This month I have been wondering some more about Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley (what you get when you make Carol Vorderman redundant) suing everyone. I have now found what they are suing over but I can’t link to it because that could be repeating a libel. So I pootled over to Ms Riley’s twitter feel to find out what she thought in general and found a soundcloud speech by Dr Dave Rich of the CST pinned to it.
Dr Rich starts off with a few of the worst cases of
anti-semitism and then goes onto the deductive leap that the Labour party is
“institutionally anti-semitic”and full of people who are unable to relate to
“Jews and anti-semitism and Israel as they actually are..” which kind of
compounds Judeism with Israel. Ignoring
the fact that there are Jews (Neturei Karta and the Satmar Hasidim) who do not
see Israel as “the promised land” and, of course, who reject the Jewish
religion almost entirely (okay that’s just Alexei Sayle). Still,
it has to be said that Zionism is a relatively modern political obsession dating
from the 19th century when Theodor Herzl invented it ...
following the Dreyfus affair...
That said the idea of returning to the (or a) “promised land” has always existed since the seige of Jerusalem in 70AD but it didn’t peak in popularity since the early 20th Century.
…, supporting campaigns to re-name Holocaust Memorial Day as
Genesis Memorial day, supporting a talk entitled “never again from Auschwitz to Gaza” , the anti-semitic mural, the wreath at the Munich Olympic massacre,
appearing on Press TV, being mates with a Hamas terrorist etc… saying Zionists
have no sense of English irony. He then
goes on to say that there’s a tradition of anti-semitism on the left – although
he does qualify this that it isn’t a universal tradition. He states that Corbyn exhibits a pattern of
anti-semitic behaviour and that one doesn’t observe him making similar gaffes
in other areas – clearly this man is too young to remember the GLC’s
embarrassing dalliances with the IRA…
...which is funny because the Tories spent enough money at the last election reminding everyone about this... but let's not go over all that again... suffice to say branding Corbyn an IRA sympathiser didn't seem to stop him at the ballot box...
One of the problems I find about discussing anti-semitism
is the whole Judeism being a religion / Jews being a race thing. Unique in religions (as far as I know)
Judeism claims that that the Jews are God’s chosen people. This is laid out many times in the Torah –
most notably in Deuteronomy 14:2.
However, what exactly the Jews are chosen by God for remains somewhat
unclear.
Indeed when God says to Amos
(3:2) “You only have I singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore
will I visit upon you all your iniquities,” it doesn’t seem as though there are
many advantages to being Jewish. All the same it seems to me that the idea is that … Jews are supposed to
inter-marry Jews. Of course non-Jews can
convert to Judeism … but Jewishness is (according to Orthodox teachings) passed
down through the mother. And for anyone who has the time to convert to Judeism who's male well, ... there’s also the quite testing problem for male adults wanting to become Jewish of having to have one's foreskin removed.
Circumcision is painful for both babies and adults but babies at least won’t remember it. There are not for some reason a lot of adult males who are very keen on having their foreskin lopped off…
but anyway ... The point I’m driving at, I think, is that the Jewish religion makes the DNA of the Jewish people a central issue. If you think this isn’t a big deal maybe it isn’t but … when Benjamin Netanyahu's son dated a lady who was not Jewish The PM’s brother-in-law said he was spitting on his grandparent’s graves.
“From my point of view, if he does such a thing, I personally won't allow him to get near their graves… This is the most awful thing that is threatening and was a threat throughout the history of the Jewish people. More awful than leaving Israel is marriage with a gentile. If this happens, God forbid, I'll bury myself I don't know where. I'll walk in the streets and tear off my hair - and here this is happening.”
Of course it could be argued that having all Jewish people
in one place actually removes the impetus of the disapora to stay relatively
genetically exclusive and that ultimately everyone in Israel and Palestine
will inter-marry and the whole thing will be destroyed by sex… but this
argument is probably anti-semitic. Still
there’s no polite way of saying that the perpetuation of Jewish DNA is a
primary purpose of Judeism – it then follows that it is very difficult to
discuss Judeism without making comments about Jewish racial identity. This is because it’s in scripture. Then again would they have
lasted over 1800 years in a sparsely spread out diaspora without these restrictions…? By the way ... if you’re
wondering who is and is not a Jew this is (legally) the province within Israel
of the Chief Rabbinate
who looks like this...
It should be pointed out however that just because Dr Rich seems to purport that Israel is the Home of all Jews and just because Israel employs a public official to decide who is and who is not a Jew does not mean we can hold Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
At least I think that's what one of the 9 IHRA examples of antisemitism says. Just thought I'd make that clear.
Dr Dave Rich does quite well in cataloguing all the Labour party’s
failures in fighting anti-semitism (going all the way back to a magazine Keir Hardy
edited once) but I must admit to some confusion when we get onto United Nations Resolution
3379.
In the early days of Israel the country had a
completely open immigration policy for diaspora Jews and this resulted in a bit
of a problem which was solved by expansionist policies that would seem to be
somewhat at odds with Woodrow Wilson’s doctrine of National Self-Determination
which was the foundation of the League of Nations after WWI and the UN after
WWII…
Defenders of the Zionist project argue that their right to Self Determination (note not “National Self Determination”) allows them to move back onto land they were ejected from some 1800 years ago whereas everyone else thought that the idea was you were supposed to own the land in the present time not just rock up and claim it. Of course early settlers did buy land but ... not all of it with the result that Israel has been explicitly officially condemned at least 45 times by the UN. There are more UN resolutions about Israelthan anything else ever. The reason for most of these condemnations is Israel’s occupation of the “occupied territories” obtained in the “pre-emptive” 6 days war of 1967 (let’s not go back to the 40s and the Nakba or we’ll be here all year).
I expect this graph is wrong too... Sorry, I'm too lazy to fact check everything...
Defenders of the Zionist project argue that their right to Self Determination (note not “National Self Determination”) allows them to move back onto land they were ejected from some 1800 years ago whereas everyone else thought that the idea was you were supposed to own the land in the present time not just rock up and claim it. Of course early settlers did buy land but ... not all of it with the result that Israel has been explicitly officially condemned at least 45 times by the UN. There are more UN resolutions about Israelthan anything else ever. The reason for most of these condemnations is Israel’s occupation of the “occupied territories” obtained in the “pre-emptive” 6 days war of 1967 (let’s not go back to the 40s and the Nakba or we’ll be here all year).
As if it wasn’t awkward enough occupying someone else’s
lands to "protect yourself" Israel has long exacerbated this situation by not
just occupying lands but by placing its own settlements in them which is a
flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (it's also a violation Eighth Commandment if anyone needs a Jewish argument against it). The peak of Israel's run-ins with the United Nations was almost certainly Resolution
3379 which broadly concluded that Zionism was essentially racist.
But to make matters more complicated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 later over-turned this and stated that Zionism is not a form of racism after all. Everyone was most relived ...and some people were somewhat confused.
Then again what is racism? The Macpherson Report defined a racist incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Patricia Bidol defined racism as "prejudice plus institutional power". And the dictionary says "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" but who reads that anymore...
But to make matters more complicated United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86 later over-turned this and stated that Zionism is not a form of racism after all. Everyone was most relived ...and some people were somewhat confused.
Then again what is racism? The Macpherson Report defined a racist incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. Patricia Bidol defined racism as "prejudice plus institutional power". And the dictionary says "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" but who reads that anymore...
So is Zionism racist or was it at one time?
Well, the great peacemaker and diplomat that is George W
Bush, said at the time…
“UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called "Zionism is
racism" resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the
United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a
policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish
people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin
of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World
War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to
reject Israel
itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.”
Fair enough I suppose… but you really can't blame people too much for thinking Zionism racist when this was the official policy of UN for well over a decade until it decided it wasn't true any more and conversely condemning Zionism as racist is racist.
But even when people accept Zionism as not racist this seems to be not quite enough…? For what Dr Rich seems to want is not just acceptance for Israel but for people to accept that the
creation of Israel raised no difficult issues and forget that force was used to establish significant chunks of it. Well, let's just say that would be easier for more people if Israel gave some of its occupied territories back...? Just an idea... whether it is an anti-semitic idea is something one would have to refer to the UN and then hope they don't decide they've clearly got it wrong and do a U-turn some time later...
When I was a student Leeds University Union used to have a general policy of a complete ban on any discussion of the Israel / Palestine question in order to keep the peace which I think it would be wise to observe here in future for virtually everything is disputed including this map which doesn’t mention that the Golan Hights are technically part of Syria not Israel or Palestine.
When I was a student Leeds University Union used to have a general policy of a complete ban on any discussion of the Israel / Palestine question in order to keep the peace which I think it would be wise to observe here in future for virtually everything is disputed including this map which doesn’t mention that the Golan Hights are technically part of Syria not Israel or Palestine.
Anyway, I can’t tell you much more because I dozed off at this point…but
let’s say I’m keeping my options open in case the UN changes its mind again… Mind you I believe saying Zionism is racist is soon to be made illegal in France so I guess we will all have to agree eventually.
Whenever I see an argument on twitter about anything these days someone always says something like "didn't your mother teach you that if you've got nothing nice to say to say nothing?" To which the answer is "No, that's why I get good customer service". However, if there is an arena in which it is wise to say nothing it is the Israel/Palenstine issue... so ... I'll shut up now before this blog goes the way of Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner's play about Rachel Corrie...
Whenever I see an argument on twitter about anything these days someone always says something like "didn't your mother teach you that if you've got nothing nice to say to say nothing?" To which the answer is "No, that's why I get good customer service". However, if there is an arena in which it is wise to say nothing it is the Israel/Palenstine issue... so ... I'll shut up now before this blog goes the way of Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner's play about Rachel Corrie...
No comments:
Post a Comment