The IHRA definition and Israel

It has been an interesting time for Labour.  The IHRA definition of antisemitism has finally been accepted.  There are fears however that this will prevent legitimate criticism of what is happening in Israel.  Sadly, not all the criticism is legitimate.  And while this may have helped a bit to try and close the sore that has been allowed to fester and remain open for so long, the actions of Labour in the party conference where Palestinian flags were allowed but EU flags were forbidden will not convince many that the party will call out injustice on both sides in the Holy Land, if it continues to occur, but rather will just castigate one side.

Let me first state that I feel that the oppression of Palestinian rights in the occupied territories by Hamas, Israel and Fatah is morally indefensible and I think that it is right to speak about this.  I also think that it is wrong to think that all the woes the the Palestinian people face are just due to Israel.

So let us look at what Israel has done that is good in the area.  LGBTQ rights exists in Israel that are not present in Gaza or the West Bank.  Women have more rights in Israel, and religious freedoms are protected there as well and people forget that Muslims living in Israel have more rights than those in the many nations surrounding Israel, including more rights than Hamas and Fatah allow Palestinians.  Both Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas while democratically elected, have exceeded the terms of office that they were elected to while Israel remains a democracy (though the current leader is one I despise).

But, there little excuse for Israel acting the way it does in the occupied states.  Some of the restrictions on the movement of Palestinians can be justified based on security but the theft of land in the West Bank for settlements is inexcusable. While Israel argues that this land is not used by Palestinians, that is untrue.  

The issue of the Right Of Return is a contentious one.  Allowing Jews with an ancestral right to return to Israel is right, but only if the same right is given to the Christians and Muslims who used to live in Palestine. Two examples of this are two villages, Iqrit and Kafr Bir'im. 

I have had discussions about this with people on both sides of this debate. Some have repeated a lie that Jews have no historical link what is now the Holy Land. Others have not been so rabidly insane/antisemitic but they have not been willing to say what should happen to Jews who now reside there.  And on the other side of the argument is the fact that there has never been a Palestinian state.  Some use this to justify the refusal to allow Palestinians a state.  But this does not mean that people should be evicted from land just because they are Christians or Muslims.

But to the picture that is present in this blog.  There is a claim that Israel is a racist state (as opposed to a nation that is trying to combat racism).  Up until this year, it was easy to point out that it is not, examples being how Israel has had a black Miss Israel,Yityish Aynaw, as well as the rights that Muslims and Christians have which Muslims do not have in other nations.  Up until this year that is.  

In summary, the situation in the Holy Land is not a binary one like I thought it was in the past. It is complex and is made worse by extremists on both sides.  I do want to know if those who support Israel fully support the oppression of Christians who are Palestinians and I do want to know what those who are against Israel think of the lack of LGBTQ rights in the Palestinian Territories.