Jewish group walks away from Labour

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I agree with most of that, although Labour do not insist there is no problem. They do (mostly) insist that they are dealing with it through disciplinary action and education, and that other parties have more of a problem but are not doing anything about it or being held to account.

Both anti-semitism and Brexit will hurt Labour electorally. I expect the impact of Corbyn personally taking a neutral stance on a second Brexit referendum will reduce as we get closer to polling day - the bullet has already been fired and he now has his script sorted out - but there will be a steady stream of anti-semitism attacks getting front page coverage up until the end.

Its the right wing media crapping themselves that corbyn is doing well and far better than expected that has provoked this nonsense

Corbyn isn't anti Jew , which is what this stupid pompous rabbi and the Tory times are suggesting , he's anti Zionist and pro Palestinian , like many on the left

The times are shitting themselves that the polls and tightening and this rabbi is more than happy to stir the pot as it suits his agenda of Israel standing alone against the pesky Arabs whilst we steal their land

There are many Jewish anti Zionist labour party members , I tend to listen to them not the right wing press

The conservative party is full of right wing nutters who don't like Jews , let's see the times report on them

[the other bob wilson]

Its the right wing media crapping themselves that corbyn is doing well and far better than expected that has provoked this nonsense

Corbyn isn't anti Jew , which is what this stupid pompous rabbi and the Tory times are suggesting , he's anti Zionist and pro Palestinian , like many on the left

The times are shitting themselves that the polls and tightening and this rabbi is more than happy to stir the pot as it suits his agenda of Israel standing alone against the pesky Arabs whilst we steal their land

There are many Jewish anti Zionist labour party members , I tend to listen to them not the right wing press

The conservative party is full of right wing nutters who don't like Jews , let's see the times report on them

I've just listened to a previously Labour voting leader of the Jewish community being interviewed on Radio 5 and he said that representatives of that community had a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn on 24 April 2018 which went pretty well, but they have heard nothing from him and his party since despite what he said was a commitment to a further meeting within three months - if that is true, then I find it amazing in the current climate.

[jon1959]

I've just listened to a previously Labour voting leader of the Jewish community being interviewed on Radio 5 and he said that representatives of that community had a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn on 24 April 2018 which went pretty well, but they have heard nothing from him and his party since despite what he said was a commitment to a further meeting within three months - if that is true, then I find it amazing in the current climate.

If that is true it is a major mistake by Labour. There needs to be more talking, not less.

I think this fairly recent piece by Peter Hain and Daniel Levy has been linked before, but it is worth a (re)read as an attempt to understand what is going on and suggest a route forward. I don't agree with all of it (some statements don't match my experience) and I doubt there will be the space and goodwill needed to make it happen, but at least it is a thoughtful and comprehensive contribution.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...e-way-forward/

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I agree with most of that, although Labour do not insist there is no problem. They do (mostly) insist that they are dealing with it through disciplinary action and education, and that other parties have more of a problem but are not doing anything about it or being held to account.

Both anti-semitism and Brexit will hurt Labour electorally. I expect the impact of Corbyn personally taking a neutral stance on a second Brexit referendum will reduce as we get closer to polling day - the bullet has already been fired and he now has his script sorted out - but there will be a steady stream of anti-semitism attacks getting front page coverage up until the end.

Its the right wing media crapping themselves that corbyn is doing well and far better than expected that has provoked this nonsense

Corbyn isn't anti Jew , which is what this stupid pompous rabbi and the Tory times are suggesting , he's anti Zionist and pro Palestinian , like many on the left

The times are shitting themselves that the polls and tightening and this rabbi is more than happy to stir the pot as it suits his agenda of Israel standing alone against the pesky Arabs whilst we steal their land

There are many Jewish anti Zionist labour party members , I tend to listen to them not the right wing press

The conservative party is full of right wing nutters who don't like Jews , let's see the times report on them

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I've just listened to a previously Labour voting leader of the Jewish community being interviewed on Radio 5 and he said that representatives of that community had a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn on 24 April 2018 which went pretty well, but they have heard nothing from him and his party since despite what he said was a commitment to a further meeting within three months - if that is true, then I find it amazing in the current climate.

The Tories promised 200000 new homes in the social rented sector in 2017

They have actually built just over 2000

Politics is full of he said , she said , this latest splurge on corbyn from the Tory voting Jewish lobby is blatent electioneering , being pushed by the conservative controlled times and ironically given its support for Hitler , the daily mail

The Jewish population is being used as a political football

Why hasn't there been an outcry about the blatent islamaphobia in the Tory party ?

I tell you why , the Tory press won't cover it

[RonnieBird]

[RonnieBird]

In other parties complaints of racism are taken seriously and acted upon. I posted in this thread about a week back that a candidate for another party was revealed to have sent a racist tweet and suspended by lunchtime.
That's the difference you see.

Jon says that Corbyn has taken a neutral stance on Brexit , but the fact is that he's also taken a neutral stance on anti semitism complaints. That's very worrying when he doesn't take a neutral stance on Palestine, sharing a platform with terrorists who openly celebrate the holocaust and call for the slaughter of every Jewish man, woman and child. He welcomes them to events and calls them "friends".

These are facts.

Perhaps it's a question of ignorance. Maybe some people here are accepting the George Galloway version of lovely reasonable Palestinian groups who are constantly oppressed by Israel and have nowhere to turn. Perhaps they don't know that these people will not accept any civilised negotiations or concessions , insisting upon a total jihad including endless street attacks on civilians and kids and calling for the death of all Jews ?
They do exactly the same sort of attacks as we've seen here and in Europe, but they do them more often and fire Iranian missiles at Israeli schools on a daily basis.
It is quite routine for them to display pictures of Adolf Hitler and swastikas on placards and distribute leaflets in Arabic about
Aushwitz being " the only answer".

Well that's one thing. It's not nice, but when we see Corbyn shaking their hands, calling them " brothers" and "friends" and refusing to condemn such behaviour, what are we to think ?

[RonnieBird]

That's a long rambling essay. Lots of words, no action.

Tell me John, what rights do you want for the swastika waving jihadists ? Corbyn's "friends" and "brothers" ?

They have the same rights as anyone else and whenever their territorial demands are met they use the land they're given to launch rockets and as a terrorist base.
They clearly state that they want to kill all Jews - is this a "right" they should have ?

[Eric Cartman]

In other parties complaints of racism are taken seriously and acted upon. I posted in this thread about a week back that a candidate for another party was revealed to have sent a racist tweet and suspended by lunchtime.
That's the difference you see.

The leader of the conservative party referred to Muslim women as looking like letter boxes and has never shown remorse or apologised for that popular racist dog whistle. If Corbyn wrote an article about Jewish people and said 'har har they have big noses don't they?', we would never hear the end of it.

Also you aren't comparing apples with apples, how a party acts towards these incidents during an election campaign is going to be different to how they react at other times.

[RonnieBird]

Very out of context quote from BoJo whilst he was defending the right of Moslem women to wear that stuff, but I'm not here to defend what he might or might not have said.
One thing you can definitely do is tell Jewish jokes - Jewish people do it all the time.
Jewish people sometimes wear a hat called a Kippah, and no one minds when other people call them frisbees, because that's just a bit of humour. Of course , some people manage to use it in a nasty way, ( as has been done on this thread), by calling Jewish people "Kippers" and daubing it on synagogue doors.

That's not the point anyway. Jokes are one thing, calling those who support Hitler and the holocaust " freinds" and " brothers" is something else isn't it ?

The bottom line is that Jewish people - who have some experience - increasingly detect the early signs of a dangerous persecution. It's all very well them denying it, but the plain fact is that people don't believe it. There are just too many examples to ignore it

[Eric Cartman]

Very out of context quote from BoJo whilst he was defending the right of Moslem women to wear that stuff, but I'm not here to defend what he might or might not have said.
One thing you can definitely do is tell Jewish jokes - Jewish people do it all the time.
Jewish people sometimes wear a hat called a Kippah, and no one minds when other people call them frisbees, because that's just a bit of humour. Of course , some people manage to use it in a nasty way, ( as has been done on this thread), by calling Jewish people "Kippers" and daubing it on synagogue doors.

That's not the point anyway. Jokes are one thing, calling those who support Hitler and the holocaust " freinds" and " brothers" is something else isn't it ?

The bottom line is that Jewish people - who have some experience - increasingly detect the early signs of a dangerous persecution. It's all very well them denying it, but the plain fact is that people don't believe it. There are just too many examples to ignore it

You aren't here to defend him but you managed it anyway.

You realise Jewish people aren't naturally different to the rest of us, don't you? They don't have an inbuilt holocaust alarm.

One Jewish guy on the news just described labour as a 'wholly antisemitic party'. Do you think that quote is an exaggeration?

Ultimately, what we have seen is a day devoid of policy discussion. Instead we are focusing on character attacks of little substance from all directions.

[RonnieBird]

No, I don't think it's an exaggeration. In fact Corbyn is just being destroyed by Andrew Neil on the TV and after three requests refuses to apologise for anti semitism in his party.
Although the vast majority of the Labour Party isn't anti Semitic , I think he is honestly - based on his close association with those who openly say they want to kill all Jews and refusal to condemn them. As long as he's calling the shots and refusing to address the issue, the party is therefore in practical terms " wholly anti Semitic" .

My opinion - there are very very many decent people in that party and they should cast this man adrift if he can't convincingly reject anti semitism. Perhaps he got this far in through naivety rather than evil on his part , but I'm afraid it's a taint which cannot be removed at this stage. He is toxic to that party and if he cares about it he should make way for someone who can be trusted

[Heathblue]

No, I don't think it's an exaggeration. In fact Corbyn is just being destroyed by Andrew Neil on the TV and after three requests refuses to apologise for anti semitism in his party.
Although the vast majority of the Labour Party isn't anti Semitic , I think he is honestly - based on his close association with those who openly say they want to kill all Jews and refusal to condemn them. As long as he's calling the shots and refusing to address the issue, the party is therefore in practical terms " wholly anti Semitic" .

My opinion - there are very very many decent people in that party and they should cast this man adrift if he can't convincingly reject anti semitism. Perhaps he got this far in through naivety rather than evil on his part , but I'm afraid it's a taint which cannot be removed at this stage. He is toxic to that party and if he cares about it he should make way for someone who can be trusted

He could have put this to bed tonight, a slight upsurge in "the polls" leading into this, he failed miserably and he will again get hammered in the press for his refusal, Johnson refused the other night, what a pair of clowns to pick from, it's the UK version of Trump and the Hilderbeast.

[Eric Cartman]

He could have put this to bed tonight, a slight upsurge in "the polls" leading into this, he failed miserably and he will again get hammered in the press for his refusal, Johnson refused the other night, what a pair of clowns to pick from, it's the UK version of Trump and the Hilderbeast.

In what universe was Corbyn going to have a good night? This was always going to be damage limitation and hope nobody is watching. I just hope Neil can keep up the pressure and even handed across the weak because the rest of them have just as many holes, I think he will because despite his obvious political leanings he relishes the fight.

No doubt though, Corbyn should have just apologised but for some reason they don't, it must be political strategy 101, ever since Clegg did and people made memes and joke songs out of it barely anybody important has every said the s word.

[the other bob wilson]

He could have put this to bed tonight, a slight upsurge in "the polls" leading into this, he failed miserably and he will again get hammered in the press for his refusal, Johnson refused the other night, what a pair of clowns to pick from, it's the UK version of Trump and the Hilderbeast.

Not seen the interview but listened to clips of it on the way home from the game last night and that is exactly how I felt - it seems to me that it would have been very good for his party politically if Corbyn had simply replied "yes I do" the first time Neil asked him if he would apologise before going on to give a more detailed answer. To me it seems such a small step to move from what he did say to what Neil was asking if he would say.

There have been a few posters who have presented a balanced and persuasive defence of Labour in this thread in the face of some of the ludicrous allegations made by the person who started it. They are more clued in to this subject from a Labour point of view than I am, so can I ask them why do you think Corbyn would not apologise last night?

I want Labour to stop a majority Conservative Government being elected and would be a dead cert to vote for them under different circumstances, but this is one of a couple of issues which is making me reluctant to do so - to me, Corbyn made that majority Conservative Government a more realistic proposition last night, why would he want to do that?

[jon1959]

Not seen the interview but listened to clips of it on the way home from the game last night and that is exactly how I felt - it seems to me that it would have been very good for his party politically if Corbyn had simply replied "yes I do" the first time Neil asked him if he would apologise before going on to give a more detailed answer. To me it seems such a small step to move from what he did say to what Neil was asking if he would say.

There have been a few posters who have presented a balanced and persuasive defence of Labour in this thread in the face of some of the ludicrous allegations made by the person who started it. They are more clued in to this subject from a Labour point of view than I am, so can I ask them why do you think Corbyn would not apologise last night?

I want Labour to stop a majority Conservative Government being elected and would be a dead cert to vote for them under different circumstances, but this is one of a couple of issues which is making me reluctant to do so - to me, Corbyn made that majority Conservative Government a more realistic proposition last night, why would he want to do that?

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

[RonnieBird]

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

No. He's just doing exactly what you're doing, defending the indefensible !

[the other bob wilson]

I haven't seen the interview either Paul - like you just heard a few clips (and seen the press front pages!). I have also seen a number of comments by people close to Corbyn that he should have apologised when Neil first put it to him. I don't know why he responded as he did but I suspect it was a reluctance to give full credence to the Chief Rabbi's attack. A part of the Chief Rabbi's letter to the Times is fair, but most of it is not - as Alf Dubs said so clearly. The experience is that line-drawing hasn't been effective. The more Labour concedes and apologises (when it does it for tactical reasons not because an apology is justified) the more the attacks are ramped up as happened with the IHRA definition and the feeding frenzy gets worse. It would never be 'put to bed'.

I may be wrong but I think Corbyn (and certainly many members of the shadow cabinet and NEC) have apologised in the past for the incidents of anti-semitism uncovered, but have done it in the context of a push back on some of the false or exaggerated claims that are in the media mix and feed the public perception. I have been (and still am) critical of Corbyn for a weak response to the whole situation. He avoids conflict all the time which means he has been weak in defending Labour against unjustified attacks and weak in dealing with the real cases. Some of that is because of internal processes that took time to change, but he could have been more decisive and clear in his public statements at an earlier stage. On that point I agree with the Chief Rabbi.

In my opinion Corbyn would have been slaughtered by most of the press this morning whatever he said in response to Neil on this. He either refuses to agree with the Chief Rabbi in which case he is 'in denial' or he does apologise in response to the Chief Rabbi's letter and Neil's challenge, in which case he implicitly accepts everything in the letter, no matter if he tries to qualify it later.

If you're interested the Jewish Voice For Labour has produced an election briefing note on some of the big issues and events in the anti-semitism crisis. It is swamped by the deluge of attack pieces in the national and community press but maybe some of it will get a hearing.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ent/rebuttals/

Thanks Jon, I read the document and it does give alternative viewpoints that you just don't get to see in the current reporting of this issue. I also think you may be right about Corbyn getting slaughtered whatever he said. However, and I'm probably showing my naivety here, I've always held the morals and values I learned as a child as being very important in life and I believe that, as much as he could do in the current position, Corbyn would have been holding the moral high ground if he had apologised when asked (especially as he has done it before it seems).

Yes, it would not have stopped the rabid right elements of the national press from attacking him, but, in this age of social media, I think there could have been a groundswell of support from "ordinary folk" who had witnessed the very novel sight of a leading politician admitting that they had got something wrong - also, I still believe that tactically that would have been better for him than sticking to the line that he did.

[Eric Cartman]

No, I don't think it's an exaggeration. In fact Corbyn is just being destroyed by Andrew Neil on the TV and after three requests refuses to apologise for anti semitism in his party.
Although the vast majority of the Labour Party isn't anti Semitic , I think he is honestly - based on his close association with those who openly say they want to kill all Jews and refusal to condemn them. As long as he's calling the shots and refusing to address the issue, the party is therefore in practical terms " wholly anti Semitic" .

My opinion - there are very very many decent people in that party and they should cast this man adrift if he can't convincingly reject anti semitism. Perhaps he got this far in through naivety rather than evil on his part , but I'm afraid it's a taint which cannot be removed at this stage. He is toxic to that party and if he cares about it he should make way for someone who can be trusted

Do I need to tell you what the word 'wholly' means? That was the point of my question about the quote. I respect the views of many Jewish people, not those spouting nonsense like that though. I wouldn't respect it from anybody else and neither would you if you weren't trying to force your point through.

[RonnieBird]

He won't apologise because he's not sorry.
He knows he can't admit how he feels toward Jewish people ,but in his own mad mind it's justified and nothing to aplogise about.

In any case, we'll see how all that plays out for him.

[Elwood Blues]

In what universe was Corbyn going to have a good night? This was always going to be damage limitation and hope nobody is watching. I just hope Neil can keep up the pressure and even handed across the weak because the rest of them have just as many holes, I think he will because despite his obvious political leanings he relishes the fight.

No doubt though, Corbyn should have just apologised but for some reason they don't, it must be political strategy 101, ever since Clegg did and people made memes and joke songs out of it barely anybody important has every said the s word.

When Neil scents blood I don't think it matters which party the interviewee is in!

[RonnieBird]

He wouldn't want to do it but he got caught and he doesn't know what to say. He won't apologise because he's not sorry

[jon1959]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...g-antisemitism

[Dorcus]

Thanks Jon, I read the document and it does give alternative viewpoints that you just don't get to see in the current reporting of this issue. I also think you may be right about Corbyn getting slaughtered whatever he said. However, and I'm probably showing my naivety here, I've always held the morals and values I learned as a child as being very important in life and I believe that, as much as he could do in the current position, Corbyn would have been holding the moral high ground if he had apologised when asked (especially as he has done it before it seems).

Yes, it would not have stopped the rabid right elements of the national press from attacking him, but, in this age of social media, I think there could have been a groundswell of support from "ordinary folk" who had witnessed the very novel sight of a leading politician admitting that they had got something wrong - also, I still believe that tactically that would have been better for him than sticking to the line that he did.

I've thought quite a bit about both the Rabbi's statement and the Andrew Neil interview with Corbyn.

Firstly, I appreciate not everyone might agree with this but I think the Rabbi went far beyond what is acceptable in his condemnation of Corbyn. It's ok for him to declare that British Jews in general have reservations and even anxieties about the party and the leadership and it's ok for him to make that known to the general public in his capacity as spiritual leader of British Jewry. However I though it a step too far when he intervened politically and recommended people not to vote for Labour. Apart from the myriad dangers of a Tory majority, on the question of racism/religious prejudice is he not in effect saying vote for any other party but Labour which he knows all too well given our political system will guarantee a Tory majority. He must be aware of the rampant and institutional Islamophobia in the Tory party so is he in effect saying, naively perhaps, do not vote Labour, end up with a Tory government and us Jews will be safe while all the persecution is passed on to the Muslims? I'm sure he didn't mean to infer this but in his clumsy and biased way I think that is a message that is forming.

I understand your dilemma in regard your voting intentions but one thing I am absolutely rock solid sure about is that Corbyn does not have a racist bone in his body. Andrew Neil is a tough cookie and his interview yesterday was typically challenging. On the face of it a Corbyn apology was set up to be the right thing to do. Jon59 appears to have a lot more knowledge and experience than I do on the internal machinations of the Labour party but I put forward two possible reasons Corbyn did not apologize on air.

1. There is an impending EHRC investigation and he didn't want to prejudice anything because some things might be submissive at this stage.

2. More broadly, there is a problem with some aspects of the anti-Semitic definition with direct relevance to the Labour Party and Socialists on general. At the heart of it all is that Labour is a party which always takes the side of the underdog ( just like it did in embracing British Jewry on their hour of need) and Zionism on its practical application of creating second class citizens of the Palestine people and the stealthy land grab will always be anathema to Labour values. More and more the Jews want to stretch the envelope by trying to make any criticism of Israeli policy and Zionism an attack on their race and religion and slowly increasing the definitions of anti- seminism to close down criticism altogether. If Corbyn apologized I think his view we could be entering dangerous territory where legitimate criticism of Zionism could be off limits and in which case the Palestine people would be abandoned to the wolves.

[Dorcus]

Bloody Corrective Text: apart from bthe other typos "submissive" should read "subjudice'