Comment on Facebook. An activist said the below on accusations of antisemitism, zionism, and Israel.

From the Chakrabarti report:

‘My advice to critics of the Israeli State
and/or Government is to use the term “Zionist” advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as
part of personal abuse.’

Euphemisms are usually bad because they seek to hide something.

We should never be careless when dealing with human rights issues and/ or illegitimate prejudiced discrimination.

And we shouldn’t abuse. …. But then: what is abuse? Another word, instead of having a thousand interpretations, this time has potentially a million interpretations….. if I see a pig and say “hello, pig”, is that abuse? If the pig believes it is a stallion, the pig might feel insulted…… who decides what is abuse? The answer ends up being, ultimately, the NEC. Unless you have a wad of cash. Then its the courts.

When you say “don’t abuse”, no two people will fully agree what that means. They’ll just think they agree. Until it happens in a case where they don’t.
But it’s valid because most people would broadly agree on most things and even those who dont, know what is meant by it.

There’s a hundred definitions of Zionist. The JLM believe in stifling debate about them. Zionist should not be a taboo word. Assuming that someone is antisemitic because they allege a zionist conspiracy is a dangerous leap of faith because in the event of an actual zionist conspiracy it protects the conspirators and targets the whistleblower. This is prejudice.

Using a word to identify conspirators doesn’t imply that a person is alleging the whole group is conspiring. So, for example, if there are fifty men who work at the head office of a company with 100 staff, and only 10 or 40 of the men conspired to defraud the company, that would would make it a “male conspiracy”. That wouldn’t mean anyone was necessarily sexist in making the allegation that there was a male conspiracy. And again, anyone using that as evidence alone of sexism would be guilty of prejudice.

However, I should highlight the following case, which people should read before making judgements about who are the creators of this alleged crisis in antisemitism.


I believe that everyone here should watch “the Lobby”, the four part Al Jazeera documentary, in its entirety.


In thinking about responding to this thread, I’ve felt on several occasions that I’m unable to respond because I believe that an ability to speak freely on this subject doesn’t exist here because of the danger of political victimisation of i believe the kind that at least Wadsworth is victim to as he is still being victimised for something that takes several spectacular leaps of faith to interpret as antisemitism.

When people make ambiguous accusations about a group of people to assume racism is simply prejudice in itself, but in these circumstances, it has a chilling effect on debate , potentially hiding racism (what if some kinds of zionism ARE racist? We wont know without discussing them).

Worse, it potentially protects murderers. There are thousands of dead Palestinians here. If someone alleges a zionist conspiracy, we should be looking first for victims and perpetrators before we ask him to specify what exactly he means by Zionist, and if, possibly, he or she is either fueling or trying to use the term as a euphemism to hide antisemitic prejudice and what additional information would be necessary to prove this. Finally we should look to see the credibility of those making the accusations of antisemitism too.

Have any of you SEEN the IHRA “definition”? I’d like everyone here to who supports the IHRA definition THEMSELVES rather than because someone else told them to, to identify themselves.

Tony Greenstein writes prolifically on the issue and believes that all Zionism is racism. I’m unsure he’s correct, but on his blog you can find huge amounts of information on the issues surrounding the false antisemitism claims since JC was elected leader. I suggest the original poster begins with the two legal professionals who’ve written detailed annihilations of the IHRA definition. I say annihilations, because if by the end of reading these analyses, you still believe the IHRA definition is valid, your mind isn’t working.

Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. All Jews. Because they are Jews. Or perceived as Jews. Nothing more nothing less. If i can say it in 15 words, why does the IHRA need a full side of A4 paper?

Theres a tonne of rotten fish here. It reeks. But then, that thing in Wallasey about homophobic abuse reeks in the same way doesn’t it? I dont think this is anything to do with real homophobia. Or real antisemitism. I think its targeting JCs supporters. Note that THREE NEC candidates or members have been targeted with antisemitism allegations now: Livingstone, Wolfson and James Elliott.


I heard someone screeenshotted some facebook threads relating to this a while ago.

Where is this rampant antisemitism? I’ve not witnessed it at all. Anywhere. In thousands of conversations I’ve yet to personally find a concrete example of of actual antisemitism once. Zionists and/or Jews are barely discussed in actual Labour meetings.