Has the UK Labour Party anti-Semitic MPs?

[Nessie]

There is a big row in the UK at present about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. The Muslim MP Naz Sha, before she was an MP posted the following on facebook;

http://order-order.com/2016/04/26/la...f-middle-east/




So is that anti-Semitic or anti-Israel? I say it is a daft solution never meant to be taken seriously to a serious problem and that is critical of Israeli politics. It makes no mention of Judaism, it is not critical of Jews, it is very much directed at Israel.

Ken Livingstone MP has also run into accusations of anti-semtism when he supported Sha on a radio show where he stated;

"Her remarks were over the top but she’s not anti-Semitic. I’ve been in the Labour Party for 47 years, I’ve never heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel he was supporting Zionism - before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews. There’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticised Israeli policy as anti-Semitic."

Livingstone's history is poor, for a start there was no Israel in the 1930s. Then the Nazis policy was more about stripping Jews of rights, property and jobs to get them to flee Germany than specific plans to support Zionism. Hitler was mad long before he implemented the mass murder of Jews. But he has not criticised Judaism and he is clearly being critical of Israel.

For me anti-Semtisim is not stupid comments, bad history and criticising Israeli politics. Anti-Semtism is hate speech and racist action against Judaism and Jews, such as graffiti, vandalising graves and encouraging violence. No Labour MP today has done anything like that.

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

It makes no mention of Judaism

There are however references to a "jewish" state, suggesting that she not totally ignoring the religious nature of the argument.

I'd have to say that this MP, if not anti-semetic, is at least a class-A idiot and moron, and she should be kicked out of any caucus she is in (if not kicked in the head). It would be as if an American politician suggested that the solution to inner city crime was sending African-Americans "back to Africa". Even if it was not a serious suggestion, she's a politician... she should realize that even a "non-serious" comment is cause for concern if it is that idiotic.

So much stupidity, such as:
Claiming the "only" problem stopping a peaceful democratic combined Jewish/Palestinian state is the Israelis not wanting to return land.... totally whitewashes the fact that the Palestinians are not exactly democratic themselves. If someone is so keen to ignore the Palestinian role in the conflict, their rationality must be suspect.
Ignoring the fact that many of those within Israel have family that have lived there going back generations.

[Giz]

Yes. Sections of the UK left have an anti semitism problem. Caused by thinking:
- my enemies enemy must be my friend
- beleive they are the good guys and couldn't possibly be racist
- don't criticize the underdog

[Nessie]

Where there is free speech people should be tolerated when they stray towards the offensive and unwise comment.

She "only" comment was in response to another post on facebook and facebook comments are by their nature limited.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Where there is free speech people should be tolerated when they stray towards the offensive and unwise comment.

The right to free speech does not include immunity from any repercussions from that speech.

"Free speech" only means that the government cannot persecute you for things that you say. It does not mean that others are supposed to just accept it even if they find what you say distasteful or just plain wrong. I should have the right to use the N word. I should be able to claim "9/11 was an inside job". But others should have the right to say "I don't want to associate with someone that is stupid enough to do either of those things".

Quote:

She "only" comment was in response to another post on facebook and facebook comments are by their nature limited.

She had other options; even if she didn't want to get into a detailed discussion about the issues, she should have realized that posting such an idiotic biased thing was a mistake and shouldn't have been done.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Where there is free speech people should be tolerated when they stray towards the offensive and unwise comment.

She "only" comment was in response to another post on facebook and facebook comments are by their nature limited.

Free speech doesn't mean that your reputation doesn't suffer when you say something stupid. Nor that you can't be sacked for bringing your employer into disrepute. It just means that the police/government don't come after you.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The right to free speech does not include immunity from any repercussions from that speech.

"Free speech" only means that the government cannot persecute you for things that you say. It does not mean that others are supposed to just accept it even if they find what you say distasteful or just plain wrong. I should have the right to use the N word. I should be able to claim "9/11 was an inside job". But others should have the right to say "I don't want to associate with someone that is stupid enough to do either of those things".


She had other options; even if she didn't want to get into a detailed discussion about the issues, she should have realized that posting such an idiotic biased thing was a mistake and shouldn't have been done.

I am not disputing she and Ken Livingstone have made a mistake and have attracted reasonable criticism, I am disputing that what they said is anti-Semitic.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I am not disputing she and Ken Livingstone have made a mistake and have attracted reasonable criticism, I am disputing that what they said is anti-Semitic.

When you 1) specifically refer to Israel as a "jewish state", 2) spend time bashing Israeli's actions while whitewashing palestinian actions, and 3) make a comment that they just 'leave', you are certainly bordering on anti-Semitism.

Being racist or anti-Semetic is probably not an all-or-nothing thing.

[Nessie]

I do not think "bordering" is enough to warrant the abuse the two MPs have had. The outbursts against them show certain people have no tolerance of any criticism of Israel.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I do not think "bordering" is enough to warrant the abuse the two MPs have had. The outbursts against them show certain people have no tolerance of any criticism of Israel.

Really? Try taking the "What is anti-Semitism? A quiz for Ken Livingstone "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...n-livingstone/

Three questions that turn what was said about jews into equivalent statements about muslims. Still think there's nothing to see here?

[Craig B]

Livingstone's remarks about Hitler were entirely out of order. I don't think he was supporting Hitler, as the Right claims to believe. I think he was opposing Zionism, which is in itself a permissible enterprise; but doing it in an entirely impermissible way.

It is true that prior to 1939 the Nazi policy was to force Jews to emigrate, and to confiscate their possessions when they did do. They were uninterested where these Jews went, whether Palestine or elsewhere.
See Holocaust Encyclopaedia https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...uleId=10005468

Until October 1941, German policy officially encouraged Jewish emigration. Gradually, however, the Nazis sought to deprive Jews fleeing Germany of their property by levying an increasingly heavy emigration tax and by restricting the amount of money that could be transferred abroad from German banks.
...
By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America.

So Hitler can in no way be called a "Zionist". In the early years of his regime he wanted Jews out of Germany, to punish them; while Zionists wanted them in Palestine, to reward them. That is in no sense the same thing.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I am not disputing she and Ken Livingstone have made a mistake and have attracted reasonable criticism, I am disputing that what they said is anti-Semitic.

You're trying to draw a distinction which I think doesn't actually matter much in practical terms. What she and Ken said supports the arguments made by people who are unambiguously antisemitic, and it gives cover to actual antisemitism. It should have been obvious that this would be so. Whether they made these comments out of malice or monumental ignorance and stupidity doesn't end up making much difference in the effect. If you have personal relationships with either of these people, perhaps the difference becomes meaningful, but for the rest of us, it's basically irrelevant.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Craig B

So Hitler can in no way be called a "Zionist". In the early years of his regime he wanted Jews out of Germany, to punish them; while Zionists wanted them in Palestine, to reward them. That is in no sense the same thing.

Yeah, it would be like calling Slobodan Milošević a Bosnian Nationalist because he wanted to expel the Bosnians from Greater Serbia.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Giz

Really? Try taking the "What is anti-Semitism? A quiz for Ken Livingstone "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...n-livingstone/

Three questions that turn what was said about jews into equivalent statements about muslims. Still think there's nothing to see here?

Yes since the following phrases in the quiz are misrepresentations;

- "calling for millions of Muslims to be forcibly transported to the other side of the world" or "It called for the forced deportation of several million Muslims to a land where they would be more “welcome”. Neither MP has ever called for Jews to be forcibly moved.

- "Protest that this is a clear attempt by the Islamist terrorist lobby to shut down debate about the actions of Islamist terrorists." Neither MP has called Jews terrorists.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You're trying to draw a distinction which I think doesn't actually matter much in practical terms. What she and Ken said supports the arguments made by people who are unambiguously antisemitic, and it gives cover to actual antisemitism. It should have been obvious that this would be so. Whether they made these comments out of malice or monumental ignorance and stupidity doesn't end up making much difference in the effect. If you have personal relationships with either of these people, perhaps the difference becomes meaningful, but for the rest of us, it's basically irrelevant.

No. Antisemitism and other kinds of racism are so very important that it makes a vast difference whether people really do or really don't profess such doctrines, whether we know them personally or not.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I do not think "bordering" is enough to warrant the abuse the two MPs have had.

Well, you're certainly allowed to hold that opinion, even if its not correct.

And should you ever decide to run for public office, perhaps some day someone will drag up this thread and point to how you took someone who engaged in rather detestable actions and claimed "Its not so bad" and hold your posts up as an example of your attitude towards antisemitism.

Quote:

The outbursts against them show certain people have no tolerance of any criticism of Israel.

Actually it shows nothing of the sort.

Nothing that this idiot posted was constructive in any way, nor did it address any real faults that Israel has engaged in.

Here's a question... has the main MP (Naz Shaw) ever, at any point in time, given any sort of unilateral criticism of the Palestinians (for example, for their launching of rockets into Israeli territory), or is all of her criticism either targeted only at Israel itself, or if she criticizes the palestinians at all, is it always when she's similarly criticizing the Israelis?

Had she given a list of "Things both Palestinains and Israelis should do", or had she regularly pointed out faults on both sides, there may be some validity to the claim that "People don't like criticism of Israel". But the constant slamming of Israel, accusations that its the sole cause of problems, and the whitewashing (or ignoring) of the actions of the Palestinians and other Middle eastern states means that you can probably ignore anything she says.

Quote:

Yes since the following phrases in the quiz are misrepresentations;

- "calling for millions of Muslims to be forcibly transported to the other side of the world" or "It called for the forced deportation of several million Muslims to a land where they would be more “welcome”. Neither MP has ever called for Jews to be forcibly moved.

Well, lets see. The MP in question:
- Talks about 'relocating' israel to the U.S. (i.e. deportation)
- Mentions it being a 'jewish state'. (i.e. of jews)
- Talks about how it would be 'safer'. (sounds like force to me...)

Quote:

- "Protest that this is a clear attempt by the Islamist terrorist lobby to shut down debate about the actions of Islamist terrorists." Neither MP has called Jews terrorists.

Yet she claims Israelis are thieves (i.e. stole land) and that once Israel (that again she has linked to the "jews") that the middle east will once again be "peaceful" once it is gone).

So, she didn't use the word "terrorist" but she certainly painted them in an evil light.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Craig B

No. Antisemitism and other kinds of racism are so very important that it makes a vast difference whether people really do or really don't profess such doctrines, whether we know them personally or not.

How does it matter if the effects are the same? They are parroting talking points from antisemites. We cannot, from the outside, make the distinction you want to make. You are trying to take a charitable interpretation of their statements, and that's an understandable impulse, but why should anyone take the risk that the charitable interpretation might be wrong? The prudent course of action is not to.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Nessie

. For me anti-Semtisim is not stupid comments, bad history and criticising Israeli politics. Anti-Semtism is hate speech and racist action against Judaism and Jews, such as graffiti, vandalising graves and encouraging violence. No Labour MP today has done anything like that.

For you. Most bigots are clever enough not to be blunt and forthright in their brilliant comments. Using Israel as a fig leaf doesn't fool me.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Where there is free speech people should be tolerated when they stray towards the offensive and unwise comment.

Was she arrested? Fined? No? Then her free speech rights were fully tolerated and respected.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

For you. Most bigots are clever enough not to be blunt and forthright in their brilliant comments. Using Israel as a fig leaf doesn't fool me.

I have responded to this position of yours a couple of years ago here. Fig leaf my bum.

[tyr_13]

Someone might post something like that because they're anti-Semitic, but they might also post it because they have an overly simplistic view of the troubles around Israel, or because they're generally dumb.

I'm kind of with Zig here, in many contexts it doesn't actually matter which it is, that person shouldn't be taken seriously on the issue until they've amended their view. However, it can be important to know which is which for other contexts.

This reminded me of a point I should probably make in the Israeli-Palistinian conflict page. When I first saw this post on my Facebook, I wondered why they aren't proposing moving the Palestinians to the US? It's something like a billion in aid spent on them too.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Someone might post something like that because they're anti-Semitic, but they might also post it because they have an overly simplistic view of the troubles around Israel, or because they're generally dumb.

I'm kind of with Zig here, in many contexts it doesn't actually matter which it is, that person shouldn't be taken seriously on the issue until they've amended their view. However, it can be important to know which is which for other contexts.

This reminded me of a point I should probably make in the Israeli-Palistinian conflict page. When I first saw this post on my Facebook, I wondered why they aren't proposing moving the Palestinians to the US? It's something like a billion in aid spent on them too.

If no aid has been spent on Israel, that would make a crazy kind of sense.

But there's a problem. The inhabitants of Palestine before the Zionist incursion consisted of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Samaritans and others. If you want to return to that kind of country, then why move the Muslims out? The Muslim Palestinians simply want to stay in their homes, as I do. Let them do so: but others, if such there be, who wish to usurp their lands and replace them, are the ones for whom an alternative residence should be found.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Craig B

If no aid has been spent on Israel, that would make a crazy kind of sense.

But there's a problem. The inhabitants of Palestine before the Zionist incursion consisted of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Samaritans and others. If you want to return to that kind of country, then why move the Muslims out? The Muslim Palestinians simply want to stay in their homes, as I do. Let them do so: but others, if such there be, who wish to usurp their lands and replace them, are the ones for whom an alternative residence should be found.

The ones who were born there, already have homes, and a functioning government, should leave, but relocating the others makes no sense, because Israel receives aid too? The hell?


EDIT: In case you missed it, my point was not that the Palestinians should actually be moved to the US. Also, you don't think there are Muslims and Christians living in Israel? I don't get what you're saying.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Craig B

I have responded to this position of yours a couple of years ago here. Fig leaf my bum.

Fig Leaf. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

- Mentions it being a 'jewish state'. (i.e. of jews)

Waiting for you to realize that the legal definition of Israel is "Jewish and democratic state." With stuff like this you're just never going to get hired by the Israel lobby.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

When you 1) specifically refer to Israel as a "jewish state",

The exact quote from the Facebook comment was:

Quote:

Israel can have a real safe Jewish state [...]

I read that as a comment on Israel's shenanigans that it wants to be recognized by the Palestinian Authority as a "Jewish state", negating the existence of the 20-25% Arabs living in Israel. I don't read anything anti-semitic in it, just a biting comment on Israel's policies.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Waiting for you to realize that the legal definition of Israel is "Jewish and democratic state." With stuff like this you're just never going to get hired by the Israel lobby.

You mean the Jewish Lobby, right?

[Noztradamus]

Is a bear catholic?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

You mean the Jewish Lobby, right?

I'm not exactly familiar with your theory of "the Jewish lobby" but I would suggest that if you want to discuss your conspiracy theory that you do so in the appropriate forum. I didn't know Jewish conspiracy theories were still doing so well, outside of the likes of stormfront and such.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I'm not exactly familiar with your theory of "the Jewish lobby" but I would suggest that if you want to discuss your conspiracy theory that you do so in the appropriate forum.

Of course you're not.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Of course you're not.

Then why not share your ideas about the "Jewish lobby" in the appropriate forum?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Then why not share your ideas about the "Jewish lobby" in the appropriate forum?

It's appropriate for anti-Zionist warriors to refer to Israel as The Jewish State, since that's how she defines herself- but not her lobby as the Jewish Lobby? Strange inconsistency.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It's appropriate for anti-Zionist warriors to refer to Israel as The Jewish State, since that's how she defines herself- but not her lobby as the Jewish Lobby? Strange inconsistency.

1. Israel names itself "the Jewish state."
2. Israel names its lobby groups after the region their donors come from. Among many other naming schemes, none of which is "the Jewish lobby."

There is no inconsistency. The inconsistency, albeit not so strange, is your insistence that people should use the term "Jewish lobby" instead of "Israeli lobby" combined with your previous statement about how "no attempts to use Israel for bigotry get past you." That is, if your theory of a "Jewish lobby" only includes Israel's lobby, which you haven't quite verified. Theories of a "Jewish lobby" can go much further than that, sometimes even entire conspiracies which rule the world. What exactly is your idea about this "Jewish lobby"?

[Craig B]

Deleted. Point already covered.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Hmm... is the graphic in the OP what all the fuss was about?

Somehow I had expected something much worse.

[commandlinegamer]

I'm not sure if Labour has genuinely anti-Semitic MPs, but it does have some dumb ones.

[NWO Sentryman]

As I mentioned in another thread, are neo-nazis who use the word "Zionist", "Anti-Zionist" or "Anti-Semitic?". it's pretty telling that Israel, despite having such lovely neighbours as the Saudi Kings, the Assads and Saddam Hussein, is somehow castigated as a far worse devil than either of them. And another issue that comes to mind: It's pretty easy to condemn israel while living comfortably in the west, never having to experience millennia of persecution culminating in Genocide, then leaving Europe because you have no idea if said Genocide could happen again or not. Then at your new home (Promised by the then hegemon) be riven by decades of ethnic disputes due to unresolved boundaries and just to rub salt in, you have a former Waffen-SS recruiting Sergeant encourage the regional powers to try and succeed where Hitler had failed. After that, just as peace is being made with two of your neighbours, you get the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, come on the scene and give 20 years worth of "fun". Fast forward to today, and Israel has the whole Middle Eastern Powder Keg go off around it, and the Palestinians look likely to join the funfest.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

As I mentioned in another thread, are neo-nazis who use the word "Zionist", "Anti-Zionist" or "Anti-Semitic?". it's pretty telling that Israel, despite having such lovely neighbours as the Saudi Kings, the Assads and Saddam Hussein, is somehow castigated as a far worse devil than either of them.

People who criticise these Saudi kings and similar potentates are not usually accused of being racists.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

As I mentioned in another thread, are neo-nazis who use the word "Zionist", "Anti-Zionist" or "Anti-Semitic?". it's pretty telling that Israel, despite having such lovely neighbours as the Saudi Kings, the Assads and Saddam Hussein, is somehow castigated as a far worse devil than either of them. And another issue that comes to mind: It's pretty easy to condemn israel while living comfortably in the west, never having to experience millennia of persecution culminating in Genocide, then leaving Europe because you have no idea if said Genocide could happen again or not. Then at your new home (Promised by the then hegemon) be riven by decades of ethnic disputes due to unresolved boundaries and just to rub salt in, you have a former Waffen-SS recruiting Sergeant encourage the regional powers to try and succeed where Hitler had failed. After that, just as peace is being made with two of your neighbours, you get the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, come on the scene and give 20 years worth of "fun". Fast forward to today, and Israel has the whole Middle Eastern Powder Keg go off around it, and the Palestinians look likely to join the funfest.

I think its pretty obvious that some of the criticism of Israel and Jews is Anti-Semitic but it also seems that there is a tendency to equate all criticism of Israel with Anti-Semitism.

Even your bit above conflates Israel with Jews. I have no time for Anti-Semitism and I'm always surprised when I see some of the stuff that gets posted to Jewish people as I really wouldn't expect it in 2016. If that's representative then they have my sympathy.

Personally I have no real opinion on Jewish folk as I know next to none (maybe even none) on a personal level. I think it would be a real stretch to suggest I'm Anti-Semitic.

On the other hand there's a lot of stuff about Israel that I'm no fan of and I can somewhat understand why people even have a problem with its mere existence. On the other other hand as with most sectarian nonsense the motivations for continuing to object to its existence in 2016 seem to be highly questionable.

My main surprise in this case though is seeing the offending graphic and realising that was what people were insisting was her championing the forcible mass relocation of Jews.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by Craig B

People who criticise these Saudi kings and similar potentates are not usually accused of being racists.

Largely because there hasn't been a centuries old conspiracy theory of "Zionist media control/racemixing/bankers" causing the world's miseries. By your logic, would you trust someone from stormfront to say "I'm not anti-semitic i'm anti-zionist".

My point is, the word "Zionist" has a LOT of baggage, and a lot of that is due to its use as a dog-whistle for racists.