Posted: 6.32pm Tuesday 22 April 2008
The BNP is trying to use anti-Muslim racism to win Jewish support. Simon Behrman argues that behind this lies an attack on both groups
One of the worst epithets that one Jew can apply to another is that of the "self-hating" Jew. But I feel absolutely justified in so labelling Patricia Richardson, the first Jewish councillor for the fascist British National Party (BNP).
It's not as if Richardson's own personal demons are any concern of mine. What does concern me is the fact that not only is she proudly standing for a fascist party, but she is just as proudly proclaiming her Jewishness.
The BNP's "fÃ¼hrer" Nick Griffin has rushed to endorse her. In return he gets to further his campaign to isolate Britain's already embattled Muslim minority.
Richardson is quoted as saying, "The Jews and the British now share the same enemy – the Al Qaida terrorists who we know are often hidden in Britain illegally plotting against the West."
Although she occupies the extreme end of that sentiment, it is one that has a resonance in much of the Jewish community and beyond.
It is the notion that Islam is irretrievably violent and thus beyond the pale of other "civilised" faiths. It is the stereotype that Martin Amis employed when he talked of "feeling superior" to Muslims in one of his disgusting outbursts last year.
It is also a sentiment that finds its way into the use of the term "Islamofascism" by liberals who support George Bush's "war on terror".
We have been here before. From the mid-19th century through to the mid"‘20th century the Jews were the universal whipping boy of European reaction.
Many of the stereotypes associated with Muslims today were used then against Jews. It was said that Jews represented an "alien" culture, that they had backward religious and cultural practices and that their religious loyalties superseded their national ones.
As a result Jews were often made synonymous with anarchist and communist violence, as happened after the Siege of Sidney Street in the East End of London in 1911.
One of the things that ignited my political consciousness was the history of the Holocaust – learning not just of the death camps, but also of how Britain, the US and other countries refused to accept Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler's terror.
As a young Jew my initial reaction was to become a Zionist – it seemed to me that a history of violent antisemitism proved that we Jews could never be safe in "other people's" countries.
A feeling of assurance came from knowing that there would always be a Jewish state to escape to should such a threat arise again.
But in fact what Zionism shows is that the use of indiscriminate violence as a political tool is not specific to those inspired by Islam.
What broke me away from such ideas? It certainly wasn't people hectoring me about the evils of Judaism, nor demanding that I sacrifice a part of my Jewish identity.
Instead I listened to people who were steadfast in their opposition to all forms of antisemitism, and who recognised my anger and desire to fight against anti-Jewish oppression.
It was only because I was approached in this way that I was prepared to listen to the arguments about why Zionism was wrong and counter-productive.
I was won over by the argument that antisemitism could only be effectively fought by Jews allying with non"‘Jews. Crucially, I was also taken in 1993 to an anti-BNP demonstration in Welling, south London, where I saw all the arguments about the effectiveness of the unity of the oppressed in action.
Muslims today are facing a far more ferocious attack than Jews have had to deal with in my lifetime. There is a constant drip-drip of rabid Islamophobia in the mainstream media.
However, what my experience has taught me is this – that the pain of oppression can lead people to bitter and violent conclusions.
The starting point in winning over that tiny minority who are inspired by Al Qaida, or who express backward ideas towards women or gays, is not to denounce their religion.
All religions contain both reactionary and progressive elements. It would be just as unfair to tarnish Judaism with the crimes of Israel as it is to identify Islam with Al Qaida or the Saudi monarchy.
We must never forget that once you stereotype and demonise a group of people because of their ethnicity or their religion, it becomes much easier for a climate of violence to be directed towards them.
And nor must we forget that the BNP remains a Nazi party – despite the fact that it now boasts of its Jewish councillor. Muslims may be its current target, but hatred of Jews, Holocaust denial and general racism remain central to its politics.
The Jewish experience under the Nazis is testament to the monstrous endgame of unchecked prejudice. Today they may be coming for the Muslims, but who will they come for next?
Â© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Now look, let's be honest, shall we? This article is demonizing the British National Party as fascist. Some fascists don't consider being called fascist as being demonized. They think they are right in being fascists. The author of the post doesn't think so though.
So, in labeling that Party and its members, such as Patricia Richardson, fascist and by saying that Patricia Richardson is a "self-hating" Jew is demonizing; therefore, according to the so-called reasoning in the article the author(s) is creating "a climate of violence to be directed towards them."
[The following paragraph was improved April 23, 2008 at 5:53 PM PST.]
We have here an anti-fascist saying that we must be anti-hate speech while that anti-fascist is engaging in identifying what he or she or they hate. We also have fascists going about saying that it is anti-Semitism to criticize 1) Zionism (as the fascists wrongly define "Zion") and 2) the foreign and domestic policies and practices of the Likudniks. They are saying that such criticism should be outlawed and punished. That's evil! That's exactly what freedom of speech in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is designed to prevent the government from asserting. The people at the U.S. State Department who parroted the Likudniks in Israel who did the study upon which Condi Rice based her report about anti-Semitism are anti-free speech. They are the enemies of the people, as "the people" is contemplated under the U.S. Constitution.
This is typical on both ends of this spectrum. Both ends miss the point. They aren't even on any spectrum with real Christianity.
There is nothing wrong with a self-hating Jew. A self-hating Jew is a repentant Jew. After that, one hates oneself in this wicked world. One loves the world as it ought to be however. One loves Heaven that is within one's mind and heart but also exists beyond them in the common usage. In the divine understanding, the heart of Heaven already encompasses all that is right no matter where or when. It is love eternal and infinite. That's God. Get it?
Also, Jesus taught about hate and peace at the same time. The biggest error we can make as human beings is to not hate iniquity for the sake of being peaceful. That's not peace. Peace is knowing that violence is iniquity.
You are supposed to hate violence. The war-mongers though don't want you to go there. That's why they don't want to discuss what Jesus really meant and still means.
How long will it take for thinking to be straightened out? Deliver us from evil.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)