Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
I don't know much about the lived experience of Israeli Arabs. To be clear, are you using the term "apartheid" with reference to their situation alone, to the exclusion of Palestinians? I could see that. Because all my knowledge indicates the Israeli right want Palestinian apartheid like the Burmese Buddhists want Rohingya apartheid.



I looked up what Labour's agenda on Israel was. Reaffirm opposition to arms sales to Israel, boycott goods from Israeli settlements, support a Palestinian right of return, and reject trade agreements that fail to recognize the rights of Palestinians. While much of this is symbolic, I struggle to see why any of it should be exceedingly controversial other than maybe the right of return.

You talk too much in the frame of 'someone said something,' but without elucidating what that something is, why it is said, or the basis for it. Find a position you like and state it, or one you don't like and attack it. There's more to discuss than in rhetorically remarking on unspecified disagreements.

Like, for example:



What is there to take away from this? There is an anti-imperial Left (who and why) and some of them (who and why) excuse the imperialism of non-Western countries to the extent those countries are antagonistic toward the West, and Orwell said something about it. Left unsaid is who or what you think is right, why you think so, and what you would like to see in Israel policy (especially relative to current events, including changes in US policy under Trump).


Edit: BTW, on why I say specifically boycotting settlement manufactures is both symbolic and should be uncontroversial:
The legacy of the Labour government has been destroyed by the Left, especially the Far Left, because of Iraq, on the grounds that it was an evil imperialist adventure. The same kind of argument that Orwell examined in his essay on Englishness. Because of this, we have Tory governments, and we have Brexit, because the Left wants the polar opposite of Blair. I do not accept the imperialist argument, but I've said before, that if intervening abroad is wrongly imposing ourselves on others, then maybe we shouldn't impose ourselves on others, and we should leave others to themselves. Foreign affairs isolationism, which would prevent further Iraqs. In this case, and in similar cases, it would mean not passing judgement on Israel, or other countries' affairs that do not affect us. After all, it was passing judgement on Iraq that produced our invasion, right?

So if Iraq was such a bad thing as the Left, particularly the faction that Idaho supports, says it is, why is Idaho so keen to pass judgement on Israel? I won't allege anti-semitism, as I think the roots of the argument aren't based on that. I think the roots are based on the anti-west tradition that I cited above. I'm not going to argue its uselessness as I think it's self-evident, but I will ask what Idaho expects us to do, and expect consistency. I don't claim to be morally right on everything, as I am not omniscient and more importantly I'm not omnipotent. But I strive for consistency, especially in practice.