Confused about "antisemitism" in the Labour Party

[tim.tdj]

Hi Everyone

I would be very grateful for some clarification about something.

I have been watching the news coverage about "antisemitism" in the Labour Party and, to be honest, I don't think that the media are explaining it very well. The media are being very vague about it.

I should state at this point that I think that genuine antisemitism is 100% evil. I believe that to treat anyone differently just because of their race or ethnicity is an evil thing to do. However, I do not believe that there is anything whatsoever antisemitic about criticising the Israeli government.

I might be wrong but I get the impression that some of the campaigners against antisemitism in the Labour Party (but not necessarily all of them) are confusing criticism of the Israeli government for antisemitism.

Does anyone on this forum have a rough idea what percentage of alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party is genuine antisemitism whereby a completely innocent Jewish person is being treated badly by a member of the Labour Party and what percentage is whereby a completely innocent member of the Labour Party is criticising the Israeli government?

I would be very grateful for any thought about this.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Edited July 25, 2018 by tim.tdj

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

I might be wrong but I get the impression that some of the campaigners against antisemitism in the Labour Party (but not necessarily all of them) are confusing criticism of the Israeli government for antisemitism.

I haven't really looked at the detail, but one of the commenters I heard on the radio made the following distinction: it is OK (not antisemitic) to criticise the Israeli government or individual Jews for their behaviour. But it is probably crossing the line if you start to claim that the entire concept of Zionism (ie that Israel can exist as a state) is wrong. And it seems to be that distinction (questioning the activities vs questioning the existence) that was not properly defined in the Labour Party policy.

 

[DrP]

I also found it hard to find any actual evidence of anti Semitism..  as you said - criticizing a government policy is not anti-Semitism. I think it is media sensationalism to try to make them (the Labour party and their leader) appear un electable as usual.  I could be wrong - if anyone finds anything that looks like actual evidence of it then lets see it.

 

[tim.tdj]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

I haven't really looked at the detail, but one of the commenters I heard on the radio made the following distinction: it is OK (not antisemitic) to criticise the Israeli government or individual Jews for their behaviour. But it is probably crossing the line if you start to claim that the entire concept of Zionism (ie that Israel can exist as a state) is wrong. And it seems to be that distinction (questioning the activities vs questioning the existence) that was not properly defined in the Labour Party policy.

 

Hi Strange

Thank you very much for your reply.

To be honest, I think that Zionism is a tricky issue because Israel was established in a location with a pre-existing population. From what I understand from the history of Israel, it was established by Jewish people as a sanctuary against antisemitism and Nazism in Europe after WW2. I think that they should have instead tried to establish, together with the native population, a purely secular state with no divisions between ethnicities or religions. I don't think it is antisemitic of me to be opposed to the idea of a state founded on any particular religion or ethnicity. I know that some people will want to reply by saying that the UK is founded on Christianity. Well, this is not a situation I am exactly comfortable with. However, I am very proud of how far the UK has come in terms of diversity.

Edited July 25, 2018 by tim.tdj

[Ten oz]

My understanding is that the charge centers around Jeremy Corbyn. He has called Israel an apartheid state and is supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah being on record saying that their labeling as terrorist organizations is a mistake. It also appears that some antisemitic groups are supportive of Corbyn on social media though Corbyn himself doesn't directly appear to interacting with them. Basically his stance on Israel is strong, his stance against Hamas & Hezbollah is soft, and he isn't viewed as doing enough to reject antisemitic supporters. 

Does that mean the Labour Part is an antisemitic organization, no. That said political organizations shift over time and different bases are able to influence the culture of an organization. Corbyn seems to have a more aggressive view towards Israel than is commonly seen in the western world. So the antisemitic charge isn't surprising. Perhaps inaccurate but worthy of debate if only to ensure a culture antisemitism doesn't arise or gain influence within the party. 

 

[geordief]

If you find similarities in the way Israel treats its perceived minorities  and the way Jews  were themselves treated in the past it's an obvious minefield.

 

And yet Israel's victims/enemies can hardly be blamed for pointing out that  these similarities do exist.

 

Also fair to point out that Israel is effectively at permanent war  with its neighbours in  a conflict where there has been right on both sides from the outset (who asked the inhabitants of the lands granted to Israel  if they were happy to shoulder the collective guilt of the international community?)

As for the Labour party, I understand  there have been clear instances (the mural) of antisemitic  views being expressed (sadly that's inevitable) but the argument seems to be whether Labour's leadership has its "heart in it " to combat  it ,taking into account its lukewarm support of Israel under Corbyn (imo)

 

I am also confused  as to the real extent of antisemitism in the Labour party but  have also recently come  to support Israel less and less  as I am coming to view it as something close to a theocracy  since religious extremists there seem to  have been  given free play to set up settlements in areas that were not any part of the original dispensation after WW2 but territories taken in an admittedly defensive war (1967)

[NortonH]

Anyone who supports a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah is beyond being a 'critic' of Israel.

Both those groups are quite clear and unambiguous about their desire to remove all Jews from the area. Not Israelis, JEWS.

The only reason people do not immediately call these groups out is because they are intimidated by them.

 

[geordief]

4 hours ago, NortonH said:

Anyone who supports a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah is beyond being a 'critic' of Israel.

Both those groups are quite clear and unambiguous about their desire to remove all Jews from the area. Not Israelis, JEWS.

The only reason people do not immediately call these groups out is because they are intimidated by them.

 

As I understand it Corbyn's justification is that he is attempting to be avaIlable to both sides in a conflict that needs a political solution.

In the same way as Blair et al negotiated with the IRA.

Not sure how successful he is in this aim.

There is no doubt Hamas got a democratic mandate ,although whether the elections could have been called fair..is extremely dubious

Edited August 18, 2018 by geordief

[NortonH]

Blair negotiated with the IRA but he was in no way a supporter as Corbyn was to the IRA and the Hamas terrorists.

He can claim that he wants to be a neutral partner to peace but he is clearly a solid supporter of terrorism.

 

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, NortonH said:

Anyone who supports a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah is beyond being a 'critic' of Israel.

That depends on what you mean by "supports".

I agree that they have legitimate  grounds for complaint about the way in which Israel illegally grabs land and slaughters children.
 

I can see how they feel that they have no viable alternative apart from resorting to violence- to match that leveled against them.

Is that "support" or a simple recognition of the position in which they find themselves?

23 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 he is clearly a solid supporter of terrorism.

 

That's a remarkably stupid assertion to make about someone who is a life-long pacifist.

[NortonH]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

That depends on what you mean by "supports".

I agree that they have legitimate  grounds for complaint about the way in which Israel illegally grabs land and slaughters children.
 

I can see how they feel that they have no viable alternative apart from resorting to violence- to match that leveled against them.

Is that "support" or a simple recognition of the position in which they find themselves?

That's a remarkably stupid assertion to make about someone who is a life-long pacifist.

I would say that giving speeches praising terrorism counts as support. Making efforts to harm Israel counts as support for her enemies.

Of course people like yourself who make outlandish hyperbolic claims are also part of the problem. It seems you object to Israelis living on land that they won in battle but for some reason I doubt you expect France, Czech or Russia to return land to Germany.

Israel does not 'slaughter children'. Kids and civilians are killed in battle but unlike the pals, Israel never targets civilians and makes great efforts to avoid harming them. (Perhaps you might compare their efforts to those of your own country the last time it was under existential threat. Ever heard of Dresden?)
Israel does not send people over the border for the specific purpose of killing innocent civilians but Hamas boasts of such operations.
Do you really think that it benefits the Palestinian population when tens of millions of dollars are spent by their government on digging tunnel into Israel and firing rockets?? That simply satisfies the egos of their self appointed 'leaders'. Why do they not spend the money on building some infrastructure etc?

My claim that Corbyn supports terrorism stands. Claiming to be a 'pacifist' is easy. Anyone can do it. It does not disprove the fact that he gives vocal, moral and financial support to terrorist organizations.

I suspect that you have never been anywhere near Israel or her neighbours and get all your info from the sensationalist media and the student activist clubs. Sorry pal, but I have been to many of the countries in that region and it is pretty clear that Israel is the only democracy for miles. I really wonder what you think Hamas and Hezbollah are like.
Take a trip to Gaza sometime and find out.

[John Cuthber]

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I would say that giving speeches praising terrorism counts as support.

So would I.
Are you able to show any evidence of Mr Corbyn (or any other senior labour politician) giving such a speech?

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Of course people like yourself who make outlandish hyperbolic claims are also part of the problem.

What did I say that was hyperbole?
 

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It seems you object to Israelis living on land that they won in battle

No.
I object to them  flouting international law.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

 

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Israel does not 'slaughter children'.

How do you describe the scenario in the picture?

 

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Israel does not send people over the border for the specific purpose of killing innocent civilians 

No, they just send bombs. That's not really better, is it?

 

 

38 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Do you really think that it benefits the Palestinian population when tens of millions of dollars are spent by their government on digging tunnel into Israel and firing rockets?

It's conceivable that it is.
If, for example it stops Israel invading more of the land you need to house + feed the people of Palestine, then it may be money well spent.
It's unfortunate that Israel puts them in the position of having to make that choice, isn't it?

 

 

39 minutes ago, NortonH said:

My claim that Corbyn supports terrorism stands.

It's a claim with no evidence. 

 

40 minutes ago, NortonH said:

...it. It does not disprove the fact that he gives vocal, moral and financial support to terrorist organizations.

Again, you will need to provide evidence if you want to be taken seriously here; this is a science forum.

 

41 minutes ago, NortonH said:

get all your info from the sensationalist media

 

No, the media tell a different story.

They say that Corbyn was laying a wreath at the grave  of dead terrorists when he wasn't even in the country those men were buried in..

It's what's technically called lying.
If you look here you can see what the media do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6061281/Definitive-proof-Jeremy-Corbyn-standing-graves-Munich-terrorists-wreath-laying.html
They say "He said there were 'many people laying many wreaths' during his visit to the cemetery in Tunisia where Palestinian 'martyrs' are buried."
But they were buried in libya.
The bodies of Afif and his four compatriots were turned over to Libya, and after a procession from Tripoli's Martyrs' Square, were buried in the Sidi Munaidess Cemetery.<sup>[16]

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luttif_Afif</sup>
So, the media's "sensationalist story" is that Corbyn supports terrorism.

But actually they just lie about it because the rich owners of the media don't want a left leaning government that would require them to pay taxes.

50 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Take a trip to Gaza sometime and find out.

You can find out the truth without going to Gaza...
You should try it. it can be very enlightening.

[mistermack]

This pressure on labour is part of a modern conspiracy. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but this one is out in the open for anyone to see. 

People supporting Israel have got together recently, and agreed to use any chance that arises, to portray ANY criticism of Israel as antisemitism. It's a powerful weapon, and the media are giving them full rein, and not picking up on it at all. 

As far as I'm concerned, antisemitism is restricted to prejudice against Jews for being Jews. And it stops there. Criticism or prejudice against Israel is definitely NOT antisemitism. It's a legitimate point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, that includes zionism, and the so-called "right" of Israel to exist. 

That's what they are trying to deter, by falsely labelling people who have strong anti-zionist opinions as antisemitic. 

As far as Hamas or Hezbollah are concerned, they have been CREATED by the establishment of Israel. I don't like Corbyn at all, but I have no problem with any support he gives to either of those organisations. They are no more terrorist than the State of Israel. They use terror to fight terror. Big deal. They didn't ask to have their land stolen.

Winston Churchill in his most famous speech said "we will fight them on the beaches....... etc etc etc, and everyone said "what a guy, what a speech" when if fact he was just a lying bullshitter, it would never have happened.

Hamas and Hezbollah on the other hand ARE fighting them on the beaches, etc etc. and get labelled terrorists by the Israel-loving media. What obnoxious double standards.

[MigL]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved since I know little of the OP subject...

If I was a Palestinian I would have no problem walking around any city in Israel.
Maybe instead of posting cute pics, John, you should comment on how long a Jew would last walking around in Gaza.

I know a lot of people here have fancy names like 'whataboutism' for it, but if you condemn and boycott Israel for human rights abuses, while shopping at Walmart for Chinese products, with a car fueled by Saudi oil, you are a hypocrite.

Actually, applying different standards of moral behavior to different people, races or religions has a different name.
in the case involving Jews, it is called anti-Semitism.

 

And you are absolutely right Mistermack, crime and crooks are created by police.
Every nation on Earth is estabilished where former peoples were displaced.
Lets all start shooting off rockets. and strapping on bomb vests
 

Edited August 18, 2018 by MigL

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I was a Palestinian I would have no problem walking around any city in Israel.
Maybe instead of posting cute pics, John, you should comment on how long a Jew would last walking around in Gaza.

That's a pretty dumb comparison. How many Jewish villages have been bulldozed recently, to make way for Palestinian settlements?

You were certainly right about knowing little. I will grant you that.

[MigL]

Well at least I'm right about one thing.
Your score is still zero.

This thread is about anti-Semitism and treating people differently due to religion.
My example applies.

Yours does not.
Some Israeli citizens are Palestinian, and the expansionist Israeli settlements could house Arab/Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. ( and yes, even I consider Israeli expansionism illegal )

Edited August 18, 2018 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe instead of posting cute pics, John, you should comment on how long a Jew would last walking around in Gaza.

Lots of them are doing so- illegally.

Ignoring that massive illegal land grab is "applying different standards of moral behavior to different people, races or religions " as you put it.
 

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I was a Palestinian I would have no problem walking around any city in Israel.

Conceivably, but if you were walking round Palestine, you would be at risk of getting killed by Israeli action.
Isn't that slightly more relevant?

It's simplistic, but count the dead people on each side. Count the dead civilians on each side, count the UN condemnations of the behaviour of each side.

Then tell me who is "applying different standards of moral behavior to different people, races or religions " by supporting Israel?

 

[MigL]

Count the dead civilians on each side ????

In WW2 almost 8 million casualties for Germany and less than half million for Great Britain.
So you guys were the bad guys, not A Hitler.

 

As for the UN condemnations, half of the UN human rights council is composed of states which should not be 'throwing stones' because they 'live in glass houses'.
look up the membership and see how many you can defend.

Edited August 18, 2018 by MigL

[mistermack]

To get back to the point, does anyone consider my posts antisemitic? Because that's what the activists are pushing for. 

If they get their way, people who argue like me will be excluded from the Labour Party, and those already members will be forced out. That's the whole objective of the organised clamour against "antisemitism" in the Labour Party. 

To me it's obvious. It's nothing to do with antisemitism. It's about shutting up criticism.

[NortonH]

What did you say that was hyperbolic?
How about the claim that Israel slaughters children?
Of course you throw such allegations around so often that they hardly register with you.

Israel won all that land in battle in a war they did not start. Same as the land won from Germany. 
If you are so concerned about international law then why do you not even mention it in regard to the terrorist organizations bent on genocide?

I am not sure which picture you are referring to regarding the child being slaughtered. Where is it? Is a child being targetted and deliberately murdered (as the Pals do when get a chance to catch some in Isreal) or are we talking about some kid who has been sent into an active battle area with the hope that he will be 'martyred'?

Israel send bombs to bump off terrorist. They do not target civilians. That is a fact that you well know but avoid mentioning. When they bomb a fixed target they usually give the inhabitants a two minute warning. When has that even been done by anyone else in history?
Until you are prepared to discuss the concept of targetting you are just evading the issue.

If Palestinians wanted to house and feed their people then they would spend the money on that. Instead they spend tens of millions on rockets and tunnels for the purpose of targetting Israeli civilians. The tunnels are destroyed and the deaths of a few Israeli civilians benefits the Palestinian population on no way.
The 'leaders' of Gaza do not care about that, of course. When was the last time they had an election??

I often wonder why pampered western leftists are so keen to support terrorism in Israel and other places. The more depraved the acts of terrorism the more effort these people make to excuse them. It seems to me that they prefer to side with the thing they fear rather than oppose it. It is certainly safe to be pro-Pal in a western university these days but imagine what would happen if you were pro-Israel!
No. Much easier to just oppose the benign democratic state.

 

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

This pressure on labour is part of a modern conspiracy. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but this one is out in the open for anyone to see. 

People supporting Israel have got together recently, and agreed to use any chance that arises, to portray ANY criticism of Israel as antisemitism. It's a powerful weapon, and the media are giving them full rein, and not picking up on it at all. 

As far as I'm concerned, antisemitism is restricted to prejudice against Jews for being Jews. And it stops there. Criticism or prejudice against Israel is definitely NOT antisemitism. It's a legitimate point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, that includes zionism, and the so-called "right" of Israel to exist. 

That's what they are trying to deter, by falsely labelling people who have strong anti-zionist opinions as antisemitic. 

As far as Hamas or Hezbollah are concerned, they have been CREATED by the establishment of Israel. I don't like Corbyn at all, but I have no problem with any support he gives to either of those organisations. They are no more terrorist than the State of Israel. They use terror to fight terror. Big deal. They didn't ask to have their land stolen.

Winston Churchill in his most famous speech said "we will fight them on the beaches....... etc etc etc, and everyone said "what a guy, what a speech" when if fact he was just a lying bullshitter, it would never have happened.

Hamas and Hezbollah on the other hand ARE fighting them on the beaches, etc etc. and get labelled terrorists by the Israel-loving media. What obnoxious double standards.

Well at least you are honest enough to admit you support terrorism.

By the way, the state of Israel does not target civilians for the purpose of wanton murder. People get killed in battles but if Israel really wanted to do what you claim then they have the power to eradicate all the Pals in about 24 hours. The Pals have stated that they would like to remove ALL the Jews.

As a matter of interest do you also have a benign view of Alqaeda and ISIS? They can also claim legitimate grievances if you want to listen. SO I guess you have no problem with them murdering people on the streets of Western cities.

Not sure how you label Churchill a liar simply using your own speculation as if it were evidence. Please explain that one.

 

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's a pretty dumb comparison. How many Jewish villages have been bulldozed recently, to make way for Palestinian settlements?

You were certainly right about knowing little. I will grant you that.

I suspect the answer is ZERO. Palestinian houses only get bulldozed when they are responsible of suicide attacks.

So tell us how much land the Jews lost in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc when they were forced out once Israel was established. I notice you never mention that. 

Israel gave the whole of Gaza back to Palestinian control and what have they got in return? Rockets.

What have the palestinians done with all the agricultural land they got? Nothing.

If Israel disappeared the Pals would have nobody to blame for their state. In addition they would have no water and no electricity. They would also have nowhere to send their seriously ill patients. Did you know that Israel provides all of those to Gaza? I doubt you did!

 

Again John Cuthber tries to weasel out of the point. It is quite safe for any person of any race or religion to walk around Israel.

A Jew in Gaza is likely to be murdered because he is a Jew.

Israel is a liberal democracy as opposed to a terrorist run enclave, despite what the leftist terrorist sympathisers will claim.

I suggest we do an experiment. I will go to Israel and stand around eating bacon sandwiches and drinking beer whilst peacefully denouncing the Jewish religion and the local government.

John Cuthber can then do the same experiment in Gaza.

Edited August 18, 2018 by NortonH

[John Cuthber]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Count the dead civilians on each side ????

In WW2 almost 8 million casualties for Germany and less than half million for Great Britain.
So you guys were the bad guys, not A Hitler.

 

As for the UN condemnations, half of the UN human rights council is composed of states which should not be 'throwing stones' because they 'live in glass houses'.
look up the membership and see how many you can defend.

It seems to have escaped your notice that WWII was a war. We are looking at casualties inflicted during what is technically peacetime.
"half of the UN human rights council is composed of states which should not be 'throwing stones'"
Only half?

But that's not the point, is it.

The UN is the closest thing teh planet has to a court.

And Israel keeps on breaking the law, doesn't it?

(Please don't bother posting a list of irrelevant countries and irrelevant acts that also break international law. We know about them, but they are not important to the discussion of the difference between antisemitism and condemnation of Israel)

10 hours ago, NortonH said:

John Cuthber can then do the same experiment in Gaza.

You seem to have missed the point (or, as you would pt it "weaseled out" of it) that, in much of Gaza I would be just fine- because I'd be  in an illegal Jewish enclave protected by armed soldiers.

What about outside of the aseras- would I do the experiment there?
OK, not a problem.

I will just nip back in time to 1900.

It seems things have changed since then. One factor in that change has been the continued and illegal actions of what the Palestinians see as "the Jews" and what I see as "the government of Israel"

On a slightly more practical note, perhaps I could go to Gaza carrying a banner that said "I'm jewish, but I denounce the government of Israel".

OK, it would be a lie; I'm an atheist. 

Do you think I'd be murdered for that banner?

And there's another aspect to it.
Imagine an orthodox Jew dressed in such a manner as to make his faith absolutely clear, in Gaza.

And imagine he was somewhere obscure so that people only saw him one at a time and- imagine for the sake of a thought experiment that, when they left, the people instantly forgot about him.

How many people would see him before one of them actually thought that killing him in cold blood was the right thing to do?

Perhaps my faith in humanity is misplaced, but I suspect that most of the population aren't murderers.

Yet they vote for a government which is in favour of "extermination". (It's not much of  vote, or much of a government- but there are reasons for that)
How does that happen?
Could it be anything to do with the way in which Israel has behaved over the last half century or so?

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

To get back to the point, does anyone consider my posts antisemitic? Because that's what the activists are pushing for. 

If they get their way, people who argue like me will be excluded from the Labour Party, and those already members will be forced out. That's the whole objective of the organised clamour against "antisemitism" in the Labour Party. 

To me it's obvious. It's nothing to do with antisemitism. It's about shutting up criticism.

My best guess is that you are right on all points.
NortonH will think your posts are antisemitic, because it suits the narrative he favours.
 

Edited August 19, 2018 by John Cuthber

[geordief]

Why can Israel's right to exist be referred to as "so called" ?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Why can Israel's right to exist be referred to as "so called" ?

Same way that squatters right to keep your house would be "so called".

Can you explain why Israelis have a right to keep the stolen land they are squatting on?

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Why can Israel's right to exist be referred to as "so called" ?

I wasn't aware that it had been.
Israel has the right to exist- in Israel, not in its neighbours' territories.

[geordief]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Same way that squatters right to keep your house would be "so called".

Can you explain why Israelis have a right to keep the stolen land they are squatting on?

If the war that Israel fought against its neighbours (was it 67 or was there also one earlier?) was legitimate then it is also arguably legitimate and prudent  for it to keep territory  gained such as the Golan Heights and possibly other strategic areas.

I agree that the settlements are indefensible.

 

But Israel has a right to defend itself (ie a right to exist ) in the same way as any other nation  unless one is going to revisit the settlement after the war (which I assume had the rubber stamp of the UN at the time )

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I wasn't aware that it had been.
Israel has the right to exist- in Israel, not in its neighbours' territories.

Yes it was (see the earlier post). 

 

You are right but the spoils of war is a grey area(after the war parts of Germany that were lost had a referendum to see if they wished to remain French or revert to Germany ,as they did)