the article, and simply expressing regret that it happened to have been penned by a white antisemite?

Does anyone actually read Tikkun, and know whether they occasionally give space to West Bank settlers, supporters of the occupation, or some of your more hawkish but mainstream Jews, in order to do some grappling?

I would very much like to know whether the article, as it originally appeared, contained the “apologia”.

Or was it put in after the event?

“Remember Michael Meacher finding nothing wrong with ‘noticing’ how many Jews were in Bush’s cabinet? ”

Hell, Thatcher had five Jews in her cabinet, and we’re still hearing about it. (”more Estonians than Etonians”)

I’m sure this had been hashed & rehashed on HP a million times heretofore, but fwiw….

Re. the Muffin Strategy mentioned by Shmuel: in addition to the depressing weight of evidence backing up the criticisms by the pessimists/realists here, there is the problem of prioritising. Thing is, Muffin may be trying to close the gate after the proverbial has bolted, na? So we’d have a lot of time and intellectual resources being squandered on trying to convince a mini-handful or two of Trots (or deluded, elitist US “peace” activists) to change up their fraudulent politics…. And all the while, antisemitic ways of explaining the world become more and more normalised in mainstream discourse.

So these guys you’re trying to enlighten have indeed helped set the juggernaut in motion, but even if you do convince them eventually, it will be a particularly pointless pyrrhic victory… And even more so if it comes down to genuinely antiracist Jews tirelessly attempting to persuade professional Asajew Antizionists to see the light. Whether they come round or not, you tend to find you’re both the same “zionist enemy” when the aforementioned mainstreaming establishes itself as the dominant view.

(Not to belabour the point, but each of those scenarios would of course be history repeating itself…. As farce if we’re lucky, I suppose.)

“And even more so if it comes down to genuinely antiracist Jews tirelessly attempting to persuade professional Asajew Antizionists to see the light. Whether they come round or not, you tend to find you’re both the same “zionist enemy” when the aforementioned mainstreaming establishes itself as the dominant view.”

Greenstein has discovered this to be true.

He was utterly knifed in his attempt to persuade the Solidarity Movement in which he’d been active for most of his adult life to reject Atzmon/Shamir-ism.

David T,

and for good measure. remember how poorly Mike Rosen was treated by the SWP over Atzmon? a pattern eh?

Greenstein was the more remarkable, as his arguments are not that far removed from Atzmon’s: except that Atzmon conspiricises and essentialises all Jews, rather than just those who are insufficiently anti-Zionist.

David T:

“I would very much like to know whether the article, as it originally appeared, contained the “apologia”.

Or was it put in after the event?”

It smells post hoc to me. There’s enough anti-Jewish essentialising in the article to mark it as blatantly antisemitic that it really doesn’t matter that the author’s antisemitism is well-known. Shamir’s attacks within the article itself on Jewish identity, as opposed to the religion, flatly contradict Tikkun’s assertion that “his hatred of Judaism… represents a growing sentiment among many Israeli secularists”.

Whilst there is certainly a growing chasm between the religious and secularist / irreligious in Israel, if Shamir is meant to represent the latter, there’s nothing in the article to suggest so.

It looks to me like they’re published an antisemitic feature by an antisemitic writer, and for whatever reason, have cobbled together a completely implausible explanation after the fact. Much like the Delich affair, the mistake was not publishing anitsemitic bile, but to have chosen the wrong messenger. My guess is that they chose to publish because they basically agree with him.

From the wikipedia entry on Shamir:

“Shamir makes frequent use of antisemitic stereotypes in his writings. He is on record as regarding the most radical antisemitism as a useful propaganda tool for promoting antisemitism: since “Joe Public” will always “take his middle ground” between two opposite opinions, by pushing antisemitism to the limits, the position of the “middle ground” will shift. Thus opinions previously seen as antisemitic seem to be “in the middle” and thereby become acceptable to the general public.”

Bingo

As in “I don’t believe that Jews eat babies. That’s just racist crap! However, perhaps the do control the world by means of secret cabals of rabbis who meet in graveyards at midnight”

See updates in the post above…

Well I’ve never been a fan of Tikkun, and when I’ve seen him speak I’ve been pretty unimpressed by Michael Lerner. Just the other day he was sending round an email to people who he thinks need to read him saying that that bunch of bankers at Lehmans had been hung out to dry by Bush because they were Jewish and liberal, while the goyishe firms get rescued!!!

His comments and ‘justifications” for running a piece by Shamir/Ermash/Jermas do no favours to Jewish/Israeli secularists who need absolutely no help from antisemites in putting forward arguments that humanise the Palestinians or attack Jewish fundamentalists. But just as Lerner manages to smear Israeli secularists, so of course, many people here predictably use this episode to smear the left/far left with the honourable exception of Andy Newman.

Andy takes very clear principled positions on these issues, but there are lots of Andy Newman’s out there. Apart from the SWP, which explicitly socialist parties/organisations in Britain have given the time of day to Atzmon or Shamir?

I assume people at HP are aware that the leading publishing outlet of left wing Jews here in Britain – Jewish Socialist (new issue just out) – which features writers from the middle of the Labour Party to the far left – have always uncompromisingly exposed and opposed the antisemitic nonsense Jewish conspiracy “theories” of Shamir and his errand boy Atzmon.

David and Tim

As to whether that disclaimer was put in as an afterthought, Karl Pfeifer was told by a Tikkun staffer, “I can however confirm that an Editor’s Note preceded the article before our communication, as it was there when I checked the piece”.
http://blog.z-word.com/2008/09/karl-pfeifer-takes-on-tikkun/

So the note was there before Karl and everyone else complained, but we still don’t know whether the note was added after Tikkun published the piece.

Occasionally these threads act as a self-reinforcing festival of wild rhetoric in which posters compete who will make more egregious and emotive claims. Not just all reason is lost but also an opportunity to understand what’s going on. Understand, not justify – and in the present case understanding might well point a big, fat accusing finger at Tikkun (or Qilqool – Hebrew speakers will understand the difference between תיקון and קילקול). But at least the accusation will have some sort of substance, rather then (sorry, than) hot air and plenty of spittle.

So, let us see what has happened. A Jewish, US-based periodical, sort-of liberal, sort-of soft-religious, published an article by well-known, explicit anti-Semite and neo-Nazi. The article itself is objectionable, but the real nub is the identity of the writer.

Why did they do it?

One possible answer is ludicrous, namely that Tikkun itself is anti-Semitic and/or neo-Nazi and/or agrees with “Israel Shamir”. Let us be cool-headed for a moment and discard this.

Another possible answer is equally ludicrous, namely that Tikkun regards itself as some sort of open-microphone forum, giving access to all opinions in this broader subject matter. Although I am sure that Tikkun publishes some range of views (perhaps even a relatively wide range of views), it doesn’t publish all views, and rightly so. It wouldn’t publish, say, an article by a Kahana Hai wingnut. There are views and writers which are simply beyond the pale, and “Israel Shamir” is a textbook example.

So, why did they do it? I don’t have a good explanation – on reflection, just accusing them of stupidity is glib. Even stupidity comes in flavours. Stupid people will do one kind of a moronic deed, but will balk at another. So, hand on heart, I don’t have an answer.

But, nonetheless, I have a prescription. And the prescription is to see how will they react. The dictum that the cover-up is often worse than the crime is true.

One way to react, once you do something manifestly wrong and this is pointed out to you, is to apologise profusely and humbly, perhaps ask the guilty parties to resign their positions, and do all this openly, in the public domain. This is the minimal penance that one should expect in the circumstances.

The alternative way (which I would term The UCU Paradigm) is to respond to any criticism with a wild attack. Part of it is the Livingstone Formulation, part simply raising the temperature of discussion to a level when all reason is lost, your original crime is forgotten, everybody resorts to their tribal identities and forgets what it was all about.

Now, what I submit is that it is counter-productive to help those seeking this alternative way. This is why the criticism at the first instance must be factual, non-emotive, without name calling and without generalisations and without giving an excuse for offenders to go ape or to avoid their moral responsibility. As far as I have read the exchanges between Karl Pfeiffer and Tikkun, Karl was the very model of reasonableness, factual comments and cool head: good for him!

Anyway, which way will Tikkun jump?

Ben,

I just read the exchange myself, and he pointedly fails to answer Pfeifer’s question. Presumably Pfeifer already knew it was there when they started their correspondence, or he wouldn’t have asked the question.

I’m also interested in “range of opinions” that Tikkun actually does publish. Does it publish the writings of right-wing Israelis, or is heterodoxy a privilege afforded only to those touting an anti-Zionist / pro-Palestinian line?

We’ll see, but it does sound like an afterthought.

There’s no shortage of left-wing HP-oriented left wing Jews who continue greatly to admire Christopher Hitchens, enthusiastic and loving admirer and cheerleader of the late and very unlamented Israel Shahak an Israeli chemistry professor who campaigned against Jews and Judaism using mclassic misrepresentations of the Talmud typical of historical radical antisemitism.

It’s sadly true that too many of the shrinking number of the left who do recognise anti-semitism when it’s disguised as anti-semitism have no problems when it’s presented as rationalist critiques of Judaism.

Sorry, that should have read “anti-semitism when it’s disguised as anti-zionism”.

“Israel Shamir”:

“Israeli security police, Border Guards[regularly beat up and harass Arabs] in order to remind an Arab that he is an Arab.”

“[Russian-Israeli immigrants are] not infected with Jewish chauvinism in the cradle.”

“… the ideals of other Israeli Jewish communities, i.e. … the amassing of wealth.”

“She was angry at the vigilante [i.e. the man who curtailed Dwayyat's mass-murder spree], a far-right activist who kept shooting at unarmed Hosam [unarmed, apart from the Catepillar truck with which he was engaged in murdering innocent people].”

“This [Jew-Goy] perspective is dearest with people for whom their Jewishness is more important than their humanity.”

“The Palestinians have been captured in a grave encounter with a psychotic, phantasmic, bloodthirsty self-centric Jewish national identity that knows no mercy.”

“For we do not fight Jews, we fight the Jewish identity, and we can win.”

“s.o. muffin”:

“The article itself is objectionable, but the real nub is the identity of the writer.”

I beg to differ. The defence of ignorance is forgivable, if they simply didn’t know who “Shamir” is. However, Tikkun has published a blatantly antisemitic article, and its justification is that it represents a significantly common position amongst secular Jews. Whether that is just some old post hoc bollocks to cover their “error”, or whether they genuinely think that an antisemite like “Shamir” is genuinely representative of a significant proportion of secular Jewry, Tikkun still look like arseholes to me.

“muffin”:

“One possible answer is ludicrous, namely that Tikkun itself is anti-Semitic and/or neo-Nazi and/or agrees with “Israel Shamir”. Let us be cool-headed for a moment and discard this.”

Why is it ludicrous to wonder whether Tikkun basically agreed with the article it published? If it transpires that it originally appeared without editorial comment, then we can safely assume that it did. And even if this is not the case, there are still legitimate questions to be asked of which types of heterodoxy must be “grappled” with. Do they commission articles promoting Holocaust denial, or ones by West Bank settlers, or is it only anti-Zionist antisemitism that must be published and countered? Oh, and can someone point me to exactly where in Tikkud “Shamir” was being “countered”?

Shahak is a good example of the phenomenon in action.

The late Dr Shahak made a series criticisms of Jewish religious texts. Now, I would like to say that where he went wrong, was to assume that every one of the more obnoxious of those texts were applied literally by those who regard themselves as Jews, and in particular, by the most religious. That would be an understandable error at worst, to the extent that was an incorrect assumption.

However, that is not what Shahak did. He simply lied about the manner in which religious law was applied by religious Jews to their lives. Most famously, Shahak invented, and lied throughout almost all his life, about an incident he claimed to have seen in which a religious Jew refused a person permission to use his telephone to save the life of a non Jew. A series of rabbis leapt into print to declare that they knew of no basis in Jewish law in which such a refusal was permissible: on the contrary, the Jew would be under an obligation to let the phone be used. Shahak still maintained that he had seen this event, until – later in life – he admitted it had been an invention.

Now, if I had heard such a story, would I have believed it? Yes, I think it would. My experience of religious people is that they are wont to behave in an arbitrary and foolish manner. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear such a story, and would have accepted it as true.

I wouldn’t now, only for two reasons. Firstly, I have read no discussion by a religious authority of repute which accepts that any such rule exists. Secondly, Shahak appears to have been a lunatic. I believe that in his final years, he became a supporter of Likud.

If you think that Zionism, that is to say, the existence of Jews in Israel, embodies evil, and you read somebody like Shamir, who claims to be Jewish, and who says that Jews control the world and subvert it to their evil ends, you’ll believe it. Or at least, you’ll conclude that it is at least plausible, or simply a view worth taking seriously.

That’s what the person who put this article up on Tikkun thought.

scary eh?

“One possible answer is ludicrous, namely that Tikkun itself is anti-Semitic.”

Magazines are not anti-semitic.

“the existence of Jews in Israel, embodies evil…That’s what the person who put this article up on Tikkun thought”

Individual people can be.

And apparently now even liberal American, politically aware Jews can be easily persuaded by explicitly antisemitic rhetoric. This is because antisemitism is becoming mainstreamed. Its no big deal. Its mundane, banal, evil.

I’ve read that exchange between Zagoroff and Pfeifer and I can’t tell if Zagoroff is an insincere prick or if he really is just an honest to goodness grammar nazi.

Tim

I agree that they haven’t answered this question of Karl’s, nor the others which he asked. Who knows whether we will ever get a satisfactory explanation. In the meantime, Tikkun has taken the Shamir piece down – click on its URL and you are diverted here – http://www.tikkun.org/current.

Out of sight, yes, but not out of mind.

Tim! How are ye doing in TA?

I’m doing great, thank you! Are you “Studio One” Meir?

“”"they simply took the piss out of a Pfeifer – for whom English is a second language – for making a minor spelling mistake”"”

this is sooooo typical!

(depressing)

Who determined that Tikun is a leading Jewish magazine? It has no mass audience and has no credibility with Jews unlike the Jewish Press, the Jewish Week or many other publications.

Michael “LSD” Lerner is not a Rabbi. His credentials to claim that title are
murky at best. David Horowitz has plenty of hysterical material about Lerner in his writings including a wedding cake that read “smash monogamy” and a memorable quote about LSD and socialism.

Lerner was an important friend of Hillary Clinton. She dumped him quickly when this friendship became a campaign issue.

Lerner probably publishes Tikkun in between LSD hits.

“JSG have always uncompromisingly exposed and opposed the antisemitic nonsense Jewish conspiracy “theories” of Shamir and his errand boy Atzmon.”

No they haven’t!

From the latest volume of JS. Caroline Lucas,

“Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”

Perpetuating the myth that Jews “hide behind” claims (i.e. lie about) antisemitism to silence “all” criticism of Israel, is hardly opposing “antisemitic nonsense Jewish conspiracy “theories””. Sounds more like unconditional support.

With all due respect to the reasons suggested above for the publication of this piece of trash, they published this garbage for the same reason David Duke published a piece by Richard Silverstein on his blog. THEY AGREE WITH THE RESPECTIVE WRITERS!!!!!! All other reasons pale with that one simple statement.

No offence to your own magazine David, which I do read on occasion, but I think the American socialist Jewish magazine Jewish Currents is much better.

not forgetting http://www.circle.org/ and it is a pleasure to see such well design web sites, easy on the eye, accessible, etc

it is just a shame that British web sites don’t copy the layouts of their American counter parts

From “Jewish Currents”

“This reticence about Iraq, along with Jewish neoconservative cheerleading for the war, has produced among some leftists a perception of Jews as vastly influential, hopelessly parochial, and completely wedded to the Israeli right. This perception sometimes combines with an anti-Semitic tone of scorn for Israel and Zionism, which further aggravates Jewish alienation from the progressive mobilization. Such a vicious cycle can only enhance the influence of Jewish neoconservatives, while Jewish progressives stand around in despair.”

Note here the implicit criticism [I think the word "produced" is far too determintive] of antisemitic overtones to comments about Israel and Zionism and compare this to the JSG who offers space to the purveyors of such “overtones”.

So much more than a question of aesthetics I am afraid.

Hi Tim!

Yes, “Studio One” Meir — looks like you’re settling in well in TA.

Note this exchange between myself and Karl on Engage:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2111
Fred posted on September 18, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM
Karl: no one has responded to my pointing out that mainstream leftie Hillel Schenker corresponded with Shamir, which he posted about on his website. What do you think about that? Surely Schenker can’t be unaware of what Shamir is all about. This link has an intro from Shamir, then a reply to Schenker. I include Schenker’s letter to Shamir:

Secularism: Long on Pride, Short on Compassion
Dialogue Hillel Schenker – Israel Shamir
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor70.htm

Hillel responded:
Israel,
Don’t you see any connection between secularism, human rights and freedom of expression? I find that wherever religion has increased influence on a society, there tend to be limitations on human rights, freedom of expression, women’s rights, etc.
Yours,
Hillel (a proud, secular Israeli, who is concerned about the growing influence of right-wing religious forces in Israel, who in alliance with right-wing secular forces will make a possible resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that much more difficult).

P.S. My impression was that the greatest level of freedom of expression in Russia in recent years was during the Glasnost period and the Yeltsin years. The Putin years are characterized by a growing limitation on freedom of expression and alternative political activity, and the growth of the influence of the church has only served to exacerbate these tendencies.

P.P.S. I’m sure you weren’t happy with George Bush’s attempt to increase the role of religion in the public discourse in the U.S., and his alliance with the right-wing evangelical Christians. When he was asked what he thought about the fact that his father, George Bush Senior, was opposed to regime change and the invasion of Iraq, Bush Jr. answered that he had a “higher father” who guides his actions.

Karl Pfeifer, Vienna posted on September 18, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM
Fred you are absolutely right, to point out that Hillel’s correspondence with Adam Ermash (Israel Shamir) is disgraceful.

Also in this case I would ask Hillel, did you know that Ermash (Shamir) is an antisemite, a friend of Neonazis? If you did and you write to him, you are guilty of legitimizing antisemitism. If you did not know, then you are an ignorant.

I have received until now no answer from Tikkun. But they have removed the article of Adam Ermash (Israel Shamir) from their Website.

Mikey, I love the idea of you reading Jewish left wing magazines to see which one you like best.

Saul, at Jewish Socialist we are on the best of terms with Jewish Currents in the USA and with a similar journal in Canada – Outlook.

The views of Caroline Lucas – a supporter of the Israeli peace movement – as published in our magazine and elsewhere, are a world away from Atzmon/Shamir Holocaust revisionism/Jewish conspiracy tosh.

Why not give readers the benefit of the whole quote from Caroline:

“Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. This does a great disservice to the many Jewish people who support the principle of universal human rights, and who oppose the current policies of the Israeli state. A just peace settlement with Palestine which translates into real justice for Palestinians, which listens to the many progressive Jewish voices in Israel and elsewhere, and thus seeks an end to the violence perpetrated by both sides, will be the key to establishing a long lasting peace in the region – and a safer, more stable world for all.”

If that’s antisemitic conspiracy/holocaust revisionism stuff, I’m Chairman Mao.

well chair-person David,

my minds a bit fuzzy at the moment, but let’s pick her statements apart:

1. “Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity,”

which could be crudely translated to “Jews with money in the US stick together with those Jews in Israel” or “Jews in the US compel the US govt to support Israel”

2. “hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. ”

again which could be crudely translated to “Jews silence criticism by screaming ‘antisemitism’ “

I’ll leave it to others to explain why just those statements are decidedly dodgy, but that’s a starter, do you have your little Red Book handy ?

I could be wrong on the above, but Engage has dealt with this matter a number of times:

“Where? Where does Israel hide behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic? Can Caroline Lucas give us a reference? A quote? No.

People like Caroline Lucas should understand by now that if they want to engage with the relationship between antisemitism and hostility to Israel then they have to do more than raise this old and now cliched straw-man argument. The assumption that we haven’t seen this formulation before, and understood why it is problematic, assumes real ignorance on the part of readers. It is time for people like Caroline Lucas to treat her readers with some respect and to formulate her critique with some care. Only then would it be possible seriously to debate with her. “

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1900

and in fairness to the Greens, Engage covered their conference too:

“Green Party and antisemitism – a post-conference update and review”

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2098

it seems to me that Mira Vogel’s right:

“The Green’s new leader, Caroline Lucas, has a record of sharing platforms with members of Hamas and failing to criticise Hamas’s genocidal statements about Jews. She made the, as ever, unsubstantiated claim that “Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”
…

However, this should not detract from the fact that the amended clause 10 was passed by virtually the entire conference. This sets a precedent for formally acknowledging antisemitism as a specific issue, sends a clear and unambiguous message about antisemitism, and will give the incoming chair of the Green Party Executive a mandate to take instances of antisemitism seriously.”

Well David – I’m coming on the HP tour – I trust you got my cash ! I may dole you out some more if there is a new issue of Jewish Socialist. And what is wrong with reading left-wing Jewish magazines? I also read Commentary – Not exactly left-wing – but I read all sorts. By the way, on the subject of Commentary, I know you don’t like its political stand, but you may like a story in the March 2008 issue (pp. 43-51) called Beyond the Pale by Joseph Epstein about a man who, not for money, but for love, felt compelled to translate novels from Yiddish into English. That is if you like fiction, maybe you don’t?

Mikey, I like fiction and sometimes find it here masquerading as political commentary. At the moment I am hugely engrossed in Chimemanda Adichie’s “Half of a Yellow Sun” set at the time of the Biafran war. Her first book Purple Hibiscus was excellent too. And yes I would like to see the Jospeh Epstein piece. Is it online? if not, if you made a copy of it and brought it to the walk, I’m happy to swap it for a copy of JS.

Modernity, the Chairman is surprised that you have taken such a paranoid view and read into Caroline’s first statement in the way you did:
‘1. “Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity,”
which could be crudely translated to “Jews with money in the US stick together with those Jews in Israel” or “Jews in the US compel the US govt to support Israel”’

I thought it was antisemites who believe in ZOG and think that Jews control America. Israel gets far more financial support form the US government than any other country it backs and presumably the American government think that is sound strategic sense in terms of defending its interests. I don’t think the US government is a charity. There is no implication anywhere in Caroline’s article or anything else i’ve seen her write that indicates that Jews control America. On the contrary I have seen her refer in several articles, including this one, to Jewish progressives.

As for the second point
‘2. “hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. ”
again which could be crudely translated to “Jews silence criticism by screaming ‘antisemitism’ “’

I would have personally preferred it as less of a generalisation, but I and so many people I know, here and in other countries, who are anti-Zionists, non-Zionists and even critical Zionists have had years of being denounced by apologists for the Israeli government, as “antisemites” for having the temerity to question Israeli policies or the philosophies that inspire them. And on the Engage site, which I used to contribute to until it it was obvious that it was pointless, the accusation or inference that such critics are antisemites is ever-present. So yes the Israeli government and supporters often defend their positions by denouncing opponents as antisemites, mostly, in my view, wrongly and as a cynical political device.

Jewish Socialist is a forum for articles by people who share some of our political views. If we just published pieces we completely agreed with we would be talking to ourselves. That we have carried on for 23 years to date without any funding from anywhere except our readers subs and donations and sales speaks for itself. Often the majority of articles are written by people outside of the JSG. We don’t necessarily agree with every word by very contributor, but were very happy to publish Caroline’s article.

David,

I have emailed to the address located on the East End Walks website the PDF of the complete issue of Commentary for March 2008 as a present for you! I have sent it to you for the Epstein story but FYI, I was so intrigued by Terry Teachout’s review of Hugh Wilford’s, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America that I purchased the book. The review essay is entitled “Going Highbrow at the CIA” and can be seen on pages 59-61 in the remote chance that such a subject is also interesting for you. I guess you will want to ignore the advertisement from El Al on the back cover of Commentary. ;)

David Rosenberg wrote:

“Modernity, the Chairman is surprised that you have taken such a paranoid view and read into Caroline’s first statement in the way you did:”

David, you asked a question I gave you the answer and now you get snotty.

I do wish you would put on your educationalist’s hat, rather than your British sectarian beret, it makes for a better discussion and then people don’t get the impression that you’re just acting like a political hack, or taking the piss.

I said the statements were dodgy, and in retrospect, with my mind a bit clearer, they still are, if you don’t want to acknowledge that, fine.

That’s your prerogative.

But let’s look at it another way, and see if you can get the point?

Supposing in the 1970s someone, hypothetically speaking, a male politician had written a variation of Ms. Lucas’s statement:

“Women hide behind their incendiary claim that all who criticise them are Sexist”.

Then I’m sure you would have seen through that statement, as a deflection, a bit of political spin from a professional politician, whose lifeblood is words and knows how to use them.

However, as the recipients are Jews not women (who include a lot of women) then the point passes you by, not only that, you agree with Ms. Lucas.

But if this is as prevalent as you and Ms Lucas suggest then could you back up your claims?

Can you provide three instances in Britain, where someone was actually shut up by that “incendiary claim”??

That’s three, THREE instances in Britain, not the United States, not Europe but Britain, because surely if it is as ubiquitous, as you say, then you won’t have any difficulty finding three examples?

I am sure as an ex-educationalist you’ll appreciate that its better to base your views on evidence, not assertions?

So please, Chairperson David, some evidence.

““Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic”

However many times you quote this tosh, it is still a complete lie.

Modernity,
I wasn’t getting snotty but I just felt that you were reading into a statement sentiments that were not there, interpreting it in a way that wasn’t warranted by the facts, but so totally consistent with the “new antisemitism/EUMC definition” orthodoxy.

It is an orthodoxy which I reject but no doubt I will get labelled by some (not you I suspect) as an antisemite for questioning this orthodoxy and raising issues about the murky politics invliving Israeli leaders and certain jewish organisations in America and Europe through which the “definition” was established.

You may of course disagree with her, but I seriously think any attempt to label Caroline Lucas as antisemitic is way off the mark but then the way the new antisemitism “theory” cheapens the currency of antisemitism is really dangerous. It does nothing to arm us when we encounter the real thing – which of course is out there.

BTW You called me an “ex-educationalist” – just to put that right, being an educationalist is still part of what I do work-wise, and if I wasn’t in school today I would have responded earlier.

Now, if you want some UK instances, you could start with Tony Lerman and the character assassination he has endured in the last couple of years for expressing a personal opinion, not on behalf of any organisation, that a one state solution mighte need to be considered. And there’s the whole back story in the Lerman case because in the mid-80s he was forced out of editing the Jewish Quarterly for suggesting that it was not helpful to keep analysing antisemitism through the prism of Zionism in the same issue as he published a JSG member (me) criticising the Board of Deps approach to antisemitism and racism.

Around that time of course the JSG itself was on many occasion denied facilities at Jewish institutions for meetings (about all kinds of subjects) on the basis of opposition to Zionism. And of course there have been years of harrassment by the Community Security Trust, with JSG members and others being denied entry to Jewish communal events including a festival of Israeli films, which promised open discussions with the filmmakers, on the basis that we were “security risks”.

(I had assumed that the rather ridiculous behaviour of the CST was largely of years gone by, though only last weekend my son Reuben was at the Simcha in the Square and attempted to pass out leaflets advertising my “anti-fascist footprints” Jewish East End Walks. he was prevented by the CST security goons who can’t seem to read or understad the words “anti-fascist” but demanded to know if he was “pro-Israel”!)

Back to more recent examples, you probably know about the abuse heaped on Johann Hari a few months ago after he visited Gaza and described the real conditions there. He’s not exactly identified with the anti-Zionist far-left but that didn’t prevent several pro-Israel commentators with prominent platforms wading in calling him an “anti-Jewish bigot” and suggesting he was “akin to Josef Goebbels” and Ahmedinijad….

And as for other character assassinations/accusaiton of being self-hating jews etc I would say that Jacqueline Rose, Richard Kuper, Tony klug, Ilan Pappe are among those who have been particularly singled out. Now I would disagree with Caroline Lucas insofar as I think the attempt which she correctly identifies is often unsuccessful. I’ve no doubt that the intentions of targeting critical voices and labelling them antisemites is an attempt to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour by silencing or marginalising critics but many of these targets have enough nous to find ways to fight back.

Much of the time, of course, all of this operates on a slightly more subtle level – like the way the Jewish Chronicle warns prospective jewish students every year around this time about unnamed anti-zionists/enemies of Israel/dangerous people offering you sweets.

Twenty years ago it bothered me, when Zionists screamed at me and other Jews handing out leaflets urging support for israelis refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories, “You should have died in Auschwitz”. I and others have had that insult a few times since, but these days I just regard it as part of the rough and tumble and typically a comment of those who cannot justify rationally what they want to believe in.

“the murky politics invliving Israeli leaders and certain jewish organisations in America and Europe through which the “definition” was established.”
David Rosenberg

David you believe in a crude conspiration theory. Do you really believe, that the EUMC, which is now the EU Agency for Human Right is subject to the “murky politics involving Israeli leaders and certain Jewish Organisations in America”?
Don’t you understand, that this is part of the antisemitic Jewish world conspiracy theory?
Could you substantiate your statement with facts?
The EUMC had a big clash with Jewish organizations, because a report of the Institute of Research of Antisemitism of Berlin TU, which showed that a lot of young Muslims with emigration background were involved in anti-Semitic aggressions in Europe. This report was repressed by EUMC and only when Jewish organizations made a scandal was the report published.

Jewish Socialist Group history:

1974-1977 Founded in Manchester/Liverpool as lobby group campaigning around two issues: awakening the Left, anti-racists and the Jewish community to the growing threat posed by the National Front; and campaigning for Left parties and groups to relate more positively to Jewish issues including its analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict where traditional anti-Zionism had often slipped into antisemitism and uncritical support for all Arab nationalism, which was alienating Jews from the Left.

Where did it all go wrong?

David, you must be completely confused. If the “Jewish organisations in America” had the power you ascribe to them, then they could have stopped Walt&Mearsheimer. As for the UK one has to reas Guardian in order to know, that Jewish organisations have no influence what so ever on that important mouthpiece of British left-liberal main-stream.
Any failed lecturer in Israel can make headlines if he takes a position not against the Israeli government or its policy, but against the right to exist of the Jewish democratic state, he/she will be invited, her/his articles will be published – also if they are not up to scientific standard – and there will be invitations to all kind of conferences.
And how is the situation in Israel? One has only to read Haaretz in order to notice, how many anti-Zionists can publish there articles critical of government, of Zionism and of Israeli main stream.
Now compare this with the situation of dissent in the PA or in Gaza.
I am afraid the likes of David Rosenberg cannot be convinced by logic or arguments. All the same we should give them an answer.

David,

Please forgive me if I accused you of being an ex-educationalist. I have a great deal of respect for teachers and anyone that would educate the world, myself, I am not an academic, just an autodidactic member of the underclasses.

So please, oh please could you do me the favour, as an educationalist, of reading what I write?

“…hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”

So evidence on precisely where it has been stated that “ all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.” is needed.

Please let’s have some evidence, not generalities, but precise evidence, statements accusations, something tangible.

Surely there must be reams of this?

If we were to believe Ms. Lucas, that it is all-pervading, then a few quotes should suffice. But they should relate to the specific of “…that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”.

I am sure that a lot of nasty things get said in these heated political debates, people are called names, stupid, craven, etc but that is NOT the same as saying “…that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.” so let’s appreciate that linguistic distinction there.

I’ll summarise, just in case, you missed any of it.

1. some of Ms. Lucas’ statements are decidely dodgy, particularly given she’s a professional politician, but she is not an antisemite. NOT, in my view.

2. As with sexism it’s perfectly possible to articulate it and not know, that applies to the issue of anti-Jewish racism today.

3. Ms. Lucas’s point is very specific “ all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic”, so let’s have some specific evidence which backed up that claim, not generalities.

4. tangible evidence is required, not just statements about how people are nasty to each other.

please do re-read, in case my points are not clear enough

ops, damn italics got ****ed there, could an admin please fix? should be closed after “reading what I write?” thx

“You may of course disagree with her, but I seriously think any attempt to label Caroline Lucas as antisemitic is way off the mark but then the way the new antisemitism “theory” cheapens the currency of antisemitism is really dangerous. It does nothing to arm us when we encounter the real thing – which of course is out there”

And once again, you are quoting the standard gambit we hear from antisemitism apologists: “accusing us of antisemitism cheapens the term antisemitism”. Only idiots with an IQ around room temperature buy this crap.

“Now I would disagree with Caroline Lucas insofar as I think the attempt which she correctly identifies is often unsuccessful. I’ve no doubt that the intentions of targeting critical voices and labelling them antisemites is an attempt to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour by silencing or marginalising critics but many of these targets have enough nous to find ways to fight back.”

So Jews who even dare raise the question of antisemitism are lying.
What they are really doing is defending Israel.

Never trust a Jew, eh?

There are two types of Jews and all that.
The anti-Zionists and critical Zionists are ok – they tell the truth. It’s the others I don’t like – you know, the one’s who say one thing and mean another.

I recall that something similar was argued a while back (at the same time your politics actually meant something),
e.g.
“Philo-semitism” (in this instance, fighting antisemitism) was (considered) a defence “in deeds not in words” of capitalism.”

So, 100 or so years ago, raising the issue of antisemitism was deemed as nothing more than a defence of capitalism.

So, when Jews raised the question of antisemitism they were lying. What they were really doing was defending capitalism.

Now, however, even daring to mention that sometimes antisemitism attaches to comments about Israel is deemed “in deeds not in words” of defending Israeli abuses.

Of course, lots of Jews and Jewish “socialists” agreed a century ago just as a few Jews and Jewish “socialists” agree with Lucas’ sentiment.

They were wrong then. You are wrong now.

As always in matters such as these, the truth is the exact opposite to what is claimed by Rosenberg, Lerman, Lucas, etc..

Whilst the claim is made that Jews/Zionists try to silence all criticism of Israel, the truth that those who raise the question of antisemitism are labelled apologists by some for Israeli abuses or, in some cases, the existence of Israel itself.

Unlike the former claim the latter fact can be substantiated without even going beyond this current threat………

Caroline Lucas
Richard Rosenberg

Elsewhere one can include,
Jenny Tonge,
George Monibot,
Jacqueline Rose
Many of the UCU activist list………………….
Brian Klug
The list continues.

So, rather than fighting shadows, maybe you would be better looking at the light itself.

Oi gevalt, what is going on here? On shabbos as well? Reading this thread causes me too much Tsores. I need such agmes nefesh like a lokh in kop.

(Translation from Russian:

This is a very interesting discussion to have on a Friday evening. We should all have plenty more such discussions, they are a joy to behold.)

Modernity, I thought I made clear in my post at 8.18 this morning that though I appreciated the general thrust of Caroline Lucas’s article, that the Palestinians were the victims in the situation and merited solidarity in the struggle for their rights from Greens and other progressives, I did not agree with her generalisation about Israel hiding behind a claim that “all” critics were antisemites.

Yes, I do think that many defenders of Israel are very careless at throwing the antisemitic charge around, because they know that, apart from the likes of Shamir,Atzmon and possibly Eisen, anti-zionists are rightly horrified at the implication that they are antisemitic. And when you consider the record of activism against all kinds of racism by many anti-zionist activists it is ludicrous as well as insulting.

You asked for examples and evidence of this kind of thing at work and I gave you some (which you dismissed as “anecdotes” – not so easy to dismiss as anecdotes if you were the victim of these episodes). But they are of course part of a much bigger pattern. I didn’t go into the “SHIT-List” thing through which a certain group of Zionists incites people to act against those it terms “Jewish self-haters” – copying the style of the fascist Redwatch site. I could have also raised how pretty much anyone who believes that there might be a basis for some kind of boycott of israel – not necessarily an academic boycott, routinely gets called an antisemite. I could have mentioned Paul Mackney a very good and principled trade unionist, anti-racist and anti-fascist who happens to be pro-palestinian, and who came in for an appalling hate campaign by Zionists.

If you think Israel defends itself purely by the merits of its ideological arguments, without resorting to petty name calling and false accusation, and without having very questionable strategies to deflect criticism, then I think you are wearing blinkers and missing a lot of what goes on.

If your argument is that people can unwittingly buy into antisemitic arguments, of course that is possible and maybe some anti-zionists are unwilling to recognise this.

But what also seems to be constantly denied is the possiblity that a number of people take up positions that are opposed to Israeli government and military policies, opposed to the fundamental laws (eg land laws and others) which discriminate against Israel’s non-jewish minorities, opposed to Israel’s reluctance to recognise its responsibility for the Palestinian refugee issue or to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and opposed to the philosophy of Zionism of creating an ethnocracy, because these people stand for human rights and social justice.

David,

Enough already! Gey shlaffen!

Itst, shlof ikh, zay gezunt. Morgn iz an underer tog.

David Rosenberg wrote:

“You asked for examples and evidence of this kind of thing at work and I gave you some (which you dismissed as “anecdotes” – not so easy to dismiss as anecdotes if you were the victim of these episodes).”

Evidence, you call that evidence? it was nothing else but anecdotes,

I’ll give you an example or 2.

Evidence might be a newspaper article attack Lerman, or a link to where Johann Hari was called an antisemite for describing the conditions in Gaza, or where repeatly Jacqueline Rose, Richard Kuper, Tony Klug and Ilan Pappe were called antisemites for their views?

Evidence is generally consider to independent and objective. David, sadly you gave me anecdote and subjectivity, they are not one on the same.

But please don’t believe me, go and ask the head of your educational institute what evidence is.

In the modern world evidences links articles something independent of ourselves, something objective that can be discussed.

It is not opinions, in this sense it is not, recollection or an anecdote.

David, I didn’t ask you about the shit list, I read it. But you didn’t read what I wrote.

I specifically wrote Britain, Britain, not the US, not Mars, not France but Britain.

Both you and Ms Lucas function within the political arena of Britain, and if this phenomena as you and she’s suggest is so prevalent, then surely you must be able to find some links to British publications, articles which argue the point that Ms Lucas precisely made.

So if you can provide something detached from your existence, a newspaper article as link, something independent of you, that would be fine.

But to be honest I find it extraordinary that for such an all pervasive phenomena, and let’s remember Ms Lucas’s words, “…all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”, that there is a problem finding evidence of it.

That’s the key issue.

It is not whether or not other Jewish organisations have been nasty, called you horrible names or other things.

It is the political basis for Ms. Lucas’s assertion, that is the question.

So please divorce yourself from the animus you feel towards other organisations, Ms Lucas made an assertion, and in the world of rationality views are based on evidence.

I’m asking you for that evidence.

David Rosenberg.

You smear all those who raise the question of antisemitism.

You accuse them of duplicity

You accuse them of being part of Israel’s ideological machine

You accuse them of insincerity

You say those who raise the question of antisemitism are doing so to deflect attention away from Israeli Human Rights abuses.

Let me ask you a straightfoward question.

The question is,

When Jews/Zonists raise the question of antisemitism, are they

a. consciously lying?

b. consciously a part of the ideological games played by Israel? or,

c. they are just innocent dupes who know not what they do?

You may think ti fine destroying the Jewish left. I don’t

Kudos to Mr. Rosenberg for explaining that to be an authentic Jewish socialist one must whitewash all Palestinian and Muslim leaderships from all their human rights violations and racist Judenrein, misogynist, anti-LGBT and taqfiri policies and philosophies while employing the most demonizing language one can find, fabricating and demanding the destruction of Israel for the sake of human rights and social justice. We should all be proud to stand hand in hand with such defenders of social justice and human rights, Jewish or not, like David Rosenberg, Mark Elf, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Lauren Booth, the SWP, Khaled Mashall, Paul Eisen, Jeff Rense, the Neturei Carta, James Petras, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Terry Eagleton, Said Nasrallah and Norman Finkelstein to name a few.

And a big beef to modernity for having the temerity to ask authentic Jewish socialist David Rosenberg to substantiate his opinions with evidence. What part of human rights and social justice does modernity not understand?

David Rosenberg – David , can you provide the sales figures for Jewish Socialist please ?

David Rosenberg claims intimidation. Basically David likes to criticize but refuses to let other people criticize his views or the views of people like Lerman. It’s David’s way of closing down debate. People respond to what he says , people respond to what Lerman says and David doesn’t like it and claims intimidation.

Real Jewish left,
The organisation of which I am part (JSG) used to get into trouble with the Jewish authorities in Britain for going on too much about antisemitism, for demanding that the leaders of the Jewish community reveal to the community information about antisemitism that they were keeping under wraps, and unite with other threatened communities against racism and fascism. Throughout the 1980s/1990s our group was often the only Jewish group taking part in public demonstrations against fascist groups for whom antisemitism remained an ideological cornerstone (and our members were harrassed by Combat 18 for their efforts). And of course we have challenged individuals and groups on the left when things have been said that we interpret as antisemitic (e.g Tam Dalyell, Paul Foot when he defended Tam Dalyell or SWP defending ATzmon).

But as people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism, of being “self-haters” for opposing Israeli policies/Zionism, and aware of how so many others who are not in our group but whom we know well and respect as 100% principled supporters of human rights and social justice, get the same treatment, we know that the accusation is often used dishonestly. Our conclusion is that it is used to deflect from perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy and the ideology of Zionism. What conclusion would you draw from this behaviour?

In the mid-1970s I was briefly active in the Zionist movement and have remained in touch with some sincere Zionists some of whom would never stoop to accuse ideological opponents of antisemitism but would rely on rational arguments to defend a position that has become harder and harder to defend. And if they point out antisemitism, they would not do so lightly. I respect their perceptions totally.

But my perception, which no doubt you will dispute, is that they have become quite a minority. And the numbers who make the accusation cynically against their political opponents have grown. Do you honestly believe for example that a rational opponent of Zionism can argue their case on the Engage website, for instance, without people wading in to accuse them of antisemitism, or in a slightly more polite vein accuse them of using antisemitic arguments?

David,

You have got me there. With the exception of Zay gezunt I have no idea what you are talking about. But then again, I guess I grew up without a clue as to what some of my elderly relations and their friends were rambling on about so I am not overly fazed by it.

I will say that I think it is a great shame that you combine your clear love for Yiddish culture and language with anti-Zionism. I think if the JSG dropped the anti-Zionism and focussed on Yiddish language and culture, the history of the East End and Jewish immigrants into the UK (and the USA), the Bund, Klezmer music and indeed social problems in the UK then you would have much warmer reception with the wider UK Jewish community.

In my opinion there are groups such as JfJfP and the like who deal with Israel and you may well support them but it is a shame that that subject cannot be left out of the JSG, in order that JSG can become a more unifying group.

I have no doubt that you are aware that there were many Yiddish language journals that were Zionist in outlook. An example would be the Russian (St. Petersburg) newspaper Der fraynd that lasted from 1905-1913. This particular newspaper, whilst being moderately Zionist was devoted to the Yiddish culture and reported very much on general Russian affairs. Dos lebn was another Yiddish organ that was Zionist but i focussed on affairs that Jewish socialists would be interested in.

[if you are not familiar with all this or wish to find out more, much of it can be seen in the very interesting essay: Sarah Abrevaya Stein, "Faces of Protest: Yiddish Cartoons of the 1905 Revolution," Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Winter, 2002), pp. 732-761. I can email you a copy if you like]

Personally, I am particularly interested in the debates between the Bundists and the Zionists in the early twentieth century in Russia. Where can I go for that information if I do not speak Yiddish? It is an area that I wish to research in some depth. I am sure you are familiar with much of these debates.

There was a historic antisemitic accusation by the Nazis and others of Jewish Bolshevism, but from my understanding (I would need to check) the Bolsheviks were not that Jewish – It was the Mensheviks that were dominated by Jewish intellectuals. What became of the Jewish Menshevik tradition? All of this I am interested in. Maybe I am the only one – maybe not – but given the fact that I tend to like sitting on the beach in Tel Aviv when on holiday, I do not feel that JSG is a place that would make me welcome.

It is possible that JSG has had some interesting lectures on this subject

In summary and to repeat, I think that JSG should let groups like JfJfP deal with the issues surrounding Palestine and as a matter of policy, not get involved. It could then concentrate on other matters of interest to Jewish socialists and someone like myself would be very keen to come along to some meetings and go for a bowl of non-kosher chicken soup and a non-kosher salt beef sandwich at Harry Morgan after to discuss the issues further.

Schactman said “David likes to criticize but refuses to let other people criticize his views or the views of people like Lerman. It’s David’s way of closing down debate.”

Schactman
Maybe you didn’t read my earlier comment:
Twenty years ago it bothered me, when Zionists screamed at me and other Jews handing out leaflets urging support for Israelis refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories, “You should have died in Auschwitz”. I and others have had that insult a few times since, but these days I just regard it as part of the rough and tumble and typically a comment of those who cannot justify rationally what they want to believe in.

I am all for debate, in as many forums as possible, as long as it is a useful debate going somewhere, with some common baseline held by opponents in the debate, for example recognising that Palestinians are human beings too.

On the Israel/Zionism/antisemitism debate, it looks to me like rational debate is closed down too often by the smearing of ideological opponents as antisemites.

Maybe the Jewish Chronicle – the largest selling newspaper in Britain’s Jewish community could provide a forum for a debate between Zionist and anti-Zionist perspectives. Why doesn’t that happen, then?

No, I would love there to be open debate on these issues. I pointed to some of the intimidation because that was what others were arguing about, and some people may not be aware or be in denial of the facts but it doesn’t stop me and others wanting the debate to continue. Quite the opposite really.

BTW you wanted to know JS sales figures. Are you thinking of advertising?

Mikey,
I can’t hang around here much longer today, I’ve got to go out very soon – the yiddish last night was “I’m sleeping now, tomorrow is another day”.

I disagree with your perception about what the JSG should or should not be involved in but you would expect that. And the politics of Yiddish are intimately connected to historical debates around Zionism and anti-Zionism

I’ll try and get you some refs for the historical question you are asking and give them to you on the walk.

David,

Thanks.

“when you consider the record of activism against all kinds of racism by many anti-zionist activists it is ludicrous as well as insulting”

Completely dumb pseudo-argument, which attempts to shut up debate by pointing to people’s past behaviour in totally unrelated contexts. It is as dumb as the attempt to shut up debate by saying that they would be ‘horrified’ to be regarded as antisemitic. Well, tough shit. The fact that antisemites are ‘horrified’ is no evidence that they are not antisemitic.
Being anti-Zionist is antisemitic by virtue of the fact that it denies Jews, in contrast with other ethnic groups, the right to self-determination. That makes it racist.

But as people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism, of being “self-haters” for opposing Israeli policies/Zionism, and aware of how so many others who are not in our group but whom we know well and respect as 100% principled supporters of human rights and social justice, get the same treatment, we know that the accusation is often used dishonestly. Our conclusion is that it is used to deflect from perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy and the ideology of Zionism. What conclusion would you draw from this behaviour?

“And the numbers who make the accusation cynically against their political opponents have grown”

Well, provide evidence that “people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism” and I will draw conclusions.

Mackney spoke of an “international pro-Israel Lobby” (reported in Haaretz)

John Wight speaks of “International Jewry”

Jenny Tonge speaks of BoD and LFI mainpulating UK policy

You accuse “Zionists” of acting cynically.

All these statements (other than yours) have appeared and been legitimised in the world of print in legitimate papers and journals rather than the virtual and often sordid world of bloggers.

Antiracists have every right to call them on antisemitism.

You defend them.

You deny those who believe in the existence of Israel can also be believers and activists in human rights and social justice.

I have drawn my conclusions.

You smear your opponents with false claims.

And, when called on it, repeat it the face of all the evidence.

David Rosenberg wrote:

“Do you honestly believe for example that a rational opponent of Zionism can argue their case on the Engage website, for instance, without people wading in to accuse them of antisemitism, or in a slightly more polite vein accuse them of using antisemitic arguments?”

David, did you ever debate on Engage web sites? were you accuse of antisemitism? (or other members of the JSG?)

if so, I’d like to see some evidence, that’s what I am asking you for evidence, not anecdote.

If you are making these clear statements then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence which logically substantiate your point, isn’t it?

as an educationalist I would have thought that was obvious??

please David use google, it is easy, such a prevalent phenomena must have left some evidence behind?

please, make an effort to engage with my arguments (no pun intended)

“All these statements (other than yours) have appeared and been legitimised in the world of print in legitimate papers and journals”

Which proves exactly nothing about the truth of those statements.

“Our conclusion is that it is used to deflect from perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy and the ideology of Zionism”

Criticism of the right of Jews to national self-determination is racist, however much one wriggles.

“All these statements (other than yours) have appeared and been legitimised in the world of print in legitimate papers and journals”

“Which proves exactly nothing about the truth of those statements”

I agree entirely.

My point was that the fantasy that Jews/Zionists raise the question of antisemitism to deflect from Israeli acts has been repeated in various “legitimate” places, whereas the “substance” of the claim is empirically nowhere to be found.

It is this fact that makes Rosenberg’s claim an unsubstantiated smear, a smear, moreover, that has gained common currency in the press and elsewhere despite its lack of foundation.

Not only is Rosenberg’s “perception” untrustworthy, the objective facts of the case fail to justify his claim.

He is pepetuating a myth. He continues to do so despite all evidence to the contrary.

In defence of David Rosenberg, to those who are saying that “Being anti-Zionist is antisemitic” I would be interested to know at what point this became the case. The Jewish religion is thousands of years old and Zionism is a nineteenth century ideology.

Zionism was not always accepted by major Jewish communal figures either and in the 1930s and earlier in the UK for example, there were many Jews opposed to Zionism. To accuse those of antisemitism is also ludicrous. You may argue that since the formation of the state of Israel that being anti-Zionist is antisemitic. Does that mean an anti-Zionist was not necessarily anti-Semitic in 1947 and became one in 1948?

There have always been anti-Zionist Jews – not least those who are ultra-Orthodox. It is not just a small vocal band from Neturei Karta, we can consider the much larger Satmar sect. Jews from these organisations are very religious and to accuse them of being anti-Semitic is laughable.

There are also anarachists who simply do not believe in the idea of the state at all. They may oppose the Jewish state but they would also oppose the Jordanian State, the German state and the Argentinian state etc. They are anti-Zionist but does this make them anti-Semitic?

David is the editor (or on the editorial board, if not the editor) of a Jewish magazine. He is a prominent member of the Jewish Socialist Group, an organisation that associates itself with the Red Herring Club for children that, has an objective:

To introduce Jewish culture in its widest sense. This includes the history and geography of the Jewish world, legends, folk tales, music, food, visual art, languages, clothes, traditions. It also includes some of the ideas of Jewish religious culture in a sympathetic manner but wholly from a secular perspective.

I understand that David is also knowledgeable on the Bund, an interesting movement in the Jewish community in Eastern Europe for the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century. He is also, I believe, struggling to keep the Yiddish language alive, a language that was important for the Jewish community in Eastern Europe.

In fact, there were many Jews in the revolutionary movement. David Rosenberg’s comrade in the JSG (I will not get into his background with the WRP on this post) recounted the following joke:

“Why did the League Communiste
Revolutionnaire stop holding its central committee meetings in Yiddish?”,
“Because Bensaid is a Sefardi”. Boom boom

Now, I do get rather irritated by those that stand up “as a Jew” only when they are criticising Israel or Zionism, especially when they get their facts wrong or outright lie, but I do not go around and willy-nilly accuse someone of antisemitism on the mere fact that they oppose the right of Israel to exist.

“Zionism was not always accepted by major Jewish communal figures either and in the 1930s and earlier in the UK for example, there were many Jews opposed to Zionism. To accuse those of antisemitism is also ludicrous.”

Not at all. And the reason is that you are confusing several things here. Ultra-orthodox Jews are NOT saying that the Jews are not entitled to their own country: on the contrary, they say specifically that in the fullness of time God will bring together all the Jews from everywhere in their free country of Israel. All they are objecting to is the use of practical political means to bring this about. They do NOT object to Zionism: they object to –political zionism–. They cannot be religious Jews without reading the prophets and praying for a free Jewish country every day of the week, once the Messiah comes.

“There are also anarachists who simply do not believe in the idea of the state at all. They may oppose the Jewish state but they would also oppose the Jordanian State, the German state and the Argentinian state etc”

I have addressed this point many times, and the only reason I don’t invoke this formula every time is one of brevity. But often enough, I do say: “If you deny the Jews their self-determination, you are antisemitic UNLESS you also deny it to Norwegians, Japanese, Greeks and everyone else”. I have yet to see anyone saying so (denying it to Greeks etc) on this blog or in any other comparable forum. But yes, anarchists would come under this heading.

Nearly Oxfordian,

You may be better off not saying anything rather than putting your fingers to the keyboard and allowing everyone to see what a fool you are.

The Ultra-Orthodox opponents of Zionism are opposed to all forms of Zionism. Despite your assertion, they do not not talk about a “free country of Israel” but “eretz Yisrael” (Translated as “the land of Israel”) this does not mean the same as country. For the Satmarer, Jews are a light unto the nations and nationalism is a “an imitation of the Gentiles.” [1]

The Satmar Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitlebaum believed that Zionism was “the work of Satan,” “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy,” and his followers were forbidden to have anything to do with it.

The Satmarer would regard Zionists as heretics and the Zionist state as Satanic. In fact, the Satmar Rabbi Teitelbaum even names the particular demon as “Samael.” As Norman Lamm explains, for the Satmarer,

The picture is two-tone: black and white. The Zionists are defiled, reshaim (wicked); we are tzaddikim. It is as simple as all that. [2]

Norman Lamm was the Erna Michael Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Yeshiva University and Rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York and hence highly qualified to comment.

[1]Harry Rabinowicz, Hasidim and the State of Israel (East Brunswick N.J. and London: Associated University Presses Inc., 1982.) pp. 228-242
[2] Norman Lamm, “The Ideology of the Neturei Karta: According to the Satmarer Version,” Tradition Vol. 12 1971 pp. 38-53

As a matter of fact, some “Rabbi” participade at the infamous Holocaust denial conference in Teheran, some blame Zionist for the Holocaust. And some are close friends of extreme right wing racists.

Mikey, if you cannot engage in rational argument without resorting to abuse, which manifestly you are not, then just go and fuck yourself.

Eli,

Regarding the ultra-Orthodox who blame Zionism for the Holocaust, it should be put in context of their general position. To explain why they do, it is necessary to have some background:

The 16th century Talmudic scholar, the Maharal of Prague, warned that “the prohibition against returning from the Diaspora is as strict as any apostasy.” The reason for this is that Jewish exile is a punishment for Jewish sins. God scattered the people of Israel amongst the nations and they must await the coming of the Messiah for their redemption.According to the great eleventh century Jewish scholar and commentator, Rashi “he who leads one to sin is worse than one who kills since killing puts an end to ones existence in this world, but sinning puts an end to it also in the next world.”

The Satmar Rebbe, ,believed “sin is the cause for all suffering.” Zionism was a great sin and would lead to a terrible disaster. In his book Vayoel Moshe (And Moses Agreed), which Teitelbaum composed in the late 1950s:

six million of Israel were killed… for this is the bitter punishment as the Talmud makes it clear when it says ‘I am permitting your flesh [to be devoured] like the flesh of the deer and the gazelle’.

He drew the inevitable conclusion: the Holocaust itself was a direct result of Zionism and divine punishment for the Zionists’ sin:

For their hands are stained with blood, and they are the reason for the terrible disaster of the killing of the killing of six million Jews.

He believed Hitler to be a messenger of divine wrath sent to chasten the Jews because of the bitter apostasy of Zionism against the belief in the eventual Messianic redemption.

For more on this, see:

Dina Porat, “‘Amalek’s Accomplices’ Blaming Zionism for the Holocaust: Anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel during the 1980’s” Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 27 No. 4 (Oct., 1992) pp. 695-729

Regarding those that attended the Holocaust Denial conference, it is the small band of Neturei Karta, who purposely court attention from Islamist and far-right whackos. The rest of the ultra-religious anti-Zionist movement cannot be blamed for their beliefs even if their beliefs make comfortable reading to antisemites. When the Rebbe Moses Teitelelbaum (leader of the Satmars and nephew of the by now deceased Joel Teitelbaum) visited Jerusalem in 1994, the coordinator of his trip was asked if Moses Teitelbaum was to meet the P.L.O. on the trip (something that NK did). The response was that he would not because the Rebbe “sees it as an organization that has killed, and anyone who associates with it a killer.” He added that whilst the Rebbe did not have time for Zionists, “he loves Jews.” (New York Times June 8, 1994)

Nearly Oxfordian

I think what you were trying to say but cannot admit to is that you were wrong.

Modernity, I didn’t respond earlier today as I was away for the computer for most of it but also felt a bit disinclined because it seemed our posts were going past each other. You were not hearing what I was saying and you apparently felt I was acting similarly.

You dismissed earlier examples I gave you as anecdotes rather than evidence. Because I knew a number of the victims you thought these betrayed subjectivism rather than objective comment. When you’ve been around non-Zionist/anti-Zionist politics for a long time – i have since the early 80s – you tend to know personally the people these things are directed against. To me that doesn’t invalidate these examples.

I don’t know Johann Hari personally and I can give you a url for his experience in which he also points to the wider use of these sentiments of which he became a victim (www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-loathsome-smearing-of-israels-critics-822751.html), but I haven’t got the time or energy to spend retrieving the examples, because I think you know we are talking about a discourse here, where it has become normalised to view critics of Israel as suspect. As Brian Klug one deconstructed a quote from Abe Foxman who said criticism of israel is not necesarily antisemitic: this implies ‘is possibly’ and really means ‘is usually so’.

I’m currently nearly halfway through reading an advance copy of “A time to Speak Out” the Independent Jewish Voices book coming out in early October (Verso). It has 27 contributors ranging from critical Zionists to anti-zionists, and in the dozen or so contributions I’ve read to date there are several examples of what I have been talking about and a set of analyses to try to uncover the mechanisms through which this happens. The contribution, for example, by Emma Clyne, chair of the Jewish student society at SOAS, who felt the full weight of the UJS hierarchy and the disapproval of the Israeli Embassy for seeking to invite certain speakers to address the jewish society is very revealing.

If you really think that Zionists do not routinely seek to undermine oppositional viewpoints by smearing individuals as enemies of the jews, as self-haters etc, then hopefully the book will be very enlightening for you.

As for your direct question “David, did you ever debate on Engage web sites? were you accused of antisemitism? (or other members of the JSG?)”

The answers are Yes and Yes. For around a year until about three months ago, when I vowed to myself not to waste a minute more writing to Engage, I contributed to ‘discussions” on Engage using a couple of pen-names. Sometimes I drew direct abuse accusing me of being antisemitic, sometimes I was lumped in with others they perceived as antisemites, more often I was condemned for using arguments that other writers described as antisemitic. There were other occasions when perfectly rational but uncomfortable arguments that I posted just never appeared on the Engage website. That happened several times, and I know other posters on other blogs have complained of the same experience with Engage. (that has never happened to me on HP).
But basically at Engage the attitude to critics for the left seemed to be: attack the person, label the argument antisemitic, use guilt by association or just censor; anything but respnd to the substance of the argument that was being presented.

As for Nearly Oxfordian
“Criticism of the right of Jews to national self-determination is racist, however much one wriggles.

or earlier: “Being anti-Zionist is antisemitic by virtue of the fact that it denies Jews, in contrast with other ethnic groups, the right to self-determination. That makes it racist.”

Some weeks back I did a guest post for HP in which I supported Jewish self-determination but not the Zionist version at the expense of the Palestinians.

“But as people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism, of being “self-haters” for opposing Israeli policies/Zionism, and aware of how so many others who are not in our group but whom we know well and respect as 100% principled supporters of human rights and social justice, get the same treatment, we know that the accusation is often used dishonestly. Our conclusion is that it is used to deflect from perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy and the ideology of Zionism. What conclusion would you draw from this behaviour?”

“And the numbers who make the accusation cynically against their political opponents have grown”

Well, provide evidence that “people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism” and I will draw conclusions.

Mackney spoke of an “international pro-Israel Lobby” (reported in Haaretz)

John Wight speaks of “International Jewry”

Jenny Tonge speaks of BoD and LFI mainpulating UK policy

You accuse “Zionists” of acting cynically.

All these statements (other than yours) have appeared and been legitimised in the world of print in legitimate papers and journals rather than the virtual and often sordid world of bloggers.

Antiracists have every right to call them on antisemitism.

You defend them.

You deny those who believe in the existence of Israel can also be believers and activists in human rights and social justice.

I have drawn my conclusions.

You smear your opponents with false claims.

And, when called on it, repeat it the face of all the evidence.

(Btw, that bastion of the Jewish establishment reviewed the IJV book quite favourably.

It concluded with the comment that whilst it is perfectly sound to argue that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, the book ignores the
fact that it can be.

So, no wonder you recommend it without comment. It makes the same error that you do.)

“Our conclusion is that it is used to deflect from perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy and the ideology of Zionism. ”

Of course, all these comments could be “perceived” by you ro be “perfectly justified criticism of Israeli policy”.

If it is not, what is it? Carelessness per chance?

“But as people regularly and falsely accused of antisemitism, of being “self-haters” for opposing Israeli policies/Zionism”

And I am getting sick and tired of “regularly and falsely” being “accused” of being an apologist for Israeli acts by people such as yourself, Lerman, and IJV for daring to raise the question of antisemitism.
Real Jewish Left has given clear examples of antisemitic overtones to comments those making them believe relate to Israel.
He or she has shown that these are not figments of anyone’s imagination, but made by individuals in positions of influence (TU gen secretaries, leading members of the PSC, members of the House of Lords.)
For someone from the JSG – a group I was once very close with – who has a historical sense, these accusations of an international Lobby, “International Jewry”, influence in another country’s policy, all have grave historical resonances. (Of that, I have no need to remind you). Yet, you persist in your claim that those who dare to raise the question of antisemitism (suh as myself) are deflecting from criticism of Israel.
In Ha’aretz recently Tony Lerman claimed that people attack those critical of Israel as self-haters, not being proper Jews, etc. without knowing them.
You do not know me or (I assume) Real Jewish Left and yet that does not stop you claiming that, because I (and he or she) raise the question of antisemitism in connection with “criticism [sic] of Israel” I am deflecting attention from the very real human right abuses carried out by the State of Israel. You have no basis for this assumption. You do not know me, nor I, you. Yet, you impute “my” motives, none the less.
But, as “Real Jewish Left” asked, maybe you think that these statements are not worthy of raising the question of antisemitism? In which case, any lingering hope I may have had that JSG has some relevance for both the question of Israel/Palestine and the question of antisemitism would appear entirely misplaced.

David RosenBerg wrote:

“Modernity, I didn’t respond earlier today as I was away for the computer for most of it but also felt a bit disinclined because it seemed our posts were going past each other. You were not hearing what I was saying and you apparently felt I was acting similarly.”

David, I read all you wrote, and you’ll notice I didn’t argue with any of your points. I think, it is highly probable and true to say, that in the past you and your group have been attacked.

I am not disputing that.

It is probably fair to say that you been called any number of nasty names.

I’m not disputing that.

But that is not the issue.

The issue is Ms. Lucas’s statement, and whether or not there is evidence which supports her claims:

“hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”

“Because I knew a number of the victims you thought these betrayed subjectivism rather than objective comment”

Again forgive me, I didn’t express myself clearly. It has nothing to do with whether or not you know the victims, it is the nature of evidence. Is there something independent of the existence of people which can verify what has been said? that’s my point.

It is the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, that’s all.

Again I don’t really care what Abe Foxman thinks or says, I specifically said Britain.

Let me put it crudely, there are numerous cranks in America who will say absolutely anything, but that is not the discourse that goes on in Britain, and that is the pertinent one.

As for Engage you are doing them a disservice. All comments are moderated and even some of mine don’t get through, that is the nature of moderation.

You need to differentiate between the articles and the people who post them from that of commentators, who could and sometimes do have rather ripe opinions. I would not disagree that some of the exchanges on Engage are rather sharp, but that is the nature of political discussion on this topic, it is close to people’s hearts, their lives and I would expect it to be so.

I would certainly accept that strong sentiment is expressed on Engage, but and this is the key point, all criticism of Israel is not taken as antisemitic, that’s fairly obvious from a basic reading of Engage.

But flip it over and think about it.

Some criticism of Israel is based on antisemitic notions, when you read David Duke’s work do you think that he criticises Israel out of the best of motives?

When you read some of the virulent commenters at CiF and they pepper there are remarks with anti-Jewish racism, do you think they do it from the best of motives?

of course not, this is basic, but that does not apply to everyone. Are we all immune from pervasive racism or sexism in society? no, certainly not.

But when people are essentialised and sweeping generalizations used then surely that should set alarm bells ringing with antiracists?

I spent quite a lot of time studying the Far Right, and one key way of determining someone’s attitude is not what they say, not even how they say it, it is much simpler, it is the level of obsession.

And if someone is constantly attacking Israel as a proxy for attacking Jews without any meaningful or positive contribution, then I think it’s perfectly possible to question their motives.

But let me be very clear, those people are racialists, they are fundamentally opposed to the existence of Jews, and you can see it by their persistency, they are a small minority.

For example, that is not, necessarily, the same as valid criticism of abuses by the IDF in the West Bank.

They are not one and the same, and people with any sense of proportion would see that.

It is not an all or nothing situation, there are shades and intensity to the attacks on Jews, some direct, others under the cloak of attacking Israel.

So to return to Ms Lucas’s comments, you either think they can be substantiated or you don’t.

I think her use of English was decidedly sloppy, unnecessarily pointed and not tenable, for a professional politician.

And that is why I want to return to that one specific point, either there is evidence to back up her claims or there’s isn’t.

If you were to say to me “I get called all sorts of names because I argue a particular point” then I would agree.

There is more than enough evidence to back up that argument, but there isn’t enough, “hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”

The two are different.

Anyway, have a rest, I appreciate you’re probably exhausted.

ops, that last bit should read:

There is more than enough evidence to back up that argument, but there isn’t enough for “…hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.”

Mikey you give me a long lesson without having read my short text. Here it is again:”… some “Rabbi” participade at the infamous Holocaust denial conference in Teheran, some blame Zionist for the Holocaust. And some are close friends of extreme right wing racists.”
The word “some” is very clear. So probably you read before you stat to give long shiurim.
And there were also some Hassidic rabbis who preached to their fellows in Budapest in 1944 before the Germans occupied Hungary, to stay put in Hungary and trust god. They themselves took a train to Istanbul and from there to the Eretz Kodesh.
So I restrict my criticism to those involved. To some Rabbi.
By the way the late Lubavitscher also said, that Holocaust was a punishment of god. If his theory would be correct, the nazis would have only perpetrated god’s will. The Holocaust (I prefer the term Shoah) is strengthening my atheism. For as a philosopher said, either is God almighty and then he had no heart or he is good but not allmighty for he could not save his “elected people”.

David Rosenberg

The reason i was interested in the sales figures for Jewish Socialist was to get an idea of how popular it it.

David , you say re Engage as below. Can we have specific examples ?

” For around a year until about three months ago, when I vowed to myself not to waste a minute more writing to Engage, I contributed to ‘discussions” on Engage using a couple of pen-names. Sometimes I drew direct abuse accusing me of being antisemitic, sometimes I was lumped in with others they perceived as antisemites, more often I was condemned for using arguments that other writers described as antisemitic. There were other occasions when perfectly rational but uncomfortable arguments that I posted just never appeared on the Engage website. That happened several times, and I know other posters on other blogs have complained of the same experience with Engage. (that has never happened to me on HP).
But basically at Engage the attitude to critics for the left seemed to be: attack the person, label the argument antisemitic, use guilt by association or just censor; anything but respnd to the substance of the argument that was being presented.”

Modernity,
I have already acknowledged that I think that Caroline’s formulation was too much of a generalisation. I would have preferred it if it said “hiding behind its incendiary claim that MANY who criticise its policies are antisemitic.”

You are very keen to maintain a distinction between the discourses in America and Britain, but I think that the more powerful one influences the other. People of Alan Dershowitz’s ilk get more invites and platforms here, and influence debates here. Whether you or I think Abe Foxman is a crank, he has a very powerful position within American Jewry.

In Britain’s most widely read Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle, the beyond-cranky opinions of Melanie Phillips and Geoffrey Alderman are regular features, and the newspaper as a whole supports a discourse that regularly hangs out to dry trenchant critics of Israel. And, while occasionally and very minimally reporting some aspects of oppositional movements in Israel, it places any fundamental questions about Zionism well beyond the pale. It is a discourse that assumes a Zionist consensus within a community in which it also assumes there is a common political interest (regardless of socio-economic differences). (Though admittedly it was even worse in the mid-80s when its Home News editor was also a significant official within the Board of Deputies). The discourses in the regional Jewish newspapers in the the UK when I’ve seen them have generally been even more right-wing zionist, and their general line of argument is that pretty much all critics of Israel are motivated by antisemitism.

Of course I agree with you about David Duke and his intentions, and no doubt there are others who jump on an anti-israel bandwagon to give vent to longstanding anti-Jewish views, (I’ve got serious doubts about Jenny Tonge for instance, which were magnified when I had a brief conversation with her at a demonstration a couple of years back). But some formulations that get casually lumped in as antisemitism I don’t recognise. And, with reference to “Real Jewish Left”, I have consistently opposed the term “Jewish lobby” as antisemitic, but certainly recognise there are pro-Israel lobbies (made up of Jews and non-Jews) and that these are present in several countries and there are shared approaches and connections between the lobbies in different countries ie it is international. I don’t regard reference to an “International pro-Israel lobby” as antisemitic.

Modernity, I think you are being far too kind to Engage. I don’t keep copies of my posts – so can’t go back to them – but generally the posts that I sent that exposed lies and gross distortions were the ones that were censored, while others’ posts that purveyed these lies and distortions or engaged in most puerile character assassinations were evidently welcomed.

So, I prefer to post here and on Socialist Unity.

Saul, I don’t know you, though if, as you say, you were very close to the JSG in the past, perhaps I would. In your experience/opinion, do the Israeli government, embassy spokespersons, leaders of Zionist organisations ever deflect criticism of Israel’s policies by labelling critics antisemites, enemies of the Jews, people with suspect motives? if so, is it rare or frequent? Is it a figment of the collective imagination of people such as those who have contributed to the forthcoming volume “A Time to Speak Out” that I mentioned earlier, or others who I have referred to in earlier posts.

Still not a single example or piece of proof from David Rosenberg to back up his accusations against Engage. Not a single one.

Maybe David Rosenberg is a Likudnik – after all he makes wild allegations against people he disagrees with , he smears those people and attempts to close down debate with his lies.

WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

And you wonder why 99% of Jewish socialists ignore The JSG.

BTW David , still wondering if you can reveal any sales figures for the Jewish Socialist magazine ?

We now have the absurd situation of a Jewish Socialist claiming, that, despite all historical resonances, reference to an “international pro-Israel lobby” is not antisemitic, but a reflection of reality.

And he claims the Board of Deputies lack integrity.

In the old days, Rosenberg would be discoursing on about international Jewish capital and the machinations of the Rothschild banking family saying, well, they do have banks in all the centres of Europe, and they do finance government, so nothing anti-Jewish in saying that there is such a thing as Jewish capital that determines the fate of the world, that’s just the way it really is.

This is a complete waste of time.

David,
You carry on feeling martyred. You carry on thinking those that raise the question of antisemitism are doing nothing more that defending Israel. You carry on making nice to those you shouldn’t.
Better that than reflect on the serious analytical and political mistakes you are making.

“Saul, I don’t know you, though if, as you say, you were very close to the JSG in the past, perhaps I would. In your experience/opinion, do the Israeli government, embassy spokespersons, leaders of Zionist organisations ever deflect criticism of Israel’s policies by labelling critics antisemites, enemies of the Jews, people with suspect motives? if so, is it rare or frequent? Is it a figment of the collective imagination of people such as those who have contributed to the forthcoming volume “A Time to Speak Out” that I mentioned earlier, or others who I have referred to in earlier posts.”

Every mainstream Jewish/Zionist organisation’s say that criticism of Israel is not, of itself, antisemitic. The EUCM definition of antisemitism says that criticism of Israel is, of itself, not antisemitic.

Other than reference to green inkers, you have offered no substantial evidence that this is not the case. No reference to speeches, to documents. Instead, you fall back on the idea of a shadowy international lobby that initiates “hate campaigns” and is the overarching coordinator of all and any comments made by those green inkers.

Now, who spoke about the poverty of philosophy?

Eli,

I certainly did not mean to be patronising. I am aware that there is more than one rabbi who blame the Zionists for the Holocaust. Typically they all use a similar argument to that of the Satmar Rebbe, Joel Teitelbaum. I made the points because when the accusation is made about the Ultra-religious it is sometimes not put in context. I do not consider myself to be a Talmudic scholar, I am simply interested in anti-Zionism and I would say specifically Jewish anti-Zionism.

You are also correct that some Hassidic Rabbis in Hungary thought that God would save them from the Holocaust. There is no doubt about it. Incidentally, Teitelbaum himself survived the Holocaust in Hungary as a passenger on what has become has known as Kasztner’s train.

You are also correct during the Holocaust that SOME Hungarian rabbis left their communities and made their own escape. There were also lay communal leaders who did the same. They subsequently claimed that they believed their communities were being taken to Kenyermezo (a fictional place in Western Hungary) to work on farms when they were in reality sent to Auschwitz. As Professor Randolph Braham, the leading scholar on the Holocaust in Hungary, comments:

Perhaps they were convinced that this transfer plan was genuine. But then, why did they not remain with the masses to provide ongoing leadership and support in Kenyermezo instead of escaping and abandoning their flock? None of them provided a satisfactory answer to this question after the war.

Randolph L. Braham, “Rescue Operations in Hungary: Myths and Realities,” Yad Vashem Studies Vol. XXXII (2004) pp. 50-51

David , you give the example of your sone bing prevented from giving out anti-fascist leaflets at an event. You portray this as some kind of victimisation. Yet at the same event the Zionist Federation were prevented from having anything political on their stand. Political leaflets were banned from the event. So from your warped point of view would it be fair to say that the Zionist Federation were also being victimised. Shows how illogical you are David.

The JSG is very important. It provides a justification for those anti-zionists who excuse antisemitism. If you stopped complaining and making unsubstantiated smears against people who you disagree with , then maybe you would have gained more support from left-wing Jews in the UK and would not be the miniscule group that you are.

BTW David , you recount what happened to you twenty years ago. Around the same time i remember antizionists calling a member of the UJS a fucking Jew , i remember a Jewish delegate to NUS being escorted from NUS conference after a Jewish antizionist member of Students For Palestine made a grab for him. But these anecdotal tales prove nothing and neither do yours.

David,

You made several points, which I’ll try to cover but I do want a return to Ms Lucas’s assertion at the end.

1. Discourse.
2. Engage
3. Ms. Lucas

1. you wrote: “It is a discourse that assumes a Zionist consensus within a community in which it also assumes there is a common political interest (regardless of socio-economic differences).”

I wouldn’t disagree with that, that seems a fair assessment as far as I can see, but equally you might comment that in the prewar period anti-Zionism was the dominate view, and the key question is: why?

You seem very irked at your treatment by the CST and others?

can I suggest a rather simple solution:

you meet up with them and anyone else, explain that you are not going away, they should accept your existence and try to reach a modus vivendi with you?

That is the easy solution, and the most logical one, but whether or not the JSG would never agree to it, I can’t say.

2. you wrote: “but generally the posts that I sent that exposed lies and gross distortions were the ones that were censored, while others’ posts that purveyed these lies and distortions or engaged in most puerile character assassinations were evidently welcomed.”

Again David, you’re making an assertion, you are assuming the very worst and suggesting that it is censorship.

But I’ve already pointed out there is a difference, a big difference between blogs that are moderated (where comments are preapproved) and places like HP, where they are not.

So that might explain why some of your comments at Engage might not get through and why at HP you don’t have that problem. There is more than one explanation for this.

I should point out also that if you include a lot of links in your posts they will get stuck in moderation, and sometimes that won’t be picked up. It has happened to me a few times.

If you were adversely concerned about your posts the solution was simple, email Engage, state your case and ask them if you can do a guest post.

David, please remember that I read Engage avidly, and the one thing that I notice when a particular “anti-Zionists” pops their head up at Engage is how ill-equipped they are for debate, they often rely on rhetoric, preconceived notions and won’t provide evidence to substantiate their claims. If you want an example look at how Ben White conducts himself. Btw, I am happy to provide chapter and verse on this :) I can give you reams and reams.

But David you don’t seem to understand or are oblivious to the passions that you invoke.

You criticise beliefs which are dear to people’s hearts, you criticise a country which many support, and understandably you get a sharp response.

If you don’t like the harsh response then possibly you want to moderate your statements or consider how your words affect people?

But don’t believe me, try a little experiment, find some Serbians, someone from the Balkans, a few Scots, a few Irish and then make the same type of criticisms of their countries as you do of Israel, or of their underlying beliefs, and then you will see a much stronger response.

You shouldn’t be oblivious to the effect of your own words and activities.

3. Finally, concerning Ms Lucas’s assertions, let’s refresh our memory, the most contentious part was:

“…hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.””

and accepting your revision, “hiding behind its incendiary claim that MANY who criticise its policies are antisemitic.” I assume that you think that isn’t true?

Let’s compile a list of the type of people that have been known to criticise Israel.

Firstly, modern-day neo-nazis and next:

holocaust revisionists, KKK types, white power freaks, conspiracy nuts, some 9/11 truthers, the political paranoids, extreme right conservatives, paleocons, isolationists
people with personal grievances against Jews
“ex-Jews” (Atzmon, etc)
those uncomfortable with Jewish identity
Eastern European racists
old fashion Soviet style racists
cranky liberals
the odd old Labour MP
Members of the NF/BNP
a Maylanian ex-PM
a few silly UCU members
a lot of malevolent political cranks
Trot. anti-zionists (SLL/WRP, etc)
Morning Star journalists
some misanthropes
some Orthodox Jews
Israelis, themselves
Israelis human right activists
other Israelis
various genocidal militia groups in the Middle East
the Holocaust denying President of Iran
assorted rabble rousers
GDR/Old Polish CPers (rootless, etc)
people keen to attack Jews via the proxy of Israel, etc

that list is not comprehensive, not by any means, and I can provide, evidence, facts to prove the above but if you’d like to add a few people as well?

so if we compare the above with Ms. Lucas’s statement and your modified one, then surely you see the issue?

how those statements tally with the reality of those who attack Israel, for political purposes?

I’ll leave you to ponder that for a while.

Modernity – “If you were adversely concerned about your posts the solution was simple, email Engage, state your case and ask them if you can do a guest post”

I’ve also had comments not published on Engage. I guess they weren’t considered good enough. I don’t think there’s anything anti-zionist about this.
And if David asks Engage if he can do a guest post , then wouldn’t it be good if he offered David Hirsh or Jon Pike a guest post in Jewish Socialist.

Shachtman,

guest posts all around? good idea, I’d agree, fair’s fair.

I think the JSG and others should encourage as much debate as possible. They might have done that already, can’t say, I only scan the JSG’s mag. on-line, occasionally, so not 100% sure.

A monthly column, called the Dissenting Socialist, might be appropriate?

I’ve had some of my comments not allowed on Engage. STALINISTS! (That was a joke)

Wasn’t there a whole page article in the JC a couple of years ago on David Rosenberg ?

seemingly so, it is available via the google cache http://tinyurl.com/3ztmer

Modernity, thanks for answering as usual in a straightforward manner and not engaging in wild fantasies about what I might have believed 100 years ago (Saul) or getting very over-heated (Schachtman) at what he/she characterises as merely a “miniscule” group that we are told “99% of Jewish socialists” don’t support – Schachtman must know a hell of a lot of Jewish socialists…or alternatively the statement is nonsense. Anyway.

BTW Saul, after all the bluster, what is your answer to the question I posed?

Modernity, back to your points. The CST is a minor irritant these days. We challenged them in a very forthright and public way when they were much more than a minor irritant, and they largely backed off. But even if we did meet with them today who are they accountable to? Since 1984 their chief financial backer Gerald Ronson (that very ethical capitalist) took his ball home and made the CST (or CSO as it was in those days) effectively independent, but with one of their people having a formal position at the Board for the sake of appearances. they are not even accountable to the undemocratic, unrepresentative Board of Deps. I really don’t think there is any useful chat the JSG could have with the likes of Gerald Ronson and his cronies.

As for Engage, thanks for the advice, but my quality of life is much, much higher since I stopped engaging with them. I still get “engage mailings” pop up on my email occasionally and on the few occasion that I emailed them a questions challenging the veracity of what they had sent out or raising a query about it, I never once managed to elicit a response. I’m sure others here will reassure me that is purely random or coincidence but you can forgive me for drawing other conclusions about it.

Now your list of those opposing Israel. Yes I recognise some of them though they are numerically miniscule. I think it is a shame (and discredits your analysis) that you impute negative psychological qualities (”cranky”, “uncomfortable”, “misanthropes”, “nuts”, “paranoids” etc.) to quite a few categories on your list – as if there is no rational basis for opposing Israeli policy/Zionist political philosophy.

You said the list is not comprehensive and on that I’m in total agreement with you. You seemed to have missed out PALESTINIANS – and in that category the ones publicly opposing Israel include scores of Palestinian civil society associations, politicians, mayors, journalists, doctors, lawyers, human rights activists, trade unionists…
You include Israeli human rights activists, but forgot to mention Jewish human rights activitst and non-Jewish human rights activists.

By making a simple list, it is as if each category on the list has equal weight, but many of the categories you include are numerically miniscule and with little clout.

When you consider who is organising politically to criticise Israel, why not look at the major mobilisations called by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign going back to the lebanon War of 82 to the present day? We are talking about mobilisations of thousands and sometimes of tens of thousands. So who are these people and where will we find them on your list?

Most of them are ordinary, well adjusted people, often members of the Labour party/Lib Dems/trade unions/students and left wing groups, mobilised above all on the basis of support for human rights and opposition to military occupation.

I hope you are not mistaking the relatively tiny blogosphere, which is a magnet for some genuinely cranky types, for the arenas where the mass political mobilisations take place.

If such mobilisations really were full of the types you have listed wouldn’t the JSG with its banner sporting a star of David have attracted more than a few nasty comments from our fellow opponents of Israel? We took our banner on such demonstration during that war in 1982 and the only negative comments have come from antisemitic policemen walking escorting the marches.

Take a look from the other end of the telescope too. I suspect it woudl be similarly superficial exercise, but don’t you think I could constuct a list of some extremely dodgy supporters of Israel? And even more bizarrely couldn’t I, these days, also include the BNP?

BTW since this seemingly endless thread started, I’ve read a few more essays in the forthcoming IJV book. The story doesn’t get any nicer and a number of contributors outline the role of various American Jewish organisations (eg AIPAC, anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee) and individuals (Dershowitz, Pipes, Morton Klein), and the impact of their behaviour on the discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. But then again if I mention International pro-Israel lobbying some of the neanderthals here will get restless and start calling me a Nazi, so maybe I better not.

David Rosenberg “or getting very over-heated (Schachtman) at what he/she characterises as merely a “miniscule” group that we are told “99% of Jewish socialists” don’t support – Schachtman must know a hell of a lot of Jewish socialists…or alternatively the statement is nonsense. Anyway.”

David , just becuase i point out that the JSG is a miniscule group doesn’t mean i’m getting overheated. It’s just an opinion. Just because you don’t agree with my comment doesn’t make it over-heated. Your false accusation typifies your usual smear tactic which is an attempt to avoid debating the issue.

David , you say “Schachtman must know a hell of a lot of Jewish socialists…or alternatively the statement is nonsense. ”

Yes , David , i do know many Jewish socialists and only one of them has any time for JSG. They are all aware of what JSG’s core beliefs are and they all reject them. They may agree with certain individual policies , some of them used to go to the occasional JSG event or read the magazine. But they are not Bundists and they don’t subscribe to the way that JSG dismisses antisemitism when it’s used in relation to Israel or hides under the claim of “anti-zionism” (and i don’t believe that anti-zionism is necessarily anti-semitic).

David , i’ve asked you if you have any sales figures for Jewish Socialist. Would be good to know what they are as it will indicate how popular the JSG is.

David , i understand how frustrating it must be for you. Most Jewish socialists know what your group stands for and they reject this viewpoint. And it’s difficult for you to accept this as you are so certain in your views (inspite of being unable to substantiate what you claim earlier in this thread in your smears and false accusations). So you have to claim (as IJV do) that your views are being restricted. Your views aren’t being restricted , it’s just people disagree with your views.

David “I still get “engage mailings” pop up on my email occasionally and on the few occasion that I emailed them a questions challenging the veracity of what they had sent out or raising a query about it, I never once managed to elicit a response. I’m sure others here will reassure me that is purely random or coincidence but you can forgive me for drawing other conclusions about it.”

Well David , why not copy and paste the emails here on this thread ? Wait for it -No doubt you haven’t kept copies.

PS: as if to prove my point regarding Engage, Saul has been posting distortions/untruths about what I have said on this thread. He claims among other things:

“David Rosenberg thinks all criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic.”

I don’t.

“David Rosenberg believes all those who raise the question of antisemitism are doing so to deflect attention form human rights abuses.”

I don’t.

‘David Rosenberg refuses to comment that the term “International Jewry” contains antisemitic overtones.’

I have no idea about my attitude to this classic antisemitic formulation comes from.

if you are going to contest my views at least base them on what I say and not on what you make up.

I expect to see an apology on Engage (next to a picture of flying pigs)

David – you’ve referred to people as “cronies” and “neanderthals”. Yet you expect people to take you seriously when the JSG claims abuse by zionists.

You couldn’t make it up !

David Rosenberg:

I really don’t think there is any useful chat the JSG could have with the likes of Gerald Ronson and his cronies.

Of course not, you’d rather invite an official PLO spokesman to the Passover Seder.

Good old Jewish Socialists Group! Won’t sit in the same room with a Jewish capitalist, but happy to guzzle that Seder wine with spokesmen for PLO terrorists.

David should stop whingeing , he’s such a cry baby when he doesn’t get his own way.

David Rosenberg wrote:

“I really don’t think there is any useful chat the JSG could have with the likes of Gerald Ronson and his cronies.”

well, you won’t know until you try? and if you don’t try and talk with the CST then you can’t complain as above about “at the Simcha in the Square”, but that’s up to you.

you wrote:

“I think it is a shame (and discredits your analysis) that you impute negative psychological qualities “

[sigh] David, it wasn’t analysis, it was something that occurred to me in a moment, and frankly as my mind is largely fried and working on about 10% of normal, I preferred not to have to BELABOUR every point.

But here’s goes, in trying to get to the root of antisemitism various different approaches have been taken, some of them might be characterised as psychological. I don’t think that they fully explain the outbreaks of antisemitism, or social and political aspects, nevertheless there is scholarly research on this particular theme. I would recommend reading Jocelyn Hellig’s Holocaust and Antisemitism, page 77-85. I’m sure that Wilhelm Reich also probably has something to say in this area, but I can’t say I haven’t managed to read him yet.

If you study fascists and anti-Jewish racists for long enough you’ll see that there are certain character traits. I’m not a professional medical person but I know a racist crank when I see one, and that certain obsessive character, which I pointed out to you and you conspicuously ignored, is key to determining if an individuals characterisation as an antisemite or not, in my book.

So far from being incidental there is plenty of material in this area, and as I said, but again you didn’t particularly pay much attention, I tend to base my view on evidence, so if you’d like to read http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/moshe-id-love-to-grow-wings/#comments and http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/the-awl-israel-and-iran/#comments

I could go on, but I won’t :)

as for the List, you spotted the obvious, the lack of Palestinians?

well personally, I don’t think that their “antisemitism” is really that much of a problem. I don’t consider that the average Palestinians to be particularly racist any more than anyone else, there is racist filth on their TV, they are surrounded by armed militia and in the middle of a conflict. So I wouldn’t be too surprised at resentment on either side, and when there is a final settlement I imagine that will dissipate.

But you really didn’t see the issue of that list, did you?

Once the Palestinians and Israelis have made peace, for a lot on the list it won’t change very much. They are fundamentally opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, an Israeli state, or a state where there are a lot of Jews.

See that the problem which you don’t seem to understand, there are people who are expressly, utterly opposed to any concentration of Jews. Jews with power frighten them. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is merely a vehicle for them, a vehicle for their hatred.

Once it has been solved/resolved, that lingering hatred towards Jews won’t disappear. David Duke won’t change, nor will aryan nation and I doubt that Trots who are explicitly opposed to a Jewish state will change much either.

There are people who use this conflict for their own purposes, and contrary to your view they’re not all in the Israeli government, some of them even dislike Jews, because they believe a lot of racial nonsense, nothing will convince them either way.

You wrote:

“I suspect it woudl be similarly superficial exercise, but don’t you think I could constuct a list of some extremely dodgy supporters of Israel?”

But that was not the key issue, Ms. Lucas’s statement was.

Now, unlike others, David, I’m not going to accuse you of bad faith, but we’ve been all around the house and when it comes to the Greens you brook no criticism of them, and frankly it’s a bit annoying, not to say illogical, when their statements don’t have the evidence to back them up.

But I leave it at that, my mind’s not up to much more.

Fair enough Modernity, I’m signing off too at the end of this post. Once more, though we don’t see eye to eye, I have enjoyed the exchange of views with you on this thread and likewise respect your good faith in putting forward your arguments. I will be looking more closely at the statements emanating from the Greens in future and if there is something to challenge, will challenge it.

My experience with the Greens, based on being a member between 1997-2001/2, staying in touch with a number of them, and reading and hearing in particular what Caroline Lucas and Derek Wall have been saying in recent years, has generally been a positive one with regard to anti-racism of all kinds and commitments to universal human rights. (it is an attitude or lack of attitude to class politics that I have more of an issue with them about)

On the point you made about the list and the Palestinians – remember your list was in your own words people “who have been know to criticise israel” rather than “antisemites”. But interestingly enough, the point you made about the likely dissipation of hostility from Palestinians if a peaceful solution is found, leaving the rump of die-hard pathological antisemites is a point that has been made by Tony Lerman – only he got a torrent of abuse from the types who are venting infantile abuse here, for not seeing the Palestinians as eternal Jew-haters. Funny old world. Goodnight!

David “from the types who are venting infantile abuse here”".

Whenever David is unable to answer peoples’ questions he accuses them of “infantile abuse” , a smear tactic designed to confuse the issues being discusses.

David , i’ve asked you several questions and you ignore them. I can only presume that you have no answers.
David is like the kid in the playground who owns the only football and takes it away when he’s on the loosing side.

I’ve just read the following comment on an article on Engage which sums up David , the JSG , Tony Lerman , IJV , etc brilliantly :

“JSG (like IJV) are on the fringe of the Jewish community.

They believe that Zionism is wrong intellectually, politically and ethically. They think that the Board of Deputies and Zionist organisations are the “ruling class” of the Jewish community.

Their newly enthused antizionism and their denial of contemporary antisemitism has not been accepted by the majority of Jews in the UK community. They cannot understand why the majority of Jews, no matter how critical a large number of Jews may be of the acts of the Israeli government, support the idea of a Jewish national state, both in theory and practice. Indeed, they cannot believe that any Jew who does not agree with them is or is capable of being critical of Israel. They cannot understand why many of the same Jews are beginning to feel uncomfortable in the present climate,

Their response is to blame these Jews. There first line of blame is, of course, contradictory. They say, on the one hand, that there is no antisemitism (save a few overt cases, but even some of those they do not recognise), yet, on the other hand, they say that contemporary antisemitism is a consequence of Israeli actions. Israel is responsible for antisemitism.

Alternatively, because they believe that if only Jews had a chance to hear the “truth”, then everyone would agree with their “analysis”. Therefore, to account for Jews’ apathy to their own ideas, they have to believe that others are silencing them; after all, why else does not everyone see the world the way they do? Thus, they believe (and probably sincerely) that the internal “Jewish ruling-class” (the Board of Deputies, British Zionist organisations, etc.) is acting in ways (overt and covert) to stop their message from being heard. In short, because they cannot understand why their views are rejected as unacceptable by the majority of Jews (and this despite IJV’s access to national newspapers, journals (Jewish and otherwise), books, etc.) they have to believe in a giant (”Zionist”) conspiracy that undermines them and their legitimacy wherever they go and whatever they say.

As the name “Independent Jewish Voices” indicates, they do not believe that the majority of Jews (i.e. those who disagree with them) are capable of that same “independence”. They think that the majority of Jews are not capable of making their own decisions on matters that concern them “as Jews” both in the UK and in the Middle East. They believe that the majority of Jews have, what in times past, this used to be called “false consciousness”. They believe that their thoughts have been limited by the Jewish Chronicle and by the Board of Deputies. In short, they have no respect for the thoughts for, or belief in the ability to think, for the majority of UK Jews. To JSG and IJV, the majority of Jews are nothing more than dupes.

The last thing that crosses their mind is that people have heard their arguments, have thought about them and rejected them on intellectual, political and moral grounds.”

Trotsky-Schmocksky, abi gezunt.

David Rosenberg thinks all criticism of Israel is labelled antisemitic.”

I don’t”.

Really?

Having published Lucas’ libel without comment. You get called on it.
In response to having been called on to justify this absurd claim, the sole content of your criticism that it is too much of a “generalisation”,

“I would have personally preferred it as less of a generalisation, but I and so many people I know, here and in other countries, who are anti-Zionists, non-Zionists and even critical Zionists have had years of being denounced by apologists for the Israeli government, as “antisemites” for having the temerity to question Israeli policies or the philosophies that inspire them. And on the Engage site, which I used to contribute to until it it was obvious that it was pointless, the accusation or inference that such critics are antisemites is ever-present. yes the Israeli government and supporters often defend their positions by denouncing opponents as antisemites, mostly, in my view, wrongly and as a cynical political device.

For you, disagreement with an evident lie in such a context, (i.e. in JSG’s magazine and publised elsewhere) is treated not as a political matter but a “personal preference”.

Politically (i.e. in the context of what really matters) you refuse to challenge her slander. Politically, you think she is right, If not, you would have challnged her on the same ground as her comments, i.e. politically. You have refused to do so.

Having treated an antisemitic slur as merely a matter of personal taste, you continue.

“And on the Engage site, which I used to contribute to until it it was obvious that it was pointless, the accusation or inference that such critics are antisemites is ever-present. yes the Israeli government and supporters often defend their positions by denouncing opponents as antisemites, mostly, in my view, wSo rongly and as a cynical political device.”

Now outside a some undoubtedly nasty emails from green inkers (see the Ha’aretz article/interview with Paul Mackney) you offer no evidence whatsoever of these emails as the systematic response of any Jewish or Zionist organisation.

Indeed, in the absence of such proof, you fall back on cheap consiracy theory. You support and justify Mackney’s claim that the emails he (and, no doubt Hari) received were the work of the “international pro-Israel lobby”. That is, that you think that those who wrote the emails have been directed by this Lobby. (Otherwise why would Mackney have mentioned the Lobby in the first place). Apparently, for you no Jew is capable of independent thought or action. Instead, they have to be part of a far bigger scheme, ready to spring into action anytime, anywhere.

How does that work exactly? Do these green inkers get an email from the ADL? Do they get a phone call from the Board of Deputises? Does an advert appear in the Jewish Chronicle in code that tells these diiverse people around the globe to write rude emails?

Maybe it works the same way as the time the Jews were told not to go the world trade centre on 9/11?

“David Rosenberg believes all those who raise the question of antisemitism are doing so to deflect attention form human rights abuses.”

As you state,

“I’ve no doubt that the intentions of targeting critical voices and labelling them antisemites is an attempt to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour by silencing or marginalising critics but many of these targets have enough nous to find ways to fight back.”

I note here the absolutist nature of your claim i.e. the lack of “some” or “often”. I.e. that all se who “target critical voices” have the one thing in common, ” to defend the indefensible in Israel’s behaviour”.

“‘David Rosenberg refuses to comment that the term “International Jewry” contains antisemitic overtones.’
I have no idea about my attitude to this classic antisemitic formulation comes from.”

Above I raised the point about John Wight’s use of the term “international Jewry”.
You refused to address it (whilst responding to other points in the same post).

“if you are going to contest my views at least base them on what I say and not on what you make up.”

I have based every comment that I have made here and elsewhere you have said, word for word.