|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Red ken and antisemitism
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
The topic of the week in British Politics.
Why when the left of the political spectrum is in most cases better at steering clear of xenophobia than the right does it fall into antisemitism so easily? What's going on here?
I guess it also raises the question of where does legitimate criticism of the Israeli state end and antisemitism begin?
If you believe that the Israeli state shouldn't exist, rather than just that it should withdraw to pre-1967 borders is that merely antizionism or is that antisemitism?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I note much of the coverage fails to mention that the last labour leader, and its last foreign secretary, were of jewish descent. I think the enquiry and rule change Corbyn has announced are fair enough, but I think the attempt to portray the whole Labour party as having some massive long term problem is overdone.
What gets me is this constant repetition that action is 'too slow', I mean how long do most organisations' disciplinary processes take ?
[ 30. April 2016, 20:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Tangent]
Weirdly Ken Livingstone was repeating a widely debunked claim made by the prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu of all people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34594563
[/Tangent]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Livingstone, even as mayor, was a bit of a liability. Now, to quote one of my friends, he's turned into a "complete bellend".
No - as in never - conversation about the modern state of Israel should ever involve the words 'Nazi' or 'Hitler'. He knows this. He has to go.
As to the substantive question as to whether there's anti-semitism in the Labour party: yes, of course there is. There's anti-semitism in all walks of life, so it'd be a genuine surprise if there was none in the Labour party.
Whether the LP has a particular and growing problem with anti-semitism that requires all the front pages and editorial inches... that's a lot more questionable. All those (six in total, I think) currently under investigation or previously investigated for anti-semitism were suspended from the party before, on the day, or the day after their remarks became known. So they seem pretty hot on it.
The mainly right-wing press are having a field day with it. The right wing of the LP are utterly in cahoots with that. For shame.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Whether the LP has a particular and growing problem with anti-semitism that requires all the front pages and editorial inches... that's a lot more questionable. All those (six in total, I think) currently under investigation or previously investigated for anti-semitism were suspended from the party before, on the day, or the day after their remarks became known. So they seem pretty hot on it.
The mainly right-wing press are having a field day with it. The right wing of the LP are utterly in cahoots with that. For shame.
Additionally, go back a year, and it was the right leaning press making snide remarks about Milliband's ethnicity.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Question posed by Green Mario quote:
If you believe that the Israeli state shouldn't exist, rather than just that it should withdraw to pre-1967 borders is that merely antizionism or is that antisemitism?
Bearing in mind that UN Resolution 181, which brought about the division of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, was proposed specifically to deal with the issue of re-settling stateless European holocaust survivor jews, it follows that lack of acceptance of the existence of the state of Israel is equivalent to anti-semitism since it is a denial of the right of those people - and the thousands who came after them fleeing from persecution elsewhere - to have a safe place to live which was granted to them by majority vote of the United Nations.
The partition of the mandate into separate territories, even though the original plan called for 3 rather than 2 area, was approved specifically to provide a homeland for stateless jews, as well as those jews who had legally moved to Palestine from the 1890s and those jews who had never been part of the diaspora. So to question the existence of the state of Israel is definitely anti-semitic since that state was specifically set up for jews.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chocoholic
Shipmate
# 4655
|
Posted
L'Organist, does that mean the ultra Orthodox Jews who do not accept the state of Israel are being anti-Semitic?
Posts: 773 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Apparently considering creating a state via terrorism and ethnic cleansing to be illegitimate is now anti-Semitism. To which I say: BOLLOCKS! You don't get to kill people and/or steal their land and then pretend it's ok because you're protecting your own people from oppression. Nor do you get to set up a constitution whereby you can continue to oppress the remaining indigenous population and import as many of your own ethnic group as possible to keep the demographics in your favour. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US, not to mention South Africa (all of which have been responsible for sort-of analogous actions), have taken greater or lesser steps to start putting right some of the things they did wrong, obviously with plenty more still to be done. Israel, meanwhile, has doubled down and continued to commit even more atrocities. And no, it's not fucking anti-Semitic to point this out.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Additionally, go back a year, and it was the right leaning press making snide remarks about Milliband's ethnicity.
Yeah, it doesn't take being paranoid to think that all the references to Ralph Miliband as "the man who hated Britain" were designed to play on the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur that Jews never have any real attachment to the country they live in.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The 'man who hated Britain' references presumably arose because Ralph Miliband appeared to despise many of the things that made Britain what she is? Which is presumably rather different to 'Let's deport Zios to America' or 'Hitler was a Zionist'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QB] Apparently considering creating a state via terrorism and ethnic cleansing to be illegitimate is now anti-Semitism. To which I say: BOLLOCKS! You don't get to kill people and/or steal their land and then pretend it's ok because you're protecting your own people from oppression. Nor do you get to set up a constitution whereby you can continue to oppress the remaining indigenous population and import as many of your own ethnic group as possible to keep the demographics in your favour. Canada, Australia, the UK and the US, not to mention South Africa (all of which have been responsible for sort-of analogous actions), have taken greater or lesser steps to start putting right some of the things they did wrong, obviously with plenty more still to be done. /QB]
Although I have not noticed the US offering to retreat to it's 1776 borders which would be a reasonable two state solution to offer to Native Americans.
I also suggest its easier to make gestures towards putting things right when you have almost completely vanquished the people you have been fighting with for land (it's much easier to be magnanimous then) and also when they aren't trying to kill you themselves.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Except maybe for the dozens of First Nations that lived inside the 1776 borders. Not that those borders were fixed anyway, they were very, very hazy on the western side.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Question posed by Green Mario quote:
If you believe that the Israeli state shouldn't exist, rather than just that it should withdraw to pre-1967 borders is that merely antizionism or is that antisemitism?
Bearing in mind that UN Resolution 181, which brought about the division of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, was proposed specifically to deal with the issue of re-settling stateless European holocaust survivor jews, it follows that lack of acceptance of the existence of the state of Israel is equivalent to anti-semitism since it is a denial of the right of those people - and the thousands who came after them fleeing from persecution elsewhere - to have a safe place to live which was granted to them by majority vote of the United Nations.
The partition of the mandate into separate territories, even though the original plan called for 3 rather than 2 area, was approved specifically to provide a homeland for stateless jews, as well as those jews who had legally moved to Palestine from the 1890s and those jews who had never been part of the diaspora. So to question the existence of the state of Israel is definitely anti-semitic since that state was specifically set up for jews.
What if one considers that shoving aside the people who live in a land to allow people of one specific religion to have their own nation -- when no other religion has the right to ethnically cleanse somebody else's region to create their own nation -- to be wrong? Is that antisemitism? Zionism, as it was embodied in the chain of events that led to the present-day state of Israel, is inherently racist. What right did the British and French have to the Levant at all? Basing the right of Israel to exist on the decisions of people who didn't have the moral right to make that decision is rather questionable.
.
It is quite understandable that the natives of Palestine see the imposition of the state of Israel to be just another Crusade. Bunch of Europeans establishing a European state on their land. Outremer II.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Yeah, it doesn't take being paranoid to think that all the references to Ralph Miliband as "the man who hated Britain" were designed to play on the "rootless cosmopolitan" slur that Jews never have any real attachment to the country they live in.
I was specifically thinking of the snide remarks made about Ed Milliband (rather than his father).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I was specifically thinking of the snide remarks made about Ed Milliband
Such as what?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The left definitely has a problem with antisemitism. It has long been an unacknowledged raw nerve. It's largely because so many on the left are so convinced all the time that 'they can't mean us'. They assume that because they perceive themselves to be progressive and high-minded, nasty prejudices are something that only other people have. Any prejudices they have are OK because their prejudices follow naturally from being right.
It's difficult to dodge the accusation that for quite a lot of people, identifying with the Palestinians is a cast iron excuse for being antisemitic without having to admit it either to others or themselves. It is a way they can say, no I'm not antisemitic because I'm only hostile to the state of Israel. But the degree of vehemence with which some of them speak and act makes it self evident that there's more to it than that.
Going back to our Ken, if he said, as is alleged, that 'rich Jews don't give to the Labour Party' it is difficult to take that utterance as anything other than revealing the state of mind of an antisemitic person. Rich people generally don't give to the Labour Party. It's a statement of the obvious. It doesn't make any difference whether they are Jews, Gentiles, trainspotters or whoever.
Perhaps he didn't say that. I hope he didn't. But if a person did make such a statement, he or she would not be using Jew as a simple description of a person. They would be using it as an implied slur. Once a person regards Jew as a slur, that satisfies me that they are antisemitic.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
What a ridiculous article. Who was it who said that newspaper headlines phrased as a question can often be answered with 'no'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The 'man who hated Britain' references presumably arose because Ralph Miliband appeared to despise many of the things that made Britain what she is? Which is presumably rather different to 'Let's deport Zios to America' or 'Hitler was a Zionist'?
Bollocks.
I'm sorry but this is absolute nonsense. If you read Ralph Miliband's biographer, he found as a young man who had fled the Nazis, a complacency and arrogance in the British. He wrote in reflection and hyperbole that he almost wished Britain to lose the war so they could see what he had seen. He served in the Royal Navy and built a life in Britain after the war.
If you think he despised what makes Britain Britain then we have a massive disagreement about what Britain is.
It was unbelievably shameful that a national newspaper opted to slur him in order to attack the Labour leader.
Ken Livingston is crass and stupid but the idea that Labour has an issue with antisemitism is misleading. As has been noted above antisemitism exists everywhere.
But if you cannot criticise the state of Israel without being antisemitic then we really have a problem.
What is so galling to me though is the preaching of the prime minister. He knows this mud will stick. He has at the same time either orchestrated or approved of a blatantly racist campaign against Sadiq Khan.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Ken Livingston is crass and stupid but the idea that Labour has an issue with antisemitism is misleading. As has been noted above antisemitism exists everywhere.
Where or which institutions, in your view, have had issues with anti-semitism similar to those the Labour Party is experiencing at the moment? It seems to me that it is most particularly found these days on the hard left, a political wing that now enjoys greater power in the Labour Party thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election.
quote:
But if you cannot criticise the state of Israel without being antisemitic then we really have a problem.
Presumably you think the State of Israel should exist? If so, then criticising her actions is, of course, perfectly acceptable and we would have a real problem if such criticism was labelled 'anti-semitism'. But the kind of comments that have got people into trouble move far beyond criticism of the Israeli government's actions, don't they?
quote:
What is so galling to me though is the preaching of the prime minister. He knows this mud will stick. He has at the same time either orchestrated or approved of a blatantly racist campaign against Sadiq Khan.
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This article in the Guardian is absolutely excoriating. If it's anywhere near true then there is indeed a severe problem.
It's Nick Cohen. The chances of it being anywhere near true are slim to none. And before anyone says anything, that's nothing to do with Cohen being Jewish, and everything to do with his pathological hatred of the left. You might as well take Richard Littlejohn at face value.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
What is so galling to me though is the preaching of the prime minister. He knows this mud will stick. He has at the same time either orchestrated or approved of a blatantly racist campaign against Sadiq Khan.
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
Presumably you mean Suliman Gani. Who has also met - at invitation - with Zac Goldsmith, Tania Mathias (Tory MP for Twickenham), Jane Ellison (Tory MP for Battersea) and whose help was sought by Dan Watkins (Tory candidate for Tooting):
http://www.lbc.co.uk/mm/image/38922.jpg
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There was a piece in the Guardian's weekend magazine about Zac Goldsmith's campaign, which seems to have some problems with what appears to be Islamophobia, dog whistles and deceased felines. It has occurred to me that this spat has traces of the same. It could be part of the same anti-Sadiq Khan process. Who are most likely to be anti Jewish? Who was first tarred with the brush?
It wouldn't be just Jews who would not vote for someone who had been tainted with anti-semitism.
I'm glad I'm not a London voter. Lousy choice. Goldsmith, who should tick a lot of boxes in this business, is letting himself down.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
If I lived in London, I would have been inclined to spoil my mayoral ballot paper for years. Decades even. There has been an unprepossessing string of characters I can best summarise as uncongenial, even going back to the days before directly elected mayors. (Remember Horace Cutler?).
There's a lot of issues being fought over here. Berk though Ken Livingstone is, he has a point to say that there are Blairites sticking the boot in. More fool him, then, for giving them the chance.
[ 01. May 2016, 15:19: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Yes, the Labour party is where the problem is.
Bloody Hell.
AFZ
[ 01. May 2016, 16:29: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
Yes, the Labour party is where the problem is.
See my comment above.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
Yes, the Labour party is where the problem is.
See my comment above.
Sorry, was my sarcasm not obvious in the context of my previous comment?
It is so easy for people who hate the Labour party to decry it as antisemitic. It's such an easy accusation to throw around.
Of course there are individuals who have said certain things. But all have been suspended and investigated.
The long link between the Labour Party and the Palestinian cause makes this a tricky area. Like Andy Burnham, if I believed the Labour Party was antisemetic, I would cut up my membership card and send it back.
But apparently, Boris is allowed to make racist slurs against Obama and the whole party is slurring Khan. So yes, I REALLY think the Labour party is the problem.
Having said that, anyone in the Labour party guilty of such comments needs to be disciplined.
And Ken remains crass and stupid.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
What I'm about to say is both harsh, and disproportionate. I'm going to say it nevertheless.
The accusation is that there are people in the Labour Party, particularly likely to be those from Muslim or new left backgrounds, whose identification with the Palestinian cause and hatred of Israel is driven by antisemitism.
It's difficult to argue with that. Yet over the last few days various people who ought to know better have circulated various attempts to exculpate the Labour movement of all possible flaws. It's untrue. It's a wicked plot put up by our enemies. It's exploiting the moment. It's a wicked Zionist conspiracy emanating from the Israeli embassy. It's just knockabout as part of the London mayoral elections. No true socialist can ever be ever antisemitic. It's just about the Palestinians and the State of Israel and nothing to do with other Jews. etc. etc. etc.
It is all too similar to the reaction of the South Yorkshire constabulary back in 1989. It can't be our fault. We're the police. Only people who support criminals don't take our word for it. Not taking every word we say on trust is supporting bad people. Nobody could have blundered. Everybody knows football supporters are unruly. It must have been them drinking and rioting.
They stuck with that approach for 27 years and look where it has got to.
Every organisation, every movement contains good people and bad people. Individually, we are a mixture of virtues and vices. One should only defend a position that can be defended. If it can't be defended without lying or looking stupid, don't try. It's better to be honest and admit that an organisation is bound to contain some bad eggs, and that even good people will turn out to have feet of clay. If the organisation has a flaw, a weak underbelly, accept it. Deal with it. Try to make sure it doesn't happen again, rather than try to excuse it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Well that's a ridiculous analogy. South Yorkshire Police knowingly lied and falsified evidence. In contrast we know that these allegations are being blown out of all proportion by the Labour right to hurt Corbyn because we can see them doing it and they're briefing the press about how useful it is. My understanding is that there have been 12 allegations of anti-Semitism among the entire membership of the party. That's around 4 for every 100 000 members. Forgive me if I don't throw my hands up in the air and call the WHO to declare an epidemic. If people think there is a systemic problem, might be time for them to put up or shut up. The 12 cases should be thoroughly investigated, and where proven the perpetrators expelled from the party. To go back to the bizarre analogy, had SYP investigated and disciplined those responsible for the Hillsborough disaster back in '89 no-one would be talking about a wider problem in the force.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
All right, Arethosemyfeet, if you don't like that analogy, try this one. I would hope that to all churchgoers and shipmates molesting children is repugnant. And rightly so. But there have been people within our folds who have taken advantage of the cover churches give. They have done unspeakable things.
Look where being defensive has got us, trying to protect the good name of the whole by denying that such things could ever happen, that there are no bad eggs, and making excuses for those that are.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And suspension within 24 hours + investigation is denial in what way ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
There's a post on this topic ( Antisemitism in the Labour Party - what's going on?) on the lefty academic blog Crooked Timber. The author's explanation in brief: many people with little exposure to Jews (of whom there are few in Britain) aren't particularly well-informed about the issues; leftists tended to pick sides based on perceived similarities to the situations in Northern Ireland and South Africa; people on both sides then tended to behave "like a bunch of football supporters" (i.e. very crudely) amped up by PR machines and social media, resulting in "a situation where Jewish people in Britain have to put up with an unacceptable torrent of anti-Semitic crap, which the people generating it don’t take seriously because they don’t look at the cumulative effect. And in which it is far more difficult than it needs to be to get the British left to take anti-Semitism seriously, because it is much more difficult than it should be for sincere campaigners against bigotry to distinguish themselves from people trying to do fan-fiction propaganda."
The author ends on a hopeful note: "I don’t believe that the British population or the British left are fundamentally anti-Semitic. I think they’ve chosen a side, and that lots of them are too dumb to understand that their behaviour is not OK. Which means that if the actual underlying conflict reaches resolution one day, there will be no more problem on the British left."
There's a lot more nuanced context provided in the post - if anyone cares to read it, I'd be interested in hearing whether it rings true to you.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Well that's a ridiculous analogy. South Yorkshire Police knowingly lied and falsified evidence. In contrast we know that these allegations are being blown out of all proportion by the Labour right to hurt Corbyn because we can see them doing it and they're briefing the press about how useful it is. My understanding is that there have been 12 allegations of anti-Semitism among the entire membership of the party. That's around 4 for every 100 000 members. Forgive me if I don't throw my hands up in the air and call the WHO to declare an epidemic. If people think there is a systemic problem, might be time for them to put up or shut up. The 12 cases should be thoroughly investigated, and where proven the perpetrators expelled from the party. To go back to the bizarre analogy, had SYP investigated and disciplined those responsible for the Hillsborough disaster back in '89 no-one would be talking about a wider problem in the force.
To dismiss this issue because there have only been “twelve cases” is shortsighted, at best. There is ample evidence to suggest that anti-Semitism is a significant problem in the British left. For one, that so many prominent, Labour politicians feel comfortable publically voicing such views speaks to the general sentiment within the party as a whole. Furthermore, Corbyn’s reluctance to denounce these incidents swiftly and definitively when they occur is strongly indicative that such views are not uncommon within the party.
Surely the “Labour right” are taking advantage of this situation, but their mere use of this for their political advantage does not serve to nullify the validity of the underlying controversy.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
One Labour MP said something anti-Semitic before she was elected, and has apologised fulsomely as well as been suspended from the party. Ken Livingstone said some extraordinarily stupid and offensive things (as is his wont) but nothing that was anti-Semitic.
quote:
There is ample evidence to suggest that anti-Semitism is a significant problem in the British left
No there isn't. There are a lot of generalised assertions and a tiny handful of specific allegations, all of which are being investigated. I've been involved in the British left for well over a decade, variously outside, inside and on the edge of the Labour party, and have not seen anything anti-Semitic. I have only seen one person make an accusation of anti-Semitism, and that was because my student union planned to commemorate all the victims of the holocaust on HMD rather than Jews only.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I have no love for Ken flaming Livingstone, who I regard as the worst kind of rentamouth politician, who I would gladly see exiled on a small boat with only George Galloway and LBC for company somewhere far away from civilisation. If this episode hastens the day when we never have to hear his snivelling little voice in public ever again, then I celebrate it all the way.
But the one thing this is not is about anti-Semitism, and the vast majority of those who are condemning what KL said haven't actually heard what he said.
So here is a five-minute clip of the original interview with Vanessa Felz.
This is the reply that everyone is getting het up about, note the question that KL is asked
Felz: She (Shah) talked about relocating Israel to America, she talked about what Hitler did being legal, she talked about Jews rallying - she used the word Jews not Israeli or Israel - and you don't find that anti-Semitic?
Livingstone: It's not anti-Semitic. Let's remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy was that Jews should be moved to Israel, he was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews. The simple fact is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was a brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians and there is one stark fact that nobody in the British media ever reports that in almost all these conflicts the death toll is between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes. There is a double-standard about the policies of the Israeli government.
--
Now some sensible heads have pointed out that Livingstone was wrong on some of the historical details but was substantially correct on the general picture. That the Nazis were in negotiation with Zionists is not in dispute. [Incidentally, I disagree with some of the conclusions in that piece, but I still think it is a considered view which is worth listening to rather than the rushed shrill comments that most publications are running with at the moment].
I've also heard it said that Livingstone was in the wrong for bringing Hitler into a conversation that was nothing to do with it. That's wrong, as the clip shows, Felz asked him directly about Hitler.
Now, I've actually spoken to anti-Semites and holocaust deniers - and without exception, none of them would ever (a) accept that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust or (b) accept that Hitler was in any sense a collaborator with Jewish national aspirations in Palestine.
Almost by definition, KL's soundbite showed he wasn't actually anti-Semitic - so the accusations banded about by Mann and others just don't stand up.
Now, it is certainly true that KL has said a lot of shite in the past, that he's said really stupid and borderline racist jibes. But nobody is currently talking about those things, we all seem to be fixated with this phrase in this interview and the inference of what he meant rather than what he actually said.
--
In my view, we have to look at this whole episode in context. And the proper context is of a dirty London Mayor contest where the Tories and their mates are trying to disparage the Labour candidate Sadiq Khan.
The reality here is that the Tories hate the idea of a Muslim getting into the London Mayor and have taken off the gloves and are now into the business of unsubstantiated personal attack.
Zac Goldsmith refuses to say whether he believes that Khan is an extremist and paints him as someone who associates with the worst kind of extremist. According to Goldsmith, being on a political platform with someone you disagree with means that you are responsible for their views and what they say. This is despite the fact that Goldsmith himself has obviously been on various platforms with people he disagrees with throughout this campaign and has been photographed in public with the very extremist he says Khan is tainted by.
The simple truth is that there is no sense that Goldsmith could or would vet anyone else who he appears with in public. That's an utterly absurd.
Then we have this "tainted by association" claim, which is convenient when Boris Johnston (who has been seen in public with Goldsmith many, many times) has recently notoriously talked about Obama's Kenyan ancestry, and in the past has said things which were undoubtedly racist.
Then we have Shah's facebook posts. Which were very crass and stupid - and if not actually an indication of her own anti-Semitism, were clearly an open invitation for the far right to claim political support for their views. But, let's be clear, they were written before she was an MP and she's apologised in public and in parliament for writing them.
Even there, the plain fact is that Zionists in the 19 century were contemplating a Jewish state in the Americas and elsewhere, so the idea is not particularly new or original.
She shouldn't have written it, she shouldn't have said it, she should have taken steps to remove them long before now. She is utterly responsible for her own hoisting.
Israel is a reality, anyone who thinks they can talk about wiping it from the map is either an anti-Semite or living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Finally, I think that there is a level of deeply ingrained anti-Semitism within the Labour and left - but that this current crisis is looking in the wrong places. If everyone who criticises the notion of a religious state and of the notion of an Israeli state established against international law inside the 1967 green line is an anti-Semite, then that includes a very large number of Jewish people. That's the most absurd part of this whole debate - some of the most vocal opponents of Israel are actually Jews.
The much more insidious - and real - anti-Semites exist outside of these obvious targets and into the shadows where those who peddle inane conspiracy theories live. These tend to be on the fringes of the Labour party and into the space occupied by the Socialist Worker Party.
But, in my view, a much larger group of real anti-Semites exist on the other side of the political equation, where politicians say stupid stuff, mix with real fascists and anti-Semites (like Pinochet and the disgusting Saudi regime) with no consequences whatsoever.
If one is damned by association, who has called out Norman Lamont, who was awarded a special award as a friend of Pinochet?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Oh good. Backup for what was for me a fairly fuzzy idea.
But someone needs to get these ideas out and before Thursday.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
In which case, here's some more background reading.
1. The work which Ken Livingstone is referring to is "Zionism in the Age of Dictators" by Lenni Brenner. It's only got restricted availability in the USA for some reason (Amazon don't carry it), but fortunately the author has written a précis here (link).
2. When you have read that, it's worth reading the following couple of refutations by academic historians. i) by Rainer Shulze. ii) by Timothy Snyder.
Draw your own conclusions. For myself, the problem with Brenner's work is its decontextualization. I doubt if any of the documents he cites are made up, but just citing their existence enables any old narrative to be constructed about them (it's what conspiracy theorists do - not that Brenner is constructing a conspiracy theory but it shows how to construct an alternative narrative that disregards others).
But if you read these links, you can see where the link between Ken Livingstone's outburst and similar citations from right-wing Israeli politicians come from.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
What Mr Cheesy said.
I just hope Khan wins. Because if the Tories can win this way then we shall do what the Americans have done and create a monster who is so far beyond parody that it defies belief and yet he keeps on winning votes.
But, as I said, it's the Labour party that has the problem.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Zac Goldsmith refuses to say whether he believes that Khan is an extremist
Yes, he has:
When questioned by reporters, Goldsmith said it was legitimate to question Khan’s “extremist” links. “I don’t believe [Khan] is an extremist. But it is a matter of judgment … Not everyone in the Muslim community has provided cover for extremists.”
quote:
Then we have this "tainted by association" claim, which is convenient when Boris Johnston (who has been seen in public with Goldsmith many, many times) has recently notoriously talked about Obama's Kenyan ancestry.
The Obama / Kenyan ancestry / affect on Anglo-US relations seemed to be discussed a bit when Obama was first elected, as I seem to remember. Even the Guardian raised it.
quote:
Finally, I think that there is a level of deeply ingrained anti-Semitism within the Labour and left - but that this current crisis is looking in the wrong places...The much more insidious - and real - anti-Semites exist outside of these obvious targets and into the shadows where those who peddle inane conspiracy theories live. These tend to be on the fringes of the Labour party and into the space occupied by the Socialist Worker Party.
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
[ 02. May 2016, 16:31: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Zac Goldsmith refuses to say whether he believes that Khan is an extremist
Yes, he has:
When questioned by reporters, Goldsmith said it was legitimate to question Khan’s “extremist” links. “I don’t believe [Khan] is an extremist. But it is a matter of judgment … Not everyone in the Muslim community has provided cover for extremists.”
Yes, and the only 'extremist' link that has been brought up - is with someone who may not have been extremist anyway, and who has a number of links to the conservative party, as I posted above. Or are you just repeating talking points?
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
On what basis are you making this claim ?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Livingstone: It's not anti-Semitic. Let's remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy was that Jews should be moved to Israel, he was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews.
If Livingstone can't see the difference between a group of people choosing to move somewhere, and a group of people being forced to move somewhere, then he's a complete moron.
The fact is that, for all I dislike the man, he's not that stupid, which makes him a disingenuous anti-semite.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Obama / Kenyan ancestry / affect on Anglo-US relations seemed to be discussed a bit when Obama was first elected, as I seem to remember. Even the Guardian raised it.
Not really equivalent to "Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British empire" though is it. You can't seriously be about to defend that comment?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Oh come now, Anglicann't; by that logic a lot of Tory MPs are equally extremist.
And the Labour Party aren't the only ones with nutters in their address books over the years -,the Tories only disavowed the Monday Club in 2001, Thatcher was pals with Pinochet, and Boris only got away eith his use of racist lsnguage because most of the press had a vested interest in looking in the other direction.
If Dave hsd any resl poeer or leadership skills, he'd be equally toiugh on racists in his oen psrty as he wants Corbyn to be (or at the very least would trll us that [insert issue of moment]
makes me sick), but he doesn't, so he won't.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Oh come now, Anglicann't; by that logic a lot of Tory MPs are equally extremist.
And the Labour Party aren't the only ones with nutters in their address books over the years -,the Tories only disavowed the Monday Club in 2001, Thatcher was pals with Pinochet, and Boris only got away eith his use of racist lsnguage because most of the press had a vested interest in looking in the other direction.
Apart from anything else, Boris kept publishing the execrable Taki when editor of the spectator.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If Livingstone can't see the difference between a group of people choosing to move somewhere, and a group of people being forced to move somewhere, then he's a complete moron.
The fact is that, for all I dislike the man, he's not that stupid, which makes him a disingenuous anti-semite.
I think this is actually part of the convoluted point Ken Livingston was trying to make in that interview and throughout the other interviews he made on that day.
The point is that he was trying to defend Shah and say that she wasn't an anti-Semite despite her clearly making statements about the State of Israel.
So KL is trying to say "look, one can disagree with the existence of Israel without being an anti-Semite, which is a form of racism and discrimination of an individual to another individual because they happen to be a Jew. There is no necessary connection between being an anti-Semite and being against Zionism - for example Hitler (that notorious anti-Semite) at one time actually seemed to agree with the aspirations of the Zionists in Palestine.."
Now, it is undeniable that this was a fucking stupid thing to say and to my mind his two faults were (a) trying to defend the indefensible (Shah's facebook posts, which as I've already said at very least perpetuate a familiar racist trope about wiping Israel off the map) and (b) rising to the mention of Hitler in Felz's question to give an answer which had very little to do with the issue under discussion.
A far better point to make would have been to point to the large number of Jews who disagree with Zionism and who disagree with the notion of Israel as a Jewish state.
As I said previously, Mr Ratface is a rentamouth and on this occasion mouthed off before connecting sufficiently with his brain to stop himself making a half-baked historical point about Hitler and in the process proving once again the wisdom of Godwin's law.
This clearly doesn't make him an anti-Semite in the way you suggest above.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Obama / Kenyan ancestry / affect on Anglo-US relations seemed to be discussed a bit when Obama was first elected, as I seem to remember. Even the Guardian raised it.
Not really equivalent to "Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British empire" though is it. You can't seriously be about to defend that comment?
Are they not effectively making the same or very similar points? Viz that the experiences of Obama's grandfather at the hands of British colonial authorities may have affected Obama's attitudes towards Britain (not for the better) and that this might have have repercussions once Obama was President?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
One Labour MP said something anti-Semitic before she was elected, and has apologised fulsomely as well as been suspended from the party. Ken Livingstone said some extraordinarily stupid and offensive things (as is his wont) but nothing that was anti-Semitic.
quote:
There is ample evidence to suggest that anti-Semitism is a significant problem in the British left
No there isn't. There are a lot of generalised assertions and a tiny handful of specific allegations, all of which are being investigated. I've been involved in the British left for well over a decade, variously outside, inside and on the edge of the Labour party, and have not seen anything anti-Semitic. I have only seen one person make an accusation of anti-Semitism, and that was because my student union planned to commemorate all the victims of the holocaust on HMD rather than Jews only.
To say that there is no problem with anti-Semitism because you have only personally witnessed a single incident to your recollection, is quite illogical.
In just the past two and a half months, beyond the incidents with Ms. Shah and Mr. Livingstone, there have also been the following, adding up to a great many supposed “isolated incidents” in such a short period of time:
February 16: The Co-Chair of Oxford’s Labour Club resigns due to widespread anti-Semitism – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/labour-condemns-antisemitism-oxford-university-labour-club-claims
March 6: Two Labour MPs decry Mr. Corbyn’s refusal to publish the results of Labour’s investigation into the Oxford controversy and attempts to downplay the gravity of the problem – http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-all-eyes-are-on-labour-to-see-how-it-tackles-anti-semitism/
March 9: Labour is forced to expel activist and 9/11 apologist Gerry Downing for the second time after a confrontation in the House of Commons – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/10/labour-expels-activist-described-by-pm-as-911-sympathiser-gerry-downing
March 15: Vicki Kirby, vice chairman of Labour’s branch in Woking, Surrey, is suspended for the second time after making anti-Semitic tweets – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/15/labour-suspends-activist-vicki-kirby-over-antisemitism-claims
March 16: Jeremy Newmark, national chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement, states that he sees a worrisome trend in Labour towards a “denial of anti-Semitism” in an interview on Radio 4 – http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/.premium-1.709404
March 20: Lord Levy, former chief fundraiser of Labour under Blair, threatens to quit the party over its failure to confront anti-Semitism – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/20/labour-peer-lord-levy-warns-he-could-quit-party-over-antisemitism
March 23: Khadim Hussain, Labour councillor and former Lord Mayor of Bradford, is suspended after sharing an anti-Semitic Facebook post – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/khadim-hussain-former-lord-mayor-of-bradford-suspended-by-labour-party-over-ant i-semitism-a6948856.html
March 24: Labour MPs claim Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Mental Health, was listed as hostile to Mr. Corbyn on an internal party memo because she is Jewish – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12203865/Shadow-cabinet-minister-on-hostile-list-is-being-targeted-bec ause-she-is-Jewish-MPs-claim.html
March 25: John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor, admits that the party needs to take a “harder line” against anti-Semitism in its ranks – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-members-anti-semitic-banned-for-life-john-mcdonnell-a6951371.html
April 3: Piers Corbyn, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, posts a tweet belittling the idea that anti-Semitism is a problem – http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/156191/jeremy-corbyn-says-his-brother-was-not-wrong
Also, Louise Ellman, one of Labour’s most senior Jewish MPs, states that not enough action has been taken to combat anti-Semitism within Labour – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/03/john-mcdonnell-labour-listen-antisemitism-claims
April 6: Sadiq Khan, Labour’s London mayoral candidate, attacks Labour leadership for not doing more to confront anti-Semitism in the party, lamenting that he wears it as a “badge of shame” – http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-i-wear-badge-of-shame-over-antisemitism-in-labour-a3219106.html
April 7: Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies, the U.K.’s main Jewish organization, declares that Mr. Corbyn has failed to deal with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and continues to not take the issue seriously – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/british-jewish-leader-corbyn-must-stop-fobbing-off-antisemitism-in-labour
April 10: Labour councillor Aysegul Gurbuz is suspended after anti-Semitic comments are discovered on her Twitter feed, including that Hitler was the “greatest man in history” – http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-36012650
April 12: David Miliband declares that more must be done to confront anti-Semitism – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/12/fighting-antisemitism-responsibility-of-all-says-david-miliband
April 30: Students at Cambridge, Oxford, Lincoln, York, Exeter, Durham, and Manchester threaten to disaffiliate from the NUS due to the anti-Semitic views of NUS president-elect Malia Bouattia – http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/01/cambridge-nus-malia-bouattia-zionist-row
May 2: Mr. Corbyn lauds convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti as an “iconic figure” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-called-convicted-terrorist-an-iconic-figure/
Also, three more Labour councillors are suspended for anti-Semitic posts on social media – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/02/labour-suspends-two-councillors-alleged-antisemitism
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
