|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Unweaving The Tangle: Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism |
Current rating: 14 |
by gehrig via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
28 Mar 2003
Modified: 01:41:22 PM |
|
As promised (or threatened), my reaction to Ondine's IMC radio piece and the reaction to same. Offered in the spirit of good-faith communication. |
Unweaving the Tangle: Zionism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism
It's almost like a plate of spaghetti, the way these concepts are tied together, not identical and not parallel, but still woven -- Jewish identity, Zionism, Israel, and antisemitism. These intertwined ideas are so knotty and knotted together that I thought it was worth trying to pry some of the pieces apart.
-- a refresher on anti-Jewish stereotypes
Antisemitic stereotypes fall into two categories. Some distort the individual Jew, assigning certain physical features or temperment. This sort of rhetoric is universally rejected in the progressive movement. But there is another category, one which distorts the actions of Jews in collective, and the movement can't really pin on its "We Licked Antisemitism!" merit badge until it's addressed and dealt with both kinds.
The best-known tellings of the Jew Conspiracy stereotype are Henry Ford's -- yes, _that_ Henry Ford's -- _The International Jew_, and the Tsarist forgery _Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_. Both depict a covert international Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world, manipulate the course of history, foment needless war, run the banks, and bend the gentile will to serve their new Jewish masters through media control, thought police, political intrigue in smoke-filled back rooms, and -- when necessary -- mass murder.
This is why I prick up my ears when I hear on the IMCs that the Zionists are involved in a covert ("If America only knew!") international conspiracy to manipulate the course of history, foment needless war, control international funding, and bend the American will to serve the pro-Zionist policymakers -- mentioning only the ones with Jewish names, of course -- through Zionist media control, political payoffs, and -- when necessary -- mass murder.
-- the central point
There is one central realization at the core of this issue, and either you've made it or you haven't: all categories of criticism of Israel don't have equal footing. Different comments have different motivations and different modes of expression. And those modes are not equally defensible. Some are noble, some are scabrous. It's silly to make a blanket comment that "all criticism of Israel is X," whatever the X is. It's not all the same pile. Like an Oreo cookie, like Arafat's kafiyya, it's not all black and it's not all white.
I know people -- and they are really pretty few -- who argue that _any_ unilateral criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic (or "antisemitic in effect") because it's one-sided against the Jewish state. That strikes me as too broad a formulation, and an unnecessary and counterproductive one. An egregious anti-Israel double standard doesn't also have to be antisemitic in order to be egregious. When someone says that the nation-state is passe and should be dismantled, yet for some reason Israel is the only nation-state he ever gets around to mentioning by name (again and again) as fit for the dust heap, well, that doesn't have to be antisemitic to be blatantly hypocritical.
-- how to be an antisemite without mentioning Jews
I take it as axiomatic that it's not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israel. (Sure, I said that before, but no matter how many times I repeat it, somebody always comes back and tells me that I said the exact opposite.) It's not inherently antisemitic, but there are indeed ways to criticize Israel that _are_ inherently antisemitic. By implicitly playing to the Jew-conspiracy stereotype, it is possible to build an inherently antisemitic argument about Israel or Zionism without having used the word "Jew" once. And in such cases, saying "I wasn't talking about Jews, only Zionists" is simply not an adequate excuse, not a "get out of rhetorical jail free" card.
A stereotype doesn't need to be named in order to be played to. Remember, Bush I's infamous Willie Horton ad didn't explicitly mention race. But it did trade on the stereotype of the black male as interracial sexual predator. And in the year before he died of cancer, the late Lee Atwater -- who led Bush I's campaign -- apologized for the ad, and said he came to regret that ad for even _looking_ racist. He had played in the valley of the shadow of racist rhetoric, ignored the outcry, and was now truly sorry for it.
Note that Atwater _didn't_ say, "Oh, there they go again, trying to play a rhetorical card over nothing. How bogus. How typical. How cynical their mock agitation. It's all crocodile tears. My soul is perfectly pure, so my conscience is perfectly clean, and if my ad bugged them they can go pound sand. Whiners. Some of my best friends are black people." (Well, maybe he said it during the campaign, but then his consciousness raised itself.)
-- the ballad of Bad Boy Buchanan
I'm hampered a bit here because the only really good analysis I know of antisemitic rhetoric in the context of modern American politics is by someone I disagree with about damn near everything, William F. Buckley, Jr. In the early 90's he wrote a long essay, later developed into a book named _In Search of Anti-Semitism_, in the wake of Pat Buchanan's "Amen Corner" comments and the beginning signs of his protege Joe Sobran's descent into overt antisemitism.
Buckley's basic point is that, ethically, there's no such thing as pottering around innocently in valley of the shadow of antisemitic rhetoric, no matter how pure your heart. As soon as you see where you are -- in his lovely image, near a deep forest's cottage bearing the sign "Ezra Pound Slept Here" -- it's your moral duty to get out, for reasons that aren't all that distant in history. Jewish sensitivity to antisemitic rhetoric is legitimate, "for the best of reasons," because Hitler started with rhetoric alone, and by the time he was done he had taken one out of every three Jews on the planet with him.
Now, maybe Pat ("Oinker") Buchanan _thought_ he was being twinklingly, rakishly controversial by replying to his critics, "oh, you wily Zionistas, you're only _pretending_ to be upset, as part of your Zionist rhetorical Thought Police attempt to force me to etc. etc. etc. But I'll never bow before you!"
Turns out he wasn't being rakish; he was just being an asshole.
That doesn't seem to be a message for the Right alone. When you say, "there's no antisemitism in the peace movement," the message you _think_ you're sending might be "We don't accept any kind of racial prejudice, are not antisemitic, and won't let ourselves be distracted by what looks to us like politically motivated claims to the contrary." But the message received just might be: "that discomfort you're feeling -- well, it doesn't exist, and you're wrong to feel it, and grow up and shut up and stop wasting our time on non-issues."
-- anti-Zionism, antisemitism: separate but not separate
Given the fundamental anti-racism of the progressive movement, isn't it simply ludicrous on the face of it to suggest that it might have a problem with ethnic prejudice of _any_ kind? There is a time when I would have said yes, but my experience with anti-Zionist rhetoric on Indybay over the last year taught me a disquieting truth.
No, anti-Zionism and antisemitism aren't the same things, but neither are they without overlap. This overlap can happen in two ways. One is the obvious case of an antisemitic infiltrator, as emblemized by the Naziboy Vanguard's (failed) false-front site, nowarforisrael.com, the latest and most visible (failed) attempt by the Volk to try to exploit anti-Israel and anti-Sharon sentiment as a recruiting tool.
The second way is much more problematic, and that is the way that otherwise good-hearted people can sometimes let their anger over Israeli policies overrule their judgment on the issue of antisemitism. In the light of the horrors of occupation and collective punishment, Jewish sensitivities may seem like small potatoes in contrast. But to look at it that way is to set up a false dichotomy, one that says that the only true way to support the Palestinians is to ignore (or even deride) the sensitivities of Jews when it comes to discourse on the subject. That's a mistake. Not all criticism of Israel is based in antisemitism, but some of it is, some of it genuinely is, and you can learn a lot about someone's character by how they react to that discovery.
-- how to imitate Pat Buchanan without knowing it
Time and again I have seen people on Indybay quote Holocaust denial sites without knowing it because they liked the site's coverage of the Evil Zionists Do, and they didn't bother to poke around the site enough to discover what exactly they'd been led to. This isn't just a case of once or twice; this has happened at least a dozen times. In other words, it's not isolated incidents but a pattern.
Now, you can't expect everyone to have the same background in the rhetoric of hate groups that I do, so I can understand making such a mistake innocently. But it's how you handle it that counts. Most people handle it well: "oops, sorry." That's the classy way to do it.
But if your reaction when I point it out is a perfunctory, "so what, that doesn't matter, you're only attacking the source to distract us from the criticism of Israel," then you haven't done much to encourage me to trust you, and you haven't done anything to resolve the issue except to deny the issue exists at all. You've also done a damn fine imitation of Pat Buchanan.
Sometimes I've seen people go for Bonus Buchanan points -- that is, people who not only insist that they're not going to pay any attention to the charge of antisemitism, but then actively discourage _others_ from paying attention either. "Don't let them disrupt our conversation with their bogus claims! Ignore them -- shout them down -- they're only Zionists trying to slander the movement." Or triple Buchanan points -- "Gehrig obviously works for the Mossad." That's not the most helpful way for a knee to jerk.
Criticism of Israeli policy is _not_ inherently and automatically antisemitic. But neither is it inherently and automatically _not_ antisemitic. You have to deal with arguments on a case by case basis, and in at least _some_ of those cases, to reply "that's an antisemitic argument" is perfectly legitimate and moral and even the right thing to do.
Which means, in turn, that when someone says "that's an antisemitic argument," that comment _itself_ is something you need to consider on a case by case basis. Don't presume the charge is automatically an empty one or a foolish one. Don't be too quick to claim the movement is perfect. If someone is honestly pointing to an example of antisemitic rhetoric, it's an infuriating mistake to do what Pat Buchanan did -- dismiss the charge out of hand and then accuse the accuser of ulterior motives. Yet I have seen that happen a hundred times on the IMCs.
If you lump _all_ forms of criticizing Israel into one heap, that oversimplification leads to you an oversimplifying conclusion: "Zionists always say 'antisemitism' when you criticize Israel." And that's a conversation stopper; it's an "I'm not listening, talk to the hand" response. This is one of those cases where, if you start out with bad assumptions, like the basic moral equivalency of all forms of criticism of Israel, you can't help but get your conclusions wrong. And that conclusion will, in turn, lead to _other_ miscommunications, or else no communication at all.
And, frankly, I really don't know anybody who says that _all_ criticism of Israel is antisemitic, because it's so obviously not the case. There are some deep-bunker-mentality folks who think that, sure, and they get airtime, but it's really not as prevalent you'd think.
-- what I am not saying
Since I've asked progressives to calculate the difference between the message as intended and the message as received, it's only fair to note that the same business works both ways. If I say "there is antisemitism in the movement," some people will hear "the movement is antisemitic." That's an understandable bit of miscommunication, and it's not a surprise that some people get their hackles raised by it and reply, "look, there they go playing the antisemitism card."
So, let me make this clear. I'm happy to report that my interactions with the movement in CU, although it hasn't been absolutely without misunderstandings, has also been without antisemitism. If what I were saying actually _was_ "yer all a buncha Jew-haters" -- as right- wingers post on the IMCs every now and then -- you'd be perfectly right to tell me to take a hike.
Again: I am not calling you all Nazis. I know you; I've had beers with you or sung Woody Guthrie with you or whatever, and I know you're not Nazis.
What I'm actually saying is this: I don't think the movement as a whole has really come to grips with that plate of spaghetti I mentioned up front. I think its heart is in the right place, but I've seen too many potentially useful and mutually informative conversations drop dead at the starting gate because of some misapprehensions or false assumptions that end up being conversation stoppers.
And sometimes these assumptions are based on trying to oversimplify complex ideas into simple yes-or-no questions. "Is anti-Zionism antisemitic?" Neither "yes" nor "no" is a right answer here. "Is Zionism an expression of Judaism?" Again, neither "yes" nor "no" is a right answer. "Are Jews Zionists?" "Is Jewish identity theological?" "Is Jewish identity based on historical ties to the Israelites?" "Is Jewish identity racial?" "Are Orthodox Jews Zionists?" And so forth. All "yes" and all "no." The historical reality is too complicated to be shoehorned into such a small question.
Why is that? Here's what I'd argue. Through most of history, your identity was tied to your land. You knew you were a Pole because you lived in Poland, or that you were Deutsch because you lived in Deutschland, or whatever. If your nation was conquered, then in a few generations your culture faded into history. Which is why you don't run into Babylonians anymore. (One of the jokes in _Catch-22_ is when the main character, Yossarian, is asked to indentify himself ethnically, and he claims to be an Assyrian.)
But there's an exception to the rule. The Jewish people were able to preserve their culture, including a language and a literature, through two thousand years _without_ a homeland. One of the repercussions is the global nature of antisemitism, the stereotype of the International Jew. The other, though, is that a lot of the usual rules about what constitutes a "nation," a "people," a "religion," don't quite hold when you try to apply them to the Jews. Because the Jewish historical experience was radically different, the usual definitions don't fit comfortably.
If we don't fit the pigeonholes, well, take it up with history. I'm not saying that it makes Jews better or worse -- just different.
-- the Z-word
And, since Jewish identity doesn't fit the usual rules, the political manifestations of Jewish identity _also_ don't fit the usual rules. Which is why Zionism is so much more controversial than other kinds of political group identity.
My definition of Zionism is actually pretty simple. simple: if you think the State of Israel should exist, you're a Zionist. That's all I mean by it. That's also pretty much what most dictionaries say it means. Lots of people have overloaded it with lots of other ideas, sometimes for purely rhetorical or dialectical purposes, not all of them positive, and not all of them alike.
Can you be a Zionist and support a Palestinian state? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and oppose a Palestinian state? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and think that Ariel Sharon should do the world a favor and try walking to Hawaii? Yep. Can you be a Zionist and be appalled by the Israeli use of collective punishment and excessive force in the West Bank? Yep. And so forth.
I intentionally refer to myself as a Zionist, in part because it's interesting to see how people react. When someone instantly assumes that, as a Zi-i-ionist, I must love Likud and celebrate Baruch Goldstein's birthday and want to annex the West Bank up to, oh, Paris or maybe Barrow, Alaska -- well, then I know that I'm talking to a person who generalizes all the Zionists into one lump, probably because he wants to flog the lump.
This is an excellent way to drive off a potentially important ally. It's surprising how few times it takes calling someone a racist baby-eating Nazi before he or she decides to go elsewhere to socialize. My skin's a little thicker, thanks to my experience fighting Holocaust denial on Usenet, but, you know, it shouldn't have to be. I shouldn't need thick skin to fend off pointless friendly fire.
Zionists are no more of one mind than Americans are of one mind.
There's a human rights organization in Israel -- a Zionist organization that monitors human rights abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. And their name tells the whole story: B'Tselem. It's a Biblical reference. In Genesis, it says that God created humanity "in His own image" -- "btselmo." By choosing the name "B'Tselem," the organization explicitly notes that _all_ humanity is created in God's image.
If your built-in assumption is that "Zionist" means "someone who loves Ariel Sharon," you're simply wrong.
My position isn't helped by the comparative invisibility of the Zionist left, thanks to the structures of the organizations. Campus Zionist groups say a Zionist lefty isn't Zionist; lefty groups say a Zionist lefty isn't lefty. And there are progressives who make a great show of repudiating with disgust the very _idea_ of a Zionist left. So I've had the amusing opportunity more than once of having someone "prove" I don't exist. (And the follow-up question is usually, "why aren't you more active in our movement, now that I've just condescendingly said you don't exist?")
The decline of the Israeli left doesn't help, but really all that means is that it's in the same condition as the American left -- not what it was, marginalized by right-wingers exploiting the public's security concerns, but far from non-existent, and far from a mere collection of reminiscing dinosaurs.
-- the ballad of Windy Wendy
In January or so, one of the most prolific pro-Palestinian posters on Indybay -- not Cui Bozo, who seems to have abandoned the IMCs, incidentally -- made an aside on how Zionist Jews have acted "since Biblical times." Well, sorry, kid, but if you have a problem with Zionist Jews in Biblical times, then you don't have a problem with Zionists, you have a problem with Jews.
The thing is, though, she was someone who organized an anti-Israel rally that got both press coverage and a counter-demonstration, produced an anti-Israel video (you can buy it on nowarforisrael.com, but let's not go there), and was until recently a high-volume source of constant (if repetitive) input on the Indybay board. In other words, a committed activist. When she started tipping her hand on things like Judas the Zionist, and some other old favorites like the Khazar gambit and the "Kosher Tax Scam" -- both time-honored bits of antisemitica I won't go into here -- her comments went unchallenged by the anti-Israel folks, and were only held up to questioning by various rightists (and me).
And, natch, when I blew the whistle, I was told more than once by otherwise good-hearted people that I was simply trying to change the subject in order to shield Israel from etc. etc. etc. and to shut the hell up already.
And I would be lying if I said that didn't trouble me.
There are some people out there whose hearts I honestly think are in the right place, but whose inability to look at the antisemitism issue and see it as anything besides a Zionist red herring makes it impossible for me to build any serious kind of trust in them.
Something similar happened a year or so ago to the Swiss AKdH when it asked IMC-Switzerland to remove an insensitive cartoon from Latuff. Instantly the IMC network was up in arms and crying "censorship," shouting that AKdH was crying crocodile tears, it was only trying to silence critics of Israel, and there were very few voices who dared ask -- isn't it at least _possible_ that AKdH is being honestly offended, and is reacting in honest dismay? Instead, there was a stampede to condemn AKdH as a Zionist Thought-Police organization trying to stifle dissent. This was not the IMC network's finest hour. (As it turns out, it wasn't the AKdH's finest hour either, as its arguments about Latuff's cartoon became increasingly specious and unsubstantiable; in the end I think AKdH did more harm than good. I don't think AKdH was crying wolf, for reasons I'll go into below, but I think they did overplay their hand.)
The anonymous nature of the IMCs lead to another way of delegitimizing the complaint of "antisemitism," and that's to blithely assume (or presumptively declare) that the really nasty stuff that gets posted every now and then is actually posted by the Zi-i-ionists themselves. As I've shown, you don't have to get all cloak-and-dagger to find neo-nazoids posting Jewbait to the IMCs. To turn around and blame that Jewbait on the Zi-i-ionists is to add insult to injury.
-- how not to be cleverly ironic
The Latuff cartoon in question implictly tried to do what some protest signs at anti-Israel rallies do explicitly: equate Nazism and Zionism. (Hence the epithet "zionazi" -- an instant one-way trip to the bottom of the cred pile as far as I'm concerned.) I believe the Nazi/Israeli comparison is indefensible on a factual basis, but there's no need to even go there. Leaving all that aside, the comparison is still indefensible _morally_. I find it outrageously offensive. Progressives should know better.
Here's why. If you condemn Dubya for the historical insensitivity of his use of the term "crusade" when describing his war plans, knowing how that word means something much different to Arab nations, how then can you justify the use of the term "Nazi" -- an epithet especially upsetting to Jews -- to describe Israeli policy?
One of the characteristics of antisemitic rhetoric I've seen in my years of experience fighting Holocaust denial in the Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism is the utter glee with which antisemites will use any imaginable excuse to equate Israel to the Third Reich, no matter how tenuous a linkage, simply and solely because they know that Jewish readers find that equation specifically painful in a way non-Jewish readers don't. It is an inherently discriminatory rhetorical trick, and as such, wisdom and compassion suggest dumping that one from your rhetorical toolbox.
It's also bad rhetorical form, because the message sent is so much different than the message intended. You may think you're making a clever my-my-how-ironic comment when equating Israeli policy with Nazi policy, but believe me, that's _not_ the message you're really sending. The message you send is "I'm offending Jews? Jamming my thumb into a deep historical wound to score cheap rhetorical points? So what! Ha ha ha, full steam ahead!"
There are some people who will simply never get this point, incidentally. Latuff himself is an example. All you can do is point the principle out, and hope wisdom prevails.
-- another guide for the perplexed
So let's get pragmatic. What do I look for when trying to decide whether a given post or poster is antisemitic? What trips my wire?
As I've already said (three times, but it's amazing how some people just can't hear these words), being against Israeli policy isn't enough to make a piece antisemitic. The issue is, _how_ is it anti-Israel? So here are the kinds of questions I ask. Each one, by itself, doesn't determine much. But if the yeses start to accumulate, then my warning lights start to flash.
-- Does a given argument seek to demonize Israelis or Zionists? In other words, is it specifically designed to stir hatred against "The Zionist" rather than increase awareness?
-- Does it rage against The Zionist Position, as if there's only one, as if there isn't a whole spectrum of Zionist thought from far left to far right?
-- Does it try to excuse antisemitism, to minimize it, or to blame it on the Zionists?
-- Does the argument seek to dehumanize Israelis or Zionists, to call them monsters or vermin or hyenas or cockroaches?
-- Is it a frothmouthed tirade, capslock and all, calling for the utter destruction of Israel, or gleefully celebrating the deaths of Israelis?
-- Does it justify _everything_ done in the name of anti-Zionism, all the way up to suicide bombing, as morally acceptable or "chickens come home to roost"?
-- To what degree does it hold _all_ Israelis, _all_ Zionists responsible for what Sharon, et al, do?
-- To what degree does it echo the Jew-conspiracy stereotype, even if it is careful to exclude the word "Jew" from the discussion? ("The Zionists control the media and the elections, and if you disagree with them you're ruined.")
-- Does it echo some other white-power tirade -- "Ashkenazi Jews aren't really Jews," "Everything you buy in the grocery store has a kosher tax," "The Talmud sez goyim are cattle," "Jews are inherently subject to dual loyalties," etc.
-- Does it engage in, much less revel in, comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany?
None of these points on its own is a sure-fire determinant, of course. But when you light enough lamps on this list, then you might want to take a look at _how_ you're saying what you're saying.
-- exordium
If I thought that the movement was inherently antisemitic, I wouldn't be involved in it. Instead, I think that there are some places where a little extra knowledge and a little extra sensitivity can go a long way. As my favorite essay of all puts it, "a fly in the ointment raiseth an odor; so does a little folly undo much wisdom." The movement only stands to gain by rooting out antisemitic rhetoric, but it can't do so if it remains in denial about its very existence.
It's obviously not my intention to "stifle debate" about Israeli policy. If we've ever lifted a beer mug together, you know that I'm not exactly enamored of PM Sharon and the New Vaudeville Knesset. But I _would_ like it, and I don't think it's necessarily too much to ask, that discussion of Israel, Zionism, and such take place in an area of basic human respect that includes regard for -- and avoidance of -- what I've called the valley of the shadow.
@%< |
Comments
|
Re: Exercise For The Reader |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
30 Mar 2003
Modified: 02:52:32 PM |
On the off chance that there are still any remedial signs of life in that dead horse I've been beating, here's an exercise for the reader -- parts of an exchange following a post on Indybay. In particular, notice how unhelpful that last "helpful" poster is.
--- From the original post (about antiwar protests at the Oscar ceremony):
By the way, I am so proud of Michael Moore! He fought the urge to take the easy path, and instead used his time in the limelight while accepting his award for "Bowling for Columbine" to say "We are against this war. Shame on you, Mr. Bush!" [...] I had been annoyed that in his film "Bowling for Columbine", a film about American military and violence and our support of it in areas around the world, he neglected to mention the elephant in the room, which is of course, ISRAEL. But I suppose if he had, he would not have been able to make it all the way to the podium in Zionist-dominated Hollywood to say what he said. Obviously, people got his point anyway, about Zionism and it's connection to American violence.
--- From reply one:
Reading this diary/article reminded me once again that for some people, "zionism" is acceptable way to say Jew and that frightens me. [...] I'm been going to many protests against the war in Iraq, writing letters and whatever else I can. I know that Israel and the Palestinian homeland will be centre stage next and I'm glad. I want Palestinians to have a proper homeland and I want Israel to drop politicians like Sharon yesterday. But I am also aware of the racist tones coming into the peace movement's debate. In the same way as I do not approve of anti-war Canadians painting all Americans in the same light as your current government, all Jews are not zionist and not all Jews have the power or clout that this writer seems to be implying.
-- From reply two (note also the misquote):
"'zionism' is acceptable way to say Jew" -- this is total BS. Zionism is to Jews what Nazism is to Germans, an embarassment to an otherwise admirable people.
@%< |
|
Re: Unweaving The Tangle: Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
31 Mar 2003
Modified: 01:50:13 AM |
|
Hi gehrig, it seems to me that the problem is even worse than you describe. For the benefit of that shrill element of "the movement" for which "zionist" all but denotes hard-right pro-Sharon Jewishness, you are now in the ironic position of having to "reclaim" the term. The problem for you is that Indymedia is a subculture capable of isolating you by allowing the mob to set the parameters of debate outside what you can minimally accept (e.g., your requirement that people not call you a "Nazi", which seems fairly reasonable to me). The corollary problem for Indymedia is that to the extent that you and anyone else for that matter represent a different, pre-existing culture, we run the very real risk of isolating ourselves from wider discourse by allowing the mob to set the parameters of debate. Given the relative openness of the Indymedia network, those of us who represent something other than the consensus of the loudest posters have no choice but to articulate our terms, and resist attempts to alter or co-opt them. But the consensus of the loudest posters remains, too often, the point of articulation. I don't like that and I prefer moderation and poetry, so I edited Newspoetry and started a moderated blog. IMO everyone should have their own site, and then some people could run hub sites that repost from lots of little individual sites. But Indymedia is more centralized than that. Thus it becomes a target for trolls and such. |
|
Re: Unweaving The Tangle: Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism |
by yitz
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2003
Modified: 06:05:14 AM |
Thanks for this thoughtfull piece. I've been involved with Indymedia since it began, and I have to say that the downright repugnant level and tone of discource around judiasm, zionism, and israel has reached the point that I'm beginning to regret the labor I've put into the IMC for all these years.
I'm a practicing Jew. And I'm a Zionist (in the simple terms you described and which many Jews I know share... just the notion that Israel has a right to exist). As you pointed out, the two aren't wholly seperable. The land-people-state relationship is complex, and at least the land-people aspect of it goes back to the origins of the faith.
Personally, I work at the DC Indymedia Center, and have watched as it devolved to the point that...
1. "Zionazi" is seen as a prefectly acceptable phrase.
2. The "replace 'jew' with 'zionist' and then go crazy with the litany of anti-semitic discourses" practice has become so common that it's seen as just normal, right, and common sense.
Lately I've started wearing my yarmulke around IMC'rs as a reminder to folks that when they go on zealous stereotypes of what is a zionist or a jew, that there is a face among them that they're demonizing. And just to be clear, I'm a reform jew who otherwise wouldn't wear it any time other than shabbat services or whatnot.
There's an active global indymedia womens group that discusses issues of sexism in the imc and puts forth proposals to help local imc's be more sensitive and proactive in dealing with sexism. Perhaps it's time we do the same for jews within the IMC. |
|
Re: Unweaving The Tangle: Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism |
by kette
satokogirl (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 May 2004
|
Hi gehrig-
I've been following your arguments with Wendy Campbell lately and I'm organizing against her recent anti-semetic activities in my city, Oakland. I love your writing (this was brilliant!) and would really like to get in touch with you so we could discuss this further. |
|
