tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post7992755989353913889..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: Reading Hannah Arendt in Cafe Cremabobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-50080285611166899352009-04-19T00:32:00.000+01:002009-04-19T00:32:00.000+01:00Vildechaye - I didn't say that zionists caused or ...Vildechaye - I didn't say that zionists caused or were responsible for the holocaust. I said, contrary to Isaac Deutscher's assertion, that more Jews died in the holocaust because of the collaboration of different branches of the zionist movement with the nazis than would have died without that collaboration. <br /><br />Holocaust deniers aren't part of the discussion because holocaust deniers deny the holocaust. I believe that without the collaboration of the zionist movement, other things being equal, more Jews would have escaped from nazi Germany before 1938/9 than actually did and that was because of the Transfer or <I>ha'avara</I> agreement. Look it up, there are whole books about it and not all by anti-zionists.<br /><br />The collaboration of zionists in Hungary in 1944 also led to more Jews being killed than would otherwise have been the case.<br /><br />Look vildechaye - I am not a zionist. I believe that Israel, based as it is on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and racist laws, should not exist as a state specially for Jews but that it should be for all of its people.<br /><br />That's it, that's all. You say that Israel is special on account of the suffering of Jews in the past. I am saying it does indeed make itself special but its specialness cannot be justified by reference to the past. We all have to be bound by roughly the same rules or rules that yield roughly the same outcome. Israel isn't bound by any rules that apply to any other state today. Plenty from yesterday but not today.<br /><br />But you don't have to invent arguments on my part. My position is clear.levi9909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10553481056544494411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-72227571387651797792009-04-18T07:16:00.000+01:002009-04-18T07:16:00.000+01:001. NWO 9 April. I am against all identity politics...1. NWO 9 April. I am against all identity politics, not for its extension to whites. I do value the white working class, but not as “male, Christian and English”. Incidentally, I don’t understand the logic, shared by some Harryists (and perhaps by Jogo) that the white nationalist right is strengthened by (liberals) “vilifying” white people, while the Islamic right is strengthened by (liberals) not vilifying Muslims enough. --- Bob<br /><br /><br />Your making a false analogy. White people, English, males, are not the equivalent of Islam, an ideology. <br /><br />A more correct comparison would be Christianity and Islam. And even there the Western Left gets a fail, generally.<br /><br />None of those groups is the threat to human rights and liberty that the large and quickly growign immigrant Islamic population is.<br /><br />And furthermore, it doesnt matter that you in particular dont support identity politics, that is the game that dominates, and was developed by the Western Left to attack the institutions and Western status quo. So not playing it and playing hardball to win, is effectively a nihilist position, which (as has been shown) will necessarily lead to the railroading(oppression, discrimination, and ill treatment) of those who dont or arent allowed to play.<br /><br />It not a matter of what is right or wrong, but what is. That the Western Left created this game and use it to their own political purposes is to their eternal shame. I dont particularly like it either, but bitching about it doesnt do a damn thing. Time to organize and fight for our groups empowerment, fair treatment, and well being.<br /><br />I dont see the Western Left denouncing identity politics en masse, do you?nwonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-87746221588100857882009-04-17T16:05:00.000+01:002009-04-17T16:05:00.000+01:00E- Who am I ranting against? I am "ranting" agains...E- Who am I ranting against? I am "ranting" against anyone who supports Hamas (or Hezbollah, or any other reactionary nationalist outfit that claims to represent "the Palestinians") either because it is supposed to represen the national aspirations of the Palestinian people or because it is considered part of the anti-imperialist struggle. I am "ranting" against anyone who supports any conceptin of Palestinian national liberation without supporting Jewish national self-determination. I am "ranting" againt anyone who thinks that the nationalist prism is the correct prism through which to view this particular issue. If you are not one of those people, then I am not ranting against you!<br /><br />---<br /><br />I hoped to have time today to say something about the earlier issues on this obese thread, but I don't and probably won't have time before Monday, so please don't interpret my silence over the weekend as some kind of admission I am utterly lacking in personal integrity. There were three big points I wanted to make: that nationality (as a legal construct) and nationhood (as understood by nationalist movements) are not the same thing; that Israel differs from other nation-states in kind (rather than degree) ONLY in its involvement of its diaspora BUT that this is not IN ITSELF an indictment of it (altho it is to the extent this involvement is at the cost of Palestinians); that in all other ways Israel is an extreme case of the logic of nation-states. None of these points should be construed as "defences" of Israel, even if, in this case, they are articulated in opposition to criticism of Israel. See you all next week.Bobhttp://brockley.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-18256048389613142122009-04-17T11:51:00.000+01:002009-04-17T11:51:00.000+01:00Bob,
you are working yourself up about imaginary ...Bob, <br />you are working yourself up about imaginary issues that only exist in the mind of a special section of formerly left, presently supporting apartheid pundits. <br /><br />It is nice of you to define the concrete struggle that you support as not nationalist, but surely you must be aware that nationalists do see them as nationalist struggles. <br /><br /><I>nationalist struggles, such as for the "right" of Palestinians to be ruled by this set of theocratic maniacs or that set of corrupt authoritarians, or for the "right" to drive the Jews into the sea, are NOT in the interests of ordinary Palestinians.</I>Of course not, and neither I nor anyone I am in touch with supports these goals. So what exactly is your problem? Who are you ranting against? <br /><br />The closet I came to your rant is say the Palestinians have a right to chose their representatives. Let's agree that we don't have to like their choices and they can make choices that we may think suck. Who do you think SHOULD have the right to chose the Palestinian representatives with which other states should interact? <br /><br /><I>But if those nationalists and theocrats, etc, started using the day to day campaign as mainly a platform for articulating demands for national domination, say, or for Islamic law, then a principled person would reject that.</I>And your point is?... who are you arguing against?Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-39646421520518259462009-04-17T10:11:00.000+01:002009-04-17T10:11:00.000+01:00Can you explain to me how concrete struggles that ...<EM>Can you explain to me how concrete struggles that are de facto supported by nationalists and that most people join them out of nationalist conviction, for example, the struggle against land expropriation, are "not in the interest" of Palestinians?</EM>The struggle against land expropriation, against the demolition of unrecognised villages, against the wall, against the brutality of occupation, against settlements, etc - these struggles, which I support, are not nationalist struggles. They are struggles over real, important issues. In contrast, nationalist struggles, such as for the "right" of Palestinians to be ruled by this set of theocratic maniacs or that set of corrupt authoritarians, or for the "right" to drive the Jews into the sea, are NOT in the interests of ordinary Palestinians. <br /><br /><EM>Anarchists Against The Wall... This is not about "their material," it is about what they are doing and who they are doing it with. If they refused to work with Palestinian nationalists or support their struggle they would have to stay home, as you do. I never said you have to become a nationalist.</EM>Sorry, no, it is not just about the content of their "material"; I also meant I had not read enough about what they actually do, so I am not confident about what I am saying about them. On the sort of day to day struggles that I mentioned above (against the wall, against the uprooting of orchards, etc), a principled position would be to work with whoever is working on the ground to address that, in a practical non-sectarian way. Obviously, this might mean working with nationalists, with theocrats, etc. But if those nationalists and theocrats, etc, started using the day to day campaign as mainly a platform for articulating demands for national domination, say, or for Islamic law, then a principled person would reject that. <br /><br /><EM>What "demands" of the reactionary "hamas" leadership you specifically refuse to support? Do you oppose their demand to end the siege, open the borders, not burn Palestinians with white phosphorous, recognize the result of elections?</EM> It should be obvious to you that opening the borders is something I call for, that the use of white phosphorous is wrong. When Hamas says this, I don't disagree with Hamas. If all Hamas was was a nice human rights organisation, I'd support them, as I support other Palestinian human rights organisations. But they are not. The Hamas Charter is pretty unambiguous. I cannot possibly support the demands of Hamas as st out in the Charter. and no can anyone with any working moral compass, let alone anyone who claims to care about the oppressed or who claims to take a class analysis. <br /><br />I'm running late now, back later.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-14688843685067407172009-04-17T09:43:00.000+01:002009-04-17T09:43:00.000+01:00Evildoer, nationalism may be "popular", but that d...<I>Evildoer, nationalism may be "popular", but that doesn't mean it is in the interests of the working class or other oppressed people.</I>You are trying to make life simple for yourself by flattening up "nationalism." Can you explain to me how concrete struggles that are de facto supported by nationalists and that most people join them out of nationalist conviction, for example, the struggle against land expropriation, are "not in the interest" of Palestinians?<br /><br /><I>Anarchists Against The Wall are not, to my mind, de facto pro-nationalist (although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise on this, as I have only read a little of their material).</I>This is not about "their material," it is about what they are doing and who they are doing it with. If they refused to work with Palestinian nationalists or support their struggle they would have to stay home, as you do. I never said you have to become a nationalist.<br /><br /><I>And the notion of always deferring to the "oppressed" (or, rather, in reality, their bourgeois leaders) in defining what the problem and solution is, is pathetic. We should provide practical solidarity when they are resisting oppression, but never unconditionally support the demands of reactionary leaderships.<br /></I>What "demands" of the reactionary "hamas" leadership you specifically refuse to support? Do you oppose their demand to end the siege, open the borders, not burn Palestinians with white phosphorous, recognize the result of elections?Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-54588942200216681062009-04-17T09:16:00.000+01:002009-04-17T09:16:00.000+01:00As a general rule of thumb, I tend not to read dis...As a general rule of thumb, I tend not to read discussion threads of more than a dozen, at most two dozen, comments. The returns diminish rapidly. And the readership presumably diminishes too (especially on a Z-list blog like this one), making it self-indulgent to participate. Sometimes, genuine debates open up, where people are actually interested in arguing something through, in learning from each other. But more often this is not the case. However, as this is my blog, I'm kind of duty-bound to at least read the comments, and as my personal integrity has been questioned, and as some of my most basic political positions have been either misunderstood or misrepresented, I feel committed to join in. Unfortunately, the timing has not been good for me. You'll notice that my blogging output in the month of April has been 4 posts (compared to, say, 28 at Jews sans Frontieres): I have lots of other things to do. So, apologies for my slow responses. I'm out and about today, but I'll try and find an internet cafe at lunchtime, as I have now read the whole of this thread, and have several things to say!<br /><br />On the last couple of comments, Modernity is certainly not my spokesperson, but I agree with every word of his last comment.<br /><br />Evildoer, nationalism may be "popular", but that doesn't mean it is in the interests of the working class or other oppressed people. Lots of ideologies are embraced by the little folks, but that don't make em emancipatory. Your idea of "liberation" is also thin. Being "liberated" from an external oppressor does not make you free, as we can see in postcolonial Africa. And the notion of always deferring to the "oppressed" (or, rather, in reality, their bourgeois leaders) in defining what the problem and solution is, is pathetic. We should provide practical solidarity when they are resisting oppression, but never unconditionally support the demands of reactionary leaderships. <br /><br />Finally, Anarchists Against The Wall are not, to my mind, de facto pro-nationalist (although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise on this, as I have only read a little of their material). Their naming is quite clever: it forestalls any support for state-based "liberation" while being clear that it is against the specific, concrete (literally in this case) experience of oppression. In the UK, the No War But The Class War groups have been a good example of how to be against one's own government without being de facto "for" the reactionary thugs on the other side. That's, I think, the sort of thing WS is talking about - although I am not his spokesperson either. ("His"? that's another assumption.)<br /><br />By the way, WS, I hate to bloat this thread further, but what was your view of the "British jobs" wildcat strikes?bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-55703641378570124222009-04-17T02:10:00.000+01:002009-04-17T02:10:00.000+01:00I didn't want to comment again on this thread, bec...I didn't want to comment again on this thread, because I thought it was a bit of an imposition on Bob but a number of points have come up which I feel need dealing with:<br /><br />1. Attitude and 2. Lopsidedness.<br /><br />1. I think that many anti-Zionists or non nationalists don't always fully appreciate the sensitivities surrounding Israel, not unsurprisingly people connected with it, directly or indirectly, are occasionally defensive and assume the worse possible motives when people make demagogic statements against Israel or the Israelis.<br /><br />Understandably so. Consider if you were in a forum discussing Ireland and you made a habit of being overly critical of Irish nationalism, in all its forms, then I'm sure that you'd receive a rebuke or two<br /><br />So the topic of Israel, the Middle East, etc is already loaded and that leads to unnecessary friction and misunderstandings simply because people are slightly less charitable on motives nowadays.<br /><br />A point worth remembering.<br /><br />2. The topic of lopsidedness is key to understanding why some "anti-Zionists" have a habit of getting up other people's noses.<br /><br />Not because of their arguments, not for the desire to discuss these issues but rather the mischaracterisation of other people's arguments. The result is that any discussion descends into a slanging match as the "anti-Zionists" make no effort to understand the points raised. <br /><br />A prime example was the statement by Elf above, <I>"But anyway, Bob made several points to try to make out that opposition to Israel was "lopsided" and <B>therefore</B> motivated by antisemitism."</I>Whereas Bob had originally argued <I>"Anyone who defines themselves as an anti-Zionist is lopsidely obsessed with one nation. There may perhaps be good faith reasons to be lopsidedly obsessed with Israel, but these are surely outweighed by the bad faith reasons, such as antisemitism."</I>Compare that with later part with <I>"that opposition to Israel was "lopsided" and <B>therefore</B> motivated by antisemitism."</I>This is precisely what Bob did not argue, because it excludes his previous statement <I>"There may perhaps be good faith reasons to be lopsidedly obsessed with Israel, "</I> which is a polite way of saying (as far as I read it, and Bob will correctly), that not all lopsidedness is motivated by the worst possible motives, ie. anti-Jewish racism. <br /><br />So that's a fairly simple statement, and even that was misconstrued.<br /><br />But I don't particularly want to engage with Elf, himself, rather use it as an illustration.<br /><br />Just so no "anti-Zionists" are left in any doubt, on **my** view, not Bob's. In my view, a lopsided obsession with Israel does not necessarily (I repeat: does not) have to be motivated by antisemitism.<br /><br />Whilst I'm not particularly interested in questioning individual's motivations, as without psychiatric help that seems an unproductive avenue, but the issue is examining the shorten reasoning on that statement, because clearly there are many possible reasons for such lopsidedness and antisemitism is only **one** possible cause.<br /><br />Again, lopsidedness does not necessarily have to be motivated by antisemitism. It could be, but then again it doesn't have to be. <br /><br />Lopsidedness could come as a result of a political climate in the country, an activists political agenda, recent tragic events which galvanise individuals, or an overly simplistic view of the Middle East, a misreading of history, political ignorance, political indoctrination, a failure to grasp Soviet "anti-Zionism" and how it permeates chunks of the Left, or even a genuine heartfelt solidarity with the Palestinians, etc.<br /><br />Those are but a few possibilities, and there are probably more.<br /><br />Now anyone moderately rational would see that lopsidedness could have several causes, not just one, as indicated by Elf's statement, but it highlights the problem that a few simple words could so easily be misconstrued and a whole sequence extrapolated from that error.<br /><br />Finally, and I would like no "anti-Zionists" to misunderstand my point, when you expressly put yourself against something be it, anti-religious, anti-a particular country, or anti-a certain idea, then it is incumbent on you to logically and **objectively** explain the criteria for your choice. That is if you are rational. <br /><br />Because until you do that there is always the potential assumption that your anti-position, is not motivated by the best of intentions but possibly by some prejudice, chip on your shoulder, pet loathing or irrational grudge.<br /><br />Of course, as an "anti-Zionist", you might not see it like that but that's how it comes over.ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-84374023705019760962009-04-17T00:16:00.000+01:002009-04-17T00:16:00.000+01:00I already did. Anarchists Against the Wall do not ...<I>I already did. Anarchists Against the Wall do not take a nationalist position.<br /><br />There is an issue in Israel however, though it's not unique to there. I'll admit freely that one of the major problems is that those groups most likely to take an anti-nationalist position, are stuck in the quagmire of lifestylism and stuff like animal rights...I suspect that may be our first point of absolute agreement).<br /></I>well, I certainly welcome the agreement, but I think it is wroth digging deeper. AATW is as group that de facto, by the struggles it involves itself in, supports Palestinian nationalism. My contention is simply this, and strengthened by your last words; in a context when oppression is primarily defined by nationality (by the oppressors), national resistance and struggle are so historically essential that regardless how you you feel about the many problems with nationalism, if you want to contribute to liberation in any way, you must ally with it at some level, and if you do not, you end up as indeed a "life style" revolutionary, or even an outright reactionary.<br /><br />That does not mean you have to become a nationalist, or give up class analysis, or leave your criticism behind. It means however you cannot dismiss nationalism as simply "bourgeois" reaction and you have work with it.<br /><br />(As an aside, I don't think nationalism is purely bourgeois. It's powerful bourgeois tool precisely because it contains a popular aspect that appeals primarily to the working class. but that is a different issue)<br /><br /><I>But this sums up everything wrong with the left. "Who cares about effectiveness? Let's do it anyway!". Moralistic gesture politics at its 'finest'.</I>You are reading into what I wrote about BDS things that I never said, (and you might want to think what led you to this).<br /><br />I never implied that BDS is not effective. Indeed I think it is. I am not going to argue this here but you are always welcome to our blog when we often deal with that question. <br /><br />My point was that you take it for granted that, without deeply involving yourself in the work in the region, without asking yourself about your standing, and without examining the facts and the arguments in a way that unites theory and pracitce, i.e., as a casual observer (and I do not criticize you for being one, there is more than one worthy struggle and only 24 hours in a day), you suggest that your support to this strategy and campaign should be predicated upon your personal opinion on its effectiveness. This seems to me not to be a well thought attitude.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-41381270618107937142009-04-16T21:15:00.000+01:002009-04-16T21:15:00.000+01:00Just came back to look at some follow up and read ...Just came back to look at some follow up and read Bob's sane responses to Levi's latest latet rant, another illustration of excessive verbosity but little more. The only thing worse than a nutter is a long-winded nutter, and seeing how much Levi seems love his own writing and voice, he definitely fits into the latter category.vildechayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00510671947455119566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-84934163986659971312009-04-16T19:25:00.000+01:002009-04-16T19:25:00.000+01:00Contentious Centrist and New Centrist are both cen...Contentious Centrist and New Centrist are both centrists but we are not the same person.TNCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-70887187056790935502009-04-16T18:59:00.000+01:002009-04-16T18:59:00.000+01:00I'm not TNC.I'm not TNC.The Contentious Centristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370528817706233156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-48620632369660994882009-04-16T17:37:00.000+01:002009-04-16T17:37:00.000+01:00TNC-
On the other hand, I did fully clarify that ...TNC-<br /><br />On the other hand, I did fully clarify that statement when you queried it.<br /><br />That's something of a side issue for me.<br /><br />Because I don't in any way argue with the point that I can be aggressive and even dismissive in debate. I don't even deny that I sometimes personally attack people (I'm prone to the occasional apolitical flamewar for the lulz, as the young people say) although I honestly don't believe I attacked you personally in this thread. I'll happily hold up my hands to having attacked your politics, and not always civily.<br /><br />But I don't care if people respond in kind. That's what I'm taking issue with as far as you're concerned. You do come across as wanting to throw rhetorical punches, while taking the moral high ground at the same time.<br /><br />Quite honestly, it's one or the other for me.Waterloo Sunsetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-48809225794977309702009-04-16T14:26:00.000+01:002009-04-16T14:26:00.000+01:00Frankly, the discussion should have ended when Lev...Frankly, the discussion should have ended when Levi wrote the following:<br /><br />"[T]he State of Israel is unique in that it invites and mobilises people with no known connection to the country (except via mythology/religion) to come and live there..."<br /><br />Jews who fail to understand the historical connection of the Jewish people with the land of Israel are a lost cause. They are not worth your time or energy, Bob.<br /><br />Even secular Jews acknowledge the evidence of Jewish habitation in Israel. You don’t have to be a religious Jew or a Zionist to recognize this. All you have do is open your eyes to reality. Better yet, go to Israel.TNCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-15004936955479016632009-04-16T14:18:00.000+01:002009-04-16T14:18:00.000+01:00Ah, I think I just worked out the lie I told. I sa...Ah, I think I just worked out the lie I told. I said I <EM>just</EM> got insulted again and again, when in fact I was insulted, but <EM>also</EM> argued with. Is that it? I have no idea, though, what you're talking about with the "boasting" thing. <br /><br />Because otherwise, I don't know what you're getting at really. I don't mind being insulted, it's just I don't want to hang out at your blog if that's what I get. I have limited time for this sort of thing. <br /><br />Just for the record, I don't think that all anti-Zionism is antisemitic, and I have never, on your thread, this thread or elsewhere, said that it is. For the record, I am not a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, but don't really care if I am called either of those things. I was curious to why you thought I was one and not the other. <br /><br />Also for the record, you will notice that my "regulars" are quite diverse: the four other main interlocuters in this debate have thoroughly different positions - an internationalist anarchist, a socialist, a centrist Israeli sort of Zionist, and some kind of white nationalist. I am not happy with the fourth of those hanging around at my place. But the space I hope I have created here is one where you don't identify it in terms of some pre-given ideological agenda or package that only appeals to people who are already convinced. For this reason, it has been described as a Zionist blog by you and by Lenin, while described as "Spartish" by another blogger and as "Bundist" by at least two regular visitors. <br /><br />I'll put a line through the "jsut" and come back tomorrow on the Hutu /Tutsi and India issues.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-53507996491770025872009-04-16T13:45:00.000+01:002009-04-16T13:45:00.000+01:00"Incidentally, I don’t understand the logic, share..."Incidentally, I don’t understand the logic, shared by some Harryists (and perhaps by Jogo) that the white nationalist right is strengthened by (liberals) “vilifying” white people, while the Islamic right is strengthened by (liberals) not vilifying Muslims enough."<br /><br />This is somewhat related:<br /><br />"Indeed, there is a feeling among more people than we might suspect that, with regard to those we call Islamists, we are really on the same side. This is certainly true of Western Europe where, as Bruce Bawer writes in While Europe Slept, “the multicultural elite [is], almost without exception, allied with the Islamic right.” Pascal Bruckner, in his recently published La Tyrannie de la Pénitence, has added a psychological twist to Europe’s hostility toward Israel and Jews, viewing it as an attempt to excuse its complicity with or passivity before Hitler’s Final Solution: if the Jewish state can be “proven” to be no different from or even worse than the Third Reich, then Europe is off the moral hook."<br /><br />http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/darkness-of-anti-semitism-descends-on-the-west/The Contentious Centristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370528817706233156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-73187272086810689852009-04-16T12:06:00.000+01:002009-04-16T12:06:00.000+01:00Bob - you cannot guage attitudes on blog threads u...Bob - you cannot guage attitudes on blog threads unless someome is explicity insulting and you jumped through several intellectually dishonest hoops before deciding that you had been "just insulted again and again". <br /><br />I did not misinterpret anything you said. You misrepresented what occurred in a thread where you claimed that Israel's uniquely racist state structure, that invites, indeed mobilises, Jews from anywhere in the world, no matter when or where they or their ancestors became Jewish, to come and live in most of Palestine whilst denying that right to most of the native non-Jewish population, actually bore comparison to at least three named states that are not at all like the State of Israel in their structure.<br /><br />It appears that you would rather falsely accuse innocent and honest anti-racists of antisemitism than accept that Israel stands out as a state whose very existence is predicated on its on-going human rights abuses.<br /><br />My only point here is that you lied in your post and you even boasted that someone else had misrepresented the thread at my blog as well.<br /><br />Trying to pass Israel off as similar to states that are at least nominally constituted for all of their people and not more for people from abroad than at home and being corrected does not amount to most people's view of "<I>just</I> being insulted again and again. The pearls of wisdom emanating from Contentious Centrist and Modernity Blog surely does but you don't seem too keen to post on that.<br /><br />I urge you to stop digging. You came and wasted my time by asking me why I said you were a zionist and you seemed to suggest that I had said that you have zionist content on your blog.<br /><br />I responded fully and offered to correct if I was wrong. Your subsuequent disingenuous defence of Israel merely confirmed to me what I had said. You are indeed a zionist by the definition I offered and you made no serious challenge to that definition.<br /><br />I was and am disappointed because I thought you may have naively been assuming that Israel is just a run of the mill human rights abusers but your claims to know things that you couldn't know, like India is to Hindus as Israel is to Jews, that Rwanda is to one or both of Hutus or Tutses is as Israel is to Jews or that Germany is to "ethnic Germans" as Israel is to Jews.<br /><br />You reduced all of that and more to a "non-argument" where you were "just insulted again and again".<br /><br />You are not simply a liar but a liar for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel and against at least three (possibly more) honest detractors of the State of Israel and the zionist ideology.<br /><br />Throughout the abuse that I have taken by people who seem to be regulars of yours, including a white supremacist that no one seemed to notice until I pointed it out, it struck me that you would rather falsely accuse people of antisemitism than recognise Israel's uniqueness, coupled with the privileged support it gets from America, the EU and the media but at the same time you leave a blog thread unmoderated so that any racist can come along and try to publicise their views.<br /><br />So even your expression of concern over antisemitism seems to be suspect even if it wasn't simply a very typically zionist shroud-waving exercise for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.<br /><br />If you have any integrity at all you would run a correction like I do when I get something wrong. If you already done so, then thanks. I've spent too much time on this already.levi9909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10553481056544494411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-46038975078774186302009-04-16T12:04:00.000+01:002009-04-16T12:04:00.000+01:00I printed out all the comments, which came to 56 p...I printed out all the comments, which came to 56 pages in pretty small font. I read it on the bus, but only got exactly half-way, to 12 April 00:56, where “Levi9909” pastes in 13 pages of comments from his blog (mostly comments by him). So here are my responses to some of the things in the first half of the discussion. <br /><br />1. <B>NWO 9 April</B>. I am against all identity politics, not for its extension to whites. I do value the white working class, but not <EM>as</EM> “male, Christian and English”. Incidentally, I don’t understand the logic, shared by some Harryists (and perhaps by Jogo) that the white nationalist right is strengthened by (liberals) “vilifying” white people, while the Islamic right is strengthened by (liberals) not vilifying Muslims enough. <br /><br />2. <B>”A” 9 April</B>. I am not “part of the brigade” that brands anti-Zionists as inherently antisemitic. Where do you see me doing that? <br /><br />3. <B>CC 10 April</B>. Anti-nationalism/internationalism is against <EM>all</EM> nationalisms, and often especially their own. Indeed, this is precisely a good litmus test for whether someone is a sincere anti-nationalist or primarily an anti-Zionist. <br /><br />4. <B>Levi 11 April 11:26</B>. Empirically, the evidence of an “inclusive” Palestinian nationalism is fairly thin. Edward Said might be a fairly exceptional (and arguably partial) example. The actually existing nationalist movement is hardly hospitable to Jewish Palestinians (aside from their token Satmer Hasids and Gilad Atzmon). Conceptually, there <EM>could</EM> be an inclusive Palestinian nationalism. However, if it really followed the logic of inclusion properly, there’d be no Palestinian nation. The logic of inclusion and the logic of nation-state are fundamentally opposed. If anyone can be part of a “nation”, regardless of their culture, language, ethnicity, affiliation, identification, creed, etc – then there is no nation. <br /><br />Similarly, can there be an inclusive Zionism? Again, empirically fairly thin: the bi-nationalists of the 1940s, perhaps, and Meretz, maybe. Conceptually, the idea is as plausible and as implausible as an inclusive Palestinian nationalism, no more nor no less self-contradictory. <br /><br />Incidentally, “Palestinian nationalism” historically was “Arab nationalism” until 1948 (or sometimes articulated in terms of a Greater Syria). This included Christians, although it was dominated by Muslims and linked to Muslim Brotherhood Islamism. It excluded Jews, Armenians, Kurds, Circassians, Druze and other non-Arabs in the region. (Lyn Julius from the right (see link in this post) and Moshe Machover from the left have both recently been fairly persuasive in arguing that “Arab Jews” have never really existed. Only in Iraq, and there fairly briefly and somewhat unevenly, were Jews genuinely included in a nationalist project in the Arab world. The “Palestinian nation” only emerged in 1948, and only then started working out who constituted the Palestinian “nation” (and who didn’t: the Jews). <br /><br />In real life, we have lots of identities, place-based, ethnic, and otherwise. Nationalism, like other identity politics, priveliges one identity over others. It gives it ontological and political priority, and says it should correspond to a state and a territory. This is why the “nations” imagined by nationalism (the Jewish “nation”, invented in the 1880s, the Palestinian “nation” imagined in the 1940s, the Turkish “nation” imagined in the 1900s, and so on, back to the British “nation” imagined in the early modern period) do not map on to the messy realities of life. <br /><br />Incidentally, you are vague about whether nationalism is territorial or not. (“<EM>Nationhood is a territorial concept and if it is said that it is not then we have to distinguish between non-territorial nations - Roma, Jews, etc, and territorial ones, French, Rwandan, Indian.</EM>” If we tie nation to territory, as most nationalists do, then we always have the question of what to do with those in the territory who don’t belong to the nation (hence the “Jewish question” and its avatars: the Armenian question, the Kurdish question, the question of the Greeks in Anatolia, the question of Muslims in Pakistan, the question of Georgians in Ossetia and Russians in Georgia, etc etc etc. If we do not tie nation to territory, what are you left with? <br /><br />5. <B>Levi 11 April 20:36</B> Which leads directly to the claim that “of course there is” such a thing as “borderless nationalism”. Is there? The nearest I can think of, ironically, is probably within Zionism: the anarcho-nationalism of Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem, who all wanted a Jewish “home” rather than a Jewish “nation”. But this is already starting to burst at the seams of nationalism. <br /><br />I’ll stop there for now, although obviously I have more. I have lots to do today, so probably won’t check in for a while.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-63910288524992640442009-04-16T01:25:00.000+01:002009-04-16T01:25:00.000+01:00Let me remind you, sunset, of your first comment t...Let me remind you, sunset, of your first comment to me:<br /><br />"Your failure to read anything that falls outside your nationalist cheerleading is a reflection on you, as opposed to them."<br /><br />A comment which purported to know me, my reading habits, my blinkered politics and what not. Ad homs, by way of belittlement of another's point of view. In response to which I made an acerbic complaint.The Contentious Centristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370528817706233156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-35120703543287447452009-04-16T00:34:00.000+01:002009-04-16T00:34:00.000+01:00CC-
Still I couldn't help noticing how very much ...CC-<br /><br /><I>Still I couldn't help noticing how very much more civil Sunset was to the antizionists than he was to the Zionist*... He probably thinks they are much more reasonable and sane than yours truly.</I>Um, CC, your first contribution to our debate was as follows:<br /><br /><I>I will ignore the ad-homs as it appears that no anti-Zionist is ever capable of responding with any semblance of equanimity to a different opinion.</I>If you can't take it, don't dish it out.Waterloo Sunsetnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-41831172199722992682009-04-15T22:34:00.000+01:002009-04-15T22:34:00.000+01:00I don't know or care about your dispute with Bob. ...I don't know or care about your dispute with Bob. I don't know Bob. I do know that I made a single post to your dumb JSF blog, and then was told by one of your minions (gert) that they wanted to know who i am and "what I stand for." (his words). So i returned. I never ever said I had anything to do with Engage, other than occasionally posting a comment there. <br /><br />That I did or did not contradict Bob is entirely a fignment of your imagination (as is this dreamed up pseudo-history of Jews and Zionism and Israel), as I don't know Bob or what he thinks.<br /><br />I'm sure your fellow posters on your blog think you're intelligent, what with all the reading you do on absolutely discredited subjects like zionism/nazism, etc, but frankly, you're just an embarrassment, and I don't want anything more to do with you. Modernity Blog and Contentious Centrist may enjoy jousting with you (maybe because it's so easy), but I find it nauseating. see ya.vildechayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00510671947455119566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-18943943283686031772009-04-15T20:05:00.000+01:002009-04-15T20:05:00.000+01:00Two clips from the latest Orwellian free-speech ka...Two clips from the latest Orwellian free-speech kabuki on campus featuring “right-wing extremist” Tom Tancredo versus the forces of Dialogue and Enlightenment. The Daily Tar Heel reports:<br /><br />Quote: “I’m here because I represent UNC-Chapel Hill and I don’t support racism or fascism in the institution in which I am an educator,” graduate student Jason Bowers said…<br /><br />After Tancredo entered the room, protesters kept him from speaking by shouting insults and holding a sign declaring “no dialogue with hate” in front of his face. Tancredo waited calmly while protestors held the sign and chanted…<br /><br />After protestors exited the hallway, Tancredo spoke for about two minutes before a protestor outside the building banged on a window, shattering the glass.<br /><br />Tancredo was escorted out of the room by police after he deemed the situation too volatile, Young said. End Quote<br /><br />http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/15/fiasco-amnesty-thugs-break-glass-shut-down-tancredo-at-unc/nwonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-64458887155815748812009-04-15T18:36:00.000+01:002009-04-15T18:36:00.000+01:00Where does that leave me?Where does that leave me?nwonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-74398986318612764422009-04-15T17:16:00.000+01:002009-04-15T17:16:00.000+01:00Welcome back Bob!
I'll bet you didn't expect this...Welcome back Bob!<br /><br />I'll bet you didn't expect this :)<br /><br />Still I won't clutter up this comment box too much, as it is rather rude and indulgent to do so, but I think the activities of Elf and Co have illustrated my first point.<br /><br />I would, however, differentiate between Elfites and WS's views.<br /><br />As the latter is a principled and considered approach, even if you disagree with it, and can be substantiated by reason and clear argumentation. <br /><br />Whereas Elfites have great problems honestly and objectively answering questions on their views and why they single out Israel and Israelis for so much animus when compared to other nations. <br /><br />Not that they'd even understand the notion of objectivity vs. subjectivity.<br /><br />I might even rattle up a post on this.ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-39721279886410597222009-04-15T15:05:00.000+01:002009-04-15T15:05:00.000+01:00"I don't eat kosher meat, but when the BNP act gre..."I don't eat kosher meat, but when the BNP act green in making a big deal about ritual slaughter, my position is on the side of the observant."<br /><br />This reminds me of the Quebec Matzogate kerfuffle: in 1996, due to the overzealous intervention of a particularly devoted Language law inspector, kosher matzo packages were taken off supermarkets' shelves because the writing on the boxes was not in French. Quebec language law stipulates that every product coming into Quebec must carry French language information. Mordechai Richler, in one of his mordantly satirical flights, explained: "If I were crossing the border to the US, I would be careful not to have maijuana or cocaine or heroine on me, but coming in here you better not have any kosher matzos”.<br /><br />Matzogate finally embarrassed the Quebec government enough to allow a 65 days a year grace period to allow the importation of kosher matzo and other prepared foods before and after the Passover observance. On the 66th day, these products are illegal to sell. <br /><br />But clearly this is not so strictly enforced. For example, my daughter had her heart set on a tamaguchi (or whatever it is called). We inquired at the nearest Toysrus but apparently they are not allowed to sell it in Quebec because it only speaks English. My husband got it from a Toysrus in Toronto and I have to say he managed to smuggle the toy into Quebec without any trouble whatsoever.The Contentious Centristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07370528817706233156noreply@blogger.com