You cannot have an Irish name and be of my age and not have some awareness of racism and the dangers of stereotyping. I certainly have, and whilst I make it very clear that I am not claiming that this has adversely impacted me (not least because the status of the Irish has changed quite extraordinarily during my lifetime) it provides at least a slight personL insight into the issue of racism.
It first of all makes you realise how unjust stereotyping is.
It secondly gives some insight into the desire of a people to have a state they can call their own.
And thirdly it makes you appreciate the duality of loyalty that this creates, as it does in me.
But what I would also hope is that it creates awareness of the need for tolerance in any society. No place and no society of any size is now likely to exist without embracing people of different origins, places, faiths and cultures. The evidence of history is that that is nothing new.
I do not argue that any such differences should be downplayed. They matter. Please don't tell me I have to ignore my Irish connections just because I have, in my opinion, always been domiciled in the UK because I won't. That's not a route to accommodation. Instead embrace it, as I do. And not as a curiosity, or quirk, or even as a divide, but as a difference that is as real as the boundaries that exist between any two people despite which boundaries almost all of us make successful relationships with others.
This requires respect, tolerance and understanding on both sides. There are of course dominant cultures and those in a minority have to respect that and adjust within reason to accept that culture. The sentiment does, of course, have to be reciprocated.
But, and quite crucially, within that framework there has to be individual respect as well. Again, this must be mutual, but stereotyping is profoundly dangerous and particularly loathsome.
That is what I find shocking about anti-semitism. Of course there will be Jews with whom I have disagreement. Why ever not? But to extrapolate such feeling to a whole community? That is not just bizarre it is obviously wrong and yet across politics in the UK at present we are seeing a tendency to do that. I condemn it from wherever it comes. This has no place in a respectful, civilised, society. The calls to stamp it out in all parties are wholly appropriate.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes yes, well said Richard. The desire for a state of your own is central to identity. So to deny the legitimacy of Israel is and can only be anti-semitism. The two-state solution is still possible.
There are some strange and illogical connections being made here between terminology and meaning, which is no doubt why this debate is one that needs to be had in public and without animosity to help clarify these very complex matters.
It is important in my view not conflate matters of individual human nature such as personality, thoughts, family, race/creed, moral beliefs, etc… with the social constructs often built around them such as nation states, organised religions, laws, cultures etc…
While these things too often become confused and intertwined in our thoughts and communications, the most important thing is to try to break these down into their constituent parts if we are ever to find resolutions to complex social problems.
There have been some very clumsy words and statements used in public this week by politicians and media commentators which may well be ill-chosen and unfortunate, but this just goes to further illustrate how difficult it is to have this debate without offending many people (often but perhaps not always unintentionally).
I am however pleased that we still live in a country where there is a right to free speech, with of course certain limitations to prevent hatred or violence amongst other things.
Yes David I am sure that the Palestinians would agree on a right to a state of their own. At the moment they are being pushed off that part of the former Mandate Palestine which is still ‘theirs’. When we say Israel, what is the definition or the area? The UN limits of 1948, or the Jordan and Golan heights? The people there under a military occupation.
Several local Quakers went to the West Bank a.few years ago, I think they called it a ‘Peace Mission’. They showed us some photos of an Israeli settlement in the occupied territory. The settlers had piped water. The Palestinians had tanks on the roof which were refilled by tanker once a week. Quite often settlers would shoot at the tanks. One can’t live without water but ‘extra’ had to be paid for.
They also filmed an interview with a settler who had a New York accent. His whole attitude was similar to that I heard from British settlers who returned to the UK in the ’60s when our African colonies became independent. It was the ‘natives’ are backward people and the settlers made much better use of the land.
The thing is, most of the region and the world see Israel as a colonial enterprise implemented just most of the world was coming out of colonialism.
I have a great respect for the contribution Jews have made to our civilisation. Growing up on the south coast and staring my working life in insurance, I heard people, educated, middle class people making anti-Jewish remarks and objecting to Jews joining a golf club. I never understood why they had those views or had any sympathy for them-and I still don’t. I don’t like racism. Yet we hear Muslims denigrated almost on a daily basis. We don’t -or rarely-have headlines demanding party leaders purge their party of people holding such views.
At this point, we can’t put the clock back and I would agree that the people there should stay. But is it right to import further Russian and American jews ( mainly) on the argument of a ‘right to return’ when Palestinians,Muslims and Christians, were forced out in the late 1940s but they have no right to return even though many still have their property deeds and keys?
It is too easy to get into a position where people shout ‘racist’ as though that can shut down all discussion and clearly identify the ‘good people. from the ‘bad people’.
Lastly, we are not well informed about the reality of the land. Robert Fisk of the independent is one writer who gives a much more nuanced picture of the area. Patrick Cockburn is another. We need a better informed debate -generally-not here. We also need to seek for peace and that requires hearing the opinions of the people concerned.
This is the sort of balance the debate on this topic needs.
It is simply fundamental to assert these problems, solve them and then live in peace with each other.
‘That is what I find shocking about anti-semitism. Of course there will be Jews with whom I have disagreement. Why ever not? But to extrapolate such feeling to a whole community? That is not just bizarre it is obviously wrong and yet across politics in the UK at present we are seeing a tendency to do that. I condemn it from wherever it comes. This has no place in a respectful, civilised, society.’
I completely agree Richard and doubtless I could replace the words Jewish and anti semitism with a number of other groups of people. For example:
‘That is what I find shocking about the charge of systemic anti-semitism. Of course there will be LP members with whom I have disagreement. Why ever not? But to extrapolate such feeling to a whole community? That is not just bizarre it is obviously wrong and yet across politics in the UK at present we are seeing a tendency to do that. I condemn it from wherever it comes. This has no place in a respectful, civilised, society.’
The current maelstrom being imposed on the LP by the MSM and those with vested political interests is cynical and shocking. Unfortunately. this is another example of ‘the manufacture of consent’ and post-democracy. Racism, prejudice and persecution is abhorrent in all its forms and the overwhelmingly vast majority of LP members/the left would be the first to stand alongside the victims of such.
Very well said.
As someone of Jewish background this debate is significant to me. I also lived in Israel for a period of time.
I agree with Keith above. Anti-Semitism need not be conflated with anti-Zionism. It is often not pointed out that there are many Orthodox Jews who are vigorously anti Zionist and at present in Israel, there is a ‘cold war’ going on between secular Jewish Society and the religious communities who do not want a secular state.
Growing up under the shadow of the holocaust did not make me uncritical of Israel-far from it. Jews lived in that region since the Roman sacking of Jerusalem living beside Muslims/Orthodox Christians without the issues we now have, so in that sense Jewish Nationalism is, for me, a questionable concept as it is for Orthodox Jews.
I’d advise anyone who sees this as a simple issue of ‘racism’ to watch this video of Rabbi Dovid Weiss, who puts forward very articulately why he is not a Zionist.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUppu2OHVTY
Do I think Livingstone’s words were ‘racist’-probably not but I do think they were ill-chosen with a complete disregard for their reverberations and in that respect he should work on self-editing skills as he should no his words WILL be used by the pedallers of hate.
Nietzsche described Anti-Semitism as ‘scabies of the heart’ and that’s were we need to look for the source of any hatred which is often a projection of personal resentments ( my hatred of ‘Tories’ likewise!).
I also agree with SyzgySue that this has been manipulated by the media in order to damage Corbyn who is perceived as a real threat after the media onslaught after his election did not achieve its goal.
It’s also worth reading the analysis on the Jews for Jeremy Website: jewsforjeremy.org
Unfortunately Naz Shah and Livingstone acted unintelligently probably fuelled by anger and a sense of historic injustice which clearly exists. Their place in politics is questionable if they can use words so unwisely.
Thanks
And apologies for moderation taking so long
‘And apologies for moderation taking so long’
As I remember, you are also moving house while juggling with your job and this site-so no need to apologise for that! Hope move is progressing well.
I hate boxes!
And because some work needs doing they’re going to be here for a week or two yet
But I do like it
I thought that this topic might appear.
So now I must tread carefully…………
In my view, the accusations against the LP about anti-Semitism are being blown out of proportion. Some unfortunate, emotionally loaded language has been used by people who should have known better. Their explanations should be listened to and given a fair hearing and if necessary they should offer their apologies.
But the furore over this is in my view aimed at destabilizing the Labour nominee for the Mayor of London as well as a the current LP leader who is not flavour of the month even within the LP and its supporters. It all seems a bit dubious to me. Sorry. I wonder how much of a certain other mayoral candidate’s vast fortune may be being put to work here?
I have one problem with Israel – its present Government. I do not like its expansionary and exclusionary tendencies into territory that it justifies from some sort of cultural, religious justification which I find incredible in this day and age (I’m speaking as an atheist by the way). The Israeli Government seems misguided to me and fully intent on raising tensions in the area.
I am in full agreement with the sentiment that you cannot judge a whole people just by the actions of certain parts of their society.
I read with fascination the heterodox Rabbis (who seem ostracised by their own society) who put forward new ideas on Judaism and seek to refine it and live side by side peacefully with others – looking for commonality with ALL peoples.
We cannot forget the many Israelis who regularly refuse to serve in the army and choose not to go along with the daily brutality dished out to Muslims.
I recall the Israeli couple we lived next door to in Lewisham and whom we’d have dinner with pouring scorn on their Government’s conduct. The lady’s husband did not want to go back to Israel as he would have been expected to have serve in the army at the time. They felt that with all the pain suffered by Jews, that their people should know better. They were ashamed of their Government’s treatment of the Palestinians.
I can still remember the warmth and welcome I got and felt whenever I went to the home of my only Jewish classmate whilst at school. What a family life they had!
So yes – to badge a whole people just for some of the indiscretions practiced by their elites is totally wrong.
I have recently been very critical of America on this blog. And again I think that I should make clear that I have nothing against the American people per se who also seem to suffer tremendously at the hands of their own Government and their elites.
I just think that American politics and power as practised by its Governments has been simply awful for the world in general.
Well put PSR-you are right to observe that Israel does not represent all Jews and that Israeli society is very diverse and, it should be said, also suffering from social inequality and austerity politics and one of the highest levels of inequality of the OECD countries (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.657611) This may be a factor in the rise of the right. Tel Aviv has its own tent city as housing is unaffordable for many ( http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Protesters-set-up-tents-on-Rothschild-Blvd-to-call-for-affordable-housing-in-flashback-to-2011-392621).
There is no doubt that anti-semitism is rearing its ugly head again but I agree with PSR that there is a deliberate attempt to undermine Corbyn at present. Austerity fuels hatred of the other just as the Tories used the poor and ill and jobless as spittoons for generalised dissatisfaction.
Very well said, Richard, very well indeed.
Are you really Irish? And a Quaker!? What a strange combination! I have not heard of many Irish people who were not baptised Catholic, and who also believe in The Holy Trinity, and in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. They also usually believe in a united Ireland. Do you believe in any of these things?
My father was RC
My mother a Baptist
They compromised on the CoE
I am a Christian but as a Quaker am more influenced by John’s gospel
A United Ireland? I suspect it will happen one day. I spend little time thinking about it
Like Richard I am Irish; but also born in Ireland. I spent little time in the UK, apart from visiting cousins in Yorkshire and Wales, until after I had finished my PhD; awarded by University College Dublin but with nearly all the experimental work done in the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory in Arizona. I had intended to return to the US (which I loved) but when Carter lost the election in 1980 to Regan my position disappeared and I ended up in the University of Sheffield in 1981 with a Post Doc position.
A few oberservations
1) Hillsborough very topical at present. I was very aware of Bloody Sunday and the establishment coverup. I saw exactly the same elements at Hillsborough and was delighted that finally the is some truth. It is frightening how the British establishmemt covers its back and tells barefaced lies to do so.
2) I was in Dublin duting the H-Block hunger strike and saw a city which was very anti IRA being radacalised by the incompotence of the British Government. Thatcher had no clue. She believed in a value system which was both loathsome and totally incompetent. Within a year she radacalised much of the Irish. I remain baffeled to this day why she is revered by many English. (If I was a zero sum game Irish Republican I should be please as she did more to destroy Britian than anyone in the previous few hundred years; though the current Tory shower are intent on finishing off the job)
3) South Yorkshire during the miners strike. Possibly enough said. The difference between the “City” in London and the North was apparent and the flaws in Neo-Liberalism were evident even then.
4) Being Irish? Very fortunately was surrounded by good friends but was ashamed of my fellow countrymen (IRA) duting bombong campaigns such as Warrington. (missed being blown up myself in Dublin in 1974 by a few minutes). There has been a total transgormation since the ‘90s
5) Regarding Israel I do worry about the behaviour of their Government in the West bank (Illegal Occupation) treatment of Palestinians (Apartheit) but agree anti semetism is totally unacceptable.
On a humorous and uplifting note have a look at this video of two New Yorkers, one dressed as a Muslim and one an orthodox Jew walking through a Jewish, Muslim and then mixed neighbourhood-I found it moving: http://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/VIDEO-A-Hassidic-Jew-and-devout-Muslim-walk-the-streets-of-New-York-452643
Interesting reactions
Coming rather late to the comments I worry about the “duality of loyalty” in the main post – surely loyalty is normally blind. Being disloyal implies the baggage of betrayal. I’d be much happier with ‘duality of belonging’…
But certainly agree that the connections of the present are necessarily more important than the origins of the past.
I think it was Jonathan Miller who said that active adherence to any group meant a filter on your vision and that you could even layer these filters on top of each other. But you’d generally see rather better if you endeavoured not to use them.
I certainly think that this waffle on anti-semitism in the Labour Party is just that (wasn’t a certain David Milliband their previous elected leader?)
The ‘scandal’ is a gift for the Conservative media to distract from a real scandal, that of the Conservatives’ excess election expenses, where the potential prosecutions need to be hurried to avoid being out of time:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/29/conservative-mps-broke-law-win-2015-general-election/
I am frankly concerned by a couple of comments here. Let’s be clear: Zionism is the desire of the Jewish people to have a land of their own. That country is Israel, legally established by UN charter. Anyone who refuses to accept it’s legitimacy, in other words uniquely refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state, is anti-semitic. You cannot be an anti-Zionism but claim not to be anti-semitic.
I make cklear I explicitly support the right of Israel to exist
I hoped that was implicit in my post
I also think there is a right to a Palestinian state
David Hart while I respect your opinions and your right to express them, I think you’re missing the point of this debate which was headed “All racism is unacceptable”.
The legitimacy of the state of Israel was not at question, you made it a discussion point in your post. But I suggest you read all of the 226 UN resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine before taking international legal advice to decide whether the following statement you made is correct or not.
“Anyone who refuses to accept it’s legitimacy, in other words uniquely refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state, is anti-semitic.”
Your argument is very one sided, the real world has more than one side, which is why real legitimacy can only come about through seeking agreement on all sides to reach a peaceful and sustainable settlement on the land that is the basis of this dispute.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but having spent some time living in Israel during the 1980’s I know that it is an extremely complex mix of historical, religious, political, economic and cultural tensions in what has sadly become one of the worlds most violent regions.
Whatever solution may finally emerge, it will not come about peacefully by one-sided thinking in my humble opinion.
I have had a number of concerns expressed to me about David’s position
I thinik it, for example, possible to question what the proper boundaries fo Israel are without being anti-Zionist
But I stress, I have no doubt about the right of Israel to exist
A state and its precise boudnaries are not the same thing as was proved whebn Ireland became independent of the UK, for example
Like Keith, I was in Israel in the late 80’s to early 90’s: it is an extremely complex society and not the monolith that many take it for. I was living in a religious community for a period of time and when it came to Independence Day there was a discussion about raising the Israeli flag. Many orthodox Jews choose to live in New York, London, Manchester because they see the return to Israel as a teleological phenomenon and the state of ‘exile’ as something to be borne.
As a person who grew up in a Jewish Community I am naturally sensitive to anti-semitism yet feel uncomfortable about the historic injustices perpetrated against the natives of Palestine from the 1930’s onward. Israel is largely a product of European anti-semitism that reached its nadir with the rise of Fascism. In Israel I felt the sense of Apartheid quite powerfully when, driving a car with an Israeli number plate through Ramallah I was met with a hail of stones and thought I might die there. To feel that one has become a symbol and no longer a real human is frightening, yet this is what happens in all of these conflicts.
Israel cannot be ‘dismantled’ even though that is what Rabbi Dovid Weiss suggests in the video I posted above. I”m not comfortable with flags and national symbols although I value my cultural background as does Richard his because it can enrich us.
Keith alludes to the problem of one-sided thinking and he is right to do so. It is incumbent on both sides to work hard and seeing the historical perspective of the other-this is what Naz Shah and Livingstone failed to do and thus damaged the potential for real debate by using ill-chosen inflammatory wording. It will take great forebearance, wisdom and a sense of mutuality to help heal this disastrous situation. Some have shown the way like the dialogue between Edward Said and Daniel Barenboim but we need more of this.
It is just that the settlements are growing and even though I admire Israel and their tenacity and bravery, they need to compromise.
Palestine also has a right to exist. Monetary support to Israel from the USA and the Jewish community shows thue passion they have, nothing wrong with that, but we have to be free to express our view. The extreme behaviour from both sides does not help in the slightest. I would hazard a guess that many of us in the UK have mixed heritage, not the Romans, but anglisised Jews, As well as Heugenots. What will the future be for my beautiful, half white European grandaughter, how will she fight her corner.
Spellcheck. Anglicised. my worst errors are never crossing my letter T’s. When I was a student nurse I would forever refer to a certain part of the anatomy as bullocks. Ward sister used to say that if notes were used in a court of law my buttocks bullocks would perhaps not be permissible. Sorry for any offence to tender ears.
Amused
Zionism is the desire of Zionists to have a land of their own, in which only Zionists can have political power. The rest of the Jewish people have their own lands, and the majority have remained in them, all around the world. Just like I have. And I’m an atheist living in Britain. All this claptrap about Labour anti-semitism, claptrap aided and abetted by the Israeli ambassador’s horrendous presence on Sky News last night (the ex-military spokesman whose stock-in-trade is blaming Palestinians for being blown up with high explosives by Israeli warplanes), is part of a politically cynical ploy to crash Corbyn. Not that I like the man – he’s a reed that bends far too easily in the breeze.
Let me illustrate the point of Zionism’s nature by quoting a passage from “Nazi Germany and the Jews” by the historian Saul Friedlander: “Not only did the [Nazi] regime encourage Zionist activities on the territory of the Reich, but concrete economic measures were taken to ease the departure of Jews for Palestine. The so-called Haavarah (Hebrew: Transfer) Agreement, concluded on August 27, 1933, between the German Ministry of the Economy and Zionist representatives from Germany and Palestine, allowed Jewish emigrants indirect transfer of part of their assets and facilitated exports of goods from Nazi Germany to Palestine.” This is historical truth, known at the time and rejected by those who did not seek to leave for Palestine. After all, Zionism is a secular movement.
Again, from “Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany”, by the historian Francis Nicosia, citing a memorandum from leaders of the Zionist Federation of Germany sent on June 22, 1933, which, he states “seemed to profess a degree of sympathy for the völkish principles of the Hitler regime and argued that Zionism was compatible with these principles.” The memorandum is as follows: “Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about among the Jewish people. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance to its existence. This demands the elimination of the egotistical individualism of the liberal era, and its replacement with a sense of community and collective responsibility.”
The statement that being anti-Zionist is equal to being anti-Semitic is a disgraceful slur upon, firstly, the Palestinian people as a whole, and, secondly, all those, internationally, who have opposed the aggression that Zionist politicians and their military forces have rained down upon the people of Palestine since 1948 and the Naqba. You really should be ashamed of the disingenuous nature of your comment.
As I amde clear in my own comment: I support the existence of a state of Israel
And I also support the right of the Palestinian people to also have a state of their own
‘The statement that being anti-Zionist is equal to being anti-Semitic is a disgraceful slur upon, firstly, the Palestinian people ‘ it is also a slur upon many orthodox Jews who do not support the idea of a secular state.
The Nazis used anybody to further their aims and were often duplicitously playing of one ‘side’ against another.
Don’t call Me Dave- it is worth remembering that no-one is whiter than white in this conflict. Let’s not forget the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1941 (see: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html)-so I’m not convinced of the balance in your argument either. You forget to point out the many Jews who, like Joseph Abileah, fought for co-existence from the 1920’s on.
Livingstone mentioned Hitler in order, I think, to equate Zionism with fascism ( failing to mention Arab links with Hitler and Eichmann) which is a stance of some on the left. The Arab/Palestinian side, which I accept is the more sinned against, never the less needs to see the beam in its own eye and the historic mistakes it has made through divisions within its own community.
I agree that neither Livingstone or Shah were being directly anti-semitic, but they were being illiterate and biased in their representation of the issues
I thought I’d add my 2 pence in.
I’m Jewish (and Zionist) although I’m a bit confused by all the labelling of anti-semitism recently.
a) I rarely see much definition of what anti semitism is in relation to Israel in the media (eg. the Guardian has talked a lot about anti semitism recently without often defining it.) This is quite important as for instance was Ken anti semitic, or just stupid as some commentators have said, or does he have some special culpability due to his position of not making stupid analogies.
b) And this is why for me definition is important. When I was a student, and it is still the case now, the discourse that is now being labelled as anti semitic in relation to Israel was widespread, same with the hard left and the same in extremist Islamist circles. So my confusion is: if what is happening recently has been anti semitic in relation to Israel and Zionism, then anti-semitism is actually widespread throughout the student and hard left and the same politicians that decry anti semitism now have been turning a blind eye to it there in a way that they wouldn’t allow of other forms of racism. Or in some sense, politicians are denouncing anti-semitism, without really understanding what consititutes anti semitism and what doesn’t, which will have the result of devaluing the term.
I think there is considerable doubt as to the difference between anti-Israeli government policy, anti-Zionism and anti-semitism
I can oppose the Israeli government, absolutely support the right of Israel to exist and be utterly opposed to all forms of racism
But great care is required: many have exercised considerably less than that required level of care. If that is their mistake they should be forgiven. If it really reveals something more they have no place in any mainstream political party, in my opinion
That needs to be determined though
I think that you and adam c have hit the nail on the head. There can be a lot of clumsiness in these issues and it can be like throwing petrol onto fire. I’m sure if I talked long enough about it I would put my foot in it somewhere along the line.
It is right to forgive those who just make a mistake.
When I think of the Jewish and Palestinian situation, I’m always happy to recall the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra under Daniel Barenboim – made up of young Jews, Palestinians and others who play together in that orchestra.
I usually blub a bit to Beethoven anyway (out of the joyousness of the music – there is nothing sentimental in my view about old Ludwig) but when I saw them going through the Symphonic cycle and doing the 9th, the music and the symbolism of it all made sure I got through nearly a whole box of tissues that night just carried away by the symbolism of the whole thing and Schillers’ words:
‘Oh friends, not these sounds! Let us instead strike up more pleasing and more joyful ones!’
The Divan orchestra was doing just that. The message to all sides here is most apt.
I can agree with that
I saw that too
infollow a site called raptor politics. Today watched a video giving a wonderful example of cooperation between Israel, Jordan, Palastine using animal biological warfare against rodents, to protect cops. It has been used for many years and is highly successful.
That is true cooperation, no chance it would be used in the UK, we shall be raptor free before to long with this lot in charge.
Mark Avery and Chris Packham are my other must follow blogs. We share our planet And if less poison can be used all the better.
Let’s here it for the bees also. Hope you don’t mind This missive Mr Murphy.
I am a big fan of Mark and Chris
If such issues bring us together, all to the good
What a great project-thanks for that Sylvia- we need to be reminded often about real collaborations and knowledge sharing-it’s our only hope.
On a different but related note, this article made interesting reading in the context of racism and economics (with a strong US perspective but I think still relevant to many other nations)
http://www.rdwolff.com/content/how-capitalism-and-racism-support-each-other
Words of wisdom from Jon Lansman, himself jewish: http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/05/why-the-left-must-stop-talking-about-zionism/. Jon has been critical of Ken Livingstone (as are many of us) because he continually speaks before he thinks. But as a LP leftie myself I have never ever met an anti-semitic comrade. Indeed the only person I know who hates jews is a Catholic, born in Palestine of a Palestinian mother and Irish father, whose family had to flee Palestine in 1948 when their home and possessions were confiscated.
As I see a couple of your commentators, for whatever reason they have, failed to note my original comment in which I stated my support for a two-state solution, I think I am entitled to a response.
Zionists define what is Zionism and only them. By far the larger part of Jews in the world support a Jewish state, a land of their own where they can be safe. As you have said, that’s fundamental. They’ve tried it the other way and, except for America, it hasn’t worked out very well for them.
The United Nations brought their state into existence. It is simply a corruption of logic to argue that one government or another ignoring UN resolutions somehow justifies us denying Israel’s legitimacy.
There are explicitly Muslim states in the world. Nowhere is the legitimacy of these Muslim states or indeed any other state disputed; only Israel’s.
One can profoundly disagree with Israeli policy, one can be outraged at border violations. One cannot, however, dispute the fundamental right of the state to exist and hope to even begin convincing Jews you are not anti-semitic.
I do not, as I have noted, question the right to an Israeli state
But you are profoundly wrong when you say ‘Zionists define what is Zionism and only them’.
This is glaringly obviously untrue that it appears that you are seeking to suppress discussion
I think that was your last contribution
I think it should be Richard. When one man decides he has the right to define another man’s beliefs then we have fascism. When the fascist is too cowardly to engage in debate with his opponent then we have the Courageous State.
You are not the man I thought you were.
You are seeking to deny others the right to define Zionism
It is you closing discussion as a result
You drew the inference
I continue to be amazed David Hart that you do not appear to be able to differentiate in your mind between the legal right of Israel to exist (which as far as I can see nobody on this post has questioned) with the accusation of racism in the form of anti-semitism (which I think everyone contributing has agreed is intolerable).
By your determination to keep these two matters linked, you yourself will only make the situation worse because many of the friends you make with your admirable support of anti-semitism will be alienated by your illogical (in my view) desire to connect something deeply personal with an entirely different social construct.
You are clearly adamant that you are right in your belief (and perhaps you are right and I am wrong, I am perfectly willing to accept that may be the case), but sometimes it is good for all of us to question our own belief structures based on quite honest and non-confrontational feedback, to ensure there is not something illogical or even immoral in the way we think about things.
I for one am glad that I have no religious beliefs to contend with, because personally I find it much easier to see clearly through the fog of human morality. But I still respect those that take a different view, including you David Hart and I would not want to see your views suppressed even though I disagree with them.
I know that I do not need to support Richard as he is perfectly able to look after himself David.
But you do seem to be taking a really hard line view here. All human beings wish to define themselves – even me. But how can you if the way in which you behave impacts on others – even if you are being benign? Are those whom you share the planet with not then entitled to a view or an opinion about you or your conduct?
As long as that opinion is expressed reasonably, and based on evidence – also aimed at a particular trait and is not used to generalise or negate the broader and more complex range of views and realities, then what is the problem?
Your statement is almost in line with Ayn Rand’s view that one need not be concerned for anyone but oneself nor the effect one has on others.
To say that ‘Zionists define what is Zionism and only them’ is a gross over-simplification David. It will just not do.
Agreed
And the Ayn Rand analogy seems appropriate
And as a footnote, it now transpires that the original for the tweet that got Naz Shah into trouble was actually posted by a Jewish university professor!
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/30/nobody-bothered-to-check-who-created-that-anti-semitic-image-naz-shah-retweeted-did-they/
Thanks MayP, this adds an interesting new dimension to the actions of Naz Shah.
I also found one of the links in the article very helpful to the Jews for Justice For The Palestinians website, which I will read more of as I can agree with their statement of beliefs (while I acknowledge it also requires the equivalent Palestinian position to be successful):
WE BELIEVE THAT
Lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires justice, mutual recognition and respect.
Peace requires ending Israel’s illegal occupation and settlement of Palestinian land, including its illegal blockade of Gaza.
Peace requires Israel to acknowledge its responsibility in the creation of the Palestinian refugees, and its obligation to negotiate a just, fair and practical resolution of the issue.
Violence against civilians, no matter who commits it, is unacceptable.
Israel’s repressive policies in the West Bank and Gaza are breeding hatred and resentment.
Israel’s discrimination against its Palestinian citizens is unacceptable.
It is crucial that Jews speak out for Palestinians’ human rights.
The humanitarian values of Judaism have been corrupted by the Israeli state’s abuses of human rights.
Britain, the EU, the USA, Russia and the UN must be persuaded to implement UN resolutions on Palestine.
And the website link is:
http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2
I think it should be added that Hamas needs to agree to abide by resolutions as well
No side is innocent here and I am not afraid to say so
All must compromise for the ultimate goal
That is true, that Naz Shah’s offending tweet was a reposting of something from Norman Finkelstein and the fact was plain from the beginning for anyone who chose to see it.
But the irony in fact goes much deeper.
Finkelstein is a now prominent American Jewish scholar both of whose parents were Holocaust survivors. He is a conspicuous opponent of Israeli government policies and actions, and supporter of the Palestinian cause.
He came to early prominence through his thesis, later book, which demonstrated the false scholarship of a book by Joan Peters, ‘From Time Immemorial’ which claimed to show that a very large part of the Arab population in Palestine around about the time of the creation of the Israeli state had lived there no longer than the Jewish settlers. The book was in its time very influential in undermining the acceptance in the west of the Palestinian cause, but it is now accepted that it is discredited.
This, and other work, statements and political action by Finkelstein naturally angered many supporters of the Israeli government, or some who simply accepted the legitimacy of the Israeli state, and prominent right-wing academics succeeded in denying Finkelstein academic tenure for many years. He is banned from entry to Israel for ten years.
But now comes the further irony. In early 2012 Finkelstein publicly opposed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel on the grounds that it would not recognise Israel’s right to exist. His comments against this aspect of BDS movement were very outspoken, although he supports their practical actions. That remains his position.
More detail can be found at https://newrepublic.com/article/122257/unpopular-man-norman-finkelstein-comes-out-against-bds-movement.
So where does this leave the anti-Semitism debate/campaign? (Apart of course from the always obvious point that Finkelstein and Shah were making a political point in an ironic or offensive manner – according to your sensitivities – about Israeli government reliance on US support at the time of the Gaza campaign, but were not proposing the forced transportation of the Israeli population as some have chosen to understand. As far as I am aware Finkelstein’s original posting did not create public or political outrage.)
Worth reading this interview with Norman Finkelstein, the American Jewish academic whose parents were Holocaust survivors. he’s a controversial figure but clearly does not see Shah/Livingstone as remotely ant-Semitic and regards it as an attempt to discredit Corbyn by a frenzied media.
I urge you all to read it for a wider understanding of the issues and associated history:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda
This one by Finkelstein is admirable: “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History”. There is no end of anti-Zionist writings by Israeli academics – academics whose positions can, in my view, be only undermined by those taken by the BDS movement. His writing is an incredibly rich vein of information and analysis.