UK BLM Protests - Edward Colston sleeps with the fishes [split topic]

[canadagoose]

I live in a country with a larger Jewish population than Israel...

Going to guess America. That's interesting, but surely even you know that correlation isn't causation. Self-describing as a "Zionist" doesn't mean you'll have regressive opinions about Palestine. And anyway that wasn't even my point in the first place - it was that bad-faith actors use "Zionist" as a pejorative to imply something unpleasant about Jewish people as a whole, so it's been tainted as a term, when used by non-Jewish people in particular.

[Zetetic]

People who actively identify as "Zionists" probably aren't the people who are most open to helping restrain the Israeli government.

People who answer "yeah, I guess" when pushed, might be.

[Buelligan]

canadagoose pointed out that it's a bad idea to use the word "Zionists"...

That page gave a percentage and said it was arrived at by conducting "a survey".  I don't see that as particularly compelling evidence one way or the other.  I surveyed a cat to come to this decision.

[canadagoose]

That page gave a percentage and said it was arrived at by conducting "a survey".  I don't see that as particularly compelling evidence one way or the other.  I surveyed a cat to come to this decision.

Mate. Come on, you know better than that. If not a survey, then what? A census? How do you gauge the opinions of a minority group? Why the scepticism?

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Going to guess America. That's interesting, but surely even you know that correlation isn't causation. Self-describing as a "Zionist" doesn't mean you'll have regressive opinions about Palestine. And anyway that wasn't even my point in the first place - it was that bad-faith actors use "Zionist" as a pejorative to imply something unpleasant about Jewish people as a whole, so it's been tainted as a term, when used by non-Jewish people in particular.

Perhaps we are partially talking past each other because I made the mistake of reading the horrendous responses to that BLM tweet first. If your point is just that it would be easier not to use the term, because it's not strictly necessary, then that doesn't seem unreasonable. My point is just that I don't think "Zionism" is some innocent universal aspect of modern Jewish culture, such that calling out "Zionists" is an anti-Semitic blunder akin to calling out "the Circumcisers" or something like that.

Mate. Come on, you know better than that. If not a survey, then what? A census? How do you gauge the opinions of a minority group? Why the scepticism?

Not sure what the 59% figure is supposed to prove anyway. I would not be surprised if >59% percent of the British public at large had horrible views on Palestinian rights.

[Buelligan]

Mate. Come on, you know better than that. If not a survey, then what? A census? How do you gauge the opinions of a minority group? Why the scepticism?

I only briefly glanced at the page but it just said "a survey", rather than "a survey conducted by ***, in 20**, commissioned by ***, of *** number of men/women/cats".  Maybe I'm cynical but I prefer those types of surveys so's I can see what was asked and who paid etc.

[Zetetic]

https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/295361/Israel-Report-FINAL.PDF#page=29 which is linked early on from the Full Fact page.

Note also the poor predictive power for agreement with Israeli government actions.

[canadagoose]

Perhaps we are partially talking past each other because I made the mistake of reading the horrendous responses to that BLM tweet first. If your point is just that it would be easier not to use the term, because it's not strictly necessary, then that doesn't seem unreasonable. My point is just that I don't think "Zionism" is some innocent universal aspect of modern Jewish culture, such that calling out "Zionists" is an anti-Semitic blunder akin to calling out "the Circumcisers" or something like that.

Yeah, the responses were... a thing. I would certainly argue that it's easier to avoid it from a non-Jewish perspective, and that it's not a universal Jewish thing. It can be used derogatorily (because the far-right do this with dog-whistles) and I'd be very careful about what you actually mean before using it. It's definitely not as blatantly bad as "the circumcisers", no.

Not sure what the 59% figure is supposed to prove anyway. I would not be surprised if >59% percent of the British public at large had horrible views on Palestinian rights.

It only proves there's a significant proportion of Zionists (non-dog-whistle version). 59% of British people may have regressive views but they're cunts.

I only briefly glanced at the page but it just said "a survey", rather than "a survey conducted by ***, in 20**, commissioned by ***, of *** number of men/women/cats".  Maybe I'm cynical but I prefer those types of surveys so's I can see what was asked and who paid etc.

Zetetic (I almost typed Zionist there, bloody brain's turned to mush) has a link with the source if you're interested. I realise you're sceptical if the source was obfuscated, because the Times and the Telegraph do this, though. (I have personal experience of this!) But not all surveys are invalid - I'm sure you didn't mean that! - some do have merit.

(edit 4)

[Buelligan]

https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/295361/Israel-Report-FINAL.PDF#page=29 which is linked early on from the Full Fact page.

Note also the poor predictive power for agreement with Israeli government actions.

Does it say how many people were questioned and how they were selected?  Who are JPR?

[Zetetic]

Does it say how many people were questioned

Yes, 1131.

and how they were selected?

Yes, Appendix 1. Undertaken independently by Ipsos MORI.

Who are JPR?

Do you think this has affected the report?

I suppose I might be more inclined to continue engaging with this if there was a positive case for continuing to use a special Jew-word for this kind of Israeli nationalism that made sense if you're not a speechwriter for Netanyahu or something.

[canadagoose]

Does it say how many people were questioned and how they were selected?  Who are JPR?

Institute for Jewish Policy Research, page 5. It's all there. Please do give it a read, I've had a quick scan and it all seems ko- I mean, proper.

[honeychile]

I've written at tedious length before why i'd like people to avoid the term "zionism" in modern critiques of Israel - not because it's antisemitic, but because it's nebulous and unclear and therefore offers a useful smokescreen for antisemites to slip through. If what you're driving at is settler-colonialsm, say "settler-colonialism". If what you're driving at is jewish supremacism, say "jewish supremacism". If what you're talking about is israeli ultranationalism, say "israeli ultranationalism".

In a previous thread i posted this passage from 1916 written by no less than Max Nordau, one of the godfathers of zionism:

Zionism does not pretend to lead back to the Holy Land of their ancestors all the Jews of the globe. The return of those who cling with all their heart to the country of their birth and of their citizenship is out of the question. Only those will set out for the East who feel that there and nowhere else has life moral and material satisfaction and happiness in store for them.

Zionism has not the ambition of founding an independent Jewish State, be it a kingdom or a republic. All it desires is that its adherents should be allowed to immigrate without any restraint into Palestine, to buy there as much land as they can obtain for their money, to enjoy autonomy of local administration, and not to be hampered in their earnest efforts to create culture and prosperity. It goes without saying that Zionistic Jews pledge themselves to observe the most scrupulous, most generous loyalty towards the Power under whose sovereignty Palestine is placed.

This is the case for Zionism, fully and sincerely, though shortly, expounded.

Take a look at the comments on YouTube or Twitter posts under legitimately Israel-critical videos or messages (or indeed, very often content entirely unrelated to Israel), and it doesn't take long to see the term "zionist" being thrown around euphemistically. If you can't find what you're trying to say in clearer terms - when they so copiously exist - i think that's on you. That's why i discourage the term's proliferation on the left.

All that being said, the BLM tweet can't be reasonably construed as antisemitic. The "right to critique zionism" is fine, i mean it's exactly what we've spent the last two pages doing! It's just not lucid in a modern debate about Israel or its oppression of palestinians, and given that lack of lucidity it serves as a handy cloak for antisemites to hide under when the rest of us don't require it.

[Crisps?]

Given that Israel already exists, you're pretty much a "Zionist" unless you want it wiped off the map. Which is dodgy.

I don't see anyone losing sleep over Apartheid South Africa being wiped off the map.

[canadagoose]

I don't see anyone losing sleep over Apartheid South Africa being wiped off the map.

South Africa still exists, unless I'm missing something. Just without the apartheid laws.

[Crisps?]

Okay, I don't see anyone losing sleep over the Soviet Union being wiped off the map. Is there still a Soviet Union just without the Communism?

[canadagoose]

Okay, I don't see anyone losing sleep over the Soviet Union being wiped off the map. Is there still a Soviet Union just without the Communism?

But the constituent countries of the USSR still exist. It's also not had any major demographic change since collapse, because the major part of it is run by the same nationality. Can you say the same about Israel? What would the collapse of Israel entail? And why should it happen?

[BlodwynPig]

But the constituent countries of the USSR still exist. It's also not had any major demographic change since collapse, because the major part of it is run by the same nationality. Can you say the same about Israel? What would the collapse of Israel entail? And why should it happen?

Any Neo-fascist state committing atrocities such as those in the Western Democratic Axis of Evil should face the consequences, "Great" Britain included.

[canadagoose]

Any Neo-fascist state committing atrocities such as those in the Western Democratic Axis of Evil should face the consequences, "Great" Britain included.

Screw the UK, it's a load of rubbish. Colonial state in denial that it is. I think the Israeli government should face some kind of sanctions for its human rights abuses and, as I've said, I don't like it. International pressure would help, maybe.

[BlodwynPig]

Screw the UK, it's a load of rubbish. Colonial state in denial that it is. I think the Israeli government should face some kind of sanctions for its human rights abuses and, as I've said, I don't like it. International pressure would help, maybe.

If people got as irate about the crimes of states as they do the enactors of those regimes (Police), maybe something might happen... but no "watch your language, sonny...big daddy knows what is best"...like they are faceless corporations iron fenced by ridiculous and regressive laws.

[Crisps?]

But the constituent countries of the USSR still exist. It's also not had any major demographic change since collapse, because the major part of it is run by the same nationality. Can you say the same about Israel? What would the collapse of Israel entail? And why should it happen?

It doesn't need to be a collapse, it could be an agreement to end its own existence, as with white ruled South Africa or the USSR, but that's entirely up to Israel.

Either way "wiped off the map" (falsely attributed to Iran, which itself is threatened 24/7 by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia) is misleading, as if it's a call for people to be wiped out, rather than regime change/removal.

As for why that should happen, to be replaced by a state/regime where one ethnic group does not have superiority over all others, with the violence and suppression that requires to maintain, seems like a good reason.

[Zetetic]

The USSR didn't agree to end its own existence. Governments in its constituent republics, most notably the two that massively outsized the rest, decided to end it.

It might be worth noting here the demographics of South Africa where approximately 90% of the population were non-White. There are reasons why the invocation of apartheid in Israel/Palestine are appropriate, and then there are things to remember about why the two situations won't be probably resolved in the same way or at least for the same reasons.

[Sebastian Cobb]

The difference between BLM and the left of labour is the centrists can concern troll all they like, they cannot damage them from inside like they did with the labour left/corbyn's leadership. BLM can tell them to get bent.

Also in terms of power imbalances it goes Centrists > Jewish people they're ostensibly defending > black people for the most part. BLM don't have the media and establishment on side pushing their agenda, or at least pretending to.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

It doesn't need to be a collapse, it could be an agreement to end its own existence, as with white ruled South Africa or the USSR, but that's entirely up to Israel.

Either way "wiped off the map" (falsely attributed to Iran, which itself is threatened 24/7 by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia) is misleading, as if it's a call for people to be wiped out, rather than regime change/removal.

As for why that should happen, to be replaced by a state/regime where one ethnic group does not have superiority over all others, with the violence and suppression that requires to maintain, seems like a good reason.

Of course, one of the ways propaganda works over time is to shift the terms of debate such that many of us in this thread are now on pins and needles to distinguish illegal annexation from "Zionism" and the benevolent Zionists of the past who merely support the creation or existence of an Israeli state in Palestine. A state whose creation was itself illegal and involved the dispossession of Palestinians. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if the retrofitting of the term "Zionism" was a deliberate effort to whitewash the historical legacies of prominent self-identifying Zionists and to muddy the waters on critiques of the Israeli government.)

Perhaps one could argue that the comparator term canadagoose was searching for above would be the American Confederacy, insofar as many Americans today are adamant that it is just an innocent form of identity and has nothing to do with the historical context from which that the term arose. I think it would be a bit tone deaf to chastise BLM for attacking the confederate flag, but that type of chastisement is always permitted when it comes to pro-Palestinian messages.

[chveik]

btw Zetetic do you know why Hamas has stopped using the term?

[Zetetic]

I can only guess.

Bit more context: Last time I checked Hamas were still generally using "الاحتلال الصهيوني،" where in English they'd largely switched to "Israeli occupation". (The second word there means and is cognate with "Zionist", I believe. But I don't want to pretend that I know any Arabic beyond some of the script.)

[Zetetic]

No do they avoid it entirely. They'll still talk about "Zionist ideology" and that sort of thing if you dig around their material a bit. But the emphasis is definitely on Israeli occupation, colonisation, apartheid etc.

[chveik]

that's interesting. thanks

[idunnosomename]

I mean. I could say I think there ought to be a country called Palestine where all its citizens have equal rights. but. I think people should be able to live and work wherever they want and not be dictated by the borders of the post-Westphalian nation state where they were born. so. I can't

[Crisps?]

The USSR didn't agree to end its own existence. Governments in its constituent republics, most notably the two that massively outsized the rest, decided to end it.

"On December 26 [1991], the Council of the Republics, the upper chamber of the Union's Supreme Soviet, voted both itself and the Soviet Union out of existence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Fall:_August%E2%80%93December_1991

HTH

It might be worth noting here the demographics of South Africa where approximately 90% of the population were non-White. There are reasons why the invocation of apartheid in Israel/Palestine are appropriate, and then there are things to remember about why the two situations won't be probably resolved in the same way or at least for the same reasons.

I made no mention of Apartheid in Israel/Palestine.

[Buelligan]

Yes, 1131.
Yes, Appendix 1. Undertaken independently by Ipsos MORI.
Do you think this has affected the report?

I suppose I might be more inclined to continue engaging with this if there was a positive case for continuing to use a special Jew-word for this kind of Israeli nationalism that made sense if you're not a speechwriter for Netanyahu or something.

I was just tired, I'm working very hard at the moment, needed to go to bed, didn't have time to read all of that and saw the acronym without explanation.  Hoped you might know.

My own feeling is that it's clear that people use and have used the word zionist for a very long time without any intention to create upset, see Corbyn.  Whilst I'm unbothered about having the word removed from the lexicon, it would be sensible, for the avoidance of further upset.  Similarly, for the avoidance of further upset a new word should, perhaps, be found that can be used by reasonable people wishing to make a precise comment on the thing currently know as zionism (not the offensive one, whatever that is, but the thing PDD described).  IMO, this would solve all of it, or at least help.

Banning the word, without any new term in place is bound to create misunderstanding (not good) and is dangerous stuff anyway - not everyone may understand or get the memo, they may forget (and be pilloried publicly) or they may find it impossible to speak about zionism (as it was known) because there is no longer a word to describe it.  Imagine talking about the annexation of the West Bank without that word, any discussion would place those against the illegal theft of land from its historic people in a position where they hardly dared speak out.  And no one wants that.

I would also counsel everyone to consider the people currently attacking BLMUK with such enthusiasm.  Have you ever seen any of them do something good?  I don't know, I don't go on twitter but from the earlier comments in this thread, I'm guessing not.  That should tell you something.