No doubt there’s some truth in that too. But that doesn’t excuse the Labour party.

no – but the point is that this is a politically motivated attack on Corbyn led by the right wing press.  Racism, anti-Semitism is a far greater issue in the tory party.  Labour is attempting to do something about the issues, Tories are not.;

Surely this thread proves that asking any group of people to talk about antisemitism, results in a) some of them saying something antisemitic, either unintentionally or on purpose, and b) some people who are happy to label others as antisemites.

As a group of people, I don’t think the labour party are any more antisemetic than any other.  Why on earth would they be?  However, you might get more “false-positives” because one might expect a greater proportion of corduroy-wearing lefties to be critical of Israel, which might be expressed in a way that leaves the door open (rightly or wrongly) to an accusation of antisemitism.

However, I think the real damage this has done is to show that JC (and the Labour Party) can’t successfully manage the situation.  Quite the opposite, he/they seem to almost be going out of their way to make it worse.

Personally, I do think that there are some strong parallels between the actions of Israel to that of Nazi Germany, however, if I was in the public eye, I should be intelligent enough to choose a different analogy

Bastfink – its all been phrased in a ” have you stopped beating your wife yet?” way – which means there is simply nothing the labour party can do to stop the attacks as no answer will satisfy

^^^^this x 1000

Bugger – my reply was meant to apply to Batfink !😄

Bastfink – its all been phrased in a ” have you stopped beating your wife yet?” way – which means there is simply nothing the labour party can do to stop the attacks as no answer will satisfy

Yeah I quite agree – I think that this has been orchestrated by the Tory press.  However, I do think that the Labour Party could have acted sooner and more decisively to prevent it snowballing.

If some body asked you ”have you stopped beating your wife yet?”  – could you really not answer that in a way that made clear that you absolutely didn’t beat your wife?!?!  Have you considered a career in politics? 🙂

Oh dear, in the poo again – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45027582

I really struggle to see what is wrong with what Corbyns done wrong here.

@mefty

There are a number of posters on here who reject the widely accepted IHRA definition of antisemitism because they feel the need to compare Israeli actions to the Nazis.

Or just reserve the right to. To say you can’t sends a clear message that this group and their actions are protected in some way.

But imagine how the people pushing this feel that this is centre of attention, helping to divert criticism and to nullify genuine concerns.

If you do not think this is a direct attack that cares very little for the feelings of actual people but is motivated for political gain then you are very gullible .

@piha

Why in the poo, are we saying that any survivor of the camps who does not agree with the definition is wrong? It’s not even a story in the real world. What offends you the most about it?

Why on earth would they be?  However, you might get more “false-positives” because one might expect a greater proportion of corduroy-wearing lefties to be critical of Israel,

The corduroy wearing lefties aren’t the issue. Labour has very strong Muslim support. This wee graph show how various religions voted last time around.

No prizes for guessing which religion that giant orange spike is…And like it as not, some of those voters are fairly and squarely anti-Israel. The problem Corbyn has is that many of the Muslim voters that come out in large numbers are more than happy for him to compare Israel to the Nazi party, and Labour cannot afford to loose that vote.

Anything he does to effect that vote is going to have a big impact next time around. Anything he does to placate the Jewish vote, is nothing by comparison (Labour supporting Jews are a small minority already). Which is why the Labour executive is ummming and ahhing about it all, in politics numbers matter…

It might be a right wing newspaper plot, but it’s a very very canny one (and it hits the Labour party pretty hard, because it’s an actual issue for them). Support for Islam amongst the UK voters is pretty low right now, but support for Israel is still pretty high, and no-one wants to be an anti Semite, by labelling the Labour party as such, Muslim voters are put off because some of them are very happy for the Labour party to be anti Israel, non muslim voters are put of as they don’t want to be seen voting for a party with anti Semitic views and Jews won’t vote for a party that contains a group of folk who’re so anti Israel. It’s the perfect plot.

Labour can’t hit back with “Your Muslim problem is just as bad” as it’s whataboutry.

Corbyn’s deflection and non action is making it all twice as bad…all he need do to make the problem go away

1. apologise (He has sort of done that this morning)

2. adopt the IHAR recommendations in full (adjusting them was such a stupid idea, whoever though of that needs sacking)

3. prevent Williamson from standing on the NEC.

job jobed.

from that article, JC hosted an even at the House of Commons on Holocaust Memorial Day :

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.

The Times said that Palestinian activist Haidar Eid also addressed the meeting, saying: “The world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945.

“Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what the speakers were saying – its certainly provocative.  In JCs defence, he probably had absolutely no idea that me may one day be in a position where people were actually paying any attention to what he was doing 🙂

Does there exist a Britain First equivalent for anti-semites?

Or do things get overlapped when we start to look at whtie supremacists?

One things thing is for sure they tend to be way over to the right.

@ 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?

Nickc: so you think that Labour are being deliberately sh*t at countering the antisemitism accusations (and even encouraging them?), because you think appearing to be anti-Israel boosts the Muslim vote?

I can understand your argument, but I just don’t see it myself – this all just feels like slightly sh*t politicians being unable to articulate their objection to Israeli govenment actions/policy, without saying something accidentally antisemitic….. particularly with lots of people eager to jump on anything that could be possibly construed as such.

Incompetence rather than malice, is my assessment.

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

http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/censored-voices-delivers-shocking-alternative-view-of-six-day-war/

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.

Clicky  

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.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism

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

</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…

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/the-guardian-view-on-labours-misguided-priorities-lead-on-brexit-and-prepare-for-government

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

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Israel-is-becoming-a-fascist-state-US-cant-save-the-day-497775

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