Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

Why is is is entry ignoring a key dynamic at the heart of the anti-Semitism debate in the UK?

There is no balance in this article to counter the false assumption made in it that arguments against actions by the government or military of Israel, or against Zionism, are automatically anti-Semitic. In this way the article is one sided and pushes a false narrative that can in itself be seen as anti-Semitic since it employs the very same tactic used by extremist anti-Semites who would blame all Jews for the actions of Israel or extreme Zionists. That assumption should not appear as a flat assumption in this article - it should be stated that in the debate about anti-Semitism in the UK, one side is trying to push that assumption and is being criticised for doing so as both an attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and extreme Zionism and as a dangerous use of the same conflation employed by extreme anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.87.35 (talk • contribs) 07:54, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Miko Peled reference

I am proposing this passage be deleted: Deputy leader Tom Watson, promised there would be an investigation on how the party provided a platform at a conference fringe event to Miko Peled, who stated, as reported by the Daily Mail, that people ought to be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. Watson in response said, "It is nothing to do with the official Labour party conference. And, if there was Holocaust denial there, these people have no right to be in the Labour party and, if they are, they should be expelled." Peled responded to the accusations by saying that Watson and Ashworth were confusing freedom of speech with antisemitism, tweeting "free speech is now antisemitism too." Peled said he did not deny the Holocaust. At a later meeting at University College London in November 2017, Pelod complained about a "witch-hunt against antisemites and Holocaust deniers" and said Corbyn had "put away" the "nonsense" about those issues. See Thomas, Alastair (12 November 2017). "Miko Peled: Zionists do not deserve a platform". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 12 November 2017.</ref>

I do not think it is particularly relevant to the article. Peled is not British. He did not attack British Jews. He mentioned freedom of expression on the Holocaust in passing (four words) at a meeting about Free speech and Israel but says that he does not deny the Holocaust. He was speaking at a fringe meeting of a Labour Party conference i.e. the meeting was not organized by the Labour Party but by individual members, at which he spoke along with a range of other speakers. WP:PROPORTION I also think these four words at a meeting is pretty trivial in an article on 1000 years' history of a serious subject and lowers the bar of significance far too low. May it be deleted? Jontel (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that Labour gave a platform, whether at a fringe event or not, to someone who thinks people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. That is what Watson's response was about. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Labour did not give anyone a platform. Anybody can organise a fringe meeting around the party conference, the party has absolutely no say in the content, platform or even the existence of such a meeting. Irrespective of the content of Peled's words (and I would agree that he has been cited totally out of context), the fact remains that his hosts were an independent group, some but not all of whose members are Labour Party members, which is not in any way answerable to or under the direction of the Labour Party. RolandR (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Labour will have accepted a fringe meeting on Israel and free speech. For Labour to be responsible, they would have to: 1) had the list of speakers, 2) known that Peled had views on the permissability of questioning whether the Holocaust happened, which is not otherwise mentioned on his Wikipedia entry, 3) known that he was going to raise it in connection with the meeting's subject. There is no evidence for any of this. So, I don't see that the episode indicates that the Labour Party acted in an antisemitic way on this occasion, which is presumably the rationale for including it. Tom Watson's response is not a rationale for inclusion; he thought there was Holocaust denial, when there was not. Jontel (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

RSes see this as relevant. It happend in the UK, at the conference of one of the two largest parties. Observers and experts were alarmed that Labour hosted such hate speech, and this was covered by relevant sources. IDONTLIKE aside - there is no arguement here for removal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is all arguable. It was a fringe meeting, so unofficial, and organisations cannot be held liable for everything their lobbyists or fringe groups do. A single phrase is hardly significant hate speech, especially in context. The Guardian is careful to ascribe the report to the Daily Mail, which is not an RS. I presume the observers and experts you mention are pro-Israeli and so would be inclined to be hostile to the pro Palestinian Peled and fringe meeting organisers. Jontel (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Being or not being pro-Israeli is irrelevant. Here is the Guardian - "Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has said the party will investigate how it gave a platform at a conference fringe event to a speaker who said people should be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened. The remarks by the Israeli-American author Miko Peled have renewed alarm about antisemitism in the Labour party...[1]. It seems Labour itself and RSes are concerned over support in Labour events for Holocaust denial.Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the article says, not what Tom Watson said, which was different. He seems to think that there was Holocaust denial, "And if there was Holocaust denial there" when there was not. And who is alarmed, apart from the journalists concerned - the article does not say. We rely on RS for their reporting of facts, not for their opinions. Jontel (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lets not be coy here. Here's continuing coverage by Telegraph in September 2018 - "Jeremy Corbyn has been swept up in a fresh anti-Semitism row after he was pictured with an activist who has previously called for Holocaust denial to be treated as free speech.. [2]. ((Icewhiz) 07:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC))

Some comments:

• It's fairly questionable that the incident involving Miko Peled deserves mention in an article covering the whole subject of antisemitism in the United Kingdom, particularly when that article is supposed to be encyclopaedic in style, and particularly when the cited source is an article in The Guardian, which was condemned in the Birkbeck College, Media Reform Coalition report on reporting on the the Labour Party antisemitism controversy, citing an article from The Daily Mail.
• The current Wikipedia article states: "Miko Peled, who stated that people ought to be allowed to question whether the Holocaust happened." That wholly distorts what Peled is reported to have said: "This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion."[3] In fact, I think that the current text should be deleted on WP:BRD grounds and if anyone thinks that it should be re-instated, they should be made to argue it out on the appropriate noticeboard.
• In the UK, the current situation is that it is permitted to discuss or criticise what is said about the Holocaust and there is no great pressure to change that; Peled is therefore just saying that should continue, along with free speech on other subjects, including Palestine.
• Peled was speaking at a meeting organised by the Free Speech on Israel group whose title appeared to be "How Israel Silences Its Critics: Why We Oppose the Witch Hunt". He made a passing reference to the Holocaust in a reply given during the question and answer session which followed his talk. It's noticeable that the whole context of the comment is missing in newspaper reports: the question which was asked isn't described; nor is the gist of the reply. In subsequent comments Peled clarified that he'd been talking about whether the expression of a variety of views should be treated as criminal.[4][5][6][7]

    ←   ZScarpia   16:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cable Street

The short section mentioning the Battle of Cable Street seems inconsistent with the Wiki page on the event.

It says

"The Board of Deputies of British Jews denounced the march as anti-semitic, and urged Jews to stay away".

and

"The BUF marchers were dispersed towards Hyde Park instead while the anti-fascists rioted with police".

(Although elsewhere I seem to recall reading that the BUF just decided to go home rather than being 'dispersed')

So it seems the resistance to Moseley and his fascists wasn't in any significant way led by Jews as implied in the text, nor was the BUF really 'repulsed' by anyone, since the actual 'battle' was between the objectors and the police who were trying to restore order.

Perhaps a small correction might be made to clarify things.

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it to make it clear that the battle was with the police, not the fascists, who agreed to abandon their march. The defence was clearly a collaborative exercise between a number of groups; I've omitted any claim to leadership by any one group. Jontel (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

(Blogpost) Comparison of the Met Police and CST antisemitic crime figures for 2014

Mira Bar-Hillel - #Antisemitism: The Myths and the Maths, 29 August 2015. [Elsewhere on her blog, Mira makes some interesting comments on incidents involving Ken Livingstone]     ←   ZScarpia   21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of text and sources

A new editor has removed text ("However, a number of academic studies have heavily disputed this assertion") and relevant sources (Kuper, R., 2020. A Reply to ‘Labour and Antisemitism: A Crisis Misunderstood’. The Political Quarterly, 91(4), pp.832-838; Gidley, B., McGeever, B. and Feldman, D., 2020. Labour and Antisemitism: a crisis misunderstood. The Political Quarterly, 91(2), pp.413-421) following the sentence "Contemporary antisemitism is also prevalent on the left"), with the justification that the sources are "specific to the Labour Party". Well, of course they are - any response to claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party is bound to relate to the Labour Party. After I reverted this edit, the editor re-reverted, saying in the edit summary "I don't give a pass on left wing antisemitism". The removal of this text and the sources which support it means that the article gives a misleading impression of academic support for the assertion, and combined with the edit summary suggests that the editor is here to right great wrongs, rather than to contribute constructively. Should the text cited above and supporting sources be included in this article? RolandR (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you are synthasising, while Labour is left of center, they are not all of them left. wp:v is clear, a source must explicitly support your text, not infer it. I can see their objection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)