Conor

I am not an expert. But my impression is that the mainstream centre-left does remain solid on issues of anti-semitism and holocaust denial. I am not convinced that criticism of Israeli policy over Palestine has led to a greater tolerance of anti-semitism, except among fringe voices.

But I think I agree with you about the ‘new pragmatism’. It feels to me as though this is pretty strong across the centre-right, centre and centre-right. For example, I think many of the Conservative modernisers tend towards sympathy for liberal interventionism but tempered by a traditional pragmatic realism.

And I think most of the centre and liberal-left are now confused, going a bit ostrich-like, and slightly hoping the world will go away. I think there is a greater reluctance to talk about human rights and democracy, because of Bush and the neo-cons. In particular, the idea of democracy promotion as an important theme risks being lost, particularly the idea that there are non-military means of democracy promotion, as well as the willingness to trade-off or downplay human rights.

You may alreadyknow about a study a couple of years ago by the FRIDE think-tank, couthored by David Mathieson and Richard Youngs. They wrote to all of the European social democratic parties to ask what their policies were on democracy promotion. In many cases, the reply was mainly about positions against the Iraq war. When they noted that wasn’t the question, and asked again about policies on democracy promotion, there was not much there.

http://www.fride.org/publication/19/democracy-promotion-and-the-european-left-ambivalence-confused

“But my impression is that the mainstream centre-left does remain solid on issues of anti-semitism and holocaust denial. I am not convinced that criticism of Israeli policy over Palestine has led to a greater tolerance of anti-semitism, except among fringe voices.”

Very much ditto to that.

I worry that the original post – whilst in many ways very good – is sucumbing a little too much to Cohen-vision on the issues raised.

These people aren’t worth bothering with. Argue with a Tory – your odds of changing opinions are greater.

Conor uncritically quotes Toube writing

‘There is a section of the Left which has now come to the conclusion that threats of Jihad against British forces, and against Jews within and without Israel, is just ‘resistance’. ‘

When British and Israeli soldiers invade Muslim countries, Jihad is indeed resistance, and legally justified resistance too. Te Left has always opposed Imperialism and colonialism, especially our own. Liberals are another case altogether…

“Ian Kearns recently argued in favour of re-writing the International Development Assistance Act so that British development aid was no longer devoted to fighting poverty, but could be used for counter-insurgency purposes in places such as Afghanistan.”

Dominick Donald of Aegis Defence Services proposed something very similar in a RUSI paper a while back. You can guess who was going to be in charge of the cash in that scenario.

“When British and Israeli soldiers invade Muslim countries, Jihad is indeed resistance, and legally justified resistance too.”

Blowing up or otherwise killing local civilians too, is that resistance? That was the character of by far the vast majority of attacks in Iraq.

Toube’s blogs tend to be variations on the same theme: that there are sections of the Left which are unduly tolerant of anti-Semitism – and to some extent he’s right. It’s just that he tends to project this onto the entire left, where the SWP & Respect are held to be exemplors. His site has also been colonised by a lot of Right-wing nutjobs happy to jump on any issue they can use against the Left in general. Just look at the response that Peter Tatchell gets when he posts something sensible on Harry’s Place. Whatever sensible arguments Toube has are lost in the noise.

(While on that subject, wouldn’t Tatchell be more at home on LC?)

And notorture (4): if the ‘resistance’ spent half as much time ‘resisting’ as they do killing fellow Muslims you wouldn’t look such a prick.

Jihad is indeed resistance, and legally justified resistance too.

Hmmm – the legal order that vindicates the notion that killing non-combatant infidels is a sacred duty – what would that be then? I’d prefer an up to date example – rather than from the Middle Ages, the era from which you’re clearly drawing your inspiration.

There’s two issues here that are also worth raising:

first, who are the ‘sections of the british left’ these guys refer to, and are David and Nick cohen still fighting the SWP crew but trying to tar everyone else with association?

second – there’s no acceptance that their own projects and plans ended up so badly – especially in Iraq. which leads me somewhat to believe that this renewed counter-attack, after sunder and i took on nick cohen, is simply an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the invasion they supported and cheered on has made us all more unsafe and killed hundreds of thousands of ppl in Iraq. We should have always focused on securing and building Afghanistan.

I think the argument that David T makes about engaging Islamists is also flawed and I’ll explain why next week… just got too much on.

I’ve seen comments on Harry’s Place from overseas posters who can, perhaps, be forgiven for thinking that George Galloway is a significant figure in British politics due to the attention given to him, rather than the contemptable buffoon the British see him as.

And ouside the university campus the SWP are so insignificant I doubt most people know they exist.

the bottom line is this. As far as the IPPR is concerned, it looks as if Shiraz and Nick were right.

I’m still far from convinced, not least because in his piece Maher is actually even-handed about the IPPR (differing from his first position as recounted by Nick Cohen, but hey, apparently it’s ok for people Decents like to have fluctuating opinions, while those who they dislike are castigated for comments made about 25 years ago).

the problem iwhich toube still doesn’t address s that Cohen wrote the following:

“They never want to talk to people like me,” he said. When I asked Shiraz Maher, the co-author of the Policy Exchange report, why he had not offered his work to the leftish Fabians or Institute for Public Policy Research, he guffawed. They would never print what he wrote. For this Muslin liberal, the left was no longer a home but an obstacle.

This report of someone else’s opinions wouldn’t be so bad if Cohen didn’t later admit to agreeing completely with Maher. Who, it turns out, didn’t even bother to contact the Fabians who he views with ‘contempt’ – and neither did Cohen, who resorted to slurs and a rather unconvincing copy and paste from (guess where) Harry’s Place to ‘rest his case’.

Ultimately though Toube’s article is just the usual Harry’s Place recourse into tedious mudslinging, with no real evidence given for the following:

What worries me is this. There is a section of the Left which has now come to the conclusion that threats of Jihad against British forces, and against Jews within and without Israel, is just ‘resistance’. . . . .

I’m happy enough that Conor agrees with that claim, he’s entitled to his opinion, but as Cohen’s piece which actually names names shows, claims like that fall apart when you actually try to pin them on, well, anyone who’s in the centre left (especially on that ‘Jews outside Israel’ bit). It doesn’t even really apply to the apparently controversial IPPR report, no matter how much Toube might witter on about Istanbul.

and again Toube tries to claim that people are trying to silence Cohen. they’re not – they’re asking for actual evidence for his ranting against the entire British left, and as usual Cohen has been found wanting. His internet friends can be relied on, as usual, to try to muddy the waters in a vain attempt to protect the reputation of his increasingly shoddy journalism.

Conor,

You said this, (semi-attributing the idea if not the actualité), to David T:

‘OK, we fucked up big time with all these interventions, so how do we get out of this mess’.

I doubt David T does quite sees it that way.

Yet…

If he does change his mind, perhaps he could burn every copy of the Euston Manifesto on Parliament Square? Just as a gesture of contrition like?

I should add that I’ve admired a lot of the things you’ve written Conor but you really need to provide justification for your claims about the left. too much of this piece is concerned with things that ‘seem like’ other things, with no evidence provided – too many claims where a few columnists end up representing something endemic.

The principles of putting human rights at the heart of British foreign policy, development assistance to help the poorest of the poor and creating strong and effective international justice mechanisms are being quietly jettisoned or forgotten.

I’m not sure how united you actually are with Mr Toube on this. The Iraq war was only sold as about human rights in retrospect, ditto Afghanistan; there’s no clear sense that the pro-war left, let alone the wider pro-war public viewed Afghan human rights as especially important when that conflict started. Toube is a consistent critic of international justice mechanisms and on international aid seems to side with those who think africa should stop being corrupt before we do anything more. He’s also hosted posts on his website which claim that Zimbabwe should be invaded as soon as possible.

i think that this pragmatist/idealist divide is not all that helpful. Especially not if you consider Toube, who is all too evidently happy to be partisan and pragmatic when it suits him, an example of what an idealist should look like.

My argument is that while the centre-left/ democratic left is generally ‘solid’ on the issues of overt antisemitism and holocaust denial, it would be wrong to deny the growing influence of the ‘contextualisers’ and ‘pragmatists’ when it comes to general issues of human rights – including an absolute and total opposition to racism in all its manifestations. I think that the centre-left has ‘softened’ a bit on this issue in recent years.

The so-called ‘decent’ left labour under three disadvantages.
1. They were brought together over the issue of Iraq; in that while not all supported the invasion they agreed on how much they opposed the people who they identified as opposing it
2. They launched themselves with a manifesto calling for a reform of international law and more ‘humanitarian interventions’ but don’t seem to have really understood anything much about the debates that have been going on for years on both issues
3. They also seem partly motivated by a War On Our Regretted Leftist Youth in which many project the various daft opinions that they used to hold onto everyone else – (and many have retained the same ranty figger-jabbing style of arguing that they learnt in their previous Trot incarnations).

For all three reasons, it is very easy to dismiss the one point that they are making which has some validity – and so I think we need to ignore the messenger and think a bit harder about the message.

Hello,

I’m conducting feminist research on how American foreign policy affects popular support for terrorism. I’m particularly interested in incorporating the views of women, non-whites, and people living outside of America and Western Europe, but all responses are invited and welcome. The survey can be accessed at

http://www.johnmaszka.com/SURVEY.html

I would really value your opinion and the opinion of your readers.

Thank you,

John Maszka

Does nobody pay attention? There was a time and a place for engaging in rational debate with David T. and his friends, and that time was roughly the first three months of 2003.

I’m completely baffled as to why any sane human being would attempt to discuss this issue with a proven bullshit-artist and liar. Honestly, it’s like watching a panda trying to fuck a shark.

Lots of people have made many attempts to tackle the Decent Left rationally and to persuade through debate and argument, with entirely predictable results. It doesn’t matter what issue they’re talking about, even on the vanishingly small number of occasions when they stumble across a pertinent point – propagandists are never, ever interested in an honest debate or in any solution other than the one they’ve demanded from the outset.

The appropriate response to any fresh rhetorical ploy by anyone connected with Harry’s Place is

1) The finger, followed by
2) Their latest manifesto hitting them in the back of the head as they walk out the door, to jeers of public derision.

I am with Conor @14. It would be good to have a debate about liberal and democratic and human rights principles in foreign policy, rather than a debate about Harry’s Place or the Euston manifesto, and I think it has become more difficult to do so if the response is simply a critique of either a neo-con position or a liberal hawk position without working out what an alternative pro-democracy and human rights advocacy agenda is.

The pragmatic/contextualiser worry is a good and important one. And Conor – given his highly practically engaged history; and when he is not David Toube or Nick Cohen, and indeed a long time critic of liberal hawk/interventionists – is well placed to open this up.

Of course, pragmatic and prudential calculations have an important part in foreign policy making. But there is a risk that they become a foreign policy, not least because that is probably the dominant strand of thinking about foreign policy for 300 years, and the idea of human rights as significant in international politics is much more sixty, perhaps 20-30 years old, and its value and importance is still much contested. Many see it as irrelevant, or icing on the cake (nice if you can have it) and it is quite important that we continue to build active civic society pressure to argue and test that it is integral. (And I suppose part of Conor’s argument is that civic society groups themselves could be ambivalent about it).

Partly, it is possible to articulate hard-headed realist points (what is Darfur to do with our national interests?). Partly, there are sensible arguments to be had about strategy and complexity. But many on the right (take Simon Jenkins as an obvious case) are always ready to drop back into a version of abroad is a funny place, and a long way away, and don’t try to act on your principles.

And that was, broadly, UK policy towards former Yugoslavia and Bosnia. And on that critique of Douglas Hurd, Nick Cohen (drawing on Brendan Simms particularly) was, in my view, right. It is right that the liberal-left is also aware that there are complexities, unintended consequences, etc – but the problem is if that becomes a reason why value-based approaches are not possible, rather than a challenge in applying and pursuing values effectively.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that this has been so overwhelmingly a discussion about military intervention. Now, that is legitimately one part of this debate once we get into extreme cases of genocide, etc. But not the whole thing. (Partly too this is bound to be one the pragmatists win – not least on commitment and overstretch of resources. Others may think that is a good thing when it comes to miltiary intervention. Others may worry about the lack of capacity and will for a new Rwanda).

But we could get somewhere if we realised it is not all of it, and should probably not be central in the way that it has been. And as Conor reports, there may now be an ambivalence about principles of democracy and human rights in development, reconstruction and other areas. If these have been tarnished by the neo-con application of them, how can they be rescued and recast?

I also wonder if there is a risk of being a bit too gloomy. The Guardian report on women’s rights in Afghanistan seemed to generate a robust response from the US and UK governments, and the Karzai government seemed to recognise it would have to respond. But I expect Conor may be much better informed about that. And the issue of what happens when there is not front-page salience

I’m conducting feminist research on how American foreign policy affects popular support for terrorism

How does that differ from normal research?

I do hope we’re not paying for this.

a proven bullshit-artist and liar

ie you disagree with him

Interesting article Conor. I think there are two points that come out of the piece which are worth developing.

The first is the notion of a growing anti-semitism on the left. While it is indeed very difficult to pin down concrete examples of documents or speeches that prove such a phenomenon, there is enough of a weight of evidence to suggest the British left shouldn’t become complacent regarding its own anti-racism credentials. One only has to read the comments that follow a CiF article on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict to obtain evidence that there are individuals who use the situation to express views that stray beyond the boundaries of open political debate. Although it cannot be proven that these contributors associate themselves with the left, there are indications that many would not feel out of place. Without a doubt there are a minority that hold anti-semitic views, but I would argue it is not insignificant minority nor harmless. As a left leaning British Jew, my own feelings are coloured by the ‘Stop the War’ march of 2003. There were large banners exclaiming ‘Victory to the Intafada’, placards lionizing Arafat and an atmosphere in which I would have felt very uncomfortable revealing my Jewish identity. For a march explicitly aimed at halting the Iraq war this was very unsettling. One only has to look at the pages of the relatively liberal Jewish Chronicle to see that the Jewish community in Britain feels itself to be vulnerable and is on high alert. Therefore, while it is quite wrong that the left as a whole be tarred with the same brush, it is necessary to stand up to those that do express abhorrent views and show just how clearly they should be distinguished from the decent majority.

The second issue is the role human rights have to play in British foreign policy and intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with Conor that we must keep alive the notion of universal human rights. I would argue, however, that a certain amount of pragmatism is necessary. It has been proven time and again that basing interventions around the immediate implementation of human rights, regardless of the culture and practices of the context, often leads to greater hardship. Having an agenda to empower populations with the freedoms we enjoy in the West is nothing to be ashamed of, but supranational institutions and national governments must get away from the desire to have an instant transformational impact and change the norms of an alien culture overnight. Defending human rights is a noble cause but we have to remember in whose name we are doing it. The recent decision by the ICC to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir of Sudan is a case in point. The move has hindered the humanitarian effort that was protecting and keeping hundreds of thousands of people alive and left them at the mercy of the very man they are prosecuting. I don’t think there is such thing as foreign policy and intervention without pragmatism; the hardships of a situation don’t simply just disappear, but such pragmatism need not mean the sacrifice of the human rights agenda.

Flying Rodent: My experiences have matched yours (including an amazing email exchange in which one of the editors of the site told me that I should have not been upset by one of their commenters expressing the hope that I be attacked in Afghanistan the night before I went there because apparently it is not a very dangerous place for aid workers).

But my worry is that the complete obnoxiousness of so many of the messengers is obscuring a serious message. If you take the ‘contextualisers’ and the ‘pragmatists’ together I am not so sure that they are a completely irrelevant group. There is a serious debate to be had about how to handle Iran, given that its influence on both Iraq and Afghanistan is potentially massive – yet it is led by a holocaust-denying nutter. Similarly, there is a real terrorist threat in Britain, and so perhaps there are arguments for ‘working with extremists’ to neutralise them, yet many of these are overtly antisemitic – even if they don’t openly advocate violence.

Getting to the debate on both issues requires a general lowering of the temperature – and a bit more calmness and rationality – all of which seem to be noticeably absent at the moment.

“Getting to the debate on both issues requires a general lowering of the temperature – and a bit more calmness and rationality – all of which seem to be noticeably absent at the moment.”

Which doesn’t always happen on open blogs like this one and others like HP unfortunately due to the very nature of the medium (unless you bring in registration – but even then look at Cif). The answer is to try to keep your temper and blood pressure down as much as possible.

“I also think that anti-Semitism and holocaust denial – along with all other forms of racism – should be opposed wherever they rear their ugly heads. I think that most of what I would regard as ‘my section of the left’ would agree with those sentiments, but I don’t think that the ‘contextualisers’ and ‘pragmatists’ are confined to the nutty fringes any more.”

Well I’m glad you’re saying that, thanks for facing up to what some of us have been saying for a long time.

Here is the leadership of STWC

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/20/52/

“President
Tony Benn

Officers

Chair: Andrew Murray (Unite – T&G section)
Convenor: Lindsey German
Treasurer (acting): Robin Beste
Steve Bell (Communication Workers Union)
Andrew Burgin
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Noreen Fatima (StWC Muslim Network)
Kate Hudson (CND)
Sabah Jawad (Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation)
Chris Nineham
Trevor Phillips (University and Colleges Union)
John Rees (SWP)
Jane Shallice
Carol Turner

National Members Of the Steering Committee

Jim Brann
David Crouch (Media Workers Against the War)
Fred Leplat
Explo Nani Kofi
Ismael Patel (Friends of al Aqsa)
Ghada Razuki
Bernard Regan
Ken Smith (Socialist Party)
Peter Tobin (South Asia Solidarity Forum)
David Wilson
Walter Wolfgang (Labour CND)

In addition to the organisations indicated above, the following are represented on the Steering Committee: British Muslim Initiative, CAMPACC, Communist Party of Britain, DAYMER, FEDBIR, Friendship Across Frontiers, GMB, Globalise Resistance, Green Party, International Socialist Resistance, Iraq Occupation Focus, Labour Against the War, Muslim Association of Britain, National Union of Journalists, National Union of Students, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, PCS union, Respect, RMT, Transport Salaried Staffs Association, Unison

Vice Presidents of the Coalition
George Galloway MP
Alice Mahon
Tam Dalyell
Tariq Ali
Caroline Lucas MEP
Keith Sonnet (Unison)
Louise Christian
Katie Clark MP ”

A lot of these people are very high profile and to the general public would definitely be defined as “Left Wing”. However Lindsay German and a number of the others are in the SWP and George Galloway was recently proudly depicted giving money to Hamas.

How many of those people and organisations are you happy to have on “your section of the Left” ?

And with others like Galloway who sympathise openly with vicious anti-Semites what should “your section of the Left” do to isolate them and their ideas ?

Well that sounds like a fair round-up of what is usually described as the ‘hard left’, which is a quite different beast from the ‘centre-left’. Are you saying that the ‘centre-left’ should be seeking to wrest control of the StWC away from the ‘hard-left’ (a sort of reverse entryism)? Surely that would be a complete waste of time and energy.

The hard-left organised some demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – one of which was very big. The parliamentary opposition was led by ‘soft-left’ people such as the Liberal Democcrats and Robin Cook. Internationally the opposition came from a range of countries – including France, Germany, Russia and China, but also the governments of Chile and Mexico – which is why the US/UK block could not get a UN Security Resolution for it.

I think the ‘soft left’ of the Parliamentary Labour Party was very weak in its opposition to the invasion and I would have liked them to have been stronger. I think that a significant section of that ‘soft-left’ have also been completely disorientated by the invasion’s aftermath. Some bought the Neo-Con arguments wholesale. Some have moved into the camps of either the ‘contextualisers’ or the ‘pragmatists’. I think that there is still some space for people who genuinely care about human rights and internationalism – but that space is smaller than it was a few years ago.

The point is that you have got to address the actual arguments that are taking place over the real issues that our section of the left is grappling with – rather than just pointing at the most extreme parts of the hard left and saying ‘see them, that’s you that is’.

Galloway and his henchmen are not left-wing, they are shameful and unprincipled filth who will ally with any reactionary who can bring them closer to power.

They single out the state of Israel, which does indeed have its problems (I for one am a supporter of a two-state solution) but have nothing to say about the oppression of Muslims which occurs in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or any other country where the repulsive theocrats hold sway.

I am very glad to say no to antisemitism and no to fuckers of this variety.

But the “hard Left” to most people IS the non Labour Left in this country and its activities like STW marches are portrayed in the media as a Left alternative to Labour. Also the (fairly mainstream (??)) Green Party is associated with STW – see Caroline Lucas on the list above.

What should happen as a start IMO is that all centre Left people should disassociate themselves entirely from all SWP and Respect linked activities. That would mean eg refusing to go on the anti-Israel Gaza rally disgrace that happened in January. Another measure could be that the Labout Party bans its members from joining any SWP fronts.

BTW David T has linked to this article at Harry’s Place :

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/04/22/conor-foley-on-antisemitism-and-the-left/#comments

I think I will follow this piece up with why we should support a two state solution for Israel/Palestine. My guess is that it will be a completely non-contentious argument on this website, but it is worth going through the arguments again every now and then.

Conor,

You make some good points but I have to call you up on two things.

1) You say that:

“While no one is quite suggesting that parts of British foreign policy should be dictated by certain domestic constituencies – as sometimes seems to be the case in the United States – you can sense some sentiment of this not far beneath the surface.”

Now correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds dangerously close to “the Jews are dictating US foreign policy” idea that is widely held in extremist conspiratorial circles. Like I say, do tell me if I am misreading this, but I think you need to clarify what you mean here.

2) You claim that Iraq was a ‘f**k up’, and yet in your final para you say that you support a foreign policy that “seeks to build an international rules-based system, based on human rights”. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but surely you would agree that the Iraqi’s, now having taken part in two free and open democratic elections, are now part of an international rules-based system that is in fact based on their human rights. This is something that they would never have been a part of had it not been for this ‘f**k up’.

all centre Left people should disassociate themselves entirely from all SWP and Respect linked activities. That would mean eg refusing to go on the anti-Israel Gaza rally disgrace that happened in January.

what an utterly ridiculous idea. as usual what we get from harry’s place regulars like MMN is divisiveness, attempts of exclusion, shutting down debate, attempts to portray the tiny minority of hard leftists in the SWP as somehow the mainstream anti-war left in britain. just because some SWP members are in the STWC doesn’t mean that the STWC is invalidated per se.

if we’re going to go down the road of ‘nasty people who happen to agree with you render your arguments worthless’ then we’d never get anywhere, and harry’s place would be just as damned as the stwc is in some people’s eyes. surely this kind of tedious nonsense is part of conor’s point – that HP/STWC might be wrong on lots of things but that doesn’t make them wrong on everything.

parts of British foreign policy should be dictated by certain domestic constituencies – as sometimes seems to be the case in the United States

as opposed to some sort of Jewish lizard conspiracy, this could more easily refer to Cuba, where a tiny minority of the US population which happens to reside predominantly in a swing state has managed to dictate a totally incomprehensible policy for the last 4o or so years that is only starting to change now.

cheese,

dont be so quick to excuse the foreign policy comment – after all, he was referring in the previous sentence to the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and these are the actions which many people, including the islamists and the BNP, claim were carried out under the express orders of the ‘Jewish Lobby’.

Conor, I really think you need to clarify yourself here, and urgently.

Alex: I was thinking about a number of foreign policy stances that the US takes. The one that annoys me most is the position they take on world trade, which is largely dictated by the timing of the US primaries and the need for all the candidates to sign themselves up to support the obscene farm subsidies that do so much damage to countries such as Africa.

I was also thinking about the fact that the US is a nation of immigrants in which there are a number of well-organised lobby groups who have successfully sought to influence US foreign policy. This would certainly include AIPAC and also the Miami Cubans and probably a few other groups as well. The specific decision I had been thinking of was about the Armenian genocide. We can argue the rights and wrongs of that decision on its own merits, but I think it is self-evidently true that domestic constituencies do exert an influence on US politics and that this type of lobbying is more engrained into the American political culture than it is in Britain’s.

Why I was thinking about it is that immigration to Britain and the increasing number of British-born children of immigrants will probably have an impact on its politics in years to come. The first two large waves of immigration to Britain were Jewish and Irish people and we are both now well-established groups. What will be the political impact of more recent waves and how will political ‘pragmatists’ adapt to this? I had been thinking about the Rushdie controversy and some more recent issues like the Danish cartoons.

The second point – yes there have been democratic elections in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the violence is certainly down from its peak in the former place (although still increasing in the latter), but I think if you asked the majority of people anywhere ‘would you describe the invasion of Iraq as a success or failure of US/UK foreign policy?’ the answer that would come back would be pretty overwhelming.

all centre Left people should disassociate themselves entirely from all SWP and Respect linked activitie

Oooh, a Call To Disassociate. That’ll be fun. Where will it end, do you think? I predict “nowhere and never”.

Meanwhile back in fresh air:

an absolute and total opposition to racism in all its manifestations

The trouble with phrases like this is – what do they mean? What do they mean in theory, and what do they mean in practice?

“Alex: I was thinking about a number of foreign policy stances that the US takes. The one that annoys me most is the position they take on world trade, which is largely dictated by the timing of the US primaries and the need for all the candidates to sign themselves up to support the obscene farm subsidies that do so much damage to countries such as Africa.”

But isn’t that only not the case with Britain because we happen to have contracted out that part of our Foreign policy to the EU. Not that it doesn’t have that effect anyway. I remember attending a Question Time with Gordon Brown a few years ago with a special focus on trade with the third world. The presence of an NFU official on the panel emphasised how Brown would never commit to supporting a major reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Conor, I really think you need to clarify yourself here, and urgently.”

Absolutely. I hope Conor wasn’t referring to the recent allegations about Ted Kennedy influencing the peace process, for example. Any suggestion that there’s an Irish lobby in the United States would be blatant anti-Irish racism.

with others like Galloway who sympathise openly with vicious anti-Semite

Do we have any evidence of Gorgeous actually saying anything, ah, “openly” anti-Semitic?

This is what gets me about this sort of argument, and for that matter this style of argument. Apparently anti-Semitism is rife on the Left, or it may be the Hard Left or the Far Left or whatever (depending on how generous the writer thinks they’re being). But if it were, you think there would be people actually coming out with it, “openly” if you like. They’d have plenty of confidence what with their voice being ever louder and the people speaking out against them a poor embattled minority represented only by Ratbiter and Harry’s Place.

But then when you ask where it is, it ain’t there. It’s all who people are associating with or it’s anti-Semitic tropes or it’s criticising Israel without simultaneously calling for a boycott of China. It’s always something which is not actually the things it’s being compared to.

Which perhaps goes some way, but not all the way, to explain the loathsome denunciatory way in which it’s so often put. Good arguments don’t need to be put so appallingly.

Conor,

“I think if you asked the majority of people anywhere ‘would you describe the invasion of Iraq as a success or failure of US/UK foreign policy?”

I am not convinced by the strength of this argument – the fact that a lot of people say something doesn’t mean its true. As far as Iraq goes, a lot of Iraqis, and especially the Kurds, will in fact agree that the US intervention was a success – I’m not putting words in people’s mouths, I have been both to Iraq and the Kurdish controlled KRG region post liberation.

On Afghanistan, a NATO project, not just a US-UK-Zionist axis, again I am sure you cant argue against the removal of Mullah Omar and his safe haven for Osama bin Laden. The post Taliban period is not working well, but that doesnt mean the policy was a failure – the operational capability of AQ has been hugely reduced and they are hiding in mountains most of the time.

Interesting that you mention the Rushdie affair, what is your view on this, do you agree with your fellow blogger Sunny Hundal who argues that it helped improve race relations and “One day we will look back and admit that we are better for it. “? – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5720319.ece

“attempts to portray the tiny minority of hard leftists in the SWP as somehow the mainstream anti-war left in britain. just because some SWP members are in the STWC doesn’t mean that the STWC is invalidated per se.”

Are you really unaware that STWC is an SWP front organisation ? Read this :

“At the SWP conference on 10-11 January, Lindsey German, Chris Nineham, and John Rees resigned from the Central Committee (Rees jumping before he was pushed, since the outgoing CC had already proposed his removal).

This means that for the first time ever the SWP has “kings over the water” – a dissident alternative leadership-in-waiting – within the organisation.

The issues between those who resigned and the CC majority around Martin Smith and Alex Callinicos arose mostly from the Respect debacle. The Smith-Callinicos group accuses Rees of freelancing. The Rees-German-Nineham group accuses the Smith-Callinicos group of “revisionism” and “retreating” from the SWP’s method in recent years of “charging forward” into successive “united fronts” (in fact, small SWP-controlled popular-front-type efforts).

The situation must remain tense, since German and Nineham run the Stop The War Coalition, the SWP’s major current “united front”, day-to-day. As we’ve seen over Gaza, the approach of the “popular front” (with Islamic chauvinists and clerical fascists) is still going strong there despite the Respect experience. ”

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2009/01/18/rees-german-and-nineham-resign-swp-central-committee

If you want to have anything to do with STWC its up to you but you should realise what you’re dealing with.

ejh – I was referring to GG’s recent antics in Gaza – see this clip :

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/30/interpal-and-the-convoy/

There he is going on about how proud he is to give money to Hamas and daring the UK govt to arrest him.

Do you also need evidence that Hamas are anti-semitic ? If you do, have a look at their charter :

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

an HP regular resorting to copy and pastes to ignore the points he’s (and it’s always a he) responding to? hmm, never seen that one before.

as i said, going on a march orgainsed by the STWC doesn’t mean that i support the SWP, it means i support the stated aims of the march. unless it’s specifically a pro-SWP march i don’t really see the problem. If we were forced to agree with evrything that everyone else on a march we were on believed before we marched, we’d never go on any marches at all. maybe you’d be happy with that, but i wouldn’t.

as i said, with a bit of expansion:

if we’re going to go down the road of ‘nasty people who happen to agree with you on something uncontroversial render all your arguments worthless’ then we’d never get anywhere, and harry’s place would be just as damned as the stwc is in some people’s eyes. surely this kind of tedious nonsense is part of conor’s point – that HP/STWC might be wrong on lots of things but that doesn’t make them wrong on everything.

“an HP regular resorting to copy and pastes to ignore the points he’s (and it’s always a he) responding to? hmm, never seen that one before.”

What is it with some of you here ? Talk about “playing the man”……..

Ha Ha

Touche Tom!

I was thinking of mentioning Ireland (and in my youth I was a lobbyist on Irish issues who did argue that Labour’s policy of unity by consent could help it to solidify its support amongst Irish voters in Britain) although I think the US intervention during the Northern Ireland peace process was actually fairly even-handed and it is interesting that Unionists always go to Washington for Saint Patrick’s Day as well.

Alex:

on the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan – absolutely. On Iraqi opinion – well if you trust opinion polls, they have been fairly consistent in showing that the majority of Iraqis want to see the wiithdrawal of all foreign forces (by roughly the same margin that Afghans want them to stay). I agree that will be different in some places. I was in Iraqi Kurdistan many years ago (before the invasion) and of course they suported the invasion – so would I if I had been an Iraqi Kurd. I turned down a job working for the UN Iraq and several of my former colleagues were killed in the Baghdad bombing of August 2003. It would take a book to say what I think went right and wrong in both places and how that fits into the wider debate about human rights and humanitarian interventions. But if you are anywher near Hay next month:

http://www.hayfestival.com/p-935-hala-jaber-zena-el-khalil-and-conor-foley-talk-to-adam-boulton.aspx

if you’re going to ignore all of my main points and just copy and paste stuff from other websites, going off on a tangent while avoiding any difficult questions, I fail to see why i should bother with civility. this approach to debate is typical of HP regulars.

“but I think if you asked the majority of people anywhere ‘would you describe the invasion of Iraq as a success or failure of US/UK foreign policy?’ the answer that would come back would be pretty overwhelming.”

But if you ask the question in Iraq the answer, as I recall, is not overwhelming, it is divided.

OK cheeseboard :

“if we’re going to go down the road of ‘nasty people who happen to agree with you on something uncontroversial render all your arguments worthless’ then we’d never get anywhere, and harry’s place would be just as damned as the stwc is in some people’s eyes. surely this kind of tedious nonsense is part of conor’s point – that HP/STWC might be wrong on lots of things but that doesn’t make them wrong on everything.”

Well I think the STWC/SWP/Respect/GG lot have got it so wrong on the issue of allying with Islamists and supporting Hamas and Hezbollah that they should not be offered any shelter within Left Wing circles at all.

There is a point when your previous allies just get it so wrong you really have to make a break.

MMN,

“Another measure could be that the Labout Party bans its members from joining any SWP fronts.”

I propose that we extend this iron-fist blacklist.

Did you know that Labour’s Tony Blair supported a tyrant who boils political dissidents alive? Why, and here he is saying that forced amputation in Saudi Arabia is “their culture“. Ooh, and here’s Kim Howells MP, grinning along with Colombia’s murderous High Mountains Battalion. Ach, no, great flaming Jesus! Here’s Blair, that unctuous slimeball, with that torturing, ruinous leader of…hmm…well, I forget the name.

Surely, comrade (can I call you comrade?), you’ll join me in condemning these unprincipled swine?

…

;o)

I’m not saying that there aren’t valid criticisms to be made of nominally left-wing figures, MMN, but considering the above (as well as the other events of the past eight years) don’t you think that, if we or anyone were to launch a campaign of any particular vehemence against them, it would be a case of muddled priorities?

Alex,

“This is something that they would never have been a part of had it not been for this ‘f**k up’.”

On the other hand, 2 million people would still be living in Iraq, 2.7 million people would still have homes and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive. That’s without mentioning the lack of resources, the horrendous persecution of women and gays, the ghettoisation of cities or the tenuous balance of (relative) peace.

John,

But if you ask the question in Iraq the answer, as I recall, is not overwhelming, it is divided.

Remember to factor in the 2.5* – 3.2 million that haven’t had the chance to vote. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that people who’ve fled, or died, aren’t too hot on the whole invasion thing.

[*] Ish. I know absolutely nothing about statistics, but I hope you’ll agree that, however many hundreds of thousands have died, the numbers are horrifying.

Balls. This picture should have accompanied the “here’s Blair, that etc. etc.” sentence…

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/69f9/Blair_Bush12).jpg

Any lovely mods fancy tidying it up?

*Does puppy eyes.*

“Remember to factor in the 2.5* – 3.2 million that haven’t had the chance to vote. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that people who’ve fled, or died, aren’t too hot on the whole invasion thing.”

I don’t think it is safe to assume anything of these people (even if we accepted your odd figure). Just as we don’t know how the thousands who were murdered by Saddam would have voted.

I’m not sure I buy the distinction between the hard left and the centre left on these issues, and I think there is a danger of complacency in this regard. The ideas that Israel/Zionists/Jews control American foreign policy in the Middle East (not just in regard to Israel), and that British foreign policy is subject to similar influence, are not too difficult to find in the Guardian (particularly CiF) and Independent. Similarly the ideas that Israel/Zionism is a fundamentally evil enterprise beyond compare in the current world; and, most sinister of all, that you can divide Jews into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ depending on whether they publicly recant their connection to Israel. Certainly once you look at the comment threads on CiF, or the Independent or New Statesman, you get really vile, open antisemitism.

Antisemitic ideas are increasingly found in mainstream discussions about anything relating to Jews, partly because these discussions increasingly take place on the internet, and partly because there is so much ignorance of the history of antisemitic ideas, beyond those stamped with a swastika. In particular, I think many people fail to recognise antisemitic ideas when they are expressed in the context of discussions about Israel. So I think that unless you intend applying a very narrow definition of the centre-left, then you shouldn’t be so sure that antisemitic ideas are not becoming more widely accepted, or excused as simply a natural and temporary consquence of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and not actual bigotry.

The issue of the ‘pragmatists’ approach to counter-terrorism is somewhat separate, and this is where the full meaning of the Istanbul Declaration has not yet been fully absorbed by too many people. The Muslim Council of Britain, and Mohammed Sawalha’s group who were given Finsbury Park Mosque, are perfect examples of the pragmatist policy: working with Islamists who may hold reactionary social views, but who can be trusted to stand firm against violence. Except that Daud Abdullah and Mohammed Sawalha signed the Istanbul Declaration, which clearly supported violence against a whole range of targets, including, potentially, British citizens in the UK and British forces abroad. In fact the idea that such people were suitable allies against terrorism was not a pragmatic policy, but a complete fantasy, because there was plenty of evidence that Daud Abdullah and Mohammed Sawalha always did support violence, in certain places and contexts. All that was needed was for conditions to change, for them to also support violence against Britain. So where does this leave the pragmatist’s policy? From what I can see, the response has largely been to either ignore the Istanbul Declaration, or insist that it does not say what it clearly says. Again, not very pragmatic at all.

“Well I think the STWC/SWP/Respect/GG lot have got it so wrong on the issue of allying with Islamists and supporting Hamas and Hezbollah that they should not be offered any shelter within Left Wing circles at all.”

I agree with this and I think it is somethiong that a lot of peipkle on the centre left seem very reluctant to accept. There are too many nominal centre leftists who would never share a platform with the BNP but who are happy or at least willing to share one with organisations that explicitly support Hamas and Hezbollah. I don’t understand that. The only explanation I can find (the only kind one, at least) is that they do not take antisemitic racism serisously. Do we really consider elected New Labour MPs like Jeremy Corbyn to be the ‘extreme left’? What about Clare Short? Is she ‘extreme left’ too? She didn’t use to be.

Likewise, the Royal Court have decided to stage an antisemitic propoganda piece and there has been hardly any outcry from the centre left. It is difficult to imagine the Royal Court deciding to stage a piece of drama that claimed that any other ethnic group than the Jews were intrinsically blood simple but even harder to imagine that it would not have been a huge scandal if they did.

“I’m not sure I buy the distinction between the hard left and the centre left on these issues”

They are certainly slippery categories and there is a tendency towards the ‘no true Scotsman’ style of argumentation with commentators defining as ‘hard left’ every example of left wing tolerance for antisemitism that is put forward. Jeremy Corbyn may be to the left of New Labour, but New Labour is not all that left to start with.

The ideas that Israel/Zionists/Jews control American foreign policy in the Middle East (not just in regard to Israel), and that British foreign policy is subject to similar influence, are not too difficult to find in the Guardian (particularly CiF) and Independent.

Would you like to find some for us?

I think MoreMediaNonsense is right that the Decent Left attacks on the SWP and the MAB etc. are driven by their role in the Stop the War Coalition. Their reaction to the demonstrations against the Iraq War emerges very clearly from the conference of the Sopcial Democrats USA in May 2003:

” Robert Leiken: A central question for our next panel might be summarized this way: what role did the European left play in encouraging the strident attacks on the United States that have been mounted in Europe and elsewhere over the past year or so?”

“A second issue might this: In the years following World War II, when Stalin’s army was in Eastern Europe and Stalinist parties seemed on the verge of coming to power in Western Europe, American and European intellectuals and sections of the labor movement rallied to found such institutions as the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine. Is such a grouping conceivable today?”
http://tinyurl.com/dkllh7

On Stonor Saunders account, in Who Paid the Piper? the role of the CCF was described as: “to engage in a widespread and cohesive campaign of peer pressure to persuade intellectuals to dissociate themselves from Communist fronts or fellow travelling organisations. It was to encourage the intelligentsia to develop theories and arguments which were directed not at a mass audience, but at that small elite of pressure groups and statesmen who in turn developed government policy.”

This is why the Decents are so interested in the SWP and MAB. Their numerical strength is secondary to the organisational role in the antiwar movement.

maybe this is so much ancient history, but I do think that any honest appraisal of democracy promotion, has to account for the fact that it has consistently been a talisman for various groups running hawkish propaganda at democratic publics ever since the late 1940s.

I don’t think it is safe to assume anything of these people (even if we accepted your odd figure).

So, how do you factor them into your view of the invasion?

“(even if we accepted your odd figure)”

Yes, that’s why I put “ish“. Two million people have fled the country, as reported by the UN, and after the Lancet/ORB reports I find it difficult to see how anyone – even the rankest amateur such as, well, myself – could put the total number of excess deaths below the high hundreds of thousands.

Ben

@ 1: “But my impression is that the mainstream centre-left does remain solid on issues of anti-semitism and holocaust denial. I am not convinced that criticism of Israeli policy over Palestine has led to a greater tolerance of anti-semitism, except among fringe voices.”

Yes, but those voices are louder than they used to be, which might go some way to explaining why their significance is regularly overestimated.

@ 7: Absolutely right. If I were David I’d feel like Dr Frankenstein. He and most of the people who write the actual articles at Harry’s Place are thoroughly decent liberals, but about 80% of the comments come from the Mel Phillips tendency (and most of the rest from actual anti-Semites like Alberto whatsisname). The sheer volume of tendentious rubbish makes one despair.

On the question of allies and things people find it hard to accept, I think a lot of people find it hard to accept as allies people who are cheerleaders and enthusiasts for every assault Israel makes on the Gazans and the Lebanese. There’s a funny thing about that sort of person: the characteristics they attribute to other people are most obviously identifiable in themselves.

If I were David I’d feel like Dr Frankenstein. He and most of the people who write the actual articles at Harry’s Place are thoroughly decent liberals, but about 80% of the comments come from the Mel Phillips tendency

Well, firstly, there’s a particular reason why that particular site attracts those particular comments. It’s weird, people just shake their heads, they can’t understand it, how’s it possible? It’s because of the denunciatory tone and purpose of the site. it’s because it’s all about unmasking people and exposing people. That’s why., It’s nasty business and it attracts nasty people.

Secondly, David isn’t a “thoroughly decent liberal” – he’s an unpleasant monomaniac with no sense of perspective and no desire to distinguish between what people are saying and what he would like them to be saying. All goes with the territory, of course: the role makes the style and the style makes the man.

“the characteristics they attribute to other people are most obviously identifiable in themselves.”

“no desire to distinguish between what people are saying and what he would like them to be saying”

these work both ways, and apply to many of HP’s critics. Everybody is guilty of these things to some extent (everybody thinks their opponents are), from what I can see David T is far less guilty than most.

“after the Lancet/ORB reports I find it difficult to see how anyone – even the rankest amateur such as, well, myself – could put the total number of excess deaths below the high hundreds of thousands.”

Well, the Lancet report has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but this isn’t the place to debate the numbers (a debate which anyhow always feels unseemly) and I suppose that it is just about possible that as many died in the Battle for Iraq as in the Batlle for Stalingrad.

Would you like to find some for us?

Well Robert Fisk wrote a huge piece in the Independent in support of Walt & Mearsheimer – whose original paper was published in the London Review of Books. Is that centre-left or hard-left?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-united-states-of-israel-475811.html

You may (or may not) recall that Fisk’s article was illustrated in the Indie with a big mock-up of an American flag with Jewish stars of david in place of the American stars. It’s usually neo-Nazis who do that; I doubt the Independent had any idea of the far right provenance of the image.

Or Pilger, in the New Statesman after Obama was elected, blaming both the Iraq war and the economic crash on “Zionists”. Is the NS centre or hard left?

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/11/barack-obama-pilger-texas

All I’m saying is that to think that antisemitism on the left is restricted to STWC and the like is complacent.

John: I have been looking for opinion polls of Iraqi attitudes towards the occupation forces, but can’t find them. I remember an Economist article from a couple of years ago which did a comparison between attitudes in Afghanistan and Iraq which did show quite striking differences – and that supported other views I have heard elsewhere. The Iraqi government has also repeatedly called for the withdrawal of foreign forces – and I agree with President Obama’s policy on this (ie do it in as responsible a way as possible).

On going on marches that have been organised by the hard left. Well I have not been on any type of a demonstration for many years, but I do not see anything in principle wrong with attending a demonstration because you feel strongly about something even if you don’t agree with all the politics of the people who have organised it (protesting against the closure of a local school or the building of a road through an area of natural beauty, for example). I had a discussion with MMN a couple of days ago about whether British Trots were the same as Nazis and I really don’t see it; they do not encourage their members to carry out racial attacks and they are not ideologically linked to the perpetrators of the holocaust. You could argue that Lenin, Stalin and Mao committed crimes just as bad as this but then you could also argue that today’s British Tories are directly responsible for the millions of people who lost their lives as a result of British colonialism.

On going on marches where people carry Hezbollah flags or make pro-Hamas speeches I think you have got more of a point. This debate actually started on a thread where I was wondering to myself would I go on the demonstrations that are being organised by LTTE sympathisers in London. On the one hand I feel very strongly about what is currently happening in Northern Sri Lanka – having just come back from there – and want the Sri Lankan government to open up a humanitarian corridoor for civilians to escape. On the other hand I hate the LTTE. So what to do?

“Well, firstly, there’s a particular reason why that particular site attracts those particular comments.”

I agree and I think David T does too. It is because there is a sub-section of people whose hostility towards Islamist violence is rooted in an antipathy towards Muslims in general and they are not, by definition, likely to understyand the nuances of David T (and others’) position on this. David T frequently points out the absurdity of the confusion, but a certain kind of monomaniac will not be gainsaid and Harrys Place has a super-liberal comments policy (another reason why some freaks hang around there).

It is because there is a sub-section of people whose hostility towards Islamist violence is rooted in an antipathy towards Muslims in general and they are not, by definition, likely to understand the nuances of David T (and others’) position on this.

Well, I think there’s a little more to it than that: and as I say, it’s the tone and style of the place, in which people who threaten our civilisation are always being unmasked and exposed. You hunt witches, you attract people who see more of them than you do.

“I do not see anything in principle wrong with attending a demonstration because you feel strongly about something even if you don’t agree with all the politics of the people who have organised it ”

Neither do I – up to a point. I would march next to people of almost any stripe and I do not expect to support all the politics of the organisers of a march. But I would not march under the aegis of organisations that are frankly racist. This is why I would not attend a BNP march againts, say, school closures, even if I agreed with them on the narrrow point of the march. Most of the left would agree with me on that, but when the racsim in question is anti-Jewish, the point seems to get lost. This is Cohens main accusation, of course.

I believe the BBC do a survey of Iraqi attitudes to the war every year. Generally (if memory serves) it finds the population split at about 50/50, aalthougnh earlier polls showed (I think) about 60% support for the invasion. I could find them online, I think but am off shortly.

Harrys Place has a super-liberal comments policy (another reason why some freaks hang around there)

Other people have a nasty lunatic fringe from whom they ought to disassociate themselves: Harry’s Place have a superliberal comments policy so they get some freaks hanging around.

Conor,

A very interesting article. I am slightly confused though WRT to your argument about the “new pragmatism” because I’m not quite sure who you think these “new pragamatists” are. Initially you are referring to the centre left to which you and I both feel we belong, specifically regarding the sentiments expressed in the IPPR article about engaging with non-violent Islamists. Now I think this is fair comment – I honestly don’t know if this a sensible approach, I think we have to be very wary of such people, but I do think it does to an extent reflect a section of centre-left thought. Then you say

Alongside this the ‘pragmatists’ have effectively abandoned the defence of human rights in the fight against terrorism. Moves to bring torturers and war criminals to justice have been undercut by the policies of the previous US administration. Discussions about ‘humanitarian intervention’ have become hopelessly entangled in the propaganda and spin of the Neo-Cons.

But this is an area where the centre left has taken a consistent and principled approach. We have consistently condemned the use of torture and other human rights violations and abuses of civil liberties in the cause of the “war on terror”. We have consistently supported international institutions and justice mechanisms. In this respect it is the pro-war “Eustonite” left who should be
looking at themselves.

On the subject of pragmatism in foreign policy in general, Tom Stratton @ 19 makes a very good case for a principled and sensible pragmatic approach and I think it would be an improvement over the approach which has often been taken in the past. Of course we should always be wary of losing sight of the principles which underlie our actions and there are some issues, such as women’s rights in Afghanistan which should not be compromised. I also think it would be entirely wrong to divert development funds to anti-insurgency efforts. There is a danger that pragmatism can be used as an excuse to avoid doing stuff that is just plain difficult and it can be used as a cover for self interest and realpolitik. But the opposite extreme of making purely idealistic choices without regards for the consequences can also be dangerous and irresponsible.

I agree with Luis above. I would find quite easy to have a civilised discussion with virtually all of the above line writers at HP, but below the line there do seem to be a disproportionate number of loop-de-loops.

There could be lots of reasons for that – including a very liberal moderation policy and some fairly incendiary articles. One that sticks in my mind – because it was so unfair – was that the ICRC, Human Rights Watch and the Guardian had got together to smear the Israeli Defence Forces by alleging that they had attacked two Red Cross ambulances (these had in fact been hit by a missile fired by an IDF drone in Lebanon). If you leave stories like that unchallenged then this becomes part of the ‘evidence’ of the systematic anti-Israel bias of the liberal-left (and it also puts the lives of humanitarian aid workers at risk if IDF soldiers read and believe such accounts). The editorial stance also often seems to be looking for evidence to ‘prove’ the weirdest conspiracy theories of Nick Cohen. And then, of course, the internet does encourage these type of flame-wars.

I think that the broader problem is that the invasion of Iraq split the ‘liberal-left’ with one section supporting the action to get rid of a vile dictator and the other worried that it might make things worse for the Iraqi people, weaken international law and encourage Islamic extremism. The bitterness of the split was then exacerbated by subsequent polemics and drove both sides into ‘alliances’ where neither can be entirely comfortable.

My Blairite MP, as people were once known, shared a platform on the Gaza march with a Hamas member. He is not hard left by any standard. He voted for the Iraq war (which makes him a neo-con, according to some posters on this site) and every other unpopular policy going. But now the local members think he’s a hero. Antisemitism has become respectable on the moderate left.

By the way, ejc, I have never been heard to say ‘the aristocracy deserve to die’ or ‘the Queen eats the poor’ but I would like Britain to be a republic. Does this mean I can’t be said to be anti-monarchist?

On the question of allies and things people find it hard to accept, I think a lot of people find it hard to accept as allies people who are cheerleaders and enthusiasts for every assault Israel makes on the Gazans and the Lebanese.

Enthusiasts?

HP’s position on Operation Cast Lead was almost entirely supportive. But to say they were ‘enthusiastic’ about that war is a frankly twattish suggestion.

The very first comment about this post on Harry’s Place was an accusation of anti-semitism but since posters on that site have previously found anti-semitism in a pizza topping that’s only to be expected.

it is a shame that this discussion is sidetracked and how many people seem intend on avoiding the nub of Conor’s arguments (either agree or disagree with it, but don’t ignore it):

“I also think that anti-Semitism and holocaust denial – along with all other forms of racism – should be opposed wherever they rear their ugly heads. I think that most of what I would regard as ‘my section of the left’ would agree with those sentiments, but I don’t think that the ‘contextualisers’ and ‘pragmatists’ are confined to the nutty fringes any more.

“While no one is quite suggesting that parts of British foreign policy should be dictated by certain domestic constituencies – as sometimes seems to be the case in the United States – you can sense some sentiment of this not far beneath the surface. ”

‘certain domestic constituencies’

Do you by any chance mean Jews here Conor?

No, he doesn’t. See comment #29

it is a shame that this discussion is sidetracked and how many people seem intend on avoiding the nub of Conor’s arguments (either agree or disagree with it, but don’t ignore it):

OK, well to reiterate my argument above

1. Pragmatism and contextualisation are not always neccessarily wrong.

2. In some of the specific examples Conor gives he has a point, the views expressed are either questionable or plain wrong.

3. In other examples it’s not actually the centre left who are guilty of pragmatism and contextualisation.

until there’s some more proof for that last claim about ‘nutty fringes’ then i’m not sure what to do.

comments in cif threads are not really symptomatic of anything, otherwise we could all claim that the myriad islamophobic HP sauce comments are proof that swathes of the british left are intensely islamophobic.

by the way, they don’t actually have an ‘anything goes’ moderation policy over there. point out factual errors or the dubious leaps in logic they make in almost every single post, and your comments get deleted. write islamophobic nutcasery and your comments are allowed to stay on.

Andrew Adams@62 – I thought that was a good, nuanced response to what is also a complicated question. So thanks for an attempt to answer the question on the table too.

Conor@63 – “I think that the broader problem is that the invasion of Iraq split the ‘liberal-left’ with one section supporting the action to get rid of a vile dictator and the other worried that it might make things worse for the Iraqi people, weaken international law and encourage Islamic extremism. The bitterness of the split was then exacerbated by subsequent polemics and drove both sides into ‘alliances’ where neither can be entirely comfortable”.

I also think that is an important part of it. It may be in part unavoidable while Iraq remains the central reference point. There is (or ought to be) a potential centrist/centre-left alliance which involves people across that divide (examples include Paddy Ashdown as compared to a Robin Cook/Ming Campbell position), but it is very difficult to put it back together, or even to have a sensible conversation to get towards that.

This was one of my attempts (a year ago) at trying to think about the v.general contours of that liberal internationalist rescue which learns the lesons of Iraq and the broader 9/11 war on terror. I think the idea of trying to restart a discussion about the Chicago speech, where it led, etc remains useful.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/neocontricks

It seems to me that liberal internationalists share one thing (what is claimed to the broad overall goal) of both the neo-cons and the liberal hawks, but differ on all of the important questions of strategy, means, alliances but do not get to that level very often. As a result, we are now reluctant to restake our claim about ends of human rights and democracy, because it feels like it belongs to somebody else (whose claim to it is much less coherent, consistent and deep-rooted) and is implicated in what has gone wrong.

O.K. Conor, only 5 hours time gap between your answer and my question, I started reading this morning (Houston time) and didn’t post until this afternoon.
I only asked as you are normally a decent guy and your comment was, ambigeous, to say the least.

BBC: no problem – they got very excited about this over at Harry’s Place as well. In one sense this reinforces one of my original points. Why on earth would I want to slip a covert antisemitic reference into an article about my worries about an increase in antisemitism?

I think that there are two issues bound up here and they probably need to be separated out.

One is the post-Iraq debate about foreign policy, humanitarian interventions, human rights, etc.

The other is about the nature and extent of antisemitism in contemporary British society.

Not living in Britain, I have tended to write more about the former than the latter, but I can see that it is the linkage between the two that makes this such an emotional debate.

The third issue – which I know next to nothing about – is how does the British government manage the integration of a new generation of Moslem immigrants and their children into British society and what challenges does that throw up for foreign and domestic policy.

If we accept that all three of these are important issues – on which like-minded people can find areas of agreement and disagreement – then how do we create the space to have these discussions without being drowned out by nutters?

Ha! It only took the Harry’s Placemen one comment to suggest that the real reason that Conor wrote this article is…. his own antisemitism.

In fairness to Toube, he did ask those who attack Conor on reflex to keep their thoughts to themselves (but to no avail).

Perhaps you should all be paying attention to what the HP moderates think -

LOOK AT THE STATE OF THIS THREAD!

IT’S A DISGRACE!

YOU ARE VERY NAUGHTY BOYS AND YOU WILL ALL BE IN A LOT OF TROUBLE WHEN MR DAVID GETS HOME!

So there you go.

The thing Conor is the the racist ‘but’.

“Now I’m not racist, BUT….”

the racist BUT and the ‘dog whistle’ are the ways that people try to pick out the underlying thoughts of others. Sometimes, the whole thing goes crazy, as in the use of ‘niggardy’ or ‘nitty-gritty’. Different people become sensitized to different pitch’s.

Mine is set to detect antisemitism on the left; which from reading CiF appears rampant. Though not from you Conor, which is why your language seemed so odd.

I am pretty sure that the Irish in Britain will go the way of the Jews and become, ‘white’ in official language. Which essentially means that they have become fully integrated. The problem is that if skin color is used to define race, then West Indians and people from SE Asia can never become ‘white’, they will always be different and, to an extent, alien.

I’ve been in Texas for 9 months and the whole ‘Hispanics’ as a race is damned confusing. There is no way the people from South/Central America and Mexic constitute a race, but they do tend to speak Spanish. So race is base on language.
My Argentinian coworker is Hispanic on Federal forms and not on State ones; or vise versa.

You also have people, with Mayan features, whose ancestors have lived in the same area for 300 years, and whose grand parents were the last members of the family to speak Spanish, are still classified as Hispanics on account of their last name. Whereas a second generation Hungarian is a white, unprefixed American.

(78): You remind me of Woody Allen’s joke about standing at a bus stop and being asked ‘What time’s the bus due?’

‘You see, it’s everywhere!’

“the invasion of Iraq split the ‘liberal-left’ with one section supporting the action to get rid of a vile dictator and the other worried that it might make things worse for the Iraqi people, weaken international law and encourage Islamic extremism. ”

Don’t foget those of us who belonged to both camps.

Just as an aside, part of the problem here is surely the perception of what constitues antisemitism. The body in the UK which identifies antisemitism considers criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to be antisemitic. Caryl Churchill’s short play at the Royal Court was not, to my eyes, antisemitic, no matter what Norman Geras thinks and no matter what comenters up there think. a few nasty comments on cif don’t really prove anything about ‘the left’.

until there’s some more empirical evidence given i remain sceptical of what conor is claiming about the centre-left.

Wonder what people here think of this article from today’s Indie.

Did someone just say ‘contextualise’?

cheeseboard,

The body in the UK which identifies antisemitism considers criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to be antisemitic.

Really?

I have always been circumspect in criticizing Israel, perhaps because of the shadow that the Nazis managed to place over most of Western civilisation. It is, if you like, a collective guilt.

And guilt is not always healthy.

We have, in hindsight admittedly, allowed Israel to become an aggressor in it’s own right. I am thinking here specifically about Gaza and not the ’67 war.

There used to be an arguement, which doesn’t seem to get any play time these days, that soft diplomacy is better than hard hats on the ground. To that extent – that I am in favour of diplomacy – means I’d probably be described as an anti-semite by whoever judges that sort of thing.

Tarring someone with a tag is just ridiculous, I’d have thought.

“Caryl Churchill’s short play at the Royal Court was not, to my eyes, antisemitic, no matter what Norman Geras thinks ”

tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen, tell her they’re animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.
Don’t tell her that.
Tell her we love her.
Don’t frighten her.

These are the last line of ‘Seven Jewish Children’. They are spoken by someone idenfitied only as a Jew, given no other differentiating characteristics. The fact that you cannot see that this is antisemitic really exemplifies the problem. Just read it again and imagine it was from a play called ‘Seven Muslim children’ and the subejct was the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. Still not racist?

“We have, in hindsight admittedly, allowed Israel to become an aggressor in it’s own right. ”

We haven’t ‘allowed’ it anymore than we have ‘allowed’ China or any other nation to become an aggressor or aggressive. Nation states pursue their interests with violence all over the world. It is, sadly, the normal state of things. Israel is no different. Jews are just people and will act like people everywhere.

The body in the UK which identifies antisemitism considers criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to be antisemitic.

Do you have a particular body in mind? Because the body that ‘does’ antisemitism for the Jewish community is CST, and we certainly don’t define antisemitism in that way.

portraying one jewish person (of seven) as happy with the Gaza killings, apparently revelling in them, is not really evidence of hatred of jews in general. there were copious examples of just such Israeli Jewish happiness at the indiscriminate killings in the press at the time of the Gaza onslaught. complaining about the lack of a name for the character is pretty weak too – if they had a name in the script, which was not mentioned in the play once, would that make it ok? this is pretty weak stuff.

If there was a play called seven muslim children and one of the seven was portrayed as an extremist, it would probably be latched onto as islamophobic by some, but not necessarily by me.

this is, i think, symptomatic of the problems surrounding accusations of antisemitism on the left. just because a few people think something is antisemitic, it doesn’t mean that it is. the continuing debates over the merchant of venice are evidence enough of that. and as I’ve said, the CST considers all criticism of Israel to be antisemitic – and they’re the place the govt goes to for facts on antisemitism.

Again, if there was better evidence you wouldn’t need to recourse to such obviously arguable ‘instances’.

apologies – misremembered – the CST definition I was referring to was ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary israeli policy to the Nazis’.

While this is distrasteful, it’s not inherently antisemitic.

cheeseboard

That quote is taken from the Working Definition of Antisemitism that was written by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). It wasn’t written by CST.

However, I think comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is antisemitic; certainly in effect, and often in intent too.

I wrote something about it on Harry’s Place, if you are interested (I know that isn’t a very popular blog round here)

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/26/holocaust-resonance/

Mark T: I think that is a very good example of my original point. I have just read Adrian Hamilton’s article and see that he is a former deputy editor of the Observer.

I have no idea who Hamilton is. I presume he does not consider himself an overt antisemite. But he clearly is either a contextualiser or a pragmatist. He is saying that the ‘Zionist conspiracy’ nonsense is a ‘time-honoured Middle Eastern accusation’ which should be listened to respectfully rather than challenged.

The diplomats who walked out were just ‘plain childish’ because ‘just how you can accuse a man of anti-Semitism when you haven’t stayed to hear him talk is . . . . ‘

Errr when he is on record as a holocaust denier who believes that Israel should be destroyed.

I think I will do another piece about why the left should defend Israel’s right to exist – but maybe leave that for another week.

“portraying one jewish person (of seven) as happy with the Gaza killings, apparently revelling in them, is not really evidence of hatred of jews in general.”

It would be suspect if this was the case but it isn’t. The play represents Jews as homogenous and this Jewish voice is not individualised but presented as representative of Jews. It is plainly antisemitic. I suppose if this was once voice in a plurality engaged in conversation it might make some sense, although it is a view so extreme that I have never come across it, so you might wonder why a playwright would choose this personality type from so many.

‘there were copious examples of just such Israeli Jewish happiness at the indiscriminate killings in the press at the time of the Gaza onslaught. ‘

Can you find a single example of a Jew claiming that the sight of dead Palestinian children makes them happy? Or that they have the right to kill Palestinian children because they are ‘the chosen people’? Or any reference to being the ‘chosen people’ in any context as justification for any action whatsoever in Gaza? No, me neither. And bear in mind that the Churchill play is not about ‘Israelis’, it is (pointedly) about Jews. You can suppose that the extract I quoted above is from the mouth of a Jew in Bermondsey, if you like. Any link to any celebration of the Palestinian civilian dead by anyone would be of interest, by the way.

“The diplomats who walked out were just ‘plain childish’ because ‘just how you can accuse a man of anti-Semitism when you haven’t stayed to hear him talk is . . . . ‘

Errr when he is on record as a holocaust denier who believes that Israel should be destroyed.”

And when the text of the speech was published and circulated beforehand.

Drawing comparisons between Jews – even Israeli Jews – and Nazis is certainly anti-Semitic. When Mia Farrow compared Spielberg with Leni Riefensthal when he was signed to direct the opening of the China Olympic games The Guardian supported her rant but nobody would have drawn this parallel had it been Coppola or Scorsese.

By the way, Conor, here is the poll of Iraquis I mentioned upp thread. I know it is a little off-topic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf

Question 8 asks about attitudes to the invasion:

Q8. From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?

Currently (Feb 09) 42% of Iraqis consider the invasion somewhat or absolutely justified. It is interesting that the invasion has more support in Iraq than any other country I know of. Support is down from a high of 49% last year when the country was split down the middle on this issue. It is also interesting that only 28% consider the invasion ‘absolutely wrong’ which implies there would be a much bigger pro constituency if the security situation had been handled better. The highest report for ‘absolutely against’ was 35% in 2007.

Having looked through the comments on the Indy I noticed the usual knob-end argument that you can’t destine an Arab as an anti-Semite because Arabs are Semitic. Well, yes you can because (a) anti-Semitism as commonly used in speech refers to the persecution of Jews, and (b) even Jews can be anti-Semitic.

Thanks for that John.

My point was slightly different – which was about attitudes to the continued occupation/presence of foreign troops – where I remember fairly large majorities were against it. That is borne out of the poll you linked to where 45% said they had no confidence at all in the US occupation forces and 12% said not very much (compared to positve view of 12 and 14).

You can disagregate the two points and say that the population of Iraq is split half-half on whether the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein was right or wrong (perhaps many of us are similarly split in our own minds), but the way in which the invasion was carried out and the subsequent US-led administration of the country is fairly widely thought to have been a disaster (both in Iraq and internationally)

I ‘d like to make two points.

1) Quoting figures for Iraqi support for the invasion seems a bit silly when the 2-3 million who were forced to flee under threat of death plus the 100,000s who are already dead are not polled. John Meredith’s statement that we can’t be sure these people wouldn’t have thought the invasion a good idea seem rather mad.

2) Although I really like Conor’s writing, and even bought his recent book which I really enjoyed, I think this post is not one of his better pieces. For a start I don’t accept that anti-semitism is widespread on the centre-left, or even on the far left for that matter. This is not to say that I haven’t encountered it a couple of times on the far left but primarily from people who have some fairly strange and conspiratorial ideas about how global finance works. Ultimately these views are not terribly significant because they re are held by a minute minority of pretty wacky people with zero power or influence. I also think, as many here do, that the accusation is often used in bad faith. It seems unlikely that it is mere coincidence that the cries of ‘antisemitism’ get so much louder every time Israel is involved in some pretty nasty business. Playing the victim is a good way of deflecting attention and responsibility. And if you look at a website like Harry’s Place, wallowing in victimhood seems to be its defining feature.

Of course complaints over contextualisation is another method for blame shifting and avoiding responsibility for what the side you support does. NB I am not suggesting that Conor is doing this but it is a defining feature of much of the writing at Harry’s Place and that of Nick Cohen.

‘If they commit atrocities it can’t possibly be anything to do with anything we have done!’

But social actions are always rooted in social contexts whether we are talking about the rise of ideas associated with trade unionism, nazism, chartism or political Islam.

To try and strip out context and argue that political ideas rise out of the ether divorced from social contexts is not only wrong its anti-intellectual.

I’m not pro- or anti- anything, in this debate. I’m not a vested interest on the left, or the right.

I am sure the author is correct, though. Most of the worldwide criticism of Israel is based on being anti-Israeli, rather than pro-Palestinian. Is that anti-Semitism? Well, can you think of another explanation?

Can you find a single example of a Jew claiming that the sight of dead Palestinian children makes them happy?

am guessing you missed the photos of t-shirts with gunsights aimed at a pregnant woman’s stomach that IDF soldiers wear in their spare time. or is there an excuse for them?

The play represents Jews as homogenous

a play which presents seven distinct viewpoints from different voices also represents Jews as homogenous?

You can suppose that the extract I quoted above is from the mouth of a Jew in Bermondsey, if you like.

yeah i can. so what?

“am guessing you missed the photos of t-shirts with gunsights aimed at a pregnant woman’s stomach that IDF soldiers wear in their spare time. or is there an excuse for them?”

I take it from your response that you cannot find a single example of any Jewish person expressing any sort of happiness at the sight of a dead Palestinian child, then? This depsite your earlier confidence that this was common and defence of a play which repreesents this as a view held typically by Jews.

“a play which presents seven distinct viewpoints from different voices also represents Jews as homogenous? ”

I don’t think you have read it. It represents Jewish voices at seven different historical periods leading up to the present where they are unified in their blood lust, delight in power, commitment to their ‘chosen people’ status and desire to disguise their true nature. These are call classice antisemitic tropes. Could Caryl Churchill jot even conceive of a Jew who did not support the killing of Palestinian children or find such blood letting pleasant? It seems not, even though she was a personal friend of, for example, Harold Pinter.

“You can suppose that the extract I quoted above is from the mouth of a Jew in Bermondsey, if you like. yeah i can. so what?”

So you recognise that Churchill is damning all Jews in the world as holding these views, not simply Israelis (although that would have been absurd enough). Have you ever heard any Jew expressing such views? No? Then why do you assume they are common?

Conor

I thought it was unlikely that you had not seen these polls, so I suspected a misunderatsning. Nonetheless I am not so sure that the two issues can be disaggreagted quite so cleanly, although they are different. You are surely right that the presence of foreign troops is unpopular and that the conduct of the occupation and transition has been full of disasters but I don’t think it is clear that a strong and stable majority of Iraquis would, on balance, prefer that it hadn’t happened, warts and all. In fact I think they were asked this querstion in earlier polls and there was a divide on the issue. Opinions are not stable on this, though, and fluctuate with changing circumstances.

It is interesting at least, that many more Iraqis support the initial invasion (to say no more than that) than people in nearly any other country, though.

Bubby, you say: Quoting figures for Iraqi support for the invasion seems a bit silly when the 2-3 million who were forced to flee under threat of death plus the 100,000s who are already dead are not polled.

But we cannot speak for people whose opinions we do nopt know. It is a certainty that there will be a range of views among both groups of people, but we don’t know the proportions. And if you want to give a vote to those killed by the US led forces and the ‘resistance’, then surely we owe a vote to the dead of Saddam, too. How would they vote, do you think?

Bubby: thanks for the comment and glad you liked the book.

I agree that not all accusations of antisemitism are well-founded and they are sometimes made in bad faith (or, as is often the case at Harry’s Place because the people making them are slightly uninged).

But take the case of Adrian Hamilton’s article in today’s Independent. If he had made that argument about people walking out over someone attacking any other racial or ethnic group would you not find it unsettling to say the least.

Fuckwit that cheeseboard may be, he’s correct about the T-shirts which off-duty Israeli soldiers were pictures wearing. There are elements of any army which revels in destruction, or at least bad taste.

IIRC correctly, the T-shirt of the pregnant Palestinian woman in the sniper sites says TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE.

Another, featuring a baby in it’s sights says IT’S HARDER WHEN THEYR’E SMALL.

“Fuckwit that cheeseboard may be, he’s correct about the T-shirts which off-duty Israeli soldiers were pictures wearing. There are elements of any army which revels in destruction, or at least bad taste.”

I agree that the T-shirts were repulsive, but that sort of neanderthal bad taste is common to any army. It is not the same thing at all as ordinary Jews finding ‘happiness’ in the sight of a dead or bleeding Palestinian children. Cheese seems to think such attitudes are widespread among Jews and seems to think there are many published example, but he can’t actually find any. I can believe that he is honest, that he really thinks they are out there, but he should start to wonder why he thought they were out there when he finds they are not.

whatever. these attitudes are common to many jewish people, the ones I’ve highlighted (you claimed that no jews hold these views, now it’s just soldiers) just happen to be IDF soldiers, which you’re now explaining away as ok since, well, they’re soldiers. all of a sudden you shift the goalposts and ask for examples of this kind of thing from people who aren’t soldiers – sorry, no dice.

if you trawl the jerusalem post comments threads you can see countless examples of people who claim to be israeli and revel in the violence in gaza. and then there are those t-shirts that are suddenly inadmissable as evidence.

Churchill is damning all Jews in the world as holding these views

your interpretation of Churchill’s work of art differs from mine, i don’t see it as a progression through history at all, nor do i see each voice as representative of the entire jewish people. you’ll not convince me otherwise, I’ve read it and fundamentally disagree. i think that such objections are based in a desire common to many HP regulars to find antisemitism in anything and everything via fairly tortured misreadings, hence the responses to Conor’s article over there.

in summary i can come back to shatterface’s point – just as there will always be a few nasty soldiers in any army, there are elements of every race and religion that are bloodthirsty and unpleasant. to deny this is wrongheaded – as is tarring a race with the same bloodthirsty brush. But i don’t think Churchill was doing that.

John:

A fair point – and what became the strongest argument in favour of the invasion of Iraq once it was clear that there were no WMDs was the ‘history will forgive us’ argument.

The mistake that Blair made was to try and dress it up as a ‘humanitarian intervention’ because he had to borrow piecemeal from the arguments about R2P and ended up making what he must have known was a dishonest intellectual/legal argument (which the Eustonauts then relied on when they launched their manifesto). There was not an imminent humanitarian crisis at the time of the invasion and so if that is not to be used as a criteria than what should be?

I think what Blair actually meant was that ‘we thought that we would do more good than harm’ – and it was thus ‘an unfortunate but necessary and reasonable exception’ to the basic rules of international law (the conclusion of the Goldstone report on Kosovo). That is pretty much how it has been judged by most people (so you have look at the totality of both the good and harm of the invasion and occupation and compare each decision to the alternative options on offer at each stage). The onus must be on those who are breaking international normative standards to show that this was justified on each occasion.

The problem with relying too much on a snapshot of public opinion in the country concerned is that this can only ever be one element. The vast majority of Kosovan Albanians, for example, strongly supported NATO’s intervention there, but one of its results was that a quarter of a million Kosovan Serbs were driven from their homes. The decision to invade Iraq also drew troops away from Afghanistan, which has resulted in the Taliban’s revival, and meant the west was unable to respond to the carnage in Darfur (and elsewhere).

Opinions for an against the invasion of Iraq amongst Iraqis seems evenly split. We can assume that it was backed by 99% of all Kurds and so that means that the support amongst both Shiites and Sunnis is significantly less. Perhaps the opposition of the Sunnis is not surprising, but it is significant that considerable numbers of Shias did not see themselves as being ‘liberated’ by the invasion (although undoubtedly many did).

Dismissing concerns about antisemitism as being in bad faith is an easy way of not having to deal with them on any sort of serious level. There’s a very obvious reason why the cries of ‘antisemitism’ get so much louder every time Israel is involved in some pretty nasty business; it’s because antisemitism gets so much worse at such times.

Assuming that these cries are made in bad faith assumes two things: firstly, that Jews lie; secondly, that they lie at the behest of the Israeli government. In short, it stinks.

I’ve been involved in work against antisemitism for many years, I’ve been to many conferences in Israel and elsewhere on the subject, and I know many of the other people around the world who do the same. Often, we disagree with each other about whether a particular attitude towards Israel is antisemitic. Never, in the midst of such a disagreement, have I heard someone say ‘oh well, they might not really be antisemitic but it shuts them up’, or similar. When Jews complain about antisemitism, they do so because they really believe something to be antisemitic. They may be wrong, but they are not being dishonest. If you take antisemitism seriously – which Conor clearly does, but I fear bubby may not – then at least do Jews the decency of taking their concerns seriously, even if you disagree with them.

Dismissing concerns about antisemitism as being in bad faith is an easy way of not having to deal with them on any sort of serious level.

This is very true. On the other hand, if you are dealing with people who have a long and well-known history of bad faith, then it’s entirely appropriate to presume it until reasonable evidence to the contrary is presented – in fact, no sane person would assume anything other than bad faith.

Bullshitters should be treated as bullshitters, and not as oracles. This is why I’ll listen to any argument that Conor – who has a history of arguing openly and honestly – makes. David T. and the denizens at the Place, however, have a long and well-known history of making arguments based on misrepresentation, smears, paranoid hysteria, guilt-by-association, vacant credulity and good old malicious spite.

Frankly, I don’t believe a damn thing I hear from anyone associated with the Place until I’ve heard it from a secondary source. The more serious the accusations they fling, the less likely I am to accept them without credible third party confirmation.

This may seem like an ad hominem to some, and I suppose that term will do until somebody invents a Latin term for foolishly assuming good faith on the part of one-eyed propagandists who boast an openly-declared political agenda.

When Jews complain about antisemitism, they do so because they really believe something to be antisemitic. They may be wrong, but they are not being dishonest.

Hmmm, sure, but we also have to judge how seriously to take those claims. At that point dishonesty doesn´t necessarily come into it. Various people on the “decent left” quite careless dismiss accusations of Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim bigotry if you will) but don´t apply those standards equally when it comes to accusations of anti-semitism.

Aren´t we all allowed to judge for ourselves whether a claim or an accusation is anti-semitic? Or perhaps there is an accepted standard we could measure all claims against.

The problem with ‘judging for ourselves’ is that there are those predisposed to findin anti-Semitism – or Islamophobia – everywhere, whether in deliberately inflamitory speeches, pizza toppings or the names of teddy bears.

The human capacity for taking offence is boundless: look how quickly people here – or even more so on HP – took issue with Conor’s unarguable comment about US politics.

Sunny: well obviously we have to think it through ourselves a bit.

The HP thread on my original piece has fixated into a discussion about whether my reference to the influence of special interest lobby groups in the US was a subliminal attempt to spread the message ‘Jews run the world’. (to be fair, only some thought that I was making this point overtly, while others felt that I may have been unconsciously brainwashed by the Walt & Mearsheimer thesis).

But I am also not happy with someone who is not from the ethnic group concerned saying ‘well that doesn’t sound racist to me, after all the phrases x and y could mean . . . . and you shouldn’t take offence so easily’ We came across that on the HP thread once when someone repeatedly referred to you as Monkey Boy and two HP contributors decided that, in their opinion, this may be fair comment and so should not be deleted.

So the only thing you can do is discuss it and do so in the calmest and most respectful manner possible while trying to see the issue from the perspective of the person, recognising that there is both an objective and subjective element. Context is always a critical factor which is why it so difficult to legislate in this area.

A difference between the US and the UK – that I was referring to in my original piece – is that the former is largely a nation of immigrants in which each group has to mediate its differences with the other, while the latter has an indigenous culture of ‘Britishness’ to which the immigrants are supposed to assimilate. I think that does make discussions of race and racism quite different and raises issues about how the predominantly British left should relate to the two different ethnic/religious groups, but, again, maybe that is something for the future.

Aren´t we all allowed to judge for ourselves whether a claim or an accusation is anti-semitic?

Of course, and this is my point:while people might be wrong to call x or y antisemitic, they do so in good faith, in my experience, and if you disagree with them then make the argument based on facts and reasoning. To dismiss an allegation of antisemitism which which you disagree solely as being made in bad faith is something else entirely.

What this is really about is identifying antisemitic discourse, as opposed to hate crimes, which tend to be much more obvious and clear. It is complicated and subjective and often unclear. If it is possible to keep a discussion about antisemitism to facts and reasoned analysis, then it can even be quite interesting.

For instance, I thought Conor’s reference in the original article to the influence (I think “dictated” was too strong) of domestic lobbies on US foreign policy was a good example of how the phenomenon can be described without indulging in antisemitic conspiracy theories. There are ethnic lobbies in America that try to influence US policy in different parts of the world: it’s how the system works, the pro-Israel lobby is no different from any of the others, and there need be no mystery about it. How and when accounts of the pro-Israel lobby become antisemitic is exactly the kind of thing that is up for discussion. But there’s no accounting for how blog threads will run away with themselves, on Harry’s Place or anywhere else.

As for Flying Rodent…well that’s just silly. I’ve written the occasional guest post at Harry’s Place. I don’t think that automatically means that I have a long and well-known history of bad faith. What is my history exactly, that you know so well? Or is this the smearing and guilt by association that you speak of?

Even if an accusation is made ‘in good faith’ this does not mean it is reasonable. If someone already suspects that someone else is anti-Semitic – or Islamiphobic – then confirmation bias will supply the evidence.

Dave: I don’t think Flying Rodent was referring to you. My guess it was a more general comment based on run-ins he has had with Harry’s Place people down the years (I am still comparatively new to blogging, but I can guess how high feelings must have risen over the Gulf War).

I think that the general rule for most of us is err on the side of caution when referring to someone’s race, ethnicty, gender, sexuality, etc. in ways that might cause offence. The left has traditionally been more involved in challenging issues like racism, sexism, homophobia than the right and it is often experience of one of these things that brought us into politics in the first place. Generally speaking most people on the left are more likely than not to back up women, disabled people and ethnic minorities who have taken offence at something that someone else has said, even if we don’t find it offensive ourselves, because we can see that there is a context in which it could be. Sometimes we may be overly sensitive on these issues – I remember, for example, the Specials tribute to Nelson Mandela being pulled from an NUS disco because it contained the words ‘are you so blind that you cannot see’.

However, we all – left and right – feel free to take apart one another’s political opinions and that is one of the things that makes debates about the Middle East so explosive. Sometimes I think that the charge of antisemitism is sometimes thrown at people who are making quite legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government. But it is often also the case that these critics are quite badly informed about the political complexities of the conflict and express themselves in a clumsy way.

There is also a whole set of historical and contemporary political issues, which I am sure must have an impact on how Jewish people perceive themselves, to which I will try and come back to in another post.

I think it’s true that where you have a political question which is complex and could arouse strong views in its own right and then throw what is a very real and ancient prejudice into the mix then you have a unique and very difficult situation where the kind of instinctive sensitivities which Conor mentions above can sometimes get lost. I take Conor’s point that those of us who do not belong to a particular minority should be very careful about taking their claims of prejudice lightly – personally my natural instinct if someone tells me they have been on the receiving end of racist behaviour, physical, verbal or in print, is to take their claim at face value. I can’t deny though that sometimes I see someone (and they are not always Jewish themselves) react to a particular comment and make a claim of anti-semitism which is so far removed from any rational interpretation of the offending remark that I do have to at least seriously question the judgement of the person concerned, and if they do this repeatedly I can’t help questioning their motives. I think it is true that there is a small but highly vocal section of Israel’s supporters who are so fanatical and convinced of Israel’s absolute righteousness that they will not accept any criticism of its behaviour and resort to knee jerk accusations of anti-semitism in response to virtually any negative remarks about it. I don’t quite put DavidT in this category (he can be hypersenstive in rather odd ways on a number of issues and does make criticisms of Israel) but there are a few who regularly comment at HP and a couple who have occasionally contributed front page articles (not Dave Rich I hasten to add). Their ire is often directed at Jews themselves who are perceived to not be on message – look at the fuss which surrounded the establishment of IJV.
These people undoubtedly poison the debate, but we shouldn’t forget also that there are also those who are motivated by anti-semitism and their criticisms of Israel are not neccessarily made in good faith, and they are also responsible for the toxic nature of much of the I/P debate. And it’s not exactly unreasonable for Jews generally to be sensitive about anti-semitism given the events of the last century.

I’m not Jewish, but some of my best friends are – and some of them are vocally anti-Zionist. As in, not just critical of this or that action of the Israeli government, but opposed to the very idea of a Jewish National Home. (Yes, it can be done.)

So, when I hear accusations of anti-semitism, I think of my friends. Sometimes – particularly when there are sentences beginning with the word “Jews” – I think the accusations are valid. Often – particularly when those sentences begin with the word “Israel” – I don’t.

I’m aware that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier, but I don’t believe – at least, I don’t think it’s necessary to believe – that he’s anti-semitic in the sense that Arnold Leese was anti-semitic. I don’t think it’s necessary to believe the leaders of Hamas are anti-semitic in that sense, and I certainly don’t believe that all members or supporters of Hamas are necessarily anti-semitic. A fortiori, I am really going to need some convincing about these nutty fringes of the British Left.

Andrew Adams, you wrote:

“I can’t deny though that sometimes I see someone (and they are not always Jewish themselves) react to a particular comment and make a claim of anti-semitism which is so far removed from any rational interpretation of the offending remark that I do have to at least seriously question the judgement of the person concerned, and if they do this repeatedly I can’t help questioning their motives.”

Andrew, surely Phil’s recent comments illustrate your point but in a reverse way?

On the British left you have people, highly educated people, politically literate people who equivocate, dance around or otherwise split hairs when anti-Jewish racism is staring them in the face.

The prime example is Phil’s comments concerning the Hamas leaders.

Most antifascists are aware that there are intensities of racism and variance, yet is there any necessity to minimise the conspicuous racism articulated by Hamas leaders in some sleight of hand by referring to Leese?

Because the argument then becomes, “he might be a racist but is not as bad as Adolf Hitler”, which is a bit feeble.

Now I know Phil is not an antisemite or anything close to it, but there is this incredibly frustrating compunction by members of the British left to nitpick when anti-Jewish racism comes up.

They wouldn’t do it for another form of racism, eg anti-black.

Or probably quibble as much if the topic was sexism, but as soon as anti-Jewish racism stares them in the face a lot of rather dodgy arguments come out, which wouldn’t be utilized if that racism was aimed at any other ethnic or social minority.

Now that is why it becomes so frustrating and these discussions soon descend into slanging matches.

Again, the denial of anti-Jewish racism causes others to doubt the sincerity and good faith of activists when they wouldn’t employ such arguments is the racism was aimed against, blacks, Irish, the French, etc. and until those people can step back and appreciate how their obfuscation on anti-Jewish racism generates bad blood then they won’t learn anything and we are back to square one.

Finally, I am NOT accusing anyone of bad faith, merely utter insensitivity and lack of reasoning.

I might be more convinced by ‘good faith’ arguments if there wasn’t such a clear correlation between those who see endemic anti-Semitism and who automatically justify any Israeli military action against Palestinians, and between those who see Islamiphobia everywhere and excuse Palestinian rocket attacks and the use of human shields.

Sunny Hundal:
Various people on the “decent left” quite careless [sic] dismiss accusations of Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim bigotry if you will) but don´t apply those standards equally when it comes to accusations of anti-semitism.

Who? Name names or STFU and STFD.

Hint: “Various below-the-line commenters on HP and associated websites” will not do. I could very well spin your argument round and say the same of PP after the trash you attracted during the siege of Gaza. And it would be cobblers.

If you can’t back up your rather spurious claim with linkage, it ought to be removed from this otherwise sensible site and laid to rest at http://www.imaginaryworldofsunnyhundal.com or wherever baseless accusations find themselves at home these days.

If you can, it would probably make quite a good article!

Your call.

Conor

“Discussions about ‘humanitarian intervention’ have become hopelessly entangled in the propaganda and spin of the Neo-Cons. The principles of putting human rights at the heart of British foreign policy, development assistance to help the poorest of the poor and creating strong and effective international justice mechanisms are being quietly jettisoned or forgotten.”

Agreed.

Infuriatingly the leftist backlash against the neo Cons has even led to a sneaky revival of the LBJ “He’s our bastard” mentality and even a reclamation of the realpolitik of Kissinger. Whatever bad things a leftist can find to say about Iraq don’t tell me that they aren’t completely eclipsed by the bad things a leftist would have to say about the carpet bombing of Cambodia or the overthrow of Allende.

The Baker mission gained wide centre left endorsement. It proposed the old outsourcing deal which again subcontracted US policy objectives to a parcel of police state regimes in the region. An ultra conservative policy of “Let’s let these neighbourhood dictators deal with these insurgent bastards…” actually gained considerable centre left support mainly because it was opposed by the neo cons.

Even if most leftists believed the war was wrong and all leftists believed that it was disastrously conducted the actual outcome of those wrongs for Iraqi’s was still far better than it would have been if the Baker proposals were adopted…

There are worse western demons than the neo cons and Bushn’Blair – It may be a product of increasing age but for me Kissinger and Kissingerism were certainly a lot worse and it really boils my potatoes to see it revived by some on the left.

An ultra conservative policy of “Let’s let these neighbourhood dictators deal with these insurgent bastards…” actually gained considerable centre left support mainly because it was opposed by the neo cons.

??!

What you’ve just described is “The Surge” in Iraq – a massive program to co-opt the neighbourhood psychos, bombers and death squads to tackle Al-Qaeda insurgents, and leave them in charge of the areas they cleared. The Decents were very keen on that operation, despite having spent the previous four years or so denouncing the people who implemented it as fascist murderers.

IIRC, none of the Decents acknowledged this outbreak of Realpolitik on the ground, preferring to tout a fantasy narrative of non-existent, secular Iraqi men of peace fighting a non-sectarian war against a generalised concept of evil, but I suppose we should be grateful. After all, they spent years determinedly pretending that

a) the insurgency was not happening, until that became untenable then admitting
b) that the insurgency was happening, but was merely a temporary hitch on the road to peace, freedom and magic ponies; and when that one fell on its arse they decided
c) that it was happening, but none of it was their fault (this last one in a particularly strident, petulant tone).

If there’s been any embrace of Realism on the left – and that’s a dubious proposition at best – I’d say it owes less to an upsurge in enthusiasm for Kissingerian Realpolitik than it does to the outright Magical Realism of the Clap harder for victory over the new Hitlers variety pimped by people who expended vast amounts of energy ordering us all to ignore the evidence of our own eyes.

Honestly, this is what I’m talking about Conor. There is no point trying to win Decent hearts and minds when their owners have spent years carefully constructing lifeboats to flee HMS Reality. They’re quite happy where they are (The Land of Make-Believe) and frankly, their numbers are so insignificant that they can cheerfully be left to shout into a bucket (i.e. write posts for HP.)

Their only remaining function is concern trolling (see examples above), and they should be told to Foxtrot Oscar – there’s a place for discussing sensitive issues like those you’ve raised here, and that place is about a million miles away from any member of the Decent Left.

Cheeseboard, you say: “whatever. these attitudes are common to many jewish people, the ones I’ve highlighted (you claimed that no jews hold these views, now it’s just soldiers) just happen to be IDF soldiers, which you’re now explaining away as ok since, well, they’re soldiers”

And again you prove my point. You insist that ;’these attitudes’ (we were talking about expressing pleasure in the deaths of palestinian children’) are common among Jewish people but can find not evidence at all for the assertion. The T-shirst worn by the army are in very bad taste, but jokes are jokes and are not at all the same thing as expressing pleasure in an actual death. Can you find a single credible piece of evidence for anyone, IDF soldier or otherwise, claiming to be happy at the sight of a real dead Palestinian child? No? Then why are you so confident such attitudes are common among Jews? After all, you must no some Jews. I don’t deny that some Jewish sociopath somewhere will have taken pleasure in a dead baby, but your assertion is much stronger than that and so is Churchill’s.

“if you trawl the jerusalem post comments threads you can see countless examples of people who claim to be israeli and revel in the violence in gaza.”

I don’t think anonymous comments by peope who ‘claim to be Isareli’ are very good evidence and it is a big step down from your previous claim that the MMS in Israel was full of such comment, just as ‘revel in violence in Gaza’ is a lot more ambiguous than ‘delight in the deaths of Palestinian children’ or similar. Find a few named, non-anonymous sources to prove your claim that these attitudes aree common among Jews, and I will be more impressed.

“your interpretation of Churchill’s work of art differs from mine, i don’t see it as a progression through history at all,”

Your interpreattion differs from mine and Churchill’s. She is clear on this point in the stage directions to the play you claim to have read:

“No children appear in the play. The speakers are adults, the parents and if you
like other relations of the children. The lines can be shared out in any way you
like among those characters. The characters are different in each small scene as
the time and child are different. They may be played by any number of actors.”

Perhapos yopu thought she meant it was a different time of day, ofr just a different day of the week in each case. But how can the audience tell that when it isn’t mentioned? Puzzling.

“nor do i see each voice as representative of the entire jewish people.”

If the voices are not meant to be generalisable, why aren’t they individuated. Look again at the staghe direct. The lines can be said by any number of actors and in any way you wish to stage them. That is because they are entirely transferable, relating not in each case to the views of an individuated personality but to an undifferentiated ‘Jew’. If Churchill is not trying to tell us something generalisaable about Jews and Gaza, what is she trying to do?

“you’ll not convince me otherwise”

This is something we can agree on.

” just as there will always be a few nasty soldiers in any army, there are elements of every race and religion that are bloodthirsty and unpleasant. to deny this is wrongheaded – as is tarring a race with the same bloodthirsty brush. But i don’t think Churchill was doing that.”

So what was she doing? Was she suggesting that Jews are as plural in their attitudes to Palestinian suffering as any other group? Then you might think that one of her Jewish voices would have expressed some outrage or horror at the death of a Palestinian child, some objection to the celebrations of viloence, some principled complaint about the ‘chosen people’ nonsense, even if just once, wouldn’t you? If I produced a play about British Muslims in which every one was a dedicated supporter of Al Qaeda, wouldn’t you think I had an axe to grind? Of course you wwould. So open the other eye.

Flying Rodent. This is an excerpted copy of your last post:

The Decents were very keen on … none of the Decents acknowledged … they spent years determinedly pretending … they decided … none of it was their fault … no point trying to win Decent hearts and minds … their owners have spent …. They’re quite happy … their numbers are so insignificant … they can cheerfully be left to shout … Their only remaining function …. they should be told to …

But I don’t know who you mean by ‘Decent’ and ‘they’. It all looks like a giant straw man. If you have specific allegations about a particular person with some evidence that they hold the views you accredit them with then make them and we can discuss them. But these vapourings about an imaginary foe won’t go anywhere. I know someone on HP has been rude to you and you dfeel sore about it, but sticks and stones etc etc.

sometimes I see someone (and they are not always Jewish themselves) react to a particular comment and make a claim of anti-semitism which is so far removed from any rational interpretation of the offending remark that I do have to at least seriously question the judgement of the person concerned, and if they do this repeatedly I can’t help questioning their motives.

If someone repeatedly expresses the same opinion on the same subject, then surely that is just because that is what they think? I would have thought that somebody’s motives would be more questionable if they expressed different and contradictory opinions on the same subject, at different times and to different audiences.

But I don’t know who you mean by ‘Decent’ and ‘they’. It all looks like a giant straw man…

Do you think, Mr. Isn’t it terrible how it’s all No True Scotsman when it comes to left anti-semitism. Would you prefer “Pro-war left”, “Anti-Fascist left”, or just the “Whatever the hell they’re calling themselves today left”? Or maybe “Totally unclassifiable, apolitical types who just coincidentally happen to constantly refer to each other’s work to back up their arguments and whose views on a wide range of issues just happen to be very, very similar?”

If you have specific allegations about a particular person with some evidence that they hold the views you accredit them with then make them and we can discuss them.

I’m at work, and you’re not suckering me that easy – I’ll be arsed if I’m going over this tedious territory yet again. In the meantime, you can consider the “Decent Left” to include the main HP bloggers including David T., Gene Zitver, Brownie, Marcus and Brett Lock; the HP second eleven and their fans; columnists David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens; academics Alan Johnson, Norman Geras and Michael Walzer – plus a horde of secondary bloggers, hacks, activists, minor politicians and all-purpose oddballs.

As for “their numbers are so insignificant,” I offer the 2006 March For Free Expression for Decents and the odd right wing nut, as heavily promoted by HP and similar – approximate attendance – 300 people.

My point was not so much about people’s opinions as about how they interpret other people’s behaviour and words. If someone mistakenly reads anti-semitism in another person’s comments where it doesn’t exist then it might be due to a genuine misunderstanding. If they do it consistently, or still refuse to accept there was no anti-semitism in the comment when the meaning is clarified, then one has to wonder whether they are at best a bit obsessive and hypersensitive or at worst making accusations in bad faith.
Some people questioned Conor’s remark about US foreign policy being dictated by domestic constituencies so Conor clarified exactly what he meant. The commenter here Bannedbycastro accepted there was no anti-semitic meaning in the remark – fine, we’re all friends again. One of the commenters at HP was still banging on about it for ages afterwards and quite frankly came across as a nutter.

“Would you prefer “Pro-war left”, “Anti-Fascist left”, or just the “Whatever the hell they’re calling themselves today left”?”

I would prefer some names and some quotes, so we know what we are talking about. Otherwise it is just spooks and shadows.

“In the meantime, you can consider the “Decent Left” to include the main HP bloggers including David T., Gene Zitver, Brownie, Marcus and Brett Lock; the HP second eleven and their fans; columnists David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens; academics Alan Johnson, Norman Geras and Michael Walzer”

Amongst whom there is a huge diversity of views, not least on whether it was right to go to war in Iraq and whether, in hindsight, the war was justifiable. It seems to me that all ‘decent left’ means to you is ‘people I don’t like much who are also socialists of one kind or another’.

“As for “their numbers are so insignificant,” ”

See above. I agree that there doesn’t seem to be any real constituency here, but then I think this bloc only exists in your imagination.

Re, FR’s definition of the “decent left”, it was also include most of those who signed the Euston Manifesto.

Also, I don’t know why it’s so contentious – I wouldn’t neccessarily have the same opinion on every subject as others on the “liberal left” but I still think it’s a reasonable term to describe a particular body of opinion and I have no problem being bracketed in with it.

“If someone mistakenly reads anti-semitism in another person’s comments where it doesn’t exist then it might be due to a genuine misunderstanding. If they do it consistently, or still refuse to accept there was no anti-semitism in the comment when the meaning is clarified, then one has to wonder whether they are at best a bit obsessive and hypersensitive or at worst making accusations in bad faith.”

But this cuts both ways, especially given that whether or not a comment is antisemitic cannot ultimately be determined except by consensus. So, it may be that the peson who keeps insisting that her comments are not antisemitic despite the fa fact that they keep coming across as antisemitic needs to have a think, rather than her accuser. This is the position that the left usually takes with racism (racism other than antisemitism): if a member of a group finds a term racially offensive we should take the complaint seriously, whetever our preconceptions. And if somone refuses to take the complaint seriously, it might be fair to question her motives. Think of those people who used to insist that there was nothing racist in the word ‘Paki’, because all they meant by it was ‘Pakistani’. It was affectionate, like.

“I wouldn’t neccessarily have the same opinion on every subject as others on the “liberal left” but I still think it’s a reasonable term to describe a particular body of opinion and I have no problem being bracketed in with it.”

Andrew, if I accused the ‘liberal left’ of holding certain absurd or offensive views, you might ask for names and examples or conclude that my version of the ‘liberal left’ was a chimera, right? If I were to claim, for example, that liberal lefties were all really Stalinists?

“On the British left you have people, highly educated people, politically literate people who equivocate, dance around or otherwise split hairs when anti-Jewish racism is staring them in the face.

The prime example is Phil’s comments concerning the Hamas leaders.”

First off, I’ll just restate the point I was making, as it seems to have got lost: there’s a big difference between knowingly accommodating reactionaries (which was Conor’s original charge) and denying that they are reactionary. It’s the difference between knowingly doing the wrong thing and having a different idea about what the right thing is. As a rule I’m quite happy to cop to the latter – it’s called disagreeing.

As for your comments, I think calling a political party anti-semtiic is quite a big deal, and so it’s an epithet I’m quite sparing with. I don’t think anti-semitism is a special case in this respect – I would hesitate to pin *any* label on a political party unless I could see a real coherence in its ideology and its actions, with that quality running right through it. On that basis, I wouldn’t call Thatcher’s Tory Party was a racist party (although she certainly went for the racist vote); I wouldn’t call Alleanza Nazionale in Italy a Fascist party (although it had Fascist roots); and I wouldn’t call Hamas anti-semitic.

“As for your comments, I think calling a political party anti-semtiic is quite a big deal, and so it’s an epithet I’m quite sparing with. ”

Well, yes. But Hamas’s antisemitism is hardly marginal to their aims and it is enshrined in their charter. I think we can relax about calling Hamas antisemitic.

Modernity,

Yes it can certainly work both ways and I think the article by Adrian Hamilton mentioned above is a good example of this. I think Ahmadinejad is unarguably anti-semitic – his previous statements and actions surely prove this and so you can’t just take what he said in Geneva at face value and in isolation from his actions in the past, even if there is an argument that what he said was not anti-semitic in itself, which would be in any case an incredibly generous interpretation. So on that basis I also disagree with Phil’s remark about Ahmadinejad.
As for Hamas, well they are a terrorist organisation who are guilty of brutality and murder both of Jews and their own people. That should be enough for anyone to condemn them regardless of arguments about their anti-semitism although I’m not going to argue with any one who asserts that their leaders are in fact anti-semitic. I’m not sure exactly what Phil meant when he said “I don’t think it’s necessary to believe [my italics] the leaders of Hamas are anti-semitic”.

I posted the above before I saw Phil’s reply by the way.

Just for Phil, some quotes from the founding Charter of Hamas. Ity is astionishing that we need to keep repeating this:

“The Jews stood behind the French and the communist revolutions”
“The Jews stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate”
“The Jews stood behind World War II where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials”
“The Jews inspired the establishment of the United Nations and Security Council … in order to rule the world by their intermediary”
“There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it”
“Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there,”

And the call to genicide:

“The hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’.”

And then there was this from a 1987 pamphlet produced by Hamas (one among many such outpourings):

“O all the people, men and women. O our children: the Jews – brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, warmongers – are murdering you, depriving you of life after having plundered your homeland and your homes. Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream.”

I think this bloc only exists in your imagination.

Why, of course – that’s why the phrase “decent left” returns over a million Google hits; why HP, Walzer and Geras have all called for a “decent” left (their words, not mine) that is, just coincidentally, in favour of keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; being very nasty to anyone who goes off-message on Israel/Palestine, Iran or Lebanon; Being even nastier to anyone on their left, and a plethora of other, identical policy positions.

Amongst whom there is a huge diversity of views, not least on whether it was right to go to war in Iraq and whether, in hindsight, the war was justifiable.

For a bunch of people with so little in common, you have an odd habit of coming out with the exact same talking points, right on cue… This was Norm’s gambit when people laughed and refused to have anything to do with his Euston wheeze, also widely repeated by other Eustonauts.

But that’s a coincidence too, right?

, it may be that the peson who keeps insisting that her comments are not antisemitic despite the fa fact that they keep coming across as antisemitic needs to have a think, rather than her accuser.

Oh I agree with this. It’s a sensitive issue, people should be careful about the words they use. But the people I was referring to aren’t just objecting to one person’s words.

This is the position that the left usually takes with racism (racism other than antisemitism): if a member of a group finds a term racially offensive we should take the complaint seriously, whetever our preconceptions. And if somone refuses to take the complaint seriously, it might be fair to question her motives. Think of those people who used to insist that there was nothing racist in the word ‘Paki’, because all they meant by it was ‘Pakistani’. It was affectionate, like

Again I don’t disagree, but still there will be occasions when having considered that person’s complaint seriously you will conclude it was unfounded. I still wouldn’t judge that person to be unreasonable based on one instance, but if they keep on doing it over and over…. And the other thing is they tend to be so bloody obnoxious about it.
I’m not denying though that often compaints are justified and should be taken seriously, and in the absence of any other information my natural instinct would be to take them at face value. Neither am I making generalisations about the behaviour of all Jews (or other minorities). We’re talking about a small but unfortunately highly vocal number.

Andrew, if I accused the ‘liberal left’ of holding certain absurd or offensive views, you might ask for names and examples or conclude that my version of the ‘liberal left’ was a chimera, right?
If I were to claim, for example, that liberal lefties were all really Stalinists?

Sure, especially if your name was Nick Cohen. My point was that even if you disagree with the way FR represents the views of the “decent left” the term is at least meaningful as representing a recognisable body of opinion. Personally it’s one I tend not to have much sympathy with but I’ll let you and FR fight that out.

“Why, of course – that’s why the phrase “decent left” returns over a million Google hits;”

I would beware of basing your worldview on Google. Look for ”lizard government’. More than 22 million hits, so twice as real the the ‘decent left’ of yours, right?

” being very nasty to anyone who goes off-message on Israel/Palestine, Iran or Lebanon; Being even nastier to anyone on their left, and a plethora of other, identical policy positions. ”

Agtain, if this is true, it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate it is true. Then we would be getting somewhere. If you refuse, I can’t help thinking these are just bad dreams of yours.

“For a bunch of people with so little in common, you have an odd habit of coming out with the exact same talking points, right on cue… This was Norm’s gambit when people laughed and refused to have anything to do with his Euston wheeze, also widely repeated by other Eustonauts. But that’s a coincidence too, right?”

See above. It isn’t anything until you can point to concrete examples of what you mean. I know you don’t like a lot of the people you mentioned, but that is hardly the same thing. I have noticed, though, that the SWP and the Times leader team often find themselves talking about the same things. Are they a sinister secret alliance too?

“Sure, especially if your name was Nick Cohen. My point was that even if you disagree with the way FR represents the views of the “decent left” the term is at least meaningful as representing a recognisable body of opinion.”

I don’t think it is really. If it was we should find it fairly easy to define, but we can’t. I think it is a term of soft abuse for people on the left who disagreed with George Galloway on the Iraq war. Ironically it is often used by the uninformed (like our batty friend) against people who were also opposed to the war. I have even heard it used against Martin Amis who was not only a vocal opponent of the war but is not really on the left.

if this is true, it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate it is true. Then we would be getting somewhere.

I said earlier – I’m at work, being watched by a stern net nanny. I’ll put some links up later, although I really don’t see the point in it.

I think it is a term of soft abuse for people on the left who disagreed with George Galloway on the Iraq war.

This is more or less exactly correct – it is a term of soft abuse, although not for the reasons you describe. The unifying trait amongst all of the people under discussion was their belief that that Galloway bloke is a nasty piece of work; that hating on the Jews and the Americans is wrong, and that sucking up to Islamist assclowns is a bad idea. All of which, taken on their own, are perfectly reasonable.

What separates this shower from everyone else who thinks Galloway is a cock was their habit of treating everyone else on the left who disagrees with them as if they were all basically Jew-hating, Yank-baiting, fascist George Galloway clones, who were too scared to admit it to themselves. Nick Cohen, Oliver Kamm and HP are the masters in this regard.

As a term of abuse, “Decent” is significantly milder than the terms I would’ve used – it comes from the essay “Can There Be a Decent Left” by Michael Walzer…

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Politics/Waltzer.htm

…which was given much approving linkage back in the day, including IIRC from HP and Professor Norm, but the term swiftly fell out of fashion when those using it realised they were being mocked for their capitalised Decency.

To be clear, it wasn’t the word “Decent” that was objectionable, but the generally shitty, smeary, accusatory politics of the people associated with it. I think it was Daniel Davies who said that, had HP and Professor Norm been caught referring to themselves as the Kylie’s Arse left, people would’ve used “Kylie’s Arse” as a term of abuse instead.

I have even heard… (Decent) …used against Martin Amis who was not only a vocal opponent of the war but is not really on the left.

Well, indeed. Walks away whistling.

“Just for Phil, some quotes from the founding Charter of Hamas”

Amazingly enough, I am familiar with the anti-semitic contents of the Founding Charter of Hamas. I’m also familiar with the socialist contents of the Labour Party constitution (until relatively recently). Were you under the impression that James Callaghan led a socialist party?

‘I’m not sure exactly what Phil meant when he said “I don’t think it’s necessary to believe [my italics] the leaders of Hamas are anti-semitic”.’

I meant that I’m not excluding the possibility that they are anti-semitic, but that I don’t believe that leading Hamas is something that only an anti-semite could do – let alone supporting Hamas.

John:

A minor point, but I when you say that ‘there is a huge diversity of views, not least on whether it was right to go to war in Iraq’ between ‘David T., Gene Zitver, Brownie, Marcus and Brett Lock, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, Alan Johnson, Norman Geras and Michael Walzer’ what do you mean?

My understanding is that Alan is the only one on that list who opposed the invasion.

I am happy to stand corrected on this point, but I don’t think it is any type of smear to say that this does constitute a coherent group of like-minded thinkers. Presumably they do differ on some issues – and Nick Cohen is the only one who favours torturing people which puts him in a rather unique category – but it is fair to say that this group – the Decents – do have a coherent philosophical outlook which can be subjected to a political critique.

Phil,

Yes, that was clear from what you said subsequently.

Andrew Adams,

Agreed, but I might put it another way.

Surely the discussion is being sidetracked onto the questions of motives and without telepathy or a psychiatrist it is very hard to determine people’s motives and that is outside the realms of politics.

Why don’t we instead concentrate on consequences and the available evidence?

So if we take the Hamas leaders, for an example, not the party, not all of them, but just a few of the Hamas leaders, how would we determine if their utterances are antisemitic?

1. Very easy, we’d look at what they said and what they’ve written.

2. Then we would compare that to known antisemitic racism and see how they match up.

So it’s not very difficult, for highly educated political activists, to make a determination if a particular leader has antisemitic views, or something else.

I think it is important to talk about specifics, so if, for example, we look at the pronouncement of Khaled Meshaal, major Hamas leader.

The question becomes, does Khaled Meshaal make statements which can be construed as embodying anti-Jewish racism?

The answer than becomes, yes.

That is not because I say, but the evidence shows that to be the case.

Khaled Meshaal has made such statements and they are clearly documented. Here are a few:

”
From aljazeera “Khaled Meshaal also praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, for his “courage” in having dismissed the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East to Europe or North America.”

Only recently, on the 31st of March 2008, Khaled Meshaal tells a Sky interviewer:

“KM: We don’t want to harm any religion in the world. We don’t deny the holocaust.
But, we believe the Zionists have exaggerated the numbers to get sympathy from other nations. But, there is Palestinian suffering caused by Israel.” ”

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/hamas-and-the-holocaust/#comments

In most people’s books that counts as Holocaust revisionism, and let us not forget that the Hamas leadership are not stupid. By and large they are highly educated and extremely committed to their cause, so the views that they express are not idle throwaway comments but a reflection of their inner thinking.

Thus if the criteria applied during the David Irving case were employed on Khaled Meshaal’s statements then they would be characterised as being antisemitic.

That does assume that most people agree that Holocaust revisionism is inherently antisemitic, which I think it is.

Those are just two examples, I could probably find half a dozen more statements from Hamas leaders, that’s the leaders, not rank and file, not anyone else, but the political leaders, which portray an ingrained anti-Jewish racism.

But whether or not people will see the racism in Khaled Meshaal’s comments is another question, but there is an abundance of evidence.

Nick Cohen is the only one who favours torturing people

Oliver Kamm does, too. though I’m not at all convinced that he’s left-wing despite his claims.

@ Conor,

I think Brett and Michael Walzer both opposed the war, for reasons that I can’t recall. Nevertheless, once the troops were in, all of them were in agreement on the need to stay the course and not waste any time investigating the shenanigans that certain governments had pulled in order to get the conflict going.*

Otherwise, you couldn’t slip a Rizla between them all on most of the issues that animate debate in the Land of Seriousness.

(*I think the Euston Manifesto actually has clauses explicitly stating that signatories should neither call for withdrawal nor “pick over the rubble” of the run-up to the war.)

“A minor point, but I when you say that ‘there is a huge diversity of views, not least on whether it was right to go to war in Iraq’ between ‘David T., Gene Zitver, Brownie, Marcus and Brett Lock, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, Alan Johnson, Norman Geras and Michael Walzer’ what do you mean?”

I mean that apart from being broadly on the left and broadly opposed to crude ideas of ‘anti-imperialism’ that bleed into anti-Americanism, they have little in common (although there will be commonalities). I think you have as much in common with them as they do to each other (speaking generally). Michael Waltzer and Alan Johnson opposed the war and I think (I may be wrong) that Aaranovitch did to. But even if it is just two of them, that makes a nonsense idea that they represent a coherent political grouping of the kind described by the rodent. I am not saying they are not likeminded in many ways, simply pointing up the nonsensical vaguness of Rodent’s attacks on them. If there is a coherent political position, Roident should say waht he thinks it is, back it up, and then explain why it is wrong. I wish him luck but I think he will spend a long time searching to prove that Norman Geras (for example) spent ‘years’ pretending that “a) the insurgency was not happening, until that became untenable then admitting
b) that the insurgency was happening, but was merely a temporary hitch on the road to peace, freedom and magic ponies; and when that one fell on its arse they decided
c) that it was happening, but none of it was their fault (this last one in a particularly strident, petulant tone).”

Although ‘c’ is a but silly since the insurgency really wasn’t their fault (any more than it was yours or mine).

“Oliver Kamm does, too. though I’m not at all convinced that he’s left-wing despite his claims.”

Neither Nick Cohen nor Oliver Kamm support torture despite Cohen’s article about it.

“(*I think the Euston Manifesto actually has clauses explicitly stating that signatories should neither call for withdrawal nor “pick over the rubble” of the run-up to the war.)2

You are wrong.

“Amazingly enough, I am familiar with the anti-semitic contents of the Founding Charter of Hamas. I’m also familiar with the socialist contents of the Labour Party constitution (until relatively recently). Were you under the impression that James Callaghan led a socialist party?”

I was, he was, and the electorate was. Removal of Clause 4 was a rather significant moment in the history of the Labour Party you know.

But if you are wwilling to give the benefiot of the doubt to a political party that calls for the death of all Jews in its founding Charter, I think you rather prove Conor’s point about the creeping willingness to excuse and tolerate antisemitism among sections of the left.

I opposed the Iraq war but I didn’t ‘agree’ with George Galloway on that. My reasons fir disagreeing with the war had nothing to do with self-agrandisement, political opportunism or financial reward.

You are wrong.

Ahem… From Euston Manifesto, The – Section C: Elaborations…

“We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted—rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.”

Now, there are many ways in which this can be read with great charity, but I am struggling to think of a way in which it can be interpreted as saying anything other than Troops must stay! and Let’s not have any investigations into the many lies and half-truths certain politicians might have used to get their way.

Forgive me here – I’ve got stuff to do, but I’ll take on your point at #152 presently.

Rodent, you said: “I think the Euston Manifesto actually has clauses explicitly stating that signatories should neither call for withdrawal nor “pick over the rubble” of the run-up to the war.)”

And quoied this in support: “We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted—rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.”

You will see that the second is an expression of a shared view, not a clause stating that signatories should not call for a withdrawal of troops. If withdrawal of troops can result in the building of a stable, peaceable democratic order a call for it would be consistent with this shared view. As I remeber, it was one shared by a majority of Iraqis too. Not all of the Eustonites, I assume.

John,

I can usually be relied upon to pop up and defend the Decents; in this instance I think your argument with FR is misplaced. I think the Decents are as well defined group as any other, and despite the fact that they don’t all agree on everything, it makes perfect sense to talk about the Decent Left.

Here’s what I think defines the Decents. Some people opposed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it wouldn’t work and would do more harm than good to the Iraqi people. Others would have opposed the invasion even if they’d thought it would ‘work’ (by which I mean remove Saddam, establish a democracy, without too much bloodshed) because they saw it as imperialism, or whatever. The decents are united by opposition to this second bunch. They are defined by what they are against, more than what they are for.

This is why I like’em, because I was against that strain of anti-war thought too, was dismayed by its prevalence on the left. Where the Decents went wrong is in effect by defining themselves in negative terms, and (some/most of them) overlooking the weaknesses in the positive case for the invasion, and the nature of the crowd doing it (the Bush administration). So they ended up on the wrong side of the argument, even though i think they were right in much of what they said.

I think Flying Rodent is wrong when he says the Decents tried to portray everybody who opposed the invasion as Gallowayesque dictator lovers. I’m sure FR can find instances of Decent writing that can be interpreted in that fashion. Equally, time and time again Decent writers said they had no beef with opposition to the invasion based on variants of the “it won’t work” argument, and time again they made clear that they knew most of the wars opponents fell into that camp, and were trying to address a that strain of self-styled anti-imperialists which they thought was infecting the left. And I think they were right about that; at the time I shared their dismay at much of the anti-war opinion came across in the Guardian and elsewhere. In this case I think FR (somebody I hold in high regard – sorry for sounding pompous but could figure out how else to write it) has fallen foul of the tendency to see the worst in your opponents, and is looking at the Decents through a lens that only sees the bad bits.

If a journalist writes an article saying that torture is justifiable in certain circumstances it surely logical to conclude that he thinks that torture is justifiable in certain circumstances – just as when Dick Cheney agreed with the statement that ‘a dunk in the water is a no-brainer if it can save American lives’ he was agreeing with the viewpoint that waterboarding suspected terrorists was a permissible policy to pursue.

Nick Cohen is on record as making this statement (Oliver Kamm isn’t although he supports extraordinary rendition) so it is reasonable to conclude that it is something he believes (just as it is reasonable to conclude that he thinks Martin Bright was sacked from his last job on the direct orders of Gordon Brown). These beliefs may be reprehensible and silly, but we must conclude that they are what Nick believes until he says otherwise. Given that he has changed his mind in the past about many of his beliefs perhaps he may do so again

“If a journalist writes an article saying that torture is justifiable in certain circumstances it surely logical to conclude that he thinks that torture is justifiable in certain circumstances – just as when Dick Cheney agreed with the statement that ‘a dunk in the water is a no-brainer if it can save American lives’ he was agreeing with the viewpoint that waterboarding suspected terrorists was a permissible policy to pursue.”

Oh come on Conor. I agree the article wasn’t Nick C’s finest hour but you have to be spectacularly ungenerous to read it the way you appear to. He was not suggesting that state torture is acceptable, but that deporting people to countries that do torture may be inevitable in certain circumstances. Anyway, it is perfectly possible to believe that torture is morally permissble (even required) in certain circumstances, while be firmly opposed to torture as a tool of the state.

Cheney is another matter (as usual).

“Here’s what I think defines the Decents. Some people opposed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it wouldn’t work and would do more harm than good to the Iraqi people. Others would have opposed the invasion even if they’d thought it would ‘work’ (by which I mean remove Saddam, establish a democracy, without too much bloodshed) because they saw it as imperialism, or whatever. The decents are united by opposition to this second bunch. ”

The trouble is, Luis, that you would include a lot of people in that definition who would run screaming from the badge ‘Decent’ I think it defines Conor, for example and maybe even Flying Rodent too. That’s why I think FR’s idea of ‘Decent’ is a shadow. If it was just what you said, there would be no real objection (although it is odd to have a special name for people who hold a single political opinion in common).

Is it the word “clause” that’s problematic, or the fact that this is in the elaboration? As far as I knew, the elaboration is a statement of how the authors see their grand ideas panning out in reality – if I signed a declaration against meat pies, only to later find that the authors’ intent was the promulgation of many millions of meat pies, I’d feel a little cheated. You might feel the elaboration is irrelevant – I don’t.

I’m cribbing from Dan Davies again, but this is a point worth repeating…

The Manifesto states that the authors are firmly against “picking over the rubble of the arguments over intervention”. They also say that they will “have no truck” with people who devote “most of (their) energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq)”.

If I can translate for the hard of reading, this means “The authors of this manifesto are strongly opposed to the architects of the Iraq war facing any consequences for their actions”.

Further, article 10 states a presumption of intervention against any regime that meets a certain standard of inhumanity…

10. A New Internationalism …if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a “responsibility to protect”.

The elaboration then explains that Iraq was just such a case. I take this to mean that signatories of the manifesto agree that the Iraq intervention was 100% justified, as will be any future military adventures against tyrants.

Additonally, I’ll restate that the manifesto states that leftists’ priorities should be rebuilding Iraq. Never mind when the thing was written… Not one of the authors has called for troops to be removed from Iraq by April 2009 – is it reasonable to conclude that signatories to the manifesto are signing up to the continued occupation of Iraq?

Now, I opposed the war. Once the invasion began, I wanted the troops out as quickly as possible, and I damn well wanted to see Tony Blair being questioned about his behaviour, under oath.

These were common and reasonable sentiments at the time. Could I hold these opinions and honestly sign up to the content of the Euston Manifesto?

Once again, I’ll get to Aaronovitch and Geras.

I agree with Luis (as usual). Here is what I wrote about them at the time

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/22/coughcoughmumble

The title was inspired, I think, by a website run by a certain Flying Rodent

“Anyway, it is perfectly possible to believe that torture is morally permissble (even required) in certain circumstances, while be firmly opposed to torture as a tool of the state.”

How?

“If I can translate for the hard of reading, this means “The authors of this manifesto are strongly opposed to the architects of the Iraq war facing any consequences for their actions”. ”

No it doesn’t. The obvious interpretation of all this is that the sigaantories of the manifesto think that energies that should be applied to imrpoving the position in Iraq are being wasted in party political point scoring. Having said that I have no idea what the ‘consequnces of their actions’ should be in these circs.

“I take this to mean that signatories of the manifesto agree that the Iraq intervention was 100% justified, as will be any future military adventures against tyrants. ”

Well you are wrong sionce many of the sigantories of the manifesto did not support the war because they did not think it could be justified. I should apply Occam’s Razor a bit more liberally.

“Additonally, I’ll restate that the manifesto states that leftists’ priorities should be rebuilding Iraq. Never mind when the thing was written… Not one of the authors has called for troops to be removed from Iraq by April 2009 – is it reasonable to conclude that signatories to the manifesto are signing up to the continued occupation of Iraq?”

I think it is likely that most signatories believe ted that troops should stay, as did the vast majority of people in the UK and (I bbelieve) a clear majority of Iraqis. It was hardly a fringe position. I wonder what you think it proves?

“Now, I opposed the war. Once the invasion began, I wanted the troops out as quickly as possible, and I damn well wanted to see Tony Blair being questioned about his behaviour, under oath. ”

Well, OK, I want a Maserati and a magnum of Romanee Conti. So far, so disappointed.

“These were common and reasonable sentiments at the time. Could I hold these opinions and honestly sign up to the content of the Euston Manifesto?”

Yes, if you believed that an immediate removal of troops would have speeded the establishment of a democratic government and an improved infrastructure in Iraq. I think it more likely that you wanted troops out whatever the consequences of that would be for the Iraqi people.

“How?”

If a torture would prevent a hundred others being tortured (or if you had good reason for thinking it would) it would be morally required.

You agreee with Luis, Conor? But you are a ‘Decent’ by his definition, no?

Torture is a crime that only State officials can inflict (if someone who is not acting on behalf of the State beats you up then it is just a crime of violence). That is why the Bush administration had to write so many memos about what the felt they could legally order people to do. They did this because there was a particular climate of opinion in favour of torturing people in certain circumstances. Journalists who wrote articles arguing in favour of torture are as morally cuplable of what happened as the officials who inflicted the acts and those who ordered them to do it.

Period

“Journalists who wrote articles arguing in favour of torture are as morally cuplable of what happened as the officials who inflicted the acts and those who ordered them to do it.”

No, that is nonsense. There is clear moral distinction between performing an act and writing an article in favour of it (which Nick C did not do).

And if it is true that there can be no non-state torture, Nick Cohen’s article cannot be read as a defence of torture, since the act he seems to condone was done by a private citizen. It also means that organisations such as Al Qaeda cannot be guilty of torture. But it is a silly pettifogging distinction. Of course, torture can be performed by non-state actors and is, frequently.

“But you are a ‘Decent’ by his definition, no?”

No, I thought the invasion of Iraq without a UN mandate was a crime of aggression and its authors should be brought to justice (although I don’t think they will be) and that member of the previous US adminiatration should be prosecuted for torture (and will be)

I am part of the ‘mainstream liberal left’ and a ‘disenchantment with the liberal mainstream which borders on disgust’ is what Nick Cohen said united the founders of the Euston Manifesto. It is actually not very difficult to imagine them sitting in a pub talking about it.

You see that again and again in articles attacking Amnesty, Oxfam (Norman Geras even dislikes Save the Children) the Fabians, etc. A couple of days ago Norm had an article taking issue with Philippe Sands – whose book did more than most to expose the torture trail at the heart of the US ‘war on terror’, yet I have yet to see him take Nick to task for even his most ludicrous articles and statements

2No, I thought the invasion of Iraq without a UN mandate was a crime of aggression and its authors should be brought to justice (although I don’t think they will be) and that member of the previous US adminiatration should be prosecuted for torture (and will be)”

I think that is a peculiar position although it makes sense to me. But you can hold it and still qualify as a ‘decent’ according to Luis:

“Some people opposed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it wouldn’t work and would do more harm than good to the Iraqi people. Others would have opposed the invasion even if they’d thought it would ‘work’ (by which I mean remove Saddam, establish a democracy, without too much bloodshed) ”

Or are you saying that you can see no circumstances where it would have been OK to remove Saddam and establish stable democracy without the paperwork being in order? Even without bloodshed? Even with the mass support oof the Iraqi people? That is an odd, legalistic position. I think you are ‘Decent’ but in denial.

“A couple of days ago Norm had an article taking issue with Philippe Sands – whose book did more than most to expose the torture trail at the heart of the US ‘war on terror’, yet I have yet to see him take Nick to task for even his most ludicrous articles and statements”

You give the impression that Norman Geras is in some way soft ion torture. I am sure that this is not you intention because he is very clear that he opposes torture in every circumstance on principle and that torturers in the US administration should be pursued through the courts.

Some of the EM signatories did indeed oppose the invasion of Iraq, which they are fond of pointing out when people accuse the EM of being a “pro-war” document. But the document specifically sets out to justify the right of states to carry out such interventions in other sovereign states, so I can only assume that their objections were on the grounds of practicality rather than principle. Or they are hypocrites.

“Some people opposed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it wouldn’t work and would do more harm than good to the Iraqi people. Others would have opposed the invasion even if they’d thought it would ‘work’ (by which I mean remove Saddam, establish a democracy, without too much bloodshed) ”

these were definitions of what constitutes not being a decent according to Luis – you get that, right?

I think you are ‘Decent’ but in denial.

and from that statement it’s pretty clear you’re a troll.

Torture isn’t a matter of utilitarian accountancy: torturing someone to save 100 lives is just as much a crime as torturing someone to save a cat.

It’s the act itself which is an obscenity, not the ‘justification’.

It debases those who condone it or stand by as much as the perpetrator and the victim.

Apologies, I’m going to have to cry off this thread ’til tomorrow – Mrs. Rodent has just handed me my orders for the evening, and sadly they don’t include “Bickering about David Aaronovitch”, which is usually a great favourite of mine.

Just in case anyone thought I’d got scared and run off…

Returning to the question of bits of the British Left and antisemitism, does anyone really think that Khaled Meshaal’s comments are not antisemitic?

[more on #149]

”
From aljazeera “Khaled Meshaal also praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, for his “courage” in having dismissed the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East to Europe or North America.”

Only recently, on the 31st of March 2008, Khaled Meshaal tells a Sky interviewer:

“KM: We don’t want to harm any religion in the world. We don’t deny the holocaust.
But, we believe the Zionists have exaggerated the numbers to get sympathy from other nations. But, there is Palestinian suffering caused by Israel.” ”

and if they disagree that these remarks are antisemitic, then on what grounds do they make such a judgement?

I doubt I will have any takers for that!

I don’t think that holocaust denial, utterly repellent as it is, is inherently antisemitic. almost all holocaust deniers are antisemitic, and holocaust denial is clearly offensive to Jews, but the one doesn’t necessarily entail the other.

when one contextualises those quotations with other things he’s said, his antisemitism is pretty clear however.

Modernity,

I have no problem accepting that he is antisemitic.

if we take the Hamas leaders, for an example, not the party, not all of them, but just a few of the Hamas leaders, how would we determine if their utterances are antisemitic?

When I’m wondering whether any individual leader of Hamas has ever said anything which would be construed as anti-semitic if said by somebody we already know to be an anti-semite, I’ll bear that in mind.

Obviously the statement you quote is offensive garbage, and it does suggest that the person making it subscribes to conspiracy theories about ‘Zionists’. But it’s not evidence that Hamas is an anti-semitic party, still less that Hamas supporters are necessarily anti-semites, let alone that British leftists who fail to denounce Hamas are soft on anti-semitism.

It’s not hard to find evidence that the BNP or the Lega Nord is a racist party – racism is what they do. Is anti-semitism what Hamas are all about? Because it seems to me that (a) representing Palestinians (b) opposing Israel and (c) not being Fatah are rather higher up the list.

thanks Andrew,

I didn’t think you would have a problem with that point, but “organic cheeseboard” still needs to work at it.

If as “organic cheeseboard” suggests that holocaust denial is NOT inherently antisemitic then what is it? Coincidently antisemitic?

A mere chance that 99.999% of neo-nazis are Holocaust deniers? A simple twist of fate?** Hardly.

Self evidently, Holocaust denial is inherently antisemitic.

—-
** sarcasm

I wonder if cheeseboard would concede that those who deny the history of the slave trade are racist?

Is anti-semitism what Hamas are all about? Because it seems to me that (a) representing Palestinians (b) opposing Israel and (c) not being Fatah are rather higher up the list.

Was anti-semitism what the Nazis were all about? Because it seems to me that (a) ruling Germany (b) opposing Bolshevism and (c) invading neighbouring countries were rather higher up the list.

You can be a part-time anti-semite and still murder a load of Jews if you get the chance. It doesn’t have to be a full-time activity any more than describing yourself as a “golfer” means you play golf 12 hours a day.

John @162

“The trouble is, Luis, that you would include a lot of people in that definition who would run screaming from the badge ‘Decent’ I think it defines Conor …” –

no, Conor and FR are, I take it, members of the first set – they opposed the invasion on sensible grounds and would probably have supported it if they’d thought it would achieve the happy outcome that the Decents hoped it would- although I’m not sure (Conor for instance had legalistic objections to it, FR might have other objections too). Decents are those that get hot under the collar about the second set, and were of the opinion that the left had gotten infested with members of the second set. I don’t think Conor and FR, even if they’d agree with the infestation proposition (which I doubt) saw it as something worth paying much attention to.

this is derailing the thread somewhat. apologies.

Was anti-semitism what the Nazis were all about? Because it seems to me that (a) ruling Germany (b) opposing Bolshevism and (c) invading neighbouring countries were rather higher up the list.

Invasion of USSR: 1941. Invasion of Poland: 1939. Nuremburg Laws: 1935. Your point?

I think Holocaust-denial is antisemitic. I also think that anyone who gets into issues like exact numbers, etc. is probably doing it because they are an antisemite (I can think of examples where that might not be true, but it is my general feeling).

I think Hamas are basically an antisemitic party. I just can´t see how the problems of the middle east can be solved without talking to them. I think that the president of Iran is also an antisemite, but it will not be possible to defeat the Taliban without him (unfortunately, it probably won´t be possible to do it even with Iran´s support now). This is one of the points that I was making in my original article about the ´pragmatists´ wanting to cut deals. I think that these are genuine dilemmas and we should discuss them.

On this issue of ´decency´, what first irritated me about them was this ´ah you are one of us, but you just don´t realise it´ line. My politics have hardly changed over the last 25 years and I remember many of them when they were Trots. They have grown up a bit since then, but I think that they have kept the same simplistic mind-set which sees everything in two dimensional terms.

The next thing that irritated me about them was the habit they have of insinuating I think something or have said something that I don´t or haven´t. I have never accused Norm of supporting torture – although I have written an article which notes that he praises someone else who does.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/29/dangerousambivalence

The third thing that irritates me about them is they published a manifesto calling for the reform of international law and they self-evidently don´t understand some of the basic points about what it actually is (and then they accuse people of being ´legalistic´when we point this out). There is a grown up debate going on about issues like R2P, universal jurisdiction and the ICC. If they want to be part of it they have got to inform themselves a bit better about what is being discussed.

On Iraq, the reason that there was not a UN mandate for the invasion was because the majority of the Security Council did not believe that there was sufficient evidence that Saddam really did still have WMDs and they were anyway worried that the invasion would do more harm than good. I was living in Brazil at the time and that was the way it was covered in the Latin American press.

Of course I would have been happy if the old regime had spontaneously and peacefully combusted, but my fears about an externally imposed regime-change have been more than borne out. Also remember that the invasion was seen by the NeoCons at the time as just the first step. The ´do we turn right or left when we get to Baghdad´ (ie invade Syria or Iran) jokes were semi-serious. If the occupation had panned out as they hoped then I am sure that nutcases like Wolfowitz would have indeed urged this – yet the decents were still defending him even by the time he was screwing up at the World Bank.

oops, should I not have used the word ‘legalistic’? I only meant that I thought you’d had some objections over and above those based on likely outcome. It wasn’t pejorative.

I think Holocaust-denial is antisemitic. I also think that anyone who gets into issues like exact numbers, etc. is probably doing it because they are an antisemite (I can think of examples where that might not be true, but it is my general feeling).

If we were talking about politicians in Europe or America I’d agree like a shot. I think if Israel is your regional superpower you have a different perspective on Zionism and everything touched by Zionism. (I should imagine there’s a fair amount of anti-American bigotry and conspiracy theory in Cuba.)

I think Hamas are basically an antisemitic party. I just can´t see how the problems of the middle east can be solved without talking to them. … This is one of the points that I was making in my original article about the ´pragmatists´ wanting to cut deals. I think that these are genuine dilemmas and we should discuss them.

I agree with the last point, obviously. But in the original post I got the impression you were denouncing the ‘pragmatists’ and calling for consistent liberals to take a stand against them (“I don’t think that the ‘contextualisers’ and ‘pragmatists’ are confined to the nutty fringes any more”). It was that position I was arguing against.

Luis: I was responding to John at 171.

Phil: sure, context is extremely important. And so if you are Jewish and a non-Jewish person tells you that he or she does not think something is antisemitic you might have a different perspective. That was my point about the ‘contextualisers’. They can ‘understand’ why Palestinians and their supporters may sometimes ‘shade the boundaries’ between anti-Zionism and antisemitism yet can’t show a similar ‘understanding’ for why Israeli citizens may have a legitimate fear of being ‘driven into the sea’. Meanwhile ‘pragmatists’ show a willingness to compromise on human rights to cut deals with people who are open antisemites.

My point is that neither pragmatists nor contextualisers are themselves and antisemitic – and would be offended to be accused of this – but their failure to consistently challenge antisemitism in all its manifestations is worrying. I am also saying that for those of us on the centre-left/liberal mainstream there are some genuine dilemmas here because we tend to be pragmatic and see the importance of context. That is why we need to debate the issue more and listen to the message even when we find the messengers can be rather annoying at times.

that is the nub of the argument:

“If we were talking about politicians in Europe or America I’d agree like a shot. I think if Israel is your regional superpower you have a different perspective on Zionism and everything touched by Zionism.”

So in Europe or America, Phil will acknowledge that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. [Note: I'm talking about the idea, not the individuals concerned, (repeat: the idea) ]

But when Holocaust denial is articulated in other continents, then surprise surprise there becomes some ambiguity?

According to that way of thinking, is Holocaust denial antisemitic or isn’t it? Is it 50% anti-semitic or not ? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at all?

So instead of the Universalist approach that racism is racism, no matter which part of the earth it is articulated on, we are led to believe that Holocaust denial (and presumably other things) change depending on where you live and what you believe.

Following that logic, presumably if you have a particularly strong view on Zionism then Holocaust denial can be anything that you choose it to be.

Which is, of course, intellectual nonsense and probably the province of postmodernist thinking rather than any objective political analysis.

Such a subjective approach is part of the problem, it doesn’t look objectively at anti-Jewish racism, its components, its imagery and evolution rather it prejudges the issue and negates any rational analysis of the phenomena.

It is a decidedly dodgy way of reasoning and little wonder that those who hold this view have to continually contort themselves to maintain their arguments.

So in Europe or America, Phil will acknowledge that Holocaust denial is antisemitic.

Could you do me the courtesy of arguing with what I’ve actually said?

Conor: I also think that anyone who gets into issues like exact numbers, etc. is probably doing it because they are an antisemite

Me: If we were talking about politicians in Europe or America I’d agree like a shot. I think if Israel is your regional superpower you have a different perspective on Zionism and everything touched by Zionism.

In Europe, I think we can safely assume that anyone who talks about the Holocaust death toll being exaggerated is doing so because that person hates Jews. In the Middle East, I don’t think we can make that assumption.

As for the inherent qualities of Holocaust denial, I think you’ll find it’s bluish, octagonal, clammy to the touch and an octave above middle C. It’s an idea – a bloody awful idea, but still an idea. People are anti-semitic, or not – ideas are just ideas, good or bad.

“Could you do me the courtesy of arguing with what I’ve actually said?”

would you do the same

“People are anti-semitic, or not – ideas are just ideas, good or bad.”

Again, intellectual nonsense.

The expression of National Socialism as an idea is antisemitc, need I go on?

“The next thing that irritated me about them was the habit they have of insinuating I think something or have said something that I don´t or haven´t. I have never accused Norm of supporting torture – although I have written an article which notes that he praises someone else who does.”

Conor, you may well be justified in feeling irritated at the things that some of the people you like tocall ‘decent’ say and do, but this point is not fair. If I noted that Conor Foley does not beat his wife but, you know, he never does seem to criticise wife beaters, you would hardly consider that an innocent remark. Take my word for it, your comment above strongly gave the impression that Norman G was soft on torture.

“The third thing that irritates me about them is they published a manifesto calling for the reform of international law and they self-evidently don´t understand some of the basic points about what it actually is (and then they accuse people of being ´legalistic´when we point this out). ”

No, the accusation of ‘legalism’ only applies if your position is (as is implied by your comments here) that you would have supported the invasion if there had been a UN mandate. That is an a-moral legalistic position which seems to me to confuse legal facts with real ones. I think it also means that you would be committed to retrospectively supporting the Iraq war if a court found that in fact the original UN resolution did mandate the invasion. I am sure you would not take that view, because I think you would have opposed the inavasion even if it was ‘legal’ in your narrow definition. Am I right? If I am, surely all the talk of UN mandates is a smokescreen?

“On Iraq, the reason that there was not a UN mandate for the invasion was because the majority of the Security Council did not believe that there was sufficient evidence that Saddam really did still have WMDs”

I don’t think that is a very plausible explanation. What right did they have for thinking this when all the evidence was that he did have WMDs? But, of course, it is just about possible that the security council was motivated entirely considerations of security and not global power politics.

I realise that this thread has been a bit derailed by squabbles over Iraq. and I didn’t mean to infuriate you by teases about being a ‘Decent’ (I sometimes forget how seriously people on the internets take the name-calling). All I meant was that you are an interventionist, (you do not reject on principle the rights of states to invade other states for humanitarian reasons) albeit a very cautious one, and so you are much closer to a Geras on these issues than a Flying Rodent who would always (I think) consider the sovereignty of a tyrant to take precedent over the lives of his subjects.

God, is Phil still arguing that a political party that has as a central plank of its political platform the genocide of the Jews is not antisemitic? Blimey. What would persuade you that a political party was antisemitic, Phil?

Conor, I have just read yoiur CiF article linked to above and I am staggered that you do not accept that this implies that Norman Geras is ambivalent about torture:

“There simply is not a middle position [on the use of torture], as the founders of the Euston Manifesto are trying to pretend.”

You make that statement after having mentioned that Geras is a founder of the Euston Manifesto and mentioning him several more times inclusing implicitly criticising him for praising an article that you represent as supporting the ‘middle ground’ on torture position. But you know that Geras does not believe there is a middle ground. He has written extensively making this point and attacking those who believe that torture can be justified. He is committed to the prosecution of those in the US administration who approved the use of torture. I think your article is a little shabby, to be honest.

And I should say again, that understanding that torture is morally justified (or required) in ceratin circumstances (there is no escaping from this conclusion) does not commit you to supporting or condoning any state torture ever, for all the reasons you state in your article. Everything I read from you that is not ad hominem, is excellent and thought provoking. It has changed my mind on many things. But the smearing is beneath you.

On the other hand, I have just noticed the date stamp, so maybe my indignation is a bit overheated.

…you are much closer to a Geras on these issues than a Flying Rodent who would always (I think) consider the sovereignty of a tyrant to take precedent over the lives of his subjects.

Hah hah hah fuck you very much, Meredith.

BTW, Here’s Professor Norm ticking off blogger Shuggy (who manages the simple task of being both pro-war and opposed to far left mentalists with out being a cucking funt about it, unlike many others) against for regarding torture as a “taboo” that should not be discussed…

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/12/discussing_the_.html

…Norm feels that the option of torturing terrorists should at least be on the table for rational discussion. I’ve no comment to make on that, other than to note that he shows a commitment to open-minded, inquisitive debate and rational inquiry when considering torture, but that generosity wilts like a chocolate boner in the oven the instant someone he doesn’t like applies it to his favourite wars.

@ Luis – “Conor and FR are, I take it, members of the first set – they opposed the invasion on sensible grounds and would probably have supported it if they’d thought it would achieve the happy outcome that the Decents hoped it would.”

I opposed the invasion because it had “VIETRAQ – THE SLAUGHTERING” written all over it in five-foot neon capitals. I opposed it because I paid attention to what the Americans were saying about it, rather than our Prime Minister, since they were clearly the ones in charge. They were telling the people of the US that Iraq was a mortal threat to America, and that it had to be invaded in self-defence. Remember the remote controlled planes that were going to drop anthrax on Dogdick, Alabama?

The idea of the world’s most powerful nation invading any country in self-defence is daft enough, but a castrated, defenseless country like Iraq? It was lunacy. To this day, I still can’t believe that people looked at the situation and thought, This is so crazy it might just work! Perhaps I’m overcautious, but it smelled like Eau du Bloodbath to me from the moment the idea was floated.

On why I can’t stand the Decents, my objections to them are exactly the same as my objections to Guido Fawkes or the Daily Mail – they relentlessly pimp an extremely reactionary and distorted worldview to an eager audience, and almost all of their efforts are bent on attack rather than education.

While Amis’s name is being bandied about, remember that bit in Money where John Self says that the key to winning a fight is to go all the way up to maximum violence immediately? Go in half-heartedly and you’re toast – aim to kill the bastard, and you’ll win.

That’s kind of how I see the worst of the Decents working – HP, Cohen and Kamm steam straight in with the accusations of foul racism, complicity in genocide etc. while the people they accuse are still taking off their coats. Hence, we’ve had such tasteful spectacles as

- David T. putting the words “Fuck the Yids” in the mouths of some London Quakers, despite the fact they’ve never said, and probably never thought, any such a thing;

- David T. pimping a smashed window at a Starbucks as “Kristallnacht,” and telling his readers that Muslims are roaming the streets of London, attacking Jews wherever they find them, and

- Nick Cohen calling Ken Livingstone a “Jew-baiter” during an election campaign while bemoaning the oppressiveness of libel laws.

…And those are just three off the top of my head.

Basically, these aren’t people groping towards the truth – they’re already strong believers, and I don’t think they care what they say in order to blacken their enemies names.

The expression of National Socialism as an idea is antisemitc, need I go on?

If you’ve got any interest in changing my mind, yes, you certainly do need. I don’t believe that any idea – up to and including National Socialism – is inherently anti-semitic: Exhibit A in this respect would be Amos Oz’s interviewee who described himself as a “Judeo-Nazi”. Nor do I think any idea, or body of ideas, is inherently immune from anti-semitism; to believe otherwise would be to believe that a Scottish Nationalist (say) expressing anti-semitic views has either (a) ceased to be a Scottish Nationalist or (b) revealed that Scottish Nationalism is anti-semitic. Back in the real world, Labour Party members can be anti-semites, even though there’s nothing anti-semitic about the Labour Party constitution; Tory Party members can be anti-semites; Greens and Liberal Democrats can be anti-semites (and God knows we hear enough about it when they are). And members of a party committed to the destruction of the state of Israel may not be anti-semites.

I await your glib uncomprehending one-liner with interest.

All I meant was that you are an interventionist… albeit a very cautious one

If we’re trying to define the “decent left, an incautious interventionist might be not be bad place to start.

Flying Rodent who would always (I think) consider the sovereignty of a tyrant to take precedent over the lives of his subjects

…and “someone who believes he can read people’s minds while they’re fantasising about fellating dictators” might be good to get in there too.

John: ‘On the other hand I have just noticed the date stamp . . . .’

Err yes, exactly and that was my whole point. At the time I wrote that piece Nick Cohen had openly advocated torturing people in certain circumstances and deporting ‘suspected terrorists’ to countries where they were at risk of torture. The in-house journal of the ‘decents’, Democratiya, had a long article making the case for ‘dirty hands’ (ie torturing people unofficially) and both Alan and Norman had specifically praised the article (have you read it?).

I have corresponded with Norman a lot on this point over the last couple of years – a correspondence which started with my critique of his original article. I would not claim credit for changing his position on this issue – as far as I am aware he was alway anti-torture, but he might not have accepted how intrinsic torture was to the Bush administration’s war on terror (ie Abu Ghraib was not an aberration, but an officially approved policy) nor completely understood why a ‘total taboo’ position is the only one that can actually be taken (there can be no middle ground when it comes to state torture).

I don’t think that you are ‘pro-torture’ either, but if you had written the sort of articles that Norman and Alan had written I would have taken you to task as well. I did not smear either of them or make ad hominem attacks. I criticised what they wrote and the positions that they had taken – because I thought that they were very, very wrong.

Nick Cohen, however, does support torturing people. His article makes this very clear and it is a position that he has never retracted.

I have spent most of my adult life campaigning against torture. I have interviewed hundreds of torture survivors, written countless articles about it, published a book on the subject and run dozens and dozens of training events to teach judges, prosecutors, lawyers, NGO activists, etc. what they can do to combat it. I first went to Kosovo during the war to run sessions in the refugee camps training people on how to use legal mechanisms to bring torturers to justice – based on my experiences running Amnesty’s campaign during the Pinochet case. I have done the same in dozens of countries since and will probably be returning to Sri Lanka to do it again in the very near future.

Two of my (fairly distant) relatives were tortured to death back in the 1920s and I could think of about a dozen fairly close friends who have been tortured in various parts of the world. I was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for a couple of days when I was a student – which makes me a ‘suspected terrorist’ in by Cohen’s definition. I was not physically maltreated, but I was held completely incommunicado, strip searched deprived of sleep, questioned for hours without a lawyer and subject to various threats. If I had been tortured I am fairly sure that I would have signed any statement put in front of me. I know several people who have done that and who spent years in prison as a result.

We know that part of the ‘evidence’ for the invasion of Iraq was obtained by torturing people who agreed to make statements claiming that Saddam still had WMDs and links to Al Qaeda – neither of which was true. Other ‘evidence’ was fabricated by the Bush administration and spun by the Blair government. The case for the invasion of Iraq was based on lies – but it was not strong enough to convince a majority on the Security Council.

Saying that my position on the invasion was ‘legalistic’ because I ‘would have supported it if there had been a UN mandate’ looks at the issue from the wrong way around. I did not support the invasion because the case for it was so weak. This is also the reason why the majority of the Security Council also did not support it. Had there been a stronger case (ie real evidence that Saddam had WMDs and was planning to use them) then perhaps I would have supported it and perhaps so would the Security Council.

Anyway, apologies if my previous post was a bit too forthright. I probably wrote and posted it too hurriedly. I think it is good to discuss these issues in a calm way and part of my frustration with the ‘decents’ is that they have weakened their (in my opinion) already weak arguments by the incendiary way in which they often put them across.

“If you’ve got any interest in changing my mind, yes, you certainly do need. “

I’m not particularly interested in changing your mind, you are an extremely intelligent individual, an ex-computer specialist, an academic and author, so you can decide on the issues for yourself, but I would like to tease out the implication of your argument, which is:

“I don’t believe that any idea – up to and including National Socialism – is inherently anti-semitic:”

Let us simplify the point and see how it comes out.

Antisemitism, broadly speaking, is anti-Jewish racism, it incorporates a lot more to it than the run-of-the-mill racist notions, but that will do for our purposes.

If we take the above point and and reduce it slightly, so instead of:

1. “I don’t believe that any idea – up to and including National Socialism – is inherently anti-semitic:”

We could end up with this:

2. ‘I don’t believe that any idea – up to and including National Socialism – is inherently anti-Jewish racism’ (the English is rather inelegant, but you get the point?)

And one stage more:

3.

‘I don’t believe that any idea – up to and including National Socialism – is inherently racist’

But let’s be clear, that’s NOT what Phil said, I have just expanded it to demonstrate the line of reasoning and why it is false.

I would hope that demonstrates the futility of this line of reasoning, because even the lowest undergraduate would understand that the idea of racial superiority, as articulated by the Nazis and others, is inherently racist.

Again, when we dispense with the word antisemitism and express it, inelegantly, for what it is, as anti-Jewish racism, then the notion that an idea can not embody racism is shown to be false.

See above, “Judeo-Nazi”. Yes, National Socialism is inherently racist. No, it’s not inherently anti-semitic. And no (to repeat the assertion you originally responded to), trying to revise the death toll in the Holocaust downwards isn’t necessarily the act of an anti-semite.

Phil,

I, as a non-academic, can’t follow your line of reasoning.

If Amos Oz or anyone had, hypothetically speaking, called themselves a “frying pan” or “didgeridoo” that does not make it so in the real world, and I would humbly suggest it is a complete irrelevance to the logic behind your arguments, such as they are.

I’m afraid if you persist with the repetitious point of arguing that:

“Yes, National Socialism is inherently racist. No, it’s not inherently anti-semitic. “

Then there’s nothing I could respond with that would penetrate such an entrenched and illogical position, which runs counter to all of the available evidence over the past 70+ years.

I will leave it to any philosophers reading this thread, Conor or John Meredith to pick your views apart, I simply do not have the patience.

Still, all in all, you’ve proved one of Conor’s original points.

If Amos Oz or anyone had, hypothetically speaking, called themselves a “frying pan” or “didgeridoo” that does not make it so in the real world

Obviously Oz didn’t call himself a Judeo-Nazi – try and keep up. His interviewee ‘Z’ did, some time in 1982. In the afterword to In the land of Israel Oz writes, “Many people … expressed a suspicion that I invented Z and that such a man is ‘not possible’. On the other hand, there were also people who went to the trouble of writing to express their total identification with Z’s words.”

Still, all in all, you’ve proved one of Conor’s original points.

I’ll let Conor be the judge of that.

I am still not sure how any of that relates to the ahistorical argument that you put forward earlier:

“Yes, National Socialism is inherently racist. No, it’s not inherently anti-semitic. “

Not wishing to belabour the point, but Phil, as an academic well verse in evidential reasoning, how did you come to the conclusion that National Socialism was not inherently antisemitic?

What actual evidence led you to that firm belief?

I don’t believe there is any body of ideas which is indissolubly linked to hatred of a specific group of people. (Case in point: David Icke’s adoption of the Protocols.) Ideas don’t hate people.

As for the specific example, have a look at In the land of Israel and then get back to me.

I am very puzzled by the sixth paragraph of John Meredith’s comment at number 192. I am particularly puzzled by his assertion that “all the evidence was that he did have WMD”. In February and March 2003, the UK Government continued to assert that it was an established fact that Iraq had WMD but there was at that stage very little hard evidence. Most of the evidence that had been presented earlier (for example in the dossier of September 2002) had been called into question by the work of the weapons’ inspectors: this was not countered by any new evidence, just by continued assertions that Iraq was lying and that Iraq ought to declare its WMD that the UK government knew it had. When the IAEA stated that it was very possible that Iraq did not have a nuclear programme, the response of the UK government was that the IAEA had got it wrong and that there was other evidence. The UK government did not, however, say what that evidence was nor whether it had given that evidence to the IAEA (as it was required to do). Six years later it is still unclear what this other evidence was. It was in fact just an assertion that there was evidence, and it is no surprise at all that eleven out of fifteen members of the Security Council should reject the argument put forward by Tony Blair that the evidence for WMD in Iraq was overwhelming so inspections should stop and there should be an invasion.

And indeed there were no WMD and no WMD programmes. Tony Blair’s assertion that WMD would be found was disproved. Why are some people still saying that all the evidence was that Iraq had WMD and why are some people calling into question the views of more than two-thirds of the Security Council?

I was shocked when the Spanish judge wanted to drag Israelis on Gaza ops. But he has no qualms about genocide, war crimes by officials of Pakistan/ Sri Lanka, maoists of Nepal.

Isnt that something we need to work on? We need to put in a public interest litigation on these officials soon. Regards,

Its interesting to note that those on the Left who so vociferously demostrate on a regular basis against Israel have not been seen on recent demos against genocide in Siri Lanka – our prejudices are often more exposed by the demonstrations we elect NOt to go on than by those we do. There is an anti-semitic Left in this country…idetified by its choice of causes !