Is the British Labour Party anti-Semitic?

[SInNYC]

It is just silly that Jews dont consider Farage anti-semitic by a 42/32 margin, but consider Corbyn anti-Semitic by a 87/8 margin.

However, it should be mentioned that UK Jews are overwhelmingly conservative in recent years. They split  approximately 70 Tory 20 Labour in 2015 (pre-Corbyn), despite Millibrand being of Jewish origin (though atheist).

[The Dowager Mod]

No, But the leader of the party is.

[dead0man]

What percentage of Democrats "planned to emigrate" if Trump became President?

certainly nowhere near 47%, plus I'd guess the average American Dem can't emigrate (to a place they'd actually be willing to emigrate to) for a lack of skills, money or clean record.  I'd guess that's not the case with the average Jewish person in the UK.

[Mr. Illini]

There are some in the party that are and Corbyn has refused to reprimand and deal with it.

[Arkansas Yankee]

I recommend you read this article to see how Jews feel about Corbyn:

  https://medium.com/@rob.mindell/three-reasons-why-a-corbyn-government-would-threaten-jewish-life-in-britain-cbe20cbd813d


The article sets out 3 reasons why Corbyn is a threat to Jewish life in Britain.

1. Corbyn’s threats to cut of trade with Israel threatens Jewish access to a main supply of kosher food.   Corbyn supported boycotts of Israeli goos.  Labour at it’s 2019 Party Conference adopted a policy singling out Israel as a country with which Britain should not trade
2.The Jewish community needs a government it can rely on to provide protection. Corbyn has never provided assurances of protections. In 1994 Balfour House, a Jewish community building.  In the years thereafter Corbyn has campaigned for the release of the bombers
3.As a backbencher Corbyn invited many sworn killers of Jews to Parliament. He spoke at rallies and conferences side by side with those who would diminish the horrors of the Holocaust and use those horrors to threaten the supporters of Israel. The Labour Party has seen its membership rise along with a rise in in anti-Semitic incidents. Labour Party functions include statements of “conspiracy theories about money, power, and control by Jews to persecute others.”

[vileplume]

Go on then, you explain to me how a few people s***posting on Twitter is going to lead to a new Kristallnacht.

I’m waiting with a bag of popcorn in hand. This should be good.

It's not "A few people s***posting on Twitter".

It's a loyal cult engaging in mass campaigns of antisemitic harassment, and the party and law enforcement brass under their control working to sweep it under the rug.

That's what they do when they're out of power. Why am I supposed to give them any benefit of the doubt about what they'd do when they have power?

See, this is what I'm talking about. Those descriptions of the Labour Party and the leadership ('a loyal cult', 'mass campaigns', 'sweep under the rug') are exaggerations at best, histrionic hyperbole at worst. It also doesn't help bolster credibility when they come from an avatar titled 'Corbyn is a Strasserist'.

People concerned about institutionalized bigotry should be worried when it gains mainstream salience and access to the levers of power. But if opposing such bigotry is really one's priority, and one does not differentiate between different kinds of bigotry, the Tories, UKIP, the Brexit Party, and the Lib Dems (when Farron was in charge) ought to incur the same level of denunciation as Labour has.

The Brexit Party/UKIP are constantly (and rightly) raked over the coals for bigotry/racism in their ranks. The Tories also receive criticism for Islamophobia, which undoubtedly exists in their party, though as has been brought up previously nobody in the party has stooped anywhere near to Corbyn's rock bottom level of laying wreaths for terrorists.

As for Farron, that was truly a shameful media smear, contrary to media narrative he actually has had a pretty strong voting record on LGBT rights during his tenure in parliament. We live in a free society and people are totally allowed to personally believe something is wrong so long as they don't try to use their own beliefs to infringe on the human rights of others. Farron's Christian beliefs are in no way comparable to in Labour's 'issues' with Antisemitism.

[Leinad]

There's a problem of it in the party, and it not being handled properly, and although some of it is magnified due to conflation of "criticisms of Israel" and antisemitism that's not all that it is and it would be crazy to presume otherwise.

That being said, it's also crazy to act like "Corbyn is a nazi." That's an insane thing to say. I think insensitivity/ignorance should be treated differently than clear malicious views (such as far-right views about Islamic immigrants).

(Full disclosure I'm neither Jewish nor British, and agree with Corbyn quite a bit on policy--I definitely oppose the Tories and Tory: Bremain Edition quite a bit--so maybe it's a blindspot or I'm giving too much "benefit of the doubt." Also perhaps as someone who has grown up around American conservatism seeing a take on the Israel-Palestine conflict that is not callously bigoted towards Palestinians and their right to live is refreshing, so I might miss it if those takes are flawed in other ways.)

[cp]

Go on then, you explain to me how a few people s***posting on Twitter is going to lead to a new Kristallnacht.

I’m waiting with a bag of popcorn in hand. This should be good.

It's not "A few people s***posting on Twitter".

It's a loyal cult engaging in mass campaigns of antisemitic harassment, and the party and law enforcement brass under their control working to sweep it under the rug.

That's what they do when they're out of power. Why am I supposed to give them any benefit of the doubt about what they'd do when they have power?

See, this is what I'm talking about. Those descriptions of the Labour Party and the leadership ('a loyal cult', 'mass campaigns', 'sweep under the rug') are exaggerations at best, histrionic hyperbole at worst. It also doesn't help bolster credibility when they come from an avatar titled 'Corbyn is a Strasserist'.

People concerned about institutionalized bigotry should be worried when it gains mainstream salience and access to the levers of power. But if opposing such bigotry is really one's priority, and one does not differentiate between different kinds of bigotry, the Tories, UKIP, the Brexit Party, and the Lib Dems (when Farron was in charge) ought to incur the same level of denunciation as Labour has.

The Brexit Party/UKIP are constantly (and rightly) raked over the coals for bigotry/racism in their ranks. The Tories also receive criticism for Islamophobia, which undoubtedly exists in their party, though as has been brought up previously nobody in the party has stooped anywhere near to Corbyn's rock bottom level of laying wreaths for terrorists.

As for Farron, that was truly a shameful media smear, contrary to media narrative he actually has had a pretty strong voting record on LGBT rights during his tenure in parliament. We live in a free society and people are totally allowed to personally believe something is wrong so long as they don't try to use their own beliefs to infringe on the human rights of others. Farron's Christian beliefs are in no way comparable to in Labour's 'issues' with Antisemitism.

At the risk of relitigating this entire matter, Corbyn's wreath laying is a far better example of a 'shameful media smear' than Farron's beliefs about queer people. Farron's record on LGBT issues in parliament was decidedly mixed (voted against bans on LGBT discrimination in public services, abstained on equal marriage), and he was evasive about his own views about gay people during the 2017 campaign. Granted, he subsequently 'clarified' that he was pro-LGBT (specifically, that he didn't think gay sex was a sin), but a year later he turned around and said he regretted saying that. LGBT people had every reason to think Farron was a fairweather friend and a hypocrite.

Corbyn's wreath laying controversy, on the other hand, was a clear example of deliberate (or unthinking, at any rate) misdirection. Corbyn, along with a Tory and Lib Dem Lord, attended a conference on Palestinian rights in Tunisia. Part of the conference involved a wreath laying ceremony commemorating the deaths of PLO members during a 1985 Israeli attack; Corbyn attended this. After the ceremony, delegates moved on to a cemetery where the victims of the bombing were buried. Also buried in that cemetery were people suspected of being involved in the 1972 Munich bombing. The controversy stems from deliberately conflating the wreath laying ceremony with the visit to the cemetery, and the coincidence of who was buried there. (See this BBC explainer for details)

For the record, I see how this would still look a bit hinky for someone who doesn't want to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt. But it's an inaccurate smear to state Corbyn laid wreaths for terrorists.

More to the point, Corbyn's been quite consistent about his beliefs: about religious toleration, seeking peace in Israel/Palestine through creating dialogue, and denouncing anti-Semitism. Unlike Farron he's never turned around and recanted them.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Go on then, you explain to me how a few people s***posting on Twitter is going to lead to a new Kristallnacht.

I’m waiting with a bag of popcorn in hand. This should be good.

It's not "A few people s***posting on Twitter".

It's a loyal cult engaging in mass campaigns of antisemitic harassment, and the party and law enforcement brass under their control working to sweep it under the rug.

That's what they do when they're out of power. Why am I supposed to give them any benefit of the doubt about what they'd do when they have power?

See, this is what I'm talking about. Those descriptions of the Labour Party and the leadership ('a loyal cult', 'mass campaigns', 'sweep under the rug') are exaggerations at best, histrionic hyperbole at worst. It also doesn't help bolster credibility when they come from an avatar titled 'Corbyn is a Strasserist'.

People concerned about institutionalized bigotry should be worried when it gains mainstream salience and access to the levers of power. But if opposing such bigotry is really one's priority, and one does not differentiate between different kinds of bigotry, the Tories, UKIP, the Brexit Party, and the Lib Dems (when Farron was in charge) ought to incur the same level of denunciation as Labour has.

The Brexit Party/UKIP are constantly (and rightly) raked over the coals for bigotry/racism in their ranks. The Tories also receive criticism for Islamophobia, which undoubtedly exists in their party, though as has been brought up previously nobody in the party has stooped anywhere near to Corbyn's rock bottom level of laying wreaths for terrorists.

As for Farron, that was truly a shameful media smear, contrary to media narrative he actually has had a pretty strong voting record on LGBT rights during his tenure in parliament. We live in a free society and people are totally allowed to personally believe something is wrong so long as they don't try to use their own beliefs to infringe on the human rights of others. Farron's Christian beliefs are in no way comparable to in Labour's 'issues' with Antisemitism.

At the risk of relitigating this entire matter, Corbyn's wreath laying is a far better example of a 'shameful media smear' than Farron's beliefs about queer people. Farron's record on LGBT issues in parliament was decidedly mixed (voted against bans on LGBT discrimination in public services, abstained on equal marriage), and he was evasive about his own views about gay people during the 2017 campaign. Granted, he subsequently 'clarified' that he was pro-LGBT (specifically, that he didn't think gay sex was a sin), but a year later he turned around and said he regretted saying that. LGBT people had every reason to think Farron was a fairweather friend and a hypocrite.

Corbyn's wreath laying controversy, on the other hand, was a clear example of deliberate (or unthinking, at any rate) misdirection. Corbyn, along with a Tory and Lib Dem Lord, attended a conference on Palestinian rights in Tunisia. Part of the conference involved a wreath laying ceremony commemorating the deaths of PLO members during a 1985 Israeli attack; Corbyn attended this. After the ceremony, delegates moved on to a cemetery where the victims of the bombing were buried. Also buried in that cemetery were people suspected of being involved in the 1972 Munich bombing. The controversy stems from deliberately conflating the wreath laying ceremony with the visit to the cemetery, and the coincidence of who was buried there. (See this BBC explainer for details)

For the record, I see how this would still look a bit hinky for someone who doesn't want to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt. But it's an inaccurate smear to state Corbyn laid wreaths for terrorists.

More to the point, Corbyn's been quite consistent about his beliefs: about religious toleration, seeking peace in Israel/Palestine through creating dialogue, and denouncing anti-Semitism. Unlike Farron he's never turned around and recanted them.

So does this mean you’re going to explain to me how the incidents described below weren’t anti-Semitic?  Because I’ve yet to see any of Corbyn’s defenders in this thread respond to or even acknowledge them.  I don’t wanna assume anything, but it certainly comes off as folks ignoring the worst instances of Corbyn’s anti-Semitism and instead cherry-picking incidents that are a bit easier to defend.

the British irony thing was the most repulsive thing he's said though tbh.

How about when he called a convicted terrorist who received seven life sentences for organizing a Hamas suicide bombing that killed seven people his “brother” on Iranian State TV.  Corbyn also implied that said terrorist should never have been imprisoned in the first place given what he was accused of (“you have to ask the question why they [Palestinians arrested for terrorism] were in prison in the first place.”).  That was much worse imo.  

Then there was the time he repeatedly compared Israel to the Nazis at an event called “Never Again — For Anyone: From Auschwitz to Gaza.”  

I hadn’t even heard of the British irony comment before, but I’d file that one under “dumb, but harmless.”  It’s certainly not the worst thing Corbyn has done by any stretch of the imagination.  I don’t know that I’d even call it anti-Semitic per-se, just...well...dumb.

I get that a lot of maroon avatars like Corbyn, but can’t we just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that he’s an anti-Semite?

[cp]

Respectfully, this is not the first thread about this topic on this forum. If you'd like to acquaint yourself with what has been debated in previous threads where the accusations you raised were discussed, you're more than welcome to do so.

Corbyn's in the unenviable position of having lost the benefit of the doubt among most of the people heavily invested in these issues. Just today he gave an interview where he called anti-Semitism "a poison and an evil in our society" and enumerated the steps he's taken since becoming Labour leader to address it. This will change precisely no one's mind about Corbyn, of course, and I struggle to imagine what words or actions he could deploy that would. People's nerves are too exposed and the debate is too visceral for any meaningful dialogue to occur.

I wish Corbyn had been swifter to slap down anti-Semitic outbursts among Labour Party members over the past few years, and he's definitely made some regrettable choices in phrasing/post sharing. But he doesn't seem any more an anti-Semite to me than Boris Johnson seems a racist or Tim Farron a homophobe. That's to say, bigotry of one form or another is endemic in British society; no one is going to be completely free of it, and almost everyone expresses a mild form of it from time to time (can't count the number of witless jokes I've heard British people tell about French/German/Spanish people over the years)

If Corbyn holds anti-Semitic views, he seems, from my view, willing to acknowledge they are something to atone for, not defend, and something he cannot expect to base policy around if/when in a position of power. For me that's enough to relent on the denunciation for now. For someone who, for ideological or sincerely felt emotional reasons, doesn't trust Corbyn, that's probably not enough. But then, probably nothing ever will be.

[dead0man]

tl:dr version:I don't want to think about those things, much less type a response, so do some searching, the questions have been dodged in the past by people better at this than me

[cp]

tl:dr version:I don't want to think about those things, much less type a response, so do some searching, the questions have been dodged in the past by people better at this than me

My lack of willingness to type a response seems to be belied by the length of the post I actually typed

Fittingly, that sort of response is precisely the kind of incapacity for dialogue I alluded to.

In any case, Labour's record on AS is pretty easy to track down. There's a wikipedia article on it. It's worth a read.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Respectfully, this is not the first thread about this topic on this forum. If you'd like to acquaint yourself with what has been debated in previous threads where the accusations you raised were discussed, you're more than welcome to do so.

Corbyn's in the unenviable position of having lost the benefit of the doubt among most of the people heavily invested in these issues. Just today he gave an interview where he called anti-Semitism "a poison and an evil in our society" and enumerated the steps he's taken since becoming Labour leader to address it. This will change precisely no one's mind about Corbyn, of course, and I struggle to imagine what words or actions he could deploy that would. People's nerves are too exposed and the debate is too visceral for any meaningful dialogue to occur.

I wish Corbyn had been swifter to slap down anti-Semitic outbursts among Labour Party members over the past few years, and he's definitely made some regrettable choices in phrasing/post sharing. But he doesn't seem any more an anti-Semite to me than Boris Johnson seems a racist or Tim Farron a homophobe. That's to say, bigotry of one form or another is endemic in British society; no one is going to be completely free of it, and almost everyone expresses a mild form of it from time to time (can't count the number of witless jokes I've heard British people tell about French/German/Spanish people over the years)

If Corbyn holds anti-Semitic views, he seems, from my view, willing to acknowledge they are something to atone for, not defend, and something he cannot expect to base policy around if/when in a position of power. For me that's enough to relent on the denunciation for now. For someone who, for ideological or sincerely felt emotional reasons, doesn't trust Corbyn, that's probably not enough. But then, probably nothing ever will be.

Thank you, for the thoughtful response.  I don’t agree with all of what you said, but I have a better sense now of where you’re coming from and can at least acknowledge it as a legitimate position.  As to what would be enough, I’d like to see some sort of genuine apology for his past comments and a real effort to address anti-Semitism within the British Labor Party for a few years, I’d certainly be willing to give him another chance, but sometimes forgiveness has to be earned, you know?  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This shows that in the UK, the rates of anti-semitism are
4% of left-wing
4% of center
14% of right-wing

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/criticism-of-israel-and-antisemitism-shades-of-prejudice/

[Lumine]

Between "But I didn't know Shylock was Jewish!" and the Hey Jews/Hey Jude thing Labour has certainly done a wonderful job to address concerns on the matter in the past few days.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This matter and Corbyn's record on Europe are the reasons I'm extremely unfomfortable with him as possibly the next PM.

[CumbrianLefty]

Between "But I didn't know Shylock was Jewish!" and the Hey Jews/Hey Jude thing Labour has certainly done a wonderful job to address concerns on the matter in the past few days.

Is this the "thing" which there is absolutely no evidence for, save the (highly dubious) word of a single hack? And has been denied by literally everybody else who was on the trip??

One of the chief media witchfinders in chief of Labour AS, the Graun's Jonathan Freedland, grossly libelled a totally innocent man on Twitter yesterday. I don't suppose that sort of thing bothers you though - all collateral damage in a greater "cause" innit.

[Lumine]

Between "But I didn't know Shylock was Jewish!" and the Hey Jews/Hey Jude thing Labour has certainly done a wonderful job to address concerns on the matter in the past few days.

Is this the "thing" which there is absolutely no evidence for, save the (highly dubious) word of a single hack? And has been denied by literally everybody else who was on the trip??

One of the chief media witchfinders in chief of Labour AS, the Graun's Jonathaan Freedland, grossly libelled a totally innocent man on Twitter yesterday. I don't suppose that sort of thing bothers you though - all collateral damage in a greater "cause" innit.

Okay... No offense, but what's with the attitude? I can hardly see why you'd find it appropiate to go personal out of nowhere as if A. I had some sort of dark motive or was somehow committed to whatever "a greater cause" means, B. I somehow didn't care about facts, or C. somehow your argument was enhanced by pretending you can assume what I care about or not. All three are not only irrelevant, they're uncalled for.

Interested as I am on British politics I don't have a personal stake on the election or on the situation, I'm just pointing out that the Labour Party really isn't doing a wonderful job of addressing the issue and that there have been plenty of embarrassing - if not concerning - situations they've handled badly; and furthermore, that the sort of inappropiate (or abusive) behavior that keeps happening simply isn't normal.

If there's a valuable argument to be taken out from what you just said is that the media can make mistakes (had no idea about the Guardian thing) and that not every accussation is necessarily accurate. There certainly is merit for people to discuss whether media bias plays a role (or not) on how the issue is portrayed or presented, either by downplaying or overplaying.

Still, even in that context and with the caveat that mistakes are made (and looking more closely at what has been said, Dan Corden could turn out to be one), there seems to be a lot of very real situations and/or screw ups which, at least from what one can see at a distance, are causing a lot of distress to people who shouldn't be feeling unwelcome in a party which asserts to be against racism in any form.

[cp]

Between "But I didn't know Shylock was Jewish!" and the Hey Jews/Hey Jude thing Labour has certainly done a wonderful job to address concerns on the matter in the past few days.

Is this the "thing" which there is absolutely no evidence for, save the (highly dubious) word of a single hack? And has been denied by literally everybody else who was on the trip??

One of the chief media witchfinders in chief of Labour AS, the Graun's Jonathaan Freedland, grossly libelled a totally innocent man on Twitter yesterday. I don't suppose that sort of thing bothers you though - all collateral damage in a greater "cause" innit.

Okay... No offense, but what's with the attitude? I can hardly see why you'd find it appropiate to go personal out of nowhere as if A. I had some sort of dark motive or was somehow committed to whatever "a greater cause" means, B. I somehow didn't care about facts, or C. somehow your argument was enhanced by pretending you can assume what I care about or not. All three are not only irrelevant, they're uncalled for.

Interested as I am on British politics I don't have a personal stake on the election or on the situation, I'm just pointing out that the Labour Party really isn't doing a wonderful job of addressing the issue and that there have been plenty of embarrassing - if not concerning - situations they've handled badly; and furthermore, that the sort of inappropiate (or abusive) behavior that keeps happening simply isn't normal.

If there's a valuable argument to be taken out from what you just said is that the media can make mistakes (had no idea about the Guardian thing) and that not every accussation is necessarily accurate. There certainly is merit for people to discuss whether media bias plays a role (or not) on how the issue is portrayed or presented, either by downplaying or overplaying.

Still, even in that context and with the caveat that mistakes are made (and looking more closely at what has been said, Dan Corden could turn out to be one), there seems to be a lot of very real situations and/or screw ups which, at least from what one can see at a distance, are causing a lot of distress to people who shouldn't be feeling unwelcome in a party which asserts to be against racism in any form.

I agree with your post entirely; good points well made. What I think is important to acknowledge, however, is that much of the rancour in this debate more generally is based on an unspoken - and I would argue unfair - assumption: that any alleged incident of AS in Labour automatically becomes part of the story whether or not it is corroborated.

The Corden incident seems to be (still early days) a great example of this. Assuming this really is a libelous hit job, we're still talking about it in a thread about AS, and the media is still reporting it with that framing. The damage is done. Labour gets tarnished, we spent another day not talking about the Tories' dismal record on the NHS/Brexit/what-have-you, and every ostensibly open minded person has their biases reinforced by a media narrative that's based, at least in this instance, on a false premise.

To be clear, I'm *not* saying Labour and Corbyn haven't earned a bit of skepticism on this matter or that they haven't done things that genuinely deserved media attention. But if you're trying to understand the nature of this debate in British politics, it helps *a lot* to observe how accusations of AS can be easily and eagerly sensationalized, especially by outlets who are champing at the bit to undermine Labour/Corbyn from the get go.

[CumbrianLefty]

Apologies to Lumine for being a bit snappy last night, not for the first time cp sums things up well.

[cp]

Aw, shucks. Thanks. And good call on the apology. Far too rare a sight in this discussion.