The strange priorities of British politics
Discussion
Why has the Israel/Palestine conflict has come to occupy such an extraordinarily prominent position in contemporary British politics?
I’m not questioning the scale of the suffering, the appalling history of the conflict, or the legitimacy of concern about what is happening there. Clearly, it is a humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions. But so are other conflicts around the world. Sudan, for example, is experiencing what the UN describes as the world’s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis. Millions have been driven from their homes, famine has taken hold in parts of the country, and civilians have suffered appalling atrocities. Myanmar has endured years of civil war, ethnic persecution and brutal repression. There are plenty of other examples of conflicts, often with deep-rooted religious and ethnic dimensions, that have inflicted terrible suffering on civilian populations over generations.
Yet none seems to exercise anything approaching the same fascination for British politicians, political parties and activists.
Of course, there are obvious reasons why Israel/Palestine resonates particularly strongly here. Britain has historical connections to the region, substantial Jewish and Muslim communities with understandable interests in the conflict, and legitimate diplomatic and foreign-policy responsibilities. None of that is particularly surprising.
What I find harder to understand is how those factors translate into the extraordinary prominence the conflict has acquired in our domestic political discourse.
Israel/Palestine has become something approaching a defining issue within sections of the Labour Party, and increasingly the Green Party. It features prominently in domestic political campaigning, party conferences, demonstrations and arguments about what our political parties should stand for.
There’s surely a distinction between recognising why a particular international conflict matters to sections of British society and explaining why it should become such a significant preoccupation of our national political parties. Particularly when so many of the challenges facing Britain are closer to home, and matters over which our politicians have considerably greater influence.
So what explains it? Is the extraordinary prominence of Israel/Palestine in British politics a proportionate response to the conflict’s significance, or have we created something of a self-reinforcing political phenomenon, in which activist enthusiasm, political self-interest and misaligned incentives combine to elevate one particular issue far beyond its practical relevance to British domestic affairs?
If it’s the latter, what does that tell us about how political priorities are established in this country?
I’m not questioning the scale of the suffering, the appalling history of the conflict, or the legitimacy of concern about what is happening there. Clearly, it is a humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions. But so are other conflicts around the world. Sudan, for example, is experiencing what the UN describes as the world’s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis. Millions have been driven from their homes, famine has taken hold in parts of the country, and civilians have suffered appalling atrocities. Myanmar has endured years of civil war, ethnic persecution and brutal repression. There are plenty of other examples of conflicts, often with deep-rooted religious and ethnic dimensions, that have inflicted terrible suffering on civilian populations over generations.
Yet none seems to exercise anything approaching the same fascination for British politicians, political parties and activists.
Of course, there are obvious reasons why Israel/Palestine resonates particularly strongly here. Britain has historical connections to the region, substantial Jewish and Muslim communities with understandable interests in the conflict, and legitimate diplomatic and foreign-policy responsibilities. None of that is particularly surprising.
What I find harder to understand is how those factors translate into the extraordinary prominence the conflict has acquired in our domestic political discourse.
Israel/Palestine has become something approaching a defining issue within sections of the Labour Party, and increasingly the Green Party. It features prominently in domestic political campaigning, party conferences, demonstrations and arguments about what our political parties should stand for.
There’s surely a distinction between recognising why a particular international conflict matters to sections of British society and explaining why it should become such a significant preoccupation of our national political parties. Particularly when so many of the challenges facing Britain are closer to home, and matters over which our politicians have considerably greater influence.
So what explains it? Is the extraordinary prominence of Israel/Palestine in British politics a proportionate response to the conflict’s significance, or have we created something of a self-reinforcing political phenomenon, in which activist enthusiasm, political self-interest and misaligned incentives combine to elevate one particular issue far beyond its practical relevance to British domestic affairs?
If it’s the latter, what does that tell us about how political priorities are established in this country?
I think it appeals to some people's sense of right and wrong. It's a conflict that has a dividing line between the two groups.
It's more visible due to American interests and therefore has more media time.
And of course some people just love a cause.
I agree i think the vast majority of people in the uk may have an opinion on it but i don't think they really care much about it.
It's more visible due to American interests and therefore has more media time.
And of course some people just love a cause.
I agree i think the vast majority of people in the uk may have an opinion on it but i don't think they really care much about it.
Sheets Tabuer said:
They are just appealing to their voter base.
I think this pretty much answers it, that and it being a middle class cause celebre for bonus 'aren't I so virtuous' points when climate change has been exhausted around the dinner party table.I'd wager my pension the vast majority of the public don't give a flying f
k about Gaza, when they are too busy scraping together their last pennies for the weekly shop or to fill up the car.Lotobear said:
I'd wager my pension the vast majority of the public don't give a flying fk about Gaza, when they are too busy scraping together their last pennies for the weekly shop or to fill up the car.
This.k about Gaza, when they are too busy scraping together their last pennies for the weekly shop or to fill up the car.It is utterly bizarre that we have some MPs who were voted in purely on the 'gaza' issue. Do their electorate not give a f
k about potholes, crime, tax, improving their lot?? I don't recall any other conflict that an MP has been voted in similarly.The point is that there are many who care about Gaza but nothing else.
Run for election on a pro Gaza platform and they'll vote for you irrespective of your other policies. People who aren't pro Gaza might still vote for you if they like your other policies.
Be against Gaza and people who agree with you on that might still not vote for you, and the pro Gazans certainly won't.
That's why single issue fanatics get influence out of proportion to their numbers. See also net zero and historically, US prohibition.
Run for election on a pro Gaza platform and they'll vote for you irrespective of your other policies. People who aren't pro Gaza might still vote for you if they like your other policies.
Be against Gaza and people who agree with you on that might still not vote for you, and the pro Gazans certainly won't.
That's why single issue fanatics get influence out of proportion to their numbers. See also net zero and historically, US prohibition.
I’m a boomer. My first years, the political parties and media were, for reason that are obvious, completely uncritical of Israel’s domestic and expansionist activities. This despite the terrorist activities pre independence. My father went through the entire war with an army friend who was killed by Israeli terrorists yet he, and indeed my whole extended family, mainly left-wing, remained uncritical. Even the first series of middle east wars didn’t alter this attitude, the common response being they needed somewhere after the holocaust.
While Israel was a minnow fighting for existence, the left were onside. Then came the series of invasions of surrounding states and the sentiments began to change in the left.
The UK gave bits of other countries to Jews and claimed the moral high ground. It didn’t take long for this to be trashed. Once oil supplies were hit, by the Arab near monopoly, the idea of a solution to the problems became of interest to the rest of the world. In my circle, there was considerable anti-US feelings with their voting with Israel despite the latter engaging in expansionist policies. Israel lost its charmed position and became just another country.
It is entirely possible to be anti-Israel expansionism and not antisemitic. Given that the suggestions are over half the Israeli population are against the Gaza incursions tends to support that.
I am firmly of the opinion the actions of Israel in Gaza have been war crimes. Switching off water and stopping food aid comes comfortably in that definition. To me, keeping quiet about it so as not to upset the US and, maybe, increase our tariffs, is all but collusion.
Israel had a tremendous degree of support after the war. While there was some degree of antisemitism still around, it wasn’t overt. It wasn’t talked about. That it has changed to the degree it has is down to the actions of the IDF, most recently in Gaza. It’s almost another time, another place with regards the corralling of the population, the limiting of food, the switching off of water; these come from a different playbook.
I grew up with Jews in my area of London. I dated one. I never saw any aggression towards them due to their race. Some I didn't know were Jews. It didn't matter.
One problem at the moment is the political leverage the word antisemitism still gives, and for good reason, but to misuse it against every anti-Israel criticism makes it a political meme that pushes people into camps.
I’m not antisemitic. I think what the IDF has done in Gaza is appalling.
While Israel was a minnow fighting for existence, the left were onside. Then came the series of invasions of surrounding states and the sentiments began to change in the left.
The UK gave bits of other countries to Jews and claimed the moral high ground. It didn’t take long for this to be trashed. Once oil supplies were hit, by the Arab near monopoly, the idea of a solution to the problems became of interest to the rest of the world. In my circle, there was considerable anti-US feelings with their voting with Israel despite the latter engaging in expansionist policies. Israel lost its charmed position and became just another country.
It is entirely possible to be anti-Israel expansionism and not antisemitic. Given that the suggestions are over half the Israeli population are against the Gaza incursions tends to support that.
I am firmly of the opinion the actions of Israel in Gaza have been war crimes. Switching off water and stopping food aid comes comfortably in that definition. To me, keeping quiet about it so as not to upset the US and, maybe, increase our tariffs, is all but collusion.
Israel had a tremendous degree of support after the war. While there was some degree of antisemitism still around, it wasn’t overt. It wasn’t talked about. That it has changed to the degree it has is down to the actions of the IDF, most recently in Gaza. It’s almost another time, another place with regards the corralling of the population, the limiting of food, the switching off of water; these come from a different playbook.
I grew up with Jews in my area of London. I dated one. I never saw any aggression towards them due to their race. Some I didn't know were Jews. It didn't matter.
One problem at the moment is the political leverage the word antisemitism still gives, and for good reason, but to misuse it against every anti-Israel criticism makes it a political meme that pushes people into camps.
I’m not antisemitic. I think what the IDF has done in Gaza is appalling.
WindyCommon said:
Why has the Israel/Palestine conflict has come to occupy such an extraordinarily prominent position in contemporary British politics?
I m not questioning the scale of the suffering, the appalling history of the conflict, or the legitimacy of concern about what is happening there. Clearly, it is a humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions. But so are other conflicts around the world. Sudan, for example, is experiencing what the UN describes as the world s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis. Millions have been driven from their homes, famine has taken hold in parts of the country, and civilians have suffered appalling atrocities. Myanmar has endured years of civil war, ethnic persecution and brutal repression. There are plenty of other examples of conflicts, often with deep-rooted religious and ethnic dimensions, that have inflicted terrible suffering on civilian populations over generations.
Yet none seems to exercise anything approaching the same fascination for British politicians, political parties and activists.
Of course, there are obvious reasons why Israel/Palestine resonates particularly strongly here. Britain has historical connections to the region, substantial Jewish and Muslim communities with understandable interests in the conflict, and legitimate diplomatic and foreign-policy responsibilities. None of that is particularly surprising.
What I find harder to understand is how those factors translate into the extraordinary prominence the conflict has acquired in our domestic political discourse.
Israel/Palestine has become something approaching a defining issue within sections of the Labour Party, and increasingly the Green Party. It features prominently in domestic political campaigning, party conferences, demonstrations and arguments about what our political parties should stand for.
There s surely a distinction between recognising why a particular international conflict matters to sections of British society and explaining why it should become such a significant preoccupation of our national political parties. Particularly when so many of the challenges facing Britain are closer to home, and matters over which our politicians have considerably greater influence.
So what explains it? Is the extraordinary prominence of Israel/Palestine in British politics a proportionate response to the conflict s significance, or have we created something of a self-reinforcing political phenomenon, in which activist enthusiasm, political self-interest and misaligned incentives combine to elevate one particular issue far beyond its practical relevance to British domestic affairs?
If it s the latter, what does that tell us about how political priorities are established in this country?
You list the reasons Israel/Palestine resonates....and then proceed to attribute everything beyond that to Labour and the Greens, driven by “activist enthusiasm” and “political self-interest.”...? that hardly shows you are asking this as an unbiased observer in the first place and it also conveniently ignores the issue having been just as central on the right. “Hate marches,” protest law, proscription and antisemitism on the left have been staple Conservative (and the ever constant 'Conservative friends of Israel) and Reform material for two years. If it’s overinflated, it’s inflated from both directions, and both sides have electoral reasons to keep it there and one begets the other and makes each side ever more shrill. Singling out only one side as you did is.... curious given your use of loaded vocabulary (“fascination,” “activist enthusiasm,” “misaligned incentives”), aimed at one side of politics.I m not questioning the scale of the suffering, the appalling history of the conflict, or the legitimacy of concern about what is happening there. Clearly, it is a humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions. But so are other conflicts around the world. Sudan, for example, is experiencing what the UN describes as the world s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis. Millions have been driven from their homes, famine has taken hold in parts of the country, and civilians have suffered appalling atrocities. Myanmar has endured years of civil war, ethnic persecution and brutal repression. There are plenty of other examples of conflicts, often with deep-rooted religious and ethnic dimensions, that have inflicted terrible suffering on civilian populations over generations.
Yet none seems to exercise anything approaching the same fascination for British politicians, political parties and activists.
Of course, there are obvious reasons why Israel/Palestine resonates particularly strongly here. Britain has historical connections to the region, substantial Jewish and Muslim communities with understandable interests in the conflict, and legitimate diplomatic and foreign-policy responsibilities. None of that is particularly surprising.
What I find harder to understand is how those factors translate into the extraordinary prominence the conflict has acquired in our domestic political discourse.
Israel/Palestine has become something approaching a defining issue within sections of the Labour Party, and increasingly the Green Party. It features prominently in domestic political campaigning, party conferences, demonstrations and arguments about what our political parties should stand for.
There s surely a distinction between recognising why a particular international conflict matters to sections of British society and explaining why it should become such a significant preoccupation of our national political parties. Particularly when so many of the challenges facing Britain are closer to home, and matters over which our politicians have considerably greater influence.
So what explains it? Is the extraordinary prominence of Israel/Palestine in British politics a proportionate response to the conflict s significance, or have we created something of a self-reinforcing political phenomenon, in which activist enthusiasm, political self-interest and misaligned incentives combine to elevate one particular issue far beyond its practical relevance to British domestic affairs?
If it s the latter, what does that tell us about how political priorities are established in this country?
There are rather obvious differences from Sudan if one chooses to look - Israel purports to be a modern liberal democracy that's allied with the west and is directly concerned with plenty of live UK policy decisions; Sudan mostly isn’t such a case.
Much of the prominence you claim to be puzzled by is the domestic fallout especially over the last 2 years, so “beyond its practical relevance to British domestic affairs” doesn’t make much sense either. Were you as surprised by the prominence about the anti-apartheid movement/protests previously as well?
UK has plenty to do with China and I don't see much marching around and regular protests on behalf of the Uighurs. A persecuted muslim minority in a first world superpower. Even other muslims can't seem to get worked up about it.
A distinct lack of Jew content seems to be the real issue there.
A distinct lack of Jew content seems to be the real issue there.
Austin Prefect said:
Since when has a country at war been obliged to supply food and water to their enemy?
The Geneva Convention pretty much covers the legality of the deliberate destruction/pollution of civilian water supplies in armed conflict. Or, do you consider the entire Gazan population to be 'the enemy', and not civilians.......
I think the world has joined the dots by now. The friction now is everyone having a choice on who to do business with. Uk/usa sunk to the nuts in israel, or other parts of the world like China ,that mysteriously existed before all the biblical bks was invented.
UK busy trying to play both sides with the latest we feel your pain and were wrong claptrap.
ks was invented.UK busy trying to play both sides with the latest we feel your pain and were wrong claptrap.
isaldiri said:
You list the reasons Israel/Palestine resonates....and then proceed to attribute everything beyond that to Labour and the Greens, driven by activist enthusiasm and political self-interest. ...?
No, I don’t.It would be better if you responded to what is actually written rather than taking a guess at the motivations of posters.
WindyCommon said:
isaldiri said:
You list the reasons Israel/Palestine resonates....and then proceed to attribute everything beyond that to Labour and the Greens, driven by activist enthusiasm and political self-interest. ...?
No, I don t.It would be better if you responded to what is actually written rather than taking a guess at the motivations of posters.
Edited by isaldiri on Friday 9th October 13:28
Derek Smith said:
I m not antisemitic. I think what the IDF has done in Gaza is appalling.
Exactly. I don’t see how anyone can support what the IDF has done in Gaza. Clearly the initial actions of Hamas which set this all off were equally wrong but that didn’t warrant the impacts on the civilian population of Gaza.However can’t say that in the office as it will set my Jewish colleague off.
There was a poll that came out a couple of weeks ago when the Labour Party conference was on that asked Labour members and ordinary people their priority's and the most important things the Gov should be dealing with
At the top of the Labour members priorities were Gaza and rejoining the EU
Non members priorities were the economy, cost of living and immigration which hardly featured on the member's list
Gaza and rejoining the EU were right at the bottom of "others" iirc about 4% for Gaza and less than 1% for rejoining the EU
A big disconnect
At the top of the Labour members priorities were Gaza and rejoining the EU
Non members priorities were the economy, cost of living and immigration which hardly featured on the member's list
Gaza and rejoining the EU were right at the bottom of "others" iirc about 4% for Gaza and less than 1% for rejoining the EU
A big disconnect
I would regard myself as left leaning but the amount of time wasted in the UK by organisations that have no control over what is happening 1000s of miles away pushes me to the right.
Unison seem to spend more time worrying about Gaza than them money left in the members pockets at the end of the month.
Councils holding votes to condemn Israel, as if they give a fk about what some tiny council in the UK think of them!
Unison seem to spend more time worrying about Gaza than them money left in the members pockets at the end of the month.
Councils holding votes to condemn Israel, as if they give a f
k about what some tiny council in the UK think of them! Type R Tom said:
I would regard myself as left leaning but the amount of time wasted in the UK by organisations that have no control over what is happening 1000s of miles away pushes me to the right.
Unison seem to spend more time worrying about Gaza than them money left in the members pockets at the end of the month.
Councils holding votes to condemn Israel, as if they give a fk about what some tiny council in the UK think of them!
Virtue signalling from the hand wringing,pearl clutching brigade, they are of no use to man not beast.Unison seem to spend more time worrying about Gaza than them money left in the members pockets at the end of the month.
Councils holding votes to condemn Israel, as if they give a f
k about what some tiny council in the UK think of them! Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff