To think that being Anti Israeli is not the same as being Anti Semitic and to be horrified by the suggestion?!

[SoBloodyOffended]

A pro Palestinian group staged a large protest in my home town and it's currently being discussed on a local Facebook page. All was well until some women came wading in and accused the group of being "Anti Semitic" and then started accusing myself and other people who were speaking in favour of the protest of being "disgusting anti Semites".

I was slightly taken a back at this remark and replied that being opposed to the policies of Israel does not make someone an Anti Semite, but she wasn't having any of it. Apparently being Anti Israel is being Anti Semitic, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for daring to speak out against a group of people who've been "persecuted for centuries".

I'm horribly offended at this statement as anyone who knows me knows that there's not a racist bone in my body, furthermore myself and most of the people who were supporting the protest have been involved in campaigning against the BNP and other racist organisations. Yet apparently because we are appalled and upset about the actions of Israel this makes us anti Semitic!

WTF is she on? I'm fucking fuming!

Monetsgarden, with all due respect if you don't know much about the history of Israel's founding perhaps you should do some research before expressing such sweeping opinions.

I don't think I support any country's 'right' to treat its citizens/indigenous peoples differently based on their religion or lack of it. Not sure if that makes me anti-zionist or not.

But I certainly don't believe that the existance of a Jewish homeland negates the need to tackle antisemitism in all countries including the UK. Neither do I think the 2 should be confabulated (I've heard a lot of 'well if Israel was nicer to the Palastinians then Jewish cemeteries wouldn't be desecrated' kind of crap).

So in answer to the OP YANBU but I do think that the Palastinian/Israeli situation is used by some as a thin veil for antisemitism.

I don't see how it's that sweeping a position - I think asking for the removal of a state that already exists, no matter what happened in 1948, seems a fairly anti-semitic position - we're not really discussing what happened in 1948, and unless you're a regional expert or Professor, you probably don't know enough about it either

Why does it seem anti Semitic to you Monet?

That's the bit I don't get.

What do you actually mean by anti Semitic?

I could be wrong, but I basically understand the term to mean 'racist against Jewish people'.

I don't see how objecting to the way a state was created when it meant the displacement and destruction of lives to thousands of peaceful people can be racist.

If that's the logic we're going by, then all Israeli settlers must be Islamophobic, seeing as it was people who followed Islam that were displaced. But that doesn't really make sense, does it?

WooWooOwl, yes, that's how I understand the term.

The point I'm making is not that terrible things weren't done in Israel's history, that shouldn't have been done, but the historical reality is that Israel does exist as a state. It is considered by most Jewish people around the world as a necessary response to centuries of persecution.

If you don't think that the Jewish people, who have always been in the minorities wherever they have lived (unlike Hindus, Christians, and Muslims) don't have the right to a state in a part of the world where there were existing Jewish populations, that is racist against Jewish people.

Ok now I see. So I think you can object to how a state was created and you can object to how it behaves, as I do, but I do not now want to see it destroyed.

I know that some opponents of Israel would like to see land returned to Palestinians thereby altering the demography of Israel and making it into a non exclusively Jewish state.I still do not think this necessarily anti-Semitic.

You are prioritising the needs of Jewish settlers in Israel over the rights of the original inhabitants. This could be construed as racist.

Why am I prioritising the rights of Jewish settlers over the rights of the original inhabitants?

Money, again, by that logic, I would have to be Islamophobic to not believe that Muslims don't have the right to a state in a part of the world where there were existing Muslim populations.

I believe that both Jewish people and Muslim people have equal right to live on the land that is Israel. They all deserve safety, they all deserve to live on land where their families have been for generations.

Forcibly removing people from their homes, which is what happened, was not a necessary response to generations of persecution.

You cannot choose to ignore history when it suits you but then use it to justify persecution now. Just as Jewish people will remember how their predecessors were persecuted, so will the Palestinian refugees of today.

The Jewish people were given justice when the UN provided them with a safe place to live, but at the same time a huge injustice was being done to the Muslims of Palestine. And now they deserve justice too.

But Woo, I don't see anyone arguing (at least on this thread) that Palestine doesn't have the right to exist as a state - if that were the case, but no-one is

Israel's words don't argue that Palestine doesn't have the right to exist, but their actions speak very differently.

But we're not talking about whether Israel is or isn't an Islamophobic thread - we're talking about the views of largely liberal middle class people in the UK - and a great many people do, when pushed, don't seem to support the right of Israel to exist, whereas I've not a single person who argues that Palestine doesn't have the right to exist

Sorry I meant Islamophobic state, not thread

Being "anti-Israel" OTOH is ambiguous, because it might mean that you deny the right of Israel to exist

This.

If you deny the right of Israel to exist, then I'm afraid, you are anti-Semitic (see the Hamas Charter - almost every section of it is either [summarised] "kill Jews" or "Destroy Israel"). If you are anti-Zionist, you are anti-Semitic. A Zionist believes in the right of Israel to exist.

So I think that we all have to be very precise in our use of language at this time.

Maybe you need to ask yourself why largely liberal, middle class people have this opinion then.

It doesn't make much sense to automatically assume that it must be down to closet racism, and that very simplistic assumption just closes down discussion over whether we in the west did the right thing or not back in the years post ww2.

There are valid reasons for a belief that Isreal shouldn't have been created in the way it was. There are valid reasons to believe that Isreal has proved itself to be an oppressive, almost terrorist, state.

You should look into what those reasons are before assuming racism.

Hedges, I completely disagree with that.

Just a couple of points:
Israel is not 'an exclusively Jewish state': 20% of the population, within the 1948 borders, is Palestinian.
Also, many Israelis are from families which left Arab countries under various forms of duress in the late 1940s and the 1950s, often leaving all their property and cash behind. The difference is that the Jewish refugees were resettled, and the Palestinian refugees have not been.

Thank you Hedges - it's closing down debate when any opposition to anything Israel does is labelled Anti-semitic, but I agree that to be against the right of Israel to exist, is in my opinion anti-semitic - I think Hedges can explain it better than me

Hedges, as you brought Hamas into the discussion, here is a list of their demands.

Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border.

Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths.

Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people.

Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision.

Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers.

Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations.

International forces on the borders.

Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement.

Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.

Are those things really that unreasonable?

Hedges, I completely disagree with that

Which bit WooWoo? You may disagree, but I've simply stated fact. You can have an opinion, but it doesn't make it a fact.

Israel was set up as a homeland for the Jewish people. And the necessity for such a state is attested to quite eloquently by other posters in this thread.

It doesn't mean that criticism of the current Israeli government is anti-Semitic, but blanket condemnations of Israel can be anti-Semitic. Or, more precisely a cover or code for anti-Semitism. See for example, the rather shocking thread in AIBU about someone feeling angry towards her Israeli neighbours, because they are Israeli. I don't know whether those neighbours are Jewish (not all Israelis are Jewish) but if they are, then her unfounded anger at these individuals is anti-SEmitic. It's a dangerous prejudice.

I think ths debate & discussion is really important: it makes visible how strong and deep-running anti-Semitism in western European thought is. It doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss such things. But we should try to be as careful as possible about the language we use, how we use terms, and be precise & specific.

Hedges, as you brought Hamas into the discussion, here is a list of their demands

I think you need to read the Hamas Charter. But I warn you, it's not pleasant (even for a reader who isn't Jewish).

Hamas Charter

Article Three: Structure and Essence
The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who are devoted to Allah and worship Him verily [as it is written]: “I have created Man and Devil for the purpose of their worship” [of Allah]. Those Muslims are cognizant of their duty towards themselves, their families and country and they have been relying on Allah for all that. They have raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors’] desecration, filth and evil.

[so Israelis are "filth and evil"]

Article Seven: The Universality of Hamas

[edit] "Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

I could go on, but I hope you get the jist. It's maing me ill reading the CHarter again, but I suppose we have to face these things.

yes doesn't sound very pleasant and intolerant towards any other religion but somehow not surprised. article 6

when I visited Israel there were a mixture of faiths

I have read parts of the charter previously, and clearly, it's not pleasant.

I am not a supporter of Hamas in any way, but I don't think that what they want for now to stop the current violence is unreasonable.

Anyway, this is going off topic, so back to the point.

The necessity for a state such as Israel is still only opinion, not fact. As you say, we can have opinions without them being fact.

I am obviously not going to argue that there was no need to do anything to aid the Jewish people after WW2, it's more than obvious that something needed to be done for them, but I disagree that creating Isreal in the way that it was created, was the only solution.

It was one option, and considering what has happened to Palestinians since it was created, I think it's reasonable to consider that it might not have been the best option.

What I disagreed with was this

If you deny the right of Israel to exist, then I'm afraid, you are anti-Semitic

It doesn't make sense to say that if you don't agree with the politics of a situation then you are automatically racist. It's just not that simple.

Being racist is to judge someone negatively because of the country they were born in, or because of the colour of their or skin, or because they are from another race.

Being racist is not disagreeing with the way a country was set up, especially when the setting up of that country led to horrendous suffering for people (who are incidentally also from a different race to your own).

Woo, at its foundation, what is your general argument (not specific, general) against the idea that there should be a Jewish homeland of some form in the Middle East?