The Anti-Semitic Left Remains Alive and Well

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If you have to go all the way back to Snowstalker to find an example of the anti-semitic left on Atlas, that just proves my point that it's pretty much nonexistent because he's been gone for like a decade.

I think JA is just anti theist in general. Don't know enough about the third person you mentioned.

Not really, all it proves is that those were the first folks who popped into my head who had made anti-Semitic posts without trying to use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a cover.  And I don't really care what ones views are on theism, saying "Jews have no place" in society (assuming it was JacobinAmerican and not PublicUnofficial who said that, again, don't remember which one said something to that effect, but one of them definitely did) is a pretty blatantly anti-Semitic comment.  

And plenty of folks have made unambiguously anti-Semitic posts while claiming to merely be "anti-Israel" in much the same way a racist might claim they can't be prejudiced because they have a black friend.  The fact that some of you claim to simply be anti-Israel doesn't make your anti-Semitic comments any less anti-Semitic.  

Tbf, I do think some folks like T'chenka (incidentally, this probably applies to Jeremy Corbyn too) seem to be cases of someone who truly considers themselves to just be anti-Israel being genuinely oblivious to the fact that they sometimes say some rather prejudiced things and I try to give such people the benefit of the doubt whenever reasonably possible with respect to their intent, but that's certainly not the case with everyone who claims to simply be anti-Israel.  And of course there are also a few self-hating Jews mixed in with the anti-Semitic left, but I don't have to tell you that

Of course, you also have folks like Cora (last seen arguing in favor of blowing up school buses full of Jewish children) and BP1202 (who in this thread alone implicitly - but unmistakably - defending the terrorist group Black September) who can't help saying the quiet part out loud even as they try to pretend it's just about being anti-Israel.  

The Six-Day War is a classic example of a preemptive offensive. The war itself was a just war. The problems stem mainly from what Israel did later with the territory it occupied, not the war itself.

Why? Because a second Holocaust was imminent? Get real. The Israelis knew that they would win a war with the Arabs rather easily. Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war, said:

"The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war."

Just because Israel was likely to win the war that Nasser was doing his best to start was no reason to sit back and take the first blow. A truism of war is that often the best defense is a strong offense, or at the very least securing the initiative.

Nasser made some very poor decisions, yes. But I'm not very interested in defending non-Palestinian Arab leaders/states. While often lumped together, they have had different motivations for opposing Israel. And in some cases, have been actively hostile toward Palestinians (see: Black September, Sabra and Shatila massacre, etc...)

You do realize Black September was a terrorist organization that murdered numerous innocent people, right?  I only ask because you seem to be quietly implying that opposing the group constitutes unwarranted hostility towards Palestinians and I want to be sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.

I won't be gaslighted Israel apologists calling Palestinians child-murderers. It shows an unbelievable, stunning lack of self-awareness.

I'm confused.  Are you saying Cora wasn't advocating child murder by supporting blowing up school buses full of Jewish children or did you mean this as a defense of Black September (or something else)?  I want to be sure I understand exactly what you mean before I respond.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Just like the establishment of a Norwegian state, a Polish state, a Hungarian state, or a Czech state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing? Please.

It wasn’t necessitated, but considering in Eastern Europe literally a million ethnic Germans died due to anti-German sentiments and as many of more were interned by our Communist ex-allies in the East? Germans used to make up 10%+ of the population in the Baltic trio, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia; a plurality or majority in Kaliningrad, Poland, Lithuania; et cetera. You could have used almost any example outside of Eastern Europe.

All of those expulsions, interments, and deaths were the direct result of Germany's actions in WWII and the subsequent Soviet takeover, and didn't come until decades after the breakup of Austro-Hungary. You could argue that the creation of Czechoslovakia and Hungary resulted in ethnic German minority populations that became a rallying cry for the Nazi cause, but that's a consequence of Nazi ideology, not the formation of those states to begin with.

[BP🌹]

Excuse me. I wasn't referring to the organization Black September that perpetrated the Munich massacre. I was referring to the 1970 armed conflict of the same name that resulted in the PLO's expulsion from Jordan, as an example of non-Palestinian Arab hostility toward Palestinians, and why Palestinians and the Arab states shouldn't be lumped together.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Excuse me. I wasn't referring to the organization Black September that perpetrated the Munich massacre. I was referring to the 1970 armed conflict of the same name that resulted in the PLO's expulsion from Jordan, as an example of non-Palestinian Arab hostility toward Palestinians, and why Palestinians and the Arab states shouldn't be lumped together.

Ah, fair enough.  Thank you for clarifying.

[omar04]

"At a recent political club meeting I attended, Zionism was described by leadership as a “transnational project,” an anti-Semitic trope that characterizes the desire for a Jewish state as a bid for global domination by the Jewish people. The organization went on to say that Zionism should not be “normalized.” Later, when I advised a member to add more Jewish voices to the organization’s leadership as a means of adding more nuance to their platform, I was assured that anti-Zionist Jews were already a part of the club and thus my concerns of anti-Semitism were baseless. "

Could someone explain how this is antisemitic? I think this was an accurate description of Zionism in the late 19th to the early 20th century- it seems to have had a very broad geographical range of supporters, both Jewish and non Jewish.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem is that "Zionist" is very frequently used as a stand in for "Jew" in anti-Semitic rants so the writer can claim to not be anti-Semitic, even the Iranian regime does this in their press releases. And then you have people talking about a "Zionist conspiracy", "Zionist controlled media", and it becomes pretty obvious.

That said the author of the piece in the OP openly identifies as a Zionist so it's not that sort of thing happening here. What would be worrisome is if some local DSA chapter or whatever started requiring members with Jewish names to sign loyalty oaths affirming that they're not Zionists or that they don't support the Israeli government....but I haven't heard of anyone doing anything like that yet.

[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.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

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

[BP🌹]

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.

[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.

[Former President tack50]

Speaking of the so-called "right to return", how many Palestinians would actually make use of that? I wonder if the numbers would be a lot smaller than we think considering the large amount of time that has passed (and yes, half a century is an extremely long time)

You could make a comparison with the Germans living in current Western Poland or the Czech Republic, who were expelled from those territories after WW2 for the most part. In 2004, so "only" 59 years after the end of WW2, Poland and the Czech Republic (and much of Eastern Europe) entered the EU.

Among the consequences of that was essencially the establishment of literal open borders between those countries and Germany. Yet there were no Germans moving en masse to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Granted, Israel is a richer country than wherever the Palestinians are currently located while that was not the case for Germany and Poland in 2004 (even for East Germany), but still. In the end economic and simply pragmatic concerns matter more than anything else I would argue.