UKC

The press seems to assume now that labour are anit-Semitic, but I haven't followed what labour have said over the years, and I can't work out if they really are anti-Semitic or if the press have just latched onto something and overblown it?
I won't be voting labour anyway, so it's not about convincing me to vote for them or otherwise (I'm in Scotland, I'm voting SNP). I just want to understand what was actually said and whether the press noise is justified.

A reasonable synopsis here..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party

It all seems that way to me .  I have no idea what they are on about personally .  No labour voters I know are .

I think the press want to scare people into another conservative government and more of the same " I'm alright jack" attitude to society at large.

Unfortunately I think it will work.  

I like the manifesto , I thought it forward thinking and bold.

I'd give them the chance as opposed to the clown Boris

I have no experience about this directly; I'm not a member of any political party.

However, I have met a few politicians in my time.  One of them was Louise Ellman, who is stepping down at this election after many years as the MP for Liverpool Riverside (I think).  She did quite a bit for the Lab I used to work for after a decision to site a new scientific facility somewhere else, and I found her to be very impressive; not afraid to speak truth to power, even when that was to the head of her political party at a time when they were in power.

Louise Ellman has recently said that yes, there is a problem with antisemitism in the Labour party.  If you were to disagree with her, you'd better be damn sure of your facts before you start talking.  On the basis that she's a voice I can trust, and this is what she's said, then I'm prepared to accept that there is a problem with antisemitism that needs to be corrected.

But there are other problems in other parties, and I find it curious that they are not attracting the same amount of media attention; curious, and telling.  Suspicious cove that I am, I suspect that there's a political agenda behind that.

This doesn't mean that antisemitism can be ignored, far from it.  Any and every form of bias or discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, gender, colour and much else needs to be addressed, and urgently, wherever it occurs.  But don't think this is only occurring in the Labour party.

T.

Not everyone thinks so, not all UK Jews think so, it's just how it's presented.

https://www.facebook.com/Jews4Corbyn/photos/rpp.190492825076961/35622721183... 1

And I haven't had time to read this but it might be worth a read.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/is-jeremy-corbyn-really-anti-semitic/... 

The Chief Rabbi seems pretty blasé about talking for everyone, as if all Jews think alike!

Why don't these Jewish people get their voices heard?

There's a problem with AS in our society, some of our society are in political parties, it's hard not to imagine there aren't people with all sorts of horrible ideas in all parties, unfortunately it only seems to be Labour that make the headlines, and it's nothing to do with how it's dealt with the Tories are just as tardy in spotting and sorting out their idiots too.

I would have thought that any party which is mainly pro-Palestine runs the risk of being accused of anti- Semitism somewhere down the line.

I think the vast majority of Labour members are not, but some (too many) are, even according to the party (as they were expelled for it). The real issue is the party opened its doors to some on the far left that it knew had a problematic history in this respect and some entryists (I know ex SWP linked political opponents in my Union who are now Labour members, who have made statements in my hearing, similar to some of those expelled from Labour, and I see no lack of their zeal for a Trotskyist style revolution, something which should be incompatible with Labour ideals). Having made that mistake, the party were way too slow in dealing with the inevitable increase in complaints. Some in the party leadership then interfered to try and manipulate the complaints process.

At the extreme end it has become really serious: some Labour MPs complaining against clearly evidenced antisemitic behaviour have received threats, including a few death threats.

Any problem with such racism in Labour is dwarfed by Tory racism problems. 

I don't know for sure but I think there is a small anti-Semitic element within the party, largely due to actions of the Israeli government.  If some Jewish Labour party members are complaining about anti-Semitism then it would seem that something is wrong. I've read stories of Jewish Labour party members being specifically asked their views on Israeli government actions. It's a bit like Irish people in Britain in the 1970s being attacked as IRA sympathisers simply because they were Irish. However, as you suggest, I think the problem is overblown.
I don't hear any anti-Semitic views expressed in Scotland nowadays but going back to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s such views were fairly common. EG. "Jokes". Hope such views have now died out. 

Yes, according to Chief Rabbi  Mirvis in today's breaking news in the Evening Standard

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/former-labour-mps-throw-support-be...

No, I don’t think so (I won’t be voting for Labour either). I particularly think that now after reading the new book by Greg Philo et al. ‘Bad News for Labour?’ It is critical of the way Labour handled accusations of anti-semitism but it is a very systematic debunking of the claim that Labour is institutionally anti-Semitic, certainly no more so than any other large UK organisation and probably less so than the tory party.

Actually to be fair, the Chief Rabbi has said that it's Labour led by Corbyn, that's the problem with antisemitism, remove Corbyn and he would have no problem with the party.

I've had similar feelings.  My gut instinct has been:

Jeremy met, for heartfelt reasons concerning the abhorrent treatment of Palestinians, some pretty unsavoury (and outright Jew-hating) individuals.  Such is the complexity of the region.

Labour also appeals to minorities, including Muslim minorities, slightly more predisposed to similarly vicious, or simply unreconstructed, anti-semitic viewpoints.  Not every country in the world shares Holocaust memories/guilt and not all immigrant cultures are as sensitive in speech as the UK-born and bred are.  But then again, one Muslim I worked with was orphaned due to an Israeli airstrike.  I suspect I might have become prone to rabid anti-semitism in similar circumstances.

Labour supporters, generally more sceptical than most about wealth accumulation, don't always shy away from exclaiming "Its the Rothschilds!".  Likewise, Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented at the upper echelons of society (a region of the social strata, whether it be media or banking, that tends to attract more negative comments from Labour rank-and-file than conservatives).  For some, this placement in society is proof of a Jewish conspiracy.  For others it is simply the result of nature/nurture meaning they are high-achievers.  The later are probably less vocal about it than the former.

It's hard to say if our support for Israel or Palestine is based on an unconscious conditioning, which could be the result of anti-semitism or an objective judgement of the merits of each cause.  Its a polarising issue and support for each tends to be polarised in our political parties too.  I'm probably a case-in-point; since falling out with many on the left, and broadening my news sources, while still disgusted with Israeli treatment of Palestinians, I've become much more sympathetic to the Israeli point of view.  There may be a low-level anti-semitism, several degrees of separation removed from blatant antisemitism, which tends us towards opposition to Israel.

And of course, accuse someone of something often enough and it tends to stick, even without evidence.  No doubt the Tories are only too happy to see the accusation made, given they are routinely (and probably falsely) accused of similar social faux-pas.

Without knowing which of these factors, if any, underly the accusation against Labour, its hard to know if its accurate.

Unless you've directly experienced it, I think it's hard to say - especially because a lot of responses to AS in both sides come from the social media bubble and it's difficult to get an idea of what it's *really* like.

Certainly a lot of Jews are concerned, and there is evidence that Corbyn himself, if not actively anti-semitic, is at least worryingly blind to some of those tropes for a prospective PM (especially one whom we are repeatedly told has "campaigned against racism all of his life") - eg the 'Jewish Mural' fiasco

For Labour to respond to this by either outright denial or attacking whistleblowers with ad-hominem is a catastrophically poor response, at least the Leadership seems to have moved on from this style of defence but I fear it is too little too late.

Thing is, if some Jews believe they are under an existential threat from a Corbyn-led Labour Government, and some do not - I'd be rather inclined to at least listen to the concerns of the former group.

At the very least, I wouldn't approach the problem by outright denial, or attacking those who raise issues without at least trying to address them

Funny you should should ask. To contrast the views of someone who probably doesn't know JC and isn't intimate with the Labour party it's worth watching this interview with another Jew, John Bercow, who is very familiar with British politics and has known Jeremy for over two decades. The whole interview lasts an hour and is worth watching but if you don't have the time, skip to 57' for the relevant part.

youtube.com/watch?v=SVcWo-W60lU&

And let's not forget, this comes on the day Heseltine urged Tory voters to vote LibDem, which of course has been drowned out by the clamour.

Or am I just being cynical? Look at Kuenssberg's Twitter Feed and you'll see what's important to her at least.

Funnily enough I found out about Heseltine's remarks from Kuenssberg's Twitter feed.

It is worth mentioning that Twitter is not a representative sample of voter intention, and Journalists in particular are over-represented.

Can you explain how and why Labour voters hate the Jewish Religeon ? Is it the male genital mutilation ? Is it the industrial scale murder of Palestinian children ? Is it that 27,000,000 Russians died in world war 2 yet nobody really mentions it ?

Personally I think its a fantastic tory ploy to detract from their utter shambles, point and say that someone hates cats and eventually everyone will say they hate cats and wet leftys will apologise for fear of upsetting cat lovers.

I've been a Labour Party for a long time. Of the two constituencies I've been part off I've never come across any antisemitism. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but we seem to life in an age where criticism of Israel is considered to be, almost by default, antisemitic. 

I listened to the Five Live phone in this morning. Not a word said about Israeli actions towards the Palestinians, or vice versa. Surely the elephant in the room.

there isn't, imv, a yes/no answer, its a hugely nuanced situation with moving parts, differing individuals and structures within the Labour party, as well as differing views on what is anti-semitism.

anti-semitism on the left tends to arrive in a political party/group throught two differing ideological routes - the first is the trope of the Jews controlling international finance, politics and the media, and using that power against socialist entities and to protect Israel, and the second comes from over enthusiasm in support of the Palestinian issue - and you can see how the two would feed into each other.

there have always been anti-semites in labour, just as there have always been anti-semites in the tories, the LibDems (and i know a proper AS loonspud in the SNP who genuinely believes that 'the Jews' are the illuminati who kicked the Scots, who were the original Jews, out of Isreal. he also believes that Edinburgh is the true Athens - that Zeus and whatnot lived on Calton Hill, and the Trojan wars were fought along the west coast of Scotland...), as well as in your local bridge club. within Labour this (small) tendancy was always kept in place by a much larger Jewish contingent in the party (if you took the Jews out of the history of socialism, the Labour movement and the Labour party, it probably wouldn't exist), and then post-war, by an inate sense of solidarity with both the Jews in the UK, as well as with the state of Israel, as a product of the revelations of what happened under the Nazi's.

however, memories fade, and new realities intrude - the visceral link between British Jewery and Labour/the Labour movement has faded, and the old sympathies and shared conditions have died off.

the tropes that were once kept under a rock by a party membership that understood and lived alongside and among the Jewish communities have been able to resurface, and the conspiracies have taken hold - and i'm afraid the Corbyn has flirted with them enough times to believe that he either believes them (not sure), or that he's willfully blind to any anti-semitism that travels alongside his Anti-Imperialism of Fools simplistic ideology.

i'll give you an example - Corbyn went on Press TV (the Iranian government propaganda channel that OFCOM banned in the UK) to talk about some scuffle that had taken place between Iran and the Saudi's in the Persan Gulf. the Iranian government said it was the Saudis and Americans fault, but Corbyn then went on to give it the 'we must consider the hidden hand of Israel...'.

i don't doubt that he's personally upset to be called an anti-semite, and i'm not sure that he's actually an anti-semite - the problem is that in the things he says, the people he repeatedly stands next to and calls friend, the red flags he ignores and sails past, the murals he 'likes' without looking at them for the 0.25 nanoseconds it would take to see them as being rabidly anti-semitic, he's sailed so close to the wind so many times that it doesn't actually matter if he fits the legal/technical definition of anti-semitic by having crossed that line. he has lived his political life so close to that line that he either can't smell anti-semitism when it comes from a fellow traveller, or he secretly likes the smell.

i think its the first, but for me that still disqualifies him from my vote.

No.

Little evidence (pro Palestine does not equate to Anti-Semitic), and I know loads of labour party members and some MP's - none are anti-Semitic.  So, even if a few are then this does not equate to the whole party, otherwise we could say the Labour Party are Vegan Meat Eating Pescetorians (coz some will be one of these).  The few that are need to be outed and a line drawn under it.

The flip side of this is that genuine anti-semitism can, and is, dismissed as "Legitimate criticism of Israel". Looking at the Working Definition of Anti Semitism (https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism) - and various postings on Social Media by Left Wing groups, it's this last point that I'm pretty sure I've seen a few examples of

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

That's a pretty flippant comparison. I'm pretty sure that in recent memory six million people were not executed for being Vegan.

Most of Labour are not antisemitic.

An unpleasant minority, it appears, is; that would appear to have some association with the far left.

The current Labour leadership, while probably not antisemitic themselves, seem to have tried to sweep it under the carpet a bit rather than deal with it properly - and that has backfired.

Also, it shouldn't do (as Israeli doesn't mean Jewish, Jewish doesn't mean Israeli and someone can be Israeli without supporting everything their country does) - but the whole Israel-Palestine situation further clouds it through the weird, almost sectarian thing, where the left tends to try to stand up for the suffering of the Palestinians against the aggression of Israel, and the right tends to stand up for the strong-but-ever-threatened Israel against those who would destroy it. Both sides clearly have a point; I'm not sure whether it's down to history or to the left's tendency to support the underdog and the right's to support those who overcome difficulty and build something for themselves, or something like that.

Anyway, there must be a real problem in Labour given some of the people who are worried about it; it's probably exaggerated for political gain, but you can understand why Jewish people might be just a wee bit nervous about someone coming to power who appears willing to accept a bit of antisemitism as a price worth paying for getting there...

Labour need to grasp the nettle and really deal with it, regardless of whether their opponents are worse; hopefully they will, now.

Interesting that the BBC website main headline and story "Chief Rabbi In Election Attack On Labour" has stayed exactly the same all day despite the fact that there have been further developments in the story including  The Muslim Council's further criticism of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.

I don't intend this to be a "tit for tat" arguement; rather that it points to a lack of balance in reporting and does give credence to claims of BBC bias.

I just posted this link on the "Sasha Baron Cohen" thread, seems relevant here too:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2019/11/as-a-british-jew-i...

They've changed it now

I never realised how influential my posts can be until this week - first Elon Musk sabotages my cars in retaliation then the Beeb take on board my criticism!

I think the Anti Semitism comments (which may or may not require action by the party) are, at the moment, an information-war weapon used to poison the electorate against Labour.  Not Helped by the BBC making it (comments by the obviously politically motivated Chief Rabbi) their top headline on the day Labour launch an initiative against antisemitism.  Imagine the BBC reporting that and then adding a rider about the Chief Rabbi instead.

I don't think Labour has a chance with the establishment swamping them with infobombs so we'd better resign ourselves to a Tory landslide

Pathetic on your part:  no flippancy intended at all, I was simply using an analogy to make a point about using statements that describe a minority within a larger group to describe the whole group and I believe that was clear in my reply.  

A lot of the problem with people's perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian situation comes from completely unthinking, unfounded and just plain wrong comments like the above.

Basically if you shout something long enough, some people will end up believing you. The "example" that comes to (my) mind in this arena is Palestinian politicians/spokespeople. For many years (maybe they're still doing it), whenever they mentioned the Israeli state/government, they would always include the word murderous (or similar). It was never challenged by the reporters doing the interviewing, and now many years down the line the association has crept into people's consciousness so that they do not question it.

Jeremy Corbyn is being interviewed by Andrew Neil this evening. No doubt many on here saw him take Nicola to the cleaners last night. 

My suspicion is that if there is a conspiracy involved it's between the rabii and the Tory party who see this as a wonderful chance to give him a good kick in the balls.

While I agree that there is a lot of nonsense talked the treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF is shocking.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel-jails-hundreds...

Think you need to remove the word filter from your username... 

I think it's only fair to point out that the current BBC News headline is "No place for anti-Semitism within Labour - Corbyn". The thing with confirmation bias is, while people will be happy to point out when things conform to their biases (eg the BBC is biased agains Labour - see above), they will rarely give examples that contradict this view.

of course, if you want to see the lefts - and Labours - problem with anti-semitism, just look at the thread...

not being able to discuss anti-semitism (which is a thing that effects British citizens in British streets) without hitting the whataboutary of Israel and Palestine is, in itself, anti-semitic - its rather like not being able to condemn anti-Catholic vitriol and discrimination without mentioning the IRA.

to be clear, if your mind cannot seperate Jews (whether in London, Glasgow, Melbourne or New York) and the State of Israel, then you are by definition anti-semitic. its the new Blood Libel - instead of every Jew in the world being responsible for the death of Christ, now they sit on the Israeli War Cabinet by dint of that funny hat they all wear...

Well, not really - at least, we know that there are plenty of British Jews genuinely concerned about a Corbyn-led Labour Government, so I'm not sure what the testimony of one more British Jew who is *not* worried brings to the debate.

I mean, it's not like the Administration of George W. Bush couldn't be accused of racism because Colin Powell was Secretary of State.

That is actually an anti-semitic comment.  By all means substitute "Jewish Religon" for "Zionist State", although I'm not entirely sure they're systematically murdering Palestinian children. It's this conflation of Judaism and Israel that seems to be half of the problem with some people in the Labour Party, and also going the other way, in those accusing people of anti-semitism, when actually they're anti-Israel

"I am delighted to congratulate Boris Johnson, a longstanding friend and champion of the Jewish community, on becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party and our next Prime Minister."

I give you three guesses as to who said that. 

there were around 500 children killed in the 2014 bombing of Gaza. Or are you disputing that?

There are also many Palestinian children in military prisons and tried in military courts, something we would abhor in other civilised countries.

Problem being if you ally yourself with the anti Israeli Government treatment of the Palestinians you  ally yourself with some serious antisemites - just go to any you tube video about nazi Germany and you'll find many- the irony being they are of the ultra right wing variety. Corbyn's problem seems to be about the naivete of supporting some rather dodgy Palestinian supporters who were also rabid antisemites which brings into question his critical abilities.

However on the other side of the argument and as an atheist I do not see why the jewish religion is special, I have equal views on christianity,islam,buddhism,shintoism ,shamanism et al. i.e they are all bollocks and there's no such thing as God's Chosen People. (Is that anti-semitic?}.  

Two interviews from today's World At One are well worth a listen with two senior Labour figures of many years standing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000bmxn

Louisue Ellman begins at 16:00 mins and is immediately followed by Lord Falconer at 20:00 mins.

Labour has a huge problem with antisemitism, just the number of MPs who have resigned citing the issue as at least a factor is well in to double figures now, many more have expressed concern yet on the very day the Chief Rabbi launches this attack Corbyn appears on stage with three candidates who have made antisemitic statements and he refuses to apologise for his failure to deal with it in his Andrew Neil interview. What message does this send out?

But it doesn't really matter who his friends are.  What matters is whether or not what he was saying has any substance to it, otherwise it's just ad hominem. And it appears, from the concerns of many Jewish people, from the Muslim Council of Britain and from the Labour Leadership themselves, that his remarks do have substance.

All of which is fine, unless you were to be of the opinion that, for example, ordinary Muslims should be condemning the actions of Isis solely by virtue of the fact that they share a religion.

Andrew O'Neil was trolling so as to make good TV. He's good at it, and I actually like him. 

As for dealing with it, JC has said on many occasions that any form of racism or hateful views has no place in the Labour party. There's your message right there. 

Putting aside the shifting sand that is pro-Palestinian seeming to equal anti-Semitism, if Labour were to win, I'm sure we won't be seeing any pogroms.

Good that you're on the case against hate crimes. Your thoughts on Tory Islamaphobia? 

I'd beg to differ. With the likes of Cummings at the helm, this from the Chief Rabbi at this time? It smells funky. 

Towards who? 

Quite possibly. And JC has said any hateful views have no place in the Labour party.

Your quote on the other post is interesting. 

"All of which is fine, unless you were to be of the opinion that, for example, ordinary Muslims should be condemning the actions of Isis solely by virtue of the fact that they share a religion."

How much more does Corbyn have to do? And where is the vigour towards Johnson and the accusations of Tory Islamaphobia? 

I think some level of contrition and acknowledgement that he has made mistakes would be a good start, but it appears that an inability to say a simple "Sorry" is a quality that he and Johnson share.

Towards the Rabbi. Criticising his associations, his friends and his motives instead of basing an argument on the substance of what he said is ad hominem.

Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to question his motives - but that doesn't change the reality of anything that he said. 

Sorry for what though? I'm absolutely convinced that Corbyn isn't some IRA sympathising anti-semite. He certainly has kept some rough company but you just have to look at his record over something like apartheid. He gets involved.

That's not going to be pretty and will (has done) made him enemies and put a target on his back. That in itself might make him hard to sell. I think once you're in power and the skeletons come rattling out it's easier to deal with (pig gate). I don't believe he really had ambition to lead the party and so never hid or shied away from controversy, unlike people such as Blair or Cameron. 

To be fair to Johnson he did apologise for his water melon smile comments, though it was somewhat conditional. 

Corbyn apologised in July for the ‘hurt’ caused to Jewish people. 

No, you're certainly correct there. But his timing is suspect, for me anyway. Corbyn has been the victim of much ad hominem which is why I queried you. 

No,its nonsense. 

It's a smear game the Tories are playing with support from their Blairite pals and zionist/Israeli organisations to stop JC getting into No10. 

I can't pretend to be an expert. I'm not Jewish, and I don't know well any who are (I don't think).

However I do have suspicions about these accusations.  I don't doubt that there are some horrible Anti Semites in the Labour party, just as I would be surprised if there weren't racists of other flavours in their ranks. There are a couple of highly notable examples e.g. Ken Livingston.

I also wonder about the seeming conflation of Anti Semitism with criticism of Israeli policy and/or support of the Palestinians (who for some reason it's OK for most of the international community to deny the recognition of a homeland - wtf??). That isn't to say it's OK for Israeli's to live in fear of palestinian attacks, but neither is it OK for the Palestinians to be so horribly oppressed over such a long period.

I find it hard to brand the party as a whole as Anti Semitic, especially as it wasn't a widely held belief before Corbyn was elected leader that he was an Anti Semite. As has been pointed out up thread Corbyn has apologised on a number of different occasions in the past.

This is in contrast to the Tory party who have recently elected a leader who was widely known to have been racist (or at least used obviously racist language in the public domain) before he was elected leader, and who has not to my knowledge offered anything approaching an apology and merely tried to wriggle out of the accusations by telling people they didn't understand the context.

This leads me to wonder why there isn't an equal furore over Racism in the Conservative Party plastered all over our press which in turn leads me to believe that the current noise about anti Semitism is politically motivated no matter how much truth lies within. This is especially backed up by the timing of the increases in coverage - always seems to be when its convenient to the other party.

That's a relief. I was worried all this stuff about Jewish conspiracy theories was just propaganda.

What Jewish conspiracy theories? 

I think Labour's support of Palestine and the justified criticism of the state of Israel, is getting confused with antisemitism.

It is not racist to criticise Israel politically, but the media (including the 'impartial' BBC) seems to want us to believe it is.

What, like when Gideon Bull referred to a Jewish Labour Councillor as "Shylock"? What did that have to do with Israel?

You can't just dismiss these concerns as conflation of the Palestinian problem, or as media bias.

See my second post at14:45

Bull made an awful ad hominem comment at a private meeting and correctly resigned. It is all too easy to resort to such a damaging and fallacious argumentative strategy when the real subject is seemingly too insurmountable and sensitive for rational examination and debate.

Can you imagine what the outcome would be if, in front of Andrew Neil, Corbyn (justifiably) criticised the political stance of Israel, and supported Palestine? What do you think Neil's reaction would have been?

Is that antisemitism? No it is not.

I chatted to a Jewish colleague yesterday about antisemitism in Labour yesterday.

He said that there certainly is a problem in Labour with antisemitism which the leadership has been slow to respond to.

However he also said a number of other things. He said that the AS row amounted to a deliberately exaggerated smear campaign which was exploitative of Jews and which was itself antisemitic. He said that it was deeply offensive that antisemitism was being granted a much greater significance in the media than islamaphobia and other forms of racism. He said that there is no doubt that Johnson and the Tories are far more deeply mired in racism and indeed antisemitism than Corbyn and Labour. And he said that a Johnson government, happy to court people like Victor Orban and Steve Bannon, is a much greater threat to Jews than a Corbyn government.

Quite so.

I just googled a bit looking for info about the Tories' links to some very dodgy European politicians over the last decade or so, and stumbled across this, from 2009.  Interesting in itself, but also I was just blown away by one quote in particular.  Off-topic for this thread, but I'll post it here anyway because it's just astonishing.

"..we had thought the foreign secretary would have learned not to insult political leaders from EU and Nato allies for purely partisan purposes."

Mark Francois said that.  Mark f**king Francois!!  :-O

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/11/david-miliband-attacks-tor...

A pretty good summary there. 

But it is racist to go on about Rothschild conspiracy theories, and to bring Nazi imagery into discussions. 

The relevance of Israel/Palestine is that if you campaign for Palestinian solidarity, then you will mix with antisemites; and you will also have unfounded allegations of antisemitism hurled at you. These are the facts of the world. So while I agree entirely that antisemitism is racism towards jews and criticism of Israeli policy is completely different, in the real world they become inextricably linked. 

That would be worth impressing upon all those who use that cheap tactic of labelling criticism of Israeli policy antisemitic, wouldn't it? Jonathan sacks was good at that, incidentally. 

Easily done when Labour seems singularly concerned about Palestinian rights but strangely quiet when it comes to the despotic behaviours of its neighbours.

I'm not a fan of that argument, one that is always trotted out. There's a long list of reasons Israel/Palestine generates more interest than other places where human rights abuses are committed. I consider the argument that "disproportionate" interest in Israel/Palestine is best explained by antisemitism to be a sneaky, insidious form of nonsense.

Just out of interest, are you at all tempted to dismiss the whole question of antisemitism as "identity politics" that doesn't deserve our attention? 

BBC News - General election 2019: PM apologises for Islamophobia in Tory party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50576508

Well shit a brick. And in tomorrow's news, Hell freezes over.

Correct. 

I am supporting Labour for many reasons. I also think that Labour has an antisemitism problem and I also simultaneously think that the right wing and right wing press are weaponising antisemitism to attack the left. You takes your choice.

Labour party antisemitism has some conventional antisemite bigots but it also has it also has a peculiarly left wing slant. Corbyn and his supporters have come from a far left protest environment where words and actions were not particularly challenged or scrutinised. Vital to belonging to this group was a belief in anti 'Zionism'. This was based on a positive desire to bring justice to Palestinians but it ended up with some unpleasant images and 'bed-fellows'. An example is Corbyn welcoming Sheikh Raed Salah who had revived the medieval anti-semitic,'blood libel' slur that Jews cook with children's blood. He was described by Jeremy Corbyn as a 'very honoured citizen' . This left wing branch of bigotry tended to steer towards controlling hands which fits in with beliefs in capitalist control, American control, control by .....Jewish financiers.

For example-Kayla Bibby -a Labour activist in Liverpool - shared a meme on twitter entitled 'bloodsucking Alien Parasites killing America'. A Jewish Religious symbol was plastered over the 'alien parasite' and covered the eyes of the Statue of Liberty. This secret control, fits in with far left ideas of the system, capitalism and media conspiracies. It can lend itself to traditional antisemitism of secret world domination-for example the numerous references to Jewish Banks and the Rothschilds. This is where antisemitism is different from many forms of racism-as it describes a shadowy, moving world of conspiracies and shape changing. E.g Former labour party candidate-John Clarke shared a neo-Nazi meme stating that the Rothschild family has used money lending and Israel to 'take over the world.' etc.  Tory racism tends to be more random, contradictory and opportunist. We then come on to the word 'Zionist'. Strangely anti-Zionism came from splits within Judaism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Unfortunately 'Zionism'  has become an all encompassing, vague and menacing  word which is used as a form of abuse. If 'Zionism' is used as a critic of expansionist, racist, violent policies being pursued by Benjamin Natenyahu then that may be justified. However, it essentially  means a belief that Israel has a right to exist. If Aunty Jane  goes to visit her relatives in Tel Aviv, she is a 'Zionist'. If Uncle Samuel goes to visit the Western Wall he is a ''Zionist'. If they are unlucky they are 'Zio-nazis' -which is what Luciana Berger was called. But you can't get in trouble for calling someone a 'Zionist' unlike a 'Jew'. Most Jews in Britain have some connection to Israel and so talk of Zionist conspiracies, use of Nazi language with reference to Israel  is seen rightly or wrongly by them as an attack on themselves and their community. This is essentially where the fear of the Jewish Community comes from. Then you add the Daily Mail, Express and the Tories stirring up this fear for electoral gains. We can also add individuals who want to use apparent antisemitism to distract from critisism of Israel. None of this helps the Palestinian cause. Some of this antisemitism has come from parts of the Muslim world, where governments with very little intent to help the Palestinians use anti-Israel rhetoric to distract from there own short-comings-think recent events in Iran. When I worked in the Arabian Gulf-an antisemitic cartoon ostensibly about Israel appeared in the local English Language newspaper most weeks. The far left is quite pally with Middle-Eastern dictators-see Corbyn on Press TV in Iran or George Galloway grovelling to  Saddam Hussain. Essentially this subject is like turning over a particularly unpleasant stone. Whatever comes out probably won't go back in. It's a complex, ever changing thing with a long history. I think the Chief Rabbis's intervention is misplaced however and probably dangerous to the Jewish Community. It is difficult to control antisemitism. Jeremy Corbyn is so steeped in the world of ant-Zionist far left groups and some of there ugly bed-fellows that it is almost impossible to sort out. . You get rid of a Williamson or a Walker or a Livingstone and someone else spreads a story that it is a conspiracy. If you point out something critical then you are merely part of a conspiracy. Not nice for anyone. Still Labour better than Boris as far as I am concerned-which is pretty depressing.  Corbyn   believes fervently that he is in the right because he does not use racist language, for example the way Johnson does. Hey Ho.

I think where it exists it's very bad and unlike Corbyn, Boris has seen fit to apologise to those affected by it today. I also think there is no equivalence between the scale of this problem and the antisemitism which has infected the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader.

I'll stop you there. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/05/corbyn-sorry-for-hurt-infl...

Just in time for the coward's no show at the BBC. 

I'd be very interested to see any non-partisan figures to back up that claim. 

Well the Tory on the BBC Andrew Neil interview at 7.00 pm tonight didn't know how many cases of racism had been reported in the Tory party or how many had been expelled so if he doesn't have a clue I'm afraid you're just making it up as you go along.

Come back with some verifiable numbers on both parties and we can start taking you seriously.

I suggest you read gimmergimmer's excellent post above to show how deeply entwined the hard left is with antisemitism. Then think about how many Labour MPs resigned the whip at least in part over the issue, then listen to interviews with senior Labour figures (like the ones I posted in this thread above in which Lord Faulkner says there are "hundreds if not thousands" of outstanding cases) and then think about how this has rumbled on for several years and how Corbyn has been unable (or unwilling) to deal with it and you get some idea of why Labour has been branded as institutionally antisemitic.

There is no equivalence between that and the random nature or scale of islamophobic incidents within the Conservative Party. There are clearly some islamophobes within the Tory party (there almost certainly are in all parties) and there are others who have acted thoughlessly or carelessly but there is no evidence whatsover that there is a systemic issue with it in the same way that antisemitism has poisoned the Labour party since Corbyn became leader.

You would need to look at the BNP or EDL etc to find that sort of problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/27/sayeeda-warsi-tory-islamop...

You say potato... 

Quite right.

A group of senior tories including Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg like to refer to themselves as “The Grand Wizards” revelling in their similarities to another racist institution - the Ku Klux Clan.

Along with his recently reported articles Boris Johnson has said that "blacks have lower IQs”.

There was Zac Goldsmiths racist campaign for London mayor.

Councillors have moaned that there are "too many Pakis in town", called people "jungle bunnies", etc.

Tory racism is on a much greater scale than any problem in the Labour party yet the Conservative party don't bother to investigate or discipline members and the establishment media keeps the story low key if they bother to report it at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/tory-islamophobia-row-15-s...

"Sand peasants"... Classy. 

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/opinion-jennie-formby-chief-rabbi-can-...

Good article here from the Labour General Secretary. Yes there is a problem with anti-semitism in the Labour Party but it is not systemic or institutional. Roughly 0.1% of the membership has been accussed/punished for anti-semitism. If it was institutionalised why would the party go to such lengths (described) in article to root it out.

No, they didn't call themselves Grand Wizards, Laura Kuenssberg tweeted that they were being called that (by persons still unknown) and in the ensuing twitter storm everyone leapt to that conclusion but there's no evidence they ever chose to call themselves that.

As for the rest of your post, yes, there are some islamophobic people in the Conservatives, as there are in almost every walk of life since Islamist terrorism came to west 18 years ago, but to suggest it is interwined within the fabric of the party in the way that antisemitism is within the hard left of the Labour party is a fiction.

Moreover, Corbyn's total failure to deal with the problem after 3+ years speaks volumes about his leadership capabilities.

Many would beg to differ, including from within the party itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/labour-antisemitism-i...

http://fathomjournal.org/fathom-report-institutionally-antisemitic-contempo...

https://unherd.com/2019/11/labour-is-institutionally-anti-semitic/

How many more links do you want? I could post them all day, not saying that some antisemitic incidents have occcurred but there is a systemic institutional problem.

You're joking right, go to what lengths? It has completely failed to root it out precisely because it hasn't gone to great lengths.

There are two claims within that statement that I think are essentially unprovable. Baroness Warsi would disagree with you on the claim about the Tories, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/27/boris-johnson-says-sorry-for-h... as it would seem does Sajid Javid.

This is what they've done, it's not like they sat on their arses doing nowt, it just isn't reported so people think nowts been done

From Jenie Formby

Formby’s long list of firm Labour action

Writing in Jewish News, Formby first referenced the 2016 Chakrabarti inquiry. She then gave a long list of Labour action against antisemitism ever since, saying:

Our 2017 Conference passed a rule change, drafted with help from the Jewish Labour Movement, which made the Labour Party the first political party in Britain to have a rule explicitly prohibiting antisemitism.

She continued by stressing that, after she became general secretary in 2018, she saw that the party’s “disciplinary processes” were “slow and cumbersome”:

So we set up an Antisemitism Working Group from our National Executive Committee [NEC] which met experts and stakeholders and recommended a number of reforms.

She also stated that “we made sure every single complaint of antisemitism is recorded”, emphasising that:

We introduced smaller, specialised NEC antisemitism panels to hear cases monthly (rather than quarterly), advised by an independent barrister with expertise in equality law, ensuring cases are reviewed more swiftly and with sound legal advice. We changed our rules to ensure that all antisemitism complaints are investigated nationally, as complaints of racism should not be subject to the whims of local parties.

And she insisted that:

this year, Conference approved a major rule-change – initiated by Jeremy Corbyn – to give NEC panels the power to expel members. Now, when someone engages in antisemitism, they can be expelled within weeks – rather than months – of us receiving the complaint. Just this month a number of members have been expelled using these new powers.

Much quicker responses

Formby insisted that:

We have doubled the number of staff working on antisemitism disciplinary cases and a designated member of staff works on improving our antisemitism processes. All staff have undertaken antisemitism education delivered by the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism

She also said:

we have improved our recording of information, so that we now have data on the length of time cases take to be dealt with. Analysis of this shows a more than four-fold increase in the rate at which we are now dealing with antisemitism cases.

She further clarified that:

In line with suggestions from Jewish communal organisations to make our processes more transparent, I have twice published a detailed breakdown of data on antisemitism disciplinary cases and we will be publishing these on a regular basis going forward. As previous publications of our figures have made clear, complaints relate to a small minority of party members, about 0.1%.

And she stressed that:

any suggestion that there are thousands of unresolved cases is categorically untrue

Nonetheless, the party has also been “conducting audits of historical antisemitism complaints”.

Education for change

Formby continued by speaking about the party’s No Place for Antisemitism website, highlighting that:

we have launched proactive education which we are continuing to roll out. This aims to give members the tools to identify antisemitic tropes and conspiracies, and challenge them. …

Jeremy has made clear in video messages, emails to members, articles and speeches that there is no place for antisemitism and that anyone who denies its existence is wrong and is contributing to the problem.

She then said:

Online spaces which are used as fertile breeding ground for antisemitic conspiracy theories should never be allowed to legitimise themselves by hijacking our party’s name. Tech giants have turned a blind eye to this problem for a decade. In 2010 Jewish News reported on this very problem and Jeremy Corbyn signed a motion to Parliament congratulating them on this important investigation.

I personally wrote to the administrators of a number of Facebook groups last year to advise them on how to better moderate content within their groups. And our staff have provided information to Facebook to enable them to close down groups which use Labour’s name to disguise their sharing of racist content. We continue to be in contact with them on this issue.

“Serious and extensive work”

Formby concluded by stressing that:

The list of actions I’ve outlined above is by no means exhaustive, but it demonstrates the serious and extensive work the Labour Party has undertaken to deal with this issue. We know we have further to go to root out antisemitism, but I believe we are firmly on the path to achieving that.

So if you see anyone sharing the Chief Rabbi’s dodgy claims, just share Formby’s words. Because they make it crystal clear that the Labour Party is the chief anti-racist force in British politics today. And that’s why anyone who truly wants to stamp out all forms of racism needs to back Corbyn on 12 December.

Great post, and I agree with your analysis of how antisemitism is entwined with the politics of the hard left. 

I would go a little further and say, from my experience growing up in a Jewish family, that it's normal for conservative British Jews to see the Israel-Palestine issue in terms of good versus evil. Criticism of the expansionist, racist, violent policies being pursued by Benjamin Natenyahu do not go down well, to the point of being regarded as treacherous. For understandable reasons, in-group loyalty is a big, big, deal in the Jewish community I'm familiar with, and that unfortunately extends to loyalty not just to defence of Israel's right to exist, but to to defence of anything and everything Israel does. "The other side are terrorists" - argument over.

Once criticism of Israel is regarded as an attack on Jews, then unfounded accusations of antisemitism will be rife. And rife they are.

I would also highlight the types of individuals we're talking about. The controversial IHMA definition  includes the example, 

Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

as being antisemitic. Corbyn was right not to sign up to this, because it's a blatant attempt to define criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism (the policies of Israel with respect to the West Bank fall far, far below the expectations for every other democratic nation). It is isn't just individuals who are up to this game of using false accusations of antisemitism to disallow criticism of Israeli policy: it's a matter of policy.

I don't know much about Ephraim Mirvis, but I understand that he's a supported of Netenyahu. As such, I treat any moral judgements he might make about Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone or anything else, as completely worthless. 

Edited to add the word "conservative" in the first paragraph.

No one was racist against Muslims before 9/11. Come off it! Sounds like you're trying to minimise anti-Muslim bigotry as though it is simply a response to Islamist terrorism when it isn't. It's just like all forms of racism: you're different to me and my in-group, so you're shit.

The old right-wing of the Tory party has racism in its DNA, and David Cameron did a pretty good job of modernising it and keeping them quiet. 

The asymmetry that you're missing is that most Labour MPs hate Jeremy Corbyn. So the antisemitism of the hard left, which does exist, is being weaponised both by Tories (noting that British Jews are overwhelmingly Tories giving the accusations credibility rather than appearing purely political), and by Labour MPs who want to get rid of Corbyn. 

Are you really surprised that from your perspective, through the media, you think that Tory Islamophobia is merely excusable one-offs, while the antisemitism in Labour is institutional and rampant? Look at the bigger picture!

They were jokingly calling themselves that and Laura Kuenssberg thought it was funny. Then, when it became apparrent from the reaction that this was becoming a major story, she decided that her job as a journalist was to kill the story by covering and making excuses.

Racism is much more intertwined within the fabric of the Conservative party. These are examples from the very top of the party down to councillors and if we were to extend the examples to mere members we will see that the problem is far far worse than anything found in the Labour party.

Labour examples are a small minority of members confusing criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews, for which Labour have expelled many from the party, including key Corbyn allies. Tory examples include members from the top to the bottom who, surrounded by like minded racists, have confidently and in public described foreign sounding people with derogatory names like "Pakis" and openly advocated beating up Muslims while they are fasting. None of the examples I gave were punished by the Conservative party.

Corbyn has done everything asked of him and has reduced a small problem (in terms of numbers of incidents), that had pre existed his leadership, to a level well below that of the background level in society. What would dealing with the problem look like in your view?

I agree with nearly all you've written bar:

What he hasn't done is grasp how upset people are or why the criticism is so fierce and as a result he hasn't provided a robust or believable enough response to the Jewish people and those sympathetic to them who would otherwise be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe he's an anti-Semite, but some of his responses (e.g. not taking the chance for an unconditional apology and promise to do more to tackle it to Andrew Neil (and others); always coming out with the 'all racism' line when quizzed on anti-Semitism specifically) have just been cringe-worthy. 

The Tories have long not given two shits about racism, which is exactly why they don't draw attention to it. The fact that Labour have a proud tradition of fighting racism is exactly why members and supporters are so vocally distraught about the whole thing.

Yet some of the strongest criticism I've ever heard of current Israeli policy & actions has come from my Jewish in laws & their friends - but they are left of centre, liberal (as opposed to orthodox) Jews in France.

Viewed from here, the intervention by Mirvis looks more political than religious.

Have you got figures to back that up? Perhaps it's totally my 'bubble': I have a number of climbing mates over the years who are Jewish or half Jewish, and they all have been atheist lefties! And then there is a long tradition in Labour of MPs coming from Jewish backgrounds. Perhaps I'm totally wrong but I always thought British Jews now would either be split rather similarly to the rest of society politically, or actually more to the left?

No.

I'd probably agree with you but I suspect that most Jewish institutions and their leaders are right leaning. 

That doesn't mean they're wrong in their accusations of course. It can't be denied that MPs like Luciana Berger were subjected to terrible racist abuse and some of it did come from labour party members.

Have you ever read the Jewish press?? Heard what the board of deputies, chief rabbis, etc have to say?? 

Last time I googled this I'm sure the figure was 70 or 80%. I suppose I could have dreamt it, see what Google tells you. I think it's a british thing only. 

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Interesting to get views from the Jewish Community.  I am not part of this community , which  is a bit weird because considerable numbers of the Jewish side  of my family were German Jews in the 1930's and 1940's so the issue is important to me. Also thanks to climbers in this forum as it is the first time I have seen this difficult  issue discussed online without extremes of abuse or  racism. Jon Stewart I note your comments on:

Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

as being antisemitic. Corbyn was right not to sign up to this, because it's a blatant attempt to define criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism (the policies of Israel with respect to the West Bank fall far, far below the expectations for every other democratic nation). It is isn't just individuals who are up to this game of using false accusations of antisemitism to disallow criticism of Israeli policy: it's a matter of policy.

This is the proverbial horse and cart. This IHRA defintion seems to cause problems when there has been violence in Israel/Palestine. The Israelis are critisised for an action or response.  They say that if any other Western Democracy was attacked regularly with bus bombings, bombs in markets, missile attacks etc then they would retaliate in the same way that Israel has done. There is some truth in this statement. If a Western European nation was attacked in  then they would act in a similar way. (The most obvious and extreme example was after 9/11 when the American coalition almost immediately bombed Afghanistan and then Iraq.)  But I think we would respond with curfews, barriers, separate roads, arbitrary arrests etc in a similar circumstance. (Not defending this by the way). So what does the IHRA definition mean? Israel should be treated like other another Western democracy. Unfortunately at he moment no Western democracy (certainly hasn't been for many years),is remotely in the same position as Israel- surrounded by hostile territory, with a massive refugee problem and an festering occupation of additional territory. Supporters of the IHRA want Israel and its actions to be judged as it is now, the status quo, reacting to the latest violent episode. They say we would act in  the same way . Which I think we probably would. I think we Brits would act in a similar way to the Israelis. Indeed, I think if we were Palestinians we would react in a similar way as they have. I don't know where this ends up apart from being confusing. Without meaning to sound pompous, the real issue is not what people are doing but why they are doing .The important thing we would agree is to end the Occupation-.

On a separate note I would advise anyone in the Labour Party never to use the words, 'Zionism' or  'Zionist' as it is simultaneously  inflamatory and so all-encompassing as to be meaningless. I also don't know why members of the Labour Party want the freedom to say that Israel is a 'racist endeavour'. (One of the statements that the IHRA definition wishes to stop )The word endeavour is very peculiar. It delegitimises Israel as a country. It turns it into an 'endeavour'. By all means say 'occupation of the West Bank is a racist endeavour. Not the same thing at all. I would agree that both sides want it to be 'you are either for us or against us'. A Big F.ck up indeed.

Sorry to give a false impression, as I'm not Jewish, my dad is so I've spent a fair bit of time with his side of family, rather than being brought up in a Jewish family.

And the argument falls completely flat because no other nation is occupying its neighbours, with a bizarre extension of its state superimposed upon an excluded existing population. If the IHRA or the chief rabbi, or anyone else wants the criticism of Israel to stop, they need to stop accusing critics of antisemitism, because it doesn't wash, and start using their influence to get rid of Netenyahu and the religious right who've run Israel since its creation. 

I haven't actually said that at all because it's obviously not true. What I am saying however is that anti muslim sentiment has grown massively since 9/11 to the extent that people talk about how it 'passes the dinner table test'.

Aside from the blatantly racist, most people as far as I'm aware thought of Muslims as a  group who had a strong work ethic and genreally didn't cause much trouble. Since 9/11 we have become aware that a small minority within their community actively wish us great harm and are willing to perpetrate acts of medievil barbarity to bring about their aims and perhaps more worryingly a much larger group, although still a minority, tacitly support them.

This coupled with the emergence of Muslim paedophile rings has made many people deeply suspicious of Muslims resulting in a whole spectrum of anti muslim sentiment being much more common now than it was pre 9/11.

I'm not seeking to minimise anti muslim bigotry but to say that it is not, in large part, a response to Islamist terrorism is clearly not true.

Wikipedia says:

According to a poll published by the Jewish Chronicle before the 2015 General Election, 69% of British Jews surveyed were planning to vote for the Conservative Party, while 22% would vote for the Labour Party. There was little Jewish support for smaller parties such as UKIP or the Liberal Democrats, with each polling around 2%.[52] This is in stark contrast to the rest of the voter population, which according to polls at the time, had the Conservatives and Labour almost tied at about a third each.[citation needed] A May 2016 poll of British Jews showed 77% would vote Conservative, 13.4% Labour, and 7.3% Liberal Democrat.[53] An October 2019 poll of British Jews showed 64% would vote Conservative, 24% Liberal Democrat, and only 6% Labour.[54]

I disagree. I think you have to be bigoted idiot to have your view of muslims in general determined by terrorism and sexual abuse, and those people were already bigoted idiots before the news stories.

By our own MP here in High Peak, Ruth George no less. And she's still here, standing for election. So much for "rooting out anti-semitism".

Just so we're clear about how vile and racist the abuse was, Ruth George posted on Facebook

“Support from the State of Israel, which supports both Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’, of which Luciana [Berger] was chair, is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it, especially when the group’s financial backers are not being revealed. It’s important for democracy to know the financial backers for any political group or policy.”

And then apologised. The evil, racist bitch. Won't something be done?

She implied that a Jewish group of MPs were funded by Israel. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Now she's on Twitter denying that it ever happened, despite having apologized for it.

Well that's just it. It gets downplayed, minimised. Jews are expected to suck it up because the other side are worse, and they aren't perceived as the underdog. Well why the hell should they? It's not the racist Olympics. There's no sliding scale no, "mild" anti-Semitism. It's wrong, that's all there is to it.

So you're Jew-ish. 🤣

<tumbleweed>

Sorry, I couldn't resist it. 

I do understand that there is a very vague whiff of antisemitism in her remark, because it hints at the conspiracy-via-finance theory. 

However, it simply not reasonable to be sacked for this type of remark. Can you imagine what would happen to society if the maker of every remark ever which could be interpreted as having a whiff of racism/homophobia etc was sacked? She was right to be challenged on it and right to apologise. But you seem to be saying that you think that the failure to sack her is a failure to deal with antisemitism, and I think that's unreasonable.

Ugh... I hate that turn of phrase in debate. "You seem to think..."

Anyway, my pet peeves aside, yes it's a fair point, and on the face of it it doesn't seem like a major issue. But I think it's illustrative of exactly what many Jews have been saying about Labour since the rise of Corbynism. A snide remark here, a dodgy shared Facebook post there - a death by a thousand racist cuts.

I think it's more an example of the "divided loyalty" trope, that British Jews hold a loyalty to the State of Israel equal to or above that of their loyalty to the UK.

That bit is factually not correct. Of course every situation is different but the occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco has many parallels to the occupation of Palestine, including settlements illegal under international law. More recently the Russian occupation of Crimea is another example.

Israel-Palestine for all sorts of reasons has become the poster child of ethno-religio-political international conflict.

Interesting fact, so thanks. I don't think anyone sane could believe however that the reason we care about Israel-Palestine but quietly ignore Morocco is antisemitism. We don't care about Morocco because we've no reason to!

Which was condemned by everyone and I'm not convinced is a useful comparison.

Indeed. All sorts of pretty obvious reasons, and yet antisemitism is often the go-to explanation in the face of the obvious.

To say Labour has done nothing to combat Anti-semitism is nonsense.

She didn't say that in that quote. You're reading that interpretation into it.

Is asking where this organisation gets its money from a racist thing to do or a perfectly reasonable question? Unless there's more that Job didn't post?

Biblical pun on my name? Cease and desist!

Clearly so which is why I haven't said that, it just hasn't done anywhere near enough. To be clear, when I say Corbyn hasn't dealt with the problem this is what I'm getting at, it's still a persistent issue affecting the party. I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to completely eliminate all antisemitc incidents but he hasn't got it under control after more than three years.

Quite. And when the manifesto says “We will immediately recognise Palestine as a State” and Corbyn had an unfortunate incident a while back calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends...

Is that really likely though, given that almost everyone hates Jeremy Corbyn, and when what's considered to be antisemitic is (generally?) stuff like the post of Ruth George above? There's a lot more politics, and a lot less racism here than you'd like to admit.

Bloody autocorrect. New phone.

That depends, to orthodox Jews nope, his mother's not Jewish, to liberal Jews, if he wants then yes because one of his parents is Jewish. To reform Jews, not sure, somewhere in the middle of that.

But, there are loads of you out there who are technically Jews but don't know it because somewhere on your maternal ancestry line, someone was Jewish Does that matter or make any difference, of course not.

Unless you discovered (for example) that your mother's, mother's, mother was Jewish. If you could prove that, then even the most orthodox of Jews would have to accept you as Jewish if that's what you wanted. Although they might prefer you to be a little more observant

The problem with the Labour party and anti-semitism is, regardless of the reality of the amount of anti-semitism in the party and how much the party has or has not dealt with it, the PERCEPTION is that it's still there and hasn't been dealt with properly.

As much as anything else, it is JC's failure to deal with this perception that shows poor leadership.

He could quite easily have said on several occasions "we're dealing with it, but from all the feedback I'm getting from you, we've not got it right yet. We will try harder until we've fully sorted this out because I abhor any form of racism, and until then I can only apologise for any distress that's been caused".

If he'd said that a few times then the public's perception would have been totally different. Failure to see and do that was/is poor leadership.

If you said no other Western democracy is occupying another nation it would make more sense. The original discussion referred to IHRA discussion-Israel being treated like any other Western democracy and Israel is not like other Western Democracies because of occupation. ('if we ignore what happened in Afganistan and Iraq because this is sort of temporary,). Oh and Northern Cyprus.  Outside Western Democracies more e.gs. . Take your point that the occupation of The West Bank needs to be stopped. Israel was not run by the religious right since its creation. HaAvoda (Labour), dominated until 1977 and early state was pretty secular.. 

Indeed. Politics is, after all, just a branch of marketing.

Just because Krikoman's post is very wordy I've bulleted and trimmed the non exhaustive list he's provided of Labour action against antisemitism since 2016.

• First political party in Britain to have a rule explicitly prohibiting antisemitism.
• Every single complaint of antisemitism is recorded.
• Smaller, specialised, antisemitism panels, advised by an independent barrister.
• All antisemitism complaints are now investigated nationally.
• Expel members within weeks rather than months of receiving the complaint.
• Doubled the number of staff working on antisemitism cases.
• Designated member of staff for improving antisemitism processes.
• Antisemitism education for all staff.
• More than four-fold increase in the rate of dealing with antisemitism cases.
• Published a detailed breakdown of data on antisemitism disciplinary cases. 
• Complaints relate to a small minority of party members, about 0.1%.
• Conducting audits of historical antisemitism complaints
• Corbyn messages to supporters that there is no place for antisemitism.
• Provide information to Facebook to enable them to close down groups which use Labour’s name to disguise their sharing of racist content.

So, the Labour party is doing a lot on an issue for which complaints only relate to 0.1% of its membership and it intends to go further. This looks to my eye to be well beyond what any similar sized organisation would do and these actions don't look to me to be deserving of fierce criticism.

Also, it's worth looking at the data on page 6 of this study where you will see that antisemitism in Labour is lower than the background level in society and far lower than in the Conservative party

https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2...

I said "no other nation is occupying its neighbours, with a bizarre extension of its state superimposed upon an excluded existing population". (I won't labour the point that I thought "western democracy" was implied by context, as there are obviously countless occupations worldwide).

Interesting, correction appreciated.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/labour-mp-ruth-george-isra...

"Labour MP apologises for suggesting Israel funds Independent Group"

I mean, it's literally the headline of the article. It's possible I'm reading more into it, but if I am I'm not the only one, including Ruth George it seems, as it was what she apologized for. Maybe we're all wrong.

Given that Berger was forced out of the party by anti-Semitic elements of Labour, at the very least suggesting her new group is funded by Israel shows catastrophically poor judgement. Something that a lot of members of the Labour party seem to have in common when it comes to this subject.

Cuts both ways though. If you can't criticise the Israeli treatment of Palestinians without being called an anti semite

So a few things strike me about this list of all these things Labour has done and/or is doing.

It doesn't really tally with the denials from some quarters (see a few posts in this thread) that there is a problem at all, and anti-Semitism is just being conflated with criticism of Israel. I don't entirely disagree with that assessment - just that I have a problem with the *absolutism* of it. It may explain some complaints, but not all, and there have been *hundreds* of complaints.

Nor does it tally with Labour's treatment of whistleblowers on this issue by, again, denials, and referring to them as "disgruntled employees". I haven't seen any apologies for them.

Most mystifying to me, why didn't Corbyn apologize when given the opportunity *four* times by Andrew Neil? If Labour are doing something about Anti-Semitism, then Corbyn must recognize it's a problem. If it's a problem, why not acknowledge it? 

On that subject...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47203397

On the reported 600+ complaints (~0.1%)  Hodge rightly questioned the number as she had made 200+ herself.

On the apology front, McDonnell made a full and clear apology (again) on the BBC news after the Neil interview Corbyn response was questioned..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50575838/general-election-2019-mc...

I just hope all you fine Liberals out there in UKC land who have over the past few years been willingly complicit and very vocal in your support of this ridiculous anti-semitic smear campaign against JC by the Tories, the billionaire owned Tory gutter media, the Blairite Tories and Israeli government will be content when the Tories cruise to a big victory on the 12th December over the Labour Party, and we all get another 5 years of austerity and brexit all caused by people telling and perpetuating Tory lies.

Well done. Bravo, give yourselves a pat on the back. 

The effect of the accusations is obviously important. However, getting to the truth is also important. Which was the original purpose of the post. 

Gold.

The problem being some Jews have the same problem, separating the Israeli government and Jews. There is also another probelm, especially in the media, in that they seem to think the Board of Deputies, speak for ALL Jews in the UK.

There's a thread about Sacha Baron Cohen's speech, about inclusion and hate speech, and holocaust denial, yet on that very website there is a post saying there is no such place as Palestine and there never has been, Palestine denial if you like, forgivable on most web sites, not on the web site calling for posts to be pulled for holocaust denial.

Cheers, I was in a rush, but it seemed pertinent to the discussion.

All I see is an apology which shouldn't have been made but is understandable in the circumstances. Where does this organisation get its money from? You seem unable to explain how what seems a simple question is racist. 

It was not this sort of behaviour that forced Berger and others out of Labour but viscous abuse from the far left, some of whom were in the party and the threat of deselection.

Just to add to that, a little know fact, the Tories haven't signed up to the IHRA  definitions either, or at least not fully.

For once I can't tell whether you're being serious or you've got your tongue in your cheek.

You can, you just have to be careful with your facts and careful with your language.

There will always be some who always equate the two, but reasonable people will be able to differentiate between them when you show sensitivity to the issue by making sure you take care with any statements in that area.

Although gimmergimmer is factually correct, you weren't completely wrong about the influence of the religious right (and don't forget that the right in Israel doesn't always mean the same as here, some of the religious right could be quite left wing on lots of policies).

Basically, the proportional representation system in Israel means there's never an overall majority so coalitions are needed. This means that small parties have disproportionate power by threatening to collapse a coalition. So Likud (right of centre) have relied on the religious right to stay in power. Keeping the religious right happy basically means having policies which don't threaten the ideology of what would have been biblical Israel, hence settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).

 "Labour MP apologises for suggesting Israel funds Independent Group"

If an MP who was the chair of Friends of Russia had been in a similar situation and not been transparent about their funding would it be a dual loyalty trope to suggest or question whether they may be funded in any way by Russia?

That's pretty shocking. You've got to wonder how anyone in a minority group of society would be able to progress in that party. 

Lots of Israelis and Jews aren't happy with some of the Israeli government policies, but we often find it difficult to openly criticise because 1. we support Israel as a whole and feel that overall it is a good thing, 2. our criticisms will be jumped upon as "justification" by those who are rabidly against Israel, and 3. persecution over millennia makes us (Jews) always strive for unity (not very successfully most of the time ).

We're not the only ones who do this, how often do you hear a Palestinian say that they support the Palestinian struggle for recognition but disagree with some of the policies of the PA/Hamas. Although their reasons for staying quiet might be slightly more fear based.

Some of my own thoughts on some of this, regardless of whether settlements in the West Bank are legal or not, increasing them is never going to be a move towards any lasting peace. So I think it's just not sensible. But I understand that it happens because of internal political pressure (keep religious right happy to maintain coalition).

Unofficial settlements should be cleared out, no question about that in my mind.

Efforts to reduce economic disparity between Israel proper and the West Bank should have been taken starting right back in 1967.

Unfortunately, I am no longer optimistic about a long lasting peace in the area in my lifetime. I think a lot of Israelis (and Palestinians as well?) probably feel the same, so the unsatisfactory status quo just rumbles along, with no-one having a real idea of how to surely make progress.

Internal politics in Israel is fascinating although very confusing - my understanding is the 'classic view' is that the Ashkenazi (European Jewry who basically founded Israel) were Labour, and the Shepardim (North African/Middle Eastern Jewry) who on the who came later came to support Likud, who used their economic marginalisation as a populist rallying cry against the 'white' elites in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Zionism was essentially another European nationalism like so many at the time: Herzl being from a secular, German-speaking Austro-Hungarian family. Early Israel although obviously having religious citizens, was mainly secular and socialist in orientation. The exemptions from military service for many orthodox Jews were granted at a time when those groups were relatively small so it didn't seem that important. It is now a much bigger issue as the Orthodox communities have grown considerably. Likewise their rights to social security transfers is also now controversial as the education children get in those communities doesn't allow them to easily take part in the modern economy that generates Israel's wealth. I've heard Israelis moan that all their taxes go paying orthodox Jews to have massive families and then they don't even do their national service in the military (not all, but many).

But as a rapidly growing segment of the population, some orthodox and ultra-orthodox communities decided they did need to get into politics so now you have parties like Shas, sort of to the right of Likud who have further confused the Israeli parliamentary system, and helped make the state less secular.

To anyone who knows Israel well - I hope that's a fair summation. Its some years now since I actively was learning about this stuff and I know Israeli politics doesn't sleep with all the changes in the centre and centre left in recent years.

Critisising Israel for its occupation, critisising Israel for being disproportionate in its response to Gaza, critisising the settlement expansion does not break the IHRA guidlines. The guidelines have never been used to reprimand, sanction anyone making these statements. See link below. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-clare-short-...

Another case where McDonnell seems to be able communicate a positive message about the party far more effectively than Corbyn...

I can't actually see the problem with asking where a political group's funding comes from. The problem would surely be if that was the only group that you asked about. So the actual statement asking about the "friends of Israel" funding might be totally kosher (couldn't resist that ), but the context it was asked in might be anti-semitic.

Of course in today's world we're likely to only hear the statement and not the background context, so when someone cries "anti-semitism" we might find it difficult to see why.

Easy there. This isn't about me. I think that the concerns of British Jews over a Corbyn led Labour government are warranted, if you don't that's fine - but it isn't personal. (I'm not immune to this kind of thing myself, so feel free to call it out).

So, from the article:

'The MP had written on Facebook: “Support from the State of Israel, which supports both Conservative and Labour ‘Friends of Israel’, of which Luciana [Berger] was chair, is possible and I would not condemn those who suggest it, especially when the group’s financial backers are not being revealed.'

Is it racist? Well it's not dressing up in hooded robes and marching with burning crosses, but I think it feeds a couple of common anti-semitic tropes

 - Conspiracy theories about Israel acting 'behind the scenes'  (see post from Pefa above, and this is UKC ffs)

 - The 'dual loyalty' trope - this is straight from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

Again from the article - 

"Berger is a Jewish MP who cited her unhappiness with Labour’s approach to tackling antisemitism in the party as the major reason why she quit. She said she could not stay in a party that she felt was “institutionally racist”.

Taken in the context of Berger's departure, yes I think it's racist.

Now some of this hangs on the credence you give The Guardian's journalism, but I think there's enough there to be critical of George's conduct, and certainly enough to warrant the apology.

Well I do think that context is important. Russia has proven history of interfering with Western democracies over the past few years, so I think that would be a pretty serious business ( and would question the wisdom of selecting such an MP in the first place ).

Anti-semitism has a pretty long history, as I'm sure you're aware. Some of these tropes are centuries old (The 'dual-loyalty' example in particular is straight from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion")

What are those reasons?  The one's I've considered (cultural/ethnic similarity, diaspora present in the UK/US, funding, etc) don't seem to stand up to much scrutiny.  If there are other's I'd be interested to know. 

No.  Quite the opposite.  It should be open to discussion, just as Judaism as a religion or the repercussions of Israeli statehood should be open to a full and frank criticism, and rebuttal.  So the same standards as I apply to claims of Islamophobia.  What I oppose is taking the claims at face value, assumed to automatically be true, over-extended to stifle debate, or that the holocaust deserves protected status (I absolutely don't support banning of holocaust denial, and should be as free to ridicule orthodox Jews as a Jew can themselves).  I'm actually far from convinced by the Labour anti-semitism argument.  But I'm open to the idea it may exist and would hope that the high minded individuals who accuse others of Islamophobia shouldn't need prompting to examine their own motivations with regard to Israel.

Well that's just it. It shouldn't have been left to McDonnell. Corbyn's conduct just mystifies me sometimes.

Unfortunately Israel has been caught interfering too so 'acting behind the scenes' can't be dismissed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot...

Infuriates me!

I wouldn't dismiss it, but unlike Russia's interference (which I would argue differs on an order of magnitude from anything attributed to Israel) - allegations of Russia "acting behind the scenes" are not caught up with decades of defamatory canards towards Russians (though there may be at least a parallel with McCarthyism).

Don't blame me blame a group of Israeli lawyers, academics and human rights activists.

They suspect that two Israeli government departments – the ministries of foreign affairs and strategic affairs – have been helping to undermine Corbyn as part of a wider campaign by the Israeli government to harm Palestinian solidarity activists.

The Israeli foreign affairs ministry employs staff of the country's embassy in London, which was at the centre of suspicions of meddling in UK politics provoked by an Al Jazeera undercover documentary aired last year.

Eitay Mack, an Israeli lawyer, has written to both ministries requesting information on Israel's contacts and possible funding of anti-Corbyn activities by pro-Israel lobby groups in the UK. The letter specifically seeks information on possible ties with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel. 

It also requests information on any efforts by the two Israeli ministries and the Israeli Embassy to influence journalists and civil society groups in the UK.

Ps. " ffs". 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-hand-behind-attacks-jeremy-corby...

So given that you have pretty disgracefully attempted to brand me as an anti-semite because you say I spread some anti-semitic conspiracy theory when in fact that "conspiracy theory", comes from Israeli lawyers and human rights activists and not me. Are you now guilty of the same thing as those who want to shut up every critisism of Israeli meddling in other countries politics and treatment of Palestinians by falsely branding people who do anti-semites? 

Sure, why not.

Why do you falsely accuse people? 

So certain conspiracy theories are being used to attack and shut down people who critisize Israeli meddling in other countries and policies toward Palestinians by falsely labelling them anti-semitic? As you have just done. 

It would be extremely surprising if foreign governments did not attempt some influence or interference  on a matter which affects the internal workings of their country-whether Russian, Israeli, American  or Saudi Arabian (google the lobbyists and junkets MPS are involved in re. the Gulf States. ) or lots of other countries. There should be no problem in pointing this out and condemning it . It becomes a problem when individuals or groups who complain about racism  are told that they are merely the mouth pieces of a foreign state and their concerns are unfounded. I would be extremely surprised if Israel was not taking an interest (or more) in this matter. However, those with a vested interest in undermining the labour party, (either from home or abroad) had plenty of material to use which they did not make up. The reality is the world is not either/or.  Labour has an antisemitism problem (the scale of which you can discuss). Those with a vested interest in making sure Labour don't get into power are using the issue as a stick to beat them. Many who point out antisemitism in the Labour party and elsewhere are told they are making false accusations for malevolent ends. This is deeply unpleasant for those within this group making genuine complaints.  Many who point out the failings of the Israeli State are told they have an antisemitic agenda. This is deeply unpleasant to those, within this group,  who do not have this agenda. Added to this are people who use lazy and loaded language, either deliberately or in ignorance to discuss the issue and we have a not-nice situation.

I doubt very much whether they are but the fact that this is still ongoing is another example of incompetent leadership.  There is the biggest open goal available for many years and corbyn is IMO going to put it in row ZZ.  Kier Starmer would at least make the keeper make a save to continue with the sht footy analogies.

Because, whilst criticism of Israel policy can be pretty reasonable, it's the assumption that "Jewish" = "Israeli" that is part of Labour's anti-Semitism problem.

Well summarized, and better put than my attempt.

One of the reasons that the Israel/Palestinian issue is so relatively high in the world's consciousness is because it's in the news a disproportionate amount compared with other conflicts.

I'm not suggesting anything racist here, but it's an easy conflict for journalists to report on and has been so for decades.

Easy access, little censorship of newsworthy stories, loads of flights to a country with a nice warm dry climate and all the amenities. The normal conflict areas less than an hour's drive away. Back in your hotel room overlooking the beach and sunset for evening drinks. No shortage of spokespeople from both sides and pretty low risk of personal injury.

It's basically convenience conflict journalism. I'm convinced that this is a large factor in the amount we see/know about this conflict.

Contrast this with Syrian conflict journalism. The severity in terms of deaths in the conflict is probably 100 times greater. But it's harder to report on. Physical and "political" access is difficult, there's a real danger of personal injury, and a typical day in the life of a reporter would not involve quality relaxation time.

But that's not always a case of out and out anti-Semitsm, it can simply be a matter of education. And there is a counter argument that criticism of Israel, is often called out as AS, when it suit people to do so, it's just when that happens it doesn't make the headlines.

And as I've said before there seems to be no problem with Palestine deniers.

There's AS in the general public, it's in all parties, probably, look at the percentages and it's a very small number, that doesn't mean we don't do anything about it, it means we keep things in perspective and root it out, where ever it is.

Claiming this is a Labour only problem does a great dis-service to anyone who is genuinely interested in ridding society of AS, or any racism for that matter.

Look at the furore about Labour not accepting the IHRA definitions, there was a massive thread on here about it at the time, with great indignation and fury at Labour's decision; outrageous!!

And yet the Tories, haven't signed up to it, but not many people know that, for some strange reason.

I've not seem any mention on the TV news for ages about this "issue" for a very long time. The Israeli's bombed a family of 7 children two days ago.

It could also be more in people's consciousness, because of the huge disparity between the two sides, and the disproportionate responses. Also, you have to deal with the David and Goliath (sorry for the analogy) comparison, rooting for the underdog against an aggressor supported by the might of the USA. It's asimilar admiration for the Afghan's fighting against Russia, with the religious zealotry taken out.

I'm not sure it is easy, there's very little journalistic access to Gaza, or even the west bank.

To be fair I think our  news is piss poor from most conflicts, our politicians learnt from the Iraq war that having pictures, causes trouble for them, and they then have to deal with awkward questions.

Yes, the '0.1%' figure, mentioned in several posts above. The thing is, reducing something as complex as 'incidents of racism' to a single summary statistic is problematic, and needs additional context. The incidence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party is less than that of the general public. It's a great soundbite, but what if it were the Police? Or the judiciary? Or the cabinet (rounded up to the nearest person )? If we're talking about people in influential positions, then we need to take those incidences more seriously. Potential Members of Parliament are, and should be, held to a higher standard than joe public. Even if it were just Corbyn himself (who I don't believe to be anti-semitic but as described above certainly has a bit of a 'blind spot'), should his behaviour be ignored because he's only 2.0 x 10^-4% of the membership?

No one is making that claim. Let me be clear - I will not be voting Tory, and that they have a history of institutional racism is not in dispute. The point is that many people are being asked to vote Labour, especially in marginal seats, on the basis that they are the moral choice and as far as anti-semitism is concerned, I don't believe that to be true.

But that 0.1% figure is based on the membership, so I understand what you are saying, but it isn't MPs is membership, which was around 500,000 people, members aren't really potential members of parliament, they are simply supporters of Labour, so  four times more than we have police officers. Add to that the number of times AS has been attributed to party members which later, were found to have no links to the party at all. One of Luciana Berger biggest trolls turned out to be nowt to do with Labour, but this didn't receive the publicity, it did when they were saying he was.

People are making that claim though, or at least being economical with the truth, three Tory members / candidate (I can't remember which), that were kicked out for AS and holocaust denial, have been quietly let back in. So while you personally might not be making that claim others are, and going by simple media hype and frenzy, it's hard to think differently. There's no similar condemnation of Tory AS, when it occurs and the Chief Rabbi hasn't thrown in his twopenn'orth.

In just over 2 years in the "Anglophone Crisis" about 3000 people have been killed, many more injured, half a million displaced internally, and maybe 40 000 displaced into the neighbouring country.

I know about it due to one Facebook friend originally from country who has very occasionally posted something about it, one recent excellent article in the Economist, and the odd snippet on World Service, normally when I'm in the car without a podcast and the Archers come on Radio 4. 

Who honestly knows what country I'm talking about with out Googling?

I was listening to World Service the other night (the Archers was on!) and heard about the fatal earthquake in Albania. I'm a pretty heavy news consumer, UK based media and US - but I hadn't heard a thing between GE talk here and impeachment talk in the US.

Therories are often based on truth though aren't they?

Look up Shai Masot, he was filmed saying they could do exactly what's happening.

So it difficult to dismiss some theories as AS bullshit. Once again though, this Masot incident didn't get much media air time.

It won't be easy reporting from Gaza and the West Bank but the West Bank is significantly easier than many 'hotspots'. Indeed in the West Bank people go to volunteer eg Zaytoun, The Olive Tree Campaign, The mosaic project, , and there are even specialist holidays on offer. So it's relatively easy to get involved or to witness one of the world's conflicts. Compare that with trying to volunteer in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, SW China etc. So incomers can become involved/active here much more than many conflict areas. Or they know someone who's been there. So they spread awareness and opinions. 

All true, the problem as I see it, is it still doesn't get very widespread Air-Time, it might make a bit of noise on social media, it might even get reported on the BBC web site. I'm still a bit old fashioned and count "news" as being stuff we see on the telly or radio.

So while it might be easier to get "news" out, especially from the Occupied Territories, it doesn't translate into widespread dissemination.

Yes I would agree it doesn't get on the mainstream media so much now unless there is a war, atrocity or a bigwig involved eg Trump re Jerusalem. However, amongst socially aware and left wing groups it has a huge impact. For many reasons, but one is people can go there and volunteer and be involved in the West Bank. They are often shocked and spread this amongst left wing news/social media sites. There are not similar groups returning from other 'hotspots'. This is one reason for the importance the issue has amongst these groups. (There are of course other important reasons). 

Possibly Mali, possibly the DRC possibly somewhere in SE Asia. 

It's whataboutery though.

I think there are two reasons why the Israel Palestine conflict has a high profile in the West. Firstly it is happening in a geopolitically important area which contains oil and nuclear weapons. Secondly there is an assumption that Israel is a liberal democracy with broadly Western values and we are therefore shocked when we see them behaving in a way we cannot conceive that we would behave in.

I'm afraid your long list doesn't address what I wrote in the part of my post you haven't quoted.

Socialists are against private wealth and Jews are historically the biggest accumulators of it. But they also bang on about Israel, the only place jews can call a homeland, which leads me to believe Labour does have a problem with the jews.

Have you got some stats to back that statement up? 

'But they also bang on about Israel, the only place jews can call a homeland, which leads me to believe Labour does have a problem with the jews.'

Britain is the homeland of many many jewish people!  That's a ridiculous thing to say.

You do get how anti semitic this is don't you?

Go on then, let's see the scrutiny.

Speaking personally, I am more interested in Israel-Palestine than say, Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara (about which I know absolutely nothing, so I cannot claim to care about at all) because I feel as though the human rights abuses are, to some degree, being committed in my name. This is, I think, why I feel a visceral moral  disgust at Israeli policy, whereas when I hear about Uighur muslims being locked up in China I kind of shrug my shoulders and think "well, that's the Chinese for you".

It's very different to have an allied state committing human rights abuses, because in this case you have politicians and journalists in the media defending those actions. That's when my piss starts to boil. I can't just write Israel off as some other place that's nothing like my part of the world, where they have totally different values and my expectations of decent human behaviour can't be realistically applied. I'm being told by e.g. David Cameron, dickheads like Melanie Phillips, etc, that Israel is a democracy like the UK and US, that we share the same values, and that I should consider Israel "one of us" in some bullshit narrative about "The West" vs. "Terror!" or "Islam" or whatever. The Israeli government pursues far-right, violent, ethno-nationalist policies with respect to the West Bank (for a start), and I despise it. There are no other examples of governments pursuing anything similar where I can turn on the TV and be told by politicians and journalists that I should be supporting them, or that their actions are justified. This makes Israel-Palestine totally different to any other conflict in which human rights abuses are occurring.

I'm not sure if you're insinuating that I should be examining my own motivations, just in case, after a prompt, I realise, "oh hang on, yes, actually, I am antisemitic - who'dathunk?". But just in case you are:

I have thought quite deeply about how I feel about the policies of the Israeli government; how I feel about Israel more generally; how I feel about the religion, Judaism; how I feel about the Jewsish culture, the elements shared amongst secular and religious Jews worldwide; and how I feel about the culture and politics of conservative British Jews that I'm familiar with. So, thanks, but I probably don't need any sort of guidance in examining whether or not my visceral moral disgust at the far-right Israeli regime is motivated by antisemitism. Just in case that wasn't clear enough already.

I think I may know what you are trying to say but the way you have said it is problematic. Jews aren't ' historically the biggest accumulators of wealth' . They may have been perceived as such by anti-semites. In the early 20th century thousands of Jews fled Eastern Europe, fleeing poverty, destitution and pogroms. They arrived in London, Liverpool and New York etc mainly penniless and  and lived generally in poverty eg in the East End and The Lower East side. Most Jews in Britain are their descendents. The Jews in Nazi Germany were accused of being simultaneously greedy capitalists, and revolutionary socialists from the back streets, 

Except if we think about it we know UK policy can lead to terrible things happening, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, just in recent decades, leaving aside all the dirty wars as the Empire crumbled.

Anyway, I was just saying Israel Palestine gets a lot of coverage compared to other conflicts.

And it's Cameroon, so you weren't far out.

 I would add the fact that 1/traditionally we are fed on Bible stories with lots of jolly pictures of shepherds, holy sites etc, 2/ The British took over Palestine from the Ottamons and caused most of the havoc through Balfour etc so it's been our conflict, 3/Anti-Zionism to start with had a big Jewish component whilst not many other folk were interested- from Trotsky to the Bund or Tony Cliffe leader of Socialist Workers, who was originally an Israeli. Their internal Jewish arguments have been taken up by the left as a prime cause and given the conflict greater prominence. 4/Increased Muslim immigration to the West has brought up the issue, with a slant less influenced by European History. 5/Islamic migrants with a pro Palestinian focus have come together with left wing Anti-Zionists to push the issue forward. 6/ Israel is a major Western ally particularly for the Americans 7/Europe still strugges with the aftermath of the holocaust and  Israel is crucially linked with this in our minds. 

F*ck me, really?

He's a real breath of fish air on these forums, don't you think?

WTAF!!

Labour have a problem with Jews!!!

Petard and hoist figure heavily in a sentence about his post.

But it aptly demonstrates the problem, if Paul isn't taking the piss. He doesn't sound like a Labour supporter, but even if he is, if a Labour member had posted his post, there might well have been a furore in the media, he'd have been another Labour AS statistic, Rachel Riley would be calling for Corbyn's head.

So giving Paul the benefit of the doubt, he's made some daft mistakes, in his condemnation of Labour he's posted his own AS views. I don't think anyone here wants Paul to lose his job, I think we'd like to explain to Paul where he's gone wrong and hopefully he'll not make the same slip again.

With 500,000 members, Labour might have many Paul's in their ranks. So maybe instead of getting the Chief Rabbi condemning the leader and telling everyone Jews are frightened, maybe we could simply see things for what they are, and start to mend them.

There doesn't seem to be as many other sorts of racism that Labour supporters have said (either accidentally or deliberately). As a group they are pretty aware and PC about not using racism, and it's pretty central to their policies. So I don't think use of anti-jewish tropes by labour members is mainly accidental. 

And what about Paul?

Is Paul a labour party member? 

If his post had said "there's a historical perception that Jews are the biggest accumulators of wealth", then that would have been ok-ish as long as the post didn't imply that he agreed with that perception.

If Jews actually were historically the biggest accumulators of it, and this could be demonstrated/proved then it would be ok-ish because it would be a fact, although one might want to ask the question why? and look for evidence to support those reasons.

But as it stands it seems like an anti-Semitic statement to me, and he hasn't responded to correct this statement or to clarify his beliefs.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then chances are, it's a duck

Shame really, we'd all managed to get a long way down this thread with widely different opinions but still managing to stay polite and unabusive.

He stood for UKIP in the local elections. 

He also has a problem with 'Jewish Privilege' going off his response to the Sasha Baron Cohen thread. 

It sounds as if he is skewered between his own atavistic views and wanting to criticise the labour party for seemingly having the same views. 

Al Jazeera conducted an undercover investigation into how the Israeli embassy tries to influence British politics. Now you could argue that this is one of the roles of embassies the world over, but if you're going to denounce people who make these claims about the Israeli embassy, you should at least look at all the available evidence:

youtube.com/watch?v=ceCOhdgRBoc&

We would be naïve (spelling?) to think that her majesty's embassies don't try to influence local politics in various countries, both openly (which as you say is one of their roles) and clandestinely.

It would likely be anti-semitic to concentrate on Israeli embassies whilst ignoring other countries, but not A-S to call out actions that were considered beyond the limit.

Trouble is, nobody knows what the limit is and part of these peoples' job (for all countries) is to push those limits.

But we do know what Masot, was saying and how things have panned out, there should be no link to AS when someone is tampering with our political system in this way.

What angers me is, this has probably been shied away from by people worried about being accused of AS. Which is a great way for the Israeli government to carry on as "normal".

If this had had greater publicity then maybe people would understand why Labour have been in the news so much. Again I'm not saying AS doesn't exist, but how do you or I know the full extent of what Masot was trying to achieve, and how much he actually did achieve?

Which supports my point that, Masot's (and I presume the Israeli Gov.s) sort of actions and accusations don't help in the battle against AS, they only fan the flames. The people perpetrating such actions are causing greater pain and fear, when they should know better, they are many times worse than most people conflating Israel and the Jews or making comparisons between the Nazis and the present day Israeli government.

Masot was either part of a devious plot against Alan Duncan by the embassy, or a young  'political advisor' showing off, punching above his weight and getting sent home. (He was not an ambassador.)Who knows but he didn't seem to be very intelligent.

I don't think I, or anyone else, said he was an ambassador, why don't you believe he was trying to discredit Labour, I don't see how you can single out Duncan (alone) as his / their target, unless of course that's what you want to believe?

Where's you evidence he was plotting against Duncan (alone) or just showing off? It's interesting that you seem to have discounted everything else said in the documentary and decided this is the reason (s).

As far as I can remember Alan Duncan was the only named politician that Masot said he was going to 'bring down' . 'Bringing' politicians 'down' seemed to be his most worrying and serious statement. He also named other politicians for some rather inane insults eg Johnson and Corby but I didn't think these were of particular note apart from being stupid. Apart from that, I stand to be corrected on' ambassador' I was not claiming people in this thread called him an 'an ambassador'. My apologies for this. I was referring to a variety of the press who referred to him as a 'diplomat' : Which he wasn't.'  He was a political advisor. 'Diplomat' and 'Ambassador' being different. 

I don't believe he wasn't trying to 'discredit' labour. It's interesting you think that. 

Have you watched the documentary at all?

He talks about Labour grass-roots supporters and NUS members in need of "education".

Jackie Walker? Jean Fitzpatrick?

It also shows, the Israeli government is giving money to Pro Israel MPs through a variety of groups.

Interestingly, many of the pro-Palestinian voices in the film have now been labelled as AS.

When the stated aim, throughout is to make people "shut up" about condemning Israel, it's hardly surprising they are targeting Labour, and as is also stated with nearly all the Tory party being members of CFI, they don't want to be rocking what is in effect a lifeboat for the Israeli government. Maybe this is why we get plenty of news about Labour AS and very little about Tory AS

Hi again, sorry to labour the point (pun intended) but he's a little snippet from Michael Rosen which might be enlightening, or maybe not.

Rosen spoke out against the intervention in a 28 November blogpost entitled I’m Jewish. I’m voting Labour, stating:

1. I’ve met people who think that there are no Jews left in the Labour Party.
2. I’ve met people who think that the Chief Rabbi is in some way or another in charge of, or a representative of all Jews in Britain.

Neither of these statements is true or anything like true.

There has been significant and sustained opposition to the witch hunt by Jewish people. Prominent Jews have demanded the witch hunt cease ‘weaponising antisemitism’ against the left. But those who come forward then face being denounced as antisemites themselves. They’re even having their Jewish identity erased. Rosen describes his own experience of being a Jewish person against the witch hunt:

To say these things has invited Jews and non-Jews on twitter to call me a ‘kapo’ (a Jewish concentration camp guard), a ‘used Jew’ (that from the editor of ‘Jewish News’), someone who ‘dons the cloak of Jewishness’ (a Jewish DJ and actor), one of the ‘useful Jewish idiots’ (from the commentator Dan Hodges), ‘a cheerleader for Soros’ (from Lee Harpin political editor of the Jewish Chronicle), and a plea to the BBC to not employ me to present ‘Word of Mouth’ (from the QC Simon Myerson and the campaigner against antisemitism (!) Euan Philips).

Clearly some people think that the best way to combat antisemitism is to be antisemitic.

As Jewish comedian Alexei Sayle puts it:

The search for antisemitism in the Labour party is the weapons of mass destruction of our age. I think there is the same absolute lack of evidence. There is the same substitution for emotion rather than rational debate. And in many cases it’s the same… people doing it. …

We are through the looking glass when antiracists are condemned by racists as being racists.

Yes they are antisemitic anyone who puts them in power, voting for labour or the SNP, are willing to overlook this fact. I've got to say it's just an extension of the philosophy which is prevalent in London based far left circles. Antisemitic comments featured heavily in most conversations to do with money and banking in anarchist and Communist squats. It was one of many reasons why I became disillusioned as I realised that they were just as obnoxious as right wing edl hooligans just with a different team. Funnily enough when confronted with their antisemitic vibes they denied it and feigned offence at the very suggestion, much like the leader they put in via the momentum vehicle. Delusional misplaced ideological purity has as much to answer for on both left as ignorance on the right. 

You are the problem. And the 12 or more who like this comment. 

The question put by girly monkey is whether Labour 'really are antisemitic......or has the' press overblown it'. You've answered the second part but failed to discuss the first part. My view is that antisemitism has definitely been weaponised by the right wing press and some right wing politicians, who have been abusive towards people (including Jews) who have defended Labour. However, I also believe that Labour does have an antisemitism problem (which has been weaponised by the right). What both sides are trying to do is take away people's voices-whether by calling them a 'kapo' etc or (the many people pointing out antisemitism in the labour party), being called a right wing stooge, acting in bad faith, part of a conspiracy, 'a zionazi', traitor etc. Indeed my brother (a labour party member) has been on the receiving end of horrible abuse by other labour party members for pointing out antisemitism in the Labour party. There are problems on both sides. Where people chose to be on this issue seems to be more determined by their already decided political beliefs rather than sifting through the evidence. 

If you read my previous posts, you'll see I've admitted that there probably is AS in the Labour party, as in the rest of society. It's something we should fight against where and whenever we can. So it's not like I've not addressed it, an number of times, not just on this thread.

That doesn't make the Labour party anti-Semitic, though does it? I means there are a few f*ckwits the Labour party could do without.

Have a look at page 6 of this, which points out there is AS in all parties as might be expected, unfortunately. It seems to me the proportion of news devoted to Labour AS is disproportionate, compared tot eh data in the graphs. Indeed if you're going to ask "Are Labour really AS?", you might as well ask, "Are all parties AS?"

https://antisemitism.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Antisemitism-Barometer-2...

On another note

Gluck confirmed that Corbyn “phoned to find out what happened and to express his shock and empathy with the community”.

He added: “We deeply appreciate his concern. He sounded extremely genuine. He was the only party leader who called.
This has nothing to do with the political climate in any shape or form. This is classic antisemitism and it needs to be seen as such and dealt with as such.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/02/police-criticised-response-...

And a bit more on Corbyn himself.

Corbyn’s record of opposing antisemitism before he became Labour leader, meanwhile, is long. For example:

In 1977, he reportedly “helped organise the defence of Jewish-populated Wood Green from a National Front rally”; as one historian has outlined in detail.

In 1987, he successfully worked to prevent property developers from getting control of a Jewish cemetery.

In 1990, he signed an early day motion (EDM) expressing “deep concern at the increase in the dissemination of antisemitic and racist materials in the United Kingdom”. It then insisted that “firm, swift and effective action must be taken to cure neo-Nazi activity”. 86 Labour MPs signed this, but only 15 Conservatives joined them.

In 1992, he tabled an EDM which opposed a “fascist seminar” seeking to “deny the occurrence of the holocaust by the Nazis against Jews and others in Germany”. He called it “part of an attempted resurgence of the far right in Europe” and demanded its cancellation. 47 of the EDM’s 49 backers were Labour MPs. Only one was a Conservative.

In 1994, he signed an EDM which expressed concern that antisemitism was “on the rise throughout Europe”. This called for the government to “ensure that incitement to antisemitic and racial hatred is prosecuted to the full extent of the law”. 86 Labour MPs signed this EDM. Only 1 Conservative joined them.

The list goes on and on, with at least 50 examples circulating on the internet:

In reply I don't think we are communucating very well so i'm going to give up. 

Based on what is said in anarchist and communist squats in London you conclude all SNP and Labour voters are anti-Semitic? That's batshit crazy.

It's the same as saying all Tory voters are racist, misogynist, homophobic and hate the poor. It's utter bullshit and gets us nowhere.

fair enough

I think I covered everything you said I'd missed out, but there you go.

The OP's question isn't sensible, really.  Something like, "Does the Labour Party under JC respond adequately to AS in the party?" would be better.  I think the answer is no, as clearly do quite a number of former Labour members, voters and MPs

Except that maybe you should read the post. I said labour voters are willing to overlook the antisemitism of their far left members. This is due to a belief in their riteous belief that they are have the moral high ground.

I did read your post and you are tarring Labour and SNP voters with the views of those you hung out with from anarchist and communist squats of London. That tarring of voters is bat shit crazy.

Even if the question was that, which it wasn't, it's not like they've been doing nothing.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/are_labour_actually_anti-semiti...

Look at Cumbria Mamoth's post 28 Nov 2019.

Yes they could probably have done more, but so can we all.

If you took the general gist from the media, you'd imagine they were actively encouraging AS. That obviously isn't the case and a lot of what has been reported as "Labour's" AS turns out to be not connected to Labour at all. Burger's hate stalker, had no connections to Labour at all, though it was widely reported he did.

You really have to look at some of the MPs who've left and question their motives and whether they were ever Labour material, Ian Austin <spit> is such a vile cretin, and yet he's believed and held up as a beacon.

On top of all of that, we never get to hear about Jews that still support Corbyn, are you suggesting they're deluded / don't care. Also, we have the situation where it OK for the Chief Rabbi to suggest he speaks for ALL Jews, when he plainly doesn't.

Why do you think it's the far left, that are mainly AS?

And what do you say to Jewish Labour supporters?

What would you say to Rossen, he's being blind, doesn't care, plain f*cking stupid?

This "nothing to see here" positions is getting very thin

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/05/seventy-labour-staffers-gi...

Surely better to acknowledge what has gone wrong?

Can you explain why that argument applies to Labour and the far left, but not to the Conservatives and their deeply bigoted ranks on the right?

Anyone voting for any political party is doing so in the knowledge (or I suppose ignorance) of more extreme fringes saying and doing things they don't endorse.

I suspect to certain degree Jon it's that the AS thing seems to have risen within Labour because of the influx of people into the party with Corbyn becoming leader and with organisations like Momentum. I'm sure there were some people with anti-semitic views in Labour before that but they obviously kept quiet, or perhaps knew where they could say things like that knowing there were other like-minded people there. But with people coming into the Labour party for the first time, many of the claimed problems have been with that new generation of Labour members. I guess some people at least had before been active in organisations like Stop the War or Socialist Worker or Galloway's lot, where going back to 2003 there were relationships built between far left and political Islamist groups, and the strength of the anti-Israel sentiments did overflow into straight AS at times.

Meanwhile the Tories have always had their backwoodsmen or whatever the term is, who could be relied on to have pretty unpleasant views on women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people etc. Although I suspect some people like that moved from Tory to UKIP over the last 15 years or so - considering all the scandals over UKIP candidates and councilors saying racist things and so on.

Totally agree.

Christ on a bike!! No one is saying there's "nothing to see here" there is a problem, obviously, what I'm disputing is nothing is being done about it, and that Labour is anti-Semitic!

There's a big list of what Labour have done over the past years further up the thread, they wouldn't need to have done anything, if everything was rosy, but it isn't. But it also isn't fair to paint the Labour party AS, and like I said, the only voices we hear are those condemning not the supporters. We also don't hear much about the AS in the Tory party, or are you trying to tell me this doesn't exist?

That's not true.  Michael Rosen, for example, had a prominent piece recently. 

Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout!! 

(Anyway. we are hearing quite a lot about islamophobia in the Tories.)