Ken Livingston

[The perfect fumble]

Ive stayed out of this thread, as I generally do these days, as no good ever comes of them.

Livingstone spoke terribly and his remarks were such I can understand they will have caused offence. And what's more he probably knew it when he was making them which was stupid of him.

But can we have the same level of sensitivity about the perceived persecution of a religious minority next time there is a 'all Muslims are rapists and terrorists' thread please?

We are all on here a collection of relatively wealthy, safe, and secure, westerners with, again relatively, a piss easy life. We're never going to solve the problems of Jewish or Muslim persecution from behind our keyboards so let's debate politely and sensibly or otherwise it just becomes yet another point scoring thread.

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

That is a first for me.

Being accused (if I've read your post correctly -apologies if not) of being pro-Israel

It's why I stay away from these threads these days.

 

[The perfect fumble]

That is a first for me.

Being accused (if I've read your post correctly -apologies if not) of being pro-Israel

It's why I stay away from these threads these days.

I'm not accusing you of anything, believe me.

I used your post to open up the debate.

 

[Helmet Cole]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Racist ;-)

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I'm not accusing you of anything, believe me.

I used your post to open up the debate.

In that case I apologise.

 

[goatboy]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

we have a winner

 

[jimharri]

Poor old Ken, suffering from amnesia now.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

Poor old Ken, suffering from amnesia now.

I'm really surprised Sky have written a non story to squeeze the most drama out of this.

 

[west didsblue]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Criticism of the legal system, government and judiciary in Saudi Arabia and criticism of the actions of the Saudi state doesn't make you Islamophobic in the same way that criticism of these same elements in Israel doesn't make you antisemitic or even anti zionist. There is no problem with this and people across the political spectrum often strongly criticise both of these countries. A line is crossed when the legitimacy of the existence of a state is questioned which was the gist of Naz Shah's comments two years ago which were supported by Ken Livingstone.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

How do you do that? I've been to Saudi Arabia over 100 times with my work, over the years I've come to hate the place, its government, its judicial system, its treatment of guest workers, women, religious minorities and its foreign policy of exporting Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

Saudi Arabia categorises atheists as terrorists.

Criminal law punishments in Saudi Arabia include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing.

Yet the House of Saud are the custodians of the Two Holy Mosques, they are at the centre of the Islamic world and at the forefront of practicing Sharia law in all things.

Therefore I must be Islamaphobic, but I don't see myself that way.

So, would it be different if one held dissimilar, but no less disparaging views about Israel?

The Jewish state is a political term used to describe the State of Israel. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, referred to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The 1922 Churchill White Paper clarified that "Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.

Obama and Bush have both referred to Israel as the Jewish State. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Palestinian recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" a precondition in the peace negotiations, as has the government of his successor Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Palestinians regard a "Jewish state" as a trap, a new demand that did not come up during years of negotiations in the 1990s or in peace treaties reached by Israel with Egypt and Jordan.

The political establishment both here and in the United States see criticism of the Jewish State as synonymous with criticism of Jewishness, therefore anyone who criticise Israel, the Jewish State, is anti-Semitic.

Similarly with Zionism, is Zionism a political belief or intrinsic to Jewishness itself? If it is a political belief then references to Hitler might be right, wrong, foolish, whatever, but they wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic, if however Zionism is intrinsic to what it is to be Jewish then those that criticise it can be open to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Livingstone is not anti-Semitic and neither is Naz Shah. Stating a political belief was held by Hitler or stating a country should be moved somewhere else might be foolish but it is not anti-Semitic of itself, unless of course you believe that Zionism and the state of Israel are synonymous with being Jewish, I don't. When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own. That is why Livingstone looks so bemused at all the furore, for him it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Very interesting & thought provoking post.

Re your point about Saudi, which is a very good one, the way of life there is intrinsically bound up with their version of Islam. And a number of other countries are the same to a greater or lesser degree. So if you find it repellent then you could be seen as Islamaphobic. But does that mean you hate all Muslims simply because they're Muslim in the same way an anti-semite hates Jews simply because they're Jewish? Probably not, as you yourself point out. But if you do hate Muslims and disguise that by attacking countries like Saudi Arabia & Pakistan rather than the religion or its adherents then you are probably Islamaphobic. So it's a grey area.

As for Zionism, it's a political movement largely but founded in religion. It came out of the Tsarist anti-Jewish pogroms of the late 19th century and a realisation that any sort of emancipation or acceptance by non-Jews was probably unrealistic. The Dreyfus affair was a further reminder that, even though Jews were granted legal equality in places like France and the German states, they were far from social equality. The argument was that they would only have that in their own state. Obviously that Jewish state was to be in what is now Israel (although there was an alternative plan to settle in East Africa, which was rejected). The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home. So prior to 1948, Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine. Since then, with the establishment of such a state, it can only be support for its continued existence and by saying you're "anti-Zionist" then by definition you're expressing a desire to see the destruction of Israel. That's very different to legitimately criticising the actions of the Israeli government.

Your description of claiming a land as their own in opposition to another group is profoundly misleading however and based on the entirely incorrect view that they "took it" off the indiginous people who were already there. The area was under the rule of the Ottomans at the time and many Jews still lived there and had done for centuries. You make it sound (as others do) that the Jews invaded a sovereign territory and justified that in much the way that China justified its invasion and annexation of Tibet or that Iraq used in its invasion of Kuwait. Zionism can be more closely compared to the desire of what were then Indian Muslims for a state of their own, which became Pakistan after a partition in the same year that Israel was founded. Israel has a perfectly legal basis of establishment and meets all the requirements for a legally constituted sovereign state. It was not created via invasion as you suggest.

Whether it's a political or religious belief (and it's clearly somewhere between the two) using Hitler as an example of a Zionist is crass in the extreme and grossly offensive. It doesn't in itself make Livingstone an anti-semite, as I think I said before. But he does have a habit of being offensive towards Jews in general as this comment and his comparison of a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard shows. He knows exactly what he's saying and his claims have been shown to have little historical justification. Why he should have decided to pour fuel on the fire of an issue that was already coming under control is completely bemusing. He must have known it wasn't going to help Corbyn in any way so you wonder what his motivation was.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Criticism of the legal system, government and judiciary in Saudi Arabia and criticism of the actions of the Saudi state doesn't make you Islamophobic in the same way that criticism of these same elements in Israel doesn't make you antisemitic or even anti zionist. There is no problem with this and people across the political spectrum often strongly criticise both of these countries. A line is crossed when the legitimacy of the existence of a state is questioned which was the gist of Naz Shah's comments two years ago which were supported by Ken Livingstone.

If a line is crossed arguing about the legitimacy of the State of Israel then 32 member states of the United Nations have crossed it, that is the number of countries that do not recognise the State of Israel. As of last year 135 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognised Palestine. in 2014 Labour passed a non-binding motion recognising Palestine on 1967 borders (though where that leaves Israel as it is presently constituted is hard to say) and Jeremy Corbyn opposes selling arms to Israel. There is a lively debate about Israel inside the Labour Party, even what is Israel, is it post or pre 1967?

And what about it's capital City? Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, yet most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv

The U.S. Congress sought to reverse this with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed in both the House and Senate. The act states that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

Since then, every U.S. presidents have promised to uphold this pledge. But since the congressional act allows the President to implement a waiver at six-month intervals, that’s exactly what has happened every six months since 1995, yet the US is probably the strongest ally of Israel, we do the same, our embassy is in Tel Aviv.

And what about its neighbours? when not at war with them there is barely concealed hatred, Egypt and Jordan recognise Israel, though not as the "Jewish State" and then only under immense pressure from the USA.

so, foolish as it may seem Naz Shah's, lets be honest about it, tongue in cheek tweet about relocating Israel to the USA, where in fairy tale land she would certainly be surrounded by unwavering support nestling in the mid west, might have been stupid, it has to be seen for what it is against a backdrop of a world where Israel is not recognised by 32 countries, where its self proclaimed capital is not acknowledged by anyone but themselves, where its boundaries are recognised as pre 1967 by everyone other than the Israeli government and where a quite separate country of Palestine is recognised as occupying the same territory as Israel (or a least a portion of It) by 135 countries! Given all this Naz Shah's two year old tweet is a fart in a hurricane, a non story dredged up to beat Jeremy Corbyn with, it was not anti-Semitic and Livingstone was right, if cack handed, in defending her.

In green those countries that have recognised the State of Palestine

 

[The perfect fumble]

I've just done a quick copy and paste from Wikipedia, but it is easy to see how, in the hands of those who see things differently, any deviation from the status quo is deemed as anti-Semitic....

Legitimacy rhetoric as antisemitism[edit]
Delegitimization is seen by some observers to be a double standard which separates Israel from other legitimate nations which have imperfect government. Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, discussed a "3-D" test for determining new antisemitism. The third of the three D's is delegitimization. He explains "when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism."[13]

Dore Gold, President of the Israeli Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, believes there is a "campaign to delegitimize Israel" based on three themes, a "denial of Israel's right to security", "portrayal of Israel as a criminal state", and "denial of Jewish history".[14] Elhanan Yakira, professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, also considers portrayal of Israel as "criminal" and denial of Jewish history, specifically the Holocaust, to be key to a delegitimizing narrative.[15] Alan Dershowitz believes that other standard lines of argument include claims of Israel's "colonial" nature, a belief that statehood was not granted "legally", the apartheid analogy, and the necessity of a one-state solution.[16] According to Irwin Cotler, the lopsided number of anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN is an example of delegitimization.[17]

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird has characterized Israel’s delegitimization as the new antisemitism.[18]"

 

[Pedestrian]

renta-quote.

 

[west didsblue]

If a line is crossed arguing about the legitimacy of the State of Israel then 32 member states of the United Nations have crossed it, that is the number of countries that do not recognise the State of Israel. As of last year 135 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognised Palestine. in 2014 Labour passed a non-binding motion recognising Palestine on 1967 borders (though where that leaves Israel as it is presently constituted is hard to say) and Jeremy Corbyn opposes selling arms to Israel. There is a lively debate about Israel inside the Labour Party, even what is Israel, is it post or pre 1967?

And what about it's capital City? Israel designated Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, yet most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv

The U.S. Congress sought to reverse this with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed in both the House and Senate. The act states that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

Since then, every U.S. presidents have promised to uphold this pledge. But since the congressional act allows the President to implement a waiver at six-month intervals, that’s exactly what has happened every six months since 1995, yet the US is probably the strongest ally of Israel, we do the same, our embassy is in Tel Aviv.

And what about its neighbours? when not at war with them there is barely concealed hatred, Egypt and Jordan recognise Israel, though not as the "Jewish State" and then only under immense pressure from the USA.

so, foolish as it may seem Naz Shah's, lets be honest about it, tongue in cheek tweet about relocating Israel to the USA, where in fairy tale land she would certainly be surrounded by unwavering support nestling in the mid west, might have been stupid, it has to be seen for what it is against a backdrop of a world where Israel is not recognised by 32 countries, where its self proclaimed capital is not acknowledged by anyone but themselves, where its boundaries are recognised as pre 1967 by everyone other than the Israeli government and where a quite separate country of Palestine is recognised as occupying the same territory as Israel (or a least a portion of It) by 135 countries! Given all this Naz Shah's two year old tweet is a fart in a hurricane, a non story dredged up to beat Jeremy Corbyn with, it was not anti-Semitic and Livingstone was right, if cack handed, in defending her.

In green those countries that have recognised the State of Palestine

Have you seen the list of the countries that don't recognise Israel. It basically consists of the majority of the Arab League countries plus a few more Islamic countries and one or two others. Do you know what a lot of these countries have in common? They used to have Jewish residents that were persecuted and discriminated against so the vast majority (around 900,000 people) ended up emigrating to Israel. So yes, a lot of these countries are antisemitic.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Your description of claiming a land as their own in opposition to another group is profoundly misleading however and based on the entirely incorrect view that they "took it" off the indiginous people who were already there. The area was under the rule of the Ottomans at the time and many Jews still lived there and had done for centuries. You make it sound (as others do) that the Jews invaded a sovereign territory and justified that in much the way that China justified its invasion and annexation of Tibet or that Iraq used in its invasion of Kuwait. Zionism can be more closely compared to the desire of what were then Indian Muslims for a state of their own, which became Pakistan after a partition in the same year that Israel was founded. Israel has a perfectly legal basis of establishment and meets all the requirements for a legally constituted sovereign state. It was not created via invasion as you suggest.

Now,now, behave! "sounded as jews invaded" and "claiming a land as their own in opposition to another group is profoundly misleading however and based on the entirely incorrect view that they "took it" off the indiginous people".... Stop it, I'm too long in the tooth to go chasing smoke and mirrors and play strawman with you. I did not state, or imply anything of the sort.

This is what I said....

When one group of people claim a land as theirs in opposition to another group of people, it is always accompanied by some form of justification, manifest destiny, civilizing the natives, bringing freedom and democracy, Christianity to a savage land, etc, etc. Palestinians see Zionism in the same way, a bogus justification for a land grab, and they see defining Israel as the "Jewish State" as a way of legitimising another group of people's claim to territory they call their own.

No mention of invasion, or indigenous people, I used examples used by colonisers in the past to justify occupation, but only as examples of historical justifications that undrpinned land grabs, no one here is suggesting a Jewish Christopher Columbus landed on the shore of present day Israel and planted a flag proclaiming the country in the name of the Jewish people.

 

[The perfect fumble]

renta-quote.

I was told by other posters this would happen.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Have you seen the list of the countries that don't recognise Israel. It basically consists of the majority of the Arab League countries plus a few more Islamic countries and one or two others. Do you know what a lot of these countries have in common? They used to have Jewish residents that were persecuted and discriminated against so the vast majority (around 900,000 people) ended up emigrating to Israel. So yes, a lot of these countries are antisemitic.

Without a doubt, some of them are.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If a line is crossed arguing about the legitimacy of the State of Israel then 32 member states of the United Nations have crossed it, that is the number of countries that do not recognise the State of Israel. As of last year 135 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognised Palestine. in 2014 Labour passed a non-binding motion recognising Palestine on 1967 borders (though where that leaves Israel as it is presently constituted is hard to say) and Jeremy Corbyn opposes selling arms to Israel. There is a lively debate about Israel inside the Labour Party, even what is Israel, is it post or pre 1967?

Most of those are Arab states that voted against partition (at least those that were around in 1947) and have never recognised even the pre-1967 borders which were agreed with Egypt & Jordan.

Given all this Naz Shah's two year old tweet is a fart in a hurricane, a non story dredged up to beat Jeremy Corbyn with,

it was not anti-Semitic and Livingstone was right, if cack handed, in defending her.

I'd tend to agree (and have said on here) that the fuss about Naz Shah is more about de-stabilising Corbyn than any serious attempt to advance the debate about anti-semitism. The head of Bradford's small Jewish community has defended Naz Shah by saying she was not an anti-semite. I'm sure it would have all died down in time if it had been managed properly. But Livingstone's "defence" of her was nothing of the sort and just a calculated attempt to inflame the situation.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Very interesting & thought provoking post.

As for Zionism, it's a political movement largely but founded in religion. It came out of the Tsarist anti-Jewish pogroms of the late 19th century and a realisation that any sort of emancipation or acceptance by non-Jews was probably unrealistic. The Dreyfus affair was a further reminder that, even though Jews were granted legal equality in places like France and the German states, they were far from social equality. The argument was that they would only have that in their own state. Obviously that Jewish state was to be in what is now Israel (although there was an alternative plan to settle in East Africa, which was rejected). The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home. So prior to 1948, Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine. Since then, with the establishment of such a state, it can only be support for its continued existence and Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine. That's very different to legitimately criticising the actions of the Israeli government.

So, if I am reading your post correctly "The Jewish religion is however completely wedded to the idea of Israel as its spiritual home" and "Zionism was fairly simple to define, as it was the desire or support for a Jewish state in what was then Mandatory Palestine" and " by saying you're "anti-Zionist" then by definition you're expressing a desire to see the destruction of Israel.

So to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Most of those are Arab states that voted against partition (at least those that were around in 1947) and have never recognised even the pre-1967 borders which were agreed with Egypt & Jordan.


I'd tend to agree (and have said on here) that the fuss about Naz Shah is more about de-stabilising Corbyn than any serious attempt to advance the debate about anti-semitism. The head of Bradford's small Jewish community has defended Naz Shah by saying she was not an anti-semite. I'm sure it would have all died down in time if it had been managed properly. But Livingstone's "defence" of her was nothing of the sort and just a calculated attempt to inflame the situation.

I believe Livingstone has lost whatever street politics skills he had, I can see no upside at all to what he did, calculated or otherwise.