Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Shamwow]

I have no problem with that perception when it comes to that type of anti-Zionism.

I'm well aware Clarke and Meyer have very different backgrounds. I was comparing the strategy of saying "It can't be antisemitic because a Jew said it too" to the strategy of "It can't be racist because black people are saying it too." That claim was the gist of the posts I quoted.

I also can't see that holding what's essentially a counter-protest to Holocaust Memorial Day, including comparisons of Zionist Jews to Nazis*, is "fighting against oppression". We're at a point where even the admission something like this is at least problematic - basically what Corbyn has done in his apology, regardless if honest or just PR - seems too much to ask from some.


*assuming Meyer has done this there, as it has been one of his main points for years

You're still equivalating a man who fought against oppression and is currently being proven even more right by the way with these new racist laws Israel is bringing in to someone who does the opposite. It's problematic trying to shut people like Meyer up and using his supposed racism as an excuse.

 

[Synco]

You're still equivalating a man who fought against oppression and is currently being proven even more right by the way with these new racist laws Israel is bringing in to someone who does the opposite.

Their cases are comparable insofar as their public activism includes propagating harmful inaccuracies, giving fuel to the enemies of Afro-Americans/Jews, and that their activism is rightfully rejected by the vast majority of people of the group they are associated with.* The supposed credibility of their content is crucially based on their ethnicity by their endorsers (and, in Meyer's case, his history as a Holocaust survivor), which is used as a reversed ad hominem argument, so to say. Clarke's popularity and reach has been way higher, of course. As for their respective personal reasons (they likely differ), it's impossible to say from the outside, and I won't engage in speculation.

*I'm aware Meyer has died in 2014, present tense is for readability

It's problematic trying to shut people like Meyer up and using his supposed racism as an excuse.

There's an important difference between not promoting someone's views (in British Parliament, on Holocaust Memorial Day) and shutting someone up.

As for the notion that event is correctly characterized with "fighting oppression", I have already written something in the post you quoted, perhaps you could address it:

I also can't see that holding what's essentially a counter-protest to Holocaust Memorial Day, including comparisons of Zionist Jews to Nazis, is "fighting against oppression". We're at a point where even the admission something like this is at least problematic - basically what Corbyn has done in his apology, regardless if honest or just PR - seems too much to ask from some.

 

[Silva]

high praise from David Duke

 

[Mozza]

As for the notion that event is correctly characterized with "fighting oppression", I have already written something in the post you quoted, perhaps you could address it:

What is Holocaust memorial day for if not to learn the lessons of the holocaust? These have sadly been forgotten by much of Israel and it's supporters, so this was the perfect day to hold the talk.

 

[Synco]

What is Holocaust memorial day for if not to learn the lessons of the holocaust? These have sadly been forgotten by much of Israel and it's supporters, so this was the perfect day to hold the talk.

One lesson would be not to misuse the remembrance of the Holocaust, of all things, for an anti-Zionist agenda like yours. If you don't understand what's the basic problem with that, then I can't help you.

 

[Cheesy]

One lesson would be not to misuse the remembrance of the Holocaust, of all things, for an anti-Zionist agenda like yours. If you don't understand what's the basic problem with that, then I can't help you.

Why's it an 'agenda' to criticise Israel for their actions?

 

[Synco]

Why's it an 'agenda' to criticise Israel for their actions?

I wrote "anti-Zionist agenda", which is something else. Criticism can be fair and justified or based on distortions.

 

[Sweet Square]

One lesson would be not to misuse the remembrance of the Holocaust, of all things, for an anti-Zionist agenda like yours. If you don't understand what's the basic problem with that, then I can't help you.

I'm pretty sure you already know that Meyer was in a concentration camp(I think it might have been two camps), he's had every right to talk about the holocaust in whatever context he wanted to and it's the duty of idiots like us to listen to him.

 

[Cheesy]

I wrote "anti-Zionist agenda", which is something else. Criticism can be fair and justified or based on distortions.

Surely anti-Zionism is, generally speaking, going to correlate with criticism of Israel?

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Smores]

This might be the one of the worst goverments but they still have considerable backing by brexit voters, backing that has little to nothing to do with their performance.

It's amusing to read complaints that a slim lead isn't enough from those who at the same time want Labour to go full on anti-brexit. You can care about one or the other but noth both.

 

[Synco]

Surely anti-Zionism is, generally speaking, going to correlate with criticism of Israel?

It is the idea that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. Which under any realistic premise means: not exist at all.

I'm pretty sure you already know that Meyer was in a concentration camp(I think it might have been two camps), he's has every right to talk about the holocaust in whatever context he wanted to. And really it's the duty of idiots like us to listen to him.

No dissent in general, but it's more complicated than that: It's safe to say Meyer was an absolute outlier among Holocaust survivors with his views, but when it's only him that draws interest of a group of non-Jews there is something more afoot.

So it's what he said that made him interesting to the organizers, not the will to give Holocaust survivors a platform and just listen. If that would have been the aspiration that day, the panel could have been more, erm, representative of what Jews who survived the Holocaust have to say in 2010. I'm sure there would have been plenty of possibilities to find people who'd like to speak. But that was obviously not the purpose.

 

[Sweet Square]

It is the idea that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. Which under any realistic premise means: not exist at all.

No dissent in general, but it's more complicated than that: It's safe to say Meyer was an absolute outlier among Holocaust survivors with his views, but when it's only him that draws interest of a group of non-Jews there is something more afoot.

So it's what he said that made him interesting to the organizers, not the will to give Holocaust survivors a platform and just listen. If that would have been the aspiration that day, the panel could have been more, erm, representative of what Jews who survived the Holocaust have to say in 2010. I'm sure there would have been plenty of possibilities to find people who'd like to speak. But that was obviously not the purpose.

Holocaust Survivors Condemn Israel for 'Gaza Massacre,' Call for Boycott

https://www.haaretz.com/holocaust-survivors-condemn-israel-for-gaza-massacre-1.5260588

In response to Elie Wiesel advertisement comparing Hamas to Nazis, 327 Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants publish New York Times ad accusing Israel of 'ongoing massacre of the Palestinian people.'

 

[Synco]

Holocaust Survivors Condemn Israel for 'Gaza Massacre,' Call for Boycott

https://www.haaretz.com/holocaust-survivors-condemn-israel-for-gaza-massacre-1.5260588

One remark: The actual number of signatories of that latter who survived the Holocaust is 44. I don't know how many survivors were still alive in 2014, but I'm sure that group was indeed a small minority. The number of 327 adds them and hundreds of descendants together. It was often reported falsely back then (although Haaretz didn't do that).

(Here's the list from the organizers: http://www.ijan.org/projects-campaigns/nafa/survivors-and-descendants-letter/ )

If you read "an absolute outlier among Holocaust survivors" as "there was no one else", that's of course not what I meant.

 

[Silva]

What percentage of holocaust survivors have to agree before something stops being antisemitic?

 

[Synco]

What percentage of holocaust survivors have to agree before something stops being antisemitic?

Read the original post from @Sweet Square (#10555) and my response (#10559) that started this particular discussion. Then you'll know why your question has little to do with what we talked about.

To answer it anyway: There is no quantifiable correlation, but you know that.

 

[Verminator]

A few individuals do not represent the majority view of the larger group.
Choose which organisation you wish to apply that to.

 

[berbatrick]

I know that there are strong concerns about Labour’s new code on antisemitism. We embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition in 2016. Many Jewish organisations and others believe the Labour party should also reproduce in our code all 11 examples appended to it.

Our code is a good faith attempt to contextualise those examples and make them legally watertight for use as part of our disciplinary procedures, as well as to draw on additional instances of antisemitism.

Seven of the IHRA examples were incorporated word-for-word. And I believe the essence of the other four have also been captured.

But I acknowledge that most of the Jewish community, including many Labour supporters, take a different view. The community should have been consulted more extensively at an earlier stage – which is why our executive decided last month to reopen the development of the code in consultation with Jewish community organisations and others to address their concerns.

Our actual differences are in fact very small – they really amount to half of one example out of 11, touching on free speech in relation to Israel. It is unfortunately the case that this particular example, dealing with Israel and racism, has sometimes been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic. The Commons home affairs committee acknowledged this risk when it looked at the IHRA examples.

But I feel confident that this outstanding issue can be resolved through dialogue with community organisations, including the Jewish Labour Movement, during this month’s consultation.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/03/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-party

It is quite meaningless (I don't believe a dialogue is going to resolve anything between 2 very fixed and opposed views) but a good statement (this part and the rest) nonetheless.

 

[Mozza]

One lesson would be not to misuse the remembrance of the Holocaust, of all things, for an anti-Zionist agenda like yours. If you don't understand what's the basic problem with that, then I can't help you.

Because of WW2 I'm an anti facist, therefore I am an anti zionist.

 

[Dobba]

high praise from David Duke

Bad news for Christianity as David Duke endorses it. When do the churches start closing down?

 

[Oscie]

If David Duke endorses something a mainstream political leader says, or something Duke believes he's said or stands for, etc - it's surely obvious why that's more of interest than David Duke condemning or refusing to condone what a mainstream political leader says, or something Duke believe's that he's said. Isn't it?

Or do we expect the media to report on an hourly basis the things racists dislike and politicians they're not endorsing that day?

Probably the most interesting time for the Labour party probably since the mid 1990s, yet this is like a dank corner where 3 old men sit folded arms and anything that isn't praise of the Leader, an irrelevant Tweet or an argument of false equivalence isn't welcome. Where nothing interesting really is ever said because nothing than a mutual understanding that there's nothing to say except to reiterate how great Jezza is, is ever welcome.

Really anyone who long gave up on this thread because of how utterly suffocating "debate" on the subject matter here is, will still be taking an interest in the story, just not really wanting to come in here and discuss it.

It's really bizarre to see other threads in this politics section quite alive with discussion, occasional bickering, but generally an open exchange of views. Then you've this thread, the 'League of Gentlemen shop' thread, the Jeremy Corbyn thread for Jeremy Corbyn supporters. Similar to my contributions to it, it sticks out like a sore thumb here. Like those satellite images of the Korean peninsula and the top bit occupied by complete darkness when there's light all around it.

Struggling vs the worst govt in history and mired in a debate over whether the party, the leader and his supporters are systemically antisemitic. Yet nothing can ever shake from this thread the determination to believe that for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party things are going quite well.

 

[sun_tzu]

Struggling vs the worst govt in history and mired in a debate over whether the party, the leader and his supporters are systemically antisemitic. Yet nothing can ever shake from this thread the determination to believe that for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party things are going quite well.

Indeed... When he somehow contrives to gash up and loose the Next election the meltdown in here is going to be Epic... Though ultimately overshadowed by the blaming of anybody but Corbyn... My bet is it will be Blair's fault

 

[Dobba]

Oscie you manage to offer less than feck all to the thread, you're like a washed up actor who appears at conventions to say his old catchphrase and waits for the applause, which gets shorter and quieter each time. The second someone points out your hypocrisy on an issue you disappear and then return to begin the 'cult' bollocks all over again before crying about how politics is becoming tribal.

 

[Oscie]

Indeed... When he somehow contrives to gash up and loose the Next election the meltdown in here is going to be Epic... Though ultimately overshadowed by the blaming of anybody but Corbyn... My bet is it will be Blair's fault

He won't lose the next election though. He'll get fewer votes and win fewer seats than the party who wins but he'll achieve the highest % share of young voters and his rallies will be attended by more people than other people's rallies.

That's what winning really looks like. Not the neoliberal, Blairite 'wins' that weren't really wins at all but merely getting more votes and winning more seats than any other party.

And also....something about Iraq.

 

[Cheesy]

He won't lose the next election though. He'll get fewer votes and win fewer seats than the party who wins but he'll achieve the highest % share of young voters and his rallies will be attended by more people than other people's rallies.

That's what winning really looks like. Not the neoliberal, Blairite 'wins' that weren't really wins at all but merely getting more votes and winning more seats than any other party.

And also....something about Iraq.

Yes, imagining discussing a widespread, chaotic war which devastated an entire region and caused a significant number of deaths.

 

[Oscie]

Just in regards to this Tweet, it's something I've always wondered. Why Corbyn supporters see him as somehow the heir to Attlee, returning the party to some kind of Attlee-like utopia of left-wing socialism. When in fact everything I know of Attlee (though I won't confess to be an expert) would suggest Blair's government was more in his image if anything than Corbyn's Labour party and that Attlee himself was quite a 'Blairite' for his day.

Indeed from Attlee onwards, with the possible exception of Foot, I can't remember any Labour leader that wasn't from the right or centre of the party. Yet to hear Corbyn supporters speak they believe being led from the hard left is somehow returning it's party to some kind of pre-Blair heritage.

It seems to be either utterly delusional or completely ignorant about who the Labour party have been fo 70 years.

If the level of political discourse was low then as it is now, the people pretending that Corbyn represents a return to Attlee-like socialism would, at the time, be calling Attlee a war criminal, traitor, Zionist scum and a Tory. Anyone who wanted to look at the good things his government did, such as the foundation of the NHS would be told "tell that to the dying children in Dresden that he was in the Tory war cabinet to oversee!" - a point hammered home by a Telegram by Owen Jones' great grandfather making the same point.

 

[Oscie]

For three years there’s been incident after incident involving Corbyn followed by a litany of ridiculous excuses. “I didn’t see”, “I didn’t look closely enough”, “it was just diplomacy, I didn’t mean it”, “I shared a platform but I rejected the view without actually rejecting it”, “I don’t recall”, “I wasn’t aware of his past”, “I wasn’t chairing the meeting”. Again and again. Over and over. Not a single one of these excuses would be granted to any one of Jones’ political enemies but a torrent of them all added together are declared reasonable when it comes to Corbyn. According to Jones, Corbyn is just the unluckiest man in the world.

This is just 'some guys' blog, an article about Owen Jones, but it seemed pertinent.

 

[Cheesy]

Just in regards to this Tweet, it's something I've always wondered. Why Corbyn supporters see him as somehow the heir to Attlee, returning the party to some kind of Attlee-like utopia of left-wing socialism. When in fact everything I know of Attlee (though I won't confess to be an expert) would suggest Blair's government was more in his image if anything than Corbyn's Labour party and that Attlee himself was quite a 'Blairite' for his day.

Indeed from Attlee onwards, with the possible exception of Foot, I can't remember any Labour leader that wasn't from the right or centre of the party. Yet to hear Corbyn supporters speak they believe being led from the hard left is somehow returning it's party to some kind of pre-Blair heritage.

It seems to be either utterly delusional or completely ignorant about who the Labour party have been fo 70 years.

If the level of political discourse was low then as it is now, the people pretending that Corbyn represents a return to Attlee-like socialism would, at the time, be calling Attlee a war criminal, traitor, Zionist scum and a Tory. Anyone who wanted to look at the good things his government did, such as the foundation of the NHS would be told "tell that to the dying children in Dresden that he was in the Tory war cabinet to oversee!" - a point hammered home by a Telegram by Owen Jones' great grandfather making the same point.

If we're talking actual policy on economic issues, Attlee's far closer to Corbyn than Blair was. Even those on the right of Attlee's cabinet still mostly classed themselves as socialists. And remember this is literally the government that came up with the NHS. As always Labour were a broad church and there were far-left mentalists looking to unseat Attlee the moment the party took power, but you're either being disingenuous or ignorant if you think Blair's closer to Attlee economically than Corbyn on economic issues.

You seem to ignore completely that the paradigm shifted massively to the right during the Thatcher years. Plenty of Tories from before her years would've been a lot closer to Blair/Brown than her on economics.

 

[Ubik]

There's no modern analogue to Attlee as a politician, and late 20th/early 21st century Britain is so different to wartime Britain that comparison of policy is just about meaningless.

 

[Dobba]

Yes, imagining discussing a widespread, chaotic war which devastated an entire region and caused a significant number of deaths.

Yeah but Sure Start.

 

[Cheesy]

There's no modern analogue to Attlee as a politician, and late 20th/early 21st century Britain is so different to wartime Britain that comparison of policy is just about meaningless.

Yeah, comparisons to former politicians are inherently difficult because of how much things have changed. Attlee had a fondness for the empire that a lot of Labour supporters would balk at today, but probably partly because of the era he came from. I'll maintain that on actual economic policy though he was solidly left and would be considered on the left of the party today if he maintained his economic views from that time-period.

 

[Cheesy]

Yeah but Sure Start.

I'm not even against praise for Blair's governments - objectively speaking they achieved plenty even if there are severe criticisms to be made. But someone saying "But Iraq" in an ironic sense strikes me as fairly ignorant and bizarre. I'd understand if the war was someone Blair was unwittingly dragged into by a country determined to go - to the contrary, our involvement was to a significant extent a byproduct of his fairly hawkish approach, his black-and-white worldview when it came to foreign policy, and his belief that he held more sway with Bush and his cabinet than he really did. Indeed his decision to go with the US into Iraq was probably one of the most conviction-laden things he did. On that front it's fair game to criticise him for it because it came as a direct result of his political approach as a leader and his tendency to prefer a select few close advisers as opposed to his cabinet as a whole.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I'm not even against praise for Blair's governments - objectively speaking they achieved plenty even if there are severe criticisms to be made. But someone saying "But Iraq" in an ironic sense strikes me as fairly ignorant and bizarre. I'd understand if the war was someone Blair was unwittingly dragged into by a country determined to go - to the contrary, our involvement was to a significant extent a byproduct of his fairly hawkish approach, his black-and-white worldview when it came to foreign policy, and his belief that he held more sway with Bush and his cabinet than he really did. Indeed his decision to go with the US into Iraq was probably one of the most conviction-laden things he did. On that front it's fair game to criticise him for it because it came as a direct result of his political approach as a leader and his tendency to prefer a select few close advisers as opposed to his cabinet as a whole.

All that will be irrelevant to the next general election, general elections going forward after that and any new centrist Labour movement that might form. That was the posters point I think.

 

[Dobba]

All that will be irrelevant to the next general election, general elections going forward after that and any new centrist Labour movement that might form. That was the posters point I think.

Can someone tell Blair that he'll be irrelevant to Labour before he's back, on any medium that will have him, to tell people to vote for Tories and Lib Dems again, whilst Labour members who back Green party policy on Twitter get kicked out of the party?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Can someone tell Blair that he'll be irrelevant to Labour before he's back, on any medium that will have him, to tell people to vote for Tories and Lib Dems again, whilst Labour members who back Green party policy on Twitter get kicked out of the party?

Blair is free to say whatever he wants. Does he have any real influence over the party any more?

 

[Cheesy]

All that will be irrelevant to the next general election, general elections going forward after that and any new centrist Labour movement that might form. That was the posters point I think.

It's relevant when Oscie talks about the Blair years as a period of unparalleled greatness we need to return to instantly. Ideally we can consign it to the past and I'm not particularly keen on branding all Labour centrists as pro-war Blairites etc. Just that it's relevant if we're considering his merits and drawbacks as a leader.

 

[Dobba]

Blair is free to say whatever he wants. Does he have any real influence over the party any more?

Apparently enough to be able to get away with considerably worse than your average member, without even a whiff of the threat of expulsion.

 

[Ubik]

Yeah, comparisons to former politicians are inherently difficult because of how much things have changed. Attlee had a fondness for the empire that a lot of Labour supporters would balk at today, but probably partly because of the era he came from. I'll maintain that on actual economic policy though he was solidly left and would be considered on the left of the party today if he maintained his economic views from that time-period.

He wasn't on the left of the Labour party at the time, and wasn't really one of the driving forces behind the push for nationalisation of industry that was going on. NHS, yes, but remember that came from the recommendations of the Beveridge report, a Lib. There was also massive austerity under his government (obviously not that surprising given the war). Was a weird time in politics, though I guess it's gone back to being pretty weird now.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Apparently enough to be able to get away with considerably worse than your average member, without even a whiff of the threat of expulsion.

Surely there's a crusty socialist somewhere in the party with the power to do something about it?

 

[Cheesy]

He wasn't on the left of the Labour party at the time, and wasn't really one of the driving forces behind the push for nationalisation of industry that was going on. NHS, yes, but remember that came from the recommendations of the Beveridge report, a Lib. There was also massive austerity under his government (obviously not that surprising given the war). Was a weird time in politics, though I guess it's gone back to being pretty weird now.

Yeah, suffice to say the war really changed everything. Like a lot of Europe we were massively dependent on the US as well financially.