Defining Oppression
Published
by
JVL
JVL Introduction
An article in New Socialist, Joanna Phillips argues that: “Antisemitism is too complex to be reduced to a static list of examples.
“The personal experiences of Jewish members,” she continues, “can be a grounding force for defining antisemitism, but they cannot be the definition of antisemitism. The left must formulate its own analysis of antisemitism from a left-wing perspective if it wishes to tackle it effectively, taking into account its history and contemporary manifestations.”
This article was originally published by New Socialist on Sun 1 Mar 2020. Read the original here.
Defining Oppression
Loading article text…
The last three paragraphs are repeated. [Thanks – corrected JVL ed] I don’t think I agree with the approach of this article: it gives too much credence to the JLM and its views. Also, not only are many members of the JLM not Jews, quite a few are not members of the Labour Party either and it did not support the Party in the last election. They need to be disaffiliated from the LP.
The argument given in the article, however, as it is based on numbers, does not get at the core of the problem. The corollary of the numbers argument is that if, hypothetically, all Jews were Zionists then we would have to support their definition.
The argument about Palestine is stronger, but doesn’t deal with the first point. You could even say that the statement “the oppressed must define their down oppression” (note: most Jews are not oppressed) doesn’t hold water. Would someone be racist if they did not agree with Rastas’ allegiance to Haile Selassi?
Oppression, prejudice and discrimination are objective facts, irrespective of how the people affected interpret them. In contradistinction to the Zionists’ argument that it is racist to challenge them for their political views (and presumably, therefore, hurt their feelings) there are also many examples of people suffering racist abuse and attacks and deciding not to interpret them as such. That does not make such actions any less racist.
“Let Jews, like every other minority group, define their own oppression,”
Of course – the statement contains its own absurdity – its internal self-refutation. No-one with any grasp of reasoning could fail to note the fact.
Think Israelis; think Palestinians. Think Serbs; think Croats. Think ….
Then say it with a straight face.
It was interesting to hear Andrew Neil talk about ‘anti-Semitic’ tweets in relation to replies to RLB.
But one was about Israel and the other about Mossad.
People should not say things unless thay can back them up with evidence but criticising Mossad is hardly evidence of anti-Semitism.
Attacking the CIA or MI6 does not mean that you hate American or British people.
On another subject, David Baddiel has never been my favourite comedian. I can think of better and worse ones. I thought, however, that his programme about Holocaust Denial was very good. For what it is worth, I do recommend it. Perhaps he ought to make more documentaries.
The author gave passing reference to the Macpherson principle as if was a mere secondary issue. It is primary. A minority group may believe something is discriminatory against them, but it is up to society as a whole through democratic systems ( as far as is possible), through the law to make a determination as to whether an act was actually wrongful as opposed to someone just being upset or annoyed by it. There is no right not to be offended
In relation to Tony’s comment about Baddiel’s documentary :
In my experience, Holocaust denial is a wild fringe activity. Obviously, it needs refutation when and where it occurs, but it is hardly a common mainstream belief.
Nakba denial, on the other hand, seems to have been adopted as a central plank of policy/ideology in many contexts – not least that of the Labour Party.
The contrast illustrates the historical distortions that have become commonplace through the operation of the hasbara initiative. The researches of the Glasgow Media Group shows vividly how embedded is the distortion in the public conciousness.
Phillips makes no attempt whatsoever to define, or even describe, oppression. She assumes in passing, and giving no reason, that the existence of an antisemitic belief (on the part of how many people? put into what sort of action? or none?) automatically constitutes Jews as an oppressed people. This is completely ridiculous; social life is full of prejudices. Why does Phillips not offer any evidence of objective material, social, political or economic inequality from which British Jews suffer?
quite frankly many Labour Party members are getting thoroughly pissed off with the anti-semitism issue being raised at every opportunity.
In my local constituency party we have two longstanding members who survived the Holocaust as children, and one at least who came over on the Kindertransport (as did Leslie Brent of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, who preferred the LibDems but shared with me his horror at the antisemitic slurs being aimed at the Labour party). THESE are the Jewish members who have been injured and whose voices have been ignored. I’ve never met Joanna Phillips and agree with her contention that we need a definition of anti-racism which is objective and structural, a view shared by organisations such as the Institute of Race Relations and The Monitoring Group, which I deeply respect . However I hotly oppose her contention that ‘real harm has been done to Jewish members’, unless she means to those of us who have been continually traduced as antisemitism-deniers and antisemitism-‘relativisers’. Or perhaps she means that the JLM, JLC, CAA, CST, BoD and the various self-appointed cliques claiming Jewish community leadership have by their recent actions immeasurably increased the amount of antisemitism in the UK? There, I would agree with her and it is more evident every day.
For me the central question is this: “can violent racism ever be justified even when the objective is desirable ?” Can the ends justify the immoral means ?
I say a resounding NO ! No member of the Labour Party or any decent human being should ever defend or excuse ethnic cleansing.
Even Labour Friends of Israel accepts that Israel only has a Jewish majority because of ethnic cleansing of 1948. The fact of that Ethnic Cleansing is no longer disputed by any serious historian it is documented by Professor Pappe and not even Benny Morris disputes the historical facts.
“Israel’s Right to Exist” means an Israel with a Jewish majority achieved by Ethnic cleansing.
And why do European Jews have a “Right of Self Determination” denied to the Roma ? Their ancestors never even visited Palestine let alone lived there and very many of them don’t believe in the God who gave Palestine to the Jews. This “Right of Self Determination” sounds much more like Settler Colonialism to me and what Labour Party member should defend Colonialism ?
And if Jews need a permanent place of safety wouldn’t it have been more equitable to have made it in Munich rather than Tel Aviv ?
It’s always wonderful when someone writes something that I would have liked to write myself. Thank you, Joanna Phillips! I would like to add three things. Firstly, the situation of Palestinians in Israel, the occupied territories and the Palestinian diaspora is, above all, an issue of denial of citizenship rights, with all other human rights being denied arising from that. This was stressed at the last Edward Said Memorial Lecture on 2 May 2019 at the Mosaic Rooms, especially by Hassan Jabareen, a lawyer and the founder and General Director of Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (https://mosaicrooms.org/event/said2019/).
Secondly, I want to ask why anyone in the Labour Party has accepted the validity of participating in a “Jewish hustings” as part of the process of standing for election. Surely, “religion” and political process should never be mixed together in this way, no matter what the religion. Thirdly, I would like to ask whether members of the Jewish Labour Movement have to be members of the Labour Party, let alone Jewish, and whether they supported Labour in the last election.
I’ve just had a quick look at Labours Race and Faith Manifesto and I was disappointed. I think it is too general to define anything and it incorrectly conflates race and faith. Not everyone of the same race has the same faith and vice versa. Worse – in a socialist party especially – it leaves out belief; as most Holocaust commemorations also do. For example, many people were persecuted in the Holocaust for being socialists or communists. I feel this is a flavour of what is going on in the party now – members are being denigrated because of their socialist beliefs. Even the British government definition includes belief (for the moment). Labour should have two manifestos – one for Race and one for Faith and Belief. I think that would also help to clarify thinking around these issues.
There is some worthwhile analysis in this article, but also much woolly thinking. For a far better analysis of the issues, including the use of antisemitism claims for political gain, I would direct readers to the many excellent articles by the journalist Jonathan Cook (see his blog site at https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/) and the article by the American journalist and academic, Peter Beinart, “Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitism” at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic
The author’s statement,
“The Jewish community is famous for its internal schisms; it’s therefore not difficult to find a Jew who will agree with any opinion you espouse, up to and including Holocaust denial.”
is an absurdity and a slur on people within the Jewish community who do not accept the views of the majority.
I do not see the need for profound thinking about the meaning of antisemitism, in the Labour Party or elsewhere. Antisemitism is nothing else than a form of racism directed at Jews and does not require specific definition or analysis: any attempt to do so is mere exceptionalism. I do, however, see an urgent need to fight all forms of racism, including the structural racism which is evident in the state of Israel.
Is it not slightly embarrassing that our slogan “always with the oppressed, never with the oppressor” has not, in this thread at least, offered any definition of oppression: social, economic, political or indeed cultural, particularly in respect of Jewish communities? Is it not ridiculous that the so-called JLM has not offered any evidence of oppression of ‘the (allegedly unitary and monolithic) Jewish community’ in those regards? Yet that is the implicit basis of its outrageous claim that the BoD/so-called JLM should own the exclusive right to define antisemitism – a claim so outrageous and totalitarian that even Professor Geoffrey Alderman – no weak-hearted liberal – has been sacked from his column in the Jewish Chronicle for querying the IHRA definition (and no doubt for his objective study of the politics of Jewish communities in Britain and in the East End in particular). It took the US Army to stand up to McCarthyism in the 1950s; but there is good news from Ian Austin of all people: in today’s Mail Online he lets us know that 78% of Labour Party members sampled have not been taken in by the antisemitism smears against our party. Let us reinforce this big majority by education and discussion; the purge-mongers are very few, and we are many. Any natural justice and transparency in the disciplinary procedures – and in the reporting of their substance – will see their case crumble.