peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Not really, the product is the product......
Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......
- Thread starter peteblue
- Start date
- Status
Not really, the product is the product......
Yes and a definition is a definition. Examples of what might fall into that definition are extras.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It’s standard definition, accepted by everyone except Corbyn. How or even why you attempt to defend this just highlights the foolishness pervading parts of the Labour Party.....
But it's not accepted by everyone is it... The fact that you think it is suggests you neither read not understand anything related to it other than tabloid press.
The Conservative Party quietly adopted it in July while they were mud slinging. Since it's original drafting it's been a source of controversy and debate among a number of different bodies.
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/30jewishgroupsbds/
Here's a number of Jewish organisations opposing it.
I find it rather odd and troubling that a definition, from an organisation which at its genesis was about education, collaboration and unity in its attempts to prevent holocaust denial and genocide and a rise of neo Nazism is being used as a weapon by those that support a fascistic government in Israel and who want a way to bash Jeremy Corbyn because calling him a scruffy get and a Communist hasn't done much damage. I think it's dangerous and sets a bad precedent for the freedom of speech and challenge (which I notice the free speech mob of Tommy Robinson's mob are oddly silent on - almost like they aren't actually bothered about free speech unless it's freedom to shout at Muslims).
Corbyn has many faults, and he's taken an odd stance in staying silent on what should be a debate on the issue. But claiming the Labour is anti Semitic because, in parts, it challenges Israel, is stupidity.
Last edited:
Is there a reason why yesterday the state controlled BBC showed theJewish Labour Movements conference? Maybe Gordon Brown had a few too many because Labour has adopted the IHRA definition in full. But not all the examples.
Are people allowed under the IHRA and its' examples to accuse'a leading member of the Jewish community (Keith Joseph) applying Nazi attitudes to the poor' as Frank Fields did in 1993 in an interview in the Independent. Without being called anti semitic?
Are people allowed under the IHRA and its' examples to accuse'a leading member of the Jewish community (Keith Joseph) applying Nazi attitudes to the poor' as Frank Fields did in 1993 in an interview in the Independent. Without being called anti semitic?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Good post btw......I have no problem with challenging Israel, they behave like state terrorists. I do have a problem with British Jews being tarred with the same brush or sly accusations of British Jews supporting Israel over Britain......
Labour's IHRA implementation prevents people from doing so.
There's a huge misunderstanding taking place Pete. I hope you understand this.
Absolutely unacceptable and anyone that does deserves rightly called out on it.
The irritation for me is the complete lack of nuance. Zionism, Pro-Israeli state are two separate things and yet I see them conflated in left wing rhetoric all the time. My issue is with the Israeli State in its current guise, which i think is where most of Corbyn's supporters fall, the problem is ill education among people who are motivated politically because they feel they should be but fail to see political nuance.
One big criticism I have with Corbyn across his politics is assuming that his supporters, especially a number of younger voters, are aware of his politics and stance on a number of issues. He leaves it ambiguous and let's what, in some cases, is actually a naïve line of thought pervade.. This issue is one of them...
Israel, Zionism, Judaism all conflated in naïve arguments so it's easier for his opponents to counter that 'its all anti-Semitism' without allowing debate.
I don't think it does. I think the IHRA definition is sound, when you examine it closely. When you apply no nuance to it and politicise it, then it becomes a problem.
The definition itself was designed as a means of standardising data collection about antisemitic hate crime, and was never meant to be used as a regulatory accessory to curb free speech. It stops Jewish people the right to express a belief that Israel has no right to exist, which is regressive in the extreme sense of the word.
It is still just a definition of Anti Semitism. Whatever political agenda attached to it or its use as anything other than that is not the problem with the definition.
I'm merely stating a fact.
One of the issues I have with vast definitions like this is that it provides zero ground for nuance.
Oh, and despite my own concerns, Labour have adopted the definition in whole - just not the examples.
It's not meant to. It's designed to give a definition of what Anti Semitism is. The problem is that it has become a political tool.
The definition is bearable, but the examples go into extremes that I'd rather the Labour Party stood up against - instead of (again) giving in on the issue.
- Status