Zack Polanski calls out antisemitic Economist hit piece

Zack Polanski calls out antisemitic Economist hit piece



Zack Polanski of the Green Party and a tweet from the Economist

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has labelled an Economist piece “antisemitic”. And given the outlet’s own description of the piece, it’s easy to see why:

Definitions

The ideology of Israel is ‘Zionism’. This political movement centres on the idea that Israel must exist as an expansionist colonial state in the Middle East. Israel has enjoyed widespread Western support because it serves as America’s foothold in the Middle East. And if America wants something, lickspittle politicians and journalists the world over will fall in line.

This is what Zionism looks like in practice:

We’re going to examine the Economist post using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. If you’re unfamiliar with this definition, it’s notable for the fact that politicians and journalists urged Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party to adopt it in the late 2010s. As we reported at the time, critics of using the IHRA examples as a broad definition for antisemitism included the man who defined them:

Labour was right to clarify the IHRA antisemitism examples, just ask the man who defined them

The fact that the British establishment pushed so heavily for the IHRA should demonstrate that it enjoys widespread support in the media. And yet…

Zack Polanski’s ‘loyalty’

The part of the definition we’re going to draw attention to is this:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Now let’s look again at what the post says:

These days many British Jews see Zack Polanski as a traitor to his origins, not a disciple of Jewish ideas. Our profile explores how he has embraced the anti-Israel fervour that has swept the new left

The Economist has accused Zack Polanski of being more loyal to the British political movement he’s at the forefront of than to Israel. This is a pretty clear example of antisemitism when using the IHRA. The British media, however, doesn’t seem to care about the IHRA anymore. You could argue that they never did, of course, and that bullying Jeremy Corbyn to adopt it was always just a means of attacking the left.

This isn’t the first time the British media have failed to live up to the standards of the IHRA definition anyway:

Tracy-Ann Oberman spouts antisemitism live on Sky News (if you use the IHRA definition of course)

Response

Zack Polanski wasn’t the only one to respond to the Economist piece. YouTuber Kernow Damo said the following:

What a racist pile of drivel. Stop weaponising antisemitism by conflating things with that genocidal, racist, apartheid-wielding, colonialism project, currently at war on seven fronts, all of which it started! You are literally endangering Jews more with this filth.

We had criticisms of the IHRA definition because it ran the risk of silencing Palestinian voices. At the same time, it’s absolutely correct that Jewish people should not be collectively be blamed or punished for the actions of Israel. This is a consistent position on the left, because we also argue that not all Muslims should be blamed for ISIS – nor indeed that any broader group should be collectively punished for a minority within it.

Writer Joseph Tucker had this to say:


Tucker is referencing the fact that Labour couldn’t so much as breathe without being labelled institutionally racist when Corbyn ran the party. The hyper-sensitivity the media displayed in that era has now entirely vanished, supporting the idea that it was always insincere. This isn’t to say racism didn’t/doesn’t exist in Labour, obviously – just that accusations were either concocted entirely or only given attention because critics saw a political advantage to noticing.

Other criticisms included the following:

Zack Polanski is not a traitor

Another important point was this from human rights scholar Alonso Gurmendi:

Stripping Anti-Zionist Jews of their Jewishness is an old Zionist tradition going back to Herzl himself, who called them “Mauschel” (an antisemitic German slur against Yiddish Jews that makes the name Moses sound like Mice). Terrible to see The Economist embrace it

The Economist accused Zack Polanski of being a “traitor to his origins, not a disciple of Jewish ideas”; the question is which origins and which Jewish ideas? Clearly, there have always been Jewish people who opposed Zionism. Additionally, Zionism has only existed since the late 19th century. Were the Jewish people who existed for thousands of years before Zionism traitors to Judaism for not supporting the modern state of Israel?

Clearly, these arguments don’t hold up, and they never have. This is why Israel and its backers in the West have always relied on violence and propaganda to keep the project going.

Featured image via Aldo Ciarrocchi

By Willem Moore





Source link

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,