Oh heck I get political

There has been a lot written about  Anti-Semitism in our society, especially  in the Labour Party.  I have been very concerned about this so I have done a lot of reading, texting and listening and I have come to conclusion that the vast majority of the claims about anti-Semitism in the party labour are more about Corbyn and the labour position on Palestine than anything else.

I do not doubt that there are anti-Jewish people in the labour party, and that there are those who use anti-Semitic rhetoric (sometimes unaware of the racial/religious charge of their words) though stupidity is no excuse as there is no place in public life for anti-Semitic, islamophobic, racist, homophobic, religionist hate speech of any kind.   To  pick on anyone because they are “other” is  morally wrong and stupid -  we are all different  but all share a common humanity

The Aniti-semitism problem has been compounded by those who conflate Judaism and Zionism.

Judaism means you hold a religious faith in the Jewish expression of God and the scriptures of the jewish peoples, or that you are person descended from that community and still identify with that community and its culture.

Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment of and support for a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine).Modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement, both in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and as a response to the Jewish Enlightenment  (Wikipedia)  Ie a political ideology.

I of the opinion that conflation this is not only lazy but also stupid and dangerous thinking, which unfortunately is apparently shared by the present Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis according to his own words in 2016. If he is not guilty of lazy thinking then he is guilty of  deliberately dangerous and  divisive  thinking in doing so.  Whilst he does not represent every Jew in the country -  only a little over  one third  - like the Archbishop of Canterbury, he is seen to speak on behalf of all.

To conflate a political philosophy with a religion or ethnic community is wholly wrong. It turns those who do not hold that political view into racists even if they hold the same faith or of the same ethnicity. So according to Mirvis not to be a Zionist means you aren’t a good Jew,  even discriminatory to your own community.  It is even worse for someone outside that community who does not agree with that political philosophy, they are are  seen as rabid racists when all they are is someone who disagrees politically with you.   It is basically insane.

Why insane ?  Because it actually demeans and weakens real hate speech against your community. The Jewish community has been the subject of appalling racism for century after century.   To equate that with a political disagreement  is blind stupidity, it allows real anti Semites to say they are non zionists and are being called out for that.   What Mirvis is trying to do, is to hide a still controversial idea in religion and there is nothing good that will come out of that.  

Whilst I personally believe the modern idea of Zionism, an idea whereby a Jewish person of any nationality have a “right to return” to Israel bizarre.  This almost seems to be a willing cooperation in a weird international ghettoization of a community,  which cannot be good for anyone, either those in the ghetto, or those deprived of the variety of culture in their societies. 

Whilst I can understand why after the long persecution, Jewish people want a safe place to live but i am far from convinced the present setup in Israel/Palestine is that safe or this ghetto is good for us all, including those who lived there before 1948.   Surely the ultimate safety lies in being part of an open pluralistic society that strives to rid itself of true hatred is the best place. To create false hysteria is counterproductive,  to identify faith with a political creed damages  both the believer and the politician

The next bit gets religious!

I am in no way unaware that there is a religious element to the “return” to land God gave to the Abraham and Moses. But it also clear to me that the gift was always dependent on a good relationship between the people and God and that included good governance and respect for people not of the faith who lived in the land.   And the Hebrew scriptures make it very clear that God can be worshipped away from this Promised Land.   I share with many Jews and many Muslims, a desire to walk the street of Jerusalem, to be in that place where God spoke to us weedy humans would be inspiring, but today it seems that all the richness of God is being squeezed out as much as it was in AD 70, or in the Babylonian captivity.

I would not want to walk the streets of a city at war with itself, torn apart by injustice, violence and rage.   That pain was caused by Zionism, that pain is made worse by a darker twisted Zionism that declares non-Jews to be less Israeli than Jews. 

That last sentence is the point of view that Mirvis describes as anti-Semitic.   I suspect that there are other people who would express their opposition more crudely and then there is a risk of getting into truly anti-Semitic language when people only think they are being anti Netanyahu. 

That is why Mirvis is wrong, either stupid or wicked to conflate faith and a political opinion because it releases the poison back into society and some good don’t even realise that they are doing it. Personally I think Mirvis is a lightweight and so lean heavily to the stupid interpretation.