US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Hidden with code "Policy Violation"
Commentary :: Human Rights
The Myth of Jewish Tolerance
20 Jun 2005
Exercise your right to freedom of speech and thought, or you may lose it. This cannot be tolerated.
The Myth of Jewish Tolerance

by Wendy Campbell

June 20, 2005

The inspiration for this article came from a book entitled “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance” written by an Islamophobic author by the name of Robert Spencer. By the way, I had never heard of that particular “myth” before and I doubt if anyone else has, but one myth I certainly have heard of is the myth of Jewish tolerance.

In fact, there’s a Jewish museum by the name of “The Museum of Tolerance” in Los Angeles, California. It’s another Holocaust Museum, one of approximately 250 worldwide, not to mention the hundreds, perhaps thousands of Holocaust Memorial statues and public displays around the world as well. Basically the message is “LOOK AT HOW INTOLERANT THE WORLD HAS BEEN OF JEWS! AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET YOU FORGET ABOUT IT! DEEP DOWN INSIDE YOU ARE ALL ANTI-SEMITES! WE KNOW IT EVEN IF YOU DON’T. WE HAVE BEEN AND ARE ALWAYS INNOCENT VICTIMS AND YOU ARE ALWAYS HARBORING MONSTROUS MURDEROUS THOUGHTS ABOUT US.”

Anyway, it’s not a positive message. Nor is it an inclusive message. It implies that Jewish suffering is the most important suffering and this must always be remembered above all and not forgotten for one moment. Therefore, we, the Jewish people, cannot be criticized, and we, the Jewish people, deserve special treatment and privileges. We, the Jewish people, are above being equals with others. These beliefs seem to be a part of the underlying message of Holocaust museums.

It is used to garner public support for organized Jewry’s apartheid, ethnocentric Jewish state of Israel, perhaps the most belligerently intolerant country in the world. Where is Jewish Israel’s tolerance of the indigenous Muslim and Christian Palestinians? Muslims and Christians are barely tolerated inside Israel, and persecuted severely in the Palestinian Territories, in an on-going endeavor to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestine in order to claim it all for the Jewish state of Israel.

As Jewish settlers, many of them from Brooklyn, New York, continue to aggressively steal more Palestinian land, creating illegal settlements (“facts on the ground”) that are then protected by the Israeli Defense Force, this goal is steadily being achieved. That these illegal settlements are assigned protection by the Israeli government underscores the fact that Israel is actively supporting this land grab, contrary to what Sharon might say about any desire for peace or about withdrawing from the Palestinian Territories.

Spencer’s book “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance” is being touted on C-span’s Book Notes. And we’ll probably easily be able find it at all the major bookstores, maybe even prominently displayed on one of those tables up front or by the cash register.

He has also written another inflammatory, anti-Islamic book entitled “Islam Unveiled” with a book cover showing half of the face being the Islamic fanatic known as Mohammed Atta, allegedly one of the terrorists who committed 9-11, and the other part of the face a veiled Muslim woman. Were there any screaming accusations of “Anti-Islamicism” bandied about anywhere in the media or from politicians? Any boycotts organized against the media outlets featuring this book? Any intimidating threats?

I would love to write or see someone else write a book entitled “Judaism Unveiled” and get the kind of coverage “Islam Unveiled” received. In it, there would be the many anti-Christ and anti-Christian verses that can be found in the Talmud, for instance. There would also be a full description of the brutal way in which non-Jewish Palestinians were treated when the Jewish state of Israel was created and how this persecution of the non-Jewish indigenous people of Palestine is still continuing with the full and unconditional support of the US government, including the funneling of billions of tax dollars yearly to Israel, which is already the 16th wealthiest country in the world per capita. It would include the fact that most Jewish people today are not religious but rather secular, meaning non-religious, not believing in God, but rather actively identify with the Jewish race, ethnicity, people or tribe, or whichever one cares to call it. There would be photos of the graffiti you can find all over Israel that is never removed, and therefore officially endorsed, with slogans such as “Kill Arabs!” and “Arabs to the Gas Chambers!” There would be a full and honest account of the history of Israel and Zionism, a racist ideology that maintains that there must a Jewish supremacist state of Israel in Palestine at the expense of the non-Jewish Palestinian people, as is revealed in “Origins of the Palestine-Israel Conflict” written by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East at www.cactus48.com.

On the book cover would be a face of which half would be a pious looking bespectacled Jewish man with a skull cap on his head, a prayer shawl draped on his shoulders, and with a Torah scroll in his hand and the other half of the face would have the former Israeli general and current Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon with his menacing mug peering out at you, in military garb and with an Uzi in his hand. After all, his nickname is “The Butcher of Beirut”, for his part in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon in 1982, as well as his on-going campaign of unholy terror against the Palestinians. Truly, Ariel Sharon is a top dog terrorist. Numero Uno Terrorist in the world, in the opinion of billions of people, this author included. Unfortunately, this particular terrorist is wined and dined at The White House. His terrorist activities are funded with billions of US taxpayers’ dollars every year. Why more American people are not enraged about this is somewhat of a mystery, but then again it’s not.

The reason many American people appear to be apathetic about this is because they are generally not made aware of this. And if they somehow do become aware of it, generally, they go along with it anyway, because it’s easier to go along with it. After all, President Bush LOVES Sharon. Bush even praised Sharon as “A man of Peace” even right after he ordered the Israeli army to commit massacres in the Palestinian town of Jenin in 2002. Americans have been thoroughly trained by the Zionist Judaized US media to believe that all Muslims are terrorists and that Jews are always innocent victims.

Which brings me back to the inspiration for this article.

But of course, if someone wrote books with the titles “Judaism Unveiled” and “The Myth of Jewish Tolerance”, you would most likely not see them touted on C-Span’s “Book-Notes”. You would definitely not see them in the mainstream giant bookstores such as Borders or Barnes & Noble. You would probably not read a book review of it in The New York Times or any of the US mainstream newspapers. Why? Because criticism of Judaism and Jewish behavior, especially if written by a non-Jew, is simply not allowed by the dominant censors and gate-keepers of the media world who tend to be Jewish themselves. If by some fluke, a book did manage to get into bookstores or be featured on “Book-Notes” or in newspapers, there would be a great rush by organized Jewish groups and activists to barrage the offending bookstore or TV station managers with accusations of “anti-Semitism”, “disgusting hate-mongering”, “neo-Nazi racism” and so on. Jewish activists would also threaten to pull advertising or organize boycotts against the offending parties. They would call for the resignation of those responsible for allowing such “filth” to be presented to the public. The more extreme Jewish activists would even anonymously make death threats and use vile profanities to those they felt responsible for allowing such “filth”. All of this together effectively intimidates many would-be critics of anything remotely connected to Judaism, Jews, Zionism and Israel.

Sooner or later, more Americans, as they begin to awaken to this insidious form of tyranny and restriction of our rights, will challenge the status quo. But probably not until it’s almost too late. Things will probably have to get much worse, especially with regards to the economy and more Americans being killed in wars fought for Israel’s “security” as the politicians call it, before Americans start to claim their rights and demand an end to unconditional support for the state of Israel and all the negative correlating issues, such as endless, costly wars and the steady erosion of our freedoms, such as freedom of speech. If “Unveiling Islam” is tolerated, then “Unveiling Judaism” should be tolerated.

Exercise your right to freedom of speech and thought, or you might lose it. This cannot be tolerated.


Wendy Campbell is a documentary filmmaker and writer. Her documentaries and articles can be found at www.marwenmedia.com.
See also:
http://www.marwenmedia.com

This work is in the public domain

Comments

Wendy Campbell=National Alliance writer
21 Jun 2005
which probably turns Matthew on.
Re: The Myth of Jewish Tolerance
21 Jun 2005
Amen
Re: The Myth of Jewish Tolerance
22 Jun 2005
as fucked up as it is to write books about how much Islam sucks, it doesn't mean people have to respond with something against Judaism. i believe you can fight violence with violence, buit you can't fight racism with racism.
Re: The Myth of Jewish Tolerance
22 Jun 2005
Go peddle your crap elsewhere you dirty ass ho.
Racist Crap
22 Jun 2005
Despite her attempt to appear acceptable to progressives Wendy Campbell is nothing but an anti-Jewish racist.

Elsewhere she:
-defends holocaust denier Ernst Zundel
-claims that Hollywood is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy which uses mind control to manipulate the US popluation.
-claims that Jews were behind Bolshevism and Communism.

In short, while Wendy Campbell says many things that are true (about Israeli apartheid for example) she also repeats the big lie: Jews, she claims, are responsible for all the evil in this world. She is a very slick racist trying to infiltrate the Palestinian solidarity movement and re-orient it against Jews in general, removing blame from US imperialism.
Re: The Myth of Jewish Tolerance
22 Jun 2005
Left Antisemitism - A Reply to Adam Keller by David Hirsh
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Antisemitism is not one single phenomenon that has operated throughout history even if Jews have often experienced it or interpreted it as such. There is a complex picture of different forms and times and contexts of anti-Jewish campaigns, interspersed with periods when Jews were left alone, periods in which they were able to win emancipation and periods in which they played central parts in the societies in which they lived.

There is no single unifying process, ideology, method, politics or explanation that links all of the following: the destruction of the temple & the siege of Masada; Christian claims that Jews killed God; libels that Jews drink blood; the Spanish Inquisition; the reaction to Jewish emancipation in France around the Dreyfus Affair; the struggle against Jewish legal emancipation in Germany; the state- inspired Pogroms across Russia and Eastern Europe – and the Tsarist ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ that peddled the story of secret international Jewish conspiracy; the Nazi genocide; the hostility to Jews in Arab states in the 1950s and 60s; the seduction of some Arab leaders by European antisemitic ideas; the hostility to any idea of Jewish settlement in Palestine; the current antisemitism of some currents of political Islam.

Yet just to list this disparate and discrete, yet not entirely unconnected set of events is also to begin to explain why there is a Jewish tendency to understand antisemitism as a given; an ahistorical constant throughout history.

But Jewish history is much more than a narrative of a single, unchanging antisemitism that manifests itself at all times, even if in slightly differing forms.

And each era of antisemitsm – each kind of antisemitism – is separate and separated – relies on different stories, on different politics, on different histories, on different kinds of antisemitic movements – for different reasons.

This is one reason why I don’t much like the idea of ‘new’ and ‘old’ antisemitism. There have been many different antisemitisms and so no single ‘old’ antisemitism with which to compare or contrast current antisemitisms.

But having said this there does seem to be something going on at the moment – and something that seems new – although it keys into and builds with some of the old bricks that are made available by previous anti-Jewish movements.

In the 1920s and 30s there were many Jews in the Labour movement in the UK. When the left fought against Nazism abroad and Blackshirts at home – there were many Jews, Jewish organisations and Jewish communities involved. The left was used to Jews. Much of the British left understood the old rubbish – and could sniff it out.

After the Holocaust, the taboo against antisemitism was strong and widely recognised. Most on the left supported efforts to found the state of Israel in 1948.

Contemporary anti-Zionists have an essentially idealist view of history. By this I mean that they think that the current reality in Israel/Palestine can be read off, unproblematically, from the ideas of Zionists like Hertzl. They think that it is ideology that creates reality. They represent the history of Zionism as a single racialised movement of Jewish supremacism and they argue that current policies of Israel can be explained by reference to that ideological movement.

What this story misses out, of course, is the Holocaust. There was much debate in the first half of the century within Jewish communities about Zionism. The anti-Zionists then, argued that Jews in Europe should assert their right to be part of European civilization, they should struggle alongside others in the Labour Movement and that they should fight antisemitism that way.

An old joke from this time: what is the definition of a Zionist? A Zionist is one Jew who gives money to a second Jew so that a third Jew could go and live in Palestine.

The thing that changed a fringe ideology of Jewish nationalism from a rather reactionary utopian project into an actually existing state was the Holocaust. The Holocaust altered the material reality of European Jewish existence and of Jewish aspirations to statehood. The Holocaust is not an excuse for anything - but it is the reason that Israel exists - and that the state exists in a different way and with a different history from other states. The Nakba happened 3 years after Auschwitz - this is not an excuse for anything - but we have to understand what happened. Jews were faced, 3 years after Auschwitz, with Arab armies mobilised on the rhetoric of driving them out.

Isaac Deutscher wrote the following in 1954:

"Israelis who have known me as an anti-Zionist of long standing are curious to hear what I think about Zionism. I have, of course, long since abandoned my anti-Zionism, which was based on a confidence in the European labour movement, or, more broadly, in European society and civilization, which that society and civilization have not justified. If, instead of arguing against Zionism in the 1920s and 1930s I had urged European Jews to go to Palestine, I might have helped to save some of the lives that were later extinguished in Hitler’s gas chambers.
…Even now, however, I am not a Zionist; and I have repeatedly said so in public and in private.
…From a burning or sinking ship people jump no matter where – on to a lifeboat, a raft, or a float. The jumping is for them an ‘historic necessity’; and the raft is in a sense the basis of their whole existence. But does it follow that the jumping should be made into a programme, or that one should take a raft-State as the basis of a political orientation?
…To my mind it is just another Jewish tragedy that the world has driven the Jew to seek safety in a nation-state in the middle of this century when the nation-state is falling into decay."

The mainstream Trotskyist left opposed Zionism in the 40s on the basis that it was utopian and could only lead to failure – their critique was that it would entrap Jews, not that the effects of its success would entrap or colonise others.

The Stalinists, at first, supported the state of Israel – perhaps thinking that it could be of use to them in the new Cold War. Czechoslovakia supplied arms to the Jews in 1948.

But there is also a tradition of antisemitism on the left, that goes back before this period, the ‘socialism of fools’ as August Bebel called it. Marx mocked the antisemitic Bruno Bauer who argued against Jewish emancipation in 19th century Germany. The Stalinists in the 1930s organised around antisemitic campaigns, and again in the 1950’s with the ‘doctors trials’.

Since the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, left antisemitism has routinely disguised itself in the clothes of anti-Zionism. Poland purged its universities of ‘Zionists’ in 1968. In the 1970s and 80s the Soviet Union imprisoned Jews who wanted to live in Israel in its Gulag.

Anti-Zionists attacked the rights of Jewish students to organize Jewish societies in the UK from the 1980s onwards.

Also in the 80s, Jim Allen wrote a play that put some of the blame for the Holocaust onto ‘Zionism’ and that represented Zionism and Nazism as being ideologically related belief systems.

There is a commonsense notion present amongst some of the left today of Jews as ‘oppressors’; Jews are Nazi-Zionists, Jews are rich Capitalists, Jews are the shady neo-cons pulling the strings of American imperialism. The left has to radically re-educate itself so that it can recognise antisemitism when it sees it.

So there is now a dangerous situation - one where the taboos against left antisemitism are fading away – or at least where antisemitism takes shapes that do not jar against these taboos.

There have been few real successes for the left since World War II – except perhaps the welfare state – perhaps civil rights – perhaps combating the worst of sexist and racist ideology - perhaps the winning of de-colonisation.

Welfare states have looked precarious since the 1980s. Many on the contemporary left are willing to say that victories such as civil rights, such as womens rights, such as decolonisation are worthless in a world where racism, sexism and imperialism endure.

Some currents on the left have picked up the politics of desperation, the politics of tokenism, the politics of ultra-radicalism. When people experience everything as a defeat and always expect defeat, they no longer need to be self-conscious about what they say. They think nobody will ever listen anyway; no worldly event will ever be influenced. And in this way a desperate politics turns in on itself, and all that matters is the correctness or the radicalism of what it tells itself.

The boycott was an example of the politics of desperation. Ilan Pappe articulated this explicitly in his Haaretz interview, saying that he was now giving up on the Israeli left and the peace movement. In desperation, Pappe looked around the world for a magic force that could replace a peace movement, and his eye fell upon us – British academics. His own colleagues, he says, are forever lost to the struggle against racism and the occupation – our colleagues in the UK are his new international vanguard. Of course the Israeli left has good reason to feel desperate – but the politics of desperation cannot help anybody. Pappe said that he understands himself now to be part of the international left not the Israeli left.

And into the picture of seemingly endless and desperate defeat for the left floats the idea, the image, the spectre, of ‘the Jews’ - not the Jews as an ethnic group, you understand, but ‘the Zionists’.

Jews are not seen as capitalists any more – but Israel is the imperialist state par excellence – is at the heart of imperialism – is supported by imperialism – represents imperialism.

The protocols are not much peddled nowadays – on the left at least – but a version of Zionist power, well-funded shady unseen power, string-pulling power – dominance of markets, of culture, of education, of ideas re-emerges.

The blood libels are no longer peddled – of Jews as Christ killers. But now there are stories of Zionists with blood on their hands, sinful Zionists, racist Zionists. And Zionism as racism wasn’t enough; it became Zionism as apartheid; and before we knew it, this had been inflated to Zionism as Nazism. And what are the worst things imaginable? Godkillers and Nazis.

And Jews are not doing well, politically, in combating these kinds of antisemitism. There are two responses that are proving to be useless in understanding and addressing antisemitism.

One is the ever more shrill hypocrisy of the Israeli and Jewish right. The settlers and their mentor Ariel Sharon alongside their British and American cheerleaders respond to antisemitism as follows: 1) antisemitism is timeless, natural and inevitable – so move to Israel 2) there is no particular problem of anti-Zionist antisemitism because all criticism of Israel is simply motivated by the old hatred.

And with ever more shrill hypocrisy, the anti-Zionists scream the inverse of the Israeli and Jewish right: there is no antisemitism; antisemitism is the fault of the Zionists; antisemitism is an instrumental discourse that is employed by the Zionists; claims of antisemitism are nothing but a cover for Israeli racism. Sharon says there is antisemitism; we say the war-criminal, the racist, is wrong – there is no antisemitism.

The other response that is proving less and less tenable as a reaction to antisemitism is to close one’s eyes and ears, pretend its not there, claim that Jews are being over-sensitive, touchy, paranoid.

Adam Keller avoids these over-blown responses and analyses the problem carefully. While it is legitimate to treat supporters of Sharon as supporters of Sharon, and supporters of the settlers as supporters of the settlers, it is absolutely not legitimate, he says, to treat all Jews or all Zionists as though they were such supporters. It is not legitimate, says Adam, to demand that Jews must declare their non-allegiance to Israel. Those who make glib comparisons between Israel and Nazis, whether they are anti-Zionists or Israeli settlers, are ‘stupid and wrong’. People speaking in a UK context about Jewish or Zionist millionaires and their shady conspiracies to subvert political decisions to their own ends can be accused of fomenting a prejudice, says Adam.

Not legitimate; stupid; wrong; fomenting prejudice; Adam criticises such foolishnesses but he refuses to call them antisemitic.

Adam’s argument is that I have been wrong to characterise various anti-Zionist positions, political outlooks, statements and policies as antisemitic. The reason that this is wrong is because we need a high level of proof to show that the anti-Zionists are motivated by a hatred of Jews – and I have failed to prove that they are motivated by antisemitism.

My argument, however, is significantly different. I do not know what goes on inside people’s heads. I have said, for example, that Sue Blackwell has a case to answer – I have argued that her politics are effectively antisemitic. I have not said anything about her motivation. I don’t know Sue Blackwell, but I have no reason to believe that she is a conscious Jew-hater. What we have said is that the politics of anti-Zionism, as manifested in the campaign to boycott Israeli academia, is effectively antisemitic.

To illustrate the difference from a well known UK example: after the racist murder of a young black man, Stephen Lawrence, the police treated his friend and his family with suspicion, they failed to treat them with respect or with sympathy and they failed to carry out the murder enquiry efficiently or effectively. The judicial enquiry that eventually followed, after a long campaign, found that the Metropolitan Police in London has a problem of institutional racism. That means that the practice of the Metropolitan police is effectively racist; it means that their failure to respond professionally to Stephen Lawrence’s murder was explainable by racism. It does not mean that every police officer in London is motivated by racism; it does not mean that the particular police officers involved were motivated by racism. It means that the Police force, as an institution has failed to recognise racist policies and practices; it has failed to address them; it has failed to educate its officers to understand racism sufficiently well so as to avoid the institution being effectively racist.

The Police Federation, the representative body of police officers reacted to this with outrage. How dare they say that we are racists! They have no proof that we are racists! We are not racists! The Police Federation failed to understand – refused to understand – the difference between racist motivation and racist policies.

Adam Keller says:

‘I don’t like the position which is singling Israel out as “the only illegitimate state”. But I don’t accept that in itself it is a proof of antisemitism. Some of those who propound it might be indeed antisemites, but much more clear proof is needed.’

But I am not claiming that people who single out Israel as ‘the only illegitimate state’ are antisemites, that they are motivated, by a racist hostility to Jews; what I am claiming, very clearly, is that the act of singling out Israel as the only illegitimate state – in the absense of any coherent reason for doing this – is in itself antisemitic, irrespective of the motivation or opinions of those who make that claim.

It is the politics of most of the anti-Zionists that is antisemitic – not their subjective or psychological motivations.

But one thing further does follow from this. Just as men and women who work as police officers in an institutionally racist force are not unlikely to become racists themselves, so anti-Zionists who peddle effectively antisemitic policies, ideas and world-views are likely to become, or to influence others to become, or license others to become, antisemites.

And there is another thing too. If you peddle antisemitic politics, you are likely to find that ‘the Jews’ appear to rise up against you, with one voice. You are also likely to find that they don’t like you much. You are likely to get the idea that they all seem to agree with each other – the ones from here, the ones from there, the ones with this politics, the ones with that politics. You might find that they spend some of their money in opposing you. You might find that they make every effort to get a sympathetic hearing from the media. You might find that Jews from other countries come to their aid. And you might find that your antisemitic politics will be defeated by your trade union colleagues. And how are you going to explain that?

David Hirsh
Lecturer
Sociology
Goldsmiths College, University of London