Anti-semitism is not anti-Judaism. I am no expert, but I believe that the semitic language was used by Jews and Arabs. However, most people use the term to mean anti-Judaism. Contests over the meaning of language become political conflicts when people invest emotions in a narrative. Rather than being able to decide on the validity of a narrative based on its congruence to external events, its internal logic, or the authenticity of its author, the validity becomes decided upon which opponent can raise the greatest emotional force to back their argument, e.g. which opponent has 'God on their side'.
Ken Livingstone has said that it is a historical fact that when Hitler came to power in 1932 he wanted to relocate Germany's Jews to Israel. Is that true? I don't know. However, by his own logic Naz Shah was therefore on decidedly dodgy territory suggesting that the Israeli State should be relocated anywhere. The most charitable position on her comments that the State of Israel should be relocated to America suggest that she was only making the point that the US should stay out of Middle Eastern politics. This sort of statement is typical of the pro-Palestinian, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, left-wing militants that Jeremy Corbyn has been assumed to be attracting into the Labour Party: Hence its political interest and its potential for division within the party.
As I understand it the pro-Israeli lobby would not necessarily have a problem with the US keeping out of Middle Eastern politics. But what they do object to is the political assumption that the US is only involved in Israeli politics, and not Egyptian, Libyian, Syrian, Iraqi, etc. politics; or that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a problem with external influence of its internal democratic power structures. That's a fair enough point and an argument that has value in terms of laying a pathway towards peace within the region and away from 'tribal' conflicts. Within this context it is perhaps fairer to say that Ken and Naz's statements were condemnable because they were 'anti-Peace' rather than being 'pro-Nazi'. Portraying them as 'pro-Nazi' could, in itself, also be deemed as inflammatory. Such condemnation could also be construed as attempting to influence the internal democratic power structures of the UK Labour Party. It is probably no coincidence that Tony Blair was the UN's Middle East Peace Envoy from 2007-2015. So perhaps the position he has now vacated has become something of a political battleground within (and outside of?) the Party.
In the end I don't believe anyone seriously believes anyone in the Labour Party is actually intending to try and relocate the Israeli State to down-town USA. But I think plenty of people are trying to relocate the reasons for the current crisis in the Middle East intellectually to some other place in space-time. From my reading of history I can see a clear historical link between the current wars in the Middle East and turn of the century political life in Vienna (involving Hitler, Marx, Freud and the then Mayor of Vienna, apparently); the First and Second World Wars; the subsequent Cold War; and the eventual creation of the European Union. Thus, in this context the current 'crisis' is actually just another aftershock of the 'Arab Spring'. That it should erupt on the streets of London at a time when the country is trying to decide its role in Europe through the referendum is probably to be expected. But it is not a conflict that is restricted to the Labour Party. The Labour Party has been debating these problems for years; it has been a significant part of many difficult peace processes, in many different regions in the world, for many years. That it has the honesty to face these challenges is to be commended. In the end, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" as Winston Churchill, one of the founding fathers of the European Union once said.
Ken Livingstone has said that it is a historical fact that when Hitler came to power in 1932 he wanted to relocate Germany's Jews to Israel. Is that true? I don't know. However, by his own logic Naz Shah was therefore on decidedly dodgy territory suggesting that the Israeli State should be relocated anywhere. The most charitable position on her comments that the State of Israel should be relocated to America suggest that she was only making the point that the US should stay out of Middle Eastern politics. This sort of statement is typical of the pro-Palestinian, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, left-wing militants that Jeremy Corbyn has been assumed to be attracting into the Labour Party: Hence its political interest and its potential for division within the party.
As I understand it the pro-Israeli lobby would not necessarily have a problem with the US keeping out of Middle Eastern politics. But what they do object to is the political assumption that the US is only involved in Israeli politics, and not Egyptian, Libyian, Syrian, Iraqi, etc. politics; or that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a problem with external influence of its internal democratic power structures. That's a fair enough point and an argument that has value in terms of laying a pathway towards peace within the region and away from 'tribal' conflicts. Within this context it is perhaps fairer to say that Ken and Naz's statements were condemnable because they were 'anti-Peace' rather than being 'pro-Nazi'. Portraying them as 'pro-Nazi' could, in itself, also be deemed as inflammatory. Such condemnation could also be construed as attempting to influence the internal democratic power structures of the UK Labour Party. It is probably no coincidence that Tony Blair was the UN's Middle East Peace Envoy from 2007-2015. So perhaps the position he has now vacated has become something of a political battleground within (and outside of?) the Party.
In the end I don't believe anyone seriously believes anyone in the Labour Party is actually intending to try and relocate the Israeli State to down-town USA. But I think plenty of people are trying to relocate the reasons for the current crisis in the Middle East intellectually to some other place in space-time. From my reading of history I can see a clear historical link between the current wars in the Middle East and turn of the century political life in Vienna (involving Hitler, Marx, Freud and the then Mayor of Vienna, apparently); the First and Second World Wars; the subsequent Cold War; and the eventual creation of the European Union. Thus, in this context the current 'crisis' is actually just another aftershock of the 'Arab Spring'. That it should erupt on the streets of London at a time when the country is trying to decide its role in Europe through the referendum is probably to be expected. But it is not a conflict that is restricted to the Labour Party. The Labour Party has been debating these problems for years; it has been a significant part of many difficult peace processes, in many different regions in the world, for many years. That it has the honesty to face these challenges is to be commended. In the end, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" as Winston Churchill, one of the founding fathers of the European Union once said.
No comments:
Post a Comment