Rayvin

How is that not converting into the EU elections polling?

Thanks man, really informative contribution. Appreciated.

Not disputing what you're saying, but where is the evidence that they were privately happy with it. I've only gone so far as Wikipedia but it notes that Arab and Muslim leaders rejected it...? Not disagreeing with the points about external forces accelerating us to the position we find ourselves in.

So you were about to tell me that the Palestinians consented to the creation of Israel? Curious you didn't opt to do that in your previous contributions, since my position was unchanged over a few posts It's almost like you didn't know either.

Yes, that's quite possible. I started all of this with a genuine question as I set out quite clearly. At some point, there is going to have to be acceptance of the fact that unlike most people on here, I debate things to better inform myself Would have been interesting to see what your response would have been had acrossthepond not bailed you out there though BTW - feel free to answer the questions I asked acrossthepond on his behalf.

I don't think that, don't worry. Actually I can see how it comes across that way. When I say Palestinians I'm thinking more of how we now come to call them that, but I suppose that pre-Israel, both Jewish people and Muslims would have been Palestinians. My bad.

Ah nice, I learned something. Well, that changes things then. Why did the other Arab states refusing it 'on their behalf' turn into a lasting Palestinian resistance? Was the body that accepted it on behalf of Palestine made up of actual Palestinians? (i.e. it wasn't the British or the Jews?) Still don't think this course of action was worth all the death, but at least if this is true it was closer to an accident rather than willful stupidity and racism.

If fewer people die because of the consent of the surrounding people, then yes, yes I am saying that. How many human lives are worth "part of the shared history in some shape or form"? We're at over 8000 at the moment.

I wouldn't even rape you. Would be hilarious if that tweet killed Sargon's political career. Not convinced it will though..

Are you saying under the circumstances that, had it been your decision, you would have chosen to bring about this chaos Palestine and the many deaths that have resulted from it? Irrespective of the fact that it wasn't yours to give?

Yeah this shit is only going to get worse. Sargon has a fairly big following these days and definitely has political ambitions. And is running as an MEP candidate.

Yeah I agree with that too. And I can see the historical reasons for it being Israel. What I'm not really ok with is that a bunch of relatively powerless people were shafted and now appear to be openly persecuted, had no say in any of the process, and were basically told to accept it by a bunch of rich, white fucks. By which I mean, for the lamentable requirement for clarity, the US and Western European nations, not the Jews. Why couldn't they have been given a homeland in a Western European country? EDIT - I mean... we've killed roughly 6 million Jewish people but we'll make it up to you by giving you the land these brown people have been living in for about a thousand years, that we latterly came to own through colonialism.

I'm not totally sure what point you're making here. I looked into it further anyway, and suppose you mean the crusades (which I consider to be separate to what we broadly consider to be colonialism but I can see the logic). Apart from what looks like a few years when the Jews were fighting the Romans though, it appears it was Arab owned (later Muslim) for about 1500 years, with the exception of a 200 year Christian/Mongol/Muslim clusterfuck. None of which means we can't say that this land is theirs, but I think if you're going to go back and rewrite wrongs from 1500 years ago in the same way that has been done for Israel... I mean the USA ceases to exist on the spot, for one thing.

Oh right, I remember that now. Sorry

I've reflected on it more anyway, and even the first part of my previous statement was nonsense. Clearly an idea can be racially problematic. Ethnic cleansing for instance is a political position which clearly is racially motivated and should be considered utterly untouchable. I suppose then that all things being equal, the contention about Zionism comes down to whether or not it is 'racist' to deny Jewish people the right to take over the homeland of another group of people without the latter's consent, but while knowing that this was, some 500 years ago, actually a Jewish country.

Well fuck

I'm not going to agree that attacking Zionism makes someone antisemitic by definition because once you get into the area of 'ideas' being untouchable and conflated with unchangeable attributes like race, it's a race to the bottom for ideologies all over the place. I will agree that 100% of antisemites will be anti-Zionists.

The Ottomans, according to Google, took over in 1517 and held it for about 400 years. That's pre-colonialism for the white European powers. Not that I'm completely sure why we're arguing this particular point.

Ok yes, I see this.

Given I'm embroiled in an argument about the rest of the statement, who the fuck knows.

Yeah that's not the same. I could be an advocate for Zionism without being Jewish. If someone attacked me for it would that mean they were being antisemitic to me despite the fact that I'm not Jewish?

Was it not the Ottomans that kicked them out of Israel?

Well anti-semitism is of course a hatred of Jewish people, and Zionism is a political movement. That's my basis for the statement.

Zionism pertaining to the creation of a Jewish homeland? Does it specify that it has to be Israel? I think my longstanding difficulty with this has been that a bunch of non-white people were effectively shat upon from a great height. Had a Jewish homeland been somehow created in a white European state, or maybe if it had been developed gradually over time in the middle east, then I personally wouldn't have any discomfort with the situation. And I do feel that a homeland is vital to them and that they should of course have one (as should we all, I suppose). Does that make me a Zionist?

I think the "genuine Jews" comment is leading towards some manner of anti-semitic statement for sure. Is that the main issue? I'm just a bit concerned that the main issue might be the attack on "Zionists". This is of course clearly not antisemitism (and would affect non-Jews in Labour as well, if I understand it correctly).