Holocaust Memorial Day: Reflecting on the politics of antisemitism and how we can stop it

 

Wedding photo of my Jewish grandparents, Rita and Maurice (taken in 1962) who lived through the Holocaust and World War 2

This is probably going to be one of the most personal blog posts I have written (as regular readers would notice, I rarely write about myself and my own life) but I feel that it really needs to be as such for us to fully understand and reflect on the dire situation of continued conflict which ongoing settler colonial rule continues to divide and persecute us. This places vile imperialist and authoritative undertones on religion, which there should not be; it is in its pure form all about inclusivity and respect for others further bringing together and celebrating the richness of our diverse and evolving society. Although not being religious myself and resenting the individuals who have used religion to exploit and abuse influence, I strongly advocate religious freedom as a means of demonstrating the ideals I value, and feel a strong connection to the cultural heritage that comes from having a Jewish family and using this to further understand my beliefs. It is today on Holocaust Memorial Day that we should quietly reflect on this history. This is the point by which we must recognise that a true understanding and empathy for the suffering of those who have fallen victim to antisemitic abuse means recognition of the damage posed by exploitation and abuse of colonial and neocolonial influence on all levels so as not to consider anti-semitism as synonymous with antizionism (especially since Zionism is, in essence, what defeats the object of what is said in the Torah- Leviticus 25:23 “the land cannot be sold in it’s perpetuity for the land is mine” (I.e. only God’s thus making it wrong to colonise)- and to support Zionism would be to associate Jews with a corrupt and war-mongering genocidal state).

Equally, to further expand on this, we should also take a closer look into the beginning and evolution of anti-Semitism as a concept, and use this to come up with an effective solution for resolving it. In much discussion, it is primarily associated with the authoritarian hard right and fascist ideals that the Nazis supported, with this being the point at which it was at its peak and had the most significant future aftermath, fostering much xenophobia, racism and abuse during the decades that followed. However, this was far from when it started, and it would be wrong to assume that it effectively merely came to be because of fascistic sentiments rising in popularity. In fact, its origins can be traced back as far as the medieval times, when it was largely driven by economic issues. This is reflected on by Nathan Reich who, with reference to the Marxist economic theory considers antisemitism as being a response to the neglect of other issues leading to anger by the proletariat at this situation. Jews were considered as comparatively wealthier yet engaging in less hard labour than them, thus leading to this sense of resentment towards them by the Gentile population becoming prevalent. In fact, he even described this as 

“the expression of envy felt by the poor Gentile population for"Jewish" wealth; as the reflection of competition for jobs between Jewish and non-Jewish applicants; as the expression of resentment against the "undue" Jewish concentration in certain well-paid professions and important branches of trade”, especially considering that the Jews were seen as having comparatively less productive occupations (although thanks to their emancipation during the Industrial Revolution, they began to diversify their economic engagement) which were of reduced value (Reich, 1945). Moreover, another authoritative far-left perspective on the matter, would be the Stalinist form of antisemitism. Like Hitler, anti-Jewish sentiments were central to Stalins ideology with him also having planned a mass killing of all Jews. This largely related to his imperial ambitions for the Middle East and seeking to gain control of this region through the extermination of entire religious and ethnic communities that inhabited it (Szaynok, 2002).

Equally, it’s not just from authoritarian interests that antisemitic sentiment is evident. In fact, there is a very clear centrist and liberal emphasis on antisemitic ideas. This is through many on this region of the political spectrum demonstrating some degree of understanding of Zionist philosophy (Reich, 1945), although this antisemitism and developing of opinions on Zionism is also sometimes viewed as a very far left view, although coming from a slightly different standpoint with Israel being seen as a “Trojan horse for antisemitism” and that little is done to form the distinction between Zionism, Judaism and Israel with many having become used almost interchangeably within modern day political discourse (Cohen, 2004). 

With this basic grounding in mind as to what constitutes antisemitism and the varying individuals of differing political positions that have engaged with it, it can be seen that a recurring theme of ultranationalism and desire for colonial and imperial domination have been the core driving forces behind this line of thinking in the present day (therefore appearing to stray far from the initial economically induced hatred for Jews in the Middle Ages). 

With this in mind, it appears that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on reducing corruption and mitigating for the significant negative implications of war criminal activity, thus making greater international security and policing along with the strengthening of the rule of law to prove central in the resolution of antisemitism and the mitigation for existing issues which have stemmed from it. It is, therefore, important that we reform our understanding of the context behind it, seeing it not as a complex and multifaceted issue which has many socioeconomic and political dimensions to it, but for what it is in its crudest form as described here.

With this, I shall end by wishing solidarity and peace for all victims of antisemitic abuse and all living under exploitative settler colonial regimes. May we be united in our hopes for a better future and advancement in humanity.

               A memorial of those who died in the Holocaust at Magilligan Prison, Londonderry

Geopolitical observations of the historic and present day relations between the US and Latin America

You may have noticed I have been a bit quiet lately. I am back now with some more fire, which I am kicking off with this highly topical and important post.

With major geo strategic presence and longstanding ties to the main politically influential Western superpower nations assisted by historic imperialism and neocolonialism, much of Latin America has remained ripe for trade, investment and international relations, further fostering its rapid socioeconomic and political advancements which have accelerated over the course of the last century. However, this has not necessarily resulted in social progress and greater gains for the welfare of society collectively. In fact, it has arguably been the force for greater corruption, and the means by which war and conflict continue to flourish.

While the origins of this can be traced back to the 19th century and further accelerated by the conflict in interest regarding the needs of the population and the means by which the state of the nations can further develop its international influence and rise to the level of maturity that is evident in many of the core Western superpowers, it appears that the obvious tensions between the global north and the global south that is the main reason for these apparent failings. For instance, nine Latin American nations (Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, Haiti, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru) were key founding members of the League of Nations. They, however, realised that this was more down to the fact that the power within the Americas is imbalanced and mainly concentrated within the US, as well as there being a very clear western emphasis placed upon the principles that the League of Nations operates by, in that European issues appeared to have taken centre stage in times of debate (Leonard, 2019). This can also be further reflected on through the apparent isolationist principles of the US with regard to their control of the Latin American region and the means by which they would consider relations with Europe having also appeared as important driving forces for further exacerbating tensions globally, and so acted as a hindrance to attempts to resolve conflict and mitigate against war. One can effectively observe this through the historic Monroe Doctrine comprised in 1823 by US president James Monroe as a means of "set(ting) forth the concept of a republican western hemisphere that was fundamentally different to the Old World", which functioned as a means of demonstrating the US sovereignty and colonial influence over Latin America, so as to effectively maintain their ability to own this region and use it to their own geopolitical advantage, and ensure that Europe cannot influence and engage with it.

During the First World War, Brazil was the only Latin American nation who actively participated int the conflict (which they did through a major campaign against submarines and the sending of support personnel to Europe)- the other Latin American nations, namely Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama declared War on Germany, while Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru chose to break their existing diplomatic relations with Berlin (Leonard, 2019). This would thus, not only prove to be important in illustrating their varying degrees of internationalism historically and the relevance of this to their relations with the US in the present time, but also provide an explanation for the way in which their relations with Europe became the way they are today, and how this influences their engagement with present day global conflicts. This can be seen through the recurring themes of further development and restoration of international relations through encouraging alliances to be formed with the western world, and for clearly evident internationalist priorities to have become evident so as to promote their advancement as more geopolitically influential nations. Therefore, Latin America's aims appear to mirror yet also somewhat act as the direct antithesis to the core interests of the US. This pattern continued on during the Second World War and through to the Cold War, this transition period appearing to be the point that acted as the beginning of "years of political and social upheaval" (Bethell and Roxborough, 1988). This could likely be attributed to the rising hegemonic influence of the nations, all of which having different views on the US, as a collective, and there having been particular growth in support for the revolutionary leftist and Marxist principles which still remain heavily ingrained within the society of the Latin America of today. The rise to a form of democracy, be that complete or partial, as well as sense of increasing liberalisation at the end of the second war proved to have acted as a catalyst for this change. Particularly notable reforms had become apparent for Cuba since their 1944 election in which Ramon Grau San Martin, who experienced a landslide victory against the comparatively more conservative candidate Fulgencio Batista who previously dominated their political landscape. A thirteen year dictatorship in Guatemala was also terminated, and the success of a popular revolution in Ecuador both took place that same year, and the liberalisation of the Estado Novo in Brazil began in 1945. Furthermore, unlike the US, when the Cold War took place, Latin America was comparatively uninvolved with it and was relegated as a region of low priority for the US, therefore providing them with limited incentive to actively engage them in conflict. This period also marked the beginning of many new intra-regional relations between nations within the Latin American continent, many of which still having their role in the supporting and assisting of the socioeconomic and political situation that they are in today, and in further establishing their international sovereignty (Connell-Smith, 1976). These dramatic gains had mainly become more apparent towards the end of the Cold War, with them appearing to have changed from something of "a pawn of the world powers", to there being "a new diplomatic climate" by the 1960s when the Cold War was largely "out of the way" for them (Parkinson, 1974). This period also appeared, however, to not have entirely been a point of comparative growth and stability for the relations between the US and Latin America in that tensions regarding the rising support for the new progressive communist ideals that conflicted with the US' principle ideals became apparent. This was observed with the Bay of Pigs invasion by which John F. Kennedy ordered troops to Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro and lead to the election of a non-communist government friendly to the US. This plan failed after counterattacks from the Cuban military brigade, and after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the imprisoned members of the brigade were released and Operation Mongoose, another plan to destabilise the Cuban government and potentially assassinate Castro was put in place.

These principles still remain very much apparent today in relation to Trump's expansionist imperial agenda, and the key basis of the Monroe doctrine acts as a means by which he can justify his illegal imperially motivated use of warfare and military presence within Europe and Latin America, such as his activities in Venezuela. While these are criminal and unjustifiable acts against international law that have been carried out merely for the US's individual corrupt interests, this has remained a common theme over the centuries with the US's isolationist approach being used to further increase their power over other nations when engaging with their wars. Moreover, the overriding economic dimension of this is also very prevalent in that, as is also the case with his proposals for intervention in European nations, the resources that Venezuela is rich in such as oil and minerals have proved to act as a major incentive for Trump's imperial expansion. This would further appear to present the US's huge capitalist and consumer oriented interests as another primary means by which to gain influence, and a significant means of also effectively justifying environmental exploitation. When looking at this from an imperial lens as applied to Mackinder's Heartland theory, it could also be considered as a means of further expanding the core "heartland" (the region with the most geostrategic influence globally which was immune to - which, according to Mackinder in his 1904 work "The Geographical Pivot to History", consisted of the, at the time, main international superpowers of Russia and parts of Europe (Mackinder, 1904). He was famously quoted saying "whoever rules the heartland commands the world" (Naintarah, 2025). This would thus prove to clearly explain the interests of the US mainly regarding competing against other regions that are equally geopolitically and geostrategically influential, as well as their emphasis being on resources and land of value.