#anti revisionist politics

[lasttarrasque]

China has not only abandoned the socialist road at home but also become a force of reaction globally.

[odinsblog]

The passage of current memory laws is a sign of creeping authoritarianism and fascism, not democracy

MEMORY LAWS are a fascistic form of mass censorship—a forced reinterpretation of history designed to whitewash and rewrite history, and erase the wrongdoings of entire governments. Statewide book bans and D.E.I. bans are an end run around Congress, but they serve the same purpose as memory laws, to forbid mentioning something enough so that it becomes forgotten and a lie replaces the truth.

The so-called “Antisemitism Awareness Act” winding its way through the U.S. Congress is no different. The only twist is, it’s legislation designed to sanitize and retcon the history of a foreign country, Israel.

To be clear: Memory laws can be used for good. Governments could require that the true history of the genocide of Native Americans be preserved and taught in schools, or the truth of American slavery and the causes for the Civil War be taught truthfully and accurately, or used to stop Holocaust revisionism. But more often than not, these current laws are specifically designed to reinforce and propagate lies that protect white supremacy and erase war crimes.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, telling members: “Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities.”

“[The bill] is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”

The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), which “works to ensure a just, secure and peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis”, has defined the shifting meaning of “antisemitism” in US political discourse.

“Traditionally,” the FMEP says, “antisemitism has meant hostility and prejudice toward Jews because they are Jews - a scourge that has imperiled Jews throughout history, and is a source of resurgent threats to Jews today.”

“In recent years there has been an energetic effort to redefine the term to mean something else. This new definition - known today as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’, is explicitly politicised, refocusing the term to encompass not only hatred of Jews, but also hostility toward and criticism of the modern state of Israel.”

[princess-viola]

the reason why the left will never fucking succeed at anything isn't because of whatever BS the right and liberals love to claim like how 'socialism is unworkable' or 'communism always leads to totalitarianism and suffering' but because far too many people on the left care too much about ideological purity and will just try to cast out other leftists just because they disagree with them on one or two aspects

like of course, if someone's ideology is completely incompatible with your own, that's a different thing. i couldn't imagine allying with someone who supports authoritarian dictatorships with centrally planned economies considering that is basically the complete opposite of my own views but like if i'm talking to another anti-authoritarian leftist and we agree on 95% of things, i'm not going to cast them out because of that minor difference of opinion

hell i'll just talk to them about it so we can both see why we support what we do. and nearly 100% of the time when that happens, we both come away understanding why the other views something the way they do and respect that.

[tmarshconnors]

"If all of the dead allied soldiers could see their countries now, they would have thrown down their weapons and fought with the Germans."

David John Cawdell Irving is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, especially Nazi Germany. He was found to be a Holocaust denier in a UK court in 2000 as a result of a failed libel case. 

Born: 24 March 1938 (age 85 years), Hutton, Brentwood

Authorship: David Irving has authored numerous books on World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. His works often stirred controversy due to his revisionist perspectives on historical events.

Holocaust Denial: Irving gained infamy for his denial of the Holocaust, claiming that the genocide of Jews during World War II, as well as the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps, were exaggerated or fabricated. This stance led to legal battles and tarnished his reputation in historical circles.

Legal Case: In 2000, Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for labeling him a Holocaust denier in one of her works. The case, famously known as Irving v Penguin Books Ltd, resulted in a ruling against Irving, with the judge describing him as an active Holocaust denier and anti-Semitic.

Revisionist Historian: Despite his controversial views, Irving is considered a significant figure in the realm of revisionist history. His works have been scrutinized for their accuracy and ideological biases, leading many historians to reject his interpretations of historical events.

Personal Background: David Irving was born on March 24, 1938, in Hutton, Brentwood, England. His upbringing and early life experiences have been cited by some as influencing his later controversial beliefs and writings.

[jccheapalier]

Black People Invented Everything... One Eurasian Woman's Thoughts

[tamamita]

why do zionists always assume its antisemitic to think that zionism a settler colonial idea

Modern Zionists aren't actually well-read into their own history. I could invoke the likes of Theodore Herlz, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, David Ben Gurion, and many other political Zionists and how they were ardent supporters of settler colonialism, yet it wouldn't get through their head, because they genuinely believe the land of Palestine is their right to claim, despite the people inhabitating the area. But to claim that the establishment of the Settler state was necessary due to antisemitism is not correct.

The pogrom of the Jewish people in the Pale of Settlement in Imperial Russia resulted in the mass displacement of Jews. But most Jews did not flee to Palestine, but to the US and Western Europe to live relatively better lives, due to the French revolution and so on. They had no desire whatsoever to move to Palestine due to its harsh climate and environment. Although the repression of Jews in the 19th century added to Zionism's appeal, Zionism did not emerge because of it as is often portrayed.

Jewish historian Michael Stanislawiski explains:

The first expression of this new ideology were published well before the spread of the new anti-semitic ideology and before the pogroms of the ealy 1880s. The fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution.

-- Zionism, a short introduction (Stanislawski, 2017)

As was the case for that time, the doctrine of nationalism became prevalent across Europe. Many versions of it gained hold of European intellectuals and the upper-classes. One of these were ethnonationalism, which emphasised common ancestry. Such a view was popular among Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Poles and etc, who saw their "tribes" as being distinct, and therefore needed to be preserved from foreign threats. Zionism would mirror some of these aspects, which was prevalent in Eastern Europe. The founding father of Revisionist Zionism (and the precursor to the Likud party), Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated:

"The creation of a Jewish majority, was the fundamental aim of Zionism, the term "Jewish State", means a Jewish majority and Palestine will become a Jewish country at the moment when it has a Jewish majority".

-- Zionism, and the Arabs, 1882-1948 A study of ideology (Yosef Gorny, 1987)

However, there was another ideology emerging which was far more popular among the oppressed Jewish people, which would propell them to emancipate themselves where they lived. Revolutionary Socialism.

According Ilan Pappe, the doctrine of Zionism was vehemently opposed by Jewish leaders all around Europe on the basis of Talmudic violations, the rise of revolutionary socialism and the rise of Jewish assimilationism. Additionally, in a conference in Frankfurt, rabbis decided to omit the mentioning of "the return" from Jewish prayers as a reaction to Zionism. However, Zionism would face intense opposition from Socialist Jews, especially the Bundists, who openly declared Zionism to be anti-Socialist, opportunistic and reactionary. Zionism was an alien idea, and revolutionary socialism emphasised the importance of the liberation of Jews where they lived, resulting in an ideological feud between the Bundists and Political Zionists. Even the likes of the Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Settler state, and David Ben Gurion, the first PM of the settler state, would condemn the Bundists for their opposition to Political Zionism.

[notaplaceofhonour]

Gentile leftists, this is a PSA, and I am begging you to listen. Sharing claims that Jews aren’t indigenous to the land of Israel, that Jews don’t come from the Middle East, and/or that the Zionist movement wasn’t created in response to centuries of antisemitism & genocide is fringe revisionist history with a long antisemitic history. These aren’t anti-imperialist or anti-colonial stances. They are just antisemitic conspiracy theories.

And on the flip side, acknowledging the simple fact that Jews are indigenous to the region currently occupied by Israel & Palestine does not imply any opinion about the modern states of Israel & Palestine, their governments, or the conflict in the region. This post is not voicing support for Zionism or the state of Israel. This is literally just historical fact: both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the region where modern day Israel & Palestine are.

If you make this about the politics or conflicts of the modern states of Israel or Palestine—if you comment or send me asks to that effect—you will be blocked.

[tanadrin]

Ok this might be a strange ask, but. do you have any opinions on the marxist/leninist/whatever idea that, western capitalist states supply a welfare state and higher wages (and so on) for western workers through imperialism, in order to subdue class struggle in western states, so that the western proletariat basically has a hand in imperialism (that anti-imperialism in practice would materially harm the western proletariat)

i think that's wrong. i think it sounds like a way you can rationalize political disengagement in a both-sidesist kinda way and also accelerationism if you're into that; i think that kind of nebulously conspiratorial belief is also a way to sort of rationalize the red-brown alliance, the need to punish the bad sheep people who don't agree with you, and a way to discount anybody who uses actual substantive policy achievements as a way to point out that actually, yes, engaging with politics can produce positive outcomes.

it is factually incorrect, of course. there's no causal connection between the welfare state and capitalist imperialism. capitalist imperialism in the form that hardcore marxists are thinking of is kind of an anachronism anyway. much like "liberalism," they're using a lens of analysis which basically thinks history ended in 1917, that the systems and politics of the long 19th century have continued forever, and we have to sort everything into categories that are a century old even though the world has changed radically since then.

it is also, annoyingly, a rejection of the wins of leftism. leftism has done a lot of good in the world! i think leftism is directionally correct. many of the things we take for granted now in many wealthy countries--the 40-hour workweek, legal protection for unions and labor organizing, universal healthcare (outside the US of course), the existence of welfare programs in various forms, employee protections (weak in the US except for Montana; strong in many other countries), and, you know, the decolonization of most of the planet--these are all things leftists of various stripes fought and died for, and for good reason!

the reason "leftism" is weak--and of course by "leftism" people taking this position usually only mean their own particular flavor of revolutionary leftism, with everybody else being a scumbag liberal or a revisionist or a trotskyist sabateur or w/e--is because leftism keeps winning when it allies with aligned interests in an electoral context. that is to say, pragmatic progressive politics is historically quite effective (the thing Americans have historically called "liberalism" but which in international political language is closer to "social democracy," and is not Reaganism/Thatcherism), is quite willing to ally with people who share its goals including less self-defeating leftists, and continues to make new gains. see this page. there is no telos to history of course, and it's a constant struggle. but the revolution-only remnant needs to come up with a narrative to rationalize being left out in the cold, because without that rationalization their whole approach starts to come under indictment. so it can't be that their politics is ineffective--it's the sheeple bribed into shutting up by welfare!

[historicity-was-already-taken]

I am posting and responding to this ask anonymously as I don't want anyone harassing its sender. This has already been communicated with the person who sent the ask.

I just want to thank you for being a light in the darkness of anti-semitism, especially on this website. I have found I am on this site a lot less ever since it was made clear that other leftists here are more anti-semitic than we ever knew possible, using very specific wording of our own trauma against us (i.e. saying stuff like "colonialism", "genocide/ethnic cleansing", and calling JEWISH PEOPLE Nazis). It feels like, at best, they know Hamas ≠ All or even most Palestinians, but think that they think all JEWS = Bibi; and at worst, agree with Hamas and think of him as some sort of "freedom fighter". So, thank you from one leftist Jew to another, just trying to keep afloat here. ❤️

You are very welcome; it's certainly been overwhelming, and I'm glad this can be a safe space for you.

I do want to push back on some of this ask, though. Specifically in regard to terms such as "colonialism," "apartheid," "genocide," and "ethnic cleansing."

The use of these terms is not inherently anti-Semitic. For a lot of people, these terms are the best ones they have access to describe what they are seeing. I do think such terms as “colonialism” and “apartheid” are overly simple in regard to the last ~3000 years of Jewish history, and that they cast the situation into an alien historical context which dilutes and uncomplicates the all the historical realities at stake, but I truly do not think that all who use these terms do so to cause Jewish people pain.

Further complicating the picture is that terms like "colonialism" aren’t completely wrong. Modern Zionism arose in the context of mid-nineteenth century European large-scale movements towards nationalism (ie, the creation of nation-states) and away from the multi-national empire. Jews—a subject of anti-Semitism and fifth columnist suspicions within those emergent European nations—reacted to all this by joining the nationalism game.

What’s ironic, is that those European Jews who founded contemporary Zionism were reacting to the exclusion and racial hatred with which Gentile Europeans treated them, and then once they had some settlements in Palestine, they deployed similar variants of racial hatred at both the Palestinian Arab population, and Middle Eastern Jewry.

The existence of a distinct people and ethnic group in Palestine before the aliyot were not something the first generation of Zionists were concerned with. Because they were part of the same shitty, white supremacist, pro-imperialistic intellectual European tradition to which they were responding as victimized parties. As time went on and Zionist thought spread across Ashkenazic communities, we can see some variants. Some forms of far-left Zionism in twentieth century Poland, for example, actively built the presence and rights of Palestinian Arabs into their ideology, some of them actively stating that Zionism could not be a success if it necessitated transforming Palestinian Arabs into a group of secondhand citizens and a cheap source of labor in their own home.

Those leftist strands of Zionism tended to be Socialist/Communist in nature, and centered around the idea of life in Eretz Yisrael as one of a series of self-sufficient communes. Thus when the 1930s hit and things start to go bad, the Zionists we see fleeing to Palestine tended to be of the more centrist and far right variants. The left wing, socialist movements, already operating as a collective, had a membership uncomfortable with fleeing to safety while the rest remained behind.

And that same socialist/communal attitude, is why those variants of Zionist thought never made it into the Israeli political mainstream; most of their members and proponents were murdered in the Holocaust in part because they refused to leave their comrades behind. The General Zionists and Zionist Revisionists who rode out the years of the Holocaust in Palestine therefore already had access to the avenues of power which would become important in 1948, when the British Empire shrugged off its responsibilities towards the regions it colonized and destabilized.

Now, as for ethnic cleansing. I can’t sugar-coat this: that’s what the Naqba was. It was ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their homes to make way for the Jewish State. The manipulative shit (but still somehow extremely prestigious) youth group I was in taught us that Arabs call it Naqba because they hate Jews and therefore existence of Jews in the Southern Levant was a tragedy, as was the fact that Hitler didn't finish the job.

That’s garbage: it’s called the Naqba because it was ethnic cleansing. And that's not the fault of the Holocaust survivors who made their way to Mandatory Palestine/Israel in the late 1940s--they lacked political power, and were often looked down upon by those who did; the Holocaust as part of Israeli National Mythology wasn't an immediate Thing.

If you spent your formative years around older Jewish folks of A Certain Generation, whose trauma has pretty much placed a permanent block on their ability to see some of what went down in 1948 for what it was, I can’t blame you for having that gut/cognitive dissonance reaction to the use of “ethnic cleansing” in the context of Israel and Palestine. I know those older folks. I loved them. They’re mostly gone now, and I miss them terribly. But their trauma-induced view of everything lives on in the ability of some younger Jews to properly name and understand what it is that happened in 1948.

It was ethnic cleansing.

Further, not only were Palestinian Arabs ethnically cleansed, but the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Jews who were forced by their governments to flee their homes of thousands of years and seek refuge in Israel throughout the second half of the twentieth century…the Western and Central European Jews in control of Israel and its institutions treated them like shit too. Hadassah actively stole the babies of Yemeni Jews, told the parents that their children were dead, and rehomed them to Ashkenazic couples. There were death certificates. Members of the Ethiopian Jewish community were forcibly sterilized, and their ongoing treatment by the State is racist and generally atrocious. And this analysis of the relationship between the Israel State, MENA Jewish populations, and different Ashkenazic groups in Israel is horribly short and overly simple.

As for genocide. I honestly don’t know. I do know many people, who are very much not Anti-Semites, who are calling what’s happening in Gaza right now genocide; many of these people are also Jewish. I know many others who refer to the experiences of Palestinians between 1948 and now as a slow genocide. Many of these people are also actively not anti-Semites, and many of them are Jewish.

So these terms, as uncomfortable as they may feel for people within the very specific Jewish generational background I believe we share, are not deployed as anti-Semitic weapons. Nazi comparisons? Yes. Swastikas superimposed over the Star of David? Yes. Very specific hook-nosed Jewish caricatures in relation to Israelis? Yes. Blood libel shit? Yes. These are all anti-Semitic, and are deployed to hurt and retraumatize Jewish people. But the rest are not nearly that simple.

And I didn’t learn this from like, Bad Evil Post-Modern Academics at Columbia University Who Hate Jews; I learned this from doing graduate-level work in the field of Modern Jewish History, and working in Jewish archives; this did not come from outside the building.

Now, as for Hamas as freedom fighters…that’s ignorant at best. Hamas’ charter clearly calls for the global destruction of the Jewish people [ETA: they edited this part out in 2017 for PR purposes], and their actions as rulers are horrifically, violently, homophobic, and seem to be more abut provoking Israel than they are about governing and protecting their people. But as you said, Hamas isn’t all Palestinians, and it’s also not all Palestinians who consider themselves freedom fighters. (A second reader of mine had the following commentary on this paragraph: "Might need a bit more complication around Hamas? I know that's not your area of expertise but it's worth mentioning that they were basically set up to undermine the PLO and what would become the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. You're right that they aren't representative of all Palestinian thought and resistance, and that they are on some fuck shit.")

So while I’m so glad that blog is a comfort to you, I encourage you to also take a step into some of your discomfort, and ask yourself where it comes from.

No one reading this post has my consent to use it to silence other Jewish people who are in different stages of their journey towards understanding how generational trauma has impacted their ability to grasp all of this. Further, if you choose to attack me for gently calling my people in, you're a piece of shit and I will be mean to you.

[f1minist]

Feminist Youtube Videos for Every Topic

A collection of feminist content, organized topically for ease.

Separatism:

on separatism and heterosexuality

why separatism is good

we're gonna die sometime. might as well be separatists.

stop choosing patriarchy

separatism is a choice

biggest impact, but most won't do it

on vetting men

the benefits of separatism are endless

men cannot be rehabbed

of course the slave is full of rage for her slave master

Lesbian Stuff:

who can use the word 'lesbian'?

on defending gay rights and spaces

what are lesbians supposed to do about het women?

gender critical lesbophobia

the constant rage for gold star lesbians

Political Lesbian Critique:

a simple breakdown of political lesbians

political lesbians... are you ok?

political 'lesbians' are not actually lesbians

i didn't 'come to lesbianism'. i was always here.

homosexuality is not a choice

for those who confuse polilez vs febfem

Comp Het Critique:

comp het isn't a thing

lesbihonest-art (RIP) on comp het

on lesbian experience, by @sunlight-beauty

on comp het, by @rakastiikeri

sespursongles (RIP) on comp het

Preferred Pronouns:

on 'cis' and other language

pronouns are rohypnol

preferred pronouns? no.

what are your pronouns?

Anti Make-Up / Beauty / Femininity:

3 years without makeup: 5 benefits i've experienced

sephora girls: why are ten year olds wearing make-up?

marked women

makeup isn't empowerment

why i stopped wearing makeup

bimbofication: a dangerously idiotic trend

empowerment? no.

give the middle finger to patiarchy

radfems in eyeliner

makeup infinity

on makeup and radical feminism

maintaining the status quo hurts all women

the audacity of the bare-faced woman

critiquing is not shaming

why do women do beauty?

choice feminism is a lie

actually gender critical

Anti Surogacy / Natalism / Procretion:

about mothers

forced pregnancy is involuntary servitude

egg "donation" is exploitation

on sperm giveaways

motherhood is not untouchable

homosexuality does not include reproduction

why i don't want kids

why i'm childfree

on procreation and patriarchy

Porn / Sex Work Commentary:

instagram vs porn

'sex-positive feminism' benefits men (and hurts women)

the influence of porn on the trans trend

on 'sex work'

speaking out on prostitution

'sex work is work'? no, not really.

let's stop acting like 'sex work' is empowering

is porn 'for women' okay?

porn is apocalyptical

'ethical porn' cannot exist

stop glamourizing 'sex work'

porn is the pinnacle of evil

is r/antiwork pro exploitation?

Trans Critical:

mainstream, revisionist, queer nonsense

why transwomen don't have 'female brains', from @ilistened2transwomen

why the hate?

why i decided to stop using the term 'transwoman'

on trans rights activists

TRAs loooove white men

the untouchable male creep - AGPs on parade, from @ilistened2transwomen

'intersectional' does not mean 'trans inclusive'

non-binary is deeply rooted in misogyny

25 questions for trans activists

women's sports are not a dumping ground for mediocre men

on "identifying as" women

stacia samaya on 'non-binary'

why sex is binary

trans rights, or trans privileges?

always chasing the dragon

27 ways in which trans activism is harmful

the actual human rights law

on 'trans women are women'

is transitioning ever 'the best' option?

autogynephilia - a brief overview

the rise of the heterosexual queer

phobia indoctrination

transing away the gay

5 tips for talking gender critical, by @runawaysiren940

the transing of language

autogynephilia, not dysphoria

rainbow-washed progressivism

transwomen are not women

how i became gender critical

autogynephilia explained

[lasttarrasque]

Reject revisionism!

[musashi]

its just so frustrating to have watched the psy-op revolve around black lives matter in 2016 and see all these legitimately intelligent leftists on my dash let their despair at not being able to do more indoctrinate them into what we now have tangible proof was a psy-op. watch them spread that anti-voting rhetoric that definitely had a hand in the worst, darkest government i have ever lived through, where thousands of people--including my friends--died.

it is so frustrating to watch the revisionist history take place now. "there was no psy-op! tumblr was just banning black bloggers because they're racist!"

(tumblr was not the only website affected, black twitter users had a whole HASHTAG where they exposed these bots as fakes, and there are actual fucking government documents you can easily google & read on this)

and now the same thing is happening using the genocide of the palestinian people as the same conduit. indoctrinating people whos politics rightfully are rooted in empathy and righteous compassion, passion for activism and change. showing them these violent photos of war and death, dragging them into these depths of despair, and then cheekily reminding them right at the end--remember, you're powerless. voting won't save them. reblog another gofundme, doomscroll for another hour, traumatize yourself with another photo of a corpse, and stay home on election day seething.

propaganda does not come in the form of a bogeyman. propaganda relies on convincing you that complacency is the best thing you can do.

i understand how horrible it feels. as an autistic person i suffer from hyperempathy, combined with a strong sense of justice that makes me feel like i am ON FIRE if i cannot help someone in need. but you need to take a deep breath, before reblogging that video where a bunch of palestinians out of context say "the election in the US doesn't matter," and think to yourself--why was this video made? what is the source? who is paying them? is it possible that these responses are cherrypicked? does this video give a wide breadth of the nuance involved, or is it just meant to get a reaction out of me?

this is a skill you can build. you are not immune to propaganda. but you can learn what propaganda looks like, and minimize your capacity to fall victim to it.

it's ok that you do sometimes. it's insidious on purpose. it's not a moral failing. but you have to try your best to think back on things, realize you might have internalized some bad ideas, and learn how to do better in the future.

yes, destroy the fucking democratic party. thrash them. rail into them. spit fire and venom and demands at them. protest. rally in the fucking streets. press their backs against the wall.

after we vote them into office.

[odinsblog]

I have been very critical at the way that media has helped legitimize what essentially is a propaganda campaign. We need to call that what it is.

We know the actors. The actors are very explicit. They don't camouflage what they're doing.

In fact, one of the biggest actors, of course, Chris Rufo, regularly goes on Twitter and says, this is what we're going to do. He said he was going to turn critical race theory into a term that made white Americans think about indoctrination, their white children being treated as the oppressor. I mean, he lays it out, and then he lays out his strategy, which is we keep pushing this until we get some mainstream media to pick it up, and then the rest of mainstream media feels that they have to now pick it up or it will look like they're being biased.

So these folks have studied, I think, really the flaws in media and have exploited it. So what happens is this desire to be ‘balanced’ then actually means we obfuscate the truth.

The first thing we should have done as journalists is said, okay, show me in a classroom where this is happening.

Provide evidence that this is happening.

Let's define what Critical Race Theory is, and what it isn't.

And instead, we allowed bad faith actors to really define the terms in a way that I think has been very harmful because that's how propaganda works.

Attempted bans were against 1619 specifically. Then they came back with critical race theory. Now, of course, they're coming back with DEI and we just keep making kind of those same mistakes again and again.

I also just want to add that when we think about something like critical race theory, when we think about what should and shouldn't be taught in the classroom, part of what we did as a failure media is to ask what is the role of an education? And is it wrong to teach a theory? Is it wrong to teach things that every parent wouldn't agree with?

I mean, that is actually the role of an education.

—Nikole Hannah-Jones: The Attack on Black History

[jewish-sideblog]

What is Zionism? What is anti-Zionism? These are genuine, serious questions, because everybody seems to have a different answer and those different answers are causing a lot of trouble.

Zionism used to have a clear message. “The ethnic group of the Jewish people should have the right to self-determination in our own country.” That was it. Theodor Herzl didn’t even specify that the country in question should be based in our historical homeland. At the time, anti-Zionism was simply a clear opposition to the ideal of Jewish self-determination.

Now Israel does exist. It’s now a fact, not a hope. So what does Zionism look like now? Some people think it means “Some kind of Jewish state should continue to exist,” and some people think it means “All Palestinians should die.” There are a million different interpretations of modern Zionism between those two extremes.

Revisionist Greater Israel Zionists want Israel conquer and expand, eventually taking over the entire Levant. Labor Zionists prefer a peace solution with Palestinians and Arab nations, and want to establish a socialist Jewish worker’s community in Israel. Christian Zionists want all the Jews in the world to go to Jerusalem so that Christ can come back and smite us all for being nonbelievers. Reform Zionists want to establish a more tolerant, inclusive, and pluralistic society for all within Israel. Is opposition to any of those ideologies “anti-Zionism”? I think it would be difficult to fully agree or fully disagree with every single one of those movements. Many of them contradict each other. Plenty forms of Zionism are even antithetical to each other.

It’s far simpler for the undereducated who aren’t connected to the people or the land to define Zionism as “Jews who support the genocide of Palestinians” and define anti-Zionism as “Any and all support for Palestinians”. But that’s exactly the mentality that leads ostensible leftists to parrot actual Nazi propaganda and recycle ancient antisemitism.

There are similar issues to defining Zionism as “Not wanting the all Jews in Israel to be mass-slaughtered by Arab supremacists” and defining anti-Zionism as “Wanting the all Jews in Israel to be mass slaughtered by Arab supremacists”. That mentality leads to unfair and violent practical treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and it leads to unfair conceptions of what Palestinian self-determination means to those living abroad.

Both Zionism and anti-Zionism are being used as tools for political gain. Both have been used as tools to justify death, persecution, and oppression. Zionists cannot erase the overwhelming number of Islamophobic Christian supremacists that identify with and act in the name of “Zionism”. And anti-Zionists cannot erase the overwhelming number of antisemitic supremacist groups that identify with and act in the name of “anti-Zionism”.

So genuinely— and I know I’m inviting a flame war here— what is Zionism to you? What is anti-Zionism to you? I honestly believe that most people are decent-minded, and that those who are decent-minded believe in peace and self-determination for all the native peoples in the Levant. And I think we can come to more meaningful solutions when we have genuine conversations with each other and better understand how the terminology is failing us.

[leikeliscomet]

“But We Love Martha Jones!” - The Doctor Who Fandom’s Selective Memory of Racism

Be aware that this article contains explicit examples of anti-black racism and misogynoir.

Chapter 2 - Utopia-ish

The constant nitpicking of Martha Jones for reasons white female companions could get away with was blatant anti-black racism. Let’s get that bit clear first and foremost. As a Black person in fandom, watching Black characters get torn apart while never being given the grace of their non-Black castmates is an experience that’s too common. Microaggressions are more subtle so the easiest way to shut down any mentions of racism is to accuse Black fans of making things up or telling us “Well it’s not like REAL racism”. Luckily Doctor Who Tumblr birthed the Martha Jones affirmative action and Aunt Jemima “memes” so I can cross both covert and overt racism off the list. As mentioned in extensive detail in the previous chapter, plus the various Martha Jones articles written before me, the treatment Martha experienced was racist. I don’t care if you personally didn’t like her. I don’t care that you missed Rose. I don’t care that Ten is your smol bean. Martha’s treatment was racist. Freema Agyeman’s treatment was racist. It might not have been everyone. It might not have been you personally. But it was there. The fandom can never be a safe space for POC, specifically Black people if this elephant in the room can’t be addressed over a decade after it arrived.

On paper, you’d assume Martha’s rep was good because “at least she wasn’t a Black stereotype”. Some fans praised her for having a present father, not speaking MLE and not being from the ends. This goes into respectability politics but the fandom’s weirdness about Black Brits and class is not the point of this article. The point is the revisionist history of how Martha was really treated and to do that it helps to know what Black tropes are. The Mammy trope is a Black woman whose main purpose is to serve her white counterparts and during slavery, she mainly cared for the slave owners' children. She is usually fat, dark skin and asexual, not as a representation of those things but as a statement of how if she isn’t used for sexual exploitation like the Jezebel (the promiscuous, reckless, sexualised Black woman), she has no sexual value at all. Her value is serving the needs of others only. Martha doesn’t fit this trope in theory but in practice, she fulfils the sub-categories of this trope both in show and fandom: the disposable Black (girl)friend trope. She is used as Ten’s emotional punching bag before he’s ready for Donna and then Rose again. She had to endure edgy moody S3 Ten so no one else had to. She’s the excuse people use to deflect any critical analysis of how race was handled in RTD1. She’s the fandom’s excuse to deflect from their own racial biases. Racism? No way! Everybody loves Martha Jones! What do you mean?

Some parts of the fandom have tried to mend things by suggesting Martha be paired with other doctors or romantically shipping her with other characters a bit better than Mickey Smith. But does this hold up? As much as I’m a big fan NineMartha as a concept and as someone who honestly saw one-off characters like Riley Vashtee from 42 or Tallulah from Daleks in Manhattan having way more romantic chemistry with Martha than Mickey ever did, simply re-shipping Martha isn’t enough. Doctor Who’s racism isn't exclusive to one doctor, one series or one era and new Martha pairings suggest the issue was “right person, wrong doctor” instead of what the issue actually was: racism. Moffat and Chibnall’s eras weren’t full of golden Black representation either so I doubt the Martha issue would’ve magically disappeared under those two. From Nine’s hostility to Mickey, to Twelve’s hostility to Danny Pink to Thirteen handing a South Asian Spymaster to the Nazis and Eleven only travelling with POC in comics most fans haven’t heard of and being besties with Churchill, simply putting Martha with another Doctor isn’t the serve fans think it is. Even RoseMartha seems like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. If it's not enough for Martha to be compared to Rose, put down in favour of Rose, told she isn’t Rose and told she's worse than Rose in fandom and in show over and over and over, she has to be shipped with Rose too. Martha’s a great character… as long as you can tie her to Rose… again. Even in my own article I have to talk about Rose because Rose is centred in what was supposed to be Martha’s story. A doctor-to-be Black girl from London with a hectic family meets a Time Lord and gets abducted by space rhino police at work in one day. Her main conflict isn’t balancing work and time traveller life, or fighting to get her family back together, or seeing what’s out there in the universe - it's that she isn’t “Rose�� enough. The Mammy and her sons’ main thing in common is simple; how well they serve and centre the white characters. In attempts to mend Martha’s treatment she is still only valued in relation to white characters. She should’ve been with Eleven because he would’ve fucked a Black woman. Or maybe Dilfy Twelve. Or a sapphic romance with another female companion who she saw twice or doesn’t actually know. Or maybe Ten in an alternate universe where he supports #nubianqueens. None of this is done to explore sexuality or romance with Black women and is definitely not to centre Black lesbianism and bisexuality. It’s Mammy with a dash of Jezebel. It's adding romantic and sexual value on top of physical and emotional value like a crappy meal deal.

I’m tired of Black women being treated as extensions of white women both in media and in real life. I’m tired of our value being determined by how well we serve white people emotionally, physically, platonically and sexually. And I'm even more tired of white feminism especially in this fandom. It would be so easy to label this article as anti-Rose, anti-Ten or anti-Tenrose to invalidate my whole racial analysis because it's the easy way out. I’ll admit I like both characters individually but not the ship but this isn’t something I decided on since birth - it's my conclusion as a Black fan in a predominantly white fandom, watching a predominantly white show, watching the first companion of my race be told she isn’t good enough compared to the white characters, and that the hatred of her is justified for the greater good of its popular white ship. Black fans can never have this conversation without being told we’re “pitting women against each other” and that Martha and Rose hugged once in S4 so everything's hunky dory. Martha’s happy that Ten found Rose again so what’s the problem? It sends a clear message that Black women’s pain will never matter a much as white women’s feelings. “Rose is amazing! Martha’s amazing! Stop pitting women against women!” but who was pit against who in the first place? These faux girl power posts fail to acknowledge the overlap of race and gender which separates the treatment of Black and white women. It fails to acknowledge Martha’s hate was rooted in anti-black racism. It fails to acknowledge the anti-Rose pushback was in response to how the show and fandom convinced us Rose was the untouchable bar this Black woman failed to meet. It fails to acknowledge Freema Agyeman the actress was targeted not just her character. It fails because the female empowerment rhetoric that leaves the Black ones at the bottom of the pile only “empowers” women of a certain demographic.

The harassment Martha experienced was swept under the rug of “stan wars” but it was so much deeper than that. I’m not saying Martha stans are angels but there was no “Great Stan War” because the sides were never even. At the end of the day no amount of “Martha’s better than Rose” tweets will ever compare to the fact that Martha hate was rooted in misogynoir. Rose was and still is considered the greatest companion of nuwho, whilst Martha is constantly erased and undervalued. Rose’s video views and hashtags have always been bigger than Martha’s. Amy and Clara came after Martha but still surpassed her in popularity and got plenty of fan edits of “The Girl Who Waited” and “The Impossible Girl” whilst Martha was conveniently skipped in the companion lineup. The fandom’s bias still shines clearly in favour of Rose over Martha. Rose’s jealousy towards other women is justifiable and just the ups and downs of a 19-year-old whilst Martha’s is entitled bitterness. Rose’s flaws are compelling character moments and depth, Martha’s are “holding her back from being a good companion”. Hell, even Donna calling out Ten’s BS was entertaining accountability whilst Martha was just the angry Black woman. Fans will weaponise Rose’s working-class roots to imply a pro-Martha bias, failing to acknowledge the working-class to poor background of the average Black Brit, the anti-blackness middle-class Black people are not spared from, the many working-class Black characters of the show like Mickey, Bill, Rigsy and Ryan or how most fans don’t consider Martha middle class because she doesn’t fit the white British cultural stereotypes. You can't be the most loved and hated at the same time. The hard truth is Billie Piper wasn’t racially abused by Martha stans but Freema was absolutely racially abused by Rose’s and the effects of this are still around. Go into Martha Jones tags today and you’ll see snarky posts of how Ten could never love another companion like Rose. Even when Freema bravely shared her experiences of literal racism, fans were quick to yell “But I wanted Ten and Rose though” as a justification for years of misogynoir. Again, we need to address the elephant in the room instead of covering our eyes and ears to act like it’s not there. A Black character and actress was collateral damage in order for a popular white ship to rise and whilst I’m not an anti, I as a Black Doctor Who fan, I’ll never be a supporter. At the end of the day, only one of these actresses is still carrying the burden of misogynoir over 10 years since RTD1 ended. A lonely walk across the Earth yet again.

<- Chapter 1 Chapter 3 ->

[opencommunion]

"Like the other Arab Jews, the Jews of Iraq were con­sidered a key population reservoir that could help tilt the demographic bal­ance in Palestine in the Jews' favor. At a meeting in July 1943 of the Central Committee of Mapai, the dominant Jewish party (and forerunner of the Labor Party), one speaker put it this way: 'We can define our role with regard to this Jewry in one sentence: Zionist conquest of these Diaspora communi­ties in order to liquidate them and transfer them to the Land of Israel.'

... Representatives of the Labor movement in the Zionist leadership believed it was urgent to infiltrate Iraq and establish a united Zionist movement there — not least to preempt attempts by the Revisionist movement or the Iraqi Communist Party to gain a foothold among Iraq's Jews. The Zionist activists who set up the Halutz movement in Iraq were ruthless in their efforts to oust emissaries who were not under the control of the Jewish Labor movement. Note that there was no local Zionist movement in Iraq to serve as a foundation on which the emissaries could build. The Jews of Iraq did not experience a Zionist 'awakening' and did not consider Palestine an attractive option. As early as 1941, Eliahu Epstein (Elath) of the Jewish Agency's Political Department met with a group of affluent Iraqi Jews who had fled to Tehran. However, he was unable to persuade them to settle in Palestine and invest their capital there. Some of them told him bluntly that they did not believe in Zionism. They explained that they had no intention of displacing the Arabs of Palestine, and that migration to Palestine was feasible only for Jews who were indigent or had relatives there. ... Among Iraq’s Jews there was a strong sympathy toward the local Communist Party, and many of the community’s young people were mem­bers of the party or of the Anti-Zionist League (AZL). For the most part con­sisting of well-to-do families, the Jews of Iraq understood the damage affilia­tion with Zionism could wreak on their social, economic, and political status; they drew a distinction between their Jewish identity and a Zionist identity. Those Jews who did leave Iraq settled mainly in Europe and North America, not Palestine." Yehouda Shenhav, The Arab Jews: A Postcolonial Reading of Nationalism, Religion, and Ethnicity (2006)