Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a high-level meeting of security officials immediately following the recent anti-Israeli riots in Dagestan and elsewhere in the North Caucasus.... Perhaps more notable is what appears to be a major purge of security officials in Dagestan itself and the beginning of major preventative measures among the youth in Russia to prevent any recurrence of such actions....Moscow is clearly trying to present itself as being on the right side of condemning anti-Semitism.... In addition, these moves clearly reflect unease in the Kremlin. There is fear that the situation in the North Caucasus and other non-Russian regions is rapidly coming to a boil.... The anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli attacks in the North Caucasus could well be followed by attacks on ethnic Russians and Russia itself, especially as the war in Ukraine grinds on, a war in which North Caucasians and non-Russians have suffered large and disproportionate losses[.]
Also in France.
On Sunday afternoon thousands of people heeded a call from the Speakers of the two houses of parliament to show their support for French "Republican" values and their rejection of antisemitism - this in the face of a steep rise in antisemitic actions since 7 October.... For decades French politics erected a bulwark against the far right, whose views - not least on Jews - were deemed "anti-Republican". The old National Front under Marine's father Jean-Marie Le Pen was seen as beyond the pale, and it was shunned.
The far left meanwhile - the Communists, the Trotskyists and the new formations like Mr Mélenchon's LFI - were certainly attacked for their views, but they were never excluded. They were part of the broad political family, in a way that the Le Pen franchise clearly wasn't.
A few years ago, for a far-left party not to have been part of a march against antisemitism would have been unthinkable. For a far-right party to have been there instead would have been unconscionable.
Also in the UK.
To appreciate the depths of the ideological cesspit that Britain’s cops have climbed into, consider this. This week, police in Northumbria interrogated a woman, a lesbian, under caution, for tweeting that ‘trans women are men’. ‘What did you mean by this?’, the Orwellian creeps asked the lady whose only speechcrime was to state biological facts every six-year-old knows. Meanwhile, in London, the Metropolitan Police ruled that ‘no offence’ was committed by an imam at the Greenwich Islamic Centre who, 13 days after Hamas’s 7 October pogrom, preached about ‘the usurper Jews’. ‘Curse the infidels’, he said. ‘Destroy their homes.’
So in 21st-century Britain the cops will come knocking if you say people with penises are men but they’ll leave you alone if you demean Jews. They’ll drag you to a station and grill you on your separation of the letters LGB from TQ – as those tyrants in Northumbria did – but shrug if you issue curses against Jewish people. The ideological capture of our police is complete.
Also in America (although the US has deployed thousands of troops and thus may not be considered "uninvolved").
Sympathy for Israel tends to be far higher among conservative and older voters, who remember the Holocaust, at least from their parents’ telling, and usually embrace the Judeo-Christian tradition. Contrast their attitudes with those of younger people, who are notably ignorant about history. Little wonder perhaps that voters under 34 are far more likely to support Palestinians and even Hamas over Israel than older voters.
Remarkably, it’s under a Democratic president, not some imagined white nationalist right-winger, that Jewish people in America feel threatened in ways not seen since the 1930s. Jews are finding colleges and public space in places like New York uniquely hostile. In schools, ‘anti-white’ identity politics has now been extended to justify the murder of Jews.
I note the inversion between the last sentence and the Russian concern: "The anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli attacks in the North Caucasus could well be followed by attacks on ethnic Russians and Russia itself." In the famous poem, 'first they came for the Jews,'* and Russia is worried that Russians and Russia might be somewhere down the line. Here they came for "white" Americans and America first, and the Jews are down the line.
Wild to see Le Pen's crew wising up to that and getting themselves ahead of the problem, at least if you know the history of antisemitism in France.
UPDATE: Related.
"We need to start making people who support Israel actually afraid to go out in public," Chambers said in a Friday Instagram post. "We need to make all of white America afraid that everything they have stolen is going to be burned to the ground. That's what makes them listen."
* In the poem socialists and trade unions were before the Jews, which is perhaps more similar to the present case here: first it was the Confederate statues. I recall a certain orange-haired President warning that they'd come after Washington and Jefferson if you let that domino fall, and everyone laughed; but they did come after Washington and Jefferson, and later the whole thing.
10 comments:
There are competing motivations for all groups, and I don't mean to oversimplify. Yet I find that reducing the question to which opponents we feel personally endangered by can be instructive, though we are reluctant to go there. Years ago a college professor friend who was center left* spoke about how intimidated and frightened he was by the prolife protestors on his (Catholic) campus when a prochoice speaker was invited. The protestors were not in the least violent, merely taking the annoying tactic of gumming up the campus roads as pedestrians, making hard for people to leave unhindered, and shouting at them. Yet a month before there had been actual violence from leftist protestors on campus, and he did not feel as threatened by that. I thought "Of course not. You don't think they are coming after you." If you think of OWS and George Floyd protests in that light it becomes clear why many turned a blind eye. They didn't think they and theirs were threatened. They were, of course, but chose not to believe it. It's those other groups, those old TEA Party scum, the 2A yahoos, and the election protestors they think might hurt THEM.
So too with these realignments. The European Right was anti-foreign influence, very nativist, very if-we-all-stand-together. That used to mean mostly Jews, Gypsies, and people from other parts of Europe, live Slavs, were under suspicion. Yet when they took in (or in the case of Russia, absorbed) Islamic groups that hated Jews as much as their grandfather's did, or more, the safety equation changed. The groups jockeying for power in all the places listed have a perception of who is a danger to them personally, both to their bodies and to their power. That perception is often wrong, but these things change slowly.
I think it pays to look at the isolated question of "am I in danger myself" when considering internal dissension. People will overlook a lot of violence toward the folks in another part of the country, or in the city instead of the country, even if they tsk-tsk. To see where they are really going to put down their markers, check out whether they think their kids are going to get beat up or their businesses burned.
Oh yeah, the asterisk. He now shakes his head in amazement that he is considered dangerously conservative as he retires. I could have told him that years ago. I started quite far left in the 60s and 70s, and know what they say behind closed doors.
I guess I don't feel personally threatened by any of it; this isn't my fight, in a strict sense. I do have hospitality bonds, which are matters of honor, with certain friends who are either serving IDF or retired IDF. As such, I am 'on their side' in the manner that is appropriate to a friend.
But in a wider sense I suppose you're right: the Palestinian advocates are openly threatening to burn down your house, whereas the Jews really are not. It's not really my fight, but one side wants to fight me anyway.
No doubt, the French remember the Dreyfus affair. (look it up if you don't know) an anti-semitic injustice that split French society. "The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France into pro-republican, anticlerical Dreyfusards and pro-Army, mostly Catholic "anti-Dreyfusards". It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalisation"
Yes, that was a major part of what I meant by "if you know the history of antisemitism in France."
I don't think you can pin any form of racism as either 'left' or 'right' wing, neither is it necessarily 'nationalist' though it might be considered 'nativist'. Tagging it this way just serves people's agendas and narratives.
What next? Is CBS going to come under pressure to pull the Twilight Zone episode "Death's-Head Revisited" and the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" for daring to insinuate that torturing Jews to death is wrong?
" Years ago a college professor friend who was center left* spoke about how intimidated and frightened he was by the prolife protestors on his (Catholic) campus when a prochoice speaker was invited. The protestors were not in the least violent,"
AVI, I honestly have a hard time believing people who say they were "afraid" of people like that. I don't think they mean it in the sense of concern for physical safety. More often than not, it's been, in my experience, truthless posturing for arguments sake. Truth is not a value on the left, power and success at attaining it is.
And I don't mean to impugn your friend, he may have well simply heard others and absorbed the sense of it and left it at that.
Post a Comment