Anti semetism

[KateR]

Antisemitism was a term first used in 1800s in response to a form of racism that emerged that deliberately attacked the "Semitic" race (in this case referring to Jews only and not to other descendants of Shem, such as certain Bedouin tribes).


As Wikipedia says:


The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs, Assyrians and Arameans. The compound word Antisemitismus ("antisemitism") was first used in print in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[7][8][9][10][11][12] and this has been its common use since then.[13][7][14]

Also worth reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

The origin of "antisemitic" terminologies is found in the responses of Moritz Steinschneider to the views of Ernest Renan. As Alex Bein writes: "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' [i.e., his derogation of the "Semites" as a race]."[15] Avner Falk similarly writes: "The German word antisemitisch was first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider (1816–1907) in the phrase antisemitische Vorurteile (antisemitic prejudices). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterise the French philosopher Ernest Renan's false ideas about how 'Semitic races' were inferior to 'Aryan races'".[16]


So yes antisemitism is racism.

I thank you for all the explanations, I simply don't agree with you, you can follow others and the so called experts as much as you like, I have my own interpretation, I am not trying to convince you of anything. You should also note my previous posts on some of the experts. People have been hating Jews a very long time, long before those people put those thoughts in to paper, perhaps they were racist trying to show the world a difference, I don't know and care even less.

The bottom line is it's always down to differences and from that comes a hatred and I believe we can all agree that regardless of terminology it is hatred that we should be calling out when it is derogatory to groups of people.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

I thank you for all the explanations, I simply don't agree with you, you can follow others and the so called experts as much as you like, I have my own interpretation, I am not trying to convince you of anything. You should also note my previous posts on some of the experts. People have been hating Jews a very long time, long before those people put those thoughts in to paper, perhaps they were racist trying to show the world a difference, I don't know and care even less.

The bottom line is it's always down to differences and from that comes a hatred and I believe we can all agree that regardless of terminology it is hatred that we should be calling out when it is derogatory to groups of people.

Fair enough.

The problem we have is the language used which is completely inaccurate and outdated.

There are no races so how can there be racism.

It's an undoubted fact of history that The Holocaust was based on racism. Even if that was the racist belief in a superior Aryan race.

The main victims but not the only ones being Jews.

Whether the definition has changed in modern times, I don't know?

But certainly in the past antisemitism was part of racism.

Another badly named prejudice being antisemitism as it doesn't include many who are ethnically Semitic.

If we started using ethnicity then we are looking at thousands of ethnic groupings around the globe based on language, culture and religion, amongst other things.

If we are using racism to describe prejudice against ethnic groups
then that's 87 ethnic groups of Europe
Thousands of ethnic groups in Africa
That's just for starters.

And Jews fit within an ethnic grouping based on religion language and culture.

So people with Black skin could be from any one of thousands of ethnicities whereas Jews are possibly from one ethnic group, depending on how you define things.
Certainly there are "ethnic branches" based on geography.

So it depends if you see racism as prejudice based on skin colour, or based on ethnicity.

If the former I can see why you wouldn't include antisemitism and if it's the latter you would include antisemitism.

You can basically think what you like about racism as it's the wrong term.

We should just use: "Prejudice based on skin colour" or "xenophobia" or whatever else we can think of.

Surely we could scrap this nonsense word and come up with something better.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

In the UK at least anti-semitism is defined as racist whereas anti-islam or anti-christianity isn't. I can't remember the exact reasoning but I think it was that being Jewish is tied in to a race (I think the majority of the Jewish diaspora have been found to share the same origins) as well as religion.

An ethno-religious group is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background and often define identity by a combination of both ancestral heritage and religious affiliation. This is important because Jews are endogamous.

I had to look endogamous up as I wasn't familiar with the term.

Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific social group, caste, or ethnic group, rejecting those from others as unsuitable for marriage or other close personal relationships.

Endogamy is common in many cultures and ethnic groups. Several religious and ethnic religious groups are traditionally more endogamous, although sometimes with the added dimension of requiring marital religious conversion. This permits an exogamous marriage, as the convert, by accepting the partner's religion, becomes accepted within the endogamous rules. Endogamy, as distinct from consanguinity, may result in transmission of genetic disorders, the so-called founder effect, within the relatively closed community.

I believe Certain branches Christianity and Islam are not endogamous, whereas others could be.

So certain sects of religions may be ethno religious.

Whereas Mormons and Sikhs are ethno religious.
As are Russian Orthodox Christians.

[AndrewJB]

You need to improve your reading skills AndrewJB. To help you this time, I've lifted the relevant part directly from the article:

I’ve read the whole interview. There’s nothing anti-Semitic in the portion you cited. Starmer is wrong, and you are as well. Claiming it is anti Semitic is more likely to be anti Semitic itself, because as others have said, it’s anti Semitic to attribute to all Jews the actions of the state of Israel.

[KateR]

Fair enough.

The problem we have is the language used which is completely inaccurate and outdated. There are no races so how can there be racism.

It's an undoubted fact of history that The Holocaust was based on racism. Even if that was the racist belief in a superior Aryan race. The main victims but not the only ones being Jews.

Whether the definition has changed in modern times, I don't know?

For me I think to many people over think these things and try to come up with compelling reasons, where I try to simplify things, I have a bucket and it's name is hatred, inside my bucket are numerous things which are nothing to do with personal hatred of say a person for something they have done which personally affected you. In my bucket is a bunch of hate thoughts mostly based on a bias, usually caused by where you grew up, early life and peoples parents, etc. that influenced how they live and think whether consciously or not and for me can be broken down to:

Racists: again just for me a hatred for skin color other than there own. Been going on forever and usually involves people thinking they are superior and that others are classed in to "subhuman" species. People who see others can not differentiate between an African American, Jamaican, any number of African countries, they all get lumped in together just through the first look at someone. I would put the Indian Caste System in this part of the bucket although it stems from religious differences.
Religion: I put Jews in this part of my bucket and I don't go the ethnicity thought here, Indians/Pakistanis do the same, including Sikhs, Muslims and Christians because of the fanatical belief in the faith being the one true faith
Gender: I have seen heard some of the hatred first hand, but most of this stems from the male superiority complex and a lot I think is unconscious bias.
Gay/Trans: Just different people in terms of sexuality and even different races will ban together in the hatred here

lots of others could be added but just my main thoughts

[Erasmus]

Kate, I have never called anyone names and I never would. I have no desire at all to claim any intellectual superiority. I do feel a need, however, to show some support for the Palestinian people. I have been to the West Bank and in Bethlehem I had the chance to speak to Palestinian people. Their treatment by the state of Israel has been just awful. They were expressing the hope that Clinton, who had just been elected, might take a more even approach to their position. I just didn't have the heart to tell them that there wasn't a hope of that happening. I also knew someone who was a regular speaker for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and who was accused of anti-semitism by supporters of Israel when I know he didn't have racist bone in his body. He was suspended from his university for some time because of those lies against him.

The reality is that there is nothing of substance that any of us can do to bring justice to the Palestinians, so great are the odds stacked against them. But we can at least speak out in their support and acknowledge that they are the victims of cruel abuse by a rogue state.

I have know real gripe with Rowls, but too often we have seen how criticism of the state of Israel, legitimate criticism, has been labelled anti-semiticism so as to avoid proper debate on the issues. Rowls is smart enough to know what he is doing. He knows that his position would not stand up to proper discussion and so he avoids that through repeated obfuscation and a refusal to confront the issues. He does this either because he sees it as a chance to damage the Labour Party or because he wants to deflect criticism of Israel, whom he supports. Probably both. As I say, the least we can do is show some sympathy and give some support for the Palestinians in light of the cruel oppression they suffer, and in order to do that it is necessary to speak up against those who want to avoid the real issue by bogus claims of anti-semitism.

[KateR]

Kate, I have never called anyone names and I never would.

Erasmus,
I normal like your posts but I feel when you write things like below where as far as I am concerned you called him cowardly and dishonest constitutes to name calling and belittling others:

Rowls always hides on this one, saying that he accepts criticism of Israel is anti-semitism but never daring to openly debate the issue. He knows his case is very weak so he prefers obfuscation. It's cowardly, dishonest but unfortunately very typical of those who want to avoid the issue.

As I said I normally like your posts but I think that post was not to your normal standard and uncalled for, the last sentence could have been left out all together and it would have achieved it's message. I don't want to be in the middle of an argument but your posts on this subject and DA's in some areas have been baiting and name calling mixed with asking for some honest dialogue. I certainly would not have answered those posts unless it was to defend myself and then the subject matter gets lost as we disappear down the rabbit hole, again just my opinion.

[Devils_Advocate]

There is definitely baiting going on but believe me Kate it is not coming from me and most definitely not from Erasmus.

There is absolutely no sincerity in Rowls postings on this topic and calling this out and challenging him on it is completely different to what you are accusing both of us as doing

[DCWat]

Rowl’s approach to debate on this topic is certainly different to one that would be adopted on others.

[KateR]

There is definitely baiting going on but believe me Kate it is not coming from me and most definitely not from Erasmus.

There is absolutely no sincerity in Rowls postings on this topic and calling this out and challenging him on it is completely different to what you are accusing both of us as doing

I simply don't understand what you have said to be honest and have pointed out the name calling from Erasmus, you asked as you often do for some debate on the subject, when he answered, you called him a hypocrite, do you honestly believe that calling anyone cowardly, dishonest and a hypocrite is likely to have that person engage in open debate. I certainly would not, it's insulting surely to anyone and more over hurtful when it's not needed, I get you don't like the answers and that you think he is defecting, not really answering but why not just say that?

I am not his or anyone's else's defender or champion, but sure if we need to call out racism we also need to call out things like that or is it you think it's ok and we can call anyone names and it doesn't matter, are there degrees of this I should know and understand. I am not and never will be a snowflake and don't get easily upset about petty insults yet I can't match the wanting of a debate to the insults, it smacks of I have the right answer and if anyone dare disagree I get to call them names because I know how superior I am to that person. Trap set, baited and just waiting for him or her to walk right in to it, surely that s not how to have an honest debate.

[KateR]

if people want to debate this it will throw open different thoughts but we should embrace that, look at it and conclude, maybe there is something in what he/she says however I am not buying it and counter with why not or ask a different question from a different angle, for example when this was written, is it racist or is it a religious argument:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ­ and I myself was unaware of it ­ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

I only listed 2 of the 8 arguments against the Jews and don't even think the word racists or Anti-Semetism was ever used and would come much later.

[Devils_Advocate]

I am not his or anyone's else's defender or champion, but sure if we need to call out racism we also need to call out things like that or is it you think it's ok and we can call anyone names and it doesn't matter, are there degrees of this I should know and understand.

Are you for real or have you just no self awareness?

I mean the amount of insults you throw around to certain posters you dont think much of and whose opinion you dont value and you have the nerve to call me out for suggesting Rowls is a hypocrite.

Priceless

[Erasmus]

I would take back cowardly, but not dishonest. The reason for that is that many people use this tactic of trying to deflect legitimate criticism of Israel by referring repeatedly to anti-semitism. The aim is to thereby avoid proper debate of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. It is dishonest because it is done deliberately by using a pretence.

I am exercised by the injustice done to the Palesinian people and I object strongly to the attempt to negate calls for justice for an oppressed community by deliberately constructed ways of avoiding proper discussion. This is the reason why I have been a little stronger than usual on this. It is a deliberate tactic that has been used for years now and it is quite wrong. Rowls didn't invent it, but he exemplifies it with his obfuscations.

And on a different subject, anti-semitism can be religious bigotry or racism or both. The vilest example of anti-semitism since the Crusades was of course the Nazis and that was entirely racist. Even Jewish families who had been Christian for more than a generation were subject to the same persecution and murder. The fact that they were Christians made no difference.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

For me I think to many people over think these things and try to come up with compelling reasons, where I try to simplify things, I have a bucket and it's name is hatred, inside my bucket are numerous things which are nothing to do with personal hatred of say a person for something they have done which personally affected you. In my bucket is a bunch of hate thoughts mostly based on a bias, usually caused by where you grew up, early life and peoples parents, etc. that influenced how they live and think whether consciously or not and for me can be broken down to:

Racists: again just for me a hatred for skin color other than there own. Been going on forever and usually involves people thinking they are superior and that others are classed in to "subhuman" species. People who see others can not differentiate between an African American, Jamaican, any number of African countries, they all get lumped in together just through the first look at someone. I would put the Indian Caste System in this part of the bucket although it stems from religious differences.
Religion: I put Jews in this part of my bucket and I don't go the ethnicity thought here, Indians/Pakistanis do the same, including Sikhs, Muslims and Christians because of the fanatical belief in the faith being the one true faith
Gender: I have seen heard some of the hatred first hand, but most of this stems from the male superiority complex and a lot I think is unconscious bias.
Gay/Trans: Just different people in terms of sexuality and even different races will ban together in the hatred here

lots of others could be added but just my main thoughts

It's fine to have your own definitions.

But historically, based on solid evidence, antisemitism was racism.

Those who were antisemitic thought of themselves a superior race and the Jews as an inferior race.

Which is classic racism. Just as you described.

We know now that Jews aren't a race, just as we know Black people aren't a race and White people aren't a race.

But discrimination against Black people is still described as racism even though we know skin colour has nothing to do with "race".

As I say "racism" is one of the most inaccurate and misleading words we have in the English language.

[KateR]

Are you for real or have you just no self awareness?

I mean the amount of insults you throw around to certain posters you dont think much of and whose opinion you dont value and you have the nerve to call me out for suggesting Rowls is a hypocrite.

Priceless

yes it's laughable you would revert to that type of answer rather than answering the point you were given but that's ok, seems you really don't want that debate at all.

[KateR]

It's fine to have your own definitions.

But historically, based on solid evidence, antisemitism was racism.

Those who were antisemitic thought of themselves a superior race and the Jews as an inferior race.

Which is classic racism. Just as you described.

We know now that Jews aren't a race, just as we know Black people aren't a race and White people aren't a race.

But discrimination against Black people is still described as racism even though we know skin colour has nothing to do with "race".

As I say "racism" is one of the most inaccurate and misleading words we have in the English language.

Thant's ok but if you want to refer to the coronation of Richard 1 and the Jews then, it is way before what you are quoting plus the other post I recently sent and sets a tone long before racism was ever discussed and those are just two examples and agree racism is misleading as a word, which I think someone else was trying to say also.

[Devils_Advocate]

yes it's laughable you would revert to that type of answer rather than answering the point you were given but that's ok, seems you really don't want that debate at all.

Not with you when your opening gambit was to accuse me of baiting and being disingenuous rather than trying to engage in a discussion with me.

As a result you can jog on and have one of your spats with someone who cares as thats as much bickering as Im willing to do thanks.

[KateR]

Not with you when your opening gambit was to accuse me of baiting and being disingenuous rather than trying to engage in a discussion with me.

As a result you can jog on and have one of your spats with someone who cares as thats as much bickering as Im willing to do thanks.

ok

[Damo]

I assume anti semitism is listed as a crime due to the holocaust.
I'm starting to wonder if the people who defended antifa defacing the Winston Churchill statue have some sinister motives

[Bordeauxclaret]

Who defended the defacing of the statue?

[Rowls]

[Kier] Starmer is wrong, and you are as well.

Hi AndrewJB!

You've quoted your opinion here for a long long time but I'm quoting you tonight for posterity.

Goodnight, God bless x x

[Damo]

Who defended the defacing of the statue?

I'm not going to name names pal. Highlighting individuals isnt my intention.

[Rowls]

I assume anti semitism is listed as a crime due to the holocaust.
I'm starting to wonder if the people who defended antifa defacing the Winston Churchill statue have some sinister motives

Well the occurance of the Holocaust was indeed one of the (many) reasons people started looking at hatred and discrimination as crimes, rather than, say, "national characteristics".

So there's something in what you say.

[KateR]

why not have a look at the link from the horses mouth so to speak.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-semitism

[AndrewJB]

I assume anti semitism is listed as a crime due to the holocaust.
I'm starting to wonder if the people who defended antifa defacing the Winston Churchill statue have some sinister motives

The people opposing anti fascism are fascists. Do you count yourself in their number?

[AndrewJB]

Hi AndrewJB!

You've quoted your opinion here for a long long time but I'm quoting you tonight for posterity.

Goodnight, God bless x x

I don’t think I’ve quoted my opinion on here very often, but just said it. Are you now going to quote me out of context going forward? If you want to be dishonest, like Johnson and his government, then that would be the direction to take.

[Damo]

The people opposing anti fascism are fascists. Do you count yourself in their number?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[Caernarfon_Claret]

The problem you have is that some antisemitism is blatant and obvious to spot and some is sly.

So amongst legitimate criticism of Israel as a state you'll have a less blatant form of antisemitism.

As I've said before I think the difficulty is that there is only one Country where the majority of the population is Jewish. If there were ten such Countries, criticism of only one couldn't be misconstrued as antisemitism.

Let's compare Israel with other countries.

Firstly (Nuclear Powers):

Designated nuclear weapon states - China, France, Russia, UK, US

Other states with Nuclear weapons - India, North Korea, Pakistan

Other states presumed to have Nuclear weapons - Israel

So a real mix of Countries there but several of these - Russia, China, US, North Korea, India, Israel seem to use a quite abrasive style of diplomacy and heavy handed tactics when dealing with external attacks.

The dealings with Palestinians is similar to the way China the US and Russia respond to similar internal matters.

Britain and France tend to be more diplomatic and take a more softly softly approach. Although not without their flaws. Although of course during their colonial period were quite barbaric.

Of these countries some are Democratic and have a free press including Israel, which can and do hold their governments to account.

NB as far as I know Israel is the only country which was a country three thousand years ago - had a huge period of displacement and persecution and then were allowed to resettle in their ancestral home almost two thousand years after they were dispersed.

I tend to put Israel and the USA together as the Democratic system in Israel is modeled on the US system and they operate in similar ways. Both democracies and both questionable in the way they deal with minorities.

But I believe there are enough Americans and Israelis to hold their governments to account without me criticizing them too much.

[Bigbopper]

Blaming the Jew for the problems of the world has been going on for at least 2000 years.

Who got the blame for the death of Christ , the Jew .

Who got the blame for killing Christian children in York, the Jew. This caused one of the worst antisemitic massacres of the middle ages (1190) at Clifford's tower.

Who got the blame, in some parts of Europe, for the Black Death the Jew.

Who got the blame for Germany's financial problems in the 1920/30's, the Jew. By association caused the WW 2.

Now guess who gets the blame for the death of George Floyd, yet again the Jew.

Should Maxine Peake, R L B and the left of the Labour Party can now be added to a long list of racist antisemites?

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Thant's ok but if you want to refer to the coronation of Richard 1 and the Jews then, it is way before what you are quoting plus the other post I recently sent and sets a tone long before racism was ever discussed and those are just two examples and agree racism is misleading as a word, which I think someone else was trying to say also.

That's fine but also The African Slave Trade was long before the concept of Races and "Scientific Racism" emerged.


And misogyny was going on long before there was a concept and awareness of it.

Surely it's possible for antisemitism to be in two categories of discrimination:

Racism and Religious intolerance

In it is.

Racial antisemitism

Religious antisemitism



Remember antisemitic propaganda includes facial features


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism

It seems some think modern antisemitism is racial, some religious and some that they are inseparable.

Edit

So at the time of Richard I all antisemitism was based on the religion - Judaism (religious antisemitism)

But later when some Jews converted to Christianity or became atheist and secular and were still victims of antisemitism it became racial antisemitism based on their supposed race - and were persecuted for how they looked and other stereotypical racial characteristics rather than what they believed.

Most Nazi propaganda was racial antisemitism.

[AndrewJB]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Probably would have been less work just to write: “I oppose fascism.” Unless you don’t. I would never put words in your mouth.

[AndrewJB]

Blaming the Jew for the problems of the world has been going on for at least 2000 years.

Who got the blame for the death of Christ , the Jew .

Who got the blame for killing Christian children in York, the Jew. This caused one of the worst antisemitic massacres of the middle ages (1190) at Clifford's tower.

Who got the blame, in some parts of Europe, for the Black Death the Jew.

Who got the blame for Germany's financial problems in the 1920/30's, the Jew. By association caused the WW 2.

Now guess who gets the blame for the death of George Floyd, yet again the Jew.

Should Maxine Peake, R L B and the left of the Labour Party can now be added to a long list of racist antisemites?

Maxine Peake didn’t make an anti Semitic comment. She referred to Israeli police training methods. It’s anti Semitic to conflate “Jewish” with “Israeli” so you can add your own name to the long list of British anti Semite shame, and ponder on how easy it is to join the list. You’re in good company. Suella Braverman (our Attorney General), Jacob Rees Mogg (MP for medieval times), and Priti Patel have all used anti Semitic terms recently. They haven’t been sacked because the Tory Party takes a relaxed approach to racism.

[Damo]

Probably would have been less work just to write: “I oppose fascism.” Unless you don’t. I would never put words in your mouth.

That would give credence to your claim that criticising anarchists makes you a fascist
In reality your comment read like something fascists would say to get people to think the same way they do.
It's also the sort of tactic they would use to divert the conversation away from something they dont want people to talk about.
Like the persecution of Jewish people

[Bigbopper]

Maxine Peake didn’t make an anti Semitic comment. She referred to Israeli police training methods. It’s anti Semitic to conflate “Jewish” with “Israeli” so you can add your own name to the long list of British anti Semite shame, and ponder on how easy it is to join the list. You’re in good company. Suella Braverman (our Attorney General), Jacob Rees Mogg (MP for medieval times), and Priti Patel have all used anti Semitic terms recently. They haven’t been sacked because the Tory Party takes a relaxed approach to racism.

Maxine Peake did not just refer to Israeli police training techniques she said they had trained US police in how to use the technique.A statement she later withdrew (it was a lie)

Why did she make this statement? it probably suited her personal and political beliefs.Let's all put the ultimate blame for Floyd's death and the consequential rioting and looting where it firmly belongs. .On the long time scapegoat The Jew

[android]

Maxine Peake didn’t make an anti Semitic comment. She referred to Israeli police training methods. It’s anti Semitic to conflate “Jewish” with “Israeli” so you can add your own name to the long list of British anti Semite shame, and ponder on how easy it is to join the list. You’re in good company. Suella Braverman (our Attorney General), Jacob Rees Mogg (MP for medieval times), and Priti Patel have all used anti Semitic terms recently. They haven’t been sacked because the Tory Party takes a relaxed approach to racism.

Another incredible post Andrew, especially given your own relaxed view of Corbyn's history with anti-semitism. Genuine question, as I have no idea what you are referring to - what were the anti-semitic terms used by the 3 people you mention that meant they should have been sacked?

[AndrewJB]

That would give credence to your claim that criticising anarchists makes you a fascist
In reality your comment read like something fascists would say to get people to think the same way they do.
It's also the sort of tactic they would use to divert the conversation away from something they dont want people to talk about.
Like the persecution of Jewish people

I’m commenting on a thread about anti semitism so it’s obviously a subject I’m not shying away from.

I don’t understand why anyone would have a problem saying “I oppose fascism” (or “black lives matter”). It’s not just anarchists who oppose fascism, and racism, but church going conservatives too. And it’s perfectly possible to be a part of antifa and be critical of it too.

The press try to divide people. Creating polarisation means people choose a side and become emotionally engaged and therefore seek information (read articles). We should all resist this push for us to conform to a type. I think we can both agree we oppose fascism without it compromising any of our existing different political opinions - just as I can genuinely say I oppose totalitarian communism (I don’t talk about that because it’s long since ceased to be a possibility).

[AndrewJB]

Maxine Peake did not just refer to Israeli police training techniques she said they had trained US police in how to use the technique.A statement she later withdrew (it was a lie)

Why did she make this statement? it probably suited her personal and political beliefs.Let's all put the ultimate blame for Floyd's death and the consequential rioting and looting where it firmly belongs. .On the long time scapegoat The Jew

I’m wincing reading that, because you’ve just done it again. Conflated Israeli with Jew, and that’s anti Semitic.

I don’t know why Peake said what she said, but she wasn’t wrong that Israeli police train and work with US police. Only that the Israeli police don’t use that particular choke hold. I doubt she was actually lying, but simply misinformed. Read the whole interview. She’s an intelligent person, and makes some excellent points.

[Billy Balfour]

This week's Dead Ringers. (For those that don't know, it's an impressions show broadcast on BBC Radio 4)

This quip made me smile.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I can't believe what's happened to mi. Sharing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories used to get you into shadow cabinet, not kicked out.

[AndrewJB]

Another incredible post Andrew, especially given your own relaxed view of Corbyn's history with anti-semitism. Genuine question, as I have no idea what you are referring to - what were the anti-semitic terms used by the 3 people you mention that meant they should have been sacked?

You’ve said yourself that Corbyn isn’t anti Semitic, I think the best you managed is that he’s “enabled it.” Some of the evidence ponied up is derisory. Naz Shah re-tweeting the tweet of a Jewish man anti Semitic? RLB anti Semitic for showing praise for an article about one of her constituents?

So here is Boris Johnson’s anti Semitic writings laid bare by Jewish academics:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

Braverman used the term cultural Marxism, and then when it was pointed out to her she refused to apologise. Mogg described Bercow and Letwin (both Jews) as being in the Illuminati. He’s also accused Soros of being behind the remain campaign. Bercow has described being the victim of anti Semitic slurs by Tory colleagues, but never by Labour members. Patel has attacked the “North London Metropolitan Elite” (ie rich Jews). And Gove has conflated Israel with Jews.

In the tradition of Mosley’s fascists, anti semitism has always been there on the British right.

[Bigbopper]

You’ve said yourself that Corbyn isn’t anti Semitic, I think the best you managed is that he’s “enabled it.” Some of the evidence ponied up is derisory. Naz Shah re-tweeting the tweet of a Jewish man anti Semitic? RLB anti Semitic for showing praise for an article about one of her constituents?

So here is Boris Johnson’s anti Semitic writings laid bare by Jewish academics:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

Braverman used the term cultural Marxism, and then when it was pointed out to her she refused to apologise. Mogg described Bercow and Letwin (both Jews) as being in the Illuminati. He’s also accused Soros of being behind the remain campaign. Bercow has described being the victim of anti Semitic slurs by Tory colleagues, but never by Labour members. Patel has attacked the “North London Metropolitan Elite” (ie rich Jews). And Gove has conflated Israel with Jews.

In the tradition of Mosley’s fascists, anti semitism has always been there on the British right.

In 2005, Livingstone was accused of antisemitism after he asked Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold if he had been "a German war criminal." When the reporter said he was Jewish, Livingstone said he was "just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

[Caernarfon_Claret]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... ani-review

One of the defences offered during the recent controversy over antisemitism within the Labour party was an insistence that anti-Jewish racism was always, in fact, a Tory problem. A vivid and illuminating new biography of Benjamin Disraeli – published as part of Yale’s Jewish Lives series and one of the last two works by the much-admired historian David Cesarani, who died aged 58 last year – provides corroborating evidence on almost every page.

Mr & Mrs Disraeli review – a thoroughly modern marriage
Disraeli, who was born a Jew but baptised as a Christian before his 13th birthday, may have risen to the top of what he enduringly called “the greasy pole”, serving as a Tory prime minister and becoming a favourite of Queen Victoria, but he was never allowed to forget his origins, especially by those on his own side. He was castigated and abused as a Jew till the day he died (and afterwards, too). He won election as the member for Maidstone in 1837, but not without facing hecklers who interrupted his public meetings with cries of “Shylock!” Others preferred to stick slices of bacon and ham on poles and wave them in his face while he was speaking.

[AndrewJB]

In 2005, Livingstone was accused of antisemitism after he asked Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold if he had been "a German war criminal." When the reporter said he was Jewish, Livingstone said he was "just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

In the same year, Blair’s Labour Party commissioned election ads that were anti Semitic in the way they portrayed Michael Howard. I would never say it doesn’t exist on the left. Just not nearly as endemic as the press have painted it (which was just a means of attacking Corbyn anyway), and polling shows that Labour members are half as likely to agree with anti Semitic statements as Tory members.

[Gordaleman]

Instead of arguing about it here, I've written to Keir Starmer expressing my views. No doubt I'll get a lot of flak from some on here, but here goes.

Dear Keir,

I have been a member of the Labour Party for several years now and have voted Labour all my life because I believe in fairness and equal rights.

For years, I have watched as the Israeli Governments of all hues have committed mass murder against Palestinians men women and children. Occasionally they are provoked, but they always respond with ten times the force used against them. If anyone outside of Israel complains, then they always use the ‘Anti Semitism’ card to quell those complaints. And of course they get away with it, especially in America, where such a lot of people in government positions are Jews.

Day in and day out, people in the British government cow tow to America and the State of Israel. I always thought that the Labour Party was there to fight such injustices, but your decision to sack Rebecca Long Bailey suggests you intend to take the Labour Party down a path of joining the Tories, as puppets of the USA. That is a dangerous and frightening prospect.

Strange isn’t it that the British government and the Labour Party are quick enough to criticise human rights abuses in places like China and Myanmar but then call it ‘Anti Semitism’ if someone criticises Israel for exactly the same sort of abuse.

Criticising the Jewish people is one thing, but it is not Anti Semitic to criticise the Israeli government, or their use of various unsavoury methods to suppress the people of Palestine.

Please reinstate Rebecca Long Bailey and do the right thing instead of just looking for Jewish votes.

Yours sincerely,

[Billy Balfour]

Dear RLB,

Maybe it would be a good idea not to retweet made up stuff about Israel, given that your party is currently under investigation by the equalities watchdog regarding claims of antisemitism.

In future, if you do indeed tweet or retweet any criticism of Israel, make sure you can vouch for its authenticity.

Hope this helps.

Billy Balfour

[android]

You’ve said yourself that Corbyn isn’t anti Semitic, I think the best you managed is that he’s “enabled it.” Some of the evidence ponied up is derisory. Naz Shah re-tweeting the tweet of a Jewish man anti Semitic? RLB anti Semitic for showing praise for an article about one of her constituents?

So here is Boris Johnson’s anti Semitic writings laid bare by Jewish academics:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -forgotten

Braverman used the term cultural Marxism, and then when it was pointed out to her she refused to apologise. Mogg described Bercow and Letwin (both Jews) as being in the Illuminati. He’s also accused Soros of being behind the remain campaign. Bercow has described being the victim of anti Semitic slurs by Tory colleagues, but never by Labour members. Patel has attacked the “North London Metropolitan Elite” (ie rich Jews). And Gove has conflated Israel with Jews.

In the tradition of Mosley’s fascists, anti semitism has always been there on the British right.

I didn't say Corbyn is not anti semitic. I just do not share the enthusiasm of the left for calling people I disagree with racists and liars. I said his anti semitic comments may have been a mistake and his sympathies with anti semites perhaps foolish and misguided (I don't think he is very intelligent) based on his genuine sense of grievance for the Palestinians. So, as I don't know him personally, I was not willing to call him racist given his general anti racism passion.

But your take then is this:

Clearly anti semitic sackable offences include:
1) Using the expression cultural Marxism
2) Using the word illuminati
3) Describing George Soros as being a remain supporter/funder
4) Using the words "north London metropolitan elite"

Clearly not anti semitic events with no case to answer include:
1) Pro-actively defending a mural depicting a caricature of hook nosed bankers oppressing the world. (The case for the defence was that Corbyn had not looked at it properly - a laughable defence given that he was not tripped up in an interview but had chosen to pro-actively go out of his way to question its removal)
2) Attending a wreath laying ceremony for terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel (Corbyn first denied being present. He then had to change his story when evidence to the contrary emerged. Had he been a Tory this would be called a lie. He decided he had been present but he "didn't think" he was involved).
3) Describing Jews born and living in Britain as not like the rest of "us" due to lacking a sense of irony and not sharing "our" sense of humour. (You decided this was fine in the context of him having apparently been heckled by people who did not share his take on the Palestinian situation).

I don't think you can top your previous idea of Boris deliberately setting out to kill with Covid half a million mainly Tory voting people but you are running it close here.

[Devils_Advocate]

2) Attending a wreath laying ceremony for terrorists dedicated to the destruction of Israel (Corbyn first denied being present. He then had to change his story when evidence to the contrary emerged. Had he been a Tory this would be called a lie. He decided he had been present but he "didn't think" he was involved).

This is a Daily Mail story where there are conflicting claims and accounts of which neither have been proven or verified above the other. As for your claim about Corbyn denying being present then changing his story well he wrote about the event in a published article within days of it happening whist the Mail only ran the story 4 years later

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row

[Gordaleman]

This is a Daily Mail story where there are conflicting claims and accounts of which neither have been proven or verified above the other. As for your claim about Corbyn denying being present then changing his story well he wrote about the event in a published article within days of it happening whist the Mail only ran the story 4 years later

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row

Well said. You know what is with some posters. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Corbyn is against the Israeli government, not the Jewish people. Some people don't understand that that's not 'Anti Simitic'.

[android]

This is a Daily Mail story where there are conflicting claims and accounts of which neither have been proven or verified above the other. As for your claim about Corbyn denying being present then changing his story well he wrote about the event in a published article within days of it happening whist the Mail only ran the story 4 years later

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... wreath-row

Yes, you are right. Back in 2014, Corbyn wrote about his presence at the wreath laying for the terrorists in the Morning Star. Back then he was just a campaigning back-bench MP and he was loud and proud about that sort of thing.

In 2018, by which time he was leader of the party and seeking to be PM, he first tried to make out that he was only present for a wreath laying for bombing victims. As your link shows, a couple of days later he was forced to change his (most recent version of the) story and admit what the photo showed and what he had admitted 4 years earlier.

It's really not complicated.

[android]

Well said. You know what is with some posters. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Corbyn is against the Israeli government, not the Jewish people. Some people don't understand that that's not 'Anti Simitic'.

The truth is the story Gordaleman - see above. The story would be worse than useless if it wasn't true.

[Gordaleman]

The truth is the story Gordaleman - see above. The story would be worse than useless if it wasn't true.

I've read the story many times before and if a pig told me one thing and the Daily Mail told me another, I'd believe the pig.