It has to be dealt with at some point in case people don't read the introduction so here goes:
Taking over a room, putting out banners, handing out leaflets and bringing in speakers isn't anti-semitic (often annoying but not anti-semitic). What can't be ignored though is that there has been a huge rise in anti-semitism as a response to the Gaza situation and the Jewish community in this country clearly feels under attack, the perception and reality are both there. The sit-ins in and of themselves are not anti-semitic. Most of the people taking part are most likely not anti-semitic. Even the intentions are not necessarily anti-semitic.
What is it then about these protests then that causes Jewish students specifically to feel so uncomfortable, intimidated and harassed? Aside from the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews (verbal, graffiti and the like) there are things within the mainstream campaigns that cross the line into racism. Other things are so grossly insensitive that surely the protesters realise the offence that will be caused and then either don't care or its a stated aim.
An example: In Leeds there was a banner hung from the 'liberated space' which proudly declared 'Victory to the Intifada.' The author of that banner might well have meant that victory for the non-violent political resistance but the lack of nuance doesn't make that clear. In fact the Intifada is largely understood to be the physical resistance as supported by organisations like Hamas. The proponents of the Intifada (Hamas and also Hezbollah in the north) have made explicitly clear that all Jews are targets, worldwide:
Nasrallah - "if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Mahmoud Zahar - "They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
What then are Jewish students meant to think when the protesters proudly call for a victory to the intifada? Could the protesters really be so stupid as not to realise the implication of the banner and the offence they would cause?
The other major issue throughout this whole series of protests deserves an entire post of its own - the use of the Holocaust as a political tool. I can't get my head around why the analogy of the Holocaust is only drawn to Israel. At the anti-Iraq war demos I haven't seen many "end the holocaust in Iraq" banners - that is reserved for Israel. The Jewish connection have anything to do with that? Even if not though, again, do those who use that analogy not realise the offence it causes or not care?
Maybe the organisers will explain?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why would victory to the resistance necessarily mean the 'destruction of the Jews'?
ReplyDeleteAnd why complain about the use of violent tactics by some Palestinians?
Perhaps if we gave the Palestinians tanks and f16s, it would be a little fairer?
I suspect you miss the point but also help strengthen it. The answer to the first question is already in the post (becase Hamas said so and its in their charter too) but the more interesting point is the attempt to move the debate from anti-semitism to Israel.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of good reasons to oppose indiscrminate terrorism but that's not the point. Why can't those who oppose Israel confront issues of anti-semitism without trying to shift the debate?
'At the anti-Iraq war demos I haven't seen many "end the holocaust in Iraq" banners - that is reserved for Israel.'
ReplyDeleteThe comparison made here is pretty pointless - Iraq is a country under colonial occupation following conquest, not a regime claiming to represent one ethnic group whilst taking living space from another ethnic group, members of which are treated as second-class citizens and collectively punished as a matter of course.
As a general supporter of the occupations, I myself have always seen that comparing the situation in Gaza to the Holocaust is a counter-productive slogan likely to alienate people from a Jewish background. The strong correlation between being anti-racist and campaigning against the Israeli regime pretty much sets my mind at rest about the intent of the activists. And you can smugly pontificate about how inexperienced young activists made a poor choice of words here and there all you like - it doesn't change the fact that they are doing something for what they believe in, which is to be congratulated, and if your activism does not extend past intellectual masturbation then the analysis underpinning it is, quite simply, irrelevant.
Now, if we're talking about painstakingly covering all the bases to ensure 'consistency' (IE pass every conceivable purity test that could be applied by those intent on besmirching every example of direct action) and tackling difficult subjects, I don't see any condemnation of those supporters of the Israeli regime's actions who implicitly (or explicitly) reinforce the depiction of the Israeli regime as being representative of all Jewish people and criticism of said regime as inherently anti-semitic?
Again while I refute your analysis of Israel it isn't the main point here so i'll deal with the second half. How about the situation in Darfur (although there is little cross over in terms of activists between those) or Zimbabwe both of which have clear ethnic elements to them. The nature of the conflict isn't the point - the language is calculated to cause as much anger and hurt amongst Jews as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe sit-ins weren't done by "inexperienced young activists" who "made a poor choice of words." The holocaust analogy is made by experienced leadership, it was on the BMI signs on the rallies, it was declared by speakers from podiums, it has been renforced by events such as the one hosted not long ago at Golsmiths. That's a poor excuse and one that doesn't deal with the core problem.
The strong correlation that you refer to is an interesting one because if you ask many Jewish politically active students they'd disagree. i haven't seen the anti-Israel left (as typified by Respect, SWP) do that much about anti-semitism other then tell Jews that the way to fight it is to become more anti-Israel. Quite the opposite - the anti-Israel brigade have happily got into bed with some vile anti-semites.
Read the introduction post in which it makes clear that this blog doesn't believe all criticism of Israel to be inherently anti-semitic. The problem is that your analysis consists of people being either pro-Israel or anti-Israel - it's not possible to have some sort of balanced, nuanced position.
The underlying question is - do you believe there is any anti-semitism within the anti-Israel left or can you excuse it all away?
"The problem is that your analysis consists of people being either pro-Israel or anti-Israel - it's not possible to have some sort of balanced, nuanced position"
ReplyDeleteWould you have applied this idea to South Africa in apartheid? By the very nature or the Israeli state and its obvious situation of dominance, not to be anti-state of Israel is effectively to be pro-state of Israel. Intellectually you can assume your moderate position on the fence and call for negotiations but that is playing into Israeli hands, as long as the international community refuses to condemn the actions of Israel it will sustain legitimacy. If you maintain the moderate stance you will not be a part of the solution, it will pass you by and needless to say you will not hesitate to condemn it.
"do you believe there is any anti-semitism within the anti-Israel left or can you excuse it all away?"
In the pro-palestinian movement i have encountered anti-semitism, i would typify this as being fueled by youth frustration and ignorance. However within 'the anti-Israel left' no there is not anti-semitism, i have never encountered it, i don't know if this was just a confusion of terms on your behalf but by definition someone on the left cannot be anti-semitic, if they are then quite simply they are not on the left. You seem to confuse the pro-palestinian movement with the left itself, perhaps i could apply the same idea to labour students and the pro-Israel movement (members of whom i have heard claim they had never heard of palestine and that it did not exist).
The left are internationalists who have consistently opposed any form of racism. We opposed the first immigration laws that came in to target the Jewish diaspora, we were the ones who consistently opposed Hitler from the ballot box to the white rose movement whilst the conservatives and the 'democrats' got into bed with him, we opposed Oswald Moseley on the streets and have actively fought the BNP in every way possible since. Our support for victimized minorities is consistent, it will not disapear simply because others of their religion are acting in a brutal manner.
As for the references to the holocaust, i have heard them from a wide variety of people but mostly i would say i have heard them from Jewish people (probably because they are the only ones with the guts/legitimacy). I have never made the comparison but i can understand the logic. Firstly the holocaust was brought into the issue by the Israeli government who use it as a source of legitimacy, to whip up nationalism and to stem international criticism, if we can remove this weapon from their hands by questioning their actions in reference to it that would be useful. Secondly reference to previous struggles may put Jewish people in the shoes of the Palestinians and give them empathy towards their situation. Finally it helps to frame the issue and reflect on core values, when black soldiers returned from WW2 (alledgedly fighting against racism) only to be confrontd with racism in their own country this helped to fuel the struggle and spread discontent, if jewish people reflect on what those struggling in the holocaust suffered it may help encourage them to challenge a state that too is engaging in genocide and in their name too. Yes i am sure it has been used with intentional anti-semitic undertones, but the comparison has also been made by individuals like Gerald Kaufmann who is quite clearly not anti-semitic.
Finally i think your analysis of Israel is not beside the point, it is the point and it frames both sides of the debate. For us Israel is the last of the direct colonialist powers and so it must be treated in a radically different way, it is not a question of merely sending aid and calling for negotiations as we may do in Africa (however wrongly or rightly). For you it is a legitimate state entitled to its soveriegnty and if it acts in ways that we may frown upon then we can take certain measures but must largely leave it be to determine its own fate.
"In the pro-palestinian movement i have encountered anti-semitism, i would typify this as being fueled by youth frustration and ignorance."
ReplyDeleteSo on the one hand we can excuse anti-semitism from the pro-palestinian movement because it is fuelled by youth frustration and ignorance? Is that the excuse for what we see on UK campuses, for the writings of Gilad Atzmon, the conspiracy theories of Mpac and the lectures of Azzam Tamimi? Is it youth frustration or ignorance that encouraged Hamas to includes the Protocols into its Charter? You wouldn't excuse any other form of racism like this if your definition of the left is to work then you shouldn't play down anti-semitism either.
"However within 'the anti-Israel left' no there is not anti-semitism, i have never encountered it, i don't know if this was just a confusion of terms on your behalf but by definition someone on the left cannot be anti-semitic, if they are then quite simply they are not on the left."
This is even better as a form of argumentation though backed up by the usual red herring about Cable Street and Nazi resistance - the KEY difference there was that when standing in solidarity with the Jewish community (which the left did and should be commended for) against the far right you never asked about their politics or to justify themselves like you do now. The basic argument here is that the left is anti-racist and so you can't be on the left and racist. Unless of course the left isn't perfect and doesn't adhere to the standards and ideals it would like to set for itself? It is worryingly naive that you assume that because you haven't seen it and it doesn't fit the theory of being left wing it doesn't happen. By the way this contradition "Yes i am sure it has been used with intentional anti-semitic undertones," when discussing the Holocaust analogy does you no favours.
As for the Holocaust argument you use why is it different to the general anti-war movement or any other anti-genocide campaign? You sum it up with "may put Jewish people in the shoes of the Palestinians" and if that isn't targetting Jews I don't know what is. Follow the logic and you should be carrying out the same things on Jews as you think are being carried out on Palestinians - but wait some people already do that which is why this logic leads to a Jewish man getting attacked while walking home and a synagogue getting firebombed in London.
"For us Israel is the last of the direct colonialist powers and so it must be treated in a radically different way,"
I don't know who 'us' is as part of an anonymous post and who you're speaking for but I at least appreciate the honesty that you hold Israel to a unique and different standard to anywhere else regardless of its actions. That's why your talk about Palestinians is largely disengenious - you want to see Israel destroyed and ended - everything else is a bi-product. If for you Israel is the last direct colonialist power then you would want it destroyed regardless of its action towards anyone else.
I genuinely believe that you need to look at the motivations behind your campaign and some of the people involved in it. I disagree with your entire political anaylsis of Israel but if I were to follow it then I can't understand why America and Britain don't fall into the same bracket and deserve the same if not more contempt (that's putting aside the fact that you ignore the wrongs of China, Sudan, Iran and so many others because they don't fit into your world view of 'western imperialism').
"What is it then about these protests then that causes Jewish students specifically to feel so uncomfortable, intimidated and harassed?"
ReplyDeleteI was involved in one of the occupations, and we were told by one of the uni officials backing us that it reminded him of when he was a young Irish Catholic living in England and the full-on violent troubles started. Overnight, it went from living in an all-Irish Catholic neighbourhood where religion was unashamedly announced, to snide remarks and opression. Of course they had nothing to do with it, having moved here in the 1800s, but still other people became more wary and less friendly by use of association and because they had become 'the other'.
When in our talks with the uni, this was something we talked about at length with said official, as we wanted to cause as little offence as possible. He told us how one Jewish student had indeed complained, but it was about the fact that one of our member had made a small poster with the words 'Palestine, from the river to the sea' and had put it up of her own accord. Indeed, none of us had realised she'd done this (as we were inside and can't read backwards!), but of course the implicatinos to this old war cry can easily be construed as anti-semitism. Upon hearing this we have since apologised and spoken to the particular student who complained, reassuring them of our position and attempting to retract any offence that was taken.
So here you can see how a peaceful group of us DID manage to unintentinoally cause offence, but have accepted and addressed the issue head on, and since worked to rectify this while learning for the future.
However, it is a shame that in our PC little bubble in Britatin, just because some groups are doing something a bit out of the ordinary and radical, we are immediately racists. Is this, as I said earlier, not again just the public classifying the unknown 'other'. Yes, Jewish people over here may want to take offence at what is happening - indeed it is understandable given (recent) history - but what we in the occupations movement are trying to remember that there are people DYING over there. Maybe rather than blaming occupations for causing anti-semite feelings, we should deal with the individuals in society who are happy to make and then jump on a band-waggon of racism, and blame it on the occupation movement etc.
"Why can't those who oppose Israel confront issues of anti-semitism without trying to shift the debate?"
It is not us that shift the debate away from semitism, it is those pro-Israel or anti-occupation that shift it towards it first. To me this seems a very underhand move, as yes, our side will admit that some others can be racist "In the pro-palestinian movement i have encountered anti-semitism", but would those (and I don't mean you here) that are genuinely just 'playing the racism card' for their side's cause admit to that?
As we in our occupation have constantly asserted, our actions are not those of faith, but of humanitarian, ethical and educational purpose, and this must prevail.
I wasn't excusing anti-smitism merely because it is fueled by ignorance etc I was making an admission that it exists firstly and secondly i was describing what sections of the movement hold these opinions. I do not think it is acceptable at all for them to have these opinions that was not my point. As someone who actually has first hand experience in the movement and doesn't just make abstract assumptions about it, i thought you might appreciate a little knowledge to refine your arguments.
ReplyDeleteAs for anti-semitism on the left, i have been involved with the left for around five years and know people in just about every left sect, i have never encountered anti-semitism among the left, thats not a rule but it is more of a basis for argument than your abstract theorising. I'm not saying it does not exist, i'm sure some self-defining lefties are anti-semitic, however the key point is that these people have no real grasp of marxism and are not actual left wingers (according to your argument i could self-define as a fascist, whilst holding no fascist principles and thus be the basis of an argument that fascism is left wing?).
I'm not quite sure how i do myself no favours by admitting that some people use the holocaust in an anti-semitic manner. I'm not going to pretend it doesn't happen, but it happens for different reasons. I am not going to deny that the analogy is specific to Israel, but not for anti-semitic reasons, you appear to have completely ignored my point that the state of Israel first brought the holocaust in to the argument as a means of control. It is not legitimate for the state of Israel to condemn genocide when it practices genocide. No i would not ue the example of the holocaust for the general anti-war movement, i would use specific examples eg how can the USA claim to fight for democracy in Iraq when it upholds dictatorships elsewhere. As for following the logic of my argument to murdering Israeli's that is absolutely ridiculous, can we keep the argument reasonable, i am sure you know i would not condone that, i have condemned Israel's actions on principle and would not ignore that principle in the pro-palestine movement (contrary to what Israel does with the memory of the holocaust)
"the KEY difference there was that when standing in solidarity with the Jewish community (which the left did and should be commended for) against the far right you never asked about their politics or to justify themselves like you do now"
Oh is that what we do, thanks for informing us. I bet in the hypothetical scenario that the BNP begin a mass campaign against Jews who support Israel it will be you and your lot fighting them on the streets and not us, right? Everyone is entitled to their politics, just as they are entitled to be attacked for them, but when it comes to oppression we will defend them no questions asked, give me an example otherwise.
As for your analysis of Israel it is severly flawed. If a power is colonialist it is enough to oppose it since the term colonialist is a description of its actions, it is an expansionist state that seeks to gain land through the dispossession of an existing population. Britain and America do not fall into this category, they are imperialist powers who run informal non-colonialist empires based on economic penetration. Both must be opposed obviously, but in different ways. As for the destruction of Israel, no that is not the solution for the left don't be ridiculous, the left is divided in the one state/two state argument. Personally i am one state, i do not think the citizens of Israel should leave but i believe the only solution is to get rid of a state that is inherently expansionist and encourages mass nationalism both sides of the border and divides the working class. I think you need to do some serious research on the left if you are going to make these sorts of assumptions.
As for China, Sudan and Iran. China is a neo-liberal capitalist nation that once used 'communism' as a source of legitimacy and now uses primarily conservetive-nationalism, i'm not sure why you think the left would not oppose that (true there are more idiots in this respect than i would like to admit). Sudan is country controlled by a highly reactionary and rascist group, again whats not to oppose? As for Iran, it is a religous dictatorship that hijacked a workers revolution and became a counter-revolutionary force in the continued attack on the working class in Iran. The answer to these problems, don't get me wrong, is NOT western military intervention. Western imperialism (which i'm not 100% sure you understand) is not the only thing the left fights against, it fights against all forms that capitalism may take, it fights against conservatism, nationalism and the division of the working class.