What It Means for Jews To Vote Tory

Daniel Sugarman has an interesting column on the prospect of UK Jews voting for the Conservative Party, simply because Jeremy Corbyn is unacceptable. What's interesting about it is that it pretty forthrightly acknowledges that Boris Johnson's Conservatives are unacceptable too -- to name just one issue, their Islamophobia is on par with Labour's antisemitism.

Sugarman frames his discussion around a Muslim colleague of his who loathes Corbyn, fully acknowledges his role in fomenting Labour's antisemitism crisis, yet indicates he might have to hold his nose and vote Labour anyway because the prospect of empowering Johnson's hatred towards his community is too awful to stomach. The premise of the column is that this logic is wholly reasonable and permissible -- it is legitimate for a Muslim voter in the UK, fully aware of (and repelled by) Labour's antisemitism, to nonetheless prioritize his or her own safety and vote against the Conservatives; and by the same token it is legitimate for a Jewish voter in the UK, fully aware of (and repelled by) the Tories's Islamophobia, to nonetheless prioritize his or her own safety and vote against Labour.

It's worth underscoring just what this logic actually implies, though. Many have thought that any British voter who votes Labour for any reason is, ipso facto, selling Jews out -- signaling that the appalling antisemitism that has followed in Corbyn's wake is unimportant or even acceptable. But Sugarman's argument means we can't accept this, anymore than we can accept that Jews voting against Corbyn and for Johnson are thereby signaling toleration for Islamophobia. People have all sorts of reasons for voting the way they do. Moreover, while Sugarman's logic sanctions Jews voting for Tories, it gives no such rationale for why anyone else should do so. After all, there is no a priori reason why a young non-Jewish, non-Muslim progressive voter should prioritize rejecting Corbyn's antisemitism over Johnson's Islamophobia. If both of those weigh equally on their conscience, then they cancel out, and then the question is whether Corbyn's Labour Party is better generally than Johnson's Conservatives -- presumably, most progressives would quite reasonably find the former to be more amenable to their interests.

True, under normal circumstances, it is fair to demand that people sacrifice certain private interests in deference to important moral considerations -- this is why the Trump voter who doesn't approve of "Build the Wall" and "Keep Muslims Out", but really, really wants a tax cut, can fairly be deemed to be racist (the failure to properly prioritize in the face of overwhelming moral necessity represents a dereliction of one's duty of care towards racialized others). But the point of Sugarman's analogy is that here there are huge moral catastrophes looming on both sides (and we haven't even mentioned Brexit yet). UK politics right now is a tragedy -- between Labour and Tory, there are no good options, or even acceptable options. It's just a choice between competing abominations. So long as one recognizes the sort of play that they're in, I don't really begrudge how they decide to act out their role.

Of course, for me this entire discussion immediately raises the question: why not LibDems? They aren't perfect, but they're unabashedly anti-Brexit and lack the institutionalized bigotry that afflicts their larger compatriots.  But while, unlike the US, the LibDems give British voters a valid third party option, Britain's first-past-the-post system nonetheless can see wild results in constituencies where more than two parties are seriously contesting. It's not out of the question that a reasonable voter might have to vote strategically, which brings us right back to where we started.

I've remarked before that the chaos in UK Labour is perhaps the only thing that's ever given me sympathy for "Never Trump" Republicans. On the one hand, the health and future of a viable, non-hateful British progressive community depends on Corbyn getting spanked. Only that can break the fever. This was one of the (many) tragedies of 2016: had Trump lost, it is at least possible -- possible -- that Republicans would have concluded that the path they were traveling was unsustainable and had a moment of reckoning. But now that Trump won, certain seals that should've never been broken have been shattered -- I'm skeptical that we will see a GOP that's even a tolerably ethical choice for decades. If Corbyn loses, maybe the spell breaks. But if he wins -- if, in spite of everything, it turns out that this brand of feverish populism and conspiracy-mongering is capable of carrying an election -- the damage could be felt for generations.

And yet: these are not normal times. It's one thing to suffer through a cycle of conservative governance. Nations survive those, as terrible as they are, and the damage they inflict, while often extensive, is rarely permanent. But thanks to Brexit, the UK is in a singular political moment -- poised to self-sabotage in an unprecedented way that could not be fixed or even seriously ameliorated next cycle. The prospect of handing over government to the Tories and allowing Boris Johnson to lead a Brexit as he sees fit is horrifying to contemplate -- it is a sacrifice that goes way beyond a few years time in the opposition.

Complicating it all is the fact that -- as much as Brexit represents the defining issue of this generation of British politics -- Jeremy Corbyn doesn't oppose Brexit. It'd be one thing to demand that voters hold their nose and vote Labour anyway to stop Brexit -- but it's far from clear that Corbyn's Labour party would actually do that. In a real sense, the two main party choices are between an Islamophobic conservative party desiring a Hard Brexit at any cost, and an antisemitic progressive party pushing for a "Soft Brexit" (or Lexit) that doesn't actually exist. Some choice.

I don't envy anyone who has to make it. Were it me, here would be my chain of voting priority:

1. Vote LibDem, in any race where it's feasible they'll win;
2. In races where the LibDem candidate can't feasibly win but the Labour candidate can, vote Labour if the candidate is both (a) seriously pro-Remain and (b) not antisemitic or an apologist for antisemitism in Labour (and there are -- yes, really -- plenty of Labour MPs who are not. There is a huge difference between Ruth Smeeth and Chris Williamson);
3. If the Labour candidate fails these tests, vote Conservative if the candidate is (a) seriously pro-Remain and (b) not Islamophobic or otherwise hateful;
4. If both the Labour and Conservative candidates fail their litmus tests, then vote for the best remaining candidate (even if they stand no chance at winning). 

Tories Lose Working Majority as Pro-EU MP Defects To LIbDems

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative working majority in parliament -- which was down to a single vote -- is now gone, as former Minister Philip Lee dramatically walked over to the LibDem bench and joined the opposition in the middle of a Johnson speech. Lee had long been a pro-Remain voice in the party, but said the final straw was arch-Leaver Jacob Rees-Mogg mocking the doctor who had written the official report on the healthcare consequences of a no-Deal Brexit -- one in which he warned that increased patient mortality was a likely result.

At the same time, parliament dealt a huge blow to Johnson by voting to preserve their authority to stop a no-Deal Brexit. Twenty-one Tory MPs bucked the party (and braved threats of expulsion from the Conservative ranks); Johnson has sworn to call early elections in response.

UPDATE: The Tory rebels have had their whips removed and now sit as Independents.

I'd Do Anything for France, But I Won't Do That

The first round of the 2017 French presidential elections has concluded, and center-to-center-left Emmanuel Macron (23.8%) will face far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen (21.7%) in the runoff. Center-right candidate Francois Fillon came in third with 20%, while Communist-backed lefitst Jean-Luc Melenchon placed fourth at 19.4%. Benoit Hamon of the incumbent Socialist Party came in a distant fifth with 6.3%.

Le Pen's National Front Party has roots that are fairly described as fascist, and she is a fierce opponent of the EU. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both are fans of Le Pen. And with Macron advancing to the run-off, he quickly earned the endorsements of erstwhile opponents Fillon and Hamon, as well from the French and Belgian Prime Ministers and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As for Melenchon: he won't endorse anyone in round two. Like Corbynistas in the UK, for all its "by any means necessary" pretensions the French far-left actually isn't willing to do what it takes to stop the far-right from winning. It turns out that it's one thing to oppose fascism by calling for the radical overthrow of the capitalist state and the seizure of the means of production, and it's quite another to do something truly radical like ... vote for a more centrist candidate.

The fact that Melenchon basically has the same view as Le Pen when it comes to the EU (compared to the definitively pro-EU Macron) probably isn't helping matters either -- and the far-left/far-right convergence around Euro-skepticism also buttresses the Corbyn comparison.

Fortunately, polls have Macron smashing Le Pen in a head-to-head race. But still, we've been deceived by polls before. And the decision by Melenchon to, in effect, join Trump and Putin in propping up Le Pen is recklessly irresponsible and deserves nothing but our scorn.

Hold My Beer

Kevin Drum reads Andrew Stuttaford on Brexit, and the horrors the UK is subjected itself to in the process of trying to negotiate it. Drum concludes:

If there were any real advantage to this, it might be worth it. But just to keep Polish immigrants out? This might be one of the dumbest things any country has ever voluntarily subjected itself to. 

And keep in mind, Drum's writing as an American. So he knows a thing or two about countries voluntarily subjecting themselves to dumb things.

Two Lessons from the Brexit Vote

In a tightly contested race, citizens of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. There are two lessons we can draw from this:

1) Don't underestimate the ability of misguided xenophobic nationalism to carry a national election. This is something for cocky American progressives to keep in mind as we face down a Donald Trump candidacy. Just because it's a really stupid idea doesn't mean it won't happen. And in this day and age, one makes a very serious mistake regarding the sentiments of the right-wing rank-and-file if one only pays attention to the opinions of the right-wing elite. The latter are rapidly losing the grip on the former.

2) A Jeremy Corbyn style left is utterly incapable of standing against this sort of tide. This is true for many reasons, but the primary one is that the sort of conspiracy-laden thinking Corbynistas like to indulge in isn't really that different from the instincts that motivate their right-wing counterpart. Ultimately, they share a sense that "Real Americans Brits" are under the thumb of some sinister foreign body -- the details of whether its the UN or the EU or the banks or the Jews or the neoliberals or the Zionists or the radical Muslims cabals really matter less than one would  think. It is no accident that even though Labour officially supported the Remain position, Brexit won traditional Labour strongholds by crushing margins.

British Politician Murdered in Terrorist Attack, Brexit Motives Suspected

A British Labour MP Jo Cox has been stabbed to death murdered* in an attack reportedly linked to her opposition to Britain exiting from the EU (known as "Brexit"). The attacker, described as a 52-year old man, reportedly shouted "Britain First" before commencing the assault. Since this was an act of violence targeted to communicate a political message and to instill terror in a particular side's supporters and backers, I feel absolutely comfortable calling it an act of terror.

Both sides of the Brexit campaign have temporarily ceased campaigning. The issue comes to a referendum vote next week.

Thoughts and prayers go to Ms. Cox's family.

* I've seen conflicting reports on the weapon used, so I've updated the post.

What Do (EU) Jews Actually Consider To Be Anti-Semitic?

One of the lodestones of progressive understandings of discrimination and inequality is that marginalized groups are in a privileged position to "name their oppression." At the extreme this can be expressed as an unassailable authority to define what their oppression is (a position I can't endorse). But more modestly, the idea that we should give a pretty healthy presumption to how marginalized groups understand their own experience -- and that certainly, their views are relevant and important (indeed, essential) inputs into how we work through these issues -- strikes me as exactly right.

In that vein, I've just come across some really interesting survey data from the EU which asks Jews about (among other things) what they consider to be anti-Semitic.

.@AbuKedem The consensus of Jews should determine the def'n of antisemitism: @ibn_ezra @WarpedMirrorPMB @adamlevick pic.twitter.com/NCphO81MN9

— Nurit Baytch (@NuritBaytch) January 10, 2016

If you click through you can see the charts more clearly. The results clarify certain intuitions while falsifying other stereotypes. To begin, as one would expect most Jews do not, in fact, view "criticism of Israel" by a non-Jew as anti-Semitic. Only 34% take that view, which, to provide some context, is also roughly the same percentage of Idaho voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama in 2012. So the next time you hear people talking about "Jews think any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic," replace in your mind "Idahoans are strong backers of Barack Obama" and reflect on how silly that sounds.

Widespread rejection of the generic formulation that criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism, of course, doesn't mean that no specific criticisms can be so labeled (The Nation, take note). 72% of Jews think that a boycott of Israeli goods or products is anti-Semitic. Likewise, 81% think that saying Israelis behave "like Nazis" to Palestinians is definitely or probably anti-Semitic, and 90% believe that saying "Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood" at least probably qualifies as anti-Semitic (Naomi Klein, take note).

These are striking figures. To be sure, as noted at the outset, they do not end the discussion over what is anti-Semitism. But they do provide an important beginning. Talking about anti-Semitism, first and foremost, must start from talking about how Jews perceive anti-Semitism. Most Jews are well-aware of the obvious truth that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic simply by virtue of that fact; and the equally obvious truth that particular criticisms in particular contexts made in particular ways may well be. Now it's time for the rest of the world to catch up.

Turkey Inches Towards Entering the Adult World

Like a spoiled teenager who refuses to admit they can do anything wrong (or a southern bro who insists that the Civil War was a "states' rights" affair), Turkey is rather notorious for throwing a temper tantrum whenever someone tries to acknowledge basic historical facts about its WWI-era Armenian genocide. But perhaps we're seeing a baby step in the right direction, as Ali Haydar Konca, Turkey's minister to the EU, has taken a big step towards actual acknowledgment of the atrocity.

"The fact that massacres happened is explicit and clear and everybody accepts that. Right now, the issue is what it should be called. We will make a decision in our party about that,” Konca told the press, becoming the the Turkish official to admit that, in fact, a Genocide had occurred.

Now before we get too excited, Konca never actually used the term "genocide". That omission is noted later in the piece, although its belied by the last sentence of the block quote (and the title of the article: "Turkey’s New EU Minister Admits to Armenian Genocide"). And the article also has the usual array of charming quotes from other Turkish leaders, including the President's declaration that any EU statement on the subject will "go in one ear and out from the other because it is not possible for Turkey to accept such a sin or crime."

So perhaps not a seismic shift. But maybe a tiny, tiny breakthrough in the long process of becoming a mature democracy that honestly reckons with its past.

No More Free Passes

Showing determination not repeat the racist fiasco that was Durban I, a mass walkout by mostly European delegates (the AJC reports that Morocco was among the nations that left) to the UN anti-racism conference in Geneva occurred during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech (specifically, the parts where he goes off on a vicious anti-Zionist rant). Zvika Krieger, live-blogging the speech, captures the excitement as a beautiful message was sent to one of the world's foremost purveyors of hatred and extremism.



Ahmadinejad also had to deal with hecklers and cat-callers yelling that "a racist can't fight racism". And following Ahmadinejad's remarks, the Foreign Minister of Norway took the floor to say that his comments "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference," and that Iran was "the odd man out".

And it wasn't over. After he left the stage to give a press conference, Ahmadinejad was greeted to sight of hundreds of protesters blocking the way, indicting him for his suppression of the Ba'hai and other oppressive acts. Included in the crowd was none other than Elie Wiesel (who, I suppose Ahmadinejad believes, simply had a really bad nightmare for eight years). At the conference, one journalist asked why Ahmadinejad devotes so much energy to savaging Israeli actions against the Palestinians, but virtually none to Muslim-on-Muslim violence. He answered that such activities, at root, were the fault of Western interference in Muslim affairs. Shocking.

UPDATE: HuffPo has a list of all the countries which either walked out or are boycotting the conference altogether (Morocco was not listed as a "walk-out" country):

Boycotted altogether: Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States

Walked out: Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic (has left the conference for good), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, , Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, St. Kitts and Nevis

YNet reports that Jordan also left the hall.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has joined the chorus condemning Ahmadinejad's speech, saying the goal was "to accuse, divide and even incite."

Victory?

The AP reports that the latest draft document of Durban II no longer singles Israel out for condemnation (no other country was mentioned specifically), and also has eliminated provisions which would make criticism of religion a human rights violation. The AJC has the new draft text, and it looks like this report is correct. The changes came after the EU threatened a mass boycott of the event. This now looks to have been averted -- the French Foreign Minister claimed that the changes mean the document no longer breaches EU "red lines".

This is excellent news, and I applaud the courage and conviction of the international actors who have hopefully made it possible for Durban II to focus on all the pressing issues of racism and intolerance that plague the global community. It was unfortunate that ultimately only a boycott threat could do what subtler diplomacy couldn't, but this was perhaps the most dramatic way for the EU and the rest of the west to indicate the seriousness of its position here. And I do hope that this shift means that the entire world -- Israel and America included -- can participate in this conference. Both Israel and America have much to learn and much to teach about questions of racism and intolerance. I'm not idealistic enough to believe that these conferences are anything remotely akin to a truly fair and deliberative environment -- but the symbolism matters.

There are, however, at least two potential avenues for concern remaining. The first is that the offending articles will be introduced during the conference as an ambush. Presumably if this happens, the groups that would have boycotted will simply walk out. The second is the behavior of NGOs at the conference. Much of the most offensive behavior at Durban I was done at the parallel NGO meeting. I'm not sure what role NGOs will play at Durban II, but given that the last time around they basically drove Jewish attendees off the grounds, it is worth keeping an eye on.

Still, fabulous job.

EU Official Calls Out Gaza Hamas

(UPDATE: The original title of this post was highly misleading, and has thus been modified)

The Jersualem Post headline ("fully responsible") is a bit exaggerated, but the statement is strong:

"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, told reporters.

"I intentionally say this here - Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such," Michel said as he visited the town of Jabalya in northern Gaza.

"Public opinion is fed up to see that we are paying over and over again - be it the European commission, the member states or the major donors - for infrastructure that will be systematically destroyed," he said.

Reuters quoted the EU official as saying that the Islamic group had used civilians as "human shields" by placing operatives in residential areas, and said that the years of terrorist rocket-fire on southern Israel served as a "provocation."

The report also quoted Michel as saying that, "When you kill innocents, it is not resistance. It is terrorism."

A Hamas official, Mushir al-Masri, was quoted by Reuters as saying his group was "shocked" at Michel's comments. He lambasted the official for "giving cover to massacres and terrorism committed by the Zionist enemy against the Palestinian people… Palestinian resistance is as legitimate as the resistance of European countries that fought against foreign occupiers."

I find it intriguing that Mr. al-Masri is "shocked". I understand that he, of course, doesn't subscribe to Mr. Michel's view. But it is quite telling that he is "shocked" by it, in that I imagine he would not be "shocked" at all if this statement was released by an American.