Scottish student found guilty of racism for desecrating Israeli flag

[Magdalen]

St Andrews student guilty of Israel flag racism

A student at St Andrews University has been found guilty of a racist breach of the peace after he insulted the flag of Israel.

Paul Donnachie, 19, put his hands down his trousers then rubbed them on a flag belonging to Jewish student Chanan Reitblat.

Donnachie also accused Mr Reitblat of being a terrorist during the incident at the halls of residence in March.

The case against his co-accused Samuel Colchester, 20, was found not proven.

Donnachie has been expelled from St Andrews and Mr Colchester has been suspended for one year.

Cupar Sheriff Court had earlier heard evidence from Mr Reitblat, a chemistry student on a one-term exchange from the Jewish Yeshiva University in New York, who said he felt "violated and devastated" by the incident.

The court heard that Donnachie and Mr Colchester entered the halls at 01:30 on 12 March to see another student who shared the flat.

Lithuanian-born Mr Reitblat said he had the 4ft by 3ft (1.2m by 0.9m) flag on the wall after being given it by his brother, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier.

He said Donnachie noticed the flag, and said Israel was a terrorist state and the flag was a terrorist symbol.

He then unbuttoned his trousers, put his hands down his pants, pulled off a pubic hair and rubbed it over the flag.

Mr Reitblat said he then threw the pair out.

Sheriff Charlie Macnair told Donnachie, a history student and member of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, that he was satisfied he had behaved the way he had towards the Jewish student because Mr Reitblat was a citizen of the State of Israel.

He said: "This flag was his personal property. I consider that your behaviour did evince malice towards Mr Reitblat because of his presumed membership of Israel.

"I'm satisfied that you said Israel was a terrorist state and the flag was a terrorist symbol and I also hold that you said that Mr Reitblat was a terrorist."

Sentence on Donnachie was deferred for background reports.

Members of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who packed the public benches in the courtroom, booed, tutted and shouted "scandalous" as the sheriff rose to leave.

Outside the court, a tearful Donnachie said he would appeal.

He said: "This is a ridiculous conviction. I'm a member of anti-racism campaigns, and I am devastated that as someone who was fought against racism I have been tarnished in this way."

Mr Reitblat, who was also booed as he left the court, said he "welcomed" the conviction.

St Andrews University conducted its own investigation into the incident back in June but reserved its findings to avoid prejudicing the court proceedings.

A spokesman for the university said it had a long tradition of tolerance, respect and the right to freedom of expression, but was also a community which "abhors racial intolerance".

He added: "Mr Donnachie was informed this afternoon that his studies at St Andrews have been terminated and he will leave the university with immediate effect.

"Mr Colchester has been informed that he has been suspended for one year and excluded from university halls of residence. Any further misconduct on his part will lead to automatic termination of studies."

Whether or not his actions could be judged as a rather ill-advised boyish prank, this is an absolutely appalling decision, implying that criticism of the State of Israel is a racist act. In one sweep, the gains won during the trial of the SPSC 5 in Edinburgh last year, who were cleared of a similar charge (with the Sheriff ruling very specifically that criticism of Israel was not racist), have been reversed by an out-of-touch provincial Sheriff, and backed up by reactionary academics (no doubt still smarting after a showpiece address by the Israeli ambassador at their University was severely disrupted by supporters of Palestine).

[Tifosi]

I post on another forum with him. The Sun has be snooping around it looking for shit to throw since some of his posts on it where giving to them. Also, due to issues with legal aid he hasn't had a lawyer for most of this, so has had to sit through long debates about if he should represent himself.

Feel sorry for him, because this silly act has fucked him up. Out of uni ect.

[Rooster]

St Andrews is an expensive public school, right? The one where Prince William went to?

[Kamos]

So people get convicted for acts of racism now? Strange, I never see this when it would be needed...

[Threetune]

What was the purpose of a racist Zionist imperialist flag in a school, if not to provoke?

[Tommy4ever]

St Andrews is an expensive public school, right? The one where Prince William went to?

Its a university with the same costs of other Scottish unis (ie its currently free of fees if you are Scottish).

Conincidently I will be going to St Andrews in less than a month and my grandparents live in Cupar (where the court he went to was). This feels awfully close to home.

I hope its not me being sent to court in a years time for rubbing my pubes on a Confederate flag or something. :tt2:

[Magdalen]

Sounds like a racist asshat to me.

As I said to begin with, I think it's not outlandish to say that it was an ill-advised boyish prank, he's admitted as much himself. However, if he'd done as much to an American flag to a student who was an open Tea-Partier while discussing Iraq or Afghanistan, would you be making the same statement then? The fact of the matter is that the Israeli flag symbolises the daily acts of barbarism and oppression committed by the state it represents - Reitblat was given the flag by his brother who may well have participated in these acts. To attack this symbol certainly isn't racist.

[Sensible Socialist]

If people who made jokes about anyone who isn't white were kicked out of school, we'd only need a handful of universities in the whole country. He shouldn't have called the student a terrorist, but there is surely a double standard because the student was Jewish. I doubt the same thing would of happened had it been a Mexican flag.

[litster]

ridiculous, the courts like to waste there time a lot these days. If there were the Jack or the stars and stripes, or even an arab nation flag no case for racism would be there.
This is the problem with zionism, an attack on Israel should not be an attack on the Jewish people, millions of non jewish (be that muslim or atheism) people live in Israel.
fredom of speech is being trambled on, because of 70 year old guilt

[manic expression]

He conflated the actions of a state with a single individual and accused that individual of being a terrorist because of their nationality and ethnicity.
The Zionist flag itself is a symbol of racism and ethnic cleansing.

[ZeroNowhere]

He said Donnachie noticed the flag, and said Israel was a terrorist state and the flag was a terrorist symbol.

I don't disagree with this.


He then unbuttoned his trousers, put his hands down his pants, pulled off a pubic hair and rubbed it over the flag.

I don't disagree with this either.

[freepalestine]

He conflated the actions of a state with a single individual and accused that individual of being a terrorist because of their nationality and ethnicity. At the very least that makes the guy a xenophobic prick if not an outright racist one who has a problem with jews, and I'm glad that St. Andrews kicked him out. Good fucking riddance.

Having a problem with Israeli state policy is not licence to be a racist bully.what are you talking about..are you a cop or something.why did he have a racist flag.
personally i think a good kick in,wouldnt have been out of line.

[00000000000]

A silly boy made an ill-advised 'gesture' at his opposition to the State of Israel (and not, I hope, Israelis / Jews as a group). I am not a supporter of Israel's policies in Gaza, I do think it is murderous state that enjoys far too much international support for it's actions.
However, their is fault on both sides here. The courts ruling is over-the-top, at worst this was a prank in bad taste. At the same time, the guy doing the pubic protest was juvenile and absurd in his actions (if some guy stuck his pubes on anything belonging to me, I'd take fucking umbridge, wouldn't matter if ti was a flag or a coffee mug).
I know some people equate the Israel flag to being the same symbol of hate and murder as the swastika...but there are those that would say the same of the Hammer and Sickle (soviet union's gulags etc).
The guilty parties here are the guy with a pube in his hand and the court that went over-board

[Kamos]

Well, that depends on whether you think that a flag represents the actions of a ruling class that controls it or whether it more widely represents the people who live in that State. You plainly are employing it in the former sense, but that logic also extends to all states which basically means that all national flags represent the most base form of reactionary thought. But as I recall, you see no problem with nationalism. Do you reserve the same judgement for, say, FreePalistine and his signature line? After all, some Palestinians have committed all manner of reactionary actions in the name of the Palestinian national cause. Does that give you the right to try to humiliate and bully any random Palestinian individual you come across?

I never thought this site would become a platform for the defence of outright unacceptable racist bullying. But apparently my faith was sadly misplaced.

So if someone is carrying a swastika flag*, you wouldn't support its desecration? Would you say that's anti-German racism? Please don't start apologising for the Zionists now.

*Godwin's law herp derp, who cares.

[Kamos]

Firstly, the comparison between the Nazis and a Jewish student - who obviously is not responsible for Israeli government policy - is historically insensitive to a point well beyond the mere crass. Rarely have I seen so unfair a comment, so well done there, you have at least altered my expectations. Secondly, the Swastika, first and formost was the flag of the Nazi Party not the Weimar Republic and Germany as a whole until the Nazis forced the change. As a result it does not, and never truly did, represent the people of Germany but of the Nazi party and Nazi ideology. Indeed, the whole argument falls dangerously close to suggesting that Nazis and ordinary Germans were synonamous and that German's are collectively guilty.

Let me get this straight, you say that a flag doesn't represent the people as a whole, but then you say that by desecrating the flag, he attacked the person himself based on his race? Am I the only one who sees a huge glaring contradiction here?


The star of David on the other hand gained even more symbolism than mere national identity was theose same Nazis marched the jewish population of Europe to their deaths while wearing the star of David to denote their alleged racial inferiority.And then it gained a whole other symbolism after the State of Israel was established. To make it clear for you, the star of David by itself and the symbol of the hateful bigot Zionists is separated by only two blue lines, and yet those two lines make all the difference here. And unless I misread the title, the student desecrated the flag of Israel.


It isn't so much the desacration of the flag which is most inappropriate either, it is the attitude of the bully which assumed that all Israeli's are the same, think the same and are resonsible for the actions of the State. And if you can't see the problem with that you should be in OI with the zionists.So if this guy was so opposed to the actions of the State of Israel, why was he carrying the Zionist flag? Congratulations, you use no logic whatsoever. People who carry around the flags of their home countries are patriots, which makes this Jewish student a supporter of the apartheid state and a bigot himself.

EDIT: Then again, who knows, maybe the guy was actually a racist. Or maybe he was an anti-Zionist, your guess is as good as mine. But please, don't defend those who proudly carry the Zionist flag, because that's something I wouldn't expect from a leftist.

[manic expression]

Well, that depends on whether you think that a flag represents the actions of a ruling class that controls it or whether it more widely represents the people who live in that State.
Does it represent "the people who live in that state"? It sure as shit doesn't represent Arabs who live there, so that would be a big no.

The Israeli flag is a symbol of Zionism, which means ethnic cleansing and racism. It deserves not one bit of respect.


You plainly are employing it in the former sense, but that logic also extends to all states which basically means that all national flags represent the most base form of reactionary thought. But as I recall, you see no problem with nationalism. Do you reserve the same judgement for, say, FreePalistine and his signature line? After all, some Palestinians have committed all manner of reactionary actions in the name of the Palestinian national cause. Does that give you the right to try to humiliate and bully any random Palestinian individual you come across?
The Palestinian flag represents a nation that has been chased off its land, slaughtered, imprisoned on an industrial scale. These crimes are all done under the racist Israeli flag. But you don't care, do you? Much better to be a liberal than to take a stand, right?


I never thought this site would become a platform for the defence of outright unacceptable racist bullying. But apparently my faith was sadly misplaced.
The Israeli flag doesn't represent Jewish people. It's a Zionist symbol, and Zionism does not equal Judaism.

Write that down 100 times, and keep going until you comprehend it. Faith won't help you understand the oppression of Palestine by the monster of Zionism.

[manic expression]

No, I never argued that the Israeli flag represented anything, I argued that it didn't necessarily represent the actions of the Israeli ruling class, but could represent its people depending on what the flag means to a apecific individual. You then argued that the Swastika represented the German people, and I called bullshit. Does that bring you up to speed?
The NSDAP flag represents Nazism just as the Israeli flag represents Zionism.

Why are you defending one of those fascist ideologies?


But this returns to the point that the flag does not necessarily represent the actions of the Israeli ruling elite, any more than my Liverpool F.C. flag denotes that I agree with everything associated with Liverpool F.C., which currently includes cheating, financial ruin, star players assaulting people in bars and a legacy of fan violence. Also the Liverbird on the crest represents the team's home city of Liverpool. By having a flag, with that symbol of that city, does that make me in complicit agreement with every action and role the city has taken in the history of British imperialism? Does owning the flag make a champion of the slave trade? Of course not. Your whole argument is built of the non-sequitur that because you own a flag you agree with everything that flag may, or may not, represent.
The symbol of Liverpool FC does indeed represent the history of the club, for better or for worse. It does partially represent the tragedy in Belgium, whether or not you want to admit it. It also represents the fans of Liverpool trying their best to make amends and honor those who were lost. It partially represents debt, it partially represents well-earned glory. All that is what makes Liverpool FC what it is.

What makes Israel? Well, ethnic cleansing and racism...at its very core. Therefore, its flag is a symbol that deserves not an ounce of respect from anyone vaguely progressive.


My point is these things are entirely subjective and relative to the individual, and owning an Israeli flag is not a valid excuse for xenophobic racist bullying or conflating a single individual outside of the halls of government with 70 year legacy of the Israeli political elite and ruling class.
:laugh: Yeah, I'm sure he thought the Israeli flag represented cucumber sandwiches and cheese-flavored doritos...after all, it's "entirely subjective and relative to the individual!" That's why "Mein Kampf" really represents Christmas presents and the National Park Service!


On the contrary, I do and have proven that your entire argument, to defend racist bullying, is built on a non-sequitur and collective guilt. You assume that having a flag or symbol necessarily means that you agree with every possible interpretation of that symbol. Sorry, but it doesn't.
Ah, but the racist bullying of Israel is OK.

[Kamos]

No, I never argued that the Israeli flag represented anything, I argued that it didn't necessarily represent the actions of the Israeli ruling class, but could represent its people depending on what the flag means to a apecific individual. You then argued that the Swastika represented the German people, and I called bullshit. Does that bring you up to speed?

Did I, now? I don't remember arguing anything. I think I argued that fucking up a flag that represents [insert extreme reactionary views here] is, in itself, an acceptable thing to do, and that those who wear such flags proudly are scum. Or, at best, ignorant of what the flag represents.


To you, perhaps. My argument is that the meaning a symbol is relative to the individual viewing it.

Going back to the German example, you don't brandish a Swastika flag in support of the Nazi party's economic policies. Symbols have pretty clear-cut meanings at any given time.


But this returns to the point that the flag does not necessarily represent the actions of the Israeli ruling elite, any more than my Liverpool F.C. flag denotes that I agree with everything associated with Liverpool F.C., which currently includes cheating, financial ruin, star players assaulting people in bars and a legacy of fan violence. Also the Liverbird on the crest represents the team's home city of Liverpool. By having a flag, with that symbol of that city, does that make me in complicit agreement with every action and role the city has taken in the history of British imperialism? Does owning the flag make a champion of the slave trade? Of course not. Your whole argument is built of the non-sequitur that because you own a flag you agree with everything that flag may, or may not, represent.

Liverpool F.C. is a football team, not a country. I think that settles this paragraph.


My point is these things are entirely subjective and relative to the individual, and owning an Israeli flag is not a valid excuse for xenophobic racist bullying or conflating a single individual outside of the halls of government with 70 year legacy of the Israeli political elite and ruling class.

And my points are that if you carry the flag of the State of Israel with you, you're ignorant or a douche, and that desecrating a flag does not necessarily equal an attack on the person, or if it does, it's not because of race. You argue like those "anti-zionism = anti-semitism" liberal bores.


On the contrary, I do and have proven that your entire argument, to defend racist bullying, is built on a non-sequitur and collective guilt. You assume that having a flag or symbol necessarily means that you agree with every possible interpretation of that symbol. Sorry, but it doesn't.

So I defend racist bullying? Then you defend bigoted Zionist expansionism.


Another non-sequitur. Just because you consider yourself patriotic does not imply, for a second, that you agree with the actions of your government.

You know, there is a reason patriots love their country. In my opinion, patriotism is an offshoot of nationalism, and as a result, both imply that you support your country because of its mentality, its heritage - you get it? Well, we all know what the heritage of the State of Israel is.

[manic expression]

A typically one dimensional and myopic point of view. Ok, fine, it represents Israelis. Are you implying that all Israeli's are responcible for the actions of the Israeli ruling elite? Do you are for collective guilt?
Ah, "Israelis"...defined as such by being Jewish and not Arab. Know what we call that? Racism, the very basis of Israel's existence.


And it also represents reactionary thieves like the deceased Yassar Arafat, who stole $900 million worth of his own people's money. Are all those who identify themselves and their national identity under that flag complicit and in agreement with Arafat's actions because of his association with the same cause? No, of course not, your argument is a load of reactionary old cobblers.
Yes, I'm sure you're oh-so-concerned about Arafat cooking his books. But since you didn't notice, the corruption of one leader, who was indeed pivotal for the struggle of Palestine, does not define the whole nation. Compare that to Israel and Zionism: without the latter, there is no former.

[Magdalen]

I'm not associating them with anything. I am, however, employing the precise same logic you are to note that the use of the colours, to denote the flag of Palestine, could be used to denote a series of reactionary points of view which includes the extermination of the Israelis - which some Palestinians have called for.

There's a tremendous difference between a few lunatics on the fringes of Palestinian society (who you haven't even bothered to identify), and the entire founding ideology and raison d'être of the Israeli state.

[Nox]

The Israeli flag doesn't represent Jewish people. It's a Zionist symbol, and Zionism does not equal Judaism..

Very well said. A flag doesn't and shouldn't represent the people - it represents the nation.

[Magdalen]

As a stimulus to further discussion, here's a fuller report of yesterday's trial from the website of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Apparently the Sheriff refused to even allow the evidence of expert witnesses from Scottish Jews for a Just Peace and the SPSC.


http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3677:cupar-sheriff-convicts-anti-racist-of-racism-appeal-underway&catid=502:news&Itemid=200435

Cupar Sheriff convicts anti-racist of “racism”; Appeal underway.

In what justified shouts of "scandal" from the public gallery, Sheriff Charles MacNair found Paul Donnachie guilty of racially aggravated conduct today. Even the Daily Mail was shocked.

The case centred on testimony from Paul's former friend, Jewish fellow student, Chanan Reitblat. Reitblat told the court that both Paul and his co-accused, Sam, had soiled his Israeli flag, following up with comments that "This flag is a terrorist symbol; Israel is a terrorist state; you are a terrorist". No other witness corroborated this statement by Reitblat.

Reitblatt stated in court his firm opposition to international law, his belief that there was no Israeli occupation of any part of Palestine, and his political commitment to Zionist Jews' right to control the entirety of Israel and Palestine, as well as parts of Syria and Egypt.

It's worth repeating - No other witness corroborated Reitblat's assertions.

When asked by Procurator Fiscal Brian Robertson "do you see yourself as affiliated to Israel?", Reitblat replied, "Of course. Israel is a Jewish state... You cannot separate Israel from Jewishness... Israel is a state I feel affiliated to by religion."

Explaining that although he had never been to Israel, he believed "Israel is a land for Jews... The Jewish people have a right to self-determination. That is part of my religious belief."

The prosecution led 8 witnesses, only one of whom, Reitblat's room-mate Matt, provided any information pertinent to the racially aggravated conduct charge. He was the only person present in the room other than Reitblat, Paul and Sam.

Matt testified that what happened was boisterous but good natured; nothing that was said or done was malicious, and that nothing was directed or targeted at Reitblat as an individual. This testimony stands directly against Reitblat's assertion that they both said, "you are a terrorist".

Matt said that Reitblat was irritated by the incident but said that his level of annoyance seems to have increased over time. Reitblat had told him that he was annoyed that Sam had peed in his sink, and that Paul had soiled his flag. Reitblat denied in court that he had discussed this with Matt.

Reitblat also told the warden at the student halls of residence that Sam had done nothing. She said so when interviewed by police, and again in court on Monday.

Later, in his summing up later, the solicitor for Paul's co-accussed, Sam Colchester, explained that Reitblat's evidence had been "unreliable and incredible". He went through a range of clear inconsistencies between what Reitblat had said in previous statements and what he now says. This went unchallenged. The sheriff declared a "NOT PROVEN" verdict in relation to Sam.

After the prosecution case had been made, Paul's lawyer argued that there was no case to answer; that the evidence led did not constitute a crime. He argued that soiling the Israeli flag, which Paul has openly admitted all along, was not a crime, and that there was no corroboration of Reitblat's accusation that they had said, "you are a terrorist", which was the only accusation pertinent to the racially aggravated conduct charge.

The sheriff seemed to ignore these arguments completely, stating that "his conduct had been directed toward the complainer purely because of his membership of a racial group".

The sheriff argued that it had been alleged by the complainer, Chanan Reitblat, that Paul had said, "This flag is a terrorist symbol; Israel is a terrorist state; you are a terrorist". He went on, "even if we assume that he didn't call him a terrorist, the other comments were directed at him because he is Jewish and has a link to Israel."

So the sheriff decided that there was a case to answer, so the defence case would have to be made.

Giving testimony, Paul explained that the defacing of flags was a time-honoured method of showing disaffection to the state, and explained that he had never called Reitbalt a terrorist, but that he had said Israel was a terrorist state.

"I'm not contending that my action toward the flag was commendable or dignified, but it was a political expression."

The sheriff made a very confused attempt to clarify what Paul meant when he referred to a state, and tried to conflate criticism of a state with criticism of the people within it. Paul made a clear distinction. He told the sheriff that "the citizens of a country cannot be held responsible for the actions of a state".

When Paul had finished, the Sheriff stated that what Paul did was "done because he [Reitblat] was a Jew and because of his association with Israel."

The sheriff then refused to allow Paul's lawyer to call the three expert witnesses to appear. Liz Elkind and Sarah Glynn, both of Scottish Jews for a Just Peace, and SPSC chair Mick Napier were going discuss the dangers of conflating Judaism with Zionism and Israel, the history of Zionist attempts to do so, and the concepts of Israel and Israeli nationality. The sheriff considered this irrelevant because there was nothing they could teach him that common sense wouldn't provide.

So the prosecution called 8 witnesses, and Paul's lawyer was only permitted to call Paul...

In his summing up, Paul's solicitor reminded the sheriff that there had been "no corroboration of the accusation that Paul had called Reitblat a terrorist". The sheriff had already explained to the court that Scots law requires corroboration; one witness is not enough.

Paul's lawyer explained that the defacing of the flag was an "act of political expression, as protected by article 10, which included physical acts. He discussed proportionality of the charge: "the Napier [SPSC5] case discussed the stigmatisation attached to the charge".

He said that "an affront to the flag, criticising the state of Israel, is not a criminal act in terms of Section 50A."

The sheriff responded: "Saying that a state is terrorist says that everyone within the state is terrorist. He doesn't distinguish between the state and the people."

The sheriff continued, "Mr Donnachie doesn't distinguish between the government of Israel and the state."

The expert witnesses may have been able to teach the sheriff something after all. Pity it was too late.

The sheriff then took less than 5 minutes to come to a decision.

In relation to Paul, he said that there was "only one issue of fact between them" [the statement, "you are a terrorist"].

"I hold that you said, that's a terrorist flag, Israel is a terrorist state, and you are a terrorist.

"Section 50A requires malice or ill will towards a person based on their membership of an ethnic group; which includes nationality and association with that group.

"It was malice and ill will because of his presumed membership of Israel."

The sheriff found Paul guilty of racially aggravated conduct, and deferred sentence until Sep 13th.

Paul, although shocked at the clear injustice, composed himself before facing the media. According to STV, 'Outside the court, Donnachie said he would appeal. He said: "This is a ridiculous conviction. I'm a member of anti-racism campaigns, and I am devastated that as someone who has fought against racism I have been tarnished in this way."'

It should be highlighted that Paul has been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one person. That person is an ultra-zionist, who in court refused to accept that Israel occupies the West Bank.

On top of this, grounds for appeal include (but are not restricted to) the sheriff's refusal to receive the devolution minute at the last diet (legal challenge over the competency of the charge); and his refusal to exercise discretion in allowing the defence to call witnesses this afternoon - witnesses who according to Paul's lawyer were clearly "cogent to the determination of the case."

Within the hour, St Andrews University had expelled Paul and suspended Sam for one year.

According to the Daily Mail:

"The judge had earlier refused defence solicitor Patrick Campbell to allow evidence from academic experts on whether the actions of Donnachie constituted an attack on the Israeli state as opposed to racism.

"Due to be called was Jewish politics lecturer Sarah Glynn who was close to tears as she left court and told Reitblat's family their actions were 'scandalous.'

"She said: 'As Jews you should be ashamed. This is devastating.'"

Paul, although shocked at the clear injustice, composed himself before facing the media. According to STV, 'Outside the court, Donnachie said he would appeal. He said: "This is a ridiculous conviction. I'm a member of anti-racism campaigns, and I am devastated that as someone who has fought against racism I have been tarnished in this way."'

He will win!

Report by Kevin Connor, 23 August 2011

[JustMovement]

I have no love whatsoever for the Israeli state, and have no problem with anyone burning, rubbing their genitals with or in other ways desecrating the Israeli flag.

But in this case one student targeted another students flag and accused him of being a terrorist. The Israeli kid in this case discriminated against based on where he happened to be from, something he had no choice in regardless of his political views, and so is a straight forward case of racism.

Any attempt to politicise this undermines the real Palestinian struggle and lends credence to the idea that criticism of the state of Israel is in fact "anti-Semitism".

[manic expression]

So you may believe, but you are conflating your assumptions with fact and drawing a huge stereotype. The reality is that the Israeli flag has no explicit meaning, its meaning is relative, unlike the Swastika which was always designed by the Nazi Party to represent Nazi ideology.
And the Israeli flag has always been designed by Israel to represent Zionist ideology.

Israel = Zionism = racism and ethnic cleansing

They all go hand-in-hand.


It's only been a couple of posts and already your "argument" has degenerated to the point that you're accusing me of being an apologist for fascism. Not because I have actually said anything in support of either Nazi or Israeli ruling class policy, but because I pointed out that it is wrong to bully a person based on their ethnicity and nationality. I don't know which is more insulting, the accusation or the assumption that I'm too stupid to note how utterly dishonest it is.

You're pathetic.
You're the one who claimed that Arabs aren't to be considered Israelis, which is agreeing to a Zionist dichotomy that any progressive must fundamentally question.

You're also the one presenting a false equivalency between the crimes of Zionism and the struggle of the Palestinian people. "Arafat was corrupt so it's no better than the wholesale slaughter of defenseless Palestinian men, women and children...." :rolleyes:

What, am I supposed to say you're progressive, just to make you feel better? Stop defending Zionism and I'll retract my query.


Race is a social construction, and actually, it is your assumption that race defines nationality, that is faulty. Indeed, there are Arab Israelis and not just Arabs on one side of the divide and Jews on the other. Why don't you try educating yourself instead of acting a like a dick, but more pressingly an ignorant dick.
:lol: Talk about missing the point. Israel was created to be an ethnically pure state. It was created to be a "homeland" for Jews, and the "other people" who were living there were just in the way. It is living, breathing apartheid. How is that anything but racist and bigoted? Race is a social construction, but Zionists base their entire ideology upon that very social construction. That's the point.

"Arab Israelis" are treated like garbage and don't even have the right to commemorate the ethnic cleansing against their people. Try to not be a stooge for Israel next time.


Yet for all your misplaced sarcasm, you can't actually mount a counter-argument. Funny that.
I simply applied your logic to another example to illustrate the idiocy of your argument. If you're going to deny that symbols can change as soon as we click our heels together, then why stop with the symbols of Zionism?

Too bad you can't respond to it.

[manic expression]

So what you are saying is that by being born in Israel, and accepting the Israeli citizenship that comes with that, you must agree with every Israeli policy historic and present? And by extension does every other nationality follows the same rule?

Is that really your argument? Because if it is, there isn't really a lot more to say, the stupidity of your position speaks for itself.
Perhaps this is news to you, but you don't have to fly an Israeli flag if you're in possession of Israeli citizenship.

By the way, the student with the flag wasn't born in Israel. Not exactly on the ball, are you?

Lithuanian-born Mr Reitblat said he had the 4ft by 3ft (1.2m by 0.9m) flag on the wall after being given it by his brother, an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier.

So this Lithuanian-born student flies an Israeli flag because his brother is serving in the murderous IDF...and you're here crying crocodile tears over it. Go ahead and tell us it has nothing to do with Zionism or the butchers of the IDF. Go for it.


I never said anything of the sort, I see you've migrated back from pathetic accusations apologism for fascism to outright lies again.
Ha.

Ok, fine, it represents Israelis.

That was you responding to the fact that the flag of Israel doesn't represent Arabs living in Israel, which means you don't think Arabs should be considered Israelis at all.


This is, again, another outright lie. I never stated that the two were equivelent, you've just made that up. I stated that, if we follow your logic, the Palestinian people are defined by the actions of their ruuling elite, which includes theft on a massive scale. Plainly that isn't the case, so by extension neither is your assertion that Israeli's are defined by their ruling elite.
Again, false equivalency. The Israeli flag is a symbol of Zionism because it's the ideological and practical basis of Israel itself. The Palestinian flag is a symbol of the people of Palestine, who have been denied even a state.


You should retract it because you've been caught in a lie.
Wishful thinking. The validity of that point increases every time you try to justify Zionism.


Well it isn't and never has been, so I guess we can chalk you up another strike in bullshit column.
Except Israel has committed massive ethnic cleansing and treats any Arabs living there like dirt...using them as cheap labor, forcing them into silence, making them third-class citizens in their own land. Of course, that's in between sessions of slaughtering defenseless Palestinians.

Apologizing for Racism. The new fragrance from Invader Zim.

[Hit The North]

I never thought this site would become a platform for the defence of outright unacceptable racist bullying. But apparently my faith was sadly misplaced.

Even the Sheriff, Charlie Macnair, didn't accuse the student of racism, but had the good sense to distinguish between Donnachie's political opposition to Israel and any accusation of anti-Semitism. So it is disappointing that a long-standing member of Rev Left is incapable of doing the same.

[Invader Zim]

I'm so fucking done with this. I don't come on this board to be threatened by idiot kids playing internet hardman.

[mosfeld]

Well, that depends on whether you think that a flag represents the actions of a ruling class that controls it or whether it more widely represents the people who live in that State. The barbaric settler-colonialism of the Zionist state finds its consent and social base within the Israeli populace, who by and large benefit from the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. An Israeli, i.e. someone privileged who lives of the backs and at the expense of the Palestinians, who participates in its states policies, or encourages them, or even passively turns a blind eye towards them, is a part of the problem and is complicit in its states policies. Unless the Israelis actively oppose its states policy, then they are a part of the problem, and it just so happens that the absolute majority of Israelis do not do that. So as far as I'm concerned, the Zionist state and flag represents not only its ruling class and military, but also its populace who repeatedly elect butcher after butcher to the throne of Israel and stubbornly refuse to support and fight for Palestinian nationhood and liberation.

[Kamos]

I'm so fucking done with this. I don't come on this board to be threatened by idiot kids playing internet hardman.

Speaking about kids, you're acting pretty damn immature, having the highest insults/post ratio in the thread by far. Other than supporting zionism, what's your problem?

[Invader Zim]

The barbaric settler-colonialism of the Zionist state finds its consent and social base within the Israeli populace, who by and large benefit from the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. An Israeli, i.e. someone privileged who lives of the backs and at the expense of the Palestinians, who participates in its states policies, or encourages them, or even passively turns a blind eye towards them, is a part of the problem and is complicit in its states policies. Unless the Israelis actively oppose its states policy, then they are a part of the problem, and it just so happens that the absolute majority of Israelis do not do that. So as far as I'm concerned, the Zionist state and flag represents not only its ruling class and military, but also its populace who repeatedly elect butcher after butcher to the throne of Israel and stubbornly refuse to support and fight for Palestinian nationhood and liberation.

So the problem is, for you, not so much a class one but that all Israeli's are all evil racists complicit in the criminal activites of Israel's ruling elite?

You disagree with me, and have at least been polite and articulate, so thanks for that. But I don't agree and doubt I ever will.

[Tim Finnegan]

While this was undoubtedly absurd treatment, I'm not entirely comfortable calling "Zionism" until we could find some way to repeat this with an Arab student and a Palestinian flag. It seems possible that this is as much a case of over-sensitivity on the sheriff's part as any concious political statement.

(Edit: I did originally include a comment about Magdalen's use of the term "provincial", but after posting it seemed to come across as a bit defensive, so I edited it out, apparently before he was able to post. My bad.)

[Magdalen]

While this was undoubtedly absurd treatment, I'm not entirely comfortable calling "Zionism" until we could find some way to repeat this with an Arab student and a Palestinian flag. It seems possible that this is as much a case of over-sensitivity on the sheriff's part as any concious political statement.

As I noted earlier, the Sheriff apparently refused to hear testimony from various expert witnesses upon whether criticism of the Israeli state was in fact 'racist', and disregarded the conclusions of the SPSC 5 trial in Edinburgh last year, when it was conclusively found not to be so. Apologies for the use of the term provincial, that was my inner Dundonian attitude towards Fifers getting out :p (that said, I was once referred to as a 'teuchtar' myself during a discussion with someone on a march in Glasgow!).

[mosfeld]

So the problem is, for you, not so much a class one but that all Israeli's are all evil racists complicit in the criminal activites of Israel's ruling elite? In my opinion, within the Palestinian context, or any colonial context for that matter, race trumps class (though, of course, the two are inter-connected.) The Israeli, of whatever class, benefits from the exploitation of the Palestinian -- his wealth, well-being and existence is built on it. He is a labor aristocrat. Why would he unite with the Palestinians? That would mean fighting against his own privilege. Of course, there will always be people who will fight for social justice at the expense of their own privilege, but I do not think that this is the rule but the exception. This can be seen from several historical examples (Algeria, Sri Lanka, South Africa, etc.)

But we don't have to discuss this, since we most likely won't reach any agreement. I just thought I'd throw in some stuff I've been thinking about.

[Tim Finnegan]

As I noted earlier, the Sheriff apparently refused to hear testimony from various expert witnesses upon whether criticism of the Israeli state was in fact 'racist', and disregarded the conclusions of the SPSC 5 trial in Edinburgh last year, when it was conclusively found not to be so. Apologies for the use of the term provincial, that was my inner Dundonian attitude towards Fifers getting out :p (that said, I was once referred to as a 'teuchtar' myself during a discussion with someone on a march in Glasgow!).
True, but even with that in mind I'm still not entirely sure that we can draw the sort of firm conclusions that are being suggested. The incident wasn't simply a political protest, Donnachie's actions not a sober criticism of the Israeli state, but an unprovoked and consciously insulting act of vandalism on grounds of assumed national identity. I don't disagree that the judgement was a farce, but with all that in mind the motivations for that judgement don't seem so obvious.

[Invader Zim]

Speaking about kids, you're acting pretty damn immature, having the highest insults/post ratio in the thread by far. Other than supporting zionism, what's your problem?


You see, I'm not a zionist. Nothing I've said has, in any way, shape or form, offered apologism for the zionist cause. As I've noted, nations and race are social construction that divide the people to the benefit of ruling elites. So why would I support a zionist state if I reject all other states? And I certainly do not support the Israeli state's criminal, racist approach to Palestine, and again, nothing I have said could possible lead you to think otherwise.

The fact is you are calling me a zionist because I pointed out that owning an Israeili flag doesn't automatically imply that the owner agrees with everything that you think that Israel flag stands for, and they don't necessarily see it the way you do. And because I think that humiliating and bullying a person because of their nationality is unacceptable behaviour. My position doesn't make me a zionist. I've been here for a while, do you not think I would have been restricted if I actually were a zionist? I also note that you have created no thread in the members forum making the argument that I should be restricted. So my guess is that you don't actually believe it either. You're either trolling for flames or you're trying to discredit my argument by attempting to assassinate my character.

As for insults, you're throwing stones in a glass house.