This is laughable. NYT has form in promoting bizarre takes on British society. We’ve all laughed at them over here. What the hack here forgot to mention is that Labour has the backing of Jews, candidates and supporters, in their hundreds and thousands who reject the conspiracy theory about ‘institutional antisemitism’ in the the party. And buck the conventional anti-Labour prejudice that led to 69% of Jewish Chronicle readers in 2015 rejecting the Labour under Ed Miliband - Labour’s first Jewish leader. So tell me, where are the AS policies in Labour’s manifesto? AS statements by Corbyn or any leading Labour pol? Truth is, these journos can’t find any cos it ain’t there...so the 0.06% of the party who’ve been involved in AS are presented somehow as an infliential, er, minority who are pulling the strings and ready to inject a terrifying new toxin
Into British life. Geddouttahere. Instead fix your gaze on the actual neo-fascist now running your government. YOUR government, instead of gaslighting your fellow Americans with this bunk.
18
I've never read a headline so deceitful. Truly the biggest lie I have ever seen in print.
15
How revealing is it that the Left will stridently rally behind the claims of any and every people who’ve been dispossessed of their indigenous homeland...all, except the Jews.
The Jews, indigenous to the ground upon which Israel now exists, are routinely and despicably singled out for condemnation...as if Jews had no historical, legitimate connection to that land for millennia...condemned as western imperialists, colonists, and land thieves. Ironically, there were no greater imperialists, colonists, and land thieves than the Arabs who came thundering out of the Arabian Peninsula to invade, conquer, and colonize vast swathes of territory that didn’t belong to them....including historic Palestine, aka Judea and Samaria.
If the Arab ‘Palestinian’ narrative has succeeded in one thing only, it is the global advancement of the old Jew-hatred...now disguised as anti-Israel, anti-Zionism...a sinister bigotry no matter what you call it
19
This is a ridiculously biased and hateful article based on flimsy evidence. A hit-job, as the beloved DT would say.
The UK Jews are well and not planning any type of exodus any time soon, Corbyn or not.
6
A vote for Trump is a vote for Anti Semitism. Your people are being shot in the streets, here in the US, since this man's election. Yet a Jew is leading his Anti-Black and Brown campaign. Many others are funding his reelection. And you choose to divert your attention to England. What crass, self-serving hypocrisy??
3
Pastor Robert Jeffress, with President Trump at his side in the Oval Office said:
“Not only do religions like Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism — not only do they lead people away from the true God, they lead people to an eternity of separation from God in hell,” he said. “Hell is going to be filled with good religious people who have rejected the truth of Christ."
Bret, How can you compare anything in Corbyn's Labour Party with quotes like the one above that are coming from The Chosen One and his radical supporters?
5
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn equivalent to voting for Trump? Not even close! I don’t recall Corbyn calling minorities criminals and rapists. I don’t recall Corbyn telling opponents to “go back to where they came from”. I don’t recall Corbyn saying that he could grab women from their private parts and they would like it. I don’t recall Corbyn calling law enforcement agents “scum”. Finally I don’t recall Corbyn calling a gathering of Jewish supporters “brutal killers” that would vote for him because they wouldn’t want their money taken away.
Bret Stephens, you have been engaging in false equivalency ever since your beloved GOP went to the gutter with Trump. You are fooling no one but yourself.
10
My Brit friends used to think it was funny that Americans mistook Tory denunciations of Corbyn as a friend of "terrorists" as being aimed exclusively at Arab Muslims, when actually half the time, these English Conservatives are expressing their traditional hatred of Irish Catholics who were fighting for Ireland's freedom. The Tory thugs shouting "IRA scum" at Corbyn go unreported in this country . . . . There is plenty of bigotry to go around. But Corbyn is a life long anti-racist and the intelligent English working class, the oldest in the world, will be saved by its youth who won't be fooled again . . ,
1
Jeremy Corbyn is precisely the reason Israel exists in the first place I bet a lot of British Jews are packing up to make aliyah should Labor win.
8
Mr. Stephens, you have become a race-baiter of the worst sort. Why do you inflame? Why do you vilify large diverse groups? That itself IS the prejudice engine of racism (group bias) without the reference to race. I am ashamed for you, and I fear for all the damage you and your fellows-in-bigotry are doing. Look out the window.
2
The Jewish community fear for Israel if Corbyn is elected so they vilify his party and completely ignore the rank history of fervent antisemitism among the old Etonians.
Has no one noticed the contempt for Jews that is rife in the old families of England? You think that the Allies weren't fully aware of the Holocaust in real time as it happened?
Everyone just ignores the hard core conservatives track record of Jew-baiting for entirely political reasons.
This is a massively cynical exercise in hypocrisy.
4
It is really sad the identification of anti zionism with anti semitism. All the terrorists acts that Zionist did (bombings etc) and the cultural destruction they did in Israel erasing thousands of years of Palestinian life there are now forgotten?
2
As a Jew I am obviously anti-anti-Semitism. I've also felt the sting of it. Many years ago I has a boss who told me that the reason that Jews were such good businessmen was that the dumb goys were so busy trying to cheat us that they cheat themselves. I the British style of Government Jeremy Corbyn could lose a vote of "no confidence" and face a new election. This will tend to moderate his actions. Here in America we're stuck with Trump (after the Republican Senates let's him off the hook) until his term of Office expires.
Great Britain leaders are a confederacy of dunces
And a vote for Boris Johnson is a vote for what? Enlightenment? Tolerance? Egalitarianism?
Well, Bret, you got your way.
3
And Trumps' view on Palestinians ... ? Does that fit into Stephens' tortured construct of bigotry?
2
OK Bret you helped keep Corbyn and his honesty out of British foreign policy. Now what? Let's just see how anti-semitism dies out in the UK and the US as a result of the Donny and Boris show.
2
Mr. Stephens, You do not mention the Conservative party member Priti Patel's glee over the recent wins by the anti-Semitic, Nazi molded right-wing Hindu forces in India. Ms. Patel is the home secretary. Ms. Patel is a strong supporter of Mr. Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, whose party members regularly deny that holocaust occurred and have a habit of worshiping Hitler and his views. Any association with or support for BJP and RSS should be considered an act of anit-Semitism. She should be expelled from the Conservative party and banned from British politics.
3
Funny. The Guardian has an article putting emphasis on a protracted history of Boris Johnson's explicit antisemitism. I guess for Stephens a vote for Corbyn, who has been at most vague in attacking antisemitism, is preferable to a vote for someone who actually is on print accusing Jewish oligarchs of controlling the media and buying up elections or publicly defended a columnist who was proud of being an anti-Semite when he was his editor. Funny given the premise in the article that anti-Semitism ought to be the one issue.
1
Grow up, and stop whining. Corbyn, like all educated Europeans, detests the treatment of the native Palestinians by the colonialist Zionists. So do I, as a Muslim American. Dont conflate the two as the result of lazy thinking.
4
Most of the charges against Corbyn are difficult to judge from a distance.
But one complaint stands out, and is easy to understand: Corbyn's alleged failure to support the IHRA definitions of antisemitism.
First, a question. Why single out Jews for protection? Many peoples are in much greater danger than are Jews at present.
The Rohynga, Uighurs, and Kashmiris, are experiencing hundreds or thousands of deaths.
On the other hand, an Israeli study states that in 2018, the worst in 25 years, 13 Jews were killed worldwide in 3 attacks out of 400.
Again: why should we be concerned about the 13 deaths more than the thousands?
Now, a couple of the definitions.
1) It is antisemitism to say that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor.
C'mon. Those of a different ethnicity were driven out of their homes at gunpoint. How does one argue that this isn't racism?
Hmmmm: a reach. I want your land. You're just as good as me. Nothing personal.
That's great. Let's use it in the US. Expropriation of the Native Americans was selfish, not racist. Nothing personal.
2) Comparing Israeli policies to Nazi ones is antisemitic.
Well, the ratio of deaths from Palestinian rocket attacks to deaths from Israeli reprisal invasions of Gaza is 1:100. The usual Nazi reprisal ratio was between 10 and 30.
Don't you dare compare them.
3) The IHRA document is shot through with the spirit of suppression of unpopular speech.
Corbyn and Labour did the right thing.
Nevermind the endemic racism of the Tories...
2
Ridiculous. But a vote for BoJo is a vote for an incompetent fraud.
2
I never bother to try and figure out who the anti-Semites are.
I find it much more effective to figure out who the Fascists are. And if I vote against the Fascists, I find I'm also voting against the real anti-Semites.
Bret Stephens is, as always, equating criticism of Israeli policy (Which is not the same thing as saying there shouldn't be an Israel. Is criticizing the Trump administrations the same as saying there shouldn't be a United States?) with anti-Semitism.
The problem is, Israeli policy is arguably anti-Judaism. Israeli policy violates those Ten Commandments that deal with people's obligations to other people. Israeli policy violates the teachings of Rabbi Hillel (The Golden Rule). If you're looking for anti-Semites, look for people who are anti-Judaism. Don't be fooled if those people happen to be Jewish (and/or Israeli). The most dangerous anti-Semites are self-destructive, the people who destroy what it means to be a Jew. Stephen Miller comes to mind. And we all know who Miller is working for. And working against.
2
Stephens, you can't even share something about which 99.9% of Trump voters agree without spending the first paragraphs, once again, de rigueur, insulting Trump and his voters. Has Trump EVER done anything right, in your view? How about moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem? Wasn't that a strong blow against antisemitism? How about being a successful businessman in the the world's toughest real estate market? You know, Stephens, if people relentlessly focused on and emphasized your flaws on a daily basis, you would look pretty bad too. Give the guy, and his voters, a break, will ya?
so i assume Bret, you'll be writing "A Vote for Donald Trump is..."
What the Times doesn't report is that the former leader of the Labour party, Ed Miliband,is Jewish. I suspect that some of the accusations of anti-Semitism stem from bitter infighting between the moderates around Miliband and the hard left socialists around Corbyn.
As usual, Bret Stevens doesn't let the facts get in the way of the story he wants to tell.
1
What a nonsense narrative. Boris Johnson’s overt racism, bigotry and disdain for the poor and working class is not obscured by these trumped up accusations of anti-semitism about Corbyn.
Does anyone have integrity in conservative circles anymore? I think not
3
I am glad that I don't have to vote in their elections. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right! You have anti-immigrant Brexiters on the right and anti-Semitic Labour Party members to the left. Bigotry for everyone! The Democrats don't look so bad, even the "far left" (that aren't really that far left, they are a bit to the right of Denmark). Great Britain is more broken than us and we aren't fairing all that well.
1
I think my comment that directly quoted some of the bigoted and racist things Boris Johnson has said in his newspaper columns failed to make it through the moderators. This isn't "whataboutery", this is the person who will be Prime Minister if Corbyn isn't.
There is no equivalent from Corbyn, just guilt by association. Yet Bret Stephens accuses us of "shrugging" over Corbyn's perceived sins while endorsing a sexist, racist homophobe instead.
1
The Jews in the UK right now are just tolerated, by both main parties. As one higher-up Tory politician said a few years ago "It's bad form to hate the Jews more than one absolutely has to."
This is why Bret Stephens is wrong about Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, he is an anti-Semite, but really it's rooted in his love affair with the Palestinians and hatred of Israel. He feels Israel is a client state of the USA and his real hatred lies there, with America. It's also true, however, that a fringe element in the Labour Party (The Momentum Group) hates Jews for simply existing.
This election is just like the Trump/Clinton debacle of 2016; where does one go? The only certainty in my mind is that right wing Antisemitism is far worse than the left wing kind. Almost all political violence comes from the extreme right wing; ask any law enforcement official.
So it's not a simple choice of bigot/no bigot and a vote for Labour is not a betrayal of Jews; rather, like Hillary it's the least bad option. When the candidates are both as bad as they are, people need to look at the big picture and crucially, the future.
1
There is no evidence that Labour is any more anti-Semitic than any other major political party in the UK & considerable reasons to think that it is less so.
Labour is not immune to the anti-Semitism found across British society, but the proposition that it is especially prone to it or worse at handling it is nonsense. If one digs into the particulars of the most serious accusations against Corbyn himself they quickly fall apart. Corbyn is a life-long anti-racist with no history of antipathy towards Jews. Its quite clear that his real crime is his vocal support for the Palestinian cause & his refusal to ritualistically denounce or distance himself from that cause.
Like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson is an open racist & Islamophobe who is quite happy to use his voice to stir up racist violence and unleash openly fascist elements in British society which is exactly what he has done. Even if one believes that Corbyn has mishandled particular incidents there is nothing in his word or deeds remotely comparable to the hate routinely spewed by Johnson himself, much less his followers.
It is therefore cynical and grotesque in the extreme to suggest that a vote for Corbyn is somehow beyond the pale when the obvious result of refusing to support Corbyn is to hand power to Johnson.
The force behind this campaign is not Jews in Labour, though some have raised complaints, but rather the noxiously racist Tory press for whom it is simply a convenient stick with which to beat Corbyn.
This article coming from the man who in prior columns said he would vote for Donald Trump is Elizabeth Warren was the Democratic candidate is rich indeed. However bad Jeremy Corbyn might be, Donald Trump is far worse by every measure. Please Bret, spare us your hypocrisy.
1
But I'm sorry, I'd vote for him over Johnson, anyhow. One thing at a time. Brexit is so bad for Britain and the world, that it must be stopped. And then, yes, clean up the racism. And I say that as someone who is very pro-Israel (and pro-Palestinian) and don't for one minute think that all Jews are Israelis/pro-Israel or that all Israelis are Jewish, as they aren't.
1
Totally false,part of the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn. He has fought Anti-Semitism and racism since the seventies. Boris Johnson on the other hand is associated with the Anti Semitic leader of Hungary Orban ,and has said that Jews control the media . He is also Islamophobic. Yes there are individuals that are Anti-Semitic in labour that must be sanctioned as well as in the Tory party.
1
The recently retired speaker of the House of Commons, Jewish MP John Bercow, was asked in interview last month if he had ever experienced anti semitism from Corbyn or members of the Labour Party He replied that on no occasion had this ever occurred. He was speaker for 10 years and an MP for over 20 years.
1
BDS is not anti-semitism, and it's some real moral bankruptcy to try and make it so.
1
Bret I seriously doubt that your friend is or was "unbigoted" Anyone that could look past trumps bigotries and support him is a stealth bigot, closeted. And what of your comment that you could never vote for a Sanders or a Warren but would either noi vote or vote for some third party candidate. I don't view that as any better. Whether you believe Corbyn or not he at least has made public on numerous occasions that he does not support anti-Semitism. He cannot control what his other party members think, anymore than you can.
2
The only thing necessary for the continuation of Palestinian rights abuse is for the moral citizens on this planet to shrug.
3
The GOP is not flying Confederate flags everywhere or wearing KKK outfits. Vast majority of representatives from GOP denounce white supremacists. Labour, on the other hand, is completely immersed in Antisemitism and is bullying the Jews among their own ranks. They are fanatically Antisemitic and from the documents that the author is citing it seems they will engage in mass persecution of Jews in the UK if they get to power. This is NOT rhetoric - it seems like that's their goal. Any radical leftist who supports total destruction of the Jewish state is a dangerous Antisemite and voting for them is an act extreme pragmatism, at best, or extreme bigotry at worst. Period
2
Some weeks ago, Charles Blow wrote a column in which he said that he wanted nothing to do with anybody who supported Michael Bloomberg. I thought that statement was bigoted and extreme, and I said so in a comment on his piece.
I haven't changed my opinion of Mr. Blow's column, but I will now say something that I wouldn't on just about any other issue. If you support, defend or rationalize Jeremy Corbyn or his anti-Semitic party -- which, as the report cited by Mr. Stephens documents, does not promptly act even against members who speak of the "extermination" of Jews -- I want nothing to do with you. Talk about the beneficience of Labor's policies and its opposition to "racism" too some one else. You and I have nothing to talk about.
And to the extent this comment is answered with hate and abuse, let me quote FDR and say I welcome your hatred.
3
"But, again, they could live with it. To adapt a line, they proved that the only thing necessary for bigots to be normalized is for the unbigoted to shrug."
The unbigoted cannot support the authoritarian power of bigots and still claim that mantel.
A vote for Corbyn is a vote against the assumption that politicians everywhere are easily frightened by use of the label Anti=Senitism when it is used as code for Anti-Israel-Hard=Right or even Anti=Israel-Apartheid.
3
Even as my truths are deemed unfit to print the GOP whose base seeks to make sure Jews have a place to go when they are expelled red America's long history of anti semitism goes unexamined.
Donald Trump is not deemed to be anti semitic because unlike traditional anti semitism Trump believes Jews are the essence of all the anti semitism stereotypes but Trump considers all the negative stereotypes the best possible assets in Trump's bizarro world.
1
This is embarrassing to read. The basic argument seems to be 1. Anti Semitism exists in the Labour Party. 2. Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party and has not done enough to stop this. Therefore, 3. voting for Corbyn is morally equivalent to voting for trump.
Taking all this at face value (I’m not very well read regarding British politics, so I’m going to suppose that Stevens is being honest about the facts) basically implies that not doing enough to stop your underlings from doing something is the same as doing it yourself.
Furthermore it ignores the moral factor of degrees of wrongdoing, i.e. 1. Corbyn has not done enough to combat antisemitism within the party despite his unequivocal claims that he denounces antisemtism and apologizes for its occurrence. 2. Trump engaged in a years long public campaign to convince the public that the first black president was born in Africa, opened his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and claimed that a US judge unfit to hear his case because of the judges ethnicity. Therefore, 3. voting for Corbyn is equivalent to voting for Trump.
Absolutely laughable.
3
I'd agree, provided you aren't associating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. As I recall, one Labour MP was accused of anti-semitism after likening Israel to an abused child who goes on to abuse it's own children. That is not anti-semitism, nor is it inaccurate.
3
Read the final sentence: Corbyn = Trump, in terms of prejudice and bigotry. This is a naked lie. No Western leader touches Trump, for hatred and xenophobia, with the obvious exception of BoJo.
The power of the Fourth Estate is the power to decide which issues matter. Corbyn has certainly been guilty of mismanaging his relationship with the tabloids. But to say the Corbyn's election will cause the largest mass exodus of Jews from a western nation since the days of the Axis powers is a naked lie on steroids.
Let's say it again: The power of the Fourth Estate is the power to decide what we are allowed to discuss in the public square and more importantly, what we are not allowed to discuss. Stephens is trying to distract all of us from this:
Israel shoots medics through the chest with large-caliber bullets. And the language used against the Palestinians by ordinary Israelis is no different than slurs that have been used against the Jews and the Irish and the Italians and a host of other ethnicities and races.
Anti-Zionism is a contempt for what people do. Anti-Semitism is a contempt for who people are, and is contemptible. Stephens is deliberately trying to obfuscate that distinction. AIPAC has been doing the same for decades.
5
I feel for the Britons. Has there ever been a worst choice for leaders than Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbin. If labor had almost anyone else as their leader, they'd probably win. One can only hope that Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrats make a strong showing.
While Labour's anti-Semitic dalliances are deeply unattractive, the reason Labor just lost wasn't because of its sympathy for the Palestinians or even a majority desire for Brexit, but because Corbyn proposed policies that sounded a lot like bona-fide socialism (let's argue about how that's not really the case another day - it was scent of socialism that mattered).
American progressives take note. At best Brexit has 50/50 support. And Boris Johnson is not loved by a long shot - he's a lying, incompetent, egotistical clown. But he beat Corbyn handily. Why? Because Socialism in the UK is a losing proposition. Anyone who thinks that Corbyn-lite policies would win in America needs to have their head examined.
Beating Trump in November 2020 is critical. We need Moderate Republicans like Bret Stephens to vote for the Democrat to insure Trump's defeat. Let's not force a choice between Sanders/Warren and Trump. The odds of losing are far too high.
I'll be frank with you Mr. Stephens; this OP-Ed is only going to fuel more anti-semitism from the fringes of the left and make them even more marginalized.
Corbyn is anti-Israeli, that much is clear, and doesn't have much of a problem with groups like Hamas; but that makes him anti-semitic? That's ridiculous, especially considering that there is rampant anti-semitism within the Conservative Party as well.
This OP-ED just reeks of enlightened centrism and playing the holier than thou card to the Jewish people and treating them as a special class. And let me tell you something; if there's a surefire way to breed even more anti-semitism, it is to breed resentment among the public.
1
What bluff- Rather than confronting the Labour leader's policies on combating poverty and ending Britain's continuing support for oppressive regimes across the globe like Israel, his rivals and critics(guys like Bret Stephens) are focusing their spirit on doubling down on their complaints of anti-semitism. The problem is Whoever called out for justice to Palestine people and tyranny of Israel, automatically become an antisemite?
For a public letter authored by non-Jewish signatories explaining their inability to support Corbyn, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/14/concerns-about-antisemitism-mean-we-cannot-vote-labour
1
If you follow Bret Stephens, you know his two motivations here: Jeremy Corbyn opposes the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, which could charitably be called "callousness", and the excesses of capitalism, which should be accurately called "greed".
Equating anti-callousness and anti-greed with anti-Semitism is the very essence of anti-Semitism, and it is Bret Stephens who is practicing it here.
This smear has been going for a long time in all corners of the capitalist British press, and no one has yet uncovered Jeremy Corbyn saying or doing anything remotely as disgusting as this column.
2
Reading the comments, you get to see more and more of exactly the same “normalization” of anti-semitism on the left that the article is all about.
Let’s cut to the chase: this is a divorce. The left, especially in Europe, has found a more suitable political clientele among immigrants from Muslim countries, and now simply caters to their wishes. Virulent anti-semitism happens to be high on their list. Now that the left has taken this path, blaming Jews for having larger numbers among “capitalist exploiters” is the delicious icing on the cake.
4
I'd like to know what the author means by Antisemitism from within the Labour Party. Were the quoted remarks made by party insiders or party members?
If the latter, the party can hardly help anti-Semites from joining. You don't usually have to pass any tests to become a member of a political party.
Is a party to blame because a skinhead is a card carrying member?
While not the subject of this article we really should be asking is how the British sunk so low as to having these two losers representing their political parties.
3
Not this again. As a Jewish member of the UK Labour Party, I can state that there is no antisemitism of any kind of a systematic nature in the party. British Jews do not experience much antisemitism anyway - we are the least discriminated against minority. But what there is mainly comes from the right. We are attacked because of our pro-Palestinian position. Sadly the right in Labour have also weaponised antisemitism against the left - it's a disgusting use of a most serious issue for political gain and puts Jews in danger from real threats that go unaddressed.
If you want to see real antisemitism, go read Boris Johnson's novel, 72 Virgins, which has obvious antisemitic tropes.
1
This column contains literally zero specific examples of Corbyn making an anti-semitic comment or supporting an anti-semitic policy. The reason for that, of course, is that there are no such examples in the public record. As for the headline claim that a vote for Labour is a vote for anti-semitism, the only basis is guilt by association, and that is equally as fair as saying that voting for a Republican is voting for racism, since there are ample examples of Republicans saying and doing racist things in recent history. Or, for that matter, saying that attending Catholic mass is supporting the sexual predation of children.
1
Right wingers cry anti-Semitism inappropriately quite a lot. It has gotten to when a right winger makes the complaint, it's a safe bet their real agenda is to silence criticism of Israel by conflating it with anti-Semitism. It trivializes the grotesque offense of bigotry and violence against Jews.
I don't know much about Jeremy Corbyn, but I've gotten so used to the constant car alarm of right wing mock horror at anti-Semitism that when I hear it I assume it is just more cheap politicking.
I know a bit more about Boris Johnson than I do about Corbyn, and I feel sorry for Britons, as I feel sorry for us Americans for devolving in a similar way.
Well, anti-semitism or not, thank goodness this enemy of the people has lost in the election. Here's a guy who kept a picture of Josef Stalin, one of the certified monsters of the 20th century with the blood of millions on his hands, on his desk in his student days and spoke favorably of Eastern European puppet states under the old Soviets, including East Germany. How can that be acceptable? The man belongs in exile in one of those countries, not in Parliament.
2
Not it’s not, Bret, it’s a vote for a chance for Britain to stay in the EU.
Well stated and factually accurate.
3
I'm looking forward to Brett's enthusiastic conversion to Trump by our next election. He certainly seems to be following most Repubs in the legislative branch by kneeling at the throne of Trump.
This article, and the Warren article, prime the pump for that conversion.
It would seem to me that those most opposed to the increasing anti-Semitism in Labor, Great Britain as a whole, France, Germany, and other places would, or at least should, be the Palestinian people. It is certainly not in their interest for a mass of Jewish Europeans (not European Jews, as the Poles and others might anti-Semitically describe them) to feel so unsafe that they consider moving to Israel as their only refuge.
1
Bret, I look forward to your next opinion piece titled, "A Vote For Boris Johnson's Conservative Party is a Vote For Islamophobia". Somehow I feel like I'll be waiting for a long time.
1
The row over anti-semitism in Labour narrowly coincides with Jeremy Corbyn's open support for the Palestinian cause. This includes criticism of Israeli settlements and the promise of active measures towards a two-state solution.
Should he become Prime Minister there is a good chance that Corbyn would be the most proactive western leader on Israel-Palestine. Undermining him with antisemitism charges diminishes that from happening.
Labour is no more anti-jew than the conservatives. This article is bellicose toward the Labour party and democracy.
I see all the commenters Coming out of the woodwork trying desperately to claim that Corbyn isn't anti-Semitic.
Thanks, but I’ll take the word of nearly 90% of the British Jewish population. I think they’d know.
4
Wanting power in the age of instant mass media is about wanting to see one's face looking out of the screen, everywhere.
I would be interested to know what Mr. Stephens suggests as an alternative to voting for Labour. If Mr. Stephens is truly concerned with opposing bigotry in No. 10, then surely he would not support the reelection of Boris Johnson, who has continually alienated, mocked, and belittled women, immigrants, Muslims, and countless other marginalized groups. Mr. Stephens is right to be concerned with indifference towards bigotry against one group, but with this article, he himself has chosen to be indifferent towards just about every other oppressed identity in Britain.
Mr. Stephens has also faller into the very tired fallacy of conflating antisemitism with justified critiques against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Although he begins to make this differentiation in the second half of the piece, Mr. Stephens just as quickly writes off anti-Zionism as irreparably anti-Semitic.
This article was as disappointing as it was lazy. I'm sorry to see such a weak level of discourse coming from the Times during such an imperative time in world politics. I will be expecting better from them in the future.
2
Well, the exit polls suggest Britain went for the british trump. I am so very saddened to hear this. What a mess is the world right now.
2
Exit poll shows Labour defeat. Corbyn is finished. He will have to resign.
6
@Schrodinger
It's final.
I agree about Corbyn. As much as I like his politics, he's very flawed and too ideological. Another lesson democrats must heed.
There are more lessons for democrats here.
1. Johnson's association with trxmp didn't hurt Johnson at all.
2. The march of the right wing goes on. Only American centrists and liberals can stop it. Are the stakes high enough for you?
2
@Schrodinger
Best news in a long time
2
This is such a bad faith reading of Corbyn and the principles that define the Labour Party I'm tempted to think it's a hit job. The author even points out that "Corbyn himself routinely denounces anti-Semitism as a form of racism; and that much of what is characterized as anti-Semitism within the party is really just a form of misguided anti-Zionism," but then chooses to dismiss this all as "bunk."
Labour is increasingly defined as supporting the multinationalism that the Brexit crowd rejects - why wouldn't this extend to Jewish people? Why would the progressive left who consistently goes to the polls for Labour betray their explicit purpose for existing to make an exception for Jewish people? Labour is justifiably anti-Zionist, but that's hardly the same thing as being anti-Semitic, as numerous, numerous Jewish activists have repeatedly pointed out over the years.
The fact of the matter is that the Tories simply can't beat Labour in the marketplace of ideas, and as such rely on inflated claims of anti-Semitism to paint their opponents as bigots. Let's hope the voters of the UK know better.
146
@David Stephens makes two points that you don't address. First, there are members of the Labour Party that have abandoned their positions within the party because of its "Institutional" anti-Semitism. Second, why would a poll of the country's Jews reveal that half would leave if Corbyn is elected?
12
@David Of course it's a hit job, this is Bret Stephens we're talking about. If he didn't have Anti-antisemitism to pin on Corbyn it would be communism, or sexism it doesn't matter.
Somehow in the wake of a wildly dishonest campaign by a man who is vehemently Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and imperialist. Who wants to further cut NHS funding and sell the patient information to American companies. A man who's policies include a "dementia tax." And who on top of all of that is a radically unprepared buffoon.
But of course Bret likes all of those policies. He may think Donald Trump is too uncouth about them to openly endorse, but his voting record shows that bigotry has never been a deal breaker to him—so long as it isn't directed at him. Yet he has the temerity to lecture at one of the most consistent anti-racist activists currently in the UK.
7
@David
It looks like you misread the article. You write that the author notes "Corbyn himself routinely denounces anti-Semitism as a form of racism; and that much of what is characterized as anti-Semitism within the party is really just a form of misguided anti-Zionism". What you DON'T note is that the author credits these statements to Labour's apologists. These are NOT the author's statements.
6
Mr. Stephens' column is timely and accurate. Anyone who has followed the recent history of Labour Party tolerance for anti-Semitism knows this is not simply an expression of "normal anti-Semitism.
In Europe and increasingly in the U.S., tolerance and excuses for anti-Semitism have been growing in recent decades. Thank you for speaking out even if many NYT readers do not wish to acknowledge the truth.
18
Another really helpful article. Where is Max Frankel when we need him.
4
If you really think about it, many of the same people that are anti-semantic are also anti-immigrants and anti-minorities.
The sad part is, people are not born with these traits. These are learned behaviors!
2
I agree that the British Labor Party has a shocking anti-Semitism problem but to equate Trump's views with such bigotry is ridiculous. Yes, he shamefully supported the "birther" contention about Obama but Trump has long since disavowed it. He has spoken out about the dangers of crime from open borders with Mexico. Isn't that a rational concern with the drug cartels there? He has restricted immigration from some Muslim countries with unusually high terrorism records. What is wrong with that? Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has been unable to adopt a resolution forthrightly condemning anti-Semitism while Mr. Trump has recently added anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I did not vote for Mr. Trump in 2016 but I may in 2020. Mr. Stephens contributes one more sophisticated hit piece to the Trump-is evil propaganda of the NY Times and the corresponding implication that Trump voters are complicit in evil. Like over 60 million Americans I am tired and disgusted with this holier-than-thou moralizing.
4
Contemporary British antiSemitism has been described as a kind of genteel contempt of a social class too crude and unmannered to be admitted into polite society.
History belies this bland account. Edward I ethnically cleans the Jewish community from England in the last quarter of the 13th century. Not until Cromwell in the late 17th century, weRe Individual Jewish Families allowed to return.No permanent naturalization or Jewish Repatriation act has ever been enacted other than an ineffective act of 1752 which was repealed a year later. After Disraeli and especially the Holocaust overt political antiSemitism again became latent.
This quick review, documents that Corbyn’s Labor Party is no one-off historical aberration. Corbyn’s overt political antiSemitism has, like President Trump, legitimized a resurgent overt cultural antiSemitism across all social classes. Whether it will be a deal breaker for those voters inclined to support the Labor Party is doubtful.
3
Speaking of whataboutism: What about a vote for Trump or the GOP? Wouldn't that be a vote for anti-semitism (not to mention other -isms). I heard enough, and I believe none of it, there were good people on both sides- no, never!
1
I find the argument "Claims about Tory prejudice may be well- or ill-founded, but they are a classic expression of whataboutism." somewhat suspect. I don't think that during an election asking the question "what about the other guy" is necessarily a red herring. Furthermore, if the answer to the question "what about the other guy" is that they are also guilty, then the fault can't be uniquely disqualifying
1
Dislike and even hatred of Jews has been a reality of British life for some time. Often, that reality has been overshadowed by the more pleasant PBS sort of images we've seen on television along with the other admirable products of British culture and the still powerful memories of Churchill and the war against fascism. If people are just starting to notice the unpleasant realities that exist behind that warm image, such notice is long overdue.
36
Let's assume that most reports of Labor's anti-Semitism are accurate. Does this mean you are recommending a vote for Johnson as "the lesser evil"?
4
To compare Bojo to Hilary Clinton by saying that both stir deep antipathies is to miss the truly vile character of the man. And as for playing the anti-Semitic card, well, he has done that, too, in a novel he wrote, which trotted out the ugly old trope about Sammy Katz, a hook-nosed financier who went cruised the Red Light District for "a bit of black." It's true that Corbyn has many failings as leader of his party, not least in his failure to address anti-Semitism in a serious and constructive way. But Johnson's record reveals his shameless mendacity and loyalty to nothing but his own political career. No wonder Trump regards him as a kindred spirit.
4
Mr. Corbyn has been unafraid to call a spade a spade. He is not afraid to criticize the illegal and immoral activities of the far-right extremists in Israel. This is NOT anti-semitism. This is integrity.
Honesty should never be demonized.
17
Sure. Visiting the graves of the Munich terrorists isn’t anti Semitic. It was just a “mistake”.
5
Typical right-wing tunnel vision.
Why not also mention the fact that the Brexit campaign is mired in transparent anti-immigrant rhetoric and racism? Why not also mention the fact that Boris' Tories are reaching Trumpian levels of deception in this campaign?
Why not? Because in conservative circles, hypocrisy appears to be standard operating procedure.
8
I am Jewish and would gladly vote for Corbyn if I were a British citizen. The anti-semitism charges against him are just more fabrications by the frightened British 1% and their servants, in cahoots with our friendly but frightened American "elites." Many Britons feel that Johnson is worse than Trump - if that is possible. Maybe the best answer would have been for Mike Bloomberg running to lead the Labour Party. He has the money to silence critics (with contributions) - as he does here.
8
Mr. Stephens compares Americans who voted for Trump to Britons about to vote for Corbyn. In effect, he is in fact comparing the toxicity we already know in Trump to perhaps the anti-semitism we might see in Corbyn if he wins. So basically, a fact versus an unknown. I'm no fan of Corbyn by any means, has pulled some questionable moves in the past - but the contest is between him and Boris Johnson, the man who I would clearly compare Trump to.
5
The Elephant in this particular room is the anti-immigrant sentiment that motivates so much of the Conservative party’s embrace of Brexit and Mr. Johnson’s eagerness to “Get Brexit Done”. This is not new policy for it dates back to Mrs. May’s time as Home Secretary when her policy of a “hostile environment” started treating EU immigrants more harshly; and even earlier immigrants, the “Windrush” scandal were very badly treated.
This isn’t “whataboutism” but a recognition that institutionalized racism is endemic in BOTH major parties in the UK and, frankly, the Labour party’s anti Semitic tendencies are well known and somewhat less extreme than Brexiteers With their desire to keep EU immigrants out, to send many of those currently in the UK back; and imposing a long, time consuming and complex process on those EU citizens wishing to stay in the UK.
Frankly, the Tories are now the party of unalloyed anti-foreigner animosity that makes the Labour Party seem moderate by comparison. Neither is good, but the best may be a hung parliament wherein neither can do much.
1
Bret is obfuscating the point of an
ever-widening divide between voters
determined to choose today.
Barring a momentous Labour victory
under Corbyn, which is unlikely,
grave damage has already been done
2
It's sort of striking to me how many of the pieces about our politics don't really talk about policy. We see a lot of quoting of tweets and anecdotes about political rhetoric but not enough emphasis on what governments DO. From afar and trying to be fair minded, it seems pretty apparent that Labour has at the very least members in its ranks who are antisemitic. But as Corbyn has noted, that is a problem shared by all the parties in Britain who have all had to expel members for offensive statements or conduct. So arguably more important would be what are the concerns here about what Labour's antisemitism problem means in terms of a Labour government? Because Stephens doesn't really discuss what those fears are. Is it that Labour will be biased in dealing with Israel? That a Labour victory opens the floodgates of antisemitism among the general public? How exactly do we think Labour's problem manifests if they attain greater power? When we talk about the racist rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration, that is connected to policy: immigration "reforms" that are targeted against brown people. A misogynist outlook results in policies that deny women's reproductive rights. A birther conspiracy theory is accompanied by efforts to deny African Americans their right to vote. Fixating too much on the rhetoric of individuals at the expense of group policy and practice seems to me detrimental to convincing the public that a real threat exists for minority or marginalized people.
518
@J
A very interesting, well written and precise comment the central theme of which, government policy is what matters.
76
@J Indeed. But that is lost on Mr. Stephens who has neither an understanding of policy matters nor the inclination to dig deeper ... not to mention zero concern for marginalized people.
118
@J
I suspect it's mostly just a convenient way for Stephens to support the ghastly policies of Johnson and the Tories without actually going on the record as supporting them.
59
Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party's plan to sell off the NHS to US Corporate Healthcare Industry is the ultimate act of anti-semitism.
The consequences for elderly Jews and Jews who are economically disadvantaged along with Christians, Muslims, Pagans and Atheists is increased mortality and diminished access to health care of any sort.
4
"The progressive left, in Britain and beyond, may choose to ignore, downplay, or rationalize [anti-Semitism]."
In response to that statement from Stephens, I'm just posting a reminder that, here in the US, only one party's top candidate ran on a platform of anti-Semitic memes and campaign rallies decrying a "global banking conspiracy." (Actual quote from Trump.) There's also only one party whose top politician's rise was driven by the same wave promoting anti-Semitism ("Jews will not replace us"), among other discriminatory ideologies.
Despite Stephens' misstatements, it wasn't the progressive party.
9
That this editorial appears in the same pages as Jared Kushner's says worlds. Specifically, as Stephens emphasizes, the most important criticism of Labour is coming from within, which is not the sign of a cancerous and covertly metastasizing anti-Semitic party, but a healthy one which is publicly confronting a serious problem within its ranks. Unlike, for instance, the Tories. Or across the pond, the Republicans. If having issues with Israeli policy is indeed proof of anti-semitism, then left parties, which currently attract a fair number of people of arabic descent and/or islamic background, not to mention sympathizers of dispossessed peoples everywhere, are by definition filled with anti-semites. But we know that Israel and the Palestinians are caught in a decades old conflict which invites support on both sides for reasons other than anti-semitism or islamaphobia or the more general orientalism, which covers both. Sadly, far right figures with disturbing ties to white supremacists like Kushner, and Neo-liberal center right alarmists like Stephens, only set us back from achieving positive dialogue and understanding on two very important and related fronts, the future of the Middle East and the revitalized spread of global anti-semitism.
6
Anti-semitism on the right is overt and clearly defined. Anti-semitism on the left is much harder to define. It requires separating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies from criticism that appears to be ultimately based on hate of Jews. As of now the danger from the right is so overwhelming, both in the US and in Europe, that the best choice is vote left. But that doesn't necessarily mean overlooking antisemitism on the left. It just means anti-semitism on the right is far dangerous. Those who voted for Trump not only overlooked anti-semitism but also overlooked that he is authoritarian who is opposed to liberal democracy or those voters themselves are supporters of authoritarian rule and that was one reason why they voted for Trump.
4
@Bob
I disagree. Overt Antisemitism is uncloaked and therefore obvious for all to see. The covert Antisemitism of the Left hides behind ahistorical narratives and political propaganda. It’s more difficult to discern and therefore much, much more dangerous.
8
As long as people continue the splitting-one is either far right or far left, and fewer and fewer people have the ability to hold the tension of opposites, it feels as if we and our brothers and sisters in Great Britain are doomed to lurch from one extreme to the other. Higher education here in the States , has perpetuated these splits and students are seemingly more incapable than ever in their ability to hold on to multiple perspectives. I guess the lessons of the 1930’s have been lost in spite of the 50 million who perished. Shame on us all!
1
I remain confused on the whole issue of conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
If I were to say "I think Saudi Arabia's leadership and policies are atrocious and immoral, and we should boycott and divest from Saudi Arabia", I think folks would just take that opinion at face value, and _not_ call me an Islamophobe. But if I were to say that about Israel, I would be accused of anti-Semitism. So that's confusing.
On the other hand, I don't hear about BDS movements against Saudi Arabia or China or any other country with terrible human rights abuses; only against Israel. So that suggests there is some underlying anti-Semitism at play.
13
Anti-Zoinists don’t accept that israel is the Jewish homeland. Since Israel is the only place where Jews are guaranteed not to face another Holocaust, anti-Zionism clearly is anti-Semitism. That has absolutely nothing to do with who is leading the country at any particular moment in time. Anti-Zionists existed long long before Netanyahu and will still be around long after.
5
Yet a vote for Johnson is the first step towards the re-election of Trump, is that something Mr Stephens is fine with ?. Corbyn is a fairly fatuous person who will, if elected, spend years trying to re-establish the postwar economic consensus in Britain. I dont know if he'll succeed but its an effort that is in no way ignoble or the work of a deranged amoral conman
1
At election time, my mom and dad would often say that they voted for the lesser of two evils.
Corbyn is the lesser of two evils.
I'd bring several clothespins and vote for him.
40
Having lived in communism, I think that maybe a hard lesson for Western Europe is overdue. Vote for Corbyn and see what you get. Let real life speak harder than fancy words.
8
@Dave T.
Only use as many necessary to block the smell. No use destroying your nose if you can help it. But please share with any who wish to join you.
This is a right wing smear on Corbyn because the British political class finds him too left. It's sad to see Americans fall for it.
6
Indeed, it is. And nowhere is that drum beaten more loudly and often than in the Times.
I am sure that there is anti-semitism among Labour supporters just as there is among members of the Conservative and other British parties. It is disingenuous to gloss over this point as "whataboutism." Only Labour is being subjected to a campaign for this problem whereas it appears to exist throughout Britain and its institutions. The campaign is thus a hardball political exercise aimed either at helping the Tories or attempting to exert influence on Labour which historically has had a large share of the Jewish vote. Also it is hard to ignore the concurrent efforts of the Israeli lobby to conflate anti-semitism with anti-Israel sentiments as seen in the current presidential signing order of Trump. This which attempts to stifle free speech and attack colleges which allow criticism of Israel. My sympathies are to anyone attacked for their identity whether it is Jewish, LGBTQ or any other category but the current campaign smacks of political opportunism by the Israel lobby.
4
For Bret, increased taxes and regulation of Wall Street is a deal breaker; he would rather throw away his vote than support somebody like Warren against Trump. He sees Trump and Warren as both unacceptable.
Trump is getting rid of our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, checks and balances, and the like. Warren would limit business freedom, perhaps damage the economy, and certainly clip Wall Street's wings. Only to someone whose brain was pickled by working at the Wall Street Journal would these two be comparable.
8
If the vote results in the forming of a coalition government, there is no need for the PM to be Corbyn. The best man for the job is, as usual, a woman: Nicola Sturgeon. She is, hands down, the most competent politician in the United Kingdom.
2
I am a liberal who unenthusiastically prefers Johnson to Corbyn. But the author's argument appears, from what he presents, unjustifiable.
Is there significant anti-semitism in the Labour Party? It appears that there is. It's a remarkable omission from the author's analysis that there is no comparison of the prevalence now to the prevalence under previous Labour leaders. The fact that it has been examined, and found, now, does not make Corbyn responsible for it.
Many people who are not anti-Semites think that Israel has acted in bad faith, rejected objective (insofar as that term goes with international law) legal consensus, exploited its position of relative power to bring about what has in fact happened- the gradual nibbling away of Palestinian territories, imposed almost impossible working and living conditions, and frequently used disproportionate force when it was not necessary. For those unfamiliar with it, Anna Baltzer's "Witness in Palestine" is a detailed and moving account, by a grand-daughter of Holocaust survivors.
If the present author has examples that indicate that Corbyn has encouraged or casually overlooked anti-Semitism, he should cite them. It would be inexcusable. To make him responsible for anti-Semitism among some members in his party, however, because he is the head of it is not logical or reasonable.
BTW, Corbyn is going to lose big-time.
1
“israel has acted in bad faith”? You’ve got to be kidding. The Palestinian leadership has rejected serious and attractive peace offers over and over again. Bill Clinton said that one of his biggest regrets as president is that he believed Arafat was being sincere about seeking peace with Israel. It turns out that Arafat had no intention of trying to end the conflict. He was all about lying to increase his own power position and, of course, wealth. This resulted in many Israelis losing trust in their “peace partners”.
By “Palestinian territories” you mean the land that Jordan occupied for 19 years without creating a Palestinian homeland. Where was the outcry then?
5
Based on U.S. politics, we have a president who is attempting, and possible succeeding, in dividing the U.S. regarding anti-semitism. Republicans are also attempting to cut healthcare coverage for many. Does Stephens actually believe that exiting the E.U. will result in less anti-semitism? I would think that more viewpoints would help work against it. Does he think Great Britain should vote to potentially damage their healthcare system and does he think we have the right to lecture another country despite our own inability on healthcare and to halt U.S. white supremacy? Staying in the E.U. is the issue right now in this election.
3
It's a move straight out of the right-wing playbook. Just last month India broke with international convention by removing Kashmir's status as a semi-autonomous special zone. The reason it had that status in the first place was an attempt to ease tensions over this area that is contested between India and Pakistan.
Corbyn was quick to criticise and the right-wing media were even quicker to start accusing Corbyn of anti-Hindu racism and subjected us to the bizzare spectacle of old imperialist white men who still think the British Empire was a jolly good thing arguing that British Hindus should vote for them because Labour is institutionally anti-Hindu.
5
I haven't the time to research UK election rules, but I think it is reasonable to assume that these rules forbid public campaigning on election day.
Therefore I can surmise that certain interest groups have intentionally circumvented these rules by using a certain columnist in the NYT, knowing that his opinion piece will be read by many UKers on election day. I my mind this constitutes foreign meddling in the UK national election and a stain on the NYT.
10
@Greg
If British election rules or custom forbids public campaigning on election day, then there will be no such campaigning. With that said, British rules no more apply in the United States than do American rules in Britain. We foreigners are free to do as we wish and that includes asserting the existing of plots when you have no evidence to present.
1
Bret you are right on mark. Good Job.
8
I wonder if Mr. Stephens is conflating anti-Semitism with opposition to Zionism.
They are not the same thing. I am Jewish, with much of my family living in Israel.
I believe that the occupation of the West Bank and the failure of the Israelis to recognize the national rights of the Palestinians is neither right for the security of the Israelis, on the contrary, it leaves the region an active time bomb. After 62 years of occupation, we are no closer to peace.
Criticism of Israel government policy is not Jew hatred.
Such a conflation is a cheapening and politicizing of the meaning of anti-Semitism.
13
@Jack Shultz
it is more specific than the conflation of anti-semitism and anti-zionism.
the Labour Party is anti-Likud, that would be the Likud Party that is actively moving Israel from a Democratic nation to just another Middle Eastern theocratic state.
1
Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. If the anti-Zionists ever achieve their ultimate goal, your Jewish relatives in Israel will be dead, no exaggeration.
Failure to recognize the national rights of the Palestinians?? Please, learn some history. Palestinian leaders have rejected serious peace offers over and over again. Their real aim is to perpetuate the conflict to the point where there is an Arab-only state in the West Bank alongside an Arab majority Israel. Then what? Then the two states merge and the surviving Jews (if there are any) are left stateless once again.
4
And a vote for Boris Johnson is better? Is antisemitism the only issue facing Britain today Corbyn has already been called out about Labor's issue with antisemitism. He's smart enough to realize he has to reign in that wing of the party. As for Johnson, like Trump, he could care less about the consequences of his actions. Why are the Liberal Democrats never mentioned? Jo Swinson, their leader, seems to be a honorable person. Why wouldn't a Labor-Lib Dem coalition be a good alternative to the Conservatives?
3
If you read this carefully, you will see that much of the accusation of anti-Semitism points to a report from a Jewish group about incidents that happened “inside” the Labour Party. What does “inside” mean? A get together at an event held by some people who may or may not actually belong to the party or be party officials themselves? I have no idea and the column doesn’t say. The only accusation tied to Corbyn himself is that he “embraced” some anti-Semites. Ok, how about an example or two? The absence of any evidence here and the slippery movement from vague people “inside” the party to party leaders is telling, I think. It suggests the author can’t support his argument with evidence but doesn’t want the reader to notice that.
9
@DF Paul Remind's me of Fox's Bill O'Reilly, and his yarns that began with "Some people say...".
Mr. Stephens is one of those who can't distinguish between anti-settlements and anti-Semitic.
They are not the same.
20
Too much shrugging, here and in the UK. Has to be said, before anything else: American Republicans like Stephens have been shrugging since Reagan's welfare queens racist slur. OK: A vote for Corbyn is a shrug in the direction of anti-Semitism. A vote for Johnson is a shrug on behalf of a lying demagogue who is both like and unlike the lying demagogue on this side of the pond. Johnson's Brexit, based on Trumpy ignorance, hate and fear, will, more likely than not, push the UK as we know it over a cliff. One great fear is that Johnson will American-ize UK health care. As an American, I find that fear altogether reasonable. Some of Johnson's policies are, in American standards, positively progressive. All the same, I find it hard to believe that Johnson's supporters are altogether devoid of anti-Semitism, if our own Trump Republicans are any example. The Corbyn anti-Semitism is a bit like 2016 Sanders who focused on economic progressivism, but let his supporters and staff happily hold on to their misogyny and the like.
3
"Some feel disgusted by Johnson, who (like Hillary Clinton) stirs deep personal antipathies." Any, and every, opportunity to deflect to Clinton when the name that should have been in that sentence was Trump. As to your line adaptation regarding Republicans in the 2016 election: no, they weren't and aren't the unbigoted who shrugged. His sycophants and supporters clearly share in the bigotry, misogyny, and conspiracy theories Trump espouses.
5
The claims of antisemitism leveled against Corbyn do worry me, but I can't help but doubt them on the basis that having an opinion that is anything short of full-throated support of Israel is de facto anti-Semitic. The term "anti-Semite" has been thrown around so liberally against people who aren't outwardly pro-Israel that it has created a boy-who-cried-wolf effect; it's been used so much that it has lost it's effect. I've been called an anti-Semite for not denouncing BDS, which baffles me- how am I antisemitic for preferring peaceful economic protest to firing rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians?
Do I believe that there are members of Labour who are truly anti-Semites? Yes, I believe the Jewish people who report being discriminated by fellow members. However, they are not accusing Corbyn of saying these things, so why would that make him guilty? Mr. Stephens suggests that Corbyn has deliberately been subverting efforts to combat this, but he provides no proof. Given that Bret accused a critic of his here in the US of being antisemitic for calling him a "bedbug", I take his accusations related to these matters with a grain of salt.
4
How are you an anti-Semite for not denouncing BDS? First, learn what the ultimate aim of BDS is. You’ll find that Omar Barghouti’s goal is an Arab-only West Bank alongside an Arab majority Israel. Then what? Holocaust #2. BDS is an anti-Jewish movement disguised as a “peaceful “ protest. It largely relies on ignorant/uninformed people.
4
"To support Labour is to say anti-Semitism wasn’t your deal-breaker; that it doesn’t put you to shame; that you see it as no threat to your own well-being."
If it isn't a deal breaker then you are a supporter. Needless to say, we've seen the same thing here. We've seen it in the Republican Mr. Trump and his base. And we've seen something similar among the Democrat Sanders supporters. Trump's campaign advertising has been virulently anti-Semitic. Trump has never properly condemned our American white supremacists. He has called them "very fine people," and implicitly welcomed them into his party. And they have become a fervid outspoken part of his base. As reported by this paper, a significant proportion of the Trump base now looks favorably on those groups. As for Mr. Sanders, the 10+ percent of his 2016 voters who switched to Trump were motivated entirely (without exaggeration) by race and gender. That last statistic was reported on by this paper. Of course, the Sanders supporters themselves didn't do the no-deal-breaker thing to the degree that Trump or Corbyn supporters have. All the same, there was certainly more than enough misogyny to go around, in both the 2016 Sanders base and his campaign staff. The extent of the staff problem finally came out recently. Not pretty.
2
Although I am a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and believe that being anti-Zionist does not imply one is anti-Semitic, Corbyn has allowed anti-Semitism to thrive and multiply within the Labour party under his watch. And for that he is directly responsible. It is a deal-breaker.
2
So, a little while back, Stephens wrote how if Elizabeth Warren becomes the Democratic nominee, many well off people would vote for Trump on economic principle and white collar folk would vote for Trump to keep their private inaurance. Let's remember that rich people will stay eich, just maybe a little less so, and everyone would have health coverage under Medicare for All.
Stephens saw nothing wrong with them doing so. Protecting their advantage was reason enough in his eyes for them to cast a vote for a man he finds odious.
And yet, he sees no such nuance in a vote for Labour to protect the NIH.
1
@Matt Semrad Brett would rather see the country at large suffer than the rich folks lose even a small amount of money.
Interesting that Bret fails to mention the outright racist and anti-Muslim remarks that Johnson himself has made. I guess they are not a deal-breaker for him. Shame.
6
Brilliant analysis that can be summed up as follows: vote against a party that has historically been anti-racist because of some jerks so that a historically racist and anti-immigrant party can hold power. Bloody brilliant. I’m totally voting Republican from now on, this logic is so rock solid; what could go wrong?
6
Yes, there are anti-Semites who are Labour Party members. There are anti-Semites who are Conservative Party members. Yes, anti-Sémitism exists everywhere and is dangerously increasing and openly expressed. It is a large leap for Stephens to condemn Labour as “institutionally” anti-Semitic. Where is his evidence? His own argument relies on a very few anecdotal stories that could be duplicated by Tory supporters and others. No, Stephens has swallowed the virulent Zionist coolaid pushed hard by the ultra-Orthodox segment of Israel, parroted for political purpose by Netanyahu, because Corbyn acknowledges Palestinian rights. That is anathema to people like former Jerusalem Post editor Stephens. Shame on him for repeating this trope.
6
Today's vote in the UK is all about Brexit and not anti-Semitic. I doubt many Brits are even thinking of bias as they go to the polls. Their future depends upon the whether the UK exits the European Union or remains. No one knows what the good or bad will be if Britain chooses to exit.
I don't know this, but my best guess is Stephans voted for Trump, as he has made his dislike for H. Clinton known. One should practice what they preach. He has already dismissed the idea of voting for Sanders or Warren.
2
Conveniently left out is that multiple candidates for the Conservatives were allowed to keep their spot on the ballot despite being anti-Semitic. In this very election!
The Leader of the House of Commons for the Conservatives said that two of his Jewish colleagues are part of the Illuminati and has spoken in front of openly anti-Semitic right-wing groups.
Just a week or so ago, Boris Johnson & Theresa May gladly unveiled a monument to a famous anti-Semitic politician who complimented Hitler because he was handling the Jewish problem.
Bret, of course, refuses to discuss these and refuses to document his accusations against Corbyn because, like the rest of the people in the smear campaign, that would backfire and show it's completely false.
The truth is that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't treat Palestinians like animals and believes they should be treated with dignity. That is why Bret Stephens and those who lie about Corbyn dislike him.
4
I have written to the editor thus: -
Dear Editor,
Re: - Labour and antisemitism in the UK.
Your opinion piece from Bret Stephens published on election day in the UK is appalling bigoted nonsense, not worthy of a great newspaper unless you publish alongside it a response from someone with journalistic ability who can refute it.
I am certain that the issue is about opposing those who like Mr Corbyn - including me - believe Palestinians should be treated fairly, in the land that was once called Palestine before in the late 1940s the UK who held it on behalf of the United Nations gave in to terrorism at a time the nation was struggling to feed its own people at home after a war - which began when the UK almost alone stood up to Nazism - The United States joined in only when it was attacked on an offshore Island - over 2 years after the UK fulfilled it's treaty obligations to Poland. The UK, came to the aid of Poland before the United Kingdom was itself attacked.
I believe Jews should have a homeland in Palestine - but not to the extent that Palestinians, some of whose ancestors were even thrown out of their homes are denied the same rights as every US citizen & UK subject claims for themselves.
Sadly the Labour party was - as far as I can tell - captured by those who support the notion that we only talk about treating Palestinians with dignity. Labour under Mr Corbyn intends to make sure the United Kingdom puts its action where it's words are .... to be continued
7
It’s remarkable that Jeremy Corbin has gotten this far. It speaks to the high level of Antisemitism within British society....which is nothing new, of course.
Corbin’s election might precipitate another mass exodus of Jews to the Jewish homeland. But this time, the British military won’t be able to ship them back.
11
Don't be fooled. The Conservative Party is just as anti-Semitic as Labour. They're just better at hiding it.
8
Corbyn has a very long history of both anti-Semitism, endorsing and publicly hanging out with known Jew haters, and supporting them in his Labour Party.
This is from a man who until recently wrote a regular column for the Morning Star, the organ of the Communist Party(https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/7405489386168320), who was a proud Trotskyite Communist, and who never misses a chance to support the enemies of the Jewish homeland.
However, this is nothing compared to the anti-Jewish rot that has emerged in the Labour party over the years.
The fact that Corbyn hates Jews and after being urged on TV to apologize, to merely say he is sorry for all the harm he has done, could hardly bring himself to do so, speaks volumes.
British Jewry is small, less than 300,000 souls. However, it has always supported Labour. No more.
The left has shown itself more and more to be decidedly unfriendly to us. In Europe it is far more blatant than here but we are also seeing this in America as well especially in the black and Muslim community on college campuses and amongst the so-called "progressive" world where it is de rigueur to condemn Israel .
Happy Hannukah to all, the festival of Light amidst darkness.
10
Poor Bret Stephens; no sense of history, especially when it comes to England and anti-Semitism. In 1290, King Edward the 1st issued a royal decree, The Edict of Expulsion, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. This was after 200 years of increased persecution and lasted until 1657 when Oliver Cromwell permitted Jews to return to England.
Read Somerset Maugham, or Dorothy Sayers or any number of writers from before the 1970's and the anti-Semitism is right there on the page, taken for granted, nothing new.
Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Zionist, as am I. You conflate the two because you don't like his policies. You'd rather see a real bigot in the form of Boris Johnson win the election than tell the truth about Corbyn. The English have been anti-Semitic for hundreds of years but it's only since Corbyn's rise that all of sudden, everyone is upset about it. Just be honest, you fear his policies because you are one of "the few" and by that I don't mean your religion.
5
@lzolatrov
He conflates the two because anti-Zionism is, indeed, Antisemitic. Zionism is the manifestation of the right to self determination of the Jewish people upon a fragment of their own indigenous ground. Got a problem with that?
2
Being pro-Palestinian is not being anti-semetic. I tire of this smear.
10
It occurs to me just how rich it is that Stephens wrote just the other day that Warren’s nomination “force” him to vote “for the other guy [i.e. Trump]” - but today he writes this. I guess Trump’s deep racism, misogyny, AND anti-semitism (on full display yesterday when he said to a Jewish audience that “you guys will never vote for a wealth tax”) are not deal-breakers for Stephens, even though the implicit argument of this piece is that they ought to be. Hypocrisy writ large!
5
I'm Jewish. The anti-semitism smear against Jeremy Corbyn is bogus. This op-ed doesn't contain one anti-semitic thing he has said or done.
UK, please vote Labour.
8
Well, Corbyn visited the graves of the Munich terrorists It wasn’t mentioned in the article but it did happen.
6
Deary me. The establishment press cannot abide Corbyn because he is... anti-establishment (i.e. he and his party actually represent ordinary people). And so you all desperately and pathetically try to smear him. How dare he threaten to socialise profits from natural monopolies?! How dare he openly question Israel's record on human rights?! Why not instead focus on the Labour Manifesto, which will fix a badly broken Britain? Your coverage is an insult to the dignity and needs of the British people.
This anti-semitism drama is a blatant red-herring:
— The Home Affairs Select Committee of Parliament held an inquiry into antisemitism in the UK in the same year and found "no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party" —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party
Maybe you could do an article about Islamophobia in the Conservative party?
6
As Paul Krugman pointed out, Trump is bad for Jews. Boris Johnson is also bad for Jews, as are all the other rising right-wing governments in Brazil, India, the Philippines, and in Israel.
3
It was the working class who helped in the battle against Mosley. This is just a smokescreen.
History has shown it is the upper class who are the racists and traitors.
Johnson is of that ilk.
3
This is so dumb. I am Jewish and I LOVE Corbyn. This anti-semitism stuff is just nonsense.
Policies are what matter here, and Corbyn's policies will help ordinary people.
7
I agree with Stephens that Jeremy Corbyn is clearly anti-Semitic; I accept his Stephens' judgment that the Labour Party contains many others. I am not sure it is "institutional." But the alternative is Boris Johnson who is anti-Britain. If Corbyn becomes PM as head of a coalition government he can be restrained (because he is personally so unpopular) and Britain will survive until he can be replaced; if Johnson becomes PM as head of a Conservative government the damage he will do to Britain will last for many many years.
2
This is all rich coming from someone who, despite making all the requisite mouth noises protesting Trump's bigotry, has said that they'll throw away their 2020 vote by voting for Bill Weld if anyone other than a moderate Democrat wins the nomination. Bret says there's a chance Corbyn becomes Prime Minister in a coalition government. Does that mean the only vote against "anti-semitism" that would satisfy Bret is one for the Conservatives, but here in the U.S. a vote for Bill Weld or another third party candidate with no shot is an adequate response to Trump's bigotry? Please.
4
Voters have a terrible dilemma. They vote for Labour and get antisemitism. They vote for Johnson and get closer alignment with Trump who is - as you said - himself a bigot and a crook. They vote for a different party and stay in their terrible BREXIT limbo. There is no good answer here.
3
Here I was thinking that a vote for the British National Party or UKIP was a vote for anti-semitism but perhaps I was wrong? Not for one second will I buy this propaganda from the right. I know which color is black and which is white for I have not gone blind yet. I hope that the rest of you can still see too.
5
Weren’t you a conservative just those 3 years ago Bret?
1
a vote for Jeremy corbyn is a vote for workers (fixed it for you)
4
Ah yes, this seems to be the new style, conflating Judaism (a religion and ethic group) with Zionism (a political belief).
Bret Stephens seems to have a lot of trouble with people criticizing Israel and Zionism. Yet seems to have a lot less trouble with actual bigoted immigration policies. And he conveniently forgets which parties the real anti-semites vote for. You know, the ones desecrating graves and brandishing white supremacist symbols?
He calls anti-Zionism anti-semitism while conveniently forgetting the "good people on both sides" attitude prevalent among conservative political parties.
I also have a hard time, personally, with the conflation of anti-zionism and anti-semitism given how cozy Benjamin Netanyahu is with actual anti-semites, like the leaders of Hungary and Poland.
10
@Evan Orban is an anti-semite?Now from where did you get that idea. Jewish life is blooming in Hungary, go and see it yourself.
If Donald Trump were expected to do much more to drive greenhouse gas emissions down than his opponents--and if we could trust him to exercise a normal amount of good sense with nuclear weapons--then that *would* be a reason to hold one's nose and vote for him. Britain faces such a choice: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/08/which-party-has-the-answer-to-the-big-green-questions. Whatever policies a Labour government would adopt toward Jewish Britons would be of limited duration and affect a limited number of people--and they would certainly not be a genocide like Hitler's. Protecting the planet for thousands of years into the future matters more than anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, Brexit or any other issue in the campaign. Those who claim otherwise take a parochial view.
A vote for the Tories is also *absolutely* anti-Semitism, but don’t expect to hear that from Stephens - he only ever sees problems on the left, while for some reason, the rise of actual Nazis throughout the First World has managed to escape his attention amid his endless hysterics about Labour, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Stephens is more suited to the funny pages than the opinion section.
7
Jerry is being accused of anti-Semitic leanings because, I assume, he and his liberal party support Palestinian Rights Groups. And, evidently, a Palestinian State as well.
Isn’t that, basically, the same platform The Obama Social Democrats also support here in the USA? A real conundrum.
5
"Some feel disgusted by Johnson, who *(like Hillary Clinton)* stirs deep personal antipathies."
In an otherwise surprisingly reasonable piece, you just couldn't help yourself.
3
Every British voter I know is looking for the 'best of a bad bunch'. For most people, saving the NHS is the biggest priority and Labour seem the most able to deliver on that. Everything else is secondary. (Again - this is just from my Brit circle).
3
Yes, because the singular most important thing to the future of the UK is its support for Israel. Clearly, nothing else matters. Bret Stephens, one issue columnist.
3
The red flag of anti semitism is a big flag that waves frequently. It is most often waved by stuanch pro Israel pundits who for the form offer mild criticism of Israeli policies to pretend their evenhandedness. In the end, the blurring of legitimate concerns about is Israel and anti semitism mirrors an "Isreal can do no wrong" impression such punditry infers time and again. It weakens the authority of those who should speak up against anti-semitism. Thus, Bret Stephens' pro Israel hoarseness makes his his legitimate concerns a weak voice indeed.
2
When all else fails, the false attacks and smears of antisemitism come out against Corbin and Labour. I remember when Hillary Clinton tried this ugly tactic on Bernie Sanders in 2016. The problem is not just that it is a transparent lie but that the tactic itself foments antisemitism.
5
According to Donald Trump and his cronies, I am an Anti-Semite because I openly and unapologetically criticize the State of Israel and have criticized the government and policies of Benjamin Netanyahu. Ridiculous, but there you are.
2
Just look at the front pages of yesterday and today. . the pages are awash on the subjects of anti-semitism and the State of Israel.
The Hasbara is pulling out all the stops in a massive attempt to suppress any criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel on US campuses is under attack by Trump and Kushner. Criticism of Israel by the UK Labour Party is under attack by Bret Stephens and others.
Why? Because Trump, Kushner, and Netanyahu think they can over-ride laws and morality.
5
This is blatant evidence of foreign governments interfering in national elections. Representatives of extreme right wing Israel are actively spreading mis-information to influence today's UK election. They intentionally conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism to avoid a left wing government in the UK which could severely hamper their colonization project.
The UK voters must see through the scam.
3
This is nonsense. British voters should choose the Conservatives--who advocate the racist-fueled policy of Brexit--over historically progressive Labour based on possibly manufactured anti-Semitic hearsay? Judge Corbyn on his actual actions (whatever they may be) and not this obvious smear campaign.
4
Of course, it's sheer coincidence that Stephens abhors Corbyn's left-wing program and loves the Tories, and that the worst he can say of Boris Johnson is that he stirs, among some, "deep personal antipathies", while he has no troubling seeing into Jeremy Corbyn's heart.
Mr. Stephens is also mighty selective about his alleged anti-Semites.
Heard a denunciation of Trump's own apparent deep-seated anti-Semitism lately? Or that of American evangelicals who look forward to seeing the violent end of the Jews, as a precondition of the "rapture"?
2
As is sadly the norm with Mr Stephens’ articles, he has wholeheartedly embraced the smears coming from the right wing about one of the few politicians left with real integrity, Jeremy Corbyn.
Criticism of Israel and Israeli leadership does not equal anti Semitism. This cannot be repeated often enough.
Corbyn has done more, throughout his career, to combat racism than the entire Tory party.
I’m not particularly happy with his Brexit stance over the last few years, but he is a man of decency and integrity, and it is extremely disappointing to see the New York Times publishing this sort of article.
2
It alright to be openly racist and make anti Muslim remarks like Boris Johnson did when it comes to Brett's worldview and many other like him. In the 1960's and 1970's the British conservative factions were against the West Indians and Asians and were unwilling to extend the same commonwealth travel rights that were provided to the Whites from Australia, NZ, Zimbabwe and South Africa. Jeremy Corbyn was a champion of refugees from Africa and Asia, however that does not count since he supports the rights of Palestinians.
4
No Bret, that would be American Republicans you are thinking about. A vote for Corbyn's Labour Party is a vote to save the UK from a fate worse than Trump.
5
A vote for Boris Johnson's party is also a vote for racism and hate as their primary focus is to make Britain white again by kicking out the immigrants and saving "their culture". So, two poor choices. The only question is which is the lesser of two evils.
1
I don't disagree with the premise but why is this suddenly NOW an issue when it didn't seem to be before? Why are conservative pundits such as Bret Stephens uncovering this dreadful issue only now on the eve of a momentous vote in which the fate of Brexit is seemingly being determined once again? There never should hav been a referendum as dumb as Brexit and the fact that it has perverted the politics in such a way as to paint people into a corner to make such horrible choices is the real travesty here. The danger to the UK is far graver in general if an irreversible split from the EU occurs. The Nationalist, anti-immigrant fervor that inspired Brexit also has it's roots in xenophobia and bigotry, no?
2
This is nonsense. The attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are weaponized smears aimed mearly at blocking him politically. Yes, the Labour Party is a critic of the recent right wing Israeli government for their abuse of Palestinians, and so these baseless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are just to distract and diminish the possibility of a UK government that would be critical of Israeli policies. This is a bad faith argument and completely and utterly corrupt in its intent.
5
Nice try Bret but no. There is a very real difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the far right is the domain of the most virulent antisemites and also the domain of Mr Johnson who tolerates their elements the same way Trump does.
You pointed out some excellent reasons why voters should not have voted for Trump. Did you vote for Hillary?
3
No one is asking why Labour is anti- semitic. Could it be that Jews make up 0.5% of the UK population, whereas followers of Islam were already at 4.4% in 2011, according to Wikipedia?
This anti-semitism in the Labour party is not about Israel or Palestine, it simply comes down to religion and politics.
1
CONTINUING a comment
... Sadly the Labour party was - as far as I can tell - captured by those who support the notion that we only talk about treating Palestinians with dignity. Labour under Mr Corbyn intends to make sure the United Kingdom puts its action where it's words are, but I believe it will be done peaceably unless anyone turns their military power against the UK as happened in 1939, when the UK stood by Poland first and democracy thereafter.
For me unless you publish some decent investigative journalism responding to this it will probably be a subscription cancelling buiness, as by publishing this on election day in the UK it seems timed to deny the Labour party votes, unreasonably and falsely.
Andrew S Hatton
Tolleshunt Knights,
Essex, England, UK.
1
The election in the UK is about Brexit and nothing else. Not everything in the world is about other people’s feelings about Jews and antisemitism although it would be impossible to know that based on all the opinion articles in today’s Times. After all, this is the time of year when the right is usually crying about their alleged ‘war on Christmas’.
2
It's a very sad thing that Labour has gifted the right with a stick with which to beat them. But will an England severed from Europe by Boris Johnson be more inclined to promote tolerance of Jews and Muslims and non-whites? Johnson's party is having success because it offers a vision of a UK much like Trump's ideal of America.
If I were British I would vote tactically to stop Brexit -- Green or Liberal Democrat where practical, Labour where it is not. Anti-semitism is not a fundamental Labour principle. It can be rooted out, Corbyn or no Corbyn.
1
I'm a paid-up member of the Labour Party. I ask your correspondent to point me to examples of anti-Semitism that Mr. Corbyn has ignored. Perhaps it would be best looking at the anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia that is rife in the Conservative Party, led by an obvious Islamaphobe.
2
If Corbyn wins, my family have decided that we are for sure moving to Israel. It’s not just concerns about Corbyn, his views and the issues with the Labour Party itself, but the supporters. Any time this issue comes up, instead of listening to the concerns of the Jewish community, all the Corbyn supporters follow the same script - it’s a smear campaign. It’s a Tory plot. The tories are racist *. It’s not a real threat, stop being hysterical. But Jewish history time and time again has demonstrated that the cynics survive.
I’ve thought all the previous elections were a tough choice, between various levels of ineptness and rot, but this is next level.
* I agree that they are but this doesn’t excuse labour from being anti Semitic
3
Unless you support equality for all bigotry will exist in all forms and will be found everywhere. This goes for all races and religions. Look in the mirror first before casting outward.
1
A shocking article. A BIG LIE. The number of members of the Labour Party who are antisemitic could be counted on one hand. Jeremy Corbyn has fought against any form of racism or ethnicism throughout his life. He was in the forefront of the fight against apartheid in South Africa when the Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.
Like millions of other progressive people he is critical of the treatment of Palestinians by right wing governments in Israel. This is the basis of the slurs repeated endlessly in the UK media.
5
No it isn't, Brett Stephens should know better, though perhaps he knows what he does only too well. This is another disingenuous attempt by a conservative to pin antisemitism on the left. Been a lot of this lately, divide and conquer they say.
Britain (like many countries) obviously does have a problem with antisemism in general — it is an island nation prone to a particular flavor of xenophobia (hence Brexit, a Tory cause mind you). But to claim that Labour is any more antisemitic than the Conservatives ignores both reality and history. Leak a bunch of Tory conversations and you'll be sure to find as much, if not more and worse. It's not the left that carries tiki torches and based on the record, in a battle over who is the bigger bigot, Johnson or Corbyn, Boris wins hands down.
3
As an American Jew, I am increasingly alarmed that during a time of clearly rising antisemitism, so much attention is given to alarmism from people such as Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss who are clearly using claims of antisemitism to reinforce their preexisting biases against the left. There is undoubtedly antisemitism in the Labour Party, as there undoubtedly is throughout British Conservative Party and society. But to confuse harsh criticism of Israel and even antizionism with antisemitism is to confuse the whole debate and obscure where the very real threats to Jews and pluralistic, democratic society as a whole really lie.
David Graeber, a professor and Jew living in Britain, offers a cogent different perspective from Stephens’ that is worth sharing: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tZ8MeRagpmc
5
Agreed.
I look forward to Stephens's column entitled "A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Racism."
2
No, everything on this planet is not about anti-semitism. A vote for Corbyn is a vote for economic justice, housing, an end to Brexit, and many other things. Anti-semitism is just one of the many reasons some may vote against him.
3
In the 2017 election British Jews favored the Tories by an overwhelming majority: only 11% supported Labor. That is now expected to be down to 6%. Asking this group whether they would leave the country if Labor is elected is like asking a NYT reader if they would leave the US if Trump is re-elected.
It is no secret that British Jews overlook all the racism and anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party because they are more closely politically and economically aligned with the Tories regardless of what it does to the nation as a whole. They are shrugging at the reprehensible positions of the Tories because they are not deal breakers for them. See how that works, Bret?
2
Neocons like Stephens cannot be trusted. He loathes Trump - as any civilized person does - while supporting the worst of the Republican establishment’s militaristic and corporatist policies. As an American Jew I confess that I don’t know a great deal about Corbyn personally and have little way of discerning disinformation campaigns in a system I barely understand. What I do know is that a Britain under the heel of Tory fascists like Johnson and his cabal must be stopped, even if by an imperfect messenger.
4
I'm with you all the way here, Bret, but as a regular reader (and a Jew) I can't help but wonder why anti-Semitism should get pride of place when it comes to drawing the line. True, Trump hasn't institutionalized anti-Semitism per se. But he's been awfully busy institutionalizing attitudes that will make such a thing possible. Lest we forget, he told some congressional leaders to go back to where they came from. "First he came for the Mexicans, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't Mexican..."
I'm sorry, but consistency counts. Elizabeth Warren is neither an anti-Semite, nor a racist, nor a con-artist, nor a crook. Her crime is that she's a social democrat and for that, you'll help Trump get reelected? Get real.
2
This article does not contain a single fact or attributed quote. It ignores the fact that Boris Johnson himself wrote an antisemitic novel.
Both the right and left in Britain have antisemitism problems. But it is the Conservative party that would push a disastrous hard Brexit that could lead to a balkanized Europe and the conditions that led to WWII. That is the greater threat to Jews.
I hear they have Liberal Democrats in Britain too. Perhaps if Stephens truly thinks that Labour’s antisemitism is disqualifying, he can apply the same standard to Johnson and vote for the third option. But that wouldn’t support his true goal, moving Britain to the right.
4
I will not deny that Corbyn and his Labour Party has a big problem regarding anti-semitism, but it's not like his opponent, Boris Johnson, is any better. He called black children "Pickaninnies with watermelon smiles" and supports Donald Trump, the person this article sites as an example of a disaster candidate. Let's be real here: both the Conservatives and the Labour Party have racist tendencies.
A vote for Jeremy Corbyn would be a vote for antisemitism, sure, but so would voting for the Conservatives be a vote for islamaphobia. The question is down to the lesser of the two evils, and that would indeed be Corbyn. Aside from his anti-semitism, the policy proposals of Labour regarding domestic, foreign policy and especially Brexit are reasonable and substantive. The Conservative Party thinks "getting Brexit done" is more important than the state of the union and respecting the decisions of the Supreme Court.
So, I disagree. A vote for Corbyn is not a vote for antisemitism. It is a vote for the lesser of two evils.
Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. He and many others are critical of Israeli domination over Palestine. It seems whoever criticizes Israel or Zionism openly risks the wrath of being labelled anti-Semitic. It also seems that Israel is above reproach, I do think it is partly due to the fact that unlike blacks or other ethnic minorities, Jews in the UK (and the US) are more educated and better connected in British political and cultural life. This is a political smear plain and simple, pushed by the mainly right-wing papers in the UK.
1
This is all very true - a vote for Labour shows complicity with (or even worse support for) anti-semitism.
The Labour Party cannot be supported, but Brexit will also bring chaos to Britain. Although not perfect, the Liberal Democrats appear to be the best option given the systemic evils of Labour and the fool-hardy, lying Conservatives.
3
Mr. Stephens,
I couldn't help noticing parallels in your argument.
1. "...denunciations of anti-Semitism overlook his long history of embracing virulent anti-Semites."
2. "Since .... became leader he has made the party a welcoming refuge for anti-Semites"
3."...himself routinely denounces anti-Semitism as a form of racism...denouncing anti-Semitism as a form of racism is itself a dodge"
You could pardon me for getting confused.
1
For a counterbalanced opinion on the issues raised in Mr. Stephens carefully timed Labour hit piece, see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-antisemitism-hostile-agenda-people-colour
1
Much of the purported anti-Semitism seems somewhat as hoc, and seems unlikely to be reflective of Labour at large. Most are more deeply concerned about Brexit and the dismantling of what’s (pejoratively) termed ‘the welfare state”. Stephens often cherry-picks events to support his own identity-based grievances (won’t you take me to Trumpytown), and so conflates what is likely a (hateful) minority for the whole. Whereas he misses the forest for the trees in the US when an entire party is dedicated to hateful ends.
Many years ago I was working with a one year fellow from England-a delightful, intelligent, compassionate brilliant physician, We became friends. Years later I visited him in England, we had a good time. Yet during one conversation he asked my why Jews “never had real jobs, never met a Jewish coal miner” And his fiancée actually decried Britons dying in WWII - because of the Jews.
1
Red herring! The Tories and the American conservatives like Bret have no economic argument. Antisemitism is all they have because all their other arguments have been unsuccessful. It's truly is something to behold, how the entire corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic are leading with allegations of antisemitism, and are politicizing and activating the chief rabbi in London, for purely political purposes, because they have no other bullets. Everyone's getting dirty to stop Labor and they will regret it.
Were I a Brit I would not vote Labour. But unlike Bret, I don't find "anti-Semitism" in a potato chip.
2
Only Stephens could seriously believe the current British election is about anti Semitism. And if he thinks there isn't some of it lurking in the Conservative party as well as Labour then he doesn't know much about Britain.
2
You are dead wrong Mr. Stephens. The vast majority who voted for Trump did so precisely because of his bigotry. White privilege, and Trump’s direct avowal to protect it, was, and remains, the bulwark of his support.
1
Full marks. We still do need this backbone among American Conservatives, though, in our next dance with death in 2020. It is the issue of our time.
Thank you, Bret Stephens, for being a continually sharp and moral voice on this issue. The comparison to the Republican who votes for Trump and turns a blind eye to his racist and sexist outrages is spot-on.
I don't envy the British voter today. Boris Johnson is a disaster and Brexit is awful news for for the U.K. But as the Israelis say, yesh g'vul: there has to be limit, and the rotten bigoted core at the heart of Corbynism has to be well beyond that limit. Were Labour to win, there will be no soul-searching or expelling of its inherent bigotries; instead, the Corbynites will consider themselves exonerated.
1
A dreadful piece which could have been dictated by Conservative Party HQ. There are almost certainly some anti-Semites among Labour members but there is NO evidence that there are more proportionately than in other parties. What there may be more of are anti-Zionists - or pro-Palestinians - who, if they are called anti-Semites long enough may come to accept the label and all that goes with it.
Meanwhile Stephens, and people of similar views including, sadly the UK Chief Rabbi, implicitly or explicitly back a known liar, philanderer and racist who will say, indeed promise, anything for power.
At the time of the Brexit Referendum it was remarked that only two ‘World Leaders’ advocated a Leave vote: Trump and Putin. If Johnson is still Prime Minister tomorrow they will have won.
4
A vote for Jeremy Corbyn is a vote to protect the NHS from being gutted and sold off to US financial interests. I continue to be embarrassed for Bret Stephens--I would have thought he would take more time of self-reflection after getting caught in the act of tattling on an adjunct professor for mild criticism, yet he continues to engage in writing bad-faith, galaxy brained tripe. Conflating Corbyn with Trump is laughable.
4
It is really stretching the truth to say that "For the Many, Not the Few" actually means "For the Many, Not the Jew." This is an insult to all members of the Labour Party, many of whom no doubt are of Jewish ancestry.
None of the examples of Anti-Semitic comments are attributed to Corbyn or the leadership in the Labour Party. Nor has the author pointed to any legislation proposed by the Labour Party that discriminates against Jews.
On the other hand the leadership in the Republican Party in the USA has made countless racist comments and has passed many laws and issued many executive orders that clearly discriminate along racist lines in both the federal and the state levels of government. The Democratic Party also has a history of the same thing prior to Lyndon Baines Johnson.
My knowledge of the history of the Labour and Conservative Parties is limited, but the author has failed to make a compelling case that the Labour Party is currently anti-Semitic. This is just a poor attempt to discredit a progressive political party by someone who probably does not like its economic agenda.
1
This is ridiculous. Bret has fallen for it: the reports that equate ant-Israel sentiment with anti-semitism, and the reports in UK newspapers that use every means to deflect attention from racism within the Conservative Party, in particular anti-Islamic abuse, but also including anti-semitism. Yes, the Labour Party has been very slow to follow up on accusations made against it, but some of these have been shown to be fabricated with others exaggerated to goad and provoke.
1
And a vote for Boris Johnson and Brexit is a sign of anger and hatred toward immigrants. There is no evidence that British Jews cause the widespread angry action as immigrants. As a colonial power, Britain opted for a diverse society. By taking non Commonwealth immigrants, it allowed its economy to grow.
One can argue that dismantling Britain's NHS, degrading the elderly, abusing the poor and hostility to immigrants and minorities, which the Tories intend, is far worse than anti-Semitic rhetoric among Britain's lefties.
When voters are given two miserable choices, one must pick the lesser of two evils. That's not winking at anti-Semitism or excusing bigotry. That's picking the least worse option.
I agree with everything you wrote about Corbyn, but to bring Hillary Clinton into your article by saying "Johnson who (like Hillary Clinton) stirs deep personal antipathies. Hillary was not an anti-semite, she was not the buffoon that Boris Johnson plays both in his work life and in messy personal life and certainly not the anti-semite that Corbyn is. I am well aware many people had antipathy for Hillary, but the majority (3,000,000 wanted Hillary. It will be an enormously troubling if Corbyn wins. Because for all Jews, including me, now in my 7th decade I know anti-semitism in its fullest form. Our country is in such a dark place under Trump. Hillary would have been a demonstrably capable president, as our first female president she would have led our country with dignity, compassion, with better education for our schools and with affordable health care. Our allies would remain our allies and we wouldn't be living in dread every day, for the myriad mistakes and embarrassments, harassment and lies we get with Trump. I understand Republican Bret Stephens continues to feel antipathy for all things Clinton, but understand that we are suffering through an administration who behaves, much like Corbyn and Boris Johnson would, through a veneer of civility (barely) but through division and mistrust. I am disappointed you mentioned Hillary. Leave her the heck out of it. For the first time since you have returned to the NYT I feel sorry you have returned.
3
The BBC has done a comprehensive analysis of Corbyn's and Labor Party anti-Semitism:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552
If the Tories win today's election, either Corbyn will no longer be leading Labor, or the Labor Party will embrace being a minority party for the foreseeable future. .
I wonder where the next generation of leadership on the left is going to come from. Corbyn, Sanders and Warren are near the end of their careers. The US and the UK urgently need political leaders from the left who are uniters, not dividers.
Mr. Stephens correctly notes that under Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party has become, in the words of many of its own members (or former members), “institutionally anti-Semitic.”
In the US, the oh-so-pious Evangelicals are pro-Israel because of their very own religious interpretation of the Good Book. They have voted for Trump, while declaring their undying love for Bibi's arch-right coalition.
Contrary to the Democrats, the party that has 25 Jewish members in the House and 9 in the Senate, Republicans have only 2 Jewish members in the House and zero in the Senate.
Ergo, it seems that at least a large number of Republican voters are as anti-Semitic as those who vote for Corbyn.
2
Bret.
Always on the front lines of saying we must embrace fascism. Not that he wants to mind you. It is just the right choice under the circumstances because the others are so bad.
As constant as the speed of light.
In the US the Republican party has clearly been the advocate of racism since the candidacy of Goldwater, but somehow that has not been a deal-breaker for Stephens and other Republican columnists. This racist attitude was normalized long before Trump.
1
I'm thinking of a Gertrude Stein quote because "“There is no there there.”
I mean seriously, a leaked 53-page document by the 2,500-member Jewish Labour Movement? Not one mention of the evidence that this is a long building “smear campaign” against Corbyn. Exploiting criticism of illegal settlement-building and labeling that anti-Semitic or claiming the statement means Israel should not exist. Taking bad statements by Labourites of zero stature repeatedly denounced by Jeremy Corbyn and making a story out of the face that he doesn't denounce every time he appears in public. A work of art that Corbyn liked and immediately apologized for when hooked noses were pointed out in the painting but conservatives talked about it forever.
While it is true that 39 percent of Britons overall believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic, any thinking American that lived through the Trump campaign smears and spends time in Great Britain knows this playbook. And also knows that "anti-Semitic" often translates to "not Islamophobic enough."
Meanwhile Corbyn is running against Boris Johnson, who has a racist statement list even longer than Trump's. This is the exploitation of a minorities fears. And it's working for Bret Stephens.
What can they possibly claim about Corbyn making the nation unsafe for Jews? Cutting train fares, free higher education and strengthen the NHS but not for Jews? It's all lies but conservatives are much like Trump, anything for a vote.
2
If you think that Labour is anti-semitic, you clearly haven’t spent much time with the English middle and upper classes. The Tories may be more genteel in their expression, but that’s because there are certain shared values that well, you know.
In left-wing politics, which tends to be more vocal, we have seen a gradual transition from admiring the kibbutzim to loathing the settlers and their ultra-religious enablers.
This doesn’t justify individual acts of anti-semitism, since a thinking person should be able to distinguish an individual from the group to which they nominally belong. Those who wish to change society have a need to paint their vision with small but precise strokes. Most of us, and not just Jews, have conflicting ideas inside our heads.
But the broad brush is ever tempting, and apparently irresistible to Mr. Stephens, who mistakes the shallow expression of anti-semitism with its deep and unthinking acceptance.
2
I don't know how well Stephens knows the UK electoral process, but my understanding is that the vote is for individuals contesting constituencies, not a party list. Hiding behind "labour is antisemetic in the abstract!" is bunk.
5
This issue has been relentlessly pushed by the right-wing press in the UK with the sole aim of damaging Corbyn and Labour. The Labour party has long been an ally (and the political home) for Jewish people, and has a far better record of opposing all forms of racism than any other party in Britain. Whatever about individual members of the party (not forgetting that there are some 500,000 of them), the charge of anti-Semitism against Corbyn personally does not hold water; his support for the (just) Palestinian cause is what irks many.
7
In the same vein, Republicans, especially Mr. Trump, are strong supporters of Israel, and are vocal opponents of anti-semitism.
So should I, as an American Jew, ignore the GOP's support for no controls on semi-automatic weapons, massive efforts to promote voter suppression, their lockstep alliances with religious groups promoting Christianity in government and public schools, their denial of global warming, their efforts to weaken environmental laws, their huge budgets for war and weapons, and most importantly, their cruelty to those seeking asylum at our borders?
And should I, who enjoy the protections of our Constitution, also support the party which enables a treasonous scoundrel who lies everyday and colluded with foreign powers to secure his political office?
I think the answer is that I will vote with that party which best represents my best inclinations and our country's best values.
7
It would seem to me that those most opposed to the increasing anti-Semitism in Labor, Great Britain as a whole, France, Germany, and other places would or at least should be the Palestinian people. It is certainly not in their interest for a mass of Jewish Europeans (not European Jews, as the Poles and others might anti-Semitically describe them) to feel so unsafe that they consider moving to Israel as their only refuge.
1
I don't understand. Vote for Johnson? A "deal breaker" implies you can walk away -- as in a business deal. In "no deal" who ends up with what in this system?
Generally I try not to read Mr Stephens, as I disagree so profoundly with his opinions, and I find his analysis disingenuous. And I only read this as the British election means so much to me, with close family in the U.K.
As other contributors here have pointed out, the Conservative party has thrown out it’s dissenters. However there are Jewish members of the Labor government, and they have the the most intimate view of this issue.
For an unapologetically conservative American journalist to step in so to transparently to opine over this monumentally important election is beyond ridiculous.
Bret, there is anti-semitism in almost every democratic country today. None has been more violent than in America. America leads the world in the shear numbers of anti-Semitic incidents. I beg you to keep writing about how online communities have radicalized bigots and encouraged violence. From what I read, there have been zero violent incidents in the U.K. Compare that to America’s record.
This is blatant gaslighting and all part of the conservative campaign to discredit Jeremy Corbyn and Labour as they lick their chops at the prospect of gutting the NHS.
The offending ideology here isn’t contrived anti-Semitism , it’s naked Capitalism and it’s unquenchable thirst for more , more , more -leaving no stone unturned and no public good safe from the asset strippers and rent seekers .
This effort from Stephens is merely his contribution to sow confusion and discord as the invisible hand is thrust into the public till.
2
Years ago I heard a politician from one of the Scandinavian countries speak about leftist parties in those countries and the Muslim votes. It's quite simple: promote policies that favor such immigration, liberal welfare benefits, and that growing immigrant class will repeatedly vote you in, for years to come.
Well, we have seen the backlash in the 6+ years since that gentleman spoke. People get tired more of their tax dollars to a large minority group that disfavors higher education, rejects acculturation to the larger society, and keeps women at home with very large families. Who pays for this?
This is partially what Corbyn envisions, aside from the fact he truly likes Hezbollah, Hamas, and what they ultimately stand for. So he won't tolerate violent anti-Semitism at home, but he will punish the Jews in myriad other ways, including his expected foreign policy. I shutter to think of thousands of comfortably middle or upper middle class Jews feeling betrayed if he wins.
1
A vote for this guy is a vote for anti-Jewish sentiment and a vote for that guy is a vote to close down the country in a nationalistic frenzy — good to know. Meanwhile we buy our iPhones Made in China where the government sends the Muslim population to re-education camps and the best we can come up with is: I hope it doesn't disrupt deliveries! What does that say about us? It sure says a lot. We are selective when it suits us and that should cause us to pause instead of plowing full steam ahead with our unending nobility about how the other guy does things all wrong.
2
Mr. Stephens is thought to be a responsible ''principled conservative'' The more I read him and see him pundicate on television the more I question the idea.
Criticism of the actions of the state of Israel is of course not synonymous with being antisemitic. You would not know it though if you observe how quickly those who point out the very serious abuses that take place in Israel are attacked as anti Semites.
One wonders about the motives of a guy like Stephens.As the comment stream indicates there is said to be an undercurrent of bias against Jews in England, but spread out evenly through the various political factions.
Ergo it appears to be another hit piece against Corbyn, timed for the election, though perhaps a little late. Labor in coalition with others will surely be a better government than anything Boorish Johnson will foster.
5
I have seen a lot of evidence to support Stephens' assertion that Corbyn is, at best, tolerant of anti-Semitism, and at worst himself biased against Jews. This is obviously troubling in the extreme. As a liberal Jew myself, I would like to see the Lib Dems come to power... and I am baffled as to why, in a country with the history and breadth of talent such as the UK, the choice of leadership has come down to two wretches like Johnson and Corbyn.
The question I would turn back on Stephens is whether his issue is with bigotry generally, or just bigotry against Jews. The Tories are almost definitionally anti-immigrant, and Stephens himself has given more than occasional indications that he sees Muslims as "less-than." If we're going to oppose hatred and stand for decency and equal treatment, let's do so across the board.
1
The author of this article is precisely the type of person he condemns. He has supported and continues to support conservative ideology in spite of the consequences that it has on liberal democracies such as America’s. And in spite of the politicians that it brings to power.
5
I voted for Labour today because we have a wonderful constituency Member of Parliament, Matthew Pennycook, who supports Remain and is not part of the Corbyn cabal. Bret Stephens should not tar the entire Labour Party with the sins of its leader (who will probably be replaced soon, anyway, because of the negative effect of his leadership).
The results of a Johnson victory would be devastating for the country, with a likely 'hard' Brexit and five years of chaos and austerity.
I entirely agree with the opinion piece penned today by your contributor Jenni Russell.
I heard there were very fine people on both sides.
1
What this article fails to note is that in Britain, unlike in the US, voters don't get to cast separate votes for the President and for their local representative. It's one vote for your local MP, and the number of MPs get totted up to decide which party's leader goes to 10 Downing Street. So if a voter's local Labour candidate is a member of the Labour Party who has spoken out against the Labour leadership's tolerance (or practice) of anti-Semistism, perhaps even to the point where they have been admonished by the leadership, then it's hardly accurate to say that voting for that local Labour candidate is a vote for Corbyn's anti-semitism. One way to counter the anti-semitism in the Labour party is to elect Labour MPs who are on the right side of this issue and can change the party from within.
4
Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semitic Marxist with a long history of fringe positions. Among those are favoring British withdrawal from NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, closer ties with V.V. Putin's Russia, questioning Israel's right to exist and support for Mao's "Great Leap Forward." There is credible evidence that he has worked to shield members of his party who have been accused of anti-Semitism and he has had cordial relations with both Hamas and the Irish Republican Army.
There is no need to address Labour's far left election manifesto. Corbyn is clearly unfit for elective office at any level, much less as the leader of a once proud and respectable party, from which he should have been expelled years ago. Under the circumstances, no moral person can consider voting Labour as long as Mr. Corbyn remains at its head. If one were inclined to vote Labour in a normal election, I would encourage voting Liberal Democrat instead.
3
@John C. Does not warrant a response. Author has studied at the foot of the fox-disinformation- channel and or the great trump himself a bit too long one clearly sees.
To be honest, I am much more worried about the Tory party's islamophobia. Corbyn may not acknowldedge the presence of anti-semitism in Labour but many, many Labour members do recognise and are fighting it. The tory party are absolutely in denial about their islamophobia. That worries me a lot more.
12
Faced with Hobson’s choice, perhaps a more extended list of pros and cons has to be assembled to guide us toward the best choice among awful alternatives???
2
Trump's "bigotries" as summarized in the manner of Stephens's third paragraph can be characterized as crass but also rhetorical and exaggerated and so understood by most who voted for him. Stephens should have said a little something about that.
More importantly he should have focused on the real thinking behind a vote for Trump: better for the USA, and for that matter for the world, than the alternative. A case can be made for that today.
2
You know, this, “Where’s your sense of humor,” argument gets pretty tiresome, given Trump’s actions and behavior. And considering the disasters Trump’s creating every day, it’s just plain dumb.
I seriously doubt that Corbyn will lead a pogrom or Labour will pass the Nuremberg laws. The examples cites are horrible and all the charges should be investigated.
From reading many articles on this election, Corbyn is not a great leader and Labour would have a better chance today with a different leader. That said, Johnson's Brexit will not only be bad for the UK, but the effects will be bad for EU and NATO. As an American, I see foreign policy through that lens. I see Brexit as bad for American foreign policy interests in Europe and in containing Russian aggression.
15
Hardly anyone finds a politician whose views completely agree with their own. If one feels sufficiently strongly about something that can disqualify voting for a politician with opposite views, but usually it ends up being's a compromise. A vote based on overall acceptability in relation to ones own views. In the case of Corbyn Bret is both anti-anti-Semitic and anti-socialist, so it's understandable. For most British voters anti-Semitism is way down the list when the future of the country itself is at stake.
7
While it is certainly true that many supporters of the Labour party do not have much time for the supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu, it is incorrect to suggest that the Labour party has policies which are anti Semitic.
This column is misguided and reflects a tendency to seek victim status.
44
The Labour Party does have serious issues with anti semitism. But your article fails to grasp the nature of our political system we vote for individuals in our constituency not the party leader directly.
As someone of Jewish heritage Boris’ embrace of the far right, his racist rhetoric and anti immigrant sentiment makes me feel far more unsafe in my own country than a minority labour government in coalition with the SNP and Lib Dem’s.
If I lived in a seat with a strong labour candidate I would happily vote for them regardless of my views on Jeremy Corbyn.
31
The difference between Trump and Corbyn is that Trump built his entire campaign on bigotry and greed. Corbyn and his Labour party do have problems with anti-Semitism in parts of their party, and where anti-Semitism arises it should rightfully be condemned, but Labour is not running a campaign based solely on bigotry and greed. And Brexit is a much more pressing issue for Britain right now.
So no, Britons should vote for whichever party they believe will be best for all in Britain, Jews and everyone else included. And given the stakes in this election, strategic voting may be essential to save the nation—which means possibly voting for a party you don't really like if they have a better chance of winning over a party you like even less.
12
Most upsetting is the way the liberal press in this country supports the Labor Party in the UK simply because it is the party of Remain. One can only presume that liberals here accept the antisemitism of Labor to insure Remain wins. Of the many editorials in this newspaper today supporting Labor, one is titled "Johnson Lies His Way Back Into Office." So liberals can talk about Trump's supporters accepting his many flaws but they accept Labor's faults because Labor is a means to an end. Would we here in America accept major decisions for our nation being made in another country? It's doubtful. Why would we want that for our closest ally?
2
The Labour Party actually isn’t the party of Remain though?
4
Exactly. Many traditional Labour supporters voted Leave, and Corbyn has no great love for the EU either. Lib Dems are the Remain party.
But, then what is a vote for Boris Johnson? Unfortunately, the Brits have a choice between two incredibly failed candidates. It’s a sad day for the mother of western democracies
12
Exactly. Painful truth about democracy, self government, human nature. Such painful choices.
Anti-Semitism is a convenient accusation for any politician to use against their rivals--within their own party or otherwise--because it immediately grabs eyeballs. Left activists everywhere (including Rashida Tlaib here in the US) have been accused of anti-semitism when their intent was to express a pro-Palestine political stance. This needs to stop.
Corbyn and Tlaib have both reflected on their statements and concluded that they need to do more to correctly express their stances so as to not be confused with anti-Semites. What more can we ask of our politicians than honest, searching introspection?
33
This opinion piece is a good reason for UK voters to vote for Corbyn. UK voters should be able to detect foreign meddling in the election. UK voters deserve a PM willing to stand up for the legal and human rights of the Palestinian people.
55
To support the Conservatives is to say that lying is okay, that fabricating news you know not to be true is okay, that whipping up fear for political expediency is okay.
Democracy and liberalism in Britain are in crisis. By urging a black-and-white view of anyone voting for Labor, Stephens’ piece only adds fuel to the fire.
22
The right-wing of Israeli politics is happy to conflate Jewish identity with the State, so that criticism directed at the State and its policies becomes de facto hatred of Jews and Judaism. It reminds me of the "love-it-or-leave-it" mentality of conservatives in this country. When anti-Semitism is conflated with criticism of Israel, it becomes another meaningless category. As long as this is the case, we will never stamp it out.
21
I'm sure many of the intricacies of British politics are unknown to me, except for the fact if Mr. Corbyn was in any way popular he'd be running the country.
If you say a vote for Mr. Corbyn is a vote for anti-Semitism, I'll believe you. So what is a vote for Mr. Johnson?
1
The reason one might vote Labour is that the conservatives in Britain are going to do to that country what Trump is doing here - dismantle its system of government. Just like the GOP and Fox News, the unholy alliance between a liar-in-chief and the right wing propaganda machine is extremely dangerous. Look at the damage the deeply dishonest Brexit campaign has already wrought.
Corbyn is not an attractive candidate, and certainly, this is an uninspiring choice for Britons. But just like the U.S. in 2020, keeping Johnson away from the levers of power is life and death for that democracy. Stephens always finds a reason why he couldn’t possibly support the liberal candidate, no matter how odious the alternative.
19
Yes it is. A vote for Boris Johnson is a vote lying on a massive, industrial scale, similar to what we have experienced from Trump. Anti-Semitism has long been a feature of European politics and life in general. Constant, repeating, unchallenged lying and hate speech made possible and profitable by social media is a new feature. Nice choices.
3
Is Labor’s alleged anti-semitism worse than the lies being told by the Torries?
It seems odd that Stephens would focus a warning so exclusively on the former without acknowledging the hard reality of the latter—especially when he’s so comfortable taking our own Republicans to task for their mendacity.
7
The case against Corbyn presented here is very weak. There is not a single quote of Corbyn saying anything anti-Semitic. There’s no anti-Semitic policy statement.
The complaint is about statements made by members of Corbyn’s party. Guilt by association.
28
Mr. Stephens-
Your principal gripe seems to be that your personal deal-breaker seems not to be a deal-breaker for Mr. Corbyn. But, elections are rarely about a single issue are they? Do you think your issue trumps Brexit as priorities go?
The evidence you adduce for your case is a document from an organization called Jewish Labour Movement. Their name certainly doesn't suggest lack of bias in the matter at hand. Besides, with a membership of 2500, you can hardly consider them representative of a community of 280,000.
Furthermore you haven't told us what Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission ruling on the matter is. Anyone can file any complaint any time.
Anti-Semitism is a legitimate scourge. But crying wolf too easily and too often is a disservice to the cause.
14
I read this with amusement Bret. It’s not that I disagree with you, but England is ever worse off than us right now. At least, we have some real choices in our upcoming election. For the British, it’s lose vs lose. What a choice. Remember that wonderful Billboard of George W smiling and saying “How do you like me now?”
2
So, instead, vote for a serial liar who intends to break up a union that has endured since James I, undo Ireland's recovery, and return what's left (England and maybe Wales) to a 1950's economic situation? Food shortages, medicine shortages, doctor shortages, all the while battling flooding and colder weather this is the future is disUnited Kingdom has to look forward to because a disheveled con man got enough people to agree with his kooky contrarian misguided never intended for implementation protest movement?
6
Support for Palestinians does not equate to anti-semitism. Its a disagreement with the current state of Israel politics. I'd definitely support Corbyn's Labor party.
34
Bret,
I think of Labour as being the British version of the US Democratic party. In the US, NONE of the candidates running for the highest office, whatever their other faults, can be fairly portrayed as racist or anti-Semitic in any way. (The Republican, on the other hand, is another matter.) Could the United Kingdom, the nation that at one time had a Jewish Prime Minister, possibly, put an anti-Semite in its highest office? Apparently, I wasn't paying attention. How could this happen?
To Americans who think we're luckier than the Brits; think; who did a large majority (54%) of the American people NOT want as their president? Who did we get?
1
The choice is between an unpredictable clown and a man of principle, not afraid to tell the truth.
10
...Labour’s general secretary...released detailed numbers covering accusations of antisemitism made against Labour members between April 2018 and January 2019.
The 673 accusations as a percentage of party members amounted to 0.1% of the total Party membership. However, 220 of the allegations were rejected through the disciplinary process which left 453 (or 0.08% of party membership) accused, found guilty and disciplined. Of these, only 12 were considered serious enough to warrant permanent expulsion.
Further analysis of these figures, and other data, and their comparison to survey data of antisemitism in the UK population as a whole, has been carried out by statistician Alan Maddison. The upshot is, there’s less antisemitism in Labour than you would expect to find in the UK population as a whole (which is already among the lowest in the world). In fact, reputable surveying in 2017 by Jewish Policy Research, showed that antisemitism was more prevalent on the right and far right than on the left in the UK.
“Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population.”
Which again begs the question as to why all the focus has been on Labour since Corbyn became leader. The numbers suggest we should be looking elsewhere.
SOURCE: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/11/as-a-british-jew-i-dont-fear-corbyn-but-im-horrified-by-how-antisemitism-is-being-used-against-him/
16
How do these men/women get to be leaders in their party? Both Johnson and Corbyn have dismal moral, ethical, and intellectual records--and yet, here they are vying for Prime Minister of a major industrial country. You would have thought long ago that both men would have fallen to whatever in England is defined as political Siberia.
78
@Amanda Jones
Who ran in our last presidential election? The Clintons are, to put it mildly, troubling or worse. The Trumps are approximately the worst people around.
The world changes very fast and people are overwhelmed with both information and misinformation. This leads to tribalism and tribalism often features rallying behind someone because of their devotion to tribe not because of their inspirational character and hopeful message.
7
@Amanda Jones Well, the GOP supports at the 90% level a person that embodies just about all the worst personal traits a human can have. How did Trump come to be president? He tapped into a political market (anti-immigration and the denigration of women and non-whites) that no other GOP candidate had tapped into. If that market wasn't there for the taking, he would not have won the nomination.
9
@Amanda Jones
How did Trump, without a doubt the most unqualified person to ever to be selected to head a major political party get to be leader of his party? He has a dismal moral, ethical, and intellectual record--and yet, here he is vying to repeat as leader of a major industrial country. However, the Democrats are to be praised that this crazed, unqualified, uneducated, malicious clown will be relegated to some sort of political Siberia.
4
There is a discrepancy in the comparison between Trump/GOP and Corbyn/Labour. Labour is described as "institutionally anti-semitic." It is more than a few 'Bad apples."
Yet, in American politics, bigotry is tied to the vote of a single GOP candidate, Donald Trump. I think Stephens needs to be honest about his former party and follow this line of reasoning further. He should consider the possibility that his former party is not under the spell of a single bad apple, but, rather, that its institutionally racism made this particular bad apple possible.
6
Too bad the British public will not vote en masse for the Liberal Democrats or the Greens as a protest, which would absolutely shake the worlds of both major parties and the elite oligarchs who back them.
But most people are too caught up in their single-issue cocoons (mostly Brexit) to assume a larger perspective. Not unlike here, of course (the issues here being mostly either abortion or immigration).
59
@Glenn Ribotsky The Liberal Democrats are further to the right than Labour; trust me, no oligarchs are backing Labour.
13
In Europe historically anti-Jewish sentiment and agitation began on the Left more than on the Right. Towards the end of the 19th century anti-semitism moved to the Right as Jews became identified with socialism; the Bolshevik Revolution was interpreted as a Jewish movement and fascists took this up with enthusiasm. If one wants to oppose this scourge one should not confine one's opposition to either the Left or the Right but to the ideas of the anti-semites whoever they are. While there is a difference theoretically between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism in the real world they are virtually the same in the passions they arouse and the violence they often perpetrate.
67
@n1789 Anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe goes back well over a thousand years before the political concepts of "left" and "right" really even existed. There were no political parties in Feudal Europe, and Jews have been at the receiving end of European hatred and violence since that period. This isn't new.
22
@n1789
Just to clarify, Jews became identified with socialism because right wing propagandists wanted to stoke fear with racist, anti-semitic tropes. The Bolshevik Revolution was spun as a Jewish movement to conflate the violent overthrow of the Tsar with politicians seeking workers' rights and to gin up fear of the left.
And to put forth that only a theoretical difference exists between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is intellectually dishonest and borders on the ridiculous.
15
@n1789 you are really sure that you are not whitewashing the history here?
3
The conservatives who voted for Trump did so for their promised tax cut and for Federal judges who were as reactionary as they are. They ignored the obvious that Trump is unfit for the office.
is it possible that Britons who are rightly afraid of what a deranged Boris and his party will do to further hurt the NHS, services for the poor and disabled and drag England out of the EU despite the consequences will vote for Labor despite the hysteria over Cobryn's anti semetisim? Just as conservatives here voted for Trump?
If I were in England and had a choice only between Johnson and Corbyn I would vote for Corbyn.
152
@Edward B. Blau I think a number of places in the UK have candidates from additional parties and one opposed to the Conservatives need not vote for the Labor candidate.
5
@Doug Karo I am aware of that.
I said if I only had a choice only between the two.
3
@Doug Karo But the question is who does one vote for if they want to get Boris Johnson out as prime minister, yes? It looks like the only two options for PM are either Johnson or Corbyn, if I am not mistaken.
Fundamentally, whether it is Britain or the US, isn't it the foolishness of the average voter which is responsible for the decline of both "empires"?
4
I voted today in the constituency of Leeds NE, for Jeremy Corbin's Labour Party. Our Labour MP, Fabian Hamilton is (like me) Jewish. Fabian has strong support from the large Muslim minority in this area. Yes, there are elements of antisemitism in the Labour Party, but I think we can overcome them.
262
@Adam Glad to hear it, but I'll believe it when I see it (i.e., more than a shrug).
12
@Adam WHEN?!
4
@Adam
That is what the Jews in Germany believed in the 1930s, until it was too late.
15
The electoral system of the United Kingdom in effect forces many of those who are pro-Europe, depending upon the electoral district in which they live, to vote for Labour and against the Conservative Party of Boris Johnson and Brexit. Most of those voting for Europe by voting for Labour will not be voting for anti-semitism, but for tolerance.
390
@JR As someone IN the UK, I’d agree with all of your comment... bar the final three words. Unless you mean the tolerance of antisemitism and antisemites.
Mr Stephens is correct: those voting for Labour are demonstrating that at best - at best! - antisemitism is no longer a dealbreaker for them.
Either they believe it’s all a smear (and claiming Jews make false allegations of antisemitism for nefarious purposes has a long and undistinguished history in the classic antisemitic tropes that have for centuries been used to demonise and disparage Jews) or they think ‘antisemitism is a price worth paying to get [insert your own favourite Labour policy]’.
Either way, two things are beyond peradventure now true:
1. Antisemitism is no longer a dealbreaker for being a member of Labour, an elected Labour politician, or for those voting for Labour
2. Jews in the UK are looking differently at people they thought would have their backs… only to discover that they really really don’t. Something that also has a long history.
6
@JR Tolerance? Of whom? Certainly not Jews living in England.
2
@JR Stephens' point is that a vote for Labour is a vote for tolerance of anti-semitism
3
Given the traditional demonization of left leaning parties in Britain, Canada, Australia and the US, this charge that Britain's Labor Party is rife with anti-Semitism isn't a surprise.
It should be remembered that Trump et al. tried to pin the same label of anti-Semitism on the Democrats based on a few dubious comments by one or two Democratic Party members. Fortunately he failed.
But what the right wing power structure in Britain can do to ensure Labor doesn't win an election and harsh austerity continues is another matter.
125
@Lawrence Chanin
Except the Labour Party is rife with anti-semitism as attested to by members of the Labour Party
10
Whataboutism actually makes sense here though because most voters are being asked to choose between two options (unless they’re in a district where the Liberal Democrats or one of the regional parties could win). When faced with two options that both contain significant bigoted elements, it’s entirely reasonable to choose the one whose bigotry is likely to be less impactful.
If, as the Jewish Labour Movement claims, anti-Semitism, has become institutionalized in the Labour Party, that means that it has been in the Party a long time. Beliefs don't become institutionalized overnight. It means that it has been there when Tony Blair was prime minister, when Gordon Brown was prime minister, when Ed Millband, a Jew from a prominent family was leader of the Party.
4
Bret -
Agreed. But then we should say the same thing about people like Trump and Modi, i.e. that a vote for them is a vote against Muslims? After all, unlike Corbyn these two are far more outspoken about their hate.
5
I agree with the thrust of Mr. Stephens' column about the hateful anti-Semitism within the Labour Party and its leader. However, Stephens' comparison of Boris Johnson to Hillary Clinton is absurd. The American politician that is most obviously similar to Johnson is, of course, Donald Trump.
7
Absolutely fair and correct, Mr. Stephens. But the problem is also this: Pointing a finger at the Conservative Party as way to justify support for Labor is indeed “whataboutism.” And it should be said the UK voters have other options than these two in their multiparty system.
But it is also true that the Conservative Party is institutionally Islamophobic to the same, or nearly, the same extent that the Labor Party is institutionally anti-Semitic and Mr. Johnson as bad on that score as Me. Corbin is on this.
People of good conscience should not vote for either, but barring a historic, epoch-making upset, one of these men will win. Which is alarming and depressing.
5
I can accept and believe that there are anti-Semites in the Labour party, just there are racists in the Republican party, but why do people assume that's a deal breaker?
Donald Trump had, and has, a lot of despicable qualities. It's apparent that they don't undermine the support of his most passionate base. They can make and accept excuses for his most disgusting behavior.
Impossible promises win elections these days. Trump pandered to the worse instincts of his base shamelessly appealing to hate and fear. His promises, perfect healthcare and a more fair tax structure as examples, were hot air.
The UK got itself into a fix with an unwise referendum on leaving the EU. Just as no one believed Trump could win the presidency, there was an expectation that Brexit couldn't prevail. Now, it's gotten much more complicated.
I don't pretend to understand it, but I see similarities with our own mess. Lies, distortions and dirty tricks work. It may be a futile article of faith that voters are wise enough to sift through all the dross and make good decisions.
Both systems seem inadequate to respond to these challenges. Antisemitism is just one aspect of the problem. Unfortunately, accusations of antisemitism and antisemitic attacks will be used as a tool in the distortions and dirty tricks.
I don't understand the source of Corbyn's power. Surely there are people who are better qualified to lead Labour.
3
I have great sympathy for British voters. What do you do when there is no lesser of evils?
4
Sadly, you describe an election where the outcome, no matter which party prevails, is an exodus. If this is indeed the case and I were Jewish, I’d choose the anti-Brexit vote. History has shown that little good and largely bad comes from isolation politics.
17
At least the left will deal with its problems. The right just changes facts and lies to deal with its problems.
36
This is so far afield of any real analysis that I'm beginning to think the winners of Pulitzers should be kept secret. Evidently a public announcement affords one carte blanche to perform rhetorical contortions to attack a progressive candidate in "the paper of record". You claim a Labour victory would spark a diaspora, but why does this fear exist? The Tories are equally guilty of housing anti-semites and bigots (especially of the islamophobic variety) in their ranks, and I don't believe you think this is "whataboutism". I've yet to see anyone argue that anti-semites in either party should not lose their positions, so the notion that pointing this out is an excuse doesn't hold water.
In this sense, prejudice is a common denominator. So what separates these parties, if not the bigotry that Brett has foregrounded? Brett has decided to paint the party committed to redistributive policies, justice for the oppressed, social healthcare, and serious climate action as a racist threat liable to force its constituents to flee. You can imagine why I find the entire framing hard to buy even from the writer's perspective. Feel sorry for any Brits reading NYT today. Feel sorry for myself reading this.
75
@Keenan Bravo Keenan. Many of the Jewish writers to the Guardian/Observer agree with you. But then again, Mr. Stephens doesn't have to live with the consequences of his own bigotry. The Labour manifesto presents the UK with a real opportunity to right this ship that has been dragged down by a reactionary right that has advocated austerity for 10 years now. A gradually diminishing NHS, schools a mess, social services being cancelled, elderly care disappearing.
Mr. Stevens can afford to be a "one-trick pony". We can't.
6
Corbyn has rightly taken strong steps to punish those who do stray towards anti-semitism, but don't try to equate that with being critical of Israel's human rights abuses. I can understand being cautious towards people with anti-Israel views, but that shouldn't blind you to what's being done to Palestinians. This entire 'scandal' is largely fabricated by people like Bret Stephens who would sooner vote for Trump than see their taxes go up.
61
So are the British supposed to cast their votes solely on the basis of which party has the fewest bigoted members, or is there anything else at stake in this election?
23
@Green Tea
If such were so, the GOP would disappear.
Nothing like inserting a little American Republican name calling into another country’s politics. I didn’t know this was an issue in GB any more than it is here. There are some terrible anti-Semites in the U.S. as the recent Jersey shootings show, but I would not brand either major party here as anti-Semite and would hope no one from any other country would do that to us as well.
10
@Barbara Snider
You might feel differently if you did follow UK culture or politics. It is not parallel to here and the bigotry of Labour’s leader, the institutionalized bias of the party structure, and the cultural tolerance of bigotry among its active members is quite indisputable and shockingly blatant to any honest observer.
It is far beyond anything you see in the US.
3
@Barbara Snider You might read up on the history and persistence of anti-Semitism in Great Britain before deciding it doesn't and didn't exist. Recommend an excellent article by Calvin Trillin -- published some years ago, but relevant. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/12/12/drawing-the-line-2 Regarding your second point: people from other countries call out and "brand" the US on various policies with some frequency, often in this Comments section. Of course this is their absolute right and enlivens the discussion!
I've never been able to figure out what a Jewish person is, what it means to be a Jew, much less what it means to be antisemitic. I've heard Jewish people defined as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality and various combinations of the previous.
I think the entire concept of human identity along lines of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality is next to incoherence, and that people both seek to avoid labels and stress identity depending on own favored construction and flex definition of identity this way and that for advantage.
The problem though with anyone defining themselves along lines of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality is that these identifications don't seem reliably stable (history shows all of them liable to change over time), and because they're not stable they're likely to be violently stressed to the disadvantage of others who identity along the same lines. Humans seem caught in a web of unstable and conflicting identities.
It would be nice if people could predominantly identify along other lines, such as profession, but the modern economy and its creative destruction (Schumpeter) makes perhaps profession more unstable than the former historical identities. Of course we could say that all people should just identify as humans, that we must identity with and sacrifice toward the human race as a whole, but all the identity wars seem to demonstrate that people really don't predominantly identify as members of the human race.
5
@Daniel12
Really? What is so complicated?
It is both an ethnicity and the religious faith tradition indigenous to that ethnicity.
You don’t have to believe in the ancestral religion just because you are of that ethnic extraction and you don’t have to be of that ethnicity to be an adherent of the faith.
Both the ethnicity and faith are so old at this point that they can both also be subdivided in various ways for deeper analysis and focus.
But what is relevant is that both the religion and the ethnicity have both a long historical and a wide contemporary experience of being subject to bigotry and persecution.
And that is wrong, unAmerican, and a violation of fundamental human rights.
As a Jew, I would like to stamp out the mushy and euphemistic designation of a “Jewish person.” People tell me that they are just trying to avoid offense. They are failing. Do we speak of Christian persons, Muslim persons, Asian persons? Hardly. I don’t practice the religion of Judaism, but I am an ethnic and cultural Jew. It is who I am.
Why does there seem to be a litmus test of 'anti Semitism' - when there are other policy issues of greater urgency and importance. And most of the time anti Semitism conflated with anti-Israel government-ism.
20
@Tamza
Well, the American idea is that there are certain “self evident truths” of fundamental “inalienable” human rights that take precedent over lesser “policy issues.” Equality and liberty are the core of these and when people are singled out and targeted for discrimination based of the ethnicity of their birth or the core of their religious conscience, this is held to be of the highest urgency and importance.
Do they not teach US history, Western Civ., or the Human Rights in California? Just this past Tuesday was International Human Rights day, an annual celebration of the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the UN in 1948. You may want to look into it.
1
@Tamza
I was only a history major for a short while, but if someone is willing to be an anti-Semite, odds are they ultimately have no moral boundaries for anyone or respect for a scientific sense of truth. Giving such a person power tends to work out quite poorly.
1
I don’t agree with the totality of these conclusions by a long shot, but there is some there, there for sure.
I agree with another opinion in this paper published yesterday that British voters face a terrible decision today. The leaders of both major parties are demonstrated demagogues and rotten to their very cores.
5
I’m surprised and disappointed that the NYT published this on the day of the election in the UK. The UK has strict polling day regulations which in practice mean that any content that could be reasonably seen by a viewer or web user in the country should avoid direct discussion about candidates, issues or poll numbers. Apart from legality, a responsible news organization should have considered this before publishing a piece like this on the morning of the election.
Also: Brexit is driven by the Tory party, is explicitly about excluding foreigners from the UK, and has had very clear and direct racist implications (look up the rise in racist attacks after the brexit referendum, the posters showing streams of middle-eastern immigrants coming to the UK used by brexiteers, the “take back control of our borders” rhetoric, and so on). The issues with Corbyn (which seem to be driven by progressive sympathy towards the Palestinians) are not at the same scale.
42
If indeed the regulations you describe exist, there is still no reason why the NYT or any other media organization outside the U.K. should submit to them. The first amendment protections afforded the press in our country should not be overridden by a foreign power.
1
@Blah I am surprised you think this is an issue. We have a first amendment here. NYT is free to publish any opinion they want regardless of British or any other countries laws. By your reasoning there should be not criticism of Kim Jong Un because that would violate North Korean law, or Putin because that would make him angry or support the goals of those protesting in Hong Kong because it would violate the law in the PRC or criticize the king of Thailand because that would violate their lese-majeste laws which routinely land people in jail. We have a free press and we should be darn glad we do. Hopefully Trump will not be successful in repressing it.
1
@Liz @MPJ
The OP says that they are disappointed. That's allowed. The OP is not arguing that it should be illegal or anything. New York isn't Britain, of course, and NYT are under no obligation to follow British law. But that doesn't mean people aren't open to have opinions on when someone exercises that right.
That being said, MPJ, you are creating a lot of false equivalences with those examples. It is not remotely close to your examples to restrict political speech for one day every few years. Don't be silly.
1
I am a British Jew, I always have voted Labour, and I will vote Labour again today. It is true that Corbyn has refused to root out anti-Semitism from his party and this is a disgrace. But voting Labour is not a vote for Corbyn--nor is doing so a vote to normalise racism
Why? Because Corbyn's rival in this election, Boris Johnson, is racist with real power--he also is a liar. Unlike Labour, the Tories have dismissed Johnson's critics from the party. A vote for the Conservatives really is a vote for a racist immigration policy and ruinous economic policy.
Voting for Labour means voting for the only party that stands for social justice, bringing an end to austerity, and holding a People's Vote on Brexit. Most of the Labour Party disagrees with Corbyn dozens of Labour MPs (including mine) have publicly attacked him for his failure to root out anti-Semitism in the party. Every Labour supporter I've met is furious with Corbyn, but remains eager to see this party in power, after 10 years of social and economic damage under the Tories.
Unlike the Conservatives, Labour is and always has been a party of dissenting views from its leader. Voting for Labour is a vote for positive change. It is not a vote for Corbyn or for his anti-Semitism.
461
@Adam
I understand that your vote for Labour might be motivated by what you perceive as positive change, but Corbyn is Labour's leader, and voting for Labour is inseparable from voting for Corbyn and his whole manifesto and persona. If you say that your Labour vote isn't a vote to tolerate Antisemitism, then you have no right to assert that every Conservative voter is voting for a "racist immigration policy and ruinous economic policy."
Yes, many credible economists & businesses agree that Brexit will damage Britain's economy, but just as many think that Corbyn's economic agenda will be just as damaging (never mind that Corbyn himself is ambiguous on Brexit anyway).
Voters in all democracies have to vote for candidates & parties with whom they don't fully agree. If you want to be respected as a Labour voter who doesn't accept Antisemitism, then you have to offer the same respect to Conservative voters.
17
@Adam ….well said.
This label is a gross exaggeration and a perfect way for conservatives to denigrate a progressive candidate. That's why Bret Stephens devotes an entire column to it.
He wants the Tories there and the GOP here to keep power.
20
@Adam You can always vote for the Liberal Democrats.
Personally, I think Corbyn's as much to blame for this mess as much as Johnson. He could have formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats long ago and made sure Johnson never became PM, not to mention ended this Brexit nonsense. Instead, he insists on remaining "neutral" on what is in effect, economic suicide.
6
There is casual anti-semitism that is ubiquitous in the UK, but Corbyn's is of a strain that casts Jews, and particularly Israelis (more than half of whom are immigrants or the children of immigrants from majority Muslim countries) as colonialist white supremacists. Corbyn and his fellow travelers of course ignore this, just as they ignore the fact that these Israelis (with family ties to places like Morocco, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen etc) tend to vote for conservative and far right parties far more often than secular Ashkenazi Israelis do.
This idea of Israel as a white supremacist colonialist power was pushed extensively during the cold war by Moscow, and by European academics who were sympathetic to the Soviets and to Marxism more broadly. Anyone questioning this might look up why Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas received a degree from a Soviet university. We continue to see the influence of the Soviets' campaign on today's college campuses in both the US and Europe, where these "anti-colonialist" positions are held by those who consider themselves enlightened. In point of fact, however, this was all part of a Soviet influence campaign to foster anti-western sentiment, not unlike America's efforts (under the direction of Zbigniew Brzezinski) to foment nationalistic fervor against the Soviet Union in places like Kazakhstan and elsewhere in Soviet Central Asia during the cold war.
8
Finally, Mr. Stephens has a cogent (and very meaningful) expression toward anti-semitism without somehow wrapping himself around Benjamain Netanyahu and side-stepping his horrific treatment of the Palestinians.
As for Mr. Stephens' main point, when will it ever end, this nonsense of people believing they are superior than or inherently ordained to freely express their hatred of others?
I'll tell you when: When every church, temple and mosque announces with the same conviction theyhave in belief in their god, that the pathway to eternal salvation will be blocked if hatred exists in one's heart.
2
I am American, Jewish, and disgusted by these acts of anti-semitism. Jews, with many others, remember the material consequences of such hatred. This is why Stephens' singling out Corbyn's Labour Party is so misguided. Making this the red line minimizes by comparison the grave material consequences already affecting so many other groups by other shrugs: the Uighurs in China being relentlessly persecuted while our administration looks the other way; the Syrians and Kurds being killed as a direct result of our greenlighting Turkey's and Russia's assaults; Hondurans and other Central Americans being unable to take refuge on our soil. Speak up on these things *first*!
13
A lot of the people currently calling Labour and their voters antisemitic were perfectly content to go along with anti-semitic jibes directed at Corbyn's predecessor Ed Miliband. The right picks and chooses which forms of racism it disagrees with based on whatever it feels is politically convenient at the time.
32
Brexit is a deal-breaker. Anti-Semitism is a deal-breaker. Failure to vote is tacitly supporting both.
One thing to be said for American Presidential politics is that we get a chance to winnow down the options and eliminate those deal-breakers... except when we manage to pick a deal-breaker anyway.
1
the only real alternative--as in having enough seats to form a majoriity government--is johnson's cons.
not a very palatable alternative.
1
And the alternative is a Trump styled populist who will harm most people living in the UK, working class Jews and all the immigrants from around the former empire living in England. They will make healthcare less affordable for most people while the wealthy will get wealthier. I wouldn't wish a Trump styled government on anyone, other than Russia. Stick to military intervention Brett.
15
The voter in the UK votes for the member of parliament (MP) in his/her constituency. This is largely based on local conditions( housing, hospitals etc.) The leader of the party:with most MPs becomes the Prime Minister. There is not a direct vote for Prime Minister. The leader of the party is chosen by party insiders.If your local member has expressed anti Semitic opinions, vote against that member.
For really violent anti semitism look no further than the US.
6
Once again, the conflation of anti-Zionism, anti-Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism.
This is really disingenuous and in the long term very harmful to those fighting anti-Semitism. The story of the boy who cried wolf is a timeless classic for a reason.
56
"The question for the British electorate — and for anyone else who takes a rooting interest in the country’s politics — is whether or not they seriously care." (about the "institutionally anti-Semitic" Labour Party").
No, I am afraid that apart from a few honest men and women in Labour, Jews and non-Jews, they do not care.
"To support Labour is to say anti-Semitism wasn’t your deal-breaker; that it doesn’t put you to shame; that you see it as no threat to your own well-being."
Shame? Most take pride in their views.
England expelled its Jewish community in 1290.
In 1144, Jews in Norwich were accused of a ritual murder. Numerous similar accusations followed:
1181 - accusations were made in Bury, St Edmunds, Suffolk
1183 - accusations were made in Bristol
1192 - accusations were made in Winchester
1244 - London Jews were accused of ritual murder
Oliver Cromwell brought them back in 1656. For a time England was considered "liberal" towards its Jews, but formal emancipation and freedom to practice Judaism did not occur until 1858 (!!)
England has a chance to decide today whether they will return to the Middle Ages and embrace a new form of blood libel.
7
A vote for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party is a vote for racist xenophobes. Most people voting for Labour are not voting for anti-Semitism, but the Conservatives are not devoid of anti-Semitism, so I don't see how voting for a Conservative is an improvement on any level. Unfortunately the Lib Dems can thank Clegg for their demise, and if it had not been for an odd confrontation with a sandwich, Labour might have a decent leader to vote for.
10
Corbyn has flaws and is not a perfect leader but he has fought against racism. Under Boris and the Tories England will side with the US, and continue to dismantle the NHS and lower standards causing people their lives. Boris is a wannabe world king like Trump. I am fed up with the labour bashing. We must differentiate between anti semitism and anti Israel.
31
Bunk? The charges of Corbyn's anti-semitism boil down to him not denouncing a guy that is pro-BDS. That's guilt by association for a thing that no one should feel guilty for. Does Bret Stephens ever write an article that isn't about conflating anti-Zionism and BDS with anti-semitism?
47
There is a bit of absurdist humor here. Today Mr Stephens excoriates British labor for using tired repulsive tropes of “Jewish money”. A day or so past he told Miss Collins that he might vote third party to save his wallet. By confusing caste and class he has become his own worst trope. Bigotry is disgusting and by definition anti-social. In England anti-Semitic bigotry has been on the rise under the Conservatives which Stephens ignores to put the blame on Labour. In the U.S. anti-Semitic hate crimes, some quite deadly, have seen a sharp rise during Trump’s administration. Yet Mr. Stephens would waste his vote against Trump to save his wallet. It would be risible if it were not so sad.
30
This illustrates the biggest problem with a parliamentary government: If you have a terrific local Labour MP, do you not vote for her because she is part of Corbyn’s party and that may make him PM? I cannot understand why Labour keeps Corbyn as its leader, except that the unbigoted do not care. Likewise, I don’t understand why Johnson is still leading the Conservatives.
2
@Lawyermom
"If you have a terrific local Labour MP, do you not vote for her because she is part of Corbyn’s party and that may make him PM?"
This problem exists in the US too with legislative elections, where voters vote for their preferred party (or AGAINST their more-disliked party), even if their preferred party is running a very flawed candidate and their disliked party is running someone upstanding.
Consider how in 2016 every single Senate election went to the same party that won the state in the presidential election. Consider how impressive Senate candidates, like Jason Kander in Missouri and Bob Hugin in New Jersey, were defeated by corrupt rivals from each state's majority party.
But I don't think this is irrational since the majority party has a monopoly on the legislative calendar. Thus, it's more important who the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are than who your own representative is.
The only thing that would change this calculus is some shared control over the legislative calendar.
It's been interesting to follow the debate over anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. For what it's worth, I do think where there's smoke there's fire, and Corbyn's association with and tolerance for anti-Semites has indeed creeped its way into the party.
The dismissiveness, defensiveness and whataboutism that some Labour supporters display when confronting these charges is almost identical to the way that US Republicans react to charges of racism within their ranks.
6
I'd be at least as concerned about the vote made for a candidate for MP coming from a party that does not acknowledge, nor seek to expose, address and expel anti-semitism from its ranks, as I would be for the vote for a candidate whose party publicly criticizes such elements within their own ranks.
The former describes the situation with the Tory party, who remain mum on their own sins.
The latter describes the Labour party's present self-vilifying condition.
A vote for either party's candidates could, by extension, be declared anti-semitic. Perhaps it would be best to decide your vote on bases other than hatred, like the quality and character of the individual candidates?
30
I am unaware of the anti-Semitism you claim as being deep within the Labour party so will have to take your word for it though this kind of racist or anti-Semitic sentiment will much more often be found in right wing/conservative politics than the left...which can be very critical of Israel policies towards the Palestinians-not quite the same thing as anti-Semitism in general.
But speaking to my former British roommate-- over the weekend the danger ahead with Johnson and Brexit falls to the reopening of "the troubles" between Northern Ireland when it leaves the EU and Ireland which will remain part of the EU. My Irish friend also sees this as a problem, a possible walled off border whether material or political as a result of this disastrous Russian infiltrated decision. British voters have few choices...and they are all bad.
8
My two sources for all things British - one who lives in London and the other a joint British & Canadian citizen currently traveling in Great Britain, both of whom are Jewish - disagree with Stephens on three points.
First, they believe that whatever the real and perceived level of anti-Semitism is in Britain, it is pretty well distributed across the political spectrum, with no unusual concentration in the Labour party.
Second, what Stephens dismisses as "Bunk" they believe to be true - much of what is being treated as anti-Semitism is, in fact, simply criticism of the current policies of the Israeli government. Zionists in the UK are as quick as those elsewhere to label such criticism as anti-Semitic.
Third, while my two sources disagree about the overall agenda of the JLM, they do agree that the leaked document is misguided, either because it was prepared by those who want to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism (source 1) or because the report was intended to be an attack on the Labour party despite the JLM's understanding that anti-Semitism is distributed throughout the political system (source 2 - who also believe this is not a political attack on Labour as much as it is an expression of disappointment with the Labour party on this issue.)
138
@Bob in Boston Bingo! I've got a few folks, too - and they pretty much say the same thing.
13
@Bob in Boston
I suggest an addition to your "two sources for all things British", namely, reading The Guardian on issues regarding anti-semitism in the Labour Party. If you had you would have found this Dec. 6, 2019 article, "Seventy Labour staffers give statements to antisemitism inquiry", which goes on to say:
"Scores of serving and former Labour officials have given sworn statements about antisemitism in the party as part of evidence submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into the issue.
The final submissions on behalf of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) to the inquiry, which were leaked to the media on Thursday, include 70 sworn testimonies from current and former staffers, and concludes that “the Labour party is no longer a safe space for Jewish people”.
“It is plain that the party does not consider the race and religion of Judaism to be a characteristic worthy of protection,” it says. “This is a very dangerous place to be.”"
10
@GerardM Neither I nor those I speak with about British politics deny the existence of anti-Semitism. The Guardian article does seem to demonstrate that which almost everyone already agrees to and, importantly, it is based on the JLM report, not independent journalism. What it does not do is address anti-Semitism beyond the one party.
No reasonable person at this point doubts the presence of anti-Semitism among officials in British political parties. The point is that because it is not uniquely, or even disproportionately, concentrated in the Labour party, Bret Stephens is wrong when he says "To support Labour is to say anti-Semitism wasn’t your deal-breaker."
2
Nothing here new in my experience. Anecdotal note from my distant past, while riding my bicycle through Spain I joined up with a rider from England who paced with me for a day. Seemed like a educated fellow. I was surprised at the depth of his bigotry; he thought all cultures and peoples outside the British isles were inferior to his own. I suppose that's natural but his sense of superiority was so great that I finally had enough and rudely suggested that nothing that had transpired on the world's stage in the last hundred years proved to me that England wasn't anything but a third world country. Sorry Paddington.
6
This is all well and good— even true— but their are a lot of people in this country who think the reason we have Trump is not because people shrugged in 2016, but because they’ve been shrugging at bigotry for decades.
12
My paternal grandparents and great-grandparents fled England for the United States in the late 1800s because of anti-semitism. I've been following Britain and British politics for much of my life. And when I see your statement, "A Vote For Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party Is a Vote For Anti-Semitism" I am of the opinion that this is more likely to ENCOURAGE votes for Corbyn's party.
10
@JerryV
It’s crazy since Disraeli was more British than the British themselves.
@Peter, Especially after he gave up his Judaism and converted to Church of England.
1
And the basis for Stephens viewpoint? A personal knowledge, interviews with the Labour Party or just Twittering around. The older generation of Britons are anti everyone b not born in their region - anti Irish, Indian, Pakistani, Caribbean, African, Welsh etc. Trump tried to stoke the same fears here through rhetoric and policy. He is a buddy D Duke. Fortunately states are fighting back by publicity stating their willingness to accept refugees. So please keep you editorials on this side of the pond!
49
A highly prejudiced view of Corbyn and the Labour Party. Many who criticize, criticize not the Jewish community but Israeli politics and its leadership. Israel, the government, not the Jewish people, daily violate international law in regard to the Palestinians, taking away their land and homes.
If anyone is prejudiced in their view it is Mr. Stephens and those who think like him.
287
@JFP
Thank you. I'm so sick of the idea that you can't criticize the actions of the Israeli government without being labeled as an antisemite. It doesn't matter if they are Jews, Muslims, Christians, or atheists. They are committing crimes against humanity.
16
@JFP --
Mr. Corbyn's thirty year campaigning against the depredations that the Israelis have visited on the Palestinians have made him the number one adversary of the pro-Zionists ... any, and all completely false smears, including that of anti-Semitism, have been deployed in an all-out attempt to keep him from becoming Prime Minister
5
I always appreciate Stephens' columns for their clear-sightedness and emphasis on facts. But is today's column maybe missing the facts? To call someone, or a political party, anti-semitic is a major charge, and to my mind Stephens doesn't, in this piece, come close to marshaling the sort of evidence that such a charge necessitates. Stephens may well be right. But he hasn't proved it here.
122
@LJ Molière Yeah, you can just Google it.
5
@LJ Molière What more proof do you want?
4
The seriousness of this within the Labour Party in the UK illustrates, I think, the weakness of US voters who explain their votes for Trump as somehow necessary or reasonable given the alternative of, horrors, voting for a Democrat.
There are anti-semites among US Democrats, of course, but the candidates and the party as a whole are not beyond the pale and, in fact, Democrats have a much better record of presidential governance than Republicans on the economy, the budget, and wars (plus everything else). A voter in the UK who doesn't like Johnson could be reasonably conflicted. A US voter who votes for Trump should own their choice and not blame the Democratic candidate.
38
@David Sears I don't think there are anti-semites among US Democrats in Congress, though several have been labeled as such...there are a number take issue with Israeli policies especially under Netanyahu as being akin to apartheid - and he has made it clear there will be no Palestinian state ... but that's a political, not a racist issue.
3
Trumpers might ignore Trump's beliefs, but he represents the corrupted system in which Americans live in and how distress can make people vote for and start to believe in everything the Orange Man denounces. They are merely a result of what's wrong with America, they're being manipulated and led on into false statements that we live in an America that is great. It's not and it will not be if we don't do something about it, not only nationally but globally, the world needs people to rise up to the occasion and change things. It's irrelevant to care about the anti-semitism existing inside the Labour Party when our goal is the one of change, of course we can't ignore it and must deal with it, but not voting Labour won't fix a thing. As a matter of fact voting won't change a thing regarding anti-semitism inside political parties, reportings such as these miss the point, bringing the issue to the public's attention is always useful to solve it, but disregarding it as a problem with the party as a whole only gives voters a false narrative in which no matter what they do bigotry will remain.
9
@John Jangola
John Jangola writes that distress made many people vote for Trump. I’ve been reading statements like this repeatedly for three years At what point do we say enough with misery as an excuse and ask people to inform themselves for a change about what is in their best interest? It’s not rocket science to ask people not to vote for a party that threatens the benefits that provide them with at least a few necessities of life.
18
@Elliot Podwill But how can they inform themselves when the media only caters to the interest of the businesses? I didn't say distress was the main reason. And how can you ask people to inform themselves when they can't even listen to the other side of the political spectrum because someone has a (D) attached to their name. Asking is not enough if people aren't willing to listen to all sides.
1
@John Jangola
Trump’s deficiencies have been covered endlessly by the mainstream media, which, cliches aside, does not cater only to the business class. Has the Times or WP or NPR not made clear how trump policies will hurt the poor?
1
Thanks to Mr Stephens for bringing Corbyn's hatred into the open. The Conservatives in Britain haven't exactly been welcoming of Jews, either, though not nearly as vitriolic.
But Britain's system is parliamentary, so voters' choices are beyond either/or. There are more savory choices than Boris or Corbyn in other parties. These parties may not "win" but could easily be a necessary part of any future government that is formed, and thus have a real voice.
For the first time in my nearly 60 years, I wish that the US had a parliament rather than a congress.
17
@Steven Britain may have a parliamentary system, but each member of Parliament represents a single district/constituency, and it is almost impossible for the winner of a seat to belong to any party other than the two major ones. Thus, even if 10% of the people vote for, say, the Liberal Democrats, the Parliament will not consist of 10% Liberal Democrats, because the only Lib Dems will be the very few that have won (i.e. obtained a plurality, the largest number of votes) in their district. The situation would be different if members of Parliament were elected "at large", i.e. not from single districts.
13
@tsl
See Jenni Russell's column, dated 11 December, which actually appears above Stephen's column when I look at the NYT op-ed section on line. She hopes for a "hung" parliament, so that a coalition of parties would then be necessary.
2
@Steven
If only every election in the West resulted in a “hung parliament.” I wish our system was on such a European model.
I agree--with Anthony Julius in his response to Richard Evans. If that coincides with anything Bret Stephens says, even a stopped watch . . .
But whichever party wins, it's another marker for the political collapse of Great Britain, and its international irrelevance, led entirely by its elites. Putin is only their latest purchaser. Labour's reflexive, sentimental embrace of its red roots is matched by the Tories lining up at the trough of the oligarchs.
Robertson Davies once wrote that despite a personal affection for many Britons, his own roots were Welsh and German, and that he followed the political fortunes of the UK with a cold, Canadian eye. Like most Anglophiles, his affection was for a entity that existed in the past.
6
The anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is a serious problem and it has nauseated me for some time. What I take issue with, however, is the implication that prejudice in the British political system is only on the one side and that to also look at prejudice in the Conservative Party is “whataboutism”. It may be that Stephens regards Islamophobia as a lesser evil than anti-Semitism, but I regard them as equally iniquitous. Stephens makes the point that the anti-Semitism charges are coming from within Labour. Very true. But he might also be interested to see how Baroness Warsi, who is very much on the “inside” of the Conservative Party, having been it’s former chairperson, views the problem of Islamophobia in her own party. Stephens may also be unaware of how since the run up to and holding of the Brexit referendum, English nationalism of the narrowest kind has been played upon by the pro-Brexit side and that this has resulted in numerous documented incidents of racism. Johnson has stoked and used this prejudice in order to advance his own career. If he is successful in his electoral gamble then it is highly likely that in the furthering of Brexit, further prejudice will result, putting all of Britain’s minority communities in a higher state of risk. But as in an earlier July piece for this newspaper, Stephens exclaimed that he was “rooting” for Johnson, I can only conclude that prejudice in Britain that is not aimed at its Jewish citizens bothers him less than that which is.
150
@Peter Dore, Stephens may or may not be aware of Islamophobia among the Tories, but I doubt he'd care anyway. I'm not even convinced he actually cares about anti-Semitism, except as a useful tool for disparaging people who prioritize the welfare of the nation as a whole over people like Johnson and Trump.
Put another away, if Corbyn suddenly started raving about the wonders of free markets and privatizing the NHS, Stephens would forgive any and all of his sins.
1
I'm Jewish. I'm troubled by the reports of institutional anti-antisemitism within Labor. If I lived in the UK, however, I'd be voting Labor, anyway.
I've read enough about the personal accusations of Corbyn to have made up my mind they might reflect some unpleasant biases, but certainly nothing close to overt antisemitism. But I suspect those elements also have a foothold in the Tories, but guess they have more of a culture of omerta regarding them, if the parties mirror their Dem and GOP analogues.
Regardless, Johnson and the Tories are a much greater threat to the material interests of anyone not firmly entrenched in the top tier of the income distribution. If they win, the NHS in anything like the form it currently exists could well cease to do so. Emboldened by what they'll inevitably regard as a mandate to pass every component of their unpopular platform, they'll tear down the institutions that many citizens - some of whom will be voting Tory as expressions of their own frustration and fury - rely upon. Reigniting real working-class solidarity, there as here, will require proving to the disenchanted (and yes, often resentful and entitled) members of that class that worker-centered policies will indeed improve their lives as well as the lives of the marginalized others they might have their own prejudices against. I'm not excusing it, but suggesting making common cause with people you find distasteful can be worth the cost.
257
@Shirley0401 Precise and well said. Thank you for parsing core tenets from strategic imperatives. When the dust settles, there is much housekeeping to be done.
2
@Shirley0401
Your nuanced thoughtfulness is commendable. Kol Hakavod.
2
Charges of bias can be used by any politician or party to mislead, and distract from the important issues affecting people lives--and distract voters from their own negatives. That's what this is.
That's why Bret devotes a column to it.
And Bret, a vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee is a vote for white nationalism in the US yet you said that will do that because of worries about your own wallet (were the nominee Elizabeth Warren).
People make choices for one reason that sometimes offends their other sensibilities and points of view.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for Brexit. Were I in the UK I would hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
433
@JFR Agreed. And I would add that a vote for Johnson and the Conservatives is a vote for anti-Islam in a country where there are many more Muslims than Jews.
11
@JFR To be fair, that's only because Stephens values his misogyny over our democracy.
8
@JFR "Worries about your wallet." Yes, a lot us are worried of the economy tanking under the socialist policies of Bernie or Warren. You progressives are worried about inequality now, wait until the unemployment rate is 10%, and even more for black workers. Trump is crude but at least the economy will be better for blacks and minorities under him, and he is certainly doing better for Israel and Jewish people than we can expect under a Sanders administration (which has Linda Sarsour working for it, amazingly).
5
Thank you, Bret Stephens, for breaking the story that too many across the pond ignore: Corbyn is a vicious anti-Semite, and has been for years. Your analogy between Republicans/Trumpers, who forgive everything Agent Orange does because he's anti abortion and anti immigration, and the Labour Party, illustrates a sad day for England.
As Glenn Ribotsky just suggested, "Too bad the members of the British public will not vote en masse for the Liberal Democrats or Greens as a protest vote, which would not only shake up the two major parties but also the oligarchs who support them."
I visited ENG in 2010 & 2011, and loved the country, the people, and esp. their courtesy and good manners. To watch their election turn into an American cage fight is heart-breaking.
34
@Rocky Mtn girl
Neither you nor Mr Stephens offers any evidence beyond accusations by an MP, of this anti-Semitism. If it does exist, it seems to be a minority that needs reining in, but how does it make Corbyn guilty of same?
9
Anti-semitism is a growing problem in Britain and many other places, but is irrelevant to deciding the outcome of this election, will not be notably affected by that outcome, and is about as likely to continue under the disruptive misrule of Boris Trump Johnson as under the rickety policies of a Jeremy Sharpeton Corbyn government.
71
I would not want to vote for either of these politicians. Why can't the parties oust their leaders and select new ones? Another article in this paper suggests that they vote against both parties and form a coalition. That would be preferable in my opinion.
14
@Katherine Cagle I am sure the democrats/republicans in America would love that suggestion for American politics, right?
1
Most Labour politicians don't like Jermey Corbyn much and tried to oust him. It didn't work. The leader of the Labour party is chosen by party members, not just the elected politicians. Party members (many of them young) support Corbyn overwhelmingly. In him they see an anti-racist who is passionate about saving the NHS and ending austerity. They have chosen to ignore his soft stance on Brexit (which most of them don't want) and antisemitism cloaked in support of the Palestinians.
I don't like Corbyn much myself, but he is preferable to Boris Johnson who is a buffoon and will continue to enrich the wealthy and make destroy the social safety net. If I was British, my vote would depend a lot on my local MP.
1
@Katherine Cagle The tories just did in fact select a new one
Perhaps, but the alternative is worse. Hopefully, Labor will shed Corbyn and pick a Blair-like leader.
40
@Cynical
Blair politics is the reason not only for Corbyn but Brexit.
3
@Cynical
Sorry, it’s Blair (or Thatcher-lite) who’s largely responsible for the current mess.
2
@Cynical
Yes, just like the Blair who failed the British, failed to protect its economy against the rich, and sold out its working class in favor of international corporations.
See, Robert Kuttner's "Can Democracy Survive ..." Taking back control by the Conservatives only means giving control to your local oligarchs.
5
Too bad the members of the British public will not vote en masse for the Liberal Democrats or Greens as a protest vote, which would not only shake up the two major parties but also the oligarchs who support them.
But most people unfortunately can't see past their single issue mindset (Brexit) to assume a larger perspective. Of course, that makes them very much like voters here in the US (where the single issue determinants are generally either abortion or immigration).
37
@Glenn Ribotsky
They will not vote en masse for the LibDems but will engage in tactical voting to try to unseat the Tories. Look up tactical voting in The Guardian. There are even guides on which seats are important to vote Lib Dem in.
2
@Glenn Ribotsky So, are you arguing that one side or the other, or, both, should give up those aims?
@Glenn Ribotsky
While the result of this election remains to be seen, a large percentage of voters do see past Brexit. Corbyn may be an unpalatable figure in many ways and his budget numbers may not add up (neither do Johnson’s), but a fairer, kinder Britain is more likely as a result of Labour’s participation in government.
Perhaps Brett might care to look into the Conservative party’s blatant Islamophobia and overt racism, both of which are given a free pass in the press and the country at large.
2
“institutionally anti-Semitic.” This is a very useful concept, that a party can go from having members that hold some view, to that view being part of the essence of that party. In our own politics, the Republican Party, as it heads towards blessing Trump's behavior, is becoming institutionally Authoritarian.
189
@LewisPG Perhaps, you should ask the 100,000+ Japanese-Americans during WWII, or, the 3000+ deported communists/socialists in 1919. The will tell you about such things under a Democratic administration.
1
@Carlos R. Rivera - the party alignments have changed since 1919, Mr History Buff. The racists flipped to the Republican party in the civil rights era.
@LewisPG , Guess who spoke at Trump's Hanukkah party, Rev. Jeffress, good Christian, "Who Says Jews Are Going To Hell Speaks At Trump's Hanukkah Party" Huff Post. We can't make this stuff up. Trump is totally unfit to serve.
1