British Politics Guide

[chris_notts]

Seriously, Chris Notts, do you really not see how all that Corbynite talk of "Our great leader is totally great and has never done anything wrong, and all the claims that he's a bigot are the result of a relentless media campaign against him by evil worthless biased journalists" looks like to someone who's used to following American politics? Especially if you literally use the phrase "fake news"?

Sure, of course, it may look similar. And I'm not a regular follower of that site, so for all I know they are a bit flakey. But on the other hand, "A superficially looks like B, therefore A is B" is a logical fallacy. Just because some crazies label real news as fake news, it doesn't mean that it's impossible for the media consensus to be wrong.

To be clear: I am left wing politically, but am not a member of either the Labour party, Momentum, or any other organisation which is led by or dedicated to supporting Corbyn. From the direct evidence that's been presented to justify many of these stories, I would say:

1. I would accept that there are likely some Labour members who are anti-semites, although evidence also suggests that anti-semitism is no more prevalent in Labour than in the British population as a whole. In any organisation with hundreds of thousands of members, you will find most opinions presemt in the general population represented. In fact, it seems likely that if any major party has more than its fair share of racists, it's the Conservatives with a very anti-Muslim membership.

What there is in Labour is a very strong condemnation of Israel's behaviour, and strong sympathy for the Palestinian cause. But this does not constitute anti-semitism by any reasonable definition.

2. I would also accept that Corbyn has not been a very effective leader. He clearly lacks skills needed to successfully manage a political party, and was elected more because he was the only left-wing choice on the ballot than because he was the best left wing MP. Having said that, the options presented to the membership are heavily influenced by the parliamentary party, so whose fault is that?

3. I think this issue of lack of leadership skills may have been made worse by the major splits in the party. Corbyn's inclinations are probably not to rock the boat: Don't alienate supporters and old allies when half the parliamentary party is on the attack, don't expel lots of people when the big swell in membership is one of the biggest feathers in your cap as a leader. Also, despite claims to the contrary, Corbyn hasn't really moved hard against the right of the party. He hasn't supported them in their battles with their local party membership, which isn't surprising given how they've attacked him, but he's not exactly forcibly deselected them either.

4. I've seen little evidence that Corbyn personally is anti-semitic. He asked why graffiti was being taken down which some people claim contains covert Jewish references, but if they're there I can't see them. He had some problems with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, but mostly because the examples suggest that criticism of Israel constitutes anti-semitism (it doesn't, at least in my view). He's been a lifelong campaigner against racism, which would make being a raving anti-semite a little odd.

So in summary: I would accept a claim that Corbyn may be an incompetent leader. But I can't accept, based on current evidence, that he's anti-semitic, or deliberately promoting anti-semitism in the party. Most of his actions suggest a man trying not to rock the boat internally, especially when he's had to fight from day one against a deeply hostile parliamentary party. Nor do I think the Labour party as a whole is any more anti-semitic than the general population, although much of the membership is anti-Israel until and unless there is a big change in their policies toward the Palestinians.

[Salmoneus]

The problem with the anti-semitism issue is that it's designed as a weapon that there's no way to defend against. There's nothing that Corbyn could actually do that would make the accusations go away - as chris points out, any organisation with half a million members will have bigots in it, and there's no way for the leadership to remove those members until after they've demonstrated their bigotry. Similarly, in an organisation that size, there will be Jews, and some of those Jews will face opposition on policy issues from somebody else in the party (whether that's the PLP leaders, an NEC member, a grandee, a local party official, whomever). Once everything has been framed as systematic antisemitism, there's guaranteed to be a constant stream of incidents that can be interpreted through that lens (of course, all the Jewish members and MPs who aren't on the far right, and hence don't face much opposition from Labour activists, don't get mentioned - likewise, Labour has been vocally supported over the antisemitism crisis by leading Jewish politicians, academics, intellectuals, rabbis and holocaust survivors, and scholars of antisemitism, but this receives very little attention). It's worth pointing out that there's been no actual increase in accusations of antisemitism since Corbyn came to power (and indeed, Jewish support for Labour has increased under Corbyn), and that such accusations are not more common in Labour than in other political parties; in total, the allegations have concerned 0.08% of members. Around 3/4ths of antisemitic incidents reported are associated with people associated with right-wing groups, not the left.

So, Labour's done plenty in the way of real-world actions - summoned an independent inquiry, reformed its definitions and policies, suspended or expelled many members, doubled the staff dedicated to dealing with complaints. Much of that, frankly, has been troubling in its own right - it's not necessarily a great thing to enable the central authorities to expell members more easily without due process, and it's not necessarily great to adopt 'examples' of antisemitism that define criticism of Israel's human rights record as antisemitic. But they've done it. And yet, it's accomplished nothing - the "crisis" continues, because Corbyn hasn't waved a magic wand to simply eliminate everything that could possibly be interpreted as bigotry from any member, and until that miracle happens the media will continue to describe the party as systematically antisemitic.

Meanwhile, surveys (and any knowledge of history) show that the Conservative party has far more widespread antisemitism in its membership than Labour (and of course UKIP are off the charts). What's more, the Conservative Party is deeply Islamophobic, and has been called out as such by the few Muslim members that it has. But bigotry from the conservative party is regarded as a series of unrelated coincidental events, whereas we've now internalised the lesson that the same bigotry from Labour must be indicative of a failing of the party of the whole and of the leader.

[Why? Well, a big thing is just that Labour has Jewish and Muslim members, and the Tories don't - they have a small core of extreme Zionists (many of whom are actually Christian rather than Jewish) and a few scions of banking families, but in general they've been good at excluding any minorities, particularly Muslims, which means that there are few minorities able to complain about bigotry against them. Labour, on the other hand, has big traditional Jewish and Muslim constituencies. Another issue is that bigotry in the Tory party doesn't particularly tie in to any other schisms in the party, whereas in Labour antisemitism is being used as a factional issue, a way for the extreme right of the party to fight back against the left (although there's no particular reason to think that the far right is any more immune from bigotry than the left) - that doesn't mean that there's no underlying issue, but it does explain why the issue is so much more salient than equivalent issues in other parties, or indeed with other minorities (it's not like there isn't also similar bigotry against black, asian, gay, and female people, just to name a few) - there was a conscious decision and agreement between the right wing and the right-wing media to push this one specific line of party political attack in order to destabilise Corbyn. Even those pushing the antisemitism argument have seen no reason to conceal how closely this is tied to economic ideology - one of the dissenting MPs explained (on a prominent political radio show) that to be left-wing is inherently to be antisemitic - "it is very much part of hard-left politics to be against capitalists... ergo you are anti-Jewish. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-semitic".

The other big reason, however, is simply that the media need something to talk about. Bigotry in the Tory party gets ignored because there are already so many narratives in that party that the 10 o'clock news doesn't have time to talk about bigotry, other than a twice-a-year soundbite from Baroness Warsi - whereas Labour aren't really doing anything at the moment, so this narrative is a very helpful way to find something to say about them]

[Raphael]

Thank you for your long and thoughtful response.

From the direct evidence that's been presented to justify many of these stories, I would say:

1. I would accept that there are likely some Labour members who are anti-semites, although evidence also suggests that anti-semitism is no more prevalent in Labour than in the British population as a whole.

Unfortunately, that's not nearly as comforting as you seem to think it is. And, Labour seems to be quite willing to allow many egregious examples to stay in the party, and to allow their internal disciplinary mechanisms to be run by people who see pretty much every accusation of antisemitism as a bad faith smear.

In fact, it seems likely that if any major party has more than its fair share of racists, it's the Conservatives with a very anti-Muslim membership.

I don't remember ever denying, here in this thread or anywhere else, that the Tories are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, snobbish, sadistic, and sociopathic scumbags. (Sorry if I left anything out.) But life isn't binary. Just because two lots hate each other, it doesn't mean that at least one of them has to be good.

Besides, in a country with a two party system, if one party is a bunch of bigots, people targeted by bigotry or otherwise opposed to bigotry can always turn to the other party. Once both parties are full of bigots, people targeted by bigotry or otherwise opposed to bigotry have nowhere left to go. So, in certain contexts, it can make perfect sense for people to worry more about bigotry in the relatively less bigoted one of their country's two main parties, than about the party that's hopeless on that front, anyway.

4. I've seen little evidence that Corbyn personally is anti-semitic. He asked why graffiti was being taken down which some people claim contains covert Jewish references, but if they're there I can't see them.

If you don't see anything antisemitic in a mural depicting rich, dark-haired men with very big noses oppressing everyone else, I'd suggest you think very carefully about why you don't see anything antisemitic in a mural depicting rich, dark-haired men with very big noses oppressing everyone else.

You're also ignoring his repeated public appearances with holocaust deniers. And his praise for groups that are dedicated to killing all the Jews in the world. And his followers, who flood their Facebook groups with antisemitic messages. And what the disciplinary record of his party towards obvious antisemites is under his leadership. And. And. And.

He's been a lifelong campaigner against racism, which would make being a raving anti-semite a little odd.

Sure, if you know nothing about bigotry.

Forget about antisemitism for a moment. It's perfectly well possible to be a plain old fashioned regular racist while being a lifelong campaigner against racism. Bigotry isn't necessarily about how you see yourself. It's well possible to see oneself as strongly opposing sexism while being privately sexist ("Quiet, woman! I'm reading this really interesting blog post about mechanisms of patriarchal control!"). It's definitely possible for people with hard left politics to politically identify with the proletariat while being complete snobs in their private lives.

And aside from that, one difference between antisemitism and most other forms of bigotry is that while most forms of bigotry are more or less openly about punching down ("We must get rid of and/or permanently rule over these obviously inferior people"), antisemitism sees itself as punching up. Antisemitism is at its core the idea that Jews control everything and oppress everyone and need to be fought against. Anti-racism is at its core the idea that powerful ethnic groups need to be kept from dominating, oppressing, and discriminating against less powerful groups. So it's a lot easier for these two ideas to peacefully coexist in the same person's mind than you seem to think.

Finally, I never accused him of being a "raving" antisemite. If you think bigotry is about "raving", I'd suggest you read up on bigotry.

But I can't accept, based on current evidence, that he's [...] deliberately promoting anti-semitism in the party.

I never claimed he did. Besides, the whole thing is more about his followers than about him.

[Raphael]

likewise, Labour has been vocally supported over the antisemitism crisis by leading Jewish politicians, academics, intellectuals, rabbis and holocaust survivors, and scholars of antisemitism, but this receives very little attention).

I was wondering how long it would take until someone would point out that some of the current Labour Party's best friends are Jews.

[chris_notts]

If you don't see anything antisemitic in a mural depicting rich, dark-haired men with very big noses oppressing everyone else, I'd suggest you think very carefully about why you don't see anything antisemitic in a mural depicting rich, dark-haired men with very big noses oppressing everyone else.

That I'm so oblivious that I don't recognise a Jewish stereotype when I see one? But seriously, I've known one person (irl) in my entire life who told me he was Jewish, and he was university friend from the US who went home after finishing his studies. I might well have other Jewish friends or colleagues and they've just never mentioned it, since religion isn't a topic I tend to discuss and most Jewish people are well integrated into British society. It's not a particularly salient category for me, in the same way I might not recognise a stereotype of morris dancers when I see one.

You might be right about Corbyn. But I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not attribute to malice what can be explained by limited competence and, as Sal says, the somewhat difficult nature of the task.

As for his associations... It's clear that Corbyn will meet most people as long as they aren't tories, and you can either take this as a sign that he's in league with them... or that he'll just talk to almost anyone. I'm not a huge fan of the political trend to refuse to talk to people, and to judge people by who they talk to rather than what they subsequently do.

When Corbyn show signs of actively trying to drive Jewish people out of the party, or of trying to pass racist legislation, or writing racist manifestos, at that point I'll concede that he's a big problem from an anti-semitism point of view. For now, the biggest problem I see is that he's simultaneously the first chance the left has had to lead Labour for decades, and also probably not up to the task of actually implementing a left-wing programme in government, or even running the party smoothly in opposition. Unfortunately, any move to replace Corbyn will have the Blairites on maneuvers like never before.

EDIT: of course, being Jewish can be a racial description as well as a religious denomination. But again, Nottingham isn't, as far as I know, a major centre for ethnic Jews, so not a salient category for me.

[chris_notts]

According to the BBC, in 2010 Nottinghamshire had fewer than 1000 Jewish people, which is about 0.1% of the population:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/nottingham/ ... 726719.stm

[Frislander]

Even those pushing the antisemitism argument have seen no reason to conceal how closely this is tied to economic ideology - one of the dissenting MPs explained (on a prominent political radio show) that to be left-wing is inherently to be antisemitic - "it is very much part of hard-left politics to be against capitalists... ergo you are anti-Jewish. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-semitic".

What on earth is this logic? They appear to be implying that Jews are synonymous with capitalists i.e. they are themselves swallowing the anti-semitic stereotype.

[Salmoneus]

likewise, Labour has been vocally supported over the antisemitism crisis by leading Jewish politicians, academics, intellectuals, rabbis and holocaust survivors, and scholars of antisemitism, but this receives very little attention).

I was wondering how long it would take until someone would point out that some of the current Labour Party's best friends are Jews.

I wasn't wondering how long it would be before you got to your real objection - the objection underpinning a lot of the antisemitism issue - which is that Corbyn is friends with The Wrong Sort of Jews. That is, left-wing and anti-Zionist ones.

But logically, when someone is friends with left-wing, anti-Zionist Jews, and is not friends with right-wing, Zionist Jews, the reasonable conclusion is probably that what he is against is not Judaism per se, but right-wing Zionism.

What's more, the whole problem with "but some of my friends are X", is that we don't believe it - or believe, at best, that these are people the bigot tolerates, and is tolerated by. When you actually do have hundreds of leading Jewish voices supporting someone, and experts on antisemitism are saying that they're not antisemitic, and major academic studies are done that say that they're not acting in an antisemitic way, and major academic studies are done that say that coverage of them has been biased, that's more than just some guy pretending to have Jewish friends. It's frankly grossly disrespectful for people like you to simply disregard Jewish voices as in some way illegitimate simply because they don't support your politics.

[and hey, if Labour aren't conservative enough for you anymore, you can just go vote Conservative. You'll feel much more at home. Except, of course, that you're not actually a voter here, and are just commenting on issues you know nothing about. Does Breitbart have a German branch?]

And yeah, when given a choice between who to listen to on the question of antisemitism, Jewish people or right-wing crusading Christians, yes I do think it's relevant what Jewish leaders think. And I think it IS problematic when the media covers only the comments of right-wing Jewish leaders, and not left-wing (or even centrist or apolitical!) Jewish leaders, as though Jewish identity and far-right politics were inextricable. Particularly because we're not talking about any actual incidents of antisemitism (of which there have been very few, and generally dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner), but about an alleged atmosphere. When actual research into that atmosphere by groups like the Centre for Jewish Policy Research - an apolitical group, founded by the World Jewish Council and that has a Rothschild as its president - is ignored, in favour of inflammatory hate-speech by (mostly hardcore Christian) politicians who offer no substantiation for their attacks other than personal gut feeling, I do think that that's problematic.

You can't just look at every issue and assume that the most pro-Netanyahu position must always, automatically, be correct.

[Salmoneus]

Even those pushing the antisemitism argument have seen no reason to conceal how closely this is tied to economic ideology - one of the dissenting MPs explained (on a prominent political radio show) that to be left-wing is inherently to be antisemitic - "it is very much part of hard-left politics to be against capitalists... ergo you are anti-Jewish. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-semitic".

What on earth is this logic? They appear to be implying that Jews are synonymous with capitalists i.e. they are themselves swallowing the anti-semitic stereotype.

Well yeah. As you'd expect from a leading critic of Labour antisemitism, the person who made those remarks was a right-wing devout Catholic (who's been accused of Islamophobia). So she probably is OK with that stereotype. I suspect for people with her politics, that stereotype is seen as a compliment - what could be better than to be a capitalist?


EDIT: I should clarify, that may have been one MP saying those specific words, but it seems to be the general view of the anti-Corbyn movement. For instance, the Jewish Leadership Council has condemned Corbyn for "a far-left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities" - because, again, being "far-left" (i.e. socialist) is now considered inherently antisemitic.

[Salmoneus]

Just to supply a little context for those abroad - the main campaigner against Corbyn on this issue has been the Jewish Chronicle.

Which is, don't get me wrong, a respectable and ancient newspaper that serves a valuable purpose in its community (within which it has a great deal of influence), which is why it's very hard for anyone to dissent from it or criticise it.

But what may not be immediately obvious is that it's also a far-right organ. Leaving aside its historic role championing Zionism, more recently it's been a mouthpiece for Nigel Farage, UKIP and Leave, and its editor is a founder of the Henry Jackson Society, a neocon thinktank widely criticised for Islamophobia and militaristic nationalism - for context for American readers, one of its patrons is Bill Kristol. Its editor openly calls for "market-based public sector reforms", and a result has been a critic of Corbyn from the moment of his election. To be sure, this doesn't invalidate their reporting; but it does help contextualise their particular political focus on the removal of Corbyn at all costs.


--------


I would agree, incidentally, that that mural does contain imagery that evokes, whether intentionally or not, antisemitic tropes, and probably should be removed.

By contrast, Corbyn's "antisemitic" views on the mural were that it "was offensive, used antisemitic imagery, which has no place in our society, and it is right that it was removed", and that its contents were "deeply disturbing and antisemitic". This response came within 24 hours of the issue being raised.

What actually happened was that in 2012, an artist wrote a facebook post saying that he was being censored because his mural depicting bankers as evil was being destroyed. Corbyn replied, saying that other socialist artists had faced similar censorship (specifically, Diego Rivera). At that point, he hadn't even actually seen the mural and didn't know it had been accused of antisemitism, but only (at that point of course only a backbench MP) commented on the issue of censorship of socialist art, taking the artist's characterisation of the situation at face value. Six years later, one of Corbyn's critics on the right of the party (who is now in TIG) accused him of antisemitism as a result. He then looked at pictures of the mural, and immediately agreed that it was indeed antisemitic, agreed that it should have been destroyed, and agreed that he shouldn't have commented without knowing the full details of the case. As well as the remarks quoted above, he also said that "The defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of antisemitism in any form".

These remarks were in turn condemned, because they "failed to understand the hurt and anguish felt about Antisemitism". Therefore, Corbyn ought to resign to allow a candidate who supports further privatisation in the public sector to take over.


And that's how this story goes every time:
"You leftists once said hello to X, and X once said something possibly antisemitic!"
"We didn't know they'd said that, if we had we wouldn't have said hello to them we'd have knifed them."
"But this means that you're an antisemite!"
"Antisemitism is despicable, has no place in society, cannot be defended, and must be eradicated by force, we've taken xyz steps to do this, and will act promptly in response to any incidents we're made aware of. We won't associate with antisemites, and believe antisemites should all be hung."
"Sure, you say that, but your comments fail to understand the hurt and anguish I feel! Therefore, you're an antisemite".

The thing is, there is literally nothing that could be said in response to this. No matter what Corbyn says, his critics will say that he has failed to understand the hurt and anguish they feel. And since the only measure of whether he's an antisemite is whether they feel hurt and anguish, and only they can know whether they do, and it's clear they'll feel hurt and anguish until Labour policies on privatisation, welfare payments and the West Bank are changed, Corbyn can't actually do anything about this issue.


Of course, it doesn't really matter politically, as nobody outside Westminster seems to care - the Jewish community as a whole is tiny and has little electoral influence, while the public as a whole has no interest in the obviously manufactured issue.

[Moose-tache]

I wasn't wondering how long it would be before you got to your real objection - the objection underpinning a lot of the antisemitism issue - which is that Corbyn is friends with The Wrong Sort of Jews. That is, left-wing and anti-Zionist ones.

But logically, when someone is friends with left-wing, anti-Zionist Jews, and is not friends with right-wing, Zionist Jews, the reasonable conclusion is probably that what he is against is not Judaism per se, but right-wing Zionism.

I might be wrong here, but I think you might have misunderstood this criticism. In some contexts "saying you have X friends" means making a pathetically weak self-defense based on association. It's possible that Raphael was objecting to your defense of Corbyn/Labour that many prominent rabbis have supported them as a pitiful argument in their favor, not a condemnation of the type of company they keep.

Well yeah. As you'd expect from a leading critic of Labour antisemitism, the person who made those remarks was a right-wing devout Catholic (who's been accused of Islamophobia). So she probably is OK with that stereotype. I suspect for people with her politics, that stereotype is seen as a compliment - what could be better than to be a capitalist?

I think what's confusing about this MP's position is how it loops around itself forever. If they're saying that the Left is inherently anti-semitic, I would assume that's an insult. But from their characterization of Jews it would sound like they have no problem with anti-semitism. But if they don't mind anti-semitism, why... it just goes around and around in my brain like I'm a robot in a mid-century sci fi novella that's just been asked a tricky question.

[Raphael]

As for his associations... It's clear that Corbyn will meet most people as long as they aren't tories, and you can either take this as a sign that he's in league with them... or that he'll just talk to almost anyone. I'm not a huge fan of the political trend to refuse to talk to people,

Unless they're Tories, of course. Since, naturally, Tories are a lot worse than holocaust deniers and people who want to kill all the Jews in the world.

When Corbyn show signs of actively trying to drive Jewish people out of the party, or of trying to pass racist legislation, or writing racist manifestos, at that point I'll concede that he's a big problem from an anti-semitism point of view.

Even Trump hasn't made any attempts to drive PoCs out of the Republican Party yet. Doesn't mean he's not a racist.

[Raphael]

likewise, Labour has been vocally supported over the antisemitism crisis by leading Jewish politicians, academics, intellectuals, rabbis and holocaust survivors, and scholars of antisemitism, but this receives very little attention).

I was wondering how long it would take until someone would point out that some of the current Labour Party's best friends are Jews.

I wasn't wondering how long it would be before you got to your real objection - the objection underpinning a lot of the antisemitism issue - which is that Corbyn is friends with The Wrong Sort of Jews. That is, left-wing and anti-Zionist ones.

It's not about whether Corbyn's Jewish best friends are left-wing or right-wing. It's about the fact that they tend to be the kind of Jews who automatically defend every antisemite they run across against charges of antisemitism. It's not a specifically Jewish thing, of course - there are people like that in every group facing bigotry. Being friends with them is not a convincing defense against accusations of bigotry against that group.

But logically, when someone is friends with left-wing, anti-Zionist Jews, and is not friends with right-wing, Zionist Jews, the reasonable conclusion is probably that what he is against is not Judaism per se, but right-wing Zionism.

"But logically, when someone is friends with right-wing, pro-capitalist PoCs, and is not friends with left-wing, anti-capitalist PoCs, the reasonable conclusion is probably that what he is against is not darker skin per se, but left-wing anticapitalism."

(Figuring out the problems with that kind of logic is left as a trivial exercise for the interested reader.)

What's more, the whole problem with "but some of my friends are X", is that we don't believe it - or believe, at best, that these are people the bigot tolerates, and is tolerated by.

Well, yes, that's precisely what I believe about Corbyn, many of his supporters, and their Jewish best friends.

When you actually do have hundreds of leading Jewish voices supporting someone,

Oh, hundreds. How impressive. Do you know how many paid black propagandists the Republican Party in the USA has?

It's frankly grossly disrespectful for people like you to simply disregard Jewish voices as in some way illegitimate simply because they don't support your politics.

It's not about supporting or not supporting my politics. It's about supporting people like Jeremy Corbyn.

[and hey, if Labour aren't conservative enough for you anymore, you can just go vote Conservative. You'll feel much more at home.

If you look at polls in the UK, you might have noticed that a fairly high share of respondents has answered "Don't know" to the question of whether they'd prefer the Labour Leader or the Conservative Leader as PM for quite a while. Now, if you would drop your silly "Everyone who doesn't like Corbyn is obviously a Conservative" routine, you might be able to start understanding these people, and understanding why, with the current Tory government being what it is and doing what it does, Labour still isn't winning the polls in a landslide. That, in turn, might significantly improve your ability to analyze UK politics.

Except, of course, that you're not actually a voter here, and are just commenting on issues you know nothing about.

So, according to you, in the years 2019, if people don't live in a country, they obviously know nothing about the politics of that country. There is no way for them to know. There aren't any possible sources of information or communication that might help them to know about such things. The medium of communication that you and me are both using right now clearly doesn't exist.

And if you think people in the year 2019 can't possibly know anything about the politics of countries they don't live in, would you mind ceasing to post ignorant, uninformed, and mind-bogglingly naive defenses of Republican scumbags over in the US politics thread?

Does Breitbart have a German branch?]

Yes, if people don't like Jeremy Corbyn, they obviously have to like Breitbart. Is that the kind of subtle, nuanced understanding of the political spectrum that they teach Politics students at Cambridge? Anyway, I'll make a mental note to remind you of this the next time there's a debate about some other topic and you start to talk about the importance of being able to see shades of grey. Which might well happen - on topics that don't involve one of your pet loves or pet hates, you've shown yourself perfectly capable of seeing nuance, subtlety, and shades of grey.

And I think it IS problematic when the media covers only the comments of right-wing Jewish leaders, and not left-wing (or even centrist or apolitical!) Jewish leaders, as though Jewish identity and far-right politics were inextricable. Particularly because we're not talking about any actual incidents of antisemitism (of which there have been very few, and generally dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner), but about an alleged atmosphere. When actual research into that atmosphere by groups like the Centre for Jewish Policy Research - an apolitical group, founded by the World Jewish Council and that has a Rothschild as its president - is ignored, in favour of inflammatory hate-speech by (mostly hardcore Christian) politicians who offer no substantiation for their attacks other than personal gut feeling, I do think that that's problematic.

The problem with your description of some people as left-wing and some other people as right-wing in this whole matter is that when it comes to any political debate involving Jeremy Corbyn, you clearly start out from the assumption that anyone who doesn't like, disagrees with, or criticizes Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters obviously has to be right-wing, and only people who like and support him can be left-wing. You've shown that again and again in this thread, most recently in your interpretation of me in this very debate that we're having right now. So, in your mental framework, whenever someone says something critical about Corbyn, the fact that they've said something critical about Corbyn proves that they're right-wing, and the fact that they're right-wing, in turn, proves that what they've said can't possibly be a serious concern and just has to be a bad faith smear.

So your belief that everyone who has a problem with Corbyn's or his supporters' antisemitism is right-wing, and all left-wingers think he's fine, is not particularly surprising, interesting, or relevant.

You can't just look at every issue and assume that the most pro-Netanyahu position must always, automatically, be correct.

Please point to when I've defended or supported Netanyahu, here or elsewhere. I'll wait.

[mèþru]

I agree with both of you here. I think that there is systematic anti-semitism within certain parts of the Labour apparatus. Anti-Zionism is a legitimate position, but much of Labour's anti-Zionist movement is also antisemitic, even including some of its Jewish members. That does not mean that all or even most anti-Zionists within the party are antisemites. I personally think that Corbyn is just stupid about things that aren't his pet policy issues, such as the antisemitisim crisis or effectual leadership. Besides his stance on Brexit and Israel, I actually mostly agree with Corbyn's policies. That said, his lack of tact and willingness to counter antisemitic supporters of his is very harmful to the Jewish community. I prefer him to May, but that's hardly a compliment.

[Raphael]

[..] I actually mostly agree with Corbyn's policies.

I don't have any problems with Corbyn's economic policies - it's everything else about him that puts me off.

[chris_notts]

Bercow has struck. TM can't ask the same question again in the current session. She'll either have to change it somehow, or do a parliamentary reboot.

[Nerulent]

I don't have any problems with Corbyn's economic policies - it's everything else about him that puts me off.

Aside from Sal's 'you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart', he makes salient points. What is the 'everything else'? The only bit of anti-semitism that you have pointed out is that he hangs out with 'holocaust deniers and people who want to kill all the Jews in the world'; who are these people?

[Raphael]

Aside from Sal's 'you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart', he makes salient points.

Problem is, most of Sal's other points, no matter how salient you might find them, are at least indirectly based on his "you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart" logic. The main theme of his most recent post in this thread is that supposedly, left-wing Jews support Corbyn and right-wing Jews oppose him, and it is wrong and inappropriate to pretend that only right-wing Jews count. But the main apparent reason why Sal believes that only right-wing Jews oppose Corbyn in the first place is his "you don't like Corbyn therefore you like Breitbart" logic. He assumes a priori that everyone who criticizes Corbyn has to be right-wing, and concludes from this that all the Jews and Jewish organizations which have accused Corbyn and/or some of his supporters of antisemitism obviously must be right-wing, or even far right.

If you don't start out from the a priori assumption hat everyone who criticizes Corbyn has to be right-wing, you might notice that Corbyn and Corbyn's supporters have been criticized for antisemitism by Jews and Jewish organizations from almost everywhere on the political spectrum. At which point Sal's argument in his most recent post in this thread falls apart.

What is the 'everything else'?

Mainly his position as part of the "anti-imperialist" political camp, which basically means that he supports every murderous dictator in the world as long as the dictator is politically at odds with the West. I should modify the "everything else" part, though. For one thing, I completely agree with his current position on Saudi Arabia. But I also suspect that if the main Western powers would take his advice and turn against Saudi Arabia tomorrow, he would probably start attending Saudi Arabia solidarity events next week.

Aside from that, there's his and his supporters' general "the media are the enemy!" attitude, which, IMO, is generally one of the first and last resorts of the scoundrel.

The only bit of anti-semitism that you have pointed out is that he hangs out with 'holocaust deniers and people who want to kill all the Jews in the world'; who are these people?

First of all, that's not the only bit of antisemitism that I have pointed out. I also had a bit of a back-and-forth with Chris Notts on Corbyn's support for an antisemitic mural.

That said, Corbyn has attended events organized by the holocaust denier Paul Eisen. And he has invited representatives from Hamas and Hizbollah to Parliament, and addressed them as his friends. Both organizations have made it pretty clear that they see Jews in general as evil and would love to be able to kill them all.

[Travis B.]

The accusations of Corbyn being an anti-Semite, from a cursory look-up of the subject, seem to mostly be based in his repeated association with people who are anti-Zionists, who happen to also be anti-Semites, something he denies having knowledge of at the time. So if he is not an anti-Semite he does have a certain level of political naïveté on the topic, which contributes to the air of anti-Semitism about him.

[Raphael]

So if he is not an anti-Semite he does have a certain level of political naïveté on the topic, which contributes to the air of anti-Semitism about him.

It might be political naïveté, but I suspect it might be something a bit deeper. My guess is that when it comes down to it, Corbyn, like many of his supporters, simply has a binary worldview. He divides the world into oppressors and fighters against oppression, and as far as he is concerned, the latter can never be nearly as bad as the former, or worthy of serious condemnation. When he sees an injustice, he identifies the perpetrators of that injustice, and assumes as a matter of course that those who fight against these perpetrators, or claim to fight against these perpetrators, clearly have to be good, or, at worst, a little bit flawed.

So, for him, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is bad, so everyone fighting against Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, or claiming to fight against Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, clearly has to be good, or, at worst, a little bit flawed. Capitalism is bad, so everyone fighting against capitalism, or claiming to fight against capitalism, clearly has to be good, or, at worst, a little bit flawed. Western imperialism is bad, so everyone fighting against Western imperialism, or claiming to fight against Western imperialism, clearly has to be good, or, at worst, a little bit flawed.

For many people, one of the main lessons of the 20th century is that people can be motivated by the purest and most honest desire to fight against oppression and injustice, and still end up committing horrible acts of oppression and injustice themselves. But Corbyn, like many of his followers, belongs to a part of the left that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge or learn that lesson. Therefore, it won't ever get into his head that sometimes, people who fight against bad people are themselves bad, and sometimes even as worthy of condemnation as those against whom they fight.