Smears, evidence and free speech: Breaking the vicious cycle of Labour’s antisemitism rows
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
Jewdas, irreverent meshuggenes they might be, have gone all serious and published this article. Thoughtful, provocative, definitely wrong here and there – but who’s perfect?
And it’s long…
Hopefully it will provoke a lively debate. Down with binary thinking!
This article was originally published by Jewdas on Mon 23 Sep 2019. Read the original here.
Smears, evidence and free speech: Breaking the vicious cycle of Labour’s antisemitism rows
The following piece was contributed by Matthew Aaron Richmond @mattyrichy. This is a serious piece of journalistic analysis so, if you came here to laugh and were disappointed, all we have to say is that this is our website and if you don’t like it you can get out.
Loading article text…
What’s the point of JVL publishing this?
The main weakness of this analysis is that it treats accusations of ‘antisemitism’ against Corbyn and the LP left as raised in good faith by concerned individuals. It ignores the evidence that they are, in many cases, part of an orchestrated and politically motivated campaign. The question it avoids is what and who are behind this campaign.
While this is a great piece of analysis and seeks to better understand the debate around the antisemitism accusations against labour, the fact is, as the article itself admits, there are no clear answers and people will believe /support one side or another. The tragedy is that while we sit here and argue the finer points of language, sensitivity and semantics, Palestinians who often don’t have a voice in this debate or the luxury to sit at their comfortable home and compose prose on Twitter, continue to suffer and die. Palestinians themselves may hold the view that Israel should not exist, given the implications to them and their people, and that the land was forcibly taken from them; and this view, even to some supporters of the Palestinian cause, will be unpalatable, as many in Jewish / Christian society see the state of Israel as the unquestionable homeland for Jewish people (whether the native residents of the land consent to this or not matters not). So to me it comes down to imperialism where those in power who have forcibly taken and occupied the land of the indigenous people, define the narrative and have debates on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable discourse and criticism. All the while those on that land do not have a say in what constitutes discrimination and oppression for them. The status quo has decided that Israel should exist and continue to have debates around how to protest in a manner that does not hurt others. The Palestinians have to put up and accept their lot and can’t have debates on the Times or the telegraph and define what is ‘anti Palestinian’ and whether they should have a say in the continued existence of the state that oppressed them. I guess this will always be so and we will continue to debate how to educate ourselves to be better people and be less racist / sexist / etc. While the Palestinians continue to be oppressed.
while there may be a very few anti-semites in the Labour Party, there is little doubt but the charge of widespread anti-Semitism is a deliberate attempt by the Zionist lobby ( am I allowed to use this term?) to deflect criticism of Israel’s racist policies and illegal occupation etc. JLM has been at the forefront of this. Luciana Berger did not need police protection to attend LP conference as she claimed but from the racist right-wing thugs who 4 of whom were imprisoned.
In case you don’t go and read a response on the original site, you might read this:
“I have to say that despite a good introduction it soon gets lost in a sea of subjectivity. For example nowhere does it actually analyse what ‘antisemitism’ is in Britain compared to anti-Black/Muslim racism. How antisemitism is not manifested as state racism, that Jews aren’t subject to deportation ala Windrush, Police violence, incarceration etc. Just an admission of the difference would have been useful.
Secondly it is undoubtedly the case that the campaign against Corbyn, masterminded by the Jewish Chronicle and the far-Right press has been co-ordinated and backed by the Israeli Embassy (& I suspect British and US Intelligence). We have Al Jazeera’s The Lobby to thank for that.
Nowhere does Mendi Menem ask why the Right in this country is so concerned about ‘antisemitism’ when it is so unconcerned about any other form of racism. Why e.g. John Mann, recently made a Lord and ‘Antisemitism Czar’ is also an anti-Roma racist and bigot. Why the same is true of Tory Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel Eric Pickles who is the British delegate to the IHRA and a vehement anti-Roma/Gypsy racist who personally undertook to meet half Basildon Council’s legal costs for evicting Dale Farm in 2011.
Indeed why Pickles defended the Tory Party vehemently in 2009 when David Miliband of all people attacked the Tories for sitting in the European Parliaments European Conservative Reform group with openly antisemitic parties (Poland’s L&J, Latvia’s Fatherland & Freedom and the Swedish Democrats). Indeed Roberts Zile of Latvia marches every year with the veteran’s of Latvia’s Waffen SS who have the blook of the Jews of the Riga Ghetto on their hands. And yet the Jewish Chronicle’s Stephen Pollard DEFENDED Zile and Kaminiski of Poland, who has an equally atrocious record.
I’m sorry I cannot accept that the motivation for this is anything other than Corbyn’s removal and for all the many words expended on this article it fails to apply any class or socialist analysis to what has happened.
It also fails to ask more serious and pertinent questions of the privileged white Jewish community in Britain. In essence British Jews are being used in the same way as Algerian Jews were used by French imperialism in Algeria (or East African Indians) – as intermediaries in someone else’s battle. It is about Corbyn and the ascendancy of an anti-imperialist left in the Labour Party. Keep your eye on the ball and stop engaging in sophistry.
As for Chris Williamson. Well I know him well enough to know he is not a racist. Was he mistaken to put his name to the Atzmon petition? No. I waged a decade long fight against Atzmon. I wrote articles for the Guardian’s Comment is Free, I organised a picket outside his meeting at Bookmarks and I blogged and wrote exposing him. BUT I signed the petition. Why? Because we opposed what he wrote and said, which was undoubtedly anti-Semitic. I didn’t oppose and none of us did him playing jazz which he does very well. Chris who knew nothing of this character backed off however the idea that we oppose someone playing their music seems to have the whiff of fascism about it.
All in all this is a disappointing article. Despite saying that antisemitism is more subtle than people make out nowhere is there any real analysis of what constitutes antisemitism. The fact is that an identification with Israel and opposition to that identity may seem to many Jews as antisemitism. Just as support for Salman Rushdi’s Satanic Verses may have been seem by many Muslims as anti-Muslim. It wasn’t.
We should not allow democratic rights and freedoms to be destroyed in the name of anti-racism. That is the real lesson we should take to heart.
I found the article interesting, but I do want to raise a few points.
Whilst I agree sincere British Jews deserve respect for any complaints they make in good faith, the article ignores the many innocent Labour members who have been victims of such false allegations, including Jeremy Corbyn.
Many members and their families have been personally affected by the stigma attached to such allegations, the injustice, for some affecting their health, others losing their jobs or positions and reputation.
What happened to Jackie Walker (intimidation and death threats) and Marc Wadsworth was shameful. Do they, in turn, not merit some consideration by British Jews too?
There is also the denigration of us all, repeatedly accused of belonging to an organisation that has ‘rampant antisemitism’ or is a ‘cess-pit of antisemitism’, when the prevalence is probably the lowest of all political parties. Is this not distressing, do all British Jews realise this?
Then there are the millions of our most vulnerable voters who may be deprived of a Labour Government because of deliberate gross exaggerations of an antisemitism. All the wasted energy of thousands of sincere members developing a solid Labour manifesto for a fairer society, and “knocking on doors” to prevent the loss of 130 000 excess deaths, and suicides of the disabled.
It breaks my heart to realise that maybe all these Tory inflicted hardships may continue because of a relentless smear campaign of which antisemitism had the greatest impact.
I also wonder, when the vast majority of British Jews believe antisemitism is rife in Labour and that we are an existential threat to Israel, if there are that many who would ‘politely’ inform a Labour member of their sincere concerns. On the other hand, I have seen some dreadful, aggressive and abusive attacks, and that includes against JVL members.
We do need to address the whole problem, mutual trust needs to be rebuilt. Labour members need to realise that many British Jews are acting in good faith, but many British Jews need to recognise the hurt and pain this dreadful smear campaign has caused sincere Labour members, and the damage inflicted on millions of our most vulnerable citizens of all races and religions.
I think most impressions of British Jews are formed not through personal contacts, but through the media. The antisemitism distortions in the media, especially Jewish right-wing media will continue as long as Labour supports Palestinian rights, aswell as those of Israeli Jews. Unlike in the US the progressive Jews have little voice in the UK mainstream media, and are often denigrated.
So even if 100% of interactions between Labour members and British Jews became positive, and I hope they will be, the media smear campaign, with much greater reach, would convince most British Jews of the opposite.
I rather wish Mathew A Richmond had stuck to his ‘meshuggenes’. It’s writing like this that tends to keep me awake at night. To infer that those fighting the witchunts in the LP are ‘polarizing’ the situation is wrong and, quite frankly, I find it offensive. I have supported those who have been suspended or expelled (and there are many hundreds so far) because they are clearly committed anti racists. Furthermore, the accusations of antisemitism leveled against them have been simply false.
There is so much more in this article which I hope clearer heads may address. But for me, I find life too short and considering the very dangerous political situation we now face I think this is a time for serious intervention rather than lively debate (no offense).
I welcome this thoughtful and detailed analysis of the issues involved. I would merely add two thoughts that tease them further:
1 For many on the left, the accusation that they *are* racist (an ontological claim) is itself a hostile act intended to silence just criticism. In other words, sensitivity to the nature of claims being made and projected onto another apply in both directions.
2 We’ve known for decades that truth and falsehood do not reside in words and their grammatical arrangement, but in their use and the context of their use (speech act theory). Much of the debate systematically ignores this. We might more productively understand racism as a genre of speech act that determines the identity of another against their will in order to control or subjugate them. Of course, this applies to ‘bankers’ as much as to ‘Jews’ or ‘Muslims’ (even to ‘Tories’). This is why, for example, the ‘alt-right’ argument that Islam isn’t a race and therefore Islamophobia doesn’t exist completely misses the point. The subtle distinction is in the force of the utterance, its ability to carry power in its wake. ‘Banker bashing’ is perhaps unhelpful, but it hasn’t actually changed the regulatory regime, rewards systems, tax thresholds or other facets of elite authority that it might aim to affect. ‘Anti-white’ racism, claimed again by the alt-right, again misses the point because it borrows the language of racism but not its action. Forms of race hate are much more likely to result in physical as well as symbolic violence.
I think this is a balanced article and helps to enlighten both sides of the debate about the other without drifting into inflammatory details. I think everyone should read this before engaging in debate on this subject, so they can do so with mutual respect.
A puzzling article that seems to draw a distinction between ‘the left and Corbyn supporters’ and ‘British Jews’. While it’s true that a majority of British Jews are on the centre or right, there are plenty of left wing Jews and Corbyn supporters. Looking at it again, it’s a pretty daft article.
Thank you!!!
The reality is that but for the fact that a left-wing politician – Jeremy Corbyn – is leader of the Labour Party, we wouldn’t have heard a dickybird about anti-semitism, and the Ken Livingstone episode and the Jackie Walker episode etc, etc, and the mural and the book introduction etc – ie all the stuff dragged up from before Jeremy became leader which didn’t, at the time, have the MSM or Jewish Labour politicians screaming anti-semitism – would have passed the world by without mention. And it ISN’T the case that the left are arguing that Jews have got it wrong, but that they have been duped and deceived into believing there is an anti-semitism crisis in the LP – ie on the left and amongst JC supporters – when the reality is that the vast majority of the claims are fraudulent, and the ‘crisis’ is completely manufactured, and there is no more anti-semitism in the LP and amongst members than there is in other political parties, and probably a lot less than most, and wouldn’t warrant any media coverage under normal circumstances.
Many examples could be given as evidence that it is manufactured, but here are just two: 1. When Ken Livingstone said, in passing, that Hitler supported Zionism, he was alluding to the Haavara Agreement of 1933, an historical fact, which led to the lifting of the Zionist boycott of Nazi Germany (see the wikipedia entry for details); 2. It was widely reported at the time that Margaret Hodge submitted 200 (alleged) cases of anti-semitism to the LP/NEC, but it transpired that the 200 cases corresponded to 111 individuals, only TWENTY of whom were LP members, and one has to ask how she could possibly have concluded that the 91 individuals who WEREN’T LP members WERE LP members (she couldn’t have done of course!). And needless to say, the MSM didn’t follow up the ‘200’ story with the ’20’ story (and it’s more-than-likely that only a handfull of THOSE were actually anti-semitic, and most of them were just criticising her or disagreeing with her).
Let’s get back to basics. Forget the tortured soul-searching and the finding every opposition to belief and opinion as ‘prejudice’.
Before all the scam stories, the fact of antisemitism in the Labour Party was – if it existed other than as a weird fringe pursuit of a microscopic minority – a non-issue.
Lets be clear – ‘antisemitism’ in this context (note quotation marks) is a construction of the right and the Israel Lobby. It promotes what it pretends to despise as a sectarian political device.
For a proper perspective, let’s go back to the root of the term and class every attitude or action that shows discrimination or prejudice against the Palestinian people to be included under the term ‘antisemitism’.
Deeply saddened to see JVL publishing this with their introduction.
What were they thinking.
Mendi Medem’s article is useful in a number of respects. He notes the smears against anti-racists by those determined to undermine Corbyn; that many of those who express anger over injustice to Palestinians in inappropriate ways, generalising about Jews, need education not vilification; and that language we use to resist the attacks on the pro-Palestinian left should not make blanket denunciations of Jews who have become genuinely fearful about antisemitism. My misgivings about the article echo comments above from Alan Maddison and others. It is unhelpful to suggest that all, including JVL, who have defended Labour against weaponisation of antisemitism allegations, are guilty of insensitivity towards genuine Jewish fears. Some are, but they are small in number compared with the cynical, malicious allegations have been dished out on an industrial scale (see our recent investigation into Liverpool Riverside). Our attempts to generate honest debate have met with outright censorship. I and others in JVL have worked within the party and among Palestine solidarity activists over the last couple of years, to explain the long and traumatic history of antisemitism that Jews experience, to build understanding of the genuine fears that many Jews have, and to combat the dangerous, divisive impact of the moral panic about antisemitism on the prospects for unified antiracist campaigning against the real threat from the far right. I have found most people eager to learn and very willing to discuss difficult issues sensitively. It is distressing to find friends on the left, including in Jewdas, refusing to engage with us, even to the extent of refusing to look at the film WitchHunt which has proved to be an invaluable catalyst to generating the very kind of discussion that Mendi proposes.
A further point that needs to be made… Mendi repeats the mistaken characterisation of Chris Williamson as having defended the antisemite Gilad Atzmon. Not having any idea who Atzmon was, Chris was momentarily taken in by a petition ostensibly protesting about a musician having a performance cancelled because of his anti-Israeli views. His instinctive response was quite understandable. I was one of those who told Chris about Atzmon’s pernicious influence, upon which he instantly took down the petition link. You could say that he and others are sometimes too quick to leap to the defence of any and all those claiming to support Palestine. But what a sorry state of affairs when an impetuous response to a perceived injustice results in wholesale condemnation, including from some on the left, while unapologetic expressions of Islamophobia are increasingly normalised.
This is a curates egg of piece. Good in parts. I absolutely disagree about Williamson. I have read nothing that says Chris is antisemitic I have given money to help his cause.. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1956 when I joined the Young Socialists in Dewsbury. In all that time i have not heard one word of anti antisemitism in the Party. This is a right wing project . I believe Israeli agents have penetrated our Party. The Israeli government would be failing in its duty if it did not try to infiltrate Labour. I am extremely pessimistic about the immediate future. Our chances at the next election are slim to say the very least. All this is the result of the treachery of Labours right wing Accusations of racism are part and parcel of that. . There can be no reconciliation between the two wings of the Party.A good number of MPs will have to go sooner or later. Even if Labour were to win a majority in Parliament our programme would not go through. Right wing MPs would not support it.
The history of the new attack on the left partly comes from Dave Rich’s PhD thesis in which he put forward the idea of a ‘new antisemitism’, that is one that did not involve hatred or discrimination against Jewish people. This was allowed to fester, largely unchallenged for several years except against the BDS movement that resulted in the disastrous case against the UCU after several years of threats against the Union. The election of Corbyn was a golden opportunity for them to expand their argument further, and to distort the comments of the Macpherson Report, and to state that it was up to Jewish people to determine the meaning of antisemitism (only certain Jewish people of course) and not Corbyn and McCluskey as was suggested on the BoD placcards at parliament.
I feel that the leadership should have at that point faced the matter head on and used the full comments by Macpherson and not gone on the back foot and argued around the European definition and examples. They should have also been clear that the definition was NOT the world accepted term. Attempts to placate the BoD and JLM have allowed them to continue to complain as if they are an injured party. The right wing discussion on their Engage website makes clear that the issue is politics and tactics, not religion.