advertisement


Shireen Abu Aqla

I strongly suspect that the Israeli government has better things to do with its money than bribing MPs of a globally not very significant country.

A few things, one I didn't say it was the State of Israel directly "donating to MPs", UK MPs are easily and quite cheaply bought, three why are 80% of the ruling parties MPs friends of a country that only about 0.3% of the UK population have any connection to? four politicians do things for votes or money, as three states there are not enough votes in it, which leaves?.
 
I’m not certain that is an accurate description. I am not a political scientist (I’m not even educated!), but to my mind Israel is an occupying force that is containing and constraining a population beyond its internationally agreed borders in what is in reality a persistent state of war. I can understand the visual similarity with the oppressive minority white rule in SA or Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), even segregated pre-civil rights movement America from an emotional perspective, but I’m far from convinced this is accurate terminology. There are clear borders here that have been breached, and that is more an invasion/blockade. In most respects I view it as more similar to what Putin has been doing in say the Crimean area of Ukraine for years. This is an ongoing conflict. It is a war zone in any logical sense of the word.

PS I also view the part the west has played in this inhumanity as utterly shameful. That both Labour and Conservative governments have armed an Israeli state occupying land far outside its agreed borders and in breach of countless UN resolutions is totally unacceptable to me. Not in my name.

There is no way Amnesty would say it was an apartheid regime unless it was very sure of its facts.

"Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.

Laws, policies and practices which are intended to maintain a cruel system of control over Palestinians, have left them fragmented geographically and politically, frequently impoverished, and in a constant state of fear and insecurity."

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
 
There is no way Amnesty would say it was an apartheid regime unless it was very sure of its facts.

I agree, and I obviously fully support Amnesty International in their work. I am still very uncomfortable using the term myself as I think it is emotional and actually weakens ones argument in a situation where choosing words very precisely is absolutely essential given the current political climate.

PS Here are the Wikipedia entries for both apartheid and Israel and the apartheid analogy. There’s clearly a lot to pick the bones out of here, but I’ll continue not to use the term as I can make my arguments at least as forcefully without doing so. I am really not stuck for words when describing this situation!
 
I agree, and I obviously fully support Amnesty International in their work. I am still very uncomfortable using the term myself as I think it is emotional and actually weakens ones argument in a situation where choosing words very precisely is absolutely essential given the current political climate.

PS Here are the Wikipedia entries for both apartheid and Israel and the apartheid analogy. There’s clearly a lot to pick the bones out of here, but I’ll continue not to use the term as I can make my arguments at least as forcefully without doing so. I am really not stuck for words when describing this situation!
No objection to your choice of words - whatever you feel comfortable with as long as it doesn't mask the brutal reality.

However, it's worth noting that the Amnesty report is is based on the internationally agreed definition of apartheid (hence, not "emotional").
 
I think it’s important to at least be able to use the word that best describes a situation. If that word’s ruled out of bounds you have to ask why that is.
 
it is well known that independent inquiries work in case of israel state and IDF.

here's more shocking scenes from another angle:
https://twitter.com/RiyaAlsanah/status/1525122100259872768

Disgusting. State terrorism. Not an aberration. Not a mistake. Targeted. Purposeful. Cold blooded. Decades of it.
Anyone who can present the Palestinian case coherently to a western audience is a threat to be eliminated. Anyone who could lead the Palestinian cause eloquently in English is a threat to be eliminated. Especially if they are reasonable and prepared to compromise.
 
Last edited:
A few things, one I didn't say it was the State of Israel directly "donating to MPs", UK MPs are easily and quite cheaply bought, three why are 80% of the ruling parties MPs friends of a country that only about 0.3% of the UK population have any connection to? four politicians do things for votes or money, as three states there are not enough votes in it, which leaves?.

Fear. The Zionist lobby can destroy you. Ask Corbyn.
 
Fear. The Zionist lobby can destroy you. Ask Corbyn.

Its not Zionism, Zionism just means you believe in the right of Israel to exist, which I don’t have a problem with. The problem is that a lot of Israel’s supporters and the state of Israel itself use intimidation, corruption and violence to pursue illegal goals.
 
Its not Zionism, Zionism just means you believe in the right of Israel to exist, which I don’t have a problem with. The problem is that a lot of Israel’s supporters and the state of Israel itself use intimidation, corruption and violence to pursue illegal goals.
I suspect Zionism as a cause has been subverted to a rather more wicked purpose in recent times.
 
Just because a cause has been subverted doesn’t mean a word has, being anti Zionist means being against the existence of Israel. The existence of Israel not the problem, the way it behaves is the problem.
Not sure I agree. Words can and do change their meaning over time. If you now associate Zionism with the brutal and apartheid-like oppression of Palestinians (ie, under the cover of being in the name of Israel’s right to exist) then you can oppose that (be anti-Zionist) without necessarily espousing any wish to see Israel itself disappear.
Mind you, if Israel continues on a route to becoming a pariah state, anti-Zionism in the historic sense you argue may become a more acceptable mainstream position.
 
Zionism and Likud’s brutal extreme-right aggression are entirely different things. This is a mistake the far-left in particular makes and their clumsy ignorant language is hugely damaging to any discussion. Go just a little further down that pathway and you get to the lizards and claims that Jews own the whole world’s banking system.
 
I don’t disagree, and it’s not unlike the situation where the anti-apartheid campaign wasn’t advocating for the destruction of South Africa, but the SA government (shamefully abetted by our own at times) elided the two in public discourse.

In a way, then, any suggestion that opposition to Israeli oppression of Palestinians is anti-Zionist is an Israeli confection. But might become fact in the public perception. SA was rehabilitated after a monumental effort by Tutu, Mandela et al. I don’t see equivalent figures in Israel, so the path to pariah state is still open, IMHO.
 
It will never be a pariah state, given the back up it gets from the States. In the current world relations that's simply not possible, you can't become a pariah state without a nod from Washington.

It's a pariah state for decades already but it lives on the benefits from their WW2 victims.
 
Its not Zionism, Zionism just means you believe in the right of Israel to exist, which I don’t have a problem with. The problem is that a lot of Israel’s supporters and the state of Israel itself use intimidation, corruption and violence to pursue illegal goals.
This is a bit like saying "patriotism" is a simple love of one's country, while ignoring the multiple ways in which the concept is used to shape political debate (by the far-right, but also by mainstream political parties, including Labour).

For analogous reasons, many progressive and left-wing Jews are comfortable describing themselves as anti-Zionist when they see the crimes that Zionism is now used to justify. As a gentile, I don't see it as my job to police the boundaries of Jewish identity, and acceptable political debate.

The testimony of a Jewish Labour Party member in the article below gives some idea of the pernicious consequences of attempting to do so:

https://skwawkbox.org/2022/04/17/83...-labours-punitive-and-antisemitic-suspension/
A well-respected comrade wrote as he left the Party in despair last month, “it’s more than distasteful for non-Jews to dictate what views Jewish people may or may not express.” I think those operating the party’s disciplinary apparatus really should reflect on that. In the service of a partisan and disputed version of what classifies as ‘antisemitic’ you have arrogated to yourselves the right to determine what it is kosher to say about Israel, Palestine, the Board of Deputies, Jews, Jewish history and more besides.
...
Being Jewish is or was a wall-to-wall experience. It’s an identity that you acquire and keep. Add in Zionism and it is a strong brew. I celebrated every Israeli military victory from 1948 through 1956 and 1967. And then with a viable state territory established I waited for Israel to make peace with its Palestinian neighbours and internal Palestinian population. But that didn’t happen. As Israel’s reprisals grew heavier my in-principle support for the state of Israel became increasingly overlaid with my criticisms of its actual behaviour. Even my mother by about 1990 and in her eighties was saying that this wasn’t the state that she had thought she was working for. (She had held many offices in Zionist organisations, as had both my maternal grandparents.)

This is a journey that those who are not Jewish have not had to make.
...
I am telling you all this to give you a take on how outrageous it feels, in effect, to be accused of antisemitism. Outrageous. It actually gives me the sense that whoever drafted this Notice has quite simply failed to grasp the enormity of antisemitism as a concept or practice.
Don't be put off by the Skwawkbox link. The bulk of the article is the testimony of a Jewish Labour Party member accused (essentially) of anti-Semitism. It makes for thought-provoking and disturbing reading.
 
Zionism and Likud’s brutal extreme-right aggression are entirely different things. This is a mistake the far-left in particular makes and their clumsy ignorant language is hugely damaging to any discussion. Go just a little further down that pathway and you get to the lizards and claims that Jews own the whole world’s banking system.

It certainly sets off alarm bells whenever I see someone make reference to 'Zionists' - it's just too often used in the context of anti-semitic conspiracy bollocks. Any word carrying that much baggage needs to be used very very carefully.
 
It certainly sets off alarm bells whenever I see someone make reference to 'Zionists' - it's just too often used in the context of anti-semitic conspiracy bollocks. Any word carrying that much baggage needs to be used very very carefully.

Agreed. There is a real depth and complexity to this term and far too many people either clearly don’t understand what it means at all, or worse attempt to weaponise it in a highly racist manner. As ever the Wikipedia entry on Zionism is well worth reading along with its associated citations etc if folk have the time to research it, if not my advice would be to avoid using the term at all.
 
Agreed. There is a real depth and complexity to this term and far too many people either clearly don’t understand what it means at all, or worse attempt to weaponise it in a highly racist manner. As ever the Wikipedia entry on Zionism is well worth reading along with its associated citations etc if folk have the time to research it, if not my advice would be to avoid using the term at all.
So are you telling left-wing Jews who have lived experience of anti-Semitism to avoid the term. Seems pretty weird to me.
 
Zionism and Likud’s brutal extreme-right aggression are entirely different things. This is a mistake the far-left in particular makes and their clumsy ignorant language is hugely damaging to any discussion. Go just a little further down that pathway and you get to the lizards and claims that Jews own the whole world’s banking system.

Yes. In addition, it is interesting that over the past couple of weeks there were no threads here expressing outrage at 3 Israeli civilians being hacked to death with axes by a gang of Arabs, and another 3 shot dead in a bar in TelAviv by a single Arab terrorist. While one American-Palestinian journalist who, wearing flak jacket and helmet was intentionally in the middle of a fire-fight was, almost certainly by accident by one side or the other, killed arouses outpourings of simplistic rage against Israel.
 


advertisement


Back
Top