Meeting held on Monday 16th April 2018
10 people were present. 5 people sent their apologies.
In the context of the recent claims made of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, we noted how few of the military activities of Israel were reported in the media. Israeli activity in Palestine prompted a lot of anti-Zionist feeling which was sometimes conflated with anti-Semitism. Pro-Israeli government people sometimes deliberately claimed that anti-Zionist , or simply anti-Israeli, views were anti-Semitic. We felt it important, however, to take account of the extreme anxiety which is an inevitable consequence of past holocausts. We were also aware of much division amongst the various Jewish communities, regarding Israeli policies and Jewish religious and cultural practices. Thus, Corbyn’s attendance at a Passover supper with ‘left wing’ Jews was cited by the Jewish Council of Deputies as evidence of support for anti-Semitic views! We also noted how many Jewish practices were exclusionary.
Regarding the recent bombing of chemical warfare facilities in Syria by UK, US and the French, we puzzled over what should be the responsibilities of our government towards tyrannical behaviour of other governments. We mostly opposed bombing as being unlikely to improve the situation and also risking escalation of the conflict. But we felt much uncertainty regarding the conditions in which military intervention might be appropriate. Each situation involved layers of history (imperialism, past British and French influence, etc. in Syria) making military intervention likely to be unsuccessful. In general, we felt Western intervention in the Middle East had caused more damage than good, although there was a certain logic to a bombing campaign limited to specific factories producing chemical weapons. But for many of us this did not justify the UK bombing.
Different views were expressed on the impartiality of the BBC regarding such events, and also Brexit. We wondered about the significance the English language as the lingua franca. Did this give UK more international prominence, or did the English (American?) language rather function as the language of international capital.
Looking to the future, we considered the role of the UN, its limitations and even its relevance in a world increasingly shaped by global capital rather than by nation states. Under these circumstances the need to democratise money is increasingly important. As on many issues, we returned to the importance of such new economic thinking in any struggle towards a more just world. We were aware that the armaments industries stood to make enormous profits out of the wars in the Middle East. How could such international financial and business power be used for good rather than only for profit despite the suffering caused?