I think the latter of these instructs on the former - there's a section of the party (see: Chris Williamson and his supporters, like Aaron Bastani - who also had to apologise for indulging in islamophobic tropes recently, but I digress) who don't see this kind of thing as antisemitic, only classing antisemitism as the obvious stuff like holocaust denial, where's it's possibly "only" at about the level of the wider UK. The bulk of the culprits within Labour is the type that likes to couch it in language around Israel, whilst being aimed at non-Israeli jews (the "Trump fanatic" line was another example of that). They then complain that they're not allowed to criticise Israel if they get called antisemitic. Rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, Willsman is still listed as a member of the NEC on the Labour website.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
think ill stick by my "sources close to" formby guess and hope shes personally (and financially) liable for the multiple GDPR breaches
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
So the report that Sir Keir didn't know about was given to him last week.
I see Chris Williamson saying the report only states that it has disproved allegations that the anti-semitism complaints were a witch-hunt because those who wrote it "had internalised the myths forged by the State of Israel and its UK lobby".
Way to stay on-brand, Chris.
Way to stay on-brand, Chris.
I actually agree that Labour’s antisemitism problem is largely a product of a broader societal issue, how could it not be? This is a decent recent piece which explains it better than me: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.the...cation-labour-antisemitism-party-keir-starmer
However antisemitism takes on different forms involving different tropes and discourses as it crosses ideological lines, which is why it became a particular issue for Labour once someone with Corbyn’s background assumed the leadership. There’s a perfect Cafe example of the type of antisemitic Labour voter enthused by the rise of Corbyn in now-banned member @DenisIrwin - a top poster in the Corbyn thread who also regularly posted conspiracy theories surrounding the Syria War, eventually claiming that war was a Rothschild Conspiracy - ultimately he got banned for posting directly from a Neo-Nazi site and responding to criticism with “I don’t give a feck”. Corbyn didn’t create this type of antisemitism, so his rise to leadership wouldn’t necessarily be accompanied by a statistical country-wide increase in antisemitism. But due to his unique background and the way in which he has approached the issues he cares about, guys like that were politicized by his leadership, which in turn helped freak out a lot of British Jews who assumed that stuff would remain confined to the periphery of British politics.
As that article argues:
The question we need to ask is not whether there is antisemitism in the Labour party but why the antisemitism that exists within Labour rises to the surface.
This does not happen because Labour members are more likely to be committed ideological antisemites. The reason can be found in the contingencies of political debate. At this time, Jews intersect, or are perceived to intersect, with some of the key issues Labour members care about: Israel and Palestine, and the operation of power within capitalist society. We see Labour members and supporters reaching for well-worn antisemitic ideas, stereotypes and narratives that provide a simplistic and, apparently, persuasive account of these issues.
This does not happen because Labour members are more likely to be committed ideological antisemites. The reason can be found in the contingencies of political debate. At this time, Jews intersect, or are perceived to intersect, with some of the key issues Labour members care about: Israel and Palestine, and the operation of power within capitalist society. We see Labour members and supporters reaching for well-worn antisemitic ideas, stereotypes and narratives that provide a simplistic and, apparently, persuasive account of these issues.
So very hard to measure the significance of the rise of a particular form of antisemitism in a particular political context against the broad societal problem which we all acknowledge exists.
I haven’t yet read the report, but when I’ve seen this bit quoted before, it was half of reports in 2019. Open to correction there.
But in any case, if one individual has been proven to be wasting the party’s time with nonsense, then of course he/she is fair game for criticism. I don’t think any reasonable person would deny the antisemitism issue (and with it genuine Jewish concerns) became a plaything subject to the Party’s internal squabbles.
Willsman wasn’t referring to one proven case against a certain individual - he was making a reflexive, evidence-free accusation against a diverse body of British Jews which invoked one of the most well-worn antisemitic tropes and went against all common sense.
Israel, like all states, seeks to advance its interests, yes. When its alleged reach gets mystified and magnified beyond all proportion, then you’re in murky waters, especially when this understanding of Israeli power gets channeled through the same type of discourse historically wielded against Jews as a collective. There are few other states which attract this kind of mysticism - I’d say maybe only Russia and Saudi Arabia in the West,* to various degrees in particular ideological contexts. I’m not clued in regarding the historic roots of Russophobia, but I’ve come to the conclusion in recent years that some of the reflexive criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia from certain quarters reflects the prevalent Islamophobic discourse of modern times (and I’m sorry to say I’ve indulged in it a bit myself on this forum).
Understand the implications of the charge being made by Williamson and his fellow-travelers - that a foreign, Jewish state of less than 10 million people, on a slice of coast in the eastern Med, has essentially sabotaged the chance for a better society in the UK. Not only that, its agents live among us, and mostly comprise of members of a certain minority.
Some would have thought that a report on this matter compiled and released by Corbyn’s allies in the Party which concluded that this was a load of nonsense, and turned up not one (as far as I’m aware - again, open to correction) example of Israeli meddling here, would be the end of the matter. As we can see from Williamson and others, this is not the case.
*(edit): I’d add Iran also, although in their case it seems to come exclusively from the right, while the other three attract it from all sides.
Last edited:
hes probably got a very busy diary - and hes only had the job a number of days ago and its been
certainly an indication that starmer isnt going to have an easy time of things though - get the feeing hes in for a kinnock style battle if he wants to drag the party back to being electable
It is very understandable that Israel would do all it can to sabotage Corbyn. He was probably going to accept a Palestinian state. I see nothing unbelievable about Israeli actions.
She is lying. She’s presented no evidence that her name is being circulated on neo-nazi websites. She’s tweeting about how the document shares someone’s private mobile number: it’s a publicly available BMG press number.
They were funnelling money off the books to factional allies - they didn’t funnel it to those seats based on the risk of losing them. The whole Ergon House section is misappropriation of funds.
This is Labour’s Executive Director for Elections saying that they needed to hide digital expenditure — this is a smoking gun for knowingly misspending
Not losing was the opposite of everything she’d been working towar
Regional staffers admitting in October 2017 to not doing their jobs properly. Reasonable to assume this covered the election four months earlier
Do you get some sort of reward whenever you mention Richard Burgon, with extra points for how out-of-context the reference is?
I can see why you'd want to steer away from commenting on Sir Keir giving Wes Streeting a Shadow Cabinet position, given the content involving him in the report.
I just wish he had given Jess Philips the role of purgemaster general
There isn't that many black women MPs for her to get rid of that it warrants a title.
The report then goes on to write...They were funnelling money off the books to factional allies - they didn’t funnel it to those seats based on the risk of losing them. The whole Ergon House section is misappropriation of funds.
This is Labour’s Executive Director for Elections saying that they needed to hide digital expenditure — this is a smoking gun for knowingly misspending
You may not like or agree with these choices, but they're not the actions of someone trying to lose the election. Even the report doesn't make that claim.
Maybe I missed something in the report. Does it actually say what these people did?Not losing was the opposite of everything she’d been working towards
Regional staffers admitting in October 2017 to not doing their jobs properly. Reasonable to assume this covered the election four months earlier
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This thread was posted by someone here a week before the election, and every part of it came true. So:
1. The popular press like the Sun emphasised stuff about the IRA, while the elite media focused on anti-semitism. The former hurt him much more. For the 2019 defeat at least, his alleged anti-semitism and the party's alleged backstabbing are less important factors. 2017, given the narrow margins, is a different story.
2. Opposing Brexit, fence-sitting and supporting it were all losing gambits. The damage is done now and will last a while. Starmer as the head of that strategy will carry some baggage, though a bad economic climate after Brexit could work in his favour.
3. Starmer has an interesting background in college, "worse" than Corbyn's. It will surely be picked up in a similar way by tabloids and on facebook. He needs a media strategy around that. The "PC gone made" comedy routine @Sweet Square referenced will not hurt him with that.
4. Even in this disaster, Corbyn had some youth enthusiasm, and Starmer will have to find some compensation for probably losing that.
Not mentioned here, but while the economic message wasn't unpopular, it was muddled and confused rather than focused like in 2017. That's a fixable problem. Also not mentioned here, but I don't believe that someone with Corbyn's background (I'm talking about his position on Ireland, British foreign policy and its colonial legacy) will have a chance at getting power ever again.
Labour got panned in 2019 because they were on the wrong side of the core cultural issue in Brexit. They backed Brexit and ending FoM in 2017 and that's why they did OK. Economic policy was background noise. Starmer is naturally on the wrong side of the cultural debate too so it will be interesting to see how he can square that circle. It looks an almost impossible job for him but with what's going on, who knows. I bet that not many would have thought that Atlee would beat Churchill in 1945 but he did during another era of deep crisis.
I'm confident that video will get passed around Facebook and WhatsApp groups resulting in a bunch 60+ year old voters in some small northern town believing it's a real Starmer speech and not just an old Stewart Lee reference done by someone putting on a pretty decent impression.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobby_(TV_series) Hard to argue there hasn't been Israeli meddling. I guess we'll never know for sure after their buddy BoJo blocked an investigation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
This kind of stuff is not new. The only amazing thing for me is that people love to deny it.
Again, I’m not denying the existence of Israel and its supporters pursuing Israeli interests through lobbying (as many if not all states do to some degree) - I’ve written quite a bit about it on this forum, especially in the US context. I’m arguing that the power of Israel and its supporters in directing events and manipulating the politics of foreign states regularly gets vastly exaggerated and distorted beyond all reason, and in a way which often ‘coincidentally’ reflects standard antisemitic discourse.
What does this refer to? The marxist thing he used to write or something else?
I would say their influence is downplayed the vast majority of the time. They are one of the most powerful lobby groups in the world and use every ounce of that power on a regular basis. Often very valid criticism of Israel or their behaviour is labelled as antisemitic so as to shut down any debate on the matter.
I would love to see some of your examples of people vastly exaggerating or distorting the influence that the Israel lobby has.
Three random examples from British politics:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
British Lord blames ‘Zionists’ for ban of Iranian TV
https://www.timesofisrael.com/british-lord-blames-zionists-for-ban-of-iranian-tv/
There was also, of course, the time Jeremy Corbyn blamed criticism of the blood-libelling Sheikh Raed Salah on the “Zionist lobby.”
If you’re still unconvinced or a bit confused by this, I suggest reading this useful document published by the Labour Party last year, which includes this:
“Today, some conspiracy theories substitute Israel or Zionists for Jews, presenting Israel as controlling the world’s media and finances. Others contain further antisemitic claims, such as Israeli responsibility for 9/11 or control of ISIS. These theories ascribe to Israel influence on world events far beyond any objective analysis.”
Yes it’s used as an anti-Semitic tool and to feed into historical smears. At the same time it’s not possible to ignore the incredible strength of pro-Israel lobbying in the US. A politician saying they didn’t support military aid to Israel would be considered immediately disqualifying at the national level and even at most state levels. Being pro-Israel is considered more important than having a strong position on many domestic issues. That’s nothing short of fecking crazy when you stop to think about it.
I have absolutely no problem with recognizing the success/power of the Israel lobby in the US, so long as (a) the lobby is conceived of as a collection of diverse groups with sometimes contradicting agendas (e.g. evangelical Christians and liberal Jews) and not as a monolithic entity with a distinct HQ directing action, and (b) the many historical, cultural and strategic factors which underlie the lobby’s success are understood, so that the source of the lobby’s power is not mystified and obscured.
The first example is taken from a confirmed holocaust denier. I would have thought that his antisemitism went without saying and is also part of the reason that absolutely nobody takes him seriously. In fairness it does illustrate your point but I would have thought you'd use a more sensible example.Three random examples from British politics:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
British Lord blames ‘Zionists’ for ban of Iranian TV
https://www.timesofisrael.com/british-lord-blames-zionists-for-ban-of-iranian-tv/
There was also, of course, the time Jeremy Corbyn blamed criticism of the blood-libelling Sheikh Raed Salah on the “Zionist lobby.”
If you’re still unconvinced or a bit confused by this, I suggest reading this useful document published by the Labour Party last year, which includes this:
“Today, some conspiracy theories substitute Israel or Zionists for Jews, presenting Israel as controlling the world’s media and finances. Others contain further antisemitic claims, such as Israeli responsibility for 9/11 or control of ISIS. These theories ascribe to Israel influence on world events far beyond any objective analysis.”
I would agree with George Galloway in that the Israel lobby has definitely helped to ruin the Labour party.
I don't know enough about the Lord Ahmed situation to pass comment.
Now let's have a think about who's character have been assasinated with false accusations of antisemitism.
- Jeremy Corbyn - regardless of where he stands on the Israel Palestine problem, surely nobody can accuse him of any kind of bigotry?
- Bernie Sanders - a Jewish socialist who disagrees with Israeli expansionism.
- Jackie Walker - Jewish Labour activist who opposes zionism.
This guy has his next election campaign all written out for him.
Just remind the public how bad the current government's coronavirus response was in a few years time and he's straight in as a favourite to be next PM.
Just remind the public how bad the current government's coronavirus response was in a few years time and he's straight in as a favourite to be next PM.
Go on then. Explain.
You missed the significance of including Griffin - I was showing how similar across the political spectrum the reflexive impulse to blame the Zionist/Israel lobby is when something happens that these three dislike. Griffin reckons Zionists control the justice system because mates of his were arrested. Galloway thinks they control politics because (I think in this instance) his friend Ken Livingstone was suspended from the Labour Party. Lord Ahmed thinks Zionists control the media because Press TV was banned. All three are antisemites by the way (not necessarily due to the responses I’ve posted there), and share a common impulse and discourse despite the major ideological chasms that separate them.
I’ve done Corbyn to death on this forum. I’ll only add that a few days ago there was outrage expressed on here by some of his fans at the ascension of an MP who had praised a historical antisemite to the shadow cabinet. If they applied the same standards to Corbyn and his own plentiful past comments and associations, they might consider him a bigot, or at least understand why some do.
The charge of antisemitism never really stuck to Sanders, simply because he has none of the baggage of Corbyn. It’s ridiculous to say it has ruined his career or has much of anything at all to do with why he has lost out to Biden.
Walker I don’t know much about apart from her comments that Jews were the major financiers of the slave trade.
This is not the thread for it. But I’ve previously written on it here, here and here amongst a good few posts. Feel free to take me up on it in one of those or a new thread.
Sorry you’ll have to explain that to me, I don’t really understand how it relates.
that the same standard is being applied to both corbyn and reeve by their detractors?
Right, I think you must have quoted the wrong part of my post.
You seem to be suggesting that their criticism of Reeve is actually as disingenuous and cynical as they claim the criticism of Corbyn is - i.e. they actually have no real problem with Reeve in regards to antisemitism but are simply using the episode in question as a convenient means to attack the new Labour leadership along the same lines they believe the old leadership was attacked - a strange approach given Corbyn’s own support for the statue but certainly plausible.
However it’s a completely tribalistic approach to the matter which reflects concern for the internal power struggle within the Labour Party above and beyond any guiding principles surrounding the actual problem of antisemitism.
(For what it’s worth by the way, I was relatively forgiving of Corbyn for the Hobson introduction, slightly more so than I would be of Reeve, although both episodes share a similar problem which could easily be avoided by more astute politicians)
There is no significance to mentioning Nick Griffin, he has as little relevance to British Politics as Tommy Robinson.
George Galloway supporting Ken Livingstone's factual statement about the Haavara agreement has never and will never be antisemitic. The Ken Livingstone situation is exactly what's wrong with this conversation. He made a factual statement that the Nazis and Zionist had an agreement in the 30's and was tarred as an antisemite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
Galloway himself made a pretty stupid and bigoted comment about no Israel flags being on the Champions League trophy when they lost the final to Liverpool.
I won't be commenting on the Lord Ahmed situation, I can only really take your word for it until I do further research on the matter.
My point about Bernie is that his opposition to Israel has been one of the main reasons he's never gotten anywhere near power. I've seen plenty of people call him an antisemite.
Walker had her quotes taken massively out of context, she was having a private conversation with her friend about her heritage. The full quote (which is never reported in the media) goes like this:
"I hope you feel the same towards the African holocaust? My ancestors were involved in both – on all sides… millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues to this day on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews and many Jews, my ancestors too, were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade… so who are the victims and what does it mean . We are victims and perpetrators, to some extent by choice. And having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator."
One of the main problems with antisemitism for me is that the definition is far too broad and confusing. It allows for completely unbigoted people to be dragged through the dirt. This criticism is never aimed at actual bigots like Boris Johnson and only ever becomes an issue when critics of Israel criticise Israel.
My point is that we need to be able to have a more open and honest debate on things like this without the shit flinging that currently happens. Labelling someone an antisemite totally kills that debate.
Edit: Just to clarify my point on the Haavara agreement, the Nazis were not Zionists and the agreement was born out of racism. They wanted the jews out of Germany and this agreement was put in place to do just that.
His exact words were “[Hitler]...was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” It suggests that Hitler was actually on the side of Jewish nationalism, giving Zionists a helping hand before he flipped, rather than ridding himself of part of a population he believed were sub-human scum, and who the Zionists just happened to be on hand to help save. Livingstone said this in the context of defending another Labour MP who had suggested Israelis should be moved to America to solve the Middle East’s problems. It’s such a big jumbled mess of a statement that I doubt he even knows exactly what he was trying to say. But of course he’s got a long history of such statements, and a famously creepy obsession with Jews and the Holocaust, which obviously didn’t help his cause.
He’s done worse. For example there is an Israeli jazz musician called Gilad Atzmon who, during the 2000s, was a relatively popular figure in pro-Palestinian activism. Over the course of time he revealed himself to be a pretty standard antisemite, so much so that many leading advocates of the Palestinian cause would have nothing to do with him. However many at the fringes of that cause continued to promote him. He was one of the first members of the Facebook group which got Corbyn into trouble a couple years ago, and Chris Williamson also got into trouble for supporting a petition on his behalf. He wrote a book on Jewish identity which one Cafe member recommended to me on here before (same guy believed Netanyahu was behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks). Here is Galloway praising this book on RT:
(You can read a bit more about the book and this interview here).
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.ind...laming-jewish-conspiracy-for-8553235.html?amp
Well I don’t know much about Sanders and his campaign - probably 99% of what I do know comes from reading about him on the Cafe, and I think you’re the first poster I’ve seen to blame his failures on his criticisms of Israel.
Sorry, I totally misinterpreted that. I haven't given it enough time I would say, it just became background noise amongst a sea of dubious allegations. Another reason we should be having a more open and honest debate about the situation, that way it is easier to root out real antisemitism like this far more quickly.
I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph particularly well. Was it the Caf member who believed that or the jazz guy? Nevertheless, I'm enjoying how informative your posts are, I have never heard of Gilad Atzmon, he seems pretty off the wall antisemitic, I agree, certainly makes me look at George Galloway a little differently. This certainly warrants a little more of time.
Take a look online, Bernie Sanders is often criticised as an antisemite and these claims are often rubbished, much like the accusations of Corbyn being a bigot. Corbyn, wrongly, gets a far harder time for it.
This whole episode has shown that there were a huge number of false accusations made to clog up the disciplinary system. Cases like Livingstone's were likely drawn out longer than they should to make Corbyn look bad. The entire shit show has taken away from real cases of antisemitism like Livingtone. It just so happens that the pro Israel half of the party are holding the smoking gun on all this abuse of power.
Sorry, that was badly put - it was the Cafe member who recommended the book to me. One of the few antisemites I’ve encountered on here. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if Atzmon also believes it (he blamed Jews for the Grenfell fire).Raven said:
I view Sanders and Corbyn as two quite different politicians with different backgrounds attempting to navigate very different political cultures. For me at least this explains the contrasting responses to the charge of antisemitism against them.