Below are a few words regarding a curious attitude surfacing in this second smear campaign against Corbyn.
Many strong supporters of Corbyn seem to go along with the idea Labour has a significant problem with antisemitism. An artificially inflated problem, that takes an inordinate amount of attention versus the little to no mainstream attention and focus real victims of violent oppression receive. The reason? It’s a political tool. And it’s such an intricate and convincing tool, bleeding heart lefties are easy prey to it. Just tell them someone’s been offended and they’re happy to throw their allies under the bus.
The more strategic elements among them probably really want to play it safe and clean their image of possible controversy, but end up legitimising the weapons of the right: antisemitism being core to them.
The correct answer to all this would be “we don’t have a problem with antisemitism”, but the route the party seems to have taken is rather defensive: “we do have a problem and we’re trying to fix it”. It’s in fact a victory for the right. They get to define your parameters, and your problems. They get to control your every move because you’re afraid of the “controversy”. “You don’t want to appear to be antisemitic/transphobic/racist/etc … do you?” And obedience follows. This is surrender in a game that takes place at an abstract level, the language level. More subtle than we’re accustomed to, but that's no excuse for complacency.
The party has lower levels of antisemitism than the average population. Then there’s the issue of defining antisemitism. The IHRA definition is so loose as to allow misuse.
There is real hatred of Jews because they’re Jews. Just see the horrid recent crime in France, an 86-year old woman killed violently. This is luckily very rare, but serious.
Then there’s criticism of Israel, which is NOT antisemitism. If you outlaw criticism of a government, you’re not trying to protect an oppressed class or ethnic group; you’re trying to protect a military power from the honest feedback of its citizens. That’s tyranny. Power suppressing opposition/reaction to its abuses. Tyranny can also come disguised as an intent to “protect”. As a matter of fact, that’s the only way they sneak in tyranny, through the liberal Trojan Horse of “protecting the victims”. It’s not like they can say “ we ban freedom of speech because it helps you peasants gather and conspire to overthrow our abusive regime”.
There is the .. conspiracy theories. Some people, it transpired in the Mural controversy, think certain conspiracy theories about the Illuminati etc are antisemitic. Chortle.
To assume powerful people conspire (ie, plot) to stay in power and repress those below is not antisemitic. What stretch of imagination and 60 leaps of mental gymnastics is required to think so?
First, I know some people who embrace this theory seem to think it’s the Jewish who’re in total control. I don’t personally think that is the most dangerous type of antisemitism, it’s more defensive paranoia. However most people who think the world is ruled by a shadowy elite DO NOT think this elite is made up of Jewish entities. In fact the author of the mural in the Corbyn controversy explicitly said (and painted) American and European members of that elite.
In this case, if you think it is antisemitic, ie discriminatory and oppressive to assume there is a shadowy elite ruling the world, possibly made also of Jewish members but many others.. then ..erm.. why are you defending the elite from oppression?? You think powerful people, whether they be organised in a silly looking cult or not, need your defence from words on Facebook? There is no end to how meek, servile and illogical this is. Stockholm syndrome comes to mind.
Overall, I assume it’s middle class sensibilities talking. To some, receiving vaguely, not clearly AS and unpleasant comments on FB is as serious as the murders and famine that brown people suffer but out of view. Having middle class sensibilities can shadow one’s priorities, you’re disconnected from real suffering. Only a person with no real problems can think being offended is on a par with starving to death in Yemen or being bombed out of your house in Palestine. Callous, short sighted, selfish people who never starved and never were thrown out of anywhere. But these callous people get to define the debate and priorities of the left. How about, we don't let them?