Let me say this, NY Brit Expat is really angry … there are many reasons for my anger and writing something on one topic will prove to be rather difficult as an understatement. I am so angry that I do not know where to begin … shall I talk about antisemitism in the Labour Party, Israel and the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, ISIS/Daesh and the Yazidis, the use of chemical weapons (depleted uranium and white phosphorus) against the Iraqis (US), white phosphorus against the Palestinians (Israel), the use of white phosphorus by the Saudi government and military in Yemen, and a wide range of war crimes that include the use of chemical weaponry in Syria against the Syrians (Assad)?
On War Crimes
I’ve decided to raise the whole catastrophe we are seeing and put it in the context of continual war crimes being committed in the Middle East by various governments and militias (we can never forget Daesh/ISIS) both local and from further afar. We need to recognise that even though there is actually such a thing as war crimes and they are clearly defined; yet there only seems to be calls for action against the perpetrators when it comes from so-called enemies of the US. Good buddies of the US like Saudi Arabia, Turkey (against the Kurds), and Israel are protected from criticism and certainly any call for reaction just does not happen. No matter how many times the UN condemns the actions of our so-called allies, nothing happens. Let’s see what happens now that the International Criminal Court has warned Israel over the killings in Gaza, but I am not hopeful.
This sheer hypocrisy threatens to undermine the validity of international law and international humanitarian law. The use of collective punishment, torture, chemical weapons, violent attacks against civilian non-combatants, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and rape as a tool of war have all been utilised in the Middle East recently. So either these war crimes are taken seriously for all perpetrators or the term will actually begin to mean “Victor’s Justice” which was what German war criminals argued that the Nuremberg Trials were or the “Justice of the Powerful” (from which the powerful and its allies are immune) and that cannot be allowed to happen and yet it does …
The Israeli military’s attack on the civilians in Gaza celebrating Land Day was a massacre; there is no other description for a situation where live ammunition is used against unarmed civilians. The fact that it had support from so-called mainstream politicians in the US and Britain is appalling but unsurprising; this is not the first, nor will it be the last time, that mainstream politicians argue that Israel has the “right to defend itself” by shooting unarmed civilians and journalists. This response is providing cover for an oppressor and a violator of international humanitarian law. What you may not know is that the protests are continuing and the numbers wounded and the death tolls are rising. Obviously condemning the massacres must continue; politicians supporting this atrocity must be named and shamed.
Here is Jeremy Corbyn’s statement read to the demonstration supporting the Palestinian people in Gaza in London:
“I have asked for this statement to be read at today's demonstration supporting the Palestinian people in Gaza:
The killing and wounding of yet more unarmed Palestinian protesters yesterday by Israeli forces in Gaza is an outrage.
The majority of the people of the Gaza Strip are stateless refugees, subject to a decade long blockade and the denial of basic human and political rights. More than two thirds are reliant on humanitarian assistance, with limited access to the most basic amenities, such as water and electricity.
They have a right to protest against their appalling conditions and the continuing blockade and occupation of Palestinian land, and in support of their right to return to their homes and their right to self-determination.
Firing live ammunition into crowds of unarmed civilians is illegal and inhumane and cannot be tolerated.
We stand in solidarity with the Israelis who have taken to the streets this last week to protest their government’s actions.
The silence from international powers with the responsibility of bringing a just settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict must end.
The UK government must support the UN Secretary-General’s call for an independent international inquiry into the killing of protesters in Gaza and review the sale of arms that could be used in violation of international law.
The events in Gaza and the threat of renewed conflict underlines the urgent necessity of genuine negotiations to achieve a viable two-state settlement that delivers peace, justice and security to both Palestinians and Israelis.”
So, where should the hard left stand on the bombing of Syria by the US, Britain and France? One of the things that I find extremely disturbing is the campism of the left which to me seems to be a residual of the old cold war mentality. Arguing that only US imperialism is a problem (because they are strongest military power even with a weakening economy) and that we should support Putin and Russia as a counterbalance is so bizarre from a left-wing point of view that I am shocked when I see it; somehow this is seen as anti-imperialism by those holding this position. This is a long standing problem on the left. Leila Al Shami addresses this point:
“A number of anti-war organizations have justified their silence on Russian and Iranian interventions by arguing that ‘the main enemy is at home’. This excuses them from undertaking any serious power analysis to determine who the main actors driving the war actually are. For Syrians the main enemy is indeed at home – it’s Assad who is engaging in what the UN has termed ‘the crime of extermination’. Without being aware of their own contradictions many of the same voices have been vocally opposed (and rightly so) to Israel’s current assault on peaceful demonstrators in Gaza. Of course, one of the main ways imperialism works is to deny native voices. In this vein, leading western anti-war organizations hold conferences on Syria without inviting any Syrian speakers.
The other major political trend to have thrown its weight behind the Assad regime and organize against US, UK and French strikes on Syria is the far right. Today, the discourse of fascists and these ‘anti-imperialist leftists’ is virtually indistinguishable. In the US, white supremacist Richard Spencer, alt right podcaster Mike Enoch and anti-immigration activist Ann Coulter are all opposing US strikes. In the UK former BNP leader Nick Griffin and Islamophobe Katie Hopkins join the calls. The place where the alt-right and alt-left frequently converge is around promoting various conspiracy theories to absolve the regime of its crimes. They claim chemical massacres are false flags or that rescue workers are Al Qaeda and therefore legitimate targets for attack. Those spreading such reports are not on the ground in Syria and are unable to independently verify their claims. They are often dependent on Russian or Assad state propaganda outlets because they ‘don’t trust the MSM’ or Syrians directly affected. Sometimes the convergence of these two seemingly opposite strands of the political spectrum turns into outright collaboration. The ANSWER coalition, which is organizing many of the demonstrations against a strike on Assad in the US, has such a history. Both strands frequently promote Islamophobic and anti-Semitic narratives. Both share the same talking points and same memes (https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-anti-imperialism-of-idiots/).”
Comrades, we do not support any form of imperialism (whether it is at home or abroad), we do not support sub-imperialisms, and please remember that the Cold War is finished; there are no good guys among imperialist countries comrades. Jeremy Corbyn opposed the bombing of Damascus and Homs in Syria and questioned its legality; members of the Labour party and the rest of the Labour MPs should be standing with him.
What we should support is a revolution from below, built by the grassroots; not one created by a supposed “good imperialist” whatever that means. So, oppose the bombing of Syria by the US, Britain and France; that will not solve the situation in Syria and endangers civilians that have been caught in the middle of a civil war. What else? Obviously, do not support Bashir Al Assad, he is a war criminal on many fronts and that is irrespective of the use of chemical weapons in the civil war (they are an additional war crime). He is fighting for his life and political control and he has absolutely no problem killing civilians and wreaking destruction on those living in areas not occupied by his forces in an ongoing civil war.
If you want to support someone in the humanitarian catastrophe that is Syria there is the Kurds. Please remember that a NATO member Turkey bombarded a town of civilians and entered into Afrin with the help of Jihadis and took control over the town. The Turkish government actually has the chutzpah to be angry that it has no support from other NATO members in its campaign against the Kurds; many are wondering if the criticism by NATO members against Turkey for this so-called “Olive Branch” campaign has not been made public or they are just staying shtum.
While I am uncertain whether this is our Spain as Owen Jones argues, at least a case can be made for it; the lack of criticism by the rest of NATO, the continuing sale of arms to the Turkish government which are then used against the Syrian and Turkish Kurds demonstrates quite clearly that there are different rules when you are an “ally” than when you are an enemy (but we do not need to look at only the Middle East for the proof of this statement; has there ever been war reparations to Viet Nam for agent orange and napalm use by the US) … hey remember, the YPG and YPJ were helping the US clean out ISIS; so even when you may be useful, being an ally is a different kettle of fish.
Something positive we can do which will provide a form of non-violent protest is boycott, divestment and sanction of regimes that are committing war crimes to put pressure on them. Don’t take vacations in these places, don’t buy goods produced there and oppose arms sales are good places to start. The Kurds have called for a boycott of tourism and purchasing Turkish made goods; sounds like a great idea to me.
Antisemitism in the Labour Party
If you’ve been following the discussion about antisemitism in the Labour Party (LP) and I am pretty sure that the story is being told in the US, so we need to discuss this and how it relates to the question of Israel and where it doesn’t.
Racism (of which antisemitism, racism against people of colour, racism against the Roma and Sinti, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are examples) exists in Britain; it continues to exist in societies where it is succoured and nurtured. Racism has always been used for the purposes of divide and rule and it has long been a successful strategy of the ruling class and military occupiers (hey, it is documented as far back as Ancient Rome, it was Julius Caesar’s strategy in the war in Gaul; it probably existed before, but the phrase is used by Julius Caesar). So, yes, antisemitism exists, but it is not a general problem in British society and in mainstream political parties (unlike the case of Hungary and Poland where antisemitism is used by leading politicians to win elections; just in case you missed this from Poland, read it). It is always found more frequently on the right and the hard right rather than the Left; but that does not mean it does not exist on the left.
I have to be honest, this one is personal and I am furious about antisemitism being used as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn. Criticising Israel and Zionism is not antisemitic and being called an antisemite by non-Jewish members of the Labour Party has, shall we say, infuriated me. That following my being called a kapo (that was a new one and an extremely offensive one) and an antisemite at the counter-protest to the “Enough is Enough” protest called by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It is as if all those identifying as Jews must support Israel and trying to silence me and my beliefs already had me very angry. I’ve spent my life fighting antisemitism and racism and being told that I am an antisemite and that there are “good Jews” and “bad Jews” when, in fact, this is itself antisemitic moves the discussion from atrocious into surreal.
The accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party coming from The Jewish Board of Deputies (the majority of whom are Tory supporters; in fact, Jonathan Arkush their leader congratulated Trump on his victory on Trump’s twitter page if you want to know his politics), the Campaign Against Antisemitism (the second demo called by them outside of Labour Party headquarters had far fewer supporters in the hundreds) and others have essentially two purposes: 1) to undermine Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left as they are really concerned about the economic and political policies that he is advocating -- a dangerous type of smoke and mirrors; and 2) establishing/solidifying the narrative articulating a new definition of antisemitism which includes criticism of Israel and keeping criticism of the Israeli government’s and military’s actions to a minimum. I honestly wish that they were there to fight rampant antisemitism as I would be standing alongside of them; what is happening instead is that the struggle against antisemitism is being politicised and also being diluted and I am worried that if there actually is rising true antisemitism, we will not be strong enough to fight against it.
Also, the attacks on Corbyn and the Labour party (rather than the antisemitism in all political parties and in British society) will not really shift those in the Labour Party (polls say that remains firm), but it may impact on the upcoming local elections and in future general elections undermining the best chance of shifting the country to the left in decades (which is also a goal of theirs as well). It is those that are not members of the LP whose votes are needed that may be swayed and in the wrong direction.
I am just going to say it: Corbyn is not an antisemite, he has fought his whole life against racism of all forms and he supported every vote taken in Parliament against antisemitism. However, he actually believes that the Palestinians have human rights and he is a supporter of the Two State solution and that is the position of the Labour Party itself. So what is going on with the accusations of antisemitism against him?
Or if he himself is not an antisemite (and it would be extremely difficult to prove that one and this was admitted to me at the counter-protest by protesters), why is this continuing, what is happening? What about the accusations against Moshe Machover and Glyn Secker (both of whom were expelled and/or suspended from the LP due to unsubstantiated accusations of antisemitism despite both of them being Jewish and then reinstated after the accusations? Why are Jewish Socialist members of the LP being targeted as antisemites when there is no evidence current or historical for the accusations? They had to abandon the antisemitism complaint against Tony Greenstein (one of the people most responsible for getting a real antisemite, Gilad Atzmon, out of the Palestine solidarity movement) as they would never be able to prove it and expelled him for being personally difficult. Not only does it make me wonder whether socialist Jews are welcome in the Labour Party, I am also worried how Palestinians in the LP are dealing with this? Are they welcome in the LP, they used to be.
Does this mean there are no antisemites in the Labour Party? Of course there are, but they are individuals rather than the accusation of “rampant antisemitism” that one hears from the Jewish Labour Movement, the Board of Deputies and the Campaign against Antisemitism. There are certainly more antisemites to be found in the English Defence League and other hard-right parties. But the question is not a relative one; we must stand against antisemitism whenever and wherever it arises.
So if it not rampant antisemitism, does that mean it should not be fought in the Labour Party? Of course it must be fought against, as all racism must be fought against. Shami Chakrabarti (a lawyer that has worked on human rights) was commissioned to write a report on antisemitism in the Labour Party; her report said that antisemitism is not widespread in the Labour Party and made recommendations to address antisemitism in it. To this date, these recommendations have not been implemented. We must support the implementation of the recommendations in the report.
We can also ask ourselves how can one country commit war crimes for decades with criticism against that country being deemed antisemitic? That at least I can answer and that relates to a major redefinition of antisemitism from hatred of Jews as Jews to include criticism of the government and military of Israel as a “Jewish” state. How does this change involve a redefinition of antisemitism? Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews, no? Quite simply in order to justify that criticism is antisemitic, Israel is argued to be a fulfilment of Jewish religious values (religious Zionism) and as such it is argued that Israel and political Zionism are fundamental to Jewish identity. That is how rather than being treated as a colonial settler state that violates International Law repeatedly, Israel is protected from political criticism.
The reality is political Zionism has nothing to do with the nebulous religious Zionism in which the messiah returns and Jews get to return to the Holy Land. If you see the messiah, let me know … until he shows up, all you get is this dream of being allowed back into the holy land eventually when the messiah returns. This is not a political movement, it is a religious belief held by religious Jews.
This is a completely different kettle of fish from Political Zionism (Jewish nationalism and its actualisation in Israel) which is a political belief and a political movement. Like any other political belief (e.g., Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Anarchism, Fascism and Communism) is open for criticism. There are things that people should know, but for some reason do not, the most obvious being the fact that those people that self-identify as Jews differ in religious belief (there are many sects), many are secular and atheists; we have a wide variety of political beliefs that run the gamut from fascism to the hard left and that these political beliefs are conditioned sometimes by religious belief and often by their class background.
When I was young (and I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s) … the dominant political perspective of those identifying as Jews following the Holocaust was Political Zionism (this was not the case before the Holocaust; Jewish political opinion was as divided as every other group of people; strong support for the Bund and the hard left was predominant reflecting the economic positions of the majority of Jewish people … that being working class). A shift is again happening among those that identify as Jews; the majority of political Zionists are actually Christians (just by sheer numbers and they are often antisemites).
More and more self-identified Jews have become increasingly critical of the actions of the Israeli government and military across political lines (look at the existence of J-Street, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish Voice for Labour, the Jewish Socialists’ Group, Jewdas, etc and anti-Zionist Jewish groups like the International Jewish Anti-Zionist network and Jews against Zionism) and you get the idea. This is the case both in Israel and in the diaspora. This is especially so among younger people.
One more issue that is causing those supporting the state of Israel a bit of anxiety is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement; there is also a Jewish group that is a member of the movement in Britain: Jews for Boycotting Israeli goods (J-BIG). How do you know that both the Israeli government and Zionists in the diaspora are upset about this? The Israeli government created a list of those groups advocating BDS and banned them from Israel. Moreover, a not insignificant number of individuals, groups, student’s unions, and trade unions have agreed to support the BDS campaign; this has put pressure on Multi-National Corporations in the occupied territories. So, there is an impact and it makes the Israeli government and their supporters nervous for good reason.
The other most important thing that should be clear after reading this is that no one speaks for those identifying as Jewish, there is no one voice that represents us. The Board of Deputies of British Jews (led by Jonathan Arkush) and the Jewish Leadership Council does not speak for me, neither does the Chief Rabbi in the UK, Ephraim Mirvas.
So what is antisemitic, just to be clear?
There are the old forms of antisemitism like “the Jews killed Christ,” “Jews use the blood of Christian Children in their Matzo,” and “Jewish bankers control the world” crap; whenever you see a meme about Rothschild banks and bankers, know that that is antisemitic and, probably, conspiracy theory nonsense as well.
Then there are the new forms of antisemitism: there is the favourite of the hard right: “the holocaust did not happen or the numbers are exaggerated” (yes, it happened; even if it is only 1 million as opposed to 6 million were murdered, it is still genocide), then there are the memes of the “Jewish control of the world media,” “Zionist control of the world media,” Zionists trying to take control over the world” (wrong again: they only want Israel and the occupied territories and whatever else they view as its “historic boundaries” for some of the hard right Zionists) and of course, let’s not forget the accusation of Dual Loyalty (the Stalinist version was the term “rootless cosmopolitans.)” Another new form of antisemitism is the supposed responsibility of Jews all around the world for the actions of the Israeli government and military; self-identified Jews are not responsible for what is done by the Israeli government and military. They latter do not speak for us, they do not act in our interests, they do not represent us; we do not vote for their government unless we hold dual citizenship and remember the obvious fact that not all Jews in Israel have voted for their government and do not control what their military does. You know what else is antisemitic? Non-Jews telling Jews that they are antisemites because they do not support Israel; there is also my favourite that all Jews share the same beliefs in terms of politics and religion and that non-Jews can speak for the Jews because they know what “Jews” think or believe.
What is not antisemitic?
The criticism of the actions of the Israeli military and government (unless you blame “the Jews” remember they are not the only Jews and of course, there are non-Jews living in Israel) and political criticisms against the political ideology of Zionism are two good examples.
If it is still not clear, let’s try this post telling you “how to criticise Israel without being anti-semitic” by Jewdas from 2014; it has useful examples ----------->
For those following the story, you may have heard of Jewdas; they were the group whose Seder Jeremy Corbyn attended in his constituency of Islington in a private capacity. The resulting anti-Corbyn hysteria managed to reach both surrealism and antisemitism as he was told he spent Passover with the “wrong sort of Jews” as though there are good Jews and bad Jews.
Who decides which Jews are good and which Jews are bad?
Certainly not the British press, most certainly not people who cannot spell “seder” correctly, and certainly without a doubt neither Jews nor non-Jews.