Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

is, not was. Present tense, not past. The very first paragraph of the Wikipedia piece:

Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine). Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security.

I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what you have quoted and what I said. Does Israel exist? Yes. Does that mean the movement to establish a Jewish homeland is now more about supporting that state? Yes.

 

[dholliday]

I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what you have quoted and what I said. Does Israel exist? Yes. Does that mean the movement to establish a Jewish homeland is now more about supporting that state? Yes.

Eh?

I said this: "Zionism is the national movement for jewish folk."

You replied: "No, it isn't. Zionism as your link says was the movement for a national home for the Jewish people, which was achieved in 1948."

Wikipedia says this: "Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people. Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security."


I think we can safely say Zionism is the current & present dominant doctrine of Israel & the jewish people.

We can debate from that, but we can't deny it.

 

[zzr45]

You said this:
“Zionist used in the context it is by many on here is yet another example of the conspiracy theorist language that has infiltrated the left.

People use it to describe the ‘sneaky Jew’ that’s trying to bring in a supposed new world order and the context in which it is used is lifted straight from Mein Kampf.

‘The Zionists are holding back the LP’ could almost be reproduced word for word from Mein Kampf. The sneaky Jew is directly holding you back.”

Wouldn’t the concept of Israel exerting it’s power and influence internationally to avoid sanctions fit with the conspiracy from Mein Kampf that you referred to?

No, because it isn’t a conspiracy, it’s state lead intervention, exactly the same as when Corbyn was paid to be on RT or Press TV. ‘Zionist Conspiracy’ suggests something far deeper that again suggests all Jews are in on something such as 9/11.

The fact you’re suggesting something in Mein Kampf is directly attributable to the modern world in a constructive sense is ever so slightly troubling..

 

[magicjuan]

No, it isn't, and tim is still wrong.

Zionism as your link says was the movement for a national home for the Jewish people, which was achieved in 1948. Since then, as your link says, it has become shorthand for being pro-Israel and unquestionably has been used by some as shorthand for describing someone as pro-Jewish, or even Jewish itself. This is so obvious a statement that people on the left have been saying it for years now, and yet there are some who still insist that their right to use the word - rather than, for example, "pro-Israeli" - and their right not for their language to be policed overrides everything else, especially what the use of that language results in (and is clearly resulting in).

Read David Schneider's thread on twitter yesterday for a far more fantastic explanation of this than mine:

In part of that the term 'agent of Israel' was deemed anti semitic, so, because I do seem to be genuinely lost by what I can and cannot say, how does that term apply to someone like Joan Ryan, working against official opposition not only in terms of bringing down named MPs and alleged bungs from Israeli embassy staff plus accessing protected data?
What about labour friends of Israel who do they work for, can they not be considered 'agents of Israel'?
This is the entire basis on word interpretation and accusations of intent, there is little definitive proof. People's interpretation and understanding of the use of a word isn't necessarily its text book definition and that is being taken advantage of on both sides.

 

[tsubaki]

Eh?

I said this: "Zionism is the national movement for jewish folk."

You replied: "No, it isn't. Zionism as your link says was the movement for a national home for the Jewish people, which was achieved in 1948."

Wikipedia says this: "Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people. Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security."


I think we can safely say Zionism is the current & present dominant doctrine of Israel & the jewish people.

We can debate from that, but we can't deny it.

Are you really focusing your opposition based on "is" and "was", rather than the rest of that post?

Look, Zionism was the drive to establish a Jewish homeland. That homeland now exists. It is now a shorthand term for support of that state. I did not say Zionism no longer exists, just that the meaning of it has changed (which is also what that wiki article says).

As for the emboldened bit, that is quite revealing. You could have said that the dominant view of Israelis was that they were pro-Israel, but that (having a favourable opinion of your own country) would be a statement that you could say about the population of almost every country in the world. You could have said that most Jews have a favourable view of Israel, which is true and understandable given the history of the communities and the active attempts by the Israeli state to present an appealing image to Jewish people worldwide.

Instead, you label both groups Zionist and say its their "dominant doctrine". Why? It can't be because you are worried about overstressing your keyboard and so want to prevent the extra damage that pro-Israel or worse has a favourable view of Israel would do compared to Zionist.

 

[tim cahill]

The fact you’re suggesting something in Mein Kampf is directly attributable to the modern world in a constructive sense is ever so slightly troubling..

What is that supposed to mean??
You’re the one that brought Mein Kampf up, I’ve never read it!

 

[dholliday]

Are you really focusing your opposition based on "is" and "was", rather than the rest of that post?

Yes, because it's important to accept Zionism is current policy. Your argument the whole time hinges on we should not use that word anymore in regards to criticism of israeli policy towards Palestinians, even if it's their doctrine. I'm trying to demonstrate that using that word is not the problem, and making it the problem deflects from the issues that are needing to be discussed.

As for the emboldened bit, that is quite revealing.

Revealing of what? Say what you really think.

What is that supposed to mean??
You’re the one that brought Mein Kampf up, I’ve never read it!

It's more deflection. People do it unconsciously all the time. It's like they want to catch you out on a gotcha. See also @tsubaki post above where he says my bluntly stating an accepted fact is "revealing". It implies, however unconsciously, that I hold anti-semitic views. Thus any criticism I may have of Israel's policy towards Palestine is invalid (as I'm a bad racist).

In your case, you're a fan of Hitler obviously, thus your views on Israel hold no value.

Classic deflection.

 

[tsubaki]

In part of that the term 'agent of Israel' was deemed anti semitic, so, because I do seem to be genuinely lost by what I can and cannot say, how does that term apply to someone like Joan Ryan, working against official opposition not only in terms of bringing down named MPs and alleged bungs from Israeli embassy staff plus accessing protected data?
What about labour friends of Israel who do they work for, can they not be considered 'agents of Israel'?
This is the entire basis on word interpretation and accusations of intent, there is little definitive proof. People's interpretation and understanding of the use of a word isn't necessarily its text book definition and that is being taken advantage of on both sides.

It is, but we on the left can make sure that any allegations thrown our way can be dealt with by making sure that we don't stray into areas that end up as anti-semitic tropes and beliefs, like the one that "the Jews" control politicians or that "they" direct events as part of a conspiracy against whatever.

Take Joan Ryan's case for example - the agent of Israel there was Shai Masot; he was the political officer at the Embassy. What Ryan was doing is as you say, seeking funding from the Israeli embassy, and lying about what a pro-Palestinian pensioner had said. What she was filmed doing there was so bad that it doesn't need her to be described as an agent (when she wasn't), or to suggest she was part of a conspiracy, we just need to say what she actually did.

 

[dholliday]

It is, but we on the left can make sure that any allegations thrown our way can be dealt with by making sure that we don't stray into areas that end up as anti-semitic tropes and beliefs, like the one that "the Jews" control politicians or that "they" direct events as part of a conspiracy against whatever.

Take Joan Ryan's case for example - the agent of Israel there was Shai Masot; he was the political officer at the Embassy. What Ryan was doing is as you say, seeking funding from the Israeli embassy, and lying about what a pro-Palestinian pensioner had said. What she was filmed doing there was so bad that it doesn't need her to be described as an agent (when she wasn't), or to suggest she was part of a conspiracy, we just need to say what she actually did.

He who controls language controls thought.

What if some of the conspiracy theories about jewish influence on the US (and thus globally) have some truth to them? Is it still out-of-bounds to discuss this?

 

[larrygobfiend]

Seems that some people are more concerned about the use of the word 'zionist' than the killing of innocent Palestinians.

See, I can deflect too.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, because it's important to accept Zionism is current policy. Your argument the whole time hinges on we should not use that word anymore in regards to criticism of israeli policy towards Palestinians, even if it's their doctrine. I'm trying to demonstrate that using that word is not the problem, and making it the problem deflects from the issues that are needing to be discussed.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that using the word Zionist defeats the object of solving the issues that need to be discussed, because people immediately get suspicious when you use it because of the misuse that it has been put to in the past. Given the very obvious damage using the word as shorthand for statements that are probably not anti-semitic, I urge you and others to stop using it in the way that you are and to think about what you are saying.

Revealing of what? Say what you really think.

Look at your post above for example. You say "Zionism is current policy" - but as your wiki article earlier said, Zionism in the modern context means to advocate for Israel and to address threats to its existence and security. Is it really news that the policy of the Israel state is to advocate for Israel and to address threats to its existence? Isn't that what all states do? Why then do you insist on using it when there are far more accurate and much less damaging ways to go about it?

 

[tsubaki]

He who controls language controls thought.

What if some of the conspiracy theories about jewish influence on the US (and thus globally) have some truth to them? Is it still out-of-bounds to discuss this?

Yes! Because what is the actual truth there - that its possible to buy influence in Washington? For Gods sake even the nutritional supplement industry does that.

 

[dholliday]

That isn't my argument. My argument is that using the word Zionist defeats the object of solving the issues that need to be discussed, because people immediately get suspicious when you use it because of the misuse that it has been put to in the past. Given the very obvious damage using the word as shorthand for statements that are probably not anti-semitic, I urge you and others to stop using it in the way that you are and to think about what you are saying.



Look at your post above for example. You say "Zionism is current policy" - but as your wiki article earlier said, Zionism in the modern context means to advocate for Israel and to address threats to its existence and security. Is it really news that the policy of the Israel state is to advocate for Israel and to address threats to its existence? Isn't that what all states do? Why then do you insist on using it when there are far more accurate and much less damaging ways to go about it?

See Larry below:

Seems that some people are more concerned about the use of the word 'zionist' than the killing of innocent Palestinians.

See, I can deflect too.

Yes! Because what is the actual truth there - that its possible to buy influence in Washington? For Gods sake even the nutritional supplement industry does that.

Those industries are American. National companies buying influence within their own national politics to improve profits is the natural order of things.

A foreign nation buying influence at the top-tier nation of the world to better justify their war crimes within the international court of opinion? That's a whole different story.

 

[magicjuan]

It is, but we on the left can make sure that any allegations thrown our way can be dealt with by making sure that we don't stray into areas that end up as anti-semitic tropes and beliefs, like the one that "the Jews" control politicians or that "they" direct events as part of a conspiracy against whatever.

Take Joan Ryan's case for example - the agent of Israel there was Shai Masot; he was the political officer at the Embassy. What Ryan was doing is as you say, seeking funding from the Israeli embassy, and lying about what a pro-Palestinian pensioner had said. What she was filmed doing there was so bad that it doesn't need her to be described as an agent (when she wasn't), or to suggest she was part of a conspiracy, we just need to say what she actually did.

But it then comes down to the terms of reference. Should I wish, I could say by way of interpretation, that whst you have said is she cannot be labelled an 'agent of Israel' because she so obviously is. Wether that is your intent is not the point, your argument becomes anti anti zionist by entitled dissemination, and that 'interpretation' is what is neing used by those wanting to damage the labour party and Corbyn in particular. For what ends? Surely as labour MPs that would undermine their own position, so we look to another agenda, the serving two masters, wether that be the knesset or Blair or the EU or corporations. The entire substance is riddled with duplicity, so why is attention drawn to this particular one? Why is anti semitism given provenance over Islamaphobia or certain elements of racism? Is it a distraction?
Any form of bigotry is abhorrent and all should be treated with the utmost contempt and I have waited a long time for the conservative party to be pilloried constantly for the rank Islamaphobia and mysogyny that runs rampant there.
It's the duplicity that seems to dampen accession to the rules regarding terminology.

 

[zzr45]

What is that supposed to mean??
You’re the one that brought Mein Kampf up, I’ve never read it!

You've just suggested that Israel is acting just as Hitler proscribed, which again, is where a lot of the context of the derogatory term 'Zionist' comes from. If you can't understand the link between that and the use of the word 'Zionist' being seen as a bit beyond the pale, then I fear you might be a little out of your depth there. (Again, echoing an earlier point someone made about the lack of, for a better term, 'education' being half the problem at present.)

Seems that some people are more concerned about the use of the word 'zionist' than the killing of innocent Palestinians.

See, I can deflect too.

Nobody is deflecting anything. Zionist implies that there is a worldwide conspiracy implicit in furthering the aims of the Israeli state. It's why the statement by Hatton was utterly disgusting. A Jewish person living, born and bred in England has no influence on the actions of the Israeli state, they shouldn't have to condemn it because there's no international Jewish cadre aimed at subverting the world.

It's like saying that someone doesn't care about pedophilia because someone says you can't call a fan base a gang of nonces.