Antisemitism threats will keep destroying Labour
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
Jonathan Cook provides an overview of how Labour got itself into the mess it now faces over antisemitism.
He is particularly critical of Owen Jones whom he feels has played a particularly baleful role in giving credence to the idea that Labour is riddled with antisemitism.
This article was originally published by jonathan-cook.net on Wed 12 Feb 2020. Read the original here.
Antisemitism threats will keep destroying Labour
Loading article text…
Jones declines further in my former appreciation of his writing that he should feel it correct to say that a person who fights racism is forced out of the party due to the nature and processes of Labour rules that effectively outlaws anything that the BoD does not like. He has vasciliated in his support for Corbyn depending on the way the wind blows on a given day
I welcome the explanation of the Macpherson principle and always do the same in any debate. I always counter that view by asking if only gay. Disabled, and others should get the right to determine what constitutes discrimination against them.
Another brilliant piece by Jonathan. I would just like to make one point though, one distinction, in relation to the leadership candidates, and their acceptance of the BoDs ten demands. Yes, of course the candidates realise that they are being blackmailed into signing up to the ten demands, and a media campaign to smear them would ensue if they didn’t (and almost certainly destroy any chance of them being elected leader), but the point is that the Blairites – the ‘moderates’ – among them have no problem whatsoever with signing up to them because they are onside with the BoD et al, and so the blackmail doesn’t apply to them – ie there is no blackmailing going on in relation to them. and they don’t in anyway whatsoever feel that they have been ‘forced’ to sign up to the demands.
I don’t know if JVL is aware of the following article – ie what happened – or if it covered it as such, but I post it anyway. And be sure to check out the comments section, and especially those made by Isaac Cohen:
Warwick lecturer directs students to JVL website after ‘antisemitism’ claims
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/warwick-defends-lecturer-accused-of-sharing-antisemitic-conspiracies/
It perfectly illustrates what Jonathan was saying in relation to JVL.
Just came across this piece about an Ashcroft survey of LP members (on the CAAs website) regarding A/S, which found that ‘Nearly three quarters of Labour members said that the issue of antisemitism in the Party was “invented or wildly exaggerated by the right-wing media and opponents of Jeremy Corbyn”…..’
I haven’t checked out the actual poll results (which it has a link to), but I’m very dubious about one thing it says in the article – ie claims about what some people/members said. During the past couple of years or so I’ve come across numerous articles in the main-stream press in which it said that Jeremy Corbyn hasn’t apologised for the A/S in the party, which is a blatant lie, and he has apologised on a number of occasions of course. So here’s the bit I’m referring to:
This view was echoed by members in focus groups, who made comments such as: “The antisemitism stuff was rubbish. There may have been the odd incident, but it was hyped, weaponised. Other parties didn’t get the same scrutiny.” Others noted: “[Mr Corbyn] should have said there’s no room for prejudice in the Labour Party, it’s not what we stand for, we’re going to have a really open, visible investigation and we’ll stamp it out – not do it all behind closed doors.”
I was of course specifically referring to the bit – the ‘quote’ they cite – that says JC “should have said there’s no room for prejudice in the Labour Party, it’s not what we stand for….”, which is of course EXACTLY what he HAS said on a number of occasions, but the idea is of course that if LP members themselves are saying it, then it must be true. And needless to say, the second part of the ‘quote’ is so as to reinforce the falsehood that the LP isn’t dealing with many of the cases stringently enough (and that cases should be dealt with by an outside body!).
https://antisemitism.uk/poll-shows-nearly-three-quarters-of-labour-members-think-antisemitism-in-the-party-was-invented-or-wildly-exaggerated-but-still-thought-leadership-should-have-handled-it-better/
And here’s a perfect example of what I just said, in a Jewish News article that I just happened to come across about twenty minutes ago. And THIS is how it finishes:
A spokesperson for the Jewish Labour Party affiliate [JLM] said at the time: “After years of acting in bad faith and administering a broken system which fosters institutional anti-Jewish racism, the Labour Party should not be allowed to judge its own processes.”
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-expels-25-people-in-one-day-over-antisemitism-allegations/
NB As for the disciplinary process, which is of course confidential (except in high profile cases!), the option should be available to those accused of A/S or whatever) for their case to be open to public scrutiny if they want it to be (the identity of whoever made the complaint would of course remain confidential), except in cases where the person making the complaint is also the (alleged) victim.
Let’s be clear. Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler did not sign up to the 10 demands. In my CLP Richard gained 31 votes compared to 57 for Angela Rayner. I take courage from the number of votes for RB. The struggle will go on.
Superb analysis. Although no one on the doorstep ever mentioned antisemitism to me I’m sure that the muck being peddled had the desired effect. And while the Board of Deputies loves Israel (the Jews “lifeboat” as Howard Jacobson, without a trace of irony, calls it) they are deeply conservative. One might say that just as the Church of England used to be described as the Tory party at prayer, the Board of Deputies is the Tory party in shul.
If ‘leader ship candidates’ is defined to include deputy leader, then Richard Burton has refused to sign.
Excellent article – thank you Jonathan. Keep up the good work. I’ve donated.
I found the video shocking but not surprising. My local LP refused to allow a complaint to be sent about Jo Bird and Mo Azam suspension AFTER we had nominated them, fearing that the whole CLP would be suspended just before our May elections. Which is just what JLM wanted – people too scared to speak out. With certain words being banned from being spoken in the LP now for fear of being suspended we are in a 1984 situation which is destroying us. I have put in my own email to Jennie Formby, as I know many others have too, and am just waiting the repercussions for my speaking out.
Owen Jones knows as well as anyone that unless he toes Jonathan Freedland’s line he will be fired.
How long do you think any presenter on LBC would last? I don’t think Ken Livingstone outlasted the afternoon.
Regarding pledge 6 to the BOD, Tony Greenstein’s Blog 02 March 2020 says: “We were told at the recent PSC AGM by JVL’ s Professor Jonathan Rosenhead that it was impossible to fight back against the IHRA. We should accept defeat and move on.” Some clarification would be welcome.
Edward
This issue has been raised with us and you can read our response at https://cdn.jewishvoiceforliberation.org.uk/uploads/2020/03/PSC-AGM-response.pdf. As you will see Tony has radically over-simplifie3ed a nuanced debate and thus has given a misleading impression of JVL’s position. The people who raised this issue with us have been broadly understood the actions of the JVL Officers at the AGM and are not pursuing the matter further.