When does anti-Zionism become anti-Semitic?

Anti-Semitism is rearing its ugly head once again on the Left this week. Or at least talk of anti-Semitism. What does it mean? What qualifies as “anti-Semitic”? What is Zionism? Where do we draw the line? These are questions surfacing throughout our public debate and I am often asked by my friends to explain Zionist ideology and its relevance to Judaism and the Middle East.

To be frank, Zionism is a far more innocent doctrine than its public perception suggests. Quite simply, to be a Zionist is to profess support for the principle that the Jewish nation should have a right to self-determination. Some literature then adds on the qualifier “in Israel” to that definition and this is what is causing so much controversy.

Naz Shah, Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn and many more on the Left have spent years of their respective careers campaigning with the Palestinian Solidarity movement by criticising the deplorable actions of the Israeli state in the occupied territories but on its own this does not make them anti-Semitic. Many prominent Jews have been equally condemnatory of Israel including American academic Dr Norman Finkelstein and the great German scientist Albert Einstein. Most Jews living in the United Kingdom express similar disapproval at the occupation.

Criticism of Israel then is not anti-Semitic and more importantly, is not sufficient to even meet our definition of anti-Zionism either, since one can support the right of self-determination of the Jewish people while voicing their criticisms towards the state which manifests in the real world.

But what about criticism of Zionism more specifically? This is an altogether different matter. Understood as the right to self-determination of Jews, one can argue that even opposing this ideology, one which the vast majority of Jews consider to be of at least some importance to their Jewish identity, is not on its own anti-Semitic. But this only applies if you also oppose the right of self-determination for all nations everywhere.

The problem with the anti-Zionist movement is that they are dedicated to the cause of condemning Zionist ideology but seem to be absolutely comfortable with every other national group having the right to self-determination. This is the fundamental double standard. If you oppose rights for one national group but not another then this is discrimination and in this regard the focus by Mr Livingstone, Ms Shah and their friends on the left seems to be rather unfairly targeting one particular national group, so I would suggest there is at least some anti-Semitic sentiment to their words.

I myself have changed my mind on the blurred line of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I used to defend critics of Zionism (of which the majority of my politically-minded friends are), on the grounds that Jews who self-define as ‘Zionist’ should be ready to condemn the oppressive actions of a state acting in our name.

But my change of heart stems from my awareness of this particular double standard. The anti-Zionist movement is not an anti-Nationalist group, concerned about the presence of borders everywhere. They are a movement with an agenda to specifically deprive Jews of this right to self-determination and they pose their campaigning as ‘compassion for Palestinians’, enabling them to present themselves as more innocent than they are.

It is possible to express solidarity with the Palestinian people without jumping on the anti-Zionist bandwagon. Former Labour Leader and my fellow North-London Jew Ed Miliband is one such advocate of a two-state solution – a man consistent in his support for the right of self-determination for Palestinians as well as for the Jews. He is a far more vocal critic of Israel than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown ever were, and rarely got the praise he deserved for the stance he took.

Discourses inform not only our understanding of social phenomena, but they also actively shape how we interact with them. The longer Palestinian sympathisers continue to eviscerate Israel publicly, the more they undermine their own ‘sympathetic’ credentials. Similarly, the longer Jews on the Right are unapologetic for Israel’s actions, or worse still take offence whenever anyone dares to criticise the government, the more hypocritical they are in only advocating Jewish nationhood.

The discourse is far too polarised and I am calling for politicians, journalists, and people of all political and racial colours, to speak up for the radical middle-ground. Don’t sit on the fence, but rather chop this fence down. It is only when we put serious pressure on constructing a two-state solution in Israel and Occupied Palestine, that justice for both races can ensue, and eventually, anti-Semitism will cease to be an issue for the political Left.

Paying tax should be seen as virtuous

The idea that 'tax is legalised theft' is moulding us into uncompassionate, egoistic citizens, with no sense of community whatsoever (apparently hyperbolic sub-headings are an essential feature of all blog posts... was that any good?).

There is no actual difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. A simple piece of linguistic categorisation; this is merely a strategy by the tax-dodgers and their friends to deflect away from any alleged wrongdoing.

OK stop screaming lefty-hating profanities at your screen. I’m educated enough to understand that technically there is of course a difference between avoidance and evasion; the former considered ‘legal’, the latter prohibited by law.

But the very instance of the word technically illustrates the weakness of this line of argument. Once again, we see a use of the legalistic fallacy to warn away scrutiny of certain individuals’/companies’ behaviour.

President Obama admitted this week in the wake of leaked data from the Panama law firm Mosack Foncesca that many of these arrangements are indeed legal… or to use the language of accountants and lawyers: “strictly in compliance with the institutional and legal framework…” (I’m yawning already).

The President goes on to say that this is precisely, as he refreshingly puts it ‘the problem’. Our legal system is not the benchmark we use for right and wrong. Our legal system itself derives from a moral discourse about what rules a just society should legislate.

No one likes paying tax and it would be disingenuous for me, a student who’s “never had a proper job” and “doesn’t know the real world” to start lecturing the wider public on why they should feel guilty about any misgivings they have over £££ leaving their bank accounts.

However, most of us would agree, centre-left or centre-right, that you need to pay tax in order to maintain at least a basic level of public services… or if you’re a Tory cheerleader then you need tax revenue in order to bring down “Labour’s deficit” because you know, deficits are obviously more important than tackling poverty, low-pay and a beleaguered NHS (just as an aside… imagine stretching doctors and nurses to breaking point and then complaining that they are being ‘inefficient’ and imposing a new contract on them without their consent… I just think it’s funny to be honest).

So it seems bizarre and frustrating, that despite this government’s “best” efforts to close some of these tax loopholes (while it blocks legislation in the European Parliament to blacklist some of these secretive off-shore law firms), that there remain holes in our legal system that enable it to take place.

So I reiterate… there is no difference between evasion and avoidance. They both entail dodging tax. And dodging tax is morally wrong.

One line of rebuttal I often hear from my more neoliberally inclined friends is that I would avoid tax too if I had the means of doing so; that ultimately, we are all rational, self-interested, egoistic, money-motivated at heart and it is sanctimonious for me or anyone else to suggest otherwise.

I have two responses to this proposition. First, note the language of this particular line of attack: “if I had the means of doing so”. The fact of the matter is, I don’t have these means. Not because I don’t earn enough to pay tax, but because even if I get a decent grad job, I won’t be earning anything like the amounts you’d need to make such an exercise worthwhile. 

More importantly, I wouldn’t have access to the networks of lawyers and accountants at some of these big law firms that make a living out of giving their clients a helping hand with their “tax efficiency”.

By and large, the clients of these off-shore law firms are the super-rich – the 1%... the 0.1%. And the sentiment on everyone’s lips is a much more profound one - if the super-rich can do this legally then I should be able to.

This has its origins in our basic understanding of justice; in particular the principle of reciprocity. My blog title is misleading because it glorifies tax in a manner that I don’t actually advocate, because of course no one wants to pay more tax than they need to. But the majority of us comply because we accept implicitly that tax is like a subscription fee for civil society, and on the understanding that if everyone pays their full fee, then society will be all the richer for it.

We pay it so that we may enjoy the fruits of universal healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and so forth. If you really do share with Lady Thatcher that ‘there is no such thing as society’ then you are entitled to that view. Though I expect you to never enter a hospital, drive on our roads, support our sports teams, educate yourself or your child, or really do anything in the public sphere which involves interaction with other citizens.

Okay so not all of those examples are paid for by the taxpayer. But the point still stands. What makes life worth living isn’t the egoistic goals of the atomised individual, but the interactions we have with our families, friends, colleagues, shop assistants, cab drivers, hairdressers and waiters that we go engage with every day. ‘Society’ is a dynamic concept which we are all a part of whether we admit it or not.

But we will only wish to pay our fee if all the other members agree to do the same. Like I said, it’s about reciprocity. So if you really do believe that you should be paying less tax, at least have the balls to let the rest of us know that you’re doing it. And that is pressure that must surely come from our elected politicians.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Can we stop hassling Hasselbaink?

I wasn’t so much disappointed with the section of the Q block singing ‘There’s only one Neil Warnock’ periodically against Hull. Rather, when a few of us in the P block tried to drown these morons out with our own rendition of ‘Hasselbaink’s Blue Army’, surprisingly few seemed to join in. I understand the boys are playing bad football at the moment, but this is no reason not to get behind your team. As I say frequently: we are supporters, not consumers.

However such is the modern consumer mentality, catalysed by the pervasiveness and sheer abruptness of social media, that owners, journalist and fans alike, expect instant results, QPR is no exception, with an unhealthy habit of getting through roughly a manager a season.

When Tango and Cash were still running the show, fans would become increasingly disgruntled at the rapid turnover in playing and managerial staff alike, and it was no surprise that when the owners took a step back, and allowed a manager with a proven track record to get on with his job, imposing his own ideas, that we went up as champions with relative ease.

Stability is the key here, and it is totally unreasonable to expect Jimmy to undo the bad habits created by the previous two managers in under a month. Under both Harry Redknapp and Chris Ramsey, there was never any attempt to play anything that resembles high-pressing, possession-based football, so I for one was delighted when a former Dutch international, who has played with some of the finest players to grace the game, came to Loftus Road.

For me, Jimmy is above all an educator and innovator. He took Burton Albion; one of the smallest clubs in the football league, out of League 2 and further still left them at the summit of League 1 when he left early last month. Now I care little whether he is ‘proven’ at this level like Warnock is… because what he did with Burton is clearly a massive achievement itself.

But it’s not just the statistical success he had with Albion that impresses me (a formidable 61% win ratio by the way), but the manner in which he has achieved it. I often hear from other Rangers fans that we’re simply not good enough to play the kind of football that progressives demand but I wholeheartedly reject that argument. I’ve seen Eddie Howe take Bournemouth up the leagues playing an expansive game. Similarly Brendan Rodgers and Roberto Martinez before him were hugely successful at Swansea City, affectionately known by many in Wales as ‘Swansalona’.

Professional footballers play at the level that they do because they are incredibly talented, and there is no question in my mind that players like Alejandro Faurlin, Matty Phillips et al are up to the job. QPR’s problem is that other than a brief period at the start of the 2013-14 season, we have not had a manager in the last ten years who seems intent on producing good quality football. Even when Neil Warnock took us out of the Championship, we were largely reliant on a resilient base and a magician in the 10 who could win games on his own.

Neil Warnock is a brilliant coach, and we saw once again when he assumed temporary charge a couple of months ago that his impact was instantaneous. But I would hasten to add that he has a considerably poorer record in the Premier League than he has at Championship level, and this I put down to him only really knowing one way to play football.

As I say, Jimmy is an educator, a student of the game – a man who knows what he is doing. And coming into a club who have not been accustomed to playing the right way will take time to fix. Give him a full season, at least a full 2016, so that he can recruit and build in the way that he sees fit. I know that the sensible majority of QPR fans are prepared to give him that length of time, but as usual, both on the internet and at Loftus Road, it’s the stupid minority who are making more noise.

So let's get behind our team. It never was easy being a Rangers fan.

Let's condemn religion for what it actually gets wrong

There’s plenty of comment out there about religion, particularly Islam. There always is in the aftermath of any terror attack, from islamophobes keen to make political capital of any catastrophe, to those of us on the left who become burdened with defending the 1.6 billion innocent Muslims who are the victims of an animalistic and highly uncritical human need to generalise, often crassly, in order to make sense of the world.

Really the argument should stop here. This pie chart is about as simple and factual as it gets. Not that I want to upset any bigots with evidence.

That’s my caveat for the rest of this article. Though I want to make a point about religion in general, not just Islam. All three Abrahamic religions, to a greater or lesser degree, subscribe to St Paul’s/Saul’s (whatever you want to call him) doctrine of the Golden Rule: that is to love thy neighbour as thyself, to do unto others as we would have done unto us. All the Abrahamic religions endorse charity as a virtue. Zakah/Tzadakah in Islam and Judaism. And in Christianity, one of Jesus’ most powerful lessons is that the rich should give to the poor, stating that it is ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.’ It’s no coincidence, then, that the majority of work done to alleviate food poverty at the UK’s 445 Trussell Trust Food Banks is done through local Church communities and other religious groups. It’s clear, then, that for the most part, religion is a force for good in society.

So let’s focus on the real issues here – the ones that should be getting a lot more attention than bigoted islamophobic terrorism nonsense. Religion, it's safe to say, has not always been the LGBT community's best friend. A 2013 report conducted by Pew suggests a positive correlation between religiosity and condemnation of homosexuality:

Ah yes, well done Josh, you used a graph… but you’re misunderstanding correlation and cause (I can hear my critics shouting at their screens now). It is not religiosity which undermines tolerance of homosexuality; rather it is a cultural phenomenon. It just so happens that those countries with conservative cultures are generally more religious.

Well I don’t really like that argument. It’s a religious cop-out. Religion and culture are not the same entities, yes. Culture is an umbrella term, encompassing sport, entertainment, community and among other things… religion. So when it says in the Bible “No man must lie with another man as he lies with a woman for that is an abomination”, it does not surprise me to see that Christian countries are more “culturally” averse to homosexuality than us enlightened westerners.

But OK, let’s pretend that my critics have a point here. Well I can offset that. In France, only 35% of Muslims sampled believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable. Christians in Britain do significantly better, with 61% supporting equal rights for gay people, though that still means 39% don’t support equal rights, or ‘don’t know’ which is still reprehensible.

It’s not just homosexuals that religions enjoy to condemn. It has taken until 2014 for the Church of England to approve women bishops. And the Catholic Church still prohibits them. In all orthodox Jewish communities and most mosques, women are forced to worship in segregation from the men. In orthodox synagogues, women cannot be rabbis, or even lead worship. This isn’t happening in the Middle East… this is happening in the United Kingdom in 2015!

I’m a liberal to the extent that I support people’s right to worship whomever they choose, and to belong to whichever religion they so desire. But I am not a liberal to the extent that I champion religious rights above human rights. If you genuinely consider homophobia to be an integral part of your religion, then no, I do not support your right to be a bigot.

So let’s not get distracted by the odd terror attack here and there. More people get killed by wasps and bees than they do by terrorists in Europe. Let’s have a meaningful discussion about religion and where it can improve its contribution to society. Let’s focus on the real flaws. The onus should be on the liberal-minded in the religious communities to lead these conversations.