Why I am no longer ‘anti-Zionist’

In the 1970s, I became a supporter of the struggle of the Palestinian people for their national rights. Like most children of my generation in New Zealand, I had been taught to cheer for Israel in the 1967 war. I recall drawing Israel’s expanding borders in my school books in the wake of that war.

Palestine, 1967: Israeli military orders expulsion of Palestinian residents from the village of Imwas in wake of 1967 war.

Palestine, 1967.  Israeli military orders expulsion of Palestinian residents from the village of Imwas in wake of 1967 war.

When I was won to the Palestinian cause, it was still very much a minority postion, and I had to defend my ideas carefully. Against the charge that I was anti-Semitic and was supporting ‘driving the Jews into the sea,’ I replied that I was not anti-Semitic but anti-Zionist; I opposed the state of Israel because it was founded upon the violent dispossession of the Palestinian inhabitants and constituted according to the Zionist vision, as a state for Jews only, to the exclusion of the Palestinians. I supported the slogan of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) at the time: for a democratic, secular Palestine, where Palestinians, Christians and Jews could enjoy equal rights. To argue the case about the nature of the Israeli state, I used to draw parallels with the apartheid regime in South Africa, its strict system of racial segregation and legal discrimination against the Black majority.

I remain a supporter of the Palestinian struggle today. But I no longer describe myself as ‘anti-Zionist.’ Changes that have taken place in Palestine since the 1970s have rendered the term confusing, meaningless, and downright dangerous. In fact, I believe that the old charge that anti-Zionism equates to anti-Semitism, which I energetically refuted for many years, has now become, at least partly, true.

What are these changes?

  1. Israeli air force jets. Once the beachhead for imperialism in the region, now the US also rests on the bourgeois Arab governments.

    Israeli air force jets. Israel was once the beachhead for US imperialism against the Arab revolution. Now the US also rests on the bourgeois Arab governments.

    The consolidation of more or less stable bourgeois governments in the Arab countries and throughout the Middle East. When US and British imperialism sponsored the founding of the state of Israel in the wake of World War 2, the Arab world was in the throes of widespread anti-colonial ferment. Israel became imperialism’s chief point of support against the Arab revolution, its ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier,’ and it retained that role for many years. Today there are solid bourgeois governments in Egypt, Algeria, Iran – all of which experienced revolutionary upheavals in the fifties and sixties, and in Iran’s case, again in the seventies – and across the region. In these governments, imperialism has gained a bunch of other unsinkable aircraft carriers as points of support. Promising as the Arab Spring is, it has not yet seriously threatened bourgeois rule in any country.

  2. Under Arafat's leadership  in 1970 the PLO rejected its old line of 'driving the Jews into the sea" and  adopted the course of a democratic secular Palestine with equal rights for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

    Yassir Arafat. Under his leadership in 1970 the PLO rejected its previous line of ‘driving the Jews into the sea” and adopted the goal of a democratic secular Palestine with equal rights for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Later the PLO retreated from this stance.

    The retreat of the Palestinian leadership. The PLO in the 1970s and 80s was leading a mass struggle for a democratic secular Palestine. The high point of this struggle was the first Intifada, where for several years beginning in 1987, tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians mounted acts of resistance and civil disobediance in protest against the Israeli forces in the occupied territories. The intifada, more than any other single event, won world opinion to the side of the Palestinian struggle and isolated the Israeli regime. But the blows rained down upon the Palestinians, combined with the intensifying political pressures from their ‘friends’ in the bourgeois Arab governments, took their toll on the leadership. The PLO retreated from the perspective of mobilising the Palestinian masses to fight for a democratic secular Palestine. It accepted the ‘two-state solution’ first as a bargaining position, then as its permanent perspective for Palestine. Increasingly as building a capitalist economy in the territory of the Palestinian Authority became its sole preoccupation, it sought accommodation with Tel-Aviv at the expense of the Palestinian workers and farmers. A rival current arose, Hamas, more radical in phraseology, but equally bound to a bourgeois programme and methods, and equally indifferent to the interests of Palestinian working class. Today there is no significant current anywhere in the Middle East that speaks for the interests of workers and farmers.

  3. The abandonment by the Israeli rulers of the Zionist vision. In the 1970s, Israel was aggressively expanding its territories by military means, grabbing territory from its neighbours in pursuit of the Zionist vision of a Greater Israel, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. That is no longer the case today. The Israeli rulers are still expanding their economic activities and domination of the occupied territories, but for all practical purposes they have accepted the present borders of Israel – as defined by the repugnant wall – and the existence of the Palestinian territory. A minority of the world’s Jewish people – 5.3 million of the total 13 million – live in Israel. More Jews live in the United States than in Israel. The state founded by the Zionist movement still exists, along with an attachment to that state by many Jews, but Zionism as a political movement, through which Israel postures as a haven for the world’s Jews, no longer exists in any meaningful sense today. Given that this is so, the sole justification for using the term Zionism today rests on there being some special Zionist character to the Israeli state, which distinguishes it as a pariah state, worse than the other imperialist states. Is this the case? This is where the comparison with apartheid South Africa is often quoted.
    The repugnant wall separating the West Bank. Graffitti says "The separation wall will fall"

    The repugnant wall separating the West Bank. Graffitti says “The separation wall will fall”

    How valid is it to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa? Every imperialist state has some things in common with the others, and some unique characteristics born of its own unique history. They were all founded on the violent dispossession of the indigenous peoples from the land, including the oldest imperialist state of all, the United Kingdom. Israel’s uniqueness lies in its being the youngest of them all, and so the act of dispossession is still relatively recent and raw, and is still actively contested. However, the longer Israel continues to exist the more it comes to resemble every other imperialist state, the more Israeli capitalism brings into being a multi-national working class, both within Israel proper and in the occupied territories (including the Soda-stream factory), and the less the Palestinian territories resemble the South African “Bantustans.”

    Protest march by African migrants against their indefinite detention, December 2013. Part of the multi-national working class in Israel today.

    Protest march by African migrants against their indefinite detention, December 2013. Part of the multi-national working class in Israel today. Photo: Activestills.org

    The working class in Israel today includes, alongside Israeli Jews, tens of thousands of Filipino, Thai, and Chinese immigrant workers on temporary visas, Palestinian workers from the West Bank, as well as Arab citizens of Israel and Ethiopian and Russian Jews, who have citizenship rights. The brutal discrimination and oppression of the Palestinians continues, yet the material basis for fighting it through common struggle between workers of different nationalities and religious beliefs is stronger than ever before. Israeli society, no less than in the other imperialist states, is class-divided. Winning Jewish workers to support self-determination for their Palestinian co-workers, against Jewish bosses and bourgeois political leaders,  is both possible and necessary. Using the term ‘Zionist’ today to describe Jewish workers who still look to the Israeli state to defend their interests is an obstacle to building that fight.

  4. The new rise of anti-Semitism. A few weeks ago a large rightist protest took place in Paris around the slogan of ‘defence of the family,’ opposing laws legalising marriage and adoption for gays. A section of this march began chanting anti-Semitic slogans including “Juif! Casse-toi! La France n’est pas a toi” [Jew! Get out! France doesn’t belong to you!] “Juifs hors de France!” [Jews out of France!]. (This has been disputed by some witnesses to the march – see the video evidence here). This is a timely reminder of the fact that the germ of anti-Semitism still lurks within capitalist society, and as that society decays, it erupts in a virulent form. Increasingly, Jew-hatred also takes ‘anti-Zionist’ cover. Hamas and the other bourgeois leaderships in the Middle East routinely put forward anti-Semitic politics in the name of defending Palestinian interests and of opposing ‘Zionism.’ The founding programme of Hamas from 1988 includes the following about the Jews:“With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others… With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world… They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution…With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there…They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources… There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”
    Anti-Semitism among the bourgeois Arab leaders is not new. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat at talks with Israeli leaders Begin, wearing tie with swastika emblem.

    Anti-Semitism among the bourgeois Arab leaders is not new. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat at talks with Israeli leader Begin, wearing tie with swastika emblem.

    It is not difficult to hear in this echoes of the century-old anti-Semitic forgery concocted by the Russian Czarist regime, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Nor is anti-Semitism among the bourgeois Arab leaderships anything new. What is new is that with the abandonment by the PLO of its earlier revolutionary course, many in the worldwide movement in solidarity with the Palestinians have been tacitly following this anti-Semitic line from Hamas. Protests have been targetted against businesses such as Starbucks and Marks and Spencer purely on the grounds that they are Jewish-owned. “Anti-Zionism” has lost the progressive meaning it once had, and has become nothing but left cover for anti-Semitism.

The evolution of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, the anti-Semitic comedian now winning a popular following in France, is an instructive example of this political course. Once a left social critic, he has gone all the way over to the ultra-right. He invites holocaust-denialists to share the stage with him. He makes threatening jokes about his Jewish critics, referring to gas chambers. Dieudonné claims to be the inventor of the ‘quenelle,’ the arm-gesture which he insists is not a form of the Nazi salute, not anti-Semitic, but is ‘anti-establishment.’ (Elsewhere he expresses the view that Jews own and manipulate ‘the establishment.’)

Dieudonne doing the quenelle. On right, holocaust denialist Alain Soral.

Dieudonne doing the quenelle. On right, holocaust denialist Alain Soral.

The fact that Dieudonné does all this in the name of ‘anti-Zionism’ is not the cause of his rightward political evolution: that process is driven by far bigger class forces. But by calling it ‘anti-Zionism’ he is able to draw behind him, onto the bridge which leads over to the ultra-right, forces who would not normally consider themselves anti-Semitic.  (For an example, read Blasphemy in secular France, a defence of Dieudonne that appeared in Counterpunch).

One’s political stance is not determined by what one opposes, but by what one supports. The ‘anti-Zionist’ cause encompasses, along with many genuine supporters of the Palestinian struggle and a great deal of confusion, a collection of bourgeois governments with their own reactionary goals, and some clearly anti-Semitic, anti-working class and outright fascist forces.

As the bourgeois Arab regimes have amply demonstrated over the past sixty years, a movement in solidarity with the Palestinians can not be built on a foundation of Jew-hatred.

18 responses to “Why I am no longer ‘anti-Zionist’

  1. Watch this vifeo (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/02/10/3939266.htm) and try and support your claim that “the longer Israel continues to exist the more it comes to resemble every other imperialist state, the more Israeli capitalism brings into being a multi-national working class, both within Israel proper and in the occupied territories (including the Soda-stream factory), and the less the Palestinian territories resemble the South African “Bantustans.” The Israeli state (which includes the so-called occupied territories – or “bantutstans” – since 1967) has existed longer in it post 1967 form than did the apartheid state of South Africa. It is this state with its seperate laws for palestinians compared to Israeli citizens (including children as the video shows so horribly and graphically) that deserves the comparison with the aparthedid state of South Africa. This state will never become a “normal” bourgeois state because it can never grant equal “bourgeois” rights (including the vote) to all the citzens trapped under its rule.

    • It’s brutal – I certainly don’t deny that. Nor would I deny that there are some similarities with apartheid South Africa – only that such similarities are unique to Israel. For example, one could point to similarities between the situation of Aborigines in Australia and apartheid South Africa, too. I would also contest your statement that the Israeli state includes the occupied territories. The Israeli rulers attempted to annex the whole of the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war. They met with determined Palestinian resistance, and ended up having to settle for less than that, namely, annexation of a part of the West Bank (e.g. the part inside the wall), and overwhelming military and economic domination of the rest. This ‘balance of forces’ is totally unsatisfactory to all parties, and thus is constantly challenged – by the continuing expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements (which they hope to make ‘legal’ by sheer force) on the one hand, and by the continuing Palestinian resistance on the other, which forces the Israeli rulers to make certain limited tactical retreats, e.g. the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. I have no wish to conceal or pretty up this state of affairs. I just don’t believe the term ‘Zionist’ today aids in clarifying the situation, but rather the opposite.

      • One further thought: To me, the most convincing argument for a special case for Israel lies in the scale of the police and military violence that occurs daily, outside of any actual military engagement – e.g. the tear-gassing of students walking to school. However, I never imagined Israel’s growing resemblance to the other imperialist states to mean that it would gradually evolve into a stable bourgeois democracy with broad democratic rights for all (if that is what you mean by a “normal” bourgeois state). I agree that that outcome is highly unlikely. But the growing resemblance can also result from the other imperialist states descending to Israel’s level: I think you can see examples of this in the United States, with the policy of mass incarceration and routine denial (through “plea-bargaining”) of the right to a trial, and the assumption by the president of the power to assassinate individuals, including US citizens, by presidential decision alone (Anwar al-Awlaki).

  2. You are mssing the point. Firstly I never commented on whether it was advisable or not to use the word anti-Zionist today. That is a discussion that may or may not have some merit. What I was saysing is that there has existed an Israeli state since 1967 whose external border includes the occupies territories. Because that state considers itself a “Jewish state” (and in fact insists the Palestinians accept that view as well) it cannot afford civil and political rights to several million people of Palestinian descent. It is that denial of rights based on race that gives the post-1967 state an aopartheid character. The building of walls around the the palestinian pockets is not the definition of a new external border it is the designation of multiple internal bantustans. All Palestinians in the occupied territories are subject to military rules and courts – including the children in the videos. We have a state with two laws – one for the majority of its citizens in the “Jewish” state and the other for the Palestinian Arabs. Even the pretences of self-determination (Bantustan-style) are ultimately subject to Israeli military rule – including the kidnapping or assasination of elected leaders. Watch the video (I suspect you haven’t) and tell me there isn’t an effective apartheid system operating. The military occupation and terror has continued for almost half a century. Several generations have grown up knowing nothing else. I repeat – this is longer than the apartheid state in South Africa existed.

    • I did watch the video, and I don’t dispute the facts about the situation it depicts at all. However, I don’t think the video sheds much light on the issue we are discussing. It says nothing about the organisation of labour, for example. The ‘bantustan’ policy of apartheid South Africa was above all else a system for ensuring superexploitation of Black labour. The same can not be said about the Israeli occupation of Palestine. There was a time when the occupied territories served Israeli capitalism as a pool of cheap ‘migrant’ (rightless) labour, but this has been greatly reduced since the early 1990s, with the extended closures of the Green Line. The apartheid/bantustan analogy is therefore weak. Also, again unlike South Africa, there is a substantial population of Arab citizens of Israel, about 20% of the Israeli population, who face racist discrimination in many different ways, but also have citizenship rights, including the right to vote, and who work alongside and engage in common struggles with workers who are Israeli Jews. Asserting that the occupied territories are part of the state of Israel both concedes too much to the settler movement (that may be the settlers’ goal, but they have not succeeded, nor are they about to any time soon) and at the same time, absolves the bourgeois Palestinian leaderships for their role in leading to the present stalemate.

  3. James, although I don’t agree with you, it’s commendable that you are reflecting on old positions. So can you point to anywhere here where you critically reflect on the car-crash of a movement that you yourself belonged to for so long? Or is only other people’s movements and struggles that you are interested in rethinking?
    After all, making such a bold claim as “Today there is no significant current anywhere in the Middle East that speaks for the interests of workers and farmers”, rather invites the question of what happened to your own current.
    It seems odd, for instance, that the people who are experts on what’s wrong with the left in the Middle East are unable to build in their own countries. Indeed, the more ‘expert’ a group is on some place far away, the more ineffective and hopeless they are likely to be where they live.
    Your comments about the bourgeoisification of the PLO are correct. But, on the other hand, the current that you were part of uncritically supported the PLO (which essentially means Fatah) long after the bourgeoisification process began; same with Sinn Fein in Ireland. Your current declared they were “leading the national liberation struggle” years after the Good Friday Agreement which marked the point at which the Provisionals *definitively* brought the struggle to an end. (Can you point me to some critical reflection about that?)
    The notion that anti-Zionism now increasingly equates with “Jew-hatred’ sounds rather like you’ve picked up the cranky view of someone sitting in an office for too many decades, with little contact with the real world. No section of the ruling class of any significant imperialist country supports anti-Jewish bigotry. They all, however, support the existence of Israel, which remains an exclusivist society, in line with the tenets by which it was established. Dumping anti-Zionism while, at the same time, suggesting that ‘Jew-hatred’ (what a bizarre term!) is rampant, looks decidedly odd.
    On a more positive note, congratulations on your novel. I will definitely make time to read it.
    Philip Ferguson

  4. While there may not be widespread systematic discrimination against Jews in the imperialist democracies today, I believe that anti-Semitism survives as a latent political current among all the imperialist ruling classes – even when it is not openly expressed. As the capitalist crisis deepens and social polarisation widens, rightward-moving sections of the ruling class feel emboldened to express these sentiments openly – for example, on the demonstration in France I referred to. Moreover, these ideas seep down and infect sections of the working class and the ‘left’. For example, the false idea, often repeated in left circles, that the ‘Jewish lobby’ (or the ‘Israel lobby’ or the ‘Zionist lobby’) controls US foreign policy. For a further example, see my post on ‘The tale of the anti-Semitic Santa.’ Yes, the imperialist ruling classes ‘support the existence of Israel’ – but they also support capitalist rule in Turkey, Egypt, etc. They support capitalist rule everywhere.
    I don’t claim to be an ‘expert on what’s wrong with the left’ anywhere in the world. I simply try to identify bourgeois ideas and bourgeois leaderships that disorient workers and others looking for a way out of the crisis. By fighting against these ideas, I hope to find a way forward. That doesn’t mean I win every battle.

    • James, where on earth do you get the idea that there is some seething anti-Semitism lurking beneath the facade of pro-Israel politics of the ruling classes of the world?

      Saying that the imperialists support Turkey, Egypt etc is meaningless because what is involved is the *specific* nature of Israel, established as an exclusively Jewish state and created out of the dispossession of another people who are fighting for their liberation.

      The fact that parts of the left have a conspiracy theory view that some super-powerful ‘Jewish lobby’ call the shots in the US simply shows that there are cranks on the left and people who don’t understand who calls the shots. The US ruling class support Israel because Israel serves as the most reliable imperialist beach-head in the region.

      These days most of the imperialists support a ‘two-state’ solution, albeit with the Palestinian ‘state’ not being an actual country, but a cluster of bits and pieces of land, broken up by Israeli settlements and the Wall, and run by a bunch of people who police the Palestinians on behalf of the Israeli state. But the imperialists want more. Part of the price for their support for this non-state ‘Palestinian state’ is that the Palestinians and their supporters are supposed to recognise the legitimacy of Israel’s existence and cease struggling against it.

      Your ‘Why I am no longer a Zionist’ piece is thus simply an adaptation to imperialist pressure. And the source for it is not hard to find. The fact that you used the peculiar term ‘Jew hatred’ was something of a giveaway. Your position simply channels an American ostensible leftist, Jack Barnes. Barnes and his chief lieutenant, Mary-Alice Waters, have never held real jobs in the real world in their lives. They live a highly privileged existence – a few years ago they sold their Manhattan apartment to a Sony executive for $(US)1.87 million, for instance. They have spent about 45 years sitting in offices giving orders to people. Their privileged lifestyle and complete separation from reality, the working class and any kind of counter-force to imperialism, means that they have increasingly taken on petty-bourgeois ideas that match their petty-bourgoeis existence. These include succumbing to imperialist pressure over the question of Israel and the Palestinian liberation struggle. (It was also evident, btw, in relation to Iraq, where they equivocated on calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of imperialist troops and Barnes described the US occupation as a ‘soft protectorate’!)

      Their total opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign is a manifestation of this trend to capitulate to imperialist pressure.

      The BDS is not something dreamed up by leftists in the West; it is something specifically requested, as a show of solidarity, by the Palestinian movement itself. It is no different, *in principle*, from the request of the South African liberation movement for BDS in relation to the apartheid regime. The fact that your position involves denying solidarity to the Palestinians should give you cause to pause and rethink your position.


      • All I can say is: look at the video of the rightist demonstration in France (linked above) and deny the evidence of Jew-hatred at your peril.

  5. Mike Treen writes of Israel: “This state will never become a ‘normal’ bourgeois state because it can never grant equal ‘bourgeois’ rights (including the vote) to all the citzens trapped under its rule.”

    Absolutely the case! But I’d add there are also four-five million or so Palestinians living elsewhere in the region because they, or their parents or grandparents, were forced out of Israel when the Zionist state was set up. Israel cannot grant any significant rights – the right of return, the right to vote – to these citizens, because Israel couldn’t exist if those rights were granted.

    And if these basic (bourgeois-democratic) rights can’t be granted as long as the Israeli state exists, then it can hardly become a ‘normal’ capitalist state.


    • The ‘normal’ bourgeois state is not a category I would use. Thinking in terms of the ‘normal’ bourgeois state – which can only mean some sort of ideal bourgeois democracy which has never existed anywhere – and measuring Israel’s similarity to or difference from that ‘norm’ can only lead to confusion. What I said is that Israel increasingly resembles the other imperialist states. Partly this happens as the other imperialist states violate the norms of bourgeois democracy in relation to whole sections of the people (e.g. undocumented immigrants) and increasingly resemble Israel.

      • I took Mike’s use of the term ‘normal’ bourgeois state – and he did put quote marks around it – to simply mean the kind of bourgeois democracy that prevails in most of the imperialist heartlands most of the time. There’s nothing confusing about that.

        Moreover, you use the term “norms of bourgeois democracy”, with even putting quote marks around it. So you’re doing just what you criticise Mike for! You could just as easily be accused of suggesting there is some sort of ideal bourgeois democracy. It’s best not to play pedantic games, however.

        You were no doubt aware of what Mike meant, and that he didn’t mean there is some ideal bourgeois democracy, just as I know that when you use an expression like “norms of bourgoeis democracy” (albeit without even using quote marks) you don’t believe there is any such beast.

        You can say “No” to the calls by the Palestinians movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel if you like. You can even claim that this call is some form of anti-Semitism. That’s your right and this is your blog. But it won’t make your bigger claim for the blog – to be countering bourgeois ideas – look very credible. It will make it look like you are simply blind-following folks who, isolated from any forward movement or anti-imperialist force, have ended up capitulating to the pressures of imperialism.


  6. James wrote, “look at the video of the rightist demonstration in France (linked above) and deny the evidence of Jew-hatred at your peril”.

    James, no-one is denying that there is anti-Semitism in the world. That isn’t the argument, is it? The point that *has* been made is that it is confined to fringe elements. It is the bourgeoisie which calls the shots, and there is no significant section of the bourgeoisie which is railing against Jews.

    Your argument here is rather like those leftists who think some ‘Jewish lobby’ determines US foreign policy. In your case, some marginal force (the largely powerless anti-Semitic right) is calling the shots in relation to Israel and Jews.

    Btw, there is a whole section of traditional neo-Nazi white supremacists who now support Israel, their particular brand of anti-Semitism now being directed at Arabs rather than Jews.

    You also seem to have switched tack on another point. You initially argued that Israel was growing in resemblance to other imperialist states, now you’re arguing they’re growing in resemblance to Israel! However, none of them have forced most of the population out of the country, denied them the right of return, and denied these the vote, while allowing free entry to people who have no recent connection to the country at all, but whose ancestors of 2,000 years ago may (or may not) have been driven out by the Romans. The situation is qualitatively different.

    In choosing to oppose calls by the Palestinian movement for solidarity, in the form of BDS, you’re placing yourself on the wrong side of the struggle.


  7. Just one brief comment in response to a comment I found myself reading more than once to be sure I got it right: “There is no significant section of the bourgeoisie which is railing against Jews.”

    In Post WWI Germany most Jews felt the same way, most felt their place in German society was quite secure and the confidence in assimilation was quite strong, especially among wealthier Jews. At the beginning, the bourgeoisie had no particular use for Hitler, the Nazis or any of the other relatively small right wing outfits that hated Jews and did “rail” against them. But in the face of a deepening social, economic and political crisis Jews (and others) learned how wrong they were to feel so secure and to believe Jew hatred posed no serious threat. The bourgeoisie that had “no need” for the Nazis or to “rail against Jews,” found its needs had changed. Even then, it left most of the “railing” to Hitler, Goebbels and others of their ilk. But the bourgeoisie in its majority, did not hesitate to back the Nazis and offer them governmental power when it felt that was the only, or best choice to maintain capitalist rule in the long run.

    Moreover, after the Nazis rose to power and “railing” against Jews was German government policy, this hardly provoked any meaningful action from the bourgeoisie in the U.S. or elsewhere. For those who perhaps need a reminder, or just want to read an interesting take on the subject, I recommend, “In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin,” by Erik Larson.

    This is a lesson of history that also is “forgotten” at great peril.

  8. Pingback: Palestinian solidarity strengthened, Hamas influence weakened | A communist at large·

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s