Schama writes about Sand in FT today

Well Angus, if you feel the need to blame people it might as well be them.

Akus.

“To mistype “scare quotes” once is an indication of something…”

It would be indicative of a mistype (if it was a mistype).

“…but to spell argument as “arguement” so many times that I got bored counting…”

Well don’t count, and preserve the exitement.

“not his real name…”

In what way not my real name?

“…has a thing about blood and soil.”

I do. The thing I have about is that it’s the thing I was discussing.

To mistype “scare quotes” once is an indication of something, but to spell argument as “arguement” so many times that I got bored counting says to me that freddie, not his real name, who says “That zionism is a political movement doesn’t prevent it being based on blood and soil” has a thing about blood and soil. I counted that phrase: ten times. So freaked out I am going to go to SOAS to witness the obvious.

To mistype “scare quotes” once is an indication of something, but to spell argument as “arguement” so many times that I got bored counting says to me that freddie, not his real name, who says “That zionism is a political movement doesn’t prevent it being based on blood and soil” has a thing about blood and soil. I counted that phrase: ten times. So freaked out I am going to go to SOAS to witness the obvious.

Which is a blood and soil arguement. If the attachment of the Jewish people to that soil is not based on blood then Sands arguments would be irrelevent even if they were true and would not offend in the manner that they do.

However people on these boards are arguing that Jews are of the same blood and that that blood is from that soil.

It’s a blood and soil arguement.

“…..that has nothing to do with the racist implications of ‘blood and soil’.”

That a blood and soil arguement must be racist is your inference not my implication.

Racists do use blood and soil arguements to push there agendas but it doesn’t follow that all those who make a blood and soil arguement are racist.

It only becomes racist if it is used to deny others an attachment to the soil.

There are no doubt afew zionists who would do that but it seems to me that throughout the zionist project there hasn’t been such a denial.

“To imply that Zionism is based on ‘blood and soil’ is to imply that Zionism is a racist…”

No it isn’t.

It is to imply that Zionism is based on blood and soil. If you choose to infer that that makes it racist then that’s up to you.

“…as opposed to a political, movement properly understood.”

That zionism is a political movement doesn’t prevent it being based on blood and soil.