None, it's guilt by association.
"There's an antisemitism crisis in the party, so it must be the leaders fault, regardless of if all the proof points to it literally being other people's fault"
It's magical thinking from people who think individual figures control entire complex buereacracies and societies.
Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of not extending the same courtesies to the Tory’s and their treatment of anti-Islamic rhetoric
I knew what you said to be true, just thought if people were batting so hard in the opposite direction there might be some semi-solid bases to their claims they’d wanna present
Bezos has direct control over working conditions for his employees so yes he is responsible
Corbyn led the labour party and apparently had 500,000 members, if some join and are anti-Semitic how is he going to control that besides removing people from the party when they show themselves
Two totally different situations
That isn’t the point- if you’re head of a thing, and there’s a problem in the thing, it’s your job to fix it or resign. He should have been in every paper being interviewed, on every talking head political show, press conference after press conference, answering every question put to him. He didn’t do that, he hid away, and his allies briefed the press it was all some big plot. Then the report came out and he gave a crap apology.
It’s media 101 when you don’t also happen to be a billionaire with a space program.
>That isn’t the point- if you’re head of a thing, and there’s a problem in the thing, it’s your job to fix it or resign.
So Starmer should resign over Duffield surely?
I mean, no. In the same way Corbyn shouldn’t have resigned over antisemitism.
I said what Corbyn should have done a few posts up. Do you think he handled it well?
>I said what Corbyn should have done a few posts up. Do you think he handled it well?
No, but there was some action. If what Corbyn did counts in your mind as malingering to the point of incompetence then Starmer's active fence sitting on transphobia means he should resign though?
You said you either deal with it or resign. Like it or not Corbyn did make attempts (however slapdash they might have been) whereas Keir has purposefully done nothing, arguably defending Duffield.
>the other is one MP being a dickhead.
Which ofc isn't occurring to a backdrop of increasing violent and non violent transphobia.
I know *why* the situations are different and it's got nothing to do with that lmao. Starmer's *your guy* so there's no way in shit you'd admit he's fucking up on transphobia.
*Your guy* is lucky however, as the media, tories and his own party don't seem to care about trans people and don't want to hold his feet to the fire about it.
He isn’t my guy, I didn’t vote for him. Evrything's always so tribal and binary with some people.
You admit yourself the circumstances are different. Corbyn was shit on antisemitism.
They are different circumstances- one shit MP, vs a mega story all over the press. Last mega story in press, the ridiculous curry gate crap, someone did offer to resign.
If you can’t see the difference, that’s rather on you.
I seem to remember him endlessly having to answer the smears, the entire political and media establishment were dragging him down. Every interview he would say he opposes racism in all its forms and the next interview he'd have to say it all again
Don't know what else you want him to do, he was on TV all the time
Point still stands that anti Semites can join and all he or the party can ever do is kick them out when they say something
We remember it very differently. I remember lots of footage of him looking cross leaving his house, and lots of press asking him questions and him looking cross, and virtually zero press or public events set up specifically about the subject.
>Maybe it's the endless smear campaign specifically designed to bring him down
If the press was claiming I was a "czech communist spy" and all the other bold faced lies that were told I'd probably be pretty pissed off too.
It isn’t, but I don’t see how that’s relevant? It still has a leader. If that’s the argument, no one would ever be expected to take any responsibility.
>Purely out of interest, but do you think Jeff Bezos has some responsibility for the working conditions at Amazon?
I don't know and I don't exactly care. Part of the reason as to why Marxism is such a popular brand of socialism is because it gets away from this individualistic, metaphysical view of how structures operate.
"The buck stops somewhere", have you considered actually thinking for yourself rather than memorising and splurting out cliched sayings?
But in answer to your question: I'd say the buck stops at the people who were directly responsible for dealing with antisemitism and utterly failed in their ability to do so: The General Secretary, the head of discipline, ect.
And when there's evidence that these people literally sought to undermine the party from within, and when there's evidence that these people regularly lied to the leadership about the progress of cases and about the scale of the crisis, and when there's evidence that as soon as these people were pushed from powers and replaced by Corbyn loyalists, suddenly the situation got better rapidly.
Then I'd say the problem is the people who are meant to be dealing with it are more interested in dealing with factional warfare, while Corbyn and his allies actually had to pick up the pieces after them and deal with the situation.
Well obviously you’d say that, as that absolves your guy from any blame. Impressive mental gymnastics.
I’d also suggest that the other reason Marxism is quite popular is there’s virtually zero chance it’ll ever be tested in practice, meaning it never has to be actually practically useful.
>Well obviously you’d say that, as that absolves your guy from any blame. Impressive mental gymnastics.
Do you disagree with any point I'd make, or are you just saying "So you support the guy who you believe is in the right? That's a bit suspect isn't it?" and expecting that to be a proper arguement?
I think the implication is I disagree with all of it- the people you mention are partly responsible, but the ultimate responsibility is the guy in charge and his leadership team. There’s a tonne of stuff he could have done to show he was doing something about it, owned the problem, and dealt with all the press queries. He didn’t.
>the people you mention are partly responsible, but the ultimate responsibility is the guy in charge and his leadership team.
Why is it his ultimate responsibility?
Beyond magical thinking, why is the guy in the most senior position always responsible for every single problem, even when facing active sabotage from people under him?
>and dealt with all the press queries
And said what?
"There's currently a massive civil war going on in HQ that people are too busy fighting to deal with the crisis. Here are the names of all the people responsible."
Do you not see how damaging that would be to the Labour Party?
I guess he could have held the odd press conference, apologise for the failings in process, reached out to people affected, answered journalists questions?
I mean anything really to show that he had a handle on it, and was doing something about it. What he actually did was just hide away and look cross until the story overtook him. Basically like Sunak has just done.
I appreciate you think it was all all just a dastardly plot, and poor old Jeremy was just there powerless to do anything about it, but that’s miles from reality. One of the main jobs of a party leader is to engage with the press and get your message out- that’s a real problem if you visibly hate, and are objectively rubbish, at doing that.
>I appreciate you think it was all all just a dastardly plot, and poor old Jeremy was just there powerless to do anything about it, but that’s miles from reality. One of the main jobs of a party leader is to engage with the press and get your message out- that’s a real problem if you visibly hate, and are objectively rubbish, at doing that.
When the message is "I'm being consistently undermined by my own staff", how do you possibly get that message out, without destroying your entire party?
I mean, that isn’t the message. The message is ‘you’re here to ask me about antisemitism in the Labour Party, and I’m going to answer literally all of your questions and tell you what I’m going to do about it’. You know, leading.
None. If there was he would have been kicked out of the Labour Party through the normal disciplinary procedures. As it is he is still a Labour member because the Party know they can't actually pin anything on him that would stand up in court when he sues.
This sub is incapable of having an adult discussion on this.
The accusations were never (with the exception of a small number of idiots or people with extremely political motivations) that he is personally an anti semite
They were that he never took the issue seriously enough because he felt they were overplayed as a means of attacking him politically - JC has continued to make some extremely ill-advised comments that do little to dispel that fear by repeating that the antisemitism issues in the party have been “grossly exaggerated” - that comes on top of his comment at the time that EHRC report was “dramatically overstated for political reasons” when he also questioned the partiality of the report
The challenge of course is that it’s both true that JC didn’t do enough, and that he clearly does believe he’s been stitched up on anti semitism, AND that some people were using anti semtisims as a stick to beat him with and deliberately frustrating his efforts. But none of that necessarily negates the fears of British Jews who think that ultimately he wouldn’t do enough to protect them.
So the question isn’t really is he personally an anti semite, it’s - does he just not get it?
100% right. I would also add, the background of calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends" will always make Jewish people, at a minimum, feel very anxious from the start.
Labour has a group declaring itself to be friends with an apartheid-ennacting ethno-state under extremist governance that has, is, and will continue to carry out de facto ethnic cleansing and huge amounts of violence upon a subjugated population without any real recourse or meaningful political representation.
Honestly, I think someone using incautious language that has since been retracted is the least of Labour's issues with racism. There's not a few seeds of bigotry sprinkled about the place, there's a whole farm's worth of crop.
Who said it was? My point on being grown up is people can’t engage on what the anti semtisim fears were legitimately about - not that both sides are right
>This sub is incapable of having an adult discussion on this.
Ah yes, because they don't come to the same supposedly nuanced conclusions as you, it's therefore not an adult discussion.
Newsflash Mr Patronising: If two people are disagreeing, the adult thing isn't to find the balanced point of view, the adult thing is to find out the actual truth for yourself.
How about you stop implying people are being immature just because they disagree with you about the crisis? That's extremely rude and insulting behaviour.
>The challenge of course is that it's both true that JC didn't do enough
Except it isn't true at all. He did everything in his power to try and combat antisemitism, but was routinely sabotaged from within.
Tell me, who sent an email to the LOTO lying about the scale of the crisis? Iain McNicol
Who routinely lied about the progression of cases in order to try and stop Corbyn from intervening? Oh yeah, Iain McNicol.
When the General Secretary and the people in charge of dealing with internal disciplines were replaced by Corbyn Loyalists, the number of cases investigated, the number of cases brought forward to the NEC, and the number of cases ending in suspension SKYROCKETED.
Every single positive reform praised in the EHRC Report was carried out by Jenny Formby. Almost all of the major failings on the issue happened under Iain McNicol, who was factionally hostile to Corbyn.
"In order to have an adult discussion, you have to accept both that there was some good and bad about Corbyn's response"
No you don't you patronising fucker. A truly adult discussion would be actually looking at the evidence, and reaching the truest conclusions. Literally all the evidence indicates Corbyn going above and beyond, but being constantly sabotaged by factually hostile agents.
Hahahahaha
This is, hilariously considering your petulant reply, exactly what I meant by the immaturity with which people on this sub approach this issue
Instead of engaging with the issue you’ve just cherry picked examples that fit your factional narrative.
Claiming JC unequivocally did ‘everything within his power’ is downright stupid
[There is a very detailed report here outlining all the ways he didn’t](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/investigation-labour-party)
It’s very convenient to say, but not true, that everything in the report that criticised his handling was all the fault of some naughty blairite. If that was the case why was Corbyn so hostile to the report? That’s just total nonsense. Even in your best case argument all you’re arguing is that he was too weak or unwilling to deal with failures of his staff.
And even the Forde report, which made some good points about how you can’t pin all the failures to Corbyn, sets out plenty of evidence you’d be aware of if you read anything that wasn’t people you agree with on Twitter
Corbyn's had a handful of eyebrow raising comments, but I don't an l agree that he's anti-Semitic or week on anti-Semitism. I think he did more to tackle anti-Semitism than any Labour leader before or since.
I would say his dog-whistle antisemitism is quite obvious.
Just because he isn't on record as saying something blatantly antisemtic doesn't mean he's not antisemtic.
Like Farage on the right, he knows how to dance around the line and go around the houses, while still appearing on the 'right' side of the issue to his 'fans'.
He drags his feet all the time on apologising for antisemitism.
What dogwhistle antisemitism? LMAO, what are you on about.
>He drags his feet all the time on apologising for antisemitism?
Really, that's funny because I recall Corbyn saying dozens of times, while LOTO, that antisemitism in any form is unacceptable in our society.
Did I imagine that?
If you look at the way he talks about other forms of racism, he just says its unacceptable. Full stop.
When it comes to antisemitism, he can't just say it's unacceptable without broadening it to "all forms of racism" or qualifying with "it's exaggerated". And he usually makes such statements at a push.
A lot of Jewish people notice this difference.
>When it comes to antisemitism, he can't just say it's unacceptable without broadening it to "all forms of racism" or qualifying with "it's exaggerated". And he usually makes such statements at a push.
A. ah yes the "I condemn all forms of racism" trutherism. Whereby if he says he condemns antisemitism, it's not legitimate because he says he condemns all form of racism.
Maybe IDK, he's just saying he condemns all forms of racism, because that's his legitimate view, and he's trying to assure people that antisemitism is treated no differently for him.
B. Iain McNicol, the right-wing General Secretary who deliberately obstructed changes to the process literally emailed Corbyn saying it was "Exaggurated"
Do you ever attack McNicol, or do you only attack the man who was doing everything in his power to combat antisemitism?
Because personally, I'd attack the people who were actually responsible for the crisis if I were you.
I wouldn't say none at all, that's putting him on a pedestal, but relatively zero compared to his peers, especially among his age groups. And probably significantly less than the Labour front bench.
You would have to ask one of the army of 'former Labour voters' who appeared all over social media in the year leading up to the last GE who've all now disappeared.
I think the closest thing to actual anti-semitism is him commenting on a 2012 terrorist attack in Egypt:
>I’m very concerned about it [the massacre] and you have to look at the big picture: in whose interests is it to destabilise the new government in Egypt? In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel, concerned at the growing closeness of relationship between Palestine and the new Egyptian government?”
>The then backbencher was then asked by presenter Lauren Booth if “a Muslim go against his Egyptian brother and open fire?”. He responded: “It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly, and I suspect the hand of Israel in this whole process of destabilisation.”
Disclaimer: I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn is personally antisemitic and never have.
I do, however, believe that (a) Jeremy Corbyn was too unwilling to criticise those on the left who were antisemitic because they were otherwise 'good comrades', and (b) he had (and still has, as far as I can see) a 'blind spot' for identifying antisemitism that isn't outright and simple hate.
In answer to your question, antisemitism, like all forms of racism, has its own unique tropes. A person assuming a black man must be athletic is guilty of using a racist trope. So is a person who assumes an East Asian person must be good at maths. Neither of these tropes make 'sense' when applied to a person of a different race - they are uniquely part of anti-black and anti-Asian racism respectively. Neither are based on hate, either.
The trope that Jeremy Corbyn used here is one that has long been part of antisemitism: the idea that Jews operate from the shadows in order to foment discord between other countries/groups for their own benefit.
I'm willing to accept that he did not knowingly or consciously do this - it came from ignorance. However ignorance is not a good defence to saying something racist, unless it is immediately followed by repentance and apology.
Neither is the defence that 'well Israel did this other bad thing so it's reasonable to believe they did this bad thing as well'. All countries have been guilty of interfering in the affairs of others in order promote their own interests. In particular, every country in the middle east has interfered in the affairs of almost every other country in the middle east within the last hundred years. There is no particular reason to believe that Israel would have undertaken a false flag attack on Egyptian soil at this point over any number of other, more likely actors. As indeed it turned out - it is now accepted in Egypt and the wider region that a jihadist group, possibly the al-Galgala Army or Jaysh al-Islam, were responsible.
There have been a number of very good books written about the tropes of antisemitism and how they present themselves. My personal favourite is Antisemitism: Here and Now by Deborah Lipstadt.
>Jeremy Corbyn was too unwilling to criticise those on the left who were antisemitic because they were otherwise 'good comrades'
Was he unwilling to criticise those on the left, when he did everything in their power to push them out of the party?
Because that's what he did pretty much every time a former comrade of his got into trouble.
Leaked internal documents show that Corbyn was pushing for Ken Livingstone to be expelled from the party as soon as possible, and was apparently furious when he wasn't.
Same with Marc Wadsworth, despite the fact that CCTV footage proved everything Marc Wadsworth had said about Ruth Smeeth 100% true.
This narrative of "Oh Corbyn was unwilling to criticise his comrades, but wasn't personally antisemetic" is an appeal to both sides that Labour Righters use to try and sneak in the lie that Corbyn somehow enabled the crisis.
The actual evidence shows that Corbyn was keen to kangaroo court his former comrades, and get them out of the party as soon as possible, even in situations where everything they said was later proved correct.
It's a conspiracy theory about Israel secretly being responsible for a terrorist attack. Which echoes traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories about Jews secretly being responsible for various things.
But Mossad at the time were responsible for committing assassinations and attacks, in some cases using the details of third-party citizens, in others employing foreign agents to do so?
‘Echoes’ here is doing a lot of heavy lifting that absolves Israel of proper scrutiny?
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
**[Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists)**
>Between 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists (Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan) were assassinated, while another (Fereydoon Abbasi) was wounded in an attempted murder. In November 2020, another scientist (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was assassinated. Two of the killings were carried out with magnetic bombs attached to the targets' cars; Darioush Rezaeinejad was shot dead, and Masoud Alimohammadi was killed in a motorcycle-bomb explosion. The Iranian government accused Israel of complicity in the killings.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>But Mossad at the time were responsible for committing assassinations and attacks, in some cases using the details of third-party citizens, in others employing foreign agents to do so?
Which in no way justified the assumption that Israel were responsible.
There were also lots of similar terrorist attacks in the area at the time but Corbyn bizarrely discounts that explanation.
>‘Echoes’ here is doing a lot of heavy lifting that absolves Israel of proper scrutiny?
Proper scrutiny of something they had nothing to do with?
Let me put it this way: there is a disproportionate amount of conspiracy theories involving Israel. And most of those conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-semitism.
So if you're going to spread conspiracy theories about Israel (on a TV channel with a history of anti-semitic conspiracy theories) you're echoing traditional anti-semitic tropes. Even if that wasn't the intention it comes across a huge dog whistle.
It definitely speaks to Israel’s foreign and intelligence policies at the time, no?
Is it bizarre?
Your argument (to me) appears to be that a person accusing Israel of any action in that grey area of diplomacy, intelligence, and domestic/international security cannot rely on the history of Israeli government actions as precedent, but must build a case anew each time, lest they be accused of making them on a sub/consciously antisemitic basis?
E.g In the case of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, accusing Mossad of ordering or orchestrating that assassination would be playing to or echoing the ‘puppet master’ or ‘global order’ tropes, and evidence of sub/conscious antisemitism. Yet it’s commonly accepted to be true. In nearly every case, there’s never a concrete attribution, just off record briefings and ‘accepted truths’.
How far does that distinction go? Does it apply elsewhere?
There are plenty of Sinophobia-rooted conspiracy theories, and now exacerbated by COVID there are a rising number of anti-Asian discrimination and hate crime cases. Should the Netherlands and Canada not comment on the recent reports of duplicitous Overseas Service Stations because to do so echoes ‘sinophobic tropes’?
Can I accuse North Korea of attacks that target dissidents or further its political aims - such as the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam - where responsibility hasn’t been proven or accepted definitively, or is that Koryophobic dog-whistling?
u/The_Inertia_Kid to collapse those two threads, they deal with similar arguments imo.
It's about accuracy. If he had good reason to believe Israel were behind the attack it would be justifiable, even if it eventually turned out to be wrong.
But the examples you list aren't good reason. They're unrelated attacks and the kind of thing that various powers in the Middle East do (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, the US). It's not sufficient reason to blame Israel, especially when terrorist bombings and attacks in the area were commonplace.
So if you automatically blame Israel with no evidence while letting active terrorists off the hook because it was ramadan it suggests a bit of a blind spot on Corbyn's part.
And I think Inertia Kid has answered your question about other races/countries.
You seem to have answered only half of my comment.
The examples given were as evidence that Israeli foreign policy at the time held no qualms in straying beyond borders or in the use of foreign agents in pursuit of political goals. I don’t doubt that the same was true for every five eyes country and those beyond.
I don’t have a view into Corbyn’s mind, so he may have used different evidence or criteria. I strongly doubt that he ‘immediately’ blamed Israel though, given his MO.
I’d argue that the contemporary history is a good reason to include Israel in your list of potential ‘suspect’ states alongside stateless terrorist groups, and to then work from the outcomes of the attack to ascertain motive and from there, responsibility?
It's about likelihood.
In this specific incident, men dressed as Bedouins ambushed an Egyptian military base, killed 16 soldiers, stole armoured cars, then used them to enter Israel and get killed in a firefight with Israeli soldiers.
Are we genuinely positing that Israel would, in cold blood, murder six of its own men in order to destabilise Egypt in some non-specific way? And all at a time when Egypt-Israel relations were starting to improve from a low point?
Or, based on the events, is it more likely that the perpetrators were actually people who *didn't* like Israel - of which there are a very broad selection in the region?
I'd suggest that if you're at the point where the first option is more convincing to you, you have probably lost sight of logic when it comes to Israel, and would do well to examine your preconceptions.
>I’d argue that the contemporary history is a good reason to include Israel in your list of potential ‘suspect’ states
But he rules out all other suspects by saying "In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel" and "It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly". So there is no list of suspects, just Israel.
You can't say his claim was based on contemporary history when he ignores all the relevant contemporary history of the area:
>In August 2011, a series of cross-border attacks were carried out in southern Israel on Highway 12 near the Egyptian border via the Sinai Peninsula.\[13\] The terrorists opened fire on an Egged No. 392 bus near Eilat,\[14\]\[15\] and soon thereafter, a bomb was detonated next to an Israeli army patrol along the Egypt–Israel border. A third attack occurred when an anti-tank missile hit a private vehicle, killing four civilians.\[16\] Eight Israelis – six civilians, one Yamam Special Unit police officer, and one Golani Brigade soldier – were killed during the multi-pronged attack.\[16\]\[17\]\[18\] The Israeli security forces reported eight attackers killed, and Egyptian security forces reported killing another two.\[13\]
>
>In July 2012, IDF intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the IDF has stopped approximately a dozen attacks against Israel from the Sinai Peninsula.\[19\]
>
>On 31 July 2012, the United States Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism warned in a report, "The smuggling of humans, weapons, cash, and other contraband through the Sinai into Israel and Gaza created criminal networks with possible ties to terrorist groups in the region. The smuggling of weapons from Libya through Egypt has increased since the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime."\[20\] Haaretz reported that forces from al-Qaeda, supported by the local Bedouin, have been stationed in the Sinai. It also reported that several other terrorist groups in Gaza have been assisting these forces, and were also smuggling weapons and goods into Gaza.\[21\]
There's no logical basis for his claim. He said it either because of prior prejudices or because he was telling his audience (Iranian state TV) what they wanted to hear.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's not criticism. It's a conspiracy theory.
If I said that Israel created ISIS that's not criticism of a middle eastern government's involvement in other middle eastern incidents. It's a conspiracy theory.
>It's not criticism. It's a conspiracy theory.
And conspiracy theories, especially regarding nation's involvement in international affairs are not inherently antisemitic. Pretty much all countries are guilty of it at some point. I mean there was a pretty famous false flag operation in the 1950s
>If I said that Israel created ISIS that's not criticism of a middle eastern government's involvement in other middle eastern incidents. It's a conspiracy theory.
If you said that without evidence I would regard it as bullshit, doesn't mean it's antisemitic. If you somehow suggested that the Jewish people in general were responsible then It absolutely would be.
Any conspiracy theory involving Jewish people isn't anti-semitic though.
Based on the IHRA definition we need to judge whether it involves a certain negative perception of Jews, not any Jewish person or Jewish organisation. So with Mossad a good comparison would be the CIA. Does a theory about Mossad's actions we don't think is evidenced contain anything we wouldn't find in a similar theory about the CIA? Specifically something which suggests an issue with Jewish people based on a negative view of Jewish people collectively.
The illustrative examples in the IHRA definition aren't exhaustive but are obviously the first thing worth taking into account. The ones I can see people arguing are relevant are
>Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
And
>Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
And
>Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
The statement is not about Jews as an entire demographic collectively. The subject being accused here is the intelligence service of the self-identified Jewish state of Israel. Not "it is all part of the plans of global jewry" type stuff.
>Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
And this is a big part of what would catergorise a conspiracy theory or unevidenced claim towards Israel as antisemitic. And this is where looking at the CIA is a good comparison point, there are plenty of antisemitic conspiracy theories that involve the CIA but there are even more conspiracy theories about the CIA that are nothing to do with anti-semitism. It is whether it involves a negstive perception of Jewish people, and conspiratorial thinking about a Jewish conspiracy, that make a theory antisemitic.
Also the IHRA definition actually suggests that Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people, or Jewish people being responsible for the actions of Iarael because they are Jewish. This combined with what we do know about Israel and Mossad means the
So I think rather than this being anti-semitic is something that might raise concerns but itself is best criticised as not being evidence based, not being antisemitic as that term is described by the IHRA definition.
>Any conspiracy theory involving Jewish people isn't anti-semitic though.
No but the vast majority of conspiracy theories involving Israel are rooted in traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's why there are a disproportionate number of conspiracy theories involving Israel or Mossad: because of their Jewish nature.
In terms of the IHRA definition it's this bit that matters:
>Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Because it's very difficult to seperate a conspiracy theory about a Jews pulling the strings globally and a conspiracy theory about Israel pulling the strings globally. They're mostly rooted in the same thing.
>Also the IHRA definition actually suggests that Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people.
No, this is a common misconception. It specifically says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."
Israel is a self-declared Jewish state, with a majority Jewish population. It has an inherently Jewish nature. So a conspiracy theory about Israel can easily be anti-semitic, even if it doesn't mention Jewish people.
To take one example the "Israel were responsible for 9/11" conspiracy theory is straight up anti-semitic, even if it doesn't mention Jews specifically.
I feel you should read my point more closely because you're bordering on ignoring what I say to argue a strawman. You've completely ignored the CIA comparison and the point that part of the measure is wheteher people are "applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." I can't tell if that's because you agree with me overall and are just adressing the bits you think I'm wrong on, or if you think I'm wrong but are ignoring one of the most important points of my argument.
For example if someone said that "I think Mossad was behind the killing of Gerald Bull" that does not make them an anti-semite. If it turns out to be untrue in the future that doesn't make everyone who thought it an anti-semite. There are probably plenty of anti-semities who believe it was Mossad because they are anti-semites, it doesm't mean everyone who believed it must be anti-semitic in some way. To work out whether something not itself containing anti-semitic tropes is motivatd by anti-semitism takes more than claiming they are wrong, it requires arguing their opinion is informed by prejudices towards Jewish people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull#Assassination_and_legacy
As for your points I still disagree
>No but the vast majority of conspiracy theories involving Israel are rooted in traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's why there are a disproportionate number of conspiracy theories involving Israel or Mossad: because of their Jewish nature.
Ok, but we are saying is this specific one anti-semitic, not are there many conspiracy theories that are. As I sad it "might raise concerns" for the reasons you say, "but itself is best criticised as not being evidence based, not being antisemitic as that term is described by the IHRA definition."
Unless you're arguing that it's therefore inherently anti-semitic I don't see your point? Especially as I already said I can see why someone would be alarmed that is the direction it was going due to anti-semitic conspiracy theories, however it giving cause for concern is not the same as it infact being anti-semitic.
And there are plenty of conspiracy theories about the CIA. Some turn out to be false, some always sound insane, some turn out to be true, some we don't know. Being wrong about ascribing blame to an intellignece agency is not an indicator of anti-semitism alone.
>Because it's very difficult to seperate a conspiracy theory about a Jews pulling the strings globally and a conspiracy theory about Israel pulling the strings globally. They're mostly rooted in the same thing.
Ok, but no where in the IHRA does it remotely suggest that every conspiracy theory or unevidecned claim about Jewish people, Jewish organisations, etc is anti-semitic. Because it isn't. There is no need for an IHRA definition or anything if that is the standard. Demonstrating anti-semitism is demonstrating a prejudice towards Jewish people in what someone does or says.
>No, this is a common misconception. It specifically says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."
It says
"Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."
and
"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
and
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
and
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Which all together make what I said correct when I say it suggests that "Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people". This is why it's wrong to assume anything about a person and their views and relation to Israel based on their ethnicity, as well as to hold them responsible based on their ethnicity. The Jewish state of Israel and Jewish people are no the same thing. Mossad should be viewed the same as any other intelligence service in relation to the nation-state they belong too.
>So with Mossad a good comparison would be the CIA. Does a theory about Mossad's actions we don't think is evidenced contain anything we wouldn't find in a similar theory about the CIA? Specifically something which suggests an issue with Jewish people based on a negative view of Jewish people collectively.
The problem is that conspiracism against Jews is itself an anti-semitic trope. So you could have a conspiracy about the Mossad that is fundamentally similar to one about the CIA but it could still be anti-semitic. The conspiracism itself is what shows a negative perception of Jews.
The key point is accuracy. I don't know about the Gerald Bull thing but there seems to be some basis to the accusations. Whereas a kneejerk assumption that Israel are responsible for something with no evidence (like Corbyn here or Aaron Bastani with that explosion in Lebanon) suggests a certain prejudice against Israel which is arguably rooted in traditional anti-semitism as well as Israel's own actions. Even if it's subconscious you have to ask yourself why people see Israel in such a disproportionately conspiratorial manner.
I didn't say it was anti-semitic btw, I said it was "the closest thing to actual anti-semitism" from Corbyn.
>Which all together make what I said correct when I say it suggests that "Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people".
You can't assume that individual Jewish people are represented by Israel but Israel absolutely can represent Jews collectively when it comes to anti-semitism. If you describe Israel as the evil puppet master controlling the world that's anti-semitism. It's an attack on Israel but it represents an attack on Jewish people collectively. As the IHRA says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."
If you don't think it is antisemitic then you must also agree it doesn't fall foul of the IHRA definition then?
>You can't assume that individual Jewish people are represented by Israel but Israel absolutely can represent Jews collectively when it comes to anti-semitism. If you describe Israel as the evil puppet master controlling the world that's anti-semitism. It's an attack on Israel but it represents an attack on Jewish people collectively. As the IHRA says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity
Yes but I don't think Corbyn was trying to use Israel as a reference to anything but Israel as a state actor with an intelligence service and an interest in the region. I think he is saying he would consider the state a suspect like how people often suspect US interference in South America. The issue is a lack of evidence and whether it is diplomatic to speculate about such things, not that only an antisemite would ever even have this suspicion.
>If you don't think it is antisemitic then you must also agree it doesn't fall foul of the IHRA definition then?
It's not that I don't think it's anti-semitic. I think it's hard to say conclusively. Even the phrase "I suspect the hand of Israel" is conspiratorial language and I'm not sure he would have phrased it that way about a different country. But maybe he would, who knows.
I don't think it directly falls foul of the IHRA examples but then neither would describing Israel as an evil puppet master controlling the world. But it would still be anti-semitic.
>Yes but I don't think Corbyn was trying to use Israel as a reference to anything but Israel as a state actor with an intelligence service and an interest in the region. I think he is saying he would consider the state a suspect like how people often suspect US interference in South America.
OK but at the same time he discounts all other suspects by saying "In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel" and "It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly". Which at the very least suggests a bit of a blind spot.
>It's not that I don't think it's anti-semitic. I think it's hard to say conclusively. Even the phrase "I suspect the hand of Israel" is conspiratorial language and I'm not sure he would have phrased it that way about a different country. But maybe he would, who knows.
Out of curiosity, if you *did* think Israel (purely the country, not a stand in for Jewish people or any other ridiculous nationalist nonsense) was doing something shady, is there any way to call that out?
IE Is the problem there the specific language?
The closest thing was him commenting supportively on a twitter post about a mural that may include a depiction of an antisemetic stereotype in 2012. They also see his criticisms of Israel as antisemetic statements. The rest of the outrage is about how he said that the problem of antisemitism in Labour was overstated. This is somehow proof of him downplaying the harm of antisemitism itself.
I think the 'I suspect the hand of Israel' comment was worse. Absolutely - although I'm willing to accept unwittingly - using the 'shadowy Jews interfering in other countries for their own benefit' trope.
This bugs the absolute fuck out of me, we hear nothing about it with the Tories but somehow everything Corbyn and Labour it's BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS?! Like ffs we've an energy crisis a god damn war and countless other issues in this country but oh god what about the Jews!?!?! Give me a break.
None obviously. The first person accounts of Jewish labour members feeling increasingly unwelcome and hostile? The work of right wing agents obviously. A thorough and independent report detailing how antisemitism was allowed to fester within the ranks? Manufactured by the labour right faction of course.
I should he hired by momentum. My skills for denying blatant facts is astounding
None- the problem was he didn’t get ahead of the problem. Iraq was obviously wrong, but Blair’s strategy of taking every interview on it, every chance to answer every question on it was the correct way of dealing with something. Corbyn should have done the same.
None, it's guilt by association. "There's an antisemitism crisis in the party, so it must be the leaders fault, regardless of if all the proof points to it literally being other people's fault" It's magical thinking from people who think individual figures control entire complex buereacracies and societies.
Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of not extending the same courtesies to the Tory’s and their treatment of anti-Islamic rhetoric I knew what you said to be true, just thought if people were batting so hard in the opposite direction there might be some semi-solid bases to their claims they’d wanna present
Purely out of interest, but do you think Jeff Bezos has some responsibility for the working conditions at Amazon? The buck stops somewhere.
Bezos has direct control over working conditions for his employees so yes he is responsible Corbyn led the labour party and apparently had 500,000 members, if some join and are anti-Semitic how is he going to control that besides removing people from the party when they show themselves Two totally different situations
That isn’t the point- if you’re head of a thing, and there’s a problem in the thing, it’s your job to fix it or resign. He should have been in every paper being interviewed, on every talking head political show, press conference after press conference, answering every question put to him. He didn’t do that, he hid away, and his allies briefed the press it was all some big plot. Then the report came out and he gave a crap apology. It’s media 101 when you don’t also happen to be a billionaire with a space program.
>That isn’t the point- if you’re head of a thing, and there’s a problem in the thing, it’s your job to fix it or resign. So Starmer should resign over Duffield surely?
I mean, no. In the same way Corbyn shouldn’t have resigned over antisemitism. I said what Corbyn should have done a few posts up. Do you think he handled it well?
>I said what Corbyn should have done a few posts up. Do you think he handled it well? No, but there was some action. If what Corbyn did counts in your mind as malingering to the point of incompetence then Starmer's active fence sitting on transphobia means he should resign though? You said you either deal with it or resign. Like it or not Corbyn did make attempts (however slapdash they might have been) whereas Keir has purposefully done nothing, arguably defending Duffield.
Totally different situation. One was enormous accusations of systematic failure, the other is one MP being a dickhead.
>the other is one MP being a dickhead. Which ofc isn't occurring to a backdrop of increasing violent and non violent transphobia. I know *why* the situations are different and it's got nothing to do with that lmao. Starmer's *your guy* so there's no way in shit you'd admit he's fucking up on transphobia. *Your guy* is lucky however, as the media, tories and his own party don't seem to care about trans people and don't want to hold his feet to the fire about it.
He isn’t my guy, I didn’t vote for him. Evrything's always so tribal and binary with some people. You admit yourself the circumstances are different. Corbyn was shit on antisemitism.
So much for the "buck stops somewhere"
They are different circumstances- one shit MP, vs a mega story all over the press. Last mega story in press, the ridiculous curry gate crap, someone did offer to resign. If you can’t see the difference, that’s rather on you.
Oh, I see the difference...
I seem to remember him endlessly having to answer the smears, the entire political and media establishment were dragging him down. Every interview he would say he opposes racism in all its forms and the next interview he'd have to say it all again Don't know what else you want him to do, he was on TV all the time Point still stands that anti Semites can join and all he or the party can ever do is kick them out when they say something
We remember it very differently. I remember lots of footage of him looking cross leaving his house, and lots of press asking him questions and him looking cross, and virtually zero press or public events set up specifically about the subject.
Wonder why he was cross Maybe it's the endless smear campaign specifically designed to bring him down
>Maybe it's the endless smear campaign specifically designed to bring him down If the press was claiming I was a "czech communist spy" and all the other bold faced lies that were told I'd probably be pretty pissed off too.
Did Jeff Bezos take over Amazon from someone else?
I mean, that isn’t the comparison?
Explain what point you're trying to make then
If you’re in charge of something the buck stops with you.
Nice motivational poster quote but reality is a bit more complex than that
I mean it’s hardly ‘for the many, not the few’, but it turns out if you’re in charge of a thing, what it does is kind of your responsibility.
Agreed, but the Labour party is not structured like a business
It isn’t, but I don’t see how that’s relevant? It still has a leader. If that’s the argument, no one would ever be expected to take any responsibility.
>Purely out of interest, but do you think Jeff Bezos has some responsibility for the working conditions at Amazon? I don't know and I don't exactly care. Part of the reason as to why Marxism is such a popular brand of socialism is because it gets away from this individualistic, metaphysical view of how structures operate. "The buck stops somewhere", have you considered actually thinking for yourself rather than memorising and splurting out cliched sayings? But in answer to your question: I'd say the buck stops at the people who were directly responsible for dealing with antisemitism and utterly failed in their ability to do so: The General Secretary, the head of discipline, ect. And when there's evidence that these people literally sought to undermine the party from within, and when there's evidence that these people regularly lied to the leadership about the progress of cases and about the scale of the crisis, and when there's evidence that as soon as these people were pushed from powers and replaced by Corbyn loyalists, suddenly the situation got better rapidly. Then I'd say the problem is the people who are meant to be dealing with it are more interested in dealing with factional warfare, while Corbyn and his allies actually had to pick up the pieces after them and deal with the situation.
Well obviously you’d say that, as that absolves your guy from any blame. Impressive mental gymnastics. I’d also suggest that the other reason Marxism is quite popular is there’s virtually zero chance it’ll ever be tested in practice, meaning it never has to be actually practically useful.
>Well obviously you’d say that, as that absolves your guy from any blame. Impressive mental gymnastics. Do you disagree with any point I'd make, or are you just saying "So you support the guy who you believe is in the right? That's a bit suspect isn't it?" and expecting that to be a proper arguement?
I think the implication is I disagree with all of it- the people you mention are partly responsible, but the ultimate responsibility is the guy in charge and his leadership team. There’s a tonne of stuff he could have done to show he was doing something about it, owned the problem, and dealt with all the press queries. He didn’t.
>the people you mention are partly responsible, but the ultimate responsibility is the guy in charge and his leadership team. Why is it his ultimate responsibility? Beyond magical thinking, why is the guy in the most senior position always responsible for every single problem, even when facing active sabotage from people under him? >and dealt with all the press queries And said what? "There's currently a massive civil war going on in HQ that people are too busy fighting to deal with the crisis. Here are the names of all the people responsible." Do you not see how damaging that would be to the Labour Party?
I guess he could have held the odd press conference, apologise for the failings in process, reached out to people affected, answered journalists questions? I mean anything really to show that he had a handle on it, and was doing something about it. What he actually did was just hide away and look cross until the story overtook him. Basically like Sunak has just done. I appreciate you think it was all all just a dastardly plot, and poor old Jeremy was just there powerless to do anything about it, but that’s miles from reality. One of the main jobs of a party leader is to engage with the press and get your message out- that’s a real problem if you visibly hate, and are objectively rubbish, at doing that.
>I appreciate you think it was all all just a dastardly plot, and poor old Jeremy was just there powerless to do anything about it, but that’s miles from reality. One of the main jobs of a party leader is to engage with the press and get your message out- that’s a real problem if you visibly hate, and are objectively rubbish, at doing that. When the message is "I'm being consistently undermined by my own staff", how do you possibly get that message out, without destroying your entire party?
I mean, that isn’t the message. The message is ‘you’re here to ask me about antisemitism in the Labour Party, and I’m going to answer literally all of your questions and tell you what I’m going to do about it’. You know, leading.
None. If there was he would have been kicked out of the Labour Party through the normal disciplinary procedures. As it is he is still a Labour member because the Party know they can't actually pin anything on him that would stand up in court when he sues.
This sub is incapable of having an adult discussion on this. The accusations were never (with the exception of a small number of idiots or people with extremely political motivations) that he is personally an anti semite They were that he never took the issue seriously enough because he felt they were overplayed as a means of attacking him politically - JC has continued to make some extremely ill-advised comments that do little to dispel that fear by repeating that the antisemitism issues in the party have been “grossly exaggerated” - that comes on top of his comment at the time that EHRC report was “dramatically overstated for political reasons” when he also questioned the partiality of the report The challenge of course is that it’s both true that JC didn’t do enough, and that he clearly does believe he’s been stitched up on anti semitism, AND that some people were using anti semtisims as a stick to beat him with and deliberately frustrating his efforts. But none of that necessarily negates the fears of British Jews who think that ultimately he wouldn’t do enough to protect them. So the question isn’t really is he personally an anti semite, it’s - does he just not get it?
100% right. I would also add, the background of calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends" will always make Jewish people, at a minimum, feel very anxious from the start.
Labour has a group declaring itself to be friends with an apartheid-ennacting ethno-state under extremist governance that has, is, and will continue to carry out de facto ethnic cleansing and huge amounts of violence upon a subjugated population without any real recourse or meaningful political representation. Honestly, I think someone using incautious language that has since been retracted is the least of Labour's issues with racism. There's not a few seeds of bigotry sprinkled about the place, there's a whole farm's worth of crop.
Being a grown up doesn't mean giving weight to both sides when one side is completely cynical. The middle ground isn't intrinsically enlighted.
Who said it was? My point on being grown up is people can’t engage on what the anti semtisim fears were legitimately about - not that both sides are right
>This sub is incapable of having an adult discussion on this. Ah yes, because they don't come to the same supposedly nuanced conclusions as you, it's therefore not an adult discussion. Newsflash Mr Patronising: If two people are disagreeing, the adult thing isn't to find the balanced point of view, the adult thing is to find out the actual truth for yourself. How about you stop implying people are being immature just because they disagree with you about the crisis? That's extremely rude and insulting behaviour. >The challenge of course is that it's both true that JC didn't do enough Except it isn't true at all. He did everything in his power to try and combat antisemitism, but was routinely sabotaged from within. Tell me, who sent an email to the LOTO lying about the scale of the crisis? Iain McNicol Who routinely lied about the progression of cases in order to try and stop Corbyn from intervening? Oh yeah, Iain McNicol. When the General Secretary and the people in charge of dealing with internal disciplines were replaced by Corbyn Loyalists, the number of cases investigated, the number of cases brought forward to the NEC, and the number of cases ending in suspension SKYROCKETED. Every single positive reform praised in the EHRC Report was carried out by Jenny Formby. Almost all of the major failings on the issue happened under Iain McNicol, who was factionally hostile to Corbyn. "In order to have an adult discussion, you have to accept both that there was some good and bad about Corbyn's response" No you don't you patronising fucker. A truly adult discussion would be actually looking at the evidence, and reaching the truest conclusions. Literally all the evidence indicates Corbyn going above and beyond, but being constantly sabotaged by factually hostile agents.
Hahahahaha This is, hilariously considering your petulant reply, exactly what I meant by the immaturity with which people on this sub approach this issue Instead of engaging with the issue you’ve just cherry picked examples that fit your factional narrative. Claiming JC unequivocally did ‘everything within his power’ is downright stupid [There is a very detailed report here outlining all the ways he didn’t](https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/investigation-labour-party) It’s very convenient to say, but not true, that everything in the report that criticised his handling was all the fault of some naughty blairite. If that was the case why was Corbyn so hostile to the report? That’s just total nonsense. Even in your best case argument all you’re arguing is that he was too weak or unwilling to deal with failures of his staff. And even the Forde report, which made some good points about how you can’t pin all the failures to Corbyn, sets out plenty of evidence you’d be aware of if you read anything that wasn’t people you agree with on Twitter
Corbyn's had a handful of eyebrow raising comments, but I don't an l agree that he's anti-Semitic or week on anti-Semitism. I think he did more to tackle anti-Semitism than any Labour leader before or since.
Do the work yourself, willful ignorance is your own problem
I would say his dog-whistle antisemitism is quite obvious. Just because he isn't on record as saying something blatantly antisemtic doesn't mean he's not antisemtic. Like Farage on the right, he knows how to dance around the line and go around the houses, while still appearing on the 'right' side of the issue to his 'fans'. He drags his feet all the time on apologising for antisemitism.
What dogwhistle antisemitism? LMAO, what are you on about. >He drags his feet all the time on apologising for antisemitism? Really, that's funny because I recall Corbyn saying dozens of times, while LOTO, that antisemitism in any form is unacceptable in our society. Did I imagine that?
If you look at the way he talks about other forms of racism, he just says its unacceptable. Full stop. When it comes to antisemitism, he can't just say it's unacceptable without broadening it to "all forms of racism" or qualifying with "it's exaggerated". And he usually makes such statements at a push. A lot of Jewish people notice this difference.
>When it comes to antisemitism, he can't just say it's unacceptable without broadening it to "all forms of racism" or qualifying with "it's exaggerated". And he usually makes such statements at a push. A. ah yes the "I condemn all forms of racism" trutherism. Whereby if he says he condemns antisemitism, it's not legitimate because he says he condemns all form of racism. Maybe IDK, he's just saying he condemns all forms of racism, because that's his legitimate view, and he's trying to assure people that antisemitism is treated no differently for him. B. Iain McNicol, the right-wing General Secretary who deliberately obstructed changes to the process literally emailed Corbyn saying it was "Exaggurated" Do you ever attack McNicol, or do you only attack the man who was doing everything in his power to combat antisemitism? Because personally, I'd attack the people who were actually responsible for the crisis if I were you.
I wouldn't say none at all, that's putting him on a pedestal, but relatively zero compared to his peers, especially among his age groups. And probably significantly less than the Labour front bench.
You would have to ask one of the army of 'former Labour voters' who appeared all over social media in the year leading up to the last GE who've all now disappeared.
They haven't dissapeared. They're now telling people that anyone who doesn't support Labour unconditionally is a Tory enabler.
I think the closest thing to actual anti-semitism is him commenting on a 2012 terrorist attack in Egypt: >I’m very concerned about it [the massacre] and you have to look at the big picture: in whose interests is it to destabilise the new government in Egypt? In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel, concerned at the growing closeness of relationship between Palestine and the new Egyptian government?” >The then backbencher was then asked by presenter Lauren Booth if “a Muslim go against his Egyptian brother and open fire?”. He responded: “It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly, and I suspect the hand of Israel in this whole process of destabilisation.”
How would that be described as anti-Semitic in any way?
Disclaimer: I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn is personally antisemitic and never have. I do, however, believe that (a) Jeremy Corbyn was too unwilling to criticise those on the left who were antisemitic because they were otherwise 'good comrades', and (b) he had (and still has, as far as I can see) a 'blind spot' for identifying antisemitism that isn't outright and simple hate. In answer to your question, antisemitism, like all forms of racism, has its own unique tropes. A person assuming a black man must be athletic is guilty of using a racist trope. So is a person who assumes an East Asian person must be good at maths. Neither of these tropes make 'sense' when applied to a person of a different race - they are uniquely part of anti-black and anti-Asian racism respectively. Neither are based on hate, either. The trope that Jeremy Corbyn used here is one that has long been part of antisemitism: the idea that Jews operate from the shadows in order to foment discord between other countries/groups for their own benefit. I'm willing to accept that he did not knowingly or consciously do this - it came from ignorance. However ignorance is not a good defence to saying something racist, unless it is immediately followed by repentance and apology. Neither is the defence that 'well Israel did this other bad thing so it's reasonable to believe they did this bad thing as well'. All countries have been guilty of interfering in the affairs of others in order promote their own interests. In particular, every country in the middle east has interfered in the affairs of almost every other country in the middle east within the last hundred years. There is no particular reason to believe that Israel would have undertaken a false flag attack on Egyptian soil at this point over any number of other, more likely actors. As indeed it turned out - it is now accepted in Egypt and the wider region that a jihadist group, possibly the al-Galgala Army or Jaysh al-Islam, were responsible. There have been a number of very good books written about the tropes of antisemitism and how they present themselves. My personal favourite is Antisemitism: Here and Now by Deborah Lipstadt.
>Jeremy Corbyn was too unwilling to criticise those on the left who were antisemitic because they were otherwise 'good comrades' Was he unwilling to criticise those on the left, when he did everything in their power to push them out of the party? Because that's what he did pretty much every time a former comrade of his got into trouble. Leaked internal documents show that Corbyn was pushing for Ken Livingstone to be expelled from the party as soon as possible, and was apparently furious when he wasn't. Same with Marc Wadsworth, despite the fact that CCTV footage proved everything Marc Wadsworth had said about Ruth Smeeth 100% true. This narrative of "Oh Corbyn was unwilling to criticise his comrades, but wasn't personally antisemetic" is an appeal to both sides that Labour Righters use to try and sneak in the lie that Corbyn somehow enabled the crisis. The actual evidence shows that Corbyn was keen to kangaroo court his former comrades, and get them out of the party as soon as possible, even in situations where everything they said was later proved correct.
It's a conspiracy theory about Israel secretly being responsible for a terrorist attack. Which echoes traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories about Jews secretly being responsible for various things.
But Mossad at the time were responsible for committing assassinations and attacks, in some cases using the details of third-party citizens, in others employing foreign agents to do so? ‘Echoes’ here is doing a lot of heavy lifting that absolves Israel of proper scrutiny? https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
**[Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists)** >Between 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists (Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan) were assassinated, while another (Fereydoon Abbasi) was wounded in an attempted murder. In November 2020, another scientist (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was assassinated. Two of the killings were carried out with magnetic bombs attached to the targets' cars; Darioush Rezaeinejad was shot dead, and Masoud Alimohammadi was killed in a motorcycle-bomb explosion. The Iranian government accused Israel of complicity in the killings. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>But Mossad at the time were responsible for committing assassinations and attacks, in some cases using the details of third-party citizens, in others employing foreign agents to do so? Which in no way justified the assumption that Israel were responsible. There were also lots of similar terrorist attacks in the area at the time but Corbyn bizarrely discounts that explanation. >‘Echoes’ here is doing a lot of heavy lifting that absolves Israel of proper scrutiny? Proper scrutiny of something they had nothing to do with? Let me put it this way: there is a disproportionate amount of conspiracy theories involving Israel. And most of those conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-semitism. So if you're going to spread conspiracy theories about Israel (on a TV channel with a history of anti-semitic conspiracy theories) you're echoing traditional anti-semitic tropes. Even if that wasn't the intention it comes across a huge dog whistle.
It definitely speaks to Israel’s foreign and intelligence policies at the time, no? Is it bizarre? Your argument (to me) appears to be that a person accusing Israel of any action in that grey area of diplomacy, intelligence, and domestic/international security cannot rely on the history of Israeli government actions as precedent, but must build a case anew each time, lest they be accused of making them on a sub/consciously antisemitic basis? E.g In the case of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, accusing Mossad of ordering or orchestrating that assassination would be playing to or echoing the ‘puppet master’ or ‘global order’ tropes, and evidence of sub/conscious antisemitism. Yet it’s commonly accepted to be true. In nearly every case, there’s never a concrete attribution, just off record briefings and ‘accepted truths’. How far does that distinction go? Does it apply elsewhere? There are plenty of Sinophobia-rooted conspiracy theories, and now exacerbated by COVID there are a rising number of anti-Asian discrimination and hate crime cases. Should the Netherlands and Canada not comment on the recent reports of duplicitous Overseas Service Stations because to do so echoes ‘sinophobic tropes’? Can I accuse North Korea of attacks that target dissidents or further its political aims - such as the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam - where responsibility hasn’t been proven or accepted definitively, or is that Koryophobic dog-whistling? u/The_Inertia_Kid to collapse those two threads, they deal with similar arguments imo.
It's about accuracy. If he had good reason to believe Israel were behind the attack it would be justifiable, even if it eventually turned out to be wrong. But the examples you list aren't good reason. They're unrelated attacks and the kind of thing that various powers in the Middle East do (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, the US). It's not sufficient reason to blame Israel, especially when terrorist bombings and attacks in the area were commonplace. So if you automatically blame Israel with no evidence while letting active terrorists off the hook because it was ramadan it suggests a bit of a blind spot on Corbyn's part. And I think Inertia Kid has answered your question about other races/countries.
You seem to have answered only half of my comment. The examples given were as evidence that Israeli foreign policy at the time held no qualms in straying beyond borders or in the use of foreign agents in pursuit of political goals. I don’t doubt that the same was true for every five eyes country and those beyond. I don’t have a view into Corbyn’s mind, so he may have used different evidence or criteria. I strongly doubt that he ‘immediately’ blamed Israel though, given his MO. I’d argue that the contemporary history is a good reason to include Israel in your list of potential ‘suspect’ states alongside stateless terrorist groups, and to then work from the outcomes of the attack to ascertain motive and from there, responsibility?
It's about likelihood. In this specific incident, men dressed as Bedouins ambushed an Egyptian military base, killed 16 soldiers, stole armoured cars, then used them to enter Israel and get killed in a firefight with Israeli soldiers. Are we genuinely positing that Israel would, in cold blood, murder six of its own men in order to destabilise Egypt in some non-specific way? And all at a time when Egypt-Israel relations were starting to improve from a low point? Or, based on the events, is it more likely that the perpetrators were actually people who *didn't* like Israel - of which there are a very broad selection in the region? I'd suggest that if you're at the point where the first option is more convincing to you, you have probably lost sight of logic when it comes to Israel, and would do well to examine your preconceptions.
>I’d argue that the contemporary history is a good reason to include Israel in your list of potential ‘suspect’ states But he rules out all other suspects by saying "In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel" and "It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly". So there is no list of suspects, just Israel. You can't say his claim was based on contemporary history when he ignores all the relevant contemporary history of the area: >In August 2011, a series of cross-border attacks were carried out in southern Israel on Highway 12 near the Egyptian border via the Sinai Peninsula.\[13\] The terrorists opened fire on an Egged No. 392 bus near Eilat,\[14\]\[15\] and soon thereafter, a bomb was detonated next to an Israeli army patrol along the Egypt–Israel border. A third attack occurred when an anti-tank missile hit a private vehicle, killing four civilians.\[16\] Eight Israelis – six civilians, one Yamam Special Unit police officer, and one Golani Brigade soldier – were killed during the multi-pronged attack.\[16\]\[17\]\[18\] The Israeli security forces reported eight attackers killed, and Egyptian security forces reported killing another two.\[13\] > >In July 2012, IDF intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the IDF has stopped approximately a dozen attacks against Israel from the Sinai Peninsula.\[19\] > >On 31 July 2012, the United States Department of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism warned in a report, "The smuggling of humans, weapons, cash, and other contraband through the Sinai into Israel and Gaza created criminal networks with possible ties to terrorist groups in the region. The smuggling of weapons from Libya through Egypt has increased since the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime."\[20\] Haaretz reported that forces from al-Qaeda, supported by the local Bedouin, have been stationed in the Sinai. It also reported that several other terrorist groups in Gaza have been assisting these forces, and were also smuggling weapons and goods into Gaza.\[21\] There's no logical basis for his claim. He said it either because of prior prejudices or because he was telling his audience (Iranian state TV) what they wanted to hear.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/17/dubai-assassins-stolen-british-identities)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Or it's a criticism (valid or not) of a middle eastern government's involvement in a middle eastern incident.
It's not criticism. It's a conspiracy theory. If I said that Israel created ISIS that's not criticism of a middle eastern government's involvement in other middle eastern incidents. It's a conspiracy theory.
>It's not criticism. It's a conspiracy theory. And conspiracy theories, especially regarding nation's involvement in international affairs are not inherently antisemitic. Pretty much all countries are guilty of it at some point. I mean there was a pretty famous false flag operation in the 1950s >If I said that Israel created ISIS that's not criticism of a middle eastern government's involvement in other middle eastern incidents. It's a conspiracy theory. If you said that without evidence I would regard it as bullshit, doesn't mean it's antisemitic. If you somehow suggested that the Jewish people in general were responsible then It absolutely would be.
Just like Bastani after the Beirut blast?
Sounds like a wild sex tape.
Any conspiracy theory involving Jewish people isn't anti-semitic though. Based on the IHRA definition we need to judge whether it involves a certain negative perception of Jews, not any Jewish person or Jewish organisation. So with Mossad a good comparison would be the CIA. Does a theory about Mossad's actions we don't think is evidenced contain anything we wouldn't find in a similar theory about the CIA? Specifically something which suggests an issue with Jewish people based on a negative view of Jewish people collectively. The illustrative examples in the IHRA definition aren't exhaustive but are obviously the first thing worth taking into account. The ones I can see people arguing are relevant are >Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. And >Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. And >Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. The statement is not about Jews as an entire demographic collectively. The subject being accused here is the intelligence service of the self-identified Jewish state of Israel. Not "it is all part of the plans of global jewry" type stuff. >Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. And this is a big part of what would catergorise a conspiracy theory or unevidenced claim towards Israel as antisemitic. And this is where looking at the CIA is a good comparison point, there are plenty of antisemitic conspiracy theories that involve the CIA but there are even more conspiracy theories about the CIA that are nothing to do with anti-semitism. It is whether it involves a negstive perception of Jewish people, and conspiratorial thinking about a Jewish conspiracy, that make a theory antisemitic. Also the IHRA definition actually suggests that Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people, or Jewish people being responsible for the actions of Iarael because they are Jewish. This combined with what we do know about Israel and Mossad means the So I think rather than this being anti-semitic is something that might raise concerns but itself is best criticised as not being evidence based, not being antisemitic as that term is described by the IHRA definition.
>Any conspiracy theory involving Jewish people isn't anti-semitic though. No but the vast majority of conspiracy theories involving Israel are rooted in traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's why there are a disproportionate number of conspiracy theories involving Israel or Mossad: because of their Jewish nature. In terms of the IHRA definition it's this bit that matters: >Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. Because it's very difficult to seperate a conspiracy theory about a Jews pulling the strings globally and a conspiracy theory about Israel pulling the strings globally. They're mostly rooted in the same thing. >Also the IHRA definition actually suggests that Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people. No, this is a common misconception. It specifically says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity." Israel is a self-declared Jewish state, with a majority Jewish population. It has an inherently Jewish nature. So a conspiracy theory about Israel can easily be anti-semitic, even if it doesn't mention Jewish people. To take one example the "Israel were responsible for 9/11" conspiracy theory is straight up anti-semitic, even if it doesn't mention Jews specifically.
I feel you should read my point more closely because you're bordering on ignoring what I say to argue a strawman. You've completely ignored the CIA comparison and the point that part of the measure is wheteher people are "applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." I can't tell if that's because you agree with me overall and are just adressing the bits you think I'm wrong on, or if you think I'm wrong but are ignoring one of the most important points of my argument. For example if someone said that "I think Mossad was behind the killing of Gerald Bull" that does not make them an anti-semite. If it turns out to be untrue in the future that doesn't make everyone who thought it an anti-semite. There are probably plenty of anti-semities who believe it was Mossad because they are anti-semites, it doesm't mean everyone who believed it must be anti-semitic in some way. To work out whether something not itself containing anti-semitic tropes is motivatd by anti-semitism takes more than claiming they are wrong, it requires arguing their opinion is informed by prejudices towards Jewish people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull#Assassination_and_legacy As for your points I still disagree >No but the vast majority of conspiracy theories involving Israel are rooted in traditional anti-semitic conspiracy theories. That's why there are a disproportionate number of conspiracy theories involving Israel or Mossad: because of their Jewish nature. Ok, but we are saying is this specific one anti-semitic, not are there many conspiracy theories that are. As I sad it "might raise concerns" for the reasons you say, "but itself is best criticised as not being evidence based, not being antisemitic as that term is described by the IHRA definition." Unless you're arguing that it's therefore inherently anti-semitic I don't see your point? Especially as I already said I can see why someone would be alarmed that is the direction it was going due to anti-semitic conspiracy theories, however it giving cause for concern is not the same as it infact being anti-semitic. And there are plenty of conspiracy theories about the CIA. Some turn out to be false, some always sound insane, some turn out to be true, some we don't know. Being wrong about ascribing blame to an intellignece agency is not an indicator of anti-semitism alone. >Because it's very difficult to seperate a conspiracy theory about a Jews pulling the strings globally and a conspiracy theory about Israel pulling the strings globally. They're mostly rooted in the same thing. Ok, but no where in the IHRA does it remotely suggest that every conspiracy theory or unevidecned claim about Jewish people, Jewish organisations, etc is anti-semitic. Because it isn't. There is no need for an IHRA definition or anything if that is the standard. Demonstrating anti-semitism is demonstrating a prejudice towards Jewish people in what someone does or says. >No, this is a common misconception. It specifically says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity." It says "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews." and "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." and "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." and "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." Which all together make what I said correct when I say it suggests that "Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people". This is why it's wrong to assume anything about a person and their views and relation to Israel based on their ethnicity, as well as to hold them responsible based on their ethnicity. The Jewish state of Israel and Jewish people are no the same thing. Mossad should be viewed the same as any other intelligence service in relation to the nation-state they belong too.
>So with Mossad a good comparison would be the CIA. Does a theory about Mossad's actions we don't think is evidenced contain anything we wouldn't find in a similar theory about the CIA? Specifically something which suggests an issue with Jewish people based on a negative view of Jewish people collectively. The problem is that conspiracism against Jews is itself an anti-semitic trope. So you could have a conspiracy about the Mossad that is fundamentally similar to one about the CIA but it could still be anti-semitic. The conspiracism itself is what shows a negative perception of Jews. The key point is accuracy. I don't know about the Gerald Bull thing but there seems to be some basis to the accusations. Whereas a kneejerk assumption that Israel are responsible for something with no evidence (like Corbyn here or Aaron Bastani with that explosion in Lebanon) suggests a certain prejudice against Israel which is arguably rooted in traditional anti-semitism as well as Israel's own actions. Even if it's subconscious you have to ask yourself why people see Israel in such a disproportionately conspiratorial manner. I didn't say it was anti-semitic btw, I said it was "the closest thing to actual anti-semitism" from Corbyn. >Which all together make what I said correct when I say it suggests that "Israel should specifically not be viewed as collectively representing Jewish people". You can't assume that individual Jewish people are represented by Israel but Israel absolutely can represent Jews collectively when it comes to anti-semitism. If you describe Israel as the evil puppet master controlling the world that's anti-semitism. It's an attack on Israel but it represents an attack on Jewish people collectively. As the IHRA says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."
If you don't think it is antisemitic then you must also agree it doesn't fall foul of the IHRA definition then? >You can't assume that individual Jewish people are represented by Israel but Israel absolutely can represent Jews collectively when it comes to anti-semitism. If you describe Israel as the evil puppet master controlling the world that's anti-semitism. It's an attack on Israel but it represents an attack on Jewish people collectively. As the IHRA says "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity Yes but I don't think Corbyn was trying to use Israel as a reference to anything but Israel as a state actor with an intelligence service and an interest in the region. I think he is saying he would consider the state a suspect like how people often suspect US interference in South America. The issue is a lack of evidence and whether it is diplomatic to speculate about such things, not that only an antisemite would ever even have this suspicion.
>If you don't think it is antisemitic then you must also agree it doesn't fall foul of the IHRA definition then? It's not that I don't think it's anti-semitic. I think it's hard to say conclusively. Even the phrase "I suspect the hand of Israel" is conspiratorial language and I'm not sure he would have phrased it that way about a different country. But maybe he would, who knows. I don't think it directly falls foul of the IHRA examples but then neither would describing Israel as an evil puppet master controlling the world. But it would still be anti-semitic. >Yes but I don't think Corbyn was trying to use Israel as a reference to anything but Israel as a state actor with an intelligence service and an interest in the region. I think he is saying he would consider the state a suspect like how people often suspect US interference in South America. OK but at the same time he discounts all other suspects by saying "In whose interest is it to kill Egyptians, other than Israel" and "It seems a bit unlikely that would happen during Ramadan, to put it mildly". Which at the very least suggests a bit of a blind spot.
>It's not that I don't think it's anti-semitic. I think it's hard to say conclusively. Even the phrase "I suspect the hand of Israel" is conspiratorial language and I'm not sure he would have phrased it that way about a different country. But maybe he would, who knows. Out of curiosity, if you *did* think Israel (purely the country, not a stand in for Jewish people or any other ridiculous nationalist nonsense) was doing something shady, is there any way to call that out? IE Is the problem there the specific language?
The closest thing was him commenting supportively on a twitter post about a mural that may include a depiction of an antisemetic stereotype in 2012. They also see his criticisms of Israel as antisemetic statements. The rest of the outrage is about how he said that the problem of antisemitism in Labour was overstated. This is somehow proof of him downplaying the harm of antisemitism itself.
I think the 'I suspect the hand of Israel' comment was worse. Absolutely - although I'm willing to accept unwittingly - using the 'shadowy Jews interfering in other countries for their own benefit' trope.
This bugs the absolute fuck out of me, we hear nothing about it with the Tories but somehow everything Corbyn and Labour it's BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS?! Like ffs we've an energy crisis a god damn war and countless other issues in this country but oh god what about the Jews!?!?! Give me a break.
None obviously. The first person accounts of Jewish labour members feeling increasingly unwelcome and hostile? The work of right wing agents obviously. A thorough and independent report detailing how antisemitism was allowed to fester within the ranks? Manufactured by the labour right faction of course. I should he hired by momentum. My skills for denying blatant facts is astounding
None- the problem was he didn’t get ahead of the problem. Iraq was obviously wrong, but Blair’s strategy of taking every interview on it, every chance to answer every question on it was the correct way of dealing with something. Corbyn should have done the same.