I’m not entirely sure why, but I’ve had reason to share this post a few times recently. This time, the occasion that warrants it is a debate currently underway within The Green Party.
It was reported yesterday (Times) that the Greens have put forward a motion within the party – that is, a matter for debate not settled policy – to define Zionism as racism. When it was put to their party leader – Zack Polanski, himself a British Jew – the statement answer was that he would back such a motion ‘if it were tied to the actions of the Israeli government.’
The minor bit of nuance here is that Polanski took the headline statement on Zionism and argued there are all manner or different definitions of Zionism. He insisted he would only back the motion if Zionism was tightly tied to specific actions of the Israeli government saying, ‘If we’re talking about the definition that this Israeli government are clearly perpetrating through a genocide in Gaza, then yes, absolutely. That’s racist.’
The Times further report:
Documents pertaining to the motion, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, argue that Israel should not exist because the “only viable solution” is a “single” Palestinian state, and suggest that the term “antisemitism” should not be used because it discriminates against Arabs. The Jewish Greens are urging party members to vote against the motion.
They go on to state:
In a statement, the Jewish Greens said: “This is not your run-of-the-mill motion opposing Israel’s actions (something that Jewish Greens would have no problem with), but something much more problematic that is likely to make Jews feel unwelcome in the Green Party.”
They added: “We urge Green Party members to listen to their Jewish comrades within the party, and consider whether this motion is appropriate for the type of party they want to be in.
“Especially worrying, and a significant step-change from previous conference motions, is the rather authoritarian implication to not only condemn Zionism, but to actively proscribe members who consider themselves (or who others accuse of being) Zionists.”
Which brings to my sharing of the article below.
I am very sympathetic to the quoted statement of the Jewish Greens here. I am also conscious that the Greens are in danger of alienating people like me who hold a view like the one I outline in the article below. I don’t think anybody reading what I have written there would consider it an apology for the Netanyahu government. I am similarly concerned – in line with the Jewish Greens – that it is likely to alienate an awful lot of Jews who might well be as critical of the Israeli government as those proposing the motion whilst still nevertheless being “Zionist” in the sense described in the post below.
As I understand it, Zionism is nothing more than the belief that Jewish people have the right to their own land. Which makes a sweeping motion arguing that Zionism is racist something of a problem, even if you disagree with the Zionist project. I am, as I argue in the post below, not even an ideological Zionist – I do not believe Jewish people have an inherent right to their own land. I am, at best, a pragmatic Zionist. Defining pragmatic Zionism simply as the ability to exist in a Jewish homeland out of necessity rather than right. I believe that Jews should be safe to be British Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews and so on ideologically, just as any group of people ought to be able to happily co-exist in any nation, but I acknowledge that they historically haven’t been and a homeland is a means of providing what they have previously lacked.
None of that stands against the rights of Palestinians, who should also be able to exercise self-determination. None of it stands against the ability to criticise, or reject entirely, the ideology or practice of the Netanyahu government. None of it stop us still actively working towards the safe inclusion of Jews as citizens of other nations. But I accept it is a form of Zionism, albeit an altogether pragmatic one.
Which makes the motion set forward by the Green Party a difficult one. It is likely to set forward a motion that is going to repel many Jews and define many non-Jews – who aren’t remotely sympathetic to the Israeli government – as racist. It is likely to alienate a significant number of people. Even if put forward at its least objectionable – somehow tying a definition tightly to the current actions of the Netanyahu government – this will simply hijack a term that is most commonly used in an altogether different way, define it against common usage and then inevitably brand anyone who uses it as a racist even if they mean something different by it. I cannot see a sensible reason for putting it forward as a motion nor an electorally credible ground to back it.
This is significant inasmuch as many disaffected Labour voters are looking for a left-leaning party to support. Repeatedly, however, any hopes of a party that would be a helpful vehicle gets overtaken with this kind of thing. At a minimum, it fails at the level of seeking as broad a consensus as possible. More broadly, it alienates an awful lots of people as domestic concerns and the implementation of policies that might do something for them get overtaken by politics that are meaningless to most ordinary people and over which we have limited, if any, real ability to effect change.