[Northern Monkey]

The UK Labour Party's ruling body has agreed to adopt in full an international definition of anti-Semitism, after months of rows.

It will incorporate all the 11 examples of anti-Semitism cited by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance into its code of conduct.

But Jewish groups have attacked an accompanying statement agreed by the NEC aimed at protecting free speech.

One warned it risked giving "racists a get-out-of-jail card".

After a three hour meeting in London, Labour said its National Executive Committee had adopted all of the IHRA examples of anti-Semitism, including four it left out in July, alongside a statement ensuring "this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians".



By the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg

Perhaps this marks the beginning of the end of this sorry mess. But what makes an early resolution tricky is the caveat that Labour has included alongside.

It will be important to many of Mr Corbyn's supporters who want the right to criticise Israel.

But for those campaigning against anti-Semitism, it still sends a message that Labour might want to make exceptions, that the party is saying "yes, but", rather than "yes, of course", to loud demands from the Jewish community that they take the strongest action possible against those who would foment tension.

[Livia]

The charter doesn't say that it's not okay to criticise Israel. It says it's not okay to compare Israel to the Nazis, or to call it a racist endeavour. Something like one in five people in Israel are Arabs, and everyone has the right to vote... Jew, Christian, Muslim, Arab, man, woman... doesn't sound like a Nazi state to me.

They've taken too long to adopt this and even now they're trying to add little bits and change little bits. What's more, there are currently over a hundred cases of antisemitism within the Labour party being investigated. I can imagine if they ever get in there will be a bit of a mass exodus of Jews from the UK.

[Toy Soldier]

Modern Israel isn't in itself racist and I'd imagine that the vast majority of Israeli people are also not racist, but the foundations of the state of Israel are without question, in my view, based on racial segregation and therefore the entire zionist concept -is- arguably racist. Given the events of WWII, is it a justified example of desiring racial segregation? Maybe, that's also an understandable view, but that doesn't change what it is.

Either way, it's a debate that is not anti-semitic and should never be considered anti-semitic. I can fully get on board with it being wrong to bring Nazi-comparisons into that debate as there is an obvious motive behind doing so that is certainly anti-semitic, but stating categorically that it's "anti-semitic" to examine whether or not Zionism is a racist endeavor is a step too far. People should of course be free to argue strongly that it is NOT one; but that's what debate is.

I personally feel that a dangerous precedent is being set.

[bitontheslide]

I wonder if Corbyn's labour party was behind the renaming of New York on Snap chat Maps .....



https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/31/new-y...ttack-7899688/

[Livia]

I have personally never known nor been affected by the kind of crap that's cropping up now. I find that map above really worrying. It's like it's becoming acceptable to be anti-Semitic because everyone has an opinion that involves Israel in one way or another.

What pisses me off most is that my grandmother is worried and she's seen more antisemitism in her life than anyone ever should.

[Toy Soldier]

Surely most peoples opinion of Israel has little / nothing to do with their opinion of Jewish people, though? There are of course the extremists but for (I would think) the vast majority, the difference is fairly obvious.

I mean... There are plenty of Jews who are themselves heavily critical of Israel. Surely they can't be considered to be antisemites or Jew-hating?

[Maru]

Whoops <3 (wrong thread)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Surely most peoples opinion of Israel has little / nothing to do with their opinion of Jewish people, though? There are of course the extremists but for (I would think) the vast majority, the difference is fairly obvious.

I mean... There are plenty of Jews who are themselves heavily critical of Israel. Surely they can't be considered to be antisemites or Jew-hating?

If "plenty" now means a small minority, then you're right. Jews of my acquaintance believe that Israel is our spiritual home, regardless of mandates and governments.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

If "plenty" now means a small minority, then you're right. Jews of my acquaintance believe that Israel is our spiritual home, regardless of mandates and governments.

"Plenty" simply means enough that it isn't particularly unusual (e.g. "plenty of people actually like avocado"). Obviously it is a minority, but it is some, and if there are some Jewish people who are critical of the existence of Israel in it's current form and can see racial prejudice in its formation, and the law now states that that view is antisemitism, then it follows that we now have to define some actively Jewish people as anti-semites which makes absolutely no sense.

[jaxie]

It doesn't feel like they've really adopted it if they feel they have to issue little side statements as well.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Plenty" simply means enough that it isn't particularly unusual (e.g. "plenty of people actually like avocado"). Obviously it is a minority, but it is some, and if there are some Jewish people who are critical of the existence of Israel in it's current form and can see racial prejudice in its formation, and the law now states that that view is antisemitism, then it follows that we now have to define some actively Jewish people as anti-semites which makes absolutely no sense.

The rest of the world adopted the full definition. Labour want to amend it and some people (I want to think it's a small minority but life experience tells me it's not) are saying, hey, they can do that because even some Jews disagree with Israel!

Meanwhile Corbyn and his entourage have nothing to say about any other state in the Middle East, unless it's to call them "brothers" because let's face it, it's just women that those countries subjugate.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

The rest of the world adopted the full definition. Labour want to amend it and some people (I want to think it's a small minority but life experience tells me it's not) are saying, hey, they can do that because even some Jews disagree with Israel!

Meanwhile Corbyn and his entourage have nothing to say about any other state in the Middle East, unless it's to call them "brothers" because let's face it, it's just women that those countries subjugate.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, if anything, so I don't think there's much point trying to debate this at all.

[Twosugars]

genuine question: are we allowed to criticize Israel's land grab under that definition?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, if anything, so I don't think there's much point trying to debate this at all.

If anything? I rarely post when I've nothing to say.

I'm saying that as Corbyn's hasn't been unable to help himself from fiddling with the definition, and consequently it has made him look even more anti-Semitic than I already thought him to be. Even if some Jews disagree with the Israeli government, it doesn't make him less anti-Semitic. And also the fact that he supports every other country in the Middle East despite the myriad of Human Rights breaches those countries uphold, is a bit rich.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

genuine question: are we allowed to criticize Israel's land grab under that definition?

You have freedom of speech up to a point. Of course, it would be better if everyone knew the history of Israel, the real history of the last 3,500 years or so, not the stuff that's been printed in the last sixty-odd years.

[bitontheslide]

I don't see genuine intent coming from the executive to try and address the issue. People are always free to say what they want provided it is within the law. If by some chance by adopting this definition, people feel their voice cannot be heard within the labour party, then they can move on, nothing is stopping them.

The reason I don't see genuine intent is that when a party sets out with the intention of tweaking standard definitions to allow them a voice, then it has a clear agenda and intent. While the issues in the middle east are not insignificant, their prime focus should be on the UK and Europe. The Jewish citizens in the UK should be entitled to be protected from antisemitism. It is the people of the UK that labour is elected to represent, not Arab nations oversees.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Livia

You have freedom of speech up to a point. Of course, it would be better if everyone knew the history of Israel, the real history of the last 3,500 years or so, not the stuff that's been printed in the last sixty-odd years.

any books you'd care to suggest? It's a complex subject so something objective would be invaluable
My only wish is that Israel and Palestine could both exist as viable states.
Imagine how much easier it would be to deal with genuine antisemitism if the above was the case

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

any books you'd care to suggest? It's a complex subject so something objective would be invaluable
My only wish is that Israel and Palestine could both exist as viable states.
Imagine how much easier it would be to deal with genuine antisemitism if the above was the case

I have to say that most books I come across are either insipid or academic. If you have time to watch Simon Schama's Story of the Jews, I'd highly recommend it. Also, Jerusalem - The Making of a Holy City is brilliantly informative and what's more, it's presented by Simon Sebag Montefiore... surely one of the most magnificent names the BBC has ever had.

And yes, if Palestine and Israel could live side by side it would be wonderful. Personally I have my doubts that it could happen. The Jews will never give up Jerusalem and that will be the sticking point.

[Twosugars]

In ideal world wouldn't it be best if Jerusalem was a free city where both nations could have their capital?
I have no problem with Schama or Sebag-Montefiore (read his book on Stalin, btw) but as both are Jewish wouldn't there be a suspicion of bias?
Maybe somebody removed emotionally from the whole issue?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

If anything? I rarely post when I've nothing to say.

I'm saying that as Corbyn's hasn't been unable to help himself from fiddling with the definition, and consequently it has made him look even more anti-Semitic than I already thought him to be. Even if some Jews disagree with the Israeli government, it doesn't make him less anti-Semitic. And also the fact that he supports every other country in the Middle East despite the myriad of Human Rights breaches those countries uphold, is a bit rich.

I don't disagree that Corbyn is seemingly a hypocrite when it comes to diplomacy in the middle east and his attitudes towards certain nations. Though I've seem little evidence that this is because he specifically dislikes Jewish people for whatever reason - I suspect he simply likes being a contrarian and is fairly blinkered.

However I don't really see how Corbyn's stance / Labour's stance / the fact that the definition has been internationally adopted, really has any bearing at all on the objective debate over whether or not the redefinition is problematic or not. I can see issues with it, and that's entirely my opinion... Being totally frank, I couldn't give a stuff what Corbyn or Labour has to say about it.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

genuine question: are we allowed to criticize Israel's land grab under that definition?

I would be very interested in learning about Israel's 'Land-Grab', Twosugars.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, if anything, so I don't think there's much point trying to debate this at all.

I could fill 100 pages on 'Israel' but experience has taught me that it would be futile to do so on here, and you are right T.S. - 'there's not much point trying to debate this at all'.

[Twosugars]

then read about it, Kirk
Livia didn't have a problem with that term, but then you waltz in, more Jewish than Chief Rabbi.
I see my sensible exchange with Livia has come to an end. I'm out of this convo.

[Northern Monkey]

That piece of land has been the most contested in history i reckon and I don’t see any reason why it will stop being so now.I think there will always be wars there and always people around the world taking either side.
There’s always been one civilisation or another trying to kick the Jews off that land for millennia.The Babylonians,Persians,Greeks,Romans,Christians,The Arab Muslims plus probably more that i can’t remember.
A lasting peace deal there would be one of the most monumental events humanity has ever seen.
I don’t think it does any good for the rest of the world to be at war politically over it.

I don’t think anyone knows whether Corbyn is anti-semitic because of his allegiances over that conflict but he hasn’t done much to persuade people otherwise.This accepting of the definition would look better for him if he wasn’t trying to add caveats.
Surely he knows that he can criticise Israel’s current government without comparing them to Nazis or saying the existence of a Jewish homeland is racist?
Loads of different religions live in Israel and it’s probably the only democracy in the Middle East.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

then read about it, Kirk
Livia didn't have a problem with that term, but then you waltz in, more Jewish than Chief Rabbi.
I see my sensible exchange with Livia has come to an end. I'm out of this convo.

WTF is your problem? I merely said that I would be very interested in learning about Israel's 'Land-Grab'.

By 'Sensible Exchange' you are obviously demeaning any contribution of mine to be NOT sensible - Thank you - and I did not 'Waltz In' I contributed to a thread on Serious debates, something which I have been doing for quite a few years BEFORE you were even a member.

Stop being so precious.