Harry’s Place

Well, that certainly shines a new light on the thing.

to be honest though it was most probably an honest mistake. just a rushed job leaflet, without being checked thats all

obviously, just coincidental that the SWP has spent the last few years hosting anti-Jewish racists (Atzmon, Tamimi, etc)?

Hmm.

They wouldn’t want to upset their newfound friends in Iran, would they. As that sensible chap ‘Jason’ says, it’s the sort of slip any one could make. NOT.

“an honest mistake”

ROFL.

Mind you, a pink elephant just flew past my window.

Honest mistake?

Do pass me that joint …

What a truly pathetic effort by David. I’d be disappointed if a 7 year old came out with something this bad.

If you scroll down, you’ll see AWL conflating Mossad with Shin Bet (in the item about Sarkozy).

Oh, dear …

Not sure who David is, but Jason’s apologetics are mega-pathetic (and super-illiterate).

With all my contempt for the SWP, I can’t believe they made a deliberate decision to leave Jews off the list of Holocaust victims. More likely is the fact that Jews simply don’t figure in the SWP’s pantheon of victims or “oppressed peoples” any more. So Jews (outside of “Zionist” bad guys) simply aren’t on their radar screen.

The combination of the lack of Jews and the word “thousands” instead of the more accurate “millions” makes this sound like anything but an honest error. If an error, it’s actually two errors. Coincidence? I think not.

So which is worse, Gene: a deliberate decision, or being oblivious to the 6 million murdered Jews?

Well, they are contemptible scum either way.

It is possible the author was implicitly emphasizing the victims allegedly ‘forgotten’ because of the pushy Zionists. But, as TheIrie implies, it is not a great deal to go on. Just betrays some silly idiot who makes leaflets for SWP.

With all my contempt for the SWP, I can’t believe they made a deliberate decision to leave Jews off the list of Holocaust victims. More likely is the fact that Jews simply don’t figure in the SWP’s pantheon of victims or “oppressed peoples” any more.

They are either extraordinarily stupid, or they are sending a coy signal. I choose “B”.

Gene,

I think that’s closer, it is more likely and I am being very very charitable here, that the SWP don’t know the history of WW2 or the Holocaust and just wrote what they thought would appeal to their audience?

and their pandering to anti-Jewish racism over the past 5+ years is just coincidental?

having read the leaflet, it is extraordinary. But what evidence is there that it is official SWP, if there is such a thing?

Maybe they’re just thick and to be pitied?

And Gene: People who spend an inordinate amount of time immersed in Israel/Palestine polemics don’t “forget” these little details.

Engage is covering it too:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/

Zk, cos it says SWP at the very bottom of the leaflet?

“that the SWP don’t know the history of WW2 or the Holocaust”

But could they really not know that the death toll ran to millions? And Hitler studies are meant to be the history course of choice for da yoof

the bottom of the leaflet:

Love Music Hate Racism, PO Box 2566, London, N4 1WJ
Petition initiated by Socialist Worker http://www.socialistwork.co.uk

see http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/08/19/dont-mention-the-jews-comrade/

strange, that the SWP got their web address correct, but could mention the true nature of the Holocaust?

“the SWP don’t know the history of WW2″

Yeah, right …

They appear to not like Gypsies very much either.

That’s because very few Gypsies have mobilised under the We Are All Hezbollah banner, I assume.

Ha very good.

I rather suspect some design-functionary was waiting for the central comittee to tell them who was in favour this week (and therefore should be included) and they ended up leaving off the most important bits (but I may be getting charitable in my old age.)

Having said that I can just imagine the SWP’s reaction were the Labour party to produce a leaflet which failed to mention that Africans were the main victims of transatlantic slavery.

So go ahead and take the bastards apart.

I thought “holocaust” “six million” and “Jews” were as well known as “1066″ and “William the Conqueror” and “Battle of Hastings” or “Henry VIII” and “six wives” - the most basic historical knowledge that anyone who had got past primary school would know. This holocaust industry that we hear so much about - it’s evidently gone into recession.

I don’t think you can take any basic historical knowledge for granted nowadays. Or, any sort of knowledge.

I’m surprised they mentioned the LGB victims of Nazism, though. I thought gay rights were not be treated as some form of shibboleth, according to that hag German.

Still, I can’t say I’m surprised to see the SWP play the Holocaust denial game.

Ther has to be an SWP Cluedo/Holocaust game to be marketed to the activists here.
Who wasn’t in the death camps with the lead piping?

“What a truly pathetic effort by David. I’d be disappointed if a 7 year old came out with something this bad.”

Was the name of the guy who drafted this leaflet David? I agree, it is very disappointing, such total historical illiteracy for a political movement. You don’t mean David Irving, do you?

Yes indeed, KB. And maybe the Joos don’t really control the world from their lair at Mossad HQ.
Oops, what am I saying here … better wash out my mouth with carbolic.

Political movement???? Illiterate, nasty adolescents wanking off is now a political movement??!!

I find it hard to imagine that that they simply forgot to mention Jews when talking about the Holocaust. I think it’s a fair complaint when people point out that other minorities get forgotten in Holocaust discourse, although repugnant when it’s suggested that the Jews are somehow monopolising it.

When you consider that the SWP’s current narrative places blame for the Holocaust primarily on Zionists, and that they consider most antisemitism to be a political tool for Zionism, it shouldn’t seem that surprising that they might actually choose to “redress the balance” or perhaps educate their constituency by deliberately sidelining the Jewish experience of the Holocaust.

Even if every time you mention the Holocaust your main point is that it wasn’t a solely Jewish experience, you still have to reference Jews to make the point. Even among anti-Zionists and Holocaust deniers, the Jewish narrative is at the forefront, even if it is to be denied or used as a stick to beat Jews. Who knows what twisted thinking leads one to miss out Jews on a list of the victims of the Holocaust? but carelessness doesn’t strike me as a plausible explanation.

To try and give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps what the pamphlet in question was trying to imply was that in addition to the millions of Jews slaughtered during the Holocaust thousands of LGB were also murdered, as well as political dissenters and “slavs” and other inferior “races”.

i.e the slaughter of Jews is a given, and they were highlighting the “other” victims of NAZIism.

the benefit of the doubt? and I thought I was being very very charitable?

I agree with Joe. I suspect the attitude was to inform people about the other victims, because we hear so much about… yawn… antisemitism. I just wouldn’t characterise it as the “benefit of the doubt”: on the contrary, it’s exactly what you would expect from an anti-racist, antisemitic organisation.

I just wouldn’t characterise it as the “benefit of the doubt”: on the contrary, it’s exactly what you would expect from an anti-racist, antisemitic organisation.

Then they should have written more clearly what the intended to say. It is their omission that reqires me to give them teh “benefit of the doubt”

Tim,

it is as likely to some in the SWP that Jews and Roma are irrelevant to them, and thus not worthy of comment

I don’t buy it, Joe. The language is very categorical.

And Tim, an antisemitic organisation is by definition not anti-racist …

This is what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip

Modernity, that’s also possible. The main thing is that it is highly unlikely someone simply forgot. Whatever the particular meaning, I expect this does reflect the party line.

Nearly Oxfordian, you’re wrong. The SWP is vehemently anti-racist: just not against all racism. I know it’s confusing, but these are paradoxical times in which we’re living.

Nearly Oxfordian

“They Deny the holocaust where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionist and disabled people were slaughtered…” is what they wrote. Given that they are talking about “holocaust denial” I doubt that they by the Irving defence of some people were killed , but not he millions mentioned. The fact that they talk about thousands rather than millions suggests to me that they meant to imply millions died, thousands of whom were not Jews.

(By the way they use the small “h” for holocaust. Perhaps they mean something other than “The Holocaust/Shoah”.)

We’ll have to disagree, Tim (and please don’t tell me I am ‘wrong’ just because you hold a different opinion: it doesn’t make you ‘right’ and me ‘wrong’). Sure, they POSE as ‘anti-racists’, but that does NOT make them anti-racists. By their actions shalt thou know them, and their actions are kneejerk pro-Black and pro-Arab (which I regard as fundamentally racist), at best apologetic vis-a-vis whites where they are not anti (racist also), and shrilly antisemitic.

What is baffling is that they should surely be trying to make the BNP look as bad as possible.

So why not mention the fact that the BNP deny millions of people were killed?

Why ‘downsize’ the scale of BNP denial?

Curious.

Joe,
If the BNP deny the Holocaust - do they?? - then they deny that 6 million Jews died. If SWP are anti-BNP, then they oppose the denial of 6 million Jews.
So … ingenious, but I still don’t buy it. Sorry.

Small h … hmmm … yeeees …

Mark,
Curious indeed, but imo that supports my thesis. They refuse to be seen as sympathetic to the Jews, since that would go very much against the grain and their Jew hatred trumps their hatred of the BNP.

That should be
… at best apologetic vis-a-vis whites where they are not anti [white] (which is racist also) …

Sorry about the poor syntax.

Nearly Oxfordian,

That is what I meant by “benefit of the doubt”, i.e. I have to engage in a certain amount of mental gymnastics (with all the gravity defying tumbles) in order to think that they did not intentionally omit a reference to the “millions of Jews” slaughtered by the NAZIs and their allies.

Does anyone have a link to a copy of this petition if it is online. I would like to see a copy for research purposes.

This is a tacit form of Holocaust denial from the SWP.

Thousands of people died in the holocaust and none of them were Jews?

Maybe they’re competing with GG for Iranian money now.

Does anyone have a link to a copy of this petition if it is online. I would like to see a copy for research purposes.

http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/attachment-0001.jpeg

Another possibility: they assumed that the recipients of the leaflet were more likely to know (or be) LGBT, trade unionists or disabled people than they were likely to know or be Jews or Roma– i.e., an extremely clumsy and offensive effort to “relate” to the locals.

That may be the case, Gene.

But surely it would have been easy to convey the same sentiment, in a sentence like

“They deny the holocaust where millions of Jews, and thousands of LGBT people, trade unionist and disabled people, were slaughtered”.

I mean, the aim must be to damn the BNP, and that means making them look as bad as possible. So why state the BNP deny the holocaust of thousands of people, when in fact they deny the holocaust of millions?

“SWP make 6 million Jews disappear”? No, I think that was Hitler, lol.

Its also possible that who-ever wrote this considers it a tautology to mention the Jews that were slaughtered, since this is what everyone immediately associates with the Holocaust. Either way, its a single sloppy sentence, and trying to read anything into it is silly if not down right cynical (and I’m plumping for the latter, since again the headline of this piece is just slanderous propaganda).

Yup, trust you to come up with dumb crap like this. You never fail.

With all my contempt for the SWP, I can’t believe they made a deliberate decision to leave Jews off the list of Holocaust victims. More likely is the fact that Jews simply don’t figure in the SWP’s pantheon of victims or “oppressed peoples” any more. So Jews (outside of “Zionist” bad guys) simply aren’t on their radar screen.

I honestly don’t believe that. In general I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt - but in this context: no, absolutely not.this is just a case of the SWP repeating the standard Soviet narrative of who the main victims of WWII were, without even having the excuse of having had their country turned into a bloody battlefront and having had more people killed than any other state

(well, OK, I grant this is a post-modern gay-friendly post-disability discrimination act but no less twisted rewrite: I can just see PC PR SWP command shouting replace “Soviet Citizens of Belarusian Nationality”, etc, with ” LGBT people, trade unionists, and disabled people*”
(*obviously not excluding that some of these LGBT people, trade unions and disabled people may been Jewish too, but it would be, well, a bit crass to point that out, wouldn’t it?).

Still, I’m sure the SWP are at the forefront of fighting fascism, and “fighting for peace”, so I’m sure it’s alright and that the omision doesn’t imply any malevolence on their part (heavy irony)

Or they might just be cunts.

I really can’t think which is more likely

Almost certainly they intended to mention the Jewish victims and had a slip of the tongue / pen / mouse / mind / other.

Though whenever a swuppie mentions the other holocaust victims they always seem to be implying that none of the others turned round and started agitating for their own country afterwards.

“Its also possible that who-ever wrote this considers it a tautology to mention the Jews that were slaughtered, since this is what everyone immediately associates with the Holocaust.”

Your rationalizations are becoming ever more pathetic. Stop now before you embarrass yourself even further.

P.

Its also possible that who-ever wrote this considers it a tautology to mention the Jews that were slaughtered

With people like you around, that would be an extremely unwise position to adopt.

Given how similar what The Irie wrote was to my original post, it is safe to assume that I was wrong.

Its also possible that who-ever wrote this considers it a tautology to mention the Jews that were slaughtered, since this is what everyone immediately associates with the Holocaust.

Fuck, I thought you (and the SWP and their We Are All Hezbollah Now mates) associated it with the Palestinians, what with the Israelis being sick murderous bastards and all that.

Also, I have it on the authority of Russian nationalist websites that the Georgians were conducting a holocaust in South Ossetia just last week. (The Russian Foreign Minister would only commit himself to “genocide”, but hey, you have to start somewhere)

As I am sure you know, Jon D, even in this scenario the Jews did not suddenly start ‘agitating for their own country’ AFTER the Holocaust …

Venichka: yes, absolutely. This is classic Soviet group photo retouching, as parodied by Orwell.

What do you mean by that Morgoth?

Irie, it’s been voted upon and decided that you should sod off to

http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm

You can’t say it outloud can you Morgoth - heavy implication is OK, but to be explicit you know will just make you look like the idiot that you are. Good night, nasty man.

“Submitted by Jason on 19 August, 2008 - 06:34.

perhaps it just says that it was rushed. I can’t see much point making political points out of this- it was obviously a mishap, omission. ”

You mean like 6 million jews can go missing, and it was just an accounting error?What? A decimal point or something?

“The only real point would be to take more care and not rush things- quite possibly the checks you hypothesise didn’t take place.”

Trans- Quite possibly we just got cooking the numbers. Don’t ask any awkward questions untill we are finished.

“If any wider point can be convincingly made then it’s that the left- and this isn’t just the SWP but to a greater or lesser extent all of us- need to make sure that when we wirte leaflets, petitons, contact sheets or the rest of it that it goes through some kind of democratic process.”

Well comrade, you just got wirted on your own petiton.

” But this was one was obvioulsy hastily scrappily put together contact sheet- a silly slip but it really seems incredulous to allege this is or even may be anything more than that.”

obvioulsy jason…

TheIrie wrote:

“Its also possible that who-ever wrote this considers it a tautology to mention the Jews that were slaughtered, since this is what everyone immediately associates with the Holocaust. Either way, its a single sloppy sentence, and trying to read anything into it is silly if not down right cynical (and I’m plumping for the latter, since again the headline of this piece is just slanderous propaganda).”

How typical of TheIrie, from excusing racists in the Middle East to equating Anglophobia with antisemitism, TheIrie is always willing and able to excuse anti-Jewish racism or to apologise when Jews are attacked.

Could it be that the SWP after years and years of pouring out “anti-Zionism” can’t see where that ends, and anti-Jewish racism begins?

That is likely, I suspect it was a subconscious slip, but a major slip.

Most leaflets are proof read by a few people, including, normally, the local organizer so to put this down as a mere slip is a bit like a scientist forgetting what the value of pi is, or a carpenter forgetting what a nail does, it is all very basic to WW2 history.

To explain or even try to explain the Holocaust without mentioning the Jews is almost impossible, even that foul David Irving couldn’t manage that.

but TheIrie, why do you always try to put a charitable spin on those that attack Jews?

It doesn’t enter your mind that the SWP may be largely indifferent to the fate of Jews?

if you doubt this check their coverage of racist attacks against Jews in the United Kingdom and what you will find is that they downplay them, even if they get a mention.

The SWP made a habit of inviting a renowned anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon, to their premier event for years, despite all the warnings, despite pickets by Jewish Socialists, the SWP thought they knew better.

The SWP and its members are constantly making excuses for racism that emanates from the Middle East or from their favourite speaker, Dr. Tamimi.

So you’ll be surprised if people don’t put such a charitable spin on the SWP’s actions, as you do.

TheIrie, could you ask your mates on Lenin’s Tomb what they think, if you have the guts?

“The SWP largely indifferent to the fate of Jews”? Really? Can this be the organisation that produced a well-researched pamphlet on Holocaust Denial with sponsors such as the late Hugo Gryn? The organisation that ferried Leon Greenman and Esther Brunstein around to talks and meetings for as long as both could manage? Who ran a eulogy of an obit for Leon and indeed for my father, in which they quote quite clearly my father being told by his grandfather why it was pointless and wrong attacking fellow Jews for their religion? ( http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15688#startcontent) Who asked members to attend demonstrations against Jewish cemetery daubing in East London? Don’t the SWP attack the BNP precisely in terms linking them with fascist movements of the past which targeted Jews?

When I wrote an article for SW suggesting that Holocaust Memorial Day was outdated and, I suggested, led to a hierarchy of suffering, and that it would be better to have a genocide memorial day, the SWP suggested I was wrong because of the uniqueness of the Holocaust and indeed because it gives, they believe, the right kind of warning about where racism can lead.

I have no idea why or how this leaflet came to be printed in the way that it was. There is no way it conforms to how the SWP write about the Holocaust.

You may well loathe the SWP for all kinds of reasons, and indeed loathe their anti-zionism, but to say that it is ‘largely indifferent to the fate of Jews’ is untrue.

Mike,

how many sessions has the SWP had at Marxism xxxx, in 30 years, on anti-Jewish racism?

zero

btw, did you get any response to your letter to SW about anti-Jewish racism??

This post by David T happily assures me all is well at the British Left.

Faced with the BNP, fascism, racism and the red, white and blue festival what do we get from HP? Do we get stirring calls for unity against Britain’s biggest fascist party (now challenging the Greens as the UK’s fourth party) certainly historically the strongest they have been for many years? Do we get calls for action? Do we get, at the very least, some sort of criticism or analysis of the BNP and the broader polity?

Oh no. It’s just another chance to have sectarian dust ups. Yet another pointless attack (no. 243,657) on a tiny lefty sect that doesn’t even stand in elections.

In fact, I have seen virtually no campaigning against the BNP by HP recently - a recent post by Brett actually poured cold water on the idea of demonstrating against them at all.

But its okay, any other behaviour would lead to me believe that there was something wrong with the Left - it really must keep up the glorious traditions sticking the knife into the mortal enemy - not the BNP (pah! - who are they?) - but those evil doers the SWP! Bury the hatchet? Only in your back!

Keep it up chaps - as I say, its a great tradition. Next up: handbags at dawn between the AWL and the SWP.

By the way, as regards the story itself. It’s certainly odd that Jews are not mentioned when describing the holocaust - but there is a certain irony here of course, if you chaps do irony.

In popular discourse Jews are always mentioned in relation to the holocaust, and quite right too. But sometimes its the those others that are missed out in discussions; the Nazis slaughtered as many again from other groups. We should not forget them too.

Good old Michael Rosen, always there reinzumachen with his little mop; it seems, though, he (literally) hasn’t got the memo: darling precedent be damned, but Die Jueden are now the Oppressors and thus always were; as with Leon (one of their cursed number), they must be airbrushed out of any historical picture where their new Class Bogeyman status longer fits the frame. I suspect Comrade Rosen’s “inherent” false consciousness will soon be dealt with. Like a good Zaida Tom, he almost got their in his admitted attempts to purge the Holocaust of its specific Jewish significance thusfar; the Central Committee will help him to his final enlightenment.

I have no idea why or how this leaflet came to be printed in the way that it was. There is no way it conforms to how the SWP write about the Holocaust.

So you:

a) Accept that the leaflet, as printed, is flawed if not deliberately racist in nature?

b) Deny that the leaflet could be official SWP approved propoganda because it’s message is flawed, if not racist in nature?

Hmm… so where does TheIrie go from here? Michael Rosen himself has agreed that the leaflet is so abhorrent it doesn’t conform with his experience of the SWP’s tactics and attitudes towards the Jewish people.

You may well loathe the SWP for all kinds of reasons, and indeed loathe their anti-zionism, but to say that it is ‘largely indifferent to the fate of Jews’ is untrue.

Then you’d better track down the origin of that leaflet hadn’t you?

Or maybe you could remember that the SWP still invites racists to their events despite your objections.

Well, to add to the occasion I suppose the Decents could hold a counter demo against the SWP’s leadership or involvement in these affairs… Or perhaps an alternative demo against the BNP. There has to be some use for the Euston Group, surely?

I find it difficult to label the SWP as generally antisemitic, racist or fascist frankly, which seems to be the opinion of some here.

It’s a bit like the Chinese Communist Party; one can dislike them for all sorts of reasons, but fascism is not one of them.

Whatever else this maybe, it’s not a simple mistake. I can just about picture some poor fool saying to himself “Must remember to mention x, y, and z because no-one ever does” and then forgetting to name the Jews. Sheer ignorance accounts for some of the list’s arbitrariness: LBGT is stated, though it was apparently specifically gay men, not lesbians, who were targeted, while Roma, Poles, Slavs, Freemasons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not. But the second fact that everyone knows about the Holocaust, aside from its Jewish victims, is the number 6 million. Those with a little more education may also know 11 million, the number usually given as the grand total, though whoever wrote this leaflet apparently doesn’t. Nonetheless, he made a conscious effort to come up with what he thought was a plausible number for the particular victims on his list (and was off by two orders of magnitude) — in other words, Jews, if not the rest, were taken out of the reckoning intentionally.

Benjamin said:

In popular discourse Jews are always mentioned in relation to the holocaust, and quite right too. But sometimes its the those others that are missed out in discussions; the Nazis slaughtered as many again from other groups. We should not forget them too.

No one’s suggesting they should be forgotten. In fact there are countless memorials to pretty much everyone who died as a result of WWII. But what the Nazis did to (and planned to do to) the Jews is uniquely horrific. Wouldn’t you agree, Benjamin?

Yes, I agree, Boogski, but I come at it from a different angle.

In humanitarian terms, I don’t privilege Jews above anyone else. Seeing it human terms, a good starting point, what happened to Jews is of equal horror to what happened to other groups that were targeted, and I do feel that those groups are not always mentioned (with Jews) as much as perhaps they should.

This is not purely a numbers game. Jews are not unique victims, even if what the Nazis conceived for them was unique. In terms of victimhood and suffering, they have brothers and sisters beside them.

.. . .Who asked members to attend demonstrations against Jewish cemetery daubing in East London? . . .

But not demonstrations against attacks against Jews who are actually alive and living in say Golders Green, Finchley or Hendon.

This is not purely a numbers game. Jews are not unique victims, even if what the Nazis conceived for them was unique. In terms of victimhood and suffering, they have brothers and sisters beside them.

It most certainly is about numbers, and more importantly, HOW those numbers came to be. Let’s face it. Being killed on the battlefield with rifle in hand is decidedly more glamorous than being marched off to a gas chamber en masse to fulfill some fucking lunatic’s dream of racial purity.

Hat’s off to HP for hammering those SWP cunts. Don’t let up.

What is brilliant about this thread is how little effort David T needed to make with it.

TheIriot (why some people continue to engage with this nasty little creep is beyond me), Benjamin (still no job then?) and then Rosen steam in and play the part to perfection. Each, in their own way, write a comment piece better than David T ever could.

Even these morons (sorry Rosen I include you; I’ve got kids and they think your books are crap) if they stopped and thought for a minute would realise exactly what has gone on here. In fact Rosen has, in his own rather disingenuous way.

But the ‘knee is jerking’ (probably not all eh Iriot?) and they just can’t bring themseleves to acknowledge it.

They look something like the knight in the Python film when he loses an arm, then another arm, then his legs …. but keeps fighting on like nothing has happened.

But here we have Benj, Rosen and TheIriot all flailing around.

Sorry to be a little rude in my comments. But I happened to watch a drama/documentary on the Nuremberg trials last night on The History Channel. You then wake up in the morning and see the comments from the aforementioned dressed up as some form of banter.

It is simply that Jews are the oppressors now for the SWP and the far left. This phenomenon is not new, it did not start with the leaflet. Enter any debate with a friend of Michael Rosen, mention the Holocaust, mention that Israel is a country created by refugees and home to thousands of Holocaust survivors, and they will start ranting against the particularism of the Jews, -like Benjamin, that they “don’t privilege Jews above anyone else-, start shouting that LGBTTTTTTTT people were murdered too and they did not ask for a state, etc. etc… the next logical step for these far left sects is obviously not to talk about the Jews at all.
They engage in the mirror Holocaust denial of the neonazis. But exactly like them, the vertex in the mirror are the Jews. Both of them try to minimize their unique story in the Nazi genocidal urge.
Just like the neonazis, and, as Linda Grant points, dead Jews are good, but Jews alive are not, because most of them have double loyalties. These double loyalties must be purged and the conscience of camarade Michael Rosen has been questioned many times, to see that no vestige of love for Israel exists.
Michael Rosen cannot see that they have asked him to lose a part of himself that most Jews have, in exchange for fluffy dreams of universal love in the post-Revolution era. Abstract love for humanity in exchange for concrete love for his own fellows. But you cannot love humankind if you don’t know how to love your own family.
TheIrie, of course, keeps rationalizing antisemitism, as usual. The guy would pretend he doesn’t really understand why Jews are afraid of the gas chamber.
A final thought is that I know I would be doomed if my life depended on the good will of people like Benjamin. A perfect model of the bystander, if there ever is one.

“A final thought is that I know I would be doomed if my life depended on the good will of people like Benjamin. A perfect model of the bystander, if there ever is one.”

Yes indeed Fabian. if they were knocking on doors at night picking up the jews, Benji wouldn’t be out on the streets fighting them away. He’d be tapping away on his keyboard telling everyone at HP how ridiculous and sad they all were.

The Iriot would actually be wearing the jackboots and Rosen…….would have probably volunteered himself for the first shipment out (understanding his murderers anger)…….leaving nasty little Zionists to fight for his families/communities survival.

Can’t know any of that for sure, of course.

Rosen wouldn’t be volunteering. He would be carried forcefully away from his typewriter, where he would until the last moment, be denouncing the Zionists for engaging in a burgeois resistance, when he knows that that only leads to more oppression…

In any case, I expect Rosen to think for himself that, had he lived during WW2, he would have been one of the lohamei hagetaot (fighters in the ghettos). But that is with hindsight. The party he belongs to, has spent decades trying to blur the moral clarity of those days.

I have just been reading the proof of a remarkable debut novel called The J Word, by a first novelist called Andrew Sanger, which I think is a really brilliant representation of the strains and stresses of Anglo-Jewry.

Its main character is an old guy, a mathematician, who comes from the Jewish East End, has got out, married out and settled in a village. He is Jewish to the tips of his fingers but doesn’t want to have anything to do with being Jewish. Called to London to look after his grandson while his travel writer son is having a nervous breakdown in Switzerland, he is attacked in Golders Green by skinheads.

It’s a superb novel of contemporary Jewish life, both secular and religious. It enters a nuanced world of complexity that head-banging Trot politics can’t even begin to get grip on, so slippery are the concepts. The SWP and its ilk deal in moral absolutes. You have to take sides. If you take the wrong side, you’re the enemy. In reality anti-semitism straddles both of those sides. Which is, I always feel, why the whole Jewish thing drives otherwise sane people mad. They can’t deal with paradox.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/J-Word-0-Andrew-Sanger/dp/1905005954/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219213853&sr=1-8

Benjamin - “It’s a bit like the Chinese Communist Party; one can dislike them for all sorts of reasons, but fascism is not one of them.”

Why do you think that? The CCP is not, in my opinion, a Fascist Party per se, but on the other hand in most of Asia the distinction is not clear. The mass murdering racist Parties have usually been Communists in Asia. Mongolia and Cambodia for instance. Mao was not much of an internationalist. So what do you call an Ultra-Nationalist Communist Party as most Asian Communist Parties were and are?

It most certainly is about numbers

I agree. As I noted. Try reading what I wrote again:

This is not purely a numbers game.

I hope you comprehend, old boy. Blimey, people do get irate in here don’t they?

“It’s a bit like the Chinese Communist Party; one can dislike them for all sorts of reasons, but fascism is not one of them”

Incredible. After all these years, after all the mass-murders and incarcerations in mental hospitals and genocidal oppression, after all the lessons of Stalin-worship, we still have little tits walking around this country telling us the Chinese communist party is not fascist … it certainly explains the bottomless stupidity of the rationalisations of SWP antisemitism we hear from Rosen and his sickening pals.

So Much For Subtlety

Actually there is distinction between fascism and and Chinese Communism (under Mao included).

They are different flavours of totalitarianism, and all totalitarianisms are pretty awful; tot upthe numbers killed under either type.

However, to me at least, fascism is a defined political term, it need not be pejorative, although its understandably used as such. Chinese Communism is not fascist, and was not even under Mao, in the general.

Nearly Oxfordian

I am very much against the Chinese Communist Party - but that’s because I am anti-communist and anti-totalitarian. I am anti-fascist too, as it happens, but since I view the PRC as a communist dictatorship (or whatever its warped into these days) that is the reason I am against it - because I am anti-communist and anti-totalitarian. In its primary characteristics, even under Mao, it was not fascist in the general. Its even less so now.

Is it an oppressive totalitarian state? Yes. Has it slaughtered many people? Yes. However, those characteristics alone do not equate to fascism, even if, under fascism, those sort of things happen.

But I happened to watch a drama/documentary on the Nuremberg trials last night on The History Channel.

Was it that one with Nathaniel Parker as Albert Speer?

A final thought is that I know I would be doomed if my life depended on the good will of people like Benjamin

No, that may be a mistake, admittedly; I am after all, a stranger. It’s a rather melodramatic comment, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Rather oddly, what I actually said was wholly uncontroversial. What you thought I said you have every right to get irate about.

Michael Rosen @ 20 August 2008, 1:37 am

Perhaps you could let us know how few of the examples you have cited took place after the formation of the “Stop the War Coalition”?

Linda Grant @ 20 August 2008, 6:19 am

.. . .Who asked members to attend demonstrations against Jewish cemetery daubing in East London? . . .

When a considerable effort was going on to arrange a sollidarity demo on the basis of “other faiths rally round those whose dead have been grievously insulted” and the “Respect” banner really wasn’t welcome.

Yes indeed Fabian. if they were knocking on doors at night picking up the jews, Benji wouldn’t be out on the streets fighting them away. He’d be tapping away on his keyboard telling everyone at HP how ridiculous and sad they all were.

Dear me! How over the top can you chaps get? You guys really have some rather bizarre ways to conduct a discussion :-)

‘The SWP and its ilk deal in moral absolutes. You have to take sides. If you take the wrong side, you’re the enemy. In reality anti-semitism straddles both of those sides. Which is, I always feel, why the whole Jewish thing drives otherwise sane people mad. They can’t deal with paradox.’

An excellent observation, Linda.

Zionism antagonizes for precisely the same reason: as well an act of colonizing, it is one of national restoration and return. Which is why it is a unique act of ‘colonialism’; which is why it is a unique form of national self-determination.

But that is because the status of Jews, if only in the eyes of others, straddles two worlds: ancient and modern. A people displaced, alien and dispossessed; a group expected (if only, at times, by its own members) to assimilate and disappear.

The Jews are a unique thread binding antiquity and modernity in so many ways (now I am beginning to sound like Dalek Khan from the last episode of Dr Who).

You can’t say it outloud can you Morgoth - heavy implication is OK, but to be explicit you know will just make you look like the idiot that you are. Good night, nasty man.

Given how I went to bed after I posted my 12.10am and didn’t see your comment until this morning, it is *you* who is the nastly little fucker here. You really are a piece of shit, aren’t you?

The fact that you leap straight to insults when your post, posted after midnight doesn’t get a reply after two minutes reveals quite a lot about you, and none of it is complementary.

And furthermore, given that, and also that your participation here comes in two clearly defined categories: a) borderline or outright antisemitism, and b) defending to the hilt antisemites, it is quite clear that you are, or you are very close to, or will turn into, a Holocaust Denier yourself.

If you lie down with dogs….

You really are a disgusting piece of shit aren’t you?

In fact, the rate TheIrie is going, I fully expect in a few years to see him posting on stormfront or distributing Ernst Zundel.

If he doesn’t do so already…

Exactly so. A collection of essays is being put together about Jewish studies and post-colonial theory. The two academic discplines have had nothing to say to each other because po-co, as I now here it’s called, can’t deal with Jews as both colonisers and the victims of genocide. Jews don’t fit inside the intellectual system. And this is also true for the SWP. Non-Zionist (particularly dead) Jews such as those of the East End, and Michael Rosen’s late father, can be defended, living Zionist Jews, the contemporary majority in Golders Green etc, cannot. The SWP can’t deal with the contemporary reality of Anglo-Jewry because it has designated it as both non-oppressed and in alliance with the enemy US/Zionist imperialism aggression. Hence anti-semitic attacks on live Jews must be argued out of existence. And that’s what Andrew Sanger’s novel is so good at locating within current British political thinking.

Is it the case that you are far worse off being a British Muslim than a British Jew in terms of fear of attack and demonisation. Yes. Absolutely. But that does not mean that you can simply dismiss the real anti-semitism that does exist, on both the right and the left. Not to mention making opportunistic alliances with anti-semites because they are anti-Zionists.

“Dear me! How over the top can you chaps get? You guys really have some rather bizarre ways to conduct a discussion :-)”

Dear me, chaps, shmaps. You are ony confirming my impression. I wouldn’t trust you a quarter.

I have to say to you, son, it’s rather a rum affair trying to figure who to trust or not on the basis of a conversations on a blog. Very rum indeed.

No, it is not, son.
And it seem that Georgina Henry in the Guardian didn’t have any trust in you either.
You speak like a phony. And you are vacuous.
Not good for a newspaper.

In fact, I have seen virtually no campaigning against the BNP by HP recently - a recent post by Brett actually poured cold water on the idea of demonstrating against them at all.

Oh dear.

You know that’s a lie, and yet you’ve come back peddling it.

Fabian darling, you are attempting to get personal - if only you were more accurate, my dear. Now, come come, you really must stop all this pillow talk.

Mark T

I readily admit that HP does post against the BNP, but recently I do recall a post by old Brett with a decidedly lukewarm approach to demonstrating against Richard Barnbrook. Also at HP, news of Barnbrook being given space at the Telegraph was greeted with: “well, the Guardian is worse.”

In general, everything seems so, well, qualified. I can’t imagine HP folk getting on with anyone at the demo, and according to Brett, demos against Barnbrook are futile because he’s elected and its all a bit after the fact (or something like that).

Look, we can all agree that the BNP are nasty bunch; but even if we agree that the SWP area nasty bunch too, the BNP are rather more of a pressing concern because (apart from anything else) they garner considerably more support than the SWP (in any guise). This is demonstrated by both popular vote and elected officials.

Benjamin is quite correct. The BNP is a considerably more important issue than the SWP. But that does not mean one can use the BNP to change the subject whenever anti-semitism is raised, as many so furiously feel the need to do.

Christ. Benji’s all over this thread like a fucking rash.

Fuck off, Benji.

It is fairly obvious that people in the SWP are either vile evil totalitarian filthy weirdo tossers, or they are very, very stupid. That was already pretty clear. But this must mark another low (though not necessarily worse than some of their other lows). Rosen attempts to talk about the SWP’s commitment to tackling anti-semitism. Seems to me that falls by the wayside pretty easily if you examine their efforts in a little bit of London going by the name of Tower Hamlets at the last election (not seemingly overly bothered by Jewish - sorry, “less dark-skinned” candidates getting their car vandalised or elderly Jewish people at Holocaust memorial events in the area being stoned by disgusting little cunts), their bigging up of Atzmon and their pro-Hizb pro-Hamas efforts, to say the least. No, it’s all about political power plays in those contexts. You have to remember the greater good, the wider cause, comrade.

How can you mention Islamophobia in the context of a leaflet talking about the Holocaust but not the single largest group that were exterminated?! Beggars belief, really. I’m not suggesting that this means that the SWP think that it’s ok that that happened, but what I am suggesting is that this is indicative of one of two situations prevailing. Either a) a deeply anti-semitic millieu where that sort of mistake is just not picked up on (this is charitable) of b) they just find the facts of the matter inconvenient - it simply doesn’t fit in with the proper “progressive, anti-racist” narrative, so they ignore it. I think “b” is most likely.

But then no doubt I’m just a morally-outraged middle class sell-out venting my spleen against good socialists and prepared to think the very worst of them on the flimsiest of evidence. Or maybe that leaflet truly is extraordinary.

I am not by nature a violent man, and I don’t think I’d be very good at it, quite frankly, being a bit of a soft southern nancy who moisturises. I knew a couple of SWPers at university. I’m very glad I don’t know any such disgusting freaks these days, because I really would be almost irresistably inclined to take a swing at them. They’re a walking inducement to breaking the law.

“Fabian darling, you are attempting to get personal”

For me, six million Jews is personal. A clown like you sneering at the subject only to have a dig a the “decents” is personal.

Clown away you fool. You are the perfect bystander.

Benji, you disingenuous bell-end, he did not ‘pour cold water on the idea of demonstrating against the BNP at all‘

Here is the relevant paragraph from Brett’s post -

On Saturday afternoon I went along to an anti-BNP demo outside City Hall. While I’m always happy to support such demonstrations, I must admit on this occassion I felt a little ridiculous. Wasn’t the protest three days late. Protesting against the election of a BNP councilor seemed to be a protest against democracy itself. Like it or not, 5.6% of our fellow-Londoners had spoken, however incoherently and stupidly, and shouting “BNP-RACIST” outside City Hall seemed like so much impotent rage. Putting our backs into the barnyard door when the proverbial horse already bolted was unlikely to achieve anything. All this noise should have been made earlier, and with more vigour.

Note the phrases

‘Wasn’t the protest three days late’

‘All this noise should have been made earlier, and with more vigour.’

But keep trying to convince people of your trustworthiness.

But that does not mean one can use the BNP to change the subject whenever anti-semitism is raised, as many so furiously feel the need to do.

Or indeed lie about the opinions of HP posters regarding the BNP.

Christ. Benji’s all over this thread like a fucking rash.

Fuck off, Benji.

It is fairly obvious that people in the SWP are either vile evil totalitarian filthy weirdo tossers, or they are very, very stupid. That was already pretty clear. But this must mark another low (though not necessarily worse than some of their other lows). Rosen attempts to talk about the SWP’s commitment to tackling anti-semitism. Seems to me that falls by the wayside pretty easily if you examine their efforts in a little bit of London going by the name of Tower Hamlets at the last election (not seemingly overly bothered by Jewish - sorry, “less dark-skinned” candidates getting their car vandalised or elderly Jewish people at Holocaust memorial events in the area being stoned by disgusting little cunts), their bigging up of Atzmon and their pro-Hizb pro-Hamas efforts, to say the least. No, it’s all about political power plays in those contexts. You have to remember the greater good, the wider cause, comrade.

How can you mention Islamophobia in the context of a leaflet talking about the Holocaust but not the single largest group that were exterminated?! Beggars belief, really. I’m not suggesting that this means that the SWP think that it’s ok that that happened, but what I am suggesting is that this is indicative of one of two situations prevailing. Either a) a deeply anti-semitic milieu where that sort of mistake is just not picked up on (this is charitable) of b) they just find the facts of the matter inconvenient - it simply doesn’t fit in with the proper “progressive, anti-racist” narrative, so they ignore it. I think “b” is most likely.

But then no doubt I’m just a morally-outraged middle class sell-out venting my spleen against good socialists and prepared to think the very worst of them on the flimsiest of evidence. Or maybe that leaflet truly is extraordinary.

I am not by nature a violent man, and I don’t think I’d be very good at it, quite frankly, being a bit of a soft southern nancy who moisturises. I knew a couple of SWPers at university. I’m very glad I don’t know any such disgusting freaks these days, because I really would be almost irresistibly inclined to take a swing at them. They’re a walking inducement to breaking the law.

Why doesn’t it like my comment?! What word(s) can I possibly have used that stop it appearing? HP can’t possibly have introduced bad language filters can it? I’m shafted if so.

It was longish and ranty, so probably it’s a good thing you’ve all been spared.

Anyway, Benji’s all over this thread like a fucking rash.

Fuck off, Benji.

What I find most painful about this thread is watching the contortions of Michael Rosen in justifying his membership of an anti-semitic organisation. We have seen him humiliated like this before and I am sure we will have to watch it again. I wish he would just face the facts and leave. Doesn’t he realise how he is being used? The indignity is horrible to behold.

Is Mike Rosen a member?
I know Seumas Milnes dad vetted him out of the BBC, but I don’t think he’s a member.

I believe that Michel Rosen is not a a member of the SWP. Nor do I think that the SWP is an anti-semitic organisation. It is merely one that has come to believe that anti-semitism only exists when defined by its own extremely narrow terms (not by Jews themselves) and on the whole does not much matter. It fulfils a largely emblematic role in its general anti-racist posture, concerned with a politically safer, pre-Zionist past. Since only anti-Zionist Jews can truly be the victims of anti-semitism, and since most British Jews are now Zionists, anti-semitism must be relegated to an earlier age. Hence the keenness to go to cemeteries but not Golders Green.

I went to the LoveMusicHateRacism festival and one of the speakers made a large speech about the ill effects of racism which likewise mentioned the the gay and socialist victims of the holocaust without mentioning any Jews. Struck me as odd at the time

I thibnk the SWP ought to reveal who wrote the leaflet and explain why they ‘forgot’ to mention the organised slaughter of Jews and other non-Aryan groups, and why they misreported the numbers involved.

“I believe that Michel Rosen is not a a member of the SWP.”

On his occasional forays onto Sociality Disunity (hard-left meets “Gladiators”, a rollocking read(tm)), he does tend to square up on the SWP side.

It’s not like he doesn’t appreciate the problem himself - in a letter to Socialist Worker about Gilad Atzmon he said:

“I fear that the racism [Gilad] expresses is seen by some in the liberation movements as a racism that doesn’t matter as much.”

He understands the problem, but doesn’t seem to want to do anything strongly about it; whether out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to an organization he’s not actually part of, who knows but him.

P.

“I believe that Michel Rosen is not a a member of the SWP. Nor do I think that the SWP is an anti-semitic organisation. ”

Isn’t he? I admit that I don’t know for a fact that he is, I just assumed it because of his close links with the party. And I can agree that the SWP is not antisemitic in the sense that the old-style BNP was ( and new-style is, really) and perhaps it would be better to use Anthony Julius’s category of ‘fellow travelling antisemitism’, to allow the diference, but the gap between the two looks perlilously narrow to me.

“He understands the problem, but doesn’t seem to want to do anything strongly about it”

It is the old problem faced by any ideologue. If he accepts the truth of the SWP’s racial politics, the whole edifice crumbles and he is left feeling lonely and exposed with a whole lot of political certainties suddenly gone. He would have to build a politics from scratch and without having positions decided for him by the group. So he goes into denial instead. I think he will come round eventually and recognise that what he now tales for ’solidarity’ is really just adolescent clannishness.

It’s about belief. I wrote two novels which are concerned with the nature of idealism, the need to believe that there is something better than this and the willingness to do something to make it happen. But with political idealism inevitably comes from a level of disillusion, or a life spent entirely in denial, public or even private.

I believe that Mark Steele has just published a book about his disillusion with the SWP coinciding with the collapse of his marriage.

‘Look, we can all agree that the BNP are nasty bunch; but even if we agree that the SWP area nasty bunch too, the BNP are rather…’

Really depends on your perspective old boy. The BNP suffer from no-platform policies instituted by the BBC and such. Scummers like the SWP have had no trouble drumming up publicity through the STWC/RESPECT etc. Personally I see no problem being able to take a harsh view against both parties. It seems to me that Benjamin is trying to divert criticism away from the SWP.

to be honest though it was most probably an honest mistake. just a rushed job leaflet, without being checked thats all

And if so, the suspicion that this is a marker for the underlying mindset, is I confess, more than a tad compelling.

In a way it was a mistake, I think. The fact that they left of a column for signatures, an essential legal requirement for a petition, suggests that this was drawn up by an inexperienced person, probably new to campaigning politics. However, having said that, the underlying mindset is revealed. Someone has been systemmatically miseducated about the nature of Nazism and the events of the second world war. Either that or they don’t want to believe it.

Linda Grant: Thanks for the reference to the novel- one to look out for. Does the collection of essays have a title yet, as I would like to look out for that too.

Anglo-Jewry because it has designated it as both non-oppressed and in alliance with the enemy US

The other option, of course, adopted by friends and acquaintances in Jewish Socialist circles is that Jews are indeed oppressed, but in the capacity of middle man roles, where the imperialist oppressor the USA is pitting them against other oppressed peoples like the Palestinians. This of course denies all agency (to use that modish term) not only to the Jews, but to the Palestinians.

I think this is mountain out of a molehill stuff and was an oversight on their part. The UAF propaganda they hand out in Stoke certainly mentions the jews.

Storm in a molehill, old chap.

P.

The whole Gilad Atzmon thing was also just a misunderstanding too; they mixed him up with Chick Corea. Imagine their surprise when, instead of playing pieces from Space Jazz: The Soundtrack of the Book “Battlefield Earth”, he started talking about Jews!

P.

“was an oversight on their part”

I am sure it was an oversight, rather than official policy, but there are oversights and oversights, Herr Doktor. And we do know that some recent political allies of the SWP have senstitivities about mention of the Jews, don’t we? And that others of their current political friends think that the evidence for the Jewish Holocaust is somewhat ‘problematic’. It is all, at the very least, highly suggestive. I wonder whether a similar document produced by a non-left organisation that forgot to mention Palestinians as among the sufferers in the Jewish-Palestinian conflict would strike you as equally innocent?

Fabian

You are really good to wind up, but I shall stop now. ;-)

As regards the holocaust specifically, there is nothing I have written that sneers at the subject of 6 million Jews dying. Absolutely nothing. Clearly you would rather have good rant about what you think folk are saying, not what they actually do! Hey, you are clearly in your rights to do so, and hell, it’s all diverting enough.

Now, I have to say I do like Michael Rosen. We occasionally get this thing at HP where folk make all this unctuous declarations about him/at him. Its rather odd.

You seem surprised he has not jumped through all the correct hoops. Well, look guys, the guy is a well known author with numerous commitments; he probably doesn’t have time to spend endless hours on the internet, either at HP or elsewhere, swapping nuances.

Don’t worry about it, chaps.

Since the BNP and the SWP see eye to eye on Israel, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, the nature of capitalist globalisation, 9/11, Jewish and Masonic Power etc etc, I wonder why they don’t demonstrate against a party with which they have less in common, say Labour or the Tories.

Clearly you would rather have good rant about what you think folk are saying, not what they actually do!

Just like you claiming, against all the evidence, that Brett poured cold water on the idea of protesting against the BNP.

Linda Grant:

‘Called to London to look after his grandson while his travel writer son is having a nervous breakdown in Switzerland, he is attacked in Golders Green by skinheads’.

The only problem with this is that he would be statistically far more likely to be attacked by Muslims. It may be popular to suppose there’s a huge skinhead army out there, attacking Jews and so on, but most of them - in this country at least - are now middle aged pot bellied losers who spend their time on Stormfront and the NF forums.

See, for example, how the EU has attempted to cover up the predominantly Muslim problem of anti-Semitic attacks:
http://tinyurl.com/2lh45z

And was it skinheads stoning Jews in London on Holocaust Memorial Day?
http://tinyurl.com/28ox36

The SWP’s latent antisemitism disturbs me more than the BNP’s explicit antisemitism. With the SWP, their belief in the perfidious Jew is strong and has powerful warping effects on their beliefs and policies, but they genuinely will not admit it to themselves. If there ever were a real lie-detector test, they would pass it when claiming they were not antisemitic. They do believe they are not, to their very core. Sadly, though, if they ever were to gain power, one can be sure that the Jews would “coincidentally” suffer under their yoke more than any other community. You know, coincidentally.

Of course the BNP is in many senses more of a threat than the SWP. But given the strength of the SWP in the media (the relative stranglehold on CiF for a start) and in the trade unions (those wonderful folk running UCU and so on), the SWP aren’t exactly a minor irritation either. They have awfully loud voices, and they’ve managed to make some of their views, including on the Jews, to some degree part of the mainstream. I keep hearing otherwise unextreme people parroting the extreme ideas they read in the Guardian, and it worries me.

I’m not surprised by this deliberate omission, the SWP are racist *unts who are pandering to the neo-nazi islamists.

Below I copy a comment that I posted to the AWL post:

The SWP and the Stalinist Tradition

By specifically omitting Jews from the memory of the Holocaust in such a manner, the SWP are following the Stalinist tradition. A clear example of this was the situation surrounding the memory of the massacres at Babi Yar in the Soviet Union.

From a historical point of view, in a time period of some 36 hours in September 29-30 1941, 33,771 Jews were shot by the Nazis at Babi Yar, Kiev. This was likely to have to been the fastest massacre of Jews at anytime during the Holocaust. Over the next two years there were tens of thousands more Jews, Ukrainians and Russians all killed at that site. It can be noted that whilst not everyone massacred at Babi Yar were Jewish, there is no question that the Nazis were specifically targeting Jews with a special emphasis for these massacres.

From the Soviet point of view, from 1948 onwards, the memory of Babi Yar was expunged from Soviet literature. Despite the fact that the massacres had been on Soviet soil, Soviet citizens were not even informed in their news media when one of the leading Nazis responsible for these massacres was executed at Nuremberg in 1951 for the crimes. After Stalin’s death and under Khrushchev, an idea for a monument to those massacred sprang up and a letter was published in the Soviet press supporting the idea in 1959. The letter referred to “Kiev inhabitants” but did not mention that it was Jews who were massacred at Babi Yar. In March 1960 the same newspaper published a news article saying that there would be “an obelisk with a memorial plaque to Soviet citizens exterminated by Nazis.” (Emphasis added)

In 1961, Literaturnaia Gazeta dared to publish a moving poem entitled Babi Yar which did discuss the antisemitism and the killing and beating of Jews. The publishing of this poem led to a storm of protest. A well known Soviet critic, Dmitri Starikov, argued that it was irresponsible for Literaturnaia Gazeta to publish the poem which he argued was provactive and an “insult [to] the triumph of Leninst national policy.” The controversy reached the Party Central committee and in December 1962, Khrushchev told the poet at a meeting of several hundred intellectuals that “this poem has no place here.”

In 1976 a monument “to the Soviet citizens - the victims of fascism” was finally erected at Babi Yar. The inscription
did not bother to mention that most of those massacred were Jews. The Soviet regime refused to see the Nazi murders for what they were - attacks on Jews. Khruschev had earlier explained it with his strange Marxist analysis that antisemitism must be seen more appropriately from a class analysis - There are bourgeois Jews and then there are proletarian Jews - but Jews should not be seen as an undifferentiated category.

The fact that the SWP continues in this tradition is not surprising even it if it is sickening. What is more surprising is that the SWP leaflet mentions “the holocaust where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists and disabled people were slaughtered.” If antisemitism should properly be seen as part of a class analysis and does not need to be specifically mentioned then why have they bothered mentioning categories such as “LGBT people” and the “disabled”? If the SWP were consistent with their warped Marxist analysis then they would not bother mentioning these categories either. The fact that they have leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the SWP have a problem with antisemitism.

References

William Korey, “Babi Yar Remembered,” Midstream Vol XV, No. 3 March, 1969 pp. 25-39
Victoria Khiterer, “Babi Yar, the Tragedy of Kiev’s Jews,” Brandeis Graduate Journal Vol 2, 2004

“Well, look guys, the guy is a well known author with numerous commitments; he probably doesn’t have time to spend endless hours on the internet, either at HP or elsewhere, swapping nuances.”

You’ll find that Michael actually posts a considerable amount on the internet; not as much at the moment, but I remember many contributions to him around the time of the Respect split.

(I like the idea that famous authors are probably too busy - maybe pouring Moët & Chandon over groupies - to have any time to do mundane things like Internet - Terry Pratchett has posted over 4,000 articles to Usenet, and his latest articles seek advice for playing a particular video game.)

And why should there be a correlation between time spent on the internet and the directness of one’s arguments?

I think you’ll find quite a few people here like Michael - or at least his public persona, having never met the chap. After all, if they didn’t like him, they wouldn’t (a) find his equivocations over the SWP strange and (b) wouldn’t be bothered by it.

P.

There is a well respected academic theory by Greg Stanton of Genocide Watch on the various stages of genocide. The eighth and final stage is not extermination, it is denial.

As other posters have pointed out there is not really enough evidence in the SWP poster to determine whether or not they edited the Jews out of their curious version of the Holocaust. But I agree with those who point out;

1. The millions of Jewish deaths by the Nazis is one of the best known and most discussed subjects in history.
2. Given the SWP obsession with Israel/Palestine issues it would be astounding that they were unaware of this history.
3. The SWP, like other elements of the far left, are assiduously courting pro-Khomeinist, pro-Qutbist Muslim extremists for whom Holocaust denial is a central part of their ideological agenda.

There may be no smoking gun, but on the circumstantial evidence I am happy to convict SWP of being Holocaust deniers and fascist apologists.

They are becoming as hateful, as bigoted and as extreme as the BNP that they claim as their nemesis.

I think it’s grossly unfair to associate Benjamin with that disgraceful academic cheat, Ireson.

GRAHAM

They appear to not like Gypsies very much either.

Or Polish and Russian civilians.

Given that there were discussions amongst some in the anti-fascist movement that the SWP talks too much about the Nazi Holocaust as opposed to local issues as recently as last week, specifically related to the demo and area in question, it does’nt seem very credible that on the day in question there was a sudden shift and this contact list reflects some deep ideological shift as opposed to a mistake with MS word. Anyone who can’t imagine a scenario were someone goes ‘fuck, fuck, fuck we forgot a contact list, quickly put something togeather’ has obviously never been a left wing activist. If you don’t believe me about the accusations of the SWP over-emphasising the Holocaust just check out the pieces on SUN on the anti-fascist movement in the recent past. These accusations therefore make little political sense, even if this was a deeply stupid cockup (which of course it was).

The Fascists tell us lies but know they’re lies and the Commies lie to themselves at the same time as telling us their lies which they believe to be true.

I was not aware of any Lesbians, Bisexuals or Transgendered people being ‘in the Holocaust’ outside of the ‘odd camp guard’. The few thousand homos - out of a potential 7 million statistically homo-sexual Germans - that were locked up were not part of the extermination programme since many, if not most, were not homos at all but political enemies there under false accusations.

However the lying Commie bastards say ‘holocaust’ so maybe it was some other ‘holocaust’ I am less well up on, like that of Lenin, or Trotsky, or Stalin, or Mao, or perhaps Che and Fidels personal and up close holocaust of Cuban gays, or the Red Terrors (multiple) in Africa, or that of the Viet Cong, or the Khymer Rouge, or that of Serbian nationalists?

Maybe they refer to the Turk’s holocausts of the Janissaries or the Armenians, or the Greeks or the Kurds? Pakistan’s holocausts in Bangladesh or Afghanistan?

Russias on-going atrocities in Georgia perhaps, the Iranian ethnic cleansing of Arabs, the Arab ethic cleansing and persecusion of everyone not Arab?

How long before these cock-holes issue an apology, do we think?

I think we all know - and do not need to suspect - that in the strange world of fantasy that these Gnostic Trot-pots in the SWP inhabit the Jews had been committing a holocaust for the last 60 years. If awkward facts quickly undermine their sick fantasies then the line is that it will start…. any….day….now…. oh and the Revolution too Kameraden!

The original article says: “the holocaust, where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists, and disabled people were slaughtered”.

The holocaust is what we call it — after “shoah” — in honour and remembrance of the many Jews who were murdered. In this holocaust thousands of others died.

Surely to adumbrate “holocaust” by mentioning millions of murdered Jewish people would be tautologous.

Or are ‘we’ all supposed ‘by now’ to know that the SWP is anti-semitic?

“Given that there were discussions amongst some in the anti-fascist movement that the SWP talks too much about the Nazi Holocaust as opposed to local issues as recently as last week”

No doubt. But the problem here isn’t that the Holocaust is not referred to, but that, in keeping with the politics of movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both supported by the SWP, the Jewish character of the Holocaust is overlooked or downplayed.
2

This is astonishingly slippery. The areti

BNP vs SWP.

I guess we have to support the BNP on this one because when they deny The Holocaust at least they mention that Jews were slaughtered and then mention “Six Million” but deny that number.

Perhaps the SWP author was confused with the phrase “Concentration Camp” believing it to be a reference to homosexuals.

how absurd, anyone else would have apologised by now, but not the SWP

instead their members (JohnG) and fellow traveller (Mike Rosen) go on the offensive, never do they show one moment’s contrition or see the need that they should acknowledge this gross error

no, that doesn’t even enter their minds

even when found making these terrible errors the SWP doesn’t think to apologise?

strange, but even after hosting that racist Gilad Atzmon the SWP couldn’t bring themselves to admit their own mistakes or Atzmon’s racism

a pattern forming here?

johng comments:

Anyone who can’t imagine a scenario were [sic] someone goes ‘fuck, fuck, fuck we forgot a contact list, quickly put something togeather [sic]‘ has obviously never been a left wing activist.

Just the sort of people who should be planning the economic activities of 6 billion human beings.

hahaha.

Oh, come on, Mickey, they will buy a better computer.

Benjamin is quite correct. The BNP is a considerably more important issue than the SWP.

Possibly. However somebody who joins the BNP is likely to be fairly set in their anti-immigrant views. I personally had never met a Jewish person of any kind before I joined the SWP all those years ago. As such I met Jewish people (together with Muslims at many east London meetings) with an open mind. What worries me now is the potential for fairly isolated SWP branches to be taken over by people with a political agenda which springs almost entirely from anti-semitism (forming “mini NSDAP’s if you like) and for them to poison the minds of teenagers like myself who did not come from politicised families (except in the broadest sense) and had not attended university.

You may think this is far-fetched but I have already had some experience of it happening with some bright students in a Kent town. Without the help of Engage I would have been fairly lost as to how to answer the falsehoods that had been drummed into these 16 year olds by an older SWP member.

Is it not truly astonishing that someone as odious as Michael Rosen holds the positions he does?

If he were of the far right, he’d be stuck writing his little books in some bedsit. But no. His disgusting politics obviously appeal to a great many people besides those that form the cadres of the SWP.

I don’t think its at all surprising that someone who is very odious would hold odious views. but given that you just think his views are odious and don’t know anything else about him I find your contribution a little strange. I’m sure incidently modernity an apology will be forthcoming. but first we have to work out where the bloody thing came from.

I don’t think its at all surprising that someone who is very odious would hold odious views.

That makes it sound like you think Michael Rosen is odious John. Do you want to put your hand up to writing this leaflet (and perhaps find someone with better communication skills next time?)

I’m sure Mr Rosen is very fragrant by the way.

but first we have to work out where the bloody thing came from.

Ha Ha.
Next we take Manhattan.
What a bunch of tools, you deserved to get fucked by Galloway and a locksmith.

It’s ironic johng that while your pal Rosen is writer and presenter of R4’s ‘Word of Mouth’, you yourself are yourself a semiliterate shite.

Just as I am.

Rosen is far from odious: and the reason he his liked (and people buy his books, and appreciate his broadcasts) has nothing whatsoever to do with his (IMHO very misguided) politics.

And of course the BNP is far more dangerous and odious than the SWP: and there is no reason to pretend that the SWP of 10 or 20 or 30 years ago is any less odious than the SWP of today: it has always been a totalitarian ass-kissing anti-democratic group that regarded as fit only for assassination anyone who got in its way. (Thankfully, unlike the BNP, they don’t know how to fight, so there is little reason to worry about them)

Excellent posts from Linda Grant and earlier from Tim Allon.

Its sad, but we’ll never know the truth about the leaflet: afer all, who’d ever believe an explanation from the SWP?

The SWP has always had a severely fucked up relationship with the Holocaust and especially with Jewish responses to it - inclduing the creation of Israel, and all aspects of contemporray antisemitism.

Still, given Yigael Gluckstein’s severely fucked up relationship with mainstream Jewish perspectives in pre and post-Holocaust Palestine, what other outcome would there ever be?

johng: Anyone who can’t imagine a scenario were someone goes ‘fuck, fuck, fuck we forgot a contact list, quickly put something togeather’ has obviously never been a left wing activist.

Yet this is a trap the Swoppies dug for themselves. If they hadn’t made such a show of handing the microphone to every Jew-hating yob in a hundred kilometers with the tacit understanding that any anti-semitic trope from history is ripe for resurrecting as long as you substitute ‘Zionist’ for ‘hook-nosed hebe’, then the general reader wouldn’t have concluded so quickly that this is just another anti-semitic SWP serving of the same anti-semitic SWP drink.

Yet despite the fulminations of people like the morally blind Rosen there’s simply no reason to believe that the SWP will get its house in order, either on anti-semitism or much of anything else.

Rosen: ‘When I wrote an article for SW suggesting that Holocaust Memorial Day was outdated…’

Venichka: ‘Rosen is far from odious…’

Sure Ven, sure.

“Without the help of Engage I would have been fairly lost as to how to answer the falsehoods that had been drummed into these 16 year olds by an older SWP member.”

How genuinely sinister. Creepy. Reminds me of why I tend to the view that members of groups like the SWP and BNP shouldn’t be allowed to teach in schools.

It’s like to make it clear I don’t think this leaflet is anything more than a cock-up. I don’t think the leaflet itself is at all important. What is at issue is the SWP’s claims to be involved in fighting anti-semitism. They aren’t. There is absolutely no possibility that they could go into any kind of political alliance with the majority of British Jews alive today (as opposed to the dead in the cemeteries) because British Jews on the whole are Zionists, which thus removes from them the status of victims of racism, according to the SWP’s definition. If the Board of Deputies or the CST called a demonstration against anti-semitism in which Zionist organisations like Habonim took part, would the SWP march with them? I doubt it.

“What is at issue is the SWP’s claims to be involved in fighting anti-semitism. They aren’t. ”

While true, this seriously underplays the problem. The SWP is not simply standing aside from a struggle against racism it is forging links with organsiations that are loudly and institutionally anti-semitic. One of these organisations, Hamas, has a constitution which, in most neutral readers’ opinion, urges genocide against the Jews. It is in this context that the sudden inability to remember that Jews were the chief victims of the Nazi Holocaust seems like something a bit more sinsiter than a simple oversight or cock-up.

johng, I agree with that this was a drafting mistake in the leaflet, it’s obviously some sloppy cutting and pasting because one sentence is repeated twice, presumably somebody pasted over the first part of the sentence which should have read “…millions of jews and thousands of LGBT”.

Although it’s politically illiterate really to write about LGBT community in the context of the holocaust, the gist of what was being said would be understood.

However the mistake occured though, it’s hard to understand how it was propagated, presumably the contact sheet was printed and then duplicated and then put in a box and then in a car, driven to the site, handed out to organisers and then to activists etc. Even assuming that the SWP are too amatuerish to have a second person proof read things before they are distributed, surely at some point, one of the many people who handled the contact sheet would have spotted the mistake and realised that it is a pretty major screw up.

On this I tend to agree with Gordon Ramsey -a thousand mistakes get made every night in every restaurant kitchens, the point is not to let the mistakes get out of the kitchen and onto the customers plate. I have to admit I once produced a leaflet for the labour party where I got the year of Kinnocks election defeat wrong in a headline, this made it past the proof reader, a local lp official and the printers and into the finished product. We had no money to have it re-printed so I made sure we told every person what we gave a copy to about the typo. In the scheme of things it was a trivial mistake, but it would have made us look very bad just to have ploughed on handing them out.

Writing 6 million jews out of history is not a small mistake it is a major cock-up which noone in the swp sought to rectify on the day or has acknowledged or has offered any explanation or apology for. Instead you offer the feeble thought that it might be a fraud. It would take literally seconds for the SWP to post a quick explanation/clarification up on their website and the matter could then drop to an amusing incident, while we wait for that the suspicion for lots of activists will be that forgetting 6 million murdered jews reflects something more serious.

Holocaust Memorial Day (& Zionism too) will only be outdated when the glorious revolution proves itself to be glorious and no longer revolting.

Linda Grant: As you are back, see my comment and query about the book of essays at 11.19a.m.

Do you have any middle agent theorists among your acquaintances.

Mind you, reading the SW (God, I used to sell that bloody thing) will severely handicap one’s capacity for thought.

I think it’s this - not a book, a special issue of a journal
http://www.wasafiri.org/
But it won’t be published until later this year

and there is no reason to pretend that the SWP of 10 or 20 or 30 years ago is any less odious than the SWP of today: it has always been a totalitarian ass-kissing anti-democratic group that regarded as fit only for assassination anyone who got in its way.

Possibly. But its attraction (to middle-class university students anyway) is that it once took part in genuinly mass movements against racism. Its attraction to less well-connected people in less favoured areas is a little harder to quantify, but perhaps the most chilling thing of all (and it actually is a little chilling once you get away from the original laugh) is that I would not be commenting here at all without the SWP. But then as I say I was orignally educated by an SWP that was happy with both jews and muslims amongst its ranks.

Should SWP be forgiven if an apology is forthcoming, or should they be sued instead?

johng, please alert us the moment the SWP CC issues its apology. For such an appalling error, it seems to be taking its own sweet time.

Oh you don’t need to think of suing them - it will be far more painful to remind them of this the next time one of their members starts accusing somebody of racism merely as a means to win an argument.

Graham: “I’m sure Mr Rosen is very fragrant by the way.”

He said he was ‘odious’ Graham, not ‘malodorous’.

Then there is no reason why he should not be fragrant is there?

A Rosen by any other name smells just as sweet

Hahaha Ami (very good!)

it was good in the past tense?

Well the SWP has never refused to work with Zionist organisations or Zionists in anti-fascist work. Speculations about their future actions don’t seem to me to have much basis. It seems pretty clear that the more general arguments are simply disagreements about the theories of the ‘new anti-semitism’ which put foward arguments suggesting that criticism of Israel reflects older tropes of anti-semitism, and that the growth of criticism of Israel therefore reflects a growth of a new anti-semitism, which revolves not around the Jewish diaspora but the State of Israel itself. This is indeed an argument that not only the SWP but many other people disagree with. The growth in criticism of Israel in the western world began after the invasion of Lebanon, and then through the period of the Intifada. This was also the period when discussion of the ‘new anti-semitism’ began. Strictly speaking this is a seperate question from the question of whether or not criticism of Israel might sometimes be utilized by anti-semites. Its an entirely new theory of anti-semitism. I don’t think it can be viewed as compulsory for anti-racists to adopt it. I would be happy to take part in any march against racist attacks against Jews. I would not be happy to take part in marches in defence of the actions of the Israeli State, or opposed to those criticising the Israeli State. Because its not actually the same thing.

“I would be happy to take part in any march against racist attacks against Jews.”

Hmm.. seeing would be believing. Would you also be happy to take part in an SWP celebration where a Holocaust-denier and proudly self-announced antisemite were given a warm welcome?

let’s be very charitable for a moment and assume that the SWP doesn’t have anything against Jews

so did the Socialist Worker paper have any comment concerning the latest increase in ant-racist attacks on Jews in Britain ?

NO!

but does it even mention the recent CST press release**? NO

so the SWP’s problem (as Linda Grant aptly pointed out) is with living Jews

but don’t believe me, search the SWP’s web site and make up your own mind,
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&domains=socialistworker.co.uk&sitesearch=socialistworker.co.uk&q=anti-semitism&btnG=Search&sitesearch=socialistworker.co.uk

—-
**
“CST has recorded 266 antisemitic incidents in the first six months of 2008, a 9 per cent rise from the 244 incidents recorded in the same period last year. This rise is based in smaller Jewish communities beyond the main centres of London and Manchester, and may reflect improved reporting from those areas. There is also a significant increase in the number of reported incidents involving students, both on and off campus.

The number of violent antisemitic assaults has fallen by 24 per cent compared to the first six months of 2007, from 54 to 42 incidents. 2007 had seen the highest ever total of violent assaults since CST began recording antisemitic incidents in 1984. The number of incidents of Abusive Behaviour, which includes verbal abuse, hate mail and antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property, rose in the first half of the year by 21 per cent, from 137 to 166 incidents.”

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2039

Benjamin is twisting and turning in his silly, ignorant rationalisations. The Chinese CP displays every last fascist trait. Benjamin, little piggy at the trough that he is, is trying to excuse his doing business with these fascists, and maybe he can sell this drivel to his atrophied conscience but I am not buying any of it.

The other thing is that in terms of apologies, you don’t actually imagine that anyone is going to apologise to the AWL or this site do you? Certainly genuine anti-fascists who are worried by what is by any definition a particularly stupid technical error (I can say this precisely because it is not reflected in any of the other anti-fascist material put out by the SWP and not just because, its pretty obvious that this was a crude and silly technical error as even those most hostile to us have noted) would recieve an apology. But that, again, is hardly the same thing.

“Zionism antagonizes for precisely the same reason: as well an act of colonizing”

What an ignorant thing to say. It is nothing of the sort. The Jews were there 1500 years before the Arabs, and they never left completely. You might just as well accuse the Cherokees of colonising Oklahoma. Or maybe you do. I wouldn’t put it past complete tits like Rosen.

johng states:

the SWP has never refused to work with Zionist organisations or Zionists in anti-fascist work

I wonder if johng has any comment on the July 2005 editorial of Searchlight:

This month Searchlight leaves Unite Against Fascism….there was only ever so long that we could participate in an organisation which had leading figures conduct a whispering campaign about Searchlight being “Zionists”.

“because, its pretty obvious that this was a crude and silly technical error as even those most hostile to us have noted”

Ah, well, you see, I do not accept this shoddy excuse.

It’s fascinating johng, that you suddenly introduce criticism of Israel, which I have made no mention of. And Gary Younge, in a landmark piece in 2002, made the point about the left’s problem eloquently:

‘The British left has a strong record of fighting anti-semitism, but there can be little doubt that today anti-semitism does find a specific expression among the left. Believing that wealth disqualifies Jews from being among the oppressed, leftwingers fail to take anti-semitism as seriously as other forms of discrimination. Based on the stereotype of “the wealthy Jew”, such a view is not just insulting but ignores the nature and history of anti-semitism and the considerable pockets of poverty within the Jewish community. Moreover, Jews on the left complain of feeling themselves under suspicion for their private attachment to Israel, and their presumed support for all that it does.

‘Such presumptions and prejudices are morally wrong. And because they are wrong in principle they remain a liability in politics. In the same way that the racism and historical amnesia of the right weaken its arguments against Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe, every example of anti-semitism devalues whatever opinions are given about Israel’s role in the Middle East. It does not invalidate the arguments - Mugabe is a despot and Israel’s occupation an outrage - but the question mark hanging over the motivation of the proponent inevitably taints the pronouncement.

‘The conflation of Judaism and Israel - as though they are interchangeable - prompts a spiral of mutual recrimination. Israeli hawks and Zionist hardliners brand any criticism of Israel anti- semitic, regardless of its merits. Their accusations become so frequent that the term becomes devalued. Then Israel’s detractors dismiss every allegation of anti-semitism, regardless of its merits, as a cynical attempt to stifle legitimate dissent. And so it goes on, until what should be a complex debate descends into polarised positions - “Zionism is racism” on the one hand, “anti-Zionism is anti-semitism” on the other.
. . .
According to a poll by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, about 20% of British Jews surveyed in 1995 said they had negative feelings towards Israel (3%) or none at all (16%). But Israel nonetheless commands the affection of the vast majority of Jews in Britain.

‘That doesn’t mean that gentiles have to support Zionism or Israel just because most Jews do. But it does mean that they cannot simply dismiss Zionism if they are at all interested in entering into any meaningful dialogue with the Jewish community. And it means that they have to be sensitive to why Jews support Israel in order to influence their views. To deny this is to maintain that it is irrelevant what Jews think. It is to move to a political place where Jews do not matter - a direction which they will understandably not follow, because they were herded there before and almost extinguished as a people. To declare “Zionism is racism” offers little in terms of understanding racism, anti-semitism or the Middle East. It is not a route map to debate, liberation or resistance but a cul-de-sac.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/25/race.uk

Linda,
The distinction you attempt to make about the SWP (10:23 a.m.) is a distinction without a difference. Better leave such absurdities to fuckers like Benjamin and Rosen. As far as I am concerned, if it quacks like a duck and has webbed feet then it is a duck, and I don’t need to check if it has a mutated gene for eye colour: that is irrelevant to the issue.

Slightly off top topic, but as Linda Grant has mentioned him - if anyone has not read Gary Younge’s highly amusing article, “Memoirs of a teenage Trot” published in the Guardian in 2000, please do so now, you will not be disappointed.

see, even now the SWP can’t fully apologize for this, it sticks in their craw

“based on the stereotype of “the wealthy Jew”,”

Well, this stereotype is antisemitism incarnate …

“I personally had never met a Jewish person of any kind before I joined the SWP all those years ago”

I strongly suspect that you have, Graham. Contrary to what IslamoNazis and the SWP will tell you, few of them have horns and a forked tail … they are just ordinary human beings :-)

you don’t actually imagine that anyone is going to apologise to the AWL or this site do you?

Fascinating. Straight into the attack without recognising in the slightest that an apology might be deserved by the six million (and their relatives.)

Nearly Oxfordian I am a South Londoner and therefore live in a land which religious Jews (anyway) seem to avoid living in (and who can blame them Ven will no doubt say). If I had met any secular Jews before I joined the SWP at the age of 14 then they had hidden the horns and forked tail so well that I did not notice. Perhaps I should have said I had met nobody who identified themselves as Jewish up until that point.

“the more general arguments are simply disagreements about the theories of the ‘new anti-semitism’ which put foward arguments suggesting that criticism of Israel reflects older tropes of anti-semitism”

This is a straightforward lie. The argument is that the totally disproportionate vilification and demonisation of Israel above every other state - including those that are cesspits of human rights abuse and mass-murder like Syria and China and Iran - reflect them.

Yes, I know what you meant, Graham, but I felt I had to say it for the benefit of you-know-who ;-))))

Linda you began by referring to Zionist organisations. and clearly have in mind whether the SWP would march with organisations which support Israel. Hence you raised the question not I.

“Believing that wealth disqualifies Jews from being among the oppressed, leftwingers fail to take anti-semitism as seriously as other forms of discrimination”

Really? I have been a member of the SWP for more decades then I care to remember and I have never (not once!) heard an argument like this.

“every example of anti-semitism devalues whatever opinions are given about Israel’s role in the Middle East”

Absolutely but what examples is he talking about here?

“The conflation of Judaism and Israel - as though they are interchangeable - prompts a spiral of mutual recrimination”

I could not agree more, please give me an example of the SWP doing this.

“about 20% of British Jews surveyed in 1995 said they had negative feelings towards Israel”

We are revolutionary socialists. I don’t think having views that echo the opinion of as large a proportion of any given minority is at all outrageous. The SWP’s politics are unlikely to be reflected in such a huge proportion against the general population. And I reserve the right to argue that Zionism as a political project has had extremely negative consequences in the last century and in this, for the bulk of the indigenous inhabitants. I do not for this reason believe that most Jews who are Zionists become Zionists because they are racists. There is an old tradition of opposition to Zionism within the socialist movement which comes from both the Jewish and the non-Jewish left. It is indeed a minority position. However its the position that those of us who have been bought up in the socialist tradition cleave to.

The attempt to portray this tradition as motivated by anti-semitism, when this is transparently not the case, demonstrates to me that this tradition, whilst being a minority tradition, probably has something useful to say.

I would say though that I am grateful that you recognise that this whole business of the leaflet is obviously simply a stupid technical error.

johng makes interesting points re SWP and ‘the new antisemitism’ but its far too generous. Don’t philosophise away the fact that essentially SWP has nothing but contempt (and often outright hatred) for mainstream Jewish perspectives - their demands for destruction of Israel are sufficient proof of that!

SWP makes no comment on contemporary antisemitism because they are verboten to empathise with any Jew to the right of Yigael Gluckstein.

They proudly prefer Gilad Atzmon and Norman Finkelstein to the Chief Rabbi and Maureen Lipman, just as they embrace Hizbollah in preference to Peace Now.

Look at how they dealt with complaints re antisemitism even from their own revolutionary Jewish ‘comrades’ around Atzmon. They couldn’t care a coin clipped shekel about mainstream Jewish perspectives on contemporary antisemitism.

They don’t show even 5% of the sensitivity to mainstream Jews that Police show to ethnic minorities post-MacPherson Enquiry.

Their charactersiation of Zionism as a Nazi collaborating enemy of Jews is profoundly sick.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for them to give a toss about living Jews (including the Zionist variety) and I object to their harsh realities being ameliorated by reference to ‘the new antisemitism’ or by any other attempts to characterise the obscenity that is far left treatment of mainstream Jewish community and mainstream Zionism.

My point is this: when asked to provide examples of the SWP’s commitment to fighting anti-semitism, Michael Rosen gives the instance of the desecration of graves but is unable to provide any contemporary examples.

The SWP is entirely within its right to take an anti-Zionist position. But when the majority of Jews in Britain are Zionists, my question is whether you are prepared to come out on the barricades, so to speak, to defend Britain’s Zionist Jewish majority against anti-semitism, whether from the far right or from anti-semitism when and where it appears other minority groups such as British Muslims.

Not defend their ideas about Israel, but defend them, personally, against the self-evidently anti-semitic rants of people like Gilad Atzmon, who over successive years you invited to your annual conference.

“And I reserve the right to argue that Zionism as a political project has had extremely negative consequences in the last century and in this, for the bulk of the indigenous inhabitants”

And there you have it: the classic, utterly ignorant, antisemitic position, cravenly masquerading as ‘anti-Zionism’:
1. The Jews are not indigenous to their own country
2. They are not entitled to national liberation in their own country.

Go peddle this antisemitic crap elsewhere: only ignorant Islington airheads buy it any more.

“The SWP is entirely within its right to take an anti-Zionist position. But when the majority of Jews in Britain are Zionists, my question is whether you are prepared to come out on the barricades, so to speak, to defend Britain’s Zionist Jewish majority against anti-semitism, whether from the far right or from anti-semitism when and where it appears other minority groups such as British Muslims”

The short answer to this would be yes obviously.

To Mark Gardener I would simply say that whenever Atzmon did speak at any SWP event he was subjected to vitriolic criticism for his views. I can remember the discussions about this very well, and whilst its clear to me now that he subsequently moved well beyond a position where one could hope to win him back to a decent position, it was also true that the decision was taken that these were arguments which should be had rather then ignored and they were. Anyone who attended any of those events saw this. I fully admit that this was a very close judgement call, and indeed, it was regarded as such at the time.

On the question of the ‘destruction of the state of Israel’ I don’t recall rhetoric like this in the SWP, and nor has the SWP, to my knowledge, ever equated Israel with the Nazies. We are however anti-Zionists its true, and do not believe that Israel as presently constituted is a legitimate state. We have shared this view about a whole range of states from Northern Ireland to South Africa, and there is no sense therefore, in which it makes sense to say that our position on Israel is different from our position on a range of other questions.

Mainstream opinion is often quite hostile to us on those questions as well.

Haha! Ignoring HP (simply because, with all the charity in the world, JohnG wouldn’t be able to issue an apology to this den of racist neo-liberal authoritarian islamophobic zionist-supremacists) and considering the AWL only; the AWL is now not bothered by fascists simply because it is a nutty far left organisation which just happens to be somewhat less nutty than the SWP? Good to see comradeship on the fringes is as strong as ever. Talk about the tyranny of small differences.

How do you come up with this twaddle, JohnG? My sides are hurting! I also assume that, because even the AWL don’t pass muster on the anti-fascism front, that there are no genuine anti-fascists to the right of them - no other socialists, progressives, liberals, moderates, conservatives? In fact, that pretty much means the SWP and a couple of other tiny micro-groups you’re friends with, yes? How do you manage the tendentious pomposity?

The seriousness of your moral purpose when surrounded by the frivolity and/or malignance of the rest of society must be an ever-present shroud of pain surrounding the very fibre of your righteous being.

Ben,
You forgot “Joo-lovers”.

“We are however anti-Zionists its true, and do not believe that Israel as presently constituted is a legitimate state”

Yup, you are a bunch of antisemitic scum.

Why then, no reporting of the CST reports on anti-semitic attacks? Is it because the CST is regarded as an off-shoot of the Board of Deputies, a Zionist organisation? Or some other reason?

Modernity’s google search of Socialist Worker produces dismal results.

To Johng:

Its at least a bit heartening to hear that on the Atzmon front.

On ‘destruction of Israel’ - this may be one for pedants, but I’m not sure how else SWP’s goals may be achieved: especially with Hizbollah and Hamas as their chosen people (pun intended) for how to solve the issue. (Just as PLO was in 70s & 80s when they were trying to destroy Israel). I don’t remember how SWP responded to Arafat & Oslo, I’d place a healthy bet, however, that SWP would have thrown him off the Bookmarks rooftop had they been able.

Anyway, ‘Smash Zionism’, is an SWP phrase I remember well from university. Its also a phrase that is actually more offensive than ‘Destroy Israel’.

I didn’t say that SWP equate Israel with Nazis (although again on campus they do say this in debates regularly), I said they characterise Zionism as a Nazi collaborating enemy of Jews. Which is sick.

As for critiques of Israel’s ‘legitimacy’ - like so many other things there is fair criticism and there is over the top criticism. I think you know which camp I believe SWP is very proudly in.

Finally John, if SWP were usually as dialogue friendly as yourself, my opinions would be considerably less hostile - But I do hope that’s not because you’ve been learning interfaith lessons from the Muslim Brotherhood entryism specialists!! :)

Linda - I reckon SWP’s perpsective on CST reports (and similar from elsewhere around the world) on escalating antisemitic incident levels would be similar to that of Norman Finkelstein in Counterpunch where his ‘analysis’ of CST’s report was headlined, “Kill Arabs, Cry Antisemitism”.

Actually johng’s account of the internal debate about Atzmon describes perfectly what Gary Younge was talking about. Anti-Zionist Jews knew Atzmon was an anti-semite, the rest of us knew he was an anti-semite, but the SWP refused to listen: ‘a mixture of optimism and arrogance which aspires to elevate oneself above the society one is trying to transform.’

Further, Younge says, and johng has nothing as yet to say about this:

“And it means that they have to be sensitive to why Jews support Israel in order to influence their views. To deny this is to maintain that it is irrelevant what Jews think. It is to move to a political place where Jews do not matter - a direction which they will understandably not follow, because they were herded there before and almost extinguished as a people.”

That is the essence of the SWP’s position on Jews and on Israel. It’s categorical refusal to enter into any meaningful dialogue with the Jewish majority and its unwillingness to listen to Jews on the subject of anti-semitism, believing that it knows better.

Does it matter what this tiny sect does and thinks? No. But it is a template for the far left in general.

“That is the essence of the SWP’s position on Jews and on Israel. It’s categorical refusal to enter into any meaningful dialogue with the Jewish majority and its unwillingness to listen to Jews on the subject of anti-semitism, believing that it knows better”

Exactly. They behave like all the old totalitarian scum who pretended to be ‘progressive’, ‘pro-liberty’ and so on: they have invariably been self-elected ‘elites’ (in their own lunchtime, at least), who had nothing but contempt for the ‘common man’. SWP is a clone of Soviet and Nazi central committee thinking.

JohnG wrote“To Mark Gardener I would simply say that whenever Atzmon did speak at any SWP event”

who invited him to SWP events? the SWP

who defended him ? the SWP

“The SWP does not believe that Gilad Atzmon is a Holocaust denier or racist. However, while defending Gilad’s right to play and speak on public platforms that in no way means we endorse all of Gilad’s views. We think that some of the formulations on his website might encourage his readers to feel that he is blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti Zionism. In fact we have publicly challenged and argued against those of his ideas we disagree with.”

https://www.swp.org.uk/gilad.php

maybe the SWP haven’t read Atzmon’s filthy Protocols of London? or heard of Atzmon talking about burning down synagogues ?

“Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestine advocate, gave a talk to students this month, arguing: ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/17/highered

Hmm.

Gilad Atzmon is a marginal crackpot of no significance. What he represents is the far left’s tolerance for racists when their racism is (barely) cloaked in anti-Zionism. What I mean by tolerance is that they will give him a place to speak on their own platforms. As if they would say of a BNP trade unionist that while they disagree with his views on immigration, they respect his organising against the bosses and he’s welcome to speak at their conferences as long as they can challenge him. When pigs fly.

It was a simple mistake. It could have happened to anyone.

I mean when you explain what the Holocaust is to an audience who doesn’t know, anyone could forget to mention the Jews.

It could happen to anyone.

Anyone who lives in an antisemitic milieu and is incapable of recognizing it.

I am interested that JohnG, Michael Rosen and ‘A Very Public Sociologist’ cannot see the significance of the error.

They are incapable of astonishment.

Imagine. Someone explaining what the Holocaust is. And forgetting to mention that it had something to do with the killing of Jews.

Why are people not astonished that it is possible to make such a mistake in a contemporary British socialist party?

What I mean is that this is a phenomenon that requires explanation.

My explanation is that there is, amongst parts of the left, including the SWP, a developing antisemitic commonsense.

What is your explanation for this astonishing mistake? How was it possible?

Graham,

I was alluding to Mr Galloway’s preferring a libel suit to an apology.

All I want to say on this is, yes, it clearly was wrong. An apology is in order. But to characterise this as has been done here - to state the “SWP Make Six Million Jews Disappear - Clever SWP” is appalling. I was wrong to say its a tautology above. What I was trying to say is that the writer might have thought that everyone immediately associates the Holocaust with the slaughter of Jews, and was hence trying to write something more nuanced. But there is no point is this speculation, since I accept that it was totally wrong and silly. I don’t accept, on the basis of the information available, that it was malicious, nor that it was some sort of Freudian slip, nor that it represents in anyway the views of an organisation who clearly didn’t have a committee meeting before writing it. Its a mistake. An apology is in order. But the cynical political opportunism at play on this blog is sick.

David - they are incapable of astonishment because when it comes to Jews they know what’s best, always have, always will.

Indeed, don’t you know that Hamas and Hizbollah are better friends of Jews than Engage and Peace Now (not to mention HP).

Will they cry if Ahmadinnerjacket drops the bomb on Tel Aviv? Or would that be the wrong kind of Holocaust? (You know, the sort you deserve to be on the receiving end of).

TheIrie,

was it also a “mistake” for the SWP to lionise an anti-Jewish racist like Gilad Atzmon? year after year?

“An evening of live music and spoken word to celebrate the life & music of Charlie Parker with:
Gilad Atzmon & the Orient House Ensemble”

http://www.swappeal.org.uk/events/gilad.html

go look up Atzmon, Shamir and Zundel then get back to us

Mod - I have never defended that. I would concur with Michael Rosen and Mark Elf on the subject. Maybe you should put the point to David T, since he took Atzmon out for a drink.

But Linda I do recognise why many Jews support Israel. But I don’t support Israel. One difficulty here is that in this formulation the Palestinians become completely irrelevent to the argument. Which of course according to official ideologies of Israeli nationalism they are. And this I cannot accept. If by ‘recognising reasons’ you mean recognising that those reasons are not a desire to oppress Palestinian people then I agree with you (although I suspect positively these reasons are often complex and various). If by ‘recognising reasons’ you mean that I must treat such reasons as non-negotiable and not open to argument, then I disagree.

I’ll give you a parrallel. There is a large Pakistani community in this country. Many socialists in this country and indeed in Pakistan and India (and not just socialists) regard partition as a disaster. It is quite traditional for such people to talk about the disaster that partition meant for the people and how really we are all one, or ’same to same’. This of course does cut across in quite powerful ways other kinds of emotion associated with nationalism. Now it would be wrong to argue that those who argue the case that partition was a disaster don’t recognise the ‘reason’ why many would not agree. But it would be equally wrong to argue that those who are on the left should drop the argument for that reason. It might be argued that this is terribly arrogant of course (and in fact is). But it remains a stream of argument that has always co-existed however tensely, even with official nationalism. I would argue that in the Jewish diaspora something similar is true (and certainly the figures given seem to bear this out).

David the point is that no-one ‘forgot’ to mention the Jews in the leaflet. It wasn’t a consious mistake. If I thought for one moment that was the case I would be as worried as anyone else. If, and here I agree with Martin Ohr, you look at the text carefully and compare it to a text which it may have been copied and pasted from (a leaflet given out at a recent Pride event) you can see exactly how it might have happened if someone had slipped up on transferring it from one document to the other.

It seems pretty clear to me that what happened was a last minute attempt to get a contact list (its not even a leaflet) and that in attempting to put it togeather someone copied and pasted a garbled version of something which ungarbled was perfectly uncontroversial.

Now the result is terrible to be sure. But there is no reason to believe that this was anything else then a stupid technical error. Why? Not because my impression of what might have happened is evidence but because none of the other literature given out does anything like this (quite the contrary). There is no such tendency in any of that literature. And no such tendency in any of the anti-fascist activity with which the SWP is associated.

Exactly, Mark: ‘when it comes to Jews they know what’s best, always have, always will.’

And what Gary Younge so brilliantly expressed was why Jews will always give a wide berth to those who think they know better than Jews themselves what anti-semitism is and isn’t, and what is in their interests. The same, of course, goes for every other ethnic group. The arrogant detachment from the mass of ordinary Jews while simultaneously claiming to have a deeper understanding of anti-semitism, is simply risible. But that’s true in general of the self-absorption of sects.

TheIrie, please, oh, please, try, try to engage with the subject matter and see things in a greater than one dimensional form, for once,

read Linda Grant’s astute comments above and then think about David Hirsh’s observations

Engage has more on this subject:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2055

OK. JohnG’s answer is that it could happen to anybody. And there is nothing which requires explanation. It is just a random error.

“They deny the holocaust where thousands of LGBT people, trade unionists and disabled people were slaughtered…”

In my view this sentence could not be published by a party which took antisemitism anything like seriously.

Even by mistake. Couldn’t happen.

“But the cynical political opportunism at play on this blog is sick”

From a mega-sicko. You couldn’t make it up.

“We are however anti-Zionists its true, and do not believe that Israel as presently constituted is a legitimate state. We have shared this view about a whole range of states from Northern Ireland to South Africa” (johng)

“But Linda I do recognise why many Jews support Israel. But I don’t support Israel. One difficulty here is that in this formulation the Palestinians become completely irrelevent to the argument.” (johng)

Strange that they didn’t add Argentina to the list. Can we then agree that for johng that means that the Tehuelches, Patagones, Mapuches, Ranqueles, Matacos and Wichis are completely irrelevent (sic) to the argument?

I mean, only the SWP would not include in the above list a country - what I am saying - a whole continent - , founded on genocide, mass rape and forced labor.

Nice to hear that the SWP considers more legitimate Argentina than Israel. The above mentioned Indian groups, almost extint, would really apreciate that.

“But there is no reason to believe that this was anything else then a stupid technical error”

We have listed any number of reasons why this could NOT be simply a technical error. But the arrogant, self-absorbed, know-it-all antisemite is constitutionally incapable of grasping this. In his hubris and deluded ‘omniscience’, he thinks he knows best, better than all the Jews and non-Jews who assure him that there is EVERY reason. He literally can’t see this. To him, the Jews are an irrelevance at best, a non-nation that alone in the world is not entitled to a country a worst: does he take the same attitude towards China? Or Syria? Or Jordan, a fabricated country with an imported robber baron for a king? Of course not. In his so-called ‘progressive, socialist’ delusion, he will support every totalitarian state, every Islamic fascist country - but not the Jews’ country. They are only Jews, for goodness’ sake: who cares about them? This poisonous antisemitism drips from every sentence of his sickening posts.

Sorry I have not heard any reasons why it ‘could not be a technical error’. I have heard lots of reasons why it was a very serious error but not any reasons why it could not be a technical error (on a contact list not a leaflet, produced at the last minute). Please tell me why it could not be a technical error (when it is almost certainly the case that it was) remembering that such errors do not exist in any of the other anti-fascist literature produced by the SWP, yesterday or today.

No John. The Palestinians do not become irrelevant to the argument. You have made Jews irrelevant by insisting that they are better off in the Diaspora whether they like it or not or accepting uncertain status as a minority in a future state whose character can’t be known. I can’t see much difference between that and ‘Jordan is Palestine.’

Any feasible response to the huge problem has its centre the history and experience of both peoples, including the self-determination of each. Anything else is just a well-worn path to fresh ethnic cleansing.

Or what about Russia, then, Fabian? Or China? Perhaps JohnG has never heard of Tiber.
Oops, sorry: genocidal communist states good, Jews choosing to defend themselves against genocide bad.

Tibet, sorry.
He probably still chooses to hypnotise himself into believing it is irreleant.

Jordan is 78% of ‘Palestine’, yes, Linda. Has been since 1922.

Wriggle all you like. You simply do not ’simply omit’ 6 million Jews by a ‘technical error’. You are fractured from human reality if you think otherwise. You literally cannot grasp how ordinary people think and behave, from your lofty ‘progressive vanguard’ standpoint.

Nearly, I come from Argentina, that is why I put forward that example.

Just imagine this absurdity:
My family escaped Russia for a farming colony in Argentina, only a decade after the Indians living in the same place where exterminated. johng’s party has all the best to say about my family and Jews who came the same way. Trots parties in Argentina were full of Jews, who were never reminded that they were illegal settlers (because even the non-Jewish trots were so).
I, on the other hand, decided to leave Argentina to leave in Israel, where Jews are the majority. Suddenly, I am an illegal settler and a racist Zionist.
This is antisemitism pure and simple. Herr johng decides who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew according to arbitrary rules.
The only rule that would make sense is the following:
Crossing the Ocean East to West: good.
West to East: bad.

Personally, I don’t think that the SWP are racists, but they have some decidedly strange views and will pander to anti-Jewish racism when its politically expedient for them (Atzmon, Tamimi, Nasrallah, etc), but that does not make them the same as people who’s core belief is intrinsically biological racism, ie, the David Dukes of the world

So what the SWP should do is:

1) apologize, do it honestly, swiftly with some grace

2) at Marxism 2009 they should hold a few sessions on anti-Jewish racism, the doctors plot, cosmopolitanism, how to spot a fascist, etc?

3) try to treat anti-Jewish racism with some seriousness

4) read Steve Cohen’s small guide, That’s Funny You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/

5) educate themselves on Soviet antisemitism

6) admit their stupidity in supporting Atzmon, Tamimi and Nasrallah, etc

7 ) finally, SWPers might get out of that awful habit of using “Zionist” as an insult akin to “Fascist baby killer”, as it makes them sound like loons from the extreme right.

I agree, Modernity. It would be useful if they got an authority or two on anti-semitism to come and speak, and not just their own members wo consider themselves experts, but the likes of Anthony Julius, whose definitive study of English anti-semitism will be published by OUP next year. Of course Anthony Julius is a Zionist, but as johng has helpfully explained, they do not seek to exclude Jews who happen to be Zionists but to debate them, as they did, in a different context, Gilad Atzmon.

Isn’t it pretty obvious?

The SWP never writes Islamophobic things by mistake.
It never writes racist things by mistake.
It never writes homophobic things by mistake.
It never writes misogynist things by mistake.

But it has now denied the Holocaust by mistake.
The SWP has form on antisemitism. It isn’t a random error.

It supports the exclusion of Israelis - and only Israelis - from the academic, cultural and economic life of humanity.

John Molyneux was able to write this: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2007

The SWP supports the antisemitic organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

The SWP participates in the antisemitic Cairo Conference: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1804

The SWP was, until recently, part of Respect.

The SWP has consistently hosted, defended and normalized Gilad Atzmon. http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1517

And I have lost count of the number of times I have seen SWP apologists running around the comments boxes of various blogs normalizing and apologizing for antisemitic ‘mistakes’.

This time it is Holocaust denial.

This was an antifascist demonstration. This was a clause explaining what the Holocaust was. And the SWP forgot to mention that Jews were amongst the victims.

Where is your astonishment that such a mistake is possible?

Yes it was a mistake. But it wasn’t a random mistake.

Isn’t it pretty obvious?

The SWP never writes Islamophobic things by mistake.
It never writes racist things by mistake.
It never writes homophobic things by mistake.
It never writes misogynist things by mistake.

[when it does these things it does them on purpose]

But it has now denied the Holocaust by mistake.
The SWP has form on antisemitism. It isn’t a random error.

It supports the exclusion of Israelis - and only Israelis - from the academic, cultural and economic life of humanity.

John Molyneux was able to write this: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2007

The SWP supports the antisemitic organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

The SWP participates in the antisemitic Cairo Conference: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1804

The SWP was, until recently, part of Respect.

The SWP has consistently hosted, defended and normalized Gilad Atzmon. http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1517

And I have lost count of the number of times I have seen SWP apologists running around the comments boxes of various blogs normalizing and apologizing for antisemitic ‘mistakes’.

This time it is Holocaust denial.

This was an antifascist demonstration. This was a clause explaining what the Holocaust was. And the SWP forgot to mention that Jews were amongst the victims.

Where is your astonishment that such a mistake is possible?

Yes it was a mistake. But it wasn’t a random mistake.

Oh, Linda, I love the irony at the end of that last post ;-)

Fabian re eastwest: yes, that’s a testable hypothesis … desn’t make them any saner, of course.

“But the cynical political opportunism at play on this blog is sick”

Are you positing some kind of conspiracy? Do tell by whom it is organised?

In truth there are people with many positions commenting and some may find the SWP’s embarrasment extremely funny. I have no doubt either that much of the motivation is the thought of the orchestrated fake outrage which would be found on SWP blogs should they ever have caught one of their enemies making a similar gaffe.

The difference of course is that there would be no humour (dark or otherwise) involved.

PS.
Sure it is antisemitism, Fabian.

May I take this opportunity to urge on everyone and promote my (no doubt boring, sorry) preference for spelling it ‘antisemitism’, on the grounds that there isn’t such a thing as ’semitism’ that antisemitism is against.

There are, of course, also no ’semites’ in the pure-blood racial sense, which is one of the ludicrous theses put forward by one particular branch of antisemitic apologists. Thus, no ‘anti-semites’.

The SWP don’t appear to be taking it seriously, not at least at their premier blog, Lenin’s Tomb

I posted a simple question:

will the SWP be issuing a statement concerning their recent leaflet?

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008…jews-disappear/
fred bloggs | 20 Aug, 21:33 | #

as the previous one was simply deleted, without answer

“Are you positing somekind of conspiracy?” no - that charge I am levelling at David T individually, since he wrote it. Do you find it funny, joking about 6m Jews disappearing?

Some Nazi hacker on DrinkSoakedTrots deleted my comment of yesterday, replacing it with the following libellous piece of crap:

[silly and evil swivel-eyed loon from HP Sauce has arrived. The disgusting rightwing piece of shit also popped up in the comments at Shiraz Swamp yesterday insisting that Israel owns all of the land from the Jordan to the sea. This particular cretin also has it in for the ‘blacks’. I would just have it sealed in a plastic bag and dumped in a landfill site. End of]

“Do you find it funny, joking about 6m Jews disappearing?” (theIrie)

This same year you denied the expulsion by the Arabs of the Jews from Arab countries. I don’t think you are qualified to ask David T for explanations regarding the dissapearance of Jews.

Did it really deny it? It is stupider and more ignorant than I thought.

I simply said they were not ALL expelled. My position is that of Avi Shlaim, and Rachel Shabi and David Cesarani (see links). But this is off topic, so I don’t know why you raise it, again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/27/religion.israelandthepalestinians

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

TheIrie,

why do you attack David T and not the SWP?

I never understand your mindset

I’ll bet that you will have read this complete thread and gone away no wiser about the world

not one word here will have penetrated your skull or made you think one bit, you are incredible

Do you find it funny, joking about 6m Jews disappearing?

Well you know just sometimes despite our different backgrounds I find it quite easy to connect with Mr T’s sense of humour (especially when it is so dark). In this case I think you will find the joke is on the SWP who seem to be the ones who have lost the six million jews. Mr T is not therefore laughing at the holocaust but at the tragedy of a vanguard party who seem rather confused about history.

(But we can do the whole debate about the film “life is beautiful” again if you like.)

I hope you mean ‘vanguard’. Personally, I find them utterly reactionary. But then, I am like that about racists …

Avi Shlaim … yes … say no more …

So when you wrote:“But the cynical political opportunism at play on this blog is sick” what you meant was:no - that charge I am levelling at David T individually, since he wrote it.

Yes, Graham, that is what I meant. Glad to have cleared that up.

Had a quick look at that Shabi link. 30 seconds showed me that it’s chock-full of mendacity (that’s “lies” to you, Irie), pathetically transparent special pleading, demagogic scare quotes that telegraph the writer’s lies, deliberate conflations … oh, dear. I would fail a first-year history student’s essay if s/he wrote such crap.

I assume that had TheIrie been born in a different time then he’d in the SWP and he wouldn’t have to think for himself, it must be torture for him.

Cesarani is not much better. He admits, with one breath, that 125,000 Iraqi Jews were driven out and their property confiscated. With the next, he uses such hysterically demagogic and mendacious terms as ‘allegedly parallel’ and ’superficially similar’.

He reveals his ignorance when he tries to sound knowledgeable and refers to “edot mizrachi”. Sadly, there is no such thing in Hebrew: it’s not even remotely correct grammar.

In sum, a silly jerk.

I think it could well have been an oversight (to iterate). But it is an odd one.

Linda Grant, your contributions to this post have been incisive, informative and altogether very valuable, but by taking the trouble to make these points you do realise are running the risk of being thought by some (well, Benjamin) to be not as busy and important as Michael Rosen.

Maybe ami has in mind such gems as “The SWP and its ilk deal in moral absolutes. You have to take sides. If you take the wrong side, you’re the enemy.” from Linda. Pot calling kettle black! Actually, that’s not fair, I don’t know anything about Linda, but it is certainly the modus operandi on planet decent, where everything has to fit into a binary mindset.

If the choice is between ignorant antisemites like you and decent folk, then I suppose yes, it is binary.

TheIrie wrote:

“I don’t know anything about Linda, “

WHY, oh why do you constantly write about things that you know nothing of?

you rattle on about Ireland, of which you clearly know nothing, you bark on about the middle east and still you know next to nothing

so don’t compound your gigantic ignorance by attacking Linda Grant, she is a well known and considered author

whereas you are….nothing much…

I just read the Gary Younge piece Linda linked to - its excellent. I agree with every word. So I take back my swipe at Linda. Nothing to do with Modernity’s tiresome ad-hominems though.

He was just stating facts.

Interesting: some infantile creep is still vandalising my ‘Soaked’ posts with racist slander.
So much for that lot.
Ever happened to anyone else here?

So when you wrote:“But the cynical political opportunism at play on this blog is sick” what you meant was:no - that charge I am levelling at David T individually, since he wrote it.

Except when you say:

but it is certainly the modus operandi on planet decent, where everything has to fit into a binary mindset.

Curioser and curioser. Still I bet you reserve the power to designate the decents so thats’s ok!

TheIrie,

here’s a tip or two to save you from continually embarrassing yourself:

read BEFORE you type, think before you read and scrutinise a new book at least twice a month if you can, failing that try to show a degree of humility in your posts

finally, if you EVER find yourself excusing, apologising or contextualising anti-Jewish racism then STEP back and re-think whatever brought you to that place.

Mod - you have nothing to say but insults. Leave me alone because I don’t enjoy insulting you back, and I don’t know how else to respond. If you said anything substantive, or engaging I would try, but you don’t.

Graham - I fail to see any inconsistency there. It is my assertion that one facet of “decent” “philosophy” is a tendency for binary (four legs good two legs bad, etc) thinking. Agree or disagree by all means.

TheIrie,

I have plenty to say, as do others, but you don’t read them and if you do then they mean nothing to you

you are a closed box intellectually speaking, nothing enters and what exits isn’t worthy of debate

I feel sorry for you, after all you are PAID to think for a living and you conspicuously fail to do that from minute to minute

you rarely ask a question or consider why something happens in a complex way, it never occurs to you to read up on topics before pontificating like a 16 year old

there are plenty of fine arguments and ideas on this thread, but none of them will reach you

which is a shame, smart but closed minded, rigid and so intractable

a pity for someone so young, a waste of a fine education.

Its just empty abuse Mod. I engaged with the article. I answered a direct question you asked, to which you responded “TheIrie, please, oh, please, try, try to engage with the subject matter “. I was directly answering you. And you’ve written, cumulatively probably pages and pages saying the same thing - I can’t read, don’t listen, won’t engage, etc etc. You’re just hurling abuse, and its totally pointless talking to you.

It is my assertion that one facet of “decent” “philosophy” is a tendency for binary (four legs good two legs bad, etc) thinking.

But this is meaningless. Firstly binary thinking is probably a facet of most philosophies (consider your own need to construct “decents” to which you always oppose yourself for instance) and secondly who are “the decents” and who are their “philosophers”? If you mean Mr David T then you should engage with him and his views and not retreat between this baggy and ill-defined monster labelled “decency” when the going gets tough.

“TheIrie”:

What I was trying to say is that the writer might have thought that everyone immediately associates the Holocaust with the slaughter of Jews, and was hence trying to write something more nuanced… I don’t accept, on the basis of the information available… that it represents in anyway the views of an organisation who clearly didn’t have a committee meeting before writing it.

Seeing as you accept - as do I, but “johng” denies - that this “mistake” was conscious on the part of the author, why can’t you see that it might be consistent with and a reflection of the SWP’s attitude towards antisemitism? Despite considering the offending remarkd”totally wrong”, a “mistake” and that “an apology is in order”, your weasel words are belied by the fact that that you reserve all opprobrium for David T (”sick”, “appalling”) for having the gall to, you know, point it out.

TheIrie,

when you stop attacking good people like Linda Grant or Ami, or excusing away the SWP’s rather dubious attitudes toward livingJews then, and only then you might just be given some latitude

but we’ve had to put up with your ill informed, ignorant and dodgy views for over two years and your perpetual thoughtlessness when topics relate to Jews is extremely annoying

so the choice is yours, as to how you are treated

of course, you might feel more at home amongst the juvenile misanthropes at Lenin’s Tomb, don’t let us detain you :)

Rob Palk:

I went to the LoveMusicHateRacism festival and one of the speakers made a large speech about the ill effects of racism which likewise mentioned the the gay and socialist victims of the holocaust without mentioning any Jews. Struck me as odd at the time.

I’m surprised no one elses has picked up on this, as I’d be interested to learn more about it. Did anyone record this speech? If true, it would confirm that, if not official party policy, this strain of Holocaust denial is an accepted position within the SWP and its front organisations.

And the prize for the highest number of comments to size of post ratio goes to David T. Look what you started!

Graham - you’re right that each individual’s ideas have to be consider on their own merit, but it is also possible to form general categorisations, which are imperfect, but capture general trends in thinking. If I can’t talk about decents, how can you possibly talk about “the left” or “the working class” or any other group?

I don’t disagree with everything “decents” say - in particular their on paper philosophy is often sounds - it just goes awry when applied to the real world.

Some specific examples of decent binary thinking: Marko’s penis diagram of the new left-right divide, Kamm’s constant description a civilised West and a savage other (not his term, but certainly his meaning), every single post/article about “the left” by Cohen, David T, Gene, Aaronovitch. That will do for now, I think.

… no no no, and of course, David T’s straight forward equating of the Palestinian Nakba with the dispossession of Jews from Arab countries in the middle of the 20th century. They were, we were told, equivalent in acts, requiring equivalent solutions.

I see, Mod. You’re defending poor old Linda and Ami from my “attacks”. How noble of you. I’m sure they are really grateful, not being able to articulate their own views or defend their own opinions of course.

“I simply said they were not ALL expelled. My position is that of Avi Shlaim, and Rachel Shabi and David Cesarani (see links). But this is off topic, so I don’t know why you raise it, again.” (TheIrie)

No, that is not all that you did.
In your denial of the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries you looked the internet for any source and came up with a pretty childlish one by an unknown author who wasn’t even a historian. Anyone reading it would have been impressed by the lack of rigoeur of that piece. I needed only to follow one footnote to find out that the author was actually lying about his source and saying the complete contrary to what this source said.

But your denial -comparable to Holocaust denial among my mizrachi friends- went even beyond that.
You claimed simultaneously that Jews were not expelled, and that they were expelled but it was the fault of the Zionists.

You brought nothing but wild and discredited conspiracy theories about Mossad bombings in Bagdad, as if you were claiming that Goebbels was actually Jewish.

You lie regarding to your own denialist records because anybody who knows it, knows the kind of worm you are.

Fabian - nonsense. My position is given in the links above. That is what I think happened. Some were expelled. Some were pulled. Some went voluntarily. It is not accurate, then, to say 800,000 were expelled, whereas it is absolutely accurate to point out that 750,000 Palestinian’s were expelled (ethnically cleansed - Benny Morris) in 1947/8. That’s it. There absolutely were tragic circumstances involved in the Jewish expulsions, and I don’t want to minimise this in anyway. But I don’t think this should be dragged into the peace negotiations, which was David T’s argument, as a counter argument to the Palestinian refugee problem which persists today, and needs some solution (some solution - I’m not saying right of return - look at the Geneva Accords for a good start).

TheIrie: those were not the links you provided in your original discussion. Why don’t you show us what you came with then?

Those articles have been written more recently than that discussion. I’m not going to troll the internet to drag this up - you do so if you wish. I am stating plainly what I think about the situation.

Of course, your point is political: the Arabs leaving, sometimes settling only 10 kilometers away from where they were living, inside Mandate Palestine (think about the “refugees” that the UNRWA counts in camps inside the West Bank) and those Arabs who are counted among “refugees” but had only lived two years inside Mandate Palestine, as work migrants are real refugees, while the dissapearance between a few years of 95% of a community which was never very Zionist, and who were living for thousands of years in their countries, mot of the times even before the Arabs even settled there has to be considered as not a product of expulsion OR (and this was pointed out at you even before you claimed it) as the fault of the Zionists.

As a common Holocaust denier, theIrie claims simultaneously that the expulsion never happened, and if it happened, they deserved it for being Zionists.

When 95%

And of course, while the displacement of Arabs from what later became Israel was a product of war, nothing similar can be argued regarding Jews expelled from Arab countries.

You came out with revisionist garbage then. Just like a neonazi.
Show us the link you brught and let everybody read it while remembering that it was provided by Andrew Ireson, a british academic.

Fabian - in amongst the usual bluster you wrote “those Arabs who are counted among “refugees” but had only lived two years inside Mandate Palestine”. Could you provide some evidence that a significant number of Palestinians had only been living in Palestine for 2 years prior to 1947?

Incidentally, readers, that I am not bothering to refute the name calling (Holocaust Denier, anti-Semite, neonazi etc) does not mean I don’t deny these charges. Its just that they are repeated ad-nauseum by people who can’t have a rational discussion.

I think you need to answer first why did you engage in denial.

Fabian - nonsense. My position is given in the links above. That is what I think happened. Some were expelled. Some were pulled. Some went voluntarily. It is not accurate, then, to say 800,000 were expelled, whereas it is absolutely accurate to point out that 750,000 Palestinian’s were expelled (ethnically cleansed - Benny Morris) in 1947/8.

Irie, please furnish a link demonstrating that Benny Morris argues that none of the UNRWA’s clients “were pulled” or “went voluntarily”.

I believe that Michel Rosen is not a a member of the SWP. Nor do I think that the SWP is an anti-semitic organisation. It is merely one that has come to believe that anti-semitism only exists when defined by its own extremely narrow terms (not by Jews themselves) and on the whole does not much matter.

Yes, I think this is what Anthony Julius had in mind when he wrote about antisemitism’s fellow travelers.

Ibnaz

That would require TheIrie to have actually read Morris’ works on the matter. :)

Actually, come to think of it, has anyone been struck by the irony of TheIrie referring to “binary thinking” of people he disagrees with and his discussions about the dispossession of Jews in Arab lands and the Palestinians?

Rachel Shabi misrepresented the view of Lyn Julius
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/middleeast.middleeastthemedia
, who wrote the first article on Arab Jewish refugees for CIF (my post observing this was deleted but, fortunately, it lasted long enough to for Lyn to read and appreciate it, she said). Lyn never said all Arab Jews were physically expelled. But, for most, conditions arose or were created that were intolerable for them, impelling most to depart, mostly for Israel. The modern UN definitions of ‘refugee’ allow for such diversity of driving forces.

As for Caesarani’s saying there is no equivalence between Palestinian refugees and Arab Jewish refugees, that is a matter of opinion, not shared by Lyn Julius or the Justice for Jews from Arab lands. The UN, for instance, defined as ‘refugee’ any Palestinian Christian and Muslim whose livelihood had been lost as a consequence of the conflict. Most Palestinian refugees still live within the borders of Mandate Palestine. The same can hardly be said for the situation of most Arab Jews and their homelands.

The point that Lyn also made is that there is evidence that the Arab League drafted law, in 1947, before the UN vote for partition, that, in the event that any Jewish state came into existence, all Arab Jews would be legally defined as citizens of that state. What actually ensued consequent to the birth of Israel was not altogether different.

lbnaz: http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

“They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide�the annihilation of your people�I prefer ethnic cleansing.

And that was the situation in 1948?

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

“whereas it is absolutely accurate to point out that 750,000 Palestinian’s were expelled (ethnically cleansed - Benny Morris) in 1947/8″

Did someone say that this sad creature is paid to think? Dear, dear …
No, child: it is NOT ‘absolutely accurate’, because huge numbers of them left of their own accord, urged by their leaders to leave whilst being urged by the Jews to stay. The historical record is quite definite on that. Not that an antisemitism apologist like you is even mentally capably of grasping the difference.
I pointed out the fundamental weakness of those shabby travesties by Shabi and Cesarani. I bet you won’t be able to address that either.

The very term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is antisemitic, because it is retrofitted to something which does not meet the definition of that term.

If I can’t talk about decents, how can you possibly talk about “the left” or “the working class” or any other group?

You can talk about “decents” all you like (although I am sure that you are aware that the particular construction is not as validated by usage as the other groups that you mention, and anyone attempting to capture “general trends in thinking” amongst the left or the working class would be dealing in such huge generalisations that they would be meaningless.)

My objection is to the way you appear to be addressing the points of an individual only to attack the unmissible target of an undefined “decency” in order to score rhetorical points. Your mischaracterisation of Hoare, Kamm and David T is also rather silly.

You’ve just accused Benny Morris of being an anti-Semite. Do you have to wonder why people ignore you?

TheIrie: why do you engage in denial regarding the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries?

I don’t.

Sane people do not ignore me, loser.

And I never accused him of being an antisemite. Do yourself a favour and learn to read. I said that the term is antisemitic.

Linda Grant:

I believe that Michel Rosen is not a a member of the SWP. Nor do I think that the SWP is an anti-semitic organisation. It is merely one that has come to believe that anti-semitism only exists when defined by its own extremely narrow terms (not by Jews themselves) and on the whole does not much matter.

Gene:

Yes, I think this is what Anthony Julius had in mind when he wrote about antisemitism’s fellow travelers.

It is important to make distinctions between different orders of antisemitism, so that we don’t confuse the presumably well-meaning SWP types, and the core antisemitism of, say, your typical BNP hardliner. That is, you need to find a different language to talk to and describe people who would be horrified to think of themselves as actually antisemitic, than that used when referring to people who deny their antisemitism purely as a political calculation: people who hate Jews as Jews and those who don’t.

As such, I wouldn’t condemn people like Ken Livingstone and George Galloway as antisemites, or individual SWP or UCU activists, because I doubt that they are motivated by Jew-hatred, even if their actions offend or even hurt Jews.

However, I think it is a different matter when discussing organisations. An organisation doesn’t have a psychology as such, and so it doesn’t make much sense to take the likely motives of its members as defining the nature of the organisation. The nature of an organisation should be defined by it’s policies and activities.

The SWP promotes straightforward antisemites so long as they retain a veneer of anti-Zionism. The SWP supports organisations whose fundamental doctrines advocate the genocide of Jews. The SWP promotes a discriminatory boycott that would affect mostly Jews, whilst failing to advocate boycotts against countries with much worse human rights records. The SWP has nothing to say about the rise in physical attacks against Jews as Jews, considering the main function of claims of antisemitism to be the exculpation of Zionism. The SWP’s loudest Holocaust narrative is that Jews are responsible for the destruction of European Jewry. And now, it looks as though the SWP may be indulging in a form of Holocaust denial that ignores the Shoah’s fundamental antisemitic character.

To make a judgment on the SWP’s antisemitic nature it is not necessary to consider the apparently good motives of its individual members. It is enough to know whether its policies and activities are antisemitic. They are. Therefore, the SWP is an antisemitic organisation.

Shabi misrepresented the view of Lyn Julius,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/25/middleeast.middleeastthemedia
who wrote the first article on Arab Jewish refugees for CIF (as I observed on CIF, only to have the post deleted, though not before Lyn could read and, she said, appreciate it). Lyn never said all Arab Jews were physically expelled. But, for most, conditions arose or were created that were intolerable for them, impelling most to depart, mostly for Israel. The modern UN definitions of ‘refugee’ allow for such diversity of driving forces.

As for Caesarani’s saying there is no equivalence between Palestinian refugees and Arab Jewish refugees, that is a matter of opinion, not shared by Lyn Julius or the Justice for Jews from Arab lands. The UN, for instance, defined as ‘refugee’ any Palestinian Christian and Muslim whose livelihood had been lost as a consequence of the conflict. Most Palestinian refugees still live within the borders of Mandate Palestine. The same can hardly be said for the situation of most Arab Jews and their homelands.

The point that Lyn also made is that there is evidence that the Arab League drafted law, in 1947, before the UN vote for partition, that, in the event that any Jewish state came into existence, all Arab Jews would be legally defined as citizens of that state. What actually ensued consequent to the birth of Israel was not altogether different.

“The SWP supports organisations whose fundamental doctrines advocate the genocide of Jews.” - flatly untrue.

“The SWP’s loudest Holocaust narrative is that Jews are responsible for the destruction of European Jewry.” - flatly untrue

“And now, it looks as though the SWP may be indulging in a form of Holocaust denial that ignores the Shoah’s fundamental antisemitic character.” - flatly untrue

“Therefore, the SWP is an antisemitic organisation.”. Yep, great argument, and you’ve got there.

you have nothing to say but insults.

Bit rich coming from someone who started insulting me because I had the temerity to go to sleep rather than respond to his inane drivel in the middle of the night.

““The SWP supports organisations whose fundamental doctrines advocate the genocide of Jews.” - flatly untrue.”

True. The SWP supports Hamas. Read Hamas’s charter.

““The SWP’s loudest Holocaust narrative is that Jews are responsible for the destruction of European Jewry.” - flatly untrue”

True. The SWP claims that Zionist Jews had a policy of Nazi collaboration in order to further the Zionist cause. For sure, “loudest” is a subjective judgment, but you yourself have suggested the the SWP is taking a more “nuanced” approach to the Holocaust. I agree, and part of this nuance involves shrilly characterising desperate attempts to save handfuls of Jews as inherently pro-Nazi. To read Socialist Worker, you would think this was the main fact of the Holocaust, hence the “loudest narrative”.

““And now, it looks as though the SWP may be indulging in a form of Holocaust denial that ignores the Shoah’s fundamental antisemitic character.” - flatly untrue”