Seen this go viral. I’m sure the person with placard had good intentions, and obviously I don’t know what their grandfather’s beliefs are/were, but I think formulations like this are problematic and sail close to the sentiment I referred to here:
It’s likely some of the people dropping bombs on Gaza *are* descendants of Holocaust survivors. And? Should Allied armies have made survivors sign a waiver on the way out of camps? “You can leave as long as you promise your descendants will never do anything oppressive”? (2/8)
There’s an implication that having been a victim of attempted genocide should imbue you with a kind of heightened morality. Why? In fact, the conclusion many Jews drew from the Holocaust was that they would never be safe until they had their own, armed, state. (3/8)
That’s not a conclusion I support but it’s pretty easy to understand how people arrived at it. I’m not going to berate the survivors of genocide for not “learning the right lessons” from the experience. Oppression is not a moral instruction. (4/8)
The experiences of the Holocaust, and earlier European antisemitism, *are* an absolutely integral part of the Israeli Jewish story, without question. Israeli nationhood was a “life boat... a raft” for post-Holocaust refugees, as Isaac Deutscher put it. (5/8)
Deutscher’s parable likening Jewish immigration to Palestine to someone jumping out of a burning building, landing on someone below, and then continually kicking them to the ground for fear of reprisals for having landed on them is also apposite. (6/8)
That encapsulates the historical tragedy of the desperate Jewish escape to what they hoped would be a safe national home involving the dispossession and oppression of another people. It’s a better framing than one which implies Jews should have “learnt” from the Holocaust. (7/8)
The Israeli state’s oppression of the Palestinians is wrong because it’s wrong - because it violates what should be universal rights, such as the right to self-determination. It’s not somehow *more* wrong because those carrying it out are the descendants of survivors. (8/8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want Labour to run on maximally left-wing policies, every time — because I think those policies are *right* and must be fought for, whether or not they’re electorally expedient. But “we lost because the policies weren’t left-wing enough” takes obscure more than they clarify.
“I would’ve voted Labour if they were fighting for renationalised utilities, a £15/hour minimum wage, more rights for migrants and asylum seekers, and the abolition of all anti-union laws, but they’re not... so I’m voting Tory.” That’s not really what’s going on here, is it?
It’s actually patronising to people to assume that they’re just voting Tory out of some unthinking reflex or displacement activity, rather than because they’re genuinely convinced by the nationalist political narrative the Tories are offering.
Seems weird Starmer won’t sign personally if he’s instructing other to do so. But, whilst not signing a letter against fire and rehire is bad, scabbing on strikes against it (which is what Unite, at the direction of a leadership including Beckett, did in British Gas) is worse.
I don’t believe in the concept of “sin”, but if I did, crossing a picket line would be cardinal. And it’s even worse if done in exchange for a sweetheart deal for more facility time, apparently by overruling rank-and-file activists who wanted to support another union’s strike.
This is anecdotal, impressionistic, and perhaps superficial, but I can’t help but feel it says a lot about the health of the labour movement left that Beckett’s militant posturing seems to get boosted and amplified more than GMB activists’ attempts to hold Unite to account.
Yes, republicanism is a marginal, minority opinion in Britain, especially England, right now. I get the impulse of some on the left to take a “let’s pick our battles” attitude. But it won’t ever gain ground unless those who believe in it argue for it openly and consistently.
The monarchy is a key part of the ideological infrastructure of the state. It’s a feudal relic in some ways, but in others very much imbricated with contemporary capitalism. The British aristocracy managed to “bourgeoisify” itself more successfully than its counterparts.
I’m not into performative animus towards individual members of the ruling class (it’s a waste of energy, largely), but nor do I accept that it’s somehow distasteful or not appropriate to talk about the social institutions someone was part of in the wake of their death.
Reading @promiseli_’s comments about the left must acknowledge how demonisation of China feeds anti-Asian racism whilst also refusing to moderate our own (democratic, internationalist) critique of the Chinese state, I’m struck by some similarities with antisemitism/Israel.
To me there’s a parallel in terms of how some on the left refuse to understand how irrational demonisation of Israel/Zionism feeds antisemitism, *and* how some on the right, including many Zionists, insist opposing antisemitism has to entail defence of the Israeli state.
They’re both wrong. But FWIW, the fact that one of them is Jewish is only ultimately decisive if you believe someone’s ethnicity confers validity on an argument in a way that transcends what’s actually being said.
It’s a futile method of argument. The majority of British, and probably global, Jewish opinion is undoubtedly closer to Luke‘s argument than Rivkah‘s. But that doesn’t settle the matter! Engage critically, don’t rhetorically wield identities in abstraction from the argument.
And on the substance... until the left gets its head around the reality that Zionism is *both* a “settler colonial ideology” *and*, historically, a “national liberation movement of the Jewish people” that appeared to be, in Deutscher’s phrase, “a historical necessity”...
The SWP’s pandering to Islamism is a long and sorry tale, with the nadir either being the explicitly communalist Respect project or their support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but I was still a bit shocked to see they’ve backed the Batley protests.
The Socialist Worker article supporting the protests quotes a Stand Up to Racism statement which says “insulting the Prophet Mohammed is [...] racist abuse”. What, regardless of context?! Anti-racism doesn’t imply support for the enforcement of religious taboos.
There is a long and rich tradition of anticlerical and antitheist propaganda and agitation from within revolutionary socialist and anarchist traditions, targeting all religions. Undoubtedly many adherents of those religions find it “insulting”.