old cycle of anti-Semitism.

They did nothing whe Hitler was exterminating every Jew he could find.
They did nothing when Russia launched pogroms.
They did nothing when England segregated Jews from society.
They did nothing when Spain tortured and expelled Jews from Spain

They blamed Jews for the Black Death.
They used Jews as scapegoats (Dreyfus affair).

And after WW2, Europe didn't want to do anything to take in the Holocaust survivors.

Hell, even the US did that with the SS St. Louis and the Voyage of the Damned.

Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the world. . .and it is every Jew's responsibility to beath the hatred out of these people, one anti-Semite at a time.

No one ever wants to let go of their whipping boy. It is so convenient to have someone else to blame. I am sure that every country in the world has a scapegoat.

There's an element of the left, as indicated by this Labour Party functionary and other elements of that party--that is really losing it. The same element that sees Putin as some kind of hero, another POV which is proliferating on DU

Some are much more "clever" in how they state Israel is supporting ISIS by little, passive-aggressive quips like, "I thought Israel was ISIS' enemy, where are the attacks on Israel?" "Why were no Israeli spots hit in Europe?" Basically, they skirt the line via insinuation.

...but, then again, I've gone elsewhere for most of my news and discussion about current events. Still, IIRC a Jewish grocery store was targeted in Paris, so the question, "Why were no Israeli spots hit in Europe?" doesn't make sense on the face of it.

It is a Jewish one. Though many like to target Jews because of Israel, in much the same way they excuse/make excuses for/ignore anti-Semitism "because" of Israel.

Where are all the Jews insisting that everyone live as they do?
Where are all the Jews murdering people in shops & cafes?
When has it EVER happened?
When have the Jews ever tried to force countries to change their laws to suit them?

Why have the Jews been blamed for so much through SO many decades, even centuries?

And his brainless sheep religious flunkies have blamed Jews ever since for it.

I dont see a lot of anti-Jew propaganda coming from Southern Baptists or the like. It seems like the most anti-jewish statements come from those with only a passing attachment to any religion. Unless you're Muslim.
Pontious Pilate ordered the crucifixtion and he was not a Jew

Want a hint?

Don't tell me it's for their love of Jews, because it isn't.

...the Jews killed Jesus, even though he supposedly was a Jew. The schism between Paul and the gentiles and the early church in Jerusalem. Christianity back then was just another Jewish cult until Paul repackaged it as a gentile religion. Some point to the Jewish Roman wars and the resulting diaspora that scattered Jews throughout the empire, making them an easily preyed upon minority. But there's been diasporas throughout written history without the centuries old scapegoating, including my own Irish ancestors. To me, the root has to be age old religious based fear and hatred. It's the same between Judaism and Islam, even though the origins of both are also from the same Semitic monotheistic myths and legends.

I just don't get it.

Compare Britain's role in the Kindertransport with America's in the SS St Louis.

their home countries. How are they "Zionists"?

They seem to get a pass from a lot of people though if they hide under the buzzwords of "Zionism" and "Israel".

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:33 AM - Edit history (2)

with "antisemitism", .

The vast majority of those who criticize what the Israeli government does in the West Bank or who have issues with the concept of Zionism do out of nothing but sincere concern about the injustices done to Palestinians in this situation.

As in, why protest near a synagogue in Victoria? If you don't want to look like an antisemite...then don't be one.

Seriously, that seems pretty extremist view you have there.

I don't think it would be right for non-Jewish people to do it. I am Catholic, I would not object to Catholics protesting in front of a church against an archbishop that protected pedophile priests either.

It's disgusting ... And so is your totally ridiculous analogy .

Drop it ....

therefore I don't believe churches or synagogues should be immune from criticism or protest, although I do believe it should be limited to those who actually are members of that religion. I also think that churches that make political statements from the pulpit should be stripped of their tax except status.

I don't have to conform to your censorship.

Outside an American Jewish institution?

That's just ignorant of you .

Only Jewish people should do this. I personally would not do it. I don't feel I have the right. But precisely because it is an American Jewish institution where American Jewish people support this policy, particularly if the rabbi of this synagogue publicly supported this policy in his service.

People are quick to dismiss other's views with smears like insinuating they're a right-wing stooge in disguise or by resorting to attempts at shaming people publicly with language calculated to label the other's position as "disgusting," "ridiculous," or some other term chosen with the intent to put a stop to any debate at all.

As if that wasn't enough..."Drop it." Okay, we get it, you don't want anybody to even consider the other poster's viewpoint.

There's a wide range and spectrum of discussion, right wing and left wing.
DU more closely is Democratic Party principle.... You heard the Democratic Party principle espoused by leaders , democrats in congress , Obama , Sanders , Hillary...?

"Drop it "is more than what they would say if anyone on their campaign said as much.

While I appreciate your temperate response and charitable intent, I just can't stomach that, in a discussion forum, I am referred to some faraway island to have a normal chat online about things that we care about.

I guess I'm just Old School DU. No thanks. I'll still come by for coffee and doughnuts.

I have Jewish friends that disagree with the policies of Israel and in fact there is a segment of the citizens of Israel that disagree with its policies.

It's easy enough to distinguish between people who criticize the Israeli government or who oppose the concept of Zionism out of simple, irrational hatred of Jews(a small minority)and those who do so out of sincere principled intent.

There are only an insignificantly tiny number of people who criticize the Occupation or the oppose the settlements out of antisemitism, and they tend to express themselves so clumsily as to discredit themselves immediately with their own words.

And in many cases, those who identify as "antizionist" are progressive internationalists who oppose all forms of bigotry. They have taken the position they take(usually in favor or replacing Israel with a secular democratic state in which all are treated with complete equality) because they despair of the Israeli government ever ceasing to oppress Palestinians and because they see parallels with the development of apartheid(in the West Bank, specifically in most cases, in Israel proper to a far lesser degree) in what is happening.

There is a far smaller minority who are antizionists out of malevolence.

The best response to the first, far larger group of antizionists is for those who see themselves as Zionists to call out Netanyahu and his gang for the indefensible policies they are carrying out in the West Bank and for their insistence on collectively immiserating everyone in Gaza over the actions of the Gaza leadership. The people you describe there understand this, from what I can see.

some of my friends are Jewish. I said "some of my Jewish friends". I have Jewish friends who are on both sides of this issue.

Period!

And the best response to antizionism is to publicly oppose the things that cause most antizionism...the continued construction of West Bank settlements (ALL of which are illegal and morally indefensible) and the collective punishment of all Palestinians for the acts of the violent extremist few...acts the majority of the Palestinian people have no power at all to stop.

(I don't support a single-state solution, for the record).

And Israel doesn't need to deny Palestinians self-determination in order to protect Jewish self-determination. Balfour specified self-determination for both communities. The Occupation and the settlements do nothing to preserve self-determination. All that is needed for that is the pre-1967 lands.

AntiZionist in the Labor party of the U.K. That deserves to join ranks with extremist right wing bigots.

If he had not resigned, Labour would have been justified in expelling him.

they give parades for anyone who kills ANY Israeli, etc etc.
Not to mention their refusal to accept Israels right to exist

It was mainly people in Gaza who voted Hamas. You can't hold people in the West Bank responsible for that. And there is no way to use repressive tactics to get anyone to move AWAY from Hamas. That would have worked by now if it ever could have worked, because all possible harsh and repressive tactics have been used.

Hamas largely emerged because the PLO worked with Israel in the Nineties and got nothing but humiliation for their troubles.

To beat Hamas, the best tactic would be to show the Palestinian people that trying a different approach(as they did in the Nineties, in most cases)will actually get them better treatment.

Not rocket surgery.

So what ?

They also attended the same antisemitic orgies in Iran , the one David Duke attended.... So what's your point again?

Too easy. You want to label someone anti-Semitic for opposing anything Israel does. Not fair.

Zionism is not Israel government policy...
It's self determination for the Jewish people and antiZionism is bigotry and hatred toward the Jewish people.

It would not ,and is not tolerated in the Democratic Party and not is any type of bigoted hatred toward Jews or any other minority group.

Does it simply mean accepting the right of the State of Israel to exist in some form?

Does it oblige a person to denounce and seek to prevent any public criticism of or opposition to any actions
committed by the Israeli government?

Does it compel a person to equate any and all criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism?

Does it require unquesitoning support for the Occupation and the West Bank settlements?

Or does it require supporting the annexation of the West Bank and an insistence on forever making the creation of a Palestinian state impossible?

(and no Jordan is not and can never be a Palestinian state. It's going to be run by the Hashemites for the rest of eternity, and none of the West Bank or Palestinians would ever accept being forced to choose between either moving to Jordan or remaining powerless in their own homeland.)

I support Israel's right to live in peace and security in the lands of the pre-1967 borders. At the same time, I would prefer to see a long-term ceasefire by both sides and a permanent moratorium on ANY construction or expansion of West Bank settlements while negotiations for a end to the hostilities are conducted. Would you call that position Zionist or post-Zionist or anti-Zionist?

If you think you're an antiZionist then your an antisemite, because antiZionism is Antisemitism.

The corollary is also true. Many equate specific policies of the Israeli government with the sentiments of all Jewish people as a clever rationalization for Antisemitism.... unsupported allegations of "sincere concern" aside.

in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia/New Zealand and Europe. Most of those people make a clear distinction between Zionism and Jews.)

I unequivacally denounce anyone who does make that sickeningly false equation. They are bigots and sabateurs.

One way to combat that is to call out Netanyahu for claiming to speak, as he often does, as the leader of the global Jewish community, and for his insistence(echoed by Likudnik-Revisionist apologists) on describing the Israeli government and Israel as a country as "the Jews" and on equating public Jewish dissent from Israeli government actions with ethnic/religious betrayal and "self-loathing".

Netanyahu and his regime are a bunch of demagogues who are using the world's Jewish communities as ideological human shields. This is despicable and it should be denounced more widely(as some courageously denounce it now).

Israel is simply a country. Jewish people are simply people who are Jewish. The two are not synonymous.

A trademark of anti-Semites, among the many, is blaming Jews for anti-Semitism and any calamity which befalls us.

hence why Zionism is right.

Nothing justifies the West Bank settlements. And those settlements actually make Israel less secure.

hence why I can't fault Israel for being skeptical of any amount of rationality on the part of those who claim "if only Israel would get rid of the settlements."

I would rather the settlements go (aside from some to be used in a landswap) but the kind of double standards that existed before Israel touched the West Bank need to go.

Arab views about Zionism today are predominately(although not universally)grounded in the way Palestinians have been treated.

It's not realistic to expect those views to change before Palestinians get a decent deal out of all this.

(and no, before you say it, I don't approve of Palestinians not being allowed to blend into the societies of other Arab countries, but that wouldn't have ended Palestinian national consciousness even if they had been allowed to assimilate. Palestinian national consciousness is real, and Arabs aren't generic. They weren't going to "just get over it&quot .

really be so hepped up about the Palestinians as to have gone to war and their populations (if not governments) to support terrorism against Israel? Why do Muslims all around the world care in a way that Christianity practitioners around the world did not about Sudan or East Timor (enough to have world wide protests, commit terrorism, send fighters and aid, etc.) It seems the Muslim world takes the whole one-for-all-and-all-for-one a little too far.

Additionally, until the '60s, the Palestinians professed to be part of the Arab Nation, as did other Pan-Arabs (a movement which began even before decolonization), so this Palestinian "national conscience" is merely a construct with dubious beginnings.

All you do is parrot "the line".

That's mainstream Jewish view and certainly Democratic Party.

centuries against its Jewish populations. Pogroms were common, especially in Persia. And Jews had next to no rights.

And what did the world do when Arabs did that to Jews? NOTHING!!!!

Yet, Israel does something to mess up an Arab's hair and what does the world do? Condemn Jews!

because its not the jews they are condemning but rather the zionist policies that led to the illegal creation of Israel. And jews lived peacefully in many Arab countries till 1948. Your history is one written by a zionist it would appear.

The UN voted for the partition. Yes, those fucking Zionist Jews. .. if only they threw themselves into the ovens, there would be no problems today.

I hope your reply to me was sarcastic.

end of story.

How so?

What unmitigated bullshit .

"that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

It wasn't as simple as the declaration "creating the British mandate of Palestine&quot the mandate was actually created by the //league of Nations upon its founding), and it clearly did not say there should be a Jewish state but no self-determination at all for the Palestinians.

No one in this thread, btw, is either an antisemite(unlike Lord Balfour, whose motivation was to keep the Jewish population of the UK as small as possible) or an apologist for the Holocaust. And you know it.

And there were many instances(such as the Moorish era in Spain)in which Muslims treated Jews far better than European Christians did.

There was no Arab or Muslim equivalent of the ghetto(used in the medieval European sense of the term here) or the Inquisition, or the Holocaust. And the Jewish communities in North Africa, Iraq, and Iran survived World War II unscathed.

It's also telling that, prior to 1948, there was essentially no such thing as a Mizrahi Zionist.

Arabs and Muslims weren't saints in their treatment of Jews, but they weren't unrelenting villains in the way many European monarchs and Christian religious hierarchs were (you should read some of the things Martin Luther said on that subject).

If it hadn't been for the 800,000 Palestinians(most of whom were noncombatants) driven away from their homes in the Nakba, it's likely the Arab leaders would have come around to accepting Israel in a few years. Once the expulsions occurred, the Israeli government lost any real right to expect peace from the Arabs.

It isn't as simple as the Likudnik myth that the whole thing is down to unrelenting Arab bigotry. Nothing is ever that simple.

And no, people don't "condemn Jews"-they criticize the Israeli government. Israel is not synonymous with the entire Jewish world.

And I say this as someone who wants Israelis to live in peace and security in the only territory that can ever be legitimately considered Israel-the pre-1967 lines. Not the West Bank, which MUST be a Palestinian state.

They moved all the settlers out of the Golan and what happened? The Palestinians use the Gaza to launch missiles into Israel.

This is an old tradition, unfortunately.

with unquestioning support of what Netanyahu does to Palestinians. We all need to speak out against antisemitism(and equally against all other forms of bigotry, all of which are equally indefensible and evil), and at the same time the tactic of equating all criticism of Israeli security policies with antisemitism, or even with "hatred of Israel" should be denounced as the demagogy it is.

Netanyahu does to Palestinians. Can't stand the bastard, actually.

I was just saying that Netanyahu's actions didn't cause Europaean anti-Semitism. Which is mostly an old tradition. Somewhat increased in recent years by (a) the economic problems, which always seem to lead to looking for scapegoats; (b) the fact that memories of the Holocaust are fading; (c) a tendency by some to 'divide and rule' by setting off hostility between Jews and Muslims, whereas both (and other minority groups) really need to 'hang together or we will all hang separately'.

Just that it's a relentlessly common trope among Likud apologists.

Agreed that Zionism didn't cause European antisemitism.

Their so childish they dont even show Israel on any maps.

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Inexcusable thing for that idiot to say in any case.

Good thing he resigned.

David Ward (former LibDem MP) and Galloway (party-of-one) have both been in trouble for comments about Jews and 'Zionists', and neither of them was Labour.

Labour at the moment are investigating and cracking down on anti-Semitism, and so they should, which is resulting in more reports on it at the moment.

There have been periodic scandals about Tories from this point of view. Not long ago, Tory MP (since persuaded to 'retire' for this and other reasons) got into trouble in France for a Nazi-themed stag party. And a couple of years ago, the Oxford University Conservative Association got into some trouble when some of them got drunk at a 'Port and Policy' meeting and started singing a song to the tune of Jingle Bells' about 'dashing through the Reich... killing lots of (K-words)'. Judging from past experience, some of these will be ruling us in 20 years' time. O joy!

The worst party for anti-Semitism and other forms of racism is UKIP. A poll of UKIP members indicated that 50% would never vote for a Jew for Prime Minister, for example.

As a citizen of the UK myself, I have rarely had a real political home anyway: all parties have their problems. That's why my username is LeftishBrit and not BritishLabourite (or other party). I've voted for three parties in my time. But the Tories are worse than the other parties (well, except for UKIP).

I have NEVER heard anyone use the word "Zionist" in a derogatory way that I was not certain was an anti-semite.

And there is never a shortage of those to make excuses for it.

Certainly it was so in this case. Hitler so far as I'm aware was not in the least concerned with Zionism as a movement; it was JEWS whom he hated and murdered.

I also hesitate to use "Never", but generally if you want to criticize Israel, that can be done without spitting out the "Zionist" word.

The word is poisoned, as words do become, through mis-use. "Zionist pig" has been bandied about enough to have made the word sound filthy enough that it ALWAYS comes across as a slur to me anyway.

There are some who never miss an opportunity to pull out all the bells and (especially) the whistles! Their favorite?

Can't come out and call us kikes, yids or hebs anymore. . .but wrapping it in Zionism and politically motivated language. . .Zionist is the new anti-Semitic slur. Also, can't call us Christ Killers (even though I have been called on on many occasions).

I'm Jewish. . .I'm going to use the slurs good Christians have used against us for years to prove my point.

they would not be so smug and assured about pretending we are just another "White" person.

Show me some other White people that were not allowed to join clubs, fraternities, mix with other people's daughters, etc.

Show me other White people beaten up for "killing Jesus".

Sanders is a minority candidate, from a tiny minority. Hillary, OTOH, is a rich, rich White woman and represents women who make up over 50% of the electorate.

and it is traditional chinese, so it took me a while to understand it.

I live in Japan, am a translator, and train karate. It seemed as good a fit as Kurt Vonnegut or Frank Zappa...

And inflicted overwhelmingly at the hands of people of European gentile heritage. We're fine with European gentiles suffering for that. We're be fine with having to atone for that in our own countries and our own lives.

That would be fair, just, and appropriate.

But Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with that history of European, British, and North American-inflicted suffering(the Dispersal, which was the work of the late Roman Empire, the establishment of the ghettos, the Inquisition, the pogroms, The Immigration Act of 1924, the Holocaust) and it was never fair to invoke that Anglo-American European history of antisemitic evil to justify the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, a group who had nothing to do with all of that oppression, persecution and slaughter, a group who could have done nothing to prevent it.

It's one thing for Jewish people today to ask all the descendants of the historic perpetrators of lethal European antisemitism to work to wipe out all vestiges of that toxic form of hate and to atone for all that OUR ancestors did to nurture and spread it.

You SHOULD ask that.

But it's simply perverse to insist, as apologists for the Likudniks do, that the only possible way we can work towards achiev ing either of those goals is by unquestioningly defending the oppression of a group of people who, while they are far from saints, had nothing to do with that history of oppression, a group who were largely powerless bystanders when all of that was happening in the world up until 1945.

It should be the Germans, the Poles, the Russians, the British, the French, the Canadians and the Americans facing collective punishment and, if need be, dispossession, not the Palestinians. Punish the people who actually committed and benefited from the crime.

his friend Hitler started?

You really are unbelievable in your attacks. Yes, what happened to Jews was bad, but. . .

Love how non Jews always throw a "but" in the treatment of Jews all the time. Kind of like blaming the victim for her own rape.

And to using the words of the Grand mufti, disgusting as they are, as an excuse for the Nakba in '48. Most Palestinians were noncombatants in that conflict.

The Grand Mufti was just one man, appointed to his position by the British Mandatory officials against the wishes of the Palestinian Muslim community.

He was exiled to Lebanon in 1950 and has been dead since 1973.

The Palestinians are not collectively responsible for the Grand Mufti's insanity, and his words didn't justify punishing anyone but him. They didn't justify the entire Nakba and they don't justify the Occupation of the settlements.

I don't ever defend antisemitism, nor do I blame the world's Jewish communities for it.

And people don't have to equate all Palestinians with the Third Reich to prove they themselves are not antisemites.

Palestinian feelings towards the Israeli government are based on legitimate grievances against that government. It's not as though they'd be cool with Gentiles or other Arabs treating them like this. If they were, they'd have been happy to apply for Jordanian, Syrian, or Egyptian citizenship, or to move to some other part of the world.

Your rape analogy is disgusting. You should be ashamed of using such a comparison. I don't defend anything anyone has done to oppress or degrade Jews, just as I don't defend the oppression or degradation of anyone else. And I condemned what the former lord mayor of Bradford said. I won't alert on that post, and ask that no one else does either, just to show how vile Likudnik rhetoric can be.

WTF , best look in the mirror for vile rhetoric....there was none there.

and compared my post(in which I actually called for GREATER punishment to be administered to the actual authors of most of the antisemitism in history and to the benificiaries of most of that antisemitism...people of European gentile ancestry)to blaming rape victims for their own rapes.

I denounced what the former mayor of Bradford said. I denounce all antisemitism. The existence of antisemitism does not require me to give unquestioning support to what the Israeli government does to Palestinians.

Thank you.

They never learn.

Oh wait, that never happened to Europe. But the last marauding hordes to take over Europe are trying it again; and most of the governments are afraid to admit or stop it.

(Links to the far right Daily Mail and Telegraph don't count)

Especially given Jeremy Corbyn's anti-Israel stance over many years.

This is how stereotypes are perpetuated, Khadim.

What an ass.

... I don't think they would have been waiting around Europe waiting to get picked up and shipped to the camps.

Just a simple point of logic.

Carry on.

And no, contrary to what the former lord mayor said here, supporters of Zionism didn't deserve to be exterminated any more than any of Hitler's other victims did(and obviously no one at all deserved to be exterminated).

he forgot that one is supposed to use "Zionists" as code for "Jews" only for discussions involving post-1948 events.

Not only a bigot, but a particularly stupid one.

In defense of Labour, they did push him out the door--I wonder what Jeremy Corbyn will do about this?

and the runner up, his brother David, were both Jewish.

I think you'd have a natural political home in UKIP.

They racist extremist wackos.


It does how ever seem that anti-semites have a more of a home in labour with Corybrn as a leader.

However much people like yourself claim otherwise.

... an orginizton that advocates the killing of all Jews

"agents of “long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region,” and inviting to Parliament a Palestinian Islamist, Raed Salah, who has suggested Jews were absent from the World Trade Center on 9/11 is.

The Former head of the Oxford University Labour Club left because of this

Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term 'Zio' (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their 'solidarity' with Hamas and explitictly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that 'most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

https://www.facebook.com/alex.chalmers.16/posts/1054958807895916

There are people on the left who completely ignore anti-Semitism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?_r=0


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/antisemitism-left-racism-israel

The only difference is one is in government the other isn't.

They're not that different from the Provisional IRA either, whose position on the six counties is exactly the same as Hamas' on the state of Israel.

If you want peace in the ME you have to talk to Hamas, just like we did with the IRA. Netanyahu won't, he's too concerned with building illegal settlements and creating facts on the ground.

You have a track record of misrepresenting Labour, and Corbyn in particular. Your thread title starts refers to a Mayor, which gives the impression it's an important figure like Ken Livingstone instead of a far less consequential figure like the Mayor of that mighty metropolis Bradford.

You then talk about an increased anti Semitism since Corbyn became leader, but the Mayor in question was Mayor before Corbyn became leader.

The Labour Party is full of minorities, including Muslims, and some have expressed opinions that are not in keeping with the Labour Party's position as a whole. It's not just anti Semitism either, but sexism and opposition to abortion. And those whose position is at odds with the party have been expelled.

There are however, many rank and file members of the Labour Party who boycott Israeli goods and services because, like apartheid South Africa it discriminates against the indigenous population. The majority view on Israel has nothing to do with anti Semitism and everything to the ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza and the building of illegal settlements.

Btw, the comment is free section of the Guardian is not a reliable source, it's a sounding board where a load of disgruntled nutters can let off steam. You could write something there and then post a link to your comment, (you might even have done that.)