{"title":"Antisemitism in Political Parties (AIPP)—Aims and Methodology","authors":"J. Glasman","doi":"10.26613/JCA/2.1.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, antisemitism does not lead to wide- spread violence and institutional discrimination against Jews except where it is politically encour- aged by institutional leaders. Examples include the role of the Catholic Church and aristocracy in the persecution of Jews in Medieval Spain, the role of the Tsarist bureaucracy in supporting pogroms in the Russian Empire, and the role of the Nazi Party in organizing the violent repression of Jews in 1930s Germany. In his history of the notorious antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , Norman Cohn writes as follows: \"[T]he men who propagated the Protocols were often pogromshchiki at heart, waiting hungrily for the chance to organise massacre. Whether they ever got that chance or not depended entirely on what happened to their countries during the Second World War. In the embattled democracies, such people lapsed into obscurity, when they did not disappear into jail – but in those parts of Europe where the Nazi leaders were able to implement their plans for geno- cide, various dingy figures, hitherto known only as editors or publishers of the Protocols, were suddenly transformed into important administrators, with responsibility for drafting and implementing antisemitic legislation.\" Cohn’s point is that, without political support, antisemites remained on the fringes of society, but with such support, they were able to cause terrible suffering. Therefore, political parties’ attitudes to allegations of antisemitism among their own officers are of the greatest impor- tance. Do they take such allegations seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and (where neces- sary) apply sanctions—or do they brush them aside as if unimportant? AIPP is an ongoing monitoring and research project set up by a charity, Campaign Against Antisemitism, in 2016 to monitor both antise- mitic discourse in the public statements of offi- cers of UK political parties and the subsequent disciplinary handling of such cases by the par- ties themselves. In an increasingly febrile polit- ical atmosphere surrounding issues relating to Israel and antisemitism following the Gaza war of 2014 and the elevation of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party in 2015, the authors of the project realized that there was a clear need for an evidence-based record to be kept of incidents of political antisemitism, using a clear and objective set of criteria. It was realized that few, if any, UK political parties had clearly set out, transparent disci- plinary processes for dealing with incidents of racism (including antisemitism) as are common in other institutions, such as professional bodies, businesses, or other large and influential mem- bership-based organizations. In light of the fact that officers of political parties are public fig- ures with a public mandate, the absence of such disciplinary processes would have an effect on the propagation of antisemitic discourse. This project assesses the roles of political parties in dealing with antisemitism.","PeriodicalId":283546,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26613/JCA/2.1.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Historically, antisemitism does not lead to wide- spread violence and institutional discrimination against Jews except where it is politically encour- aged by institutional leaders. Examples include the role of the Catholic Church and aristocracy in the persecution of Jews in Medieval Spain, the role of the Tsarist bureaucracy in supporting pogroms in the Russian Empire, and the role of the Nazi Party in organizing the violent repression of Jews in 1930s Germany. In his history of the notorious antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , Norman Cohn writes as follows: "[T]he men who propagated the Protocols were often pogromshchiki at heart, waiting hungrily for the chance to organise massacre. Whether they ever got that chance or not depended entirely on what happened to their countries during the Second World War. In the embattled democracies, such people lapsed into obscurity, when they did not disappear into jail – but in those parts of Europe where the Nazi leaders were able to implement their plans for geno- cide, various dingy figures, hitherto known only as editors or publishers of the Protocols, were suddenly transformed into important administrators, with responsibility for drafting and implementing antisemitic legislation." Cohn’s point is that, without political support, antisemites remained on the fringes of society, but with such support, they were able to cause terrible suffering. Therefore, political parties’ attitudes to allegations of antisemitism among their own officers are of the greatest impor- tance. Do they take such allegations seriously, investigate them thoroughly, and (where neces- sary) apply sanctions—or do they brush them aside as if unimportant? AIPP is an ongoing monitoring and research project set up by a charity, Campaign Against Antisemitism, in 2016 to monitor both antise- mitic discourse in the public statements of offi- cers of UK political parties and the subsequent disciplinary handling of such cases by the par- ties themselves. In an increasingly febrile polit- ical atmosphere surrounding issues relating to Israel and antisemitism following the Gaza war of 2014 and the elevation of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party in 2015, the authors of the project realized that there was a clear need for an evidence-based record to be kept of incidents of political antisemitism, using a clear and objective set of criteria. It was realized that few, if any, UK political parties had clearly set out, transparent disci- plinary processes for dealing with incidents of racism (including antisemitism) as are common in other institutions, such as professional bodies, businesses, or other large and influential mem- bership-based organizations. In light of the fact that officers of political parties are public fig- ures with a public mandate, the absence of such disciplinary processes would have an effect on the propagation of antisemitic discourse. This project assesses the roles of political parties in dealing with antisemitism.
从历史上看,反犹主义不会导致对犹太人的广泛暴力和制度性歧视,除非在政治上受到机构领导人的鼓励。例如,天主教会和贵族在中世纪西班牙对犹太人的迫害中所起的作用,沙皇官僚机构在支持俄罗斯帝国大屠杀中的作用,以及纳粹党在20世纪30年代德国组织对犹太人的暴力镇压中的作用。诺曼·科恩(Norman Cohn)在他关于臭名昭著的反犹伪造史《锡安长老议定书》(the Protocols of the Elders of Zion)中写道:“那些传播《议定书》的人内心常常是大屠杀的刽子手,他们如饥如渴地等待着组织大屠杀的机会。他们是否有这样的机会完全取决于他们的国家在第二次世界大战期间发生了什么。在陷入困境的民主国家,这样的人变得默默无闻,当他们没有消失在监狱里时——但在纳粹领导人能够实施其种族灭绝计划的欧洲地区,各种各样的肮脏人物,迄今为止只被称为《议定书》的编辑或出版商,突然变成了重要的管理者,负责起草和实施反犹立法。”科恩的观点是,在没有政治支持的情况下,反犹主义者仍然处于社会的边缘,但有了这样的支持,他们能够造成可怕的痛苦。因此,政党对其官员中反犹太主义指控的态度是最重要的。他们是认真对待这些指控,彻底调查,并(在必要时)实施制裁,还是把它们当作不重要的事情置之不理?AIPP是一个持续的监测和研究项目,由慈善机构“反对反犹太主义运动”于2016年设立,旨在监测英国政党官员公开声明中的反犹太言论,以及政党本身随后对此类案件的纪律处理。在2014年加沙战争和2015年杰里米·科尔宾(Jeremy Corbyn)升任工党领袖之后,围绕以色列和反犹太主义问题的政治氛围日益升温,该项目的作者意识到,显然需要使用一套清晰客观的标准,以证据为基础记录政治反犹太主义事件。人们认识到,英国政党很少(如果有的话)明确制定透明的纪律程序来处理种族主义事件(包括反犹太主义),而这在其他机构(如专业团体、企业或其他大型和有影响力的会员制组织)中很常见。鉴于政党官员是具有公共授权的公众人物,缺乏这种纪律程序将对反犹太主义言论的传播产生影响。这个项目评估了政党在处理反犹主义方面的作用。