So, he hosted eventS and shared platformS - he is trying to spin his way out of multiple incidents today.
He hosted and organised an event, personally inviting someone who he totally disagrees with to come and speak on the holocaust.
Of course he did.
The bullsh*t detectors of all but the most swivel-eyed fellow-travellers have just exploded.
because you think appearing to be anti-Israel boosts the Muslim vote?
It's not about 'boosting' the vote, it's about core Labour voters/supporters in places like Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester...The natural home of immigrants is the Left, and generations of Muslims are Labour voters, and have risen through it's ranks, this IS the Labour party at both grass roots and throughout it's structure, in a way that it just isn't equally Jewish.
I think you're right though when you say it's just bad politics, Corbyn; I don't think is the sort of politician who can make the sorts of decisions quickly or effectively.
Well the BBC are in trouble as well, then
This (superb) documentary includes Israeli soldiers comparing their own actions evicting Arabs after the 6 day war to the Holocaust, along with others who felt the opposite
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0g85
I really struggle to see what is wrong with what Corbyns done wrong here.
Well, clearly he thinks he's done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
BTW, every political party accepts the official IHRA description of 'anti-semetism' except for... the Labour Party.
I've listened to interviews from supporters of the Labour Party position and to be honest, all I can hear is mealy-mouthed prevarication.
The previous poster who pointed out the party's problem with trying to keep their Muslim supporters on board hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Religion poisons everything.
I am sure that some Israeli soldiers did legitimately feel bad about things that happened in/after the 6 day war, but when considering the source, remember that the BBC has admitted it has an anti-Israeli bias in its reporting.
most swivel-eyed fellow-travellers have just exploded.
Corbyns a Pikey?
Well, clearly he thinks he’s done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
Yes but what has he done thats so bad?
That sounds like corbynesque double speak cranberry 😜
Or maybe you just want to censor those you disagree with ?
BTW, every political party accepts the official IHRA description of ‘anti-semetism’ except for… the Labour Party.
Except the Tories - oh no - that's right - they just quietly included it to avoid a fuss.
The Labour Party have clearly explained why they amended the IHRA words as they did, and their rationale is discussed in detail by various eminent lawyers. You could easily find and refer to those discussions if you wished, but you prefer to accept the Daily Mail narrative.
Has the BBC also admitted an anti-Nazi bias?
I'll happily admit I have an anti-Nazi bias, even if the Nazi war machine was funded by many concerns who are still powerful today. (Not forgetting The Bank of International Settlements, the US State Department, Bush family links, the war money laundered via the Dutch Monarchy and the roots of the Bilderberg group)
It remains to be seen whether the Nazi-Zionist meeting that got Ken Livingstone in such Hot Water is relevant here
Well, clearly he thinks he’s done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
Is that the normal method of deciding when to apologise in politics?
@ Mike – I don’t see where I said it offends me, please feel free to highlight my offence! It is relevant to the conversation though isn’t it?
OK so what was wrong with the speaker there, his points were questioning the current status quo so we either close down all debate or allow it.
Except the Tories – oh no – that’s right – they just quietly included it to avoid a fuss.
You seem to suggest this inclusion was a recent tactic reacting against the current situation? When did they accept it, then?
As far as I'm aware, this situation is critical of the Labour Party in all of the media to a greater or larger extent and not just in the pages of the Daily Mail. Which I don't read.
The Labour Party have clearly explained why they amended the IHRA words as they did, and their rationale is discussed in detail by various eminent lawyers. You could easily find and refer to those discussions if you wished, but you prefer to accept the Daily Mail narrative.
Please direct me to these legalities.
I note you have not commented on my conclusion of poisoning by religion.
You seem to suggest this inclusion was a recent tactic reacting against the current situation?
They included it after the Maybot lied about it being in there.
Before that not a word. Odd that no one started shouting at them isnt it? Especially given some of the tories fellow travellers in the ECR.
Please direct me to these legalities.
You can start here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism
Hmmm. So the Conservatives adopted IHRA in December 2017. They were obviously enough on the ball to see the train wreck heading in their direction and took appropriate avoiding action. Politically astute, then (unusually for them) despite drowning in their self-generated Brexit catastrophe.
Shame for the Labour Party they don't have similarly astute vision at leadership level.
Notable omissions include that it’s antisemitic to say that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour, or to compare the policies of modern Israel to those of the Nazis.
Up until the current attempt to make it's own non-Jewish citizens subject to second-tier entitlements, I'd have said the first part of that was fine. It certainly seems misdirective now, though.
No problem with the second clause. That comparison is ridiculous and just makes the situation worse by claiming it.
In my view, the Labour leadership should robustly defend it's non-adoption of the first, using the Knesset's recent laws as evidence.
It should swiftly adopt the second.
Ironic that the Israeli Arab citizenry so recently dumped on, are racially, 'semitic'...
Also, the irony meter needle is bending against the end-stop in a related issue.
I've seen comments from 'extreme' Islamic pundits that Hitler was a great guy and Nazi policies were also similarly praiseworthy.
I would imagine that if the claim of Israeli 'Nazification' were true, that might give them a bit of a philosophical problem... 😂
<div class="bbp-reply-author">DrJ
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Please direct me to these legalities.
You can start here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism/a >
</div>
Thanks for the link DrJ, it's an interesting article that I'll have to read in full when I have much more time.
It's worth noting the article isn't about why Labour amended the IHRA words as they did, as the article was written before Labours amendments. It could be used to illustrate support for the amendments though.
Interesting to note that IHRA is policy and isn't law! I do think that the IHRA is worthy of its own separate discussion.
At the 2010 event in the Commons, Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer gave a talk entitled <i>The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes</i>.
Mr Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime.
So, what, is this one of those self hating Jews people talk about?
I am sure that some Israeli soldiers did legitimately feel bad about things that happened in/after the 6 day war, but when considering the source, remember that the BBC has admitted it has an anti-Israeli bias in its reporting.
Does that make the facts of the documetary any less true?
Do we call moderate muslims who denounce extremists islamophobic?
Why is a body, set up using the holocaust as a platform so against comparisons drawn against the perpetrators of said event? Seems a tad ironic to me. You can use that place in history and the grim shit that occurred within it but only on our terms?
You can use that place in history and the grim shit that occurred within it but only on our terms?
Pretty much this. It's obviously not solely "on their terms" but you have to be very very careful about your motivations and what point you're trying to achieve, if you want to make such an obviously offensive comparison.
Howard Jacobson has suggested that it's almost entirely always anti Semetic, His view is that It's wholly intended to wound in a very particular and pointed way as to mark out the Jews for special horror and revulsion, "by a reversal of the usual laws of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming to them yesterday."
On the other hand Noam Chomsky has suggested that one should be able, despite the obvious offence caused by the comparison, to be free to make key historical points in a political debate, and judge them substantively and on the motivations and inferences of the person making the claim.
Wow, that actually makes a lot of sense. I suppose the crux of the argument is intent but that still doesn't change the fact that someone may find it extremely offensive whether you mean them to or not.
I still don't think isms should be used as weapons to shut down legitimate debate or criticism but I can see the actual point being made now. Still think Meyer was quite entitled to say what he did though, if anyone had any right it's someone who was there.
if anyone had any right it’s someone who was there.
Like Rubin Katz, you mean?
Yesterday Guardian editorial perfectly summed up mine, and I’m sure many other people’s opinion at the present state of the Labour Party...
The Labour leader has said Israel is becoming a fascist state - can anyone deny that this is clear evidence of anti-semitism?
Yes. His criticism is of, to quote yourself, the state of Israel. Not Jews. In this picture, the fact that Israel is lived in mostly by Jewish people is irrelevant. Many of them oppose their government's policies and many of the population are Arabs.
As I said earlier, the recent decision of the Israeli government to create a 'second-class' status for their non-Jewish citizens would seem to support the argument.
And a strange outcome here is that I find myself defending Jeremy Corbyn, a politician for whom my usual reaction is derision...
Aah - sorry - I should have made clear that I was talking about the Israeli Labour leader
I think there are some in the labour party that would rather have a tory government than a labour government that is critical of Israel
@ DrJ
Isaac Herzog actually said "We are going through a process of fascistization of the Israeli politics,".
So no, I don't think its "clear evidence of anti-semitism". Herzog was careful with his language and didn't claim that "Israel is becoming a fascist state".
@piha - I don't think so either, but imagine if Corbyn had said something similar. Would the news media here be so careful in unpicking the precise words he used?
DrJ - I don't believe the papers could attack Jeremy in this instance, as the language used isn't anti semitic. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn uses anti semitic language, instead he fluffs his response when others in and around the Labour party have used anti semitic language.
Jeremy rightly opposes Israeli government illegal action in the Palestinian Territories but he has supported one side in the conflict. I guess he feels a duty to those he has supported in the past and perhaps his opponents feel that sense of duty shows in his responses to anti semite criticism.
I feel he did the same in Northern Ireland. He sided with the Republicans.
Whereas Mo Mowlem met with both sides in Nor Iron regardless of her personal views and she appeared neutral. This is how a leader should be. And Mo still has much respect on both sides.
I believe that Jeremy's past will always hinder him as he has not been neutral enough or savvy enough to be a leader. His critics, wherever they are, will always remember when he was against them, regardless of perceived rights or wrongs.
ETA - all in my opinion!
Robert Peston wades into the discussion now......
When Labour’s leadership and the NEC were debating how to tackle antisemitism in the party, Andrew Murray - Jeremy Corbyn’s close adviser and chief of staff to Unite’s general secretary Len McCluskey - argued that Labour should embrace a much simpler and less contentious code of conduct than what its ruling National Executive ultimately adopted.
His recommendation, I understand, was that the Labour Party should employ the widely used IHRA definition of antisemitism with all-but-one of its examples – rather than seeking, as it has done, to resile from four of the examples, and create its own illustrations of antisemitic language and conduct.
He took the view, shared by many inside and outside Labour, that it was absurd for the party to imply that it has a more authentic and reliable view of antisemitism than the Jewish community itself.
To be clear, had Murray’s proposal been adopted by Labour’s leader and the NEC, there would still have been a serious argument with many in the Jewish community – because under his proposal there would have been a debate and consultation around whether it was appropriate for Labour to underwrite the IHRA assertion that one example of antisemitism is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
To state the obvious, many Palestinians regard the mere existence of Israel as a manifestation of racism or colonialism – and over many years Corbyn himself, and his director of strategy and communications, Seumas Milne, have expressed solidarity with that view.
Almost all Jews, like myself, would argue – per contra – that the creation of a Jewish homeland is not in and of itself racist, while reserving the right to criticise the policies of individual Israeli governments.
There is a debate to be had, although I am absolutely clear that any modern pluralist party should have no problem in repudiating assertions that the mere existence of Israel is racist. For what it’s worth, Murray himself has been a critic of Israeli governments, but does recognise the right of Israel to exist within its 1967 borders.
The conspicuous problem for Labour of course is a practical one. If it adopted that IHRA example, Corbyn, Milne and others would probably see their internal critics launching disciplinary action against them – which would be more than an embarrassment for them.
Or to put it another way, there is no easy way for Corbyn to end the estrangement of the mainstream Jewish community from him and his party.
But, according to those close to him, Corbyn has made life harder for himself than he needed to by being too ready to follow the advice and guidance of a small number of anti-Zionist left-wing Jews who he sees as important friends and allies.
Their views may be sincere, but they are a small unrepresentative minority within the Jewish community.
I am told Corbyn will have another go any day now at reassuring his critics by writing an article and possibly giving a speech.
But perhaps what is most striking and important however is that Corbyn now appears extraordinarily isolated even within his own party over his management of the antisemitism furore – facing criticism not only from those on the right and centre of his party whom he would see as the usual suspects, but from his shadow chancellor John McDonnell and the creator of the Corbynista Momentum movement, Jon Lansman.
And even the former Communist and ardent Corbyn loyalist Murray, who works for Unite, the union that has funded the Corbyn project, thought there was a better approach to rooting out the evil of antisemitism.
The IHRA is problematic. The main working definition as agreed on is uncontroversial but the examples given to aid interpretation includes 3 clauses that are controversial at best.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The first, just plain isn't antisemitism at all. There absolutely are jewish citizens of other countries that will put the perceived interests of Israel or world jewry ahead of their own nation, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not wrong to do it, it's not limited to jews or Israel, and it's not antisemitic to point it out. I'll put the interests of people overseas against the interests of the UK or Scotland sometimes. And I bloody reserve the right to say that some politicians pursue policies re Israel that are detrimental to their own country, whether they're jewish or not. Your religion shouldn't make you immune from criticism any more than it should make you a target for hatred.
The second starts out great then pulls a bait and switch in the second clause. The existence of the state of Israel can reasonably be argued to be a racist endeavour, but that's simply not an example of denying the jewish people the right to self-determination, it's a nonsequitor. But by this nonsequitor it essentially turns some criticism of Israel into supposed antisemitism by extension.
And the third is just plain destruction of debate, and just like the first drags things that are fundamantally not antisemitic into the definition. Comparing the actions of Israel to any of the actions of the nazis is often bad taste but it's not inherently antisemitic.
And saying something like "Israel has made a ghetto of the Gaza Strip" isn't antisemitic. Baruch Kimmerling wasn't being antisemitic when he said that Gaza was the world's biggest concentration camp- he was a Romanian jew who barely escaped the Holocaust and whose family lost everything before fleeing to Israel, and lived all his life there as a patriotic critic. But the IHRA brands him an antisemite.
So personally, I totally accept the Working Definition but I don't accept some of the "examples" which extend its reach and impact way beyond the definition itself. And I think the Labour party would be pretty stupid to do so frankly, because it could and would be used to justify further accusations against them. It's a no-win situation, "You won't accept the stick we want to beat you with"
This makes for interesting reading...
Raises larger questions about who's choosing the narrative (and why) and how long the world we live in has been shaped by subtle propaganda...
Ah cartoon from the times....
for once something coherant and interesting from JHJ (even on topic)
I'm always on topic... but for whatever reason, some are keen to stifle debate 😉
Northwind, the problem is that you're points are too considered and nuanced.
The first, just plain isn’t antisemitism at all
But, all too often is. "Elites" for example in anti-Semitic and Alt right circles is often code for "International Cabal of Jewish Bankers and Industrial interests" and often as not the accusation that Jews aren't invested in the countries that they live in, is 1. because they traditionally are a diaspora, or 2, they owe their allegiance to some secretive society. (see above 'Elites') This accusation is pretty much only ever levelled at Jews.
The second starts out great then pulls a bait and switch in the second clause
Again, pretty much the only country that is accused of being "Racist" endeavour by definition is Israel. No-one would bat an eyelid over the fact that the UK is basically "A christian based state in the land of Europe". it's not in any way controversial. But a "Jewish based state in the Land of Israel" somehow is by comparison. Does the state of Israel defend the rights of all it's citizens to freely practice their cultures and religions? Yes it has a constitution to that effect .Does it make it's culture and laws around a Judaic tradition? Yes, These two things are not opposed and in any other country would be unremarkable. Spain for instance insists that Spanish is the sole language and makes no accommodation for Basque or Catalan, but the idea that Spain is therefore somehow a racist endeavour is clearly preposterous.
The third is arguable,
Should you be able to compare the actions of the Israeli state and military to the tactics of the Nazi and Waffen SS. To be honest: Yes, you probably should. BUT. Only if you're making really salient points of key historical meaning and comparison that stand examination in detail. Consider: The Warsaw ghetto was run largely by the SS, as opposed to; say the Occupation of France which was mostly the job of the Wehrmacht, The difference is important. You had to be a committed signed up member of the Nazi party to get into the SS. Despite the fact that they dressed like, used the same weaponry as: the Wehrmacht, they were in fact the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party. While the political aim of the Nazi regime was dedicated to the erasure of the Jews through culture and Law, the SS was responsible for those same policies but through acts of terror and violence. If you're going to compare the two you need to be able to show that the modern Israeli army acts like the paramilitary wing of a Fascist dictatorship idealistically committed to the extermination of a peoples, or uses tactics derived solely from that experience. If they are there, and you're a professor of military history, knock yourself out. If you're just using it as a gross comparison to score a point in an argument, then all you've achieved is the ability to of defenders of some partisan Israeli political aims to shut down of any arguments you want to use on the basis that it's a grossly offensive and perhaps even anti Semitic, which they often do...
It is a relatively easy task to find Western democracies that have got themselves into the ghetto-isation and collectivised punishment of indigenous and insurrectionist populations, for example: The French in Algiers or Indo china, the Japanese at Nanking, the British in Kenya and Malaya, the US interring Japanese Americans during WW2 or their experience in the Philippines in the early part of the 20th century. It's also noticeable how those could be more accurately compared to modern Israel's experience in Palestine. Which is not to say that it's necessarily any better that the Israelis are acting this way, but less it's certainly less offensive. And how these examples in turn are almost never compared to the Nazis, again a comparison that is almost exclusively aimed at Jews and the state of Israel.
You can and should be able to argue the rights and wrongs of all your comparisons, indeed your arguments are well made and compelling, and in discussion between people are avowedly not anti Semitic I think they are valid. But there is equally a great many folk who use coded language who's sole purpose is Anti Semitic,and anti Jew. and the IHRA examples are rightly alert to them. The point of them is not to shut down discussion, but to alert the reader to question the motives of people using them as or in arguments
The point of them is not to shut down discussion, but to alert the reader to question the motives of people using them as or in arguments
And at this point discussion is good on the topic, and at this point the real questions should be who is pushing this as the major issue it is? The Times Cartoon is very pointed isn't it, the recent sexual misdemeanours discussions went across all political parties, why is this discussion not? Who is gaining most by pushing this one? What is their agenda?
nickc
You don't need to be an academic scholar to draw comparisons. Things don't have to be 'identical' to be 'the same'. Comparing the treatment of Palestinians by Israel to Nazi treatment of Jews is not intended to diminish the historical suffering of Jews but is intended to highlight the plight of people living under pretty grotesque conditions. Its a comparison, not an accusation.
The main reason the perpetually offended, and for that matter the BBC and the 'elites' (which has nothing to do with Jews but just refers to the privileged) treat it as such is because it either shuts down criticism of their favourite country or it is seen as useful brush with which to tar those that disagree with them on other things.
Its a comparison, not an accusation.
sure, I get that, but why that particular comparison, and not say any of the more recent examples I've given which could also highlight the plight of occupied peoples who had to live in equally grotesque conditions?
which has nothing to do with Jews but just refers to the privileged
Sometimes, but it depends on the speaker and what their intent is. I agree it can 'just' refer to the global 1%, but a couple of articles on Brietbart if you really want, will reveal it's other meaning. This is more true of the US than the UK though
Its pretty obvious why comparisons to the Nazis are compelling when talking about Israel; its half of the defence trotted out for the states existence in the first place. Its inevitable, just like godwins law on t'internet!
a couple of articles on Brietbart
Doesn't give you another proper meaning. Its just the way they use the word. If you kowtow (and that one is almost certainly problematic for some) to it then you legitimise their use and validate them.
The use of the word elite is not anti-semitic. It might be shorthand for some people but that doesn't change the meaning for everyone else.
I think the reason I'm so uppity about the whole thing is that the constant crying of wolf, and (what I perceive as) over-sensitivity to trivial comments, devalues the genuine problems people face, Jews, Muslims and the rest.
(what I perceive as) over-sensitivity to trivial comments
I'm not sure that portraying their complaints about the comparison of their military as similar to the force that caused the genocide of a whole population within living memory as 'over sensitivity', is particularly helpful or constructive if I'm honest.
The use of the word elite is not anti-Semitic
No, it isn't in of itself, I agree that it can represent the global 1% (as I've already said) . But the use of the word as short hand for what used to be called "The Rothschilds " or "International bankers" certainly is, and the point the IHRA are making is "When it's being used like that, it's almost always anti Semitic"
Hang on, so "international bankers" is an antisemitic phrase? Did you see what I wrote about crying wolf?
Oversensitivity would be to phrases such as the above or murals depicting bankers, only some of whom were Jewish.
"Northwind, the problem is that you’re points are too considered and nuanced."
That's a problem now is it? If something doesn't stand up to careful consideration, it's bad, and definitely shouldn't be universally adopted. Simple answers are tempting but the world is nuanced.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">nickc
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But, all too often is. “Elites” for example in anti-Semitic and Alt right circles is often code for “International Cabal of Jewish Bankers and Industrial interests”
That isn't the same thing at all- and if that was what the examples were supposed to address, then they perfectly well could say so.
</div>
Your responses seem to boil down to "but that could be antisemitic". And sure, maybe. But the definition of antisemitism, by definition, has to be things that are antisemitic, not things that in a certain light could be, but may not.
Oversensitivity would be to phrases such as the above or murals depicting bankers, only some of whom were Jewish.
Just so we're clear, this mural? depicting Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of the poor, that in your opinion "only some of the them are Jewish" means that what? They're just being picky? They should probs chill, right?
Northwind, It has to be nuanced, I actually agree with you, the point I was trying to make (badly it turns out) is that yer average right wing anti Semite aren't nuanced, hence the broad definitions in the IHRA.
that in a certain light could be, but may not.
Isn't context everything? Isn't that why coded messages are used?
As smear campaigns go this is really quite sophisticated
