Zionism has certainly been a well organised movement but a successful political movement only in so far as oppressive state nationalism has been a successful political movement and Israel has joined the club. You could argue that in Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan – fascism was a “successful” political movement – but successful at what? If, as I suspect, you are talking about giving Jews rights and dignity I think that campaigners for civil rights and social justice in the diaspora over the last 300 years gave Jews more than zionism has. One of the ironies is of course that the loyalty tests constantly demanded by Zionism, (an idea that blithely commandeers the language of “liberation” and “self-determination”), actually makes many Jews feel less able to speak their opinions.

As for economic success – the gap between rich and poor has been growing wider and wider in Israel and many Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish live in poverty;there are millionaires/billionaires in israel today but their economic success is not generalised. It has an economically successful international arms/security/surveillance techniques industry – but I don’t think that is something to brag about; and the country is massively aided by the USA.

If I was a Zionist (which I was once) I’d be feeling a bit hard done by.

See:

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: self-determination

Process by which a group of people, usually possessing a degree of political consciousness, form their own state and government. The idea evolved as a byproduct of nationalism. According to the UN charter, a people has the right to form itself into a state or to otherwise determine the form of its association with another state, and every state has the right to choose its own political, economic, social, and cultural systems.

Red Deathy writes:

‘Well, has’t Zionism demonstrably failed, in as much as the vaunted Jewish stae is itself continually under existential threat, and rests as much upon the support of foreign powers as would simply campaigning for human rights in country X would?”

No, it has not. It is arguably the most successful political movement Jews have organized in modern times. Far more successful than Bundism, anarchism, etc. etc. etc. Israel is also doing rather well economically and terror attacks are significantly down after the separation barrier was built.

The case of the Greens cited in last night’s conversation is an interesting one. It typifies how anti-Israel and (especially) anti-Zionist hatred can so often slip into a knee jerk refutation of mainstream Jewish perspectives on antisemitism, thereby demonstrating the double standards employed against Jews because they are associated with Israel and Zionism. (Contrast it with the response that anti-Al Qaeda graffiti in the close vicinity of local mosques would rightly bring).

I’m not too sure why David Rosenberg went off on one about me merely saying it was ironic that his posting on Jewish self-determination went up on Shavuoth. Its been (and still is) a particularly interesting thread about Jewish identity and it occurred over a Jewish festival that is associated with study, debate and reflection.

I don’t know if you have read our Antisemitic Incidents Reports but I invite you to do so and draw your own conclusions about how we categorise incidents. They are available on our website at http://www.thecst.org.uk and the one for 2006 in particular has some relevant observations about the difference between anti-Israel and antisemitic incidents. Our website also has a downloadable leaflet explaining all our incident categories and definitions. Our work on antisemitic incidents has been repeatedly recommended by police, criminologists and international bodies working against hate crime and I would hope it will stand your scrutiny too.

As for your hypothetical example: if “I hate the Israeli occupation” were daubed on the Israeli Embassy, we would not classify it as antisemitic; if it were daubed on a synagogue we would. The Stamford Hill daubings were not actually on synagogue property, but were deliberately clustered in Stamford Hill, which is known for its Jewish community, and therefore in our analysis involved deliberate targeting of the Jewish community, which is antisemitic. This is a grey area, and it is the kind of incident that prompts lengthy internal discussions in our office over whether it is antisemitic or not. As you will see from our Antisemitic Incident Reports, we reject a large number of potential incidents each year as not being antisemitic. We do not automatically accept every reported incident as antisemitic, nor do we follow the Macpherson definition. I find it ironic that in the 1970s and 1980s the Jewish establishment was accused of playing down the amount of antisemitism. Nowadays we tend to get accused of inflating it. The real truth, much more mundane, is that we try our best to tell it how it is. That might not be a political enough answer for you but it’s how I try to do my job.

btw I think Mark Gardner’s point was that a discussion about Jewish identity that takes place at a time when observant Jews cannot take part, is going to be missing a pretty important perspective.

“You assume the people contesting these points were not Greens or anti-Zionists. I don’t. But I can’t see how you can argue that these points are indicative of the views of Green anti-Zionists in general.”

please, David, let’s not tax the improbable, it is not unreasonable to assume that a leading member of the Green Party’s blog is read and contributed to by, er, Greens, etc

and even if those nasty comments by Michael Williams aren’t from Greens, I would have hoped at least those valiant antiracist anti-Zionist Greens would have made an effort to contest his disgusting remarks, but no one did.

even Derek Wall couldn’t be troubled to comment

and I don’t want to quibble over whether or not these people are Green’s but when it under their noses and they don’t make any effort against it, then I’m certainly sceptical (notice how they pepper their own comment with the words: anti-Zionism, etc)

I appreciate that you might be loath to attack or even reprimand some Greens, but that’s the point, its much easier to criticise our “enemies” (CST, BoDs, etc) than to highlight failings of our friends (Greens, etc), isn’t it?

Which brings me to the salient point, if you can’t get people to oppose the basics, anti-Jewish racism when it is so stark and so bleeding obvious, then hoping that they’ll suddenly understand the subtleties of Jewish self-determination is fantasy

If they can’t get the basics right, how can you trust them with the more complex issues?

PS: just to clarify, no I don’t think that all Greens are racists or such like but when there is such seeming indifference and obvious hostility, then you have to wonder what’s wrong with some of them and why they others don’t take up the issue?

I would hope that any serious anti-racists/socialists distinguish between people and governments, and any serious commentators on Jews and Israel/Palestine would recognise the distinctions between Jews, Israel, Jewish people, Israeli people, Israeli government/military and Zionism. Certainly anyone blurring those distinctions does not help the situation and provides cover for anyone wishing to cloak anti-Jewish feeling as anti-Israel activity.

Had it said “I hate the Israeli occupation” and been daubed on a wall not belonging to a synagogue I would not consider it antisemitic. If “I hate the israeli occupation” was daubed on the Israeli Embassy or on an El Al office it wouldn’t reflect political sophistication but I would not consider that an antisemitic incident. I suspect the CST might. Would you?

I am sure that quite a lot of the CSTs statistics on antisemitic incidents are accurate and I know personally of incidents (form white christian racists) that have not been reported and not made it into the statistics. Whether the CST have the analytical sophisitication to distinguish between political anti-zionism and antisemitism is another matter entirely. The JSG’s experience on the receiving end of the antics of the CST and its predecessor the CSO suggest that this is something they lack. And the CST are not alone. Many statements by the Board of Deputies and the Chief Rabbi not only blur the distinction but out of political convenience or ignorance, but blur all the other important distinctions stated above.

Modernity – I’m familiar with he thread you are talking about on a Green leader’s website. Unlike this discussion in which many individuals have contributed, a tiny number of contributors discussed that thread, of which a couple made the kinds of points you object to and others contested these points. You assume the people contesting these points were not Greens or anti-Zionists. I don’t. But I can’t see how you can argue that these points are indicative of the views of Green anti-Zionists in general.

Several Green members I know (Jewish and non-Jewish) are opposed to Zionism and are thoroughly consistent anti-racists. They just may not choose to spend the amount of time we do arguing on blogs.

“Modernity – you said you would simply settle for most anti-Zionists being able to recognise anti-Jewish racism, when they see it and them making an effort to oppose it I hope this is not aimed at the JSG since this has been a significant part of the group’s work since it’s inception.”

David, if I had wished to make critical remarks on the JSG, you wouldn’t miss them, but as I can’t think of any, I won’t.

you wrote:

“Have to say, Modernity, I’m disappointed with the patronizing and stereotyped portrayal of anti-Zionists you have adopted on this thread – you don’t normally need those attitudes to prop up your points”

is it conceivable that my views might be based on evidence?

Hmm… well?

perhaps the JSG could bring those critical faculties, so well honed by attacking the Board of Deputies, to bear on a grouping closer to your heart: the Greens

when I read in a thread, Greens that dismiss attacks on synagogues is not being antisemitic or racist, then I’m left to conclude that possibly there’s a problem with some Greens?

and in particular when these comments are made on one of the green leader’s blogs, who makes a point of going on about his opposition to antisemitism, but can’t even see it when it under his nose:

“Anti-Semitism barely exists, although of course Zionists pretend otherwise, so that they can categorize anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. Britain’s Jewish community is not remotely under threat and it is hysterical nonsense to pretend otherwise.”

and

“The Standard recently published a photograph of graffitti reading ‘I HATE ISRAEL’ This was described as racist and anti-Semitic, and I’m sure CST chalked it up as such for their stats. But in my view it wasn’t at all – it was no more racist than ‘I HATE THE USA’ would be.”

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25556312&postID=3895904929611014126&page=1&pli=1

so David, I welcome your view on these Green “anti-Zionists”??

do you think that the attack on the four synagogues was antisemitic? Or not?

Muffin thanks for your much more detailed comments, many of which I agree with. No doubt you are more up to date with Histadrut politics than me – but what is the Histadrut attitude to migrant workers? Are they for regularisation, citizenship rights, unionization? Some years back the JSG was in touch with kav le’oved – workers hotline – who were taking up these issues and seemed to think the Histadrut was not doing enough.

And thanks for answering the questions about alliances. Since the late 70s when the Anti-Nazi league as set up through to the peace/anti-war movements today, “official”Jewish leaders have tried to warn Jews away from participating in a range of broad-based progressive campaigns by saying that these groups are anti-Zionist. They are either letting the perceived interest of the Israeli state dominate the political interests of diaspora Jews or using it as a smokescreen to keep Jews away from contact with the Left. Of course there is much more the Left can do to be a more welcoming place for Jews, but in this thread I want to concentrate on the jewish/Zionist end of the equation. The consequences of the clash between diaspora and Israeli state interests was one of the main thrusts of the original post

Modernity – you said you would simply settle for most anti-Zionists being able to recognise anti-Jewish racism, when they see it and them making an effort to oppose it I hope this is not aimed at the JSG since this has been a significant part of the group’s work since it’s inception. It is instructive that our first big blow up with the Jewish establishment (In the late 70s/early 80s) was not over Israel or Zionism but over our persistent demand that the Board of Deputies tell the truth to the community about the nature and extent of anti-Semitic attacks that were being perpetrated. They were hiding this information from the community and denying the need to make alliances with other threatened groups. Members of the Board of Deputies like Harold Soref were saying that Jews were in the first division of ethnic minorities and didn’t want toe be in the third division – a comment for which he was taken to task by the late Shalom Charikar an Indian Jewish member of our group.

And after the May 8th fiasco at Wembley recently, where the Zionist Federation saw fit to celebrate Israel’ 60th by having Jackie Mason starring – and making jokes at the expense of Blacks, women and gays, I guess that Zionists ought to look first at some of the racism going on a little closer to home.

Have to say, Modernity, I’m disappointed with the patronizing and stereotyped portrayal of anti-Zionists you have adopted on this thread – you don’t normally need those attitudes to prop up your points so I hope we can continue our discussion free of that and concentrate on the substance of what we are agreeing or disagreeing over as we normally do.

Mark Gardner “Wish I’d noticed this thread sooner. Ironic that it seems to have gone up over Shavuoth.” I also go to watch West Ham on Saturdays and as a secular Jew I would be happy to post on Yom Kippur. Didn’t realize that Harry’s Place was only for glatt kosher frummers. What’s your point?