The Danger of Single Story and the Blurry Thin Line Between Antisemitism and AntiZionism: The Facebook Witch Hunt of Anti Zionists ‘Hard Left’.

Written by Luqman ‘Ripp Em’ Onikosi (Note writer is dyslexic and tend to make an unintentional grammatical typo). 

So this picture and quote, below, has been going around the internet.

anti semites

This quote came from a interview that David Zlutnick conducted with Dr. Hajo Meyer, an Holocaust survivor who renounced Zionism.

When Zlutnick asked Meyer:

Critics of Israel are often accused of anti-Semitism, and Jewish critics are often labeled as ‘self-hating Jews’. You’ve had these accusations leveled against you. What is your response?’

 Dr. Meyer responded (below is the full transcript segment of his response the question):

The journalist who reports from Berlin for the Jerusalem Post, I think it’s Mr. [Weinthal], he has a spotlight on me. So I have the honor of being quoted as an anti-Semite or whatever in the Jerusalem Post, and I cannot get higher honors than to be one of the people like Jimmy Carter, or Noam Chomsky, or Norman Finkelstein, and former [Dutch] Prime Minister Dries van Agt.

So I’m very proud to be an anti-Semite.Because formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and due to their Jewish nature and their race… Nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by a certain type of Zionist. Like one of the important Nazi leaders, Göring, said, “I determine who is a Jew.” And so the Zionists determine who is an anti-Semite. And as I say, I’m proud to be one of those.’

After researching its source, I decided to use it in my article ‘The World Zionists Organization and State of Israel’s Myths of the ‘Promise Land’‘ and shared it across Facebook pages and groups that I was part, including my wall. In total, about 60 of them.

Some hours later, one by one, my web-link embedded in my posts started disappearing on Facebook. Then I realized the very article on my blog, which I had tagged ‘Zionist’, ‘Anti-Zionism’ among many other buzz words, had been removed.

So, I went back to re-tag my article twice with the word ‘Zionists’ just to make sure, I was not going psycho.

Then I re-posted the my article to various Facebook pages and groups, including my wall with a statement that:

Ok this is weird, the article I wrote on my Blog ‘The World Zionists Organization and State of Israel’s Myths of the ‘Promise Land’’ and posted across Facebook has all suddenly disappeared. Also, on my blog, I tagged the World Zionists Organization and State of Israel so that search engine can pick up my article. Both of the tags has disappeared. How are we supposed to have a constructive debate? This is very creepy and scary. Zionists are running the world of internet believe me. I dont understand how Zionist sees freedom speech as their personal property and every other person’s right to it secondary? So I am reposting my article again here and I have retagged the both words to my article. It is a shame that Zionist and pro Zionist are conducting propaganda and they can hide behind ‘hate speech’ to infringe on my freedom to express constructive criticism of the state of Israel domestic and foreign policies.

Spontaneously, some white dudes ( mostly but I must emphasize this, fewer minority of white left) accused me of ‘conspiracy theory’  because I stated that my article was deleted on Facebook and inferred that ‘Zionists are running the world of internet believe me’.

On the Facebook page called ‘Marxist Internet Archive Users Discussion Group‘, one of the page Admin called Doug Greene and others on the page accused me of ‘conspiracy theory’. In due course I was removed and blocked from the page.

Among many of the attacks on leashed on Facebook at me, the ‘National Campaign Against Cuts and Fees’ the one was the most vicious and chauvinistic.

Two members of the ‘National Campaign Against Cuts and Fees’ Jamie Sims and Ben Towse, took turn to indulge in far more deep chauvinistic and ferocious charlatanry accusation of inaccuracy of the historical fact that stated in my article that:

In July 1930,  Maxim Litvinov, a Jew, becomes foreign minister of the Soviet Russia. In May 1934, the Soviet Union establishes the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan near the border with China and Soviet went as far as setting up, April 1942 the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’.

In reaction to this statement, Jamie Sims claim, among many  ridiculous and chauvinistic claims that him and his friend, Ben Towse,  that Soviet Russia at the era of Joseph Stalin, did persecute the Jews.

Well before I respond directly to that statement. I will like to warn that Jamie Sims statement imply touch-and-go commonsense confusion of the historical relationship between the Russian Empire, Bolshevik and the Jews. This views reflects the precariousness of the danger of a single story, in historical analysis.

Now, to respond to Sims, yes, I agreed.  But I begged to differed on the basis that Sims’ statement is a sweeping singularity analysis of the Soviet Russia and ‘on the Jewish Question‘ as if Soviet was set out from the onset to persecuted the Jews. In my view, this is blatant chauvinism that endangers principle of layered critical analysis of multiple story.

On the ‘on the Jewish Question‘ essay, that critic the work of Bruno Bauer on the attempt by Jews to achieve political emancipation in Prussia. Bauer argued that Jews could achieve political emancipation only by relinquishing their particular religious consciousness, since political emancipation requires a secular state, which he assumes does not leave any “space” for social identities such as religion. According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the ‘Rights of Man‘. True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.

Starting with the works of Karl Marx 1844, the father of socialism, on the other hand contended Bauer’s essay. Marx argued that Bauer is mistaken in his assumption that in a ‘secular state’, religion will no longer play a prominent role in social life, and giving as an example the pervasiveness of religion in the United States, which, unlike Prussia, had no state religion. In Marx’s analysis, the ‘secular state’ is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it. The removal of religious or property qualifications for citizens does not mean the abolition of religion or property, but only introduces a way of regarding individuals in abstraction from them.

On this note Marx moves beyond the question of religion freedom to his real concern with Bauer’s analysis of ‘political emancipation’. Marx concludes that while individuals can be ‘spiritually’ and ‘politically’ free in a secular state, they can still be bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality, an assumption that would later form the basis of his critiques of capitalism.

I think the most significance of Marx criticism of Bauer is the distinction he drew between ‘political emancipation’ and ‘human emancipation’.

‘Political emancipation’ for Marx meant the achieving of political rights under the bourgeois state, which could be summarized as the achieving equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual people. The sort of liberty that was possible under the bourgeois state was not to be equated with a genuine human emancipation which in his view required the transcendence of what he at the time called commercial society.

For Marx whereas the achievement of political emancipation required that Jews be granted equal civil rights with European Gentiles, human emancipation required the abolition of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles of Europe as a social distinction which was rooted in commercial society, what Marx called capitalism, in his later works.

In my view, the reason, why Marx, tried to negotiate the question of religion is that Jews in the rest of Europe, especially in Russian Empire, were disproportionately in concentrated city and  by provision were in to trade and commerce which gave them real economic and political power out of proportion to their actual numbers. This economic power could then be translated into ‘political emancipation‘ as ‘privilege’. In the end, there wont be difference between religious privileged person like the Jews and privileged Gentiles like the Christians or Muslims, because they would all converged to become the bourgeois class or petty bourgeois class (middle class).

Instead, Marx argued that the goal of political revolutionary revolt should strive to achieve ‘human emancipation’, which Marx opined transcend the limits of bourgeois-political emancipation. For him ‘human emancipation’, entails the building of a solidaric society of free individuals, a humane world society of humanity as such.

For Marx, social justice is a question of the realization of freedom and morality in a ‘unity of individual will and the absolute free will. But he doesn’t at all see these as fulfilled in the modern state. The unity can be achieved, rather, only where the social contradictions and class antagonism produced by capitalistic production methods are overcome. This fulfillment, then, of freedom and morality is still to be achieved; it still has to be fought for by the revolutionary movement of the socially repressed and deprived in a revolt against capitalistic production conditions.

Contrary to Marx’s view, the Bolshevik blurred the distinctive line between ‘human emancipation’and ‘political emancipation’. In stead, launched sporadic state clampdown against Zionism, while given half baked and inconsistent position on antisemitism.

The history of Soviet Russia and Jews was filled twist and turns this is because opposes all religion. As Matt Siegfried wrote in 1999, that the Germany of Hitler is the absolutist kingdom of anti-Semitism; the USSR, on the contrary, is the kingdom of national harmony. Vital contradictions, changes, transitions from one condition to another, in a word, the actual historical processes escape their lackadaisical attention.

In the period after the 1917,  Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin made several remarks that the Bolshevik Party  vehemently condemned the antisemitic pogroms which were perpetrated by the White Army during the Russian Civil War.  In March 1919, Vladimir Lenin delivered a speech tagged ‘On Anti-Jewish Pogroms‘. Lenin sought to explain the phenomenon of antisemitism in Marxist terms. According to Lenin, antisemitism was an attempt to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants from the exploiters toward the Jews.

Having said that, in fact, way in to the Stalin era which between 3 April 1922 – 16 October 1952, the official stance of the Soviet government in 1934 was to oppose antisemitism ‘anywhere in the world’ and claimed to express ‘fraternal feelings to the Jewish people’, praising the Jewish contributions towards international Socialism.

On 12 January 1931, Stalin gave the following answer to an inquiry on the subject of the Soviet attitude toward antisemitism from the Jewish News Agency in the United States:

National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum (2007) explained in the  Encyclopaedia Judaica Volume 5, that while Nazi propaganda identified Jews with Bolsheviks,  and the Soviet government stressed its condemnation of antisemitism ‘anywhere in the world,’. Stalin’s Soviet expressed “fraternal feelings to the Jewish people” in recognition of its contribution to international socialism, and mentioned Karl Marx’s Jewish origin and the part played by the Jews in building up the Soviet Union. At this time also, a statement made by Stalin in 1931 to a correspondent of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that “antisemitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism” was even made public in the Soviet Union itself.

However, the chauvinistic bias that Stalin warned his Soviet subjects of, manifested  its nuance in the period of Soviet-German temporal reconciliation (1939–41), the Nazi persecution and murder of Jews in the occupied territories of Europe was hardly mentioned in the Soviet press.  Even after the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941), the authorities made no efforts to combat manifestations of popular antisemitism on Soviet territory, which were a frequent occurrence both in the rear and among the partisan units.

Yet as aforementioned, it was in the same time period, Soviet Russian took major political action by appointing Maxim Litvinov,  as the foreign minister, established the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan near the border with China and set up Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee.

The other cynical and chauvinistic attack I would like to response to, is Daniel Lee who commented on my wall that ‘Zionists are running the world of internet believe me’ is a great way of saying to people ‘I hereby renounce all credibility in any future statement’.

I want to say to you, Daniel Lee, as dialectians, I believe you know that our world and realities are not characterized by a singular close ended statement. As intellectuals, we are ascribed with the burden of gate keeping of history, even though we did not ask for it nor was it official ordained on us.  My point is, we must dare to offer pro and con the historical arguments no matter how harsh the environment of the debate. As intellectual we must not be partial and parochial with our views.

In the light of this, I made the statement in post that ‘Zionists are running the world of internet believe me’ and I am resolute about that. My experiences has made me resolved that the distinctive line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism discourse has been deliberately blurred by internet, social media (in this case, Facebook) and web browser providers, whether they are Jew or not, the nation states that regulates its social usage among its citizenry , have along the line geopolitical alignment and political economy reciprocity, use their gargantuan power to favor and to tilt the balance of the debate towards the State of Israel. I will trust that you are well aware that you dont have to ‘be Jew to be Zionist’. If you doubt, listen to this video interview of Joe Bidden, the now, Obama Vice President, which he granted the Shalom TV, from whom I lifted the phrase from. Bidden proclaimed himself as Zionist and maintained that one does not have to be Jew to be a Zionist.

As a colonized African, I do not tolerate the condescending relationship that the Soviet Russian had with post-colonial African countries  after second World War, which in itself is characterized by hegemonic socialism. Soviet Russia was not interested in the Human Emancipation of post Africa continent, instead it must concern about using the continent to fight its proxy cold-war. In this regards, do not have the slightest inclination, that I might be deluded and parochial to assumes that the Soviet Russia is the lesser of the two evil of cold war era.

So, as a students of history, we owe it to posterity to be ‘pluriversal‘, (that is no one universal truth and way of knowing) in our critical analysis of ‘conspiracy facts’ political economy of history. Otherwise, we will all be committing ‘epistemicide‘ (the act of the killing of knowledge), that would be a travesty.

So before the infighting on flimsy issues can stop, we ‘white left’ must try to understand the Zionists are in denial believe me. Zionist understand and sees freedom of speech as their birthright personal property and every other person’s right to it, is secondary. And you, the admins of the Facebook Marxist Internet Archive Users Discussion Group, you guys are ridiculously pathetic and disgrace to the tradition of Marxism are their stooges. YEP, I SAID IT!

Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and of human relationships to wo/man herself or himself. Human emancipation will only be complete when the real individual wo/man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his relationships, he has become a species-being; and when he has recognized and organized his own powers (forces propres) as social powers so that he no longer separated his social power from himself as political power. (Marx/Engels 1956, 1,p, 370, Marx/Engels 1978, p.46).


One thought on “The Danger of Single Story and the Blurry Thin Line Between Antisemitism and AntiZionism: The Facebook Witch Hunt of Anti Zionists ‘Hard Left’.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s