Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s antisemitism problem will always bedevil Corbyn as lo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s antisemitism problem will always bedevil Corbyn as long as Palestine remains a cause célèbre
If Jeremy Corbyn had been politically active seventy years ago, there’s no doubt that he would have been a vocal champion of Zionism. Few things animate him like support for a people he regards as oppressed, who are fighting against a state like Britain or the US. If that struggle involves terrorism, no big deal for him. The creation of a Jewish Israel out of Britain’s League of Nations mandate in Palestine, aided by the Irgun and Stern Gang ticks every box, in red ink and at least twice over.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'd quibble about one point: a 2 state solution might be feasible if all sides could be adult about things. But history shows that won't happen .
Edit: and thirst!
The U.K. left both built to a similar design and well maintained when they left
In Jerusalem is still functions effectively. In Cairo it wasn’t maintained and has fallen apart
Israel, for all its faults, is a well run modern state in a sea of hostility and deserves our support
For me I would have disagreed to start with, forcing a people out to replace them with a foreign one is wrong regardless of whether it was the native Americans, the Palestinians or some fictional future hypothetical where Southern England is given away to the Kurdish people after a terrible event.
I couldn't care less what America backs, I backed the invasion of Afghanistan (perhaps mistakenly), I backed Aung San Suu Kyi (this was definitely a mistake) I will back what I think is right regardless of who backs it. If the Democrats got a more pro Palestinian leader in I highly doubt many on the left would suddenly switch positions.
My opposition to America in this is like my opposition to America in the Iraq war, it is based on principle or what I think will work best not some anti American crusade. Anymore than those on the more pro American side are on an anti Middle East crusade.
I also do not believe being previously abused allows you to become abuser, anymore than I would support the Palestinians being allowed to do to the Israelis what they have done to them for decades where the situation suddenly reversed.
The whole thing will not be resolved though. I can't talk for Corbyn but for me personally opposing the occupation of Palestine is a principle issue. Being called racist will not sway me from opposing the occupation or doing what I think is right. If anything it hardens my resolve.
Although as you note we perhaps can't do much anyway, although a recognition of the Palestinian state and the stopping of weapon sales could perhaps have a small ripple effect. Regardless of the possible effects for me it is a principle issue.
I suspect some or most of this is true for Corbyn or the left in general.
As for why concentrate on Israel countries don't tend to actively steal other countries land, it is generally called war when they do. Other countries doing so does tend to provoke a bigger reaction. See gulf war one for example. My guess is the average Kuwaiti would have lived better under Saddam than the Palestinian do under Israel. Huge response.
Russia 'took' an area where a majority of the people (I understand) are actually happy to live under Russian protection and will certainly be treated better than the Palestinians. There was a pretty big response.
The question should really be why is Israel allowed to get away with things other countries aren't, the excuse of North Korea has a North Korean leader who isn't democratic and treats his people terribly isn't some kind of justification for the Israelis mistreating a foreign people because they treat themselves well. I'm sure you could make similar arguments back in the slave trade days about Britain being better than other countries because of its domestic circumstances so its horrible treatment of some other group of people should be ignored.
I said (something similarish) when the recent Israel nation state law was passed, my criticism of Israel is based on its treatment of the Palestinians. Even now despite recent changes its treatment of its own population is (even the worst treated minorities) is leagues above many other countries. If Israel stopped its actions towards the Palestinian people I would probably have over 150 countries to criticise based on their treatment of their own citizens before I would criticise Israel. For one random example I know they are pretty good with LGBT rights.
You might want to look at what happened around the world between 1900 and 1950. The map of the world isn't quite the same as it was before.
Your position is an interesting one. You think it is pointless for the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist, and call the missiles and mortars they fire over 'fireworks' (in your interesting choice of words).
What we initially need is de-escalation. There are lots of things Israel can do: repeal the nation-state law, stop building settlements, and allowing more aid into Gaza might be good initial steps.
But the Palestinians (and neighbouring countries) can make steps as well: and accepting Israel's right to exist, and stop firing rockets are two of them - and cheap ones as well.
If you genuinely want peace, then there has to be trust. And interestingly, Israel has previously traded territory for trust: giving the Sinai back to Egypt once a peace deal was signed is an example.
Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.
Countries do not have a right to exist. The reason why people use this strange philosophical formulation instead of saying what they mean is because they want to hide what they're advocating. It conflates the view that a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours, which all liberal-minded people agree with, with the idea that discriminatory ethnic states should be preserved at the cost of the rights of people living in them, which is evil and stupid.
States don't have a right to exist: They exist at the pleasure of their inhabitants, and if their inhabitants don't want them to exist and more, they can and should stop existing. Explicitly religious states are a dumb and dangerous idea, and the sooner their inhabitants vote them out of existence the better.
Quite so, Mr. Jessop.
BBC News has a video of an ex-cop saying the far right are infiltrating politics. He may be right. But it's hard to worry about that when the far left are squatting on the Labour front bench and one good election result away from Number Ten.
I also think the establishment are much more comfortable worrying about the far right than either the far left or Islamic extremism/terrorism (the far right also, of course, having potential to go that far). No concerns about 'cultural sensitivities' to worry about, and almost all the membership are white.
The lack of coverage on the broadcast news (apparently it was on the radio a lot) of the Huddersfield rape gang, 31 strong, being convicted is alarming/depressing in equal measure.
That said, I would give kudos to the BBC for their recent Manchester mosque segment. We'll see where that leads (Manchester police are seeing if the recording indicates any laws were broken).
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I do wonder how much senior politicians on all sides are gaining monetarily (yet alone politically) from a continued crisis.
The borders were then subsequently redefined in a second war in 1967, after Egypt opened the war by closing the freedom of the seas to Israel, and Jordan and Syria then directly attacked Israel. The integration of land gained in war - particularly when that land is strategically necessary and when the war was started by the losing side (and which had held it for less than 20 years anyway) - is a common theme through history. To criticise it for having been attacked and for taking measures to protect it from future attack (the next Arab-inspired war occurred only six year later), seems at best unfair.
7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.
Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)
The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.
On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192
Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?
I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).
Britains history in the region suggests that now, the less we meddle, the better. I don’t think anyone there sees either the UK or it’s poiliticians as ‘honest brokers’.
Even the 'Vicar of St Abions’ as (IIRC) Private Eye use to call Tony Blair.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
It's fine to say "a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours; all liberal-minded people agree with [this]". The question is: given that the country in question *has* been invaded several times by its neighbours, and given that many within those neighbouring countries (including some governments) still do not recognise that country's right to exist, what rights does that country have to protect itself against those existential threats? Or should it just suck them up and wait for the next war?
Mr. Meeks, people disagreeing with you in a referendum doesn't make them enablers of terrorism, any more than you disagreeing with other people makes you a traitor.
There is much about Israel's actions that I find wrong on so many levels. In some ways, being a Parliamentary democracy has been a curse, with stable Government requiring the votes of a handful of religious extremists whose demands on land and settlement have greatly fuelled international opprobrium. I find the naked land-grabbing especially grotesque. But Israel's action to defend its borders can hardly be viewed as bullying, when it is surrounded by those whose stated aim is to see it expunged - and when many within your midst are at least supportive of that aim. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
What I can speak of with more involvement is how the Jewish population of this country is treated. DomesticalIy, I found this the core of David's piece:
"Again and again, the cycle repeated: immigration as an alien presence within a guest country, marginalisation, restricted rights, success despite these oppressions, envy, violence, and finally expulsion or exile through intimidation."
What angers me to the core is that one of our two large political parties - on the most generous interpretation - is turning a blind eye to those in its midst who are stirring up a state of hostility to British Jews, such that they feel they are facing expulsion or exile through intimidation. THAT is unacceptable on any level, and much more so than whether you are Remainer or Brexiteer, should be the dominant issue in domestic politics.
In this case, yes, a genuine Palestinian state would render Israel extremely vulnerable and as such, will not be accepted by Israel. Probably the devolution option wouldn't be acceptable to the Arab sides, which would see Israel's insistence on providing the high-level security - army, border force etc - as 'occupation'.
But like I say, Gaza is closed at the Egyptian side too - why no equivalent criticism of Cairo?
The problem is that isn't feasible either, as such a state on the Mandate borders would be majority Muslim, which is something the Israelis would certainly not accept.
That may of course be why they appear to be trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza, which would alter the demographic balance somewhat.
It is perhaps worth remembering that even in Israel itself, although only 20% of the population is Arabic, that figure rises to 40% outside the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv belt. Even in Israel a Jewish majority is not secure.
I remember the Red Army Faction, and the Baader Meinhof gang, but nothing much recently.
If we concede the status of a border to it, that unfortunately would legitimise Israel's claim to the West Bank, because it would show the West Bank was illegally annexed from them by force and they took it back in a defensive war. So be careful.
The irony is that while there's much post hoc handwringing about that appeasement now (the very term 'appeasement' noting the Germans' legitimate claims), the reality is that those who advocate a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders are suggesting exactly the same solution to a similar situation as 1938. And would quite possibly bring about the same result. At which point, see the final paragraph of the piece.
I quite like Israel and Jewish Culture* and believe that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where it is safe to be Jewish, or for that matter Christian, Bahai, Druze, Athiest, LBGT, Feminist, Marxist or even Muslim. The Occupied Territories are very different though, being both oppressive and oppressed.
*last night at a spectacular version of Fiddler on the Roof at @CurveLeicester. Well worth seeing for any PBer in the region.
https://twitter.com/EM_Theatre/status/1029961674885869568?s=19
Do I sympathise with the Palestinians? Yes. But they aren't trying to reclaim their state because they never had one. 5m "refugees" born generations later than the people displaced by the Israeli state? Please... A two state solution is called that because it needs to create the second of the states - the 1947 option rejected at the time by an Arab leadership pledged to the destruction and removal of the Jewish state. Is it any wonder Israel takes a hard line on those threatening it?
A viable functioning Palestine is still achieveable. They have to actually want it, and put the onus back onto Israel to explain to the world why it objects if it does so. Until then, whilst I have huge sympathies for the Palestinian cause, the idea that they are the entirely innocent party is absurd.
But this is not correct. There were and are Zionists who believed in the Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland as equals.
Here are the words of the most famous individual who represents such a strand of Zionism:
"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.”
I agree with this.
My guess is that Jeremy Corbyn would agree with much of Albert Einstein’s words as well.
https://twitter.com/sltda_srilanka/status/1030322365597732866
Of course, these German refugees, unlike the 1948 Palestinian ones, do not retain any rights of return (although of course under EU law, they could now, if they wanted to).
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
But I do think we can help. Maybe by not being the main negotiators or instigators, but by providing support and encouraging all sides towards peace.
And if peace does come, we can help a new Palestinian state build and thrive - but only if they show commitment to peace. And perhaps such a financial commitment will partly compensate for the mistakes we have made in the past (although it can be argued there was no good solution back then, and whatever we did would have been used by others for their own ends).
"Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other? "
The history of the Middle East, and sadly Islam in that region, shows that is a vain hope. Tribalism and culture are complicating issues as well.
The Welsh & the Scots arrived in Great Britain long, long before the English. Do you believe that the Welsh and Scots (in your words) “win”.
Does this mean that the Great Britain should not be shared between us? Or that “England” is not the historic homeland of the English?
More importantly, you missed my staggeringly good pun on the word 'Philistine'.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
And he lived through the Holocaust.
I think his words might be worth taking seriously. He had first hand experience of what he was talking about.
Now, what is true is that this is one case where the alt-right line about Muslim immigration - that if you allow in a lot of Muslims who don't share liberal values, they will create a religious state that discriminates against you - may be true, and not paranoid. But this would be a much less intractable problem if the issue was how to make sure the majority supported democracy and human rights, not how to make sure the majority supported a particular religion.
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
I think if you look at the evidence of place names, it is clear that the Celtic tribes in say East Anglia must have been slaughtered. There is little traces of surviving Welshness in the place names, which suggests that an obliteration, a holocaust, took place.
By contrast, in NEast USA, there are plenty of surviving Amerindian names, though the treatment of the Amerindians was far from gentle.
However, the viscous Arab regimes [ our friends ] would be even more scared of an Independent Palestine with its rich reservoir of intellectual thought [ particularly in the diaspora ].
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
However, surely the events of 1947-9 prove that the idea of peaceful coexistence was impossible to reconcile with the scale of Jewish immigration? Arabs might well have accepted a state of Palestine providing that the Jewish population was a minority. But recent history had taught Jews that being a minority (even a sizable minority), without control of the institutions of the state, was no protection. So it was never going to happen.
*sighs*
I also never suggested a historical pissing contest was a good way of settling land disputes. Much as I'm saddened by the demise of the Eastern Roman Empire, trying to turf the Turks out of Istanbul to re-found it would be an act of drunken lunacy.
Mr. Cwsc, that neglects new settlements being founded (with Saxon names), old sites being abandoned, and name changes over the millennia. The US is a few centuries old. The Saxon invasion occurred about 15-16 centuries ago. Over that period York's name changed from Eboracum to Eoferwic to Jorvik to York.
Which Welsh places have the same names as they did in 500 AD? And how could we tell?
It's also noticeable that the people castigating Israel for civilian deaths don't condemn those two organisations for the 600+ Palestinian civilians their little pointless civil war has killed.
There is little I would add at this stage except to concur with one of your more important points. The current problem the Labour Party has is not so much anti-semitism as a tendency to highly selective posturing. The Gaza strip a is particularly good example. Why is criticism of Israel not levelled equally at Egypt?
The answer is as you say. It's because Israel has the backing of that international bully-boy, the USA. Anti-US posturing is 'right-on', anti-Egypt posturing is not. It is all very childish, and extremely unhelpful.
More anon, I hope. I have to go. Thank you again, and thanks also to the many other posters who have responded with considerable intelligence and thoughtfulness.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-AD-Arthur-England-Anglo-Saxons/dp/0007181876&ved=2ahUKEwiQ7_q8kfbcAhXnCcAKHQ-eCfcQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw10jxhn7_VvPnpMAercf78J
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
Britain has very little influence on all this. But insofar as we do there is a legitimate case for consistent criticism of Israel as a state based on ethnic/community/religious preference. The same, of course, applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and don't get me started on the far more oppressive Saudi Arabia.
The intellectual difficulty in the ILHR is that it's fine with criticising Israeli policy but the legitimacy of criticising the very basis of Israel is less clear. That's why Labour struggles with the specific example which seems to rule that out. As a pragmatist, I think we should just shrug and accept the ILHR with all examples and that the theoretical basis of Israel is something we don't discuss - there are a zillion issues that are more important for British politicians to debate. But Jeremy, much as I like him, is not a pragmatist - he doesn't like agreeing to shut up about something he cares about merely because it's politically inconvenient. That's not anti-semitic, and in other contexts it might be admirable, but right now I wish we'd just suck it up and move on.
One suspects the Coptic Christians were less than distraught at his departure.
PS Great article @david_hersdon, thanks!
Really ? Corbyn places a wreath allegedly on the graves of terrorists [ who apparently were never buried or buried in Libya - in 1972 Tunisia had a very pro-western government ] and is criticised . A mention of Menachem Begin , the Irgun terrorist becomes an anti-semitic slur.
More Coptic Christians have been killed after Morsi was removed.
But it is only one actor in the tragedy that is taking place, albeit a powerful one, and the other actors also are well worthy of criticism. If someone continually criticises Israel but not the various Palestinian groups, or the surrounding countries, for their misdeeds, then it stops being even-handed, and even harms the prospects for peace.
Must be beacons of democracy ?
Useful, though, as a good summary of the counterfactual opinions of the frothing pro-israel right-or-wrong nutters that make up so much of the westminster establishment and their pathetic hangers-on and so little of the population at large.
Amazing how self-declared intelligent people can regurgitate the violent, murderous, racist settler state's endless vomiting of self-aggrandizing propaganda that it spurts out to justify the unjustifiable, without the slightest hint of examination or critical thought.
Its basically exactly the same as the Tory support for Apartheid South Africa.
The last thing Id want to do is live somewhere like Israel.
But the jealousy on display is that of the obsessed hard-right Tories and their fellow travellers like DH, who would dearly love to live in an extreme nationalist racial-supremacist state in which a perceived inferior class of people can be violently suppressed and repressed.
Ah...
(Although bad as he is, even Jeremy Corbyn would be no Morsi.)
I acknowledged the reality that Morsi's win was free and fair, and that the Coptic Christians suffered more under his arrogant misrule. And yes, they've been persecuted both before and after his time, that's true.
You're willing to take on board the positive aspects (won a fair election) without considering his demerits. The situation in Egypt now is not great, either democratically or for the Coptic Christians. Given how things progressed in places like Iran and even how they're changing in Turkey, I'd be greatly surprised if they were better had Morsi remained in power.
A democratically elected leader can still be a tyrant, or an enemy of his own nation. Just look at all the journalists locked up in Turkey, or how out of control the socialist lunacy of a party that was originally elected legitimately (the last election being a farce) got.
Edit - PBers may be amused to learn that just after I wrote that I observed Skawkbox's editor(?) is back on the site - and I jumped over his post!
The hypothesis is that Israel faces an imminent threat of destruction. It doesn't. It is vastly more powerful than its neighbours. The biggest threat used to be Egypt. Not any more. Not only has Egypt had relatively good relations with Israel for decades it has gone backwards as a country and a military power. After Egypt the great threat was Syria on the Golan Heights. Enough said. Israel faces a terrorist problem from groups funded and supplied by Iran. It is a serious problem and a genuine threat to its citizens but it is no threat at all to the existence of the state.
This power is a consequence of Israel's success as well as Arabic failure. I agree that there is much to admire about what they have achieved but the problem now is the way that power is being used. And it is being used brutally. The family home of anyone involved in a terrorist act is bulldozed to destruction. Supplies of water as well as food and a whole range of things that are deemed to have military potential are kept out of Gaza and the west bank. This means that there is no chance of these areas developing viable economies. People throwing stones are routinely shot, even children. More and more land is seized for new settlements which are then sealed off making what remains less viable. I could go on but how do we support a state like that?
Corbyn is a simpleton and he is wrong to glorify terrorists whether Palestinian or Irish but an understandable concern about anti-semetism cannot be used to prevent criticism of a powerful state which is abusing people under its control. And they do.
The recent legislation in Israel creating first class Jewish citizens and second class everyone else is hardly mentioned by the "frothing pro-israel right-or-wrong nutters"
I always have this argument with my Jewish friends. Take any issue [ e.g. US civil rights, South African apartheid etc. ], most Jewish people will have been on the side of the oppressed.
Even, in the case of Palestine. Marion Kozak, Ed Miliband's mother founded "Jews for Palestine". Those are rare voices today.
But somehow, if the Israeli government does the same, there is a wall of silence. Some come up with the words, "the others are worse!". But the Saudi's and now the off-shoot's of AQ are friends of Israel!
Even if, let's say, Corbyn is unfairly attacked, what has that to do with my demonstrably true point that Israel can be criticised? Depending on that criticism they might criticised back, and that criticism itself might not be fair, but plenty manage to criticise just fine.
I wasn't even born when they created the Israeli state but it seems an odd thing to do. However what's done is done. The surrounding Muslim countries want Israel eliminated, so it's hardly surprising that it reacts in a draconian way. It may not be justified, but its not an uncommon reaction.
The far left always work on the basis that anyone being oppressed is a saint. Most of the rest of us work on the basis that they're both a set of nasty bastards. Unfortunately, anyone wanting to make peace is automatically excluded from government by the extremists on both sides..
I suppose I'm saying that Jezza isn't particularly anti-Semitic (aren't they all semitic?) but he will always take sides very strongly, based on who he thinks has power. Simplistic and slightly childish, but not exactly racist. I lack sympathy for him however, because 'racist' is an adjective they use far too freely themselves.
' As an aside, the fact that refugee status can be inherited ' and from then on muddle followed muddle and wild passes with reckless tackles going in all over the place.
It's a complex subject where sayings like "a democracy in a region of dictatorship' is an absurdity in a country which is illegally occupying an area three times its own size and building settlements specifically for it's own Jewish population while denying the indiginous population a a vote or even a say..... South Africa might be a better parallel with the intention of creating Bantustans.
Israel started off with the best of intentions with the Kibbutz movement and quickly became corrupted. Read 'The Unholy Land". Much more informative than most of the unhinged nonsense that is written in this country these days.
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.