Labour suspends Jackie Walker over Holocaust comments

go to an Irish Famine memorial, and demand that they also talk about the Native American genocide.


watch the reaction

 

There is a vast difference between a statement that offends some people and an offensive statement. Just because that is the reaction, it does not follow that there is something wrong with talking about closely related experiences other people have had, such as the Native American (NA) genocide at some event or memorial about the Irish Famine Memorial.

Capitulating to the narcissism of people's sense of the individuality of their victimhood is one of the things that fuels the exact same mechanism of societal division that is at the roots of most genocide and oppression.

Consider, common threads between the Irish Famine and the NA genocide, when looked at together, better explain the Irish famine than can the Irish Famine Memorial alone. The brutality of the conditions imposed on the Irish during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the lack of empathy among not only of the English landowners and government, but also of the English populace, are remarkably similar to the things that contributed to the NA genocide. It is enlightening to note that a large portion of the contributors to the Native American genocide were refugees from the Irish famine. Their experience in Ireland somehow failed to manifest as empathy and concern for unrelated people in a very similar situation. It is important to ask why that is. Tacitly pretending the oppression and enslavement of the Irish was somehow special or unusual bypasses a potential function of institutions such as memorials and monuments, namely to remind us not to let such things happen again, anywhere.

Do you want to cater to people looking for an excuse to feel offended, or do you want people to stop massacres of whole populations? Pick one.

 

Slander. Twice.

She has been heckled for her anti-Semitic remarks at a meeting of the hard-left political activist organization Momentum, which is quite surprising given that the hard-left is usually not pro-Jewish nor pro-Zionism.

It is, and it does.

As I said, slander.

Jackie Walker is black.

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/09/30/jackie-and-jew-washing/

Imagine what would happen if people would do a bit of research before they post.

- See more at: http://hmd.org.uk/resources/theme-papers/hmd-2017-how-can-life-go#sthash.FbZRKiVq.dpuf

Are we the only people in the whole world who mourn their dead?

Is mourning our dead racist? Are our dead not worthy to be mourned? What makes the suffering of other people more valuable than ours, to give up mourning our dead for their sake?

http://hmd.org.uk/sites/default/files/hmd_2015_theme_vision.pdf

Right. That's why there are discussions about other genocides at Holocaust Memorial Day.

 

Pisa? I clicked your links and still don't see what you are trying to say. It appears that they are just using anti-Semite with her because they don't like her for pointing out the Jews role in the slave trade and she never denied the holocaust once (which has nothing to do with anti-Semitism).
But, thanks for your thoughts.

 

oh, so she's a Holocaust denier too???

figures.

 

She had a Jewish Mother and a Jewish Father and is married to a Jew. She has Jewish grandchildren attending Jewish nursery. Just what in your mind must a person be in order to be Jewish?

 

They may be to you. However her crime was that she did not know that in Britain all Genocide/holocausts are remembered on Holocaust Day. That it is not limited to Jews.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not at all what happened. Do you always hate people you do not know on hearsay?

 

Why on earth would anyone believe that she has done wrong. She was being attacked by someone telling her it was shameful to be involved in BDS because of the Holocaust - that is why she got started. She has apparently researched her own ancestry and she knows that her own ancestors were involved in this. She pointed out that Jews were involved in financing the slave trade. She said her ancestors had experienced it from both sides. She then went on to say that that is how things go. Sometimes people are the victim and sometimes they are the perpetrator. She said that she did not believe that having been a victim gave anyone a right to then be a perpetrator. This was a private conversation arguing about BDS which has like most of the stuff about her been wrongly presented in an attempt to get people responding in a similar fashion to how you have but what you are accusing her off is not what she said.

I have dealt with this pretty thoroughly here http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=476710&page=6&p=1066685899#post1066685899 though I was mistaken in thinking only one of her parents was a Jew, both were. You can also find above that a letter written by British Jews about the supposed antisemitism in the Labour Party and you can find in a post after that the head of the Jewish Labour Movement is a woman whose previous job was working at the Israeli embassy and a link to where she if photographed being part of a team visiting David Cameron to make out a plan as to how to stop boycotts and 'deligitisation' of Israel. Go figure.

 

its wrong to use a Jewish Holocaust to push an unrelated agenda, especially one that attacks Jews.

- - - Updated - - -

then they need to change the name to Shoah day, so jerks like this woman won't use the day to attack Jews.

 

and how exactly did she do that. As it happens the whole of Britain does that. You had better start spreading your hate to every British person because guess what, we do not just celebrate the Jewish holocaust, it now is in remembrance of all Genocides/Holocausts since WW2. That is what she did not know. Not knowing that was the initial call of antisemitism. And what are you talking about using the holocaust for an unrelated agenda. Exactly why do you think it is fine to attack someone's views on BDS because of what happened in WW2. That is what the base of this is. You clearly believe that because of the Nazi holocaust Jews have the right to harm people. That is the argument. That was what she was told. She had no right to have a different political view and to take action which her conscience said because of the Nazi holocaust. Because of what happened 70 years ago, Jews and the State of Israel can do anything they want you are saying. Well at least you have come out with where you are at.

Now what this woman did was on hearing that she was not allowed to act against actions which go against her conscience because of the holocaust was ask that person if they felt the same about the African Holocaust - the millions of slaves who died during that. What she was arguing about was Jewish exceptionalism which you too are showing. It was not her who was using the holocaust wrongly but the person who attacked her - who you ignore due to your belief in Jewish exceptionalism. Because Jews suffered she was told they cannot be criticised or expected to go by accepted norms like International Law. They are free to do anything they like she was told because of the holocaust. It is her arguing against that that you believe was wrong.

Oh for gods sake. She is Jew. Someone you are hating because she does not agree that it is fine for Israel to act towards the Palestinians as it does. OMG what a pretence you put on about yourself. What hate you have even to Jews who care about other people. You disgust me.

 

She never attacked even one Jew.

 

i guess u didn't read any articles about her.

 

No article mentions even one attack. Name of victim please.

 

try demanding the victims of the Holodomor be honored at an American Slavery memorial event, and watch what happens.

 

She never attacked even one Jew.

 

she defamed millions of Jews.

 

Correct, she attacked every Jew everywhere Sam. She said without any proof whatsoever that your forefathers were responsible for slavery because she believes all Jews are out for nothing but money.

 

Oh, please. Walker's statements were far, far more offensive than your pink-ish version.

She didn't say that Jews were involved in the slave trade, she claimed that Jews were the main financiers of this trade. She wrote that on her Facebook page:

She also practices, like every anti-Semite out there, a ridiculous inversion of history by accusing Jews of all possible evils in the past while claiming they are more racist than others doing all those despicable deeds despite being themselves victims of a Holocaust, even though the Holocaust took place more than 400 years later.

The remarks about the Holocaust, made at a party event dedicated to training against anti-Semitism, were made public in a leaked video. This is what she said:

This wouldn't have been offensive if told by a person in the street, just a show of ignorance. But this woman is a politician, and politicians shouldn't make offensive comments about minorities. Correlated with previous statements about Jews being the main financiers of slave trade, and subsequent statements downplaying anti-Semitism, the above phrase comes out as slander.

What's wrong with working for the Israeli embassy and lobbying against BDS?

 

LOL, learn some history and check back.

 

I have been following this since it began

I am aware of what she wrote on her facebook page. The situation is investigated here

https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress....unt-turns-on-leading-anti-racist-campaigners/

It is true that she said Jews were chief financiers of the slave and sugar trade and she said her ancestors were involved in this. She has apparently done considerable research into her ancestors. Now this meant nothing to me as at the time she was using it to illustrate her point of view rather than whether Jews were or not the chief financiers of the slave trade which I will come to in a moment. As you will see from the link I have given above she was responding to being told that to support BDS was shameful due to the holocaust. Her response to that was that she hoped that the person would feel the same towards those who had suffered in the 'African holocaust' ( talking about slavery) and then she comes to the bit about Jews being chief financiers of that and the sugar trade adding that her ancestors were involved in this. She has identified herself thoroughly with this and she says that her ancestors were affected on both sides and further that black people still faced oppression. She points out that through history sometimes a people is a victim and sometimes a perpetrator but that she does not believe that having been a victim gives one the right to be the perpetrator which is what she reads from having been told that it is shameful to be involved in BDS because of the Nazi Holocaust. That is her point and on that I 100% agree with her. Having been a victim before does not give any people the right to harm others.

Now the issue of Jews and the slave trade which I paid little attention to as she was using that to illustrate her point that previously being a victim does not give one the right to harm others now. It was only an example. Not what was being discussed so like I said I paid little attention to it. I have though just done a search. What I read and it is only one view I have read is that this is a widely held view among Black Nationalists. Ms Walker is half African. I read it is also a view held by neo nazis. I think it is pretty obvious of those two where she would have got this view from and believing her ancestors were involved in it I do not see her trying to blame any other. What she was trying to argue was that having been oppressed dose not give one the right to harm others in response to being told it did by the person saying that supporting BDS was shameful due to the Nazi Holocaust. I think we can be sure she believed what she said and it is very likely that her own ancestors were involved in it so another way of seeing that is that she was willing to share something in her own past in order to illustrate her position. She was not pretending to be better than anyone. If she was wrong about Jews being chief financiers of the slave then given that she will it seems have got this information from a book in 1991 called 'The secret relationship between Blacks and Jews'. Why not simply reply to her as this strong critic does here?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._labour_official_uk_recently_stated_that_the/

Why not just argue her point which I am quite sure she said in all sincerity. Illustrate that you cannot just believe what she says without checking it up. It remains that the position she was making then was not on criticising her ancestors whom we must imagine were involved as she says they were but that having been a victim does not give a person the right to harm others.

She is a woman widely respected among Jews in the UK who are critical of Israel who most certainly do not consider her antisemetic and they care as much about antisemitism as do Jews who are pro Israel and appear to be working to get the identity of Israel as part of all Jews - something which certainly in the past has been considered antisemetic.

really? First I have heard of this and clearly something her many Jewish friends in the UK are clearly unaware of. Momentum had to remove her from the position of Vice Chair of Momentum but she is being kept on within the Steering Committee and they have made a statement that they do not believe she is antisemetic. In effect they had no choice but to remove her from her position as one of their main backers was threatening to stop funding if the did not. Antisemitism is still the accusation which is most feared.

Living where this situation is, this appears to be an attack on Jews who are critical of Israel or certainly one between them and the pro Israeli's. That means it looks like a political issue rather than one concerning antisemitism. British Jews who are critical of Israel believe that this is connected to Corbyn and his attitude towards Israel which remains one of wanting a just and fair resolution and Israel and her pro Blairite friends who chose to shut the door on that as described here http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n05/alastair-crooke/permanent-temporariness. Obviously Israel also prefers the Blairite position which allows them to do whatever they want and this seems to be at the base of this argument on a supposed outbreak of antisemitism which left wing Jews in the labour party are failing to see

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...mitism-and-where-jeremy-corbyn-goes-from-here

That this is the situation is shown to be all the more likely to be accurate when you know that the person made Director of the Jewish LabourMovement is none other than a woman who previous worked in the Israeli Embassy and who visited Cameron as part of an Israeli Delegation to find out how they could work to stop the effect of Boycotts and Deligitimisation of Israel and further that this information was not made public.

https://electronicintifada.net/blog...movement-director-was-israeli-embassy-officer

That I believe is what this is about. Fear that Corbyn get into power and the UK attitude on Israel change and working to change that by making any talk which would be critical of Israel antisemeitic. Already there is talk of equating antizionism with antisemitism and of calling out as antisemites anyone who has any support for Ms Walker - which would of course be Momentum, Jews and all minus maybe one or two. This seems to be what it is about and left wing Jews are the people who are fighting this the most. As you can see from the above link they believe it should not be possible for a person whose previous position was working in the Israeli Embassy, never mind being on a task force to find out how they can deal with issues of boycott and delegitimisation of Israel in the UK should be head of the British, not Israel Jewish Labour Movement which should speak for all British Jews on the issue of antisemitism and currently does not. She clearly has a conflict in interest. Jews in the UK are not of one voice on Israel.

This was an event to consider antisemitism training. One which British Jews who are critical of Israel decided they would not leave just to those who are pro to decided. One also which ought to have been private, release of bits to the public possibly being illegal. You will however see from the clip that the thing which they are criticising her for is not knowing that in Britain it is not just the Nazi Holocaust but all the genocides since WW2 which we already remember. Further we do not know how this came up. We do not know the context. That is the problem with bits and pieces being released to try to create an impression. This on its own means nothing. She does believe that we should also remember the millions killed in the slave trade as being equivalent to a genocide and that no doubt comes from the reality that she is half African, has herself suffered from racism and has spent much time working in the field. In that way she has her foot in two camps.

If you look at the issue of antisemitism and the bit mentioned or clip released of her saying she has found no description of it which she could work with this was again something released to present an ugly impression but not an honest account. She did not find the criteria for antisemitism which they were coming up with in the room one she could work with. As she said as the whole point of this meeting was to argue among themselves and then come to an agreement this should have simply been seen as part of the usual process and confidentiality ought to have been assured by rules which govern such meetings.. She has made clear what she accepts as a definition of antisemitism.

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/780107628500381696

The meeting which this was against rules leaked out of context from was supposed to be a private meeting. According to Jackie it is protocol at all meeting of this sort for people to feel they have freedom to bring up and doubts or issues they have and such should be treated with complete confidentially so I do not agree with you.

Here is a link by other Jews of Jackies orientation who were also at the meeting expressing their solidarity with her

http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/

That obviously is a choice which people can make. That is a political choice. To make that the basis of what is considered antisemitism however is totally unacceptable not least because it infringes on the rights to free thought on political issues not just to non Jews but to British Jews who are critical of Israel as well. They are two different issues and hence why as I said left wing British Jews who are critical of Israel said that appointing a woman who is working on that as head of a group working on a definition of antisemitism cannot work due to a massive conflict of interest.

 

Pisa I want to write a bit more about what she said about many Jews being the chief financiers of the slave trade given as I said it was not something which I had previously given any study to but I am gathering that this is what a massive amount of the hatred which was poured on her was about.

I made some mistakes earlier. She said that many were the chief financiers sugar and slave trade not that they simply were. This of course is not the same as was claimed on for instance the Jewish Chronicle which said that she claimed that Jews caused a 'Jewish Holocaust' (see https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress....unt-turns-on-leading-anti-racist-campaigners/)

In the above post I looked at one response to what Jackie had written. That response said said that the only place where she could have got the information from was 'The secret relationship between Blacks and Jews' and also that the view she had was one which was one which both Black Nationalists and neo nazis and asked why she was not simply confronted with this.

Now before I go into this is any detail I want to make clear that although she was suspended when this was released to the public, after an investigation she was cleared and reinstated. That means that the investigation did not find evidence of antisemitism. Now having done a bit of looking at what people had to say about that book and Black Nationalism it does not sound likely that that is what was going on, although the author claimed that must be it. It looks like this book is generally considered antisemetic and to do with some breakdown in relationship between blacks and Jews in the US - again early research but Tablet has an article I looked at http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/137476/slave-trade-black-muslim

It would appear that the author I quoted earlier believed that this was where Jackie was coming from simply because she was black. I cannot think of any other reason but that would make sense why some Jews have been accusing those who have as far as they see it been on a witch hunt against her of racism - that is identifying her with black antisemitism because she said many Jews were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade. I also spoke at some length on what triggered her saying that and as you yourself said this was a facebook post not any kind of intellectual or official or even thought out response. Indeed the work was found by Guido Fawkes who had been putting intensive research into Labour Left in an attempt to find something he could find they had written even years ago to accuse them of antisemitism. This is what he came up with on Jackie.

I noticed in the Tablet article that at one point he says

link as above. I then found this in Jews Sans Frontiers

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/jews-slave-trade-and-jackie-walker.html

Now apart from using the word 'zios' which is at the least controversial I think here we have the best indication of where Ms Walker was coming from.

 

vast majority of Jews in the USA are Ashkenazi, and we had NOTHING to do with the slave trade.

we were too poor and stuck in Russia/Poland, long after slavery was abolished in the USA.

most Jews during and before the Civil War, also lived in the North, so of course didn't own slaves past the 1830s.

 

I suspect it's about Labour's sometimes byzantine factional politics. But I'm grateful to her for Schneider's definition of anti-Semitism. According to that list I'm not anti-Semitic.

 

Ms Walker is a member of the British hard-left. The hard-left is anti-Semitic by definition, due to the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic policies of their ideological mother, the USSR. The mother bear's goals were, of course, far from the idealistic position the hard-left finds itself in today. The soviets just wanted as big a share from the foreign sphere of influence in the mostly Arab and Muslim Middle East as they could get, and they couldn't care less who they trod underfoot in the process. Her motives are quite clear to me, it's that damn chameleonic bolshevik ideology that just refuses to die even though it has been proven disastrous.

I've noticed that you use far-left sites yourself. I suppose you share at least some of their ideology. My skin crawls when I read their articles. Extremism is bad anyway, but when it uses the language of human rights to fool us - it's very well known, at least where the far-left is concerned, that human rights are the first to go if its ideologues seize power - it's outright despicable.

I don't have time now to write in detail about the articles in your links. Jamie Sternweimer and Jews sans frontieres are not sites I'd go to for information on any subject. The British moderate left is very well represented by Harry's Place, and this is a very good source, including the comments (there are no trolls to speak of).

 

What is "The Jews" ? care to expalin ? is there some shared bank account where "The Jews" can just draw or deposit money from their questionable deals ? what secret organization was there to claim "The Jews" ?

The one time since ancient anyone was able to say "The Jews" as a group with united goals was the late 19th century with the establishment of Zionism.

BDS calls for a destruction of Israel as a state, that's a right sanctioned by the UN a long time ago, but she does so as Jewish because once some Jews dealt in slavery and Africans do not blame all Jews in it ? perhaps they simply are not filled with blind hate ? am I supposed to be gratful they DONT blame me in that ??