Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am afraid that that danger is inherent in the nature of the situation, in that Israel was created specifically as the Jewish homeland.

But it shouldn't be. Israel the government is distinct from Judaism.

In the same way that disagreeing with the Saudis isn't disagreeing with Islam. (I'm taking Saudi Arabia as the home of Islam, because that's where Mecca is).

Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

I'll say what I always say to people. There's always conflict in the ME, the Israel/Palestinian preace process is never ending, and better men and women than us have tried and failed to resolve it.

Forests of trees have been felled to provide paper for the articles written about it.

The talking will continue and the trees will keep being felled. Life is too short to be bogged down with the Middle East peace process.

Let the Americans learn that lesson the hard way, and let them waste their time, blood, and money, on a fool's mission, if that is their choice.

I agree with your point, but lots of people have difficulty in maintaining that level of objectivity about things.

To put it differently, there certainly are people who criticise Israel due to anti-semitism, and there are people who criticise Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations due to anti-Islamism.

How to distinguish between these people and people who are critical due to non-anti- political views?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am afraid that that danger is inherent in the nature of the situation, in that Israel was created specifically as the Jewish homeland.

Not really, is it anti-arabaism when you criticise the government of the Syrian Arab republic? Of course not, the government and the people are two separate things, and critiquing one doesn't mean you have some bias against the other.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.

I suppose unlike other areas of fractious tribes, there's nothing that's really unified them into making actual states that hasn't been forced upon them by (for the most part) foreign powers which then got deposed, or if there was a local power house (persians, sassanids, ottomans etc) they've always sort of been repressive and then beaten by a foreign power house.

I guess I'm trying to say it hasn't been the most stable region due to internal and external meddling.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.

1000 years might be overdoing it, there was a long "down-time" period between the crusades(which were mostly failures) and when European colonies started appearing in the middle-east.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.

Not for a minute am I saying that I agree with the Crusades, but fanatical Christians trying to take back the birth-place of the founder of their religion makes sense.

Similarly, when the British Empire recognises a Jewish homeland, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal which links Britain to its African and Asian colonies. Again, perfect, strategic rational.

But when the USA, this superpower, has its foreign policy dictated to it by a small nation on the other side of the world, it makes ZERO sense from any geopolitical or strategic viewpoint.

But we're straying OT. I wish we still had the US politics thread for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.

We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.

I suppose unlike other areas of fractious tribes, there's nothing that's really unified them into making actual states that hasn't been forced upon them by (for the most part) foreign powers which then got deposed, or if there was a local power house (persians, sassanids, ottomans etc) they've always sort of been repressive and then beaten by a foreign power house.

I guess I'm trying to say it hasn't been the most stable region due to internal and external meddling.

Good point. The Ottomans were obviously Islamic, but even then, there was still trouble and tensions.

Well the Ottomans hung around for about 1000 years.


And they were reasonably stable. Apart from the occasional genocidal outburst against a native population.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!

I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.

Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?

And promoting 'White Empowerment Day' isn't in fact, racism.

Come on guv. Don't be that guy. You're technically correct, but you're missing a whole lot of other stuff. Actually stop, look at the historical context, look at where the money promoting 'Anti-Israeli' groups comes from, question why Israel somehow gets boycotts/mass protests/outrage, etc etc, whilst China and every other two bit autocracy with cash gets a free pass, look at the media apparatus in existence designed to falsify/exaggerate Israeli evils, and so on.

It is possible to not be a fan of Israeli foreign policy and have it be unrelated to anti-semitism, I'm one of them. Heck, I'd argue that most of the bored University kids who champion it fall under that category. But those selfsame people usually fail to realise that the other side is just as bad over there, and that they're being very deliberately puppeteered in their 'Free Palestine, down with Israel' schpiel by more malign interests.

When it comes to the Labour party and the hard left generally, their anti-semitism is well documented. Christ, Corbyn had to whitewash the whole thing very recently by offering a job to the person who was investigating it, lest we forget.

Mr Corbyn himself actually, whilst we're on the subject, isvery happy to rub shoulders with people who would often be considered terrorists, appear on Iranian state TV, and insist that everyone 'just has to sit down and talk to everyone to resolve issues', but normally point blank refuses to actually meet or talk to anyone from the Israeli Government. Funny that. Hamas and the Iranian Government are A ok, but the Israeli Government? So evil Corbyn can't even bear to meet their ambassador or their Prime Minister!
http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/29/jeremy-corbyn-sparks-row-by-turning-down-dinner-with-israeli-pm-7036594/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-friends-of-israel-party-conference-anti-semitism-holocoaust-denial-momentum-a7969381.html


On another note, HMS Queen Elizabeth is being commissioned live now. You can watch it here.
https://www.facebook.com/royalnavy/?hc_ref=ARQE__Rj4z6qKeySmbo8-EbUjTQP3ebYVafjmlA-8LZjHV4xOzU6XWki_ge81GlPPBY

Meanwhile Britain arms the Saudis, and Tories describe people like Pinochet as 'a very good friend' etc.

Evidence please that Jeremy Corbyn is or ever has been an anti-Semite, or please stop raising it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Meanwhile Britain arms the Saudis, and Tories describe people like Pinochet as 'a very good friend' etc.

Evidence please that Jeremy Corbyn is or ever has been an anti-Semite, or please stop raising it.

Firstly, I didn't say that he was an anti-semite. At any point. Please don't misrepresent me. Secondly, do you ever plan to actually engage with me on the substantive points I'm mentioning, or are you just going to do another 'poop and swoop'? Whataboutism doesn't qualify as a valid form of argument or justification, just so you're aware.

 Ketara wrote:


And promoting 'White Empowerment Day' isn't in fact, racism.

Come on guv. Don't be that guy. You're technically correct, but you're missing a whole lot of other stuff. Actually stop, look at the historical context, look at where the money promoting 'Anti-Israeli' groups comes from, question why Israel somehow gets boycotts/mass protests/outrage, etc etc, whilst China and every other two bit autocracy with cash gets a free pass, look at the media apparatus in existence designed to falsify/exaggerate Israeli evils, and so on.

Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid

 Ketara wrote:

It is possible to not be a fan of Israeli foreign policy and have it be unrelated to anti-semitism, I'm one of them. Heck, I'd argue that most of the bored University kids who champion it fall under that category.

Agreed, so why are you trying to smear people as anti-Semits when they oppose the actions of the state of Israel?

 Ketara wrote:

are you just going to do another 'poop and swoop'?

If you wanna talk "poop and swoop", you have yet answered how criticising Israel puts one on the same level as Oswald Mosley?

You heavily implied it, and almost certainly deliberate. You've equated his choice not to attend a 'Friends of Israel' dinner with....what? Why raise it if you're not making a pathetic, baseless insinuation?

You claim 'the left' has well documented anti-Semitism, yet fail to provide any supporting evidence.

Could it be Corbyn is doing what he's always done, and speaking up for those typically ignored? Israel is well represented on the world's stage. Hamas, who do not forget are a legitimate political party. Iran? Yeah, not so much.

You're making a lot of accusations, but providing absolutely zero proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Remainers absolutely loving Brexit now

Satire warning. Swearies warning.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid

MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?

Note that the focus of the above isn't 'Other people get away with it, so Israel should too!' This isn't some form of pseudo-justification like MDG's comment above. I'm not sitting here arguing that Israel is all hunky dory, that would be dumb and wrong.

No, the question actually being explored (which is a very different and far more interesting one) is 'What is it about Israel that inspires such animosity and clearly different treatment?' To which the answer is a very long, convoluted one, of which anti-semitism is a strong thread, but not the only one. Regional politics, historical context, and more feed into it.

Agreed, so why are you trying to smear people as anti-Semits when they oppose the actions of the state of Israel?
If you wanna talk "poop and swoop", you have yet answered how criticising Israel puts one on the same level as Oswald Mosley?

You've very clearly not actually read what I said, which might account for your somewhat vituperative response. Go back and read, please. I said that George Galloway was on the same level as Oswald Mosley. Not people who criticise Israel.

Any criticism of Israel is labelled anti-Semitism all too quickly.

Because anti-Semitism is wrong, and the horrors of the 'final solution'.

It's an effective way of shutting down any and all criticism - and only plays into the hands of actual, genuine anti-semites, who use it as an example of an alleged Jewish secret world government nonsense fantasy.

For some reason, anti-Semitism is nowadays seen as far worse than other racism - otherwise, we wouldn't have allowed islamophobia to reach the stage it has. All racism should be treated as equally horrific and idiotic. But it's not.

Meanwhile, by pointing the finger, Israel can seemingly get away with horrific acts - bulldozing villages and towns, uprooting people, illegally occupying land and ignoring UN Resolutions. With none of the shunning and bile the like of North Korea, Iran etc get - instead they get massive support, especially from the US.

That in turn keeps the Middle East unstable, as it's all too easy to point to Israel and say This Is Why The West Is Bad.

 Ketara wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid

MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?

I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from there is and has been plenty of media coverage condemning both of the other two for various reasons. The reason governments don't condemn them as harshly (especially Saudi) is that they have things we actually want (oil and a stable country/ally in the ME for Saudi, cheap labour and a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude for China). And for the record, I don't like the governments of all three.
Another reason is somewhat less cynical (but slightly racist). Most people know the likes of Saudi and China are backwards, authoritarian states, and hence don't expect much in the way of good humanitarian attitudes. Whereas Israel is supposed to be a modern democracy, and hence open to reason and listening to criticism (news flash: the latter certainly isn't true), so the difference between what's expected and what actually happens is greater.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You heavily implied it, and almost certainly deliberate. You've equated his choice not to attend a 'Friends of Israel' dinner with....what? Why raise it if you're not making a pathetic, baseless insinuation?

No. Stop. Listen, please. There's more than one eel in that barrel, and if you jump to conclusions and project onto my posts, this will go nowhere.

I'm not calling him an anti-semite. What I'm doing, is pointing out (and I have evidenced it) that his normal rhetoric about sitting down with everyone to promote peace is clearly not evenly applied. It can't be that he has moral issues sitting down with people prepared to kill or commit atrocities, because he sits down with some very dubious characters over the years. It can't be that he has a problem with authoritarian governments, because he very literally took money to appear on Iranian television.

So what is it? It could be anti-semitism, certainly. That's one option. But only one. Another is that he's fallen prey to the same efforts as those University kids I mentioned earlier. It could be that he had a bad experience with an Israeli official which personally put him off them for life. It could be that his dad or some other social grouping of his imparted some subconscious biases to him. Really, there's a multiplicity of options stretching from the credible to the inane.

But really? That's beside the point. The evidenced fact here is simple; that he is willing to treat Israel differently to the way he treats everyone else. And that, in a nutshell, is a problem I have with many in the Labour Party. You say here:

You claim 'the left' has well documented anti-Semitism, yet fail to provide any supporting evidence.

but if you bothered to run a basic google search, you'll find yourself overloaded with evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12192728/Jeremy-Corbyn-must-tackle-anti-semitism-within-Labour-or-face-almighty-row-warns-MP.html

Here's one contemporary Labour MP insisting that the problem is endemic, not a one off.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-uk-writers-accuse-jeremy-corbyns-labour-of-widespread-antisemitism-disguised-as-criticism-of-a3677661.html

Here's three very respected historians signing a letter to the Times about the widespread anti-semitism hidden in the Labour Party as anti-Israeli criticism.

If you want more, it's really not hard. I could link to countless gaffes by the likes of Ken Livingstone, Nasreen Khan, and so on. I'll leave to dig for it yourself though, because in all seriousness, the hard left has always had problems with Jews, and denying that right now is like denying they were left wing. I mean, jeez, You should read some of the stuff Bakunin used to write.

You're making a lot of accusations, but providing absolutely zero proof.

Because my original point was about Galloway. Why would I provide proof about anti-semitism in the Labour Party when I was discussing George Galloway? I'm providing it now the conversation has moved in that direction, but there was certainly no call for it before.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
[quote=Ketara 724548 9733381 494cf4449eec231a8665af128f4d8a2e.png
I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from there is and has been plenty of media coverage condemning both of the other two for various reasons. The reason governments don't condemn them as harshly (especially Saudi) is that they have things we actually want (oil and a stable country/ally in the ME for Saudi, cheap labour and a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude for China). And for the record, I don't like the governments of all three.

Thing is, I'm not even referring particularly to the media coverage, that's just one leg. Where are the endless UN motions against dictatorial states? I think Israel has racked up more than every autocracy combined. Where are the multiple student protests and organised SU activities against the Iranian government? Where are the academic boycotts against Burma? The people vowing not to buy goods from Ivory Coast?

Another reason is somewhat less cynical (but slightly racist). Most people know the likes of Saudi and China are backwards, authoritarian states, and hence don't expect much in the way of good humanitarian attitudes. Whereas Israel is supposed to be a modern democracy, and hence open to reason and listening to criticism (news flash: the latter certainly isn't true), so the difference between what's expected and what actually happens is greater.

I think this is certainly a part of it, but only a small part of it. The uniqueness in the way that Israel is treated as a pariah state is an absolutely fascinating one with a great many causes, and the causes in every case differ. It's more of a wider cultural phenomenon than a simple party political case. The Labour Party appears to have been more susceptible to it than the Tories, but I think the Lib Dems are just as bad with it in many regards.

The difference I suppose, is that when I sit down and examine the different strands and causes behind it, it would appear to be the case that the Lib Dems fall more into the genuine human rights angle. Whereas the Labour Party has far more easily traced malicious ideological and anti-semitic elements at play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Any criticism of Israel is labelled anti-Semitism all too quickly.

This is true. What is equally true however, is that modern anti-semitism is usually cloaked as being 'anti-Israeli'. So how do you resolve these two dichotomies? Any statement can either be defended on the lines of 'I'm just criticising Israel', or attacked as 'That's anti-semitism'.

The answer is to carefully dissect the motivations and logic behind statements made and actions taken. Otherwise, legitimate discussion will be shut down under accusations of anti-semitism, and anti-semitism (to whatever degree) will be shielded.

 Ketara wrote:

MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?

As I pointed in my earlier post, both China and SA got LOADS of negative press, student boycotts and political critic for Tibet/Apartheid, so I dont see this special treatment you imagine Israel get.

 Ketara wrote:

Note that the focus of the above isn't 'Other people get away with it, so Israel should too!' This isn't some form of pseudo-justification like MDG's comment above. I'm not sitting here arguing that Israel is all hunky dory, that would be dumb and wrong.

Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

As I pointed in my earlier post, both China and SA got LOADS of negative press, student boycotts and political critic for Tibet/Apartheid, so I dont see this special treatment you imagine Israel get.

Did they? I'm sorry if I'm missed them. I'm willing to admit I am wrong though. Just for formality's sake, could you please link me to:-

a) the extensive multifaceted campaign to swear off Chinese goods (The Co-operative group boycotts Israeli goods, there are several pressure groups set up more generally, just google to find them)
b) the campaign to boycott Chinese Universities and academics (like this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycott_of_Israel)
c) the mass SU actions, and individual incidents involving student protests opposing the Chinese government (Like this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39719314 )
d) The extensive list of UN resolutions against China (here's the list of ones against Israel:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)

If you can produce the evidence to show that both are treated identically, I'll be more than happy to admit I am wrong. Please note that they'll need to all be focused on China solely; because pick and mixing your approach (well, there was a protests here against one nation on one issue, a boycott against another on something else) doesn't really prove anything.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.

I'm not arguing that nobody else gets flak for being despostic. Let me try and rephrase for you. What I'm saying is that no dictatorship, autocracy, or human rights violator on the planet currently seems to come in for the same scale of persistent continual protesting, sanctioning, and criticism as Israel, nor to the same degree. This is very explicitly not the same as what you are ascribing me as saying (which is that nobody else gets criticised or protested against).

There will never be a UN resolution against China with China a permanent member of the Security Council.

 Ketara wrote:

but if you bothered to run a basic google search, you'll find yourself overloaded with evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12192728/Jeremy-Corbyn-must-tackle-anti-semitism-within-Labour-or-face-almighty-row-warns-MP.html

Here's one contemporary Labour MP insisting that the problem is endemic, not a one off.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/top-uk-writers-accuse-jeremy-corbyns-labour-of-widespread-antisemitism-disguised-as-criticism-of-a3677661.html

I don't think the left or right are particularly better in one regard or another. This should really come down to are there elements in each party that are religiously intolerant. And the answer to that is almost certainly yes (though it is all anecdotal really).

Both the Palestine and Israeli state undertake types of 'ethnic cleansing', the former with bullets and bombs and the latter with forced relocations and walls. That then causes each society to feed off the fear and hatred that causes (if anything nwar and intolerance only drives people into deeper held intolerant views), which results in governments that are more intolerant and the cycle continues. It really needs one side to decide they want to break that deadlock. For the western world the Israel government is far more accessible but is generally inclined not to make first steps so hence frustration against the government can come out as frustration against the people that they represent because they are both intertwined (but when the reality is that it is only the government that really has any control over what actions to prosecute).

I think unfortunately though that in the end the reality is that the whole mess won't be sorted until someone drops a few nukes on the whole area so that *no one* can live there. And personally I think this region is likely to be where there is the highest chance of nuclear terrorist attack.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hamas, who do not forget are a legitimate political party.

I agree with the rest of your post, pretty much, but whilst Hamas are technically a legitimate political party, they are absolute bastards and not some oppressed group innocently trying to be heard. I'm somewhat biased I concede, I've had a Hamas rocket land 50m from my bed and I have friends who can't go home because Hamas will probably execute them, but these are people who coerced and frightened themselves into government, routinely execute their citizens for perceived collaboration, have a constitution that calls for the extermination of Jews (not Israel, Jews), and think terror, especially kidnapping and murdering kids, is absolutely hunky dory - 'every Jew is a legitimate target'.

Folk should be immensely wary of supporting Hamas simply because they sympathise with Palestinians.

Yet, leave them out of talks, and you're just creating a problem.

Engaging with them does not mean you condone anything about them - simply recognising that, evil or not, they're still a legitimate political party.

For a microcosm, look to the Irish Troubles. Until everyone talked, nothing could happen. Yes, it's still tense and there's people provoking left right and centre - but leave out one group, and you can't claim to be completely partisan.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet, leave them out of talks, and you're just creating a problem.

Engaging with them does not mean you condone anything about them - simply recognising that, evil or not, they're still a legitimate political party.

For a microcosm, look to the Irish Troubles. Until everyone talked, nothing could happen. Yes, it's still tense and there's people provoking left right and centre - but leave out one group, and you can't claim to be completely partisan.

There will be no progress until Hamas are replaced. The different with the Troubles is that there were interlocuters. British government did not have to directly and openly negotiate with terrorists from the outset because they could deal with them via political wings. Hamas are both the political entity and the terrorist one. There's no one to work with. Theoretically, I think the PLO could function like that if people considered a solution where the West Bank could be granted statehood independently of Gaza, and then act as a conduit for negotiations with Gaza, but neither of the Palestinian territories will countenance that. Unfortunately, Israeli pressure on Gaza will continue to rise as long as Hamas are in power, and the more that pressure increases the stronger Hamas' position becomes.

I think (and this is speculation below) )that when it comes to anti-semitism in British politics, the left wing are far more susceptible to it these days (i.e. the last thirty/forty odd years)

The right wing used to be terribly anti-semitic, but it was tied in quite inextricably to the disdain the aristocratic classes had for 'the Jew'. I quite regularly read stories about the pre-war upper classes laughing at a Jewish banker falling off a horse, scorning Kind Edward's 'Jewish bankers', or even referring to ones they liked in anti-semitic terms ('He's a Jew but one of the good ones. If you want to negotiate with him though, make sure to get your own lawyer so he doesn't out-Jew you!')

After Hitlerite Germany, the deliberate boosting of Israel as a proxy to oppose the Soviet Union, the purging of Jewish influence from the communist movements, and the seizure of the Conservative party by the middle classes though, the Tories have more or less let go of their institutionalised anti-semitism. They're also more prone to play politics according to realpolitik, and the Israelis have significant military power and the only developed economy in the Middle-East. Human rights concerns are also less of a concern for them. Plus the American Jewish lobby is monied and powerful, and it makes no sense to hack them off.

So whilst you might find some dregs of the old aristocratic anti-semitic disdain in the corners, it's not particularly evident.

The hard left wing in Britain on the other hand, has never lost their historical anti-semitic edge, which has been substantially buoyed in turn by other regional (traditionally anti-semitic) Middle-Eastern powers being very free with cash for anti-Israeli promotional purposes. This has allowed the creation of something of a media juggernaut for attacking the Israeli state; its persistent, unrelenting, and documents everything bad the Israelis do (and invents stuff when they don't). This constant limelight of the Israeli/Palestinian affair (as opposed to most negative stories about human rights, which sink out the news after a week) in turn makes it highly visible to young politically aware types looking for a cause to champion. And those aforementioned regional powers are all too happy to splash the cash a bit to fund rallies and promotional materials.

The result, I think, is that when those younger types grow up a bit and go on to join the left wing parties, they take that mentality with them. Most of them aren't actively anti-semitic, and would be vastly offended if you called them such. But they do treat Israel that little bit differently to all the other human rights offenders, and it sinks into their politics and vocabulary. It's why so often you get left wing politicians getting jumped on for a very badly phrased statement. When you put that next to the more persistent hard left anti-semitic tendencies (who have ideological reasons revolving around Jewish bankers and various such things)?

The result is what you see. There's little in the way of deliberate 'Kill the Jews' stuff, but there is a slightly anti-semitic cultural by-product that has filtered into the left-wing political atmosphere that most aren't even aware of. And it is quite pervasive in that regard. The Lib Dems are just as susceptible to it as Labour; the difference is that the hard left edge isn't present to spur it on. When New Labour was in ascendancy under Blair and the mid to hard left were out in the cold, the more anti-semitic aspects were frozen out along with them. With the rise of Corbyn however, and the movement back to the left wing?

Well, the answer is what you see. People like Galloway (who really are anti-semites) suddenly find that they have allies in the heart of the party once again. And that's a concerning development; one which hasn't been helped by Corbyn doing his level best to suppress anything relating to it and whitewashing the only investigation which took place. I get that he has politics of his own to play, and doesn't want to hand a tool to his political enemies, but it means that I'm more inclined to go Lib Dem than Labour.

 Ketara wrote:


The right wing used to be terribly anti-semitic,

And Israel at one point was a communist experiment, drawing volunteers from Socialist and Communist parties across Europe to learn the way of the Kibbutz.

Then WW2 happened, and the aftermath made very strange bedfellows.

I'm flying to Israel on Sunday, and one of my collaborators there is an old communist. It takes some extensive mental gymnastics to reconcile generally left-wing ideas with support for the kind of stuff Israel does (is forced to do according to some).

One of the most interesting people in my small world to have tea with

 Ketara wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.

I'm not arguing that nobody else gets flak for being despostic. Let me try and rephrase for you. What I'm saying is that no dictatorship, autocracy, or human rights violator on the planet currently seems to come in for the same scale of persistent continual protesting, sanctioning, and criticism as Israel, nor to the same degree. This is very explicitly not the same as what you are ascribing me as saying (which is that nobody else gets criticised or protested against).

China or Saudi Arabia aren't trying to use their status as a democracy to bolster the legitimacy. of their actions, Israel is When a nation claims they're a democracy we hold them to a higher standard than when they don't even bother. There's also, I'd argue, some guilt on the West's part in having created the current mess in the first place. In a sense it's a reverse form of racism where we hold Israel responsible because the nation was, to a great degree, born out of the West. A sort of "we wouldn't expect the Chinese barbarians or the crazies in Africa to behave, but you're supposed to be like us!" justification. I guess this'd fall under what you called "historical context" above though.

I knew it!


After 2 failed attempts to conquer Europe with force, Germany now plans to conquer it with the EU!

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-politics-spd-europe/german-spd-leader-seeks-united-states-of-europe-by-2025-idUSA5N1JY01W


(This above post contains: Sarcasm, nuts and flu capsules.)

 welshhoppo wrote:
I knew it!


After 2 failed attempts to conquer Europe with force, Germany now plans to conquer it with the EU!

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-politics-spd-europe/german-spd-leader-seeks-united-states-of-europe-by-2025-idUSA5N1JY01W


(This above post contains: Sarcasm, nuts and flu capsules.)

But we can veto it... wait.