I got nothing.
I create characters for my stories all the time. It’s the real life characters I find un-fracking unbelievable.
The love of money is what is destroying Christian and Judea societies all over Europe and the West. Look at Bloomberg, a money-loving Jew who has sold his soul for the arabs’ dirty money. ( ‘Dodo can spell” but grammar/punctuation…)
‘Money-loving Jew’, now where have I heard that before? Speaking strictly from my anecdotal experience, I would say the modern community of Judea is actually thriving quite nicely, although it might be under siege from time to time from the neighbours – but it has absolutely nothing to do with money.
All of which explains why I never joined the Blogging Tories – it just doesn’t pay.
Categories: Jerk Conservatism
More is the great pity that sort of bigotry is inevitable when open bigotry and intolerance become acceptable within society Kateland.
As the anti-Muslim/Islamic rhetoric ramped up and those engaging in it discovered that contrary to there being any sort of social stigma to their bigotry they either became popular, or got to slap a self-designed badge of martyrdom on their chests, why would they not inevitably cast their eyes and intolerant rhetoric further afield?
On this topic at stageleft balbulican said “…the hatemongers who are now calling for the banning, or the exile, or the internment of Muslims in Canada are EXACTLY the same people who called for the banning, or the exile, or the internment of Jews in Germany.”
True words those.
It also behooves me to say, once again, that with the watering down of the phrases “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Semite” they now carry little or no social stigma – so if people do label Dodo as an anti-Semite will she, or anyone affiliated with her, really care?
These are perilous times for many peoples that will not end well for any of us unless something changes drastically, and soon.
True enough SL – which is why I outed her. It’s bad enough that anti-semitism is often all dressed up as anti-zionist on the left but when someone who is allegedly on my side of the political spectrum starts playing the Shylock card I am not going to let it stand unremarked or swept under the rug. I disagree with many of Bloomberg’s political initiatives but there are very few people who could match Bloomberg’s record of public philanthropy – even among his peers and to see him reduced and labeled as a ‘money-loving Jew’ is beyond my personal pale.
These people need to be outed and pariahed. I too am uneasy with the anti-Muslim ethos – I disagreed with the most of the political right over the hijab – what a woman wears should be entirely her choice – and not regulated by the state.
No decent person can be an advocate of bigotry, discrimination or oppression against any group. But what vast segments of the broad Left coalition seem to ignore is that the State of Israel is a RESPONSE to this bigotry, yet anti-Zionists on the Left who would like to see this response undone have no clue whether the future would then look like the very bleak status quo ante.
usually this kind of passages starts with *i am not anti-semit, BUT…*
there are few conditions that make this way of thinking impossible
1.education
2.intellegence
so do you really want to have disput with people who have no idea what are they talking about?)
(btw-my english must be not very good as it is not my native language)
@Marky Mark it is not that I disagree with what you have written – so let me comment this way. Even if there was no bigotry present and directed towards Jews in the world, I would still yearn for Eretz Yisrael. Nor would I be the only one. Have not the Jews, as a people, marked every significant life event from the time of the destruction of the Temple Mount with L’shana habaah b’yerushalayim?
@Marky Mark
Mark, among the lefty blogs you frequent, which would say advocated the dissolution of Israel?
That’s true, and a point that is misunderstood and/or ignored by the vast portion of the Left that views the creation of Israel as unjust. I wonder what Obama did when the Seder at the White House (and kudos to him for having one, for the first time) got to the part that said “Next Year in Jerusalem.”
But the creation of Israel as a political state was agreed to by the UN as a response to the mass murder of over half of European Jewry at the hands of the Nazis and their accomplices amidst the collaboration and passivity of various local populations and hostile “none is too many” immigration policies here and in Palestine.
What’s ironic is that whereas the people in the 30’s who said “Jews to Palestine” were on the Right, the people who now say “Jews OUT of Palestine”) are on the Left. Yes, that’s a tad unfair, in that those on the Left who favour a one state solution don’t tend to call for the expulsion of Jews from the new binational state. But they unquestionably don’t view Jews as indigenous to Eretz Yisrael and view “Palestinians” as indigenous or “”pure to the region. Rather than seeing the creation of Israel as a form of redemption or regulation to redress injustice, they tend to see it as a form of injustice that is, at best, something that has to be accepted/tolerated.
Balb,
When you look at Israeli Apartheid Week and the materials put out by the BDS movement, it’s pretty clear that a highly significant portion of the coalition behind those movements is against the existence of Israel for its stated purpose as the homeland of the Jewish People. The complaint isn’t with state policies such as the settlements-it’s with the very idea contained in the Partition Plan that Israel has a nationalist mission. The Left-not the Right-is the source of support for these movements.
As for blogs, sure, many bloggers don’t advocate the dissolution of the State of Israel (i.e., its absorption into neighbouring countries) but by going with the South African meme and calling for “regime change” they are disagreeing with partition (as if this were still 1947). And the comments sections of left wing blogs magnify this sentiment exponentially. It’s not as if the commentary here is akin to what you read on Ha’aretz, which is anti-rightwing policy. It’s always about “Israel” and not about “Likud” or “Netanyahu.”
People on the Left who are committed to notions of justice and equality should to be free to take positions on the Middle East that accord with their values without being falsely accused of anti-Semitism. And others on the Left-as well as opponents on the Right-should be free to point out the lapses of logic and other errors in those positions. Since the most activist minded on the Left choose to make “Palestine” THE issue of the day and bring it into all sorts of places where it doesn’t naturally belong(pride parades, film festivals), this push back is long overdue.
Now Marky – you have hit upon a pet peeve of mine. The UN agreed only to allow a vote for the possibility of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine Mandate – it was up to the Jews to create it and fight to keep it. The Israelis owe their statehood to no one but themselves. It is my belief that same UN vote would not have carried if anti-Semitism wasn’t rampant and rabid among the UN member states – and this, despite the holocaust. Most of the states which voted in favour of partition were positively horrified at the prospect of either having to either absorb Jewish nationals back inside their borders or in accepting Jewish refugees…our own Canada coined the phrase …’none is too many.’
@Marky Mark
So your response is – NO lefty bloggers? Thanks.
Balb,
Most won’t answer a direct question such as whether they characterize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people as per se an apartheid state or rather only certain policies. But since when is the blogosphere the be all and the end all? What about the real movements that are out there and find succor on the Left? And what about the highly consequential anti-Semitic smear campaign against Bob Rae at the last federal leadership campaign?
@Kateland
I don’t disagree, but nonetheless Israel owes much of her base legal case to international law going back to the Partition Plan and beyond.
You have a point, balb. No-one is calling for “dissolution”. Rather, the objective for many of them seems to be a non-Jewish state called Israel.
@Peter
Exactly, it is dishonest. My favourite reply to the question “are you against Zionism” is “it depends which Zionism we are talking about.” Imagine that answer in response to a question “are you in favour of an independent Quebec as the homeland of the French People?”
Marky, it’s a trope, just like “Of course Israel has the right to defend herself.” Just not the way she happens to be doing so at any given moment.
it’s pretty clear that a highly significant portion of the coalition behind those movements is against the existence of Israel
No, Marky, this simply will not do. I want names and evidence, not your tendentious assertions. The only thing that’s “pretty clear” at this point is your frankly malicious interpretation of plain-language left commentaries.
As for “which Zionism we’re talking about,” that’s not dishonest in the least. If I supported Quebec separatism, I would certainly be inclined to pick and choose among the various nationalisms, progressive and reactionary, that may be found in that neck of the woods.
Not all nationalism is malign, although I distrust it. But opposing it is silly–a fart in a windstorm. Hence I, for one, am not “anti-Zionist.” I think it’s high time that folks move past binary thinking, don’t you?
OK. let’s look at IAW and BDS. Take a look at this release:
http://apartheidweek.org/node/276
Where is “Occupied Palestine” and why won’t they be clear? Haifa? Or just Ramallah?
Note the reference to “the nature of Israel as a colonial apartheid system.” The reference is not to the occupation or the settlements but to “Israel” itself. Why am I not allowed to notice this?
And of course there was Richard Cohen’s column that the creation of Israel was a mistake–an MSM column expressing a view which is common on the Left but not on the Right (other than by people like Pat Buchanan).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html
Do you and Balbulican seriously question that this is so?
Yes, there are different points of view about what an independent sovereign Israel should be about, as is the case in every other country. But the starting point is that Israel’s raison d’etre is to serve as the homeland of the Jewish People. Are you seriously saying that many on the Left haven’t characterized that raison d’etre as tantamount to oppression, apartheid and colonialism? It’s something you see at virtually every demonstration against Israel’s state policies X, Y and/or Z.
When people protested the Vietnm War, there was never an issue as to whether US independence should be undone. But every time Israel is in the news a decent chunk of commentary continually revisits this point.
Mind you there is this opinion piece as to types of Zionism in today’s online Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/distorted-zionism-1.311387
Balb and DD,
Let me ask it another way. Do you agree with this statement contained in the United Church’s 2006 position paper:
http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/2006/e735
” 3.Through the General Secretary, General Council invite the membership, congregations and organizations of The United Church of Canada to contribute to the realization of a just peace in Palestine and Israel through:
…d.Making financial investments, as they pertain to Israel, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, only in peaceful pursuits, and affirming that the customary ethical investment process of our denomination is the proper vehicle for achieving this goal. Non-peaceful pursuits would include Canadian and international corporations and companies that: ….
ii.provide products services or technology to any government or organization that refuses to recognize the legitimate rights of the State of Israel including its right to exist as a Jewish State.”
Many on the Left that I debate would take great exception to this point.
I don’t have a problem with it. Who are these mysterious, unnamed “leftists” whose minds you can read ahead of time?
Dawg,
Not sure if you saw my comment at #17, which might have shown up later than the others, as it alone was being moderated.
OK. I’ll bite.
From the press release, first of all:
pressure apartheid Israel to comply with international law.
That’s a far cry from calling for the dismantling of Israel. Isn’t it?
Turning to Richard Cohen:
A “mistake,” as he puts it, is not a “crime,” and he ends by advising Israel to “hunker down.”
So far I don’t see much to disagree with, and nothing to defend your original point.
But you ignored the Occupied Palestine reference and the reference to Israel [itself] as a “colonial apartheid system.”
Cohen is hardly an outlier-what about the recently deceased Tony Judt, who would not have objected to being described as an anti-Zionist? And as to Balb’s points about blogs, what about the many who weigh in when these points come up to quite clearly say that Zionism is colonial, racist and a form of aparthied? (Todd? Steve C?) In the real world, what do people mean when they chant “Free Palestine” at demonstrations and why don’t they instead say “Free Gaza”? If being accused of being against Zionism is so bad, as I infer you both think is the case, why are they so squishy on the subject?
(The answer is the anti-Israel movement comprises a coalition of those who object to certain policies and those who are anti-Zionists. Of the latter, some would tolerate the permanence of Israel even if they think its creation was unjust and others want “regime change” like occurred in South Africa such that there is no longer a Jewish State. That’s not a conquest but it still the end of Israel as envisioned by Zionism and the Partition Plan, is it not?)
The point is you both would like Jews and others to brand the Right as the home of bigotry (as if it were mainstream on the Right in 2010, which it isn’t) but you are offended at the notion that the Left is the home of anti-Zionism, even if that POV is confined to only a minority on the Left.
Are you both truly saying that there isn’t a significant constituency on the Left that is of the view that Israel as a Jewish state is a form of apartheid/colonialism and that while the country shouldn’t be destroyed, it should cease to be a “Jewish state?” I’m mystified that we’re debating this as a factual matter given the frequency with which this very point of view has been expressed in a multitude of comment threads over the span of 4+ years since I began participating (during the last Lebanon war) in this ongoing debate.
And this from Judy Rebick:
http://transformingpower.ca/en/blog/no-one-can-terrorize-whole-nation-unless-we-are-all-his-accomplices-edward-r-murrow
“…It is a matter of debate whether the occupation started in 1948 or 1967. If you are of the view that the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes when Israel was founded was unacceptable, then the occupation began there. If you agree with the foundation of the State of Israel whatever the costs to the Palestinian people, then you think the occupation started in 1967. Believing that the foundation of the state of Israel was unjust does not mean that you think the state of Israel should not continue to exist. I believe that the foundation of Canada was unjust but I don’t call for the dissolution of Canada; although I am starting to consider it.
I am Jewish and have always opposed Zionism. It was a debate among Jews. It is a legitimate debate….”
“The point is you both would like Jews and others to brand the Right as the home of bigotry (as if it were mainstream on the Right in 2010, which it isn’t) but you are offended at the notion that the Left is the home of anti-Zionism, even if that POV is confined to only a minority on the Left.”
I’m sorry, by “you both”, are you referring to me?
Just a note – this thread began with a post from a Jewish conservative expressing disgust at a conservative blogger’s reference to “money-loving Jews” – and I agreed. Before we climb back on your favourite hobby horse, Mark, remember that.
Yes, Balb, it did, and no serious person defends that phrase or the person who utters it. (And if you really want to see a switch of topic, how about arthurdecco’s way worse statements spanning a period of years and RM’s refusal to characterinze them as expressions of anti-Semitism?)
And don’t turn this around-it’s not that defending Zionism is my favourite hobby horse-it’s that many on the Left see criticism of Israel as the anti-Vietnam like signature issue of the Left for the 21st century. I will speak out against that faction, even if many who used to share my views have now simply gone conservative.
I read your post as a plea to us to see who the real anti-Semites are. My comments comprise my answer.
Shrug. I don’t know this “The Left” you keep talking about, but it’s clearly not me, so carry on boxing with whatever shadows take your fancy. To me, “the real anti-Semites” are people who hate Jews, and they exist right across the political spectrum.
Correct, amd that force is insignificant and impotent, which is why many on the Left ciriticism the existence of CPCCA. What is a burning issue, however, is the Arab-Israeli dispute and, more important, how we discuss and debate that issue in Canada.
I believe that the foundation of Canada was unjust but I don’t call for the dissolution of Canada; although I am starting to consider it.
Bravo, Judy, other than the last flourish. What modern state was founded justly? What modern state has “a right to exist?” They do exist: let’s start from there.
Regime change is another matter entirely. Last time I looked, South Africa continues to exist, but apartheid is a thing of the past. I shall not be distracted further by climbing onto Marky’s hobby-horse, except to note that I have, extensively, reviewed apartheid-like elements in Israel and the occupied West Bank, and will not apologize for that.
As for anti-Semitism, as the saying goes, once it meant dislike of Jews. Now it means being disliked by Jews. No wonder we always find ourselves discussing the finer points of Likud politics instead of real anti-Semitism. Kate, to her credit, has no tolerance for the latter and has demonstrated its presence on the Right. We might disagree on ME politics, but never on anti-Semitism.
But she is quite clear she is an anti-Zionist-was that not my point, that anti-Zionism is a theme on the Left? You asked for names, and I give you one, and your response is to agree with what she said?
So you do or don’t want regime change? A Labor or Kadima government as opposed to a rightwing government, or do you mean a non-Zionist government?
Above you said you supported the United Church language but now you say no state has the right to exist. The operative language in the United Church release contains this statement: “the legitimate rights of the State of Israel including its right to exist as a Jewish State.” Do you agree with it or not?
Nobody is asking anyone to apologize, or is calling any of this anti-Semitism. All I’m saying is anti-Zionism exists on the Left, which seemed to offend you, but which seems to be an incontrovertible fact. And the point is that that anti-Zionism is much more of an issue for many Jews who have been part of the broad Left than are the anti-Semitic statements of the rightwing fringe. It’s not like Stephen Harper made the statement and there is no evidence that he believes it either.
@balbulican I have no idea if Marky Mark visits Mondoweiss but I think it qualifies as a ‘leftie’ blog of a considerable following which is very ‘anti-Zionist’ and does want to help bring about the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
@Kateland
I’ve read it but I don’t know if it is Left.
I agree that much of the left defines itself as “anti-Zionist.” I’m not sure it’s useful, nor do I think that the Likudnik version of Zionism is the only one. But being anti-Zionist–i.e., anti-nationalist–is a far cry from supporting the dissolution of the state of Israel.
Judy’s a plain-spoken woman. If she wanted the dissolution of the Israel state, she say so.
Yes, I want regime change, as I did during the days of apartheid in SA. I would like to see an inclusive, non-racist government in a state where anyone can buy land, where Bedouins aren’t being moved into reserves to make way for settlers in the Negev, and where Palestinians don’t have a boot on their necks in the West Bank and Gaza.
I said that I didn’t have a problem with the UC language. That’s true, although I also noted that I distrust nationalism, and I have a particular problem with ethnic nationalism. Take a look at the Balkans and you’ll see where I’m coming from. But on the “right” of Israel to exist, I’d say it has the same “right” as any other state. (I am just not keen on inventing such a “right,” but that’s more of an academic discussion.) In current parlance, this is just a way of saying that Israel as a state should persist. Again, and for the last time, Israel is, and we should accept that fact on the ground and move on.
OK, and I included in JR’s quote her clear reference to Israel’s creation being unjust, in her view, without her calling for its dissolution. She is in the second of the three categories that I laid out in the broad anti-Israel coalition (comment #23).
When all is said and done, I still see an intentional lack of clarity on the “regime change” POV and I don’t mean your comment, but the BDS/IAW movements generally. Clearly there is a call for changes in policy both in the ‘67 lands and within Israel itself and many of the policy changes are supported equally by leftie Zionist Israelis. But at a certain point at least for some of these people that amounts to a change in character of Israel from a “Jewish state” to a “binational” state. That is not a small point-it is instead a central point. I’m not sure why people can’t state this clearly or why it can’t be discussed in this country like any other controversial issues.
The reason I weighed in on Balbulican’s post (when I’ve really dramatically reduced my commenting these days) is that people need to understand there is a political dimension to these positions. I’m sure I’m quite representative in saying that to the extent you want voters concerned with anti-Semitism to evaluate the electoral choices, those voters are going to look at everything on the table and not who talks like David Duke, as, thankfully, we don’t have many of those people left in this country. Even if you can show that more of those people are on the Right than on the Left, which I thought Balb was saying in the post, but which seems less clear after his comment #28, for most Jewish Canadians who no longer encounter real anti-Semitism the more pressing issue is Israel.
It’s interesting that the response to my point was what you would have expected had I said the Left is anti-Semitic, or that anti-Zionism amounts to anti-Semitism, but I said neither of those things.
Well, to put my last card on the table and do a little “alternate worlds” speculation, what a difference it might have made if Israel had been conceived in other than narrow ethnic terms. It was a peculiarly vicious and narrow form of ethnicism, after all, that had victimized European Jewry in the first place.
In practical terms, of course, I realize that this is a fond and foolish dream. But it does make me despair, having observed the Balkan carnage and now watching Sarkozy round up the Roma as assiduously as the serviceable Vichy police of yore, that the negative baggage of ethnic nationalism is not easily shed. Unlike some of my progressive brothers and sisters, however, I think being “anti-” is unrealistic. The best we can hope for is a more benign form of the phenomenon–like, say, the collective bonding of Inuit in the new territory of Nunavut.
OK, so we end up having an interesting discussion. It’s actually quite relevant from a Canadian perspective, not only for the reasons you mentioned but also from the perspective of French Canadian or Quebecois nationalism. Trudeau in “Federalism and the French Canadians” made the arguments against nationalism that you often articulate, but since that time Quebec voters at the provincial level have elected nationalistic governments, some of which want Quebec to be its own state, and at the federal level we now have the Bloc as the dominant force.
Outside of Canada various states have broken up into their constituent nationalist based states, such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and in the case of the former USSR.
There is nothing unique about Israel in my view to justify it as “peculiarly vicious” case. To the contrary, Jews fought forever for equal rights and to be viewed as citizens of their “host” nations. Ultimately these efforts failed with catastrophic consequences and political Zionism had the proof it had been seeking for the necessity and desirability of a Jewish homeland. (And this is apart from the phenomenon that the Jewish People never stopped yearning for Zion, as reflected in religious liturgy and custom, and Jews were a majority in Jerusalem well before political Zionism began.) If there is something unique about Zionism among nationalisms, it would be that it more than others can show that this nation state is a matter of survival and not a mere preference.
Sure, Israel has many state policies that I don’t like. That’s true of most if not all states. But to the extent there are those who want to undo it and argue that that form of nationalism alone amounts to colonialism or apartheid, I think those who disagree need to push back.
No, no, Marky, go back and read what I wrote. The “peculiarly vicious” form of nationalism I was referring to was Nazism!
If we can re-frame this discussion as one about competing nationalisms (after all, the late unlamented Joseph Stalin wrote well on the national question, supporting left-wing forms of it) then we may have a basis for further discussion. A Zionism that bonds together a group of people without re-creating forms of oppression such as the apartheid-like features of the present-day State of Israel would be fine by me. And such a thing is neither chimerical nor impossible to achieve.
It just seems foolish to me to demand that a group of people clinging tightly to a group identity should be forced to shed that identity as a precondition of progress or peace–talk about fond and foolish dreams!
OK I see now my error in interpretation of your previous comment. And I don’t disagree that the conflict there is about competing nationalisms and land claims.