Analysis of the relationship between Israel - fixation and Jew hatred

Great Debates
1

In may threads (and the “is calling Mary and ant-semite cheapening the term” thread is one of them), the issue of whether excessive focus on the misdeeds of Israel is a “sign of anti-Semitism” has come up.

In my opinion, most of the usual answers are quite wrong - because the issue is not a simple and straightforward “yes” or “no”. Many Jews, for example, focus as obsessively on Israeli misdeeds as non-Jews. Do they hate themselves? Clearly, hating (or rather obsessing) about Israeli misdeeds is not of necessity a sign of anti-Semitism. And yet, the two are not of necessity divorced, either.

That surely depends on why one obsesses about Israel Israel. If the reason is that Israel has lots of Jews in it, than hating Israel is indeed a sign of anti-semitism.

Put it this way: if anti-Semitism is the disease, than Israel-hatred is one of the symptoms.

However, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Israel that have nothing to do with hating Jews, so Israel-obsession (indeed, even quite apparently irrational and prejudiced Israel-hatred) is not of necessity a symptom of Jew hatred.

The situation is complicated because, for reasons that have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with left-wing worship at the shrine of anti-colonialism and retroactive guilt, reflexive dislike of Israel has become a left-wing shibboleth for some. This in turn allows a lot of genuine Jew-haters (who used to be a right-wing phenom) to gain legitimacy by joining up under the lefty banner.

The result: lefty knee-jerk Israel dislikers, puffed up with self-righteousness and third world sympathy, find accusations of being anti-Semitic either laughable or outrageous (or both) attempts at a smear. They know they don’t hate Jews. Indeed, some of them are Jews.

On the other hand, they tend to turn a blind eye to the Jew hating conspiracy cranks and others who, metaphorically, march alongside them.

Unfortunately, over time, there does seem to be a sort of osmosis of opinions that occurs. Increasingly, some on the left have become more concerned with cranky old anti-Semitic canards concerning Jewish capitalists, neo-cons and “control of America” than seems healthy in terms of sanity … while retaining the belief that, of course, their true concern is the oppressed of the world and uncovering the truth, etc.

Why the emotional bond of the Left with the Israel issue? Why not Tibetians, or Timorese, or the unfolding tragedy of Africa, or a hundred other issues?

Well, there are I think a number of reasons. Certainly, 9/11 and the current war in Iraq and Afganistan have focussed attention on the middle-east in general, and thus on the big excuse for every sort of violence, oppression and terrorism in that region - Israel. And certainly, the recent failure of the peace process, the Intafada, and Israel’s violent reaction to it have made an impression … but the left’s interest in the region predates all of that.

No, the main reason seems to be an emotional one. With the fall of colonialism as a reality, the left needed a symbol, a rallying point, an issue. Vietnam worked in the '60s; then came anti-Apartheid; unfortunately, after that, there were few obvious examples (although many not so obvious) of what could be trotted out as “the misdeeds of the West”. Neo-colonialism proved to be rather too diffuse an issue to have real emotive power. The misdeeds of China, Indonesia, African nations etc. also lack resonance for most, as “the West” could only be blamed tangentally. Israel, however, fits the bill perfectly - a seeming enclave of “the West”, inserted at the behest of colonial powers, causing displacement of suffering locals … Israel could be the new “South Africa”.

What think all of you? Is the theory sound, mistaken, offensively wrong?

It is in this, the need to find a scapegoat and symbol, that the current obsession with Israel lies. It is just an unfortunate historical fact that the choice of scapegoat and symbol is a nation composed mainly of Jews - Europe’s traditional scapegoat and symbol. I think this is mainly a co-incidence, but has had unfortunate effects because of the osmosis of opinions alluded to above.

2

Your characterisation of my thread is grossly incorrect. It has nothing to do with “is Mary Robinson and Anti-Semite”. It’s about wether the continual attempts to portray people who are critical of Israeli actions as being antisemitic as a means of dismissing their arguements.

Also, you seem to think that Leftists don’t care about other issues. thats quite a large brush you are painting with.

3

If they can be divorced, they clearly should.

They do? I do? Jew-hatred is utterly contemptible. Should anyone give me reason to believe that their hatred of Israeli policy is mired in hatred of Jews, I would fix my most piercing gaze upon them and let them know in no uncertain terms how utterly I condemn their Jew-hatred.

Thy have my sympathy also. Start a thread on them and I’ll convince you of that.

The theory being that hatred of Israeli policy is emotional? Sound, insofar as my reaction to the suffering caused directly by state-sanctioned terrorist actions is an emotional one. The word for feeling no empathy with people who are clearly suffering is “psychopathy”. I hereby unreservedy condemn non-state terrorist actions in equal measure etc. etc. etc…

4

Really? I thought it was about whether calling her an anti-Semite cheapens the term.

I had no idea it was more general than that, but if you say so, I’m willing to buy it.

Personally, I think that the use of “anti-Semite” to condemn those overly-critical of Israel in a mistake - for the reasons I have given; because it ain’t so simple.

Surely, leftists care about a host of other issues. But none, as far as I can see, as obsessively as this one. The imbalance of focus is quite obvious, and I think does call for an explaination. I prefer mine (because I think it more correct) to “they are all Jew haters”.

5

I am offering an analysis, not a prescription. That is, I am providing my opinion of how things are, not how things ought to be.

Unfortunately, you are not the totality of leftists. Admirable, though.

That is part of the issue - when is the last time anyone started a thread about them, or for that matter, gave them much thought, sympathy or attention in any other way?

The ratio of “Israel this-and-that” threads (and newspaper articles, books, and punditry in general) to “non-Israel this and that” is startling, to say the least. Surely, this cries out for some sort of explaination … does it not?

What is the word for focussing on one issue to the point of myopia?

Or, do you really believe that the relatively small number of Palistinians killed by what you like to term “state-sanctioned terrorism” are worth far more sympathy and attention than the literally exponential orders of magnitude of persons also killed by government decree – elsewhere?

To my mind, this state of affairs requires (nay, begs) for a reasoned analysis. I don’t think saying so makes me a psychopath … :slight_smile:

6

Actually, I think I may well be typical. If any leftists disagree, I’m sure they will pipe up using that whining high-pitched mewl I use so regularly.

Well, it’s hardly one-sided - it is just as likely that a conservative will start such a thread.
Like I said, be my guest in starting one on another subject - I’ll join in your thread if I have something useful to offer.

Rigour?

I said clearly that I don’t believe any such thing.

7

I can’t speak for all lefties, but for me personally, it’s not an obsession at all. The reason you see a lot of condemnation of Israeli policies is that there are a lot of posts defending Israeli policies. If a poster ever claims that suicide bombers are doing the right thing, and should be supported by the world at large, you’ll see equal levels of condemnation.

So, when was the last time you saw a post unconditionally defending the suicide bombers?

Note: Understanding the mindset of suicide bombers is not the same thing as defending them. I also understand the mindset of the Israelis who want vengeance, but don’t defend them either.

If there were fewer posts claiming that assasinations, illegal settlements, etc. were all peachy, there would be a LOT fewer posts saying otherwise. As usual, I could give a rats ass about what class a person belongs to, as Jews are just like everyone else to me. Some are great, some are asses, and most are just normal folks trying to get by. It’s the government of Israel and its defenders I have a problem with. I have similar problems with the leaders of the Palestinians, but this board doesn’t get swamped with their defenders.

8

I don’t but into what SentientMeat says, that if someone starts a thread about the Tibetans s/he will show the world that s/he cares about them as well. The point is, the left *does not * mobilise in defense of the oppresed Tibetans. It’s quite simple, really. From what I see, there has been not one demonstration about them, or about gay rights in Cuba, for that matter.

It’s all very well to say that you care about the Tibetans, but it seems obvious that you care more deeply about the Palestinians. The fact that you are willing to use the term ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ referring to Israeli actions says it all. That term is so blatantly one-sided that I find it hard, really hard to believe that you feel exactly the same way about the Chinese occupation.

If the left cares about all the oppressed equally, then I would expect from them a more balanced approach towards bringing attention to the plight of all ethnicities, none excluded, preference for none.

And that is clearly not the case. If you can prove it is otherwise, do it. But to say you care about Tibet while calling Israel a sponsor of terrorism demonstrates to me at least, that you do not.

Have you ever used that term for China? What is your position on the Rwandan genocide? Are you aware of fascism in Burma, do you read up on that? How do you feel about Castro? North Koreans? Women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan? When was the last time you fought for their rights, with deeds or words?

9

I’m not so sure.

There have been many occasions (Durban Conference springs to mind, but I could also cite the actions of students at our very own Carlton University and a host of other academic institution, the “Israel divestment” campaign, etc. etc …) where leftist voices have been notable by their silence in condemning quite explicit anti-Jew/anti Israel conflation - usually characterised by the “yes, but …” response.

Which is to say, “yes, there are some misguided souls out there … but their anger is understandable, given (Israeli atrocities and general badness).”

The problem is, the more the “yes, but” reaction continues, the more excuses are made … the more osmosis of opinions occurs; until the understandable becomes the laudable.

True enough. But so what? That isn’t the issue.

Conservatives haven’t made the wrongs of the world their concern to the same extent as lefties.

I could well turn my guns around and analyse why concervatives tend to support Israel, despite a long history of conservative dislike of Jews. My answer would be something like this:

“Conservatives tend to admire achievement, wheras lefties tend to succor victims. Thus, in the Israel/Palistine situation, conservatives tend to see Israelis as the heros - building an enclave of democracy out of a hostile middle east; whereas lefties tend to see them as oppressors - they identify with the victims of Israeli “heroism”. In American terms, the Israelis are the cowboys and the Palistinians are the Indians”

Which is all very well, but the question is - why these heros and victims, more than any others?

For many conservatives of a religious bent, the answer lies in religion; for others, the answer lies in the very extent of the achievement - a (european) rags to (Israeli) riches story, Horatio Alger writ large.

For lefties, the answer lies in the fact that these heros are identified with the West. A bunch of Arabs oppressing other Arabs rates barely a notice.

Which is sort of ironic, as a considerable portion of the Israeli “Western oppressors” were in fact Arabs a generation ago - Jewish arabs, the Shephardim, largely driven from the Arab world (to general indifference I may add - most people, even those well acquainted with the plight of the Palistinians, don’t even know their story).

Why indifference? I think because their oppressors were not of the West, and some internal convolution of the ME rates little notice.

So, Shephardim in Israel graduate to “Western” status, and their ‘misdeeds’ are worthy of note; the same Shephardim being ethnically cleansed from the ME is not.

I wouldn’t mind if you would confirm or deny my perception on this point first. :slight_smile:

:smiley:

I think you get my point.

Really? Where? :confused:

10

Well, as to your point, I believe the exact opposite is true - people post a lot of stuff defending Israeli actions, because Israel gets criticized so very often. Without attacks, no need for defence.

Indeed, I think this point rather obvious.

The stuff about supporting suicide bombers is a pure red herring. I am talking about criticism, not irrational spewing of hatred and/or calls for violence. The latter is, indeed, rather rare.

11

This thread is absurd. To pull out ones broadest brush, and say “the left” doesn’t care about a particular issue just because that issue doesn’t happen to be in the news this week, and so it hasn’t been mentioned a lot this week, is so fucking ridiculous, I don’t even know what to say. Liberals don’t care about Tibet? DON’T CARE ABOUT TIBET!!! There are so many VW vans with “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, one would think they put them on at the Volkswagen factory.

What do you want, a thread about freeing Tibet? Yeah, that’d be really interesting:

“Tibet should be free”
“I agree”
“What he said”
“I agree with that last guy”
“Yup, me too”…
:rolleyes:

12

At the risk of sounding simplistic, I think the main reason Israeli misdeeds are discussed so often is because they are given so much attention in the Media. and because there so many of them. :slight_smile:

Seriously, Israel makes the news far more often that either Tibet or Burma, etc, and I think that’s because the Israeli / Palestinian issue is far more significant to the US and UK in terms of regional stability and foreign policy.

The eyes of the world are on the Middle East, so is it really all that surprising that Israel is discussed so much?

13

[minor hijack, begs forgiveness]

The Radical Party of Italy is the only example that comes to my mind of a fair and balanced approach (no, not Foxnews) to injustice.

They have a rightist approach on economic issues, a leftist approach to human rights and are libertarian on personal choices. They get less than 1% of the vote in Italy.

If any of you know her, the last UE commissioner on human rights, Emma Bonino, belongs to the Radical Party. They also support non-violence; most groups they defend do not resort to violence. This is their website in english: Transnational Radical Party

[/hijack intended to demonstrate classic leftist imbalance]

14

I can neither confirm nor deny your perception of anything. So I won’t bother.

15

Ooh. Bumper stickers. GD threads. Yes, that really helps.

Do you seriously believe that is what activists do to support the Palestinians? Where were you while westerners play human shields in Gaza, with or without stickers on their backpack? Have you seen the abundance of kefiahs as fashion/political statements? Come to Europe if you’re not here already, I’ll show you around. Should I mention fundraisings for “martyrs” families, street demonstrations with people wearing fake suicide belts, the list goes on. That is caring.

16

I think you have the cart before the horse there … the left turned against Israel long before the recent explosion of interest in the ME (though it has long been a hot spot). So the latter did not cause the former. Nor did the former cause the latter. That was a result of the failed peace process, 9/11, the war in Iraq and Afganistan, etc. etc.

In other words, the two are entirely unrelated. “Israel/Palistine” was a big leftist cause long, long before these events (a fact that I have seen mentioned as an example of the prophetic nature of leftist concern!)

[Interestingly, the left used to broadly support Israel]

17

Okay - I want to play nice; so I will admit I worded that badly, rather than getting all annoyed. :slight_smile:

How about: “do you think I am right or wrong on that point, objectively speaking?”

In case I wasn’t clear, I mean “is my perception” (a subjective term) validated by your (also subjective) impression of the (objective facts of the situation, on the assumption that such exists although they can never be known with absolute precision)? :smiley:

I can play all day, but it would be more fun if you would answer the question.

18

It depends upon what you mean by “the left”. If by “the left” you mean what it has traditionally meant- Communist and Socialist movements- then Israel was always a whipping post, and Jews were held up as a bogeymen in the Soviet Union from the get-go. Leftists hated Jews for, paradoxically, the same reason that rightists did: a belief that all Jews were ultra-nationalist about Israel. To rightists, who wanted a nation that was ultra-national about their own state, Jews were obviously traitors and could never be trusted. Leftists, on the other hand, always wanted to pull down barriers and create a new humanistic, world-brotherhood mindset (whether communistic worker-worlds or idealistic “I love you, man” communes), and Jews were in their eyes too fiercely tribal and innately nationalistic to be trusted.

Palestinians as a benighted oppressed people and Israel as a country to be spat upon have been terms held by the radical left since at least the early '80’s. IMO, the current surging of the issue is due to an increased focus on the Middle East, and a lack of other cohesive causes in the protest-chic groups.

19

At the risk of sounding just as simplistic, I’d agree. The fact of the matter is that Israel has been constantly in the world’s eye, at least since the first intifida and this attracts attention. Most lefties, like most righties, indeed most people everywhere are…well, not sheep exactly, but they have a natural tendency to focus on what’s in front of them. Further there is a feedback system - the more political activists see on the media things that disturb them, the more vocally agitated they become, the more it becomes news and worth ratings, the more disturbing things are shown, the more agitated people become, etc.

In contrast you did see a big lefty ( and righty, but particularly college-age “liberals” ) stink about Tibet about a decade ago, because there was a sudden upsurge in media coverage, what with the ‘Free Tibet’ concerts, including vocal agitation by such celebrities as the Beastie Boys. You couldn’t drive around the SF Bay Area ( ground central for all things left in the U.S. ) for very long without seeing "Free Tibet’ bumperstickers. Similarly when the East Timor issue hit ( not quite as emotive, but there was plenty of leftist outrage when the claim was broadcast that for years the U.S. had silently acquiesced to Indonesian abuse ).But Tibet is isolated and run by a Chniese government that is absolutely fanatical about cracking down on press coverage. East Timor is nominally independent and hardly at the center of things. Burma gets some coverage ( mostly about Aung Sun Ki ), but not much.

Israel however, remains front and center in the public view, all the more so since 2001. It is a strategic pivot point in world politics and has numerous meaty themes that impact on the public consciousness - from the impact of colonialism, to westernization and the scars of recent history, to anti-Semitism, to issues of Third World poverty and corruption, to its position as a center of all the major Abrahamic religions. The obsessive attention paid to it by both the right and the left is natural IMHO.

  • Tamerlane
20

AFAIK, wrong. The left switched sides after the 1967 war, when Israel turned from victim to winner.