nick_md wrote:

Does anyone have a good links that breakdown the whole Labour anti-semitism thing? I don't want to rely on what I read in papers.

Right then.  My understanding of it (and I'll give some links at the end, goes something like this...

Labour published its new code of conduct on antisemitism earlier this month.  This included an endorsement of the approved IHRA working definition of antisemitism in full:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

However...

Along with that definition the IHRA gave a number of examples of antisemitism.  These were not part of the definition per se, but are widely regarded as such.  Labour did include some, but not all of these examples in their document.  

I've done a quick comparison, and the examples Labour omitted are:

- 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.
 
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
 
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The argument being that Labour omitted these examples precisely because some within the Labour party don't feel these are anti-semitic at all.  The document does go on to acknowledge the right of jewish people to self determination - but immediately follows it with the caveat that this does not preclude considered discourse about the nature or content of the right to self determination.  

Rather than saying you shouldn't compare them to Nazis, the Labour document states "Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors from examples of historic misconduct." etc etc.

So, in other words, Labour has largely followed the IHRA definition, but has reserved the right to tweak it to fit with their own views.  Many Jewish people feel it's not for anyone else to determine what is, or is not, antisemitic. 

And then of course Margaret Hodge called Corbyn names.  Meanwhile, in what is doubtless a coincidence, Israel has passed a law stating that only Jews have the right to self determination in the country.

Links then:

IHRA working definition of antisemitism.


There's a breakdown of some of the debate, including Labour's original document defining antisemitism, should you wish to read it yourself, here.

Isn't it literally just the Gurno that keeps banging on about this non-thing.

Never hear of it in the north.

There was a survey from Survation i think that showed Labour had about the same levels of anti semitism as the country as a whole, whilst the Tories had much higher levels.

But no, its all Jeremy Corbyns fault.

Labour seems to be held to a far higher standard than anyone else, or it's a failure. Much like the Dems in USA I guess - it doesn't matter that the Tories are waist deep in cuntmongers, if one Labour person or thing goes wrong then they are the worst party ever and the country would collapse under them.

Yossarian wrote:

Fuck that. Labour are the party that should be on the side of the marginalised, they should have less antisemitism than the country as a whole and less racism and less sexism.

Which isn't the argument people are making.

I mean, if there was a large number of black people saying that Labour has an issue with racism and the response was that Labour wasn’t any more racist than the country as a whole, would that be good enough? I don’t think so.

Of course they’re not, but conservatism and bigotry are two sides of the same coin. Tory antisemitism is baked into the brand.

Perhaps I'm pointing out that obvious here but isn't the issue, at least in part, what the definition of anti-Semitism is rather than how prevalent it is in a political party or the country at large?


As Tin referenced, it seems that some Jewish people feel only they can decide what that is. At points, that definition has been expanded to attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and potentially other issues.

Edit: Plus what Grem said.

Gremill wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I mean, if there was a large number of black people saying that Labour has an issue with racism and the response was that Labour wasn’t any more racist than the country as a whole, would that be good enough? I don’t think so.

Are there a large number of Jewish people saying that Labour are anti-semetic, or is it that there are a small number of very influential and noisy Jewish people saying it? For example, the Jewish Board of Deputies?

Yeah this is a pretty lame stitch-up. The state of Israel is deservedly attracting flack for being fucking awful. Labour would be a shit party if they were going to pwn their ability to call that out.

Who's been pushing the cart.

So what, all of these Jewish voices who have been talking about this for months are what? Wrong? Duped? Part of a conspiracy?

Most of the ones that I follow were talking about comedy.

If they're saying "LEAVE ISRAEL ALON!!!#" they can prooooobably fuck off at this point.

These people with their experiences.