The shame of antisemitism on the left has a long, malign history
S o, we’re back to the “Jewish Question”? The current antisemitism crisis on the left has not come out of nowhere. Instead, it has its roots in a tradition on the left itself, which, at best, has always had difficulty in responding swiftly to antisemitism and, at worst, excused or condoned, even promoted it. It is not, of course, the only tradition on the left, but unless we understand this history, we won’t get very far in resolving today’s crisis.
We need, above all, to think about why some on the left have always seen Jews as a problem and why they have helped the idea of a “Jewish Question” to re-emerge with such potency. At root is the thought that if antisemitism exists, it must have something to do with how Jews supposedly behave. That supposed behaviour may be described in different ways – sometimes it has an economic character, sometimes a social one, sometimes a political one. But what is common is the idea that Jews are to blame for antisemitism and that to protest against them is understandable, or even necessary.
This first became a serious problem on the left in the late 19th century, as antisemitism first became a political force in the modern world. Some on the left flirted with the response that there might be something progressive about antisemitism: that it was a kind of anti-capitalism, however crude, which could be harnessed to the socialist cause. They also thought that philosemitism was more of a problem, because it supposedly encouraged Jews to make too much of (or even fabricate) antisemitism and to resist assimilation. One criticism of this approach at the time was to call it the “socialism of fools”, a problematic formulation because it suggested that antisemitism was still some kind of socialism.
As antisemitism was radicalised by the Nazis – it no longer being enough to exclude Jews when they should be wiped off the face of the Earth – this way of thinking made it difficult for too many on the left to prioritise solidarity with Jews. Neither the Social Democrats nor the Communists in Germany made opposition to antisemitism a major issue, nor did the Resistance across Europe. The fear was that to highlight the fight against antisemitism would alienate potential supporters. This is not to ignore some wonderful examples of solidarity, though the repeated invocations of Cable Street can give a misleading picture. The Communist party soon switched to loyally supporting the Hitler-Stalin pact, which effectively delivered large numbers of Jews up to the Nazis.
When the Soviet Union was finally forced to fight the Nazis, the suffering of Jews was deliberately and repeatedly downplayed. But after the war, things got much worse. The Soviet Union not only suppressed knowledge of what had been done to Jews but launched its own vicious antisemitic project, one that would have culminated in another genocide had Stalin not died.
This campaign matters because it was around this time that some key elements of today’s antisemitism on the left were first formulated. The charge laid against Jews then was that they were cosmopolitans and Zionists. This may seem like a bizarre contradiction: how can one, after all, be both a cosmopolitan and a Zionist? But what connected them is the idea that Jews are a problem, that as cosmopolitans they are more loyal to each other across national borders and, as Zionists, are loyal to another, foreign state. The charge of cosmopolitanism is heard less frequently these days, though one finds echoes of it in the idea that Jews are responsible for the evils of globalisation. The charge of Zionism, though, has now become absolutely central to today’s version of the “Jewish Question”. What began as a Stalinist cry was taken up in some on the New Left, which helped shape the world view of Jeremy Corbyn and many of his supporters.
For both Stalinists and that part of the New Left, Zionism is a racist ideology that pits the interests of Jews against the interests of everyone else. Furthermore, the state of Israel is an integral part of the western imperialist power structure that exploits and oppresses the rest of the world and the Palestinians in particular, whose land Jews have plundered and colonised and whom they keep in a state of permanent subjugation.
The Soviet Union formulated its approach within the context of the cold war, when it often appeared to support anti-colonial, national liberation struggles, although only for strategic reasons. Those on the left who (rightly if often too uncritically) supported those struggles, especially in Vietnam, where the Americans were so clearly the enemy, slipped fatally, however, into embracing this anti-Zionism into their world view, even though the Israel-Palestine conflict had such clearly different roots.
At the same time, they found it unbearable to acknowledge what was glaringly obvious – that the establishment of the state of Israel was profoundly connected to the Holocaust, which had changed everything for Jews. To integrate anti-Zionism into an anti-imperialist, anti-western, anti-American world view therefore also meant either denying or (better) reinterpreting the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is not an accidental feature of today’s antisemitism, but it is more common to downplay what happened to Jews as Jews. So the Holocaust has to be thought about only in universal terms, as only one genocide among many and one that supposedly excludes the others. (Actually, of course, it is the other way around: thinking about the Holocaust helps people think about other genocides.) Indeed, some have gone further. Not content with accusing Israel of being like apartheid South Africa, it is supposedly guilty of genocide itself… against the Palestinians.
If such purported behaviour makes people antisemitic, it is understandable and part of a fundamentally progressive view of the world, which can be harnessed to the cause. We are back then to where we started, with Jews as the problem, only with this difference: what was previously attributed to Jews inside nation states is now attributed to the Jewish state on the international stage.
There has always been, though, another tradition on the left, which has never accepted the very idea of a “Jewish Question”. What it understands is that there is a question of antisemitism; that Jews are not responsible for antisemitism but antisemites are; that Jews are not a problem but antisemites are. Antisemitism is not something that should be excused or condoned. It has to be fought wherever it shows its face, even – and sadly now more than ever – when that face is on the left.
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
I would submit to you that anti-Semitism can and does come from ideologies both left and right. The right's anti-Semitism is more a baseless hatred. They hate Jews because they hate Jews. They're not like them, so they earn the hate. They subscribe to more of the money grubbing, control seizing canards.
Those on the left often attempt to intellectualize their hatred. It gives them a feeling of legitimacy to posit that this is an imperialist issue, founded in false narratives about conflict and war and its consequences. It takes on a populist tone, so as to attract the ignorant, and offer them a black/white issue at the outset, without offering factual history. I'd say it's a more devious form of hatred, as it incorporates deception into its narrative.
Devious? How does that stack up against Murderous, Johnnie?
We changing the subject?
You know how fish hates when folks change the subject...
I sure know you how and fish would like to restrict discussion to only what you agree with.
There's that psychic hotline network thing again...
I did address both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Yes, the article has to do with the left, and I focused most of my comment on that. I just mentioned the right briefly. What's most curious about that is that the leftwinger that wants to challenge me here completely ignored my stipulation.
It's rarely debate oriented.
Most of the time, it's people taking turns talking, without really addressing what the other is attempting to convey.
Sounds like a moderation problem, no?
And then--amazingly--concluded that left antisemitism was worse than the mass murdering history of right antisemitism because it was "insidious."
So glad you debate in a probing and inquisitive manner. I'd hate to discuss things with someone so overtly hostile. /s
...but I'll make an exception here.
The brand of anti-Semitism that is popular with the right has been marginalized, to the point that they are exposed. They are the thugs we thought they were, and their activity is overtly criminal. It consists of physical brutality, and unveiled threats of the same. There's no grey area. We know where they are, and we watch what they do. We don't do enough, but I suppose they are somehow exercising a Constitutional right to be the assholes that they are.
The left anti-Semitism toils in the light of day. They spin tales that allow us to all confuse and conflate our disdain for certain policies of the State of Israel with Jew hatred. They subscribe to the narratives of internationally recognized terrorist groups who have always hated Jews, because the narrative pits the poor against the rich, the successful against the loser, the one with the F-15s against the one with the slingshots. What does anti-Semitism have to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict? Absolutely nothing, unless you ask the Jew-hating parties who feed the left with a false and hostile narrative.
That's the lefty narrative, and it involves so, so much more than just those simplistic examples. You chose to add one in one of your posts on this thread. Something about "ethnic cleansing". Your assertion is disgusting, false and promulgated by Jew haters.
There ya go.
Have a great day.
I'd suggest you stop digging, John. Your extreme conservativism and enthusiastic support for the confiscatory and exclusionary policies of the current Israeli government are embarrassing you. When you try to contort valid criticism of really immoral and illegal behavior like that into "anti-semitism" you've jumped the Bibi shark.
enthusiastic support for the confiscatory and exclusionary policies of the current Israeli government
That's some good Kool-Aid there, buddy.
You like the grape, or the orange?
Yup-- that's most of what goes on on the Internet....
Mentally challenged individuals who aren't capable of actual discussions (and are usually totally ignorant of the facts of the topic being discussed) -- so they turn the "discussion" away from the topic and towards personal attacks.
They have the emotional maturities of 5 year olds-- and are mentally "challenged" to boot!
True.
And its totally illogical. Racist extremists on the left hate Jews because "everyone knows" Jews are all greedy capitalists wanting to steal non-Jews' money.
And those on the radical right hate Jews because "everyone knows" that Jews are all evil Communists-- wanting to destroy capitalism and the system of free enterprise!
WTF???
These are a total (and absurd) contradiction...but then again, this sort of bigotry makes no sense and defies logic.
Let's not forget Krishna that there is also a religious element in this as well, some Christians feel that the Jews rejected Jesus and, had him killed by the Romans so, they don't like them for that, Muslims feel that the Jews have totally rejected the idea that Muslims are the children, (the first born of), Abraham, the father of all Jews and, Muslims according to the Bible as well as Muslim texts and, so, hate the Jews for that little slight.
Numbers 14:18 King James bible:
Third and fourth generation? How about the HUNDRETH generation?
I'm not saying it's right for them to do it Buzz but, it is a situation that has occurred for thousands of years, buried deep in religious hatred for century's and, it reflects into politics now.
This.
But if I was being funny, I'd say a lot of conservatives say they have that "one" Jewish friend....
What's wrong with that? Some of my best friends are Jews. LOL
LMAO!!!!
I would never claim there's no anti-semitism on the left but I find it interesting that we've got alt-right protesters marching around with torches, chanting "Jews Won't Replace Us," and eagerly giving Nazi salutes and suddenly we're getting, "hey, look at that anti-semite lefty (who's criticizing Israel's confiscation of Arab property) behind the tree over there!!!!" IOW, this stinks to high heaven.
It really is hilarious to read these nonsensical piles of garbage from the guardian. On one hand they push this narrative that everyone on the left loves, supports and enables the vile "leftists" like Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen and that the "Hollywood elite" is run by some liberal progressive Jewish cabal, but at the same time we're all supposed to be Nazi communist anti-Semites. Everything on the right, especially the alt-right, is bass ackwards. Up is down, wet is dry, anti-fascists are actually the fascists, fighting for equality is actually prejudicial and discriminatory, supporting a mix of capitalism and socialism is really communist, supporting our LGTBQ citizens is really taking away conservatives rights, Hillary was the one to collude with Russia and had them release damaging emails so she could lose the election, the Russians didn't have any effect on the election but Obama investigating the Trump Russia connections must be illegal and were intended to help Hillary even though it wasn't known about publicly till after the election, Obama did too much in the investigation but he also didn't do enough so it's his fault it happened. The conservative head spinning from one lie or half truth to the next must be truly brain numbing.
To put it more succinctly-- The Guardian has a leftist bias.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that
I have to laugh when the lefties on this site disparage the writings of a left wing writer published in a left wing source - is that some kind of desperation, unable to face a dose of reality (Is that a left wing attribute?).
Modern progressives look and sound nothing like the majority of "founders" you try to quote. I support our mix of capitalism and socialism, it's what has made America a global leader and the envy of the world. I support our military, I support our immigration laws and am for strong borders but also compassion for the undocumented humans who are here. I support and defend our Jewish citizens and their right to worship as they wish, just like I support Christianity and Islam, they are all entitled to freedom of religion. You can attribute half a century or older philosophies to progressives all you want, it doesn't define modern progressives and humanists. When you paint with such a broad brush you're bound to paint over the lines. Claiming "leftists" should be ashamed of their antisemitism when a large portion of people on the left are Jewish, and the rest of us welcome them with open arms without a hint of prejudice, is just silly. Those on the right welcome the groups marching around chanting "Jews will not replace us!" into their fold. If you want the true face of shame you don't have to look any further than the conservative white nationalists, KKK and neo-Nazis supporting Trump in droves.
So you believe that the ideology promoted by some claiming to be "leftists" over half a century ago should define anyone on the left today? That to point out the differences between then and now is some sort of deflection? Well lets examine what many white Protestant religious leaders were teaching back in the 1940's and 1950's. In 1948, Frank S. Loescher, a student of the relationship of the Protestant church to the Negro, stated unequivocally: “Protestantism, by its policies and practices, far from helping to integrate the Negro in American life, is actually contributing to the segregation of Negro Americans."
The US Senator from Mississippi Theodore Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”.
So which is it, do we paint everyone associated with Protestantism with the broad brush of blatant bigotry? Or do we accept the changes that they have made to their core principles and ideology that has evolved over the last half century? Do we paint liberals and progressives with the broad brush of some founders of past "leftist" movements who also committed atrocities based mostly on their being authoritarians? Or can we accept that very few if any liberals or progressives actually adhere to any Stalinist or Nazi based ideologies or anti-Semitism?
I didn't know that either Philip Spencer or Dave Rich are "lefties" in any sense given that they seem to be trying to equate criticism of Israel's right-wing policies with antisemitism. That bogus tactic is extremely common on the right.
It also should be noted that the piece is merely an op-ed submitted by a guy trying to sell his book. It's not the product of the Guardian or its editorial board.
Kind of ironic as Marx was Jewish at the beginning of his life.
George Soros was born Jewish. He's proud of his family's collaboration with the Nazis during WWII.
Noam Chomsky is just about the most anti-Semitic person ever. Also a Jew.
Of course, there's Saul Alinsky, and his douchebag son. Also self-hating Jews.
I would add Bernie Sanders to that list, along with all who support Jews for Justice in Palestine and J-Street.
That is one of the most scurrilous, disgusting, despicable anti-semitic attacks going around the extreme rightwing, Jonathan. Thanks for revealing your true nature yet again. Yeah, his family's fucking "collaboration" with the Nazis sent all but him to the death camps.
Your attack on Soros puts you right there, Johnnie. Actually makes you look like a leader of that group.
Ah, so THAT'S what crocodile tears look like.
I've always wondered...
Antiemitism has no political affinity. There are and have been antisemites of every single political stripe. Really antisemitism is just a result of stupidity and people taking fairy tales way too seriously.
Not sure what fairy tales has to do with it, although The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a famous fabricated blood libel. I'll bet what many anti-Semites will never admit is envy.
With his despicable attack on Soros and the entire Soros family, Johnathan openly declared (above) his from the extreme right where it is and always has been the most virulent and deadly.
should be "he's from"