Is the Labour party antisemitic?

[Cantley Rover]

I a bit surprised this hasn't been raised on here. For me the answer is a big NO. Criticizing Israel for the way they have treated the population of Palestine in my mind is not antisemitic.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It's far above my level but from an open point of view why not just adopt the internationally held code for anti semitism? Seems simple.

No doubt there are anti semitics in all parties but to say labour is as a whole is ridiculous.  Surprising Corbyn lets it linger, we can only speculate why he hasn't done what to me is an obvious thing and accept what most accept?

[bobjimwilly]

Agree 100% Corbyn is right to criticise Israel for their treatment of Palestine, and the anti-semitism "thing" is being pro-longed by the usual suspects in the media

[BillyStubbsTears]

I don’t know if Corbyn is anti-semitic, but if he isn’t, he certainly leaves himself open to that accusation.

His public support for this mural for example was, at best, crassly stupid.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour

His apology (that he only glanced at it and didn’t see the hook-nosed Jewish caricatures and the Elders of Zion inferences right in the centre of it) was troublesome too. It suggested either outright lying or a lack of care. Neither are particularly impressive traits in a future PM.

[wilts rover]

Well it didn't seem to matter to Tony Blair when he was telling us about all the weapons of mass destruction that Sadam had...

Yes there are certainly people within the Labour Party who are anti-semitic, just as there are people who are pro-Zionist (the Labour Friends of Israel refusing to condemn the Israeli army for the video of unarmed protestors being shot in the back for instance).

But I believe they are both very small minority who are far out-numbered by the more rational and balanced members who can tell the difference between criticism of the actions of the current Israeli government and blaming any Jewish person for them.

If you are interested in left wing Judaism and where they fit into the Labour Party and movement today can I recommend following the group Jewdas https://twitter.com/geoffreyjewdas

Just waiting now for BST to tell me they are not Jewish because Corbyn attends their ceremonies and BB to tell me I am not disagreeing with him, oy veh....

[BillyStubbsTears]

Odd response Wilts.
For the record, I don’t think Corbyn is anti-Semitic. However, I do think he has an unfortunate habit of walking into easily avoidable controversies.

The mural one was, at best, bloody stupid. For an experienced Labour politician to send a message of support to an artist who had produced a disgustingly anti-Semitic work was, at best, carelessly stupid.

And I do think he is overly influenced by the ideological purity of Seamus Milne. On a number of themes. And I suspect the current kerfuffle about the definition of anti-Semitism is one of those themes. It’s a subject that should never have arisen, is a distraction and could and should have easily been put to bed. Instead, Corbyn is giving the IMPRESSION of anti-Semitism.

Silly, immature politics.

[wilts rover]

Billy you read the Guardian to much. This isn't about Seamus Milne and what he thought about Israel in 2009, this is about a small number of labour 'supporters' giving a large amount of anti-semitic abuse to certain right-wing and Jewish figures, not just MP's.

Not accepting that and trying to see anti-semitism as what Corbyn thinks, is as bad as supporting it.

There are anti-semites in the Labour Party and they should be kicked out. It is not Jeremy Corbyn's job to do this nor is he responsible for what other people do or say. He is not Stalin however much you want him to be.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

I rarely read the Guardian. But I do see Milne's dabs on every student union navel gazing debate that the Labour leadership has.

By the way, I've absolutely no idea what Milne thought about Israel in 2009. I don't drill that far down into his detail. It's enough to see his top-line policy direction. The one-dimensional one where you divide the world into Oppressors and Victims and decide your foreign policy from there. If you're a Victim, you cannot be an Oppressor (hence, Putin and Assad are OK to carpet bomb Aleppo because they are not America). If you're an Oppressor, you cannot be a Victim (hence Israel is basically wrong because they are not Palestine).

It is Foreign Policy by 6th Form debate. Simplified and simplistic. But it fits an ideology that Milne wants to push. So that's what Labour has got for its Foreign Policy.

As for Corbyn, and our discussion of him, you'd do better reading what I say about him, rather than trying to second guess what you think I think about him. He's not Stalin. He's a fundamentally well-intentioned man who isn't very savvy and who bumbles into easily avoidable disasters. Because to avoid them would require him to face down the 1980s lefties who he's associated with all his life, and who would accuse him of being ideologically unsaaaaarrrrnnndd if he didn't follow their line.

If he figured out how to tell them to f**k off, Labour would be 20 points ahead in the polls and we'd be on target for the best Labour Govt since 1945. While ever he gets dragged into their discussions and obsessions, Labour are in danger of letting the worst Govt and worst PM for more than 100 years define this era.

The fact that Labour is having a debate about the precise wording of it's beliefs about anti-Semitism at such a crucial point in our history is precisely what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of discussions over whether to rename the Union Building the Nelson Mandela Building in the 1980s. Its great in the big scheme of things but it is self defeating in the present.  Shut the f**king debate down and  focus on what actually matters now.

[hoolahoop]

Exactly and this is just the sort of news that this bumbling Government thrives on . Basically they are able to get away with policy decisions and subsequent disasters that most if not all poor governments of the past would have fallen foul of

Whilst Labour continue walking into traps of their own making , it is difficult if not nigh on impossible, to see them ever having a workable majority at least in the short to medium term .
The arithmetic is against them already and it would be harder still to form a government should Scotland ever gain independence.

Why present the Opposition with easy " own goals " that allow them to cover up their own deficiencies both in personell and poor policies ? Before Labour are to govern again they must exploit every opportunity presented to them to alter public perception and pile the pressure on what must be the worst government in decades.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way Wilts. I’ve only just spotted this.

Why on EARTH did you bring up Blair and WMD when we’re talking about Corbyn and the current Labour Party?

[tommy toes]

As you may recall I have been a fervid Corbyn supporter.
But the Labour leadership is more and more reminding me of Pythons Judean Popular Front; determined to have yet another debate about nothing while the s**t is hitting the fan everywhere else.

[tommy toes]

.......Or was it the Peoples Front of Judea?

[Ldr]

Let's be honest. If Labour had a half decent leader they would be in power now. Both main parties are not worth a single vote

[MachoMadness]

I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.

On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.

On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.

You want Corbyn to appoint the next leader? I thought it was an elected post!

[MachoMadness]

I'll be honest and say that even though I am a Corbyn supporter I don't think he'll become PM and his responses on Brexit lately and on the poisonings left a bit to be desired. However, if he appoints a successor who he can successfully put over to his voters - and let's be clear, the thousands of new voters Labour gained at the last GE are his voters - while also not being quite so easy to attack by the right, Labour will be in power. It's not the man himself, but the change he represents for me at this point.

On topic, no, the Labour Party is not anti-semitic, at least not in any endemic way. There are fringe elements of course, but these are blown up beyond all proportion by MPs from both sides using it for political gain.

You want Corbyn to appoint the next leader? I thought it was an elected post!

Appoint was the wrong word you are correct! I worded that terribly but what I meant was hopefully the party will see sense and elect a left-wing leader who gets Corbyn's blessing to get his base onside with the new leader.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.

[Ldr]

Be nice if we had a government like that (pipe dream) politics is broken in the is country, too polarised both in the gulf between the main parties and internally to parties too.

[MachoMadness]

I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.

Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.

Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.

I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.

[wesisback]

I've ditched Corbs and Labour temporarily while he's indulging this Brexit malarkey. No party that will happily flush the country down the shitter will get a vote from me regardless of its other policies.

I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.

Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.

I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.

That however is the most politically naive comment I've ever heard. There's some fantastic Labour MPs that Corbyn has around him who would be ideal to follow him once he's decided enoughs enough. They have to maintain the new generation of voters that Corbyn has created and an endorsement from will ensure that (and pretty much guarantee they're the new Labour leader, they'd certainly get my vote through my Union affiliation). A return to a neo-liberal leader would be the biggest disaster and would destroy that movement and work dead.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I've ditched Corbs and Labour temporarily while he's indulging this Brexit malarkey. No party that will happily flush the country down the shitter will get a vote from me regardless of its other policies.

I'd rather they elected a leader that all sides of the party can get behind without needing anyone's blessing.

Me too, but you know that's probably unrealistic. Like him or not, Corbyn energised a voter base that was previously apathetic for a long time. If he can pass that energy on to his successor, or if his successor can find it themselves, Labour will be in a strong position.

I get the impression that if a new leader wants to unify the party, Corbyn blessing them would be the last thing they'd want.

That however is the most politically naive comment I've ever heard. There's some fantastic Labour MPs that Corbyn has around him who would be ideal to follow him once he's decided enoughs enough. They have to maintain the new generation of voters that Corbyn has created and an endorsement from will ensure that (and pretty much guarantee they're the new Labour leader, they'd certainly get my vote through my Union affiliation). A return to a neo-liberal leader would be the biggest disaster and would destroy that movement and work dead.

You think one of Corbyn's apostles will unite the Labour Party and you call me naive?

Nobody that wants to unite the Labour Party, whether they're from the left or right, needs blessings from anybody; they need a clean slate.

[wesisback]

The implication that you believe anyone on the right side of the party will be anything but a token nomination to be the next leader of the Labour party doesn't do your image of not being naive any good.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Who could have possibly predicted that Corbyn would indulge this Brexit mularkey?

[albie]

I agree with the opening post, and that is why this issue is more than a squabble about precise definitions.

There is a reasonable summary here;
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/07/17/corbyn-receives-a-huge-boost-from-36-jewish-groups-worldwide-which-is-awkward-for-the-media/

A broader question is why the mainstream media have an interest in blowing this up out of all proportion.
If you reduce it to the core question
"Do the Labour Party and its members have a right to criticise the actions of the Israeli state",
then I believe a majority would support that position.

It is no different to other countries having a right to comment on UK foreign policy.
The idea that to criticise Israeli policy and actions is anti-semitic in itself is completely ridiculous.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

The point is that the entire debate could have been put to bed by simply accepting the internationally agreed definition.
Done.
Finished.

Instead, the self-indulgent navel gazing has led to an external appearance of anti-Semitism among the leadership. And in politics, appearances matter as much as substance.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The implication that you believe anyone on the right side of the party will be anything but a token nomination to be the next leader of the Labour party doesn't do your image of not being naive any good.

Like some MPs put Corbyn up as a token leftie nomination when he won, you mean?

[albie]

BST,

I understand your point of view, but disagree with you that accepting the International definition would be the ethical choice, and I also doubt it would end the debate.

It is not self indulgent navel gazing to restrict future comment on human rights abuses in order to avoid contention. The issues the Israeli state are accused of are fundamental to the rule of law in a democratic world.

So I am pleased that Labour has taken a principled stand on this, and hope to see them do the same on other ethical questions going forward.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

I didn't say it would be the ethical choice. I meant that it would be the pragmatic choice.

Top level political leadership involves far more than maintaining ideological purity. It requires tough compromises and setting of priorities.

By letting this internal debate roll on, the leadership may well be attempting to secure an ethical outcome. It will count for nothing if it allows them to be painted by their opponents as anti-Semites, and results in them not winning the next election.

[albie]

BST

If not an ethical choice, then how pragmatic would it be?

Consider the response the next time Israel is accused of a human rights violation after any change.

If Labour supporters objected, they would be accused of anti semitic behaviour in castigating Israel.
The International code supports this interpretation by default.
That is why it should be challenged.

The issue is that the code is not fit for purpose, and that needs to be debated.

All Politics is about pragmatism in the short to mid term, but it must be informed by a solid ethical base.
 I don't think that discounting ethics is a game the Labour movement should embrace.

Look at Blair and WMD if you want to see where that leads!