Open Thread: Why is Obama Boycotting the UN’s International Conference on Racism?
by Latoya Peterson
Reader Elton tipped me to this a while back and I’ve been waiting for the media firestorm on this to break – looks like it isn’t going to happen. The technical name for the conference is the Durban Review Conference, which is a follow up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.
In an op-ed for The Boston Globe, Marlene Nadle writes:
President Barack Obama’s position on attending the conference translates roughly into: Do it our way or we won’t play. He has already gotten all references to Israel, to reparations for slavery, and to a proposed ban on speech defaming any religion dropped from the conference’s draft document. Yet, he is still unwilling to have the United States attend. Even if the administration bullies its way into getting its final points, it is not really a win for the United States.
Obama’s foot dragging and threat of a boycott will begin to deplete whatever goodwill he has created for himself and America in the nations of color. People in those countries, like many Americans, hoped he would head up the fight for racial justice, not become one of the obstacles to it.
Readers, what have you heard so far? Please provide any links you may have as well as commentary.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Sara wrote:
This conference is organized by Libya, Iran and Cuba, all countries with wonderful human rights records. The U.N. Human Rights Council is a farce. Go to the U.N. website and see what they have done in the past two years (or haven’t done). To read more about Durban II – http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/17/united-nations-durban-opinions-bayefsky.html
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 8:29 am ¶
Slush wrote:
I understand that the conference is organized by UNESCO. I haven’t seen any mention of Libya, Iran, or Cuba, anywhere. (And their human rights records are not really relevant to their ability to organize a UN conference, since they are member nations.)
I am pretty disappointed in Obama over this. In many ways I don’t want him to be held to a different standard on race issues than other presidents, but the fact is, I’d be equally peeved even if it was some other president. And few presidents have made any claims to be progressive or insightful about race, but he has, so now he’s really bagging on that. You don’t have to have high expectations of the outcome of a UN Conference to see that our lack of engagement is churlish and completely undiplomatic.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:03 am ¶
method wrote:
This is a conference where the Arab and Muslim countries and others aligned with their bloc perennially try to get Israel censured by the UN as an apartheid state and in particular to get the formula “Zionism = Racism” ratified. Whatever you think of that proposition, this is an unworkable political position for any of Israel’s Western allies. You can see the map of countries that are uncomfortable with the conference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference . It’s the Western bloc countries.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:11 am ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
I have been following the issues round “Durban 2″ as it is often dubbed with great interest as I had Jewish and non-Jewish friends who came back from the conference horrified, scared and angry at the hijacking of Durban 1 by anti-Semites. And more importantly by the tacit approval/acceptance of those activists by the UN and other organisations. It is unacceptable for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be sold at a conference allegedly dedicated to working for anti-racism and tolerance. It is unacceptable that the Durban Jewish Centre had to be closed down because of threats of violence during the Conference. But apparently not for the attendees at Durban 1.
See here for a good summaries:
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=2279
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/durban1.html
The Engage website, which Matt often links to, has a useful link to the issues around the new conference Durban2.
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/category/united-nations/
The Benjamin Pogrund piece that appeared on the UK Guardian’s Comment is Free site and linnked to about two or three articles down, pretty much sums up why countries are still boycotting Durban 2. Namely because the ‘hijackers’ are still playing their anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agenda (note I do not conflate the two but clearly the hijackers are unable to make the distinction).
I find it quite puzzling that Marlene Nadle still doesn’t actually get it. Regardless of the draft agenda and its amendment(s), the fact is that it is highly likely, in fact, probable, that Durban 2 will degenerate into the anti-Semitic farce it was last time. The fact that there’s even had to be such a fight over the draft agenda highlights this!
The fault doesn’t lie with Obama’s administration, Italy or Canada or whoever for anticipating and objecting to that fact. The fault lies with the single (I/P) issue hijackers who are preventing the conference from actually covering what it needs to cover – that is a general, worldwide fight against racism, xenophobia and etc.
These hijackers don’t care about indentured slavery, the conflict in Darfur, homophobia, transphobia and all the other horrors in our world. All they care about is IP and they don’t care if they ruin the conference in the process.
Blame them.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:17 am ¶
method wrote:
I don’t know where I got perennially from. But this sort of thing happens a lot with the US and the UN. The US pulled out of UNESCO from 84-03 because it was viewed as a vehicle for criticizing the US, and probably was to some extent.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:21 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
@ Sara:
I really hate it when people in the North/West talk about human rights of other countries. Take a look at your own country.
As a Canadian I am under no delusion that Canada has a great human rights record. Just look at our First Nations people and all the racism that exists. I wouldn’t call that upholding human rights. And the US has a worse human rights record – Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, use of torture, rendition practices, dening basic civil rights to their own people, etc. The list goes on and on and on. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
@all:
The main problem for places like the US were that people at the conference were pointing out Israel’s racist and oppressive policies toward the Palestinians. They said it was anti-Semitic. But now that talking about the oppression that Palestinians face is off limits, I have no idea why the US would not go. As Nadle says, they got what they wanted but after the bullying to not go doesn’t make sense.
I guess one thing I’ve come to realize that Obama is not as enlightened as I first thought. He is, after all, a politician at the end of the day. Combine this with his increase in drone attacks on Pakistan and to me it seems that he is fulfilling his duty as president to maintain the US in a certain position on the world stage. Discussing issues such as racism on an international stage will not help in maintaining that power. *shrug*
btw…Canada, being so much better than the US on such issues (sarcasm), is also not going. *rolling eyes* Doesn’t surprise me considering who our PM is.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:29 am ¶
Meg wrote:
Wasn’t sure if this was just for american stuff, if so then you can ignore these, but from what i’ve read/understood media message is that Durban 1 was a ‘hate-fest’ and not really worth re-visiting unless improvements are made (similar to what seems to be white house’s stance). UN is a bit of a joke so can’t say i’m really getting worked up about this issue because nothing of any force will come from it anyway. But even so, would still like to see some representation from my government cos we might learn something. If it really heads to crazy town then i’m sure they can find their way to an exit without starting WWIII.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/12/2514842.htm
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/smith-to-decide-on-durban-ii-attendance-20090414-a51h.html
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=7226
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:29 am ¶
Renee wrote:
It comes down to politics. Today is national tea bagging day and he is well aware of how his body is understood and the ways in which it drives white panic. When he ran though he did identify as African American he walked a very thin line to try to reassure whiteness and now he cannot step away from it to deal with racialized issues. Honestly I don’t know why anyone is surprised by this.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:33 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Meg -
It’s supposed to be a worldwide conference; worldwide perspectives are welcome.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:34 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
I have heard that anti-Semites can hijack certain parts of the conference, but can’t they (the organizers) find a way, other than banning the discussion of the Palestinian issue, to address this problem. The oppression that the Palestinians face needs to be discussed and cannot be ignored. It is a form of racism. However, yes, it should be done on a political level and not on a religious one in which Jews feel threatened.
Why can’t countries like the US, Canada etc. use their power for good in this case instead of just not going?
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:35 am ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
@Sobia
Re: this comment:
“The main problem for places like the US were that people at the conference were pointing out Israel’s racist and oppressive policies toward the Palestinians. They said it was anti-Semitic. ”
…is actually just way off the mark. Distributing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not anti-Israeli. Saying that Hitler should have finished the job is not anti-Israeli. If you can’t tell the difference then I am genuinely sad for you.
An clarifying excerpt from the Benjamin Porgrund piece:
“But anger and disappointment about Durban’s wild excesses went on simmering and, seven months later, South Africa’s deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad…referred to the “disgraceful events” surrounding the NGO conference and said: “I wish to make it unequivocally clear that the South African government recognises that part of that component was hijacked and used by some with an anti-Israeli agenda to turn it into an antisemitic event.” That was precisely why, he added, that the world’s governments had refused to accept the NGO resolutions.”
Why would this man lie exactly? Why would Mary Robinson lie? http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1025
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:45 am ¶
Sara wrote:
Libya is the Chair of the conference and Iran and Cuba are vice-chairs. I think their human rights records have alot to do with how they organize and run a conference on racism and human rights. They don’t want their own countries’ records scrutinized or their ‘allies’, so they focus on others.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:55 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Just went through this document, looking for more information about the conference:
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/26-1pdfs/Lantos9.pdf
Warning: The paper is very pro-Bush, pro-War on Terror, anti-Middle East, and anti-Islam. And while the writer is seemingly dedicated to the defense of Israel, I kept getting the impression that Israel was a means to an end for the US, not a stand taken out of friendship. So I will not call the paper pro-Israel though a lot of points were made about the treatment of Israel.
At any rate, it seems like there are a lot of issues at play, namely:
1. What constitutes anti-semitism?
2. Exactly how much of the past can be brought up in a productive conversation about modern day racism?
3. Is it possible to have a conference on racism where key delegations are banned?
4. Can we have any hope of a discussion about Israel/Palestine if the delegates from Israel and Palestine are alternately blocked from attending various meetings?
5. Is the I/P issue a dodge? It is interesting that most of the op-eds and papers I’ve read thus far either ignore the issue completely or focus solely on I/P when every single country has issues of racism or xenophobia. Why is there so much silence surrounding the other issues the conference is supposed to address?
6. Is it a better strategy to boycott the conference out right, or to reject the planning documents and still attend?
More papers and info here:
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/durban_conference_0
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:14 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
@WestEndGirl:
I agree with you that this is unacceptable. I’m not excusing their behaviour nor saying it should not be punished in some form. It should be. That behaviour is disgusting and needs to be called out. Again, those people who do that need to be punished, whether locally or by the UN. If it can be done, those countries, if indeed these people are representing countries, should be banned from participating, or at the very least warned about a possible banning.
However, I can’t help but wonder, that, if the West actually took the issue of Palestinian oppression seriously, would these anti-Semites be at the conference. Not to excuse them, but to offer a possible explanation. I think a part of the problem is that the Western world does not want to address the issue of Palestinian oppression and thus many people feel the need to “shout” about it. The way they choose is not the right way to do things, but when the countries that hold the power to make a change refuse to understand or listen to the Palestinian cause, then sometimes those who support the Palestinian cause use these tactics. Again, not an excuse – there are other ways to bring the issue up – but just a possible context.
My apologies if it seemed like I was not taking the anti-Semitism seriously. That was not my intention. I know it happens though I admit I did not know it was as serious as you pointed it out to be. I have grown distrustful of American/Canadian media. However, I am tired of Western nations not seriously addressing Israel’s policies toward Palestinians and I’d hate to see the opportunity to recognize the racism behind it being lost.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:15 am ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
Latoya
Re: your question 1. What constitutes anti-semitism?
There is frankly no room to equivocate over what took place at Durban 1 . And, given the noises from the hijackers also looks set to happen at Durban 2 re: anti-Semitism given those who are consituting the event.
It was so bad that people from Jewish, not Israeli, organisations at Durban 1 were advised to hide their accreditation badges by the security team there. I had friends who were physically jostled and threatened! That is not politics, not a question of anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism, but plain old outright anti-Semitism. If that kind of attention was solely directed at any other minority group, would you be asking what constitutes racism/discrimination then?
I am not against the discussion of the Israel/Palestine issue, whether Zionism is Racism etc and etc. Discuss whatever. It’s all valid for debate. But the line was and is continually crossed by those participating at Durban. When people are scared to take part, when violence is threatened, when blood libels are distributed, then it’s anti-Semitism.
I can’t think of a clearer case of walks like, looks like and talks like a duck. It’s a duck!
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:30 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
Are those crazy Arabs/Muslims HIJACKING things again? Boy, they sure love to HIJACK, don’t they? The only thing they enjoy more than a good HIJACKING, is oppressing women. And planning a second Holocaust. This conference would be great if only those crazy Arabs and/or Muslims would quit HIJACKING it. Because the most important element in a global conference dedicated to a problem like racism is that we all agree before it starts, because then we could blow off all the events and go to the movies together. But then the Arabs/Muslims would probably just HIJACK that too. Because they hate freedom of speech.
Not me though, I am one of the good ones.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:32 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@WestEndGirl –
I’m not talking about what specifically happened to Jewish delegates. In reading the papers, there multiple charges of antisemitism that no one seems to agree on.
Some have alleged bringing up Israel’s (the state) actions to the Palestinians is anti-semetic and it should not be mentioned.
Others, including some Jewish delegations, have asserted that singling out Israel as the root of all modern racism as was claimed in some of the documents is anti semitic. They said they are fine with critiques of the state and state policy, but these weren’t critiques – it was inflammatory language designed to incite issues and put all the delegates on the offensive.
Others have posed that any critique of Israel (policy) or not is antisemitic as well as any attempts to equate the suffering of the Palestinians to the suffering of Israelis (in as much as two horrific events can ever be equated or ranked.)
And still others argued that charging Israel with racist/religious oppression and not charging Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran (at the time, allies of the US) with the same thing was antisemitic.
And all of that is before you take into account individual treatment, selection of locations, and general attitudes of the conference.
So, my question stands – how are the conference organizers defining antisemitism, as that appears to be a major point of communication breakdown.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
Kai wrote:
What does one need to “hear”? There’s nothing complicated going on here. Obama is playing it safe with white America; or rather, the majority of white America that isn’t already in a teabagging tizzy. Given the sheer absurd upside-downness of US discourse on internationalism (”world government trilateral conspiracy against Amurka! waaa!”), the Obama people have clearly decided that lending his stature and moral force to an international initiative to combat global racism would be a bigger domestic headache than it’s worth. His standing as the first African American president is the only anti-racist cred he’s gonna flaunt, and subtly, at that. This is right in line with Obama’s overall political style.
All that said, it’s a damn shame and another example where US superpowerdom is the footdragger in pursuing global justice. Just look at Sara in the first comment condemning other countries’ human rights records even while the US has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the current war. The blindspots socialized into US Americans are IMAX-sized.
Obama should be condemned for this lack of leadership, just as any US president should be, for failing to attend such a historic event. Many of us will be following proceedings in Durbin anyway. We can move this dialogue forward right over the heads of government and mass media. That’s how it’s gonna happen.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:53 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
America’s ass is owned by Israel, end of story.
American politicians have long supported the South African apartheid regime, it should come as no surprise that they support the Israeli apartheid regime, too.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
Latoya
I want to engage with you on this and agree with you that the issue of anti-Semitism/anti-Israelism/anti-Zionism in a wider context is an ongoing thorny issue and a ‘major point of communication breakdown.’ You and I and myself and Sobia could have a long discussion about it for sure. We might well disagree but we can have the discussion.
But I can’t actually get past your dismissive opening statement:
“I’m not talking about what specifically happened to Jewish delegates”
Really? Well you know, I am. In anti-racism and other activism we talk about safe spaces for people to have frank and open discussions. And Durban was not even a physically safe for Jews to be. Let alone to have a productive discussion about anything that mattered!
Seriously, read that back to yourself and replace Jewish for Black, Tamil, Darfuri, Arab or frankly anything. Does it sound acceptable then?
I’m on the way Left of the IP conflict, in an ideal world I would be a single stater for gooodness’ sake. But I can’t overlook the murky vile anti-Semitism that clearly lurks in the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel/anti-Zionist movement(s). And I’m absolutely gobsmacked that you can. It is an issue. It needs to be addressed. It can’t just be skipped over. And you just did.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
oh MY god, people, stop calling Israel a “Jewish” state. Stop turning this into a Jewish vs Muslim issue. This is about POLITICS AND REGIONAL CONTROL, not religion!
Israel is a murderous, racist country that wants to exterminate Palestinians (no matter what religion they are, oh wait, there exist Palestinian Christians, too!), ok? This has NOTHING to do with religion or anti-Semitism.
People need to speak out against Israel and the Israeli apartheid. If they are being called “anti-Semitic” then you know what? You can call me Anti-Semitic all day, it won’t change the fact that I’m vigorously against Israel, not Jewish people.
Waaa, waa! Go call me anti-Semitic, it changes nothing, it only goes to show the fact that you pr0-Israel supporters can’t back up any arguments why you support Israel.
Easy, low cheap shot.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:04 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
@Joseph:
I’m one of the good ones too!
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:05 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
Oh, looks like WestEndGirl suffers from this problem:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html
It might serve you well to read this essay and then come back and argue with us about Israel.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:06 am ¶
Matt wrote:
@WEG: Thanks for the Mary Robinson story. I had been looking for details on that one for some time.
@Latoya: I’ll try to answer your questions, but I tried to post something that didn’t show. Could it be caught in a filter?
@Sobia: When you say that you wish the topic could be covered in a political level that didn’t include religion, I think that’s part of the problem. Antisemitism has political functions – for instance, in uniting a polity against the Jews. (The great success of fascism, as it saw itself, was to unite the bourgeoisie with the working classes.) Yes, it comes in forms that are religious, but also in forms that are racial and/or political. These other forms are actually more important. So the conversation isn’t going to be easy. Of course, anyone who wants a conversation about any type of oppression to be easy isn’t paying attention.
So your questions, Latoya:
1. Of course, ‘what is antisemitism’ is an important question, but I don’t think we’re there yet. When people say, “criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitism” there’s a refusal to engage in recognizing antisemitism. In discussion in the British academic union, one delegate suggested that a particular formulation would include “Israel is a state of Christkillers” as “legitimate criticism of Israel that must be protected.” The language wasn’t changed at all. There’s a problem even trying to talk about what antisemitism is.
2. Actually, I’ll pass on this one about the past. I don’t think it’s as important as the others, and I don’t think there’s any sure answers to it. There might be more specific questions related?
3. and 4. No, we cannot ban key stakeholders in the conversation. That means a lot of hard questions ahead, though.
5. Yes, it is in large part a traditional use of Jews as scapegoats. Of course, it’s other things, too. But one thing about antisemitism is that it puts Jews at the center of history.
6. I definitely think it’s better to boycott the conference. It’s not just the text in dispute. It’s the entire UNHRC which is institutionally antisemitic.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:14 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@WEG –
My series of questions were about the conference itself. I’m not minimizing what happened to people at the conference – you already mentioned those incidents upthread. I’m focusing on the conference itself and the conference leadership.
It is obvious that something is seriously awry if Jewish delegates (or people of Jewish decent period) don’t feel safe at the conference, if Israeli delegates are banned from attending pre-conference meetings in Iran (along with delegates Australia and other countries who were vocal supporters of Israel) then there clearly are other major issues with the conference.
But my focus was on how this happened in the first place, which is creating the environment where it is ok for certain types of people to be excluded. And a lot of these issues stem from the fact that people are defining antisemitism differently. A lot of the responses to Durban haven’t been about the poor treatment of Jews at the conference, but the fact that Israel appears to be dictating the conference. And that, once again, is stoking up the same old fires of resentment. When I posted this on Twitter, one of the first responses back was that Israel is leading the US around by the nose. And when I looked at the op-eds surrounding this issue, impartial treatment was generally not mentioned.
Conference leadership sets the tone, and if they do not define what anti-semitism is and what will and will not be accepted, then the same actions and behaviors will continue.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:16 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Matt -
I don’t see anything from you in spam – did you try to submit something with a lot of links?
In discussion in the British academic union, one delegate suggested that a particular formulation would include “Israel is a state of Christkillers” as “legitimate criticism of Israel that must be protected.”
Right, and that’s why I think it has to be parsed out more. That’s not a criticism of the state, though it is being presented as one. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with banning intentionally inflammatory statements like that. But popular perception isn’t recognizing this schism at all. The jump of logic is “israel won’t allow any criticism of itself” which is causing some of these breakdowns and providing more of a platform to those who do not want a resolution to claim they are being persecuted. And so, parsing out round rules. Just as someone can criticize Barack Obama without being racist, provided they aren’t saying anything racist, someone can criticize the state of Israel without being antisemitic. The problem is, though, as you’ve stated – how does one recognize antisemitism?
I’ll pass on this one about the past.
I don’t think we can. One, most nations are trying to talk about slavery without talking about the past – that leads to messy discussions like reparations. But two, I/P came up in the past discussions twice. Once, when some people were arguing that bringing up the Holocaust as the reason for the creation of Israel was unfair because it had no bearing on what Israel is doing *now* as a state and a second time, arguing that Palestine doesn’t deserve a voice because they can’t compare their current suffering to what Jews have gone through in the past. (These are both in the papers I referenced upthread.)
No, we cannot ban key stakeholders in the conversation. That means a lot of hard questions ahead, though.
I agree. Every nation that wants to attend should be able to attend in a neutral area with a code of conduct in place. But that goes back into defining antisemitism – what is not permissible for purposes of the discussion?
Yes, it is in large part a traditional use of Jews as scapegoats. Of course, it’s other things, too. But one thing about antisemitism is that it puts Jews at the center of history.
Agreed. Which is why I’m looking at how these discussions are going, and its troublesome because (1) either people are completely ignoring the issue and urging the conference on anyway or (2) the I/P issue overshadows all the other aims of the conference.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:36 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@LDP (#22)
cosign
…and it would be great if we could find language to discuss the issues around the conference that did not include dog-whistle terms like “hijack” which equate Arabs/Muslims having opinions (even when those opinions are reprehensible) with terrorism and violence.
When the US and its proxies set the agenda it is always configured as a moral imperative. But when the same move is attempted by Middle Eastern states it is characterized as “hijacking” the discourse. As Kai (#18) points out, given the atrocious human rights records of the US and Israel neither has any moral standing to set the tone for a global discussion of these issues.
Of course I agree with West End Girl that displaying the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is completely unacceptable (Do people know about this book? It is a European text that describes a mythical Jewish conspiracy to control the world and it was/is used to justify European violence against its Jewish populations. The book has some currency in the contemporary Middle East by people who see “evidence” of the conspiracy realized in the Israel’s disproportionate influence over world politics. This claim is ridiculous and if anything it obscures the true dynamics between Israel and the rest of the world.) There is no place for a text like this at a conference dedicated to exploring global racial dynamics. But that brings me back to Latoya’s question: what is the standard?
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:44 am ¶
E Grant wrote:
For me, I think the relevant questions are:
Why is attendance at this particular conference supposed to be important, and what could a US president do instead that might counteract perceptions that the US government doesn’t care about racism?
and more importantly,
What could any government do in addition to or instead of attending the conference, that would be more likely to actually make a difference regarding discrimination, bigotry, etc.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:44 am ¶
pololly wrote:
This thread is right here a perfect example of why this issue needs to be off the table at this conference. Anyone seen a movie called 28 Days Later – you know ‘rage’, they should have called ‘conversations about the Israel/Palestine conflict’ – same result.
Oh how fun it is to watch every other global issue connected to racism to be swept aside to have the same tired conversation over and over. How the rest of the world must be pissing themselves with glee at their interests and issues being sidelined, because it’s not like this issue every gets any airplay any other time or like anyone’s ever tried to discuss it at the UN before.
Here’s a hint:
1. Discussing ‘global racism’ is not going to mean ending the I/P conflict. Get a grip. It will never be solved. Ever. And even if miraculously the issue were to suddenly be ’solved’ at a UN conference with tons of uninvolved countries to disrupt proceedings (I mean, it’s not like it takes the UN years to agree on a definition of genocide – I heard at the last conference they solved world hunger), why the hell would the US make policy that way? It’s all well and good to be Woodrow Wilson but, guess what, you’ve gotta get that shit passed by all the crazies at home and unless he’s willing to bribe/kill most of Congress, he might need to *involve* them in some of the negotations.
2. Here’s an idea: since Israel and Palestine and their neighbors all have oil/nuclear weapons/suicide bombers/American newspaper editors in their pocket or whatever and as such get tons of time, energy, money and effort from most of the world, why not make this conference about the people/issues WITHOUT A VOICE. I don’t mean people who aren’t winning on the debate on CNN, I mean the issues which don’t get much airplay across the world. Why is it pro-POC to allow this issue to hi jack an entire conference (yes, HIJACK HIJACK HIJACK – only both sides are doing the hijacking) unless you truly believe that all the other POC don’t matter as much as Israel and Palestine do. And that’s crap.
To me the perfect summary for this is that it’s taking place in South Africa, but who gives a shit, right? No one in these comments (though they’re happy to criticise Obama plenty) wants to privilege Africa’s issues (or even, gee, I don’t know – the rest of the world!) in this discussion, or how about *gasp* racism or prejudice which isn’t just about stuff the West cares about (I/P again!). Let’s talk about China, India, immigration anything. Cos guess what – TOMORROW THIS ISRAEL PALESTINE STUFF WILL BE ON THE NEWS ANYWAY.
Well, here’s a person of color who isn’t walking any ‘line of whiteness’ or trying to placate the man or whatever the hell it is Obama is being accused of and who wishes the Israel and Palestine defenders would get back to being the main architects of foreign policy for America, if not the entire western world and would allow one day, just one, not to be about them.
And if that makes me an unenlightened uncle tom then so be it.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:45 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Pololly
“if that makes me an unenlightened uncle tom then so be it.”
I support your right to self-identify.
In Solidarity,
Joe “Jihad”
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 11:53 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@E Grant –
Great question.
What could any government do in addition to or instead of attending the conference, that would be more likely to actually make a difference regarding discrimination, bigotry, etc.
Here’s what I would like to see. Instead of a round of finger-pointing, I would love to see each country produce a joint document from government, media, and policy institutes detailing (without comment) all of the racial slights and injustices in their country. I’d like to see all of these bundled together and presented as a pre-conference document. And I’d like an external committee to vet each submission for validity. I want to see it all on the table.
@Pololly –
Well, here’s a person of color who isn’t walking any ‘line of whiteness’ or trying to placate the man or whatever the hell it is Obama is being accused of and who wishes the Israel and Palestine defenders would get back to being the main architects of foreign policy for America, if not the entire western world and would allow one day, just one, not to be about them.
Agreed. I only hinted at this in the dodge question earlier, but I found it fascinating that all the other issues were glossed over in most of the recaps. I think Latin America was summed up in two sentences. I don’t want to make any assertions yet – I haven’t checked non US media today, so I am going to keep quiet – but I am wondering what France has said. What Japan has said. What Russia has said. I can recall racial strife incidents in recent news, but heard nothing about that in the papers I read…
Agreed.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@all –
Commenters, Two of the three mods here are on deadline (self is one) so I will be stepping back from the discussion for most of today.
Don’t be alarmed if it takes a little longer than usual for your comment to clear – we’re probably just away from the site.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Yeah, it did have a lot of links. Most of what I wrote has been covered here, so it’s no great loss. Probably the most important thing would be a link to the AJC’s Durban Dispatch blog.
Ok. But when we talk about states as the source of political power today, which they are, I think we recognize that the discussion of Zionism is very much about whether Jews are allowed to have power today. When we talk about the Holocaust, we’re talking about a past manifestation of antisemitism. Obviously, a very important one and one with a lot of lessons, but there’s a way of confining antisemitism to the past. In pre-Nazi Germany, it was seen as a thing of the past and it wasn’t. And that wasn’t the first time that antisemitism was seen as a crude relic of the past.
So I don’t want to get caught up talking about the past. I’ve done a lot of that and increasingly come to see it as distorted in many ways.
When people say today “Judaism is a religion,” an obvious truism that’s as obviously irrelevant to political or racial antisemitism, they’re discounting that Jews might view themselves as a group in a particular way. In fact, it’s a denial that we Jews have a right to define ourselves. It’s a refusal that Jews form the type of group deserving of political rights. And there are echoes of the supercessionism and philosemitism that informed Christian antisemitism (though neither are unique to Christianity) from the time of St. Augustine: Jews as fossils, relics of the past. The claim to love Jews and to take antisemitism seriously becomes a way of exerting power over Jews, a claim to be able to define Jews in form and function in relation to others rather than allowing Jews a right to define themselves.
The thing is, when I look at the Holocaust, this is the frame in which I look at it. The refusal of nations to admit Jewish refugees – and the Palestinians were as guilty of this as anyone – was about organizing political power in such a way. The tie to the land becomes the “natural” basis of rights, so Jews are denied rights. The failure to accept Jewish refugees is seen as wrong, but not something in need of correction. Not as something institutional in any way. Not as something with moral consequence.
And then we’re talking about whether either Zionism or anti-Zionism are racism. We’re not talking about the past because it has consequences. We’re fighting for the right to define the past.
I don’t think we should ban antisemitism from the discussion. But we have to be able to criticize it sharply. There are bizarre patterns of ignoring antisemitism.
Maybe this is helpful: I’m most concerned by the antisemitism that says Jews can’t have the power to call out antisemitism (because we’ll supposedly abuse it in our quest to rule the world, scheming things we are). Because that winds up excluding Jews from discussion more surely than anything else.
Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad once complained about his treatment:
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 12:24 pm ¶
method wrote:
@pololly, I agree with your general thought. I once spent several months researching US policy in the Middle East for a job, and came away with the feeling that the whole I/P issue has been a giant sinkhole of time and energy with little to show for it, for more than 60 years now. That doesn’t touch the justice of the situation, but it does suggest that a general and pressing topic like “racism” shouldn’t have to compete for attention with a geopolitical issue that isn’t going to be resolved any time soon anyway.
One thing, though. There are probably some black-white-Indian issues with racism in South Africa now, but they don’t have an apartheid government anymore. There are issues of xenophobia, though, where refugees from Zimbabwe and Congo have been attacked by native South Africans. The issues with racism and movements of populations (into Europe, between various Asian countries, in the US) should be put in focus.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 12:34 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Latoya
“Agreed” (#31)
…The problem with this complaint is that it imagines moral outrage as a pie, with only so many pieces to go around. When I was an anti-Apartheid activist I became involved because I believed it was a moral imperative for the world to reject a system of government based on racial exclusion. Worldwide boycotts of products whose parent companies were invested in Apartheid South Africa…like Coca Cola… had an effect. University shanty towns had an effect. And Apartheid in South Africa was ended because activists all over the world created an environment where doing business in South Africa became a liability. Ask Black South Africans who lived through it if they could have ended Apartheid on their own and they will tell you, “No, we needed the attention of the world.” Were there other issues affecting people of color during Apartheid South Africa? Of course. But this issue was emblematic of racism on a grand scale and so deserved attention on a grand scale. And focusing the attention of the world worked.
Israeli Apartheid is no different. There are other issues affecting contemporary PoC world wide, of course. But the systematic extermination of the Palestinians is emblematic of the relationship between Poc and Euro-American authority in the present moment. if you doubt that then you need to look more closely.
The problem with the complaints articulated our self-described “unenlightened Uncle Tom”, Polloly is that they mis-characterize the international scope of the conflict between Israel and Palestine–a typically American myopia. The truth is that there are direct parallels between the struggle of the Palestinians and other PoC activist struggles around the world. US immigrants rights activists, Mexican anti-Wall activists, and indigenous rights activists all link their struggles with this one and they stand together across cultures. It is not much reported on in the US media but a visit to the Israeli separation wall will show graffiti from these and other PoC activist movements… on the Palestinian side, that is. And of course Israel is used like a club to keep African American Christians in line with their white brethren… who do not always have their best interests at heart. Does anyone besides me remember that the only serious, lasting threat to Obama’s bid for the Presidency came from people (Evangelical Christians and Zionists of all faiths) who floated the idea that he would not be friendly enough to Israel? If anything could be used to unseat Obama this would be it. Want to see how fast all that good will toward the first black president would go into the toilet? Let him criticize Israel ONCE.
Beyond pololly’s ridiculous hyperbole (i.e. defenders of Palestine are the architects of US foreign policy… in what universe, exactly?) lies a deeply ethnocentric and Orientialist bias. But I am not surprised by whining like this though. I never expect PoC to automatically support Palestine. One of the things Arabs, Muslims and Jews can all agree on is that Euro-American antipathy towards us is not limited to white folks… But then, I knew Middle Class African Americans who weren’t so interested in ending South African Apartheid either.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 1:18 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Joe
One of the things Arabs, Muslims and Jews can all agree on is that Euro-American antipathy towards us is not limited to white folks… But then, I knew Middle Class African Americans who weren’t so interested in ending South African Apartheid either.
Very true. But in Pololly’s frustration, I heard a very common assertion, which is we don’t focus enough on the issues of the world, falling back only what is familiar to the West.
I agree that there isn’t a pie of moral outrage, but do you not agree that certain topics tend to dominate the conversation? One could argue that they dominate for a reason, or an immediate need for a solution, but I do agree with Pololly that it generally takes a lot to get an issue to the national stage. If we are having a continuation of a conversation started eight years ago, what are we missing?
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 3:11 pm ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
@ Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist!
You wrote:
“http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html
It might serve you well to read this essay and then come back and argue with us about Israel.”
That’s a very nice piece, but it’s talking about how complaining that a newspaper piece about Israeli/Palestinian/Whoever atrocities doesn’t cover the actions of another group is a distraction. That’s true, but the discussion here is over the “World Conference on Racism”. Something that calls itself the “World Conference on Racism” and names only one country, Israel, is making the (to my mind untrue) assertion that Israel is the worst offender. In a class all by itself. Attacking that presupposition is perfectly fair.
Now, most of the problems with the draft seem to have been resolved, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/world/15briefs-USSTILLCONCE_BRF.html) and the relevant nations can always leave if those passages return, so I’d like the US to participate.
To my mind, arguably of greater concern than the UNs ongoing focus on Israel is the attempt to limit free speech through arguments about defamation of religion and inciting religious hatred.
I understand the theory that attending gives the body status it didn’t have before, but I’m unclear how we’re supposed to come together on this issue if we can’t talk to each other.
You wrote:
“Waaa, waa! Go call me anti-Semitic, it changes nothing, it only goes to show the fact that you pr0-Israel supporters can’t back up any arguments why you support Israel. ”
There are two dimensions to my arguments for supporting Israel. Morally, I feel that Israel has both the right to exist and the right to defend itself. Given the relevant history, the disappearance of Israel could quite easily lead to the disappearance of the Jewish people. I feel more concern for those who attempt to minimize civilian casualties, rather than those who seek to maximize them.
Realistically, I feel it’s the correct move because the US needs allies in the Middle East, which is also why we support Egypt and are allied with Turkey. If you look, US military aid to Israel really picks up afte the ‘67 war. The US decided to become allies with Israel because they were a power in the region. That hasn’t worked out so well for us, but I’d argue that has more to do with the US arming terrorists than the US arming Israel.
There are almost always two sides, and pretending that the other side doesn’t have anything to back them up but hollow rhetoric isn’t helpful and is incredibly insulting.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Latoya
“I do agree with Pololly that it generally takes a lot to get an issue to the national stage. If we are having a continuation of a conversation started eight years ago, what are we missing?”
That might be true if there were an actual conversation happening, but there isn’t. Listen, the fundamental problem with discourses like pololly’s and with what you have said above is that it presupposes that there are two “sides” to this conflict. This is a very common liberal rhetorical trope–”well, both sides are at fault”…”both sides have done terrible things” etc.
But there aren’t two sides. There is an occupying force and an oppressed people. In other words: one side, imposing its will on the other. Israel has a nuclear arsenal, a professional army and the entire weight of the United States backing it up. Palestine has to buy back its own water from its colonizer. There is no contest.
So no, I do not agree that a “conversation” around Palestine/Israel dominates the national stage to the exclusion of other issues. Israel dominates both the land and the discourse.
When I read pololly’s comments I hear, “I am tired of this, it doesn’t have anything to do with me. I want to talk about something else” Which is stupid, shortsighted American style egocentrism. But if he’d said it like that then at least it would be honest. As it is, he implies that by paying attention to the genocide in Palestine that “we” aren’t paying enough attention to other PoC issues, which are *surprise* more interesting to him. Again, this ignores the investment of other PoC worldwide in the occupation of Palestine. As well as the impact that the colonization of Palestine has on PoC in the US.
My advice to PoC who are weary of hearing about the suffering in Palestine is to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Just like the South African version, Israeli Apartheid will not end on its own. The myth that the conflict is eternal and unsolvable only benefits Israel. Israeli Apartheid is as solvable as South African Apartheid was, but only through the investment of westerners, including–yes–PoC.
So if you have no interest in freeing the people of Palestine (or if you think the entire conflict is “biblical” and therefore “God’s will”–an argument I have heard more than once from African American Christians) then there is nothing I can do about that. But the suggestion that expressing outrage over Palestinian genocide is taking up too much time (!) is fundamentally offensive. Such a sentiment would never have been expressed about South Africa during its Apartheid–and with good reason.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
Naida13 wrote:
@pololly you say, “Discussing ‘global racism’ is not going to mean ending the I/P conflict. Get a grip. It will never be solved. Ever”
In my opinion, it’s simply not okay to say a “conflict” like Israel/Palestine is inherently or essentially unsovable and that we all need to just “get over it.” What if people had reacted this way to apartheid in South Africa? Or to the Jim Crow laws and segregation in the US? You can’t just say “it will never be solved.” And that’s probably why we’re still having so many, and such intense, discussions on the Israel/Palestine situation. Precisely because it has yet to be solved; and because we all know (edeep down) that it is not okay to ignore it or allow it to go unresolved.
That said, I do understand your frustration. In fact, it reminds me of Matt’s earlier comment, “But one thing about antisemitism is that it puts Jews at the center of history.” It seems like, in making the focus – almost to the exclusion of anything else – of the conference and negotiations surrounding the conference I/P, we are essentially doing just that. It’s not the Western World that is refusing to look at other issues surrounding race/xenophobia – it is that the I/P conflict is taking over everything else. It’s being forced to center stage (thereby putting Jews at the center of history). And you are absolutely right – there are so many (too, too many) issues that need to be discussed. It isn’t okay to lose sight of those issues, or to shelve them.
But really, why do we or why should we have to pick? As you point out, it is unrealistic to expect that the I/P issue – OR ANY OTHER ISSUE – will actually be resolved at the Durbin conference. Isn’t the point to begin the dialogue? Isn’t it to say that, as a global community, we take these issues seriously?
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 4:45 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:
Having been at a biz meeting for some hours and then out at the pub…
@Sobia #14 – many thanks for your response. It was very thoughtful/respectful and I am in large agreement with you.
@Joseph #16. Please don’t “dog whistle” me. Have some basic courtesy. I am British. I am also mixed Jewish with my father’s family coming from the Middle East. The phrase ‘hijacking an(the) agenda’ is the basic, standard British way of describing any situation when someone takes over a particular event/issue. It has *nothing* to do with Arabs/Muslims. My father’s family would be described as Arab. I was using the phraser ‘hijackers’ as a shorthand for the phrase ‘those who wish to hijack an agenda’.
But you know what Joseph, ignore that fact and focus instead on my British turn of phrase to impune my motives and meaning. Start talking about the fact that there aren’t two sides and just ignore my father’s family’s belonging in the Middle East. Just close your ears, close your eyes and hold your nose against the stench of hypocrisy by ALL those at the table from the UK, US, Israel, Arab states et al, in your support of the Palestinians.
@ Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist #21/23 .
Well, Evan Carden has already answered in part. I already promised myself that there was no point replying to such ad hominen attack. But really? My personal concern at the fact that people are selling an anti-Semitic forgery responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths over the last century and physically threatening Jewish delegates at an ANTI-RACISM conference is just an apology for Israel. Really? Really really? That’s all you can say?!
It strikes me that you DIMA and Joseph are demanding that in order for what I, and others. say to have any credence whatsoever on anti-Semitism, I should be signing up to some kind of special ‘I’m a good Jew and hate Israel’ declamation which starts by yelling…
I DO NOT THINK ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL IS ANTI-SEMITISM
I DO NOT THINK CRITICISM OF ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITISM
I DO NOT THINK CRITCISM OF THE POLICY, GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE OF ISRAEL IS ANTI-SEMITISM
…before I can even start to say that I am worried about anti-Semitism or that there is even a problem that might be considered.
But you know what, that kind of demand is unacceptable. I don’t demand to know someone’s position on political Islam and/or al Qaeda before I am prepared to accept that them telling me that someone stoning a mosque is unacceptable. I just know it is.
But you know, go ahead and say I’m that I support a ‘murderous, racist country that wants to exterminate Palestinians’. Regardless of my actual beliefs. Regardless of my ethnicity and experiences and what I actually wrote. Deduct and assume all you want. Clearly your passion for the Palestinian cause makes you unable to work out where the line is.
You know what, Iam going to be totally honest for once on here. I went out tonight and read some of these comments on my Blackberry in the pub toilet and was actually physically sick. As in puked in the loo. I just didn’t know what to say and didn’t know if I had the energy to respond against unfair and bigoted accusations that have nothing to do with my beliefs or what I actually wrote.
I am pro-Palestinian. I am (mostly) a WOC (seasonally my colouring varies, but at my palest people think I’m Greek/Turkish Cypriot/Armenian etc and at my usual people mistake me for their Lebanese cousin). My grandparents and father speak Arabic ffs. I want to see a fair resolution of the I/P conflict. I just don’t know how I can continue to work down the middle of the issue when – regardless of what I say – people like Joseph and DIMA will reflexively accuse me everything negative under the sun if I say that I am worried about anti-Semitism in the pro-Palestinian movement.
If I have felt threatened on anti-War, pro-Palestine marches, that is a problem. If people were threatening Jews at Durban, that is a problem. If pro-Palestinians of any stripe are advancing anti-Semitic propaganda that is a problem. In and of itself. No amount of screaming about pro-Israel apologia is going to mitigate that fact.
Use the Livingstone Formulation http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/the-livingstone-formulation/
on me all you want, but the fact is that there are problems on all sides here. Ignoring them and screaming at me in quite literal blind fury, is exactly what derailed Durban 1 and will derail Duran 2 in the first place.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 6:47 pm ¶
Rchoudh wrote:
I think that along with a clear definition of what anti semitism entails, there should also be clear definitions around terms used to degrade Arabs and Muslims like terrorism and radicalism. Why is that anyone who resists an occupying military force and happens to be Arab and/or Muslim they are deemed to be “terrorists”? Besides that I understand Pololli’s concern that the I/P issue very often hijacks talk about other issues surrounding racism around the world. I think however that the reason other issues are overwhelmed by the I/P issue is because of the lack of clear definitions surrounding them. Until that is resolved you’ll have people shouting over each other and calling each other names over this issue.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 7:23 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@WEG
…What are you talking about? Your post has a bit of a “Drunk Dial” feel about it. I haven’t accused you of anything. I am not a “person like Joseph”: I am Joseph. I am not in a “blind fury”. I am not a crazy wailing Arab, whose “passion for the Palestinian cause makes me unable to work out where the line is.” I am not “screaming” and I reject this characterization as melodramatic at best and Orientalist at worst.
I am perfectly calm, I just disagree with you.
So please don’t make me out as your attacker. You are not my victim.
Just consider for a moment that, British colloquialism notwithstanding, the repeated refrain “hijack” leveled at Arabs/Muslims is a teeny bit pointed. I believe you when you say it was unintentional. But come on…”hijack”? Think about it. There is nothing wrong with my asking you to be more careful with your language. That is not an “unfair and bigoted accusation.”
If you look back at what I’ve written you will see that I agree with you that it is completely unacceptable to create an atmosphere that is hostile to Jews for no other reason than that they exist. There is never any good excuse to invoke the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a grotesque fairy tale designed to justify violence against Jews.
We agree.
But Latoya’s question (and please correct me if I am getting this wrong LDP) “what constitutes anti-semitism” re: the Durban conference is apt here because there are so many Zionists (and I am not saying you are one of these) for whom any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism… Or more often the neat rhetorical trick of saying that there is secret anti-semitism coded into anti-Zionism, a charge against which it is impossible to defend. Of course the effect of this is a complete silencing of dissenting voices.
Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 9:25 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
Along the lines of other issues, it seems Obama’s record on international race and racism seems to be questionable.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html
The racist policies underlying the “war on terror” don’t seem to be getting better under Obama and he seems to be perpetuating Bush’s racist agenda.
I’m wondering if Obama realizes the racism behind the policies of the “war on terror” and as such has distanced himself from possible international criticism.
He continues to confuse and worry me.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:04 am ¶
Nathan wrote:
Well, lets be honest Joeseph.
What do we usually call it when people take a thread off on a huge tangent around here?
Its either called a derailing or a hijacking.
Incidentally. “Professional Army”.
A huge chunk of the atrocities that have been committed tie back to the fact that the Israeli Army is not a ‘Professional Army’ or even a ‘Western Army’ in the sense that we, as First World Westerners by and large on this site, are accustomed to.
The Israeli Army is a conscript army patterned more closely after (and far more aligned with in temperment !) the Soviet Red Army. It was designed for the exigencies of ‘48, ‘67 and ‘73 when the existence of Israel literally did hang in the balance of shock battle with larger nation-states, and getting massive, short-term force was critical.
But these are not ‘Professional’ formations in any sense of the words, these are shopkeepers and taxi drivers who have been swept off the street and placed in a Merkava.
Are they extremely well-equipped? Oh yes, every Israeli reserve division is an Armoured Division, for goodness sake. But Professional? Oh no, and thats the problem. Their discipline is absolute shite, their fire discipline is worse, they have no career NCO corp, they have to get junior officers to do things that Sergeants should do, and their units all tend to be of an age, no ‘father figures’ to keep things in line, so instead they act like other groups of young men, egging each other on. Which also means they’re brittle under fire.
The Israeli Army is a huge part of the problem, and its mostly because it is NOT a professional force, it is a conscript force. The Australian Army would have bounced the lion’s share of these people on their arse.
These are the people you wanted when you had tank corps streaming in from three sides, but they are certainly not what you want in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
Erm … sorry for going off on the huge tangent there guys >.>
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:09 am ¶
Nathan wrote:
“Joeseph”
Sigh, dyslexia moment.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:12 am ¶
Manju wrote:
“I really hate it when people in the North/West talk about human rights of other countries”
Well then you just made an argument buttressing Obama’s decision not to attend this conference, where presumably people from the North/West will be talking, among other things, about human rights of other countries.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:01 am ¶
Manju wrote:
“there are so many Zionists (and I am not saying you are one of these) for whom any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism… Or more often the neat rhetorical trick of saying that there is secret anti-semitism coded into anti-Zionism, a charge against which it is impossible to defend. Of course the effect of this is a complete silencing of dissenting voices.”
For god’s sake, this is Racialicious, and you seemed perplexed by the the practice of decoding dogwhistles…at least when applied to anti-semitism.
The practice you deride as “silencing dissenting voices” is done all the time on this very blog. Sophisticated bigots generally cloak their bigotry with plausible denial–code words, dogshistles etc–as lee atwater explained in regards to the southern strategy. Ergo, the suspicion that anti-zionism is actually anti-semitism.
i do not necesarily disagree with your criticism, that decoding dog whistles is a practice susceptible to a new form of McCarthyism, but the lack of self-awareness here is just too much to bear.
you have met the enemy and it is you.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:18 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
@Manju:
(I’m assuming you know I didn’t mean it that way but I’ll re-word anyway)
I hate it when people from the North/West make judgements about human rights of other countries, as if their own countries truly uphold universal human rights.
….
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 9:31 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@ Joe,
Co-sign everything. Well done.
@ Nathan,
Going by your description that means a very LARGE chunk of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not professional soldiers. I know many of them and they would beg to differ with you, as would the widows and orphans created by their service in both of these theatres of conflict. Many of them are in Guard and Reserve units.
Every Israeli male is REQUIRED by law to serve in the military, except for ultra orthodix Jews. Men are REQUIRED to serve THREE years in the Israeli military. In effect, they have far more military training than many of the US soldiers fighting and dying on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So when you say that the IDF are not professional soldiers, you just don’t know what you are talking about. I have worked with the IDF before, in my former position with the US DoD, both reservist IDF and regular military, and I can tell you that they are both very professional and better trained than many American soldiers.
The IDF is a very professional force made up of conscripts and regular soliders. They are highly trained and highly respected. I am not a fan of the IDF, but I certainly feel that when you state that they are not professional that you denigrate their experience and their training, which rivals or exceeds those of American soldiers.
@ WEG,
You said “But I can’t overlook the murky vile anti-Semitism that clearly lurks in the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel/anti-Zionist movement(s).”
I agree with you, but I’d also have to add:
“But I can’t overlook the murky vile racism and sectarianism that clearly lurks in the pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian/anti-Muslim movement(s). “
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 11:50 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Manju
If you have a beef about the site I can’t help you with that. I am making a specific example and you are extrapolating it to a general criticism about something completely unrelated… Why does that seem so familiar? Oh yeah, that’s right we are talking about Israel.
@Nathan
I’m dyslexic too. All the best people are. Its the thinking person’s learning disability. Look man, there are tons of expressions that are completely innocuous in other circumstances but become pointed in relationship with particular populations. I believe WEG when she says it wasn’t intentional but still… is it really such a terrible imposition to find another word? The fact that it has become such an issue and that people uninvolved in the original exchange feel compelled to jump in and tell me to Lighten Up… makes me more suspicious than the original comments, frankly. Tell you what, why don’t you just take my word for it, okay?
Interesting point about the Israeli army though. I hadn’t thought about it that way. But if you’d agree that the US Army is “professional” in a way that the Israeli Army isn’t that hasn’t prevented any abuses in Iraq. So I’m not sure that the presence of “father figures” etc. is really such a corrective. I think the common thing in both cases is a deep hatred toward Arabs and Muslims.
In terms of an international conference dedicated to racism this seems to me to be a great thing to discuss: the relationship between ethnic hatred and military excesses, including rape and torture.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 11:55 am ¶
Matt wrote:
When I wrote the piece about Defiance, I was really frustrated by one commenter. No idea who it was, since they used the moniker ‘Disappointed.’ I’m guessing they normally go by another name. The thing is, they were disappointed to be discussing antisemitism. They have their agenda, and no one else is allowed to have a hand in setting the agenda. At all. A major point of the post for me was that critiques of antisemitism are much more diluted, much harder to make than we normally imagine. That there is a deep and persistent power preventing discussion of antisemitism. And this person openly wished it would stay that way. I figured there’s no point in even trying to talk to this person.
I feel like the same thing, to some extent, is going on here.
Joseph, you write:
I’m awfully grateful you’re opposed to the Holocaust, too. Wait- actually, I have more immediate concerns. Antisemitism is NOT just it’s most extreme manifestations. You get no brownie points for knowing about The Protocols. In fact, it’s not even enough to get you to the grown-ups table.
Of course, this is central to the post, but we can’t explore it, can we. It’s limited to “no other reason than they exist.” Of course, these antisemites have their reasons and twisted logics, but that’s off the table. We can’t talk about what antisemitism actually is until after we talk about how it’s abused – about how awful so many Jews are.
“Zionists” using “neat rhetorical tricks”? Frankly, it echoes a lot of traditional antisemitism about scheming Jews who (guess what) use neat rhetorical tricks – the Pharisaic lawyer who “corrodes society by means of parasitic law and hyper-literalizing, cruel demands on justice (the ‘pound of flesh’).” And, of course, the charge that Jews stifle debate with these rhetorical tricks. Such claims (guess what) echo a lot of antisemitism. Take a look at the picture here (the post’s not bad either). It’s a neo-Nazi poster saying “Hate Crimes legislation is just a ruse for censorship.” It’s the same argument about stifling debate.
Do you remember perhaps that Jews voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers? And yet, somehow this is proof of Jewish power in America? Is that because we got our candidate or because you’re waving your hands?
Until people have a good idea of why these things set a lot of Jews off –make us feel not just defensive and silenced, but threatened and scared– how can such people have any idea of whether charges of antisemitism even are ever abused.
You don’t want us dominating the agenda? Fine, but return the favor.
The fact is there are a lot of states in the UN and only one of them is Jewish. The body is institutionally antisemitic, and that’s a big deal.
A little fun fact: the conference starts Apr. 20th. That’s also Hitler’s Birthday.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:08 pm ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
@ Joseph,
You wrote:
“Just consider for a moment that, British colloquialism notwithstanding, the repeated refrain “hijack” leveled at Arabs/Muslims is a teeny bit pointed. I believe you when you say it was unintentional. But come on…”hijack”? Think about it. There is nothing wrong with my asking you to be more careful with your language. That is not an “unfair and bigoted accusation.””
And then you wrote:
“Or more often the neat rhetorical trick of saying that there is secret anti-semitism coded into anti-Zionism, a charge against which it is impossible to defend. Of course the effect of this is a complete silencing of dissenting voices.”
Her language was, to your mind coded in a way that made it offensive. Several others here have disagreed with you, but if I’m reading you right, you still feel it was wrong. Isn’t it possible that the peple you’re condemning in the second quote are actually seeing anti-Semitism in that rhetoric not as a silencing technique (you weren’t trying to silence WEG, right?) but because they know more about the history and/or have relevant personal experience that you lack?
@WestEndGirl
Sorry to keep jumping into your conversation here. I get a little crazy on this topic.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:
@ Joseph
Sorry for my insensitivity. Its certainly not my place to tell you to lighten up over a matter like this! I have to admit though, the link with the word ‘hijacking’ simply hadn’t occured to me. But of course, I haven’t lived under the shadows of those kinds of stereotypes. I (think I) can see why you find it so distateful.
In any future threads of this kind, I’ll stick to ‘derailing’ or simply ‘tangential’.
In terms of professionalism, well, its a matter of degree. Father figures, with a decade of career experience behind them, compared with someone who has nothing more than an extra six-month course under his belt and is still your exact age … well, nothing is going to keep things perfectly in line, but the former will do a much better job of suppressing atrocities than the latter. You’re right, it won’t stop all abuses, but a professional volunteer force has far fewer abuses (take the Soviet Red Army in Europe or Chechnya and Afghanistan, for example, or the draftee US Army in Korea or Vietnam). God knows, if we ever had an independant investigation, I suspect we would find that Israel would have racked up as many prosecutable offences as in their month and a half of Lebanon & Gaza fighting as the Coalition has in years of Iraq or Afghanistan.
You hit on a good point with hatred, it plays a major role. Especially in the Gaza conflict. Its also worth considering how this amplifies with negative qualities inherent to the conscript force, however.
I know, it still wouldn’t have prevent all atrocities, nor changed one iota the basic injustices. But I can’t help but feel that there would be a lot more Gazans and Lebanese Shi’a alive and/or whole today if they had been a Professional force.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:07 pm ¶
grateful listener wrote:
What I have learned from having conversations about race in America, from listening to debate about conversations in America, to observing those who have societal privilege talk about race in America and how they view the world, I have found it helpful to talk about the facts about living conditions. Academics often use the phrase “the have, and the have-nots”, to talk about issues of socioeconomic equities, and education disparities. I think this can apply to most issues, as a basic, clear, and focused place to begin a discussion about racism and oppression. Everyone can contribute to a list of basic needs. Does a population have access to jobs, education, healthcare, decent housing/living conditions, etc.? If not, everyone should agree that basic needs such as these, are critical rights that should be provided access to. If you take a look at situations where people are living in extreme conditions, you will find a lack of these basic needs. And if you have a lack of these basic needs, people tend respond to their conditions as appropriately as they determine is possible. And what is possible? We know what is possible, and so we have these basic needs. Basic needs that people should have a right to, but they aren’t given access to. Can we talk about who, what or why populations are prevented from having access to basic human needs? And maybe, we can ask why do they tend to be POC? This keeps people operating in the present. The past is implicated, but the importance shifts to allowing people access to a dignified existence.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Matt,
If you looked at what you are saying then you’d clearly see this is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation in the way that you are talking about it. Everything that is said, can be said, or might be said all “echoes a lot of traditional anti-Semitism”. Basically the whole situation, under these circumstances, is not conducive to discussion, which is the way some people would like to see it remain.
Of course I have Jewish blood in my background, so maybe I am just some pseudo self hating Jew.
A few things here. Having spent a fair amount of time in Israel and Palestine I can tell you that amoungst the Israeli population itself there is a healthy level of debate and discussion that would be IMPOSSIBLE in the West, especially in the US. It is because so many people are more interested in lobbing accusations and labeling people one way or the other.
What the supporters of Israel must realise, before it is too late, is that time is NOT on their side. Demographics are rapidly pushing this situation to extremes. Israelis will reach a point in the near future where they have to either ethnically cleanse the entire Christian/Muslim population of Israel and the West Bank or radically clamp down on a situation that even Desmond Tutu once said was worse than what Africans faced in South Africa. He was recently pretty much accussed of being an anti-Semite himself for such comments. A grave slur upon a great man.
Personally, I think Israel is beyond the point at which a two state solution will work. That doesnt bother me as I reject the idea that nations should be set up to advance or support any religious or ethnic group, I dont care if it is for Jews or Afrikanners. What boths me is that there is growing support in Israel for ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, Muslim or Christian. I support the right for one person to one vote, besides if a majority of Israelis ever supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, then I think that completely negates the basis upon Israel is founded in the first place.
You write “A little fun fact: the conference starts Apr. 20th. That’s also Hitler’s Birthday.”
That is EXACTLY the point I am talking about! Can’t you see it? Everything, even something as small as what date the conference is started, is linked back to something meant to silence. Thanks for providing the perfect example with your parting shot.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:36 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@ Nathan,
When you talk about “nothing more than a six month course under your belt”, I know that isnt refering to the IDF, who on the whole have better training than Americans. American reservists and guard members dont get three years worth of active duty training.
Comparing the IDF, a highly respected force, with the Red Army and other forces is nonsense. The attrocities and murders committed by the IDF are more indicative of the level of hatred and animnous in the IDF that is NOT present in the US forces at the same levels. The training isnt the same, not the length nor the quality, and the equipping certainly isnt the same either.
The IDF is a professional force and your inability recognise this means that you probably havent worked with the IDF. As to casualties in Lebanon, it is just like in Gaza. There is a feeling, from top to bottom in the Israeli forces, that Arab lives just do not matter. They are expendable. One Israeli leader said something once to the effect that an Arab life isnt worth one Israeli toe nail.
That is the mind set we are dealing with. That is why Israeli forces, even ones considered “special forces” bombed the hell out of Lebanese village, towns and cities. Because they didnt want to risk loosing solders, no matter how many civilians they had to kill to assure it.
Why not? If a Israeli toe nail is worth more than an Israeli life, why not destroy an entire village killing Arab women and children to protect these soldiers?
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Matt
For someone who objects to the notion that “Jews are the center of everything” you sure love to make everything about you.
A) I am not disappointed. Or rather, I am not “Dissapointed.” I didn’t post on your thread. I only ever post under my own name. You may not like what I have to say but it is always coming directly from me.
B) I am not against the Protocols to get “brownie points” with you. I am against them because they are disgusting. I elaborated on them because it occurred to me as I was writing that people on the site may not know about them. (LDP: I actually think a post about the Protocols would be great. We concentrate a lot on images on the site but texts like this have had a huge impact on the history of racist discourse.)
C) I wrote “no other reason than because they exist” because that is the definition of ethnic hatred. I would suggest that the reason you find that…pretty sweeping…definition “limiting” is because you’d prefer to define all criticism of Israel, no matter what the rationale, as “coded” anti-Jewish sentiment. This is nonsense designed to obstruct discussion. In other words, just saying that the UN is “institutionally antisemitic” is not enough, you have to say why you think so. But of course then you would have to defend that position and you aren’t so great at that.
D) You are absolutely right that American Jews voted in great numbers for Obama. But that does not change the fact that the only real threat to his candidacy lay in suspicions about his approach to Israel. These two facts are not mutually exclusive. I never said anything about “Jewish power in America.” I wrote “Zionists of all faiths.” Let me be clear: I find you annoying but utterly negligible compared to the frightening power that Christian Zionists wield in this country. They elect Presidents, not a secret cabal of Jews in a room somewhere, as I have said repeatedly. In fact, rather than the semitic puppet masters of European myth, if the Bush Presidency proved anything it was that Jews are merely extras in an Evangelical Christian passion play. And Israel is a stage for them to play out their end-of-days fantasies. I am way more concerned with Rapture-minded Christians than I am with Jews, whose “influence” on the world is rather overstated. Without the enormous support of Christian Zionists there would be no modern state of Israel.
E) I have said this before but it bears repeating in light of your snide post: I have zero beef with Jews-just-because-they-are-Jews (which is the definition of anti-semitism). I do not believe for a second that if the modern Israel had been founded for the benefit of Evangelical Christians (which very nearly happened) and there was a big blue cross on that flag instead of a star that anything would be different for the Palestinians. There is nothing essential to Jews or Jewishness that leads to the extreme cruelty perpetrated against Palestine and Lebanon. If anything it is exactly the opposite, given the opportunity a Jewish state is doing exactly the same thing to its indigenous population that, well, everybody else did.
But just as Jewishness is not the cause of Israeli Apartheid, neither is it an unimpeachable defense.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
I’m not sure why the discussion about the I/P issue is ongoing. I agree with Joseph, but I know me joining won’t change anyone’s mind. Its an issue that just seems go round and round and round.
@Abu Sinan:
“But I can’t overlook the murky vile racism and sectarianism that clearly lurks in the pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian/anti-Muslim movement(s). ”
Co-sign on that!
@Matt:
Why do I get the feeling that any criticism of Israel will be labeled anti-Semitism? I hope you recognize that there are legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state and their oppression of the Palestinian people regardless of whether or not you feel they come from Zionist ideology. Its not all anti-Semitism.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:03 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Still on deadline, but I wanted to pull this conversation back towards the initial topic.
What we do here is on a very small level what they are hoping to accomplish with this UN conference.
Grateful Listener’s suggestion is a good one, but one I am a bit wary of – the WTO’s Doha Development Round had that aim in mind, but still collapsed. (And if you read the critiques of the round, you’ll hear that once again, the most powerful nations dominated the discourse, leaving many other nations dissatisfied.)
So, let’s examine what happens here.
You have three moderators who are tasked with facilitating a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-faith blog. However, the moderators are often forced to operate outside of their comfort zones. Most of us are familiar with most of the issues on the site, but mostly in passing. Which means a lot of learning about oppression and discrimination – particularly that which is normally out of the public conversation, and out of the realm of one’s personal experience. So there is a lot of learning on the fly.
To illustrate from my experience, when I came to write for Racialicious, I was willing and able to talk about black issues and I was aware of major Asian American issues. But beyond that, not much. When I became editor, I had to get up to speed, quickly, on issues including, but not limited to: mixed race/multi-racial identity; the limitations of the term “middle eastern”; religious bias; where religion blends with ethnicity and where those converge with prejudice; Canadian politics; South African race designations; the proper use of the terms transgender, genderqueer, and intersex; colonization.
So, issue one, when trying to call together this kind of meeting – your moderators only know so much. So when a problem arises that is out of our realm of experience, most mods have to try to make a judgment call. This is mitigated by having more people involved in the process – so with 9 correspondents, trying to figure out if a commenter is being biased is a bit easier than when there were three of us.
But that leads to another issue – how do you decide what to do about a biased action? People frequently disagree about what statements are prejudiced and which are not, and sometimes you want people to be able to work through this prejudice. Depends. And at the same time, you want people who are accustomed to dealing with this to not become alienated. It becomes a very delicate dance.
That brings me to issue three – when talking about an issue such as race, you’re going to eventually knock up against an issue where people decide to lock camps fairly quickly. So, with this conference, we can see that Israel/Palestine has become a rough shorthand for the issues involved in that whole conflict – the fact that spaces are not physically safe for Jews; the fact that once again, discussions surrounding discussions of the *people* of Palestine are being pushed to the margins; etc.
And it becomes really hard to get to a resolution on these things, particularly if you want a wide group of people to feel comfortable at your gathering. Another micro-example: on the IFC Media Project thread, the one that talked about messaging around Israel/Palestine, I got the following feedback:
*The thread was “gleefully antisemitic”
*We were complicit in the hatred of Jews
* We once again centered the narrative around the Jews, silencing the Palestinians
* Palestinians never get a voice in our coverage
* We always side with the Jews
* We are tactically supporting oppression by not openly condemning Israel
And this doesn’t include the comments I deleted for falling back into “evil Jews control the media” “evil heathen Arabs have taken over the country” territory.
And we didn’t even talk about the attempted thread jack by someone who was pissed that we spent all this time talking about I/P and never talked about Somalia.
That thread is one of my top five worst days on the internet. When you talk about these kinds of conflicts, no one is ever happy. No one ever agrees with how you handled something. So, in many ways, the ICR is going to have to decide what they are hoping to get from a conversation and just go with it.
At the same time, issue 4 is as Matt noted upthread – when people feel ignored, they lash out. He referenced that person, Disappointed, who came onto his thread about Jews and Hollywood and demanded to talk about Palestine, then accused us of being anti-Palestinian for not talking about the issue. Now, I can understand the frustration – we carry these issues close to our hearts and it can become maddening to constantly have them co-opted by the aims of others.
But that then leads to issue five – not allowing any one issue to dominate a conversation. I find it interesting that there are two conversations on this thread – one about the conference and one about antisemitism. And what has happened is that one conversation has circumvented the other, so people who aren’t interested in discussing antisemitism are no longer participating.
To use another micro example, when I first became editor here, I got a very nasty email that we should change our blog name because we don’t talk about race, we talk about blacks and asians.
Which was true. Our content isn’t balanced, though we strive for that daily. And it creates a feedback loop – the people who find content that reflects them come back; the people who feel neglected stop reading.
In a conference setting, it works the same way. If we call together an international conference on racism, and spend the entire time talking about I/P, that alienates people who wanted to talk about other issues. That’s why I could understand Pololly’s comment. I don’t think Pololly wasn’t arguing that the issue wasn’t pressing or important – but there are a lot of issues that are important, and we all feel our own oppression most keenly.
So, with these issues in mind, my question is how can the conference move forward?
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶
method wrote:
@Joseph, @WEG, et al., it would be very hard for an uninvolved reader to believe that any of you are operating according to a principle of charity in interpreting each other’s statements. I see a lot of attempts to score debate points, and not much interest in actual conversation.
About the question of who stifles/hijacks/censors whom, I would say both sides, in the sense that both parties at their most extreme ends work politically to get certain topics off the table. AIPAC’s goal as a lobby is to keep critical discussion of Israel from occurring, but AIPAC by no means represents all American Jews. On the other hand, supporters of the Palestinian cause desperately want the situation to be simple, clear-cut, or at least to be able to represent it as so. They don’t want to break out their assumptions and commitments, even though these are the perpetual sticking points in the process. As an example, every year or so the Arab nations offer up a “peace plan” that involves the ‘48 lines and the right of return. Everyone who understands the issues knows that this is the opposite of an attempt to resolve the situation.
The Israeli-Palestinian situation is in principle quite easy to resolve. The Israelis have to allow a Palestinian state to exist in Gaza and the West Bank and give back the Golan Heights to Syria. Jerusalem must be divided “evenly” between the two states, or better yet, made a UN city. Israel alone with the West and the Saudis must make economic investment in the new state of Palestine to help it succeed. *Meanwhile*, the Palestinians must put down their weapons and agree that the lines drawn between the two states will be *the final lines*. In other words, the Palestinians and the other Arab states must acknowledge that Israel will always *exist* AND that the refugees (who are now the children of refugees) will not receive their right of return within non-occupied Israel.
Sound good? Okay, let’s do it! No? Then you’re not interested in actually solving the problem, and it really is a waste of time to discuss it when there are other issues that can actually be resolved. I don’t particularly care if “Zionism = Racism” or not; I just know that as long as that formula is upheld or as long as it’s a dispute between “anti-Zionism” and “pro-Israel” there can be no solution. This is in line with @a grateful listener’s principle about the need to focus on creating a “dignified existence” for people over dwelling on the past or even holding to a too-rigid sense of justice.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:20 pm ¶
Cosmic wrote:
First time posting, long time lurking. Hi all!
I’m more interested in reading the views expressed here than posting because I’m constantly learning from all of you. Thank you.
I did notice something that tends to happen a lot when discussions of human rights crop up. It’s the “don’t talk about X human rights because your own country has human rights issues”. Funnily enough, I thought that DIMA’s link to the Independent article sort of serves as a good answer to that. I could be wrong but I just find it disengenuous to make a person posting on here the representation of their country or try to make yourself the representation of yours. What if the person from Y agrees that Y has its own problems but is making a point about X because the post calls for that? The person from X has as much right to criticise Y too but they can’t use that to side step X’s own obvious problems, no? I don’t know if I explained that properly, perhaps I missed the point and I apologise if that’s the case.
Anyway, please carry on.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@Joseph:
“Look man, there are tons of expressions that are completely innocuous in other circumstances but become pointed in relationship with particular populations. I believe WEG when she says it wasn’t intentional but still… is it really such a terrible imposition to find another word? ”
Amen. It’s really just common courtesy. I remember having a similar discussion years ago with my (White) former supervisor after he used the word “niggardly” – twice! – in a one-on-one with me. “Miserly” or “stingy” would have done just fine. That is, of course, unless you were TRYING to provoke someone, and snicker behind your hand about it.
In which case, opting to use a loaded word with group-specific connotations repeatedly just means you’re a jackhole.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
@Abu Sinan:
Well, no, actually. It’s true that antisemitism has been around a long time and really worked it’s way into the very marrow of conversations about Jews. And yet, still, there are lots of things that can be said that don’t echo traditional antisemitism. There was recently a discussion at Alas, a blog and elsewhere where one commenter (chingona, I think, who also comments elsewhere) kept pointing out the difference between saying the American media is biased towards Israel and saying Jews are responsible for this.
The funny thing about it is, though, that we talk about the I/P conflict far out of proportion to any other similar conflict in the world today. So I don’t see any conspiracy of silence.
You talked about the differences between the discourse in Israel and here, but did you ever consider that it’s because people in Israel feel safer? I can name a few Jews (with good blogs, if you’d like) who moved to Israel particularly to be part of the left there because they felt too torn, too worried that their voices would be appropriated by the wrong people in the US or UK. But then, do you make people feel safer? In that article from Alas, Richard Newman (who does not “identify” as a Zionist) writes:
@Joseph: I didn’t figure you were Disappointed. But he is a part of the discourse. One of the reasons I write about myself: I’m not necessarily writing about you. But somewhere else, you wrote, “I don’t need the people in my life to walk on eggshells, I need them to take me seriously.” Well, I definitely don’t feel like you’re at all interested in taking me seriously. If you’re talking about “Zionists of all faiths,” you’re not responding to anything I said or talking about any issues important to me. Btw, I prefer to talk about “allies” rather than “Zionists” when we’re not talking about Jews.
You’re talking about something else entirely — and yet still using the word Zionist. The very word antisemitism was invented to distance criticism of “Semites” from criticism of Jews, but it still always centered around Jews. When Lindbergh made his famous Des Moines speech he used the same tactic. He talked about 3 groups just like you talk about “Zionists of all faiths.”
That’s the same way the word “Zionist” works. You can’t simply criticize Zionism and ignore the different ways that word can be used. If a simple find and replace would render a statement obviously antisemitic, then it’s antisemitic whether you say “Jew,” “Zionist,” or “cosmopolitanist.” In fact, you can look at Stalin’s use of the word the very word Zionism and see how it led to murder and discrimination against Jews.
So, with one word you get all the disadvantages of ignoring me and all the disadvantages of plodding insensitively through lots of sensitive issues at the same time. I don’t really care if you mean to be talking about Jews, because you are.
@Sobia:
Is it possible you need to rethink the type of criticism you’d like to make? Once again, this is basically the Livingstone Formulation. Here’s a whole bunch of examples of that. It’s basically when something (usually not about Israel) is criticized as antisemitic and the defense is “not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.” But there are specific instances to critique. I do think there are lots of criticisms of Israel that are not only not antisemitic but absolutely necessary. But that doesn’t mean that, to pick an example, Joseph’s critique of the Zionists who kept Obama from being elected can’t be discussed as potentially antisemitic. That’s why I pointed out above the case in England where a union threatened to boycott Israel refused to amend language that included “a nation of Christkillers” as legitimate criticism. I’ve written about specific examples here. There were clear examples from the first Durban conference. There are elements of the text itself that we could talk about. Can we move beyond the “all is”/”not all is” to talk about some of these specific examples?
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶
Moni wrote:
I will just say that a lot of the anti-racist policies that are currently in place in Brazil came out of the work that was done at the first Durban conference. It was there that the Brazilian government first publicly acknowledged that there was discrimination and racism in that country. At least one country used the conference as a springboard for antiracist, human rights focused policy development. But all of that gets swallowed up over the Israel issue…
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 5:06 pm ¶
ART wrote:
I think that many people who are used to being in the oppressed role are unwilling or unable to wrap their heads around the idea that they may be the racist in this case. It’s just too unusual.
“Oh I’m Colorblind!” is _exactly_ the same thing as “Oh I’m not an anti-semite!”
Really? You’re that big, clear-minded, and wise that you simply transcend culture, history, media, institutions in some deity-like fashion?
Wow! Congratulations – it must be nice.
Anti-Semitism is one of the oldest and most persistent hatreds of the other there is.
Where do we go from here in the dialogue? How about discussing why you think you’re capable of determining that you are not an anti-semite. How about discussing the fact that some serious paradigm shifts akin to http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/resources/paradigmshifts_race.html
might be needed to continue this conversation in a fashion that’s up to Racialicious’s standards.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 5:09 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Huh. Good job returning to the subject of US participation in the conference, everyone.
For all the inevitable sniping over IP in this thread, I think it did broaden my perspective on the original topic. I still think the US should participate, although you have all articulated the reasons for the boycott to demonstrate that it might be a very legitimate reaction rather than a holdout of US unilateralism. But the problem with boycotts is that they fail to engage (kind of like some of the arguments above, right?). Political realities aside, I want my country represented at that conference because I care about racism throughout the world, and I think that participation by powerful countries in that dialogue, however bureaucratic it might be, lends legitimacy to concern about all issues of racism. I think American cynicism about international law is completely self-fulfilling and equally myopic. Good job, skeptics, you can prove yourselves right, but eventually the rest of the world is moving on without us in that respect.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 5:54 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@LDP
I am confused by the persistence of the complaint about “other issues” getting edged out of this thread. If the main obstacle to the first conference was competing discourses around Palestine/Israel then how realistic is it to imagine that a thread devoted to the conference would not center around the complications of this issue? Especially in a post designed as an “open thread.” Perhaps if the original question had been worded differently I would be more sensitive to this complaint. You have used polloly as an example more than once now but he didn’t really raise another particular issue that he wanted to discuss, he tried to derail a conversation that was already happening by shaming the people invested in it into shutting up. (Probably not the best tactic to take when you got Arabs, Muslims and Jews talking about Palestine and Israel… I’m just saying.) Polloly, if you are out there, post away. Nobody is stopping you. For e.g. I was grateful to hear what Moni had to say about Brazil… so, in other words, despite the difficulties with this imperfect process it did have some value. That is good to know.
I hate the idea of giving you another “bad day on the internet” but the truth is, you are not responsible for making everyone happy… about this issue, or anything else, ever. You and the other mods provide a space for the exploration of issues but these conversations don’t always lead to resolution. If the issue that screwed up the Durban conference is also being rehearsed here then that is good to know. Personally I’d love for the conversation about Palestine/Israel to go further but it isn’t possible (at least not at Racialicious, but it is possible… I have deeper conversations with Jewish friends–some of whom are pro-Israel–all the time that do not turn into boring, tit-for-tat stalemates.)
@Matt
“There were clear examples from the first Durban conference. There are elements of the text itself that we could talk about. Can we move beyond the “all is”/”not all is” to talk about some of these specific examples?”
Cosign. I would love that. I never said the first Durban conference didn’t generate examples of antisemitism. If these examples are as clear cut as you say then I can completely see how they’d be a real obstacle to the stated purpose of the Durban conference… as I have said, several times now. I would much prefer to hear about things people actually did than spending time with the “when you didn’t talk about the Jews just now you were really being antisemitic” type arguments we have been having.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 7:00 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:
@Abu Sinan,
Ack! I totally missed your thread.
Ms Peterson already appears to have indicated this should get dragged back to the original topic, so I’ll have to cut short my part in this. Much to my regret, as I would have enjoyed the discussion.
If you’re interested at all in how I came by this opinion, you can try post, from a retired Colonel who did a lot of liasion work with the IDF.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/01/the-idf-ground.html
If not, no worries.
@ Latoya,
That list of feedback you mentioned is crazy. It absolutely floors me how a group of people can look at the same subject and come to such radically opposite conclusions.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 9:14 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@Matt:
“I do think there are lots of criticisms of Israel that are not only not antisemitic but absolutely necessary.”
Thank you. That’s all I wanted to know. I realize there is a lot we don’t agree on, and probably never will, but at least we can agree on this one point.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 9:38 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
From my point of view, as a long time supporter of the Palestinian issue, I am eternally disappointed by those who deem to appoint themselves as the guardians, protectors or voices of the Palestinian people.
When you get people like Ghaddfi and his legion of female virgin body guards, King Abd’Allah from Saudi Arabia who has had more wives than people have teeth and Osama bin Laden, it is no wonder that the state of the discourse is the way it is.
At the same time, when even Desmon Tutu is being pushed off the “anti-Semitic cliff” then it makes you wonder that even if Jesus himself came and agitated for the Palestinians if he might be called anti-Semitic.
On a world wide stage this is the most volatile subject. It is safe to say that as goes the I/P so goes everything else, like it or not.
The fact that the US can boycott the whole thing because of the Israelis plays into the idea that the US cannot be a fair mediator and cannot be trusted. It basically screams to the world the US support for Israel trumps everything else.
Posted 16 Apr 2009 at 10:01 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Nathan,
I am well aware of Colonel Lang. If you are a regular reader there you’ll remember when he made a comment of mine into a post on his blog. The subject was learning Arabic.
I still hold to the idea that the crap the IDF did in Gaza, ie poop in refers, draw racist cartoons on buildings, never mind the mass murder and destruction, has more to do with the sickness of racism that has infected Israeli society than anything else.
Israeli society, as a whole, has come to view Arabs ass lessor beings. Once you come to the conclusion that a people are your inferiors it is easy to do anything to them and to justify it.
It is a slippery slope they are on………..my personal belief is that they’ve already slide 3/4s of the way down it.
Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 2:16 am ¶
Matt wrote:
@Sobia, but that was always true. There’s a difference between a criticism of Israeli policy and things like criticism of Israel’s existence or a pattern of bias and obsessive focus on Israel. Those things are more complicated, but there isn’t anyone saying that merely criticizing Israel is antisemitic.
@Abu Sinan, Do you know what Desmond Tutu said? It would be a lot more interesting to talk about what he said than to assume that nothing he said could possibly be antisemitic. Find what he’s was alleged to have said, and how he responded. Are you familiar with the incident with Arun Gandhi at the Washington Post? People said the same thing about him — but what he said was clearly antisemitic. And instead of realizing his mistake and apologizing he went further and made ever more racist remarks.
@Joseph,
But you can’t separate out the most extreme cases, like conservatives who pretend their rhetoric has nothing to do with the racism of the far-right. What made the people responsible for such vile, genocidal antisemitism at Durban — antisemitism that made Mary Robinson feel the need to exclaim “I am a Jew” in solidarity — what made those people feel it was acceptable? Because it wasn’t just them, but the people who supported them, and led them to believe such actions would be appreciated.
And we’re not only talking about that, but also the official UN, governmental bodies scheduling panels for the Jewish sabbath in order to exclude Jews from participation. Blatant discrimination by the UN!
All of this, including the types of things you don’t want to talk about, are parts of the same phenomenon. You can’t separate it out, while making essentially the same arguments.
When you identify the problem as a particular group of people, the logic of excluding (or eradicating) those people is already in place. No matter whether you think others go ‘too far.’ The difference between what you say and what these others say is mainly in ‘how far is too far.’ You can’t disown them so easily.
Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 3:32 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Matt
…!
Could you just tell us what happened at Durban already? You asked if we could concentrate on concrete examples and I said I thought that would be great. I also think that would be a way to recuperate this thread in the terms Latoya described and begin to identify the stumbling blocks to having this discussion.
But you keep *not* doing that.
So, if you (or WEG or anyone) would like to lay out specific examples of what happened during the first Durban conference that was so objectionable then I am 100% interested in hearing it.
Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 5:42 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
WEG did mention that safety is a major issue, way way upthread. I would count that as one.
1. At a bear minimum, people have the right to feel safe at the conference and local businesses/organizations/religious dwellings should be provided with extra protection during the proceedings.
2. No outside literature at the conference. I know this will draw some protest – after all, one would love to get their message into the hands of a head of state – but there is too much room for propaganda. The conference can decide what materials accompany the conference and what to exhibit.
3. The conference should be on neutral ground. That account about various nations being barred from others was unacceptable. If we’re denying delegates visas we shouldn’t meet there.
4. The fact that the conference is organized by a Secretary General and ideas are evaluated by the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism consolidates too much power to have a decent discussion. I would recommend an advisory panel on racism, people who will be present at the conference and have expertise on combating various issues. I would also recommend at least two experts from each discipline, and these people would act as the conference mediators.
Other thoughts?
Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 8:28 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Matt,
“Desmond Tutu is a poor choice for commencement speaker,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “His statements about Israel have time and again conveyed outright bigotry against the Jewish homeland and the Jewish people, and his deepening involvement in the anti-Israel boycott effort should have raised a red flag. ”
That is from the ADL site itself. It would seem rather clear that the ADL and Zionists are putting Desmond Tutu, hero of the anti-apartheid struggle, in the “anti-semitic” camp for doing nothing more than speaking out against the same, or worse, policies that he opposed in South Africa.
The difference here is that I guess those people who opposed such actions in South Africa think they are okay for Israel and Palestine. A clear double standard.
Posted 17 Apr 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:
@Abu Sinan: I’m not sure what comments in particular they were referring to that Desmond Tutu said, but just from the first page of google hits for Desmond Tutu Israel, this jumped out at me: “People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”
He’s not even saying the “Israel Lobby,” but outright the “Jewish lobby.”
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 12:24 am ¶
Ruchama wrote:
Oops. Forgot the link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 12:25 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
The US is threatening to boycott the conference on racism because the organizers have not agreed to make changes in key documents of the proceedings, as the USA has demanded.
In particular, the USA wants criticism of Israel– as well as the idea of American reparations for slavery– “toned down” or deleted.
This is classic American behavior with respect to international organizations in general: It’s my way or the highway.
American disdain for this conference is much like American hostility to most multilateral institutions it cannot control and dominate.
Do it our way, or we will take our ball and go home!
The USA, Israel, and the West can boycott this conference if they want. That’s their right of course.
But to use the *threat* of boycott to coerce or strongarm changes in the conference documents is essentially political extortion.
“The US Doesn’t Need a Conference on Racism”
http://www.blackcommentator.com/315/315_ror_conf_on_racism.html
United States May Boycott U.N. Racism Conference
Official urges major revisions ahead of Durban Review Conference
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/March/20090302155701idybeekcm0.4244501.html
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 12:36 am ¶
Matt wrote:
@Abu Sinan: well, if the ADL says that, what statements are they saying it about? That’s what I was trying to ask for. Actually, Abe Foxman, although he said Tutu’s speech often crossed lines, said explicitly during this controversy that Tutu himself wasn’t an antisemite. It was Mort Klein, who is genuinely reprehensible, of the ZOA, which is genuinely reprehensible, who accused Tutu of actually being an antisemite.
But what were the statements Tutu actually made? Don’t you think it’s funny to try to talk about this without even referencing the actual statements?
Even when Klein talks about antisemitism, we have to take him somewhat seriously. Even the most right-wing Jews often make good points about antisemitism amongst other terrible points. And if you want to dismiss them as ‘Zionists,’ I’m going to say you need to say you need to check your privilege. (Why do Whites often go straight to Sharpton and Farrakahn whenever the subject of race comes up? Why was MLK so often dismissed as a communist?)
@Latoya, I don’t think your point 4 is quite on. Part of the problem is that the UN is, when it is more democratic, not liberally democratic. There are no formal protections for minorities.
One example to get the point across: a great deal of UN work is done is ‘regional working groups.’ Israel is not allowed to be a member of any regional working group because their region refuses to accept them. They are effectively barred from meaningful participation beyond a single vote out of 200 countries. They are literally barred, as is no other country, from ever being General Assembly President or a temporary member of the Security Council. What recourse do they have? None. There is no Supreme Court for them to go to.
There are a little over 200 member countries in the UN. The Organization of the Islamic Countries includes 56 (currently) of them. Together with a few dictatorships (inc. Cuba) and antisemitic governments (inc. Venezuela under Chavez) they routinely vote as a block to ensure the human rights wing of the UN is as institutionally antisemitic as possible.
Along with the failure of minority rights protection. There’s a lack of dedication to anti-antisemitism. For the upcoming conference, more than 100 NGOs signed a statement saying antisemitism was unacceptable. HRW refused. (Are we not human? Do we not have rights? Or are they not watching what’s in front of them?) If HRW doesn’t sign, then what hope?
@Joseph. I had actually assumed you had some idea. I guess I figured that from your participation in the thread? Anyway, there’s plenty of explanation buried around here. Take a look at WEG’s links, especially the one to Mary Robinson declaring “I am a Jew.” Or try Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I’m in a hurry, off to a day-long retreat..
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 8:16 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Matt
I am not asking you to educate me/us, I am asking you to actually follow up and make an argument. So far on this thread we have heard that there were anti-semitic acts and language undertaken at the first Durban conference but… outside of the display of the Protocols, which several of us denounced right away as reprehensible… we haven’t ever heard what they were… How can we have a discussion about how to move forward if there is no real analysis of what actually happened? As in: when ____ said _____ at Durban it was anti-semitic. When ____ happened that was some anti-semitic shit, man. I am not surprised at all that you can’t do this. Not because anti-semitism wasn’t an issue at Durban (clearly it was), but because you aren’t really interested in talking about it in a way that might lead to conclusions that don’t support your ideology. And that is why I don’t take you seriously.
Enjoy your retreat. Pray for peace.
@LDP
Here is how it goes:
1) Palestine/Israel comes up at Racialicious either as a discreet topic or in relation to another topic, like the Durban conference.
2) People who never post on anything else suddenly appear to make wild accusations of anti-semitism and do everything in their power to dominate and/or obstruct the conversation. These accusations can never be concretely attached to any specific language or complaint… And are therefore unable to be either challenged or affirmed. In other words, Zionists who are not interested in really becoming part of this community, whose interests begin and end with their own, make fear-mongering claims to justify their aggression but offer no analysis whatsoever, and will not tolerate any. Kind of like what Israel does in the Middle East.
3) And, of course, when those of us who abhor the occupation of Palestine say so, the focus shifts to us and how our activism is *really* coded anti-semitism. Should have seen that one coming, right?
4) They get away with it. The thread goes nowhere. The conversation, which never really had the chance to begin, stops.
I want to be extremely clear that I think that analysis of anti-Jewish sentiments are absolutely appropriate topics for this blog. This dynamic, along with Orientalism, is an ancient western prejudice that provides a necessary background for discussions of contemporary western racism. I meant it when I suggested a post about the Protocols for exactly that reason. But there is a big difference between doing that and giving apologists for Israeli Apartheid an uncritical platform.
Zionism IS racism. It is a political philosophy (NOT a religious expression) which is based on a dynamic of privilege and exclusion. It is no different than other nationalist ideologies that codify racial and ethnic exclusion. These philosophies would never be given a platform on Racialicious in a similar way. So when Zionism is seriously entertained on the site and given a platform it undoes the stated purpose of this community.
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Matt,
Check my privledge? I am not sure how that fits here? My privledge as a white person? How does that affect this conversation? My privledge as a person with a Jewish background?
I dont get what you are talking about.
“Right wing Jews” will often reference anti-Semitism, like other Zionists, where it doesnt exist in an attempt to reframe the discussion, the issues, or to try and shut everything down the first place.
When someone calls, or attempts to target someone like Desmond Tutu as an anti-Semite that is what is being done. They are trying to shut down the discussion and minimise the impact of what Tutu us saying.
The problem is that these attempts only serve to magnify what this great man is saying. When a great man like Tutu is villified and attacked, then truly NO ONE is free from such attack.
Like so many other times, the attacks against Tutu are actually an “own goal” for the supporters of Israel. When you attack this man you shoot yourself.
As to Tutu, I have never read anything he has said that rises to the level of anti-Semitism. Most of his comments are made as a African who lived under apartheid and how he thinks Palestinians under Israeli rule have it worse than they did.
Posted 18 Apr 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
It looks like the US, Canada have decided not to attend despite the changes, (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE53H1M120090418). The EU is holding a meeting on the subject Sunday.
Anyone who’s interested in the current text of the Durban Decleration, it’s here:
http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/intersession_open_ended19109.pdf
And it’s very confusing.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 2:22 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
@ Joseph and Abu Sinan:
Co-sign.
Unfortunately it seems to have gotten to a point where the charges of anti-Semitism have become a “crying wolf” situation. This is highly unfortunate as cases of real anti-Semitism may be neglected in the process.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 12:07 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:
“Right wing Jews” will often reference anti-Semitism, like other Zionists, where it doesnt exist in an attempt to reframe the discussion, the issues, or to try and shut everything down the first place.
You honestly think that antisemitism “doesn’t exist” in the quote above about the powerful “Jewish lobby”? It seems like every time that something gets called out as antisemitic, the response is “Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism.” Well, of course it isn’t, but this was a clearly antisemitic statement that’s being dismissed.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Latoya said: “4. The fact that the conference is organized by a Secretary General and ideas are evaluated by the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism consolidates too much power to have a decent discussion. ”
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it signifies that a conference on racism is an important issue and that racism is an important issue. (Unlike the bullshit that is about to come out of our Supreme Court.) If they didn’t have it organized by the UN and with the Special Rapporteur there, it would be a joke, and the complaint would be that no one takes racism seriously enough.
Also, there is a UN Special Rapporteur for just about every topic you can imagine related to UN business or international affairs. They carry a lot of prestige but are usually not even full-time positions, more like honorary degrees. They make reports and recommendations. Those carry some weight for sure, but in the end it’s a conference that won’t even demand law or policy changes. So I wouldn’t call it a consolidation of too much power.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 2:32 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Rucahama
I am really glad you raised this example– this is exactly the sort of thing I have been asking for. I don’t think what Abu Sinan is saying and what you are saying are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I can understand why Tutu’s comment is upsetting. Even though I agree with him in his assessment of Israeli Apartheid I think his language is careless because it evokes anti-Jewish discourses, even though I don’t think that was his intention. There is an unfortunate rhetorical habit of saying “Jews” rather than “Israelis” outside of the western world–I have heard this over and over and it always makes me wince. But even though I understand the red flag of this language, I think it is important to look at the cultural context that it appears in… anti-semitism is a European discourse so outside of that context comments like Tutu’s don’t necessarily evoke that history. (Just like dark/light hang-ups in non-Western cultures don’t really have anything to do with the history of American slavery, even though those images may be very triggering for African Americans). I think in places like Africa and the Middle East where tribal identifications flow seamlessly into nationalist identities this elision is really common… which is how you end up with a phrase like “the Jewish lobby” rather than the more accurate “Zionist” or “Israeli” lobby from an African person. But that is also why I think its so important to insist on this rhetorical accuracy when we discuss Israel in the West.
I am not telling you not to be suspicious, at all. I just think if you look at the sum of what Tutu is saying, he is talking about the machinery of the State, not the character of a particular people.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶
ART wrote:
Why is Obama boycotting a UN conference on Racism?
I would love to be involved in a useful conference that addressed continuing issues of racism and discrimination around the globe,” Obama said in Trinidad on Sunday after attending the Summit of the Americas.
But he said the language of the U.N.’s draft declaration risked a reprise of Durban, during which “folks expressed antagonism toward Israel in ways that were often times completely hypocritical and counterproductive.”
“We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that’s not something we can sign up for,” Obama said.
from the AP & the horse’s mouth.
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
@Evan Carden
Whoops, sorry, I gave the wrong link, that’s to the one which was objected too. This is the current Durban Review Document:
http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/DOD%20Rev.1%2015-4-2009.pdf
Posted 19 Apr 2009 at 11:35 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Joseph, Arbishop Desmond Tutu is a Catholic priest. He is right square in the middle of the oldest, continuous discourse of antisemitism in the world. When I first read your comment, I was flabbergasted. You might as well have suggested he hatched from an egg yesterday. In that moment, I couldn’t imagine how someone could say something like that except by stupidity or willful ignorance.
Sometimes, the things you say about Islamophobia are really pretty smart. And I get to wondering, “when is he going to figure out that this applies to antisemitism, too?” And with that in the back of my head, when I read your comment, I got fucking pissed.
Not just the idea that somehow a Catholic Archbishop could manage to be separate from the historical discourse of antisemitism –or the ignorance of all the other ways antisemitism might have entered the South African discourse, or the ignorance of how antisemitism has historically been malleable and portable– but all the way you’ve so completely managed with such a claim to avoid engaging with anything I’ve said.
Antisemitism isn’t -just like no other form of oppression is- limited to the worst cases. Racism against Blacks in America isn’t limited to slavery. Antisemitism isn’t limited to the worst cases in history. Those blatant cases cannot be separated from a larger discourse. That’s why I started talking about antisemitism at Durban by asking what made people think genocidal antisemitism would be welcome. But you don’t seem to have noticed I was talking about antisemitism at Durban.
You want me to talk about the worst cases, while you repeat that same structuring discourse. That’s why I say the difference between you and the worst offenders at Durban is only how far you’d go.
As soon as you identify a group responsible for problems, the solution to those problems presents itself as attacking those people Already you talk about cowing and discriminating against those people with boycotts. Already, there are threats in what you say. Already, you’ve suggested that I shouldn’t be seriously entertained on this site — unless I can first be cowed. Unless I agree with you on what is and isn’t antisemitism. Already this is antisemitism – it doesn’t need genocide to prove itself. But, like at Durban, you’ll find there’s a misformed, McCarthyist logic. When people don’t agree with you, you silence them by labeling them Zionists.
Look again at my review of Defiance. Actually, it’s not so much a review of a single movie as an attempt to describe the structure of antisemitism. “They [Hollywood Jews] feared fueling stories of Jewish conspiracy and power.” That’s in bold in the article. Also, note that Hollywood was a site of local Jewish power, but what was more powerful was a supra-local structure of antisemitism. One, btw, that persisted well beyond the Holocaust. One still very much present today.
These threats and the conspiracy theories that inform them aren’t just something to be concerned about or to wince at. They are already really far-gone antisemitism. But in order to ignore it, you’re willing to pretend that a Catholic priest is magically protected from antisemitism.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 10:56 am ¶
Evan Carden wrote:
The first day of the conference, President Ahmadinejad gives a speech and the EU delegates walk out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/21geneva.html?hp
“In his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad said the formation of the state of Israel left “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order “to establish a totally racist government.” In response, dozens of delegates stood up and filed out of the room. Cheers erupted from the audience galleries.”
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 11:38 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
Desmond Tutu is not Catholic, he’s Anglican.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 12:08 pm ¶
ART wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6132972.ece
This is so moving.
We can say till we are blue in the face that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic, but the truth as I, someone who isn’t trapped in Gentile privilege, see it is 95% of the criticism of Israel emanating from the West is rooted in the obsessive focus on Israel that is racist/anti-semitic in nature, and thus it is racist/anti-semitic.
The most anti-racist paradigm shift for non-Jews to make is to understand that confronting their anti-semitic-racism is going to be uncomfortable, difficult, emotional, and painful.
I read this blog every day. I don’t comment on other threads because I believe my role, based on my life experience & the community dynamic, is as a respectful listener. This is something I can speak to meaningfully.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
You’re right. It doesn’t change any more of my post, though.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 1:10 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Matt
Desmond Tutu is not..ah, see Atlasien (#91). You are avoiding my argument which is that, while I agree that a phrase like “Jewish Lobby” is red flag it must be considered in its cultural context and in relation with Tutu’s larger points about Israel–none of which target Jews as an ethnic or religious minority.
I appreciate the compliment re: Orientalism. You could probably take every single thing I have ever said about the subject here and apply it to anti-Semitism as well. Because they are two versions of the same thing: the west’s reflexive fear, loathing and desire of the east. The main difference being that, because of the Jewish Diaspora Europe had the Jews to kick around for a lot longer than it has had Arabs and Muslims. Of course as a result, Jews have had a lot longer to figure out how to fit in to Western contexts, with mixed results… but the discourse is the same.
In fact some fascinating–but scary– work is being done paralleling 19th century European anti-Semitic cartoons with contemporary depictions of Arabs and Muslims and the images are almost identical.
But you give up some of the moral high ground that comes with being a historically oppressed minority when you become a colonial power.
Power, which by definition grants privilege, does not erase a tragic history but it deos dramatically re-organize the hierarchy of the present. For example, it is difficult for me to take the “Supra-local structure” of anti-semitism among Jewish filmmakers in Hollywood seriously when considered discreetly from the way those same powerful image makers have portrayed Palestinians. Israeli producers Golan and Globus practically invented the image of the contemporary savage Arab in a succession of Orientalist epics of the 80s and 90s… Many of which starred the Evangelical Christian, Chuck Norris. It must be lovely to have the luxury to ruminate on the challenges that arise from representing YOURSELF. I wouldn’t know what that’s like.
I didn’t say so on your original thread because I respected your desire to discuss Jewish representations without getting into Palestine. (making me the un-”Disappointed” I guess). But please don’t use the anxiety that privilege experiences when faced with representing itself as a limit case for a system of oppression.
Not to an Arab, okay?
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
No, I’m not avoiding anything. You just don’t like my response.
For starters, as I’ve pointed out before, take a look at Stalinist antisemitism. It was expressed in political terms and declared itself to be anti-racist. And yet, it was used to justify persecution and murder of Jews. It’s frustrating to feel like I need to teach you antisemitism 101, but it’s more frustrating that you don’t even care to learn jack about it.
Sure, the context changes somewhat from speaker to speaker, but part of the context from which Tutu speaks is that of a Christian, caught up in the very center of the longest continuous discourse of antisemitism. (Btw, according to Morton Klein, he also said, “the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God.” I’ve never seen anyone address that point Klein made – unless you count Tutu’s response that his dentist is named Cohen. He couldn’t even manage a lame “some of my best friends” argument.) And part of his context is that he is talking about (and sometimes to) Jews.
And part of the context is the history of Jews in South Africa, about which I’m sure you’re completely ignorant.
One thing about Durban is that it demonstrated how thoroughly anti-Zionism today is imbricated with antisemitism. Seriously, and to repeat yet again a question you never addressed: Why did people think genocidal antisemitism would be welcome in Durban? Why did Ahmadinejad feel this morning that his incitements would be appreciated?
One thing about this discussion, it has made me more certain than ever than I’m a Zionist. Not only do I not think I should ever need to trust you to protect me, but you have seriously proven to me that I can’t trust you that way.
No, that’s not the main difference. Orientalism affects Jews as well as “Orientals” of all stripes (and what does that mean for you about how you criticize Jews?), but the biggest difference is that Jews have been, for almost 2,000 years, the internal Other in Europe. (It’s like the difference between feminism and queer theory. And you’ll note the violent anger gays evoke for their interstitiality. ) You don’t have a clue about how that’s been important in antisemitism, do you? You don’t have a clue what antisemitism has always looked like.
What a totally black and white worldview. Where only one group can be oppressed at the same time. In which the oppression olympics justify a remarkable lack of sensitivity and sympathy.
Jews have always been put in the middle. In feudal Europe, we were forced to rely on tolerant (or sometimes cynical) patrons. Often Jews were made tax collectors. When the patron died, lost power, or even became unfavorable among the masses Jews paid the price. When the Swedes conquered Poland, they made Jews their bureaucrats. Without other sources of political power, Jews were often forced to take these positions, hoping this time would be different. Now look at the UN, and it’s the same all over again — and you’re making the same damn mistakes.
If you understood the socialism of fools, you might have a shot at avoiding the anti-imperialism of fools. But no. In the spirit of anti-Orientalism, please stop pretending you know something about antisemitism.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
*****MOD NOTE********
And we’re done. I’m closing this thread to future comments. I need to think on some of the things brought up here.
Posted 20 Apr 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶