Anti-Semitism is anti-Palestine

Look, I'm an anti-Zionist. I oppose the State of Israel, as I oppose in general the idea of a state being set apart exclusively for one ethno-religious group as racist. I support a secular one-state solution, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the peaceful co-existence of Muslims, Jews, and Christians in Palestine. I am, I take it, in no danger of confusing anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

But, to say that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism is not to deny the reality of anti-Semitism. And the sad fact is that some anti-Semites have attached themselves, like the racist parasites they are, to the pro-Palestine movement here and elsewhere. Sometimes the language of anti-Zionism gets appropriated, as with this delightful character, going on about "The Zionists, the Illuminati and Mr Rothschild himself, and the illegitimate child of Adolf Hitler!":




Other manifestations of anti-Semitism I've witnessed include:

• Placards featuring stars of David, sometimes in association with swastikas.
• Holocaust references.
• Use of the phrase 'the Jews', when referring to the State of Israel, as in 'the Jews forced the Palestinians out of their homes'. Often this co-exists with classical anti-Semitic tropes such as bloodthirstiness or acquisitiveness.
• A particular insistence that Jewish people condemn the actions of Israel more exacting than any similar insistence directed at the population in general.

These are all in and of themselves unacceptable, and deserve outright condemnation as racism. People saying and doing these kind of things should not be welcome on pro-Palestine demonstrations, and we should have the courage to confront them in the same way we would any other kind of racist. And that involves everything usually implied by the slogan 'no platform'.

Because not only are these things vile in their own right. They actively work against the Palestinian cause, providing a propaganda coup for Israel's explicit supporters as well as for those whose less honest and direct positions are effectively pro-Israeli (I have one well-known ultra-left sect in mind; I shall not give them publicity). It divides our movement and plays straight into the hands of those who would have us believe that diversity will always give rise to hostility.

BDS

Yesterday's London demonstration in solidarity with Gaza was good: big, angry, and determined. Whilst it was taking place other similar events happened throughout the country and throughout the world. If these are going to be more than opportunities to vent they have to be part of an ongoing campaign against Israel*. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) are integral to that campaign.

Regular readers of this blog and its predecessor may be taken aback at this point. I am no fan of the consumer politics fad. A generation of slightly-left-of-centre type people who in years past might have grown into passable trade unionists or single-issue campaigners  have instead had their political development stunted by the belief that their political power lives in their wallet. Here we have activism for the Thatcherite imaginary, with the decision to consume displacing the ballot box or the picket line. It is an intrinsically individualistic model of social engagement, and one which far from challenging the capitalist order which produces the misery against which consumer activism is directed, inserts its proponents more firmly into the dominant ideology of that order. There is also some evidence that, even it is own terms, the most irritating manifestation of consumer politics, Fair Trade - concern for development packaged in a manner suitable for rural church halls and easily scared Waitrose shoppers - doesn't actually work in its own terms.

Anyway, here's Žižek saying similar things,



Right, that's enough Žižek. Back to me. Why do I support BDS? First, it has been called for by Palestinian groups themselves and is backed by the main solidarity organisations worldwide (there's a comparison to be made here with the boycott of apartheid South Africa). Far from having the usual atomising effect of consumer political actions, of relating to some imagined political movement only through a fetished commodity, when I refuse to buy some Israeli product I remind myself of a real movement of which I'm a part, I perform my solidarity. So there's something to be said for not buying Israeli goods.

That said, the usual objections to consumer activism aren't entirely defeated in this case. I won't buy Israeli goods, but I don't fondly imagine that the Israeli state will be brought to its knees by Western consumers being careful about their celery purchases. It will take far more economic, political, and - let's disabuse ourselves of 'beautiful soul' liberalism here - probably military effort than that. Yet, here's the thing: BDS isn't just, or even primarily, about keeping a close eye on one's shopping.

Individual consumption decisions are one thing. Systematically targeting inward investors in Israeli capitalism is another thing altogether, and looks far more like collective political action of the old school. Protests against companies and industrial campaigns designed to force the turning off of Israel's economic taps can make a real difference, weakening and putting pressure on the Israeli state.

Nor should the role cultural and sporting boycotts in isolating Israel be underestimated. Academia and the arts are key places here. I have no words for the kind of rose-tinted worldview that resists at this point on the basis that cultural and intellectual intercourse bring people together, and therefore boycotts in these areas should be avoided. Leaving aside the implicit suggestion that the basic problem in the Middle East is that people just don't get together enough (one which I feel might not stand up to critical scrutiny), it is a purely academic question how far up one's own arse one needs to be to propose that, when bombers are raining hell on hospitals, houses, and mosques, a bit of fringe theatre is likely to prove a healing remedy.

-----------------------

*And I'm quite happy to put it in those terms. I think the rationale for the Israeli state, as set apart for one particular ethno-religious group, is intrinsically racist and almost inevitably genocidal in cumulative effect. I support a one-state solution guaranteeing the rights of all religious and ethnic groups. I should argue for this at length at some point. For now, though, if you support a two-state solution but oppose current Israeli policy, substitute accordingly.