Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I just read the Guardian article. She's done well to cherry pick members of the public that suit her clear narrative. You know those YouTube videos that show Americans not knowing any geography whatsoever or Leave voters (spit) all giving racist or xenophobic reasons for their vote?

There's a problem in the Labour party, but I fully resent any article that aims to paint an entire political party's support in an anti-Semitic light.

Another former teacher, a few doors away, named Catherine, said: “There’s no antisemitism in this lane. We’re very cosmopolitan.”

Her words echoed the line that the Labour party, both in Wavertree and nationally, keeps restating, as accusations of antisemitism keep growing.

One interviewee tells the journalist that she's not anti-Semitic and in fact likes living in a cosmopolitan society... and the following sentence basically reads "... but of course she'd say that"

Get in the fuck1ng sea.

I think that was the point: the denial that there was any kind of problem. Everyone saying they hadn't seen any antisemitism and yet the MP has felt compelled to leave the party.

No. She's painting Labour voters as anti-Semitic. That's something different.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Ahem, Vatican.

Also *if* there was history of anti-Catholic violence?! How much violence does there need to be to qualify?

Maybe it was a bad example, as it is no longer a state religion. But Vatican would specifically not be an equivalence.

I think there are a lot of parallels. A good deal of the anti-Catholic sentiment that blighted Britain from the Reformation to the beginning of the 20th century was focused on the idea that Catholics had divided loyalties - to Rome as well as the British Crown - and were therefore not trustworthy.

I understand, and that is an undoubtedly related problem - but I think questioning loyalty to religion over country is different to being expected to apologise for the actions of a different country just because that country is the same religion as you.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I just read the Guardian article. She's done well to cherry pick members of the public that suit her clear narrative. You know those YouTube videos that show Americans not knowing any geography whatsoever or Leave voters (spit) all giving racist or xenophobic reasons for their vote?

There's a problem in the Labour party, but I fully resent any article that aims to paint an entire political party's support in an anti-Semitic light.

Another former teacher, a few doors away, named Catherine, said: “There’s no antisemitism in this lane. We’re very cosmopolitan.”

Her words echoed the line that the Labour party, both in Wavertree and nationally, keeps restating, as accusations of antisemitism keep growing.

One interviewee tells the journalist that she's not anti-Semitic and in fact likes living in a cosmopolitan society... and the following sentence basically reads "... but of course she'd say that"

Get in the fuck1ng sea.

I think that was the point: the denial that there was any kind of problem. Everyone saying they hadn't seen any antisemitism and yet the MP has felt compelled to leave the party.

No. She's painting Labour voters as anti-Semitic. That's something different.

I understood it as *some* Labour voters. This bit in particular

Stephen Brown, who supplements his pension by selling sausages to the local pubs, also said he was sad Berger was gone. “She didn’t deserve to be treated that way,” he said, adding as an unthinking afterthought, “even though she is Jewish.”

Like most people I encountered, Brown is a diehard Labour supporter, but not one particularly aware of antisemitic issues, including his own. “I’ve got nothing against Jeremy Corbyn,” he said, “but he got into bed with the wrong Jews.” What did that mean? “The high rollers,” he explained.

I think this and the other examples are illustrative rather than representative, but the author could have been clearer on that.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I just read the Guardian article. She's done well to cherry pick members of the public that suit her clear narrative. You know those YouTube videos that show Americans not knowing any geography whatsoever or Leave voters (spit) all giving racist or xenophobic reasons for their vote?

There's a problem in the Labour party, but I fully resent any article that aims to paint an entire political party's support in an anti-Semitic light.

Another former teacher, a few doors away, named Catherine, said: “There’s no antisemitism in this lane. We’re very cosmopolitan.”

Her words echoed the line that the Labour party, both in Wavertree and nationally, keeps restating, as accusations of antisemitism keep growing.

One interviewee tells the journalist that she's not anti-Semitic and in fact likes living in a cosmopolitan society... and the following sentence basically reads "... but of course she'd say that"

Get in the fuck1ng sea.

I think that was the point: the denial that there was any kind of problem. Everyone saying they hadn't seen any antisemitism and yet the MP has felt compelled to leave the party.

No. She's painting Labour voters as anti-Semitic. That's something different.

I understood it as *some* Labour voters. This bit in particular

Stephen Brown, who supplements his pension by selling sausages to the local pubs, also said he was sad Berger was gone. “She didn’t deserve to be treated that way,” he said, adding as an unthinking afterthought, “even though she is Jewish.”

Like most people I encountered, Brown is a diehard Labour supporter, but not one particularly aware of antisemitic issues, including his own. “I’ve got nothing against Jeremy Corbyn,” he said, “but he got into bed with the wrong Jews.” What did that mean? “The high rollers,” he explained.

I think this and the other examples are illustrative rather than representative, but the author could have been clearer on that.

She could have been A LOT clearer. Brown - above - is a clear anti-Semite!

DeVlaeminck

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Well no I'm not doing that - what I am doing is saying that someone that does is not necessarily being anti-semitic. It is possible to disagree with them without thinking their mistake is borne of racism. In short I'm defending the right of someone to express an opinion I disagree with without them being shouted down for being racist.

I mean look - here is a Jewish newspaper going further than Hatton does - Jews being anti Jewish or just making an argument we can choose to disagree with ?

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premiu ... -1.6342202

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Well no I'm not doing that - what I am doing is saying that someone that does is not necessarily being anti-semitic. It is possible to disagree with them without thinking their mistake is borne of racism. In short I'm defending the right of someone to express an opinion I disagree with without them being shouted down for being racist.

I mean look - here is a Jewish newspaper going further than Hatton does - Jews being anti Jewish or just making an argument we can choose to disagree with ?

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premiu ... -1.6342202

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Why should Jews have a moral duty to take an interest in Israel but you see no sense in my suggestion that as a Christian Hatton seems to have no moral duty to take an interest in Christian countries

Well as I've already said my view is that there is no reason Jews should have any interest in anything they don't want to.

However given over 90% associate Israel with their own personal identity it seems reasonable that someone concerned with Israel's actions might call on them to condemn them no ?

Would it provoke such concern if someone tweeted that Catholics should condemn abuse in the Catholic church ? Yes we could have a debate on whether they were unfairly implying all Catholics were being morally implicated but I doubt anyone would say that tweet was somehow strongly anti Catholics and use it as a reason to suspend them from a political party.

You are doing the same. You are conflating Israel (a Jewish state) with the religion of Judaism. All Catholics wherever they are in the world would not be held responsible for calling out the actions of the Italian state. Further, if there was a history of anti Catholic violence using similar words, that would be even more of a problem.

Well no I'm not doing that - what I am doing is saying that someone that does is not necessarily being anti-semitic. It is possible to disagree with them without thinking their mistake is borne of racism. In short I'm defending the right of someone to express an opinion I disagree with without them being shouted down for being racist.

I mean look - here is a Jewish newspaper going further than Hatton does - Jews being anti Jewish or just making an argument we can choose to disagree with ?

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premiu ... -1.6342202

You implied that expecting Jewish people to condemn Israel was the same as expecting Catholics to condemn the Catholic church.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

tangled_metal

“Jewish people with any sense of humanity need to start speaking out publicly against the ruthless murdering being carried out by Israel!”

Jewish people not all Jewish people. Although to all intents and purpose it's the same meaning.

"with any sense of humanity" = how is that not saying that you are lacking in humanity / less than fully human of you don't do what comes next in the sentence.

You dehumanise someone you are harming them directly. It is wrong! The fact it's Jewish people you're doing that to means it's antisemitism.

Jewish people can identify with Israel as the idea of a homeland for the Jewish people without living there, being part of the state of Israel or even having the right or requirement to have an opinion on what the state is doing. It is the idea of Israel they are probably connecting to not the reality of the state that exists.

If this is true (only my take on it so not guaranteed) then the linking of Jews to Israelis state actions is a form of antisemitism. That's my logic so possibly illogical.

The crimes of a few don't put the crimes on all. The UK has committed many crimes on the world so are we collectively guilty? A soldier in British army uniform tortures an afghani does that make us guilty.

One last point. IMHO Degsy and his crew did harm to Liverpool. Labour did harm to itself by allowing them to remain in Labour, associated with labour and supported by Labour for as long as it did. IMHO Degsy didn't harm Labour they did it n themselves.

In some ways they're repeating history. By letting antisemites to remain in labour so long the party is harming itself. The antisemites are not harming labour but they are harming all Jewish members of our society. It's a distinction I feel has merit.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

DeVlaeminck

Politics not pitucs !!

tailwindhome

David Schneider@davidschneider

Are you anti-semitic? A personal guide for fellow lefties and others.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

so I have an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism and you have the opinion of one bloke

Stevo_666

Meanwhile the Momentum founder John Lansmann publicly acknowledges the scale of the antisemitism problem within Labour:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/momentum-founder-jon-lansman-labour-has-major-problem-with-antisemitism-a4075736.html

ballysmate

But the Shadow Attorney General, Shami the shammy reported that there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party...
Bought and paid for. All those years as Director of Liberty, piously lecturing us on the injustices she perceived - what an absolute joke.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

But the Shadow Attorney General, Shami the shammy reported that there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party...
Bought and paid for. All those years as Director of Liberty, piously lecturing us on the injustices she perceived - what an absolute joke.

The same one who sent her kids to private school while slagging off grammar schools?

tangled_metal

In the early days of this antisemitism row there was something that made me believe that Labour had an antisemitism problem. What was that? Well, quite simply it was the way virtually every significant Jewish group that existed in the UK grouped together to send that letter to the Labour Party. That included a few umbrella groups that I believe usually disagree with each other. That letter also represented groups associated with the labour party.

More recently the Degsy tweet and thigh burn guy's post really explained the less obvious aspects of antisemitism for me. The guardian article finished that explanation journey off. Without understanding the catcalls to those with similar views you'll never spot antisemitism.

Then there's the way those interviewed for the guardian article (it may be selective but it was informative). The guy who said something about Corbyn listening to the wrong Jews, the high rollers = the Rothschild catcalls to antisemites and conspiracy theorists. The founder of momentum referred to the conspiracy theorists element of new Labour supporters or members. But that's where a lot of working class, traditional Labour supporters come from. There's the nice, middle class, educated teachers who can't spot antisemitic phrasing because they're not mixing with the intended recipient of the message. Then when they have it explained they write it off as not what he meant or some other pass for the clever antisemites.

If you can't accept the idea that antisemitism can be subtle then you'll probably be able to explain it all away as harmless expressions of ideas. You need to believe in the language of intelligent antisemitism.

shirley_basso

Absolutely top post. Thanks for writing. Honestly.

Ben6899

Tangled Metal wrote:

In the early days of this antisemitism row there was something that made me believe that Labour had an antisemitism problem. What was that? Well, quite simply it was the way virtually every significant Jewish group that existed in the UK grouped together to send that letter to the Labour Party. That included a few umbrella groups that I believe usually disagree with each other. That letter also represented groups associated with the labour party.

More recently the Degsy tweet and thigh burn guy's post really explained the less obvious aspects of antisemitism for me. The guardian article finished that explanation journey off. Without understanding the catcalls to those with similar views you'll never spot antisemitism.

Then there's the way those interviewed for the guardian article (it may be selective but it was informative). The guy who said something about Corbyn listening to the wrong Jews, the high rollers = the Rothschild catcalls to antisemites and conspiracy theorists. The founder of momentum referred to the conspiracy theorists element of new Labour supporters or members. But that's where a lot of working class, traditional Labour supporters come from. There's the nice, middle class, educated teachers who can't spot antisemitic phrasing because they're not mixing with the intended recipient of the message. Then when they have it explained they write it off as not what he meant or some other pass for the clever antisemites.

If you can't accept the idea that antisemitism can be subtle then you'll probably be able to explain it all away as harmless expressions of ideas. You need to believe in the language of intelligent antisemitism.

Good post, but can you clarify the bit in bold. I come from a working class, traditional Labour supporting background; I obviously used to (and still do to a degree) mix in such circles... and there's no anti-Semitism. Maybe my experience is the exception?

tangled_metal

Well the first part of that bit came from a radio 4 interview with the founder (one of a few no doubt) of momentum grassroots organisation. Almost a direct quote of his the second part in bold was my addition. Whether that's right or wrong I have no evidence or quotes from someone who might have evidence (like the momentum founder). It is my opinion based on working with a lot of working class reprobates. They would claim labour as party of choice but Tommy Robinson for president. Well perhaps not him because he's islamophobic only not all the other prejudices. But you get my meaning. Brexit to kick all foreigners out (meaning not white).

I don't talk politics at work because I'll fall out.

So possibly my opinions aren't right and that second bold part too.

shirley_basso

It is clarified by the following sentence:

There's the nice, middle class, educated teachers who can't spot antisemitic phrasing because they're not mixing with the intended recipient of the message. Then when they have it explained they write it off as not what he meant or some other pass for the clever antisemites.

I guess it means that they aren't antisemitic themselves, but that they can't spot the antisemitism rhetoric from the top because they don't understand the nuance of the language, as it doesn't target them. Therefore they just brush it off

Ben6899

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well the first part of that bit came from a radio 4 interview with the founder (one of a few no doubt) of momentum grassroots organisation. Almost a direct quote of his the second part in bold was my addition. Whether that's right or wrong I have no evidence or quotes from someone who might have evidence (like the momentum founder). It is my opinion based on working with a lot of working class reprobates. They would claim labour as party of choice but Tommy Robinson for president. Well perhaps not him because he's islamophobic only not all the other prejudices. But you get my meaning. Brexit to kick all foreigners out (meaning not white).

I don't talk politics at work because I'll fall out.

So possibly my opinions aren't right and that second bold part too.

I think we're in danger of lumping "working class" and "reprobate" into the same box. That's possibly another discussion though.

Ben6899

Shirley Basso wrote:

It is clarified by the following sentence:

There's the nice, middle class, educated teachers who can't spot antisemitic phrasing because they're not mixing with the intended recipient of the message. Then when they have it explained they write it off as not what he meant or some other pass for the clever antisemites.

I guess it means that they aren't antisemitic themselves, but that they can't spot the antisemitism rhetoric from the top because they don't understand the nuance of the language, as it doesn't target them. Therefore they just brush it off

And I find this hard to believe... someone educated cannot spot anti-Semitism because they're not Jewish or don't have Jewish friends? They need to make sure they kept the receipt for any of that education they paid for.

morstar

I personally am learning a lot here but I do have an issue with the accepted definition of anti semitism linked on this thread.

Most of the points make perfect sense and clearly distinguish between Judaism and Israel which seems just.

However, the point that the state of Israel cannot be compared to the Nazis is counter to that position and undermines the rest of the definition imho.

Whilst I accept it is a particularly potent slur against Israel given the history...

Surely any state 'can' by their actions be compared to the Nazis and there are no exclusions to that fact.

Against any state, it is a slur that requires strong justification and I am not saying Israel's actions are comparable to the Nazis (although extremely offensive) but nobody gets a free pass for their own actions because of actions previously committed against them.

tangled_metal

Ben6899 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Well the first part of that bit came from a radio 4 interview with the founder (one of a few no doubt) of momentum grassroots organisation. Almost a direct quote of his the second part in bold was my addition. Whether that's right or wrong I have no evidence or quotes from someone who might have evidence (like the momentum founder). It is my opinion based on working with a lot of working class reprobates. They would claim labour as party of choice but Tommy Robinson for president. Well perhaps not him because he's islamophobic only not all the other prejudices. But you get my meaning. Brexit to kick all foreigners out (meaning not white).

I don't talk politics at work because I'll fall out.

So possibly my opinions aren't right and that second bold part too.

I think we're in danger of lumping "working class" and "reprobate" into the same box. That's possibly another discussion though.

Nope! I just work with a load of reprobates who happen to be working class. I make no connection between the two just use both to describe the shopfloor lot (some might say I'm a middle class reprobate).

tangled_metal

Ben6899 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It is clarified by the following sentence:

There's the nice, middle class, educated teachers who can't spot antisemitic phrasing because they're not mixing with the intended recipient of the message. Then when they have it explained they write it off as not what he meant or some other pass for the clever antisemites.

I guess it means that they aren't antisemitic themselves, but that they can't spot the antisemitism rhetoric from the top because they don't understand the nuance of the language, as it doesn't target them. Therefore they just brush it off

And I find this hard to believe... someone educated cannot spot anti-Semitism because they're not Jewish or don't have Jewish friends? They need to make sure they kept the receipt for any of that education they paid for.

That passage in bold refers to Degsy's tweet. His target audience is like minded far left political types who are the ones forming the greater part of the antisemitism in the Labour Party. To them the racial slurs will be well understood. It is not targeted at Jews or Middle class socialists on the whole. I did not understand the subtext and I'm not politically naive. I believe some Jewish people may understand these catcalls to antisemites because of being more sensitive to issues of hate / prejudice. I don't really know but it's got a subtlety to it that allows for ignorance and justification of it.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Here is a widely accepted definition of anti-semitism
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

You and Derek Hatton are welcome to voice your opinions but should be aware that for most of the rest of the world that makes you anti-semitic.

Well for about the millionth time I do not share Hatton's views I simply don't think that makes him anti-semitic - I don't know why you keep repeating the same mistake. I realise that politics has become polarised but there are still some of us who would defend the right of someone to say something we personally disagree with.

I don't see anything in that published definition saying that anyone that disagrees with that definition is anti-semitic so feel free to apologise any time.

So if I understand it correctly - you don't believe that disagreeing with the IHRA definition of anti-semitism makes you anti-semitic.

Correct. And if you like I can copy and paste Roger Silverman's reasons for disagreeing with the same definition and you can write and tell him why he as a Jewish man with family who have died for being Jewish and a personal history of being active in Jewish life and pitucs is anti-Semitic.

so I have an internationally agreed definition of anti-semitism and you have the opinion of one bloke

Well once again you miss the point. You may think I'm wrong in rejecting elements of your definition but if you think it's OK to call me anti-semitic just because I reject elements of it you are also by definition calling quite a few Jewish people (I'm not saying a majority) anti-semitic.

I find your argument tremendously illiberal - not only do you argue that Hatton is being anti-semitic in his tweet - but you think anyone that disagrees with you is also anti-semitic.

tangled_metal

I'm not saying you're antisemitic just that you're not accepting that the phrasing of Hatton's tweet is antisemitic. Whether that's because you can't pick up on the history behind the combination of verbal images being antisemitic or because you simply don't believe in it or you are actually antisemitic.

Whatever the case it matters not if one person believes it. The antisemitism is there whether you agree or not. What does matter is if organisations let significant numbers within them believe and act in such ways resulting in a negative climate in the organisation for Jewish and other minorities. Labour has been in that position and is incompetently trying to get out of it. Probably in such a way that it can keep a many of its new support base as possible. That balancing act is creating incompetence and inability to take decisive action.

DeVlaeminck

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm not saying you're antisemitic just that you're not accepting that the phrasing of Hatton's tweet is antisemitic. Whether that's because you can't pick up on the history behind the combination of verbal images being antisemitic or because you simply don't believe in it or you are actually antisemitic.

Whatever the case it matters not if one person believes it. The antisemitism is there whether you agree or not. What does matter is if organisations let significant numbers within them believe and act in such ways resulting in a negative climate in the organisation for Jewish and other minorities. Labour has been in that position and is incompetently trying to get out of it. Probably in such a way that it can keep a many of its new support base as possible. That balancing act is creating incompetence and inability to take decisive action.

Well my reply was not to you and you've come in and not really addressed the point which was that not accepting the definition of anti semitism referenced does not make one anti-semitic - if it did then many Jews would be anti-semitic too.

I don't know what Hatton's intention behind that tweet was - it's not incompatible with being anti-semitic but in itself no I don't accept it's evidence of any such thing.

When you say "Whatever the case it matters not if one person believes it" I don't really want to respond unless you can clarify what you mean.

I actually found your earlier post implying that many of the working class are anti-semitic and the middle class incapable of identifying anti-semitism so far from my experience that I think you really need to back that up. To me a lot of what you write is very dismissive of others experience along the lines of well they don't have the experience/history/education to pick up the nuance of what is being said. Maybe it's just that what is being said isn't what you think.