A tsunami of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism?

There’s at least one checkable claim in the FPM story by Carol Gould story

We all know about poor Philip Lader, former US Ambassador to the Court of St James who was reduced to tears on BBC ‘Question Time’ on 15 September 2001 as the moderator, Davis (sic) Dimbleby, sat and dispassionately watched a crazed studio audience stomping its feet and shouting anti-American epithets two days after the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Here’s a Telegraph report of the same incident. It’s pretty clear that a section of the (self-selected) audience was vociferously anti-American. OTOH, Gould’s description appears grossly exaggerated, which suggests she might not be a reliable reporter on points where she can’t be checked.

As an American who has lived in London since 1998, I was astonished by Carol Gould’s account. I’ve never experienced anything remotely resembling the anti-Americanism she reports anywhere in Britain — not in a cab, a shop, a restaurant, or a bus, and not at any dinner party of Guardian-readers. I emailed some American ex-pats (or Canadians who are likely to be confused for Americans) — some of whom are also Jewish — to ask them whether Gould’s account rings true in their case. The replies I received were: ‘I haven’t noticed anything like what is described by our columnist’; ‘The amount of anti-americanism that I have experienced in 35 years has been negligible… [Gould’s column] reads like a self-indulgent mixture of exaggeration, self-deception and straightforward fabrication’; ‘I must say I’m surprised … she sounds a bit paranoid’; and one person who reported regular experience of mild anti-Americanism over the years. One of my respondents said he thought there was a genuine strain of anti-Semitism in Britain along the lines which Chris describes.

This is merely anecdotal evidence. But so is Gould’s account.

I am not sure anecdotal experiences can be usefully used here. Think about any anti-groups sentiments such as anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim sentiments, anti-American sentiments or anti-French sentiments. These sentiments will typically be directed against those members of the group who are stereotypically Jewish, Muslim, American or French. Anti-Semitic sentiments in France typically will be directed against a person who wears a necklace with a star of David, sends his kids to Jewish schools etc. My guess anti-American sentiments will be directed against those who look and behave in a way which is perceived as American or perhaps advocates views which are considered pro-American or whatever. Hence from the lack of open hostility towards some or many Americans, one cannot infer that the lack of anti-American sentiments in Britain.

Yes: a global reaction to the increased radical and arrogant actions of the US and of Israel is being conveniently conflated with irrational ethnical hatred (which no doubt exists) by some wingnuts (quoting Melanie Philipps??).
Personally I think the irrational voices have not changed in amplitude (maybe in tone, as they feed their prejudices with real causes), and that the rational voices criticising US/Isreal policy are indeed widespread, but for justifiable reasons.
I hope CT is not trying to prove to the trolls it is “fair and balanced” with this? They do not care.

Exactly, Matthew2. I highly doubt that the amount of irrational anti-Jewish and anti-American hatred in the UK is anywhere near the scale of anti-‘Islamofascist’ movement in the US (not to mention Israel) that has really gone mainstream in the last few years.

I read that article after it was linked from Amygdala and it’s frankly delusional paranoid ranting.

It bears utterly no relationship to anything like the reality of the UK. Certainly not the reality that I experience as a British person who sometimes moves in precisely the kind of centre-left circles which are a supposed nest of anti-Semitic and anti-American bigots.

Where are all these raving anti-Semites? Do they keep their opinions concealed when I am around but spontaneously volunteer them only to others? Why do they keep those anti-Semitic opinions so carefully hidden when almost every day one can hear any amount of racist remarks about other minorities?

Nor does the article bear any relationship to the kind of day-today reality described to me by my American or Jewish friends who live in the UK.

Chris is right that there is a strain of sometimes unthinking anti-Americanism among some in Europe and I can see how some might be offended by that (perhaps with some cause) but the reality is simply nothing like as described in that article and most on the, for want of a better term, anti-American left, are perfectly capable of distinguishing between extreme distaste for the policies of the current US regime and Americans per se.

Chris is also right that there is a residual strain of anti-Semitism in the UK however it’s primarily to be found among older, private school-educated upper-class people. Indeed the Guardian quoted a borderline/veiled anti-Semitic remark from a Tory party grandee with respect to his own party leadership only last week.

[For those who don’t know the current leader of the Conservative party and his Shadow Home Secretary are both of Jewish origin.]

The Guardian’s own Richard Ingrams has, on anything but the most charitable interpretation, exhibited precisely that kind of strain of anti-Semitism in some of his past columns.

However it’s important to distinguish this strain of anti-Semitism which is more or less restricted to a small number of aging, out-of-touch, fusty and increasingly irrelevant old men from the kind of widespread anti-Semitism which is being alleged in the article.

That article is yet another example of the dark and revolting contest that exists between anti-American and pro-Palestinian extremist sections of the European political left and anti-European and pro-Israel extremist sections of the American right about who can write the most odious smear propaganda about the dispositions and motives of the people on “the other side”, wherein they usually quickly do away with even the fig leaf of any particular political designations and simply point their finger at entire countries (or an entire continent, as the case becomes in the broadest screeds against Europe) and declaring that the only inhabitants who reside therein are Demons and their Victims.

It makes for pretty disturbing reading, and it’s sad to know that these things have a market, but in the end it is only so much hot air.

I’m French and after months of putting up with silly and crude and wholly unrealistic articles on French anti-semitism and the rise of “dhimmitude” in Europe -in Front Page, Commentary, Roger Simon, LGF and others- I’m inclined to entirely dismiss this kind of over the top rhetoric which amounts to little more than vengeful smearing. What’s interesting is that Britain now seems to be coming in the sights of the wingnut crowd. The Telegraph pulled an article by Mark Steyn that was a harsh attack on the character of the British society today and there was a thread on LGF that disparaged Britain. (Btw, funny how the Telegraph routinely disparages other nationalities but can’t stand the heat when Britain criticized).

I think there is clearly a campaign on the part of Israel and supporters of Israel to greatly play up incidents of antisemitism in Europe, real or imagined. I think that this is partly based on genuine fear, but is also motivated by a desire to punish societies, such as France, which have not gone along with policies supported by Israel.

The media have catered to this campaign. For example, the NY Times recently published a story about the vandalization of a Jewish community center in Paris. The story unambiguously identified the culprits as “neo-Nazis”, despite the fact that there were no statements from the police to support that. The story contained a long recap of supposed French antisemitism. Within a week a Jewish former employee of the center was arrested for the crime. The Times’ followup story contained no acknowledgement of how wrong the previous story had been, but it did contain another lengthy and breathless recap of alleged French antisemitism.

Anyone who has been publicly sympathetic to Palestinians in the US knows how quickly the charge of “antisemitism” is raised. In my opinion the use of the false charge of “antisemite” to bludgeon critics of Israel in the US is a greater problem for our country than antisemitism itself, of which I have seen very little.

1985, not 2985

Michael — I don’t believe for a second that you are unaware of what goes on. What I meant (or am I protesting too much) was that it takes a while (maybe quite a while) to learn how to ‘read’ the gestures, tones, etc, of another culture; and brief visits, eg, don’t do it. This is one reason why brits who think they know America because they’ve had holidays in FL and CA are aren’t as well informed as they think. I’m no more immune to this than anyone else — in fact, after nearly 2 decades in the US I still come across social situatons I can’t read.

Michael — did my response to your comment display a complete lack of a sense of humour? Sorry — I did laugh, but then wanted to clarify anyway!

I’m an American who has lived in North Africa, although that was a number of years before Sept. 11 2001. I’ve also travelled in Spain, England, and fairly extensively in Turkey (again, long before Sept. 11 2001.)

Based upon my observation of the behavior of many Americans in these places I offer the following suggestions towards better public relations and making a more friendly user-experience for both sides of the cultural encounter.

1. The TSA should inspect the luggage, carry-on and checked of all Americans travelling to overseas destinations and as with fingernail clippers and other potentially dangerous implements of mayhem and murder, any shorts or short pants, Hawaiian shirts, macrame shirts and baseball caps found among the travellers items should be subjected to immediate confiscation at the security gate.

2. There should be decible meters installed at every security check-point. Americans found to be talking too loudly, say, approaching the level of Pres. Bush in the second debate, should have a hearing aid installed with the volume turned up to the appropriate level so they will be forced to modulate their voices to a lower and more culturally acceptable level.

—-

Based solely upon the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen here, what are the odds that Ms. Gould is, in a word, an asshole?

As response to Barry Freed, everything you wrote about americans applies just as much to the Germans and the Brits.

You’re been to Spain right?

The vulgarity of northerners on holiday in the sunny south: no wonder the Germans are taking over Jewish Miami.

“Not only is this often a crude appeal to Francophobia (a very clearly expressed sentiment in US politics, compared to French “anti-Americanism”)”

Hmm, it is the French who have high level officials who openly talk about the need to create a “counterweight” to American power. Amusingly the French government wants to be in charge of such counterweight but want the Germans to pay for it.

“Personal attacks on Americans, no. I suppose it must happen, and going out of your way to be visibly pro-American might well make it more likely.”

Depending on what you mean by this, it skirts with blaming the victim.

Oh and I’m amazed that people keep darkly muttering about a French anti-semitism “epidemic”. Not only is this often a crude appeal to Francophobia (a very clearly expressed sentiment in US politics, compared to French “anti-Americanism”), but having lived there it’s actually anti-arab racism that is an overriding problem.

This is a particularly bizarre bit of rhetoric that I’ve come across before, which implies (and I’ve heard it said more explicitly in the past) that there is some sort of “calculus of hatred,” whereby one may assume that, because the French hate Arabs more than they hate Jews, that it all balances out, or their anti-Israel policy must not be because of anti-Semitism, or something along those lines. I somehow fail to believe that one can treat racial hatred as having mathematical properties which allow one to draw any rational conclusions about their origins or impact.

My wife’s Swedish, so I’ve spent a lot of time in Stockholm. I’ve got friends in London, and I’ve also spent some time in Paris. The only place I ever felt anti-Americanism to any large extent was in London. Two of the instances involved young drunk lefties who finally had their chance to take it out on a fat, drunk, greedy American. (I took exception to the characterization; I’m not greedy.) One of the guys in question later apologized and we had a grand old time. The other occasion was when I had dared comment on a cricket match. The comment wasn’t disparaging (I have a little knowledge of the game) but you would have thought I had dropped my pants and told the Queen to blow me. Consensus among the Britons was there was no way I could possibly understand cricket since American sports were all invented simply to be shown on television! I pointed out that baseball pre-dates televsion by about 150 years, but was told, “Sorry, you’re wrong, and that’s the way it is.” Since the last comment came from the father of the groom whose wedding I was attending, I let it drop. This was all pre-Iraq; I haven’t been to London since 9/11.

This is a really difficult topic to talk about, I think, largely because what is meant by “anti-Americanism” is a pretty disparate set of things with not much in common.

(Let alone anti-semitism; I have to meander a bit here and point out that as a non-Jewish Brit the only occasion I have ever encountered an overtly anti-semitic remark was in Washington DC, something I wrote about here.)

To meander back to the point. I’ve taught American politics to British undergraduates in for about a decade. For nearly all that time this has involved me confronting their rather snobbish and ill-informed assumptions about (say) the inferiority of the US political process and the savagery of its outcomes; for example by pointing out that the existence of the death penalty in the US is prima facie evidence for less, not more, elite dominance of politics there, or that a state probably doesn’t get to be the hegemonic world power if its policy apparatus really is foolish, paralysed and incapable. (Over the past year and a bit I’ve kind of lost faith in America myself, and I don’t have the enthusiasm for this confrontation that I used to have.)

*but* pretty much every one of these students has, along with a bunch of very British assumptions about the incompetence of colonials at self-government, been at another level a deep admirer of America at other levels: its cultural products, or its economy, or its progressive left, or its openness, whatever (and different strokes for different folks here), such that the sum of negative and positive elements is very positive. Really almost none of them would be an enthusiast for an end to relatively benign American world leadership, as much as they might contest particular aspects of that leadership.

You can see the origins of political Atlanticism in their thinking, and that remains the case even with the current generation of new students. So even at the impersonal level of how one relates to America in the abstract, I think there is a deep and abiding respect for it (or for major aspects of it, or for what it represents or might represent).

Conversely, I can offer up the factoid that the number of final year undergraduates at Oxford taking the US politics option paper is 40% down on what it was up to 2002.

I’ve been in London for the past two years, living in a poor Muslim area (Whitechapel)

Chuckle. Whitechapel was, not so long ago, the poor Jewish area.

Josh, above, has it right. Americans living abroad are almost always going to find anywhere anti-semitic, because everywhere on earth except Israel has a much smaller Jewish population than America. Simple as that.

How’re Tottenham Hotspur doing these days?
And as for the continent, how about Ajax?

Spurs are in fifth place at this early stage, which is a good start by their standards. Ajax is in fourth in their home league, which is a poor start by their standards, and have lost their first two Champions’ League matches (their next opponent in that competition is, of all teams, Maccabi Tel Aviv).

As a general observation on all this, people of ‘other’ groups behaving obnoxiously tend to attract stereotypical negative responses – the ugly American, Australian and so on.

It’s a pretty safe bet that anyone associated with David Horowitz is obnoxious, since that’s his main raison d’etre and my limited knowledge of Melanie Phillips suggests that she’s in the same class. So, among the many negative reactions such people elicit, I expect there are quite a few that focus on American-ness, Jewishness and other points of difference.

Josh,

“less sensitivity towards Jewish feelings”

I hesitate to give ethnic groups feelings, but, if one can speak of such a thing, what are you referring to? What are Jewish feelings?

Surely I misunderstand another part of what you say. You seem to be saying that having little knowledge of Jewish life, if it leads to Jews there being self-conscious, counts as a type of anti-Semitism. Is this accurate?

Whoah whoah whoah, wesaferthemhealthier! Hang on there! I fear that you have indeed misunderstood me! Dsquared is much closer to understanding what I said (and thanks for the words of assent), but still also indicates that I’ve made myself unclear. I didn’t mean to say that people who are unfamiliar with Jewish life, or don’t show special sensitivity to Jewish feelings (by which I mean, for instance, people automatically asking one what one is doing/did for Christmas, or not providing any not obviously non-kosher food at a dinner or other function, or asking you if you’ve been to Church, etc.), are anti-Semitic, or even might seem anti-Semitic to American Jews — I think that anyone who isn’t paranoid ought to be able to recognise the difference between ill-will and simple non-thinking about the likely concerns, reactions, and experiences of many Jews. I was merely talking about my own experiences as a Jew in Britain, and those of some other Jews, some British, some not, I’ve spoken with here. My point was that there isn’t much noticeable anti-Semitism here, but that it does feel different than the parts of the US I’m familiar with.
As for the other point, hopefully already partially dealt with: I don’t want to claim that there are any universal feelings that all Jews experience, or any feelings that belong to some sort of collective entity called ‘the Jews’. But many Jews do share certain experiences, reference points, traditions; and many of us do share the feeling of being a bit out of place in very clearly non-Jewish settings (say, those that are overtly or pervasively Christian). This doesnt’ seem to me a very mysterious or unreasonable point to make. But then, I’ve yet to encounter a statement about Judaism or Jewishness or Jewish people that hasn’t evoked disagreement with someone, somewhere. This itself seems peculiar.
By the way, Omri, I was just at a Shabbat dinner here earlier tonight, and a great many of the guys present came over wearing yarmulkes. None of them made any mention of having felt uncomfortable or harassed, or seemed worried about feeling so on the walk back. That said, one doesn’t see too many people wearing yarmulkes around here, compared to, say, where I grew up. But then, as I said, there simply are fewer Jews here.

Whoops! I see abb1 has already posted a link to the survey I just mentioned. Many apologies to all. I should go to bed now.

It seems the author of the original article has missed the point completely, which is that the UK was drawn into a US Middle Eastern campaign recently, on dubious grounds. A lot of people in the UK are irritated at the apparant fabrications behind the reasons for the war.

The only epidemic sweeping across the UK is an epidemic of Reality TV programmes, which is indeed frightening. Judging by the people who appear in these programmes, most people in the UK would have trouble locating Iraq on a map, and are more familiar with the 299 shades of Pastel Blue to renovate the kitchen, than the political, social and religious history of the British Isles, or anywhere else.

The intentional fog the language creates, the monolithic “group” that gets named, and accused unfairly, and the subsets of the group that are nameless and run to hide behind the named whenever they’re accused, rightly, that’s what’s causing this.
I’m an “American”, a citizen of the US, but I have less to do with American policy in the world than Ariel Sharon does. There’s a lot of men and women in America who are opposed to the American government’s vicious bullying, domestically and in the rest of the world. We are Americans.
Naomi Klein is Jewish, someone I’d go a long way at great personal risk to defend.
John Negroponte is Jewish, someone I wouldn’t.
Negroponte has an affinity with a lot of other Jews, men who are doing much evil in the world, and who are in powerful positions from which to accomplish that evil; but what they are together – what they make as a group – has no name.
It’s specious to pretend their Jewishness has nothing to do with their positions and actions. But it’s a terrible error to link them with people who oppose everything they are and represent.
Derrida’s obituary in the NYTimes was dismissive because of his championing, such as it was, of the Palestinian cause. Derrida was a Jew. The insulting obituary was written by a Jew. It was answered, cogently and with heartfelt sincerity and erudition, by Judith Butler, herself a Jew.
There’s a group of some kind at work behind that dismissive obituary, but it isn’t Jewish, even though it is.
These are men who function in the dark, almost invisibly. So that when they’re attacked for their chauvinism, because it’s impossible to call them anything else as a group, it’s far too easy to call them Jews, and it becomes hate-crime. It’s a failure of language.
What they are is what’s endangering all of us, Jew and Gentile.
Even “Zionist”, with its biblical overtones and its dreams of home, doesn’t catch it.
It’s something darker even than that.
Personally I prefer “Satanist”, but I’m not as calm about these things as I once was.

“I read that article after it was linked from Amygdala….”

I’m grateful to Matt Mcgrattan for having read me first, and for mentioning this, but since he (understandably) didn’t link to my actual post, I’d like to very carefully, lest anyone leap to mistaken assumptions (not that many are likely to think about it one way or the other), quote what I actually said, if you don’t mind:

“HMM. I can’t speak to how exaggerated or not this might be, or how accurate or inaccurate, and in any case, I’m entirely sure different people, different Jewish Americans in Britain, not to mention different Britons, will have different perceptions from each other, and, yes, FrontPage prints a lot of crazy right-wing nonsense, but this piece by Carol Gould on her perception of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in Britain is rather a disturbing read, nonetheless.”

That was the entirety. I don’t want anyone assuming I was endorsing her POV (nor contradicting it, which I am in no place to do), let alone FrontPage. Thanks.

Actually I meant that in, say, London, it’s possible to go into a pub and talk about Jews in the way in which white people talk about black people when there are none around, but in, say, New York, it isn’t.

…what in heaven’s name is such vile stuff doing in Crooked Timber? Or shouldn’t I be surprised?

This isn’t par, Fergal, but sadly, you shouldn’t. “Vile stuff” is no longer the province of Indymedia.

I give the following challenge: put on a yarmulke (or a star of David necklace), and take a walk downtown.

I saw quite a few people doing so on the Tube last weekend, and nobody seemed to be bothering them. I’m sure that happens sometimes, but it happens in New York as well; London has never struck me as being like medieval Germany.

I also won’t join the meta-argument over the merits of Zionism – I’ve been in enough such arguments on CT, and my views on such issues are a matter of record – but I’ll second everything Gary Farber said.

The beer probably tastes about the same, what with those damn purity laws
Weihenstephaner Bitte!

Oy…

Killing children is no longer a big deal
By Gideon Levy

More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence in the Gaza Strip. It’s no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children “terror.”
[…]
The public indifference that accompanies this pageant of unrelieved suffering makes all Israelis accomplices to a crime. Even parents, who understand what anxiety for a child’s fate means, turn away and don’t want to hear about the anxiety harbored by the parent on the other side of the fence. Who would have believed that Israeli soldiers would kill hundreds of children and that the majority of Israelis would remain silent? Even the Palestinian children have become part of the dehumanization campaign: killing hundreds of them is no longer a big deal.

Anatoly,
If you want to insult me feel free. But defend your position while you’re at it or you’ll just bore us all.
And I’m still waiting for someone to comment on the race question.
Are jews white, nonwhite or both?

Or is it impossible to be both A and not A?

Anyone who defines Jews genetically says something about themself. Ditto if they worry about Jews and race.

Certainly, and obviously, it is not how Jews define Jews, under any circumstances, and it is certainly not how Israel defines its citizens, or Jews (two separate categories, of course).

(For all its problems and injustices — which obviously are many and great — it’s worth noting that, for now, Israel is still the only country in the world with a fully sovereign and democratic parliament with several Arab members, and full voting rights for its Arab citizens.)

Anyone want to argue the case that Palestinian nationalism is wrong because nationalism is dead, and besides, it’s a racist notion? (Furthermore, Palestinians can “pass” as other Arabs, and even other ethnicities at times, which I guess means that discriminating against them doesn’t matter, or something. Something.)

I didn’t think so.

I think its plainly obvious that zionism, as a form of racism, as a form of nationalism, is an exaggerated tendency of many other nations of people. Like schizophrenia, the characteristics can be found to a lesser extent in many. The exaggerated tendencies can be found in a few. Doesn’t make zionism in Isael, or schizophrenia in the few, any easier to deal with.

What would you call current American foreign policy

To the very useful comment by Reinstein one should add one observation on the sources of Zionism. If you look at Herzl and Pinsker and many other early Zionists, their primary concern was antisemitism. They regarded it as an ieliminable disease that inflicts Europe. The idea of a Jewish state was for them a mechnaism to “normalize” the Jewish nation and thus to eradicate antisemitic sentiments. It was clearly the antisemitic sentiments that created the need for an ethnically defined nation. The complexity of what makes a person “Jewish” for the purpose of the law of return is to a large extent a reaction to what made a person Jewish in the eyes of antisemites in Europe or what is perceived by Jews to make a person a Jew in the eyes of antisemites in Europe.

“I think he argues that community-based nationalism is OK, but ethnicity-based nationalism is wrong.”

I’m sure I’m dense, but I don’t understand how the citizenry of Israel is an “ethnicity.”

I don’t even understand how Judaism is an ethnicity, nor the set of people who identify as “Jews.”

Could you unpack this for me, abb1?

How are, say, Jews from a gillion different places across the former Soviet Union, formerly Syrian Jews, immigrants from Poland, Bedouin, former Iraqi Jews, former Brazilian Jews, former South African Jews, former Italian Jews, Druze, former American Jews, former French Jews, Circassians, former Australian Jews, former Ethiopian Jews, and on and on, all one “ethnicity”?

Is this like there being an “American ethnicity”?

How many European countries have such ethnic diversity?

On another point: “The exception, I think, is where people are assaulted or harassed….”

Would that be your description of Europe’s historic treatment of Jews?

Elizabeth says: “I think its plainly obvious that zionism, as a form of racism….” And: “Doesn’t make zionism in Isael, or schizophrenia in the few, any easier to deal with.”

We hear that Zionism-is-racism, Zionism-is-unique, Zionism-is-evil, but, hey, self-rule, self-determination, national rights, and a state, are good enough for all the other countries on earth, good enough for people to support it for the Kurds (who obviously don’t have one yet), the Ukrainians, the Croatians, the Belarusians, the Guatamalans, the Pakistanis, the Kuwaitis, the Belgians, the Syrians, the Lebanese, the people of Palau, the Cayman Islands, the Maltese, the Palestinians, the Tibetans (who also obviously don’t have a state at present — but those who object to Zionism undoubtedly oppose the “ethnically-based” claim of the Tibets, I’m sure), the Ecuadorans, the Andorrans, the Maldivians, and on and on and on.

Presumably Ireland should never have had any quibble or claim worth breaking away from the United Kingdom.

Presumably the U.S. should renounce all treaties with Native American “nations,” because such “ethnically based” claims are repugnant and unjustified.

Somehow the Jews, who are somehow a single, unique, “ethnicity,” and not a “community” — unlike, say, the nation of Japan (have you tried obtaining citizenship there?; checked them out for lack of virulent racism and sense of ethnic superiority?) are unique. Their state is uniquely bad. Their state is uniquely racist. Their state is so uniquely bad that it should constantly be railed against and marched against.

The Jews are simply unique.

Well, that’s a rather old claim, isn’t it?

And whenever Israel is mentioned in CT comment threads, we see this sort of thing consistently crawl out. Not perfectly reasonable “I’m am completely repelled by last week’s shooting of a young girl in Gaza” or “I oppose Israel building a fence outside the Green line,” or any other sort of normal objection, including horrified objection or plaint, to an act, alone; those would be simply arguable and fine. But what always turns up is the Jewish State is uniquely illegitimate and has no right to exist.

Not “the United Kingdom has no right to exist” or “the U.S. has no right to exist” or “the Russian Federation has no right to exist” or “China has no right to exist” as states. Because, after all, none of these states has any history of racism or mass murder or unjust war.

No, the Jewish State is unique.

Not exactly a chorus of concerted objection is heard here, either.

Niebuhr occurs to me.

I’m old enough to remember when support of the socialistic State of Israel was one of the firmest pillars of the left there was.

And it’s not because Israel has slowly or quickly become a uniquely evil, racist, state that that’s changed.

This is why I should know better than to get enmeshed in these threads.

But I also can’t stand to see the left enmeshed in these sorts of ignorant, bigoted, disproportionate-at-best, repulsive, views.

Vile stuff indeed.

“Meanwhile, as usual, why pick on the Jews first, before demanding that any other of the states in the world dissolve themselves, and its people offer themselves up to the kind and democratic likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, I leave to the reader.”

Not Jews, not picked on first. The only effective discriminator seems to be “Zionist” though as I said above it doesn’t work accurately enough. Plus for a lot of younger ahistorical folks it’s reminiscent of Bob Marley more than it is the atrocities of Sabra and Gaza and the death of Rachel Corrie.
It is precisely to not be picking on “Jews” that I speak to this issue.
Naomi Klein is a Jew but she isn’t killing women and children for personal gain. And that is what’s happening in Israel. Personal gain is the motive, though it’s diffused into a larger mold, the group, the ethnically circumscribed nation-state. But it is not “Jews”, something less proud, and undeserving of the legitimate sympathy Jews have earned.
Whatever that is, it’s armed with nuclear weapons, and it’s belligerent, and it’s sociopathically irrational. That’s why it’s getting picked on.
Again, it’s not “Jews” it’s a subset of the group which I believe the Torah itself defines as “someone whose mother was a Jew”.
The US Abassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, is a Jew, as is Paul Bremer, and what that says about who’s directing Bush’s “policy” there is as clear as day.
The Father of Lies is much harder to see than evidence of his work.

But what always turns up is the Jewish State is uniquely illegitimate and has no right to exist.

You saw that in CT? No right to exist? Always turning up?

I find that a bit surprising, to be frank.

Come to think of it, I agree that ‘sovereignty’ argument is not very strong.

I think maybe there is a cumulative effect in this: it’s a 37-year-long military occupation. It’s a colonization of land and natural resources. It’s imperialistic. It’s secretive. It’s done by Europeans to third-worlders, to olive growing peasants. It’s racially/ethnically motivated. It’s brutal, more and more brutal every day. It’s supported by the US elite. It’s produced unbelievable amount of successful demagoguery where perpetrators are always portrayed as victims.

IOW it’s a poster child – it has everything a typical left-leaning person stands against. Maybe that’s where we should look for logical consistency.

And there’s another angle. It may also be the case that many on the left feel in a way responsible for all this by virtue of their own ethnicity – and some (or many) of them suffer from guilt almost on the physical level and they simply become obsessed; that’s people like Michael Neumann, Norm Finkelstein, Israel Shahak and to almost clinical cases like Israel Shamir. It is unique for people who feel personally responsible. It’s personal.

or someone who believes that sanctions should be applied against all countries including Israel that commit human rights violations.

A silly premise. Sanctions are there to achieve (political) goals. Thus the US has sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Sudan and a list of others. Not against Israel. Other countries have other lists, which might include Israel, Taiwan, Birma etc.

The sports boycott against SA and Yugoslavia weren’t there because they were the worst human right abusers, but they were there to send a message. And that message was recieved pretty well. Ask the cricketers in the SA case and the football players in the Yugoslav case.

Thus the sports boycott of Israel by Iran isn’t that strange or wrong. It is pretty useless though since Iran is (currently) isolated in its action. Just as the US is in the Cuban cigar smoking boycott.

As I said I think there is something artificial about the Jewish state. It’s an invention, the product of utopian idealism,. The left used to celebrate quite a few such places.

If I was separating one form of nationalism, perhaps it’s merely a difference of scale. Hypertrophied nationalism, nationalism not as idea but ideology. My favorite irony in life is that the Jewish state should be so Germanic.

And for the record my father was always annoyed that he was never given the option to check “Jewish” instead of White or caucasian on any form that included questions about ethnicity. There are a few Chinese jews but it’s called anti-semitism for a reason.

Apologies for rambling, it’s been a long day.

“As I said I think there is something artificial about the Jewish state.”

There’s something artificial about all states. That’s why Wilsonian concepts of self-determination are somewhat incomplete and self-contradictory.

I also, incidentally, as anyone remotely familiar with my opinions and writings knows, have always condemned Revisionist Zionism.

Seth Edenbaum says: “There are a few Chinese jews but it’s called anti-semitism for a reason.”

Yes, there is, but it seems you don’t know what it is. Does the name “Wilhelm Marr” ring a bell? No?

But if you’re arguing that this means Israel as a Jewish State shouldn’t exist, than why should China exist, given Tibet? Why should the Russian Federation exist given Chechyna? Let alone getting into the historical occupations of the U.S. and the British Empire, let alone….

“And please don’t say I’m not a Jew.”

Where did I express the slightest opinion on the topic? (This is the Internet; I have no way of knowing if you’re the Chief Rabbi of Britain having a lark, or an eight-year-old Russian Orthodox dwarf with exceptional language skills.)

much thanks to someone for mentioning chinese jews. that gives a new layer of meaning to the “Hu is a Jew” controversy.

Before this post completely scrolls off the front page, and commenting likely ceases, I don’t know if Chris is still reading this, but if so, I’d like to think that, at least in regard to the Internet, and some of the commenters attracted to CT, rather than in regard to Britain, he’s been provided with a couple of more “experiences” in these comments.

Do 2 million Russians- the number of arrivals since 1990- have more rights to land in the state of Israel than the 2 million Palestinians in the camps.

You are attempting a moral and logical justification for saying that they do.

Jonathan Edelstein: “What I can’t and don’t respect is arguments that depend on special pleading, double standards or reasoning from the conclusion. I have yet to see a historical uniqueness argument that doesn’t depend on one of these, given that there has been so much history and so many conflicts that nothing is beyond comparison.”

2 million Russians become 2 Million Israelis overnight, and you argue against special pleading and reasoning from the conclusion?
Israel was built on such arguments. I can’t read that paragraph without wondering about your ability to reason. I have no patience with this any more.

There’s a difference between moving borders and moving populations. Obvious yes?
And there is a difference between a group of people who are and have been the residents of a given area and those who’s claims are based on their status as long lost descendents and distant relatives of people from that area.
By all means give the Anglo citizens of Boston the ‘right of return’ and kick all the blacks and Pakis out of England.

What really disgusts me after all these years is not the fact of the new population in the middle east, but the sense of fucking moral superiority that the rest of us are supposed somehow to recognize and to acccept.
That’s why I have so much more contempt for Israeli liberals than for Likudniks:
“But we’re such nice people.”

No, you’re not.

You ask a White American about the native population and what happened to them and more likely than not he or she will admit we pretty much wiped them out. Will they defend this!? No, But it’s a fact in’t it?
How about Australia? Canada. South America? There’s a difference between the nationalism of populations and the nationalism of invaders. But guess what. The invaders won.

Cut the moralizing crap. Stick to the facts and they’ll be peace a lot faster.

“In any event, I don’t see too many Israeli liberals or leftists defending what happened in 1948. At most, they argue that it is a fait accompli like what happened in other settler states, and that Israel now has the right to exist on the same terms as other settler states”

Are the British still transporting Scottish Presbyterians to Ireland?

There’s nothing new about ethnic cleansing. So what? I’m not defending it, am I?
You think the morality of conquest is no longer politically relevant in the United States or the EU!? You equate Israel with New Zealand?

This could turn into an interesting discussion. What’s the difference between monarchist empire and fascist empire, the difference between violent barbarism and violent hypocrisy? Fascism ‘is the pederast from ‘Opus Dei'”, the violent and insecure. The violent and indifferent gave us great crime and great art. The violent and hypocritical gave us Soviet Socialist Realism, Arno Brecker and the bureaucracy of death. Nationalism is the barbarism of tradition. Fascism is the barbarism of ideas. And which one defines the barbarism of Little Israel, the Civilized, Western, even Germanic[?] mini-state with the bomb?

Barbarians don’t ask for anyone’s approval They do what the have to do to get what they want. I can respect that, even as I oppose them.
But I have no respect for those who get upset when I don’t offer my approval of their crimes.
—
Recently on CT someone responded to a post by Brad DeLong on the language used in the PSATs. I seem to have been the only one who spends any time here who was disgusted by DeLong’s post. Before anything else, we’re stuck with langauge. We need to learn to use it well. Cookie-cutter technocrats and cookie-cutter club kids are at about the same level of arrested developement. it’s the moral philosophy of “neat,” as in “cool.”

There is nothing more important in the world than an an understanding of language and how it is used. What is the difference between the crimes of monarchism and the crimes of fascism. What’s the difference between Albert Speer and Guarino Guarini? Between Bernini and Brecker?

Take it away Brad.
I’m done with politics for now. I’m sticking to art for a while.

There’s nothing new about ethnic cleansing. So what? I’m not defending it, am I?

Nor are the Israeli liberals you deride. Or, all right, its more complicated than that. From my (fairly wide) experience with the breed, the most common view of the events of 1948 is that it was something bad that resulted in something good. In other words, the ethnic cleansing was a crime for which amends must be made, but its result – the state of Israel – is something that is nevertheless worth preserving and has brought much good to the world.

That’s also the default attitude of most American liberals. For all they may acknowledge that the Indians got a raw deal, few would argue that the United States isn’t worth preserving or that it is irrevocably tainted by the circumstances of its foundation. Stop 100 American liberals on the street, and see how many think immigration to America was a net positive or whether the founding fathers were great men within the limits of their times. As Americans view Washington, so do Israelis view Ben-Gurion.

You think the morality of conquest is no longer politically relevant in the United States or the EU!?

Maybe I was sloppy with language. The morality of the conquest of the United States by European settlers is no longer politically relevant. It’s quite safe for descendants of settlers to acknowledge that American Indians, Australian aborigines etc. were hard done unto, because the cost of making amends is insignificant. Nobody’s talking about giving them back the country, so it’s easy to weep crocodile tears over their plight. (I say “crocodile tears” because I very much doubt that many Americans, Australians etc. are kept up nights by the immoralities surrounding their respective countries’ foundation.)

The morality of American conquest as applied to other countries – e.g., Iraq – is another story.

You equate Israel with New Zealand?

Two settler states with indigenous minorities that make up about the same proportion of the population, plenty of unresolved land issues and shooting wars within recent historical memory. The comparison only works up to a point, of course – I don’t “equate” the two – but I think it’s telling that New Zealanders often show the same hypocrisy with respect to conquest as Israelis.

If you prefer, compare Israel to New Caledonia. Indigenous plurality, shooting wars, land issues, nasty right wing, yada, yada, yada. And the same hypocrisy, or maybe more of it.

But I have no respect for those who get upset when I don’t offer my approval of their crimes.

Possibly there’s a difference between crimes and their fruits. And it isn’t your approval that’s being asked for, it’s your acquiescence – that is, unless you are principled enough to withhold acquiescence to all settler states.

At any rate, this thread has long since left the front page and I doubt anyone but us is still reading, so I’ll leave off the moralizing crap.

If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing

I think it’s “has” rather than “is” – one episode, in 1947-49, and since then a fitful and often ham-handed attempt to reach a modus vivendi with its Arab citizens.

What’s with all the Israel-is-Germanic-like stuff

Herzl was a great admirer of Habsburg liberalism, although I’m not sure that’s what SE had in mind.

It seems ludicrous to rationalize the actions of Israel, at a time when their influence extends into the White House at an unprecedented level, and their influence is possibly a major reason for this war in Iraq. Yes, many countries have committed unthinkable atrocities in their founding, and history, against indigenous peoples. What is dangerous now, is the fanatical actions of Israel, and its genocidal policy towards the Arabs. The stakes are much higher, for all of us, than when Colombus touched down in the new world. Comparing Israel to New Zealand is like comparing apples to french fries.

Another point about the 2 million Russians becoming Israelis overnight: they weren’t Russians.
Of course, they were from Russia, and spoke Russian, and all that. But under the laws of the Soviet Union, their nationality was Jewish, not Russian. So a great many of those people who have migrated to Israel grew up being legally regarded as Jews, not Russians. And many were subject to quite vicious anti-Semitism, as many Jews in former Soviet territories still are.
This does not, of course, in any way excuse Israel’s crimes. But I think the preponderance of anti-Semitism in recent European history is a relevant bit of information here.
As to Mona’s last comment: ‘scuse me? ‘it’s statistically proven that one of the main causes of antisemitism is Jews arguing with other Jews on who’s more Jewish than the other, what is Jewishness and who knows more about it.’ Is this supposed to be funny? I’m sure it was meant innocently, but to blame anti-Semitism on Jewish behaviour — or, rather, on the behaviour of some individual Jews — as a way of making a point, even in jest, seems to me pretty thoughtless.
All that said, I also think the snipes at Chris above are most unfair. He read reports of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in his country; being neither anti-American nor anti-Semitic, he was concerned by this; so he asked people for their experiences. This all seems a fair, reasonable, humane thing to do. That the comment board has attracted a certain number of anti-Semitic whackos, and that the conversation has been taken over by arguments about Israel, may not be greatly surprising; but it’s in no way Chris’s fault. I think we all owe him a word of thanks for starting this discussion — and some of us owe him a word of apology for dragging down its level.

There’s little point, from my point of view, in my continuing further; I’m not going to convince someone who believes “Israel, and its genocidal policy towards the Arabs” is an accurate description of events — but when the death camps are running, get back to me — and they’re not going to convince me, any more that Bremer or Negroponte are going to be inviting me their kids’ bar mitzphas, or black masses, or drinking blood parties, or whatever, any time soon.

A word to Mona, though, regarding: “If the Brits hated Americans and Jews so much, why do they love so many American and Jewish actors and pop stars?”

I gather that the popularity in the UK and US in the fifties of black jazz musicians meant that racism wasn’t a problem, and that by the Sixties and Seventies, given Bill Cosby, Sidney Poitier, Willie Mays, and a gazillion other black entertainers and basketball players and boxers and track starts and sports stars in general as well as musicians, racism completely ceased to exist. Good to know! Today, of course, there is no longer any racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism, in either the U.S. or Britain.

Or, conceivably, no one was saying that “Brits hate Americans and Jews so much” (maybe the FrontPage writer, but conversation in this thread long since left her behind as a topic), and no one sane would say there is no anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism in Britain, and the only reasonable question is how prevalent or rare those phenonena are; but I don’t see a likelihood of more truth being squeezed out of those left on this thread.

Seth Edenbaum says “And I’m not going to bother to explain my ‘Israel is Germanic’ comment” before bothering to explain what he meant. “Ashkenazi” is the word you were looking for. And the majority of people who put Begin and the Likud in power, as it happens, were Sephardic (Ladino/Middle Eastern), which kind of messes with your reiteration, but since I find your focus on ethnicity pointless in the first place, it’s no surprise that I’m not going to find your path of reasoning interesting.

“Israel was an ideology before it was a fact.” Yes, this makes it entirely different from all the other socialistic states that were created out of the same storm of formative ideology of the 19th century. Not at all like the Soviet Union, or Mao’s China, no siree! They were/are, you know, natural states. Ditto Pakistan. And so many others….

“Wilhelm Marr? Thanks for the link….”

I’ll take that as as close to an admission that you were completely clueless as to the meaning of “anti-Semitism” as you are likely to make. I’m sorry to be so rude — that’s not my preferred style — but you’re not exactly approaching these topics with an attitude of humbleness about your cluelessness in at least some areas, or great politese, either.

This is not precisely the act of Nazis, or even apartheid-era rulers in SA.

It isn’t. Just as Israel isn’t New Zealand.

This hardly makes the last paragraph, as so honestly represented here, evidence of “ethnic cleansing.” On the contrary, the Arab proportion of the population of Jersusalem is growing!

I do consider it a form of ethnic cleansing. To quote another piece out of context:

The compound is currently, and gradually, being cleared of its Arab population by means of legal procedures; but tension has erupted from time to time.

Israel has politicies in and around Jerusalem that are clearly in conflict with international law, as recently confirmed by the ICJ.

You can talk around that, say it is not ethnic cleansing, Har Homa is no settlement, it is no population transfer because there were Jews living there before 1947, ethnically separated neigboorhoods are a fact of live etc. but for me those are flimsy excuses for not dealing with the problem.

I troll these things because many, especially Jonathan Edelstein, have the habit of somehow posing their views as the unbiased or reasonable one, while clearly having a horse in the race, so to speak.

And, hey, by all means, let’s only take note of the faults and wrongs of one side.

A weird excuse that I fail to grasp. Besides I made a reference to MEMRI, to show off the one-sidedness and propaganda character of my post.

And if you can’t understand the difference between “Israel is New Zealand” and “Israel is similar to New Zealand in some significant ways,” then this discussion is truly hopeless.

And if you can’t understand the difference between “Israel is New Zealand” and “Israel is similar to New Zealand in some significant ways,” then this discussion is truly hopeless.

Actually, I wonder if this might be the impetus behind some of the historical uniqueness arguments – the belief (conscious or otherwise) that drawing parallels between two situations is tantamount to equating them. Frankly, I find the idea of discussing a geopolitical situation without comparison to other experiences silly, but your mileage may vary.