Credit: TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty
People of any political persuasion must always acknowledge three basic things:
1) That every party will have some policies you don’t like.
2) Every party will also have rogue members, or leaders, who have said nasty things.
3) Usually, if a party has policies you disagree with, you simply don’t vote for them.
For Britain’s Jews and their allies and friends, however, the issue with the Labour Party is none of the above. Some smart people out there don’t see this because they have been hoodwinked by dishonest political hacks, or are simply too tribal to accept that something abnormal is going on with one of our major parties.
But, and I repeat, the problem with Labour is none of the above and Corbyn’s supporters need to stop obfuscating, strawmanning and deflecting. The issue is that the Labour Party stands accused of being institutionally anti-Semitic — and racist.
This is very different from finding individual policies you hate, or representatives who utter bigotry. For a body to be institutionally racist (ironically, a phrase coined by a Labour government inquiry in the Nineties) not every member is necessarily a racist, nor even necessarily is the leader. Intention and individual behaviour aren’t the primary issue, but rather outcomes are also considered. If the totality of this body’s procedures, institutions and structure lead to racist outcomes, then sincerity and individual intent is no defence.
This is why the Labour government’s 1999 McPherson Inquiry (rightly) deemed the Metropolitan police to be “institutionally racist” after the unpunished racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. They were not calling all police officers racist. Nor did it mean that other UK organisations didn’t suffer racism too.
Today, British Jews and their allies are accusing this Labour Party under Corbyn of being “institutionally anti-Semitic”. This means precisely that the party’s mechanisms, procedures and institutions lead to racist outcomes against its Jewish members.
This does not mean that every Labour member is racist. It also does not necessarily imply that even Corbyn is (although he might be). Rather, it points to the failure of Corbyn’s ship, with him as captain, to steer away from anti-Semitism; sincere individual intent is not a condition here.
What British Jews are (correctly) alleging is that the Labour Party discriminates against them, as a party machine, and that the outcomes in that party no longer protect them against racism. This is an institutional failure.
Any instinctive defence, any “Whataboutery” response or or even allegations of hypocrisy — like “why aren’t you doing more to address racism in your own party?” — all entirely miss the nature and seriousness of what is accurately alleged.
British Jews and their allies are not in a state of alarm because Labour has individual racists in it (which is bad enough as it is). No. The Tories, Lib Dem’s, Brexit party others all have bad apples.
The issue very precisely and seriously is that, under Corbyn, Labour seems not only to have ignored the problem, or denied it, but in many cases doubled down on it and — worse still — even blamed the victims for reporting it. In other words: the Labour Party machine has been co-opted by racism.
If one understands the nature and seriousness of the allegations, then one would never reply by saying, by way of example: “but what about Johnson and niqabi Muslim letterboxes?” It was a bad thing to say, but not evidence that the Tory party machine discriminates against Muslim members.
It’s also very important to recognise that criticising ultra-conservative Muslim dress is a political right, because the “choice” to adopt fundamentalist dress is a valid societal choice that must equally be subjected to scrutiny — like any religious conservativism must be.
No. Racism is not the same as criticising my religious choices, or lack thereof. You can (politely) criticise my religion, because it’s an idea, and all ideas must be scrutinised. But one cannot insult another’s race, without being rightly deemed a racist.
Jews are both a people and a religion. European anti-Semitic tropes against Jews concern their supposed habits as a “people”, not their religion. It is indeed racism to suggest that all Jews are secret greedy capitalists, for example, as several party members have been found saying.
On the Israel issue, no serious Jewish voice or organisation has ever said it’s racist to criticise the country. This is a complete strawman. I criticise Netanyahu’s policies regularly and know many Jews and Israelis who do so too.
The issue is about four things.
1) Traditional European antisemitism flooding back into Labour, illustrated by the east London “Freedom for Humanity” mural that Corbyn defended, and which perpetuated ideas about Jewish world domination.
2) Holding Israel’s Jews to a higher standard than the rest of the world.
3) An obsessive focus on Israel for errors that are far worse elsewhere.
4) Supporting or otherwise praising genocidal, Jew-murdering terrorist groups.
There are numerous examples of all four of these, and plenty of evidence to be found.
People like Baroness Warsi totally miss the point. The Tory peer seems to have made a career of late deflecting the anti-Semitism issue in Labour by attacking her own party instead over “Islamophobia” (sic).
Yet Boris Johnson, or any rogue Tory MP or member, can and do say racist or borderline racist things, but does the party with a Muslim-origin Chancellor really discriminate against Muslims institutionally? Does it then double down and deny its racism?
This Muslim believes not, and I have never voted Tory in my life, and will not do so this time either. There are problems in the Conservative Party, yes. I disagree with them, yes. But they are yet to meet the test of being institutionally anti-Muslim.
The comparison of Tory anti-Muslim bigotry would only be appropriate if Boris Johnson had called the Neo-Nazi Christchurch killer his “friend” and had taken money, personally, from a state that funded that killer.
If Johnson, Jo Swinson, or anyone other party leader, let alone individual MPs, had shared a panel in Parliament with members of the now banned terrorist group National Action, almost all of us would be disgusted by now.
Yet Corbyn not only shared platforms with Jew-killing Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists
Until the day that Boris Johnson flirts with actual Muslim-killing terrorists it’s disgusting to draw such analogies, because they are deeply insensitive to our Jewish friends. What’s also disgustingly insensitive is to compare any policy of the Israeli state with a terror group
Truth is, there is only one major political party right now that has had senior former cabinet members resign over this alleged institutional racism. There is only one party that is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over said racism. That party is Labour.
After the Holocaust, we vowed in Europe Never Again — then Bosnia happened. Europe is not immune to repeat offending. We must never be too arrogant to think we are. Brexit or Remain, we do have choices other than Labour. We must not betray our Jewish cousins over a tribal vote
After all this, if we still choose Labour, at least let’s stop pretending we are “progressives”, or that we care about racism and minorities or that we “listen to victims when they tell us we’re hurting them”. It’s all BS.
Just admit that you really don’t give a damn about Jews.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The point is that if you create the ultimate destructive power, it will also destroy those who are near and dear to you,” Nolan said. ”
Except of course it didn’t. Here we are three generations later and no-one else on the planet has died from the use of nuclear weapons.
Movies like this aim to make the audience identify with the aggressor—a concept extensively studied, revealing that we all, in one way or another, possess this tendency. For further insight into this phenomenon, one might consider studying Sándor Ferenczi’s work. Furthermore, the movie “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” has already explored this manipulation of empathy’s darker side in much more depth and original.
This raises the question: Why now? Why are we attempting to encourage society to empathize with the aggressor? Is art imitating life, or is life imitating art?
Thank you for this thought provoking article. I watched The Zone of Interest in an Oxford cinema with a handful of other people at the one scheduled showing; obviously not a zone of interest for the average cinema goer. Perhaps indicative of our ability to shield ourselves from the horrors, and be safe with bystanderism; for example, standing by as the ‘Never Again’ antisemitism of the Holocaust is reprised in Israel and around the world by the actions of Hamas. And this is where the film falls down for me. The Director, Glazer, asks us to identify with the perpetrators and not the victims and thereby accept our own potential responsibility. That would be admirable if it weren’t for the fact that the victims are very specifically Jews; and without any reference to why it was Jews who are targeted for extermination on an industrial scale. Yes, Höss is shown as “getting on with the job” and in the most efficient way possible, an example of an administrative number crunching bureaucrat, revealing the dehumanising ‘compartmentalisation’ we are all capable of. However, there is little sense of the greater purpose the Nazis had in mind when they carried out the Holocaust; it was much more than a process of racial hatred and dehumanisation. It was for the purpose of saving the German race from the Jews, on a par with a political religion. Without this acknowledgement of the ‘religious’ view of Jews as the powerful human enemy (a superhuman capability) then there is no real understanding of Höss’s motivation and the likely motivation of a radical Islamist group like Hamas. So once again Jews are being targeted, and no-one seems to really ask the deep dark question why, why Jews?
“…. has served to further shield civilian populations from the killing done in their name and the sacrifices that make countries so reluctant to enter into wars in the first place.” Yeah, we were well shielded from covid.
I am a child of a twice-wounded soldier who was slated to be among the assault landing troops conducting the invasion of the Japanese home islands in WW2. Had that invasion gone ahead, I would not be writing this comment.
Once again the topic of the atomic bombing elicits a righteous progressive condemnation from a member of the leftist victimocracy in the form of Spike Lee.
What’s ignored in all this tiresome indignation are two facts:
Firstly, the alternatives to using the bomb included blockades or land invasion. Both would’ve resulted in millions of Japanese deaths from starvation and disease, or the horrors of conventional bombing and invasion shelling, or both. And the length of time taken to resolve the conflict would thereby extend well into 1946, or even 1947. The awful toll of about 200,000 Japanese citizens who perished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales in comparison.
Secondly, the advent of nuclear weapons, whatever their terrible power, succeeded in ending major conflicts between nations. The fact that it’s taken almost eight decades for war to erupt between two European nations is the direct result of the appearance of nuclear weapons that were, essentially, too destructive to use.
For the author to include Oppenheimer in a list of genocidal films is a vile calumny on the men and women who worked to end a terrible conflict with the least loss of life. Had they succeeded in developing the bomb in time to use it against Germany would there still be people declaring its use genocidal? The impression left by the statements of people like Spike Lee that the Japanese people–whose armed forces were directly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of East Asian people–were somehow innocent victims of white murderers I find also unjust and utterly reprehensible.
It’s remarkable to me that history can be distorted so greatly within the living memory of those who experienced the actual events.
Constant diversions to deflect our eyes and ears from the explosions and screams coming from Gaza and Sudan even if we have to cast back almost a century to when 75 million, mostly Russians and Chinese were slaughtered.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/#:~:text=Some%2075%20million%20people%20died,bombings%2C%20disease%2C%20and%20starvation.
Such long, pleasurable handwashing in warm and scented water and patting dry with a fluffy towel so long after the fact is among the noteworthy things about this shallow and superficial age. Nowadays we’re beset with cheap guilt over hurtful words on the internet and ask disbelievingly how could people be so barbaric back then? Especially white people. Well, the answer is human nature. It never changes, not one bit. The grotesque scenes from October 7 and daily somewhere in Africa tell you that. If you are moralizing from afar, it helps to be ignorant of history, as most people are these days. The machine-like savagery of the Third Reich is well documented, but a veil-like amnesia masks the hideousness of the Japanese at war. To them, other people were sub-humans entitled to no more thought or kindness than hogs raised for slaughter. They fought to the finish, believing their martial spirit superior to the bombs and bullets of the other side. The Germans knew they were finished but the Japanese never did. The military fanatics who took Japan to war attacked the Imperial Palace when rumors leaked out that the Emperor pondered surrender. They didn’t believe the atomic bomb at first and then decided it was so awful another was impossible. So the second was dropped and their deluded bellicosity evaporated like the people at ground zero. Up to 170,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But well-founded estimates about how many would die in the planned invasion ranged up to five million, including American blood shed conquering the islands. Okinawa told planners that was the prospect. Who knows how many millions died when Mao was in power, but the Chinese always seem to get a pass from the hand-wringers in the West. As for the Japanese, the shame and disappointment passed down through the generations is resulting in their disappearance as a race.
Indeed. The Pacific War did have racist elements, but on both sides. No one (save perhaps for the Chinese) seems to care about the Rape of Nanjing, the Bataan Death March, the bestial treatment of allied POWs by the Japanese, or Unit 731, just to name a few of the atrocities committed by Imperial Japanese forces during WW2. An invasion of the home islands in late 1945 would have truly been “genocidal,” and was averted in large part by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So, more self hating white European angst from the filmmakers, none of whom is giving back the proceeds. Yes, bad things have happened. No, they’re not all the work of white folks.
Anyone recall The Killing Fields? Somehow, that failed to spark ritual self recrimination among Asians. Perhaps I can look forward to a movie about Mao’s atrocities, those of the Aztecs, or Africans selling other Africans into bondage. Or will that spoil the narrative?
But aren’t we fortunate? Thanks to the conscientious productions of an insightful movie industry, we’ll have the solace of knowing, as the West finally falls apart from its endless self flagellation and disappears beneath a landslide of shame, that we’ll have left behind evidence of a full understanding of our unique iniquity, artistically analysed and laid out in technicolour.
Well ok. But I’m currently in the downtown of a moderately large Western city, on a Sunday afternoon with large crowds of p*nk-haired Pal*stine k*ffiyeh poseurs shouting and stomping around, angrily yelling “ge**cide” while attempting to b*lly everyone within earshot into nodding along for an *actual* ge**cide. With all the LGBTQI kit, they don’t look like movie-screen f*sc*sts, but they’re certainly behaving like f*sc*sts. That’s where we’re at now. Where’s the movie about that?
PS: reposted with asterisks to placate UnHerd’s w*ke cens*rbot. H*pe it w*rks. F*ngers cr*ssed. This is getting st*p*d.
Ian, Well said, or rather well written, astricks included, which add a more explosive and therefore accurate picture of what we are suffering here in London at the moment. Couldn’t have put it better.
” suffering in London” I think the suffering in Sudan and Gaza may be even worse.
Betsy, I wasn’t offering a comparison between the ravages of war in Gaza and the insane radicalisation of London streets, which do nothing to help thw war. But. I suppose since you made your point, we might see a connection which would be that of democracy and its demise.
As often happens, my comment here was suppressed for unclear reasons, no matter how benign. Not sure what word crime I committed this time, but I suspect it was the word “gen***de”. This is getting tedious. I’m paying money to waste my time.
Well ok. But I’m currently in the downtown of a moderately large Western city, on a Sunday afternoon with large crowds of pink-haired Palestine kaffiyeh poseurs shouting and stomping around, angrily yelling “genocide” while attempting to bully everyone within earshot into nodding along for an *actual* genocide. With all the LGBTQI kit, they don’t look like movie-screen fascists, but they’re certainly behaving like fascists. That’s where we’re at now. Where’s the movie about that?
Do you not think you could be one of the bystanders referred to in the article?
Physical ugliness has driven many into left-wing activism to find friends in the same pickle.
Nolan’s films: beautiful to look at; sumptuous to listen to; boring.
It will be many more decades, if not centuries of experience, before we can make a conclusive judgment about nuclear bombs. But at the time, their limited use saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives (far more Asian than American, though Truman’s main motivation was Americans). The A-bomb was available because Americans and Britons feared the consequence of Hitler getting it first, but once it existed, it was a tool in the arsenal, as it were. In the shadows of Saipan, Peleliu, Manila, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and the intel on what invading the Japanese Home Islands would entail, their use was inevitable. The alternative to the A-bombs and invasion, continued blockade and “conventional” bombing, would have cost millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Japanese lives starved in the winter of 1945-46, and such was the ruling mentality in Tokyo that even that catastrophe may not have led to surrender. Arguments to the contrary are either misinformed or dishonest.
In the decades since, the existence of nuclear weapons created a terrible psychological burden, and may as the author suggests have made small-scale wars more likely, but they have certainly helped avoid full scale wars between great powers, including the effects of those on smaller powers caught in the crossfire. Even today, their existence has likely kept the Russo-Ukraine War contained, as they did in Korea and Vietnam, and perhaps Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and elsewhere. World War I killed about 15 million people, 20 million if you include its immediate aftermath in the Russian Civil War and Turkish-Greek conflict. World War II more like 70 million. What would a non-nuclear World War III have cost in the late 20th Century? It is speculation, but not unreasonable to think that such a conflict would have dwarfed the cost in lives and treasure of all the wars that did occur in that period.
I should also note that Oppenheimer’s biggest regret was less the A-bomb than that it enabled the far more powerful and terrifying H-bomb. His political and security problems were not because of the Manhattan Project, but his opposing developing Teller’s dream of “The Super,” especially after it was learned that the USSR had developed the A-bomb.
It is possible to be horrified by the carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and still understand that this appeared at the time, and may actually have bene, the least bad of the terrible choices available.
It could be argued that the A bombs were used as a caveat to the Soviets.
Odd how the Soviets developed the BOMB so quickly even with the help of Fuchs, the Rosenbergs etc.
The US certainly needed a credible enemy and before 1949 the Soviet Union didn’t “cut the mustard”.
Perhaps the answer lies with the newly (1947) formed CIA?
Stalin knew more about the atomic bomb than Truman did when he took office. All the secrets had been betrayed by spies.
That’s a hypothesis but there is no significant documentation in reports or even meeting notes that is was a major factor. Byrnes may have mentioned it once.
In hindsight it makes more sense than it did at the time, as the Soviet attack on Manchukuo on August 8 was far more successful than even the Soviet planners expected. In that context, the idea of using the Bomb to deter future Soviet adventurism makes sense, but that was unknown when the decision to drop the first two bombs was made.
The essential historical texts on all this are Richard Frank’s “Downfall” and D.M. Giangreco’s “Hell to Pay.” And the essential literary text is Paul Fussell’s “Thank God For the Atom Bomb,” which can be found for free on the internet.
Kissinger’s “History of Diplomacy” is one of many sources establishing the fact he knew NOTHING about the atomic bomb until FDR dropped dead and Truman was let in on the secret.
Nukes are the reason my father’s generation didn’t have to fight the Russians and the reason my son won’t have to fight the Chinese. Thank God for the Manhattan Project.
Of course dropping only two was a great mistake.
The whole of the Far East was waiting for the white man to ‘save face’ after the debacles of Singapore, Pearl Harbour and the Philippines.
Two just wasn’t enough, eight to ten and the virtual destruction of Japan would have been better in the long run, but sadly Truman was a weakling.
There was only one more bomb available, and Truman decided not to use it (scheduled for about Aug. 10 or 11) as there were finally credible rumblings that Tokyo might consider surrender, and Truman was troubled by the reports of the bombs’ effects.
Had Japan not surrendered and the invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic) gone ahead on November 1, 1945, you might have got your wish as to the number, as in early August, George Marshall expected to have about 4-6 bombs available by November 1, and was thinking about using them to interdict Japanese supplies and reinforcements to the front. (Production capacity was about 2/month at that time.) Everyone was quite ignorant about radioactive fallout, of course, and that is just one of the many ways things could have turned out much worse than they did.
As for destroying Japan, well— other than Kyoto, which Stimson wanted spared for sentimental and cultural reasons, there were hardly any targets left worth bombing–atomic or otherwise. Which is why LeMay stopped objecting to using his B-29s for minelaying in the waters around Japan and the Inland Sea–otherwise, he was running out of things for them to do.
Oppenheimer’s biggest regret was less the A-bomb than that it enabled the far more powerful and terrifying H-bomb. His political and security problems were not because of the Manhattan Project, but his opposing developing Teller’s dream of “The Super,” especially after it was learned that the USSR had developed the A-bomb.
Yes, the USSR developed the A-bomb, and the USSR developed the H-bomb, and the decision not to develop the H-bomb in order to be on the right side of history is the ultimate idiocy, which has become so popular in our delicate times.
I didn’t say Oppie was right. Maybe 10 years later there could have been a chance, but in 1949-53 Stalin was still in charge and it is inconceivable he would not have pursued the H-Bomb once his people had exploded an A-Bomb and told him the next step was feasible.
” The least bad of the terrible choices”? We are trapped in a human dilemma from which we can’t escape. In order to take the moral stand against fascism and the genocide of the Jews we killed millions. We had to do this or we couldn’t live with ourselves.
When faced with barbarism we have a natural inclination to respond. Hence the clever trick in which the evil, barbaric, death cult that is Hamas has placed Israel. Now there is no moral way out for Israel. All the demos, the slogans the filthy accusations can’t stop Israel doing what any human being would do under the circumstances. When your babies are taken as hostages and your women are brutally raped what do you expect?
Hamas knew exactly what to expect, and to achieve its deathly aims it paved the way for the slaughter of the Palestinians.
“Now there is no moral way out for Israel.” Maybe not for the misguided Left. But for the rest of us it works. It worked in WW2 and it still works today.
I thought movies were for entertainment. What happened? Have I been asleep??
That’s a silly comment.
Movies have always been made for lots of reasons,a component of necessity naturally is their appeal for people to watch them,as the technology and the standard of the technicians from cameraman’s work to researchers has improved dramatically it has become possible to give the impression of revisiting history,however as we move further to this goal and the outcome becomes more convincing all the more will it be that in say 20 years time the same movies that impress now will look contrived
I don’t think it’s a silly comment. Movies like Oppenheimer are incredibly self-important, the movie (the cinematography, the acting, the scary sound effects, the sex scenes that are supposed to shock the viewer, the suffering of the characters getting hammered into your head by the bombastic style) becomes more important than the message. And it was all done before, the juxtaposition that is supposed to grab us all in here, deep down… And, of course, all women are beautiful, and the breasts have to be perfectly shaped.
I thought the mammary glands on display somewhat diminutive by today’s standards, otherwise I completely agree with you.
Standard by your memories of youth, perhaps? And mine! I always prefer balance between said glands and the rest of the figure. Some of today’s enhancements just look stupid.
I had no Scorsese had become so pathetic and self-hating. These people have been hanging around Hollywood for too long. It has driven them mad.
Fascinating essay.
In the contemporary sense, perhaps the wall we Americans have erected is there to avoid hearing the screams of the allies we’ve abandoned being murdered.
Be specific. Are you referring to Israel and Ukraine or just one of the two?
Saigon and Kabul and Kiev and Tel Aviv and Riga and Warsaw and Taipei…
We’ll be OK with any or all of these going away, behind our wall that drowns out the screaming.