Jew World Order

My response to Miko Peled’s clarification on his ”Holocaust: yes or no”

Forward note:
Yesterday, Mondoweiss published a response by Miko Peled http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/peled-speech-zionism/ following my dissection http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/problem-peleds-holocaust/ of the problem inherent in the words “Holocaust: yes or no” as part of his talk at a Labour fringe event a couple of weeks ago.

Before I delve into Peled’s response, I want to say that I am aware that Mondoweiss and many others would not be inclined or interested to have this go on without end. I have seen and received many concerned comments on mail, article threads and social media, attempting to clarify things that they thought were not properly understood from my rendering. But let me make this clear: I know the facts, I know what was said, and now Peled has subsequently tried to clarify it. Even now, I am still clear, about an unclarity here. One possibility is that it is because I am not smart enough to see through the unclarity. The other possibility is that it is simply unclear. Actually, that has been my point, in that Peled’s message is confusing – on a serious issue.

Such unclarity is of course a distraction, and it takes up our time. This is of particular concern, since the context of Peled’s words, inside the Labour party setting, which has suffered continuing distraction from those who would seek Corbyn’s demise, does not need to be added further distraction. I share that concern. But I think that merely quietening this down artificially will only solve the symptom, not the cause. And in this case, I believe, as I have written, that Peled did himself provide thee distraction. I also believe that the subsequent clarifications which I have detailed in my analysis, have not been particularly useful. Equally, I do not think this current clarification adds much clarity to it, and I will explain why, below.
——————————————–

Peled writes in his clarification:
“As I see it, there are three issues here:
1. Discussing/denying the holocaust while claiming to believe in free speech.
2. Providing people with racist perspectives a platform to express their views.
3. Anti-Semitism.”

Now, on issue 1, he elaborates, opening with the sentence: “I really do not understand how anyone can claim to believe in free speech yet claim that “holocaust deniers” are criminal.”
But we were not discussing whether Holocaust deniers (and I do not need the quotation marks here) are criminal. Criminality is not the issue that was being raised – the issue that was being raised by Peled in his talk was “free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion”, as Peled said at the Labour fringe event.

This is mirrored against those who are not provided a platform: “It’s about the limits of tolerance: we don’t invite the Nazis and give them an hour to explain why they are right; we do not invite apartheid South Africa racists to explain why apartheid was good for the blacks, and in the same way we do not invite Zionists – it’s a very similar kind of thing”, as he also said at that event.

There is obviously a distinction between ‘free speech’ and who is invite to an event regarding Palestinian solidarity – but as I have pointed out, and as I will do here, the distinction is actually blurry.

Peled continues the clarification of item 1, saying that “If someone is ill informed or ignorant or racist or stupid or all of the above – that is not a crime or a reason to vilify. It reflects their own racism, ignorance or stupidity – whichever the case may be but reflects nothing on the holocaust and its millions of victims. I would argue that denying current and impending disasters and crimes against humanity is far more serious.”

Now let’s look at that closely – a Holocaust denier may be racist – indeed their Holocaust denial may reflect their own racism – but that is no reason to vilify. Indeed, it reflects nothing on the Holocaust itself. Now the question to be asked is, if a Zionist, or a Nazi speak – why are they not to be afforded the same forgiving attitude? Nazis would come to an event and “explain why they are right”, but it would reflect nothing about Nazism. Zionists would come and explain “why they are right”, but it would reflect nothing on Zionism.

On the one hand, Peled seems to be making the distinction between Holocaust deniers being a ‘thing of the past’, whereas Zionists are a thing of the present. But this distinction seems weak, when it comes to current-day Nazis, KKK and proponents of South African Apartheid – which he also groups with Zionists in reference to those not to be offered a platform. The question becomes: If Holoacust denial is a “thing of the past”, why isn’t support of South African Apartheid?

The ‘thing of the past’ argument about current-day Nazis is one that is being made by the most nationalist and racist pundits, the likes of Yoaz Hendel http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/hendels-revenge-palestinians/ and Yair Netanyahu http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/support-racists-israeli/ .

Peled is not applying the ‘thing of the past’ notion to Nazis, but he’s applying it to Holocaust deniers.

Peled ends his clarification on item 1 in a formulation which in itself is perhaps one of the most problematic ones:

“Furthermore, the label “holocaust denier” is thrown at people by those who would have a monopoly on the discourse, on the discussion re the holocaust and that, I believe, is problematic.”

Aye, the label “Holocaust denier” is exploited, just as “anti-Semitism” is exploited – but does it mean it doesn’t exist?

Peled does not refer to this possibility at all – that Holocaust denial might actually be a real thing. In fact, all of his references to it are in quotation marks, so he appears to be relating to it SOLELY as an accusation, which might not even hold any substance whatsoever. Peled is actually suggesting an agnosticism on the subject in his formulation.

I want to pause a bit with this one, and go to Joseph Massad’s excellent essay from 2004, “Semites and anti Semites, that is the question” http://www.masress.com/en/ahramweekly/18485 . Here, Massad relates to the ‘political’ aspect of Holocaust denial in the Arab world: “While holocaust denial in the West is indeed one of the strongest manifestations of anti-Semitism, most Arabs who deny the holocaust deny it for political not racist reasons.” Massad analyses that this sort of denial is a reactionary one, and concludes that “all those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.” The full paragraph is worth reading to get this logic, here it is:

“While holocaust denial in the West is indeed one of the strongest manifestations of anti-Semitism, most Arabs who deny the holocaust deny it for political not racist reasons. This point is even conceded by the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Orientalist Bernard Lewis. Their denial is based on the false Zionist claim that the holocaust justifies Zionist colonialism. The Zionist claim is as follows: Since Jews were the victims of the holocaust, then they have the right to colonise Palestine and establish a Jewish colonial-settler state there. Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly “moral” argument. But the fact that Jews were massacred does not give Zionists the right to steal someone else’s homeland and to massacre the Palestinian people. The oppression of a people does not endow it with rights to oppress others. If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.”

I believe that Peled is in some way applying this notion – a reactionary notion to cynical exploitation of the Holocaust notion by Zionists, but not providing it with counter balance. He is apparently being solely reactionary on this, which ironically, as Massad reasons, puts him on lime with Zionists – ostensibly on the other end of the pole – but on the same pole. It’s called ‘polarity’.

Now let us continue to Peled’s point 2. Here he elaborates:

“There is a tendency to create spaces for and sow tolerance toward people who support Zionism and the state of Israel and allow them to express their point of view in an effort to show balance. My comment was, would we allow the KKK to do the same? The proponents of apartheid? – there are still a few of those around – or anyone else who wants to promote and help us understand the merits and virtues of racist ideas?”

Yet once again, if KKK are a ‘thing of the past’, if ‘proponents of Apartheid’ are (indeed, his comment that ‘there are still a few of those around’ only strengthens the notion that they are an aberration in Peled’s view), then why aren’t Holocaust deniers, who are being rendered a ‘thing of the past’, not also grouped in here? Here is where the supposed distinction between ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘giving a platform’ becomes even more blurry. Because now, those whom Peled was referring to in terms of ‘not giving them a platform’ (Zionists, Nazis etc.), are referred to with the words “allow them to express their point of view in an effort to show balance”. Peled is rejecting this notion. But once again the question arises – why is he not rejecting the notion of allowing Holocaust deniers to “express their point of view”?
Indeed, Peled has spoken quite clearly about allowing them to do so.

But let’s continue. Peled ends his elaboration on point 2 with the sentence: “I did not, by the way, compare Israel to Nazi Germany as was reported at one point.”

And neither did I, by the way. I only quoted Peled’s words which related to Zionists and Nazis in rhetoric proximity and never referred to Nazi Germany. If anyone did that, it wasn’t me, so this note should be seen as external to this discussion – just to be sure no one got the idea that “as was reported” relates to MY reporting.

Peled continues into point 3 to elaborate: “I do know what Anti-Semitism is. What I meant in my comment to Phil Weiss was, I don’t know what it means in this context.”

But I did not say that Peled does not know what anti-Semitism is. In fact, I provided quotes which proved that he DOES know what it means, but that he is using rhetorical exaggeration to make a point.

So Peled is using a form of speech. He’s actually saying that he does know what anti-Semitism means, but that when it is being misused (as in Chuck Schumer calling BDS a modern form of anti-Semitism, an example he brings), he does not accept it as being so.

I think the lesson I’m getting is, that I need to understand Miko Peled’s words more as a FORM OF SPEECH. But when I try to do that in this whole context, I get confused. Even the clarifications make me confused. What I am nonetheless getting is, that Peled doesn’t really address actual Holocaust denial any real insidious value. It is to be permitted under ‘free speech’. He doesn’t regard it as actually relating to any kind of ideology, only possibly ‘stupidity’, ‘ignorance’, even ‘racism’, but only as ancillary issues, while other ideologies are more intrinsically racist, and shouldn’t be allowed a platform.

Once again – let’s put the notion of criminality away here – we are speaking about Peled’s notions of what is legitimate to be given a platform under ‘freedom of speech’. Now if Peled was speaking for universal freedom of speech, he would allow all of these. But he’s not, he is precisely being selective and strategic about what should be invited to the debate. And here, alongside “Palestine, the liberation”, he puts “Holocaust: Yes or no”, as his selective and representative rendering of “the whole spectrum”. If you have to select three things to represent “the whole spectrum” of (permitted) ‘free speech’, that means that those three things are going to be very prominent, rhetorically. Each item takes up 33.3% of your ‘spectrum’. That’s how big a chunk Peled gave to the discussion of Holocaust denial (to be fair – with the “yes”, but with an obvious natural accent on the “no”) within the proclaimed boundaries of discourse in Palestine solidarity.

Peled may not have been providing a physical platform for Holocaust deniers at the fringe event, when he said this. This was not a debate as such either – Peled was making a philosophical-ideological statement of what he thought should be discussed, and what not. Thus, HE was provided a platform to promote these views, and this is what he promoted. The distinction between ‘free speech’ and ‘providing a platform’ here has been blurry, and has become even more blurred with his clarification.