Mixing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

It's not been released yet, but a "hard-hitting" report by MPs is set to say that criticism of Israel is "being used as a pretext" for spreading anti-Semtism, according the Observer.

Denis MacShane, Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Huhne were involved, and they appear to have taken a perfectly legitimate investigation regarding the state-of-play with anti-Semtism, into an attempt to score political points against pro-Palestinian campaigners. The boycott campaign comes in for particular criticism:

The report voices particular concern over 'a minority of Islamic extremists who are inciting hatred towards Jews', and it criticises recent moves by left-wing academics to boycott links with Israel. Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism.

'Calls to boycott contacts with intellectuals and academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange,' the report says, adding that the response of university vice-chancellors to such campaigns has been patchy.

MacShane, speaking last week on a BBC radio programme devoted to Jewish community issues, said British Jews were right to 'shudder' at the 'aggressive' comparison of Israeli policies with the Holocaust. He also spoke of a 'witch's brew' of anti-semitism including the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists who reject Israel's right to exist.

What MacShane is wilfully misunderstanding and 'brewing' together, is Judaism with the state of Israel - they aren't synonymous. Being an anti-Semite is not the same as being an anti-Zionist. Israel isn't criticised because it is a Jewish state, Israel is criticised on its record. That is why Jewish academics have been at the head of the academic boycott. Trying to shutdown protests regarding Israeli aggression under the cloak of anti-Semitism accusations is abysmal and will hopefully be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Meanwhile, where is the similar cross-party investigation into Islamophobia? 53% of Britons say that Islam is a threat, while two-thirds of Muslims say they will have to leave the country eventually due to the hostility.

Comments

[thabet]

Yitzchak,
What *would* indicate a desire for peace?
This is my point entirely. You're been partial. What is the actual status on the ground? How "close" to border is the wall being built? Why only "close to"? Why not on or inside? Why are settlements in the WB still there or being expanded? Pulling out of Gaza, a tiny strip of land, seems a bit meaningless. I'm not saying Israel has no interest in peace. But add to that its careless use of force, and it seems there is little effort or desire. Any acknowledgement, for example, on the sheer numbers of Palestinians killed, other than hysterical wailing about how much "they hate us more than they love their children" or that "they hide amongst civlians"?

Let me be clear on one thing though. I don't support the two-state solution. I don't think it will work. The only solution would appear to require both sides to give up core ideological beliefs, and I doubt either side is willing (to create a single, democratic, state). And I know: this is very easy for me to say.

Fez,
Just because the Nazis are the popular hyperbole of evil, that shouldn't prevent us from trying to speak historically.
When the Israelis start herding Palestinians into gas chambers, then sure the comparisons will work. With this thinking, we could link everything from a single state schooling system to public health reforms to the Nazis. Israel might be guilty of a lot; but it isn't a reincarnation of the Third Reich. "Speaking historically" is often arbitary (e.g. where does one draw the historical lines?). And if we're going to speak "historically" on this issue, then one cannot understand Zionism and its origins without understanding the history of Jews in Europe.

But the sadder fact is some people who invoke the comparison have no interest in "history", and do so to insult Jews.

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Pulling out of Gaza, a tiny strip of land, seems a bit meaningless.

I used to know some Lebanese guys in the early 1980's. They used to tell me that it didn't matter that Israel gave back the Sinai. Who cares--just a lot of desert. I'm not trying to ignore your other points, but we seem to be getting away from my original point, which is that people who call themseleves anti-Zionists are often bigots anyway although perhaps not anti-Semites, strictly speaking. There has to be some point where you can't just call it bias anymore. People who label themselves "anti-Zionists," which seems by definition to go beyond merely criticizing Israel, are usually going for some sort of delegitimization. I mentioned the Nazi-comparison as an example. I don't think anyone is left on this thread trying to defend it. We could go further into some of your points. Tell me a country you admire for its careful use of force if you want. I think I have made my point without going into all the usual debates.

[joe90]

The only reason the Israeli government gave back the Sinai -

ie a part of Egypt that belonged to Egypt
ie land stolen by Israel (nothing unusual there)

- was because Israel was nearly wiped out by Egypt under Prez Sadat in the 1972 war.

The peace offers that the racists of Israel turned down, pre-1972 were more generous to it, than the terms they were eventually forced to swallow in the 'historic' peace deal in 1978.
Israel only made peace because Egypt was now seen as a viable military threat to Israel on its southern border. As soon as peace was made with Egypt
ie Egypt was nuetralised and bacame a US puppet state
Israel turned its attention to destroying Palestinian society in Lebanon and on the West Bank.

As usual, violence is the only language that the Israeli government understands.

During the farcical implimentation of the Oslo Accords, the size of illegal racially-sterile Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land doubled in size.

Hardly a sign that the Israeli government was serious about wanting to live in peace with its neighbours. It didn't want any neighbours at all!

[Yitzchak Goodman]

As soon as peace was made with Egypt
ie Egypt was nuetralised and bacame a US puppet state Israel turned its attention to destroying Palestinian society in Lebanon and on the West Bank.

This is what I mean by the sort of extremism that calls itself "anti-Zionism." It isn't anti-Semitism per se--let's call it Zion-phobia.

[joe90]

Instead of throwing smears about and name calling you can address the evidence and arguments that I put -

- given you were completely out of your depth in arguments over 'existence' earlier on (which I couldn't be bothered to pursue) you show a similar grasp here as towards the historical facts of the case.

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Instead of throwing smears about

I think your point of view is extreme, and most of your arguments are one-liners accompanied by no evidence. The word "racist" was just sort-of tossed into a sentence about peace offers that you couldn't be bothered to give any details about. And Egypt, we learn from your little rant, is "a U.S. Puppet state." If you'll excuse me, I have some imperialism to attend to.

[joe90]

You haven't presented any evidence to refute my arguments -
- Israeli got less out of the peace settlement after the 1972 war with Israel than it was offered by Egypt before the war - why was that?

It is a simple enough argument to understand and likewise, its refutation would be as simple - however, that would imply you knew something about what your are talking, which you obvioulsy don't -
- much like your earlier display of complete lack of knowledge of ontology and ethics.

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Israeli got less out of the peace settlement after the 1972 war with Israel than it was offered by Egypt before the war - why was that?

You mean the Jarring-Sadat offer? It was not the exactly the same Israeli government each time. You are trying to make it all hinge on one point, and I am not impressed by the little bit of analysis you are offering. And if you want to continue this, why did you put the word "Jews" in quotation marks above?

[Shavez]

Yitzchak: This is what I mean by the sort of extremism that calls itself "anti-Zionism." It isn't anti-Semitism per se--let's call it Zion-phobia.

Perhaps if Zionists were to define their borders, there would be less "phobia" about what lands they seek to conquer.

[joe90]

Still as unforthcoming and ignorant as expected with the usual name-calling and attenpts at trying to smear anyone with racism who criticises the racist regime of Israel

I fail to see what changes of Israeli government have to do with Israeli ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of Egypt.

pre 1972 before Egyptian-Israeli War -
- Sinai in exchange for peace
- Jarring Inititiative - Egypt offered to enter into a peace agreement with Israel, the first time an Arab government publicly announced it would officially sign a peace agreement with Israel -
- completely rejected by Israel -
- Sharm-el-Sheik claimed as vital to Israel security

1978 -
- Sinai exchanged by Israel for peace
- Israel was forced to give up ALL its gains in 1967 in regards to Egptian territory
- Israel's mythical military 'invincibility' shattered
- Israel completely caves in to Egypt
- not even a whimper about the once supposedly vital Sharm-el-Sheik

[joe90]

Exactly shavez mate,
even though 'Israel has a right to exist', the Israel government itself fails to recognise any official borders and is currently illegaly occupying three neighbouring countries, in part or in whole.

Trying to define where Israel is on a map, where borders meet borders, is a difficult enough exercise never mind ascribing the property of existence as a predicate of this unique living mythical object called 'Israel'.

[joe90]

Does 'Palestine have a right to exist'?

[Yitzchak Goodman]

I fail to see what changes of Israeli government have to do with Israeli ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of Egypt.

It captured the territory in the 67 war, which was defensive as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you'll disagree. It gave the territory back as part of a peace agreement. And Israel had to be convinced that it would actually lead to peace. I think Golda Meir was very skeptical on this point. Changes in administration make a difference. Who was in office in the US made a difference also. That is why discussions of the Middle East are always talking about missed opportunities--the political will to do something is a complicated thing. And this is all coming down to your comparison of an offer to an actual peace agreement. There is something ontologically tenuous about that.

[joe90]

No the 1967 War was not a defensive war for Israel -
- Israel attacked first in 1967 - there was no threat to it from the UAR (Egypt and Syria) - Jordan was just a British puppet state at the time and really didn't want to take part in the conflict -

Israel always attacks first 1967, 1972 the various invasion of Lebanon etc etc - that is almost axiomatic in the history of the Israeli state.

Pre-1972, under no circumstances was Israel going to relinquish Egyptian territory it had stolen by illegal violent means in 1967 - which again, is normal Israel state policy no matter which gang of violent racist is in government

In 1971 Prez Sadat showed he was willing to make peace with Israel, give it full recognition, diplomatic ties etc - it became a pressing matter for the Egyptian government because Israel (as usual) began a campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Sinai and began to construct racially sterilised utopias, such as Yamit on occupied Egypt -
- as Prez Sadat put it "Yamit means war!"

The 1971 Jarring Initiative (full Egyptian recognition of Israel in return for Sinai) took the Israeli government by surprise, but they were still adamant there would be no withdrawal from occupied Egyptian territory under any circumstances -

Only because Egypt 'came within an ace' of wiping Israel off the face of the map in 1972, did the racists in Israel and the US come to their senses and make peace under exactly the same terms as Egpyt was willing to settle for pre-1972 -
- except this time Egypt had shown it was a real military threat to Israel's military preponderance - hence the peace deal in 1978.

After 1978, Israel was free to to attack and accelerate its ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and attack Lebanon and the Palestinian society that had put its roots down there, close to their stolen homes and land in former Palestine.

Violence is the only language the Israel state understands hence its willingness, for the first time ever, to give back to its rightful owners land it was occupying and ethnically cleansing

I hope that isn't too tenuously ontological for you - there is enough historical data and arguments to keep it out of the realms of fairytale nonsense like 'Israel's right to exist' blather

[utbah]

"Half the comments at the MPAC-UK site? Joe90 putting the word "Jews" in quotation marks?" Seriously you must be the dumbest Zionist I have ever come across.

Does Hitler still represent the people of Germany because he was a German? How the hell can you lable MPAC as Anti-Semitic?

If you see Anti-Semitism there is the Report button, report it and get it removed. But show me one comment which is Anti-Semitic there.

[joe90]

utbah mate,
I loved your earlier comments about the effects of pain on the body of the Ummah!
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/09/one_of_the_teac.html

That is so beautiful and touching my friend - I'm nearly crying!

And no I am not a Muslim (unfortanately!)

As for this joker -
- it's standard oprating procedure to attack the person rather than having to go through the tawdry task of actually knowing something about the subject under discussion ie the violent racist regime of Israel and its violent racist history

All the best my friend and take care!

[Yitzchak Goodman]

But show me one comment which is Anti-Semitic there.

http://judeopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-favorite-comment-of-day-from-mpac.html

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Israel always attacks first 1967, 1972

What do you mean about 1972?

[Shavez]

Why hasn't the '67 land been given back to the Palestinians? Why if it's defensive to be there, have hundreds of colonial settlements been built there?

[joe90]

Exactly Shavez mate,

the excuse this time goes something like -

"the illegal racist Israeli occupation (it should be called ethnic cleansing and genocide really) will continue until the Palestinian stop resisting the occupation"

- reasoning which Franz Kafka and George Orwell would appreciate.

Notice how our interlocutor wastes his time pointing out innocent mistakes regarding a date (ie 1972 should read 1973) instead of just correcting it and getting on with the discussion. Typical playground antics, which only means one thing - he has no argument because ours are correct.

Here is the great Jonathan Cook rehearsing the Israeli government's current excuses to abide by international law and order

June 30, 2006
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php>KIDNAPPED BY ISRAEL
The British Media And The Invasion Of Gaza

Israel has been demanding three concessions from the Palestinians before it says it will negotiate with them: a recognition of Israel’s right to exist; a renunciation of violence; and a decision to abide by previous agreements.

His article is an easy read and re-iterates the lies and propaganda used to create such things as the Israeli Warsaw Ghetto of Gaza.

All the best Shavez!

ps
3 brill Palestinian sites (you probably know about these already - but I always like to publicise good stuff), 2 of which are actually run by Palestinians themselves which is always top of the pops with me!

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/home.php>Palestine:Information with Provenance

http://www.plands.org/>Palestine Land Society

http://qumsiyeh.org/>Sharing the Land of Canaan; Qumsiyeh: A Human Rights Web

Actually, there's stonks more - I have to stop somewhere!!

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Notice how our interlocutor wastes his time pointing out innocent mistakes regarding a date (ie 1972 should read 1973)

You have been calling it 1972 the whole time, so I knew which war you meant. What did you mean by saying that Israel attacked first?

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Why hasn't the '67 land been given back to the Palestinians? Why if it's defensive to be there, have hundreds of colonial settlements been built there?

I said that the 67 war was defensive. Why Jews are not out of the West Bank is all the history since then and all the history before. We don't have to rehash here. This all started out with my simple point that anti-Zionism can also cross the line into bigotry. You ought to at least admit that it is just as possible to be bigotted about a country as about a religion. Anyway, this is going on too long.

[Osama]

I suppose there's no simple answer to that one for you Yitzchak. I find instructive though that you say:

"Why Jews are not out of the West Bank is all the history since then and all the history before"

If you say anti-Semitism is on the rise, is it not better to take Judaism out of the equation with these crimes? Not at least better to call them "extremists"?

[Utbah]

"But show me one comment which is Anti-Semitic there.

http://judeopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-favorite-comment-of-day-from-mpac.html"

And your telling me that represents MPAC's views?

Hey Osama, do I speak on behalf of your blog?

Comments Policy
MPACUK is not responsible for comments posted on the site by our readers. We will however do our best to remove or edit posts which are deemed to contain racist or homophobic remarks, personal abuse, libel, copyrighted material, excessive swearing, references to illegal activities and requests for CD keys or pirated software.

MPACUK staff members regularly monitor comments however, the sheer volume of traffic on the site means that we don't always manage to read every post. If you discover a comment which you believe to contravene the guidelines set out above you can report the comment for our attention by clicking "Report This Comment" at the bottom right of a post.

Oh, wait for it, wait for it, I'm a bloody Anti-Semite now!!

You still didn't answer my question. Are Germans still Anti-Semitic, Mass Murderers because of what Hitler did to Millions of people?

Anyone who speaks out against Israel brutal racist laws is an Anti-Semitic, in your bloody eyes.

[Utbah]

Actually I wouldn't be suprised that you posted that comment just to make blog about it.

Planting Anti-Semitism?