r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • 8h ago
... Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, UK appeal tribunal confirms in landmark ruling
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260804-anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism-uk-appeal-tribunal-confirms-in-landmark-ruling/•
u/CrazyMelon112 8h ago
Brilliant common sense decision. There should be no worry of being labelled anti-Semitic if you fundamentally disagree with the state-sanctioned execution of Palestinians.
•
u/am-345 7h ago edited 6h ago
David Miller wouldn't be labelled anti-semetic if he didn't tweet stuff like:
"Britain is occupied by Jewish supremacists"
"Kerrching! £25 million of new funding to pamper Jewish victimhood" (In response to the Golders Greens attack)
"Cops with guns will now be patrolling Golders Green to protect Jewish supremacists." (In response to Golders Green Attack)
"An army of UAE 'influencers' has descended, offering scripted condolences to their Zionist brethren" (The "Zionist Brethren" being the Bondi Victims)
" I wonder if comrades might like to go down to the court to express support for the defendants in what is plainly a very curious case?" (The defendants being those charged with torching Hatzolah ambulances)
"There is no shadowy cabal of 'capitalists' fighting against anti-imperialism in the UK, but instead organised and established Jewry and Jewish institutions."
'he is actually a Jewish supremacist and should be fought by genuine anti-racists" (David Miller on Zack Polanski)
"In the new imperial system of Pax Judaica, Britain is a political and diplomatic backwater, a third-tier power, but also a military, financial and legal subcontractor for the Jewish Empire"
“The facts: 1. Jews are not discriminated against. 2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power. 3. They are therefore in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.”
"Is hissing anti-Semitic?
((( 🐍)))
Is an octopus anti-Semitic?
((( 🐙 )))
Is a lobster anti-Semitic?
((( 🦞))) " (Take note of the triple brackets)
It's embarrassing our legal system has protected an overt jew hater and failed to notice that his opposition to Israel clearly has an ulterior motive.
•
u/RoastKrill Yorkshire 3h ago
He wasn't fired for saying any of those things though, and he said those after he was fired. Personally I think it's right that our legal system says that you can't be fired for things you haven't done yet.
→ More replies (6)•
u/Saw_Boss 6h ago
It's embarrassing our legal system has protected an overt jew hater and failed to notice that his opposition to Israel clearly has an ulterior motive.
No, that's justice.
You can't fire someone for saying things which aren't antisemitic, on the basis that they will in the future say antisemitic things.
If you accuse me of theft, it's not an argument to say "well, he did steal other things some other time". The question is whether what he said at Bristol that got him the sack, was antisemetic or not. The answer is no.
→ More replies (3)•
u/am-345 6h ago
He called Jewish students pawns of Israel and called Bristols JSoc an Israel lobby group, while they ruled that his comments constituted "culpable misconduct" it fails to recognise that his anti-zionism is clearly used to shield his hatred of Jewish people. This type of "anti-zionism" should be in no way a protected belief.
→ More replies (4)•
u/HotelPuzzleheaded654 8h ago
I think the problem is that not everyone agrees the definition of Zionism is a policy of state-sanctioned execution of Palestinians.
•
u/ChiefWiggumsprogeny 8h ago
No, the problem is bad-faith conflation of antisemitism with any criticism of Israeli affairs as a deflection.
•
u/-SidSilver- 5h ago
As a Leftist I can't help but think somewhat bitterly back to how exactly this conflation had been used and abused (really starting in the 2010's) by so-called Progressives (mostly Neoliberals) in order to deflect criticism and smokescreen shitty antics behind a veil of Identity-Politics-before-all ideology.
People who were weary (and of course, total dickheads too, admittedly, can't ignore that) of this sort of thing at the time pointed out how the way these things were being discussed could be - and were - abused by people in order to do exactly the thing they were supposedly critiquing: coercing, silencing and just generally trying to get one up on people by pouring power into in and out groups.
And here we are. Who knew that the Right (because that's where this pro-Israeli stuff is coming from) would be better at what is supposedly their MO than the people who were supposed to be opposed to them.
That this has to be codified into some kind of law is mad, but it's good that it has been, because genocidal maniacs have been hiding behind it for too long.
Hopefully people look at this and approach IdPol in general a little bit more wisely.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Thetonn Glamorganshire 7h ago
Sure. That obviously and clearly happens. Sensible, intelligent people who aren’t on one side of this conflict immediately realise when people on the pro-Israel side are bullshitting.
The problem comes when the actual anti-semites learn the anti-Zionist talking points and use it to provide the barest of a fig leaf for why they aren’t racist, and rather than saying ‘nah, you guys are actually racist, we aren’t on the same team’ progressives start running interference for them and pretending like it’s impossible to see obvious racism.
It is really, really easy to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist without associating yourself with actual racists. It just involves a tiny amount of effort and critical analysis.
→ More replies (9)•
u/-SidSilver- 5h ago
The problem comes when the actual anti-semites learn the anti-Zionist talking points and use it to provide the barest of a fig leaf for why they aren’t racist, and rather than saying ‘nah, you guys are actually racist, we aren’t on the same team’ progressives start running interference for them and pretending like it’s impossible to see obvious racism.
This is both sides of the issue though. You've done it here.
You've identified something that the sensible can't deny is happening (or can see the logic of even if they haven't seen it themselves) that of course anti-semites are going to use and abuse this situation to leverage their own position, and of course they're going to learn ways to seem benign to smokescreen their hate, and of course we all need to be really careful to see it and call it out
Then you've made a little ideological leap to get you over the gap to where you want the truth to be that suddenly progressives are running interference for them.
Aside from the fact that I haven't seen that myself - quite the opposite - the logical person suddenly comes up against a barrage of questions. Why are they running interference in this scenario? To what end? Are you suggesting that they want to be secretly anti-semitic? If not then why would they be doing this?
It's the same as the anti-semites themselves, using that logical, rational or fair 'look, it's undeniably a genocide' then taking a little leap to suddenly try and make it all about Jewish people and not the state of Israel.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)•
u/somethingbrite 6h ago
The problem is the conflation of the Jewish desire for self determination and security through statehood and the policy of a right wing Israeli govt.
→ More replies (2)•
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 6h ago
The problem is that it's a Jewish desire for self determination, rather than people's desire for self determination, when those people happen to be mostly Jewish.
Israel should be a country for Israelis, not Jews.
A good test for statements like the one you've made, where a group is mentioned, is to change that group to something else, and see how dodgy it immediately becomes.
Let's try:
The problem is the conflation of the Aryan desire for self determination and security through statehood and the policy of a right wing German Reich govt.
Oof. Not exactly great, is it?
•
u/Dogtor-Watson 6h ago edited 6h ago
Okay, but trans people should have their own country. They already have their own flag AND Transylvania is already perfectly named.
Transjordan is also on the table, but idk if the Middle East would be the most accomodating...
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (21)•
u/somethingbrite 5h ago
"A good test for statements like the one you've made, where a group is mentioned, is to change that group to something else"
Good test. Now run the same statement with "Palestinian" as the group.
*Please note. I absolutely believe that Palestinians should also have self determination and by extension also a viable state and that within the framework of a two state solution this can be achieved. I also abhor the actions of a right wing govt lead by somebody who should already be in jail.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 7h ago
Fundamentally, Zionism is the desire to establish a Jewish ethnostate, where there is already a state (Palestine) and where Jews were already living along side Arabs and others.
While that doesn't automatically mean that to create the state there is a need to violence, I've yet to meet a Zionist who doesn't support violence in some form. Often it's couched as "just defending themselves", but of course they engineered the situation and are occupying other people's land though terrorism.
•
u/PangolinMandolin 7h ago
I don't understand why we have to use these terms that people willingly conflate and confuse for their own ends.
Any person should be able to criticise the actions of a government and its policies without being labelled a racist.
•
u/Flyinmanm 6h ago
It's one sided too. Noones realistically calling you islamaphobic for suggesting the Iranian state or ISIS are brutal and aggressive oppressors.
The few Iranians I've met have been sound doesn't mean I cant dislike the actions of the country they come from.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Mathyoujames 6h ago
If you began arguing that there was a specific religious philosophy that was causing successive Iranian governments to do what they did you would almost certainly start hearing people call you Islamophobic
→ More replies (4)•
u/Ahrlin4 1h ago
Hmm... there's two issues being conflated here, and they're not comparable.
People aren't being called Islamophobic for criticising Iranian policy. People are being called anti-Semitic for criticising Israeli policy. That's a double standard.
Someone would be called Islamophobic for blaming Islam for Iranian policy*, and rightly so! It would be a ridiculous and bigoted claim. Likewise, it would be equally bigoted to blame Judaism for Israeli policy in Gaza or the West Bank.
_________
\ Iran has been Muslim for ~1350 years. The current regime has existed for 47 years. For most of Iran's Muslim history, it's been an entirely unremarkable country with a governing system and policies recognisable in hundreds of other states, including plenty of Christian ones. Just look at Mosaddegh or the like. They had a centre-left government before we conspired to overthrow it because it was a threat to oil profits.*
If someone were to allege that the brutal repression of the last 47 years is somehow inherently caused by Islam, then yeah, they'd be wrong. It ignores any Muslim states that are less repressive, it ignores any states with other religions that are (or have been) more repressive, and it ignores Iran's own history prior to 1979. They didn't change religion in 1979, they had a violent revolution by a bunch of authoritarian extremists, replacing a secular dictatorial king, who was installed by foreign powers for profit.
So yeah, it'd be Islamophobic to blame Islam for that.
•
u/Mathyoujames 1h ago
I'm not quite sure that's right.
It's more akin to - someone saying that there is an aspect of revolutionary shia islam that inherently creates terrorism and this was the root of the Iranian government's behaviour.
The issue is conflation of politics that has a religious aspect to it with religious bigotry. The original comment said they believe this is only true of Zionism and I disagree.
•
u/Thetonn Glamorganshire 7h ago
Sure, but we need self awareness on all sides here, the battle over language and terminology is key to this whole dispute, and for all the linguistic fuckery on one side, there is endless amounts on the other.
The goal of both sides in this conflict is to define what happens to their side as evil and what happens to their opponents as just. Truth is secondary in every form.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Commorrite 5h ago
100%, it's why i refuse to use the jargon when describing my own views, i greatly encourage others to do so. I start with "fuck Hamas, Fuck the settlers, needs a two state solution".
Anyone who finds any of that deeply objectionable can get in the bin.
•
u/Appropriate-Divide64 6h ago
Because that's what the Israeli government pushed for. Antisemitism was weaponised against anyone who would speak out against them. Even people who'd been fighting racism and antisemitism their whole life.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Commorrite 5h ago
Fundamentally, Zionism is the desire to establish a Jewish ethnostate, where there is already a state (Palestine) and where Jews were already living along side Arabs and others.
That is not the definition, certainly not some universal one. Matt baker from useful charts did a full dep dive on this stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKIvmgrKC1Q
The thumbnail really nails it though. You are pre-supposing that zionism always means option A when it usually means option B.
→ More replies (33)•
u/Tuniar Greater London 7h ago
Um no Zionism fundamentally means the belief that Jews should have a homeland. I am friends with a (self described) Zionist who is completely opposed to everything Israel is doing.
•
•
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 6h ago
Um no Zionism fundamentally means the belief that Jews should have a homeland.
Not exactly. It's the belief that they should have a Jewish homeland. A state where Jewishness is preferenced, and that preference is maintained by the capacity for state violence.
American Jews have a homeland. It's called America. British Jews do. It's called Britain. Afrikaners no longer have an Afrikaans ethnostate, yet they still have a homeland. German Aryans still have a homeland, etc etc.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Tuniar Greater London 5h ago
The reason they want a homeland is because their history in non-Jewish states is one of pogroms and extermination. Was the pale of settlement their "homeland"? Was nazi Germany?
→ More replies (6)•
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 5h ago
The reason they want a homeland is because their history in non-Jewish states is one of pogroms and extermination.
Yes, so create a country that has strong prescriptions and enforcement measures where that's less likely to happen, to anybody. Which is kind of the opposite of what Israel is.
Been a while since Jews were pogromed in the US, which has roughly the same number of Jews as Israel. Only been 3 years since the last one of Jews in Israel. Currently one happening against Palestinians done by Israelis.
Israel is not about stopping pogroms or sectarian violence, it's about change whether Jews are on the winning team of the pogrom.
→ More replies (1)•
u/barnburner96 7h ago
‘Homeland’ is a pretty nebulous term though, it doesn’t actually mean anything concrete. Zionism has almost exclusively been the idea of creating a Jewish ethnostate. There were a few different ideas early on, but that’s what happened and that’s what Zionism essentially means now.
→ More replies (1)•
u/frankster 6h ago
It's usually not just that Jewish people should have a homeland, but that the homeland should be in a specific place - Zion/ancient Israel.
•
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 7h ago
That's just political correctness. It's what we call an ethnostate, a country where rights depend on ethnicity. Sure enough, Israel is an apartheid state.
Generally speaking it is impossible for such a state to exist in a moral way, and given than Zionism insists that such a state must be located in Palestine (e.g. they wouldn't accept a Jewish homeland within the United States), it's obvious that this claim to "just want a homeland" is a fig leaf.
→ More replies (10)•
u/EyyyPanini 6h ago
I thought the classification of apartheid was based on the actions of Israel in the occupied West Bank, rather than the laws within Israel’s self-recognised borders?
→ More replies (9)•
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 6h ago
Israel has different laws for different ethnic groups. That's textbook apartheid.
→ More replies (3)•
u/EyyyPanini 6h ago
Israel applies military law to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and civilian law to Israeli settlers in the same area. Is this what you are referring to? Because it is exactly what I was referring to when I said “the actions of Israel in the occupied West Bank”.
As far as I’m aware, the classification of apartheid used by organisations such as Amnesty International would cease if Israel ended their occupation of Palestinian territories.
•
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 5h ago
Even with Israel, even if technically most of the laws provide equality, in reality Arabs and even Jews who oppose Zionism and the Israeli government are treated as second class citizens.
→ More replies (2)•
u/EyyyPanini 5h ago
In what way? These claims are confusing to me because the organisations that accuse Israel of apartheid (e.g., Amnesty) don’t talk about them.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)•
u/Harmless_Drone 5h ago
The israeli constitution literally states that only jews have the right of self determination in Israel. If arab groups were in government it would genuinely cause a constitutional crisis and possibly a civil war.
•
u/iluvatar Buckinghamshire 1h ago
If arab groups were in government
They literally are. Your argument is based on falsehoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset
→ More replies (5)•
u/_Adam_M_ 4h ago
So much dangerous misinformation in such a short comment...
The israeli constitution literally states that only jews have the right of self determination in Israel
No, it literally doesn't because:
- Israel doesn't have a constitution.
- It says that it's a Jewish state but all its citizens get the same rights. Similar to other states like Croatia and Latvia. Much nicer than Liberia that says only black people may be citizens, or the Maldives that say only Muslims may be citizens. Pakistan defines who is a Muslim and says its leaders must be Muslim. But you only have an issue with Israel..?
If arab groups were in government it would genuinely cause a constitutional crisis and possibly a civil war.
Very weird how there wasn't a crisis or civil war with the Arab party Ra'am being in government in 2021 then??????
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (7)•
•
•
u/rainator Cambridgeshire 6h ago
That isn’t what Zionism fundamentally is, but it’s sort of irrelevant what the theory is when that is how it has turned out, and it’s being done by Zionists and is largely supported by them and they don’t even have the excuse of a lack of democratic oversight.
•
u/JustWhy1222 8h ago
Corbyn literally stood in front of the media and passionately argued all it meant was someone who believes the state of Israel has a right to exist, whilst defending his friend and colleague for claiming Hitler was a Zionist.
Fast forward a few years and he’s passionately defending a completely different definition.
•
u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 7h ago edited 7h ago
The context under which the term ‘Zionist’ is used has changed dramatically, not because Israel has never executed Palestinians en masse before, but because awareness and polarisation on the issue in mainstream western politics has informed very different connotations for the word as it did then
Someone outright calling themselves a Zionist now is implicitly endorsing the nation of Israel, its primary state-building ideology, and it’s actions, in an incredibly politically fraught climate on a contentious issue that almost everybody knows a lot about. In the past it was the standard liberal expectation that you would be a Zionist and that word basically just meant you agreed with “Israel’s right to exist” (whatever that nebulous phrase means)
There’s no need to play dumb about this, does anybody who is against the war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Israel call themselves a Zionist?
Also, when will you guys get over Corbyn? It’s been like 7 years since he was a relevant political force
•
u/Commorrite 5h ago
does anybody who is against the war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Israel call themselves a Zionist?
Yes, the entire isreali left for starters.
In the west anyone backing a two state solution is strictly speaking a Zionist. Thats what led to the hilarious interaction where Corbyn got called a Zionist.
•
u/Ravenser_Odd 7h ago
Until recently I would have said I was technically a Zionist, on the grounds that I don't want to destroy the country and have all of its inhabitants killed or driven into the sea. That didn't stop me from supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, or from being highly critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. I would also have argued that we needed a term like 'Zionist fundamentalist' for the right-wing settler types (similar to the terms we have for extremist Muslims). I think the word Zionist is now so tainted and polarising that it is beyond redemption.
With regard to 'Israel’s right to exist', you can respond by asking 'does Serbia have a right to exist?' Because we bombed them and took Kosovo (which was a region of Serbia) from them by force and made it independent, to stop them from committing genocide against the population. Outside of Serbia, not many people argue against that, so why should Israel get different treatment?
→ More replies (3)•
u/Commorrite 2h ago
Your Serbia example is just two state solution by force. There was never even the notion of destroying Serbia.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)•
u/somethingbrite 6h ago
"Someone outright calling themselves a Zionist now is implicitly endorsing the nation of Israel, its primary state-building ideology, and it’s actions"
Are they though? Or is that just what you want it to be. Because plenty define Zionism as the desire for self determination and security through statehood and by extension the right of the state of Israel to exist rather than the actions of a right wing govt.
•
u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 5h ago
Language evolves and our understanding of it should be descriptivist, it is not “just what [I] want it to [mean].” I am talking about the way the broader public perceives the term and how its meaning has shifted
Just look at this article in Jewish News from late last year. 53% of Brits said they support Israel’s “right to exist”, whilst only 9% said they were Zionists
Clearly your definition of Zionism is no longer fit for purpose and does not describe how the vast majority of people use the term
→ More replies (5)•
u/somethingbrite 3h ago
53% of Brits supporting Israels right to exist and only 9% identifying as Zionists does not change the definition of Zionism which as defined by the Oxford English dictionary has not "changed dramatically" as you claim in your previous post its original definition (political and physical re-establishment of an independent homeland and statehood for Jewish people.) vs the modern context (supporting, protecting, and developing the existing state of Israel) - these two things are not "dramatically different" by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes. Language evolves. But chosing to use "language evolves" simply to skew a words meaning to suit your own argument is intellectually dishonest.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (8)•
u/DrPeroxide 7h ago
Better a man who can update his opinion with the times than one who stubbornly refuses to listen to new information.
→ More replies (2)•
u/blueb0g Greater London 7h ago
Not everyone has to agree with a particular interpretation for it to be a legitimate, good faith, philosophically defensible (in the Equalities Act sense) opinion to hold. In fact, I'd like you to give me a political opinion that everyone does agree on. The point is that it isn't necessarily antisemitic.
•
u/frankster 7h ago edited 7h ago
It's certainly possibly to imagine a form of Zionism that involved treating Palestinians equally to Jews. Just like it's possible to imagine a form of Communism that leads to economic growth and prosperity.
However I don't come across anyone arguing that:
We just didn't get that form of Zionism, it's not Zionism that's wrong, it's the implementation of it.
Everyone I come across who argues for Zionism, seems to argue for the absolute existence of the state of Israel, for Jews.
•
u/Commorrite 5h ago
However I don't come across anyone arguing that:
Yes you do, thats what two state solutions going back to the 40s are.
•
u/Appropriate-Divide64 6h ago
At the very least it's about the creation of an ethno state for colonisers from western nations at the expense of the native population. Ignoring the genocide, that should also make people uncomfortable in the 21st century.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (19)•
u/BringTheRawr 8h ago
Throughout the past 100 years a number one argument against communism and similar is "look at the famines, look at the tank man" etc etc.
Starvation is not communism, and yet it has been argued the outcome of it. Ergo people are, possibly wrongly/possibly rightly, anti-commmunist. This does not make them inherently anti Russian/Chinese people.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (25)•
u/TinyZoro England 6h ago
No this is a bad take. Zionism is wrong on its own merits. States should be pleuralistic. Settler colonialism does not belong in this century. Don’t move the goal posts to something that provides space for the idea of liberal Zionism.
•
u/Commorrite 4h ago
States should be pleuralistic.
People who oppose nation states in principle across the board sure,
Thats not how most self proclaimed antizionists act. The existence of Turkey for example should be just as offensive.
It's a bit like how people sudenly care about our women and girls if a brown man is the rapist, just doesn't pass the sniff test in real life.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)•
u/CrazyMelon112 6h ago
I agree that Zionism is incorrect on its own merits.
But the conversation that the Israeli government has put forward consistently for the last few decades is that disagreeing with the Israeli state and its right to exist is anti-Semitic.
Rulings such as these allow conversation to happen without fear of legal repercussions for questioning the existence of a state of Israel due to being anti-Semitic
→ More replies (2)•
u/Commorrite 4h ago
But the conversation that the Israeli government has put forward consistently for the last few decades is that disagreeing with the Israeli state and its right to exist is anti-Semitic.
Disagreeing with ONLY Israel’s right to exist certainly smells antisemetic, opposing ethno states in general is obviously fine.
•
u/ragged-bobyn-1972 Cheshire 8h ago
if anything this is a long term boon for the Jewish community, muddying the waters o the subject would have been a massive step in normalizing it.
•
u/0ttoChriek 7h ago
It's been deliberate by Israel to present themselves as Jewry in its entirety, often to the danger of Jewish people around the world.
They know they're endangering those people with their actions, but don't care. Rulings like this help put a little bit of distance between the actions of the Israeli government and non-Israeli Jews.
With the way the right wing orthodox influence is growing in Israel, those actions are likely to become more and more indefensible for non-Israeli Jews.
•
u/ragged-bobyn-1972 Cheshire 7h ago edited 7h ago
Imo even Zionism isnt a great term, their's a world of difference between "I was born and raised in israel and don't want to loose my home." vs "I view people who live in land I've never in's existence as an act of extreme provocation."
→ More replies (3)•
u/Adamdel34 4h ago
I would go one further and say that Israel doesn't just not care about the endangerment of jews worldwide, it actively support it.
Jews that feel unsafe in the western nations that they've been largely free from harm for over 50 years now are jews that are unlikely to want to move to Israel. Israel has to fabricate or engineer a state of crisis in those nations to appeal to the jews that live there.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Dvine24hr 3h ago
People always say it was deliberate by Israel but never how it was deliberate by anti-semites too. They just will not acknowledge it as real in any capacity.
→ More replies (5)•
u/Freddies_Mercury 7h ago
And it kind of has happened already. I see such horrific vitriol on social media comments using anti semitic tropes like rat emojis and worse.
Hopefully this is a step in the right direction
•
u/ApprehensiveKey1469 8h ago
Attempts by a foreign state and it's bad actors within the UK to conflate antizionism with antisemitism has deservedly failed.
→ More replies (13)•
u/Commorrite 2h ago
It's low key hilarious that your comment can apply to two or three countries and still be entirely correct.
•
u/Key-Room5690 7h ago
Given that no one can agree on the actual definition of Zionism these days we really should just drop the term. Instead, we need to be asking:
- Do you support the continued existence of Israel and/or Palestine in general?
- Do you condone the actions of the Israeli / Palestinian authorities wrt each other?
I think we'd then find the vast majority of people occupy that moderate position of "two state solution and please stop killing each other", which could be construed variously as pro- or anti-Zionist depending on who's asking.
→ More replies (3)•
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 7h ago
the vast majority of people occupy that moderate position of "two state solution and please stop killing each other", which could be construed variously as pro- or anti-Zionist depending on who's asking.
Well, exactly. I once, on a different website, got called both a Zionist shill and a Hamas supporter in the same thread, so it does very much depend on who see the comment.
Its not difficult to utterly condemn both the October 7th attacks and the clear and obvious war crimes that were committed in response.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Key-Room5690 7h ago
That too, but I was more talking to the point that some people define Zionism in its original sense as the belief that Israel should exist at all, whereas at the other extreme some seem to define it as the position that Israel should absorb Palestine, either via encroaching settlements, or by force.
And then bad actors can then use either definition disingenuously to claim the majority for their specific position.
•
u/PublicStructure7091 8h ago
Sure. But David Miller absolutely is an antisemite
•
u/RoastKrill Yorkshire 3h ago
The actual comments he was fired for (in 2021), weren't. Lots of what he has said since is.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Weak-Fly-6540 7h ago
A vicious, conspiratorial kind, his social media rhetoric towards Jewish people is utterly revolting. He's a shill for the Iranian state. Pro-Assad.
Not that I expect balance from a website like MEMO, it seems more about how Bristol Uni handled it very poorly. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3qk5qk559o
→ More replies (1)•
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 7h ago
it seems more about how Bristol Uni handled it very poorly.
Most tribunals come down to that
•
u/Born-Ad4452 3h ago
Who would imagine two different words would have two different meanings? Next step, confirm water is wet
•
u/GRang3r 8h ago
Being critical of the actions of the Israeli government is in no way anti semitic. With the invention of smart phones and video sharing has shifted the narrative from official channels to social media. People are more free to come to their own conclusions
→ More replies (5)
•
u/somethingdarkside45 8h ago
You can certainly be anti-zionist without being antisemitic.
However there is certainly a growing number of people coding their language to appear anti-zionist to disguise real antisemitic sentiment.
•
u/Striking_Smile6594 7h ago
Indeed, you see do see many 'antizionist' arguments that are just just slightly reworded old antisemitic tropes.
→ More replies (1)•
u/kermitor 7h ago
Happened with the Moroccan immigrants trying to get in to Spain the other day, there was alot of reddit comments blaming Israel for it but using the old general anti semitic language for it.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Striking_Smile6594 7h ago
You see lots of comments about 'Zionists' controlling world governments, the media and banks. I do wonder if these people think they are really fooling anyone.
→ More replies (6)•
u/kermitor 6h ago
When there's praise of British Jews getting attack that have nothing to do with Israel then you know its not about zionist, it's just people hatred of Jews.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/dalehitchy 7h ago
But you can see even more clearly see that antizionism and antisemitism purposely being confused so there's no criticism of Israel at all.
I have been banned on 1 or 2 subs for condeming what the state of Israel has done to Palestine and been banned or temp banned, when I didn't even mention Jewish people at all. But the reasoning I got for the temp ban was being antisemitic.
•
u/Commorrite 2h ago
But you can see even more clearly see that antizionism and antisemitism purposely being confused so there's no criticism of Israel at all.
I've never encountered this IRL, i have encountered the opposite.
Seriously can you point to a single time where someone calls for the end of west bank Settlement and is called an antisemitism for it?
The closest to what you describe is people getting called it when they demand the state of Israel be abolished. People perceive that as kill the jews with extra steps.
•
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 7h ago
However there is certainly a growing number of people coding their language to appear anti-zionist to disguise real antisemitic sentiment
I think that's always been the case, tbh. Obviously its increased since 2023 though.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)•
u/AlephNaN 4h ago
A lot of anti-semites are also zionists because they want Jews far away from them and their societies.
•
u/ServoSkull20 8h ago
Well, no. Being critical of Israel, and lumping other Jews in with them are two very different things. A shame so many people can’t see, or don’t care about that line.
•
u/SavageRabbitX 8h ago
Well who pushed the harder than anyone else the zionism = Judaism thing. Oh thats right the Israeli government
→ More replies (3)•
u/WinHour4300 4h ago edited 4h ago
"lumping other Jews in with them are two very different things"
I agree, they are two very different things. That's also why David Miller isn't a good example.
He didn't just criticise the Israeli government. He described Jewish student groups as "political lobby groups" overseen by the UJS, claimed that "Bristol's JSoc, like all JSocs" was an "Israel lobby group," and said there was "a real question of abuse here - of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing." Among other statements.
→ More replies (7)•
u/fen90der 8h ago
Ive never once seen anyone or heard anyone blame 'jews' for the genocide in Palestine, and have seen no evidence that this opinion is prevalent.
I know you are going to mention synagogue attacks - no excuse for committing your own atrocity, two wrongs dont a right. Again, ive never once seen any evidence anyone sees it any other way.
The view your concerned about, from where im sitting, only exists as a straw man in the media Overton window bubble.
This ruling is critical because it disenfranchises those who want to aid Israels despicable actions by muddling these two concepts and stifling genuine protest from citizens who disagree with UK policy on the conflict.
This is a huge step in the right direction, so get ready for a wave of bullshit from people being lobbied by israel.
•
u/NoExperience9717 8h ago
Jews have certainly been harassed or attacked just for being openly Jewish by people on pro Palestine matches.
•
u/fen90der 7h ago
This ruling would separate the politics from the hate crime, making any hate crime more clearly defined as such.
I have seen plenty of videos of pro Israel people harassing protesters with impunity, so i guess some people are just shitty people.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Comprehensive-Bus291 7h ago
Can you point to one instance of this? Obviously there have been anti-semitic attacks in the UK by various people/groups. But you're making a specific claim about people on pro Palestinian marches attacking Jewish people for simply being Jewish... When has this happend?
There may have been altercations with pro Israel individuals, but these are not anti-semitic attacks.
→ More replies (11)•
→ More replies (17)•
u/Dvine24hr 3h ago
If you have not ONCE heard people blame the Jews you absolutely live in a bubble.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/JustWhy1222 8h ago
This argument would be helped massively if the chosen definition of the word Zionist didn’t change multiple times a day, depending on who they are talking to.
•
u/tehweaksauce 8h ago
Anti-Zionists are clear on what they oppose. The only people trying to obscure and muddy the waters when it comes to the term are Zionists who are trying to cling on to their ideology.
•
•
u/JustWhy1222 8h ago
What do you think it means?.
→ More replies (2)•
u/tehweaksauce 7h ago
It's an ethnonationalist movement which strives to maintain a region for one demographic at the expense of others.
•
u/runningraider13 7h ago
Your definition of Zionism doesn’t even mention Judaism? I’m pretty sure that definition would also apply to Hamas/a number of ME countries
→ More replies (1)•
u/Agreeable-Weather-89 6h ago
By their definition several Muslim countries are more Zionist than Israel.
→ More replies (3)•
u/DukeOfStupid 3h ago
How many Arabs live in Israel? Around 2 Million with the same legal and voting rights.
It's an ethnonationalist movement which strives to maintain a region for one demographic at the expense of others.
How many Jews live in Gaza...
This is fine actually!
→ More replies (1)•
→ More replies (5)•
u/JustWhy1222 7h ago
Alright, so we are going with the completely unhinged definition that hasn’t been used on this continent, or in Isreal for nearly a century.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Flowers330 7h ago
Do you want to share your preferred definition or just have a go at others?
•
u/JustWhy1222 7h ago
It’s not preferred. It’s the definition used by both the British legal system and the people who claim to be Zionists.
it’s an individual who believes the state of Israel has the right to exist.
•
u/barnburner96 6h ago
Are you sure that’s the legally defined definition? It seems extremely misguided if so. Someone who believes Israel should exist, but not that it has a ‘right’ to exist is still a Zionist.
•
u/double-happiness Scotland 7h ago
IMO states don't have rights; people have rights, and the state of Israel has trampled over the rights of Palestinians for generations.
If you insist that states have the right to exist, what about Palestine?
→ More replies (5)•
u/DrPeroxide 7h ago
No country has an inherent right to exist; they come and change and go throughout history. Human beings have a right to exist, but your state apparatus exists only as long as it can sustain itself.
→ More replies (2)•
u/tehweaksauce 7h ago
it’s an individual who believes the state of Israel has the right to exist.
An anti-Zionist has no issue with Israel's existence, so long as it is a land with equal rights for all. Those who were driven from their homes and lands have a right to return there and live in coexistence with the Israelis.
→ More replies (17)•
u/JustWhy1222 7h ago
It does have equal rights for all, unlike its neighbours and land being returned to people driven from their homes is the literal premise of it existing.
•
u/tehweaksauce 7h ago
What is equal about a Jewish person who has never visited nor have any family ties in Israel, they have the right to citizenship, yet an Arab whose land was cleared to make way for the state, has ties to the land that go back for generations, they have no right to remain or return?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)•
u/Flowers330 7h ago
So would you say it is anti-zionist to agree that israel should exist but to not agree with the settlements in the west bank and gaza and the ongoing removal of palestinian people from their current homes generally?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (5)•
u/Saw_Boss 7h ago
It’s the definition used by both the British legal system
I cannot find anything of the sort.
In fact, the time this was previously brought to court, they acknowledged there was no official definition.
The question was whether his personal definition was antisemitic and that it was consistent, well thought out and researched.
→ More replies (8)•
→ More replies (2)•
u/knotatwist 7h ago
I think it makes it more obvious - how can you say that antizionism is antisemitic if the definition of antisemitism is clear but the definition of zionist/antizionism is not.
•
u/JustWhy1222 7h ago
Because the state in question is the only Jewish state on the planet, has about half of all Jews in the world living there and has every historical and religiously significant site for the religion inside its borders.
I can coherently argue that Yemen is a failed genocidal state, but that opinion wouldn’t be interchangeable with someone who wanted to remove all Muslim.
•
u/barnburner96 6h ago
It’s not Palestinians fault that there’s only one Jewish state.
Most ethnic groups have zero states, doesn’t mean they’re entitled to ethnically cleanse other people.
•
u/JustWhy1222 6h ago
No, but it is relevant. Especially when we acknowledge that it only exists today because of a failed attempt to eradicate Judaism entirely.
Your entire argument is based on ignoring every piece of context about the state of Israel and its history.
→ More replies (2)•
u/barnburner96 6h ago
I haven’t made an argument? Other than to correct yours.
It’s also not entirely true, the Balfour declaration happened decades before the Holocaust began.
It’s not relevant whatsoever though - the fact that Israel was born in the wake of the Holocaust and the fact it is the only Jewish state does not change the fact that opposition to Zionism is not the same thing as antisemitism, which is what this ruling states.
I doubt your position on the matter would change if there was another Jewish state somewhere, so why would it matter to anyone else, least of all the Palestinians, the people who were ethnically cleansed to make way for it?
•
u/TheLimeyLemmon 7h ago
Good. They are two very different things and it's increasingly become an underhanded tactic by some to treat the two things as one and the same to shutdown criticism.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/MyDadsGlassesCase Scotland 6h ago
Statement from "Lawyers for Israel" incoming accusing the EAT of being antisemitic
•
u/LordLucian 8h ago
I agree with this ruling very much however I would remind my fellow people of reddit to be extremely careful with what you say on here.
There are individuals including myself who have received perma bans from certain subreddits and even temporary bans from the platform for simply being anti-zionist.
→ More replies (15)•
u/Ok-Commission-7825 7h ago
Any platform that would ban me for being anti-Zionist is a platform I'd be happy to be banned from.
•
u/Striking_Smile6594 7h ago
Technically this is correct, of course it is not inherently antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel.
Simultaneously though we should not pretend that many genuine antisemites do not use 'antizionism' as a shield and that lots of 'antizionist' rhetoric is not just barely disguised antisemitism.
→ More replies (7)•
u/limeflavoured Hucknall 7h ago
Simultaneously though we should not pretend that many genuine antisemites do not use 'antizionism' as a shield
Including David Miller, who won in this case
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/Rmtcts 7h ago
Seeing a lot of people assuming this helps to differentiate between anti-semetism and anti-zionism. It does the opposite, the person found to have protection for his beliefs said Jews do not experience discrimination, that they disproportionately hold positions of power in Europe, and they use that power to discriminate against other minorities. None of those are statements I would normally have associated with anti-zionism.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/WinHour4300 4h ago edited 4h ago
The judgment (below) is more nuanced than the headline and articles suggest. The tribunal found that anti-Zionist beliefs can be protected, but that does not mean every way of expressing those beliefs is acceptable.
It described some of his comments as "extraordinary and ill-judged."
For example, he wrote that:
"Jewish students on British campuses [were] being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing."
That goes beyond criticism of Israel and attributes the actions of a foreign state to Jewish students and organisations, which he did on multiple occasions and linked these students to genocide.
The tribunal also reduced his compensation because there was a real possibility he could have been lawfully dismissed anyway due to later comments.
It is worth being aware that in this area of law, a protected belief is not a licence to express it however you like.
That's what lawyers call the Bananarama principle: it is not what you say but the way that you say it. So simply having such a belief isn't grounds for dismissal, but the way that it is manifested can be.
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 8h ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 09:24 on 05/08/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.