[thread]
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhassan is doing two things here.
He says that comparing Israel to Nazis is wrong/inaccurate/offensive but not antisemitic.
We often see this pleading guilty to a lesser crime.
Livingstone is said to be vulgar or insensitive but not antisemitic.
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhassan is doing two things here.
He says that comparing Israel to Nazis is wrong/inaccurate/offensive but not antisemitic.
We often see this pleading guilty to a lesser crime.
Livingstone is said to be vulgar or insensitive but not antisemitic.
There is a willingness to concede that when thinking about Israel, people on the left may be guilty of all sorts of unpleasantness, but NOT antisemitism.
Antisemitism is taboo and there is resistance to accepting its existence.
Antisemitism is taboo and there is resistance to accepting its existence.
Tom Watson, deputy leader of the Party, conceded that Willsman, who said that Jewish opposition to antisemitism in the Party is got up by Trumpists and rabbis with no evidence, is a "loud-mouthed bully".
But this bullying was not antisemitic? Again, guilty to a lesser charge.
But this bullying was not antisemitic? Again, guilty to a lesser charge.
So, @mehdirhasan, when it's wrong or inaccurate, who is it libelling?
When it's offensive, who is it offending?
When there is loud mouthed bullying, who is being bullied?
And why?
What is the wider political context - and outcome - of the inaccuracy, offending and bullying?
When it's offensive, who is it offending?
When there is loud mouthed bullying, who is being bullied?
And why?
What is the wider political context - and outcome - of the inaccuracy, offending and bullying?
To judge that something may be antisemitic, on the left, is to judge that there is a problem of left antisemitism.
And then, instead of denials and counter-accusations, the left would have to make judgments about particular cases.
And to educate the young about antisemitism.
And then, instead of denials and counter-accusations, the left would have to make judgments about particular cases.
And to educate the young about antisemitism.
But the line which is held by so many is easier to defend and to police.
There is bullying, over-enthusiasm, getting things wrong but not antisemitism. And then those who say there's a problem of antisemitism can be pushed out of the community of the good and treated as enemies.
There is bullying, over-enthusiasm, getting things wrong but not antisemitism. And then those who say there's a problem of antisemitism can be pushed out of the community of the good and treated as enemies.
So, the first issue was pleading guilty to a lesser charge than antisemitism, and we see this a lot.
The second issue is that the IHRA definition can really help with @mehdirhasan's question.
IHRA doesn't say that comparing Israel to Nazis is antisemitic.
The second issue is that the IHRA definition can really help with @mehdirhasan's question.
IHRA doesn't say that comparing Israel to Nazis is antisemitic.
IHRA says that, "...examples of antisemitism ... could, taking into account the overall context, include... :
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
IHRA is not an app for your iphone to automatically tell you what is antisemitic. It is a framework which offers some help in making a sound political judgement.
IHRA says, therefore, that when Meyer or Kaufman compare Israel to Nazis, then you have to think about that.
IHRA says, therefore, that when Meyer or Kaufman compare Israel to Nazis, then you have to think about that.
You have to look at the context of their particular comparison.
Think about its meaning.
Think about intent.
Think about effect.
Think about whether it bullies Jews, or it libels Jews or it is offensive to Jews.
And then make a judgement about whether it is antisemitic.
Think about its meaning.
Think about intent.
Think about effect.
Think about whether it bullies Jews, or it libels Jews or it is offensive to Jews.
And then make a judgement about whether it is antisemitic.
Comparing Israel to Nazis constructs Israel as being similar to the greatest criminal conspiracy the world has ever seen.
It says specifically to Jews that what they are doing makes them comparable to those who herded hundreds of thousands of their own children into the gas.
It says specifically to Jews that what they are doing makes them comparable to those who herded hundreds of thousands of their own children into the gas.
And there is a general assumption that Jews are in one way or another, supportive of Israel.
So denouncing Israel as Nazi has the effect of educating people to assume that Jews they meet are like Nazis; and should be treated as Nazis.
Unless they disavow Israel.
So denouncing Israel as Nazi has the effect of educating people to assume that Jews they meet are like Nazis; and should be treated as Nazis.
Unless they disavow Israel.
