Thread: Red ken and antisemitism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030106
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
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?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
[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]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on
:
L'Organist, does that mean the ultra Orthodox Jews who do not accept the state of Israel are being anti-Semitic?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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'?
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
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.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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).
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I was specifically thinking of the snide remarks made about Ed Milliband
Such as what?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
This article in the Guardian is absolutely excoriating. If it's anywhere near true then there is indeed a severe problem.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Conversely, they also printed this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/labour-antisemitism-and-where-jeremy-corbyn-goes-from-here
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I was specifically thinking of the snide remarks made about Ed Milliband
Such as what?
Its been discussed before http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/is-the-criticism-of-ed-miliband-a-coded-form-of-anti-semitism-9885745.html
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
What a ridiculous article. Who was it who said that newspaper headlines phrased as a question can often be answered with 'no'?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
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.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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 ]
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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 ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
And suspension within 24 hours + investigation is denial in what way ?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
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.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Oh good. Backup for what was for me a fairly fuzzy idea.
But someone needs to get these ideas out and before Thursday.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
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.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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 ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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?
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
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?
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
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
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
On this idea of Israel being moved to the Americas (as per Shah's now infamous facebook post).
The problem here is about subtext. On the one hand it looks a bit jokey and innocent - akin to saying that if Scotland won independence the English should saw them off at Hadrian's Wall and use tugs to move them to the mid Atlantic so they can see what real independence would feel like.
Of course, the issue is that Jews have already experienced near extermination during the twentieth century, so this "joke" looks a lot less like a mild barb and very much more like pandering to the Neo-Nazis who think that someone should try completing the job.
If Shah didn't intend that, she should have been known how it would be perceived.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
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.”
I refer the honorable gentlemen to Goldsmith's interview on BBC Radio 4 on Today on Saturday morning when he spent a large amount of time equivocating about whether or not he was claiming Khan was an extremist. In the end he just insisted that Khan kept dodgy company because he kept appearing on political platforms with people that he (Goldsmith) didn't approve of.
quote:
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.
Yes, and to avoid the continued discussion of these statements we're now into the business of judging Khan by the platforms he speaks on and judging Shah by something she said on facebook before becoming an MP and for which she's apologised for.
This whole thing is manufactured to get political advantage and to avoid the truth that Goldsmith is a very nasty piece of work and is prepared to stoop to whatever depths he can to win elections. Note the very cynical writing of letters to people with Hindu and Indian surnames to warn them about Khan stealing their jewellery.
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
I honestly have no idea, I am not nor have ever been a member of the Labour party.
However I can say that many years ago I associated with a lot of people in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and went to Palestine quite a few times myself.
On one occasion I happened to meet Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn at a PSC march in London.
My general impression of the PSC was that it was genuinely a good hearted organisation which was genuinely trying to work for better things for the Palestinian people.
I also discovered that a large number of people in the PSC - and other solidarity groups - were actually Jewish and that a small but significant proportion were rabidly anti-Semitic, racist conspiracy theorists. These were often involved in various lefty political groups.
Since that time, I've heard several times of commotions within various Palestinian Solidarity groups to remove notorious racists. It seems like a perennial problem.
From those interactions, I believe that there is likely a large overlap between the Palestinian Solidarity groups and various left/Labour groups, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that those lefty groups have similar problems. I've no evidence about whether it is any worse under Corbyn, although my guess would be that these individuals were unlikely to be New Labour and would be more likely to be at the Socialist Worker end of the spectrum. I also know, for example, that the Socialist Worker Party has been plagued by racists for some time.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I can't be arsed to go through your entire Gish Gallop, GCabot, but to read Corbyn's comments on Barghouti as endorsement of him, and a further leap to anti-semitism from there, is a blatant case of seeing what you want to see.
Lenin was an iconic figure to many Marxists in the 1920s. Look, I must support Soviet-style communism.
[ 02. May 2016, 19:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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 ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
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/
Some see Barghouti as a freedom fighter and Mandela figure. Whether one personally agrees with him or not, I think it is a simple fact that many Palestinians see him as an icon, just as many black South Africans saw Mandela as an icon whilst he was convicted as a terrorist on Robbin Island.
Personally, I think it is highly unlikely Barghouti could pull off a South African style transformation without a vicious war.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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 ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Not there really isn't, nor have you supplied any. A large number of people joined the Labour party over the last year - doubtless that includes a small minority with extreme views of various stripes. That's a world away from your actual contention that people with 'extremist links' (which is what you were actually referring to in your original post) have been welcomed back in.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
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 ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Not there really isn't, nor have you supplied any. A large number of people joined the Labour party over the last year - doubtless that includes a small minority with extreme views of various stripes. That's a world away from your actual contention that people with 'extremist links' (which is what you were actually referring to in your original post) have been welcomed back in.
As I say, the point I was trying to make (which I appreciate wasn't very clearly expressed to start with) is that those with very left-wing views are being accommodated in the higher echelons of the Labour Party. I think we've seen that with, for example, the appointment of John McDonnell, the return of Ken Livingstone to a senior review role, the appointment of Seamus Milne and various Socialist Action types, together with the appointment of a figure from the SWP who had recently campaigned against Labour as one of McDonnell's economic advisers.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't be arsed to go through your entire Gish Gallop, GCabot, but to read Corbyn's comments on Barghouti as endorsement of him, and a further leap to anti-semitism from there, is a blatant case of seeing what you want to see.
Lenin was an iconic figure to many Marxists in the 1920s. Look, I must support Soviet-style communism.
I do not believe I made either of the leaps you are suggesting.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
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/
Some see Barghouti as a freedom fighter and Mandela figure. Whether one personally agrees with him or not, I think it is a simple fact that many Palestinians see him as an icon, just as many black South Africans saw Mandela as an icon whilst he was convicted as a terrorist on Robbin Island.
Personally, I think it is highly unlikely Barghouti could pull off a South African style transformation without a vicious war.
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Third rate rhetoric on second.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You missed this one.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
Though, whether "freedom fighter" or "criminal terrorist" Barghouti committed politically motivated acts against the Israeli state targeting civilian citizens of the Israeli state. That those citizens were Jewish is very much secondary to them being illegal settlers in territory illegally held by an occupying military power. If any criticism of and protest against (even violent protests) the Israeli state is anti-semitism then the word has lost any meaning.
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
Though, whether "freedom fighter" or "criminal terrorist" Barghouti committed politically motivated acts against the Israeli state targeting civilian citizens of the Israeli state. That those citizens were Jewish is very much secondary to them being illegal settlers in territory illegally held by an occupying military power. If any criticism of and protest against (even violent protests) the Israeli state is anti-semitism then the word has lost any meaning.
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
Again, I never contended that Mr. Corbyn’s statement on Mr. Barghouti constituted or implied anti-Semitism on Corbyn’s part. It is indicative, however, of the gravity or lack thereof with which Mr. Corbyn views the issue of anti-Semitism within his party, which is relevant because it is exactly Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster approach towards this issue that is garnering him such vehement criticism, including from within his own party.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But apparently, Boris is allowed to make racist slurs against Obama
My understanding is that he referred to the President as "half-Kenyan" and suggested that this gave him an antipathy towards Britain as the colonial power.
In what way is that a racist slur? It is a fact that the President's father was Kenyan, so describing him as half-Kenyan is accurate (cf. millions of people describing their ancestry). It is a fact that members of his family were mistreated by the British colonial powers.
I think it's incorrect to say that he feels an antipathy towards Britain because of that - he's far too smart to let that overly colour his opinions - but it would seem to be neither racist nor a slur.
Are you referring to some different Boris comments?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
Anyway the notion that US presidents without any Kenyan heritage would feel more warmly towards the British empire is, I suspect, missing something.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The danger for liberal Christians is in crossing the line that Jez & Ken are two and one half short wavelengths away from respectively: justifying violence. A line Welby has already crossed from the beginning of the shorter side of the spectrum course.
[ 03. May 2016, 07:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding is that he referred to the President as "half-Kenyan" and suggested that this gave him an antipathy towards Britain as the colonial power.
In what way is that a racist slur? It is a fact that the President's father was Kenyan, so describing him as half-Kenyan is accurate (cf. millions of people describing their ancestry). It is a fact that members of his family were mistreated by the British colonial powers.
In what way is it not?
Imagine Boris had said the following:
--
Joshua has Eastern European Jewish forebears and lost many of his Grandparent's generation in the holocaust. His mother arrived in Britain as part of the Kindertransport.
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
--
That would almost by definition be a racist and anti-Semitic slur, because it is trying to argue that someone is unable to contribute to a conversation about something because of his family background and inferences made about his political position made upon them.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
Anyway the notion that US presidents without any Kenyan heritage would feel more warmly towards the British empire is, I suspect, missing something.
This is overthinking. If Boris had said that the US President was a lame duck and had no dogs in the Brexit debate (to mix metaphors) and therefore should mind his own business - that'd be a fair political point.
Bringing someone's ancestry into the discussion to close down discussion and to dismiss their views is just out-and-out racism.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
This strikes me as a very similar issue to Red Ken's problems.
Both Boris and Ken might be stating true facts - i.e. it does indeed seem to be true that Zionists were talking to Hitler. It is undoubtedly true that Obama's father was Kenyan and that many Kenyans did not appreciate the British Empire.
However stating these facts in a particular context at a particular time is doing more than asserting those facts. It is asserting that they are relevant to the discussion.
Hence, as Cheesy says, the implication is that Obama can't talk about Brexit because of his part-Kenyan heritage and that it is somehow relevant to make a link between Hitler and Zionism in the context of a modern-day discussion.
Had the discussions been an overview of the heritage of various world leaders and the pre-war history of Zionism the implications of mentioning these facts would have been different.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This strikes me as a very similar issue to Red Ken's problems.
Both Boris and Ken might be stating true facts - i.e. it does indeed seem to be true that Zionists were talking to Hitler. It is undoubtedly true that Obama's father was Kenyan and that many Kenyans did not appreciate the British Empire.
However stating these facts in a particular context at a particular time is doing more than asserting those facts. It is asserting that they are relevant to the discussion.
Hence, as Cheesy says, the implication is that Obama can't talk about Brexit because of his part-Kenyan heritage and that it is somehow relevant to make a link between Hitler and Zionism in the context of a modern-day discussion.
Had the discussions been an overview of the heritage of various world leaders and the pre-war history of Zionism the implications of mentioning these facts would have been different.
I disagree for reasons already explained, primarily that the interviewer put a point about Hitler to KL in the question.
But even if we accept that there is an equivalent, clearly there is no witch-hunt of racists in the Tory part and Boris has not been made to resign the whip even after apologising.
This, in essence, is the difference even if it was provable that KL was being anti-Semitic. In Labour, those who make questionable statements - even ages ago on twitter and facebook - are punished. In the Tory party, those statements are made in public and are widely distributed and nothing happens.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Ken was asked about Hitler but not that specific point. What he said was rather an unbalanced detail to focus on, and I still for the life of me can't really see what the point in mentioning that detail was - unless it was just to appear clever for knowing some minutiae of history that many other people wouldn't know.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
I think this is pretty wide of the mark. Barghouti is a moderate who accepts Israel inside the 1967 borders, who has renounced violence, and who has called for a negotiated peace.
Many voices inside Israel have pragmatically stated that Barghouti is the best chance of peace and the best available pragmatic deal-maker. Some Israelis see that there is no alternative.
That being the case, why shouldn't Britain's Labour leader support a pragmatic, Israel acknowledging, negotiating, peace-making Palestinian leader?
Or are we really getting into the business of saying that whoever the Israeli state determines is a terrorist must be a terrorist, including the thousands of men, women and children incarcerated on administrative detention without charge.
Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist and was charged with being an accessory to murder.
I'm a pacifist and I think Palestinian violence is entirely counter-productive. But to condemn someone for admiring Barghouti smacks of those young Tories who went around with "Hang Mandela" badges.
In the end, that was just the wrong side of history.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ken was asked about Hitler but not that specific point. What he said was rather an unbalanced detail to focus on, and I still for the life of me can't really see what the point in mentioning that detail was - unless it was just to appear clever for knowing some minutiae of history that many other people wouldn't know.
I've already said that it was a stupid and convoluted way to answer a rather stupidly worded question. But that doesn't make it racist in the way that Boris' statement was racist.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes, I've been back and read your post on that. I think the explanation does hang together, although from what I've read of the transcripts it is quite a feat assembling a plausible reasoning as you have done.
Ken's combination of thinking a lot of his own intelligence and absolute inability to ever back down have compounded it. He hasn't gone back to lay out his reasoning in the way you have, although I accept it is difficult to do that with John Mann screaming at you or through the locked door of a disabled toilet.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
No one yet has mentioned the Haavara Plan which one assumes is the basis of Ken's position. He was asked about Hitler and of course put his foot in his mouth.
Nazis agreed with Zionists to create a mechanism to send German Jews to Palestine , with the clever caveat that their belongings became property of the German state and to get them back the Jews had to pay a fee on arrival in Palestine.
No doubt the Zionists believed that an influx of Jews to Palestine would create a momentum for a Jewish state by destabilizing the British authority (in the same way as the expulsion of Russian Jews to Palestine did previously).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
This operated for most of the 1930s. Ken is wrong to suggest that Hitler had the SAME aims as the Zionists but he did eventually support the plan.
As for Naz Shah, her map was created by the radical Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein who has a bit of an axe to grind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
Its probably legitimate political comment but probably unwise if you want to become an MP..... And Finkelstein is no friend of Israel's Government despite being a child of the Shoah (he is banned from the country).
HOWEVER what we are all missing is this. Why has this 2 year old Tweet reappeared now - just before the local elections and London Mayor campaign? And particularly on something to which JC is vulnerable - he was 'friends' with Hamas , don't forget.
Who in Labour benefits from a witch hunt when they should be campaigning? Or is this a grenade chucked in from the other side, who were just starting to look electorally vulnerable over Tax Avoidance and the Junior Doctors. In Politics nothing is as simple as it appears.
[ 03. May 2016, 08:26: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'd add that this is nevertheless clear evidence that Ken "doesn't get it" when it comes to anti-semitism. This is the equivalent of a middle-class white Englander telling stories about what a terrible state agriculture in Kenya was in before the settlers arrived to make a point about land ownership issues in post-colonial Africa. It's not necessarily evidence of racism, but it does suggest a failure to understand the sensitivities associated with the issues in a way that suggests worrying about racism is a very low priority.
I think that is the best one can say about Ken. He may not be anti-semitic but he sails very close to the wind in his modes of expression, and worrying about anti-semitism seems to be an extremely low priority for him.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes, I've been back and read your post on that. I think the explanation does hang together, although from what I've read of the transcripts it is quite a feat assembling a plausible reasoning as you have done.
Ken's combination of thinking a lot of his own intelligence and absolute inability to ever back down have compounded it. He hasn't gone back to lay out his reasoning in the way you have, although I accept it is difficult to do that with John Mann screaming at you or through the locked door of a disabled toilet.
Agree John Mann was a disgrace. There are legitimate ways for a Party to disagree and ranting at people you disagree with is way down the list.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
I think this is pretty wide of the mark. Barghouti is a moderate who accepts Israel inside the 1967 borders, who has renounced violence, and who has called for a negotiated peace.
Sorry, why is it wide of the mark? Even the article you linked to says "There is no question he supported and encouraged violence.". I thought my description if his involvement in attacks against (what he would consider illegal) settlements in the West Bank was consistent with a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
And, I think people like Barghouti, especially if his renouncement of violence is genuine, are exactly who we need involved in negotiations for a settlement of the ongoing issues in Palestine. And, I still stand by my admiration for Corbyn to stick to his principals that we need to talk to, even admire, people like Barghouti.
If Corbyn was to back down on his well known position on Palestine because some people in the media who struggle to find more than one neuron working in their brains think this looks like anti-semitism then that looks very much like letting the bastards win. Yes, crack down hard on anti-semitism when it rears it's ugly head, but to also stop working for justice in Palestine is throwing out several babies with a few drops of dirty bath water.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Sorry Alan, I misread/misunderstood what you'd written. I was responding to the idea that support of Barghouti was an example of a problem for Corbyn and Labour (anti-Semitic or otherwise).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd add that this is nevertheless clear evidence that Ken "doesn't get it" when it comes to anti-semitism. This is the equivalent of a middle-class white Englander telling stories about what a terrible state agriculture in Kenya was in before the settlers arrived to make a point about land ownership issues in post-colonial Africa. It's not necessarily evidence of racism, but it does suggest a failure to understand the sensitivities associated with the issues in a way that suggests worrying about racism is a very low priority.
I think that is the best one can say about Ken. He may not be anti-semitic but he sails very close to the wind in his modes of expression, and worrying about anti-semitism seems to be an extremely low priority for him.
This post, ISTM, captures the essence of the whole problem with Ken Livingstone here. If you go back over verbatim reports of what he has been saying, there's one in which he states categorically that he has never experienced any antisemitism in the Labour party, and then goes straight on to assure the interviewer that the current perpetrators of antisemitic posts are being dealt with. Clearly not a man to be troubled by cognitive dissonance.
Yesterday evening, I spent some time trying to track down what people who are both left wing and Jewish were saying about this whole business. Without trying to speak for them, my general impression is that they are inclined to let the Naz Shah business drop - she has apologised fully, and in their view beyond the call of duty. The same cannot be said for KL - he is incapable of apologising it seems, and moreover has previous form. They don't trust him a single inch.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yesterday evening, I spent some time trying to track down what people who are both left wing and Jewish were saying about this whole business. Without trying to speak for them, my general impression is that they are inclined to let the Naz Shah business drop - she has apologised fully, and in their view beyond the call of duty. The same cannot be said for KL - he is incapable of apologising it seems, and moreover has previous form. They don't trust him a single inch.
The danger here is that you are taking the views of Jewish people you've spoken to and are extrapolating to infer that this is a majority or unanimous view amongst all Jews. Or perhaps all right-thinking Jews.
But in reality Jews are not an amorphous lump and do not all think the same on this, or any other, issue. In fact, the map used on Facebook by Shah was one created by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew who lost both parents in the Holocaust (and, incidentally, royally pissed off many pro-Palestinian groups a few years ago by refusing to talk about wiping Israel off the map).
In fact Moshe Machover, Tony Goldstein (recently also removed from membership of the Labour party), Jamie Stern-Weiner and various other lefty Jews have made statements supporting Ken Livingstone - and in some cases have said that Shah was stitched up.
Now, I don't happen to entirely agree with all of these, and I'm not pretending that they represent all lefty Jews or anything. But let's be clear: they are all Jews and they are entitled to be heard. A blanket claim of offence held by all Jews helps nobody.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
That would be taking things too far, I agree. However, I thought it worth mentioning that a small subsample seemed to be agreed (and in fact I did a quick check online to make sure it wasn't way out of line).
But if it came over as a claim to universality then I apologise.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
the Labour party is where the problem is.
And racism is the Tory party's problems - Boris can talk about picanninnies.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The Tories have lots of problems. Prejudice against people of other races, nationalities and religion being among them. Also prejudice against the poor, people who have to work hard for barely enough to live on, the disabled and anyone unfortunate enough to get ill but unable to afford private health care. A strong dislike of quality health care and education for all. Economic theories that they now get to enact that will totally screw up and already messed up economy - well, screw it up for the majority, they might succeed in making lots of money for those who are already rolling in it.
But, apart from that, the Tory party is a bastion of virtue and tolerance.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
mr. cheesy wrote: quote:
But in reality Jews are not an amorphous lump and do not all think the same on this, or any other, issue. In fact, the map used on Facebook by Shah was one created by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew who lost both parents in the Holocaust (and, incidentally, royally pissed off many pro-Palestinian groups a few years ago by refusing to talk about wiping Israel off the map).
In fact Moshe Machover, Tony Goldstein (recently also removed from membership of the Labour party), Jamie Stern-Weiner and various other lefty Jews have made statements supporting Ken Livingstone - and in some cases have said that Shah was stitched up.
Just returning to this, if you haven't picked it up yet, there is an interview by Jamie Stern-Weiner with Norman Finkelstein himself over at the OpenDemocracy.net website which is worth a look.
Alan - I entirely agree with you, and with earlier posters who point out that even on this one topic the labour party is hardly the most blameworthy of all parties. But I don't think a race to the bottom is helpful. The issue within the labour party is particularly important because, if anything, islamophobia is an even bigger problem in the UK, and labour is far better placed to address it sensibly than any other party - something it will be badly hindered in if it is perceived as doing so from a perspective that has an antisemitic component.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Alan - I entirely agree with you, and with earlier posters who point out that even on this one topic the labour party is hardly the most blameworthy of all parties. But I don't think a race to the bottom is helpful.
I don't think a race to the bottom would be helpful either. I don't think that that is really what has been happening.
There is a very small number of people who have expressed views that were either anti-Semitic or idiotic, and have been censured for it - generally fairly swiftly, often even before their remarks have been picked up by the media.
Similarly, the Labour party has grown significantly over the last year, and - to the extent that they will be reflective of society in general - it wouldn't be surprising if a small number of the new members held anti-Semitic views.
There are people who would like to make a huge crisis of this, and there are a number of journalists willing to misrepresent if this gets a story going (see Andrew Marr claims regarding Seamus Milne - which I gather he has now apologised for).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
"Clearly unable to contribute anything of value" doesn't resemble Boris Johnson's comments at all, which were, after a rather throwaway comment about how the Obama family history might not necessarily endear Britain to the President, centered on Boris's claim that the US President urging the UK to remain in the kind of organization that the US wouldn't consider joining is just a little on the hypocritical side.
In your example, Joshua clearly has both a right and a responsibility to share his opinions on Brexit, because he's British. And I don't think it's racist to say that, given his family history, he might have more cause than most to be wary of Germany, and so if he were to express anti-German sentiment, to wonder if his family's history has led him to be biased against Germans.
I had a friend (long since passed away) who was a POW in a Japanese POW camp in the war, and was treated about as you'd expect. His kids still bear a grudge against the Japanese because of it. They have, and will admit to having, anti-Japanese bias, and I will assume their bias colours any comments they make about Japan or the Japanese. It's not racist, or anti-Britishist or anything to point that out.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
"Clearly unable to contribute anything of value" doesn't resemble Boris Johnson's comments at all, which were, after a rather throwaway comment about how the Obama family history might not necessarily endear Britain to the President [...]
"Throwaway comment"? Did you even read what Johnson wrote? The whole opening section is a recycling of a fringe right-wing story about the dark meaning of the replacement of a bust of Churchill with one of Martin Luther King Jr. ("Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire") quote:
I had a friend (long since passed away) who was a POW in a Japanese POW camp in the war, and was treated about as you'd expect. His kids still bear a grudge against the Japanese because of it. They have, and will admit to having, anti-Japanese bias, and I will assume their bias colours any comments they make about Japan or the Japanese. It's not racist, or anti-Britishist or anything to point that out.
Well this argument is just fucked up in a number of ways. Are we to presume that all those WWII vets who claimed to have reconciled with their former enemies were just lying? Or is it only "ancestral dislike" rather than personal experience which can't be overcome.
In either case, Obama's father wasn't tortured in a POW camp, and he's never claimed or shown (right-wing fantasies notwithstanding) any particular animus towards the British. And we're supposed to believe that his secret hatred of Britain is now manifesting itself in the form of ... bad advice about leaving the EU?
If it makes sense to discount what he says about Brexit based on such flimsy evidence of bias as this, then I guess the opinions and advice of half the world can be safely ignored, whatever they say - they're all just sore about the Empire! (Presumably it works for the US, too - maybe black Americans are all just sore about slavery.)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
If he was just American he'd be fine with the British Empire. Americans love all that. It's just the black African heritage that might bias him.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
I've been thinking about this over the past few days. Mostly to be as conscious as possible about any blindspots I might hold.
I really do not think the antisemitism charge (against the Labour party, in general) stands up to any proper analysis. I've thought about it a lot in the context that some lefties really are self-satisfied and have a desperate superiority complex. Try being lefty and 'pro-life*' in some contexts and you're soon see what I mean. Or, simply being Christian causes all sorts of issues for some really smart people. That one annoys me for two reasons, firstly they all seem to think their oh-so-clever arguments are new and secondly because it shows a complete lack of appreciation of the strong links to the church in the Labour movement in the UK....
Sorry, I digress.
I do not want to engage in a whataboutery argument, Such arguments smell like what they are. However, there is a bare-faced hypocrisy going on here. And as such, I think laying charges against those who are making noise (Tory party and sections of the press) is fair and necessary.
Ken remains crass and stupid. It does seem to be an ego thing. You may remember that when the lottery was launched in this country their was a joke about a holocaust survivor winning and wanting to thank the Nazis... I won't tell it here. It is clearly possible to tell that joke and not be antisemitic. However, It would be quite likely that many people would be offended by it. To then say "I'm not antisemitic and therefore it's ok for me to tell it in any context I like" is the equivalent of what I think Ken is doing.
Let me put it another way. I have a good friend and colleague who is from Manchester. His parents and Grandparents are all from Pakistan. When with him and few others it is well known that I am not racist, just because I hate Asians. I hate everyone. I do not discriminate, I am a grumpy sod that hates the world, and everyone in it. (I am white by the way). Now, outside of the context of certain friends, I would be very careful not to say this - it could be offensive to people who have good reason to be sensitive and it's not for me to tell them that they shouldn't be. The point is that for me to carry on in all contexts decrying I AM NOT A RACIST therefore I can say this kind of thing if I want to would be crass and stupid and arrogant.
As has been noted, all potential antisemitic issues within Labour have been addressed and I hadn't realised how there had been 12 or so as many have been sorted before even being reported in the mainstream media.
Conversely, Boris's comments when put to the Prime Minister, we are told are simply a 'matter for Boris.' Let's be clear here, Obama has not shown any indication of an anti-British bias. He stakes out a (well-reasoned) position that Mr Johnson happens to not like and suddenly his Kenyan heritage disqualifies him from comment.
How can that not be racist?
The thing that worries me most, is that I suspect Johnson is not a racist but is quite happy to play with fire if it suits him. Which, in my book, is even worse.
It's much like the observation about Nigel Farage. Farage is not a racist in the same way that a coke can in not a wasp.
Similarly, this is the party who sent vans round non-white areas encouraging immigrants to 'go home.' This is the party whose members in the 80s wore 'hang Mandela' T-shirts.
But, remember, the Labour party has the problem.
AFZ
*I hold a complex and nuanced, pro-life position (see a dead horse thread if you really want to) but for some anything other than an absolute pro-choice position is unacceptable. In this context for some who support the Palestinians, it's easy to see how subtle antisemitism might be tolerated.
[ 04. May 2016, 06:36: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well this argument is just fucked up in a number of ways. Are we to presume that all those WWII vets who claimed to have reconciled with their former enemies were just lying?
No, of course not, and I said nothing of the kind. My friend, as it happens, had long since forgiven his captors, but his kids couldn't.
quote:
Or is it only "ancestral dislike" rather than personal experience which can't be overcome.
Well, I think it might well be easier to forgive sins against you than sins against someone you love. But that's not the point. Nowhere did I say that "ancestral dislike" or any other negative opinion can't be overcome.
quote:
In either case, Obama's father wasn't tortured in a POW camp,
According to his wife, he was beaten in prison. Which may or may not be true, and Barack Obama may or may not believe it, but if it's true, it's not so far from the same thing.
quote:
And we're supposed to believe that his secret hatred of Britain is now manifesting itself in the form of ... bad advice about leaving the EU?
No, not that either. There is a belief in some quarters that the "special relationship" means that the US President would have Britain's best interests at heart when offering such advice.
Boris Johnson's point is that the US President in fact has America's interests at heart when he advises Britain to stay in the EU, and that those might not be the same as Britain's interests.
It's not so much that we should assume that Obama hates us as that we shouldn't assume that he likes us (oh, and by the way, he has cause to not like us. We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.)
Now, I think you'd have to be crazy to think that Barack Obama has anything other than America's best interests in mind. It's his job to have America's best interests in mind, and he's quite good at it. And it's completely obvious that it's in America's interests to have the UK in the EU.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Boris Johnson's point is that the US President in fact has America's interests at heart when he advises Britain to stay in the EU, and that those might not be the same as Britain's interests.
It's not so much that we should assume that Obama hates us as that we shouldn't assume that he likes us (oh, and by the way, he has cause to not like us. We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.)
Now, I think you'd have to be crazy to think that Barack Obama has anything other than America's best interests in mind. It's his job to have America's best interests in mind, and he's quite good at it. And it's completely obvious that it's in America's interests to have the UK in the EU.
No, sorry. Boris' point was that Obama could and should be judged - and his thoughts dismissed - because of the colour of his skin and his ancestry. There isn't a clearer cut form of racism than that.
It is certainly arguable that the USA's interests are served by the UK remaining in the EU. If Boris had made that point, then that'd be a totally fair comment.
Instead Boris decided to do the least honourable thing and bring into question the legitimacy of Obama making a statement by predetermining that he cannot possibly be trusted because of residual anti-British sentiment inherited from his family.
Shame on him.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Alienfromzog and Chris Stiles - I agree (broadly). One of the problems of discussing a single issue like this is that it risks slewing perceptions so as to make it THE subject of general concern. It isn't, for me at least. I don't believe for a minute that the labour party has a general problem involving antisemitism, and I think that Jeremy Corbyn's approach is the right one.
The thing is, though, that it is the labour party who will be looking for my vote in the next round of elections (I'm not in London and there is no election here in this round). Not the conservatives, not the libdems, nor anyone else most likely. This is why I am interested. And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
quote:
Ken remains crass and stupid. It does seem to be an ego thing. You may remember that when the lottery was launched in this country their was a joke about a holocaust survivor winning and wanting to thank the Nazis... I won't tell it here. It is clearly possible to tell that joke and not be antisemitic. However, It would be quite likely that many people would be offended by it. To then say "I'm not antisemitic and therefore it's ok for me to tell it in any context I like" is the equivalent of what I think Ken is doing.
I think that's probably true. It's an identity thing. In other past discussions on another incident, I think what seems to happen is that Ken has some analytical fraamework in his head which drives these outbusts. He is unwilling (and possibly unable) to concede that many others do not see things that way. The technical term for that is bigotry, though I'm not sure it's helpful, as the word is more a generalised insult than a precise descriptor these days.
In any event, it looks like that's what is happening here. As to the what and why, that too is probably worth a discussion, though this post is probably already tl;dr.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
I'd agree to a point. The problem is that at the moment the larger issue within the Labour party is that those on Blairite-wing are having a prolonged tantrum over the temerity of the line members disagreeing with their view of how the world should be.
Hence absurd situations like Liz Kendall (4.5% of the leadership vote and the closest the party has to a Nicola Murray figure) pronouncing on threshold of popular support Corbyn will have to achieve to stay leader.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
The word 'ancestral' does seem convenient to be used as a dogwhistle. That is, while a racist intention can be denied in using it, nevertheless I think most people hearing 'ancestral' will think of the biological ancestry of the person in question rather than of the specific personal histories of the person's parents.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
I'd agree to a point. The problem is that at the moment the larger issue within the Labour party is that those on Blairite-wing are having a prolonged tantrum over the temerity of the line members disagreeing with their view of how the world should be.
Hence absurd situations like Liz Kendall (4.5% of the leadership vote and the closest the party has to a Nicola Murray figure) pronouncing on threshold of popular support Corbyn will have to achieve to stay leader.
Also, some of them seem more interested in defeating Corbyn than the Tories. There are even rumours that they are hoping that Labour do badly in the local elections, but I don't know this for a fact.
Incidentally, I've been in/on the left for 50 years, and I think anti-Jewish sentiment is rare, but of course, criticism of Israel is quite common, especially by Jewish socialists!
The Finkelstein map, reproduced by Naz Shah, is akin to saying that Israel is the 51st state, isn't it? Not anti-Jewish, to my mind.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
Furthermore, if you watch Prime Minister's Questions today you can see Rt Hon David Cameron try to smear both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan whilst not answering any questions.
AFZ
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I haven't yet had chance to watch PMQs, but I understand that Mr Corbyn didn't distance himself from claims that he called Hamas his 'friends'. Seems quite bizarre that he hasn't tackled that (assuming he has any serious ambition to lead the country).
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I haven't yet had chance to watch PMQs, but I understand that Mr Corbyn didn't distance himself from claims that he called Hamas his 'friends'. Seems quite bizarre that he hasn't tackled that (assuming he has any serious ambition to lead the country).
Bollocks.
Watch it.
It was a totally shameful performance by Cameron - being praised as effective politics by the Guardian.
AFZ
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The word 'ancestral' does seem convenient to be used as a dogwhistle. That is, while a racist intention can be denied in using it, nevertheless I think most people hearing 'ancestral' will think of the biological ancestry of the person in question rather than of the specific personal histories of the person's parents.
Yes. And there must be something specific about this President that makes an ancestral aspects of this dislike of the empire more remarkable than the dislike other US citizens might feel when thinking about 1776 or 1812. Clearly the ancestral aspects of having a Kenyan father are more determining than the ancestral aspects of being American.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Furthermore, if you watch Prime Minister's Questions today you can see Rt Hon David Cameron try to smear both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan whilst not answering any questions.
AFZ
Well, in London, the Tories are insinuating that Khan is Muslim = radical = extremist. It would be comical, if it wasn't so bigoted. And then Goldsmith goes all wide-eyed, it wasn't me, guv. Talk about plumbing the depths.
I'm just waiting for the Zinoviev letter.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Just going back a bit, quetzlcoatl wrote: quote:
Also, some of them seem more interested in defeating Corbyn than the Tories. There are even rumours that they are hoping that Labour do badly in the local elections, but I don't know this for a fact.
It looks that way at times. It's a bit of a tangent but does anyone have any inside info on what's happening? Not guesswork please - I can do that one myself.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Boris Johnson's point is that the US President in fact has America's interests at heart when he advises Britain to stay in the EU, and that those might not be the same as Britain's interests.
Rubbish. He deliberately aimed a slur to discount Obama's statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not so much that we should assume that Obama hates us as that we shouldn't assume that he likes us (oh, and by the way, he has cause to not like us. We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.)
Kinda depends on what you mean by "heritage". He has more shared ancestry than the vast majority of Americans.
As far a cultural heritage, he is American. Some of that culture will have come from Britain, much from other places. Ancestry needn't to do with it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Just going back a bit, quetzlcoatl wrote: quote:
Also, some of them seem more interested in defeating Corbyn than the Tories. There are even rumours that they are hoping that Labour do badly in the local elections, but I don't know this for a fact.
It looks that way at times. It's a bit of a tangent but does anyone have any inside info on what's happening? Not guesswork please - I can do that one myself.
Good point. Well, I am off to consult with my Red, radical and extremist friends, to see if there is any substance to this. At the moment, I would doubt if any Blairite is going to say, I want Labour to lose, as this would be ne plus ultra.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, this was on the BBC website:
quote:
Privately some in Labour's ranks have been wondering whether to "take the foot off the gas" when it comes to campaigning because a poorer result could convince some of the newer members of the party that Jeremy Corbyn is indeed unelectable in large parts of England, outside London.
Of course, this is still non-attributable, but I would think that it's pretty hard-core, I mean reliable. It sounds like an off the record comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35972431
This is from Prescott in the Mirror:
quote:
Sadly, a small number of MPs – I call them Bitterites – are still desperate to remove Corbyn. They’re gutted the Tories are in chaos and Labour edging ahead.
The main Bitterite MPs – whose only “skill” seems to have been Press spokesmen for Blair and Brown – want to drive down Labour ’s standing in the polls and encourage bad results in this May’s elections.
[ 04. May 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
There are also some Tories (probably few in number) who hope for a Sadiq Khan victory as it would help secure Jeremy Corbyn's leadership until 2020.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The odd thing about the Blairites wanting to despose Corbyn, is the lack of alternatives. Who would they want? Starmer? I saw him in the Commons and he was about as interesting as a wet flannel. Angela Eagle, I suppose.
Also, their policies seem to amount to, cut benefits, support Trident, and keep brown people out. Really going for the Tory vote there.
[ 04. May 2016, 15:01: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks for the links, quetzalcoatl. Not sure I would want to bet any real money there, but it was at least one of my imagined scenarios.
The problem with all this double and triple - bluff stuff is that if things go the way your machinations would like, then people can find the net result more pleasing than expected, so you could finish up shafting yourself rather than anyone else.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.
History that doesn't involve the Boston massacre, crossing the Delaware or General Cornwallis the treaty of Ghent or burning Washington?
If only he had more of that in his blood he'd love the empire.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Perhaps Sadiq Khan needs to be more careful with who he hangs out with?
Perhaps Mr Cameroon needs to be careful who he tries to recruit as a councilor.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think most people hearing 'ancestral' will think of the biological ancestry of the person in question rather than of the specific personal histories of the person's parents.
The biological ancestry of the person in question is his specific parents and grandparents. To me, at any rate, the phrase invokes specific people rather than national or ethnic groups.
It's got nothing at all to do with the colour of Barack Obama's skin, or some sort of vague association of Kenyanness about him, and everything to do with the treatment of his own personal grandfather at the hands of the British colonial authorities.
I'm not arguing that it's accurate (I don't think it is), but I am arguing that it's not racist - it's about the specific personal history of Hussein Onyango Obama. It's no more racist than making claims about other current politicians based on the politics and attitudes of their parents and grandparents.
You might compare, for example, some of the statements made in the right-wing press about Ed Miliband and his father Ralph (a prominent Marxist) in the run-up to the last election. Nasty and inaccurate? Sure, but not anti-semitic.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well this argument is just fucked up in a number of ways. Are we to presume that all those WWII vets who claimed to have reconciled with their former enemies were just lying?
No, of course not, and I said nothing of the kind. My friend, as it happens, had long since forgiven his captors, but his kids couldn't. quote:
Or is it only "ancestral dislike" rather than personal experience which can't be overcome.
Well, I think it might well be easier to forgive sins against you than sins against someone you love. But that's not the point. Nowhere did I say that "ancestral dislike" or any other negative opinion can't be overcome.
But you know your friend's kids are prejudiced because they told you so. You've no real reason to think that about Obama, unless you think it about everyone with an ancestor mistreated by the Empire. quote:
quote:
In either case, Obama's father wasn't tortured in a POW camp,
According to his wife, he was beaten in prison. Which may or may not be true, and Barack Obama may or may not believe it, but if it's true, it's not so far from the same thing.
Jesus, this is sloppy stuff. First you pass off Boris Johnson's dramatic invocation of a right-wing conspiracy theory as a "throwaway remark", now you point to an article that says "grandfather" in the very headline, and still provides absolutely no evidence that Obama himself bears the sort of grudge which would support the insinuation of "ancestral dislike". quote:
Boris Johnson's point ...
... hardly requires or justifies his rooting around in the cesspool of rightwing birther conspiracy tropes. You may claim it's not racist, but it's definitely racist-adjacent - that's how insinuation works.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You might compare, for example, some of the statements made in the right-wing press about Ed Miliband and his father Ralph (a prominent Marxist) in the run-up to the last election. Nasty and inaccurate? Sure, but not anti-semitic.
A more apt comparison would apply if it was something connected to his father being Jewish that was identified, and if a word implying some sort of biological link was used such as ancestral.
If the claim had been that Ed Miliband had a deep-seated ancestral dislike of Britain due to the failure of the British to support Jewish aspirations in Palestine then I think that would be anti-Semitic.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
According to his wife, he was beaten in prison. Which may or may not be true, and Barack Obama may or may not believe it, but if it's true, it's not so far from the same thing.
It is not unlikely that he was imprisoned by the British and could well have been beaten, but that article is strange in that the David Anderson quote seems very out of character. (i.e. that they must have had "damn good evidence" to lock Obama Sr up). I wouldn't expect him to use such un-nuanced language and he spent a lot of time in his book cataloguing various abuses by the British of locking people up, including senior people, with absolutely no evidence at all.
The surprising thing is that a Luo was caught up in Mau mau at all. It was almost entirely a Kikuyu thing.
But all this is a tangent to the fact that the whole line of reasoning is ludicrous anyway.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Looking back over the public debate, some of the things circulating on Facebook, and this thread, has changed my mind slightly on this issue. It's not the Labour Party that has the problem with antisemitism. It's a particular part of the left that traces its intellectual and political descent to part of the new left whose entryism that Neil Kinnock and John Smith exercised themselves to fence the Labour Party against. It's the reappearance of that issue that has caused the excitement now. quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
There's a post on this topic ( Antisemitism in the Labour Party - what's going on?) on the lefty academic blog Crooked Timber. ...
That's quite a thoughtful article. I don't 100% agree with it but it says some useful things. The bits about relating to the two factions in Ulster and looking at tribal packages a bit like being a football supporter are worth reflecting on.
I still think, and am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise, that there is a strain on the left whose fondness for the Palestinians does tip them into antisemitism. I would also still go the further step and say that there are some whose identification with the Palestinian cause is a crystallisation of a pre-existing antisemitism, in some cases conscious, in some possibly not. The fact that a person avoids using words like 'yid' or 'kike' no more lets a person off the charge than the argument, 'well I'm not antisemitic because it's only Zionism of the existence of the State of Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians that I've got a problem with'. Saying that you are not a racist does not demonstrate that you aren't one.
Here are some things that do mark a person as antisemitic.
1. Holocaust denial.
2. Saying Hitler did a good job.
3. Using words like 'yid' or 'kike' or this new one 'zio' and using Jew as an insult. Likewise, desecrating Jewish cemeteries.
4. Not being a Gazan and regarding Hamas with anything other than abhorrence.
5. Advocating any 'solution' to the problems of the Middle East which does not include the survival of Israel as a Jewish state.
6. No-platforming Jewish people at conferences.
7. Believing world affairs are being orchestrated by a Jewish conspiracy whether your version of it is manipulated by Jewish bankers, Jewish influence in the CIA, or Mossad.
Here are some things that do not mark a person as antisemitic.
8. Saying you wish Israel were not so heavy handed in the way it treated Palestinians resident either in Israel or the occupied territories.
9. Opposing the grab of Palestinian farms by Jewish settlers.
10. Suggesting that 9 is being done illegally.
11. Suggesting that a Jewish state should not treat people the way the Nazis treated them.
12. Going on work camps in the occupied territories unless combined with any of 1-7
13. Criticising the wall, and even painting on it unless combined with any of 1-7.
14. Suggesting that either side, whether Israeli or Palestinian are being their own worst enemies by being intransigent, ideological or unrealistically idealist about the outcomes they want or imagine they should be able to achieve.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I object to 5 on the grounds that I don't believe any state should have an established religion - but I realise this is an issue I'd need to take up with about half the world including the UK.
(I.E. i have no problem with Isreal being a state, and/or having a majority Jewsih population - I just don't think a state should in general have a religious affiliation, as this tends to adversely affect the right of its population to exercise freedom of religion. I'd be more willing to see Mecca, Jerusalem and the Vatican as quasi autonimous city states with a religious affiliation than entire countries.)
[ 05. May 2016, 17:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I have an aversion to theocratic states, although you could argue that Israel isn't that.
I have certainly heard arguments for a secular Israel, and while this strikes me as very impractical, in present circumstances, I don't see it as anti-Jewish, since the secular bit means that Jews and other religions could live together.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Enoch wrote:
quote:
I still think, and am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise, that there is a strain on the left whose fondness for the Palestinians does tip them into antisemitism. I would also still go the further step and say that there are some whose identification with the Palestinian cause is a crystallisation of a pre-existing antisemitism, in some cases conscious, in some possibly not.
You may well be right, but I am curious as to who you are referring to. It all sounds very nebulous, but presumably you have some actual people in mind, although I realize that it's difficult to name names sometimes.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I object to 5 on the grounds that I don't believe any state should have an established religion - but I realise this is an issue I'd need to take up with about half the world including the UK.
I think French-style secularism equally excludes minority religious believers from mainstream society and has an effect on freedom of religion as restrictive as most Western European established religions.
On the other hand, as a general principle I don't think any state should be based around race. No doubt it's easy for me to say so while I live in a state in which my race is the majority, and I can see why many Jews think they want to live in a state that's majority racially Jewish, but that doesn't mean it's not problematic.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I fundamentally disagree with Enoch's point 5. There are plenty of people - including a fair sized number of Jews - who believe in a "single state" Israeli-Palestine solution, where all residents are full and equal members of a new state. I don't see any particular correlation between this and anti-Semitism.
Personally, I think this wouldn't work. At best it'd be an uneasy hate-hate relationship like Belgium, at worst it'd be an all-out civil war. And I can see how Jews feel vulnerable if they allow all the Arabs in East Jerusalem (who are currently without nationality), together with everyone else in the West Bank and Gaza full citizenship. The nature of Israel as a safe space for Jews is likely to be totally lost as soon as the Arabs are in the majority, and it is an open invitation for others from Iraq, Syria etc to attack them.
But then clearly the current situation, whereby a space has been carved of safety to Jews but to the detriment of everyone else (Druze, Israeli Arabs, Palestinians and other minorities) is a pretty awful situation too.
The trouble is that there is no easy way out - and it isn't helped by deep Northern Ireland style religious hatred that runs deep on both sides.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
4 is nonsense too.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I think Enoch's point 4 is perfectly valid and that Hamas is a very abhorent organisation. People could justifiably criticise the way Israel pulverises Gaza following attacks, but in every case the trouble has been started by Hamas using Gaza to launch its rockets against Israeli civilian targets. And by placing its rocket launchers close to schools and highly built up civilian areas. These people don't want peace, they want jihad.
Point 5 is advocated by those bent on destroying the Jewish state by subtler means. Eliminate a Jewish majority and it won't be difficult to eliminate the state. When two opposing populations claim rights to the same small piece of land, there is no real solution to conflict. Perhaps the setting up of the State of Israel, like the creation of Northern Ireland as a Protestant enclave against Catholic Ireland, was a mistake, but it was made long ago. Israel exists and has a right to exist in peace within secure boundries.
It was only the recognition of Northern Ireland's right to determine its own future by all mainstream political parties within the UK and Ireland which brought armed conflict to an end. If Israel's neighbours allow it to exist in peace, it will make no further attacks on any of its neighbours.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think Enoch's point 4 is perfectly valid and that Hamas is a very abhorent organisation. People could justifiably criticise the way Israel pulverises Gaza following attacks, but in every case the trouble has been started by Hamas using Gaza to launch its rockets against Israeli civilian targets. And by placing its rocket launchers close to schools and highly built up civilian areas. These people don't want peace, they want jihad.
How about criticizing Israel because their response is disproportionate? How would that sit in the plan?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm not going to come back at length on this as I've come in and am about to go to bed, but 'Jewish' is not a religious identity. It's an ethnic/national one which is partly defined by religion.
Whatever might have been the case before 1916-21, the same incidentally now applies to the two populations in Northern Ireland.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
How about criticizing Israel because their response is disproportionate? How would that sit in the plan?
I did criticise Israel's response as disproportionate. I said it could justifiably be criticised. But that doesn't give me any more affection for Hamas. They launch attacks in Israel in full knowledge of the likely response, because that is what they want. They want the entire Muslim world to turn against Israel and drive it into the sea. I think they are despicable cowards who use the lives of their own people in pursuit of their political ends. If they stop firing rockets into Israel, Israel will stop attacking them. Is that difficult?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Whatever one thinks of Hamas as it exists at present, it seems difficult to see a way forward that doesn't include Hamas. Hamas and Israel both need to recognise that the other isn't going away and has to be talked to. And pragmatically speaking it's up to the stronger power to stop playing, you go first.
[ 05. May 2016, 21:46: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not going to come back at length on this as I've come in and am about to go to bed, but 'Jewish' is not a religious identity. It's an ethnic/national one which is partly defined by religion.
Whatever might have been the case before 1916-21, the same incidentally now applies to the two populations in Northern Ireland.
I'm not cool about defining nations by ethnicity either.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
How about criticizing Israel because their response is disproportionate? How would that sit in the plan?
I did criticise Israel's response as disproportionate. I said it could justifiably be criticised. But that doesn't give me any more affection for Hamas. They launch attacks in Israel in full knowledge of the likely response, because that is what they want. They want the entire Muslim world to turn against Israel and drive it into the sea. I think they are despicable cowards who use the lives of their own people in pursuit of their political ends. If they stop firing rockets into Israel, Israel will stop attacking them. Is that difficult?
Have you studied any history? Of liberation? Of what is necessary for the weak to defeat the strong? You would be the despicable coward in revolutionary terms.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think Enoch's point 4 is perfectly valid and that Hamas is a very abhorent organisation.
Since the parallel has already been made with Northern Ireland, point 4 is the equivalent of saying that Sinn Fein is a very abhorent organisation. But, the Good Friday agreement wouldn't have happened if they weren't at the table. Excluding Hamas from any future for Palestine/Israel will mean no end to the hostilities as surely as excluding Sinn Fein from the future of Northern Ireland would have done.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If they stop firing rockets into Israel, Israel will stop attacking them. Is that difficult?
And if Israel would stop expanding Jewish settlements?
There are horrible things on both sides.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The problem with 4 is that 'Do you condemn Hamas?' is used as a gotcha question by people who have no interest in the issues involved but who want to be able to brand their opponents as terrorist sympathisers. I think people who are sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause are right to be wary of it.
That said, I also object to 11. Even if one thinks it's justified, I don't believe comparing a Jewish state to Nazi Germany is ever going to have a positive or constructive outcome. This should be predictable to anyone with an entry-level understanding of human behaviour, which then raises the possibility that those who make the comparison are in fact not really interested in positive or constructive outcomes.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think it is very easy for people to try to put all Palestinians into the camps of "terrorist" or "victim", wilfully ignoring the complexities of a society which has been under intense pressure for many decades and has nothing approaching a normal economy.
The reality is complex and over-simplified statements are used by all sides to use ordinary people as pawns in a wider religio-political conflict.
On Hamas - there are several things to be said here. First, it appears to be a historical fact that Hamas was initially supported by the Israelis to bring instability to the Palestinian people. Which if true, and from what I can gather it is, then that gives a puzzling perspective to the whole thing.
Second, as I said above, I am a pacifist. However under international law, an occupied people have the right to use violence to defend themselves. So there is something of an irony if one is saying that the Israeli military can use overwhelming force against civilians in a space from which they can't escape but armed factions on the other side are not able to use force in return. My issue with Hamas is that the violence is counter-productive - and indiscriminate -, not that it is unjustified.
Third, Palestinians have several times tried campaigns of non-violence which have gotten them absolutely nowhere, so it isn't really a great surprise when they're pushed into a corner that they react with something that is literally suicide. Palestinians are a very stubborn people.
Finally, Hamas have reformed and made concessions, the reality is that nobody gives them any credit for that whatsoever. Instead the message that the Palestinian people get from the "democracy loving" western countries is that they've made the wrong democratic choice and therefore deserve to be ostracised and punished for it.
fwiw, I have no love for any of the Palestinian factions or the pockets of deep nasty fundamentalism which exist around the Palestinian territories. But simply allowing Israel to impose de-facto unilateral punishment on a whole people because they don't like the way representatives have been elected - and let's not forget that a large number of Palestinian elected officials are currently in Israeli prisons, many without charge or conviction - is to sit back and tell Palestinians that they only matter when they give the correct answers.
Most Palestinians agree with a two-state solution including Hamas. Most want peace, freedom of movement, contiguous land, external borders, airports, deep-water ports and a functioning economy. Those things are entirely in the hands of Israel as occupier, not Hamas. It is that the hard-liners in Israel have no interest in a viable Palestinian state.
[ 06. May 2016, 07:34: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
You may not have noticed that I didn't say 'talking to Hamas' was antisemitic. Nor did I refer to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. What I referred to was an example of a self-reflective process.
This next comment is tangential. It does not always work, but long experience suggests that however much it may stick in one's craw, talking to abhorrent people or organisations offers more prospect of getting them to become less abhorrent than any other approach. Even 100% eradication, which some people usually advocate and think will be more effective, has less prospect of being achievable.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Your list is a very helpful discussion point because some interesting things emerge.
For instance I don't think anyone is challenging Holocaust denial as a marker of anti-Semitism. Would it be possible simply to be honestly mistaken about the historical evidence? To think that accounts are unreliable simply as an academic judgement and to want to ask questions in a free-thinking spirit? In theory it must be, but in practice consensus seems to be that if your free-thinking leads you to conclude that the Holocaust didn't happen you probably have a prejudice that guided your free-thought.
On the other hand Cheesy illustrates very well how one can thoughtfully disagree with the statement "Hamas are abhorrent".
Taken out of context "it isn't really a great surprise when they're [Hamas] pushed into a corner that they react with something that is literally suicide" could be quite inflammatory and considered evidence of anti-Semitism. Whereas seen in context one might disagree but one could hardly describe it as anti-Semitic.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Your list is a very helpful discussion point because some interesting things emerge.
For instance I don't think anyone is challenging Holocaust denial as a marker of anti-Semitism. Would it be possible simply to be honestly mistaken about the historical evidence? To think that accounts are unreliable simply as an academic judgement and to want to ask questions in a free-thinking spirit? In theory it must be, but in practice consensus seems to be that if your free-thinking leads you to conclude that the Holocaust didn't happen you probably have a prejudice that guided your free-thought.
It is. I've met normal people who are just swept along by a tide of conspiracy theories about the Holocaust and do not have the resources to research the truth. In that circumstance it isn't very surprising that the easiest option is to believe, along with everyone else in the group you belong to, that the Holocaust didn't happen.
To me that is a form of Holocaust denial that is just born of ignorance. One could go after those who perpetuate this nonsense - which do indeed include Hamas - but I don't think you can necessarily allocate blame equally to everyone.
That said, there is a level of chicken-and-egg here. If one believes that the Holocaust is a great lie, then it isn't so much of a step to believe other lies about Jews, particularly if the only time you see a Jew is when they're pointing a gun at you or disrespecting your grandparents.
This is one of the reasons why it is so important for Jews to meet Palestinians and for them to hear about the Holocaust. And also why things like the Breaking the Silence meetings between former Palestinian and Israeli combatants are so important.
[ 06. May 2016, 09:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You may not have noticed that I didn't say 'talking to Hamas' was antisemitic.
Sure, but 'abhorrent' in itself is just describing my mental state, which shouldn't be relevant, and indeed isn't relevant if I am nonetheless advocating dialogue with them.
quote:
Nor did I refer to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
I'm not sure how else to interpret 'Suggesting that a Jewish state should not treat people the way the Nazis treated them'. The implication is that (in the mind of the speaker) that is how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Nor did I refer to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
I'm not sure how else to interpret 'Suggesting that a Jewish state should not treat people the way the Nazis treated them'. The implication is that (in the mind of the speaker) that is how the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.
I expect Enoch was thinking of examples like this:
IDF general compares Israel to Nazi German then walks back comments after right-wing backlash/
Which isn't the first time something similar has been said by someone from Israel.
[Edited to fix scroll lock. Replace long URLs with text. - Gwai]
[ 06. May 2016, 11:12: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me that is a form of Holocaust denial that is just born of ignorance. One could go after those who perpetuate this nonsense - which do indeed include Hamas - but I don't think you can necessarily allocate blame equally to everyone.
Isn't that then also anti-Semitism born of ignorance? One might be variably culpable for one's racism depending on resources available to be critical, so the degree of willfulness may vary but it is still anti-Semitism.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Isn't that then also anti-Semitism born of ignorance? One might be variably culpable for one's racism depending on resources available to be critical, so the degree of willfulness may vary but it is still anti-Semitism.
I think this may just come back to the issue of defining anti-Semitism.
If we're meaning (in extremis) that an anti-Semite is someone who considers a Jew sub-human and will take any opportunity to berate, beat or murder him - a definition that I've just made up - then I don't think having ignorant views about the Holocaust inevitably means personal animosity to Jews. Or even necessarily animosity to a specific group of Jews.
Animosity to a large number of people is a bit more difficult to call, I think. I've met Palestinians who talk a load of shite about the Holocaust, who don't have a good word to say about Israel and so on. And yet who were very polite to the Jew that I was with.
Now, I'm not claiming to have met all Palestinians by a long stretch, and I'm certain that there are some who are itching to get into a personal fight with a Jew as a representative of everything they see as evil in the world. But the ones I met have a very strong sense of hospitality and appeared to be able to spout mountains of rubbish whilst at the same time apparently caring for the individual in front of them.
I've never met a skinhead Neo-Nazi, but having seen them recently protecting in Dover, I'd be much more worried about them meeting a Jew in the street.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
I think Mark Steel has nailed it:
quote:
In the Independent...
You can’t help wondering, if you’re a bit cynical, whether people who scream and yell about antisemitism only when it suits them as a stick to beat their opponents, might be the most insulting towards Jews of all.
AFZ
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I was once grabbed behind by a skin-head who stated a desire to do something unpleasant to my black face. (Or words to that effect). As he got a closer look he realized we knew me - we had been "friends" in school (a relationship clearly in need of re-appraisal). He apologized and left me to stagger off looking for some alcohol.
Was he not a racist because he was able to view me as an individual?
People are contradictory and aspects of them in different context may be racist or not racist. Perhaps it makes more sense to categorize statements and actions as racist/not racist rather than individuals.
(By the way the police didn't make such fine philosophical distinctions, although did find it quite a low priority to follow up on my report and eventually decided that the word of 5 bystanders all apparently known to the accused but luckily in the area against 1 (me) wasn't going to go anywhere useful and dropped it. This was quite a while ago.)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
mdijon wrote: quote:
People are contradictory and aspects of them in different context may be racist or not racist. Perhaps it makes more sense to categorize statements and actions as racist/not racist rather than individuals.
That's got a lot going for it. It can be helpful in pointing out that even in the hands of the best-intentioned, something can have negative consequences. Even if your self-image is as someone implacably opposed to racism or anti-semitism - a stance which though laudable has the possibility of blinding you to the fact.
Though I guess that against it, there really are some people who have adopted these stances into their identity, and for them I would say the terms can stand.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I am still curious as to which people on the left are reckoned to be anti-semitic. Enoch referred to a 'strain on the left', but wasn't more specific than that. I have heard rumours that the SWP have had trouble with this, but no hard facts. Where else?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We have to pour aid in to Gaza and the occupied West Bank. We HAVE to, can ONLY, obtain peace through universal social JUSTICE.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am still curious as to which people on the left are reckoned to be anti-semitic. Enoch referred to a 'strain on the left', but wasn't more specific than that. I have heard rumours that the SWP have had trouble with this, but no hard facts. Where else?
The SWP has imploded, quetzalcoatl, though more over sexism than this I think.
But its a good question. I think there are some strains on the further left that are implicated, though not all by any means.
I think they are largely those that take the entire thoughts of Marx (perhaps) and Lenin (definitely) as definitive. And some the Trotskyite outfits as well. The problem with identifying them is more that these groupuscules come and go, whilst arguing virulently among themselves.
But if you wanted a more detailed explanation as to what is going on, I am not Enoch, but I could give it a try, though my knowledge is distinctly partial.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
People are contradictory and aspects of them in different context may be racist or not racist.
Very true. For example, it's my experience that racists who are also football fans have few problems with black players who play for their team. As long as they play well, of course...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am still curious as to which people on the left are reckoned to be anti-semitic. Enoch referred to a 'strain on the left', but wasn't more specific than that. I have heard rumours that the SWP have had trouble with this, but no hard facts. Where else?
Quite a while back the SWP had an issue with Gilad Atzmon's blatant anti-Semitism.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am still curious as to which people on the left are reckoned to be anti-semitic. Enoch referred to a 'strain on the left', but wasn't more specific than that. I have heard rumours that the SWP have had trouble with this, but no hard facts. Where else?
Quite a while back the SWP had an issue with Gilad Atzmon's blatant anti-Semitism.
Except Atzmon's ideas predate his association with the SWP by a very long way, are complicated by that fact that he himself is a Jew (albeit an aggressively secular one) and it is not always clear to what extent what he says are in parody.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
.. and seriously, if your evidence for widespread anti-semitism in the Labour party is the involvement of a particular loose cannon in the fringes of a fringe of the party - who is in addition foreign and Jewish, I'd say you were on fairly shaky ground.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Outside the recent Tory attacks, is anyone saying there is widespread antisemitism within the Labour party?
(Genuine question - just calibrating).
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I am forty and have been a a labour party member pretty much all my adult life. It is not something I've heard raised before, and as I said upthread, we have recently had a labour leader and foreign secretary of Jewish heritage.
I found the stories about the Oxford group quite wierd, I literally wouldn't have known what "zio" meant if I hadn't seen it explained in a news article.
On my father's side of the family they fled the Russian pomgroms at the end of the nineteenth century and came to Britain. I remember my great aunt talking about the people they knew who died in the holocaust, so it is the sort of thing I would notice.
Just thinking back more generally I live in a fairly wealthy place, but work in a more deprived area, with some significant immigration - both people from in and outside europe. I have come across homophobia, I have a client chose to leave the area and go to london because a five year old in a shop called her a "nigger". But I have yet to hear direct, anti-Semitic insults.
I have heard people talk alot about the arab isreali conflict in the course of my life, not least cos I spent chunks of my childhood in the middle-east. Where the line is is those conversations is probably a matter of debate - but it was usually people talking about actual fighting / state actions in that actual location. (As opposed to assuming all Jewish people are a proxy for Israel.)
In discussing the recent issues with my mum, discovered that her boss referred to my dad once as "a pushy jew" - this would have been in the sixties before they were married, he's 79 now - she said "you didn't tell people they were racist in those days, so I just said he's not jewish".
[ 06. May 2016, 19:59: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In discussing the recent issues with my mum, discovered that her boss referred to my dad once as "a pushy jew" - this would have been in the sixties before they were married, he's 79 now - she said "you didn't tell people they were racist in those days, so I just said he's not jewish".
Anecdotally, whilst I've heard plenty of racist remarks in working class circles, the only time I've personally heard anti-Jewish/Semitic remarks is from the middle classes and up, with the remarks becoming more oblique the further up the social scale one moves.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Outside the recent Tory attacks, is anyone saying there is widespread antisemitism within the Labour party?
(Genuine question - just calibrating).
The Chief Rabbi is, though the definition he outlined was pretty damn broad. Several right-wing Labour MPs have been, because it's the latest useful stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn with.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In discussing the recent issues with my mum, discovered that her boss referred to my dad once as "a pushy jew" - this would have been in the sixties before they were married, he's 79 now - she said "you didn't tell people they were racist in those days, so I just said he's not jewish".
Anecdotally, whilst I've heard plenty of racist remarks in working class circles, the only time I've personally heard anti-Jewish/Semitic remarks is from the middle classes and up, with the remarks becoming more oblique the further up the social scale one moves.
Possibly, though to what extent you are also talking about effectively class insults - new money vs old for example - is not clear.
When I was young I was taught that respectively, Jewish referred to a religious group (which you were born into via your mother's heritage), Hebrew referred to the racial group from which most Jewish people come - but you could be Hebrew without being Jewish (I think this group would now refer to themselves as atheist Jews or culturally Jewish) and Semitic referred to the peoples who are the racial groups in the middle east and surrounding areas and this includes the arabs.
In terms of direct racial prejudice, I think many or even most people would struggle to identify people of Jewish heritage by sight - if not wearing traditional dress - and many people in the younger generations would not necessarily recognise the surnames. This probably makes whatever level of prejudice there is, more difficult to spot.
For example, If I hadn't read Maureen Lipman's autobiography I wouldn't have known she is Jewish.
[ 06. May 2016, 21:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on
:
Anecdotally, whilst I've heard plenty of racist remarks in working class circles, the only time I've personally heard anti-Jewish/Semitic remarks is from the middle classes and up, with the remarks becoming more oblique the further up the social scale one moves.
My experience too. But isn't this correlated to the socio-economic and geographical distribution of Jewish people in Britain?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Which is another reason why anti-semitism doesn't, on the face of it, look like such a major problem. Widespread prejudice usually leads to widespread discrimination, which would normal exclude the persecuted minority from positions of power, wealth and influence.
This doesn't appear to be the current fate of the Jewish community in Britain. There have been Jewish MPs and Lords all my life, and famous and celebrated Jewish folk in many walks of life. A Jewish mayor of London would have been fairly unremarkable, but a muslim and/or a person of colour - that causes comment.
Now that I come to think of it - given the name - is Zac Goldsmith of Jewish descent ?
[ 06. May 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Checked that - yes he is - so I would add, that despite a fairly ill-tempered campaign, there doesn't seem to have been a slew of anti-semitic covert or overt insults chucked at him. I'd be very surprised - given the subject of this thread - if it had happened and just not been reported.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
There's been rumblings in the press for a few months. Mostly comment pieces and the issues with Oxford students.
So, I wasn't surprised when this blew up.
I have done a bit of soul-searching about this: wondering about my own biases and blind spots but basically I've come to the conclusion that it is what it smells like: bullshit.
It's a brilliant narrative with which to beat the Labour party (and Jeremy Corbyn particularly). Our media is appalling and it is well established how they will create a narrative and then only report things that fit with it. The print media lead and the broadcast media follow by reporting the story of the story. Jeremy Corbyn is under pressure due to accusations of...
I love the BBC and think we should stand up for it but their reporting of the election results has been startlingly biased against Labour.
Anyway, in other news, Sadiq Khan is now London's mayor. Despite the horrific slur campaign waged against him... ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
One final thought, Ken has some form in this area. I genuinely don't think him antisemetic but I do think him an idiot. A few years ago he was being harassed by a journalist. From what I've read I think Ken was very much in the right here - the guy was vindictively targeting him. Ken then used some rather unhelpful hyperbole in accusing the reporter of being like 'a concentration camp guard.' Which is inappropriate in almost all circumstances but given that the reporter in question was Jewish gave the media a lot of ammunition. As I said, Crass and Stupid.
So, now it's time for a proper investigation in to the Conservative Party's anti-Islamic position... Having watch PMQs this week, I can tell you, it goes all the way to the top...
AFZ
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
My impression with Livingstone is that he gets into fights and reaches for any weapon that's to hand, without stopping to think how it will look; he's just trying to bludgeon his opponent. Most of the time he can get away with that, but occasionally the weapon looks an awful lot like some pretty unpleasant prejudice, whether it's anti-Semitism or a pretty awful attitude to people with mental illness. I don't think he's actually anti-Semitic or prejudiced against people with mental illness, he just opens his mouth and his ego is too big to allow him to walk it back when he says something offensive.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think this is back to categorizing people again. Perhaps one could say that he generally doesn't say or do anti-Semitic things but on that occasion he said something anti-Semitic, or certainly that had an obvious anti-Semitic interpretation even if he didn't mean it like that, and ought to have apologized but didn't.
It reminds me of the situation where someone tries to determine the truth or not of a statement based on whether the speaker is a liar or not. Actually none of us are truthful all the time or lie all the time. While character and past record is informative it is more useful to get on with categorizing the statement as true or not true rather than going through "are you saying he's a liar?" arguments.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Premier Khan 2020
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Anyway, in other news, Sadiq Khan is now London's mayor. Despite the horrific slur campaign waged against him...
Jemima didn't much like it either.
In the racist stakes, who is the kettle and who is the pot? I think the finger of suspicion points away from the red and towards the blue.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It's (slightly) pleasing to note that the Conservatives' campaign is now widely being discussed as having had a negative impact on their votes. In the longer run I hope that everyone, them especially, learn from it. For as long as I can remember, negative campaigning has had the reputation of blowing up in the perpetrators' face.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this is back to categorizing people again. Perhaps one could say that he generally doesn't say or do anti-Semitic things but on that occasion he said something anti-Semitic, or certainly that had an obvious anti-Semitic interpretation even if he didn't mean it like that, and ought to have apologized but didn't.
That's a fair point, it's reasonable to look at it either way.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It's (slightly) pleasing to note that the Conservatives' campaign is now widely being discussed as having had a negative impact on their votes. In the longer run I hope that everyone, them especially, learn from it. For as long as I can remember, negative campaigning has had the reputation of blowing up in the perpetrators' face.
Though given that by all accounts it was out of character from him. I can't help but feel a little sorry for him as he learns (like the Tory Imam earlier), how quickly his 'friends' vanish (with the loot) when it's convenient.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Though given that by all accounts it was out of character from him. I can't help but feel a little sorry for him as he learns (like the Tory Imam earlier), how quickly his 'friends' vanish (with the loot) when it's convenient.
He was either stupid or venal, so I don't feel sorry for him. Either he couldn't control his campaign and therefore doesn't have a gift for leadership, or he though this was a good idea (he made dog whistle remarks himself, after all).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think this is back to categorizing people again. Perhaps one could say that he generally doesn't say or do anti-Semitic things but on that occasion he said something anti-Semitic, or certainly that had an obvious anti-Semitic interpretation even if he didn't mean it like that, and ought to have apologized but didn't.
It reminds me of the situation where someone tries to determine the truth or not of a statement based on whether the speaker is a liar or not. Actually none of us are truthful all the time or lie all the time. While character and past record is informative it is more useful to get on with categorizing the statement as true or not true rather than going through "are you saying he's a liar?" arguments.
I heard on the radio that the Jewish reporter was working for the Standard, which was then part of the same stable as Northcliffe papers which had supported Moseley and printed that the H man was a good thing before '39. Hence the choice of insult - but not the idiocy of not stopping.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My wife was thinking of voting for Goldsmith (London mayoral election), as he seemed to have strong green credentials, and seemed less abrasively right-wing than other Tories. Also Khan is somewhat dull.
However, when the campaign began in earnest, we were both incredulous at the smearing racist nature of the Tory campaign. It amounted to saying don't vote for a Muslim, (hint, extremism, terrorism, blowing up buses), not really a wise approach today, I would think.
Anyway, in the end she voted Khan, and Goldsmith just looks like a patsy to the right wing racists.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Outside the recent Tory attacks, is anyone saying there is widespread antisemitism within the Labour party?
(Genuine question - just calibrating).
I guess this would depend on your definition of "widespread," but some of the more prominent non-Tory persons include:
-Jeremy Newmark, national chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement
-Lord Levy, former chief fundraiser of Labour under Blair
-John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor
-Louise Ellman, one of Labour’s most senior Jewish MPs
-Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London
-Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies, the U.K.’s main Jewish organization
-David Miliband (strongly implied, if not stated outright)
(see my post on p. 1 for links of the above)
-Ephraim Mirvis, Britain's Chief Rabbi - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/04/chief-rabbi-labour-has-severe-problem-with-antisemitism
See also numerous op-eds in the Guardian, e.g.:
Antisemitism is a Poison – The Left Must Take Leadership against It - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/antisemitism-israel-policies-labour-activist-vicki-kirby
Labour and the Left Have an Antisemitism Problem - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/18/labour-antisemitism-jews-jeremy-corbyn
The Guardian View on Antisemitism: Stay Vigilant on the Left Flank - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/28/the-guardian-view-on-antisemitism-stay-vigilant-on-the-left-flank
It’s Time the Left Faced Up to Antisemitism - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/07/hadley-freeman-labour-party-hitler-antisemitism
Of course, others here will label them all as right-wing, anti-Corbynists and dismiss the very notion an issue exists. You can decide.
[ 09. May 2016, 04:25: Message edited by: GCabot ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Reposting the media sound and fury doesn't prove anything. My understanding is that we're now up to 18 concrete allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, most of which are very recent and still under investigation. I would have expected at least a few hundred, or widespread accounts of incidents that went unreported, if this were as large a problem as is being made out. And yes, most of the people listed do have an axe to grind against Corbyn, whether because they're cheerleaders for Israel or for more general political reasons. The definition of anti-Semitism being used by the Chief Rabbi is so broad you could drive an armoured bulldozer through it.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It may also be worth looking at percentages rather than absolute numbers, something like 500,000 folk voted in the leadership election - so I am going to guess that formal allegations & prominent incidents are involving a very low percentage of the party. Alongside the fact that Labour has prominent Jewish MPs and Lords.
As to the speed of Corbyn's response, what would people consider reasonable ?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mirvis says this:
quote:
He also hit back at those who argue that it is legitimate to criticise Zionism, arguing that the right to Jewish self-determination has been at the centre of the faith for more than 3,000 years.
“It is astonishing to see figures on the hard left of the British political spectrum presuming to define the relationship between Judaism and Zionism despite themselves being neither Jews nor Zionists,” he writes in the Telegraph.
“The likes of Ken Livingstone and [NUS president] Malia Boattia claim that Zionism is separate from Judaism as a faith; that is purely political; that is expansionist, colonialist and imperialist.”
This appears to frame the debate in terms of faith & Israel rather than race.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I have to say that the Guardian has been particularly one-sided in this debate, giving plenty of space on CiF to people who want to make wider claims about anti-Semitism in Labour and nothing for anyone who says anything different.
And, honestly, I couldn't give a shit what Jonathan Freedland says about anything, given his piece about Finkelstein has been on the Guardian website since 2000.
It finishes in the following way:
"Finkelstein sees the Jews as either villains or victims - and that, I fear, takes him closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it."
He compared an author who lost relatives in the holocaust to the people who killed them.
To then make claims about other people and what they wrote years ago is the height of hypocrisy.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It's called "Comment is Free" for the very good reason that nobody would pay good money for it, mr. cheesy. The whole concept attracts the obsessive constituency from Grauniad readers and beyond, of every stripe. I gave up on it years ago, even though there is some genuinely interesting stuff on there from time to time.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Everybody on the left has realized pretty quickly that the Guardian is the most ferociously anti-Corbyn newspaper around. During the leadership campaign, nearly every day saw an attack on Corbyn by one of their luminaries.
I don't know whether their editorial team is made up of Blairites or what, but nobody is surprised now, that they pursued the anti-semitism agenda, in order to blacken Corbyn, as of course, did many right-wing media.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Reposting the media sound and fury doesn't prove anything. My understanding is that we're now up to 18 concrete allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, most of which are very recent and still under investigation. I would have expected at least a few hundred, or widespread accounts of incidents that went unreported, if this were as large a problem as is being made out. And yes, most of the people listed do have an axe to grind against Corbyn, whether because they're cheerleaders for Israel or for more general political reasons. The definition of anti-Semitism being used by the Chief Rabbi is so broad you could drive an armoured bulldozer through it.
The people I mentioned, among others, are the very ones giving account of the otherwise-unreported, larger problem within the Labour Party. The incidents that have been publicized invariably represent a plethora of similar incidents that never become widely known. Furthermore, those involved run the gamut from MPs to local officials, University students to old Labourites, etc.—it is not as if blame can be wholly apportioned to one group on the Left.
You can continue to claim this is all part of some grand, sinister conspiracy against Mr. Corbyn, but I have yet to see any reliable evidence to corroborate that theory. Frankly, I find it baffling that you and others here are willing to dismiss any idea that a problem might exist so casually.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It may also be worth looking at percentages rather than absolute numbers, something like 500,000 folk voted in the leadership election - so I am going to guess that formal allegations & prominent incidents are involving a very low percentage of the party. Alongside the fact that Labour has prominent Jewish MPs and Lords.
So, anyone reporting allegations of anti-Semitism is automatically disqualified as biased if they are Jewish? I have to admit, that is a clever way of burying the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody on the left has realized pretty quickly that the Guardian is the most ferociously anti-Corbyn newspaper around. During the leadership campaign, nearly every day saw an attack on Corbyn by one of their luminaries.
I don't know whether their editorial team is made up of Blairites or what, but nobody is surprised now, that they pursued the anti-semitism agenda, in order to blacken Corbyn, as of course, did many right-wing media.
Well, the last time I checked, the Guardian was still the most representative of the Labour Party out of the reputable British papers. I have yet to see the evidence that the Guardian has some ax to grind against Corbyn, rather than merely reflecting the reasoned opinion of a significant part of Labour. Would it have been better if I had cited the Morning Star instead?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Frankly, I find it baffling that you and others here are willing to dismiss any idea that a problem might exist so casually.
I'm not sure anyone is saying that there is no problem. What people are saying is that the appearance of a problem has been inflated for political reasons (to try and put Corbyn in a difficult situation). Part of that inflation is a blurring of the lines between criticism of the actions of the government of Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, resulting in a large number of people critical is the actions of the government of Israel being called anti-semitic.
But, it is an inflation of a problem - and, there are some antisemites within the Labour Party. There are two questions that immediately follow - 1) is the proportion of anti-semites within the Labour Party significantly different from other political parties and the wider British population? (ie: is it a Labour Party problem or a British one?), and 2) are the procedures within the Labour Party to discipline genuine anti-semites adequate? (is action rapid enough, are the actions taken sufficient?)
Personally, it looks very much like the Labour Party has a level of anti-semitism that is representative of the UK as a whole, and that ultimately we as a nation need to deal with the anti-semitism in our midst (and, that includes having media that report the anti-semitism in other political parties rather than just focussing on Labour). And, that is part of a wider streak of xenophobia, racism and other bigotry.
It also looks like when someone is accused of anti-semitism there is a rapid investigation within the Labour Party, in the more serious cases with a suspension of membership while that takes place. Which doesn't look like a tardiness to deal with anti-semitism. Of course, a fair investigation takes time, so the actual formal expulsion from the party if found to be guilty is a bit slower. But, I don't think any of us want to have excessively rapid punishment following every newspaper article that takes something out of context and spins an innocuous remark into a charge of anti-semitism. Trial be media is not justice, whatever the circumstances.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I agree with your assessment of the extent of the problem, Alan, and that it has been blown out of all proportion. But I would return to what mdijon said earlier, which is that it is more helpful to identify rhetoric that is anti-semitic, rather than try to identify anti-semites. Maybe the latter exist in the Labour party (I'm not sure), but it's the way of framing things that seems to be causing the problem.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It may also be worth looking at percentages rather than absolute numbers, something like 500,000 folk voted in the leadership election - so I am going to guess that formal allegations & prominent incidents are involving a very low percentage of the party. Alongside the fact that Labour has prominent Jewish MPs and Lords.
So, anyone reporting allegations of anti-Semitism is automatically disqualified as biased if they are Jewish? I have to admit, that is a clever way of burying the problem.
I think you should re-read the original, it doesn't say what it appears you think it is saying.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0