You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
@ DrJ
Isaac Herzog actually said "We are going through a process of fascistization of the Israeli politics,".
So no, I don't think its "clear evidence of anti-semitism". Herzog was careful with his language and didn't claim that "Israel is becoming a fascist state".
@piha - I don't think so either, but imagine if Corbyn had said something similar. Would the news media here be so careful in unpicking the precise words he used?
DrJ - I don't believe the papers could attack Jeremy in this instance, as the language used isn't anti semitic. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn uses anti semitic language, instead he fluffs his response when others in and around the Labour party have used anti semitic language.
Jeremy rightly opposes Israeli government illegal action in the Palestinian Territories but he has supported one side in the conflict. I guess he feels a duty to those he has supported in the past and perhaps his opponents feel that sense of duty shows in his responses to anti semite criticism.
I feel he did the same in Northern Ireland. He sided with the Republicans.
Whereas Mo Mowlem met with both sides in Nor Iron regardless of her personal views and she appeared neutral. This is how a leader should be. And Mo still has much respect on both sides.
I believe that Jeremy's past will always hinder him as he has not been neutral enough or savvy enough to be a leader. His critics, wherever they are, will always remember when he was against them, regardless of perceived rights or wrongs.
ETA - all in my opinion!
Robert Peston wades into the discussion now......
When Labour’s leadership and the NEC were debating how to tackle antisemitism in the party, Andrew Murray - Jeremy Corbyn’s close adviser and chief of staff to Unite’s general secretary Len McCluskey - argued that Labour should embrace a much simpler and less contentious code of conduct than what its ruling National Executive ultimately adopted.
His recommendation, I understand, was that the Labour Party should employ the widely used IHRA definition of antisemitism with all-but-one of its examples – rather than seeking, as it has done, to resile from four of the examples, and create its own illustrations of antisemitic language and conduct.
He took the view, shared by many inside and outside Labour, that it was absurd for the party to imply that it has a more authentic and reliable view of antisemitism than the Jewish community itself.
To be clear, had Murray’s proposal been adopted by Labour’s leader and the NEC, there would still have been a serious argument with many in the Jewish community – because under his proposal there would have been a debate and consultation around whether it was appropriate for Labour to underwrite the IHRA assertion that one example of antisemitism is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
To state the obvious, many Palestinians regard the mere existence of Israel as a manifestation of racism or colonialism – and over many years Corbyn himself, and his director of strategy and communications, Seumas Milne, have expressed solidarity with that view.
Almost all Jews, like myself, would argue – per contra – that the creation of a Jewish homeland is not in and of itself racist, while reserving the right to criticise the policies of individual Israeli governments.
There is a debate to be had, although I am absolutely clear that any modern pluralist party should have no problem in repudiating assertions that the mere existence of Israel is racist. For what it’s worth, Murray himself has been a critic of Israeli governments, but does recognise the right of Israel to exist within its 1967 borders.
The conspicuous problem for Labour of course is a practical one. If it adopted that IHRA example, Corbyn, Milne and others would probably see their internal critics launching disciplinary action against them – which would be more than an embarrassment for them.
Or to put it another way, there is no easy way for Corbyn to end the estrangement of the mainstream Jewish community from him and his party.
But, according to those close to him, Corbyn has made life harder for himself than he needed to by being too ready to follow the advice and guidance of a small number of anti-Zionist left-wing Jews who he sees as important friends and allies.
Their views may be sincere, but they are a small unrepresentative minority within the Jewish community.
I am told Corbyn will have another go any day now at reassuring his critics by writing an article and possibly giving a speech.
But perhaps what is most striking and important however is that Corbyn now appears extraordinarily isolated even within his own party over his management of the antisemitism furore – facing criticism not only from those on the right and centre of his party whom he would see as the usual suspects, but from his shadow chancellor John McDonnell and the creator of the Corbynista Momentum movement, Jon Lansman.
And even the former Communist and ardent Corbyn loyalist Murray, who works for Unite, the union that has funded the Corbyn project, thought there was a better approach to rooting out the evil of antisemitism.
The IHRA is problematic. The main working definition as agreed on is uncontroversial but the examples given to aid interpretation includes 3 clauses that are controversial at best.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The first, just plain isn't antisemitism at all. There absolutely are jewish citizens of other countries that will put the perceived interests of Israel or world jewry ahead of their own nation, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not wrong to do it, it's not limited to jews or Israel, and it's not antisemitic to point it out. I'll put the interests of people overseas against the interests of the UK or Scotland sometimes. And I bloody reserve the right to say that some politicians pursue policies re Israel that are detrimental to their own country, whether they're jewish or not. Your religion shouldn't make you immune from criticism any more than it should make you a target for hatred.
The second starts out great then pulls a bait and switch in the second clause. The existence of the state of Israel can reasonably be argued to be a racist endeavour, but that's simply not an example of denying the jewish people the right to self-determination, it's a nonsequitor. But by this nonsequitor it essentially turns some criticism of Israel into supposed antisemitism by extension.
And the third is just plain destruction of debate, and just like the first drags things that are fundamantally not antisemitic into the definition. Comparing the actions of Israel to any of the actions of the nazis is often bad taste but it's not inherently antisemitic.
And saying something like "Israel has made a ghetto of the Gaza Strip" isn't antisemitic. Baruch Kimmerling wasn't being antisemitic when he said that Gaza was the world's biggest concentration camp- he was a Romanian jew who barely escaped the Holocaust and whose family lost everything before fleeing to Israel, and lived all his life there as a patriotic critic. But the IHRA brands him an antisemite.
So personally, I totally accept the Working Definition but I don't accept some of the "examples" which extend its reach and impact way beyond the definition itself. And I think the Labour party would be pretty stupid to do so frankly, because it could and would be used to justify further accusations against them. It's a no-win situation, "You won't accept the stick we want to beat you with"
This makes for interesting reading...
Raises larger questions about who's choosing the narrative (and why) and how long the world we live in has been shaped by subtle propaganda...
Ah cartoon from the times....
for once something coherant and interesting from JHJ (even on topic)
I'm always on topic... but for whatever reason, some are keen to stifle debate 😉
Northwind, the problem is that you're points are too considered and nuanced.
The first, just plain isn’t antisemitism at all
But, all too often is. "Elites" for example in anti-Semitic and Alt right circles is often code for "International Cabal of Jewish Bankers and Industrial interests" and often as not the accusation that Jews aren't invested in the countries that they live in, is 1. because they traditionally are a diaspora, or 2, they owe their allegiance to some secretive society. (see above 'Elites') This accusation is pretty much only ever levelled at Jews.
The second starts out great then pulls a bait and switch in the second clause
Again, pretty much the only country that is accused of being "Racist" endeavour by definition is Israel. No-one would bat an eyelid over the fact that the UK is basically "A christian based state in the land of Europe". it's not in any way controversial. But a "Jewish based state in the Land of Israel" somehow is by comparison. Does the state of Israel defend the rights of all it's citizens to freely practice their cultures and religions? Yes it has a constitution to that effect .Does it make it's culture and laws around a Judaic tradition? Yes, These two things are not opposed and in any other country would be unremarkable. Spain for instance insists that Spanish is the sole language and makes no accommodation for Basque or Catalan, but the idea that Spain is therefore somehow a racist endeavour is clearly preposterous.
The third is arguable,
Should you be able to compare the actions of the Israeli state and military to the tactics of the Nazi and Waffen SS. To be honest: Yes, you probably should. BUT. Only if you're making really salient points of key historical meaning and comparison that stand examination in detail. Consider: The Warsaw ghetto was run largely by the SS, as opposed to; say the Occupation of France which was mostly the job of the Wehrmacht, The difference is important. You had to be a committed signed up member of the Nazi party to get into the SS. Despite the fact that they dressed like, used the same weaponry as: the Wehrmacht, they were in fact the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party. While the political aim of the Nazi regime was dedicated to the erasure of the Jews through culture and Law, the SS was responsible for those same policies but through acts of terror and violence. If you're going to compare the two you need to be able to show that the modern Israeli army acts like the paramilitary wing of a Fascist dictatorship idealistically committed to the extermination of a peoples, or uses tactics derived solely from that experience. If they are there, and you're a professor of military history, knock yourself out. If you're just using it as a gross comparison to score a point in an argument, then all you've achieved is the ability to of defenders of some partisan Israeli political aims to shut down of any arguments you want to use on the basis that it's a grossly offensive and perhaps even anti Semitic, which they often do...
It is a relatively easy task to find Western democracies that have got themselves into the ghetto-isation and collectivised punishment of indigenous and insurrectionist populations, for example: The French in Algiers or Indo china, the Japanese at Nanking, the British in Kenya and Malaya, the US interring Japanese Americans during WW2 or their experience in the Philippines in the early part of the 20th century. It's also noticeable how those could be more accurately compared to modern Israel's experience in Palestine. Which is not to say that it's necessarily any better that the Israelis are acting this way, but less it's certainly less offensive. And how these examples in turn are almost never compared to the Nazis, again a comparison that is almost exclusively aimed at Jews and the state of Israel.
You can and should be able to argue the rights and wrongs of all your comparisons, indeed your arguments are well made and compelling, and in discussion between people are avowedly not anti Semitic I think they are valid. But there is equally a great many folk who use coded language who's sole purpose is Anti Semitic,and anti Jew. and the IHRA examples are rightly alert to them. The point of them is not to shut down discussion, but to alert the reader to question the motives of people using them as or in arguments
The point of them is not to shut down discussion, but to alert the reader to question the motives of people using them as or in arguments
And at this point discussion is good on the topic, and at this point the real questions should be who is pushing this as the major issue it is? The Times Cartoon is very pointed isn't it, the recent sexual misdemeanours discussions went across all political parties, why is this discussion not? Who is gaining most by pushing this one? What is their agenda?
nickc
You don't need to be an academic scholar to draw comparisons. Things don't have to be 'identical' to be 'the same'. Comparing the treatment of Palestinians by Israel to Nazi treatment of Jews is not intended to diminish the historical suffering of Jews but is intended to highlight the plight of people living under pretty grotesque conditions. Its a comparison, not an accusation.
The main reason the perpetually offended, and for that matter the BBC and the 'elites' (which has nothing to do with Jews but just refers to the privileged) treat it as such is because it either shuts down criticism of their favourite country or it is seen as useful brush with which to tar those that disagree with them on other things.
Its a comparison, not an accusation.
sure, I get that, but why that particular comparison, and not say any of the more recent examples I've given which could also highlight the plight of occupied peoples who had to live in equally grotesque conditions?
which has nothing to do with Jews but just refers to the privileged
Sometimes, but it depends on the speaker and what their intent is. I agree it can 'just' refer to the global 1%, but a couple of articles on Brietbart if you really want, will reveal it's other meaning. This is more true of the US than the UK though
Its pretty obvious why comparisons to the Nazis are compelling when talking about Israel; its half of the defence trotted out for the states existence in the first place. Its inevitable, just like godwins law on t'internet!
a couple of articles on Brietbart
Doesn't give you another proper meaning. Its just the way they use the word. If you kowtow (and that one is almost certainly problematic for some) to it then you legitimise their use and validate them.
The use of the word elite is not anti-semitic. It might be shorthand for some people but that doesn't change the meaning for everyone else.
I think the reason I'm so uppity about the whole thing is that the constant crying of wolf, and (what I perceive as) over-sensitivity to trivial comments, devalues the genuine problems people face, Jews, Muslims and the rest.
(what I perceive as) over-sensitivity to trivial comments
I'm not sure that portraying their complaints about the comparison of their military as similar to the force that caused the genocide of a whole population within living memory as 'over sensitivity', is particularly helpful or constructive if I'm honest.
The use of the word elite is not anti-Semitic
No, it isn't in of itself, I agree that it can represent the global 1% (as I've already said) . But the use of the word as short hand for what used to be called "The Rothschilds " or "International bankers" certainly is, and the point the IHRA are making is "When it's being used like that, it's almost always anti Semitic"
Hang on, so "international bankers" is an antisemitic phrase? Did you see what I wrote about crying wolf?
Oversensitivity would be to phrases such as the above or murals depicting bankers, only some of whom were Jewish.
"Northwind, the problem is that you’re points are too considered and nuanced."
That's a problem now is it? If something doesn't stand up to careful consideration, it's bad, and definitely shouldn't be universally adopted. Simple answers are tempting but the world is nuanced.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">nickc
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But, all too often is. “Elites” for example in anti-Semitic and Alt right circles is often code for “International Cabal of Jewish Bankers and Industrial interests”
That isn't the same thing at all- and if that was what the examples were supposed to address, then they perfectly well could say so.
</div>
Your responses seem to boil down to "but that could be antisemitic". And sure, maybe. But the definition of antisemitism, by definition, has to be things that are antisemitic, not things that in a certain light could be, but may not.
Oversensitivity would be to phrases such as the above or murals depicting bankers, only some of whom were Jewish.
Just so we're clear, this mural? depicting Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of the poor, that in your opinion "only some of the them are Jewish" means that what? They're just being picky? They should probs chill, right?
Northwind, It has to be nuanced, I actually agree with you, the point I was trying to make (badly it turns out) is that yer average right wing anti Semite aren't nuanced, hence the broad definitions in the IHRA.
that in a certain light could be, but may not.
Isn't context everything? Isn't that why coded messages are used?
As smear campaigns go this is really quite sophisticated
<div class="bbp-reply-author">nickc
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Northwind, It has to be nuanced, I actually agree with you, the point I was trying to make (badly it turns out) is that yer average right wing anti Semite aren’t nuanced, hence the broad definitions in the IHRA.
The definitions are for everyone, not just yer average right wing anti semite.
</div>
Yes, that mural, which if noone had said anything to me I wouldn't have connected to Jews at all. The rich exploiting the proles is pretty much all there is to it.
They haven't caricatured a generic Jew on it you know, those are real people, and they arent all Jews. They are all bankers though.
But, you know, if you want to be offended you go ahead.
How do you know the bankers are Jewish?
The thing is, anyone I spoke to about that mural needed it explained to them in fine detail before they could even see what it was they were meant to be offended by. And that includes my wife who has Jewish heritage, of sorts.
How do you know the bankers are Jewish?
I think the artist has identified them as such.
But, you know, if you want to be offended you go ahead
to be clear I've no skin in the game , I'm just adding to the discussion is all. For sake of openness GF is Jewish, I'm not, and have no connection with Israel, so you can stand down with the petty insults if you like
What petty insults?
Kind of illustrates the point does it not - you see what you want to see.
I personally don't have much of a persecution complex so am not easily offended. Others seem to have a different persuation.
And it descends further into the mire. Maybe we should have a thread for what tyres for necklacing.
No, not Jews playing the victim. Vested interests playing the victim. Not all Jews think alike, same as not all Christians, Muslims or people from Ullapool think alike.
Exactly. As soon as someone uses the word 'community' I take it less seriously. That would be like saying the white community in Britain thinks X, Y, and Z and everything they say is representing me as I am white and British.
Some Jewish people will be supporting Corbyn, others won't be just the same as non-jewish people.
References to the 1% etc may be accused of being antisemitic but a fervent zionist mate is always banging on about Rothschilds and Zuckerberg and Abramovich as being 'our tribe', you can't have it both ways.
Strong speech by Jeremy today.
From the BBC....
The party leader said anyone who denies that anti-Semitism is "surfacing" in the party is "clearly actually wrong and contributing to the problem".
I wonder how the previous posters that deny there is a problem with Labour and anti semitism feel about these words? Is Jeremy wrong?
It will be interesting how his detractors respond although Labour still don't accept IHRA in its present form.
I wonder how the previous posters that deny there is a problem with Labour and anti semitism feel about these words? Is Jeremy wrong?
It will be interesting how his detractors respond although Labour still don’t accept IHRA in its present form.
About what he had to say. Nobody denied there was anyone who was being anti Semitic just the scale of the problem and the political motivations behind focussing on Labour only and not looking at other parties who have some very anti- problems.
Politics is a game these days and he is getting the hang of playing it one mistake at a time.
Politics is a game these days
Always was but is getting much more so. Jeremy really isn't good at playing it, he has way too much integrity.
Exactly that. The fact that there's such focus on Labour antisemitism when our prime minister just shrugged off being personally responsible for the Windrush scandal and it's already 9/10ths forgotten should say a lot but doesn't seem to
I wonder how the previous posters that deny there is a problem with Labour and anti semitism feel about these words?
Nobody has denied it.
No. In a party of over half a million members there's bound to be a few pillocks with distasteful views. The point is that they aren't the ones at the head of the party leading the charge. You can't easily police the views of every member with an organisation that size, it can only be reactive.
One thing I don't get in all of this is how mentioning the Rothschild's role in the creation of Israel is antisemitic;
surely, it's just a part of history, just as Louis Mountbatten's role in the foundation of ****stan, or St John Philby's role in the creation of Saudi Arabia (and Israel for that matter).
I can however understand why people like Jacob Rothschild, who has shared business interests with Rupert Murdoch, may want to derail Jeremy Corbyn's Labour.
And that's before you consider Jacob's father; Victor Rothschild's role in getting Alasdair Milne fired as BBC Director General back in 1987.
(one thing worth noting is that Patricia Hodgson, the secretary mentioned in the video description was until recently the chair of Ofcom, having replaced Colette Bowe, who was chief information officer at the Department of Trade and Industry under Leon Brittan when the Al-Yamamah deal was set in motion)
Alasdair Milne was the father of the Labour Party's current Executive Director of Strategy and Communications, Seumas Milne
<div>
<div class="bbp-reply-author">Drac
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
I wonder how the previous posters that deny there is a problem with Labour and anti semitism feel about these words?
Nobody has denied it.
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member philxx1975</div>
<div></div>
<div class="">Ah the Jews playing victim again.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
To be fair Drac........
To be fair that is not denying there is a problem is it?
Anyway some quick questions
How much do the people leading the charge here have to lose from a Labour Government financially?
How would the state of Israel feel about a move in position to support Gaza more than them?
I haven't looked at the rest of the tread, while there are problems in both the main parties, really is this even a top 5 issue for the majority of the UK public?
pinched from another angry voice: I find it inexplicable how labour party supporters adn members even MPS are letting themselves be played by the tory supporting british board of deputies which claimns to speak for all jews but infact is highly unrepresentative.
With Britain careening towards a socially and economically ruinous "no deal" flounce out of the EU that will mean falling living standards and massive inconveni<span class="text_exposed_show">ences for pretty much everyone except for Jacob Rees-Mogg and his disaster capitalist mates who are just itching to pick up £billions in distressed British assets on the cheap like vultures stripping the flesh off a carcass, we have to ask:</span>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With British workers suffering the longest sustained period of declining wages since records began, and ever-increasing numbers of people trapped in exploitative zero hours contracts and the fake self-employment gig economy, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With Theresa May ever-willing to debase Britain and British values by grovelling and crawling before the vile, homophobic, misogynistic, head-chopping, terrorism-exporting, democracy-crushing, genocide-committing tyrants who rule over Saudi Arabia, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the extreme-right on the rise across the world, fascist governments already ruling over Poland, Hungary and Italy, and the British mainstream media (and especially the BBC) ever keener to offer platforms to extreme-right hate preachers, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With 8 ruinous years of ideologically driven hard-right Tory austerity dogma having pushed literally millions of us to the very brink of getting by, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With British-based businesses screaming out for some basic competence from the Tory government so they can plan for the future rather than worrying about downsizing or relocating because the Tories won't take the threat of a ruinous "no deal" flounce off the table, and Tory government ministers responding to their perfectly legitimate concerns with statements like "**** business", we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the rail system in absolute chaos and the legendarily incompetent Chris 'reverse Midas touch' Grayling still belligerently refusing to resign as Transport Minister, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With poverty spiralling out of control to such an extent that over two thirds of the kids growing up with lives blighted by poverty today come from working households, and unspeakable numbers of parents are left reliant on food bank handouts to feed their kids, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the prospect of Scotland breaking away from the Union in order to escape the Westminster-inflicted Brexit chaos they didn't even vote for growing ever more likely by the day, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the NHS facing an existential crisis because of massive real terms Tory cuts at a time of increasing demand, and because the Tory government have literally chased away thousands of EU medical staff, whilst deliberately disincentivising tens of thousands of Brits from undertaking medical training through the cancellation of NHS bursaries, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With dark money, electoral cheating, £multi-million campaigns of disgustingly misleading targeted social media ads, and a catastrophically biased and increasingly unhinged mainstream media undermining the very foundations of democracy, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the Tories slashing renewable energy subsidies and simultaneously hefting vast tax breaks at the spectacularly inefficient and environmentally damaging process of fracking for more hydrocarbons to burn, and doing this while the planet bakes in record-breaking temperatures, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With Britain's industrial strategy in such a mess that we're reduced to bribing China into building our major infrastructure projects for us, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With students now leaving university with an astronomical average debt of £50,000+ and over three quarters of the poor bastards facing the prospect of never paying the debt off despite a permanent 9% tax on their disposable incomes for their entire working lives, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the Tory government continuing their grotesque campaign of systematic abuse, intimidation, and discrimination against sick and disabled people against a backdrop of almost total indifference to this suffering from the cosy mainstream media bubble, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With violent crime spiralling out of control because of Theresa May's ideologically driven strategy of slashing 21,000 police jobs to deliberately reduce per capita policing levels back down to 1970s levels, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With massive scandals like Windrush, Grenfell Tower, & the Manchester Arena bomber being allowed to breeze back into the UK having been hanging out with his terrorist mates in Syria and Libya (despite numerous warnings from the US and the Manchester Muslim community that he was a dangerous extremist who was planning an atrocity), all simply having been brushed under the carpet and forgotten about, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the weakest and most incompetent Prime Minister the UK has suffered in decades (if not centuries) allowing the fanatical hard-right Brextremist fringe to wag the Tory dog, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With local government services collapsing all over the country under the strain of an ideologically driven Tory austerity agenda that has seen a 67% reduction in the Local Government departmental budget already, and two Tory councils (Norhamptonshire & East Sussex) already insolvent, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With a massive 8% per pupil real terms funding cut really biting into the education system and Michael Gove's crackpot school privatisation agenda descending into a cesspit of grotesquely over-inflated executive salaries, fraud, carpetbagging, no bid contracts for friends and family, dodgy land deals, playing field sell-offs, and failing academy chains, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the Tory party casually stonewalling all calls for an investigation into the disgusting levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in their ranks, and the mainstream media absolutely refusing to push the issue, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With all the evidence pointing to the fact that rates of anti-Semitism in the Tory ranks are far higher than Labour supporters, and senior Tory figures like Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg gratuitously colluding with the alt-right "kingmaker" Bannon in the hope he can unite the extreme-right ethno-nationalists behind them like he united the Swastika-waving "Jews will not replace us" bigots behind Trump, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
With the bankrupt neoliberal consensus of the last four decades crumbling all around us and the public crying out for a better way of doing things, we have to ask:
Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic?
Remember folks, don't stray from the script. Don't go getting distracted by reality. There's only one political subject you should be thinking and talking about now. Otherwise you might just start getting ideas above your station.
</div>
I listened to R5L this morning and Jezza was ya-king on about this YouTube vid he made apologising for every out of bounds word or phrase levelled at Jewish people.
You’d think there was a witch hunt after him wouldn’t you?
Be good when Summer Recess is in and the Press have calmed down or gone on holiday..
Meanwhile, BoZo says that Muslim women look like bank robbers and "it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes" and nobody bats an eyelid. Imagine the meltdown that would follow if Corbyn said that it was ridiculous to go around with a coaster on your head, or whatever ?
Yup - more racism from a proven racist. the lack of press outrage over the tories overt racism shows just what a trumped up load of nonsense this attack on labour really is
is this even a top 5 issue for the majority of the UK public?
It is not even in the top 500. The only bonus about the press harping on about it for so long is that anyone who was even slightly interested at the start is completely bored of it by now (me included)
Majority of people just don't have the attention span for a story that lasts more than a couple of days.
The Absolute Boy - "Right, everyone. I've been on the You TubeFace and said lots of earnest well meaning words. Seumas has rehashed an old article I put in the Standard the last time I fudged an apology and we've got that in the Grandiuan. Job done. I'm off to the allotment now, as nothing could possibly go wrong now"
George McManus - "Hold my beer..."
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1026398417176731648?s=19
Ironically, that doesn't meet the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Referring to Biblical stories is now "anti-Semitism" ?? Is it still OK to celebrate Christmas?
Yep dare to pop your head above and be prepared to be shot down
Is Jeremy in some kind of weird competition with Boris? He really is helping the Conservatives stay in power.
Is Jeremy in some kind of weird competition with Boris? He really is helping the Conservatives stay in power.
So who is taking their time to go back through all of history here?
Sky News neglected to point out this was back in 2014....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45171633/jeremy-corbyn-reacts-to-terror-memorial-claims
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the news "deserves unequivocal condemnation from everyone".
Something Netanyahu knows a lot about there.
Yet the international 'community' don't seem to care that much that he has so far killed 160 protesters since March. If any civilised country were doing that you would be hearing much more about it with cries for action.
You can’t come out with stuff like that kerley, you’ll be labelled anti Semitic.
If any civilised country were doing that you would be hearing much more about it with cries for action.
Seriously they were Palestinian protesters and we all know they are not people
Corbyns answer to Netanyahus tweet which makes outright false claims
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claims about my actions and words are false.
What deserves unequivocal condemnation is the killing of over 160 Palestinian protesters in Gaza by Israeli forces since March, including dozens of children.
The nation state law sponsored by Netanyahu's government discriminates against Israel's Palestinian minority.
I stand with the tens of thousands of Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel demonstrating for equal rights at the weekend in Tel Aviv
He was not laying a wreath to the Munich terrorists. He was at a ceremony of remembrance for all the Palestinians killed
This is why the Israelis and their apologists are out for Corbyn. He is not blind to the crimes of the Israeli state
I imagine Netanyahu has been taking advice from Conservative Friends of Israel or perhaps it’s the other way round 🤔, makes you think eh?.
It’s an easy way to throw shit at your political opponent and let’s not forget that there are 17,410,742 impressionable ****ing idiots out there who will believe anything that’s fed to them
https://medium.com/@anyabike/corbyns-open-secret-22a70fa03254
Not getting into this argument, but this does seem to shed a little more light on the event JC was present at, providing it isn't fake news as well, obvs.
The real question here
It's pretty sad. We have a Tory government split in so many ways and an opposition who is so inept that they cannot or will not put this matter to bed. Perhaps if he started coming out with proper policy decisions, putting forward a real alternative to a the existing government, getting all parts of his party on board (even if it meant softening his views), then perhaps the whole Antisemitic stuff would disappear. At the moment Labour appear to more inept that the Tories, which is quite some doing.
I've looked for stuff about what is the direction which Labour would take if they won and it is simply not there. Even in the left wing main stream media. Simply saying that we will re-nationalise the railways/water/electricity/.... is not a policy. I want vision, I want Leadership, I want to a hear a clear voice. If Blair could do so can Corbyn, Or is he too scared to be heard, too scared to accept that some of views have to change. Britain will not vote for a hard left party - it might vote for a hard right. After all we voted (collectively) for Brexit
its as much he gets no platform for anything and is constantly under attack. I see direct quotes from corbyn most days - and there is lots of policy and clear detail. Its not reported in the mainstream press as they are almost all tory supporters. There is no leftwing mainstream press bar the slightly left of centre Mirror.
These attacks are orchestrated by a right wing press and in the case of the antisemitism nonsense far right British jews and the Israeli government. You know several jewish groups have come out in support of Corbyn?
Corbyn seems fairly unrepentant
Infact it's an opportunity for him to directly criticize netanyahu & Israel's human rights record
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1029075065550372864?s=19
I
What do the people running the Conservative party and the Labour Party have in common, as the respective tails wag their particular dogs?
Cranks.
What I think as I watch this sorry saga drag go on and on and on, is that I wish he seemed as concerned about the Working class, labour voting U.K. citizens about to be ****ed over by the Tory’s as he does about the Gaza Strip
Maybe one of his advisors might have a word and remind him that the inhabitants of the West Bank don’t get to vote at the next general election, and there are one or two more pressing issues closer to home
Maybe one of his advisors might have a word and remind him that the inhabitants of the West Bank don’t get to vote at the next general election, and there are one or two more pressing issues closer to home
and how does he do that? Apologise to Israel for objecting to what they have done? Write a long list of things he may have done that could be considered pro Palestine and publish them tomorrow?
This is a serious campaign like the meeting the IRA stuff before to discredit him, unless you can show who is doing that and what their interests/paymasters are it's going to be hard to get out of. They will have a list of things to keep drip feeding over the weeks here.
What I think as I watch this sorry saga drag go on and on and on, is that I wish he seemed as concerned about the Working class, labour voting U.K. citizens about to be ****ed over by the Tory’s as he does about the Gaza Strip
He is as concerned it is just that the media don't want to show that stuff as people may realise he would be a better bet than the Tories. Remember it is not Corbyn who is dragging the saga on and on.
When the media and opposing politicians realise that the anti-semite thing is not really something a lot of people care about (it seems to be taking them a while) they will move onto something else - and it won't be about his concern for the working classes.
During the general election, the right-wing press went for the IRA terrorist sympathiser angle, and I don't think many people cared. Now it's this, and I still don't think many are too bothered about having a Twitter spat with the likes of Netanyahu.
But this was all inevitable when he was elected Labour leader. He's got more baggage than a carousel at Heathrow. The right-wing press must have jumped for joy when he became leader and they've not stopped laughing since. They just keep drip-feeding it and once again he's on the back foot and spending all his time defending whatever it is this week, out of decades worth of politically questionable decisions he's made.
Meanwhile, I reckon I'm like an awful lot of people who just sighs and wishes we had an opposition party in anything but name, that was capable of taking advantage of the open goal in front of them in the form of this totally inept and floundering government.
Instead it's yet another week, with the Brexit clock ticking in the background, that Jezza spoons it into Row Z
But this was all inevitable when he was elected Labour leader.
Twice, comprehensively.
Twice, comprehensively.
... by the rest of the sixth form common room. Yes, we know.
And now we'll just have to accept that, to all intents and purposes, there is no longer an actual serious, electable opposition in this country. Just some noisy placard wavers, a lot of whom have some pretty dubious standpoints on various issues.
Any serious political party would be 20 points clear of this shower. The Tory party is having its internal civil war because it knows that it doesn't really need to worry about the inept bunch of clowns on the benches opposite them. And you can blame the 'Blairites' or the right-wing press, but that's only a small part of the story. The main point is the total incompetence of the Labour front bench.
You can slag Nu Labour off all you like, but they'd have shut this Antisemitism nonsense down weeks ago
But this was all inevitable when he was elected Labour leader.
Agree and while I think he has changed Labour for the better in bringing them back to what they should be I do think he should step down. He has done his work but Labour need a leader who has a less protesty history that can't be used (completely wrongly) against him. He must realise he has an even more uphill struggle than is normal for a Labour leader
Who that could be is the question. You need to play the press and the BS politicians at their own game these days and through ethics out of the window until you get into power.
You can slag Nu Labour off all you like, but they’d have shut this Antisemitism nonsense down weeks ago
Yep. It's a lot easier when Murdoch supports you isn't it.
Its a lot easier when you understand that when you're in a hole, stop digging
<div class="bbp-reply-author">
mikewsmith
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">You can slag Nu Labour off all you like, but they’d have shut this Antisemitism nonsense down weeks ago
Yep. It’s a lot easier when Murdoch supports you isn’t it.
</div>
Yep. It's a lot easier when your Leader makes it so easy for Murdoch and the rest of the RW press.
Its a lot easier when you understand that when you’re in a hole, stop digging
Honestly even the BBC has an article that leads against him rather than with the denial, if you think you can do a better job...
The problem is that you can deny it all you like, but if there happens to be photographs of you at that particular place with a wreath in your hand, and your denial amounts to "I was there but I don't remember laying a wreath", it's not very credible, is it?
It comes to something when you're giving the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu the chance to get all morally huffy.
The bottom line is that all that should matter to a Labour Party leader is the interests of the voters he's meant to be representing, and Corbyn has consistently failed to do this.
Criticising Israel over its conduct in the occupied territory is fine, but when you seem to have consistently showed more interest in that than, say... oh, I don't know.... maybe actually getting involved in the EU referendum, for example, instead of just going AWOL to the allotment for the duration?
As others have said - Netanyahu kills 160 protesters, silence; Corbyn lays a wreath (or doesn't), all hell breaks loose. Strange that the Mail unearth this photo just when Bojo is criticised for racism? I just listened to Justin Webb on R4Today ranting and raving like a Southern US shock-jock when supposedly "interviewing" a Jewish person standing up for Corbyn, so it's not just the usual culprits(*) doing the smearing.
(*) well, the BBC is actually a usual culprit these days
The bottom line is that all that should matter to a Labour Party leader is the interests of the voters he’s meant to be representing, and Corbyn has consistently failed to do this.
So isolationism? Many people in the UK care deeply about how politicians feel about foreign policy, see the protests about the Iraq war that people keep going back to.It's no surprise that he fluffed his lines but also it's telling nobody has taken the press to task about claiming stuff they can't prove.
The problem is that you can deny it all you like, but if there happens to be photographs of you at that particular place with a wreath in your hand, and your denial amounts to “I was there but I don’t remember laying a wreath”, it’s not very credible, is it?
Hook line and sinker. He was laying a wreath, correct. For what? Do you know? Or did you just accept what the Mail told you?
It comes to something when you’re giving the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu the chance to get all morally huffy.
It comes to something when you're so keen to slam Corbyn that you accept the words of a murderer as having any value whatsoever.
I suspect that Corbyn isnt that upset about all this, corbyn Twitter fans now using this as a way to highlight Israeli human rights violations. (Rather than deal with brexit issues)
https://twitter.com/CorbynistaTeen/status/1029096955853656064?s=19
I suspect that Corbyn isnt that upset about all this
You have no basis whatsoever for that suspicion. I recommend you stop now before you out yourself as a Mail shill.