That Corbyn fella...

On a more general point it is hard not to question the underlying reason for Israel being such an important and reoccurring issue for people who have no connection to the region.

So I don't misunderstand you again, can you explain what your point here is a bit more clearly.

.

Just to decode that a little—you're saying it's fine to condone or abide Israel's entitlement driven, borderline genocidal tendencies because they've been on the rough end of it? That's bollocks.

Just to decode that a little—you're saying it's fine to condone or abide Israel's entitlement driven, borderline genocidal tendencies because they've been on the rough end of it? That's bollocks.

The Labour Party needs overcome righteous bitterness of this kind. It's more complicated than this. It's possible, as a Jewish person, to feel some connection to Israel as a place, without condoning its every action. It's also possible to disagree with the Israeli state without implying that you think the whole concept of Israel is wrong or evil. For example, rather than talking about "genocidal tendencies" you should mention specific events by specific governments. How do you think a british person with Israeli relatives would respond to your comments here? Would they want to engage with you, or simply become more entrenched in their view that the British Left has abandoned them?

What O'Brien said in that little monologue would be fine and good if he wasn't discussing a nation state involved in one of the longest and politically controversial border disputes in modern history.

I think someone who believes that “the British Left has abandoned them” is essentially beyond sensible engagement as it is apparent they have lost any rational understanding of people’s attitudes toward the Israel/Palestine issue.

I agree with all that.

But you seem to be conflating Judaism with the State of Israel.

It is wholly possible to be anti Israel without being an anti Semite.

It is also utter nonsense to suggest all British people with Israeli relatives support the State of Israel. Indeed the three Israeli families in my middle class wine drinking massive do not support the state and are ashamed of what it has done over the years.

As for asking for specific events, I’m not sure there’s time to post them all before bed. There are plenty of lists on the internet and they don’t stop in 1948.

You'll notice that I never used words that are even tantamount to "wrong" or "evil", and I've tried to express myself in objective, political terms.

I anticipate that it's possible that somebody, Jewish or not, who fundamentally believes in the premise of Israel as Zion would find it distressing and alienating to read that somebody on the internet who is not of Jewish faith questions the sometimes controversial actions of Israel under the guise of racial entitlement.

As I've said — one of the biggest things standing in the way of discussing the state of Israel (as Zion, or as an aggressive nation state using this as a pretext for controversial acts) is the tendency to push the antizionism discourse towards an antisemitic one.

Does that mean you shouldn't question or offer criticism?

.

But surely that's at the heart of the issue if we're discussing the Left and antizionism.

They haven't been going around tickling tummies or flashing the elderly.

I think someone who believes that “the British Left has abandoned them” is essentially beyond sensible engagement

Love this

Sure.

Imo you can levy plenty of legitimate criticism at Israel's policies. This can be done without being antisemitic.

You can also take a view on how the state was formed and take issue with the concept of a state designed for one "race". That too can be done without being antisemitic.

You can be someone who takes a stand against all sorts of forms of questionable state actions.

However, there comes a point where when someone continues to bang on about Israel and Israelis in a pejorative fashion and to a greater extent than other area that you can't help but query whether there is an underlying prejudice. When they have no connection to the region and start using themes common antisemitism you become increasingly sceptical.

In a lot of cases its down to the hot political topic of the day. It's such a complex basket of issues that it also makes for many great discussion points.

It is also utter nonsense to suggest all British people with Israeli relatives support the State of Israel.

That was kind of my point. It's a flawed analogy, as they always are, but imagine going to France and being blamed for Brexit because you said you loved Britain and felt a connection to it.

Indeed the three Israeli families in my middle class wine drinking massive do not support the state and are ashamed of what it has done over the years.

Whatever their views on Israel, you probably wouldn't bang on at great length about the failings of the Israeli state in their company.

However, there comes a point where when someone continues to bang on about Israel and Israelis in a pejorative fashion and to a greater extent than other area that you can't help but query whether there is an underlying prejudice. When they have no connection to the region and start using themes common antisemitism you become increasingly sceptical.

There's still a bit of vagueness here (what is the point at which someone goes from acceptable critic to being a suspected antisemite? What are the themes common to anti-Semitism? What does common mean in this context? Overlap of a Venn diagram? Or they are the same thing?).

However, to touch on some of the tangible points: There are some clear reasons why Israel may be more of a discussion point, including: historical relationship to Britain/Britain's role in its formation; being a modern democracy, thus being judged differently; being an ally, thus being scrutinized differently; being a key part of a very fragile and important geopolitical situation; etc..

Also, with regards to regional closeness: is it just as strange to you that the anti-apartheid movement received so much traction?

Whatever their views on Israel, you probably wouldn't bang on at great length about the failings of the Israeli state in their company.

Why wouldn't you/one?

I don't know. Maybe you would.

Would you 'bang on' about the faults of the US government in the company of Americans? About the the uselessness of the Australian government with Aussies? Why is it okay in these scenarios but not in the case of Israel? Is it because you may be mistaken for being an antisemite, or does it, according to you, actually make you an antisemite? Actual question.

Would you 'bang on' about the faults of the US government in the company of Americans? About the the uselessness of the Australian government with Aussies?

No. I think they'd feel you were suggesting they were somehow responsible. Mind you this is all hypothetical / anecdotal. I can only speak from my own experience.

Huh. This is, in my experience, not the case, and every person I've ever had political discussions with is able to separate themselves from their government when they also disagree with that government's actions.

This is not the case if they support the actions of that government. In that case one is, in a way, attacking them for what they believe in. But that was not the situation we were discussing - instead you said it would be strange to actively criticize Israel in the presence of Jews who also disapproved of the actions of the Israeli government. That I find strange.

it would be strange to actively criticize Israel in the presence of Jews who also disapproved of the actions of the Israeli government.

I think if their jewishness were constantly linked to the actions of that state, whatever their views on that state, it would grow tiresome. They might think "you only brought this up because I'm Jewish". It's also possible that, as in your experience, they wouldn't think that.

I can assure you that this is, in my experience, not the case, and every person I've ever had political discussions with is able to separate themselves from their government when they also disagree with that government's actions.

Yep. Me too.

If someone was critical of Britain because of The Crusades / Colonialism / Brexit / Simon Cowell it would not upset me in the slightest, because I too am not a fan of those things if they extrapolated problems with those things to a problem with all British people, that’s where I’d get upset.

I’m really struggling with the term ‘banging on’ and the fact you’re suggesting people without a connection to the area can’t have a strong view on it.

People around the world ‘banging on’ about South African apartheid helped end it. Not a perfect analogy but you get the point.

Yes I agree it is vague. Ultimately it comes down to one's experience and subjective judgement of others. Overlapping of a Venn diagram is closer to what I mean. It's not to say that this hypothetical person we are now talking about is an anti-semite, they have just displayed a number of factors that give you pause for thought and start to question how much they're views are driven by prejudice.

Not an exhaustive or definitive list, but the crossover themes I've experienced are; greed, global/financial conspiracy, underhandedness, paricitic relationships.

Of course holding unpalatable views doesn't make everything you say invalid.

For example, does a Home Office billboard bus saying "text home" in relation to people who don't have a legal right to be in this country make Teresa May racist? Not really. Bundled along with other anti-immigration rhetoric does give you pause for thought.

Is it just as strange to you that the anti-apartheid movement received so much traction?

In some ways yes. I sometimes wonder if part of its appeal was a complicated mix of our colonial guilt, and an expectation that "people like us" shouldn't act in that sort of way.

Actual question.

It would depend on the situation. As a general rule, no, I wouldn't bang on about the faults of someone's country to them.

I'd engage in a sensitive discussion with them to gain some insight. I'd possibly challenge some points of disagreement, but I'd be polite.

Although my friends and I do rinse our Dutch and Aussy mates for being massive racists. Which now I think about it is probably a bit insensitive.

As to the difference with Israel, because it was born from the Russian and European persecution of Jews, which culminated in genocide I just
think you need to have a bit of cultural sensitivity. Coupled with that you rarely encounter other people who have the very right of their country to exist challenged as part of the criticism.

EDIT : So as not to bump and further derail the thread, and to clarify my last point in relation to Batt's post below. My point was the increasing persecution of Jews in Russia and Europe in the late c.19th was the catalyst for modern Zionism becoming discussed as a real option in that time. The increasing levels of violence in c.20th propelled it to a reality.

Of course there are numerous personal reasons of individuals emigrating, and the concept of a Jewish homeland is an ancient one. But I can't think of another state born so directly out of persecution (Haiti maybe?). That gives it a unique sensitivity in discussions most other countries don't have.

As to the difference with Israel, because it was born from the Russian and European persecution of Jews, which culminated in genocide I just

think you need to have a bit of cultural sensitivity. Coupled with that you rarely encounter other people who have the very right of their country to exist challenged as part of the criticism.

This is where the South Africa analogy realy falls down, and why Jewish people find it so offensive.