Now I’m confuse. Isn’t a Zionist someone who supports Zionism?
Supported as in “assisted”, by allowing 60,000 people to move to Israel between 1933 and 1939 and allowing them to transfer their assets.
that was nice of him. What a great guy.
So were the other 50%…
better than Idi Amin, give him that.
1 Like
Excellent long read from the Canary.
1 Like
Originally posted by @hoofinruth
Sadly some find it difficult to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-zionism
Quoted for truth, because I can’t ‘like’ your post twice.
As Pap goes on to say – an absolutely engineered obfuscation.
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @hoofinruth
Sadly some find it difficult to distinguish between anti-semitism and anti-zionism
Baroness Neuberger is unfortunately one of them, deliberately conflating the term last night.
It really doesn’t help, nor does a general lack of understanding of what Zionism is. As most will know, I read a lot of history. I’ve read tons of accounts of the 20th century, and I’ve also read a bit of history written by Israelis.
Both accounts happened, but they’re like oil and water when it comes to trying to put them together. Livingstone is being hauled across the coals for things that you can find in accounts by Israeli historians. Revelations of Zionist collaboration with Nazis brought an Israeli government down, FFS.
This really isn’t good for Labour though. The best that can emerge from it is that conditions are created so that we can have a proper debate on the influences of Israel in UK policy-making.
A school mate of mine and intiniki’s used to run Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East. He told me that Labour Friends of Israel spent £10m lobbying to get their candidates in place. Perhaps then, it’s not a surprise that politicians from Jewish backgrounds are over-represented by a factor of eight, relative to their population in the UK. The organisation also spends loads of cash bringing politicians out to Israel, giving them a happy path tour of the place.
The conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism hasn’t happened by accident. It’s engineered. A couple of examples. The new NUS President was immediately branded both an antisemite and an IS supporter by elements of the Israel lobby. She got the antisemite tag because she had described Birmingham Uni as being full of Zionists. The IS supporter tag was somewhat more ridiculous. She got that because she refused to back a notion against ISIS. What wasn’t reported was that she held back on signing the motion because she thought the language had a go at all Muslims. As soon as it was amended, she signed it. The conclusion was never reported.
Naz Shah’s offensive Facebook image was witless, but it was a meme going around at the time the Israelis were barrelling into Gaza. You really have to take several leaps, assuming worst intent at each point, to assume that the image she shared meant she wanted the extermination of all Jewish people.
Finally, people are getting called antisemitic for even suggesting that there is an Israeli lobby. If you want a decent example of how sensitive it is to incidents like this, and how easily things get blown up, just take a look at :-
Excellent post. 
2 Likes
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it very hard to hear Livingstone’s assertion that Hitler supported Zionism (a statement that he later retracted, by the way), and then “went mad and killed six million Jews” without thinking that he’s a complete and utter cunt. It’s the phrase “before he went mad” that I find particulalry nauseating - was Livingstone suggesting that, prior to the Final Solution being thought up and put into practice, Hitler was pretty much OK? There is, incidentally, a world of difference between the wishes of the early Zionists for a Jewish homeland and Hitler and the Nazis’ wish to deport all Jews from Europe. To say that Hitler supported Zionism is both facile and wrong. He just hated Jews.
On a somewhat different tack, and going back to the conflation of Israel and Judaism, I’d agree that this is the stock-in-trade of the Israeli state and its supporters. Speak out against Israeli policies and they’ll call you an anti-Semite. However, I note that Naz Shah posted a social media comment regarding an online poll about Israel, in which she stated that “The Jews are rallying” referring to a surge in votes cast for the Israeli case. Conflation can work both ways, it seems.
I do think that there is a real danger of anti-Israeli feeling spilling over into anti-Jewish feeling (and, perhaps, legitimising such views, albeit inadvertently). And I find that deeply troubling.
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it very hard to hear Livingstone’s assertion that Hitler supported Zionism (a statement that he later retracted, by the way), and then “went mad and killed six million Jews” without thinking that he’s a complete and utter cunt. It’s the phrase “before he went mad” that I find particulalry nauseating - was Livingstone suggesting that, prior to the Final Solution being thought up and put into practice, Hitler was pretty much OK?
I have read most contemporary accounts of the Second World War. Hitler hated the Jews throughout, but was also a pragmatist. This is demonstrated on an international level with many of his foreign policy decisions. He really wanted Czechoslovakia to be the first target of the Wehrmahct, and many reports have him as disappointed when Chamberlain’s fateful and fruitless intervention deprived him of the opportunity. He took it.
Similarly, the Nazi regime spent years demonising the Bolsheviks, only to make the pragmatic choice of signing a non-aggression pact with its ideological nemesis to prevent having the Nazi war machine from having to fight on two fronts.
First and foremost, Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. When that agreement was signed, he was not in the position to orchestrate mass murder on the scaled that was later perpetrated. The regime was nascent, aspiring for some kind of international legitimacy. The discrimination towards the Jews began almost immediately, but the sad truth is that most Western agencies simply ignored it.
The agreement struck with the Zionists was probably an attempt at attaining a pragmatic veneer of international legitimacy, and possibly a get out for all the horrors that followed. You could easily imagine those evil cunts saying “we gave them the chance to go…”. Even so, the deal was entered into on both sides.
There is, incidentally, a world of difference between the wishes of the early Zionists for a Jewish homeland and Hitler and the Nazis’ wish to deport all Jews from Europe. To say that Hitler supported Zionism is both facile and wrong. He just hated Jews.
Those positions are not mutually exclusive. You do not have to ascribe humanitarian or positive actions to this deal, just see it as the cold and calculating that it probably was.
At this stage of its development, Zionism was a competing political ideology. Much of the diaspora didn’t see the need to move to Palestine, and the settler state project would never work without settlers. The Nazi regime sent 60,000 settlers to the British mandate of Palestine before the outbreak of war.
These days, the more extreme Zionist positions advocate having a Jewish state, and that all Jews should live there. As I said, those are the more extreme positions, so they’ve less relevance today, but they’re precisely the sort of sentiments that Zionists of the day would have had. The colonisation of Palestine was their life’s work, built to bring the diaspora home and keep them safe from prejudice and harm. That would not have been inconsistent with Hitler’s aims or political situation at the time, so you could argue he supported that objective, if only because it allowed him to quietly achieve one of his own.
On a material level, there’s simply no argument. They made an agreement. Goods and personnel were shipped to the mandate of Palestine, with the full agreement of the Nazi regime, the British and the Zionists. That is support. Critics of our relationship Saudi Arabia would argue that we support them by selling them weapons. That doesn’t mean that we have the same ideology.
On a somewhat different tack, and going back to the conflation of Israel and Judaism, I’d agree that this is the stock-in-trade of the Israeli state and its supporters. Speak out against Israeli policies and they’ll call you an anti-Semite.
This is true, and the only positive thing to emerge from this attempted coup today is increased awareness of that.
However, I note that Naz Shah posted a social media comment regarding an online poll about Israel, in which she stated that “The Jews are rallying” referring to a surge in votes cast for the Israeli case. Conflation can work both ways, it seems.
As I’ve said before, her comments were not wise, but neither do they deserve the hysteria they’ve attracted. We’ve had a Tory MP recently hit the news for hosting a Nazi themed party, and then doing a dedication for/as Hitler. We’ve had Peter Oborne term Zac Goldsmith’s campaign for the London mayoralty the worst he’s ever seen.
She expressed sentiments indelicately when Israel was acting like a monster in Gaza. Emotions were high. Given that it was her task to unseat George Galloway, I would be entirely unsurprised if the then-Labour HQ hadn’t sent in a thief to catch a thief.
At the outset, there were better local male candidates. When party HQ distilled it to an all woman shortlist, she still polled bottom of a private ballot. They chose her anyway.
The Respect lot, assuming they’d win, thought Labour had picked her to show their contempt for the local party and show the members who’s boss. “If you’re going to vote for Galloway, this is what you get”, was the gist of the suspicion.
Shah beat him by 10K votes. Now I’ve seen that bollocks Galloway talks when he’s out strutting his stuff, and the electoral record shows that he has beaten the Muslim candidates Labour have stood against him. Now I wonder, how the fuck do you top George Galloway in that town? I repeat. Thief to catch a thief.
That doesn’t mean I think she’s antisemitic, but I suspect she’s an inexperienced politician who is probably very good at telling people what they want to hear, but has thought little on the implications of what she tells them.
I do think that there is a real danger of anti-Israeli feeling spilling over into anti-Jewish feeling (and, perhaps, legitimising such views, albeit inadvertently). And I find that deeply troubling.
Take a look on Twitter and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Two of the most cited pieces of the day (both linked here) are both written by people with Israeli or Jewish backgrounds. I think that the left in general recognises just how valuable that Jewish voices are in highlighting the injustice shown toward the Palestinians. They’re some of the bravest people I know, some have been permanently ostracised for speaking out. I have the utmost respect for them.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Take a look on Twitter and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
i predict the Opposite.
Interesting piece on the Electronic Intifada. If you’re entertaining the idea of this being a coup at all, it’s worth a read.
Last year, socialist stalwart Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership of the UK’s Labour Party by a landslide.
Since then, there has been a steady flow of claims by Israel’s supporters that Corbyn has not done enough to combat anti-Semitism.
This has only accelerated in the lead-up to a major test for Corbyn, the UK local elections on 5 May.
Even as this story was in preparation, two more victims were claimed in the war against his leadership.
Lawmaker Naz Shah and the former mayor of London, long-time Palestine campaigner Ken Livingstone, were also suspended from the party – within hours of being accused of anti-Semitism.
But an investigation by The Electronic Intifada has found that some of the most prominent stories about anti-Semitism in the party are falsified.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
I think that the left in general recognises just how valuable that Jewish voices are in highlighting the injustice shown toward the Palestinians. They’re some of the bravest people I know, some have been permanently ostracised for speaking out. I have the utmost respect for them.
Indeed. I’m privileged to know quite a few brave Jewish souls who dare to speak out against the atrocities committed by the israeli government.
People like historian Dr. Norman Finkelstein are amazing. Such a powerful speaker of truth that man.
For that, he gets labelled a ‘self-hating jew’. To which he responds - “I don’t hate myself. Not at all. I hate what is being done in my name, and in the name of all jews.”
In his book, The Holocaust Industry, he also says:
“Since the late 1960s, there has developed a kind of Holocaust industry which has made a cult of the Nazi Holocaust. And the purpose of this industry is, in my view, ethnic aggrandisement - in particular, to deflect criticism of the State of Israel and to deflect criticism of Jews generally.”
The saddest thing for me, is that the so called “State of israel” has essentially become the very monster that its people fled from.
2 Likes
Ah, SaintsWeb. Come for the football. Stay for one of the worst descriptions of Zionism ever.
Jesus fucking christ. 
(Deserves two penis heads).
I’ll be polite, and simply question his level of education.
Thanks for a reminder of why I haven’t read over there in ages Pap.
No further links necessary.
In one sense, though, you could argue that Verbal is right. Or at least that he would have been right seventy or eighty years ago. At its inception, the Zionist movement was simply about the belief that there should be a homeland for the Jewish people, or at least that’s my understanding of it.
I’d say that over the years the understanding of the term by many has changed; to many people now “Zionist” is pretty much synonymous with the hard-line, ultra-Orthodox settlement-builders and their political allies. In that sense you could say that it’s as much a question of semantics as anything else.
That said, I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone refer to (as an example) the “Zionist-controlled western media” before, as Verbal asserts they do. And his final paragraphs are total bilge.
1 Like
so is Corbyn Jewish then ?
If so what the fuck difference does it make?
If not what the fuck difference does it make?
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
Originally posted by @pap
Ah, SaintsWeb. Come for the football. Stay for one of the worst descriptions of Zionism ever.
In one sense, though, you could argue that Verbal is right. Or at least that he would have been right seventy or eighty years ago. At its inception, the Zionist movement was simply about the belief that there should be a homeland for the Jewish people, or at least that’s my understanding of it.
That is correct, although there was never any stipulation that the homeland needed to be in Palestine, which is Verbal’s claim. Indeed, several places were considered before Palestine was chosen, and even then, the early Zionists knew that they would have trouble procuring it.
“The bride is beautiful, but she’s married to another”, was one early report.
I’d say that over the years the understanding of the term by many has changed; to many people now “Zionist” is pretty much synonymous with the hard-line, ultra-Orthodox settlement-builders and their political allies. In that sense you could say that it’s as much a question of semantics as anything else.
Which would be another problem I have with what he wrote. He claims that all Jews in Israel are Zionist, which is not the case at all. He does a great disservice to Jewish activists in Israel that are looking for anything other than the situation they have now. As I said in a previous post, some of the most important voices in highlighting the injustice are Israeli.
That said, I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone refer to (as an example) the “Zionist-controlled western media” before, as Verbal asserts they do. And his final paragraphs are total bilge.
They are, and here’s where I would disagree with Jack. I’ve never come away from a debate with Verbal thinking him uneducated, so we’re left with two equally disturbing possibilities.
-
He actually believes it. As fucked up as that sounds, given our knowledge of his capability, that’s what he wrote, so perhaps we owe it to him to take him at his very confused word.
-
He knows it’s bilge, but wrote it anyway. We have to call him a liar to entertain this possibility, but the motive is clear and consistent. As bad as he could sometimes be, Corbyn’s ascension has made him 10x worse.
Thing is, most of the TSWers he’s debating with are smart enough to see through it. I wonder if anyone will bother calling him up on his shit.
1 Like
Just on your paragraph that I’ve emboldened, this surely goes back to semantics, as I previously suggested. If you accept the definition of a Zionist as one who believes in the existence of a Jewish state/homeland, then it’s probably fair to say that all Israeli Jews are indeed Zionists. But if you take the definition as one who fervently supports the establishment of illegal settlements in Palestine (to give but one example), then it would be equally fair to say that by no means all Israeli Jews are Zionists. Do you get what I’m wittering on about here?
1 Like
Not all solutions end in a Jewish state, which is something of a throwback in the modern age anyway. Some advocate a one-state solution with equal representation and a nominally secular government, responsible for safeguarding the rights of all citizens.
Anyone in Israel campaigning for that outcome cannot reasonably be called a Zionist. They’re seeking the dissolution of the present theocracy in favour of secularism. I do think that is something more than semantics.
Some news on this. Corbyn has announced an independent inquiry into the issue.
An inquiry will be led by Shami Chakrabarti, the former head of the rights group Liberty, who will be tasked with opening a dialogue with the Jewish community and will report back to Labour headquarters within two months on how the party can best tackle antisemitism and other forms of discrimination
Chakrabarti seems to have a very sensible head on her shoulders, from all I have seen of her. I cannot see her taking on the partisan view that those so upset would have liked. I don’t think she’ll find much - I am more convinced than ever that this has been blown out of all proportion, but what she does find will probably be genuine.
Clever move by the leadership. Problem not solved, but most definitely addressed.
1 Like