Corpsey
bandz ahoy
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...spapers-claim-corbyn-poses-existential-threat
So this is getting bigger and bigger
So this is getting bigger and bigger
labour + antisemitism
- Thread starter CORP$EY
- Start date
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I had a look through the IHRA guidelines this morning, as I wasn't familiar with them, and it's a pretty reasonable document around a very difficult issue. It even explicitly states that " criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic", which is pretty damn clear.
The whole debacle seems confused, judging from third party accounts I've read. The key issue seems to be around this example of anti-Semitism:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Taking the actual words as presented, this seems entirely right - there's a world of difference between being allowed to critically evaluate what happened during the creation of Israel on a practical level and highlight mass abuses of human rights with racial dimensions, and claiming that the existence of Israel is in and of itself a racist endeavour or similar.
I just don't see why Labour can't seem to take the lead on this issue in some way, and highlight the need to exercise real linguistic clarity when talking about issues connected with Israel, so that there is no ambiguity about what is meant.
The whole debacle seems confused, judging from third party accounts I've read. The key issue seems to be around this example of anti-Semitism:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Taking the actual words as presented, this seems entirely right - there's a world of difference between being allowed to critically evaluate what happened during the creation of Israel on a practical level and highlight mass abuses of human rights with racial dimensions, and claiming that the existence of Israel is in and of itself a racist endeavour or similar.
I just don't see why Labour can't seem to take the lead on this issue in some way, and highlight the need to exercise real linguistic clarity when talking about issues connected with Israel, so that there is no ambiguity about what is meant.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
Unfortunately, both in conception and execution, the state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Explicitly so.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Can you explain how its very existence is a racist endeavour (obviously I agree with the execution part)?
droid
Well-known member
You cant separate its existence from its execution. It was conceived of as a colonial state specifically for Jewish people and non-Jews (as we know) do not enjoy the same rights as Jews by conception and design.
If a bunch of white supremacists got together and explicitly stated that they wished to found a state for white people alone, with non-whites either being forbidden, or tolerated only if they were not allowed own property, build houses, vote etc... would that be a racist endeavour?
If a bunch of white supremacists got together and explicitly stated that they wished to found a state for white people alone, with non-whites either being forbidden, or tolerated only if they were not allowed own property, build houses, vote etc... would that be a racist endeavour?
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
There was a grimly illuminating moment on the radio here when the Israeli ambassador to Ireland was asked to explain the new law, passed a couple of weeks ago which legally codifies Israel's apartheid policies.
His answer? "This doesnt change anything, this is how things have been for decades anyway".
His answer? "This doesnt change anything, this is how things have been for decades anyway".
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
OK, I see your point - I'm reading up on all the discriminatory legislation, as I didn't know too much about the specifics.
But then is there a right in principle to self-determination for Jewish people, or any other people who have faced mass atrocities in the countries in which significant numbers of their populations resided? If such discriminatory legislation was not present, and equal rights for those outside the majority population were guaranteed. It seems like an irresolvable question.
But then is there a right in principle to self-determination for Jewish people, or any other people who have faced mass atrocities in the countries in which significant numbers of their populations resided? If such discriminatory legislation was not present, and equal rights for those outside the majority population were guaranteed. It seems like an irresolvable question.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
This counterfactual only works in the context of a parallel universe where a dictator attempted to eradicate white people from the face of the earth, though, doesn't it?
Alternatively, try your sentence again with 'black' substituted for 'white' and you'll find the question is a bit more complex than you've presented it.
droid
Well-known member
Well, the difference is that nationality and rights in other countries are not generally based on ethnicity, or are at least not explicitly stated as such. Anyone in theory can go to another country and become a citizen and gain full rights after fulfilling certain criteria. Not so in Israel.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh god, not this again...
Are you seriously trying to pretend the foundation of Israel had nothing to do with certain events of the early 1940s? Or that anti-Semitism was invented in Germany in 1933?
I mean, someone reading your last few posts in this thread might be led to think Israel was founded for no other reason than that Jews just like to feel they're a bit different, special and better than everyone else...
it wasn't just a dictator alone. it was the collective efforts of european capital in crisis after the dying down of the revolutionary wave from 1917-27. The emerging capitalists in the USSR actively aided him before the war, as early as 1933. Britain was mostly alright with him. ditto france, romania, hungary and greece. most of civil society (the intellectual and scientific elite) were antisemitic to boot, had been for hundreds of years by this point. even many social democrats and communists sided with the fascists.
And here's an actual counterfactual: the panthers always talk about black neighbourhoods being under permanent fascist police occupation.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah yeah, I know. You won. I'm trying to get over it.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes yes, I know all that. But the Holocaust was first and foremost a German endeavour though, wasn't it? Even Fascist Italy wasn't particularly anti-Semitic until it started to follow Germany's lead in the late 30s.
My main point though is that while obviously the biggest single anti-Semitic atrocity in history, it was really the logical conclusion of centuries of oppression and mass murder of Jews, going back to the high middle ages (never mind still earlier violence by both pagan and Christian Romans, the early Muslim Arabs etc.). And it didn't even end there - the last massacre of Jews in central Europe happened in Poland in 1946, and there were purges of Jews in the USSR in the 1950s. So I don't really see how any thinking, feeling person can begrudge Jews who felt, especially after WWII, 'we need to set up somewhere to live where this will never happen again'.
Of course it should never have been implemented in the way that it was and should never have happened at the expense of a people already living there, and the Israel that was created is a brutal, criminal state. I've never said otherwise. At the same time, droid's 'Israel exists purely because Jews are racist' narrative is itself historically ignorant and shamefully racist.