This is what embassies do. It is their job. If there are horror stories about Brexit going around, for instance, the UK embassy in Rome may invite half a dozen journalists to lunch to give them further and more accurate information. Any embassy is in place to further the views of the government it represents.
So its dismissed as Realpolitik when they are doing it ...
... and labelled anti-semitism when someone complains about it.
The what is this. Peter Willsman was accused of anti semitism precisely for suggesting links between certain groups inside Labour and the Israeli embassy.
Has Willsman denied that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party?Willsman blamed claims of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party on “Trump fanatics” within the Jewish community and claimed never to have seen any anti-Semitism within the party despite being on the Disputes Committee. Even Momentum has called on Labour members to call out those who deny the party has an antisemitism problem.
Has Willsman denied that there is antisemitism in the Labour Party?
Not dismissed, and way to miss the point. UK, Israel and most other countries do similar. This is literally elementary stuff!
Only when it's anti-Semitic.
How is that denying there is antisemitism in the Labour Party?In his own words "It's almost certain who is behind all this anti-Semitism against Jeremy [Corbyn], almost certainly it's the Israeli embassy."
What?Wokementum have yet to comprehend realpolitik.
How is that denying there is antisemitism in the Labour Party?
But in your quote, he's not claiming he's seen nothing and he's not downplaying AS. He's saying that some of the antisemitism as directed at Jeremy Corby may have something to do with the Israeli Embassy. He's identified two separate issues, AS in the Labour Party and attacks on Corbyn. Because he is talking about the latter doesn't mean he is denying the formerHe is downplaying the problem by denying that Labour has an internal problem and suggesting that the cause of it lies somewhere else. Billy Bragg said: “You can’t deal with a problem if you don’t believe it exists. Pete Willsman has sat through a Labour disputes meeting at which the majority of cases pertained to antisemitism. How can he claim to have never seen evidence of it? He should stand down now.”
But in your quote, he's not claiming he's seen nothing and he's not downplaying AS. He's saying that some of the antisemitism as directed at Jeremy Corby may have something to do with the Israeli Embassy. He's identified two separate issues, AS in the Labour Party and attacks on Corbyn. Because he is talking about the latter doesn't mean he is denying the former
Really so can you show me the corresponding groups of say Friends of Russia in US Congress or maybe Friends of Myanmar in the Indian parliament or maybe Friends of UK in the Argentine parliament who are primed with embassy propaganda to counter 'bad news'...lets not forget the utter disgust pro Botha's South Africa groups/members are now held
So all accusations are copper bottomed accurate undeniable and true 100%.
Asking for evidence that AS widespread and institutional is not antisemitic and it is not the same as denying AS. I seem to remember it was your good self who some time ago said that just one case of AS in the LP was one case too many. It’s quite possible to agree with that whole heartedly and be passionate about fighting prejudice wherever it raises it’s ugly head, and also ask for evidence to support the allegation that AS is widespread and institutional.You say that he is not downplaying anti-semitism, the video below says different.
Explosive audio of Peter Willsman’s angry rant - at the meeting attended by Mr Corbyn where Labour’s ruling body approved a controversial new code of conduct on antisemitism – also shows he angrily demanded 68 rabbis, who warned Jew-hate had become "severe and widespread" within the party, provide evidence.
Listen to the recording below
He says on the recording: "We should ask the 70 rabbis ‘where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this Party?’”
Mr Willsman then demands those at the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting raise their hands if they have “seen” antisemitism in Labour and then suggested he was “amazed” that some said they had.
If AS is widespread and institutional why is it that it’s only Groups with an agenda against Corbyn that notice it? Why don’t groups not hostile to Corbyn notice it too?
Asking for evidence that AS widespread and institutional is not antisemitic and it is not the same as denying AS. I seem to remember it was your good self who some time ago said that just one case of AS in the LP was one case too many. It’s quite possible to agree with that whole heartedly and be passionate about fighting prejudice wherever it raises it’s ugly head, and also ask for evidence to support the allegation that AS is widespread and institutional.
If AS is widespread and institutional why is it that it’s only Groups with an agenda against Corbyn that notice it? Why don’t groups not hostile to Corbyn notice it too?
And if it is widespread and institutional, where is the evidence? Why can the BDBJ only name 2 cases, and both of those, on evidence that is at best questionable.
Does AS exist in the LP? I’m sure it does and it should be dealt with rigorously regardless of the fact that bigotry is more prevalent in other parties.
Is it widespread and institutional? I don’t know but I want to see some evidence before I agree it is. And good evidence that stands up to scrutiny (as opposed to endless articles just reasserting the allegations) is in short supply.