Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
No one is not blaming the British/Balfour/Sykes-Picot. But we are where we are, as established by UN 181. 181 seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the problem.
If you look at the Middle East on Google Maps you don't have to scroll out too far for Israel to disappear from view. A sliver of land some of which was given to the Jews and some to the Arabs.
Actually, I don't blame Balfour.
The problem with the Balfour Declaration was that it was never implemented in its entirety. The declaration said that "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel in 1948 definitely prejudiced the civil rights of many of the Arab Palestinians who fled or were driven out of their homes in the new country, and have never been allowed back by the Israeli government, despite UN GA resolution 194 calling for refugees to be allowed to return home "at the earliest possible date". Israel offered to accept a minority of them in 1949 in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab world but this never happened.
Hence seven decades of bitterness, hatred, death, etc.
Consider how much trouble a generous international financial settlement to compensate the displaced Palestinians at the time might have avoided.
Though of course neither we (who were broke anyway) not the US had any great interest in such matters, still thinking, to a large extent, of colonial territories as something they could dispose of as they chose - see also, around the same time, Vietnam and Persia.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps when they say "right to exist" they use it as shorthand for "we believe in the validity of UN 181". It is of course perfectly understandable that people think that UN 181 is controversial and that there should never have been a Jewish State established in the Middle East.
Since 1967 it has been Israel who apaprenty do not believe in the validity of UN 181 since they have refused to accept one half of it. They are happy to have the Jewish state within Palestine but unwilling to accept the Arab state alongside it. You continually refer to UN 181 as if it only refers to a Jewish state and Israel is in compliance. It does not and Israel is not.
Just checking with the 'critcising Israel is antisemitic' lads, what happens with the 25% of Israelis who aren't Jewish? Quite often they're held up (usually by the same people) as evidence that Israel isn't a racist, apartheid state, do they get special certificates to say for the purposes of national outrage they're classified as Jews?
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
An explicit analogy is often made with South Africa, with a "Free Palestine" being the equivalent of the end of apartheid. They see the Israelis as illegitimate settlers whom they want to progressively force out.
So it's impossible to criticize Israel without you viewing it as antisemitic. This explains a lot.
As an aside, and appreciating I'm chucking myself into a flaming mess but:
If criticising Israel is automatically antisemetic, is criticising another religious state automatically anti-whatever. For instance, criticising the United Kingdom is automatically anti-protestant?
If it is, is this a good thing? If it isn't, is that because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world?
If so, would it help if Paraguay declared itself to be a Jewish state? Would that allow criticism of Israel the state, or would it simply mean that you couldn't criticise Paraguay either?
In case that was tangentially referring to me, I will reiterate that I did not say that criticism of Israel was anti-semitic. I said that criticism of Israel is criticising Jews because Israel is a Jewish State. I also said that criticising Israel (and hence the Jews) was perfectly legitimate. I ALSO said that this criticism is wholly different from anti-semitism which is a prejudice against Jews. Prejudice means disliking them because of who they are not because of what they do.
As @Cyclefree put it, and I think it is worth reposting the key paragraph because maybe you lot will listen to her, while quite rightly ignoring me, although we appear to be saying the same thing:
"Of course criticism of the Israeli government is not automatically or necessarily anti-Semitic. There are - as I have said ad nauseam - criticisms, serious ones, to be made of the Israeli government - ones made in good faith, ones of what they have done and of what they plan to do now. But again only a fool would deny that there are plenty of anti-semites who are not making criticisms in good faith and who use the "I'm only criticising the government" as a convenient cover for their anti-Semitism. A pity there are so many fools who fall for it."
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
I think that has been used before. (Possibly about Reg Prentice?)
I have no doubt, I am sure I've seen it before. Funny though.
Edit, I might have guessed: "Commenting on a 1920’s Conservative member who was standing as a Liberal in a by-election, Churchill said it was the only instance of a rat swimming towards a sinking ship."
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
An explicit analogy is often made with South Africa, with a "Free Palestine" being the equivalent of the end of apartheid. They see the Israelis as illegitimate settlers whom they want to progressively force out.
It's puzzlingly inconsistent. Some of the world's migrants should be encouraged, others driven out.
I have a painfully right-on Australian friend who has a poster up in her lounge staying 'Stop the Boats' - which is, it turns out, a protest against white people arriving in Australia in the 19th century.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
The funny thing is, the Albanian cab driver exists (or existed) exactly as described
One day when I have more time I might try and track him down. Just for the lolz
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
Quite right, should be English culture. Not so long after Edward I did a Hamas on the Jews of England, the Declaration of Arbroath contained 'since with Him Whose vice-gerent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman'. Probably just virtue signalling to be different from the English antisemites of course.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
British culture is certainly not "inherently tolerant" nor "inherently democratic" - indeed we still have a goddamn monarch who can veto laws passed through our democratically elected Parliament (which has a none elected second house...).
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps when they say "right to exist" they use it as shorthand for "we believe in the validity of UN 181". It is of course perfectly understandable that people think that UN 181 is controversial and that there should never have been a Jewish State established in the Middle East.
Since 1967 it has been Israel who apaprenty do not believe in the validity of UN 181 since they have refused to accept one half of it. They are happy to have the Jewish state within Palestine but unwilling to accept the Arab state alongside it. You continually refer to UN 181 as if it only refers to a Jewish state and Israel is in compliance. It does not and Israel is not.
There is some truth in that. I am cherry picking.
1947: UN 181 1948: Establishment of the state of Israel Also 1948: Invasion of Israel by Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria.
Where Israel has consistently gone wrong (and is why it is being criticised today for current events) is that it fails to realise that that wars of aggression or militant action against it change in no way whatsoever much of the international community's views (as Israel sees it) about how it should behave.
So in 1948, when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated they thought "fuck it" and took over Arab villages as an act of war. In 1967 and 1973 when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated, they occupied enemy land as an act of war. And in 2023, when they were attacked, they took the fight to the enemy.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
I think it is perhaps fair to say that there are attitudes beneath the surface that can come back to the top on occasion.
Is that "inherent"? No idea - it depends on your categories.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
I mean, many people want a one state solution in the form of a multi-ethnic state. Have the issues in the last 70 years made that hard, yes. But a proper and sincere peace and reconciliation process would help towards a peaceful single state with people who have lived on the land for generations alongside Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
I mean, I would say that much of European culture is, too, anti-Semitic.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
British culture is certainly not "inherently tolerant" nor "inherently democratic" - indeed we still have a goddamn monarch who can veto laws passed through our democratically elected Parliament (which has a none elected second house...).
You prove my point. None of those statements describe what British culture "inherently" is.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
I didn't ask for a history lesson - I assume that the suggestion is that British culture in 2023 is inherently Anti-Semitic. I do not think that it is. Far more likely to be Islamophobic (and probably the rise of Islamic inspired terrorist attacks in the UK are mainly to blame for that).
That there are people in a country that hold ant-semitic views does not mean that the culture of a country is anto-semitic.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
I think it is perhaps fair to say that there are attitudes beneath the surface that can come back to the top on occasion.
Is that "inherent"? No idea - it depends on your categories.
The modern understanding of immigration management - of passports and hard borders and the refusal of refugees and freedom of movement etc. - was in part constructed to avoid having to take in a significant number of Jewish people during the rising pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
I think this is a symptom of mid-term polling not being of great use. I think people say how they would like to vote rather than how they will. I expect the Lib Dem vote to rise.
Anyway, the week in polls piece says:
Or take the most recent Survation MRP for Greenpeace. By my calculations, it shows that there would be 64 seats won by the Conservatives in England where the combined Labour and Lib Dem vote would be higher than the Conservative share and also where there would be 15 points or less between the Labour and Lib Dem share (i.e. where there wouldn’t be a big third party tactical squeeze). That would be up from 41 at the 2019 general election.
That's not actually out of the question. In 1992, the Labour and Lib Dem vote was greater than the Conservative vote in 106 of the 336 seats won by the Tories. In 1997, it actually increased to 127 despite the Tories winning only 165 seats. That's what happens when a party loses a lot of votes.
It’s presumably not uncommon in most British constituencies for all parties? It must be fairly normal to win with 40% of the vote and have two main rivals on 50% between them (split in various ways).
Well, the evidence is in the data. Back in 1992 there were 106 such Tory seats. In 2019 there were 44 such seats.
Tactical voting has come a long way since the early 90s and, contrary to popular opinion, was alive and well in 2019:
Yeah, but SNP? Labour? It’s not surprising to me that the party that won a majority of 80, and almost got more, has a lot of seats with over 50% of the vote.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
"From the river to the sea" is an explicit demand for the destruction of the state of Israel and the removal - whether through deportation or death - of all the Jews currently living there. It is indefensible and hateful and to claim that Jews here would not be affected by it - regardless of their views of the current Israeli government - is disingenuous rubbish.
An explicit analogy is often made with South Africa, with a "Free Palestine" being the equivalent of the end of apartheid. They see the Israelis as illegitimate settlers whom they want to progressively force out.
It's puzzlingly inconsistent. Some of the world's migrants should be encouraged, others driven out.
I have a painfully right-on Australian friend who has a poster up in her lounge staying 'Stop the Boats' - which is, it turns out, a protest against white people arriving in Australia in the 19th century.
There are precious few of us who are not descended from settlers/colonisers at some point in history.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
Well it's certainly true that the working class are disproportionately non-white, since most immigrants arrive at the bottom end of the social scale. My view is that is is far more of a disadvantage to be poor than it is to be non-white, and where non-white people have poorer outcomes this is the number one explanatory factor.
As to whether the working class are disproportionately non straight, non cis - it certainly isn't immediately obvious this is the case, though I'd be interested to see some stats.
We know that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be estranged from their family, and that 1/4 trans youth are homeless. That is disproportionate to their representation in society. During much of history being openly queer would have lost you your job. We also know that queer people are also disproportionately driven into sex work.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
So any criticism of Israel is also criticism of Jews? Think you’ve disappeared up your own reductive butthole there.
Well by definition that is the case. Israel is a Jewish state. And criticism of Jews is perfectly legitimate.
That is a long way from believing that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, for example. Or from being prejudiced against Israel/Jews for being Israel/Jews.
Israel doesn't have a right to exist. It has lots of rights including a right to self-defence, but not a right to existence. States do not have a right to existence. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union all ceased to exist without their rights being violated.
Not everyone who uses this term is being sneaky intentionally but I think the reason someone invented this weird, slightly philosophical term is because they're trying to conflate "a country has the right to not be invaded" which is uncontroversial with "there must be a majority Jewish state with Judaism as its official religion" which is controversial.
Perhaps when they say "right to exist" they use it as shorthand for "we believe in the validity of UN 181". It is of course perfectly understandable that people think that UN 181 is controversial and that there should never have been a Jewish State established in the Middle East.
Since 1967 it has been Israel who apaprenty do not believe in the validity of UN 181 since they have refused to accept one half of it. They are happy to have the Jewish state within Palestine but unwilling to accept the Arab state alongside it. You continually refer to UN 181 as if it only refers to a Jewish state and Israel is in compliance. It does not and Israel is not.
There is some truth in that. I am cherry picking.
1947: UN 181 1948: Establishment of the state of Israel Also 1948: Invasion of Israel by Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria.
Where Israel has consistently gone wrong (and is why it is being criticised today for current events) is that it fails to realise that that wars of aggression or militant action against it change in no way whatsoever much of the international community's views (as Israel sees it) about how it should behave.
So in 1948, when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated they thought "fuck it" and took over Arab villages as an act of war. In 1967 and 1973 when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated, they occupied enemy land as an act of war. And in 2023, when they were attacked, they took the fight to the enemy.
Immaterial. The point is that you keep referring to UN181 as if it is some inviolate law which governs all relations in the Palestine. And yet Israel has, for most of its existence and for whatever reasons, been in breach of UN181(and about 30 other UN resolutions which is amusing considering it used Lebanon's claimed breach of one of them as a justification for invasion.)
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
For once, actually I agree with @148grss Conspiracy theories almost invariably involve The Jews.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
Is that entirely correct?
The Jewish population of Iran has fallen by 90% or more since the Iranian Revolution from ~100k to <10k.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
TBF there is (unfortunately) a kind of "no war but class war" lefty (typically older straight white guy) who believes that focussing on "identity politics" is somehow divisive (as if the working class are not disproportionately non white, non straight, non cis, etc)
Well it's certainly true that the working class are disproportionately non-white, since most immigrants arrive at the bottom end of the social scale. My view is that is is far more of a disadvantage to be poor than it is to be non-white, and where non-white people have poorer outcomes this is the number one explanatory factor.
As to whether the working class are disproportionately non straight, non cis - it certainly isn't immediately obvious this is the case, though I'd be interested to see some stats.
We know that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be estranged from their family, and that 1/4 trans youth are homeless. That is disproportionate to their representation in society. During much of history being openly queer would have lost you your job. We also know that queer people are also disproportionately driven into sex work.
OTOH, it's unlikely that gay men and lesbians have ever been underrepresented among the upper ranks of society.
"Lisa Cameron’s defection from the Scottish National party to the Conservatives (Report, 12 October) is a rare example of a rat joining a sinking ship." Michael Meadowcroft
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I love stories like this. I have no friends who like to chant anything (let alone anything like this). Its not unlike @Heathener and the tales of the folk she meets on the bus.
Perhaps I just lead a very different life to you...
It's like saying one meets people who voted Labour in 2019 who now favour the Conservatives.
Undoubtedly, they exist, but they are very much outliers.
or Leon's cab drivers and/or his leftist pals who miraculously have seen the anti-woke light.
The funny thing is, the Albanian cab driver exists (or existed) exactly as described
One day when I have more time I might try and track him down. Just for the lolz
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
Israel is preparing to deploy laser missile defences The Iron Beam air defence system can fire powerful beams of light that can destroy fast-moving projectiles
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
Iran has a population of 87 million and a Jewish population of ca. 9,000.
Prior to the Ayatollahs coming to power the population was ca. 100,000.
That does not suggest to me a country with a good internal relationship with its Jewish minority.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
I know a fair few Persian/Iranian Jews in this country. They're here because they no longer felt safe there after the fall of the Shah. They spend much of their time desperately trying to persuade their remaining relatives in Iran to leave, which they won't do because it would require them to leave everything they own behind.
Worth also noting that the vast majority of Persian Jews have left the country since 1979 and there are only a few thousand left.
In short, while I understand everything you say is factually correct, I don't think it accurately reflects life for Jews in Iran today.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
The unique thing about anti-semitism is being Jewish is a race, but also a religion, and of course the fact there is a single Jewish state. All sides of the political spectrum have antisemitic elements, but just as much tolerate or excuse it in a way that other racism isn't / results in instant criticism / pile-ons.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
Iran has a population of 87 million and a Jewish population of ca. 9,000.
Prior to the Ayatollahs coming to power the population was ca. 100,000.
That does not suggest to me a country with a good internal relationship with its Jewish minority.
Almost all of those left immediately after the revolution because they feared what might happen. Which is entirely understandable. In fact their fears turned out to be largely ill founded.
I am sure things are by no means perfect but then it is Iran, with a hard line dictatorship in power. Things are not perfect for most of the Muslims there either. But the question was about religious protection and tolerance and Iran seems to do that pretty well. And as of 2018 there were about 15000 jews in Iran.
Just checking with the 'critcising Israel is antisemitic' lads, what happens with the 25% of Israelis who aren't Jewish? Quite often they're held up (usually by the same people) as evidence that Israel isn't a racist, apartheid state, do they get special certificates to say for the purposes of national outrage they're classified as Jews?
A friend of a friend who is from the same part of India as us, and is currently in Israel working says she can't have children there because she isn't Jewish. She would have to return to Kerala to give birth, were she to become pregnant. So far as we are aware she is safe - there have been no known Indian casualties so far.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
I think the only comment of any sort I've come across in relation to Jews in the last 30 years was astonishment that some of their women shave their heads and wear wigs. I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews. There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
British culture is certainly not "inherently tolerant" nor "inherently democratic" - indeed we still have a goddamn monarch who can veto laws passed through our democratically elected Parliament (which has a none elected second house...).
You prove my point. None of those statements describe what British culture "inherently" is.
I don't think any culture is 'inherently' anything. That implies something that can't change.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
I think the only comment of any sort I've come across in relation to Jews in the last 30 years was astonishment that some of their women shave their heads and wear wigs. I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews. There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
I mean, many people want a one state solution in the form of a multi-ethnic state. Have the issues in the last 70 years made that hard, yes. But a proper and sincere peace and reconciliation process would help towards a peaceful single state with people who have lived on the land for generations alongside Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis.
I refer my learned friend to the Dayton Accord of 1995, which ended the Bosnian War. One-State solution that has, in large part, worked for 28 years.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
I think the only comment of any sort I've come across in relation to Jews in the last 30 years was astonishment that some of their women shave their heads and wear wigs. I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews. There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
Well, for a start Jew-hatred is pretty rampant on the Left, as we have seen, and it is easy to find it in some Muslim circles. So that's a fair old chunk of Britain
The far right is so tiny it doesn't matter so much, but it is there as well, obvs
It is also present in almost anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, that is not a small group. And so on. f you've not encountered it at all I'd say you are either very lucky or you are not attuned to it
The issue now is that for decades this anti-Semitism has been so low level as to be scarcely noticeable, like a background hum of distant traffic. Suddenly we can hear the engines roaring past
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
Whilst I do actually agree with your comment, I would point out that Iran has a very strong practicing Jewish community protected by law. Saturday is recognised by the State as the Jewish Sabbath and a religious holiday. There are also Jews elected to Iran's Parliament.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
Iran has a population of 87 million and a Jewish population of ca. 9,000.
Prior to the Ayatollahs coming to power the population was ca. 100,000.
That does not suggest to me a country with a good internal relationship with its Jewish minority.
In 1947, the area of the British Mandate of Palestine had an Arab majority of roughly two thirds.
It wasn't about infidelity in this case, but a deeply weird and disturbing campaign of bullying through verbal, physical, and sexual conduct conducted by Bone against a young (as it happens male) employee. From the report:
"In the first place it is remarkable that a senior MP in his 60s should think it appropriate that he should be sharing a bedroom and bathroom with his employee, and an employee in his early 20s. That in itself rings alarm bells. But from an objective standpoint, the respondent’s conduct in exposing himself in this way, with his genitals close to this young employee’s face, in an unwanted intimate context in a confined space, was not mere nudity. It was indecent exposure. There can be no doubt about it. Once the complainant’s account was believed, which it was, the outcome was inevitable. Objectively, this was sexual misconduct: it was conduct of a sexual nature which was non-consensual; it was unwanted behaviour which was perceived by the complainant as sexual, and rightly so, and it was intimidating."
"This case is all about the exercise of power and control over a young employee, both in the bullying and sexual misconduct. The investigator described the respondent’s position as a ‘significant position of power’. In our view, there was a complete imbalance of power between them which the respondent deliberately exploited over months. It is said that the respondent disliked the complainant and believed him to be weak. That was no excuse for targeting him with a concerted campaign of bullying and an incident of sexual misconduct."
This is not the first case in recent times of this sort of behaviour by MPs, of more than one party. That an internal complaint in the Conservative Party went nowhere for five years is a concern. There will need to be significant reform of the way staff welfare is managed in Parliament - there are some great MPs to work for, but this sort of thing happens far too often.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
You sound more like one of those fat single mothers who vaguebook about getting all of the toxic people out of their lives.
Imagine if someone proved an entirely new origin of humankind. It's on that level of profundity
And they phoned you first.
"Guys! We have this world-shattering info! Who shall we phone first?" "I know this drug-raddled lush that knaps flint dildos" "Excellent! Phone him immediately!"
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
What’s your source saying most Palestinian deaths have been Hamas combatants? Figures are obviously difficult to get accurate, but reporting suggests most Palestinian deaths have been civilians, with Palestinian civilian deaths possibly already greater than Israeli civilian deaths.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
You sound more like one of those fat single mothers who vaguebook about getting all of the toxic people out of their lives.
Imagine if someone proved an entirely new origin of humankind. It's on that level of profundity
And they phoned you first.
"Guys! We have this world-shattering info! Who shall we phone first?" "I know this drug-raddled lush that knaps flint dildos" "Excellent! Phone him immediately!"
I does seem quite unlikely, but there it is
Maybe I am the equivalent of the old git sitting at the bar, sipping a pint of mild, in the Eagle Taven in Cambridge, when Crick and Watson rushed in to tell everyone about DNA
Really interesting level of debate on here this morning. Talking about the Middle East without death threats. Not many places you get that on t'net....
IEP recommend Peter Bone MP is suspended for 6 weeks for bullying and sexual misconduct
He is unrepentant in his response statement.
Given we've had Pincher, and now Bone - surely nominative determinism suggest that we ought to look a bit closer at Greg Hands?
Whatever may have been found against Pincher and Bone by the Standards Cttee there is certainly nothing to suggest Greg Hands has done anything improper, indeed he seems a pretty serious man of integrity whatever views may be taken of his party politics
Really interesting level of debate on here this morning. Talking about the Middle East without death threats. Not many places you get that on t'net....
True, but you're a raging anti semite if you criticise Israel's govt.
Really interesting level of debate on here this morning. Talking about the Middle East without death threats. Not many places you get that on t'net....
And all, sadly, missing the point. If you look at the strategic goals Hamas wish to pursue, it appears they *may* be winning. The people Hamas are burning up to achieve these goals appear not to bother Hamas.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
"British culture is inherently anti-Semitic". Have you got some evidence for that? Seems a stretch to me.
1000 years of history is an indicator, I suggest?
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
Well that is also true of most of Europe, and yes, culture, both good and bad, does persist for centuries.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
British culture is certainly not "inherently tolerant" nor "inherently democratic" - indeed we still have a goddamn monarch who can veto laws passed through our democratically elected Parliament (which has a none elected second house...).
You prove my point. None of those statements describe what British culture "inherently" is.
I don't think any culture is 'inherently' anything. That implies something that can't change.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
You sound more like one of those fat single mothers who vaguebook about getting all of the toxic people out of their lives.
Imagine if someone proved an entirely new origin of humankind. It's on that level of profundity
And they phoned you first.
"Guys! We have this world-shattering info! Who shall we phone first?" "I know this drug-raddled lush that knaps flint dildos" "Excellent! Phone him immediately!"
First interview with an alien?
Remember what happened to those who got too close on Horsell Common (and, of course, in Mars Attacks).
IEP recommend Peter Bone MP is suspended for 6 weeks for bullying and sexual misconduct
He is unrepentant in his response statement.
Given we've had Pincher, and now Bone - surely nominative determinism suggest that we ought to look a bit closer at Greg Hands?
Whatever may have been found against Pincher and Bone by the Standards Cttee there is certainly nothing to suggest Greg Hands has done anything improper, indeed he seems a pretty serious man of integrity whatever views may be taken of his party politics
I think we're all happy to accept that the comment was entirely made in jest, and implies no misconduct on his part of any kind.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
You sound more like one of those fat single mothers who vaguebook about getting all of the toxic people out of their lives.
Imagine if someone proved an entirely new origin of humankind. It's on that level of profundity
And they phoned you first.
"Guys! We have this world-shattering info! Who shall we phone first?" "I know this drug-raddled lush that knaps flint dildos" "Excellent! Phone him immediately!"
I does seem quite unlikely, but there it is
Maybe I am the equivalent of the old git sitting at the bar, sipping a pint of mild, in the Eagle Taven in Cambridge, when Crick and Watson rushed in to tell everyone about DNA
I think we should have a PB sweep on what this earth-shattering news might be.
Personally, I'm guessing they've found the Loch Ness monster at stilted.fruity.otherwise.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
The unique thing about anti-semitism is being Jewish is a race, but also a religion, and of course the fact there is a single Jewish state. All sides of the political spectrum have antisemitic elements, but just as much tolerate or excuse it in a way that other racism isn't / results in instant criticism / pile-ons.
I've always thought racism is rather like a bacterial disease, whereas antisemitism is more like a virus. To explain, racism will always be present to some extent - due to human beings having prejudices, fears, and often being ignorant and nasty to one another - but with good sanitation and hygiene, in terms of society, you can try to make sure it does as little harm as possible. E.g. you're never going to stop people privately saying vile things, but you can exclude it from polite society, institutions, the workplace, and anywhere in the public sphere, and get that right and like bacterial disease it's largely stopped from the most harmful outbreaks that destroy lives. Antisemitism is different I think, in that it's rather more like a virus, in that it is in part a conspiracy theory about Jews that can latch onto almost any set of beliefs and use them against themselves to propagate hate. Hence why the 'anti-racist' 'anti-imperialist' left gets in such a mess over it in a way generally doesn't when addressing racism towards other groups. Because as a conspiracy theory, antisemitism can mutate in ways that make it appeal to people who believe they're fighting for Palestinian, Black rights, or anti-capitalism by claiming Jews (in this case often described as 'Zionists' to mask the full horror of conclusions) are acting in a uniquely evil or powerful way, and thus rationalise hatred towards Jews or complete indifference to it as somehow justified unless they too buy into and repeat your conspiracy theories.
Just checking with the 'critcising Israel is antisemitic' lads, what happens with the 25% of Israelis who aren't Jewish? Quite often they're held up (usually by the same people) as evidence that Israel isn't a racist, apartheid state, do they get special certificates to say for the purposes of national outrage they're classified as Jews?
A friend of a friend who is from the same part of India as us, and is currently in Israel working says she can't have children there because she isn't Jewish. She would have to return to Kerala to give birth, were she to become pregnant. So far as we are aware she is safe - there have been no known Indian casualties so far.
Obvious question: Is what she said true?
It could be afaik, but is likely to be a technical effect.
eg (I am not sure whether this is true, I put it forward as an example.) Non citizens not being entitled to medical treatment on the state.
I am sceptical of the "not Jewish" part. There are a lot of people in Israel who are not regarded or accepted as Jewish and some groups not recognised officially - ~15k Messianic Jews (ie Jewish converts to Christianity), for example.
That's in addition to the 2.5m+ Palestinians / Arabs.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
I think the only comment of any sort I've come across in relation to Jews in the last 30 years was astonishment that some of their women shave their heads and wear wigs. I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews. There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
Well, for a start Jew-hatred is pretty rampant on the Left, as we have seen, and it is easy to find it in some Muslim circles. So that's a fair old chunk of Britain
The far right is so tiny it doesn't matter so much, but it is there as well, obvs
It is also present in almost anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, that is not a small group. And so on. f you've not encountered it at all I'd say you are either very lucky or you are not attuned to it
The issue now is that for decades this anti-Semitism has been so low level as to be scarcely noticeable, like a background hum of distant traffic. Suddenly we can hear the engines roaring past
Perhaps I should have said 'mainstream British culture which I am part of'.
But my bit of British culture is pretty wide and I don't really come across any of it. I'm sure there are some mad left wingers at work - I work in the middle class public sector, after all - but even here if anyone does hold anti-Semitic views they are self-aware enough not to share them. It's honestly a prejudice, however mild, that I've never heard expressed. If anti-Semitism really was inherent in British culture people would feel entirely comfortable dropping little digs in the expectation that everyone listening felt the same way.
Granted though there are some small but not insignificant subcultures within which it is pretty prevalent.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
I mean, many people want a one state solution in the form of a multi-ethnic state. Have the issues in the last 70 years made that hard, yes. But a proper and sincere peace and reconciliation process would help towards a peaceful single state with people who have lived on the land for generations alongside Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis.
I refer my learned friend to the Dayton Accord of 1995, which ended the Bosnian War. One-State solution that has, in large part, worked for 28 years.
Err Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia North Macedonia Montenegro Serbia
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
I don't see any way in which a Palestinian state could be established "from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] Sea" that didn't first result in the deaths of a sizeable proportion of the Jews currently living there.
And the history is similarly genocidal in origin: refusal to accept partition resulted in the 1948 war, in which the explicit goal of the Palestinian Arabs and their allies was to push the Jews into the sea. At no stage has anyone advocated for a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority, and there are no current Arab or Muslim nations which could serve as a blueprint for how that might work in practice.
I mean, many people want a one state solution in the form of a multi-ethnic state. Have the issues in the last 70 years made that hard, yes. But a proper and sincere peace and reconciliation process would help towards a peaceful single state with people who have lived on the land for generations alongside Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis.
I refer my learned friend to the Dayton Accord of 1995, which ended the Bosnian War. One-State solution that has, in large part, worked for 28 years.
Err Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia North Macedonia Montenegro Serbia
Not exactly a one state solution.
Also, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multi-ethnic basket case which in no way works.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
I think the only comment of any sort I've come across in relation to Jews in the last 30 years was astonishment that some of their women shave their heads and wear wigs. I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews. There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
Well, for a start Jew-hatred is pretty rampant on the Left, as we have seen, and it is easy to find it in some Muslim circles. So that's a fair old chunk of Britain
The far right is so tiny it doesn't matter so much, but it is there as well, obvs
It is also present in almost anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, that is not a small group. And so on. f you've not encountered it at all I'd say you are either very lucky or you are not attuned to it
The issue now is that for decades this anti-Semitism has been so low level as to be scarcely noticeable, like a background hum of distant traffic. Suddenly we can hear the engines roaring past
Perhaps I should have said 'mainstream British culture which I am part of'.
But my bit of British culture is pretty wide and I don't really come across any of it. I'm sure there are some mad left wingers at work - I work in the middle class public sector, after all - but even here if anyone does hold anti-Semitic views they are self-aware enough not to share them. It's honestly a prejudice, however mild, that I've never heard expressed. If anti-Semitism really was inherent in British culture people would feel entirely comfortable dropping little digs in the expectation that everyone listening felt the same way.
Granted though there are some small but not insignificant subcultures within which it is pretty prevalent.
The kind of anti-Semitism I've heard is usually from people employed by Jews or doing business with Jews, or living in property owned by Jews
Things like
"They do drive a hard bargain", or "they certainly know where every penny goes", with a slight roll of the eyes and a wry chuckle
It is very very subtle but the subtext is there
You also definitely encounter it in people who interact with ultra-Orthodox Jews, because they can be a pain in the butt, to be frank
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Ah, now it's obvious. You've just been conversing with a perfect avatar of yourself, telling you about an encounter with an Albanian taxi driver who had that Zuckerberg guy in his cab the other day.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
For me the most shocking act of antisemitism from a current/past party leader during my lifetime wasn't anything Corbyn said but when Harold MacMillan said about Thatcher appointing so many Jews to her cabinet was
'The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians.'
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
I recently received a call asking me if I fancied a job as a bus driver, apparently the pay is competitive.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Well that's a damn shame because it's been a long time since I heard something uplifting in its profundity.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Ah, now it's obvious. You've just been conversing with a perfect avatar of yourself, telling you about an encounter with an Albanian taxi driver who had that Zuckerberg guy in his cab the other day.
I mean, the history of that phrase is not one of exterminationist intent. "Palestine will be free / From the river to the sea" specifically is considered to come from the refusal to accept the partition of the land and the creation of the separate states - not a claim about exterminating Jewish people in the land at all.
History of the phrase is irrelevant - its what it has come to mean that counts.
I mean if the phrase has a continual usage not related to exterminationist views, which it has, I think it is quite relevant when making the claim that it would be "intellectually dishonest to claim [it] means anything other than the mass killing of Jews". Again, because I also know many Jewish people happy to chant it who understand it to mean no such thing!
"Many". Those are very much outliers.
It does not make their views less valid.
And indeed only viewing the "right" kinds of Jewish people as being "real" Jews is a big problem (especially in the Labour party):
Labour had a genuine problem with anti-semitism under Corbyn. For a time I even had a local Labour councillor (Hightown, Luton) who was an admirer of Hitler (and former Anti-Racism Officer at Warwick University). People like that thought Labour was their home.
Were there some anti-Semitic Labour party members? Yes. Was it institutionally racist - perhaps. Is throwing out left wing Jewish people who criticise Israel because that is apparently anti-Semitic actually sincere policing of anti-Semitism? No.
I would also argue all political parties have anti-Semites in, and bigots of other kinds, and that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic. I would also point to the many people who have noted that Conservative anti-Muslim prejudices are not treated with any seriousness, to the point where ex Tory ministers and members of the EHRC have mentioned it - with no mainstream acceptance that it is an issue or that Islamophobia is bad.
I would disagree absolutely with the assertion that British culture is inherently anti-Semitic in either the specific (Jewish) or general (including Arabic and other ME cultures) definitions. And having travelled very extensively throughout Europe and the Middle East for the last 35 years it is always a relief to come back to a country where overt anti-Jewish or anti-Arabic sentiment is so rare and so quickly condemned.
Anit-Semitic tropes are still pretty common at low levels amongst the British public. I wouldn't say there are many "hard-core" anti-Semites (holocaust denial, raging hatred of Jews, etc.) but the tropey stuff (Jewish people are greedy, insular, dual loyalty) alongside how much general conspiracism ends up leading to anti-Semitic views.
Who are you talking to for goodness sake? This does not match my experience of British life.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
For me the most shocking act of antisemitism from a current/past party leader during my lifetime wasn't anything Corbyn said but when Harold MacMillan said about Thatcher appointing so many Jews to her cabinet was
'The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians.'
I am generally a fan of SuperMac but eesh.
Is that anti-Semitic or just clever wordplay expressing a truth? It can be viewed either way. Tricky one
Corbyn's shite is much worse. The mural? Really? He didn't notice? What a load of bollocks
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Ah, now it's obvious. You've just been conversing with a perfect avatar of yourself, telling you about an encounter with an Albanian taxi driver who had that Zuckerberg guy in his cab the other day.
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Fine, but there's nothing really the rest of us can do with that news.
So, to reply to a comment of your last night: I said:
The difference between rugby and test cricket, for me, is this: There is no sport I would rather watch than England playing test cricket. But as a neutral, thereis no sport I would rather watch than rugby.
To which you replied:
Agreed, but it has to be high level, high stakes international rugby
Anything lower level can be dire, TBH
Football for me remains the supreme game, overall - nothing can feasibly beat the Argentine France Final, surely
But for pulsating intensity - top level rugger, and for aesthetic, exquisite pleasure - cricket
To which my response today, is:
Men's football still doesn't really move me or excite me in the way it did in my teens, and leaves me both cold and irritated. But that's just me. Clearly many people like it more than anything else.
Of course, any game at the top level for high stakes is most exciting. But I enjoy lower level rugby too. I'd rather watch a tier 3 rugby game in which I had no stake than a premiership football game. The skill level may not be as good, but the game is better. I think it is because it's not really possible to play rugby at anything less than 100%. Large parts of football matches seem to be the ball being passed around to no great effect while both teams wait for the game to be over. That doesn't happen in rugby. Even when it doesn't progress skilfully, it progresses with intensity.
But while it may not be possible to play rugby at less than 100%, it is certainly possible to prepare for a rugby match at less than 100% - some would argue these were better days: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htCTWZqCMhQ)
(This must be at least the fourth time in the history of pb.com I have managed to wangle a clip of this incident into the discussion.)
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Well that's a damn shame because it's been a long time since I heard something uplifting in its profundity.
I sincerely promise that when I am allowed to talk I will come on here almost immediately
And now I shall shut up as someone saying "Oooh I know something wild but can't tell you", is an extremely annoying person, and I'd hate to be that!
It really was a reflex reaction to blurt it out on here
Just had history's most ridiculous and profound video call
I'm happy to grant you the first part of that without question. Do tell.
I wish I could. Commercially, I'm not allowed to
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Not at all. It's a poor show if we can't get excited about things in later life. What is it?
I genuinely wish I could say, because it is uplifting in its profundity (during a dark time), but I can't. Sworn to secrecy, for a few months at least
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
Well that's a damn shame because it's been a long time since I heard something uplifting in its profundity.
You mean, like pulling the emergency release for the ballast in a bathyscaphe at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?
Comments
Though of course neither we (who were broke anyway) not the US had any great interest in such matters, still thinking, to a large extent, of colonial territories as something they could dispose of as they chose - see also, around the same time, Vietnam and Persia.
As @Cyclefree put it, and I think it is worth reposting the key paragraph because maybe you lot will listen to her, while quite rightly ignoring me, although we appear to be saying the same thing:
"Of course criticism of the Israeli government is not automatically or necessarily anti-Semitic. There are - as I have said ad nauseam - criticisms, serious ones, to be made of the Israeli government - ones made in good faith, ones of what they have done and of what they plan to do now. But again only a fool would deny that there are plenty of anti-semites who are not making criticisms in good faith and who use the "I'm only criticising the government" as a convenient cover for their anti-Semitism. A pity there are so many fools who fall for it."
If you want clearer examples, consider the mainstream establishment attitudes from the 1930s not wanting refugees here, or in more recent periods perhaps look at elements of the Tory Right or attitudes in certain Trades Unions such as the UCU (won't go any further on that for OGH's sake).
I have a painfully right-on Australian friend who has a poster up in her lounge staying 'Stop the Boats' - which is, it turns out, a protest against white people arriving in Australia in the 19th century.
But to label British culture as "inherently antisemitic" (rather than saying, correctly, that antisemitism has long persisted, and still persists in British culture) is less true than saying it is "inherently tolerant", or "inherently democratic" etc.
One day when I have more time I might try and track him down. Just for the lolz
Not so long after Edward I did a Hamas on the Jews of England, the Declaration of Arbroath contained 'since with Him Whose vice-gerent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman'.
Probably just virtue signalling to be different from the English antisemites of course.
1947: UN 181
1948: Establishment of the state of Israel
Also 1948: Invasion of Israel by Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria.
Where Israel has consistently gone wrong (and is why it is being criticised today for current events) is that it fails to realise that that wars of aggression or militant action against it change in no way whatsoever much of the international community's views (as Israel sees it) about how it should behave.
So in 1948, when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated they thought "fuck it" and took over Arab villages as an act of war. In 1967 and 1973 when they realised they were actually winning the war, and not being annihilated, they occupied enemy land as an act of war. And in 2023, when they were attacked, they took the fight to the enemy.
Is that "inherent"? No idea - it depends on your categories.
None of those statements describe what British culture "inherently" is.
That there are people in a country that hold ant-semitic views does not mean that the culture of a country is anto-semitic.
After the revolution a number of synagogues were seized by the revolutionaries. The Jewish Council sued for their return and the Revolutionary Council ruled in their favour and awarded damages.
I can't see this working in the Levant, nor do I think the Israelis should be expected to give up their country. It serves as a defence against changing attitudes and future persecution. But just pointing out that some Muslim countries do have good internal relationships with their Jewish minorities.
Point of Order.
"Get the Hat or I can't hear him."
https://youtu.be/eH0wvkZmGKQ?t=1043
The Jewish population of Iran has fallen by 90% or more since the Iranian Revolution from ~100k to <10k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sOgfNwhpzWw
https://twitter.com/TelegraphRugby/status/1713827186040328300
Do tell.
There IS a low level anti-Semitism in British society. Fortunately, nearly all of the time it remains exactly that - a quiet background murmur of tiny slurs, about them being clannish, cunning and wealthy. it's not just Britain. You can find it in almost every western society, if not all around the world
But other groups experience the same - blacks, Muslims, rich whites, poor whites (chavs!), gays, the English in Scotland, it is human nature
What makes anti-Semitism troubling amongst these many prejudices is that in certain groups it (uniquely?) metamorphosises into a potentially violent hatred - on the far right, the Corbynite left, and within radical Islam
The Iron Beam air defence system can fire powerful beams of light that can destroy fast-moving projectiles
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/16/israel-tests-laser-missile-defence-iron-dome-gaza-hamas/
if what was suggested in the call genuinely comes to pass, it could change the world. I'm not joking
(I accept I sound entirely mad)
Prior to the Ayatollahs coming to power the population was ca. 100,000.
That does not suggest to me a country with a good internal relationship with its Jewish minority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkGpXM85qJE
Worth also noting that the vast majority of Persian Jews have left the country since 1979 and there are only a few thousand left.
In short, while I understand everything you say is factually correct, I don't think it accurately reflects life for Jews in Iran today.
I am sure things are by no means perfect but then it is Iran, with a hard line dictatorship in power. Things are not perfect for most of the Muslims there either. But the question was about religious protection and tolerance and Iran seems to do that pretty well. And as of 2018 there were about 15000 jews in Iran.
I'm giving you privileged information that I know something amazing that you don't. You should be grateful
It makes the Finland Rumour look like a quark compared to a galaxy in terms of relative importance
What exactly happened with the Finland rumour. Nothing ever came of it, did it ?
Obvious question: Is what she said true?
I've heard 'quiet background murmurs of tiny slurs' about all the other groups you mention - which I agree is human nature - but honestly never Jews.
There was Maureen Lipman's character in the BT adverts. There was the BBC sitcom of the late 80s/early 90s 'So Haunt Me'. And I suppose there is 'Friday Night Dinner'. From which we might infer that Jewish women, er, like their families and insist on feeding them - which as slurs go is pretty tame. But otherwise, Jews go remarkably unnoticed.
There is of course the occasional bit of imagery - that Steve Bell cartoon, the mural in London that Jeremy Corbyn was somehow involved in the non-condemnation of, that Labour party poster of Michael Howard, or something. But none of this really represents mainstream culture, nor really strikes a chord, because, as I say, in general British culture (rather than the ravings of a few unlistened-to nutters) anti-Semitism really isn't a thing.
Guardian cartoonist sacked over ‘anti-Semitic’ Netanyahu drawing
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/
The far right is so tiny it doesn't matter so much, but it is there as well, obvs
It is also present in almost anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, that is not a small group. And so on. f you've not encountered it at all I'd say you are either very lucky or you are not attuned to it
The issue now is that for decades this anti-Semitism has been so low level as to be scarcely noticeable, like a background hum of distant traffic. Suddenly we can hear the engines roaring past
"In the first place it is remarkable that a senior MP in his 60s should think it appropriate that he should be sharing a bedroom and bathroom with his employee, and an employee in his early 20s. That in itself rings alarm bells. But from an objective standpoint, the respondent’s conduct in exposing himself in this way, with his genitals close to this young employee’s face, in an unwanted intimate context in a confined space, was not mere nudity. It was indecent exposure. There can be no doubt about it. Once the complainant’s account was believed, which it was, the outcome was inevitable. Objectively, this was sexual misconduct: it was conduct of a sexual nature which was non-consensual; it was unwanted behaviour which was perceived by the complainant as sexual, and rightly so, and it was intimidating."
"This case is all about the exercise of power and control over a young employee, both in the bullying and sexual misconduct. The investigator described the respondent’s position as a ‘significant position of power’. In our view, there was a complete imbalance of power between them which the respondent deliberately exploited over months. It is said that the respondent disliked the complainant and believed him to be weak. That was no excuse for targeting him with a concerted campaign of bullying and an incident of sexual misconduct."
This is not the first case in recent times of this sort of behaviour by MPs, of more than one party. That an internal complaint in the Conservative Party went nowhere for five years is a concern. There will need to be significant reform of the way staff welfare is managed in Parliament - there are some great MPs to work for, but this sort of thing happens far too often.
"Guys! We have this world-shattering info! Who shall we phone first?"
"I know this drug-raddled lush that knaps flint dildos"
"Excellent! Phone him immediately!"
Maybe I am the equivalent of the old git sitting at the bar, sipping a pint of mild, in the Eagle Taven in Cambridge, when Crick and Watson rushed in to tell everyone about DNA
Remember what happened to those who got too close on Horsell Common (and, of course, in Mars Attacks).
PS, Whoooooosh.
Personally, I'm guessing they've found the Loch Ness monster at stilted.fruity.otherwise.
eg (I am not sure whether this is true, I put it forward as an example.) Non citizens not being entitled to medical treatment on the state.
I am sceptical of the "not Jewish" part. There are a lot of people in Israel who are not regarded or accepted as Jewish and some groups not recognised officially - ~15k Messianic Jews (ie Jewish converts to Christianity), for example.
That's in addition to the 2.5m+ Palestinians / Arabs.
But my bit of British culture is pretty wide and I don't really come across any of it. I'm sure there are some mad left wingers at work - I work in the middle class public sector, after all - but even here if anyone does hold anti-Semitic views they are self-aware enough not to share them. It's honestly a prejudice, however mild, that I've never heard expressed. If anti-Semitism really was inherent in British culture people would feel entirely comfortable dropping little digs in the expectation that everyone listening felt the same way.
Granted though there are some small but not insignificant subcultures within which it is pretty prevalent.
I just got off the call and went Jeezusss F Christickle and my instant reaction was such a level of excitement I had to tell SOMEONE even if I coiuldn't give deets so I told you guys
I told my editor at the Knappers Gazette, not a person given to exaggeration, and she reacted:
"OMG – that is insane!! Just perfection."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67056279
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
North Macedonia
Montenegro
Serbia
Not exactly a one state solution.
Things like
"They do drive a hard bargain", or "they certainly know where every penny goes", with a slight roll of the eyes and a wry chuckle
It is very very subtle but the subtext is there
You also definitely encounter it in people who interact with ultra-Orthodox Jews, because they can be a pain in the butt, to be frank
You've just been conversing with a perfect avatar of yourself, telling you about an encounter with an Albanian taxi driver who had that Zuckerberg guy in his cab the other day.
Did you swap dildo tips ?
'The thing about Margaret’s Cabinet is that it includes more Old Estonians than it does Old Etonians.'
I am generally a fan of SuperMac but eesh.
What is the point of Tories if they do things like this?
https://order-order.com/2023/10/16/ofcom-online-safety-director-is-vociferously-anti-israel/
Corbyn's shite is much worse. The mural? Really? He didn't notice? What a load of bollocks
So, to reply to a comment of your last night: I said:
The difference between rugby and test cricket, for me, is this: There is no sport I would rather watch than England playing test cricket. But as a neutral, thereis no sport I would rather watch than rugby.
To which you replied:
Agreed, but it has to be high level, high stakes international rugby
Anything lower level can be dire, TBH
Football for me remains the supreme game, overall - nothing can feasibly beat the Argentine France Final, surely
But for pulsating intensity - top level rugger, and for aesthetic, exquisite pleasure - cricket
To which my response today, is:
Men's football still doesn't really move me or excite me in the way it did in my teens, and leaves me both cold and irritated. But that's just me. Clearly many people like it more than anything else.
Of course, any game at the top level for high stakes is most exciting. But I enjoy lower level rugby too. I'd rather watch a tier 3 rugby game in which I had no stake than a premiership football game. The skill level may not be as good, but the game is better. I think it is because it's not really possible to play rugby at anything less than 100%. Large parts of football matches seem to be the ball being passed around to no great effect while both teams wait for the game to be over. That doesn't happen in rugby. Even when it doesn't progress skilfully, it progresses with intensity.
But while it may not be possible to play rugby at less than 100%, it is certainly possible to prepare for a rugby match at less than 100% - some would argue these were better days: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htCTWZqCMhQ)
(This must be at least the fourth time in the history of pb.com I have managed to wangle a clip of this incident into the discussion.)
And now I shall shut up as someone saying "Oooh I know something wild but can't tell you", is an extremely annoying person, and I'd hate to be that!
It really was a reflex reaction to blurt it out on here