I agree with about 75% of this. However, I think Qatari BDS might legitimize the current BDS movement. I don't want to penalize someone for their nationality. To me, that is one of the most egregiously insane components of BDS. I also don't think talking about how horrible rich people and capitalists are is helpful. We can have a more just society where people's needs are met without throwing away capitalism completely. On the other hand, every single point you made about antizionism embodying the worst aspects of illiberalism - antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism/colonialism, persecution of minorities, etc. - is absolutely true and needs to be said. Your point about Marx's actual views on Zionism is also interesting. However, since people don't seem to care that MLK was a Zionist, they probably won't care about this, either. I think the primary merit of Zionism, in terms of issues the left is supposed to care about, is that it is, in its essence, a human rights movement. And I agree - attacking it from the right is not going to move the needle.
I kept going back and forth all day on the merit of suggesting an anti-Qatar BDS-esque movement for the reasons you stated. But I think I’m for it for two big reasons:
1. It’s actually not the same; pointing out the problematicness of Qatar bankrolling universities in exchange for favorable curricula is very different from boycotting anyone who’s ever said the word Israel without a profanity in front of it. The motives, actions, and desired outcomes (driving Jews and Israelis out of polite society vs. driving Qatari influence out of western academia) are very different. It’s also a lot narrower (and let’s be honest — if it were the Israeli government was sending money to American universities to ensure favorable curricula, I’d be outraged as an Israeli-American). The problem with this argument is that it requires a lot of explaining and knowledge of both what BDS actually is and does and what Qatar is actually doing, which most people lack; my lengthy explanation here is still beyond reductive and verbose explanations are ineffective.
2. If someone responds with “well you can’t boycott Qatar” or “that’s racist” (which many BDSers would claim), it puts a mirror to their face. I like using a hypothetical boycott of China over treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, Taiwanese, and Hong Kongers (and others) which would obviously be deemed unmerited and bigoted to show how, without even the profound and cited explanation of how deeply insane the BDS movement is, it’s in the wrong. I think saying “if you’re gonna boycott Israel, we will boycott Qatar” is effective insofar as it puts the shoe on the other foot and forces them to defend it without the facts.
Thank you Blake! I agree with a lot of what you posit here, especially the emphasis on arguing for Zionism instead of falling into the trap of defending it.
I wonder, have you ever heard about the Pro Zionist left scene in Germany and Austria? Here it's more framed in the battle of the words about "who is the real antifascist". Maybe a visit to Leipzig or a chat with Nicholas Potter (since he's a native english speaker) could you give an insight about the arguments and habitus that have created a following to fight against antizionism. Side note: I often wonder if Einat's theory of the Disneyland of hate can be applied here as well.
To your point about authoritative measures: The holy Adorno ;) coined in a lecture in the 1960ies that you need punitive measures as an instrument against antisemitism because it is a sign of an authoritarian character who will ultimately only listen to that. But it should be garnished with actual convincing (his anecdote is that he did that, bringing some drivers to the police but arguing with them at the police station).
The problem is that there isn’t the support necessary on the Left to support such a movement as you suggest. Because:
1) Those who would support it from that camp are rightly afraid to speak because they know they’ll be marginalized amongst their own: lose professional opportunities and social standing. And
2) many on the left who would likely agree if they understood better , will never understand because this kind of nuanced discussion is no longer allowed in those spaces. They are well meaning but taken in by disingenuous arguments of the progressives. (Useful idiots)
The Right, as equally flawed and problematic as they can be, at least understand the hypocrisy and danger of what has become core doctrine of the left, driven by progressive ideologues: ‘critical theory’ which is a philosophy that has taken over, and which has antisemitism utterly baked-in. It is a theory which derides principles as its only principle, and derides and shouts down reasoned debate of any kind that could disprove it’s tenets: which involves separating everyone and everything into over-simplified caracatures of oppressors and oppressed/villians and victims.
The Left refuses to call out or even examine the absolute toxicity of the philosophy they have defined themselves with; which leaves only the right to have the ability to shed light on it.
Those of us liberals from the inside cannot be heard- if we try we end up getting slurred as ‘right wing’ anyway so that whatever we say can be immediately dismissed.
Unfortunately, when it’s only the Right able to speak to this, they’re going to do so in a way that incorporates its own problematic positions into it. The Left undermines itself by its unwillingness to be self critical or to tolerate debate. But that’s the progressive playbook.
The nazis were not socialist. They tried to cater to all kind of different factions, claiming to be for workers, promising the capitalists to crush the workers and bolshewism etc.
The attempt to hide your shouting of "Zionazis!" is ridiculous.
I agree with about 75% of this. However, I think Qatari BDS might legitimize the current BDS movement. I don't want to penalize someone for their nationality. To me, that is one of the most egregiously insane components of BDS. I also don't think talking about how horrible rich people and capitalists are is helpful. We can have a more just society where people's needs are met without throwing away capitalism completely. On the other hand, every single point you made about antizionism embodying the worst aspects of illiberalism - antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism/colonialism, persecution of minorities, etc. - is absolutely true and needs to be said. Your point about Marx's actual views on Zionism is also interesting. However, since people don't seem to care that MLK was a Zionist, they probably won't care about this, either. I think the primary merit of Zionism, in terms of issues the left is supposed to care about, is that it is, in its essence, a human rights movement. And I agree - attacking it from the right is not going to move the needle.
I kept going back and forth all day on the merit of suggesting an anti-Qatar BDS-esque movement for the reasons you stated. But I think I’m for it for two big reasons:
1. It’s actually not the same; pointing out the problematicness of Qatar bankrolling universities in exchange for favorable curricula is very different from boycotting anyone who’s ever said the word Israel without a profanity in front of it. The motives, actions, and desired outcomes (driving Jews and Israelis out of polite society vs. driving Qatari influence out of western academia) are very different. It’s also a lot narrower (and let’s be honest — if it were the Israeli government was sending money to American universities to ensure favorable curricula, I’d be outraged as an Israeli-American). The problem with this argument is that it requires a lot of explaining and knowledge of both what BDS actually is and does and what Qatar is actually doing, which most people lack; my lengthy explanation here is still beyond reductive and verbose explanations are ineffective.
2. If someone responds with “well you can’t boycott Qatar” or “that’s racist” (which many BDSers would claim), it puts a mirror to their face. I like using a hypothetical boycott of China over treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, Taiwanese, and Hong Kongers (and others) which would obviously be deemed unmerited and bigoted to show how, without even the profound and cited explanation of how deeply insane the BDS movement is, it’s in the wrong. I think saying “if you’re gonna boycott Israel, we will boycott Qatar” is effective insofar as it puts the shoe on the other foot and forces them to defend it without the facts.
Thank you Blake! I agree with a lot of what you posit here, especially the emphasis on arguing for Zionism instead of falling into the trap of defending it.
Precisely the point I’ve been trying to make for the past year plus, but you put it more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could. Well said!
Excellent points Blake. I love the Qatari BDS idea the most. Any group that is reacting and defending is losing.
I wonder, have you ever heard about the Pro Zionist left scene in Germany and Austria? Here it's more framed in the battle of the words about "who is the real antifascist". Maybe a visit to Leipzig or a chat with Nicholas Potter (since he's a native english speaker) could you give an insight about the arguments and habitus that have created a following to fight against antizionism. Side note: I often wonder if Einat's theory of the Disneyland of hate can be applied here as well.
To your point about authoritative measures: The holy Adorno ;) coined in a lecture in the 1960ies that you need punitive measures as an instrument against antisemitism because it is a sign of an authoritarian character who will ultimately only listen to that. But it should be garnished with actual convincing (his anecdote is that he did that, bringing some drivers to the police but arguing with them at the police station).
Brilliant thoughts as always. A resurgent leftist Zionism is sorely needed at this point in time.
Hmmm
I agree with many of your points
The problem is that there isn’t the support necessary on the Left to support such a movement as you suggest. Because:
1) Those who would support it from that camp are rightly afraid to speak because they know they’ll be marginalized amongst their own: lose professional opportunities and social standing. And
2) many on the left who would likely agree if they understood better , will never understand because this kind of nuanced discussion is no longer allowed in those spaces. They are well meaning but taken in by disingenuous arguments of the progressives. (Useful idiots)
The Right, as equally flawed and problematic as they can be, at least understand the hypocrisy and danger of what has become core doctrine of the left, driven by progressive ideologues: ‘critical theory’ which is a philosophy that has taken over, and which has antisemitism utterly baked-in. It is a theory which derides principles as its only principle, and derides and shouts down reasoned debate of any kind that could disprove it’s tenets: which involves separating everyone and everything into over-simplified caracatures of oppressors and oppressed/villians and victims.
The Left refuses to call out or even examine the absolute toxicity of the philosophy they have defined themselves with; which leaves only the right to have the ability to shed light on it.
Those of us liberals from the inside cannot be heard- if we try we end up getting slurred as ‘right wing’ anyway so that whatever we say can be immediately dismissed.
Unfortunately, when it’s only the Right able to speak to this, they’re going to do so in a way that incorporates its own problematic positions into it. The Left undermines itself by its unwillingness to be self critical or to tolerate debate. But that’s the progressive playbook.
Your articles are so well written and articulate. I look forward to reading them and digesting their brilliance!
The nazis were not socialist. They tried to cater to all kind of different factions, claiming to be for workers, promising the capitalists to crush the workers and bolshewism etc.
The attempt to hide your shouting of "Zionazis!" is ridiculous.