National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president.

It's true that "anti-Zionism" technically means opposition to Israel's existence. But I also think there are many on the student left who think they are anti-Zionists when they're not.

One girl I was speaking to called herself anti-Zionist, but then said she wants to see the two-state solution so both Israel and Palestine can live in peace. Obviously she's under a great misapprehension as to the meaning of "anti-Zionist".

OF course there are also the more sinister factions on the hard left who know exactly what anti-Zionism means and are 100% committed to it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36094328

"A student who previously rejected a motion condemning the so-called Islamic State has been elected as the president of the National Union of Students."



How progressive, how forward-thinking.

It's true that "anti-Zionism" technically means opposition to Israel's existence. But I also think there are many on the student left who think they are anti-Zionists when they're not.

One girl I was speaking to called herself anti-Zionist, but then said she wants to see the two-state solution so both Israel and Palestine can live in peace. Obviously she's under a great misapprehension as to the meaning of "anti-Zionist".

OF course there are also the more sinister factions on the hard left who know exactly what anti-Zionism means and are 100% committed to it

+1. And alarming that so many anti-Zionists and anti-Semites on the far left use broad-brush criticisms of hardline settlers' behaviour to smear all of Israel, and all Jews.

Historically, many British Jews have been instinctively left wing. But the ones I know are increasingly uncomfortable with a Labour Party that seems to tolerate anti-Semites and apologists for Muslim terrorism.

There are four concepts that matter here:

1. Being against militant Zionism
2. Being against Zionism
3. Supporting terrorism
4. Denying or downplaying the Holocaust

The first of these is uncontroversial. Militant Zionists are those who settle lands not recognised by the international community as part of Israel. They are, in effect, stealing the Palestinians' homeland. This is clearly unacceptable to most people, including 99% of Jews, even most Israelis.

The second is a legitimate opinion, albeit one that flies in the face of international law and archeological evidence. Zionism is simply the belief that the state of Israel has the right to exist, with its borders as at 1967, on land inhabited by the Jewish people for at least 3000 years (archeologists have found the remains of synagogues dating back more than three millennia there).

The third, which Bouattia has done, is in my view absolutely out of order. She has called for 'armed resistance' by Palestinians and refused to condemn ISIS. If one student is emboldened by her actions to join ISIS or give money to a terrorist group, she should be held responsible for her contribution to the resulting deaths.

Mate, if she wasn't a Muslim there wouldn't be a right-wing media witch-hunt against her. What she might or might not have said about Jews is irrelevant, the truth of the matter is Malia Bouattia is being attacked because of her religious background. It cannot be denied that there are elements in the media who are blatantly Islamophobic and wish to paint all Muslims with the same brush e.g. Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not for or against Malia Bouattia, nevertheless as a Muslim I refuse to believe the media is objective and neutral when it comes to Muslims. Right-wing media is free to criticise my religion however they seem too busy focusing on painting Muslims as a 'fifth column' who are intent on destroying Europe. A considerable chunk of the media wants to polarise society into 'us' and 'them'. Sadly, a lot of people have fallen for this nonsense and this is why you see movements such as Pegida, who sincerely believe Europe is being invaded by migrants/refugees.

This scaremongering tactic is being deployed to distract the masses from harsh economic realities and the only real winners are the top elites (Bankers, Politicians, Wall-street) and ISIS. Yes, ISIS. This is because they rely on Muslims being victimised so that they can gain new followers i.e. Radicalised youngsters.

Secondly, ISIS are an extremist group who use the religion of Islam to further their own selfish agendas and do not represent Muslims at all. In fact, they label Muslims as non-Muslims and murder them if they do not subscribe to their sadistic interpretations of the Quran. Muslims all around the world have denounced them repeatedly, but you won't see this on mainstream media. I wonder why?

Regarding the motion, Malia Bouattia has condemned ISIS on many occasions but did not vote since she was against the wordings of the motion. I don't agree with her in this particular case but right wing media has portrayed this action of hers as a 'refusal to condemn IS' , Funnily enough you seem to think she did this because of her 'Islamic views'

When Muslims are slandered on the media it is called 'Freedom of speech'. On the other hand, if a person criticises Israel they are at risk of being jailed and labelled as 'anti-Semitic' or as a 'terrorist sympathiser'. Unfortunately, double standards have become the norm within the media and Muslims have become fair game.

+1. And alarming that so many anti-Zionists and anti-Semites on the far left use broad-brush criticisms of hardline settlers' behaviour to smear all of Israel, and all Jews.

Historically, many British Jews have been instinctively left wing. But the ones I know are increasingly uncomfortable with a Labour Party that seems to tolerate anti-Semites and apologists for Muslim terrorism.

The key thing in this debate is, does disliking Zionism = anti-semitism?

The PR from the Israeli right and their supporters abroad is that they are one on the same.

To many of the left, they are very different things.

The problem is that it's hard to sort out what people's motives are in the middle of it all. There are anti-semites amongst the Left who take an anti-zionist line merely as a pretext. There are also supporters of Israel who blanket every charge against the Israeli government or Israeli actions as anti-semitism. Both are surely wrong.

We can't easily tell if the new NUS president is only politically anti-zionist and not aligning herself with anti-Jewish tendencies, but her previous statements do tend to indicate that her anti-zionism is at minimum, unsophisticated. From what I've been able to read of her positions outside of the Daily Mail and the Torygraph, it would also seem like she's busy back-pedalling various fairly anti-semitic sounding things she's said in the past, but on the whole, her position is anti-Zionist rather than anti-Jewish as such.

In the end it's all down to how you view anti-Zionism. You either view it as being anti-racist and view the Israeli state as racist due to its colonialist expulsion and mistreatment of native Palestinians, or you view it as wrong because after the Holocaust, the Jews needed a safe homeland and it is traditionally 'their land of Israel'.

As everyone pretty much falls into one of those two camps and it's extremely hard to completely resolve either position as totally correct, there is going to continue to be fierce debate between them. Seems like not the right thing to disaffiliate over to me.

I find the best bit about them refusing to denounce ISIS because that would be islamaphobic is that these are the very same sorts of people who claim that people who join ISIS are not Muslims.

Thing i'm most surprised with is why people get so invested in student politics in the first place when it just doesn't matter at all. It mostly just seems to give people a hollow sense of self-importance.

I get the impression that high-level student politics is a recruiting ground for the Labour Party and the trade unions. See Wes Streeting as an example.

It's interesting that media on both sides of the spectrum are criticising her. The Guardian, for example, is far from the Telegraph in terms of political bias and yet have found that her election is not good for the NUS.



This type of self-victimisation is exactly what's wrong here. Compare yourself to other minorities in Europe. There is no such issue with them. Why is that? Sometimes it's important to reflect on one's own beliefs and actions before blaming others.



Evidence.



If this hasn't been shown on the mainstream media how do you know it's been denounced by Muslims everywhere?



It's hardly 'funny'. Her views on this topic remain far too ambiguous. She states she supports the Kurds who are fighting ISIS but refuses to openly condemn the organisation. How is one to interpret such statements? Secondly, condemning ISIS would be condemning an organisation that follows a literal interpretation of scripture. Condemning them would be unIslamic.



You're placing every single media outlet into on category. Are you therefore stating that the writers of the Guardian or Telegraph should be compared to the views shared by the Sun?

1) Her election is not good for the NUS, maybe that's true. But why on earth are some people throwing a tantrum because of her election. It was democratic and fair. NUS members have a right to elect who they want without being harassed for their preferences.

We are a confederation of 600 students' unions, amounting to more than 95 percent of all higher and further education unions in the UK. Through our member students' unions, we represent the interests of more than seven million students.

I'm an avid reader of the Guardian and they made some fair criticisms, On the other hand, the Dailymail (aka the Daily trash) and the Telegraph launched a fully blown smear campaign. See the difference? if you actually took a minute to think of why they are doing this, you would come to the same inevitable conclusion as me.

2) No, this is fact. Not self-victimisation. Muslims have contributed as much if not more than other minorities to Europe but there are some horrible people in the media who are desperate to scapegoat Muslims as the source of all the problems Western society faces. This is to distract the masses from economic woes (the credit crunch- which was caused by bankers stealing their clients' money. Everybody knows that know).

3) This is common knowledge. Stop playing dumb.

4) Well, that wouldn't fit their narrative would it? Muslims are terrorist sympathisers...they all secretly support ISIS etc. And for your information, the overwhelming majority of Kurds are Muslims and they are fighting ISIS, this also proves Muslims are against ISIS.

5) As I said before, The Guardian is a balanced and fair newspaper. Right wing media on the other hand is comparable to the slime and filth one can find in the sewers. Absolute trash. The shame of humanity.

When you represent a demographic as large as that, your every action needs to be scrutinised, especially when it deals with the youth. When an individual who has made controversial remarks in the past has been elected to the top position and hence the 'face' of said organisation, it is naturally going to cause concern (and rightly so).



I grant that the Daily Mail is often sensationalist, but both the Telegraph and Guardian are politically biased newspapers - regardless of whether every word they say is true, there is an ounce of truth in it or they would face harsh legal cases for misleading the public.




Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact. Would you have a reliable source to back up this claim? There are a number of common metrics one can use to calculate the net contribution of Muslims vs. other minorities.



I'll repeat my previous statement: evidence. Your stating something does not necessarily make it fact.



Straw man.



The bias of a newspaper is beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice it to say that such a statement is false.

Indeed it smacks of hypocrisy.
NUS are a joke. .

Yes they are a joke.

The problem is that it isn't a very funny one.

I am torn between thinking in the big picture they are irrelevant, don't inflate their sense of self importance. ignore them. And the thought that that what this loony lefty NUS President intellectually represents is truly dangerous.

Part of me thinks that ridicule and derision is the answer. But we saw how ineffective the ridicule and satire of Charlie Hebdo was. The only way, it seems to me, is to take them seriously, to directly confront the likes of Malia Bouattia.

With her poisonous cocktail of lefty moral and cultural relativism mixed with Islamist absolutism.