BNP courts Jewish voters

[Rory Winter]

BNP courts Jewish voters, but their bigotry is unchanged
http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=14720

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 “führer” 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an “alien” culture, that they had backward religious and cultural practices and that their religious loyalties superseded their national ones.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?

[Danny]

The Muslims still have a long way to go in Britain; whether for a fact or allegedly; to catch up with the total score achieved by a Jewish terrorist called Dr Harold Shipman.

He was a clever one though; he didn't kill himself until after he'd killed as many people as he could and had ended up in jail. This is supposedly more civilized than blowing yourself up in your first act of terrorism, whether for a fact or allegedly. And less of a danger to the British public, I hear.

[PaulStott]

[blackcat]

[PaulStott]

If you can't see the difference between someone acting out of political/religious motives and someone who is a serial killer, things have come to a pretty pass.

To take your logic, the Moors Murders, committed by a Catholic (Ian Brady) and a woman who went on to become a prominent Catholic (Myra Hindley) were no doubt some form of Catholic plot against non-Catholics?

What has Shipman's religion got to do with anything?

I would ask your views on who Jack the Ripper really was, but no doubt you are off scrawling "the juwes are not the men will be blamed for nothing" on walls.......

[Stefan]

How odd to be agreeing with Paul Stott so completley for once...

[blackcat]

[Stefan]

[blackcat]

No - two wrongs make two wrongs. Banging on about one wrong and overlooking the other wrong is what is wrong. Its how Israel gates away with so much, including 9/11 and 7/7.

[Stefan]

But who is letting Israel off the hook?

Come on, hands up who doesn't think the state of Israel is in abuse of human rights, who doesn't think they have waged illegal wars, who doesn't think Mossad's admission to using torture is obscene, who doesn't condemn collective punishment, theft of land, demolition of homes, extrajudcial exectutions and so on?

No one? Didn't think so.

What we are discussing here (boringly and continually on this forum) is the drawing of ethical lines.

1) Describing Israel/Mossad/far-right-wing Zionists as "the jews" - utterly predjudiced - it blames an entire people for crimes they have nothing to do with, save a shared ethnicity/culture/religion with the perpertrators.

2) Describing Shipman as a "Jewish Terrorist" - just plain stupid as well as offensive.

First, as Paul points out - mass murder is not terrorism. Secondly his religion/culture/ethnicity is entirely irrelavant to his crimes.

So now Jewish people have not only to answer for all crimes committed by a Jewish state, but also for all crimes committed by a mass murderer who coincidentally is Jewsih?

What part of you thinks this is remotely OK?

Your argument of "well this happens to Muslims" is lower than base. If it happens to Muslims, and you feel it should therefore happen as well to Jews, why stop there - why not the people of all western nations - WHY NOT YOU AND ME AS WELL?

[ian neal]

[Danny]

Just the sort of reaction I expected, which helps illustrate my point. People defending Shipman, saying he wasn't a terrorist, and asking why I had to mention the fact he was Jewish.

Seems only Blackcat understood the point I was making - that for all the "danger" Islam/Muslims are said to pose, one man, who happened to be Jewish, like this new recruit to the BNP, has killed far more British people in Britain than "al Qaeda".

Of course, to brainwashed folk, programmed to knee-jerk react to things like this, this is "tasteless". Mention anyone other than a Jew, and they would have no problem with it.

And in my book, anybody who kills indiscriminately, without even declaring war, is a terrorist. More of a terrorist, than a freedom fighter who has a just cause.

Moronic is to accept the Establishment's definitions without question, when these are used to control the population.

[blackcat]

[alwun]

I wonder if Ahmed Shipman would have been linked to a terror cell?

cheers Al..

[Mark Gobell]

Good question.

At least Dr Shipman had weapons of mass destruction.

Supplied to him, without question, by the NHS, using our taxes. . .

[Stefan]

[Danny]