Middle East Politics

Mozza said:


If you're antisemitic but pro-Israel dinners on me
Click to expand...


(5.51) O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

(5:21) O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back; for then you will be returned as losers.

Name the restaurant.
 
Hungary does have a pretty anti-semetic thing going on in fairness. I used to live just a few meters away from the biggest Synagogue in Europe and there was all sorts of security around it. Jewish meetings in nearby buildings also had armed security at the entrances.
 
Raoul said:
Hungary does have a pretty anti-semetic thing going on in fairness. I used to live just a few meters away from the biggest Synagogue in Europe and there was all sorts of security around it. Jewish meetings in nearby buildings also had armed security at the entrances.
Click to expand...

That's the case with Jewish institutions all over Europe now sadly.
 
Fearless said:
(5.51) O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

(5:21) O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back; for then you will be returned as losers.

Name the restaurant.
Click to expand...

Head, sand etc etc
 
Sweet Square said:
fecking hell this is awful

Video appears to show cheers as Israeli sniper shoots Palestinian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...show-cheers-israeli-sniper-shoots-palestinian
Click to expand...


Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman told reporters that he, too, celebrated the shooting, even if the fact that it was recorded was unfortunate. “The Gaza sniper deserves a decoration, and the photographer a demerit,” he said.

“We have reached a level of insanity and delusion,” Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan told Israeli radio. “To take a situation from the battlefield, when soldiers are under stress and explosive devices are being thrown at them and attempts are being made to infiltrate, and to take their human response and judge them from the armchairs in Tel Aviv?”

“What’s all the fuss about?” asked Oren Hazan, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. “Anyone who approaches the fence, armed or not, is gonna get it. As it should be!”
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/10/gaza-protests-palestine-israel-sniper-video/
 
Anti semitism has increased massively in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK and will continue to increase due to refugees and demographic changes. It's just a sad fact of life. The West is meant to be tolerant and peaceful but it's not been the case and will not be the case. Terror attacks on Jewish supermarkets, schools and museums have happened in the past. A Jewish chabad was attacked during the Mumbai terror attacks as well.

Having armed security at Jewish institutions and places is good for safety. With police providing security, untoward incidents can be avoided and tackled.
 
IDF Sniper Inquiry

1. Shooting: Findings of IDF operational inquiry will be submitted to the Military Advocate General's Office.

2. Video: Unauthorised filming, distribution of material, and statements will be dealt with by IDF commanders.



Note: The injured party was shot in the leg, not killed.

 
Last edited:
Brendan O'Neill said:
[...] ‘It isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’, observers say, and they are absolutely right. Every nation state must be open to criticism and protest. But if you only criticise Israel, or you criticise Israel disproportionately to every other state, and if your criticism of Israel is loaded with Holocaust imagery and talk of bloodletting, and if you boycott Israel and no other nation, and if you flatter the dark imaginings of the far right and Islamists and conspiracy theorists by fretting over a super powerful Israel Lobby, and if the sight of an Israeli violinist is too much for you to stomach, then, I’m sorry, that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

 
Chairman Woodie said:
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. What of Israel's Jewish critics? Do they get bundled into the anti-semitic camp if they disproportionately criticise Israel? I can somewhat agree with the hypocrisy of those who are wax lyrical about Israel's crimes but remain silent or even defensive over other nations. But by the same token this form of hypocrisy is equally rampant with some of Israel's fiercest supporters. In particular how they vehemently push for military action on Syria on humanitarian grounds yet see no issue with aligning themselves with the despicable Saudi regime or head chopping jihadist insurgents.

Antisemitism is most certainly depressingly rampant but failing to decouple strong criticisms of Israel from antisemitism will only exacerbate the latter instead of alleviate it.
 
Kaos said:
I don't buy it. What of Israel's Jewish critics? Do they get bundled into the anti-semitic camp if they disproportionately criticise Israel? I can somewhat agree with the hypocrisy of those who are wax lyrical about Israel's crimes but remain silent or even defensive over other nations. But by the same token this form of hypocrisy is equally rampant with some of Israel's fiercest supporters. In particular how they vehemently push for military action on Syria on humanitarian grounds yet see no issue with aligning themselves with the despicable Saudi regime or head chopping jihadist insurgents.

Antisemitism is most certainly depressingly rampant but failing to decouple strong criticisms of Israel from antisemitism will only exacerbate the latter instead of alleviate it.
Click to expand...

In my view the idea that Jews can't be anti-Semitic is a meme, not a coherent argument.

The difference, in my opinion, is many of Israel's supporters take a stance on M.E. issues with Israel's interests in mind. In contrast to the faux righteous indignation of those 'critics' referenced by Brendan O'Neill.

As for your last point, Brendan O'Neill just has decoupled criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
"if you boycott Israel and no other nation...that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism"
Click to expand...
This argument is nonsensical. Palestinians have called for an organised boycott of Israel. Boycott is a tactic they have decided to employ, in the knowledge that it may hurt Palestinians too. Certain companies and products are targeted. I happen to think that pressure needs to be applied to Israel to make the status quo more costly than the costs of withdrawal and a peace agreement. So I support the boycott.

Does that make me anti-semitic if I am not currently boycotting other countries? I don't even know of an organised boycott of any other countries. Perhaps boycott is not a tactic other oppressed peoples have chosen to employ? Should I stop buying products made from Saudi oil because of Saudi actions in Yemen? What are the goals of the boycott? If the boycott is not organised, what difference will it make if I boycott and nobody else?
 
Super Hans said:
I don't even know of an organised boycott of any other countries. Perhaps boycott is not a tactic other oppressed peoples have chosen to employ?
Click to expand...

The Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) have recently called for a boycott of Turkish tourism and goods. I'm unsure how representative it is, it seems to be a PKK operation. I seem to recall other similar calls in the past, although the context of the Kurdish struggles makes a unified boycott call across all four states in which Kurds are present in large numbers quite difficult if impossible, in contrast to the Palestinians who, despite being dispersed across the Levant and divided by different political factions, have one specific target in mind.

(Edit) here is the KCK boycott call, and here is a call for an academic boycott of Turkey from a bit further back.

(Edit) here is what looks like a Tamil call for a boycott of Sri Lanka, here is one for Morocco over Western Sahara, and of course there have been calls for a boycotts of China due to Tibet. As above I don't know how representative these calls are or much about the conflicts themselves really.
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
The Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) have recently called for a boycott of Turkish tourism and goods. I'm unsure how representative it is, it seems to be a PKK operation. I seem to recall other similar calls in the past, although the context of the Kurdish struggles makes a unified boycott call across all four states in which Kurds are present in large numbers quite difficult if impossible, in contrast to the Palestinians who, despite being dispersed across the Levant and divided by different political factions, have one specific target in mind.

(Edit) here is the KCK boycott call, and here is a call for an academic boycott of Turkey from a bit further back.

(Edit) here is what looks like a Tamil call for a boycott of Sri Lanka, here is one for Morocco over Western Sahara, and of course there have been calls for a boycotts of China due to Tibet. As above I don't know how representative these calls are or much about the conflicts themselves really.
Click to expand...
Thanks 2cents. I’ll be sure to check these out. It’ll be interesting to see what the specific aims of these boycotts are and as you say, who exactly is calling for it.

I think the point I was making is, not many people are actively searching for countries they can boycott. However, if you hear about one, you hear a cry for help from a defenseless party, and you think their grievances are legitimate, am I going to say “Nah, sorry. Can’t help you. I boycott all oppressive regimes or none at all.”
 
Super Hans said:
Thanks 2cents. I’ll be sure to check these out. It’ll be interesting to see what the specific aims of these boycotts are and as you say, who exactly is calling for it.

I think the point I was making is, not many people are actively searching for countries they can boycott. However, if you hear about one, you hear a cry for help from a defenseless party, and you think their grievances are legitimate, am I going to say “Nah, sorry. Can’t help you. I boycott all oppressive regimes or none at all.”
Click to expand...

I think the fact we hadn't heard of these calls and I had to google around for them speaks to an element of the problem described in that article - the disproportionate focus on this conflict as compared to other conflicts of a similar nature and/or scale. This disproportionate focus is not driven entirely or even mostly by antisemitism, there are many reasons for the conflict's high profile. However, where it results from the frequent elevating of Israel's crimes to a uniquely evil status in world history (e.g. by the use of the term 'genocide' or by comparisons with Nazi Germany which are all too frequent these days), or by the application of classic antisemitic rhetoric and imagery to Israel (e.g. in describing Israelis as 'baby-killers', viewing Israel as the root and cause of world conflicts, or the belief that Israel controls US foreign policy), it may cross the line into antisemitism.

I don't think boycotting Israel and only Israel is necessarily antisemitic (obviously there will be people who do it for antisemitic reasons). The things I'd consider asking myself are "what is this boycott trying to achieve?" and "does it have a reasonable chance of succeeding, or at least not making things worse"? There is probably a decent case to be made that of the examples I gave above, a boycott of Israel has the most chance of achieving something, due to the more representative nature of the Israeli political system (although Turkey might present an equally compelling case in that regard). I personally don't support the BDS campaign in its current form, not because I think it would be antisemitic to do so but because I don't believe it will contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But I can see how reasonable people have come to a different conclusion.
 
2cents said:
I think the fact we hadn't heard of these calls and I had to google around for them speaks to an element of the problem described in that article - the disproportionate focus on this conflict as compared to other conflicts of a similar nature and/or scale. This disproportionate focus is not driven entirely or even mostly by antisemitism, there are many reasons for the conflict's high profile. However, where it results from the frequent elevating of Israel's crimes to a uniquely evil status in world history (e.g. by the use of the term 'genocide' or by comparisons with Nazi Germany which are all too frequent these days), or by the application of classic antisemitic rhetoric and imagery to Israel (e.g. in describing Israelis as 'baby-killers', viewing Israel as the root and cause of world conflicts, or the belief that Israel controls US foreign policy), it may cross the line into antisemitism.

I don't think boycotting Israel and only Israel is necessarily antisemitic (obviously there will be people who do it for antisemitic reasons). The things I'd consider asking myself are "what is this boycott trying to achieve?" and "does it have a reasonable chance of succeeding, or at least not making things worse"? There is probably a decent case to be made that of the examples I gave above, a boycott of Israel has the most chance of achieving something, due to the more representative nature of the Israeli political system (although Turkey might present an equally compelling case in that regard). I personally don't support the BDS campaign in its current form, not because I think it would be antisemitic to do so but because I don't believe it will contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. But I can see how reasonable people have come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...
Since there is such a broad spectrum of opinion about how the conflict should be resolved, it presents a problem when it comes to the goals of BDS. How do you get as broad a public as possible to support it? Well, firstly, you don’t take a position on one state or two.

For me, in this particular case, the goals aren’t actually the most important thing. What is important is pressure and making the status quo less appealing for Israel.
It will never get to the point where the actual goals are achieved. Israel would strike a reasonable deal long before that happens. And then, the support for BDS disappears. But in the absence of major pressure, and the international community is not willing to apply significant pressure beyond mild criticism of the settlements, the perceived costs of ending the occupation will continue to make the status quo preferable for Israel.


As leading analyst Nathan Thrall observed in this context, “The real explanation for the past decades of failed peace negotiations is not mistaken tactics or imperfect circumstances, but that no strategy can succeed if it is premised on Israel behaving irrationally.”
 
Super Hans said:
It will never get to the point where the actual goals are achieved. Israel would strike a reasonable deal long before that happens.
Click to expand...

What would a reasonable deal look like to you short of any of the three explicit goals of the BDS movement being achieved?
 
2cents said:
What would a reasonable deal look like to you short of any of the three explicit goals of the BDS movement being achieved?
Click to expand...
The international consensus, as endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations for the last few decades in the annual UNGA resolution, Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.
 
Super Hans said:
The international consensus, as endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations for the last few decades in the annual UNGA resolution, Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Ah right, from your posts I had assumed you completely reject the possibility of two states as incompatible with real justice for the Palestinians.
 
2cents said:
Ah right, from your posts I had assumed you completely reject the possibility of two states as incompatible with real justice for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...
Real justice and a reasonable deal are very different things. I just think the law should be enforced. The status quo is not humane.

Out of curiosity, what in my posts made you think I "completely reject the possibility of two states"? :)
 
Super Hans said:
Real justice and a reasonable deal are very different things. I just think the law should be enforced. The status quo is not humane.

Out of curiosity, what in my posts made you think I "completely reject the possibility of two states"? :)
Click to expand...

To answer that I'd have to go back through all your posts. You're a good poster I think but I'll leave it there, my mistake.
 
2cents said:
To answer that I'd have to go back through all your posts. You're a good poster I think but I'll leave it there, my mistake.
Click to expand...
Ha! Fair enough. If I may, how would a reasonable, achievable resolution of the conflict look to you?
 
Super Hans said:
Ha! Fair enough. If I may, how would a reasonable, achievable resolution of the conflict look to you?
Click to expand...

I don't see one in the current global climate. Right now, Israeli Jews are too Zionized, Palestinians are too Arabized/Islamized*, and a resolution would require the reverse of both of these trends IMO. Part of this is due to the dynamics of the conflict itself, and the inevitable hardening of attitudes and identities that tends to occur in conflicts such as these, but a lot of it reflects broader regional and global trends - it's a bit much to expect Israelis and Palestinians to abandon their respective national identities while the rest of the world remain tied to theirs. And Israel's lurch to the right is mirroring the much-discussed rightward turn we're seeing elsewhere, while there seems no end in sight to the hold Islamist politics have over the Arab world to which the Palestinians are tied. So it may take an unforeseen global shift to alternative forms of political organization before the two parties can envision actually sharing the land as equals. But before that has a chance to happen, obviously one side may be able to achieve victory by force of arms. I don't think a partition of Palestine between the two parties will ever produce peace. Some day an agreement along those lines may be signed, who knows, but I think that'll just mark a new phase in the conflict.

*(edit): sorry I should make clear I mean these in the sense of political ideology, not ethnic/religious identity.
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
I don't see one in the current global climate. Right now, Israeli Jews are too Zionized, Palestinians are too Arabized/Islamized*, and a resolution would require the reverse of both of these trends IMO. Part of this is due to the dynamics of the conflict itself, and the inevitable hardening of attitudes and identities that tends to occur in conflicts such as these, but a lot of it reflects broader regional and global trends - it's a bit much to expect Israelis and Palestinians to abandon their respective national identities while the rest of the world remain tied to theirs. And Israel's lurch to the right is mirroring the much-discussed rightward turn we're seeing elsewhere, while there seems no end in sight to the hold Islamist politics have over the Arab world to which the Palestinians are tied. So it may take an unforeseen global shift to alternative forms of political organization before the two parties can envision actually sharing the land as equals. But before that has a chance to happen, obviously one side may be able to achieve victory by force of arms. I don't think a partition of Palestine between the two parties will ever produce peace. Some day an agreement along those lines may be signed, who knows, but I think that'll just mark a new phase in the conflict.

*(edit): sorry I should make clear I mean these in the sense of political ideology, not ethnic/religious identity.
Click to expand...

May I ask, what do you mean by Israeli Jews are too Zionized? I understand your point about the Palestinians.

I think Israel's lurch to the right of the political spectrum differs from elsewhere. In my view security threats are a significant factor in Israeli voting. For example, Ariel Sharon took a hard-line on Palestinian terrorism in the year prior to the 2003 elections, and emphasised those measures during his campaign. I think this has been the case since the 1990s.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
May I ask, what do you mean by Israeli Jews are too Zionized? I understand your point about the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

I mean too tied to the political project of Zionism, which is fundamentally incompatible with the aspirations of their neighbours.

Chairman Woodie said:
I think Israel's lurch to the right of the political spectrum differs from elsewhere. In my view security threats are a significant factor in Israeli voting. For example, Ariel Sharon took a hard-line on Palestinian terrorism in the year prior to the 2003 elections, and emphasised those measures during his campaign. I think this has been the case since the 1990s.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I meant by "the dynamics of the conflict itself, and the inevitable hardening of attitudes and identities that tends to occur in conflicts such as these" - there was a small window of opportunity in the 90s when, in the spirit of the post Cold War era exemplified by Shimon Peres's vision of a "New Middle East", the Israeli public was willing to grant some measure of Palestinian independence in the territories as part of a general peace deal. That willingness basically evaporated due to the second intifada. But there are other factors at work as well, such as the changing demographics of Israeli Jews due to the arrival of ex-Soviet emigres and the higher birthrate in non-secular families.
 
Kaos said:
I don't buy it. What of Israel's Jewish critics? Do they get bundled into the anti-semitic camp if they disproportionately criticise Israel?
Click to expand...
This is a complicated issue in itself. My opinion: Almost none of them can be called antisemitic. Most of them have illusions about the prevalence of antisemitism.

I wrote a few lines in the Corbyn thread about a leaflet of a Jewish left-wing group that tries to combine anti-Zionism with opposition to antisemitism. More could be said about the troubles they run into in this attempt, as in my view it is quite revealing of the precarious position Jewish Israel critics are often in.
Kaos said:
I can somewhat agree with the hypocrisy of those who are wax lyrical about Israel's crimes but remain silent or even defensive over other nations. But by the same token this form of hypocrisy is equally rampant with some of Israel's fiercest supporters. In particular how they vehemently push for military action on Syria on humanitarian grounds yet see no issue with aligning themselves with the despicable Saudi regime or head chopping jihadist insurgents.
Click to expand...
Another topic for itself, but crucial for this problem is the logic of anti-imperialism, both as a political concept (less prevalent today due to the general decline of the left) and as an ideological reflex (a mainstream phenomenon by now).

Its consequence is the often seen inclination of people subscribing to social liberation or human rights towards sidling with horrible regimes or rackets, as they are their perceived enemy's enemies and thus exempted from scrutiny. I'd say the self-perceived "progressive" narratives on Middle Eastern politics largely follow this logic, consciously or unconsciously.
Kaos said:
Antisemitism is most certainly depressingly rampant but failing to decouple strong criticisms of Israel from antisemitism will only exacerbate the latter instead of alleviate it.
Click to expand...
The problem is that these can't be simply treated as seperate things - as if the absolute majority of people with antisemitic leanings (or the full-blown nutters) wouldn't be obsessive about Israel.

Post-Holocaust antisemitism has the problem that it has been utterly disgraced by the Nazi genocide, and placed under a strong taboo as a consequence - at least in the (wider) Western world. Yet the basic social conditions that have produced antisemitism in the past still exist. So you have loads of people whose attitude towards Jews ranges from irrational dislike to projective hatred, but they don't have a socially acceptable way to act out on it. The open Jew-haters will target Israel anyway. The vast majority who have the urge to keep a more respectable profile will engage in "criticism of Israel".

Decoupling the phenomenon of the remarkable public fixation on Israel from antisemitism is something that doesn't make sense under these conditions. Whoever is serious about opposition to antisemitism will have to face this reality, and the power these resentments have over widespread perceptions of the ME conflict. Most who understand themselves as being "critical of Israel" are still short of making even the first step in dealing with this reality: acknowledging it exists.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
This is a complicated issue in itself. My opinion: Almost none of them can be called antisemitic. Most of them have illusions about the prevalence of antisemitism.

I wrote a few lines in the Corbyn thread about a leaflet of a Jewish left-wing group that tries to combine anti-Zionism with opposition to antisemitism. More could be said about the troubles they run into in this attempt, as in my view it is quite revealing of the precarious position Jewish Israel critics are often in.

Another topic for itself, but crucial for this problem is the logic of anti-imperialism, both as a political concept (less prevalent today due to the general decline of the left) and as an ideological reflex (a mainstream phenomenon by now).

Its consequence is the often seen inclination of people subscribing to social liberation or human rights towards sidling with horrible regimes or rackets, as they are their perceived enemy's enemies and thus exempted from scrutiny. I'd say the self-perceived "progressive" narratives on Middle Eastern politics largely follow this logic, consciously or unconsciously.

The problem is that these can't be simply treated as seperate things - as if the absolute majority of people with antisemitic leanings (or the full-blown nutters) wouldn't be obsessive about Israel.

Post-Holocaust antisemitism has the problem that it has been utterly disgraced by the Nazi genocide, and placed under a strong taboo as a consequence - at least in the (wider) Western world. Yet the basic social conditions that have produced antisemitism in the past still exist. So you have loads of people whose attitude towards Jews ranges from irrational dislike to projective hatred, but they don't have a socially acceptable way to act out on it. The open Jew-haters will target Israel anyway. The vast majority who have the urge to keep a more respectable profile will engage in "criticism of Israel".

Decoupling the phenomenon of the remarkable public fixation on Israel from antisemitism is something that doesn't make sense under these conditions. Whoever is serious about opposition to antisemitism will have to face this reality, and the power these resentments have over widespread perceptions of the ME conflict. Most who understand themselves as being "critical of Israel" are still short of making even the first step in dealing with this reality: acknowledging it exists.
Click to expand...

A really brilliant post.

Lets see how our resident Corbynistas decouple this then....

gazaswastika.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.