Originally posted by @Positivepete
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.
Plenty on the “left” use that phrase including a recent example by the newly elected NUS leader. I think she was also quoted as calling Birmingham city a Zionist outpost. What does that mean?
The original Zionists wanted to a homeland for the Jewish people, quite understandably given the huge prejudice that Jews have historically endured. Palestine was always an ideal, but other places were under consideration, places that didn’t have as large a popuilation to displace.
The term Zionist has been twisted to suit the anti Israel lobby, so creating the situation whereby slating people as Zionist is a useful get out to avoid being called racist in their own minds.
Disagree. It’s a political ideology that asserts the primacy of a Jewish theocracy over most other considerations. I favour that one-state solution I talked about earlier. That land is sacred to three religions. It would be fantastic if all three were able to co-exist peacefully and sustainably on land that has such sacred resonance for them.
What we have now is a combination of theocracy, democracy and wanton violence in Israel, plus powerful lobbies overseas to ensure that no-one twigs on to the horrors that really occur there, thus has it ever been the same. During the initial stages of the settler project (before Israel was even declared a state), political Zionists not only courted the support of US Christians, but also did their very best to promote the idea that Palestine was some kind of desert-based tabula rasa. It wasn’t. There were people living there.
I would be interested to read what the term Zionist is supposed to mean in left wing circles now, other than “anyone who does not agree with my view”
Nah, see above. I have zero problem with the idea of a homeland for Jews. I think they could and should have picked somewhere else, but we are where we are. Israel has existed for almost 70 years, generations of kids have been born there that had no choice in that matter. It’s far too late to think about sending anyone “back”, if that were even possible or desirable.
That said, one looks at what has gradually happening with what remains of Palestinian territory over the years, and realises that left unchecked, the only way that this ends for the Palestinians is genocide or exile. We usually get very upset about genocide. Naz Shah got suspended last week for her comments about Jews moving to America, so it appears we get very upset about exile too. Most don’t bat an eyelid for the Palestinians, because they don’t know, care or think they deserved it anyway.
Wrapping this all up, here’s my opinion of what a left winger means when they say Zionist now.
- Committed to a Jewish state called Israel in Palestine above all other considerations.
- Deliberately conceals or distorts the account of the treatment of Palestinians and/or other non-Zionists in the Israeli state.
- Amplify the threat of anti-semitism to deflect valid criticism from the regime’s acts.
I am okay with that definition today. 1) hasn’t always been about Palestine. 2) didn’t really start happening until people started settling, while 3) really took hold when organisations like the Anti-Defamation League came into being, who basically have the job of making the problem a lot bigger and a lot wider than it actually and making the tag ever more toxic if you happened to get labelled with it.
Livingstone chose his words poorly, but I get what he was talking about. For me, racism, of which antisemitisim is a specific form, is a pretty fucking simple proposition.
Would you ever hurt (or allow to be hurt) someone based only on their race or heritage? If the answer is yes, you’re a giant fucking racist. If your target is Jewish, and you’re hurting them because they’re Jewish, you’re an antisemite.
“Anti Zionist” doesn’t really qualify.
