Thomas Mulcair, Parte Deux

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

My intent was to broaden the discussion beyond the simple question of the man's position on a single issue.  Re-read my post.

Your intent is irrelevant we know your true intentions.   Cool

"I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"

 

 

George Victor

Yeah, he'd probably turn out to be a control freak like Steve but go batty in trying to bring such cohesion to "the left" in all its glorious variety and individualized peerspecdtives on the role of the state.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Malcolm wrote:

Here's part of the problem: Sometimes anti-Zionism IS used as a cover for anti-Semitism. 

And sometimes, Christian support for Zionism is ALSO used as a cover for anti-Semitism.  People like Arthur Balfour and David Lloyd George backed the creation of a "Jewish state" because they thought such a state would hold down or even reduce the Jewish population of the United Kingdom.  And many of the "pro-Israel" evangelical "Christians" in the U.S. have backed hardline Israeli security policies because of their fixation with the "Last Days" scenario...a sequence of events in which the Temple would be rebuilt(in an Israel whose boundaries included ALL of Palestine plus large chunks of surrounding countries)and then the Jews who had inmigrated there would be given the choice of accepting the Christian Messiah or being slaughtered.

(this isn't really about Mulcair, and I apologize for the thread drift, but it had to be said.)

 

 

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Mon Dieux, parte deux will soon become parte trois.

I think your reminder of who many of the pro-Israel past and present supporters are is helpful in general Ken B. It certainly influences how society has come to define anti-Semitism.

Mulcair's position on Israel is problematic in my view. But in addition to that, I am not very confident in many of his positions other than his proven track record on the environment with the Quebec Liberal Government.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

And sometimes, Christian support for Zionism is ALSO used as a cover for anti-Semitism.  People like Arthur Balfour and David Lloyd George backed the creation of a "Jewish state" because they thought such a state would hold down or even reduce the Jewish population of the United Kingdom.  And many of the "pro-Israel" evangelical "Christians" in the U.S. have backed hardline Israeli security policies because of their fixation with the "Last Days" scenario...a sequence of events in which the Temple would be rebuilt(in an Israel whose boundaries included ALL of Palestine plus large chunks of surrounding countries)and then the Jews who had inmigrated there would be given the choice of accepting the Christian Messiah or being slaughtered. 

 

I don't disagree at all - and I was implicitly referring to this when I wrote about "pro-Zionist anti-Semites."  Sorry I wasn't clearer.

I think it does relate to the thread because the way certain elements conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism undermines any possibility of reasonably discussion Israel - Palestine.  However, the fact that SOME anti-Zionists ARE anti-Semites means we can't simply use a blanket dismissal of the conflation.  That means that reasoned discussion is at a significant disadvantage in the sound clip wars - and that discussing pro-Zionist anti-Semitism is probably beyond the capacity of the mainstream media.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I think everyone here would agree that those who self-identify as "anti-Zionist" have a duty(and almost always fulfill that duty more than adequately)to drive antisemitic opportunists OUT of their organizations.

Just as members of any OTHER social or solidarity movement have a responsibility to keep bigoted people out of their organizations.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I do agree.  That said, when we have things like demonstrations, it can be a little harder to control for that.

The problem arising from Libby's original comments in response to the reporter included a comment which was spinnable as being more than pro-Palestinian.  It appears from the material I recall that the reporter led her into the misstatement.  Three possibilities occur to me:

1. The reporter was trying to make Libby appear extreme,

2. The reporter was trying to make it appear that Libby endorsed the extreme view of her media outlet / organization

3. The reporter just didn't know the subject matter, which is all too common - due to understaffed newsrooms, few reporters ever have anything more than a superficial understanding of what they are covering and are therefore easily led by the unscrupulous.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I should also note that, however successful progressive anti-Zionists may be in excluding anti-Semites, the very existence of such people is all that the right need in order to start the conflation.  Even if every pro-Palestinian organization were 100% successful in excluding anti-Semites, the Ezra Levants, the Jason Kenneys and so forth would still have some success labeling all critics of Israeli policy as anti-Semites because it is a simple narrative - particularly for a reporter looking for a provocative story prior to deadline on an issue s/he doesn't really understand that well.  A simple lie is often easier to sell than a nuanced truth.

Unionist

Who are these anti-semites lurking within the pro-Palestinian activists in Canada? Ken Burch has said we must "drive them out" of our organizations. Malcolm says "even the existence of such people" is all the right needs to create confusion. In fact, Malcolm goes on to say that even if there were none, that wouldn't stop the confusion created by the right.

Well, let me venture to say that I have never heard nor seen an "anti-semitic" slogan or placard or statement within the context of a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli-war-crimes mobilization.

So I repeat - who are we talking about? Give me some examples. From Canada, please. Not some MEMRI-trawled articles from the Cairo press or whatever.

ETA: Before this thread is closed for length, could some mod please correct the title to read "Partie Deux" instead of "Parte Deux"? Thanks.

 

ottawaobserver

Malcolm wrote:

It appears from the material I recall that the reporter led her into the misstatement.  Three possibilities occur to me:

1. The reporter was trying to make Libby appear extreme,

2. The reporter was trying to make it appear that Libby endorsed the extreme view of her media outlet / organization

3. The reporter just didn't know the subject matter, which is all too common - due to understaffed newsrooms, few reporters ever have anything more than a superficial understanding of what they are covering and are therefore easily led by the unscrupulous.

It was a young blogger/citizen-journalist. How his video coverage got from his blog to National Newswatch is another part of the story, but I don't know how that happened, or in whose interest it was to get it there (although I have some ideas).

KenS

I want to second what Unionist said- that it is a mistake to give even that much credibility to the anti-Zionist = anti-semite trope.

They perpetuate it regardless of having even grain of truth. And they focus explicitly on the political and moral arguments for criticizing Israel themselves- how these are 'objectively' anti-semitic. [When they do not simply treat the equivalency as a self evident fact.]

The pointing to actual anti-semitism is just icing on the cake. And since the world is full of anti-semitism, they'll never have any shortage of that to use.

oldgoat

Closing for length.  Can't wait for part three.

Pages

Topic locked