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

[Tubey]

Was standing up to apartheid South Africa anti-South African?

Give me one example of anti-Semitism that isn't covered by Labour's implementation of the IHRA definition. Go on.

There's one in that very quote I just gave.

Just replace the word "jew" with "zionist" and you have free reign to do what you like. So you can abuse a Jew as long as you use Israel as the pretext for doing so, with the victim then having to prove "intent" - again, to use that well written article, "whatever that means".

Are the vast majority of Jews wrong on this issue because you've spoke with Corbyn about it mate? Or is it perhaps an inherent bias you have that makes you not see the wood for the trees here?

 

[Jebus_lives]

There's one in that very quote I just gave.

Just replace the word "jew" with "zionist" and you have free reign to do what you like. So you can abuse a Jew as long as you use Israel as the pretext for doing so, with the victim then having to prove "intent" - again, to use that well written article, "whatever that means".

Are the vast majority of Jews wrong on this issue because you've spoke with Corbyn about it mate? Or is it perhaps an inherent bias you have that makes you not see the wood for the trees here?

This rather does assume that any other action could not be covered under other party rules. It's like arguing that one law is completely siloed from another. In reality the stance Labour have taken is one which seeks to allow political comment and opposition to Israel while also taking a stance against anti-Semitism. The abuse or targeting of a member because of their religion is not acceptable under the rules and neither would be calling someone a 'zionist bitch'.

The IHRA definition is not endorsed in law or mandatory and can be adopted in part. I think it's perfectly acceptable to adopt the good parts while questioning the ones which aren't so good.

I also don't fully understand why a party and political movement which, historically seeks to promote humanitarianism and 'political correctness' would suddenly become anti Semitic. Anti Israel yes, anti Semitic is people throwing enough muck in the hope it sticks.

 

[Tubey]

This rather does assume that any other action could not be covered under other party rules. It's like arguing that one law is completely siloed from another. In reality the stance Labour have taken is one which seeks to allow political comment and opposition to Israel while also taking a stance against anti-Semitism. The abuse or targeting of a member because of their religion is not acceptable under the rules and neither would be calling someone a 'zionist bitch'.

The IHRA definition is not endorsed in law or mandatory and can be adopted in part. I think it's perfectly acceptable to adopt the good parts while questioning the ones which aren't so good.

I also don't fully understand why a party and political movement which, historically seeks to promote humanitarianism and 'political correctness' would suddenly become anti Semitic. Anti Israel yes, anti Semitic is people throwing enough muck in the hope it sticks.

I don't think people are reading what I'm saying...

I've said myself that I think they should be amended. I think I've said it about four times now.

The problem isn't that; it's that Corbyn isn't coming out and saying what his and by proxy the Labour party position is and being honest about why they are removing those amendments.

The reason is because they are anti-Israel. That's fine, but just come out and say it instead of pretending they are not and trying to slip stuff like this in through the back door, because by doing this the suspicion is that they are not just against the apartheid-style antics of Netanyahu et al; instead, it looks like they are raving mad anti-semites, because they're acting like they're terrified of admitting what they are doing and why they are doing it.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I don't think people are reading what I'm saying...

I've said myself that I think they should be amended. I think I've said it about four times now.

The problem isn't that; it's that Corbyn isn't coming out and saying what his and by proxy the Labour party position is and being honest about why they are removing those amendments.

The reason is because they are anti-Israel. That's fine, but just come out and say it instead of pretending they are not and trying to slip stuff like this in through the back door, because by doing this the suspicion is that they are not just against the apartheid-style antics of Netanyahu et al; instead, it looks like they are raving mad anti-semites, because they're acting like they're terrified of admitting what they are doing and why they are doing it.

I understand exactly the point and I agree. The main issue I see is that publicly it's a disaster among uninformed voters to say 'i am opposed to Israel's and you intensify the anti Semitism claims.

Corbyn is not one for outlining his position clearly on a lot of things (brexit being one of them), I think he expects you to infer it from his history -which is all well and good when you are a backbencher but not as party leader.

Personally I think he needs to do more to address the people that seem to undermine the parties position on Anti Semitism in blind adherence to its leadership.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

There have been loads in the press so do you own googling.

An obviously anti Corbyn press owned by tax dodging multi millionaires. Yeah Ok.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

I don't think people are reading what I'm saying...

I've said myself that I think they should be amended. I think I've said it about four times now.

The problem isn't that; it's that Corbyn isn't coming out and saying what his and by proxy the Labour party position is and being honest about why they are removing those amendments.

The reason is because they are anti-Israel. That's fine, but just come out and say it instead of pretending they are not and trying to slip stuff like this in through the back door, because by doing this the suspicion is that they are not just against the apartheid-style antics of Netanyahu et al; instead, it looks like they are raving mad anti-semites, because they're acting like they're terrified of admitting what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Never a clearer definition of fake news or Whataboutery as it was once known. And if I cared to took back, probably rooted by inate dislike Corbyn and policy.

Corbyn is on public record as being committed to two state solution...

 

[Tubey]

Never a clearer definition of fake news or Whataboutery as it was once known. And if I cared to took back, probably rooted by inate dislike Corbyn and policy.

Corbyn is on public record as being committed to two state solution...

Hahaha yeah OK... no secret I don't like Corbyn, but on this issue I actually hold the same view as him.

The difference is I'm not the leader of a political party that officially holds the exact opposite view as he as leader does.

That's not fake news.

 

[Tubey]

I understand exactly the point and I agree. The main issue I see is that publicly it's a disaster among uninformed voters to say 'i am opposed to Israel's and you intensify the anti Semitism claims.

Corbyn is not one for outlining his position clearly on a lot of things (brexit being one of them), I think he expects you to infer it from his history -which is all well and good when you are a backbencher but not as party leader.

Personally I think he needs to do more to address the people that seem to undermine the parties position on Anti Semitism in blind adherence to its leadership.

The bold bit is precisely the problem - it's a fear of coming out and being principled in what he's doing, because he'd get slated for it.

But ultimately that's about being capable as a leader and politician of being able to define the difference between being against the land grabs and apartheid of Netanyahu and being an anti-semite; being able to sell your vision of what Israel could and should be.

Instead, he's just half-arsing around doing nothing and letting the whole situation fester and get worse.

He's supposed to be a man of principles yet as you say he refuses to outline his principles clearly over and over again.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Hahaha yeah OK... no secret I don't like Corbyn, but on this issue I actually hold the same view as him.

The difference is I'm not the leader of a political party that officially holds the exact opposite view as he as leader does.

That's not fake news.

Corbyn is fully committed to two state solution. There are many similar factual qoutes to be found!

"There has to be a peace process, and there has to be a right of the Palestinian people to live in peace, as well as the right of Israel.". Jeremy Corbyn June 2018

You may have missed the reporting of his visit last month (June 2018) while visiting refugees in Jordan....

 

[Jebus_lives]

The bold bit is precisely the problem - it's a fear of coming out and being principled in what he's doing, because he'd get slated for it.

But ultimately that's about being capable as a leader and politician of being able to define the difference between being against the land grabs and apartheid of Netanyahu and being an anti-semite; being able to sell your vision of what Israel could and should be.

Instead, he's just half-arsing around doing nothing and letting the whole situation fester and get worse.

He's supposed to be a man of principles yet as you say he refuses to outline his principles clearly over and over again.

I think it's fairly easy to highlight Israeli wrongdoing, the main issue Corbyn, and anyone on the left, has, is that once you do it; the right and media hold it up as double standards: those who lack the ability to understand nuance and those that want change to centrist politics jump on it and join the mob. Pro Israeli politicians and pro Israeli Jews will use it as a way to unsettle and disrupt and conflate anti semitism and anti Israel concerns.

Margaret Hodge et al know Corbyn is not an anti Semite, as do the likes of Sajid Javid. The problem is, that one anti Semite in the party and movement, is one too many, and allows the whattaboutism to be generated and the right wing, who actually do have a long standing anti Semitic history, to say, 'forget about our racism, you expect it from us, but look at their racism, it's double standards'.

 

[peteblue]

Was standing up to apartheid South Africa anti-South African?

Give me one example of anti-Semitism that isn't covered by Labour's implementation of the IHRA definition. Go on.

I gave you a couple the other day from the guardian......

 

[Number_25]

I gave you a couple the other day from the guardian......

And I responded:

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?

 

[Blue 1]

Interesting to point out that the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, espouses the view that "in the "battle to save western civilisation", the "Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy ".

The reason for all of this stuff is Corbyn's vocal support for BDS. The Israelis are effing terrified of him getting into power.

 

[tsubaki]

Interesting to point out that the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, espouses the view that "in the "battle to save western civilisation", the "Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy ".

The reason for all of this stuff is Corbyn's vocal support for BDS. The Israelis are effing terrified of him getting into power.

TBH I doubt the Israelis are that bothered - we were not that important anyway and after Brexit our one useful role (to counter what pro-Palestinian feeling exists in the EU) will have gone as well (ironically replaced by the likes of Orban, who actually is someone to cause existential fear to a community). If Corbyn did win a GE they probably (correctly) assume he would be too busy dealing with the colossal mess that he had been left rather than to lead some fantasy BDS movement.

The reason why the likes of Pollard - who has been anti-left since long before Corbyn became leader - are involved is a lot more likely to be in order to support the right wing faction in the Labour Party (who he has always supported) rather than because of what Corbyn would do as PM. That lot know they'll be on last orders if Corbyn sweeps the NEC and so this is their only hope of getting rid of him; don't forget the vast majority of Corbyn antisemitism scandals - the row at the Chakrabarti press conference, the mural, the Hodge spat - have actually started within / been "exposed" by that faction.

 

[peteblue]

And I responded:

And yet neither Corbyn nor Labour have sued the Guardian......