Current Affairs - The Bear and Badger

JMW

All of them would rather have the Tories in than Corbyn.

monkey

If it was just a tactic to undermine him, surely it would have been abandoned now. They’ve thrown the kitchen sink at him and very few things have stuck. This has cropped up over and over again and doesn’t seem to be driving the wedge between JC and his supporters that his enemies want.

Seems to me that Corbyn is pretty anti-Israel and the Lab establishment wants to keep them in the same consistently mealy-mouthed position that all U.K. govts have been in since forever. Our foreign policy reflects America’s and they are pro-Israel. We get some wiggle room but not much.

So Corbyn wants to loosen the stranglehold on discussing this without all the usual confounding that happens between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. But if you look at the omissions that Tin posted there’s some pretty clear ways to undermine and troll Jewish people that have now been removed. Just seems like a mess and whatever Corbyn has been trying to achieve hasn’t worked.

It doesn’t help that, and this has been a problem since Day 1, Corbyn is never straightforward about what he thinks, equivocating like any other politician and hiding behind platitudes. Not surprising that people insert their own meaning into his words when he doesn’t.

Yossarian

JMW wrote:

All of them would rather have the Tories in than Corbyn.

Tosh.

hunk

Yossarian wrote:

I’m genuinely a bit concerned by all this conspiracy stuff. I mean, as I say, I don’t doubt that there are people taking advantage of the situation, but the idea that there’s some concerted media narrative being pushed by everyone from the news media to individual celebrities on Twitter all in order to undermine Corbyn over something which doesn’t even exist is genuinely a bit nuts, IMO.

More the general political climate is right and therefore people are watching labour closely for possible missteps.
No doubt Corbyn has made many enemies and perhaps some are actively campaigning against him (hello Bannon).
Not sure about a concerted effort though, maintaining the public's focus on rightwing propaganda seems to do the job atm.

But yeah, the right tend to fight dirtier than the left because.....legal loopholes. The right are far more familiar with them and have no scrupules in utilising them.

Which brings me to the point, should the left also adopt dirty tactics in fighting back?

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

Of course not, but I have no interest in the Conservatives changing, all I want is for them to lose power and never regain it. Why would I waste my time trying to reform a party that I never want to see in power?

So you don't think making a big deal of the Tories' racism and anti-Semitism would help get them out of power? Even though they don't actually say these things out loud, because presumably they know how massively unpopular that would be for them?

This is an absolutely baffling response.

Yossarian

These things aren’t ignored though, are they? They get coverage, the Tories are just better at shutting stuff down with decisive action, something that, as monkey touched on, Corbyn isn’t quite so good at.

JMW

JonB wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Of course not, but I have no interest in the Conservatives changing, all I want is for them to lose power and never regain it. Why would I waste my time trying to reform a party that I never want to see in power?

So you don't think making a big deal of the Tories' racism and anti-Semitism would help get them out of power? Even though they don't actually say these things out loud, because presumably they know how massively unpopular that would be for them? This is an absolutely baffling response.

I don’t understand how that would undermine Corbyn in the slightest.

JonB

monkey wrote:

So Corbyn wants to loosen the stranglehold on discussing this without all the usual confounding that happens between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. But if you look at the omissions that Tin posted there’s some pretty clear ways to undermine and troll Jewish people that have now been removed. Just seems like a mess and whatever Corbyn has been trying to achieve hasn’t worked.

So, because they didn't adopt the IHRA defintion as it was, which would have basically made criticising Israel impossible, they're trolling Jews?

And now that they've introduced their own definition which is actually clearer and more comprehensive than the IHRA one, that's Corbyn making a mess of things (that Jezza, what's he like, eh?).

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

These things aren’t ignored though, are they? They get coverage, the Tories are just better at shutting stuff down with decisive action, something that, as monkey touched on, Corbyn isn’t quite so good at.

WTF? They don't get anything like the same coverage.

Yossarian

Of course they don’t get the same coverage, most of our press is right-wing and support the conservatives.

Yossarian

In ‘what about the Tories?’ news:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism

monkey

JonB wrote:

monkey wrote:

So Corbyn wants to loosen the stranglehold on discussing this without all the usual confounding that happens between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. But if you look at the omissions that Tin posted there’s some pretty clear ways to undermine and troll Jewish people that have now been removed. Just seems like a mess and whatever Corbyn has been trying to achieve hasn’t worked.

So, because they didn't adopt the IHRA defintion as it was, which would have basically made criticising Israel impossible, they're trolling Jews?

Eh? No I’m saying it opens Jewish people up to trolling. Not that Corbyn is doing it.
From Tins post.

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.

Whatever you think about the above, these are pretty common ways that Jews get attacked, especially online. Jewish Twitter twats frequently post messages they get along these lines. Eg Baddiel is frequently called an Israeli shill. So you can see why it might cause upset in that group.

I’m sure what Corbyn wants is a respectful dialogue that doesn’t get shut down with claims of anti-semitism whenever a negative comment is made about Israel. What he’s produced though is a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part. So yes he’s making a mess of it.

JonB

OK. I misread the first part.

But actually it doesn't open up Jewish people to trolling. And nost of the things Tin calls omissions are in fact explicitly mentioned, so I'm not sure what that list is about.

Also, I've just got to laugh at the idea that Corbyn produced the huge controversy here. Incredible.

Edit: controversy not conspiracy.

monkey

Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.

tin_robot

JonB wrote:

OK. I misread the first part. But actually it doesn't open up Jewish people to trolling. And nost of the things Tin calls omissions are in fact explicitly mentioned, so I'm not sure what that list is about. Also, I've just got to laugh at the idea that Corbyn produced the huge controversy here. Incredible. Edit: controversy not conspiracy.

What the list is about - the discrepancies between the IHRA and Labour examples have been cited by some as evidence that Labour has refused to accept that these are examples of anti-semitism.

Many of them are, indeed, touched on in the paper in full, often in a more nuanced way, but also often explicitly citing how you might still criticise Israel where appropriate. For those who regard any criticism of Israel as antisemitic this is immediately a red rag to a bull. For others, stuff like the "metaphors from examples of historic misconduct" that I quoted is a fudge too far, and seemed to imply that it was OK to compare Israeli policy to the Nazis.

It does seem fairly clear that examples were removed from the original list because it was felt they needed changing in some way.

For what it's worth - I think the Labour version is the better document - but that's because (for instance) I don't think it's unreasonable to compare a policy to the Nazis if it does actually resemble a policy of the Nazis. I think it shows Labour actually considered the contents of the document, rather than just doing a lazy cut-and-paste job and never really contemplating the comments (like seemingly every other institution that has adopted the IHRA version).

But then I'm also not Jewish.

And yes, I agree with others that the whole thing feels like opportunism on the part of Corbyn's opponents, rather than a sincere attempt to eradicate antisemitism. I'm also somewhat concerned that the whole mess may ultimately serve to increase, rather than diminish, antisemitism, both within Labour and beyond. (Though if it's a ploy to actually get people to read the policy then it's worked, I suppose.)

GooberTheHat

If it is offensive to Jews to have Israeli policies compared to those of the Nazi party, maybe they should try and encourage the Israeli government to stop introducing policy that can easily be compared to Nazi policy.

JonB

tin_robot wrote:

What the list is about - the discrepancies between the IHRA and Labour examples have been cited by some as evidence that Labour has refused to accept that these are examples of anti-semitism. Many of them are, indeed, touched on in the paper in full, often in a more nuanced way, but also often explicitly citing how you might still criticise Israel where appropriate.

Right. So not 'omitted' then.

Yossarian

There’s an opinion piece on all of this on the Graun, part of our efforts to undermine Corbyn and work with the rest of the MSM and Jewish figures to smear him as antisemitic in order to keep the Tories in power, natch, this time by employing careful reverse psychology.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic

monkey

Look here's the bloody text about the Nazis. IHRA lists a load of examples under a text that reads

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

This is the text of the Nazi example.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

Labour 'omitted' (alright not the best word for it) this from the things that are definitely anti-Semitic and placed it later on with some additional stuff.

Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of
historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli
state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent.
Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and
Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in
particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as
prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party within Clause 2.I.8.

It's not that you can't, it's that you really really shouldn't because people are going to get offended and you're going to make yourself and the Party look bad. All reasonably fair imo. Any country on Earth would get compared to the Nazis if they were shooting unarmed civilians and categorising the rights of their citizens on the basis of their ethnicity. The problem being that I'm not a Jewish person who has to get daily blasts of this crap when I go online and these people want to feel protected and that the Labour party is on their side.

It's a difficult job (I'd imagine) to protect free speech while still protecting specific groups from harassment. It probably takes a skilled, persuasive and articulate diplomat who all sides can have faith in. The Labour party has Jeremy Corbyn

(And yes plenty of powerful and noisy bad twats that want to make his life as difficult as possible and are using this for their own ends - that is politics though).

Edit: - Sources for the above
IHRA text -
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
Labour text
https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-antisemitism-1.466626

djchump

Yossarian wrote:

There’s an opinion piece on all of this on the Graun, part of our efforts to undermine Corbyn and work with the rest of the MSM and Jewish figures to smear him as antisemitic in order to keep the Tories in power, natch, this time by employing careful reverse psychology. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic

and yet? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/labour-antisemitism-code-could-breach-equality-act

Yossarian

Did you not read my post? This is all part of the same conspiracy.

JonB

monkey wrote:

Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.

What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre.

Edit: Just seen your last post - 'that is politics'. Strange, because I've never seen anything like it in the UK before.

Yossarian

Edit: I’ll leave it.

JonB

Yossarian wrote:

There’s an opinion piece on all of this on the Graun, part of our efforts to undermine Corbyn and work with the rest of the MSM and Jewish figures to smear him as antisemitic in order to keep the Tories in power, natch, this time by employing careful reverse psychology. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic

Don't take it personally.

Yeah, the Guardian does a better job of presenting varied opinions than most. Although that's not saying much.

Yossarian

I’m not taking it personally, I just find the conspiracy talk genuinely a bit mental, plus I thought that was a relevant article for the discussion.

monkey

JonB wrote:

monkey wrote:

Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.

What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre. Edit: Just seen your last post - 'that is politics'. Strange, because I've never seen anything like it in the UK before.

He caused it, rather than produced it himself. But yes. This is a reworking of some technical guidelines. Everyone lost their shit because they don't trust that he is an honest broker. He's failed to convince people, either because he isn't an honest broker or he's shit. I think he's well-intentioned, and orbiting around the right way to handle it but still, ultimately, shit. Let's face it, he's there because of his politics, or because of what his politics aren't. He's not there because he's got a load of outstanding qualities that make him a suitable leader.

Also, just to be clear, you've never seen a powerful politician, media organisation or group exploit an opponents difficulty to their own advantage in UK politics. That's what you're saying is it?

djchump

"Corbyn tries to do a thing"
"YOU'RE SHIT FOR TRYING! YOU TRIED WRONG! WE HATE YOU"
"Tories don't even try"
"...."
"Tory PM lies about having already done it"
"..."

Nothing?
Yeah yeah, everything Corbyn does has to be perfect first time out the gate, otherwise the sky is falling and he'll never win a GE.
Okay shoooooooor.

monkey

The Tories are fucking arseholes. What have they got to do with anything?

djchump

monkey wrote:

What have they got to do with anything?

Brexit? Austerity? Selling off the NHS? Lots of stuff.

But you're choosing to make your noise/rattle your saber at/about Corbyn, for his party updating a Code of Conduct in a way you don't 100% agree with?
Okay, carry on then.

Yossarian

This is pure whataboutery, Chump. The subject under discussion was the Labour antisemitism row, that’s what we’ve been discussing.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories