That Corbyn fella...

Given the outright racism expressed by kippers and cons

some

People can't get all moany about the Labour Party being branded anti-Semites, then go and assert that UKIP and Conservatives are.

@dst - True, it would be interesting. But the real question is whether there is a systemic problem with anti-Semitism in the Party, and if there is has it been allowed to be fostered by the those in charge?

It's hard to control who supports you. But you can control who leads you (or you should be able to).

The Ken Loch interview was interesting as to me it shows an agenda by the interviewer with lashings of spin. Equally I'm calling BS on never having "heard a single anti-Semitic word or racist word."

Anecdotaly I have seen anti-Semitic posts (usually the conspiracy theory/confused Zionism meme type) in labour Facebook groups but they’re rebuked by other members and the posts get removed by admin fairly quickly.
On the other hand, every third post on the the kipper/con/Brexit groups is either an insane conspiracy theory or just openly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc, with even worse comments. For some reason you never see articles in the press about these.

Last poll I saw, 77% of UK Jews intended to vote Conservative at the general election.

Dude there’s so much bollocks here I don’t know where to start

I'm going out now, can someone text me if LFGSS solves the Arab-Israeli conflict and/or successfully balances the Marxist ideal with the negative implications of religious intolerance.

Thanks.

Has anyone actually heard/seen anything explicitly antisemitic come from any PLP members in recent years?

Genuinely interested.

helpful

I'll be working on what to do with all the guns in the USA, then have a quick look into Tibet vs China. Prob get around to your stuff this evening. Busy day so I imagine I'll be finishing late, will text you the morn'.

no one in any of the comments referred to in any of the articles or links you have posted, has questioned whether or not the Holocaust happened.

I know, my point is it's also wrong to suggest that the holocaust could be open to questioning. When you know a subject is that sensitive, why nudge at it?

needs better evidence than shown so far.

Fair enough, happy to cordially disagree with you.

Has anyone actually heard/seen anything explicitly antisemitic come from any PLP members in recent years?

Naz Sha posted that stupid Meme about relocating Israel to the USA. I don't think she was an MP when she posted it though, and I think she was displaying stupidity / ignorance rather than racism, ans showed real remorse when the story broke. The cartoon had origionally been drawn by a New York jew I think.

Then there's the Ken Livingston fisaco, though of course not an MP he is a senior party member.

Happily, MPs are most vocal speaking out against antisemitism in the party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41394265

I know, my point is it's also wrong to suggest that the holocaust could be open to questioning

That’s not what Loach said though. He said it is healthy to debate everything in history.

There are people who deny the Holocaust. They need to be engaged with to debate the point to try to make them change their mind.

Else what? Ignore them?

The whole point of labour

The whole point of the tories

If you say so.

I absolutely disagree that what you said is "true".

The point of both parties (and any political organisation) is to represent a particular set of people and lobby for their interests as they exist from time to time.

Imo the right often attracts more bigots because conservative personality types dislike change and tend to be traditional. Anti-Semitism as a type of bigotry fits more naturally with the left thanks to longstanding anti-semitic themes of global financial capitalism conspiracies.

Tl;Dr everyone's a little bit racist.

COBURN: There was a fringe meeting yesterday that we talked about at the beginning of the show where there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it… would you say that was unacceptable?

LOACH: I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?

COBURN: Say that again, sorry, I missed that.

LOACH: History is for all of us to discuss. All history is our common heritage to discuss and analyze. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing is there for us all to discuss. The role of Israel now is there for us to discuss. So don’t try to subvert that by false stories of anti-Semitism.

Straight up, do you honestly believe the summary of the above is;
"it is healthy to debate everything in history"?

If you do try imagining your reaction if someone asked Trump his views on slavery, following some sort of group asserting that it was exaggerated, wasn't that bad, they enjoyed it, etc.

... and his response was; "history is up for discussion" and immediately followed by a load of references to the negative aspects of African American society.

Anti-Semitism as a type of bigotry fits more naturally with the left thanks to longstanding anti-semitic themes of global financial capitalism conspiracies

Source plz. While I don't deny anti-Semitism exists amongst those who self proclaim to be part of the left, to claim it's more 'naturally' suited to exist amongst the left is myopic in both historic and contemporary examples. Insultingly so.

Something I've picked up from commentary on Breitbart is that they use "Globalist" to refer to Jews, but it never mentions why - is this part of the global financial conspiracy thing that Hugo7 references? Forgive me if this is well known.

That's my understanding of an almost incomprehensible nonsense.

There's been a handful of other incidents involving Labour councillors and MPs, but I think there is an important different between explicit antisemitism in the fringes of the party versus the accusation of coded antisemitism (expressed via antizionism) in the PLP.

And I can understand why the PLP doesn't want this rats-nest to enter party discourse. As Chomsky put it "it assumes that Israel's interests are Jewish interests", and that guides the debate towards issues of race and racism, rather than the politics of nationalism and (questionable) actions of a nation state.

I don't find it acceptable to tell people what they can and can't be offended by, but to employ this logic the other way around: anybody who is pro-Israel is by default anti-Palestine and Islamaphobic.

I think it's a case of when to address legitimate concerns of antisemitism rather than paying into a rhetoric which makes it incrementally more difficult to express views that address the issues surrounding Zionism and Palestine.

See also the use of (((echos))) on Twitter by the alt-right - which may no longer be a thing as I think most instances of it now are self-applied.

It's a long time since I studied the topic so forgive any rustiness and for a long post....

Anti-Semitism normally splits between pre-C19th traditional (Jesus-killers, blood libel, etc.) and modern (racial). Jews as financiers straddles both.

In medieval times Jews were permitted to lend at a times when others couldn't. No one ever likes money lender. Some of those who borrowed often participated in a bit of rabble rousing.

Study is central to Jewish culture. As financial markets developed in Europe Jews were often disproportionately represented (as in academia and law). These were very often shady as fuck. As today many sections of society objected to the idea of people "not working" and generating wealth from wealth.

The fact that Jews are a diaspora means that they are necessarily "international".

Add a bit of economic instability and political scapegoating, and Jews are suddenly the hidden hand pulling the world's economic strings for their own benefit.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant as form of prejudice, subtitle anti-Semitism is easier for people on the left to get behind than colour based racism. Not that suits the left more than the right.

My interpretation of the story is that it was an intellectual debate. The sort that goes on in the Cambridge Union rather than the Nag’s Head, the sort that is designed to be controversial, so as to be worth debating.

Loach sensed the interviewer was spoiling for a fight and was going to paint it as Labour denying the Holocaust and bit first.

Don’t get me wrong, by bringing up Israel he made himself look a bigot.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the discussion was some Labour Party members actually denying the Holocaust or whether it was a staged debate.

It can’t be the former can it?

Am I naive?

He said it is healthy to debate everything in history.

@hugo7 has already made this point well. He said this in reponse to being asked about a fringe meeting where the veracity of the Holocaust was directly questioned. Instead of condemning the meeting he criticises Israel. It's insensitive and stupid at best, antisemitic at worst. And I don't think Loach is stupid.

the veracity of the Holocaust was directly questioned.

That's my point. As far as I can see it wasn't. The comment at the meeting was from a Jewish speaker, an anti Zionist activist, not an anti-Semitic activist and certainly not someone who denies the Holocaust happened, he was discussing what the limits of debate should be:

“This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion.”

There should be no limits on the discussion.

I think he's definitely wrong on this. You could easily end up sounding like a bigot, and inflaming tensions, if you don't limit what you say according to the context you're in.

Without enough knowledge about the form and content of actual meeting its hard to comment. My comments are based on Ken Lochs interview as quoted.

My thoughts would be;
1) given the PR issues with Labour and anti-Semitism why the fuck would you discuss it during the Conference - fringe event or not.

2) if the interviewer framed a discussion of the extent of free speech on sensitive issues as a "discussion [on] the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it…" surely the first response is to correct them.

3) the limits of a discussion are hugely dictated by who you're discussing things with. I know that with my friends one of us can put forward arguments/counterpoints, from say the extreme right, during a discussion without qualification because we know each other. Stick that same person in a room full of strangers and you would think about the general sensitivities.

On a more general point it is hard not to question the underlying reason for Israel being such an important and reoccurring issue for people who have no connection to the region. In the same way that when people in the Conservative Party bring up legitimate discussion points on immigration its hard not to question their motivation.