Some left wing critics of Israel (a tiny but visible minority mostly confined to social media) feed off, or are fooled by, the conflation theory themselves. They draw on traditional antisemitic tropes (such as Jewish control of the media or international finance) to express an ignorant and deeply misguided analysis of the Middle East. It’s clumsy, stupid and racist and needs to be constantly called out and firmly corrected.
Is anyone actually doing this firm correction? I know of a Palestinian-rights activist who lives in my area and has angered some Jewish Palestinian-rights activists by telling audiences (truthfully) which reporters and commentators on Israel in the mainstream media are Jewish. Like that's not something that should be made public, but should be kept hidden, lest people get the impression that Jews control the media.
Have you heard the antisemitic trope that Jews control Hollywood? When that trope is not dismissed but actually addressed by people who present themselves as some kind of representatives of the Jewish community, they'll admit that of the people who really run Hollywood, the great majority are Jewish, but (a) being Jewish has no influence on what those particular individuals do in Hollywood, and (b) hey, why do you care about this anyway? Needless to say, when you tell people that some fact about the world we live in is unimportant and then try to suggest to them that they should be ashamed of being interested in that fact, people don't usually respond by concluding that this fact really is unimportant and that they should be ashamed of themselves for being interested in it. But they'll probably get the message that they might get in trouble if they bring it up again.
Most left-wingers believe that the United States of America is controlled by white men. If you challenge them on that proposition, the more earnest and diligent ones will respond with statistics about the proportion of powerful positions in American society that are held by white men. Anyone who says that it's necessary to "firmly correct" the "stupid and racist" notion that Jews control the media or international finance needs to do the same kind of thing.
RoHa, great questions, and too bad that it takes a trained philosopher to ask them. There's a hasbara line that denying "the Jewish people" the "right" to a "homeland" is to deprive them of the "self-determination" that other "peoples" are accepted as having, and is therefore unfair.
The idea that "the Jewish people have a right to a homeland" raises questions about what other peoples have that same right. Kurds? Roma? African-Americans? Or any number of native American peoples, for that matter. Is the idea that they have rights to homelands, but they've all been too weak to exercise those rights? If that's the case, shouldn't we then put more attention on the denial of their rights than on the Jewish homeland that has already been secured?
It is ironic that Zionists use the word "homeland" in the same sense that the South African apartheid regime did, because that regime created "homelands" for various African peoples against their will, as a way of keeping them out of the best lands that were to be kept for whites. Most hasbarists actually do assert that the Palestinian people have a right to a homeland, and then to show how much they care, they say that they're working to find one within some bit of the West Bank or in Jordan. Even though the Palestinian people are explicitly defined as persons originating from an area with specific geographic boundaries, namely those of the British Mandate of Palestine, so there's no question of where their "homeland" is in the sense of where they come from.
This article is a bit confusing because the headline refers to "Candidates for UK Labour Party’s governing body", the text says "I wrote to all 26 NEC members to seek their views", and then there are excerpts of replies from only one NEC member, Cate Vallis, but two NEC candidates without any reference to elections to the NEC, excerpt for the last sentence of the article, which lists the writer's preferred candidates, but doesn't say when the election will be. Unless "the September vote" refers to the election to the NEC, rather than a vote by the NEC on whether to adopt a change. The Labour Party's own website lists 41 members of the NEC, not 26, and Cate Vallis isn't one of them:
Have any victims of the state of Israel's actions against non-Jews received any kind of hearing in this debate? Is Ghada Karmi still around?
I find this part problematic:
Clearly Israel now has a right to exist, but it needs to make payments or accommodations with the Arabs who were driven from their homes, ...
How is it clear that "Israel now has a right to exist"? Or any country, for that matter? The United Kingdom has existed more than 4 times as long as Israel has, but almost half of the voters in Scotland a few years ago rejected the U.K.'s right to exist by their votes in the independence referendum, and even David Cameron said that he would have accepted the result if a majority had voted in favour.
And Israel needs to do more than "make payments or accommodations with the Arabs who were driven from their homes"; it needs to repatriate them, as even Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long made clear. These are people who were supposed to be Israeli citizens, even according to Israel's own declaration of independence, but they were betrayed by their own government, which refused to recognize their citizenship after they fled the fighting or were kicked out.