[Sivad]

Look, I admit that I don't know nuch about this - but why is it more wrong to be antisemitic than it is to be anti-Muslim or anti-Catholic?

People should be held responsible for their ideologies and actions, so criticizing Zionism or some particular strain of Judaism is not antisemitic. Attacking people simply for their Jewish ethnicity is all that constitutes antisemitism. Zionists are scum not because they're Jewish but because they're Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jews are Zionists

[noemon]

Criticising the existence of a country (saying it should cease to exist) is not the same as criticism of a country.

Saying someone works for another country is not the same as saying someone supports it

These nuances are not up to political parties or judges to determine, libel and slander already cover the second case. Anti racist laws and hate speech laws already cover the first. Making new laws particular to one specific country is completely preposterous and unheard of.

I do not see anyone going to prison in the UK for suggesting and promoting the destruction of the USSR or Yugoslavia or Syria and there are loads of such people around.

[witchfinder]

I am not a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, or of the far left, I detest Momentum and I believe that Skwawkbox is the political left version of The Daily Mail … in other words it wouldn't know the truth if it hit it.

HOWEVER
I do not agree that anti Semitism exists in the Labour Party to the extent to which is been claimed, and as much as I do not like Jeremy Corbyn and disagree with him on many issues, I do not believe he is racist in any way, shape or form.


Further more, I see absolutely nothing wrong what so ever in making the claim that Israels policies towards the Palestinians, and the way in which people in occupied territories are treated by the Israelis should not be compared to how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s.


I am not a racist, I have nothing against anyone of any faith, including Jews, but I will not have anyone telling me that I cannot criticise the Israeli state or any state for its treatment of minorities.


The International version of what is, and what is not anti semetic goes too far, it is a gag, and it prevents people from criticising real and genuine injustice, and it can go to hell.

[Sivad]

Here's some hardcore antisemitism for ya, pofo

Who are really the crazy racists here?

[layman]

@noemon my understanding is it’s about a code of conduct within the Labour Party. Not about criminal law or anyone going to prison.

I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for saying the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour but I don’t think is should be acceptable for mps to say it either. That is my position.

This is one of the specific examples/sscenarios they removed from the definition. It should be pointed out they kept everything in the code apart from I think four given accompanying scenarios. Everyone else was adopted.

This suggest both an overreaction from opponents of Corbyn and supporters. As with the Russian poisoning case, Corbyns official position isn’t as far from the mainstream as it first appears or is reported to.

[danholo]

People should be held responsible for their ideologies and actions, so criticizing Zionism or some particular strain of Judaism is not antisemitic. Attacking people simply for their Jewish ethnicity is all that constitutes antisemitism. Zionists are scum not because they're Jewish but because they're Zionists.

Ok, thanks for calling me scum. Fortunately I'm not scum and the real scum is the hater.

Not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jews are Zionists

So most Jews are scum because most Jews are Zionist i.e., believe that Jews have a right to self-determination? Wanting self-determination for your people defines 'scum'?

[noemon]

@noemon my understanding is it’s about a code of conduct within the Labour Party. Not about criminal law or anyone going to prison.

But that is the end game here, is it not? If people express a political opinion they face the prospect of being removed from the party and being sanctioned and what stops that being applied to laymen and imposing fines and prison terms once it has become the new normal?

I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for saying the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour but I don’t think is should be acceptable for mps to say it either. That is my position.
This is one of the specific examples/sscenarios they removed from the definition. It should be pointed out they kept everything in the code apart from I think four given accompanying scenarios. Everyone else was adopted.

They removed the examples that refer to Israel because setting rules and laws particular to a specific country is unheard of, it has never happened before and nor should it ever happen. It is completely unprecedented and utterly ridiculous.

[layman]

I don’t see why it has to extend to criminal law. Loads of private rules don’t, never have and never will. It isn’t illegal to be racist or. Bigot or anti Semitic. Only in the context of hate speech, discrimination etc.

Regarding the examples. You are allowed to criticise Israel explicitly in the same way as you can criticise other country’s. This is a bit of a confusing idea of course but that is what it says. Do Palestinian rights advocators really have to compare Israelis to nazis and call the entire existence of the Jewish state a racist endeavour? I think they can manage without.

In addition, having to prove intent of racism/anti semitism is especially strange. Since when did you have to intend to be racist to be racist?

[skinster]

I'm seeing online a lot of people - again - joining up to Labour membership because of this third round of antisemitism smears. I support this motion and recommend others do it if they haven't already.

Criticising the existence of a country (saying it should cease to exist) is not the same as criticism of a country.

Israel exists whether you say it should or not. An apartheid state has no right to exist. Crying about people saying Israel has no right to exist or demanding people say it must can come after your ilk says Palestine has a right to exist (a state with much more legitimacy than Israel, or "1948 as it's known by some )

Saying someone works for another country is not the same as saying someone supports it.

The anti-Corbyn Labour MP-wankers in the party are working for Israel, not their party-leader or their party.

Ok, thanks for calling me scum. Fortunately I'm not scum and the real scum is the hater.

zionists are scum though. That's how they're perceived by many because of their brutality and arrogance. The worst is when they try to play victim...

So most Jews are scum because most Jews are Zionist i.e., believe that Jews have a right to self-determination? Wanting self-determination for your people defines 'scum'?

Sivad was clear on the group he considers scum: zionists. Jews have a right to self-determination, but nobody has a right to imposing apartheid and racism in law, never mind occupation and blockade...

[noemon]

I don’t see why it has to extend to criminal law. Loads of private rules don’t, never have and never will. It isn’t illegal to be racist or. Bigot or anti Semitic. Only in the context of hate speech, discrimination etc.

Sanctioning MP's, and members of political parties and making it illegal to express political opinions is effectively the exact same thing.

Regarding the examples. You are allowed to criticise Israel explicitly in the same way as you can criticise other country’s. This is a bit of a confusing idea of course but that is what it says. Do Palestinian rights advocators really have to compare Israelis to nazis and call the entire existence of the Jewish state a racist endeavour? I think they can manage without.

In addition, having to prove intent of racism/anti semitism is especially strange. Since when did you have to intend to be racist to be racist?

The whole wording is ridiculous ("you can criticise Israel only if you tick certain boxes and only if you can prove that you have no racist intent") and this IHRA definition has already been used to silence Jeremy Corbyn and shut down protests against Israeli apartheid so I really do not see why you keep insisting that these are the only 2 things that people will be "without" as it is quite obvious that the wording is so dubious so as to intimidate anyone trying to express any kind of criticism. Do you believe that Jeremy Corbyn has expressed antisemitic views? Do you believe that anti-apartheid demonstrations are antisemitic? Do you think that silencing Jeremy Corbyn or whoever dares support Palestinian statehood should be heckled and sanctioned? And do you not see any problem with making rules, and laws specific to a single state? You do not see any dangerous precedent there at all?

Do you think that MP's should be sanctioned from their parties for calling for the destruction of the USSR? And Yugoslavia and Syria? Do you think MP's and party members should face disciplinary action for speaking against Russia's Crimean occupation? I am surprised by the ease with which you are welcoming obvious gag orders that aim to intimidate people and political actors from freely expressing themselves.

[Politiks]

Why they should they use this new definition because of what a single man thinks or/and says?? Yes Corbyn is a politician but he is a individual doesn't represent the country. I have little sympathy for Corbyn but doesn't he also harshly criticizes the Royals?? The Jewish community wants to impose this and is using that joke of a politician to implant this in the UK. Oh PC...such a boring, dangerous and dead world Europe is creating for itself.

It's also hard to tell the difference between Russophobia, a diverse spectrum of negative feelings of Russia, and legitimate criticism levelled against the state of Russia. Anti-Russia sentiment remains fairly strong throughout Europe.

I laughed at "Russophobia" but is kind of true , specially in the UK. I guess the Orange Man was emough to blow up the phobia to another level

[skinster]

[layman]

I don’t agree it is the same thing. See my point on being as racist. Mps have and should have higher standards. As should the police and other professionals.

Regarding the current labour rules, the onus is on the procecution to prove the accused has racist intent. I do not believe there is any suggestion people have to prove they are not racist in the ihra definition?

What specifically could people not do if this was adopted in full as to the Amended version. Is calling Israelis nazis essential?

Regarding the ussr. This comparison is not valid because people do not use it as a proxy to attack an ethnic group. I already stated I believe some people do this with Israel in the same way some people use “Islam is not a religion” card to attack Brown people. I remember after 911 a bnp activist on tv saying they are fine with Indians. It’s just those “Pakistanis” we want out.

And no Corbyn is not an anti Semite and those accusing him are probably emotional or just don like him. It wouldn’t be the first time people used the accusation of racism to slander someone.

I do think he has handled it badly though and I do believe the left has a a partial blind spot to anti semitism due to 1 the Israeli occupation 2 the relative wealth and power of Jews. The Labour Party does devote some time to this though, despite large portions of the grass roots believing it is a complete 100% Zionist conspiracy.

[noemon]

I don’t agree it is the same thing. See my point on being as racist. Mps have and should have higher standards. As should the police and other professionals.

But whether you agree with something or not is irrelevant to whether something actually exists as a legal way to shut off people(.ie Jeremy Corbyn) and protests(.ie anti-apartheid at universities). Not to mention that the articles posted in this thread already make the case that the supporters of this definition already argue that it either has or that it should be adopted by everybody(councils, courts, et al).

Regarding the current labour rules, the onus is on the procecution to prove the accused has racist intent. I do not believe there is any suggestion people have to prove they are not racist in the ihra definition?

The House Select Committee of the House of Commons(not the Labour Party for those not following the thread properly) had to amend the IHRA definition to change the onus to what you said because the IHRA definition suggests exactly the opposite. The onus being on the person to prove one is not elephant and it is under this guise that people attack Corbyn and the university protests as well.

Regarding the ussr. This comparison is not valid because people do not use it as a proxy to attack an ethnic group.

It is exactly the same thing. People use it as a proxy to attack Russian and Slavic people without remorse as well but that is still irrelevant because it would be the same thing even if they didn't. The fact is people can and do say such things not just for Israel but for many other countries, it is the reasons and the arguments they provide for each case that are judged on their merits by the spectators and the interlocutors. Gagging people from performing this activity for just one country is ridiculous, there is simply no way around it.

And no Corbyn is not an anti Semite and those accusing him are probably emotional or just don like him. It wouldn’t be the first time people used the accusation of racism to slander someone.

Why do you want to normalise this behaviour as not only the new normal but the new proper?

I do think he has handled it badly though and I do believe the left has a a partial blind spot to anti semitism due to 1 the Israeli occupation 2 the relative wealth and power of Jews. The Labour Party does devote some time to this though, despite large portions of the grass roots believing it is a complete 100% Zionist conspiracy.

I also believe he has handled it improperly he should have sacked all those people slandering him ages ago instead of keeping snakes around him, but something tells me that you think otherwise, to be honest, this thing "that Corbyn has not handled it properly" unaccompanied by nothing is simply yet another way to attack him, guy is damned if he does and damned if he don't. The left is far less racist(including antisemitic) than the right in this country and that is not just obvious to anyone living here but has also been proven several times over through gallups and research.

[skinster]

The Jewish establishment’s ‘War Against Corbyn’ risks bringing real antisemitism to Britain
Greetings from Britain, where the Jewish community is facing an “existential threat to Jewish life”. At least that’s according to an editorial shared by all three of our Jewish community newspapers this week – the Jewish Chronicle, The Jewish News, and the Jewish Telegraph.

You’re probably thinking that Her Majesty’s Government must have just introduced the equivalent of Hitler’s Nuremberg race Laws of 1935. Perhaps it’s worse. Perhaps the round-ups have already begun.

Don’t worry, you haven’t missed a major global news story. Britain remains one of the safest places to live as a Jew on the entire planet. That doesn’t mean there’s no anti-Jewish prejudice here. It’s just that there’s a great deal less of it than some people want you to believe. That’s true for now, but how long will it last?

Thanks to a Jewish communal leadership and a Jewish press which have merged Jewish interests in Britain with the need to defend the interests of the State of Israel, we are set on a path that risks turning fake antisemitism into real antisemitism. What we are witnessing could be an on-coming, self-inflicted tragedy for the Jewish community in Britain. Calling it out now is the best way to stop it happening.

How did we get here?
For those of you who’ve not been following every twist and turn of this saga let me bring you up to speed on the recent developments and the longer term background.

This week’s “existential threat” is just the latest ratcheting up of the rhetoric against the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn over his alleged failure to deal with the alleged epidemic of alleged antisemitism running rife in the party under his leadership – allegedly.

It all began three years ago soon after Corbyn’s election as Labour party leader. What started off as allegations that he was allowing antisemitism to fester in his party unchecked have evolved into direct accusations that Corbyn is himself antisemitic.

I’m yet to see a credible piece of evidence that demonstrates that antisemitism is rife in the Labour Party. That doesn’t mean it’s non-existent but the claim made in the joint editorial that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” does not stand up to scrutiny.

It’s impossible to understand the hostility against Corbyn from the Jewish community without acknowledging Corbyn’s long standing support for the Palestinian people and the need for their rights to be respected and international law implemented. Take this fact away and the last three years would have been very different.

IHRA Definition
This week’s show of Jewish media unity was all about attacking Corbyn for failing to adopt “in full” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. This has become the pretext for all-out war against the Labour leader.

I’m not sure exactly when it happened, but the IHRA document has now become the ‘gold standard’ for our Jewish establishment in determining exactly what antisemitism is in the 21st century. This despite the fact that the IHRA webpage itself describes the document as a ‘working definition’, that is to say it’s a work in progress and a document to be studied, not a statute of government or a piece international law.

But this appears to be far too much nuance for the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council which have led the community to war against Jeremy Corbyn.

Two weeks ago, Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) decided that the IHRA document might not be as perfect as the Jewish leadership and media think it to be. While adopting the vast majority of the IHRA wording, and indeed tightening it up in places, the NEC thought it better to separate out those parts of the document that suggest that criticism of Israel could in certain circumstances become antisemitic.

One IHRA example the NEC rejected was that it was anitisemitic to describe Israel as a “racist endeavor”. The NEC had clearly taken note of some of the legal opinion produced highlighting the risk to free speech, such as this critique by Hugh Tomlinson QC.

The attempt by the NEC to create a policy against antisemitism that balanced the needs of the Jewish community with the need for free speech turned out to be the last straw for our Jewish establishment. In short they went ballistic, insisting that only the Jewish community has the right to determine what is antisemitism and who is being antisemitic and what punishment they should receive.

“This is a sad day for the cause of anti-racism in this country. 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.”

Others including a Jewish Labour MP, Dame Margaret Hodge, felt it justified to call her party leader “a fucking anti-Semite and racist” to his face. This despite Corbyn’s record on fighting racism which looks a whole lot more impressive than just about any other MP at Westminster, certainly Margaret Hodge, as this piece from David Rosenberg shows.

Even 68 British Rabbis who would fail to agree on just about any other issue, political or religious, decided that the IHRA definition was chiseled in stone by Moses himself and was beyond critical engagement.

More rational, intelligent and calmer Jewish thought on the subject was available from experts on antisemitism such as Professor Brian Klug and Anthony Lerman. But the wave of Jewish establishment hostility continues to drown out those voices.

And this is why I’m becoming increasingly worried that a real wave of antisemitism could be on the way.

There is a reasonable chance that Jeremy Corbyn could be Britain’s next Prime Minister.

Thanks to the on-going political turmoil created by Brexit we could well be facing a General Election in Britain in the late autumn or next spring. It will be fought predominantly on our post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, a question which will determine the future prosperity of the country for decades to come.

If Labour runs a good campaign the election will also be fought on the issues that mattered long before the Brexit referendum – ending economic austerity, funding for the National Health Service, affordable housing, safer communities, and care for the elderly. As the most radical version of Labour for many decades, a Corbyn victory could well herald serious change and the reversal of the neo-liberal economic agenda pursued by Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron/May for the last thirty years. The quality of life for millions of people in this country is at stake. For a change, who wins the next election will actually make a difference.

But none of this is of the slightest concern to the Jewish community’s leadership or its media. They only have one issue on their mind – Israel, and how best to protect it from criticism. On this basis they are willing to brand the main opposition party in Britain as irredeemably antisemitic under Corbyn’s leadership. The Jewish Chronicle has already called for Jewish Labour MPs to break away from the party.

And that’s what makes me fear where we could be heading.

If you vote Labour will that make you antisemitic in the eyes of the Jewish community? If you stand for election as a Labour candidate will you be antisemitic?

And what if Corbyn losses by a narrow margin? How will the millions who voted for him see the Jewish community and its three-year campaign to brand him toxic?

The ‘Jewish War Against Corbyn’ is not good Jewish communal politics. It’s playing with fire.

Fighting racism with both hands tied
This is where you end up when you allow antisemitism to become mixed up with Israel and Zionism. This is where the merger between Zionism, Judaism and modern Jewish identity leaves you: fighting racism with both hands tied behind you back.

Mainstream Jewish thinking has created a whole new category of anti-Jewish hatred which the joint editorial this week described as “political antisemitism”. In other words, where they once hated us for our faith, and then for our race, now they hate us for our politics. This is how Jewish nationalism skews Jewish communal relations around the world.

It’s hardly surprising that the leadership of our community want to frame the debate about Corbyn in terms of antisemitism. It’s much easier to talk about antisemitism than defend Israel directly. Israel itself keeps making that harder and harder.

After the Nation State Law was passed who can truthfully claim that Israel does not support creating apartheid communities and does not deny national self-determination to millions of Palestinians under its direct or indirect authority? What’s been the case for decades has just been given a constitutional ratification by the self-styled ‘only democracy in the Middle East’. Even the Board of Deputies is uncomfortable with what’s just happened. That’s because it knows how much harder it will make their work on Israel advocacy.

If you want to look credible in fighting racism against Jews, and other minorities in Britain, it’s best not to be supporting it in Israel.

No Palestinian voice
The other benefit of focusing the ‘Corbyn War’ on antisemitism, rather than criticism of Israel, is that it means we don’t need to hear from any Palestinians. The debate becomes an entirely Jewish affair where the rights and concerns of the Jewish community are all that’s being discussed.

In the last few weeks, as the row has dragged on and escalated, I’ve never see a Palestinian invited to comment on the TV news or mainstream media. You never see a Palestinian asked if they think Israel is a “racist endeavor?”. Only Jews are allowed to define their oppression. Israel and Zionism, according to Jewish rhetoric, has had no victims.

Jewish voices of protest
I hope I’m wrong about the threat of a backlash against the Jewish community if Labour is narrowly defeated in the next General Election. I hope the British public will be able to understand the diversity of Jewish opinion on Israel that’s mostly obscured by those who claim to speak for us in our entirety. It’s difficult, if not impossible, for non-Jewish voices to call out the attacks on Corbyn as disingenuous or at least motivated by a more complex agenda than is being admitted to. The antisemitism allegations come thick and fast.

That’s what makes the Jewish voices in Britain that have been attempting to counter the official Jewish War Against Corbyn, such as Jewish Voice for Labour and Independent Jewish Voices so vital to our long-term well-being in a country that remains (so far) incredibly hospitable towards Jews.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfro ... o-britain/

[skinster]

I became a Labour member today.

[demima]

I've met Naomi. She's a lovely thoughtful lady.


Also, welcome to the club!

[skinster]

Thanks!

I would've joined sooner but I wasn't allowed to since I was living in the US and had never registered to vote before (apparently you have to be living here for that to be allowed).

Anyway I'm telling all my frands. Join me!

On topic:

[Deutschmania]

Corbyn needs to purge these traitors. Those who have taken Mossad's 30 peices of silver to use their possition as Labour MPs to represent the zionist entiry rather than representing the British working class have commited treason. Their ludicrious claims of anti semetism are (as usal) nonsense. Anti semetism exists only on the right, it was the far left who smashed Hitler and liberated Austwitz, not that the Jews ever seem to remeber that. There is not once European Jew alive today who does not owe their lives to the efforts of this man and it is time they remembered it.

. Oh , and what of the "Doctor's Plot" ? This led then Prime Minister Ben Gurion to propose banning Maki , The Communist Party of Israel https://www.haaretz.com/1.5215777 . Also , at one time , even Stalin was regarded fondly in Israel . https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4737624,00.html .

[Decky]

Surely the Doctor's plot proves me right? Stalin was the greatest friend the Jews ever had and the only reason that any European Jew survived the 40s and they paid him back by trying to murder him.