Saturday, October 30, 2010
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
The original Engage post
Green Party adopts careful policy on antisemitismOctober 25, 2010 — David Hirsh
16 Responses to “Green Party adopts careful policy on antisemitism”
October 30, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Now this _is_ interesting. Deborah Fink says “Many of us in the [Green] party, including Jews, are up in arms over this ridiculous statement which was approved in naivety and with a lack of understanding of the issues. Rest assured, that we will not let the Green party adopt it.” So, she knows that “many” in the party “including Jews” are against the proposed policy on antisemitism for theGreen Party. In her usual manner (see numerous comments over the last 5 years of this website’s life), she presents no evidence, but merely asserts this. This report has been up for 5 days, and she might have known of this a day or two before it was posted. Clearly, time enough for her not only to poll party members, but also to determine their religious affiliation/ethnicity.
So, Deborah Fink, how about your evidence for this assertion? If you don’t know us by now, then you are a _really_ slow learner: we expect evidence to go with statements like this, but I don’t expect any. What I expect (on past performance) is a repetition (possibly more than one) of the original statement, probably somewhat varied in language, plus attempts to introduce unrelated topics, in the hope that we won’t notice that no evidence has been produced for the first assertion.
Secondly, Ms Fisk finds that fighting antisemitism is a bad thing. We know this, because she says so: she tells us that the proposed policy adopting the EUMC policy on antisemitism is a “ridiculous statement”. So now she knows better than the all-party committee (of both Houses of Parliament) on antisemitism, which recommended to both Houses that such a policy should be adopted. Note that there was no opposition to this recommendation.
She also knows that the EUMC definition is plainly nonsense, because her assertion of ridiculousness must cover the EUMC definition contained within the policy document.
Deborah Fisk, if she is serious about her ludicrous statement, thus wishes to become that rather uncommon creature: an antisemitic Jew who cannot be punished, because her party won’t punish her, if she has her way, because she will make sure that it doesn’t adopt a policy on antisemitism. And if she thinks that my statement is nonsense, she should ask herself why she wishes her party _not_ to adopt a policy on antisemitism, unless it is to allow her and others to be antisemitic with impunity.
Now it is one thing to propose a boycott of Israel, in whole or in part: that doesn’t _have_ to be antisemitic (although there are all sorts of arguments about that that she has never answered, even when these arguments are aimed directly at her); it is also one thing to be anti-Zionist, with the same caveat as just above, that doesn’t _have_ to be antisemitic. However, to wish to stop one’s party adopting _the_ agreed antisemitic policy raises interesting issues. It puts such a person in bed (an unfortunate but appropriate analogy) with open and admitted antisemites, such as the BNP, the EDL (despite their protestations to the contrary), Hamas, Hezbollah, the government of President Ahmadinejad or Iran, among many others.
I’d think far more than twice before being willingly labelled alongside such people, but this clearly doesn’t bother Deborah Fink – assuming she’s even thought about it.
Would she propose such a course of action against a proposed policy on racism? Do we need an answer to such a question?