The Anti-Semitic Left Remains Alive and Well

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

The 1948 war was an unfortunate case of the infant UN failing to control a situation before it spilled out of control. Regardless, Jewish people have a right to live in Israel and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existence of a Jewish state predicated on self determination.

Muslim people have the right to live in Spain, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Muslims of Moorish descent immigrating, en masse, to the Iberian Peninsula, with the intent of establishing an Islamic state.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially identical. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize that Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

The problem is that at some point the settlers become the natives and their descendants have the right to live in the land, regardless of how unjust the initial conquest was. For this reason, I support Israel's right to exist within it's pre-1967 borders, simply because the outcome of the 1948 War can't be undone without displacement and injustice even worse than the original Nakba. That being said, Israel does NOT have the right to grab ever more land through illegal settlements, and the idea that God "gave" the land to the descendants of people who lived there thousands of years ago (which is at the heart of the settlement project) should be rejected and condemned. Israel's drift towards right-wing authoritarianism an alliance with the Christian Right in the U.S. are also gravely worrying.

Complicating the issue further is that while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, much criticism of Israel IS motivated by anti-Semitism and conspiratorial beliefs about Jewish control of finance, the media, or U.S. foreign policy. Part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable with so much of the BDS and anti-Israel movement is because they often traffic in rhetoric and imagery indistinguishable from that used by White Nationalists.

I'm on the same page. My point was simply that we shouldn't try to whitewash history.

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

Yes, actually.  Multiple posters, in fact

Cite them.

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

The 1948 war was an unfortunate case of the infant UN failing to control a situation before it spilled out of control. Regardless, Jewish people have a right to live in Israel and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existence of a Jewish state predicated on self determination.

Muslim people have the right to live in Spain,

Nothing objectionable here, Spain shouldn't be excluding Muslims.

and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Muslims of Moorish descent immigrating, en masse, to the Iberian Peninsula

This is a flawed analogy; Moors refers to people from the Maghreb who are typically Muslim. Moorish people are not indigenous to Spain [...]

And Jews are indigenous to Tanzania, along with the rest of the human species.

[...] and while they certainly have some right to live there, there are already several 'Moorish' states.

Yeah, I don't give a sh!+ — no ethnic/sectarian group is entitled to colonize whatever land it pleases in service of its nationalistic ambitions.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

Except that Jews are native to the Levant and have had a continuous presence there for at least 2500 years. If the Irish and Pilgrims were native to the Americas, most were forced out 2000 years ago except a few small communities that remained, over the course of the next 1900 years they were persecuted and expelled from everywhere they tried to make a home in Europe, then many started migrating back to the Americas to join their brethren who had been there the whole time, then you might have a good analogy.

We're not going to play this silly game. I could name countless ethnic/sectarian groups that have maintained a token presence in territory they held a thousand years ago, despite the bulk of the population migrating elsewhere. No, they don't all have a right of return spanning a millennium. You're engaged in ethnically-motivated special pleading, AKA, tribalism. AKA, the same framework the Christian right will once again bludgeon you with when the time is right.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

Except that Jews are native to the Levant and have had a continuous presence there for at least 2500 years. If the Irish and Pilgrims were native to the Americas, most were forced out 2000 years ago except a few small communities that remained, over the course of the next 1900 years they were persecuted and expelled from everywhere they tried to make a home in Europe, then many started migrating back to the Americas to join their brethren who had been there the whole time, then you might have a good analogy.

We're not going to play this silly game. I could name countless ethnic/sectarian groups that have maintained a token presence in territory they held a thousand years ago, despite the bulk of the population migrating elsewhere. No, they don't all have a right of return spanning a millennia. You're engaged in ethnically-motivated special pleading, AKA, tribalism. AKA, the same framework the Christian right will once again bludgeon you with when the time is right.

Disgusting, but thoroughly expected.

Didn't the leader of your party praise Nazis after they killed a woman?

This is why there's no point in debating hard-line antizionists. They hold Jews to a standard no other group in the world is subject to [...]

Hahahaha! Yeah, I'm a HUGE proponent of colonialism and apartheid! Everyone except the Jews! /s.

[...] that our right to exist safely in a territory won multiple times in war is subject to public approval at all times.

Wars not make one great! Predictably, the proponents of Israeli territorial aggression always revert to might makes right. Except, you know, that time the Christian right in Germany was much more powerful than its targets, and disposed of them with industrial precision. So much crying! Yeah, that was a tragedy, but otherwise, suck it up snowflake, bow to our military power!

BTW: You have to give Norman Finkelstein credit for revealing what an unprincipled POS Alan Dershowitz is on Democracy Now!. Who could've predicted Dershowitz's Trumpist heel turn? Well, Finkelstein, for one ...

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

Except that Jews are native to the Levant and have had a continuous presence there for at least 2500 years. If the Irish and Pilgrims were native to the Americas, most were forced out 2000 years ago except a few small communities that remained, over the course of the next 1900 years they were persecuted and expelled from everywhere they tried to make a home in Europe, then many started migrating back to the Americas to join their brethren who had been there the whole time, then you might have a good analogy.

We're not going to play this silly game. I could name countless ethnic/sectarian groups that have maintained a token presence in territory they held a thousand years ago, despite the bulk of the population migrating elsewhere. No, they don't all have a right of return spanning a millennia. You're engaged in ethnically-motivated special pleading, AKA, tribalism. AKA, the same framework the Christian right will once again bludgeon you with when the time is right.

I don't like this argument. At all. It undermines the right of return for Palestinians, and Jews and Palestinians are blood brothers.

Of course, "Beef"'s argument is even more absurd. They speak of Jews having a 2,500 year connection to the land, but are apparently oblivious to the Palestinians connection to the land.

What?! Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, but I don't dispute the connection, and in no way was I even remotely suggesting that relatively recent victims of ethnic cleansing (i.e., less than a century removed) aren't entitled to return to the territory from which they were dispossessed. Only Zionists contend that Ashkenazi Jews are entitled to land in the Levant, whereas Palestinians are not.