As battle rages in UK Labour Party, Moshe Machover expelled after asserting ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism’

Middle East
on 105 Comments

Over the past 18 months the British Labour party has been beset by a moral panic. According to pro-Israel activists in Labour, there has been a surge of anti-semitism in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader two years ago. Corbyn has broken with decades of party policy by placing a much stronger emphasis on the need to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

As we will show, these activists’ concerns are much less about anti-semitism than about Corbyn and the trend he represents. Pro-Israel groups, who have strong backing among the party establishment opposed to Corbyn, fear he is changing the nature of the British political discourse about Israel and the Palestinians. Beyond this, they are worried that should Corbyn, or someone else from his wing of the Labour party, reach power, they will put the Palestinians at the heart of a Labour government’s foreign policy. Much is at stake.

A strange, if largely obscured feature of the supposed anti-semitism crisis – set out at length in my first Mondoweiss article – is that so many of those accused and convicted in Labour of this hate crime are Jews. The latest person accused by the party of anti-semitism – and this week expelled – is Moshe Machover, a mathematician and philosophy professor at the University of London. He was born and raised in Israel.

Machover appears to be among the first Labour members to be netted by a rule change on anti-semitism introduced at the party conference last week. Activists in a new group called Jewish Voice for Labour, launched at the conference, had warned that the change in wording would allow the party bureaucracy to expel members for “thought crimes”.

As previously explained, the rule change was pushed hard by a powerful pressure group in Labour called the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), which is the sister organisation of Israel’s own Labour party. The JLM helped create Labour Friends of Israel, which has traditionally been a key pro-Israel lobbying group among Labour members of parliament.

Both organisations have clandestine ties to the Israeli government through Israel’s London embassy, as was revealed earlier this year by an Al Jazeera undercover investigation. It secretly filmed this collusion in action, as pro-Israel Labour activists plotted to subvert Corbyn’s leadership, even at the cost of irreparably damaging the party.

Professor expelled

In decrying an “anti-semitism plague” in Labour, the JLM and its supporters have claimed that they are not conflating anti-semitism with anti-Zionism. But Machover’s case clearly illustrates that they are precisely doing that.

Machover received a letter from Labour head office this week alleging that he had breached the party’s anti-semitism rules with an article (PDF), paradoxically titled “Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism”, in a publication of the Labour Party Marxists group

In it, Machover pointed out the widespread opposition of most Jews to the ideas propagated by the Zionist movement before the rise of Hitler, and the problematic ideological affinites between Zionists and anti-semites. He wrote: “The founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, had pointed out that anti-Semitic regimes would be allies, because they wanted to get rid of the Jews, while the Zionists wanted to rid them of the Jews. That was the common interest.”

For this reason, observed Machover, quoting Zionist and Nazi leaders of the time, many Zionists welcomed the early policies of the Nazis, including even the notorious Nuremberg Laws of 1935. This was before the Nazis switched to a policy of extermination in the death camps. Both anti-semites and Zionists wanted Jews and non-Jews separated, and both rejected miscegenation. A similar argument, expressed more clumsily, led to the suspension of Ken Livingstone, a former London mayor, earlier this year.

It is notable that the Labour party accused Machover of anti-semitism on the grounds that his article was likely to “cause offence to Jewish people”. It begged the question: which Jewish people?

That issue had, in fact, become a battleground at the conference. Jewish Labour party activists had set up a new group, Jewish Voice for Labour, to act as a countervailing force against the traditional dominance of the JLM in influencing the party’s policies towards Israel and the Palestinians and against its accusations of anti-semitism by Corbyn supporters. Jewish Voice for Labour represents a broad range of Jews who have until now been marginalised in the Labour party, including trenchant critics of the occupation, anti-Zionists and supporters of BDS, the boycott movement. For the first time they have a collective voice within the party.

As Machover observed, pro-Israel groups are in trouble in Labour and elsewhere. “They are losing credibility on the arena of what could be called international opinion, but – more importantly – they are losing the Jewish public outside Israel, especially those under 30. There is a clear generational shift in opinion. These people are becoming very critical of Israel and its colonisation project.”

Vague definitions

The letter from Labour head office also accused Machover of violating the definition of anti-semitism produced last year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an inter-governmental body. The definition has been adopted by the Labour party, as well as the British government.

For some time, pro-Israel lobby groups in the UK and Europe have been trying to promote new, much vaguer definitions of anti-semitism that would cover strong criticism of Israel. The IHRA’s is the most significant and successful. Its working definition is: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” (PDF)

As Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former British appeal court judge, has noted, this raises many problems. If anti-semitism is defined as a “perception”, who is qualified to do the perceiving? And if anti-semitism “may be expressed as hatred”, does that not also imply, more troublingly, that it “may not be” so expressed.

In fact, the examples of anti-semitism provided by the IHRA include several that are clearly designed to include criticism of Israel:

* Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

* Applying double standards by requiring of [the state of Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

Any discourse that takes as its premise that Israel is not a liberal democracy, but rather a Jewish state, as it declares itself to be, or that it practises apartheid, or that it should be subject to a boycott, appears to fall foul of this definition.

A dangerous trend

Under pressure from the JLM, the National Executive Committee, Labour’s ruling body, and last week’s conference accepted a compromise amendment to the membership rule book. An existing clause protecting freedom of thought and speech was dropped. From now on, members can be expelled if their behaviour “might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice”.

The JLM, however, had tried to foist on the party a more draconian definition: that an anti-semitic incident should be “defined as something where the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice”. Noticeably, the letter from Labour head office to Machover echoed this rejected definition. It objected to the use of “language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive” (emphasis added).

As Labour activist Bob Pitt observed, in the letter to Machover party officials rode roughshod over the new rule. “It is not enough for someone to perceive that an incident is antisemitic and be offended by it; it is necessary for the party to establish that the perception has a reasonable basis,” he wrote of the approved rule change. Instead, officials were “apparently trying to introduce the JLM’s abandoned rule change through the back door. According to [the letter], Moshé has opened himself up to disciplinary action because he has written articles that are ‘perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive’ by Zionists who don’t like to be reminded about embarrassing episodes from the history of Zionism.”

This process of redefining anti-semitism by the Labour party is not happening in a vacuum. Politicians and media pundits are starting to push the debate about anti-semitism in disturbing new directions more generally – and this process has accelerated since Corbyn became leader.

This dangerous trend was highlighted in a commentary last week in the midst of the conference. Jonathan Freedland, a senior columnist at the Guardian newspaper and the Jewish Chronicle, is highly influential among Britain’s liberal Zionist community. He is possibly the most prominent arbiter of “anti-semitism” on the British left.

He used his column to attack three well-known Labour figures closely identified with Corbyn who had each dismissed the “Labour’s anti-semitism plague” as mischief-making. Freedland accused former London mayor Ken Livingstone, award-winning film-maker Ken Loach, and trade union leader Len McCluskey of anti-semitism denial and leading Labour into a “dark place”.

In a circular proof of Labour’s anti-semitism crisis, Freedland cited calls from some Labour activists – in fact, a handful – to expel the JLM from the party. He avoided mentioning why: that the JLM had been caught redhanded conspiring against the party leader by the Al Jazeera investigation.

Freedland also noted that there were “Marxists” at the conference handing out leaflets – presumably a reference to Machover’s article – repeating Livingstone’s point about the documented negotiations between Zionists and Nazis in the early 1930s.

Orwellian ‘newspeak’

Freedland, a former winner of Britain’s Orwell Prize, then indulged in some trademark Orwellian “newspeak”. He argued that the three leading Labour lights, as non-Jews, were not in a position to assess whether there was an anti-semitism crisis in the party. Only Jews could make that call – and, he added, Labour’s Jews were adamant that the party had a big problem.

Here Freedland effectively backed the draconian and rejected definition of anti-semitism originally proposed by the JLM at the conference. According to both the JLM and Freedland, anti-semitism cannot be adduced through objective criteria, or by applying traditional definitions, such as hateful statements or actions against Jews because they are Jews.

Instead, Freedland and the JLM believe that anti-semitism can be defined far more broadly. It exists, they say, if it is perceived as such by its victims, even if no tangible evidence can be identified. It is like a mood sensed only by those – Jews – who are attuned to it through their firsthand experience of anti-semitism.

Witchfinder Freedland

Disturbing as this definition is, Freedland went further. He posited that Livingstone, Loach and McCluskey were arrogantly dismissing a Jewish consensus on the prevalence of anti-semitism in the party. But there was a deep flaw in his reasoning: the conference had just proved that this consensus did not, in fact, exist.

The non-Jewish trio were speaking not only about their own failure to identify examples of anti-semitism in the Labour movement. As prominent figures in the party, they were also giving voice to those Jewish members whose views had long been ignored because they did not accord with those of the party’s Israel lobby, the JLM.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a leading member of Jewish Voice for Labour, made precisely this point: “When McCluskey and Loach say they know Labour is not a hotbed of antisemitism, they speak with the authority of Jewish comrades who have said so repeatedly, and been ignored.”

Jewish Voice for Labour had been established to provide a counterweight to the JLM and give Jews critical of Israel a collective voice. Here was Freedland not only discounting their voice but failing to notice it even existed. Jews, Freedland implied, only counted when, like the JLM, they wrapped themselves in the Israeli flag.

But Freedland was still not satisfied. Like some Witchfinder General, he accused the trio not just of ignorance about the prevalence of anti-semitism in Labour, but of actually being anti-semitic themselves for claiming that the moral panic about anti-semitism had been manipulated for political ends. Freedland quoted as proof Loach’s comment: “It’s funny these stories [about anti-semitism] suddenly appeared when Jeremy Corbyn became leader, isn’t it?”

Anti-Jewish trope?

Freedland observed, again with a satisfyingly circular logic: “For Len [McCluskey] and the Kens [Loach and Livingstone] and their allies, it’s all made up. Perhaps they don’t realise that that itself is a tired anti-Jewish trope: that Jews invent stories of suffering to drive a secret political agenda. Or, to put it more simply, that there is a Jewish conspiracy.”

But Livingstone, Loach and McCluskey never posited a Jewish conspiracy. That was a figment of Freedland’s feverish imagination. Unlike him, they fully recognised that a significant section of Jewish opinion in the Labour party felt exactly the same way they did about the misuse of unsubstantiated anti-semitism allegations to discredit Corbyn and deflect attention from his efforts to focus the party’s attention on Palestinian suffering.

What this trio and the Jewish Voice for Labour had argued instead was that a small, unrepresentative group inside Labour – a self-declared pressure group – was trying to advance the aims of the Israeli state. This was hardly a radical conclusion. After all, the JLM was doing exactly what it claims to be doing – promoting Israel’s interests – while additionally seeking to conflate those interests with the supposed interests of all Jews and the Labour party.

Like all lobbies, the Israel lobby plays the cards it has in its hand to win its case. But unlike other lobbies, the Israel lobby can silence critics with a powerful threat – of tarring them as anti-semites. Sadly, Freedland amply proved a very human truth: people who wield power, however limited, invariably end up using and abusing it to their own benefit.

Divisive identity politics

The new definition of anti-semitism that liberal Zionists, and the JLM, wish to foist on British political life is troubling indeed, and draws heavily on the most divisive kind of identity politics. It asserts that Israel and Zionism are at the core of modern Jewish identity. To criticise Israel is, therefore, to attack Jewish identity – to commit a hate crime. To be “offensive”.

If that sounds Orwellian in its implications, too bad. To dispute this claim is proof of anti-semitism too. Like the Medieval dunking of witches, you cannot win.

Here is Freedland, in another column, rationalising in more detail an idea taking ground in left politics in Britain and much of the west: that Jews should be left to decide what constitutes anti-semitism:

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

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

Unrepresentative lobbies

First, it needs pointing out that plenty of British Jews, including experts on the subject like Antony Lerman and Stephen Sedley, also take issue with the definition of anti-semitism employed by pro-Israel Jews, like Freedland and the JLM. They too believe it is being abused and manipulated for political ends.

These Jews have struggled to make their voices heard, not necessarily because they lack numbers but because they have not been organised in the way the Israel lobby is in much of Europe and the US. And in turn, that is largely because they lack the support, funding and organisational backing that comes from allying oneself to a powerful benefactor like the Israeli state. There is nothing unique about this. Lobbies revolve around powerful interests, as one can see spectacularly demonstrated in the United States, where unrepresentative gun, medical, financial and military lobbies dominate political life.

But in addition, the Israel lobby benefits from the oxygen of publicity offered by the state-corporate media in a way countervailing groups like Jewish Voice for Labour don’t. The corporate media failed to send a single journalist to cover the group’s establishment at the conference, despite the obvious newsworthiness of the event. And Freedland has continued to ignore the intervention by the Jewish Voice for Labour in the anti-semitism debate.

To understand this “oversight” requires a lengthy, separate analysis of the role of the western corporate media in supporting related corporate interests like the arms industry, and of the readiness of European political and media elites to submit to the so-called “Washington consensus” – whatever the US state decides are its core interests.

Once these issues are factored in, Freedland’s argument becomes entirely self-fulfilling. The definitions we hear from organised Jewish groups conflate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism precisely because they support Israel’s interests and those of its western patrons.

Victim becomes oppressor

But there is an even more profound flaw in Freedland’s thesis.

Black people, women and gays are groups whose views should be listened to sensitively and considered seriously by oppressor groups, precisely because the oppressor is still in a position to oppress. It is not that white people’s views of racism are worthless; it is that their position of privilege makes it extremely hard for them to consider fully what it is like to suffer a particular form of racism and discrimination, or what it means to be a victim.

But Freedland and the JLM’s views of anti-semitism do not fit neatly into this model of victim-oppressor. When the JLM ties its Jewish identity to Israel – a state that privileges one ethnic group, Jews, over native Palestinians; that was built on the dispersion and ethnic cleansing of that native people; and continues to oppress them through a brutal military occupation – it precisely subverts the notion of Jew as victim.

In fact, it can be argued that this is the very appeal of Israel to Zionist Jews like Freedland and the JLM. They enjoy at a distance the empowerment provided by Israel. This is the excitement, described at length by liberal Israeli professor Yaron Ezrahi in his book Rubber Bullets, of the Jew who is transformed by Israel into a warrior. It is the reason many Zionist Jews are publicly thrilled by the sight of Israeli soldiers, “his and her” weapons casually slung over their shoulders.

Implicated in oppression

But in the case of Jews living outside Israel, this self-image of power, the ability to inflict violence, is more complex. Israel offers Freedland and the JLM a strangely privileged status of oppressor by proxy: they demand a collective identification with a nuclear-armed, highly militarised state while still demanding the right to claim personal victimhood.

But Zionist Jews, those who identify their Jewishness with Israel, have compromised that right in relation to Israel. They cannot straightforwardly define themselves as victims precisely because they have chosen to implicate themselves in the oppression of Palestinians.

Palestinians have almost no visibility in western debates about victimhood. Even acknowledgment of Islamophobia covers only a few of the problems they face in the diaspora – of their possible denial of entry at airports, of the insults and discrimination they face as Arabs and Muslims in western societies. But it does not address their victimhood as Palestinians, their oppression at the hands of Israel, the complicity of powerful states in the west, and the decades of silence and inaction from liberal Zionists and organised Jewish groups like the JLM.

When real leftists, Jewish or not, speak in solidarity with Palestinians, and reject Jewish privilege in relation to Israel, it is not evidence of anti-semitism. It is part of their responsibility to lobby on behalf of a highly victimised group. A group that unlike blacks, women and gays has almost no formal status in western debates about oppression.

When the Palestinians gain even a little visibility, it is chiefly because of the actions of grassroots activists promoting initiatives like Israel Apartheid Week and the BDS movement. When Freedland and the JLM reject these initiatives as evidence of anti-semitism, they choose to speak in the loud voice of Jewish privilege, not the quieter voice of Jewish victimhood.

The real racism problem

The real racism problem in the Labour party, and more generally in western societies, is not currently anti-semitism. It is a profound racism against Arabs and Muslims generally and against Palestinians in particular – a legacy of recent western colonialism, and of anti-semitism in a much broader sense that refers to all semitic peoples, not just Jews.

It is a racism that defers indefinitely a remedy for the Palestinians whose land was stolen from them by British colonialists who had no right to transfer it to someone else. It is a racism that confers legitimacy on a Jewish state, even as it boasts of its tribalism in marginalising a fifth of its own citizens because they are non-Jews. It is a racism that claims to champion a two-state solution while preferring not to lift a finger to realise it. Further, it is a racism that smears as anti-semites those whose consciences drive them to fight for Palestinian rights.

What is changing in the British Labour party is a growing acknowledgment of this among ordinary members, including an ever larger number of Jewish party activists. The consensus that the JLM and Jonathan Freedland helped to manufacture among left and liberal British Jews is slowly evaporating. Social media – and the instant window it provides on the brutality of life under Israeli occupation – is exposing these purveyors of misinformation for what they are, even as they howl “fake news”. Their time is going, and won’t likely return.

Nonetheless, these enforcers of liberal Zionist orthodoxy are not going down without a fight. And in the process they will doubtless wreak much damage on the Labour party – and further hollow out what was once the grave charge of anti-semitism. It is strategy of folly by those who may one day need the protection of both as the real anti-semites try to blaze a trail back to power.

About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

105 Responses

  1. JeffB
    October 5, 2017, 4:09 pm

    and further hollow out what was once the grave charge of anti-semitism. It is strategy of folly by those who may one day need the protection of both as the real anti-semites try to blaze a trail back to power.

    I’ve always found this argument from BDS supporters to be silly but in this particular case it is insane. We have a guy who is a plausible candidate for prime minister, running on a hostile to Jewish interest platform. At the very least he want to organize a worldwide anti-Jewish campaign to force approximate twice the number of Jews who live in the UK out of their homes. He has a history of allies who have even more ambitious goals. He is surrounded by people who are hostile to Jewish interests. The Jews in his group are people with a hostile and tortured relationship to the Jewish community. Part of their motive in politics is a desire to use their political position to attack that community so as to get power within it.

    And given that situation the worry should be “real anti-semites trying to blaze a trail back to power” who extremely unlikely to get power and if they did intend to do what exactly? Maybe call us “Christ killing kike bastards” on television as opposed to “racist oppressive colonialist baby killers”?

    What in your imagination do those “real anti-semites” intend to do that anti-Zionists have not been doing all over the planet for the last 2 generations? How could you possibly think that argument is even remotely persuasive?

    • amigo
      October 5, 2017, 5:41 pm

      The Jews living in their homes in the UK are not illegal squatters like those living on stolen Palestinian lands in OCCUPIED PALESTINE. They need to be “repatriated” to whence they came.That is a normal response to people who steal from others.Nothing to do with them being Jews.

      Jeremy Corbyn will take the reigns of Power in the UK and Freedland and all the other Israel first traitors and zionist trouble makers will be put in their place and none too soon.The world will be a far better place when the scourge of Zionism is neutralised and it,s adherents have been sent to the back of the class .You should look impressive sporting a dunces cap jeffyboy.

      Jeff B , thou dost protest too much.

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 7:22 am

        @Amigo

        I don’t think you’ll be successful but I have no doubt about the intentions of people like you towards me, my kid, my future grandchildren… No doubt at all about what you want to achieve.
        You are the sort of person who made Israel a vital Jewish interest rather than Jews living comfortably in Europe.

        Enjoy your fantasy of Corbyn’s victory but do note how many of your other vile predictions have proven false over the years.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 2:04 pm

        ” the sort of person who made Israel a vital Jewish interest rather than Jews living comfortably in Europe.”

        Gosh, you mean something outside Judaism was instrumental in forming Zionism? Hard to believe.

      • amigo
        October 7, 2017, 8:16 am

        “I don’t think you’ll be successful but I have no doubt about the intentions of people like you towards me, my kid, my future grandchildren… No doubt at all about what you want to achieve” jeffyboy

        What I want to achieve is equal rights and justice for “The Palestinian Father and his kid and future Grandchildren” whose land has been stolen from him by your 650,000 illegal squatters/thieves .Corbyn does not call for their expulsion but I see no problem sending these criminals back to wherever they crawled out from.As to what happens to their children, that is the responsibility of their parents who should have thought more clearly before they brought their offspring onto someone else,s land .

        You are a vacuous self serving racist bigot Jeff B.I sincerely hope you do not instill your ideologies and hatred into your Kid.He has my sympathy .

        I ask again , if you are so completely dedicated to the (Rogue) state of Israel , then why do you not go live there and get your family out of harms way in the US , which is hostile to Jewish interests.

      • JeffB
        October 7, 2017, 9:28 am

        @Amigo

        What I want to achieve is equal rights and justice for “The Palestinian Father and his kid and future Grandchildren”

        Bull. You’ve been pretty clear for years about wanting an Algeria type solution. Your hatred is pretty obvious.

        I ask again , if you are so completely dedicated to the (Rogue) state of Israel , then why do you not go live there and get your family out of harms way in the US , which is hostile to Jewish interests.

        The USA isn’t hostile to Jewish interests. Your group is. The USA is not, rather it is supportive of those interests mostly.

      • amigo
        October 7, 2017, 10:25 am

        Say jeffyboy , shouldn,t you be over at 972 spouting your racist antisemitic trope (equating all Jews with Zionism) in your usual abundant and unfettered MO.

        https://972mag.com/autonomy-for-palestinians-in-israel-is-as-relevant-as-ever/126827/

        Btw , I hate Zionism ,just as I hate fascism and Nazi ism and white supremacism et al bigotted ideologies.

        I never mentioned hatred of Jews.That is your fall back position when you have run out of credible responses.It is way past time for your expulsion from MW.

      • amigo
        October 7, 2017, 11:50 am

        “The USA isn’t hostile to Jewish interests”jeffyboy

        Better tell that to Nietandyahoo.He claims Jews interests are best served in Israel and they are only safe in Israel .Sounds as if he sees the USA as hostile to the interests of Jews.

        “The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly called on all Jews to come to Israel, claiming it as the only safe haven from an immutable global anti-semitism. And yet, Mr Netanyahu is also introducing a political test before he opens the door.

        Jews supporting a boycott of Israel are already barred. Now, liberal Jews and critics of the occupation like Mr Soros are increasingly not welcome either. Israel is rapidly redefining the extent of the sanctuary it offers – for Jewish supremacists only.

        The paradox may turn out to be more apparent than real, however. For Mr Netanyahu may believe he has much to gain by abandoning liberal Jews to their fate, as the alt-right asserts its power in western capitals.

        The “white Zionists” are committed to making life ever harder for minorities in the West in a bid to be rid of them. Sooner or later, on Mr Netanyahu’s logic, liberal Jews will face a reckoning. They will have to accept that Israel’s ultra-nationalists were right all along, and that Israel is their only sanctuary.

        Guided by this cynical convergence of interests, Jewish and white supremacists are counting on a revival of anti-Semitism that will benefit them both.”

        https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/the-growing-affinity-between-netanyahu-s-israel-and-the-west-s-far-right-is-hardly-surprising-1.629666

        “Take a look at Amigo’s response. He clearly indicates the point is to use the 2nd to accomplish the same goals as the 1st. ” jeffyboy

        I don,t speak for BDS or Jeremy Corbyn.I simply gave you my opinion.

        No surprise, you use every opportunity to put words in the mouths of others.

        Btw, if you are so concerned about your “Kid” how come you spend so much time here and on other sites .On second thoughts , it is probably to his benefit that he spends as little time as possible under your supervision.

        We don,t want a JeffB -Jnr showing up here.

      • amigo
        October 7, 2017, 4:54 pm

        “Enjoy your fantasy of Corbyn’s victory” jeffyboy.

        No fantasy at all jeffyboy. What with the conservative party in shambles due to internal strife, lack of progress on Brexit negotiations and heading for another election , corbyn,s chances are considerably enhanced.

        When he gets in , one of his first tasks will be to rid the Labour party of the traitorous Labour friends of Israel .Each and every one of those zionist loving miscreants.

        “Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn received his longest and loudest standing ovation at his party’s conference when he called for an “end to the oppression of the Palestinian people” and Israel’s “50-year occupation and illegal settlement expansion.”

        This was just one of the ways popular support for Palestinian rights was highly visible at the main UK opposition party’s annual gathering last week.

        After some uncertainty last year, when Corbyn spoke at a Labour Friends of Israel reception, the Labour leader appeared to be more confident on the question of Palestine.

        Corbyn’s better than expected performance in June’s general election fell just short of making him prime minister, but it did consolidate his control of the Labour Party leadership.

        Left-wing magazine Red Pepper reported a new spirit of democratic debate at the conference, and clear signs that “the left has emphatically won Labour’s civil war.”

        The other major arrival on the scene at this year’s conference was Jewish Voice for Labour, the new organization which opposes “attempts to widen the definition of anti-Semitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews.”

        The launch of the group was a direct challenge to the Jewish Labour Movement, a pro-Israel organization which has played a key role in a witch hunt aiming to misrepresent the Labour Party as “institutionally anti-Semitic.”

        While the Israeli embassy’s allies at the conference were no doubt silently fuming, the mood among delegates was unmistakable – for Palestinian freedom and against Israeli occupation.

        Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a veteran Palestine campaigner and a leading member of Jewish Voice for Labour, also received a standing ovation”

        https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/palestine-was-issue-labour-party-conference

        “”but do note how many of your other vile predictions have proven false over the years.” jeffyboy

        Do elaborate—remember , provide links.

    • Eva Smagacz
      October 5, 2017, 5:49 pm

      JeffB, you said: Maybe call us “Christ killing kike bastards” on television as opposed to “racist oppressive colonialist baby killers”?

      Ok, let me unpack that for you:
      The first is a racist description combining religious belief with racist epithet that describes Jews.

      The second is a factual description of contemporary behaviour of a section of Israeli population, consisting of people who subscribe to Zionist ideology.

      First phrase has been used to denigrate Jews. Second is factual and documented description of killers who hold supremacist views and oppress natives.

      Why are you arguing so hard these two population are one and the same?
      40/46

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 6:37 am

        @Eva

        Your answer basically comes down to “I don’t agree with the first epithet but do agree with the 2nd”. Which if fine, I understand that. Jews understandably don’t agree with either epithet. The argument in the article was not whether the first is true and the 2nd false or the 2nd false and the 1st true but rather the 1st somehow presented more of a threat than the 2nd.

        They are both equally damning. Arguably the 2nd is far worse since the 1st is out of fashion and thus unlikely to gain as many adherents. They both aim at the same goal. Take a look at Amigo’s response. He clearly indicates the point is to use the 2nd to accomplish the same goals as the 1st.

        Why are you arguing so hard these two population are one and the same?

        The discussion was about British politics and the issue of trying to separate antisemitism from anti-zionism and why this isn’t working and mostly can’t work. The central claim of Zionism is that these populations are the same. Assuming they are not the same is anti-zionist thinking. Mainstream Jews are Zionist. If Jews were anti-zionist there wouldn’t be an Israel. But they are not anti-Zionist.

        British Jews believe, rightfully IMHO, the reason the 1st epithet is out of fashion and that are enemies need to replace it with the 2nd is Israel.

      • Eva Smagacz
        October 6, 2017, 12:34 pm

        JeffB,

        You said:

        “They are both equally damning.”

        Lets see the same argument in a different millieu, away from Zionism:

        If someone calls you a “motherfucking yellow/black/brown bastard”, and its a belief and an insult based on their prejudice,

        and

        another calls you a rapist and this is based on proved fact ( with pictures) of the crime you committed,

        are both of these equally damning?

        You say that the both people who say these things want the same outcome:
        You don’t specify, but I assume you mean to stop you.

        It this was not an argument about Zionism, would you even for a moment think that you have a leg to stand on?

        41/47

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 1:45 pm

        @Eva

        If someone calls you a “motherfucking yellow/black/brown bastard”, and its a belief and an insult based on their prejudice, and another calls you a rapist and this is based on proved fact ( with pictures) of the crime you committed, are both of these equally damning?

        That’s not the fair analogy to what Jews are facing with anti-Zionist rhetoric.

        1) In your analogy the rape actually happened and it was done by one person. The accusation is against the one person. The accusations about specific behaviors are being blamed on huge groups: all Israelis, all Zionist…

        2) The racism is generalized the rape is specific

        The claim is not particular acts of Israel by particular Israelis are illegitimate but that Israel is illegitimate.

        So let’s change your analogy to a modern version, directed against blacks that does involve rape.

        http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/580643d3c5240220008b5165-500/racist%20stupid%20false%20meme%20.png

        Now this is a fair analogy to what Jews face from anti-Zionism. Clearly the point of this poster is not to change black behavior but to change white behavior towards blacks. It is designed to inspire hatred and fear not to reduce rape. The numbers are misleading and presented in a way that is uncharitable. The combination of misleading statistics and uncharitable presentation makes this poster a pure lie.

        Now imagine that just like the anti-Zionist case if one interviewed the person who did this poster and challenge them. They would fall back on a weaker true statement that black on white rape is much higher than white on black rape. Or they might fall back on the fact the data set said 0 and that even though it put an asterisk next to the 0 as “not accurately measured” which is excluded from the poster, that’s not being dishonest. It is being say pedantic. They might very well throw in lots of personal insults towards the black person defending his people against this poster, trying to blur his argument against the poster with somehow defending rape…

        What I would say is. Look at the discussions involving other countries where there are desired policy reforms. You don’t have the same sort of hate speech.

      • Eva Smagacz
        October 6, 2017, 3:15 pm

        JeffB,

        you said

        “The racism is generalized the rape is specific”.

        And here you missed the point, deliberately I suspect, and filled the page with nebulous verbiage. And all for the sake of moving conversation sideways with this “racism is plural and rape is singular” caper (why? did you never hear of gang rape?)

        Lets get back to the topic you are hard trying to avoid:

        You said that both accusations :

        A. of criminal behaviour ( supremacist baby killers or rapist) and of

        B. of posessing offending – to a racist – characteristics (christ killers/ kikes /mother-fucking yellow/black/brown bastard”

        are both equally damming.

        This means that being a rapist/supremacist killer is no more damming than being a called by deeply offensive epithet of christ killer / kike/ yellow/black/brown bastard.

        Let me explain something to you about morality:

        If my brother was exposed as a rapist or war criminal, I would consider that a more damming than if somebody called him every racist epithet in the world.

        And do you know why? ( and why do I feel I need to explain it to you?)

        Because in the first accusation establishes that he is guilty. The second accusation makes him a victim.

        How did you arrive at the conclusion that BOTH accusations make people you represent VICTIMS, I will never understand

        42/47

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 6:49 pm

        @Eva

        You said that both accusations …are both equally damming.

        You basically responded you believe one type of epithet and not the other.

        Originally the argument was the rightwing anti-semitism, the epithet you rejected, was worse. You aren’t actually disagreeing with me at this point, you are rather agreeing. You may have forgotten the context.

    • Mooser
      October 5, 2017, 6:44 pm

      “What in your imagination do those “real anti-semites” intend to do…?

      From what I’ve heard, those bastards intend to call us a “people” and ship us off to Israel!

    • Keith
      October 5, 2017, 8:28 pm

      JEFFB- “We have a guy who is a plausible candidate for prime minister, running on a hostile to Jewish interest platform.”

      Why is opposition to illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories hostile to the interests of UK Jews? How exactly do UK Jews benefit from the violent abuse of the Palestinians?

      JEFFB- “He is surrounded by people who are hostile to Jewish interests.”

      Jewish interests? Anyone who doesn’t support Jewish power-seeking is an anti-Semite? Tribal solidarity uber alles? Support for universal principles of justice is tribal treason?

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 7:17 am

        @Keith

        JEFFB- “We have a guy who is a plausible candidate for prime minister, running on a hostile to Jewish interest platform.”

        Why is opposition to illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied territories hostile to the interests of UK Jews?

        Opposition to settlement isn’t. Lots of people including Israelis are opposed to settlements. Corbyn is not merely opposed to settlement in the way that Peter Beinart is, rather he wants to put the UK on a trajectory of aggressively forcibly changing this Israeli policy. This policy has broad support of the Israeli people, so another way of putting that is he wants to move towards a stance where the UK becomes an enemy of Israel because of the settlements. And that is hostile to the interests UK Jews. The closer that UK interests and Israeli interests are the less UK Jews are under pressure. In a situation where they are allies one can be 100% British and 100% Jews easily.

        You make them enemies and that becomes not so easy. Again I think even if Corbyn is PM he fails at this, he hasn’t actually thought through what this means. He’s never shown any serious depth on these issues. Besides the fact I doubt there is any support in the UK for this being a foreign policy objective to which the UK dedicates resources outside the hard left.

        But for a moment consider what happens were the UK and Israel to be enemies and this to be a primary UK foreign policy goal. Jews are then rightfully considered a fifth column. Jews are going to be people who are passionately and personally opposed to the UK’s success in this critical foreign policy objective. Individual Jews inevitably are going to use their station to be involved in internal subversion of the policy. Uniformly they are hostile. The natural result of that is the government wants to be successful it will need to weaken their broader power in society. As Amigo put it, “send them to the back of the class”. Which in practice means encouraging and often funding all sorts of Antisemitic elements in the broaders society. Those elements successfully make it uncomfortable for Jews and they leave. This is how anti-zionism cleared Jews out of about 40 countries since world war 2. Consider Venezuela where until strong anti-zionists came to power the Jews were quite comfortable. Today 2/3rds of the population has left. Iran 95% has gone. South Africa the number is over 50%. Those purges happened during the time Mondoweiss existed as a website.

        Most of the people living in Israel today are there because of this process by which anti-zionism when put into practice becomes antisemitism. Since the end of world war 2 the combination of Zionism and Anti-Zionism has been what’s created the semi-forced migrations of Jews to Israel.

        This isn’t theory it happened over and over and over again. BTW started to happen in France just 10 years ago. The fact that it was happening discredited anti-zionism and the broader left. The French people to their credit wanted to be the kind of country that minorities flee to not flee from. Seeing large scale emigration from their country horrified them.

        So yes it not only could happen in democratic western Europe it did start to happen. UK Jews have good reason to now want to experience what France’s Jews went through.

        How exactly do UK Jews benefit from the violent abuse of the Palestinians?

        They don’t. No one benefits from the violent abuse of the Palestinians. But that has nothing to do with Corbyn. He’s not opposed to violent abuses his stated policy is to depopulate and destroy whole Jewish cities most of which have no meaningful levels of abuses.

        JEFFB- “He is surrounded by people who are hostile to Jewish interests.”

        Jewish interests? Anyone who doesn’t support Jewish power-seeking is an anti-Semite? Tribal solidarity uber alles? Support for universal principles of justice is tribal treason?

        You are exaggerating well beyond what I said. But yes. Jewish people have interests just like any other people. Working with your people’s enemies to apply force to your people so as to achieve your policy objectives is traitorous. That’s what Vidkun Quisling did that got him to become a word in English.

        But assume I’m wrong What I’m saying above is not true on the left so then its not true for the Tory Jews. There is no connection between Jews and Israel at all anymore than there is between Jews and Nigeria. Then why do they mysteriously hate Corbyn? Does anyone believe it is about Facebook posts?

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 1:54 pm

        “Jeff b” is now writing “@ Jeff b” comments? This is weird.
        I often get the feeling we get the Zionists who nobody else will talk to, but now we have a Zionist who comes here to talk to himself!

    • Ghazi28
      October 6, 2017, 9:44 am

      “We have a guy who is a plausible candidate for prime minister, running on a hostile to Jewish interest platform.”

      No, we don’t. We have nothing of the sort. Calling for the rights of Palestinians to be respected and upheld, and for the state of Israel to be held accountable under international law, does not constitute hostility to Jews’.

      “At the very least he want to organize a worldwide anti-Jewish campaign to force approximate twice the number of Jews who live in the UK out of their homes. ”

      No, he doesn’t. He’s called for nothing of the sort. Why are you making stuff up?

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 12:51 pm

        ” Why are you making stuff up?”

        “Jeff b” was here from 2013 to 2015. Took 2016 off, and here he is again. He is, not to put too fine a point on it, simply nuts. He thinks he is the Jews.

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 7:42 pm

        @Ghazi28

        No, we don’t. We have nothing of the sort. Calling for the rights of Palestinians to be respected and upheld, and for the state of Israel to be held accountable under international law, does not constitute hostility to Jews’.

        I said hostile to Jewish interests.

        “At the very least he want to organize a worldwide anti-Jewish campaign to force approximate twice the number of Jews who live in the UK out of their homes. ”

        No, he doesn’t. He’s called for nothing of the sort. Why are you making stuff up?

        I’m not making stuff up. There are 650k Jews who live on the other side of the green line. When you call for the settlements to be disbanded you are calling for a massive forced migration. If you find the policy offensive, don’t advocate for it.

      • Marnie
        October 7, 2017, 7:12 am

        “I’m not making stuff up. There are 650k Jews who live on the other side of the green line. When you call for the settlements to be disbanded you are calling for a massive forced migration. If you find the policy offensive, don’t advocate for it.”

        “I’m not making stuff up”. Aww, that’s so cute, like when tRUMP ends each whopper with “Believe me”.

        It’d just be so embarassing if all your old neighbors and friends moved back to the hood, and went back to planting seeds in your yard.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        October 7, 2017, 10:26 am

        JeffB: No need to speculate about a hypothetical future in which British and Zionist interests clash. This already happened in 1945–48 when the British in Palestine faced a barrage of Zionist terror (as did the Palestinians and the many Jews not considered loyal to Zionism). This did NOT lead to any significant upsurge of anti-Semitism in Britain, partly because so many British Jews took the side of their British government and condemned the Zionist terror. (I was not yet born, but I draw on my parents’ reminiscences of those days.)

      • JeffB
        October 7, 2017, 1:03 pm

        @Stephen Shenfield

        That’s not what happened.
        Since you mentioned terrorism I’ll use that. Irgun and Lehi didn’t have British Jewish support. But Haganah most certainly did and they forced Britain to make concessions to keep it that way.

        The Jews in Britain used terrorism the way it was supposed to be used to pressure government to either negotiate political change or crack down so hard they lose support. Lehi and Irgun began organizing in Britain proper starting to create a plausible threat of an assassination and bombing campaign in Britain of anti-Jewish politicians. MI5 conducted an investigation. They determined that SOE (sabotage unit in the army) was infiltrated by Irgun and Lehi. They examined all ~7000 Jews in the Army and immediate dismissed 40 with obvious connections. There were a few token bombings in Britain mainly designed as a warning.

        MI5 approached Britain’s Jews for help. But of course they needed help from people who had the right contacts. The Jewish Agency for Palestine, the Jewish Legion, the Jewish-Arab Legion, the Zionist Federation of Jewish Labor and the United Zionist “Revisionist” Youth Organization started coordinating the the Haganah Haganah policy was to trade information on terrorists for Britain advancing their aims (you know sort of like how Sunni moderates used Al Qaeda in Iraq and later Syria). This made British intelligence coordinate their anti-immigration activities with Jewish agencies they were dependent on for counter terrorism activities. So for this and many other reasons the immigration quota policies started to fail badly. Moreover it made British intelligence highly dependent on maintaining British Jewish public opinion. MI5 and SIS had to win hearts and minds of Zionists in their approach. Which of course shifted the debate.

        Jews in the 1940s were a much poorer and weaker group as well. Terrorism (in this sense) is a tool of the weak. What you see today with JLM is what Jews can do when they are in the establishment. So no… nice history but not true.

        Same situation you all had with other ethnic groups. It is anti-Zionist propaganda that Jews don’t support Zionism.

    • Misterioso
      October 6, 2017, 10:11 am

      Sigh

      More bafflegab!!

      I’ve searched far and wide and have not found a special provision in international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Rome Statute, etc., binding on all UN members) that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

      I remind you that such international law came about in large measure due to the monstrous crimes of the Nazis, including the systematic slaughter of six million Jews.

      You choose to ignore the fact that Israel is belligerently, illegally and brutally occupying Palestinian and other Arab lands it seized during the war it launched on 5 June 1967.

      To wit:
      (A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
      “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

      (B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

      (C) Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the OCCUPYING [my emphasis] Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

      (D) On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights “null and void.”

      (E) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it OCCUPIES [my emphasis]” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

      (F) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel OCCUPIED [my emphasis] the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] territories.”

      (G) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      (H) In the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by then Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

      (I) US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.” (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)

      (J) British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): “This is not disputed territory. It is OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law…”

      (K) UN Security Council Resolution 2334, December 23, 2016: “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
      “Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

      “Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,….”

      “1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

      “2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

      “3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;..”

      In short, you and Israel have no case whatsoever.

    • Marnie
      October 6, 2017, 10:17 am

      The truth hurts doesn’t it JeffB? There’s only one question JeffB and its this: Based on all the reporting on Mondoweiss, +972, Btselem, Ilan Pappe and many others, how can you, or anyone, continue to support zionism and the jewish ‘state’?

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 12:56 pm

        ,” how can you, or anyone, continue to support zionism and the jewish ‘state’?”

        “Marnie”, isn’t it obvious that all the world’s Jews are about to start reproducing at a prodigious rate, and all Conservative and Reform and secular Jews will experience a reconversion which will make them Modern Orthodox Zionists. In a few years (5 at most) the Jewish population will swell ten times, and become a united military and religious force. A for-real Lord’s Army!
        With forces like that, at its disposal, how can Zionism or Judaism lose? “Jeff b” just wants to be on the winning side.

      • RoHa
        October 6, 2017, 7:53 pm

        Then they are going to have to spend more than half the time doing it.

        But, as I have tried to ask you before, are you clear about what that involves? The procedure is rather messy, and very undignified.

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 1:44 pm

        “But, as I have tried to ask you before, are you clear about what that involves? The procedure is rather messy, and very undignified.”

        Don’t worry. We do a lot of home canning and preserving.

    • Tony Greenstein
      October 6, 2017, 10:45 am

      Jeff B employs the same circular racist tropes and assumptions that most Zionists do, though with even less logic.

      He speaks about ‘Jewish interests’ without ever defining what they are. He says that ‘British Jews believe…’ He could be an anti-Semite who believed in an all-embracing and powerful Jewish conspiracy where Jews are of one mind and have one particular set of interests. In other words he operates in a racist paradigm with a racist mentality.

      No one is suggesting that Israeli Jews should be forced to emigrate or even the vast majority of Jewish settlers on their Jewish only settlements though there is an overwhelming case for the proto-fascist American settlers like Baruch Marzel and Naftali Bennett to be sent back to their real homes.

      Despite repeating the phrase ‘Jewish interests’ not one does Geoff B explain what these interests are. He repeatedly confuses the British Jewish community with Israeli Jews, which is again an anti-Semitic trope.

      Jeff speaks about those who call Jews ‘Christ killing kike bastards’ whilst forgetting that those who do use this language, Andrew Anglin of the The Stormer, Richard Spencer of the alt-Right and David Duke of the KKK also happen to be some of the foremost admirers of Israel’s hostility and hatred of Muslims. It is a fact that nearly all Europe’s far-Right and anti-Semitic parties are signed up supporters of maximalist Zionist. It is no accident that the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer describes himself as a White Zionist.

      We can thus unpack the repetitious lies and disingenuous statements of Geoff B. Somewhat stupidly he asks, parroting the normal hasbara what have ‘real anti-Semites’ as opposed to anti-Zionists done over the last two generations. It is rather simple. Anti-Zionists have given solidarity and support to the Palestinians whereas the former have done their best to make Jews uncomfortable in the diaspora in order that they can emigrate to Israel. Although he is politically blind, to any normal and rational person these are polar opposites.

      In the process he engages in a bit of logic chopping in order to confuse and blind people.
      He says that ‘the issue of trying to separate antisemitism from anti-zionism’ ‘isn’t working and mostly can’t work.’ Again he is wrong. In his own mind nothing will work which contradicts his own assumptions, but that is the product of a circular and closed mind. Anti-Zionism was, as A B Yehoshua, the famous Zionist novelist wrote, a product of Jews not non-Jews. On the contrary it is the non-Jewish anti-Semites who have always wanted to be rid of the Jews in their midst by exporting them to the ‘Jewish’ state.

      He asserts without ever going to the trouble to explain, that ‘these populations are the same’. Presumably he means Israel’s Jewish population and that of Britain. The latter community is not a community largely made up of racist bigots whereas the former certainly is (e.g. the Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Communities which shows that a plurality of Israeli Jews favour the physical deportation of their Arab citizens). Most British Jews would like to see an end to the settlements. 31% don’t define themselves as Zionist as opposed to 59%, a drop of 12% in five years, who do. [The Attitudes of British Jews Towards Israel, City University London, http://yachad.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/British-Jewish-Attitudes-Towards-Israel-Yachad-Ipsos-Mori-Nov-2015.pdf%5D

      Unable to look at the situation of Jews in Britain rationally and unable to distinguish or separate them from Jews in Israel, not surprisingly he can’t understand that far from his opponents harbouring anti-Semitic assumptions the sin is all his.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 12:11 pm

        Fer Gawd’s sake, Mr Greenstein, go easy on “Jeff b”.
        He’s just a kid, fresh out of school.

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 12:44 pm

        @Tony

        Well nice to be talking to an actual Jewish anti-Zionist politician who has been hit with these issues. You are usually smarter than this response. But let’s start.

        He speaks about ‘Jewish interests’ without ever defining what they are.

        Actually he has. Pretty much the same as any other people’s interest. Maximizing their spending power, having a rich diverse and entertaining collection of cultural products, ensuring health and the general welfare, creating a vehicle for freedom and political expression.

        He says that ‘British Jews believe…’ He could be an anti-Semite who believed in an all-embracing and powerful Jewish conspiracy where Jews are of one mind and have one particular set of interests. In other words he operates in a racist paradigm with a racist mentality.

        Or he could be someone who has no problem saying the obvious. Common traits can create common interests and so rational people who share those traits will be drawn to similar policies. Tall people want more gross diversity in men’s clothing stores. Guys like me who are 5’10” (178 cm) would want more fine diversity.

        No one is suggesting that Israeli Jews should be forced to emigrate

        I suggest you read here more often. That most certainly is frequently suggested. The entire narrative of the settler colonialism and the illegitimacy of Jewish inhabitants of Palestine is an apologetic forced emigration or worse. The arguments and tone of the BDS movement are genocidal. The goals are objectives which are achievable only through winning multiple wars. But when pushed they talk about only advocating for mild sanctions.

        To some extent this is leftist silliness. People power and that sort of nonsense. To another extent it is however dishonest and the intent is clearly genocidal, but at this point the movement doesn’t want to take the political hit for genocide advocacy.

        I don’t think it is unreasonable for the center-left on right to call anti-Zionists on this. The rhetoric is inappropriate for the desired change in British policy.

        or even the vast majority of Jewish settlers on their Jewish only settlements

        That is Corbyn’s position that the settlements should be dismantled. To the best of my knowledge he’s never been questioned in detailed how one destroys the housing for 650k people in detail but yes that’s his position.

        though there is an overwhelming case for the proto-fascist American settlers like Baruch Marzel and Naftali Bennett to be sent back to their real homes.

        Natfali Bennett was born in Haifa. Israel is his home. Baruch Marzel immigrated when he was 6 weeks old.

        Dude I argue against your position all the time with regard to people who hate Mexicans. My position is pretty simple, everyone is entitled to live in their country of their birth as a full citizen, period. I don’t remotely support the racism of the anti-colonial movement like your examples above. Not sure there is much to say beyond that.

        Despite repeating the phrase ‘Jewish interests’ not one does Geoff B explain what these interests are. He repeatedly confuses the British Jewish community with Israeli Jews, which is again an anti-Semitic trope.

        How is it Antisemitic? Mainstream British Jewish organizations are openly and unabashedly Zionist. They openly and explicitly declare that support for Israel is part of their core mission. Considering the Jewish people of Britain entitled to make alliances and identify how they choose, taking their positions seriously, and showing them deference is respect for a community not hatred of it.

        Jeff speaks about those who call Jews ‘Christ killing kike bastards’ whilst forgetting that those who do use this language, Andrew Anglin of the The Stormer, Richard Spencer of the alt-Right and David Duke of the KKK also happen to be some of the foremost admirers of Israel’s hostility and hatred of Muslims.

        I’m not sure what I said that remotely indicated this. You are going out of your way to be offensive. First off all those people are Americans not Brits. Second, David Duke is on your side not mine. Duke is an anti-zionist who supports Palestinians in their struggle. For him Jews are an intrinsic evil, Arabs are just a lesser people.

        We can thus unpack the repetitious lies and disingenuous statements of Geoff B. Somewhat stupidly he asks, parroting the normal hasbara what have ‘real anti-Semites’ as opposed to anti-Zionists done over the last two generations. It is rather simple. Anti-Zionists have given solidarity and support to the Palestinians whereas the former have done their best to make Jews uncomfortable in the diaspora in order that they can emigrate to Israel. Although he is politically blind, to any normal and rational person these are polar opposites.

        They would be if that were true. In reality anti-zionists have cleared the Jewish population out of about 40 countries in the world. As you have personally documented quite well. The people who were causing the mass migration from France were the left not the right. The people worrying Britain’s Jews are the left not the right. Heck the people worrying me about American colleges and made me consider sending my kid to a Republican leaning school are the left not the right.

        So sorry but no. Jewish persecution has lately been a leftwing hobby. They are the ones who think it is somehow a rational and sane policy for the PM of the UK to consider a small middle eastern tribal war a primary foreign policy objective. The hatred of Jews on the right is either expired or tired. It is pro forma. The best they can argue to their base is that Jews are no better than blacks, hispanics, muslims… and even that the base is finding unconvincing. Your side has all the passion and fervor when it comes to Jew hatred.

        In the process he engages in a bit of logic chopping in order to confuse and blind people.
        He says that ‘the issue of trying to separate antisemitism from anti-zionism’ ‘isn’t working and mostly can’t work.’ Again he is wrong. In his own mind nothing will work which contradicts his own assumptions, but that is the product of a circular and closed mind. Anti-Zionism was, as A B Yehoshua, the famous Zionist novelist wrote, a product of Jews not non-Jews. On the contrary it is the non-Jewish anti-Semites who have always wanted to be rid of the Jews in their midst by exporting them to the ‘Jewish’ state.

        I think you dropped some words. That being said. Yes Zionism is a reaction to failed assimilation. It emerged as a Jewish critique of antisemitism’s of the Jewish problem. It agreed often though argued the problems with Jews were situational not genetic. Which makes it fundamentally an anti-racist organization. Saying that blacks in America commit far more violent crime is fact. Arguing it is because they are black rather than because of divorce, poverty…. is racist.

        He asserts without ever going to the trouble to explain, that ‘these populations are the same’. Presumably he means Israel’s Jewish population and that of Britain.

        That language actually was me responding to Eva. She was using that language about Zionists and Jews globally. (she wasn’t agreeing but was summarizing her position on my view).

        The latter community is not a community largely made up of racist bigots whereas the former certainly is (e.g. the Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Communities which shows that a plurality of Israeli Jews favour the physical deportation of their Arab citizens).

        One does not have to be racist to favor deportation (I don’t favor deportation). Mizrahi Jews and Palestinians are the same race. The root of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is not racial. It is anti-colonialism not Zionism that uses these biological notions of peoplehood. Zionists can often assert that nationality is a social construction with no biological component. Palestinians if they were willing to be Israeli could be. Israel has had tremendous success in integrating Mizrahi Jews, and moderate success with Israeli-Arabs. It is not unreasonable that Israelis have given up hope that they will ever agree to peaceful coexistence. The behavior of the Gazans has been incredibly demoralizing to Israelis. I think you are jumping to conclusions here.

        That being said I would agree that Israel has a racism problem. I hope the Israeli right will hopefully address it as they move towards coexistence on all of greater Israel.

        This gives a good example of policy reform. Were BDS advocating to fix problems, for example state sponsored sensitivity training to be introduced into Israeli schools and work places along with an end to housing and educational discrimination I’d be fully in support of the movement. That’s what Liberal Zionists do. Anti-Zionists call for extreme rejectionism and hatred not understanding and cooperation.

        Most British Jews would like to see an end to the settlements. 31% don’t define themselves as Zionist as opposed to 59%, a drop of 12% in five years, who do.

        I seriously doubted that number. And sure enough when I click on the link, “Although about 90% support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and express attachment to it, only 59% consider themselves to be a ‘Zionist’. There is some evidence that this reflects the view of some respondents that people who are critical of Israel’s current policies should not describe themselves as Zionists even if they are fully supportive of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.“. Which means that 90% are Zionist but 31% of Jews at least don’t know what the word “Zionist” means or more likely have been intimidated by your hate campaign into not using it. Same way my grandparents would call themselves “Hebrews” not “Jews” when talking to gentiles.

        British Jews are under a lot of pressure. No doubt. That’s why most Jews fled the Labor party long ago and became Tories. Ultimately it probably doesn’t matter that much how Labor hates Jews, Corbyn will never get a majority in parliament to act on his hate.

        The problem on your campuses is really bad. I would certainly support Jews bringing back Jewish Universities and prep schools. I’d like to see Carmel College and more like it were Corbyn to win. Given state sponsorship for the harassment going on in places like Manchester this could get quite bad. But unlike in centuries past they don’t have to live in a world where their enemies have power over their lives. They have somewhere to flee to if they lose and know enough to fight as best they can.

        And that is the core of the shared interest between British Jews and Israel Regardless of what happens in the UK every British Jews knows the IDF will never under any circumstances turn against them. The worst Corbyn et al can do is make them leave.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 6, 2017, 1:01 pm

        He speaks about ‘Jewish interests’ without ever defining what they are. He says that ‘British Jews believe…’

        he makes up all sorts of stuff and gets top comment all the time and basically holds court in the comment section making outlandish statements where every commenter and the entire conversation (thread after thread after thread) revolves around his outlandish anti semitic bullshit (“jews…. uniformly” etc etc).. it happens day after day after day.

        gross. it’s poisonous discourse.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 1:05 pm

        ” It is no accident that the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer describes himself as a White Zionist.”

        Oh, “Jeff b” is certain he is one the winning side. Why just yesterday, he was telling me that “Dispensationalism” makes most Christians partners in Zionism. That’s hundreds of millions of people!

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 1:33 pm

        “gross. it’s poisonous discourse.”

        Well, if you need comic relief, simply go to the threads where “Jeff b” and “yonah”, and “Jon s” et al talk to each other.
        Just for one example, watching “Jeff b” tongue-kiss “Jon s” for making like Onan in Israel, (he’s “planting his seed in the ancestral land”) was icky, but amusing.
        It’s nice to see the results of that “prohibitively expensive” education “Hophmi” told us about.

      • eljay
        October 6, 2017, 3:53 pm

        || Tony Greenstein: Jeff B employs the same circular racist tropes and assumptions that most Zionists do, though with even less logic. … ||

        Zionist Emet’s recent description of “hypocrites of the worst kind” coincidentally(?) described fellow Zionist JeffB perfectly:

        hypocrisy intertwined with bigotry and antisemitism

      • RoHa
        October 6, 2017, 7:38 pm

        The aim of the JeffB show is to destroy Mondoweiss.

        It doesn’t whether we respond or not, or whether we refute the claims or not. The JeffB team will keep on pouring out the agricultural by-product until, one by one, we get tired of wading through it, take off our wellies, and stay at home.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 9:40 pm

        “Regardless of what happens in the UK every British Jews knows the IDF will never under any circumstances turn against them.” “Jeff b”

        I am sure Jews in Shropshire sleep better at night knowing they are protected by British might against the IDF.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 9:43 pm

        “It doesn’t whether we respond or not…”

        I think it matters if people respond by e-mailing the Mondo Editors, and alerting them to a destructive poster.

      • RoHa
        October 6, 2017, 11:02 pm

        Mooser, thanks for guessing that I missed out “matter”. Early morning posting on an i-pad, before the coffee has really got into my bloodstream, is rather a chancy business.

        Well, if we do e-mail the eds., and they ban the JeffB team, I’m sure (a) there will be lots of cries of censorship of dissenting positions, and (b) the team will come back under a different name.

        Perhaps Nathan’s name will be taken over by the team. If so, I hope they start getting the conditional right. He’s putting “will” in the “if” clause now.

      • RoHa
        October 7, 2017, 1:15 am

        Though I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t report the JeffB team.

      • Marnie
        October 7, 2017, 7:07 am

        It’s incredible JeffB can type such volumes one-handed.

      • eljay
        October 7, 2017, 9:17 am

        || Marnie: It’s incredible JeffB can type such volumes one-handed. ||

        He did say he comes from a place of love. Sounds like a lot of practice was involved.

      • Donald Johnson
        October 7, 2017, 9:37 am

        “he makes up all sorts of stuff and gets top comment all the time and basically holds court in the comment section making outlandish statements where every commenter and the entire conversation (thread after thread after thread) revolves around his outlandish anti semitic bullshit (“jews…. uniformly” etc etc).. it happens day after day after da”

        Yep. I usually just skim what he writes, but when I read it there is, to be fair, some legitimate points sometimes, but usually accompanied by outlandish or ridiculous or racist statements. I think that is intentional–mix together defensible statements with garbage. A single false statement could take paragraphs to refute and he churns this stuff out at an amazing rate. The sheer quantity is the problem. His output seems greater per day than what appears on the front page plus most of the threads are composed of his comments plus responses. When someone has the time to take over a comment section and make it about him it seems appropriate to put some sort of daily posting limit without banning him. No censorship, but it isn’t supposed to be his blog even if he has time to act as if it is.

        Alternatively, we could just ignore him. That doesn’t work in practice. Or just accept the comment section is about his views and not the posts.

      • Donald Johnson
        October 7, 2017, 9:58 am

        That was probably overstated. He does take over some threads, but not all. And some points he makes are legitimate, but so mixed in with crap I don’t personally think it is worth bothering about.

        So my revised suggestion is ignore him most of the time, but if some people want to refute some portion of his nonsense then they are doing a public service. If he does start taking over every thread then put a limit on him.

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 1:46 pm

        “Mooser, thanks for guessing that I missed out “matter”. “

        It’s all too easy to do, leave out a word, and not notice till later. Done it plenty of times, I have.

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 2:31 pm

        .” If he does start taking over every thread then put a limit on him.”

        The last time they moderated “Jeff b” he protested his ‘censorship’ and left for the entire year of 2016.
        I think they asked him to limit his comments to less than a foot.

        Now he is (and you can check his archive) simply repeating his entire pre-2016 oeuvre almost word for word

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 2:53 pm

        “Well, if we do e-mail the eds., and they ban the JeffB team,”

        Who said anything about “banning” him. All that’s needed is a limit on posts-per-day and/or length-of-post. The Editors are entitled to decline overgenerous contributions of printed matter.

        And I’m sure “Jeff b”, realizing his slight tendency towards a bit of prolixity, will graciously co-operate.

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 5:20 pm

        “It’s incredible JeffB can type such volumes one-handed.”

        If you listen when skimming a “Jeff b” post, you’ll hear the sound of one hand thwapping.

      • gamal
        October 7, 2017, 8:12 pm

        “The aim of the JeffB show is to destroy Mondoweiss”

        Perhaps you are right and he is certainly copious but one is reminded of the old saw

        “Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Mingit”

        Sursum corda. Nil volentibus arduum. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum.

      • RoHa
        October 8, 2017, 1:34 am

        There is certainly a lot of wind, gamal. It seems to be blowing in from a cattle station.

    • Emory Riddle
      October 7, 2017, 11:01 am

      How long is this tiny group of racists going to be allowed to dictate to the rest of us?

      • Keith
        October 7, 2017, 11:15 am

        EMORY RIDDLE- “How long is this tiny group of racists going to be allowed to dictate to the rest of us?”

        As long as they have the financial resources which permit them to do so.

      • Marnie
        October 8, 2017, 12:20 am

        Are you talking about JeffB and cohorts on Mondoweiss? I was asking myself the same dern thang.

  2. Eva Smagacz
    October 5, 2017, 5:30 pm

    JeffB, you have just conflated Zionists with Jews, so that opposition to Zionist colonial ideology which is free speach is smeared as racism against Jews.

    It is deliberate, of course, because european racist supremacism against natives cannot really be argued on its merits, at least not in polite society.

    39/45

    • JeffB
      October 5, 2017, 6:35 pm

      @Eva Smagacz

      Since you like the Algerian analogy, the FLN wasn’t attacking French colonial ideology they were attacking French colonials. There goal was no to convince the Pied-noirs to reform their ideology the goal was to ethnically cleans them and steal their stuff. Corbyn isn’t having a debate about “Zionist colonial ideology” his goal is to attacking actual physical people in actual physical homes.

      And yes that’s an attack against Jewish interests. The entire mainstream Jewish community is united that the Zionist project is the #1 most important goal of Judaism. A goal that essentially all of the various agencies from religious worship centers to day schools to homes for the elderly to spiritual retreats have sacrificed to advance.

      This ideology that Corbyn believes is what typical anti-Zionism preaches Jews should believe:
      Judaism is a religion
      Zionism is a political philosophy
      Israel is a state

      This doctrine is totally rejected not supported by mainstream Jews. They would say something more like:

      Judaism is a family of religious traditions and beliefs

      Jews are a people (full throated Zionists would say a nation) who engage with those traditions and beliefs at an ethnic, cultural and personal level.

      Zionism is an theme within Judaism. Modern Zionism is a transformative political, social, cultural and personal movement for the Jewish people. It is a reformation of Judaism. It seeks to absorb and redefine the Jewish people. Politically it is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.

      Israel is the state of the Jews. It exists as a physical entity with borders in the middle east. For the religious it also exists as a supernatural entity tying man and Jews to God. For the more nationalistic it is a soil from which the Jewish people arose. We are part of it, and it is part of us.

      That’s a lot messier. Israeli independence day is celebrated all over the world by Jews. Jewish synagogues all over the world have Israeli flags. The Jewish concepts that evolved into the Christian of salvation come from biblical Zionism. The Jewish equivalent of salvation is Zionist. One has to engage in fairly nuanced criticism to attack Zionism broadly without attacking Judaism and Jews. You have to understand both fairly well. Jeremy Corban doesn’t come close to this level of nuance.

      Jews have been quite clear for 130 years the goal is Israel is Jewish the way France is French. You can’t hate France and everything about it and somehow not be attacking the French.

      Your problem is that anti-Zionism is a colonial ideology. It seeks to tell Jews how they can live, where they should live and what they should think. Doesn’t go over too well.

      • Keith
        October 5, 2017, 8:53 pm

        JEFFB- “Politically it is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.”

        Liberated from what? From assimilation? Are American Jews planning on seceding from the Union? Living as a people apart, their first loyalty to Israel? Jewish interests above all?

        JEFFB- “Jews have been quite clear for 130 years the goal is Israel….”

        Zionism represents the interests of the Jewish elite who supported it from the start. Prior to the Holocaust, the majority of Jews were either non-Zionists or anti-Zionists, and chose not to go to Palestine if there were alternatives. Even the more recent Russian immigration required restrictions to prevent the Russian Jews from diverting to the US or UK. Zionism has only been popular with the majority of Jews after 1967 when the organized Jewish leadership gave full propaganda support to the project. I take it that you are part of that support.

        JEFFB- ” You can’t hate France and everything about it and somehow not be attacking the French.”

        What a ludicrous analogy! You can “hate” French foreign and domestic policy without hating the French people and you can “hate” (staunchly oppose is more accurate) Israeli foreign and domestic policy without hating Israeli Jews. And American Jews who support these abominable Israeli policies and actions deserve harsh criticism. Is that you?

      • eljay
        October 5, 2017, 9:23 pm

        || JeffB: … Jews have been quite clear for 130 years the goal is Israel is Jewish the way France is French. … ||

        Zionists have been quite clear for 130 years that the goal is a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel unlike the way France is French.

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 7:30 am

        @Keith

        JEFFB- “Politically it is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.”

        Liberated from what? From assimilation? Are American Jews planning on seceding from the Union? Living as a people apart, their first loyalty to Israel? Jewish interests above all?

        American Jews aren’t the ones who live in Israel. Liberated from what? Horrific anti-semitic purges is Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Hungry. Followed by Nazism. Persecution and poverty throughout the Muslim world. American Jews are happy in America.

        Zionism represents the interests of the Jewish elite who supported it from the start.

        Tell that to the non-elite who died as a result of its failure to change policy fast enough. Tell that to the 750k displaced persons who didn’t freeze to death in the DP camps as a result of having somewhere to go. Tell that to the 1m+ Jews in muslim countries who live in freedom today. And frankly tell that to Western European Jews who live a life almost entirely free of antisemitism as a result of Israel.

        Prior to the Holocaust, the majority of Jews were either non-Zionists or anti-Zionists, and chose not to go to Palestine if there were alternatives.

        Hitler changed people’s mind about assimilation as a long term strategy. The failure of assimilation in Russia was no longer a one off. Palestine was a rough place to live prior to the holocaust. Our brave forefathers and mothers who did the hard work of healing that shattered country deserve credit for their sacrifice.

        Even the more recent Russian immigration required restrictions to prevent the Russian Jews from diverting to the US or UK. Zionism has only been popular with the majority of Jews after 1967 when the organized Jewish leadership gave full propaganda support to the project. I take it that you are part of that support.

        Yes.

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 7:39 am

        @Eljay

        We’ve had this discussion dozens of times. No exactly like France. A strong national identity with citizenship tied to that national identity so that being French is reflective. That process takes time and Israel isn’t there yet. It has been moving at tremendous speed, but tremendous speed is not the same as instantaneous.

        There is a French nationality today because there is no Aquitaine nationality, no Brugendians, no Lombards and Frank has become the norm for all. Stop being so impatient.

      • eljay
        October 6, 2017, 9:59 am

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        We’ve had this discussion dozens of times. No exactly like France. … ||

        Yes we have and, no, not like France. France is French; Israel is – and Zionists insist that Israel remain – a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

      • Misterioso
        October 6, 2017, 10:41 am

        Israel is neither a “state” nor a country, i.e., it has yet to officially declare its borders and have them accepted as such by the international community.

      • Misterioso
        October 6, 2017, 10:49 am

        “Jews have been quite clear for 130 years the goal is Israel is Jewish the way France is French.”

        “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.” (On Jews & the Middle-East by Mohandas K. Gandhi
        November 20, 1938)

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 12:46 pm

        @Misterioso

        Not sure if I see the connection. Gandhi believes that Jews should remain forever trapped in countries that treated them badly. Jews disagreed with him and did something about it. His line was obviously a response to the “as France is French” slogan. He disagrees with the vision. That’s fine. Lots of people disagreed with the vision.

        Now it is reality not a vision.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 1:59 pm

        “Judaism is a family of religious traditions and beliefs”

        Well, there you go. You know, if you could use that to control Jewish people, you might have the beginnings of a state, if we weren’t dwindling. Good luck!

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 2:02 pm

        @Misterioso

        Israel is neither a “state” nor a country, i.e., it has yet to officially declare its borders and have them accepted as such by the international community.

        Where do you get this nonsense from? The definition of a country for centuries is the ability to enforce sovereignty in area of law. That is to have civil law over a territory.

        Montevideo Convention makes this explicit:
        “possess[es] the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) a capacity to enter into relations with the other states”

        Israel has done all of those things. They are sovereign over Mandate Palestine x-Gaza plus the Golan that is a defined territory. Israel has a permanent population of citizens. And they both can and have entered into relations with other states.

        They aren’t even borderline. There are some border disputes certainly but lots of states have border disputes. As long as some territory is definitely theirs they are a country.

        As for the long screed about International law you like to post. Yes the UN’s position is 1967 borders. That is also Corbyn’s position. It is impractical and stupid but it is their position. That’s not a disputed fact. I’m not sure why you keep presenting evidence showing that a fact not in dispute is true.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 2:27 pm

        ” That is to have civil law over a territory.”

        And “civil law” is what “Israel” enforces in the occupied territories?

        But of course, my “Jews sui generis lapel button is telling me that all the things which are signs of impending crisis or present crisis and failure in other states, are sure indicators of success for Israel.

      • Keith
        October 6, 2017, 2:52 pm

        JEFFB- ” Tell that to the 750k displaced persons who didn’t freeze to death in the DP camps as a result of having somewhere to go.”

        This is but one of many of your disgraceful distortions of the historicaL record. I can’t respond to all of your hasbara (where do you get the time for this?) so I will limit myself to this one egregious example. Those who are at least somewhat familiar with this know that it was the Zionists and Zionist influenced Jewish leadership who were openly hostile to plans to bring increased numbers of Jewish DPs to the Western Democracies, primarily Britain and the US, and to essentially force them to go to Palestine to provide additional manpower for the coming planned war against the Arabs. The Zionists Jews have always placed the success of the Zionist project above the welfare of individual Jews. Much of the suffering in these camps was the direct and indirect consequence of ruthless Zionist power-seeking. Some quotes to make the point, all from “Overcoming Zionism” by Joel Kovel.

        Morris Ernst was rcruited by Roosvelt to enlist support for this planned increase in Jewish DP relocation efforts. “It did not work out,” Ernst writes in his memoirs. The sticking point was not, as anticipated. the gentile nativists and their antisemitism, however, but the Jewish leadership. “I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of furthering the plan for freer immigration in order to undermine political Zionism.” (p79)
        ….
        One consideration was manpower for the nascent Israel Defense Force. There was great anxiety lest the Yishuv be unable to summon enough troops to meet the challenges ahead. Thoughts turned immediately toward the refugee camps in the American Zone, swollen with suffering Jewish bodies brought over from the East. A strenuous effort was made to recruit volunteers for the cause. And when this failed, for easily understandable reasons–for how many Jews, newly rescued from the horrors of the Holocaust, would be enthusiastic for military duty in a strange land?–the Zionist apparatus moved rapidly into high gear, and proceeded to forcibly recruit some ten thousand soldiers and shipped them to fight for a country that none of them knew or belonged to. The force was chiefly exerted through the administrative control Zionists had gained over the camps, each of them more or less total institution. Summary loss of employment for recalcitrants, followed by summary denial of food rations, usually did the trick, though quite often beatings and other forms of violence had to be used.

        By treating its “human material” in this way, Zionism revealed just how advanced its “identification with the aggressor” had become. As the Advisor on Jewish Affairs to the American Supreme Commander in Europe wrote a week after the proclamation of the new state, “the pressure exerted on the people [who resisted the draft] was crude, at times reflecting the techniques they had learned from their own oppressors.” Or as the editorial in the Paris-based Bundist journal “Unser Shtime” (our voice) stated, it was “unbelievable that Jews, the standard victims of Fascism and terrorism, would be capable of the kinds of violence Zionists in the camps exercised toward their Bundist and other non-Zionist rivals.” (p81,82)

      • JeffB
        October 6, 2017, 11:40 pm

        @Keith

        Harry Truman disagrees the problem was Zionists he blamed Republicans (who at that point couldn’t care less what Jews thought)
        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=12942

        Zionists got them out. I can understand that Kovel who is an anti-Zionist thinks they would have rather gone other places but most mainstream sources say they wanted out of Europe. Its possible maybe even likely they would have preferred Argentina and the United States. But if those countries had been open to large scale Jewish immigration there wouldn’t have been a holocaust in the first place. Given the record of opposition to immigration prior to Palestine being available I don’t that was an option. We know for sure the USA wasn’t. Ultimately DPs were what moved Truman to side with Jewish statehood.

        As for fighting in the war and why shouldn’t they have fought in that war? Turning victims into soldiers was the Zionist’s agents working in the DP camp’s job. Since you are rather leftist Lenin had a pretty good critique of the Bund for mostly the same reason the Zionists didn’t like them: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/2ndcong/13.htm
        There aren’t great works of poetry, art, theater in Yiddish that came from the Bund. They never established a recognized minority in Poland, the Poles hated them. The movement had a 50 year track record of failure, which they didn’t admit until well into the 1950s. The kind of debate that happens here wasn’t going to be tolerated in 1946. To quote Mitt Romney, “politics isn’t bean bag”.

        I think the Zionists did the right thing.

      • Keith
        October 7, 2017, 11:05 am

        JEFFB- “I think the Zionists did the right thing.”

        Well you would wouldn’t you. Unconditional support, right or wrong. It was this very type of fanatical commitment to Zionism which so impressed Adolph Eichmann during his meeting with Zionist representative Feival Polkes in Palestine in 1937 that caused Eichmann to comment afterwards that had he been born a Jew he would have become a Zionist. (p119, “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators,” Lenni Brenner)

      • JeffB
        October 7, 2017, 11:50 am

        @Keith

        Well you would wouldn’t you. Unconditional support,

        More or less unconditional support for Zionism, absolutely. Unconditional support for every policy, no. I’ve been very critical of some Israeli policies, like every other Zionist. Zionists are not totalitarians. They can agree with the aim and disagree on the means to achieve the aim. They can disagree about priorities.

        Within Zionism there is healthy debate.

      • Mooser
        October 7, 2017, 2:57 pm

        .” (p119, “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators,” Lenni Brenner)”

        “Keith” is it wise to draw conclusions without reading “Jeff b’s” books on this subject? Who is this “Lori Brenner”? I can tell you one thing, he’s no “Jeff b”.

      • Keith
        October 7, 2017, 4:44 pm

        JEFFB- “Given the record of opposition to immigration prior to Palestine being available I don’t that was an option.”

        It is difficult to keep up with the volume of BS you spew forth. There is probably nothing anyone could have done to save most Eastern European Jews from the Holocaust. Palestine was totally inadequeate to handle any massive influx. Plus the Zionists “…had a selection process that put greater weight on whether a particular Jew was a Zionist, in good health and capable of materially aiding the Zionist cause and economy over the need or vulnerability of that particular Jew. Thus, sometimes a Jew from the US or the Americas were given preference over a German or Eastern European Jew, and young adults were given preference over the elderly or young children.” (Tree) http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/latest-generous-offer-leaked-israel-wants-to-control-jordan-river-and-40-of-west-bank-while-palestinians-get-temporary-borders/#comment-591577

        The net effect of all of this is that the majority of pre-war European Jewish immigrants went to the Western democracies, not Israel. As prominent pre-war Zionists made abudantly clear, Zionism was NOT a refugee program. The pre-World War emphasis on Jewish immigrants being Zionists would have worked to EXCLUDE the vast majority of the Jews who were victims of the Holocaust as most Jews were either non-Zionists or anti-Zionists. After World War II and prior to Zionism’s war of conquest, the Zionists were desparate for additional manpower. Failing to recruit sufficient Jews to murder Arabs they resorted to taking advantage of the desparate Jews in the DP camps to achieve their objectives. Using their administrative control of the camps, they effectively press ganged reluctant Jews to go to Palestine to ethnically cleanse Arabs to permit a Jewish state to be formed. The abuse of these Jewish DPs is a process you approve of because it met with your power-seeking Zionist objectives. You attempt to spin this as “turning victims into soldiers,” as if the Zionists were doing these poor people some sort of favor by forcing them to Palestine rather than going to their favored destinations which likely would have happened had the Zionists not opposed it. As if they had not suffered enough without being forced to go to war for Zionism. It is callous fanaticism such as this which earned the Zionists the respect of the Nazis who differentiated between the Zionists and other Jews.

    • Mooser
      October 5, 2017, 6:40 pm

      ” you have just conflated Zionists with Jews,”

      So that the regard and reverential attitude the world has towards Judaism will be extended to Israel and the Zionist project!

      No trauma ‘long us!

  3. Ismail
    October 5, 2017, 11:05 pm

    Poor Jeff B. He describes a Zionism that is unchanged for 130 years. But of course there were many streams of Zionism from the get-go. Some did not imagine a Jewish state but a multinational one or a confederation, among other iterations.

    If the establishment of Israel had not required the conscious and heartless dispatch of hundreds of thousands of indigenes and the wholesale import of numberless Europeans, Americans et al whose forebears had not set foot in the Levant for centuries (I’m not aware of any other national liberation movement whose beneficiaries had no physical connection to their “homeland”) – if Israel had not been birthed so viciously and had not expanded so consistently at the continued expense of its victims, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion about whether or not the aspirations of (some) of the Jewish people would best be served by a nationalist solution.

    That is, the Zionism JeffB defends is an abstract one; when one fills in the ghastly particulars, it’s a different story.

    Finally, when will ideologues like Jeffy understand that conflating antisemitism and antizionism is not in their best interests. After all, if its antisemitic to oppose the numberless violations of basic human rights, the fake, race-based judicial system, house demolitions, confinement without charge, everyday brutality, etc that are required by the current instantiation of Zionism, it would be the moral duty of any thinking person to be an antisemite!

    Happily, those of us who live unblinkered by Zionist ideology and remain committed to antiracism of any sort fully understand the difference between a corrupt political system and a religion/ethnicity and have no problem focussing our arguments squarely on the former.

    But I suspect you know that and are simply floating a bullshit hasbara smear in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible through deflection. It’s not working.

    • JeffB
      October 6, 2017, 9:37 am

      @Ismail

      Poor Jeff B. He describes a Zionism that is unchanged for 130 years. But of course there were many streams of Zionism from the get-go. Some did not imagine a Jewish state but a multinational one or a confederation, among other iterations.

      Actually I’ve frequently talked about how Zionism evolved including on here quite a bit.

      perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion about whether or not the aspirations of (some) of the Jewish people would best be served by a nationalist solution.

      So you are admitting your position is unreasonable?

      That is, the Zionism JeffB defends is an abstract one; when one fills in the ghastly particulars, it’s a different story.

      Really. I’m not willing to defend the particulars? Ask you fellow anti-Zionists about that.

      . After all, if its antisemitic to oppose the numberless violations of basic human rights, the fake, race-based judicial system, house demolitions, confinement without charge, everyday brutality, etc that are required by the current instantiation of Zionism, it would be the moral duty of any thinking person to be an antisemite!

      First off what you list are policy position that can be reformed. Corbyn and BDS don’t see policy reform they seek destruction. Policy reformers are the Liberal Zionists you all like to mock. Corbyn’s policy is clear he doesn’t believe Ma’ale Adumim have different laws he thinks it should be depopulated and razed. So no, you don’t get to propose essentially genocidal solutions and claim this is an attempt at policy reform.

      Now excluding the dishonesty of pretending this is about policy. Reread my original post. The original author was making the case they were distinct. I agree with you they aren’t.

      Happily, those of us who live unblinkered by Zionist ideology and remain committed to antiracism of any sort fully understand the difference between a corrupt political system and a religion/ethnicity and have no problem focussing our arguments squarely on the former.

      I’d say you have a great deal of problem focusing squarely on the former. Including in this post. Your big objection to Israel is how it was founded and hence you have to use your own words unreasonable. How Israel was founded 70 years ago is not something current day Israelis can do anything about. It is a completely unfixable problem. Hating Israelis because of stuff their grandparents did is not a policy position.

      • Marnie
        October 6, 2017, 10:25 am

        @JeffB

        “How Israel was founded 70 years ago is not something current day Israelis can do anything about.”

        Oh you’re so wrong. For starters, eliminate the following: Yom HatzMaut, Yom HaZikaron, Yom HaAliyah and Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day). Followed by every ‘religious’ holiday on the books.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 12:30 pm

        “How Israel was founded 70 years ago is not something current day Israelis can do anything about.”

        Isreal is only good at doing something about the past from thousands of years ago. How ancient Judea will be recreated they have a handle on, but what happened 70 years ago,they’re helpless.

    • Mooser
      October 6, 2017, 12:58 pm

      I think “Jeff b” re-read “The Art of the Deal” to get himself in shape for a return to comments.

  4. yourstruly
    October 5, 2017, 11:09 pm

    Of course anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. How could it when Zionism does not equal Judaism? As for the claim that Zionist Israel speaks for all Jews, why then are so many of our youth becoming disillusioned with Israel? And why such rapid growth of organizations such as Jewish voices for peace? Could it be that an apartheid state based on religious/ethnic supremacy is a living contradiction to Jewish concepts of justice and freedom?

    • JeffB
      October 6, 2017, 9:59 am

      @yourstruly

      why then are so many of our youth becoming disillusioned with Israel?

      I don’t think they have. I think they are frustrated with some policies and the attitude. Jews are Democrats. The labor party lost and lost credibility. We have in power in Israel right now a rightist government and a Prime Minister who values the relationship with Evangelical Christians and Republican Jews while not paying much attention to the relationship with Liberal Jews. Many of the other rightwing leaders are much closer to American Jews and consider outreach important.

      And why such rapid growth of organizations such as Jewish voices for peace?

      You are out of date. Last few years those groups are shrinking. They were growing. Groups that don’t work on inspiring hatred in the community like INN and JStreet-U are replacing JVP. Anti-Zionism being replaced by the next generation of Liberal Zionism.

      Could it be that an apartheid state based on religious/ethnic supremacy is a living contradiction to Jewish concepts of justice and freedom?

      Of course it is. Jews have always sought to take unjust immoral systems and build better ones. Jews have however been both reformers and revolutionaries for the cause of justice. Israelis agree that their system is problematic they just believe it to be the least bad option under current circumstances. That’s a system capable of reform, that’s a system that desires reform. And if you look at the details and not demonizing propaganda a system that is experimenting with reforms to see what works as we speak.

      • Mooser
        October 6, 2017, 1:40 pm

        “Jeff b”, I don’t know who told you that typing more words than anybody else will cause a DNS or overload a website, but they are probably laughing at you now.

  5. Misterioso
    October 6, 2017, 10:38 am

    I urge everyone to read this just released interview with Roger Waters. It is enlightening and uplifting.

    https://stepfeed.com/we-talked-to-roger-waters-about-bds-trump-israel-lebanon-and-palestine-1973

    Step Feed, Sept. 4/17
    “We talked to Roger Waters about BDS, Trump, Israel, Lebanon and Palestine”

    “’We need education more than we’ve ever needed anything.’”

    By Nadine Mazloum

    EXCERPT:
    “50 years ago Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza, and a young English musician named Roger Waters started a career in music with the rock group Pink Floyd. For 50 years the Palestinians have remained prisoners in their own land, while the band played on.

    “Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 to pursue a solo career. It was a thorny path to choose. Twenty years later, in June of 2006, he was booked to perform in Tel Aviv’s Hayarkon Park. 

    “As word spread, he was approached by Palestinian civil society activists who told him about a new protest movement that they had recently launched. A movement that reached out to foreign artists asking them to protest the occupation by joining BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions). After engaging in a dialogue with the leaders of BDS, Waters was persuaded to cancel the Hayarkon Park show and moved it to Neve Shalom (Peace Village) where he played in front of some 60,000 Israelis. 

    “Towards the end of that concert, he told the crowd, ‘You are the generation of young Israelis who must make peace with your neighbors.’ The crowd fell silent; this was not in the script.”

  6. Maghlawatan
    October 6, 2017, 2:33 pm

    Corbyn is going to be the next prime minister Neoliberalism is dying. Elite Jewish power will die with it. Altogether now is the theme song.
    Fuck Zionism.

    https://youtu.be/iRgtzZ-mOQo

  7. johneill
    October 6, 2017, 7:50 pm

    “only israelis are allowed to criticize israel, and only if they’re jewish, and only if they don’t criticize what many other israelis support, and only if their criticism is ineffective.” otherwise everyone is welcome to sing the praises of ‘a different kind of theocracy’™

  8. George Malent
    October 7, 2017, 11:03 am

    I have long been an admirer of Prof. Machover, but this headline is misleading and irresponsible. He was NOT expelled from the Labour Party for saying “anti-Zionism does not equal antisemitism”. Facts are facts.

    • Bumblebye
      October 7, 2017, 11:39 am

      Copied from a fb group:

      “Second letter to Machover from LP Head of Disputes:

      Dear Mr Machover,
      Following our letter dated 3 October 2017, representations have been made to the Labour Party on your behalf to further clarify its position on your membership and the specific reasons for your automatic exclusion from membership of the Labour Party.
      You have been automatically excluded under rule 2.I.4.B due to your clear support of at least one organisation which is incompatible with membership of the Labour Party, namely Labour Party Marxists, as well as the Communist Party of Great Britain.
      Chapter 2.I.4.B of the Labour Party’s rules states:
      “A member of the party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour Group or unit of the Party or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member, subject to the provisions of part 6.I.2 of the disciplinary rules”.
      The evidence demonstrating support for a political organisation other than an official Labour Group or unit of the Party can be found in section 3 of our original letter of 3 October.
      For the avoidance of any doubt, you are not ineligible for membership as a result of complaints received by the Party that you have breached rule 2.I.8 regarding language which may be prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party in an allegedly antisemitic article published in your name. These allegations are not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party. Disciplinary action resulting from a breach of rule 2.I.8 would require a hearing of the National Constitutional Committee as
      it would not be a matter of membership eligibility as defined in rule 2.I.4.
      If you would like to challenge the validity of the evidence attached to the letter sent to you on 3 October, please submit a written statement to the Governance and Legal unit at the London address above or to
      [email protected] within 14 days of 3 October 2017. ”

      I think the prof has said he isn’t a member of the mentioned groups.

    • Donald Johnson
      October 7, 2017, 11:59 am

      It’s a waste of pixels to contradict the title of the post and then not explain what you mean.

  9. Ossinev
    October 7, 2017, 1:21 pm

    @Mooser
    “Isreal is only good at doing something about the past from thousands of years ago. How ancient Judea will be recreated they have a handle on, but what happened 70 years ago,they’re helpless.”

    Bullseye!!

    • Mooser
      October 7, 2017, 1:56 pm

      Bullseye”

      The polar alternations between positions by Zionists is sometimes measured in kilo, or even megaHerzls-per-second.

  10. George Malent
    October 7, 2017, 1:39 pm

    In that case, shame on me for wasting pixels. OK, here’s what I mean. The article by Jonathan Cooke posted above contains an extensive discussion of the reasons for Prof. Machover’s expulsion. Nowhere in the text of Mr. Cooke’s article is it alleged that Prof. Machover was expelled from the Labour Party for saying that anti-Zionism does not equal antsemitism. So the headline is misleading. Now someone may point out that the headline does not say he was expelled “for” saying that anti-Zionism does not equal antisemitism; he was expelled “after” asserting it. Technically true, but sophistic hair-splitting. Most people will read the headline and assume that was expelled *for* saying that anti-Zionism does not equal antisemitism. And many people will read the headline and not the article. The reality is bad enough. No need to exaggerate.

    • Donald Johnson
      October 7, 2017, 3:43 pm

      Thanks for the explanation, but the title is a reasonable summary of what their position amounts to even if they would deny it. In fact, to me at least the title understates the problem. The problem is that any criticism of Israel which makes some Jewish Israel defenders feel uncomfortable qualifies as antisemitic.

      • Maghlawatan
        October 7, 2017, 7:56 pm

        The boy who cried wolf. Israel is illegitimate. Using anti-semitism to disguise this is despicable.

  11. Maghlawatan
    October 7, 2017, 7:52 pm

    This article deserves more than the ranting of a Zionist shit lord in the comments. Things are happening in the global economy that are far bigger than Liberal Zionism. 2.3 m Americans are addicted to opioids, broken. UK salaries are 15% lower than in 2007. The economic system is a system of looting. Some of the proceeds prop up Israel . Huge change is coming.

  12. Maghlawatan
    October 8, 2017, 4:29 pm

    It is on page 1 of this weekends NYT. Howard Jacobson calls Labour the enemy of the Jews.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/labour-jeremy-corbym-anti-semitism.html

    Freedland will have to be neutralised. The NYT will have to be taken out.

  13. JLewisDickerson
    October 8, 2017, 5:52 pm

    RE: “A strange, if largely obscured feature of the supposed anti-semitism crisis – set out at length in my first Mondoweiss article – is that so many of those accused and convicted in Labour of this hate crime are Jews. The latest person accused by the party of anti-semitism – and this week expelled – is Moshe Machover, a mathematician and philosophy professor at the University of London. He was born and raised in Israel.” ~ Jonathan Cook

    MY COMMENT: I get the feeling that although the lingo used may sound like that used when discussing hate speech/crimes or anti-Semitism, in actuality they are accusing Jews like Machover of being “race traitors”. Of course, if you tell them that they will be greatly offended, absolutely deny it, and say that your accusing them of viewing someone as a “race traitor” is one of the worst anti-Semitic attacks they have ever been subjected to.

    Race traitor
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor

    [EXCERPT] Race traitor is a pejorative reference to a person who is perceived as supporting attitudes or positions thought to be against the interests or well-being of that person’s own race. For example, one or both parties to an interracial relationship may be characterized as “race traitors.” As another example, a person who supports affirmative action or other policies that allegedly benefit races other than his/her own may be characterized as a “race traitor.” The term is the source of the name of a quarterly magazine, Race Traitor, founded in 1993.[1]

    During Apartheid in South Africa, in which the white minority held exclusive political power, white anti-apartheid activists where characterised as “traitors” by the government.[2]

    Thomas Mair, who murdered British MP Jo Cox in 2016, regarded Cox as a “traitor” to the white race. Mair had also published letters criticising “white liberals and traitors” in South Africa who he described as “the greatest enemy of the old apartheid system”.[3]

    .
    .
    ■ C. VANN WOODWARD (1938):

    . . . The submissive loyalty that the leaders of the New Departure commanded in Georgia conformed to a pattern found in all Southern states after home rule was restored. “The ‘Solid South,’ ” wrote Henry Watterson in 1879, “is a reaction against proscription, attended by misgovernment, and a protest against the ever-recurring menace of Federal interference.” 25 Thus the new discipline was feudal rather than democratic. It was based upon fear—fear of the Negro menace, the scalawag menace, the Federal menace, menaces real and imaginary. As the price of protection, it demanded unquestioning allegiance. White men could not divide on lines of class interest, nor could differences over measures and candidates be expressed at the ballot box. Such matters were settled by the small clique that ran the machine. Democratic forms were observed, but their observance was entirely perfunctory. Party platforms contained nothing but such platitudes as all white men could agree upon. Incompetency and weakness in candidates had to be overlooked for the sake of white solidarity. Suspected graft in public office could not be exposed for fear of Negro domination. Ballot-box stuffing had to be tolerated when white supremacy was threatened. Such was the moral intimidation of this feudal discipline that it was widely felt that to scratch a ticket was “treason to the white race,” and to make open declaration of independence was “an effort to africanize the state.” . . . ~ from page 57 of “Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel”, by C. Vann Woodward – https://archive.org/details/AgrarianRebel1938BiographyOfTomWatson

  14. pabelmont
    October 9, 2017, 12:59 pm

    Some of this discussion is about restoring lands (and properties) to original (or more recent) owners.

    The same could be said of the people of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (Oh, we lovely Anglophones!), all of which took lands from previous owners (or occupiers), in the SUSA’s case. the American Indians a/k/a Native Americans.

    Is there a difference between Israel and the USA? Well, yes.

    The USA did most of its taking and ethnic cleansing a long time ago, well before anyone (other than the victims) thought such behavior was opprobrious. Israel did most of its taking and ethnic cleansing after the nations had got together into the UN and only a moment before the same nations, all hot and bothered by German and Japanese atrocities during WWII, which had already drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, made of the UDHR a sort of treaty (non-binding). The people had spoken.

    Israel could have listened and obeyed, but to do so would have had to abandon its ethnic-purity Ghetto ideal. It didn’t. And its crimes are not matters of “history” alone but current events. Israel still does not allow the readmission of the refugees of 1948. Israel still takes the lands of others (West Bank including East Jerusalem, Golan).

    People who believe that these behaviors are crimes see on-going criminal behavior. Generally, the USA is no longer accused of on-going criminal behavior w.r.t. American Indians. (Maybe this is a mistake.)

    So — there is a difference.

    • gamal
      October 9, 2017, 2:13 pm

      “The USA did most of its taking and ethnic cleansing a long time ago, well before anyone (other than the victims) thought such behavior was opprobrious.”

      I think thats hardly fair, we always knew it was wrong to murder, to lie, to violate our oaths and steal but …much like today we rationalised our way in to it.

      “The commodities of Europe were almost all new to America, and many of those of America were new to Europe. A new set of exchanges, therefore, began..and which should naturally have proved as advantageous to the new, as it certainly did to the old continent. The savage injustice of the Europeans rendered an event, which ought to have been beneficial to all, ruinous and destructive to several of those unfortunate countries.”

      Adam Smith. chpt 1 p.479. Wealth of Nations.

      Sad to say in the modern world I am concerned that re-reading of Smiths’ old book has the potential to radicalize me. In Ireland there is hell to pay over a Che Guevara stamp,

      I don’t buy the we didn’t know it was wrong then idea, it seems to me to be a barrier to self knowledge for westerners, but for people who are invested in the idea of their superiority, advancement, moral perfection, standard bearers of our glorious future there are somethings they would rather not know or even consider….

      we, as a consequence of sentience, know what is harmful because when we engage in such we become sick and nothing but tedious sophistry or irrational rationalisations pour out of our mouths, we become paralysed and then Trump and Pence etc, Antifa and The White Nations, we get confused and angry,

      This nightmare maze all because it’s so hard to actually understand that you, in the west are not better or more fortunate or more blessed than others, equality is not a new thing, there is not one whit of difference between your humanity and that of others, that is all in your mind having no temporal reality whatsoever, and it will vouchsafe to you depression and ulcers, because you really are better than that, don’t worry about the darkside, the light, your “light”, will burn you, if you fail it, because love has no pity at all for those who deny her dictates and is integral to all of us, it’s what makes everything divine and fucking dangerous,

      Look at America roasting in the fire of her own anger, Ted Hughes wrote a collection Crow in one of the poems Crow contemplates the sea and remarks to himself

      why always moving, what could be hurting so much,

      Time to put down the spy glass and pick up the mirror, as to the world

      “Avarice and injustice are always shortsighted,………… and thereby hurt in the long-run the real interest of the landlord.”

      Someone should warn google about this Smith guy, could be a Russian troll.

      • YoniFalic
        October 9, 2017, 3:56 pm

        I don’t buy the we didn’t know it was wrong then idea, it seems to me to be a barrier to self knowledge for westerners, but for people who are invested in the idea of their superiority, advancement, moral perfection, standard bearers of our glorious future there are somethings they would rather not know or even consider….

        It took a long time to develop understanding that slavery is wrong.

        Even if the understanding is lacking, a legal system may identify a terminus a quo from which a certain act becomes a criminal or a civil violation.

      • Eva Smagacz
        October 9, 2017, 5:58 pm

        YoniFalic,

        I hear your frustration about not being able to use your in depth knowledge of Jewish history in the comments section.

        But it seems that your postings on your subject matter can be misconstrued as inadvertent violation of rule 2 of comments policy, unless it discusses persecution of Jewish minorities in second millennium AD.

        I dearly miss comments section of the early Mondoweiss.44/49

      • RoHa
        October 9, 2017, 10:13 pm

        I was desperately hoping you wouldn’t mention Ted Hughes.

        I’m even less familiar with him than I am with Larkin.

  15. amigo
    October 9, 2017, 3:42 pm

    Bad news for the “LFI ” (Labour Party Friends of Israel).

    “Israel lobby complaints about an Al Jazeera English documentary were rejected on all counts by the UK’s broadcasting regulator on Monday.

    Ofcom ruled that January’s four-part investigation The Lobby was factually accurate, correctly observed rules on fairness, impartiality and privacy, and was not anti-Semitic.

    After the news broke, the satellite channel’s Investigative Unit revealed that it will soon be broadcasting an undercover investigation of the Israel lobby in the United States.

    Clayton Swisher, Al Jazeera’s director of investigative journalism, told the network’s Arabic channel on Monday that the documentary had been held back pending the outcome of the Ofcom investigation.

    Swisher said he was announcing for the first time that “at the same time we had an undercover [reporter] in Britain, we also had an undercover in the United States.”

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/vindicated-uk-al-jazeera-reveal-secrets-us-israel-lobby

    More from the article!!.

    “The UK documentary in January exposed the activities of Israeli embassy officer Shai Masot, and his efforts to influence political groups in the UK.

    He had plotted to “take down” senior government minister Alan Duncan, and worked with pro-Israel lawmakers in the Labour Party who exaggerated and faked anti-Semitism in the party, amid plots and coup attempts against leader Jeremy Corbyn – long a Palestine solidarity activist.

    As a result of the film, Masot was removed from his position as senior political officer and sent back to Israel. Israeli ambassador Mark Regev was forced to make an apology to the UK government.

    A British civil servant who was recorded with Masot plotting “a little scandal” for Duncan was made to resign.

    Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called for a government investigation into the issues raised by the program.

    Ofcom ruled on Monday that allegations of anti-Semitism against the program were false.”

  16. Maghlawatan
    October 10, 2017, 4:13 pm

    Front page of the NYT, Saturday October 7. “Now Labour is the enemy of the Jews” by howard Jacobson.
    Just like that little old lady who was in the Kindertransport said. “they told me the Palestinans were my enemy. “
    Howard writes “How Labour changed roles with the Conservatives as the enemy of the Jews is a tale that cannot be told briefly.”
    Why does it matter? Because Israel is not sovereign. Israel depends for its survival on a complex web of international power structures. This is because of the Occupation and the unfinished business of 1948. Israel never dealt with the Palestinian issue coherently. What would Hillel say?
    Howard Jacobson is scared. So is the NYT.
    So he rolls out the veneration of crap. “Zionism was this..a long gestating movement for regenerative transformation” – more spiritual than political. A grand ambition, bound to lose its shine when it declined into the banal and sometimes cruel exigencies of statehood but can we hate a thing in retrospect because we don’t like what it became ?”
    Hajo Meyer was the author of a book entitled “The End of Judaism: An Ethical Tradition Betrayed,” which argued that Zionism and Judaism were radical opposites and incompatible with one another. Meyer equated Zionism with “fascism” and “criminality” and believed that Zionists “have given up everything that has to do with humanity”And as a Holocaust survivor — he was in Auschwitz for 10 months as a young teenager — he noted that Israelis “have no idea about the Holocaust. They use the Holocaust to implant paranoia in their children.”
    Some things are born good and go bad. Zionism was born bad. 1948 is in the present. The road of procrastination is headed for the cliff.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca198710-20d6-11e1-8133-00144feabdc0.html
    Report Just21897 | December 9 10:04am | Permalink
    | Options
    “What is happening is that the narrative that has underpinned Israel until now, with en bloc support from leading Western democracies, has collapsed under the weight of Israeli aggression and double standards. A new narrative was quickly formulated to cast all of Israels muslim middle eastern neighbours as inherently enmical to the West -therefore Israel had to continue benefitting from unconditional support..

    Events soon undermined this fable as well, and many principled voices in the media started daring to expose the reality of Israeli democracy and the extreme brutality of Israeli occupation, despite the harsh threats and the accusations of anti-semitism so recklessly deployed .

    Now the question is how governments in the West can be pushed to deploy real and effective measures to force Israel into meaningful negotiations, and not just moan about Mr. Netanyahu being a “liar”. We seem to have reached the point where settler violence is accelerating with impunity,while Palestinians are being punished by Western governments, led by the USA ,for pursuing negotiations and diplomacy . “

Leave a Reply