Question about anti-semitism and the American Left

[jokerman93]

I'm hoping some of the more sophisticated historians and politicos on this board can respond with their perspectives on this question. This morning I had a terrific conversation with a Jewish friend of mine. He considers himself apolitical at this point because he feels that collective action (activism) has failed to improve the condition of the world over the last century. I suppose that can be debated, but it isn't the question here. I mention it to be clear that my friend is in no way a Republican sympathizer.

That being said, it's his perspective that over the last fifty years, the left in America has become anti Semitic and unsupportive of the state of Israel. To support this, he pointed out that the neocons are the ideological heirs of jewish leftists who had become disillusioned and engineered a new ideology of "Democratic Imperialism" in the interests of supporting Israel from the perspective of Realpolitik. This is my interpretation of what he said, but I guess, it articulates the questions I have about "The Left" as a political movement/perspective.

I myself am 47 years old, and was raised by Irish Catholic Leftists who were decidedly pro-Israel and very progressive. My friend suggested that I am living in the past politically, because such perspectives are no longer reflected by the Left in America.

I hope we can have a discussion here on these topics, for my edification at least, and hopefully for some lively discussion for any others who might be interested in the topic.

Jokerman

[geek tragedy]

1. Anti-semitism and Israel SHOULD be two separate subjects.

Unfortunately, anti-semites love to infiltrate and hijack legitimate discussions about our relationship with Israel and Israeli policies.

And it's a myth that the American left or Democratic party is anti-Israel.

There are certainly anti-Israel people on the left, but they have no political power within the movement or the party whatsoever.

[still_one]

5. I am Jewish, and I agree with your assessment

One thing I have observed is that extreme many groups that are extreme left or extreme right seem to unite in blaming Jews for many of their ills.

The best examples are the Russian Pogroms and of course the rise of Hitler in Germany

[jokerman93]

6. Yes, I suppose

Yes, I suppose to say one is against US policy with regards to Israel, isn't the same as antiSemitism. That's a good point.

How would one respond to the idea that the neocons are a philosophical response to the failure of the Left? A broad generalization, to be sure. But my friend made the point the U.S. is the only material and political supporter of Israel at this point, and the Democratization of the Middle East is the new strategy of the day. Would one be able to say this true an any sense?

[geek tragedy]

10. Depends how one defines "Neocons." Neocons aren't a Jewish movement.

Or a leftwing movement that went awry.

My definition of Neocons are those who don't believe in limiting government size or power, but do believe in preventing it from helping the disadvantaged.

[wryter2000]

22. Neocons

It seems to me that "conservatives" of all stripes only support Israel out of self-interest. Israel's an ally in the middle east, that's all. They sure as heck don't support Jewish people.

For example, that Bitburg-visiting Ronald Reagan. He didn't love Israel because it was a safe haven from antisemitism.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. My Response Would Be: Prove It

The only supporter is the U.S. Why would that be? Many free world countries were involved in the country's founding. What would make them turn their backs?

Then, prove that the other countries don't support Israel. It just isn't so, unless one defines support as "Do Exactly What The U.S. Does Toward Israel." If the definition is that narrow, then the lack of support is a meaningless statement.

Lastly, i would ask him to prove the neocons are really interested in the well-being of Israel, rather than using its existence as an excuse to "control" the Mideast. Israel may very well be providing cover, through its very existence and geography to resource securing imperialism. I would suggest that the neocons care not one whit about Israel. Feigning support is merely convenient.
The Professor

[jokerman93]

34. your perspective coincides

Your perspective coincides with mine Professor, but I apparently don't have enough of the hard facts. It seems my friend is looking at an aspect of American Imperialism in the Middle East, and only seeing the the Israel/Palestine problem as the locus of the entire campaign. On the other hand, I and most "leftists" I know are more focused on the corporatist motivations behind the push for empire. So I guess there needs to be a broadening of perspective and an admission of the immense complexity of what's taking place historically right now.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. But, The Onus Is On Him, Not You

He's the one making the charge. I would ask for proof that the noecons have Israel's interest at heart.

I would ask him to prove the left has become anti-Semitic. I think you're reaching too far here, in that it's not on you to prove why he's wrong. It's for him to prove he's right.

There are plenty of statements and events by the neocons regarding "imperialism" and the need to control resources and maintain geopolitical dominance to create reasonable doubt as to their real motives apropos Israel. It is no incumbant upon HIM to prove that their desire to dominate is not initiating their "support" for Israel.

Don't get backed into a rhetorical corner. You can't rebut that for which you have no strong evidence.
The Professor

[jokerman93]

57. Yes, true if it had become a debate

We were just chatting this morning and I merely took what he said on face value and determined to start finding out the facts for myself. This thread has been emmensely helpful so far.

Thanks to all.

[MsTryska]

64. NeoCons aren't a response to the philosophical failure of the left....

it's a philosophical response to being poor and communist.


Neocons kept the authoritarianism, they just traded communism for fascism.

[jokerman93]

70. Interesting

I wonder if you or anyone reading this can name names in this regard. This must be what nadinbrzezinski was referring to below when he/she said they were originally Trotskyites.

[MsTryska]

71. it is......

this may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

[Ian David]

7. There are people sincerely NOT anti-semitic who repeat the rhetoric...

of anti-semitism in what would otherwise be a legitimate debate over Israeli policy.

Anti-semitic framing and memes have stealthily infiltrated the dialog of well-intentioned, tolerant folk.

In other words, some people say anti-semitic things without knowing they're doing it, and without intending to be anti-semitic.

I try to work from the assumption that everybody here on DU are "well-intentioned, tolerant folk."

I give the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I hope you know that this thread will erupt into a flamewar sooner rather than later.

[jokerman93]

15. Of Course most an DU are "well-intentioned, tolerant folk"

So I hope this thread (as long as it continues) can feature a discussion of these points in an academic sense. I'd like to see a free exchange of ideas rather than ideological and emotional flame wars.

Alas, I am an idealist. But one can hope.

:-)

[wryter2000]

23. Unfortunately true

In any case, I hope you know that this thread will erupt into a flamewar sooner rather than later.

We should enjoy it while we can.

[justinsb]

2. I think the problem is complicated by definition

I know many on the left who are pro-Palistenian, opposed to the policies of the state of Israel and even opposed to the existance of Israel as a Jewish state, because the land was inhabited long before Jewish people started moving there in the hope of creating their own state (similar to the situation with Native Americans here). But they do not consider themselves anti-semetic, do not 'hate Jews' or have a problem with the Jewish faith. Are they anti-semitic by the Jewish definition?

[still_one]

8. you see by the definition you use that

it was inhabited "long before Jewish people started moving there", is itself not accurate. How far back do you want to go?

The reality is that until both sides accept each other in their own states living side by side, there will never be peace

[justinsb]

9. But in say 1900

only a small percentage of what is now Israel was Jewish, It was primarily Islamic (over 90% if memory serves). I'm not sure how far back you want to go, but I do not accept the Bible as history so biblical claims move me not at all.

[ET Awful]

13. Even if you were to accept biblical history, the area was occupied

and called Canaan long before it was the so-called "promised land" of scripture.

[justinsb]

16. in 1922

"Israel" was 10% Jewish, 10% Christian and 80% Muslim according to "Politics and Change in the Middle East: Sources of Conflict and Accommodation" by Roy R. Anderson, Robert F. Seibert and Jon G. Wagner Prentice-Hall 1993

[Cassandra]

18. Actually, since Jews and Palestinians are very closely related...

genetically, there is some speculation that some or many Palestinians are descended from Jews who converted to Islam. So this really can't be thought of as some alien people settling themselves down in an area where they have no roots or continuous presence because that isn't true, in a number of ways.

[Clark2008]

35. Well, if you believe in Biblical history

There is no question they are related.

Arabs (no matter their faith - and there ARE Jewish Arabs) are descended from the union of Abraham and his slave, Hagar, who was entrusted by Abraham's wife, Sarah, to have Abraham's child since she could not.

People who consider their heritage as "Jewish" (I think of it as a faith, more than a "race") are descended from Abraham and Sarah after God allowed Sarah to have a child.

They're both Semitic, as are Arametic people.

And - hey - my ex husband is Palestinian (Muslim) and my current beau is a non-practicing Jew. I think I've got the lineage pretty accurate. :)

[jokerman93]

36. Yes

My friend stated precisely the same thing. It's the extremists on both sides who will not recognize the commonality of heritage that are promoting the conflict. Would you agree?

If you do, then I would ask (generally) who exactly are these extremists and what are their real ideologies and aspirations?

[The Magistrate]

39. If, Sir, You Are Interested In Such Information

You might try looking here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=124

[jokerman93]

47. Ah! Terrific.

Thanks Magistrate. By the way, I always enjoy your posts. You're good, man. Real, good.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. "anti Semitic" and "unsupportive of the state of Israel" aren't the same

Unfortunately, the REAL anti-Semites tend to attach themselves, uninvited, to any group of person that expresses disapproval of the actions of that particular country. They think it gives them credibility.

[ET Awful]

11. Bingo! Not supporting the state of Israel or its policies does not

equate to being anti-semitic.

[immoderate]

19. Right, CPD.

I am sympathetic toward the Palestinians, but it would be hard to call me anti-semitic as I am Jewish. The neocons are using the Jews. But they mostly hate them.

I cannot be a strong supporter of Israel because it is a theocracy, and I think religion or other supernatural beliefs is not something on which to base a government.

--IMM

[wryter2000]

4. Hmmm

I think there's an unfortunate tendency to equate any criticism of Israel with antisemitism, just as the "conservatives" in this country equate any criticism of Bush et al. with hating America.

As a liberal since birth and an adamant supporter of BenGurion's and Golda Meier's Israel, I'm appalled at many of the actions taken by the recent Israeli governments. We wouldn't tolerate that sort of behavior from our own government, so why should we tolerate it from an ally? To some, that makes me antisemitic.

[Cassandra]

14. I would agree with you about the current government.

Likud makes it difficult for those of us who support Israel to offer that support without explanation. Not everything that the conservatives in Israel want is actually to the benefit of the country, even if the current government thinks it is. I'm not sure why anyone would think that their conservatives are any smarter than ours are (although they do seem to be slightly more competent).
The natural tendency of those on the left to identify with the underdog has a lot of liberals supporting the Palestinians no matter what they do and Likud has ceded more moral high ground than they needed to by thinking that being tough would be enough.
We have had anti-Semites on this board, some really foul, but most seem to me to have been banned by the mods as Skinner will not tolerate that here and I appreciate his position on that.

[geek tragedy]

17. The parallels between Likud and the Republicans are striking.

Both depend upon fear to maintain political power, and both try to equate support for or opposition to their platform to support for or opposition to their countries themselves.

There are anti-semites in the United States who share Likud's agenda--the Tom DeLay rapturist crowd.

There are a hell of a lot of people who are pro-Israel but think that Likud is B-A-D for Israel.

[wryter2000]

20. We get all kinds of weirdos here

And, I'm glad true antisemites have been banned.

On another board where I work, someone who's actually a friend and who agrees with me on the worst actions of the current Israeli government still said once that I wanted to destroy Israel. Conversely, we have a rabid rwer who happens to be Jewish who supports anything the government does -- anything! -- and my friend insists that this moron has some "points." How am I supposed to respond to that? :shrug:

[Cassandra]

26. I know a lot of Jews who are more religious than I am...

and it worries me when they support Bush and Likud because they're "tough on terror". They refuse to listen to me when I say that Bush has been lousy and incompetent against terrorists. Likud has been more competent but tough is all they know how to be. You can't just keep being one-dimensionally tough with other human beings and not expect to have a violent reaction from some of them. (The Palestinians' leaders haven't been very helpful, either).

[geek tragedy]

27. Likud and Hamas have a symbiotic relationship.

Hamas terror supplies Likud with votes, and Likud repression supplies Hamas with recruits.

[The Magistrate]

33. Well Put, Mr. Tragedy

"There is often, in the course of this wayward and bewildered life, exterior opposition, and sincere and even violent condemnation, between persons and bodies who are nevertheless profoundly associated by ties and relations they know not of."

[geek tragedy]

43. One could also call them the Hegelian Twins or the Dialectic Duo. eom

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Cassandra: A Question

You said Likud has been tougher on terror, but it seems an awful lot of incidents have occurred since they've been in power. Are they really more effective on terror, or do they just talk tougher and take tough looking, but equally ineffective measures to combat terror bombings?

Just seems that the numbers of terror bombings is not significantly less in the last half-decade.

My concern would be that both Silverspoon and Likud believe talking tough and lobbing a few bombs in one direction is combatting terrorism. But, if they're wrong, they will only make things worse, not better.

The Professor

[jokerman93]

42. Lobbing bombs

I'm not a counter-terror expert but I did serve two enlistments in the Army and served much of both them supporting an SF direct action CT team.

It has always been my perspective that Counter-Terrorism is a matter of police action, not all out war against populations. This is why I, at least, consider the Bushwar on Terror to be a red herring.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Sort Of My Point, jokerman

I think neither of these countries has been waging an effective police action against terrorism, nor have they really been analyzing the situation to develop an effective solution to the true root causes.

Hence, i don't see the Israeli approach as any more effective than our current methods.

I think they are both iatotropic.
The Professor

[Cassandra]

48. In some ways, Israel has been smarter on terror than the repukes...

such as in the ways they have learned to profile people by questioning them in detail and observing their reactions. In other ways, such as bulldozing houses of families, when one member is a terrorist, it can seem thuggish unless it is proved that the whole family was involved. I'm not sure they put that fine a point on that policy.
I think it is hard to take a hard line on terror without tipping over to the point of creating more terrorists than you kill or discourage.

[wryter2000]

49. Amen to that

(The Palestinians' leaders haven't been very helpful, either).

A pox on both their houses, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. well, i'm

neither sophisticated, nor scholarly, but my perspective of this is that being pro-Israel, is NOT the equivalent of being pro those of the Jewish faith.
Zionism, is, in my own personal experience, knowledge, and opinion the equivalent of Jewish extremist fundamentalism, which i oppose, as i do extremist fundamentalism of any 'faith' system.
i DO believe our lopsided perspective and support of the nation of Israel, has cause both Israel, AND us harm. Israel DOES have a 'right' to exist- but not at the expense of the Palestinian people. Our 'guilt' about not stopping the atrocities of the holocaust far sooner, is not diminished or absolved by enabling atrocities being committed by a "Nation State" against the Palestinian people-
Israel kills 'pre-emptivly' and 'responds to violence with even more violence'- and the Palestinians left with no hope, or options respond with atrocious, self-defeating, acts of utter desperation.

The extremists on both sides call the shots, and the 'little people' bear the consequences.

i mean no offense to anyone of any 'faith' with my opinion.

[jokerman93]

21. Does anyone know?

Does anyone here know if the U.S. is the only real supporter of Israel, or is this rhetoric?

[geek tragedy]

25. Ironically, Germany has been a very strong supporter of Israel.

For the obvious reasons.

[jokerman93]

29. maybe it's a matter

Maybe it's a matter of conscience for many Germans.

[geek tragedy]

30. Undoubtedly. eom

[mrfrapp]

32. United Nations

Well, in every UN General Assembly vote concerning Israel the USA is the only nation that consistently sides with them. If we accept that the UN is representative of world opinion (a reasonable assumption) then literally the entire world opposes Israel's foreign policy apart from the USA.

[geek tragedy]

68. They oppose certain aspects of it, yes.

However, this is skewed because there are states that will criticize Israel when it deserves it, and then there are states that believe Israel's very existence is a crime.

[jokerman93]

28. Just googled "strauss neocon" got this.

Has anyone read this? Was Leo Strauss a Zionist or just a objectivist? The more I think about the neocons and the Israel issue, the more questions I have.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods28.html

[The Magistrate]

37. What An Odd Question, Sir

The review you have linked to makes no mention of Zionsim or Israel; it seems more concerned with the proper place of President Abraham Lincoln in history, and somewhat hostile to him to boot.

[jokerman93]

44. LOL

Well I am an odd egg your honor, and fairly unsophistacted. Don't mind me. I guess the real question was, does anyone know whether Leo Strauss was a Zionist?

[The Magistrate]

46. Does It Matter, Sir?

He is dead.

Zionism enjoyed a good deal of support among European and American Jews in the period of his activities. Zionism is nothing more than the application of standard nineteenth century doctrines of Nationalosm to the Jewish people. Accordingly, it had the support of many conventionally minded Jews. Jewish oppositio to the idea, and there was a good deal of it in the early days of the movement, stemmed from two sources. Assimilated Jews worried that it would reinforce the common Anti-Semitic slur that no Jew was "really" a member of the country in which he or she wa a citizen. Devout Jews felt it was blasphemous to force by the hand of man what was to be the work of the diety in restoring Zion.

[jokerman93]

50. It matters only in that...

Your summary of Zionism fits what little I know of the movement. I asked about Leo Strauss' relationship to Zionism because I'm interested to know just how much support for the state of Israel motivates the present day Neocon movement. If it turned out that the father (or grandfather) of Neoconservatism took a strong stance in favor of an Israeli state, then I'd be more inclined to believe the current ideologues have similar concerns. As it is, I see no convincing evidence that Israel is considered anything more than a convenient ally while they carry out a much larger scheme for economic dominion world-wide.

[The Magistrate]

54. In My View, Sir

There is not really a unified position within that movement on the question. Most of the people involved are young enough that the state of Israel was an accomplished fact when they became politically aware: indeed, most of them became politically aware at a time when it was viewed as a staunch ally in the Cold War, which was far from the case in the early years of the Israeli state. Two "real-politic" elements are quite sufficient to explain the matter, namely the idea that Israel is a the predominant military power in the region, and the idea that the fact that Israel and the United States share a number of enemies in the region ensures that their interests overlap in considerable degree. Both these ideas have a sufficient element of truth to them to be unexceptionable.

Mainstream Zionism, in the days before the founding of Israel, and well into the life of that state, was a decidedly left and even Socialist phenomenon. The state of Israel at its founding contained many Socialist elements, and it enjoyed in its early years considerable support from the Soviet Union as a wedge against English colonial interests in the region. This did not really change until the rise of Nasser, when Arab nationalism seemed to the Soviets a more suitable tool for that purpose. Counter-balancing support from the U.S. for Israel did not become a major factor until the early sixties, and only solidified when that state's military predominance was confirmed in the '67 War. Rightist elements within Zionism and Israel did not gain real power until after the '73 War, the early stages of which rather badly discredited the Labor Bloc. A good deal of the voting strength of Likud came from, and continues to come from, Israeli Jews of Middle Eastern origin, who felt discriminated against by the Jews of European descent who predominated in the Labor Bloc.

[jokerman93]

62. Excellent Overview

The problem I have with much of the political debate I'm exposed to(maybe it's an American thing) is the utter lack of historic perspective when considering current events -- as if what occurs politically and socially is nothing more than a series of unrelated occurrence that have no "provenance" in the historic past. It's the effect of lifetime exposure to sound-byte television news and a failing education system I guess.

I've been as subject to that as the next guy. So this is why I ask the questions I do, and appreciate the contributions that trained and educated people like you are willing to make here on DU. Wish I saw more of it.

Thanx Yer Honor.

[CWebster]

38. Disgraceful

when any criticism of Israeli policy that is barbaric and Right-wing is met with the anti-semitic charge.

Shameful
when it is the equivilant of being accused as un-American or not patriotic for voicing concern for the present state of affairs in the US.

Contempt
is what I feel when the truth is darkened and denied by all AIPAC toadying politicians who, enable the Neo-cons to set policy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Ok over the last fifty years the left in the US has

splintered, that is the reality of it. What your friend is seeing are elements in the Left that are very critical of Israel, so far so good.... some of them have also become quite antisemitic, and to the point of basically seeing all the problems in the ME as Israel's problems

Now your friend is correct when he says that the Neo Cons are former lefties, what your friend does not realize is they are former Trotskytes. And this is not real politic but purity in ideological believes that they search, as any real Trotsky's. In fact if most rightties realized that these guys have brought a very radical Left Wing Ideology to the right they would be horrified.

Now as I said the left has splintered and the far less vocal elements still belief in the Right of Israel to exist, even when very critical of the actions of the current administration. the more savvy among them realize that Israel took a poison pill when it kept the territories after '67.

The other problem your friend is having is that many Jews confuse (thanks to AIPAC and others) any criticism of Israel as Antisemitism... as a Jew I am very critical of Israel, but I have also reached another conclusion that most American Jews will not like. We no longer have the moral authority to even get involved. At this point it is up to the people who live other there to solve this crisis... and we should (both American Jews and American Palestinians) step back and let them solve it... it is their countries that we are talking about, not ours.

Sugest to him to read Tikun Magazine... that is where the left SHOULD be.

[jokerman93]

45. Thanks!

This adresses my basic question. I appreciate it. Tikun Magazine sounds like something he would be interested in as he considers himself something of a neo-Sabbatian Jew. A bit heretical I guess, but tajkes the practice of Tikun quite seriously.

Thanks again. I'll look into it myself.

:-)

[wryter2000]

51. An apocryphal story

the more savvy among them realize that Israel took a poison pill when it kept the territories after '67.

Don't know if it's true, but I heard once that after the war, BenGurion told the then leadership, "Give it back."

[jokerman93]

52. Is this the quote?

"Well done, now give it back to them." David Ben-Gurion to Louis Nir, after his unit captured Hebron in the Six Day War.<3> (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,11008,582158,00.html)

[wryter2000]

66. Thanks to both of you

I'm glad to know that story is true. I think it was very wise of him. I wish they'd followed his advice.

[wryter2000]

67. self-delete

I hate dupes

[The Magistrate]

55. It Is True Enough, Ma'am

Mr. Ben-Gurion expressed that view on numerous occassions after teh '67 War. He was a wise fellow, and a very canny politician who knew the lay of the land. The areas that remained ourside Israel in '48 were the heartland of Arab Nationalist efforts in the twenties and thirties, when je was a young man, and he understood there would never be acvquiesence to israeli rule amonmg the people of those locales.

[MadHound]

56. Because one abhors the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis

And because one disagrees with Israel's actions doesn't make one an anti-Semite.

Sadly, this is often confused.

[sir_captain]

77. No, it doesn't

but a consistent ignoring/justification of violence on the part of groups such as Hamas makes the question a lot more complicated in my mind. I am a Jew, I have no use for the Likud Party or Sharon (and certainly not for their tactics), and I have even less use for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.

I think what a lot of people see as anti-semitism is a perceived lack of objectivity on the part of some observers. It is hard to explain why the UN spends such a disproportionate time condemning Israel (and sometimes for truly ludicrous claims, such as the blood libel) while not saying much when men like Arafat and Sadaam Hussein pay off suicide bombers who target equally innocent Israeli citizens.

[MadHound]

81. Both sides are using unjustified violence

And both are over the top in their rhetoric and response to peace offerings and attempts to settle the situation. If it isn't a Palestinian suicide bomber going off, it is a radical Jew refusing to leave a squatters' settlement. Both sides have plenty of blood and blame to be held accountable for.

While ideally the world should have avoided this problem by not creating Israel, we now have to live with the reality of Israel's existence. What should be done is that Israel should go back to original UN borders, the rest should be given over to the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should remain an international city.

Sadly though, that isn't going to happen, too many radicals and hotheads on both sides of the equation. I think that only way to start bringing this under control is for the US to stop siding with the Israelis, to stop playing the Arab side of the fence for oil, and instead to act as an honest peace broker. Hopefully that will happen soon.

[HeeBGBz]

58. I'm currently battling a Jewish Neocon

Who thinks everything liberal is anti-semite. Actually, he's a nutcase on another board that won't go away.

He thinks I'm a jew-hater because I'm against the war.

He thinks because I'm against this war, then I wouldn't support the war in Germany in WWII which again equals me to being a Jew-Hater.

He's got this freaked out persecution complex that is so fucking annoying.

Incidentally, I'm not. I think Jewish men are hotties, except for Neoconish ones. I don't hate any "peoples", just this current Bush regime. Yet this sorry little fuck keeps whining and crying foul at anyone who doesn't suck up to Bush and the Republican party. He has his leather-bound collection of Rove talking points that he thumbs through daily.

I wish I had something good to bash him with.

[jokerman93]

60. Well, in this case

In this case, I'd say your neocon "friend" is a posterboy for the idea that ignorance is color blind - or just plain blind.

Takes all kinds I guess.

:-)

[HeeBGBz]

61. I guess. Ignorance is just ignorant.

He's found his little niche. Karma will find him eventually when those true colors start to flow.

[unsavedtrash]

59. the SS St. Louis

http://www.blechner.com/ssstlouis/

[MsTryska]

63. can i ask a question...(perhaps rhetorically?)

why should Americans be "Pro-israel"? Or "Anti-palestinian" or "anti-israel" or whatever?

That's not in my constitution, and actually I resent being labeled an Anti-semite just because I don't support the current policies of Israel's current Zionist government. I also believe Palestinians have gotten the shit end of the stick, and that both Israel and Palestine are at fault for not being able to negotiate a satisfactory compromise in their relations.


But all of this doesn't make me an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against Jewish people. What I've got issues with are current Nation-state administrations. I've got issues with Rwanda too. Does that make me anti-black? What about my issues with Saudi Arabia? Am I anti-arab too?


I think it's wrong to conflate Israel with Judaism. And I feel this conflation is done by both Jews and Gentiles alike.

[jokerman93]

65. Some posters above

Definitely, some posters above have pointed out the same fallacy. I think it's clear.

So back to the original question, would my friend have been more accurate if he'd said the "Left" (or certain flavors of it) has moved toward a pro-Palestinian stance, rather than the fallacious charge of Anti-Semitism?

[MsTryska]

69. Well - the left does love the underdog.....

and over the years Palestinians have been marginalized into the position of underdog.


But the more interesting question to ask your friend - Does one HAVE to be Anti-Isreal in order to be Pro-Palestine? or vice versa?



if he believes it's got to be one or the other, and there's no room for compromise - well a. he's part of the problem, and b. it says more about his views on the subject than it does the "Left's".

[CWebster]

72. What does being Jewish have to do with it?

Or for that matter, Palestinian?

The identity is used to obscure the reality--using the victimization card and guilt of Westerners regarding the Holocaust to silence dissent.

It isn't like the West was willing to hand over any of their territory--but they thought nothing of displacing others, others who had none of the blood of the Holocaust on their hands.

And, most of all, I resent the way the truth has been twisted and suppressed in this country regarding the real facts around the I\P conflict.

There is hugh news about Israel and the Neocons spying again and not a word is breathed of it anywhere. One thread with a wealth of info was posted yesterday and it sunk like a stone.

Americans are clueless about this taboo subject and that is the way the powers that be, want it.

[sir_captain]

78. Personally, I don't think it's at all clear

that the Left does not contain elements of anti-semitism. Certainly not most members of the Left, to be sure. But acadamia, in particular, is full of very questionable sentiments. One has only to look at the MEALAC situation at Columbia University to see this.

[The Magistrate]

73. One Of The Problems, Ma'am

Is that the issue does offer some cover for genuine Anti-Semites, by its very nature. The thing is somewhat similar to, say, discussion of crime in the United States. A racist might maintain Blacks are the source of the problems of crime, pointing to things like incarceration rates much above their proportion in the population, and the very high proportion of young Black men with criminal recirds of some sort or another. When called on this, such a person will invariably claim to be no racist, but simply to be citing facts that demonstrate the validity of the position he maintains, and express outrage that any "sensible discussion" of the topic draws down cries of racism against someone only interested in the truth.

It is undeniable that some disparragement of Israel, on both the left and the right, does indeed stem from bigotry, and unargueable that some of it routinely invokes long-standing Anti-Semitic tropes of Jews being a "Hidden Hand" in world affairs, working ceaselessly against all other peoples. Similarly, some advocates for Israel take advantage of this to refer to quite legitimate criticism of Israel as being "really" just this sort of bigoted expression, and that is certainly wrong. Because the issie has such an emotional charge on many minds, a tendency towards hyperbolic expression exerts itself on both sides, further complicating debate on the subject, as the hyperbole employed tends, on the one side, to overlap the language of bigots, and on the other side, to depict any opponent as a bigot.

[MsTryska]

76. And that is what i find most unpalatable.....

those who depict any opponent as a bigot.


I realize there will always be ignorant people out there who can't help but wear their prejudices with pride. I have no use for them, but they exist.


What i don't like is using the "depict any opponent as a bigot" tool to further one's own position.

it's the neocon way, and it's slowly becoming more and more acceptable in our society.

[Karmadillo]

74. Does your friend identify those on the Left who are anti-semitic?

It's easier to answer your question when the charge is put into context with specific statements. Just because one can call anyone who criticizes Israel anti-semitic, that doesn't mean it's an accurate criticism. For example, Ted Honderich, a British philosopher, has been called an anti-semite for his criticism of neo-Zionism, but surely reasonable people would not agree. Same goes for the charge when made against Noam Chomsky. I would hope your friend is not one who uses the term "anti-semitism" to smear those who are critical of Israel's actions.

http://www.counterpunch.org/honderich09042004.html

It's Time for a New Disrespect
The Way Things Are
By TED HONDERICH

<edit>

Neo-Zionism is the ongoing rapacity of ethnic cleansing, the violation of the remaining homeland of the remaining Palestinians. It dishonours the great Jewish moral and political tradition of resolute compassion for the badly-off, a tradition now exemplifed by Noam Chomsky. The population figures for Palestine alone overwhelm any other factual propositions. This rape of a people and a homeland is in its wrongfulness a kind of moral datum. It is as much a source of the content of the Principle of Humanity as a conclusion drawn from it. It remains my view that the Principle of Humanity issues in a moral right on the part of the Palestinians to their terrorism. <29>

What is anti-Semitism? Despite the etymology, it is being against Jews, a general attitude, an attitude to most or all Jews. How does it differ, say, from being anti-German? Well, some anti-German feeling is more attached to what Germans have done and conceivably might do again, as against what Germans are. Anti-Semitism has been more a matter of prejudice, discriminating against a people on account of their alleged nature. It has a vile content, about bodies and noses and greed. It is an attitude capable of understanding the Holocaust, where that is a kind of excusing, an attitude of not worrying about the desecration of cemeteries in France.

These simplicities with respect to anti-Semitism in the ordinary or cental conception distinguish it absolutely from being against neo-Zionism. To say of a book that is against neo-Zionism that it is therefore anti-Semitic is at best stupid. It remains so if the condemnation in the book is so expressed as to offend against convention, to seem to be extreme -- say expressed in the proposition that the Palestinians have a moral right to the terrorism that is also their resistance against their destruction as a people. <30>

That is not the end of the story of anti-Semitism, of course. A new American dictionary, Mirriam-Websters' Third New International Dictionary, defines anti-Semitism in three ways. One definition is, exactly, 'sympathy for the opponents of Israel'. This tells you of the usefulness and the responsibility of lexicographers. The brazenness of the definition calls for a reply. It is that in the sense in question we ought all to be anti-Semites.

more...

[jokerman93]

75. As I mentioned

Interesting article!

My friend is largely apolitical these days as he's become disillusioned with activism and has chosen the spiritual path instead. I respect that. He sees the conflict between Arab and Jew more as archetypal than political. Unorthodox as it is, that's a legitimate perspective and I respect it..

So his statements were mostly generalizations which I listened to respectfully as I respect him as a friend and human being. What became obvious to me was the shallowness of my own knowledge of the Political Left (with which I'm of course aligned) and it's evolution with regards to the I/P conflict. I realized I needed to probe the subject myself and get educated if I am to hold any opinion at all on the subject.

[ulysses]

79. I don't know why this is such a bone of contention.

Are some on the left anti-Semitic? I have no reason to doubt that that's so.

Is being critical of Israel anti-Semitic? No. It simply isn't.

[MattSWin]

80. I think there are 2 major reasons certain US politicians

Don't particularly openly support Israel. The first reason is that supporting Israel can and has interfered with our ability to get oil from Arab nations.

Secondly supporting Israel requires the US to have at least a minor presence in the Middle East and focus on the Middle East.

I think that with Netanyahu and Sharon as PM the issue of Israel has become even more tense and thus we're seeing perhaps less support for Israel by US politicians.

The only people really shouting support for Israel for awhile have been neoconservatives and other hardliners in the US who ideologically agree with Israeli hardliners.

However, Sharon is taking very moderate stances, to the point of ticking off Netanyahu, so I think we'll start seeing more Democratic US politicians openly support Israel.

I don't expect far left or far right to start supporting Israel any time soon.

But one of the biggest early supporters of Israel was the Soviet Union, which is further left than any American leftist.