Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......

[Tubey]

Tubey - the PM said, at the despatch box, that the Tory Party (which is not the British Government, however much it thinks it is) had specifically signed up to the IHRA definition of antisemitism and all its annexes.

On what date did that signing-up take place?

How aren't you getting this... I'll try again. The issue was such a non-issue for the Tories that May simply assumed it had already been adopted, because they - in government - had adopted for the UK and their rulebook blanket covers anti-semitism.

The fact it didn't explicity state adherance to that exact set of rules was fixed in 5 minutes because obviously that was always the intent (given they adopted it for the country), whereas Labour deliberately omit part of that rulebook.

So saying May "lied" about this is ludicrous semantics and an obvious deflection from the real issue.

 

[Tubey]

The Labour Party, as a body, is not anti-Israeli. If France, or Ireland were to enact the same sort of policies - we'd be equally as harsh on them too.

Personally speaking, I don't believe in a two state solution. For that to exist, you need both sides to agree to it - something that'll never happen. If I had it my way, I'd have the entire place UN-controlled, with the look of creating a single wholly democratic "Israeli-Palestinian" state. But I also understand that I am of the minority within the Labour Party, and that's ok.

There you go - nail on head. So if official Labour policy isn't being anti-Israel, then they shouldn't be omitting the Israel-relevant part of that definition should they?

But they are, because Corbyn is anti-Israel, so they're trying to weasel through half-measures again and creating ambiguity.

It's just common sense at this point and it should be a "yeah, Corbyn has ballsed this up" acknowledgement from anyone with a semblance of objectivity, but it's scarily akin to Trump - fault simply can't be found with dear leader, no matter how obvious it is.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/colum...ns-makes-brexit-look-straightforward-1.450433

Corbyn and Labour are a joke on this issue - it's not weakness to just admit it.

 

[Tubey]

er - that would probably be a breach of Labour's definition of antisemitism, as well as the IHRA's.

Correct - so that's probably why Corbyn doesn't want to sign up to it right? Because it's actually define him as an anti-semite if you look at the clauses.

By the by, I actually agree with Corbyn on this! I think the Israel related clauses should be removed - my criticism of him is that he's not just sticking to his guns and clearly explaining why this is the case. It's poor leadership.

 

[tsubaki]

How aren't you getting this... I'll try again. The issue was such a non-issue for the Tories that May simply assumed it had already been adopted, because they - in government - had adopted for the UK and their rulebook blanket covers anti-semitism.

The fact it didn't explicity state adherance to that exact set of rules was fixed in 5 minutes because obviously that was always the intent (given they adopted it for the country), whereas Labour deliberately omit part of that rulebook.

So saying May "lied" about this is ludicrous semantics and an obvious deflection from the real issue.

Tubey - the rulebook did not "blanket cover anti-semitism"; it blanket covered discrimination based on religion; and given some of the criticisms by Warsi et al it is a perfectly valid question to ask how effective that is.

As for the rest, she specifically said that the Tory Party had signed up to the IHRA definition and its annexes. When did that take place? It is a simple question.

 

[peteblue]

This is a lie, tantamount to slander.

Excerpt from the actual Labour NEC report:

"Care must be taken when dealing with these topics. The fact of Israel’s description as a Jewish state does not make it permissible to hold Jewish people or institutions in general responsible for alleged misconduct on the part of that state (see paragraph 9.g.). In addition, it is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others – a form of racist treatment also all too common in other contexts, eg. holding Muslims or Muslim organisations to a higher standard than others as regards condemnation of illegal or violent acts by self-defining “Islamic” organisations or states (such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). It is also wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."



As for the second point, it is not anti-Semitic to draw parallels between a previous fascist regime and the political actions of the state of Israel.

Moreover, if I were to stand up in public and articulate a belief in the formation of a homogeneous ethnonationalistic state - I would be rightfully castigated as a racist and thrown out of the Labour Party immediately. What's with this exceptionalism?

If it’s a lie, tantamount to slander then why have Labour not sued the Guardian, from which it came.....

 

[Number_25]

There you go - nail on head. So if official Labour policy isn't being anti-Israel, then they shouldn't be omitting the Israel-relevant part of that definition should they?

Because the state of Israel and Jews as a people are two distinct things.

But they are, because Corbyn is anti-Israel, so they're trying to weasel through half-measures again and creating ambiguity.

Corbyn, like the vast majority for Labour Party members are anti-apartheid.

It's just common sense at this point and it should be a "yeah, Corbyn has ballsed this up" acknowledgement from anyone with a semblance of objectivity, but it's scarily akin to Trump - fault simply can't be found with dear leader, no matter how obvious it is.

I actually don't particularly like Corbyn. I dream of the day that an inspirational working class person leads the party - and will do anything in my power to ensure that it happens.

But what I dislike more are lies.

 

[Number_25]

If it’s a lie, tantamount to slander then why have Labour not sued the Guardian, from which it came.....

Because idiots like you will start banging on about how Labour has become Stalinist and anti-free press.

 

[tsubaki]

Correct - so that's probably why Corbyn doesn't want to sign up to it right? Because it's actually define him as an anti-semite if you look at the clauses.

By the by, I actually agree with Corbyn on this! I think the Israel related clauses should be removed - my criticism of him is that he's not just sticking to his guns and clearly explaining why this is the case. It's poor leadership.

Well no, because I don't think Corbyn is anti-Israel - at least in the sense that is ascribed to him.

He probably abhors what was done in 1947 and since, and the ongoing injustice that the Palestinians face, but to say that he would like Israel to be removed / "wiped off the map" to use the favourite phrase and that he stands in opposition to it as a state (in and of itself) is far too much. If anything he probably would like some form of state whereby both groups live in peace, live together and are governed democratically and fairly - however wildly implausible that is.

 

[peteblue]

Because idiots like you will start banging on about how Labour has become Stalinist and anti-free press.

As Tubey, with the patience of a saint, keeps pointing out, this should not be an issue but Labour keep digging a big hole by both actions and inactions. But it won’t change because you all keep defending the indefensible.....

 

[Tubey]

Tubey - the rulebook did not "blanket cover anti-semitism"; it blanket covered discrimination based on religion; and given some of the criticisms by Warsi et al it is a perfectly valid question to ask how effective that is.

As for the rest, she specifically said that the Tory Party had signed up to the IHRA definition and its annexes. When did that take place? It is a simple question.

Two answers obviously - the Tories assumed they did when the UK government signed up to it, and didn't update their handbook. And they officially did so about five minutes after it was brought to their attention.

It's a complete non-issue, and certainly not a lie. A lie has to be intentional.

 

[Tubey]

Well no, because I don't think Corbyn is anti-Israel...

OK, I'm done.

 

[tsubaki]

Two answers obviously - the Tories assumed they did when the UK government signed up to it, and didn't update their handbook. And they officially did so about five minutes after it was brought to their attention.

It's a complete non-issue, and certainly not a lie. A lie has to be intentional.

The fact that it was an answer to a planted question at PMQs would strongly suggest it was intentional.

 

[tsubaki]

OK, I'm done.

hang on, aren't you anti-Israel as well then?

 

[Number_25]

As Tubey, with the patience of a saint, keeps pointing out, this should not be an issue but Labour keep digging a big hole by both actions and inactions. But it won’t change because you all keep defending the indefensible.....

I'm not defending anything.

I absolutely abhor every single form of racism. Racism is a cancer, systemic of a rotten, unjust society.

I have made it my prerogative to stand up against racism, and work toward making society a more just place.

Stopping people from calling out the unjust actions of a nation, of which has close economic and political ties to our own does nothing to resolve these issues - if anything only further entrenching people on the issue.

People like you are the causality of the cancer, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it - despite your obvious distaste of the direct consequences of the cancer spreading.

Get real.

This goes beyond politics.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So it's not a lie is it - it blanket covers religion and the UK is signed up to those definitions, meaning the Tory rulebook aligns with it.

The Tories just accept the definitions as common sense; whereas Labour have chosen to conscious omit parts of the definition because they ideologically want to be anti-Israel due to the politics of their leader.

Furthermore, when brought to their attention, they updated it immediately because they had absolutely no reason not to, as they already aligned with it.

He's sadly made quite a habit out of sitting on the fence, which goes against his being a man of principles.