Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
May - wanted remain - taking us out.
Corbyn - wanted out - now wants us to stay (at least in the single market)
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Jeremy Corbyn thread
- Thread starter Simster
- Start date
May - wanted remain - taking us out.
Corbyn - wanted out - now wants us to stay (at least in the single market)
mikeyjh
Well-known member
Then they should explain why their definition is better than the IHRA’s, surely? All I’ve seen is that they think that it’s “unnecessary” to have all the clauses of the IHRA definition. It’s surely a slippery road to take some clauses off the IHRA verbatim, and leave others out. It’s asking for trouble - which they now have.
No doubt it's politically extremely difficult - What I hate about it (and it is definitely used by defenders of Israel in this way) is the implication that, effectively, one cannot criticise Israel without falling foul of these guidelines. They are deliberately conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism in order to deflect any criticism of Israel - That, to me, is bloody obvious. It's almost a very convenient side effect in that it can be used as a bat to beat Corbyn with.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Sadly, this appears to be the case. But I wouldn't even go as far as to say anti-Zionism. It is simply and patently ludicrous to conflate anti-semitism in the UK and worldwide, with legitimate scrutiny and criticism of aspects of Israel's foreign and domestic policy. No one with human rights concerns for what is happening there should automatically be labelled anti-semitic. The fact that this seems to be happening makes you question the real motives of those doing it. Are they trying to bully Corbyn/anyone else in the world from talking about what is going on in Israel at the moment? Anyone else in public office globally thinking of speaking up for the Palestinians must be thinking twice after recent events.
As far as Corbyn goes, he has made tactical mistakes and failed to do all he can to promptly sort this mess out. Weeks ago, even if he thought anti-semitism was a bigger problem in the Tories and even if he wanted to maintain the freedom to criticise the state of Israel, he should have clearly laid out what Labour would do to get rid of it in its own party. All you can do is get your own house in order.
But nobody on here knows what it must have been like to be on the end of the most savage and malicious personal smear campaign I can ever remember. It does our country, and our media, no credit at all for someone who has fought racism and spoken up for oppressed minorities all his life. And with the real Corbyn die-hards it looks to have backfired, because they have increasingly circled the wagons.
Thanks for posting that - I had not actually seen the full list before. It is a rather muddled list of points, tbh
To the man in the street, 'anti-Semitism' means 'racism against Jewish people', surely?
The top three sentences on this list broadly cover it, I'd have thought?
Most of the rest seem less clear, to me.
It talks of the 'right of self-determination' of 'the Jewish people', and uses the existence of the State of Israel as its example, and yet further down it has conflating 'the people' with 'the (actions of) State', itself on the banned list. Which is it to be?
To question the scope or some detail of the Holocaust is not BY DEFINITION anti-Semitic, though the reasons for questioning it might very well be so, in many cases.
It could be that SOME Jewish people actually ARE more loyal to the State of Israel than their own nations? Some might even agree with the suggestion. To ponder that of those individuals surely couldn't be considered anti-Semitic? There are Australian citizens of Italian (only one example) descent who are possibly more loyal to Italy than to Australia. It isn't considered racist to muse on that.
The Nazi one is problematic, too. Taking it to it's logical extreme, Israel could adopt the swastika, build concentration camps, gas gypsies, arrest academics, burn books and invade Poland, and it would be considered 'anti-semitic' to draw comparisons.
Thanks for posting that - I had not actually seen the full list before. It is a rather muddled list of points, tbh
To the man in the street, 'anti-Semitism' means 'racism against Jewish people', surely?
The top three sentences on this list broadly cover it, I'd have thought?
Most of the rest seem less clear, to me.
It talks of the 'right of self-determination' of 'the Jewish people', and uses the existence of the State of Israel as its example, and yet further down it has conflating 'the people' with 'the (actions of) State', itself on the banned list. Which is it to be?
To question the scope or some detail of the Holocaust is not BY DEFINITION anti-Semitic, though the reasons for questioning it might very well be so, in many cases.
It could be that SOME Jewish people actually ARE more loyal to the State of Israel than their own nations? Some might even agree with the suggestion. To ponder that of those individuals surely couldn't be considered anti-Semitic? There are Australian citizens of Italian (only one example) descent who are possibly more loyal to Italy than to Australia. It isn't considered racist to muse on that.
The Nazi one is problematic, too. Taking it to it's logical extreme, Israel could adopt the swastika, build concentration camps, gas gypsies, arrest academics, burn books and invade Poland, and it would be considered 'anti-semitic' to draw comparisons.
To draw a comparison to you second paragraph it’s a well known fact many of our Asian brethren who’s family originate from Pakistan/India are more loyal to the country of family origin no?
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Four fingers ??
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,029
number of leadership elections Corbyn will win before bowing out?
Yes they do! Those who's family members were annihilated by the Nazi's. Those Jews, who were hounded all across occupied Europe. Humiliated, terrorized, murdered and finally transported to mass murder camps. They were completely unable to resist!
Women and children were gassed first - as soon as they arrived - up to 2,000 at a time. The SS had perfected oven technology. For the first time they could exterminate humans as fast as the killed them. (Something to do with body fat.)
You can't kill Israelis (Jews) so easily now - they're not prepared to die - and they fight back. Ruthlessly!
So why keep trying? What have all you Israel (Jews) haters achieved for the Palestinians in the past 50 years? Nothing! Their situation has never been worse.
But do you blame yourselves, Corbyn and the like? Is your strategy of violence self defeating? No! We have righteousness on our side, you say - it's all the fault of that vile sub human race - Israelis (Jews). We must just try even harder to exterminate them.
In the last 51 years, I've never, never, never heard a Palestinian supporter even begin to come up with a peace plan. A realistic, honest and workable plan that the whole world can unite behind, willing and hoping that everyone in the Region can put the wasted decades behind them and enjoy living.
Alas! It can never happen however - because of the creation of the worlds greatest anti-civilisation weapon.
The suicide bomb!
p.s. The IRA gave up violence. Now Northern Ireland prospers and they live in peace. Oh! Just forget I said that - I'm just wasting my breath. You just cary on doing your thing, Mr Corbyn. Oh! and by the way - I've just heard there's another propossed road bypass that needs protesting about. " I'll be there! With my indignation. Happy days".
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
As someone who would love to see Labour back in power or at least fighting for the best possible outcome to the Brexit situation, Corbyn as Labour leader is a tragedy.
He is where he is not thanks to his personality or quality but purely because of arithmetic. As soon as a left-winger was added to the ballot for the Labour leadership, he or she couldn't lose, because the other three candidates were politically too similar and were bound to split the moderate vote.
Then, once elected, he began to reveal his flaws - from attitudes that were all-too-prevalent in 1970s politics (such as knee-jerk dislike of the USA and Israel, and unthinking support for the IRA and any anti-Israeli cause you can name) to his slow-witted reactions at PMQs, missing open goals and failing to ask proper follow-up questions.
He did better than expected in the last general election partly because many idealistic young voters thought he was something he wasn't - ie a remainer - and partly because the Tories mounted one of the most inept and misguided election campaigns in history. So now we appear to be stuck with him, and look at the results - Labour should be 20 points ahead in the polls but are more or less neck-and-neck with the internally-warring Conservatives.
I'm afraid this failure to realise what a mess he's in over the wreath-laying and deal with the situation decisively is just what you'd expect of him.
He is where he is not thanks to his personality or quality but purely because of arithmetic. As soon as a left-winger was added to the ballot for the Labour leadership, he or she couldn't lose, because the other three candidates were politically too similar and were bound to split the moderate vote.
Then, once elected, he began to reveal his flaws - from attitudes that were all-too-prevalent in 1970s politics (such as knee-jerk dislike of the USA and Israel, and unthinking support for the IRA and any anti-Israeli cause you can name) to his slow-witted reactions at PMQs, missing open goals and failing to ask proper follow-up questions.
He did better than expected in the last general election partly because many idealistic young voters thought he was something he wasn't - ie a remainer - and partly because the Tories mounted one of the most inept and misguided election campaigns in history. So now we appear to be stuck with him, and look at the results - Labour should be 20 points ahead in the polls but are more or less neck-and-neck with the internally-warring Conservatives.
I'm afraid this failure to realise what a mess he's in over the wreath-laying and deal with the situation decisively is just what you'd expect of him.
The Blairite Chair of the Labour Jewish Movement wants to investigate Corbyn's undeclared hotel bills from that trip to Tunisia. Well over the £500 a day, I think that's right, when they must be declared. NOT linked to wreath laying but the conference at that time. Fair enough but is he the right man?
An honest, peaceful man who has never sold/advised on armaments using his contacts as junior Minister of Defence and is one of the few expenses fiddling MPs who never paid back his falsely spent expenses. Stand forward ex Leader of Brighton Council Mr Ivor Caplin.
What a mess.
An honest, peaceful man who has never sold/advised on armaments using his contacts as junior Minister of Defence and is one of the few expenses fiddling MPs who never paid back his falsely spent expenses. Stand forward ex Leader of Brighton Council Mr Ivor Caplin.
What a mess.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,878
I'm not sure referring to Tooting Gull as a "Jew Hater" really adds to the debate.
Idiot.
Kinnock had a MUCH harder time than Corbyn. I liked Kinnock. 'Alright!'? He was a bit of a ****, but most politicians are. Corbyn, however, is naive (at best) and deluded at worst. That is the last thing you want from a PM.
Human rights can be 'fixed' in the blink of an eye. You just make various shades of being acunt to your fellow humans illegal.
Running an actual country, however, needs Keir Starmer. Or someone similar who hasn't spent his life in pursuit of 'exotic' legover. (or dull but sumptuous legover - Boris).
You’re playing with semantics.
I will happily concede that the event was not just a commemoration of the “Munich terrorism event”; will you concede that a wreath was laid at the graves of the alleged ring-leaders of that event? I ask because JC has said it was.
“Jeremy Corbyn has said he was present but not involved at a wreath-laying for individuals behind the group that carried out the Munich Olympic massacre, a partial admission that has led to a row with Israel’s prime minister.
The Labour leader had been asked if Palestinian leaders linked to the Black September terror group were also honoured at a memorial event he attended in Tunisia in 2014, at which victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike in Tunis were remembered.
Jeremy Corbyn said “a wreath was indeed laid” for “some of those who were killed in Paris in 1992” and added in response to a question: “I was present at that wreath-laying, I don’t think I was actually involved in it.””
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....volved-munich-olympics-massacre-wreath-laying
Brian Fantana
Well-known member
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...2014-tunisia-wreath-laying-ceremony-t5rgh0jp5
It doesn’t get any better for him, does it.
A group who carried out an axe attack on a synagogue a month later killing, amongst others, a British rabbi.
It doesn’t get any better for him, does it.
A group who carried out an axe attack on a synagogue a month later killing, amongst others, a British rabbi.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
To be honest, I wasn't sure if this was a spoof post along the lines of one of Sacha Baron Cohen's wilder 'Who Is America' creations.
I actually thought comparing the Jeremy Corbyn witch-hunt to the Holocaust was the real low point. Either way...a bit mad, and not worth a proper reply.
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
Thanks for posting that - I had not actually seen the full list before. It is a rather muddled list of points, tbh
To the man in the street, 'anti-Semitism' means 'racism against Jewish people', surely?
The top three sentences on this list broadly cover it, I'd have thought?
Most of the rest seem less clear, to me.
It talks of the 'right of self-determination' of 'the Jewish people', and uses the existence of the State of Israel as its example, and yet further down it has conflating 'the people' with 'the (actions of) State', itself on the banned list. Which is it to be?
To question the scope or some detail of the Holocaust is not BY DEFINITION anti-Semitic, though the reasons for questioning it might very well be so, in many cases.
It could be that SOME Jewish people actually ARE more loyal to the State of Israel than their own nations? Some might even agree with the suggestion. To ponder that of those individuals surely couldn't be considered anti-Semitic? There are Australian citizens of Italian (only one example) descent who are possibly more loyal to Italy than to Australia. It isn't considered racist to muse on that.
The Nazi one is problematic, too. Taking it to it's logical extreme, Israel could adopt the swastika, build concentration camps, gas gypsies, arrest academics, burn books and invade Poland, and it would be considered 'anti-semitic' to draw comparisons.
There are.plenty of people in this country who.are far more loyal to the countries. that their heritage stems from than they ever will be to GB
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
And you really believe he supported the IRA? Prove it. With evidence. Actual hard evidence. If you can’t then it’d be your views that are beyond mockery.
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
And Theresa May invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Downing Street in March. The head of a country that is currently committing war crimes in Yemen. Difference is May knows about it whilst JC probably didn’t even know who Taher was. But again, let’s ignore the complicity of our own government in war crimes and continue to scrutinise a picture from 4 years ago.