Mike Craig responds to Barry Gilheany on the issue of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party.

I shall begin this reply with a few words which will hopefully prevent my comments from being taken out of context.

I am an atheist who happens to have been born in the north eastern part of the island of Ireland. That my ancestry is both Irish and Scottish is nothing more than a matter of fact, and is of little consequence to the reality of my life. My allegiance is to the Working Class peoples on this Planet, rather than to the piece of land I found myself inhabiting by accident of birth. My current political home is within the UK Labour Party as this is the most effective organisation of my class which exists within these islands at the present time.

As an atheist, I have no bias against followers of any particular religion. My antagonism to religious sects and their organisations is impartial and universal, I am not however antagonistic towards those of my class who follow these faiths. I have many friends who identify with these faiths or with their history.

Barry Gilheany, in his article, has not introduced any new arguments in support of the claim that the L.P. has more of a problem with anti-Semitism than that found in wider society.

I would agree that some on his list of advocates for the Palestinian cause have been on the wrong side of other political disputes, although some of his claims are comprised of quotes taken out of context, especially in the case of Chomsky. It is true that Chris Williamson, and many others have made serious misjudgements on the situation in Syria, nevertheless none of the cited situations have much in common with that in Israel /Palestine.

Where I differ with many others who support the Palestinians is on the question of the continued existence of the State of Israel. I take the same view on this as I do on the question of Northern Ireland. Neither of these political entities should ever have come into existence, but since they do exist, and have done for many decades, they can't simply be swept away.

When I hear the chants of 'from the river to the sea', I despair! Generations of people have now lived in Israel since their families set up home there when no other country would take them. Are they to be driven out and made to start all over again? No one here In Ireland is suggesting that this should happen to the progeny of those planted here by the English a few centuries ago.

I do understand the fears of the citizens of Israel, but this is where my sympathy ends.

To have a society built on the interests of one religious sect /race/ethnicity/ culture to the exclusion of others is indefensible. The argument that unless you only live with 'your own kind' you can't live in safety and security simply doesn't hold water. If I and many like me, took the view that we could only live with our own kind (atheists and socialists) we would soon make a lot of enemies. There are many multicultural, multi-ethnic societies around the World which exist without having resorted to apartheid policies. The evidence speaks for itself.

Of course, if you want to guarantee your security it is a good idea not to take over someone else's land and then persecute them. Making enemies never makes for a peaceful life!

Zionism is not an exclusively Jewish standpoint. There are plenty of Christian Zionists. The USA for example, has millions of them, so equating Zionism exclusively with Jews is disingenuous to say the least. It is quite a convenient tool though, when you're trying to create a certain narrative. A narrative which it is hoped, will make the indefensible more acceptable – 'Manufacturing consent', to quote one of the enemies of elitism.

Denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the form of a nation state would not be seen as a priori anti-Semitic if those doing the denying were consistent across the board and opposed, on principle, all nationalist movements ….

I suppose for many it would depend on the circumstances of said nationalist movements. I am not a supporter of nationalism because in most cases it is elitist. A state for the Jewish people is elitist in the same way as a state for the Catholic People or a state for the Protestant People, or one for Muslim People etc., and we all know how well those worked out. Remember Franco's Spain, Craig's Ulster, de Valera's Eire, Khomeini's Iran, etc.

The question of self-determination is not necessarily nationalist at all, and can be one of defence from an imperialist power which seeks to undermine the human and civil rights of the natives.

Is Barry Gilheany seriously suggesting that Israel is under threat from an imperialist power?

In fact, the situation in Israel the exact opposite. The Palestinians are the natives whose human and civil rights are being violated, their infrastructure bombed and bulldozed back to the stone age.

My view, for what it's worth, that the optimum solution for this troubled state, is that Israel would become a secular socialist entity in which people of all faiths and ethnicities live together in peace for the common good.

I also find it interesting that there is no mention in the article that many of those high profile people expelled or suspended from Labour during the investigation into anti-Semitism in the Party have been Jews.

Again, this is part of the programme. Dispense with all dissent by discrediting the opposition and if that opposition is Jewish, portray them as 'self-haters' or 'the wrong type of Jew'. We need look no further than this article to see this tactic, which dismisses Jewish Voice For Labour as being a small but vociferous, anti-Zionist group as being of the Far Left, therefore of no significance.

Within the Labour Party this issue is not just one of anti-Semitism, it is also one of class interests. The majority of the members of the Party are workers, whose only asset is their labour power, while many in the tiny minority which holds all of the political power are owners of 'the means of production'. The role of this group is to prevent the majority from getting ideas above its station and actually creating a socialist society. The attack on Corbyn in this article is an attack on Corbynism, a movement of hundreds of thousands of people who want a better society and a better World. As a labour member who is part of the struggle to democratise the Party, I believe that the voice of the mass membership should take precedence over that of the MPs and their small ruling clique, most of whom do not work in the interests of working people.

I do not believe that those outside the Party (including those affiliated through sectarian interest groups), who do not support the interests of the majority of the membership, should be able to exert influence in my Party.

The main reason, (conveniently omitted from this article) why anti-Zionists and others do not accept the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not because they disagree with it's words. Certainly the supplementary additions are problematic, but most agree with the gist of actual 35 word definition. No, the reason is that Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust, so why have the other victims been excluded? Why do we need a specific anti-racism definition exclusive to one group?

To recognise the suffering of others does not do an injustice to your own suffering!

⏭ Mike Craig lives near Moneymore, Co. Derry. He is a retired electronics technician, a social campaigner, and since 2016, a  Labour Party activist. Born to atheist parents in the 1950s, he has 11 grandchildren and 3 Great Grandchildren.

Zionism Is Not An Exclusively Jewish Standpoint

Mike Craig responds to Barry Gilheany on the issue of anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party.

I shall begin this reply with a few words which will hopefully prevent my comments from being taken out of context.

I am an atheist who happens to have been born in the north eastern part of the island of Ireland. That my ancestry is both Irish and Scottish is nothing more than a matter of fact, and is of little consequence to the reality of my life. My allegiance is to the Working Class peoples on this Planet, rather than to the piece of land I found myself inhabiting by accident of birth. My current political home is within the UK Labour Party as this is the most effective organisation of my class which exists within these islands at the present time.

As an atheist, I have no bias against followers of any particular religion. My antagonism to religious sects and their organisations is impartial and universal, I am not however antagonistic towards those of my class who follow these faiths. I have many friends who identify with these faiths or with their history.

Barry Gilheany, in his article, has not introduced any new arguments in support of the claim that the L.P. has more of a problem with anti-Semitism than that found in wider society.

I would agree that some on his list of advocates for the Palestinian cause have been on the wrong side of other political disputes, although some of his claims are comprised of quotes taken out of context, especially in the case of Chomsky. It is true that Chris Williamson, and many others have made serious misjudgements on the situation in Syria, nevertheless none of the cited situations have much in common with that in Israel /Palestine.

Where I differ with many others who support the Palestinians is on the question of the continued existence of the State of Israel. I take the same view on this as I do on the question of Northern Ireland. Neither of these political entities should ever have come into existence, but since they do exist, and have done for many decades, they can't simply be swept away.

When I hear the chants of 'from the river to the sea', I despair! Generations of people have now lived in Israel since their families set up home there when no other country would take them. Are they to be driven out and made to start all over again? No one here In Ireland is suggesting that this should happen to the progeny of those planted here by the English a few centuries ago.

I do understand the fears of the citizens of Israel, but this is where my sympathy ends.

To have a society built on the interests of one religious sect /race/ethnicity/ culture to the exclusion of others is indefensible. The argument that unless you only live with 'your own kind' you can't live in safety and security simply doesn't hold water. If I and many like me, took the view that we could only live with our own kind (atheists and socialists) we would soon make a lot of enemies. There are many multicultural, multi-ethnic societies around the World which exist without having resorted to apartheid policies. The evidence speaks for itself.

Of course, if you want to guarantee your security it is a good idea not to take over someone else's land and then persecute them. Making enemies never makes for a peaceful life!

Zionism is not an exclusively Jewish standpoint. There are plenty of Christian Zionists. The USA for example, has millions of them, so equating Zionism exclusively with Jews is disingenuous to say the least. It is quite a convenient tool though, when you're trying to create a certain narrative. A narrative which it is hoped, will make the indefensible more acceptable – 'Manufacturing consent', to quote one of the enemies of elitism.

Denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the form of a nation state would not be seen as a priori anti-Semitic if those doing the denying were consistent across the board and opposed, on principle, all nationalist movements ….

I suppose for many it would depend on the circumstances of said nationalist movements. I am not a supporter of nationalism because in most cases it is elitist. A state for the Jewish people is elitist in the same way as a state for the Catholic People or a state for the Protestant People, or one for Muslim People etc., and we all know how well those worked out. Remember Franco's Spain, Craig's Ulster, de Valera's Eire, Khomeini's Iran, etc.

The question of self-determination is not necessarily nationalist at all, and can be one of defence from an imperialist power which seeks to undermine the human and civil rights of the natives.

Is Barry Gilheany seriously suggesting that Israel is under threat from an imperialist power?

In fact, the situation in Israel the exact opposite. The Palestinians are the natives whose human and civil rights are being violated, their infrastructure bombed and bulldozed back to the stone age.

My view, for what it's worth, that the optimum solution for this troubled state, is that Israel would become a secular socialist entity in which people of all faiths and ethnicities live together in peace for the common good.

I also find it interesting that there is no mention in the article that many of those high profile people expelled or suspended from Labour during the investigation into anti-Semitism in the Party have been Jews.

Again, this is part of the programme. Dispense with all dissent by discrediting the opposition and if that opposition is Jewish, portray them as 'self-haters' or 'the wrong type of Jew'. We need look no further than this article to see this tactic, which dismisses Jewish Voice For Labour as being a small but vociferous, anti-Zionist group as being of the Far Left, therefore of no significance.

Within the Labour Party this issue is not just one of anti-Semitism, it is also one of class interests. The majority of the members of the Party are workers, whose only asset is their labour power, while many in the tiny minority which holds all of the political power are owners of 'the means of production'. The role of this group is to prevent the majority from getting ideas above its station and actually creating a socialist society. The attack on Corbyn in this article is an attack on Corbynism, a movement of hundreds of thousands of people who want a better society and a better World. As a labour member who is part of the struggle to democratise the Party, I believe that the voice of the mass membership should take precedence over that of the MPs and their small ruling clique, most of whom do not work in the interests of working people.

I do not believe that those outside the Party (including those affiliated through sectarian interest groups), who do not support the interests of the majority of the membership, should be able to exert influence in my Party.

The main reason, (conveniently omitted from this article) why anti-Zionists and others do not accept the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not because they disagree with it's words. Certainly the supplementary additions are problematic, but most agree with the gist of actual 35 word definition. No, the reason is that Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust, so why have the other victims been excluded? Why do we need a specific anti-racism definition exclusive to one group?

To recognise the suffering of others does not do an injustice to your own suffering!

⏭ Mike Craig lives near Moneymore, Co. Derry. He is a retired electronics technician, a social campaigner, and since 2016, a  Labour Party activist. Born to atheist parents in the 1950s, he has 11 grandchildren and 3 Great Grandchildren.

8 comments:

  1. Mike Barry,

    Mike, why did you shoot yourself in the foot by spreading a Zionist myth that....When I hear the chants of 'from the river to the sea', I despair! Generations of people have now lived in Israel since their families set up home there when no other country would take them.

    What people? Jews have had a place on paper since at least 1917. The paper is called the Balfour declaration.

    In 1917 while 16,17 &18 yr olds were getting slaughtered across Europe, a Zionist family called The Rothschild held several dinner parties amongst themselves to decide what to do with the Jewish diaspora after the Russian pogroms. And during the five time's it took Balfour to re write the declaration some places they discussed annexing included part of the USA, taking over Uganda, even annexing part of Russia. Some of the family objected to going any where near Palestine, but they lost the vote and since 1917 on paper Jews have had a place they can call 'home' ..


    All I am doing is repeating what Lord Rothschild discussed in an interview recorded in 2017 called How His Family Created Israel, no one else's family but his and he goes on to explain why they created it. So anyone who says the modern Israel was set up because Jews had no where to go and not one country would take them after horrors inflicted on the Jews during WW2 and rubber stamped by the UN in '48..Is factually wrong. Unless someone can discredit the Rothschild interview,then I am sticking with my version of events..And Israel was set up in 1917..at least on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike

    Thanks for your response.

    A few preliminary comments. The Shoah/Holocaust does specifically refer to the extermination of European Jewry as the Final Solution specifically decided to kill every single Jew in Nazi occupied Europe. This does not diminish the other genocides committed by the Nazis; of Roma and Sinti; of gays; of the mentally ill and learning disabled in the T4 programme as well as the muliple other war crimes and crimes against humanity by the Nazis. Holocaust Memorial Day also commemorate other genocides including those in Bosnia-Herzogovina, Cambodia and Rwanda.

    As you have guessed I am not a fan of the Corbyn project not because of its social and economic polices but because of its culture of intolerance and insistence on ideological purity of which the antisemitism crisis is a feature. CLPs up and down the country (including my own) have been taken over by Momentum and other hard left groups who, in the name of party democracy, act in typically far-left underhand and intimidatory fashion. Aas a believer in representative democracy, it is my opinion that MPs are ultimately accountable to their electorates not to activist cliques in the CLPs. That Boris Johnson is now PM servers as another danger tp democracy from member-led parties.

    Because Palestine/Israel is such an obsession with these elements Jewish MPs such as Louise Ellman, Luciana Berger and Joan Ryan and Jewish Labour Movement members who do not buy into the hard left hostility to Israal and Zionism have been made to feel unwelcome after many years of service to the party and indeed driven out. Non Jewish Labpour MPs such as Stella Creasy and antiracist stalwart David Lammy have also faced deselection threats for their opposition to this institutionalised racism (yes far left and Marxist-Lerminist movemwents can be racist as the examples of the Soviet Unilon, North Korea and Pol Pot prove).

    The narrative that Israel was built on the theft of other people's land does not tell the whole story. The dispossessions of Arab lands and villages which undoubtedly happened during the Naqba may not have occurred had the Palestinian leadership accepted the UN partition plan of 1947 wnhich was the basis of the UN General Assembly motion that brought the State of Israel into existence and had Israel's Arab neighbours not attacked it on independence; not because they believed the right to independence for Palestinians but because they objected to a Jewish state on Muslim lands.


    It is a fact that antisemitism as well as anti-Muslim hatred and other hatreds are on the rise in Europe; a one-size-fits-all definition may or not be adequate to deal woth it

    Finally Jewish members such as Glyn Secker and Tony Greensteinj and those with Jewish heritage such as Jackie Walker incurred because they of antisemitic actions and words. In the case of Ms Walker for repeatedly articulating Louis Farakhhan's calumny that Jews were the chief financiers of the Caribbdean slave trade.

    Greenstein, a veteran antizionist activist, was expelled in February 2018 two years after suspension for directiong antismemitic, sexist and racist abuse towards fellow Labour members.

    There is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' Jews. Jews can be capable of buying into antisemitic tropes as anyone else as Bibi Netananhyu 's enbrace of Viktor Orban's George Soros prejudices and of Trump as well as the examples from the left that I have just cited proves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barry, your 4th paragraph is wrong on every level..Israel was set up, put in motion...from at least 1917...I am simply repeating what a Rothschild has said...The Balfour declaration was sent to their family, not my family, your family or any other...

    By all accounts several places on this rock were up for grabs..If you want to understand history, then you must accept that fact..If you don't you will simply repeat bollicks...

    ReplyDelete
  4. When someone needs to lie to prove their point politically it demonstrates how threadbare is their argument.

    I was suspended and then expelled for my role as an anti-Zionist Jew because anti-racist Jews don't fit the agenda of people like Gilheany who have spent their whole career defending the world's only apartheid state.

    Nothing I said was antisemitic and nor was antisemitism alleged. The only thing the kangaroo court alleged was 'antisemitic' was my use of the term 'zio'. Even a child will understand why that is not antisemitic.

    'Zio' is short for Zionist. Zionist is someone who believes in setting up a racist Jewish settler colonial state in Palestine regardless of the wishes of the indigenous population, Jewish and Palestinian. The first Zionists were not Jewish but Christian imperialists, dispensationalists etc. Just as today the main bastion of the Zionist movement in the USA is CHristian fundamentalists around John Hagee, Trump, Bannon etc. The US Jewish community is becoming very lukewarm.

    So if you say Zio is antisemitic you are saying all Jews are Zionists. Which is another lie. Zio is no different from Trot or Commie or Fash or Nazi.

    Yes just as Whites in South Africa who opposed Apartheid were a minority so today Jews who oppose Zionism are a minority. We are the subject of racist abuse and vitriol from Kapos to being told, repeatedly that it was a pity that we and our families didn't die in the Holocaust.

    We receive this vile abuse from those who Gilheany oonsorts with, racial nationalists who believe we are 'self haters' and if we oppose Zionism we deserve to die. Self hater itself was what Nazis accused German anti-fascists of yet it is a common form of Zionist abuse.

    It is another like that 'repeatedly articulating Louis Farakhhan's calumny that Jews were the chief financiers of the Caribbdean slave trade'. These are the lies that Zionists trade in.

    In a PRIVATE conversation on Facebook with a friend Jack said Jews were the chief financiers of the slave trade. Being an informal conversation which was broken into by the Israel Advocacy Movement she omitted one word 'among'.

    Contrast this with Zionists like Israel's first Justice Minister who called Palestine an 'institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin' or Nazi supporter Louis Namier, political secretary to Chaim Weizmann or the countless other Zionists who spoke of Jews in the diaspora in terms that antisemites applauded.

    I will take no lessons from Gilheany on antisemitism.

    Gilheany says that

    'There is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' Jews. Jews can be capable of buying into antisemitic tropes as anyone else as Bibi Netananhyu 's enbrace of Viktor Orban's George Soros prejudices and of Trump as well as the examples from the left that I have just cited proves.'

    This is disingenuous. Netanyahu's embrace of the far-right Orban is not an individual quirk. Incidentally he has not been called out by Labour Zionism at any stage. On the contrary when Netanyahu began moves to deport 40,000 Black African refugees for the crime of being Black and not Jewish the Israeli Labour Party supported him.

    Both Labour and Likud have supported far-Right and anti-semitic politicians - what Netanyahu has done is nothing knew. In 1976 as the Anti-Apartheid movement was in full swing Rabin and Peres hosted John Vorster the South African Prime Minister interned during the war for his Nazi symmpathies.

    Ben Gurion supported the French in Algeria. The Israeli Labour Party supported Begin's policy towards an Argentinian Junta from 1976-83 which was neo-Nazi and murdered 3,000 Jews without a whimper from Israel.

    Gilheany is either ignorant or simply lying. Zionism has NEVER fought anti-Semitism. Instead it has sought to redefine anti-Semitism as opposition to the murderous, child abusing state that it has become and its racist ideology Zionism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tony

    Did you make the following comments that have been attributed to you by the Red Roar blog and by Dr Alan Johnson

    "The false antisemitic narrative is the ONLY weapon the Zionists have ... like multi-headed hydra - however many heads of the snake you cut off they keep on growing back" Do you agree that the image of the Jews as a multi-headed has historically been classically antisemitic. It is found in the cartoons of the notorious Holocaust denier (he came second in President Ahmadadijahad' cartoon competition around that theme in 2006). Would you agree that this is an example of antisemitism dressed up as antizionism?

    Do you deny saying 'Zio idiots' and 'Zionist scum' Are you not aware that the Chakrabarti Report of 2016 explicitly terms the "Zio" epithet as racist/antisemitic and that therefore not to be used by Labour members? Bearing that mind, you do agree that calling certain Jewish women Labour MPs as "Zio-whores".

    Did you say that Louise Ellmanm MP 'supported Israeli child abuse' and that 'gay Zionists make me want to puke'?

    You are entitled to hold the views that you express in this post ... outside the Labour Party. You have a Trotsykist background which is alien to the democratic and parliamentary socialist traditions and ethos of the Labour Party. You have spent most of your career trying to drive Jewish representative groups like the JLM that you do not agree with out of the Labour movement.

    I only joined the JLM as an affiliate member in 2018 as an act of solidarity with Jewish members who have suffered such villification and abuse from racists in the Pary.

    As a Trotskyist you may be interested to learn that your guru, Leon Trotsky accepted "the historical necessity for a Jewish state in 1938 and that Isaac Deutscher came round to the view of Israel as a "life raft state " for Jews fleeing Nazism. Eric Hobsbaum in 1980 presciently warned of a future resurgence of antisemitism.

    Btw, I never use terms like "self-hating Jews" as I do not judge people by race, ethnicity or private reliogious belidef.

    Have a good evening.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A pathetic response but I expect no better from a Zio! To take each in turn:

    1. Did you make the following comments that have been attributed to you by the Red Roar blog and by Dr Alan Johnson

    "The false antisemitic narrative is the ONLY weapon the Zionists have ... like multi-headed hydra - however many heads of the snake you cut off they keep on growing back"

    Do you agree that the image of the Jews as a multi-headed has historically been classically antisemitic. It is found in the cartoons of the notorious Holocaust denier (he came second in President Ahmadadijahad' cartoon competition around that theme in 2006). Would you agree that this is an example of antisemitism dressed up as antizionism?

    No I don't agree with your lies and false insinuations. The Hydra, from what I remember, was a figure in Greek mythology, a many headed serpent. Are you really saying that any reference to this serpent or this legend or any attempt to use it as a metaphor is antisemitic? This is pathetic.

    Yes if you were to construct a JEWISH conspiracy and use the Hydra as your metaphor then of course it would be antisemitic BUT I did no such thing.

    You should really try to read English and even better try to understand it Barry. I referred

    ReplyDelete
  7. I referred to a 'false antisemitic narrative' of Zionists. Note Zionists are mainly non-Jews, like Trump and your friend Bannon.

    Let me explain it to you in words of 1 syllable.

    There was a medieval antisemitic tale of Jews poisoning wells. It was a lie and it was antisemitic. But if I accuse Israelis of poisoning wells, is that also antisemitic? Does every reference to Israel have to be referred back to Jews?

    Israel is a fucking state not a person you idiot. Jewish settlers DO poison water sources. It is documented. Zionist soldiers in 1948 poisoned water sources with bacteria to cause mass illness. That too is documented. If it is true it can't be antisemitic can it? Or are you saying antisemitism is also true?

    Like most Zios you can't help but lying. Carlos Lattuf, the cartoonist you refer to is NOT a holocaust denier and I challenge you to produce ONE single quote from him to that effect. The holocaust cartoon competition he entered and came 2nd in was about the uses of the holocaust politically. His cartoon as about Palestinians dressed in concentration camp uniforms. Or as Primo Levi said, the Palestinians are the Jews of Israel.

    You ask 'Did you say that Louise Ellmanm MP 'supported Israeli child abuse' and that 'gay Zionists make me want to puke'?'

    Yes most certainly. 3 times in a parliamentary debate on Israel's horrific treatment of Palestinian children Louise Ellman justified the Israeli military's treatment of them. Things like arresting kids as young as 12 in the early hours of the morning, blindfolding them, leaving them in the cold, beating them, forcing them to sign a confession in a language they don't understand.

    Jewish children could never suffer such treatment, which has rightly been described as torture. Certainly I described Ellman as a supporter of Israeli child abuse and if you dont then you are scum.

    Yes I did say gay Zionists make me want to puke. Those who suffer from 1 form of oppression you justify someone else's do indeed make me feel sick. Presumably you aren't affected.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The JLM isn't a Jewish representative group. It represents the Israeli Labour Party, its 'sister party'. As such it is a racist group and it isn't Jewish anyway. Less than 1/3 of its members are Jewish. Its member are mainly right-wing non-Jews. It allows any racist to join as long as they are a Zionist. They don't even have to be a member of the Labour Party. If I'm wrong you tell me what the percentage of Jewish to non-Jewish is or is that a carefully kept secret?

    What would you know about the background of the Labour Party? It has a working class and socialist background of which Trotskyism (I'm a Marxist not a Trot but who cares) is a part. Reactionaries like you however do not belong and you should join your compatriots in the Tory Party.

    Yes of course it would seem that you too aren't Jewish. Perhaps you are a Unionist too like all those other Zios. Jewish members, apart from anti-Zionists like me, have suffered no villification. What they have suffered from is criticism of ZIonism, something you are unable to distinguish from being Jewish.

    Your problem is that you mix 3 things up in one. No Trotsky did not accept Zionism or a Jewish state in the Middle East. He was talking about Russia and in any case he was wrong, like you.

    Deutscher wasn't a revolutionary and he used the analogy of Israel being a liferaft state but he too was wrong. Israel was a settler colonial state like Ireland. It rescued very few Jews and unfortunately Zionism led to the deaths of far more Jews in the Holocaust, especially in Hungary.

    Hobsbawm may have been right to warn of an increase in antisemitism but one thing is for certain. if there is an increase it will come from the allies of you Zionists. From Donald Trump to Steve Bannon to Tommy Robinson and Victor Orban - there are virtually no fascists alive today who do not, in the words of the neo-Nazi founder of the alt-Right Richard Spencer, see themselves as White Zionists.

    You may not use the Nazi term 'self-hating Jew'. However most Zios do. And it is not a question of race or ethnicity or indeed religious belief but one solely of fascist and anti-fascist politics

    Have a good morning

    ReplyDelete