Ken Loach and dubious "anti-semitism" claims

[Blagsta]

No that argument doesn't work. The point is the difference between Israel and Judaism, Zionism and Judaism. The two are not the same thing.

If a left wing figure came out in the press and said he understood attacks on British Muslims because of the 7/7 bombings there would, rightly, be no beating about the bush or appreciation of fine dividing lines between understanding and support.

When you are this much of a public figure saying that you understand someone's thought process in exercising their prejudice, you are intimating that you sympathise with their conclusions. When this message comes from a figure who is viewed as a moral authority that is tantamount to support. So to pretend that you are merely 'understanding' or 'comprehending' their position is disingenuous and cowardly.

This is bollocks though. I understand why some people steal to feed a drug habit. Does that mean I think it's a good thing? I understand why some people act out their agression and get into fights. Does that mean I think it's OK?

 

[agricola]

it would be interesting to see the entire context of it.

Loach said it, then some skinheads came in and sang the horst wessel song, then they all sat down and watched The Wind that Shakes the Barley and cried at the end.

Apparently.

Ban this vile anti-semite now !!!!11

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"perfectly understandable"

At the very least, his use of the word 'perfectly' here was a mistake.

 

[Fedayn]

"perfectly understandable"

At the very least, his use of the word 'perfectly' here was a mistake.

So his 'crime', at worst, is bad vocabulary and perhaps injudicious use of the word 'perfectly'. Not exactly what Zachor is arguing though is it?!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, the process _is_ perfectly understandable, isn't it? State claims to be intrinsically Jewish and to represent Jews and Judaism; state's supporters routinely call any criticism of it anti-semitic; state is regularly referred to as "the Jewish state" in the media; state carries out well-publicised military actions against civilians; anti-semites say "see? they are bastards!"

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Dunno what the big deal is really, his films are shit and now he's being a bit off key...

 

[frogwoman]

Well, the process _is_ perfectly understandable, isn't it? State claims to be intrinsically Jewish and to represent Jews and Judaism; state's supporters routinely call any criticism of it anti-semitic; state is regularly referred to as "the Jewish state" in the media; state carries out well-publicised military actions against civilians; anti-semites say "see? they are bastards!"

Yes

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, the process _is_ perfectly understandable, isn't it? State claims to be intrinsically Jewish and to represent Jews and Judaism; state's supporters routinely call any criticism of it anti-semitic; state is regularly referred to as "the Jewish state" in the media; state carries out well-publicised military actions against civilians; anti-semites say "see? they are bastards!"

Yes, the process is perfectly understandable, and the 'Loach condones anti-semitism' spin put on his words was perfectly predictable. He could have made the same point without lending his words to such an interpretation.

 

[Diamond]

This is bollocks though. I understand why some people steal to feed a drug habit. Does that mean I think it's a good thing? I understand why some people act out their agression and get into fights. Does that mean I think it's OK?

Reading it back my final point was rushed and badly written but it was designed to addresses the above.

When you are this much of a public figure, saying that you understand someone's thought process in exercising their prejudice implies that you sympathise with their conclusions. When this message comes from a figure who is viewed as a moral authority that is tantamount to support. So to pretend that you are merely 'understanding' or 'comprehending' their position is disingenuous and cowardly.

This is only more true given the context...accusing the report of being a red herring that distracts from Israeli war crimes. If you package those sentiments with 'understanding of anti-semitism', the whole starts to look very dodgy and the 'understanding' starts to sidle over towards tacit support.

 

[Fedayn]

Yes, the process is perfectly understandable, and the 'Loach condones anti-semitism' spin put on his words was perfectly predictable. He could have made the same point without lending his words to such an interpretation.

Perhaps but the point here is that, yet again, Zachor is talking shite and attributing to Loach ideas and sentiments that Loach has not made and claiming 2+2=10. The real bigot here, yet again, is Zachor, making assertions and claims about someone that he has no evidence for.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, the process is perfectly understandable, and the 'Loach condones anti-semitism' spin put on his words was perfectly predictable. He could have made the same point without lending his words to such an interpretation.

I'm sorry, but it is perfectly understandable. I'm not sure what nuance is contained in "perfectly" that isn't there were it omitted.

 

[belboid]

Reading it back my final point was rushed and badly written but it was designed to addresses the above.



This is only more true given the context...accusing the report of being a red herring that distracts from Israeli war crimes. If you package those sentiments with 'understanding of anti-semitism', the whole starts to look very dodgy and the 'understanding' starts to sidle over towards tacit support.

That's utter nonsense tho. Massive leaps of logic, all totally unjustified, and a set of assertions which are very simply untrue.

John McDonnell - the left Labour MP - has often said he understands ful lwel lwhy people feel rejected by labout, and have turned to the BNP as a result. he is a prominent public figure with 'moral authority' (as much as Loach has anyway) - hy your logic he is practically calling for a BNP vote.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sorry, but it is perfectly understandable. I'm not sure what nuance is contained in "perfectly" that isn't there were it omitted.

The nuance is the way it can then be spun – that Loach condones anti-Semitism.

 

[Fedayn]

This is only more true given the context...accusing the report of being a red herring that distracts from Israeli war crimes. If you package those sentiments with 'understanding of anti-semitism', the whole starts to look very dodgy and the 'understanding' starts to sidle over towards tacit support.

No it doesn't. Understanding why a process takes place does not equal condoning it and no amount of re-writing of your post can make it so. We all understand why various things happen, that doesn't then however mean that our understanding of that process = our support either tacit, implicit or explicit, for the process taking place.

 

[belboid]

The nuance is the way it can then be spun – that Loach condones anti-Semitism.

that's not 'nuance'

 

[Fedayn]

The nuance is the way it can then be factually inaccurately reported – that Loach condones anti-Semitism.

Fixed.

 

[butchersapron]

Cherie Blair supports suicide bombings too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

that's not 'nuance'

In most cases, I would assume were I to read the phrase 'perfectly understandable' some measure of condoning.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'll agree with you this time Zachor. It sickens me that people can't tell the difference between your ordinary person in the street and those that commit acts of terror and murder. The average European Jew is no more to blame for Israel's murderous regime than the average Muslim is to blame for al-Qaeda's suicide bombers. Ken Loach should fucking know that.

yet still rational resonable people don't differentiate between the muslims should do more to discourage terrorism in their communities and te obvious repulsion they have for statements about the worlds jewry and isreali actions...

 

[belboid]

In most cases, I would assume were I to read the phrase 'perfectly understandable' some measure of condoning.

I wouldn't, but even if I did, that wasn't what you wrote in the post I was responding to

 

[danny la rouge]

The nuance is the way it can then be spun – that Loach condones anti-Semitism.

That's dishonest reporting, not a nuance in the word "perfectly".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wouldn't, but even if I did, that wasn't what you wrote in the post I was responding to

I'm posting quickly from work. Can't be arsed with nitpicking, sorry.

 

[belboid]

the fact that you are simply wrong is not 'nit-picking'

 

[rioted]

The two are not the same thing..

Unfortunately, when your house is being bombed, your kids killed and the warplanes have Israeli markings, it is understandable to blame Jews. Sitting in safety several thousand miles away you may take a more rational view.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Unfortunately, when your house is being bombed, your kids killed and the warplanes have Israeli markings, it is understandable to blame Jews. Sitting in safety several thousand miles away you may take a more rational view.

you know that your own sentence reveals your own ignorance and bigotry don't you...

isreali doesn't = jew...

Palestinians I know and have met are not Juedophobic but are rightly anti Isreali military and government...

to conflgrate this with being juedophobic or worse to make statements which implies this distinction isn't there is at best navie at worse calculated...

 

[belboid]

mmm, I think you are making the same mistake littlebabyjesus is making Garf.

No one has said that all Gazans blame 'jews', but no one can honestly deny that some do, nor that, when the state in question defines itself as 'jewish' and states that any condemnation of it is a condmenation of all jewry, then it IS all too understandable that some people will rspond by blaming 'jews'

And saying that does not make me, or Ken Loach, at all anti-semitic.

 

[articul8]

And as my example shows even some British Jews think it is understandable that Jews are getting blamed for what is being done in the name of Israel. And they would hardly approve of it, now, would they!

 

[frogwoman]

i agree with everything belboid said on this thread.

its understandable that some (gazans) would, if not excusable.

i agree that ken loach could have chosen his words better but the exact same sentiments have been said to me by people who i'd hardly describe as anti-semitic

and the israeli state uses this sort of thing to its advantage anyway ... there's only two people who benefit from this sort of sillyness.

 

[Blagsta]

Reading it back my final point was rushed and badly written but it was designed to addresses the above.



This is only more true given the context...accusing the report of being a red herring that distracts from Israeli war crimes. If you package those sentiments with 'understanding of anti-semitism', the whole starts to look very dodgy and the 'understanding' starts to sidle over towards tacit support.

"When you are this much of a public figure, saying that you understand someone's thought process in exercising their prejudice implies that you sympathise with their conclusions."

It doesn't though, it really doesn't. Unless you want it to.

 

[cantsin]

In these times you expect heros to have feet of clay to some extent but when you have great lefty heros such as Ken Loach spouting bollocks about antisemitsm being 'understandable' then you have to do two things 1. you call the guy a prick and 2. you feel sorry for him and about how far he has falllen.

http://www.theparliament.com/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/eu-wide-rise-in-anti-semitism-described-as-understandable/


Why do so many of those who could do so much good just turn in to dictatorship worshipping wankstains. Such a great shame to see him end up like this.

hey zachor , don't get TOO sad about it, Loach's is a world respected Director, socialist , and all round good man , you're a bigoted twerp on a msg board , he'll get by...