Thread by @DavidHirsh

[Thread] Weaponizing antisemitism against Corbyn?

If Boris Johnson says something Islamophobic, should we weaponize that against him?

Should mobilize it as a reason not to vote for him to be PM?

Or would there be something unfair or inappropriate about that?

If you think the Tories haven't looked after the NHS, and so you say that people shouldn't vote Tory, is this weaponising the issue of the NHS against the Tories?

Should we say: "The Tories haven't looked after the NHS, but we don't want to politicize the issue."

Weaponizing the issue of antisemitism against Corbyn?

People don't like antisemitism. They see that Corbyn presides over a party in which antisemitism is tolerated and that he has a record of siding with antisemites.

So there are two possible responses:

1. Somebody could say: "I support Corbyn in general but I wish he would get on top of the issue of antisemitism. I'm still going to vote for him, he's better than the other side, the antisemitism is crap, but antisemitism isn't a deal-breaker for me."

or...

2. Somebody could say: "Corbyn's antisemitism isn't a contingent eccentricity but is symbolic of his whole anti-democratic worldview. I can't support an antisemitic politician and I don't think people should vote for him."
Which one of these is "weaponizing" antisemitism?

"Weaponizing" antisemitism really means:
"It is only a selfish and parochial issue for Jews. What Jews are doing is using their 'victim power' and control of the Holocaust narrative to hurt Corbyn. Jews are putting their particular interest before that of the community."

and...

People who oppose Corbyn anyway are adding antisemitism as one more reason to oppose him. Why wouldn't they?

I've heard some go like this: "There is a problem of antisemitism but there's also a problem of our enemies weaponizing it against us."

The inference is that there is a kind of loyal way to remain part of the community of the good and raise the issue. Which, well, there isn't.

It means that antisemitism is not actually very important and it is a kind of extraneous eccentricity which tells you nothing about the important part of the project.
My boss might weaponize my failure to answer emails within the required 48 hours if she used it to fire me.

The charge is this: That people take Corbyn's antisemitism, which is actually trivial, and they construct a weapon out of it to destroy his big important work.

This also incorporates a charge of dishonesty.

Say what you really think is wrong, don't use this weakness sneakily.