Kenan Malik on why anti-Zionism is a good thing.

Some months ago, Kenan Malik- a scientist by training- wrote as follows in the Guardian. Do the arguments he puts forward, for immunizing anti-Zionism from laws re. hate speech, have a logical structure? Are his utterances such as we would expect from a scientist?

Let us see-

Critics of anti-Zionism observe that Zionism simply expresses the right of Jewish people to self-determination.

The Jewish people have created a prosperous and highly viable Zionist State. They can defend it against all comers. Israel has both de facto and de jure existence under British law. 'The right to self-determination' of some foreign people, however, is not justiciable in either British or European Courts.

Critics of anti-Zionism may be stupid. They may put forward silly arguments. But, a scientist does not evaluate a hypothesis entirely on the basis of what 'critics' or 'supporters' say. She has to apply her own mind and hit upon the relevant 'structural causal model' which explains what is observed.

Just as other peoples, from Armenians to Zimbabweans, have the right to self-determination, so do Jews.

Rights are meaningless unless there is a justiciable remedy under a bond of law. Israel came into existence not because some Court decision which was enforced by a third party. Israelis declared independence on the basis of a UN resolution which the Arabs did not accept. It then defeated the Arabs and signed armistice treaties with them. Two Arab powers- Egypt and Jordan- annexed territory in the Mandate area. No Palestinian 'right to self determination' was recognized by anyone at that time. The UK and other countries like India recognized Israel within a short period.

To deny that is antisemitic because it is to deny Jews the rights accorded to others.

This is certainly the argument put forward by the leading Jewish organization in the U.K. Why have they taken this particular approach? The answer is that they, but not Kenan Malik who is of subcontinental origin, are aware that many Muslims, more particularly those from Pakistan, believe that there is a hadith to the effect that the Jews will have 'a river of gold' but never have a land of their own.

In other words, there is a common religious basis for both anti-semitism (the belief that the Jews are 'cursed' because they did not accept Christ, or- later on- Muhammad) as well as anti-Zionism.

This makes Judaism and the State of Israel wholly exceptional. Nobody says that any other 'nation' is the subject of this sort of Scriptural prophesy though, it is true, in the past there were some places- e.g. Apartheid South Africa- where there was an absurd belief that the 'descendants of Ham' must be servants to the White Race.

However, the issue is more complex. When Scots voted in their independence referendum in 2016, all residents of Scotland who were over 16, and were British, EU or Commonwealth citizens, had the right to vote. The right to self-determination did not extend to all those of Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland.

How is this relevant? The terms of the referendum were set by Westminster where English MPs, not Scottish legislators, predominate. Had American people of Scottish origin had a vote the outcome may well have been very different.

The Zionist notion of “self-determination”, on the other hand, embodies the idea that Jews anywhere in the world “self-determine” and that such self-determination relates to a state in which the vast majority of Jews do not and will not live.

This is purely a matter for the State of Israel. Every country has different laws regarding Nationality. Thus an Indian whose ancestors were domiciled in Portuguese ruled territory can claim Portuguese nationality and come to Europe and settle there. No similar facility is accorded to Indians or Pakistanis from British ruled territory- though this was not the case prior to the early Sixties.

Zionism is a form of ethnic, as opposed to civic, nationalism.

So what? Germany chose to give Nationality on the basis of descent from Germans. Britain gave Nationality, till recently, on the basis of birth. Thus I am not eligible for German Nationality though I was born in Bonn. Had I been born in London, I'd have received automatic British citizenship.

Nationality laws are purely a matter for individual Nations. We may think them unfair but our opinions don't count unless we have the requisite Nationality.

The distinction between the two is fiercely contested, and often blurred. Many modern states fuse elements of both in nationality and immigration laws. Nevertheless, the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism is important because they embody contrasting conceptions of national belonging, citizenship, equality and rights.

How is the distinction important? Does Malik have any proof that 'ethnic nationalism' leads to inferior outcomes than 'civic nationalism'? It is true that many Arabs are Israeli citizens- that is an example of 'civic nationalism'. It is not true that the sizable Palestinian origin population of Saudi Arabia has much chance of getting Saudi nationality. That is 'ethnic nationalism'. No doubt, we may feel that Israel will do better in the long run than Saudi Arabia but the fact remains that many Saudi citizens enjoyed a far better life-style than most Israelis precisely because the benefits of citizenship were denied to immigrants.

Israel itself combines aspects of civic and ethnic nationalism. As the late historian Tony Judt put it in an essay for the New York Review of Books, Israel is both a democracy in which non-Jews can be citizens and “a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded” and from which Palestinians grievously suffer.

The same is true of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or Bangladesh.  

Judt faced great opprobrium for that essay, with many reviling him as “antisemitic” or a “self-hating Jew”.
To oppose Zionism but not other forms of ethnic nationalism would indeed be antisemitic. But to oppose Zionism because one opposes ethnic nationalism is a legitimate view.

If one opposes ethnic nationalism one should prioritize opposition to those States where non-citizens suffer the most egregiously. Yet we don't see anti-Zionists open their remarks with condemnations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States before proceeding to excoriate Clinton and Obama as 'deporters in chief' before ending a long peroration with a mention of countries like Bhutan (which expelled Nepalese origin people) Pakistan and Israel.

It is not legitimate to excuse an attack on a particular peoples, where others are more egregious offenders, on the basis that one is guided by a moral or ethical principle.

Judt, who in early life was a Zionist, came eventually to accept that the only lasting solution would be a single, secular state in which both Jews and Palestinians were treated equally.

So, the man was a cretin. Iraq and Syria were 'single, secular states'. Look at them now.

For anti-Zionists like Judt, “self-determination” in that piece of contested land that is Israel/Palestine should adhere to principles of civic, not ethnic, nationalism; that is, be the self-determination of the people, and only the people, who live there, whether Jews or Palestinians.

The Israeli electorate have overwhelmingly rejected Judt's view. Why? Because the fellow was a cretin. He was talking about pie in the sky.
Similarly, there is no prospect that Saudi Arabia will give citizenship to people born there. Rather, it will deport them if they can't pull their weight. Currently, children born to non-citizens can't even attend college in Saudi Arabia. If Malik is so exercised about 'civic nationalism' why is he not attacking Saudi Arabia? He is welcome to go there and raise a hue and cry on this issue. What is preventing from doing so? After all, there are millions of people, who look like him and are of the same cultural heritage, who are the victims of the Kingdom's 'ethnic nationalism'.

This kind of anti-Zionism is very different from that which calls for the “destruction of the state of Israel”, usually (a not very veiled) code for the destruction of Jews.

It is also wholly useless. The fact is people in the region are envious of the safety and prosperity that Israeli Arabs enjoy- at least in comparison with what is currently being suffered by many Syrians and Iraqis and so forth.

The latter is a form of anti-Zionism that refuses to acknowledge the presence of more than 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, whose rights, needs and aspirations are as central as those of Palestinians to any discussion of the region’s future.

What a wonderful discovery! Malik says wanting to kill all the Jews and grab their stuff is 'a form of anti-Zionism'! What's next? Will he discover that the demand that all women be raped to death is a form of misogyny?

Why distinguish stupid shit which pretends to be principled from the ravings of nutters? Why should we award a gold star for a person who says 'women should be veiled. In this way men will be less likely to rape them to death'? Why not simply tell the fellow to go fuck himself to death? Let him cover himself with a veil while doing so in order to lessen the indecency of the spectacle.

There are, in other words, many forms of anti-Zionism, some progressive, some antisemitic.

There are many forms of misogyny. But there is no 'progressive' form of it. No doubt, there are people in Iran and Saudi Arabia who point out that Iranian women have a higher chance of getting a STEM subject degree or that Saudi Arabian women are more likely to have a lot of wealth. But this does not mean that the restrictions on women in those countries aren't misogynistic. Similarly, anti-Zionism is a mischievous nuisance which must be curbed, if it is safe to do so. If isn't, emigrate. The polity is going down a very bad road.

What has shifted is that leftwing ideas of anti-Zionism have become increasingly colonised by antisemitic forms. The reasons are complex, ranging from evolving notions of “anti-imperialism” to the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories.

Rubbish! The Left has turned to shit because it is no longer concerned with helping working class people have a better quality of life. Thus, the 'progressives' are all, now, utter shitheads.

Imperialism disappeared long ago because it couldn't pay for itself. There are no 'evolving notions of 'anti-imperialism'- there is only paranoid raving and shitting the bed. 'Mainstreaming of conspiracy theories' means 'in the main, the Left has gone completely bonkers. These guys are nutters who believe absurd shite about how the Queen is a Lizard person and 9/11 was carried out by the local PTA which is under the control of mind-rays emanating from my neighbor's cat.

One key development that has helped foster the shift is the growth of the politics of identity and of the tendency to see “good” and “bad” in terms of the group to which someone belongs and the privileges that they are supposed to possess.

Why not simply say 'Identity Politics' is narcissistic garbage? It is the reason 'Third Wave' feminism fucked up so badly. Literature Departments turned to shit because of 'Post Colonial' stupidity. History Departments turned to shit because of 'Subaltern Studies' cretinism. Philosophy Depts. are being anally raped by the Animal Rights nutjobs. Political Correctness had empowered the Administrator and impoverished the scholar. The entire credentialized Ponzi scheme has collapsed leaving millions of student in a debt trap.

Identity politics has led many to target Jews for being Jews, especially as they are seen as belonging to a group with many privileges to check, and to hold all Jews responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.

That's why we need a law which will put these stupid cunts in jail when they start shitting all over the place.

Many who support the Palestinian cause, including many within the Labour party, seem genuinely unable to distinguish between criticising Israel and sowing hatred against a people.

But these guys are principally concerned with fucking up the working class of their own countries while gaining some shitty little sinecure for themselves.

The elision of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is a feature, then, of both sides of the debate.

But the debate is useless. Anti-semitism is illegal. Anti-Zionism should be. Why? The thing is a nuisance. We can't do anything for Palestinians- save give them money or visas- and it is pointless to pretend otherwise.

On the one side, it helps to legitimise antisemitism, on the other to close down debates about Israel and to criminalise genuine struggles for Palestinian rights. We should reject both.

Genuine struggles for Palestinian rights don't occur in England. They occur in luxury resorts in the Maldives. Why? England has shitty weather. By contrast, I will happily struggle for Palestinian rights while sipping a cocktail at a swim-up bar filled with super-models. So would millions of working class Britons. But the expense would bankrupt our country. So let us reject both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as well as Corbyn and his lunatic crew.

Einstein is supposed to have said 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.'  Leftists have been saying and doing the same thing over and over again expecting a result different from what has obtained- viz. the Zionist state has gone from strength to strength while Arabs have again and again failed at nation building. Let us call a halt to this stupidity. Outlaw Anti-Zionism. Jail a few of these sad nutters. Stop them wasting everybody's time with their stupidity. That is the scientific solution.