Howard Jacobson: A letter to an anti-Semite who isn't

Excerpt:

You remember the gag in Annie Hall when Woody Allen mistakes the question "D'you eat?" for "Jew eat?" I've been there myself. "I hate Jews," I heard a person on a mobile phone saying in a supermarket queue. I asked my wife who was queuing with me what she'd heard. "Highgate, at two," she told me. It's a Jewish joke against ourselves that we find anti-Semitism everywhere. As long as we're joking it means there's nothing to find.

But you're making it hard right now. I am sure you don't mean to. Hating Jews, after all, was something people on the extreme right of politics used to do, and you are on the moderate left. So you can't logically be an anti-Semite, as you continue to tell me. What you are is anti-Zionist, which is different. It bothers me that you think I can't tell the difference. Indeed you insist on it to the point where it is now impossible to disagree with anything you say about Israel without your ascribing such disagreement to Jewish paranoia, as though a disinterested critique of anti-Zionism is philosophically inconceivable to you. This is not a position you can credibly sustain. Only bigots suppose their views are not open to generous dissent. Only racists think all disagreement must be racially motivated. And you are neither a bigot nor a racist.

Your anti-Zionism, however, is tending to an extremism that spills over into something else. You would argue that that is because Zionism itself has turned the screws. And certainly there are cruelties committed in its name. I no more delighted in Gaza than you did. But it is moral hysteria to rewrite the past in order to assuage the conscience of the present. "Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs," a critic of Israel has recently written. To which both the long and the short answer is that anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware of no such thing.

For Zionism was never a single movement, and whatever isn't a single movement cannot be said to have a single aim. A complex of ideologies, Utopian, messianic, visionary, practical, communistical, sometimes dreamily idealistic – Jews and Arabs working the land side by side – sometimes just plain desperate, came together (and indeed didn't always do that) to form that which we call Zionism. Far from uniformly expressing Jewish expansionist ambitions, Zionists agreed only on the necessity to escape the grinding fretfulness of an unceasing anti-Semitism and to end the overwrought Jewish self-awareness of which anti-Semitism was the cause. Living with Arabs, not dispossessing them, was to be a way of achieving this.

Since I know you know that, I have a question for you. Regardless of what became of all that idealism, why do you distort its originating impulses? Why must you turn a project for a homeland that moved hearts and stirred imaginations into a cynical smash and grab plot hatched in the far-seeing minds of conniving Jews?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-a-letter-to-an-antisemite-who-isnt-1681843.html

If the intention was to live in peace with the Arabs, it's not working out so good.

you think it began this way in the 19th century?

or after the 6-day war in 1967?

some other point in time?

I said that that is what it has been allowed to look like, or to become if you like. Fundamentally it goes back to the decision to allow the building of "settlements" on occupied and confiscated Palestinian lands after the 1967 war.

Edit: If you allow yourself to indulge in the rhetoric and actions of conquest, you have no complaint if people come to see it that way. If the property and human rights of Palestinians had been properly protected and defended after the 1967 war, these critics you rail on about would not have a leg to stand on.

but since you say it's been allowed to "look" like that, now I ask if YOU truly believe it actually turned into that with settlements.

Just because you form it as a question, that does not mean it makes no assertions. It's like the old "So when did you stop beating your wife" question.

And it is not up to ME to fix it.

and if that is what you believe, I don't know b/c for some reason you don't want to say, then you must also believe those who go back to 1948 or before then and say zionism was a big, evil land grab back then are wrong / dishonest?

The meaning of Zionism has changed throughout it's history, more of less continuously. The actions taken by the Israeli state and certain Zionists after the 1967 war, as I outlined briefly above, in the occupied Palestinian territories, certainly have affected how Zionism is perceived now. I don't really see why you find that a contentious observation, and it has nothing to do with what I believe, it is what anyone can easily observe, and partly what the OP is trying to cast as anti-semitism. That does not mean that Zionism is a "smash-and-grab operation", or that I think so, those are the OPs words, not mine. I believe Zionism is a complex historical phenomenon, which is and has been seen in widely different ways by different people, partly based on how it has affected them, and that is what I am addressing, why it is perceived in certain ways by certain people, who see certain things and are affected in certain ways by it. I am not willing to acquiesce in statements that "Zionism is" anything less complicated than that, or to allow that I think anything less complicated than that about it. So sue me. You might ask yourself why the OP finds it necessary to emphasize only the good side of Zionism, as he sees it, in order to discredit those that see that it has created problems and had negative consequences too? His argument appears to me to boil down to the notion that Zionists had good intentions, which is true, by their lights, and that therefore people ought not be so critical now. That is a silly argument.

Either zionism is/was based initially via some smash-and-grab scheme or it wasn't. What's so difficult about this? If you don't believe it was, why not take issue with those who do believe that? What are the motivations of people who spew outright falsehoods? Are their views inconsistent? Are they dealing with reality? Etc.

If I were vague (maybe intentionally) about my view on settlements or occupation, or human rights issues, would you or many others here just let it be and not challenge or question me? I doubt it. But I think you have a right to ask and expect honest answers. I expect the same. I don't see why I or anyone else here in a liberal forum would have anything to hide, unless we're too embarassed to articulate what we know to be a very controversial (unprogressive) viewpoint.

As for Jacobson, he brings up some great points.

If you disagree with Israel, fine, but why the need to rewrite history from 60-100 years ago? Why pretend that holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad and Mahmoud Abbas aren't antisemites, but only antizionists? If what these guys say isn't antisemitic in the "strict" sense, then how about in the lax sense - and do we all tolerate this just the same if comments by pundits or leaders aren't Islamophobic or anti-Arab in the "strict sense"? The 7 jewish children play - if the Muslim community objected, would there still be a push by insensitive Western intellectuals to keep staging it despite the offense it causes? Highly doubtful, right?

I explain things that I said. If you, or Mr Jacobsen, say things like "Israel is a smash and grab scheme" then YOU get to explain them. If YOU, or Mr Jacobsen say things like "why the need to rewrite history from 60-100 years ago", them you get to explain them. I don't have to. It's not my responsibility.

Can it not be said that 1967 was the year in which the balance in Israel started shifting uncomfortably towards the military and away from the civilian democrats?

If not 1967, what about 1973, the year Ariel Sharon invented the West Bank settler movement, moving a civilian population into occupied land in defiance of the international laws that clearly state that land under military occupation must NOT be colonized by civilians of the occupying power?

It sounds from your posts above that you refuse to accept that anything has compromised the pristine innocence of Israel's political and military leadership.

but you're avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Going back to 1948 and before then, there are many "antizionists" who say that zionism 60-100 years ago was some smash-and-grab scheme WAY before 1967. Do you take issue with those folks?

As for after 1967, let's at least admit that had the Arab armies not started the 6-day war there wouldn't be an occupation/settlement issue to talk about, right? It's not as if Israel wanted the 1967 war in order to win land and start settling, right? In fact, Palestinians would still be under more brutal Jordanian and Egyptian control had Arab armies stayed put.

There were sincere idealists, there were people(like Martin Buber, a man who was shamefully disregarded)who did stand for something positive and galvanizing. There were also people like Ben-Gurion and Begin and Shamir who were in the smash-and-grab mindset. It wasn't all one thing or the other.

And it's no longer clear that the Arab armies actually did start the Six Day War. There's a fair amount of evidence that they were spooked in to massing at the Israeli borders(possibly at Soviet instigation)by rumors that Israel was about to do something crazy with nuclear weapons.

The Arabs did start the Yom Kippur War, and came close to winning it. Interestingly enough, it was the near-winner of that war, Anwar Sadat, a man considered indistinguishable from Nasser in the Israeli mindset of the day, who then took the unilateral risk of making a separate peace with Israel only four years later.

really difficult for me to take anything else you say seriously. This isn't the first time you've been in bizarro world with your views. I just no longer have time to deal with revisionism and fiction. Sorry. Stay well.

on edit:
I suggest Michael Oren's book on the 6-day war. It's universally acclaimed. And instead of just writing history, Oren is about to start making it as Israel's ambassador to the USA. Very likeable and smart guy. And the book is a very good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs

An article from the Jerusalem Post on the Soviet role in provoking the war:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708610161&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So no, it is NOT an unchallegeable assertion that that war was all the fault of those evil, baby-eating Arabs.

An interview with Tom Segev about his book on the war:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/202073

They were proud of the surprise they achieved. It's like asking it Egypt started the Sinai war.

now I see why you don't like discussing issues in more detail, like whether zionism was a "smash and grab" scheme from the very start. You're fine seeing it discussed either way, as if it's up for debate.

it;s just more acceptable in "progressive" circles, to pull the anti-Zionism card, rather than the anti-semitism.

After all, they only hate "Israeli policy", not the Jews who made it...right?

And they never, ever claim that Jews or Israel control the world and American foreign policy either...right?

and bragged about it to the Western press. He was criticized for saying openly what many already know to be true.

As to your claim that "anti-Zionists are really closet anti-Semites" I read that caca-del-toro in rightwing "pro-Israel" hate sites everyday.

Olmert says called Bush to force change in U.N. vote

Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:52pm GMT

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said a telephone call he made to U.S. President George W. Bush last week forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to abstain in a U.N. vote on the Gaza war, leaving her "shamed."

Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday, Olmert said he demanded to talk to Bush with only 10 minutes to spare before a U.N. Security Council vote Thursday on a resolution opposed by Israel calling for an immediate cease-fire.

"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the U.N. resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech," Olmert said.

"I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him now,'" Olmert said, describing Bush, who leaves office on January 20, as "an unparalleled friend" of Israel.

"They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'"

Olmert said he then told Bush: "'I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour.'

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50C20B20090113

Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote

By MARK LANDLER
Published: January 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”

Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.

Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html

By any reasonable standard, Israel wields more influence in Congress and the government than the largest states in the Union. Israel may not be the "51st" state. If it were, Israel wouldn't be as influencial as it is, and it wouldn't be robbing the American taxpayer blind to subsidize their settlement expansion and construction.

and that the preponderance of the evidence supports such an assertion.

your views differ only in detail from those of the people who voted for Norman Tebbit, or UKIP, or Michele Bachmann, or Avigdor Lieberman. They all seem to believe that other countries or ethnic groups have excessive power over theirs, and that those who disagree with them are a 'cesspool of traitors'.

No Israeli PM said Israel controlled American foreign policy.

Actually bragged about it to the Western media.

No Israeli PM bragged to the media that Israel controls American foreign policy.

Loathsome though he may be, he did not make that claim.

Sure, he didn't say "Israel controls US foreign policy" in those exact words, but then neither has some of the posters here who in the past you've said have claimed that Israel controls US foreign policy. Can't have it both ways, Oberliner...

and African Americans have had a disproportionate impact on US policy toward Africa.

Note that I put "control" in quotes. It's a matter of disproportionate influence through interest group politics, but not actual control.

It's Poli Sci 101.

When there is an organized group and/or voting block that is very interested in a policy and the majority of people don't have any particular interest in that policy, then the organized group will have a disproportionate influence on that policy.

I've never understood why this is a controversial claim.

On edit: This may have been posted in the wrong place. It was intended as an answer to the general question, not the particular claim about Olmert.

Certainly Sharon did not brag it to the media; it was first reported on anti-Israel sites that had their own bias.

Bush and Blair certainly attributed exaggerated powers to themselves to influence world events as they wished - so did many other leaders.

what else explains stuff like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x270897#274151

is there a better explanation for all these hypocritical double-standards singling out Israel, other than closet anti-semitism? if so, what's the explanation?

now cue the crickets.

Surely the entire world community could not possibly be right, and Israel wrong.

:crazy:

to any one country. that's so obvious, it's pathetic I have to tell you.

see post #48 please.....do you have an explanation?

Most countries, especially their governments, don't have very good records as regards wisdom and judgement.

Israel isn't the one big exception in either direction.

1) The US will not be in Afghanistan in ten years' time. Israel will still be in the occupied territories in ten years' time, and most likely in thirty years' time.

2) Intent. The US, for all it faults, genuinely seeks to establish a functional state in Afghanistan. Israel, despite its assertions to the contrary, is not intent on establishing a functional state in Palestine.

3) Casus belli. The US attacked Afghanistan in response to an unprovoked attack. Israel occupied the West Bank in a quest for territorial expansion.

is there a better explanation for all these hypocritical double-standards singling out Israel, other than closet anti-semitism?

The double standard is this: a great many American Jews clearly dislike both Arabs and Muslims. A 1992 survey by the American Jewish Committee found that 37% of American Jews sympathised with Meir Kahane either "somewhat" or "strongly". During the last election campaign, many emails circulated amongst right-wing Protestants, but also amongst the Jewish community, smearing Obama on the basis of his Muslim connections.

You clearly do not like Arabs or Muslims. However, I do not speculate on your anti-Muslim sympathies with every post I make as whether or not you dislike Muslims is only marginally relevant in considering whether what you say is untrue or not. Yet almost every single post you make in this forum seeks to attack critics of Israel on the basis that they have an animus against Jews. Why do you feel so strongly that hatred against Jews is so much more urgent or important than hatred towards Muslims?

1) The US will not be in Afghanistan in ten years' time. Israel will still be in the occupied territories in ten years' time, and most likely in thirty years' time.

So the US can do whatever it likes and the international peace camp, media, UN, human rights orgs, etc., will basically allow what is 10x worse than what happens in Israel?

Also, Israel got out of Gaza completely. What makes you so sure they won't do the same in the W.Bank within 30 years?

2) Intent. The US, for all it faults, genuinely seeks to establish a functional state in Afghanistan. Israel, despite its assertions to the contrary, is not intent on establishing a functional state in Palestine.

Says you, professor of Hamburger-ology (and btw, I loved that one by you).

Before the 2nd intifada, the territories were economically stronger than any Arab nations in the ME. With the build-your-own-home program, Israel seeked to end the refugee problem in the territories (the PLO and UNWRA nixed it). In 2000, a credible peace offer was made (at least Clinton thought so) and Lebanon was evacuated. 5 years later, Gaza was evacuated. It's not all Israel's fault that Palestine is still dysfunctional.

You clearly do not like Arabs or Muslims. However, I do not speculate on your anti-Muslim sympathies with every post I make as whether or not you dislike Muslims is only marginally relevant in considering whether what you say is untrue or not. Yet almost every single post you make in this forum seeks to attack critics of Israel on the basis that they have an animus against Jews. Why do you feel so strongly that hatred against Jews is so much more urgent or important than hatred towards Muslims?

Wow, yet another charge of racism. If I didn't know better (from my own PHD on hamburgerology) I'd say you're trying to stifle debate with baseless charges of racism (which you guys normally detest when your opponents accuse you of antisemitism).

Is your charge of racism against me based on faith or evidence? If evidence, please explain. I've been quite clear all along that PA leadership (the PLO and now Hamas) has acted as proxies of fanatical Jihadi Arab/Muslim leadership from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., the past 60-80 years and that THEY are Israel's enemy, not Palestinian civilians - who are also victims of the same fanatical Jihadi leadership. I want the Palestinians to enjoy their own state in peace along with Israel with better leadership that actually gives a shit about them and is accountable to them. I do not want 5-10 more generations of Israelis to keep fighting. I'd much rather see the next 5-10 generations of Israelis working peacefully alongside Palestinians. In fact, if it took going back to the original 1947 partition plan for true peace to endure, I'd be behind that 100%. So tell me, how am I racist in your opinion?

Is your charge of racism against me based on faith or evidence?

Why would you care? There are many things in this world that I instinctively dislike:- cats, bright lights, the smell of synthetic textiles. There are also several cultures that I tend to dislike. I find Turkish culture to be parochial and obsessively militant, notwithstanding that I have met numerous Turkish people who are extremely decent.

I imagine virtually all people experience similar dislikes - one statistic that I remember reading is that 98% of white, socially liberal people who write "race doesnt matter to me" in their online dating profiles end up dating other white, socially liberal people. People avoid admitting to racism not because they're not racist, but because they do not like to be seen as crude or unsophisticated.

My point is that I do not particularly concern myself with whether you like Muslims or not, as it is futile to try and speculate on people's motivations for what they write. For that reason, I tend to respond to posts on the basis of whether or not they are true, rather than whether they are motivated by racism or not. I do not seek to stifle debate because I do not personally believe that a racist's opinions should automatically not be taken seriously.

To paraphrase Donald's post (#31) below, for every accusation of anti-Arab sentiment on this forum I would estimate there are at least ten claims of anti-semitism. I am not offended by those accusations in the slightest but I nevertheless find them enormously turgid and repetitive.

just a little baseless ad-hominem you throw in every now and then.

got it.

if all could agree to avoid gratuitous accusations of both anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish sentiment, I'd be all for it.

I would argue that this claim that there are 10 accusations of anti-semitism for every one accusation of anti-Arab sentiment is very inaccurate.

I would argue that in many many posts in this forum there are some claims that Zionism itself is "anti-Arab" or "racist" - thereby impugning all of those who consider themselves to be Zionist (i.e. Joe Biden, Barack Obama, etc) as "holding anti-Arab sentiments."

I would also argue that there are many more posts that say "I guess I'll be called an anti-semite now" than posts where people are actually accused of being anti-semites.

Those who are "pro-Israel" and/or Zionists are accused of holding "anti-Arab sentiments" with as much (or more) frequency on this board as those who are "pro-Palestinian" and/or anti-Zionists are accused of being anti-semitic.

Those who are "pro-Israel" and/or Zionists are accused of holding "anti-Arab sentiments" with as much (or more) frequency on this board as those who are "pro-Palestinian" and/or anti-Zionists are accused of being anti-semitic.

That's complete nonsense...

I would also argue that there are many more posts that say "I guess I'll be called an anti-semite now" than posts where people are actually accused of being anti-semites.

I have seen that only occasionally from the "tourists" that pop up from time to time. I have never seen it being stated by a regular poster.

I would also point out that virtually all the references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the "JOOOOSS!!", blood libels, Jews controlling the world etc, are made by the pro-Israel supporters, generally in an effort to ascribe anti-semitism to other people. Its admirable to see them working so hard at keeping old anti-semitic tropes alive.

If so,

1. Why doesn't that bother you so much?
2. Are you concerned that fellow leftists, the media, UN, human rights orgs, etc.. aren't paying much attention and letting it go on?

Here are those links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050800924.html?wprss=rss_world/wires
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus3-2009may03,0,7133284.column

:crazy:

Forgot to take the meds this morning?

posted on those subjects, but they do not appear in the I/P forum for some reason, if you take the time to look the media and human rights organizations are paying attention, if Israel were smart it would be paying attention too, the Taliban having access to nukes strikes me as far more of a threat than Iran

e.g. Peace Action

http://www.peace-action.org/Afghanistan/call_afghan_action.html


The Stop the War Coalition

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1229/27/


http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1183/144/


United for Justice with Peace

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xqlwW4Ptl9YJ:www.justicewithpeace.org/system/files/Afghanistan%2BPetition.doc+afghanistan+petition&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk



Note that I do not necessarily endorse all these organizations (e.g. the Stop the War Coalition, though its main aims are good, includes some individuals and groups whom I don't support); but it can't be said that they aren't campaigning about US/UK actions in Afghanistan.

It is perfectly true that the UN rarely passes resolutions about military actions of the US, or UK, or Russia, or China; but the same can't be said of the left as a whole.


Also, there have been quite a lot of GD threads about Afghanistan - with DU-ers on different sides of the issue, just as with I/P; but obviously these threads don't get into this particular forum.

Also, the exact same international hard "left" that rips into Israel is not nearly as vocal about the US and UK.

It's really no contest, LB.

Maybe it's different in the UK compared with some other countries - but our hard left are SERIOUSLY negative to the USA and to our own government, and bring this us far more than they do Israel. I'm not saying that they don't also sometimes show quite intemperate anti-Israel sentiment; but opposition to the UK government, USA, and the alliance between the two is definitely the most central for them.

As regards human rights organizations: right at the moment, they seem more preoccupied with Sri Lanka than with either Israel or Afghanistan; but certainly the latter has come up recently; e.g.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/afghanistan-accountability-civilian-casualties-needed-more-troops-arrive

and although these latest events may rate somewhere within some obscure Amnesty Int'l or HRW report, these events to the aforementioned HR groups are clearly not worthy of anything to get all bent out of shape and hysterical over. Rest assured, that if what's reported in those 2 accounts linked in post #48 were to happen WRT Israel, the attention given would dwarf Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009. Forget int'l coverage, in Israel alone the left would shriek a whole helluva lot louder than the US left.

'It;s just more acceptable in "progressive" circles, to pull the anti-Zionism card, rather than the anti-semitism.'

Not just in progressive circles; in most mainstream circles. Antisemitism (thank goodness) is often treated as socially unacceptable these days, so people tend to disguise it. Using the word 'Zionists' in place for 'Joooooos' is a well-known method. (The equivalent of the British racist who wrote on a wall, 'ETHNICS OUT!' instead of the words such people usually use!)


But there are other reasons for anti-Zionism: ranging from objections to nationalism in general, to a 'mirror-image-ist' dislike for all of America's allies. Also, some people misunderstand the word 'Zionist', and equate it with 'support for the Occupation'.

Arthur Balfour for one, who supported the creation of a "Jewish state" because he hoped it would keep Jews from moving to the UK and possible reduce the size of the Jewish population already living there.

A lot of U.S. "Christian Zionists" would fit that category as well, especially the "Last Days-Rebuild The Temple" types who want to force the entire Jewish population of the planet to have to choose between conversion or death.

Some of them are going to be bound to have been Zionists!

Anything that would rid Europe of its Jews was seen to be a positive by that crowd.

You don't see a lot of their ideological descendants espousing pro-Zionist views today.

as does Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front in France(You remember Le Pen, he's the guy who said the Holocaust was "a detail of history").

So some of that still happens.

Just as the Bush dynasts hoped that their "pro-Israel" stance would make people forget what Grandpa Prescott invested in during World War II.

:yawn:

And, tragically, when it does, no one believes the boy's warnings, right?

And unlike the boy in the story, Israel has compounded the problem by her own misdeeds in Lebanon and Gaza.

How big a role anti-semitism plays in the West's attitude to the Israeli/Palestian conflict is debateable, but the sane debate is between "a small one", "a very small one" and "a practically non-existant one" - false accusations of antisemitism used to silence criticism clearly play a much larger role than genuine anti-semitism, and are a larger problem.

However, anti-arab and anti-muslim prejudice, in the West and especially in Israel, play a massive role in determining attitudes to the conflict - if Israel's victims were predominantly white Christians, there is no way it would have been allowed to get away with treating them the way it has for so long. Even here on DU, many of the "pro-Israel" posters indulge in non-trivial anti-Palestinian bigotry.

And yet, for every mention of anti-arab or anti-Muslim prejudice and the role in plays in attitudes to the conflict, we get a dozen discussions of whether or not critics of Israel are anti-semitic.

Why the double standard?




Oh, and a personal anecdote to finish on. I am a Jew living in the UK. In 25 years, practically the only antisemitism I have encountered has been from a boy at school who used "Jewish" to mean "impoverished, and hence unwilling to spend money" once, and was mortified and apologised when I pointed out that I was Jewish and that it wouldn't be acceptable even if I wasn't. On the other hand, my large black beard means that I fairly *regularly* have anti-Muslim abuse hurled at me in the streets by complete strangers.

It's always been this way in this forum, and I put it down to DU being full of predominantly Americans. There's definately a real double standard at work from quite a few folk when it comes to bigotry against Muslims/Arabs and bigotry against Jews....

If you feel that anti-Muslim or anti-Arab is a major problem on the left and/or among progressives then I would encourage and support any attempts to bring this problem to light so that it can be aggressively combated.

We all know (and condemn strongly) the RW/Conservative penchant for demonizing Arabs and Muslims. This is, of course, a major problem in numerous sectors of society - not the least of which being Hollywood films (supposedly a bastion of liberalism).

I have actually read some articles/posts on this site and others that accuse self-avowed liberals of holding some very prejudiced attitudes towards Muslims and Arabs, perhaps without even realizing that they do.

What I do not think is fair is to suggest that folks should not draw attention to this phenomenon with regard to anti-semitism. Just as many folks do not realize that their vision of the conflict may be clouded by a racism that is so subtle that they themselves are unaware of it, some folks also may not understand the anti-semitism implicit in some of their assumptions and beliefs.

And I would respectfully argue that the "dozen discussions" about whether or not criticism of Israel is anti-semitic (for every one about anti-Arab prejudice) are stoked as strongly by those who do not believe this is the case than by those who do.

If more folks on the left were willing to accept that this problem is indeed a reality then we wouldn't have to have so many discussions about whether or not the phenomenon is real.

And, in response to your personal note, I will tell you, as someone who lives in the US in an area that is home to sizable Jewish and Arab/Persian communities that I have witnessed acts of clear cut anti-semitism and anti-Arab prejudice on about a weekly basis in approximately equal numbers.

And I've also pointed out when it's not (eg someone tried to tell me that criticising AIPAC was indulging in antisemitism, and someone else claimed that criticism of Hamas was bigotry against Arabs). The thing I've noticed over the years in this forum is that many of those who spend a lot of their time posting articles about antisemitism and jumping on any post they think is antisemitic in nature is that in some cases they show a distinct lack of sensitivity when it comes to bigotry aimed at other groups, like Arabs and Muslims, and can be found making comments about Arabs and Muslims that they'd be quite correct to think was antisemitic if the word 'Jew' was inserted instead of 'Arab' or 'Muslim'. And then there's the ones who are all over comments they consider to be antisemitic, yet don't pop up when it comes to comments that are bigoted in nature about Arabs or Muslims. I asked someone who did that once why if they were opposed to bigotry against Arabs and Muslims as they were opposed to antisemitism, why didn't they reply to posts aimed at Arabs or Muslims and react in the same way they did to antisemitism. Their answer was 'I don't know'. Pretty lame, imo...

You are a Jew in the UK. So tell me, and please provide an example or 2, why (or better, HOW) is Shira more "racist" against arabs/muslims than Galloway or Livingston are anti-semitic? Justify your POV, please. I'm assuming you think I'm racist against arabs/muslims and Galloway/Livingston are not anti-semites. After your response, I'll defend my POV with regard to Galloway/Livingston, okay?

And considered as a bit of a buffoon even by most people on the left here. People here who are not very interested in politics may not even have heard of him - at least, before he took time off his job in Parliament to take part in "Celebrity Big Brother"(!)

I would say that Galloway is as much on the fringes of British politics as, say, Cynthia McKinney is on the fringes of American politics.

As for Livingstone, he is a very tactless man, but I do not regard him as particularly antisemitic - at least not in his policies. He has in any case been replaced as Mayor of London by Boris Johnson, who has sometimes been accused of racism and Islamophobia. Again, Boris is a very tactless man, but I doubt that he is particularly racist - at least in his policies. He is, however, a Conservative and a total prat (but I repeat myself...) Ken was much more competent, if no more tactful.

As regards British attitudes: the point is not whether *you* are more anti-Muslim than Galloway is antisemitic, but whether general prejudice in Britain is. And yes, it is: just read the newspapers which have the widest readership in Britain: the tabloids such as the 'Daily Express', 'Sun' and most of all, the 'Daily Mail'. Anti-*Arab* prejudice is admittedly not a big thing in most parts of Britain, simply because there are very few Arabs in most places. But it certainly exists; e.g. I know a Puerto Rican student in Oxford, who had the words 'Bloody Arab!' shouted at her in the street. The prejudices are most strongly against Muslims of Pakistani and other South Asian origin. In fact, the biggest prejudices in Britain are not against Muslims, Jews or any other specific religious/ethnic group, but against *immigrants*. Most people in Britain will not openly admit to being against Muslims or Jews: only 6% in one poll admitted to disliking Jews, and 14% to disliking Muslims - though asking subtler questions will generally bring out more prejudice. But 50% in another poll at the same time supported the 'voluntary' repatriation of immigrants, and 60% said that we have 'too many' immigrants (this was before the credit crunch, which has probably increased such sentiments). And non-white people in Britain are commonly included among 'immigrants' in the popular mind, even if they have lived in Britain for several generations.

So in Britain: antisemitism is a problem; Islamophobia is a worse problem; but anti-immigrant prejudice and plain old racism based on skin colour are considerably worse problems than either.

The claim that he was is based solely on a single encounter he had with an overaggressive right-wing news reporter, and the comment that got him in trouble was a comment about the past political history of the journalists employer, a reactionary paper that was openly pro-Hitler in the Thirties. The truth is Ken Livingstone spent his career fighting for the rights of all people and against all forms of discrimination. One tactless moment with a right-wing provocateur does not justify labeling him as an antisemite. Nor does his support for self-determination for the Palestinians.

This was around 1983. I was angry, but didn't say anything. I was visiting my then girlfriend who is also Black. When we got outside I complained and asked how she could tolerate living there.

She laughed and said the guy said "beau" not "boy" and that it was a friendly term in that part of the state.

Regardless of the intentions... even if they were to live "side by side" with "the Arabs" that sure as shit wasn't the outcome, was it?

"they" judge Arabs and their leadership by their actions too.