by Frazer Loveman
Two days ago the Labour party lifted the suspension of Jackie Walker, the vice-chair of Thanet Labour and also vice-chair of Momentum’s steering committee. Her comments regarding the African holocaust on Facebook, where she had suggested that Jews had been “chief financiers” of the slave and sugar trade have now seemingly been deemed by the Labour party leadership to have been perfectly acceptable, with no further action necessary.
Now, I don’t know Ms Walker, I don’t want to judge whether or not she is actually an anti-Semite, but her remarks were at the very least misguided and distasteful. What is more offensive is that she refuses to recognise or accept this, posting a blog on May 26th in which she does not offer contrition, or an apology, but instead doubling down suggesting “anti-Semitism is not a major problem” before going on to discuss the “increasing convergence between Zionists, the right of the Labour Party, the Tories and our right wing media”. This has been her stance all along, as characterised by her response on Russia Today when she again claimed the issue was not anti-Semitism, but the restriction of free speech (as she misappropriated the Martin Niemöller poem First They Came) within the Labour party, comparing her suspension to McCarthysim.
This inability to even countenance that she may have made remarks that could be considered anti-Semitic is almost worse than making the remarks in the first place. When it was revealed that Bradford West MP Naz Shah had shared anti-Semitic images on Facebook she showed nothing but remorse, apologising for the posts and actively reaching out to the Jewish community, culminating in her appearance yesterday at a Synagogue in Leeds where she once again fully apologised and said that she had been “ignorant”, but now “understood” more about the situation in Israel and how the BDS movement effects normal Israeli citizens.
Shah should be seen as a shining example of how Labour can move on from the issues arising with anti-Semitism, Jackie Walker is not. Shah took it upon herself to actually reach out to the Jewish community, understand how what she had posted on Facebook was considered offensive by Jewish people and has learnt from the experience. Ms Walker has done none of this, she defends her comments wholeheartedly and going further by insinuating in her blog post that the Ambassador of Israel exerts undue influence in having met with new Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. This is the kind of classic anti-Semitic trope that dates back to the writings of Wilhelm Marr and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and has no place in the Labour Party.
When I joined Labour it was because I thought it was the party that best reflected the kind of society I wanted Britain to be. You look at the PLP and you see men and women from all social classes, all ethnic backgrounds, all parts of the country. There will always be disagreements within the party over certain issues, one of them can even be the party’s stance on the Israeli government, but it is possible to both oppose the Netanyahu government and Israel’s stance over Gaza and Palestine while not reducing yourself to base racism.
It should embarrass Labour members that people like Walker and Ken Livingstone are allowed to shame the name of this party with their unapologetic, racist behaviour. In the case of Walker, however, it seems to have been decided that this is acceptable, that the 19th century caricature of Jews as “financiers” of evil deeds will not earn your condemnation from the top of the party, but a slap on the wrist in the form of a brief suspension. The “zero-tolerance” approach to anti-Semitism that was espoused by John McDonnell when the furore was at its peak appears to have been pushed gently to one side.
It has been suggested by many people that those within the Labour party opposed to this sort of hateful rhetoric (particularly Livingstone’s Hitler comments) should leave the party, allow it to tear itself to shreds; but that’s not the point. The Labour party should be more than this, and it is on the members of the Labour party to speak out against it. Though it seems that the rise in this kind of incident has occurred following the rise of Momentum and the election of Corbyn as leader, I’d like to believe the majority of members still find the behaviour of people like Walker abhorrent and worthy of expulsion, or at very least removal from her role as a senior member of both Thanet Labour and Momentum.
It is time for all Labour members at all levels to stand-up and show that people like Walker are in the minority, that it is not acceptable for the name of a party that has achieved so much for so many to be dragged through the mud by its association with people who feel the positions of Walker and Livingstone are acceptable. If the leadership refuse to do anything about this of their own volition, then it is up to Labour members everywhere to try and make a difference.
Frazer Loveman is a history and politics student at the University of Southampton
Tags: anti-semitism, Frazer Loveman, Jackie Walker, Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum, Naz Shah
be offended , it never hurt anyone, nobody dies from it, live with it, if someone tells the truth and it offends you, suck it up cupcake, enough of you extreme liberal morons already, stick political correctness where the sun does not shine while you are at it
“anti-Semitism is not a major problem” before going on to discuss the “increasing convergence between Zionists, the right of the Labour Party, the Tories and our right wing media”.
Yes, there’s a power game going on and you’re part of it, Mr. Loveman. Wonder how far you’ll get up the greasy pole?
Her comments regarding the African holocaust on Facebook, where she had suggested that Jews had been “chief financiers” of the slave and sugar trade have now seemingly been deemed by the Labour party leadership to have been perfectly acceptable, with no further action necessary.
First of all you omit to say whether what she said is true or not.
And more importantly, you also omit to mention she said her own religion were involved. Being as you wrote this blog, one would assume you would know that and therefore by your failing to point it out makes you an islamophobe and a zionist
Oh, by the way, this ‘anti-semitism’ bollocks is completely ignored by the vast bulk of the electorate who find the whole thing either boring, pointless or childish.
that Bradford West MP Naz Shah had shared anti-Semitic images on Facebook she showed nothing but remorse, apologising for the posts and actively reaching out to the Jewish community
Anti Israel actually. There is a massive difference. Oh, and you fail to point out it was copied from a blog written by……..an anti-zionist Jew.
“It is time for all Labour members at all levels to stand-up and show that people like Walker are in the minority.”
Perhaps what is surfacing now is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617090/Labour-councillor-called-Israel-terrorist-state-married-two-women-time-appointed-equality-chief-Birmingham.html
And if anything, labour first or blue labour will be having bigger meetings defending things like Israel,in mainly white areas.
Darren said: “be offended , it never hurt anyone, nobody dies from it, live with it … enough of you extreme liberal morons already, stick political correctness where the sun does not shine”
Here’s what Mark Rowley, the national police lead for counter-terrorism, said earlier this year:
He added: “The global picture of terrorist activity does give us heightened concern about the risk to the Jewish community in the UK. We are seeing continuing antisemitic rhetoric from extremists and attacks on this community in France and elsewhere. In addition to our existing security measures, we are in dialogue with Jewish community leaders about further actions that we will be taking, including more patrols in key areas.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/16/uk-police-patrols-jewish-areas-heightened-concern
I agree with Mark Rowley. Antisemitic rhetoric from extremists is linked to a heightened risk for the Jewish community. Does that make me an extreme liberal moron?
Frazer, if you are really a history student then I feel for your tutors given your poor handling of evidence.
First, let’s take Jackie Walker. Jackie, her partner and her kids are… Jewish. But in researching her ancestors it is my understanding that, as a black woman, she found that while some (her black ancestors) were slaves, others (her Jewish ancestors) were also connected to the slave trade. Perhaps Frazer, history student that you allegedly are, you could ponder that discovery before you go on to denigrate a life-long anti-racist and victim of racism. Her one error was to state that Jews were the ‘chief’ financiers, this is historically incorrect for the British slave trade, although does have more truth I believe for the Dutch East Indies. However her main point was absolutely valid, that there have been other holocausts in history, including African slavery, and that no group is permanently either the victim or victimiser. In other words, being victims of the Jewish holocaust does not give people a blank cheque to then ignore the rights of others today, notably the Palestinians.
As to Naz Shah, the fact that the cartoon she reposted originated from a US Jewish writer, Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, should give you pause for thought, but clearly it doesn’t. If the cartoon was created by a Jew then please explain how it is inherently ‘anti-Semitic’ when its intention was to expose the relationship between the US and Israel?
As for Livingstone, while his words were clumsy and unhelpful to say the least, they were not untrue, there was indeed a complex relationship between the Zionists in Germany and the Nazi’s, and as a student of history you can at least try to understand it, and the reasons why Zionism, as a political ideology that states anti-Semitism is inevitable, had minority support among European Jewry until after the Holocaust itself.
The problem we have here is that while anti-Semitism exists in society, along with lots of other forms of racism and of course Islamophobia, it (or the other forms of racism) is not a problem in my experience within the Party itself. What is a problem is the mistaken – but often criminally deliberate – conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
“other forms of racism”
In the debate we should not forget Christianophobia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Btw…Isamophobia was a term coined by The Runnymede Trust, a left wing think tank.
James Martin – What is a problem is the mistaken – but often criminally deliberate – conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Indeed. Not to mention that deliberately conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism is actually not only inherently racist but also anti-semitic in itself.
Jews were not “chief financiers” of the slave trade, neither in America nor in the Dutch East Indies (a) (b).
The fact that someone who has a long history of opposing racism and the far-right like Jackie Walker has believes this means they are given credibility. They are given even more credibility when the LRC repeat them as part of her defence (c), when Momentum do not repudiate them and when her suspension from Labour is lifted without her withdrawing them. Most of the Labour left have backed her uncritically, ignored her remarks or euphemistically misquoted them (“of course, some Jews were involved in the slave trade”).
I am not aware of any historical references that Jackie Walker has quoted to substantiate her remarks only that Jon Lansman “didn’t think” the Nation of Islam book, “The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews” was the source (d).
On the Left, I’m only aware of the AWL’s Jim Denham raising the problem of the “chief financiers” quote and now their newspaper, “Solidarity” (June 1, 407) (e)(f).
The latter states that Jackie Walker’s views on Jews and the slave trade were “an exact fit of that theme”, i.e. the discredited theory that the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam set out.
John McDonnell is chair of the LRC and Jeremy Corbyn is a leading member. I was sure that the Tories would use next week’s PMQs to highlight the “chief financiers” quote and ask Jeremy Corbyn if he and the Labour Party now agree with the Nation of Islam interpretation of history. However, the Tories now have the “Vice” movie and the booing of a BBC reporter to choose from as well.
Who knows, they’ll probably have time to squeeze in all three.
(a) http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/20/opinion/black-demagogues-and-pseudo-scholars.html?pagewanted=all
(b) http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/2/12/jews-and-the-slave-trade-just/
(c) http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/05/a-frenzied-witch-hunt-is-not-the-way-to-combat-antisemitism-or-any-form-of-racism/
(d) https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/its-right-that-jackie-walker-is-re-instated-but-we-dont-have-to-agree-with-her/
(e) http://www.workersliberty.org/system/files/407.pdf
John Rogan, thankfully Israeli Jewish publications are not so shy about discussing the historical role of Jews in the slave trade and the African holocaust it was part of. Take this from the Times of Israel a few years ago about the role of Dutch Jews for example: “Jews were so influential in those colonies that slave auctions scheduled to take place on Jewish holidays often were postponed, according to Marc Lee Raphael, a professor of Judaic studies at the College of William & Mary.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/how-culpable-were-dutch-jews-in-the-slave-trade/
Now of course you may wish to debate the history, which is fine, but please do not try and deny it. And perhaps we all should ponder why it is that any mention of historical events likes these, even when the research is from Jewish writers, leads to suspension from the Party today?
“Her one error was to state that Jews were the ‘chief’ financiers, this is historically incorrect for the British slave trade, although does have more truth I believe for the Dutch East Indies.” – James Martin (June 1st)
Dear James Martin, it’s very easy to win an argument by putting words into your opponents mouth and by shifting and obscuring your own point.
1. I did not deny that Jews were involved in the slave trade only that they were not “chief financiers” whether in America or the Dutch East Indies. Your link does not prove that Jews were the “chief financiers” in the Dutch East Indies only that Jews were involved.
2. The people who are most keen to prove that Jews were the “chief financiers” are the anti-Semites of the Nation of Islam and Nazis such as David Duke. Unfortunately, it seems that some in the Labour Party are now hunting about to prove Jews were involved in the slave trade and shouting out “SEE! They were involved in the slave trade! Told you! Jackie was right!”. Again, Jewish involvement does not equate to being the “chief financiers”.
3. “Her one error” is how you seek to downplay what Jackie Walker said and then try to make out by insinuation that the Jews were the “chief financiers” in the Dutch East Indies. They were not and, sticking to the point, Jackie Walker did not withdraw her “one error” that Jews were the “chief financiers”. Now that idea will be associated with the Labour Party. Namely that it is an acceptable view within the Party that Jews were the “chief financiers” of the slave trade. Even when Jews try to explore how culpable their ancestors were (in the one example you linked to), we have the aforementioned David Duke and his co-thinkers seeking to insinuate a greater involvement.
4. If we are getting to the situation where we have people in Labour wading in the mud of anti-Semitism to “prove” that Jews were “chief financiers” of the slave trade somewhere, anywhere then it’s going to be a pretty grim future for Labour.
5. Someone who distorts what is said in an article where a Rabbi investigates the Jewish role in the Dutch East Indies slave trade (“Non-Jews were also complicit, but so were we, I feel partly complicit.”) to try and show they were the “chief financiers” is not someone I wish to debate with anymore. It is pointless.
John, you see this is the problem with this kind of debate. Because racists and anti-Semites use certain historical events to attack Jewish people then to you it becomes impossible for anyone else, or more particularly anyone who is a Labour Party member, to even mention them, but worse than that if you do then in your world somehow you become no better than the KKK. Now of course there were identical reasons why rich European Jews and Christians (and indeed North African Muslims) traded and owned slaves, and these included both economic and theological ones (the latter by dehumanising black people as the descendants of the Curse of Ham, and who had dark skins due to the ‘sins’ of their fathers). And you are right, most African slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries was not controlled by Jews, although in some areas, and particularly within Dutch slavery, Jewish slave traders played a very big role.
Now all this is an interesting, but not very relevant to more important concerns over things like austerity or the civil war in the Tory party. But it becomes important when a black Jewish woman whose partner and kids are Jewish is accused of the serious offence of anti-Semitism following a comment she made after researching her own family history, or when a cartoon produced by the Jewish son of a concentration camp survivor about the relationship between the US and Israel is portrayed as virtually Nazi propaganda. And you then have to ask yourself what is actually going on here, and what deeper political – and very dangerous – games are being played by opponents of Corbyn?
Criticism of Israeli government policy and the occupation and settlement of Palestine should nt only be acceptable.
It should be party policy
Then we will all know where we stand
mike homfray, we are allowed to criticise any country, many labour people on here were criticising chavez and venesuala before it all went to pot
occupation on the other hand is your word, not one the party recognises
but what has critcising the Israelli government got to do with the leaderships lack of criticism of anti semeticism, in the party?