Jump to content

Anti-Semitism in Britain: prejudice becoming normalised


Thomas Jefferson

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thats the one hes been like that for years. God knows how he got into being an mp in Bradford.

 

Allah knows....

 

Bradford District had the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin (20.4%) in England; this is an increase of nearly 6% since the 2001 Census (14.5%)

 

Nearly one quarter of the population identified themselves as Muslim – the second largest group and an increase of 8% to 24.7% since 2001. Bradford District has the fourth highest proportion of Muslims in England

 

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/government_politics_and_public_administration/2011_census

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you include a dislike of Israeli nationalism and foreign and defence policy as anti Semitism? A disapproval of their conduct of war and occupation of areas that do not belong to them internationally and their casual acceptance of civilian deaths as collateral when they say they target Hammas hiding in houses and using human shields, and a declaration that it is unacceptable, is that anti-Semitic too?

 

Reasoned arguments aren't welcome on this thread John. You have an opinion that's not slavish support of Israel you're an anti-semite. Pathetic but predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you include a dislike of Israeli nationalism and foreign and defence policy as anti Semitism? A disapproval of their conduct of war and occupation of areas that do not belong to them internationally and their casual acceptance of civilian deaths as collateral when they say they target Hammas hiding in houses and using human shields, and a declaration that it is unacceptable, is that anti-Semitic too?

 

No...

 

Reasoned arguments aren't welcome on this thread John. You have an opinion that's not slavish support of Israel you're an anti-semite. Pathetic but predictable.

 

O_o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you include a dislike of Israeli nationalism and foreign and defence policy as anti Semitism? A disapproval of their conduct of war and occupation of areas that do not belong to them internationally and their casual acceptance of civilian deaths as collateral when they say they target Hammas hiding in houses and using human shields, and a declaration that it is unacceptable, is that anti-Semitic too?

 

''Casual acceptance of civilian deaths...'' You have to ask yourself why there are so many civilian casualties in the first place. Most Israeli's don't want civilians to die or be injured but the fact remains that most Gaza civilians see themselves at war with the hated Jew, combatant or civilian, they want to spill Jewish blood.

 

Why are there no bomb-shelters in Gaza?

 

Here's why.... http://www.arabnews.com/news/602511 an arab publication, short on translation but if you bother to read it (probably not!) you''ll catch the drift.

 

And here, from the Israeli point of view.... http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/guest-blog/contentions-why-gaza-doesnt-have-bomb-shelters/2014/07/14/

 

An Italian reporter, recently returned from Gaza, said he'd seen hamas deliberately herd civilians into an area from where rockets were fired. Most of the women and children knew what was coming after the first salvo of rockets were fired- i.e., the Israeli response. On trying to leave the area they were forced to remain- at gun-point! So, pray tell, what are your learned views on this behaviour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you include a dislike of Israeli nationalism and foreign and defence policy as anti Semitism? A disapproval of their conduct of war and occupation of areas that do not belong to them internationally and their casual acceptance of civilian deaths as collateral when they say they target Hammas hiding in houses and using human shields, and a declaration that it is unacceptable, is that anti-Semitic too?

With a lot of respect, I believe that the use of the third person plural is potentially problematic in this context. I don't think it ever works to start talking about a "they". They are not all representing one thing. These are separate and more nuanced individual issues which each deserve a separate conversation.

 

The, so-called, occupied territories were taken defensively in wars which Israel did not start. A country which is attacked has every right IMO to occupy a buffer zone until the underlying reasons for the initial attack are resolved. And WRT the illegal occupations: Most Israelis do not support the illegal occupations. The occupiers are also in dispute (often violent dispute) with the Israeli govt. Though some of the occupations are built on land which the occupiers have actually bought. And some of the occupiers are more about the geography than they are about Israel even being a state. It is a very complicated story. All that said - the illegal occupations are a minor side issue.

 

Personally, I don't like any nationalism. Anywhere. But I support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself. And after almost 70 years it should be accepted as fact. I deplore the fact that Hamas uses human shields. This is well documented. It is a great pity that the Arab nations rejected the 1947 UN proposals (the two state solution) - it was the 1947 war, more than anything else, which resulted in families being displaced. It is, equally, a great pity that the UN does not by now have an army which is capable of going into an area and imposing peace. The expulsion from Jordan, the behaviour of the PLO, was equally part of the problem.

 

I don't see how there will be progress until people reject everything which Hamas represents. But I don't know how the world will get there unless the UN ultimately has an army with teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The, so-called, occupied territories were taken defensively in wars which Israel did not start. A country which is attacked has every right IMO to occupy a buffer zone until the underlying reasons for the initial attack are resolved. And WRT the illegal occupations: Most Israelis do not support the illegal occupations. The occupiers are also in dispute (often violent dispute) with the Israeli govt. Though some of the occupations are built on land which the occupiers have actually bought. And some of the occupiers are more about the geography than they are about Israel even being a state. It is a very complicated story. All that said - the illegal occupations are a minor side issue.

 

The underlying reason for the conflict was in fact the settlement of Palestine. Israel was the aggressor in this conflict in as much as it began forcibly seizing land from Palestinians and from what was de jure Palestine. It's not a side issue.

 

Arab nationalism along with Islamic fundamentalism were largely a reaction to this settlement. Without settlement there would be no Hamas. A conflict under these circumstances was inevitable and forseeable. When you march into another country, force out its people, and abuse them in various ways, you can expect a bit of trouble from them.

 

Now people almost seem to be saying that Hamas has sprung up from nowhere for unknown reasons and randomly started firing rockets into poor innocent Israel's territory, and all Israel is doing is defending itself!

 

Edit because quote function is shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underlying reason for the conflict was in fact the settlement of Palestine. Israel was the aggressor in this conflict in as much as it began forcibly seizing land from Palestinians and from what was de jure Palestine. It's not a side issue.

 

Complete bollocks. There was no nation called "Palestine". It was a geographic region of the British Mandate which was then turned into Israel. Israel was for the Jews, and Transjordan was for the Arabs.

 

Jordan_british-mandatemap_03_25a007974a.

 

The Arabs got greedy and wanted it all, hence the 1948 war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So TJ what are you going to do with the 4 or so million people who live in Gaza and the West Bank?

 

They quite definitely have an aspiration for sovereignty and don't want to be under Israeli control.

 

You can debate the contested history of this issue til the cows come home, but it's been recognized for a long long time now that Israel can't monopolize sovereignty over these people without being oppressive, or remove them from the region without reasonably being accused of ethnic cleansing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...