You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Israeli politics in often very racist. I have had to cut off contact with two jewish friends of mine as I could no longer stomach their racism.
The definitions / examples from IHRA are clearly intended to stifle any critism of Israel. I wouldn't sign up to that.
If absolutely must bring the Nazis into every criticism of Israel then you are an anti-Semite
It is hard not to separate the state of Israel from the holocaust and it is also hard to separate the actions of the Israeli state from the horrors of the holocaust is it not. We should learn from history and try to not make the same mistakes shouldnt we? Some of the actions of tge Isrealis are not doubt driven by fear of what came before and could come again and to ignore that is dangerous imo.
@ tjagain - so regarding IHRA do you believe that the 45 countries, the Permanent International Partners organizations including the UN, the EU and all the different organisations, groups and survivors involved have all got it wrong and you are right? Or are you confusing anti semitism with anti zionism?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">williamnot
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">good job I don’t answer to you then Kimbers. But there are enough examples of this on the thread already.
If absolutely must bring the Nazis into every criticism of Israel then you are an anti-Semite
</div>
OK i can agree with that , though is this done routinely within labour ?
I just wanted to see some examples of the behaviour that led you to quit the party
involved have all got it wrong and you are right?
Or people simply gave up the will to disagree with it?
I have problems with that definition as it gives special protection that other groups do not have. then again it also sounds a lot worse to list the things Israel is doing without using the N word so it goes both ways.
You know, ethnic cleansing, creation of ghettos, summary executions of opponents, collective punishment of innocents, that sort of thing.
The examples cited have been perpetrated by pretty much every European nation, why use the Nazis as the example? Well, some (but not all), people do so in order to draw a comparison between the Jewish people and the Nazis in order to either excuse the actions of the Nazis during WW2 or to paint Jewish people in a bad light. Given it is really easy to criticise Israel without mentioning the Nazis, I don't see the problem:
Israel has, on many occasions blown up the houses of the families of suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorists. Collective punishments are a war crime under the 1949 Geneva conventions. Israel is a signatory to the conventions. I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me that the state of Israel is guilty of a war crime, just like, for instance, the British (also a signatory), during the Mau Mau Emergency in the fifties.
piha.
I certainly would not sign up to something that equates anti isreal ( or anti zionist) with anti semitism. so yes I think it is wrong. Personal view.
No I am not confusing the different terms. I have been involved with fight predjudice all my life.
Isreal is guilty of numerous war rimes and is in violation of multiple UN resolutions IIRC
Its not just blowing up suicide bombers houses. Its destroying all civil infrastructure used by Palestinians deliberately and also cutting food imports to a level whereby malnutrition is inevitable.
@ Mike - then shouldn't we extend that definition to other groups rather than water it down as Labour appear to be doing?
have all got it wrong and you are right?
Well its worth noting that the person who originally came up with those examples isnt too keen on how they are used,.
Its not just the Labour party, its also the PSOE in Spain, and the Democrats in the US, all sharing a similar situation.
In my opinion:
1. Conservative parties shifted very much to the center, forcing leftist parties into more extreme political views so that they are differentiated.
2. 35% of Labour voted for Brexit, voters which Labour may be too scared to alienate. Also, wasn't Corbyn a bit of an eurosceptic?
3.Middle-class and upper-class liberal message does not mix well with the working class "fight for our rights" message, add a little bit of pandering to minorities and you get a very very strange mix.
However its not like the other side is doing much better in terms of leadership, Conservative have to reconcilate within the party the fact that their money making machine (London), may take a huge hit after Brexit, however this is what 60% of their voter base wanted. The only thing going for them, is that they are predictable-other than in Brexit.
Why should we if it's a valid comparison of what is going on?
If it was any other nation out there we would see UN peace keepers and and resolutions that would be enforced.
If those claiming anti Semitic language would like to join in and help stop some of the crimes being committed we would have a positive step forward rather than arguing while people are actually dying
Or are you confusing anti semitism with anti zionism?
many in the jewish community would have you believe they are one and the same
but it looks to me that the state of Israel is guilty of a war crime, just like, for instance, the British (also a signatory), during the Mau Mau Emergency in the fifties.
So is your point that the Israelis don't mind being accused of war crimes as long as it's not nazi war crimes? That would seem a bit silly to me. If you're a war cirminal, you don't get to choose the nature of the criticism against you.
He then asks those at the meeting to raise their hands if they had witnessed anti-Semitism in the Labour party - and said he was "amazed" when some said they had.
Awkward. 🙂
For people who spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet I can't believe you find it so difficult to find evidence. Labour against Antisemitism has reported 1,200 members for disciplinary proceedings for antisemitism and have a backlog of a further 1,000 cases that they are working on. @GnasherJew details on Twitter details 64 cases of Labour officials making antisemitic comments.
As for the IHRA it merely says the describing the Israel's formation as a racist endeavour is antisemitic and comparing Israeli actions to the Nazis, who after all murdered 6 million of their kin, as antsemitic. This does not in anyway preclude criticism of Israel or its policies, we are after all blessed with a language with one of the biggest vocabularies in the world so there are plenty of other ways to do it.
The fundamental problem is Corbyn is dim and not intellectually agile enough to realise that many of those he has shared platforms with for years and years are anti semitic and he takes an criticism of them as a personal attack as he is thin skinned as well. McDonnell is much smarter and robust.
For people who spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet I can’t believe you find it so difficult to find it so difficult to find evidence. Labour against Antisemitism has reported 1,200 members for disciplinary proceedings for antisemitism and have a backlog of a further 1,000 cases that they are working on. @GnasherJew details on Twitter details 64 cases of Labour officials making antisemitic comments.
I asked for impartial and independently verified comments sorry, the number reported tells us just that, doesn't tell us what they said etc. The twitter feed again is one side of it.
The fundamental problem is Corbyn is dim and not intellectually agile enough to realise that many of those he has shared platforms with for years and years are anti semitic and he takes an criticism of them as a personal attack as he is thin skinned as well.
He has got himself into a corner on it, but it's also being blown way out of proportion.
I assume you also have the list of comments/statements that are anti Islamic?
So is your point that the Israelis don’t mind being accused of war crimes as long as it’s not nazi war crimes?
No, thats not my point at all.
I'm saying that sometimes anti-Semites compare Israel's actions to the Nazis in order the denigrate the Jewish people and minimize the crimes committed by the Nazis.
I think the Israeli state, like many others, including the one I am a citizen of, commits crimes, we can and should be vocal about that without exception.
As for the IHRA it merely says the describing the Israel’s formation as a racist endeavour is antisemitic and comparing Israeli actions to the Nazis, who after all murdered 6 million of their kin, as antsemitic
Anti-Semitism. The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish
If I compare Israel's action to the Nazi's (and clearly some of the actions are comparable) that does not mean I am being hostile to Jews, I am being hostile to the Israeli government just as when I am hostile toward teh UK government does not mean I am being hostile to the people that live in the country (from many races)
Having said that, I wouldn't stick to my guns about it as it is pedantry that would not help my cause against a media that will use anything they can to try and cause damage.
I’m saying that sometimes anti-Semites compare Israel’s actions to the Nazis in order the denigrate the Jewish people and minimize the crimes committed by the Nazis.
and sometimes people don't have that intent at all, bit bad to start branding them all as Anti Semites isn't it.
Having said that, I wouldn’t stick to my guns about it as it is pedantry that would not help my cause against a media that will use anything they can to try and cause damage.
this!
From the IHRA definition ; Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
It surprises me that some in the labour party can’t understand how doing this is an attempt to make the crimes committed by the Nazis some how less bad than they actually were. It is a ‘yes the Nazis were bad but look the Jews are bad as well’ type argument.
You do realise that this is in the Labour code of conduct, right?
I guess not - which illustrates the problem. The press present a uniform view of the situation which is at variance with the facts, and people who don't have time to check the background accept it as truth. How can Corbyn or anyone else respond in this situation?
In fact ninfan has it right (there, I said it) - Trump tells lies but they are effective in that they have his opponents running round in circles refuting them, meanwhile he has moved on to something else.
Why do you think the overt racist nature of many in the Tories is not the centre of press attention in the same way?
and sometimes people don’t have that intent at all, bit bad to start branding them all as Anti Semites isn’t it.
Agreed, but there is the flips side to this - clearly some people try to stifle criticism of Israel by calling anyone who does so an anti-semite, using the Nazi comparison plays right into their hands. There are alternative comparisons which work just as well.
Really? What is a better comparison to the conditions in Gaza - imprisonment of an entire people, subject to random attacks by a well armed military and kept short of medicines and food than the Warsaw ghetto?
Those who don't think this is a political attack on Corbyn please answer
"why is the overt racism and islamophobia in the tory party not the subject of such press attention?" Its a far bigger issue
The Jewish Socialists' Group expresses its serious concern at the rise of antisemitism, especially under extreme right wing governments in central and Eastern Europe, in America under Donald Trump’s Presidency and here in Britain under Theresa May’s premiership. The recent extensive survey by the highly respected Jewish Policy Research confirmed that the main repository of antisemitic views in Britain is among supporters of the Conservative Party and UKIP.
These accusations have come from the unrepresentative Board of Deputies and the unelected, self-proclaimed “Jewish Leadership Council”, two bodies dominated by supporters of the Tory Party.
As Helen Lewis says today in that Tory rag the New Statesman
"There is nothing left to say on Labour’s anti-Semitism row. If you don’t think there is a problem by this point, then surely nothing can change your mind. In fact, you are the problem."
Anyway I will leave you to your little bubble which is frankly a cesspit of bigotry, but hey, we don’t link to the Daily Mail.
Does that mean it's time to move on to the Tory party then? Be good for them to take a long hard look at their various Anti problems really.
So mefty - no answer to the questions I raised? No comment on the piece quoted? Just resort to name calling?
“why is the overt racism and islamophobia in the tory party not the subject of such press attention?” Its a far bigger issue
As I pointed out earlier, it was in the press for a day a few months ago but then quickly forgotten about. Maybe May did a deal with Dacre to stop doing it.
Imagine an alternative world when all the papers were anti tory - the amount of stories they could run about how the government is screwing the poor, disadvantaged etc,. yet doing a, b and c for the wealthy
They would never need to reach for the made up terrorist sympathiser shit.
I can't see this thread going off the rails at all...
But of course there is no problem there
<p class="story-body__introduction">Theresa May should publicly acknowledge that Islamophobia is a problem in the Conservative Party, former party chairman Baroness Warsi has said.</p>
Parts of the party had been "in denial" about the issue and a "clear statement" was needed about what was to be done to tackle it, she told the BBC.The Muslim Council of Britain has urged the Tories to launch an independent inquiry into alleged Islamophobia.
A Tory spokesman said it took all incidents of Islamophobia seriously.
The Muslim Council of Britain has repeatedly demanded an investigation, and says there are now "more than weekly incidents" involving Tory candidates and representatives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44311092
Racism and islamophobia is far more of an issue in the tory party than antisemitism is in labour. Indeed antisemitism in the tory party is worse than in the labour party
Racism and islamophobia is far more of an issue in the tory party than antisemitism is in labour. Indeed antisemitism in the tory party is worse than in the labour party
You might as well add misogyny while your at it.
I think a thing that helps to keep it in context, is that when Corbyn celebrated Passover with a jewish group that the Board of Deputies doesn't like, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews immediately accused that jewish group of being antisemites.
That's not some lunatic fringe, that's the head of the organisation that's usually considered to be the best spokespeople for British jewry. They're the organisation that the media always turns to for comment. And they accuse fellow jews of being antisemites, purely because it's a convenient weapon.
And yet we're still supposed to take it seriously when they say it about anyone else.
Antisemitism is on the rise- is the real threat the Labour party? Hardly. Part of the problem is that people see racial, ethnic and religious hatred as being somehow compartmentalised, as if an antisemite in the Labour party is different from an islamophobe in UKIP or a racist prime minister who as home secretary presided over the Windrush scandal. But of course it's not, it's all just different heads on the same snake but people who're rightly horrified by one head snuggle up to another because it's biting someone else right now.
When it comes right down to it, if it really properly kicks off and goes this way, as well it might, who are you going to run to for help? The right? Good luck with that.
Just resort to name calling?
There are a number of posters on here who reject the widely accepted IHRA definition of antisemitism because they feel the need to compare Israeli actions to the Nazis. By that definition, that constituents antisemitism and therefore they are essentially self identifying as bigots. In some cases this is hardly news as they have plenty of form.
Anyway I am going to toddle off for a bit as this site pollutes the mind.
tj, everyone expects the Tories to be racist, it's a dog bites man story.
How weak mefty. You do like calling people bigots on no evidence or even against the evidence. Ever looked in a mirror?
The captain. Its not really that. Its the dominance of the tory press.
No doubt there's some truth in that too. But that doesn't excuse the Labour party.
no - but the point is that this is a politically motivated attack on Corbyn led by the right wing press. Racism, anti-Semitism is a far greater issue in the tory party. Labour is attempting to do something about the issues, Tories are not.;
Surely this thread proves that asking any group of people to talk about antisemitism, results in a) some of them saying something antisemitic, either unintentionally or on purpose, and b) some people who are happy to label others as antisemites.
As a group of people, I don't think the labour party are any more antisemetic than any other. Why on earth would they be? However, you might get more "false-positives" because one might expect a greater proportion of corduroy-wearing lefties to be critical of Israel, which might be expressed in a way that leaves the door open (rightly or wrongly) to an accusation of antisemitism.
However, I think the real damage this has done is to show that JC (and the Labour Party) can't successfully manage the situation. Quite the opposite, he/they seem to almost be going out of their way to make it worse.
Personally, I do think that there are some strong parallels between the actions of Israel to that of Nazi Germany, however, if I was in the public eye, I should be intelligent enough to choose a different analogy
Bastfink - its all been phrased in a " have you stopped beating your wife yet?" way - which means there is simply nothing the labour party can do to stop the attacks as no answer will satisfy
^^^^this x 1000
Bugger - my reply was meant to apply to Batfink !😄
Bastfink – its all been phrased in a ” have you stopped beating your wife yet?” way – which means there is simply nothing the labour party can do to stop the attacks as no answer will satisfy
Yeah I quite agree - I think that this has been orchestrated by the Tory press. However, I do think that the Labour Party could have acted sooner and more decisively to prevent it snowballing.
If some body asked you ”have you stopped beating your wife yet?” - could you really not answer that in a way that made clear that you absolutely didn't beat your wife?!?! Have you considered a career in politics? 🙂
Oh dear, in the poo again - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45027582
I really struggle to see what is wrong with what Corbyns done wrong here.
There are a number of posters on here who reject the widely accepted IHRA definition of antisemitism because they feel the need to compare Israeli actions to the Nazis.
Or just reserve the right to. To say you can't sends a clear message that this group and their actions are protected in some way.
But imagine how the people pushing this feel that this is centre of attention, helping to divert criticism and to nullify genuine concerns.
If you do not think this is a direct attack that cares very little for the feelings of actual people but is motivated for political gain then you are very gullible .
Why in the poo, are we saying that any survivor of the camps who does not agree with the definition is wrong? It's not even a story in the real world. What offends you the most about it?
Why on earth would they be? However, you might get more “false-positives” because one might expect a greater proportion of corduroy-wearing lefties to be critical of Israel,
The corduroy wearing lefties aren't the issue. Labour has very strong Muslim support. This wee graph show how various religions voted last time around.
No prizes for guessing which religion that giant orange spike is...And like it as not, some of those voters are fairly and squarely anti-Israel. The problem Corbyn has is that many of the Muslim voters that come out in large numbers are more than happy for him to compare Israel to the Nazi party, and Labour cannot afford to loose that vote.
Anything he does to effect that vote is going to have a big impact next time around. Anything he does to placate the Jewish vote, is nothing by comparison (Labour supporting Jews are a small minority already). Which is why the Labour executive is ummming and ahhing about it all, in politics numbers matter...
It might be a right wing newspaper plot, but it's a very very canny one (and it hits the Labour party pretty hard, because it's an actual issue for them). Support for Islam amongst the UK voters is pretty low right now, but support for Israel is still pretty high, and no-one wants to be an anti Semite, by labelling the Labour party as such, Muslim voters are put off because some of them are very happy for the Labour party to be anti Israel, non muslim voters are put of as they don't want to be seen voting for a party with anti Semitic views and Jews won't vote for a party that contains a group of folk who're so anti Israel. It's the perfect plot.
Labour can't hit back with "Your Muslim problem is just as bad" as it's whataboutry.
Corbyn's deflection and non action is making it all twice as bad...all he need do to make the problem go away
1. apologise (He has sort of done that this morning)
2. adopt the IHAR recommendations in full (adjusting them was such a stupid idea, whoever though of that needs sacking)
3. prevent Williamson from standing on the NEC.
job jobed.
from that article, JC hosted an even at the House of Commons on Holocaust Memorial Day :
At the 2010 event in the Commons, Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer gave a talk entitled <i>The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes</i>.
Mr Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime.
The Times said that Palestinian activist Haidar Eid also addressed the meeting, saying: "The world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945.
"Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims."
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what the speakers were saying - its certainly provocative. In JCs defence, he probably had absolutely no idea that me may one day be in a position where people were actually paying any attention to what he was doing 🙂
Does there exist a Britain First equivalent for anti-semites?
Or do things get overlapped when we start to look at whtie supremacists?
One things thing is for sure they tend to be way over to the right.
@ Mike - I don't see where I said it offends me, please feel free to highlight my offence! It is relevant to the conversation though isn't it?
Nickc: so you think that Labour are being deliberately sh*t at countering the antisemitism accusations (and even encouraging them?), because you think appearing to be anti-Israel boosts the Muslim vote?
I can understand your argument, but I just don't see it myself - this all just feels like slightly sh*t politicians being unable to articulate their objection to Israeli govenment actions/policy, without saying something accidentally antisemitic..... particularly with lots of people eager to jump on anything that could be possibly construed as such.
Incompetence rather than malice, is my assessment.
So, he hosted eventS and shared platformS - he is trying to spin his way out of multiple incidents today.
He hosted and organised an event, personally inviting someone who he totally disagrees with to come and speak on the holocaust.
Of course he did.
The bullsh*t detectors of all but the most swivel-eyed fellow-travellers have just exploded.
because you think appearing to be anti-Israel boosts the Muslim vote?
It's not about 'boosting' the vote, it's about core Labour voters/supporters in places like Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester...The natural home of immigrants is the Left, and generations of Muslims are Labour voters, and have risen through it's ranks, this IS the Labour party at both grass roots and throughout it's structure, in a way that it just isn't equally Jewish.
I think you're right though when you say it's just bad politics, Corbyn; I don't think is the sort of politician who can make the sorts of decisions quickly or effectively.
Well the BBC are in trouble as well, then
This (superb) documentary includes Israeli soldiers comparing their own actions evicting Arabs after the 6 day war to the Holocaust, along with others who felt the opposite
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0g85
I really struggle to see what is wrong with what Corbyns done wrong here.
Well, clearly he thinks he's done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
BTW, every political party accepts the official IHRA description of 'anti-semetism' except for... the Labour Party.
I've listened to interviews from supporters of the Labour Party position and to be honest, all I can hear is mealy-mouthed prevarication.
The previous poster who pointed out the party's problem with trying to keep their Muslim supporters on board hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Religion poisons everything.
I am sure that some Israeli soldiers did legitimately feel bad about things that happened in/after the 6 day war, but when considering the source, remember that the BBC has admitted it has an anti-Israeli bias in its reporting.
most swivel-eyed fellow-travellers have just exploded.
Corbyns a Pikey?
Well, clearly he thinks he’s done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
Yes but what has he done thats so bad?
That sounds like corbynesque double speak cranberry 😜
Or maybe you just want to censor those you disagree with ?
BTW, every political party accepts the official IHRA description of ‘anti-semetism’ except for… the Labour Party.
Except the Tories - oh no - that's right - they just quietly included it to avoid a fuss.
The Labour Party have clearly explained why they amended the IHRA words as they did, and their rationale is discussed in detail by various eminent lawyers. You could easily find and refer to those discussions if you wished, but you prefer to accept the Daily Mail narrative.
Has the BBC also admitted an anti-Nazi bias?
I'll happily admit I have an anti-Nazi bias, even if the Nazi war machine was funded by many concerns who are still powerful today. (Not forgetting The Bank of International Settlements, the US State Department, Bush family links, the war money laundered via the Dutch Monarchy and the roots of the Bilderberg group)
It remains to be seen whether the Nazi-Zionist meeting that got Ken Livingstone in such Hot Water is relevant here
Well, clearly he thinks he’s done something wrong otherwise why is he apologising?
Is that the normal method of deciding when to apologise in politics?
@ Mike – I don’t see where I said it offends me, please feel free to highlight my offence! It is relevant to the conversation though isn’t it?
OK so what was wrong with the speaker there, his points were questioning the current status quo so we either close down all debate or allow it.
Except the Tories – oh no – that’s right – they just quietly included it to avoid a fuss.
You seem to suggest this inclusion was a recent tactic reacting against the current situation? When did they accept it, then?
As far as I'm aware, this situation is critical of the Labour Party in all of the media to a greater or larger extent and not just in the pages of the Daily Mail. Which I don't read.
The Labour Party have clearly explained why they amended the IHRA words as they did, and their rationale is discussed in detail by various eminent lawyers. You could easily find and refer to those discussions if you wished, but you prefer to accept the Daily Mail narrative.
Please direct me to these legalities.
I note you have not commented on my conclusion of poisoning by religion.
You seem to suggest this inclusion was a recent tactic reacting against the current situation?
They included it after the Maybot lied about it being in there.
Before that not a word. Odd that no one started shouting at them isnt it? Especially given some of the tories fellow travellers in the ECR.
Please direct me to these legalities.
You can start here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism
Hmmm. So the Conservatives adopted IHRA in December 2017. They were obviously enough on the ball to see the train wreck heading in their direction and took appropriate avoiding action. Politically astute, then (unusually for them) despite drowning in their self-generated Brexit catastrophe.
Shame for the Labour Party they don't have similarly astute vision at leadership level.
Notable omissions include that it’s antisemitic to say that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour, or to compare the policies of modern Israel to those of the Nazis.
Up until the current attempt to make it's own non-Jewish citizens subject to second-tier entitlements, I'd have said the first part of that was fine. It certainly seems misdirective now, though.
No problem with the second clause. That comparison is ridiculous and just makes the situation worse by claiming it.
In my view, the Labour leadership should robustly defend it's non-adoption of the first, using the Knesset's recent laws as evidence.
It should swiftly adopt the second.
Ironic that the Israeli Arab citizenry so recently dumped on, are racially, 'semitic'...
Also, the irony meter needle is bending against the end-stop in a related issue.
I've seen comments from 'extreme' Islamic pundits that Hitler was a great guy and Nazi policies were also similarly praiseworthy.
I would imagine that if the claim of Israeli 'Nazification' were true, that might give them a bit of a philosophical problem... 😂
<div class="bbp-reply-author">DrJ
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Please direct me to these legalities.
You can start here:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism/a >
</div>
Thanks for the link DrJ, it's an interesting article that I'll have to read in full when I have much more time.
It's worth noting the article isn't about why Labour amended the IHRA words as they did, as the article was written before Labours amendments. It could be used to illustrate support for the amendments though.
Interesting to note that IHRA is policy and isn't law! I do think that the IHRA is worthy of its own separate discussion.
At the 2010 event in the Commons, Jewish Auschwitz survivor and anti-Zionist Hajo Meyer gave a talk entitled <i>The Misuse of the Holocaust for Political Purposes</i>.
Mr Meyer, who died in 2014 aged 90, compared Israeli policy to the Nazi regime.
So, what, is this one of those self hating Jews people talk about?
I am sure that some Israeli soldiers did legitimately feel bad about things that happened in/after the 6 day war, but when considering the source, remember that the BBC has admitted it has an anti-Israeli bias in its reporting.
Does that make the facts of the documetary any less true?
Do we call moderate muslims who denounce extremists islamophobic?
Why is a body, set up using the holocaust as a platform so against comparisons drawn against the perpetrators of said event? Seems a tad ironic to me. You can use that place in history and the grim shit that occurred within it but only on our terms?
You can use that place in history and the grim shit that occurred within it but only on our terms?
Pretty much this. It's obviously not solely "on their terms" but you have to be very very careful about your motivations and what point you're trying to achieve, if you want to make such an obviously offensive comparison.
Howard Jacobson has suggested that it's almost entirely always anti Semetic, His view is that It's wholly intended to wound in a very particular and pointed way as to mark out the Jews for special horror and revulsion, "by a reversal of the usual laws of cause and effect, Jewish actions of today prove that Jews had it coming to them yesterday."
On the other hand Noam Chomsky has suggested that one should be able, despite the obvious offence caused by the comparison, to be free to make key historical points in a political debate, and judge them substantively and on the motivations and inferences of the person making the claim.
Wow, that actually makes a lot of sense. I suppose the crux of the argument is intent but that still doesn't change the fact that someone may find it extremely offensive whether you mean them to or not.
I still don't think isms should be used as weapons to shut down legitimate debate or criticism but I can see the actual point being made now. Still think Meyer was quite entitled to say what he did though, if anyone had any right it's someone who was there.
if anyone had any right it’s someone who was there.
Like Rubin Katz, you mean?
Yesterday Guardian editorial perfectly summed up mine, and I’m sure many other people’s opinion at the present state of the Labour Party...
The Labour leader has said Israel is becoming a fascist state - can anyone deny that this is clear evidence of anti-semitism?
Yes. His criticism is of, to quote yourself, the state of Israel. Not Jews. In this picture, the fact that Israel is lived in mostly by Jewish people is irrelevant. Many of them oppose their government's policies and many of the population are Arabs.
As I said earlier, the recent decision of the Israeli government to create a 'second-class' status for their non-Jewish citizens would seem to support the argument.
And a strange outcome here is that I find myself defending Jeremy Corbyn, a politician for whom my usual reaction is derision...
Aah - sorry - I should have made clear that I was talking about the Israeli Labour leader
I think there are some in the labour party that would rather have a tory government than a labour government that is critical of Israel