Friday, July 20, 2018

The Real News - British Labour Party's Anti-Semitism Document: Criticizing Israel Is not Anti-Semitism


Moshé Machover discusses the advances and limitations of the Labour Party's document on anti-semitism, which represents an important step forward to diffuse an issue that has become an artificial controversy designed to undermine Jeremy Corbyn

Pro Zionist groups are conflating any criticism of Israel as antisemitism and seem to be getting away with it. Momentum supports the rights of Palestinians and so have been targeted. They get away with it because the media is not telling the public that there is a difference,

22 comments:

Ralph Musgrave said...

"Pro Zionist groups are conflating any criticism of Israel as antisemitism and seem to be getting away with it." I'm not surprised: the human race is basically made up of simpletons who will swallow any old fatuous argument. If someone claimed that Pit Bull Terriers tend to bite people, therefor all dogs tend to bit people, therefor all dogs should be shot, they'd probably get away with that argument....:-)

John said...

Konrad: "Incidentally there is no difference between Jews and Israel. If you call yourself a Jew, then you automatically support Israel."

This is simply wrong, Konrad. Are Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein automatic supporters of Israel? How about Ilan Pappe or Shlomo Sand? How about the Jews who fought on the Palestinian side in the forties? Most of use here are anti-Zionists and pro-Palestinian - we recognise tyranny when we see it and support justice - but it's crucial to be fair. There are Jews, and non-Jews, who support Israel no matter what. There are Jews, and non-Jews, who are half-hearted in their support for Israel. And there are Jews, and non-Jews, who see the establishment of a state on the basis of religion as utterly obscene.

Konrad: "That said, many Jews object to Israel being singled out for censure, as though other nations are not guilty of atrocities. Here Jews have a point."

It's a partial point. The issue is that no country in modern history has violated so many UN security council resolutions, Geneva conventions and a huge swathe of international law for so long and not been brought to account, shielded as it is by the United States, a country that refuses to acknowledge international law while demanding others, except itself and Israel, abide by the letter of the law on pain of genocide and obliteration. That's the issue.

lastgreek said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Hickey said...

We also now need to distinguish between secular zionists and religious zionists

Another key distinction with important historical roots.

John said...

Tom: "I support Israel as a liberal democratic sovereign state."

So would I, but that has never been the case. Better to say, I will support Israel once it has become a"liberal and democratic". Witness yesterday's disgusting declaration of the state as "the nation state of the Jewish people", although it was merely broadcasting its apartheid and wasn't changing anything in reality. This is Jewish Wahhabism, with the IDF as its Jewish Salafi jihadis. The whole thing makes you sick.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are truly appalling, the latter the vilest country on the planet, with Israel now a close second. The only difference is that Iran and Saudi Arabia would be different, Iran especially so, were they to have free elections and a liberal polity. Israel has that and look at what it has DECIDED to do: ethnic cleansing, colonialism and apartheid.

Tom: "Most of the Islamic states are theocratic to the degree that the Shari'a is the predominant custom or law."

True, but there is a wide range of what is called Sharia. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are at one extreme and Tunisia, Bangladesh and Malaysia on the other extreme. Afghanistan isn't really a theocratic state in the true sense: it's no more than a post-apocalyptic country at the mercy of mad countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States.

It depends what you want to call canonical law and what you want to leave out. You can create any system you want with the so-called Sharia law: it's as broad or as narrow as you want to make it, the ultimate religious plasticine. Interestingly, the word "sharia" occurs only once in the alleged holy book of Islam, and it doesn't refer to law. It means something like road/path/way, and is used in a neutral way. Yet the clergy (banned by Islam's alleged holy book, yet to whom all Muslims genuflect and near worship) have created a vast spider's web of law, which nowhere appears in their alleged holy book. The whole thing is fantastically bizarre, but then religion usually is.

Tom Hickey said...

John, I said I support Israel as a liberal democratic state. I did not say it was one. I said below that Israel is a theocratic democratic state. While previously implicit, this was just made explicit pblicly in the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state.

Some citizens of Israeli, including Jews and non-Jews, advocated a liberal democracy while other for a theocratic one. That issue seems to be settled in favor of the later, at least for now. But I doubt the controversy is over. In fact, this is provoking bigger controversy with Israel being accused of promoting apartheid and exceptionalism.

All Muslims automatically accept (some form of) Sharia as essential to Islam. Islam means "submission" or "surrender." Muslims, meaning those that have voluntarily surrendered to God, accept the Qur'an as the word of God and many accept the Hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet) as second only to the Qur'an. Sharia is comprised of the injunctions, precepts and guidance as the rules of behavior set forth in the sacred scripture of the religion, the Qur'an and Hadith.

Voluntary submission is demonstrated by obedience to this as the expression of God's wish. God's will is what happens, and nothing happens that is not willed by God. So one should do one's best to walk "the straight path" and ask that conforming to God's wish be God's will (first Sura of the Qur'an). See also Psalm 25:4-5, and Matthew 7:13-14.

This is comparable to similar requirements in the other major religions, the other two religions of the Book, Judaism and Christianity, but also the sanatana dharma of the Vedic tradition and dharma of Buddhism.

Whatever else one may think about religion — its truth, value, etc. — it was an evolutionary development that guided the development of culture and laid the foundation for civilization to this point in time, and this influence is far from over. Obviously, a lot of negativity was also the result of religions and religious belief, but evolution is messy. From the POV of some religions, that, too. is the inscrutable will of God.

Different schools and sects interpret this differently. In Islam, the interpretation of Sharia is called fiqh. There are many schools of thought on this. In addition, sects take quite different perspectives on this, from Wahhabism to Sufism. Outside of religious authority in sects and the power of the state that backs some of them, there is no ultimate authority in Islam other than the text of the Qur'an, which is susceptible to many points of view.

There is no clergy in Islam, only the learned (read the competent). Muhammad praised the learned so there is Hadith to back this up.

Very few people in the West understand Islam for a variety of reasons, and misunderstanding abound, exacerbated by xenophobia and bigotry. Same with non-Christian religions, including Judaism, which is also based on surrender and obedience, stemming from the biblical narrative of Abraham and his son Issac, as well as Torah as God's word, the injections of which (mitzvoth) to be taken as law. Jesus reiterated this in Matthew 5:17-19.

Traditionalists in other religions with significant numbers have similar beliefs and wish those beliefs to superseded positive law, since they strong believe that this a commandment.

Liberalism in the US is now have to confront this, since some hold that liberalism is chiefly about freedom from religion while others contend that liberalism is about freedom to practice one's religion and positive law must recognize that priority of obligation.

This is another paradox of liberalism, the dialectic of which is set to unfold in the confirmation hearings of the newly nomination to SCOTUS. This is one of the foremost political issues in the US at this time.

John said...

Tom, I accept your argument. I thought that was implicit in what I wrote. I should have been clearer. Apologies.

I accept the evolutionary origins, even possible necessity, of religion for humankind. It may be impossible to go beyond it. That's why you never see me criticise religions as such. Crazy theocrats are another matter, and most believers want nothing to do with crazy theocrats. So most of the world is singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were. What I am, however, is perplexed by religious people NOT following the teachings that they claim are sacred. By this, I don't mean the occasional sin. What I mean is wholehearted disavowal of your alleged sacred book and/or God, and replacing it with a clerical superstructure which makes unusual demands nowhere to be found in the original teachings of the alleged sacred book and/or God. From personal experience, Christians care about the teachings of whatever church they belong to, not those of Jesus Christ. Not one Muslim friend of mine cares what their alleged sacred book actually says (there are no five prayers, there is no praying towards Mecca, ad infinitum) but what their self-appointed holy man says. That's what I mean when I say that I find religion fantastically bizarre.

On the so-called "learned", I saw something the other day that was interesting. If you look up all the instances of the word "learned", or rather what is translated as "learned", you'll find that it refers to something entirely different, the context having been wrenched out: it's usually to those who know the Torah, or occasionally those who understand the world around them (nothing to do with religion). As for the hadith, I read a book last year by an academic by the name of Daniel Brown, if memory serves, and he puts an absolutely superb case as to why these alleged sayings (up to four hundred years after the time) are another thing banned by the supposed sacred text, not that any Muslim cares. It would take out 99% of the madness out of Islam, and allow Islam the reformation it needs simply by taking it away from the Mullahs and the religious "scholars". It's a funny thing, but there are certainly no more than a handful of laws in Islam's alleged sacred text, yet Islam has thousands!

I was meant to be studying Hinduism this year! Those Abrahamic religions are taking up too much of my time.

On liberalism, I couldn't agree more. It's going to be this century's defining political problem. Now, there is a problem that is dialectical. There's another term almost everyone misunderstands! I read an article somewhere that made clear that Marx's dialectic is very much at odds with what Marxists claim it means. It's very much like the way Marxists shriek "contradiction". Apparently the correct translation of the German is not "contradiction" but "tension" or even "sublate", which is not only not the same thing but also would give rise to a very different analysis.

Actually, on dialectics. Any recommendations? I hear Bertell Ollman's "Dance of the Dialectic" is good. Do you know if he makes the same mistake in thinking that Marx's dialectic is simply that of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to the article I read by a leading Marx scholar, whose name I forget, Marx's dialectic was far more subtle and pervasive.

Anonymous said...

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I always thought the dharma of the Jews was they are a nation state without land. Just as it may be an individual’s dharma to be born into some race, civilisation and culture under certain conditions, such is the dharma of the Jews (which some have always accepted). Hence they had to learn how to integrate themselves with the nation (with land) in which they found themselves, and the host learn to accept them. Carving out by force their own piece of land therefore, remains an act of material appropriation and non acceptance all around; their greatest sin and the sin of their hosts (plenty of blame on both sides) the greatest sin of humanity – separation. If this is true, holding on to the land will continue to bring grief.

In this sense, the 'wandering Jew' is a symbol for all of humanity.

Separation is a fault line, point of crisis and opportunity in the personality life, but in the realm of the self it is illusion. Like the fault line dividing America at this moment. It all happens in people’s heads and can vanish like vapour.

Konrad said...

“Judaism does not mean Zionism.” ~ John

Everyone has his own personal definition of “Zionism.” For me Zionism means Jewish supremacism. For me, all Jews are supremacists (i.e. “Chosen”) -- but then, so are Christians, since Christians believe that they alone will be “saved.” Jewish supremacism is founded on absurdities such as the "holocaust."™

“Almost all the Jews I know are anti-Zionist, campaign for Palestinians and either a fair two-state solution or a one-state solution. Why should they renounce a belief system they believe?”

So almost all the Jews you know are saintly. Evidently you and I live in two different worlds. That’s okay.

At any rate, when the U.S. Empire inevitably collapses, Jews will have to leave Palestine. Many Israelis understand this. That's why they are buying huge tracts of land in Argentina. That's where Israelis plan to go when the time comes that they must return Palestine to the Palestinians.

Thanks for corresponding.

Tom Hickey said...

@ John

There is no single book on dialectics I can recommend. This is a problem with teaching philosophy. There is no way to do this comparable to the way that math and the sciences taught in a step by step fashion from simple to more complicated and finally to the complex. In studying philosophy one has to jump in. There are better starting points than others and the introductory philosophy text books present selections in terms of key issues, that is, the enduring questions. There are many secondary works but they are always from a POV and present an interpretation, and all interpretations are controversial.

Dialectics includes dialectical logic, dialogues like Plato's Socratic dialogues, and historical dialectic as Hegel presented in the Phenomenology, and Marx in Capital. It has a long history in the East and West. However, it is best known now owing to the use that Hegel and Marx made of it.

Neither Hegel nor Marx wrote a specific work on dialectics as such. They both used dialectics and explained their methods in different places. Further complicating this is that there are many interpretations of both Hegel and Marx from a variety of POVs, and there is a lot of controversy around this.

While there are selections from Hegel and Marx in which they describe their method, selections are also from a POV.

Conversely, both Lenin Mao did write on dialectics. They are quite good.

Lenin, On the Question of Dialectics

Mao, On Contradiction

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Hegel's DialecticsHegel's Dialectics is a good summary.

Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic A Reexamination, Edited by Fred Moseley and Tony Smith (download PDF) is a useful collection of articles from different POVs about Hegel's and Marx' approach to dialectics and their use of it.

Tom Hickey said...

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I always thought the dharma of the Jews was they are a nation state without land. Just as it may be an individual’s dharma to be born into some race, civilisation and culture under certain conditions, such is the dharma of the Jews (which some have always accepted). Hence they had to learn how to integrate themselves with the nation (with land) in which they found themselves, and the host learn to accept them. Carving out by force their own piece of land therefore, remains an act of material appropriation and non acceptance all around; their greatest sin and the sin of their hosts (plenty of blame on both sides) the greatest sin of humanity – separation. If this is true, holding on to the land will continue to bring grief.

Read the books of Genesis and Exodus, where it is related how YHVH promised a "land of milk and honey" to Abraham thus the nation (12 tribes) of Israel through his offspring. That promise was putatively fulfilled when Moses led the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt after which they conquered the land of Canaan. This is the basis of the contemporary claim that "Zion" is territory that God gifted to Israel in perpetuity.

See /Promised Land at Wikipedia.


Matt Franko said...

In a Philosophical context “dialectic” is the same meaning as in the Hebrew & Greek Scriptural context “Satanic”...

Means “adverse” or “Adversay” or “adversarial”...

“House divided against itself”, “speak with forked tongue”, serpent imagery, etc..

Matt Franko said...

“YHVH promised a "land of milk and honey" to Abraham thus the nation (12 tribes) of Israel through his offspring. ”

Materialistic motivation.... tip off....

Matt Franko said...

The other thing is you guys are exhibiting a pretty strong bias towards anti-war.. and the dialectic method is a type of "war" if you will... it sets up opposing theses...

So you may have to keep this in mind... could be effecting your judgement or ability to understand 'dialectic' method... its like a philosophical "war"...

Tom Hickey said...

Congratulations, Matt!. You are outdoing yourself. I didn't think it was possible. :)

Tom Hickey said...

Of course, there is an element of truth in the role of the adversary in dialectical thinking. This explains how dialectics is foundational for both critical thinking and creative thinking.

In critical thinking one takes on the role of "devil's advocate" in one's own mind. Here "the devil" represents the adversary that challenges one's position with the best objections and proposes alternatives. This enables one to see one's own weaknesses and also to improve one's stance before going public with half-baked ideas and making a fool of oneself.

Many people either ignore doing this or don't know how to do it well. Some are so biased cognitively they cannot critique their own position. These people are usually unable to critique others, too, since they cannot understand the other position objectively enough to do anything but attack a straw man.

This is an issue with much "critique" of Hegel and Marx, for instance, as well as dialectics in general. The opposite is, of course, being so wedded to one's view of Hegel or Marx that one cannot critique it either. Much of what is written from this perspective is therefore heavily biased, too. The closer one is to an issue the more difficult it becomes to be objective. Both critical and creative thinking are based on being objective.

Aquinas's Summa Theologica is good example of this use of dialectics in arguing that faith is rational rather than absurd. Aquinas begins by asserting a thesis, then listing the major objections, followed by his own view on the matter, and then ending by answering each objection in terms his position. This procedure recalls Plat's use of dialectics in Dialogues, especially the Socratic ones.

Dialectics is also used in creative thinking, e.g., "thinking out of the box" is an example of it. A lot of training in creative thinking and innovation is based on this.

Calgacus said...

Matt, you bring up important points.

"Dialectic" means nothing but philosophical debate aimed at truth. So of course it does contain an element of "war", recognized since Heraclitus. One of the (opposing) concerns you bring up was emphasized by Plato, Hegel etc - dialectical argument is contrasted to "eristic"- Where you are just trying to win an argument with somebody else, but focus on the winning and the arguing rather than what you are saying. Getting stuck there is an ever present danger.

So you want to get to the final anti-war part- the "synthesis" or speculative stage - where you are trying to see the common elements in the initial "thesis" and the skeptical, antithesis stage, seeing what was part of both the initial position or concept and its attempted skeptical refutation.

Matt Franko said...

Tom imo Christendumb has over dramaticized the whole “Satan!” schtick... it’s over rated..

All that “thing” is is the authority/concept of being adversarial ... which includes being adversarial (anti-thesis) to God and the general case of anti-thesis..in material world leads to wars, disharmony,, etc...

Matt Franko said...

Calg,

“where you are trying to see the common elements in the initial "thesis" and the skeptical, antithesis stage, seeing what was part of both the initial position or concept and its attempted skeptical refutation.”

But don’t you think that is how for instance the ‘deficit doves’ end up in their position?

Thesis would be “budget balance is not necessary” anti thesis would be “balance is necessary” so they synthesize that and end up thinking deficit is ok in short term but balance required long term...

Tom Hickey said...

To understand dialectics as a way of thinking that developed into the philosophies of Hegel and Marx (Marx being a dialectical response to Hegel) it is necessary to appreciate the historical process that led to this unfolding.

Hegel's Logic, where Hegel uses dialectical logic to develop the Absolute Idea conceptually, is based on Aristotle's definition of God as "self-thinking thought."

Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1072b [1]

Subsequent thinkers related this to Plato's forms, in particular the Neoplatonists, especially Plotinus.

Augustine combined this development of Platonic thought with Aristotle's self-thinking thought to posit the "divine ideas."

This train of thought was further developed in Christian philosophy and theology.

Nicholas of Cusa's conception of God was the mysterium tremendum as coincidenta oppositorum.

Hegel erected his Logic on his foundation, and then attempted to show how this is concretized in history by the manifestation of the Absolute Idea in the course of seeking knowledge of itself in the manifest.

This development of thought also underlies much of Eastern thought.

Marx rejected dialectics as the Absolute Idea. While Marx adopted the dialectical method, he adapted the historical dialectic of Hegel in which the Absolute Idea unfolds itself to itself concretely to his naturalistic and materialistic assumptions.

Naturalism is a method that emphasizes objective observation as the criterion of truth in science, and materialism is the metaphysical assumption that only what can be known through application of the naturalistic method is actually existent.

It's necessary to appreciate the history of the development of the concept in order to grok dialectics.

This is a pretty accessible summary.

Nhân Tử Nguyễn Văn Thọ. The Monistic Theory, chapter 1


Anonymous said...

For me, there is only one chosen people and that is humanity – the ‘promised land’ lies within each. There will come a time when the olde worlde religions will have disappeared off the face of the earth and the energy of the Divine will be known, incontrovertibly, just as the energy of the Sun is known today. This personal god that humanity has invented for itself will fade into obscurity.

Apparently, according to Wiki, there is some controversy over whether or not the Exodus happened; and in re-entering Canaan, the Jews put men women and children to the sword under ‘divine dispensation’ like America and Israel does today.

There are no gentiles and there are no Jews, no Americans and no Australians or eskimos – there is the soul of humanity evolving through its material expression – humanity. The Earth a gift to humanity: - a beautiful blue jewel of a plant, absolutely unique – nothing like it on the galactic horizon for light years around.

We have evolved from the caves, but are still to see Light. This drama on this earth, all happens in people’s heads first, then spills out into the world. Bring in just a little light and the mind settles down, becomes clear. The art of life is the art of self-knowledge. The heart calls out and leads the way. There is your political, economic, and human reality. Time to awaken from the dreams .....

Tom Hickey said...

the ‘promised land’ lies within each

Much of world scripture is symbolic or metaphorical.

Trouble starts when it is taken literally.