the main problem with dividing Jews into "good Jews" and "bad Jews" is it removes Jews from historical context and ultimately confirms the idea that *some Jews* are responsible for antisemitism

e.g. George Soros is removed from the context of the Hungarian antisemitism that he and his family grew up in and is placed, ahistorically, at the root of that same antisemitism

"if it weren't for George Soros and people like George Soros, there would be no antisemitism..." say the antisemites


or the Zionist is removed from the context of "the Jewish question" and from thousands of years of persecution, and placed at the root of that question and of that persecution

"if it weren't for Zionists, antisemitism wouldn't exist"

Zionism is toxic internalized oppression and misdirected anger that is oppressive in itself; that doesn't mean "the bad Jews" or the Zionists are responsible for the antisemitism that spawned them

It partially validates the ideology of antisemites, or maybe even fully. If the good Jews agree with the antisemite that "the bad Jews" are to blame for antisemitism, then the antisemite feels that much more justified. The "bad Jews" are bringing it on themselves, rather than reacting to the antisemitism they inherited.

Show thread

@kittybecca How does one even go about segmenting the ouroborous, when it comes to the middle east?

There's some ancient antisemitism, and there's historical trespasses both ways, and there's modern genocide both ways.

Is it even meaningful to posit causality for something so circular?

Or useful?

@ansugeisler so, the topic is "dividing Jews into simple, discreet categories of Good Jews and Bad Jews"

as opposed to discussing specific, detailed, concrete problems and solutions without making the focus about which Jews are The Good Ones and which Jews are The Bad Ones

@ansugeisler it's also about blaming Jews for antisemitism, using current problems to scapegoat Jews for the problems that shaped them

what are these ancient historical trespasses both ways you speak of? what is the ancient historical trespass of Jews?

@ansugeisler you seem to be suggesting that antisemitism, from the very beginning, was at least partially the fault of Jews. why do you believe this?

@ansugeisler it's possible to oppose Zionism without making the backwards claim that Zionists are responsible for antisemitism, but you seem to be suggesting that in the distant past, there was something Jews did that caused antisemitism.

@kittybecca Good points. And sorry for intruding.

I am at a loss to even try to untangle any of it, because it's just so tangled.

And that tangle, I guess, IS the reason why I think there's even something to talk about.

Only loose end I can see, and which might be a good start, is that there are these narratives which for lack of a better word *exist*. And narratives shape perceptions and Identities, and those seem to be very important.

@kittybecca Like, let's take Swedes and Danes, for something a little less fraught.

There's some way old stuff. Like, how Danes at some point perceived Swedes as an off-shoot.

Or how Swedes at some point interpreted current Swedish landmass as *theirs*, and thereby the Danish parts of it as "invasive".

Or how a Danish monarch at one point conquered Sweden and had all their nobles assassinated at a party, all GoT style.


@kittybecca ...Or how the Swedes later went about conquering those aforementioned Danish parts and ethnically cleansing them for a few centuries.

It's like a family feud, but it's also ancient history, and well, to some extent the ancient history only matters because it exists as narratives.

And all of those narratives are bullshit, because of Identity. Because the actions of monarchs isn't the actions of a People. And a People isn't actually something that exists, except as a individuals.

@kittybecca Sort-of like that.
Can you see what I am rambling about as anywhere near relevant? I lost track the moment I dived into the mess.

@kittybecca But... I guess, I mean to say that there is a dangerous cup game going on with a term like "zionists" because it's an identity/narrative compound, which automagically fucks up what anybody thinks about the matter.

@kittybecca So, if arabs in general are fed a narrative of zionist aggression, it doesn't even really matter whether there is a smidgen of truth to it.

And if actually-zionistic zionists are anti-palestinian because they're fed a narrative of Arab aggression, it also really doesn't matter whether there's a smidgen of truth to THAT.

It's a trap, essentially, or two of them.

@ansugeisler Zionists were aggressive towards Palestinians, that's 100% true, and Palestinians did nothing to deserve the Nakba. They were materially harmed on account of something they had nothing to do with.

This can and should be acknowledged, but Zionists were reacting to antisemitism that was already a widespread problem; they are not the reason for antisemitism.

@ansugeisler It seems you're avoiding giving this serious thought and just treating it as an ancient feud. That's a huge mistake, and a dehumanizing, trivializing one.

@kittybecca Sorry if it comes across as such. It's really not like that for me, but I apologize for creating that impression.

It's just my own pocket philosophies about culture, narrative and identity giving me a headache. Sorry to derail.

@ansugeisler Zionists were reacting to antisemitism

What they did in response to it was wrong

Do you think they were to blame for the antisemitism they were originally experiencing, to which they reacted with Zionism? If so then why, specifically?

@kittybecca No, I don't. But there's a narrative to that effect.

It's always a duality of the actions of individuals and the propagation of narratives about the same.

Even at that level, it breaks down as an "explanation", because it's just a stack of narratives on top of each other.

I really don't think it's much better to describe the causality as a stack of different antisemitisms, different transgressions they caused, and different backlashes from the victims.

@ansugeisler You're speaking in circular and vague and dismissive terms that dismiss and diminish the very idea of material oppression of a group of people on the part of another

@kittybecca Absolutely fair. Vagueness is due to the mixed levels involved.

If only individuals exist (which I believe), then oppression is a gestalt term for individual actions. A generalization, useful for description, but also ... a bit too useful, as that is exactly how one can motivate a large number of individuals to harm others.

@kittybecca And I am treating something that is personal for you as something for inspection, and that's a horrible thing to do and I am sorry.

@ansugeisler What does "only individuals exist" mean to a Palestinian living in an outdoor prison, or to a Jew who survived Auschwitz?

@ansugeisler How's that for individualism? What did she do to deserve the antisemitism she was born into? Did the time she spent in Israel/Palestine afterwards for having nowhere else to go retroactively justify what happened to her and her family?

Show more
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon is a pluralistic, pro-Diaspora Mastodon instance for Jews to conspire, socialize, and debate together.