Ken does it again
April 29, 2016 3:16 AM   Subscribe

Ken Livingstone suspended (again) by the British Labour Party Never a stranger to controversy, Ken Livingstone - former scourge of Margaret Thatcher, erstwhile London Mayor and close friend of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn - was yesterday suspended by the Party. In a continuation of an ongoing issue over alleged Anti-Semitism in the Party (and the British Left in general) he defended MP Naz Shah for remarks she had made (on Facebook in 2014) suggesting: 'Relocate Israel into United States'.

Known as 'Red Ken', Livingstone made the comments, which appear to link Zionism with Nazism, on a radio chat show, hosted by Vanessa Feltz. Naz Shah had already made a 'profound apology' for what she said.

Not only is this the second time Livingstone has been suspended from the Labour Party, it is also the second time he has been accused of making Anti-Semitic comments. In 2005, he was censured by the London Assembly for likening a newspaper reporter named Oliver Finegold to a concentration camp guard.

The wider issue of perceived Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and on the Left in general has been exercising many minds of late, and is having a profound impact on the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
posted by Myeral (250 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite
 
You forgot to mention that this is a part of an ongoing campaign the right wing of the Labour party have been promoting in the media in order to unseat Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. They've been at it for a while, it must have seemed like Christmas when Livingstone handed them this.

Here's a full transcript of everything Livingstone said on the matter yesterday in The Independent. If anyone's interested.

I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.
posted by Grangousier at 3:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


Well, Grangousier, there's certainly a lot which can be said about all this. I didn't intend to express an opinion, but hoped there might be debate about some of the many issues it raises.

Do you have any links for the campaign by the right wing of the party? I'd be interested to read them.
posted by Myeral at 3:41 AM on April 29, 2016


If "Relocate Israel into the United States" refers to all the people in Israel, that's bizarre. It doesn't, though- the context of that remark was:
The allegations centre around a 2014 Facebook post, in which Shah shared a graphic of Israel’s outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline “Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict – Relocate Israel into United States”, with the comment: “Problem solved.”
She's pretty plainly not referring to Arab Israelis in that statement. That explicitly identifies Israel and Israelis with Judaism and excludes non-Jews from the Israeli identity, which as has been noted before, is a position held primarily by Zionists and antisemites.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Naz Shah's old tweets are one thing; so far as Ken is concerned I think his best defence at this point might be a plea of insanity.
posted by Segundus at 3:47 AM on April 29, 2016


"I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more."
Maybe there is a fuzzy line somewhere, but surely saying Hitler had supported Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews” and supporting the forced migration of millions by race across an ocean is no where near that line. That is stormfront-esque bullshit.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:48 AM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


She's clarified her own statements, and issued apologies for them, the sincerity of which being what's got her into trouble. Let's not bellyflop into apologia straight out of the gate.
posted by Slap*Happy at 3:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


If the left wing of the Labour Party would like to avoid accusations of anti-semitism from the right wing of the Labour Party, they could stop saying really really anti-semitic things, like the shit that Livingstone said.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


That explicitly identifies Israel and Israelis with Judaism and excludes non-Jews from the Israeli identity, which as has been noted before, is a position held primarily by Zionists and antisemites.

Well, the name "Israel" is inherently Jewish, being a reference to the Biblical Hebrews, and not, say, the Canaanites or any others who might contest the territory. A more neutral name mighty have been "Palestine", but that is now conflated specifically with the Arab people of the area.
posted by acb at 3:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


If the tory party were held to account for their myriad abhorrent views and random comments like the Labour party currently are they would very rapidly implode into nothingness.
The implication that the current Labour party is a festering hotbed of nascent nazis is just laughable.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [29 favorites]


Grangousier I am no blairite, in fact I was very happy to see Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of labour if only to provide an opposition party with some tangible difference to the party of government. That said, to somehow imply that the blairites initiated this is absurd. They didn't make Livingstone say this, he chose his own words.

As for why what he said can be perceived as anti-semitic here's a few reasons. Firstly, describing Hitler as a zionist is factually incorrect. The nazi's did indeed briefly consider forcibly deporting all Jews to what was then Palestine but his motives were out of a desire to 'cleanse' Germany not because he had an idealised notion of a Jewish state, indeed he resented the notion of a Jewish state because he feared it would lead to giving the Jews too much power. Consider for a moment why Livingstone said what he said, it seems to me to be to draw a comparison between the actions of the Israeli state with those of Nazi Germany, a comparison which is at the very least grossly insensitive to Jews, many of whose close relatives were exterminated in the concentration camps. For more on this you might like to read this short article in the economist

It is important to consider the context of these remarks, he was attempting to defend Naz Shah who had been suspended for some foul remarks including suggesting the forced deportation of Israeli-born Jews to the USA. She also likened Israeli policy to that of Hitler She had already admitted she was wrong, been suspended and apologised and yet Ken felt the need to still defend her, in doing so reiterating the comparison between the Nazis and the Israeli government. His whole attitude about her remarks was one of indifference, he kept refferring to her "going over the top" but denied her being anti-semitic. He should have been condemning the remarks not playing them down.

Of course it is always fine to criticise the policies of Israel just as for any other country, the issue arises with the choice of language and the context.
posted by Shikantaza at 4:00 AM on April 29, 2016 [16 favorites]


The fact that one's opponents are not being called on their racism is not an excuse to say a bunch of racist shit. Bigotry is bigotry, and should be stamped out wherever it's found—especially when it's found among the powerful. If the Tories are spouting a bunch of antisemitic bullshit then by all means go after them too, but that doesn't excuse similar comments made by Labour. "He's doing it too!" is an excuse that should be left on the playground, not brought into national politics.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:00 AM on April 29, 2016 [15 favorites]


I wonder how much of this is due to Labour being dependent on block votes from British Islamic communities, some of which have undercurrents of anti-Semitism in their cultures, coming from solidarity with the Palestinians and/or realpolitik by authoritarian governments in the Islamic world for whom a scapegoat/enemy is useful for maintaining power and compliance (witness the reprinting of anti-Semitic cartoons from 19th-century Russia in middle eastern newspapers, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being in print across the region and having even been adapted into a TV series in Egypt). As such, a Labour politician dependent on such block votes may be tempted to stoop to anti-Semitic dog whistles when addressing specific audiences, especially if the likes of George Galloway are breathing down their necks.
posted by acb at 4:02 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


In my experience, politicians are generally only strategically bigoted if they are also personally bigoted to begin with. When people look for a scapegoat or a wedge, they tend to pick on a group that they already secretly (or not-so-secretly) dislike.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:07 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


They've done an effective job of derailing the conversation about Hunt and Cameron's destruction of the NHS from the front pages of the press, those tories.
posted by davemee at 4:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


For reference, here's Naz Shah explaining why what she posted was wrong, hurtful, and deeply offensive.

Galloway just joined the circus, btw, claiming that "Livingstone did nothing wrong" and ranting about dead Palestinian children.

(Livingstone and Galloway are just idiots, but I cannot help thinking the Hitler-praising Councillor linked from one of the articles sound more like someone who got their twitter account hijacked by a bunch of "ironic racists" from 4chan...)
posted by effbot at 4:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.

Tariq Ali: Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.


I'm not clear on what you're looking for here. Antisemitism isn't simple, so trying to create a simple definition of it seems counterproductive.
posted by maxsparber at 4:18 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Gaby Hinsliff for The Guardian

Here’s a clue, for those confused about how to champion Palestinian rights or condemn an oppressive regime without overstepping the line: just treat Israel as you would any other country guilty of human rights abuses.

There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about seeking economic sanctions against Israel, supporting an oppressed minority’s right to self determination, condemning a government, or anything else you’d do if this was Burma.

But calling for its people to be swept into the sea, or forcibly transplanted somewhere else, or in any other way denying Israel’s right to exist, is crossing a line because that simply doesn’t happen to other countries no matter how oppressive their regime. No other nation state on the planet is constantly asked to prove itself morally worthy merely of being allowed to exist.
posted by cwest at 4:22 AM on April 29, 2016 [44 favorites]


A lot of small countries do shitty things to their neighbors or minority groups. Very few of them are constantly compared to Nazis or inspire calls to deport the entire population.
posted by theodolite at 4:23 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


The nazi's did indeed briefly consider forcibly deporting all Jews to what was then Palestine

Also Madagascar
posted by XMLicious at 4:25 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Sadly, this whole episode plays right into the hands of the real Anti-Semites by creating further division, controversy and negativity.
posted by DZ-015 at 4:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, and if anyone wants any more of the callouts of Labour MPs, the should probably be following Guido Fawkes, who's been trawling their postings on a lot of social media sites to find nuggets to share with the world. To be honest it makes my eyes hurt and my soul ache to look at, but you can be ahead of the curve if you want.
posted by Grangousier at 4:31 AM on April 29, 2016


The Blairite-right/Liberal Democrat-aligned Guardian is loving this so much they're live blogging it.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:35 AM on April 29, 2016


For some reason my economist link didn't work so here it is http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/04/ken-livingstones-slurs
posted by Shikantaza at 4:41 AM on April 29, 2016


Tariq Ali: Notes on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and Palestine

So basically the standard "I found some Jews who don't like Israel that I will now quote out of context, and the rest is just a conspiracy by those other Jews who like Israel." thing.
posted by effbot at 4:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]


It is a very sorry sight to see the Labour Party implode. I am watching this very much on the sidelines wishing somehow somewhere we could have an effective opposition in the UK. Instead the main opposition party appears self-bent on self-destruction whilst the Tories rip apart Britain.

I wish I knew what the heck I could do.
posted by kariebookish at 4:53 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


I think Labour has a long-standing Ken Livingstone problem. I'm confused by people linking to the Independent as an exonerating transcript. The second paragraph apparently shows him choosing to bring up Hitler as a supporter of Zionism. It just looks self-inflicted on his part.

Guardian opinion titles: "self-inflicted", "had his last second chance".

Ken previously: calling a Jewish reporter a concentration camp guard (then refusing to apologize). Insulting someone's mental health, and again, refusing to apologize when given the opportunity (more compressed timeframe).

Can he not learn? He just shouldn't have attempted to comment, not without leaving enough time to listen and think. I don't want to defend his willful ignorance and obstinacy. So maybe people want him gone for other reasons. Maybe he shouldn't have given Conservatives a reason to call Labour antisemitic. A "circle the wagons" response is what caused Livingstone's problem in the first place.
posted by sourcejedi at 5:02 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


The chair of Momentum called on Livingstone to retire.
posted by sourcejedi at 5:05 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


"He's doing it too!" is not what I wanted to say.
(I'm assuming that's pointed in my direction, because, yeah, it absolutely looks like that's what I'm saying)
I was more thinking about the source of this media circus, which is a classic Lynton Crosby pre-election stunt.
(see Owen Jones' recent video on the mayoral election and the deeply cynical and misguided attempts to smear their opponent)

Undoubtedly people say dumb stuff, they do it a lot. People also hold hateful views, sadly they do that a lot. I am generally of the opinion that Livingstone is dumb, not malicious, but I agree his comments were completely wrong and expelling him from the party is probably the right approach.

I think what I was trying to say is that if we should be trying to make the world a better place. We all agree that racist views of any kind are wrong and we all need to be better at fighting that.
This is working on Labour because the labour leadership and membership actively care about this stuff. They care about fighting racism and fascism in a way that the tory party absolutely do not.
This avenue of attack (and it is an attack, Livingstone needs to be responsible for his own words, but there is a deliberate media narrative being constructed here) would not work on the tories, because they do not care about in the same way.

For a party leadership which has been strongly critical of Israeli foreign policy over the years it's always going to be easy to find members who have failed to properly distinguish between Israel and the Jewish people. (Or, let's be honest who are genuinely anti-semitic, because there probably are some in there). The reason you're reading about this, the reason Ken Livingstone was being interviewed to get himself in trouble is because someone wants to foment a row a few weeks ahead of an election, the people reporting this, the people briefing the press about it don't actually care about the issue, but they will pretend to if it costs Corbyn's labour even a single vote.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 5:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [14 favorites]


If that's the case, perhaps it would be in the party's best interest to distance themselves from antisemites before it can be used against them,
posted by maxsparber at 5:12 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


The reason you're reading about this, the reason Ken Livingstone was being interviewed to get himself in trouble is because someone wants to foment a row a few weeks ahead of an election, the people reporting this, the people briefing the press about it don't actually care about the issue, but they will pretend to if it costs Corbyn's labour even a single vote.
Oh, absolutely. Thank you for saying this so succinctly. The issue behind this is that Labour had started to function like an organised, competent opposition party lately. They even had a lead in the polls (not that that means much: see, Miliband, E., 2011—2015). But now is the perfect time for the media to browbeat and demoralize Labour supporters into staying home in the May elections. A poor turnout for Labour can then be used to justify a coup against Corbyn, leading to the neoliberal wing of Labour stepping in and "saving" the Party. And then we can return to business as usual.
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:21 AM on April 29, 2016 [25 favorites]


Everything that appears in the news is there because someone decided to put it there, and it's always useful to ask why. Most of the time, the reason is perfectly obvious - something just exploded, someone very famous has died, but an MP sharing someone else's post on Facebook, two years ago, probably hugely pissed off at the news out of Gaza (as a lot of us were). Why is that news now? Who decided it should be? Who decided how prominent it should be?
posted by Grangousier at 5:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [11 favorites]




Gosh, that article sure made it seem to me like Labour has an antisemitism problem, inasmuch as they seem to tolerate an awful lot of junior members commenting on social media that Jews are behind Isis and other awful comments about Jews.
posted by maxsparber at 5:40 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Did you scroll down to Table 2?
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Or, indeed actually read it rather than skimming the more prominent bits?
posted by Grangousier at 5:44 AM on April 29, 2016


The last paragraph of that article:
The Institute for Jewish Policy Research has lamented ‘the hyperbole, bias and conjecture that litter public discourse’ on antisemitism. The allegations of widespread or increasing antisemitism in the Labour party offer ample evidence of all three. They are based on wild generalisations from a small number of cases, most of which have themselves been misrepresented, either to fabricate antisemitism where none exists; to unfairly taint Corbyn and his supporters by association; or simply gratuitously, one presumes out of habit. But while sensationalist and sloppy journalism has abetted the propagation of these falsehoods, the accusations have snowballed because they serve, and are being opportunistically seized upon to advance, real political interests. Briefly stated, the taboo against antisemitism is being exploited by three distinct, but overlapping, groups: the Right, which hopes to attack Labour while directing attention away from the Conservative Party’s internal tensions and unpopular policies; pro-Israel activists, who hope to unseat a prominent critic of Israel and to discredit Palestine solidarity activism; and the Labour Right, which hopes to weaken a popular movement that has, suddenly and quite unexpectedly, wrested from it control of the party.
posted by Grangousier at 5:46 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Table 2
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:47 AM on April 29, 2016


We don't do pictures here, m'lad.
posted by Grangousier at 5:48 AM on April 29, 2016


Yes. I'm glad they were chatised or expelled after they were publicly antisemitic. I'd like to imagine that until that moment the party was unaware of their viewpoints, but it's hard to shake the sense that they were punished for embarrassing the party.
posted by maxsparber at 5:48 AM on April 29, 2016


Good lord. I read the article. Just because I'm not as ready as you to absolve Labour of antisemitism does not mean there is a failure of comprehension.
posted by maxsparber at 5:50 AM on April 29, 2016


Perhaps you should take it up with your local Labour Party headquarters.
posted by Grangousier at 5:52 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is tragic for the UK, and in fact the wider world, that the party of the Left has embarked on a period of suicidal self indulgence. It means the Government is not held to account, and there is competition in policy formation and ideology. The default policy positions in much of the West have ceased to produce the growth and widespread satisfaction people expect. Yet people, especially in the UK, often feel comfortable enough that politics becomes a lifestyle brand choice – a form of Virtue Signalling. Many of my most hugely wealthy friends are rabid Corbynistas – on some level they must understand it is, and likely to remain a cost free choice that demonstrates some kind of moral superiority. So you have a very small sliver of the UK voting population who because of Miliband’s tilting of the party’s leadership selection mechanism away from MPs and toward 80s re-tread radical pub bores and a few confused young (but its much more the former) burn the house down. So many of those Corbyn has brought forward are the kind of faux radical who would share a stage, a shout and a cause with anyone or anything somehow Anti-Western, Anti-American or Anti-Capitalist. Racism, homophobia, sexism, secularism – all the classic progressive concerns are subservient to that decadent default of ‘resistance’. Many more will come out of the woodwork as the Party falls apart. Corbyn is the UK equivalent of Trump – simple, nostalgic, incoherent and angry ‘solutions’ to the problems of the day.
posted by The Salaryman at 6:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Ah, the view from Broadcasting House and Kings Place. How very, very small and insignificant we must all look from up there.
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:15 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


No other nation state on the planet is constantly asked to prove itself morally worthy merely of being allowed to exist.

This is the classic semantic bullshit. No nation state has a 'right to exist' in any particular formation, and nation states are always the outcome of political and military events which lead them to 'exist' in various way at various times. If you want to see a democratic secular state in the land area known as Israel/Palestine, there's nothing wrong with that, but you instantly get set up for the 'ah so Israel doesn't have a right to exist?' gotcha.

And in any case plenty of other nation states have had their right to exist revoked by the USA in the middle east lately.
posted by colie at 6:22 AM on April 29, 2016 [17 favorites]


And there's the case of the missing country of Kurdistan, which by rights ought to exist, were it not for the combined will of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq that it not do so.
posted by Grangousier at 6:27 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Grangousier: I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.

There is no such thing as a simple definition of anti-semitism beyond "hatred of Jews."

Last year we had an extensive Metatalk post about antisemitism. I posted this in the thread:
Yad Vashem has a guide for educators (pdf) that includes a "Working Definition of Anti-Semitism."

Section starting with "Examples of the ways..." is relevant to this discussion.

"In order to give practical guidance in identifying anti-Semitic incidents to those who are confronted with expressions or acts of anti-Semitism, the ODIHR and the European Fundamental Rights Agency, together with Jewish non-governmental organizations and academics, developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that encompasses both traditional and contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.

Working Definition

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.
Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion;
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions;
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust);
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel, taking into account the overall context, could include:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour;
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (e.g., denial of the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the target of an attack, whether people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship, and cemeteries – is selected because it is, or is perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Anti-Semitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries."


You forgot to mention that this is a part of an ongoing campaign the right wing of the Labour party have been promoting in the media in order to unseat Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. They've been at it for a while, it must have seemed like Christmas when Livingstone handed them this.

I'm Jewish. I agree with those who have said Shah and Livingstone's statements were antisemitic. Also, seconding hydropsyche, the way to avoid being called out for saying antisemitic things is very simple: don't say antisemitic things.
posted by zarq at 6:51 AM on April 29, 2016 [28 favorites]


...Corbyn is the UK equivalent of Trump...

Are you sure you're posting on the right website? I thought this was the status-signalling anti-bad-things community website. I mean, I don't want to get distracted by a straw man argument about how good/bad Corbyn is, when there's solid evidence that there's an actual real-life conspiracy of Tory web-dudes somewhere in a basement in London, cruising social media for shitty things said in the past. For those reading from that basement, let me just say that I, for one, welcome our new Tory panopticon masters.
posted by The River Ivel at 7:11 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Thank you, zarq.
posted by OmieWise at 7:12 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's kind of interesting to see Labour supporters acting like American Republicans do when their party gets caught up on a scandal. Hopefully it won't reach the level of "Ignore any scandal and pass a law about bathrooms."
posted by happyroach at 7:12 AM on April 29, 2016


Slight? Maybe? derail, but if you have "solid evidence that there's an actual real-life conspiracy of Tory web-dudes somewhere in a basement in London" then I would very much like to see this solid evidence. It is intriguing.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:13 AM on April 29, 2016


Not sure about that Table 2.

Just looking at the first line, for example, I believe it's very far from true that Gerry Downing was expelled 'the same day'. If I'm right, he had a whole series of antisemitic blog posts; it took quite a campaign before he was expelled: he was then reinstated on appeal, and finally had to be expelled again once his public views became so egregious they could not be overlooked. In fairness it was as much about his support for the 9/11 attacks as his antisemitism, but it hardly looks like 'same day' expulsion.

I'm not sure it's a credible source, in short.
posted by Segundus at 7:14 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I feel I should point out, without in any way diminishing the serious points under discussion here, that the whole Kenpocalypse affair was incredibly funny. It simply was. A day of high political farce from start to finish. As Simon Blackwell, writer from In The Loop, The Thick Of It etc, retweeted, "Just a reminder that so far as we know, Ken Livingstone is STILL locked in a disabled toilet while journalists shout questions about Hitler". It was very hard not to see it as an episode of TTOI, with an explosively angry Malcolm Tucker chasing Ken across London from studio to studio trying to close him down and always missing at the last. It would also make a superbly off-beam episode of Who.

One of my best friends is Jewish - family fled Lithuania in the 30s, those left behind lost in the Shoah - and also a huge Ken fan since the days of the GLC. He, like me, doesn't think Ken is antisemitic, and reacted to the day's unwinding with a mixture of exasperation, resignation and OMGwut. The whole thing was the most Ken Livingstone thing Ken Livingstone has ever done, and as another tweet said - there is no political situation which an intervention by Ken cannot make worse.

If you are not a senior historian who has published serious critical work on mid-20th century Europe, the correct thing to do if asked by the media to comment on anything to do with Hitler is to say "Look! A squirrel!" and then run away. Fast.
posted by Devonian at 7:18 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


if you have "solid evidence that there's an actual real-life conspiracy of Tory web-dudes somewhere in a basement in London" then I would very much like to see this solid evidence.

I think that might be Guido Fawkes. It is basically what they do (amongst other things), though probably not from a basement.
posted by Grangousier at 7:19 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you are not a senior historian who has published serious critical work on mid-20th century Europe, the correct thing to do if asked by the media to comment on anything to do with Hitler is to say "Look! A squirrel!" and then run away. Fast.
Red squirrel or grey?
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:32 AM on April 29, 2016


I'm curious to know if anyone has a simple definition of what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.


An offhand comment about the forcible relocation of 5 million people doesn't need to be antisemitic to be really fucking stupid.

Thank you, British Labor Party, for marking the state of discourse in America look better in comparison.
posted by ocschwar at 7:33 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I opened this thread and I shouldn't have, and now I am really upset. Let me try to explain why:

We start another thread on antisemitism with a comment (with tons of favorites) basically denying that any antisemitism is taking place ("what anti-semitism is supposed to be, because honestly I don't know any more.") We move on to theories that this is all due to media manipulation ("Everything that appears in the news is there because someone decided to put it there") and conspiracy. Again, more favorites. Next, another set of comments saying that this all just about supporters of Israel manipulating the definition of antisemitism to silence criticism ("you instantly get set up for the 'ah so Israel doesn't have a right to exist?' gotcha"). And then comments that this is just "anti-racism theater."

I read this as a set of not-subtle arguments that (many) Jews somehow know this isn't real antisemitism, but instead are cynically pushing a false charge of racism in the news media to somehow defend Israel and discredit certain politicians. And too many here seem to be agreeing with it.

Again, we have the case where somehow racism against Jews is justified because something something Israel. At times, it seems like conflating Jews with Likudniks, using Zionism as a smear, and then using that to justify antisemitism is fine (see what has happened at Oxford with "zios" with Jewish names being kicked out of clubs). Livingstone may hate Israel, and not "good Jews", but what he said was flat-out racist and wrong.

In what other context do I first need to state my politics and views via Israel before I am allowed to say "this makes me uncomfortable?" Because, honestly, this conversation makes me uncomfortable.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [21 favorites]


Mod note: A couple more comments removed. Reminder here that discussions about stuff adjacent to Israel has historically not gone super well partly because "let's talk about this situation in the news" tends to wander to "let's argue about Israel" or "let's explain why something isn't reaaaaaally antisemitic" and then the whole thing collapses into a pile of weirdness and bad feelings.

If you're interested in talking about Livingstone and Labour and what's going on in UK politics with this situation, that's fine and that is presumably why this thread would even exist, but let's just steer the hell away from relitigating the existence of antisemitism and the motives of anyone bothered by it, because we sure as shit don't need another go around of that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I should also mention, to be clear in my previous comment, that I don't think anyone in this thread is being antisemitic, I was trying to show how the sum total of justifications for Livingstone's actions marginalized those who felt it was in a comprehensive way. I think it is also worth listening to the Jewish people in this thread, of many types of politics, who say that real racism is occurring here, and not trying to explain it away so quickly.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I don't know, faux naive comments pleading for a definition of anti-Semitism are anti-Semitic comments in my book.
posted by OmieWise at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are so many parallels with the unsavory aspects of American politics that are pertinent here.

Start with dog whistles.

If an American figure is careful to talk about "thugs," never "blacks," when he defends prejudicial police misconduct, what do you conclude?

The word "Zionist" is no different at this point. Corbyn and Livingstone have a long track record of anti-Jewish dog whistling.

Continue with platforms:

When an American figure receives an endorsement from a whitewashed racist like someone from American Renaissance, what do you conclude?

Livingstone has a long friendship with Qatari preacher Yusuf al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a very important figure in Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. He's also on record saying Hitler should have finished the job. No American can share a platform with someone talking like that about African Americans without being called a racist. By this standard of measure, Livingstone is an antisemite, pure and simple, and fuck Britain's libel laws. I'm saying it.

Corbyn, meanwhile, has spoken of his "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah. Both organizations are openly anti-Jewish, not just anti-Zionist. Both have cited the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as part of their raisons d'être. Ergo, Corbyn is quite willing to be chummy with antisemites. Ergo, it is not a stretch to say he is one himself.

Then there's another standard of measure relevant in the United States: disparate impact.

If a political party claims up and down not to be racist, and yet their platform and actions and intentions have a consistently disparate impact on one community, what do we conclude? How many days does Metafilter go on average between threads discussing this particular aspect of one particular American political party? So when Corbynites offer arguments about mideast policy that show blatant willful blindness about what is going on there (e.g. falsely accusing one nation of genocide while the real thing goes in first in Sudan and then in the Yazidi regions of Iraq), why should we not call it out for what it is?

And finally, the trolling angle. Use language meant to hit a sore point with an ethnic group, like calling a black person an "Uncle Tom" or calling his political party a "plantation," and the Scarlet R suits you all too well. Livingstone needs to wear his. He earned it.

This is the state of UK politics today. Greece to America's Rome? No.
posted by ocschwar at 8:03 AM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is Table 2 the new Building 7?
posted by beerperson at 8:03 AM on April 29, 2016


The timing of all this is very interesting. On the other side of UK politics, Zac Goldsmith the multi-millionare Tory candidate for London Mayor has been running a dog-whistle campaign trying to link his Labour opponent Sadiq Khan (a Muslim) to a radical ISIS-supporting imam—who, in glorious irony, turns out to have campaigned for the Tories in the last election because he hates Khan's pro-gay marriage stance. Boris Johnson, the outgoing mayor, is a serial public racist, and the parliamentary Tory party just voted down an amendment to take in 3000 orphan refugee children from mainland Europe—an amendment proposed by Baron Dubs, who had himself been part of the Kindertransport in the 1930s.

The Mayoral election, along with local elections across the country, is next week.

I've heard it muttered that Progress is willing to throw away the Mayorality (Khan is no Blairite) and a lot of local-government seats if it means weakening Jeremy Corbyn.

The Left is, as ever, its own worst enemy.
posted by Hogshead at 8:06 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


The discussion of media manipulation is not about "cynically pushing a false charge of racism in the news media to somehow defend Israel " it's being put there by people who do not care one way another about Israel or Judaism except that they know people do care.

My comments on the media are not about whether a given statement is or is not anti-Semitic (I am not defending Livingstone, what he said, or what anyone else said), it's about using dog whistle politics to sweep a broad brush over a whole group in a way that is incredibly damaging to actually doing something about anti-Semitism. That's why I said that the people pushing this don't care and that's why I said, and stand by, it being anti-racism theatre.

Anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, bigotry are important problems and I find it incredibly offensive that these issues be so cynically manipulated for such base politics. It's incredibly disingenuous of the right wing press to point at Labour and say "Oh no the whole party is anti-semitic" when a year ago they were pointing at the then (Jewish) party leader Ed Miliband and undermining him with anti-semitic language of their own.

So I just want to be clear. I'm not trying to defend Livingstone or minimise what he said at all. But you have to look at the way the Right Wing (parties and media) in the UK is using divisive issues for their own ends. They do not care about anti-semitism. not in the slightest.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 8:09 AM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Corbyn is the UK equivalent of Trump – simple, nostalgic, incoherent and angry ‘solutions’ to the problems of the day.

This is very wrong. Corbyn was my MP for many years and he is ridiculously hard working on behalf of his constituents in Islington (one of the poorest places in England), and a tireless activist for causes ranging from mental health action to minimum wage. The guy has been fighting for the rights of the oppressed and marginalised for decades. It's all he does 24/7, to the extent that he literally hasn't got time to go and buy himself a decent suit.

I will say that he never expected to become leader and cannot/will not play all the stupid games that come with that job. One of those games is avoiding the 'he's an antisemite' ploy played by people who couldn't give a shit about what discrimination jews face in society.
posted by colie at 8:10 AM on April 29, 2016 [19 favorites]


PS I also don't think Ken should have mentioned Hitler in that context, and I suspect he was drunk at the time.
posted by colie at 8:11 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]




ocschwar you make some interesting points and I would agree with you that Livingstone has gone too far both on this occassion and in the past but I'd like to perhaps question the notion that Corbyn has a history of anti-Jewish dogwhistling, could you point to some quotations? As for the one you alluded to about his 'friends' from Hamas as far as I can remember I thought this was an out of context quotation in which he referred to them as "friends" but rather in the collective sense (like he might use 'comrade') to describe any group at all rather than actually saying he admired or endorsed them. As I said I don't have the exact quote for this and I am relying on my memory a bit so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's time the word 'Zionist' was abandoned all together to be honest, of course not everyone who uses it is using it as a shorthand for 'Jew' but a significant enough minority of people seem to that I feel it would be better for everyone if we just ditched it in favour of just saying "Israeli government policy" or something.
posted by Shikantaza at 8:13 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


That explicitly identifies Israel and Israelis with Judaism and excludes non-Jews from the Israeli identity, which as has been noted before, is a position held primarily by Zionists and antisemites.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:43 AM on April 29 [2 favorites]


I think this is dishonest and offensive - there are many non-Jewish Israelis (close 20% I believe). There is no ideological component of Zionism that conflicts with this, and trying to link anti-Semitism with Zionism is exactly the kind statement that should be labelled as hateful.
posted by rosswald at 8:18 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


A couple of good summaries.

A GIF laden whimsical summary from HuffPo highlighting the trainwreck nature of this whole thing.

A more serious piece talking about the multiple truths of this story. I think it's always important to keep in mind that there's not necessarily one "pure evil" or "pure good" side on any debate. Everyone can be wrong in different ways.
posted by Erberus at 8:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


OK, I understand that, to those who care about UK politics (I am not in the UK) and not antisemitism, the interesting fight is over the politics of the thing.

For me, and maybe for others, the big deal is that senior people in the a major UK party are expressing views that are (to many Jews of different politics) undeniably antisemitic, and that the progressives that we would expect to be standing up against racism are justifying the comments in a variety of ways. And this seems to be a problem that doesn't stop with top politicians, to quote from the Guardian article above:

Alex Chalmers’ resignation statement was clear, emphasising that: “A large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.” The Oxford University Jewish Society noted that it was “not the first time that it has had to deal with antisemitic incidents within the student left and it will not be the last”....Other OULC members, including past executive officers, approached Oxford University Jewish Society with a list of antisemitic incidents they had recorded. One OULC member argued that Hamas was justified in its killing of Jewish civilians and claimed all Jews were legitimate targets. A committee member stated that all Jews should be expected to publicly denounce Zionism and the state of Israel, and that we should not associate with any Jew who fails to do so. It has been alleged that another OULC member organised a group of students to harass a Jewish student and to shout “filthy Zionist” whenever they saw her.


There is reason to be concerned about rising antisemitism on the left, and brushing it off as a plot or conspiracy or saying "but they did it too" just gives further cover to racists.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:24 AM on April 29, 2016 [6 favorites]



I will say that he never expected to become leader and cannot/will not play all the stupid games that come with that job


When it comes to not contributing to the legitimization of thinly veiled antisemitism in a major Western country, most people don't see it as a "stupid" game, and are quite adept at playing it.

Once again there's a parallel. The American congressman Tip O'Neil once said that an important facet of local politics for him was that "Ireland should be united and Trieste belongs to Italy." No doubt that quote should be deemed vile to a British citizen. I hope at least once, O'Neill was told off by a Brit for saying that. And if he had discovered that the Slovenian American community has enough pull in America to retard his ambitions in response, O'Neill would have had no right to deem himself a victim.

ONeill's pandering pales in comparison to Corbyn:

http://hurryupharry.org/2015/09/17/jeremy-corbyn-palestine-solidarity/
posted by ocschwar at 8:25 AM on April 29, 2016


Start with dog whistles.
You want to talk about dog whistles? OK. The London Mayoral elections take place in this city on 5 May. My ballot is on the table beside me as I type this. Widely tipped to win is the Labour candidate, Sidiq Khan, who would be London's first Muslim mayor—a massive watershed moment in the country's history. The accusation that Labour is becoming more antisemitic to a large degree functions in the Tory and neoliberal press these days as an Islamophobic dog whistle—a way of stigmatizing Labour's strong support base among Muslim voters and the Muslim members among Labour's caucus. And as (on preview) Just this guy, y'know points out above, surprise surprise, Khan has now been targeted by Boris Johnson as a probable antisemite. You know, on the basis of Livingstone's comments and Khan's being Muslim and all:
[Boris Johnson] told LBC Radio on Thursday afternoon there was an “ideological continuum” between the two politicians, despite Mr Khan’s loud criticism of Mr Livingstone.

“There’s plainly some sort of virus of anti-Semitism within the Labour party that needs to be addressed,” he said.

“It seems to me there’s an ideological continuum between the views of Ken Livingstone about Israel and the position of Jeremy Corbyn and indeed the views of their candidate for London Mayor Sadiq Khan.”
This (along with the desire of practically the entire political establishment to take down Corbyn) is why this whole thing is suddenly the most important political news story in Britain.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:26 AM on April 29, 2016 [22 favorites]


And just for fun, Sadiq Khan gets it even more.

Yes, Sadiq Kahn accused of racism by Boris "Those African Piccaninnies with their watermelon smiles" Johnson.
posted by Grangousier at 8:29 AM on April 29, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Ireland should be united and Trieste belongs to Italy." No doubt that quote should be deemed vile to a British citizen.

What's 'vile' about Irish republicanism?
posted by colie at 8:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think it's more the mindless Yanksplaining that would be considered vile. Thank goodness that doesn't happen any more.
posted by Grangousier at 8:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [9 favorites]


Devonian: "doesn't think Ken is antisemitic"

ocschwar: "Livingstone is an antisemite"

Can we not do this? Anti-semitism is a thing you do, not a thing you are. Conflating the two just makes discussion awful, as we try to reconcile our overall feelings about someone with specific actions they've taken. You can like someone who has said an anti-semitic thing! I'm Jewish and I'm pretty sure I've said an anti-semitic thing before. Which was condemnable, I don't get a pass. But it also doesn't make me literally Hitler.

Personally, as someone supportive Labour, I think all these incidents are a good thing in the medium-term. As the UK gets increasingly diverse, parties of the left are becoming more like those in the US/Canada/Australia. In a big tent party, you can't be walking in lock-step like more homogenous conservative parties can, so the party has to make sure its many subgroups all respect each other. The response to Naz Shah's statement in particular was quick, and her apology seemed heartfelt and appropriate. I hope she comes back soon from her suspension, with more awareness of this as an issue, and better training in how to talk to the media.
posted by vasi at 8:32 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think this is dishonest and offensive - there are many non-Jewish Israelis (close 20% I believe).

That is my point. To speak of "relocat[ing] Israel to the United States" in that context presumes that Israeli and Jewish are functionally identical. It identifies Jews with Israel and Israel with Jews, which is antisemitic.

There is no ideological component of Zionism that conflicts with this, and trying to link anti-Semitism with Zionism is exactly the kind statement that should be labelled as hateful.

If you exclude from your definition of Zionism and your accounting of Zionists those who believe that Israel should be a Jewish state, sure. In the reality where Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu and their supporters exist, not so much.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:33 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


[Boris Johnson] told LBC Radio on Thursday afternoon there was an “ideological continuum” between the two politicians, despite Mr Khan’s loud criticism of Mr Livingstone.


Well, there is a continuum from a willingness to share platforms with antisemites and tolerate antisemitic discourse in your presence, to being flat out antisemitic.

I don't support Johnson's opportunistic response to it, and as this link makes clear, Khan could clear the air over his actions with very little effort. But he won't.

The accusation that Labour is becoming more antisemitic to a large degree functions in the Tory and neoliberal press these days as an Islamophobic dog whistle

There's an easy way to address that: stop pandering to antisemites, and the Tories won't have that weapon to yield against Labor or against the British Muslim community.
posted by ocschwar at 8:35 AM on April 29, 2016


Now we're saying Khan's an antisemite?
posted by colie at 8:37 AM on April 29, 2016


I would not say that about Khan. But his willingness to pander to this trend is something that deserves to be called out, and preferably not just by Tories.
posted by ocschwar at 8:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


The Livingstone Formulation:
There is often disagreement about what is antisemitic and what is not. Spotting antisemitism requires knowledge, forensic skills, political and moral judgment, as well as a sensitive nose and a consideration of context. But the focus of this paper is not how to spot antisemitism. Rather it is about a recurrent pattern of refusal even to try.
posted by verstegan at 8:42 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


If you exclude from your definition of Zionism and your accounting of Zionists those who believe that Israel should be a Jewish state, sure. In the reality where Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu and their supporters exist, not so much.
posted by Pope Guilty


AFAIK nothing in the Likud platform prevents non-Jews from being Israeli - and being a 'Jewish State' doesn't preclude non-Jews from being part of the country. Egypt is an official Sunni Muslim (non-democratic) state - therefore Copts can't or don't live there? Do Turkish nationalists or AKP members officially think Kurds cant be Turkish?

You are starting with the premise that it is a core component of Zionism that non-Jews can't be Israeli - then try to shoehorn non-relevant facts to meet your premise.
posted by rosswald at 8:44 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


But his willingness to pander to this trend is something that deserves to be called out, and not just by Tories.

Khan would pander to literally anything if he thought there was a vote in it, so I take your point. Although in the case of your link it's being called out by Harry's Place, which is about as left-wing as Breitbart.
posted by colie at 8:46 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Although in the case of your link it's being called out by Harry's Place, which is about as left-wing as Breitbart.

Bollocks. Utter bollocks. The simple truth is if Labourites like Corbyn didn't work so hard legitimizing antisemitism, they would not find themselves being called out by both the HP crew and the Tories for it.

For my part, I don't support the Tories, but calling out and fighting against the renewed demonization of my ethnicity is more important to me than my opposition to the Tory party. They just have policy ideas I don't support. Corbyn is helping worsen an environment that is already heavy with physical violence targeted at Jews.

Do pardon me if I think that's a tad important.
posted by ocschwar at 8:51 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


AFAIK nothing in the Likud platform prevents non-Jews from being Israeli - and being a 'Jewish State' doesn't preclude non-Jews from being part of the country. Egypt is an official Sunni Muslim (non-democratic) state - therefore Copts can't or don't live there? Do Turkish nationalists or AKP members officially think Kurds cant be Turkish?

That might be equivalent if the right of return was limited to members of the Jewish faith, but it is also extended to secular Jews, meaning that we're not talking about a state having an official religion. Additionally...

You are starting with the premise that it is a core component of Zionism that non-Jews can't be Israeli - then try to shoehorn non-relevant facts to meet your premise.

I'm explicitly not. If you're trying to pretend that racist, Arab-hating Zionism doesn't exist, or that I'm identifying it with Zionism, you're going to need to disprove the existence of the racist, Arab-hating Zionists who want Arabs out of Israel (good luck getting Wikipedia to delete its pages on Avigdor Lieberman and his racist buddies!) and you're going to need to delete the things I posted in this thread already.

There's plenty of non-racist Zionists. They generally don't identify Israel and Jews the way racist Zionists and antisemites agree on, and in the way Naz Shah did in that statement.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2016


And to pile on a little:

I leafletted in Boston for HP, when Galloway was in town. HP went so far as to physically ship the leaflets to me (UPS, natch, not Fedex), to make sure the leaflets got printed by a union print shop. Your willingness to call them "right wing" goes to show just how far the British left has gone in writing off the Jews.
posted by ocschwar at 8:55 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If Khan "cleared the air" with explicit denunciations of the current Labour party for being allied with islamic extremists, then he would no longer be running as the Labour candidate (with the support that confers). Whether there's a significant problem or not, it wouldn't be "very little effort."
posted by sourcejedi at 8:57 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just followed the Harry's Place link from upthread and it's got whole paragraphs like taking the views of a random anonymous person on a demonstration against Netanyahu as somehow representative of Corbyn and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. You know that's just bullshit.

Then it includes pure hyperbole like 'It is only when terrorists demand the extermination of the world’s Jews that Corbyn greets them as friends.' Come on.
posted by colie at 8:58 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Okay, so go to one line from that page:


If Mr Corbyn is not to be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community, he has a number of questions which he must answer in full and immediately. The JC asked him earlier this week to respond. No response has been forthcoming.
1. Did you donate, as alleged by its founder, to Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR), a group that publishes open antisemitism, run by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen — an organisation so extreme that even the Palestine Solidarity Campaign refuses to associate with it?


Lots more there, simple factual questions, over acts which would damn any American politician into the outer darkness.

Now, the paragraph you're quoting in its entirety:


These excuses were lies. Corbyn’s struggle for Middle East peace has never extended to seeking contact with terrorists if they happen to be Jewish. It is only when terrorists demand the extermination of the world’s Jews that Corbyn greets them as friends. As for his links to Deir Yassin Remembered, as early as 2006, one of its founders, Daniel McGowan, boasted of visiting the jailed neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel; Corbyn attended the group’s meetings as recently as 2013.


IOW, he's willing to talk to violent anti-Jewish terrorists, but not willing to violent Jewish terrorists. (See disparate impact above). That's not hyperbole. It's the truth. And it lays bare the simple fact that Corbyn could have avoided all this by not speaking with violent terrorists on either side.
posted by ocschwar at 9:08 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Here, Labour Leader John Mann and Livingston argue their positions.
from this (me) Jew. What is anti-semitism? sort of like the definition of pornography: I know it when I hear it. Note: The more the anti Jewish actions and remarks take place, the more Israel will be viewed by Jews as a safe haven is a perilous world. In sum: keep it up because your strengthen the very place you would tear down.
posted by Postroad at 9:12 AM on April 29, 2016


No response has been forthcoming.

Corbyn gave his account of all the Deir Yassin allegations on live TV.
posted by colie at 9:17 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


That might be equivalent if the right of return was limited to members of the Jewish faith, but it is also extended to secular Jews, meaning that we're not talking about a state having an official religion.

I mentioned Kurds and Turks as well - but you don't acknowledge that. And many countries have ethnicity based 'right of return' laws - Armenia, Germany, Japan, etc.

If you're trying to pretend that racist, Arab-hating Zionism doesn't exist, or that I'm identifying it with Zionism

You said "identifies Israel and Israelis with Judaism and excludes non-Jews from the Israeli identity, which as has been noted before, is a position held primarily by Zionists and antisemites."

Racists exists in Israel including "racist Zionists" - but trying to link their racism with anti-Semitism is a rhetorical trick devoid of meaning and meant to be controversial and hateful, not insightful.
posted by rosswald at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


My Google-fu is failing me: what was the question that Livingstone was responding to in his initial comment? Whatever one thinks of him he's a seasoned politician, so I find it hard to believe that he would've been the first to mention Hitler in an interview about anti-Semitism.
posted by metaBugs at 9:31 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


Your willingness to call [Harry's Place] "right wing" goes to show just how far the British left has gone in writing off the Jews.
Here's a little taster of the kinds of comments that Harry's Place tends to attract these days. I'll leave it unstated where most people would place the views expressed there on the political spectrum.
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:32 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Is Harry's Place the only website in the world that does 5 seconds of 'DDS prevention' security theatre when you visit it?
posted by colie at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2016


Zionism exists, and it sucks.

Anti-Semitism also exists, and it also sucks.

Anti-Semitism that accuses people of Zionism for criticising anti-Semitism also exists, and it also sucks a lot.

Zionism that accuses people of anti-Semitism for criticising Zionism also exists, and it also sucks a lot.

There are probably some other angles on this that I missed, and they mostly suck as well.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:37 AM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


Here's a little taster of the kinds of comments that Harry's Place tends to attract these days. I'll leave it unstated where most people would place the views expressed there on the political spectrum.

If you discuss the antisemitic pandering of the British left, you'll get islamophobic comments. So I guess they should just drop the subject? That's essentially what it means to call it a "dog whistle," right?

Is Harry's Place the only website in the world that does 5 seconds of 'DDS prevention' security theatre when you visit it?


They signed on to CloudFlare after posting something against Vladimir Putin. Seems like Putin is still pissed, and CloudFlare is still earning their fee.

Corbyn gave his account of all the Deir Yassin allegations on live TV.

An evasive non-denial denial. "I have no contact now" (in 2015) when the allegation is that he attended in 2013, and that the organization was full-on holocaust denier as early as 2006. Color me unimpressed.
posted by ocschwar at 9:43 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


If you discuss the antisemitic pandering of the British left, you'll get islamophobic comments. So I guess they should just drop the subject?

Or they could delete the Islamophobic comments and maybe just once carry an article sympathetic to the very real discrimination and abuse that Muslims suffer?
posted by colie at 9:47 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


There is a very strong argument that legitimate, good faith peace negotiations would have to include Hamas and Hezbollah, it doesn't mean you have to love them. And he has met far-right Israeli groups as well. Ken 'cool in the '80s' Livingstone is an idiot and I cannot stand people who compare Israel to Nazi Germany, I seriously can't. However, Corbs' anti-Zionism absolutely does not prevent him from sincerely searching for peace in the Middle East and everywhere.

I've spent a long time on the British left arguing against anti-semitism when the middle east comes up and I've argued with crowds of football supporters singing anti-semitic songs and this is a media circus, although as I say, I wouldn't lose sleep if Ken gets thrown under the bus.
posted by Cassettevetes at 9:48 AM on April 29, 2016 [8 favorites]


Racists exists in Israel including "racist Zionists" - but trying to link their racism with anti-Semitism is a rhetorical trick devoid of meaning and meant to be controversial and hateful, not insightful.

If you think there's nothing unpleasant about racist Zionists and anti-Semites agreeing that Israel and Jews are the same thing, I don't know what to tell you. If you are trying to pretend that there was an "all" in my initial comment before "Zionists", well, I have many things, none polite, to tell you.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:50 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Just this guy, y'know: Labour doesn't have an antisemitism problem, their opponents do.

maxsparber: “Gosh, that article sure made it seem to me like Labour has an antisemitism problem, inasmuch as they seem to tolerate an awful lot of junior members commenting on social media that Jews are behind Isis and other awful comments about Jews... I'm glad they were chatised or expelled after they were publicly antisemitic. I'd like to imagine that until that moment the party was unaware of their viewpoints, but it's hard to shake the sense that they were punished for embarrassing the party.”

I agree with this, Max, and it's pretty clear to me that protestations that 'look, it's only these nine or ten little instances of antisemitism, and anyway they were punished afterward, so why are you making a big deal?' is stunningly tonedeaf and thoughtless.

But I also want to point out: this article is a complete and utter disappointment in that it fails entirely to fulfill the promise of its title. Its claim that Labour doesn't have a problem with antisemitism is clearly silly – and frankly, as the article itself points out, it would be nonsensical to make that claim, since
... given that an estimated seven-to-ten percent of the UK population doesn’t like Jews, the wonder would be if Labour, which with a total membership of some 400,000 is Britain’s largest political party, did not harbour a small number of antisemites within its ranks.
– so, yes, Labour obviously has a problem with antisemitism. The fact that this is inevitable, given the widespread antisemitism in Britain, does not excuse or normalize that problem, even if it makes it more understandable. Antisemitism in Labour is still a problem that must be solved. But even aside from that obvious fact which the Jamie Stern-Weiner blissfully glosses over, there are two parts of the headline's claim. First, it claims that Corbyn and his supporters don't have any problem with antisemitism – before admitting that, yes, Labour at large actually does have a problem with antisemitism. But second, it claims that Corbyn's opponents have a problem with antisemitism.

And frankly – this was what I was looking forward to reading about in the article! Because this is the claim I find most plausible! I actually expect that there's plenty of antisemitism amongst Tories, as much if not more than in Labour. And a study of that Tory antisemitism, as a counterpoint to current discussion, would be worthwhile. But this article gives us none of that. Apparently, in saying that Corbyn's opponents have an "antisemitism problem," Stern-Weiner simply means Corbyn's opponents are all too quick to accuse antisemites of spouting antisemitism. Which reeks of the whole "I'M NOT THE RACIST, YOU'RE THE RACIST, BECAUSE YOU'RE SO OBSESSED WITH RACE THAT YOU SEE RACISM EVERYWHERE!" bullshit line that 100% grade-A racists in the US like to trot out.
posted by koeselitz at 10:34 AM on April 29, 2016 [7 favorites]


Well, to be fair to Stern-Weiner, there is this at the bottom of the article: "Part 2 of this article will be published next week." So presumably he will discuss that part of his argument there.
posted by Sonny Jim at 10:38 AM on April 29, 2016 [1 favorite]


I had hoped so, Sonny Jim, but:
The second part of this article will examine the political sources of this smear campaign, and show how this manufactured hysteria is being instrumentalised to discredit and undermine movements for justice in the UK and abroad.
So it sounds like the "antisemitism" he's accusing Corbyn's opponents of is little more than an overzealousness in accusing others of antisemitism. Which is not what antisemitism is.
posted by koeselitz at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


(But one can still hope, I guess.)
posted by koeselitz at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


tobascodagama - I know you are trying to be lighthearted and all, but this is horrible and sort of exactly what is wrong with these sorts of discussions:

Zionism exists, and it sucks.

Your particular view of Zionism-as-racist-colonial-oppressors sucks, but Zionism as the centuries-old belief that Jews deserve a homeland does not suck (and yes, we can argue about the policies of such a homeland, etc.). How many threads do we need to have explaining that the use of this term to mean "bad Jews" is wrong and offensive.

Anti-Semitism also exists, and it also sucks.

This is not in any way parallel to Zionism "sucking." We don't even need to invoke Hitler to say that antisemitism, that is anti-Jewish racism, has "sucked" for millions of people over thousands of years. Again, I realize this is flippant on your end, but it quickly goes to the "Israel is as bad as the Nazis" argument.

Zionism that accuses people of anti-Semitism for criticising Zionism also exists, and it also sucks a lot.

Again, this is part of the problem. No mention of Israel, no mention of Israeli policies, just again, the ideal that nebulous "Zionism" shuts down discussion with false whines. Does it suck with right-wing Israeli politicians won't listen to criticism because it is "antisemitic"? Of course. But the idea that some sort of Zionism (what form does this take? Perhaps a Council of Elders?) is accusing people of antisemitism to shut down discussions of "Zionism" again suggests that many accounts of antisemitism are cynical efforts.

Maybe we can accept that many discussions of antisemitism are rooted in sincere worry, and that discussing the efforts of "Zionism" and "Zionists" (without reference to Israel) to shut down discussion with false cries of antisemitism are a really bad idea.
posted by blahblahblah at 10:45 AM on April 29, 2016 [13 favorites]



The second part of this article will examine the political sources of this smear campaign


Maybe I should save him (and you all) the trouble.

I AM THE SOURCE. AMA
posted by ocschwar at 11:09 AM on April 29, 2016


There is a very strong argument that legitimate, good faith peace negotiations would have to include Hamas and Hezbollah, it doesn't mean you have to love them. And he has met far-right Israeli groups as well.

This is the obvious sensible view on Corbyn and his relations (over the course of 30-40 years!) with people in and around the Israel/Palestine conflict.

But the media madness will continue.
posted by colie at 11:29 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


FWIW, I think Naz Shah's apology is sincere, and yes, she needs to come back into the fold.
posted by ocschwar at 11:30 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]



"Ireland should be united and Trieste belongs to Italy." No doubt that quote should be deemed vile to a British citizen.

What's 'vile' about Irish republicanism?


Same thing that's vile about a lot of things said about resolving conflict in the Middle East. A responsible statesman should not talk about moving borders, and he should not talk about forcing people across borders, as both of those involve huge amounts of bloodshed. Especially in places where a moved border or moved population is within living memory.
posted by ocschwar at 11:39 AM on April 29, 2016 [3 favorites]


I want to try and explain why I feel this so personally, and why I find it so shocking.

Ken is the great survivor of British politics. He's been around all my lifetime (he was first elected a local councillor in 1973, unbelievably); he's lived through Wilson and Callaghan, Thatcher and Blair, and he's outlasted them all.

I first set eyes on him in 1983 when I was a teenager and he came to give a talk at my school. He gave a barnstorming speech, upholding fairness and equality as the core values of the Labour Party. I've never forgotten it. I still believe in Labour as the party of social justice; I've always believed, idealistically, that you should vote for a more equal society even if that means voting against your own self-interest; and despite occasional flirtations with the Lib Dems I've always gravitated back to the Labour Party in the end. And I have Ken to thank for that.

I was in London on the day of the 7/7 bombings in 2005. Like many people, I'll never forget Ken's speech where he said that the bombings were an attack on all the people of London, 'black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old'. It's possibly the greatest political speech of my lifetime, and it's certainly the only one that has the power to move me to tears every time I read it. That's the Ken Livingstone I want to remember.

True, there were a few aspects of Ken's behaviour that made me .. uncomfortable. He seemed prepared to share a platform with some fairly unsavoury individuals. And I couldn't help noticing that while he went out of his way to court Muslim voters, he seemed much less interested in Jewish voters -- as when he told a group of Jewish Labour supporters that he didn't expect Jews to vote for him because 'the Jewish community is rich', and rich people didn't vote Labour.

Still, I was prepared to give Ken the benefit of the doubt, partly because I felt it was important to support the Labour Party against the far left. Having Ken share a platform with Yusuf al-Qaradawi seemed a small price to pay, if it meant that Labour could defeat George Galloway and Lutfur Rahman and their cronies. So I made excuses. Surely Ken wasn't really antisemitic, he didn't really mean to play into the stereotype of the rich Jew, he just had .. well, a bit of a blind spot, perhaps?

And now this: I turn on the radio to hear Ken blowing the antisemitic dogwhistle so loudly that even I can't ignore it any longer. And it has to be deliberate. Ken lives and breathes London politics, and it's one week before the London mayoral election. He knew what he was doing, and he timed his remarks to achieve the maximum impact. And I can't help suspecting that he wanted the outrage, wanted it as a way of reinforcing his message: 'see? the Zionist media won't let us say these things!'

I hope this is the end of Ken's political career; it certainly ought to be. But it's a tragic way for it to end. It tarnishes everything that's gone before, and it makes me reconsider everything I thought about him. Has he always been like this, and did I fail to see it just because I didn't want to see it? According to David Hirsh: 'Livingstone's antisemitism problem goes back decades'. And what does that say about the Labour Party?
posted by verstegan at 12:36 PM on April 29, 2016 [20 favorites]


What was the question that Livingstone was responding to in his initial comment? Whatever one thinks of him he's a seasoned politician, so I find it hard to believe that he would've been the first to mention Hitler in an interview about anti-Semitism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrH0SXGwiPo - it's close to the start.

He wasn't literally the first person to mention Hitler. I don't think it made sense even in context though.
posted by sourcejedi at 12:42 PM on April 29, 2016


For some pertinent reading, see Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine (notice at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website).
posted by No Robots at 1:06 PM on April 29, 2016


verstegan: Your comment, while I understand it is heartfelt, contains a really astounding accusation. You're basically saying that Livingstone made anti-semitic remarks now in order to garner Muslim votes for Labour next week. You're accusing a lot of different people of some pretty awful things.
posted by Emma May Smith at 1:34 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Emma May Smith: “verstegan: Your comment, while I understand it is heartfelt, contains a really astounding accusation. You're basically saying that Livingstone made anti-semitic remarks now in order to garner Muslim votes for Labour next week. You're accusing a lot of different people of some pretty awful things.”

I don't see that in verstegan's comment, which said nothing about Muslim votes – verstegan only said that Livingstone must know what he's doing, driving up this controversy again at this particular moment. And is that really astounding, to claim that Ken Livingstone knows what he's doing in regards to the timing here? In fact it seems sort of remarkable that he felt the need to say anything at all about a junior MP who's already been censured and apologized. And I can't figure out who the "a lot of different people" that verstegan is accusing are, either, to be honest.
posted by koeselitz at 1:57 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you are not a senior historian who has published serious critical work on mid-20th century Europe, the correct thing to do if asked by the media to comment on anything to do with Hitler is to say "Look! A squirrel!" and then run away. Fast.

Ah, but "the correct thing to do" in talking to the media is probably not a major concern here - cancel all your plans tomorrow people, he’s not only not going to apologise and back down, he’s going to argue his case citing that book "by an American marxist historian" about that pre-holocaust zionist-nazi connection, that’s his weapon of choice in self-defense here, that’s his smoking gun against any charge of antisemitism. Ponder that for a minute. Which is probably longer than he pondered that himself:
Asked how the book would practically help his case against his suspension from the party, he replied: “I haven’t a clue. I haven’t thought about it. I’ll wait until I hear from them.”
It’s almost admirable in a sadly entertaining perverse way, this stubborness, this willingness to go down in FLAMES really. Everyone else just apologises - even 96-year-old nazi guards apologise these days - but not Ken Livingstone!

I like how yesterday the Guardian liveblog ended with these words:
"I’m sorry all the other politics got ignored today. This story just never stopped."

In fact it seems sort of remarkable that he felt the need to say anything at all about a junior MP who's already been censured and apologized.

You’re expecting reasonableness or strategy where there is none, the phrase "it seems sort of remarkable that he felt the need to say anything" obviously does not apply here - isn’t that the one indisputable fact in all this mess?
posted by bitteschoen at 2:22 PM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Well, that's interesting, if only because he's got Shami Chakrabarti on board.
posted by Grangousier at 2:43 PM on April 29, 2016




Nothing to see here other than a media invented spectacle.
posted by OmieWise at 4:10 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sigh. Media invented spectacle? Could you explain that for those of us who are less gifted with wisdom than you are? Is Ken Livingstone the media? Did he not say a crazy thing when he said Hitler was a Zionist? What the hell is going on here if it's really just invented spectacle? Or is that what you meant?
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


the Nazi-era law regarding the flying of the so-called Zionist flag

So that flag thing...
The concise Imperial Flag Law changed the colors of Germany "back" to black, white, and red. It made the swastika flag into the official flag for both the German nation and German trade [...] Private persons were supposed to fly the national flag only on "regular flag-hanging days," or on days in which flag-hanging was invited. The former days included seven specifically Nazi holidays; the latter left open the possibility for practically any day to fall under the scope of this ordinance. These ordinances prevented private individuals from hanging military, church, or past state flags as well as precluded hanging even the national flag if it were hung in such circumstances unbecoming of its dignity: for instance, on the home of a Jew. The ordinances also made clear that the prohibition on flags included a prohibition of their colors as well. [...]
These various laws left Jews in an awkward situation. They were prohibited from hoisting the German national flag and its colors. The punishment for this act was identical to that for employing non-Jewish women under the age of forty-five in a Jewish household: a prison sentence of not more than a year, a fee not to exceed 10,000 marks, or both. In 1936, the Nazi regime further clarified that, should any Jews be living in a household or in mixed marriages, no Aryan flag could be hung from that home. [...] The choice of alternate flags for the Jewish people was left to their own discretion: the Nazi regime suggested the blue-and-white flag of Zionism."
(from Ordinary Germans in Extraordinary Times).

So in Mr Livingstone's deranged world, the very laws that institutionalized large-scale Jewish persecution are turned inside out to become proof that the nazis actually liked the jews, because flags. Seems Mr Livingstone isn't just a garden variety anti-semite, he's a full-blown nazi apologist.
posted by effbot at 4:22 PM on April 29, 2016 [5 favorites]


Sigh. Media invented spectacle? Could you explain that for those of us who are less gifted with wisdom than you are? Is Ken Livingstone the media? Did he not say a crazy thing when he said Hitler was a Zionist? What the hell is going on here if it's really just invented spectacle? Or is that what you meant?

I'm pretty sure he made a dry joke in light of the the comment directly above.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:26 PM on April 29, 2016 [2 favorites]


irony: always a good idea on the internet
posted by koeselitz at 4:53 PM on April 29, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Brenner's book lies well outside academic mainstream," [...]
posted by effbot


A few paragraphs up:

Livingstone said he met Brenner when the writer visited the UK in 1983. “At the time no one objected. The Jewish community was traumatised to read all the stuff in it, because they didn’t believe it … but, you know … no one in the Labour party complained about my appearing with him or citing him,” he said.

I don't know what to say.
posted by rosswald at 8:03 PM on April 29, 2016


Livingstone said he met Brenner when the writer visited the UK in 1983. “At the time no one objected."

From that same Gruaniad article:

"A Guardian report from the time on Brenner’s visit to the UK recorded that the police were investigating an attack by “rightwing Zionists” on the author at Lambeth town hall. Two people including the elderly chairman of the meeting were hospitalised and Brenner was bruised on the arm when a small groups started throwing punches."
posted by Mister Bijou at 11:31 PM on April 29, 2016


I dearly wish Ken had kept his mouth shut. He should have stuck to the point, but no, he had to go and invoke Godwin's law. His comments come across as tone deaf at best and deeply offensive at worst. I get that. But I urge anyone who would take the anti-semitism accusation at face value to take a closer look at what he's trying to say.

"In reality, it seems fair to say that Livingstone was trying to discredit Zionism as a form of extreme nationalism by reminding listeners that its leaders had once cooperated with Hitler’s government. As an ardent defender of Palestinian rights, Livingstone comes from a part of the British left that supported the effort to have Zionism condemned “as a movement based on racial superiority” at a United Nations conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001."

For all his gifts for politics, Ken's clumsy and always has been. His opinions on this matter are shaped by some of the less savoury aspects of the history of Zionism, which many people would rather forget, or don't know about in the first place, because anyone who mentions them gets instantly rounded on. But anyone who thinks this is equates to blind prejudice against Jews and has no basis in fact should maybe read up on the history of the Haarvara Agreement or the Stern Gang's connection with the radical right of the time.

Which brings me to this:

"Brenner's book lies well outside academic mainstream," said Hitler-era expert Thomas Webber when approached by The Guardian. "It is mostly celebrated either by the extreme left and by the neo-Nazi right. Asked about Livingstone claims about the Nazi-era law regarding the flying of the so-called Zionist flag, Webber responded: "That's news to me." [...] The book Livingstone intends to cite in his defense is also cited by the Institute for Historical Review, considered by many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, as anti-Semitic and a group that denies the Holocaust.

I've been doing a little digging about this book, and I'm struggling to find anything that actually says its account of history is incorrect or revisionist. It's clearly controversial, but to discredit it for being popular with political extremists or for falling outside the Overton window of acceptable discourse on the topic seems like a pretty shabby argument.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 3:48 AM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't see that in verstegan's comment, which said nothing about Muslim votes – verstegan only said that Livingstone must know what he's doing, driving up this controversy again at this particular moment. And is that really astounding, to claim that Ken Livingstone knows what he's doing in regards to the timing here?

It's there in his comment. He mentions Ken courting the Muslim vote and sharing a platform with unsavoury individuals in order to get that vote. I don't know how else to piece together what verstegan said. And yes, saying that a politician is using antisemitism an electoral ploy--a politician who would otherwise be regarded as progressive--is astounding. This isn't coming from a Livingstone foe, but an erstwhile supporter.
posted by Emma May Smith at 4:08 AM on April 30, 2016


His opinions on this matter are shaped by some of the less savoury aspects of the history of Zionism, which many people would rather forget.

Oh FFS, he quoted the Nuremberg race laws as proof that the jews had special zionist privileges. That's so far into "hitler did nothing wrong" territory that I'd call him a neo-nazi if there was any sign of working mental processes in that man's brain.

(...and today he doubled up on the "hitler did nothing wrong" bit by approvingly misquoting Netanyahu's attempt to blame the palestinians for the genocide from last year.)

If Livingstone is representative for the Labour's left-wing, the party deserves to be destroyed and have a parking lot built on top of it. His fanclub in this thread should be ashamed.
posted by effbot at 4:14 AM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]


Out of interest, has Ken Livingstone just turned into a neo-Nazi or was he one all along, effbot? During the 80s when he was relentlessly pilloried by the right wing media for his championing of LGBT rights, for example?
posted by colie at 4:24 AM on April 30, 2016


Oh FFS, he quoted the Nuremberg race laws as proof that the jews had special zionist privileges.

Which quote was that? The Indy link at the top has:
On whether what Hitler did was legal, as stated by Naz Shah:

“That’s a statement of fact – Hitler, I’m sure, passed all those laws that allowed him to do that … it’s history … literally, Hitler was completely mad, he killed six million Jews.
Which I can't connect to your statement.
posted by daveje at 4:31 AM on April 30, 2016




[...] anyone who thinks this is equates to blind prejudice against Jews and has no basis in fact should maybe read up on the history of the Haarvara Agreement [...]

The claim that Zionists cooperated with the Nazis is regularly brought up by unsavory people and on unsavory websites. I'm sorry to see it raised here. It was an attempt to rescue Jews from Nazi Germany at a time when barriers to their emigration were being erected worldwide. IIRC, maybe 20,000 Jews were saved because of it. I wish the number had been many times greater. You all know what happened to the ones who didn't get out.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:49 AM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


See my earlier post about flags for more context, including a link to the 1935 flag law that was part of the Nuremberg race law package.

Well, the flag law is backed up:
Paragraph 4 in "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour", part of the infamous Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935, states that 1. "Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the [German] national colours. 2. On the other hand, they are permitted to display the Jewish colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State." Paragraph 5.3 described the penalty for infringing "1": up to one year's imprisonment plus fine, or one of these.[31] The "Jewish colours" referred to in this article were blue and white.
But I don't read that as Jews having special privileges, nor do I see Livingstone claiming that either. The law doesn't give them any privilege, it actively forbids them from flying German flags, ie, it stigmatises them as non-German. As for the "Jewish colours", I see that as parallel to wearing the star of David.
posted by daveje at 5:49 AM on April 30, 2016


As for the "Jewish colours", I see that as parallel to wearing the star of David.

Daveje, a number of people on this website - including myself - are one generation or less removed from the Holocaust. Please have a thought for how incredibly hurtful your offhand comments may be.

The "Jewish colors" were a sneering insult to German Jews, who by that time had been excluded from most spheres of public life and were shortly to have their very citizenship taken away from them. It was a a slap in the face, telling them that they were not German, but Jewish. Your comparison to "wearing the star of David" is facile and demeaning.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:58 AM on April 30, 2016


I think daveje means this?
posted by Leon at 6:03 AM on April 30, 2016


In the context of defending Livingstone's statement quoted by effbot above? Livingstone says that it was "pretty striking" that the Nazis didn't ban the display of "the blue and white Zionist flag". It's pretty clearly the antisemitic smear that the Nazis and Zionists were cooperating.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:15 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]


I think daveje means this?

Yes, I do mean that. Apologies, but I thought it was blindingly obvious in the context.
posted by daveje at 6:27 AM on April 30, 2016


colie: "Out of interest, has Ken Livingstone just turned into a neo-Nazi or was he one all along, effbot? During the 80s when he was relentlessly pilloried by the right wing media for his championing of LGBT rights, for example?"

Er - effbot actually said that Livingstone isn't a new-Nazi - that Livingstone is only saying things a neo-Nazi would say, and that if it weren't clear that Livingstone is just being an idiot, we might take him at his word and think he is one.

And - Emma May Smith: you may be right. I have previously had a high regard for Ken Livingstone, and would have thought he was too intelligent to say blatantly antisemitic things without thinking. In this case, either he said antisemitic things with forethought, or he said them because he was just being really stupid. I guess "stupid" is the charitable way to see it, but it's still difficult with a figure like Ken Livingstone.
posted by koeselitz at 6:44 AM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


As a bit of context, I was one of the main editors dealing with Wikipedia articles on the Holocaust about a decade ago, though I am far from an expert (which, of course, defines Wikipedia). So I basically spent a huge amount of time dealing with Holocaust denial and antisemitism, as well as the history of that period.

The majority of the attacks on pages were dumb, and answerable, but the smart ones took some little part of the history of the Holocaust that they could claim was "counter to the narrative" (some Jews welcoming the invasion of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe, etc.) and insist that it be included in an article. They were right, that these things were facts, but they were clearly set up to undermine and cast doubt on the entire history of the Holocaust ("See the Jews were colluding with the Communists! They weren't just victims! What else isn't true!"). Smart revisionism/denial involves assembling a counter-narrative built of tiny examples, just like a conspiracy theory ("What about Building 7?").

What worries me about Livingstone's defense is that it is exactly this sort of thing, and it seems to be working as smart people (yes, even on MeFi) are inclined to defend him. We are now arguing about German flag laws, even as someone upthread invoked Lehi and the transfer agreements as "some of the less savoury aspects of the history of Zionism, which many people would rather forget." As if these are any sort of "proof" that the Nazis and Jews collaborated on some large scale. As if the existence of Jewish terrorism in Palestine and desperate attempts to get the Jews out of Hitler's Germany at any costs should somehow balance the scales with the Nazis obvious antisemitism.

People in this thread are reading marginal history books on the Holocaust, thanks to Livingstone, and saying it is perfectly fine, just "outside the Overton window of acceptable discourse." And yet are they also reading the actual mainstream historical works on the Holocaust and Zionism? Or is it a cherry-picking exercise to find the most "counter-narrative" material without actually reading the huge huge huge amounts of material that actually underlines the mainstream accounts of what life was like in the 1930s as a Jew in Germany.

And what is the point of all of this? Why is anyone trying to argue that Zionism and Nazism were allied in some way? To delegitimatize Israel? To defend Livingstone?

Livingstone is making me worried.

This discussion is making me worried.

This sort of thing ends with a few more people having some "doubts" about how the Nazis and Jews related to each other prior to WW II. It leaves them with a little bit of a suspicion that maybe the Jews somehow collaborated or manipulated the Nazis. It casts just a little doubt in their head on the mainstream history of the Holocaust, links Israel in some sort of way to the Nazis, and convinces people that maybe those Jews are trying to hide something with their Holocaust story. Livingstone doesn't even know (I hope) the damage he is doing, but it makes me very worried - this is how antisemitism gets normalized and accepted, and how conspiracy theories start.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:12 AM on April 30, 2016 [17 favorites]


The claim that Zionists cooperated with the Nazis is regularly brought up by unsavory people and on unsavory websites.

Thank you for this ad hominem counter attack. And so the argument gets closed down. Every. Single. Time.

Nobody said anything about collaboration. And I didn't get any of this from unsavoury people on unsavoury websites, as you put it. I got it from fact-checking some of what Ken was saying, combined with what I've learned from reading Left-leaning secular Jewish scholars and some of Israel's New Historians about the evolution of hard-line Zionist ideologies in the post war years. I'd prefer not to argue the relative merits of a book I haven't read, but it strikes me that Ken's opinions on the matter were formed at a time when these histories hadn't yet been written and the only counter-narrative to Zionism in the 70's and 80's was drawn from very partisan sources such as Brenner.

I'm very glad that we now have a frame of reference for debating Israel in different terms, but the same old ad-hominem attacks just keep on coming. Self-hating Jews anyone? That always seemed like the most bizarre inversion of anti-Semitism to me. And yet it remains very difficult to query the war records of prominent Likudniks such as Yitzhak Shamir, or ask why it was that Menachem Begin's nascent Herut party was considered so extreme that when he visited the US a number of prominent Jews signed an open letter comparing him to the Nazi Fascists.

Anyway. The Jewish Socialist Group saw fit to make this Statement on “Labour’s problem with antisemitism”. I'm feeling very gloomy that the Blairite faction seems happy to hand over the keys to London to Zac Goldsmith if it means they can throw Corbyn under the Routemaster.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 8:12 AM on April 30, 2016 [3 favorites]


Thank you for this ad hominem counter attack. And so the argument gets closed down. Every. Single. Time.

What argument?
posted by blahblahblah at 8:18 AM on April 30, 2016 [4 favorites]



The claim that Zionists cooperated with the Nazis is regularly brought up by unsavory people and on unsavory websites.

Thank you for this ad hominem counter attack. And so the argument gets closed down. Every. Single. Time.


If the argument is based on the ad hoc moves of Nazis and ZIonists before and during WW2, then it's good to close it down, and better yet not to open it up in the first place.

That argument is proof prima facie that the person proffering it has nothing useful to say about the Middle East or about the state of ethnic tensions in today's Europe or Britain.
posted by ocschwar at 8:22 AM on April 30, 2016


I guess it is also worth mentioning, as requested in the antisemitism thread on MeTa last year, that you might want to listen when many Jews on the thread, of a variety of political leanings (and who disagree with each other vehemently in I/P threads, as if that matters), tell you that they feel that what Livingstone is doing with his defense of his comments is antisemitic, and that the way that he is being defended here, repeatedly, is extremely problematic. It may not seem that way to you, and of course there will be disagreement among Jewish people as well, but please at least consider that what some of us see is valid.

You can do with this as you chose, but I would suggest that you view this the same way as if someone told you they thought something you were doing was racist, or Islamophobic. There is no Israel bugbear in this thread, no reason to place the blame on Zionists wanting to shut down discussion of Israel. Similarly, this is not shutting down debate but instead, in the best possible MeFi way, a call to try to understand the perspective of a minority group that has experienced racism and believing them when they say that something is wrong here.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:02 AM on April 30, 2016 [15 favorites]


Elizabeth the Thirteenth: “Nobody said anything about collaboration.”

It's very difficult to determine what Ken Livingstone means by "an ongoing dialogue between Zionists and Nazi government" if he isn't talking about collaboration. He repeats and emphasizes "an ongoing dialogue." In saying this he cites a supposed law that allowed only swastika flags and "Zionist flags" to be flown; this is a pretty clear implication, if not an outright statement, that there was collaboration. This goes further than his earlier statement, which was simply that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism "before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews;" now he's saying that support was mutual, and had real-world results. Which, as Joe in Australia noted above, is utterly ignorant of the context and quite ridiculous given the motives of the players involved (and the clear awareness Zionists of the time had that Hitler wanted to, er, murder them all.)
posted by koeselitz at 9:41 AM on April 30, 2016 [9 favorites]


On the one hand, I don't doubt that the right is doing everything it can to paint the left in vivid, evil, neon colors. A tiny minority says stupid shit, and they'll stretch it and inflate it into covering the whole of Labour and beyond.

On the other hand, fucking LOL at allegedly respectable people talking about Jews and anti-Semitism in ways that would make people's whiskers curl if it had been directed at any other minority. That's some through-the-looking-glass shit right there: as if I was talking to an otherwise well-educated, politically-simpatico friend, who then suddenly jackknifes into "WELL YOU SEE MASTERS ACTUALLY TREATED THEIR SLAVES QUITE WELL. LONG LIVE THE STARS AND BARS.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:55 AM on April 30, 2016 [10 favorites]


Does anyone feel like making a MetaTalk post about the way this thread has gone?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:50 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Do you think it would result in anything more than the last Meta did, Joe?
posted by jeather at 4:02 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well, not especially.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:06 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: TO REITERATE: "If you're interested in talking about Livingstone and Labour and what's going on in UK politics with this situation, that's fine and that is presumably why this thread would even exist, but let's just steer the hell away from relitigating the existence of antisemitism and the motives of anyone bothered by it, because we sure as shit don't need another go around of that."
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 5:17 PM on April 30, 2016 [2 favorites]



On that note, I'd be very interested in a MetaTalk post about the moderation of this thread. I didn't read every single comment, but it didn't seem that bad to me.
posted by Cassettevetes at 5:44 PM on April 30, 2016


It the 12 years I have spent on MetaFilter, this is, by far, the most depressing thread I have participated in.
posted by blahblahblah at 5:47 PM on April 30, 2016


Mod note: While I share many of these feelings, metadiscussions need to go to metatalk, or you can hit the contact form to address the mods directly.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 5:50 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


I really haven't figured out how to respond to you blah, because I don't understand where you're coming from. I happen to be one of these Jewish people who think what Livingstone said was anti-semitic, however I don't think Ken Livingstone is as important as the massively hypocritical shitshow that is going on in the UK media and the Labour party, which completely trivialises the serious issues of fascism, the holocaust, colonialism, anti-semitism, the interminable conflict in the middle east, just so a few stuffed shirts can feel good about themselves for taking a safe position that their blinkered world view has convinced them is also correct.
posted by Cassettevetes at 6:02 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]


Cassettevetes - As I said earlier, I am a UK politics outsider, so I do believe much of what is being discussed is the usual maneuvering and smearing of politics. And I understand that this is what many of the people early in the thread cared about, and that's cool.

What has made this depressing is that, as the thread has gone on, fellow community members, people from a community that taught me a lot about social justice and the experiences of others, have been using the whole playbook to forgive or justify antisemitism. In this thread, we have (a) people denying that the incident is antisemitic even when many Jewish folks on the thread have said that it is to them, (b) actually defending the historical fallacy that Jews and Nazis were collaborators, (c) claiming that this is just the media/Zionists/someone else out to smear leftists, (d) stating that they are just trying to ask questions about the historical record and that they are "being shut down" for daring to speak the truth. And then, in the most recent deleted comment, someone was saying that "one could understand" Holocaust denial because the people who teach the Holocaust were covering up the 5 million non-Jewish people killed by the Nazis. Or something.

In every other thread where anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment began to comingle, there was at least a fig leaf of Israeli politics or organized religion that people disagree about and that sort of justified people making comments that felt "off." Here there isn't - this is about antisemitism, stripped of its cover. Not just Livingstone, of course, but in other places as well. And, unlike MeFi's strong defense of other minorities who feel under attack, and the quick reminder to people to try to understand the views of that minority, the reaction to anti-Jewish racism is very different. A racism that, in living memory, killed millions and that has never completely disappeared. And yet, many on MeFi seem reluctant to acknowledge antisemitism as a real thing that exists today.

So, I feel a bit betrayed by a community I expected more from. Not the mods, mind you, but the community.
posted by blahblahblah at 6:20 PM on April 30, 2016 [14 favorites]


So back when Ken was running for mayor again, apart from the turn to the right that just about everyone in (southern) labour took after John Smith, another thing that turned me off him was the separate contest he and Galloway had to be the authentic great white hope of London muslims without ever coming to the obvious conclusion that muslims are a heterogeneous people with as many nuanced opinions on issues as any other group of people.

Speaking of Galloway, back during the big 2003 anti-war movement you wouldn't believe the crap people said. When Israel bombed Lebanon back in... 2006? Thousands of people were marching down the street singing 'we are all Hezbollah!' I was like I don't want to bomb Lebanon, but I'm not Hezbollah either give me a break. (I doubt many of those people would support the ruins of the Assad regime that Hezbollah is now fighting for.) I'm anti-zionist 100%, that doesn't mean I want to push Jewish Israelis into the sea. During the last Gaza assault I was in a deep rage about the military aggression, but I was tearing my hair out at the BBC coverage that made out like Israel was just killing people for the fun of it.

Anyway I can't address the specific depressing things you read. Either I didn't see them or I'm a bit hardened. For such a controversial subject the comments I read were pretty reasonable, even the ones from people that I suspect I would disagree with about most things. I learned a good bit. Like Ocschwar-- I would probably disagree with this person about politics but they are thinking about absurd violence against Jews in France, Hungary, Poland and even Britain and I understand that. I don't know why but I wrote to the defamation league about Hungary. They didn't respond.

The extra-Isreali press is so used to Netanyahu/Sharon for what? It's 20 years with a two year break. But he is not in the slightest bit representative of Israel as a whole. There was a time before Netanyahu and there will be a time after Netanyahu and when that time comes the media is going to pretend that Netanyahu never existed and that they never just believed everything he said.

Anyway, the only comment I was disturbed by was the one calling Corbyn the UK's Donald Trump, which is so laughable that maybe I read too much of the rest of the thread in a good mood.
posted by Cassettevetes at 7:42 PM on April 30, 2016


There's a petition on Change.Org for John Mann to be disciplined for his "appallingly unprofessional and toxic behaviour to a fellow respected MP" (i.e., him calling Ken Livingstone a Nazi apologist). The petition has over sixteen thousand signatures.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:34 PM on April 30, 2016


Mod note: blankdawn, since you can't follow the moderator directions from above, please don't participate in this thread. Thanks.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:04 PM on April 30, 2016 [1 favorite]




This is a bit of a ramble. It's not an argument in favour or against anything or anybody. There's a more interesting story to tease out than "Ken Livingstone was the mayor, then he went mad and turned into a Nazi!", which is the way it seems to be playing out in the media. I'm fairly sure I don't have the skills to do it, but I'm in the habit of making terrible mistakes on a daily basis, and I've written it now so I might as well post it. I'm much more interested in Cassettevetes or people with direct experience of the British situation knocking me over with rhetorical sticks. This is mostly dredged out of my memory of how I perceived things, and isn't intended as a authoritative narrative. But I have a tendency to write sentences that run on like Forrest Gump already, without sticking in qualifying clauses.

Ken Livingstone has been a part of the reality of political life since I was at school. That's an amazingly long time: I did O Levels, I'm that old. So I've been spending time over the last couple of days thinking about Ken, which I've never really done in any detail before. I don't know how I feel about him. A politician of the left who kept winning. That's unusual over the last thirty years. And he's certainly fearless. But is fearlessness a quality one looks for in the person who's driving the bus?

And, yes, I've been wondering about his relationship to the Jewish community, which I'd not really thought about before.

I suspect Ken's definition of anti-semetic would encompass people who have the belief that "The Jews" are a lesser form of human being who aren't like us and conspire in the darkness. We both know that there are people who believe precisely that, because we've met them, and they tend not to be members of the Labour Party. There are other parties that serve them much better.

On the other hand, I've been wondering whether to Ken, the leader of the GLC in particular, it was perfectly natural to see London's Jewish community (as a political group, and I have no idea how unified a group that actually is) as political opponents. Now I think about it, I'm fairly certain he did.

After all, he was used to dealing with constituents who faced persistent, everyday and often violent discrimination and abuse: For example, Black people, primarily but not exclusively young, who were the objects of the blatantly racist stop-and-search policies of the Metropolitan Police; Asian people, who were the objects of everyday abuse and violence; or Irish people (predominantly young), who were treated as probable terrorists (that last one is more vague in my memory, but was definitely a cause at the time, though there were places where it was very striking, for example when those people moved between Ireland and the UK). By contrast, the Jewish community must have seemed comfortably bourgeois, relatively unmolested (in the 1980s, compared to the people who were receiving daily verbal abuse, regular physical assaults and reliable deliveries of excrement through their letterbox), and (in the person of Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi of the UK), had aligned themselves politically with the Conservative Party.

Livingstone and the GLC were openly at war with the Conservative Party, located over Westminster Bridge from the Houses of Parliament, displaying an enormous banner with the latest London unemployment figures. Eventually, he and they annoyed Thatcher so much she abolished that tier of local government. Maybe worth reiterating: the Government was so irritated by the politics of the incumbency of a significant, democratically elected instutution, they erased the entire institution.

At that time there were a large number of causes attracting people's attention. Many of these are forgotten now - Nicaragua! El Salvador! East Timor! Remember East Timor? Almost enough to make one feel nostalgic, assuming it's possible or morally justifiable to feel nostalgic for humanitarian crises. But the primary causes, the big three, were the ones in which the British government had the biggest hand and which were perceived to be essentially colonialist: South Africa, Northern Ireland and Israel. In each case, the governments who had taken the role of colonial ruler were or seemed very, very right wing and were stoutly defended by the Thatcherite government (who considered those who disagreed with it on those points little more than criminals). It's worth noting that in two of those cases that he allied himself with, Livingstone's side won, which would have supported his confidence in his own judgement. It might eventually have been three for three if Yitzhak Rabin had not been assassinated. Though probably not.

When I was young, the official line on Israel, the thing I was taught at home and school, came across as "There was the Holocaust, but we gave them Israel, and then everything was all right apart from some nasty people". Discovering that the history and pre-history of the country was a lot more complicated than that and that the existence of one didn't really depend on the commission of the other, and that it wasn't actually empty land that had been waiting around for someone to run it, that there were actual people there who had been displaced... it was something of a shock. As a naturally conservative youth (who wanted to believe everything my hand-me-down Eagle annuals told me about the British Empire and the way the world looked to the English middle class in 1954) who ran with a very left-wing crowd, the 1980s were a time I got a lot of eye-openings and awakenings. Given that the opinion of Israel that had been formed in me was largely emotional, finding out about the plight of the Palestinians and the atrocities that had accompanied the formation of Israel, my response was also emotional. Grah.

There is a tendency for some to say that the Holocaust is marshalled as a sort of universal argument in these matters, something so big and so ugly that no one would want to be seen arguing in favour of it. A kind of cheating. It really isn't the case, though it is something I've seen done, at least thirty years ago in the kinds of bar-room disputes that the iPhone may have killed off. In response, some people who were passionate about addressing the situation in Israel thought that the best way to go about it was to interrogate what they saw as the myths surrounding Israel's formation, to disassociate it from the Holocaust, and I never really understood why it didn't bother them that this took them into the same room as the kinds of fascists they fought everywhere else. Perhaps the love of winning an argument, or at least brow-beating your opponent into submission with data, is so great one can overlook the smell coming from next door.

A more productive approach - indeed, I think, the only productive approach - was taken by the people who maintained contact with the people under occupation and disseminated their testimony. That was ultimately what shaped my opinions. If any solution is ever possible it can only be reached by recognising our commonality and shared aspirations with the Palestinians. And with the Israeli people.

Livingstone, on the other hand, because of his self-centredness, his flamboyance, his love of explaining at great length and the joy of winning arguments by sheer force of bluster went down the interesting-fact-acquiring route, rehearsed the hectoring monologues that developed out of that to the point that they became streamlined to incoherence and irrelevance and has now been caught out. Saying what he did was stupid and offensive and unnecessary. And thoughtless. And completely normal in tone if not in subject matter. He was doing the Annoy-Vanessa-Feltz routine on BBC London when it was GLR, and I suspect he no longer engages his brain before walking into the studio. What's made me angrier at him is that his love of attention has prevented him from shutting the fuck up. It's been a while since someone should have tied him down and explained to him that it was a very good idea for him to slow down and spend more time with his newts. He won two elections to be mayor. Then he lost two. That ought to have been a hint.

Of the two mayors London has had so far, though, he was the best by a country mile. And still by far the least racist.

It's very annoying that this may affect Khan's chances, because he's the better candidate by a long way, more likely to actually work in the interest of Londoners, and doesn't deserve it. And I'm not sure that I like the idea of a BAME candidate being brought down with racist dogwhistling and guilt by association.
posted by Grangousier at 3:34 AM on May 1, 2016 [9 favorites]


I've been wondering whether to Ken, the leader of the GLC in particular, it was perfectly natural to see London's Jewish community (as a political group, and I have no idea how unified a group that actually is) as political opponents.

London's Jewish community isn't a political group, and that's something of a weird suggestion. It's a community, or part of a community, and it has as diverse a range of views as any community. In fact, Labour was historically and until quite recently the party of the Jews. If that's changed, it's because of Livingstone and his fellow-travellers.

Here's the sort of filthy Jew-hatred one Labour MP has to put up with. If Livingstone thinks the Shadow Minister for Health is his political opponent it's not because of her party; it's because he has a problem with Jews.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:15 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh. And. You describe Livingstone's actions as "stupid and offensive and unnecessary" - I'm glad you recognise that it was offensive - but your anger is focused around the fact that it may affect Sadiq Khan's chances in the mayoral election. Surely you can see that there's a bigger picture here? Many staunch Labour supporters say that the party is becoming increasingly antisemitic. If that's the case then the Labour party should not be in power, just as the (increasingly racist) Republican Party should not be in power in the USA.

I think a more appropriate reaction to Livingstone and Shah (and all their fellow travellers, both casual and vindictive) is that the Labour Party isn't as good as we would hope, and that it needs to do something about that. Urgently.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:25 AM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's not do that thing where we demand that someone pointing out online hate speech / abuse somehow has to account for whom, specifically, it came from. These attacks don't usually carry author's bio notes, and saying "here is the kind of abuse people suffer" isn't the same as saying, "this abuse came from the person / party / organization you support," but rather suggests that people should probably be careful they aren't enabling or accidentally encouraging this sort of abuse.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:47 AM on May 1, 2016


... It is specifically bullshit to try and tie this one on to Jeremy Corbyn.

It would have been a hell of a lot more convenient for a lot of people than it actually was if Jeremy Corbyn had ever said anything colourably anti-Semitic himself. A lot of people just presumed he had done, because he’s been on the left since forever, he’s spoken at more Palestine solidarity meetings than I’ve had cooked breakfasts, he’s on that team … he must have compared Israel to the Nazis one time, mustn’t he? And yet, the trawl through Corbyn’s back pages produced basically zip ...

The UK media then went through the back pages of everyone Corbyn had appeared with. They got one Palestinian representative, who had been invited to address a group of MPs by Corbyn and was later convicted under the incitement to racial hatred laws for a blood libel. The return on investment in terms of substance generated for the time and effort spent was lousy, and people were beginning to notice.

So now we have the third stage – finding stuff that Corbyn obviously isn’t responsible for and couldn’t reasonably have been expected to know about, like two year old Facebook posts and university Labour Club scandals from before he was leader, and then declare that he hasn’t acted fast enough, nudge nudge. He Just Doesn’t Take It Seriously Enough If You See What I Mean.

Of course, Corbyn has a very ramshackle media team, because the old machine built by Alastair Campbell won’t work with him. And he is very isolated with few friends in the party, most of whom are the constant subject of a shower of bullshit allegations of all sorts, mixed in with some legitimate ones. It’s basically impossible for him to react any faster than he did. What’s going on here is that Corbyn’s party enemies have made the party uncontrollable, then blamed him for not being able to control it ... The majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party think that Corbyn is an electoral disaster area, and they know that constantly doing and saying dodgy things in the service of being anti-Israel is a massive Achilles heel for his wing of the party. I would hope that they are very confident that any long term damage done to the party’s reputation will disappear as soon as they are in charge, and although there is never a wrong time to fight racism, I confess to being surprised that two-year-old Facebook posts were considered too urgent an issue to wait until after the local elections. But this is by no means even in the top ten worst party machinations that Labour has seen in my lifetime, and the problem is a genuine one which would have had to be addressed sooner or later.
Daniel Davies, Antisemitism in the Labour Party – what’s going on?, Crooked Timber (1 May 2016).
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:31 AM on May 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Labour MP Diane Abbott in today's Grauniad:
“Antisemitism is a problem across Europe,” said Abbott. “You are saying that because there have been 12 incidents online that the party is antisemitic?”
Also...
Len McCluskey, the head of Britain’s biggest union, Unite, criticised Livingstone and backed his suspension. However, he said: “This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to manipulate antisemitism for political ends because it is all about constantly challenging Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.”

McCluskey – whose union is the party’s biggest donor said: “The idea that there is an antisemitic crisis within the Labour party is absolutely offensive but it is being used in order to challenge Jeremy Corbyn,” he told Pienaar’s Politics on BBC Radio 5 Live.

More here

posted by Mister Bijou at 5:39 AM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


And I say again: If the left wing of the Labour Party would like to avoid accusations of anti-semitism from the right wing of the Labour Party (or the BBC or anyone else), they could stop saying really really anti-semitic things, like the shit that Livingstone said.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:25 AM on May 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


... So the issue of antisemitism is raised constantly, which shows that there's nothing in it, and the fact that this incident is two weeks before an election shows that it's politically motivated? How about: there have been lots of substantial incidents, because there really is a problem, but this one is only getting attention because it's both egregious and two weeks before an election?

My answer would be that Corbyn should have dumped his Jew-baiting mates long ago, rather than keep bleating about how his dear old mum fought at Cable Street. Because we do agree that Livingstone has form for this, don't we?
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:28 AM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]


“Labour’s problem with antisemitism”...
The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.
Full statement here: Jewish Socialists’ Group
posted by Mister Bijou at 7:23 AM on May 1, 2016


ToI Op-Ed - Ken Livingstone, using Hitler to demonize Israel: In nurturing the obscene notion that Hitler was a Zionist, the former London mayor hopes to convince Britons that all those who rightly abhor the Nazis must likewise abhor and oppose Israel
posted by rosswald at 7:36 AM on May 1, 2016


Mod note: Couple comments deleted and patience very low.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:21 AM on May 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Of course the right has ulterior motives in drawing attention to offensive comments made by their opposition. It doesn't change the fact that these people did, indeed, make offensive comments. However, what really gets my goat is when people trot out defenses that would be laughed out of the room, had they applied to any other recognized minority.

Like, the Crooked Timber piece which not only entertains the "bawww, just a joke" defense, but also claims with a straight face that Michael Moore joking that Israel should have been carved out of Bavaria is equivalent to "joking" that Israel should be moved to the US. Like...does anybody actually need to have it explained to them why those two statements are *not* expressing the same ideas?

What's weirder is that the original "joker" has already apologized and moved on. Why write an idiotic blog post that attempts to retroactively makes things *worse*?

The gestalt I receive is that too many otherwise sensible-ish people approach the issue of anti-Semitism in the equivalent way to a stereotypical Redditor being told to knock off offensive remarks. What clouds people's judgements so?
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:19 PM on May 1, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't know. I liked the Crooked Timber piece, mostly, but you're right about the weakness of the defense. The author could have defended Trump along similar lines - he hasn't actually said he hates African Americans, and he publicly declined David Duke's endorsement. But when you look at what Trump said over the years you can see that he's basically lying over and over again about not knowing Duke, what Duke stands for, and so forth. And Trump's statements separating him from Duke always seem to be oddly phrased (e.g., "I would [repudiate] him, if it made you feel better.") and he vacillates between claiming that he already "disavowed" Duke and then claiming that he knows nothing about Duke, anyway.

It looks to me as if Corbyn is playing from the same book; Crooked Timber makes much of the fact that you can't find Corbyn himself saying anything antisemitic, but he's been appearing with antisemites for years, speaking on the same platforms, funding their organisations. He always seems to leap to their defense, just as he initially did in this case. He used to have a gig with Iran's PressTV for goodness' sake! And when he gets asked about it he says he's always opposed antisemitism, or that his mother fought at Cable Street, or something of that sort. But are there any actual recorded instances of him doing something to oppose antisemitism? I don't know of anything that stands out, the way his defense of Paul Eisen, or Stephen Sizer, or the Brick Lane mural stands out. Like, did he say anything to Raed Salah about how matzas are not actually made out of murdered children's blood?
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:27 PM on May 1, 2016 [4 favorites]


Or did he have to refer to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends"?
posted by koeselitz at 1:57 PM on May 1, 2016


He used to have a gig with Iran's PressTV for goodness' sake!

He still has some kind of fanclub in the comments over there, producing a steady stream of crazy rants on any article about UK politics, even if some seem to be questioning Corbyn's dedication to the cause now that he's not clearly 100% behind Livingstone.

(I wouldn't advice anyone to go there, but if you do, avoid the comments on Galloway articles, they make the other comments look balanced...)
posted by effbot at 1:58 PM on May 1, 2016


The Crooked Timber piece is pretty lacking. It does the obnoxious thing of conflating Jew and Israeli, and takes it as a given that it regularly happens that Jews falsely call out anti-Israel comments as anti-semitic in order to get someone else in trouble. (Have lots of people really lost their careers over false claims of anti-semitism in the UK?) It sounds exactly like people arguing about false rape accusations.
posted by jeather at 2:31 PM on May 1, 2016 [3 favorites]




Privileged, yet Unequal: an essay on the Anglo-American legal principle of "Jews Lose."
Why have Jews in the U.K. never won a reported discrimination case against non-Jewish defendants?
posted by zarq at 3:17 PM on May 1, 2016 [6 favorites]


Joe in Australia: "You describe Livingstone's actions as 'stupid and offensive and unnecessary' - I'm glad you recognise that it was offensive - but your anger is focused around the fact that it may affect Sadiq Khan's chances in the mayoral election. Surely you can see that there's a bigger picture here? Many staunch Labour supporters say that the party is becoming increasingly antisemitic. If that's the case then the Labour party should not be in power, just as the (increasingly racist) Republican Party should not be in power in the USA... I think a more appropriate reaction to Livingstone and Shah (and all their fellow travellers, both casual and vindictive) is that the Labour Party isn't as good as we would hope, and that it needs to do something about that. Urgently."

I totally agree that this is important and urgent. I have been hoping that Corbyn's order of an independent investigation does that, although I have increasing concerns about Corbyn himself.

But what does this mean for Londoners, who are looking to the mayoral election, the biggest in decades? I feel like it's easy for me, far away in another country, to insist on this - but (a) is this a reflection on Sadiq Khan? (b) is this an indication that the Tories are not antisemitic? and (c) does this mean Zac Goldsmith is preferable to Sadiq Khan?

I feel like these are pressing questions that will affect the next generation of Londoners - and Britons in general. And I'm not sure what the answers are. I think a big thing here is that Britain will be a better place if Labour strongly and firmly confronts antisemitism. But I'm not sure if Britain I'll be a better place if Zac Goldsmith is the mayor of London.

But it might actually be a good thing if Labour lost and learned this lesson. I'm just... it's hardly to 100% swallow that.
posted by koeselitz at 7:29 PM on May 1, 2016 [1 favorite]


hardly easy
posted by koeselitz at 7:45 PM on May 1, 2016


Long, but interesting:

The Holocaust, the Left, and the Return of Hate
The European Left is struggling to combat anti-Semitism in its midst. If history is any guide, it may be a long time before their solidarity extends to Jews and Israelis.

posted by Joe in Australia at 11:43 PM on May 1, 2016 [2 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted. Sorry, but Metatalk stuff belongs in Metatalk, and the discussion about the post itself can continue here.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:27 AM on May 2, 2016


What does this mean for Londoners, who are looking to the mayoral election, the biggest in decades? I feel like it's easy for me, far away in another country, to insist on this - but (a) is this a reflection on Sadiq Khan? (b) is this an indication that the Tories are not antisemitic? and (c) does this mean Zac Goldsmith is preferable to Sadiq Khan?
For the record, the answers to these questions are, respectively, no; no; and LOLWUT, seriously, dude?
But it might actually be a good thing if Labour lost and learned this lesson. I'm just... it's hardly [easy] to 100% swallow that.
The problem is, I don't think that's the lesson that will end up being taught here. The actual lessons I fear will be: (1), directed at the Labour membership: don't elect a leader from the wrong wing of the party, especially one who doesn't have the support of the PLP; (2) If you do elect such a leader, we (the Blairite wing of the party) will do everything we can to undermine him, including cynically damaging the chances of our own candidates in the lead up to a series of important elections; (3), to Labour's Muslim MPs and supporters: we don't take you or your opinions seriously and are willing to throw you under a bus should it become politically expedient to do so. Finally, lesson (4). After the PLP gets its way and deposes Corbyn, replacing him with whatever interchangeable cuts-apologist gets the ultimate nod, "Labour's anti-semitism problem" will disappear as a media story overnight, as if by magic.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:23 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


So what wing does Livingstone belong to?
posted by effbot at 5:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]




So what wing does Livingstone belong to?

I don't think it's the Blairite one.
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:45 AM on May 2, 2016


Labour is not ‘rife’ with antisemitism, but I do wish Ken would shut up

I suppose it depends what she means by "rife". I think most liberal people today accept that institutions – even quite well-meaning ones – may be compromised by institutionalised racism, sexism, &c. So why would she doubt that the Labour Party has institutionalised antisemitism?

Her article's subheading is a classic bit of whattaboutery: "All this rubbish is blotting out the real problems: housing, inequality, offshore accounts, the NHS, refugees."

I think jokes about genocide are a real problem, or at least indicate that one exists. She doesn't make me think any better of her when she continues "But perhaps that’s the point". That's not just claiming that the allegations are wrong; it implies that they're malicious: that Jews are using false allegations to obscure problems with housing, inequality, offshore accounts and so forth. I think she's just shown that she can't recognise antisemitism, even in herself. Or perhaps that's the point ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:04 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


"Okay, there might be anti-semites in our party, and they might be consistently supported, but the other side is worse!" I absolutely believe that, but also that it doesn't matter: the standard you want to hold for yourself is not 'better than bad people' but 'as good as you can be'.
posted by jeather at 6:17 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think she's just shown that she can't recognise antisemitism, even in herself.

The author is jewish. Another self-hating jew trope perhaps?
posted by lalochezia at 6:48 AM on May 2, 2016


What does that mean? I've seen it a couple of times in this thread.
posted by OmieWise at 6:53 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Labour is not ‘rife’ with antisemitism, but I do wish Ken would shut up


Completely missing the point.

Labour might not be rife with people spewing anti-Jewish tropes. But it is thoroughly infested with people willing to share platforms and form coalitions with members of and apologists for militias that have openly shown that they regard ALL Jews of all ages, sexes, and citizenships to be fair game for murder in the guise of "resistance." And shown both by word and deed.

Labour might let the antisemitic dirty work be done by Muslim "community leaders" and outside of Lbour party auspices, but that makes it worse, not better. It reeks of anti-Muslim bigotry as well as cynicism.

After the PLP gets its way and deposes Corbyn, replacing him with whatever interchangeable cuts-apologist gets the ultimate nod, "Labour's anti-semitism problem" will disappear as a media story overnight, as if by magic.


As a Member of the Tribe, I assure you that Labour's antisemitism problem will be pushed on to the headlines as long as it exists. If we fail to keep it in the public eye, it goes to show that "Jewish power" is a sick antisemitic joke. And we'll be at it to an extent that will border on harassment. So if you want this to stop, stop legitimizing antisemitism.

If you want to understand why, look at France. France is Britain in 5-8 years. That's the Tribe's motivation to be outspoken about this.
posted by ocschwar at 7:08 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


Her article's subheading is a classic bit of whattaboutery
posted by Joe in Australia


That is the whole article. She says at the end: I do not like a lot of what the Israeli government is doing [and] If I can’t say that without being told off for being antisemitic, then the world has gone mad.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread or in the media say you can't criticize Israel. The whole controversy was rather about the portrayal of Hitler as a supporter of Zionism, and statements by others in the Labour party suggesting the 'relocation' of all Israeli Jews from their current homes.

That is not "criticism."
posted by rosswald at 7:37 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


we'll be at it to an extent that will border on harassment. So if you want this to stop, stop legitimizing antisemitism.
OK, this is getting ridiculous. I can't see how anything I've said here "legitimizes antisemitism" (which is a fucking strong allegation), but if you want me to stop participating here, I will. Seriously, with the level of threat and bad faith arguing going on in this thread, it's no wonder pretty much every UK-based MeFite has noped out already.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:30 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


...it's no wonder pretty much every UK-based MeFite has noped out already.

Uppity Jews?
posted by griphus at 8:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can't see how anything I've said here "legitimizes antisemitism" (which is a fucking strong allegation), but if you want me to stop participating here, I will.

Nothing you've done has legitimized antisemitism. Too many things done by your preferred wing of the Labour party, have legitimized antisemitism and are continuing to do so.
posted by ocschwar at 8:40 AM on May 2, 2016


Sonny Jim has buttoned, so I guess this part of the discussion is sort of over.
posted by koeselitz at 8:41 AM on May 2, 2016


Labour councillor resigns over antisemitism, problem.

So, it's a non-issue?
posted by ocschwar at 9:21 AM on May 2, 2016


Given that Aiden Gray announced back in February that he would not be standing for re-election in May due to differences with Corbyn, his resignation is an obvious attempt to put the boot in as he leaves.
posted by Lal at 10:40 AM on May 2, 2016


Labour suspends three councillors over Israel comments:
Nottingham councillor Ilyas Aziz and ex-Blackburn mayor Salim Mulla are both said to have shared a post which suggested the state of Israel should be relocated to the US.

Burnley councillor Shah Hussain said he would "fight" his suspension for a tweet sent to an Israeli footballer.
More, on two of those suspended: Labour suspends two councillors over Israel Facebook posts in latest antisemitism row.
Ilyas Aziz, a Nottingham City councillor, has been suspended pending an investigation in the latest row over controversial comments to hit the party. Mr Aziz also appeared to liken the actions of Israel against the Palestinians to those of the Nazis against the Jews.

Shortly after a second councillor for Blackburn, Salim Mulla, became the second elected politician on Monday to be suspended after controversial comments emerged on his Facebook feed.

In a post, from 2014, Mr Mulla shared footage allegedly showing footage of a Palestinian boy being arrested with a comment from the councillor saying: "Apartheid at its best. Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity."

A Labour spokeswoman confirmed that both councillors have been supsended pending investigation.
That's what, five suspensions now?

No wait, it's at least six. Labour Crisis: Polls Predict Massive Party Losses
Earlier this month, Labour Party councillor Aysegul Gurbuz resigned after anti-Semitic posts were discovered on her Twitter account. Gurbuz apologized in a statement for the tweets, which were posted between 2011 and 2014, and which included a claim that Hitler was the “greatest man in history” and another suggesting Iran develop a nuclear weapon to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(Emphasis mine.)

How many statements (or shows of support like a facebook share) by Labour representatives supporting forced relocation and/or genocide of Jews and/or praising Adolf fucking Hitler as the "greatest man in history" does it take for people to stop knee-jerk defending those assholes? To admit that there is a serious problem, and no smear campaign forced them to say such vile things? How many more better-late-than-never suspensions will it take?
posted by zarq at 10:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


No one is defending those assholes, but to accept the current spin that six councillors out of 7087 Labour councillors constitutes a serious problem with Labour alone is willful ignorance.
posted by Lal at 11:52 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


No one is defending those assholes

The entire thread is about someone defending these assholes :-)

Well, defending the only one who's wholeheartedly apologized for being an ass. Interestingly enough, others to the left accused her of being an Israeli shill in April last year. A little over a year later, when it's time to attack people to the right of her, she's the victim of a "well-orchestrated campaign by Israel lobby".

In case someone wondered whether the left fringe were perhaps using the middle east situation for their own purposes, to bait certain groups of voters who they apparently think cannot be reached by talking about domestic issues...
posted by effbot at 1:17 PM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]


No one is defending those assholes

Except many people have in this thread. The party defended them, too. Or did until it became obvious that some of their constituents were upset.

...accept the current spin that six councillors out of 7087 Labour councillors constitutes a serious problem with Labour

One councillor perpetuating antisemitic tropes would be problematic. Six is a serious concern. The politicians used their public positions in the party to propagate hate speech to the public. Those councillors represent what, 30,000 people? More? The party was defensive and slow to react. And Livingstone in particular doubled down, said more things that weren't true, (including one about Hitler that wasn't Holocaust denial per se, but made it sound like Hitler was a Zionist(?!) who worked with Jews to found Israel,) made a bad situation much worse and has refused to apologize.

All of this is a problem. Refusing to admit the problem is also a problem. Attempting to shifting the blame from Labour officials to Tories is as well.

One has to wonder how left-wing Jewish Labour voters who felt their party had written them off last year will be voting this time around.

...alone...

"The fact that one's opponents are not being called on their racism is not an excuse to say a bunch of racist shit. Bigotry is bigotry, and should be stamped out wherever it's found—especially when it's found among the powerful. If the Tories are spouting a bunch of antisemitic bullshit then by all means go after them too, but that doesn't excuse similar comments made by Labour. "He's doing it too!" is an excuse that should be left on the playground, not brought into national politics."

....is willful ignorance.

It's not. It's a concern which stems from experience as a target of antisemitism.
posted by zarq at 2:14 PM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]


It would appear that the number of suspensions in the last eight weeks or so may be somewhat more than six (Torygraph, so usual grains of salt, etc.).
posted by thomas j wise at 2:48 PM on May 2, 2016


That Telegraph article claims Ilyas Aziz shared a picture on Facebook of Coca Cola bottles captioned "Stop Drinking Gaza Blood."
posted by zarq at 3:17 PM on May 2, 2016


The party defended them, too. Or did until it became obvious that some of their constituents were upset.

Naz Shah was suspended. Livingstone attempted to defend her in the worst way possible and was suspended on the same day of his interview. Diane Abbott talked about a smear, but notably did not defend any individuals. Corbyn ordered an independent inquiry into anti-semitism within the party.

How is the party defending anyone exactly?
posted by Lal at 7:26 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. We really do not need a detour through BDS.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:35 PM on May 2, 2016


Personal accounts: Commentary: Background briefings:posted by Joe in Australia at 9:29 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]


Naz Shah was suspended.

32 hours after the news was released that the Labour representative on a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry into antisemitism was engaging in it herself. It took the party over a day to realize that this wasn't going to blow over and they'd need to act.

She should have been disowned! They should have said, "THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE HATE SPEECH THAT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR PARTY" and forced her to resign. Instead she's gotten a slap on the wrist, and something she did all by herself was then spun by Livingstone as a smear campaign by the Israel lobby. Or was it the Tories? Any ridiculous defense will do, in an effort to avoid responsibility. Did the Israel lobby kidnap her and force her to post something antisemitic? Did they somehow steal her phone to post hate speech on twitter? Of course they didn't. She admits they didn't.

Livingstone attempted to defend her in the worst way possible and was suspended on the same day of his interview.

He told the BBC that Hitler supported Zionism! The party didn't kick his ass to the curb. Why? He should have been told, "You're no longer welcome" in no uncertain terms. Instead, the public is given the impression that "well, this upset some people so we'll give him a slap on the wrist. But it's not so bad that we won't welcome him back when we need him." So he felt free to double down on his comments.

These people aren't simply lying to the public. They didn't just make a tiny unethical mistake. They're deliberately spreading hatred and stereotypes about Jews. Some of them, including Shah and Aziz, did those things over a year ago and no one in their party said anything until now?

Diane Abbott talked about a smear, but notably did not defend any individuals.

Who gives a shit if she didn't name names? It's not a smear. It's not a smear by the "Israel lobby" or by Tories or by the goddamned Easter Bunny. When people say and support antisemitic stereotypes and hate speech all on their own, it's not a conspiracy to point out that they've done so.

Corbyn ordered an independent inquiry into anti-semitism within the party.

Aziz posted that Coca Cola image in August 2014. It's breathtakingly vile. It's not his only antisemitic post, either.

When was the inquiry ordered?

How is the party defending anyone exactly?

By turning a blind eye until the problem became too loud to ignore. By dismissing real concerns with ridiculous, unsupportable accusations of "smear campaigns." Etc., etc.
posted by zarq at 9:34 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]


32 hours after the news was released that the Labour representative on a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry into antisemitism was engaging in it herself.

That's really sums this up. Why did Labour think she was an appropriate person to be on the committee? Why did she think she was an appropriate person to be there? It's obvious that she isn't well informed on the subject and doesn't particularly care about it. Was it just a sinecure, the sort of reward you hand out to people on your team? Or was it to make oh-so-sure that nobody confuses "legitimate criticism of Israel" with antisemitic antisemitism?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:42 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]


I don't know what to make of this, although the scare quotes in the title aren't a good look:

The American Jewish scholar behind Labour’s ‘antisemitism’ scandal breaks his silence
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:03 PM on May 3, 2016


It's Open Democracy and Norman Finkelstein, what do you expect. The man thrives on controversy. His argument is basically "Nazis said the Jews had no place in Europe, so did the Zionists, therefore Nazis and Zionists were in agreement." Which is ... well, it's the sort of argument I would expect from Open Democracy and Norman Finkelstein. The author goes on to say that many British (and European) Jews opposed Zionism because it implied that they weren't full members of their society. Which is true! But European antisemitism didn't come about through Zionism; Zionism was a response to antisemitism. The choice to be part of European society was never really in Jewish hands to begin with.

When I read anything by Finkelstein it reminds me of the late professor Derrick Bell and his concept of superstanding: that minorities' voices are selectively amplified only when they say something the majority wants to hear. Think Cosby criticising black youth and so forth. Note that OD promotes the article by calling him a Jewish scholar; ironically, it's only the accident of birth that grants him an audience.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Thanks, Joe!
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:26 PM on May 3, 2016


The author goes on to say that many British (and European) Jews opposed Zionism because it implied that they weren't full members of their society. Which is true!

You can see how offensive the equivalence is when you get down to cases. One of the most famous and visible is the friendship of Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin. The former emigrated to Palestine, and urged his close friend to do the same. Benjamin refused repeatedly saying that he was European and his life's work was in European culture. Scholem lived a long life in Palestine and then Israel. Benjamin killed himself on the French side of the French-Spanish border when he was fleeing the Nazis and was denied entry to Spain. He may have personally opposed Zionism, and considered himself European, but he was pretty clear about what that would get him if the Nazis caught up to him. (Of course, the double tragedy is that the party Benjamin was traveling with was subsequently permitted to enter Spain.) (One cool coda is that Benjamin had entrusted his unfinished Arcades Project to Georges Bataille, who took a page from Poe and hid the papers in plain site on a high shelf at the French National Library, from whence he was able to retrieve them without trouble after the War.)
posted by OmieWise at 5:41 AM on May 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


European antisemitism: we feel that Jews don't belong here.

Zionism: they feel that Jews don't belong here.

The common ground is certainly there. But it takes quite a bit of logical contortion to take this and turn it into an argument against Zionism.
posted by ocschwar at 9:53 AM on May 4, 2016


This is WTF territory: Labour support among British Jews collapses to 8.5 per cent
Respondents were asked for their perceptions of antisemitism in the leading political parties. Just over 70 per cent ranked the level of Jew-hate in the Conservatives in the two lowest bands out of five. Only one per cent of Jewish voters believed the Tories have "high" levels of antisemitism.

For Labour, the same question revealed that 38.5 per cent of British Jews thought the party has a "high" level of Jew-hate, ranking it 5 out of 5.
In further news, two more Labour councillors have been suspended.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:57 PM on May 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


In posts dating back to 2008, Mr Kelly complained about the "Jewish lobby" attempting to influence the Academy Awards, as well as comparing the actions of Israelis to the Holocaust.
Commenting on the situation in Gaza, Mr Kelly wrote: "Israel decided that the children and old and sick would continue to suffer and die. This is being done by the survivors of the Holocaust, it beggars belief that the Jewish people who suffered so much could treat innocent children this way but that's what they are doing.
"They are bringing shame on decent Jewish people all over the world. There must be millions of Jews all around the world who abhor what Israel is doing, why don't we hear their voices, when will they stand up and shout 'enough'?"

posted by zarq at 4:45 PM on May 4, 2016


Just keeps coming.

Complaint over councillor’s ‘Zionist are even worse than animals’ post
A complaint has been made to the Labour Party after a Brent councillor promoted a post claiming “Zionist are even worse than animals”.

Councillor Aslam Choudry is the second councillor in the same borough to be exposed by Jewish News in the space of a week for promoting offensive content on social media.

He told the Jewish News: “I shared a video without realising what was in it and apologise unreservedly. The Views expressed in the video are abhorrent and deeply offensive . There is no place in society for any form of anti-Semitism.”
[My highlighting – JiA]
You are entirely at liberty to believe that he is telling the truth, or that it would amount to an excuse.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:46 PM on May 4, 2016


It's three more councillors. Looks like the other two have been comparing Israel to Nazis.
posted by zarq at 4:55 PM on May 4, 2016


10 then.
posted by zarq at 4:56 PM on May 4, 2016


From Zarq's link:
Mr Al-Nuaimi’s suspension came after Guido Fawkes reported tweets which suggested he thought Jews have the ‘same arrogant mentality as the Nazis’.

But the councillor told the BBC there was ‘no truth in it’.
He added: ‘How can I be anti-Semitic when I myself am Semitic?
‘I think it’s a sad day that any criticism of Israeli government is equated with anti-Semitism and racism.’
This would almost be funny, if I hadn't seen so many people making literally the same argument here on Metafilter.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 PM on May 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Labour suspends Momentum supporter who claimed Jews caused ‘an African holocaust’
“As I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews,” Ms Walker wrote.

“Many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice [...]”
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:42 PM on May 4, 2016


I have a late relation, a very Orthodox man and proud Zionist, who was as anti-Tory as they come. Back in the mid 20th century I don't think there was much doubt for him on which end of the UK political spectrum anti-Semitism was more prevalent.
posted by PenDevil at 12:55 AM on May 5, 2016


A surprisingly strongly-worded statement from Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi of the UK:
Ken Livingstone and the hard Left are spreading the insidious virus of anti-Semitism
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:15 AM on May 5, 2016


As a left-ish UK resident with a handful of Jewish friends, I’ve found this whole saga deeply depressing. The complete unwillingness of the left to challenge obvious anti-semitism until it blows up in their face in the middle of an election campaign seems to be of a piece with the way many leaders on the left seem perfectly happy to associate themselves with Islamic groups that oppose everything the left ought to stand for, but being perceived as being on the side of victims of imperialist oppression apparently trumped all of that.

I’m not surprised that Jews in the UK have abandoned the Labour party - the Labour Party has made it quite clear over the last decade or so that it doesn’t give a toss about them & far too often seemed more interested in abandoning what liberal principles it had in order to grab as much of the Islamic vote as it could. A deeply cynical electoral electoral calculus, or wilful refusal to see the reality of what it was they were saying & doing? Who knows, but the effect was the same.

In a twisted way I have been enjoyed Richard Seymour’s attempts to excuse the left from any and every accusation of anti-semitism: tone arguments, under-playing the impact of what’s actually being said, it’s all there. In amongst some perfectly reasonable stuff it has to be said, but his whole attitude starts with the assumption “The left can’t possibly be anti-semitic, we’re the good guys!” and proceeds from there. Yeah, not really buying that line. Is the whole thing being whipped up by the right-wing press in the middle of an election campaign. Absolutely. Why was there opportunity for the right-wing press to do so? Because the left has been allowing this stuff to fester for *years*.
posted by pharm at 4:31 AM on May 5, 2016 [5 favorites]


The ten:

March 15
Vice chair of the Labour’s Woking branch Vicki Kirby, is suspended (antisemitic tweets saying Jews have “big noses” and “slaughter the oppressed”. There was an outcry, since the leadership initially refused to suspend her.)

April 10
Labour councillor Aysegul Gurbuz suspended. (anti-Semitic tweets in which she praised Hitler as the “greatest man in history” and said she hoped Iran would use a “nuclear weapon” to “wipe Israel off the map”.)

April 27
Labour MP Naz Shah suspended from party whip after outcry. (antisemitic facebook post) She acted faster than the party did, by resigning her role as an aide to the Party’s shadow chancellor the previous day. She also resigned as the Labour representative to a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry into antisemitism.

April 28
Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone defends Naz Shah in a BBC interview, decrying the "Israel lobby." and Hitler's supposed support of Zionism. Suspended.

May 2
* Labour councillor Ilyas Aziz suspended (antisemitic facebook posts)
* Labour councillor and former mayor of Blackburn Salim Mulla suspended (antisemitic facebook posts)
* Labour councillor Shah Hussain suspended (antisemitic and racist tweets)

May 4
* Labour councillor Miqdad Al-Nuaimi suspended (antisemitic tweets)
* Labour councillor Terry Kelly suspended (antisemitic blog posts)
* Vice chair in the Momentum movement Jackie Walker suspended (antisemitic statements and social media posts)

Did I miss anyone?
posted by zarq at 8:39 AM on May 5, 2016 [2 favorites]


Oh, and Labour councillor Aysegul Gurbuz resigned on April 11.
posted by zarq at 9:07 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


So when I see "suspended" in that list, are those actual punishments or slaps on the wrist? As in, will things be back to normal for them in a couple weeks?

Because in the US, in both the main parties, calling Hitler the "Greatest Man in History" would generally be political suicide.
posted by happyroach at 10:18 AM on May 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


I mean I'd like to think you're right but
posted by griphus at 10:30 AM on May 5, 2016


Vice chair of the Labour’s Woking branch Vicki Kirby, is suspended (antisemitic tweets saying Jews have “big noses” and “slaughter the oppressed”. There was an outcry, since the leadership initially refused to suspend her.)

dude what
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:42 AM on May 5, 2016


She made the comments in 2014, when she was Labour's Parliamentary candidate for Woking. She stepped down from her candidacy and she was suspended from the Party. She was later readmitted, but the matter was revisited with the current scandal. Also, she was later elected vice-Chairman of the Woking branch of Labour and people might well ask whether that's appropriate after such a brief interval.

Anyway, now, in 2016, Labour's HQ apparently thought that she had served her time and shouldn't face further consequences. On the one hand I can see their point; on the other hand, that thinking is why Labour is currently in the shit. Labour HQ's reaction to antisemitism has been reflexively sympathetic and it had a backlog of scandals by the time the election came around.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2016


Unite put together a dossier with a long list of racist incidents in the Tories [PDF], mostly without any serious consequences for the racist, and while the motivation for publishing that now was obviously more tu quoque than anything else, my main takeaway is racism is pretty much ok in UK politics; there are hardly ever any serious consequences, and whatever side you're on, pundits on your own side will just write any opposition off as BBC propaganda (see end of article). And if you fuck up completely, you can always join the UKIP.

(the exception might be Goldsmith's campaign, that's gotten pushback from his own side also before US right wingers started ranting about the horrors of handing over the keys to "londonistan" to a muslim mayor.)
posted by effbot at 3:58 AM on May 6, 2016 [2 favorites]


As you say, that's very much a tu quoque argument. Unite should focus on fixing their own problems rather than claiming that "the Tory Party remains the nasty party".

That being said, historically this was undoubtedly true. I think the question is why, when racism generally has become less acceptable, the party that was historically less antisemitic has become a home for so many ratbags.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:19 AM on May 7, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ken Still Going On About Hitler

Why are these people suspended rather than expelled? Does anyone think that they're going to suddenly turn into nice people who will be urgently needed to fill party positions, so urgently that the delay of re-admitting them would be impractical? I don't think so: the plan is surely to un-suspend them when things quiet down. So HQ presumably thinks that Livingstone is going to stop banging on about Jews and Hitler, despite the fact that he couldn't even shut up in the middle of an election campaign that was grossly affected by his yammering gobshit. And they seem to believe that once this miraculous transformation takes place, Labour will be improved by Livingstone's presence. It would have been so much better if HQ had expelled him and been done with it; instead Labour suffers the death of a thousand cu*ts. There's no good reason for this; Corbyn's team is racist, delusional, and stupid.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:36 AM on May 7, 2016 [4 favorites]


The nasty anti-Semitism now being exposed in the Labour Party has existed for a long time, but is only now really being exposed.

...

For too long the utter hatred entrenched in the hearts of the far-left has been given a free pass. Whilst rightly, the Nazi-loving far-right have been condemned and deemed beyond the pale, those on the fringes who write about Jewish conspiracies and of destroying Israel have been let off the hook.

...

Whilst it is good for democracy to have seen so many join the Labour Party during their leadership contest, we must now question the type of people who have taken control of the party. Many of them appear to be me to be hard-left, Jew-hating, anti-Israel extremists.
Hard-Left, Jew-Hating, Anti-Israel Extremists Now Run the Labour Party.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:11 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


From order-order.com (Guido Fawkes):
David "The Jews" Ward Elected in Bradford
Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis has not affected their performance in Bradford, where suspended “zio” hater Mohammed Shabbir comfortably held his seat. Intriguingly he won more votes this time round, since his comments came to light…

LibDem David Ward has also returned to elected office, joining Shabbir and co on what must be a very tolerant and progressive Bradford council. Ward is of course the disgraced former MP who ranted about “the Jews” and the Holocaust time and time again, even while he was a candidate a few months ago. The party did nothing then and they’ve done nothing now. A reminder that the LibDems have an even worse record on dealing with anti-Semitism than Corbyn’s Labour…
He's absolutely right about the LibDems and their total failure to handle antisemitism within their party. But here's the scary bit: as he points out, antisemitic politicians tend to be clustered by area, more so than by party. I think it must be a local vote-winner.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:09 PM on May 7, 2016 [1 favorite]


Robert Fisk on Finkelstein on Livingstone:
Again, it was a Jewish academic – Norman Finkelstein, another noble soul like Gideon Levy – who has been pointing out that Sanders, the first Jewish presidential candidate in US history, has been “sweeping the Arab vote” in all the primaries and “forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims”. Sanders – “our Corbyn,” as Finkelstein sharply notes – is now going to be the victim of Donald Trump’s Republican candidacy, on the grounds that Clinton is the only Democrat sure to be a presidential winner.
I've never had a chance to speak to Finkelstein in person. I'd love to ask him whether he feels any cognitive dissonance in the fact that the people who cite him almost always identify him as a Jew, but one of the good ones.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:12 PM on May 9, 2016


Well worth a read for its artful blend of self-pity and chutzpa: Ken Livingstone gives up place on Labour's NEC

But, oh dear:
Jon Lansman, chair of the steering committee of Momentum, a pro-Corbyn group within Labour, said of Wolfson’s candidacy: “Rhea Wolfson is a very impressive young woman, committed to fighting for a more democratic party and a credible democratic socialist agenda. As a young, Jewish Scot, she will provide important perspectives that will improve the running of the Labour party.”
Having Jews around is not the issue. There were plenty of Jews in the Labour party before. Unfortunately, there were also plenty of Livingstones, Galloways, and Shahs.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:20 AM on May 11, 2016 [1 favorite]


Rhea Wolfson has now asked for help against the barrage of antisemitic abuse she is now receiving. But of course.

Maybe she can ask Ken Livingstone for some tips.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 PM on May 11, 2016


MeFi's own Tom Watson, MP on Yom HaShoah: 'I am ashamed of Labour antisemitism'
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:50 AM on May 12, 2016 [2 favorites]


What's interesting to me, though, is how none of this seemed to have any effect on the election results. Those polls linked up-thread confidently predicting 175 or 200 seat losses for Labour? Didn't happen; in fact Labour did much better than any of the polling predicted, actually improving its vote share in England compared with the 2015 general election. Whatever this was (Blairite gambit; genuine issue; right-wing media beat-up; combination of all three) it doesn't seem to have resonated with voters at all.
posted by Sonny Jim at 4:25 AM on May 12, 2016


I think it was a mediocre result all around. Pundits say that at this point Labour should have picked up seats; that didn't happen. On the other hand, Labour wasn't hit very hard, except in Scotland. One thing is sure, though: it's not getting back into government unless it ... radically... picks up its game.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 AM on May 12, 2016


Oh, no question. And certain ... boundary changes made by the current government to electorates in England will make this especially difficult. Personally, I think the turning point was when the Lib Dems decided to crash the campaign for proportional representation into a concrete wall for some reason during the last parliament. I don't see a realistic possibility of anything other than near-perpetual Tory rule at this stage, unless they somehow manage to immolate themselves over Brexit.
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:27 AM on May 12, 2016


Jackie Walker - “Many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice,” she added.

I don't know about the synagogues in the Caribbean, but the involvement of Dutch Jews in the early slave trade is not a contested fact AFAIK. Maybe it's the use of the expression 'chief financiers' that makes this statement cause for suspension on the grounds of anti-semitism? The analysis lacks nuance, but is has a basis in fact. Which has a familiar ring to it.
posted by asok at 3:43 PM on May 12, 2016


The "many synagogues in the Caribbean" thing is nonsense; where they exist there's one per city, as you might expect, except when there were liturgical differences that made two per city. Nobody cares about the number of churches, of course, because Jewish exceptionalism.

Like a lot of racist statements, it comes down to context and emphasis. It's like people going on about crimes committed by "urban youth". Yes, people live in cities, some of whom are young. Yes, there is crime in cities, some of which is committed by young people. But you can be pretty sure that they're playing on a stereotype of young black men lounging about on a street corner, playing rap music, dealing drugs, and saying uncomplimentary things about yo' mama.

Jackie Walker's claim wasn't a boring truism that "slavery was a fundamental part of the Caribbean economy, some Jews were traders or planters; ergo, some Jews were engaged in slavery." She's trying to evoke a racist meme about slavery being primarily or substantially caused and promoted by Jews. And she's doing so precisely at a time when people are talking about antisemitism, in an attempt to drown that conversation out. I'm very glad the Labour Party recognised this; I only wish she were ejected rather than suspended.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:34 PM on May 12, 2016 [3 favorites]


Well, so much for the independent inquiry:
Head of inquiry into Labour antisemitism Shami Chakrabarti reveals she has joined the party
Unveiling details at a press conference this morning of how the probe will be conducted, Ms Chakrabarti announced that she had joined Labour on the day she was appointed to chair the inquiry – April 29 – because she wanted to reassure party members that she was not looking to cause a political row.
Nice that she wanted to reassure non-Jewish party members, who may have been feeling threatened and insecure at the thought of confronting their prejudice. Shame that her actions – and the secrecy surrounding them – demonstrate yet again that minorities' interests are always subordinated to those of the majority.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:54 PM on May 16, 2016


The formerly-independent investigation into antisemitism is now an investigation into antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of racism. It's the equivalent of going from "Black lives matter" to "all lives matter"; it's neutralisation via an expanded remit.

Also, Harry's Place's take on Shami Chakrabati.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


Labour accused of 'suppressing' key report into anti-Semitism at Oxford University society

This is hilarious, because I think it's the second report on antisemitism in the OULC to have been suppressed for the same reason: it would be premature to release the results when there's a bigger and better study into antisemitism coming along. So the strategy is: have an inquiry. If you don't like the results, order another inquiry and suppress the first. Once you reach the biggest inquiry possible, broaden the terms of its remit and have the unpalatable results consigned to a footnote.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:55 PM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]


I came back to re-read this thread and am aware it has long quieted down, but I had a few thoughts that I thought I could add. Separated so that any deletions can be targeted and I won’t have to rewrite the whole thing ; )

Thanks to Joe in Australia for taking the time to respond to my question about Jackie Walker. It was not particularly well phrased, apologies if offence was caused.

I think her comment about the Jewish involvement in the slave trade may be unfortunate, but the comment '‘So who are victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice’' is very pertinent.
posted by asok at 5:29 PM on May 27, 2016


This reminds me of when Ethical Consumer magazine started rating supermarkets on their green and ethical credentials. At the time there was only one supermarket that took the effort to declare the sources of their goods and the energy consumption associated with their operations. Unfortunately for them this put them at the bottom of the chart, because supermarkets are inherently problematic on those metrics, even when they are making an effort to do the right thing. The rest of the field didn’t disclose any information about their operations, so they got neutral ratings.
posted by asok at 5:30 PM on May 27, 2016


Corbyn’s press statement after this debacle was along the lines of, where we find racism we will stamp it out. No attempt at shifting the blame, faux apologising, using weasel words or rhetoric. Just a straightforward statement. Not the product of a spin doctor, think tank or committee.

During the recent local elections the words ‘Corbyn’ and ‘lose’ were repeated ad nauseum on the national news on the run up to the voting day. Basic NLP or whatever. Funnily when the labour party didn’t have a total disaster there didn’t follow weeks of ‘why everyone was wrong, Corbyn is not a curse, in fact he is quite nice!’ analysis.

It is ironic that the people who work hardest to make society equitable and champion the rights of the downtrodden are smeared by those who could not give a fig for any cause that does not help promote their career. In repeating the claim that Corbyn is somehow an anti-Semite you are doing their work for them.

Mainstream politicians are always sharing a platform with all manner of scoundrels, murderers, other morally repugnant individuals, venal arms dealers and scumbags of every shade. Maybe we are holding Corbyn to an impossibly high standard of ethics in asking that he never, over his long career, share a platform with people who are less than perfect? Is it not the case that there are people with grievances against the Israeli state that might make the mistake of equating the actions of the government with the will of the people?

Worth repeating:

Just this guy, y’know - The reason you're reading about this, the reason Ken Livingstone was being interviewed to get himself in trouble is because someone wants to foment a row a few weeks ahead of an election, the people reporting this, the people briefing the press about it don't actually care about the issue, but they will pretend to if it costs Corbyn's labour even a single vote.
posted by asok at 5:32 PM on May 27, 2016


Uh, that doesn't make it not anti-Semetic.
posted by OmieWise at 5:55 AM on May 28, 2016 [4 favorites]


Well, that didn't take long:
Labour reinstate activist who said Jews were ‘chief financiers’ of slavery
Jackie Walker became the first to have her suspension lifted amid the party’s investigation into alleged anti-Semitism

She's going to address a branch of Corbyn's faction, Momentum, on antisemitism. Which seems fair. The discussion was scheduled for Shabbat, hahaa, what an oversight, but has now been moved back a few hours.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:30 PM on May 28, 2016 [2 favorites]


« Older The Jewish Community of Antioquia   |   To hijab or not to hijab Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments