Is this anti-semitism?

i agree that in many quarters the terrorism wasn't seen as an "attack on france" until it targeted non-jews

even people who should know better

a book store i've visited a few times in my life -- whenever these events happen i'm always like trying to figure out if this is just some crazy person who not emblematic of larger/broader cultural shifts + sways or whether it's indicative of some more terrible and widespread problem. tbh he sounds like a nut to me (and the bizarre "I'm a Muslim" declaration suggests some kind of disaffection in his interior landscape where he's performing some action he believes he's supposed to do). but isn't that really the case with all of these hate crimes - dylan roof or the fort hood shooter or the recent planned parenthood shooter - they're all unwell people (probably by definition - hate seems to me like a sickness, something akin to schizophrenia in terms of false belief, unclear or confused thinking, etc) and also they are products of the environment and community they live in. anyway i don't know what the answer is; i'm not like packing my bags or anything. but it's still concerning.

yikes. i've been to that store, i think.

it shouldn't matter when these things hit close to home - a bookstore i've been to numerous times, or when a chabad institution is attacked (in toulouse or mumbai). i remember there was an israeli victim of terror last year that shared a [somewhat uncommon] name with my daughter and it hit me pretty hard. but inevitably it makes me feel a tightness in my chest.

(and on the other hand when they found 'yechi hamelech' graffiti at the duma arson site i felt particularly ashamed :/ )

down the block from me just now :/ her kids go to school w/ mine

http://i63.tinypic.com/14np65j.png

That's so fucked up. :(

we're going to her son's upsherin tmmrw so hopefully i'll find out if they found the guy (and idk do they arrest a guy for something like that?)

P sure that's terroristic threats, not protected speech

supposedly a video of the police talking to the guy. someone in the comments say they didn't end up arresting him:
https://www.facebook.com/shadchan/videos/10153159662721389/

http://fathomjournal.org/the-left-and-the-jews-time-for-a-rethink/

i imagine the way i feel about these developments among the left are the way a lot of moderate US conservatives have felt about watching their party descend into psychosis

Or the way almost everyone feel about Benjamin Netanyahu...

(I tried to find a non-confrontational way to phrase this, but really, this is what it's about. Bibi seems insane. His supporters seem insane. As insane as leftist anti-semitists)

that's a strange response imo to that article as if to say that Bibi's behavior has any link to what seems like collective psychotic bigotry on the part of very vocal and important institutions on the left.

to borrow a popular anti Israel trope - is that really the company you want to compare the left to?

I tried to find a non-confrontational way to phrase this

How hard?

but really, this is what it's about.

RLY

i felt that article was somewhat weak, in that it held up some obviously terrible ideas ("ISIS is run by the Israeli secret service") alongside some ideas that maybe deserve more unpacking ("Understanding Hamas and Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important") alongside some that may be wrong but are not obviously wrong ("Israel is a ‘settler-colonialist state’") and just let them all hang there without rebutting one or another, as if to argue through guilt-by-association

I somewhat agree, although some of those arguments depend on context. There is definitely a tendency to speak about Israel in a hyperbolic way that seems to slightly bleed over into antisemitic stereotypes. E g the Salaita tweet about Netanyahu wanting a necklace strung with Palestinian babies heads or something to that effect.

well yeah i agree, there is a lot of stuff like that and it is totally indefensible

But yeah there are a wide range of opinions about Israel on the left and not all of the negative ones coincide with antisemitism of course. And it did feel like the author was using the more egregious ones to avoid the more difficult ones to address.

Man they keep on zinging Judith Butler with that quote and here is what she actually said -- in response to a questioner asking why leftists were hesitant to support Hezbollah just because they're violent. Butler said

"Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence."

In other words, she said, "OK, I guess in some sense they're part of the left, but they're a part of the left that sucks really bad because they murder lots of people and you don't have to excuse that or look away from that just because they can be classified as anti-colonialist."

interesting. i figured there was some missing context there.

that's a strange response imo to that article as if to say that Bibi's behavior has any link to what seems like collective psychotic bigotry on the part of very vocal and important institutions on the left.

I'm thinking about the UK here specifically, but I'm wondering which "very vocal and important institutions"? As usual, I see Corbyn gets a kicking, but I'm afraid mentioning Tom Paulin and Alexei Sayle(?!!?) makes it hard to take this article seriously.

alexei sayle is the secret lynchpin of the entire peace process, I've been convinced of that ever since I saw him on room 101

xp tbf, judith butler never says hamas and hezbollah "suck really bad." She says we "shoul not stop us from bwing critical of certain dimensions of both movements."

yeah i don't see how the extra context makes butler's comment any better. why is it "extremely important" to understand hamas and hezbollah as part of the global left and not as the fundamentalist right-wing organizations they self-evidently are? is the rocks + trees hadith that they quote in their charter also part of the global left and just something she tactically disagrees w/? it seems insane to me.

like if they're part of the left then the left is indistinguishable from the right and has zero moral authority. i'd prefer to believe butler is just a self-absorbed imbecile.

I'm thinking about the UK here specifically, but I'm wondering which "very vocal and important institutions"?

Tom, I hope you're right about this. I vacillate between feeling as though these tropes are deeply embedded in the left (and therefore the institutional events + personages collated in this article, and elsewhere, are emblematic of deeper rot) and are marginal phenomena. I was discussing w/ a professor friend last week about the possible relationship between the ongoing disintegration of the academy as a viable, valuable institution and the increased presence of radical left-wing anti-imperialism particularly directed at Israel. My somewhat snarky take was to evoke the trope that nations who expel their Jews are punished w/ decline. (nb this is generally understood as a theological claim in observant Jewish circles but I have read opinions that medieval Jewry was essential for maintaining the liquid flow of the economy due to their overrepresentation in mercantile industries + banking and that when they were occasionally expelled it had a devastating impact on a now one dimensional economy). He turned it around though in I think a much more clear-sighted way - that as the academy declines as a cohesive, intelligible body it opens up a space for radical illiberal organizations to assert themselves. The way he put it: "i think there's an interesting parallel that might justify linking BDS as a symptom of a more general institutional decay of the university system, most of which is deeply and structurally economic. but it has nothing to do with jews." In that case it could very well be both marginal and emblematic.

I was really the word 'important' that threw me.

Mordy there's a tension between your observation that universities are expelling their Jews and the numbers (and percentages) of Jewish faculty today at American universities. (same is true in France btw: disproportionately high). I'd think you'd push back on the question of the link between being Jewish and being "pro-Israel".

Oh I wasn't trying to claim that universities are expelling their Jews, though I have heard from a number of Jewish academics recently that old trends that marginalized Jews in fields like anthropology and women's studies are rearing their ugly heads once again, cf https://www.academia.edu/173261/Anthropological_Perspectives_on_Judaism_A_Comparative_Review:

“[Harvey] Goldberg offers three reasons for this marginalization: (nineteenth-century) focus on ‘primitive’ religions” (and the awkward result of modern Jews refusing to be seen as ‘backwards’ or uncivilized), lack of linguistic or textual skills for the study and interpretation of Jewishtexts, and a scholarly reluctance to deal with the intangibility of Jewish belief over the structure of more objectively observable phenomena, such as inscriptions or behaviors.”

[…]

“Dominguez has argued that Jewish difference somehow remains outside the anthropological purview; Jewish ethnographies have been ‘ghettoized’ as pertinent only to a Judaic studies audience or ‘folkloric’, offering nostalgic views of Jewish tradition and moribund communities (1993). Theorists tend to see Jews and Judaism as a reference point from the past against which to measure current-day dilemmas of Diaspora, minority rights, and integrations….However, as mainstream anthropology increasingly reckons with subjects who are ‘Diasporic’, the Jews are (sometimes) cited dismissively as historical precedents; their relevance is often argued away as they are found to be only one of a number of groups that might now claim such a title (see Clifford 1994).”

and while we can tease a part being Jewish and being "pro-Israel" the fact is that the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, and a little more than half the world's Jewish population lives in Israel. despite arguments to the contrary by ppl like Butler it is not so simple to separate out support for a huge piece of worldwide Jewry from being Jewish oneself. anyway it's not so much that they're being expelled but that they've already been marginalized into disciplines like Jewish Studies, and in many cases silenced in the arenas that these debates are being had. janet freedman writing in the forward:

So what did I learn? I learned what I need to keep relearning:

The zeal with which many come to their position on BDS is often in contrast with an awareness of history or a respect for the accuracy of information brought to their advocacy.

The BDS movement is not aimed at resolving differences. Supporters at the conference excoriated Israel, including statements from some that Israel should not be allowed to exist. Palestinians were valorized and any criticism of egregious misdeeds on their part excused as a necessary response to Israeli aggression.

While professing the challenging of interlacing systems of oppression that must be addressed together, anti-Semitism is frequently unseen or excluded. The Jewish invisibility and anti-Semitism within NWSA that led to the formation of a Jewish Caucus in the 1980s continues to exist. In response to this, fewer Jewish women have sustained their commitment to the organization and there is a paucity of sessions on the varied histories, lives, issues and activism of Jewish women.

The voices of Jews and others whose positions are rooted in the right of Israel to exist as a state have been silenced. Following my remarks at the BDS round table, there was just one comment from the audience validating some of my points, but I received many private expressions of support and appreciation for my “courage.” Several people told me it would be damaging to their careers to openly express opposition to the resolution.

it seems to me like the primary victims of academic BDS are left-wing Israeli academics (the very ppl critics of Israel should be aligning w/) and pro-Israel American Jews (faculty + students) who become surrogate targets bc Israel is too far away and too powerful (as a State) to defeat. my friend who teaches jewish philosophy in a jewish studies program is concerned that his classroom will become a battleground for BDS; ultimately Israel cannot be forced to do anything so any kind of political catharsis can only be performed against already marginalized figures in the academy. Israelis for the most part don't care about the AAA - and Jewish voices that might push back against these sorts of resolution are either cowed into silence (as in the Freedman piece) or were already ghettoized into Jewish Studies and therefore aren't even sitting in the Anthro meetings. it's not that the academy as a whole are expelling Jews, but that certain parts of the academy are. that they drape this sort of phenomenon under the guise of left-wing post-colonial activism is just the most perverse part.

Calling Hamas part of the "left" because they're anti western imperialism is a bit of a stretch with or without the violence. I don't think anyone would call American anti-government militias part of the left.

Right like is ISIS part of the global left? It seems so incoherent. The left should be objecting to the things in the West that don't live up to their values but why is fundamentalist resistance in toto to the very source of enlightenment values aligned w leftism?

Mordy there's a tension between your observation that universities are expelling their Jews and the numbers (and percentages) of Jewish faculty today at American universities. (same is true in France btw: disproportionately high). I'd think you'd push back on the question of the link between being Jewish and being "pro-Israel".

― droit au butt (Euler), Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:39 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think the very concept of "pro-Israel" actually needs some interrogation though. Israel is a state that exists and that many Jewish people have ties to. What does "pro-Israel" mean? It seems like the implication of "just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" is that there are two camps -- believing Israel should exist or believing Israel should not exist. I would agree with Mordy that the majority of Jews probably believe Israel should exist. I would also doubt that many ethnic/religious groups are ever asked to declare a position on whether an existing state should continue to exist. Many non-Americans have ties to and even affection for America -- they have lived here, they have family here, they have traveled extensively here, worked here, etc. Does that make them pro-Imperialism?

i think love of a nation state does take you into some ambiguous "things you are pro" in general but certainly Israel isn't unique in any regard there

fwiw Mordy i'm in academia (the humanities no less) and not only are there a disproportionate number of jews in my field (and adjacent ones), but i haven't felt an ounce of hostility or 'marginalization.' my experience is certainly not the only one, and i grant that there are some left-wing groupthink anti-'Zionist' reflexes and actions, esp. on the part of the more obviously politicized fields, that are making people rightfully uncomfortable. but i can't help feeling like some of what the articles you have quoted/posted are alleging about academia is hyperbolic. extremely hyperbolic, in fact. kind of akin to all the hemming and hawing (sp?) over the implications 'trigger warnings,' when actually those things are quite rare.

i really don't like the pro-/anti- israel binary. it doesn't clarify my position or, for the most part, anyone else's. insofar as i say that any political resolution to the conflict in the holy land entails admitting that the state of israel isn't going anywhere, i suppose i'm pro-israel. but that's less of a zionist philosophy on my part and more of an acknowledgment of reality.

I hope you're right. Outspoken critics and defenders of Israel are motivated to make the phenomenon seem more prolific than maybe it is so it's hard to tell. xp

I Think that one of the problems with using the colonialism structure to understand Israel is that it obscures that pragmatic fact. If Israel is a "colonial settler state" then just like Algeria or Rhodesia or South Africa we can expect its imminent collapse. But if as is true in reality the people of Israel have nowhere else to go if the State falls apart then that kind of expectation is delusional.

you do know there are colonial settler states that haven't collapsed and are in fact doing quite well? (n.b. i am not trying to make any sort of point wrt Israel with this i just think it's weird to ignore the existence of the Americas)

if you go back far enough though, how many countries are settled by their 'original inhabitants'? i mean it just seems like you're setting yourself up for infinite regress if that is the foundation of your objection to the state of israel....

Yeah I just get a little uncomfortable with the whole "well just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" line because the implication seems to be "you COULD be ANTI-Israel." I married a fourth-generation Israeli (i.e. someone whose great grandfather came to Palestine well before it was Israel) and all of her extended family is still there. Am I "pro" their existence? Do I need to be "anti" their existence in order to be cool with the left? I don't ask people whether they are "pro" or "anti" Turkey because of the Kurds.

well sure i mean arguably all states are colonial settler states - part of the function of creating a unified national identity involved either assimilating or outright destroying competitive national identities. this is true all over the world but no less in the middle east where you have a number of arab states despite most of the middle east not being arabia (how did that happen!). but the way that colonial settler is used among anti-colonial leftists doesn't really account for it as a phenomenon beyond the european white colonization of africa, asia, south america, etc, where the US is the ultimate example of successful genocide (and therefore the cautionary tale to be resisted on every level) despite it being too much of a fait accompli in the US to actually suggest boycotting the country u were born in, etc. i mean this is my impression at least. xp

the anti-colonialism of the left is /very/ selective. i've noticed this since i was a teenager.

that's in way of agreement with you btw :)

Yeah I just get a little uncomfortable with the whole "well just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" line because the implication seems to be "you COULD be ANTI-Israel."

also too close to "well there are some good jews," which refers to a very tiny minority of actual jews. moreover the implicit suggestion that to be a good person you have to be anti-israel whereas i reject that insinuation entirely. not saying that's what's happening here in this thread but often that's how i understand the use of certain jews (like judith butler) to excuse antisemitism. it can't be antisemitic, after all this jew agrees with me. jews are allowed to support the only jewish state in the world - it's very reasonable and there's nothing immoral about it. after all israel is not actually a settler colonial state, or imperialist, or genocidal etc. if it becomes verboten to support israel, or jews feel uncomfortable supporting it in their departments, that isn't really mitigated by saying that support of israel isn't integral to being jewish. they support israel bc they're jews (among possibly other reasons) so it is ultimately targeting a performance of their identity, and demanding their disaffiliation with coreligionists.

the anti-colonialism of the left is /very/ selective. i've noticed this since i was a teenager.

― wizzz! (amateurist)

this is true and it's very sadly seemingly the result of extremely superficial, violence-based (the centrality of Palestine vis-a-vis a ton of other situations where western allies are shitty to national/ethnic minorities in their territories is def based on the focus brought to palestinian plight by high-profile acts of terrorism), or public relations focused (isn't the dalai lama cute? the beastie boys support Tibet! what's an Uighur?) aspects of various anti-colonial movements