Everything is Political

[MrCarmady]

I think Corbyn is an anti-Semite, there's too many data points to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point

Can you share those? I don't follow British politics much, but my impression from what I've read is that the label is B.S. designed to sink him.

it certainly makes it hard to unpick (remember when it worked and they tried the same line on Sanders? lol), and anti-Semitism is rife in the Tory party as well, just in a different form, but here's a list I found, see what you think (the author certainly has an agenda, but is he wrong?)
https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/12 ... 7044699136

[kanafani]

see what you think

Thanks, I will take a look and report back

[Holymanm]

https://twitter.com/lucianaberger/statu ... 0051338241

"I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on" - corbyn

..........

[MrCarmady]

imagine comparing that piece of shit to Diego fucken Riviera...

[St. Gloede]

What are the data points re: Jeremy Corbyn being anti-semitic? I have followed this to an extent, though I am not British, and every example I have seen comes down to criticism of Israel or general complaints about the complaints process in the party as a whole (which demonstrably improved under his leadership).

My current impression is that this is just a lie/smear by the right-wing media, part of many (like the lie many believe that he laid a wreath at the grave of a terrorist ... it was the former VP of Palestine). Would actually be comforting (in a way) if there was some truth to this as it would make the media landscape/agenda seem a lot less scary. As things stand it really seems like the overwhelming media landscape in the UK (and the US) will do almost anything to stop even baseline social democratic measures.

-

As for new parties in the UK - this is not possible/logical - as they do not have proportional representation. However, even in Norway, where it is possible, splits like this tend to leave the left as a smaller coalition partner - rather than in the driving seat.

Hell, if the Socialist Left Party hadn't split out of (Norwegian) Labour in the 60s Labour would undoubtedly have elected Steen as PM as opposed to Nordli (they had to split power, Nordli as PM and Steen as Chairman as the Socialist and Democratic Socialist factions were warring) - and if that did not occur we would not have shifted even further right and into Social Democracy when Brundtland took over. #Hindsight

[rischka]

there's a lot in the thread above but for me it's enough that most jews in the UK feel this way tbh. for a more extreme example, see liquidnature's claims that trump isn't a racist (a lie/smear of the left-wing media). but we should maybe drop this now! it has absolutely been taken up by the right wing here to smear anyone who opposes the actions of israel (as MANY jews in the US do)

one of these frivolous lawsuits regarding the election has managed to reach the supreme court, trump must be thrilled. he's raised over 200 million dollars on this bs

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1 ... 44898?s=20

the case involves invalidating a pennsylvania law that expanded mail-in voting passed in 2019 so probs 0 chance as it should have been challenged BEFORE the election

[thoxans]

meanwhile, dems are already caving on stuff, while the nyt runs op-eds about why trump shouldn't be prosecuted once he's out of office

must be all the cornstarch in their freshly pressed suits and pantsuits that keep them standing upright, what with the lack of spines and all

[rischka]

Time for mitch to cement his legacy

https://youtu.be/Hl6u5DJvnEg

[flip]

to be fair, the nyt runs tons of op-eds that clearly contradict their editorial position. and if i remember correctly, they ran an op-ed a few days ago saying trump should be prosecuted.

[thoxans]

oh i know. just funny cuz they supposedly epitomize the 'liberal media.' that straw man invented by the right as a useful tool to automatically delegitimize counterargument and criticism. also funny cuz it simply reeks of being bipartisan just for the sake of it. the reason future generations won't have a habitable planet. cuz it's some peoples' opinion climate change isn't real. gee that's nice. our children and our children's children will all struggle to survive as displaced refugees, but at least folks got to express their opinion. and isn't that what really matters after all...?

[rischka]

I do sometimes fear I could go eco-fascist. But we're part of this ecosystem too. And also I am extremely antiauthoritarian

[St. Gloede]

there's a lot in the thread above but for me it's enough that most jews in the UK feel this way tbh. or a more extreme example, see liquidnature's claims that trump isn't a racist (a lie/smear of the left-wing media). but we should maybe drop this now!

But with Trump you can point to him actually saying things that are overtly or subvertly racist.

With Corbyn, on the other hand, I have not yet seen anyone do this - in fact, the only thing I see is a long and very impressive background in fighting racism and standing with the oppressed.

Again, if anyone could actually find anything that implies antisemitism on Corbyn's part, please do.

I don't think we should drop the matter - as there seems to be a universal push that a prominent anti-racism advocate is racist - and it is horrifying and vile. If the media can simply call critique of Israel anti-semitism - and make it a fact that a person is a racist on no basis what so ever - this is a major issue - and one that we see time and time again: the right-wing media propagating bizarre claims to weaken the push for policies that would benefit the country in question.

[---]

Mrcarmady posted a link to a Twitter thread. I didn't read it all but it had me convinced. The author of the thread had an agenda (as mrcarmady noted) and would sometimes exaggerate Corbyn's behaviour but many of the acts still were def anti-Semitic.

He wrote a forward to a book that was blatantly antisemitic. He didn't write the book but he associated himself with it. He defended a mural that was blatantly antisemitic. Once again, anti-Semitism by association. Maybe he doesn't genuinely believe any anti-Semitic ideas, but it's clear that he's willing to associate and work with those who do if they share other political views of his. In my book that makes him an antisemitic

(Fwiw I, like you and like kanafani, totally thought it was a right-wing smear till I read the thread mrcarmady posted)

[rischka]

If more than 85% of UK Jewish population finds corbyn antisemitic well... I'd think they should not be ignored

Also peace out everyone ✌ ☮

[flip]

He wrote a forward to a book that was blatantly antisemitic.

i don't know anything about this corbyn foreword, but there was a similar controversy involving chomsky - he let one of his essays about free speech be used as a preface to a book by a holocaust denier. obviously chomsky is no holocaust denier, just a defender of free speech, but a lot of people attacked chomsky by unfairly conflating the two positions. so i'm wary of any guilt-by-association claims in this general area, and i'd want to actually read the foreword corbyn wrote before deciding anything.

that's if i cared about corbyn enough to find out what he thinks, which at the moment i do not!

[flip]

question: if republicans succeed at persuading their base that the american election system is fraudulent and rigged... why will anyone in their base ever vote again?

interestingly, trump's most bananas lawyers sidney powell and lin wood made the same argument when speaking to a crowd of georgia republicans -- don't vote in the senate runoff unless the vote fraud issues are fixed. so i'm happy to be in good company on this.

[kanafani]

OK. I spent some time going through the twitter thread. I think calling Corbyn an anti-Semite based on these facts is unfair and disingenuous.

There were a few incidents where he should have definitely acted differently:
He should have looked at that ridiculous bigoted mural more closely before defending it.
He should have preemptively addressed Hobson’s antisemitism in his introduction (I haven’t read the book, but there seems to be agreement that it is a classic that has a lot of interesting things to say about imperialism, so presenting the issue as if Corbyn wrote a forward to Mein Kampf is ridiculous).
He should not have compared Israel to Nazi Germany on freaking holocaust Remembrance Day. In fact, just refrain from comparing Israel to Nazi Germany on any day.
He should not be criticized for the mere act of meeting with members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those are large organizations with huge bases of support in their countries. I might not personally agree with their ideology (in fact I do not agree with it at all), but it is still evident that their popularity largely stems from representing the liberation aspirations of their people, and that is something that should be supported. Yes, there are members in these groups that are blatantly antisemitic, and Corbyn should shun them and not meet with them, not because it does not look good, but because associating with anti-Semites hurts the Palestinian cause. The issue is about the criminality of a state, not about traits of a religious or ethnic group. The latter nonsense should not be tolerated by anybody.

But let’s be real here. People who want to smear Corbyn for associating with Palestinians or Hizbollah etc will keep digging until they find some dirt. The representatives of people who live under Israel’s apartheid regime must apparently pass all kinds of stringent purity tests before anyone in the west can be associated with them. Of course, this never applies to the other side. What do these critics have to say about the long procession of war criminal, racist Israeli officials who have had the most cordial of relationships with all kind of British and Western politicians and leaders? By these standards, we should reject Biden as a racist for things he has said in the past about African Americans. Biden has said worse things than Corbyn ever said, and more importantly, he worked on actual policy and legislation that ruined people’s lives, but he gets a pass, because he is not an anti-imperialist socialist.

A lot of complaints in the twitter thread come down to the good old “anti-Zionism==anti-Semitism” trope, which should be rejected by any decent human being. Israel is a criminal apartheid state. This is not an anti-Semitic statement, and if you think it is, just go ahead and put me on your ignore list. Corbyrn and other leftists support the Palestinian cause, not because Palestinians are morally uncorrupt and virtuous people, but because they are the victims of a historical injustice.

It is fair to say that Corbyrn is not a person who is passionate about fighting antisemitism. Many other forms of oppression resonate much more strongly with him, which is true for a lot of leftists. And he could have been more proactive in speaking up against antisemitism to avoid his opponents taking advantage of it. But that does not even come close to making him an anti-Semite.

[rischka]

question: if republicans succeed at persuading their base that the american election system is fraudulent and rigged... why will anyone in their base ever vote again?

interestingly, trump's most bananas lawyers sidney powell and lin wood made the same argument when speaking to a crowd of georgia republicans -- don't vote in the senate runoff unless the vote fraud issues are fixed. so i'm happy to be in good company on this.

Let us pray trumps bananas strategy bites them in the ass. Mitch is trying to get Trump to campaign there now

And I'd be inclined to let black people decide abt Biden too

[---]

The whole "if Corbyn's behaviour is antisemitic then Biden's is antiblack", I think, won't convince a leftist to change their mind if they think Corbyn is antisemitic, because, well, of course Biden has done heinously racist things. And Obama's a war criminal who was for eight years white supremacy's #1 international enforcer. Bill Clinton is little more than a domestic terrorist who rose to his country's highest office.

But kanafani I think you raise an excellent point. Most of the people who are criticizing Corbyn tolerate racism and Islamophobia in neoliberals. It's weird, I guess, but maybe it matters where the criticism comes from? If a rightwinger or centrist has criticisms about Corbyn's alleged antisemitism, it's almost certainly the result of the perpetuation of a double standard. Doesn't mean it's not true. Possibly means it doesn't need to be addressed/countered, because such people aren't arguing in good faith. But doesn't mean it isn't true. So in leftist circles, when it's brought up by people who don't have those double-standards, people who despise all racism, it can't really be ignored.

When Barbara Bush says that rap music is harmful to black communities she can obviously fuck off. But bell hooks says it too...so can we really just not accept the argument because it's usually put forth by racist hypocrites?

And while it's probably true that Corbyn's bigotry (maybe not in thought, but certainly in the effects of his actions) is way less pernicious and has harmed way fewer people than Obama's or Trump's or Netenyahu's or Modi's or Clinton's, there's no reason we on the left should accept any bigotry at all in our leaders, right? His actions don't mean he should go to the Hague (like Obama and Trump should), but is it really unreasonable to say he's not fit to be a leader of the anti-capitalist anti-racist anti-imperialist left?

[MrCarmady]

Yeah, I agree conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is wrong, not least because there's loads of Jewish people on the left sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. I also agree that there's double standards applied in the media to people like Corbyn. But that doesn't absolve him, your take is a bit too forgiving. Other people in the party like Ken Livingstone and Chris Williamson are undoubtedly anti-Semitic, in a blatant way that Corbyn isn't. But it's not enough to say 'he doesn't care about anti-Semitism enough', he actively seems to see it as a distraction and a smear. For instance, he defended aforementioned Chris Williamson from accusations of anti-Semitism:
https://www.politicshome.com/news/artic ... ism-claims
And rejecting legitimate complaints by British Jews (both on the left and the right) as irrelevant and overblown means tolerating bigotry, and at some point, tolerating bigotry and being prejudiced yourself becomes the same thing.
I don't like Biden and I hate the carceral state and the War on Drugs in general, so that's besides the point.
PS. Assuming you don't know who Chris Williamson is (lucky you!), here's a pretty comprehensive summary:
https://antisemitism.org/politics/labou ... illiamson/

[Holymanm]

He should have looked at that ridiculous bigoted mural more closely before defending it.

Eh.... it takes 0.05 seconds to see what that picture is. Either 1. he literally didn't look at it at all, 2. he looked and liked it and is lying about not liking it, or 3. his bigotry/antisemitism is so deeply, subconsciously ingrained that he doesn't realise he has it. ...None of the three are great to have: 1 = liar, 2 = bigot, 3 = unconscious bigot. The other stuff is what it is, but this mural stuff is just off-the-wall batshit, pour moi.

[kanafani]

He should have looked at that ridiculous bigoted mural more closely before defending it.

Eh.... it takes 0.05 seconds to see what that picture is. Either 1. he literally didn't look at it at all, 2. he looked and liked it and is lying about not liking it, or 3. his bigotry/antisemitism is so deeply, subconsciously ingrained that he doesn't realise he has it. ...None of the three are great to have: 1 = liar, 2 = bigot, 3 = unconscious bigot. The other stuff is what it is, but this mural stuff is just off-the-wall batshit, pour moi.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he took a stance before even looking at it, out of some freedom of speech principled feeling.

[Holymanm]

conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is wrong

Can someone explain what being "anti-Zionist", right now in this moment, means? And how it is a reasonable (and now apparently widely accepted by woke people) stance?

"Zionism" = the idea that Jewish people, however you define "Jewish", should have their own state, where they can be fully autonomous (whether it's in The Holy Land or anywhere else, though this is now moot).

So if you're anti-this-idea... do you mean in theory, like Israel never should have been established in the first place? Or you mean that right now, in 2020, you literally believe that Israel should be disbanded and dissolved as a country? And Palestinians should be given back full control of that whole land, and all the current Israelis should become stateless refugees or left under the power of the new Palestinian government? I mean I obviously grasp the parallels between this and the formation of Israel in the first place, and I understand how Palestinian people would want this. But just to be clear, when someone is "anti-Zionist" - or talks about how "Zionists" are evil, uses "Zionist" as a slur or pejorative, etc. - is this what they mean? That Israel should stop existing as a country?

Or has the meaning of "Zionism" changed, to mean an imperialist belief that Israel, the present nation, ought to expand and take over as much of the (Arab or other) world as it can? Is this what people now think Zionism means? ...Why? Superficially, this seems like pernicious equivocation perpetrated by antisemitic people on Twitter, to get people to start saying "you know, there must be a reason why every country has hated them"... but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Why has the meaning changed? (Next routine: if "racism" means "systemic racism", then what does "systemic racism" mean? And what about airline food?)

[Holymanm]

He should have looked at that ridiculous bigoted mural more closely before defending it.

Eh.... it takes 0.05 seconds to see what that picture is. Either 1. he literally didn't look at it at all, 2. he looked and liked it and is lying about not liking it, or 3. his bigotry/antisemitism is so deeply, subconsciously ingrained that he doesn't realise he has it. ...None of the three are great to have: 1 = liar, 2 = bigot, 3 = unconscious bigot. The other stuff is what it is, but this mural stuff is just off-the-wall batshit, pour moi.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he took a stance before even looking at it, out of some freedom of speech principled feeling.

Yeah, which just seems pretty weird as well...

[kanafani]

He should have looked at that ridiculous bigoted mural more closely before defending it.

Eh.... it takes 0.05 seconds to see what that picture is. Either 1. he literally didn't look at it at all, 2. he looked and liked it and is lying about not liking it, or 3. his bigotry/antisemitism is so deeply, subconsciously ingrained that he doesn't realise he has it. ...None of the three are great to have: 1 = liar, 2 = bigot, 3 = unconscious bigot. The other stuff is what it is, but this mural stuff is just off-the-wall batshit, pour moi.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt and assume he took a stance before even looking at it, out of some freedom of speech principled feeling.

Yeah, which just seems pretty weird as well...

I honestly don't know enough about the guy, but he strikes me as someone who does not have the skills and polish of a modern politician. He takes rash positions that come back to bite him; he seems to despise the media games and PR polish that traditional politicians specialize in.

[---]

conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is wrong

Can someone explain what being "anti-Zionist", right now in this moment, means? And how it is a reasonable (and now apparently widely accepted by woke people) stance?

"Zionism" = the idea that Jewish people, however you define "Jewish", should have their own state, where they can be fully autonomous (whether it's in The Holy Land or anywhere else, though this is now moot).

So if you're anti-this-idea... do you mean in theory, like Israel never should have been established in the first place? Or you mean that right now, in 2020, you literally believe that Israel should be disbanded and dissolved as a country?

Israel is, in extenso, an illegal occupation and should cease to exist as a state (just like Canada and the United States, and perhaps most/all South American countries but I know next to nothing about Latin American politics so I'll refrain from declaring that).

I don't think any religious or ethnic group is "entitled" to a state. Do Scientologists need a state? Or Baha'i people? "Jewishness is a race in addition to a religion." Okay, should South African Coloureds (I'm guessing that nomenclature is out of favour but I don't know what term to use) have their own state? What about Basque people? Siberians? Sami? Khanty?

Maybe you answer yes to all of these. Okay, but those ethnic groups are mostly present in one area where they are the majority.

"Doesn't matter, being a majority should not entitle you to more protection than being a minority."

I'd probably debate the difference between the protection of living in a just society vs living in an ethnostate. But even so, let's say you think Jews need their own country. Thousands of years of persecution and genocide, ongoing hatred to this day...that's not a unreasonable position to take. But why at the expense of Palestine? That land was already occupied. Palestinians didn't do shit to Jews (pre-Israel relations between Palestinians and the few Jews that were already in Palestine were fairly good, as I understand it). Why isn't Israel carved out of Germany, or Poland, or Russia or something? If a Jewish ethnostate is necessary, it's almost entirely Europeans who made this a necessity. Why is it Asians who had their land occupied?

[MrCarmady]

conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is wrong

Can someone explain what being "anti-Zionist", right now in this moment, means? And how it is a reasonable (and now apparently widely accepted by woke people) stance?

"Zionism" = the idea that Jewish people, however you define "Jewish", should have their own state, where they can be fully autonomous (whether it's in The Holy Land or anywhere else, though this is now moot).

So if you're anti-this-idea... do you mean in theory, like Israel never should have been established in the first place? Or you mean that right now, in 2020, you literally believe that Israel should be disbanded and dissolved as a country? And Palestinians should be given back full control of that whole land, and all the current Israelis should become stateless refugees or left under the power of the new Palestinian government? I mean I obviously grasp the parallels between this and the formation of Israel in the first place, and I understand how Palestinian people would want this. But just to be clear, when someone is "anti-Zionist" - or talks about how "Zionists" are evil, uses "Zionist" as a slur or pejorative, etc. - is this what they mean? That Israel should stop existing as a country?

Or has the meaning of "Zionism" changed, to mean an imperialist belief that Israel, the present nation, ought to expand and take over as much of the (Arab or other) world as it can? Is this what people now think Zionism means? ...Why? Superficially, this seems like pernicious equivocation perpetrated by antisemitic people on Twitter, to get people to start saying "you know, there must be a reason why every country has hated them"... but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Why has the meaning changed? (Next routine: if "racism" means "systemic racism", then what does "systemic racism" mean? And what about airline food?)

Good questions. The way I understand it and the way I would position myself is to say that I certainly think that Israel has a right to exist and Israelis have a right to their own state, but that Israel's treatment of Palestine is unconscionable and informed by widespread accepted racism (seriously, you should hear what my extended family over there thinks of Arabs, it's horrendous) and a Western/imperialist belief that the US and co are the 'good guys' and Israel has to do what it must to survive. Now, the other side tends to over-simplify the issue in the other direction, being very forgiving of Muslim theocracies which are as racist and imperialist as Israel, just with more limited resources, oil notwithstanding (Palestinians don't even have that). So anti-Israel is perhaps a better phrasing than anti-Zionist but it boils down to the same thing, doesn't it? Netanyahu is a cunt, the country is militaristic and imperialist to the core, and we in the 'West' need to speak up instead of letting our allies get away with war crimes. That said, I'm not a fan of BDS, I get that it takes inspiration from the anti-Apartheid boycotts which ended up being very effective, but it seems bizarre to me to have a problem with, say, Eurovision featuring Israel when it also features Hungary, Russia, and Azerbaijan, or to stop people buying things made in Israel when China is putting Muslims in camps.i guess you gotta start somewhere but it seems like posturing to me. Also, for instance, when David Grossman's play, which is expressly critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, gets picketed in New York just because the author is from Israel, it seems like a weird, self-defeating move to me.

[MrCarmady]

Just to add,

Israel is, in extenso, an illegal occupation and should cease to exist as a state (just like Canada and the United States, and perhaps most/all South American countries but I know next to nothing about Latin American politics so I'll refrain from declaring that).

This is a perfect illustration of why anti Semitism and anti Zionism aren't the same thing - this is very much the latter, but when it includes the US and Canada, it steers away from the former. It's not really a tenable position because it's so theoretical, but I see where bure is coming from. And I've never heard Jeremy Corbyn say that the US doesn't have a right to exist the way he does about Israel somewhere in that thread I posted.

[St. Gloede]

I don't really want to make this thread too negative, especially as politics have gotten more and more tragic/depressing, but I wanted to add read large parts of the twitter thread (sorry for missing it earlier), opened articles, etc. I had seen many of the claims already as well - and I just don't see what you are seeing. Kanafi already did a more thorough reply, so I'll leave it at that.

(and yes, the mural is clearly anti-semitic, though I had to zoom in to see it)

The Chris Williamson connection also confuses me. The incidents listed (did not real all) are simply him saying antisemitism was weaponized, overblown, etc. There may be a smoking gun there somewhere, and I know he was suspended for making too light of the accusation - but as you yourself say there was a double standard, ie it was weaponized with a political aim - this was a fairly natural reaction - though I'll advised and harmful - especially as it dismisses antisemitism as an issue.

While I completely agree that being a racist and tolerating/accepting racism - especially defending racism/racists - is not that different - this seems far more of an issue of people reacting to situations they view as overblown/vicious attacks - and a vicious circle where everyone who stands up for them, and then those who stand up for them, etc. etc. etc. gets dragged in.

One thing that was disturbing about the Labour row was the number of people on the left, possibly Corbyn included, who couldn't believe they could hold any racist views because they were on the left. I remember seeing ex-MP (who granted, had left Labour long before, and is in a different party) George Galloway saying he couldn't be racist/abtisemitic because he had Karl Marx on his shelf... (that's the most laughable example, and like I said, he's not in Labour) but you could see that echoed - and it is pretty scary. I didn't see anyone of actual power going that far, but you could tell some were coming from a similar school of thought.

I want to say I am not a staunch "Corbyn defender". I thought the incident that got him suspended was broadly his fault, as the timing was atrocious, and could so easily be seen as dismissing antisemitism. I'll get flack for that I'm sure.

It is however also clear that antisemitism accusations is weaponized to hurt the left. I. e. Nandy saying "Antisemitism is a particular kind of racism, that punches up instead of punching down".... had no consequences, but Long-Bailey retweeting an interview with an actress speaking favourably about Socialism, but getting a claim about Israel wrong (the actress that is) got her removed from the shadow cabinet...

It is really poisonous waters to navigate, and to be honest I'm not even sure how to best speak about it as I don't want to minimise antisemitism or belittle people's genuine experience.

Anyways, this turned out much longer than I hoped it would be - I hope I did not offend you/anyone here.

[MrCarmady]

I largely agree with you there about the 'defends, gets dragged in' phenomenon, but I think Corbyn is just over the line of plausible deniability at this point (and Williamson is waaaay over the line, see below). The Long-Bailey thing was clearly just clever political manoeuvring from Starmer who used it as an excuse to purge a pro-Corbyn MP from his shadow cabinet, but it was still a stupid mis-step in the same way that Corbyn's suspension was, as you say - don't give people more ammunition than they need.

As for Williamson, perhaps this is a better link:
https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/i ... n-1.493936

Galloway is a massive anti-Semite as well, that's a really funny quote.