Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe

quokula

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Labour MP Emily Thornberry has now weighed in: ""I think that we shouldn't be going for the messengers, we should be looking at the message. I think that is what is important."

She also said: "nobody can pretend there isn't an ongoing problem"

This is the position they've been forced into - look at Chris Williamson, he said they shouldn't be apologising for something that doesn't exist, and he got torn to shreds for it even though he was right. Now everyone else has to apologise, and the apologies are used as proof, without there ever being any initial incident beyond "this guy apologised - they must be antisemitic" and "this guy refused to apologise - they must be antisemitic"

Tony EH

quokula wrote: »

This is the position they've been forced into - look at Chris Williamson, he said they shouldn't be apologising for something that doesn't exist, and he got torn to shreds for it even though he was right. Now everyone else has to apologise, and the apologies are used as proof, without there ever being any initial incident beyond "this guy apologised - they must be antisemitic" and "this guy refused to apologise - they must be antisemitic"

What Chris Williamson said was this:

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I have got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic… We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other party.”

All he's saying here is that the party hasn't been robust enough in its own defence. He never said anything about there being no anti Semitism in the party. But apparently that was enough to get him hauled over the coals.

He also issued this after people said they were "offended":

“I deeply regret, and apologise for, my recent choice of words when speaking about how the Labour Party has responded to the ongoing fight against anti-Semitism inside of our party. I was trying to stress how much the party has done to tackle anti-Semitism. Our movement can never be ‘too apologetic’ about racism within our ranks.

“Whilst it is true that there have been very few cases of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – something I believe is often forgotten when discussing this issue – it is also true that those few are too many.”

He also got pilloried for booking a room to show a film about Jackie Walker, which you can watch here:

https://witchhuntfilm.org/


We're really into crazy land when this is what's considered cautionable content. But when it's grounds for suspension and even dismissal, that goes beyond all reasonable logic indeed.

Danzy

Tony EH wrote: »

What Chris Williamson said was this:

“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I have got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion… we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic… We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other party.”

All he's saying here is that the party hasn't been robust enough in its own defence. He never said anything about there being no anti Semitism in the party. But apparently that was enough to get him hauled over the coals.

He also issued this after people said they were "offended":

“I deeply regret, and apologise for, my recent choice of words when speaking about how the Labour Party has responded to the ongoing fight against anti-Semitism inside of our party. I was trying to stress how much the party has done to tackle anti-Semitism. Our movement can never be ‘too apologetic’ about racism within our ranks.

“Whilst it is true that there have been very few cases of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party – something I believe is often forgotten when discussing this issue – it is also true that those few are too many.”

He also got pilloried for booking a room to show a film about Jackie Walker, which you can watch here:

https://witchhuntfilm.org/


We're really into crazy land when this is what's considered cautionable content. But when it's grounds for suspension and even dismissal, that goes beyond all reasonable logic indeed.

I'd agree with you in this.

There is a big problem with antisemitism in Labour, the party response to it has been shocking and bizarre.

Williamson got the bullet and his opponents used the on going problem as an excuse.

Tony EH

Danzy wrote: »

There is a big problem with antisemitism in Labour,

Obviously, I don't agree with this as the data so far says otherwise and until there is quantifiable and verifiable evidence produced, I think it's absurd to think the there's a "big problem" with Anti Semitism in the party.

Are there people who hold anti Semitic views within Labour's ranks. There probably are. But nobody has been brought forward on it. Nobody has been named, despite the number of claims and "he said, she said" accusations. Absolutely nothing solid has been produced, which is remarkable if, indeed, the problem is so "big".

Until there is more data to back up the assertion that anti Semitism is rampant in the party, all we are left with is a load of unsubstantiated claims, a lot of which have had nothing to do with the party at all.

Danzy wrote: »

the party response to it has been shocking and bizarre.

This I do agree with. Forcing Livingstone out because he stated an historical fact, hauling Williamson over the coals for saying that the party didn't defend itself enough and even chucking out Jackie Walker for saying that the Jews were involved in the slave trade is nothing short of ridiculous.

Into the bargain, none of the above even remotely begins to tackle any kind of anti Semitism issue they may or may not have. It's literally just sacrificing pawns to a baying mob.

JohnMc1

Gee. Who didn't see this coming? Let in an unlimited number of people that would be happy if Israel was blown off the face of the Earth. Plus many Anti-Western propaganda is spear headed by Jew so I can't feel too bad for them. Its the chickens coming home to roost scenario.

Odhinn

Tony EH wrote: »

Obviously, I don't agree with this as the data so far says otherwise and until there is quantifiable and verifiable evidence produced, I think it's absurd to think the there's a "big problem" with Anti Semitism in the party.

Are there people who hold anti Semitic views within Labour's ranks. There probably are. But nobody has been brought forward on it. Nobody has been named, despite the number of claims and "he said, she said" accusations. Absolutely nothing solid has been produced, which is remarkable if, indeed, the problem is so "big".

Until there is more data to back up the assertion that anti Semitism is rampant in the party, all we are left with is a load of unsubstantiated claims, a lot of which have had nothing to do with the party at all.



This I do agree with. Forcing Livingstone out because he stated an historical fact, hauling Williamson over the coals for saying that the party didn't defend itself enough and even chucking out Jackie Walker for saying that the Jews were involved in the slave trade is nothing short of ridiculous.

Into the bargain, none of the above even remotely begins to tackle any kind of anti Semitism issue they may or may not have. It's literally just sacrificing pawns to a baying mob.

From perhaps a genuine inquiry into ant-semitism it's turned into a classic leftist purge, with people using their position to gain advantage and tackle rivals.

1641

Tony EH wrote: »

This I do agree with. Forcing Livingstone out because he stated an historical fact,

Really?

Tony EH

Yes, really.

There were numerous meetings between the ZVD and the Nazi party about the setting up of a homeland for Jews. The Nazis didn't care where this homeland was going to be, Palestine, Madagascar, whatever, so long as the Jews were out of Germany. They weren't interested out of altruistic reasons, but they were eager to deal with pro Zionist Jews as they were the most agreeable to moving Jews out of Germany.

There were other German Jewish groups who were wholly opposed to the idea and condemned the ZVD for even meeting with the NSDAP, never mind signing an agreement with them.

Palestine was deemed the most desirable, for either side, but the problem was that Palestine was occupied by the British at the time and they weren't particularly enamoured by the idea.

In the end, the Havaara agreement was signed between the Nazis and the ZVD, which allowed some 60,000 German Jews to emigrate there.

It's arguable that the ZVD could see the writing on the wall and moved to secure a double "victory" as it were. Getting Jews away from the clutches of the Nazis and putting into motion the setting up of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

James Brown

Danzy wrote: »

I'd agree with you in this.

There is a big problem with antisemitism in Labour, the party response to it has been shocking and bizarre.

Williamson got the bullet and his opponents used the on going problem as an excuse.

Still no proof. It's a smear campaign perpetrated by those wanting to steer clear of any socialist policies and those supporting Israeli ones.

James Brown

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Gee. Who didn't see this coming? Let in an unlimited number of people that would be happy if Israel was blown off the face of the Earth. Plus many Anti-Western propaganda is spear headed by Jew so I can't feel too bad for them. Its the chickens coming home to roost scenario.

I think if Israel stopped stealing land and killing people and sat down for peace talks many would have no issues with Israel. Israel is there, we need accept that and look towards some form of peace. The Israeli aggressive state needs to back down and lock up BiBi if his criminal investigation bears fruit IMO.

1641

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, really.

There were numerous meetings between the ZVD and the Nazi party about the setting up of a homeland for Jews. The Nazis didn't care where this homeland was going to be, Palestine, Madagascar, whatever, so long as the Jews were out of Germany. They weren't interested out of altruistic reasons, but they were eager to deal with pro Zionist Jews as they were the most agreeable to moving Jews out of Germany.

There were other German Jewish groups who were wholly opposed to the idea and condemned the ZVD for even meeting with the NSDAP, never mind signing an agreement with them.

Palestine was deemed the most desirable, for either side, but the problem was that Palestine was occupied by the British at the time and they weren't particularly enamoured by the idea.

In the end, the Havaara agreement was signed between the Nazis and the ZVD, which allowed some 60,000 German Jews to emigrate there.

It's arguable that the ZVD could see the writing on the wall and moved to secure a double "victory" as it were. Getting Jews away from the clutches of the Nazis and putting into motion the setting up of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Hitler had made clear his attitude towards the Jews. As the source of all Germany's woes, and more generally world woes, they were to be destroyed. This doesn't mean gas chambers - this solution was not conceived of until much later. His preferrd destination for them was "Madagasgar". This was not envisaged as homeland but as somewhere in the middle of the ocean where they were contained (Incidentally, even after the "Final Solution" was being implemented some Nazi's still referred to deported Jews as "going to Madagasgar" - they did not mean an oceanic island).


As regards the "Havarra Agreement" - the motivation of the zionist group involved was to get Jews out of Germany - to rescue them. Although the Nazis initially committed and some Jews got out to Palestine, the Nazis soon repudiated it. They did not want a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as they envisaged it would become a base for their nefarious activies. They wanted a "Madagasgar". A refutation of Livingstone's claims are here:


"Stung by widespread criticism of his original comment about Hitler’s support for Zionism, Livingstone doubled down: ‘His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this.’ (Independent, 2016) Previously, Livingstone had written in his memoirs: ‘Labour Zionist Chaim Arlosoroff negotiated a pact with the Nazis to set up a trading company, Ha’avara, to sell Nazi goods, thus undermining the boycott organised by trade unionists and communists.’ (Livingstone, 2011: 221)
It is hard to know where to begin when refuting such a tissue of falsehoods. Hitler’s policy was never to send ‘all’ of Germany’s Jews to ‘Israel’ (i.e., Palestine under the British Mandate) but to terrorise them into leaving the Reich, irrespective of the destination. The negotiations between the Labour Zionists and Hitler’s government were not private, but were fiercely debated within the Zionist movement. The purpose of the Ha’avara or Transfer Agreement was not ‘to sell Nazi goods,’ but to rescue German Jews and to preserve a fraction of their property from being stolen by the Nazi regime. The boycott of Germany was not just ‘organised by trade unionists and communists,’ but was championed by Jews in the free world, including many Zionists. And so on.
This is not to defend the Transfer Agreement. It is legitimate to argue that negotiating with the Third Reich was a mistake, and that it would have been better to maintain the boycott. But German Jews snatched from the claws of Nazism could hardly have been expected to agree.
The Zionist movement undoubtedly saved scores of thousands of lives during the years before the Holocaust. According to Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Distinguished Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Vermont, ‘The approximately 80,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews who were able to immigrate legally and illegally to Palestine between 1933 and 1941 represent 80,000 potential victims of the Nazi genocide who were saved.’ (Nicosia, 2008: 288) This is a major embarrassment to anti-Zionist ideologues, which is another reason for their aspersions on Zionist motives and their manufactured charges of ‘collaboration.’"





As for the medal you captioned, this was a piece of Nazi propaganda. An explanation here :


"Livingstone stated: ‘Of course it was support, in exactly the same way that medals were printed, were made, which had the Swastika on one side and the Poale Zion star on the other, literally there is such a history of collaboration.’ (Livingstone, 2017c)
Poale Zion was a movement advocating Zionism and socialism. Livingstone is claiming that Nazi Germany ‘supported’ Jews who were not only Zionists but also socialists.
In 1933, during the first months after Hitler’s takeover, Nazi policy on the ‘Jewish Question’ was in flux. The Zionist Federation of Germany asked Kurt Tuchler to identify moderate Nazi officials and win them over. Tuchler contacted SS official Baron Leopold von Mildenstein and accompanied him to Palestine. Von Mildenstein wrote a 12-part series about the trip for the Goebbels newspaper Der Angriff, which ran the series from September 26 to October 9, 1934 (Boas, 1980).
To commemorate von Mildenstein’s articles, Der Angriff struck a coin-shaped medal with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other. The inscription on the medal read: ‘Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina und erzählt davon im Angriff’ (‘A Nazi travels to Palestine and tells about it in Angriff’). (Boas, 1980: 38)
The medal was pure propaganda, created by the Nazis to pretend that they wanted an ‘honourable’ solution to the ‘Jewish Question’ and that Jews were their equal partners in finding such a solution. In citing this medal as proof of ‘collaboration,’ Livingstone is giving credence to a propaganda ruse by Goebbels."

More on Livingstone's disgraceful claims here:
http://fathomjournal.org/ken-livingstone-and-the-myth-of-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/

LuckyLloyd

Danzy wrote: »

No, nor should even advocating armed resistance to Israel's occupation.

It is the classic Jew baiting that has made this a problem for Labour.

Continuously turning a blind eye and having to be forced to concede small steps is what makes it verge on existential for them.

What do you mean in the second paragraph, examples?

The media and Labour’s political opponents constantly saying there is an anti Semite problem is different to there being any actual issue with anti semitism. There is lots of people saying there is an issue but a lack of concrete examples of these supposed issues.

JohnMc1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think if Israel stopped stealing land and killing people and sat down for peace talks many would have no issues with Israel. Israel is there, we need accept that and look towards some form of peace. The Israeli aggressive state needs to back down and lock up BiBi if his criminal investigation bears fruit IMO.

It takes two to tango. Palestine is run by a Terrorist organization [Hamas] and frequently launches attacks against Israel. Israel "stole" land when they were and defended themselves and added that territory to Israel [that happens when you declare war against another Country and routinely attack them] Don't want your land taken from you? Then don't go to war with another Country.

Palestinians aren't the innocent victims the media likes to pretend they are. They willingly voted for a terrorist organization to govern them. If they didn't see any of this coming then that's their own fault.

James Brown

JohnMc1 wrote: »

It takes two to tango. Palestine is run by a Terrorist organization [Hamas] and frequently launches attacks against Israel. Israel "stole" land when they were and defended themselves and added that territory to Israel [that happens when you declare war against another Country and routinely attack them] Don't want your land taken from you? Then don't go to war with another Country.

Palestinians aren't the innocent victims the media likes to pretend they are. They willingly voted for a terrorist organization to govern them. If they didn't see any of this coming then that's their own fault.

It only takes one to call for peace.
We've one US backed military monster annexing land. All arguments fall short when we ask what size is Israel? Because the justification for the initial settlement does not explain away the constant aggressive annexation of surrounding land.
The Palestinians are innocent. Hamas was borne out of Israeli aggression. Israel uses Hamas as an excuse to steal more land 'for security', which is complete bull****. What do you call a body that shoots unarmed protesters, first respondents and journalists while taking the land of others? What makes them better than Hamas? I can only think of the lie that Israel would be peaceful towards Palestinians if not for Hamas, which Israel created a need for.

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

It takes two to tango. Palestine is run by a Terrorist organization [Hamas]

No, Hamas only controls Gaza. The West Bank is nominally controlled by the PLO.

Johnmc1 wrote:

]

and frequently (.................) go to war with another Country.

Simplistic nonsense. Annexation of land by means of force is against international law since WWII

Johnmc1 wrote:

Palestinians aren't the innocent victims the media likes to pretend they are.

.

So they aren't occupied and forced to live in an apartheid styled area?

Johnmc1 wrote:

They willingly voted for a terrorist organization to govern them. If they didn't see any of this coming then that's their own fault.

Your "terrorists" are resisting Israeli domination and colonisation. And again, Hamas only controls the Gaza.

Tony EH

1641 wrote: »

Hitler had made clear his attitude towards the Jews. As the source of all Germany's woes, and more generally world woes, they were to be destroyed. This doesn't mean gas chambers - this solution was not conceived of until much later. His preferrd destination for them was "Madagasgar". This was not envisaged as homeland but as somewhere in the middle of the ocean where they were contained (Incidentally, even after the "Final Solution" was being implemented some Nazi's still referred to deported Jews as "going to Madagasgar" - they did not mean an oceanic island).

This has nothing to do with the Havarra agreement.

1641 wrote: »

As regards the "Havarra Agreement" - the motivation of the zionist group involved was to get Jews out of Germany - to rescue them. Although the Nazis initially committed and some Jews got out to Palestine, the Nazis soon repudiated it. They did not want a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as they envisaged it would become a base for their nefarious activies. They wanted a "Madagasgar". A refutation of Livingstone's claims are here:

You didn't read what I wrote did you.

1641 wrote: »

"Stung by widespread criticism of his original comment about Hitler’s support for Zionism, Livingstone doubled down: ‘His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this.’ (Independent, 2016) Previously, Livingstone had written in his memoirs: ‘Labour Zionist Chaim Arlosoroff negotiated a pact with the Nazis to set up a trading company, Ha’avara, to sell Nazi goods, thus undermining the boycott organised by trade unionists and communists.’ (Livingstone, 2011: 221)
It is hard to know where to begin when refuting such a tissue of falsehoods. Hitler’s policy was never to send ‘all’ of Germany’s Jews to ‘Israel’ (i.e., Palestine under the British Mandate) but to terrorise them into leaving the Reich, irrespective of the destination. The negotiations between the Labour Zionists and Hitler’s government were not private, but were fiercely debated within the Zionist movement. The purpose of the Ha’avara or Transfer Agreement was not ‘to sell Nazi goods,’ but to rescue German Jews and to preserve a fraction of their property from being stolen by the Nazi regime. The boycott of Germany was not just ‘organised by trade unionists and communists,’ but was championed by Jews in the free world, including many Zionists. And so on.
This is not to defend the Transfer Agreement. It is legitimate to argue that negotiating with the Third Reich was a mistake, and that it would have been better to maintain the boycott. But German Jews snatched from the claws of Nazism could hardly have been expected to agree.
The Zionist movement undoubtedly saved scores of thousands of lives during the years before the Holocaust. According to Francis Nicosia, the Raul Hilberg Distinguished Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Vermont, ‘The approximately 80,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews who were able to immigrate legally and illegally to Palestine between 1933 and 1941 represent 80,000 potential victims of the Nazi genocide who were saved.’ (Nicosia, 2008: 288) This is a major embarrassment to anti-Zionist ideologues, which is another reason for their aspersions on Zionist motives and their manufactured charges of ‘collaboration.’"

None of this changes the fact that what Livingstone said was correct. Hitler and the Nazis set up meetings with the German Zionist Federation with a view to setting up a Jewish homeland.

It doesn't matter if he was "criticised". It doesn't matter if people were "offended". It doesn't matter if it makes for uncomfortable reading. It doesn't even matter if Ken Livingstone didn't get every single minutiae correct or if some people want to quibble over petty semantics.

What matters is that it happened.

1641 wrote: »

As for the medal you captioned, this was a piece of Nazi propaganda. An explanation here :

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that the Havaara Agreement happened.

LuckyLloyd

This is the core of the issue, the right to criticise Israel and advocate a two state solution based on equanimity between Israel and Palestine without being labelled “anti Semitic” as a result.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

An opinion piece by a right wing website mischaracterising statements and actions to a particular agenda. I'm sure there probably are a few anti-semites in the SD, but I wouldn't take that article without with a large pinch of salt.

You are the gift that keeps on giving.

Tony EH

^
It's not half as bad a claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is like Tommy Robinson.

markodaly

Tony EH wrote: »

This I do agree with. Forcing Livingstone out because he stated an historical fact, .

The mask slips once again.

Lets actually review what Ken Livingstone said.

When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews

Let's be honest here. Hitler was an absolute out and out Anti-Semite. He saw the Jews as disease, puppet masters of capitalism and communism and thought they were the biggest threat to the German people.
It could be fair to say the Hitler did look at ways of expelling the Jews of Europe to far-flung places. I see those points have been covered before.

But please please, do not tell us that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism, that is Jewish Nationalism and the re-establishment of a homeland for the Jews, or a Nation state for the Jewish people.

After all, he didn't just go 'mad'. The seeds of the Holocaust were sown well before the invasion of Poland.

1641

Tony EH wrote: »

T

None of this changes the fact that what Livingstone said was correct. Hitler and the Nazis set up meetings with the German Zionist Federation with a view to setting up a Jewish homeland.
.

Livingstone stated: "I said that in the 1930s Hitler supported Zionism".


This is a lie and a slur. It propagates antisemitism. If he said it in mistake he could have apologised. Instead he doubled down. Hitler never supported Zionism or the establishment of a Jewish homeland. He tried to get rid of Jews - by any means. One way was briefly to allow emigration to Palestine. To call that support of Zionism is a disgraceful, given what the Nazis true intentions were.

Odhinn

Tony EH wrote: »

^
It's not half as bad a claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is like Tommy Robinson.

...can't see Corbyn coked out of his box and heading out with the luton firm for a bit of a ruckus, tbh.

1641

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is the core of the issue, the right to criticise Israel and advocate a two state solution based on equanimity between Israel and Palestine without being labelled “anti Semitic” as a result.

You have made this assertion several times.. It is simply untrue. Plenty of people (including plenty of governments) criticise Israeli and call for a two state solution. It is largely irrelevant, but I do so myself.



But there are some who go far beyond this. And some who who use the camoflage of anti-zionism to express anti-semitism.

LuckyLloyd

1641 wrote: »

You have made this assertion several times.. It is simply untrue. Plenty of people (including plenty of governments) criticise Israeli and call for a two state solution. It is largely irrelevant, but I do so myself.



But there are some who go far beyond this. And some who who use the camoflage of anti-zionism to express anti-semitism.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/israel-gives-irish-ambassador-severe-dressing-down-for-anti-semitic-d%25C3%25A1il-bill-1.3770529%3fmode=amp

Well it seems Israel likes to trot out “anti semitism” when criticised or pressured.

In the case of Labour, what are the concrete examples of actual anti semitism within the party?

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

You have made this assertion several times.. It is simply untrue. Plenty of people (including plenty of governments) criticise Israeli and call for a two state solution. It is largely irrelevant, but I do so myself.



But there are some who go far beyond this. And some who who use the camoflage of anti-zionism to express anti-semitism.

It's practically Israeli state policy to call those critical of Israel 'antisemite'. Instead of worshiping Trump and smearing Corbyn, maybe they should look out for the Jewish people rather than Israeli interests?

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's practically Israeli state policy to call those critical of Israel 'antisemite'. Instead of worshiping Trump and smearing Corbyn, maybe they should look out for the Jewish people rather than Israeli interests?

Anti-Semitic (according to the IHRA) remark again Matt from you but yea, we are used to it now.

1641

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/israel-gives-irish-ambassador-severe-dressing-down-for-anti-semitic-d%25C3%25A1il-bill-1.3770529%3fmode=amp

Well it seems Israel likes to trot out “anti semitism” when criticised or pressured.

In the case of Labour, what are the concrete examples of actual anti semitism within the party?

As regards Labour, you can google. Ken Livingstone is an example that has been brought up in recent posts. Anyone who doesn't recognise evidence of anto-semitism in Livingstone's persistent remarks is not going to recognise it anywhere. I think if you really wanted to find the allegations you would have done so. Would referring to Theresa May as "having the mentality of a Zionist slave master" count? Or calling female Labour MPs "Zionist cum buckets"? https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1114643741384609792?lang=en



I think what Israel is objecting to is the propose boycott, not criticism of policies per se. It would be strange if it did not protest. "Boycott" has a particular resonance in Jewish history. See its implimentation in Nazi Germany, for example.

Also, they see the main aim of the BDS organisation is not a two-state solution but the delegitimization of Israel itself, challenging its continuing right to exist. They would point to a key aim of BDS as being the "right of return" of Palestinians who had lived in what is now Israel proper prior to 1948 (actually their descendents) with full democratic participation.
Most people who support BDS see it them supporting a two-state solution. But the actual goals of the movement are broader and more fundamental than that.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

..................



I think what Israel is objecting to is the propose boycott, not criticism of policies per se. It would be strange if it did not protest. "Boycott" has a particular resonance in Jewish history. See its implimentation in Nazi Germany, for example.
........................

That's them being rather disingenuous though, as BDS is aimed at the Israeli state and settler business, rather than Jews.

Tony EH

1641 wrote: »

Would referring to Theresa May as "having the mentality of a Zionist slave master" count? Or calling female Labour MPs "Zionist cum buckets"? https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1114643741384609792?lang=en

No. Because not all Zionists are Jews.

If these sentences were "Jewish slave master" or "Jewish cum buckets", you'd have a point.

But they're not.

Using a political stance, such as Zionism, in a pejorative sense is not anti Semitism, no matter how one tries to make it so.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Anti-Semitic (according to the IHRA) remark again Matt from you but yea, we are used to it now.

The IHRA need look at Israel disrespecting the Jewish people by using 'antisemetism' to dismiss criticism of their regime.

If you're suggesting I've said anything antisemetic, either quote it or retract the claim, thanks.
Who's 'we' by the way?