anti-Semitism

13»

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    roybart wrote: »
    I would be interested, mr. cheesy, in hearing how many of these experiences you yourself have had.
    Duck Fart accused mr cheesy of talking out his inexperienced arse whilst doing the same himself.
    To comment on the Palestine/Israeli situation does not require having gone there. Plenty of material exists to be informed about it. But going there gives a depth of perspective that reading cannot.
    Commenting on anti-Semitism doesn't require being Jewish or even knowing any Jewish people.
    But being Jewish, and facing that prejudice, gives a perspective that cannot be replicated from the outside. This is true of any persecuted group.
    It isn't commenting, but what and how you comment. Being outside, especially in the privileged outside, can convey a blindness.
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nothing to stop your believing what he asserts. I may be cynical, but my first question is why would you want to make 1/3 of your bankers Jewish in the first instance.
    Given his association with David "They are all Lizards! Lizards, I tell you!", he could have come across the banking conspiracies and missed the anti-Semitism.
    Then the format he uses looks back to anti-semitic posters of previous years. His subsequent comments don't help him or his credibility one iota.
    But this bit pretty much sinks that ship.

  • I've come to the conclusion that Corbyn is a first rate fool who is so infatuated with his own image as a radical leftist that he will do anything, say anything and employ anything to attempt to cement that view. He hasn't created a party or sensible criteria for policy, but he has created a personality cult.
    No, surely not.

    Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, so its a ... sheep.
  • It's pretty pathetic screaming "personality cult" just because others reach a different conclusion to you about someone.
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    It's pretty pathetic screaming "personality cult" just because others reach a different conclusion to you about someone.

    It's insisting on referring to the leader by first name alone that makes it sound a bit cultish to me. It just seems weird in the context of UK politics.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A first-rate fool? Hard to think of first-rate and Corbyn linked in any manner.

    What Corbyn is trying to do to the Labour party will, if successful, make it all but unelectable. The Tories under May ae none too flash either but at least have been able to cobble a coalition together in a fashion that Corbyn never could.
  • You mean like they did with Maggie (or "mother" as many tories apparently called her)? Or like they do with Boris? In any case I see a mix of Corbyn, JC, Jezza etc used so I don't really recognise the description. The most cult-like thing is the chanting at Glastonbury but that's at least semi-ironic.
  • The chanting was started at Tranmere Rovers (I think) as an adaptation of a football chant when JC spoke at a music festival inside the ground. I have partaken semi-ironically in the same chant at a local appearance.

    Of course, thousands of ordinary people who'd never normally pitch out to see a mainstream politician speak is something to be mocked or treated with suspicion. Rather than celebrated.
  • I also named an interstellar spaceship Corbyn.
  • You mean like they did with Maggie (or "mother" as many tories apparently called her)? Or like they do with Boris? In any case I see a mix of Corbyn, JC, Jezza etc used so I don't really recognise the description. The most cult-like thing is the chanting at Glastonbury but that's at least semi-ironic.

    I'm only guessing but I can't imagine (m)any of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet calling her anything but 'Margaret' round that lovely big table in 10 Downing Street. Behind her back, I'm sure they had many interesting names for her!

    I think the irritating first name business really began with 'Tony' (Blair).
  • It's pretty pathetic screaming "personality cult" just because others reach a different conclusion to you about someone.

    You're right, that would be pathetic, but that's not why I said it. On more than one occasion, - in fact, on quite a number of occasions now - Corbyn has made quite spectacular errors where he has attempted to make himself appear hip, edgy and totally 'down with the people' that he has lost sight of the things he employs to make himself look that way. This issue with a 'painting' is just another example in the list. He saw a monopoly board and people oppressed underneath and thought, 'Oh yeah kids, look, this is great. I'm so hip and leftist that I just love this'. The Jewdas blunder is another example, seen through by those most offended, that he has no interest in addressing the issues outside the parameters whereby he continues to parade this 'edgy' notion of himself. The inability to look with understanding is such a profound flaw that you have to question his overall ability as a politician and his credibility. This of course is not to say that someone else is better. May is currently pondering bombing Syria to punish Russia; a logic that clearly only makes any kind of sense in her own head. Boris has all the ability of Homer Simpson and the cut-throat cunning of Machiavelli; a dangerous combination. And of course we could go on. This is not a Corbyn problem, it's a cross-party political one - the allure of populism.
  • There's a difference between popular and populism.

    You're also doing the 'wrong kind of Jews' thing, which is pretty anti-Semitic. Admittedly, not as anti-Semitic as congratulating an anti-Semite on their election victory, so you might just get a pass on that.
  • FC: your bizarre "insights" into Corbyn's attitudes and state of mind say a lot more about your assumptions and biases than they do about him.
  • I don't see the Jewdas thing as a mistake - if anything he turned the thing back on his accusers who were then left in a position of criticising him for associating with Jews.

    If anything this was clever tactics by Jewdas - the BoD wasn't likely to invite him to the special meal having had such a field day with the criticism, but Jewdas saw an opportunity to raise their profile and went for it.

    Corbyn himself I don't think really helped by accepting the invitation from a fairly fringe Jewish group, but then he would have looked even sillier if he'd refused.
  • FC: your bizarre "insights" into Corbyn's attitudes and state of mind say a lot more about your assumptions and biases than they do about him.

    So you can't actually add anything meaningful to the discussion apart from personal attacks?

  • FC: your bizarre "insights" into Corbyn's attitudes and state of mind say a lot more about your assumptions and biases than they do about him.

    So you can't actually add anything meaningful to the discussion apart from personal attacks?

    Fletcher Christian; your post was little more than a list of personal attacks. It is therefore difficult to construct a meaningful reply. I'm with you on the subject of populism, which is taking a hold of Western democracy and pushing it the way of an authoritarian form with fewer freedoms and a growth of "out groups". (There's a thread in Purgatory talking about this - the "Social Progressive mindset" one).
  • Personal attacks on who?
  • My 'personal attack' on Corbyn is that he has an observable form. He has done things in the past and continues to do things today that I feel indicate a flaw. The purpose of these forums is for robust debate. If I'm wrong, then Arethosemyfeet can give a counter argument. His personal attack on me is not a counter argument, it's just a personal attack because he's in some kind of strop over what I said.
  • But why is visiting Jewdas a flaw? Because they're the wrong kind of Jews?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    My 'personal attack' on Corbyn is that he has an observable form. He has done things in the past and continues to do things today that I feel indicate a flaw. The purpose of these forums is for robust debate. If I'm wrong, then Arethosemyfeet can give a counter argument. His personal attack on me is not a counter argument, it's just a personal attack because he's in some kind of strop over what I said.

    There's nothing to debate! You made a load of unsupported assertions about what Corbyn was thinking that don't bear any relation to the information we have available. Also this is hell you pillock, you don't get to whine about things getting personal. If you want to show off your creative writing skills head over to tumblr, this is for non-fiction.
  • But why is visiting Jewdas a flaw? Because they're the wrong kind of Jews?

    Jewdas aren't a 'type' of Jew so far as I'm aware. I believe the Jewdas visit to be a blunder. I believe Corbyn to be flawed.
    I think the Jewdas visit was a blunder because;
    1. Tensions and sensitivities are already high.
    2. Not everyone 'gets' the satirical commentary of Jewdas. I find it funny and sometimes insightful, at other times well overstepping the mark, on rare occasions possibly touching dangerous.
    3. The continual line in the public political world of making responses to the plight of Palestinians the sole purvey of 'liberals' is unhelpful and unsatisfactory in my view. It boxes people into stereotypes that don't exist. It lumps groups together to make some appear publicly as monolithic, when they are not. These are not things that a politician should be engaged in - your mileage may vary of course, but that's just my personal opinion.
    4. Engaging with any strongly satirical group that is perceived of as being right on the edge of offensiveness is again not what I would expect a politician to go running to. Again, you may think differently. Satirical commentary is of course exactly based on how much offence you can get away with, and that I don't have an issue with per se, I just don't expect politicians to be engaged in it, especially at times of high tensions in community relations and very serious allegations regarding anti-Semitism within their own party.
    5. Jewdas were smart. Satirical comedy often is. But to invite Corbyn was a win win for them on many levels. It seems odd to me that as a leader of a party accused of anti-Semitism yourself or within your party (which in certain cases have appeared to factually true) that you would accept any kind of invitation from a grouping on an extreme edge and not think it might prove an issue for everyone else on any part of the spectrum in between. That isn't to say he couldn't (or even shouldn't) have done it (if you ignore my qualms above), but certainly (if you don't share any of my qualms above) I'd be surprised if you thought the timing was right. I think turning down the invite could have been easily explained, but he chose to go.
    6. When a leader of Labour Party makes statements like, "...anti-Semitism is a cancer in our society..." and then heads off to engage for an evening with a satirical group that plays with anti-Semitic imagery and language, it makes it a little difficult to take him seriously or give any weight to his words.
    7. Britain is in the grip of an insular and destructive nationalism. Not everyone feels this way or thinks this way, but I think it is fair to say that everyone is probably aware of its grip to a greater or lesser degree. To throw anti-Semitism into this crucible from an establishment party doesn't exactly bode well. From this perspective I would have expected politicians and leaders of parties to have a sensitivity and carefulness about what they do, knowing they are in the public eye and aware that things could get worse, not just for one grouping in society, but for many. Again, with this in mind, a satirical grouping doesn't really look like the right choice for engagement to me.

    I could go on....
  • Yeah please do go on.

    The fact is that there is a constituency of strongly socialist Jews, of which Jewdas is an expression, who support Corbyn.

    There is no reason that he shouldn't visit supporters in this group. That's quite a ridiculous position.

    Moreover, they denounced the mural as anti-semitic and they've been speaking out against anti-Semitism within labour and the Palestinian solidarity movement for a long time.

    They're not the fake Jews that some parts of the media are making out.

    To me this feels a bit like Corbyn might have chosen to visit the Jesus Army or the Corrymeela Community - or even a group like the Mormans - and a bunch of Anglicans got their nickers in a twist because he wasn't present for Evensong.

    Meh.

    He doesn't need your permission to visit an edgy radical community.

  • Regarding only 'liberals' caring about the plight of the Palestinians...

    It would be lovely if 'conservatives' also cared. But I've come to the conclusion they don't give a shit about illegal occupation, land seizures, apartheid and the cold-blooded murder of journalists when it's done by the right sort of people.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Conservatives do care. Unfortunately they're the "wrong" kind of Conservative.

    British Tories have an uncomfortably close and friendly attitude to Bibi. You'd think they might learn, but they don't seem to.
  • I must admit that I don't really understand much of what FC is saying. It's one of those odd situations where, the more he explains, the less I get it. Corbyn is flawed, yes, I understand that.
  • I think one also has to bear in mind that Corbyn had an invitation from Jewdas and, apparently, nobody else at the time.

    I suspect the BoD are kicking themselves as they could have done the same and either (a) given him an earful if he'd turned up or (b) cried foul if he hadn't.

    But as neither of those options were available, the next best thing is to get the usual people to write angry op-eds about how Corbyn was so offensive when he visited the wrong Jews.
  • Posted by Arethosemyfeet:
    There's nothing to debate! You made a load of unsupported assertions about what Corbyn was thinking that don't bear any relation to the information we have available. Also this is hell you pillock, you don't get to whine about things getting personal. If you want to show off your creative writing skills head over to tumblr, this is for non-fiction.


    You must find real life very difficult. The 'unsupported assertions' were based on his own feckin tweets. I guess he could have been hacked. Haven't heard that though.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Regarding only 'liberals' caring about the plight of the Palestinians...

    It would be lovely if 'conservatives' also cared. But I've come to the conclusion they don't give a shit about illegal occupation, land seizures, apartheid and the cold-blooded murder of journalists when it's done by the right sort of people.


    Do you really live in such a black and white world as that?
  • Is there a Tories for Palestine group?

    I've matched with lots of people, including various kinds of Jewish, atheists, Christians and Muslims at Palestinian solidarity marches.

    But I don't recall anyone self-identifying as a Tory.

  • I don't know. Perhaps you can point me to where conservatives are discussing the killing of Yaser Murtaja, and we can discuss how black and white the world is after that.
  • The BoD wouldn't invite Corbyn to a seder without a list of preconditions. Jewdas gave him an open invite and just asked him to come as he was.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Is there a Tories for Palestine group?

    I've matched with lots of people, including various kinds of Jewish, atheists, Christians and Muslims at Palestinian solidarity marches.

    But I don't recall anyone self-identifying as a Tory.

    Sorry, I think I misunderstood. I thought the 'conservative' and 'liberal' usage meant general social trends in society rather than political allegiances.
  • Oh maybe I'm confused. There are quite a number of conservatives, if different types, who care about what's happening in Gaza. There is a notable lack of Tories.
  • The odd thing is that historically, my memory is that the Foreign Office was quite pro-Arab. Presumably, this was partly a relic of colonialism, but it still existed in the 60s. However, I don't know if and when this shifted to a pro-Israel standpoint. And ironically, I remember when many students and lefties were pro-Israel, and talked about it being quasi-socialist. A long time ago.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I think one also has to bear in mind that Corbyn had an invitation from Jewdas and, apparently, nobody else at the time.
    Corbyn was always going to face criticism on this no matter what he chose to do. And much of that from the same critiques.

  • The odd thing is that historically, my memory is that the Foreign Office was quite pro-Arab. Presumably, this was partly a relic of colonialism, but it still existed in the 60s. However, I don't know if and when this shifted to a pro-Israel standpoint. And ironically, I remember when many students and lefties were pro-Israel, and talked about it being quasi-socialist. A long time ago.
    Pro-Arab is not the same thing as pro-Palestinian. Palestinians do not have any oil.
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    BroJames wrote: »
    Specifically I would not have seen the figures round the table as a group of Jews. I could instantly have decoded the picture as anti-capitalist but not (without instruction) as anti-Semitic.

    I only saw a picture of the mural after knowing that it had been attacked as anti-Semitic, so I can't be sure how I would have responded to it without that information. I don't think I would have identified all the bankers showed as stereotypically Jewish (and I would consider that stereotypically Jewish appearance is a poor predictor of actual Jewishness in any case), but some of them can certainly be seen that way. However the conspiracy-of-slightly-foreign-looking-capitalists-grinding-the-poor trope is one that has notoriously been used against Jews by some of the worst people in history, and that seems to be what the mural is doing.

    You could, I suppose, interpret the mural as an attack on capitalists using the anti-Semite's vision of the rich Jew to reference bankers, or as an attack on an ethnic group using the anti-capitalist's vision of the evil banker to reference Jews. Neither is very pleasant, and both (IMO) are anti-Semitic, though I think the second interpretation would be nastier.

    If Mr Corbyn says that he didn't see the anti-Semitism at first glance, I believe him - it would be possible to see the mural as anti-capitalist only. I don't think I would believe that it was painted without awareness of the anti-Semitic trope.

    I'm sure that there is anti-Semitism in the Labour party, but I've no reason to think that a Labour supporter (and I'm not one) is more likely to be anti-Semitic than anyone else.


  • In fact, Labour supporters are less likely to be anti-Semitic than Tory voters.

    But I'm sure that won't trouble right-wing anti-Semites.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    In fact, Labour supporters are less likely to be anti-Semitic than Tory voters.

    But I'm sure that won't trouble right-wing anti-Semites.
    Part of the perception issue is that conservatives, big and small c, are more expected to be anti-Semitic.
    The sad thing about the poll on that link is the still relative high numbers of anti-Semitism. 25% is better than 40+, but still too high.
    And, ISTM, the real numbers in every category are likely higher as people lie in surveys.
  • It's not great. But probably better than in Hungary, and better than congratulating Hungary's PM on his victory.
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    I saw hundreds of Londoners queuing to vote in the Hungarian elections last weekend - some of them were praying - I guess they were praying for a different outcome...
  • OK, FC. Let's pick one of your assertions and let's see you find evidence to back it up. You claim that Corbyn reacted (presumably in 2012 when the incident occurred) to seeing the mural by saying:
    Oh yeah kids, look, this is great. I'm so hip and leftist that I just love this

    Given that you claim you assertions are based on Corbyn's own tweets I look forward to seeing a link to the tweet where he said this.
This discussion has been closed.