Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funt Solo

There seems to be a clear political slant at work in some claims of antisemitism.  Like: the notion that criticizing Israeli government policy is antisemitic.  Would it be fair to say that criticizing British government policy is anti-Christian?

On the other hand, people who intend to criticize Israel (by which I mean their government policy) sometimes fall foul (whether deliberately or accidentally) of instead criticizing Judaism, or Jewish people in general.  Of course, it (Israeli policy) cannot be the fault of the entire diaspora.

I wouldn't like to be blamed for the actions of the US military or for the policies of the US government, and yet I pay taxes that then go on to be spent on those actions.

On reading the wiki page about Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party (itself perhaps a well-poisoning title), there is an accusation that Muslim Labour members are somehow antisemitic by default, which ties back into the problem of conflating anti-Israeli (policy) sentiment with antisemitic sentiment.  No doubt there is some crossover, and also a tendency for polarization of views.

Quote"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Funt Solo

++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Professor Bear on 22 February, 2019, 11:59:19 PM
Corbyn's a big boy, though, and he'll be fine - the real issue is the erasure of leftwing jews from this conversation.

If you want to see an example of the whole sordid Labour antisemitism mess in microcosm, it's this:

Someone makes a remark on Twitter referring to Palestine about (not to, to the best of my knowledge) departing Labour MP Joan Ryan. Joan Ryan is not Jewish.

Almost immediately, Jess Phillips, also not Jewish, pops up on national TV to point to this 'incident' as yet more evidence of Labour's endemic antisemitism problem.

A couple of days later, Michael Rosen, the only actual Jewish person in this discussion, asks Phillips, via Twitter, what, specifically, is actually antisemitic about what was said about/to Ryan.

Phillips' response, directly to Rosen, is that he should shut up and "stop shit-stirring" (that's a direct quote).
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Professor Bear

Quote from: radiator on 23 February, 2019, 03:18:27 AMThey've tried various things before - including the 'commie spy' angle, it's just that this one seems to have stuck more than the others.

You feel it more acutely because as a leftist you have concerns about these matters - that's why so many on the left have decided not to bother fighting the accusations and instead concentrate on getting their house in order.  There are antisemites on the left and the left needs to deal with them, but an understandable response is also to affirm that you shan't be called a racist by actual racists.

Anecdotally, I grew up in a place in Northern Ireland where a jewish family was regularly threatened if they tried to take down the Israeli flags that were put on their house by (far right) loyalists.  I admit I might not have been privy to all of the nuance, but it really did seem from the outside like violent white supremacists were not actually that kindly-disposed towards jewish people.

Tjm86

Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 February, 2019, 04:53:10 PM
You feel it more acutely because as a leftist you have concerns about these matters - that's why so many on the left have decided not to bother fighting the accusations and instead concentrate on getting their house in order.  There are antisemites on the left and the left needs to deal with them,

The thing is, it's hard to work out how much of an issue it actually is.  Perhaps that is why it has become so effective.  Based on what data is available it seems that it is a significant problem for a small proportion of the population.

Most certainly it is muddied by Corbyn's position on issues such as Israel / Palestine and the actions of parties on both sides.  Raising the entirely valid question of whether actions by the Israeli Security Services are appropriate or ethical seems to have brought this issue to a head. 

The international definition of antisemitism that caused so much trouble for him last year is not entirely uncontested and there are valid concerns about how elements of it such as those to which Corbyn was unwilling to include could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.

So it creates a real dilemma in terms of how to respond.  On the one hand the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people need to be highlighted but on the other hand discrimination and intolerance in any form needs to be challenged.  It does appear though that there has been an element of conflation by critics of Israel as well as by those on the receiving end in an attempt to shut down this debate.

What is not helped though is that Corbyn seems so completely inept when it comes to communicating.

Professor Bear

Whether or not the IHRA definition was adopted for internal disciplinary matters was entirely up to the elected and independent members of the NEC.  The idea that Corbyn had any say was a canard to sucker the gullible into believing the mess (because no matter how things turned out, the press were going to report it the same way) was somehow attributable to him, when it was, in fact, a matter entirely separate from the party leadership.

Tjm86

This is it.  It is so easy to understand why the 'fake news' trope has gained such traction. Editorial bias has always existed and provides secure foundations for it.  Social media and 'citizen journalism' or 'crowdsourced journalism' with its reliance on video clips and images that are selectively edited feeds into this narrative as alternative perspectives that should have been originally incorporated are used to challenge interpretations. 

Digital technology is making it far easier to distort source evidence.  The lack of ethical oversight and laissez faire governance of 'platforms' like facebook have created an explosive situation.  It has become far too easy for digital tools to be used to start and exploit rumours in support of specific agendas.

We are definitely living in 'interesting times'!

Professor Bear

We were always living in interesting times, it's just that now social media won't ever let us forget it.

As for "fake news", the only reason it's gained traction is because the media had to get ahead of it and be seen to denounce it before their record was examined.  Corporate news has always had an agenda, I don't know why anyone is surprised by this - though I'll admit the extent of some of it is sobering, especially when you realise you've become used to it.  Did anyone even bat an eyelid at Channel 4 News getting a little girl to cry on camera because "Jeremy Corbyn is coming to get me"?

Tjm86

Well today certain proved that Social Media won't let go.  A 6 year old tweet by Derek Hatton is being used to prove that Labour is still anti-semitic.  If anything it proves more that criticism of the IHRA definition is correct.  In making an observation about how difficult it should be for a person with a conscience to support what was happening in Palestine he made the crucial error of using the word 'any', thereby suggesting that all persons of that faith bore responsibility.

Not sure what aspect is most disturbing; the distortion of meaning, digging up the embers of a dying fire or this constant recourse to year-old social media comments taken out of context and used to convict.  I wonder if a snarky comment on this forum will be dug up in years to come to hang me out to dry?

Ironically at the moment I'm reading Stross' 2nd "Empire Games" novel.  Some of the uses of technology that he talks about suddenly don't seem quite so farfetched but do seem very disturbing ...

Leigh S

Yeah, it seems to me the idea that Labour has only in the past two years had some members making outright antisemitic or potentially read as antisemitic has no basis in anything other than whatever bias against Corbyn you are trying to prove (and as others have said, we have arguing with regards Livingstones "historical" but maybe poorly worded argument, Wadsworths complaint about the press being turned into "Jews control the press is an antisemitic trope therefore any criticism of the press is antisemitic" (the video of that is chilling, as you see them realise the link they can make and the delayed outrage kicks in) and what else, Muralgate?

There do seem to be a few  criticisms of Israel that sound pretty antisemitic made by some low level councillors, but no one seems to care so much about those, as the truth of what was and wasnt said appears to not be of any interest to the narrative being pushed.

The Marr Show today had Berger,Allen, Gove and Watson on... there's BBC impartiality in action!

 

Leigh S

Forgot the point I was trying to make! Isnt the fact that antisemiticism has become more festering more likely to be due to Brexit and austerity?  People looking for someone to blame - this would explain the rise since 2015, and tie in with Hodges 200 comapints being vastly about people who were not Labour members?

This isnt to excuse anti-semitism, in case anyone wants to spin it that way!  It's abhorrent, and thats why trying to paint someone as antisemitic is also abhorrent

Funt Solo

Hatton's tweet said: "Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering [sic] being carried out by Israel!"

That is, on the face of it, antisemitic.  Why's he blaming the diaspora for Israel's state actions?  Why's he implying that Jews don't have a sense of humanity?  Why doesn't the sentence begin simply "People with any sense of ..."

Of course, I don't know his motivations - so I don't know if he was being careless or deliberate in his choice of words.  And him saying that doesn't equate to Labour being intrinsically antisemitic (especially as he's not actually a member).

---

As for Ken Livingstone, he's a bit of a Hitler apologist, isn't he?  Why does he keep excusing the Holocaust on the grounds that Hitler was "mad"?  Why did he suggest that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism?  And then when he's confronted about it, he weasels around his conflations and tries to make out that he's an innocent victim that should be apologized to.  Oh dear...
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Leigh S

Well, doubling down rather than apologising never seems to work out - presumably he was trying to have a debate about the Final Solution and the fact that Nazi Germany had various plans for relocating German Jews

I've read about this somewhere and a Google found it on wiki, so I'm assuming it isnt a mad holocaust denial theory?  The "Hitler went a bit mad" was pretty cringeworthy, but was it anti-semitic?  Genuinely not sure!

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

Leigh S

Of course, none of that suggests that Zionists and Nazis were planning this together.

As for Hatton, that does sound suspiciously like those "all Muslims should condemn terrorism or are part of it" Tommy Robinson type statments, though it was in 2012, so it would be hard to blame Corbyn for that and he was immediately re-suspended once it was pointed out?

Professor Bear

A cynic might point out that Candace Owens said exactly the same thing as Red Ken did, yet did not have foaming-at-the-mouth journalists practically battering down the door of the toilet she was in minutes later.

Quote from: Tjm86 on 24 February, 2019, 04:41:40 PMA 6 year old tweet by Derek Hatton is being used to prove that Labour is still anti-semitic.

I can't be arsed looking it up but there's some journalist that's been called an antisemite for tweeting almost word for word what Hatton did - except the journalist had copy & pasted what Rupert Murdoch had tweeted about Muslims, he'd just put the word "jews" where "muslims" had been in Murdoch's tweet, and said "Israel" instead of "Hamas".  To be fair, this is less proof of a double standard in racism and more an example of how Murdoch gets a free pass.