Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThere is something that I am attempting to understand ...
and hope that my asking it here (as an outsider to this group) is perceived as neither disruptive, nor insulting; but rather, as a sincere and honest attempt to understand.
Reading through some of the DU posts and listening to the media reports/commentary regarding Gaza, I frequently hear what amounts to criticism of the Israeli government and/or Zionism, as being anti-Semitism, or an anti-Semitic attack.
We frequently (or at least I) attempt to understand things by attempting to place ourselves (myself) in what we (I) believe to be a similar, though imperfect, known setting. As such, I have attempted to understand by questioning whether I, as a Black man, would consider/have considered criticism of an African state's policies/practices or the "policy decisions" of African Leaders or criticism of the Nation of Islam or other Black separatists (particularly in America), as a racist attack?
In each case, I do/have not ... I'm wonder what I am missing?
Again, I am seeking to understand, not inflame.
(I have X-Posted this to the GD, as I am uncertain, as to its appropriate place.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)Not only you as a Black man, but me as a white woman, could criticize Black leaders without being racist. I might be called racist by someone who wants to discredit my point of view, but that doesn't make me racist.
The attempt to smear anyone who criticizes Israel as "anti-Semitic" or - if they are Jewish (which I am) as a "self-hating Jew" is a red herring.
It is an attempt to censor any criticism of Israel.
But in recent years, this attempt to shut up criticism of Israel and its policies has been pretty much revealed for the pathetic distraction it is.
In my experience no one believes that claim any more.
I think particularly in the Jewish community it is more and more common to hear criticism of Israel and its policies. 20 years ago, it was very rare.
hope this answers your question.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm surprised at the lack of "engagement" on this topic.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)If you were merely criticizing the policies of Israel's government, then that isn't antisemitic, and most pro-Israelis and Jews wouldn't call you an antisemite for it. Criticizing Zionism is a little more problematic. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. So if your critique is that Jews aren't a nation or aren't entitled to the rights of nations (that is to a state of your own), then that really is anti-Semitic, since you wouldn't be critiquing policy but actually disparaging Jewish national existence. There are ways to criticize the policies and Zionists that aren't antisemitic, but we need to be honest about something. Much of the supposed anti-Israel critique is based on, or is a cover for, the denial of the right of the Jewish state to its national existence. It's the difference between criticizing the policies of the Ugandan government and denying that the Ugandans have a right to a government of their own. The latter is anti-Ugandan, yes? Denying that Jews have a right to a state is anti-Jewish, which is the same thing as antisemitism.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)it seems to me that it's entirely cogent for anyone who considers themselves to be liberal or progressive to question the very idea of ethnic nationalism as an ideology. Especially an ethnic nationalism predicated on settler colonialism. A significant part of the critique of the Zionist project comes from its displacement of the indigenous Arab population (even Israeli historians have referred to it as "ethnic cleansing"
and continued colonialist expansion of settlement in the occupied territories. I would say that considering this is not "anti-Semitic".
aranthus
(3,385 posts)1. The position you are taking is in no way a liberal position. It may be a progressive position, if you mean progressive as a synonym for Radical Leftist, in which case, why are you even on a Democratic website?
2. The position is in a very real way anti-human. The desire to live and work with people who believe and live as one does is one of the core elements of humanity. That's why most states, the United States included, are nation states of one sort or another. In effect those people are saying they hate Israel because they hate everyone.
3. From a practical perspective, as a Jew, if you hate my national existence because you hate all national existence, then you still hate me, and it's still antisemitism.
4. The reality is that people who oppose Israel's existence don't oppose Palestinian existence, Saudi existence, French existence, Japanese, etc. So the theoretical smokescreen is just a little bit of bullshit.
5. The "settler colonialism" and "ethnic cleansing" memes are more sophisticated bullshit. Israel's creation did not require any ethnic cleansing. The refugee issue is the result of the war that the Palestinians started to drive the Jews from their lawful homes.
6. The cause of the war was and is Arab refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state. It is a war against the Jewish people, which is what most affective Jews understand.
The bottom line is that people who deny the national existence and national rights of the Jewish people don't have the right to complain about being labeled antisemites. Because they've earned it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Liberalism supports colonialism and ethnic nationalism? Since when?
Zionism is explicitly ethnic-nationalist, and the Israeli state is the product of settler colonialism. These are facts which no reasonable person conversant with history can deny. (Most scholarly historical examination of the Zionist movement and the history of Israel casts it in precisely those terms, in fact.) And the UN has called the deliberate expulsion of Palestinians "ethnic cleansing" (as have Israeli historians like Benny Morris).
The cause of the most recent conflict is Israeli refusal to stop building settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law and Israeli provocation designed to weaken the Palestinian government by driving a wedge between Hamas and Fatah. There has been ample evidence of this.
No-one reasonable is denying the right of Israel to exist; Israel's existence is a settled fact, it's not going anywhere. What's at issue is whether Israel continues to act in defiance of international law in such a way that it becomes an international pariah state as was South Africa, or whether Israel acts in accordance with the obligations incumbent upon it as a signatory of the UN charter and withdraws from the settlements completely in order to negotiate a peace settlement in good faith. As it stands, it certainly looks as though the direction of the present Israeli government's policy is one of further colonialist expansion of settlements to the point where any two-state solution is impossible.
It would also be very helpful if you could learn not to conflate "Jews" and "Israel". Israel is not "the Jews", and not all Jews are Zionists. It's an extremely dishonest tactic.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Your position is founded on a rejection of reality. Nationalism, including ethnic nationalism, is a basic fact of human life. Further, the cause of the conflict is not the settlements. Hamas wants Israel gone, and they are the ones who are fighting. Their fight, their reasons.
As for Benny Morris, you are taking him out of context. He explicitly states that they reason for the refugees is the war that the Palestinians started. As for the UN, who cares? (In case you were wondering, caring about the UN is also not a liberal position. It's a radical left belief.)
No one reasonable is denying Israel's right to exist? Well that isn't exactly a lie. Who said Hamas was reasonable? Who said that of the Left? Who said that of you? Here's the rub. Israel is the Jewish state, and Hamas and the Left are against the existence of the Jewish state. You've been saying so yourself, with the "ethnic, settler colonialist" meme. So who's denying Israel's right to exist? Well, the truth is that you are.
"It would also be very helpful if you could learn not to conflate "Jews" and "Israel". Israel is not "the Jews", and not all Jews are Zionists. It's an extremely dishonest tactic."
Right. Israel is a Jewish state, and we only want to do away with the one Jewish state in the world for reasons that we don't apply to any other state, but we don't actually hate Jews, just those who want to have a state for themselves. The usual anti-Israel crowd may believe your BS, but no one reasonable will.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And civic nationalism is much more common in advanced liberal democracies. One may be American without being a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower; one may be British and Muslim, or French and Jewish. It's only Israel, among presumably liberal democracies, that casts itself in explicitly ethnic/religious terms.
Nothing I've said, however, denies Israel's "right to exist". Nor have I called for Israel to be "done away with", despite your hyperbole. However I don't really think that any serious discussion of the Israel/Palestine situation is possible without a fundamental recognition of Israeli colonialism and Zionist ethnic nationalism. Discussing those things as a part of the history underlying the current situation is important; doing so is not at all the same thing as advocating for the dissolution of the state of Israel.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)You started this subthread by claiming that criticism of Zionism was justifiable because anti-ethnic nationalism is legitimate and a liberal position. I pointed out that it's neither. Now you are saying that, " civic nationalism is much more common in advanced liberal democracies." So what? That doesn't address the issue of the legitimacy of ethnic nationalism in any way.
You cited Morris as saying that 1948 (really 1947-1949) was ethnic cleansing. To be clear I did not disagree that there was some of that, I merely pointed out that Morris puts it in context. So you cite a completely different academic that says that there was ethnic cleansing. Except that isn't the issue. The issue is the amount (most refugees were not ethnically cleansed), and more importantly, the context, that it was the result of a war that the Palestinians themselves started.
You say that you don't deny Israel's right to exist, but that isn't the point either. The point is whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, that is the ethnic nationalism you seem to oppose. And what you call colonialism, Jews call returning home.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There's no other word for settling an already-occupied territory. And yes, I oppose ethnic nationalism. I'm apparently not the only one:
This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli.
I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.
There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/on-questioning-the-jewish-state/
hack89
(39,171 posts)Were told by non blacks that as a black man you have to denounce every evil act done by African leaders, would you consider that racism? Does the color of your skin make you responsible somehow?
So many time we see that demanded of Jews not only here but globally.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Black on white crime ... and doubly so whenever there is a high profile white on Black crime.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I was pointing out one of the more common forms of anti-Semitism. The notion that your religion transcends your nationality and as a Jew you are collectively responsible for what Israel does.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But, whether ones religion transcends (should transcend) ones nationality is an age old question that would be a very interesting topic to explore. I would think that the more sincere ones religious belief, the answer would be "Yes"; otherwise, one couldn't/wouldn't be able to be critical when ones government acts against larger religious principles.
hack89
(39,171 posts)are English Christians responsible for American fundamentalist Tea Baggers?
Should American Jews be held responsible for what Israel does?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)my answer would be "It depends."
As a collective, "No"; but on an individual level, "It depends" on the position one takes. Where one weighs into discussions in support of(verbally or financially), or in defense of the actions of the other, "Yes", they are responsible. If one avoids such discussions or verbally/financially opposes such actions, I would say "No", that individual is not responsible.
hack89
(39,171 posts)thanks for the pleasant conversation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But nothing I have written (as an expression of my beliefs) should be taken to imply that I have a right, duty or obligation to tell or point out what people of the Jewish Faith (American or non-Israeli) should or should not be doing with respect to Gaza, or Israel's government, in general.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)and SUPPORT the actions of those two groups .
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)Think back to the Trayvon Martin shooting and the reaction immediately following.
Now... we didn't really know what had happened (in some ways we still don't). But there were racists (I suppose on both sides) who immediately jumped to conclusions. There were also people biased on one side or the other of the gun argument. These people viewed the incident through those biased glasses and it colored their reasoning.
There were also people without those biases who were making very similar statements.
So now imagine someone posting that a teen walking around in the dark wearing a hoodie is acting suspicious (without knowing anything else about the poster)... what did it mean? Was it a genuine unbiased statement and the person really would feel that way regardless of color? Or was it someone (consciously or unconsciously) who views black teens as dangerous in general? We don't really know. To make things worse, there are those on the other side of the racial divide who assume that all whites view black teens that way... so they can't differentiate between those two possibilities and just assume that the statement is de-facto racist.
When you see a charge of anti-semitism in the current conflict, you should recognize that there really are clearly anti-semitic people in the world - and they make the kinds of statements that have drawn the charge... but also realize that there are people without any such bigotry who nevertheless feel the same way and say the same kinds of things (perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps not). Then we have to go further and accept that the people making the charge of anti-semitism could themselves be biased to see anti-semitism anywhere the Israel/Palestine question arises... and there are people without such bias who could actually see it in that particular case.
As in all such cases, the ad-hominem attack adds nothing to the debate. Recognizing the bias of a given source is useful... but very often comes with the inability to see the bias in the sources claiming such bias.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)except this:
If you've ever read any discussion here at DU on Race/Racism, you will know, this is a pet peeve of mine ... But I will not derail the discussion to say, There are no "both sides" of racism.
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)Which I think of as a little different - systematic/cultural rather than individual.
I attended an inner-city school where many kids treated me differently because of the color of my skin - occasionally violently. I'm uncomfortable agreeing to an implication that I need to tell you first what color I am and what color they were before the behavior can receive a label.
Either way... it doesn't matter what you call it. If you're black and judge people because of the color of their skin (white/hispanic in this case), rather than on individual factors... then the impact is the same and it isn't acceptable. I don't much care what label someone elects to apply to that bias/bigotry.
On edit - aren't there also historic animosities between some in the african american and hispanic communities? Neither is in a position of power or able to systematically discriminate against the other (at least not outside of specific areas). What label do you apply to this bias?
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)but I'll jump in anyway. 
It depends on how you define racism.
The definition that I accept is:
treating someone differently based on race, WITH the power to enforce that treatment.
A Black person can of course dislike a White person based on their race.
But a White person who acts toward a Black person based on race-
may have the ability to deny a job, deny housing, shoot to kill, etc.
Because of the history of our country.
So, while we might say a Black person who judges a White person based on their race is making an ill-conceived judgement,
I don't call that "reverse racism".
Because:
The way the power relationships exist, altho an individual Black person can hold power over an individual White person,
collectively White people have the power in this country.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)treating someone differently based on race, In Support Of, or WITH The Support of the institutional structure ... i.e., the power to enforce that treatment.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't even discuss the fiction of "reverse racism."
What you experienced was raced-based BIGOTRY. Racism is race-based bigotry in support of and/or supported by institutional power.
While I agree that judging another based on skin color rather than individual factors is unacceptable; it very much does matter what it is called ... To be brief (as again, this is a true aside to the original OP) ... Race-based bigotry stops affecting an individual once the bigot stops acting on the target; whereas, racism - due to its being systemic - continues to affect the victim, beyond the actions of the bigot.
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)As I said... I don't mind what you choose to call it. "raced-based BIGOTRY" fits the usage I was putting "racism" to in the original comment.
I guess I think of it as "racism that doesn't need a societal response" vs "racisim that does require a societal response"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they are trying to tell you and you seem unable to accept that "racism" has a specific meaning.....
