Murdoch’s Propagandists Blog carries an article by fellow Australian, Damian Lataan, entitled Australia’s Israel Lobby Continues its Relentless Propaganda of ‘Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism’. It’s was first published on Damian’s own blog on March 17th 2009.
Damian Lataan's Blog
The article doesn’t purport to be highly original. However, it is a clear and recent exposition of a line of argument that’s common within the western anti-Zionist left.
I have considerable sympathy for the author’s intent and worldview. This is not a hostile critique. It’s written in no anger at all – and little sadness. If there is a twinge of regret, it’s because I believe there are remaining ideological walls that Damian and those who share his approach must scale before they can see the whole terrain clearly enough to join up with many others who share the same basic objectives.
For simplicity’s sake, at the risk of doing an injustice to his case, I’ll try to summarize what I see as its kernels in a couple of sentences. Please read Damian Lataan’s original article to check for yourself the accuracy of my summary:
Many Zionists accuse left-wing anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism.That’s not fair, because:(a) there is a distinction between ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Zionism’. (b) while there have long been right-wingers who are ‘anti-Semitic’, most (all?) left-wing anti-Zionists reject and deplore ‘anti-Semitism’.
Overall, Damian Lataan mounts a strong case that anti-Zionism is a principled anti-racist stance. He says: “anti-Zionism is political, not racial”.
Nick Dyrenfurth
His article was written in response to an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald on March 16th entitled Rudd must shun UN anti-Semitism. Its author, Nick Dyrenfurth, has sharp words for all anti-Zionists, whether right-wing or left.
As I agree with so much of what Damian says and share his disgust at Mr Dyrenfurth’s article, it may seem almost churlish to pick on points of disagreement. But the devil is in the detail.
Take these two paragraphs, in which Damian Lataan tries to establish common ground with ‘anti-racists’ everywhere and appeal to Nick Dyrenfurth’s better nature:
Of course the far-Right have peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; that’s what they do. They are Jew-haters and have always been around. But to attempt to align the Left who are anti-Zionist with neo-Nazis and Jew-haters is just plain transparent and blatant Zionist propaganda and to suggest that the Left have peddled ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy theories’ is a deliberate lie.
The reality is this: Jew-hating Nazis have absolutely nothing in common with the anti-Zionism of the Left. Anti-Zionism is political, not racial, and [Zionism] is reviled by the Left for exactly the same reasons as the Left revile the politics of Nazism.
I might well have written the exact same words a decade ago. But I’m now persuaded they amount to a gross over-simplification of reality that helps perpetuate ongoing discord and confusion – incurring a serious cost for all anti-Zionists in terms of the forgone opportunity for much broader solidarity.
Misuse of 'Anti-Semitism' by Carlos Latuff
Most crucially, I don’t accept certain key terms that the Zionist author uses to frame his argument. I don’t believe ‘anti-Semitism’ has any clear meaning. It’s such a loaded expression that I refuse to use it at all, except in inverted commas or within a direct quotation.
‘Anti-Semitism’ is a recently invented, semantically confusing term. It is never used to denote what the expression would mean if its component parts were taken literally. (‘Semitic’ is a linguistic category and has nothing to do with ethnicity, religion or ‘race’.)
The term is used as a pejorative in such a manner that it’s deniable only by capitulation, on demand, to the accuser. That’s because accusers deploy this inherently imprecise signifier with full confidence they may define it as they please. They typically do so on the basis of perceived ‘symptoms’.
The notion of ‘symptoms’ in this context is itself interesting. Clearly it connotes disease. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is posited as a form of mental illness, liable to spread through non-Jewish populations like the pox. Decent people should therefore watch closely for its symptoms – and fight all ‘outbreaks’ vigorously. Ideological disinfectant is useful. The fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ has been constructed as a public health and safety issue: good psycho-social hygiene is at stake!
The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman: finds 'anti-Semites' in the attic and under the bed...
When he concedes the term ‘Anti-Semitism’ and uses it too, it seems to me Damian accepts the baggage that goes with it. He also reviles ‘anti-Semites’ and commits to opposing them himself. Yet he leaves the power to define ‘anti-Semitism’ in the hands of those who use this accusatory term. That, in my opinion, is most unwise.
It’s clear to me, having observed debates about Zionism, Israel and Jewish issues for some years, that the accusation of anti-Semitism is frequently used to gate-keep public opinion.
Certain questions, lines of inquiry and suggestions and viewpoints are routinely portrayed as ‘anti-Semitic’. Nick Dyrenfurth gives us an idea of the ‘problem’:
“The far Left and, more often, the thugs of the far Right have long peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in which an all-powerful Zionist cabal controls the world’s financial levers, a ‘fact’ hidden, of course, by its control of Western media outlets and compliant governments.”
Damian replies that the Left does not in fact peddle these ‘anti-Semitic’ conspiracy theories. He’s right about that, with few exceptions.
But what of left-wingers who do wish to examine the extent to which there are kernels of truth in Dyrenfurth’s greatly parodied summary? What of people such as myself, who believe that (a) extreme, unqualified formulations of such a ‘conspiracy theory’ are preposterous and (b) the relationship between organized Jewry, western financial institutions, the mass media and the entire political arena in many western countries (such as Australia) is a topic that cries out for rational consideration, more investigation, open discussion and informed debate?
If I write on this topic, do I have only two options? Must I say “it’s all a nonsensical conspiracy theory” – or have Damian and those who think like him join with Nick Dyrenfurth to condemn my views as ‘extremist’, ‘right-wing’ and ‘neo-Nazi’?
If so, I think my twinge of sadness was merited.
John F Kennedy: slain President whose murder, contrary to Zionist Gerald Posner's book, is far from 'Case Closed'
I can’t be sure, but I imagine Nick may believe anyone voicing suspicions that Israeli ‘Intelligence’ was deeply involved in orchestrating the assassination of John F Kennedy ipso facto exhibits ‘anti-Semitic symptoms’. Yet such suspicions are becoming more widespread, not without basis. Branding this as some form of contagious mental illness is unlikely to fool most of the people for much longer. Likewise vis-a-vis the hottest of all hot topics: the genuine history of World War Two.
There may well be people who embrace the term ‘neo-Nazi’, who have a visceral hatred of ‘Jews’ and who also hold heterodox views about the JFK assassination, World War Two, etc – views that many Jews find offensive.
However, there are other people as well who hold heterodox views on these same subjects – or at the very least have serious unanswered questions. I’m one of them. I do not consider myself neo-Nazi – or right wing. I repudiate any suggestion that I’ve fallen prey to irrational hatred. I try not to feel hatred at all. Understanding and compassion, combined with determination, seem to me to offer the best basis for successful struggles against injustice.
Does Damian Lataan – as an exemplar of a dedicated left-wing anti-Zionist – accept that Zionists have official labelling rights over people such as me?
Is it reasonable that Zionists are free to condemn people whose views they dislike as ‘anti-Semites’ – and then seek to exclude them from mainstream public discourse on that basis? Should Zionists be able to manage intellectual ‘no-go areas’ at wish, branding as sick and dangerous anyone who doesn’t accept their right to act as referee? Should Zionists really be allowed to quash open public debate over topics they decide to police?
I think not. All of us need to stop being so fazed by labels and start listening more carefully to arguments and evidence.
A Rather Open 'Conspiracy'?
Of course ‘Jews don’t rule the world’. But it’s also untrue that those who self-identify as Jews, as a group, are ‘typical’ of the world’s population in their aggregate socio-economic profile, one aspect of which is financial wealth.
Of course there isn’t ‘One Vast Jewish Conspiracy’ (to misquote Hillary Clinton). But there indubitably are strong and well-organized associations and alliances within the Jewish community – at international level as well as more locally. Most of them are somewhat uncritically pro-Zionist.
The truth surely lies somewhere between ‘Conspiratorial Total Control’ and ‘Just an Average Bunch of Guys’. The entire subject area should be open to discussion – by Jews and non-Jews. Jews (or a subset thereof) do not have the right to limit the scope of that discussion. No other self-identified group of people, to my knowledge, claims a similar privilege. It’s like having the referee double as a member of one team. Not fair.
No part of our universe – including social and historical reality – should be closed to free inquiry. No one group with partisan interests should monopolize the referee’s whistle.
Australia's magnificent Powerful Owl: it needs two wings to fly
If any group of people tries to do this, the rest of us must feel free (and have some duty) to howl.
That’s not ‘anti-Semitism’. It’s not ‘racial hatred’. It’s not ‘hate speech’.
It’s whistle-blowing and has the potential to better level the playing field for the benefit of all.
If my enthusiasm for that isn’t ‘left-wing’, I don’t know what ‘left-wing’ means any more. Perhaps I’m not ‘left-wing’ after all?
Yet I won’t label myself ‘right-wing’ either.
I’ll just keep on trying to stop using terms that are ill-defined, misleading and crafted to divide ordinary people who have many common interests.
