Weekly Worker 585 Thursday July 14 2005

Letters

New Bund

Tony Greenstein is obsessed with Jewishness (‘Blind eye to anti-semitism’, July 8). He views the world through the prism of a Jewish nationalist. He judges people by one criterion which he shares with my late grandmother: ‘Is he/she good for Jews?’ He and his friends, ‘Jews Against Zionism’, claim to be anti-Zionists, but Zionism is just a form of Jewish bourgeois nationalism, and not the only one. By creating their Jews-only organisation, Greenstein et al have enforced Jewish separatism and caused an unnecessary and dangerous split in the Palestine solidarity movement.

History repeats itself. Over a hundred years ago, the Russian Jewish socialists, the Bund, (anti-Zionists to a man) asked Lenin for permission to join his new movement as a collective. ‘Every one of you is welcome to join the common struggle of workers against Russian and Jewish moneybags, but as a separate group you would just split our forces,’ he replied, and expelled the Bund. Eventually many Russian Jews joined the movement of Russian workers, and together they changed the course of history. The Bund withered, some of its members drifting to Zionism.

But history repeats itself as a farce, in the words of Marx. The Bund had hundreds of thousands members; the new Bund, Jews against Zionism, is a tiny grouping which mustered 100 signatures worldwide, from San Francisco to Tel Aviv to London. Their contribution to the struggle is zero; their nuisance value is much higher, for they mainly attack anti-Zionists.

I can imagine a few things Jews can meaningfully do together (pray?), but political struggle for equality in Palestine does not call for a separate Jews-only discussion. Moreover, it is a self-defeating course. The concept of Jews for Justice, Jews for Peace and other separatist, all-Jewish groups in pursuit of common goals appears to me about as justifiable as that of ‘Whites against Apartheid’. Equality in South Africa was achieved by overcoming such dubious groupings, by the colour-blind force of the ANC. The civil rights struggle in the southern states was carried out by blacks and whites together. It appears that the cause of justice in Palestine should not be different. Why, then, do such groups exist?

Extremely wealthy leaders of Jewish organisations are worried by the high desertion rate in their rank and file. They spend billions trying to stop assimilation and returning descendents of Jews into the fold. A United Jewish Appeal-organised programme, the Birthright, brings thousands of young people of Jewish origin into Jerusalem from all over the world - all paid, with generous accommodation supplied - in order to discourage intermarriage and promote marriage within the community. They build the worldwide continuation of Sharon’s Wall in order to separate Jews and non-Jews.

Jews Against Zionism is part and parcel of this effort: an attempt to keep even those people who have understood the criminality of Zionism within the fold. In their attack on Gilad Atzmon, Paul Eisen and me they repeat accusations delivered by Aaronovitch and Pollard in The Times, and crude lies disseminated by Anti-Defamation League-financed internet sites - because we stand for full integration of descendents of Jews in the countries where they live: for their assimilation, for putting paid to the reactionary idea of Jewish exclusiveness.

Our view agrees with Marx’s and Lenin’s reading of Jewishness. In 1903, Lenin wrote in Iskra (and his words are extremely relevant to the present discussion): “The idea of a Jewish ‘nationality’ is scientifically wrong and politically reactionary, not only when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the ideas of social democracy (the Bundists). The idea of a Jewish nationality runs counter to the interests of the Jewish proletariat, for it fosters among them, directly or indirectly, a spirit hostile to assimilation, the spirit of the ‘ghetto’.”

Jews Against Zionism are but a Trotskyite offshoot of Bundism, and at least one of their members and co-signers of the anti-Atzmon petition, Abraham Weizfeld, openly calls himself a Bundist. Their anti-Zionism does not impress us overmuch. As an important Marxist thinker, Georgi Plekhanov, noted, “The Bundists want to establish their Zion here, not in Palestine”; and added a witticism: “The Bundists are nothing more than Zionists suffering from sea-sickness” (www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/). This opinion was shared by Zionists, and Ber Borokhov prophesied that “one day the future Jewish state will have to erect a gold monument to the Bund for its illustrious achievements.” It has not happened yet, but not for want of trying.

Tony’s accusations are difficult to refute, for they are based on his inability to understand a text - whether for reasons of dumbness or for more sinister reasons. For instance, I write: “There is no ‘tainted blood’, acceptance of christ is the final solution of the Jewish question, while assimilation and intermarriage is the way to undo the vestiges of Jewish separatism.” He interprets this sentence as “The salvation of the Palestinians lies in the conversion of the Jews, the ‘christ-killers’, to christianity.” I write: “No Jew is responsible for misdeeds of his ancestors”; but he insists: “He calls us christ-killers.”

His attack on our comrades, Paul Eisen and Jeff Blankfort, is equally unwarranted. Mr Greenstein is obsessed with the subject of the Jewish holocaust and divides people into sheep and goats on the basis of their attitude to this narrative. What is so special about this narrative? Why he does not attack deniers of the Armenian massacre (by Kurds), deniers of the Azeri massacre (by Armenians), deniers of the Jenin massacre (by Jews), deniers of the Huguenot massacre (Night of St Bartholomew), and deniers of the Dresden massacre (by Brits)? If he is such an anti-Zionist, why he is not worried that his ally, Steven Plaut, another enemy of Atzmon and me, who quotes him word-perfect, denies the Deir Yassin massacre (see http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/?p=741)? Why does he not picket Plaut?

Our view is quite different. The holocaust narrative is used to enforce Jewish separatism and specialness. It is connected with that racist slur of ‘natural criminality of non-Jews’. Not in vain, the leading ideologist of the holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt, also preaches against intermarriage which ‘spoils purity of Jewish blood’. We support deconstruction of the narrative. The very term ‘holocaust denier’ is a quasi-religious expression akin to ‘christ denier’, a common accusation of the inquisition.

While Tony accuses others of ‘racism’, he and his chums are as racist as anybody. Tony G calls me “an ex-Russian/Swedish fascist now living in Israel” - this is a hoodwinking way of saying, ‘He is not a Jew’. Tony’s rightwing Jewish friends and allies of Frontpagemag.com are not that reticent and say so loudly. So did his friend, the ‘anti-racist and Marxist’ Roland Rance. This is beneath my dignity to discuss. I can’t even argue against accusation of ‘fascism’, as Tony G did not produce a single line that connects me to the fascist doctrine.

Finally, in his article previewing his new book on religion, Jack Conrad writes: “Zionism and the thorny question of Palestine forms the subject of chapter 14. We argue against the standard approach of the Trotskyite left in Britain which damns Zionism as almost akin to fascism and calls for the immediate abolition of the state of Israel and its replacement by a single Palestinian state” (‘History and fantastic reality’, July 8).

One does not have to be a Trotskyite - it is enough to believe in any sort of democracy - in order to support full equality of Jew and non-Jew in our country. If Conrad thinks Jews should be separated from the rest, let him start with Golders Green. Indeed, in Palestine/Israel there is no way to create a separate Jewish state without uprooting and discriminating against hundreds of thousands of people whose only fault is that they are not Jews. Conrad’s position is unacceptable for a real communist, or democrat, or humanist - but not for a Zionist.

Israel Shamir
Jaffa

Libellous

I am not now nor have I ever been a holocaust denier and I consider the article you published to be libellous and damaging to my reputation. You should be ashamed of yourself for having become a participant in the newest McCarthyite-type smear. I hereby demand a retraction and an apology.

Jeffrey Blankfort
email

Gnostic link

‘History and fantastic reality’ was a nice article. We have posted a link to it at www.gnostics.com/nasm.html.

Suzanne Radford
Gnostic Communications

Respect

I think it is Carey Davies who misses the point when the comrade says that “Respect is certainly a product of class antagonism; it is orientated towards the working class, has a working class base and acts ostensibly on its behalf” (Letters, June 20).

No, Respect is a product of Galloway being thrown out of Labour (a party which he would happily still be in if he hadn’t been railroaded) and the ever opportunist SWP looking for a more mellow home for their own muslim alliance than the old Socialist Alliance, which was proving to be too revolutionary for them. Neither the SWP nor Respect are predominantly working class, as a good look at their executive will show!

However disturbing it is to see the policies of New Labour, the alternative will not be found within anything that has the SWP and other reactionary elements at its core. Wake up, please.

Roger Mervyn
email

Crass

Carey Davies’s letter reads like a do-it-yourself version of the SWP’s Party notes - only with more jokes (Weekly Worker June 30). The biggest joke was the description of Respect as “orientated towards the working class”. Respect would not have got the amount of votes it did without the support of the muslim community, which it deliberately appealed to throughout the election campaign.

Galloway rarely appeared on TV without being flanked by a crowd of young, muslim men chanting “Allah akhbar!” He even began public meetings with the muslim greeting “Assalamualaikum”. At polling stations muslim-looking voters (ie, non-white) were deliberately targeted with leaflets. This is nothing but crass communalism, a force which, as Northern Ireland has shown, destroys any possibility of uniting the working class of all races and creeds.

Steve Lewis
Manchester

G8 policing

During the protests against the G8 over 700 people were detained or arrested by the police, often overnight, and around 366 people were arrested and charged.

The courts imposed draconian bail conditions, which not only prevented those arrested from continuing their protests against the G8 summit, but forced those not resident in Scotland to leave at an impossible speed, making the conditions impossible to comply with. As a direct result of this tactic, some people were rearrested for breach of bail. People unable to give an address in the UK have been remanded in prison, even though in all the cases we are aware of, none faces serious enough charges to result in a prison sentence even if convicted. Amongst those remanded in custody was one person aged 16 and a woman with a child.

We have also received worrying reports of people being held for over four hours in Reliance security vans against regulations, and not being given sufficient food or water while in custody. For example, one person reported that he was held in Stirling police station for 10 hours and that they were verbally abused, the lights were switched on and off and no calls were made to solicitors or friends on his behalf. He was subsequently released without charge.

The police made widespread use and abuse of powers under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This section is supposed to be used to search for weapons. However, it has been used as a blanket authority to stop and search in a manner designed simply to intimidate protesters.

The police routinely demanded people’s names and addresses, without a clear legal right to such information and in a manner that seemed calculated to deter people from protesting. At times they also demanded to see identification despite the fact that there is no requirement to carry or produce identification in the UK. At least one person was arrested and faces trial for simply not giving their name and address.

Huge numbers of people were photographed and/or filmed just for participating in protests or because they were staying at a campsite - again a form of policing designed to intimidate.

The police appeared to act on the basis that they were not at all times bound to comply with the law of the land and sought to prevent challenge to their actions by seeking to conceal their identity and failing (even when asked specifically) to give legitimate reasons and legal powers to justify their actions. For these reasons we unreservedly condemn the policing of the protests at the G8.

G8 Legal Support Group
g8legalsupport@riseup.net

Child abuse

We have had several cases in the last five years in which children have been abused by parents trying to drive out evil spirits. In the latest high-profile case, which took place in my London constituency, three people trusted with the care of a young child were jailed for torturing an eight-year-old girl they believed to be a witch.

Accusing children of demonic possession is a recent African trend which is now surfacing in London. This is a perversion of fundamentalist christianity and there is no excuse. The multiculturalist argument will not stretch this far.

However, these cases remain very rare indeed and we must be careful not to exaggerate the situation and to vilify unnecessarily our African communities. These incidences of mistreatment of children should not be taken as evidence that African religions are generally abusive - child abuse has never been part of traditional religious practices in Africa.

There are currently no appropriate means of tracking the whereabouts and well-being of migrant children in the UK. I have long called on government ministers to revisit the Climbié inquiry and set up a national children’s database and adequate measures for the registration of private fostering.

Diane Abbott MP
Hackney

Terror statement

The argument in the CPGB Provisional Central Committee’s statement about the terror attacks in London is absolutely right. I was in a London from last November to February this year and met various people there. You are right to say that it was working class Britons who gathered to protest against Tony Blair’s support for the Iraq war who were killed in last week’s terror bombings.

Everybody should condemn this cowardly action. But the main loss, as I see it, was not the people who died or were wounded in the blasts. The loss is far more than that, because it will lead to hatred between British people and muslims of various races. The gulf which already exists between them could now be widened and lead to anarchy. As communists we must try to prevent this from happening.

Samar Khadas
Mumbai

Troops out

I fully agree with the views expressed in this statement. Although the terrorists might have wanted to draw the attention of the people of the UK to the killings in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was stupid to target the common and innocent people who had no role in sending the troops. This has helped the ruling class.

The people of the UK should unite against this type of act and at the same time against the occupation of Iraq and raise their voice strongly to bring back the troops at the earliest moment.

Tabarak Hussain
email

Alternative

Your statement on the terror bombings was excellent, succinctly making many points that most people would agree with. Keep up the alternative view, if only to stir up democratic debate.

Bob Miller
email

Thanks

Thank you for this statement from the common people of Bangladesh.

Hasan Tarique Chowdhury
email

Print this page