Franklin Foer’s selective polemic on ‘This Week in Anti-Semitism’. Political Observer comments

Mr. Foer collects a series of Newspaper Headlines, but he mixes reports on Police Records and Ben Judah: Europe’s ubiquitous anti-Semitism,  Mr Judah a member of a ‘Think Tank’ funded by perpetual bad actor George Soros: one of the coterie of callbos that brought about the Ukrainian Coup of 2014.  That has since installed the fascist Azov Battalion as its National Guard, not to speak of the active participation of  Right Sector and Svoboda in the Coup. With the help of American Neo-Con Diplomat Victoria Nuland.

On the ‘victim’ Alan Finkielkraut: Neo-Con, Racist and defender of Roman Polanski:

Controversies

His interview published in the Haaretz magazine in November 2005 in which he gave his opinion about the 2005 French riots stirred up much controversy. Finkielkraut’s remarks that the France national football team was “Black, Black, Black” (as opposed to the expression black-blanc-beur—meaning “Black, White, Arab”—coined after the 1998 World Cup victory to honor the African and Afro Caribbean, European and North African origins of the players) were seen as “racially insensitive”.

Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan took legal action against Finkielkraut after the Frenchman said Sivan “is, if you will, one of the actors in this particularly painful, particularly alarming reality, the Jewish anti-Semitism that rages today.”[5]

60 researchers and professors at the École Polytechnique signed a petition in 2006 to protest his alleged colonial views.[6]

In 2009, he was criticized for his strong defence of Roman Polanski, arrested in Switzerland for the rape of a 13-year-old girl. Finkielkraut claimed that she was a “teenager”, “not a child”.[7]

On 16 February 2019, Finkielkraut was verbally assaulted on the street by a group of yellow vest protesters in Paris when they chanced on him in Boulevard du Montparnasse.[8][9] He previously expressed his sympathy for the yellow vest movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Finkielkraut

No one should suffer attacks about who they are, but Mr. Finkielkraut is hardly an innocent in the matter! The gilets jaunes are a politically diverse opposition to the Macron’s Neo-Liberalization of France.  As a Neo-Con Finkielkraut cultivates controversy, it is his reason d’etre, and some anonymous members of this political collective used this demonstration to attack this polemicist with Anti-Semitic slurs. Its called political opportunism.

Monday, February 18

“Seven Lawmakers Quit Britain’s Labour Party Over Brexit and Anti-Semitism” (The Washington Post)

In order to read this, the reader must be a subscriber to The Washington Post.  But a reader, who has followed this concerted attack on Jeremy Corbyn, and ‘The Left’ (BDS) only need to look to the original accusation of Anti-Semitism made in the Guardian (2016), by Anti-Semitic fabulist Jonathan Freedland, as an operative of the Blairite faction of New Labour. In a concerted effort to defame Corbyn, that backfired, even with the Labour Friends of Israel consistent defamation, succeed by the the ‘Independent Group’ :

Headline:Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem

Sub-headline: Under Jeremy Corbyn the party has attracted many activists with views hostile to Jews. Its leaders must see why this matters

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn

__________________________________________________________

Headline:The Independent Group needs to call by-elections, though it will lose them

Sub-headline: Beyond the loss of Luciana Berger, the rest of The Independent Group launch consisted of vapid snipes and an absence of policy. The right thing to do would be to call by-elections, which it will inevitably lose, argues Michael Segalov

I hadn’t expected the fundamental message of this morning’s Labour splinter group press conference to unify those from all corners of the party, which, until this morning, the assembled seven MPs called their political home. Lined up on a stage in London’s County Hall, Westminster’s worst-kept secret was finally confirmed to the nation: a small handful of “centrist” MPs – most of whom you’ve probably never heard of – were leaving the party once and for all. The basis of their decision? Labour had changed beyond recognition from the party it was when they each joined. But that is in and of itself by no means a bad thing, as its 500,000-plus members supportive of a radically progressive policy platform would no doubt confirm.

In what was quite a dull event for something billed as marking a seismic shift in British politics, the seven now independent MPs – Chuka Umunna, Luciana Berger, Gavin Shuker, Angela Smith, Chris Leslie, Mike Gapes and Ann Coffey – each set out their positions and said their goodbyes.

Beyond well-crafted assaults on Corbyn (which, let’s be honest, most have spent years practising), the whole affair was somewhat vapid. There was much talk of “values” and “change” and the need for a “better future”, but beyond the buzzwords there was little more than hot air and fluff.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/the-independent-group

This quotation from Highbrow Magazine from February 23, 2019 gives a vital clue as to the paternalist thinking, that aptly describes Mr. Foer’s uncritical polemic made entirely of headlines, that suggest crisis, some very real, others politically manufactured :

… following a Lippman-esque model of shaping public discourse (Lippman believed the masses were a “bewildered herd,” and that their views should be shaped by experts and elites – the types of people who worked at The New Republic – people who could, in Lippman’s own words, tell readers “what to think about”)

https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2737-brief-history-new-republic-lippmann-peretz-hughes

But Foer ignores the actions of Netanyahu in exacerbating ‘Anti-Semitism’ :

Headline:Netanyahu’s flirtation with the far right

Sub-headline: As the extreme right continues its rise across Europe, Israel’s prime minister has decided to get closer. This decision, in the name of the fight against Islamism, means turning a blind eye to his new friends’ antisemitism.

The guiding principle of Netanyahu’s ostentatious seduction campaign among rightwing populist and neo-fascist circles in Europe is ‘their antisemitism doesn’t matter so long as they are Zionists’. All this cannot be dismissed as just realpolitik: it is part of Netanyahu’s personal and political DNA. Personal, because his father, Benzion Netanyahu, had always been close to Zeev Jabotinsky, leader of rightwing revisionist Zionism, and was in fact his assistant. Political, because the precursors of Likud — the Irgun, Betar and Lehi (‘Stern Gang’) – were already involved with fascism and Nazism. With much-publicised reminders of the deeds of the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who had travelled (alone) to Berlin and created two (Bosniac) SS legions there, it’s easy to forget that the Lehi itself offered to ally itself with the Third Reich in 1941. And that the Betar, then the Irgun, in the early 1920s, had the political support of Benito Mussolini, who admired Jabotinsky: ‘In order for Zionism to achieve its goal,’ said il Duce, ‘you’ll need a Jewish state with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. And the person who understands that best is your fascist, Jabotinsky.’

https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/netanyahu-s-flirtation-with-the-far-right

What is abundantly clear is that Foer exploits real manifestations of Anti-Semitism, while ignoring other manufactured propaganda, in an American Political Culture awash in paranoia of many varieties: Trumpism, Anti-Russian hysterics, recited at once respectable Newspapers,TV Networks and the Internet.  And a rampant Xenophobia: this framed by two of Samuel P. Huntington’s books, ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ and ‘Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity’ .In sum, American Anglo-Protestant Virtue is under threat from a world made of ubiquitous enemies.

Political Observer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.