Trust your scribe to be hit by a temporary block. It's a good job how then it's not necessary to say something when someone else does it better. And so, in that spirit I recommend Daniel Finn's excellent article about what happened.
And here's a discussion from last night about yesterday's events.
33 comments:
It is quite possible to feel sorry for RLB – and to doubt that she is personally an antisemite – whilst recognising that she’s been an idiot and that Starmer, operating in the real world, had no choice but to sack her (not least because the EHRC’s report into antisemitism in the party is on its way, and expected to be highly critical).
For a start, RLB actually has a rather better record on antisemitism than Jeremy Corbyn and many of the immediate Corbynite circle: she backed the party adopting the IHRC’s definition of antisemitism when most Corbynistas were opposing it, for instance.
Both Peake and RLB seem to have based their comments on an article that appeared in the June 2 (print) / June 1 (electronic) edition of the Morning Star that seeks to link the death of George Floyd with Israeli training: “OFFICERS from the US police force responsible for the killing of George Floyd received training in restraint techniques and anti-terror tactics from Israeli law-enforcement agencies”.
The article produces little evidence for the suggestion that Israeli forces taught the Minnesota police the kneeling on the neck “technique” that killed George Floyd, apart from a single, unsubstantiated, statement from Nat Golan, “the co-founder of International Solidarity Movement”, who says he’s seen Israeli soldiers doing it during the West Bank protest of 2006, and an alleged “report” from Amnesty. The latter have now clarified the fact that while condemning Israeli brutality in the West Bank, they have never investigated, or reported on, specific techniques used by Israeli forces and have never linked Israel to the death of George Floyd.
The Morning Star is probably the leading promoter of “left” antisemitism within he British labour movement and the UK left.
«RLB actually has a rather better record on antisemitism than Jeremy Corbyn and many of the immediate Corbynite circle: she backed the party adopting the IHRC’s definition of antisemitism when most Corbynistas were opposing it»
That is quite a misrepresentation, as Corbyn adopted the IHRC definition of anti-semitism, even if it is rather too wide; the controversy was about adopting the "extra examples", which were highly controversial because they made disagreeing with the Likud/israeli government an antisemitic attack on every jew. The point was that doing so identifies the Likud/israeli government with all jews and that is an antisemitic trope pushed by the IHRC (and by the Likud/israeli government too), as it implies wrongly that "the jews" are a unified cabal or clique of which the Likud/israeli government are the sole representative, and also it makes every jew who disagrees with the Likud/israeli government a "bad jew", another antisemitic trope.
Keir Starmer will never regain the trust of the likudniks until he expels from the party J Corbyn himself, as someone who Margaret Hodge called a "fucking racist and antisemite" cannot be part of a party aligned with the Likud (and thatcherism).
«The article produces little evidence for the suggestion that Israeli forces taught the Minnesota police the kneeling on the neck “technique” that killed George Floyd»
How is an allegation, whether right or wrong, about what the israeli police did antisemitic? Only if you assume that all jews are attacked when any allegation is made about anything related to something israeli, which is an antisemitic trope ("the jews are a cabal" falsehood) itself. Consider:
* Would "the suggestion that taiwanese forces taught the Minnesota police the kneeling on the neck “technique” that killed George Floyd" racism against "the chinese"?
* Is "the suggestion that nigerian forces taught the Minnesota police the kneeling on the neck “technique” that killed George Floyd" racism against "the blacks"?
Maxine Peake made an assertion that was inaccurate but not wholly baseless (Israeli forces do train American police, and both apparently do have a habit of kneeling on people's necks/heads; there are photographs of it).
Starmer then used that exceptionally flimsy pretext to boot RLB out the shadow cabinet. In the process he falsely labeled both women with "anti-semitic conspiracy theory", effectively lumping them together with Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and assorted other racist cranks. Thus permanently discrediting them in the eyes of much of the public. We can be sure that line will be used against RLB for the rest of her political career and she'll never run for leader again.
'Sir Keir' is obviously not a stupid man. He's a highly succesful lawyer, "forensic" and all that shite, so he presumably knew exactly what he was doing: discredit and politically destroy a left-wing politician. COINTELPRO would be proud.
What's antisemitic about what Peake said (and about the Morning Star article she based it on) is quite simple: the presumption that everything bad in the world can be traced back to Israel. It has nothing to do with Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians or any supposed "zionist" campaign to silence criticism of Israel. It 's all about spreading a factually false conspiracy theory as part of a "left-wing common sense" anti-Israal knee-jerk response to something (the killing of George Floyd) that had nothing to do with Israel. Think about it for a moment: did US cops first start killing black people in 1948?
If it were the case that US police learned neck kneeling from Nigerian or Taiwanese forces what are the chances that the Morning Star would have referred to it? I doubt very great. had they learned the technique from the grotesque Putin regime that has its own catalogue of viciousness to spread to its clients, I doubt even more that the Morning Star would have referred to it.
In short, what did this silly claim, that does not even seem to have great authenticity have to do with the actual issue at hand, which is the actions of racist cops in the US. Why on Earth did the question of Israel have to enter the discourse at all? Are we really to believe that racist cops, wherever they might be do not have entire arsenals of such tactics to use without needing to learn them from Israel, Taiwan, Nigeria, Russia or the various medieval Islamist regimes.
In other words the reference to Israel was simply gratuitous, and so was really just a cover for an anti-Semitic smear. It was really not saying "Oh look racist US cops learned this tactic from Israel." It was saying "look something nasty has happened that lots of people are mobilised about, how can we connect it to evil Jews?" And, the answer was to use Israel as a proxy for Jew, just as other racists use Muslim as a proxy for Asian or foreigner, thereby opening the door to the extension terrorist - Muslim - Asian.
What should really be questioned is why RLB did not take the opportunity to clarify her position and completely distance herself from the anti-semitic implications of the original article. It would not have been difficult for her to have done so.
Boffy, you really don't get it. A sophist without an ounce of empathy.
If you're what it means to be socialist, I hope to god that we never see a socialist government.
Sociopath.
«What's antisemitic about what Peake said (and about the Morning Star article she based it on) is quite simple: the presumption that everything bad in the world can be traced back to Israel.»
And here we go again with the usual and dangerous anti-semitic innuendo: that anything anti-israeli is at the same time anti-jews, based on the false assumption that "the jews" are a cabal, a cabal that coincides with Israel (and Likud of course).
And identifying "the jews" and "Israel" is also based on another anti-semitic assumption: the false idea that "the jews" outside Israel are (or should be) more connected with Israel (and Likud of course) than to their "temporary residence" countries. Just like in some past periods all catholics were discriminated under the assumption they were more connected to the Pope than to their own countries.
Contrary to such anti-semitic assumption, there is no such cabal as "the jews", or even "the israelis": there are many jews who are anti-Israel, and many israelis who are not practicing jews; both are minorities, but not insignificant.
Some people on the left have an anti-USA attitude, but I hope nobody accuses them of racism against "the americans", because just like "the jews", "the americans" are of all types and political opinions, including those who are anti-USA (famously the supporters of the past Confederation, but also many people on the left).
"use Israel as a proxy for Jew"
But the anti-semitic conceit that Israel/its government/Likud and "the jews" are synonyms is proudly pervasive among likudniks, and among many other far-right israelis. Some go as far as despising jews in other countries as "bad jews". It is also a conceit pervasive among people who instinctively regard any objection to "Israel" as an attack on "the jews".
Those who suffer from the paranoia that any criticism of Israel/its government/Likud is the same as criticism of "the jews" are spreading and reinforcing wilfully or naively a dangerous prejudice against "the jews", who are a normal range of people, like "the chinese" or "the catholics", not a cabal where to criticize some is to attack all.
The House Of Commons Home Affairs Select committe opined this:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13605.htm#
We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:
«* It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
* It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.»
As to the pervasive assumption that any criticism of Israel is an attack on "the jews", that such conceit antisemitic is stated quite clearly by two of the "IHRA examples":
«Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.»
«Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.»
Blissex: all reputable surveys have shown that UK Jews overwhelmingly (between approx 70% and 90%) identify with Israel, with varying degrees of criticism of course. And who the hell has ever suggested that there is (as you put it) a "pervasive assumption that any criticism of Israel is an attack on "the jews": the IHRA examples make it clear that they do *not* believe that. I'm beginning to wonder whether you can either read or think ... or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.
I agree that Israel and Jews are not synonymous, just as I agree that not all Muslims are Asians, and not all Asians are Muslims. I have made the point plenty of times myself where people have tried to defend criticism of Israel, by claiming that it was really an anti-Semitic attack on Jews. I think the Zionists who equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism are themselves effectively anti-Semitic for that reason, at the very least they undermine those actually opposing anti-Semitism.
But, this was not a criticism of Israel was it? It was an article on a number of issues, the point in focus being the attack by US racist cops resulting in the death of George Floyd. If what was being discussed was the killing of Palestinians by Israeli cops or troops then no one could have any objection to a detailed examination of their action, and a withering criticism of it. But, Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the killing of George Floyd, racist US cops do. Why bring Israel into the discussion at all. The only purpose in doing so is to perpetrate an anti-Semitic trope that everything bad that happens in the world is in some way connected to Israel, and thereby to Jews.
It is no different to those racists who try to purvey the idea that all terrorism in the world is the work of Islamists, and thereby connects the religion Islam, to Muslims, and thereby presents the idea that all Muslims are terrorists, and by extension purveys the notion that all Asians are Muslims, and so terrorists. The latter is a trope used by racists to spread Islamophobia and xenophobia against Asian people, or anyone with a dark skin, whilst the former is an anti-Semitic trope used to spread hatred of Jews by attacking Israel for everything bad that happens, and then by implication Jews.
Its precisely because of this latter connection that those Zionists who equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and thereby Jews with Israel themselves are anti-Semitic, and facilitate the work of the Anti-semites.
In short, Israel is not the same as Jews, and vice versa. Criticism of the racist, colonialist nature of Israel/Zionism is not, therefore, the same as criticism of Jews/anti-Semitic. But, drawing in criticism of Israel gratuitously as part of a response to anything bad that goes on in the world goes beyond a criticism of Israel/Zionism, and enters the world of the global Jewish conspiracy in which Jews/Israel are behind everything evil. or, why else would Israel have been drawn into the question of racist US cops killing George Floyd, of which it had absolutely no connection?
"that anything anti-israeli is at the same time anti-jews, based on the false assumption that "the jews" are a cabal, a cabal that coincides with Israel (and Likud of course)."
I am certainly not saying that "anything" anti-Israel is at the same time anti-Jew. Look at my previous posts and comments that criticise Zionists and there supporters for doing that, and equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I agree that those that make that equation are themselves actually anti-Semitic, because they make it impossible actually to separate the term Jew from Israel, and so implicitly equate any atrocity committed by Israel with an atrocity committed by Jews. Its why the Zionist mantra is so dangerous.
But, the question here is not about "any" criticism of Israel, it is about the particular drawing in of a criticism of Israel on a totally gratuitous basis in relation to the killing of George Floyd not by Israeli cops or troops, not in Israel, but by racist US cops, in the US! Learn to think, for God's sake, and instead of applying blanket mantras to every situation, look at the particular situation under consideration.
Was there any reason to bring Israel into a discussion of the killing of George Floyd? No. was there actually any connection between Israel and the killing of George Floyd? No. So, why was Israel brought into this discussion? is there any reasonable explanation for it having been brought gratuitously into that discussion other than that those who did so, seek any opportunity to attack Israel, and to thereby purvey the conspiracy theory that Israel and thereby Jews are responsible for all evil in the world? No.
In that case, in this case, irrespective of what might be true in some other instance this was anti-Semitic. When the next time Israeli cops or troops kill someone in Israel, or indeed when Mossad kills someone in someone else's country, go ahead criticise away, you will have my full support provided the criticism is about that action, and does not stray into the territory of a general attack on Jews, or other anti-Semitic tropes.
"Contrary to such anti-semitic assumption, there is no such cabal as "the jews", or even "the israelis": there are many jews who are anti-Israel, and many israelis who are not practicing jews; both are minorities, but not insignificant."
The majority of Muslims are opponents of terrorism, and of the anti-democratic Islamic regimes. There are also many Asian and BAME people who are not Muslims. But that does not stop racists and Islamophobes creating an identification of them with terrorism and with the vile Islamic regimes, just as in the past bigots identified Catholics with the Pope and Popery.
You are failing to look at the issue from the right angle, of considering what the objective of the bigot/xenophobe/Islamophobe/anti-Semite is in making the arguments they do.
I entirely agree that Israel and Jew is not the same thing, and that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not the same thing, but the anti-Semite acts precisely to make those connections, because it is easier for them to purvey their anti-Semitism under a cloak of Anti-Zionism, just as it is easier for the racist to purvey their racism under a cloak of an attack on Islamic terrorism/extremism, or critique of Islam. The person who has learned to think questions the motives of those making the attacks and the context.
The context here was an organisation that has a record of spreading left anti-Semitic tropes that is linked to Stalinism which itself as a state regime utilised anti-Semitism extensively across Eastern Europe, and whose heirs in the form of the Putin regime continues to use anti-Semitism alongside a whole range of other bigotries to sustain itself in power. The context is a totally gratuitous reference to Israel in relation to the death of George Floyd, and whose only rational explanation can be to spread an anti-Semitic trope that connects Israel to anything bad that happens in the world, and so plays into the centuries old conspiracy theories about Jews being behind all evil in the world.
"Some people on the left have an anti-USA attitude, but I hope nobody accuses them of racism against "the americans", because just like "the jews", "the americans" are of all types and political opinions, including those who are anti-USA (famously the supporters of the past Confederation, but also many people on the left)."
But an "anti-USA attitude" is racist/xenophobic precisely because it does equate all US citizens with the US state and its actions!
"who are a normal range of people, like "the chinese" or "the catholics", not a cabal where to criticize some is to attack all."
So, when Trump talks about COVID19 being the Chinese virus, or Kung Flu, he does not intend that to be a racist attack on all Chinese people, indeed all Asian people? He has no thought that such an attack will itself spread hatred against all Chinese people, not just the Chinese state, and lead, as it has to physical attacks on Asian people?
So using the HoC guidelines, how was a criticism of Israel relevant to the murder of George Floyd by racist US cops, in the US???
Isn't the fact that criticism of Israel - which itself appears not even to be validated by the facts in this case - was dragged in gratuitously to a discussion of the murder of George Floyd, itself the kind of "additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent" that it talks about?
The Islamic regime in Iran uses stoning to punish women accused of adultery. If someone in Coventry died from being hit by stones, would it do you think be rational to raise in the reporting of it that those responsible learned this from having seen videos of such stoning in Iran, and thereby blamed Iran for someone dying in Coventry? Would you not think that drawing in this very tenuous, and in reality non-existent link was more about someone wanting to attack Iran, and Islam, and thereby Muslims than being about a rational account of what happened in Coventry? And, so do you not think that criticising Israel for something that happened in the US, which had nothing to do with Israel comes under the heading of not holding "the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies"?
I am starting to think that some people follow this line of argument, deliberately or instinctively:
* We know that LRB is a "racist and antisemite" because she is an accomplice with JC's genocidal plans for the aryan and BAME proletariat to be in power and first expropriate and then liquidate the jewish capitalists.
* When someone we know is a "racist and antisemite" says "Israel", however indirectly, they can only actually mean "the jews".
* Therefore when LRB refers to a text that blames Israel for something, that is proof that someone is a "racist and antisemite".
With the corollary of the equally ridiculous :
* We know that 70-90% of UK jews and Bibi ("the mainstream jewish community") are not antisemites, and that 30-10% of UK jews are "bad jews", as they supported JC who was called a "racist and antisemite".
* When therefore 70-90% of UK jews and Bibi identify "the jews" with "Israel", that cannot possibly be antisemitic, and only they are allowed to say negative things about "Israel" (they usually won't of course).
* But when a gentile who does not support the Likud or a "bad jew" says negative things about "Israel", or even worse identifies "the jews" with Israel, that can only be antisemitic.
The overall sophistry seems to me that "something is antisemitic if said by someone we call an antisemite, and not antisemitic if said by a supporter of Likud".
Try answering my point about UK Jews overwhelmingly identifying (however critically) with Israel, Mr (or Mrs) "Blissex".
"If it were the case that US police learned neck kneeling from Nigerian or Taiwanese forces what are the chances that the Morning Star would have referred to it? I doubt very great. had they learned the technique from the grotesque Putin regime that has its own catalogue of viciousness to spread to its clients, I doubt even more that the Morning Star would have referred to it."
The Morning Star's prejudices are not relevant. If US cops were training with Putin's cops that would be of obvious interest and no one would question it if Maxine Peake had mentioned it.
To discover now, whilst the BLM protests rage across the US, that American police are being trained in Israel raises very urgent questions about how the authorities understand the nature of policing and their intentions for future policing. The American police desperately need training from police forces with expertise in multi-cultural community policing and de-escalation techniques. Why they are training with the one country in the western world with a manifestly worse record on racist and brutal policing is of obvious interest.
I don't think Jim Denham's line of argument helps at all. It simply reinforces the anti-Semites line of argument that equates Jews, including on the basis of his argument British Jews, with Israel and Zionism. Given that his organisation is led to defend the racist, nationalist and colonialism ideology of Zionism in order to defend its "after the event" support for the creation of the state of Israel on the bones of Palestinians, that is probably not surprising. Its no wonder that they also equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. They can logically do no other.
But, Blissex its true does not answer the questions, and instead replies with bluster and false logic. What Blissex fails to answer is why Israel was brought into a discussion of the death of George Floyd. Israel had nothing to do with his death, and so the first question to be asked is why someone introduced it into the discussion? When the person/organisation that draws it into the discussion, i.e. the Morning Star/CPD has a history of left anti-Semitism, and comes from a tradition which used Anti-Semitism as a tool in its rule over Eastern Europe that question is even more relevant.
If the issue were simply one of a discussion over the actions of the Israeli state then, of course, no one could immediately draw links between criticism of its actions and criticism of Jews. It would depend upon how that criticism of the state was phrased in the particular instance. But, Blissex is trying to make the issue one on precisely that basis, when it is nothing of the kind. The issue is why people with a record of left anti-semitism drew in a discussion of Israel to a totally unrelated issue, i.e. the death of George Floyd at the hands of racist US cops! The anti-semites seem more interesting in blaming Israel for his death than they do those racist cops, and a racist US state apparatus, which in itself is a disgrace they should be ashamed for.
All of Blissex other argument is a series of nonsequiturs facilitated by the reactionary nationalist argument of Jim Denham that equates Jews with the Israeli state. But, then he and his organisation seems to have forgotten the Marxist teaching on class and the state altogether anyway, talkaing about the state as though it is class neutral rather than a class state, talking about "public ownership", in the same way that the nationalists and Stalinists do, as though there is some homogeneous "public" rather than a society divided into class es with antagonistic interests.
My "reactionary nationalist" argument? Surely the issue is not just whether my (and the AWL's) support for the right of the Jews to have a state makes us - "reactionary nationalist" or not. What makes that important and worth arguing about is that those words, in this context, mean 'Zionist': a word that for some years on the left has been used as a term of condemnation whose emotional content - used to bludgeon, intimidate and stigmatise - is about equal to the term 'racist' and not too far away from 'fascist'. That is the political issue here.
It is necessary for us to stand up to this thinly disguised antisemitism and to insist that it is based on ideological lies and on pseudo-historical myths about how Israel came into existence
Think about it. On the left 'the Zionists' - read the very big majority of Jews - are stigmatised as imperialists and racists of the very worst sort. Israel is imperialism incarnate, with its tentacles everywhere. It was the undercover workings of powerful Jewish conspirators which led to the creation of Israel. Comparisons with Nazism come easy to those who see it like this and are frequently used. It may be only the demented anti-Zionists' like Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker who come out with it openly but nevertheless that "common sense" is widespread on the left.
All this - despite the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian Arabs - is preposterous! The Jews have been chief single victim of imperialism in the 20th century The supposedly all-powerful pre Israel world Jewish community couldn't even save its own from massacre. It couldn't secure entry visas for refugees from Nazism in to Britain, the USA, or into any other country - not even to save their lives,
The picture of Zionism and Israel as a creation and tool of imperialism (as distinct from an ally playing power politics with various imperialisms) is a grotesque historic libel and misrepresentation. That isn't how things happened, or why, whatever the long term plans and machinations of the Zionist movement. The Jews who made modern Israel possible fled to Palestine from murderous fascism, As late as the all-decisive war in 1948 Israel depended not on monopoly capitalist imperialism but on Moscow and its Czech satellite for the arms without which they might have lost.
The picture of modern history and the Jews' demonic place in it, now dominant on the left is if you think about it, not too far off a left-wing version of the 'blood libel' of the Christian antisemites, according to which Jews murdered children during their religious rituals.
You don't need to regard Israel and Zionists as they are regarded on much of the left to be able to oppose and condemn aspects of Israel and to demand justice for the Palestinian Arabs.
In fact our equivalent of the blood libel - which owes a great deal to the thinly disguised antisemitism of the Stalinist movement and its post 1948 campaigns against 'Zionism' - serves another purpose: It backs up and legitimises 'socialist' support for the Arab chauvinist programme of conquering and annihilating the Jewish nation in Palestine.
That is why, working in a political milieu in which Zionism is used as a demonological name tag to morally blackjack and ideologically terrorise Jews who stand up to the hysterical "anti-Zionists", serious socialists who oppose antisemitism cannot afford to go along even part of the way with the blackjackers. If we are "reactionary nationalists" or "Zionists, so then we are both those things. And proud of it.
"Surely the issue is not just whether my (and the AWL's) support for the right of the Jews to have a state makes us - "reactionary nationalist" or not."
So, will you also be arguing for Catholics to have a state of their own, Hindus to have a state of their own etc? Will you be arguing that such states should, as with a confessional "Jewish" state exclude anyone of other faiths, or treat them as second class citizens, there on sufferance? Don't socialists, particularly Marxists describe such an approach for what it is - reactionary nationalism, and indeed it was the position Marxists adopted towards Zionism itself, and opposition to the creation of such states?
Its, therefore, not surprising that the term Zionism has been treated with approbrium by socialists, because Zionism is a form of reactionary nationalism, and colonialism that has always been associated with other far-right ideologies. The Stern Gang and other Zionist fanatics, for example, sought an alliance both with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy at the start of WWII, because they saw them as preferable to British imperialism.
"Lehi initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine."
"During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles". After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support for Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism."
So I guess the AWL's support for such Zionism, National Bolshevism, and totalitarianism fits with your support for the establishemnt of racist confessional states.
"That is the political issue here."
No, the question is given the reactionary nationalist, racist, and colonialist nature of Zionism, why any socialist would not just defend that ideology, but also why they would defend the creation of a state on that basis, and why on Earth they would then facilitate anti-Semites by equating the term Jew with that state, and with that reactionary ideology?! Do you not see that doing so is a gift to the anti-Semites?
In a world in which the anti-Semites make great play of global Jewish conspiracies, and of Jews, wherever they are in the world, supposedly forming some form of cabal, a Fifth Column wherever they reside, why on Earth would you go out of your way to state that the majority of Jews in Britain identify with Israel? Do you not understand how that plays directly into those conspiracy theories promoted by the anti-Semites? And, do you not see how then equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, i.e. of equating a reactionary nationalist and colonialist ideology, which has a physical manifestation in that state of Israel you want to associate all those British Jews with even more plays into the hands of the anti-Semites. You have made the argument for all those anti-Semites who want to tar every jew with the crimes of the Israeli state, and of Zionism!
But, of course, because you have fallen into petty-bourgeois nationalist and reformist politics in which you have thrown out the Marxist understanding of society as divided into antagonistic classes, and now talk about the public, or the people, its no wonder that you directly associate "the people" with a "people's state", and that in this case the particular people - Jews - wherever they may live are associated with that state. reactionary petty-bourgeois nationalism through and through.
"The picture of Zionism and Israel as a creation and tool of imperialism (as distinct from an ally playing power politics with various imperialisms) is a grotesque historic libel and misrepresentation."
You have conflated two different things. Firstly, the history of the creation of Israel was one of fighting against the dominant imperialism - Britain - and to that end the Zionists like Stern and others were happy to look to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and seek alliances with them. Stern studied in fascist Italy, and the ideology they adopted was very close to fascism - National Bolsehevism. But, here is the thing about nationalism and imperialism one country adopting such an ideology can fight against another sharing that ideology, because ultimately both are driven by their own nationalist and expansion interests. The fact that Zionism suffered at the hands of British imperialism is no reason why a Zionist state would not itself be expansionist and imperialistic, and indeed that is the foundation of its ideology!
"You don't need to regard Israel and Zionists as they are regarded on much of the left to be able to oppose and condemn aspects of Israel and to demand justice for the Palestinian Arabs."
How on Earth could there every be justice for Palestinian Arabs in the context of the existence of a racist, confessional "Jewish" state, as opposed to an Israeli state? A confessional "Jewish" state by definition means that non-Jews living within it are second class citizens, and that fact has been reinforced in Israeli law! The only way you could come to such a conclusion is if you believe that with a Two-State solution, which has no been shown to be completely Utopian, and so reactionary, the Jews would live in one state, and the Palestinians in another and never the twain should meet. Sounds like a pretty reactionary nationalist agenda to me, which is what the nationalist agenda to establish the Israeli state was from the beginning, and was bound to lead to the disaster that has ensued.
If on the other hand, you truly did believe in fighting for Palestinian rights, including the rights of Palestinians, and other non-Jews living in Israel, it would immediately require a political struggle by workers and consistent democrats in Israel against that very Zionist ideology that makes it impossible, but which you seek to defend and promote!
Do you see any possible contradiction in the history you are portraying between these two statements.
"As late as the all-decisive war in 1948 Israel depended not on monopoly capitalist imperialism but on Moscow and its Czech satellite for the arms without which they might have lost."
"In fact our equivalent of the blood libel - which owes a great deal to the thinly disguised antisemitism of the Stalinist movement and its post 1948 campaigns against 'Zionism' - serves another purpose: It backs up and legitimises 'socialist' support for the Arab chauvinist programme of conquering and annihilating the Jewish nation in Palestine."
The AWL really are appalling bowdlerisers of history. Perhaps your leaders get away with such nonsense and obviously contradictory statements and perversions of what socialists like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky have said with your young starry eyed student recruits (and those that aren't taken in can always be edged out) but it doesn't wash with anyone who has actually read the text, or who can think for themselves.
"That is why, working in a political milieu in which Zionism is used as a demonological name tag to morally blackjack and ideologically terrorise Jews who stand up to the hysterical "anti-Zionists", serious socialists who oppose antisemitism cannot afford to go along even part of the way with the blackjackers. If we are "reactionary nationalists" or "Zionists, so then we are both those things. And proud of it."
And, in so doing you not only expose your own reactionary nationalist ideology, but you also put actual Jews at risk, because you identify all Jews with the reactionary ideas of Zionism, and with the reactionary and vicious actions of the Zionist state. You do the work of the anti-Semites for them by associating all Jews with that reactionary ideology and with the those actions, whereas the role of a socialist and of an opponent of anti-Semitism should be to expose the lies of the anti-Semites from that perspective. For some reason you seem more interested in defending Israel and Zionism than you are in defending Jews, and are prepared to sacrifice the latter to achieve the former.
A generous person would put that down to you trying to defend the disastrous line you adopted in supporting the creation of Israel as part of your collapse into the Third Camp of the petty bourgeoisie, as Trotsky described it.
Its ironic, but no surprising that anti-Semites are more interested in blaming Israel for the death of George Floyd than they are in attacking racist US cops, and in so doing, spread anti-Semitic conspiracies about Jews by an implied connection of the term Jew with the term Zionist, whilst the Zionists, like Jim Denham, seem more interested in defending Israel and Zionism, and in facilitating the anti-Semites, by making the anti-Semites implied identification of Jews with Israel/Zionism explicit (i.e. British Jews identify with Israel) than they are with defending Jews, from attacks as a result of such identification!
Jim Denham's argument is typically absurd. He says, anti-Semites have used Zionism as a code to mean Jew, and so the way to deal with this is to ourselves adopt the term Zionism. I could, of course, use the many examples of where the term Nazi was used as being identification with German, and leave you to draw the obvious conclusion as to what course of action those who wanted to oppose attacks on German would then have to take!
Instead, given that any reference to Nazis and Germany is Verboten when discussion of Israel is concerned, let me use another example. Anti-communists from the moment the USSR was formed used it as a means to attack communists everywhere in the world. The crimes of Stalinism facilitated them no end. Huge amounts of time of actual communists was spent trying to show that Stalinism in Eastern Europe was not communism, and that Marxists, in particular Trotskyists were wholly hostile to it.
Now according to the logic of Jim Denham and the AWL, such an approach was completely wrong. What we should have done according to this logic is to say Stalinism is being used as merely a weapon to attack all communists to tar us with the same brush. So to prevent that happening we should embrace the label Stalinism, and decalre that we are all Stalinists now, simply Stalinists that disagree with the policies being pursued by the actual Stalinists!!!
ILB was sacked because she agreed with the teacher unions over the question of a safe return to schools.
Supporting workers is not part of the New-New Labour remit.
She was a naughty girl.......
The idea that the Long Bailey sacking was even remotely to do with protecting the reputation of “the Israeli occupation” was soon shown to be nonsense: the following day 21 members of the Campaign group of MPs (including Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon) put out a statement condemning “any annexation of the occupied Palestinian lands” and calling for sanctions in the event that annexation happens.
Quite rightly, there has been no suggestion of of any action by Starmer against the signatories: on the contrary, the Campaign group statement was swiftly followed by a virtually identical call for sanctions from … Lisa Nandy, Starmer’s shadow foreign secretary, who told the Observer:
“This is now urgent. The government must be clear with the Israeli coalition government that concrete action will follow, including a ban on goods entering Britain from the illegal settlements in the West Bank. This is a major step, but such a blatant breach of international law must have consequences. It will take a level of courage that so far ministers have not been willing to show.”
So, whatever the exact motive(s) behind the sacking, it should now be plain to even the most crazed anti-Israel conspiracy-theorist that it wasn’t in order to “protect the reputation of the Israeli occupation.”
"The idea that the Long Bailey sacking was even remotely to do with protecting the reputation of “the Israeli occupation” was soon shown to be nonsense:"
I may have missed it, but I wasn't aware of any comment by anyone here suggesting that the sacking was to do with "protecting the reputation of 'the Israeli occupation".
Most of the discussion I've seen has been about the fact that RLB made a stupid statement that retweeted an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and refused to step back from it. That Starmer was able to use it to edge her out, and make play of his credentials as an opponent of the left, as he rebuilds a LP in Blair's image, was for him a bonus, and again just shows the idiocy and lack of strategic vision of the Corbynites and their Stalinist entourage.
The people making a big thing about Israel and the occupation are the two wings of the petty bourgeois Third Camp, along with the petty bourgeois nationalists of Stalinism. One wing of the Third Camp, the "anti-imperialists" make a big thing of attacking Israel as a tool - or more idiotically the tail wagging - the US dog, and in the process, their "anti-imperialism"/anti-Zionism spreads over into Ant-Semitism. The other wing of the Third Camp, represented by the AWL uses the same moral socialist politics to determine its agenda, but it leads it to opposing conclusions because it starts from opposing moral principles. It places its faith in the capitalist state, (which it increasingly portrays as a people's state acting on behalf of the people or public, i.e.its calls for "public ownership") and "democratic imperialism to carry out the historic tasks of the working-class, for example by wars of liberal intervention. Its again an example of where the AWL has completely lied about, falsified and bowdlerised the writing of Marxists, for example, Trotsky writings on the Balkan Wars.
Both of these wings of the Third Camp are motivated by petty-bourgeois moralism not Marxism. It leads one wing to put its faith in "anti-imperialist" petty bourgeois nationalist forces, and the other to put its faith in the bourgeoisie, but on the basis of a pious wish that it may fulfil its own programme for it. Both a million miles away from Marxism and independent working class politics.
Post a Comment