UK academic union rejects EU definition of anti-Semitism

[shira]

UK academic union rejects EU definition of anti-Semitism

The UCU is institutionally racist, Board of British Jews charges; UCU claims definition designed to deflect criticism of Israel.

LONDON – Britain’s largest trade union for academics has voted to disassociate itself from the EU working definition of anti-Semitism, leading to accusations it is institutionally racist.

The University College Union (UCU) passed the resolution at its annual conference in Harrogate in Yorkshire on Monday, claiming that the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia definition stifles debate and is used to deflect criticism of Israel. The motion, raised by activists on the National Executive Committee of the union who in recent years have led on the call to boycott Israeli academia, maintains that the charge of anti- Semitism is used to confuse criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on university campuses. The move has been condemned by an array of community officials and beyond, accusing it of being institutionally racist. The union has refused on comment on the issue or on the serious accusation leveled against it.

The UCU has been mistreating its Jewish members over the last five years, “assaulting their identity, ignoring their harassment in the Union and refusing to investigate their resignations,” said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of British Jews. “Now UCU has gone further and simply redefined ‘anti-Semitism’ itself. UCU will actually campaign for other organizations to stop fully fighting anti-Semitism, and has changed its procedures so complaints from Jewish members will be treated with suspicion.

“The truth is apparent: whatever the motivations of its members, we believe UCU is an institutionally racist organization,” Benjamin said.

Ronnie Fraser, director of the Academic Friends of Israel spoke against the motion at the conference. The union has crossed a red line, and “only anti-Semites” would disassociate themselves from the EU Working Definition and vote in favor of the resolution,” Fraser said. “By adopting this resolution today it confirms what I and my colleagues have said in the past, that until the UCU takes complaints of anti-Semitism seriously the UCU will continue to be labeled as an institutionally anti-Semitic organization which pretends to be committed to fighting anti-Semitism,” Fraser said. “What gives the UCU, a group of mainly white, non-Jewish trade unionists the right to tell Jews what is and what is not anti-Semitism? “Stating that the definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti- Semitism is itself is a trope – the Livingstone Formulation , which states that Jews deliberately and maliciously accuse critics of Israel of anti-Semitism in order to deflect and stifle legitimate criticism of Israel,” he said.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=223094

[shira]

1. UCU branded institutionally antisemitic

A leading scientist has resigned from the University and College Union after accusing the organisation of being "institutionally antisemitic". Denis Noble, who is not Jewish, said he took the decision after almost 50 years as a member of the union because it had become "impossible" for him to continue, given the "punishment of Israeli colleagues for the actions of their government".

Professor Noble is an eminent biologist who was chair of cardiovascular physiology at Oxford University for 20 years. In 1960 he developed the first model of the working heart. His resignation has been backed by fellow Oxford scientists Michael Yudkin and David Smith. They also resigned, saying it was "beyond dispute that UCU is now institutionally antisemitic".

<snip>

"Nobody in the world of learning can take seriously a professional organisation that purports to represent academic staff, but which entertains proposals to discriminate whether it be on grounds of sex, race, national origin or other characteristics that are irrelevant to academic excellence."

Prof Noble said: "I find it impossible not to ask myself why UCU exhibits this obsession with Israel. The obvious explanation - that the union is institutionally antisemitic - is so unpleasant that I have till recently been unwilling to accept it."

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/41427/ucu-branded-institutionally-antisemitic

[shira]

2. Statement by Ronnie Frasier

The University and College Union (UCU), which represents more than 120,000 University staff, used its annual gathering in Harrogate over the Bank Holiday weekend to disassociate itself from EUMC working definition of antisemitism which is used by law enforcement agencies all over the world.

The UCU, the leading trade union partner of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, made this move in an attempt to deligitimise and redefine anti-Semitism. They didn’t just reject parts of the definition or propose changes to it, instead they decided never to use it again whether educating members or dealing with internal complaints of antisemitism.

I was the only Jewish delegate at Congress who was willing to speak against the motion. The motion was carried overwhelmingly as only four people including myself voted against it. I spoke in complete silence with no reaction at all from the audience, this is what I said: (in bold)

I, a Jewish member of this union, am telling you, that I feel an antisemitic mood in this union and even in this room.

I would feel your refusal to engage with the EUMC definition of antisemitism, if you pass this motion, as a racist act.

Many Jews have resigned from this union citing their experience of antisemitsim.

Only yesterday a delegate here said: “they are an expansionist people”. It is difficult to think that the people in question are anything other than the Jews.

You may disagree with me. You may disagree with all the other Jewish members who have said similar things.

You may think we are mistaken. But you have a duty to listen seriously.

Instead of being listened to, I am routinely told that anyone who raises the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith.

Congress, Imagine how it feels when you say that you are experiencing racism, and your union responds: “Stop lying, stop trying to play the antisemitism card.”

You, a group of mainly white, non-Jewish trade unionists, do not have the right to tell me, a Jew, what feels like antisemitism and what does not.

Macpherson tells us that when somebody says they have been a victim of racism, then institutions should begin by believing them. This motion mandates the union to do the opposite

Until this union takes complaints of antisemitsim seriously the UCU will continue to be labelled as an institutionally antisemitic organisation.

It’s true that anti-Zionist Jews may perceive things differently. But the overwhelming majority of Jews feel that there is something wrong in this union. They understand that it is legitimate to criticise Israel in a way that is, quoting from the definition, “similar to that levelled to any other country” but they make a distinction between criticism and the kind of demonisation that is considered acceptable in this union.

The union also adopted a resolution which ignored the legal advice that the UCU received in 2007 which made it clear that distributing and promoting a call for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel is in breach of discrimination and equality legislation and also outside the aims and objects of the union.

Ronnie Fraser

Director

The Academic Friends of Israel

http://cifwatch.com/2011/06/01/ucu-condemned-as-“institutionally-anti-semitic”/

[LeftishBrit]

3. Ugh. Most of the allegations that have been made about UCU (e.g. that they are

boycotting Israel) are completely untrue; but this one seems to be genuine.

This seems to be related to the Socialist Workers Party and related small far-left political groups attempting to gain influence in UCU. (And fiddling while Rome burns, as their antics impede vital campaigns against government cuts, tripling of tuition fees for students, job insecurity and pension reductions for academics, etc.)

This is the comment of Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/49622/trevor-phillips-ucu-should-have-contacted-me-first

[shira]

4. Antisemitism: It's Back Big Time and Nobody in Power (Really) Cares

A reliable source in Finland reports that the speaker of parliament, Ben Zyskowicz, was attacked by a man shouting antisemitic slogans in Helsinki, June 1. He is a popular politician and the only Jewish member of parliament. Zyskowicz refused to press charges saying that going to court in such matters is futile.

This event in a relatively small, far-away country about which people know little will not make international news. But it isn't an isolated incident.

Reports from Holland say that Jewish funeral processions--and in some cases Christian ones--are being heckled by Muslim bystanders yelling, "Jews!" Is this a mistake on their part or is "Jew" becoming a wider designated curse to be uttered more generally? Western "peaceniks" and "humanitarians" are joining a Gaza flotilla whose organizers chant approvingly about the seventh-century genocide of Jews in the Arabian penninsula and pledge to repeat it, and for the benefit of a terrorist group (Hamas) that is actively and openly working on implementing a new genocide against Jews.


Politicians fly to expensive hotels to hold conferences on "tolerance" and "anti-hatred." Big public relations' campaigns are held on these topics. But all this has nothing to do with reality. Extremist groups and ideologies--including Islamism--along with endless incitement against Jews and Israel, including in the most "respectable" media, are creating an atmosphere where antisemitism is permissible, even fashionable.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/06/antisemitism-its-back-big-time-and.html

[Never Stop Dancin]

5. this union

was set up specifically to bash israel. Time to disband the union. Shame! Shame!

[Ken Burch]

7. If Israel ended the Occupation and dismantled the settlements

that union would likely cease to make any further critical comments about Israel. Israel does not have to subjugate the population of the West Bank in order to survive.

[shira]

11. Bullshit and you know it.

As soon as the rockets fly over the lines into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv or shoulder held missiles are fired down from the hilltops and the IDF responds, those haters will continue in full force.

Same as the BDS haters who oppose 2 states.

Antisemitism is a MAJOR part of this ugly demonization/delegitimization/dehumanization and you're trying your hardest to excuse/ignore/minimize it.

[Ken Burch]

6. Why should anything regarding Israel be linked to the definition of antisemitism?

Why, may I ask, is it not enough to be opposed to discrimination against or persecution towards people who happen to be Jewish? Is there any inherent reason that the question of whether or not a person supports Zionism should be tied to the matter of whether or not a person is an antisemite?

In my experience, the anti-Zionists or post-Zionists I've encountered were just as passionately opposed to the persecution of Jews as were those who feel that the existence of Israel can't be challenged at all(and I say this as a person who isn't an anti-Zionist myself).

Why is it unthinkable to admit that the issue of antisemitism should be divorced from the question of whether the existence of the State of Israel is necessary?

[King_David]

8. Why is it unthinkable ?

'Why is it unthinkable to admit that the issue of antisemitism should be divorced from the question of whether the existence of the State of Israel is necessary?' (what rubbish)

Because it is.

A lot of people have tried very hard to de legitimize The Jewish State.


It most definitely is unthinkable,thank you very much .(period)

[azurnoir]

9. you seem genuinely confused criticizing Israel's occupation

of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza is not challenging the existence of Israel as some here wish us to believe. Indeed Israel has every right to exist however to link that existence to the occupation and subjugation of a people is to IMO to dishonor Israel's existence

[shira]

20. What would happen to Israel if it gave up all the high land, hilltop settlements, and Golan?

Imagine that only a few Palestinians or Syrians opt for target practice on the people down below.

What precisely do you see happening to Israel, its economy, the people living there?

How about a plane flying over the W.Bank in a matter of minutes, a stray BOMBER - since Israel won't control airspace or station anyone in the Jordan valley?

Forget Israel striking back and the damage - what do you think would happen to Israel and its people?

[azurnoir]

60. "What precisely do you see happening to Israel, its economy, the people living there?"

and then this little gem

"How about a plane flying over the W.Bank in a matter of minutes, a stray BOMBER - since Israel won't control airspace or station anyone in the Jordan valley? "

first you admit (finally) the real reasons Israel wants to hold on to WB are economic, then try to justify that with an imaginary aerial bombing fantasy well dear there are lots of routes that an airplane could take if one wanted to bomb Israel and the 5 to 10 seconds that those planes would be over flying the WD are of little consequence not mention are we to believe poor little Israel has no long range radar?

[shira]

65. It's not just the economy - it's everything that would shut down like schools, transportation...

People would probably opt to move away, which I'm sure would please many here.

As to Israeli control of airspace, etc...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0&feature=player_embedded#at=314

[azurnoir]

67. Israel needs the WB for population over flow or Israeli's don't want settlers as neighbors?

as to your vid from the JCPA it's just more hysteria trying to justify continued occupation

[shira]

70. You wouldn't mind living in the valleys with Hamas on hilltops, would you? n/t

[azurnoir]

75. who says Hamas will be on the hilltops? Palestinians will be however n/t

[shira]

78. Who will stop Hamas from taking those hilltops? And what makes you think non-Hamasniks will not...

...salivate at the easy target practice?

You want to live with your family and friends below?

[King_David]

31. Actually maybe it is you confused to what that poster said,

`Why is it unthinkable to admit that the issue of antisemitism should be divorced from the question of whether the existence of the State of Israel is necessary?`


Nothing to do with occupation or blockade.

[Ken Burch]

35. I don't want Israel to cease to exist

What I was saying was that it is possible, however, for a person to support replacing Israel as currently constituted with a DEMOCRATIC non-sectarian state without, in fact, being an antisemite.

A unified state, at this point, isn't realistic. But some of those who say they want a two-state solution are trying to make that unrealistic as well by insisting on things that they know perfectly well no Palestinian leadership could ever accept-such as the permanent stationing of IDF troops in the Jordan River Valley.

[shira]

46. How can Israel be replaced with a democratic, non sectarian state NOW?

Who will run it?

Anyone who expects Hamas and the PLO to run a DEMOCRATIC, non-sectarian and LIBERAL state is simply delusional and knows ZERO about Palestinian politics.

It's a very disingenuous argument.

[Ken Burch]

48. I don't support the single-state idea, so I don't have the answer to that.

In any case, support for that as an objective is not automatically antisemitic.

It's enough to say that, as this stage, it's unworkable.

[shira]

53. Anyone with any knowledge of what a one-state solution would bring, but still in favor it...

...is calling for an all-out, bloody war.

And you damned well know it.

[Ken Burch]

84. Actually, no, I don't know that.

Unlike you, I don't hold the racist assumption that Arabs are pathologically incapable of living in peace with non-Arabs.

The fact that the safest place for a Jewish person to be in World War II, other than North America, was in North Africa makes my case for me. The Jewish communities in Arab and Muslim countries, unlike those of Christian Europe, survived that war unscathed.

[shira]

91. Then you know ZERO about Hamas and the PLO....

Imagine the most hardline, nastiest "butcher all Arabs" settlers running a government and trusted to keep Palestinians safe.

Now imagine Hamas and the PLO.

Nothing racist about it. It's reality.

[azurnoir]

58. so you are saying that the 'liberal democracy' is not liberal, democratic ,or even secular ? nt

[shira]

63. It's all 3 and there's no chance it would become better with the PLO/Hamas maintaining equal rule.

Explain how with Hamas/PLO maintaining at least half of democratic, secular, liberal rule that things will improve for all...

This should be good.

[azurnoir]

68. Palestinians living under Israel's military occupation hardly have democracy or freedom

and claiming that Palestinians will fare no better under self rule is not an excuse to continue the occupation

[shira]

71. So just admit you want the occupation over - and that you don't expect peace to result.

You expect the repurcussions, more war, bloodshed, more Palestinians killed than Israelis, etc...

But you think it's worth it.

[azurnoir]

74. Did I say that? I will say is that I do expect bloodshed if and when the settlers are 'evacuated'

but no that still is no excuse to continue the occupation

[shira]

76. You expect bloodshed or war? Look at what bombing Sderot brought...

...and figure that bombing heavily populated areas will bring more than just OCL part 1.

Ending the occupation will bring more war, bloodier than Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9 combined.

[azurnoir]

80. So for the sake of Palestinian lives the occupation should remain?

That's ah creative

[shira]

81. It will result in a very bloody war, but you believe it's worth it - right?

The conflict will continue, things won't get any better for Palestinian citizens in the W.Bank, no RoR...

But it's worth the risk?

Assuming you disagree, how exactly will life improve for Palestinians? Seems the W.Bank would turn into Gaza....

[Ken Burch]

87. No bloodloss is being prevented by the status quo, shira.

And we both know that there's no chance that continuing the Occupation could ever lead to the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership that would accept Israel's terms. Because no Palestinian leadership would ever accept IDF troops being permanently stationed in the Jordan River Valley.

[shira]

92. So after a full withdrawal behind 1967 lines, what do you expect would happen?

Once a few nutballs fire rockets at commercial airliners or from hilltops down below into the major cities, what do you think will happen?

WHO exactly will benefit from a full withdrawal to 1967 borders?

That won't bring peace so what will it bring?

[Ken Burch]

97. Yes it could bring peace

There would need to be a continual process of addressing the grievances on both sides and something like a "truth and reconciliation" commission. There needs to be compensation AND acknowledgement AND apologies.

Why do you think what YOU insist on(the mythical "land swaps", none of which would ever include valueable or useful land)the perpetual IDF garrisons in the Jordan Valley-something you couldn't reasonable expect any country to accept from any other country these days-the Germany thing doesn't apply because the Palestinians are not the defeated Third Reich-and the Israeli insistence on being able to shut down a Palestinian state and reimpose the Occupation at will)would bring peace? Do you honestly think you could achieve peace with proposals that say to Palestinians "we will never treat your nation as an equal nation, we will never accept that your nation is capable of being civilized and peacable, and we will never admit that your people suffered as much as we did in the years after 1948" could somehow be more workable? If so, why?

Clearly any Palestinian leader who agreed the terms Bibi and Tzipi insist on(their proposals are almost identical) would have no chance of getting the Palestinian population to accept those terms, and thus would be immediately removed and replaced by a demagogue who would promise to "avenge the shame". This, then would simply lead to the war restarting.

Why take THAT chance?

Israel can't have peace if it works from the assumption that the other side in the dispute is somehow pathologically incapable of ever living at peace...nor can they have it if they insist on having "the upper hand".

There needs to be an equality in the undertaking and there needs to be a clear guarantee that the Palestinian leadership that agrees to peace, whoever that leadership is, is NOT under any circumstances seen as surrendering or losing face.

Bibi and Tzipi either don't get that, or refuse to accept it.

It's wrong to keep pushing for "victory". that can never be the way to peace in this dispute. Victory, as we used to know it, isn't possible in the wars the world now fights.

[shira]

103. How do you think the hardliners from Hamas/PLO will see full Israeli withdrawal to '67 lines...

...without a peace deal?

They'll see it just as Hamas saw it in 2005, Hezbollah WRT Lebanon, and the PLO after the IDF mostly left the W.Bank after Oslo. They'll see victory and will gain even more support for their warmongering ways and will ATTACK. That's what extreme rightwing hateful warmongerers do. They'll sell it, as will Iran, as Israel retreating and near defeat w/o Hamas or the PLO doing or giving up any concessions or anything concrete in return. They'll sell it as part of the phased plan to wipe out Israel.

All it will take is just a few rockets/mortars or shoulder fired missiles onto Ben Gurion or into heavily populated areas from the abandoned settlement hills to trigger a war FAR worse and more bloody than OCL. Even just a few hot shots with rifles shooting down below into heavily populated areas will do it. Israel will be on perpetual lockdown without going to war and that won't be allowed.

There will be no RoR.

Palestinians will CONTINUE to lack the most basic freedoms under PA/Hamas rule if Israel withdraws behind '67 lines without a peace deal.

NO ONE but Palestinian hardliners, haters, and warmongerers will gain.

=======

As for land swaps and worthless land, tell me why the hilltops where the settlements are now were barely used for anything from 1948-67 if they're such prime real estate?

[Ken Burch]

104. Israel can't get a peace deal and still hold on to the settlements

n/t.

[shira]

105. I didn't say that and you're avoiding the main argument.

You're saying occupation must end immediately with a full withdrawal behind '67 lines, NOW.

That will just make the situation worse, now won't it?

[Ken Burch]

112. The situation can't really get any worse

At most, it's in a lull.

You place far too much trust in the idea that the Occupation actually protects Israelis. Or that stalling protects them. Neither of those assumptions are ultimately valid.

[pelsar]

122. let me interrupt.....since you started to address the real issues

The situation can't really get any worse

why do assert that?

after israel left gaza the situation become far more worse.....and remains so

[azurnoir]

59. Nope I am not confused at all n/t

[King_David]

62. I know your not confused

But your answer was.

[Dick Dastardly]

131. No one except you stated and linked that

" you seem genuinely confused criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza is not challenging the existence of Israel as some here wish us to believe Indeed Israel has every right to exist however to link that existence to the occupation and subjugation of a people is to IMO to dishonor Israel's existence"

Ken posted these questions in 6 regarding the EU definition in the OP.

"Why should anything regarding Israel be linked to the definition of antisemitism?"
"Why is it unthinkable to admit that the issue of antisemitism should be divorced from the question of whether the existence of the State of Israel is necessary?"

The EU definition states nothing like what you state, and King david responded to Ken with nothing like you falsely claim.

Making such false claims and fallacious arguments as you did are a dishonest tactic that is unfortunatley all to common among many in the anti Israel crowd.

[Ken Burch]

10. "Because it is"?

You do realize that that is the sort of argument a three-year-old makes, don't you?

What if a person opposes the existence of the State of Israel as currently constituted simply because that person opposes the concept of nationalism OR the concept of states tied to a specific religion or ethnicity? Is that person an antisemite? Even if that person has a record of fighting against all forms of prejudice and bigotry?

What of someone who was a Zionist in the past who came to the conclusion(as has been the case with, I would guess a fair amount if not the vast majority of Jewish anti-Zionists, for example) that Israel has become an irreparable betrayal of their values as a believer in the values of the Jewish moral tradition? Is THAT person an antisemite? Or even, truly "self-loathing"?(that phrase always puzzles me...why is there the assumption that someone who is Jewish that happens to be either anti-Zionist or simply critical of what Israel does to the Palestinians is somehow acting out of hatred of her or himself? Is everyone who is Jewish OBLIGATED to self-identify as a Zionist? If so, why?

(just playing devil's advocate).

It's as if you're saying there's no difference between, say Hannah Arendt and Adolf Eichmann, between Noam Chomsky and David Duke, between the leftists who first warned the world about Hitler and fought him in Germany and Spain, on the one hand and Hitler himself on the other. Do you REALLY want to go there?

Yes, there is a serious problem with antisemitism. Yes, some antisemites are anti-Zionist(some, like Arthur Balfour and David Lloyd George, were SUPPORTERS of Zionism). But, while I'm not an anti-Zionist myself, I truly feel it's deeply unfair to equate that position with antisemitism. The two simply aren't the same. And it's perfectly consistent with being passionately opposed to antisemitism to have questions about the EU Working Definition of antisemitism.

It ought to be enough to just be against discrimination against Jewish people(as one would equally be against prejudice towards Muslims, Buddhists, or any other group that might be in a religious minority in a given area)or against the persecution of anyone. Why is THAT not suffecient?

Clearly it is possible to fight antisemitism that masks itself as anti-Zionism without setting up the assumption that all anti-Zionism EQUALS antisemitism.

[shira]

12. A person is an antisemite when, no matter how liberal Israel is, it must still be destroyed

When the haters call Israel a Nazi or Apartheid state they really want the same for Israel as Germany or S.Africa - they want it destroyed - and the only way that will happen is in a big, very bloody war that will cost millions of lives.

When some here at DU can't even admit Hamas is disgustingly antisemitic, or that Norm Finkelstein calling for Hezbollah's right to target civilians is antisemitic, or that Helen Thomas' comments were outrageously antisemitic, or that equating Israel to Nazi Germany - not that they'd ever dream of equating any other nation to Nazi Germany - is ridiculously antisemitic, then such people have absolutely no business whatsoever participating in any real discussion about antisemitism and their views on Israel are no better than those of Hamas or David Duke.

Read the above articles on the UCU decision. You agree with them on that one too?

[JonScholar]

14. Shira, how was South Africa "destroyed"? nt

[shira]

16. I meant dismantled. Do you believe in a 2 state solution based on the Clinton Parameters....

or Olmert's 2008 offer (or Geneva)?

[JonScholar]

18. Alright, how was South Africa "dismantled"? nt

[shira]

19. I asked you a question. Thanks.

Here's the answer to yours...

http://factoidz.com/dismantling-apartheid-in-south-africa/
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0300_Apartheid_Being_Dism.html

[JonScholar]

22. So by "dismantled" you mean the apartheid policies were revoked and the indigenous population was...

granted basic rights? You mean that the indigenous population was finally allowed to travel freely in their historic homeland and allowed to have a say in who was elected to govern them? Is this the same existential threat that Israel faces?

[shira]

23. Are you going to answer me? Here's the question again...

Do you believe in a 2 state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's 2008 offer (or Geneva)?

If you don't answer, I'm assuming you're for the one-state solution, full right of return, Hamas/PLO elected into power...

[Ken Burch]

26. You're not entitled to play interrogator.

Cut it out already.

And you set yourself up for the responses you're getting with your use of the word "destroyed".

Deal with it.

[shira]

32. That poster is for a one-state all-out call to war with full RoR...

...and both the Nazi and Apartheid regimes deserved to be destroyed.

That's why such language is used by haters vs. Israel who are against 2 states for 2 peoples. The only reason those words are used WRT Israel is to present Israel as something evil that needs to be replaced, removed, dismantled, and ultimately destroyed.

[JonScholar]

21. delete

[LeftishBrit]

15. While I agree with your general point about antisemitism...

South Africa was not 'destroyed'. Nor, strictly speaking, was even Germany, though it was divided for many years.

[shira]

17. Should have said dismantled. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

24. South Africa was not dismantled either

Do you equate all reform with dismantlement?

By the way (though you probably know these facts already): I am against BDS and support a two-state solution.

[Ken Burch]

28. I support a two-state solution but am not totally against BDS

because, in my view, the Israeli government is so intransigent and arrogant in its push for a maximalist "peace through victory" approach that international economic resistance to it may be the only way to get it to change.

[shira]

33. The BDS movement is not for 2 states. They are warmongers....

....on the same page politically as the worst Hamas/PLO activists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnpilMYsR0I

...and the BDS movement is INFESTED with antisemites spewing their hate:
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/antisemitism-and-the-boycott-david-hirsh-responds-to-ran-greenstein/

In that same link, here is what David Hirsh wrote...

What have I done?

We are having a debate about whether a boycott is a good strategy to help create a democratic outcome in Israel and in Palestine. We are discussing antisemitism in Palestine, racism in Israel and both in the wider world. We make arguments and we adduce evidence.

But Ran keeps coming back to this ad hominem stuff.

He speaks “as a Jew”.

Robert Fine is an “idiot”.

Hirsh is an apologist for Israeli human rights abuses.

Neve Gordon has excellent “progressive credentials”.

Hirsh doesn’t have excellent “progressive credentials”.

Thse kinds ad hominem questions do not have any bearing at all on who is right or wrong on the questions at hand.

Your point is again to say that I raise the issue of antisemitism in bad faith in order to de-legitimise criticism of the occupation.

I reject the idea that a person needs to have “done” something against the occupation before s/he is qualified to speak out against antisemitism.

I think we should defend Jews, and also defend the labour movement, against antisemitism unconditionally. I don’t think we should make defence conditional upon having established “progressive credentials”.

What have I done about the occupation? Well, mainly what I have done is speak out, make arguments, written, gone on demonstrations, and, as a teacher, I have taught, and as an academic I have done research and written.

In the 80s I spent a lot of time in the student movement and in the Labour Party arguing for an end to the occupation, for a 2 state solution, for support for the Israeli peace movement and for the recognition of the PLO as a legitimate leadership of the Palestinians.

I drove Adam Keller of Gush Shalom around the UK when he came on a speaking tour and I was involved in organising his tour.

I speak out against the occupation, in academia, in my union and within the Jewish community.

I have taken part in demonstrations, most recently the one in Tel Aviv against the occupation and against the Israeli action against the flotilla.

Engage has consistently highlighted the plight of Palestinian academics and students whose life is made extremely difficult by the occupation. We have argued for our academic union to make links with Palestinian and Israeli colleagues.

I have written in public against the occupation:

For example here, on the Guardian website:

“Everybody serious supports a two state solution; an Israeli withdrawal to borders based on the 1967 ceasefire line, the foundation of an independent Palestinian state and a deal done between the two parties on Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees and their descendents.”

In the South African press:

“Palestinians are not free. They suffer under an Israeli occupation that is sustained by a regime of violence, surveillance and control.”

“As well as a military occupation, successive Israeli governments have tolerated and supported the efforts of settlers to take Palestinian land for themselves in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

“Palestinians and settlers live under unequal legal regimes. Settlers have incomparably greater freedom of movement, democratic and legal rights as well as access to resources.”

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-10-09-occupation-not-apartheid

In the Israeli press:

“One reason that the loathing of Israel is becoming respectable in British society is that the Israeli state often acts wrongly. Israel still hangs on to the West Bank, encourages Jews to build settlements there, and rules it as a colony. The Israeli government acts as though it plans to annex a significant proportion of the West Bank to Israel. Within pre-1967 Israel, there is still discrimination against Arab citizens, some of it formalized in law. Because Israel is the occupying power, and because it is vastly more powerful than Palestine, it must accept a major share of responsibility for squandering the opportunities for peace in the 1990s. ”

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=206

Within the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Global Forum against Antisemitism:

“One of the reasons why so many people around the world are angry with Israel is because of the continuing occupation of Palestinian land and because Israel, which has state power, has not done enough to end the occupation. Such an occupation cannot be sustained without racism, violence and humiliation against the people who are occupied. ”

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1683

I feel a bit dirty for having obeyed your injunction to answer “what I have done” because I think that “what I have done” against the occupation is irrelevent to the arguments that I make.

[pelsar]

36. good to hear..

your for collective punishment given certain conditions.....punish the small farmer trying to feed his family, the janitor barely making a living on minimum wage........the arab israeli who finally got his job in an export office, and the arab-israeli family that makes olive oil from their farm of hundreds of years old....

at least you've clarified your stance on that one.

i'm not sure how you define "not totally against"...thats like being sort of pregnant.
but at least you've finally made a clear statement on one aspect of the conflict and acknowledge/aware of its consequences.

[Ken Burch]

38. Bringing out the old "it's the little folks who get hurt" argument, are we?

Other than the guy who got hired at the export office, none of the people you mention would be involved in foreign trade.

And without the pressure of the boycott, why would the Israeli government ever change? It has too much invested in NOT having the war end(unlike the people of Israel...but that's the difference between the governed and the governing you see in any country).

Nothing I'm talking about comes anywhere near the complete disruption of normal life the Occupation has caused to many if not most Palestinians, whether they as individuals had anything to do with the militants or not.

[pelsar]

41. just clarifying that your pro collective punishment

boycotts are collective punishment....check out the dictionary.

Nothing I'm talking about comes anywhere near the complete disruption of normal life

you want a boycott of israeli goods to the point that the govt of israel is at the point of collapse inorder to change.....thats a massive disruption. But that is not the point, you have now stated very clearly that the concept of collective punishment is something you do in fact agree with.


we'll ignore the "little bit pregnant" attempt
____

It has too much invested in NOT having the war end
and i see you still havent learned about israel: you still believe that our generals/politicians are real monsters that have no problem in having their children and grandchildren killed for their own greater glory......we must have in your opinion one sick ruling class...and given the fact that they do change as they get voted in and out and our generals etc also change regulary, our education must be equally sick.....

perhaps thats why you see collective punishment is perfectly legit when it comes to israel..... (and btw, i know your a bit weak on accepting consequences but who do you think will get hurt with a boycott of israeli goods if not the farmer, the people on the line? on the lower rungs of society?)

___

in israel we have a saying that its our generals that get their kids back first from the wars.....i'll let you figure out what that means.

[Ken Burch]

42. I don't have to oppose boycotts to be against collective punishment

reduced corporate profits are not "collective punishment". In using that term in this context, you're implying that a boycott against Israel would be just as oppressive as the Occupation is to Palestinians.

It's a fair question to ask...why should people or countries who oppose the Occupation and the settlements trade with Israel, with, by doing so, they are effectively enabling the settlements and the Occupation and making it impossible to get the most implacably hardline politicians out of power?

And what I'm saying is that you have to accept the fact, at some point, that Israeli politicians are exactly like the politicians in other countries. If they wanted peace they wouldn't insist on things that keep war going. They'd put peace first.

They're not monsters, and you put words in my mouth in implying that I said that...they're just not morally superior to the rest of the world. They're normal leaders...with all the good and bad that entails.

And I believe that every country's ruling class is sick and cynical, not just Israel's. That it's the rulers who usually start the wars in the world not the people. That's universal with me...it's not just about Israel. OK?

In order to retain your own sanity, you're going to have to admit, at least to yourself, that your country's leaders are no more inherently moral than any other country's, and no less susceptible to having interests that don't always coincide with those of the people they elect. People who live in every OTHER democratic country accept this about their own leaders.

[pelsar]

43. i'm pretty cynical about israeli politicians...

and more so about our "elite" that comprises about 5% of the population and has a way too much control and wealth to justify their small percentage..but thats a whole different issue.

israel does have one aspect that you wont see in the British army or the American army or probably no other army in the world....our generals kids are not just front line troops....but beyond the front line as well. Our generals all come up through the ranks...there is no 'west point" where they get to skip over being a basic grunt. More so they live "amongst us" When there is a war, the general and the politicians are sending their kids front and center. You say our leaders and generals are human?, then you tell me what human being sends his/her kids to get killed in a war for their own personal glory and advancement? It doesn't make them "more moral" its just makes them human. Only a monster would send his/her kids to be killed for their own advancement and glory as per you post above.

from where i stand, when i know that the chief of staffs kid is going out on the same missions as my son, with my son, i at least know that the general as are the other generals and majors etc aren't doing it just for their own glory.

and btw, no Israeli prime minister would take such credit for military operation as the way obama and friends did....i thought that "parade" was rather disgusting.

that aside, you cant be a little bit pregnant and our cant be a little bit for "collective punishment"...it has a very clear definition. You may not like the definition, but thats not your call is it? The definition has nothing to do with results with quantity or quality, it has to do with the definition of a word. Boycotting israeli goods, punishing all of its citizens for the actions of a few...welcome to the world of collective punishment.

as far as israeli politicians go....most are willing to discuss the various possibilities that arise from different scenarios, the good, the bad and the ugly...and thats more than your willing to do.....

[shira]

44. Hey Ken, let's see if you're for Norm Finkelstein's belief in collective punishment

He very clearly said he believes Hezbollah has a RIGHT to target/terrorize Israelis with missiles and rockets...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=353433&mesg_id=353712

I want to see whether you agree or harshly condemn what he said.

I'll wait.

:)

I predict crickets in response, or something to the effect you don't have enough information to comment.

[Ken Burch]

47. Stop throwing Finklestein at everyone you disagree with

What people think about Hezbollah has nothing to do with the idea of a boycott, which, unlike Hezbollah's activities is a completely nonviolent tactic.

[shira]

51. It's about collective punishment. The anti-Israel crowd is for it if it's against Israelis.

And you didn't answer whether you're for or vehemently against what Finkelstein said.

Typical.

Why is it so difficult for you to harshly condemn Finkelstein, Helen Thomas, the UCU antisemites, or Hamas? Do you fear appearing too "zionist" or "rightwing" by doing so? Maybe there's some unwritten rule to never criticize the anti-Israel goon patrol?

If you don't wish to admit they're hateful bigots, why not at least say they're setting efforts for peace BACKWARDS and siding with the most intransigent warmongers?

[Ken Burch]

83. I'm not responsible for Finklestein

My own position is that neither Hezbollah NOR Hamas NOR the IDF have the right to launch unprovoked attacks against anyone. And I apply that to any other military or paramilitary group on the planet.

From what I read of the quote, Finklestein was talking about self-defense. Is it your position that Hezbollah can NEVER truly claim to be acting in self-defense?

[shira]

93. Can't condemn Finkelstein for that hateful, warmongering pro-Hezbollah tripe, can you?

Anyone who thinks Hezbollah fires rockets at civilians in self-defense shouldn't be posting on a liberal board.

[Ken Burch]

98. If they don't fire in self-defense, than Finklestein's statement is moot.

What he said can't be taken as endorsing ALL Hezbollah attacks.

And Finklestein isn't hateful or a warmonger. What's hateful is defending the Occupation AND defending all the years Israel, with no justification whatsoever, had troops in Lebanon, a country it never had any right to invade. What was also hateful was saying nothing about the Israeli enabling(and perhaps invention)of the "South Lebanon Army", a neofascist group whose only objective was to slaughter as may Lebanese Muslims as possible, and an army that virtually never acted in self-defense.

Why are you so obsessed with Finklestein, anyway? It's not as if Hezbollah would have collapsed by now if only Finklestein had denounced it. It's not possible to wipe out Hezbollah by any means-unless someone were to use the tactics Nixon and Kissinger used in Cambodia in 1970-and for the love of God, shira, I hope YOU would denounce something like that.

[shira]

106. You still can't denounce Finkelstein for inciting/cheerleading for Hezbollah rockets on civilians.

Do you think Hezbollah views his words as something OTHER than an endorsement of what they do?

I'm not defending the occupation and I want it to end but I don't want worse to result. You appear to be fine with things getting far worse if Israel were to end the occupation and retreat behind '67 lines without making a peace deal. I'm wondering why you're so for that when it won't help ANYONE besides the most hardline, rightwing extreme Palestinian/Hezbollah type forces.

[Ken Burch]

108. I just proved he wasn't cheerleading for Hezbollah rockets on civilians

He was talking about self-defense. If your position is that nothing Hezbollah does is ever self-defense, than Finklestein's comment is of no importance.

And it's childish to keep demanding denunciations for statements that had no effect on anything. It's not as if Hezbollah would have stopped if it weren't for this one guy. Finklestein does not have the blood of Hezbollah's victims on his hands, because Hezbollah is not basing its choices on what Finklestein says. They would do everything they've done even if Norman Finklestein had never been born.

I'm against what Hezbollah does. THAT ought to be enough. I denounce Hezbollah itself. That ought to be enough.

And maintaining the Occupation does nothing to weaken Hamas or Hezbollah...any more than keeping British troops in Northern Ireland for decades did anything at all to weaken the IRA(which, as you know, it didn't).

The way to end the Occupation AND make peace is to do as much as possible to address the grievances that Palestinians have about what has happened to them.

If you're against RoR, than you need to support not only compensation(and, in the short run, if any Palestinians still have their family bank accounts frozen by the Israeli government because of the events of 1948 you need to support having those accounts unfrozen NOW, because there's no reason to keep those people from having access to their own money, for God's sake)
but also acknowledgment that those who had to leave DID have real roots in Palestine and that they did suffer, and that, in many cases, the suffering was undeserved. And apologies for the suffering need to be made. The crucial thing is to acknowledge common humanity with Palestinians, to admit that they weren't the earthly embodiment of evil, that they weren't and aren't the successors to Hitler. It would help a lot to admit that there was pain, equal pain, on both sides, and to stop pretending that this whole thing was solely the fault of those terrible evil Arabs.

Those are things that would help. And the Israeli government would lose nothing by doing them.

Nothing is guaranteed no matter what you do in life...but it is guaranteed that maintaining the Occupation can't make Palestinians change for the better. Addressing the grievances they do have and admitting that there was mutuality of responsibility would do a lot to weaken the groups like Hamas, who gain support from the perception that many Palestinians have that they simply can never expect the Israeli government to do right by them.

[shira]

110. Oh? Are Hamas rockets self-defense too?

You still haven't told me who gains from an abrupt IDF withdrawal behind '67 lines, which you have favored here for a very long time.

I'm still waiting to hear why this is such a great idea.

[Ken Burch]

113. I laid out other steps that need to happen.

It's not just about the troop withdrawal.

I discussed an entire reconciliation and compensation program that needs to happen. Not just the troop thing.

[shira]

115. You still haven't explained how Hamas/Hezbollah terror is self-defense.

And all those steps in addition to full troop withdrawal behind '67 lines will benefit WHO exactly?

Who's going to see that the refugees get compensation and are released from their ghetto camps?

[Ken Burch]

119. The United States and the UN need to help oversee the compensation

They AND Israel need to deal with the apology and acknowledgment and apology process.
There needs to be a combined effort to help these people find new homes, and they still will need to be allowed some kind of connection with Palestine.

Simply admitting "yes, this WAS your home" would do a lot to help in this situation.

Pulling the troops back(or at least stopping the daily harassment of the whole population)would reduce tensions enormously.

So would legislation forbidding active-duty IDF personnel to live on the settlements.

It's a complicated situation, I agree, but nothing is gained at all from preserving the status quo. Justice cannot grow out of the perpetuation of injustice.

[Ken Burch]

25. I'm not sure what to think of the USU decision

I don't know enough about it yet.

And it was disturbing that you referred to South Africa being "destroyed". I think we saw the mask slip there. Are you going to argue that the world should have settled for simply a less-brutal form of apartheid?

[shira]

34. You read the top articles about the UCU decision and still don't know enough? Are you serious?

What else do you need to know about it? Is this kinda like how you don't know enough to conclude Hamas or Helen Thomas are grossly antisemitic?

:eyes:

The S.Africa regime, just like the Nazi one, needed to be destroyed. No mask slipping there. The ONLY way to stop, dismantle, or 'fix' the Israeli "apartheid" regime is to destroy Israel itself, as well as the Jews and you damned well know it.

[Ken Burch]

99. The article, for one thing, didn't actually say what definition of antisemtism

that UCU was endorsing. I'd have to know that before I actually expressed an opinion. Can you be good enough to tell me what definition of antisemitism they UCU takes? If it's simply saying that criticism of the Israeli government on security policies is not automatically antisemitic, I don't know what the problem is.

[shira]

109. They don't believe ANY criticism of Israel is antisemitic, so that makes Ahmadinejad's remarks...

...only antizionist and not antisemitic without EUMC guidelines.

The EUMC definition states clearly that not all criticism of Israel is automatically antisemitic but that's not good enough for the UCU, which feels ANY criticism of Israel is legit.

[Dick Dastardly]

130. You already did express a number of opinions against Israel and against the definition

before you knew what the definition was.


Here is part of the EU definition


Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

[Ken Burch]

29. The question of whether Israel should exist as currently constituted

has nothing to do with "how liberal Israel is" on internal issues. The question is whether the injustices inflicted on the other national group involved can be rectified while preserving the state of Israel as it currently exists, or whether they can only be rectified through a different constitutional arrangement.

I still think a two-state solution is possible...but it needs to be on the 1967 lines, and with not only compensation but apologies and acknowledgements to those Palestinians not allowed to return(there needs to be an admission that they do have a homeland on the territories in question and that they or there ancestors were not just "generic Arabs" who showed up on the late night bus from Cairo in the spring of 1948 out of pure meanness).

The best way to sabotage a two-state solution, shira, is for those who identify as "pro-Israel" and for the Israeli government themselves to continue to speak and act as if, no matter what, it is impossible and inconceivable for Palestinians to behave with at least civility towards Israel UNLESS Israel has the perpetual economic power of life-or-death over a Palestinian state, the absolute right to have IDF troops stationed eternally within that state, and the ability to override that state's sovereignty and restore the Occupation at will.(all of which, basically, are part of Bibi's "security concept").

Those formerly "pro-Israel" people who moved to support for a unitary state, in my view, have done so largely because they despair of the Israeli government EVER giving up on having dominance over even a separate Palestinian state. The best way to respond to such people is not to label them antisemites(because you know perfectly well that the vast majority of them aren't)but to push Bibi and Tzipi to give up on the insistence that Israel, even after a peace settlement, must have some sort of hegemony over a Palestinian state. A two-state solution needs to mean two states of equal sovereignty, equal dignity, and equal autonomy...not one state having the perpetual power to decide that the other state doesn't get to be a state anymore.

[King_David]

13. Can't follow this post nt

[Ken Burch]

27. It was a series of questions regarding the idea that antizionism somehow always equals

antisemitism.

I was raising issues about circumstances in which people who were taking an anti-Zionist position might not be antisemites at all.

And also pointing out that, in some cases, pushing the "anti-Zionism=antisemitism" idea too far leads to the implication that there is no difference between leftist anti-Nazis and the Nazis themselves.

[King_David]

30. What this poster said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=354458&mesg_id=354477

applies here too.

[LeftishBrit]

50. That was about Ahmadinejad...

Not all anti-Zionists agree with him. There are in fact several reasons for people being anti-Zionist. Many such people are antisemitic, i.e. those who think nationalism is fine for everyone *except* Jews, or who are frankly using 'Zionist' as a code-word. But some are consistent anti-nationalists; and there are a few ultra-Orthodox Jews who think that Israel shouldn't have been created before the coming of the Messiah.

[King_David]

55. Yes I agree with ALL you said , ( in this post :) ) nt

[Ken Burch]

85. When Ahmadinejad expresses hostility to Israel's existence, he IS being an antisemite

When people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or Norman Finklestein suggests alternatives to the current arrangements, they aren't.

Because the latter three worked or are working for a world in which EVERYONE lives in peace, freedom, justice and equality, and Admadinejad is about nothing but hatred.

So no, not all anti-Zionists are the same-any more than Elizabeth I and Gene Simmons of "KISS" are the same because they both wore white face paint.

[King_David]

121. I know how important it is to you (almost obsessively so )

But the evidence is, that most anti zionism is cloaked and coded antisemitism.

its not even up for discussion and I ain't debating this obscenity any further.

[King_David]

39. Yes correct,Far left always meets Far right in the circle,

And they usually meet up in their Jew hatred,antsemitism or if you prefer code :antizionism.

[Ken Burch]

40. Why do you assume that not supporting Zionism means a person hates Jews?

Would you make it a universal, then that a person can only prove that she or he doesn't hate a particular religious/cultural/ethnic group is to support the nationalist movement that claims to speak in the name of that group?

By that logic, you're an anti-Serb if you didn't support Slobodan Milosevic.

I personally do support Israel's right to exist(provided that the Palestinian right to self-determination is also fulfilled) but it's absurd to say that I, or anyone else, can can only be proven to be free of the taint of antisemitism by doing so.

[shira]

45. It's safe to assume that anyone who doesn't believe Hamas or Helen Thomas is antisemitic...

...or that the recent UCU decision isn't either, is not someone whose opinion or beliefs can be trusted on any matters pertaining to Jews.

[Ken Burch]

49. An antisemite is a person who hates Jews and advocates that harm be done to them

You can at least disagree with the idea that Helen Thomas is antisemtic or that the UCU decision is antisemitic(and, btw, the issue with Hamas isn't about whether or not it's "antisemitic"-your hero Hosni Mubarak is as antisemitic as anyone else and never did anything while in power to protect Egyptian Jews or to fight against antisemitism in Egyptian life-it's how to deal with them in terms of ending the war, and whether to negotiate with them or to carry on the hopeless strategy of trying to crush everybody in Gaza until Hamas goes away. You don't have to think well of Hamas to support negotiations, you simply have to be seriously interested in ending the conflict) without having to draw accusations or insinuations of antisemitism yourself.

[shira]

52. You don't build trust with Jews and most Israelis by pretending antisemitism doesn't exist. n/t

[Ken Burch]

82. Agreed. Which is why I DON'T pretend any such thing.

n/t.

[shira]

94. You don't find Hamas to be grossly antisemitic or Helen Thomas' or Finkelstein's comments.

That's pretending, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

96. I never said that Hamas wasn't antisemitic

Only that it's impossible to end the conflict without negotiating with them. There's a difference.

Finklestein spoke only of Hezbollah having the right to act in self-defense(everyone has the right to act in self-defense).

Helen Thomas simply doesn't matter.

Enough already with the bogus litmus tests. You don't have to regard Norman Finklestein as an enemy of the world's Jewish communities to prove you're not an antisemite. You simply have to oppose discrimination against people who are Jewish and fight against the persecution of Jewish people...that is enough.

[shira]

107. Is Hamas grossly antisemitic? .

Hezbollah does nothing to protect anyone with their tactics to hide behind the Lebanese population and fire rockets at Israeli civilians.

When they do that, without provocation, they goad the IDF into returning fire and THEN they expect people like yourself to explain how what they do is "self defense".

Why is it so difficult for you to denounce Finkelstein and Thomas?

[Ken Burch]

116. Why do I HAVE to denounce Finklestein?

What real freaking difference does it make? Finklestein was only talking about self-defense.

If you're taking the position that NOTHING Hezbollah does is actually self-defense, than his statement is moot.

Nothing he said made any difference in terms of anything Hezbollah actually does.

And I denounced Hezbollah itself. Why can't you leave it at that?

Helen Thomas simply doesn't matter. She's an old woman who was goaded into saying a stupid thing, for which she apologized. That should end it as far as she goes.

I'm against banning Balad because it wouldn't help anything. They'd just form another party that said the same thing and it would get the same vote. What, exactly, would be achieved by this?

Banning Kach didn't stop Kahanism, as far as that goes. It lives on in Beitenyu and in other parties.

What I object to is your "you have to denounce the ones I want denounced" thing. It's childish and does nothing to combat actual antisemitism. If I did denounce Finklestein, nothing would be changed anywhere.

[Shaktimaan]

124. and THERE is your problem...

I couldn't figure out your reasoning at all until I read this "An antisemite is a person who hates Jews and advocates that harm be done to them"

You see, that is ONE, rather extreme definition of anti-semitism, true, but it is far from a comprehensive one. Racism and bigotry are rarely as straightforward or all-encompassing as a definition like this would lead you to believe.

It's no wonder you find so little anti-semitism in the world today, since your standard for what constitutes "anti-semitism" is so stringent that anyone left of a 40's German stormtrooper would fail with flying colors.

Look at it this way... would you say that someone must hate blacks and want to lynch them before they can be labeled a racist? Under your benchmark "separate but equal" isn't even a racist doctrine.

[King_David]

56. Ultra Orthodox Jews are not antisemitic

its a religious thing.

Most other antizionists are though (except complete antinationalists)

And its been proven over and over , look at Helen Thomas = QED.

[Ken Burch]

86. I don't think it has been proven.

Besides, weirdly enough, a lot of antisemites SUPPORTED the creation of Israel(like Arthur Balfour, who wanted a Judenrein Britain).

I don't support a single-state solution, but most of those who do in Europe or North America, in my view, do so because they despair of the Israeli government ever ceasing its efforts to make life as miserable as possible for Palestinians and are convinced that Israel will only accept a Palestinian state that is too small and bisected by settlements to survive, thus leading, in the end, to Palestinians being forced to accept the disgusting choice of statelessness or exile.

If you want to stop people supporting a single state, then you need to be pushing the Israeli government to clear out the West Bank settlements, offering not only compensation but acknowledgment AND apologies to those pushed out in 1967 and 1948, and accepting that the Palestinian state must NOT have to accept IDF troops being permanently stationed in the Jordan River Valley. Among other things.

The hardliners in the Israeli government are not protecting Israel, Israelis, or Jewish people in the Dispora. And those groups need to unite with progressive activist everywhere to resist the destructive policies of that government. This doesn't have to mean becoming anti-Zionist, but it does mean accepting the reality that a Palestinian state, if and when it does come into existence, must not be forced to live as the mercy of the Israeli military.

[King_David]

90. 'The hardliners in the Israeli government are not protecting Israel, Israelis, or Jewish people '

I know,the Jewish state does that.

If only it existed at the beginning of the last Centuary there would be 20 Million Jews worldwide today instead of 12 Million.

[Ken Burch]

95. Not true

The existence of Israel would not have stopped the Holocaust.

Here's why

1)Most of the world's Jewish population would not have chosen to live in such a state prior to Hitler's ascension to power. Zionism was a minority cause among most of the Diaspora until 1945, and remained so among the Mizrahi until 1948.
Had they felt they could remain in their homes after 1948, it's unlikely that the Mizrahi would ever have supported Zionism(they generally saw it as something that only the Askenazim were interested in, if they knew or cared about it at all).

2)The existence of Israel wouldn't have saved the Jewish population of Europe in the 1933-1945. There would still have had to have been some way to get them Israeli passports, and THEN you'd have had to trust Hitler to have honored those passports and just let them leave Europe. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that Hitler would ever have done this.

3)Even if everyone in Europe had made it to Israel, that still wouldn't have helped because Hitler would simply have had the Luftwaffe carpet-bomb the place into oblivion...and, sickeningly, neither the U.S. nor any of the countries of Europe would have done anything to stop him. The only reason the Jewish population of the Mandate was left unscathed was that it was more or less part of the British Empire and this gave the British government a strategic reason to defend it militarily.

The only chance to have prevented the Shoah(other than getting the U.S. and Britain to move against Hitler as soon as he took power, as they should have done) would have been for the North American countries to have taken in the Jewish population of Europe as refugees...but they both refused to do that, to their everlasting shame.

So, while there are cases for supporting the creation of Israel(had it been done without displacing or harming the Palestinians)preventing the Holocaust isn't one of them. It would have made no difference.

[King_David]

120. Can not think of anyone within the community academic or otherwise

that would agree with your asessment.

[Shaktimaan]

123. wow

Why is it unthinkable to admit that the issue of antisemitism should be divorced from the question of whether the existence of the State of Israel is necessary?

Just, wow. Are you truly so naive?

Because such a question is so suffused with anti-semitism that to do so would defy logic. To argue against Israel's existence is to single out a small, historically persecuted nationality and abolish its right to self-determination on specious grounds and in terms never considered for any other states, EVER, regardless of the circumstances.

Anti-semitism can't be divorced from your question because it is the sole rationale for the existence of the question.

-----

In the UN, Israel alone is denied rights afforded to every other member state. It alone has formal restrictions placed on it, preventing it from participating in UN issues to the same degree as every other member state. No other state in the history of the UN has ever had a ruling passed equating it's nationalism to racism. Every other state but Israel is allowed a rotating slot on the Security Council.

Do you feel that any of the above facts are due to reasons divorced from anti-semitism?

[shira]

37. Are you antisemitic? Flowchart...

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/are-you-antisemtic/

[Never Stop Dancin]

54. excellent

it should be mandatory that each poster run through this flowchart before each post

[King_David]

57. I do nt

[azurnoir]

61. the flow chart in it's first step takes care to conflate Jews and Israel

but it must be so self salving for some here so....... enjoy

[shira]

64. When's the last time Israel's harshest critics focused their disgust on non-Jews in Israel?

Or non-Jewish policies, actions, groups of non-Jews?

Never.

Criticism is aimed 100% of the time at 80% of Israel's population that just happens to be Jewish - never at the other 20%.

[azurnoir]

66. thanks for confirming that under your defination criticism of Israel is antisemitism

it would indeed match that of the flow chart

[shira]

72. Show me where you criticize non-Jews or non-Jewish politics within Israel. n/t

[azurnoir]

77. so its ok to criticize nonJewish Israel's but not the Jewish Israeli's ?

really I have seen non Jewish Israeli's criticized here over their meeting with Gaddafi for instance

[shira]

79. Criticize both, but we know that's not happening...

...so it shouldn't be any wonder some of the nastiest criticism of Israel appears to be Jew bashing.

[LeftishBrit]

69. Non-Jews in Israel are not on the whole those with the political power

So political criticisms of the Israeli government and others in power will on the whole involve Jews. Certainly there are exceptions, e.g. Majalli Wahabi.

I think there is a difference between criticism of Israeli policies and criticism of Israel's existence. The latter is often antisemitic, especially if combined with the implication that Israel is the *only* country that shouldn't exist, or is controlling the policies of *other* countries; the former usually not, unless just being used as an excuse for the latter.

[shira]

73. There are non-Jewish politicians, political groups, and rightwingers in Israel...

...but the critics choose to bash only the Jewish politicians, political groups, rightwingers AND leftwingers.

[Ken Burch]

89. The criticism has gone to the invidivuals who were running the government

Should they automatically have been exempt simply because of how they self-identified?

Your position on this would only be valid if people had said "Look, if Bibi was a good Irish Catholic boy, we'd be cool with everything he does".

[shira]

100. How about criticizing the Balad Party for advocating terror vs. Israel, welcoming Iran's influence,

....into Palestinian politics/military tactics, expressing solidarity with Hezbollah in 2006 during the war, and calling for a one-state bloodbath?

You don't have any problem with those things?

You think that's good for Israel's Arabs trying to integrate within Israel and work cooperatively with the Jews of Israel? It helps to build trust b/w Israelis when Balad mimics Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO's far rightwing, extreme warmongering and illiberal talking points?

[Ken Burch]

101. Fine, I denouce Balad for doing that.

Balad is a tiny opposition party in the Knesset, though, and will always sit on the opposition benches. Most Israeli Arabs oppose them and, as far as I know, they only hold about three or four seats. How much do they really matter?

The best way to fight them is to end all remaining discrimination against Israeli Arabs and to stop treating all Israeli Arabs as Fifth Columnists until individually proven otherwise. Backing off the silly proposals to ban the word "Nakba" would also help...it serves no purpose to deny these people the right to commemorate what they see as an injustice done against them.

Ceasing to tear down the harmless Bedouin villages in the Negev would be another step, and wouldn't compromise Israeli security in the slightest. If you want to argue that Arabs are living as equals in Israel, than they need to be allowed to live wherever they wish to live in Israel. And if they want to build a town on empty land...just go with it. If nobody else is living on the land, what difference does it make?

It would also be good if the Knesset were to pass a resolution apologizing for the fact that Israeli Arabs, for the first seventeen years of Israel's history, were forced to live under martial law. I salute the Israeli progressives of the 1960's who stood up and changed that...but there still needs to be an admission that it was wrong.

Those steps would do far more to stop Balad than the anti-democratic step you want to see of having the party banned. All banning Balad would do would be to drive people who support it to work by less honorable means...and it's always better to have people working politically rather than violently, because if they're working politically it's at least possible to reason with them.

[shira]

111. So Kach should be banned, but not Balad? Why? n/t

[Ken Burch]

102. Related post to the other post I just made...

In practical terms, is what Balad has done, as a tiny opposition party, anywhere near as important as what Bibi does every day as prime minister or what Tzipi did when she inflicted Operation Cast Lead on Gaza?

In ANY country, aren't the actions of the government, whatever that government may be or whoever may lead it, inherently more important than the actions of the political opposition, especially a small splinter of the opposition like Balad?

It seems strange that you feel that they should be treated as equally important.

[shira]

114. I didn't say what the Israeli gov't does and what Balad does should be treated equally...

...only that Israel bashers never spend any time at all denouncing what Balad does to make things worse WRT Israeli Jewish/Arab relations.

[Ken Burch]

118. You seem to be saying that people have to denounce Balad to have the privilege

Of criticizing what Bibi does and what Tzipi did. Why?

I don't like Balad and support a fierce democratic campaign against them. That is more than enough.

[Ken Burch]

88. shira, if Israel had a Christian, Buddhist, or athiest prime minister

who was doing what Bibi is doing, we'd be criticizing that person just as fiercely.

I mean, come one, has ANYBODY ever said "if only Sharon was a Lutheran, the settlements would be fine"?

[bemildred]

117. Reminds me of the Arian heresy somehow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy

[shaayecanaan]

132. It rather does, actually...

A dispute of tremendous import to those who actually bother with the arcana of the subject under discussion. Big ideas, small people.

It also reminds me of a particular incident that I was witness to about 15-odd years ago in the UK, just after Israel launched the Operation Grapes of Wrath campaign. There was a rally and of course the inevitable counter rally by people for and against Israel's actions.

There was a contingent of Irish republicans who had a banner saying "True Irish patriots stand with Palestine" or somesuch, and underneath it was a group of six people or so singing Irish rebel songs. They were performing one song in particular called "Fuck the British Army" that was quite a well-known favourite, with lyrics going something like this:-

"When I was young I had a twist
of punching babies with my fist
my old man said I should enlist
and join the British army

Tooraloo, tooraloo
they're looking for monkeys up in the zoo
and if I had a face like you
I'd join the British army"

Predictably enough, given the occasion the performers simply substituted the word "Israeli" instead of "British" - so now the song was "Fuck the Israeli Army" with necessary changes.

Well, this got a huge reaction from the pro-Israel people who were gathered there. One of them made exhaustive inquiries at the scene to see if anyone had recorded sound or video of the event, although as it turned out no one had, as this was all before the age of smartphones. It took a while for me to figure out that they were excited that someone had sung a song comparing Israeli soldiers to monkeys, and implying that they liked to punch babies, which was obviously fertile ground for opportunistic accusations of anti-semitism. Of course, you soon figure out that the main sport at these rallies is trying to provoke some outburst from the other side that will look bad once published. Sure enough, a few letters were sent in, I think it got a write-up in a student newspaper somewhere. One remark in a letter was "How can Jews feel accepted when they are being compared to monkeys and apes?"

Of course, had the Palestinians had the good fortune of being colonised by WASPs (like everyone else in the New World) they could sing colourful and wounding ditties all they liked, just like the Irish. Unfortunately for them, they have been colonised by a people about whom Westerners are very sensitive and for whom a very low threshold exists regarding anything colourful or wounding. There's nothing to be done about it, of course, but I imagine for the Palestinians it must be very chafing at times.

FWIW.

[shira]

125. BDS leader finds nothing objectionable about Hamas antisemitic/genocidal charter

Basically the problem in a nutshell WRT Israel's harshest critics....
http://cifwatch.com/2011/06/10/in-new-email-exchange-jim-bollan-claims-to-have-read-hamas-charter-finds-nothing-objectionable-about-anti-semitic-sections/

It's like pulling teeth to extract an honest answer out of these "critics" of Israel.

Finally when they answer they prove their malicious, bigoted Nazi style intent.

They're proud of it - and why not - they know they can get away with it.

Sick fucks.

[shira]

126. Shuttering of Yale program on anti-Semitism raises hackles

Did Yale’s program on anti-Semitism die a natural death from lack of academic vigor, as the university says? Should it have been saved, as two major Jewish groups are arguing?

Or was it killed for being politically incorrect about Muslim anti-Semitism, as alleged by others?

<snip>

http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/shuttering_of_yale_program_on_anti-semitism_raises_hackles_20110610/

Imagine a university shutting down a program WRT racism vs. blacks for the same reason.

Nauseating.

[shira]

127. Italy against the Jews

The first months of 2011 have confirmed Italy’s status as one of Iran’s biggest European trade partners, all while the ayatollahs pursue the means to perpetuate a second Holocaust. Rome is doing business as usual with the greatest totalitarian threat to international peace and security since the defeats of Soviet communism and Nazi fascism, providing a lifeline to an Iranian regime that is cruel at home, sponsors terror abroad and preaches anti-Jewish revolt.

Meanwhile, a murky wave of anti-Israel zeal is also growing at an alarming rate in Italy. “The old anti-Jewish libels are now aimed at the State of Israel”, says Stefano Gatti, one of the top researchers at the Center for Documentation in Milan.

Pro-Palestinian activists are threatening to “ignite” Milan, the financial capital of Italy where an Israeli exhibit is going displayed in a central square. Meanwhile, the city of Turin hosted a “cultural festival” where the image of Shimon Peres was used as a shoe-throwing target. For one euro, Italian students had the chance to hit the face of Israel’s president, who was fitted with a Nazi-style Jewish nose. An Israeli student at the University of Genoa has been harassed and threatened with death by Arab students. Muslim students shouted at him “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and “Itbach el Yahud” (slaughter the Jews.) Another Israeli student at the University of Turin, Amit Peer, confessed that “the Jews here are hiding their own identity because they risk becoming a target.”

Meanwhile, demonization of the Jews is spreading in the liberal media. Leftist newspaper “Il Manifesto” published a caricature of a Jewish candidate for parliament, Fiamma Nirenstein, with Fascist insignia, a campaign button and a Star of David. The cartoon “Electoral Monsters” was dubbed “Fiamma Frankenstein.” L’Unità, the official newspaper of the leftist Democratic Party, published an interview with anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes, where she claimed that Israel is a world leader in organ trafficking. The accusation resembled that of the Middle Ages blood libel whereby Jews were accused of kidnapping Christian and Muslim children before Passover in order to murder them and use their blood for matza.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4081264,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

128. There are real problems in Italy, but please do not quote Meotti as an authority

He is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As I posted elsewhere:


'Giulio Meotti is certainly no man of peace. He is a vicious spreader of the 'Eurabia' myth, claiming that western secularism, low birth rates and permissive immigration policies (which are by no means really all that permissive) are leading to a Muslim takeover of Europe. This is just as vile as (and fundamentally quite similar to) the antisemitic conspiracy theories of Helen Thomas and her ilk that imply that 'Zionists' own the White House, Hollywood and the media. When someone spreads this sort of vile propaganda, it's hard to take them seriously on anything else. He is not Israeli or Jewish, which is not of course in itself a reason for being suspicious of his views on Israel-related matters - but in his case, reading much of what he has written, it does seem that he is using Israel and the problem of antisemitism as pawns in a far-right Europaean anti-'multiculturalism' cause, similar to that of Geert Wilders.'

I would add to this that he has made vicious attacks on progressive Israelis such as Oz and Grossman, calling them 'immoral', etc.

The situation in Italy *is* worrying. There has been some resurgence of the far-right, against Gypsies and immigrants most of all, but inevitably a threat to Jews. While Italy is not the worst country in Europe for antisemitism (Eastern Europe tends to be the worst from that point of view), it's not the best either, and a significant number of people hold antisemitic views:

http://www.adl.org/presRele/ASInt_13/4726_13.htm

(This survey was done before the economic crisis, so things are likely to be even worse now.)

But supporting right-wing xenophobes will only increase this problem, as well as others.

[shira]

129. Loved on both the antiracist left and by open antisemites – Latuff

Carlos Latuff, the Brazilian cartoonist who won second prize in Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial talent show, has now been legitimised, praised and embraced in the Guardian....

The BBC too is bigging up the antisemitic cartoonist.

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/loved-by-both-the-antiracist-left-and-by-open-antisemitism-latuff/

[shira]

133. When Anti-Zionism becomes Anti-Semitism

http://propagandistmag.com/2011/09/02/when-anti-zionism-becomes-anti-semitism

Israel - the Middle East's only Western democracy, which provides equality for all citizens regardless of politics, religion or ethnicity - is described by these Khomeinist "activists" as a cancer. And that's not the least of it.

This video was taken at the annual Al-Quds rally at Queen's Park in Toronto on August 28, 2011.

Disgusting.