My plea to the left: treat Jews the same way you’d treat any other minority

[Mosby]

Let’s imagine for just a moment that a small but vocal section of the left was consumed with hatred for one faraway country: barely an hour could pass without them condemning it, not just for this or for that policy, but for its very existence, for the manner of its birth, for what it represented. And now let’s imagine that this country was the only place in the world where the majority of the population, and most of the government, were black.

You’d expect the racist right to hate such a country. But imagine it was that noisy segment of the left that insisted it would be better if this one black country had never been created, that it was the source of most of the conflict in its region, if not the world. That its creation was a great historical crime and the only solution was to dismantle it and the people who lived there should either go back to where they – or rather, their grandparents or great-grandparents – had come from; or stay where they were and, either way, return to living as a minority once more. Sure, living as a minority had over the centuries exposed them to periodic persecution and slaughter. But living as a majority, in charge of their own destiny – well, black people didn’t deserve that right.

And now imagine that the people who said all these things insisted they had nothing against black people. On the contrary, they were passionately against all forms of racism. In fact it was their very anti-racism that made them hate this one black country. Their objection was only to this country, its conduct and its existence, not to black people themselves. You surely were only inventing this horrible accusation of racism to divert attention from the wicked black country and its multiple crimes.

Most on the left would give such a view short shrift. They would be suspicious of this insistence that loathing of the world’s only black country was separate from attitudes to black people in general, especially because most black people had a strong affinity with this country, seeing it as a constitutive part of their own identity. The left would not be swayed by the fact these critics could point to a handful of black activists who shared their loathing of this country and wished it gone. They would want to listen to the mainstream black community and be guided by them.

I could keep going, but you get the idea. Jews have watched the events of recent days with a weariness that might surprise many, given how shocking they must seem: the sight of Ken Livingstone suspended by the Labour party over antisemitism, along with the Bradford West MP, Naz Shah. Weary because they have known of these attitudes, indeed warned that they had found a warm space to incubate on the left, for many, many years.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/29/left-jews-labour-antisemitism-jewish-identity

[leftynyc]

1. Great piece

The Labour party in GB has some real soul searching to do. Right now I wouldn't belong to any party in GB.

[Little Tich]

2. A reasonable request. n/t

[6chars]

3. Back to the good old days of Jews pleading

Good think there is Israel now.

[King_David]

4. Yep

And also that's why the usual suspects are AntiZionists , the " good old days " for Jews can't happen now that Israel is around ...

AntiZionists hate the fact that Jews are now string and do not go meekly like lambs - Israel did that.

[Ken Burch]

5. The left(many of whose members)do treat Jewish people like any other minority.

It's just that some of the left rejects the idea that the only way to do that is to give unquestioning support to the state that purports to embody that minority.

I support Israel's right to exist, but the question of Zionism needs to be decoupled from the issue of antisemitism.

[shira]

7. Ken, the reactionary anti-Imperialist Left hates Jews...believes Hamas is progressive.

Here is the Socialist Workers Party theoretician John Molyneux instructing the members in the finer points of reactionary anti-imperialism:

[font color = "red"]"To put the matter as starkly as possible: from the standpoint of Marxism and international socialism an illiterate conservative superstitious Muslim Palestinian peasant who supports Hamas is more progressive than an educated liberal atheist Israeli who supports Zionism (even critically)."

And here is Judith Butler - a professor at Berkeley and one of the most influential academics on the planet – drawing the political conclusions: “Hamas and Hezbollah... are social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.”

[/font]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/11243168/Blaming-Israel-for-Palestinian-violence-is-racist-it-denies-that-Arabs-are-moral-agents.html

[LeftishBrit]

16. Not so. There are SOME who do; but anti-imperialist far-leftist do not automatically hate Jews.

Antisemitism and other forms of racism occur in all parties, and are possibly commoner in tiny fringe parties than in mainstream parties (because of the association between anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories).

But your broadbrush remarks are not only unfair to left-wingers and anti-imperialists in general, but risk encouraging a self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g. Joe Bloggs is ardently left-wing; has never heard of Hamas except in the context of critics who say that 'leftwingers think Hamas is progressive'; so concludes that Hamas MUST be progressive).

The Socialist Workers Party are a nutty fringe-group.

Molyneux, of whom I've never heard before now, is clearly nuts.

Judith Butler is certainly not 'one of the most influential academics on the planet' except maybe in a very restricted subject area; frankly I'd never heard of her.

Hamas is extreme religious-right.

[shira]

17. What percentage do you think are Corbynites, Galloways, Livingstones....?

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Those for BDS, anti-zionists.....just among anti-Imperialist Leftists.

Less than half?
More?

[oberliner]

8. That's definitely not true

The question of Zionism cannot be decoupled from the issue of antisemitism.

Think of classic antisemitic quotes from the past like Lindbergh's "leaders of the Jewish race are not American in interests and viewpoints" - now just replace "Zionists" for "leaders of the Jewish race".

Most reasonable people can recognize the difference between criticism of Israel and criticism of Israel that crosses over into antisemitism.

People should not be able to use "I'm just talking about Zionists, not Jews" as a shield.

[Ken Burch]

9. What about "I'm talking about Zionism", as opposed to "Zionists"?

Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

And I wasn't saying "dual loyalty" accusations should be acceptable. Those are totally out of bounds.

What Lindbergh said was and will always be vile.

[oberliner]

10. Here's my take

There is certainly a way for people to be extremely critical of Israeli government policies, or of Israel as a country, or of the concept of Zionism itself without involving any anti-semitism or anti-Jewish prejudices. In fact, Israelis themselves have a robust tradition of such self-criticism.

However, I think people need to acknowledge that there is a line where the one crosses into the other. There are also people who are anti-semitic or anti-Jewish and are able to express their prejudices in polite society (so to speak) by substituting the word "Zionist" instead of Jew, such as "Zionists are controlling US foreign policy" or "Zionists run Hollywood" and the like.

I think that some on the left are so defensive about critics of Israel being unfairly labeled anti-semitic that they fail to accept the fact that sometimes the label is indeed fairly applied.

[Ken Burch]

13. Agreed that there are some people like those you describe in the second paragraph.

And that those people are vile bigots.

At the same time, I think it needs to be acknowledged that a fair amount people in North America, Europe, and the UK who currently identify as "anti-Zionist" would probably not take that position if it hadn't been for the fact that, prior to 1994, any criticism of and even the mildest public disagreement with anything the Israeli government did to Palestinians was uniformly anathemized as being "antisemitic". The only position most people who identified as "Zionist" would accept in that period was unquestioning support and defense of every single part of Israeli "security" policy. In hindsight, would you at least agree that it should have been possible to question the Occupation and the settlement project and to support negotiations towards a two-state model(something that was the only possible way to end the conflict) from at least the early 70's? That taking positions like that should never have been equated to hatred of Jews?

I'm not sure exactly what I would be considered in the spectrum between Zionist and anti-Zionist.

I support Israel's right to exist in peace and security on the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state being allowed to live in equal peace and security right next to it. I'd like to see as many of the settlements removed as possible, with negotiations to follow about allowing those descended from the indigenous Jewish inhabitants who were forced out by Jordan in 1948(something that should never have happened, since few if any of those people were responsible for any of the dispossessions that happened to Palestinians in that period) and an equal agreement to let Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel before 1948(and possibly some of their children, though not grandchildren or anyone beyond that) with those Palestinians who aren't allowed back being given some sort of "overseas department" representation in Palestine and/or Israel(or possibly some sort of federal legislature that represents both nationalities on the Belgian model), and with those Palestinians(and any descendants of pre-1948 West Bank Jewish communities)being given not only compensation but apologies and an acknowledgment of their connection to the lands they aren't allowed to return to physically.

And I'd make this contingent on an agreement from everyone not to try to upset the newly established order in either country.

This is all intended in the sincere spirit of peace and goodwill.

To end the conflict, I think, as many wounds on both sides as possible will have to be healed. "Suck it up and get over it" isn't going to cut it.

[oberliner]

15. Fair points

I can't really speak to pre-1994 as I was not really following these issues as closely then.

The proposal you support sounds a lot like the Geneva Initiative, which I have been promoting for years. I assume you are aware of that proposal, but if not, check it out here:

http://www.geneva-accord.org

[Ken Burch]

18. I suppose it is derived from Geneva.

One of the biggest points I also try to make on this is that what matters is getting the conflict ended, not whether or not one side gets to claim "victory".

And my awareness of these issues started around the 1977-78 era, when Andrew Young, as Carter's UN Ambassador, was pilloried and demonized simply for supporting negotiations with the Palestinians(and Jesse Jackson was put through the ringer simply for backing a two-state model-something even Netanyahu claims to support now).

What workable alternative to accepting a Palestinian state ever really existed? It always went without saying that the Palestinians were never going to accept either permanent Israeli control of the West Bank or reversion of the area to Jordan, so why was it considered anathema to support the only idea(two states)that ever had any chance at all of ending the killing? And why would anyone ever have felt that settling the West Bank was more important than peace?

[King_David]

11. AntiZionists dream is the good old days where there was no protection of Jews

Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Strong Jews is what they detest.
Jews no longer go like lambs , not since 1948 and that is what the AntiZionists want to return to those days.

[Ken Burch]

12. Well, I'm not an antizionist and that isn't MY dream.

I want everybody to be protected from oppression everywhere.

And it's not as though the only way to be "strong" is to build illegal settlements in the West Bank.

[Ken Burch]

6. Interesting correction at the bottom of the article:

The illustration that originally accompanied this piece has been removed because it included a representation of the shape of Israel that failed to distinguish between Israel itself and the territories it has occupied since 1967

[shira]

14. Check out the end of this OP....

On the left, black people are usually allowed to define what’s racism; women can define sexism; Muslims are trusted to define Islamophobia. But when Jews call out something as antisemitic, leftist non-Jews feel curiously entitled to tell Jews they’re wrong, that they are exaggerating or lying or using it as a decoy tactic – and to then treat them to a long lecture on what anti-Jewish racism really is.

The left would call it misogynist “mansplaining” if a man talked that way to a woman. They’d be mortified if they were caught doing that to LGBT people or Muslims. But to Jews, they feel no such restraint.

So this is my plea to the left. Treat us the same way you’d treat any other minority. No better and no worse. If opposition to racism means anything, it surely means that.

[aranthus]

19. But Jews aren't like other minorities, so there are three reasons why it won't ever happen.

First, if you look at the minorities that the Left professes to love, they are all or almost all racial or sexual. Blacks, Hispanics, Women, the LGBT community. Their differences from the mainstream are largely physical, and what ideological differences they have are largely a result of the way that society has treated (or mistreated them). Jews are a true ideological minority. The Left can tolerate physical differences, but not ideological ones. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0

The fact that Jews are a multiracial people defined by their beliefs conflicts with the Left's understanding of what a minority is.

Second, Judaism and Leftism are both religious/faith based ideologies. Not only is Judaism different than other minorities, but the nature of that difference means that it is ideologically in competition with the Left. The Left is naturally intolerant of other ideological identifications especially other religions. Jews dare to believe that their way, which is not the Left's way, is right. Jews are a both a nation and a religion and Leftism is hostile to both religion and nationalism. That isn't going to change.

Third, most minorities that the Left loves are oppressed or have been, and so can be convinced that they still are. The Left can rely on them for continued membership and support. The point is that the Left likes its minorities angry at the current order. That isn't the Jews anymore. As Western Civilization has become more tolerant and liberal, Jews have moved into the mainstream. As Jews have regained their country, they have become more a part of the world order. That same world order that the Left wants to overthrow.

As long as Jews were stateless and oppressed, they could fool themselves into thinking that they needed the Left, and the Left could look upon us as an ally. Those days are gone, and there's no going back. The Left can't use us anymore. So it's going in search of new disaffected allies such as the Muslim world. That is going to increasingly drive the Left to be anti-Israel and antisemitic.

[shira]

20. Great post. n/t

[ericson00]

21. spectacular analysis, +1000

I could see why outside of America, it would result in what has come.

In America tho, I do hope the Democrats believe in a little something called "loyalty," given how much the Jews have contributed both in time/effort and money to the Democrats. Because I think Democrats do a better job of governing and are right on more ideas than Republicans. I think HRC gets that, and that's one of the reasons I'm With Her.

I'm also a fan of the moderate center, Clintonite left for the reason that they eschew such a worldview you described from the non-USA left. If the Clinton order is ever gone, I might be from the Dem party too, tho I won't become GOP. I'd prob go Indy.