Friday, August 22, 2008

Antisemites of the world, unite! (II)

In this post I drew my readers' attention to the de-facto alliance between neo-Nazis and Indecent lefties. It could be claimed that the SWP leaflet message -- of a small "h" holocaust being about thousands of victims who were trade unionists and the disabled -- was just some sort of slack and lazy writing; this can hardly be excused on such grounds:

"One of the formal complaints was made in relation to a series of particularly poisonous and nasty emails written by a Sheffield-based UCU activist called Jenna Delich. That complaint was also dismissed.

Yesterday Jenna Delich wrote the following message on the activist list in order to support a boycott of Israeli academics....

"The website which she links to is the website of David Duke, who is the former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, and perhaps the most notorious racist and anti-semite in the world. The article itself was originally posted on an extremist conspiracy nut website, but appears only on David Duke’s website. It is therefore reasonable to infer that Jenna Delich reads and takes her information on world events from neo Nazis."

To quote Jenna Delich: "No comment necessary. The facts are speaking for themselves."


Update, a little later in the day: On the Engage thread we hear from one of the commenters, Spartacus' Diary, that:

"...the fact that a regular "anti-Zionist" has offered links to what can be politely called a "far-right politician" has been explained away as a "mistake".

But the mistake is not really so outrageous; for

"... austere members of BRICUP on the UCU list" the fact that "the "Zionists" are exploting this (perfectly reasonable) .... genuine mistake for no other reason than to clobber "anti-Zionists" is the eal outrage in the whole story.

As an experienced Internet user, I have to wonder how other Internet users can make such a mistake. On the rightside margin of the David Duke webpage one finds a list of articles written by him, among which one can read the following titles

Black Population Welfare Bomb Ticks
Fighting the Cultural War in America
Is Russia the Key to White survival?
Israeli Terrorism and Sept. 11
The Hypocrisy of Jewish Supremacism
The Lies of Globalism
The War against America

The titles should immediately ring some alarm bells for anyone who purports to be antiracist. I mean, which discourse is most likely to include such terms as "Black population bomb"? Or "Jewish Supremacism"? or "White survival"?

The David Duke link could only slither through the net of decent thought to public consumption if the person doing the searching and writing is quite numb to their import. And why would someone so active in the anti-Israeli lobby among British trade unionists lack responsiveness or alertness when it comes to antisemitic tropes?

For me the explanation is clear. Some anti Zionists are just anti Zionists, but some anti-Zionists are only anti-Zionist because the target of their animus are Jews and supporters of Jews. They live a very precarious intellectual life, where the outside of their speech masquerades under the Human Rights anti-Zionism banner while the inside of their mind is teeming with bona fide antisemitic hostility and terminology. The two lines are close and parallel to each other. So much so, that complete control and vigilant separation is often disrupted, especially when the tension of animus reaches a certain critical mass and something of the internal thought slips out...

It is something like the Freudian slip, though the deliberate linking to a neo-Nazi website when alleging legitimate criticism of Israel can hardly be blamed on subconscious antisemitism. There is no deeper meaning to this mistake. It was caused by a person whose carelessness and indifference to Jewish history or pain cannot be overstated.

As a common pun goes, "A Freudian slip is like saying one thing, but meaning your mother. " Delich thought she was making a case against Israeli "aggression" by actually linking to an antisemitic website whose main purpose in life, after defeating African-Americans, is defeating "International Jewry" and Jewish world domination.

Some mistake.


At 4:46 AM EDT, Blogger SnoopyTheGoon said...

Noga, this is an excellent post but with one technical flaw. By linking directly to the Duke's articles you help to increase their visibility on he I-net. There are ways to make the URL available by showing a part of it without making it a link.


At 12:23 PM EDT, Blogger ModernityBlog said...

well put

it is funny how these "anti-Zionists" are often so quick to threaten libel when their open racism is highlighted

At 6:15 PM EDT, Blogger Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

Everyone makes mistakes. The mainstream Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently quoted David Batzri, who believes the Arabs are beasts and donkeys and the scum of snakes, as a religious authority.

Absent from your analysis is consideration of what the article Jenna cited is about. Actually it was not authored by David Duke at all; he reprinted it from a decent site. I challenge you to quote a single antisemitic paragraph in the article. It's very well documented and written. Jenna's only mistake was to link to the secondary source, not to the original place where it was published.

The fact that a sound article was (accurately) transcribed on a Nazi site does not add or subtract from its veracity. If Newton's Second Law of Motion were cited on a Nazi site, would you claim it's no longer valid?

At 7:06 PM EDT, Blogger vildechaye said...

To Ibrahim ben Yusuf:

Without going into detail, the article you're referring to posits an international conspiracy of er. Zionists who control the press, the banks, and Western governments, and who were responsible for 9/11.
Sounds like a modern version of protocols of the elders of zion to me. It seems the anti-"zionist"
left thinks that if they substitute the word Jew with Zionist they can get away with anything. And judging by your response, in some respects they are correct.

At 8:59 PM EDT, Blogger Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

Sounds like a modern version of protocols of the elders of zion to me.

Well, to me it doesn't. In the first place, the article doesn't mention 9/11 (that's the problem with not reading the articles, but what others say about them).

In the second place, the fact that the Protocols flasely cite a Jewish conspiracy to control the press does not mean that Zionists will never attempt to control the press. I.e., what was once false will not necessarily be forever false.

As an example, antisemites once falsely claimed that Jews poisoned wells. It was an insulting, racist and antisemitic falsity back in the Middle Age. Today, it is true. See here.

At 9:15 PM EDT, Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

"It was an insulting, racist and antisemitic falsity back in the Middle Age. Today, it is true."

Here is the story:

"Residents of Tatwana near Hebron found rotting chicken carcases in their well after four Jewish settlers were seen in the village early on Tuesday morning.

Israeli police said they suspected militant Jews from a nearby wildcat settlement outpost called Havat Maon.

...But settlers denied being responsible and blamed the contamination on an "internal tribal fight between the Palestinians".

So a suspicion by Palestinians translates immediately and logically into proof that Jews, mind you, "Jews" poison wells today. Let's assume the suspicion is correct and the culprits apprehended. Do you mean to imply that it takes a single, unusual incident to change a classic antisemitic accusation from a lie to a truth? So now, based on this story, with all its uncertainties, you feel you are entitled to promote this vile antisemitc accusation as something Jews do, as a matter of course?

What is your definition of antisemitism, can you please enlighten my readers and me?

At 11:43 PM EDT, Blogger Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

It's not a suspicion by Palestinians; it's a suspicion by the Israeli police! You're using the classical trope: Palestinians → liars → their suspicions can be dismissed off hand.

Also, you don't quote enough. You quote the settlers' denial, but not the Israeli police estimation that it would be very unlikely that the Palestinians would poison their own wells.

That said, I think my point was clearly made. Accusations of antisemitism would be automatically hurled before examining the evidence at anyone who claimed that a single Jew poisoned a well in the name of Jewish interests. The luck we have here is that Israelis are much more candid and admit that Jews may have poisoned a well; Zionists elsewhere grudgingly admit it's a possibility only because Israel said so. If we only had the Palestinians' word for it, anyone who claimed to believe them would be accused of repeating the ages-old canard of well-poisoning.

And the same happens with many of the "tropes" in the article Jenna linked to. Is it antisemitic to suggest that a pro-Israel lobby tries to muzzle the press? Not a priori; we must first examine the evidence! But your readers and you claim it's antisemitic without further analysis.

Answering your question, I'll give you my definition of what is NOT antisemitic. I use the Chinese test.

Any phrase in which the word "Chinese" could be substituted for "Jew" or "Zionist" or "Israeli" without creating an effect of anti-Chinese racism is not antisemitic.

At 8:02 AM EDT, Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

By your own account, Ibrahim IY, the Chinese are not famous enough to command much resentment when falsely accused. So you cannot simply and easily substitute "Chinese" for "Jewish" and hope to get an anything resembling a truth, or the menace that antisemitism arouses.

Here is what you said when the Chinese last surfaced in a conversation between us:

By Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf
Aug 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

""Aren’t the Chinese and the Iranians famous for their great contributions to civilization

No, they were not as important as the Jews in the shaping of Western civilization. Also, they don’t say they’re morally superior — a claim that invites scrutiny."

You need to work on your theories. These internal tensions and contradictions in your logic and "proof" illustrate that you apply one measure for Jews/Zionists/Israel and another for everyone else, in itself an antisemitic tendency.

At 6:58 PM EDT, Blogger Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

Noga, you're trying to wrap me up in words.

I didn't say that ascribing to the Chinese more fame than they really have is antisinitic. I just said it's wrong.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home