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

[Johnny Yesno]

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:

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.

I agree with your analysis. My own preference is 'far right', for that is the credo they find common cause with in the UK.

However, this shit is complicated: https://twitter.com/JewsVsIsrael/status/999501922943021061 (video)

"If you're Jewish or non-Jewish, please, let the world know:

Jews all over the world are not responsible for the actions of the Zionist State of Israel!

Israel doesn't represent the Jewish people!"

-Rabbi Yakov Shapiro in Jerusalem. @TorahJews


5:06 AM · May 24, 2018

[Buelligan]

He shouldn't even need to say that, should he?  Imagine a world where most people treated you, individually, and a specific country's government (whether you lived there, whether you had ever lived there, whether you were a citizen or not), as one thing, the same thing, indivisible. 

Imagine if that country went out of its way to make it known that that was the correct way to go about things? 

Imagine how you'd feel about that if it was you and Britain, for instance.  About as racist as it can get, isn't it?

[Paul Calf]

Is this a BLM thread that's spent the last four pages on a fruitless argument about whether 'Zionism' is an offensive term to Israelis / the diaspora / rich white people?

Pats on the back all round, eh?

[Buelligan]

Oh, I think I could manage a swift but intense, kick up the arse if there are any takers.

[BlodwynPig]

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.

While not the same - I've heard right wing people say that the word "racist" needs banning as it cause upset and misunderstanding.

[phantom_power]

If nothing else doesn't using Zionism just give disingenuous cunts a reason to call you antisemitic? Given how it might mean different things to different people then it should probably be avoided for that reason as well. You can call out Israel's actions and policies well enough without mentioning it so why cause yourself problems?

[Zetetic]

"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."

By that point Russia and Ukraine, amongst others, had already unilaterally withdrawn from the Union (or explicitly stated that as far as they were concerned that the Union had ceased to exist). Don't be silly.

[marquis_de_sad]

Is this a BLM thread that's spent the last four pages on a fruitless argument about whether 'Zionism' is an offensive term to Israelis / the diaspora / rich white people?

Pats on the back all round, eh?

Yes we wouldn't want to have any fruitless arguments on an internet message board.

[honeychile]

Given how it might mean different things to different people then it should probably be avoided for that reason as well.

It's also a term which most of the public seem not to be clear on, other than it's something to do with Israel and Palestine. From a purely propagandist point of view it's pretty useless.

[Buelligan]

59% of people asked said they liked it.  It seems fairly popular.

[Paul Calf]

Yes we wouldn't want to have any fruitless arguments on an internet message board.

I think it's a reflection of the west in general: even now black people are being murdered and beaten in the streets of the US but in a thread made specifically to discuss that the thing that's getting everyone hot and erect is whether 'Zionism' is a naughty word.

The late, great Robert Nesta Marley OM would be cock-a-hoop.

[honeychile]

even now black people are being murdered and beaten in the streets of the US but in a thread made specifically to discuss that

that's the minneapolis riots thread you rice pudding

[Zetetic]

From a purely propagandist point of view it's pretty useless.

Well we wouldn't any of these people

Israelis / the diaspora / rich white people

to take against the current situation would we?

[chveik]

I think it's a reflection of the west in general: even now black people are being murdered and beaten in the streets of the US but in a thread made specifically to discuss that the thing that's getting everyone hot and erect is whether 'Zionism' is a naughty word.

The late, great Robert Nesta Marley OM would be cock-a-hoop.

"reflection of the west" listen to yourself. they're weaponising antisemitism againt BLM UK, it is somewhat relevant.

[Buelligan]

I think it's a reflection of the west in general: even now black people are being murdered and beaten in the streets of the US but in a thread made specifically to discuss that the thing that's getting everyone hot and erect is whether 'Zionism' is a naughty word.

The late, great Robert Nesta Marley OM would be cock-a-hoop.

Bit sexist.

[solidified gruel merchant]

If nothing else doesn't using Zionism just give disingenuous cunts a reason to call you antisemitic? Given how it might mean different things to different people then it should probably be avoided for that reason as well. You can call out Israel's actions and policies well enough without mentioning it so why cause yourself problems?

This would also happen with any word or phrase that replaced it. However, if Islamic Fundamentalism can be a catch all term to describe anyone who does a bad thing whilst being a Muslim, how about Fundamentalist Judaism? Or maybe Creeping Judaification?

[honeychile]

jewish islamic fundamentalism

[Buelligan]

It should probably be Israeli Fundamentalism.  Otherwise you may find yourself strung up by the bollocks from Margaret Hodge.  No one wants that.  No offence.

[NoSleep]

Islamic Fundamentalism isn't the term; it's the disingenuous term "Islamist" that gets bandied around. The Jewish equivalent would be something like "Jewist" which would stamped upon immediately, but somehow "Islamist" is fine and dandy.

[Crisps?]

By that point Russia and Ukraine, amongst others, had already unilaterally withdrawn from the Union (or explicitly stated that as far as they were concerned that the Union had ceased to exist).

So you keep saying, despite the fact I haven't say otherwise. This laughable attempt to dig your way out of your mistake is like insisting "Japan didn't surrender in 1945!", because by that point two nukes had been dropped on it. (Not that I want to give you any ideas for future discussions on WWII.)

Since you didn't actually bother reading what I wrote, the point wasn't even about the minutiae of the breakup of the USSR (yawn), it was just an off the cuff example of a state that ended itself peacefully and didn't collapse (into extreme violence, as with Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia).

Just accept that you piped up to add another 25 pages about some boring technicality nobody cares about, and you're upset that a boring technicality shows your claim that "the USSR didn't agree to end its own existence" to be wrong.

Don't be silly.

Don't be a patronising cunt.

[Zetetic]

is like insisting "Japan didn't surrender in 1945!", because by that point two nukes had been dropped on it.

No, it isn't. Don't be silly.

I think if your examples don't much resemble Israel and Palestine, they're not very useful examples.

[Crisps?]

No, it isn't. Don't be silly.

Don't be a childish cunt.

I think if your examples don't much resemble Israel and Palestine, they're not very useful examples.

Then say that, instead of trying to derail the thread with ignorant claims about a completely different subject, which presumably must be the kind of thing you do find useful. And this discussion is all about you and what you think, after all.

[Zetetic]

My claims about the dissolution of the USSR - enacted as it was by nationalist governments of some its member states usurping its institutions and power, and not freely by the USSR itself - were intended in part to make clearer how it's unlikely to be a useful example in the context of Israel and Palestine.

I apologise for not making this clearer.

[Crisps?]

The reason I mentioned other states in the first place is because the idea that "wiping out" Israel is "dodgy" (out of the question and/or anti-Semitic) is a major block to resolving the issue, since "wiping out" Israel (that is, replacing it with something that resembles a civilised state) is the only possible decent solution (other than the bitter pill below).

As I said, Israel's fate rests with Israeli actions. It won't be "wiped out" (changed) by invasion, which is impossible, it will happen either because sane people take over and manage to completely reform the state, or because Israelis continue voting for people who know what human rights abuse is required to maintain a racist, Jewish supremacist state, and its internal corruption, religious extremism and fascist militarism eventually brings it down.

That's Israel though. As for Palestinians, as I said in another thread recently, they should just agree, while they still have a chance, to leave the scraps they still have in return for massive compensation and resettlement in Europe/North America/wherever they like.

The world that could solve this overnight by threatening to sanction and defund Israel doesn't care about Palestinians and never has. People who do care can't do much more than sympathise.

The alternative is to continue an existence under Israeli domination, threatened, abused and murdered until eventual total expulsion with nothing, confined and forgotten about in refugee camps in neighbouring states, like millions of others, while the EU and US breathe a sigh of relief that the question has been finally resolved.

[Paul Calf]

"reflection of the west" listen to yourself. they're weaponising antisemitism againt BLM UK, it is somewhat relevant.

Yeah, no sorry. You're right. Please keep talking about how to avoid offending rich white people until the problem of anti-Afro-Caribbean racism has been solved.

[marquis_de_sad]

Maybe the solution would be to make a racist sock puppet account?

[Paul Calf]

I got nothing

[Paul Calf]

Ashbury was never racist. If you had an ounce of integrity you'd apologise for that.

I think we both know that you won't.

[chveik]

Yeah, no sorry. You're right. Please keep talking about how to avoid offending rich white people until the problem of anti-Afro-Caribbean racism has been solved.

what's your problem? I'm just giving you some context.

[phantom_power]

This would also happen with any word or phrase that replaced it. However, if Islamic Fundamentalism can be a catch all term to describe anyone who does a bad thing whilst being a Muslim, how about Fundamentalist Judaism? Or maybe Creeping Judaification?

Why have a single term anyway? Just talk about the specific thing you disagree with. The BLM series of tweets would have been no less effective without talking about Zionism and they wouldn't be as likely to get caught in a tedious AS conversation. Just talk about the actions of the Israeli government

And people are discussing the word Zionism more than black people being killed by police because the former is a bone of contention and point of discussion. The latter is fucking obvious