So when will it be ok to be racist?

Jessie's got a roundup which links to a clip of Jay Smooth on Asher Roth. (Embedded below.) Like most of Jay's stuff, it's really good. And widely applicable to anti-racism. He points out the absurdity of those who think getting past race means not having to care about each others' humanity. It's video, so the following is my attempt to transcribe a particularly well-put portion:

Respecting each others' humanity is such a pain in the ass. Do we really have to do this forever. Can't you all just lighten up so I don't have to respect you anymore? Isn't the whole point of coming together as one that I don't have to care what you think? And then some of us go all the way crazy [and we] think we need to prove to everyone that being past racism means being freed from the unfair burden of ever having to care how we affect each other.

Taking that general principle and applying it to antisemitism, there are all sorts of people who think that, since antisemitism isn't a major problem anymore that it's ok to be antisemitic. Think about that! Of course, I think these people understate the problem of antisemitism, but even if they were right about that, there's still a lot of problem with such a sentiment.

This was the major theme of Michael Neumann's essay "What is Anti-Semitism [sic]?" which leads Alexander Cockburn's The Politics of Anti-Semitism [sic]. He argued:

I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it.

Jay notes (I have to apologize, since I would normally refer to him by last name; but I can't bring myself to write [Mr.] Smooth) Roth is young and sorting some stuff out. He's doing it in front of a mass audience, which means he really doesn't have that liberty, but still. Neumann is, by contrast, what Jay calls crazy.

And yet, Neumann is apparently still a professor at Trent University (in the name of academic freedom, it might be that this should remain so, but it is pertinent that he retains a position of power) and has been massively influential in the anti-Zionist movement.

Anti-Zionism as antisemitism

From the Boston Globe:

CRITICIZING Israel doesn't make you anti-Semitic: If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times. Yet somehow that message doesn't seem to have reached the hundreds of anti-Israel demonstrators in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who turned out last week to protest Israel's military operation in Gaza. As their signs and chants made clear, it isn't only the Jewish state's policies they oppose. Their animus goes further.

Amazing there's a need for such an argument.

There's something curious about this op-ed, though:

The claim that anti-Zionism isn't bigotry would be preposterous in any other context. Imagine someone vehemently asserting that Ireland has no right to exist, that Irish nationalism is racism, and that those who murder Irishmen are actually victims deserving the world's sympathy. Who would take his fulminations for anything but anti-Irish bigotry? Or believe him if he said that he harbors no prejudice against the Irish?

There's something very true about that, which we tend not to hold to. We tend to say, "of course anti-Zionism isn't necessarily antisemitism, but..." There is, as Jacoby points out, a way in which much anti-Zionism is necessarily so, whether it includes calls for Jews to "Go back to the ovens!" or not. It denies Jews the right to political powers which can only be found in a sovereign state.

On the other hand, Israel needed to be created while Ireland didn't. So there's also a way in which some anti-Zionism doesn't have to be antisemitism for that reason. But doesn't that seem like a fine line? Does it seem like anyone should be able to tell the difference easily? Aren't there implications to that? Frankly, I just don't buy it that much anti-Zionism is different from the way Jacoby describes it.

(Of course, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Zionism.)

Appropriating Jewish opposition to Zionism

Thanks for the links (to me and others), Bob.

As soon as I actually write it, I'll put up a (very mixed) review of Denis MacShane's Globalizing Hatred. However, I want to respond to a point in Christopher Hitchen's otherwise helpful review that's generated some debate. Bob writes:

Eammon argues [here] that "The idea that opposition to the existence of Israel can’t be classed as antisemitic doesn’t stand up to a little serious thought." I am completely with Hitchens on this. My position is summed by David in the comments thread: "Why does a Leftist who adopts coherent and consistent positions opposed to Zionism and other forms of nationalism have to be an antisemite...?" (my italics) Opposition to Israel's right to exist antisemitic if and when (and only if and when) it denies the right to national self-determination to Jews alone.

First off, I'm not sure one can be anti-nationalist, so as to oppose the existence of Israel as a specific case, and identify or be identified as an anti-Zionist. It seems to me that being opposed to Zionism specifically is singling out Jews and Jewish nationalism in a way that's necessarily discriminatory. (It is possible to be neither a Zionist nor anti-Zionist.) I imagine this is Eamonn's point, yet I would agree with Bob that it is probably possible to opposed to the existence of Israel and to think that the creation of Israel was a mistake without being antisemitic (however infrequent such things may be).

But I have a lot of problems with what Hitchens says, which was not quite the above. He notes that some Jews are anti-Zionists for different reasons and concludes that anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism. But if a non-Jew appropriates the strain of liberation theology that some religious Jews use to reject Zionism -that Jews were chosen by God to suffer as part of God's plan for finishing the perfections of the world- that really would be antisemitism. It just isn't true that non-Jews can make the same arguments as Jews without worrying about being antisemitic.

Similarly, when Jews and non-Jews talk about the nature of Jews' oppression and what that implies about solutions, there's a power relationship that changes the context and hence the content of that speech. Individual Jews have every right to describe their own experience (and I emphasize their own experience and not mine), even if that is different from the more common Jewish view. But when a non-Jew appropriates that experience to talk about the nature of Jewish oppression, we are talking about a very different sort of statement, one that necessarily speaks to a general Jewish experience rather than an individual one. Nobody has the right to speak for that experience. Some speech is representative of that experience, and can serve to represent the consensus view on the grounds that most Jews would accept it as such. (I think that last point is often underestimated.) But it is a profoundly colonial act for a non-Jew to appoint a non-representative view as a basis for understanding Jewish oppression.

Frankly, to disagree with the vast majority of Jews on the nature of Jewish oppression requires some very serious rethinking of strategies for opposition. Antagonism that aims to marginalize or 'overcome' the consensus view of Jews on their own oppression, only proves the limitations of non-Zionist solutions to Jewish oppression.

Not anti-Zionism

Roughly 1,000 pupils and left-wing activists who unlawfully occupied Humboldt University (HU) and some of whom destroyed an anti-Nazi exhibition on Wednesday were reacting to the university’s close ties to Israel, the university president has said.

Nope. Destroying Holocaust memorial exhibitions is not anywhere near the realm of legitimate criticism of Israel - even broadly defined. Ben Cohen also makes the observation:

I’m wondering how many of these activists will follow the example of Horst Mahler, who started out in the RAF and ended up a neo-Nazi. It’s not as big a leap as you might think.

MacMillan might be somewhat responsible

There's been some controversy over an entry on Zionism in an encyclopedia, to be published by MacMillan, on racism. There were serious concerns that, in an encyclopedia that was to have no other entries on nationalisms of any sort, or even an entry on generic nationalism, to single out Jewish nationalism was unfair. According to AJC the facts of the entry were in serious error. And it make pronouncements many people consider to be blatantly antisemitic. Additionally, the author, Noel Ignatiev, is without any expertise in the areas of antisemitism or Zionism.

(Found via Wikipedia, there's also this bizarre incident.)

Seth Armus reports to the H-Net Antisemitism listserve:

She acknowledged that this may have been a mistake, explained how it happened, and indicated that they were in the process of providing "multiple entries" on Zionism, including one written by (I believe) Michael Oren (or someone from the Shalem center). In addition more entries on nationalisms and their relation to race will be included. While she was very upset by the controversy, she was not, to my mind, sensitive enough of the distinctions between objective and subjective criteria in scholarship. Still, I was pleased with the degree of seriousness the press was taking. They have stayed in touch with me and have requested my input. It seems they will not remove the original article, but will take a variety of other steps to address concerns. Not good enough, but better than I expected.

How not to drive drunk. Or, what can be learned from linking to David Duke

So, over in Boycotting Britania, a certain member of the UCU (that's the union for university professors) has "accidentally" recommended something on David Duke's website. I put "accidentally" in quotes not because I think it was intentional but because I think it's like getting into a car accident while driving drunk. Apparently, the person in question has threatened to sue for libel because some people had the chutzpah to point out to her that she's, to extend the metaphor, a drunk.

Modernity has a post at Harry's Place on how not to do such things. You know: check that your tires are properly inflated before you get into your car. (Never mind that some people should just give their keys to a friend.) And even if there are no swastikas prominently displayed on the website you'd like to recommend, if it has prominent links to sites that do have swastikas prominently displayed, that's a good indication that you should sober up before entering the debate.

David Hirsh adds, "I would add this: if you agree with what is written on a fascist website then you should stop and wonder why that might be."

I will add that it is imperative that minority voices not be silenced or ignored. If you want to avoid antisemitism (and for some people that seems to be a big if), it is absolutely necessary to pay attention when Jews tell you something is antisemitic. That doesn't mean agreeing uncritically, but it does mean listening carefully and ensuring that representative (an important point - Tony Greenstein doesn't count) Jewish voices are part of the conversation. Even if you disagree with the views Jews are expressing -especially if, and everyone knows this is true in the present case, it's plainly the view of the majority of Jews- it's still important not to exclude them from political debate. That's like when the road signs are blurry and you still won't admit you're too drunk to drive.

Modernity's post was prompted by a UCU member who wrote, "This has made me crucially aware of how difficult it is to set out rules, even guidelines, for avoiding errors." This person accepts that David Duke is a vile antisemite, but can't understand that perfectly normal people who hold the same precise views might also be antisemites. Of course, despite the clarity of Modernity's helpful guidelines, it really is difficult to set out rules. You see, it's the refusal to even entertain Jewish perspectives that's antisemitic. Citing David Duke's website is just the final straw that proves the need for an intervention.

I'm not going to take a stand against whiny idiots who scream libel at the drop of a hat. But there are several features worth noting. One, it is impossible for such a process to be neutral in deciding what is and isn't antisemitism. The effect, as in the recent Galloway case, is to reify antisemitism into law by prescribing rules in a process where the communal Jewish voice is excluded from the outset. Two, if libel laws (whether stricter or looser) are applicable, then hate speech must be much more vigilantly guarded against. Since libel laws do not cover instances where a specific individual is not being spoken about, and racism wouldn't be racism if it weren't about broad groups, without enforcing hate speech with greater vigor even the most vile antisemite could take unfair refuge in libel laws.

It is becoming so that Jews are legally prevented from speaking out against antisemitism.

Nazi anti-Zionism and Jewish criminality

A post at the excellent Contested Terrain (there are other contested terrains in this world. Accept no substitute) points to a really interesting book chapter on Nazi representations of Zionism.

It looks at the transformation of antisemitic propaganda in the late 1940s, and observes the transition to an explicit language of anti-zionism. The multiple reasons for this shift are discussed, as well as the consequences. The analysis provides important historical material for thinking about the relationship between antisemitism and anti-zionism. It is from Michael Berkowitz’s book, The Crime of My Very Existence: Nazism and the Myth of Jewish Criminality, from the chapter “Re-Presenting Zionism as the Apex of Global Conspiracy.”

I still imagine that most of the really repugnant, leftist anti-Zionism has a more direct provenance in Stalinist Zionology, but I've probably underestimated the influence of the Nazis on anti-Zionism, especially on the right in Europe and among Arab/Muslim nationalists. Also, I imagine the stereotype of Jewish criminality has contributed significantly to the perception of Israel as a "criminal" state.

Haim Watzman on Judah Magnes at SouthJerusalem.com. There are three or four points in that short post worth dwelling on, but I just like this story:

According to a legend, the sage Rabbi Shimon bar-Yohai and his son spent twelve years hiding in a cave and delving into the esoteric truths of the Torah. When they emerged, Rabbi Shimon was so immersed in divine truth that he raged when he saw Jews plowing their fields. His anger was so fierce that his mere glance burned up every working man he saw. God ordered him back to the cave.

Political Landscapes: Anti-Zionism as a Cultural Code

Marko Hoare has a post on the redefined political landscape worth reading. I rather resent being lumped in with Bush in a broad "pro-Western" camp, but there's something to Hoare's post. Something that's been noted before by a number of others. Something that, even if confined to some outskirts - and I don't think it quite is, is worth discussing. I'm reproducing here something I had written for Newsvine some time ago. Some links go to Newsvine pages that may eventually disappear.
________

Reading an excerpt from Andrei Markovits's Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America in the latest issue of Democratiya, I find myself instantly struck.

Over the last 35 years, a steady anti-Americanism and an uncompromising anti-Zionism which surely not always but most definitely occasionally borders on the anti-Semitic, have become key characteristics that both divide and determine political identity absolutely. They are "wedge issues" - clear articles of faith or "dealbreakers" -- whose importance overshadows, and even negates, many related components of the "clusters" that characterize such an identity.

Markovits goes on to describe himself, all the leftist and leftish causes he supports and the one thing that divides him from the left.

Yet I am increasingly avoided by leftists on both sides of the Atlantic owing solely to the two wedge issues mentioned above. As a reaction against this, I find myself having withdrawn from the established American and European lefts in whose presence I feel increasingly misplaced. I am not writing this to elicit sympathy for my increasing political marginalization but rather to make a point of how central anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism have become to virtually all lefts on both sides of the Atlantic - and beyond.

I am struck because this is my experience as well. Not in Europe, because I haven't been there in some 33 years. And not among my friends, with whom I've almost always been the furthest to the left. But here on Newsvine. I feel frequently compelled to write disclaimers and point out that I am a leftist. I've seen more than a few people, including some Newsviners I respect and plenty of others, assume otherwise. Following left-Zionist politics fairly closely, I've seen others express the same frustration and take the same tactics. Why do so many left-zionists feel that we must explain that we are not right-wingers? Because, in my experience, what Markovits says is absolutely true - Zionism/anti-Zionism has become a “cultural code.”

The other reason I am struck has to do with that phrase there. Markovits doesn’t use it (at least in the excerpt), but it aptly describes what he elaborates.

Codes are interpretive frameworks which are used by both producers and interpreters of texts. In creating texts we select and combine signs in relation to the codes with which we are familiar 'in order to limit... the range of possible meanings they are likely to generate when read by others' (Turner 1992, 17). Codes help to simplify phenomena in order to make it easier to communicate experiences (Gombrich 1982, 35). In reading texts, we interpret signs with reference to what seem to be appropriate codes. Usually the appropriate codes are obvious, 'overdetermined' by all sorts of contextual cues. Signs within texts can be seen as embodying cues to the codes which are appropriate for interpreting them… With familiar codes we are rarely conscious of our acts of interpretation, but occasionally a text requires us to work a little harder - for instance, by pinning down the most appropriate signified for a key signifier (as in jokes based on word play) - before we can identify the relevant codes for making sense of the text as a whole.

That’s a nice little definition of codes from an introduction to semiotics page. But let’s limit it a bit. More or less this same notion of codes was applied to cultures by the famed anthropologist Clifford Geertz. I first came across this notion reading Shulamit Volkov. Volkov wanted to understand why her father didn’t leave Germany before the Holocaust, and (with limitations noted in the review) argued that it was surprisingly difficult for Jews and especially non-Jewish Germans to understand what was happening around them.

Antisemitism acted as a cultural code as political lines shifted. The left and right moved about, exemplified best by Wilhelm Marr's transition from the liberal left to the reactionary right. Marr was the godfather of antisemitism, responsible even for popoularizing the term antisemitism (often even credited as having coined the term) and for forming the League of Antisemites. His pamphlets "The Victory of Jewishness over German-ness" and "The Way to Victory for German-ness over Jewishness" were significant in the formation of the German antisemitism that ultimately led to the Holocaust. I tried to describe some of what happened here. As a cultural code, antisemitism was often able to disguise itself as something else, eg. a critique of capitalism or a critique of communism. Often it was scapegoating modernity. What grew most visibly between 1879 and 1938 was not so much hatred of Jews, but the centrality of the Jewish Question in German politics.

Today, as is evident from Markovits, anti-Zionism is acting as that same sort of cultural code. It is being used to establish new political lines, the old ones shaken up by globalization and postmodernism. The old leftists are joining forces with political reactionaries and authoritarians, mostly "oppressed" authoritarians but also some Western racists in thin disguises. Many of the arguments surrounding it are the same as in pre-Nazi Germany. Just as today people argue over the "New Antisemitism," then they argued over whether antisemitism was different from the old, disrespected Judenhass.

Recently, Volkov herself tried to address (.pdf) what is happening now.

Is that what we are experiencing today? If indeed the joint anti-Zionist and anti-Israel language of the left in the 1960s and 1970s served as a cultural code to indicate belonging to the camp of anti-imperialism, anticolonialism and a new sort of anticapitalism, has it now lost its symbolic meaning? Is it now a matter of direct and full-scale attack upon the Jews? I do not know. Perhaps.

Setting aside for the moment whether anti-Zionism is inherently discriminatory toward Jews, let's focus on this. Anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism cannot be allowed to be used as cultural codes in this way.

more on Zionism/Anti-Zionism

In the comments over at Engage (and if you don't often read the comments to blog posts, I can't blame you), Linda Grant cites a 2002 article by Gary Younge. She draws attention to this section:

anti-semitism is one charge that I take more seriously than most. This is not because I believe I consciously espouse anti-semitic views, but because I do not consider myself immune to them. There is no reason why I should not be prone to a centuries-old virus that is deeply rooted in western society. That does not mean that I accept the charges uncritically. I judge them on their merits and so far have found them wanting. But I do not summarily dismiss them either; to become desensitised to the accusation would be to become insensitive to the issue. It is a common view on the left that political will alone can insulate you from prejudice. It stems, among some, from a mixture of optimism and arrogance which aspires to elevate oneself above the society one is trying to transform.

I'd like to draw attention to this:

That doesn't mean that gentiles have to support Zionism or Israel just because most Jews do. But it does mean that they cannot simply dismiss Zionism if they are at all interested in entering into any meaningful dialogue with the Jewish community. And it means that they have to be sensitive to why Jews support Israel in order to influence their views. To deny this is to maintain that it is irrelevant what Jews think. It is to move to a political place where Jews do not matter - a direction which they will understandably not follow, because they were herded there before and almost extinguished as a people. To declare "Zionism is racism" offers little in terms of understanding racism, anti-semitism or the Middle East. It is not a route map to debate, liberation or resistance but a cul-de-sac.

And within those constraints Younge argues against a view of anti-Zionism as antisemitism. But only within those constraints. I do take issue with a sentence or two (I don't think I can blame him for the teaser, "If the left wants to win over the pro-Israeli lobby..."), but the bulk of the article is dead on.

Anti-Zionism might not be antisemitism, but Jews are right to be skeptical

I haven't put many posts on this blog about Israel or Zionism. In the wake of the killing of eight students at a Yeshiva in Jerusalem, it's hard to ignore the connection between the Jewish people and Israel. The vast majority of Jews, religious or secular, support Israel in some form or another. The reasons are vast.

The original arguments for Zionism, as it emerged in the wake of the Dreyfrus Affair, centered on the situation of Jews as unable to achieve political rights others took for granted. That formulation of Zionism didn't achieve a great deal of support among Jews until the Holocaust. Some Jews opposed Zionism for religious reasons. Some, most notably the Jewish Bund, opposed it as a diversion from what they saw as a more universal struggle.

But the Holocaust provided an emotional resonance and urgency for the idea. Jews who had opposed Zionism, recognizing that only Zionism among the ideologies of Jewish liberation had successfully saved Jews from the camps, became Zionists. For me, the image that burns is that of refugees refused asylum in nation after nation dramatized in Voyage of the Damned and more loosely in Exodus. Fundamentally reliant on the good will of others to realize even their most basic rights, Jews seeking asylum during and following the Holocaust were sent back to Germany. Like it or not, political power flows from the nation-state in this day and age. Although one might support a change to that system in some unspecified future, Zionism is a practical necessity today.

For many, the establishment of Israel is a grand project of affirmative action, restitution for repeated oppressions, genocides, and ethnic cleansings over more than a thousand years. But ultimately, it was the right of self-determination, enshrined in the charter of the UN and subsequent treaties, upon which Isreal was justified. Self-determination for peoples is a tricky philosophical business, but it is undeniable that something of the right is not only enshrined in international law but fundamental to all modern political understanding. And it is undeniable that Jews fit every understanding of a people entitled to a right of self-determination that anyone has devised.

Except one. Jews did not, prior to the establishment of Israel already have a homeland in the form of an existing state. For some, self-determination is dependent upon not being so oppressed. And so I have no problem suggesting that such people, when they argue for the Palestinians' right to self-determination at the same time they argue against the only practical method of Jewish liberation, are advocating Jewish oppression.

The actual arguments of Zionism, including Why there?, are discussed here in significantly more detail. It is enough here to state that I, like most Jews, feel that the liberation of Jews from oppression is dependent on the establishment of a Jewish state.

Often we are told that Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Ignoring the obvious fact that much anti-Zionism, including most which would claim that simplistic slogan, is a thin veil for antisemitism, there's a sense in which it's true. Anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic in and of itself -and there are numerous shades of thinking between Zionism and anti-Zionism- but such a simplistic slogan obfuscates the relationships between the anti-Zionism and the oppression of Jews. The analogy between Zionism and affirmative action is deep. Opposition to affirmative action is not necessarily racist or indicative of racist thinking, but it is by definition an opposition to the pragmatic solution to oppression favored by most ethnic minorities. Anti-Zionism likewise amounts to, regardless of the underlying justification, the only pragmatic solution favored by the vast majority of Jews for liberation from oppression. Affirmative action is not racism, and neither is Zionism.

Affirmative action is often framed in terms of a false colorblindness that denies the oppression of blacks in the here and now and pretends that it is whites who are really oppressed. Anti-Zionism too often draws upon the long history of antisemitic mythology to outdo such an inversion, quickly turning to blatantly antisemitic claims of Jewish control. In order to avoid being antisemitic in a very real sense, anyone opposed to the existence of Israel simply must think quite hard about what that means and be prepared to answer some very hard questions before spouting off.

Starting with At the time of Israel's creation, what would you have argued for? At that point, many people are quick to answer what they would have argued against. That's not enough. What would you have argued for? What policy to enact Jewish liberation? And if you can't answer that, perhaps you can understand Zionism a little better. It isn't that I think one must be a Zionist in order to not be antisemitic, but it isn't anywhere as simple as claiming that anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism.

Tony Greenstein banned from Indymedia UK for being Jewish

What's happened to Tony Greenstein, now banned from Indymedia UK, is a lot like what's happened to me. Expect more Jews to be discriminated against in the future.

Greenstein has been the most high-pitched and abusive of those who say that when AWL argues against left anti-semitism, we are just belabouring an invented straw man, and de facto helping the ruling circles in Israel.

Well, now Greenstein himself - a vehement supporter of boycotting Israel, etc. etc. - has fallen foul of people on the left who take even further the idea that Israel is a nation so bad that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist.

He has been banned from the left-wing Internet network Indymedia for protesting - obstreperously, to be sure, but that is the right way to protest in such cases - at Indymedia carrying anti-semitic comments from ex-Israeli musician and SWP associate Gilad Atzmon.

(It may be useful to read How Indymedia UK Lost Its Way and became a safe haven for Anti-Semitism at Socialist Unity for some background.)

Tony Greenstein's case is sharper than mine, but I'd like to draw connections between them and view them together. It's useful to note both a case in Britain with an explicitly leftist site banning an anti-Zionist Jew together with a case in the US with a mainstream site recently bought by MSNBC banning a left-Zionist Jew. I think that helps to suggest the scope of the problem is or is becoming both global and mainstream.

The debate over at Engage has questioned whether Tony Greenstein is worth defending. [Update: The page has been accidentally deleted. Here is a google cache of the discussion page.] The general response has been that he is in this case because he is being attacked for his Jewishness. In that way, it is an attack on every Jew. If attacking Indymedia while refusing to defend Greenstein means that we should defend him as a Jew without defending any of his arguments, I would agree. His venomoous anti-Zionism only serves to demonstrate how outrageous his banning is. But to defend Jews against antisemitism is to defend Tony Greenstein here.

On the other hand, a friend suggested that in some way Greenstein's case is worse. It is certainly sharper and more obvious because Greenstein himself is someone few Jews could be comfortable with. In fact, a commenter at Engage quotes Greenstein:

Tony Cliff said many years ago "If i saw a bunch of skinheads beating up a rabbi , i'd beat up the skinheads , then i'd beat up the rabbi"
In other words defend the rabbi against an antisemitic attack , then beat up the rabbi for being a rabbi.

And Gilad Atzmon, whom Greenstein attacked for being an antisemite, is a prominent antisemite so that the stakes are a bit higher there. It's like saying a white supremacist is a multiculturalist because he doesn't want to participate in a lynching. But we cannot allow some border where the inclusion of antisemitic stereotypes or the exclusion of Jews is acceptible so long as it isn't too extreme. It would be like saying McCarthyism is okay if people really are a bit pink. Or allowing "There's blacks, and there's n*****s. I only hate n*****s."

While Greenstein was surely obstreperous -which is not only his right (in the circumstances) but also his style regardless- it was made quite clear to me that my being disrespectful to others, for which I was banned from Newsvine, amounted to nothing more than to use the word "antisemitism."

Stifling Arun Gandhi

Arun Gandhi, after his shameful attack on Jews everywhere and his apology/reiteration of that attack, has offered to resign from the institute that nepostically bears his name. And the Washington Post's relevant editors have apologized for having posted his editorial in the first place.

As “On Faith” readers know, a post by Arun Gandhi on January 7 has produced an enormous response from readers who found Gandhi’s initial remarks anti-Semitic and his subsequent apology insufficient. When we undertook this project over a year ago, we wrote that our goal was to shed light on a subject—religion—that too often generates heat. The Gandhi post failed to comply with that mission, and we can only ask our readers to extend “On Faith” a measure of forbearance and tolerance as the site endeavors to conduct a civil and illuminating conversation. We regret the initial posting, and we apologize for the episode.

Now, surely there will be arguments from the "anti-Zionists" complaining that the "Zionists" have stifled Arun Gandhi. Well, sure, for once the "anti-Zionists" are right about a critic of Israel being stifled. But for a damn good reason - not because of his views on Israel, but because of his hateful writing about Jews. And he should remain at least somewhat marginalized until he can at least express an apology that shows he understands why so many Jews were hurt by his comments.

The prevalence of hateful statements otherwise intimidates minorities, leading to an impoverished "marketplace of ideas." To allow any and all speech is an appealing ground rule for debate, because it's easy to implement and comes sort of close to allowing maximum diversity of ideas, but most people will allow that direct threats cannot be toleratede. Hate speech should be understood as slightly-less-direct threats, or perhaps as coded threats, with the same implications of excluding some from debate. So to best realize everyone's rights to free speech in a particular situation, it's often appropriate to exclude bigotry. It's better than excluding minority voices, through our inaction in the fave of veiled threats, on the basis of their ethnicity. The Washington Post is such a space where hate speech should not be tolerated. So is the M.K. Gandhi Institute that Arun Gandhi founded.

To argue against that, the discussion has to actually turn on whether his writings were antisemitic. That is something few "anti-zionists" will allow, so they will do everything they can to marginalize and intimidate Jewish voices.