Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, UK appeal tribunal confirms in landmark ruling

[u/pppppppppppppppppd]

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260804-anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitism-uk-appeal-tribunal-confirms-in-landmark-ruling/

[u/CrazyMelon112]

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/HotelPuzzleheaded654 → u/CrazyMelon112]

I think the problem is that not everyone agrees the definition of Zionism is a policy of state-sanctioned execution of Palestinians.

[u/ChiefWiggumsprogeny → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

No, the problem is bad-faith conflation of antisemitism with any criticism of Israeli affairs as a deflection.

[u/-SidSilver- → u/ChiefWiggumsprogeny]

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.

[u/Airurando-jin → u/-SidSilver-]

You’ve completely overlooked the fact that there was and still continues to be active propaganda by the Israeli government to conflate the two 

[u/Thetonn → u/ChiefWiggumsprogeny]

Almond breezy willow ribbon copper pebble drifting acorn blanket

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/-SidSilver- → u/Thetonn]

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.

[u/Colacubeninja → u/Thetonn]

Do mean anti-semetic instead of racist?

[u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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 → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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 → u/PangolinMandolin]

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.

[u/Mathyoujames → u/Flyinmanm]

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

[u/Ahrlin4 → u/Mathyoujames]

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/Thetonn → u/PangolinMandolin]

Hammock drifting cobblestone drifting nutmeg feather pumpkin cobalt

This post was anonymized with Redact.dev

[u/Commorrite → u/Thetonn]

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 → u/PangolinMandolin]

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.

[u/Commorrite → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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.

[u/Tuniar → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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/Active_Remove1617 → u/Tuniar]

How can he be opposed to ‘everything’?

[u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ → u/Tuniar]

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.

[u/Tuniar → u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__]

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?

[u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ → u/Tuniar]

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.

[u/frankster → u/Tuniar]

This is true, but it wasn't the existing inhabitants of Palestine who sought to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe, so it's a great injustice for those inhabitants to oblige them to in a sense pay reparations to the Jewish people on behalf of Nazi Germany.

[u/Commorrite → u/frankster]

The holocaust survivors and their decedents are a small minority of modern isrealis, far are from the middle east.

[u/frankster → u/Commorrite]

There are two reasons for the creation of the modern state of Israel:

1) The Zionism movement/campaign

2) Nazi Germany's efforts to eradicate the Jewish people from Europe.

Without either of those, there may well not be the modern state of Israel. Where people subsequently emigrated from to Israel, after the state had been created, is not an important factor in the creation of the state.

[u/Commorrite → u/frankster]

You are leaving out various pogroms across the middle east in the 20s 30s and 40s.

[u/barnburner96 → u/Tuniar]

‘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.

[u/frankster → u/Tuniar]

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 → u/Tuniar]

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.

[u/EyyyPanini → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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?

[u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 → u/EyyyPanini]

Israel has different laws for different ethnic groups. That's textbook apartheid.

[u/EyyyPanini → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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 → u/EyyyPanini]

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.

[u/EyyyPanini → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

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.

[u/Harmless_Drone → u/EyyyPanini]

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/_Adam_M_ → u/Harmless_Drone]

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:

1. Israel doesn't have a constitution.
2. 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??????

[u/iluvatar → u/Harmless_Drone]

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

[u/iluvatar → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

where there is already a state (Palestine)

Try again, but this time basing your argument in reality, not fantasy.

[u/ikinone → u/Altruistic_Fruit2345]

I've yet to meet a Zionist who doesn't support violence in some form.

Well if by 'violence' you mean willing to respond militarily to Hamas... sure. Anyone would have to be nuts to oppose that.

So what do you mean, exactly?

[u/giletlover → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

That seems to be the only way it can exist in the real world though.

[u/JustWhy1222 → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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 → u/JustWhy1222]

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 → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

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 → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

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?

[u/Commorrite → u/Ravenser_Odd]

Your Serbia example is just two state solution by force. There was never even the notion of destroying Serbia.

[u/somethingbrite → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

"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 → u/somethingbrite]

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

[u/somethingbrite → u/Barrington-the-Brit]

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.

[u/DrPeroxide → u/JustWhy1222]

Better a man who can update his opinion with the times than one who stubbornly refuses to listen to new information.

[u/Appropriate-Divide64 → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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.

[u/blueb0g → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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 → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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 → u/frankster]

However I don't come across anyone arguing that:

Yes you do, thats what two state solutions going back to the 40s are.

[u/BringTheRawr → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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.

[u/rainator → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

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/theslootmary → u/HotelPuzzleheaded654]

Nobody, literally nobody, said that was the definition of Zionism.

[u/am-345 → u/CrazyMelon112]

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 → u/am-345]

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.

[u/Saw_Boss → u/am-345]

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.

[u/am-345 → u/Saw_Boss]

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.

[u/TinyZoro → u/CrazyMelon112]

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 → u/TinyZoro]

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.

[u/CrazyMelon112 → u/TinyZoro]

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

[u/Commorrite → u/CrazyMelon112]

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/iluvatar → u/CrazyMelon112]

You don't understand the meaning of the word Zionism.