This morning’s Melbourne Age carries a disturbing report on bad behaviour by members of ultra-leftist groups towards Jewish students in the context of recent on-campus debates about the situation in the Middle East.
The behaviour includes instances of unequivocally anti-semitic abuse of Jewish students, and vilification of democratic leftist student leaders (notably Rose Jackson, National President of the National Union of Students and a member of the ALP Left) for criticising extreme and hateful behaviour and statements by the ultra-leftists.
This phenomenon of ultra-left anti-Zionism manifesting itself in overt hostility towards Jews as Jews has been confirmed in personal correspondence I have received from singer-songwriter and progressive Jew Deborah Conway, who has personally experienced hostility from ultra-left anti-Zionists because of her Jewishness.
In my early 20s I too was an ultra-left anti-Zionist. However, subjectively I also believed it was possible to be anti-Zionist without being in any way hostile towards Jews.
In subsequent years (beginning in 1983) I reconsidered and eventually renounced my anti-Zionism and became a supporter of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I also reconsidered the idea of a neat separation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, on the basis of:
* Considering the argument by a British Jewish socialist (and anti-Zionist) group that non-Jews who identify as anti-Zionists tend to assume that they are thereby immune from the anti-semitism to which all non-Jews are prone, and therefore don’t engage in the necessary self-analysis and self-criticism.
* Recognising that, as the great majority of Australian Jews identify as Zionists, it is not possible to be anti-Zionist without being antagonistic (whatever the subjective motive) to most Australian Jews.
* Thinking self-analytically about the intensely revanchist sentiment towards “the bloody Zionists” which pervaded the far left circles in which I spent my early adult years, and the obsession with scoring a win over “the bloody Zionists” at the expense of other priorities which were both more worthy and more winnable. (Shocking fact: at its January 1983 Annual Council, the Australian Union of Students did not adopt a policy or commit any resources to a campaign against the Franklin Dam because the entire left, at the behest of the far left, was obsessed with trying to arrange an on-campus debate for later in the year to determine the Union’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The subsequent debate was won by the pro-Israel side because some “clever” people on the pro-Palestinian side used procedural trickery to ensure that the two-state solution was not put forth as an option.)
* Also thinking self-analytically about the anti-Zionist far left’s tendency to raise the bar far higher for Israel on issues of democracy and human rights than for (depending on the far left group concerned) this or that “actually existing socialist” regime, this or that Third World left-nationalist regime or national liberation movement, or the practice of the Bolsheviks before Stalin won the power struggle.
* Thinking seriously about what the Holocaust meant in human terms, in terms of the Jewish experience in the 20th century, and in terms of what would and would not have seemed like feasible and prudent options to ensure Jewish survival in the wake of World War II and the evident discrediting of non-Zionist options for Jewish survival. The anti-Zionism of the 1970s far left represents an early version of what Robert Manne has called the “Holocaust fatigue” which was exhibited by defenders of Helen Demidenko-Darville-Dale’s book, The Hand That Signed The Paper.
I will plead in partial mitigation that none of these errors by the anti-Zionist far left of the 1970s and 1980s amounts to classical anti-Semitism. At the same time, this does not mean that they did not result in things being done and said which would have been seriously disturbing and distressing to Jews. However, the testimony of Deborah Conway and the report in today’s Age suggests a line has been blithely crossed by today’s anti-Zionist ultra-left which I and my peers at least recognised was there and tried to keep on the decent side of.
The following is the text of a letter I have written to The Age in response to this morning’s article:
As someone who has identified with the left throughout my adult life, I was depressed but not surprised to read the report (4 September) on ultra-leftist hostility towards Jewish students.
I was once involved in self-described “pro-Palestinian” activism. However, after reading and thinking carefully about the issue I moved away from the anti-Zionism of the ultra-left. I became convinced that the destruction of Israel would be a human catastrophe, I remained critical of specific Israeli policies whilst accepting Israel’s right to exist, and I concluded that Palestinian self-determination had to be achieved in parallel with, not at the expense of, Jewish self-determination.
For adopting these views I attracted calumny from the anti-Zionist faithful similar to that heaped on NUS President Rose Jackson for her statements regarding the current campus debates. Eventually I ceased being active on the Israel-Palestine issue because my conscience wouldn’t let me attend meetings and rallies dominated by chants of “Palestine Yes! Israel No!”
The democratic left has a duty, not to be pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, but to be pro-democracy and pro-peace, to show solidarity with both Arabs and Jews (including Zionists) who work to realise these principles in a two-state solution, and to make clear that those who vilify Jews, whether or not in the guise of “anti-Zionism”, are not our comrades.
I’m glad to read this, Paul. I have been afraid of this all along, and have been deeply disturbed by some of the remarks I’ve heard over the last few years and particularly over the last few months from people with whom I’m otherwise in close political agreement. I’ve been indignantly howled down on the rare occasions when I voiced my disquiet, and I hope the same thing doesn’t happen to you here.
Good post, Paul. But be careful of the company you keep – David Horowitz and Melanie Phillips have been saying this kind of stuff for years.
And if we’re not against them then we must be with them, right, Rob?
Great thoughtful post, Paul.
Well said, Paul.
Unfortunately there does appear to be anti-semitism around in some of the ultra-left Trotskyite sects. They’re a pestilential nuisance in general, in my view, and I regard it as quite sad that they soak up so much youthful idealism.
PC, with respect, you would have to have been living under a rock for the last ten years not to have seen that that the equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is what makes the far and not-so-far left cleave to the radical Islamists who seek the destruction of Israel.
Great post. Intelligent censure of one’s own (erstwhile?) political allies. Let me know when your folks get around to it, Rob.
I wanted to voice my protest publically against the IDF ‘response’ a few weeks ago, but couldn’t bear to stand alongside Hezbollah banners and pasty smirking Trots calling for an end to Israel.
The stronger-stomached moderates I did see protesting looked very uncomfortable indeed.
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute.
* Considering the argument by a British Jewish socialist (and anti-Zionist) group that non-Jews who identify as anti-Zionists tend to assume that they are thereby immune from the anti-semitism to which all non-Jews are prone, and therefore don’t engage in the necessary self-analysis and self-criticism.
The anti-semitism to which ALL non-Jews are prone? WTF? I don’t even know what to say to this, it’s so ridiculous.
* Recognising that, as the great majority of Australian Jews identify as Zionists, it is not possible to be anti-Zionist without being antagonistic (whatever the subjective motive) to most Australian Jews.
There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone’s political viewpoint, and being “antagonistic”.
* Thinking self-analytically about the intensely revanchist sentiment towards “the bloody Zionists� which pervaded the far left circles in which I spent my early adult years, and the obsession with scoring a win over “the bloody Zionists� at the expense of other priorities which were both more worthy and more winnable.
This sort of sentiment is unfortunate, but doesn’t make the position of Zionists any more tenable, just because the AUS were obsessed with the whole thing. Ditto your next point “the anti-Zionist far left’s tendency to raise the bar far higher for Israel on issues of democracy and human rights” – whatever sins the anti-Zionists commit don’t have an impact on whether pro-Zion arguments are effective or not.
As for “Holocaust fatigue” as an explanation for anti-Zionism, well, my grandparents survived the Holocaust. Many of their relatives died in the death camps. But I believe that any state that puports to be for people of one religion or one race is not the solution to anything – it’s just more racism. That makes me anti-Zionist – but it certainly does not make me an anti-Semite (unless anyone wants to call me a self-loathing Jew, a la Antony Lowenstein).
This is also a three-step shuffle for someone like me – how to avoid being called anti-Zionist because I criticise Israel is the first important step.
Sorry, I spelled Antony Loewenstein’s name incorrectly.
How do you define an anti-Zionist, Rebekka? One who denies the legitimacy of the Jewish state? Or something else?
“They’re a pestilential nuisance in general, in my view, and I regard it as quite sad that they [the Trotskyite Left] soak up so much youthful idealism.”
They always have Mark. The good news is that virtually everyone grows out of it as a natural part of the maturing process.
Rob, the difference is, I suspect, to do with quantity not quality. And to do with the context in which the arguments are made. And to do with how the second affect the first.
The article Paul references, talks about ‘radical left groups at Melbourne Universty’s’. How many people are we talking about, really?
To whatever extent anti-semitism ( and a slide from anti-zionism to anti-semitism) is happening, i completely condemn it – and good on Paul, for his piece – but it’s worth noting that the article is mostly hung on quotes from
Make of that what you will. Maybe someone can explain whether these organisations are known to be particularly partisan.
My last comment is supposed to address Rob’s original gloating
Either living under a rock, or resistant to ludicrous oversimplification and triumphalist sloganeering. Some of us don’t think they’re the same thing.
…is an equation which only solves itself in the feverish paranoia of the non-Left.
As Paul has pointed out, Rob, and as the comments are demonstrating fairly well so far, the majority of us a gauche have as little time for the Socialist Alternative freaks as you do for the equivalent loonies on the Right.
Very well posted, Paul.
Sorry if I seemed to gloat, Michael G. That’s a fair reading, but not what I intended. I genuinely admired Paul’s post — from someone with whom I have often disagreed in the past.
It’s worth remembering that although Israel is nominally a Jewish state, it has Christian and Muslim and atheist residents as well. It’s less racist than most other states in that region. I’m not aware in detail of its history, but I’m willing to take for granted that it is, in some ways, defined as a state for one people and one race; that’s obviously a bad thing. But given that Israel is relatively tolerant and open in practice, I’d suggest that we should turn our attention to the continual threats to Israel’s existence first.
And the socialists aren’t the only ones with problems of anti-semitism …
(http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/09/three-little-pigs-ring-of-anti-semites.html)
I’d like to temper my ill-considered mudslinging from 1:45pm with Liam’s
“the majority of us a gauche have as little time for the Socialist Alternative freaks as you do for the equivalent loonies on the Right.”
Everyone has their embarrassing bogies. They’re all as bad as each other. Sorry Rob, I’m sure you hate yours too.
See, here’s the conundrum.
I am strongly pro-Israel and pro-Zionist.
Yet I:
(a) oppose Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and believe they must be removed, whatever the cost. I’ve read harrowing stories about the travails of the farmers removed from Gaza, and I sympathise with them: but the point is, they should never have been there in the first place
(b) believe the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Gaza and Lebanon to be unconscionable in the absence of intelligence that indicates they were legitimate war targets
(c) disapprove of targeted assassinations without discounting the possibility they may be militarily necessary
(d) totally support the establishment of a Palestinian state, despite having strong doubts that the Palestinian establishment is capable of making anything of what is returned to them (viz: the greenhouses in Gaza, a flourishing $100 million dollar export industry under the occupation, now largely lying in ruins)
All of which makes me neither anti-Israel, nor anti-Zionist.
So what is an anti-Zionist, Michael or Rebekka?
Orright Rob. Thats why I included the
My comment was mostly intended to clear up any confusion ‘cos you had posted again in the meantime.
Strangely, I more or less wth Rob (except for the latter part of d).
Some good points here… firstly, there’s a problem with language. I also consider myself “pro-Zionist” (as I strongly support an Israeli state within pre-67 borders; a Zionist project); yet I vehemently oppose settler expansionism into the west bank (as anyone with the slightest respect for consistency of principle should). I dont think the term is very helpful in the current conflict. We should regard the Zionist project as complete – and now something else is going on.
Indeed, I regard support for pre-67 Israel AND support for settler expansionism to be a fundamentally incoherent position – as the former is based on a people’s right to self-determination, which is only sustainable if applied equally to other peoples. This incoherency bedevils the Israeli position in recent years; undercutting their support in many international fora. Its just one big own goal.
Many Israelis hold the same position as I do – including many soliders for that matter.
I have to say, though, there’s been so much dishonest equation of “criticising Israel policy” and “anti-semitism” that frankly, I’d like to see more proof of this alleged ultra-left anti-semitism. Any links with this post?
Ive not witnessed any myself – but then again, I dont get out among Gen Y ultra lefties much. And, personally, I never did hang out with people who even used the term “Zionist” much! Maybe they’ve always been out there, and I was wise enough to steer clear.
If this is a significant phenomenon (and I must confess to doubts over its extent) – it needs to be stamped out quick: along with the reams of anti-Arab racism about.
And I concede: it is always a risk to be vigilant about. Take a group of people, add an otherwise valid principle of justice or rights involving conflict between ethnic groups, and the stupidest 10% will somehow manage to distort it into racism.
An anti-Zionism is opposition to the existence of a Jewish state, so an anti-Zionist is one who opposes the existence of a Jewish state. That’s all.
What else would it be?
Yes, that’s what I thought, Rebekka. Thanks for that.
Good post Paul. Yes this is something that has concerned me about a fair few of my left wing friends (some of them extremely close). Legitimate anger and outrage over Israel’s actions often spills over into the same anti-semitic arguments used by the extreme right. I was even taunted for having a favourite football team (Nth Melbourne) being supported by mostly jews, go figure!!!
Silly buggers are playing into the hands of the Bolts, Sheridans etc
I dont know Rob. I’ve been wondering the same thing since i came across this thread. I can see how you might read my comments as tacitly approving of anti-zionism, but what they really reflect is a lack of knowledge. Here’s an experiment.
Do Jews have a right to settle in their ‘ancestral’ homeland. Yes. On this base level i’m a Pro-zionist
Do they have a right to do so exclusively? No. I may be an Anti-zionist.
So did they have a right to establish Israel in the way they did (or did any one else have a right to encourage the establishment of such a state?) Probably not. Historically speaking I tend towards Anti-zionism
What about now? Are the current policies of the Israeli government justified? In the wake of recent events, it would appear that they aren’t, that Israe are playing upon an existential threat which is not there. In regards to the Israel/lebanon conflict i’m an Anti-zionist.
And the future? I favour a two state solution where Jerusalem is elevated to an extraa national status (as Brian has articulated on another thread.) So I acceot Israel’s right to homeland, but not their exclusive right to Jerusalem (and possibly other sections.) Looking forward, it’d be a tough call to label me Anti-zionist
Anti-zionism is defined in opposition to Zionism. Anti-semitism on the other hand is plain as the nose…
If you say you’re pro Israel, Pro Palestine and anti-tyranny, then that’s enough for me.
Instead of Rob’s (d), I support:
Repeal and recission of the Israeli Law of Absentees’ Properties in 1950, which legalized the confiscation of non-Jewish property. Under this Act supposedly legitimate persaonage called ‘The Custodian’ was authorized to sell absentees’ land to the Development Agency, a government instrumentality created specifically to acquire it. This Development Agency then on-sold it on to the Jewish National Fund. Finally, these lands were leased to Jews only.
The State of Israel still claims ownership this property. Thus, none of the present Israeli Jewish leaseholders cna legitimately claim freehold title. As their leases expire the lands can be returned to persons who have good title to this property, along with some compensation for pain and suffering.
This was the method by which Palestinians with perfectly good title were stripped of their property.
A state which did this and then refuses to make restitution cannot be considered to be a state which gives respect to the rule of law or the sanctity of private property.
Agreed Katz. I’d like to see the Palestinians trade off the right of return in return for that sort of compensation and the withdrawal of all settlements in the West Bank. As Brian argued, some sort of neutral oversight of Jerusalem could potentially solve a bunch of problems, as many disputes, I think, follow from that core one.
Frankly, a tooled-up version of UNESCO could be involved – so important is that site for all three Abrahamic religions.
Rebekka’s comments warrant a considered response which work pressures prevent me from formulating at the moment, I’ll try to have something for tomorrow morning. However I’d like to raise some issues arising from the following comment:
“An anti-Zionism is opposition to the existence of a Jewish state, so an anti-Zionist is one who opposes the existence of a Jewish state. That’s all.”
1. Wouldn’t this mean that different people could come to support anti-Zionism from a range of different political standpoints and motives, not all of which would be even subjectively benign toward Jews?
2. Wouldn’t it also be true that Jewish anti-Zionism (i.e. dissent from within the Jewish community about how best to overcome the oppression of Jews) is a different matter to non-Jewish anti-Zionism (i.e. non-Jews presuming to disregard what has been the majority view amongst Jews about how to overcome their oppression)?
3. In present circumstances, what should replace the existng Jewish state of Israel?
4. By what means should the replacement for Israel come into being?
5. Is it not the case that attempting to bring this about through force, and against the wishes of the great majority of Israeli Jews, would almost certainly entail massive human suffering and be highly unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome, no matter how splendid in theory the proposed replacement for Israel would be?
Finally, a brief thought on the Holocaust and non-Zionist alternatives to Zionism. It seems to me that a major factor in the decline of Jewish support for such alternatives from the 1940s, and the embrace of Zionism, was that the best of those alternatives were premised on the assumption that liberal democratic and social democratic societies would proliferate and prosper in ways which enabled Jewish communities and Jewish identity to survive and prosper within them. By the 1940s this assumption would have been very doubtful, and certainly would not have appeared to the Jews at that time as a sound basis on which to pin their prospects for survival.
To say this is not to deny that an injustice was done to the Palestinians as a result of the events of 1948. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a tragedy in the sense defined by Hegel, namely a clash between right and right. It is disturbing that people would compound the tragedy by seeking to rectify a wrong with a wrong.
Paul, in answer to your questions:
1. Wouldn’t this mean that different people could come to support anti-Zionism from a range of different political standpoints and motives, not all of which would be even subjectively benign toward Jews?
Yes, it does mean that.
2. Wouldn’t it also be true that Jewish anti-Zionism (i.e. dissent from within the Jewish community about how best to overcome the oppression of Jews) is a different matter to non-Jewish anti-Zionism (i.e. non-Jews presuming to disregard what has been the majority view amongst Jews about how to overcome their oppression)?
No, it doesn’t mean that. Why would it? Because you are Jewish or non-Jewish the same belief means something different? That strikes me as vaguely racist.
3. In present circumstances, what should replace the existng Jewish state of Israel?
Since I don’t agree with a state being a Jewish state. I suppose I would see it replaced with a secular state.
4. By what means should the replacement for Israel come into being?
Um, divine intervention? Magic? Someone waves a wand? No idea. If I were a Palestinian, I’d probably be trying some sort of non-violent resistence, a la Ghandi – it’s not like violent resistence is ever going to work for them.
5. Is it not the case that attempting to bring this about through force, and against the wishes of the great majority of Israeli Jews, would almost certainly entail massive human suffering and be highly unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome, no matter how splendid in theory the proposed replacement for Israel would be?
I never suggested for a second that this should happen through force. You can’t logically equate disagreeing with the existence of a Jewish state with agreeing with violently overthrowing it.
Finally, a brief thought on the Holocaust and non-Zionist alternatives to Zionism. It seems to me that a major factor in the decline of Jewish support for such alternatives from the 1940s, and the embrace of Zionism, was that the best of those alternatives were premised on the assumption that liberal democratic and social democratic societies would proliferate and prosper in ways which enabled Jewish communities and Jewish identity to survive and prosper within them. By the 1940s this assumption would have been very doubtful, and certainly would not have appeared to the Jews at that time as a sound basis on which to pin their prospects for survival.
Maybe, maybe not – liberal democractic societies had just won the war, hadn’t they? (Yes, other than Russia). What would have made anyone think, given that, that liberal democracies were unlikely to proliferate/prosper? But despite whether this was the case or not, to me the fact remains that setting up a state solely for one people or one religion is, at its core, racist (or whatever you want to call the equivalent when people are discriminating on the grounds of religion).
And when you look at issues such as the confiscation of non-Jewish property (as Katz raised above), you’ve got to wonder whether the majority of Jews learned anything from the Holocaust other than how to treat other people the way they were treated.
This piece started out as a Zionist polemic. Unable to defend themselves against legitimate criticism of Israel, Zionists resort to the old canard of anti-semitism. The term ‘anti-semitism’ is part of the Zionist racist polemic, by making out that the Jews are part of a ’semitic’ race.
If criticism of Zionism and Israel comes perilously close to being anti-Jewish, it is because the Zionists have made it that way.
Most Jews are now Zionists, on account of the education they are given in primary school. According to the NSW Board of Jewish Education’s own website, the religious education of Jewish children has become politicized:
http://www.bje.org.au/adults/templateBase.php?id=2445&gid=4
As a leftist, I am against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and all the atrocities ans war crimes committed by Israel. As an atheist, I am against all religion, including Judaism. If you can’t distinguish between my criticism of Israel and my criticism of Judaism, that’s your problem.
And another thing. Israel does not have a right to exist. Firstly, states do not have rights. Individuals do. Secondly, Israel is not a secular state. It gives Jews special privileges. As an apartheid state, Israel has no right to exist.
Exactly. Only I have to take issue with the assertion that “Most Jews are now Zionists, on account of the education they are given in primary school”. Do most Jews go to Jewish schools? I’d be interested to see some statistics.
I also think that the values your parents teach you at home probably end up having a much greater effect than any values taught in the classroom – so I’d suggest most Jews are Zionists because their parents were Zionists.
Left E, there’s a link to the article in my first comment.
Asked and answered.
The loud lunar Leninist ‘left’ ( so far left they are right) may be the only thing preventing a return to democratic socialist sanity. If so then the sooner the vast majority – that are either democratic or libertarian socialists – distance themselves from the violent, bullying, nihilistic, cynical, misanthropic and anti-social Leninist ‘left’ the better.
This red fascism thang’s even worse than anti-semitism now – it’s anti-socialism.
A brief note in response to a couple of Rebekka’s comments.
“No, it doesn’t mean that. Why would it? Because you are Jewish or non-Jewish the same belief means something different? That strikes me as vaguely racist.”
I think there is an important difference between members of an oppressed group disagreeing about the best way forward to liberation and self-determination, and people who are not members of the oppressed group seeking to decide on its behalf what is or isn’t the right way forward.
I guess the best answer is from analogy. A woman who argues, at a meeting of a women’s caucus or collective in a wider organisation (such as a union or political party), that the best interests of women in the wider organisation would be best served by dissolving the collective in favour of some other structure is expressing a dissenting view from within the oppressed group about how best to overcome oppression. A male official of the union or party introducing a proposal to dissolve the caucus or collective is seeking to impose the views of the oppressor group on the oppressed group as to how they should be organised.
“I never suggested for a second that this should happen through force. You can’t logically equate disagreeing with the existence of a Jewish state with agreeing with violently overthrowing it.”
Agree. My point is that much of the anti-zionist far left either does make such a logical equation, or is far from clear that they don’t make such an equation. It is these people and their conduct that I was criticising in my original post, not people who hold positions such as yours.
Silkworm, your suggestion that I have posted a “Zionist polemic” simply proves my point.
I don’t think I’ve read much on a blog anywhere that was less polemic than this post.
A brief response to Paul’s comment – “I think there is an important difference between members of an oppressed group disagreeing about the best way forward to liberation and self-determination, and people who are not members of the oppressed group seeking to decide on its behalf what is or isn’t the right way forward”.
Yes, I get that – but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about the existence of Israel. We’re talking not only about one group’s way forward to liberation and self-determination, we’re also talking about them oppressing another group in their midst while they do it – and we’re talking about whether a state that puports to be for one group of people (whether one race or one religion) only has a moral right to exist. That’s a whole different kettle of fish.
If we’re arguing an ethical question, I don’t see that one’s race or religion or any other characteristic has any bearing on whether one’s viewpoint is valid or not.
I also get that you weren’t critising views such as mine, but in equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism I think you cloud the issues – and catch people like me in a net we have no wish to be caught in.
Thanks Michael, I saw that afterwards. Must say, it had heaps of examples that I wouldn’t classify as “anti-Semitism”
eg
* attacking an Anglo young liberal waving the Israeli flag (kinda fucked-up and illiberal, yes; anti-Semitic, no).
* “a Monash lecturer confronted him, almost incoherent with rage, and called him a Zionist oppressor and f—ing racist.” (unpleasant and illiberal yes; anti-Semitic, probably not)
* criticising Israeli policies as “apartheid” (exaggeration perhaps; anti-semitic, probably not)
* screaming ‘you’re a murderer, you support George Bush’s war, you support killing innocent people in the Middle East, you’re fascist scum’ (stupid vulgar leftism, yes; anti-Semitic – well, not really. Fascist reference insulting in historical sense, yes.)
* But then, “fascist” is being slung around in a cycle of responses with “terrorist” , according to the same article. All pretty immature – no one comes out looking good here.
Some other examples appeared to fit the bill, if true. Bascially, Im not convinced this aint a beat-up yet. But its certainly a concern – and Ill follow the story as it evolves.
Ah, I see there’s more to the article. Apologies for jumping to conclusions, thought the article is still built around a lot of ‘jewish’ opinion. There is a ‘christian observer’ in there and some dissenting social alternative types including one who claims:
But perhaps the most revealing words come from:
Does this say more about student politics than anything else? Perhaps there is a ‘leftward’ trend in the population at large, in response to Israels efforts in Lebanon, but i would argue that’s more of a healthy corrective, then a drift into anti-semitism.
Isn’t it strange how the left sometimes turns Nationalist where the third world is concerned? Shouldn’t they be arguing that the desire to have a nation based solely on ethnic and religious identity is fetishism/ideology and diverts their attention from the REAL struggle? I’m with Paul that it is not a matter of taking sides or viewing one from the other and vice versa. The Left has the ability to analyse and judge on criteria that is independent of the criteria that determines the partisanship of the parties involved. And besides… the left can’t be all against zionism. It was the Zionists, after all, who gave us the Kibbutz.
The article paints an interesting divide between student political groups (inflammatory and divisive) and student religious groups (tolerant and peaceful.)
Kind of subverts the usual church/state divide thing, doesn’t it?
Yes, the Left were traditionally pro-Zionist and the Right anti-Zionist, Cliff, until the 60s/70s. But rationality is a good thing not blind reflex.
And I think this is spot on:
Most notably conservative Jews, if I understand correctly. Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are not necessary bedfellows, chiefly because Zionism and Judaism aren’t either.
I think that in the long term (very long term)… the only way to rectify this situation is to have a multinational state incorporating both Jews and Palestinians. If IIRC, there are already many Arabs who are Israeli citizens. So I think another problem is confusing Zionism with the more general and less offensive idea of Jews living in Palestine having the right to political representation.
At its core this conflict may be a tragedy in the Hegelian sense.
However, it is quite easy for both sides, fearing an advantage may be taken of them, to retreat to prepared positions. Zionists finding anti-semitism to lurk behind every unfavourable comment about Israeli policies and claims is just one example of this proclivity. To be completely fair, Palestinian sympathisers often claim bias in comments unfavourable to their use of terrorist tactics.
Sometimes, this tendency is too easy.
The original and enduring wrong done in this conflict was the confiscation of Palestinian real estate. I’m not here referring to Palestinian sovereignty, which is a difficult and much more ambiguous proposition.
However, the State of Israel could demonstrate its bona fides by stating its minimum conditions under which non-Jews and their descendants might have their real estate returned.
Israeli conditions may not be accepted, but at least some playable cards are on the table.
Anti-semitism no matter if it is from the right left or middle needs to be recognized for what it is and stamped on.
The 6 million dead deserve this from all of us.
S worm.
I don’t really give shit if you’re a far leftist, as you describe yourself. You really have no business being treated as a decent person with your attitude.
“Most Jews are now Zionists, on account of the education they are given in primary school.”
This is a great thread. Very thoughtful. Here’s an anacdote on education in Jewish schools.
At the start of the Israel-Hezbollah war, I wandered by a pro-Israel demonstration where some high school kids were holding up placards that read “Free our soldiers”, referring (I assume) to the Israeli soldiers who had been kidnapped by Hezbollah.
I thought it was interesting that Australian Jewish students, would refer to the Israeli soldiers as “our” soldiers. I wonder if this sentiment is common in the Australian Jewish community.
Go Rebekka!!!
I’d like to put forward a differing description in place of this anti-Zionism term.
Israel is a mistake. It’s an error. A dumb Idea. Lebensraum in miniture
1)Most Palestinians are Semitic so its usage when restricted to Jews from all over the place is just plain dumb. More evidence of the stupidity of racial ideas. Considering Israel happened on the rebound from the implementation of stupid racial ideas don’t make it right. Two errors do not make a positive contribution, they ad up to minus 2.
2)Imagine if a bunch of Catholics from South America moved into Italy and set up some weird whip-yourself-into-purity Catholic State restoring the supremacy of the Papacy and excluded the locals as not Semitic Catholic enough and they all had to leave.
Stupid no?
Well that’s Israel, all on the back of some stupid old text full of religious supernatural claptrap and jingoistic kill-they-neighbour stories.
Its a religious disneyland, and heavuly subsidised. Meaningless.
I’ve only had time to read Paul’s original post, and not the comments following (many of which I’m sure are very good), but I have to second many of his remarks as a former member of the left.
I have written elsewhere of how my thoughts progressed over time – a Sydney Morning Herald piece I wrote in 2001 covers the ground fairly well. Since then, I have travelled around the middle east and seen some of the anti-semitism so prominently displayed there first hand. There are a significant number of people in that part of the world who really do want to do the Iranian thing and wipe Israel off the map. Many others just flat-out hate Jews, even if they don’t want them dead.
I’ll never be a leftie again, but I’ll stand with anyone who supports Israel’s right to exist.
I have only one slight (personal) quibble with Paul’s post: most of my attackers came from the left – the ‘PC multi-culti brigade’. I had only one significant left wing defender (David Marr), and only one significant right wing attacker (Gerard Henderson), who, to his credit, did not engage in ad-hominem attacks.
Good work Norton.
You guys heard it from me first of course.
I’m anti the post 1967 Israeli occupation, yet also support the existence of the Israeli state.
In my opinion the true anti-Jewish movement lays with the Christian Zionist movement, whose support of Israel is solely based on a belief that such support will lead to return of Jesus. I’m similarly appalled by the faux support of Israel by the far right-wing, who only do so to justify their utter hatred of Muslims.
Trouble is, even though Israel may be a mistake, it’s there.
There’s no returning to a time before Israel existed.
If only we could expunge our own mistakes in that way.
Bloodshed and violence can be ended only with diplomacy and politics.
The trick is to work out the maximum concessions your opponent is willing to make and to offer the minimum they are willing to accept. Then bargaining can start.
The state of Israel is discriminatory in its treatment of non-Jews, but not horrendously so. Citizens of Israel, whether Jewish or not, enjoy considerable civil rights.
If Palestinian interests were sufficiently sophisticated to understand the opportunities that these features of Israel’s constitution allowed, it would be possible to make important changes in Israel’s governance, which would serve to open new doors wider still.
But this policy takes time, sophistication and patience. Palestinian leaders have not demonstrated any of these traits to any great degree.
This is ludicrous. Why the hell should all non-Jews be prone to antisemitism? Are all non-Catholics prone to antipapism? Are all non-Zoroastrians prone to antizoroastrianism?
A first rate post by Paul, although I will add the following:
“non-Jews who identify as anti-Zionists tend to assume that they are thereby immune from the anti-semitism to which all non-Jews are prone”; the first word in that clause ought to be “Jews”, should it not?
All of the hand-wringing and angst over the Israel/Palestinian issue can be dispelled in an instant if we adopt a consistent application of the principles of freedom of association and private property: if you genuinely believe it is gravely wrong to aggress against somebody else’s person and property, then acts of foreign invasion and occupation are wrong, and should be declared illegitimate. Where a legitimate titleholder can be found for each piece of land, the armed usurper must be forced off and cease from interfering in their economic activities henceforth, or else pay substantial compensation.
I think it just clarifies matters in a way that meaningless debates over whether a regime is “progressive” simply cannot (for if a regime is “more progressive” than others, this often leads “progressives” to endorse monstrous acts of aggression dressed up as “liberation” against “reactionary regimes” – the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for example).
This from the Steve Edwards who used to defend his goals with whatever firepower could be brought to bear, up to and including the use of his own bare hands?
Well, yes. That’s why I played in “defence”, right?
I’m not sure if you’ve understood me, but for now I’ll remain cryptic and annoying.
You are disgusting.
Exhibit A.
Great post, agree with Paul, Rob Lefty E etc. Right to exist pre ‘67 and two state thingy. The far out left really has to get a grip on itself. Israel exists, is that gonna change? No. Get over it and get constructive.
Conditions need to be created where we can guarantee Israel security and have a Palestinian state. How? Buggered if I know.
Ain’t this an illustration of the way that has been made impossible to be critical of Israel without also being accused of being anti-semitic. To the extent that there have been anti-jewish sentiments and actions expressed, (and I have to confess that I haven’t read the Age piece), it is something of a reflection of the extent to which any criticism of Israel is labelled, ipso facto, as evidence of anti-semitism. This is not helped by a tendency of some, with what might be described as right wing attitudes that are in fact anti-semitic, to ride along on the band wagon where any legitimate criticisms of Israel emerge. For a long time it seemed as though Israel ride on the moral high ground of the holocaust, any criticism of the Israeli state and their actions was labelled as anti-semtitism. In the meantime, those who have genuine grounds to be critical of Israel have had to accept the fact that there are some uncomfortable fellow travellers along for the ride…
I dunno, it ain’t ever as easy and straight forward in real life as it seems in theory. IMHO the truth is that idiots come in all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, religious beliefs, nationalities and colours, and that the one responsibility that we all have as progrssive thinkers is to make sure that no-one is ever immune from criticism because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religious belief etc, but at the same time, that their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religious belief etc etc is never a basis for criticism… We should criticise people for what they say and do, not for what they are…
That’s my two cents worth…
PS. Can we have a thread about the Steve Irwin death…? Please?
Lefty E and Katz, I agree that Israel needs to look at trading the Palestinians’ right of return for some kind of compensation — perhpas to be established by an international commission. That would draw the line under their dispossession. The question is whether the Palestinians would accept such a settlement. In all the debates about how to resolve the Middle East conflict, we see many, many arguments about what Israel has to concede, but precious little about what the Palestininians should concede. Bear in mind that Palestininians are treated worse and live in poorer conditions in neighbouring Arab states than they do in in the territories, let alone within Israel proper.
The Palestinians have to get over it, infinitely difficult though that may be. I don’t blame them for their hatred and resentment, but it gains them nothing. Israel doesn’t need them any more. Before the Intifada, a million Palestinians worked and gained a livelihood in Israel. Now, none do. Gaza, which was held out a year ago to be the shining beacon for Palestininian statehood — people even talked about a ‘Palestinian Hong Kong’ — has gone straight to hell in the year since the withdrawal. It’s a lawless swamp run by armed gangs who kill each other because they don’t have Israelis to use their guns against.
The greenhouses are emblamatic of the Palestinian failure. The Israelis built a network of 3000-4000 greenhouses in Gaza which produced out-of-season fruit, vegetables and flowers for export to Europe. They used some of the most sophisticated agricultural techniques in the world to grow infect-free produce which earned over $100 million in export dollars. When the settlers realised they were going to evicted, come what may, they talked of destroying the greenhouses or taking them back to Israel. The Palestinian Authority refused to buy them. So a consortium of mainly Jewish American philanthropists put together $14 million and bought them off the settlers, and gifted them to the PA. One of the first things the Gazans did after the withdrawal was to trash the greenhouses, around a third of them. There was another wave of vandalism in February this year. Now most of the greenhouses that remain are training grounds for terrorists and launch sites for Qassams.
My point here is that as long as the Palestinians and their backers obsess about getting their lands back and destroying the Jewish state, instead of making the most of what they are offered or can commandeer, they will remain a lost people going no place.
Nice post Paul and what Phil said (lazy commenting at its best).
Just on Spiros’ comment, I’d guess that with being Jewish there is a great sense of preservation of identity and tradition. About 11 years ago I dated an agnostic Jewish lass who still made it a point of observing the holy days. I don’t know if that is common across the wider community but it was very important to her to do so.
Just read the news article. Yuck. I remember in Yr 12 meeting Cheryl Kernot and asking her for advice on getting involved in politics. She advised me to steer clear of student politics. Good advice… though in hindsight I should’ve advised her to steer clear of labor politics
I’ve often berated myself for not feeling passionate enough about a cause to get involved on campus or elsewhere to help promote it. But in hindsight its a good thing. In my class last year there was a guy who had been doing his bachelor’s degree for about 8 years because he involved himself in Student Socialist politics. It’s like putting yourself in a time warp… it must be because campus is a sheltered environment where the battle between socialism and bourgeois liberalism still has a mirage-like reality (if VSU has done anything good, it has probably been to suck the air out of this bubble). In my first year at Uni, I very nearly almost ignored Cheryl’s advice and got in bed with the socialists. Being 2003, with Bush and Howard gearing up for Iraq, and still harbouring the pretence that I was a socialist… I got involved with some of their campaigns. Fortunately I was saved by cynicism and an ever growing awareness of the iredeemable complexity of social and political life. Socialist parties do tend to absorb youngsters into their ranks early in their uni life… but most of them wisen up after a while. I can’t imagine why some stay in them… I tend to think that its the people who join for less than idealistic reasons who remain to rise up the ranks. It can be a good vehicle for corrupting the youth.
“The original and enduring wrong done in this conflict was the confiscation of Palestinian real estate.”
The original and enduring wrong was two millenia of persecution, pogrom, massacre and genocide that persuaded Jews that they would only be safe, ultimately, in a land which they could call their own.
Israel is based in Auschwitz, Babi Yar, the Pale of Settlement, Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from
England and the Inquisition. Palestinian real estate is symptom, not cause and the vast majority of the land originally included within the Mandate of Palestine is now included within the borders of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan whose inhabitants are every bit as “Palestinian” as any Arab living in the occupied territories. So, there is a Palestinian state, the rulers of which have shown a pronounced reluctance to engage those who assert a “Palestinian” identity, other than at the end of massive weaponry – vide “Black September.”
Israel isn’t going to go away and nor are the legitimate claims of the people whose ancestors once lived on their territory. A two state solution is the only answer but the vast majority of the Arab world refuses to accept it.
If you want the Israelis to depart, where would you anticipate that they should go?
What Geoff said — absolutely.
You’re getting no argument about this on this thread. I’m sure you don’t want to be guilty of stating the bleeding obvious.
Why assume that the right of return has to be traded away? Everything is negotiable.
Encourage an increase in the Arab population of Israel and Palestinian land rights may be returned in the normal, peaceful legislated manner, in due course.
Instead of paying the families of suicide bombers and Hezbollah, Iran would put its money to more effective use establishing child endowment for Arab Israelis.
There may well comea time when Israel’s Jews will be forced to choose between democracy and a close identification between nation and religion.
There’s something kinda fundamental that you don’t get. Katz. I wonder if you can put your finger on it, maybe after re-reading Geoff’s comment?
“There may well comea time when Israel’s Jews will be forced to choose between democracy and a close identification between nation and religion.”
Israelis have been debating that point, vociferously, since 1948, Katz. Long ago they opted for a largely secular state in which the right of Jewish return is enshrined, non-Jews can become citizens, most people aren’t Orthodox (or even particularly religious) and free speech flourishes.
The debate is pretty much what distinguishes them from the national entities that oppose them.
I wasn’t referring to earlier Geoff’s comment. In fact I hadn’t read it until you so thoughtfully (and with the minimum of snarkiness in my humble opinion) pointed it out Rob.
So I’ve just read it for the first time.
I believe you are referring to this:
Well, I for one would be very happy to prosecute every Palestinian associated in even the most tangential way with Russian pogroms, various European massacres, and of course the Final Solution.
But the problem is that the Jews who emigrated to Palestine after the end of WWII had no good title to Palestinian lands. Some purchased it legitimately. Good luck to them. they deserve to enjoy their real estate. The vast, however, eventually settled on confiscated land.
I trust you aren’t relying on biblical justifications for confiscation of land. That’d be just too risible. On the same basis Muslims make claims of Spain. Ridiculous!
No, the best titles are Ottoman Empire titles. There are no other titles. Some Jews have Ottoman Empire titles. If it’s good enough for them, what makes the other Jews so special?
And this:
Geoff doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish with any clarity between sovereignty and property title. “Title” refers to property owned privately. It has nothing to do with “sovereignty”. A Jewish state can be sovereign in Israel, and yet most of the title to real estate could be in non-Jewish hands. There is no contradiction there.
**********
And Geoff, your last post indicates that you haven’t understood my point. Arab Israelis also have the vote. There may come a time when they comprise the majority of Israeli voters.
Then what?
“And Geoff, your last post indicates that you haven’t understood my point. Arab Israelis also have
the vote. There may come a time when they comprise the majority of Israeli voters”.
In which case, their commitment to democracy (rights, liberty) and capitalism (jobs, education) may well win out over shallow nationalism.
This may well be true Scepticlawyer. Then again, maybe not.
Time will tell.
I believe that stuggle for hearts and minds will be much more interesting than the occasional exchange of high explosive that characterises Arab-Jewish relations in the region at the moment.
… and that’s the challenge for them, sl. At the moment, the report card seems to be mixed.
As for Katz’s post, refuting it would be akin to unscrambling an egg. Where to start?
“Then what?”
Then they’ll presumably be enjoying the benefits of living in the only liberal democracy in the region, Katz. Scary thought, I grant you.
Shorter Rob, “I’m bailing out.”
Geoff, you’d be unwise to accept that as a presumption. It is a possibility, no more.
It wouldn’t be the first time that nationalism trumped the rule oflaw.
Cast your mind back to 1935 when voters in the Saar region voted overhelmingly to return to Germany, and to Adolf Hitler.
No, Katz, I just can’t be bothered.
Well, you can’t unscramble an egg without healing a few broken legs, right, Rob (or is that omelettes)?
Personally I’m highly committed to democracy—both of the “rights, liberty” kind espoused by skepticlawyer, and of the fifty-percent-plus-one-vote kind that actual democratic elections are made of. A start to dealing with the simple property-and-nationhood claims of the Palestinians might be for the Israel Government to recognise the actual election results of the Palestinian Authority, even if it means co-opting, buying out and thoroughly reformistically compromising Hamas, whose entire legitimacy depends on the guaranteed Israeli snub.
You know, the worst thing that ever happened to the IRA was Sinn Fein being included in the political process.
We can only hope.
Cliff, I think you’re onto something with that sheltered environment stuff, but i think its also got to do with the increasing disconnection of youth to politics and activism. And with the frustrated hyper-activism which such a state of affairs engenders in a small minority.
Youthful idealism needs a better outlet.
“Well, I for one would be very happy to prosecute every Palestinian associated in even the most tangential way with Russian pogroms, various European massacres, and of course the Final Solution.”
Flip, shallow and pretty much, unworthy of you. You (presumably deliberately) overlook the historical impetus that impelled Jews towards the realisation of a nation state. The impact upon Palestinians by the fact of it’s birth isn’t contested by me but that wasn’t the point that was being made. Obviously.
Michael, there was just as much activity in the Trot groups at uni 20 years ago. What saddens me is the people who either get totally turned off politics after being involved in these sects for a few years, or perhaps, worse, the people who stay in them forever.
Not obvious to me.
What was your point?
Student activism costs nothing. VSU hasn’t and never will kill the political groups, just the useful stuff like childcare, counselling, legal representation and research.
I thought it was a pretty fair point actually. Presumably, on any type of ‘historical corrective’ argument, European Christians would bear the brunt for their historical persecution of Jews.
Not that I think its a useful type of argument: Israel is there now, and Palestinians were there a goddam long time before that. Both have rights to be negotiated.
Also, I’d just like to alert the public that ‘flip’ is not a word.
At some point in the last 10 years ‘glib’ and ‘flippant’ had an illegitmate child.
Actually, the whole Age features stank of ‘beat-up’ to me. I’m very involved on campus and have never witnessed anything like it. I just don’t buy it. I think it’ll come out that the Young Liberals were involved in this smear campaign. And I’m surprised at those supposedly thinking people here who believe everything they read in the papers.
I don’t expect it to kill the political groups Liam, but to, hopefully, transform how they work.
Mark: would you say that the trots (etc) were a smaller part of the scene twenty year ago? Would it be fair to say that international circumstances (or a lack of hindsight) made it easier for them to attract members?
Mark is right – we were both at UQ at roughly the same time (I was there 1990-1994). I had another go-round from 2002-2005 for my law degree.
The same accusatory posters; the same anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism both times. The first encounter nearly put me off politics for all time, and I did some pretty stupid things in (partial) response. The second encounter (where I was a mere observer) taught me just how true Mark’s observations are.
For fuck’s sake. If you people want to continue believing everything you read in the papers, and slurring whole movements because of alleged actions of a tiny minority, why didn’t you include this other story for balance:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20347457-2862,00.html
Ah but the 90s was the decade of disconnectedness…following on nicely from the 80s and greed is good.
I was thinking Mark meant Late 70’s, but that only prove how easily i forget that we are 6 year into a new millenium (or 7 if it makes you feel better.)
And a very fair point Alice.
Or was the 90s the decade of short attention spans?
I’m not commenting on the specific allegations, because I haven’t observed much happening around campuses with which I’m currently familiar on these issues (there’s little or no student activism at small suburban campuses where I teach like Logan and ACU at Banyo, and not much at Nathan these days either), but I would say to Alice that the call for “balance” is just as spurious in this context as it usually is. I doubt you’d find a single LP blogger or leftie commenter who wouldn’t condemn the Melbourne Uni Liberal Club officials.
skepticlawyer is of course right about the overwhelmingly negative focus of Trotskyite propaganda – though occasionally it veers into the ridiculous – as in the famous ISO poster “will there be rape under socialism?” – this from a group renowned for its patriarchal and anti-feminist attitudes.
Michael, the Trot groups actually won the student elections in 86 at Qld Uni – with a motley collection of right wing independents – more because the then Labor right group had been in power for too long than for positive reasons. But there was a lot of activism generally in the late 80s – remembering that this was the end of free education. The Trots were really no more than probably about 200 students – and that’s an optimistic estimate – but the culture in student politics circles was such as to accord them more legitimacy than they deserved.
Alice, I suspect that what you’ve posted is characteristic of just how rotten much student politics can be – from either side.
Well said Alice.
…
Michael G, student politics operates in parallel to the actual student organisations. Denuding student associations simply kills off representation at the faculty and university level, and leaves the unpleasant parts of student politics intact. Young Labor and the Young Liberals organise around their Parties, and as for the trots—an anacronistic epithet given that they nowadays don’t care much at all about the writings and life of Leon Trotsky—they draw support from individuals with far too much time, and can survive perfectly well without money at all.
The Age article is bollocks.
http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/09/04/the-rise-of-antisemitism-on-campus/#more-299
In fact the opposite is the case.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/678/678p9.htm
There are more of such incidents. Read the full article.
***
Howard, Ruddock, Iemma, and now Costello, have called on Muslims to condemn terrorism. Israel has just committed war crimes in Lebanon. I await our politicians calling on Jewish people to condemn Israeli war crimes.
Claim meets counter-claim.
It’s more than likely, from my experience of student politics, that both are true.
“and Palestinians were there a goddam long time before that. Both have rights to be negotiated.
Also, I’d just like to alert the public that ‘flip’ is not a word.”
And goddam should properly have an ‘n’ on the end but what the hell: it works
Well, I was there at UQ too, Skeptic, same time, and I recall no posters that were even remotely “anti-Semitic”. Zero. And I was a paid union organiser, constantly around these people, and the union buildings.
So, I dnt beleive you, Im afraid. Perhaps a few anti-American ones, sure.
Im not sure thats what Mark was saying, in any case.
Im with Alice – this is, on current evidence, a beat up. The article itself contained precious little I’d describe as ‘anti-Semitic’.
To speak up for the hard lefties on campus, since no one else has (not that I sympathise much politically): they may be a lot of things (misguided, young, blow-throughs who’ll go conservative later, doctrinaire, tedious, immature, simplistic yada yada) sure; but racist – no. Its just about crime #1 in their ideological pantheon of the young leftist hive mind. Indeed, Ive never met a single one on the hard left Id describe so, and frankly Ive met hundreds; you’re likely to get yourself booted out quick smart. Much quicker than any other politcal group on campus (eg young libs, young labor).
Oh brother, we’ve finally discovered the only person on earth who regards the Green Left Weekly as an authoritative source.
Hmm, I have no choice but to accept you as the qualified expert on this one Liam.
But are you saying that most gov. funding goes towards paying the representatives to the faculty and university board – which if i recall correctly, were already snuffed out – at my Uni – before the VSU legislation passed. Possibly in anticipation I suppose. Are you saying that parties and student associations didn’t have access to significant government provided funds? And didn’t, by and large, use them for partisan purposes?
I don’t quite follow. But I admit I am generalising from a very small sample.
That’s right, Lefty E, I don’t recall anything from the ISO or whoever from late 80s/early 90s UQ that could be described as “anti-Semitic”.
It’s also worth remembering that international issues took a big back seat to domestic issues in terms of student concerns back then.
But my general impression was that Melbourne campuses were more overtly ideological on the whole, though you certainly couldn’t have said that activism wasn’t a big tradition in Brisvegas.
Michael, I was Treasurer of the University of Queensland Union once upon a time.
There was a prohibition in our constitution on spending money on partisan political campaigns. We could of course campaign on issues – education, welfare, etc. That wasn’t government imposed, and as I recall, was mirrored at other campus student unions and guilds.
Political clubs as such got no more funding than other clubs (ie Chess clubs, debating, departmental/Faculty, international student etc) – usually back then maybe $500 a year – and often less because they usually had much smaller memberships than say the Engineering Undergraduate Society.
Most of the Union’s budget went on staff wages, capital expenditure and service provisions. More political activities (constrained as I say not to be partisan) were only a small part of the expenditure from student fees.
And that’s a century before lunch.
The major parties aren’t offering… unless the frothing attack-dog conservatism of the Young Liberals counts.
I haven’t seen any political groups on campus since it came into being. I kinda made a connection there… though I don’t spend as much time at uni as I used to.
I avoided student politics due to the unrelenting bile therein.
I don’t think any state has a fundamental “right to exist” – history moves on. I do however think Israel has a right to security and the Palestinians have land rights, so I support a two-state solution despite a strong belief that matters could have been handled much better in 1948, let alone since 1967.
What an interesting thread to miss because my silly computer blew its power supply, so I’m reduced to using the kids’ computer after they’ve gone to bed.
Michael G, student associations before VSU were almost never recipients of taxpayer funds, and if they were it was for things like subsidised building leases, use of sporting facilities, etc. They’re now making agreements with their uni admins to survive, but before second semester 2006, they pretty much existed on student money entirely.
Representation at the uni and faculty level still exists, on a uni-by-uni basis, though now the representatives for the student associations, or student faculty representatives, will have no researchers.
Otherwise, what Mark said.
tigtog, in 1948 a two-state solution was on offer. It was integral to the UN resolution that brought Israel into existence. The Arab states rejected it, and launched war.
And therein lies the rub – I remember well when I used to be a student rep on the Academic Board, I used to spend around 3 hours discussing the issues with the professional education researcher. He also kept up links with many academics, and was an invaluable resource for student representatives on university boards and committees – most of whose work has nothing to do with partisan politics – Liberal members of the same boards who took their role seriously usually took the same line on academic issues as ALP or Left members.
I think i got a bit tied up in the terminology, Mark, conflating political clubs and the broad political activity of the student unions. At my uni, broad political activity mostly meant anti-printing fees and anti-Iraq War stuff.
The latter is what I am curious about and what I hope will change under VSU – though if successful it would provide some competition to the political clubs, who i don’t think have a great capacity to grow. It’s not so much the issues which the student union chose to act on, but the way they went about. Their actions would inevitably alienate most of the students who were of coure helping to fund the union (That includes me, who you might think would have been student activisms bread and butter) Their tactics were stale, their methods self-defeating and their strategies quite polemical (hence the confussion.)
I’m interested in how much money (as a proportion or in real terms) was, in recent times, commonly spent by student unions on ‘political activities.’
You’re right, Mark, I may be confusing some of the stuff I saw second time around with what I saw first time around…
That said, I do seem to recall a vote on the UQ Union’s continued support for ‘Palestinian Self-determination and right of return’. I’m pretty sure this didn’t involve money, though, just a lot of shouting from the ISO & friends. Second time around – post 9/11 – there were definately plenty of nasty posters – and not just about Israel, either.
Ah i see my questions been pre-empted. And, so maybe i’ve been a bit rough on the old student union.
Well, at UQU, very little, but we had a “guild” structure as do most Queensland Unis and the ones in WA – ie we provided services such as catering, childcare, cinema, etc. as well as doing student representation – whereas most unis in NSW, Victoria and SA had split structures – a Student Representative Council and a Union for the services stuff – the latter usually funded much better.
I’d say at a guess around 10% – but that would include wages.
Student officebearers as opposed to professional staff members didn’t get paid much – at UQ I think from memory the wage was set at just above the dole (I don’t recall the differential). There was a proliferation of paid student positions towards the end of my time in the Union which I opposed on various grounds.
There was some creative student activism in the early 90s – but it’s true that too much of it is ritualistic.
I can remember arguing at an Education Committee meeting in 1993 that all rallies shouldn’t end up at the building where the local offices of the federal education department were – the only people we were picketing were public servants. The arguments against (I’d suggested the ALP head office – remembering this was the era of the Keating government) were largely from tradition!
Oh, and as Barnaby knew when he voted against the VSU legislation, by far the best funded clubs at UQ were the sports clubs.
And so the question becomes, what can one do with 10 percent (assuming things haven’t changed dramatically in the past 20 years, well up until Baranaby did his little dance, anyway.)
For the record, i should note that I’m referring to UTS in Sydney. Although back in the days when i didn’t have a clue what was going on, I spent a year up at UQ. And I had my suspicions that those sports facilities must have been heavily subsidised. I mean Kieren Perkins doesn’t swim just anywhere.
Well, skepticlawyer, I don’t ever recall Israel/Palestine issues being discussed on Union Council from 87-93 when I was around. We couldn’t quite work out how it could have been such a big issue in the 70s with AUS. I don’t really know what was going on at UQ in the 2000s – though I worked there for two semesters (one at St Lucia in 2002 and one at Ipswich in 2004), I didn’t have the time or inclination to pay attention to student politics.
And for this Palestinian property owners deserve to lose their title to their privte property?
Do you understand the difference between property and sovereignty?
Mark, I think I’ve pinned down the context now. The vote was on whether to remove a resolution (is that what they were called? I’ve forgotten) dating from the 70s (the AUS days you mention) supporting Palestine.
Second time around I didn’t have anything to do with student politics, either – and I’ve never even been to UQ Ipswich. I only noticed the posters, and the louder anti-Iraq-war rallies (mainly because I had to walk through some of them to get to lectures). I was mature-age and either full-time or nearly full time in various jobs, as well as full-time at uni – no time for politics.
Oh, yes, ok, I think I vaguely remember we were going to try to amend that one, but decided it wasn’t worth the fight. I have a feeling it was inserted by referendum and would have required another one to get it out of the Union policy book, and we didn’t want to go there. But they brought in another constitution afer I left, and perhaps it was easier to change. But it was all along time ago and I haven’t thought much about student politics for years.
Rob, IMO just about everybody involved in the establishment of Israel in 1948 made errors in the implementation/acceptance/rejection of the UN resolutions, and my carefully generalist statement in no way implied otherwise, so I’m not sure why you felt you had to move to a pure Arab-blaming position.
Yes, but to restate the obvious: such motions/ posters, while anti-Zionist, were not ‘anti-Semitic’.
The same tired, intellectually dishonest conflation seems to be behind a fair swathe of this Age story’s alleged ‘evidence’.
No reason to be complacent, of course, in case anti-Semitism does rear its ugly head – but Im yet to see any real substance to the claim.
I’m quite happy to condemn if i see it!
In general, I agree, Lefty E though it’s hard to be certain about all the posters without an accurate memory – some of them were pretty dumb.
Liam: “…and as for the trots — an anacronistic epithet given that they nowadays don’t care much at all about the writings and life of Leon Trotsky…”
Back in the old school days, a crappy English translation that you would use to help stumble yr way through a Latin text was called a ‘trot.’ Guess these ultra-lefties are sort of ‘lost in translation,’ more interested in being ‘trots’ than ‘Trots.’
PETER QUINCE: Bless thee, Bottom! Thou art translated!
Well, the Trots were/are certainly a bunch of asses, that much is sure. (Sorry, loose associator at work here.)
Why there should be an association of the ‘ultra-Left’ with ‘anti-Zionism’ as such, is sort of beyond me. As someone pointed out above, aren’t the L-guys supposed to be concerning themselves with other, less-opiated mythical beasts, like superstructures and class struggle? Goes to show how much politics is dictated by emotive and impulsive preferences, instead of a more sober judgement about the world. That goes for the ultra-righties, too. Actually, I can’t even make sense of the idea of an ‘ultra-left’ or an ‘ultra-right,’ the taxonomy breaks down. I think they’d all best be described as ‘the set of sorta crazy people.’
I think so much confusion and distortion about these ME issues is caused by using these big, squishy, imprecise words like ‘anti-semitism,’ ‘racism,’ ‘colonialism’ and so forth. They are like giant gravity sink holes or black holes, that distort the shape of ideas and efforts as they approach them. Maybe the best way to try and solve this conflict is to put aside all these words and slogans for a while, and try to think about the issues using much smaller, cat-in-the-hat type words. Katz is on to something by focusing on simpler things like property and title. I’m sure an actual solution would wind up being far more complicated, but it’d be nice to see someone starting from a foundation of small, clear principles.
I also think this is an opportunity for a few smaller, less-invested countries or societies to try and formulate a more genuinely honest-broker analysis and solutions leading to peace. The big players here are all hopelessly compromised, esp. the US which is awash in cynical lobbyists, material interests, and cultural distortions; as well as the surrounding Arab states which so cynically use the issue as a cat’s paw and a lightning rod. Implementing a new, less charged vocabulary in which to try and discuss these matters would be a start. It’s the sort of thing an actually competent UN might have attempted, if we all weren’t such stupid creatures.
Maybe a group of disinterested countries, say Australia, South Korea, Uruguay, Malaysia and Iceland could sit down and try to sort the matter out in a way that ignores all the noise being generated. None of the presently used vectors seem to me to point to a sustainable future, just a sort of perpetual stumbling from one crisis to the next. Personally, I’d just like to be able to pick up my newspaper one fine morning in the future and read about news that actually concerns *me*, instead of these two mobs of lunatics perpetually squabbling over a dusty piece of real estate that is smaller and less valuable than friggin’ Suffolk County.
It’s a kinda neat idea, j_p_z, but unfortunately I don’t know that Australia counts as totally disinterested these days.
” instead of these two mobs of lunatics perpetually squabbling over a dusty piece of real estate that is smaller and less valuable than friggin’ Suffolk County.”
Yeah I’ll say. It’s like Extreme Big Brother Lost Survivor. I say seal the fucking region off, webcam the shit out of it and starting running a book.
I’m mean what’s the fucking point for the rest of us? There’s no oil there. Australia is now self-sustaining in olives and we already have more religion than we can consume locally (Thanks for the lift Herbie!).
Ooh, my itunes random shuffle just upchucked Gerry Rafferty’s “Baker Street” with that gorgeous sax riff. Time to go to bed now so I can get up again shortly.
Thanks j_p_z.
I agree that these issues would be anything but simple.
But talking about such issues also reveals that the Right has some even bigger, squishier concepts like, “divine covenant”, “chosen people”, “bible inerrancy”, and the like.
The proposition that the real estate upon which some really, really important stuff was asserted to have happened back in biblical days prevents many of our oscurantist friends on the Right from recognising boring old things like property title, the rule of law, the operation of the free market, etc., etc., etc.
Ironic, isn’t it? This is what the Right usually says about the Left.
These Rightists seem to believe that a different set of rules should pertain to issues relating to Israel.
BTW, I still haven’t received any satisfactory indication that apologists for the 1948 Settlement understand the difference between “sovereignty” and “property”.
PC asks http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/09/04/has-ultra-left-anti-zionism-morphed-into-anti-semitism/#comment-139394 And if we’re not against them then we must be with them, right
Yes PC, thats also how George Orwell saw it, ‘he that is not with me is against me’ http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
In response to a point raised earlier by Rebekka, I agree that anti-Zionism does not equate with anti-semitism – especially given the existence of anti-Zionist Jews both in Israel and in the Diaspora. However, I simply repeat a point made in my original post – namely that the obsessive and virulent form of anti-Zionism one often finds on the ultra-left lends itself to conduct which many Jews would find disturbing, distressing and even personally threatening, to a frivolous attitude towards the Holocaust and what it means, and to a reluctance to take anti-semitism seriously as a problem. This could, in suitably fraught circumstances, lead to a line being crossed where particularly troubled people in the orbit of the anti-Zionist ultra-left do cross the line into outright anti-semitism.
Whilst I am prepared to accept the need for scepticism about some of the claims and counter-claims reported in The Age which come from partisan sources, it can be verified that a contributor to the NUS Education chat site stated that Zionists (i.e. most Jews) “felt the need to reassert their racism and fetish for genocide and mass slaughter of Arab people” and that NUS President Rose Jackson was grossly vilified for objecting to this remark.
I am also prepared to believe Deborah Conway when she claims to have experienced hostility from some ultra-leftists on the basis of her Jewishness.
Also, I have witnessed at least one case of unambiguous anti-semitism by an ultra-left anti-Zionist. In January 1983 I was one of about 300 witnesses to the incredible spectacle of a member of the left faction to which I belonged rising to defend the publication of extracts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in an Arabic language newspaper.
Finally, the use of the term “Zionist” as a political swear word ignores the fact that there are a range of political tendencies within Zionism ranging from radical left to radical right, and that left-wing Zionists and “peace camp” Zionists outnumber anti-Zionists in the ranks of democratic Jews (in Israel and the Diaspora) who support Palestinian statehood and are critical of many aspects of Israeli government policy. Indeed, the earliest proposals for a “democratic secular binational state” which many consider would be a good solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were put forward in the 1930s by socialist Zionists such as Judah Magnes and Chaim Arlosoroff.
Very well said again, Paul
Coming in very late. Thanks for this Paul, I agree. I feel like I cope it both ways.
As a Jew I am at least potentially vulnerable to the anti-semitism displayed by parts of the ultra-left (although so far I haven’t coped very much) and as a leftist I get tarred with the brush by people who can’t, or don’t want to, distinguish between the left in general and extremist groups. (BTW I am pretty sure that even within Socialist Alternative there are people who are not anti-semetic. It’s just they’re getting increasingly out shouted. Meanwhile, in the left as a whole this sort of behaviour is that of a small (hopefully tiny) minority, but it damages the reputation of all.
It was ironic that on the same day The Age was discussion anti-semitism in the left, The Herald Sun had a report exposing anti-semitism amonst Melbourne University Liberal Club members. The two papers reversing their normal sides, but also exposing the fact that this is not a problem confined to one side of politics.
So, to summarise: infrequently, under “fraught circumstances” a few “troubled people” on the “ultra left” cross a line.
I’m glad that’s been clarified.
Just one question: in phone-box units, how many “troubled people” is this?
Nabokov, how do you survive with so little sleep.
Also, I am still curious about this idea that “all non-Jews” are prone to antisemitism. Is this an innate human quality? And can all
Also, people, please stop pretending that the Nazi genocide was something that only happened to Jews, or that Zionism did not exist before 1939. And maybe read Peter Novick’s “The Holocaust in American Life”.
Also, who the fuck is Deborah Conway are why are ultra-leftists singling her out. Did she pull a Hanoi Jane on Israeli bulldozers or something.
Katz, I’ve had even people who would be happy to be called “hard line left” if not ultra-left tell me they’ve experienced anti-semitism from people they thought were their comrades. For example blaming the Iraq invasion on “the Jews” (now lets see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell – how many Jews in that lot).
At the Hiroshima Day Rally in Melbourne the MC made quite explicit that the killing of innocent civilians was unacceptable in response to US imperialism, but that there was no problem with the killing of Israeli civilians.
On several occassions I’ve witnessed people who could calmly condemn human rights violations in a string of countries, yet become insensed when getting to Israeli abuses against Palestinians. In some cases there might be a personal connection that makes this, well personal, but I doubt it is the case every time.
We’re talking about a small minority of the left, but it’s still plenty of phonebooths (unless we’re talking Tardises).
Katz
Their is no “right of return” to trade away. This is one of the huge lies that fuel this issue. The Arab refugees, who now identify as “Palestinians,” have never, do not now, and will not in the future, have any “right” whatosever to “return” to Israel.
Forgive my ignorance, but what’s the difference?
I just saw this and haven’t had time to read all the comments – apologies to the other commenters and if I repeat what might already have been said.
I think this post is rather wrong-headed.
First off, please define an “anti-Zionist”.
Next how are other “Zionists” different from those in Israel presently oppressing (it’s a fact) Palestinians and slavering over killing and wounding thousands of Lebanese and planning for more conquests for a “Greater Israel”?
Is the demarcation sharp or blurry? Why?
Why do Jews need a Fatherland? To paraphrase something I read elsewhere, what’s wrong with the International Jew?
I have Jewish friends and some of my favourite artists and thinkers are Jewish. Big deal.
But yes, being anti-Zionist doesn’t excuse any anti-semitic behaviour anywhere. Let’s stick to the issues, people.
And I invite any Zionist reading this – and anyone curious – to do a web-search for articles about poverty statistics in Israel and the occupied territories. I think you’ll find the information about the economic position of non-Jewish and non-Ashkenazi Jews illuminating.
Here you go, an article from a Jewish site from this week for starters. Plenty of money for cluster bombs – not much for food and shelter.
Christo
Have you been to Mt. Druitt, Wadeye, or Mutijulu lately?
K.Wright, for your information:
The UN, the same body that legitimised the nationhood of Israel. Grant “right of return” to all residents of Palestine/Israel.
If you have an issue with this, take it up with the UN.
Katz
Ah, Chapter Four resolutions have never been, do not, and will never be intended as “law.” UNGA resolutions are less “law” than a government White Paper is. Also, you might want to move along with the times. It is 2006 now. 1948 UNGA Resolutions are not worth the paper they were written on.
For “law” you need to go to Chapter Six, and preferably Chapter Seven Resolutions of the UNSC.
“… with Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voting against.”
Now, why would that be, I wonder?
Speaking of the ultra-left, I wonder what Kath and Kemp think about all this?
I note that of late these two anti-Zionist zealots seem to have set up shop at Leftwrites, which is populated by hardline Marxists.
Anyway I agree with Paul. Great post.
Serious questions Katz:
Was the property referred to “real estate”?
Who was meant to pay the compensation for the property?
Sorry – first question prompted by the reference to “damage”
K.Wright, yes I agree, the Australian colonial dispossesion and immirseration of this country’s indigenous population is also a shameful disgrace. I’m all for doing something to recognise their heritage and and interest in the ownership of this land.
But what’s that got to do with Israel and the bombing of Lebanon?
Leftwrites, eh? Good to know that there’s some other left-wing blogs out there. Thanks for the tip, Steve Munn.
Oh I mentioned this before, and I’ll mention it again:
Jews Sans Frontieres, is an anti-zionist blog written by… a Jew. There are many Jews who also happen to be anti-zionist, you know.
Oh my god my head hurts… the confusion!
Perhaps, to paraphrase Larry David, they do hate themselves, as any honest self-critical person might from time to time, but I’m sure it’s not because they’re Jewish.
Christo, you need to get out more.
Nice meeting you too, Rob… : /
I get out heaps too fyi.
Melanie Philips, eh. Isn’t she the person who wrote Londonistan, a tract that seems to be obsessed with the number of Muslims in London?
ie. another mishmash of ad hominem attacks and spurious argument.
So the problem is jews who hate other jews.. How about aussies who hate other aussies, boys who hate other boys, nerds who who hate other nerds..?
Christo, you’re right. Being Jewish and an anti-Zionist doesn’t mean I hate myself. In fact I think I have pretty healthy self-esteem.
Some have even called me arrogant.
Why would anyone be surprised about this? The emotional factor that nudges some people to become Marxists is the same as the one that nudges others to become right-wing Jew-haters: envy.
“Why am I poor? Is it because I don’t work hard and work smart?”
“No! It’s because this tiny group, the [Jews/ capitalists] are exploiting you and the vast majority. If only you could eliminate them from the world, your life would be much better.”
There’s a reason why the Nazi flag had a red field, and why Stalin was planning a pogrom on his deathbed.
The counter-example – that a brief demographic blip of Jews born 50-150 years ago identified themselves as Bundists/ socialists, and hoped that secularism would protect them from anti-Semitism – has hidden this underlying similarity in recent decades. However, now that the Jews have their own country, one that it has proven better at protecting Jews from persecution than professedly socialist regimes did, this fond illusion has dropped away. Socialism in Israel itself has become unpopular: collective farms have been abandoned, and the treasury is no longer required by law to print as much money as the Government wants to spend.
Most Jews themselves are realising that “If you want it, you have to earn it” is still their best hope of survival. Unfortunately they are surrounded by Arab dictatorships which produce little or nothing through hard work, whose wealth comes mainly from letting Americans drill for their oil, and which have found Israel a convenient scapegoat for their domestic discontent.
I know Rebekka and I can testify to what she’s said.
No, she’s gorgeous.
Loewenstein often gets accused of being a self-loathing Jew and I suspect he’s anything but self-loathing. I saw him at the debate (cheap plug) on Sunday night and he was smirking all over the place.
Anyway, the notion of a state based on a religion (whatever that religion) is worthy of discussion.
Might I add that – whatever the merits of criticising the policies and actions of Israeli Jews who live in Israel – to go from that to criticising, shouting down or physically attacking Jews who live, not in Israel, but in Australia, or France, or London, or The Netherlands, because they [are perceived to] share an ethnicity and/or a religion with Israeli Jews who live in Israel, is prejudice, pure and simple. That the self-professed heirs of the Enlightenment would descend to this level shows that their motive is not a rational disagreement with a particular country’s government or electorate, but something much nastier.
And so what if most Jewish Australians are pro-Zionist in their opinions? Does that apply distributively to every passing person you see with curly sideburns and a black hat? Do Vietnamese Australians have the right to beat up any aging baby-boomer they see, just because the bulk of that cohort supported Ho Chi Minh?
“Anyway, the notion of a state based on a religion (whatever that religion) is worthy of discussion.”
Yes, let’s talk about Iran, Darlene.
Anti-Zionists might or might not be anti-semites, but can an anti-semite be a Zionist?
The notorious Nazi war criminal, Jew hater and psychopath, Julius Streicher, editor of the anti-semitic journal, Der Sturmer, considered himself a Zionist. At least that is what he said at the Nuremberg trials. He said that Jews should have their own country, but not be allowed elsewhere. He even claimed that early Zionists like Chaim Weizmann agreed with him.
Quite a few Nazis, in fact, early on thought a solution to the “Jewish problem” was to ship them all off to Palestine.
seriously wrote:
“who the fuck is Deborah Conway[?]“
A prominent Australian singer-songwriter of Jewish ancestry and left-wing, feminist and pro-environment politics who recorded several successful albums in the 1990s and was previously lead singer with the band Do Re Mi, which had several hits (notably “Man Overboard”) in the 1980s. Her most recent venture has been the “Broad” series of collaborations with other prominent female musicians.
She wrote, in an Age column on 14 August 2004, that:
This was written in reference to groups from the ultra-left. They would probably deny the accusation of anti-semitism on the grounds that they want to shoot her for being a Zionist, not for being Jewish.
Apparently her music is also effective as an equine aphrodisiac.
Did Streicher proffer any evidence to show that he’d ever actually lifted a finger to help – say – a German, French, Polish or Dutch Jew being railroaded off to Auschwitz, to get a one-way ticket to live in Palestine instead? Or was he just pulling an OJ Simpson-style trial gambit?
This is why I mean: the stated objection may be to “Jews living among us in Europe” or to “Jews stealing Arab land to live in Palestine”, but when you examine the actions concerned, the only real logic seems to be an objection to Jews living at all, full stop, period.
“No! It’s because this tiny group, the [Jews/ capitalists] are exploiting you and the vast majority. If only you could eliminate them from the world, your life would be much better.�
Yes, but blaming these problems on a jewish minority is anti-semitic and factually wrong, whereas blaming them on capitalists and capitalism is a coherent analysis of present conditions.
Unfortunately they are surrounded by Arab dictatorships which produce little or nothing through hard work, whose wealth comes mainly from letting Americans drill for their oil, and which have found Israel a convenient scapegoat for their domestic discontent.
There is some substance to this assertion. But where does the Israeli state get its money – esp. for all those expensive new weapons?
And I totally agree – let’s not attack any and every jew for the errors of the zionist leaders. It’s not only pointless and self-defeating it is simply racist.
OK Rob let’s talk about religious states looking at both Israel and Iran. Who knows? Maybe on closer inspection they might have a lot in common.
“Anyway, the notion of a state based on a religion (whatever that religion) is worthy of discussion.”
Maybe, but the basic tenet of Zionism is that Jews are a nation whose survival (either physically, or as a distinct cultural group) requires a national homeland. It was not originally and is arguably not primarily a Judaic religious movement.
This is why I mean: the stated objection may be to “Jews living among us in Europe� or to “Jews stealing Arab land to live in Palestine�, but when you examine the actions concerned, the only real logic seems to be an objection to Jews living at all, full stop, period.
No Friederich, there is an obvious and glaring difference between the statements “Jews should live peaceably wherever they can” and “Jews should steal Arabs lands to live in Palestine”: the former harms no one and is totally ok – break out the Klezmer music, let’s dance – and the latter involves a crime.
There is of course an interesting debate about whether nationalism simply expresses the aspirations of a pre-existing nation, or whether nations are themselves historically and discursively constituted (at least in part) by nationalism. For instance, was there an Australian nation prior to the Federation movement of the late 19th century?
Rob
If your idea of “getting out” is visiting is Melanie Philips’ House of Swarthy Horrors, 15 Lookout! Lane, Shrillshire, Londonistan ECV 1BOM, then perhaps you need to think a wee bit harder about dragging ethnic groups through political battles.
Excellent post BTW Paul.
1. Well, K.Wright, Israel achieved legitimacy by virtue of a General Assembly resolution (November 29, 1947). Israel’s legitimacy and the “right of return” have the same legal basis. Just as the destruction of Israel would breach UN resolutions, so is denial of the “right of return” of Palestinians.
2. Rob:
Could it be that these countries didn’t like the resolution and took it seriously enough to vote against it? This is prima facie evidence of the importance of the “right of return” resolution. (Sometimes the sarcasmatron is not the correct weapon.)
3 Peter TB
An interesting question. You’d have to go back to the debates to find out. Real estate is certainly a form of property.
And consider this. The Government of Israel tacitly recognised Palestinian property existed, otherwise the Law of Absentees’ Properties (1950), which legalized the confiscation of non-Jewish property would have been superfluous.
As a matter of comparison, no Australian colony and no British government ever passed any law confiscating Aboriginal property. This is because no one believed at the time that Aborigines, whether individually or corporately, possessed any real estate.
4. Vee:
The difference between sovereignty and property is stark.
An historical example may illustrate it.
When Nazi Germany occupied France, sovereignty was transferred to the Third Reich (the US was among the countries to recognise the legitimacy of Germany’s conquest, and the puppet regime of Vichy France). However, virtually no French property (as far as I know) was confiscated. The new German administration recognised French property rights.
However, the same did not apply in the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent Poland. Germany claimed sovereignty and rejected many aspects of Soviet and Polish property law. Much property was confiscated by the German state and Germans were granted title to it. This was the essence of “lebensraum”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
The State of Israel more closely followed Nazi Germany’s Eastern property policies, not those imposed on France.
“It was not originally and is arguably not primarily a Judaic religious movement.:
This was true certainly up to 1967, and maybe up to 1977, when the Likud parties won government. Since then, Zionism has found its main expression in the Israeli settler movement into the occupied territories, and that is primarily a Judaic religious movement.
Paul, I’m not sure about Deborah Conway’s music being an equine aphrodisiac, but she’s a great singer/songwriter and someone whose politics as well as art I have considerable respect for.
I agree with Mark and the horse
In 1992 I ran on a student election ticket that used the slogan “It’s only the beginning” and Conway’s song, then just passing its peak in the charts, as theme music. I’m not sure if it proved an aphrodisiac to the voters, but it certainly seemed to encourage them to vote left.
More seriously, I think the semantic issues here have had considerable significance for the debate. Zionism was initially about self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. It contained strands that wished for domination of the area, and also strands that wanted a just outcome for other indigenous populations.
However, most Australians (and possibly other westerners) now see the term as referring exclusively to those who want to subjegate or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. This actually suits the right-wing zionists just fine. They get control of a term which carries great resonance in the Jewish community, and get a chance to persuade middle of the road Jews that theirs is the only legitimate form of Zionism.
It’s another example of the extreemes being united in a desire to shut the moderates out of the debate so they can slang it out with each other – a phenomenon only too obvious on the web.
Katz
Wrong again. Israel WON its sovereignty in its War of Independence fought in 1948. It was recognised as such by the UN in 1949.
And who cares about UN resolutions being breached when it comes to the possibility of Israel being destroyed? Do you really think the Muslim world gives a damn for the infidels “UN resolutions?” Goodness me, some people live in a bubble.
I don’t have any higher regard for these UN resolutions than you do.
Thus you have made an elementary error in thinking that you understand me by applying your stereotyped view of what you believe a “leftie” must think. So your the Bubble-Boy, not me.
Therefore, for the record:
The “Muslim world” (whatever that is) has the same respect for UN resolutions as the Israeli legislation has for the property rights of “present absentee” Palestinians, i.e., virtually zero. The difference is that Israel’s political classes were and are far more subtle and sophisticated in the way they couch their justifications and in their methods, and good luck to them.
Israel’s political classes have found a way of couching naked force in the clothing of legalism. Hitherto, and likely for the foreseeable future Palestinians, both inside and outside Israel, have been and will be unsuccessful at framing strategies and tactics to minimise the strengths and to maximise the weaknesses of Israel.
And this is where I came into this debate, with the observation that Israel’s greatest potential weakness is its democracy, a weakness not recognised or exploited by Israel’s enemies.
Bottom line: there will be a “right of return” when Israel’s government says there is a “right of return”. But that won’t happen until a majority of the Knesset says so.
And that is highly unlikely to happen until Arab Israelis make up a much larger proportion of the politically active, voting population of Israel.
Well, um, OK. I’m sure you were trying to say something there. But I’ll take away the key point. And that is you now agree that there is no right of return to “trade away.” Maybe they could try trading away their fascination with teenage boys dressing in designer TNT?
Do a find on “trade away” KW.
You’ll discover I never used that term.
There is nothing tradeable, or at least nothing that Israel has that a significant number of Palestinians would be satisfied with taking in return for relinquishing their dream of resuming their ancestral properties.
We probably agree that this idea of a trade is mere fantasy.
I think LeftyE is right to take all skepticlawyer’s claims with a grain of salt. Remember, skepticlawyer is a woman who made her mark by telling very, very big fibs: arguably antisemitic ones. And skepticlawyer is also a woman who has met and interviewed the world’s noisiest holocaust-denier David Irving:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unmasked-novelist-snaps/2006/03/31/1143441339451.html
A bit rich that this self-proclaimed right-winger is now claiming lefties are anti-semetic (and her claims about anti-war protesters are also big porky pies, IMO.)
(I see Catallaxy has welcomed her into the fold. Nice company you keep, Catallaxy.)
Alice, lots of people have interviewed David Irving. Doesn’t mean they agree with him or sympathise in the slightest. You’re arguing against skepticlawyer/Dale and Catallaxy simultaneously on the grounds of association, which is totally untenable in either case.
Still, I give you full respect for being willing to kick off the stoush.
Fair enough, Liam.
Aside from Liam’s point skepticlawyer seems to be saying that she’s altered her political position in recent years.
I see ‘Alice’ has now come over here to smear skepticlawyer.
Do I need to tell you which way the wind blows, ‘Alice’?
Let me reproduce my comments over at Catallaxy since ‘Alice’ has decided to bring this over here:
How does writing a novel about the Ukrainian holocaust which features antisemitic characters in the first person make one antisemitic? Was Vladmir Nabokov (’Lolita’) a paedophile? And what is the point of shutting a person out from writing for errors which were made what, 10-15 years ago? I thought you lefties believed in redemption? She hasn’t even committed a crime. If you have any problems with skepticlawyer’s posts, feel free to critique them to death at catallaxy.
Whatever her views may have been in the past (and I have no idea what they were), she has said in a recent op-ed piece, that she she is for Israel’s right to exist. In that respect, there are heaps of people, including Jeff Sparrow (whom you defend) who has written sympathetically about Hezbollah and supports its ‘anti-imperialist’ objectives (not to mention all the people positively drooling over Nasrallah at Leftwrites which you are associated with) who are
more anti-semitic in practice than skepticlawyer.
With respect, Jason, I think you are confusing anti-zionist with antisemitism.
And if you look at the time, I wrote my comment here before Catallaxy, and before reading Dale’s piece, which, on the face of it, seems reasonable.
Yes, I dont think its any reflection on Catallaxy – let a thousand flowers blog, I say. Nor do I care who Skeptic interviews.
My objection was the sheer nonsense from Skeptic about posters at UQ. Simply untrue. And when pressed, we find these posters were, rather, critical of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories – and not in any way ‘anti-Semitic’.
Which I strongly suspect is the story with much of this Age article hoohaa.
Reflecting on the thread as a whole, it seems the only concrete evidence we have unearthed is:
a. Some pro-Israeli and/or Jewish students have lately felt uncomfortable with the heated debates on campus about the war (and fair enough too, not pleasant, and bloody immature, illiberal leftist outbursts. I sympathise. But where’s the evidence of ‘anti-Semitism’?)
and
b. Behold! Actual transcripts of some asshat young Liberals casually making actual anti-Semitic remarks.
Which again, reminds me of certain patterns lurking within this thread. Lots of grave nodding and spurious ‘evidence’ about alleged ultraleft racism from one particular blogger whose has been publicly accused of anti-Semitism herself. Now, even if those charges were unfair – this person really ought, at least, to know better by now. You dont chuck that label around without evidence. And you, Skeptic, had none.
I’ll call you ‘Scepticlawyer’ when you demonstrate some regard for probative value, and the rules of evidence.
Excuse me if I go have a bath after this one.
OK, I have no wish to derail this post any further. The only point of my last comment was to defend skepticlawyer’s honour. Do continue on with rhe rest of the thread.
This thread is running rather behind the analagous one at Catallaxy. Alice’s comments are at number 53 here
And Lefty E, I’m quite happy to admit my yoiuthful flirtation with leftist anti-Semitism. Are you?
I can’t see the point of that question at all, skepticlawyer, since Lefty E didn’t have a youthful flirtation with leftist anti-Semitism.
Perhaps this thread needs to stop getting so personalised.
What is the “ancestral homeland” of the Ashkenazi Jews?
More stunning allegations of leftist antisemitism:
During the tumultuous 1968 Democratic National Convention, Connecticut
Senator Abraham Ribicoff, during a speech in which he nominated the
anti-Vietnam War candidate George McGovern, departed from his written
text to say, “If George McGovern were president, we wouldn’t have
these Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.” Many conventioneers,
having been appalled by the response of the Chicago police to the
simultaneously occurring anti-war demonstrations, promptly broke into
ecstatic applause. As television cameras focused on an indignant Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, lip-readers throughout America claimed to have observed him shouting, “Fuck you, you Jew motherfucker.”
Developing…
Mark’s comment covers my response well enough, Skeptic.
In the spirit of this gradually derailing thread, of Lefty E’s bath, Jason’s chivalry, skepticlawyer’s honour, and since we’re bringing collective self-criticism sessions of confessions of youthful flirtations into play, I hereby summon the presence of Mel Brooks:
…
[Torquemada]:
[Chorus]:
[Torquemada]:
Silkworm, Do the words “Next year in Jerusalem” give you a hint? Or are you running with the John Howard line that if you haven’t physically visited territory yourself you automatically forfeit spiritual connection.
Not entirely sure why you ask about Ashkenazi Jews, given that the numbers of Shephardi are close if not exceeding half the Israeli Jewish population.
Spiritual connection? Ah, I see. Spiros was right. It’s a religious justification. The European Jews are spiritually connected to Israel because God gave it to them.
To be honest, having interviewed David Irving increases, not decreases, a persons worth – in my estimation.
Though I agree with Lefty E.
Silkworm
What business is it of yours why people have a connection to their country?
Let us assume the validity of silkworm’s implicit point for the sake of the argument, i.e. that the ancestral homeland of the Ashkenazi Jews is Europe. We then need to keep in mind that for much of the first half of the twentieth century it was carpeted wall to wall by totalitarian regimes and occupation forces which didn’t like Jews very much. As I said earlier, this had fatal consequences for the attractiveness and viability of the non-Zionist alternative solutions to the Jewish question, most of which typically assumed the development and consolidation of liberal democratic or democratic socialist polities which would be hospitable to and inclusive of Jews as a cultural group.
I might mention that the Marxist club known as the Melbourne Discussion Group, at whose meetings I spent many a cold Sunday night in 1981-82 and whose membership included many of the key leaders of the Melbourne chapter of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, subjected “the Jewish Question” to a rigorous analysis shortly after I moved to Sydney, and came to a conclusion fairly close to the position I have outlined in the previous paragraph. They produced a booklet outlining their conclusion and the underpinning analysis, and I am trying to find a library which has a copy.
Stephen L : More seriously, I think the semantic issues here have had considerable significance for the debate. Zionism was initially about self-determination for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland. It contained strands that wished for domination of the area, and also strands that wanted a just outcome for other indigenous populations.
Well, it seems that the former strand of Zionism has won out, which isn’t surprising as with the latter strand it is difficult to see how that would create a jewish state when it would in fact be a coalition between different religions, which is in effect the experience of the International Jew already outside Israel.Considering that the mainstream of zionism, the Israeli govt, turned very quickly into this belligerent genocidal creature, surely it’s time to take stock and say “hold on – is this right? what have we created?”
It seems the Palestinians and the Jews have a spiritual connection to the same land. In the case of the Palestinians, their spiritual connection is to the land they were brutally shoved off by the Jewsih blow-ins.
List of collective massacres perpetrated by Israeli Army in its attack against Lebanon in summer 2006
An awful lot of posters here seem to rest Israel’s existence on (to quote one) “historical impetus that impelled Jews towards the realisation of a nation state”. That sounds an awful lot like Leninism to me, or at least that part of it which bases all political reality on the “objective historical conditions” (paraphrasing there). I presume this same “historical impetus” should prevent Australians from providing compensation or reparation to Aborigines, Canadians to Indians, etc.
Which of course is ignoring the very real possibility that there might have been an “historical impetus” for Palestinians to stay right where they were – the “historical impetus”, for example, of having generations of people living on the land. But it would seem in this case that one people’s “historical impetus” wasn’t backed up by the arms of more powerful nations, so off they go.
But of course the existence of Israel is off topic. The issue is whether or not people who oppose Israel are necessary showing the “anti-semitism to which all non-Jews are prone”. Doesn’t this whole sentence defeat the argument? If all non-Jews are prone to anti-semitism it doesn’t matter whether we oppose Israel or not. Presumably as a non-Jew who is anti-semitic, the only reason I would support the existence of Israel would be to do something bad to the Jews, right?
This is exactly the sort of self-defeating zionist logic which has so many people opposed to Israel. Every time an Israeli national (inevitably Jewish) commits a war crime (and there are many), we have to be careful to say it was an “israeli”. But every time an Arab or Palestinian nationalist of any colour, flavour or religion attacks an Israeli they’re attacking a Jew, and it’s anti-semitic. And any time anyone in the rest of the world (even Katz, who we are led to believe is Jewish!) disputes the legitimacy of these actions, or identifies the perpetrators of Israeli war crimes as Jews, we’re being anti-semitic.
So I suppose I have to ask all these people who are firmly left-wing but oh-so-firmly pro-zionist, how can I as a non-jew criticize any part of Israeli actions without showing the “anti-semitism to which all non-Jews are prone”? If some Jewish pilot drops (American) bombs signed by Jewish children onto Muslim children, how do I kick up a fuss about that without being seen to be anti-Semitic? I’d like a guide please.
In fact Israel is a trap for Jews. (Apart from the fact that it is one of the least safe places for Jews to live in, since Israel is the watchdog of the US in the region and therefore subject to all sorts of bomb attacks etc.) The Israeli government publicly declares all the time that their brutal and murderous actions are done in the name of all Jews. There are (sadly) many many who believe this – Jews and non-Jews – and none of it helps Jews to be at home in their home, that is to say, everywhere on the planet.
As for the far Left, occasional small groups have been known to be antisemitic. The vast majority of the far left everywhere on the planet have been at the centre of the fight against neofascism and antisemitism, which is more than can be said for most political traditions.
John Mullen