A crude attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism

[durutti]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/zion-d22.shtml

A recent article in the British newspaper, the Guardian, provides a noxious example of the concerted effort being orchestrated by the Zionist political establishment to rubbish all criticism of its murderous policy towards the Palestinian people.

In an op-ed piece headlined Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism: behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of the Jews, Emanuele Ottolenghi attempts to equate any opposition to Zionism and the colonial policies of the Israeli state with hatred of the Jewish people in general and the infamous and reactionary anti-Semitism of the Nazis in particular.

Ottolenghi holds an unpaid post at the privately endowed Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Anthony’s College, Oxford. But by no stretch of the imagination can his article be described as a scholarly piece of work. His is an attempt on behalf of Israel’s international backers to silence opposition to Ariel Sharon’s regime and to legitimise its Greater Israel policy and brutality towards a people who bear absolutely no responsibility for the Holocaust, which is evoked by Ottolenghi as a bludgeon against Zionism’s opponents.

His article offers total indemnity for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians and a carte blanche for Sharon to do whatever he likes. Using the politics of amalgam, Ottolenghi links anyone who criticises the Israeli state with anti-Semitism, irrespective of their political views. As far as Ottolenghi is concerned it is impermissible to note that Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians are reminiscent of those employed by the Nazis. Such an equation between victims and murderers, he says, denies the Holocaust. “Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification for the Holocaust: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got,” he continued.

[The Magistrate]

1. Equating Israel And The Reich, Sir

Is an impudent propagandist's ploy, establishing nothing but the ignorance and lack of moral seriousness of the cretin who makes the attempt.

This is not a thing to defend, Mr. Durruti....

[MikeGalos]

2. Bravo

The kind of drivel posted in this article isn't worthy of serious discussion and would likely sicken the bird who's cage it lined.

[Resistance]

6. which part was drivel, exactly?

[Resistance]

4. from the article

"To acknowledge this (a striking resemblance) is not to equate the criminal actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians with the Holocaust, which was on a far greater scale of barbarism."

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Are you actually trying to defend this?

[Resistance]

18. defend what?

The author states clearly: "not to equate the criminal actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians with the Holocaust" yet the Magistrate has criticized the author for "Equating Israel and the Reich".

I pointed out what the Magistrate apparently missed. There is a problem with doing so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Before this post is deleted

I just wanted to say what a piece of despicable garbage this article was.

For an article that complains about the link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semtisim, it practically handcuffs the two concepts together with the bigotry that spews from its paragraphs.

[Resistance]

5. Where was the bigotry exactly?

[MikeGalos]

9. To quote Skinner

"Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis. Use of these terms is considered inflammatory and should be avoided. "

I'd say this qualifies.

That you defend it is, frankly, dispicable.

[Resistance]

10. Where was the bigotry exactly?

[Clark Edwards]

11. Please re-read Durutti's article

I don't have the time to outline all of the instances of bigotry because save for a couple of paragraphs, the entire article is bigotry, pure and simple.

[Resistance]

12. ah, gotcha

so the entire thing is bigotry; however it's too hard to pick out a single example

:crazy:

[MikeGalos]

13. If you can't figure it out

perhaps the rules for this forum need longer explanations of what is TOO bigoted to be allowed.

[Resistance]

15. actually

the article is about the "concerted effort being orchestrated by the Zionist political establishment to rubbish all criticism of its murderous policy towards the Palestinian people" - which is a fairly accurate charge.

Since you can't come up with any actual examples of bigotry, it doesn't seem you have got a particularly strong case to make, now does it?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. This is way over the top

For the record, here is the discussion on the Ottolenghi piece.

I didn't agree with everything Ottolenghi had to say, but it was a thoughtful piece on the subject deserving of a better critique than this.

Unquestionably one of the most potent factors re-igniting anti-Semitism today is the brutal methods adopted by the Israeli government under Sharon.

Unquestionably there would be anti-Semitism even if Israel disappeared tomorrow. Projecting fear and loathing on a minority group is as old as the hills, and Jews have been a particularly favorite target for centuries. Sharon's crimes are a pretext for anti-Semitism, not a cause of it.

[bemildred]

16. Yeah.

Mr. Klug certainly presented this point of view in a much
more thoughtful way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=37917&mesg_id=37917

[Resistance]

17. I don't think that assessment is fair either, JR

OTOH, the author goes on to write: "One can only combat such a noxious development by advancing a principled opposition to both the Zionist state and to those, such as the Islamic fundamentalists and Arab bourgeois leaders, who employ populist anti-Semitism to manipulate political discontent."

Obviously, Jean Shaoul is against anti-Semitism and isn't making a defense of it at all.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. I didn't say he was making a defense of anti-Semitism

He was merely making a boneheaded assessment of it.

Furthermore, while I will take a back seat to none here in condemning of General Sharon's crimes, not even you, Mr. Resistance, I know the difference between what is essential to Zionism and what is accidental to it. Sharon's misdeeds are accidental. They are not necessary to maintain a Jewish state.

[Resistance]

20. I should have been clearer

I meant to say that I don't think the author's assessment is particularly fair, referring to the passage you cited. As a general rule, I'd rather we drop attempts to explain occurrences of anti-semitism -- a principle I feel we should also apply to anti-arabism or anti-Asianism, etc.

Moving on, I'll just add here that I think the rest of the article is pretty much on target. Equating opposition to Zionism with anti-semitism is mostly an attempt to stifle criticism of Israel's aggression. Criticizing Israel is no indication whatsoever of anti-semitic motivations, and the attempt to do so is really offensive to one's intelligence. People are smarter than that: they know the difference between criticizing the brutal policies of a government and the people that govt contends that it represents.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. Thank you for clarifying, but still I disagree

This piece is simply a boilerplate leftist critique of Israel. It's pretty unimaginative and impractical stuff. It cannot form the basis of any permanent agreement to end the conflict.

The leftist critique of Israel is based on the notion that Israel was founded by displacing Arabs. That's not entirely untrue. However, even if bringing Israel into existence was a bad idea, it's not going to be undone with the wave of a hand. The leftist critique seems to take for granted that the only solution worth pursuing is that of a democratic bi-national state. While I will disagree that such a solution is necessarily anti-Semitic, let's recognize that it's not going to fly with most Israelis. The Jewish people have a long history of being victims and believe, rightly or wrongly, that the only way to assure that such persecution will be alleviated is to have a state where they are the majority.

So, regardless of how it came about, the reality is that there are over five million Jews in the Levant and they want their Jewish state. That Jewish state exists and isn't going away. That's the first thing with which a realistic assessment must deal. The boilerplate leftist critique of the Middle East falls short of this.

The second problem with the leftist critique is that is assumes that what monstrous acts Sharon commits are essential to the success of Zionism. This is not true. What Sharon does, or at least what he has done up to now, is essential to annexing the Palestinian Territories to Israel, but not to the survival of a Jewish state. Indeed, annexing the Territories would make the survival of Israel as a state that is at once Jewish and democratic impossible; it would be a betrayal of the Zionist dream. Consequently, Sharon's crimes should not be used to condemn Zionism per se. Recent history warrants the condemnation the Likud Party program, but that's quite different from condemning the whole of Zionism.

Israel can survive very nicely as a Jewish democracy within her recognized borders. Her survival does not hinge on the success of the Greater Israel project and her chances for prosperity and for her citizens to enjoy democratic freedoms would be greatly enhanced if that project were abandoned, the sooner the better. The rest of the Levant should be given over to the Palestinians and a Palestinian state declared.

There are also problems within Palestinian society that make reaching a peace accord difficult, but those can be discussed elsewhere. Let us suffice to say that they are not insurmountable.

The leftist ideology may find a single, democratic bi-national state the most pleasing solution. Fine and well. In a more perfect world, it might be worth more time to discuss. However, reality isn't a perfect world; it dictates that we seek a solution involving two separate states west of the Jordan, one for each nation that exists there. Any boilerplate critique from ideologues that ignores the real world is doomed to become a mere historical footnote.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

26. thank you...

"Any boilerplate critique from ideologues that ignores the real world is doomed to become a mere historical footnote."...

that is a quotable quote...

[Saudade]

21. Anti-semitism

The attempt to paint anti-zionism as anti-semiticism is necessarily dishonest because it isn't logical.

The irony is that over-use of a term like "anti-semiticism" in fact renders the term meaningless. Worse, the dishonest over-use of the term for political purposes (e.g., to silence very legitimate criticism of Israeli policies) tends to suggest that there is no such thing as real anti-semiticism, that it is only a political tool (like a blunt intstrument).

The result of all this is to spread anti-semiticism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Next time anyone complains about my assessment

Of WSWS, please remember the blatant bigotry and Nazi imagery of this piece.

[brainshrub]

24. Can you give an example

of blatant bigotry & Nazi imagery in this piece?

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not only bigotry

"One does not have to deny the extermination of European Jewry in the Nazi gas chambers to say that Israel’s dispossession, subjugation and enclosure of the Palestinian people bears a striking resemblance to the policies of the Nazis towards the Jews, Poles, gypsies, other ethnic minorities and political opponents."

But it expressly violates DU policies.

[Resistance]

28. 'scuse me

The author specifically states the following: "not to equate the criminal actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians with the Holocaust, which was on a far greater scale of barbarism"

I posted this above, and of course, it's in the article itself. You must have overlooked it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. I didn't overlook it

It is much the same as saying, "The Israelis are Nazis." And then backpeddling ever so slightly by adding, "Well, not exactly Nazis, but almost."

And, of course, either way, it is a violation of written DU rules to make that comparison. And also to post it.

[Resistance]

33. Huh?

So, when someone says we should "not equate the criminal actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians with the Holocaust", that is the same as saying "Israelis are Nazis"????

:crazy:

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Excerpts

You need to cite the whole passage now, don't you, not just the backpeddling.

[Resistance]

35. It is clear to anyone who can read

what the whole passage says.

The author makes a specific point not to equate Israeli actions with the Holocaust, yet you insist on saying that he really means to equate Israelis with Nazis. Your insistence just doesn't make any sense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Again, note that SEVERAL people disagree with you

Including Jack. Since Jack and I don't often end up on the same side of things, you might take note that you are defending that which cannot and should not be defended.

[Resistance]

37. wow, people disagree with me

therefore I must be wrong :crazy:

Of course, the exchange between Jack and I has nothing to do with showing how the writer saying to "not equate Israeli actions with the Holocaust" really means "Israelis are Nazis"

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Not all they said

"One does not have to deny the extermination of European Jewry in the Nazi gas chambers to say that Israel’s dispossession, subjugation and enclosure of the Palestinian people bears a striking resemblance to the policies of the Nazis towards the Jews, Poles, gypsies, other ethnic minorities and political opponents."

[Resistance]

39. back to square one

you've got no case.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Square One

Was a square someplace in Berlin. That's where this article AND WSWS belong.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. No need to drag me into this

But I'll bite, if it helps clarify things.

First of all, my disagreements with the article are for entirely different reasons than yours.

Nevertheless, you are correct in stating that the author made Nazi comparisons. He says, in a nutshell, that the acts are like in kind but not in scale.

The mods may have something to say about whether anyone violated the rules or not. Keep in mind that the rules are for us, not for the authors of articles. If there is a careless use of a loaded word or a gratutous historical comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany in the article, the moderator must weigh that against whether there is anything beneficial in the article that might be discussed.

As a past a moderator on this forum, I'll just say that things like this used to give me fits. These were the toughest calls I had to make.

Also, last time I checked, WSWS was not a prohibited source. It is not an overtly racist site, like those listed in Franklin's Hate Directory. While I have problem with many rightwing sites often used as sources here, including the Jerusalem Post, I wouldn't proscribe them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Didn't drag you in

But we agree so rarely, I thought it fit.

You said it: "Nevertheless, you are correct in stating that the author made Nazi comparisons. He says, in a nutshell, that the acts are like in kind but not in scale."

And I would proscribe them. This is just the latest reason.

[brainshrub]

29. Does it?

Does it bear a striking resemblance?

Note the author did not accuse Jews of being Nazis...he states that Israel bears a striking resemblance.

There is no violation of the rules here, your just uncomfortable with the truth that IT DOES bear a striking resemblance.

[Resistance]

30. you'll notice

this is yet another false charge of bigotry, with not a single example produced so far. There is a reason we shouldn't expect any examples to be forthcoming any time soon: They simply aren't there.

Mike Galos: "The kind of drivel posted in this article isn't worthy of serious discussion"

I ask which part was drivel. No response. :shrug:

Muddle: "what a piece of despicable garbage this article was"

I ask where is the bigotry. No response. :shrug:

Galos jumps in: "That you defend it is, frankly, dispicable."

I repeat my query, asking where is the bigotry. No response. :shrug:

Clark Edwards jumps in: "the entire article is bigotry, pure and simple."

Still no specific example. :shrug:

Galos jumps in again: "perhaps the rules for this forum need longer explanations of what is TOO bigoted"

Still no example of bigotry. :shrug:

Muddle, later on says: "please remember the blatant bigotry"

Brainshrub writes: "Can you give an example of blatant bigotry"

No example. :shrug:

Can't say that we didn't try.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. A striking resemblance

If I posted that the author of this thread bears "a striking resemblance" to the people who this article claims ISRAEL bears a striking resemblance, I would be banned and rightly so.

Just the same, the author and the site cited here are both in blatant violation of DU's rules.

[Lithos]

44. Muddle, all

DU Administrators and DU moderators are the ones who decide how the rules are to be adjudicated. We are fully aware of the issues surrounding this article. Both UGRR and myself have given this thread extra attention because of the potential for abuse.

When this article was originally published here on DU, we read it and decided that while it covered material and language which has proven too inflamatory for discussion on DU, it spent much more time discussing the basis for today's anti-semitism. It effectively covers most of the ongoing debate.

Also, while the author does rebutt several of Mr. Ottolonghi's claims, there are also several points where the author fails his own criteria for providing proof for some of his statements. Again, unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims actually seems to follow much of the ongoing debate. The only way to break this is to have a reasoned discussion to bring out these facts

It was this basis which formed our conscious decision to allow this post to remain.

In a nutshell this article covers much of landscape concerning anti-Semitism and the I/P conflict. Yes, it covers material which has proven too insensitive and inflammatory for DU, but most people have followed DU guidelines and focused on the more mainstream issues.

[Resistance]

25. we'll remember alright

we'll remember how you and others smeared this particular piece without showing any specific bigotry whatsoever.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Asked and answered

And appalled by this piece and WSWS in general.

I'm thinking of adding that WSWS quote to my sig line.

[Resistance]

45. where was the bigotry, exactly?

you still haven't answered.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. I have

You haven't read the thread.

[Resistance]

47. no you haven't

You've repeatedly ignored my requests - now where is it? If it's there it would be easy enough to cite at least something