Hot Air

The recent anti-Semitism talk which has caused rifts, ripples and racial disputes, is one which will be lingering for a while now. It's nothing new, but with media becoming all imposing, they look for the angles to get clear shots into the political sphere – usually through the medium of personal integrity, rather than the actual issues. So, this stems from allegations that MP Naz Shah of the Labour party had once posted a Facebook post declaring Israel should move to the United States. Now, I want to get this clear, I do not think this would be a very good idea – the practicalities of it to begin with would be hard going, and it's unlikely that America would be willing to issue so many green cards to the Israeli's, but I do see her point.

To begin with, this post was made two years ago before she was an MP. He/she who is without sin cast the first stone. There have been plenty of times in your past where you can look back on statements you've made or posts you've posted and shake your head, and it's hard to see how this is so different. Obviously when you're a spokesperson for a nation, your integrity needs to be of a high calibre, though I can't ever see it as being flawless. It's more about the current version of yourself and backing up current claims rather than attesting to matters of the immaterial past. Otherwise, people with drink problems, or have committed a crime in the past and attested to their wrongs to better themselves and change their lives in the present will have no chance. I believe this only really became an issue because Naz Shah herself is a Muslim, and therefore judged in accordance to that than on a level playing field.

Now, how is it that I see her point – quite simple really, if you watch any US debate of this coming primary election, it seems that Israel comes up a lot – Palestinians are the true enemies of justice are they not? Well, no – this is a bloated and entirely spun monocular vision of an issue which has teemed for hundreds of years. The current situation between Israel and Palestine is complicated, but one thing is for sure – they are not at peace with one-another. The large reason for this is that Palestine has been walled into a very tight spot of the West bank and Gaza strip. They have been pushed to the edges of Israeli territory, and the Israelis would like nothing better than to push them into the sea or to just be rid of them entirely. This puts a lots of tension between the nations – causing many casualties on both sides. Though it is Israel which really holds all the cards. What happens when you force a group of people into a tight corner and threaten them and refuse to let them to leave, you cause the people to become more hostile in order to defend themselves. This is the reality of the conflict between the nations. Though, I suppose, the prejudice is already written via the west's association with Israel over Palestine – Judaism over Islam.

Anyway, back to the issue at-hand. So, Naz Shah, two years ago posted this on Facebook:

“Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict. Relocate Israel into the United States... The transportation costs will be less than 3 years of defence spending”.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron demanded to know why Jeremy Corbyn had done nothing to discipline Mrs Shah. Shouldn’t he be listening to his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who in March had said that if anyone in Labour expressed anti-Semitic views then “full stop, they’re out”? At first, Jeremy Corbyn decided after meeting with Mrs Shah to not pursue the matter. Though, news of this decision did not meet with universal acclaim, and so Mrs Shah went on to stand up in the house of commons to apologise for the statement she made. An hour following this, she was suspended from the party after mounting pressure from everyone to do so. Caving into the will of others is perhaps not the best reflection of a leader of the party, and only gave more credence to an issue which seemed to gain way too much ground in the first place.

I can't quite see how this is anti-Semitic. I mean, sure, Israel is a Jewish country, but the statement here has nothing really to declare how there is malice, hate or aspersions against Judaism. Tensions always rise up and collars start smoking when any religion is brought into question – though, is this really a religious issue? If the nation is interchangeable with the religion, then talking about the country at all will be talking about their religion, and this is just plain wrong. This hysterical reaction seems only to further our misunderstanding of these things as well as force restrictions on foreign body interactions and communication between religious inclined nations. If this is the case, then all a nation would need to do to prevent being meddled with, for whatever reason would be to declare itself a religious state, thus preventing any talk about the laws, actions and role it plays in the global sphere.

It all very quickly becomes a witch hunt. The media broadcasts it, certain people like to speak up on it and the reputation of an entire political party soon becomes tarnished with this representation. The further from the facts a piece like this becomes, the more fuel is added to the fire, and the bigger an issue like this becomes. People follow the storm when it picks up and swallows more along its way – then you have a choice – either defend it or condemn it, though when one camp uses words like 'anti-Semitism' and 'racism' then it becomes an easy decision for many which way they go, irregardless of the facts. I hate it how a small comment like this leads to such loud, outspoken and angry statements which quickly become very personal. Though, to be fair, Ken Livingstone did ignite the issue more with various commentaries and radio interviews about the subject, first defending the labour party and Naz Shah from the anti-semtic accusations, but then went on to state this: "When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews." This, I suppose, could cause some amount of heat. Hitler is used to prong emotions thick and fast – and to state a sympathetic node towards Hitler is always a bad idea. Ken Livingstone has since been suspended. Though, even here, Ken Livingstone didn't say anything too contrary to the facts – but he singled himself out as a scapegoat for the issue to take a face and become accountable for the issue and take the fall for it.

This is the consequence of an insecure populace – to not be able to stand up to irrationality for fear of those who might interpret their words in the wrong way. They back the prize horse and go along with the flow than risk becoming eddies in the current and causing themselves more grief than it is worth in the short-term. It is a very small and badly interpreted statement written years ago which gave cause to ignite such a hoo-ha in the debates. I don't think it's a coincidence that the elections are not far away either – Conservatives attempting any opportunity to tarnish the other parties reputation. A petty feud turned global to further ones own gain.

A singular problem results – that of a very 'safe' political sphere where nothing is actually done for fear of people becoming offended. A land of free-speech would soon become an illusion if every time interpretation intercedes the reality of the statement or act. Obviously i don't endorse such views; religious, ethnic or for matter of common-sense, but i see the intentional and the unintentional. People like to see the worst of things and from the little they know about you, that is what will form their opinion. I just think the less you talk about these issues, the more power these issues pose in the future - quite like the use of words. When you can only divert or tip-toe around issues, you cease to be able to confront them and solve them. The problem is, and always will be, that politics and ego become too wrapped up with each-other - reason requires a logical approach and not an emotional one. I just hope that politicians would look more into the politics than into each-others pasts to drudge up meaningless dirt on others to enhance their own standing.