Greens adopt policy treating Zionism as racism (part 2)

[Twiglets1]

Follow on from previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5585462-greens-adopt-policy-treating-zionism-as-racism?page=40&reply=155235707

What was done is done, but all the people who live in Israel need to live together. It can't be just for one religious group it has to be for all.

State first, religious beliefs should be confined to places of worship and the home. It has no place in civic life

Pretty sure non-Jews are allowed to live in Israel.

Thats a lovely idealistic view and of course I’d say most would agree with you on paper. However in reality that’s just not how the world works. There are over 50 Muslim countries, Jews aren’t allowed to live in most of them. There are somewhere around 15 countries with Christianity of some denomination as the official religion. That permeates politics hugely in those countries re health care rights. There is ‘one’ Jewish country that was created after most of us were murdered in these other places that didn’t want us. So if you are going to dismantle religious politics I’m not sure it makes much sense to start with the Jews.

I refuse to believe that even the most, naive, indoctrinated teenager doesn’t know what will happen to Israeli Jews in a single state.
Without the protection of an Israeli state Jews will be ethnically cleansed from the Middle East again. Hopefully most would choose to leave in those circumstances but if they don’t they’ll be killed.

A single state or a Palestinian state is not going to be some utopian rainbow nation where liberals sing Kum by yah and organise Pride parades and Muslims and Jews happily worship side by side.

The surrounding nations did not want a Jewish state in the ME but after they realised the destruction of Israel was not going to be an easy task, most eventually found a fragile peace.

Those ME states are not calling for Israel to be dismantled because they know that what takes it place will be a fundamental Islamic jihadi state backed and financed by Iran which would be a much greater threat to their own security and regional stability than Israel ever was.

One could argue that those who turned a blind eye to antisemitism in 1930s Germany didn’t really comprehend or foresee the horrors that would unfold. Those calling for dismantling Israel know exactly what will happen to Jews in the region.

Of course. More non Jews in Israel than Jews in the Arab countries

No where in the bible does it say that. I went to Catholic school and had bible studies... doesn't say that

I think zionism has evolved somewhat from just being about religious beliefs. Take someone like me who isn't religious, I still believe that Jew people need Israel. That belief has grown stronger since 2020 when I saw the Jew Hate starting to grow stronger in so many countries. It really made me understand how the nazis, Islamists and others got managed to do what they did at various points in history. Jewish people have always been a particularly vulnerable group because more often than not a minority in many countries. Minority groups are normally the first to get the blame for economic or social decline. If you add to that the tropes and lies past down about the Jews it makes their very existence fragile. I don't really agree with how Israel was founded but it is their now. It is the home to millions of Jews, Muslims and other groups that all live together. Destroying it and putting all those people in danger isn't a just cause. So yes I am a zionist because believing that Jews need their own state in order to be safe and that they should live free from prejudice as Jews is simply being logical about the current situation. Saying all that their is a lot that can be done to stop the conflict and help the Gaza civilians. Israel yes must take blame for the situation there but it is not alone with the blame and the sooner everyone recognises that the sooner real changes can happen.

Zionism is not fundamentally wrong but be
antizionism is condoning violent prejudice. Saying a state or a country doesn't have the right to exist especially when we have historical evidence of what would happen if it didn't is at best nieve and at worst plan evil.

I went to a Catholic school and was taught about the concept of a Just War for my RE GCSE.... I said that Christianity had the concept, not that it was in the Bible.

If one religion asserts itself that its God has the highest power, another religion has every right to challenge that - even more so when literal lives are at stake. I wouldn't be rolling over and accepting something if somebody wanted me dead, in the name of religion.

But Hamas say in their charter that they don't have a problem with Jews, and that they lived happily alongside them until Israel was created, therefore it must be true.

It's a bit unfortunate that the Houthis slogan says 'Death to Israel and a Curse upon Jews' but maybe they don't really mean the Jew bit.

We've gone off at a bit of a tangent but yes, Christianity definitely has the concept of a "just war". Pupils are taught this even at GCSE level.

The just war theory was first developed by St Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was one of the most influential theologians of the last 1,000 years. The theory set out conditions against which to judge the following:

whether or not a war should be waged - jus ad bellum (Latin for 'right to war')
if a war could be justified, and how it should be waged - jus in bello (Latin for 'the law in waging war')

Aquinas's conditions for a just war – jus ad bellum
The war must have a just cause - eg against invasion or for self-defence - and not to acquire wealth or power.

The war must be declared and controlled by a proper authority, eg the state or ruler.

The war must be fought to promote good or avoid evil, with the aim of restoring peace and justice after the war is over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrndpg8/revision/2

While scripture views war as a tragic result of human sin, it does not prohibit all violence or military service, distinguishing between unlawful murder and lawful defense or punishment.

The New Testament states that governing authorities are instituted by God to maintain justice and "bear the sword" against wrongdoers (Romans 13:1–4), giving the state—not private individuals—the legitimate right to use force.

Neither John the Baptist nor Jesus told soldiers or centurions to abandon their military profession; instead, John told them to be content with their wages and avoid extortion (Luke 3:14)

Based on scriptural principles, theologians and commentators outline core biblical requirements for a war to be considered morally permissible:

Legitimate Authority: Waged only by proper government leadership, not vigilantes or individuals.

Just Cause: Focused on defending the innocent, stopping direct aggression, or restraining severe evil.

Last Resort: Pursued only after diplomacy, peace terms, and nonviolent options fail.

Right Intention: Fought out of a duty to protect rather than a desire for selfish gain, vengeance, or conquest.

(Sorry to copy and paste but can't be bothered to write it out myself)

You must know this @dwordle if you went to school - let alone a Catholic school. You must have studied the "just war" theory (even if it's not called that in the Bible).

My bad I read the 1988 edition. They’ve clearly evolved since then and it’s only ‘Zionists’ not ‘Jews’ they have a problem with now. And after all they are devout religious people so they would never lie.

The Yazidis are a peaceful group in the region and Hamas attacks them, kills the men and children, and takes the women as sex slaves. The IDF saved Yazidi women who had been held captive for years. That is the reality of a group that cannot defend themselves against the Palestinians.

If we replace the names of the religion with colours took away the G-d part but they kept their core belief that everyone should be tbe same colour as them. That if neighbours refused to change colour then death of their neighboring colour was their main focus in life. Would we then be even arguing that the neighbours were not allowed to fight back in a war.

People really do get confused about right and wrong when religion is thrown into the mix don't they. Religion in this conflict is very much appreciated part of things. However if we ignore being offended or worried about offending others and just look at the facts/beliefs involved then it clears the waters a lot.

Well, AB can forget EU membership if Labour form a coalition with Greens.

The Yazidis stories and evidence make my heart cry every time. Such evil has been done to them most of it is unspeakable and let's face it the world media will try not to speak of it these days unless they have no choice anyway.

You are right this is where Middle Eastern Jews and some other minority groups that currently have the shelter of Israel would be without it. How others don't see, understand or care about that has always slightly frightened me.

Nahhh no such reference there are writings but what you are talking about is

Deuteronomy 20 gives rules for warfare, such as offering peace terms first and not cutting down fruit trees.
Romans 13:4 says governing authority "does not bear the sword in vain."
Luke 3:14: John the Baptist tells soldiers to be honest and content with their pay, but not to leave the army.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there is "a time for war, and a time for peace."
The Old Testament also describes many wars that Israel fought, some of them presented as commanded by God.

So I suppose it depends how you interpret it but ask the question why they were written and who by. Are they the words of Jesus or people and should the writing of disciples being taken as rules.

You want to argue if writing in a religious book is real or not? If stories rather that geography or historical facts amongst the stories are real? If the words are of Jesus or someone else like the writer? That depending on who wrote them should they be followed?

OK............

Decided to AI to answer that post because well it is on the same reality level

AI Overview
Whether Bible stories should be followed depends on how they are read and applied, as biblical narratives describe historical and human events rather than serving as direct "how-to" action scripts.

Ok, so we agree that your previous assertion that 'Read the Bible.... killing is wrong that's not a verse that says it's right.' is incorrect.

Absolutely 💯

Yes, they can.

Israel is home to a large non-Jewish population, which includes Arab citizens (Muslim, Christian, and Druze), Bedouins, and non-Jewish foreign nationals or permanent residents.

Non-Jewish citizens also have full voting rights, serve as members of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset), work as doctors and professionals, and serve as judges or military officers.

Around 185,000 Christians—the vast majority of whom are Arab citizens—live in Israel with protected rights to worship and manage community institutions, plus the Israeli Supreme Court has a legal guarantee protecting an individual's freedom to worship, practice, or choose not to practice a religion.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is strictly illegal in employment, housing, and public accommodations and the Israel Defense Forces openly permits LGBTQ+ individuals to serve, and discrimination against queer soldiers is explicitly banned.

Not bad for an “apartheid” state.

Either people have no clue about Israel or no idea what "apartheid" meant.
Or possibly both.