Is the British Labour Party anti-Semitic?

[cp]

Is it "goysplaining" to say that Corbyn isn't going to literally start a Final Solution? Like, I'm critical of the man and the party on the issue, but I really think that's hyperbole. Like, it's pretty clear that the conservative party is Islamophobic, but only the most deranged Tory hater believes Boris and co are going to start a mass pogrom. Like, not to want to go down the "actually we found a Jew who thinks it's OK so I can say k***" dumb, but I highly doubt people like Ed Miliband and Alex Sobel would be keeping the whip if they believed that. (I know of the idea of the self-hating Jew, but I would feel weird as a Gentile labeling any Jew as self-hating)

It's clear to me that there is an anti-Semitic problem in Labour, which isn't to say that the majority of Labour's members are anti-semitic, but that leadership has ignored the issue for too long especially because the current leadership spent years associating themselves with factions of the far-left that are certainly anti-Semitic (e.g. they use "Zionist" as a perjorative, are obsessed with the supposed "control" that Israel and/or Mossad have over Western governments, indulge in the most crass insinuations about Jews in relations to banking and so on). I don't think this is unique to Labour - and if the party was to start griping about unfairness, they wouldn't be totally unreasonable to point at similar examples in the Lib Dems, Tories and Greens, but a party that defines itself as anti-racist must be especially vigilant in ridding itself of the taint.

This is the crux of the issue for me. Folks are right to call out the asinine and demented anti-Jewish conspiracy theories that pass for 'anti-Zionist' rhetoric among Labour members, and Corbyn et. al. have been far too complacent about taking steps to set the boundaries of acceptable debate. Yet, when Corbyn's opponents (be they ideological/partisan ones or less biased lefty ones) denounce him with preposterous, exaggerated straw man arguments and chicken little catastrophizing, it makes it hard to take such criticisms seriously. Worse, it makes the issue of AS seem like a partisan/ideological issue, providing cover to sincerely bigoted voices (that Labour should purge itself of, no questions asked).

 

[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.

[cp]

Tbf, it does seem that the Tories are more Islamophobic than Labour is anti-Semitic. So while this doesn't excuse anti-Semitism in Labour, people thinking the Tories are the tolerant option in this election and voting for them as a result are deluding themselves.

Eh, I'd call it even. Labour's anti-Semitic elements are a function of their being a party of more fringy political movements, and a longstanding anti-imperial sentiment that has found expression in anti-Zionist politics lately. The Tories' Islamophobia is more deeply imbricated in their membership's insular, jingositic worldview, but isn't tied to any particular policy or faction.

They're both equally awful.

[cp]

the Lib Dems (when Farron was in charge) ought to incur the same level of denunciation as Labour has.

I tuned out from the donnybrook surrounding Farron eventually, and I've made my low opinion of the Lib Dems as a party very clear on this forum, but is there any reason at all to believe that he used or would have used the party structure to grind his own axe about gay people to nearly the same extent that the Corbyn people have used Labour's party structure to grind their axes about Jews? The crux of people's problem with Labour is not merely that Corbyn is personally antisemitic.

I see what you mean, but the threshold for a minority group (LGBT or Jewish) being rightfully upset with a political party is pretty low in either case. Jewish people have every right to be mad at Corbyn and Labour for turning a blind eye to the cranks and crypto-racists posing as 'Anti-Zionists'. Similarly, an LGBT person had every right to be mad that the Lib Dems - supposedly the party of personal freedom - would even contemplate elevating a homophobe to such a high position.

[cp]

I think that point was raised in another thread. It's not the strongest way to denounce Corbyn or Labour, as it reeks of the kind of specious guilt-by-association that characterizes a lot of disingenuous arguments (about AS or anything else).

Drawing comparisons between Corbyn and Trump - as people or as leaders of movements - is dubious at best, but I see what you're coming from. What I think is quite notable, however, is that Trump's flagrant racism was obvious beforehand and has only gotten worse in office. Corbyn's complacency about anti-Semitism seems to have evolved somewhat since the 00s (he is, for the record, still *way* too complacent) and I have difficulty imagining him getting away with the kind of indifference Trump has shown to political violence.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[cp]

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