The irony is that, by demanding special pleading, by condemning even the most muted and fact-based criticism of Israel as being morally equivalent to a Goebbels rant, Zionists have created more genuine anti-Semites than all the slackjaws at Stormfront ever could.
According to Sartre, in the book "Anti-Semite and Jew," the anti-Semite is ultimately always responsible for their actions. Therefore, the idea that Zionists "created" these persons is analytically misleading. The use of that verb, "create" becomes a way of letting anti-Semites off the hook. The reaction to Israeli actions is associated with increased anti-Semitism, but there are important intervening variables which the formulation above does not address.
It is true that increased attacks on Palestinians leads to more anti-Semitism (in Europe). I have studied the numbers. Yet, you write that "Zionists have created...anti-Semites" which is simply wrong and false. You seem to imply that I am suggesting you are anti-Semitic. I have no way of knowing one way or another, nor did I suggest as much. To return to the original point. First, Sartre argues people (including anti-Semites) are responsible for their actions, even if they are motivated by what he refers to "external events." Thus, the Israeli military state actions can't "create" anti-Semites. That's SOMEWHAT like writing U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia created 9-11. Furthermore, a lot of media in Arab nations is completely anti-Semitic and saturated with anti-Semitic tropes. Finally, persons who conflate Jews in Europe (or elsewhere) with Israeli actions are engaging in a kind of tribalist racism, i.e. "all Jews are alike" or "Jews in Europe are responsible for all Israel does," etc. So, your comments gloss over all that by simply using this A->B formula.
While I agree that we must stop militarism and slaughter, the author might think about abolishing a whole bunch of other states while he is at it, e.g. US, UK, Syria, Iran, Turkey, China, etc. These states have done very bad things and killed many, many persons.
If you read my comment history, you will find that i do not spare the United States, UK, Turkey, etc..
In fact, I suspect that Israel behaves the way it does, in large part because it has counted on the unconditional support of the United States. In other words, we as Americans enable this behavior.
Your premise that I think it is an excuse is a projection of something I never wrote. I directed my comments to the author and a left that is selective about states that it wants to abolish. Please list the states you want to abolish. Thank you.
Gee wiz, that's a tall order. Somehow I don't think the inputs will yield much in the way of outputs. States are very hard to get rid of but they can be transformed in a variety of ways. Deconstructing states is a first step but much of contemporary analysis remains fixated on this step because it belies ideas of reconstruction. The early Zionists, with which Noam Chomsky was affiliated, had a set of ideas about societal transformation which the analysis in the original essay is either oblivious to, thinks irrelevant, or some combination thereof. As a result, we get deconstruction without reconstruction.
Israel is not a Jewish state, it is a Zionist state. They're not the same thing.
The special persecutor law that was enacted after Tricky Dick's chicanery was, in fact, an outrage. It essentially allowed the government to persecute virtually any government official and effectively pitted the power of the entire government against the power of an individual. A notoriously losing hand for the individual. Thanx to Ken Starr's excesses, the law was repealed. Israel may find itself in a similar position.
The distinction between "Jewish state" and "Zionist state" is sometimes useful and sometimes not useful. If a Palestinian state were created (it's already been recognized by Sweden), then it would be a refuge for Christian and Muslim Palestinians, probably dominated by the later for demographic reasons. If it were counter-posed to a Jewish-dominated Israeli state, then ethnic affiliation and religion would figure into the picture somehow. While Israel's actions can't be reduced to "Jewish actions," Israel has historically played a role as a sanctuary for Jews (irrespective of whatever the Israeli state may have done in other arenas). During the Sandinista period in Nicaragua, the "left" was pressured to recognize religious/cultural/ethnic minorities over and above its cosmopolitan flattening of heterogeneous realities. It's the recognition of difference that has promoted the two-state solution, among other considerations. The political barriers to the two-state solution I judge as less than those to a multi-ethnic one state solution. I don't expect many others to agree. In past debates Avnery and Chomsky supported the two-state solution. I regard them as being among the most informed scholars and principals in this larger debate.
The real question here is weather a country in the Middle East is theocratic (like Israel, Saudi, Iran, etc) or secular like Syria is and Iraq was. It seems as if Middle Easterners have a weakness for theocratic states. Israel hasn't been a sanctuary for Jews in any reasonable historic sense. The last 60 odd years yes. The previous 2000 odd years after the Romans destroyed of the Jew's petty kingdom in the Middle East, No.
As a random note, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years nor for that matter has Syria which wasn't a country until after WWI
Thanks Patrick. It’s very sad to note—for your courage.
The irony is that, by demanding special pleading, by condemning even the most muted and fact-based criticism of Israel as being morally equivalent to a Goebbels rant, Zionists have created more genuine anti-Semites than all the slackjaws at Stormfront ever could.
According to Sartre, in the book "Anti-Semite and Jew," the anti-Semite is ultimately always responsible for their actions. Therefore, the idea that Zionists "created" these persons is analytically misleading. The use of that verb, "create" becomes a way of letting anti-Semites off the hook. The reaction to Israeli actions is associated with increased anti-Semitism, but there are important intervening variables which the formulation above does not address.
I didn't say that it was justified (I am NO anti-Semite) but that's still the result.
It is true that increased attacks on Palestinians leads to more anti-Semitism (in Europe). I have studied the numbers. Yet, you write that "Zionists have created...anti-Semites" which is simply wrong and false. You seem to imply that I am suggesting you are anti-Semitic. I have no way of knowing one way or another, nor did I suggest as much. To return to the original point. First, Sartre argues people (including anti-Semites) are responsible for their actions, even if they are motivated by what he refers to "external events." Thus, the Israeli military state actions can't "create" anti-Semites. That's SOMEWHAT like writing U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia created 9-11. Furthermore, a lot of media in Arab nations is completely anti-Semitic and saturated with anti-Semitic tropes. Finally, persons who conflate Jews in Europe (or elsewhere) with Israeli actions are engaging in a kind of tribalist racism, i.e. "all Jews are alike" or "Jews in Europe are responsible for all Israel does," etc. So, your comments gloss over all that by simply using this A->B formula.
Thank you Patrick.
While I agree that we must stop militarism and slaughter, the author might think about abolishing a whole bunch of other states while he is at it, e.g. US, UK, Syria, Iran, Turkey, China, etc. These states have done very bad things and killed many, many persons.
If you read my comment history, you will find that i do not spare the United States, UK, Turkey, etc..
In fact, I suspect that Israel behaves the way it does, in large part because it has counted on the unconditional support of the United States. In other words, we as Americans enable this behavior.
None of that is an excuse.
Your premise that I think it is an excuse is a projection of something I never wrote. I directed my comments to the author and a left that is selective about states that it wants to abolish. Please list the states you want to abolish. Thank you.
Nobody said anything about "abolishing" Israel, but start with the United States, as it is presently constructed.
Gee wiz, that's a tall order. Somehow I don't think the inputs will yield much in the way of outputs. States are very hard to get rid of but they can be transformed in a variety of ways. Deconstructing states is a first step but much of contemporary analysis remains fixated on this step because it belies ideas of reconstruction. The early Zionists, with which Noam Chomsky was affiliated, had a set of ideas about societal transformation which the analysis in the original essay is either oblivious to, thinks irrelevant, or some combination thereof. As a result, we get deconstruction without reconstruction.
Thanks Patrick. It’s very sad to note—for your courage.
Ned Price has a double digit IQ, at best.
Two comments.
Israel is not a Jewish state, it is a Zionist state. They're not the same thing.
The special persecutor law that was enacted after Tricky Dick's chicanery was, in fact, an outrage. It essentially allowed the government to persecute virtually any government official and effectively pitted the power of the entire government against the power of an individual. A notoriously losing hand for the individual. Thanx to Ken Starr's excesses, the law was repealed. Israel may find itself in a similar position.
The distinction between "Jewish state" and "Zionist state" is sometimes useful and sometimes not useful. If a Palestinian state were created (it's already been recognized by Sweden), then it would be a refuge for Christian and Muslim Palestinians, probably dominated by the later for demographic reasons. If it were counter-posed to a Jewish-dominated Israeli state, then ethnic affiliation and religion would figure into the picture somehow. While Israel's actions can't be reduced to "Jewish actions," Israel has historically played a role as a sanctuary for Jews (irrespective of whatever the Israeli state may have done in other arenas). During the Sandinista period in Nicaragua, the "left" was pressured to recognize religious/cultural/ethnic minorities over and above its cosmopolitan flattening of heterogeneous realities. It's the recognition of difference that has promoted the two-state solution, among other considerations. The political barriers to the two-state solution I judge as less than those to a multi-ethnic one state solution. I don't expect many others to agree. In past debates Avnery and Chomsky supported the two-state solution. I regard them as being among the most informed scholars and principals in this larger debate.
The real question here is weather a country in the Middle East is theocratic (like Israel, Saudi, Iran, etc) or secular like Syria is and Iraq was. It seems as if Middle Easterners have a weakness for theocratic states. Israel hasn't been a sanctuary for Jews in any reasonable historic sense. The last 60 odd years yes. The previous 2000 odd years after the Romans destroyed of the Jew's petty kingdom in the Middle East, No.
As a random note, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200 years nor for that matter has Syria which wasn't a country until after WWI