Had a feeling you'd like this young upper class white British man's op-ed about "racism".

with him writing about antisemitism? How many of those items you mentioned would have to be changed to obtain your approval?

Or is it the tone of this "young upper class white British man" used in his article you don't like?

He is speaking from a position of privilege that others can only dream of.

I'm sure you will enjoy his work.

Surprised you hadn't heard of him before.

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I can understand why they would upset others, though.

and Palestinians members of the same race.

1. Racism is a dirty word. It makes Israel and it's supporters sound bad. If White used the accurate word "nationalism," then to most people it wouldn't sound like Israel is doing anything wrong.

2. Leftists such as White actually consider those who disagree with them to be bad people. Since Israel and it's supporters are assumed to be acting out of bad motives, they're racist, as that is the closest bad motive.

3. Leftism rejects the legitimacy of every ideological identification other than itself. "Religion is the opiate of the masses, is a well know Leftist slogan. In actuality it only rejects all those religions other than itself. The ideology similarly believes that any other set of values/ideas is stupid and/or evil. If you read enough of how Leftists describe Conservatives, or even Moderates who disagree with them you'll see this. It's very much a Leftists good, everyone else bad ethos. Nationalism is one of the most important ideological identifications humans have, and it is one that Leftism rejects most strongly. To Leftism, Nationalism is an illusion, an evil that must be done away with. Since Leftists don't think of nationalism as real or important, they only see the physical differences between people, or presume that others are acting out of those differences (or economics) rather than purported ideological differences. So nationalism becomes racism in their minds.

Marx wasn't saying that religion was evil or intolerable...all HE meant was that religion helped ease the pain of the suffering and dispossessed. It was Lenin and Stalin that took that quote to mean(as Marx did NOT mean)that the revolutionary party actually had to BAN religion(something that was never Marx's intent, although he himself was an atheist).

And "religion is the opiate of the people" isn't even a full quote(there's a massive elision in Marx's words there that totally changes the meaning the man was trying to convey)...here's the full text of Marx's observation on religion:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people".

There is NOTHING in that quote that equates to "death to the priests(or the rabbis, or the imams, or even the Unitarian ministers)". All he was saying was that religion made life more bearable for those who had no voice and no power.

So please, whatever you do, don't EVER quote the version of Marx's words you quoted above. Marx wasn't "a Marxist", and he wasn't personally responsible for what was done in the name of his ideas. Only Lenin and Stalin, and their followers, were responsible for what the Soviet Union became...none who came before them was to blame for the Gulag OR for religious persecution. And there was no way to prevent the Revolution in 1917 anyway.

Second, the rest of your post is beside the point. I didn't attribute the quote to Marx, precisely because it isn't a direct quote, and because I did not want to convey the idea that the hostility to religion is limited to Marxists. It's a Leftist idea.

(and it's still not clear that "The Left" is universally hostile to religion...there are plenty of religious socialists of various stripes).

And Left attitudes towards religion were never based on hatred of the idea of God...they were based on the misuse of religious texts by the Christian leaders of Europe to justify the unjustifiable idea that God demands that the poor and the exploited accept their condition as being "God's will&quot it never was, for whatever that's worth, and the emergence of "liberation theology" is based on a Christian recognition of the idea that there was nothing in the Bible that actually required the poor to submit to the domination of the wealthy at all).

And why are you assuming that Leftist opposition to Zionism is rooted in hostility to religion? Isn't it much more likely to be rooted in frustration and justifiable anger as to how the Israeli government treated Palestinians? Many people on the left were and are Jewish...obviously THOSE people don't hate Judaism, and since most Leftists take a position of universalist opposition to all forms of prejudice and bigotry, you can't assume that much of anyone on the Left today is actually driven chiefly by implacable hatred of all things religious...so your whole point there is simply wrong.

Why insist on reducing the question to hatred or bigotry? And why assume that the things that the Left objects to about Israel are tied to religion at all? Do you think they'd be ok with the Occupation if Israel was an officially athiest state? If so, why?

Wouldn't it be more constructive to acknowledge that it's based, instead, on justifiable feelings about the actions of the Israeli government, and then work to challenge or change those actions?

In the late 1940's, people on the Left were among the strongest champions of Zionism, and most of the original Zionists on the left were themselves people of the Left(and, for that matter, weren't particularly religious if they were religious at all)?
How much more did the Left have to do to prove that its feelings about Israel weren't rooted in some form of bigotry? You can't seriously say that the Left had an obligation to defend the Occupation, for God's sake.

Even if it were true that religion hated the Left before the other way around, and that's very doubtful, so what? We're talking about the situation today. Also, it's irrelevant that there may be some Socialists who are also religious. I can't speak about the feelings of individuals. We're talking about the teachings of an ideology. I can't for example tell you what a Catholic would think about an issue, but I can certainly give an opinion about what Catholicism teaches about an issue. The Left may contain all types, but it teaches hostility to the legitimacy of other ideas.

And where did I assume that Leftist hostility to Zionism is rooted in religion? It's about many things. Moreover, the critique is not limited to religion. My point is that the Left hates every ideological identification that isn't the Left. All religion (other than itself); all nationalism (it hates the concept); values systems; philosophies; political ideologies. Is there any of this that the Left does not wish to entirely replace? I honestly can not think of a single ideological identification, that is not the Left, that the Left does not think is illegitimate. Can you?

And no, Leftist anger at Israel is not rooted in hatred of the Occupation. The Left doesn't just want an end to the Occupation, and you know it. The Left wants an end to the Jewish state. Did the Left object to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Europe? Of course not. Remember Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? Where were the protests; the shouting down of Soviet speakers; the boycott until the Soviets stopped repressing millions? For that matter, why isn't there a boycott against China because of Tibet? Afghanistan (while the Soviets occupied it)? The starving of the Ukraine? The Cultural Revolution when Mao murdered as many as 80 million of his own people? Cambodia? The Left has had more than enough chances to show what it really believes; all of them far worse than anything Israel has done. The only boycott the Left has seen fit to start or join besides Israel is against South Africa. Do you know what South Africa and Israel really have in common? The were Western oriented. In fact, Leftist anger at Israel is traceable to the the early 1950's when the Soviet Union recognized the value of painting Israel black, as well as the fact that Israel betrayed the Left by aligning with the West rather than the Soviets. You may know the story of the time just before the Six Day War, when the Soviets, including their ambassador to Israel, were falsely trumpeting how evil Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border to attack. So the Israeli foreign minister invited the Soviet Ambassador to visit the northern front to see for himself that this was not true. The Ambassador declined saying that his purpose was to transmit Soviet truths, not to challenge them. The point is that the Left hates Israel on account of Leftist truths (which the rest of the world knows as falsehoods), and not because of any particular thing that Israel has done. If it was just the occupation, then the Left wouldn't want the Jewish state gone.

Almost all of the non-CP left protested those actions, and there were mass resignations from CP's all over Western Europe and the world over the matter(there couldn't really be mass resignations from CP-USA, because they didn't have any masses who COULD have resigned).

The Left does not equate to the Communist Party...it hasn't ever, really, and certainly hasn't at all since 1956. It is unfair imply that "the Left" acts in lockstep anyway. There are democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, anarchists, a few Trots(each of whom seems to have her or his own splinter groups)religious leftists of various stripes, and various unaffiliated independent radicals. We don't have a "line", and we don't take orders from anybody. We aren't even really a "we".

And none of us would buy into the notion of "Soviet truths". The Soviet Union died of natural causes twenty-two years ago, and 99% of the Left repudiated it decades before that. It's just that we didn't feel obligated to back the U.S. side in the Cold War to prove that. And we were right not to back that, because it would have been impossible for us to work for any form of social justice or human improvement if we had.

So please don't post things that sound like they could have been dictated by J. Edgar Hoover in a seance.
The "Left" that you described doesn't exist today-and I don't think it ever really did.

I leave you with the question you have yet to answer. Name me one serious ideological identification, not the Left, which the Left views as legitimate? It's not going to be religion, and your own posts prove it isn't nationalism. So, then what?

If a country isn't exporting goods, you CAN'T boycott it.

A lot of Left people, btw, do support the cause of independence for Tibet, and spoke out against human rights abuses in the Eastern Bloc. You need to let go of this idea that "the Left" equals the CPSU in 1935. It doesn't(and outside of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party has had no meaningful influence on anything the Left did or said since at least 1956. Please stop sounding like J. Edgar Hoover.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "views as legitimate"? Most groups with some sort of an ideology think that, in general, they have it right and those who disagree with them more or less have it wrong. The Right and the Center are exactly the same in that regard(can you name any ideological identification outside the Right that the Right "views as legitimate"? What would the Left(assuming it's fair at all to characterize "The Left" as a single entity)have to do to prove to you that they don't hold those toxic hates you ascribe to them?

And again, the Left isn't implacably hostile to religion anymore. Nobody on today's Left has Stalin's attitude towards people who believe in God(and Marx himself, though he was athiest, wasn't condemning religion in his famous quote, he was just saying that it eased the pain of the suffering, and there's nothing evil in saying that) And some people on the Left have backed nationalist movements at various times(those on the Left who support Palestinian self-determination are, in fact, backing a nationalist movement there, as did the Leftists who backed Zionism and those on the Left-there are some-who still support it critically today). The Left supported the Irish nationalist cause, the Vietnamese nationalist cause, similar causes in Africa, the Indian independence movement, and the Cuban and Filipino nationalist causes from the moment Cuba and the Philippines were denied the independence they were promised in the Spanish-American War and turned into U.S. colonies instead. And the Left backed the creation of Israel. If they universally hated nationalism, would "the Left" have done any of those things?

If you're going to speak about "The Left" at least be accurate about it.

Here's a question for you...if we no longer had a Left, that is, if we no longer had anyone who thought that human needs and human dignity should at least matter as much as profit, that not everything should be about the creation of material wealth for the few, that wars are generally foolhardy and reactionary and should be opposed if the human race is to survive...would you even want to live in a world like that? We already know, based on the behavior of our "centrist" president in the U.S. in the Nineties, followed by his "Right" successor from 2001 to 2009, that neither of those ideologies retains any humanity, any sense of the common good. So why would you want to limit us to the worldviews that are based solely on selfishness and arrogance? It's not as though anyone is freed by profit, y'know.

They sure export a lot to the West. They are still oppressing Tibet. So why isn't there a boycott of China right now?

"And I'm not sure what you mean by "views as legitimate"? Most groups with some sort of an ideology think that, in general, they have it right and those who disagree with them more or less have it wrong."

There is a huge difference between thinking someone or thing is wrong and thinking that they are bad. For example, I think you are terribly wrong about a great many things. We disagree on most things in fact. However, I don't think that you are a bad person. I'm a Jew, and I don't think that Christianity or Islam are bad. They are not evils that I want to do away with. I don't agree with the Palestinians on many things, but I don't think that the idea of Palestinians (or any other nationality) has only caused death and destruction. I want them to survive as Palestinians and to have a flourishing state and culture.

The Left not only thinks that things like religion and nationalism are wrong. It thinks that they're bad. Have you seen Scootaloo's posts? He thinks that nationalism is racist. The Left doesn't just think that Israel is wrong. It thinks that Zionism is racism. It thinks that conservatives are bad people. I think you could argue that it thinks that way of any political philosophy that isn't the Left. And while I could be persuaded that other forms of extremism share that trait, I haven't seen any other extremist view that has such an all encompassing disrespect for the legitimacy of competing ideas. Even Fascists respect some religion. If you think that there is something similar in some other ideology, I'd welcome hearing about it.

that religion and nationalism are bad. Your sweeping statement that they do, as if "The Left" is a uniform, hive-minded cult of some sort, is simply wrong.

You haven't even "proven" that some Leftists think they aren't bad (though I assume that it is the case that such people exist). Just as I think that not all Catholics believe the same thing. That doesn't mean that there isn't a Catholic system of belief. And the fact that there is a Catholic system of belief doesnt mean that Catholicism is a hive-minded cult.

There isn't just ONE Left-and the Left isn't a dissent-free zone.

Please stop acting as if the terms "The Left" and "The CPSU under Stalin" are eternally synonymous terms.

Different parts of the Left backed nationalist movements(including Zionism)on many occasions. You can't fairly assert that "The Left" universally hates nationalism(or even that it hates Zionism...some of the Left oppose it, others don't).

There are many different Left attitudes about religion...you can't simply assert that "The Left" as a collective entity is inflexibly anti-religious. If it were, it wouldn't have included everyone from Norman Thomas(a Presbyterian minister by training)Martin Luther KIng, Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Berrigans...among many many others.

The Left is not its own religion...and often, different parts of the Left are in massive disagreement with each other.

It's just that it doesn't give special deference to the nationalist movement you happen to back. And really, why should it? That nationalist movement is in no danger of defeat(and never will be)and it's not clear that it's totally to the good for the people it claims to defend and represent-many of whom also self-identify as being part of "the Left".

But there are Leftist ideas. Or at least ideas that predominate on the Left that you don't see elsewhere. In any event, if I'm wrong, and there aren't Leftist ideas that people like Ben White subscribe to, then how do you explain Ben White? He's calling racism in a situation where both sides are the same race! I/P has nothing to do with race, so why is he mentioning it? Why do so many on the Left claim that Zionism is racist when it has nothing to do with race? Are all those people just lying sacks? I don't believe that, and I'm pretty sure that you don't either. But all or virtually all of them (except groups like Hamas which are lying sacks) are on the Left. So how do you explain that?

BTW, it would be a lot easier to take race out of it if there weren't this insistence on the part of some pro-Israel types on labeling Jews as "a race". They aren't a single race...they are a variety of cultures and ethnicities from all over the world.

It's enough to say that all of the groups that are encompassed by the term should have a free, safe, peaceful life...whether they live in Israel or whether they live elsewhere.

Name them? By the way, if what you say is true, then you would agree that onne could not accuse Leftists of being compassionate. Or of caring about justice. Or having concern fo rthe poor. Since there is no set of Leftist beliefs.

Anarchists are on the Left. Social Democrats are more or less on the Left Socialists are on the Left. Trotskyists are on the Left. Some Greens(not all)are on the Left. Some independent communists could be said to be on the Left, although Stalinists(as I see it)are clearly not, being apologists for militarism, bigotry, territorial conquest and mass slaughter.

There are Zionists,anti-Zionists, and people(believe it or not)who have no strong feelings on the question of Zionism on the Left.

All of these constitute portions of the Left...yet all have many disagreements with each other on many issues.

The way you were formulating your description of "the Left" made it sound like we are all in the Soviet Communist Party circa 1947-that we have a hive-mind and follow a "line" blindly. That's simply a despicable lie...it's akin to the argument that everyone who self-identifies as "pro-Israel" defends the Occupation and the settlements and everything else the Israeli government does. Anybody who believes that should listen to a Knesset debate sometime...preferably with earmuffs.

And as to the question of who calls Jews a race...that has been part of the whole argument for Zionism from the get-go. The whole insistence on referring to "the Jewish people" is predicated on the notion that Jews are not just a religious tradition(or set of traditions)or a culture(actually, several cultures are involved) but a discernible race.

The thing is, it shouldn't matter whether you agree that they are a race or a "people" or not...what matters is that people who are Jewish, whatever designation may be given to them, have the right to live in peace, safety and dignity as everyone else does...and if everyone agreed to that, as they should, that should be more than enough.

The point is, nobody anywhere should be oppressed.

That situation is far worse than Israel (cultural obliteration, more than 1 million killed, the vast majority of monastaries trashed/destroyed, most monks exiled, killed, tortured).

Where's the anti-colonialist Left WRT China and Tibet?

And why aren't the Tibetans acting out of 'desperation' with suicide bombers and rockets like the Palestinians and "every other country" would were they also occupied? Wouldn't THAT be natural?



If Israel's so horrible, China is about 100x worse but is a minor blip on the Left's radar screen.

WHY?

And a lot of them HAVE been pro-Tibet.

The difference is...there's not a hell of a lot you could ever do from outside to change things in China...anymore than the Soviet Union and the East Bloc satellites could have been reformed from without. The Soviet story played out in the only way it could...through people within working for change. China and Tibet will largely be the same.

Those from the humanitarian Left who are for universal human rights should NOT be saying China's a lost cause so what's the point.

That's cowardice and a complete betrayal of left/progressive values, plain and simple.

All that's evident is that a certain segment of the Left gets animated and can't help but obsess over the I/P conflict while Tibet is all but ignored. I/P is a cause celebre for this segment of the Left. Tibet doesn't even register and it's arguably 100x worse.

Let's not pretend all human rights, all occupations, and all colonizations are the same to this anti-colonial Left you're defending.

And there has been a lot of protest about outsourcing jobs to China, about the persecution of unions and intellectuals witin China, and about various other things horrible things that China has done.

As I see it, the major difference is that it's much less possible to actually do anything about situations like what China does to Tibet or what is done to the Tamils in East Timor.

I doubt that you personally care about the victims in either of those situations...all that you're doing is trying to set up a false standard wherein everybody has to denounce everything that's wrong everywhere in the world BEFORE they are entitled to express an opinion on the I/P issue.

And what you're really trying to do is NOT to get everyone to care about these other issues...you just want to shut them up about the situation in the West Bank. What good would it do to silence discussion about that? How, in the end, would that help anything? How, ultimately, would silence about the Occupation even help Israel?

The thing is, there has never been a time where all issues everywhere were simultaneously addressed at the same time and with the same urgency. This almost never has anything to do with any ugly motivations...usually it's related to the amount of time and resources people have at their disposal.

And would support, at a bare minimum, a permanent moratorium on settlement expansion.

Neither of those things help Israelis, let alone Palestinians. And neither of those things can ever possibly produce a change for the better in the Palestinian leadership.

You should admit THAT, at long last.

Settlement expansion too (but not necessarily in areas that would go to Israel in any meaningful peace deal).

But ask yourself why the Israel bashers never bring up Tibetan occupation, colonization, and settlements and you'll find occupation/settlements is nothing but a weapon used against Israel alone. It's not just Tibet either, but also Cyprus. BTW, what's the excuse for all the silence WRT Turkey and its illegal occupations of of the Kurds and Greeks of Cyprus (settlements, transfer)?

posts condemning sweeping statements.

Supporting the occupation(not being against it) and liking it are two very different things and are also not mutually exlusive of honesty and a concience. Being against the occupation also does not mean you are honest and have a concience.
The vast majority of those who support the occupation do not like it but believe until a real peace deal is made and with it the threats of terror and Israels security are dealt with, it is a nessesary evil. While the continuing of the occupation is certainly not perfect, it reduces the threats of terror and to its security better than other alternatives. It is the best of the bad choices they have under current circumstances and one that any other country in its situation would choose.

Under current circumstances the occupation certainly does help Israel. The threats of terror and to its security are significantly reduced better than if they just unilaterally pulled out. As far as Israel is concerned , whether the occupation helps or hurts the Palestinians and whether it can produce a change for the better in Palestinian leadership is not the point of the occupation and is of less concern than the safety and security of Israel and its citizens.

I'm going to suggest very strongly to you and whoever's feeding you these lines that the reason that you falsely believe that Tibet is all but ignored is because yr so fixated on I/P that everything else is ignored. When someone has never posted at DU on any other topic but I/P and has never once posted outside this forum/group, then there's a clear lack of interest in any other issues, let alone ones that draw DUers who are leftists together here...

I'm seriously wondering why yr attacking people in this group for defending LWers who are opposed to belligerant military occupations when opposition to that is one of the litmus tests when it comes to being LW, imo. I'm also seriously wondering why yr suddenly trying to appear all knowledgable about Tibet, when just yesterday you told me that you didn't know enough about the mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel to comment on it. Shouldn't you be better spending yr time educating yrself on the I/P conflict, and by educating I mean hitting some books and not resorting to extremist partisan swill that's available online and clearly enjoyed by some...

That bit where there was a demand to know why no flotilla had been sent to Tibet was hilarious stuff!

It's a great way of dismissing ideas without having to make any actual points.

Much like ignoring people whose questions are too challenging for you to handle.

Stay focused on what is important and disregard any sub-threads that do not interest you.

Pretty sure you and the other five or six people reading this can handle that.

And as for silly back and forths that go on forever and have nothing to do with the OP, I hope you will confess that you are a regular participant in that kind of thing.

you've been told repeatedly in the past that Violet Crumble put you on ignore months ago but yet you persist, why do you feel it necessary to make such statements to someone you know will never see them?

Such as yourself.

Perhaps it can lead to an increased level of understanding of where folks are coming from.

like a test using flash cards administered to a blind person to prove they're deficient in manner

All nationalism has brought has been endless misery and brutal death. Why, in general, SHOULD people of the Left be favorably disposed towards nationalism? Why shouldn't the Left observe that, in the main, nationalism has produced ugly and reactionary results, results that have crushed far more spirits than they ever elevated or freed?

And what would you say to those who would argue that, if you really want to prevent a recurrence of an event like the Shoah, the way to do so is to make a world free of poverty, exploitation and hatred...that, unless you do that, creating "havens" for groups that may be made the subject of persecution based on deliberately misdirected anger won't really prevent something like that? That the way to prevent genocide is to stand with ALL who are being oppressed, even Palestinians when they are being oppressed? That the answer is to work for universal justice, not just to obsess on one particular nationalist project?

I favor the continued existence of Israel, simply because I believe that Jewish people should have a state as much as anybody else who wants one...but isn't it time to stop being overbearing and intolerant of dissent and open discussion regarding what that state does, especially since that state's leaders tend to take a lack of dissent as a mandate to do particularly bad things and to avoid even trying to end the war in question?

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

"All nationalism has brought has been endless misery and brutal death."

This is standard Leftist dogma. It's false, of course, but that isn't the point so much as that it exists. Why wouldn't the Left hate something that has brought only endless misery and brutal death? So we agree that Leftism hates Nationalism. Can you think of an ideological identification other than itself that the Left does not think is bad?

More to the point of this part of the thread, why do you think that White is using the word "acist" in a situation that doesn't realy relate to race? I can think of only two possible reasons. First, is that he could just be a lying sack, who uses loaded words to pejoritize Israel and its supporters in ways he knows they don't deserve. that could be true. However, I don't know White, and haven't read that much of him, so calling him a lying sack out the gate seems a bit much. Moer important is that it isn't just White. I see this a lot from Leftist writers. Are they all lying sacks? I don't think so. So that makes reason two more likely. Reason two is that they really believe that people who disagree with them are racists, even when the issue isn't race. Especially in the case of nationalist issues. But nationality isn't race. It's mostly ideological. Especially regarding the Israelis and Palestinians, it's all ideological, since they are of the same race. It's all about national identity. Why can't Leftists like White see that, when it's so obvious? The only reason I can think of is that to them nationality isn't legitimate, so they can't separate groups on that basis.

I get it that you think that Israel is the example of a good nationalism, but, even if we concede that, why SHOULDN'T the Left see nationalism, generally, as a reactionary thing? Is there any reason for the Left to see nationalism, overall, as a good thing for the human race, given that it is the leading cause of wars(most of which were and are pointless and unwinnable)?

(BTW, in 1948, when it mattered, almost all of the Left backed the creation of Israel. If they were totally against ALL nationalism, why would the Left have done that?)

And the point of Zionism wasn't to create a Jewish nationalist movement...it wasn't to say "hey, let's be like those cool Serbian dudes that whacked the Archduke"...it was simply to create a place where Jews could live in safety. It wasn't ever supposed to be about creating anything remotely like the situation in the West Bank, where a quasi-colonial situation has been created with the creation of the illegal settlements and perpetual military occupation when such a thing never needed to created. And today, it's not clear that Israel IS really a place of safety or refuge(as to refuge, as I understand it basically anybody who'd feel the need to get there out of fear of persecution in their home country has already made it there, so does the "refuge" argument really even hold anymore?) given how dangerous it is to live there, but in any case the nationalist cause prevailed there and no harm is done by debating the overall morality of nationalism.
Nationalism is a 19th century solution to 21st century problems...and to get the picture of how effective that is, try cleaning your hard drive with a horsehair brush. We need something else now, because dividing people and setting up borders for the sake of division and borders is no longer of any real use.

BTW, it was the Left that historically fought against antisemitism, whatever you might think of some Left attitudes about Israel at present, with much greater passion and commitment than anyone in the right or in the timid "liberal" center...and that still does, because that fight is part of the Left's fight against all forms of bigotry. Why wasn't and isn't that enough? Why, as you see it, should the Left feel obligated to be unquestioning supporters of this one particular nationalist movement? Why is backing THIS nationalist movement, in your view, the ONLY way the Left can prove that it's against antisemitism?

Nationalism; the existence of nation states having separate cultures, is largely responsible for the richness and diversity of the human experience that we have today. It's most likely necessary to the coninued health and survival of humanity. And nationalism isn't at all responsible for war. Conflict is responsible for war. The only way to eliminate conflict is by eliminating diversity, which would probably destroy civilisation and maybe even the human species. So, what you think of as a negative (becasue you're a Leftist), is in reality a very necessary positive thing.

Most conflict is based on the idea that "my(group/tribe/nation)matters more than yours, therefore we have the right to crush you". When two countries side-by-side believe this about each other, war results.

If nothing else, remember this...the deaths of the six million were caused by the rise to power of a nationalist movement. The swastika was a nationalist symbol. The Nuremburg rallies were celebrations of a nationalist cause.

And after World War II, the cause of virtually every conflict in which the U.S. and the Soviet Union came close to direct conflict-conflict that would have resulted in a world-ending nuclear exchange if it had ever occurred-was a local nationalist rising of some sort that both superpowers tried to exploit

The way to end conflict is to get people to accept each other and to accept that everyone has the right to share this world.
Nationalism isn't ever going to get us there. Nationalism will just keep leading to our kids coming home in body bags. It can't lead to beauty, to poetry, to joy, to meaning.

We have nationalism at present...but to see it as the permanent condition of man is to condemn man to permanent war.
That's why Albert Einstein called it "the childhood disease of mankind".

We can have diversity without nationalism. And it's going to be far easier and cost far less to attempt the global reconciliation project that would make that possible than it will to stay with the status quo and keep sending U.S. or imaginary "Coalition" troops off to kill and die in "some far-flung corner of a foreign field", as the poem put it.

Nationalism is the one of the most signifigant ideological identifications people have. Therefore, it's also one of the biggest differences. The fantasy of the Left is that you can remove difference and have a healthier society. In fact it would be much worse.

You argue that, "If nothing else, remember this...the deaths of the six million were caused by the rise to power of a nationalist movement." But remember that the the rise of the Left in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and elsewhere, led to the murder of 100 to 125 million people. So it isn't about nationalism.

In its battles in support of diversity, the Left fights FOR difference. It just rejects the idea that difference justifies war. There is a massive difference between that and wanting to abolish difference...something nobody on the Left even thinks is possible, btw.

And please stop acting as if "The Left" is synonymous with the Communist Party under Stalin or Mao(it's not clear that the Khmer Rouge were a Left movement at all, they could probably be described as an antimodernist Roussean nationalist movement). The Left long ago gave up trying to create "the new man".

Stalinism is dead.

Look at the battles the Left has waged. It's against sexism, racism, homophobia. All good things to be against. But all of them are physical differences. Where does the Left stand up for ideological difference? Not in academia. Is it Conservatives that disrupt and shout down the likes of Allen Dershowitz or the Israeli Ambassador at Irvine or more recently in England? And when the pro-Israelis protested the recent Brooklynn College BDS program, did they disrupt or shout down the speakers? No they did not. You and several others on this board have illustrated time and again that the Left is against Nationalism (an idea). Despite your protestation, it's pretty clear that the Left does not recognize that religion is a legitimate concept. Where has the Left stood up for religious freedom in the Middle East? In China? Anywhere? Do you think the claim that Zionism is racist is a Left idea or a Right idea? Do you really think that there is any equivalence between the Left's reaction to the oppression of Tibet and the I/P dispute? Sure the Left fights for physical diversity, but not ideological diversity.

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

However, I think there is more to it than cynical use of words.

'Still no comment from you on the racist, inhumane UN that praises Syria, Libya....'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=30411

'Right. Zoabi is a pro-terror racist and darling of the anti-Israel Left. n/t'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=30631

'I wrote a post yesterday clearly outlining the racism of low expectations....

...exhibited by Palestinian supporters here (the anti-Israel brigade).

A post that mocked their racism of low expectations was somehow interpreted to be outrageously racist (by me) against Palestinians.

You figure it out. '

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=28507

My point was that it's a more Left issue to call racism in situations when there isn't, not a pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian issue. Assuming that Shira's posts also call racism in situations when their isn't racism (the one about UN racism clearly is about race, and I'll let shira answer about the others), then doesn't the claim of double standard depend on whether shira is on the Left? If she isn't, then I concede the point. But I do think that's how shira identifies. I don't think she would say she's a conservative.

Someone who claims that using the term racism is 'cognitive warfare' is displaying massive standards when they do it on a regular basis themselves. I don't care how they identify politically because it's got nothing to do with the double standards they're displaying...

Hilarious take-down of White here:

http://warped-mirror.com/2012/01/04/ben-white-understands-that-he-justified-antisemitism/

===========

As to his latest drivel in the OP, he writes that pro-Israel activists committed to fighting anti-semitism were silent WRT the IDF murder of Sameer Awad last month. The irony here is that White is comparing a hateful cartoon (dangerously coming close to blood libel) to another blood libel. Awad wasn't murdered:

the name is quite descriptive IMO Warped Mirror and indeed they are

If you have anything of substance to attack her views with, go for it.

She exposed Ben White and his hordes, and continues to do a great job of it.

Do you have anything better against her other than ad-hominem?

or a Palestinian State as recognized by the UN, in fact the positions of those two parties closely mimic the English language politicking of Benyamin Netanyahu, the term Liberal is thrown around for the consumption of Western Progressives who may not have an understanding of Israeli political parties, these parties are economic Liberals where the majority of Israel's citizens are concerned

Lol

because that's the way you chose to put it

given how many bloggers profess to vote for them. "Pelsar" I think claimed to vote for them, as does just about every other hasbarado op-ed columnist who wants to whitewash their otherwise proto-fascist views and support of the occupation.

anti liberal, anti progressive, anti gay, anti christian, anti women rights groups etc in the westbank. (as per the gaza model)

we also in general believe that "land ownership" has nothing to do with "human rights" and that nationalism (Self-Determination) without western civil rights as its base is an illegitimate concept and is no different than any other simplistic rw/religious nationalist movement.

ignoring the immorality of supporting non democratic govts, so that a select elite can in fact govern, (a progressive position in this conflict) we also believe that "justice" that ignores possible consequences that cause more damage to both individual freedoms and states is not 'justice"

it is not us who are the fascist..it is those that promote and support societies that reject western civil rights as a principle in a society.

why dont you write it out for us: you prefer hamas as the govt with all its facist/theocratic rules and laws vs israeli secular occupation.
you prefer the PA dictatorship with its artical 4 which puts shari law as its foundation over israeli secular occupation.

those are the actual options, that you have today, no fantasies of a flourishing pluralistic society sometime in the year 3020...

i've see lots of generalizations about this, lots of "posts that die" when we get to this point, did i just kill this one as well? or will you find the courage to answer?

with the Palestinian Authority in its present form. Would that be correct?

What do you think Israel should do with the Palestinians, given that you do not support the 2-state solution?

i actually do support a 2 state solution, i dont believe the Palestinians believe in western democracy at this point in time, voting in hamas was not the "right direction."

if your asking do they deserve their own state right now? then no, no society that is anti western democratic deserves to be independent-I'm against RW/Progressive style nationalism no matter what you want to call it.


now thats enough from me.....please refer to my previous post and attempt to answer how you support two dictatorships, both anti western....one voted in an the other having no visible opposition from the street, right now, (of course it can errupt anytime and look like syria or egypt....that will certainly be good for the neighborhood)

mostly, its priorities consist of lining its own pockets, and supplicating the demands of the various powers (Israel, Europe, Jordan and the United States) that allow it to exist. I don't think that will change for as long as it remains under occupation, and I do not think that there is any real prospect for change so long as the Palestinian Authority is more accountable to the whims of Israel and the Europeans than it is to its own people.

The occupation of Palestine by Israel is not helping the Palestinians become more progressive. It does not assist Palestinian women or gays or any other group for which you profess to hold concerns. If anything, it tends to have an effect in the opposite direction.

wow.....Your claiming that PA is not really accountable to its people...what about Hamas, they seem to have given the finger to the europeans and the US


Your also claiming that the Palestinians are somehow not as capable as the jews of the 1900's who under two occupations, turkish and british where they in fact had less freedom, made and lived within their own democratic societies had freedom of speech, etc?

infact the PA and Hama have taken away certain freedoms that existed under the direct occupation...so perhaps you would like to explain how that happened? Is that too is because of israel? (you have a pretty low opinion of the Palestenians.....are they capable of doing anything?

but the real clarification from you remains unwritten:
preference for hamas and the PAs governing style over the secular occupation.....well?, just write it out?

___
The occupation of Palestine by Israel is not helping the Palestinians become more progressive. It does not assist Palestinian women or gays or any other group for which you profess to hold concerns. If anything, it tends to have an effect in the opposite direction.

this is not israels concern nor responsibility, on a state to state basis: its part of the Palestinian society today something for their friends to be concerned about, not for israel to interfere with.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:55 AM - Edit history (1)

you keep confusing "leadership" with the actual people who live day to day....that is where i am concentrating, the persons individual rights and freedom

the actual people who talked in coffee houses, didnt have to whisper their feelings about either the IDF as an occupation army nor the local Palestenian leadership....

today that is simply not true....they can say what they want about the IDF/Israel, but not about the PA security forces or the leadership, its far more sensitive and illegal (insulting islam will get your arrested, which was not the case under israeli occupation)

thats called a loss of freedom of speech-perhaps you would like to explain how i am wrong to Waleed Al-Husseini?
____

as far as the israeli society goes..again concentrate on the actual israeli citizens and you'll find a far more free society in terms of individual freedoms, The govts, be they right wing or left are far more "progressive" than many western societies in terms of those individual freedoms (the obvious being the gay rights as well as the israeli-arabs own feelings to openly express themselves, especially arab women)
______

you keep confusing politics and government with the individual freedom of its citizens, they are not one and the same.
_______

so are you ever going to answer the real bottom line question? if not just say so, and i'll let it go

as a progressive why do you insist of supporting and expanding the powers of two govts that obviously have values that are directly opposed to your "progressive values? Clearly your prefer theocratic hamas and the shari driven PA over secular israeli occupation..... (just a guess, but you would probably go nuts if some evangelical was elected as US president or if they took the senate...yet its ok if "arabs" do it)

come on...what is so damn difficult about the question?

I think that you try and speak of matters that are beyond your ken (Arabs for example) and then you tend to get flustered.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:00 PM - Edit history (2)

so as i understand it, by your definition both the hamas govt and the PA are democratic governments?

Dd you know that hamas does not consider themselves democratic?....do you look so down upon them that even their own self-identification you reject?

Does Abbas know this? (i do believe he forgot about the elections....)

and hamas pretty much rejects your version of progressive civil rights and i understand that this is fine with you as well....as long as you declare them democratic (against what they believe)

and just for fun does your definition include Iran as well? Zimbabwa?
___

so once you identify a govt as "democratic' reguardless of whether or not civil rights or democratic institutions exist, from your point of view, they are democratic and therefore to be "supported and strengthen?

is that a good summary?

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:32 AM - Edit history (4)

why do you ignore they're their very own statements? Hamas says they are not western democratic.....so where is this transition of yours? Is iran in transition as well?

will this transition of yours require an "arab spring" to transition, given that fact that history has shown that dictators in general are not to keen on giving up power?
___

and please, its easy to spot the weak attempts to claim the parallel to the jewish groups (if you want to compare, compare the societies to one one another, the differences in character are far greater than anything they have in common with living under an occupation)

i mean did you really think I wouldnt notice?

The jewish society already had in place way before their own independence, western democratic traditions of voting, reelections, transferring of power of the various civilian leadership committees, open arguments, an open press, criticisms of those in leadership positions as well..you actually know all this, but have to reach for some kind of justification for supporting two dictatorships that actually reject your progressive values.

and thats the key, they have stated (Pa/Hamas) in both word and deed that they reject your progressives values (unlike the jewish yishuv pre and post independence).

so why do you ignore their own declarations? i keep repeating this question in almost every post, its a subtle hint that i'm asking for a direct response.


Perhaps your support of their dictatorships is similar to the western progressives support of khomenni and how excited they were of his gaining power, even after he hung all their colleagues and how recently they so quickly squashed their own "spring?"

you dont see that there might be a problem for a "progressive' to support two dictatorships that are in fact anti progressive? (one to the extreme?)

the difference between the Israeli occupation and the British one was that the British left, and the Israelis will not. There is no process, and Israel does not want there to be one. They do not want civil society, good governance, and a flourishing democracy in the West Bank. They want a supplicant rump government that is subject to their whim and that they can kick around as much as they need.

I don't think history has ever known a truly democratic government under occupation, apart from the example of Japan during the post-war American occupation, and that was largely because the Americans avoided damaging Japanese institutions for the most part, and were genuinely in favour of Japan regaining its sovereignty in order to provide a bulwark against communist China and the Soviet Union.

Likewise, the Americans may have had good intentions in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan, although those occupations have generally not gone so well.

But Israel does not have good intentions. The Americans were not interested in stealing parts of Iraq and Afghanistan and replacing their local populations with settlers. Even the British were not interested in stealing Palestine for themselves. But Israel is very much interested in stealing as much of the Palestinians' land as it possibly can, within the constraints permitted by the international community.

So, while there may have been cultural differences between the Jews and Palestinians, likewise, there are differences between the Israeli occupation and others. The British in Palestine generally acted with at least a semblance of good faith, while the Israelis do not.

As an aside, how do you reconcile your preference for democracy with your barely-concealed regret at the fall of Mubarak and all the other recently fallen Arab dictators?

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I give you credit for a belief that really takes care of any Palestenian failure: the Israelis dont want good a civil society and the Palestenians are sooooo helpless with all of their education, UN help, outside volunteers, they simply cant do anything but have corrupt officials, no elections, reduced freedom of the press.

So when hamas declares they reject western democracy...thats israel behind it?
when the PA declares that Shari laws is part of their foundation, that too israel?

How does Israeli occupation restrict civil protests by Palestinians against the PA that demand change and by gazans that demand change ...both get broken up by the local security forces, without an israeli soldier in sight..is this done by the 'invisible israeli hand"

The British in Palestine generally acted with at least a semblance of good faith,
first, you forgot about the turks, were they too part of this "good faith movement?
Really, night raids are in "good faith, blowing up houses are "good faith" sending back concentration camp survivors is "good faith" AND Still the jews devised democratic institutions while under the occupation.

please explain this theory how the israeli govts wants bad Palestinian govt and has corrupted Abbas and "forced him" to push off the elections
______

as far as my "barely concealed regret"...its not concealed. I prefer stable secular dictatorships that have cordial/working relationships with the west to theocratic regimes or unstable, weak massivly corrupt dictatorships, that by no means by represent anything but the governing elite and the fanatical religious.

and i dont use "human rights" as a reason to remove the occupation, in order to place in a theorcratic dictatorship that at the sametime rejects those very human rights.

i believe that is the standard progressive position around here, which i believe relates to one of those questions you seem avoid...

here I'll give you an answer to me:
yes even though the PA and Hamas and the Palestenian people have rejected western ideology, i still believe they will eventually "see the light" and come around to my ethno centric version of justice, since I really do believe it is inevitable and its just a matter of time, since it is "universal" as declared by my fellow ethnocentric believers. The first step is removal of the occupation, since apparently with it, unlike the jews, and even though they in fact have some self govt, they cannot even start their long journey to the inevitable progressive society that awaits us all that will in fact take many twists and turns and may take many generations...... Faith like any good christian, jew, muslim, thats the key.....

hows that? you may not write it out, but i do believe thats a generally a good summary.

First you insisted that countries must be mature Western democracies in order to have sovereignty, now you're expressing a preference for "stable, secular dictatorships". If you want a dictatorship they don't come any more stable or secular than the PLO. After all, two leaders in sixty years speaks for itself. And Palestinian society is far more stable than Israel, all things considered.

given the limited choices of secular dictatorships vs theocracies, i prefer secular dictatorships for a number for reasons..its called limited options, a very common problem in the real world. However it doesnt make them any more legit nor stable than any other dictatorship..all illegal in my world view.

And Palestinian society is far more stable than Israel, all things considered. ?????
what exactly are these things, they are split in two, not talking to each other, each planning on over throwing the other when they get the chance.


which is about on par with how regularly the PA holds elections.
again, do you think i'm 10 years old? That i wouldnt notice that the with arafat there was never elections and since oslo....one group has gone fantatic and the other cancelled the elections...

why dont you compare the yishuv to the Palestinians? compare their freedom of speech, their different societies, newspapers, philosophies, unions, arguments with the leadership etc
but dont try to manipulate the argument as you've tried so far, try to keep it apples to apples.....

one aspect of the progressive is the absurd belief, no matter what happens in the real world is that elections make a democracy, well i'm educating you, democracies are but one aspect of a democratic life, there is a need for a whole host of other aspects, the most important being freedom of speech so that there can be discent, argument and change.....

which is why the yishuvs imperfect democracy was still based in core democratic values, you dont find that with the Palestinian west bank society....
____

The British raided homes and synagogues because Jews stashed weapons in those homes and synagogues, which said Jews used to kill the British. You're saying you now have a moral objection to night raids?

not at all, i was just tying to figure out what this "good faith" the brits had as occupiers, I was showing you that both the IDF and brits used the same methods.. perhaps you would like to explain this "good faith.?
_____

Obviously, any state in the West Bank is going to be highly dependent on Jordan, being their only neighbour, and I would think that over time there would be a fairly close integration with Jordan
You assuming that jordan wont get touched by the "arab spring".....here i wont even pretend to predict the future, but jordan has a minority governing them....nor are the democratic.

but your getting clearer now with the connection to jordan, that, democracy, civil rights are not at all on the 'top of your list"....just nationalism oops i mean self-determination, which is fine if that is what you believe, i just dont get why its so hard to admit it

i moved to israel out of distrust for the world.....nephew to holocaust survivors I impressed by germany as the "enlightened society of the 1900's turning to industrial genocide, impressed by the worlds non reaction toward the arab armies goals of 1967. Had israel not been a democracy (as i wrote, i expect and support imperfect democracies as they have to constantly be changing to adjust to each generations new demands), i would not have given it serious thought.

That said, identity, nationalism, is not to be discounted, nor the use of illilberal methods to protect a democracy...(as per the glaring use of obama and his drones)
___

In the same way, I would rather the Palestinians have the potential for democracy rather than no prospect at all.


you've mentioned this before but not without much explanation. Why is it that the PA/hamas can't (ok, hamas is not relevent here, given their philosophy) create the relevant democratic culture while under the occupation? The Palestinians in fact have more freedom from the occupiers than did the jews and nothing but their own culture as far as i can see is actually stopping them.....In fact i have no idea, why there are not progressives running to volunteer to the PA or gaza to teach about democracy, (well actually i do, but its not complementary)

Apparently the gays and females and Christians prefer being ruled by the Palestinian Authority to being ruled by the Israelis, which I suppose says something for how "progressive" the Israeli occupation is.

first of all, this another one of your really poor attempts to moral equilivllance (I assume its a habit of yours for the lesser informed), without freedom of speech, one has no idea what they prefer, especially not the gays who if, the come out of the closet will find themselves either in jail or hiding in israel nor, the Christians have left in droves in the last years, which doesnt say much for their confidence in the PA


further more, even if the women prefer the PA (i'll ignore the gays and christians....)
that doesnt really say much to me..just as khommeni had social democrats/progressvies supporting him or the MB or hamas got voted in....people of a nation/society do not have the right to vote in/support a dictatorship that removes rights from others. Voting comes in after the culture of dissent (freedom of speech) is part of the society, not before, that way you get an honest appraisal of what those people really want....without that, you actually have no idea, hence your claim is baseless

___

a word about occupation: there is no 'benevolent occupation"...sooner or later the occupied is going to rise up, the brits may have been "welcomed" as per your view, surly it wasnt by everyone, but it wouldnt have lasted, it never does.
_______

oof...do you really expect me not to respond, with the obvious?..again please refrain from your knee jerk reaction that is filled with false parallels, they are obvious and just distracting....
The British did not launch air strikes on Jewish neighbourhoods in response to terrorist attacks, or fire weapons at unarmed demonstrators, in the way that Israel has done.
why dont you write out, why the airstrikes started?....perhaps it had to do with israel physically leaving gaza, so there was no longer a physical occupation and the gazans kept up their missile attacks? you know that, i know that, so why even make the accusation?

as the Palestinian protestors....not always "unarmed", sling shots, AK-47, very nasty rocks, with the Israeli responses being far more varied...again a false equivliance
_____

so the question that remains unanswered....what exactly is stopping the Palestinians from having real freedom speech, why are the western democratic parties get so few votes, where are the progressives that have the gumption of the christian missionaries to go and teach about progressive societies and how wonderful they are?

why support a society that has a dictator, that may require their own "arab spring" that can create further chaos?..is that the only option?