• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Labour party has a serious racism problem

If "critics" of Israel don't need to embrace kooks and paranoids, why do they keep doing it?

Sorry, I'm not psychic, so I have no idea what drives other people to do it, if it actually happens.

Can you provide evidence that critics of Israel aren't just trolls muddying the water? I ask because Israel's direct policies and actions are quite despicable on their own and making stuff up is unnecessary and unhelpful.

As I said before, the beneficiary of the alleged combining genuine criticism and antisemitism is Israel. It's bloody handy, acting inhumanely towards millions of people, to be able to raise your hands and say "Look at all this antisemtism?" when people ask what the hell's going on.

And it's factual that any criticism of Israel and its revolting human rights record is certain to attract claims of antisemitism, no matter how accurate the criticism.
 
It's already happened several times. Every time he manages to score some points against the Conservatives whether it's about the government's handling of Brexit, the rapid decline of the NHS, the impact of austerity on the poor and disabled or the disaster that is Universal Credit, you can bet that in the next couple of days there'll be something in the paper about Corbyn's past. Usually it's about his love of the IRA or Islamic extremists, sometimes it's about his past relationship with Dianne Abbot and sometimes it's just fingerpointing at his lifestyle.



IMO Boris will wipe the floor with Corbyn because the character he plays is designed to appeal to the British public, he uses long words and a significant proportion of the UK electorate seem to like a toff. :mad:

I think the classic example was when the government was making a pig's ear of the Cumbrian floods, Corbyn decided it was tine to reopen the case for joint sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
 
I think the classic example was when the government was making a pig's ear of the Cumbrian floods, Corbyn decided it was tine to reopen the case for joint sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.


You're determined string this one out, aren't you?
 
You're determined string this one out, aren't you?

Well it's a stonking example of really bad tactics. If your political opponents are making a mess - you don't come out with something that the vast majority of British voters don't care about, and which is also unpopular.

Also, given the history of the habitation of the Falkland Islands, with no permanent residents until the British colonists, and their strong desire to remain under British rule - it's also wrongheaded.

ETA: I have also only mentioned it a couple of times
 
Last edited:
Yeah, critics of Israel really need to embrace kooks and paranoids because Israel provides so little ammunition against their own administration.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/isra...conversion-therapy_n_5d2c79d3e4b02a5a5d5e5f86

Religious nutter says something nutty and is widely condemned for it by people from his own party and the Israeli public in general.

To me this seems like an issue where the condemnation should go to Rafi Peretz the individual nutter who made the nutter statements, but for some bizarro reason you think it should reflect on all of Israel? I don't follow your reasoning.

My own country also has a nutter in charge of education who has made nutter statements (such as schools should keep guns on hand in case of bears, which is also pretty anti-gay if you think about it), but critics rightly condemn her as an individual and the administration that appointed her, not the United States as a whole.

Can you provide evidence that critics of Israel aren't just trolls muddying the water?

Does it matter? If so, why?

I ask because Israel's direct policies and actions are quite despicable on their own and making stuff up is unnecessary and unhelpful.

Maybe if you ignore the context of a multi-generational conflict, but ignoring that context would be incorrect.

As I said before, the beneficiary of the alleged combining genuine criticism and antisemitism is Israel.

That's one point of view. Another is that the legitimate criticisms get amplified tremendously both through the actions of overt anti-Semites and also by how its received by those unaware of their own biases.

It's bloody handy, acting inhumanely towards millions of people, to be able to raise your hands and say "Look at all this antisemtism?" when people ask what the hell's going on.

As someone who follows the issues closely, I can attest it is not true that all criticisms of Israel are deflected by charges of anti-Semitism. At the same time, criticism of Israel is certainly exacerbated by anti-Semitism, so discussion of the issue is certainly relevant and well-poisoning efforts such as this one are misplaced.

And it's factual that any criticism of Israel and its revolting human rights record is certain to attract claims of antisemitism, no matter how accurate the criticism.

No, that's not factual at all.
 
Last edited:
My own country also has a nutter in charge of education who has made nutter statements (such as schools should keep guns on hand in case of bears, which is also pretty anti-gay if you think about it), but critics rightly condemn her as an individual and the administration that appointed her, not the United States as a whole.

.

That's not true. The US as a whole comes in for a host of criticism because of its leaders and their policies as well as for the population who vote for them. Of course that criticism is never taken as a personal insult to every member of the population but a criticism of the regime overall.

The confusion seems to be that since Israel sets itself as a religious ethnostate then criticism of the state is seen as criticism of the ethnicity.
 
Religious nutter says something nutty and is widely condemned for it by people from his own party and the Israeli public in general.

But is still Minister of Education.

To me this seems like an issue where the condemnation should go to Rafi Peretz the individual nutter who made the nutter statements, but for some bizarro reason you think it should reflect on all of Israel? I don't follow your reasoning.

Is he still the Minister of Education?

My own country also has a nutter in charge of education who has made nutter statements (such as schools should keep guns on hand in case of bears, which is also pretty anti-gay if you think about it), but critics rightly condemn her as an individual and the administration that appointed her, not the United States as a whole.

Donald Trump is one man, and he reflects very badly on USA.

Vote for nutters, expect to be called nutters.

Does it matter? If so, why?

Of course it matters - it's the whole point. We know for certain that people will pretend to be something they're not to advance an opposite agenda, so to have a fair discussion on the subject, evidence of what is really happening would be kinda useful.

I know that some criticism of Israel is due to antisemitism, but how much?

Maybe if you ignore the context of a multi-generational conflict, but ignoring that context would be incorrect.

Ah, history. Yeah, that's important.

Unless you happen to have had your land confiscated in 1948.

That's one point of view. Another is that the legitimate criticisms get amplified tremendously both through the actions of overt anti-Semites and also by how its received by those unaware of their own biases.

See above re: evidence.

As someone who follows the issues closely, I can attest it is not true that all criticisms of Israel are deflected by charges of anti-Semitism.

"Not all".

I guess that's fine then.

At the same time, criticism of Israel is certainly exacerbated by anti-Semitism,...

See above regarding evidence.

...so discussion of the issue is certainly relevant
and well-poisoning efforts such as this one are misplaced.

"Well poisoning."

Nice.

No, that's not factual at all.

Again, I'd need to see some evidence, because my own knowledge certainly shows it to be true most of the time. It's a ridiculously polarising topic.

If I criticise Israel, I get called antisemitic; I stage an anti-protestor protest against clowns trying to stop Israeli players at a tournament and I get called a Jew.

To go back onto the topic of Labour and antisemitism, yes, it has been a problem for the left in general, but how much of it, like Omar's comments, have people screeching "antisemtism!" when it actually isn't?
 
Recently some Labour peers put out an advert decrying the antisemitism of the Labour Party under Corbyn.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ers-advert-guardian-house-lords-a9007986.html

What's interesting is that I don't remember any of them (including the dozen or so former ministers under Blair) speaking out against antisemitism in Labour before Corbyn became Labour leader.

For example, in 2005 when Blair's government put out a poster depicting Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin, both Jewish, as pigs, a clear antisemitic trope, none of them said a word. Peter Hain, for instance, who is one of the signatories on the advert, was Leader of the House of Commons in 2005 when the poster was released.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4223091.stm

It's almost as if they don't actually care about antisemitism and are just cynically using it as a political weapon.
 
Headline: "Labour staff GMB union branch votes to condemn response to Panorama"



Labour staff who are members of the GMB union have voted overwhelmingly to condemn the party's official response to a Panorama programme exploring its response to anti-Semitism.
The branch of party workers voted 124-4 to call on the Labour leadership to issue an apology for their attacks on whistleblowers.
The motion also questioned why Labour had spent money on NDAs, given the party struggled to find a pay rise for its staff and its workers almost went on strike.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-staff-gmb-union-branch-18336235
 
But is still Minister of Education.

Is he still the Minister of Education?

As far as I know, he hasn’t resigned or been removed from office in the last four days since he made those statements. At the same time, as deplorable as his attitudes are, it’s not as though he has the authority to create a government sponsored program to create gay conversion camps. I put his odds of staying in office at about 50/50, about the same as if her were an official of the US, Spain, Greece, or any other Western European nation. If he were an official of a South American nation, Eastern Europe or Asia, I’d put his odds of remaining in office at 100%.

Of course it matters - it's the whole point. We know for certain that people will pretend to be something they're not to advance an opposite agenda, so to have a fair discussion on the subject, evidence of what is really happening would be kinda useful.

Is this a conspiracy theory? Anti-Semitic nutters are really trolls using anti-Semitism to discredit anti-Israel activists?

I’ll tell you the ones I’ve talked to are quite sincere in their anti-Semitism, many of them claiming not to be anti-Semitic while doing it.

Here is another fellow who is also quite sincere in his anti-Semitism. I’m sure if you ask him he will even describe it as anti-Zionism:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ians-worldwide-to-kill-every-jew-on-the-globe

I know that some criticism of Israel is due to antisemitism, but how much?

That’s a good and reasonable question. In order to answer it, you have to be willing to look at it honestly. Which means, among other things, maybe not dismiss every instance where anti-Semitism is called out as an attempt to deflect criticism of Israel.

Ah, history. Yeah, that's important.

Unless you happen to have had your land confiscated in 1948.

Jews also had land confiscated in 1948, land controlled by Arabs was made 100% Jew free. Further, in the years after the war, Jews were expelled from neighboring Arab nations in the time after that war. If you’re not aware of this or think it doesn’t matter, then you’ve got some filters on.

"Not all".

I guess that's fine then.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You speak for yourself and let me speak for myself.

See above regarding evidence.

Fine, but provide evidence of your own claims too.

"Well poisoning."

Nice.

Claims that calling out anti-Semitism isn’t really used to call out anti-Semitism but to obscure legitimate criticism of Israel seem to me to be an effort to discourage calling out anti-Semitism. To me that seems pretty close to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, but if you disagree we can certainly discuss coming up with a different term instead and I’ll use that one in the future.

But it’s still BS. Anti-Semitism should be called out wherever it’s found, and I’m not at all concerned if that creates a problem for people who are also critical of Israel.


If I criticise Israel, I get called antisemitic; I stage an anti-protestor protest against clowns trying to stop Israeli players at a tournament and I get called a Jew.

Congratulations. You have experienced anti-Semitism in a way that doesn’t require being Jewish.

To go back onto the topic of Labour and antisemitism, yes, it has been a problem for the left in general, but how much of it, like Omar's comments, have people screeching "antisemtism!" when it actually isn't? [/QUOTE]

Omar’s statements are a great example.

She made some twitter comments that touched on anti-Semitic tropes. They were anti-Semitic.

At the same time, she’s been critical of Israel for a long time, and has made a lot of statements to that effect that (as far as I know) are not anti-Semitic.

Does her anti-Semitic comments mean she hates Jews? Well, not necessarily. It’s very likely she wasn’t aware of these tropes and was just repeating things she had heard without ever thinking to question them.

Does that mean her other criticisms of Israel are invalid? Well, to some people maybe it does. To me and most reasonable people I think her other criticisms should be evaluated independently of these statements, they may be valid or not.

I think, and you may or may not agree, that it should be possible to criticize Israel without relying on anti-Semitic tropes, AND it’s also fair to call out anti-Semitism wherever you see it, even if it’s from someone who is criticizing Israel.
 
Omar’s statements are a great example.

She made some twitter comments that touched on anti-Semitic tropes. They were anti-Semitic.

At the same time, she’s been critical of Israel for a long time, and has made a lot of statements to that effect that (as far as I know) are not anti-Semitic.

Does her anti-Semitic comments mean she hates Jews? Well, not necessarily. It’s very likely she wasn’t aware of these tropes and was just repeating things she had heard without ever thinking to question them.

I'd go along with that. Another good example of the same effect is Jill Stein took a lot of flak for cosying up to antivax sentiment, which I doubt she realised.

Hopefully, Omar will think a bit harder next time because it is a minefield, but one without a handy warning sign.

Does that mean her other criticisms of Israel are invalid? Well, to some people maybe it does. To me and most reasonable people I think her other criticisms should be evaluated independently of these statements, they may be valid or not.

The number of people capable of that nuanced thinking are few & far between.

I think, and you may or may not agree, that it should be possible to criticize Israel without relying on anti-Semitic tropes, AND it’s also fair to call out anti-Semitism wherever you see it, even if it’s from someone who is criticizing Israel.

I'd agree 100%, but the problem will always exist - on both sides - of being used by people with their own agenda.

Quite funny really - I can't think of any other issue that divides people so viscerally on both sides of the political spectrum. UK Labour is a perfect example - they unquestionably have antisemites in the party. As well as that, the broad left has long been anti-Israel, for what I'd certainly call their sins, and it's not always straightforward to know which of those two camps people are in.
 
Fair enough.

I would consider this kind of anti-Americanism as a form of prejudice.

Would you agree?

It depends. And that's pretty much exactly the sticking point here.

If people are 'Anti-American' in that they object to the actions of the country, its politics, what it stands for etc then no.

If people are 'Anti-American' in that they hate American people because of the actions of the country then yes.

If I decide to, for example, boycott Coca-Cola because of Trump then I am not being prejudiced against Americans.

And that would be very different in nature to finding out where an American family live near me and scrawling 'Trump is a racist' on their door.
 
I'd go along with that. Another good example of the same effect is Jill Stein took a lot of flak for cosying up to antivax sentiment, which I doubt she realised.

Hopefully, Omar will think a bit harder next time because it is a minefield, but one without a handy warning sign.



The number of people capable of that nuanced thinking are few & far between.



I'd agree 100%, but the problem will always exist - on both sides - of being used by people with their own agenda.

Quite funny really - I can't think of any other issue that divides people so viscerally on both sides of the political spectrum. UK Labour is a perfect example - they unquestionably have antisemites in the party. As well as that, the broad left has long been anti-Israel, for what I'd certainly call their sins, and it's not always straightforward to know which of those two camps people are in.

It seems like you and I found some common ground, even though we came from different sides of the issue. :thumbsup:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom