******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
The topic has strayed quite a bit from my initial questions, but that's okay! I've always thought this particular essay, if not perfect, was fairly bold for Chomsky: http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm " In short, denial of even the most horrendous slaughter does not in itself establish the charge of racism, as everyone agrees. Since that is obvious and undeniable, one naturally questions the motives of those who deny the truism selectively, and produce charges such as those you relay. You ask whether one wouldn't at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists" Holocaust denial, in and of itself, is not anti-Semitic, and it's fairly obvious why it has resurrected itself in anti-Zionist circles. The primary frame through which much of the world sees an interprets the Holocaust today is through apologism for Israel. It is part of a narrative in which Israel is the triumph of Jewish people over the Holocaust and the protector of Jews from a repeat of the genocide. The fact that this is Zionist propaganda and exploitation does not change the fact that it is the primary form through which much of the world -- certainly, the United States -- views the Holocaust. So much of the "Holocaust denial" may stem from reacting to such exploitation by downplaying the atrocity instead of challenging its cheap exploitation in more meaningful ways (i.e. by recognizing that it happened and respecting that while making it clear that it is not a justification for colonizing Palestine). Put another way, if a Native American or an indigenous rights activist sought to downplay or deny the religious persecution of European religious minorities that came to the Americas to conquer land and kill people, would it not be fairly obvious what the motive is? - Amith On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Jeff via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > On Thu, March 5, 2015 17:51, Ken Hiebert via Marxism wrote: > > > > Some scattered comments. > > Most of Ken's comments were welcome, but the following segment has left me > rather confused: > > > The question of our relationship with one strand of right- wing > > "anti-Zionism" was posed sharply at the AGM of the Palestine Solidarity > > Campaign in the UK at the beginning of 2012. > > > > > http://site.lalkar.org/article/566/palestinesolidarity-movement-on-the-defensive-as-agm-votes-for-zionist-formulations > > The meeting voted to endorse a paragraph that the PSC executive had > > recently added to the campaign website stating that “Any expression of > > racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have > > no place in our movement. Such sentiments are abhorrent in their own > right > > and can only detract from the building of a strong movement in support of > > the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.” (My emphasis)` > > Perhaps just a bit of context was missing, but it wasn't clear if Ken > posted the above link in approval or otherwise. The quoted policy > statement looked perfectly good to me, but the article pointed to (of the > journal Lalkar, apparently connected to the CPGB-ML, neither of which was > I familiar with) took issue with the statement. The underlined text, lost > as it got sent by email, was "attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust" > and the Lalkar article laments that "they voted to give the PSC’s > executive the ability to discipline and expel sincere and useful > solidarity activists for committing a ‘crime’ that exists only in the > zionist imagination – the crime of ‘minimising the holocaust’." I trust > that this is NOT Ken's view! > > [Just as a point of list procedure, I'd expect that if a quotation or link > is introduced without any introduction or disclaimer, then the poster is > generally agreeing with it or at least introducing it as a source of > useful information.] > > Without denying the holocaust, the article in Lalkar implies that the > formula of "minimization" was vague enough that it could be misused. Well, > almost any rule can be misused, but the spirit of the above statement is > certainly on the mark. > > I had mentioned in an earlier post that the Dutch Palestine Committee > (NPK) has a strict policy against displays at demos which are even vaguely > antisemitic. Cynics dismiss that as motivated solely by the fact that > antisemitism doesn't look good. Well no, it doesn't look good, because it > ISN'T good, and it isn't who we are. I don't think it is the > responsibility of Palestinians or their supporters to concentrate on > fighting antisemitism, which is already discredited in most mainstream > circles (at least officially). But it is our responsibility to clean up > our own quarters when it becomes infected with racist filth. And a > positive by-product of that policy happens to be that some right-wingers > who (as I have argued) may act as friends of Palestine but only due to > their antisemitism, will find themselves unwelcome. > > But on a more subtle note, I was also surprised that the demo policy also > prohibited signs comparing the Nazi's to the Israeli government, such as > drawing the flag of Israel with a swastika on it, or a Hitler mustache on > Netanyahu. I disagreed, because surely there ARE parallels between the > Zionists and the Nazi's, and making such a comparison, even when > inaccurate, surely doesn't qualify as "anti-semitism." However I came to > learn that the point of the policy is to avoid the debate shifting away > from Israel to the holocaust, in which the Zionists could arguably claim > that the crimes of the Nazis were far beyond anything that Israel has ever > been accused of, at least in terms of scale. That's an opening for the > Zionists' favorite game: justifying anything they do with endless > references to the holocaust. Accepting the terms of that debate, the > crimes of Israel will appear secondary until the Palestinian death toll > approaches 6 million (i.e. all of them), so it's a terrible reference > point. > > - Jeff > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
