Britain’s Labor Party Is Now the Party of Anti-Semitism

Since the hard-left parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn became its leader in 2015, the UK’s Labor party has seen near-continuous anti-Semitic outbursts by its members and revelations of Corbyn’s own association with vicious Israel-haters, coupled with several ostensible attempts to set things right which proved to be shams. Most recently, the party has disciplined two MPs for complaining about anti-Semitism. Tamara Berens concludes that this is far more than a passing problem:

Many focus on the question of whether Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite himself. He may or may not be. However, his deliberate actions to reject the Jewish community’s concerns, silence his moderate Labor detractors, and pedal anti-Zionism as central to his political image show that he is more than happy to utilize anti-Semitism for political purposes.

Anti-Zionism—and by extension, giving credence to anti-Semites—is fundamental to the worldview Corbyn has cultivated on his journey to political stardom. For most of his political career, Corbyn was a fringe socialist politician and supporter of the USSR, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, the Iranian ayatollahs, and the Venezuela of Nicolas Maduro [and Hugo Chavez]. After becoming Labor leader, Jeremy Corbyn toned down some of this support for radical anti-Western groups. Nonetheless, he has consistently maintained his support for anti-Zionist causes. What’s undoubtable is that throughout his career, his ultimate goal has remained the same: rejecting Western values and embracing the alliance between radical socialists and Islamists in a strategic bid to normalize and implement socialism in the UK.

Politically, Corbyn’s strategy is working: according to a recent YouGov poll, 61 percent of the party believes Corbyn is handling accusations of anti-Semitism well. And 80 percent of the party deems him a good leader overall. The events of the past few weeks indicate that the Labor leadership has been able to build on their apparent success to . . . distance themselves from the overwhelmingly Zionist British-Jewish community. This perhaps became most apparent last Friday, when Jeremy Corbyn published another article in the Guardian disregarding his part in normalizing anti-Semitism in the party. The piece came out at 5:00pm, when the majority of Jews in the country were busy preparing for the Sabbath.

The reality is that support from the Jewish community is no longer an indispensable part of the Labor party. In fact, Corbyn’s foreign policy—a large aspect of his political differences with [Tony] Blair’s [moderate, pro-American wing of] Labor—rests on weakening UK-Israel relations. Corbyn has constructed a successful strategy for claiming the Labor party as his own socialist vehicle for disruption of the Western liberal order. Labeling recent events a “scandal” greatly underestimates the strategic nature of his leadership.

You have 2 free articles left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Weekly Standard

More about: Anti-Semitism, Jeremy Corbyn, Labor Party (UK), Politics & Current Affairs, United Kingdom

No, Israelis and Palestinians Can’t Simply Sit Down and Solve the “Israel-Palestinian Conflict”

Jan. 17 2019

By “zooming out” from the blinkered perspective with which most Westerners see the affairs of the Jewish state, argues Matti Friedman, one can begin to see things the way Israelis do:

Many [in Israel] believe that an agreement signed by a Western-backed Palestinian leader in the West Bank won’t end the conflict, because it will wind up creating not a state but a power vacuum destined to be filled by intra-Muslim chaos, or Iranian proxies, or some combination of both. That’s exactly what has happened . . . in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. One of Israel’s nightmares is that the fragile monarchy in Jordan could follow its neighbors . . . into dissolution and into Iran’s orbit, which would mean that if Israel doesn’t hold the West Bank, an Iranian tank will be able to drive directly from Tehran to the outskirts of Tel Aviv. . . .

In the “Israeli-Palestinian” framing, with all other regional components obscured, an Israeli withdrawal in the West Bank seems like a good idea—“like a real-estate deal,” in President Trump’s formulation—if not a moral imperative. And if the regional context were peace, as it was in Northern Ireland, for example, a power vacuum could indeed be filled by calm.

But anyone using a wider lens sees that the actual context here is a complex, multifaceted war, or a set of linked wars, devastating this part of the world. The scope of this conflict is hard to grasp in fragmented news reports but easy to see if you pull out a map and look at Israel’s surroundings, from Libya through Syria and Iraq to Yemen.

The fault lines have little to do with Israel. They run between dictators and the people they’ve been oppressing for generations; between progressives and medievalists; between Sunnis and Shiites; between majority populations and minorities. If [Israel’s] small sub-war were somehow resolved, or even if Israel vanished tonight, the Middle East would remain the same volatile place it is now.

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at New York Times

More about: Hizballah, Iran, Israel & Zionism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East