am I antiSemitic?

[Laika]

I am someone who, whilst recognising political correctness is a restriction on free speech for others, would expect of themselves to assert some standard of egalitarianism and be vigilant against my own prejudices.

The left has some historical relationship with antisemitism in the form of opposition to Israel. This has become an issue on the UK Labour Party but also has roots in Soviet and Western Marxist responses to Israel. It's one of those subjects I quietly avoid.

My intention here is simply to put out into the open certain views which I strongly suspect are antisemitic and allow people to subject them to reasoned criticism. This is not an area that I am knowledgable of (but comes up repeatedly on RF discussions) so I am willing to hear out other opinions and will read links if you provide them so I am better informed and reconsider them;

1. The existence of Israel is a political fact. However, it's establishment represented an extra ordinary intervention that would not have otherwise have been possible without colonial rule and occupation in the Middle East after world war 2. (Calling it imperialism and treating all imperialism as bad would be left-wing sloganising but the substance of it is there.)


2. The argument that the Jewish people had a right to establish Israel based on its historical existence dating back several thousand years is unprecedented rewriting of history and can only be justified in relation to the holocaust as a unique atrocity affecting the Jewish people. (E.g. It's the equivalent of Native Americans in the U.S. Being given a territory based on historical roots to that land. Establishing a "black nation" on US soil based on the racial legacy of slavery might be another example).

3. Zionism is potentially racist. The relationship between race, religion and nationalism is very problematic from a far-left standpoint as well as a secular one.

4. Additionally linking Jewish ethnicity or race with the nation of Israel makes it extremely hard to criticise the state of Israel.

5. The relationship between religion and race if anything makes conflict between members of the Jewish and Islamic faiths more likely as a "them versus us" mentality. secularisation of Islam and Judaism might make it easier to have peace by not treating opposition between them as divinely inspired but as having secular causes.

How legitimate are these positions in terms of their relationship to the evidence? Or are they prejudicial in some way?

 

[Tumah]

I don't think most Israelis view the opposition as being Divinely inspired as most Israelis are secular.

 

[LuisDantas]

While I can hardly claim expertise on the matter, word reached me that much (most? all?) of the territory of Israel as of its inauguration (some time circa 1947-1948) was legally bought from the people that lived there previously. It was a long existing effort that considerably predates World War 2.

Of course, much of what is currently Israel came from the expansion due to the war that erupted literally hours after the country's inauguration. To this day I am not clear on what made that war so predictable. I am not at all clear on the reasons for it.

Zionism is indeed potentially racist. In that it is no different from any other nationalism.

Likewise, it is not really unusual for a state to be strongly linked to some ethnicity. Then again, the Jewish People are not particularly ethnic either.

As for your last point, I'm not sure it is a question or rather meant as advice or simple comment. In any case, it is unclear how exactly religion, nationality, ethnicity and hostility driven by tribal mentality interact in Israel and the surrounding regions. Most likely there are various combinations interacting in complex ways. The available evidence suggests that the Jewish People are by no means united when it comes to that. Some orthodox groups actuall oppose the very existence of Israel as a separate state, to various degrees of commitment and priority.

If I had to guess, many or most Israelis don't subscribe to the idea of having a divine mandate to oppose Islam or other ethnic groups. I am honestly not sure the same can be said about Muslims, let alone about Islam the religion. The Qur'an is really of little help there.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If any group of people systematically purchase parcels of land , big and small, do they have the right to declare that it has national status.

If trump bought large chunks of Texas, could he declare it as being a nation.

In Israel there were enclaves of land and property that were not bought. However they were equally declared as part of the state of Israel. Such land on the periphery, is now being systematically taken from the owners and used for new housing.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

1. The existence of Israel is a political fact. However, it's establishment represented an extra ordinary intervention that would not have otherwise have been possible without colonial rule and occupation in the Middle East after world war 2. (Calling it imperialism and treating all imperialism as bad would be left-wing sloganising but the substance of it is there.)

The British government decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and consultations with Jewish ...The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild,

 

[Godobeyer]

I am someone who, whilst recognising political correctness is a restriction on free speech for others, would expect of themselves to assert some standard of egalitarianism and be vigilant against my own prejudices.

The left has some historical relationship with antisemitism in the form of opposition to Israel. This has become an issue on the UK Labour Party but also has roots in Soviet and Western Marxist responses to Israel. It's one of those subjects I quietly avoid.

My intention here is simply to put out into the open certain views which I strongly suspect are antisemitic and allow people to subject them to reasoned criticism. This is not an area that I am knowledgable of (but comes up repeatedly on RF discussions) so I am willing to hear out other opinions and will read links if you provide them so I am better informed and reconsider them;

1. The existence of Israel is a political fact. However, it's establishment represented an extra ordinary intervention that would not have otherwise have been possible without colonial rule and occupation in the Middle East after world war 2. (Calling it imperialism and treating all imperialism as bad would be left-wing sloganising but the substance of it is there.)


2. The argument that the Jewish people had a right to establish Israel based on its historical existence dating back several thousand years is unprecedented rewriting of history and can only be justified in relation to the holocaust as a unique atrocity affecting the Jewish people. (E.g. It's the equivalent of Native Americans in the U.S. Being given a territory based on historical roots to that land. Establishing a "black nation" on US soil based on the racial legacy of slavery might be another example).

3. Zionism is potentially racist. The relationship between race, religion and nationalism is very problematic from a far-left standpoint as well as a secular one.

4. Additionally linking Jewish ethnicity or race with the nation of Israel makes it extremely hard to criticise the state of Israel.

5. The relationship between religion and race if anything makes conflict between members of the Jewish and Islamic faiths more likely as a "them versus us" mentality. secularisation of Islam and Judaism might make it easier to have peace by not treating opposition between them as divinely inspired but as having secular causes.

How legitimate are these positions in terms of their relationship to the evidence? Or are they prejudicial in some way?

For who whom supporting Israel racist?
Indeed you are racist

 

[rosends]

I am someone who, whilst recognising political correctness is a restriction on free speech for others, would expect of themselves to assert some standard of egalitarianism and be vigilant against my own prejudices.

The left has some historical relationship with antisemitism in the form of opposition to Israel. This has become an issue on the UK Labour Party but also has roots in Soviet and Western Marxist responses to Israel. It's one of those subjects I quietly avoid.

My intention here is simply to put out into the open certain views which I strongly suspect are antisemitic and allow people to subject them to reasoned criticism. This is not an area that I am knowledgable of (but comes up repeatedly on RF discussions) so I am willing to hear out other opinions and will read links if you provide them so I am better informed and reconsider them;

1. The existence of Israel is a political fact. However, it's establishment represented an extra ordinary intervention that would not have otherwise have been possible without colonial rule and occupation in the Middle East after world war 2. (Calling it imperialism and treating all imperialism as bad would be left-wing sloganising but the substance of it is there.)


2. The argument that the Jewish people had a right to establish Israel based on its historical existence dating back several thousand years is unprecedented rewriting of history and can only be justified in relation to the holocaust as a unique atrocity affecting the Jewish people. (E.g. It's the equivalent of Native Americans in the U.S. Being given a territory based on historical roots to that land. Establishing a "black nation" on US soil based on the racial legacy of slavery might be another example).

Israel as a political entity dates back to the modern Zionist movement from the 1860's and 70's. The Balfour Declaration and the 1922 British Mandate precede WWII and connect the Jewish people to that land:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, that is something that I will never accept, although it really has nothing to do with Israel specifically.

There is no such thing as an inherent connection of any people to any land. Certainly not to the extent of granting "rights".

Land exists. People need to live on it. They direly need some sense of security about not being forced out of it. And they end up attempting to convince each other of how that land occupation "should" be because that security is so badly needed.

But ultimately, we all occupy land and hope that others will accept and respect our claims to it. That is all anyone can do far as connections and ownership of land go.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If any group of people systematically purchase parcels of land , big and small, do they have the right to declare that it has national status.

If trump bought large chunks of Texas, could he declare it as being a nation.

You are seriously comparing the pre-State history of the Jews in Israel with Donald Trump buying land in Texas. The crass ignorance and irresponsible shallowness of this false equivalency is staggering.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet again ...

I have recommended more than once that those interested in the topic form an online book club to discuss this text chapter by chapter.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

But ultimately, we all occupy land and hope that others will accept and respect our claims to it. That is all anyone can do far as connections and ownership of land go.

Smile, perhaps it may help that we purchased most of the land long before 1948..
certainly Synagogues i attended sold us Trees, to plant there. the capital accrued from
this world wide fund raising purchased land/property that was put on the market..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The British government decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and consultations with Jewish ...The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild,

An intriguing book that deals tangentially with the declaration is ...

 

[columbus]

Yet again ...

I have recommended more than once that those interested in the topic form an online book club to discuss this text chapter by chapter.

I hate when my phone goes wonky but the link wont open. Im going to the library later on and Ill look for this book if someone will post the author and title.please
Tom

 

[rosends]

I hate when my phone goes wonky but the link wont open. Im going to the library later on and Ill look for this book if someone will post the author and title.please
Tom

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time 3rd Revised and Updated Edition
by Howard M. Sachar

• Paperback: 1270 pages
• Publisher: Alfred A. Knopf; 3rd Revised and Updated edition (May 15, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0375711325
• ISBN-13: 978-0375711329

 

[Knight of Albion]

The British government decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and consultations with Jewish ...The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild,

Yes, it was British Prime Minister David Lloyd George who came up with what became the Balfour Declaration. It occurred during and because of WW1.

The Allies were bogged down and couldn't break through. Lloyd George's idea was to offer a Jewish homeland, hoping this would encourage Jewish influence to keep Russia in the war and bring America into the war. (They were 'neutral' at the time)

The Germans had over a million battle-hardened soldiers on the Eastern Front, if the Russians surrendered, that huge army could be transferred to the Western Front, which could have tilted the war in Germany's favour.
On the other hand, if the Americans came in, their huge army would be decisive - indeed by the close of the war the Americans had 2 million soldiers on the Western Front.

Once the plan had been approved by the War Cabinet and Parliament, Lloyd George got his Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to approach the Zionist Federation, headed at the time by Baron Walter Rothschild.
Needless to say they were enthusiastic about it.

After the war the promise was not implemented and indeed it was officially abandoned in 1939. The main reason being the British were facing the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Far East, the last thing they needed was a third front fighting an Arab revolt in the Middle East - there was a real risk of this at the time.

This is why Jewish insurgents were battling the British after WW2 (King David Hotel bombing etc.) because they'd been double crossed and the British had gone back on their word.

When the British Mandate over the Palestinian Protectorate came to an end, the British left leaving only chaos.
Indeed, the British commander Gen. Montgomery (he of El Alamein) said he gave the Jews three weeks after the British forces left i.e. that they'd all be wiped out.

As a peaceful settlement could not be reached - the Arabs had vowed to exterminate the Jews - the UN decided the only possible outcome was a two state solution.
Two separate states - Israel and Palestine - were proposed, with the boundaries determined by population concentrations.

The plan was approved by a UN majority vote (Britain abstained)

Immediately after Israel declared its independence, the Arab nations launched a genocidal war against Israel - but against all the odds, they lost.

Israel took some Palestinian land as 'war trophy', but Egypt annexed Gaza Province from the Palestinians and Jordan annexed West Bank from the Palestinians, and in so doing Palestine disappeared from the map.

And the rest, as they say, is history ...

 

[Knight of Albion]

Smile, perhaps it may help that we purchased most of the land long before 1948..
certainly Synagogues i attended sold us Trees, to plant there. the capital accrued from
this world wide fund raising purchased land/property that was put on the market..

Yes indeed. Both the Ottomans and the British kept order, and they both held land registry's. When Jews arrived in the Holy Land, escaping the violent pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the anti-Semitism prevalent elsewhere in Europe, obviously they had no land.
So how did they acquire it? They bought it. Arab landowners, knowingly and willingly, sold huge areas of land to Jews - at extortionate prices.

http://www.israeladvocacy.net/knowl...of-stolen-land/#sthash.Ly2qxybb.ZX7CVUrX.dpbs

and

 

[LuisDantas]

Smile, perhaps it may help that we purchased most of the land long before 1948..
certainly Synagogues i attended sold us Trees, to plant there. the capital accrued from
this world wide fund raising purchased land/property that was put on the market..

I'm not disputing that, mainly because I don't think anyone else ever did.

I still wonder what exactly motivated the war that happened in the first few hours of Israel as a modern State. It is probably somewhat easy to understand, but I do not know what it was.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I am someone who, whilst recognising political correctness is a restriction on free speech for others, would expect of themselves to assert some standard of egalitarianism and be vigilant against my own prejudices.

The left has some historical relationship with antisemitism in the form of opposition to Israel. This has become an issue on the UK Labour Party but also has roots in Soviet and Western Marxist responses to Israel. It's one of those subjects I quietly avoid.

My intention here is simply to put out into the open certain views which I strongly suspect are antisemitic and allow people to subject them to reasoned criticism. This is not an area that I am knowledgable of (but comes up repeatedly on RF discussions) so I am willing to hear out other opinions and will read links if you provide them so I am better informed and reconsider them;

1. The existence of Israel is a political fact. However, it's establishment represented an extra ordinary intervention that would not have otherwise have been possible without colonial rule and occupation in the Middle East after world war 2. (Calling it imperialism and treating all imperialism as bad would be left-wing sloganising but the substance of it is there.)


2. The argument that the Jewish people had a right to establish Israel based on its historical existence dating back several thousand years is unprecedented rewriting of history and can only be justified in relation to the holocaust as a unique atrocity affecting the Jewish people. (E.g. It's the equivalent of Native Americans in the U.S. Being given a territory based on historical roots to that land. Establishing a "black nation" on US soil based on the racial legacy of slavery might be another example).

3. Zionism is potentially racist. The relationship between race, religion and nationalism is very problematic from a far-left standpoint as well as a secular one.

4. Additionally linking Jewish ethnicity or race with the nation of Israel makes it extremely hard to criticise the state of Israel.

5. The relationship between religion and race if anything makes conflict between members of the Jewish and Islamic faiths more likely as a "them versus us" mentality. secularisation of Islam and Judaism might make it easier to have peace by not treating opposition between them as divinely inspired but as having secular causes.

How legitimate are these positions in terms of their relationship to the evidence? Or are they prejudicial in some way?

It's sad that people believe it is wrong to be critical of Israel...no, not just wrong but antisemitic. This is a sad trend and one that seems to be getting stronger.

As Hajo meyer said, "An anti-semite used to be someone that disliked Jews, now it's someone who the Jews dislike."