Macron declares that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

54 thoughts on “Macron declares that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism”

1. In view of what is now going on with internet platforms and has been shown to go on in the recent past, we need to take a different and informed view of an unregulated internet. The damage done to interrupt free elections here and throughout Europe demands change.

   I have just started reading the book, Zucked, by Roger McNamee, which concentrates on Face Book but I am learning something on nearly every page. The problems with internet platforms extend far beyond addiction. They also pollute the public square by empowering negative voices at the expense of positive ones. The digital war played against the Jews is no different and it all happens on your little devices.

   1. I don’t necessarily think the solution is regulation of the internet. I think the better solution is teaching our kids to weigh inputs appropriately. Anonymous random dude on the internet? Not much weight. Close to zero, in fact. Opinion with name attached? Slightly more. Named opinion with person willing to stand in your presence and make it? More. Named opinion, peer reviewed by many others? More. Etc.

      There will always be idiots. We can’t regulate them away and it’s immoral to prevent them from having their say. The better solution is to teach our kids how to recognize potential idiots.

      1. Good point. If everyone knew how to Snope as well as they could Google…

2. sub

3. Is “criticism of Jews” anti-semitic? I think insulting and directing hatred at Jews is anti-semitic, but everyone is open to criticism. Of course, stereotyping and collective faulting is wrong.

   1. That’s what I meant, of course, and I”ll fix it. After all, I criticize the tenets of all faiths, including Judaism.

4. sub.

5. Good for Macron, but the realisationn that anti-zionism equates to anti-semitism is not new.
   As a small child I remember my late father having a discussion with some friends, where he contended that anti-zionism was just anti-semitism under another guise. I think that he more or less convinced his friends, but then, a child would tend to think his father carries the day. This is decades ago.

6. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes, and having a French president willing to denounce anti-Zionism is certainly a consequence of the bullet France dodged when Manny M stomped Marine Le Pen in France’s 2017 presidential election.

   1. As far as I know, le Pen is also not anti-Semitic.

      1. Le Pen and her National Front Party have a history of Holocaust revisionism. See here and here.

         I didn’t accuse her of antisemitism per se, though I think French Jews, and Israel, are better off having Macron in office, don’t you?

         1. I don’t consider it Holocaust revisionism to stress that the Holocaust was performed by Germany.

            Macron may indeed be better than, or at least as good as, le Pen with respect to Israel and the Jews – better than I expected, I admit.

            1. I would say “facilitated” by Germany. There were people of many nationalities who joined in enthusiastically. Including in France.
               My personal experience indicates that most of those who collaborated in the Shoah later edited their history to claim participation in the resistance.

               And although I am convinced that Macron issued a statement that is technically correct, I do not approve of where such definitions are designed to lead in EU nations. The ability to punish “hate speech” inevitably leads to people redefining what it constitutes in order to punish dissent. Or perceived dissent. Or to silence criticism.

7. So where falls the critique that fully admits Israel’s right to exist, but also takes the historical view that the movement to establish Israel was misguided, with a wish that Israel had not been formed.

   FWIW this view does not appear to be uncommon among Jews, at least in my circle.

   There is also nothing about this view that limits the critique to Israel. There are a number of countries we’d rather not been formed, but now that they are here we do not aim to eliminate (e.g. North Korea, some would say the United States).

   So is it anti-Zionist to hold such a view, and thus anti-Semitic?

   1. I don’t see this as anti-Semitic.

   2. I do see it as antisemitic. It means refusing the Jewish nation the right to self-determination and sentencing this nation to continued persecution and exile.

      Of course, I know that some Jews are harbouring this view. But I judge an opinion according to it’s own merits, not according to the ethnic origins of persons who support it. The person may or may not be antisimitic. The view, which on the one hand undermines the validity of existing state and on the other puts persecution of a people over their own state where they can defened themselves, is however antisemitic. Many Polish anti-Zionists who survived WWII went to Israel because there was nowhere else for them to go. I wonder how many today’s European Jews from France, Great Britain etc., who were of the opinion that establishing Israel was a mistake, are today in Israel because this is the country they feel safer than in countries they were born and bred.

      1. I do see it as antisemitic. It means refusing the Jewish nation the right to self-determination and sentencing this nation to continued persecution and exile.

         What did the phrase “Jewish Nation” mean in the 2,000 years before the creation of the modern state of Israel? Are you trying to argue that the Jews throughout Europe, the Middle East and North America saw themselves as a single political entity?

         Was the best answer to the persecution of the Jews really to set them up in a small enclave surrounded by other nations that just wanted to obliterate them?

         1. It meant just that: ”Jewish nation”. Of course, not ”political entity” as there was no state, but undobtedly a nation with common roots and common fate. As long as religion was prevalent in every society most Jews were religious. But after Enlightment there were possibly more Jewish atheist than in any other nation, but they were still Jews.

            There is a funny story described by Arthur Kestler: in Bukhara a Jewish community lived for centuries without contact with other Jews. When 1866 the Russian army captured Bukhara the Jews, to their astonishment learned to know that there are other Jewish communities in the world. Somehow they got the name of ”Nalewki” which was a Jewish quarter in Warsaw. They wrote a letter addressed ”Jews from Nalewki” which was received and answered. These people corresponded with each other in Hebrew. So not only religion but common beginnings, the knowledge of a thousand years of common history (until Romans came and ended the Jewish state), common language etc. Jews from Yemen, airlifted to Israel to avoid extermination, were able to communicate with young Israelis in Hebrew. There are many examples of a bond between Jews from Europe, Middle East and both Americas.

            What other place would you suggest for this nation, persecuted everywhere they went for 2000 years than the place they were expelled from? And somehow they managed to defend themselves quite efficiently for 70 years.

         2. “Was the best answer to the persecution of the Jews really to set them up in a small enclave surrounded by other nations that just wanted to obliterate them?”

            The best answer would be to set them up in a large enclave. Which is pretty much what they were promised. They were also promised peace.

            The best answer would be to be surrounded by nations that respect International law, and the auspices which created them as well as Israel. Lost in all the millions of words about the legitimacy of the state of Israel is the elephant in the room.

            Which is there would be no problem in the Middle East but for the rabid antisemitism of the Arabs, their disregard for the rule of law and treaty obligations, and their repeated efforts toward the genocide of the Jews.

            One can not understand the Palestinian issue without understanding these things. And they do not get talked about enough. imho.

            1. “…there would be no problem in the Middle East but for the rabid antisemitism of the Arabs, their disregard for the rule of law and treaty obligations, and their repeated efforts toward the genocide of the Jews.”

               Well, one other thing would help: if the Western media and a significant portion of the Left didn’t continue to completely ignore all of these things and focus all their attention on Israel. And the UN doing the same.

   3. “There are a number of countries we’d rather not been formed … some would say the United States …”

      Mebbe so, but they say it with a funny accent.

      And they better smile when they say it around these parts, pardner. 🙂

8. France isn’t the only place experiencing this surge in antisemitism. In the UK, antisemitic crimes have risen to new record levels in each of the last three years, and the enormous spike in antisemitism in Labour under Corbyn’s “leadership” and it’s complete refusal to address it (and Corbyn’s refusal to say anything beyond “all racism is bad”) isn’t exactly helping.

   But I’m sure Corbyn doesn’t want those Jews to be able to flee to Israel, since he doesn’t seem to like the fact that it exists considering his affiliations.

9. “Whatever you think about the UN vote in 1947 to establish Israel,”

   For those who don’t know, the UN Partition plan of 1947, was a UN General Assembly Resolution, number 181. It ultimately had nothing to do with the creation of Israel, and had zero standing in International law for a number of reasons, the main one being that the UN can not make International law. It can make recommendations and proposals, and if the countries involved agree to them, that is the basis for treaties, which DO have standing in International law.

   Especially General Assembly resolutions, of which there are hundreds if not many thousands on all sorts of topics. There is one which recommends safe driving practices, for example.

   What UNGA 181 was, was a proposal to cut away an area roughly equivalent to what today is called the West Bank to make (yet another) Arab Palestinian state. David Ben Gurion agreed to the proposal at the time (and later changed his position). The Arab states did not agree to 181. No treaty, no International law.

   So, the underlying salient question is …. what map was used from which that chunk was proposed to be cut off? What was it cut out of?

   This is really important because it bears directly on many of the accusations of the BDS movement and the claims and demands of all of today’s Palestinian political parties.

   The map used was the map drawn up for the proposed Jewish state in Palestine by the British administration who had official control of the area and the mission under the Mandate for Palestine to establish a Jewish state.

   This mission was carried out under the auspices of International law following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, whose leaders ceded all rights to the area. Multiple conferences were held around the world to determine officially who would be tasked with dividing this huge territory into new states.

   These conferences included the San Remo Conference and the Paris Conference, which are relevant to Israel. France was given a Mandate in northern Palestine. Britain was given a Mandate in southern Palestine. From these Mandates came today’s nations of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan.

   Every Arab leader signed official documents, valid under International law, agreeing to the establishment of the Jewish state under the supervision of the British Mandate of the Mandate for Palestine. Every country in the world ratified and codified the Mandates via the League of Nations. And Britain not only drew the maps in southern Palestine, but had official administration of the area.

   This is very important to point out, because the borders of all new countries and states are often highly disputed. International law has a standardized approach or principle to resolve issues about the borders of new nation states. It is called Uti possidetis juris, and means that the new borders shall be what the borders were under the last official presiding administrator. This standard has been used without exception through the world.

   So, the map used by the British Mandate is crucially important, because when Israel declared its independence mere hours before five Arab nations tried to commit genocide against every Jew there, that very instant it declared independence was the very instant that defined the legal end of the British Mandate of the Mandate for Palestine. That instant was the instant that the borders of Israel became official under uti possidetis juris. And those borders included all of the so-called West Bank, Gaza, and a goodly part of the Golan Heights.

   So, when people say Israel “stole” that land, or “took it by aggression”, or has no right to exist they could not be more wrong. Very few nations are formally established beforehand in International law, with all relevant parties agreeing to its establishment, and documented by multiple signatories, treaties, and conventions.

   Israel was created by the signatories to treaties valid under International law back in the 1920’s, its borders delineated by the British administrators of the Mandate for Palestine, and it was established by its announcement of Independence in 1948.

   And U.N.G.A. 181 had nothing to do with it.

   1. Let me may sure I understand what you are saying. It appears you are saying Israel includes the West Bank, Gaza and parts of the Golan Heights, and all this land should be used as a Jewish State. A one state solution. If this is what you mean, then how do you deal with the problem that Jews may not be the majority of the people that live there, how do you insure that they remain the majority if they still are, and what do you purpose to do if at some point in time they are not longer the majority.

      1. What I am saying is that, according to what I have discovered (and I am just an amateur), the case under International law for Israel’s borders including those areas seems extremely strong.

         Israel itself hints at this, but has been reticent to make its case publicly and forcefully. It plays this central issue very close to the vest. It evidently prefers the status quo to pushing the issue.

         I know it uses this as leverage against the Palestinian Authority occasionally, threatening annexation at times behind the scenes to push them from extremism. And there are right-wing parties and politicians who hold a very had line on this border issue, and who promise immediate annexation. But there are more who want to accommodate the Palestinians in the hopes of peace.

         Me? I am as hard-line as one can get. But I am not an Israeli, so it is easy for me to be so. And I am not entirely sure I have any standing on the issue, even though as a Jew, Israel’s door is always open to my immigration.

         For what it is worth, and it ain’t worth much, my framing of the issue is that any resolution of the issues you raise is not Israel’s responsibility. The Palestinian “problem” if you will, was deliberately imposed upon Israel by multiple wars of aggression and the most cynical of machinations over the past seventy years. It was manufactured by Arab nations who have, as far as I am concerned, full responsibility for the solution. They should pay the costs of this mess.

         If there is to be yet another new state for Palestinian Arabs, let it be carved out of Jordan. Which is, literally, a hundred feet away. That is Palestine too, and full of Palestinian people.

         1. Thanks for your response.

      2. No, that’s not what he said. He didn’t say anything about a one state solution or any kind of a solution. He related the history of how modern Israel and the regions surrounding it were formed and what the original legal, by international agreement, extent of Israel was.

   2. Thanks for providing some concrete substance to my vague, but certain, understanding of Israels right to be there.

      Also the comment about the imposition of the Palestinian problem as cynical political machination is something I suspected, vaguely also.

   3. Thank you for sharing this research and your knowledge with us. Most of it I did not know.

10. In an ideal world establishing a country for a specific cultural or religious group is counter-productive to a goal of international peace and harmony, especially when the land is taken from another cultural group. But we were far from that ideal when Israel was established, and given the historical persecution of Jews, there was a rationale for it. Which means that Israel exists as a solution to our present reality, not as a goal towards an ideal world.

    The question is, should politics only deal with present reality and not strive for lofty future goals? There’s a parallel here with the conflict within the U.S. Democratic Party.

    1. “establishing a country for a specific cultural or religious group is counter-productive to a goal of international peace and harmony”

       Why is that? It has been done many times before. India-Pakistan-Bangladesh. Jordan was established as a homeland for Palestinian Arabs. No one objects to the Kurds quest for their own state.

       Tons of countries have a single official religion. Thirty require the head of government to be a specific religion.

       Often these arrangements led to sharp reductions of hostilities, the opposite of being counterproductive to peace.

       Why is Israel the poster child for the evils of a quasi-religious state?

       1. “No one objects to the Kurds quest for their own state.”

          No one but Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria — the states Kurdistan would be carved out of — that is.

       2. The examples you give are excellent examples of why, as the OP says, it’s not a good idea to establish a country on the basis of a single religion. That shouldn’t be a controversial idea around these parts.

          I also find this conflation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism to be an extremely inelegant, brute force reaction to extreme, inelegant brute force hypocrisy and hatred from the other direction.
          It’s defensible to blanch at the idea of a country specifically established to home a particular religious group. I blanch at the idea, even though in Israel’s case it’s culturally the polar opposite of theocracies like Pakistan, etc.

          In that sense a disinterested observer could plausibly describe my position as anti-Zionist, in the sense that the concept of Zionism, ie. a homeland for a particular religion, seems to me to be, in principle if not yet in practice*, inherently illiberal.

          Yet all the nuance in this position is crushed flat by declaring that a critical position towards Zionism is indistinguishable from hatred of Jews. And it’s no use just changing the definition of anti-Zionism to mean ‘denial of the right of Israel to exist’. That’s rigging the semantic rulebook to write out of existence any reasonable critics of Zionism.

          In all honesty I generally find myself defending Israel about 80 to 90 percent of the time, but the thrust of Macron’s declaration irks me a little. In practical terms I think it’s probably a necessary step, given the terrifying increase in anti-Semitism coming from all angles that’s currently roiling French society(Islamic anti-Semitism being, I suspect, the big driver). It may be politically necessary as a bulwark against more anti-Semitism. But that doesn’t make it an entirely reasonable intellectual position to hold.

          *In the same way, I’m in principle against the monarchy even though their influence in the UK may in practice be good.

          1. Jews are both ethnic/cultural group and religion. They are a nation. Israel was not established “on the basis of a single religion” but on the basis of a single nation – Jewish nation. And Israel is a secular state – not any kind of theocracy. That religious people have too much influence in this country to my taste? It’s equally true that Poland is a secular country where the Catholic Church has too much influence to my taste.

          2. “The examples you give are excellent examples of why, as the OP says, it’s not a good idea to establish a country on the basis of a single religion.”

             It happens often, and if it saves a lot of bloodshed and produces a lasting peace, it might well be a good idea.

             ” the concept of Zionism, ie. a homeland for a particular religion, seems to me to be, in principle if not yet in practice*, inherently illiberal.

             Yet all the nuance in this position is crushed flat by declaring that a critical position towards Zionism is indistinguishable from hatred of Jews.”

             The way I see it, your argument was perfectly valid in 1880, but from my standpoint – and even many Israelis don’t agree with me – Zionism became moot the instant Israel became independent.

             It is now 71 years later. I can not see how any talk about the illegitimacy of Israel – because that is what virtually all references to Zionism or anti Zionism means today – especially in light of the special circumstances of its creation, can be anything other than antisemitic.

             And I have never seen anyone make the argument that Israel is illegitimate, and so are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, because the Mandate for Palestine is illegitimate. I have seen people argue that the Mandate for Palestine was illegitimate, but ONLY with regard to Israel, ie, arguments by antisemites.

       3. In an ideal world, Jews would be free to live in any country without fear of persecution. If that had been the case, then no one would have suggested creating Israel. Same for the Kurds.

          I can’t agree that single official religions are a good solution, or that they reduce hostilities. If they do, it’s only through oppression, but then they inevitably go to war with other countries. Pakistan and India have had 3 wars and numerous further confrontations. Heck, most of history is defined by religious wars. Seems to me a good argument for not having official religions.

          1. There is no official religion in Israel.

    2. At the level of groups, there was no “taking of land”, because Arab countries expelled their Jewish minorities and took the land owned by them.
       Also, I don’t think that a Judenfrei world is a lofty future goal.

11. Even if you have a two state or three state solution, how do you you insure that Jews will remain the majority in the Jewish state, and what happens if st some time in the future they are no longer the majority even there?

    1. I think that every current majority should not forget this question.

       1. Most countries have immigration laws that try to maintain the current majorities.

          1. However, this goal, like most goals of governments, is fairly short-term – for one or two terms. Combined with a culture that tells people of the majority that they are bad if they wish to remain a majority, this is a recipe for large-scale demographic changes,

12. Delightful.

13. … as well as those “one-staters” like Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who know full well what would happen if they try to amalgamate Palestine and Israel.

    Unfortunately, it’s no longer only the pro-Palestinian side where those favoring a “one state” solution can be found. That position has been advocated by the US’s current ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who has labelled Jews supporting a two-state solution “worse than kapos” who cooperated with the Nazis at the concentration camps.

    For his part, Friedman’s boss — our president — has said he could play it either way, one-state or two-state, doesn’t matter to him. Clearly, like every other matter pertaining to public policy, the Donald has given this matter less thought than he has whether to hit a wood or iron off the tee at his Trump-branded golf course in Bedminister, NJ.

    1. Still relentlessly criticising poor, unfairly maligned Donald I see Ken… 😉

       Keep it up.

14. As our neighbours in France, we have a severe anti-Semetism problem here in Germany. And the problem got worse after the summer 2015, when approx. a mio. people came into the country (many muslims from nations, where hatred vs. Jews and Israel is defacto raison d’etre) without any control. On sundays Kanzlerin Merkel and her entourage preach their undevideable support for Israel, and monday sees the Bundespräsident Steinmeier (highest representiv of BRD) sending congratulations to Teheran for their evil revolution. I was 32 years a member of the left-wing social democrats SPD-Partei (August Bebel, F. Ebert and Willy Brandt served as chairmen) but i had to quit, as the pro-palastine-wing took over opinion-control up to the highest ranks. If you dare to criticise, you are labeled islamophob and a rassist, and if you show sympathy for the IDF and understand Israel as the only democratic society amongst semi-fascist regimes, they abuse you as NAZI (which is the most humiliating thing a german can be, by way far more evil then a child molester, who can at least be reintegrated after psycho surgery). It is hell of disappointing to find out, that now the most right-wing party is the only one to share my opinions. Shattering!

    1. Yes, the corrupting absurdities of the left is doing so much to validate the right, unfortunately.

15. Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

16. This:

    “Argentina’s chief rabbi brutally beaten in home attack”

    https://www.jta.org/2019/02/26/global/chief-rabbi-of-buenos-aires-beaten-and-seriously-injured-in-home-invasion-attack

17. I agree with everything, except the following. “That [deeming as Jew-haters] also goes for those who call Israel an “apartheid state” without recognizing that the Palestinian territories are real apartheid states.” – I think that, unfortunately, Israel is not very far from being an apartheid state, because in the West Bank it applies 2 different law system to 2 different ethnic groups who live in the same area. And I am NOT a Jew-hater. As far as the Area A, administered by the Palestinian Authority, is concerned, I think calling it an apartheid state is a compliment, but this has no connection whatsoever to my judgement of Israel.

18. I want to enlarge on Jerry’s closing sentence: “Anti-semitism has gone under a number of rubrics in its long life, and this is merely the latest.”
    Exactly right. There is a saying that European anti-Semitism went from religious hatred to social/economic hatred to irredeemable racial hatred (for which genocide is the only answer). That saying is, “From ‘You shall not live among us as Jews’ to ‘You shall not live among us’ to the final solution of ‘You shall not live.'” Now the newest iteration is, “You shall not live in your own nation.” As several people have already noted in this thread, just what are Jews supposed to do, and where shall they be safely allowed to do it???

19. Does ‘Zionism’ include the notion that the state of Israel should include all the Palestinian territories? Or does Zionism permit the two-state solution?
    I’m an old fogie I guess, but I still hope for a two-state solution. To that extent, I hope Netanyahu loses reelection and that the replacement PM doesn’t support Orthodox demands to continue adding settlements beyond the old UN borders. But I fully support the continued existence of the state of Israel, and whatever its flaws, I think it’s a lot more democratic than many of the states around it.

20. Whatever the current reason for a separate state of Israel set aside for Jews after WWII, whether for cultural or religious reasons, historically Israel was not always Jewish, and Jews living there had/have cultural and religious differences. According to the Bible, the Jews took the land from Canaanites. While living there, and even yet, there are a variety of belief systems among the Jews. The Jewish state was overrun by many other countries until finally taken over by Rome when the Jews were dispersed from Jerusalem. Of course, throughout their history, Jews had been dispersed all over the world. In some cases they were welcomed, in others they were not. Jews also proselytized in many places just as Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, etc. did, so there are Jews of many colors and national origins living in Jerusalem.

    I am pro-human. Much as I hate what has happened to the Jews, other religions and nationalities have been treated abominably also. What about the Turks against the Armenians, the Greeks, the Kurds? I’m sure that all of you can think of many examples. In the Americas, our treatment the indigenes was also abominable. And still is.

21. Is criticism of French government policy and French nationalism (either in a specific case or generally) “anti-French”?

Comments are closed.