Trending Topics:

The dangers of conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

Media Analysis
on 33 Comments

Recently, Batya Ungar-Sargon, an editor at the Forward, wrote an article about the “failings” of intersectionality, and the specific “failing” of the left to include anti-Semitism in its analysis of oppressions. She also makes claims that opposing the inclusion of Zionism in social justice movements means the exclusion of Jews.

The article has serious conceptual flaws as well as factual inaccuracies that mischaracterize and do a disservice to movements for justice, and, as a result, make accusations of marginalizing Jews that are not rooted in reality.

To say, as the author does in her article, that “As a paradigm, intersectionality has failed Jews” makes little sense. As a lens through which to understand multiple dimensions of power — where and how they do or don’t intersect or connect — intersectionality does not “fail” any group.

Further, the author writes, “Intersectionality would dictate that the oppression of Palestinians is much worse than the oppression of Jews, and thus a much higher priority…. It is at the end of the day a hierarchical structure, one that creates a hierarchy of oppression and determines levels of threat.”

Intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, is precisely not about promoting hierarchies of oppression (thereby leaving out the Jews), but is a framework — an analytic tool — that focuses on the multiple effects and overlap of structural oppressions among communities that have been impacted by injustice.

In “What is Intersectionality and Why Do You Keep Insisting that Movements Must Be Intersectional?” by Evonnia Woods, the author makes clear that:

Much of the confusion regarding what intersectionality is stems from the way we have been trained to think, which happens to be the very way of thinking the concept aims to overcome. We are trained to think in binaries/dualisms and hierarchies….

This is why the versatility of how intersectionality can be employed is lost in many people’s understandings of the concept. Intersectionality is a paradigm, a methodology, and a tool for liberation….

We can use intersectionality as a means to garner and evaluate information. We can also use it in social movements to attain liberationequity and justice. Therefore, intersectionality is a concept employed to guide us in how we think (and thus behave), study the social world and fight for fairer life experiences. It is this fight for fairer life experiences from which the notion that movements must be intersectional is derived.

In “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles, Chandra Talpade Mohanty meaningfully frames a conceptualization of intersectional principles and realities that is not about leaving someone behind but, rather, about building meaningful solidarities:

In knowing differences and particularities, we can better see the connections and commonalities because no border or boundary is ever completely or rigidly determining. The challenge is to see how differences allow us to explain the connections and border crossings better and more accurately, how specifying difference allows us to theorize universal concerns more fully. It is this intellectual move that allows for my concern for women of different communities and identities to build coalitions and solidarities across borders.

Rather than recognizing and building from this analysis as articulated by Mohanty and others, Ungar-Sargon, through a misframing of intersectionality as the source of the problem, instead focuses on what she believes is an insensitivity to Jews, and her piece continues in that vein. For example, she takes specific feminists and “the left” to task for not wanting the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to co-facilitate an anti-racist training. While she does acknowledge some problems with the ADL, she largely defends the organization and its new director.

I find it unimaginable that the author is not aware of the abundance of evidence (see here and here, for example) pointing to the ADL’s role, historically as well as presently, in promoting anti-Palestinian policies and Islamophobia, and in targeting activists for justice. The author does mention that the current CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, proudly attended the embassy move in Jerusalem, but doesn’t seem to consider that to be a major problem that speaks to who Greenblatt and the ADL are. (As if this wasn’t enough, Greenblatt’s joyous moment took place as Israel was killing Palestinians in Gaza for protesting for their basic rights.) That fact alone — and there are many others — should make it clear why the ADL wasn’t a fit partner for an anti-racism training.

It’s one thing to suggest that we all need to open our hearts to working with new people and groups; it’s quite another to suggest that it’s “anti-Jewish” to not agree to work with an organization like the ADL that, while promoting itself as an anti-defamation organization, targets communities with long histories facing structural racism and injustice in the US, as well as those who support Palestinian rights. Minimizing that fact is incredibly disrespectful to the many communities that have been at the receiving end of ADL’s discriminatory positions and whose lives have been harmed as a result.

The faulty logic is not only with the author’s mischaracterization of opposition to ADL as being anti-Jewish; one of the most egregious accusations she makes is asserting that, since most Jews support Zionism, if you leave out Zionism from social justice struggles, then you are saying Jews aren’t welcome. She doesn’t show evidence pointing to her pronouncement that most Jews support Zionism, and there is actually evidence to the contrary. But, even if it were true, the fact that opposing Zionism — which is responsible for the Nakba, the dispossession of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and land — is conflated with excluding Jews, again, shows a distortion of facts to make her point about Jews being excluded. Zionism is an ideology, and even if Jews adhere to it, it is not “anti-Jewish” to oppose it. It is about challenging structures of oppression.

She continuously reinforces the false and dangerous notion that to oppose Zionism is to be against Jews: “On the other hand, Jews feel that when they do show up, there’s always something wrong with them. They are expected to check their Zionism at the door, for example, or to support a Black Lives Matter platform that accuses Israel of genocide (one can be very critical of Israel’s blatant civil and human rights violations and still feel that such an absurd overstatement would be impossible to endorse).” She does make herself clear that she has no respect for the accusation of genocide made against Israel, though I wonder how much she has challenged herself and engaged with the fact that there has been much written pointing to the ways Israel’s treatment of Palestinians has aptly been called genocide. However, regardless of one’s position on the use of genocide to describe Israel, this is a charge about Israel’s behavior as a nation-state, and not about Jews.

Finally, the author lumps together all of the left, seemingly revealing an underlying animosity, and what she writes about its views on Jews reveals yet again her consistent conflation of Jews with criticisms of Zionism or Israel. She writes (without any evidence): “It is indicative of a fundamental flaw on the left — its eagerness to find fault with Jews while being unwilling to acknowledge anti-Semitism.” This assertion contradicts the articulated deep commitment among so many social justice groups to oppose all forms of oppression, including anti-Semitism. But — and this is what really seems to irk the author — this commitment also includes opposing Zionism. Further, nobody is suggesting there isn’t anti-Semitism among anyone on the left — that would be a foolish claim — but this is significantly different from making a sweeping generalization that those on “THE LEFT” have an “eagerness to find fault with Jews.”

This kind of misrepresentation and mischaracterization is not a way toward building meaningful relationships or to be genuine partners in the struggle for justice. Finding fault with Zionism is not the same as finding fault with Jews. It’s an insulting and harmful framing. In fact, challenging anti-Semitism and challenging Zionism are both necessary in intersectional struggles to achieve justice.

This piece first appeared at Truthout, and is published with the permission of the author and Truthout. Copyright, Reprinted with permission

Donna Nevel

Donna Nevel, a community psychologist and educator, is a founding member of Jews Say No!, Facing the Nakba, and Jews Against Anti-Muslim Racism (JAAMR), and is a member of JVP-South FL.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. gamal on June 14, 2018, 11:31 am

    “is precisely not about promoting hierarchies of oppression”

    yes, its the worst at that.

    • annie on June 14, 2018, 11:35 am

      intersectionality? how so gamal?

      • gamal on June 14, 2018, 11:39 am

        “how so gamal?”

        what happens when ignorance intersects with loudmouth? will I be OK?

      • annie on June 14, 2018, 12:12 pm

        i just wanted to hear your opinion!

        Intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, is precisely not about promoting hierarchies of oppression (thereby leaving out the Jews), but is a framework — an analytic tool — that focuses on the multiple effects and overlap of structural oppressions among communities that have been impacted by injustice.

        as a person who does think there are hierarchies of oppression, but doesn’t agree that’s what intersectionality is about, i was just curious what you meant.

        as an aside, that part i bolded, when i think of “structural oppression” i’m reminded of systemic oppression, oppression that is embedded within our legal and justice system such as ICE, the muslim ban, racial profiling, fbi spying on mosques and the arab/muslim community in general, police brutality targeting black communities, the prison system, and the justice system. the list goes on and on.

        although intersectionality also addresses other kinds of structures (such as societal structures not necessarily legally imposed but nonetheless embedded in our psyches), in my opinion the nature of anti semitism is that it is not systemically promoted and embedded within our legal system. in fact, our legal system, the establishment and media included, fights very hard to prevent anti semitism and i would argue, prioritizes both awareness of, and legislation to prevent, antisemitism over and above structural systemic oppressions.

        (am i the loudmouth you were referencing?) ;)

  2. annie on June 15, 2018, 12:56 am

    Batya Ungar-Sargon writes:

    This is why I believe we need to abandon identity politics and return to talking about the rights we all share. Focusing on rights, rather than identities, will inevitably prioritize black people and other minorities whose rights are simply not guaranteed in this country. But it would also enable Jews to participate in this struggle, and be protected by it, in ways they have not been able to, or not wanted to.

    i think Ungar-Sargon doesn’t realize the fundamental problem with inclusion in intersectionality is not about being jewish, it’s about supporting zionism. if one ” abandon identity politics and return to talking about the rights ” the very same problem will exist, for how can one be taken seriously as an advocate for people whose rights are simply not guaranteed “in this country” while being an advocate for a political structure that systemically privileges one ethnicity over another? how can one advocate abandoning identity politics while supporting a state that privileges her identity at the expense of others?

    no one would be talking about any of this, it would not even be an issue if palestinians didn’t exist. but they do. they are there, living breathing people that will not disappear, who have been suffering for decades under a brutal occupation so that jewish people can have a state of their own. and it’s simply pissing off a lot of people after so long. what’s going on is inexcusable and it’s being perpetuated in large part because of the support of jewish americans just like her. these are martin’s white moderates:

    “who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

    if i’m sick and tired of this imagine how palestinians feel? it’s an atrocity. and it won’t get better for pro israel kids on campus “Focusing on rights, rather than identities”. they would still get rejected in rights based groups. end the occupation. instead, we have more legislation on anti semitism, redefining it to silence people fighting for a rights based cause. why not fight for equal rights for people who have their kids dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and photographed or hauled away on suspicion of throwing rocks. how could anyone be so clueless? it’s just mind-boggling. if she, and those kids on campus, really want to make a difference in the world, they should be directing their energies at condemning the israeli government with ever breath they take and lobby our government to sanction them.

    • Sibiriak on June 15, 2018, 4:07 am

      Great post, Annie!

    • on June 15, 2018, 9:39 am

      Hear Hear Annie !!!!

    • MHughes976 on June 15, 2018, 12:44 pm

      I understand Zionism as the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right, now commonly called birthright, to a share of sovereignty over the Holy Land, others having a share only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs. This belief is very much identity-affirming and rights-denying. It makes rights depend upon – and clearly sometimes lapse because of – considerations of identity, whose criteria relate to ancestry and religion. Which illustrates how the form of intersectionalism which calls for all identity -based causes to be melded into one coherent cause or programme is really a demand for the impossible.

      • Mooser on June 15, 2018, 1:23 pm

        “and rights-denying”

        And there’s your intersectionality. “Religion” and “ancestry” has no privilege in denying rights which makes it different than any other pretext.

        “Which illustrates how the form of intersectionalism which calls for all identity -based causes to be melded into one coherent cause or programme is really a demand for the impossible.”

        Why did you just contradict yourself so drastically?

      • annie on June 15, 2018, 2:09 pm

        mhughes: the form of intersectionalism which calls for all identity -based causes to be melded into one coherent cause

        i’m not sure what “form” of intersectionality you mean. Wood’s describes (cited in Donna Nevel’s article) intersectionality as a versatile, “a tool for liberation…..a means to garner and evaluate information”.

        Mohanty, is describing that tool, “we can better see the connections and commonalities because no border or boundary is ever completely or rigidly determining…….how specifying difference allows us to theorize universal concerns more fully. It is this intellectual move that allows for my concern for women of different communities and identities to build coalitions and solidarities across borders.”

        Nevel, “building meaningful solidarities“…. i’m not sure your description of “melded into one coherent cause” is apt because it sounds like a border or boundary is completely determined. and the act of recognizing overlapping structures of oppressions, is that intersectionality is inclusive (possibly elastic or absorbing). anti semitism, as an oppressive structure would be of course recognized as an oppression (and an overlapping one given the circumstances) , and since zionism inherently oppresses (and i don’t use the term ‘inherently’ lightly, i am not referencing a anyones concept of zionism here, i am referencing how manifests itself in the real world as it pertains to self actualization on the land, in palestine), it too therefore, like anti semitism, is a structure of oppression and should be called out as such.

        i think the problem comes in with the attempted inclusion of the idea of anti zionism as a structure of oppression. it goes something like this, by denying my self determination you are essentially oppressing me and therefore your anti zionism is one of my overlapping burdens. and how concept of intersectionality initially came about, via crenshaw as the overlapping of oppression of gender and race > black women, that represents 2 overlaps. whereas, when you add sexuality — a gay black woman, that’s 3 overlaps, if she was jewish too that would be 4 overlaps if she suffered from anti semitism. but suffering from anti zionism is only applicable if the anti zionist hates jews. and therefor we have the continued conflation that anti zionism is inherently anti semitic. and it’s not. it’s the “new anti semitism” that was essentially invented to defend israel’s atrocities that jonathan cook documented so well in his 2006 “the new anti semitism and nuclear war”

        and i don’t think any amount of legislation is going to change the perception of zionism within the intersectionality movement, or anti zionism for that matter.

      • MHughes976 on June 16, 2018, 4:25 am

        I’d think that there is an idealist form of identity-based intersectionalism (O mi God,, all these long words!) which suggests that there is a clear end-state more or less desired by all oppressed or endangered groups now and expected to be acceptable to all of them when it comes. But there are very great differences of interests and ideologies between all human groups which don’t necessarily vanish with the experience of oppression. I was suggesting that the story of Jewish oppression and Zionism illustrates this point, as does the way in which movements apparently of liberation can split after success, the latest example being South Sudan.
        There’s I-sect of a temporary, instrumental nature against a common danger, as with the anti-fascist alliance of WW2. This may sometimes be the only way to go but it is a bit desperate and may be pregnant with future terrors like the Cold War.
        There’s the I-sect of MLK’s ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’, which was said before the rise of our identity politics. This is true and important but still raises problems – no one can fight every battle.

      • Mooser on June 16, 2018, 11:47 am

        “I’d think that there is an idealist form of identity-based intersectionalism (O mi God,, all these long words!) which suggests that there is a clear end-state more or less desired by all oppressed or endangered groups now and expected to be acceptable to all of them when it comes…”

        You would think that? Can I give you a lighter for that straw-ideology? Since it is entirely yours, you can burn it up.

      • echinococcus on June 16, 2018, 1:03 pm


        How about sitting patiently enough to read the next sentence and the truth will emerge naked from the well.

      • MHughes976 on June 16, 2018, 4:04 pm

        Much of what I’ve read about I-sectionalism is along the lines of pointing out that people who face different forms of oppression all have something in common and that the difference in form is no reason to withhold solidarity. I don’t really see what else the basic meaning could be. The idea seems to develop in different ways and to encounter quite a few problems, certainly much acrimonious debate.

    • oldgeezer on June 18, 2018, 12:33 pm

      I’m late to this article but fantastic post annie, as was the article.

  3. Nathan on June 15, 2018, 2:14 am

    “Finding fault with Zionism is not the same as finding fault with Jews…”

    Finding fault? That is quite an understatement in describing the historic phenomenon of hatred of the Jews and the more recent phenomenon of hatred of Israel – and it’s very misleading. Finding faults sounds as if someone is trying to give some constructive criticism. This would be an example of finding fault: “Your report card is poor. You should do your homework and stop wasting your time watching TV…” A problem has been presented, and its remedy is obvious.

    In the antisemitic world, there is something particularly odious about the Jews. This is no criticism of the Jews (“finding their faults”); rather, it is an obsession with imaginary Jews. There is no remedy. Similarly, in the anti-Israel world, there is something particularly odious about Israel. This is no criticism of Israel (“finding her faults”); rather it’s an obsession with an imaginary Israel. There is no remedy.

    • MHughes976 on June 15, 2018, 1:30 pm

      The term ‘finding fault’ often suggests carping, rather petty determination to emphasise what is negative and that is why U-Sargon (not Nevel) introduces it. It is to this comparatively mild critique, addressed face to face to real Jews, not to wildly excessive language against imaginary ‘Jewish’ caricatures (which she does not think or does not say that she is facing) that she objects.
      I don’t see how you can weaken the force of Nevel’s reply by suggesting that she should have introduced a stronger term than ‘fault-finding’ for a form of anti-Jewish language which U-S does not mention: U-S is specifically saying that even the comparatively petty identity-related talk that she does encounter is unacceptable. Nevel is saying that this talk is not anti-Jewish, though it may distress some Jews – it may also come from Jews, of course. It is simply anti-Zionist and Zionism is not her view – Mr. Halevi thinks otherwise – of the essence of being Jewish.

      • annie on June 15, 2018, 1:38 pm

        here’s Ungar-Sargon statement Nevel referenced that’s got nathan’s undergarments all in a twist:

        This is more than ironic. It is indicative of a fundamental flaw on the left – its eagerness to find fault with Jews while being unwilling to acknowledge anti-Semitism.

      • Mooser on June 15, 2018, 3:16 pm

        ” its eagerness to find fault with Jews while being unwilling to acknowledge anti-Semitism.”

        Okay then, the faults of the Jews are in large measure the result of, caused by, anti-Semitism. Okay, all acknowledged. Now, about those faults… Oh, I see, you want more than an acknowledgement…

    • on June 16, 2018, 1:48 pm

      @Nathan: just like criticism of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism, so criticism even of the Jews has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is racism, pure and simple. There is nothing more special about antisemitism than there is about any other form of racism.

      Criticism of the Chinese, the Iranians, the Arabs, Muslims, or the North Koreans, to name but some recent examples, is exercised on a daily basis and is considered by everyone as normal and not racist. So why would criticism of the Jews constitute racism?

      Moreover, being Jewish is a choice: one can join the tribe and convert to Judaism, or one can renounce Judaism and convert to something else or not, and leave the tribe. A choice is always open to inspection and therefore to criticism.

      Having said that, hatred, discrimination, harassment, physical attacks of someone simply for being Jewish is racist, just like those activities against e.g. Blacks constitute racism.

      As an extension of this, one could posit the premise that, for racism there needs to be question of a race. What is striking about the Jews, and this is meant as a criticism of them, is that they tend to indicate that they constitute a race when it suits them, and refuse to be called a race when it does not suit.

      This latter point is perhaps outside the topic here, but it does impact on Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. as a state for the Jewish people. If Jewish in this context refers to religion it is a theocracy that excludes all other religions. And if Jewish refers to race/ethnic group, then it excludes all other races/ethnic groups, even though the Jews themselves are a mixture of many different races/ethnic groups through conversions and intermarriages, and therefore cannot logically claim to be a race/ethnic group per se. Whatever it is, a Jews-only state is a Jew-supremacist state and in either of the 2 cases is racist.

      If anything I have stated you consider to be racist I challenge you to demonstrate in what sense it is so.

      • Nathan on June 18, 2018, 9:17 pm

        Paranam Kid – You’re right that criticism of Israel or the Jews is not antisemitism. However, one shouldn’t confuse criticism and hostility. Many, many articles (and comments) here at Mondoweiss are expressing hostility towards Israel. Telling someone to take a shower would be criticism, but telling that someone to drop dead is hostility – and it’s an important difference.

        I really can’t think of an example of “criticism” of the Jews. Generally, throughout history, the grievances against the Jews are figments of the imagination. The term that was coined for this phenomenon (since 1879) is antisemitism.

        In the case of Israel, there is real criticism obviously. Actually, Israel criticizes herself all the time. However, this criticism is based on the obvious assumption that the state is legitimate, and the criticism is meant to suggest improvements. Obviously, if one regards the state to be illegitimate, then it’s not criticism. Mondoweiss is not critical of Israel.

        When the descriptions of Israel are a figment of the imagination, then antisemitism and anti-Israelism become quite similar.

      • annie on June 18, 2018, 9:34 pm

        criticism of Israel or the Jews is not antisemitism. However, one shouldn’t confuse criticism and hostility.

        hostility and anger at state policy or action or war is not generally considered a sign of bigotry either.

  4. Marnie on June 15, 2018, 3:28 am

    I think Jews, in particular ‘liberals’ have a lot to prove wrt palestine and palestinians. A lesson from Malcom X that I thought might be helpful?

    Interview with Malcolm X | A. B. Spellman | Monthly Review

    “Spellman: What kind of coalition do you plan to make? Can whites join the Muslim Mosque Inc.?

    Malcolm X: Whites can’t join us. Everything that whites join that Negroes have they end up out-joining the Negroes. The whites control all Negro organizations that they can join—they end up in control of those organizations. If whites want to help us financially we will accept their financial help, but we will never let them join us.

    Spellman: Then black leadership is necessary?

    Malcolm X: Absolutely black leadership.

    Spellman: Will you work with the so-called “established” civil rights organizations?

    Malcolm X: Well, we will work with them in any area and on any objective that doesn’t conflict with our own political, economic, and social philosophy which is black nationalism. I might add that I was invited to attend a civil rights group meeting where all of the various civil rights organizations were present and I was invited to address them in Chester, Pennsylvania. Gloria Richardson was there; Landrey, the head of the Chicago School Boycott, was there; Dick Gregory was there; many others were there; the Rochedale movement was there. Now my address to them was designed to show them that if they would expand their civil rights movement to a human rights movement it would internationalize it. Now, as a civil rights movement, it remains within the confines of American domestic policy and no African independent nations can open up their mouths on American domestic affairs, whereas if they expanded the civil rights movement to a human rights movement then they would be eligible to take the case of the Negro to the United Nations the same as the case of the Angolans is in the UN and the case of the South Africans is in the UN. Once the civil rights movement is expanded to a human rights movement our African brothers and our Asian brothers and Latin American brothers can place it on the agenda at the General Assembly that is coming up this year and Uncle Sam has no more say-so in it then. And we have friends outside the UN—700,000,000 Chinese who are ready to die for human rights.

    Spellman: Do you intend to collaborate with such other groups as labor unions or socialist groups or any other groups?

    Malcolm X: We will work with anybody who is sincerely interested in eliminating injustices that Negroes suffer at the hands of Uncle Sam.

    Spellman: What is your evaluation of the civil rights movement at this point?

    Malcolm X: It has run its—it’s at the end of its leash.

    Spellman: What groups do you consider most promising?

    Malcolm X: I know of no group that is promising unless it’s radical. If it’s not radical it is in no way involved effectively in the present struggle.

    Spellman: Some local civil rights leaders lave said they’d welcome your support, some national leaders have said they want nothing to do with you, what is your reaction?

    Malcolm X: Well, the local civil rights leaders are usually involved right in the midst of the situation. They see it as it is and they realize that it takes a combination of groups to attack the problem most effectively and, also, most local civil rights leaders have more independence of action and usually they are more in tune and in touch with the people. But the national leaders of the civil rights movement are out of touch with the problem and usually they are paid leaders. The local leaders usually have a job and they lean against the local situation on the side, but the nationally known leaders are paid. They are full-time leaders, they are professional leaders and whoever pays their salary has a great say-so in what they do and what they don’t do, so naturally the ones who pay the salaries of these nationally known Negro leaders are the white liberals and white liberals are shocked and frightened whenever you mention anything about some X’s.”

  5. Mooser on June 15, 2018, 3:44 am

    If Zionism does a good job of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, I am sure they will convince many Jews who are critical of Israel that they just shouldn’t be Jews.

  6. dvered on June 15, 2018, 9:28 am

    People seem to forget that Zionism is only 120 years old while Judaism is 5000 years old.
    Until WW2 only a minority of Jews followed Zionism . The Zionists utilized the outcome of WW2 and the Holocaust presenting themselves as the “Saviors”of the Jewish people while in essence were no less than colonial settlers establishing a Western base in the middle east serving their American masters interests in the region.
    Israel, according to the Zionists , should have been the safest place in the world for a Jew , In essence it is the least safe place in the world for a Jew.
    The western world lives with a guilt complex over the Holocaust and therefor looks the other way ignoring Israel’s war crimes . The easiest way to combat Israel’s critics is labeling them as Antisemites.

  7. Keith on June 15, 2018, 10:08 am

    DONNA NEVEL- “She also makes claims that opposing the inclusion of Zionism in social justice movements means the exclusion of Jews.”

    It takes an unusual mind to describe Zionism as a social justice movement.

  8. on June 15, 2018, 4:49 pm

    According to the logic of Batya, if you are an anti-Nazi you are also an anti-christian and anti-german. Is she building bridges with Nazis and promoting the inclusion of Nazis in human rights movements? If not why not?

    • annie on June 15, 2018, 7:12 pm

      i really (strongly) do not think she is building bridges w/nazis.

      • Citizen on June 16, 2018, 4:13 am

        How about with Richard Spencer?

  9. echinococcus on June 16, 2018, 1:28 am

    The absurdity of a demand for a place for the Zionists among the oppressed of any type is duly noted, but Zios will be Zios, what do you expect?

    But then intersex… pardon, intersection, ehm, ality is even worse than its name (whose inventress, also named here for posterity, seems to strongly discriminate against short, plain English words but passim). If, as the article clearly says, “is precisely not about promoting hierarchies of oppression”, well then its objective result is that of diluting political struggle. All of history only shows any wins when one target with the most enemies is isolated at any one moment and all the enemies of that target are brought together, no matter their other, and various, preferences, no matter their otherwise divergent policies.

    Yes, there are hierarchies and how! And they are such that only one common, high priority is possible at any one moment. If you are trying to knock down imperialist aggression with a precedence for Palestine, and eliminating religious superstition (just an irrelevant example picked at random to offend a minimum of well-meaning souls) are for you two objective with exactly the same high priority, you won’t be useful in any of the two fights.

    That’s basically why there is no real, organized progress in our days.

Leave a Reply