Banning Zionists “self-defeating and unwise”
JVL Introduction
At a time when Zionists are trumpeting their support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza in increasingly hateful terms, suggesting that people who wear the Zionist label should be given a platform may understandably be met with outrage and incredulity in some Palestine solidarity circles.
How is it possible for any anti-racist activist, who detests Israeli apartheid and wholeheartedly condemns the ongoing genocide, nonetheless to retain some emotional attachment to the idea of a Jewish state? Can a Jewish person taking this view expect to be welcome in pro-Palestinian spaces?
The ever-thoughtful Peter Beinart, whose own renunciation of Zionism is quite recent, tackles this issue head on in his latest video. We publish a transcript below. The comments beneath it on Beinart’s Substack are, in the main, a model of reasoned discussion about a very emotive and difficult issue.
NWI
This article was originally published by The Beinart Notebook on Mon 26 Aug 2024. Read the original here.
Let Zionists Speak
Loading article text…
Free speech is not the issue here, it’s Genocide
Jews don’t commit Genocide Zionists clearly do
Most Polling in Israel indicates only 2% oppose the Genocide the rest think its not happening fast enough
There is no space for those complicit in such crimes against Humanity
They can defend themselves at the Hague
I think he makes a good point. It was through a lengthy period of discussion that eventually brought Peter himself round to a different viewpoint. Of course, we think that time is of the essence, and it is, as another 20,000 homes for settlers has just been authorised, but until we are able to radically change the viewpoint of as many Zionists as possible, we will still be stuck in the horrendous cycle of violence that we’ve been witnessing for a very long time.
A few days ago we had a detailed article called “Cancelled – and not by innocents” posted on this website. It dealt with the way two pro-Israel operatives objected to a rather witty joke about the behaviour of the State of Israel. They then tried to shut down any discussion by calling the rest of the audience ‘Hamas apologists’. It attracted a lot of attention including 9 comments. All objected to their actions.
Trying to ban Zionists from speaking is this kind of behaviour in reverse looks like hypocrisy. On the wall behind the statue of George Orwell outside Broadcasting House, the headquarters of the BBC, are inscribed his words, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. And that means letting Zionists speak. It does not mean you or I have to believe them or agree with them.
I sort of agree with this. But we’ve spent years accommodating people who have vague ‘affinities’ with Zionism. If we can’t expose people to the brutal truth of the reality and not the fantasy we are not true to ourselves.
I accept of course there is a role for political education but there is no room for fiction over fact and I’m not sure there is much to be gained from a softly softly approach now, rather than taking a harder one on conditions of engagement and I’d take my lead from Palestinians not the Jewish ‘community’.
This is good to read, especially following Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi’s appearance on the Crispin Flintoff show last Sunday , where she made a similarly nuanced and thoughtful commentary regarding “no-platforming.” Disgracefully, she faced some hostile comments on the online chat, including some who called her a “Zionist apologist.”
I don’t agree with banning Zionists speaking – they’re easily defeated in debate and v good at excluding themselves…. But this argument that there are different types of Zionism is tiresome, particularly when we are in the midst of a Zionist genocide. Should we have accommodated to the different kinds of apartheid South Africans adhered to? Or racisms against black peoples? I’ve listened to many racists explain to me, in detail, why their form of racism has nothing to do with injustice. Yes be polite, yes debate where we should and can but stop giving excuses for Zionism
Having seen Zionists on various platforms blindingly outing the heinous ideology they adhere to and exposed ( unwittingly) the hysterical racist hate of Zionism, I’d say let them carry on destroying themselves.. BUT the constant barrage of it will attract like minded white Supremacists to their cause.. So this warm fuzzy allowance of Hate Speech wrapped up as Freedom of Speech is a double edged sword I’m sorry to say.. Would we have ” allowed ” the Nazis to have their platform? No.. so why allowed Zionists…Modern day Nazism..to carry on spreading their Lies & Propaganda
The following may have value as regards some aspects of this: A deep attachment to the land does not necessitate any ownership, never mind exclusive ownership. A Scot atop a Ben will tell you the glory he surveys is all his, irrespective, without any plans of conquest or reconquest. Anyone who has any attachment to landscape will have similarly have locations that mean a lot too them. There is that love of our common heritage, with or without specific cultural and historical attachments, and there is also theft. One is beautiful and wants to preserve and share the joy it has found, and the other is ugly, covetous and almost invariably destructive.
Calling something ‘Hate Speech’ is an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact, just as it was when the one time Home Secretary Sue Ellen Braverman (the Suella is an affectation) called the support for the Palestinians on the streets of London ‘Hate Marches’.
Peter Beinart makes the argument that Zionism is often a default position for many Jews, a nice warm sense of belonging and insurance in case of future danger, but when confronted with the fact that in Israel it means that non Jews do not have equal rights, Zionists often change their perspectives. I am not sure about that. It has been plain for so many years what zionism in practice means. And yet when confronting zionists with this reality and I remember arguments around Sabra and Shatilla, they find rationale for Israel’s actions. No one seeing what Israel is doing today can have any doubts about the reality of zionism and that it not only means inequlity but also means the destruction of Palestinian life. Yet instead of learning from this we see a doubling down in defence of the indefensible by most zionists. I have no problems debating with zionists except that they do not debate, they lie when cornered and often resort to shouting their opponents down. It really muddies debate. But it is hard to talk to people willing to justify slaughter to those in pain from the death of their families and heritage. No one here would allow holocaust denial and yet we seem rather sanguine about the genocide denial perpetrated by too many zionists.
The following is from katlyn johnston’s latest post:
Something similar is happening in Australia, where high-profile journalist Mary Kostakidis faces charges of violating the Racial Discrimination Act for two retweets about Israel and Hezbollah which offended the Zionist Federation of Australia. This move came shortly after the Australian government appointed its first “anti-semitism envoy”, a move many feared would lead to crackdowns on speech that is critical of Israel:
I always want the widest field for debate – even though I’ve been yelled at and practically assaulted by a ZF member! Would it make sense for us ALL not to carry flags on anti-racist demonstrations? Carrying solidarity flags on Gaza solidarity protests is obviously essential.
It is difficult for non Jews to understand the nuances of the ‘Zionist’ meanings when even Jews have different understandings. We have seen in history and the recent past how ‘labels’ can be hijacked for a particular group. Critical Thinking is always the casualty .The IHRA and the conflagration of anti semitism and anti zionism is a typical example. It becomes an academic exercise which I’m afraid the ‘ordinary’ public hasn’t the time to unravel but is used by ‘certain actors’ to further causes