Poppies, republicanism and Republicanism
It’s hardly surprising that a Republican like Chris Donnelly has problems with poppy-wearing. But is it really the reinforcement of British militarism that it has – admittedly – been allowed to become?
Aside from their fundraising role, poppies are part of a national contemplation of the sacrifice of service people. It’s not a universal activity by any means though.
Isolationists, people with a pragmatic objection to particular conflicts, or people – like Chris – who challenge the legitimacy of the British state in the first place sometimes either refuse to participate or do so grudgingly. I would argue that – in doing so – they are misunderstanding the potential that national remembrance can have in the context of the social contract.
In a representative democracy, we vote for people who then enact the general will. And the general will currently is that British troops are fighting in Afghanistan (whatever opinion polls at any given point say) paid for by British taxpayers (including Chris). Even if I were to have opposed that war, a wholehearted democrat should, I believe, conclude that the limits to legitimate opposition to it are boundaried by my right to protest legally and my power to vote for it’s opponents next time.
For this reason, the slogan ‘Not In My Name!’ is a heedless – even dangerous – one. When a country goes to war, it is always in all of our names – no matter what our personal views are. You can’t pay for something one minute and deny responsibility for it the next. If you wanted the criticise this position, probably the best charge would be that it is ‘too republican’ in the classical sense of the word.
When a democracy sends people to fight and die on it’s behalf, it’s citizens acquire a debt to those people, whatever our personal views on the conflicts concerned. It’s not just a financial debt either, but one where they are thanked for doing our bidding and where the casualties and their families know that the public are contemplating the sacrifice that they made.
When people go to fight on our collective instructions, they need to know that we have considered and weighed the sacrifice that they are making. That they aren’t just chaff or cannon-fodder sent off on a whim. This is why the trend towards the poppy becoming an unthinking act of public cant is so damaging. What Brian Walker here has called ‘poppy fascism’. As long as poppy-wearing is an act of conformity rather than reflection, it betrays the most valuable aspect of remembrance.
When we buy a poppy, we provide a few coins, but more importantly, I would hope that we pledge to take part in a national programme of contemplation.
Good democracies need to do this because, put crudely, our electoral decisions effectively name the price that we put on the lives of service people. I may have supported this war but not that one, but that should be immaterial. No-one is obliged to express personal support for any national venture, but when we hold our pre-election debates, we frame the nation’s attitude to war – and this has a bearing upon future casualties (among other things).
The quality of pre-election public debate is crucial though. To illustrate this, compare two issues (*picking the first one out of the air*): The NHS and ….. er… GM Crops.
Elections put a price on the value we place on the health service. They do this because politicians know that there will always be a lively debate on this subject because their constituents are either regular users of the health service, or are friends-and-relations with people who are. Most of us have the opportunity to pick up enough experience to be informed spectators on the pre-election NHS debate. For this reason, it’s a sign of a healthy democracy that the NHS is an important battleground.
GM Crops, on the other hand, are a much more complex issue – one that most of us don’t know enough about to pronounce upon – and one where self-interested pressure groups have the capacity to promote policies that may not serve the widest public interest. It’s a question for the distributed moral wisdom of Parliament rather than a necessarily simplified public debate.
Putting service people in harm’s way should be an NHS-ish issue rather than a GM Crops-ish one. It’s one that we should all have contemplated, and the annual remembrance season is a good opportunity for this conversation to take place.
Governments will, surely, make better decisions if this is the case? A desire for better policymaking is something that should unite us all – regardless of our attitudes to particular conflicts. It follows that an improvement in the quality of policy debate will result in fewer deployments of British troops to further less defensible war-aims.
For this reason, surely Irish nationalists and republicans living in the UK should join the collective act of remembrance for people who make sacrifices at the behest of elected governments?
And the problems with this argument? I can see three:
1. The money goes exclusively to British service charities.
No-one is stopping parallel commemorations for the causalities who were sponsored by movements other than the British state.
2. You can’t criticise Sinn Fein supporters for ignoring this ‘republican’ notion that all citizens of the British state bear collective responsibility for it’s actions because of Sinn Fein’s continuing selective abstentionism
Good point. However, that selective abstentionism is, in itself, a fudge. You can no more be ‘a bit abstentionist’ than you can be ‘a bit pregnant.’
3. Remembrance may ostensibly be about the noble aims set out above, but in reality, it’s just another opportunity for pro-Union chauvinism in the north of Ireland (the contrast between the way that poppies are worn in the north of Ireland and how it is worn elsewhere in the UK illustrates this) and tub-thumping jingoism elsewhere
Yes – ideally the way that this remembrance is conducted should be modified to accommodate those those who don’t currently engage with it. Unionists may complain that this would be an unwarranted act of appeasement, but I’d counter this by saying that the modification is not just something that should be aimed at Irish republicans, but at all of those who are ambivalent or hostile to acts of remembrance on the grounds that it seems to endorse foreign policy decisions that they don’t like.
Experience tells us that appeals to tone this down are likely to be fruitless as well. But if a minority of prominent republicans to start wearing poppies themselves, I suspect that this particular thorn would be removed?
A better, more engaged discussion about how military force is deployed can only be a good thing. The way we instruct the armed services is the cornerstone of that debate, and remembrance is a very potent opportunity for reflection. One that we should all influence. It would be a gamechanging move for Gerry and Martin to be wearing poppies next year.
But the British public did reflect at length on the reasons for going to war in Iraq and rejected them in the greatest display of anti-government feeling ever witnessed in Britain, including the Chartist and Suffragette Movements. It was the politicians who ignored the general will, who broke the social contract (if these things can indeed be said to exist which is a matter for debate), who lied and lied again and knelt to the bidding of a foreign power rather than heed the voice of their own people.
That the wearing of the poppy today is promoted heavily as giving support to that wrong decision is yet another reason not to wear it and many, many people I know in England refuse it for those reasons.
In St Alban’s market on Saturday I made a studied and conscientious count of those wearing poppies. In the shopping precinct amid a crowd of 300-500 people I counted twelve and on the High Street itself were the market stalls are set up outside shops from the major chains of Marks&Spencers;, Tesco, Boots and others I counted less than fifty in a crowd of up to one thousand. Ther were also two war veterans standing outside two stores selling poppies which might be expected to have added to the numbers being worn. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the success of ‘poppy fascism. What?
Rory,
I’ve answered your point about the anti-Iraq War march already.
I don’t think you’ve read the article on ‘Poppy Fascism’ that I linked to either or you wouldn’t have made the point that you have done.
From wikipedia:
In the 1930s, relations between Fianna Fáil and the IRA deteriorated considerably. Following the murder by the IRA of Richard More O’Farrell in February 1935, the Fianna Fáil leadership instructed party members to stop selling the lily as it was “the symbol of an organisation of whose methods we disapprove”. For its Easter commemmorations that same year, Fianna Fáil introduced a new symbol called the Easter Torch. This was sold for a number of years but was discontinued as the badge proved unpopular with the party grass roots, many of whom continued to wear the Easter Lily.
Since the 1930s, successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments attempted to suppress sales of the Easter Lily.
‘Interestingly your final sentence implicitly acknowledges this because your use of the word “the Irish” actually means Irish Catholics (in the ethnic sense) and excludes Protestant-Unionists.’
Glad that you missed me Brit, I had a litle jaunt around a small part of the Levant last week, and I missed you too. Now, with your quote above, you fail to recognise that it was the Protestant-unionists who excluded themselves, when they completely disregarded the will of the vast majority of the irish people. Furthermore your insistence that a group of people who are unhappy with the manner in which democracy works can form their own ‘nation’ or dictate to the vast majority means that areas such as tyrone, pockets like West Belfast etc are entitled to join the Republic, would you support this?
‘There are difficult arguments as to whether the war was a good thing but most of the kneejerk arguments against (oil, occuption, imperialism, lies, illegality, Israel, neo-cons) are devoid of merit.’
Devoid of merit you say Brit? It seems you’re doing the moth thing again, lets look at the evidence
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,…And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,”
(Phillip Zelikow – who was a member of Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)
“Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”
(Gen Wesley Clark)
Or what about when Bibi went to Washington and warned Seantors that Saddam was aquiring nuclear weapons. You’ll find an article about it in the Chicago Sun Times – ‘Netanyahu’s nuke warning’.
“If Saddam Hussein is not stopped now, five years from now, six years from now, we will have to deal with an Iraq that is armed with nuclear weapons, with an Iraq that has delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.”
(Ra’anan Gissen – Sharon spokesman)
Or this beaut from Peres..
“I’m not sure. Maybe a change in Iraq can facilitate a better solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It’s not so clear that there is a simple answer.”
“But Iraq is an issue in their own right, and a very terrible one. I think that everybody is a little bit impatient because there is a feeling that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons. They possess chemical weapons. They possesss biological weapons. They are building missiles. And simply, you cannot sit and wait for meeting this challenge,”
Or another beaut from Peres…
“Saddam Hussein is as dangerous as Bin-laden”
Or how about Ehud Barack….
“Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-weapons program provides the urgent need for his removal”.
Brit for you to claim that Israel or the neo-cons were not an issue in the Iraq war is laughable.
I wonder if Mick could be persuaded to introduce a variation on Godwin’s Law to Slugger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin‘s_law
As soon as anyone mentions either the 1918 election or any IRA outrage, the argument is deemed to be over and the person who mentioned it has lost.
Paul
I made up my own law
3.Goblins law, the first person to use ethnic cleansing in relationship to nIreland automatically loses the arguement
“who lied and lied again and knelt to the bidding of a foreign power rather than heed the voice of their own people.”
No matter how many times you say something Rory it doesn’t make it true. To accuse Blair of lying means that the accuser is either deeply ignorant, very stupid, or being disingenous or some combination of the foregoing. Blair was preaching and practicing foreign intervention when Bush was an isloationist Republican in Texas.
“That the wearing of the poppy today is promoted heavily as giving support to that wrong decision is yet another reason not to wear it and many, many people I know in England refuse it for those reasons.”
That’s not true. The advertising campaign, whose object is to raise maximum revenue via charitable contributions, identifies potential recipients of the money as soliders injured or dependents of killed soldiers in recent conflicts. That’s because this seems a more needy cause, more urgent and more emotional, than injured/dependents from previous conflicts. Many people in England wear the poppy whilst strongly opposing the recent wars, not being English nationalists (or British nationalists) of any type and in no sense glorifying or celebrating any war or imperial projects.
“Glad that you missed me Brit, I had a litle jaunt around a small part of the Levant last week, and I missed you too. Now, with your quote above, you fail to recognise that it was the Protestant-unionists who excluded themselves, when they completely disregarded the will of the vast majority of the irish people. Furthermore your insistence that a group of people who are unhappy with the manner in which democracy works can form their own ‘nation’ or dictate to the vast majority means that areas such as tyrone, pockets like West Belfast etc are entitled to join the Republic, would you support this?”
Not the Zionist entity I hope. You might have realised its inhabitants were mainly decent human beings like you (?) and me, rather than murderers, racists and monsters, which would no doubt have caused you some psychological trauma.
A few substantive comments:-
1. You seem to accept that the Protestant-Unionists are a nation.
2. Your claims about the will of the vast majority of the Irish people seems inconsident with the election results in the Free State immediately after the Treaty which, when taken with the Unionist support in NE Ulster, constitued a clear majority which accepted partition.
3. One interesting question is the extent to which the separateness of the Protestant Unionists, their non-Irishness or different Irishness, was their fault or the fault of the nature and practice of much Irish nationalism. It’s an intellectually interesting question but not one which has any particular merits in relation to current NI politics. A case must be made that the diminishing of Protestant Republicanism and Irishness was partly caused by the idea amongst nationalists that Prods were foreign and not British, by the Catholicisation of much Irish nationalism and by a level of sectarianism – in practice and ideology – by Irish nationalists. Including the IRA who shortly after partition committed some purely sectarian murders against Prods as Prods. Of course Orangeism, the failures on the part of Ulster Unionists, particularly the relatively more liberal amongst them and certain actions of the British government also play a part here.
4. There are, of course, practical limitations on the right to self-determination. That the application of the valid principle to specific scenarios can prove difficult or even impossible does not invalid the general principle. In principle I would support re-partition along lines which best correlated concentrations of nationalists near the borders – although that would not be viable for West Belfast or a number of other signficant Catholic communities.
Ok RS, I should have made myself clearer. What I meant to say was that it was not israel or the “Zionist Lobby” that ordered, influenced the US to go to war. The US was doing so in consideration of its own interests (although those interests were and are far broader than immediate selfish interests, self defence or economic benefits). Sometimes this is linked to a Jewish lobby and the fact that some neo-cons / Bush governement figures were Jews (some claimed as Jews were, in fact, not and the fact that about 80% of Jews didn’t vote for Bush is conveniently ignored).
Now of course the chance of Saddam using or threatening a nuclear attack on Israel was an issue in assessing the dangers of Saddam. Such a development would likely lead to a massive nuclear conflict many millons of deaths and a massive escalation. This would be a humanitarian horror of holocaust like proportions and pose a huge risk to the world at large.
Saddam might also have aided rogue elements in Pakistan or Al Queda or attacked other countries like Iran or Kuwait etc.
The fact that Israelis wanted Saddam toppled is hardly surprising. He was a deranged genocidal totalitarian giant fiercly opposed to Israel, who had attacked neighbouring countries, murdered 100s of thousands of his countrymen, used chemical weapons, funded suicide terrorism and was believed to be developing WMDs. The quotes you include merely relfect this, rather than the fact that the US did it for Israel without considering its own interests.
Interestingly your thesis is based on the implicit acceptance that the US and Israel did generally believe that Saddam was developing WMDs which sits at odds with the likes of Rory et all who harp on about Bush and Blair’s lies.
As to “neo-Cons” I have no doubt that a Democrat administration would have invaded Iraq, and I would have loved the Democrats to have been in power at that time. We might then have seen a broader international consensus, a second UN resolution, a bigger progressive pro-war alliance and better planning and execution of the occuption. Bill Clintion said that he would have invaded Iraq at the Labour Party conference (before subsequently moving to an understandablly opportunist anti-Iraq war position). You will note that the current administration has not radically altered US foreign policy and is certainly not getting ready to pull of Afghanistan.
Brit, I don’t have time to formulate a proper response to all of your points, but one of them stuck out for me:
2. Your claims about the will of the vast majority of the Irish people seems inconsident with the election results in the Free State immediately after the Treaty which, when taken with the Unionist support in NE Ulster, constitued a clear majority which accepted partition.
How fair is any election when the most powerful empire the world had ever seen threatens “immediate and terrible war” if the treaty was not ratified by those in the 26 counties?
“How fair is any election when the most powerful empire the world had ever seen threatens “immediate and terrible war” if the treaty was not ratified by those in the 26 counties?”
I dont have time to delve into the history books to properly identify the context of that quote (Asquith?) but I think it was during Treaty negotiations and I dont know if it was made publically to the electorate of Ireland. Furthermore all sorts of bluffs and threats were made by both sides, including threats of violence so I am not sure that is taken seriously.
The truth was then as it has ever been that the Ulster Protestants were never going to accept coercion into the Republic – their expulsion from the UK. The British government was relatively neutral although less willing to let the Protestans fend for themselves post WW1.
The other truth is that many Irish nationalists accepted, more or less expressly and openly, that the NE Ulster was to be treated differently and that whilst not ideal they would not countenance coercion of the Protestant community in that part of the island. The vote reflected this view rather than terror at being murdered by the Brits
‘Not the Zionist entity I hope. You might have realised its inhabitants were mainly decent human beings like you (?) and me, rather than murderers, racists and monsters, which would no doubt have caused you some psychological trauma.’
Actually yes Brit, I did venture round a bit of Israel. But unfortunately it was a let down. I had gone to visit an Israeli arab family who had recently been evicted from their home by the Israeli govt using some archaic Ottoman law, and had Israeli jews living in it, with the previous owners encamped in a tent across the street. After witnessing this and heading back up toward the Old City, an orthodox fella told me in a east european accent
“Why don’t you go home your own country, comin over here make trouble !”
Whereupon i couldn’t help but laugh. I did however meet with some nicer Israeli’s both arab and jew who were opposed to such policy and demolitions etc, unfortunately they are viewed as radical and subversive by the Israeli mainstream. However the welcome extended to foreginers in the West bank as far as my expeirence was, stood in stark contrast to that in Israel.
‘You seem to accept that the Protestant-Unionists are a nation.’
No, i don’t. But then nobody has an agreed defintion of what exactly a ‘nation’ is. Mill tried it, as did Enest Renan. What is undeniable, is that the vast majority of the irish except the unionists saw themselves as a nation distinct from Britain, whereas unionists were happy to ruled by Britain, so one can only assume any sense of nationhood they had, was more to with obstructing and denying the nationality of others than expressing any kind of their own.
Which you seem to admit with this….
‘The truth was then as it has ever been that the Ulster Protestants were never going to accept coercion into the Republic’
So the unionists saw democracy as a coercion, but it was nowhere near the same coercion used to force Ireland into the union.
Your paragraph number 3 does raise interesting points. But it seem you neglect to consider the level of for want of a better term ‘anti-native’ legislation which has been forced on Ireland by the british. im not sure if thats the point your making in the final sentence or if that refers to post-partition.
As regards the second issue and the Iraq war, you seem to be conflating the Israel lobby with american judaism. Plus you also seem to be suggesting that the Israel lobby did not help to influence the decision to go to war, is that your contention?
‘Interestingly your thesis is based on the implicit acceptance that the US and Israel did generally believe that Saddam was developing WMDs which sits at odds with the likes of Rory et all who harp on about Bush and Blair’s lies.’
Not at all Brit, unless you actually believe that what politicians say in public are the same as those they discuss in private.
The record also shows the neo-cons (I know you hate that term…so apologies) had Iraq in their sights quite a while before the pseudo-texan came to office. So your original contention that Israel and the neo-cons as regards the Iraq war is itself devoid of merit.
Beauty and tragedy in global network of war graves
Published: Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Echoes of the British Empire linger in the cemeteries of those who died for Britain and its dominions in the two world wars, and who are honored every Nov. 11, the anniversary of the end of World War I. The graves, scattered around the world, are tenderly preserved as reminders of history at its most appalling. Associated Press correspondents visited some of them. It is the British empire of the dead.
Scattered across 150 countries and managed from a modest office building near London’s Heathrow Airport, a global patchwork of graveyards constitutes a beautiful memorial to the ugliest carnage: the 1.7 million fighting men and women who died for Britain and its dominions in the world wars of the last century.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articles/2009/11/10/life/doc4af95d6eec9a1404275222.txt
“After witnessing this and heading back up toward the Old City, an orthodox fella told me in a east european accent
“Why don’t you go home your own country, comin over here make trouble !”
Whereupon i couldn’t help but laugh”
How did he know you were ‘making trouble’ so to speak? Did you have a Hezbollah T-shirt on or something? Please not a keffiyah. An Irishman in one of those is not a good look.
On a more seroious note I would note that there have been Orthodox Jews ( I presume you actually mean ultra Orthodox / Haredi – ie Black Hat )in Jerusalem for thousands of years. And as for East European accent there basically been no East European Jews since the end of WW2 so he must have been bloody old if he still retained his Polish (?) accent.
And assuming he did hail from such a place (as opposed to, say, Brooklyn) then you surely dont think Poland would be any kind of homeland to return back to do you?
Next time go to Tel Aviv, forget your politics for a couple of days, have a nice meal, go for some beers, make some friends and go to some clubs /pubs and if you are single see if you can hook up with a nice Israeli girl (or boy). It will give you a better understanding of the reality of Israeli behind the demonized concept of the Entity.
Thanks everyone for responding to this post – it’s been interesting. A few things occur to me. There’s that poem (Wilfrid Owen?) who talked about the corpses of soldiers killed and buried abroad saying something along the lines of ‘there is always a corner of some foreign field that will be forever England.’
Then there’s Brendan Behan’s ‘The Hostage’ – I think, a beautiful under-rated work with a heartbreaking ending. Behan saw the Tommy as being at least as much a victim of, as a tool of British imperialism. These were the poor, sent out to fight and die in a war that was of no benefit to themm.
And then Alan Silitoe’s observation that the massive number of young men that were killed in WW1 and – consequently – were not around at the point that the industrial working class was maturing to a revolutionary point (1917-22 was a remarkably revolutionary period in European history) – as he put it, ‘The Battle of Waterloo may have been won on the playing field of Eton, but we lost the class war on the fields of Flanders’ (apologies – that’s a paraphrase – I can’t find the original text – from memory it’s in ‘Raw Material’)
My argument is that remembrance is an issue that transcends nationality and ‘whataboutery’ – it’s about acknowledging something that would go largely unconsidered otherwise: That states use service men and women as their tools and they often do it in a brutal in ill-considered manner. Even the most jingoistic Britisher would concede that and it must surely be the starting point for anyone who wants to be critical of Britain’s record abroad.
Hi Stones/Brit,
Interesting argument you’re having. As I see it…
Republicans justify their right to a Republic based on the 1918 election as they won a majority of the seats in Ireland – a subset of the overall result.
However, Unionists will point out that it was actually the Conservative and Unionist party that won the election and therefore it passes that the UK should not have been partitioned.
Looking at it in an all Ireland basis the roles are reversed – Republicans deny the right of Unionists to self determination based on a subset of the overall result, something they demanded in 1918. Unionists on the other hand now think the result in a subset, NI, should be recognised.
Really, it’s Gerrymandering by both sides trying to define the electoral boundary to achieve their preferred outcome.
The only fair solution would be to come up with a system that works regardless of electoral boundaries. How you would do that tho would be difficult…
Personally, I’d suggest canonisation on an all Ireland proportional representation vote. So say unionists get 20% of the vote they get to choose 20% of the canons in order dependent of votes.
Fek, it’d be better than Risk and Monoply combined!
‘How did he know you were ‘making trouble’ so to speak?’
He probably didn’t like the SLR camera I had slung round my neck. And orthodox as a term is fine. You do not have to be ‘ultra’ to wear the traditional dress. And as regards there ‘basically been no East European Jews since the end of WW2′ the fact there are small jewish communities in eastern europe, like Latvia for instance, to this day, would disagree with you.
Im sure Brit you can see the irony in a visitor to Israel, upon witnessing the rather seedy underhanded manner in which that state treats many of its indigenous population, being told to go home to his own country by a citizen of that state, who like me, wasn’t indigenous either.
‘Next time go to Tel Aviv, forget your politics for a couple of days, have a nice meal, go for some beers, make some friends and go to some clubs /pubs and if you are single see if you can hook up with a nice Israeli girl (or boy). It will give you a better understanding of the reality of Israeli behind the demonized concept of the Entity.’
I did have a nice meal, i had some beers (Taybeh, lovely little beer) and made some very inspirational friends in the West Bank. As regards your suggestion, no thanks, it would be like being taken on a tour of south africa sights during the apartheid era, all the while having the uncomfortable feeling of knowing that this is just a facade this state puts on for the outside world. Frankly, im a little surprised that you, someone who claims to be from the left would suggest such a thing. The reality of Israel is that it demonizes itself.
RS
Brit works for the Israeli’s and presumably is one, an irony considering his nom de plume
“Personally, I’d suggest canonisation on an all Ireland proportional representation vote. So say unionists get 20% of the vote they get to choose 20% of the canons in order dependent of votes.”
It’s a really good point about 1918 / Conservative & Unionist government in Britain.
The thing that cuts across your suggestions is the unwritten obligation in a liberal democracy that you don’t oppress minorities. Whether refusing to acknowledge national aspirations (either the British towards the Irish, or the Irish towards a rejectionist Unionism) counts as ‘oppression’ is a further complication.
“RS
Brit works for the Israeli’s and presumably is one, an irony considering his nom de plume”
Covers blown…damn.
“Im sure Brit you can see the irony in a visitor to Israel, upon witnessing the rather seedy underhanded manner in which that state treats many of its indigenous population, being told to go home to his own country by a citizen of that state, who like me, wasn’t indigenous either.”
Well if anyone is indegenous to Israel / Palestine its an orthodox Jew in Jerusalem’s old City? I suspect strongly that the individual you saw was not born in Eastern Europe and if he was it was totally aytpical for an Israeli Jew. Presumably even those whose grantparents were born there arent indeginous enough for you (given that even the Prods 300 years is not enough).
Anyway you will have heard the story of the Jew who in Eastern Europe in the 20s and 30s was told to go back to Palestine and in the 50s and onwards was told to get out of Palestine/Israel and go back home to Eastern Europe! Though of course many Israelis are immediate and direct descendents of Jews from middle eastern countries.
If being native is so important to you (strange for someone on the Left) then surely you accept that Jews were there before Muslim and Christian “Palestinians”?
Sadly travel does not always broaden the mind
‘Well if anyone is indegenous to Israel / Palestine its an orthodox Jew in Jerusalem’s old City?’
Does that mean, i as a catholic am indigenous to the vatican?
‘I suspect strongly that the individual you saw was not born in Eastern Europe and if he was it was totally aytpical for an Israeli Jew.’
So why did he have an east european accent? You’ll be able to tell me Im sure, after all, you seem to know everything.
‘Presumably even those whose grantparents were born there arent indeginous enough for you (given that even the Prods 300 years is not enough).’
Please expalin that. Where did I ever claim protestants today are not indigenous to the north?
‘Anyway you will have heard the story of the Jew who in Eastern Europe in the 20s and 30s was told to go back to Palestine…’
Can’t say i have.
‘If being native is so important to you (strange for someone on the Left) then surely you accept that Jews were there before Muslim and Christian “Palestinians”?’
Judaism the religion certainly was. But its pretty pathetic to try and portray palestinian muslims and christians as interlopers. Palestinians are not descended from Arabia or Yemen. How do you think islam and christianity spread without jewish converts? The point you tried to make there Brit, falls flat on its ass as regards historical reality is concerned. And i would have expected a little more cop on from you.
I think its pretty obvious who needs their mind broadened.
Where the accent came from is a big mystery to me RS, but if I had been trying to create a good anecdote to illustrate the “foreignness” of Israeli Jews in the “Entity” – to underscore your colonial/occupier narrative – I would have plumped for a Brookyn accent.
“However, Unionists will point out that it was actually the Conservative and Unionist party that won the election and therefore it passes that the UK should not have been partitioned.”
Paul my argument is not based on giving any weight to those in mainland Britain. My primary argument is that the celtic Catholic Irish nation had no right to determine the national – constitutional status of the British Protestants (ie to expel them from the UK). My secondary argument is that there is a reasonably good argument that at the time of partition a majority on the island of Ireland accepted / supported partition.
‘Where the accent came from is a big mystery to me RS’
As it should be, because you didn’t hear it, and as i did, it was most defintely east european (even though you seem to think there have been no jews in eastern europe for over 60 years!!!!!). I wonder Brit if you could tell me your secret which enables you to know everything, even to the extent of complete strangers personal encounters.
‘but if I had been trying to create a good anecdote to illustrate the “foreignness” of Israeli Jews in the “Entity” – to underscore your colonial/occupier narrative – I would have plumped for a Brookyn accent.’
As well you might, if YOU were going to make something up. But im not into lying (which you rather childishly infer), so i merely reported the accent the guy had. Happy?
Your story had a ring of untruth to it RS because there has been no substantial immigration to Israel from eastern Europe for about 60 years. There are three possible explanations for that:-
1. You were mistaken about the accent (perhaps it was Russian or perhaps you mistook the more mittel European accent of some native born Israelis as sounding Eastern European)
2. It was a weird atypical incident – a rabbi from Kracow on a trip to Israel?
3. You were lying.
I’ve no reason to think you are a liar so I assume it was either 1. or 2.
Well done, Brit, Republican Stones’s experience does not suit your narrative so the experience must be negated in order that your imagined narrative may survive.
It is no wonder New Labour, apparatchniks and dupes alike, were so willing to swallow the nonsense of the “20 minutes to doomsday” fabrication that allowed you all to cheer on an illegal invasion of a sovereign state.
“If no truth can serve my will then justify me with lies” – that could be your motto. All is to be fitted to your reckless determination and the only truth is that which serves your purpose.
There is a chilling echo of the self justifying thought processes of the SS officer, Dr Maximillian Aue in Jonathan Littell’s novel, The Kindly Ones in the way in which you can so blithely brush aside anything whatsoever that might contradict your own justification of the most gruesome war crimes so far committed in this century.
I worry for you. I really do.
Wow I have been accused of being an Israeli agent and having similar thought processes to the SS on this thread.
I never thought that Saddam’s weapons posed a direct and immediate threat to me sitting in London and that was never part of my decision to support the Iraq war. The legal status of the invasion is moot and adds nothing substantive to the moral status. You may believe in fetishising the sovereignty of states and allowing genocidal dictators to get on with it but know that puts you in the same camp as Kissinger and the realists.
And as you know I strongly dispute that the US or UK have committed serious war crimes.
“And as you know I strongly dispute that the US or UK have committed serious war crimes.”
I know, Brit, it is this very denial that worries me about you. It is as though you consider the dead, the mutilated, the tortured, the raped, those falsely imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay and other hell-holes as somehow less than deserving of any thought, as they they were as untermenschen, less than human.
It seems that criticism of or opposition to Israeli policy and that of those states who operate in its interests you regard with the same sense of refusal that Dr. Aue in Littell’s novel applied to any opposition to the will of the Third Reich. As I said before – chilling!
Rory drop the man playing and the wholly unsubstantiated (and false) implications as to my emotions.
The US and allies targetted combatants(in what I believe to be just wars) and tried to prevent or avoid civillian deaths. There was not a general policy of torture, rape or murder (in contrast to the Baathist regime)but of course individual crimes were committed which were disgraceful and in some cases the perpetrators were punished.
My support for the invasion was based in large part on a concern for the well being and an assessment of the views of the Iraqi people. You may find that outlandish but it is true and your suggestion that I think Iraqis are less than human is as offensive as it is untrue.
Putting aside the stupidity and inappropriateness of making an analogy between opposition to Israel and opposition to the Third Reich, I strongly oppose Israeli policies in relation to the settlements and am not a supporter of the current government. I also criticise strongly those aspects of recent US policy such as torture, extraorindary rendition and holding suspects without charge.
‘I’ve no reason to think you are a liar so I assume it was either 1. or 2.’
So why on earth even bring it up or infer it?????
It was east european, yet you first claimed there have been no jews in eastern europe since WW2 which was incorrect. Now you’ve amended it to ‘there has been no substantial immigration’
And finally you go semantic in another vain effort to de-legitimise my encounter, claiming, I got the accent wrong perhaps, maybe its Russian. Brit the fact is, it did happen, and it seems you’ll go all out to prove it didn’t, your defence of Israel is such, you’re willing to make a bit of a wally out of yourself.
P.S It occurred just off Nablus Rd, perhaps you’d now like to correct me on the location of the event as well.
“you first claimed there have been no jews in eastern europe since WW2″
I actually said that “there basically been no East European Jews since the end of WW2″ which despite the poor grammar was meant to indicate that there was no sizeable Jewish community in Eastern Europe at the momement (and for several decades) not that the entire part of the continent was judenfrei.
There was accordingly no change in my position when I subsequently said that there has been ‘there has been no substantial immigration’ from that part of the world in recent decades.
Having now looked at the figures I must say I am surprised at the size of the Jewish population in the Ukraine and other baltic states – which is a lot bigger than I had assumed. I was grouping them with the Russian population as all were part of the USSR?
See the interesting table below in the section entitled ‘statistics’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Statistics
In terms of Jews making aliyah, emmigrating to Israel, in the last 20 years they come mainly from the USA, France, Argenina, Russia, Canada or Britain.
I’m just trying to put your story into context to prevent you or others drawing false conclusions (this is, after all what the IDF pay me to do)
My encounter did not need to be put into context. The fact you think it did says more about you, plus I love the bit about you putting someone elses encounters into context for them to prevent them drawing false conclusions, very noble. And considering your approach to Israel, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were hasbara schooled
Its strange to me, indeed disturbing, how many on the anti-Zionist or rabid anti-Israeli side of politics assume that any opponent of theirs, anyone who defends Israel, or tries to apply some consistency and comparative analysis in relation to criticisms of the state, is a liar, apropagandist, a tool of Zionism or part of some concerted effort to hide the crimes of the Entity.
This extends to those like me who acknowledge and regret the great sufferings of the Palestinians, recognise their right to self-deterination through a nation state, are highly critical of major aspects of Israeli policy including conduct in the War of Independence, the establishment of settlements in Gaza (now gone) and the West Bank, of Sharon’s war in Lebanon, and to a lesser extent the conduct of the recent incursions into Lebanon.
That assumption reflects the received wisdom of the almost unique the evil of Israel and a kind of outraged astonishment that anyone could dare to say anything postive or mitigating – as if it were akin to defending Stalin, Hitler etc (indeed the likes of Seamus Milne in the Guardian do defend Stalinism without being attack so virulently). As if no one of honesty or integrity could possibly not share their analysis of the imperialist racist occupiers and dispossesors. The idea that people pose as indepedents but are secretly part of some concerted secret conspiracy is paranoid and mirrors a central plank of classic modern anti-semitism.
The truth is that there are plenty of people who are to a greater or lesser extent pro Israel or pro Zionist, or who at least reject the paradigm of the anti-Zionist left, not because they are part of a concerted lobby or work for the Israeli government but because it is an honestly and legitimately held view. The likes of Mitchell Cohen, Michael Walzer, Norm Geras are all eminent Professors of Politics, from solidly socialist perspectives, who whilst a million miles away from the likes of Dershozitz and mad Mel, are ultimately defenders of Israel.
Your hasbara comment was a joke no doubt but I can confirm that I am not an Israeli agent (paid or un-paid), nor part of any Zionist lobby (formal or informal) and that bar a few Israeli friends I have to selfish strategic interest in the security or well being of that state.
That last line should read “no” selfish strategic interest (and yes I am aware where the phrase comes from)
Good for you Brit, but sad to see you raise the spectre of ‘anti-semitism’ again. The hasbara programme is not some secret conspiracy either. Its a concerted public relations effort by the Israeli govt, which among other things encourages ‘participation in media “watch” groups.’
Of course people are free to espouse zionism, (and when we speak of zionism, unfortunately we are not talking of Ahad Ha’am’s culutral variety), we are speaking about the zionism which the State of Israel espouses, which is deeply unsavoury. Perhaps you agree with the noble sentiments in the Israeli Artists Decleration of 2002…
“If the state of Israel aspires to perceive itself as a democracy, it should abandon once and for all, any legal and ideological foundation of religious, ethnic, and demographic discrimination. The state of Israel should strive to become the state of all its citizens. We call for the annulment of all laws that make Israel an apartheid state, including the Jewish law of return in its present form”
Its sad that so many people see Israel and Zionism through a prism which shares much with classical anti-semitic conspiracy theories RS, esp when they claim to be on the Left. Though Left wing anti-semitism (or more accurately anti-semitism by those on the left) is sadly nothing new from Bakunin to Marx to Stalin and the likes of Counterpunch today.
Dont blame the messenger.
I agree with the first two sentences of the declaration but obvoiusly not the last.
Since you like quotes here is one for you
“Freedom of speech is not just the freedom to express or hear views acceptable to all. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to express dangerous, obnoxious and perverse views, that the public abhors … It includes also the freedom to racist expression and the concept that the racist public finds solace in the freedom of speech is not to be accepted as it is a threat to democracy. The belief that freedom of speech covers also extreme and racist views applies especially to the freedom of a political party participating in the parliamentary process.”
And a more aposite one from the same source:-
“Indeed, only a national homeland built on the foundations of equality and human dignity can stand the test of time; only a nation that treats all of its children equally can hope to be considered an enlightened, free nation; and only a nation that is founded on equality can live in peace.”
“There is no doubt that Israel is a Jewish state according to its tradition, symbols and holidays, its language and culture, and other indications that make it a Jewish state. But as an enlightened nation, it must recognize and relate to all of its citizens as equals, even if they belong to a non-Jewish minority”
Why do you ‘obviously’ not agree with the last sentence of the decleration? Which part do you dislike?
It seems yet again Brit, you have raised the spectre of anti-semitism into a discussion about Israel and zionism, without either protagonist being an anti-semite. Which goes to prove one of my points from a previous tete a tete of ours. That being, that even when there is not a whiff of anti-semitism surrounding someone who is critical of Israel or Zionism, his or her opponent (who quite obviously supports Israel and Zionism) will in many instances manage to shoehorn in the spectre of ‘anti-semitism’. You have just perfectly demonstrated that tendency with your last few posts.
Regarding your freedom of speech quote. As i have already agreed, people are free to espouse zionism, just as others can espouse fascism. But others are also free to describe it as an unsavoury ideology too.
Regarding your second quote, it seems to share the sentiments of the Artists decleration, however, I fear he is jumping the gun in describing Israel as ‘an enlightened nation’.
The second quote above is from from the president of the Supreme Court of the ‘Entity’. The first is from a judgment of that court.
Not the kind of thing that any court in Hamas controlled Gaza is ever going to say. Nor indeed the courts of any nation in that region apart from the “most evil state in the world ever”TM
I disagree with the final part of the declaration above as it contends that Israel is an apartheid state. I think the claim is either deeply ignorant or deliberatly dishonest (and I am not inviting your comments on that issue just answering your question). Nor can I accept the repeal of the law of return.
I was not alleging anti-semitism on your part, still less contending that it invalidated or de-legitimised your views (though I consider them to be invalid and illegitimate for other reasons). I was making a separate point based on my view that anti-semitism is a real and large problem and has infected much of the anti-Israel anti-Zionist discourse.
Your earlier contention – in an previous thread – was not that Zionists are overly concerned with anti-semitism amongst anti-Zionists and go on about it all the time, but that( in repeating the Livingstone formulation beloved of anti-zionists) Zionists dishonestly used the charge of anti-semitism to stifle debate and criticism. Nothing I did could remotely fit within that description.
The fact that ‘Sean’ wrote that I was an Israeli and paid by them or some such was one example of the very common phenonmena so it was relevant to this thread and a legitimate topic.
‘Not the kind of thing that any court in Hamas controlled Gaza is ever going to say.’
Ahh here we go. themmuns are worse argument. Tell me, does hamas get billions each year from the America? Do they claim to be embodying wetsaern values of democracy, do they call themselves a beacon etc?
‘I disagree with the final part of the declaration above as it contends that Israel is an apartheid state. I think the claim is either deeply ignorant or deliberatly dishonest (and I am not inviting your comments on that issue just answering your question). Nor can I accept the repeal of the law of return.’
Israel is an apartheid state. Many jews who live there admit this. Like those work for ICHAD for instance. Why on earth can you not accept a repeal of the law of return? Why should foreigners be given rights to live somewhere just because their reliion started ther? But Palestinians ethnically cleansed still cannot return? And you claim it is not an apartheid stat?
‘(though I consider them to be invalid and illegitimate for other reasons)’
Please do tell, lets see who has the moral compass pointed in the right direction.
‘I was making a separate point based on my view that anti-semitism is a real and large problem and has infected much of the anti-Israel anti-Zionist discourse. ‘
Why on earth did you feel the need to bring it up? Is anti-Arab racisim brought up by those critical of Israel with the frequency that anti-semitism is dredged up by israeli supporters like you?
‘Your earlier contention – in an previous thread – was not that Zionists are overly concerned with anti-semitism amongst anti-Zionists and go on about it all the time, but that( in repeating the Livingstone formulation beloved of anti-zionists) Zionists dishonestly used the charge of anti-semitism to stifle debate and criticism. Nothing I did could remotely fit within that description.’
It does fit perfectly. You brought up anti-semitism into our discussion surrounding Israel without any need to whatsoever. You can deny that it doesn’t fit the pattern, but its there for all to see.
‘The fact that ‘Sean’ wrote that I was an Israeli and paid by them or some such was one example of the very common phenonmena so it was relevant to this thread and a legitimate topic.’
Not it wasn’t relevant. hasbara is a concerted campaign by the Israeli govt, to bring it up is not anti-semitic, so sorry, but you had absolutely no reason to raise the spectre.