Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

What is your assessment of Cumming's comments?

From my limited understanding, it sounds like he was correct about Hancock?

Of course but big deal, he was hardly the only person pointing out that Hancock was an utterly incompetent liar.

You can't really get a flavour of it unless you follow but it's actually incredible how dysfunctional, stupid, lazy, awful the Johnson government was. I knew it was bad but I didn't have the imagination to think it was this bad.

[Sheilbh]

Meaniwhile, the Covid inquiry is absolutely bonkers. It's making The Thick of It look like a sober documentary. Boris saying that Covid is nature's way of dealing with old people and asking if the virus could be destroyed by blowing hot aitr up your nose.

I've been trying to find an article that covers all the bits that have come out so far but haven't. As you say it's incredible but also a lot of it very much in line with what was being reported at the time.

Simon Case, the head of the civil service (who needs to go under a Labour government and should go before), is incredibly pally. But his comments on Johnson that "he cannot lead [...] he changes strategic direction every day" with Johnson swinging from "fear" to "let it rip". In a WhatsApp to Cummings, "a weak team (as we have got — Hancock, Williamson, Dido, No10/CO, Perm Secs), definitely cannot succeed in these circs. IT HAS TO STOP! [...] Decide and set direction — deliver — explain. [Government] isn't actually that hard but this guy is really making it impossible." Or today Helen MacNamara (Deputy Cabinet Secretary - resigned over covid breach) saying Johnson refused to accept that "to govern is to choose [...] The decision-making swung between two extremes, the prime minister's undoubted liberal instincts and then the extremes of shutting everything down, when in reality all of the discussion and debate and choices were in the middle."

I also wonder if we'll end up needing to get the PM's wife to testify which is extraordinary, but just given the communications between Simon Case (again - Cabinet Secretary, head of the civil service) and one of the comms guys working for Cummings. There's the contempt for Hancock, chumminess plus about Carrie Johnson. Again lots of reporting about Carrie, but if this is what the head of the civil service was saying at the time it feels like we might actually need to understand what influence she had/what her policy views were

Case wrote: "Am not sure I can cope with today. Might just go home. Matt just called, having spoken to PM. According to Matt (so aim off, obvs), PM has asked Matt to work up regional circuit breakers for the North (as per Northern Ireland) today – and to bring recommendations. I am going to scream ..."

Cain asked: "Wtf are we talking about."

To which Case replied: "Whatever Carrie cares about, I guess.

"I was always told that Dom [Dominic Cummings] was the secret PM. How wrong they are. I look forward to telling select cttee tomorrow – 'oh, fuck no, don't worry about Dom, the real person in charge is Carrie'", Case added.

What is your assessment of Cumming's comments?

From my limited understanding, it sounds like he was correct about Hancock?

A point Cummings made today - and he's not wrong about Hancock being unfit for the job. It's come up with several civil servants too where they've basically said Number 10 were constantly being lied to by Hancock. He was giving point blank repeated reassurances that x had been done when it hadn't even started. Which is not great from a Health Secretary to the cabinet in a pandemic.

I think MacNamara today said that Hancock repeatedly said the Department of Health and Social Care had full covid preparation plans and everything was in hand, no-one else needed to worry. It was only after a few weeks that people started asking, as no-one else had seen them, and it turned out they had but only internal DHSC plans.

Obviously Cummings helped elect the PM who re-appointed Hancock to Health (he was initially appointed by May) and kept him there.

You can't really get a flavour of it unless you follow but it's actually incredible how dysfunctional, stupid, lazy, awful the Johnson government was. I knew it was bad but I didn't have the imagination to think it was this bad.

Yeah. There's a layer of political drama - and a lot of it is small p politics. The contempt they all have for each other, what seems like lots of squabbling over their power/role/responsibility etc. It's all like the worst workplace you've ever been in multiplied by a hundred. I think the way Case is behaving and writing is just extraordinary in a senior civil servant. And what was reported at the time is all true but the actual WhatsApps are just so much worse.

I don't even know how the Inquiry Chair is going to bring this all together and make a report. Especially because as well as the layer of political drama there's lots of evidence of fairly big systemic/institutional failures.

I mean this for example from Cummings - I don't actually think he's wrong on anything here. But it's wrong for the PM's main advisor to have this level of contempt for literally everyone in government - and he can't see that he's also maybe part of the problem:

Don't think sustainable for GW [Gavin Williamson] to stay [at] dfe [Department for Education]. Think lee [Cain] needs to brief reshuffle after SR [spending review] ASAP. Will get people in line. Focus minds intensely for next 16 weeks, and you spell out explicitly to Cabinet when next meet – I've had enough of the leaks and briefing, there'll be a reshuffle between SR and Xmas, I'm looking for quiet competence, not interviews and briefing and the usual gimmicks ...

if you dont get the CAB[inet] back into line you wil have months more of the mayhem briefing ... leaking – this has seriously damaged your authority – you need to get this back, you need to read riot act to CAB and SW1 shd know theres a reshuffle coming between SR and Xmas.

At the moment the bubble thinks youve taken your eye off ball, youre happy to have useless fuckpigs in charge, and they think that a vast amount of the chaotic news on the front pages is coming from no 10 when in fact it's coming from the Cabinet who are ferral – if you maintain your approach of last few months, your authority will be severely weakened and you will lose good people cos they dont want to be part of something that looks like mayhem. I urge you to ponder on this this week. If we dont grip things over next month, things cd easily snowball out of control amid the disastrous con news – and there cd be talk of leadership challenges

I also must stress i think leaving [health secretary Matt] Hancock in post is a big mistake – he is a proven liar who nobody believes or shd believe on anything, and we face going into autumn crisis with the cunt in charge of the NHS still – therefore we will back around that cabinet table with him and [the NHS chief executive Simon] stevens bullshitting again in Sep. Hideous prospect.

Almost aside from anything else - it was clear almost immediately there'd be a public inquiry. There are gaps in evidence (Johnson's old phone is with IT experts to unlock, Sturgeon deleted messages etc) but it's astonishing that they're all writing like this. Just no discipline or sense of where they're working and what they're doing.

[Tamas]

I'd just add that I was totally right in the Covid thread earlier when I claimed Johnson wanted the virus to be let wash all over us. :p It had been obvious since his "there are some people who say we should just let it wash over us" comment in one of the early interviews at the start of the pandemic.

[Sheilbh]

I'd just add that I was totally right in the Covid thread earlier when I claimed Johnson wanted the virus to be let wash all over us. :p It had been obvious since his "there are some people who say we should just let it wash over us" comment in one of the early interviews at the start of the pandemic.

But Johnson's policy was in line the advice government received from the scientists at the time, which is being reflected in the less explosive evidence from the scientific advisors. They didn't have sweary WhatsApps at and about each other - but have regrets. This is the bit where I think you swap out Johnson and I'm not sure whether you get a different result in the first wave - I think the second wave from the autumn re-opening to Christmas lockdown is entirely on Johnson and where, for me, most of the blame attaches (including Eat Out to Help Out).

The wash it over was the scientific advice because, from what they've been saying, too much was attached to an assumption that Brits wouldn't comply with lockdown (something no-one seems to know where it came from - the behavioural scientists say it wasn't them) and the "flatten the curve" focus on the second wave. Both of those assumptions were catastrophically wrong but they were the basis of the scientific advice until literally the week lockdown was announced.

Edit: I think this is what I mean by the layers. The attention will focus on the frothy stuff of explosive WhatsApps. The stuff that worries me - because I'm not sure they've been fixed - are things like why the scientific advice system didn't work as it should, or the stuff around Cabinet Office failures. I've no doubt Number 10 is a lot different now and will be under Starmer, I'm not sure SAGE and the Cabinet Office are.

[Jacob]

This is the first time I've come across "fuckpig" being used in apparent earnest.

[Jacob]

On "where the the notion that Brits wouldn't comply come from"?

My assumption is it came for people like Johnson and his advisors and other members of his team, given how blithely they ignored the lock-down restrictions themselves.

[Gups]

What about the care homes disaster. Blame is on Hancock but can you see that happening under any other PM (ignoring Truss)

[Sheilbh]

On "where the the notion that Brits wouldn't comply come from"?

My assumption is it came for people like Johnson and his advisors and other members of his team, given how blithely they ignored the lock-down restrictions themselves.

I don't think so. It was an assumption in the scientific advice - in the UK it's a committee of experts at various universities assembled to deal with x specific crisis (in this case broken down into sub-teams).

One comment that's come through was that the division of scientific advisors and political decision makers is entirely right, but that there was too much of a divide. Neil Ferguson (one of the modelling experts) says there was basically a complete Chinese wall betwen the two teams. The scientists didn't and couldn't know what the politicians were thinking about, government figures could attend the scientific briefings but they were precisely that - briefings.

You can see why that's a good idea in a lot of ways (with some problems as Ferguson says). But I think in this case it means it's pretty unlikely that the politicians and their behaviour was influencing the scientists in their assumptions - and none of the scientific advisors have suggested that. A few said they thought it came from the behavioural scientists, one of them have said it wasn't from their group. But that erroneous assumption that compliance rates would be 50% at best (it was around 95% at best) was baked into everything when they were locking at options at the start of the first wave.

It's a bit like I think different governments across the West had different policies and results - the UK is basically average Western Europe. But I wonder why in Japan and East Asia they made the assumption it was airborne - accepting that's a risk and an assumption. Because I feel like almost as important as the decisions government made was the ROTW focusing on surface/droplet transmission, until it was definitively proven to be airborne. I don't know why that happened or where that came from but it seems really important.

Edit: And for example on the Chinese wall it was a mini-scandal here when it came out that there were "political" people/advisors going to the SAGE meetings. But Ferguson said that in part there was an issue of the scientists advising too much in the abstract without knowing what was being thought about as a policy or what operational issues they were - so the scientists might not actually be looking at the most important points because they don't know what they are. But also that him and some others were basically influencing on the margins - they'd try to speak to the government attendees at the end of the meeting just to say "do you know what this is going to be like?" and emphasise that because the sense he got was some hadn't appreciated that. Backed up by the story of the former Cabinet Secretary telling Johnson he should talk about chickenpox parties until someone asked the civil servant working on data (who has been praised by everyone) to explain the difference which he said was "because chickenpox doesn't spread exponentially and kill thousands and thousands of people" (admitedly that story came from Cummings so handle with care).

What about the care homes disaster. Blame is on Hancock but can you see that happening under any other PM (ignoring Truss)

Fair point. As you say a lot is on Hancock as I think he was the one who made the decision to move people from hospitals into care homes with no testing which I think was a huge factor in the care homes. But I think any other PM would have realised what was going on and got a grip so I don't think the other issues would have happened - I think testing would have ramped up quicker, the right PPE would have got in etc.

Especially as from the texts and WhatsApps' there's lots of people in Number 10 saying Hancock is lying about what they're doing in care homes and has lost control.

[Tamas]

I'd just add that I was totally right in the Covid thread earlier when I claimed Johnson wanted the virus to be let wash all over us. :p It had been obvious since his "there are some people who say we should just let it wash over us" comment in one of the early interviews at the start of the pandemic.

But Johnson's policy was in line the advice government received from the scientists at the time, which is being reflected in the less explosive evidence from the scientific advisors. They didn't have sweary WhatsApps at and about each other - but have regrets. This is the bit where I think you swap out Johnson and I'm not sure whether you get a different result in the first wave - I think the second wave from the autumn re-opening to Christmas lockdown is entirely on Johnson and where, for me, most of the blame attaches (including Eat Out to Help Out).

The wash it over was the scientific advice because, from what they've been saying, too much was attached to an assumption that Brits wouldn't comply with lockdown (something no-one seems to know where it came from - the behavioural scientists say it wasn't them) and the "flatten the curve" focus on the second wave. Both of those assumptions were catastrophically wrong but they were the basis of the scientific advice until literally the week lockdown was announced.

Edit: I think this is what I mean by the layers. The attention will focus on the frothy stuff of explosive WhatsApps. The stuff that worries me - because I'm not sure they've been fixed - are things like why the scientific advice system didn't work as it should, or the stuff around Cabinet Office failures. I've no doubt Number 10 is a lot different now and will be under Starmer, I'm not sure SAGE and the Cabinet Office are.

I am 100% certain (I think this was mentioned as well) that advisors describe potential scenarios, not just tell you "ok here it is how it's going to be, end of story". But it was the wash-over scenario that stuck in his mind, which is telling.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think that's right. Advisors did not produce any modelling on lockdown until the week it was announced. This is via Tom Whipple - who is Times Science reporter - and from Cummings' witness statement (so Cummings, but on oath and covered by perjury) and he is quoting emails.

Right into March the assumption was that lockdown was impossible and it was about managing the spread. Neil Ferguson, later "Professor Lockdown", in an email on 10 March saying deaths were likely to peak at 4-6 thousand per day but lockdown "could be worse than the disease" and might be unsustainable. Chris Whitty on 11 March said his "main concern" would be the sustainability of lockdown especially "if we go too early". Jenny Harries of the Health Security Agency on the same day as well as saying masks are a bad idea adding that acting too fast means it "will just pop up with another peak later on". From Whipple it seems like their real fear was a summer peak - not sure why. But all of the concerns are behavioural - and I remember them because I shared them (again you, Caprice and the techbro on Newsnight were right). It's only in the next week opinions change - and lockdown is modelled.

The drive to a shift doesn't seem to have been that they'd changed their assumptions on lockdown. But instead that their modelling on covid was getting worse and worse - so by the end of that week the plan A policy SAGE was working to if it worked was modelled as causing 250,000 covid deaths (it did not include other causes or wider impact on the NHS). That was success. On the 15th/16th, is when Patrick Vallance for example agrees on the need to go for plan B which was containment. Apparently - again according to Cummings - senior Health Department and Cabinet Office civil servants were angry at Vallance's shift and he was reprimanded for it. At around the same time Ferguson emailed that given the impact he was thinking it should now be full containment. It is worth noting that, again according to emails, the Cabinet Office confirmed on 16 March that they had not received or reviewed all departments civil contingencies plans which each department is supposed to have.

In an email between David Halpern who was heading the behavioural science part of SAGE, the Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary at DHSC and a civil servant he said they had never properly considered a "total lockdown", that SAGE's models were "WRONG" and "we'll look back on it like a strange dream." The Cabinet Secretary replied asking whether all options had been "properly explored". The Permanent Secretary at DHSC replied "what hapens at the end of the shutdown? The virus will still exist in 3-4 weeks time and won't we just start again with reinfection and respread?"

And again his evidence that Helen MacNamara walked in around that time while they were looking at plan B and said "I have just been talking to Mark Sweeney, who is in charge of co-ordinating with the Department for Health. He said 'I have been told for years that there is a whole plan for this. There is no plan. We are in huge trouble.' I have come through here to the Prime Minister's office to tell you all that I think we are absolutely fucked. I think this country is heading for a disaster. I think we are going to kill thousands of people. As soon as I have been told this, I have come through to see you." She confirmed that in her evidence today.

I think you've got huge overconfidence and boosterism at the start of the pandemic. I think Johnson's definitely a factor there, but also remember that international study done by public health experts that rated the UK and US as having the best pandemic preparedness. Or the Cabinet Office official confident that DHSC have preparedness plans because that's what they've told him for years. I think that's bolstered by bad scientific advice on some faulty assumptions which I think were all reasonable on their own (low compliance, non-airborne, focus on the risk of a second wave) but collectively sent us down wrong paths. I think there's an element of groupthink there (and again I always return to a question I remember thinking very early on - why were we not looking at East Asia). You've got a dysfunctional political centre with some catastrophically bad ministers in key portfolios. I think in the first wave, I think PPE and social care were disasters that are the responsibility of politicians. I think the overall strategy was a systemic failure. I think there's a false reassurance in it just being Johnson's takes and the people around him (for the first wave).

Then it's swinging between lockdowns and "let it rip". After the first wave it's, I think, solely political decision makers who are responsible and there's no doubt Johnson's instinct, which was to be the mayor in Jaws, and Sunak are particularly to blame. Particularly for the second wave with the autumn re-opening through to Christmas - which is (and the scientists were right to worry) when most deaths were.

[crazy canuck]

It's a natural, perhaps inescapable trait of human nature that we demonize those we criticize.  That makes sense to me as the source of anti-Semitism on the British left. 

And the source of anti Palestinian vitriol on full display on this forum.

Why do people have trouble recognizing it is happening in both camps?

[Josquius]

I think that is an argument that could be made actually. I low-key find conspiracy theories quite interesting but it is genuinely incredible how few there are that don't ultimately lead back to the Jews - off the top of my head the only big one that I don't think has a Jewish connection is JFK.

I think the discourse of conspiracy is a small group dictating events from the shadows for their own benefit. I think that rhymes quite precisely with anti-semitic discourse (at least since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) which means I think there is an in-built risk in conspiracy.

That seems like stretching to me.
To say you can't write a history of conspiracy theories without anti-semitism having a central role is definitely true.
But I do believe in the current day that you can believe in a top secret Nazi-Reptilian base in the Hollow Earth that regularly sends flying saucers to the moon where they're building a death laser with the full knowledge and cooperation of the CIA without the Jews being involved.
If you're into this shit you absolutely will run into people who say the Elders of Zion ultimately lie at the core. But that doesn't mean any given crazy person automatically blames the Jews.

So this depends on what is being implied. There is a difference between what is meant when we talk about advance knowledge of some sort or other.

What I've read and seen in the Israeli press is that the Netanyahu government was warned something was coming and because of their priors and hubris failed to take action that would have allowed Israel to stop the Hamas' attack earlier. That is a story of political failure of the sort you could see in any system - it's not a million miles from, say, the criticism of Johnson over covid.

If the argument is Israel or forces within Israel's government like Mossad knew what was coming and turned a blind eye because it would help them, or it would benefit Israel in some way. That's a conspiracy. I think it probably is a little anti-semitic with Mossad all powerful, but also the idea that even in moments of pain ultimately Jews are in some way responsible.

Even there I do think there's a big grey area.
I can see it as very feasible that the Israeli government would allow an attack to happen as it would benefit them- no doubt with an assumption in it that they could stop it before it caused too much damage. Certainly nothing like the scale of the recent attacks.

Even if you turn this up to 11 and they knew fully who would happen, many innocents would die, etc... though mad I wouldn't see this as necessarily anti-semitic. The powerful are dicks  without regard for human life is a pretty common belief.

I think in part I just want to flag that there is a broader part of anti-semitism in Britain and, perhaps, particularly on the left. Len McCluskey was an influential, important figure within the British left. I also think it is important to push back on the idea that the sole participants in pro-Palestine marches (most of whom are not anti-semitic - and it is a perfectly legitimate point of view) are immiigrants to the UK or that that's the sole cause of anti-semitism in the UK. I think that probably also goes for the rest of Europe.


More broadly though I'm not sure on Andy McDonald. I get Starmer's positioning politically - and I think, from his perspective, morally in trying to re-build Labour's connection with the Jewish community and feelinng from British Jews that Labour is a safe place for them.

Although I think standing by his LBC interview for 9 days, which he now says was a mistake in his comments isn't great. I don't agree with his comments in that interview. I understand why a lot of Labour were unhappy with them. Again purely politically I think they're possibly a little bit of a flag/something to watch in terms of him and his team responding to a crisis and ability to adjust/get ahead of an issue.

On anti-semitism more generally, as with other forms of bigotry, I think it is important to look at the effects. The effects right now are that a small minority community in Britain is feeling victimised and targeted. Their community events, including the bring them home vigil, require security. At certain points their schools have been advised to close. There is "pro-Palestian" (and I don't accept that it is) graffiti etc going up in Jewish areas. That is unacceptable and I don't accept that it is a natural and inevitable consequence of conflict in the Middle East or that the lives of British Jews should be in any way impacted by Israel's policies - to go full Corbyn, in the same way as I do not think British Muslims should be held responsible for Hamas or Iran or Saudi.

In relation to where there is a connection between the British Jewish community and Israel which is grief - and we are seeing denialism, conspiracy theories, as well as people within the pro-Palestine movement use the hang-glider as a symbol. For that reason I think it is important to allow Jewish people their grief and also on recognising what happened factually and that it was wrong. Similarly I get that "from the river to the sea" has many meanings for people who chant it, however, as Simon Schama demonstrates, it is experienced by many Jews as annihilationist call. I think that should be something that you take into account if you're on one of those demonstrations, even if it's not your intent. Similarly a chunk of a pro-Palestine march gathering outside a department store and chanting "Israel is a terrorist state" because that department store chain was, 100 years ago, founded by a Jew is anti-semitism.

The trouble with a lot of the anti-Israel feeling crossing over with anti-semitism, is that as well as it being true with many, there's also vigorous attempts from the pro-Israel lobby to try and paint anything that mentions Israel in a negative light as anti-semitism
And this is a key contributor to the kneejerk defence that many on the left have over accusations of anti-semitism: a lot of the accusations are true, but a lot of them are bollocks, and those are the ones they focus on.
I really can't think of anyone who has managed to speak out against Israel without cries of anti-semitism being thrown their way- even Jews criticising Israel get this on occasion.
There's bad faith shit from both sides.

[Sheilbh]

That seems like stretching to me.
To say you can't write a history of conspiracy theories without anti-semitism having a central role is definitely true.
But I do believe in the current day that you can believe in a top secret Nazi-Reptilian base in the Hollow Earth that regularly sends flying saucers to the moon where they're building a death laser with the full knowledge and cooperation of the CIA without the Jews being involved.
If you're into this shit you absolutely will run into people who say the Elders of Zion ultimately lie at the core. But that doesn't mean any given crazy person automatically blames the Jews.

You can believe that, for sure - my point is that in practice 99% of conspiracies seem to end up back at the Jews. It's not the only reason but it is a reason I think conspiracism in politics tends to be a bad sign.

I also think it's the particular risk of the left all the way back to Engels' line of anti-semitism as the socialism of fools. The left (in my view rightly) tends to look at situations as being about structural/historic/whatever forces that create conditions which is, typically, looked at on the basis of class - obviously there's loads more theory especially around culture. It is a very short jump from that to blaming those forces on individuals which, as I say, rhymes with a lot of 20th century anti-semitism.

Even there I do think there's a big grey area.
I can see it as very feasible that the Israeli government would allow an attack to happen as it would benefit them- no doubt with an assumption in it that they could stop it before it caused too much damage. Certainly nothing like the scale of the recent attacks.

Even if you turn this up to 11 and they knew fully who would happen, many innocents would die, etc... though mad I wouldn't see this as necessarily anti-semitic. The powerful are dicks  without regard for human life is a pretty common belief.

I don't think it is feasible - for a start if they were assuming they could stop it that would require IDF forces in the region. Part of the reason they weren't able to stop it was that the IDF was so heavily deployed in the West Bank and it took six hours and in some areas into the next day before they even arrived at some of the towns and kibbutzes affected.

I agree that it isn't necessarily anti-semitic - although I think that depends on whether this is the only example where you believe something like this. If your only example of x is Israel, or your sole focus is then it might be. As I say I think anyone who has been in a left-wing space knows that person who is very, very focused on Israel-Palestine - and frankly they're normally a bit like Corbyn, bit older, white men, little bit eccentric.

More generally though I think there is a tradition in the British left of blaming Jews for their own suffering. You have HG Wells in the 30s, you've got the Ken Loach-Perdition incident. So again this slots into previous examples and historic experience of anti-semitism - and if that happens I always it's worth taking the time to think it through. It could be true but is there a risk we're just re-iterating/repeating the tropes of an age old bigotry.

The trouble with a lot of the anti-Israel feeling crossing over with anti-semitism, is that as well as it being true with many, there's also vigorous attempts from the pro-Israel lobby to try and paint anything that mentions Israel in a negative light as anti-semitism
And this is a key contributor to the kneejerk defence that many on the left have over accusations of anti-semitism: a lot of the accusations are true, but a lot of them are bollocks, and those are the ones they focus on.
I really can't think of anyone who has managed to speak out against Israel without cries of anti-semitism being thrown their way- even Jews criticising Israel get this on occasion.
There's bad faith shit from both sides.

There are numerous people including a quarter of Labour MPs calling for a ceasefire and criticising Israel. Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham have issued their statements which are critical of Israel. I don't think anyone serious has been accusing them of anti-semitism. I think the vast majority of people going to the Palestine marches are not anti-semitic.

My point is this is the same as other forms of racism or bigotry. I don't think the only thing that matters is intent, but instead the impact on the affected community. If you have any Jewish friends or read any of the Jewish press it is clear that they are feeling a hostility and threat from some behaviour - for example the "from the river to the sea" chant which many Jews (see Simon Schama's tweet) view as annihilationist. I think you should take the care to see how that community is feeling at the minute. Once you know that I think you have a choice. For example with the chant - you can either carry on joining in despite knowing how many British Jews experience it, or you can decide not to. I think if you do your intent and your attitudes to Jews in your heart of hearts isn't relevant as much as knowing what the impact is you still do it.

It is a trope on the left of any criticism of Israel is read as anti-semitism - I don't think it's true any more than the "you can't talk about immigration" line is on the right. And I have about as much time for it. As with immigration I hear and see plenty of criticism of Israel in the British media and social media (this is another area where we talk as if we live in America because we live in a shared information space). But in both cases I think you can be careless about it or go along with the loudest voices which may be experienced by others as bigoted. Or you can adjust and take the time to think how your views could be seen and how you can express them without causing others to feel threatened.

[Tamas]

I think anti-semitism is special among racist/xenophobic views. Not because the target people are special in any way, but because how a widespread and natural part of European culture and discourse it was until very very recently.

I know from discussions with people around Europe that I was certainly not the only one whose grandparents' (and even parents') generation could be ridiculously anti-semitic as par for the course, often without any particular malice or hate - it was just one of those established facts that Jews control many areas of life like culture or banking, that sort of stuff. We accept the existence of unconscious bias in racism, how could it not be present against Jews when it was so ingrained in our culture for so very long?

So when the only vicious third world ethnic conflict that manages to ignite strong views and demonstrations in Europeans (and by quite a far margin) happens to involve Jews on one of the sides, I am struggling to attribute that to mere coincidence.

[Josquius]

I think anti-semitism is special among racist/xenophobic views. Not because the target people are special in any way, but because how a widespread and natural part of European culture and discourse it was until very very recently.

I know from discussions with people around Europe that I was certainly not the only one whose grandparents' (and even parents') generation could be ridiculously anti-semitic as par for the course, often without any particular malice or hate - it was just one of those established facts that Jews control many areas of life like culture or banking, that sort of stuff. We accept the existence of unconscious bias in racism, how could it not be present against Jews when it was so ingrained in our culture for so very long?

It has a universal appeal for sure. Kind of like hate against travellers.
Though I do think on a local level you find the same sort of thing for other groups. The Irish in the UK for instance. Until basically the 90s that was just a basic fact of life.  Casual racism against the Irish was the largely uncontroversial norm.

So when the only vicious third world ethnic conflict that manages to ignite strong views and demonstrations in Europeans (and by quite a far margin) happens to involve Jews on one of the sides, I am struggling to attribute that to mere coincidence.

I would. There's a lot unique about the Israel situation that doesn't make it just another third world conflict. The colonialist roots and core protagonist being a first world nation for instance.
Also, not a sentence later, I'd argue its not that special...its just it survives. Go back to the 80s and you had similar stuff around South Africa. Only there, we won.

I also think it's the particular risk of the left all the way back to Engels' line of anti-semitism as the socialism of fools. The left (in my view rightly) tends to look at situations as being about structural/historic/whatever forces that create conditions which is, typically, looked at on the basis of class - obviously there's loads more theory especially around culture. It is a very short jump from that to blaming those forces on individuals which, as I say, rhymes with a lot of 20th century anti-semitism.

Worth thinking there though was this anti-semitism actual deep set anti-semitism when analysed from a safe distance and not just idiots completely misplacing their thoughts about class, doing some rich = bad= Jews mental leaps.
The motive behind being anti-semitic doesn't matter in terms of the crime itself of course. If you attack Jewish people for being Jewish you're still an anti-semitic dick no matter whether it was because you think they control the global economy or are concerned for racial purity.
But in terms of how to tackle it I do think the source of the hate matters. I think there's a lot more hope for those who conflate Israel's worst and Jews as a whole than with die hard nazis who just hate Jews because...Jews.

I don't think it is feasible - for a start if they were assuming they could stop it that would require IDF forces in the region. Part of the reason they weren't able to stop it was that the IDF was so heavily deployed in the West Bank and it took six hours and in some areas into the next day before they even arrived at some of the towns and kibbutzes affected.

Fair. Note I don't agree with this narrative.
But I do think it just rests in the domain of misinformed rather than hateful or insane. Its not quite on the same level of the Americans knew everything about 9/11 and let it happen.

There are numerous people including a quarter of Labour MPs calling for a ceasefire and criticising Israel. Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham have issued their statements which are critical of Israel. I don't think anyone serious has been accusing them of anti-semitism. I think the vast majority of people going to the Palestine marches are not anti-semitic.

I've seen lots of labelling of the Palestine marches as anti-semitic. Look at the crack downs abroad and talk of it here.
Sadiq Khan absolutely is being branded anti-semitic by minor tories and other nuts: but then he's a muslim so just existing gets him a lot of this shit.
I can't recall running into Burnham being outright called such but certainly a fair few comments within Labour circles blowing that way.

My point is this is the same as other forms of racism or bigotry. I don't think the only thing that matters is intent, but instead the impact on the affected community. If you have any Jewish friends or read any of the Jewish press it is clear that they are feeling a hostility and threat from some behaviour - for example the "from the river to the sea" chant which many Jews (see Simon Schama's tweet) view as annihilationist.

Besides the point but Simon Schama is not somebody whose view I would pay much heed to.

Absolutely true that Jews are feeling under threat today. Locally we've one of the biggest Haredi populations in Europe (irony) and you see a lot more of their security guys than usual, fewer of them to be seen in public parks (then again with the weather), etc....

It just sits very uneasy that this phrase which seems to have deep meaning in the calls for Palestinian statehood, is branded completely verboten because nutters have used it too. That even when you phrase it in such a way that clearly underlines Israelis and Palestinians should both be able to live happy free lives, its still bad.

I've seen takes from various groups both for and against it.
I can definitely see the argument that when things are on edge best steer clear of anything the slightest controversial when you're someone in the public eye. But when specifically phrased in a pro-peace for both groups way I can also see the purpose in using it targeted at those who lean more towards the Israel should not exist side of things to try and build bridges with them back towards moderation.
Perhaps futile? But still. I can see the purpose of it. Like if you take the expression "Britain First", in the past used by a hate group and by terrorists (remember Jo Cox), but put it clearly in a context of meaning all British people and fuck racism and we do actually see the purpose in engaging with the world too....

Looping round and round inside my head here. Hopefully making a bit of sense.

I think you should take the care to see how that community is feeling at the minute. Once you know that I think you have a choice. For example with the chant - you can either carry on joining in despite knowing how many British Jews experience it, or you can decide not to. I think if you do your intent and your attitudes to Jews in your heart of hearts isn't relevant as much as knowing what the impact is you still do it.

It is a trope on the left of any criticism of Israel is read as anti-semitism - I don't think it's true any more than the "you can't talk about immigration" line is on the right. And I have about as much time for it. As with immigration I hear and see plenty of criticism of Israel in the British media and social media (this is another area where we talk as if we live in America because we live in a shared information space).

Except the "You can't talk about immigration or you get called a racist" line is true to an extent with a certain kneejerk segment of the left.
The difference is whilst this group on the left is a bunch of fringe nutters, the "Criticise Israel and you're an anti-semite" folks have a much bigger voice and access to power.

As said its a balance. A constant loop of he said she said. This "Say something bad about Israel and you get called an anti-semite!" gets thrown up to defend actual anti-semitism. But that doesn't mean its not very often purely on the surface level true.

But in both cases I think you can be careless about it or go along with the loudest voices which may be experienced by others as bigoted. Or you can adjust and take the time to think how your views could be seen and how you can express them without causing others to feel threatened.

Sure, but then how do you have a protest for peace in Palestine that excludes the anti-semites?
The committed Israel must burn psychos will turn up to even the smallest of marches. They're super dedicated to this stuff. Much like how every march in the slightest bit left wing will attract the guy with a hammer and sickle flag with his picnic table to sell magazines, any mention of the words Israel or Palestine will summon the Jews=Israel=Bad brigade.