Criticism of Israel and antisemitism

[psychomath]

This is not a TAAT - it's something I've been thinking about recently anyway with the accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party, and after reading this article in Spiked magazine. The thread about Israel killing a journalist reminded me that I'd been intending to post it, but it's not a response to that thread in particular or any posters in it. Just wanted to get that out of the way before anyone thinks I'm having a passive-aggressive go at them personally.

I do think there's a disproportionate focus among parts of the left on criticising the actions of the Israeli government compared to those of (other) oppressive regimes, both in the Middle East and across the world. I'm sure that the vast majority of individuals involved in this criticism are not remotely antisemitic, and in fact I'm not entirely convinced that antisemitism is the main root of the issue at all. On the other hand, it does seem like there's something strange going on in the wider picture.

It's a tricky issue to discuss because, obviously, criticism of Israeli foreign policy doesn't in itself make you antisemitic, and a lot of it is valid. In addition, everyone has their own particular areas of interest, and it would be ridiculous to require that people know about every single global conflict before being allowed to comment on the Israel-Palestine one specifically. It's also perfectly reasonable for people to want to be able to discuss Israel without others immediately jumping into the conversation to say 'why do you only ever talk about Israel and not Saudi Arabia/ISIS/whoever?' So no individual is doing anything inherently wrong by having these conversations, and in and of themselves they're good and important conversations to have.

However, if it were simply a case of people having different interests, you would expect to see a number of groups devoted to criticism of various regimes - some people would be interested in Israel, but there would be similar numbers whose biggest concern was the Saudi bombing of Yemen, or Turkish attacks on Kurdish regions of Syria. Instead, there's a huge amount of support among the left generally for the Palestinian cause - numerous student unions officially support BDS, for example, and Israeli Apartheid Week is often marked by events on campus - whereas there seems to be (comparatively) far less attention drawn to or even understanding of the other issues. Among the left-wing people I know personally, everyone has an opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but very very few are even aware that there is a civil war in Yemen, never mind angry about the Saudi involvement in it and our own continuing ties with the Saudi government. That's anecdotal of course, but from reading left-wing pages and blogs it seems to be reflected in wider society as well.

So when people complain about 'whataboutery' in conversations about Israel, or how they should be able to discuss the actions of the Israeli government without being accused of antisemitism, I don't think they're entirely wrong to be annoyed by it. But at the same time, I think people need to understand that these conversations don't happen in a vacuum. When you're confronted by what feels like a constant steady drip of anti-Israel sentiment, and simultaneously see very little criticism of other countries' policies even when they're arguably as bad or worse, it's hard not to feel under fire sometimes. And because it's such a widespread and decentralised phenomenon, there's often no place to direct this frustration except (perhaps unfairly) at the individuals participating in these conversations. AIBU to see it this way?

I've long wondered why the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon attracts so little attention; I'm sure not many people are even aware how bad their situation is. There certainly isn't a Lebanon Apartheid Week. If there is any mention of it, it's usually only in the context of the Nakba or arguments over the right of return. Of course, this shouldn't be used to let Israel off the hook for its belligerence and in terms of how badly it treats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. However, as Lebanon is arguably a semi-democracy, surely it could do better? Think of all the suffering and wasted human potential. People of Palestinian descent living in the US or UK, for example, will be full citizens of those countries, even if they should not have had to leave in the first place. As the Arab-Israeli diplomat George Deek said a few years ago, "Why is it, that my relatives in Canada are Canadian citizens, while my relatives in Syria, Lebanon or the Gulf countries – who were born there and know no other home – are still considered refugees?"

Ghosts - the obvious answer is that many or even most of those who claim to be pro-Palestinian are in reality anti-Israel, and if it is something they can;t blame Israel for then their interest in Palestinian welfare drops to zero.....

Just heard on LBC that the Israeli LP, sister to our own LP, has broken off relations with Corbyn. Not with the rest of the British LP, just its leader.

Haven't read their statement, but I gather that Corbyn's support for the Palestinian Right to Return is incompatible with the Jewish right to self-determination, as supported by the UN. I can see the logic in this, given that the Palestinians are claiming the right to return for the descendants of the original refugees, including those scattered among other countries. If they were able to return, Jewish Israelis would be outnumbered and there would be no Jewish state or homeland for world Jewry.

I don't know how Corbyn squares this circle. He is meant to be in favour of the 2 state solution.

Eachpeach

I believe that the State of Israel has the right to exist. I don't agree with all of its actions in defending that right.

It's the 20th anniversary today of the Good Friday Agreement. I remember the Troubles. My family and I were twice caught up in the aftermath of IRA bombings in London. It was a huge achievement to bring about peace and both sides had to compromise. Adams and McGuinness had to put aside their dream for a united Ireland. The Protestants had to agree to power-sharing.

I'm not comparing like with like, of course. Fortunately, unlike with Israel, the Irish Republic wasn't openly at war with Northern Ireland,.

However, there has in the end to be a political solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. But that will require Hamas to give up its declared aim to destroy Israel and the Palestinians to accept that they have been fighting for a lost cause for the last 70 years. So long as they are surrounded by hostile states the Israelis will never retreat to indefensible borders. The wall and intensive security have cut down attacks by suicide bombers, but they are still dealing with rocket attacks on a daily basis.

I believe that the State of Israel has the right to exist. I don't agree with all of its actions in defending that right. So do you think any group can just seize another countries land? I think it is a difficult situation as obviously many Israelis are now in a position where that is their country of birth but if you were a Palestinian and you were kicked out of your home, off your land and out of your country would you just think that is OK? Don't you think Israel owes the Palestinians something?

Israel’s problems are about way more than religion but you only get an inkling of them when you visit. There is a lot of bribery and corruption, a lot of closed door deals, a lot of anti-female and anti-gay rhetoric. A lot of racism. In many ways it’s no different to Saudi Arabia; in many ways it’s worse.

peacheachpearplum - Cuisant that is interesting as the Jews wanted to travel back 2000 years and fought for their time travel. They now don't like that other people want to time travel 70 years.

No, the Jews didn't want to travel back 2000 years. They wanted a territory to live in as home then, and this was the one they were given by international law. It also happens to be the one where Jews had been liven in an unbroken line for well over 2,000 years.

Now you might argue correctly that other people had been living there too, and of course that is true. But the fact remains that Israel belongs to Israel because it does, under international law. You might not like it, but that's just how it is.

You ask: So do you think any group can just seize another countries land?

Well, yes, I do. Unless you're in favour of all white English-speaking-people leaving both America and Australia pronto, and giving them back to their indigenous populations? Are you in favour of Pakistan ceasing to exist and all the territory going back to India?

You have the weirdest view of history and geography - you seem to think the way the map is now and where different peoples live is how and where they've always been.

What year do you think we should go back to and stick in then? Shall we say 1900? Presumably you'd be happy for the whole of Eastern Europe to magically become part of the Russian Empire again then?

etc etc etc.

Why is Israel the ONLY country in the world which needs to magically not exist, according to you? So presumably you think it should be a British Mandate again, given that's what it was before the State of Israel was formed?

You are aware, presumably, that there has never ever in history been such a thing as a sovereign Palestinian State? So you couldn't go back to it if you wished...because such a thing never existed?

Well, yes, I do. Unless you're in favour of all white English-speaking-people leaving both America and Australia pronto

Actually I think that the powers that be in Australia and the US should be doing a great deal more than they have done in terms of reparations to the indigenous people. It's an ongoing disgrace, although granted not a much-talked-about one.
So no of course it's not all right for anyone to rock up and take someone else's land off them.

But the Jews didn't just 'rock up and take someone else's land off them'. After WW2, the world was in flux. Refugees all over the place. The Iron Curtain was descending. Borders were re-drawn. Berlin was divided between East and West, even tho' it was in East Germany. There had to be a corridor to link it to West Germany, and the capital of WG was Bonn not Berlin. India was partitioned and Pakistan was created. Many many people were uprooted so Pakistan could be for Muslims and India for Hindus.

As Cuisant says, the State of Israel was created under international law in territory that was previously run by Britain.

Glug - I doubt very much whether many in the western world would share your view about life in Israel - 'In many ways it’s no different to Saudi Arabia; in many ways it’s worse.' For a start, Israel was one of the first countries to have a woman PM, Golda Meir. Can't see that happening in Saudi any time soon.

of course it's not all right for anyone to rock up and take someone else's land off them.

a) It wasn't 'someone else's land'. It was a British Mandate, which meant that /Britain administered it, but it didn't 'belong' to the Palestinians. Then, or at any other point in history, ever.

Before being a British Mandate, it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

So should we give it back to Britain then? To Turkey? To the Romans?

I don't get why you are obsessed with returning the land to what you appear to think are its 'rightful owners' - even though these people never actually owned it at any point in history.

There has never been a 'State of Palestine'. Ever.

Why should there be one now?

b) If you object to people taking other people's land off them, in this bizarre world view where no land ever changes hands, and the world looks like just like a map, with the soil different colours, and the name of the 'people who own it forever' written on the soil of each country in big capital letters - please explain how you fit into that the fact that without a shadow of a doubt, the land previously belonged to the Jews, Romans and Turks. And that the Romans conquered it from the Jews.

So by your law which states that conquest is wrong, and he who had it first gets to keep it forever, surely it belongs to the Jews?

Since, as you say, of course it's not all right for anyone to rock up and take someone else's land off them.

@thymeout - ever been a non-herereosexual foreign brown woman in Israel? I have been. It’s no better than Saudi in my experience. In matters of racism it’s worse; on a par with S Korea which tends on awful.

The British caused the problem with Ghaza. Caused the problem with Pakistan. Northern Ireland. And caused all kinds of problems in Africa. If anyone is to blame for Israel existing it’s the British government - not Israeli people or the Israeli government. That said you can blame the Israeli government for a lot of shit that happens now; some of their Ghaza Strip policies are on a par with Chinese policies in Tibet!

Israel exists, it is under constant threat. It has one of the strongest defences in the world, it is surrounded by hostile neighbours.

Can I point out that with the exception of the land that Israel won in 1967, after a defensive war, Israel did not "seize" any land - the area was designated as Israeli territory by the UN in 1948.

You can't start demanding that everywhere in the world goes back to the borders of 70 years ago and that international law everywhere should just be ignored, because you don't like what the country in question does - or that's the end of Pakistan, all those independent republics now have to rejoin the Soviet Union, which we need to recreate for these purposes, west Poland goes back to Germany, we have to recreate Yugoslavia, (which will be so peaceful) , etc etc etc.

You can't demand that Israel - entirely coincidentally the only Jewish State in the world - is the only place in the world which is not entitled to the territory it hold under international law, and not have people wonder what your motivation for picking Israel out as the only State in the world that does not deserve the rights to exist it enjoys under international law.

When you pick on the world's only Jewish State and demand it alone is removed, it is quite hard to see any motivation for that that isn't anti-Semitic.

Why is Israel the ONLY country in the world which needs to magically not exist, according to you? So presumably you think it should be a British Mandate again, given that's what it was before the State of Israel was formed? I think the British should have honoured the promises made during WW1 to give Palestine to the Palestinians. That would have been the population living there, Jews, Muslims and Christians. I don't think Muslims should have been made homeless and Jews from all over the world allowed to settle their land.

Can I point out that with the exception of the land that Israel won in 1967, after a defensive war, Israel did not "seize" any land - the area was designated as Israeli territory by the UN in 1948. And there had been no terrorism by Irgun, The Stern Gang etc, no British soldiers murdered? It is a state born in blood and the blood is still being shed.

The British caused the problem with Ghaza. Caused the problem with Pakistan. Northern Ireland. And caused all kinds of problems in Africa. Very true, the British have a record or leaving a trail of chaos behind them.

When you pick on the world's only Jewish State and demand it alone is removed, it is quite hard to see any motivation for that that isn't anti-Semitic. It is a thread about Israel and anti-semitism so that might just be the motivation. If you want to broaden things I think the Chinese in Tibet aren't great, the behaviour of Myanmar towards the Rohingya is awful, the way indigenous populations are treated in countries like the USA and Canada is appalling. Australia is no better.

If you want to go back a bit further then the treatment of Jews in europe was disgraceful and not just in WW2 and not just in Germany. The Japanese did some pretty horrific things in China, the Koreans didn't have a great time either.

The British don't have a great record in Ireland.

The list is never ending but not terribly relevant in a thread about anti-semitism unless you think that is all a Jewish conspiracy? I'm not buying it myself.

So basically, the colonial past is being used as justification for Israel's actions.

Even though colonialism is now recognised as having been a terrible thing for the colonised.

I suppose it does help explain the mindset though!

Thyme has his the nail on the head. The anti-Semitism is rooted in economic perspectives (in the same way that it was in the interwar period and during WWII). It has expanded to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but there certainly is an element of anti-Semitism at the heart of it.

And I agree that it's difficult, as a Jew, to explain why a lot of anti-Israel (or anti-Israeli government) perspectives come across as anti-Semitic.

I don't think Muslims should have been made homeless and Jews from all over the world allowed to settle their land

You appear unaware that the number of Jews expelled ie made homeless from Muslim lands was greater than the number of Muslims expelled from what is now Israel.

Why do you support the Muslim refugees' rights to return to their former homes, but not the rights of the Jews who were also expelled?

Why if Israel can happily incorporate those Jews expelled from other neighbouring countries, can the far larger number of Muslim countries surrounding Israel not welcome in and give full rights to those Muslims who fled what is now Israel? It's hardly that the surrounding Muslim countries lack the room - after all, their combined territory is about 1,000 X the size of Israel.

And this kind of population transfer is hardly unique - and the scale is tiny. Compare the hundreds of millions of Muslims/Hindus forced to resettle at the time of Partition. An estimated 100 million people were killed in the violence that that population transfer involved. Which clearly dwarfs the numbers hurt in the creation of the State of Israel (and indeed in the 70 years since).

So why this obsession with Israel?

It is impossible to see any logical reason for it.

It's possible to think Israel as a country is behaving badly without considering the fact it is a Jewish state. Jewish people have been treated terribly throughout history and I can only attempt to understand how that would feel but it doesn't mean every criticism of Israel is one of Judaism too.

maxthemartian - the colonial past is being used as justification for Israel's actions

Eh? How did you figure that out?

You think the UN is a colonial body?

peacheachpearplum was the poster who was using "the colonial past is being used as justification for Israel's actions" - she was the one who believed that the world should be based on a "promise" the British apparently made in WWI. And not the...erm..other promise that it made in 1917 which said the opposite.

I don't think that what the British may or may not have promised has any bearing on this here or there. I think that what matters is that Israel exists under international law and so far the only apparent reason for objecting to that appears to be hatred of Jews.