Getting involved in serious political debate means accepting that some people may find your views so unacceptable that they may not wish to debate them with you and that they might reject any notion of being involved in the same enterprise as you.

All of this remains true even if your interlocutors are from the same religious/ethnic group as you are and there is nothing to lament about this. It would be a pretty sorry state of affairs if I said

“X, whose political views I find repugnant, is a member of the same ethnicity as I am therefore I will strive to work to work together with him in the building of a common entreprise in a way I wouldn’t dream of doing if we were not ethnically linked.”

So, if you are serious about politics, religious/ethnic solidarity has to take a back seat

Thanks for the comment Eamonn. My own experieces within the Jewish community were just an example. What I’m interested in is how we develop solidarities with people we don’t always agree with. This is an issue that applies whether or not you are a member of a particular religious/ethnic group. We are all of us members of Uk society, our local neighbourhoods and whatever else. Solidarities cannot only be formed on the basis of political ideology. Politics is just one of a number of possible identities around which solidarities cohere. We have to live with and to some extent to work with people whose politics we do not share.

I am also arguing that creating solidarities based around dialogue does not undermine politics but strengthens it. Many of the most pathological developments in politics stem from attempts to dehumanise people. Dialogue and respect frees up the possibility of genuine honest political debate.

As I said, I hope to explore these ideas further in other Liberal Conspiracy articles.

If one takes values as “needing to be” set in a single and exclusive hierarchy, or even stronger: that each value must live on “its own” level, then it follows as “logical” that solidarity with one’s fellow specimens and reasonable dialog with adversaries (especially the “mortal” ones) are deemed irreconcilable. Personally I believe that people with such artificial and rigid moral hierarchies have little merit claiming a humane virtue. It’s a bit like Galileo’s dilemma: official dogma (demanding unwavering allegiance, such as by way of “solidarity”) and integrity (basically in pursuit of freedom beyond the establishment) sometimes clash – violently.

Then again, I suspect that people who believe that such abstract and barren pyramids — those rigid hierarchies — are an adequate model to press humans into, are naturally more inclined to accept forceful impositions of morally authoritarian views. Which would make them an obstacle for thinking outside the box, and reaching out to others, in pursuit of sustainable (and profitable) harmony. Which also is a major reason why I believe such monolithic thinkers are not merely an obstacle to progress, but ultimately a threat to survival of the species, as sooner or later we all face an unorthodox crisis that can’t be resolved by the grace of dogma or “steel will”.

Denial doesn’t make the Earth flat; much less so does it foster a better understanding (and ultimately appreciation) of our diverse society.

(By the way – great blog, and fantastic design – I’m insanely jealous! Also, I trip-hopped over here via Eamonn’s blog…)

IJV have amongst their main organsiers Professor Rose who supports and was one of the instigators of the academic boycott of Israel. Amongst it’s leaders and signatories are many who don’t believe that Israel has a right to exist even in a 2 states settlement. Why should people want to listen to this group.

Even today people who originaly joined are fed up with its bias including one of the original people involved in forming it. Sorry but IJV is irelevant – always was , always will be , apart from being used by those who wish to attack the Jewish community.

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?AId=56630&ATypeId=1&search=true2&srchstr=david%20goldberg&srchtxt=1&srchhead=1&srchauthor=1&srchsandp=1&scsrch=0

@ Eamonn

“X, whose political views I find repugnant, is a member of the same ethnicity as I am therefore I will strive to work to work together with him in the building of a common entreprise in a way I wouldn’t dream of doing if we were not ethnically linked.”

I don’t think that statement is as scary as it sounds. What about “X, whose political views I find repugnant, lives in the same neighbourhood as me therefore I will strive to work to work together with him in the building of a common entreprise in a way I wouldn’t dream of doing if we didn’t happen to live next door to each other.” That seems like a perfectly reasonable attitude to take, doesn’t it?

I agree with Jennie (I wrote something similar in comment 2). It is impossible to always work on the national/societal or international level. It is entirely reasonable (and inevitable) to have affiliations and affinities with smaller groups of people. The trick is how to work within the particular without losing sight of the universal.

It’s also worth reminding oneself that ‘minority’ groupings can be no less fractious than national groupings.

I was surprised at the vociferous reaction to IJV. I did not see anything objectionable in the text and the only two of the signatories that I know – Nigel Rodley and Francesca Klugg – are both very well-respected human rights activists. Most of the attacks on it did seem to involve a charge of ‘guilt by association’. If, as Shachtman says, it was irrelevant then why not just ignore it, but I do not understand how it can also be seen as an ‘attack on the Jewish community’?

I think the point that Keith is arguing is not just that people disagreed with him, but that he was made to feel that he had committed some kind of act of treachery for having signed the statement. That did seem to be the tone of some of the attacks. Melanie Phillips’s ‘Jews for Genocide’ attack on them (Nigel’s grandparents did die in the holocaust) was particularly nasty. It seemed to me (as someone completely outside the Jewish community in Britain) that the reaction confirmed the point that its signatories were making.

The launch came at around the same time as Sunny’s NGN and I thought that both were good initiatives. Some people also said that ‘this will be used to attack Moslems’, but I think that the opposite is the case. I would agree with Shachtman, however, that it is slightly ironic for one of IJV’s members to also be a supporter of the academic boycott.

Both NGN and IJV were in some ways part of the same phenomenon in that they were challenges to those who claim to represent communities. However, the key difference was that NGN had a much younger profile than IJV. The majority of IJV signatories were older, secular, leftist-oriented Jews. In a sense they were an alternative establishment to the one they were critiquing. This is why the initiative was so attacked – it was seen not as it should have been seen (a respectful request to open up debate and dialogue) but an attempt by one establishment to displace another. I’d like to say that this perception was all nonesense but it is certainly true that IJV did not make aenough of an attempt to include a broad group of people.