“Bachman believes Israel has a right to exist.” Yes, and so do most people concede this to be true, including progressive Palestinians. It is the basis of the peace that must be established. Zionists leaders want to take it all, as demonstrated by their words and actions.
followed by “cancel the talk an hour before the launch because they were unwilling to platform a Zionist voice on-premises” Platforming Zionist voices is problematic, because Zionism as illegally realized through violence and occupation is the problem. Resistance to it is an honourable responsibility.
“it’s normally the Jewish state that is singled out as the one nation that doesn’t have a right to be recognized.” No reasonable person says Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.
“When my peers start questioning the legitimacy of the nations of Pakistan, Liberia, or Jordan—three countries with similar backstories and struggles to Israel” Similar struggles? Israel is a genocidal state oppressing the legitimate rights of others.
“Jews are no longer seen as rootless cosmopolitans who subvert the autonomy of European nations, but as white colonial oppressors butchering the indigenous Levantine population on stolen land.” Yes, because that is what has been happening since before May 14, 1948.
I could go on…but Zionist exceptionalism is the inherent problem in this perspective.
In other words, these aren't "propagandist talking points" so much as assertions from a perspective that accepts the founding and continuation of Israel as a legitimate project. Clearly you disdain that perspective, in favor of the conception of Israel as a "genocidal state oppressing the legitimate rights of others." That puts you in the company of the vicious racists whom Wald cites throughout the essay.
It's true, no reasonable person says that Israel has no right to exist. Sadly, the anti-Zionist movement is full of unreasonable people who insist on exactly that, based on this same libel that Israel is a genocidal state. That vaunted genocidality justifies the verbal and physical abuse of Jews in their minds, which is why we've seen the explosion thereof in the last year. Whether they constitute the majority of anti-Zionists is unclear, but they certainly characterize them.
Good luck with that commitment to empathy you mentioned. I hope the rest of us see evidence of it one day.
I don't think the founding and continuation of Israel is legitimate any more than the founding of a state offering exceptional recognition for any other ethnic or racial group would be. It has resulted in extremists like Netanyahu to wage a genocide on "behalf" of Jewish people and the Israel project, and multi-billionaire lobbyist organizations like AIPAC to coerce the U.S. government into funding it. Israel is an extreme threat to the world and a major component of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and that has *nothing* to do with Jewish people or Judaism. It's an example of what happens when identity politics or ethno-centrism of any sort takes over a whole nation.
If those complaints had nothing to do with Jewish people or Judaism, then it ought to be tolerable to you and your fellow socialists to let them assemble, speak, and create as they see fit, regardless of whether they agree with said complaints. And as Ms. Wald demonstrates, you do not.
These complaints are against a form of identity-based ideology that purports to speak for *all* members of a specific ethnic & religious demographic. So, that makes it of direct concern to someone who is against identity politics & the politics of exceptionalism, and the type of conflicts that result for the world when a whole nation gets behind it. And by that, I mean not only Israel, but also the United States and the U.K., so this is not about Jewish people or Judaism, but opposition to power-hungry people and war-mongers who try to create and hide behind a virtue shield that allegedly serves the interests of a whole demographic but is in actuality a power grab for just a handful of the world population so they can behave as they please free from criticism or opposition.
Understand that I and other socialists have no problem with members of any ideology getting together to assemble, speak, and create organizations for this or that group, or this or that ideology. My problem is these groups gaining disproportionate levels of economic and governmental power within one or more states and using them to justify war-mongering and exceptionalist legislation for proponents of that ideology. Which is exactly what too many Zionists are doing. This is not about Jewish people or Judaism because there are many Zionists who are not Jewish just as there are many proponents of identity politics in favor of PoC, women, and LGBTs who are white heterosexual men. And opposing those forms of Woke politics is no more anti-PoC or anti-woman or anti-LGBT than opposition to Zionism is anti-Jewish.
If you want to be a Zionist and form an organization to promote the ideology, then be my guest. But you cross a line when you entrench it into government and try to legally ban criticism of it, or acquire the power to ban people from universities or social media for opposing it, or give special legal protections or privileges to members of a certain demographic only, or create a state based on it that wages war on other states who do not share the ideology. I am against any other type of identity politics from doing the same thing, which is why I am a member of FAIR.
Yet here you are, spamming the comment section of a post by a Jewish author with broad and misinformed complaints about Zionism without any curiosity of what Zionism means to *her*. From FAIR's Principles: "We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with. We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry. We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions." If you're a member, act accordingly.
Legit criticism is not spamming, Franklin. If you think Zionism deserves no criticism, then you see the exact reason why all forms of identity politics most certainly do need to be criticized. Which is supposed to be what FAIR is all about.
It doesn't matter what Zionism means to this artist personally. What it does to the world in practice in terms of war, apartheid, and authoritarianism is what matters to those who are affected by that and care about things such as world peace and equality among all people. That, again, is what I signed up for FAIR about. I didn't sign up to defend or promote any form of identity politics.
Let's take a look at that passage you cited from FAIR's Principles:
"We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with."
I believe it meant economic issues, which I am fine with. I do not believe it was referring to identity politics. If we can promote Zionism here, then why not articles by actual FAIR members promoting Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory? Or Fourth Wave Feminism? Or Gay Pride? And claims that if you do not support those ideologies, then you're guilty of at least second order racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc?
"We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry."
And pointing out how any form of identity politics tends to lead to war and authoritarianism if promoted on a national level isn't doing that?
"We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions."
Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them.
And secondly, I point out that opposition to identity politics is what FAIR is supposed to be about. I do not think those passages you cited were in any way referring to toleration of any form of identity politics, but to other matters -- such as economic, or social values, etc.
Accordingly, I accept and listen to your dislike of socialism. That is fine. But Zionism or any form of identity politics is a whole other ball of wax. FAIR is either against that or promotes it. I thought this was already decided.
This essay, and this organization, do not promote Zionism. The essay is critiquing anti-Zionists, and I have to say that the anti-Zionists in the comment section are doing a great job demonstrating why they should be critiqued.
"Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them."
I tolerate them in the sense that I don't think you should be killed for espousing them, but they're still belligerent foolishness and FAIR has no reason to accommodate them. Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact. As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such.
If you critique anti-Zionists on an essay published in a group that is supposed to represent opposition to identity politics, then you are promoting Zionism. Anti-Zionists should be expected to critique Zionism in an organization opposing identity politics. And considering what the world is suffering at the hands of Zionism right now, I think Zionism deserved to be critiqued -- while the government still allows it.
This is not the same thing as saying that Zionists should not have a voice and be denied a platform. I have no problem with Zionists posting essays on Substack, or Medium, etc. The problem is doing so within a publication by FAIR.
"Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact."
Zionism specifically promotes the identity of the Jewish ethnic demographic and the Jewish religion. It demands exceptional treatment for them, including an entire apartheid state giving them favoritism, including waging war in their name (even though war is really a big money-laundering operation hidden behind an altruistic virtue shield). It plays the Victim Card to rationalize victimizing others to "right" wrongs from the past. It seeks and obtains power, both social and financial, to the point that lobbyist groups espousing the ideology can literally make or break the careers of politicians in the duopoly. It demands the banning and de-platforming of anyone who opposes the ideology. claiming that is tantamount to hating the identity group and/or religion that it latches on to.
That sounds like textbook identity politics to me. The fact that it's supported heavily by the Right does not mean it isn't identity politics.
"As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such."
First of all, what "socialists" would these be? If you mean the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union, that came long after Marx and had nothing to do with a classless and stateless economy. That is you latching together two different things that you dislike into one. I see capitalist firms headquartered in the USA like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and J.P. Morgan promoting authoritarian identity politics, not Classical Marxian socialists. And many execs of those orgs are Zionists as well.
Saying that FAIR should both promote or oppose Zionism is not emotional blackmail, it's asking the org to *stay on its mission of opposing identity politics.* Otherwise, you get the same type of contradiction as the Democrats claiming to be for the working class yet supporting capitalist policies, including war, at every opportunity. There are some things that cannot be jointly accommodated and opposed by a single organization if its mission statement is firmly against something.
Zionism is a response to a sordid history of host countries turning violently on their Jews, dating to the early days of Christendom, by establishing a Jewish homeland on the one spot on earth where Jews are indigenous. It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it.
If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins.
As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do.
Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR. Anti-Zionists antagonizing and deplatforming Zionists, as in the article overhead, does.
Agreed, Blake, and unfortunately, the issue of Zionism is going to rip FAIR apart. How is it that Zionism got accepted by so many members of an org ostensibly designed to combat the excesses of identity politics and racial/gender/ethnic exceptionalism?
Please point out the "Israeli propagandist talking points" that the author "repeated" in a "blindered" fashion or any other.
“Bachman believes Israel has a right to exist.” Yes, and so do most people concede this to be true, including progressive Palestinians. It is the basis of the peace that must be established. Zionists leaders want to take it all, as demonstrated by their words and actions.
followed by “cancel the talk an hour before the launch because they were unwilling to platform a Zionist voice on-premises” Platforming Zionist voices is problematic, because Zionism as illegally realized through violence and occupation is the problem. Resistance to it is an honourable responsibility.
“it’s normally the Jewish state that is singled out as the one nation that doesn’t have a right to be recognized.” No reasonable person says Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.
“When my peers start questioning the legitimacy of the nations of Pakistan, Liberia, or Jordan—three countries with similar backstories and struggles to Israel” Similar struggles? Israel is a genocidal state oppressing the legitimate rights of others.
“Jews are no longer seen as rootless cosmopolitans who subvert the autonomy of European nations, but as white colonial oppressors butchering the indigenous Levantine population on stolen land.” Yes, because that is what has been happening since before May 14, 1948.
I could go on…but Zionist exceptionalism is the inherent problem in this perspective.
In other words, these aren't "propagandist talking points" so much as assertions from a perspective that accepts the founding and continuation of Israel as a legitimate project. Clearly you disdain that perspective, in favor of the conception of Israel as a "genocidal state oppressing the legitimate rights of others." That puts you in the company of the vicious racists whom Wald cites throughout the essay.
It's true, no reasonable person says that Israel has no right to exist. Sadly, the anti-Zionist movement is full of unreasonable people who insist on exactly that, based on this same libel that Israel is a genocidal state. That vaunted genocidality justifies the verbal and physical abuse of Jews in their minds, which is why we've seen the explosion thereof in the last year. Whether they constitute the majority of anti-Zionists is unclear, but they certainly characterize them.
Good luck with that commitment to empathy you mentioned. I hope the rest of us see evidence of it one day.
I don't think the founding and continuation of Israel is legitimate any more than the founding of a state offering exceptional recognition for any other ethnic or racial group would be. It has resulted in extremists like Netanyahu to wage a genocide on "behalf" of Jewish people and the Israel project, and multi-billionaire lobbyist organizations like AIPAC to coerce the U.S. government into funding it. Israel is an extreme threat to the world and a major component of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and that has *nothing* to do with Jewish people or Judaism. It's an example of what happens when identity politics or ethno-centrism of any sort takes over a whole nation.
If those complaints had nothing to do with Jewish people or Judaism, then it ought to be tolerable to you and your fellow socialists to let them assemble, speak, and create as they see fit, regardless of whether they agree with said complaints. And as Ms. Wald demonstrates, you do not.
These complaints are against a form of identity-based ideology that purports to speak for *all* members of a specific ethnic & religious demographic. So, that makes it of direct concern to someone who is against identity politics & the politics of exceptionalism, and the type of conflicts that result for the world when a whole nation gets behind it. And by that, I mean not only Israel, but also the United States and the U.K., so this is not about Jewish people or Judaism, but opposition to power-hungry people and war-mongers who try to create and hide behind a virtue shield that allegedly serves the interests of a whole demographic but is in actuality a power grab for just a handful of the world population so they can behave as they please free from criticism or opposition.
Understand that I and other socialists have no problem with members of any ideology getting together to assemble, speak, and create organizations for this or that group, or this or that ideology. My problem is these groups gaining disproportionate levels of economic and governmental power within one or more states and using them to justify war-mongering and exceptionalist legislation for proponents of that ideology. Which is exactly what too many Zionists are doing. This is not about Jewish people or Judaism because there are many Zionists who are not Jewish just as there are many proponents of identity politics in favor of PoC, women, and LGBTs who are white heterosexual men. And opposing those forms of Woke politics is no more anti-PoC or anti-woman or anti-LGBT than opposition to Zionism is anti-Jewish.
If you want to be a Zionist and form an organization to promote the ideology, then be my guest. But you cross a line when you entrench it into government and try to legally ban criticism of it, or acquire the power to ban people from universities or social media for opposing it, or give special legal protections or privileges to members of a certain demographic only, or create a state based on it that wages war on other states who do not share the ideology. I am against any other type of identity politics from doing the same thing, which is why I am a member of FAIR.
Yet here you are, spamming the comment section of a post by a Jewish author with broad and misinformed complaints about Zionism without any curiosity of what Zionism means to *her*. From FAIR's Principles: "We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with. We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry. We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions." If you're a member, act accordingly.
Legit criticism is not spamming, Franklin. If you think Zionism deserves no criticism, then you see the exact reason why all forms of identity politics most certainly do need to be criticized. Which is supposed to be what FAIR is all about.
It doesn't matter what Zionism means to this artist personally. What it does to the world in practice in terms of war, apartheid, and authoritarianism is what matters to those who are affected by that and care about things such as world peace and equality among all people. That, again, is what I signed up for FAIR about. I didn't sign up to defend or promote any form of identity politics.
Let's take a look at that passage you cited from FAIR's Principles:
"We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with."
I believe it meant economic issues, which I am fine with. I do not believe it was referring to identity politics. If we can promote Zionism here, then why not articles by actual FAIR members promoting Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory? Or Fourth Wave Feminism? Or Gay Pride? And claims that if you do not support those ideologies, then you're guilty of at least second order racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc?
"We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry."
And pointing out how any form of identity politics tends to lead to war and authoritarianism if promoted on a national level isn't doing that?
"We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions."
Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them.
And secondly, I point out that opposition to identity politics is what FAIR is supposed to be about. I do not think those passages you cited were in any way referring to toleration of any form of identity politics, but to other matters -- such as economic, or social values, etc.
Accordingly, I accept and listen to your dislike of socialism. That is fine. But Zionism or any form of identity politics is a whole other ball of wax. FAIR is either against that or promotes it. I thought this was already decided.
This essay, and this organization, do not promote Zionism. The essay is critiquing anti-Zionists, and I have to say that the anti-Zionists in the comment section are doing a great job demonstrating why they should be critiqued.
"Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them."
I tolerate them in the sense that I don't think you should be killed for espousing them, but they're still belligerent foolishness and FAIR has no reason to accommodate them. Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact. As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such.
If you critique anti-Zionists on an essay published in a group that is supposed to represent opposition to identity politics, then you are promoting Zionism. Anti-Zionists should be expected to critique Zionism in an organization opposing identity politics. And considering what the world is suffering at the hands of Zionism right now, I think Zionism deserved to be critiqued -- while the government still allows it.
This is not the same thing as saying that Zionists should not have a voice and be denied a platform. I have no problem with Zionists posting essays on Substack, or Medium, etc. The problem is doing so within a publication by FAIR.
"Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact."
Zionism specifically promotes the identity of the Jewish ethnic demographic and the Jewish religion. It demands exceptional treatment for them, including an entire apartheid state giving them favoritism, including waging war in their name (even though war is really a big money-laundering operation hidden behind an altruistic virtue shield). It plays the Victim Card to rationalize victimizing others to "right" wrongs from the past. It seeks and obtains power, both social and financial, to the point that lobbyist groups espousing the ideology can literally make or break the careers of politicians in the duopoly. It demands the banning and de-platforming of anyone who opposes the ideology. claiming that is tantamount to hating the identity group and/or religion that it latches on to.
That sounds like textbook identity politics to me. The fact that it's supported heavily by the Right does not mean it isn't identity politics.
"As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such."
First of all, what "socialists" would these be? If you mean the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union, that came long after Marx and had nothing to do with a classless and stateless economy. That is you latching together two different things that you dislike into one. I see capitalist firms headquartered in the USA like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and J.P. Morgan promoting authoritarian identity politics, not Classical Marxian socialists. And many execs of those orgs are Zionists as well.
Saying that FAIR should both promote or oppose Zionism is not emotional blackmail, it's asking the org to *stay on its mission of opposing identity politics.* Otherwise, you get the same type of contradiction as the Democrats claiming to be for the working class yet supporting capitalist policies, including war, at every opportunity. There are some things that cannot be jointly accommodated and opposed by a single organization if its mission statement is firmly against something.
Zionism is a response to a sordid history of host countries turning violently on their Jews, dating to the early days of Christendom, by establishing a Jewish homeland on the one spot on earth where Jews are indigenous. It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it.
If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins.
As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do.
Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR. Anti-Zionists antagonizing and deplatforming Zionists, as in the article overhead, does.
Agreed, Blake, and unfortunately, the issue of Zionism is going to rip FAIR apart. How is it that Zionism got accepted by so many members of an org ostensibly designed to combat the excesses of identity politics and racial/gender/ethnic exceptionalism?
Christofer Nigro…ikr