Andrew Coates recently drew attention to an example of left/right convergence – George Galloway rubbing his hands over Trump’s onslaught on the ‘liberal agenda’.
I’ve said it since Tuesday. I don’t care what they do in their own country, just as long as they don’t plunge us into more wars. If they want to build a wall that’s up to them. If they want to throw out illegal immigrants or keep out Muslims that’s up to them. It’s their business.
Here’s more in roughly the same vein – this time from John Prescott writing in the Mirror.
And it’s on this point that I think Trump is on to something. Why should we continue to place more British troops as hostages to fortune in Poland and other Eastern European countries as part of our NATO commitment? Is Russia really a threat to world peace? I’d argue the most dangerous country wasn’t led by Putin but George W Bush.
The apparent logic of the final paragraphs is particularly alarming:
Trump is questioning many of the global institutions that are largely based on Western interests and values, such as the World Trade Organisation, the IMF and NATO.
Look how the West responded to Trump winning.
They gave a qualified welcome but insisted he uphold western values like freedom, democracy, human dignity and the rule of law.
China and Russia just called for sustainable dialogue, co-operation and ending conflict.
The implication here is that freedom, democracy etc are just expendable shibboleths.
With the election of Donald Trump, Israel can expect a far warmer relationship with the White House in the coming four-eight years than in the previous eight. This could mean great diplomatic and economic benefits including moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, tearing up the hated Iran nuclear deal and even adding more money to the $38 billion defence deal Israel recently concluded with President Obama.
The view of a Trump presidency is rather different for the Jews of the United States. While Israeli politicians were ecstatic about the election result American Jews were sitting shiva. As per usual over 70% of American Jews voted Democrat.
Nothing could hi-light the differences between Israeli Jews and their brothers and sisters in the United States more than the reactions to the victory of Donald Trump.
Israel’s ambassador to the USA, Ron Dermer, exposed the fault line in his address to the press after meeting the President elect when he said;
Israel has no doubt that President-elect Trump is a true friend of Israel…We look forward to working with the Trump administration, with all of the members of the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon, and making the US-Israel alliance stronger than ever.
Breitbart has run columns, written by Jews from the alt right movement, that would probably be called antisemitic if they were written by anyone else. Take for example a column by Matthew Tyrmandmaking the accusation that the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum “attempts to impose a globalist world view upon citizenries that reject it” He added that “Hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned,” Ironically the same kind of thing has been seen in extreme left circles for sometime attacking Zionists and Zionism. Bannon is about to become the White House chief strategist and senior counsel to the President of the United States of America.
It isn’t just Bannon whose views many Jews (and others) find problematic; The ADL has been strident in its criticism of the President elect himself and of some of his picks for important positions. The CEO of the ADL Jonathan Greenblatt directly accused the Trump campaign of antisemitism earlier this month saying;
In fact the ADL statement on antisemitism came rather late in the game. The Trump campaign was dogged by allegations of antisemitism throughout and often even seemed to be courting antisemites. The most high profile example was the endorsement of Trump by former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan and well known antisemite and racist David Duke. He has been a supporter of Trump’s campaign every step of the way. Below is just one of his antisemitic tweets;
Great Pick! – Gen. Flynn’s retweet shows he knows that the Saudis, ISIS & the Jewish-NeoCons are the real enemies – NOT Assad & NOT Russia! pic.twitter.com/Z9D9CHHXeQ — David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) November 18, 2016
The Trump Campaign was slow to distance itself from Duke and it hasn’t distanced itself from many others. David Neiwert and Sarah Posner investigated Far Right support for President elect Trump last month, they said that;
Since Trump officially announced his bid in June 2015 he has drawn effusive praise and formal backing from some of the country’s most virulent neo-Nazis, white supremacists, militia supporters, and other extremist leaders. They include the head of the American Nazi Party, three former Ku Klux Klansmen, four people involved in a recent armed standoff against federal authorities at an Oregon wildlife refuge, and at least 15 individuals affiliated with organizations described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.
Trump has disavowed none of them.
On its own these links with antisemities would be bad enough but they pale in comparison to the comments Trump and his senior staff have made about plans for a Muslim registry. The mere fact that a man elected to the White House called for this to happen while campaigning is a cause for concern to say the least.
When diplomats visit Israel the first place they go to is the Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem. The first step Hitler took on his path to murdering the Jews and so many others was rhetoric. It was hyperbolic and it was directed against the Jewish minority and against the establishment. This lesson is taught to anyone learning about the Holocaust and one would expect ministers in the Israeli government to recognise it when the see it.
It is therefore somewhat disconcerting that the Israeli ambassador, the Minister for Education and many others leaped so wholeheartedly into the arms of a populist politician whose rhetoric has inspired so many Nazis, nationalists and antisemites. After telling the world for 60 years about the Holocaust Israeli leaders should be taking the lead in ensuring that such populist, verbose attacks on minorities in the USA are condemned. Instead Education Minister Naphtali Bennet said that;
“The era of a Palestinian state is over…Trump’s victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state in the center of the country, which would hurt our security and just cause,” Bennett said. “This is the position of the president-elect, as written in his platform, and it should be our policy, plain and simple.”
Out going President Obama claimed that Muslims are the new Jews in a speech in Washington DC in February of this year. He is wrong. Jews constitute a tiny minority in the world, pre 1948 had no state to speak for them and no diplomatic voice to represent their concerns. Islam is the world’s second largest religion, there are 50 Muslim majority countries on the planet. They are not in a position of weakness in the same way as the Jews of Europe were before the Holocaust.
However in the USA they are a minority that are being singled out by their President and we know that this is how it begins. First Jews in Germany were singled out, then came the Nuremberg Laws and on and on into oblivion. This shouldn’t be overlooked due to the promise of an embassy being moved from one place to another or the ripping up of a deal with Iran or any other incentive.
The Vice President elect Mike Pence stood before AIPAC in 2009 and said that;
Israel’s enemies are our enemies; Israel’s cause is our cause. If this world knows nothing else, let it know this: America stands with Israel.
But Israel’s cause is also the protection of world Jewry from persecution and the Trump team have emboldened enemies of the Jewish people in the United States as well as all those who hate minorities. They have baited Muslims and left all minorities petrified as to what the future holds.
American Jews have bravely drawn their battle lines clearly and emphatically through the ADL, through their voting record and through their communal organisations. If the state of Israel continues to back the Trump administration so enthusiastically even while it goes ahead with its registry of Muslims it is simply going to break with a scared, vulnerable US Jewish community.
While Israelis bask in having an American embassy in Jerusalem Jews in America will wonder what on earth the point was of spending so long backing a state of Israel and when it was that the state lost its way so terribly.
In these challenging times, here is some positive news: Inter-Varsity Press (IVP), one of Britain’s largest Christian publishers, has withdrawn Stephen Sizer’s books from sale and no longer lists them on its website.
How has this come about? Well, a few weeks ago, a friend of mine wrote to IVP, forwarding them a link to this blog post, which argues that IVP were taking a different approach to Sizer than they had taken to other disgraced or discredited authors:
IVP withdrew Roy Clements’ books because of his personal conduct [i.e. leaving his wife for a relationship with a male congregant].They withdrew Peter O’Brien’s books because of concerns about academic standards [i.e. findings of plagiarism]. In Rev Sizer’s case, there are concerns about both [see here if you need an introduction]. It is therefore hard to understand why IVP continue to sell and market his books. IVP seem to be operating a double standard which, surely, is difficult to reconcile with their stated desire to “maintain the highest possible standards of academic writing and business practice.”
IVP replied to my friend as follows:
“The Stephen Sizer books have been in print for over 10 years and we understand and are very mindful of the sensitivities around this subject and author. We have decided to remove these titles from our list and the rights have reverted back to the author. Our website no longer lists these titles, though book retailers may well still be carrying stock and online retailers will continue to list these books for unsold and second-hand copies.”
Something stronger than “very mindful of the sensitivities around this subject and author” would have been better, as would a clear public statement on IVP’s website, comparable to the recent one about Peter O’Brien. And, though it may seem churlish, questions can surely be asked about IVP’s initial role in editing Sizer’s books, particularly Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? (2004). How was it that they missed the following things?
- On pp. 21-22 of Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? Rev Sizer approvingly cites the late Dale Crowley, who was strongly linked to Holocaust denial and the American far right. Rev Sizer refers to him simply as a “religious broadcaster” and omits any reference to his unsavoury connections.
- Footnote 170 on p. 251 insinuates that Israel was complicit in 9/11.
- Rev Sizer has an unfortunate tendency to misrepresent other Christian writers, notably Zhava Glaser and Walter Riggans.
Whilst some of those things might not be immediately obvious to those unfamiliar with the American far-right or the nature of contemporary anti-Zionism/antisemitism, they can be uncovered with just a little research. On the other hand, the misrepresentations of Zhava Glaser and Walter Riggans should have been easy to spot. (In fairness, perhaps, to IVP, the book is an edited version of Rev Sizer’s PhD thesis, which was awarded by Oak Hill Theological College, an associate college of Middlesex University, in 2004. Some of these calumnies date back to that thesis: Dale Crowley is cited on pp.16-17; Walter Riggans is misrepresented as encouraging Christians to support Israeli policies on pp. 14-17; Zhava Glaser is misrepresented on pp. 215. Surely Sizer’s PhD supervisors should have picked these things up?)
Nevertheless, IVP’s recent decision to withdraw Sizer’s titles remains encouraging: it suggests that they are concerned about antisemitism masquerading as theological anti-Zionism, and that they wish to disassociate themselves from it. Some, no doubt, will spin this as a triumph of “Zionist censorship” over “Christian freedom of expression”. As the rights in the books have reverted to Sizer, however, this claim fails, for Sizer will surely be free to republish the book himself, or to approach a different publisher. IVP have not withdrawn unsold copies from booksellers. (More worryingly, Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? can be downloaded for free from this White Supremacist site, while another Sizer text is available at this equally unsavoury site.) IVP have simply followed their own lead: they have withdrawn the titles of an author who has long since been discredited by virtue of both his personal conduct and his academic work. IVP have therefore set a standard for other Christian – and secular – organisations to follow. For that, IVP should be commended, and we may surely be thankful.
PS For some reason, the American publisher InterVarsity Press has not yet followed IVP (UK)’s lead. If you’re based in the US, why not contact them?
“You’re not the type of Muslim or immigrant the Brexit Leave or Trump Campaign targeted so why are you so upset?!”
This was the question my partner asked me, struggling to grasp why I would sitting in tears at 4.00am on Wednesday 9th November 2016 as “Brexit plus plus plus” became a reality and Trump was elected.
In the eight years we have been together, we have never needed to have a conversation about identity despite being an interracial couple. However, in the last week, it has never been clearer how as a South Asian Muslim heritage woman my experience of the world vastly differs from that of a White middle class man, despite how aligned and compatible we are in so many other ways. As my pain, despair and hopelessness grows on a daily basis, he became increasingly resigned. “It will be ok, it’s not that bad, you are being dramatic, don’t be so emotional” he said in exasperation reflecting the chosen attitude of our government that we must accept this, we need to give Trump a chance and this could be an excellent opportunity for a UK-US trade deal post Brexit.
What erupted as a result was a series of the most raw, passionate, and painful conversations we have ever had but also the most valuable. It allowed him to understand what few can unless they have experienced being part of a demonised minority and led me to overcome some anger and gain insight into why so many people are so resigned, even willing to accept what has happened and just get on with it.
I know people voted for Brexit as they did for Trump for a whole array of reasons, some complex and some simple. I still feel confident in saying that most did not vote for racist or xenophobic reasons. But the fact is that the extreme language, rhetoric and narrative employed by both campaigns was not enough to turn people away, that it was still acceptable, excusable or ignorable. If this same rhetoric was deployed against people we all personally cared about or we held in equal regard to ourselves, we would never have accepted it, no matter what great promises were on offer to compensate. It would have been condemned and rejected. And this has been at the root of my despair. When people are willing to accept these things being said about you at the very highest level in society, it devalues you as a human being and leaves you questioning your place in society.
“But that stuff wasn’t aimed at someone like you! People we know clearly identify you more as British as opposed to the immigrants in Farage’s poster or a Muslim” were my partner’s (failed) attempt to comfort me that I am wrong to question my sense of belonging. Besides the fact that as a society, we should never accept such scaremongering and scapegoating of an entire group of people simply based on their race or religion, no matter how unrelateable they are, I went on to explain why this is simply not enough.
Everything observable about how I act, speak, dress, and behave is what you would consider British. It’s how I have always identified. Yes, I am brown and obviously so but I am everything a “good immigrant” should be- integrated, educated, employed, not on benefits and I pay taxes. But that is not all I am. When my loving partner, friends, his wonderful family and even some of my own family look at the “breaking point” poster immigrants, or read the “Daily Mail” caricatures of “bad immigrants” and criminal refugees, they don’t see anything connected to them, and they certainly don’t see me.
But I’m reminded of my own history that makes up my identity and sense of self. Family members expelled from Burma with only the clothes on their backs, my grandfather who arrived in the UK, looking very much like those demonised, dehumanised young man in present-day tabloids, not knowing a word of English, wearing a karakul hat, and three pounds in his pocket. I’m reminded of my own father and uncles, similarly to an extent “good immigrants” if you ignore their choice of clothes on Friday that make them identifiable as Muslims- which due to blanket demonisation we know is not a desirable thing in the UK. They arrived, again not a word of English, their childhood interrupted to live in a country that was simultaneously welcoming and hostile to them in the 60’s and 70’s.
When I hear the rhetoric on Muslims and how it goes unchallenged, I think of my mother in her hijab and salwar kameez, her unconfident accented English and know full well that because we have let it get this far, there may be a thug on the street who could feel that she is a justified target of abuse. I asked my partner to consider how he would feel if the dress, and appearance of his own mother had been villifed to the extent that some individual could hurt her and the mainstream reaction was to rationalise it as a result of White extremism and carry on.
As we become immune and blind to the harm we are allowing to continue because it’s only directed to those that we feel we cannot relate to, it grows and it spreads. A case in point, is Steve Bannon’s comments in the US that there are too many Asian CEO’s in Silicon Valley. Suddenly the focus is no longer limited to what we have accepted to be dirty, poor, criminal, leeching immigrants, but “good immigrants”- the ones who are educated, talented, contributing to the economy, and why? Because they share characteristics in common with “bad immigrants”- their skin tone, their country of origin, the fact they are foreigners etc etc. How can this fail to alarm someone like me?
For those who perceive any of this as me making some sort of “bleeding heart” case for uncontrolled immigration, I want to be clear, this is not about immigration policy, or a denial of the issues that have arisen from immigration. This is about how we talk about human beings and the consequences of the language we gave a green light to by ignoring and not challenging. Not for a moment do I think everyone who voted for Brexit or Trump are bad, racist or xenophobic. Good, kind people were able to give their vote to a toxic divisive campaign because we’ve had a constant trickle of dehumanisation of certain groups of people that has not been challenged effectively and normalised.
What this normalisation has resulted in is a real panic in even people like me- who as a liberal secular, nominal Muslim has never before felt insecure or uncertain in her British identity. I now feel like my worth is not the same as my partner. Boris Johnson’s appeal for us to quit the “whingeorama”, the focus on how we can make Trump’s election a good thing for Britain’s economy, Theresa May just a week after Trump’s election, saying the “it is up to the United States what rules they put into place, in terms of entry across their borders, but we will be ensuring that “special relationship” continues…” without any comment or condemnation about Trump’s language on Muslims let alone the proposed Muslim ban itself has left me feeling hopeless. One wonders if May would be so pragmatic and willing to maintain the UK-US “special relationship” if Trump had spoken about a group she identifies with in the same way. It is difficult to draw a conclusion other than that to our government, some of us are worth standing up for more than others. How does this not devalue British Muslims- even the most secular, integrated, Muslims like myself.
And moving this away from myself and to the big picture, in this silence, this pragmatism, “business as usual” attitude we are pushing, things will get worse. For those that fear Islamist extremism, and for those like myself that counter and fight it, our work has become so much harder. The sense of isolation and alienation that is resulting amongst Muslims by turning a blind eye can easily be manipulated and turned in to anger, antipathy and violence. The victimhood complex Islamists have been peddling in our communities can now be presented as justified more and more by the day – they will say they warned Muslims that the “West” doesn’t truly care about us.
Joy Karega, an assisstant professor of rhetoric and composition, hit the headlines earlier this year when she posted antisemitic conspiracy theories:
Karega … claimed that “Israeli and Zionist Jews” were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and for the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris in 2015.
Although the college asserted the importance of academic freedom, it has now dismissed her
“for failing to meet” academic standards and “failing to demonstrate intellectual honesty.”
Here’s another example of her use of unambiguous antisemitic tropes:
Karega also shared anti-Semitic images, such as a picture of the Jewish banking heir Jacob Rothschild with the words, “We own your news, the media, your oil and your government.”
With this in mind, her lawyer’s response is ironic:
Oberlin’s administration [is] pandering to the dictates of a handful of vocal and wealthy religious zealots,
The news of president elect Donald Trump came as a major surprise to pollsters and the media alike. Shockwaves were sent to the growing regressive leftist movement that could not fathom that such a sexist, racist and xenophobic figure was now the fully-fledged President. How dare Trump push for a form of political rule that makes women second class citizens, punishes religious dissidents and….oh no wait that’s not Trump, that’s the Islamists the left are apologising for.
Without any sense of irony, these leftists are marching with their Islamist extremist allies to challenge Trump’s illiberalism – but what of the partnered Islamists?
Take Iyad el-Baghdadi for example, a political commentator with growing influence and self-described “Islamic libertarian.” Iyad had not taken lightly to the coming of Trump, referring to him as racist and conspired that a Trump loss would’ve led to widespread carnage in the USA.
However, it is a shame to see the same level of scrutiny not being shown for Islamist extremism. In fact, here is Iyad showing sympathy for supporters of Al-Qaeda and Jihad!
Iyad has generalised Trump supporters to be illiberal xenophobes but has somewhat justified a reason as to why so many Muslims join terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda. Moreover, this is seemingly rationalised to be because of the need to defend against “US foreign policy.” Iyad progressed to blame “new atheists” for having blood on their hands too.
Here is another, this time from CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). CAIR made no secret of their dislike for Trump, which is fair because Trump has made no secret of his disliking of the Muslim Brotherhood and the affiliated terrorists Hamas. The façade somewhat slipped when CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush called for an Arab spring styled over-throw (the second line translates to “the people want to bring down the regime”)
This is unsurprising I guess, as CAIR, with its Islamist extremist worldview, does little to appreciate the mandate of the people and democratic rights.
The new Trump phenomenon has shed light on the motives of Islamist extremists. This political agenda is not bound by the principles of liberalism, but liberty for religious extremism and apologia for terrorism. Trump is illiberal, but is by no means bound to the theocratic and barbaric ideology that Islamist extremists propagate, and their leftist allies apologise for.
Here’s some information about two interesting talks, one taking place this evening, one tomorrow.
THE U.S. RADICAL RIGHT IN THE AGE OF TRUMP
TUESDAY 15TH 7-9 PM: LARC, London Activist Resource Centre, 62 Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel, E1 1ES.
In the United States, the campaign of Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump has been a huge catalyst for the radical right. Patriot movement paramilitaries publicly brandish weapons to force the privatization of public lands and intimidate Muslims and refugees. Rightists are attacking Black Lives Matter protests with firearms, and violence has skyrocketed at counter-protests against fascists. White Nationalism is having its biggest growth in decades, and now includes new faces: intellectuals, hipsters, prison gangs, and Third Positionists. Spencer Sunshine will talk about the landscape of the U.S. radical right, what is driving it, and how the presidential election might affect it.
Left/Right Crossover Movements
WEDNESDAY 16TH 1-2.30 Dreyfus Room (Room 202) at 28 Russell Square, London WC1B 4HS. Hosted by Birkbeck Psychosocial and Pears Institute
In the last decade, many new forms of left/right crossover movements have developed in the English-speaking world. This includes the spread of new forms of Third Positionism, Julius Evola’s influence, popular mobilizations against finance capital, conspiracy theories, doctrines of racial separatism on the Left and Right, the spread of anti-semitism, and the popularity of Sovereign Citizen pseudo-legal theories. In music, there has been a spread of Rock Against Communism, fascist neofolk, and black metal (NSBM) bands. Spencer Sunshine will talk about these new forms of “unorthodox” fascism and their similarities and differences with European movements, based on his forthcoming book for Routledge’s Fascism and the Far Right series. The talk is unfortunately particularly timely in light of the huge boost to the “alt-right” given by the successful Trump presidential campaign.
Spencer Sunshine is an anti-fascist researcher and activist based in the US. He has a PhD in Sociology and is an associate fellow at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based progressive think tank that monitors right-wing organizing. Sunshine has appeared on Al Jazeera, as well as on KPFA and KALW (Bay Area), KBOO (Portland, Oregon), and WRIF (Detroit) radio. His writing has also been translated into German, Russian, Polish, Serbian, and Turkish.
I very much hoped Clinton would win, and share the concerns of many others about a Trump presidency. One of the numeorous worrying things about Trump is his apparently hazy commitment to democracy. He refused to give a clear assurance that he would accept the outcome of the election if it didn’t go his way. This led to fears that his more zealous supporters would go on the rampage in the event of a Clinton victory.
Now Owen Jones is saying that Clinton supporters should protest against Trump in a tit for tat move. Perhaps surprisingly he invokes in justification an earlier Trump attack on Obama rather than his more recent hints that he might refuse to concede victory to Clinton:
And the demonstrations have gone beyond mere protests. In Portland they’ve been classed as riots. One protestor smashed a bank window, and others threw Molotov cocktails at police officers.
Of course a Trump win might understandably stress test even the most peaceable and democracy respecting voter. Anti-racist vigils are an appropriate response given his comments about Muslims, Mexicans and other groups. But in New Orleans graffiti reading ‘Die Whites Die’ was sprayed on a monument.
Protesting the result of a democratic election – whatever one thinks of the result – is a dubious move. What exactly does one hope to achieve? What should one be able to achieve?
Update:Ben points out on Twitter that, despite the many controversies surrounding his election there were no violent protests following either of Obama’s victories.
This blog does not endorse or promote candidates running for president or prime minister, nor take any position which is purely political. However, in order to properly understand a recent twitter exchange involving a Middle East correspondent for a major British newspaper, a few facts need to be established about president-elect Donald Trump.
Regardless of how he feels about Jews personally, since the early the primaries, there’s been ample evidence that Trump’s campaign tolerated or even incitedantisemitism amongst his followers . In response to rhetoric by Trump which many felt was conspiratorial and represented dog-whistles for anti-Semites, Anti-Defamation League warned Trump to “avoid rhetoric and tropes that historically have been used against Jews”. ADL also criticized “onlineantisemiticharassmentofjournalists by Trump supporters, during the presidential campaign”.
As those active on twitter know, many prominent anti-Trump Jews (journalists or otherwise) have been continuallyharassed, threatened and subjected to extreme antisemitic abuse by Trump supporters – including by some who are self-identified white supremacists. (Former KKK grand wizard David Duke was the most prominent right-wing extremist to support Trump for President.)
Unsurprisingly, post-election pollsshowed that only 24% of Jewish voters cast their ballot for Trump. And, though Republicans typically don’t fare well with American Jews, Trump’s association with antisemitism – and other expressions of what was seen as xenophobia and racism by the candidate and his surrogates – prompted many prominent Jews (even those typically supportive of Republican candidates) to passionately and publicly oppose the GOP nominee to an unprecedented degree.
Even in Israel, where most generally view the Republican presidential candidates more favorably than the Democrats, pollsshowed that Israelis strongly preferred Hillary to Trump.
