UKC

Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson has accused a member of the party's ruling body of being a "loud-mouthed bully" - after he was recorded criticising members of the Jewish community.

The National Executive Committee's Peter Willsman suggested Jewish "Trump fanatics" were behind accusations of anti-Semitism in the party.

Mr Watson tweeted to say he was disgusted by the comments.

Mr Willsman, a supporter of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, has apologised.

Earlier this month, more than 60 British rabbis signed an open letter that said anti-Semitism in sections of the Labour Party was "severe and widespread".

And yet not everyone agrees https://www.facebook.com/EatTheRichShop/videos/vb.2129167317369374/21663273...

The media are just about always saying "Jewish groups" are complaining about Labour, when in fact it's some Jewish groups, yet this is never mentioned. It's no wonder it's easy for some people to dismiss the problem as media bias, when in reality it's a bit of both.

There are some Jewish Groups who believe Israel shouldn't exist at all.

The four phrases left out of the IHRA documents are so vague and open ended, that it would be possible for anyone speaking out against the Israeli Government to be branded and Anti-Semite.

If we're not to "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." it might be worth comparing what we've tried to do against Russia, when comparing this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069....

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/book-on-israels-secret-history-of-assassinati...

I'm not at all a supporter of Labour on this, I think they have a serious problem, and that Corbyn is a large part of that problem. 

However, the fuss over the "internationally accepted" definition of anti-Semitism seems to me bizarre.  Let's consult it:

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews."

A "certain perception"?  What perception?  Perception of Jews as what?  This doesn't even begin to be a "definition" of anti-Semitism.

"Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

OK, so that's about manifestations of anti-Semitism, but still doesn't *define* anti-Semitism.  

And that's it, that's supposedly the "definition".

But, there is guidance and examples of what amounts to anti-Semitism:

"Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:"

Note the "could, taking into account the overall context, include, ..."

Which means that, taking into account the context, each of those examples might *not* be anti-Semitism. 

So we still don't have an actual working definition of anti-Semitism!  And yet people are supposed to sign up to this as a litmus test?

So, since the IHRA "definition" fails to even be a definition, let's ask Wikipedia:

"Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews."

Nice and clear and straightforward.  How hard was that? 

Here's a quote from the book, which would be considered anti-Semitic.

“You get used to killing. Human life becomes something plain, easy to dispose of. You spend a quarter of an hour, 20 minutes, on who to kill.” This quote is from Ami Ayalon, who as the head of Shin Bet in the late ’90s helped shepherd the organization into the digital age. He also told Bergman: “I call it the banality of evil.”

The irony of Ayalon’s inflammatory language — an echo of Hannah Arendt’s line about Nazi functionaries — is as pointed as it is jarring.

I have to agree, it's pretty obvious when people are being anti-Semitic, like when they're being racist. Some people do it by mistake, and can be educated, some people don't care and are out and out racists, there isn't much hope for them. Bit the constant false or trivial accusations don't do anyone any good.

There are anti-Semites in all walks of life, yes in the Labour party too, but even trying, as Michael Hood once stated, "two Jews to discuss the subject and you'll end up with three opinions".

So I'd like to think we know what's right and what's wrong, and where we don't we might learn to adjust, but this constant witch hunt and attempts to blame Corbyn for it, is counter productive for everyone involved.

I realise a lot of people hate JC, but what ever you think of him, this constant sniping, isn't good for our politics or our society.

Why is it that Corbyn (Abbott as well?) supporters believe that he should be free of any criticism or run of the mill piss taking?
All other politicians seem to face it on a constant basis and that seems to expected as being part and parcel of being an MP.  
It's almost as if his supporters revere him so much that it makes him above such things.  Very weird... 

No comment, no conclusion just damaging accusations. Fair enough.

As already pointed out, the IHRA definition of anti semitism is regarded by many as being flawed.

Labour have carefully considered the definition, have adopted most of it but modified some of the working examples which could be used to prevent criticism of the State of Israel or could be seen as being prejudicial to Palestinians. In other words their response is careful and considered.

It would be helpful if those who are accusing the party of anti semitism could pick out which parts of their definition they have an issue with and why.

Can you point us to a copy of it?

I can't think of a context where constantly calling somebody an antisemite would be 'run of the mill piss taking'?

This whole thing has little to do with current British politics but at this rate will determine the outcome of the next election. I wish it would run its course. 

I agree with Labour's decision not to adopt the full definition, specifically the examples which are dishonest attempts to silence criticism of Israel:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

> It would be helpful if those who are accusing the party of anti semitism could pick out which parts of their definition they have an issue with and why.

It would also be helpful if Labour were to make their case about why the above examples aren't acceptable as defining antisemitism. I haven't heard them.

I'd be saying the same if it was a Tory, Lib Dem or any other party, I'd like politics to be based on some sort of truth and honesty, it's really very simple. What we're going through at present is a rapid decline to the bottom and it's not helping anyone, least of all Jewish people.

Has Corbyn constantly been called an anti-Semite?
Or, as leader of the Labour Party, has he been criticised for possible antisemitism within his Party for which he is ultimately responsible?

Anyway, this particular issue is perhaps just an example of the way that people seem to rush in to defend Corbyn whenever he gets 'attacked' in the media and declare it as not fair, etc.
All other politicians get similar criticism/ridicule, why should Corbyn be treated any differently? 

I'm not sure they are getting a chance to.

But as you say the one's they seem to have missed out seem to some people at least glaring examples of what isn't acceptable.

Labour could have simply signed up, then like most parties just ignored or talked their way around what they'd said. I think this is the issue for JC, rather than say OK we'll do all that, and then fall foul of something , because of criticism of the Israeli government, they've chosen to leave them out.

There was someone on Newsnight a couple of days ago but the interviewer, just about, let the Jewish complainant accuse Labour of almost anything, without being challenged.

I particularly don't like this one:-

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Because it's classic "whataboutery"

Surely if there are wrongs being committed in any country they should be pointed out, you don't need to address or compare other suffering to put it in a league table and make sure you've complained about all the others, also.

If it's wrong it's wrong, whoever is committing it, we don't need to check elsewhere first. We seem to be happy to let other people rescue refugees for us and not get involved in that exercise.

We should all require higher standards than every, and any one, especially ourselves.

Israel likes to put itself above most other regimes in the ME, and yet when it comes to inflicting pain or torment, it's happy to be compared, indeed wants to be compared, with the lowest of the low.

Really?
Plenty of instances where you've defended Corbyn on UKC, but I don't recall you doing the same for the likes of Boris Johnson, etc. ?
For some reason, supporters of Corbyn don't think he should be criticised in the same way as other politicians are by the main stream media.  Hate to say it, but he does appear to have become almost a cult figure to some and even worse, he seems to be enjoying it.

Yes, plenty of times!! Sometime by his own party, Ms. Hodge for one.

Because it's not true and because it's not helpful, this is undermining "real" anti-Semitism and no good will come of it. I've already heard people being really anti-Semitic against what they see as Jews attacking "our" politicians, and these are Corbyn haters.

Besides that, it's the way it's being reported, as I said above "Jewish groups" rather the the more truthful "some Jewish groups". Radio 4 on the day this story broke, had both versions on different news reports, so it's not as if it wasn't thought about.

Totally agree, it's bullshit of the highest order. The fact that other govts and organisations have signed up just shows their lack of intellectual rigour, or a willingness to cow-tow to bullies. No one should have accepted this disgraceful attempt to restrict the expression valid political opinion by labelling it as racist.

The delicious irony of course is the fashion on the right - who of course support Israel in the main - to blah on and on about defending freedom of speech, and how "the left" attempt to suppress views they don't like by labelling them racist. As they say, you couldn't make it up.

Support Johnson for what? I've got a great support for Anna Soubry if that counts?

Some of the posts on the Express paper web site are disgusting and demeaning in the extreme about her.

I happen to think the attacks on JC are relentless, unfounded and ridiculous in a lot of cases, show me a Tory MP whose been accused of not having his tie done up enough and I'll support him too.

Now I'm really confused.  Does this mean that it's possible to be antisemitic against non-Jewish people?

What I really need to know is, would I, hypothetically, be allowed to say that withdrawing the right of self-determination against a proportion of a population based solely on their ethnicity or religion being non-Jewish sounds like racism?

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-anti...

They really included everything just with some allowances on 4 points to legitimately criticise Israel

But it only says that those examples: "could, taking into account the overall context" be manifestations of antisemitism.

Which is true, in some cases, in context, those arguments *could* be manifestations of antisemitism.  Whereas, in other cases, in different contexts, they might be entirely fair and legitimate comment. 

Which is why the whole IHRA definition is a bad one.

I think the reason it's bad is that it's an obvious attempt to silence criticism of Israel by labelling it antisemitic.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-anti...

From this article:

It seems to me that the article is inferring that the comparison of choice by alleged anti-semites would be with Nazi Germany. But I read this as the newspaper suggesting that any comparison of Israel with any oppressive state amounts to anti-semitism, which is of course utter bollocks.

or "Antisemitism is racism against Jews."

Except that you then get into the issue of whether Jews are a "race" or whether being Jewish is about culture or religion, or a mixture of all three. 

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society"  Would seem to include culture or religion.

The number of tired and fictitious old tropes you manage to squeeze into two sentences is almost admirable.

Suppose it depends which side of the camp you're on isn't it?
Just look at his appearance at Glastonbury for evidence of behaviour not normally associated with followers of politics.

You mean young people?

I would say they've always been interested, but thought they had no voice, the fact Corbyn is different from his predecessors and it appears he's willing to listen to young people, might be why they think things are different now.

But to me that's way too broad.  I wouldn't regard "Mormons" or "Buddhists" or "vegetarians" as a "race".  As I see it, a "race" is a shared-inheritance grouping. 

Why not quote the full text, note the "some" in there and see how it changes your OP.

"One of Jeremy Corbyn’s allies on Labour’s ruling body has been recorded saying that Jewish “Trump fanatics” are “making up” some of the allegations of antisemitism in the party.

Peter Willsman, a member of the party’s national executive committee, was taped at a meeting this month when the NEC refused to adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.

Willsman said he would “not be lectured” by Jewish supporters of the US president “making up duff information without any evidence at all”.

As others attending the meeting asked Willsman to stop speaking, he continued, raising his voice to say: “I think we should ask the ... rabbis: where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this party?”

Later in the recording, released on Monday by the Jewish Chronicle, Willsman could be heard asking members of the NEC to raise their hands if they had witnessed antisemitism in the party. Advertisement

In an apparent response to some raising their hands, he replied: “I’m amazed. I’ve certainly never seen any.”"

Now let's just suppose, he hasn't been witness to any anti-Semitism, Jews make up 300K of the UK population (0.45%), so it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination, he's never witness any. Does that change what's been said above?

For the record I'm not denying there is anti-Semitism within our society I'm very convinced there is, but I'm not sure Willsman was denying this either.

Agree with you but these days many definitions of racism seem to extend to groups and cultures as well as races.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/oh-jeremy-corbyn-chant-whi...

It is a bit wierd, using a football chant to cheer on a politician...whether he listens to you or not

Just think how popular he could be if he simply came out and was clear about his views on antisemitism and Brexit rather than being so infuriatingly weaselly about both.  

I really can't think of a reason why he's so unwilling or unable to ever explain anything other than he only ever really talks to people who already agree with him.  From the little I understand, I think he's probably right about the antisemitism thing but wrong about Brexit but the fact that I'm guessing is a large part of the problem.

I'll try and give a balanced view here.

I voted Corbyn in the 2015 leadership contest, but not at the 2016 contest. I voted because I wanted someone to challenge the narrative on the necessity of austerity, and he has indeed done that.

I no longer consider myself a Corbyn supporter. I'm not opposed to his politics in general, I think this country needs massive investment in infrastructure and public services. But I think his leadership is useless, I dislike his lack of pragmatism/inability to consider other opinions, and his failure to oppose on Brexit is allowing the country to sleepwalk to disaster.

Do I think there's a problem in the Labour Party with anti-semitism? Yes. Do I think it's serious? Yes. Do I think Corbyn is an anti-semite? No, but I think his politics have blinded him to some extent to others who show that tendency. Do I think it's being blown out of proportion for political gain? Absolutely, yes. Do I think the new Labour code is appropriate? Yes. Do I think its detractors are trying to score points and damage Corbyn? Yes.

I think Hodge's comments in the Commons were absolutely disgraceful. Ditto with John Woodcock's assertions about the "wrong sort" of Jews. These attacks undermine attempts to deal with real antisemitism. And just because Hodge lost family in the Holocaust, does not give her a monopoly on outrage or the ability to recognise antisemitism. At the same time, I think Willsman should walk for his unacceptable remarks, especially in light of their timing.

The problem with these attacks is that they cause positions to become entrenched. My natural position is somewhere between Corbyn and the Labour right. I want to oppose Corbyn and I want a better leader, but when I see blatant smears I tend towards defending him, even if there is some element of truth to them.

As for last week's three-pronged assault by Jewish newspapers, that's more than just an embarrassment. I don't know if they want to stir up antisemitism, but they found a sure-fire way of doing so.

And on the subject of racism, it'd be nice if Rees-Mogg's links to white supremacists were jumped upon by the media with as much glee as Labour antisemitism allegations.

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society" is a good definition because it doesn't have any spurious precision.

Race really is about "viewed as distinct by society" rather than anything specific or logical.

Race is mostly relevant due to racism and racists so there's not much reason for the meaning or relevance of race to have precise definition. 

In that sense I think race is more defined by racism and racists than people who think race is just an interesting aspect of history and genetics who might come up with a precise logical definition.

What I inherited doesn't change if I (white in UK) move to China or Nigeria. However my race (or the meaning of my race) does change because my race goes from majority where I don't feel I'm viewed as very distinct to an obvious ethic minority. 

Also my race, nationality and religious upbringing all came from the same thing - my parents. That is true for most people. Hence I think distinctions between race/nationality/religion can be spurious since for most people they come from one thing (parentage) so they are not independent variables.

Billy Bragg said 

 “You can’t deal with a problem if you don’t believe it exists. Pete Willsman has sat through a Labour disputes meeting at which the majority of cases pertained to antisemitism. How can he claim to have never seen evidence of it? He should stand down now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/31/labour-under-pressure-pete...

That's an excellent comment, the best on the thread by far.

It's a made up problem purely because of the historical Labour left wing sympathy towards Hamas and Palestine and more controversially, Hezbollah. 

The problem here is that antipathy towards the State of Israel is being conflated with hatred of the Jewish race when in fact there is no evidence of that. I can't for the life of me see how Peter Willsman saying Trump fanatics are behind Labour anti semetism claim is anti semetic. It's probably true to a degree.

It's hard to deny that there is antisemitism in the Labour party given the example of Labour councillor Damien Enticott:

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/suspended-labour-cllr-admits-posting-a...

With this genie out of the bottle, one would be a fool to doubt that JC has shaken the antisemites out of the tree.

Self-reflection is not an attribute to be found in the higher reaches of the Labour Party.

Well yes, I don't think anyone has said that the Labour party is free from anti Semitism, just that it isn't that common. It's why the Labour party has produced a new guidance document on the subject. I think there are currently about 75 disciplinary hearings to be heard so I'd suggest they are doing something about it albeit rather more slowly than many would like.

There is an issue, I think, that a lot of basic old-school antisemites use criticism of the Israeli state as a cover to give them a sort of plausible deniability, and relatedly that criticism of Israel can be expressed in ways that amplify antisemetic tropes. At the very least this means that if you're going to be critical of Israel (which I often am) then you need to be careful of the company that you keep and the messages that you endorse.

All of this cuts a number of ways, though - see any discussion about Islam and/or immigration - and it's a bit rich at the moment to see people who are normally happy defending dog-whistle racism from the right because "they didn't actually say anything explicitly racist though, did they" suddenly getting all woke when they realise it's a stick they can use to beat Labour with.

But not 76, fortunately, which is why there is such a fuss.

True in what sense, ie who is doing what to make it true? 

True that Trump fanatics are behind the hysterical claims of anti semetism being rife in the Labour party. (Probably!)

Most of the claims that antisemitism is rife in the Labour party are being made by moderate members of Labour.   It's hard to see them as Trump supporters. 

That's complete and utter nonsense. Of course Labour members are sensitive to claims like this as they know it will affect their vote and their seat in Parliament. 

The Trump supporters claim is a reference to the closer ties between American Republican groups and the State of Israel who have become far too cosy for comfort and have deliberately escalated tensions in Palestine by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. I don't doubt for a moment that the Trump support would happy engage in gerrymandering in order to damage the Labour party.

Like who?

It's not.  Many moderate Labour people are voicing concern about antisemitism in the party.

Several have resigned.  On a quick google, these include: Joshua Garfield, Joe Goldberg, Natan Doron, Tom Bewick, Tal Ofer, David Garrard and Jamie Susskind (google them if you're interested).  One could easily extend the list.

Labour MPs criticising the leadership over this include Ian Austin, Margaret Hodge and Thangam Debbonaire.  Again, a bit of googling would extend the list. 

But as we've discussed in the past your post have shown only an interest in the crimes of Israel, and an ignorance of those of other countries. With the fascination with the crimes of Israel alone that some display, Jews (and others) are left pondering "why only Israel?"

Quite frankly that's simply poor camouflage and dangerous excuses for some terrible behaviour. As Bragg said, Willsman sat on many disciplinary cases where clear problems were found and so has witnessed a very worrying amount of antisemitism in the party,. As such his political position is now publicly very clear about something so serious and sensitive. He quite simply needs to go.  Being fundamentally not really that racist does not forgive rascist comments, neither does not being racist at all excuse defending or overlooking such failings in others on political grounds;  such attitudes are very worrying indeed in a progressive party. Corbyn is reported as apologising about sharing platforms with racists right now in BBC news.

He hasn't witnessed many cases of anti semitism. He has listened to many allegations of anti semitism and there in lies the problem. What is anti semitism? 

According to Wiki. Hostility, prejudice and discrimination against Jews. 

Show me the evidence. 

Is he now? I'll listen later but I bet that he's in far too deep for it to wash now.

This is like the defence of homeopathy where, no matter what the evidence, it is dismissed by its adherents.

How do you know that?

I ask because I have read stuff that suggests he didn't.

Perhaps some people might find it especially ironic that a people with their history should be led by successive governments apparently OK with effectively keeping large groups of ethnically distinct people in camps and now with the idea that an ethnically and religiously distinct proportion of their population should selectively have their right to self-determination removed.

Have I worded that sufficiently carefully?! 

Nope, it's bang on the money AS.

I don't see why, besides it was a song before it was a football chant. How else would you like them to show their support for him and his policies; Genuflection?

I agree, if it's true he's sat through dispute meeting, then he was obviously lying, and should stand down, I wasn't aware of that.

I don't however think anything he said could be construed as anti-Semitic though, blinkered maybe.

There's a massive difference between not experiencing something and saying it doesn't exist. I'm not sure, though I'm prepared to be corrected, Willsman meant this.

The problem as I see it, there are a number of people / groups who would be very happy to see Corbyn fail, by whatever means, and so we've had 2+ years of insinuation and accusations against him.

This isn't helping anyone, it's not going to decrease the anti-Semitism in our society, it'll drive it underground or worse there'll be a backlash.

Like I said earlier I've already heard stuff like, "what have the Jews got to do with our democracy", it doesn't seem to dawn on some people that Jews are part of our society.

Worded ok (as in not offensive) but I don't think it's factually correct (since the Oslo accord and withdrawal from Gaza, not sure before that).

Keeping large groups of people in camps has been done to the Palestinians by the Syrians and other Arab nations to ensure assimilation doesn't happen. Unless your use of the word "effectively" means maintaining the region's status quo so that the camps are maintained by Hama's, the PA, et al etc.

I presume you're also referring to the new law. Bit of a funny one that, it may make no actual practical difference within Israel, in which case what's it for. I suspect it may be a proactive defence in case of demographic issues arising in the future. Regardless of that it's being seen as having the possibility of being interpreted in a descriminatory way.

Really?  Which bit?

I’m really not picking a fight, I’m trying to understand what you would like the rules to be before deciding whether or not I agree with you.

Regardless of whether JC is anti Semitic etc, his lack of emphatic leadership on the issue is not good for Labour.

I think the issue being, you took the time to word it carefully there's no direct comparison made only inferred (once again these things come down to semantics, rather than issues).

It is not uncommon for people to think that all Jews come from Israel (had a case of that only yesterday). There's a lot of ignorance about.

It might not be good for Labour, but if Labour are brought down but being accused of being anti-Semitic, then I fear that won't be the end of it. Worse still it won't do anything to decrease anti-Semitism.

There's a lot of anger out there, by what is being perceived as "others" interfering in "our" business, and these people (making these kind of comments) are definitely NOT Corbyn supporters.

Edit: bold above, to identify the commentators, I hope!

True, too true. Jews have no place in the Labour Party and non-party supporters should have no interest in its business and processes. Quite why you have any interest in Israeli politics or the Tories, for that matter, defeats me.

I'm fine with being corrected on the facts.  Being mistaken isn't antisemitic per se though, is it?  I guess what I was trying to express was that, if anything, I might have expected Israel to be even more sympathetic to oppressed minorities than other states, but I agree, I can't hold them to a higher standard.  I can be disappointed though, can't I? 

A proactive defence in case of demographic issues arising in the future?  I seem to recall Enoch Powell expressing something similar and it not going down so well.  How do you think a law here restricting 'self-determination' to Anglicans would be received?

Once again you've lost me there, I know it's easy for you.

Why don't Jews have a place in the Labour party?

But I get the second part, I have no interest in Israeli politics, I do however have an interest in seeing Palestinians have freedom from subjugation, free fro oppression, and think they should have a right to self-determination. Unfortunately, these things are tied up with Israeli government policies, so I'm a bit stuck there as you can imagine.

Edit: I've worked it out, you've mis interpreted my post, I'll try and change it but if I can't, it's the people making the comments about "other" and "our" who aren't Corbyn supporters.

I'm assuming this, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/opinion/israel-nationality-law-palestini...

It might depend on which side of the fence you're on as to whether it makes a difference or not, don't you think?

Which is what needs putting right, I'm not sure a witch-hunt, which seems to be confined to the Labour party, is the way to go about it though.

It's the sort of ignorance that blames Corbyn as being anti-Semitic when there are people who know him know he isn't, but it doesn't stop them saying it, or repeating it, it just gets a wide audience than the truth.

https://www.facebook.com/EatTheRichShop/?hc_ref=ARSaPQNPqoZXBn_-eUrBSQWdHVs...

and this (I've not really check through this or its sources -too busy sorry)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2018/07/the-jewish-war-agai...

I think they feel that they can't afford to be. 

And, as a matter of realpolitik, they're likely right. 

I just read up a bit on the new law, I don't think it's designed to increase any discrimination, however I can see that in practice it may well do that. Certainly the non Jewish citizens of Israel don't think it's going to do them any favours. We shall have to wait and see what difference it actually makes.

Personally I can understand the first bit, basically entrenching Israel as a Jewish state. But I see no need to downgrade Arabic or the enshrining of doing settlements (even if it had excluded West Bank).

Do you think the Labour party should have agree to the IHRA definitions, do you see anything wrong with any of them?

"Labour, for so long a Party that put equality and inclusion at the centre of its values, has today decided to claim that it understands antisemitism better than the victims of this vile prejudice and to set its face against the clear views of the Jewish community." Board of deputies of British Jews

Given that there are a massive range of Jewish opinions regarding Israel, from it's far right seeing Israeli as theirs and theirs alone, give to them by God no less. To other groups, Neturei Karta who don't believe Israel should exist at all. How is it the Board of deputies consider themselves to speak for all Jews or indeed the Jewish community?

I don't know whether JC is anti-Semitic or not. I am pretty sure he doesn't think he is and that he hasn't done things with anti-Semitic intent, but some of his actions could be seen as such. He could have avoided all of this with a bit of decisive action.

You're right that this of course is also being used as a politically expedient witch-hunt, which makes the need for strong leadership even greater.

Zionism is at the very core of Jewish theology, exile / redemption, so even Jews who are not Zionist as a fact think about Zion every day or festival or whatever. 

Only 'as a Jews' are without any notion of how Zion and Zionism works in Judaism.

Neturei Karta are an extreme group who believe that Israel should be a fundamentalist Jewish state; i.e. run on biblical law exactly as per Torah/Talmud etc. They don't believe that Israel can transition to this kind of state, so they believe that the current Israel must be destroyed before the "correct" Israel can be established. They are further right than those who support the idea of a greater Israel.

The Board of Deputies is a representative body. Part of their function is to speak for the Jewish community but they of course know that not all Jewish communities/congregations are "members".

Are you suggesting that a representative body can only speak if it has 100% affiliation, I very much doubt it. The BMC would never be able to speak for a start.

This reminds me of a conversation that I had recently about Mark Regev, a socialist youth who holds very liberal opinions, apparently. Sure, but why does he always work for such horrifying people?

Given that, how large does the Zionist "state", for want of a better word need to be?

Or indeed Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (I think she's ex now) but such a wonderful lady, her compassion simply exudes from every pore.

If we had people like her in the Labour party, I could see there would be a need for this furore, thankfully I don't think we do.

Should we not be complaining about being held to standards, that Israel aren't

Interesting website!
Not sure if it's one for unbiased viewpoints though...

Do you perhaps agree that the fury unleashed on Labour after actually confirming their agreement with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but just not all its working examples, is evidence to suggest that nothing this leadership do on this issue will now be allowed to be enough?

I'd probably agree with you there, and I think Corbyn has been unmoving on this issue when he should have bent slightly, as well as weak or even silent at times when he should have actually fought his corner.

He's not learning this public perception thing very quickly is he?

I'm not sure either It's the first time I looked at it), but the professor says she knows Corbyn, so if that's true, she might know better than most of us.

But what I am sure of you won't see the professor on the six o'clock news.

It's really quite a same that the only place you can find some of this information is on web sites like this. The Hajo Meyer video is very interesting.

Its a quote from a tweet made by Billy and its in the linked Guardian article above. Some leading Momentum activists also tweeted critcal comments about the same situation. It doesn't contradict what he said previously as it relates to the clearc poor actions of an individual rather than the case about Labour as a party in general. Those like Wanderer100 who are still in denial, about this are simply putting party politics before honesty. I think most antisemitism in Labour is probably attached to recent entryist far left politics (ie it will get worse).

Latest (scroll down to post about 2.00pm) 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/aug/01/chequers-brexit-...

"Labour leader in Lords says Willsman should 'consider his position' on NEC

Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, has suggested that Peter Willsman should resign from the party’s national executive committee after being recorded accusing Jewish “Trump fanatics” of making up allegations of antisemitism.

Willsman has apologised and referred himself for equalities training.

But Smith told Radio 5 Live she did not think that was enough and that Willsman should “consider his position”.

"I think sometimes people say an apology isn’t always enough. And certainly, Pete Willsman, who I’ve known for many years, should not be allowed to make such awful and appalling comments ... I think the tone of which he spoke, and what he said in that, isn’t acceptable.

Now he’s made an apology. I think for most people, I don’t think it goes far enough ...

I think sometimes things almost can’t be unsaid. There are things that happen many years ago, and people look back on their lives and think, actually that’s not the person I am now, I wouldn’t say that now, I understand better now. But this was very recent, and I think certainly it damages him in standing for the NEC. But I think he ought to consider his position.""

Which was what I was getting at, there a hugh breadth of what Jew believe. I may have got it  wrong with aligning Karta with the left, but there are other groups who don't believe Israel needs to exist in Judaism.

Granted.

No, I'm not suggesting that, but given there are a number of groups who don't think the BoD are their representative, especially regarding anti-Semitism in the Labour party and how wide spread and deep rooted it is. I would expect so form of pronoun to distinguish Jewish groups from some Jewish groups when it gets reported.

Like I said the day this blew up Radio 4 news did make the distinction, but not on every news bulletin. The problem as it's reported is it's made out to be all Jewish people, and it isn't.

Ms. Hodge sticking her beak in and openly calling Corbyn “a f*cking anti-Semite and racist” doesn't help things.

As for calling Labour a Existential threat the Israel, that's simply ludicrous hyperbole, but I think most people know that.

I notice neither of you answered my original question, of my previous post.

Do you think the Labour party should have agreed to the IHRA definitions?

Do you see anything wrong with any of them?

Thanks.

Yes, a quote from Billy Bragg but how does he know?

I'm asking because I've seen an email from Willsman that implies he hasn't had anything to do with disciplinary hearings so either he's lying and should not seek re election to the NEC or Billy is talking bollocks. I have an open mind on this but suspect the latter because a flat denial in the context of the email just doesn't make sense.

Regarding the other stuff you quoted. I think it's hysterical. He suggested some Jewish people were trump supporters. That doesn't make him racist, just wound up and mainly wrong.

Last one for today.

https://www.facebook.com/giles.stogdon/videos/10212069266399179/UzpfSTIxMjk...

Zoom to 3:40 if you're short of time, but worth checking out.

It boils down to the fact that they have nothing worthwhile to criticise labout on so they make stuff up

Point out something something that Boris said that was defendable

Good post

Seriously? I can't be bothered. 

I'd have thought a simple yes and a no would have been your answer. That's less characters then you actually could be bothered to type.

What you've actually done is shut down any discussion and we still don't know what you think. Not very adult, and not very informative, and so we're, or at least I'm, left to assume you'd have said yes and no.

You only seem capable of either sniping at people or being sarcastic, if you have a point surely it's better to make it.

Yes, then. Oh, and for, amongst other things, the reasons above at 13:16, I damned certain that Corbyn is an antisemite. 

What about Corbyn,s apology for hosting a meeting on World Holocaust Day, in the House of Commons, comparing Jews with Nazis. Disgusting. Of course you can always find a few nutters who agree with your vile rhetoric. In any case he doesn,t mean the apology, it’s looks like costing votes. Even the prince of darkness (McDonnell) gagrees. Labour would like to redefine anti semitism from people hating Jews to Jews hating innocent critics. And as for supporting Russia, despite a long list of worldwide atrocities; truly delusional;

For the benefit of anyone who is unfamiliar with the details of the event being referred to and what JC said about it, here's a copy/paste from the BBC:

"The House of Commons event hosted by Mr Corbyn took place on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010. Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime.

The Commons meeting came during a wider tour by Mr Meyer entitled "Never again for anyone - Auschwitz to Gaza".

The Times said that Palestinian activist Haidar Eid also addressed the meeting, saying, "the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims".

Mr Corbyn said views were expressed which he did not "accept or condone".

He added: "In the past, in pursuit of justice for the Palestinian people and peace in Israel/Palestine, I have on occasion appeared on platforms with people whose views I completely reject.

"I apologise for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused." "

Assuming that your 'the' should be a 'to' was this said? 

Believe it or not, yes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-jewish-labour-...

I don't accept that. And I won't accept it on the grounds that I must believe that whatever Jewish people say is antisemitic is antisemitic. If a Jewish group promoted the idea that matzah cured cancer, I wouldn't accept that it was true, on the grounds that only Jewish people could know the medicinal properties of unleavened bread. I would not care whether they were Jewish or not when I considered whether what they were saying was true. The identity of the person making a statement does not influence whether or not that statement is true. If you cannot agree with this, the conversations ends here.

Dave Garnett made a comparison between the policies of the Israeli state and the Nazis. According the IRHA definition, and according to you, this is antisemitic. I think such comparisons are inaccurate and they cause offence, and as such I think making such a comparison is wrong. But I don't think it's antisemitic, and the reasons are clear and obvious:

 - Antisemitism relates to Jews, people's Jewishness. It is hatred, distrust, prejudice against people because they are Jewish

 - Criticism of Israeli policy relates to the policies of a government. It is not hatred, nor distrust of people because they are Jewish. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism

A comparison of Israeli policy with the Nazis is criticism of Israel, in a way which causes offence. But it doesn't involve any judgement at all of Jewish people in general, relating to their Jewishness. Political positions that don't relate to Jewish people, but relate specifically to the policies of Israel are not antisemitic. It doesn't matter how many people say over and over again that criticism of Israel (including comparisons with the Nazis) is antisemitism, because it's not true, and it's never going to be true.

Antisemitism relates to Jews and their Jewishness. Criticism of Israel relates to the policies of a government. These two concepts are very different, and it is dishonest to conflate them.

I'm not sure I fully understand your comment, mainly because the definition of Zionism is so contested. But I take from it that you might be saying it is simply impossible to disentangle Jewish identity from the state of Israel, and therefore any attack on the state of Israel, is de facto an attack on someone's Jewishness (and is therefore antisemitic). If this is what you're saying then my view is that such Jewish identity has an element of pathological nationalism. That is the problem, and it provides no reason that criticism of Israel - be that by comparison to the Nazis or otherwise - is antisemitic.

Unfortunately that article doesn't seem to bear out the alleged quote. 

The reference to an 'existential threat' is within the sentence 'We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn led government'

One may or may not agree with that sentiment but the way 'Jewish life in this country ' has been conflated with 'Israel' perhaps goes some way to illustrating why people might be nervous about ant-semitism.

By this token, interest in any political issue outside one's home nation is illegitimate (and by your implication, probably motivated by racism) unless one is able to show equal interest in a number of other foreign issues. 

It's an argument with absolutely no merit.

To some extent I agree with you but I don't think it's that black or white. Intent and context comes into it too.

If you said "Israel is a nazi state" with the intent to goad reaction from Jews then I would say that it was anti-Semitic.

If you said "Israel is doing behaviour X, and Nazi Germany did behaviour X, so in that way Israel is behaving like the Nazis" then that probably wouldn't be anti-Semitic even though it would almost certainly offend some people. But in that case my reaction would be "why are you making the comparison?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6016733/Jeremy-Corbyn-praises-relea...

Seems like they are really getting their teeth into him now...

Quite right too, he's a racist and not fit to be an MP. Why is he banging on about Israel all the time, he would be better to use his energy criticising Putin who is murdering people in our country.

It's not blowing over is it.

Personally I don't really care exactly what definition Labour adopt. What I do care is that they take firm and decisive action to make sure that the party is as free as possible from anti-Semitism (and any other forms of racism and unjustified discrimination).

Thank you.  Actually, I think the contrast I was making was between the Jewish experience of the Holocaust (and I can't talk about Israelis at that point) and the attitude of the Israeli state, which find surprising.  For what its worth, this suggests to me that the policies of the Israeli government might rather unjewish in some ways but what do I know about it?  Would that in itself be antisemitic?   

I'm perfectly happy to be corrected about specifics but, frankly, I have a right to compare anything to just about anything else.  It might be a poor comparison and I generally try to do better than that, just as I usually go out of my way not to offend people but, in the context of this discussion, I'll risk it in an attempt to get to the core of the issue. 

Anyway, all this risks suggesting that I'm much more interested in this whole subject than I am.  I don't think I have ever, until now, been accused of racism in my life, but I'm not having people telling me what I can and can't discuss.

Edit:  One one more point about the new Israeli Nationality Act.  Apparently, it's also an issue to even note any similarities between a law that appears to define a group of second-class citizens by their religion/race and any other well-known regime of recent times.  Again, obviously the comparison isn't exact and there are many differences.  The underlying principle, however...  

You're are correct, my mistake, though in my defence, looking at many of the headlines, you had to read some way into the articles to gather the nuance of the piece, and that in the majority of the newspapers I've just googled.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/07/29/jeremy-corbyns-existential-threat/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/25/jewish-newspapers-claim-co...

But on a more pertinent note, I don't think Labour are an existential threat to 'Jewish life in this country ' either.

The problem being, you have to read the articles to decipher to truth behind the headline, so I'd be inclined to say, most people, and certainly those who don't really care, would think Labour are an existential threat to Israel, rightly ot wrongly, that's how it comes across.

Like I said earlier about people I work with Jews are often seen as "others", which is my concern about the hyperbole about this issue within Labour, it's not really helping anti-Semitism, it's making things worse because people are seeing this as "them" attacking "us" even though the "us" in this might hate Corbyn.

You  think Professor Annabelle Srebreny, is lying then or has she just been duped?

In case you can't face book youtube.com/watch?v=jxjpK2ZC3FU&

The person who compared Israel to the Nazis at the event in 2010  Corbyn's apologised for, and had his apology rejected by some Jewish groups, was not Corbyn but the late Hajo Meyer, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist. If you want to call Corbyn an anti-Semite you'll have to call a Holocaust survivor one to.

This is what's wrong with at least one of the IHRA points, and why instead of simply signing, like most people would, Labour have decided to question it.

It would be nice to hear the BoDs opinion on this, but we won't because it won't be raised by any one in the media, out of fear or misplaced loyalties.

The existential threat to Jewish life in the UK would be if shechita (ritual slaughter of animals) and circumcisions were banned in the UK. This would more likely under a JC government than currently.

"But on a more pertinent note, I don't think Labour are an existential threat to 'Jewish life in this country ' either."

Do you think the pretty stagnant population (~300k) Jews in the UK might feel more threatened by the expanding  (~5m) Muslim population of the UK? 

and playing devils advocate , could this then be part of a warped reasoning explaining Corbyns behaviour? 

Why haven't Labour said "we're not including this clause because of..." etc so it can be properly argued rather than what at the moment is i suppose a meta argument.

The idea that Labour represents a threat to the existence of very much at all is ludicrous. I must admit that when I saw that assertion I didn't pay as much attention to the following words as I should have. If they had accused Labour of representing an existential threat to the girl guides it would have been no less absurd.

Even if this we true, Jews wouldn't cease to exist, if you stopped people chopping bits off children, that's just silly, and I expect better from you.

To some extent I agree with you but if you make statements in this area which are likely to be contentious then there is a great responsibility on you to make sure that what you say, unambiguously says what you mean.

Not necessarily an easy thing to do in this area when everyone's ready to jump down somebody else's throat.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, are you blaming Corbyn for a rise in the Muslim population of the UK?!

No, it's not silly. It would gradually cause lots of Jews to leave the UK.

I think that's the crux of the matter. Labour have been very bad at a) explaining their position and b) getting on and dealing with the small number of anti semites in the party.

Vagueness and delay have been mistaken for reluctance to act.

I'm pretty certain they said they were consulting on the wider issues regarding the points they omitted.

Regardless of that though, don't you think they have the right to question it?

I might have missed it because I'm busy, but you haven't told us you view yet have you?

Most politicians would have sign up and said fine whatever the IHRA says we'll go with that, then, when it went wrong, they'd have argued, "well yes but we didn't really mean that bit" or, "well that's not how we interpreted that particular point".

It why a lot of people like JC, because he wouldn't do that, it's also why a lot of people hate him.

Out of interest, do you think the DoB should accept JC's appology for sharing a platform in 2010 with Hajo Meyer?

No, the hypothesis is he is pandering to the muslim vote on the basis that they may find his stance on Israel appealing and not that bothered by claims of anti semitism.

Are you really telling me that you can't be considered Jewish if you haven't had your knob adulterated as a baby? I know there's a recommendation of eight days, but it's still possible, isn't it?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I don't have enough information to make a reasonable judgement on the assertion. I am certainly not accusing you of doing it deliberately.

What does concern is that conflation, like the Muslim /extremist one is widespread. Sometimes by accident, sometimes thoughtless but sometimes deliberate and for those on the wrong end of it it must be hard to tell the difference. That must rack up the tension within those communities. 

Well that's a new on to me, but if this were even a little true, you seem to be suggesting the Muslims are a threat to Jews. While this may be true in the ME, where I think the situation cuts both ways, I'm not sure it's true in the UK. Indeed most of the anti-Semitism we're hearing about in the news is from the white Christian population.

This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously there is racism in all walks of life and from all religious background and affiliations. One of the worse offenders I've been exposed to and Indian and Pakistani, if you listen to some of then, they both hate each other and are quite open about that they think of the other side. Again, this is all of them, simply an example, and one which I have been witness to.

No I realise that, and thanks

I think your right, it's very easy to read the headlines and then infer the rest of it, maybe the media needs to take more responsibility and be more careful.

I must admit, when this story broke about not signing the IHRA and the radio 4 news kept saying "Jewish groups" instead of "some Jewish groups" it did have me shouting at the radio, and I'm a poster boy for a Zen lifestyle

What concerns me more, especially about main stream media, is there's hardly any counter argument presented or even full disclosure of the facts, they're hidden away on web pages that most people never see. The Jewish professor won't be seen on TV, the facts about the meeting in 2010 and Hajo Meyer, will almost certainly never be aired so people aren't being allowed to even make their own decisions.

Of course this isn't something specific to Corbyn, though I think he gets more than most. The problem as I see it, is it's stifling discussion, people are either frighted to talk about things or over cautious with their points in case of offending others.

If you believe in Palestinian rights, then this situation is precisely what the Israeli government want, silence.

She's a near neighbour of mine and, yes, a moron.

She's also a member of the Islington North Constituency Labour Party.  That by coincidence is the one that Corbyn is the MP of.

Is it something to do with the area she lives in then?

She's just stupid, not telling fibs, simply been conned by JC for the entirety of their friendship?

And the fact Corbyn wanted Bernie Saunders for US president also proves he's anti-Semitic too.

Chomsky - anti-Semitic too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=110&v=OsEzZdR69vg

Here's an interesting thought, not mine by the way. "Zionism needs antisemitism to have success, because jews born in any other country are less likely to feel Israel is the place where they have to return so jews have to be pushed by the antisemitism to feel that they are not natives from the other countries.?"

I'm certain anti-Semitism exists anyway, like all racisism (Let not do the arguement about race - we all know what I mean), but if there was no anti-Semitism, would Israel suffer?

If some people find this offensive then I apologise, but it's a thought that might be worth exploring / discussing.

So she's lying as well then?

A good old Jewish professor would rather lie than let the world know Jeremy Corbyn, a life long friend is anti-Semitic?

And all the other Jewish friends of Corbyn are the same?

I took that to mean that she would be better placed to know if JC was anti Semitic than most people.

Maybe I'll edit it, cheers.

Bollocks, I can't!!

@FactorXXX are you suggesting she's lying?

No, I don't believe that she is lying and I agree like many that Corbyn isn't directly anti-Semitic.  So, on a personal basis and knowing him, she's probably perfectly correct in saying that he isn't anti-Semitic.  However, due to the fact that she knows him and is a member of the Labour Party in his constituency, does somewhat diminish your reliance on using her as a character witness.
On a wider note, even though Corbyn isn't directly anti-Semitic, there is no doubt that he has shared/hosted platforms and some of the views of people that are vehemently anti-Israel and therefore it's not difficult to see why some Jewish people view him with some suspicion. 
Once again, Corbyn's actions when a backbencher are to some highlighting why he shouldn't be potential PM and for those directly on the opposite side of his views, why he should even be leader of the Labour Party.  
Also, Corbyn's inability to put his foot down with a firm hand and start bashing heads as opposed to fannying about with the situation is only going to exasperate the situation further and thus make him look less like a leader than he already is. 

Fours parts of the human anatomy in one sentence. Impressive!

That's the best mixed anatomical metaphor I've seen for a while!

Ok sorry, the problems of reading text rather than speaking. <hugs>

I'm not sure people really care enough to be honest, or aren't seeing through the whole circus. dragging something up from 2010, when the main point of contention was spoken by an Auschwitz survivor who also happened to be Jewish seem like shooting yourself in the foot, and it would be if people knew this pertinent fact, but they don't and they're not likely to either, which is a n more important and salient point. With an unbiased media, someone, somewhere would be saying this.

As for sharing platforms, isn't that a little bit tricky, to find out everyone's views and to know what they might say, before you agree to doing so. Once again, it's shutting down discussion, through fear.

It did make me lol, I hope it was intentional . hand, foot and fanny. three of my favourite things.

There's a song there somewhere, I'm sure.

So are we all in agreement then that Corbyn's past is too complex not to adversely effect his ability (already limited) to lead an effective opposition to the most incompetent government in our lifetimes, during the most critical political period in our lifetimes? He should go, right?

His arse is on the line and he doesn't want another cock up then?

Yes, Highbury East, JVL morons. Highbury West, classy intellectuals.

I touched on above how Zionism means far more in Judaism than Aliyah but has been at the core of Jewish theology from its conception; from the travels of the founding patriarchs and matriarchs, which was a very long time before there were any such things as Jews, in fact. 

You seem to be unable to notice that no one has yet been able to produce any evidence that he is a racist. 

There are an awful lot of reasons that he should be banging on about Israel, which is a state that our government supports despite its appalling policies with respect to the occupied territories.

Your effort to compare the severity of Israels crimes favourably with Russian crimes is useless. The impact of Israels crimes are far far more widespread than the novoch murders (which were obviously terrible) and have far greater significance to the future of global geopolitics.

To me, there's been too many, with too many 'dodgy' people, with too many that Corbyn had some sort of active part in and with the same old excuse years later.

The thing is, he wasn't a naïve teenager when he did so, but a politician. As such he should have had the common sense to check out who he would be sharing said platforms with, and what their views were. However going onto a platform to disagree with something is entirely separate.

Politicians have to look ahead, think what the repercussions may be, and not commit to actions that will come back and bite them on the ass.

Corbyn has a long history of such matters, and as such has demonstrated that, however good as a local MP he may be (for which I cannot possibly have any opinion), he just doesn't have the knowledge or political common sense to be a Party Leader, and certainly not a Prime Minister.

Chechnya, maybe the root of modern day Islamic extremism.

Ukraine, Crimea, ...

You are right, who gives a f*ck when you can moan about the Jew?

Let me understand this. JC booked a room, on HMD, where he knew that Israel would be compared to the Nazis. And you, like he, think that this is a mere matter of foreign policy, see Staggers 1 8 18.

One might say, the fact it is diverse and complex, might make him a better prospect for PM.

Sorry, I thought you just meant Highbury in general

There's a section in the book, see above, about Israeli agents shooting dead an enemy of the state, in Sweden or Denmark (one of those weird countries to the north). Except they got the wrong bloke and killed a chef who's wife was pregnant with their baby instead. They were caught in the country of their crime (sorry I can't remember where it was, and imprisoned. They were later transferred to Israel, where they were welcomed home as heroes!! Heroes for assassinating the wrong person, on another nations soil!

By a holocaust survivor, if I understand correctly, which presumably gives them some latitude.  

Look, it was obviously designed to be controversial, and from anyone else it would be a tired and distasteful trope, but do you think it shouldn't have happened at all, shouldn't have happened where it did, or that a labour backbencher shouldn't have attended?

Are you saying he shouldn't have shared a platform with Hajo Meyer?

Would you object to sharing a platform with an Auschwitz survivor?

Are you condemning what Hajo said, or Hajo himself?

Yay, you've found a Jew who agrees with a most extraordinary point of view (within rational society, that is).

He has history doing things like this and not just to the Jews, which you well know.

But you're implying, he should have know what Hajo was going to say and how he said it.

It's interesting that you simply dismiss the two people who've been mentioned on this thread who seem to disagree with you views,

Annabelle's simply a moron, Hajo; well you've simply dismissed him as being extraordinary, no explanation.

What about Chomsky?

Bernie Saunders?

Miko Peled?

You've fallen back into insults and off hand dismissal rather than reasoned arguments, I'm afraid.

The point being, in this case, Corbyn had every right to be on the same platform as Hajo, imagine the furore if he'd declined to share a stage with this upstart Jew!!

Worse still is the DoB not being magnanimous enough to accept his apology. Hajo had every right to say what he said, him possibly more than others, whether anyone has to agree with it is a different matter, but it's difficult to call him anti-Semitc, or to simply dismiss him as you seem to think is appropriate.

If that were true, he would be the greatest PM of all time, but the point is that it is not doing that. You know like when journalists try and stop *being* the story? All of this is a massive, neverending distraction from the business of mounting a challenge to the Tories. They're accelerating the entire country towards a cliff, but we're arguing, yet again, about Corbyn's judgement on a total side issue. If he actually gave a shit, and wasn't just yet another idealogue in a parliament awash with idealogues, he'd step aside for the good of the party and of the country.

Now, Hajo Meyer was in the middle of a tour entitled "Never Again for Anyone - From Auschwitz to Gaza". Could you not guess what the content might be?

How about we stop doing it and concentrate on telling everyone how awful the Tories are, then?

It's almost like we're being played...

Indeed. I think the Tories, who are hardly enjoying an easy time themselves at the moment, are profoundly grateful for the current Labour leadership.

This is going nowhere.  I have no idea what you mean. Believe it more not, I don't spend much time thinking about 'the Jews'.  I believe there's a word for seeing everything that happens in the world from that point of view. 

And what about the people who want JC as PM, don't they count?

Or the media, to be more precise. Where others would have caved JC is still there, that says something for the character of the bloke.

I'm amazed how this is somehow JCs fault!! and that people can't see through it, from tie, to bowing, to any number of other bullshit stories of why he's so shit. If is so shit, why do people want him as leader?

Can't you see we're being played? If not there'd be debating Labour anti-Semitics on the telly instead of simply telling us how bad Labour is, you're only hearing one side of the story, otherwise Annabelle would be getting he 15 minutes and we'd have something to compare against.

Also the DoB would be accepting and apology for something that happened 8 years ago.

Yes, they do. Both of them.

You can get into hot water with posts like that.

Probably, but they're also probably quite grateful for the hordes of centre-leftists who are spending more time trying to undermine the Labour leadership because they aren't doing enough to stop the Tories than they are actually doing anything to stop the Tories.

I think there are more than two people who want JC as PM.

You weren't a follower of Corbynsuperfan who used to satirise the campaign to rid the Labour P of centrists and how Brexit was a side issue? He never touched on AS, far too clever for that. 

Obviously I was being facetious. According to Wikipedia he has three sons and a brother.

Assuming he hasn't pissed any of them off that's probably at least 7 with his mum and dad!

"I think there are more than two people who want JC as PM."

Diane Abbott is three of them for a start!

I think that's right to a point, but I think Corbyn himself is, frankly, useless, underwhelming and mealy mouthed. He and his cabal would, indeed may, stop me voting Labour next time round. 

Exactly this ^^.

You only had to look at the last election, to see how pissed off some of them were that their predicted annihilation of the Labour party didn't happen so see how far removed they are from grass roots voters.

But it's not really about HIM, it's about his policies, there's no one else suggesting doing what he is, that's why people like him. It's about change in the direction we're heading as a country, quite frankly, he's what a lot of people have been waiting for, a change from greed and focus on money, a change from spend, a change from buy more stuff it's good for the economy, and a change from Tory or Tory-Lite as many believe the Labour party had become.

So althoughhe's been the figurehead of this change, it's not about him, it's about where we want to be and where we're heading.

But Labour don't have a clear vision! People are supporting the Corbyn cult in lieu of this. 

Are you sure?

I thought there were pretty clear options for energy, banking and transport, along with the PQE should we need it. At least they seem as clear as the Tory plans, so I can't see how they'd be any worse.

There's a tax policy, and a commitment to the NHS.

There's a plan to build the next part of our navy in the UK, which to Tories don't seem to favour.

Brexit's still a bit up in the air, but I can see why, they aren't pushing what they might at present.

Other than that what do you need?

Some of the policies are so good the Tories have nicked them, even though they originally pooh-poohed them.

So while they might not be perfect or we might not have every detail spread out in front of us, it's as good as any other parties offering, but on a slightly different tack, one which I happen to think is better for our society.

So by neighbour, you mean in the rough geographical area, not next door, or even the same street, where you might have interacted with her and know something about her or at least enough to call her a moron.

I think you might want to be a bit more careful with your language, being a little imprecise can lead to all sorts of misinterpretations  and can get you into trouble, so I hear.

It seems very strange your demanding things from other people and yet you can call people morons so freely, which I think brings us neatly to where we got on.

I mean an overarching vision, not ad hoc,  crowd pleasing policies. The lack of a brexit policy is a clear demonstration of this. 

I don't understand how this is evidence of him being a racist.

Perhaps you can explain? I've explained why I don't accept the IHRA definition of antisemitism, so don't just refer to that as if it's fact, it isn't. Not that he even made the comparison with the Nazis, he only attended the same event as someone who did.  Making a weak and tenuous connection isn't providing evidence, it's just contriving some fabricated reason to believe something that isn't true, but you want it to be true.

It obviously seems very different to you, but to me the idea that this is evidence of JC being a racist is ridiculous. It's evidence of him taking an anti-Israeli political position. You are conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, again.

Which is what I was trying to say earlier in the thead.  I'm no fan of Labour or Corbyn but all I see is a contrived attempt to discredit him and the party with no real evidence of antisemitism other than some tenuous links and associations with others who may or may not be antisemitic.

Perhaps the centre-leftists, and for that matter a good bunch of leftist-leftists, don't see the leadership doing very much to stop the Tories themselves. Maybe a back catalog of controversy, real or perceived, is an easier thing to stomach if it doesn't come with out-and-out ineptitude and a total lack of nous.

We keep going over this again and again, I wouldn't matter what Brexit policy they had or have, they can't implement any of it, they're not in power!! They might well have something planned in case there's a GE but why would they possibly let that cat out of the bag now, or they may have no plan because they have no influence on any of it.

What exactly are you expecting them to say?

It would be nice to see some leadership, vision and communication in the period between elections.

Yes I'm sure that's it, it must be wonderful to be called a racist and an anti-Semite, when you've been fighting against those for most of your life!

Easier to stomach for Labour party members and voters.

I'm expecting a clear vision of where they want the UK to go in big picture terms.  What are the priorities for the next ten years? How should we respond the AI, climate change, external threats. What do they think our future trading situation should be? What relationship with the EU. Etc etc

Free bus passes for 25 years old, more money for the NHS and bringing back BR don't cut it. 

He hasn't though. As far as I can see he has never been much interested in race relations. 

This isn't maths or chemistry Jon, it's what people believe, perceive, feel etc. You just saying "it isn't..." doesn't make it so. There is no equation of anti-Semitism, no algorithm. We don't have a "is this anti-Semitic?" app which can say simply yes or no, this is or isn't anti-Semitism. Life would be simpler if there was.

Of course not, but the critical fascination _some_ have in Israel is motivated by racism. Just like some are obsessed with crimes committed by Muslim because they hate Muslims not because they have any real interest in say, urban unrest in some French banlieu, or prison conditions in certain middle East countries.

You're not engaging with the argument.

The point is that people have motivations, and people can be dishonest, including to themselves. It is emotionally convenient for some people to believe and to feel and perceive that criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism: it preserves their simultaneous senses of identity and righteousness.

I am very happy to engage with the psychological elements of this debate, are you happy to engage with the arguments I have made?

If you suspect that someone's interest in Israel is motivated by racism, then tell us why, in that case, the motivation appears to be racist. Otherwise, an underhand implied accusation of racism should be justly ignored.

It was Norway. Trondheim I think. 

But how many are there who act this way because of what you say is a reason, and how many because they believe in human rights for Palestinians?

I have no gripe what so ever with Jews or Israelis who don't think it's a great idea to build settlements or expel Arabs form lands they've been on for life times, but what the government is doing is tragic, not just for the Palestinians but for the Israelis too.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult for some people to see, unless they are complicit in the crimes committed by the Israeli government, you don't excuse something because it's also happening elsewhere. You try to make sure it doesn't happen anywhere!

If that were the case we could all go around expecting to see dismembered bodies in the street almost every day, because it's happening a lot in Mexico.

This singling out is just about the shitest argument anyone has come up with. It's really very simple, if it's wrong it's wrong and no one should be doing it.

To turn you argument around, isn't that what some people defending Labour are accusing the anti-Semitic lobby of doing i.e. this isn't about anti-Semitism it's about attacking Labour?

The difference being, there's not a massive amount of evidence of Labour being "riddled" with anti-Semitism, there are isolated cases. Yet there's plenty of evidence of what's happening in Palestine, the occupied territories and Israel itself.

I think you're right, I haven't read it yet, I'm too busy at work, and I'm not sure I need the anger it might induce. I've only read a review which detailed a few cases, and I've forgotten most of what I read.

But there's no UN sanctions imposed, no embargoes, and it wasn't an isolated case. so if we're looking for everyone to be treated equally let's see a fuse made of these killings, the same as the Novichok deaths.

Edit Just looked it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair - so Lillehammer. Right country wrong town, well done though

Because some people pour all their emotional energy into criticising Israel while ignoring the shit that happens to people everywhere else, or nearly everywhere else. I'm sure that lots of those people are convinced they aren't being anti Semitic, but look at it from the Israeli or Jewish-side. After thousands of years of Christian anti-Semitism, you see people from the UK or Sweden or Canada or wherever who say they're well into human rights but who don't seem very interested in Philipino or Yemeni or Rohingya or CAR human rights, only in Palestinian rights what you gonna think?

That they've been watching the news?

Pop quiz - no sneaky look ups on Wikipedia! Do you remember the bombing in Buenos Aires in 94?

Ok, so again, from Jewish perspective why might they suspect they keep making the news in the old imperial powers whilst the slaughtering goes on in CAR and it's only when Boris Becker starts travelling on CAR diplomatic passport that it breaks the anglophone news horizon for the first time in years?

We all know what is happening in Israel, that's not the point. My point is why do Jews and Israelis think that the singling out Israel and holding it to a higher standard is anti Semitic (one bit of the definition Labour didn't fully include). 

Yeah, so why all the focus on Israel's wrongs and on no one else's? (I can make dozens of arguments as to why, but that's not important - we're discussing why Jews perceive anti-Semitism.)

We've been through this before. Do you want a repeated run-down of the top 10 reasons why we in the UK care more about Israel-Palestine than other conflicts around the world?

Shall we start with the Jewish and Muslim populations in the UK who believe the contested land is holy to them, and go on to fact that the holocaust is probably the most well known episode in the entire of human history burnt into the consciousness of everyone, and then to the public UK government support of the state which is denying rights to the powerless people of the occupied territories, and then to the US funding of the Israeli military...how many reasons, all piling up on top of each other, do you need?

We've been through it. You know that antisemitism is a terrible explanation for the "disproportionate" interest in Israel-Palestine. You know that there are many obvious reasons why we in the UK care more about this issue than the others you point at and say "look over there instead, and if you don't it means you're an antisemite".

And, are you honestly implying the the UK media only covers Israel-Palestine *because* the UK media is on the whole antisemitic?

The argument has no merit. It's the shittest thing I've ever heard, but I will hear again and again and again probably for the rest of my life. And I will give the refutation again, and it will be ignored again and again and again because it's emotionally convenient for supporters of Israel to believe that criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism, when it isn't. The best explanation for criticism of Israel is that people around the world who don't have a vested interest find the occupation of the Palestinian territories, and the violence and abuse inflicted on the Palestinian people to be unjustified and morally repugnant. That's the reason. Face up to it.

Toby, are you really suggesting that because Israel is held to a higher standard than the CAR, or Syria, or Myanmar, that the most common and plausible reason for people doing so is because they hate Jews?

or that if France, or the US, or the U.K. behaved in the same way as Israel does, that they wouldn’t be held to a similar standard, again because of racism against Jews?

I thought this was a good read and a good take on the whole thing:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corby...

Now I've got a keyboard and not typing on a phone I'll go through your suggested reasons a bit.

Despite Jerusalem being important in the night of power story, it isn't really a place of pilgrimage for Muslims. Anyway what interest is there in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in Israel/Palestine? Little. If we want to say British Muslims are to some degree pushing this, and as is often claimed are a source of some antisemitism, it's as much a result of them being British as it is them being Muslim, because the grandparents coming from Kashmir or Punjab weren't interested in Israel.

The UK's position has been for 40 years that it supports Israel's right to exist within the Green Line but it sees the settlements as illegal and the West Bank as occupied. If you follow the politics around the EU common positions on Israel/Palestine and British policy as part of that and separately, it isn't what you are making out.

If this is a discussion about the UK we're stretching it about looking at US politics, although yeah I agree our news agenda is disproportionately set by the US news agenda so on average we know much more about what 'the US' thinks about stuff than what Germany thinks and does.

I think you've decided what the answer is to this and haven't considered how other perceive the situation.

I'm saying look at why it matters to Jewish people (British Jews in particular) why it was important that Labour under Corbyn hadn't included those clauses of the definition of anti semitism, and how that is then perceived. I'm also more interested in why individuals in the UK become so emotionally invested in the Israel-Palestine conflict when they have no obvious link to the issue; more than I'm interested in rehashing A level sociology media content analysis. That's why when somebody on the NEC or some Labour councilor in Bognor (wasn't it?) says something unbelievably stupid about Jews or Israel or whatever, people see anti-semitism.

Anti-semitism is this bizarre social virus that seems unkillable and pops up in the strangest of places. I've heard kids who know nothing about Judaism, couldn't point to Israel on a map, and wouldn't even know that Israel is the Jewish state, come out with anti semitic stereotypes. After 2000 years of Christian culture in Europe, they are there - hidden, deep down, but refusing to die. I think that it is most of our complete distance from the issue (being British), that makes it so easy for most of us to ignore or write it off as a "stupid comment" made by someone ignorant, but that's not how many Jews experience it.

In answer to your question, which I think was my views on the four clauses.

As I stated way above, not actually that fussed as to actual definition. More concerned that Labour sort itself out.

With respect to criticism of Israel, of course it should be allowed. But because there are sensitivities in this area, and conflation with anti-Semitism, such criticism has to be carefully worded to make sure it isn't anti-Semitic.

If I haven't answered your question then please ask it again.

To all. I don't like a lot of what JC did in the past and which platforms he stood on. But you have to remember that at the time he had no political career aspirations. He was an activist MP. As such he would have been prepared to go to more contentious meetings than an MP that aspired to higher office.

That fact is now coming back to bite him.

No- I'm saying that some people with no obvious connection to Israel Palestine become very invested in criticising Israel and don't seem to see why this looks anti semitic to Jews when they don't seem to take an interest in horrific situations anywhere else. 

I do find it deeply weird how antisemitism refuses to die and pops up in things people say who would never normally be sexist or racist or homophobic. Although I accept that some people flirt with those ideas to wind up pro-Israeli types because Israel as a state has so much power. Its not nice though, if there was a powerful strong country made up mainly of gay people (yeah I know) doing bad things, I hope we wouldn't flirt with homophobic language to annoy them forgetting about how that made the average gay person in this country feel.

I guess in an ideal world we'd be outraged in proportion to the size of the injustice but, in practice, it tends to be more related to its proximity.

Off the top of my head I've known people who became 'very invested' in Eritrea, Hong Kong, Somalia and, of course, South Africa, usually because of some personal connection.  We just can't devote our interests and energies to everything, and Israel/Palestine has been very high profile for decades, it's relatively close and, of course, there's all the politics around the US relationship.  I think it's also fair to say that Israel is, to put it mildly, not shy of publicity, has an effective and vociferous lobbying mechanism and a pretty robust attitude to any form of criticism.

It's also a kind of compliment that many people consider Israel a civilised, first-world, democratic state that, in some respects, should know better.  Obviously, it's not the only one.   

I remember the bombing, but not the details, I've since looked it up. Are you suggesting that because Iran did this we should forgive Israel?

From the book "They [Israel] have assassinated more people than any western country since World War II, carrying out "at least" 2,700 assassination operations in the seventy-year period since Israel's formation".

It's still happening now, Iranian nuclear scientists are being killed even the one's who've retired.

So going back to the IHRA, since we got most of the world to back us against Russia and the Novichok, would it not be possible to treat Israel the same as we have Russia and impose sanctions, or as you seem to be suggesting we don't because we didn't target Iran for Buenos Aires, which is exactly the reason why this particular clause, for want of a better word, is flawed.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but we should all be allowed to speak out about injustices, murder and oppression, wherever it's happening and by whoever is inflicting them, without making sure we've complained about everyone else in the world who's doing such things.

Imagine if you will, we manage to stop Israel's excesses and there's finally peace, do you expect everyone who's taken up the Palestinian cause to simply forget about every one else who needs help around the world. After the fall of apartheid SA people din't just pack up and go home, they campaigned for equal rights in other places, if they weren't already do so. This particular clause is a divide and conquer tactic, unfortunately it seem to be working, at least on some people.

Maybe for some it's one battle at a time, maybe it's the battle which should be solvable, with the right leader(s) in place, and yes maybe for a small minority it's about attacking the Jews. But what will those people do if there was peace in the region? How would they be able to hide then?

Above all it's not a higher standard, it's just a standard, the problem is it's easy to say "well look at that over there", in which case it becomes a race to the bottom and nobody wins.

But you're also discounting the Jews who agree with Corbyn or who might not agree with Corbyn but also question the IHRA, are these Jews anti-Semitic?

You paint it very black and white, and we know it isn't, but you seem to think most people against Israel are anti-Semitic rather than humanistic,  British Jewish people think Corbyn should have signed up fully.

The IHRA were guidelines, not laws and not a tick-list to prove you're not anti-Semitic, it's very Israeli government biased and some of the points and too vague to escape someone crying anti-Semitism, even if you had signed up, unless you keep your mouth shut altogether.

I agree, but since it's so difficult to get the language right, and it's so difficult not to offend someone, (Re: the thread about anti-Semitism some time ago, with yourself, Jondo, , Mike, et al), shouldn't we allow people to make mistakes? I realise as we all know some people use Israel to beat up on "the Jews" but I'm not convinced that it is large proportion of the complainants. This might be part of the problem; British Jews see it as an attack on them, when in reality it's an attack on the Israeli Government. It suits the Israeli government for the British Jews to think this way, otherwise the British Jews might actually support freedom for Palestine, and that could cause massive pressure on them Israel to sort something out.

I think you dodged the specifics of whether you thought the definitions needed revisiting, or if you thought they were just fine as they are, I understand it's hard for you

Agreed, but there are a couple of caveats I'd add, has JC ever been know to be anti-Semitic himself?

Should we allowed to make "mistakes", if indeed his past can be classed as mistakes, and be forgiven?

It seems we ask too much of our politicians sometimes, and like the IHRA clause "hold them to higher standards" than there are elsewhere. They are normal people, who just happen to be doing a particular job, that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of bad apples in there, and it doesn't mean we have to forgive everything because worse is happening elsewhere. It should though allow people to make mistakes and to apologies for previous wrongs. (apart from Gove and Boris - obviously. Oh! and Blair)

South Africa is a good example, any people who were against apartheid protested and sanctioned SA. It took a long time for some governments, ours being one of them - to our shame in my opinion) to apply any pressure. People all around the world get involved, not because they had vested interests, but because they saw the regime as being unjust.

Israeli is simply the new SA for a lot of people, it's not about hating Jews or wanting to see Israel disappear they simple want justice for a people who don't have it.

Wrapping it up in anti-Semitism is a convenient smoke screen to carry on regardless. It probably fear which keeps the situation as it is, if has Toby suggest British Jews don't see it this way but see it as an attack on them.

The question is how do we, the protesters, convince British Jew, or indeed all Jews, that it isn't an attack on them but a desire for peace and humanity. So people will never believe that.

I think the problem of perception here is totally JCs fault. He refers to released Hamas soldiers as "brothers" and The Hamas charter (or covenant) is pretty much a text book on anti semitism. So what is a normal bystander meant to make of this?

Everyone can type thousands of words defending this or that in regards to Corbyn, but I suspect the above is pretty much an open and shut case for the majority of people who cannot be bothered to delve deep into this issue. There is so much smoke, you can be almost certain there is a fire causing it.

Are you suggesting that the cause of the strife is simply Israel's "excesses" and that if Israel just behaved a bit better then there would be peace in the region?

He referred to people attending a meeting as "friends", probably not the best word to use, but it was a polite way of say hello. Of course we could argue if that the correct way to address shady characters, but TM and the Queen seem to have no problems meeting Saudi Princes, Robert Mugabe, etc. so it might be nice to cut out the hyperbole and let's see it for what it was.

It was also sometime ago and I believe he's said sorry. I may be wrong.

We've done all this before too. If you want to believe he's an anti-Semite then that's up to you. There's enough stuff above for people to ponder without this getting into a "he did this once" or "are you denying he said such and such". Bring me some hard evidence that he's an anti-Semite and I'll look at it.

Again I've said this before, you can agree with someone's cause while not agreeing with how they try to achieve their aims. SA is a great example, most people wanted an end to apartheid, a lot of people didn't want to see people killed to achieve that.

Your implication is either you can't meet with people who don't hold the same views as yours, or if you meet with people you're automatically assumed to hold the same views as them, which is plainly ridiculous. The whole idea of meeting people on both sides is to try and find a compromise and a way to peace.

Come on now!!

I am saying that Corbyn should have had a bit more common sense, and if he couldn't, then he cannot be trusted not to act in the same manner in future.

I notice that you haven't mentioned the IRA, Hammas, or any of the other groups that Corbyn has shared a platform with.

Meeting other heads of state who may be 'a bit shady' in your capacity as head of state (or head of government) is a bit different from attending an event called "Auschwitz to Gaza" on Holocaust Memorial Day and expecting that to be just fine.

Ah, the old sorry ploy.
How many times has he said that for his past exploits?

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5321935,00.html

Back in 2012 he was filmed on a show called "Remember Palestine" for Iranian TV where he referred to the hamas prisoners as "brothers"

paired with this..

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

(see sections lower down Militant Jihad / Violence against Jews / Anti Semitic canards)

It is easy to come to a conclusion that JC is probably antisemitic. And if not, then he certainly sympathises with antisemites. (They are his brothers after all!). I don't think the press have had to do much to give this impression other than show everyone some videos of Corbyn being Corbyn. His behaviour throughout this controversy hasn't really helped his cause either.

I fully understand your position on Israel and Palestine, but I think the issue in regards to JC and antisemitism is far more murky. And as such, I am saying the evidence as it's presented to us through the press is pretty damning for most people (not you, for reasons you have already stated which is fair enough). I think JC should realise this and try to put it to bed, but these skeletons keep falling out of the cupboard which must make it awkward for him.

I think if you read a number of posts above, I addressed Hamas, when someone else brought it up.

I'll try again, you don't need to agree with people methods to agree with their causes, meeting with them might bring about their aims without causing bloodshed. That's a big might, but if you don't know what they want, your powerless to do ANYTHING.

Sharing a platform doesn't mean you agree with everything that's said. A platform is where people can air their views in front of other people, so they can make their own minds up, assuming they have one, a mind that is.

You stifling discussion if you all need to be in agreement, and if you are what's the point?

Half the people here complaining about who and where JCs shared platforms with, would be up in arms if we were saying people shouldn't have freedom of speech.

I assume that JC voiced his concerns with those people on those platforms then?
 

Which is part of the problem, as I said earlier Annabelle's video will never be aired, he words will not be heard, and she's Jewish and knows Corbyn, so she might have a little insight, more than say someone who lives in the neighbouring constituency

I think I'm done now, it's getting into a he'd said this so it must be true.

I might well be wrong, but a bloke who's championed human rights all his life, doesn't seem the type of bloke who would hate Jews, that's about as succinct as I can put it. As Michael said he's probably suffering for his past, but I very much doubt given his time again, he'd change much of it.

Do you think Hajo doesn't have the right to say what he said?

Who are you to say that a bloke who's experienced both things he's talking about should keep his gob shut, or mind his language?

Was he being anti-Semitic?

Are you saying we should deny a survivor of Auschwitz a voice?

Or are you suggesting that Corbyn shouldn't have been there to hear what was said?

I'd suggest he has more right to say what he did, than you have to condemn him for saying it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corby...

I suggest you spend 5 minute on the above link, it answers most of your issues.

No.

I don't think I said that. I could be wrong, so if you could just quote me the section from my post where I said this, or implied it, I'd be grateful.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Suggest away.

"Auschwitz to Gaza" on Holocaust Memorial Day. Organised by Corbyn. It was going to be controversial, either by design or accident, and this is the result. Now Corbyn clearly wasn't thinking about becoming Labour leader at that point, but now all those causes he's championed in the past as a radical backbench MP are of course being looked at again through the prism of him being Leader of the Opposition. It's all a massive distraction and negative against the limited benefits of a Corbyn leadership. Get rid and get someone who provide such a pointless distraction to the actually important issues of the day.

Isn't the fact that he hosted it a bit more than merely listening to it?
Couldn't he have been in the audience if all he wanted to do was listen to it?

So he has the right to say what he said, good we can agree there, nice one.

Maybe you might make that a bit clrearer then, so I've re-read it but can't see anything different.

Which bit? because I don't see where he said anything against Jews.

Great, but you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't be listening to him, or at the very minimum JC shouldn't. Why should we be able to but not corbyn?

Why should we single him out, if you or I are free to go, why not him? Who else would you be preventing from listening to this Holocaust survivor?

Are you suggesting otherwise? Not really the most informative response.

What difference does it really make, are you suggesting he shouldn't have hosted it?

If so why?

Wouldn't that have appeared a little anti-Semitic not to have hosted it?

Corbyn has apologised for it, so he must realise that it was a mistake and shouldn't have hosted it, etc.
Unless of course he is just saying 'Sorry' in an attempt to appease the masses.  Obviously, he wouldn't do that because he's a different sort of politician and saying such empty words would go against his assertion that he's an honest man with integrity.

Sorry, is that a yes or a no?  

You've compared Israel to South Africa. In the apartheid era, the issue was very much the policy of the South African government.

Are you suggesting that, in a similar way, the strife is primarily the result of the Israeli government's policies, and that with a more amenable government there would be peace?

Or do you regard it as much more of a two-sided dispute with right and wrong on both sides? 

Which book? I would have thought that has to mean targeted military operations in the Occupied Territories as well as your more classical Mossad-led assassinations in other countries. In which case I suspect that the UK in Kenya, Malaya, Aden and all the other dirty end of empire conflicts were equal to that number and numbers killed by Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam alone, massively in excess of it. But I guess it all depends on the point the book is trying to make.

But ask a British Muslim where they stand on Israel-Palestine, and they will have a very strong view, which is the point I made.

If you listen to the news, then you will hear the government press releases confirming support for Israel, which is the point I made.

If you listen to the news you will know that when the POTUS opens his trap re. Israel-Palestine, it makes the headlines

While each of your objections to the reasons are weak, you also have to consider that the reasons don't exist in isolation from each other, they "pile up on top of each other" as I said. The point I am making is that there are scores of reasons that the UK public cares about Israel-Palestine that have nothing to do with antisemitism. The accusations of racism on the basis simply that people are interested in Israel-Palestine are total bullshit, and I think you would do well to stop indulging in that dismal argument, because it convinces nobody; and publicly making snide, underhand, baseless accusations of racism is simply not a good thing to do.

I set out the reasons why I wouldn't sign up to the examples - they appear to me to be an obvious dishonest attempt to silence criticism of Israel by labelling it antisemitism. The Labour Party is a big institution, and supporters of Israel want to make it impossible for Labour to be able to support the Palestinian solidarity movement. 

If you look at what Labour *does* define as antisemitism and condemns outright, and then consider that British Jews are up in arms about how antisemitic this is, it's simply farcical.

Moving on as you have done to the general issue of the prevalence of antisemitism in society, I won't deny for a second that it exists and that it's hurtful to Jews. But consider this: I'm a part of a minority that suffers abuse and stereotypes and has done since time immemorial, and it's not likely to end in my lifetime or indeed ever. But, I've got my equal rights under the law and it's taboo in much (but by no means all all) of society to express homophobia. There is a time to leave behind the victim identity and get on with your life. While I don't accept homophobia when confronted with it, and while I wish it would disappear, I also continually give people the benefit of the doubt and excuse language that grates on me because it's said with no ill-intent. What I don't do is continually try to look for evidence of homophobia so that I can alienate everyone by calling them bigots, and I would be ashamed to suggest that "you once shared a platform with someone who said something that I interpret as homophobic" was evidence that a political opponent was homophobic. The politicians I accuse of homophobia are the ones who actually passed legislation that specifically damages the rights of gay people. Do British Jews think that the Labour Party is going to pass legislation which will undermine their human rights?

When I heard the phrase "existential threat" in relation to the antisemitism of the Labour Party, I wet my pants laughing. It's either deranged paranoia, or it's politically motivated dishonesty - and I know which I think it is.

Once again Jon, you're really mechanistic; really black and white in your views. If you want to 'win' every argument by carpet bombing your opinion into the thread and continually asserting people who see things a bit differently to you are being ridiculous or whatever, please go ahead. I just reckon it's a bit sad because you clearly spend much more time than most thinking about all sorts of social issues like this but it looks like you're not getting the chance to see how others see the world, even if you disagree, because you're so sure you are mathematically correct and others are wrong.

Of course there are rabidly pro-Israel, and let's say pro-'Greater Israel', people who will accuse anyone of being anti-semitic for daring to suggest that using a JDAM on a Gazan hospital to kill one mid-level Hamas bureaucrat is just a 'tad excessive'. We all know that. Just like there is among some anti Israel protestors and activists, rabid, horrible anti-semitism of the old school protocols type. There has been a lot of interesting work done on how anti-Semitism in the Arab world has almost no historical origins in those cultures and is a the grafting on of European, christian anti-Semitism on to the post-48 Middle East situation - that's what you see when Hezbollah supporters march for Palestine and the like in London or Paris. Writers who claim to trace a long history of Arab and Muslim Judeophobia are generally Islamophobes attempting some creative historiography to bolster their modern prejudice.

Of course some people who are anti-Corbyn or anti-Labour are using this as a stick to beat him/the party with, but it would be a much smaller stick if Corbyn could just understand why his actions and the things he has said are so worrying to lots of British Jews (and I guess Jews elsewhere but I think their opinions aren't very important in this case as they don't get a vote). There is anti-Semitism in our society because we are product of 1000 of years of Christian Judeophobic history. That anti-semitism is visible at times in the 'Palestinian Solidarity movement' is also true (which is of course horribly unfair on all the Palestinians and non-Palestinian believers in human rights who didn't ask for any cheer-leading for their cause from neo-Nazis). You might not see it, but British Jews quite clearly do. It's not a question of whether they think that a future labour govt. is going to round them up and put them in camps or whatever, it is though a question of whether they feel they are welcome in the Labour party, and whether a Corbyn govt. would continue supporting the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

Your last paragraph - am I allowed to call it "gaysplaining"? - I suspect that a Labour govt. wouldn't actually change much with regard to policy on Mid East because the UK government has for decades supported a two state solution and these things don't change easily. Despite all this fuss, Corbyn has shown that he's not really very interested in foreign policy. But Trump has shown that one 'disruptive' leader can change the direction of state policy even against considerable systemic resistance, so who knows.

You have conflated Jews and and Israel.

Maybe to some people i.e. the Jews, they are pretty much the same?
Even if Israel is the main aggressor in the region, it doesn't mean that there isn't aggression being applied against Israel and when Labour and/or Corbyn is perceived as only supporting one side, then isn't there a chance that Jews in the UK will see that Political Party as being biased?
You then have to factor in that the Corbyn has hosted, greeted and seemingly celebrated meeting the most ardent opponents of Israel and you can little wonder why those same Jews are a little suspicious of him.
It doesn't mean that there is Antisemitism running rife within Labour, just that to the Jewish population in the UK it all seems a bit one sided, unfair, etc. and that then causes resentment.
Can those feeling be reversed?  Party wise, probably quite easy by acknowledging that the aggression isn't one sided and that Israel isn't the only bad boy in the area.  As for Corbyn, that's going to be a lot more difficult due to his previous meetings with people that want to basically wipe Israel off the map and I've got a feeling that a simple apology won't suffice this time.

All of this has already been discussed in great detail.

Instead of summarising the jist of the thread here's an article that sums things up quite well.

https://medium.com/@shaunjlawson/enough-of-these-disgraceful-slurs-against-...

Just guessing from reading other articles, but is Shaun Lawson a bit of a JC supporter?

I think that is about right. Corbyn has spent so long fraternitising with every "out" group going, he simply doesn't have the credibility or authority to tackle the antisemitism issue. He probably isn't actively racist or antisemitic but he is so blind to those who are, and so ready to share platforms with them, it makes no difference politically. 

Maybe or just maybe a supporter of truth and honesty, a strange concept I know, but it's actually how some people operate.

Does that mean that all the people criticising or questioning JC's judgement are liars?

It's a FFS of course not you're tiwisting my words and you're aware of it. There are problems on both sides, but lets look at the excesses of Israel's response. Sniping protesters trapped inside a barber-wire fence for one.

I compare the right to protest and to single a country or an issue to SA, it was an effort to demonstrate people often pick a particular issue to demonstrate against, you don't have to make sure you treat all injustices equally or league table them before your allowed to speak out. It pretty obvious what I was saying.

Yes I probably am, Israel has the power here, I'm not suggesting others aren't involved, but fro their position Israel could do more to promote peace, simply stopping settlement expansion would probably help quite a lot. Not killing protesters might also help too. Blockading Gaza for 11 years isn't a precursor of peace either. Differing laws for Palestinians and Jews, differentials in sentencing all contribute. Blatant lies of the government are all the sort of thing which is breeding more hatred and fanning the flames of conflict. Israel has the power to change many of the things causing this conflict to continue, but they are choosing not to.

I've said as much above and many times before.

2nd post on the thread https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Kill-First-Targeted-Assassinations/dp/1400069....

I haven't read it yet, so I can't say fro certain, but I'd think one murder of an innocent is 1 too many, and certainly not perpetrated by heroes.

Why the extremes?, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Why can't you think for yourself and read the article yourself, make your own mind up. You might well think Lawson is lying because he's a supporter of Corbyn, that's up to you but common sense might tell you that at least some of the accusations are false.

It's like Mike calling Annabelle a moron, and then intimating that he knew her, he doesn't; so why twist it to sound like he does?

Let's not forget in all of this,the Israeli government were caught out admitting they were trying to interfere with the Labour party.

Many are suggesting that. Have you seen the vomit inducing twitter #wearecorbyn meme? For many he is a cult leader, beyond criticism.

Have you read this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/04/fiona-miller-labour-m...

It's because you always seem to use sources that are pro-Corbyn and that therefore does somewhat diminish the independence and credibility of those sources.
As for the extremes, you're the one that said: 'a supporter of truth and honesty'. I just applied the obvious logic to describe people that you deem to be incorrect in their criticism of Corbyn.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if Lawson is correct or incorrect.  What matters, is that a lot of the mainstream media are currently criticising Labour and Corbyn and only Labour and Corbyn can do anything about that.
You also have to look at this thread and others to realise that a lot of posters seem to be equally concerned about Corbyn's involvement with hosting/sharing platforms, etc. and from what I can tell, they aren't Tory voters trying to stir up trouble...

Sorry to hear that you wet your pants.

It's neither...

As I tried to explain somewhere up thread, if certain legislation was passed, following a religious Jewish way of life in the UK would become significantly more difficult.

This would lead to many religious Jews emigrating. As such it might very well be an existential threat to leading a Jewish life in the UK.

A Labour government under JC would be more likely to pass such legislation (e.g. ban non-medical circumcisions).

Would that legislation discriminate against Jews - yes.

Would that be anti-Semitic - not necessarily, would depend upon intent.

Would some see it as anti-Semitic regardless - yes.

Of course the sound-bite version of this "Labour anti-Semitism is an existential threat to jews" is rubbish, but the full version I've described is not.

No it would not.  Legislation that bans non-medical circumcisions of all children, regardless of their parents' religion, is not discriminatory.  Indeed, same-for-everyone rules that are there for a good secular purpose are the opposite of discriminatory.

Well it would discriminate against those who like chopping of bits of penises, which includes Jews. Much like the murder laws.discriminate against those who like killing. Whether this is good or bad is clearly a matter of opinion. 

But there's a big difference.  In the case of SA, the blacks had done pretty much nothing to bring about apartheid.  The issue was thus very much one-sided.

Yes, Israel could do a lot more to promote peace. And so could the Palestinians and  surrounding Arab nations. We have to take into account the history of how we got to this position, and that includes that it has been attacked by surrounding nations. 

I've not fully kept track of exactly who started the various Arab--Israeli wars, but there is aggression on both sides along with pre-emptive  "defensive aggression".

Finding fault solely or primarily on the Israeli side does seem to me peculiar. 

That's not what discrimination means!  And since it's an important concept, we need to be clear on it.  

Laws against murder do *not* discriminate against those who like killing, they apply just as much to everyone!  If you murder someone while hating doing it, the law still applies to you!

Just to be clear (again, because it's an important concept), "discrimination" does not mean merely doing something that someone else dislikes.   It means (OED): "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex".

So:

Outlawing Jews circumcising kids but allowing Muslims to do it would be discriminatory.

Outlawing circumcision owing to: "I can't think of any good reason to prevent this, except that I hate Jews so I will do it to spite them", is discriminatory.

But a principled: children are too young to consent to permanent bodily alterations, so it should not be allowed except where medically necessary, and this applies to everyone regardless of race, religion, etc -- is not discriminatory.

No, its broader than that 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-th...

I think it would be discrimination, but although I don't agree with you, the discrimination would be justifiable.

Let's just rewind and remind ourselves of what's going on here.

You implied that being interested in Israel-Palestine but not in other conflicts was evidence of antisemitism. I will state again with total conviction and clarity (I know that's not your cup of tea) that to make this accusation of racism is totally out of order, and it is demonstrably bollocks.

I'm sorry if this is too "black and white" for you, but if you want to publicly accuse people of being racist when you're totally unjustified, you really need to brace yourself for a "carpet bombing". I make absolutely no apology for not taking a more nuanced position on this: don't call people racists for taking a completely justified political position.

I don't disagree with any of this. My "black and white" position relates to using the bullshit argument "look over there, and if you don't it means you're an antisemite" as a dishonest and insulting attempt to deflect criticism of Israel. The wider questions have many more shades of grey.

It is understandable that British Jews would feel uneasy when the leader takes JC's anti-Israel stance. That doesn't mean he should change it so that they feel welcome. It's a very difficult problem for Labour.

Hang on. I don't know JC's position in detail, but I don't think he's ever said or implied that he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map. And no, "sharing a platform with" is not evidence of JC's position.

I think it would change on the surface, with outright condemnation of Israel's total disregard for the lives of Palestinians, but other than that, nothing much would change.

It isn't evidence of his position but it doesn't say much for his judgement either.

Sounds to me like someone making a weak and tenuous justification for an accusation of antisemitism. Whodathunk?

This is what my Corbyn-supporting friends don't seem to want to get. Yes, the media and pro-Israel interests are whipping this shit up. No, he's not antisemitic. Yes, he should have seen this coming and showed more competence in dealing with it.

Former adviser to Cherie Blair, FFS. 500,000 new members because of JC, I know you don't think that's anything to write home about.

Come on Michael, that's abit of a stretch isn't it " a Labour government under JC might be more likely...." and even that's a mighty big might.

But given that that might come true, I'm sure over 18 could do what they what to their Johnsons. This surely wouldn't stop people becoming, or staying Jews, because I could become Jewish if I relinquished my protective shield.

Besides that, since the "ceremony" has evolved over time, I believe metzitzah—metzitzah b'peh, now allows suction via a straw rather than the Rabbi's mouth, or not bother doing it at all any more, so it's not like things don't change.

Since Muslims also circumcise their kids, it could hardly be seen as anti-Semitic, at least specifically.

I usually respect your measured and balanced replies, and see you as someone I can have a sensible discussion with, although we might not always see eye to eye, I can see you point of view too, mostly. But this is the most tenuous argument I've seen you use, to try and make a point. "mights and May be's"

I know it been said before and it's been covered in numerous threads, not many people her would allow FGM, on any grounds.

There's an occupier and an occupied, in this equation, are you suggesting both side bear equal responsibility?

164 death in Gaza and over 17K hospitalised injuries, since March this year, there isn't much balance there is there ( and no I don't want to see more Israeli's injured to even up the score - I want less injuries all around). There's no route to peace when you're killing and maiming people, you perpetuating and already bad situation.

Shooting nurses and people flying kites doesn't tend to give the right signals.

Both sides bear responsibility, yes.  (I won't attempt to add it all up and pronounce on whether it is "equal" or not.)

The fact is, the reasons for the occupation owe a lot to the past and on-going aggression and hostility towards Israel from surrounding peoples. 

The very odd thing that the media fail too report is that the object of anti semitism in many of these stories is themselves Jewish. Pure Alice in Wonderland reportage. Some off site meeting at the labour conference that the newspapers were wailing about being anti-Semitic - the speaker was a Jewish Israeli ex SF talking about his experience in Gaza, obviously his pro Palestinian stance didn't sit well with some jews. WTAF?

Sure there's a rise in anti-Semitism in U.K. & E.U. Why don't the newspapers have the bollocks to state that it's from the Islamic community? They hardly gave a f*ck about it before labour had a  ''problem.'

D

It's not about the equalness(??) of the causes of the trouble, it's about the equality in the influence both sides have to make peace and to stop further conflict. Israel is holding all the cards, well than and the US, and they not only choosing not to engage, but a fanning the flames.

They are trying to push the UN for non-refugee status of Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza. All part of grabbing ore land and disenfranchising people. "In internal emails, Jared Kushner advocated a “sincere effort to disrupt” the U.N.’s relief agency for Palestinians."

There's no reason in the world why snipers should be shooting nurses and people flying kites when they're inside a barbed wire fence. Where have we seen this before? And yet making the comparison, I'd be classed as anti-Semitic.

Agreed, though you rarely suggest things that the Arab side could do to promote peace.

In military terms yes.  But that's not the only issue.   How about the fact that the schooling, media and religious life of the Palestinians is thoroughly infused with hatred of Israel, isn't that a barrier to peace?

I didn't imply that. I said "the critical fascination _some_ have in Israel is motivated by racism" which I think you just said you agree with. Surely you're not saying there isn't some anti-Semitism on the left?

Did you read the denial then non apology of the Labour councilor in Bognor? Why was it his criticism of Israel so quickly became couched in terms of the blood libel and all the old protocols bullsh!t? It wasn't like his original point was unfair. Just like implicit bias against black people etc. it seems racist views of Jews are still deep even within British society which is just plain weird considering how Jews haven't been a big part of UK history.

What - you are suggesting the Nazis shot people flying kites and nurses? That's the point you want to make?

Do you think there are any anti semites on this thread?

You're right to say that Jewish people haven't been a big part of UK history, but it's maybe not quite as weird as you suggest. England was Christian and there's a long-standing anti-semitism in Christianity, - the blood libel was thought to have originated here in the early mediaeval period. And on the left capitalism was seen as a global phenomenon transcending national boundaries, intricately involved with Jewish financiers and entrepreneurs. Marx centralised Judaism as a key element in capitalism. Keir Hardy railed about the Rothschilds. 

Absolutely true. I was in York recently and re read some stuff on the York pogrom while walking past the tower - so of course all countries have anti semitic episodes in their histories. I was talking about Disraeli the other night too with a Finnish mate who has an embarrassingly better knowledge of UK prime ministers than I do! So of course there is a modern history of British anti semitism as well.

But Britain was overall on the right side of this from WWII and since then anti semitism has become ever more naff, ever more 'fringey'. E.g. Nick Griffin didn't like Jews but the vast vast majority of Brits thought he was an utter dick, partly as a result.

So I guess the weird thing is parts of the medieval anti semitism of Jews as money lenders, Jews as having split loyalties still floats around. The whole Christ killer thing has disappeared though, with general secularisation and the embrace of Israel by evangelicals, yet still the poor old Jews get told they run the world and are responsible for everything - i.e. the "Jewish Trump fanatics" whatshisname on the NEC was on about.

Yes, the persistence of this as the oldest hatred is extraordinary isn’t it? I believe it originates in Roman times - I guess that was the Christ killer thing then. I’m not sure what the role of usury was - it’s a key element but when did that develop? Must do some research...

Tiki torch wielding "Jews will not replace us!" chanting anti-Semites? I'm sure not. But I'm surprised at people who want to straight away compare Israeli actions to the Nazis (not the numerous other human rights abusing regimes around the contemporary world) - that's weird. I do think that some on this thread are unwilling to accept that Jews might perceive certain things as anti Semitic, in away that I bet they wouldnt do to another marginalized group.

The post I responded to because it implied an accusation of antisemitism was:

If you're not implying antisemitism on the part of the person who's shown this interest in Israel-Palestine, then please tell us what you mean instead.

Where did I imply that? I agree that in the far left, there's plenty of it - all that global capitalist conspiracy bullshit springs immediately to mind.

I haven't read the non-apology, but there's no way I would support this wanker.

I think a bit of gaysplaining might be helpful here. I have to accept that the face the "gay community" shows to UK society is stuff like gay pride, leather straps/nudity, outrageous campness, blah blah. That's not stuff that I personally embrace - it's not stuff that forms part of my identity. But, fact is, that's the image of gay people that's projected into the rest of society, by their (our) own making. I understand why people think "OK, I know it's wrong to be homophobic, but the last thing I would ever want to happen is to be left alone in a room full of gays". This image, one based in reality not just stereotypes, alienates people and is part of the reason homophobia is alive and well in society. 

In the UK, Jews are Tories (about 70% I think) who support Israel, a country which uses its US-funded military might to oppresses the Palestinian people, with the approval of the conservative UK government. That's the political face that Jewish people present to society. Perhaps it's not so surprising that there is antisemitism on the left rather than on the right?

What I struggle to comprehend is how there appears to me to be as much of an issue with Islamophobia from the Tories, but that story has had no traction at all, despite, at least on the face of it to me, Muslims being less powerful in British society. 

That's because "Islamophobia" is not a valid concept -- it was made up to try to disallow any criticism of the Islamic religion.  However, criticism of a religion, just as with criticism of any idea system such as capitalism, socialism or whatever, is entirely legitimate.

If you want, instead, to talk about anti-Muslim prejudice (that is, aimed at people, not ideas) then a better term is "anti-Muslim prejudice".

Indeed it goes back to the gospel attributed to "Matthew", which was written perhaps 100 to 150 AD, so very early.

"All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"

Presumably that was the early Christians wanting to distinguish themselves from (other) Jewish sects.

That's also pretty early.  As early as the the Council of Nicea (AD 325), Christians were forbidden to lend money for interest (Islam still forbids it today).  The Jews came to be the money lenders partly because Christians were forbidden to be money lenders, and partly because other occupations were closed to Jews. 

There's a very serious motive behind the hysteria around anti-semitism in Labour: supporters of Israel have the opportunity to prevent Labour supporting the Palestinian solidarity campaign. It is proving possible to bring down politicians on the basis that they support Palestinian rights, so that no high profile politician will touch the issue. You either support Israel, keep your trap shut, or you're an antisemitic terrorist sympathiser.

There's nothing like this motivation to attack the Tories for anti-Muslim prejudice.

Edit: Coel, I worded this in anticipation of "there's no such thing as Islamophobia". And just in time!

The semantics are a little post on me - the point remains that the Tories can have an issue with Muslims and it’s not given much coverage at all. 

I expect you will lend me your full support in my right to criticise Jewish Zionism, by which I mean specifically the belief that god gave the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea to the Jews, which I think is a vile, racist ideology that should be wiped out. If anyone were to respond to my legitimate criticism by labelling it "antisemitic", I will expect you to be the first to point out that I am not demonstrating any prejudice towards Jews, I am criticising bad, false ideas that cause serious harm to people.

Note that I'm restricting my criticism to this particular belief, rather than aiming this criticism at "Judaism" - I would expect that people would be similarly careful when they are criticising any system of belief, otherwise their criticism might be interpreted as prejudice against a diverse group who don't actually share a unified set of beliefs.

Thanks - fills the gaps nicely. 

I'm not sure that there's been 'no traction at all', but I think the fact that a substantial chunk of our media are owned and controlled by the right has something to do with it having less of a profile than Labour's anti-semitism travails. 

[Edit] Just googled Tory islamophobia and there's a few new items there that look interesting:

Tories are in denial on Islamophobia, says hero imam

Evening Standard · 5 hours ago

Why aren't the Tories cracking down on Islamophobia in their party?

New Statesman · 4 hours ago

Boris Johnson's burqa remarks 'fan flames of Islamophobia', says MP

The Guardian · 5 hours ago

(Sorry - the links themselves don't paste with the text]

Be careful in claiming Zionism is a religious belief. You'll have the atheist Zionists on your back!

Hence my care to define what I meant...

Yes, I will. 

And I'd also support the right of Boris Johnson to make disrespectful remarks about wearing a niqab or burka.