Anti-Semitism and the New "Jews"

by **nomo** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:39 am

<a href="http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6w/antisemitism.htm">www.crisispapers.org/essa...mitism.htm</a> Anti-Semitism and the New "Jews" By Bernard Weiner Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers March 21, 2006 Recently while surfing the web, I happened onto an article at a number of alternative-press websites by a widely-published internet author. I couldn't believe what I was reading: the essay was a long diatribe aimed, it seemed, at an amorphous Jewish conspiracy that according to the author is at the heart of what ails America and its policies. Maybe I misunderstood, I thought -- since the actual word "Jews" was not used -- so I googled the author's name and read another essay by him. This one pulled no punches; it was a defense of Holocaust denial and a scabrous attack on "the Jews" as the evil villains of contemporary society. I have nothing against the right of anyone to print anything; it's the glory of free speech, and I find reprehensible Austria's throwing David Irving into prison for expressing similar Holocaust-denial thoughts in his writings. (If rightwingers can be jailed for expressing their opinions, at some point it surely will happen to leftwingers. Free speech should always be defended for one and all, the exception being actual incitements to violence -- "shouting fire in a crowded theater," that sort of thing.) But I wondered whether the website editors had carefully perused what this author was writing in his article, or whether they simply read the first paragraph or two and decided to publish or link to it because he had established a reputation questioning the Bush Administration's Iraq war policies and its 9/11 scenario. The other possibility, which I didn't really want to consider, was that the editors had read his article carefully and agreed with this kind of racist garbage. Anti-Semitism is universal and, though more prevalent on the Right, also exists on the Left. (Note: I'm not talking about anti-Zionism, i.e., articles opposed to Israeli policy and even to the existence of Israel, about which reasonable minds can agree or disagree. No, I'm referring to out-and-out raging rants about "the Jews," as a people.) ANTI-SEMITISM FROM THE LEFT Anti-Semitism on the Left is generally not spoken about, but it's real and appears to be growing. For those so inclined, it's easy to slip from denunciations of Israeli policy -- many of us on the Left are quite vocal in opposing Israeli policies and actions -- to out-and-out anti-Semitism. It's often difficult to locate that fine line. Jew-haters often can hide their true feelings and arguments inside broadsides against Israeli policy, but those opposed vehemently to certain Israeli policies (and I count myself as one of that breed) are definitely not anti-Jewish in this context. So how to tell the difference? Certainly, AIPAC (the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has no problem: Anybody writing anything in opposition to Israeli policies is all too-often smeared with the "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hater" brush; if they happen to be Jewish, AIPAC types often throw the phrase "self-hating Jew" into the denunciation. In my experience, in order to judge articles about Israelis and Jews somewhat accurately, you sort of have to follow a pundit's writings over time, and discern where the arguments are coming from and where they are going. REACTIONS TO ISRAELI POLICIES Most liberals and leftists, including those who have grave disagreements with Israeli policy and U.S. policy toward Israel, abhor generalized statements about any subgroup of people, be they Jews, Arabs, Muslims, African-Americans, gays, women, et al. But because U.S.-supported Israeli policies are at the heart of much of the conflict in the Middle East, and thus are connected in some degree to Islamist terrorism around the world, anti-Jewish feelings get stirred up more than usual in these current times. The anti-Semitism-on-the-Left issue cries out for more in-depth examination as to motive and intent. Perhaps in time, I will be able to delve deeper into this topic. Suffice it to say that elements of anti-Semitism are alive and well not only in the usual hate and neo-Nazi sites on the internet but also can be found where most of us live in alternative, progressive and even mainstream circles. I realize that I come at this topic from an insider's extra-sensitivity, having been raised Jewish and with many members of my parents' families having perished in the Holocaust. Perhaps I'm over-reacting. I would love to believe that, but I don't really think so. I'd love to hear others' opinions on this development, which might help expand the thesis. THERE IS NO VACCINE AGAINST HATE Anti-Semitism is like a dormant virus, relatively quiet most of the time in respectable society and discourse, but which bursts out into the open now and again, usually in times of economic and psychological crisis. The resulting social rash can be deadly. And there is no vaccine, other than shining the light of truth on ignorance, with which to combat the disease of hate. (In America, overt racism against blacks similarly is a virus that tends to lie dormant until suddenly bursting out in tense times.) Since the Israel/Palestine situation goes unresolved decade after decade, and since the explosive region there is so much at the heart of U.S. policy and thus of resistance to that policy, it should not surprise anyone that the virus of anti-Semitism is erupting once again, and in so many areas. Just a few examples: THE FORGED "PROTOCOLS" * We get more than the usual number of anti-Semitic letters these days at The Crisis Papers, mostly disguised but more often recently out-and-out Nazi-type screeds directed at "the Jews." For the most part, we don't print them, but every so often we do so to reveal to our readers the level of what passes for intelligent debate from some on the Right fringes. (And how far are the incendiary comments about "traitorous" liberals by the likes of Coulter, Horowitz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage from crossing the line into incitement-speech?) * In earlier years, world leaders would not speak openly in anti-Semitic terms; but recently, for example, officials from Malaysia and Iran in public speeches have stoked the fires of anti-Jewish suspicion and hatred. And just a few years ago, Egyptian TV broadcast a documentary filled with anti-Jewish propaganda, based largely on the long-discredited forgery called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," about an alleged Jewish plot to rule the world. Schools in many Muslim countries (including states allied with the U.S.) continue to teach their young students to hate Jews, likewise using the phony "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as their starting point. * The fact that there are a number of well-known Jews at the heart of the neo-conservative movement in America -- most notably Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith -- has engendered a good many rants about how "the Jews" control U.S. foreign policy and have taken America to war in Iraq for reasons having more to do with protecting Israel than America. (Ignored in these screeds are the majority of non-Jews involved in the neo-con and HardRight movements, and the influence of Christian Zionists and the military/industrial/Big Oil complex on American foreign policy.) * The Left was somewhat split over last weekend's anti-war demonstrations. Many liberals chose not to participate in the large marches organized by one of the main national anti-war groups, A.N.S.W.E.R. ("Act Now to Stop War & End Racism"), because that outfit's emphasis on Palestinian statehood at the expense of Israel's existence -- thus implying that Jews need to be eliminated from the region -- is both offensive and ill-advised; the group also is much criticized for co-opting rallies organized by other anti-war groups and bringing a whole host of domestic and foreign issues into marches supposedly devoted to getting the U.S. out of Iraq. Those not choosing to march with A.N.S.W.E.R. avoided Saturday's rallies or made other arrangements; many are gearing up for the April 29 nationwide demos being organized by United for Peace, which concentrates less on side issues and mostly on ending the war in Iraq. Well, one could go on and on with such a listing. The point is that scapegoats are required in any time of crisis. Often those scapegoats are "the Jews," but at other times and at other places, the focus of hate is directed at "the liberals," "the blacks," "the gays," "the Arabs," and so on. "KILLING EACH OTHER, OF COURSE" I recall my travels in Yugoslavia when Tito was holding together that artificially-constructed, multi-ethnic country by force of his charisma and his Communist police-state. I asked all the academics and students I ran into what would happen when their leader died. It didn't matter whether these reasonable intellectual types were Serbs or Croats, Christian or Muslim, the answer was always the same: "When Tito dies? We'll go back to killing each other, of course." But, I protested, you've lived together in peace for decades now, you are often good friends and colleagues, you even intermarry; why would you revert back to such brutal ways of dealing with each other, to a kind of vicious tribalism? The answer I got was heartbreaking in its scapegoat simplicity: "Because you can't trust the [insert name of ethnic or religious group], they're all liars and thieves." When, years later, the Serbs and Croats began slaughtering each other, I was appalled but not surprised. Ancient rivers run deep. And Jews are, in some ways, as ancient as they come, and therefore throughout history have served as handy scapegoats when an outlet is needed for blame and resentment. THE NEW "JEWS" But there are Jews and there are those who might be considered the new "Jews," who take their lumps as well: homosexuals, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Palestinians and other Arabs in Israel and the U.S. (and often also in Arab nations), African-Americans in the South and in the inner cities, Mexican immigrants, whoever. It's the same process of stereotyping and repression, which often leads to discrimination and violence, even when the group being victimized changes. Again, this topic of anti-Semitism on the Left and Right is enormous, and I only want to raise it here as a warning flag for progressives, something we need to examine and deal with in thinking about how discriminated-against groups are treated. For obvious reasons, anti-Jewish expression on the Left mostly does not make its way into liberal discourse. But if you want a good starting-point for thinking about the issue, I'd suggest a 2003 article that transcribes a rare forum on the topic: Jamie Glazov's "Symposium: Anti-Semitism - the New Call of the Left" at FrontPage Magazine. Perhaps what is called for is a national forum on religious/ethnic/sexual-preference scapegoating that includes representatives from all discriminated groups. The participants might then become aware of the commonality of their persecution (and often of their persecutors), and develop a coordinated way of defending themselves and going after those who wish them ill. Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). For comment: >> crisispapers@comcast.net <<.

by **havanagilla** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:40 am

it sums up my feelings about the issue (of antisem in the left). I find them more disturbing than the usual suspects. But, i always remind myself that Nazi stands for national SOCIALISTS.... Namely, that anti war, progressive "good people" can be racist and brutal as well. The right "ism" is not an innoculation against being evil. ---

by **smithtalk** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:55 am

but what author, what paper, i for one would like to read it and judge for myself, or is that not the point

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:22 pm

I think to be on the "right" side, you have to start from a very simple morality. Both "anti-semites" and many of those who claim to speak for "the Jews" are unconsciously operating from what I call a "tribal" basis, rather than a purely moral one. My own litmus test is whether, if you remove the tribal labels from the perpetrators and the victims, and just look at the actions themselves, are they justified, are they legal, are they acceptable? The tribal instinct is very powerful, and it's used by savvy politicians to overcome people's reason and moral scruples. I've known people who were anti-war and pro-human rights who confessed that they got a rush from watching the US bomb Iraq in 1991. I had a good friend in university, a Jewish boy, a kind, gentle soul, who told me that he felt a kind of crazed exhilaration when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. These reactions emanate from our reptilian brain, but they should not rule our principles or our behaviour. We need to acknowledge that they exist, perhaps put there by God to ensure that we have free will, that we have a choice. We are not angels, we are complex creatures whose destiny in this world is to make our choices and live with the consequences.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:35 pm

I'd like to have seen the article. I think it's good this is out there...but it doesn't really get at what I think is going on. While I worry about prejudice against Jews...that's not really what I worry about the most in the sorts of articles that he points out (though without linking to the original author, I agree it's hard to judge.) What I worry about more is a sort of rightwing "infiltration" of the left. And this is done no more effectively than within the world of conspiracy theory. Since I believe that conspiracy is a big part of politics, then my view is that this stuff obfuscates clues toward the real conspiracies, by including bits and pieces of reality and mixing them with the protocols, etc. So that's problem 1. Problem 2 is that this also seems to be about making inroads into potential and current activist communities that would channel their energy toward specific bogeymen (not necessarily Jews, or at least not overtly named as such) while disrupting the potential alliances and activism for a larger progressive agenda that is based on the idea that our entire system is stunningly unjust and must be challenged directly. Conspiracy is one way this system is maintained, but it is the MEANS, not the END in itself. So, for example, I worry about the anti-Semitism that sometimes informs anti-neocon opinion....(and i said sometimes, I'm aware they exist and they've helpfully written all kinds of garbage making it almost TOO easy to focus on them), ....but if you concentrate on neocons and toss them out on their ears, you still have the same system that brought you Vietnam, Korea, and decades of national security state rule by coup, low-intensity warfare and assassination. So, in general terms, the problem with all this, beyond the anti-Semitism, is a philosophy of social change that is primarily centered around looking for and tossing out a "special" group which is secretly running the country (or world). It leaves untouched a vast infrastructure that has been in place for decades in its current, national security state form, and one could argue, has been in place for centuries before that. The third issue that bothers me about this sort of thing...all of this untouched by the original post, is that some of this really smacks of state sponsored disinformation and other spook games. I hate to say this, though anyone who's read my posts will know I've said it before, but I've been directly involved with Ramsey Clark's group, for example, during the first Gulf War. Now, I see no other way to interpret Ramsey and his involvement with the Worker's World Party as anything other than phony opposition set up by state. They coopt everything anti-war and seemingly go out of their way to divide the movement. AND, they are really good at getting on CSPAN. Jeff posted about Ramsey elsewhere....his recent defense of the soon to be assassinated Milosovic is but one troubling aspect of his career... I'd have to add his defense of Lyndon Larouche as the thing that ties all this together for me... For, indeed, Larouche, who puts forward a lot of this same kind of stuff, used to brag about providing intel to the Reagan administration and is still taken very seriously by heads of state. In fact, his rise corresponds with a trend of the state utilizing private intelligence network to get around certain "unhelpful" restrictions on CIA activities. In other words, he's the spookiest of spooks, and tossing out disinfo is probably the LEAST of his crimes. So "anti-semitism" in this context is less, for me, about opposing "prejudice", at least on this board, where anti-semitic garbage is sometimes posted by people who probably are quite sincere when they say they don't "hate Jews". To me, it is more like a chemical indicator. It's presence in various theories and ideologies, often in disguised form, is a red flag that all is not right, here. It says that this theory or idea is contaminated with lies and disinfo. To what extent, it's always hard to say. But if a restaurant served food and only SOME of it was contaminated with botulism...you don't pick and choose on the menu hoping to get the uncontaminated stuff...you go to a different restaurant altogether.

by **Gouda** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:26 pm

DE: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What I worry about more is a sort of rightwing "infiltration" of the left. <hr></blockquote> Yes, and I think a distinction could also be made between regular red-state type conservatives, or "rightwingers" who may be susceptible to racist ideology and the more established, insidious, cryptofascists. How can the left juggle the need to guard against infiltration, while also allowing for sometimes necessary alliances with conservatives in order to unite as a people, at least on class basis, against the overlords? Alternatively, can't the left seek to infiltrate and turn rightwingers? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Jeff posted about Ramsey elsewhere....his recent defense of the soon to be assassinated Milosovic is but one troubling aspect of his career...<hr></blockquote> Huh? On edit: you might mean Saddam (or the body-double)? Edit # 2: I see the tricky grammar now. No problem. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 3/22/06 11:02 am

by **havanagilla** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:29 pm

Alice, I totally agree with you. Nothing to add, of course if this were a domestic or even MidEastern one, i'd go into the intricacies of your observation, namely, how basically diaspora jewry is projecting its tribal instincts on Israel and the anomaly thus created for all parties involved. But this is really NOT for this board, because nobody is actualy interested (and justly so, this is not about the Mid east here) in the regional innuendos. DE, I totally agree with you that almost ALL antiwar, human rights activity is infiltrated and crushed to pieces. I have seen it here, since the 80's and I have seen in SF, during this last war (and anti war activity). It was almost pathetic already at least regarding my community, to see all those obviously planted activists cheating. while everyone is playing along. I think some didn't know (the naive people who looked for orgs to channel their activity) many knew and pretended they don't and other knew and said so (like me). My community meaning Jewish peace orgs/activists and Israeli lefties who were suspiciously conniving. But I have to admit, that although the gov't and whoever PTB are doing these very successful campaign, they are capitalizing on some ugly traits among the activsts. Like, if I take my personal case, I was doing some civil rights work in Israel (during the "free periods" from MC and other dark aspects of my life). At some point, when it became important to cut me off from any support and people who wlil help me, the relevant handlers did a smooth smearing campaign, primarily with one person, who was sort of my direct boss/super in the civil rights org. now, they chose well, and I am sure it wasn't hard. She was a very competitive bitch, one of those who like to shine alone at the top...so, of course she was more open for smearing, even if the info of the false liable was very UNLIKELY... so when I am looking back on this "little" act of sabotaging a civil rights org in Israel, I have to admit that it wasn't very hard ! whereas, if I am looking at the really yucky corrupt peole from the right wing, they are very loyal to each other almost to the verge of mobster mentality (namely, "even if our buddy turns out to be a pedophile, we still protect him"). -- So, solidarity is not an empty word, and it is a joke, among left wing orgs. People are very much into Ego and internal splintering. so how hard is it to crash down these fronts ? not very hard. Lessons should run deeper than just pointing to the enemies vile tactics. rather, to what we can do internally to prevent it. and solidarity is the ONLY weapon against oppression, they know it, and we should know it.

by **havanagilla** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:47 pm

the cryptofascists I saw are all from the UK for some reason.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:51 pm

Sorry Gouda...jumped the gun Clark did meet with Milosevic...but the latest meetings I see were maybe last year. I got my dates confused...Clark was at Slobo's funeral, however, in Serbia. He was part of Milosevic's defense team or at least consulted with them. He met directly with Milosevic, but I can't find the exact date. I'll look more carefully about that..when I have time later to find the timeline...but he was definitely a player there. I'd edit out that comment but then yours would have no context so I'll leave it in for now. More later.

by **Gouda** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:57 pm

I see that my own left-wing bias has slipped into my words above: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yes, and I think a distinction could also be made between regular red-state type conservatives, or "rightwingers" who may be susceptible to racist ideology<hr></blockquote> Of course, both right- and left-wingers are susceptible to and/or already harbor racist ideologies on some level. How do we unite in solidarity, heal ourselves of our own biases/hatreds, and also pre-empt, or stop the trigger which sets latent, culturally-conditioned -isms off into full-blown, active, hateful ideology?

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:35 pm

There is an incredible amount of anti-Semitic material on the net. But it isn't just anti-semitism. Just judging by some of the emails that my more reicheous friends, neighbors and family happen to send me (often I get the exact same emails from different people in different parts of the country), I'm inclined to think that there's something somewhat organized going on. Of course, that might just be my suspicious nature. But the glimpses I get from Repuglycan friends and family shows a very organized, inbred network, and a very busy one. The two biggest target groups that I'm noticing in this country are Jews and immigrants, or maybe I should say Jews, Mexicans and Middle Easterners. And look at what O'Reilly, Rush and Coulter, or Paul Harvey and Pat Robertson have been saying. What these pople say is so extreme and outrageously hateful. But nobody is shocked by what the hate-mongers spew, and people, nice people, show no shame in agreeing with them. Look at some of the quotes I pulled off the net: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Assassinate Him...It's A Whole Lot Cheaper Than Starting A War." Pat Robertson On Venezuela's Prez<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Ann Coulter<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "You know in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the Earth. That would be the sane thing to do." Bill O'Reilly <hr></blockquote> I think I found this statement the scariest of all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>".....I've been choking on something for weeks. Let's get it up and get it out, for what its worth. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill said the American people -- he said, this is a direct quote - "We didn't come this far because we are made of sugar candy." That was his response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And that reminder was taken seriously. And we proceeded to develop and deliver THE BOMB, even though roughly 150,000 men, women, and children perished in Hirohima and Nagasaki. With a single blow, World War Two was over. Following New York's September 11th Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill was not here to remind us that we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. So, following the New York disaster, we mustered our humanity. We gave old pals a pass, even though men and money from Saudi Arabia were largely responsible for the devastation of New York and Pennsylvania and our Pentagon. We called Saudi Arabians our partners against terrorism. And we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq. And, we kept our best weapons in our silos. Even now, we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies -- more moral, more civilized. Our image is at stake, we insist. But, we didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare. And, we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And, we grew prosperous. And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. And so it goes with most great nation-states, which -- feeling guilty about their savage pasts -- eventually civilize themselves out of business. And wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry, Up-and-Coming who are not made of sugar candy. Good Day!" Paul Harvey Comments June 23, 2005 <hr></blockquote> Can this be only that hate is smart business, smart politics, or is there a movement to divide and fracture this country (or even the world), into groups that hate each other, to sow hate amongst groups? The close timing of Robertson's hate statements and Harvey's statement seemed odd to me. Not only that timing, but the timing of the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark seems "timely". The Jews aren't the only targets, it is also immigrants. Actually, most of the offensive emails I get are anti-immigrant. I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago about an annoying email I had gotten, and shortly after that a neighbor showed me a copy of one he had his wife copy off for him because it expressed his views. I found it on the net here: <a href="http://www.lilesnet.com/paul/serious/SaysItAll.htm">www.lilesnet.com/paul/ser...sItAll.htm</a> Either this is just a case of a very infectious cultural phenomenon or we are being subjected to one big mind-fuck. Are we being softened up for something? I thought our strength was in our unity, not our dis-unity. What is going on? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/22/06 11:39 am

by **Gouda** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:02 pm

This is not a pretty situation. There's a certain member of my own family who is on about "the Jews and the Mexicans." (Before, it was "the Blacks".) Jeesh. A musician friend of mine has really, seriously stopped speaking with his rightwing, corporate-employed brother. Paul Harvey - I used to hear this guy on the radio every day when I was young. His voice and commentary was american, necessary, a staple - like cheerios. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the land, others are reinforcing and propagating memes against Bush, against empire, against creeping fascism. Might we soon be seeing an unstoppable force collide with an immovable object? Or maybe we can talk about yin and yang.

Anti-Semitism and the New "Jews"

Anti-Semitism and the New "Jews"

Re:good read

great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Re: great stuff

Who is online