Israel or The Jewish People?

At 24:47, a Tweet from Corbyn shows he questioned the destruction of a mural which was allegedly anti-semitic. It is assumed that the mural was anti-semitic and because Corbyn apologized, the propaganda was quite effective. To dismantle the misinformation, let’s first look at the mural’s supposed anti-semitic message.

Mural called anti-semitic

Let’s pretend that we are making a mural of the richest people on Earth. Are we going to paint them all as black people? Latin American? Aboriginals from Australia? If we paint them as European white, would that be racist? If the richest people on Earth were actually black, would it be racist to depict black people playing a board game on the backs of white people? Probably not. But why is it racist, or anti-semitic, to make a mural with Jewish people as powerful and wealthy?

And why isn’t Panorama criticizing Jeremy Corbyn for being racist against people of color? After all, the people below the board game are being depicted as poor. If it is racist to depict Jewish people as rich, then by that logic, it must be racist to depict people of color as poor, right? Wrong! The artist made an interpretation of reality. The are over 1 billion black people in the world, only a little over 10 are billionaires. In contrast with about 15 million Jewish people in the world, about 165 are billionaires. This might seem like a small number when compared to the total amount of billionaires worldwide (about 2,000), but as Jewish Business News reports:

Jews are disproportionately represented on the roster of the richest business people, with 10 Jews among the top 50 (20%), and 38 (19%) Jews among first 200 world’s wealthiest.

Is it anti-semitic to talk about Jewish wealth and economic power even if it comes from Jewish Business News or from Israel’s Haaretz? A report by The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (Established by the Jewish Agency for Israel), also made comments about Jewish wealth. The report titled, 2030: Alternative Futures for the Jewish People, stated:

World Jewry today is at a historical zenith of absolute wealth creation. With the vast majority of Jews living in countries that are among the world’s wealthiest, and with the majority of those Jews belonging to the middle and upper socio-economic strata of those countries (excluding Israel) the Jewish People as a whole enjoys access to wealth as never before… Jews continue to be at the forefront of the technological revolution and economic know-how, and take senior positions in the global economic and business system. There is more money per capita in Jewish hands — absolutely and perhaps, even relatively — than anytime in history.

How many complaints did they get? It’s not racist or anti-semitic to look at the world and see it for what it is. But even if Jews were the poorest ethnic group in the world, we still couldn’t automatically call the mural anti-semitic. The image is based on a conspiracy theory (the Illuminati theory — which is not exclusively about Jews) coming from uninformed people. We should be clear, however, that Jeremy Corbyn apologized for defending the image.

I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I am opposed to the production of anti-Semitic material of any kind, and the defence of free speech cannot be used as a justification for the promotion of anti-Semitism in any form.

The free speech issue is a big one. Government officials, like Boris Johnson, should not be allowed to be openly racist or even controversial. But private citizens have a right to hold bigoted opinions and others have the right to counter their opinions. We should not allow governments to spy on our opinions and regulate our speech on social media or elsewhere. That’s a very dangerous thing because people who say factual things, if taken the wrong way, can be expelled from their political party, get fired from their jobs, and even face prison time. But Corbyn apologized. Is that what anti-semitism is? Making a controversial statement and then apologizing? Is that the new wave of anti-semitism? So, here’s the new definition of anti-semitism according to Panorama:

At 31:13, the program focuses on an anti-semitic image of an alien creature, marked with the Star of David, clasped onto the face of the Statue of Liberty. It appears the photo came from a right-wing, white-nationalist organization. That’s a huge red flag and definitely anti-semitic. Some people have claimed that the Star of David represents the Israeli flag, therefore, the image should be seen as criticism of how the Israeli government has a lot of influence in the United States — which is true. But the fact that it comes from a white-nationalist, anti-semitic website makes this image anti-semitic. The Labour Party member who shared this image might have seen the Star of David as representing Israel and not the Jewish people but I have not seen or read an explanation by her.

Twitter post by Labour Party member.

This could be proof that there is a minority of people in the Labour Party, just like all other political parties, that are anti-semitic. We should not confuse the Jewish people with Israel. Israel does have a powerful lobby in the US and does interfere in US politics. In 2015, Republicans secretly planned a speech to Congress to be given by Benyamin Netanyahu a the White House. This created an environment of even deeper division within the two maini parties. According to Vox.com, the plan by Republicans and Israeli officials to keep their plans secret from the Obama administration was a breach

…of diplomatic protocol for a foreign government to work directly with a US opposition party, and of political protocol for Congressional Republicans to freelance their own foreign policy independent of the White House.

But even if the intention of the image was anti-semitic, it still does not prove that Corbyn is an anti-semite or that the Labour Party is institutionally anti-semitic. If one person in London is a terrible person, I cannot claim that London is institutionally terrible. It’s not about the numbers. Even if 100% of people were bigoted, institutional bigotry would mean that the actual rule book of the Party, the policies, would have to be designed in a way to limit opportunities for certain groups. In other words, it is possible for a country to be institutionally anti-semitic and, at the same time, have a population that’s overwhelmingly not anti-semitic. In the case of the UK, however, there is no crisis of cultural or institutional anti-semitism. Individual cases are wildly exaggerated by the program to appear systemic and institutional.

At 36:18, Jackie Walker is accused of anti-semitism for talking about Jewish slave owners. First of all, Jackie Walker is Jewish (that’s not mentioned in the program). Let’s look at her actual comment:

Jackie Walker’s comment

My ancestors were involved in both [the African and Jewish holocausts]— on all sides and as I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesn’t for Jews. …and many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade which is of course why there were so many early synagogues in the Caribbean.

Yes, there were Jewish slave owners but to say they were the “chief financiers” is obviously an exaggeration. Walker herself has admitted her mistake in a documentary titled: WitchHunt (the silencing of pro-Palesinian UK Labour Party activists). Basically, a Jew said something on a Facebook comment and she later corrected herself on one word: “chief”. Is that anti-semitism?

John Ware doesn’t mention Walker’s correction. There are two other accusations about Jackie Walker in the program which I comment on in my video but I won’t go through them here because the program does not provide quotes or any other evidence for those accusations.

At 42:40, it is mentioned that 15 people have been expelled from the Labour Party due to anti-semitism. John Ware and his guests are not happy about that. I could not find a comprehensive list of these 15 people and the reasons for their expulsion. They don’t consider that it’s likely the Labour Party has hesitated in expelling its members because they are being targeted for criticizing Israel, not Jewish people. But for propagandists, it’s all the same.

At 44:53, Kat Buckingham criticizes a human rights lawyer who wrote a report on anti-semitism in the Labour Party, saying the report was “so poorly researched,” “pitiful is the right word,” and that she found it “impossibly disappointing”. This is coming from the person who apparently did not research the Haavara Agreement. She wanted an immediate suspension without researching Livingstone's comments and yet she has the confidence to criticize a report which concluded the Labour Party was not institutionally anti-semitic but that it did suffer from “an occasionally toxic atmosphere”. The report also warns of the attack on free speech:

An occasionally toxic atmosphere is in danger of shutting down free speech within the Party rather than facilitating it, and is understandably utilised by its opponents.

At around 47:25, Dave Rich accuses Corbyn of sharing a platform with terrorists:

Either he’s just the unluckiest anti-racist in history that he always, by accident, ends up on these platforms with these people, or, he’s there because he shares their political world. He shares their views. They’re on a platform together because they have some kind of political connection.

This claim is absurd when we apply it to anyone else. Tony Blair visited Saudi Arabia. Is Dave Rich prepared to say that either Tony Blair ended up sharing a platform with a dictatorship by accident “or he’s there because he shares their political world. He shares their views, they’re on a platform together because they have some kind of political connection.” Does this mean that Tony Blair is pro-Muslim and anti-semitic? Does that mean he agrees with Saudi ideology by association? Does it mean he supports the dictatorship model and wants to bring it to Britain? Unlike Corbyn, Blair didn’t just share a platform but he actually worked with Saudi Arabia.

The reason no one is labeled anti-semitic for working with Saudi Arabia is because the Saudis are an ally of the West. Jeremy Corbyn seems to want to talk to the other side. He believes we should talk with those whose views we do not hold. Dave Rich might believe that following the Classical Liberal tradition of England’s John Stuart Mill is anti-semitic, but listening to the opposite side is the only way to reach any kind of agreement. Obviously, there’s a political connection. Hamas wants Israel to stop expanding settlements and condemns the occupation, so does Corbyn, and so does the International Court of Justice:

…recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…

But Israel claims Hamas wants to destroy it. Palestine is not even a 3rd world country. It’s like a 5th or 8th or 20th world country. How could it destroy one of the most powerful militaries in the world which is backed by the most powerful country in the world (the USA)? Jeremy Corbyn should be praised for taking the firs step of talking with the enemy. When Donald Trump met with North Korea and was seen as being too friendly with Vladimir Putin, some on the left and right were too quick in condemning him. These acts should be praised regardless of political affiliations.

At 48:48, in an effort to, once again, connect all Jews to Israel, John Ware says “Jeremy Corbyn has, himself, engaged in a conspiracy theory about Israel” and this presumably must be anti-semitic. Corbyn is seen saying that he suspected Israel had attacked Egyptian border guards in 2012. What has been said is that Israel admitted that it was guilty in accidentally killing Egyptian officers one year before this incident and that’s why Jeremy Corbyn was already suspicious. But all of that is irrelevant. If he had been correct, it would not have been anti-semitic. And being incorrect still doesn’t make him anti-semitic. If there’s a terrorist attack in Paris, is it racist if I immediately think that it was Middle Eastern people who did it? If there’s an attack on Afghanistan, is it racist to think it was the US? Saying that Israel might have done something has nothing to do with being anti-semitic toward all Jewish people because most Jewish people live outside of Israel. Israel is not the Jewish people!