Antisemitism came to the public consciousness no greater than when the Labour Party, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, failed the Jewish community. So spectacular was this failure, that it led the Party to be investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). To put this into context, the only other party to gain the EHRC’s attention and therefore be subjected to an investigation was the British National Party (BNP) widely accepted as a racist Party.

Could this have been prevented? Yes. Was it prevented? No. Is this the only example of the Jewish community being let down? No. So why are Jews being let down?

The thesis underlying the book Jews Don’t Count by David Baddiel is that there is a hierarchy of racism. That some racisms are more equal than others. That whilst other ethnic minorities can suffer from it, so too can Jews. But the significance between racism towards Jews and other ethnic minorities is starkly different. It is Jews that are the losers when it comes to highlighting and tackling the racism.

Jews are seen as white and privileged, therefore the impact of racism against them is less than that of other ethnic minorities. Jews hold a double status. For example, they are seen as white by progressives and not white by white supremacists. Jews therefore are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If many Jews felt politically homeless because of Jeremy Corbyn, then antisemitism has also made them ethnically homeless when it comes to who they are.

Baddiel calls this “double racism”. The idea that – for example – Jews are rich and black people are poor. Therefore, Jews cannot be victims, but black people can. There is an original sin analogy somewhere here. That you are either born powerful, or born weak and the two are immutable characteristic assigned to each ethnic minority as if it is essential to their being and identity. This is a bigotry of low expectations towards black people and a complete erasure of the struggles and discrimination faced by Jews. Baddiel advances this argument further:

“The problem is that Jews occupy a socio-cultural grey area. Jews, although marginal, are not thought of as marginalised.”

“One’s Jewishness, just like one’s skin colour, is an accident of birth, and as far as the racists are concerned – and they, sadly, are the people that matter as far as racism goes – you can never lose either.”

Jews have been let down by progressives. There is no victory, or perhaps not even any value is standing up for the Jew. So much so that the double standards of calling out Piers Morgan for his apparent mistreatment of Meghan Markle is seen as more worthy, than perhaps calling out the former Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn. Baddiel goes onto explain:

“It is the prerogative of those on the receiving end of any specific racism to define that racism. They get to say what is and what isn’t racism and Piers Morgan does not.”

So why isn’t this the case for Jews? The book explains this is more detail.

The holocaust is an inconvenience for some of these progressives. Whilst antisemitism predates WW2, the fact that Jews suffered horrendously as a result of it, leaves these progressives with nowhere to turn other than to admit that it was the worse kind of antisemitism to have ever taken place. It seems like this is a bitter pill to swallow, a truth they wish was false. Because all that matters to them is, minorities do not and should not include Jews. Progressives are the gatekeepers of who qualifies as an ethnic minority. This is why the concept of whataboutery is employed and is then used against Jews, particularly in the case of the Palestinians.

What 9/11 is for Muslims, the actions of Israel are for Jews. There is an expectation that Jews must condemn the actions – whether justified or not – of Israel when it seen as the aggressor against Palestinians. Baddiel points out that invoking the actions of Israel when talking to Jews is a form of antisemitism. That holding all Jews to account, or for them to have a view on the actions of Israel is no different to holding all Muslims to account when terrorist acts are perpetrated by Islamist extremists.

David Baddiel provides further examples of how Jews are let down and he goes into much more detail than this review will allow me to write. Jews Don’t Count is an excellent read. It is accessible, funny and honest. It seeks to bring non-Jews into the Jewish world where aggressions against them occur every day, yet are either dismissed or ignored. It highlights a blind spot that progressives fail to see in themselves. It seeks to ensure that their plight does not matter anymore than any other ethnic minority, just that when they are attacked, they are treated in the same way.

If Jews don’t count then David Baddiel has provided the reader with a persuasive case of why they should count. The fact that I am even concluding this, just goes to show why this book is needed and how we, the general public, need to take a hard look at ourselves when an ethnic minority is being let down. Never again must mean never again.

Read more: You can stand firmly against antisemitism and for Palestinian rights….

The post Jews Don’t Count. But Why Should They? A Book Review appeared first on Muslims Against Antisemitism.

Ms van der Zyl called Yaqoob’s claim that Israelis are European colonisers

“A calculated insult to the thousands who fled to Israel having survived the Holocaust and the hundreds of thousands more who arrived in Israel having been persecuted by Arab states.”

She added “no-one who refers to Jews as ‘pigs’ could possibly be considered for high office by any reputable party. Labour must withdraw her from the shortlist for West Midlands Mayor and expel her immediately.”

This was in response to a video that surfaced recently in which it has been claimed Yaqoob peddled conspiracy theories against the State of Israel and has been accused of blatant antisemitism. Yaqoob has also tweeted an article in 2013 describing in lurid antisemitic language about 10 Rothschilds bankers being arrested in Iceland. For many years’ conspiracies around the Rothschilds have been a common antisemitic trope, based on the idea of rich Jews buying political power and rigging international banking in the interests of Jews against everyone else. This has no basis in fact, but that Yaqoob promoted this on her own Twitter account raises serious questions over whether she should be anywhere near elected politics.

The issue of Yaqoob’s record on antisemitism came to the fore, when she spoke at the May 2019 Al Quds Day. This is a rally created by the Iranian regime to celebrate the Iranian revolution and run by the notoriously antisemitic Islamic Human Rights Commission in the UK. In the past this annual rally has resembled an antisemitic hate fest, where Hezbollah Flags until they were recently banned were held aloft and antisemitic comments made. Muslims Against Semitism Co-Ordinator Stephen Hoffman revealed the dubious history of Al Quds Day and its organiser here.

At the rally she questioned the legitimacy of Israel hosting the Eurovision Song Contest saying:

“For years [they] have pretended to be Europeans. The only link is they’re European colonisers.”

This is an example of antisemitism, based on presenting Jews as privileged whites who are part of the elites and use allegations of antisemitism as a tactic to shut debate down. This ignores that many Jews across the world including the UK are Mizrahi Jews, which means they come from the Middle East. There are also many Jews from the Maghreb and many black Jews. The idea that Jews are privileged white Europeans is based on a lie to promote a negative image of Jews.

Yaqoob went on to add another layer to the antisemitic tirade by referring to Israel as a pig. The pig which is not kosher has been used for years as antisemitic imagery.

Labour Against Anti-Semitism (LAAS) in response to Yaqoob stated

“It is beyond belief that she has been shortlisted as a potential candidate for the Mayor of West Midlands, a region with a proud history of tolerance and multiculturalism.”

Yaqoob is no stranger to controversy. She is already a disgraced political figure for her campaign in 2017 as the Respect Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the 2017 General Election. In this election she was pitted against the current Labour MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.

Such was the vile nature of how Yaqoob campaigned, Shah was left feeling suicidal. and the Chief Opinion Writer for the Observer, Sonia Sodha wrote about Yaqoob’s toxic campaign in this piece.

Shah herself has spoken movingly about how she was made to feel in this Twitter thread.

A tactic Yaqoob used against Shah was to introduce sectarian politics by attempting to divide the vote along religious grounds when she made reference to Shah not wearing the hijab.

Consequently, its unsurprising surprise that Labour MP Ruth Smeeth in relation to Yaqoob joining the Party said:

“I personally think Salma Yaqoob has no place in our movement, not least because of her behaviour towards Naz Shah in 2017.”

Whilst momentum is building to expel Yaqoob from the Labour Party, it is worrying that she was even allowed to join, let alone be selected to be the next Labour Mayor for the West Midlands. Her record was a matter of public knowledge, which those in Labour in charge of choosing who should be on the short list should have been aware of.

It is important to note that Yaqoob isn’t necessarily the problem per se, but rather a symptom of the Labour Party’ lack of leadership on rising antisemitism in the party since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour Party leader in 2015. Indeed, it has become such a problem that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is currently sifting through numerous submissions on examples of antisemitism in the Labour Party, as part of its inquiry in to antisemitism in the Labour Party.

Since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour Party leader, antisemitism has increased in the UK. Although its not solely due to the rising antisemitism in the Labour Party given the rise in far-right antisemitism, it has been a significant factor.

The Community Security Trust (CST) reported a 10% increase in antisemitic incidents in the first half of this year, totaling 892. That is the highest figure the CST has ever recorded for antisemitic incidents for the first half of the year and a 10% rise on the 810 antisemitic incidents from January to June 2018.

The highest monthly totals in the first half of 2019 were February and March, with 182 and 169 antisemitic incidents respectively. These are the joint-fourth and sixth highest monthly totals ever recorded by CST. They occurred when issues relating to Jews and antisemitism were prominent in news and politics due to the continuing controversy over antisemitism in the Labour Party.

February saw several MPs leave the Labour Party, some of whom cited antisemitism as a prominent reason for their decision.  

There was also a 46% rise in online hate against Jews compared to the first six months of 2018. High levels of online antisemitism happened during periods in which antisemitism was high on the political agenda within the Labour Party. You can see the CST report in full here.

Where Labour was once the natural home for Jews for many, it has now left many feeling homeless. In September 2018 data from polling carried out by Survation for the Jewish Chronicle showed that 85.6% of British Jews believe that there are high or very high levels of antisemitism at all levels in the Labour Party. This has risen from a similar poll for the Jewish Chronicle by Survation in 2017, where the number was 69%.

This trend of Jews feeling that antisemitism is an ongoing serious problem in the Labour Party is supported by the October 2019 poll by Survation for the Jewish Chronicle. The polling results revealed 78% of British Jews surveyed would prefer a no deal Brexit to a Jeremy Corbyn Government.

Commenting on the poll Wes Streeting, the Labour MP for Ilford North stated:

“I’m afraid this poll reflects what I hear on the doorstep in my own community, but seeing it so starkly presented is devastating – not least for significant numbers of Jews who clearly want to vote Labour but can’t because of Jeremy Corbyn

Given our very public failure to tackle antisemitism within our ranks who can blame them?”

For decades Jews were driven from their homes, massacred, portrayed as puppeteers controlling the banks, the media and global politics. Alongside these forms of antisemitism, we also see Jews being questioned if they’re Europeans, should be allowed to take part in singing competitions and referred to as pigs. We learn nothing from history if we don’t challenge this and beat it.

I firmly believe if you replace Jews with any other race there would be more outcry at what is happening in the Labour Party, but it seems too many believe that antisemitism against Jews is not as important as hate against other minorities.

If the Labour Party are serious about tackling antisemitism, it must look more closely at its leadership, which appears to be a magnet for antisemites. If, as some do, claim the leadership isn’t attracting antisemites, then it is utterly failing at tackling them. Due to this it is losing many Jewish party members and Jewish allies who abhor the grip antisemitism has over the Labour Party.

Either way, this situation is untenable and the Jewish community should not be made to feel like the Labour Party and the UK is no longer their home. Sadly, that sorry state of affairs won’t change whilst people like Salma Yaqoob are not only allowed to be members of the party, but election candidates.

Author

Wasiq is an educational and political analyst. His areas of expertise include government policy, countering hateful extremism and social cohesion.

To find out more, please visit www.wasiq.co.uk 

The post Salma Yaqoob reflects the grip of antisemitism over the Labour Party appeared first on Muslims Against Antisemitism.

We live surrounded by invective, toxic opinion, and a lot of SHOUTING.

It is hardly surprising or blameworthy: there’s a great deal wrong with the world, and trying to be part of the solution is difficult and frustrating. Add to that the time pressures we are all under, the imperative to always produce and excel, so prominent in  the corridors of power and in our work place, and you have the ingredients for very bitter exchanges.

So what of a few bruises inflicted or a few wounds to lick? Surely the betterment of society warrants a few casualties, and we can just take it on the chin and carry on. In fact, we can probably draw strength from it, in the favourite trope of toxic masculinity: ‘grow a pair.’

But what if the methods were part of the problem? What if, in the race to turn up the volume and causticity of our utterances, we were causing irreparable damage? Or even worse, what if, by virtue of our combativeness, we were increasing our chances of defeat?

Intellectual debate has always relied on juxtaposition of different ideas, the very nature of thought formation occurs in neural connections made of electrical sparks, and reasoning is always made more fertile when challenged, yet the nature and rigour of the discourse is far more important that it is given credit.

The reasons differ from what may be immediately apparent, like  the basic need to keep a civilised exchange going and leave the debating floor with our integrity intact. In fact, having a more impassioned and rational debate helps us ‘unpick’ the automatic thinking that underpins so much of bias, prejudice and conflict.

That is not to say that we should shy from ‘calling out’ injustice and malfeasance as we see it, but by concentrating on the causality in our opponents’ motivations, we will make our argument stronger and more incisive.

The main problem with much of the acerbic exchanges on the media sphere is the ‘othering’ of our interlocutors by placing them into an immutably wrong conceptual space, allowing us to gain confidence in the righteousness of our position by virtue of contrast with it.

That is very much like the processes we employ, mostly unconsciously, when we make decisions based of biased premises.

The, now infamous, often quoted faux pas  by Jeremy Corbyn, who referred to Zionists as having no understanding of ‘English irony’, is a very good example to illustrate this point.

Corbyn later explained that he had used the term “in the accurate political sense and not as a euphemism for Jewish people,” and felt justified, I believe, in using the term to denigrate a political adversary, in the same way that one could say, without much controversy: ‘The Tories are a callous lot’ or ‘Socialists are living in the past.’

The point, however, is not whether the term is legitimately used, but that this process of creating a conceptually inflexible, all encompassing ‘other’ absolves us from reassessing her/his future utterances on their specific merits, and sanctions our treating of such utterances as the manifestations of a group that is intrinsically wrong, and therefore cannot contribute anything of value to the debate.

In other words, it allows the more prejudiced amongst us  to say that Zionist is ‘a thing’, like ‘women’ or ‘gays’ or ‘lefty’ and believe that everyone in that ‘group’ behaves as a single entity.

That is the same process we have employed in our biased decisions in our places of work, our courts of law and our social circles across gender, class, abilities, sexuality, religious and other perceived divides, in prejudiced structures whose mechanisms we are increasingly uncovering and struggling to make reparations for.

My point is that by frankly scrutinising our own arguments before making them public, we not only increase the mordancy and incisiveness of our arguments, but we also escape the vicious cycle of quick judgement and biased perspective.

In the debate about religious intolerance, these tendencies are exacerbated by the perceived immutable nature of God’s wisdom, and the various manifestations of holy utterances. Yet the mistake is to attribute these immutable qualities and infallibility to the very mutable and fallible human nature and all its manifestations and conflicts. It is no coincidence that when learned people: imams, rabbis, priests, philosophers, and others deliberate as a group, after studious reflection, their conclusions are inclusive and moderate.

So we should learn from the likes of Socrates, reflect on the conclusions of the Amman Message and The Bahrain Declaration on Religious Tolerance, and draw strength and perspective from the moderate sides of the argument, who are measured in their statements not out of weakness, but because of a strong and compassionate understanding of the inability of mankind to adhere to the perfection of God, Truth, and Justice. The emphasis is then on the process of seeking a path, rather than the appropriation of a predetermined, inflexible way.

In conclusion the way we really fight prejudice is by dismantling its complex structures into their small, often seemingly innocuous pieces. We must do this because human beings are intrinsically creatures of prejudice and coming to terms with it will help us navigate the small actual differences that divide us, and recognise the vastity of the common traits we share.

Lou Fioravanti is a Senior Researcher with Muslims Against Antisemitism

The post Win the War? I’m not Fighting! appeared first on Muslims Against Antisemitism.