The dangers of boycotting Israel

Do I really need to point out the irony that the Israelis are more worried about losing money than being bombed.

HA HA!

Eh, how about the issue of the BDS is clearly steeped in antisemitism with the fact it cares little about the Palestinians itself?

As a Jordanian-Palestinian, I have witnessed firsthand that most BDS movements do not care for the Palestinians. I can authoritatively confirm this; I have personally approached several known BDS movements asking them to boycott many Arab countries for the way they treat my people, and not one time did I find even an iota of interest. This proves that the BDS corporate culture revolves around demonizing Israel and not around caring for the Palestinians.

In an attempt to pin down this issue, I would like to know more about "the haters".

1. Who are "the haters"? What issues do they align with?

2. What do you mean by "pin down"..."socially"..."legally"...what is your objective?

3. Why do those who support Palestine "hate Jews"? I gather this "hatred" goes beyond the presence of Israel in Palestine--since that is already the dependent variable ('effect') in your causation model--so what prompts "the haters"?

1) Some left wingers and Muslims

2) To expose antisemitism

3) Becuase they do not recognise the right of Israel to exist

1. So Muslims do not support Palestine? Supporting Palestine, you say, is specious because it is merely a means by which "the haters" go after Israel. So give me a sense of what "the haters" want?

2. Okay.

3. I'm getting the sense that "the haters" are, for you, anyone who opposes Israel. There is no source for this "antisemitism" except taking a stand contrary to Israel? Am I right (it's hard to pin down)?

I would have thought the issue was more about people descending on an area and claiming it as their own.

Original Quill wrote:1.  So Muslims do not support Palestine?  Supporting Palestine, you say, is specious because it is merely a means by which "the haters" go after Israel.  So give me a sense of what "the haters" want?

2.  Okay.

3.  I'm getting the sense that "the haters" are, for you, anyone who opposes Israel.  There is no source for this "antisemitism" except taking a stand contrary to Israel?  Am I right (it's hard to pin down)?

1) Wrong yes many Muslims support Palestine and it is where such antisemitism is found the most. The point is this claim to support Palestine means israel becoming part of Palestine. They favour a one state solution which would destroy Israel.

3) Incorrect. There is nothing wrong with genuine criticism of Israel and I have never had issue with that. Again from the last point where a group of people deny the self determination of a people, and wish them eradicated, that is very much antisemitism

Original Quill wrote:1.  So Muslims do not support Palestine?  Supporting Palestine, you say, is specious because it is merely a means by which "the haters" go after Israel.  So give me a sense of what "the haters" want?

2.  Okay.

3.  I'm getting the sense that "the haters" are, for you, anyone who opposes Israel.  There is no source for this "antisemitism" except taking a stand contrary to Israel?  Am I right (it's hard to pin down)?

Point 3: you just hit the nail square on the head.

1.  So this isn't about antisemitism, but about who gets Palestine, correct?  That's the way I've always understood it, too.  But in a rare bit of candor, Israel revealed that it does not favor a two-state solution.  I know you do, didge; and I do too; but Israel doesn't.  So, what? It's destined to continue indefinitely?

2.  Yes, that remark by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unmistakable.  So I guess there is no possibility of compromise.  I have said it all along, this will eventually come down to a war between Israel and Iran.

Original Quill wrote:1.  So this isn't about antisemitism, but about who gets Palestine, correct?  That's the way I've always understood it, too.  But in a rare bit of candor, Israel revealed that it does not favor a two-state solution.  I know you do, didge; and I do too; but Israel doesn't.  So, what? It's destined to continue indefinitely?

2.  Yes, that remark by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unmistakable.  So I guess there is no possibility of compromise.  I have said it all along, this will eventually come down to a war between Israel and Iran.

1) Yes it is about antisemitism. Most people want a two state solution, those who back a one state solution are denying people on either side self determination. No a leader of Israel stated that he did not want a two state solution, so again you use guilt by association, that is idiotic yet again. That is also ignoring how I am against those Jewish that support such a nation and would class them as racist also, so your point is very moot and a poor deflection

2) Eh The charter of hamas calls for the destruction of Israel, all the evidence promoted by the BDS tries to deny Israel having any right tot he land. You have false arguments claiming they are not real jews based on where they originate, which is a racist argument to us. Make up history claiming Palestine was a nation when it never was. Ignore how it has been the Arabs from the word go that have never recognized the state of Israel. The list is endless of the rhetoric they are using to demonize Israel at every turn. Seriously pose some intertesting points, because they are very dull what you have posted so far

1. I think Netanyahu did pretty much foreclose the two-state solution...afterwards he claimed he only meant 'under conditions', then he laid down conditions that would be impossible to meet. I know you are in favor of a 2-state answer, as am I, but its wishful thinking that we will ever get our way.

2. Yes, you don't have to convince me that there is discord between Arabs and Israel. But so is there discord between the Persians and Israel. In my opinion, Iran has its act together the most. Iran and Israel are probably the real candidates for the final showdown.

Original Quill wrote:1.  I think Netanyahu did pretty much foreclose the two-state solution...afterwards he claimed he only meant 'under conditions', then he laid down conditions that would be impossible to meet.  I know you are in favor of a 2-state answer, as am I, but its wishful thinking that we will ever get our way.

2.  Yes, you don't have to convince me that there is discord between Arabs and Israel.  But so is there discord between the Persians and Israel.  In my opinion, Iran has its act together the most.  Iran and Israel are probably the real candidates for the final showdown.

1) Repetative waffle again about one individual, again which is moot being as again, anyone denying others self determination is wrong. We are talking about the BDS so your view is poorly deflecting.

2) This is about the BDS promoting a very antisemitic view, which is wrong. So again you are deflecting.
Just to remind you the debate is about the BDS who do little as seen to actually support the Palestinians and more interested in promoting antisemitism.

1. Is the plurality of Israel only one man? Surprising!

2. I thought we had eliminated antisemitism. I thought this all boiled down to those who want to eradicate Israel.

Original Quill wrote:1.  Is the plurality of Israel only one man?  Surprising!

2.  I thought we had eliminated antisemitism.  I thought this all boiled down to those who want to eradicate Israel.

1) Deflection  again.

2) No you thought you could steer the debate to your way of thinking.

Think again

Belatucadros wrote:

Original Quill wrote:1.  Is the plurality of Israel only one man?  Surprising!

2.  I thought we had eliminated antisemitism.  I thought this all boiled down to those who want to eradicate Israel.

1) Deflection  again.

2) No you thought you could steer the debate to your way of thinking.

Think again

1.  So you don't think Israel elected Netanyaho last March?

2.  Well, I thought we might make a little progress.  So, we're back to the unanswered questions I put to you...way back when?

Original Quill wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

1) Deflection  again.

2) No you thought you could steer the debate to your way of thinking.

Think again

1.  So you don't think Israel elected Netanyaho last March?

2.  Well, I thought we might make a little progress.  So, we're back to the unanswered questions I put to you...way back when?

1)  Irrelevant to the debate on the BDS

2) No you have had questions answered, you want to steer this in another direction from the the antisemitic tactics of the BDS. This is not a debate about your views on Netanyahoor where I have made it clear on this point that any Israeli supporting a one state solution is also discriminating. Are you able to stay on topic, as it seems impossible for you when you clearly have no answer to points at hand

Israel is rightly alarmed at the escalating scale of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. BDS constitutes a concrete threat to the future of Israel’s economic, academic, cultural, sports and political standing. BDS is not only a well-organized and structured global operation that aims to push for Israel to withdraw from territories, but a campaign of well-oiled lies, of dangerous international dimension.

Of course it is legitimate to criticize the policies of a government, but the BDS movement goes far beyond legitimate criticism, and in essence calls for the dismantling of the Jewish state. How to fight against anti-Semitism when incitement to hatred of Israel and Jews is rapidly spread by globalization and social media?

While the Arab boycott against the Jewish state is not new– it began at the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, but it was organized then by the Arab League due to the territorial dispute with the nascent state. Since 2005, however, it has taken an unprecedented turn with the creation of the BDS movement.

Despite huge investment and effort, BDS has so far not scored any significant economic and trade sanctions against Israel, because governments are fiercely opposed to it.

The question is whether the spread of BDS and increasing public pressure will encourage leaders of the international community to change their firm opposition to the detriment of Israel.

Any fair-minded person must contemplate why the BDS movement is focused on the Jewish state, while massacres continue all over the Middle East and are almost completely ignored. A real theater of the absurd!

Currently, the main success of BDS has been in the cultural and academic field. Thus, we see artists and musicians cancelling appearances in Israel as well as some academics who refuse to attend meetings and forums.

This smear campaign, animated ferociously via social networks, is systematically accompanied by threats to any person who intends to come to Israel.

In recent days, the boycott movement has escalated and could snowball following the words of Orange CEO, Stéphane Richard in Cairo, and the termination of the contract with the Israeli company Partner, just three months after its signing.

How can one not be amazed by the acrobatic explanations of a major French corporation that had just extended its contract? Why did it take the French state, which owns over 25% of Orange shares, so long to condemn the boycott against the Jewish state? Why did Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius not make a distinction between “colonization” and the Jewish state, and underscore that this grotesque gesture was made against a friend and ally?

Is there no contradiction when French companies like Orange praise the prowess of Israel’s economy and her advanced technology and, at the same time, give in to the pressure of a boycott?

Fortunately, 48 hours after his original statement, the CEO of Orange realized he had made ​​a serious mistake. Mr. Richard stated that his remarks had been “misinterpreted” and that he remains a true friend of Israel. But the damage has already been done and his apology does not excuse the fault … or the stupidity.

How can France revive the peace process and submit a resolution to the UN Security Council in advance if its work is biased and not transparent?

Anyone who thinks that French policy towards the Palestinians would have changed if a peace process was underway and that a leftist government would have ended the boycott deceives both Israeli and international opinion. The Arab boycott exceeds all divisions between left and right. It is launched against all Israelis and all Jews – regardless of their political affiliation or opinion – and therefore our struggle must be conducted in unison.

The initiative taken by American Jewish billionaires to fight BDS should also be followed in Europe, especially in the U.K and France.

We believed that the time of former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing and his prime minister Raymond Barre had passed: There is no longer a list of French companies who are victims of the Arab boycott.

Note also that during the 1950s, despite the good relationship Israel maintained with Socialist France, the Renault company, which was to build a factory in Israel to build Dauphine vehicles for the IDF canceled a contract, preferring the offers from Nasser’s Egypt; the same thing happened with Orange, since this company has also bowed to pressure to support the Egyptian market which, no doubt, is ten times bigger than Israel’s with its 33 million customers. So we see that France has often yielded to economic blackmail, not to mention that in 1967 and 1973 when Israel looked death in the face, France twice imposed an embargo on arms.

Certainly, “business is business “, and independent business strategy must be respected. In this regard, and in the context of the effects of globalization, simple financial considerations often take precedence over political interests.

We can also do business without engaging in blackmail and boycott because it has a limit to everything, especially when the BDS campaign is a savage and premeditated political act.
Extremely active in England, BDS has anti-semitic overtones

Extremely active in England,
BDS has anti-Semitic overtones

BDS is gaining ground, but if certain chancelleries naively think that diktats, pressures and boycotts will advance the peace process in this way, they are completely mistaken.

This deceptive campaign is outrageous. It is orchestrated by the Palestinians against a democratic country. This is counterproductive and double-edged. To restart the peace process, we need to restore mutual trust and the Palestinians must agree to sincere dialogue with Israel’s democratically elected representatives.

Research indicates that most of those involved in the BDS movement are ignorant of the fundamental issues that drive the conflict with the Palestinians. They do not know much about the Israeli reality and are unable to lead a real substantive debate.

In this sad context, Israeli diplomacy needs to be shaken up through creative initiatives and develop a new strategy, more muscular and more sophisticated. We need to think “outside the box” to effectively counter misinformation, and on this point Jewish communities around the world should be consulted and take on this struggle in full coordination. Also, Israel should focus its efforts on direct and permanent contact with businesses, universities and artists.

We recognize the long-term work that remains to be done to convince our partners of our just cause. Hypocrisy, prejudice, and ignorance often prevail, but it is sadly how the world operates.

It is important to combat BDS with historical facts, figures, and irrefutable evidence on the ground. False propaganda and incitement to hatred are cowardly and a contemptible way to fight. Such methods dispel every chance of peace in this region of the world where chaos reigns committed by the “fools of Allah.”

- See more at: http://jcpa.org/anti-semitism-is-the-motivation-for-the-bds/#sthash.N6TtBGMt.dpuf

so why is it so important to have Israel wiped out ?

Israel need to be a more grateful to the USA
in my opinion it has made a fatal error being disrespectful to the power that keeps it in existence.

since both Israeli and Palestinian have equal right to exist there and Israel does because of US intervention it needs to suck it up and do what ever the US asks.

it is not antisemitism, if the USA just throws out the Zionists lobby Israel is in big trouble. currently Israel has the upper hand because the USA supports it more than Palestine, the USA can move to a position to support them equally and fairly which will see Israel lose a lot of it's current advantage.

I wonder if Didge thinks that the boycott of S.Africa which brought about the downfall of apartheid there was 'anti-african'. A boycott that shamefully Israel didn't join and kept supplying the weapons that killed the people trying to obtain equality.

risingsun wrote:I wonder if Didge thinks that the boycott of S.Africa which brought about the downfall of apartheid there was 'anti-african'.   A boycott that shamefully Israel didn't join and kept supplying the weapons that killed the people trying to obtain equality.

Well considering Israel is not on a par with apartheid Israel and you think it is really is disgusting on your part, being as there is no similarity. Second, I only agree in boycotting those who create such problems and not making all people culpable for any wrongs
What is vile is you have the audacity to insult the people of South Africa by claiming that there is apartheid in Israel

Not on a par with S.Africa.   You are delusional.

When S. Africa kept black people in the townships at least it didn't bomb them and explode white phosphorus around them.

risingsun wrote:Not on a par with S.Africa.   You are delusional.

When S. Africa kept black people in the townships at least it didn't bomb them and explode white phosphorus around them.

Its an absolute disgrace you claim apartheid when there is no apartheid in Israel, being it mocks the many victims of apartheid in South Africa. This is the kind of antisemitism bullshit that you come out with
You explain to me why Arabs can vote, be members of Parliament, become judges etc all things impossible in Apartheid South Africa? Like I say you are insulting the many people who suffered under apartheid and you pedal this false lie in the most outrageous way to try to demonize Jews. That is antisemitism, because there is no truth what so ever to your false lies here.

Why does Sassy hate Israel so much? there must be a reason why so much bile comes from her every day.

nicko wrote:Why does Sassy hate Israel so much?     there must be a reason why so much bile comes from her every day.  

Some of the left are the champions of antisemitism Nicko.
As seen it is utterly disgusting to claim Israel to apartheid, there is no comparison but she pedals such lies and why, to demonize Jews.

nicko wrote:Why does Sassy hate Israel so much?     there must be a reason why so much bile comes from her every day.  

it is a good question because she claims to have jewish blood on both sides of her family .

My mum is Jewish i have Jewish blood and I love Israel with all my heart .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

nicko wrote:Why does Sassy hate Israel so much?     there must be a reason why so much bile comes from her every day.  

it is a good question because she claims to have jewish blood on both sides of her family .

My mum is Jewish i have Jewish blood and I love Israel with all my heart .

Why?

There's a difference between being Jewish and being a Zionist. I think that Israel has the right to defend itself against attacks because Israel is there now, and the citizens have a right to live their lives.

I don't get all this Zionist stuff though.

lets face it Israel has been under siege for so long it is ridiculous, what other country in the world wouldn't have seriously kicked back by now...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:lets face it Israel has been under siege for so long it is ridiculous, what other country in the world wouldn't have seriously kicked back by now...

Ah well, it was to be expected really. It's what happens when a group of people decide to take over an area and call it their own to the detriment to others, especially when it's an area surrounded by groups of people who don't like them much.

I don't approve of Palestinian terrorism, but Israel has gone too far at times whilst the world sat and watched.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:lets face it Israel has been under siege for so long it is ridiculous, what other country in the world wouldn't have seriously kicked back by now...

Ah well, it was to be expected really. It's what happens when a group of people decide to take over an area and call it their own to the detriment to others, especially when it's an area surrounded by groups of people who don't like them much.

I don't approve of Palestinian terrorism, but Israel has gone too far at times whilst the world sat and watched.

i don't see that at all, attacked day after day, usually on the wrong end of most condemnation, what land on this planet is anyones property, what land hasn't been taken by force by someone..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ah well, it was to be expected really. It's what happens when a group of people decide to take over an area and call it their own to the detriment to others, especially when it's an area surrounded by groups of people who don't like them much.

I don't approve of Palestinian terrorism, but Israel has gone too far at times whilst the world sat and watched.

i don't see that at all, attacked day after day, usually on the wrong end of most condemnation, what land on this planet is anyones property, what land hasn't been taken by force by someone..

So you think that if someone takes someone's land, they shouldn't fight back?

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

i don't see that at all, attacked day after day, usually on the wrong end of most condemnation, what land on this planet is anyones property, what land hasn't been taken by force by someone..

So you think that if someone takes someone's land, they shouldn't fight back?

But who started the fighting first?
Both groups of people were offered nations. Ther Arab nations refused to except Israel to exist.
They went to war and lost against Israel against the odds.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

i don't see that at all, attacked day after day, usually on the wrong end of most condemnation, what land on this planet is anyones property, what land hasn't been taken by force by someone..

So you think that if someone takes someone's land, they shouldn't fight back?

of course they should, we are back to one mans patriot is another mans terrorist, Israel will say it is there's by right and what as taken from them should never have been taken...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that if someone takes someone's land, they shouldn't fight back?

of course they should, we are back to one mans patriot is another mans terrorist, Israel will say it is there's by right and what as taken from them should never have been taken...

The Zionists committed a few acts of terrorism themselves back in the '40s.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

of course they should, we are back to one mans patriot is another mans terrorist, Israel will say it is there's by right and what as taken from them should never have been taken...

The Zionists committed a few acts of terrorism themselves back in the '40s.

history is full of such things, it doesn't mean anything now...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Zionists committed a few acts of terrorism themselves back in the '40s.

history is full of such things, it doesn't mean anything now...

I just don't know why anyone is surprised at the trouble in that area. I don't take either side really, and you're right, it's what happens now which is important. I do think though that Zionism is a bit dangerous, and I'm no Zionist myself. I also think that Israel gets away with a lot at times.

On the other hand, if this country was being attacked by terrorists all the time, I'd want us to fight back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

history is full of such things, it doesn't mean anything now...

I just don't know why anyone is surprised at the trouble in that area. I don't take either side really, and you're right, it's what happens now which is important. I do think though that Zionism is a bit dangerous, and I'm no Zionist myself. I also think that Israel gets away with a lot at times.

On the other hand, if this country was being attacked by terrorists all the time, I'd want us to fight back.

when you have such opposed ideals so close together it is a recipe for disaster, live and let live goes out the window it passes from generation to generation and often the actual reason for the conflict is forgotten but the war continues...

of course you defend your on country anyone would...

Didge wrote:Some of the left are the champions of antisemitism Nicko.

Classical reciprocal argument of the right.  Since accusation of anti-Semitism was such an effective allegation against Nazism, why not use it against the left?

The problem is, to overuse a symbol is to neutralize and even reverse its bite.  For example, if the accusation of anti-Semitism becomes merely a bulwark for an aggressive, Zionist Israel, it actually takes on a favorable overtone for those who oppose Zionist tactics.

People who use the word in this way are actually diluting, and thus vitiating the lessons of the Holocaust...accomplishing precisely the goal of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, intended by his "Holocaust Myth" theory announced in his Zahedan speech.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Some of the left are the champions of antisemitism Nicko.

Classical reciprocal argument of the right.  Since accusation of anti-Semitism was such an effective allegation against Nazism, why not use it against the left?

The problem is, to overuse a symbol is to neutralize and even reverse its bite.  For example, if the accusation of anti-Semitism becomes merely a bulwark for an aggressive, Zionist Israel, it actually takes on a favorable overtone for those who oppose Zionist tactics.

People who use the word in this way are actually diluting, and thus vitiating the lessons of the Holocaust...accomplishing precisely the goal of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, intended by his "Holocaust Myth" theory announced in his Zahedan speech.

No just facts.


Lethal anti-Semitism originated on the Left


The Marxist Left has a long and sordid history of anti-Semitism. The core belief was that Jews must cease to be Jews in order to be liberated. That has now been extended to virulent hostility to the Jewish State of Israel:



Is the western Left’s opposition to Israel anti-Semitism? That’s a question that many on the Left feel they should not even have to answer.
With all the moral high ground they can occupy, the Left vehemently deny anti-Semitism and point to their historical opposition to German fascism. Those on the left say that they, just like the Jews, were specifically targeted by Hitler and the Nazis; indeed many on the left were Jews, so why should the Left be accused of hatred of Jews and Israel?
It’s a poor defence. Having a common enemy in Hitler unites everyone who is not morally dysfunctional. Looked at historically, the fact is that a particularly lethal form of anti-Semitism did originate on the Left, in fact on the Jewish left with the father of so called “scientific” communism Karl Marx the main instigator.
Even before Marx, however, there had been in socialist thinking a powerful strain of anti-Semitism. From the stereotypical Jewish street pedlar to the Rothschild banker, both were seen by socialists as rapacious agents of capitalism. The French socialist Proudhon (whom Marx met) provides a good example of such anti-Semitism.
In his latest book From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel, Robert Wistrich (Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) makes the point: “Socialist thought was tainted from its very origins with the heavy baggage of anti-Jewish stereotypes”.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that early socialists imbibed the wider and deeply ingrained stereotype of the Jew as the money-grubbing outsider.
After all, the emancipation of Europe’s Jews in the nineteenth century was held to mean that Jews should lose much of their Jewish identity. They would no longer be outsiders, and would no longer need to be Jewish.
That conception of Jewish identity -- as alleged hucksters and rapacious capitalists -- had been deeply internalised throughout society and accepted as an obvious fact. Socialism merely reflected that "fact".
Marx, however, gave a lethal twist to socialist anti-Semitism.
As Robert Wistrich puts it in an earlier work Revolutionary Jews: From Marx to Trotsky: “only Marx went so far as to equate this ‘universal dominion’ of money with the ‘Jewish spirit’, and to transform the issue of Jewish emancipation into its dialectical antithesis -- the liberation of society from Judaism.”
Judaism and Jews were, for Karl Marx, not peripheral issues. They were central both to his tortured personality and to his economic and class theories about society. He came to believe that society, not just the Jews, needed to be “de-judaized” if it were ever to be free:
“The emancipation of the Jews means ultimately the emancipation of humanity from Judaism.”
Judaism and the Jewish cult of capitalist money-making, Marx believed, must be eradicated if society were to progress.
With this belief that Judaism was a secular cult of money-making that had poisoned society, Marx created something more than your everyday anti-Semitism. He created a lethal pathology that eventually made its way into Hitler’s National Socialism. The world, Hitler would later argue, must be de-Judaized if it is ever to be free.
Both Marx and Hitler saw the “necessity” to give a final answer to die Judenfrage, the Jewish Question. And both Marx and Hitler proposed extreme violence to bring about that final answer.
Marx proposed murderous revolution which would involve “expropriating” (murdering) the capitalist class (including Jews). Hitler, agreeing with Marx that “money domination” was an ineradicable part of the “Jewish spirit”, proposed the eradication of the entire Jewish people.
Marx was a Jew. But he was also an enraged, self-hating Jew with a deep sense of inferiority (not uncommon among European Jewish intellectuals at the time), an inferiority that he was quite capable of projecting onto others.
He referred to Polish Jews as the “filthiest of all races” (How Stalin and Hitler would have liked that), and to the socialist Ferdinand Lassalle as a "Judel Itzig", "a Jewish n---er".
Marx’s extreme self-hating anti-Semitism, according to Wistrich, goes a long way in explaining why Marx developed a poisonous antipathy to capitalism and to all religions, but particularly to Judaism, which he thought the earthly embodiment of capitalist greed and exploitation.
Many might find it hard to believe that Marx’s theory of communism was little more than towering rage at his Jewish background. But as many critics have observed, Marx’s economic and social theories lack economic and social realism and are in fact utopian religious dreams of a world free of human strife, particularly a world where he would not be seen as a Jew.
With such an attitude to Judaism, Marx also strongly rejected any suggestion of a national identity or a national homeland for the Jews. Such a solution to the “Jewish Question”, he believed, would perpetuate the very problem he wanted permanently to solve.
Many of Marx’s Jewish followers, such as Rosa Luxemburg, also naively rejected the need for a Jewish national identity and homeland, even in the face of virulent pogroms. Come the Revolution, Marxists believed, and still believe, all class distinctions will be abolished and everyone will live in peace and harmony; heaven on earth.
Was there ever a more dangerous and more utopian religious doctrine than Marxism?
Vincent Cooper is a regular contributor to The Commentator


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5729/lethal_anti_semitism_originated_on_the_left

Took you such a long time to write that, that I feel bad being able to refute it in so short a bit: Marx was not left.

In fact, some argue that the problem for Marx was that he was a devout elitist. People--the population, so to speak--got in Marx's way as he developed his theories.

But didge...let's not stray too far from the point here: you are actually supporting Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust Myth" theory by vitiating the meaning of anti-Semitism.

Original Quill wrote:Took you such a long time to write that, that I feel bad being able to refute it in so short a bit: Marx was not left.

In fact, some argue that the problem for Marx was that he was a devout elitist.  People--the population, so to speak--got in Marx's way as he developed his theories.

But didge...let's not stray too far from the point here: you are actually supporting Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust Myth" theory by vitiating the meaning of anti-Semitism.

Max was left and saying he was not is not a rebuke, just your opinion
I did not write the article which shows and proves you did not read it did you?
I am supporting no theory, you are just making up bullshit because you have no defense that some of the biggest antisemitics are in fact from the left.
Again no point have you addressed any of the main points from the original article and keep diverging onto some inane view about Iran which is irrelevant.
Let me know when you have some actual relevant points.

didge wrote:Max was left and saying he was not is not a rebuke, just your opinion
I did not write the article which shows and proves you did not read it did you?

Why? Just because you didn’t write it? Ha-ha…your good, but not that good didge. I read lots of things you didn’t write.

Marx was not a humanist. He was another in a long line of German systems-builders in philosophy. He received his PhD from the University of Bonn, with a thesis entitled: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, in 1841. At that time European philosophy was in the grip of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who had developed the dialectical system and applied it to progressive history. Marx worked within that system.

In 1848, along with Fredrich Engles, Marx wrote a minor pamphlet entitled The Communist Manifesto. It was a polemic, attacking on the old institutions of Europe. If it radicalized his reputation, it did nothing to change his work. The idea had not been dumbed down by the likes to Joe McCarthy. But more importantly, it was not within the mainstream of Marx’s own thinking. Marx went on to write economic theory on a very high level.

Your use of Marx in this context is pejorative, and your idea of left/right in political theory reveals no understanding of political philosophy whatsoever:

Wikipedia wrote:The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.

didge wrote:I am supporting no theory, you are just making up bullshit because you have no defense that some of the biggest antisemitics are in fact from the left.

What you call left and right is no more than a seating arrangement in the French Assembly. It does not apply to the theories of men of original thinking. Unfortunately, like your definition of anti-Semitism, you have taken advantage of the intellectual void to invent your own terms.

What you mean by antisemitics is anti-Israel.