Labour in the UK is under attack in an unprecedented fashion around the issue of anti-Semitism — and until last weekend they were being buffeted by it. Now? The issue may have reversed on those using it as a stalking horse for yet another attempt to topple leader Jeremy Corbyn. In the ensuing chaos, the uglier manifestations of the right have been drawn out in ways they should have imagined, but didn’t.
This latest round of accusations began with a mural, or a removed one – a piece by the LA artist Mear One. It’s political junk, showing a group of white men from the early 20th century sitting round a Monopoly board, which is placed on the backs of bowed black people. Behind this, the eye-pyramid of the Illuminati stares over them.
It’s the pathetic “new world order” conspiratorialism of a certain type of unmoored US radicalism (often coming out of identity politics), and the figures around the board include the Rothschilds and other Jewish figures from the early 20th century, as well as a number of white gentiles. It certainly draws on visual cliches of anti-Semitism, but avoids the hook noses, etc, crap of Die Stuermer (or, occasionally, News Corp for that matter).
It’s dumb, rather than offensive. But it would have been wise for Corbyn not to protest when the thing was ordered painted over by Tower Hamlets borough mayor Luther Rachman. Free speech doesn’t entitle you to stick your idiot views into everyone’s eyeline.
Equally, it would have been wise for Corbyn to make specific criticisms of the anti-Semitism of Hezbollah and Hamas when he met with them at parliament (galling as it is to have this double-standard; Israel helped establish Hamas, to undermine Fatah, and has worked with Hezbollah when it suits).
The mural was used as the opening salvo, but the core of the new accusations against Corbyn was a Sunday Times report which established that there were 2000 anti-Semitic messages on pro-Corbyn Facebook groups, and that 12 Labour staffers were signed on to such groups.
The smear was, in other words, a product of the late mainstream/social media transition era — when you can still present autonomous pro-Corbyn Facebook groups as somehow directed by him, and comments on them as something more than an overheard conversation on a bus.
Predictable from the right, with the feral Daily Mail joining in. But it then became an excuse for elements of the Labour centre to join in, at the same time as Corbyn sacked pro-Remain MP (and former leadership challenger) Owen Smith from shadow cabinet for arguing that Labour should oppose Brexit.
When the storm continued, stoked by the right-wing Guido Fawkes website, team Corbyn turned the tables — kinda — by having a Pesach seder dinner with the Jewdas group, a bunch of lefty London Jews, who do edgy performance things like issuing the “Protocols of the Elders of Hackney”, and signing all their press releases “Geoffrey Cohen”. Corbyn bought beetroot from his garden allotment. One of the toasts was “f*** capitalism”.
They are, of course, anti-Zionist, and the right went ballistic against them and Corbyn for not “taking the issue seriously”. But that of course meant that they were attacking Jewdas for being “the wrong Jews” for Corbyn to dine with, as part of his commitment to reaffirming blah blah.
By this point, the left had managed to counter-attack on the UK right’s hideous record on racism, boorishness and yes, a fair bit of anti-Semitism: from Tory minister the late Alan Clark who named his dogs after leading Nazis and mused about the misunderstood Hitler, to the genteel (haha) anti-Semitism of Spectator columnist Taki, to young Tory MPs dressing as Nazis for parties, to the unending stream of Muslim-hatred and anti-black racism, key examples helpfully collected by the union Unite.
By this point the Guido Fawkes website, which had ramrodded many of the attacks had been hit by blowback. Comments strings to its articles were filled with the same conspiratorial anti-Semitism that had been condemned in the pro-Corbyn Facebook groups, and a left blogger, Tom Pride, retrieved a 1980s Guardian article about Guido Fawkes owner/editor Paul Staines, working with the wholly anti-Semitic British National Front in the ’80s, to disrupt left-wing meetings. The Guardian article had a record of party songs written by Staines, including this marvel for the Federation of Conservative Students (the FCS):
“Gas them all, gas them all, the Tribune group trendies and all. Crush Wedgwood Benn and make glue from his bones, burn the broad left in their middle class homes.
“Yes we’re saying goodbye to the Left, as safe in their graveyards they rest. ‘Cos they’ll get no further, we’ll stop with murder, the bootboys of FCS.”
By now, the issue appears to have been fought to a bitter draw. There are no doubt anti-Semites among Labour’s 250,000 members – there’s a mass party for you – and millions of supporters. But their numbers would be dwarfed by those of the casual racists in the Tories, as the Tories well know. The object was never to try to persuade the 8o% of British Jews who vote Labour to switch. It was to split Labour further. It would appear that this sacrifice on the altar — nah, better not do that one — has reversed on them badly.
Ha, I love it when stuff blows up in the faces of the Tories. They must *really* fear Corbyn.
Guy, I am all but certain that I have pointed out the meaning of the word “anti-Semitism” on a previous occasion within the pages of Crikey. As a reminder a Semite is a person of a geographical origin and NOT of a particular religion. Do you think you an make an effort for the future? That written, you don’t seem to have a particularly firm commend of the ideology of Conservatism either although there is half an justification as to how you have employed the term of late.
I suggest that if the correct words are utilised your articles will become clearer. On this basis there entire article deserves to be rewritten. As for Corbyn there is something to be said for “resisting” the “flow” or expectations of the press (as distinct from the public).
I agree that Semitic refers specifically to the Afro-Asiatic region (aka Middle Eastern….Hebrew, Arabic, even going back to Phoenician), but the term has been increasingly-& wrongly-been used to refer to those of the Jewish Faith…..almost exclusively….& even more wrongly to refer to people living in Israel, exclusively. Likewise, the term “antisemitism” has been increasingly misappropriated as a means to shut down anyone who is opposed to rampant Zionism. I also agree that the Tories (& the Australian Coalition) are more rightly considered Reactionaries than they are Conservatives.
Of course, “opposed to Zionism” tends to be how genuine anti-Semites (in the anti-Jewish sense, not the broader sense) describe themselves these days… everything is a code and everyone tries to hide their agenda and biases, so trying to use the language genuinely is pretty tricky.
There is one (1) instance of the word ‘Conservative’ and its derivatives in this article, and that is found within the name of a group.
I was referring to the trend that exists in articles written by Rundle as well as the article itself. Rundle seems to prefer the “noddy-in-the-street” usage of terms of political ideology rather than the formal (academic) usage. Such an attitude undermines the essays that he writes. It also undermines his perspective (White S.A. farmers or Conservatism in Australia).
Since there is some interest a Semite is a person from the geographical region extending from roughly Lebanon to Morocco. We have to thank Messieurs Sykes and Picot for changing the original ethnic boundaries.
Before he bent the knee to haganah Begin at Camp David he was often reviled in the Benighted State as anti-Semitic to which he responded “How can that be? I AM a Semite!”.
Funny how cultural appropriation of language is OK/reserved for some – try using holocaust (Greek for large conflagration) to mean anything other than Ha-Shoah.
… Sadat was reviled..
“… Sadat was reviled.” Sadat was ALSO a Semite!
Secondly, for some decades, when the word “holocaust” is mentioned I am unable to resist the enquiry as to which one the speaker or writer refers; the aggression Balkans prior to WWI; Turkey against the Kurds in the 20s; Stalin in the 30s; Hitler in the 40s; Mao in the 50s & 60s; Pol Pot in the 70s, Rwanda in 90s. The 80s was a damned quiet decade – comparatively.
Now, why don’t we put the events in order of magnitude. Then we can compare, with an element of smugness, the comparative atrocities or identify the “winner” of one prefers.
For the record, when I was in Israel last, it was “Yom HaShoah” (for the Gentiles) but other spellings (from the Hebrew) are understood.
How do you manage to get all this marvelous background reading to illustrate your main points, Guy? I read as much world news as I can get, but you always produce fantastic tidbits like the “Protocols of the Elders of Hackney”?
I loved that! Of course, Henry Ford would NOT be amused!
Who owns the controlling interest in the RBA?
Luftor Rahman was the mayor of Tower Hamlets. And the British Labour party has at least 600,000. Keep up the otherwise good work.