recommended

According to Raza’s definition, all a Muslim must do to be labeled an Islamist is defend Muslims against the racism and Islamophobia of institutions. Institutions who Raza seems to think that, contrary to what the work of anti-racists has found, are free of Islamophobia and racism.

Slippery oppressions

It was over two years ago now, but I remember a story from Peter Staudenmeier at the "Opposing Antisemitism In The Movement" workshop at Bluestockings pretty well. He's an historian and antifas activist, which led him to reading a certain pamphlet published by an obscure Italian group from some time ago. He said he actually found much of it fairly appealing, or at least he could understand the appeal. It was anti-capitalist and anti-Stalinist at the same time, with what would seem from reading it to be just a touch of antisemitism. Except the title of the pamphlet was "Why We Are Antisemites."

Antisemitism has a way of disguising itself as something else. I'm not sure why that is, but I think it has something to do with the nature of scapegoating Jews. Extremists who could never get along otherwise are able to ignore their differences by focusing on Jews as the source of the problem. There isn't necessarily an ideological center there. Instead, antisemitism disguises the lack of an ideological center or substitutes for one. So the antisemitic anti-capitalist can get along with the anti-capitalist who isn't so antisemitic just as easily as with the antisemitic anti-communist by shifting focus from antisemitism to anti-capitalism. And anti-capitalists get along swimmingly with anti-communists. Look at the Ron Paul campaign. Or consider how the father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts, who also writes for the white supremacist website vdare gets repeatedly published on Counterpunch by the Stalinist, Alexander Cockburn. The function of antisemitism in political organizing, and why it functions so well for scapegoating, is to smooth over and disguise these differences.

However it works, it is true that antisemitism has been particularly capable of disguising itself. It's hard (for me, at least) to imagine a pamphlet called "Why We Are Racists" where race seems like a peripheral issue, but it is a common feature of antisemitism that it convincingly seems to be -at least to those who aren't sensitive to it- about something else. It's a big part of the reason antisemitism has historically been built up below the radar before exploding into violence, in a cycle of apparent "Golden Ages" and salient oppressions.

I bring this up to try to deal with a few questions. The Girl Detective has a post on several issues from last night. One is the Free Gaza Movement. Like TGD, I'd also agree (less enthusiastically) with some of their aims. But I think it's right that she refuses to ignore and clearly elaborates her opposition to that antisemitism. That at least makes it more difficult for antisemitism to hide itself.

She also brings up a post from JVoices, which I didn't know what to think of when I first read it. A comment there puts it well, saying:

In essence, the movement to boycott all Israeli institutions is a way of fighting an ideological war against opponents within the peace camp.

(My italics.) I think it has to be emphasized that a lot of the boycott movement, spearheaded by PACBI, is deeply antisemitic and that the boycotts aim to serve as discrimination to disempower Jews. We're not talking here about the boycott of products from West Bank settlers or other boycotts supported by the Palestinian Federation of Trade Unions, but the boycott of Israel itself. The same groups have not only sought to boycott the Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra, but have even sought to boycott productive peace programs like Seeds of Peace, which teaches conflict resolution to Israeli and Palestinian children. They've boycotted One Voice, and successfully shut down a peace concert in Jericho with threats of violence. It is the same movement fighting, with a great deal of success, to marginalize Jews in British academia that then blames Jews for caring about antisemitism. PACBI might not be the people who threatened Paul McCartney's life before he played in Israel, but they are responsible for that attitude and atmosphere.

It completely misses the point to say something like:

Various boycotts of Israel have sprung up in different places, unfortunately with very little effectiveness (so far) against the terrible policies of the Israeli government. But I just received this message via email from a friend, and this is a boyucott which makes me think twice.

The last case, which was actually the most significant in my thinking this morning about Staudenmeier, regards Islamophobia. I'm reading Denis MacShane's Globalizing Hatred. (I've only just started, so no review just yet. In the meantime, one, though the claim that antisemitism is not institutionalized in Britain is dangerously wrong, and another.) Early on, he writes:

Today, however, it is Saudi Wahhabism that is the most developed form of organised antisemitism

He also wrote of "Islamism" in the preface, noting that different writers prefer different terms. He makes great efforts to distinguish Islamism from Islam and Islamists from other Muslims, but I'm not sure that's enough. Although I don't think what is antisemitic when applied to Jews is necessarily Islamophobic when applied to Muslims -the stereotypes and traditions have their differences, which must be kept in mind- there are at least some similarities. The ways in which some Islamophobes try to distance themselves from hatred of Islam by focusing on Muslim radicals reminds me of how antisemites try to distance themselves from hatred of Jews by focusing on "Zionists." I don't think "Muslim radical" is quite the floating signifier "Zionist" is, but I think there's good reason to believe that Islamophobia might be as slippery as antisemitism, as capable of disguising itself.

So is this scapegoating Muslims for antisemitism? Is it centering Muslims in a narrative where they are peripheral? Or focusing on Islam as an explanation for why Muslims become central in such a narrative? MacShane is no extremist, and his intentions toward Muslims are, I'm confident, quite kind. Further, what he writes about antisemitism is probably quite important. But that doesn't mean we should accept all anti-antisemitism uncritically, any more than we should accept all anti-Islamophobia or Palestinian solidarity uncritically. I do believe that radical anti-antisemitism and radical anti-Islamophobia can coexist, but we're probably a ways from figuring out how to manage that.

Antisemitic & Islamophobic conspiracies, take 2

The British journalist/activist Sunny Hundal responded to something I had written a while ago. He writes:

This is a really intelligent point, and one I hadn’t considered earlier. [Thanks! -ig]

Its certainly true that bigotry towards Muslims is primarily couched in terms of ‘they’re different to us and will destroy our lifestyle‘, while anti-semitism towards Jews is much more about how they’ve infiltrated the ruling classes...

But you can also see how hatred of Muslims has also changed. It started back in the days with how the Middle Eastern governments were all backwards and had to be controlled, then kicked off recently with how these people are all terrorists, and rapidly morphed into a general hysteria about how British Muslims were going to destroy this country’s values.

I responded over there, and I hope it becomes an interesting conversation.

Hagee

I often get a weird feeling when people talk about John Hagee. The exception is Rebecca Lesses over at Mystical Politics. Or rapper, Y-Love. But when someone like Sunny Hundal does it, it can bug me.

I don't mean to pick on Hundal, but I'm partly more aware of what he says because I listen more to and appreciate his work more than a lot of other people. His article is far less troubling than it could have been, and is based particularly on a talk2action post that I appreciate wholeheartedly. But I do think what I say is relevant to his article. He doesn't have the same record talk2action has.

Hagee is illiberal in a million ways, all deserving of criticism. He's Islamophobic and homophobic. He's perversely anti-Catholic. He expresses a Christian worldview that's fundamentally intolerant. He blamed Hurricane Katrina on the immorality of the people of New Orleans. It's no surprise now that he blames the Holocaust, in part, on the Jews. So do the fundamentalist Jewish (and anti-Zionist) group Natura Kartei (known for participating in Iran's Holocaust Denial festival). It's a consequence of a fundamentalism that deals simplistically with the matter of a benevolent G-d allowing bad things to happen to good people. Right-wing fundamentalists like Hagee and NK, simply refuse to accept that these were good people in an essential way.

Hagee is more powerful and important in this world than NK, so it makes sense to pick on him. And when Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was attacked, it makes sense to point to Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain had sought out. Hagee should be attacked. And McCain should suffer politically for his association.

But why do gentiles pick, of all Hagee's sins, his antisemitism to highlight? Sometimes it goes further than merely highlighting his antisemitism, so that Hagee is used as a weapon against Jews. I think there's a hidden assumption about the role of Jews in politics -that antisemitic theme of Jewish power- that needs to be unpacked. In any case, it places Jews at the center of politics, promoting such a view of Jewish power.

Though I think relatively few Jews actually like Hagee, some do because of his hawkish views on Israel. His beliefs about Israel stem some both from honest repentance for Christian antisemitism and from a view of Jews as pawns in a Christian apocalyptic story. Usually, only the apocalyptic side is mentioned. In a hostile world, Jews often feel the need to seek protection from a less immediate threat, and some find Hagee to be less immediately threatening than some of the folks who hate Hagee. Hagee offers at least the promise of protection tinged with a patronizing, antisemitic fantasy that's difficult to take seriously. Many of those who attack him have a fantasy of dismantling Israel that's difficult not to take seriously.

It doesn't suggest to me that I've an ally in the fight against antisemitism when gentiles attack Hagee's antisemitism. It makes me feel used, for someone else's political agenda. Like antisemitism is worth fighting just because it's a weapon against the right (a right identified with Jews). At a time when Jews are feeling particularly abandoned by the Left, it's especially hurtful. It's an asterisk at the end of "We care about antisemitism, too" that belies the statement.

Antisemitic and Islamophobic conspiracies

I recently came across a somewhat old comment on the blog Liberal Conspiracy (via El Neuvo Pantano):

Furthermore, I find it amusing that when Muslims are associated with conspiracy theories to Islamicise Britain (as Melanie Phillips is frequently liable to claim) or ‘Eurabia’, we don’t see that level of condemnation [as we see of antisemitic conspiracism].

Despite the age of this comment, I think it deserve a reply that it didn't get. (This post is based upon an email sent to the author. From this point, I'll stop amending it for general consumption, and leave in the second-person address.)

Firstly, if you feel that the sort of conspiracy theories directed at Muslims are not sufficiently critiqued, it would certainly be appropriate to say so. I've noticed them and wondered about them, but my perspective is different from yours. As such, I think it would be great if you were to elaborate or invite others to elaborate on them on your blog, which I pay some attention to. However, it is not appropriate to undercut the critiques of antisemitic conspiracism, which, contrary to what you imply, are still absolutely inadequate.

Perhaps more importantly, though, I'm concerned that you might be missing something essential about antisemitic conspiracism. It's dependent upon a view of Jews as too much assimilated. While (many) Muslims are visibly Other, Jews are (to make use of an illustrative but fortunately historical extreme) shapeshifters. Jews, mistakenly perceived in the West as white when not all are, live in the uncanny valley. The more assimilated and successful Jews become, the greater the threat we represent to antisemites. To the best of my knowledge, conspiracism in Islamophobia arises through an Orientalist history that views both Jews and other 'Orientals' as superficially clever, but it does not have the same history in Islamophobia as it does in antisemitism. Because of the rules of evidence employed by conspiracists, always returning to disgraced and discarded ideas like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the disgrace proving the "danger" and hence relevance of the text, conspiracism is heavily dependent on its own antisemitic history. While many Islamophobes view Muslims as conspiring to infiltrate the West, those with the most extreme conspiracist worldviews unanimously view Muslims as (racially inferior to whites) victims of Jewish supremacism. And because the Otherness of Muslims is visually marked, I'm not sure it could change targets even if it that history could be overcome. Instead, I think it's more likely that the successful assimilation of Muslims will be viewed as a Jewish plot --as affirmative action, multiculturalism, the UN, and progressive immigration policies here in the US already are.

That last sentence, as it deals with white supremacists' desire to rank minorities, risks a comparison that I hope I can back away from. I have no desire to pit Jews against Muslims in "the Oppression Olympics." Islamophobia is certainly an important topic these days, and I have no desire to stand in the way of the fight against it. I have no doubt that it has the potential to become actively genocidal in any one of a great many Western nations. I have no doubt that it has informed the current wars that have killed so many people already. I have no desire to stand in the way of the important job of accurately and effectively critiquing Islamophobia. But I do very much doubt that Islamophobia will ever follow an antisemitic logic rather than an Islamophobic one.

Anti-Islamic arson in Tennessee

The Islamic Center of Columbia, Tennessee was set on fire this weekend, after it was spray painted with swastikas and white supremacist slogans. On a positive note, community leaders were quick to speak out in clear terms against Islamophobia, and

"This is the first hate crime we have observed here in Middle Tennessee," said A.K.M. Fakhruddin, former president of the Islamic Center of Nashville.

Three suspects, who may face federal hate crimes charges, have been arrested.

veil fetish art

An interesting post over at Muslimah Media Watch. And another one.

Not really about the Amis Affair

From Shiraz Socialist, which I've at other times found insightful, I came across this article by Martin Amis, entitled "No, I am not a racist." I'm afraid I'm not as up on the Amis/Eagleton affair as a lot of others. Perhaps because it's played out mainly in the British press, or perhaps because I'm not well read enough. In any case, at least one aspect of the article is worth discussing.

What I found most striking about Amis's defense is that he tells an anecdote about how his father first introduced him to a black man, how he first learned about diversity. He goes on to quote himself on his anti-racist views. Given that Amis (along with his father!) has been, as I understand, characterized as a racist this story and those quotes weigh in as evidence of his overall character. But he precedes them with, "Well, this is what's new about the new racism: it isn't racist." If his story is a defense of the statement he's been criticized for, then it's rather strange that it has nothing to do with what he said in that statement:

There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? – to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.’ What sort of suff­­er­­­ing? Not letting them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan… Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.

Amis is right to point out, that statement doesn't actually advocate discrimination, and anyone who has said that he has advocated that (based on that statement) is clearly wrong on a simple factual matter. The honesty is admirable, even, given that some people are sure to take the statement for more than it is. And since I can't honestly claim to having gone through my life without ever having said or thought anything racist, I'm not certainly going to criticize Amis for his honesty. The urge may well be there. I'd be surprised if only a few people shared Amis's urge, and we certainly ought to acknowledge such impulses so that we can address them. But it does strike me that the statement ties Islamism (or Jihadism, or terrorism masquerading as Islam, or takfirism, or whatever you want to call it) to the whole of Islam in a damaging way. I do think it's racist. He writes that his urge "not racist but simply retaliatory," but I'm curious how he selects the group (which is not limited to radical, violent fundamentalists) to retaliate against.

If Amis is opposed to racism (in principle), if he's written and worked against racism (as he understands it), if he's opposed to Islamophobia even (strange that his proof that he isn't Islamophobic is about how he learned not to hate black people) that doesn't make his statement less racist. It's completely backwards to characterize a statement by who utters it. I'm sure many awful racists have uttered, "My, what a wonderfully blue sky" during their lives - such a statement isn't racist, regardless of who says it. And Amis's statement is racist regardless of who said it.

Rather than looking into the hearts of people to determine what it is that they've said, as if our ears weren't sufficient, we ought to look simply at and debate what people have actually said. When we assume that such a discussion revolves around someone's character, as if each of us were so one-dimensional that everything we've ever done or said must be equally racist/anti-racist, we lose sight of a far more important discussion of what sort of statement actually hurts people.

In this world, as a Jew, I've increasingly found myself trying to explain to various people that something they said hurt me because it echoes the same lies that have led to the deaths of too many Jews in history. Too often the response has been that I must be lying since that other person "isn't a racist." Of course, how could they understand what's hurtful to Jews - how could they even know if they're racist - if they start exclude everyone who disagrees (especially Jews, who are the ones most likely to express their disagreement) with them from the discussion on those grounds.