doesn't make you a great person

and while such comparing about racism, particularly given Africa may sound impolitic, America never colonized a whole continent, we didn't start the trans-Atlantic slave trade like Europe did, we didn't need a king to abolish slavery at home (yet keep it abroad in the form of colonialism), and we've had a freely and more-directly-elected non-white leader unlike in Europe.

And unlike Europe, we've never had pogroms or The Holocaust. We didn't genocide groups like the Germans did in Herero. This list goes on.

"less racist" is cold comfort to the victims.

and while yea our actions to them were pretty bad, they were not preordained based on conspiracy theory as the Holocaust and pogroms were.

The Holocaust and the suffering of the Jews is forever unique in history. The end.

Also, about the Native Americans...many large countries have had conflicting expansion with other peoples. Ask the native Siberians, or the non-Han Chinese in the western portions of that country.

You butchered most of the indigenous population, an act of genocide that inspired Hitler. And Individuals like Henry Ford funded the Nazis. You have trigger happy racist police, you kept slaves long after it was abolished elsewhere. There was segregation long after the abolition of slavery. And the KKK are far more prominent than any right wing group in Europe. And you've got more black men in prison than in university, most of which is caused by a racist legal system that locks up black people for crimes that white people get non custodial sentences.

Get your head out of the sand.

Why do you think Reginal D Hunter chose to live over here? I'll give you a clue, it's not because America is less racist than Britain.

how did that go? And its legacy?

the KKK has zero seats in Congress; far-right openly racist parties have seats all over your continent.

I'll that that cold hard truth, which says everything, instead of anecdote of some dude with an ax to grind.

Or would you like to parcel up the actions of all the American countries along with those of the USA? We don't have any far right MPs here. And those that could be considered very right wing (UKIP) are no where as extreme as your Republicans.

We don't have any colonies now, a few islands nations who give us sovereignty for their own protection doesn't count. You are sitting in one big colony, stolen from the Native American.

If what IS is doing in Syria counts as genocide then what you did in Vietnam definitely does.

Nearly 30 years after the Vietnam war, a chemical weapon used by US troops is still exacting a hideous toll on each new generation. Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy report


Hong Hanh is falling to pieces. She has been poisoned by the most toxic molecule known to science; it was sprayed during a prolonged military campaign. The contamination persists. No redress has been offered, no compensation. The superpower that spread the toxin has done nothing to combat the medical and environmental catastrophe that is overwhelming her country. This is not northern Iraq, where Saddam Hussein gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988. Nor the trenches of first world war France. Hong Hanh's story, and that of many more like her, is quietly unfolding in Vietnam today. Her declining half-life is spent unseen, in her home, an unremarkable concrete box in Ho Chi Minh City, filled with photographs, family plaques and yellow enamel stars, a place where the best is made of the worst.
Hong Hanh is both surprising and terrifying. Here is a 19-year-old who lives in a 10-year-old's body. She clatters around with disjointed spidery strides which leave her soaked in sweat. When she cannot stop crying, soothing creams and iodine are rubbed into her back, which is a lunar collage of septic blisters and scabs. "My daughter is dying," her mother says. "My youngest daughter is 11 and she has the same symptoms. What should we do? Their fingers and toes stick together before they drop off. Their hands wear down to stumps. Every day they lose a little more skin. And this is not leprosy. The doctors say it is connected to American chemical weapons we were exposed to during the Vietnam war."

What is the difference between the US, Canada, and Mexico?

The US has nice neighbors.

At least I believe that it is meant as a joke.

Excellent responses to the ridiculous comments.

I'm always dubious of anyone who claims any sort of inherent superiority in anything, (trash talk at sporting events aside.)

going on there.

Also, can state with certainty that there is at least as much antisemitism among Conservatives. Labour however is assuring there will be a cost for liberals who spout such tripe

Or are you just attacking the source of the article?

Torygraph says 50. Guardian says 3.

From the real news source across the pond:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/02/labour-suspends-two-councillors-alleged-antisemitism

He invited to Parliament Raed Salah a Palestinian islamist,, who has suggested Jews were absent from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Corbyn called him an “honored citizen.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?_r=1

While I deplore the Likud government's policies , I consider anti-Semitism to be one more form of bigotry that true lefties must oppose.

From the OP's link:

it's is not just the three that have been announced in the last week.

"A senior source within the party told The Daily Telegraph that the problem went much further and the compliance unit has actually suspended 50 members in the past two months.

They include up to 20 members within the past two weeks alone, with the unit struggling to cope because it does not have necessary resources.

Only 13 Labour members have been publicly named since October after being suspended. The source said: "There are just six people in the compliance unit with one more joining after the EU referendum and frankly, it's nowhere near enough."

-- so the possibilities are that it is only 3 and the author of the article is lying or their senior source is lying, or that it is more than 3 and Labour has just been exposed as having a bigger problem than they are letting on (which is the whole point of the article). I don't know how respectable the Telegraph is, but I would be surprised if their editor would allow this to be the lead story if they didn't have a decent source. I'm going with 50.

the New York Times and Washington Post use this technique, for example. Journalistic and editorial practice dictate that they check their facts. This is pretty detailed and if it comes out that the Telegraph's lead story is a fabrication or their source was not senior if they were duped by a single source, they move from newspaper to fiction. The Telegraph is not the New York Times, but they have no reason to expose themselves to great embarrassment for a single headline. Just because people don't like this news, doesn't mean it is not true.

anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. Yep, if you are a British politician and dare not love Israel enough you must not love Jews either, and so, you automatically become "an alleged" anti-Semite just before an election. How untimely for you.

Most reasonable people would agree.

Regardless of what most reasonable people might think.

It's like tweeting that AA people have big lips. I doubt people would argue that someone who tweeted that was not a racist. For some reason, some people have an aversion to calling out obvious anti-semitism (i.e. a comment that equates a stereotypical physical characteristic with Jewish people).

had big lips would most likely be a bigot. The same can be said of someone who would use stereotypical insults toward Jews or any other people. Racism by contrast is the institutional use of power to discriminate. According to the ADL, anti-Semitism is:"The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews." Notice the repeated use of the word "may." Just because someone uses a pejorative to describe another is not proof that the person is even a bigot, let alone a racist or any anti-Semite. People say crap they don't really mean all the time. Jews often use the work Goyim as a pejorative. Does that make them bigots? By your reasoning it does. It is when one envisions doing harm that bigotry and prejudice become virulent and dangerous.

stereotypes for both Jews and Arabs, was that clever, cutting edge satire, or crude anti-Semitism aimed at both types of Semites?

And when Israeli politicians and soldiers profile Palestinians for "special treatment" does that make the Israelis anti-Semites also?

But saying "Hitler was a Zionist" is.

Saying Hamas and Hezbollah agents of “long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region is Anti-Semsitsm.

Corbyn invited to Parliament a Palestinian Islamist, Raed Salah, who has suggested Jews were absent from the World Trade Center on 9/11.

That is anti-Semitism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?_r=1

The head of Oxford's Labour club resigned because he said "some kind of problem with Jews."


Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term 'Zio' (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their 'solidarity' with Hamas and explitictly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that 'most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is when it comes to liberation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12160167/Oxford-Universitys-Labour-club-embroiled-in-anti-Semitism-row.html

is that the allegation of anti-Semitism by Jews is proof of anti-Semitism. Rational people would be fools to accept such a position. Besides, what if some students at Oxford and some members of Parliament 'have a problem with Jews?' How does that by itself hurt Jews? Great Britain isn't Nazi Germany, and disliking people is not the same as wanting to hurt them. So, who is actually trying to hurt whom here? Who is out to destroy people and can't wait to do it democratically becasue they disprove of an offense, real or imagined? Who are the wolves?

If an African American told you something you said was racist, would you tell them that rational people would be fools to accept that black people know what racism is and looks like? Or is that ridiculous statement reserved only for Jews?

I notice you like to make analogies to Jews and African Americans. Aside from being minorities in modern America, there is little else to compare them. Black people have suffered from institutionalized racism here for centuries. Consequently, they are the poorest, least educated and have the fewest opportunities of any Americans. That cannot be said of American Jews, who are among, if not the most prosperous, well educated and advantaged. African Americans learn about discrimination from experience. Most American Jews do not. So, when American Jews start crying antisemitism, I wonder whose behind the curtain.

My father (may he rest in peace) was in law school in the 60s and was turned down by many because they had their quota fill of Jews so saying Jews haven't been discriminated against in this very country shows a repulsive ignorance of history. Jews were front and center for the civil rights movement in this country and anyone who doesn't know that is an imbecile. So to recap - African Americans can tell you what racism is but only very special Jews, those appointed by YOU, can tell you what anti semitism is. That about cover it?

since colonial times. They came here as indentured servants and were some of the first people to cross the Blue Ridge. They fought for the Union to keep the goddamn country together and end slavery. They have sweat and bled in every war since. They've worked in coal mines, organized unions, taught in classrooms, defended indigent people in courts, performed operations in hospitals, served in police uniforms and much more. They were fighting and bleeding for civil rights when yours were most likely still in Europe. So don't call me an imbecile or whine about how tough it was to make it in America for Jews, or how badly you've been discriminated against. That's just plain pitiful and disgusting bullshit. America has been the real promised land for your people and mine. There is no antisemite hiding under your bed because someone says things you don't want to hear about Israel or insists upon treating you like everyone else. Does that about cover it?

Only special Jews can define anti semitism to your satisfaction. When did I ever state you couldn't say whatever the fuck you wanted about Israel and what is it with you shoving words into other people's mouths? Annoying habit you have there. You claimed there was no anti-semitism in the US and I proved you wrong easily. Don't whine about your history as if it allows you to lie.

there was no antisemitism in America or that only special Jews can define it. I did say that antisemitism in America is not institutionalized and amounts to little more than ordinary bigotry and that the definition of it is not something fluid that can be determined only by Jews. As for Israel, virtually the only time the antisemitism boogeyman raises its head here is when people insist on conflating it with ant-Zionism. Calling people liars and imbeciles is ill mannered and spring from a limited ability for critical thought that arises from a refusal to question personal beliefs and to mistakenly equate them with fact. You may have the last word now, if you wish.

Black people have suffered from institutionalized racism here for centuries. Consequently, they are the poorest, least educated and have the fewest opportunities of any Americans. That cannot be said of American Jews, who are among, if not the most prosperous, well educated and advantaged. African Americans learn about discrimination from experience. Most American Jews do not. So, when American Jews start crying antisemitism, I wonder whose behind the curtain.


That Jews are advantaged (and always have been) right here in the good ol USA - whatta bunch of narrowminded, historically ignorant bullshit.

becasue someone is accused of being a witch is disturbing enough. The idea that someone can be professionally burned at the stake for what they say or for what someone else says they meant is even more disturbing....yeah? I will never condone such behavior. I don't care who does it or why, and if that makes me a bad person, then so be it.

We on the left cannot claim to be against racism, bigotry and all other forms of persecution if we allow this sort of behavior to occur and turn a blind eye because it's being done by our side. Hatred knows no political boundaries and we are no better than the far right if we do not censure and expose those who espouse hateful thoughts and opinions.

but it is not a veil that most anti-Zionists hide behind.

A recent lie repeated by anti-Semites is that the Jews are making up charges of anti-Semitism and those charges don't need to be taken seriously. No, anti-Zionism is not an excuse for anti-Semitism.

The question is not whether or not these people are anti-Semites, it is whether that is considered wrong or not. The aim of the anti-Zionist/anti-Semites is to make more and more people feel it is not wrong to be an anti-Semite.

is, if indeed, one is an anti-Semite, not allegations of it used to stifle criticism of Israel. Anti-Semites are people who hate Jews, not people who criticize the behavior of foreign governments. It is one thing to suggest that some people oppose the policies of the Israeli government because they are anti-Semites and quite another to say that all people who oppose those policies are anti-Semites.

As you may not know, on our planet it is not just that there are different people with different labels who live in different places and sometimes say things that bother one another.

There is actually 2000 years of organized anti-Semitism against the Jewish people from Christians to Muslims to pagans, from the Roman empire to the Ottoman to the Soviet empire, from monarchs, oligarchs, socialists and national socialists, with fabrications, allusions, raised, recycled, reinforced and reused again and again.

You might not know so much about it, but there is a pattern of behavior which is relevant in understanding what is anti-Semitism. For example, Jews were banned from professions for a thousand years by Christians and Muslims, then their business and their academic work boycotted by Nazis, then Arabs starting before 1948. The anti-Semites claim this time it's different.

In a way, the far right wing anti-Semites are better. They say they are anti-Semites and own it. They don't try to take the morally superior route of saying anti-Semitism is bad and then saying they aren't anti-Semitic but it is the Jews who are making them do it etc.

nor does his history confer any special status upon him. Jews are entitled to nothing for being Jews that others are not. In liberal democracies that includes the ethical and legal injunction against attempting to harm others just because you fear them or don't like what they say about you.

Watch Prof Alan Johnson on Newsnight - when does criticism of Israel become antisemitism?

https://twitter.com/BritainIsrael/status/727543428716720128

Johnson also wrote:

Charges of antisemitism aimed at actual antisemites is not useful propaganda. Allegations of antisemitism against those in opposition to the expansionist policies of the Israeli government towards Palestinians is, regardless of whether they are Jews or Gentiles. I think such Jews are routinely disparaged as being "self-loathing." However, suggesting that this alleged antisemitism and self-loathing is somehow a necessary, psychological correlate of history is a real stretch and obviously intended to leaven the whole loaf.

Open your eyes.

This op-ed discusses the rise of left- and right-wing anti-semitism also, using the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse (as if my American Jewish husband has anything to do with that).

While I believe that Israel is a racist ethnocracy and what it's doing in the occupied territories is a form of Apartheid, I still think that any form of anti-Semitism is completely unacceptable. It's good that Labour takes out the trash - these people are better off in the UKIP or the BNP.

the article is reporting a senior source says it is 50, not 3. what do you know that allows you to refute the article?

btw, your post is ironic.

saying the earlier reported lower number is incorrect. You can't refute that claim by saying "but the earlier reported number is lower." Do you have any specific insight about the Telegraph that tells you they are likely to be lying?

Some people who oppose anti-semitism in the abstract seem to have no ability to admit or recognize when it actually occurs.

Surely there must be ways for journalists to confirm facts on their own. It's not an Israel thing, it's just how I value sources.

with sources.

Is that a serious question? The Telegraph is well-known right wing rag.

Always amusing when RWers register on DU and then post using Woody Guthrie avatars in a sad attempt to fool everyone.

please forgive me for not going along with efforts to deny left wing anti-Semitism. In spite of what you may feel, there is nothing progressive about the anti-Semites gaining a foothold in the Labour party.

seems the article was right anyway, whatever the leanings of the paper.

From that article:

Opposition to a government's policies or opposition to Israel/Jews having a right to a state? Whichever it is, and I am sure there are some strong opinions here, anti-Zionism has a way of blurring over into anti-Semitism for many people, especially those countries with large Muslim populations, it seems.

Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. Watch her spewing blood libels and hatred against Israel for daring to defend herself from Hamas rockets. Moreover, this MP actually resigned her position as Shadow Education Minister in order to protest the decision to attack ISIS in Iraq.

Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central is not just an obsessive Israel hater but was also obsessively concerned that Party leader Ed Milliband was a Jew. Here she is with yet another blood libel against Israel. She also defended Naz Shah's antisemitism.

Shabana Mahmoud, Labour MP for Birmingham who actually took part in a violent protest to shut down Sainsburys for daring to stock Israel produce

Yasmin Qureshi labour MP for Bolton SE who compared Israel to the Nazis

Imran Hussain, Labour MP for Bradford East who blatantly lied to deligitimize Israel in Parliament (leading to David Cameron to make his own ignorant anti-Israel response)

There are a lot of embedded links in the blog post:

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/nothing-special-about-naz-zhah-plenty.html

May 3, 2016

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-list-members-suspended-by-party-1558000

remarks, the Party would need a new Prime Minister and many new deputies.

But being viciously racist toward Palestinians is apparently an acceptable form of racism.

Agreed?

I take it you're not at all bothered by it?

or bias against Jews. Both are equally wrong and should be condemned.

But certain forms of anti-Semitism, especially that directed against Palestinian and non-Jewish Semites, are not given quite the same coverage, especially in the US. And just for the sake of clarity, when referring to Semites:

But I asked you about the Labour scandal.

Is that anti-semitism in your view?

You reject out of hand what you cannot refute because that is the only way you can attempt to control the dialogue.

An interesting, but failed attempt.

Look at the word. Anti, meaning against, and Semite, meaning a member of the Semitic group of people. Thus an anti-Semite can refer equally to hatred of Jews and any or all other Semitic peoples.

Try a dictionary. Any dictionary.

I've now asked you at least twice about Labour's anti-semitism. No comment from you. So it's not anti-semitism in your view? No biggie?

the meanings of words. And ALL of them define anti-semitism as hatred for Jews. Take it up with them. Yours is a tired old trope that has been debunked for decades.

as opposed to your usual far right source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027814010

Maybe even further right than that.

April 9, 2016 (before the latest row)

... and the sixth undermines itself by using abysmal Twitterish shorthand.

Isn't it "funny" how the most vocal critics of Corbyn and the Labour Party
are fuelled by Tory bloggers and right-wing newspapers ...?

What a fucking coincidence that is ...

are so large, so odious, so impossible to justify, that every criticism of the State of Israel must be labeled as motivated by hatred for Jews. It makes no difference that no real evidence exists, all critics of the Israeli State must be labeled as anti-Semites.

That succeeds in some sense by attempting to equate any and all criticism of the Israeli State with hatred for the Jews. That success is a reflection of the bias on the part of the US Government, and most of the US media, that paints the Israelis as always the victims and never the aggressors.

And your closing remarks, the last sentence, typifies how this tactic is used. What I (or anyone) think about Israel has nothing to do with how I think about Jews.