Israel National News: Anti-Zionism Should be Outlawed
WRITING IN Israel National News, UK-based Jewish writer Richard Mather is now arguing that opposing Zionism is a form of “hate” which should be made a punishable crime, just as his fellow Jews have already successfully made “incitement to racial hatred” (read: opposing White genocide) a crime in once-Great Britain. (ILLUSTRATION: Richard Mather)
There is to be a debate in Manchester town hall about flying the Palestinian flag following a 2,500-strong petition. The idea was put forward at the height of 2014 conflict in Israel/Gaza but critics say it would harm community relations. The move is bound to anger Communities Secretary Eric Pickles who recently claimed that councils which invent their own “municipal foreign policy” by flying the Palestinian flag are behaving “irresponsibly.”
Meanwhile, anti-Semitic incidents have soared by 80 per cent in Manchester over the past year. Incidents have included verbal abuse, physical attacks, vandalism, desecration of cemeteries and the boycotting of Kedem, a Dead Sea cosmetics shop. In 2014, 269 anti-Semitic hate crimes were recorded in Manchester – up from 131 in 2013 and 127 in 2012. Together Manchester and London represent three-quarters of all anti-Semitic hate crime in Britain.
According to Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan, anti-Semitic reactions to tensions in the Middle East are the single biggest contributing factor. “We know from our figures that international events – such as the escalation of hostilities in Gaza – have had a significant impact within our communities and has motivated a large number of these hate crimes,” he stated.
Manchester has a good record when it comes to tackling hate crime. According to police, a hate crime is a crime committed against someone because of their disability, race or ethnicity, religion or belief, sexual orientation and transgender identity. For the first time in the UK, police in Greater Manchester will officially record if a person who belongs to an alternative sub-culture has been a victim of hate crime.
This begs the question, should Greater Manchester Police lead the way and categorise anti-Zionist rhetoric and imagery as incitement to racial hatred? After all, the fifty-day protest outside Kedem in Manchester last year was clearly designed to incite racial hatred. When an individual or group threatened to harass a person or a group of people because of their pro-Israel attitudes, that is a hate crime. In the case of the Kedem protests, incitement took the form of words, pictures and videos. It also included information posted on YouTube and other social media.
In other words, much of the violence committed against Jews in Manchester during 2014 can probably be attributed to anti-Zionism. Of course, anti-Zionism is most definitely a form of anti-Semitism, but it also something more. It is an irrational and prejudicial hatred of the State of Israel and her supporters – both Jew and gentile. Because many anti-Zionists like to claim they’re not anti-Semitic, we also have to make a distinction. Without defining what it is we are trying to combat, how can we ever hope to defeat it? Anti-Zionism must be exposed as a particular kind of hatred if it is to be contested.
Moreover, because a tiny minority of Jews are anti-Zionist, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ can be problematic. Anti-Zionism and anti-Zionist, then, are useful epithets that can be directed at both gentiles and Jews who incite hatred against the Jewish State and her supporters. In my view, anti-Zionism should be treated with the same public disgust as homophobia and misogyny. In other words, anti-Zionists should be publicly and legally ostracised.
Under UK law, “incitement to racial hatred” was established as an offence by the provisions of of the Public Order Act 1986, although it was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence. Laws against incitement to hatred against religions were later established under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The offense of “incitement to racial hatred” refers to deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group, distributing racist material to the public, inciting inflammatory rumours about an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent, making inflammatory public speeches and creating racist websites.
All of this can be applied to the proliferation of anti-Zionist rhetoric and imagery in Manchester and elsewhere.
Let us not forget that Zionism was born out of Europe’s inability to accept Jews into their societies. After crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions, countless pogroms and the industrialised murder of six million Jews, the only option left to the Jewish people was/is to have a homeland.
Now after having achieved the goal of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, along comes anti-Zionism, which essentially denies Jews to a homeland. So where are Jews expected to go? Europe has made it clear that Jews are not welcome. Therefore, with nowhere else to go, the only logical alternative is the disappearance of the Jewish people. That is anti-Zionism and it is a form of racial hatred.
It is time to put anti-Zionists on the defensive. They should be confronted with the consequences of their ideology. What do they propose to do with all the Jews who would be kicked out of Israel if anti-Zionists had their way? Where would the Jews go?
Do we want a repeat of the late 1930s/early 1940s when thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry to the United States? Or what about Switzerland which turned away 30,000 Jews at the height of the Holocaust? Do anti-Zionists want a repeat of the Bermuda Conference in 1943 when the Britain and America sidelined the issue of Jewish refugees, meaning that US immigration quotas were not raised (despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of European Jews were homeless). Is this what the anti-Zionists want? Such people should be forced to reconcile these consequences with their facade of concern for human rights.
In other words, do anti-Zionists believe that Jews are not entitled to exist as a people?
Of course, criticism of Israeli policies – like criticism of any other country – is part and parcel of rational public discourse. Indeed, Israel’s media and Knesset members are not afraid of critiquing their own society. But drawing comparisons of Israel to that of the Nazis is a form of hate speech. Terms of abuse such as “Zio-Nazi” and “Zionists are the Nazis of the Middle East” should be classed as hate speech. Defacing the Israeli flag with a swastika is incitement to hatred and must be seen as such.
Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation is incitement to hatred. Denying Israel’s right to exist and/or calling for the State of Israel to be dismantled or destroyed is a form of hate speech. Calling for a war against an entire country and attempting to abolish the Jewish State is incitement to genocide.
The hypocrisy of the statements by Mather become apparent when we consider the facts that the Jewish people demand the right to their own homeland and will jail anyone who speaks out against its formation; while these same Jews then simultaneously demand an open border policy for all formerly White nations, denying Whites the right to a national homeland. We Whites not only should have our own homeland as well, but we need our own in order to survive and provide for the future of the White race; if the Jews deserve such an area, then so do we.