Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Labour and Antisemitism (Part II)

241 replies

JewryMember · 02/05/2016 00:13

Link to original thread

OP posts:
grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:14

What do you mean, unexpsoc - my "argument from authority"? Are you suggesting that anti-Semitism is something which exists in the abstract, away from people's lived experiences of it? How else can we define whether it is happening or not if not by referring to people who have first-hand experience of it?

I'm not quite sure how you expect to find the answer to your questions such as

"Are there anti-Semitic people in the Labour Party?

Do they hold sway over the Labour Party / left wing more generally?"

if you ignore long-standing Labour Party members who describe their experiences of the same, and regard their experiences as irrelevant?

Are you expecting to find some kind of 'official record' of Labour Party anti-Semitism that trumps individuals' experiences?

Unfortunately, as you will see if you quickly peruse this thread and the preceding one is that lisalisa's experiences are far from unusual. I suggested you read hers first as they are on this thread and pretty shocking to me. Maybe you're more blase about that kind of anti-Semitism than I can be.

unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:26

grinkle - oh god I never meant in anyway to denigrate lisalisa's personal experiences. However, to argue that her experiences (which I have read) are direct incontrovertible evidence of your assertion that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour party disallows others from positing a different view. I have also shared my fascinating (and at times frightening) experiences of people spouting really quite strong anti-Semitic bile. So I don't deny that. But to say therefore it proves the party has a problem doesn't necessarily follow. For example the Jewish Socialist Group put out a statement denying that very fact. One would hope that they would have some sort of inside view. So if they disagree with Lisalisa does that mean they are lying? Or simply that it is not as clear cut as you are proposing?

The implied insult - that I am blasé about anti-Semitism does you a great injustice. I assume it was spoken from a moment of heated rhetoric and therefore ignore it further.

JewryMember · 04/05/2016 12:27

unexpsoc, have you RTFT? I only ask because your questions on page 5 have been discussed at length and the answers are yes, there are lots of antisemites in the Labour party and no..they're doing fuck all about it. Your posts have real whiff of denial & whataboutery about them

Oh, and there is a name for racism against Jews and it is antisemitism. Why are you reluctant to use it?

OP posts:
unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:35

JewryMember

Gosh - No I haven't read the full previous thread - 1000 entries seemed a lot.
The answers you have given are your views (and shared by many on here) - to simply deny that other people have other views is really not how debate / argument works.
I don't deny that there are people who are anti-Semitic who are in the Labour party / left wing more generally. I have met some of them and wiped their spittle off my face from where they screamed at me with their hatred.

Where am I reluctant to use the term anti-Semitism? If you read the flow of my questions, that only becomes a factor if you believe there ARE other forces (ie other parties / right wing of the LP) trying to use this for their own ends. All I said is that anti-Semitism is a form of racism. Should it be treat with differently? If so, why? That is a genuine question btw because I don't know the answer. I came on here for debate and education. I do hope that is possible - because I am growing concerned that any view which doesn't tow a particular line will simply be shouted out. I hope that is not the case.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:38

unexpsoc - do I think the members of the Jewish Socialists Group are lying? No.

But as I'm sure you'll be aware from recent news, Jews who are anti-Zionist and prepared to say so publicly at every opportunity are tolerated by or even popular among anti-Semites who find them useful to refer to (bit like 'Some of my best friends are Jewish').

No-one has ever said that every singly Jew experiences anti-Semitism in the Labour Party (or outside it for that matter), so it is not really logical to use their denial of personal experience of anti-Semitism as proof of the fact that no other Jews have experienced anti-Semitism.

It's like saying 'I am a member of the Labour Party and I personally haven't had cancer, therefore cancer doesn't exist in the Labour Party'. No, all it proves is that you were lucky. It doesn't negate other people's sadly real experience of cancer, in or out of the Labour Party.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:42

No, anti-Semitism should not be treated differently to other forms of racism and I'm not sure who you think was suggesting it should be? On the contrary, what those objecting to anti-Semitism on this thread have objected is precisely the fact that anti-Semitism HAS been treated differently by the left, as if it was the only form of discrimination that didn't matter.

That's kind of the point of much of the thread. That's kind of the point of the wider discussion over Ken's comments.

unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:43

"'I am a member of the Labour Party and I personally haven't had cancer, therefore cancer doesn't exist in the Labour Party"

I have never argued that. What I disagreed with is "The Labour Party have a problem with cancer" (you know what I mean). I have never said nobody in the Labour party was anti-Semitic. I don't think, but I will re-check my posts.

I think you have either mis-understood my point (in which case, my apologies for not being clear) or mis-quoted me (in which case, shame on you).

grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:46

And if you agree that anti-Semitism should be treated the same as other forms of discrimination, presumably you'd agree that the left should have zero tolerance for it, exactly as they have for other types of hate speech. You can't spend years, as Ken has done, policing others' language for hate speech and then get in a huff when you fail to follow your own principles.

unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:46

grinkle - I wasn't suggesting it should be treat differently, I was asking jewry whether she feels it should be, because they took umbrage (it appeared) at me calling it racism. It's a fair question I think.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:47

Or rather, get in a huff when others pick you up for failing to follow your own principles.

Hygellig · 04/05/2016 12:47

eg Bourdic's link to an article on Finkelstein, the American behind the Shah tweet that caused all the problems, on the page before here. A fellow poster (Ricardian?) detailed precisely how and why no--one should be regarding Finkelstein as a serious scholar previously. (Will find the post when I have time.)

Are you sure it was about Norman Finkelstein? I've searched the Mumsnet Talk archive and can't find any references to Finkelstein this year other than links to his recent OpenDemocracy interview.

unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:48

sorry to be clear - I think Ken Livingstone's comment were monumentally appalling and absolutely bloody stupid. Pathetic doesn't come close to describing it. What an absolute tit.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:53

unexpsoc - what do you mean, you "disagreed with "The Labour Party have a problem with cancer" - that seems to imply that there is a level of cancer aka anti-Semitism that is acceptable?

I would have thought that if Labour has a number of anti-Semites then, yes, it has a problem with annti-semitism. To re-use the cancer analogy, would you go to someone with a cancerous mole, "Well, it's Ok, it's only a little bit of cancer?" I hope not. Cancer is cancer and obviously having a small mole is better than a lungful of it, but you'd have to be pretty damn insensitive to cheerfully tell the patient it really wasn't a problem. Or that as the people next door didn't have cancer too, it really wasn't of any great significance.

Hmm
grinkle · 04/05/2016 12:56

Hygellig - the search function isn't very good, but it's possible this was on a different forum. I'll look when I have time. But yes, it was definitely about Finkelstein and is referred to on his Wikipedia entry - the quote was better than my memory, but the gist of it was that he was thrown out of his university for writing deliberately inflammatory and poorly researched crap.

unexpsoc · 04/05/2016 12:58

grinkle - that argument doesn't ring true either. Sorry, getting confused by the cancer analogy now - you raised it not me. So, your argument is if there are ANY people in the Labour party who have anti-Semitic views then the Labour party has a problem with anti-Semitism?

Logically, how could you stop that? Application form:
Name
Address
Age
How do you feel about Jews?

Or does the party admit people and then, if it hears people are anti-Semitic or racist or discriminatory it investigates and kicks them out if it is proven? Isn't that what they are doing now?

grinkle · 04/05/2016 13:00

It's very easy to say that discrimination against someone else "is not a problem" - when you are not the one affected.

I would never dream of telling a black person or a Muslim or a gay person that they were just imagining the discrimination they had experienced because I've never walked a minute let alone a mile in their shoes.

What makes it OK to play down the real experiences of discrimination experienced by Jews?

Of course it comes at a shit time for the Labour Party, but that's not the fault of the Jews. We hardly asked people to discriminate against us for fun.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 13:03

unexpsoc - I don't see why anti-Semitism has to be pre-diagnosed to be a problem. The issue is how the party deals with it once it is revealed. Does it:

a) deal with it thoroughly and immediately - no ifs, no buts
b) argue that there is no discrimination at all and the victims are just making it up
c) argue that b) is true AND the whole thing is an attempt to smear the Labour Party.

Which one of those options looks to you like a committed attempt to deal with the problem once it's been revealed?

It's not rocket science.

cingolimama · 04/05/2016 13:20

Unexpsoc, this isn't only about individuals in the Labour Party who are anti-semitic. This is about a culture within the LP which, at the very least, has an extremely high tolerance for anti semitic language, imagery and behaviour.

Shariamom · 04/05/2016 13:25

Long time lurker, first time I signed up.
This is all so depressing. So now we are not allowed to criticise the "Israeli" government????
But it's fine for politicians and everyone else to be as islamophobic as they want???

Labour and Antisemitism (Part II)
Labour and Antisemitism (Part II)
cingolimama · 04/05/2016 13:32

Sharia, I'll say this as gently as possible. This thread is about Anti-semitism in the Labour Party. It isn't about Islamaphobia. Nor is it about the Israeli government and their actions.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 13:38

Yes, shariamom - would you like to start a thread on Islamophobia? Obviously, an important topic - but not the one being discussed here?

Or would you like to discuss anti-Semitism instead? In which case, welcome.

grinkle · 04/05/2016 13:39

Should add - anti-Semitism in England. In case you thought for some unaccountable reason we were discussing Israel?

Shariamom · 04/05/2016 13:40

This is all about anti zionism
Naz shah, Ken livingstone, etc have publicly spoken against "Israel" government and had instant slap downs for being anti semitic, even though they've not said anything anti semitic!!!
They've not said anything wrong so why are they being punished?????
Why can the labour party leadership not understand the difference between anti zionism and anti semitic
??????

grinkle · 04/05/2016 13:41

How nice that we have lots of new members joining our thread.

Especially now that fokhandles seems to have gone quiet.

WindPowerRanger · 04/05/2016 13:41

A previous post referred to Corbyn's statements on anti-Semitism being a posture not a position. That struck a chord with me because it reminded me of my own treatment at the hands of left-wing friends and acquaintances (activists mainly, rather than ordinary 'civilians', for lack of a better description).

I am black, and when I discuss racism with other black people we have never believed there to be no racism on the left. We have tended to agree that the right is more racist, but that there is racism on both right and left albeit of different kinds.

My experience has been that black people are prized as a totem of inclusivity on the left, proving the tolerant liberalism of their white compadres, provided that they conform to the role and the beliefs ascribed to them in the left-wing narrative. (This tends to be every bit as stereotyped and de-personalising as right-wing narratives, albeit not generally negative or vicious.)

The name given to this conformity is usually 'authenticity'. 'Authenticity' is important if you are black or brown, though no one can really explain why very clearly. If you fail to be authentic, you are accused of being self-hating, a race traitor, Uncle Tom/Aunt Sarah, out for yourself at the expense of the collective, a coconut etc.

Inauthenticity is often demonstrated by being any of the following; religious, intellectual, traditional, successful, well-spoken, more socially conservative than your peers, not activist enough.

It is not necessarily accepted that being black gives you insights into, well, being black. You have to occupy a certain space and act out a certain role to be given any such credence.

This is how I ended up having a very privileged white woman tear a strip off me for being selfish and a traitor because I had not gone on an anti-apartheid march, having my experiences of racism dismissed by white people because I am middle-class with educated parents and accordingly, not truly in the know and generally being tediously lectured at by non-blacks with zero experiences of our lives.

And really, this is where a portion of the left (a minority, but perhaps disproportionately comprised of activists and office-holders so appearing to be larger and influential) has been for a very long time, almost certainly in relation to Jews and many other groups as well as black people. The underlying attitudes and beliefs towards these groups are not examined. Many people have thoroughly 'unsound' views, but heavily overlaid with an unshakable 'we're the good guys' narrative and to keep that narrative going, require BME people to play a prescribed role rather than feature as equal, autonomous, individual actors.

Any Jewish person supporting Israel has abandoned their prescribed role. The difference between now and the past described in lisalisa's powerful post being that left-wing attitudes to Israel have shifted from seeing it as a new, modern idealistic state where Socialist ideas could be established to an oppressive European capitalist colony brutalising Palestinians on race grounds.