Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Is Malia Bouattia an anti-Semite

Scroll to see replies

Yes, if it implies denying the right of Jewish people to have their own national state.

Political belief, or more accurate political ideology, in its general definition is a set of ideas how society should be organized (liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist etc). Zionism is based on a national idea - creating of a national state. This idea was implemented using political actions (Balfour declaration etc).
Black people don't demand self-determination in USA, but just want the same civil rights, which other citizens have. Jewish people want the same national rights, which other nations have, - to have their own national state.

I personally do not believe that any religion or ethnic group is entitled to their own state. Every state should be secular. I don't see how that makes me anti Semitic. And I feel the same about every religious state. I'm delighted that Bangladesh for example has just become secular.

Modern day Zionism is more than simply the belief in a Jewish state. It's the belief of a Jewish state in Israel. (I know Herzl would have settled for anywhere)

There are many Jews who do not believe in Zionism and that does not make them anti Semitic. You can be proudly Jewish but still oppose the desecularisation of a state.

there are all sorts of issues with Israel, given how the establishment of a Jewish state certainly infringed upon the rights of the Palestinians who were already living there or were born there.

No one has a right to a state.

Reply 121

admonit

Original post by Bornblue

There are many Jews who do not believe in Zionism and that does not make them anti Semitic.

There is a broad support of Israel among Jews, including British Jews.
Zionism is not a religion. The Jewish state already exists, do you believe in it or not, do you like it or not. People can agree with the Zionist ideology or not, it is their personal business. If they don't agree with it only because it is a Jewish state, they are anti-Semitic. That also is their personal business.

No one has a right to a state.

So, all states are unlawful? Why it's not yet in breaking news? :cool:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 122

Implication

Original post by admonit

I've already explained in which case I consider anti-Zionism anti-Semitic: if the right of Jewish people to have a national state is denied. Saying "It just doesn't follow!" is not enough. You still should explain what other than anti-Semitic reason is behind of such denial.

So to be clear, your position isn't necessarily that anyone who criticises Zionism is expressing anti-Semitism; just that those who deny the 'right of Jewish people to a national state'? Either way, I don't think this here is a very reasonable way to engage in this discussion. If you think something is anti-Semitic, I think you should probably be explaining why - not asking me to give examples of why someone can support that thing without being anti-Semitic...

...but I'll bite anyway and give a couple of examples (out of many possibilities)!
-If someone opposes the concept of countries and nations in principle.
-If someone (such as myself) opposes the concept of nation states specifically for any ethnic, religious or other group. In fact, I would argue that this is almost necessarily the view of any 'real' secular liberal. Branding secularism anti-Semitic is a step beyond controversial, no?

Why the concept of an ethno-religious group being entitled to their own state is ludicrous? What is wrong with ethno-religious groups? What is so ludicrous in desire of Jewish people to have their national state? Explain me please and may be I'll laugh too..

Perhaps I should have toned my words down a bit there, so I apologise if laughing at the concept was offensive. But I really do find the idea absurd. Certainly nothing is wrong with ethno-religious groups in principle, and I didn't say or mean to imply otherwise. I also did not say it was ludicrous for Jewish peole to have a national state - but that it was ludicrous for any ethno-religious group - and I'd rather we didn't obfuscate that distinction because obviously it's incredibly important. If someone were to say 'I think all ethno-religious groups should have their own nation state, except for those Jews!' I would 100% agree with you that they are anti-Semitic. But I'm not saying that, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that is.

Regarding nation states for ethno-religious groups in general, I would rather wait to hear a coherent argument for why such states should exist than try to express a rigorous case against them. Any argument I did make would probably centre around favouring integration and an emphasis on common secular values over division, segregation and prejudice.

To summarise, I'm interested in why:
(a) you think any particular group has some kind of 'right' to a nation
(b) you think rejecting that right is anti-Semitic

Also, as an aside and if you have the time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Chomsky's views in this space. I'm not really a fan of his, but he's made some interesting noises about the evolution of the term 'Zionism' such that traditionally Zionist views are now considered to be 'anti-Zionist', and about the illiberal nature of a 'Jewish state'. He compared it to a hypothetical situation in the US where 90% of the land might be reserved for people of white and/or Christian origins.

Reply 123

Implication

Original post by admonit

So, all states are unlawful? Why it's not yet in breaking news? :cool:

I think I asked this in my last post, but it might help if you clarified precisely what you mean when you talk about a 'right to a nation state'. Judging from your above response to Bornbue, there's either a serious mismatch in communication here or you're not playing this game honestly!

Reply 124

username878267

Original post by admonit

Malia has never asserted that her opposition to Zionism is because it's a Jewish state. But rather because of the effect it had on those already living there.

Saying that a religion or ethnic group doesn't have a right to a state is not anti Semitic or racist or bigoted in any way. All states should be completely secular and have no official religion.

Just because some Jewish students find it offensive, it does not make it anti Semitic to oppose any one religion having official control.

Why can Israel and all other states not just be secular states?

Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. It cannot possibly be anti Semitic to assert that a religious group should not have a state. Why should religious or ethnic groups be entitled to states? It's a bizarre concept.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 125

anarchism101

Original post by admonit

Opposition to nation-states in general would be an obvious reason. More narrowly than that, one might accept civic nation-states but oppose ethnic ones.

Reply 126

admonit

Original post by Implication

If you think something is anti-Semitic, I think you should probably be explaining why - not asking me to give examples of why someone can support that thing without being anti-Semitic...

Nope. It is exactly the point: why somebody focuses his criticism specifically on Zionism and Jewish people.In fact it is the main point.

-If someone opposes the concept of countries and nations in principle.
-If someone (such as myself) opposes the concept of nation states specifically for any ethnic, religious or other group. In fact, I would argue that this is almost necessarily the view of any 'real' secular liberal. Branding secularism anti-Semitic is a step beyond controversial, no?

First, secularity is not connected to the concept of nations. It looks like you are infected by bornblue. :cool:

Second, I strongly suspect that liberals support the right of nations to self-determination regardless of their type.
Third, don't worry. Your general views are not anti-Semitic.

If someone were to say 'I think all ethno-religious groups should have their own nation state, except for those Jews!' I would 100% agree with you that they are anti-Semitic.

And if someone constantly says "I think Jews have no right to have their national state" and says nothing about other ethnic groups?

But I'm not saying that, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that is.

"University event questioning Israel's right to exist is cancelled" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/31/southampton-university-cancels-event-questioning-israel-existence
Believe me, it was very easy to find it.
You want specific names? It also is not a big problem.
George Galloway walks out of a debate at Oxford university stating "I don't recognize Israel".

Spoiler

It also was not difficult.

To summarise, I'm interested in why:
(a) you think any particular group has some kind of 'right' to a nation
(b) you think rejecting that right is anti-Semitic

What exactly you want to hear? That the right to self-determination is universally recognized? That every ethnic group needs administrative and political conditions to keep and develop its language, culture and traditions? It not necessary should be an independent state. It may be an autonomy, federal republic or other form. But in any case it should be some sort of political and administrative power.

Also, as an aside and if you have the time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Chomsky's views in this space. I'm not really a fan of his, but he's made some interesting noises about the evolution of the term 'Zionism' such that traditionally Zionist views are now considered to be 'anti-Zionist', and about the illiberal nature of a 'Jewish state'. He compared it to a hypothetical situation in the US where 90% of the land might be reserved for people of white and/or Christian origins.

Possibly he means a political view in Israel that annexing the West Bank will lead to loss of Jewish character of Israel because of demographic problem. May be he means the biggest left party in Israel "Zionist union". If they are Zionists, then I am a Roman Emperor.
I have no idea about what his second virtual exercise means. It looks pretty stupid.

Original post by Implication

it might help if you clarified precisely what you mean when you talk about a 'right to a nation state'.

In case of Jewish people it particularly means that Jews have right to circumcise their male babies and eat kosher meat without asking permission from people, who have nothing to do with Jewish traditions. Is it clear enough?

Reply 127

admonit

Original post by Bornblue

Malia has never asserted that her opposition to Zionism is because it's a Jewish state.

I wonder how many anti-Semites call themselves anti-Semites? :cool:

Of course she didn't. She just hate the Jewish state. Oh, sorry, the Zionist state of course.

Reply 128

admonit

Original post by anarchism101

Opposition to nation-states in general would be an obvious reason. More narrowly than that, one might accept civic nation-states but oppose ethnic ones.

All this is very interesting, but we are discussing specifically anti-Zionism. Do you state, that people, who call themselves anti-Zionists, have such general views?

Reply 129

username878267

Original post by admonit

I wonder how many anti-Semites call themselves anti-Semites? :cool:

Of course she didn't. She just hate the Jewish state. Oh, sorry, the Zionist state of course.

Your argument is completely illogical.

You have just asserted that any given ethno religious group deserves its own state and accused anyone who disagrees as being Anti Semitic. You haven't stated why an ethnic religious groups should have its own state.

It's simply laziness to label anti Zionists as anti Semites.

If you want to call out real anti Semitism then look no further than Steve Bannon, Trump's future chief of staff. He told his wife not to send his kids to a school because 'there were too many Jewish kids there'.

That's real anti Semitism but of course you haven't called it out. You'd rather focus on smearing those who oppose the desecularization of a state then those who are genuinely anti Semitic.

Zionism is a political belief, backed up by many belivers with the threat of labelling anyone who disagrees with it as being anti Semitic.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 130

anarchism101

Original post by admonit

All this is very interesting, but we are discussing specifically anti-Zionism. Do you state, that people, who call themselves anti-Zionists, have such general views?

I think it's hard to say. I'd say undoubtedly many do, and a few don't, but I suspect there are also many who've just not really thought about it enough to have such a clear general opinion. Add to that a few who are anti-Zionist for other general reasons unrelated to Jews (for example, there are those like Edward Herman who simply take the opposite side to the US in just about every conflict, and thus oppose Israel for that reason).

Reply 131

Hail Victory!

Truth is what benefits the Jews, anything else is anti-semitism and hate.. oh boy they love that word.

Anti-Defamation League.. fighting hate? ... labelling it hate speech to anyone who opposes the Jewish narrative or speaks out against Israel

You have countless other Jewish groups who love to fight hate... doesn't that strike people as odd that in countries where Jews make such a tiny minority that they go around telling you what you can and can't say?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 132

admonit

Original post by Bornblue

Your argument is completely illogical.

Your frustration is understandable.

You haven't stated why an ethnic religious groups should have its own state.

I have.

If you want to call out real anti Semitism then look no further than Steve Bannon, Trump's future chief of staff. He told his wife not to send his kids to a school because 'there were too many Jewish kids there'.

I don't care what people say during family quarrels. I do care when Corbyn publicly warmly greets murderers of Jews and calls them "friends".

Reply 133

admonit

Original post by anarchism101

I think it's hard to say. I'd say undoubtedly many do, and a few don't

If they are so many then you shouldn't have a problem to name some of them.

Reply 134

anarchism101

Original post by admonit

If they are so many then you shouldn't have a problem to name some of them.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. Are you wanting i) people who I would class as anti-Zionists, ii) people who would class themselves as anti-Zionists, but not necessarily first and foremost, or iii) people who primarily identify as anti-Zionist? These are not quite the same thing.

But for a few names to be getting on with: Ilan Pappe, Oren Yiftachel, Ben White, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Davis, Akiva Orr, Matzpen, Uri Gordon.

Reply 135

viffer

Do members of the ursine family defecate in the copse?

Reply 136

Cato the Elder

Original post by yudothis

My ****ing God Jews need to stop pulling the victim card.

As do Muslims.

Reply 137

anarchism101

Well, if there needed to be an investigation into Bouattia and anti-semitism due to the open letter sent to her, does there now need to be one into Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies, on account of the similar one sent to him?

Reply 138

yudothis

Original post by Cato the Elder

As do Muslims.

Much less so.

Reply 139

Implication

Apologies for the very late reply - life and stuff. Fair play if you've lost the will to continue this conversation :tongue:

Original post by admonit

Nope. It is exactly the point: why somebody focuses his criticism specifically on Zionism and Jewish people.In fact it is the main point.

I just meant to challenge your claim that 'denying the right of Jewish people to have a national state' is anti-Semitic by asking you to explain your reasoning. I didn't think it was reasonable for you to justify this claim by asking me to explain how it could be otherwise.

First, secularity is not connected to the concept of nations. It looks like you are infected by bornblue. :cool:

Maybe, I have agreed with a few of their posts!

Secularism may not be connected to the existence of nations in principle, but it's very difficult (impossible?) to be a secularist and support the existence of religious states. Hence secularism is opposed to all religious states - including Jewish ones - and is therefore anti-Semitic by your claim. I don't think this is a sensible position to hold, and I take issue with your (as of yet) unjustified claim that denying the right of groups to have their own state is somehow an expression of prejudice against those groups.

Second, I strongly suspect that liberals support the right of nations to self-determination regardless of their type.

Well this is a related but also very distinct point. It's one thing to argue that all existing states should be able to form their own governments and decide how they proceed as a nation on their own, but quite another to argue that an autonomous state should exist for a specific ethno-religious group and decry all opposition as racist.

And if someone constantly says "I think Jews have no right to have their national state" and says nothing about other ethnic groups?

Well, it depends why. If it's because the state is Jewish, then certainly it's anti-Semitic. If they're concerned about the circumstances in which the state was born and don't think they were legitimate for other reasons then I do think it takes an unreasonable level of speculation to infer that they are anti-Semitic.

Opposing Israel (or even it's existence) isn't the same as saying 'I think all ethno-religious groups should have their own nation state, except for those Jews!' though, which is what I was referring to!

I just want to know your justification for the claim that ethno-religious groups have rights to national states specific for their groups. Do you believe this is true for all groups, or only for Jews? For example, there doesn't currently exist a state for Latin American Jains - do you think this is a violation of their rights? Before Israel was born, was the fact that it didn't exist an ongoing violation of the rights of Jewish people?

I don't know that anyone should have the right to perform medically unnecessary surgery on children who are too young to consent, but I'm getting a sense that the goalposts are being moved here so let's not delve too far into the detail of that specific practice.

I'm a secularist, so I don't think religion etc. should play a role here at all. Insofar as it doesn't infringe anyone else's rights (including their own children), individuals should be free to practice their religion however they desire - which very likely includes eating kosher if people so desire.

But let's be clear, you've called out people like Malia Bouattia for anti-Semitism, and in defence of this claim argued that she is anti-Zionist which means she opposes Jewish self determination which means she doesn't recognise the right of Jews to a national state which means she doesn't think Jews should be allowed freedom of religion. I don't think most of these things are even slightly equivalent, and this is why I say it seems like you are moving the goalposts. In defending your opposition to Malia's position, you pick the easiest of the lot to defend (religious freedom), but in reality opposition this isn't representative of Malia's 'anti-Zionism' at all.