Anti Semitism to increase after the government sides with Islamists

and they should absolutely be dealt with

So why have they not been dealt with?

I have and, as far as I can see, the definition doesn't cover people who have no strong belief about whether Israel should or shouldn't exist but simply believe that, like Italy, it does exist, and therefore has as much right to exist as any other country.

When you say Judea and Samaria , should you not be saying West Bank. That being Palestinian territory.

You know what the proposal is. It has been tried out on Oct 7th.

Where are you proposing moving over half a million people to though? Many of whom have lived there for decades.

Even those who aren't violent personally, if they love in settlements, are loving in land that had been violently and illegally stolen from others. All settlers are to blame for choosing to live on stolen land.

Maybe Google what Zionism is?

But most Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria are peaceful people just living their lifes. There is under 1000 " violent" settlers and they should absolutely be dealt with but these sanctions won't effect them at all.

Just to clear, do you think that the 80% of Jewish people who describe themselves as zionists are wrong about what zionism is?

No, I’m not saying they are wrong, I’m saying that people mean different things when they say the word Zionism and have different understandings of what it is. I imagine people who describe themselves as zionists do not all mean exactly the same thing.

This article by Ethan Katz explains some of the different understandings of what zionism and also anti-zionism are. I haven’t finished reading it yet but the first section (up to “Critical anti-Zionism—A Short History”) talks about the different meanings people attach to the words.

Or are you saing that they are all carrying out acts of violence?

No, I’m not saying that at all and I’ve no idea how you’ve interpreted what I’ve said to possibly mean that.

And I'm not sure what you mean by no other context.

All I meant by this is that in my fictional analogy, say this ethnic group had a belief in environmentalism which they called “earthsaviourism”, then in my made up world “earthsaviorism” is not used in any other context than as the name of this group’s beliefs. It is not a general word for environmentalist beliefs.

So then if this group engage in eco-terrorism, that word “earthsaviourism” would soon become generally used to mean the eco-terrorist activities carried out by the group.

I hope this clarifies my somewhat convoluted analogy.

https://www.sourcesjournal.org/articles/when-is-anti-zionism-antisemitic-getting-beyond-the-polemics

Quote " If Scotland became an independent country, people who had campaigned against independence would have to recognise it as such, but that wouldn't make them Scottish Nationalists."

Good point. And that is I I think this is an odd concept. Because there is not a word that says Scotland should exist. It really is just language. A better example might be the USA. There is a word, confederate, for people who do not believe the USA should exist as it is. And there is Unionist, for people who think it does. And I think we only have those word because they had a way over it.

Personally, I just avoid using the word Zionist. Settlers with guns, I just call them what they are. Ultra nationalist expansionists. or land grabbers.

But isn't it important that Israel's right to exist should be on a par with Italy's right to exist regardless of whether or not anyone describes that as zionism?

I'm not disputing anyone's right to define themself as a zionist, but from an international law point of view, if recognising Israel = zionist, doesn't that muddy the waters?

If Scotland became an independent country, people who had campaigned against independence would have to recognise it as such, but that wouldn't make them Scottish Nationalists.

Is there a word for believing Italy should exist ? Probably not. But we can invent one. Italyist.

I believe Italy has a right to exist. That would make me an Italyist. Same I believe Israel has the same right. That makes me a Zionist.

The same as I believe in an Indy Scotland. That makes me a Scottish Nationalist. I may not like the label of Scottish Nationalist. But I am one. By definition. Same as I am a Zionist by definition. That I am both of these things, does not mean I agree what extreme people with the same title think. Same as believing Germany has a right to exist does not make one a fan of the Austrian corporal.

The only difference is that there is a distinct word for believing Israel has a right to exist, in it's location.

These sanctions are about the Israeli terrorists who are attempting to ethnically cleanse innocent people, men, women and children in the West Bank. It's about the UK upholding it's duties to international law. 2 years ago the ICJ found that Israel are illegal occupiers who are responsible for apartheid. There is a responsibility on all UN states to help end this. These sanctions, although mainly lip service, are there to prevent the UK from helping Israel along in their oppression of Palestinians.

Perhaps a little bit of reading on daily life for those in those people who are being brutalised in the West Bank may be helpful to help you understand what these sanctions are about.

This is what back to school looks like for Palestinian children in the West Bank. Ambulance crews are stationed outside and parents wait outside all day to try and make sure their children don't get killed going to school after a child was shot and killed at the school gates.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wj45g73g1o
This is a week of Israeli violence in the West Bank:
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c3wjq1188g9o
This article covers 2 days of Israeli violence in the West Bank:
www.timesofisrael.com/two-palestinians-hurt-by-settler-gunfire-including-nurse-said-to-be-paralyzed-for-life/amp/

But people who believe Italy has a right to exist aren't described as anything. It's just assumed that Italy has a right to exist because of international law.

Is it not possible to believe that Israel has a right to exist in the same way that any other country has a right to exist?

If they believe Israel has the right to exist and that Jews should be able to live freely as Jews without prejudice then yes they are a zionist

The faces when you point this out to some people claiming to be antizionits is rather special

The whole antizionism thing is actually rather laughable in some cases. People claiming to not want the destruction of Israel bit peace for both sides. Saying they believe Jews are equal to everyone else. Then they start talking about evil zionists. Of course some antizionits want exactly what it say on the label

@HowDoYouSolveAProblemLikeMyRear ,

I agree that Israel are morally superior to Hamas, but that is not a high bar!

All the members of Hamas who took part in or helped organised 7/10 should be wiped out. Ditto any who were involved with the hostages. This wasn’t fighting, it was systematic brutality against civilians.

‘But there's a much bigger difference - the difference of the nature of the violence. Israel gave warnings, allowed in food and medicine, targeted buildings and places where they had reason to believe Hamas was hiding out, and kept prisoners in humane conditions. Too many innocent people have been killed or maimed by the bombs - some of them were deliberately put in harm's way by Hamas; others were not. Some prisoners have been terribly treated over the years, but it hasn't been a policy or even systematic.’

I do take issue with some of this though.

Israel did give warnings, that’s true but kept moving people at impossibly fast speed into smaller and smaller areas.

They really didn’t allow in much food or medicine. Initially they were going to besiege Gaza and allow nothing in at all until all the hostages were handed back. You can hear Netanyahu saying that. It was only when Biden told them it was a war crime and withheld weapons that they changed that policy. Even so, they didn’t let nearly enough food in. Hamas had stockpiled plenty in advance, and so it was the civilians who suffered. Gaza was declared to be in near starvation and I have no reason to doubt the truth of that.

And they really didn’t keep prisoners in humane conditions. They tortured unconvicted Palestinians. The treatment of Palestinian prisoners wasn’t a ‘few bad apples’ , it was a systemic policy.

I think a lot of people want to gloss over the starvation (or near starvation), using food as a weapon and mistreatment of prisoners. However, the evidence from most reliable sources is pretty convincing.

Obviously Israel deny it and put out a competing narrative, and it is impossible to be sure. But, you have to ask yourself that if it were all slander, wouldn’t Israel have invited journalists in and told them they were free to ask whatever they wanted (obviously not war plans etc).

Just to clear, do you think that the 80% of Jewish people who describe themselves as zionists are wrong about what zionism is? Or are you saing that they are all carrying out acts of violence?

And I'm not sure what you mean by no other context.

Yes and, as I said, they've carried on longer than I think they should have. I feel incredibly sorry for the innocent Palestinians who never voted for Hamas and who never took part in the violence. Honestly, I feel sorry for majority of them, who voted for Hamas and sympathised with the violence too - it would be hard not to feel sad for people who are suffering, no matter what they've done in the past.

Nevertheless, there's a significant moral difference between the military response from Israel and the terrorism from Hamas. Hamas has bombed Israel most days for years. Palestine refused any settlement (wasn't it Arafat who said it wasn't enough to have all the territory they were fighting for - they wanted nothing short of Israel wiped off the map). I think there comes a time when responding to repeated attacks by attacking your attacker becomes self-defence. They're only going to be safe if Hamas is destroyed. I don't agree with the degree of the response but it isn't without some justification - I see it much like a woman who eventually snaps and murders her abusive partner, or who incapacitates her rapist but then carries on injuring them until they're pretty much dead. Neither response is truly proportional or morally right, but they're understandable.

But there's a much bigger difference - the difference of the nature of the violence. Israel gave warnings, allowed in food and medicine, targeted buildings and places where they had reason to believe Hamas was hiding out, and kept prisoners in humane conditions. Too many innocent people have been killed or maimed by the bombs - some of them were deliberately put in harm's way by Hamas; others were not. Some prisoners have been terribly treated over the years, but it hasn't been a policy or even systematic.

Hamas revelled in violence, rape, and torture. They systematically targeted civilians rather than soldiers or politicians, and they systematically targeted families, the elderly, children and babies. They mocked, raped, tortured, maimed, killed their victims and repeatedly captured it on film, boasting about it and further increasing their families' pain. And it's significant that none of the Muslim countries in the area welcome in Gazan refugees. They may be Israel's enemies, but they don't want such sadistically violent men in their countries.

I can't imagine the pain of having my child blown up by a foreign army and my home destroyed. But I'd rather my child be killed in a bomb, than that they be gang-raped, tortured and brutalized before being murdered.

I am sure I am demonstrating huge amounts of ignorance here, but isn't it possible to believe that a country has a right to exist simply because it does exist and is recognised by other countries? If somebody believes that Israel has a right to exist in the same way that Italy has a right to exist, are you saying that they are Zionist?

@Echobelly ,

As a secular Jew, I share a lot of your thoughts.

I think it is dangerous to conflate Jews with Israelis, although the existence of Israel does matter to most Jews, including me. However, my primary loyalty is to this country, not Israel, and I am happy to speak out and condemn their current behaviour.

I do think that we should at least threaten full sanctions on Israel unless they deal with the settlers properly and make clear that their plans for Gaza include somewhere habitable for the Palestinians.

The diaspora need to sometimes clearly speak out against Israeli actions, otherwise they become complicit. This is something people accuse Moslems of doing all the time (not condemning Islamic terrorism strongly enough). Never Again is about othering other ethnicities prior to eliminating them and Israel must not ever go down that road.

If the diaspora supports Israel unconditionally all the time, they can hardly be surprised if antisemitism rears its ugly head. That is why Mirvis (who is very connected to Israel, and hardly unbiased) is unhelpful here.

As I posted already, Zionism (to put it simply) is a believe that state of Israel should have been created / should exist. I have no idea what you think it means but saying Israeli citizens living in Israel don't believe Israel should exist is nuts. Or you are hanging around some really odd people.

Agreed. As a Jew I'd say the kind of people who pose a threat to us don't care what the government does about Israel one way or the other.

Also I thought it was agreed that conflating Jews and Israel was antisemitism (because it is) so why is the Chief Rabbi now conflating us with Israel?

Most Jews, even quite strongly Israel-supporting ones, decry what the settlers are doing - they are fucking things up for Israel's safety as well as harming Palestinians and I am frankly pissed off that Mirvis has made it look like we're more concerned about our own anxiety than a genuine threat to human safety.

The flood of 'settler violence' by masked men took off after interest in the war in Gaza started to wane

There is nothing new about British governments condemning the settlements.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/uks-key-role-in-brokering-un-resolution-on-israeli-settlements-confirmed

You may not believe in a two state solution, but this British government is being entirely consistent with previous governments in supporting a two state solution.

Israel's actions in the middle east have global consequences, and have had huge consequences over the last year, so other countries will continue to observe their actions and react accordingly. That is how the world works.

Fair enough, I’ll take that correction and withdraw that analogy.

Burnham wants to see Polanski/Greens lose support from the Muslim block. I am not saying all Muslims vote as a block BTW, however some do.