Part 6: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[AndHarry]

Sorry, lost the end of the thread there!

Thread 5

According to the BBC (2009): "there must be 4 tellers at each division (ie vote) - 2 to count the ayes and 2 to count the noes. Each pair of tellers consists of 1 member who declares that they will vote aye and 1 who will vote no - to check each other's results.
If at the time that the division is called there are not 4 members prepared to be tellers, then the voting will not take place."

It turns out my MP was actually one of those abstainers. Don't understand why since she'd spoken vehemently against the motion earlier. Being charitable, perhaps it was because she'd received a lot of emails and letters. I hope she didnt just push off early thinking the vote had been scuppered by a lack of tellers.

AndHarry, I'm not a George Galloway fan, and am aware that he constantly causes a great deal of controversy, but I've read and reread the post linked to above in which you say he makes anti Semitic comments. Inflammatory, perhaps. But antisemitic? What am i missing?

QnBoudi I was referring specifically to the bit where he says that Israel was built on Palestinian blood. Historically, anti-Semitic literature and propaganda has made accusations that Jews murder children to use their blood as part of their religious celebrations, known as 'blood libel'. Metaphors making use of blood imagery are therefore an absolute no-no when it comes to reporting and commentary on Israel. Given that Galloway has been interested in this subject 'for the past 40 years' he will know this. Absolutely shocking.

I think perhaps you are reading into it things that are not there.

It is undeniable that Israel's expansion, and ethnic cleansing of non-Jews, did involve killing Palestinians. Perhaps in your opinion this should not be mentioned and should be "an absolute no-no."

You may choose to say that this is to the shame of all Jews if you wish, but it is surely more accurate to say that it is to the shame of the State of Israel.

Reference to blood libel is one thing, use of the word 'blood' is another. There is ample use of expressions such as 'built on blood' referring to Britain's colonial past or black slavery in Britain and the US. There's no monopoly over the word, as with 'holocaust', discussed earlier. I really don't see that Galloway's post can be construed as antisemitic.

I don't think so. It is well known to anyone reporting on or politically involved that it is deeply offensive to use blood-based metaphors when discussing this conflict and that doing so perpetuates the 'blood libel' offensive to all Jews. George Galloway has been involved enough to know this and despite his, to me at least, extremely odd views and attitudes, is not naive enough to use such a term by accident.

I spend rather a large amount of time and effort arguing against the views of some of my more influential friends that any criticism of Israel is based on anti-Semitism. This time I believe that the comment may rightly be called anti-Semitic.

The actual phrase is this: "Israel was a state born in 1948 out of the blood of the Palestinians..." from his statement here.

I don't believe though that he is sending that message to the citizens of Britain in general, or his constituents.

If the reference is there, it certainly passed over my head.

I still think you are reading things into his article.

QnBoudi I get your point about blood-based metaphors in general use. It's in the specific context when a blood-based metaphor is used in direct reference to Israel or Jews that it is anti-Semitic. Comments like 'they have blood on their hands', 'they are dripping with blood', 'blood-soaked regime' and 'born out of the blood of the Palestinians' are completely inappropriate in this context due to the historical connotations, and indeed the present views in some places.

"when a blood-based metaphor is used in direct reference to Israel or Jews that it is anti-Semitic"

I don't agree that Israel has a special right not to hear such words from a British MP making a statement to his constituents. Or, indeed, a special right not to hear the word "blood."

He might not personally believe that, however it is a deliberate use of imagery that he knows can reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic. He is also publishing this statement on a platform available for the whole world to view, including people in countries or from cultures in which the Jewish blood libel is very much a present belief. For example, a survey this year in Poland found that 13% of those surveyed believed that Jews use human blood for ritual purposes and in August, again this year, a Hamas spokesman repeated the myth that Jews used human blood in the making of matzo. This isn't some sort of tortuous technical point but a real issue.

But surely this blood thing is a bit of a get out of jail free card for the Israeli govt then- I mean, is it antisemitic of me to say that watching scenes on Newsnight of Palestinian children's blood being tipped off trays in the mortuary made me sick with hatred for Netanyahu??

Now I feel that you're evading the point somewhat. In a very specific context, the use of blood-based metaphors is anti-Semitic. There is no proscription of the word 'blood'.

I'm trying to think of an equivalent example but I'm tired and struggling :) so the best I can come up with is the used of the word 'uppity' when used to describe black people.

Sorry, that wasn't to you Springheeled. No, that's not an example of something that would be anti-Semitic. It would be if you said something like 'Watching scenes on Newsnight of Palestinian children's blood being tipped off trays in the mortuary made me sick with hatred for Netanyahu. He has those children's blood on his hands.'

So you believe that his choice of words was intended to annoy Israelis and other Jews.

I don't believe it will have had any special significance to his constituents or the vast majority of British people who read them.

There is no shortage of hare-brained politicians in the world who say nasty things. Some of them are like a nest of snakes who should be exterminated.

As Bradford has a relatively high number of first-generation immigrants and a Jewish community with a longstanding presence in the town I would think that it would possibly be more relevant to his constituents than to many others. His remark is anti-Semitic no matter who the intended audience may have been.

and what about politicians who say "nest of snakes?"

Are they any less or more reprehensible?

but he does have those children's blood on his hands. however offensive being accused of such things falsely as propaganda against jews may have been historically the reality today is that the state of israel is built on palestinian blood, that the israelis who supported the recent slaughter of palestinians do have blood on their hands.

to propagate a myth of blood sacrifice is bad, to point out the reality of the blood being shed by israel's actions in the present is simply the pointing out of facts.

if i don't want to hear i have blood on my hands i'll make damn sure i don't have not just ban anyone from mentioning it if i do.

surely you see the 'emporers new clothes' twist in this?

However much those metaphors might be justified, they are not appropriate in this context. I'm quite surprised at this reaction TBH. This isn't something Israel has made up to escape criticism, this is a historical issue that affects all Jews. There is nothing stopping anyone passionately criticizing Israel from its conception to the latest minute but it is deeply offensive to do so using blood metaphors.

'Little snakes', however disgusting, does not have the same historical context going back hundreds of years.

"Blood on his hands" is a standard English idiom used very widely, it has no anti-semitic connotations or blood libel connotations.

Tony Blair has 'blood on his hands', says father of killed soldier

Peter Brierley, whose son Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley was killed in Iraq in 2003, has accused Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of having "blood on his hands".

Mr Blair, who has repeatedly defended his decision to lead Britain into the conflict, was rebuked by Mr Brierley at a reception for guests who attended a commemoration service marking the end of the Iraq campaign and honouring the 179 British personnel who died during the six-year conflict.

Mr Brierley refused to shake Mr Blair's outstretched hand at the event staged at the Guildhall in the City and told the politician: "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."

Mr Blair was ushered away and afterwards Mr Brierley, from Batley, West Yorkshire, said: "I understand soldiers go to war and die but they have to go to war for a good reason and be properly equipped to fight.

"I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he's been allowed to come to this reception.

"I believe he's got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hands."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6286081/Tony-Blair-has-blood-on-his-hands-says-father-of-killed-soldier.html

i'm suprised anyone would argue the offensiveness of the use of a standard phrase in english over the reality of the actions the phrase refers to tbh.

i'm also afraid that a racist regime doesn't get to get on their high horse over the use of language that could potentially with historical context (that most people don't have a clue about) cause offense when they have people refering to a race of people as snakes in their parliament! it's just mind bogglingly entitled.

Ok, so going back to my previous example of 'uppity'. You have two junior colleagues in your office, one black, one white, both of them arrogant know-it-alls. You describe them to your mate as 'uppity'. In relation to your white colleague it's a very apt description. In relation to your black colleague, you are being racist due to the historical associations with slavery and black people stepping 'above their place' in a racist context. Your mate calls you out on it. That's not your colleague being 'entitled' or wanting 'special privileges' or having a get out of jail free card to be an arrogant prick, it's your use of an otherwise ok term in a specific, racist, context.

In that imagined scenario, do you argue with your friend that you can call your colleague uppity if you fancy it as it's a very apt description and they don't deserve any special treatment?

AndHarry, it is not racist. It is a term that is used for both white and black people. This is political correctness gorn mad.

I give up.

As you were.