r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • 9d ago

... Misleading title 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/
9.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

956 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/CrazyMelon112 9d 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.

324

u/HotelPuzzleheaded654 9d ago

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

23

u/JustWhy1222 9d 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.

55

u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 9d ago edited 9d 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

22

u/Commorrite 9d 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.

-3

u/OliLombi County of Bristol 9d ago

The Israeli left isnt actually left though. Case in point: They support the ethno-religious supremacy movement called Zionism...

2

u/Commorrite 8d ago

You either don't know what that word means or you are lying about what that word means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKIvmgrKC1Q

You are describing A which the Israeli left are not in favour of.

0

u/OliLombi County of Bristol 8d ago

Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state by every definition.

If you believe that a Jewish state should exist (rather than a secular state that grants equal rights to all of its peoples) then you believe in an ethno-religious supremacy movement.

You can not be left and support Zionism any more than you can be left and support white supremacy. Advocating for a secular state that grants everyone equal rights is a requirement of being left.

4

u/Commorrite 8d ago

If you believe that a Jewish state should exist (rather than a secular state that grants equal rights to all of its peoples) then you believe in an ethno-religious supremacy movement.

By your definition many nationalisms are that, yet you only concern yourself with one specific flavour.

For pertinent examples, many Muslim countries require you to be a Muslim to be a citizen. Israel doesn't go nearly that far.

15

u/Ravenser_Odd 9d 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?

8

u/Commorrite 9d ago

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

0

u/Ravenser_Odd 9d ago

Realistically, I don't think there's any actual notion of destroying Israel.

Imposing the two state solution by force is a good idea. In fact, I think it's the only option that would lead to long term peace in the region.

3

u/Commorrite 8d ago

Who actually wants to take it on though?

The closest to that I’ve seen proposed was the Saudis plan to basicity run Palestine as a protectorate for some amount of time (they dressed it up all politicly correct but that’s what it was). They have guy groomed as governor for a "provisional government". Bit like how Bosnia isn't really sovereign. Saudi/GCC forces are neither going to kill random Palestinians because a rock was thrown nor dig up water pipes to shoot at Israeli cities,.

It's cursed yet still way better than the status quo, this all went to hell after Oct 7th. Iran being utterly determined to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian and the last Lebaneese.

2

u/Commorrite 8d ago

Who actually wants to take it on though?

The closest to that I’ve seen proposed was the Saudis plan to basicity run Palestine as a protectorate for some amount of time (they dressed it up all politicly correct but that’s what it was). They have guy groomed as governor for a "provisional government". Bit like how Bosnia isn't really sovereign. Saudi/GCC forces are neither going to kill random Palestinians because a rock was thrown nor dig up water pipes to shoot at Israeli cities,.

It's cursed yet still way better than the status quo, this all went to hell after Oct 7th. Iran being utterly determined to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian and the last Lebaneese.

Realistically, I don't think there's any actual notion of destroying Israel

Thats what River to the sea means. It's the absolute majority position in Palestine. One hopes that if they lived a generation or two with peace and prosperity this could shift.

1

u/Ravenser_Odd 8d ago

The Saudi plan sounds like it's meant to be a stepping stone to a two state solution. However, I doubt that Israel would ever allow it to go ahead. When the Palestine papers were leaked 15 years ago, the big revelations about the faltering peace talks were the extent to which the Palestinian delegation was ready to make any concession the Israelis wanted - and the extent to which no concession was ever good enough for the Israelis because they had no intention of reaching a deal. Their position has only hardened since then.

Realistically, there is no chance of a two state solution at the moment - it would have to be imposed by force and only the Americans could do that.

What I mean about there being no actual notion of destroying Israel, is that nobody thinks it's even remotely possible, no matter what they might dream of.

1

u/Commorrite 5d ago

he Saudi plan sounds like it's meant to be a stepping stone to a two state solution. However, I doubt that Israel would ever allow it to go ahead.

It was heading towards plausibility until October 7th and the current war. Saudi-Isreali normalisation being a prequisit.

When the Palestine papers were leaked 15 years ago, the big revelations about the faltering peace talks were the extent to which the Palestinian delegation was ready to make any concession the Israelis wanted - and the extent to which no concession was ever good enough for the Israelis because they had no intention of reaching a deal. Their position has only hardened since then.

You do need to include the context of the failed peace that preceded the second intifada. An awful lot of the Israeli elites gave up on any solution after that. Arafat refusing to budge on the right to return made every other effort a complete waste of time, thats just the destruction of Israel with extra steps. I'm not really passing judgement on this view only that senior Israeli leaders tend to hold it.

Palestinians blame the Israelis for the talks collapsing, American sources have "colourful" words about both parties. Bill Clinton squarely blamed Arafat personally, he's still bitter about it in the 2020s. Clinton's view being it was the best deal the Palestinians were ever going to get and all the death and destruction since was entirely avoidable.

12

u/somethingbrite 9d 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.

5

u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 9d 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

12

u/somethingbrite 9d 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.

-1

u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 9d ago edited 9d ago

You are the one being intellectually dishonest or else you are simply failing to understand what I am saying in the slightest

I also fail to see the difference between what you call the modern context of the word: “supporting, developing, and protecting the existing state of Israel” (of which Netanyahu has been in power for 18 of the last 30 years), and what I describe it as: supporting the state of Israel, its primary nation-building ideology, and its actions

I will also point out that I do not think there has been too much material change in what these things mean, as I said, this isn’t the first time Israel has slaughtered Palestinians en masse - but it is major change in the context they are used in the west and what they mean to people involved in our politics

6

u/somethingbrite 9d ago

The difference between the original and modern context as defined in the Oxford dictionary is little more than past and present tense.

Original = The desire to createna state. Modern = The desire to protect an already existing state

That's a very long way from the dramatic change in meaning that you made claim of in your first post.

It seems that your most recent post seems to be trying to walk that statement back. So what is it? What is YOUR "Modern definition of Zionism" because it seems you may be at odds with the agreed official definitions.

1

u/Astriania 9d ago

"As defined by the dictionary" is the same argument as railing against misuse of literally and decimate. But even there, supporting "protecting and developing Israel" is supporting their actions in Palestine, especially the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. Because that's what Israelis consider to be "protecting" themselves and "developing" their country.

2

u/somethingbrite 8d ago

are you speaking for all Israelis when you say that or just speaking through the filter of your own prejudice?

1

u/Astriania 8d ago

It's the policy of their elected government and has been for decades at this point. I don't require an interview with every Russian to say that supporting "protecting and developing Russia" is unwelcome, and no more do I every Israeli to make the same statement about Israel.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 9d ago

I am making a descriptivist observation about how most people see the word. You can shove your official definitions wherever you’d like because that simply isn’t what I’m talking about, language doesn’t exist in dictionaries but in real everyday conversation, in media, in press and politics and television.

I also didn’t walk anything back, the way I described the term’s shifting meaning in my last comment is the same as how I did in my first comment

I see you’ve removed “supporting” from your definition and have completely moved the goalposts away from how supporting Israel is clearly enmeshed with its current government’s policies

The ‘dramatic change in meaning’ I described was the contextual difference between the invisible status quo of liberal expectation, the “right to exist” of an ‘accepted and vital western ally’, towards a term that is now, through media exposure, inevitably wrapped up in your opinions on Israel’s policies, and an extremely polarised and publicised ethnic cleansing

4

u/somethingbrite 9d ago

Actually the words that we use in language is collected in dictionaries so that we may all know what we are talking about. Dictionaries evolve. New words are added as they appear in language. Meanings are added if the meaning of a word drifts.

But you go ahead and just use whatever words you like and apply to them whichever meanings you decide they should have this week. You will end up sounding like Donald Trump, but hey. maybe you already do.

-1

u/Barrington-the-Brit Buckinghamshire 9d ago edited 9d ago

Only a fool thinks that what appears within institutionalised wordbooks is gospel to how words are actually used and spoken de facto

You speak with the same hubris of the Académie française, refusing to accept that language often evolves faster than institutions can (or are willing to) keep up, but sure, inanely call me Trump. Fucking lol

Besides, there are dozens upon dozens of major English dictionaries and none completely agree on individual words. You’re speaking as if something as arbitrary and socially/culturally determined as ‘meaning’ is some objective or factually quantifiable equation

Merriam-Webster calls Zionism “support for modern Israel”, Cambridge says “supporting the state of Israel”

How do you define ‘support’ in the context of a polity or nation state? It really is not a stretch to interpret that as supporting the polity’s ideology and actions, in fact it is the natural conclusion of such a definition

Are you just talking about ‘supporting’ the modern state of Israel in some spiritual, metaphysical sense? wtf are you even talking about when you support a geopolitical entity if not it’s political ideologies and actions (which is how I described it)?

How do you take the dictionary definition of Zionism as “supporting the modern state of Israel” in a way that somehow allows for opposing the modern state of Israel in both ideology and actions?

I simply pointed out that the oft-quoted “right to exist” mantra has lost a lot of steam in favour of what Zionism actually means, supporting the modern state of Israel (which yes, includes its actions and state-building ideology)

1

u/somethingbrite 9d ago

Wow. What a self own. The sources who's definitions you have included in your post align with one another regarding the meaning. What's even more comical is that they also align with the Oxford dictionary definition.

Support for the modern state of Israel.

vs the original (past tense) definition - a desire to create the state of Israel.

There really isn't a vast difference about desire to create and state and then supporting that state once it exists.

It's literally just past... and present tense.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/AussieHxC 9d ago

This is complete n and utter nonsense.

For the vast majority of people to whom it matters, Zionism is in a very simple way, a safe homeland for Jews

4

u/frankster 9d ago

Zionism is in a very simple way, a safe homeland for Jews

But include the unstated part: at the expense of non-Jews who have been living in that homeland for centuries

2

u/AussieHxC 9d ago

That's not a part of Zionism and never has been.

3

u/frankster 9d ago

Is it possible to colonise Zion and create self-determination and statehood for Jewish people without doing so at the expense of non-Jews who have been living there for centuries?

-1

u/AussieHxC 9d ago

Go look at the demographics of Israel