Jeremy Corbyn said some positive things about antisemitism, British Jews and the Labour Party in his speech today. Good for him. The problem is that everything else he says on the subject means he can't build any trust in the good stuff. I'll explain why /1
In this interview he is asked about threats to @lucianaberger. He answers by saying there are no threats. This is what Luciana said in Parliament back in April about the antisemitism she faces within Labour. Corbyn heard it all but now denies it exists
Here he is asked about appearing on Press TV. He says he stopped in 2009 but this is completely untrue. His own register of interests lists payments up to 2012. Press TV is the state broadcaster of an antisemitic government that denies the Holocaust
This thread is about Corbyn on Press TV in 2012 suggesting "the hand of Israel" was behind jihadist terrorism in Egypt and referring to Hamas terrorists as "brothers". 2012, not 2009
Another interview: @AndrewMarr9 asked Corbyn about that mural. Corbyn refused to call it antisemitic. "Do you now find it antisemitic?" "I think it should never have been put up." bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod… /5
But in March, Corbyn wrote a letter to @BoardofDeputies & @JLC_uk in which he called the mural an example of "what constitutes antisemitism in the labour movement". So why equivocate now? bod.org.uk/wp-content/upl… /6
Marr also asked him about placing a wreath on Black September graves. Corbyn claims he thought it was only for Palestinians killed in an Israeli bombing raid in Tunisia. "I didn't know they [Black September] were there at the time." /7
But "at the time" - within 4 days of the wreath-laying - Corbyn wrote in the Morning Star that he had also commemorated "others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991". so that was another answer that didn't add up morningstaronline.co.uk/a-98de-palesti… /8
The point is, Corbyn's scripted comments about antisemitism in speeches and letters are completely different from what he says in interviews. Then, he obfuscates, dodges questions, contradicts himself and gives the impression he thinks the whole thing is a fuss over nothing /9
He certainly never gives the impression of self-reflection or acknowledgement that he has played any role in making this problem what it is today /10
So yes, the comments in today's speech were good. But speeches are easy: nobody interrupts with difficult questions and you don't have to take any difficult action. But it doesn't build trust or convince anyone that things will improve. /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Emma Watson's post isn't, in and of itself, antisemitic. It may be simplistic, ignorant, one-sided, and many other things, but it isn't antisemitic and expressing solidarity with Palestinians doesn't, in and of itself, make Emma Watson an antisemite.
Here's a different way of responding from a different Israeli diplomat (but with a similar line in Harry Potter-themed puns) that tries to engage with some of the arguments. It's a much better way, whether you agree with Gilad Erdan's points or not
Of course, the relationship between anti-Israel politics and antisemitism is complicated. Some anti-Israel speech is antisemitic, some isn't, and some of it is sometimes depending on context. Use the IHRA definition to help work it out holocaustremembrance.com/working-defini…
The second @BristolUni QC’s report into David Miller has been leaked. It exonerates Miller just like the first one did: nothing he said was antisemitic. How did they reach this conclusion? They used the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-wins… 🧵👇
The QC was “asked to take into account” the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but devotes several pages of the report to criticism of IHRA by Tomlinson, Sedley, Feldman & Stern. Only one opinion supporting IHRA is given, even though it is backed by most Jewish orgs in this country
Instead they clearly preferred the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism's definition of antisemitism as “hatred, discrimination, prejudice or hostility against Jews *as Jews*, or Jewish institutions *as Jewish institutions*” (their emphasis) - and this is the problem.
David Miller, whose academic methodology is to identify funders of research he deems to be Islamophobic and then cherry-pick evidence about them to build a guilt-by-association case, was himself funded by the UK state & the EU. What if we apply his methodology here?
E.g. Victor Orban is an EU head of state and has said loads of antisemitic things in the past. By Miller's logic this arguably calls into question his ability to produce fair & balanced research about Jews, because that's how research funding works apparently 🤷🏻♂️
Ridiculous, isn't it? So is Miller and all his stupid so-called research. He cherry-picks bits of evidence to support preconceived conclusions and ignores anything that contradicts it. Here's an example from his latest paper exposed on @GuidoFawkes...
THREAD: This week's @JewishChron tells the story of how an anti-fascist informant codenamed 'Arthur', who infiltrated the far right for @CST_UK & Searchlight, identified the London nailbomber as BNP member David Copeland in 1999 thejc.com/news/uk/how-th…
'Arthur' did so much more than this: he spent a decade inside the far right, attending over 400 meetings, rallies and leafleting sessions, and told us all about everyone he met, everything he saw and everything that was being planned.
He was surrounded by vicious antisemitism, racism and misogyny, and a casual attitude to violence that was utterly chilling.
Conflict rages in Israel and antisemitism rises in the UK. It happens every time with wearying predictability. Here's a thread of top tips for people who want to support Palestinians in a non-antisemitic way:
Don't blame British Jews for what the Israeli government does. Don't demand that British Jews condemn the Israeli government. Don't deliberately take your Palestinian flags and banners to wave at Jews. It's antisemitic.
Be precise in your language. If you say "Jews", you mean all Jews around the world. If you say "Zionists", you mean everyone who thinks Israel should exist. If you say "Israelis", you mean all Israelis. How about "the Israeli government/army"?
I've spent two weeks waiting to see if any academics will speak out publicly about David Miller's antisemitic conspiracy theories and his targeting of Jewish students. Finally they have spoken... in his defence. This is the list of shame docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI…
The letter itself is a masterpiece of euphemism, obfuscation and untruths. Miller was not "approached to provide a statement on Israel-Palestine". He gave a speech at a meeting in which he identified the Jewish Society at his own university as an enemy & a bunch of racists
Miller followed up that speech with another statement claiming that Jewish students at Bristol University who have complained about him are "directed by the State of Israel". This is antisemitism.