Anti-semitism in the UK

[Lolapusht]

Published yesterday I believe.

Evidence of anti-Semitism in the UK

Not sure if that link will work so…

https://x.com/nicolelampert/status/1944147294917439912?s=61&t=_cKTNp_TyAyzDViEOCJDFQ

This is true.

I also wonder what people on these protest marches think they're asking for when they chant 'globalise the intifada' and the like. To me that doesn't sound like a chant promoting raising global awareness about people suffering in Palestine. It sounds like a call for harm towards non-Israeli Jews.

There is so much not true here that I have to do this line by line:

Criticising a state or a political ideology isnt the same as denying a people’s right to exist.
We are not discussing a right to exist, we are discussing the right of self-determination

Hamas does not speak for all Palestinians, obviously.
I didn 't say they did, I said polls show most Palestinians do not recognise the Jewish right of self-determination. Around 55% to 65% do not, depending on which poll you look at.

Many Palestinians and their allies call for equal rights in one democratic state, not for Jews to be expelled.
That is not what self-determination is, that is taking away Jewish self-determination. The basic premise here is "look, we know Muslims once had rule over you and made you dhimmi for hundred of years, and that you have been expelled from every Arab country within the last 100 years, and that large number of these people openly call for your death pretty regularly, have invaded you half a dozen times, kidnapped your kids eleventy billion times and had parties they televised to celebrate your babies coffins - but trust me bro, if you give up your right of independence they will all want to live with you in a western style democracy where you will have a lovely and safe life" It is boohickey, obviously. No people on earth would give up their self-determination and certainly not to a population that has proven hostile over and over again.

its a call for equality.
No, it's not. It makes the entire land "Palestine", at the expense of Jewish self-determination.

Most Arab states have either already recognised Israel or are normalising relations.
No they haven't. 5 out of the 22 Arab states recognise Israel diplomatically (which is different) and none explicitly recognise the Jewish right to self-determination. If you look at their documentation they don't recognise it at all, and actually position Israel as European Colonialism.

even the Arab Peace Initiative offered recognition in exchange for a Palestinian state
but only if certain conditions were met, one of which was adherence to UN Resolution 194 that gives all Palestinian refugees a right to move to Israel, which would then mean it ceased in effect to be a Jewish state. So this is denying self determination by the back door.

The phrase “from the river to the sea” means different things to different people. For some its about ending apartheid and military rule, not about removing Jews.
To the Palestinian people, it means one Palestinian state from the river to the sea, which denies the Jewish right of self-determination.

You cannot strip a slogan of context and apply the worst possible interpretation to everyone who says it.
It really doesn't matter what protesters in the UK think it means. The PLO invented it, Hamas put it in their charter and they clearly said what it means: the elimination of Jewish sovereignty

Being anti-Zionist is not the same as being antisemitic.
This is really just sophistry. In theory it is not antisemitic to argue for a single state where everyone is free, votes in elections, is treated equally, and can live and flourish according to their race, religion, sex, sexuality and so on, but in practice that option is not available is it. It's like the scene from Life of Brian where he wants his right to have babies because it's a completely meaningless academic argument. Israel exists. Either it continues to, or it is annihilated, because they are not going to voluntarily give it up.

Plenty of Jewish groups and individuals are anti-Zionist, like Holocaust survivors, Israeli academics, and Jewish religious communities.
That's up to them, my experience is that they're very comfortable with antisemitism and only they can answer why on that. The point is that several million Jews in Israel want their right of self determination, and it is not up to a few people who also happen to be Jewish living in London or New York to remove that from them. I am sure they would adequately shit their pants if someone tried to remove their right of self-determination, so it's probably very easy to say.

Are they denying Jewish existence too? Of course they're not.
the conversation isn't about denying existence, it's about denying Jews the right of self-determination and yes - that is literally what they are doing.

Shouldnt come as a suprise, but most people oppose a system built on inequality and dispossession.
Well, actually no, they mostly seem to disregard that the system before Israel was formed was entirely based in inequality and dispossession. They seem to ignore the fact that Hamas and actually a large number of both Arab and Muslim states are built on inequality, and that they wouldn't be there in the first place had they not been bloody good as dispossession. And of course, the glaring elephant in the room is simply this: If Palestinian people wanted to build an equal right state with equality for everyone and where Jews were welcome, they have always been able to do that, and they have chosen the complete opposite.

Yep, Im sure. Calling for a single democratic state where everyone has equal rights is not the same as calling for destruction. Its a call for transformation.
As for the name, the country could be called whatever its people decide. Here are some options...

• Israel-Palestine
• the Democratic Republic of the Holy Land
• Israel
• Palestine
• Boaty McBoatface (if enough Brits are involved in the naming).

All the above would obviously have full citizenship and protections for Jews, Muslims, Christians and others.

South Africa didnt stop existing when apartheid ended. Rhodesia didnt disappear when it became Zimbabwe. Strange that this needs saying: a country isnt destroyed just because it stops privileging one group over another. The idea that equality equals erasure says more about how people view democracy than anything else.

Saying Palestinians cannot demand equality without threatening Jewish self-determination is a distortion of what self-determination means. Jews, like all people, deserve safety and dignity, but that cannot come through permanent occupation, siege and second-class citizenship for millions of Palestinians. That part needs underlining, bolding, everything.

Many Palestinians and Israelis support either a two state solution or one democratic state with equal rights. polls confirm that. The idea that calling for shared rights is somehow genocidal is a smokescreen.

As for the slogan “from the river to the sea,” not everyone using it is calling for erasure. Many are calling for an end to apartheid, as recognised by major human rights groups. Claiming otherwise flattens real political debate into propaganda.

And finally, Arab states like Egypt and Jordan have recognised Israel for decades, and Saudi Arabia was on the verge of normalising relations too. You cannot erase all of that complexity just to frame every call for justice as a threat.

"I don't want the destruction of Israel, I just want it transformed into a different country".

Before the 'official' war there was the 'unofficial' civil war. That broke out a day after the UN vote on 29 Nov 1947. There were Arabs who got displaced in the context of that war too.

Claiming that the Jews only owned 7 percent of the land (up to 12 percent according to other estimates) is disingenuous, as it implies the other 93 percent was owned by Arabs. It wasn't. At most 25 percent of the land was privately owned, and the true figure is more like 18-20 percent.

The Jews were originally promised all of Mandatory Palestine. That promise had already been rescinded by over 70 percent, when Tranjordan was created and handed over to the Hashemites.

The remaining twenty odd percent of the land was then to be partitioned between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews would get a bigger percentage of that small fraction, but even that was mostly desert. The Arabs got a far larger share of inhabitable and fertile land.

As to the Arabs being a majority. Well if only the British had allowed Jewish emigration on the same scale as Arab emigration. For starters many more Jews would have escaped the Nazis, but more importantly they wouldn't have been a majority.

The vast majority of the Arab population in the area wasn't a result of natural growth of their tiny numbers in the early 1800s, but due to emigration. Much of which happened because of the favourable economic conditions brought about by early Zionists.

If the only way Israel can survive is by permanently denying rights to millions of people based on ethnicity, then maybe the question should not be how to preserve that system but why it is acceptable in the first place.

South Africa did not disappear when it stopped being apartheid, it became more just. Why is equality seen as a threat instead of a goal?

Are you really that proud of belonging to a country that requires inequality and segregation to function? If the only way to protect Jewish self-determination is through occupation, walls and blockades, then perhaps the model needs to change.

According to Israeli archives, Palestinian displacement began well before the official war in May 1948. By March 1948, over 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or fled, according to Israeli historian Benny Morris, who based his research on declassified Israeli archives. This was during the civil war period following the UN partition plan, not a war started by Arab states.
You have said it yourself here, it was during a full-scale civil war. Arab leaders and Palestinian representatives had clearly and repeatedly rejected the idea of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine, they weren't quibbling over the size of it. They had also made explicit threats. Jamal al-Husayni (Palestinian Arab leader, UN speech, April 1948): “We will fight… we will annihilate the Jews in Palestine.” Armed Arab irregulars and Palestinian militias began attacking Jewish neighbourhoods within hours of the UN vote so it was already war.

The clearing of Palestinain villages was outlined in Plan Dalet, a military strategy approved by the Haganah in early 1948 and implemented before May. More than 200 villages were depopulated before a single Arab army crossed the border. This wasnt a reaction to invasion, it was a campaign of forced displacement already underway.
This is misleading, and is a common talking point i had to read about because I have heard it trotted out so much. Plan Dalet was a military strategy aimed at protecting Jewish communities amid escalating Arab violence - not a blueprint for ethnic cleansing. As you have cited Benny Morris, I will do the same - he said: “Plan D was not a political blueprint for expulsion... it was a military plan to ensure control of territory in the face of imminent invasion.” Most villages that were depopulated before May were either in active combat zones, assisting hostile forces, or evacuated due to fear and chaos during the civil war phase, which began immediately after the UN partition vote. Moreover, thousands of Arab irregulars were already fighting inside Palestine before the official invasion, making the claim that this occurred in a peaceful setting before the war just completely not true.

As for the partition plan, it gave 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned less than 7% of it.
75% of the land was owned by the Ottoman empire, and then the British empire, so it is a murky issue when you break up land nobody owns. But you are forgetting two things. First, that the Peel Commission 10 years earlier had offered 80% of the land to Palestinians, which they also flatly rejected, and secondly that they openly said, they would accept no Jewish sovereignty of any kind, anywhere on anything they considered "Arab Land". Which was basically the whole region. So if your concerns are fairness, maybe that should be taken into account, because I am unsure it's entirely fair to declare an entire region "Arab Land" ignoring the myriad of national, religious, cultural and ethnic identities who shared it - not least, those who were there first!

Sounds lovely, please organise Hamas or even the PA to start fighting for this instead and they can demonstrate good faith by immediately returning the hostages, teaching their kids that Jews have a shared right to the land, holding democratic elections and creating an equal right state of the type you describe on the land they already control.

"People keep attacking Israel therefore it needs to be transformed into a different country, which is exactly what those people attacking Israel want".

A thoroughly outstanding post.

You may be missing the massive ongoing instability and bloodshed in both South Africa and Zimbabwe, but I suspect you have your own idea what would happen and it makes you smile.

More of a two state solution supporter myself, but with slightly more moderate leadership. We can all dream I guess.

You're trying to obscure well documented historical facts behind a fog of justifications and selective framing.

Yes, civil war broke out after the UN partition plan in November 1947, but that doesnt erase the reality that by March 1948 (before any Arab state invaded) over 100,000 Palestinians had already been expelled or fled. Israeli historian Benny Morris, who btw is no partisan of the Palestinian cause, makes that clear using declassified Israeli sources. The displacement was not collateral damage from war, or a spontaneous flight due to chaos. It followed deliberate military operations, including Plan Dalet, which was not just defensive. Morris himself wrote that expulsions were sometimes strategic and intentional, not incidental.

Citing Arab threats does not justify the mass expulsion of civilians. There is no moral or legal basis for collective punishment. Attacks by armed groups are not license to clear entire villages of unarmed inhabitants. Even if Arab leaders rejected partition, that does not retroactively legitimise ethnic cleansing.

And the partition plan’s proposed allocation of 55% of the land to the Jewish minority, which owned under 7% of it, cant be brushed aside with vague claims about murky imperial ownership. That land was lived on, farmed and cultivated by Palestinians. Saying it belonged to the Ottomans is like saying no one owned their homes in colonial Kenya because Britain held the deed.

Finally, waving away Palestinian rejection of partition by saying they also rejected earlier proposals ignores the obvious: none of these plans were made with Palestinian consent. Why is it unreasonable that a population would resist being partitioned against their will and see strangers given their homes? If fairness is your concern, maybe start by asking how one people’s independence was granted by denying another’s.

You say you fear instability and bloodshed like South Africa or Zimbabwe, but why ignore that Israel in its current form is already deeply committed to both.

Palestinians are living under military rule, facing displacement, siege, bombing and apartheid conditions right now. You don’t need to imagine future chaos if equality ever arrives. The chaos and misery are already here, delivered daily by a state that claims to be democratic while denying basic rights to millions.

Let's say this happens. One-state solution, democratic, the same rights for everyone.

How do you think the Hamas fighters who said they wanted 100 more October 7ths are going to behave towards Jews in this new united country? What about the crowds of people who cheered in the streets and beat the bodies of Israeli hostages with sticks? Are they suddenly all going to be good neighbours because the law's the same for everyone now?

Hamas have set back progress towards lasting peace dramatically. In an ideal world, yes, everyone could live in one country and be equal and get along. We don't live in that world, and wishing that we did won't help. Decisions need to be made that reflect the pragmatic reality of the situation.

Jews have been persecuted in so many countries. I fully understand why they want a state of their own. Israel and Palestine as separate, independent countries is possible - but not with Hamas in power.

Giving Muslims homogeneity over every inch of the middle east and north africa and driving out all indigenous people, stripping them all of self determination and any right to choose to live independently isn't the moral argument you think it is. A better solution is them learning to accept the right of self-determination for other people.

I would hardly call Israel good neighbours. We’re talking about a state that imposes military rule over millions, demolishes homes, shoots journalists and medics, and has maintained a brutal blockade on Gaza for nearly two decades.

If we’re judging coexistence by who can be trusted to share space with others, maybe we should ask how Palestinians are meant to feel after generations of dispossession and siege. Yes, Hamas has committed atrocities, and so has the Israeli state. You can’t demand that one side be disarmed and pacified while excusing systemic violence from the other.

This is so so sad. People are so disgusting

I don't have to fear it, like you, it will not directly impact me.

You're advocating a one-state solution. For that to be workable, both sides have to be willing to set aside the past, even if they can't forgive it. I'm not sure that's possible in this generation, for either side.

I do think there is a significant difference between the Israeli state and Hamas, ethically. If you disagree there I'm not sure we'll find any common ground.

what makes me so sad is that there are under 300,000 Jewish people in the uk, they are such a minority in this country and they must feel so unsafe. I’ve read that children can’t walk to school alone because they are being attacked or fear an attack. It’s just so disgusting.

Yep, reconciliation is difficult, but let's not pretend permanent inequality is somehow the safer or more ethical alternative.

Im all for either a one or a two state solution. People support a one state solution not because theyre naive, but because they refuse to accept a system where one group rules over another indefinitely.

As for the so called moral gap between Israel and Hamas, that argument collapses under any serious scrutiny. One is a state with immense power, resources and global backing. It bombs hospitals, starves civilians, demolishes homes and calls it defence. The other is a violent militant group that thrives precisely because of the brutal conditions Israel has helped create. If you are looking for clean hands, you will not find them on either side.

If we're serious about ending violence, then excusing systemic oppression because it wears a suit and speaks at the UN is not the way forward.

Well said.

The post has explained a further significant amount for me tbh.

Yes, but the post which came not long after it, brings you back down to cloud cuckoo land.