BBC accused of antisemitism

[Richard46]

Yeah that's all very well but it opens the door to a reply like oh come on, I was just joking, stop taking me so seriously, you're too sensitive, the caught-out bully mantra. So no, IMO offence taken is the baseline, not offence intended.

As for criticism of Israel being or not being anti-semitic, it 100% depends on who says it, what is said, and how it's framed. There's plenty of racist criticism of Israel (and Palestine too, fwiw) and still plenty of people who fall into both.

Of course it does if the person does not listen before claiming a joke etc. That is why I said they should listen. To believe without question the validity of every charge of prejudice/antisemitism/misogyny/racism etc is as problematic as it is to reject every such claim without reflection and self examination. I hope that is fair.

 

[Richard46]

Yeah that's all very well but it opens the door to a reply like oh come on, I was just joking, stop taking me so seriously, you're too sensitive, the caught-out bully mantra. So no, IMO offence taken is the baseline, not offence intended.

As for criticism of Israel being or not being anti-semitic, it 100% depends on who says it, what is said, and how it's framed. There's plenty of racist criticism of Israel (and Palestine too, fwiw) and still plenty of people who fall into both.

I agree.

 

[mojo pixy]

Of course it does if the person does not listen before claiming a joke etc. That is why I said they should listen. To believe without question the validity of every charge of prejudice/antisemitism/misogyny/racism etc is as problematic as it is to reject every such claim without reflection and self examination. I hope that is fair.

I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)

I'd change this view if society at large could grow up and calm down, but for where we are now it's the only fair approach IMO

 

[Richard46]

I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)

I'd change this view if society at large could grow up and calm down, but for where we are now it's the only fair approach IMO

And I respect that opinion.

 

[Knotted]

That letter stinks and that has nothing to do with listening to minorities or allowing them they're own definitions.

When women complain about misogyny, do they also say that men have nothing to complain about on anything ever? Like it's a competition or something. Of course they don't.

And yes antiracists are left with the task of disentangling the substance from the bullshit. But we need to be clear why these fuckwits have coated the substance in so much bullshit. They don't like the BBC reporting on Israel.

 

[two sheds]

I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)

I'd change this view if society at large could grow up and calm down, but for where we are now it's the only fair approach IMO

Yes agreed, we do need to know what they are though.

 

[tim]

These accusations have been made in bade faith. It's blatant. They want the want the BBC to stop reporting on Gaza. They may also contain valid criticisms of the BBC and we shouldn't assume they don't. But this is why complaints like this are so harmful. So much easier for all the conspiracy theory bullshit to hide behind "we're just criticising Israel" when these attempts to kill two birds with one stone are made.

The Jews are untrustworthy argument. And there's definitely no antisemitism these boards

 

[Silas Loom]

That letter stinks

A letter you have not read.

 

[belboid]

I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)

I'd change this view if society at large could grow up and calm down, but for where we are now it's the only fair approach IMO

All such claims should certainly be taken seriously and accepted that that is how the comments were perceived. But when the three specific complaints referred to were all responded to by the BBC and taken seriously, it does seem to undermine the claim that nothing is done.

It is also far from the only racism that the BBC ignores, amongst its own employees. Alan Sugar is a racist cunt, ditto Andrew Neil and dozens of others. They continue to broadcast with little complaint.

But a football commentator saying genocide is bad? That's outrageous??

 

[Cid]

FWIW the JC also covered the Qasim Sheikh stuff back in June (has a bit more detail on what those tweets were).

 

[_Russ_]

I think such claims should always be believed by default, and generally it should up to the one accused to then justify their words or apologize (as appropriate)

I'd change this view if society at large could grow up and calm down, but for where we are now it's the only fair approach IMO

Guilty until proven innocent the only fair approach?

 

[tim]

Guilty until proven innocent the only fair approach?

Fortunately, you provide all the evidence needed in your posts.

 

[Cid]

The Asif Munaf comments definitely are antisemitic, but they were also 'made after he had left the process [of filming the series of the Apprentice he was a contestant in]'.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not going to get into these particular complaints, as I don't feel I have all the details or context. However, the general topic is worth commenting on.

As others have noted, there really is antisemitism out there. And it really does sometimes come from people appalled at the actions of the Israeli state. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It is true that allegations of antisemitism are habitually levelled at criticism of the actions of the Israeli state. But that does not mean that therefore all criticism of Israel is devoid of antisemitism.

Jewish people inside and outside of Israel are seeing a rise in antisemitism. And this can be quite subtle. I know that liberal, anti-Zionist (a term I use sparingly), and pro-solidarity Jewish people are being asked to condemn or explain the actions of the Israeli state.

Nobody should be required to do anything of the sort just because of their ethnicity, culture or ancestry. Jews are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli state. Any more than I am responsible for or answerable for the actions of the British state, the Scottish Government, or any governments I might be connected to by others according to my ancestry or perceived ancestry.

It is, as has already been noted, clearly antisemitic to customarily and automatically dismiss as in bad faith or inauthentic any and every complaint of antisemitism. It is also problematic to assume that just because the complainant is perceived as Zionist, or supportive of the Israeli government, that the complaint is in bad faith. It might not be.

It is perfectly possible for us to separate these things out. For us to be very clear that when we are appalled and distressed by the human suffering in Gaza that we are not blaming Israelis in general, far less Jews in general. And similarly that we are not identifying the people of Palestine with Hamas. People are not the same as those who claim to be their leaders.

Difficulties do arise. People can get defensive when their country is being criticised. Like it or not, people are complicated. People can feel hurt by criticism, even justified criticism, even when that criticism is not directed at them.

And this is understandable. I am quite clear that the Israeli state is in the wrong, that historically it bears the responsibility of many years of oppression and occupation. But I am also appalled by the October 7th targeting of civilians, the kidnappings, the atrocities carried out in the name of the defence of Palestinians. I can understand people feeling under attack because of those actions, and I can understand them feeling others are minimising the events of that day, their horror, and the impact of them on ordinary Israelis.

Absolutely the Israeli state used 7th October as the excuse it wanted for this latest genocidal assault. (Predictably so). But that does not mean people in Israel and around the world cannot feel the atrocities of that day deeply. Even personally. Those feelings are real. Even the feelings of people with whom we might politically disagree.

We need to respect that. Or there is no hope of future resolution.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Spot on, danny la rouge.

I don't think anyone of us can draw conclusions based on that report, we haven't seen the documents that have been submitted, I suspect there's probably some points that are justified, and others that are not.

The letter referred to documents sent to BBC chairman Samir Shah, in which the group claimed there had been multiple breaches of the broadcaster's social media guidelines.

 

[Knotted]

Just on the Gary Linekar tweet, there's surely grounds for complaint in terms of a breach of neutrality (personally I really don't care about BBC neutrality, I think that's always been phony). But does anyone actually think he was being anti-semitic?

The logic of the letter goes, because complaints about Linekar are being ignored, that indicates an institutional anti-Jewish bias.

Apart from conflating Jews with pro-Israel politics, it's just a complaint about the BBC not prioritising pro-Israel points of view (or at least not prioritising them sufficiently) not a complaint about anti-semitism.

There's this double logic and it appears more than once. It's not that complaints about anti-semitism are being ignored but that certain Jews are being ignored when they voice their opinions on political matters. And there is this culture war subtext that all other minorities are pandered to politically and Jews are uniquely ignored.

They can fuck off with that.

 

[belboid]

Now I've found there actual letter.... I have no idea why the beeb and guardian even mention Lineker or Arabic staff, it is entirely about the discrepancy between the treatment of two cricket commentators! And they have a point (even if its not quite as big a one as they think)

Over 100 Jewish Creatives Sign Open Letter Accusing BBC of Double Standards

Over 100 Jewish creatives have signed an open letter accusing the BBC of double standards.

variety.com

 

[Silas Loom]

Now I've found there actual letter.... I have no idea why the beeb and guardian even mention Lineker or Arabic staff, it is entirely about the discrepancy between the treatment of two cricket commentators! And they have a point (even if its not quite as big a one as they think)

Over 100 Jewish Creatives Sign Open Letter Accusing BBC of Double Standards

Over 100 Jewish creatives have signed an open letter accusing the BBC of double standards.

variety.com

I think there have been several letters btw but useful spot.

 

[_Russ_]

Fortunately, you provide all the evidence needed in your posts.

You're just another arsehole who can never seperate facts from the bigotry that constantly swills around that tiny space between your ears, it derails threads though no doubt some other arsehole will accuse me of doing the derailing for reacting to you..fuck the fuck orf

 

[mojo pixy]

Guilty until proven innocent the only fair approach?

Yes, why not? It's not a court of law, which is where that legal principle applies. In personal social dealings yes, sometimes 'guilty till proved innocent' is a better way to go because we're talking about feelings, not law.

An apology costs nothing, backing up and thinking again costs nothing; it's not a prison sentence ffs

 

[danny la rouge]

The precedent that victims and survivors of abuse, whether racial, sexual, physical, by sexual preference, by gender identity, or of whatever sort, are met with disbelief when they tell their stories has throughout history supported the powerful and further disadvantaged the victims of power imbalances.

Whatever the "anti-woke" brigade might moan to the contrary, that pattern continues to this day.

When an individual comes forward with a report of being abused, the response is often to pick apart their credibility, and question their motivations. This happens even on these boards. For example, the Swedish accusers of Assange were written about appallingly. Regardless of how international actors may (or may not) have sought to use these allegations, the character of those making them were widely traduced.

This habitual doubt, incredulity and victim-blaming adds to the trauma of victims and survivors and makes it that much harder for others to come forward. People need to feel they are going to be believed.

Of course, the ingrained dualism of our culture is going to react by saying: that means you are automatically assuming the accused is guilty without any corroboration.

It does not. Believing the victim is not the end of the process. It is a corrective to automatically disbelieving them.

 

[Richard46]

Yes, why not? It's not a court of law, which is where that legal principle applies. In personal social dealings yes, sometimes 'guilty till proved innocent' is a better way to go because we're talking about feelings, not law.

An apology costs nothing, backing up and thinking again costs nothing; it's not a prison sentence ffs

I find those sentiments a bit offensive. Do I get an apology?

 

[emanymton]

The precedent that victims and survivors of abuse, whether racial, sexual, physical, by sexual preference, by gender identity, or of whatever sort, are met with disbelief when they tell their stories has throughout history supported the powerful and further disadvantaged the victims of power imbalances.

Whatever the "anti-woke" brigade might moan to the contrary, that pattern continues to this day.

When an individual comes forward with a report of being abused, the response is often to pick apart their credibility, and question their motivations. This happens even on these boards. For example, the Swedish accusers of Assange were written about appallingly. Regardless of how international actors may (or may not) have sought to use these allegations, the character of those making them were widely traduced.

This habitual doubt, incredulity and victim-blaming adds to the trauma of victims and survivors and makes it that much harder for others to come forward. People need to feel they are going to be believed.

Of course, the ingrained dualism of our culture is going to react by saying: that means you are automatically assuming the accused is guilty without any corroboration.

It does not. Believing the victim is not the end of the process. It is a corrective to automatically disbelieving them.

There is difference here though. For other forms of bigotry there is no history of them being weaponized to deflect criticism away from a states war crimes.

This leads to these claims being looked at with scepticism.

 

[danny la rouge]

There is difference here though. For other forms of bigotry there is no history of them being weaponized to deflect criticism away from a states war crimes.

This leads to these claims being looked at with scepticism.

General Jewish people =/= the Israeli state. Even when their views are not identical to mine.

 

[emanymton]

General Jewish people =/= the Israeli state. Even when their views are not identical to mine.

No, but it is not just the Israeli state seeking to justify its actions.

Although worth keeping in mind a lot of the bad faith use of antisemitism to defend Isarel does not come from Jewish people.

I'm struggling more than usual to express my point here.

But accepting bad faith use of antisemitism is not an abstract, isolated thing. I feel it is an act of abuse in itself. First I would say that it is a act of antisemitism to misuse claims of antisemitism in this way. And second it is an act of abuse against Palestinians.

None of which is to undermine actual examples of antisemitism, and there is lowkey antisemitism on these boards, it getting a pass is one reason avoid the Gaza thread.

But when someone says something was antisemitic, I can't help reserving judgment until I have more context.

 

[mojo pixy]

I find those sentiments a bit offensive. Do I get an apology?

Sure, but I'd like to know what you find offensive about them because I wasn't aware of posting anything offensive.

Not saying I'm not guilty, I'm just trying gain some insight into exactly what I'll be apologising for.

 

[Richard46]

Sure, but I'd like to know what you find offensive about them because I wasn't aware of posting anything offensive.

Not saying I'm not guilty, I'm just trying gain some insight into exactly what I'll be apologising for.

OK It is more a thought experiment but lets say; which is quite feasible; that I am a person who finds any suggestion of treating people as guilty before they are proved to be as offensive. Hence someone might find your post offensive. Should you therefore apologise for honestly expressing your opinion.

Allow me to give another example. I really am an atheist who regards all beliefs in Gods as superstition. Many religious people will and indeed do find the expression of that conviction as offensive. Should I never express my opinion where it might be heard or read by such a person. Should I then apologise for holding my opinion?

I am sure there are racists who regard statements that all races are equal as offensive. I sure as hell are not going to apologise for offending one of them.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK It is more a thought experiment but lets say; which is quite feasible; that I am a person who finds any suggestion of treating people as guilty before they are proved to be as offensive. Hence someone might find your post offensive. Should you therefore apologise for honestly expressing your opinion.

Allow me to give another example. I really am an atheist who regards all beliefs in Gods as superstition. Many religious people will and indeed do find the expression of that conviction as offensive. Should I never express my opinion where it might be heard or read by such a person. Should I then apologise for holding my opinion?

I am sure there are racists who regard statements that all races are equal as offensive. I sure as hell are not going to apologise for offending one of them.

that you affect to be as sure as hell doesn't mean that much after insisting you're an atheist.

 

[Richard46]

that you affect to be as sure as hell doesn't mean that much after insisting you're an atheist.

Jesus wept

 

[danny la rouge]

No, but it is not just the Israeli state seeking to justify its actions.

Although worth keeping in mind a lot of the bad faith use of antisemitism to defend Isarel does not come from Jewish people.

I'm struggling more than usual to express my point here.

But accepting bad faith use of antisemitism is not an abstract, isolated thing. I feel it is an act of abuse in itself. First I would say that it is a act of antisemitism to misuse claims of antisemitism in this way. And second it is an act of abuse against Palestinians.

None of which is to undermine actual examples of antisemitism, and there is lowkey antisemitism on these boards, it getting a pass is one reason avoid the Gaza thread.

But when someone says something was antisemitic, I can't help reserving judgment until I have more context.

It's a delicate field to walk through, so it's easy to be self-consciously examining our own words.

What I'm getting at is this:

Scenario 1. Netanyahu says in the media: "that was antisemitic".

It's fine to respond "Aye, right. I'll have a wee look and decide for myself. (But you are a genocidal war criminal and I'm not convinced)".

Scenario 2. A Jewish person says to me in person: "that was antisemitic".

It is not fine to respond as above. Even without the bit in parenthesis. You should instead hear their complaint with empathy and belief.

If you then find it was a correct criticism of the Israeli state, you may inform them you believe them to have perceived it incorrectly. But you may still want to be connaissant of any real hurt the complainant feels. They are more likely to take you as acting in good faith.

Scenario 3. A non-Jewish person of known pro-Netanyahu views takes offence on behalf of all Jews.

No, I wouldn't believe them either. But I'd still want to see the context. Because it may still have been antisemitic. But I would feel no responsibility to listen with belief.



There will be many other scenarios, some private, some public. But it's possible to pick one's way through it with human empathy.

Of course I'll still make mistakes. But I'll have an honest compass.