In case you haven’t noticed, the political vitriol in Britain is being stoked by straightforward lies in the press. Typical is the Guardian, which is conducting a character assassination campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
Cornyn was launching a review into the Labour party’s supposed “anti-semitism crisis” – a bogus crisis blown up to discredit him and get him to resign. He may not have shone as leader, especially in the Brexit campaign, and he may be inflexible, but, like Bernie in America, he is a decent, honest man.
“In his speech, (which my wife and I heard), Corbyn said: “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”.
“But no matter what he said, those wanting him out as Labour party leader are accusing him of comparing Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even close.
“First, even if he had said “Islamic State”, which he didn’t, that would not have meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or Muslims.
“In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims feel an affinity with terror organisations, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state (which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.
“But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any such comparison. He clearly referred to “various self-styled Islamic states or organisations”. A spokesman later clarified that he meant “Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza”. In other words, “various self-styled Islamic states and organisations” – just as he said in the speech.
The Guardian, whose reporters apparently didn’t even listen to the video of the speech, has an article, quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course, that he didn’t.
The Guardian later printed a correction to the second paragraph, but few people read amendments. (A precised version of part of an article by Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel, a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism).
During the Corbyn speech a Jewish member of Parliament walked out. We both simultaneously asked the question, ” What on earth was wrong with what he said?” And we concluded that she wanted to be offended regardless of what he said. Meanwhile the Conservative Party and enemies of Corbyn are spreading totally malicious comments about him. When even the Guardian blatantly misrepresents someone so egregiously you know the country’s politics are in freefall.
Epicurus warned against involvement in politics, and this blog tries to simply record from time to time some of the most egregious examples of dirty tricks, dirty tricks that were a hallmark of the Brexit campaign as well as the “rid us of Corbyn” campaign. Unfortunately, this stuff is about to affect the lives and futures of all British people, and beyond.
First of all, especially in the context of a review into anti-Semitism, Corbyn’s comments were clumsy and ill-judged at best. It really wasn’t necessary to even imply a comparison between Israel and these ‘Islamic states.’ It suggested that just as you could only be a good Muslim if you opposed or distanced yourself from these Islamic states, you could only be a good Jew if you opposed or distanced yourself from Israel. I didn’t quite read it that way, but he shouldn’t have said it regardless.
From what I understand about the Jewish MP, she walked out in tears, having thought (quite understandably) that Corbyn was comparing Israel to the Islamic State. A Momentum affiliate (Marc Wadsworth) then accused her of colluding with the right-wing press, and refused to apologise despite having no evidence to support this accusation. I haven’t heard from anyone else that she wanted to offended regardless of what was said, that’s quite an extraordinary assumption!
As for whether there is a crisis of anti-Semitism in Labour, the answer is as always, complicated. I have no doubt that Corbyn and his closest allies are not anti-Semites. But sometimes, the criticism of Israel from both him and his supporters seems so vitriolic it can come across as anti-Semitism, particularly as they never criticise any other country in such harsh terms. But the Labour Party base is another matter entirely. There have been widespread reports of an increasing number of anti-Semitic comments made by Labour members, even at Oxford! These ought to be taken seriously, even if they are only representative of a small minority. What is more common, is for members of the hard-Left to make very ill-judged and ignorant comments about Israel, such as Ken Livingstone saying that Hitler was a Zionist, or George Galloway declaring that Bradford was an Israel-free zone.
I agree with you that Corbyn is essentially a decent person. Like all of us, he says things he shouldn’t. But at the end of the day he means well. I particularly admired his stance on EU membership- he was in favour, but he also placed a strong emphasis on reform, rather than being uncritically supportive like many of the Blairites were. But from what I hear from many of my Labour friends, they feel like he is too weak a leader to win a general election, and his timidity led to the loss of the referendum. They also believe that his views on national security and immigration render him unelectable, no matter how weak the Tories get. I think that even if he is right on the issues, you cannot implement reforms while in opposition. Labour will need to replace him if they are to stand a chance of winning.
As for the press, everyone reported this, not just the Guardian. The Guardian tries to remain impartial in its news stories, so it reports what it believes people will be concerned about, even if the headline doesn’t lend help to their leftist outlook. But on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ section, I think you will find more pro-Corbyn editorials than on any other mainstream news outlet.
I am not familiar with the vitriolic comments you mention, but would like to say that criticising the policies of the Israeli government does not equate with anti- semitism and does the Jewish community absolutely no favours at all when they suggest it, in an attempt to quell criticism One can perfectly like, get on with and do business with Jewish people but dislike what is going on in the West Bank. Anti- semitism is an altogether different matter: it is hating Jews because of their race. One should not be bullied because one protests an injustice, whoever commits it. I hope we can agree.
Of course I don’t believe that criticising Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic, so I agree with you there. What I think Corbyn and his ilk don’t appreciate, is that for many Jews Israel means a lot to them: they may have family there, they may be citizens of the country, they may be attached to it for religious reasons, they may do business there, or they may simply appreciate Israel as a place of refuge should they feel the need to move there. This means that when Corbyn criticises Israel very harshly, more so than other nations that have done far worse things, it can seem like anti-Semitism. The vast majority of Jews see the difference, only a fractional minority do not. So there is no mass movement attempting to shut down criticism of Israel as a prejudice. Having said that, there are many critics of Israel- be it the European far right or the Islamists- who are anti-Semites. This blurs the distinction between attacks on Israeli policy and attacks on the Jewish people, because so often the people who do the former also do the latter, even if Corbyn does not.