Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
If the Arabs had won the war and taken Israeli land in ‘47, ‘67 etc that would be wrong too. Granted the situation is not exactly the same as it was the Arabs who launched the attack and not Israel. However I believe in the right of return. If someone is forced away from their home due to war they should be allowed to return once that war is over.
Judge the Arabs by their own standards- they felt that winning gave the right to take land from the losers. They lost. BlackLabel said:
If the Arabs had won the war and taken Israeli land in ‘47, ‘67 etc that would be wrong too.
If the Arabs had won, there would have been wholesale, total genocide - even the the most ardent palestinian supporter wouldn't deny this.This is all getting rather off-topic, as is usual with this subject.
Corbyn & the labour party need to subscribe to the international definition of antisemitism in its entirety ASAP & move on - it is becoming extremely unsavoury.
AstonZagato said:
There is a Golda Meier quote "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." I think it should read "Peace will come in the Middle East when everyone loves their children more than they hate their neighbours."
Very Cobynesque!. Condemn violence on all sides, never again for anyone, etc. Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 5th August 11:33
Ean218 said:
JagLover said:
There has been a consensus since 1945 that international borders should not change through the use of force.
There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
I don't think the Argentinians got that note either.There are of course grey areas in this. China invaded and annexed Tibet as one example but did have an historical claim to the region. This claim was however very nearly as historic as the Jews claim to ancient Israel.
So in practicality it is a mixed bag and might is right is at times the actual situation if the one securing the new land is both strong enough, but also has some right to claim the territory acquired.
Deserved some recognition
Kccv23highliftcam said:
George Smiley said:
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Countdown said:
What about the Palestinian right to self-determination?
Remind us how much Hamas gives for a martyred family member again?Oh, who wont let them do that.
Hamas.
George Smiley said:
Out of fear of being called an anti-Semites, the west has ignored and turned a blind eye to the illegal land grabbing carried out by Israel. I do not condone either sides actions but I can certainly see that Israel are acting like a big bully and you can understand the Palestinians are a little pissed off.
And what have you or Corbyn to say about Russia annexing Crimea (which unlike Israel, wasn’t in response to a military incursion) or Turkey / Cyprus, or any of a million other examples of this. NOTHING. That’s antisemitism as you’re singling our Israel and holding them to a higher standard of behaviour than other countries It’s also hilarious how biased the BBC are, the Margaret Hodge enquiry being dropped is still top of the feed 24 hours later. Yet the previous Anti Semitism story about him not adopting the IHRA definition, dropped off the feed faster than you can type 2 lines of your bigoted opinions
George Smiley said:
Out of fear of being called an anti-Semites, the west has ignored and turned a blind eye to the illegal land grabbing carried out by Israel. I do not condone either sides actions but I can certainly see that Israel are acting like a big bully and you can understand the Palestinians are a little pissed off.
Food for thought George ?Since its creation in 2006—the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised ALMOST HALF (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).
jakesmith said:
And what have you or Corbyn to say about Russia annexing Crimea (which unlike Israel, wasn’t in response to a military incursion) or Turkey / Cyprus, or any of a million other examples of this. NOTHING. That’s antisemitism as you’re singling our Israel and holding them to a higher standard of behaviour than other countries
I must have imagined the international condemnation, the sanctions and in the case of Cyprus a UN peacekeeping force? These things have all been dealt with too and you're living in a fantasy land if you think only Israel gets criticised. f
k knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside. PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
jakesmith said:
It’s also hilarious how biased the BBC are, the Margaret Hodge enquiry being dropped is still top of the feed 24 hours later. Yet the previous Anti Semitism story about him not adopting the IHRA definition, dropped off the feed faster than you can type 2 lines of your bigoted opinions
I'm not a fan of many things the BBC does, but they still seemed to be mentioning the issue of not adopting the IHRA definition on the Today programme this morning, and mentioned the root of the Margaret Hodge story (disagreeing with Corbyn for not adopting it), along with the fact that her lawyers have essentially publicly accused Corbyn of trying to mislead in relation to the dropping of the enquiry. I didn't hear any bias, hilarious or otherwise, there. Jonesy23 said:
fk knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside.
PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Very interesting points - you say 'General reaction of condemnation of Israel' - this is an interesting phrase. Who is condemning them and why? Their surrounding Arab neighbors who are committed to destroying them? The burgeoning left wing of the West? The growing Muslim population of the world? Those with an anti-capitalist agenda? Or normal concerned people presumably like you who read about the goings-on there all the time in the media and especially the utterly disproportional focus on Israel in international organisations?k knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside. PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Here are some examples of my last point - source: https://www.unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/
UN Human Rights Council: From its creation in June 2006 through June 2016, the UN Human Rights Council over one decade adopted 135 resolutions criticizing countries; 68 out of those 135 resolutions have been against Israel.
UN Nations General Assembly: From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86%)
World Health Organization: For one week every year, the UN World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), meets to formulate global health policy. Resolutions are adopted to address global health issues. There is one exception: the annual resolution entitled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan,” which singles out Israel for condemnation; no other country in the world is condemned by the WHO.
ILO: The International Labour Organization (ILO) was established to improve conditions of labor, regulate work hours, fight unemployment, assure adequate living wages, and protect workers worldwide. At its annual conference, however, the ILO produces a single country-specific report castigating Israel.
In my mind this is disproportionate considering the number of other countries that have regimes that can be corrupt, brutal, authoritarian, barbaric, lawless etc. and shows a marked international bias. You may differ of course. Is Israel so atrocious in the global context that it warrants over 50% of the global UN resolutions. Obviously this filters into the public conciousness.
I don't recall Corbyn (& his acolytes) speaking out about Russia's foray into Crimea, and if he did somewhere, with his likely usual weasel wording of condemning all violence, it was a very small squeak compared with the ongoing and very vocal denouncement of Israel. I am not exonerating Israels actions. Why don't the left wing take up some of the other similar global causes such as the incredible suppression in North Korea where 100,000's of civilians are prisoners of conscience and their relatives too. Or maybe the brutal autocracy of Venezuela that has ruined the standard of living and economy for the entire population?
It's just always Israel from what I can make out, whilst explaining that it isn't anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. Plenty of other similar global wrongs to highlight & protest over but they just don't seem bothered about those.
This is pure opinion and I am sure many will disagree but without wanting to appear to use whataboutery or tu quoque, I think that Israel acts a certain way for a reason, whether justifiable or not, and there are plenty of other countries acting similarly for far less justifiable reasons that seem to escape the same level of condemnation.
jakesmith said:
Jonesy23 said:
fk knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside.
PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Very interesting points - you say 'General reaction of condemnation of Israel' - this is an interesting phrase. Who is condemning them and why? Their surrounding Arab neighbors who are committed to destroying them? The burgeoning left wing of the West? The growing Muslim population of the world? Those with an anti-capitalist agenda? Or normal concerned people presumably like you who read about the goings-on there all the time in the media and especially the utterly disproportional focus on Israel in international organisations?k knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside. PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Here are some examples of my last point - source: https://www.unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/
UN Human Rights Council: From its creation in June 2006 through June 2016, the UN Human Rights Council over one decade adopted 135 resolutions criticizing countries; 68 out of those 135 resolutions have been against Israel.
UN Nations General Assembly: From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86%)
World Health Organization: For one week every year, the UN World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), meets to formulate global health policy. Resolutions are adopted to address global health issues. There is one exception: the annual resolution entitled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan,” which singles out Israel for condemnation; no other country in the world is condemned by the WHO.
ILO: The International Labour Organization (ILO) was established to improve conditions of labor, regulate work hours, fight unemployment, assure adequate living wages, and protect workers worldwide. At its annual conference, however, the ILO produces a single country-specific report castigating Israel.
In my mind this is disproportionate considering the number of other countries that have regimes that can be corrupt, brutal, authoritarian, barbaric, lawless etc. and shows a marked international bias. You may differ of course. Is Israel so atrocious in the global context that it warrants over 50% of the global UN resolutions. Obviously this filters into the public conciousness.
I don't recall Corbyn (& his acolytes) speaking out about Russia's foray into Crimea, and if he did somewhere, with his likely usual weasel wording of condemning all violence, it was a very small squeak compared with the ongoing and very vocal denouncement of Israel. I am not exonerating Israels actions. Why don't the left wing take up some of the other similar global causes such as the incredible suppression in North Korea where 100,000's of civilians are prisoners of conscience and their relatives too. Or maybe the brutal autocracy of Venezuela that has ruined the standard of living and economy for the entire population?
It's just always Israel from what I can make out, whilst explaining that it isn't anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. Plenty of other similar global wrongs to highlight & protest over but they just don't seem bothered about those.
This is pure opinion and I am sure many will disagree but without wanting to appear to use whataboutery or tu quoque, I think that Israel acts a certain way for a reason, whether justifiable or not, and there are plenty of other countries acting similarly for far less justifiable reasons that seem to escape the same level of condemnation.
Unfortunately the Muslim World is riven with sectarian atrocities, the Sunni/Shia problem to name but one.
One might think they might get their own house in order.
The West by waging war on Libya and Iraq have exacerbated the problems, having left those countries unstable, BUT if they had stood back and let their dictators carry on slaughtering their minorities the West would have been castigated for doing nothing, so they were in a lose/lose situation.
98elise said:
John McDonnell has previously advocated violence against the democratically elected government to bring about change.
You cant make an omelette without cracking a few eggs comrade. It was worth the cracked eggs in all those workers paradises created in the past, USSR, Cambodia, DPRK, Cuba to name a few, we should be pleased that we have such man standing up for the workers as he is.The revolutionary socialist template is a shining path to utopia.
jakesmith said:
Very interesting points - you say 'General reaction of condemnation of Israel' - this is an interesting phrase.
I said nothing of the sort. I said there is a general reaction of condemnation of invasions.As in if one country invades another generally the reaction is they get condemned for doing it.
Don't make s
t up, then use it as a basis of an argument and attribute views to me on that basis that i don't hold. I got bored of tolerating that behaviour a long time ago.Jonesy23 said:
I said nothing of the sort. I said there is a general reaction of condemnation of invasions.
As in if one country invades another generally the reaction is they get condemned for doing it.
Don't make st up, then use it as a basis of an argument and attribute views to me on that basis that i don't hold. I got bored of tolerating that behaviour a long time ago.
Yes sorry I did misread your post there, appologiesAs in if one country invades another generally the reaction is they get condemned for doing it.
Don't make s
t up, then use it as a basis of an argument and attribute views to me on that basis that i don't hold. I got bored of tolerating that behaviour a long time ago.My point still stands just not aimed at you
jakesmith said:
Jonesy23 said:
fk knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside.
PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Very interesting points - you say 'General reaction of condemnation of Israel' - this is an interesting phrase. Who is condemning them and why? Their surrounding Arab neighbors who are committed to destroying them? The burgeoning left wing of the West? The growing Muslim population of the world? Those with an anti-capitalist agenda? Or normal concerned people presumably like you who read about the goings-on there all the time in the media and especially the utterly disproportional focus on Israel in international organisations?k knows what Corbyn thinks about it but the general reaction of condemnation of invasions is pretty much universal. If anything some places get off lightly if all they get is a few harsh words from outside. PS. Is it anti-Islamic to criticise Iran (a religious theocracy) for their various fun and games or is it only a religious/racial criticism in specific cases?
Here are some examples of my last point - source: https://www.unwatch.org/un-israel-key-statistics/
UN Human Rights Council: From its creation in June 2006 through June 2016, the UN Human Rights Council over one decade adopted 135 resolutions criticizing countries; 68 out of those 135 resolutions have been against Israel.
UN Nations General Assembly: From 2012 through 2015, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted 97 resolutions criticizing countries; 83 out of those 97 have been against Israel (86%)
World Health Organization: For one week every year, the UN World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO), meets to formulate global health policy. Resolutions are adopted to address global health issues. There is one exception: the annual resolution entitled “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan,” which singles out Israel for condemnation; no other country in the world is condemned by the WHO.
ILO: The International Labour Organization (ILO) was established to improve conditions of labor, regulate work hours, fight unemployment, assure adequate living wages, and protect workers worldwide. At its annual conference, however, the ILO produces a single country-specific report castigating Israel.
In my mind this is disproportionate considering the number of other countries that have regimes that can be corrupt, brutal, authoritarian, barbaric, lawless etc. and shows a marked international bias. You may differ of course. Is Israel so atrocious in the global context that it warrants over 50% of the global UN resolutions. Obviously this filters into the public conciousness.
I don't recall Corbyn (& his acolytes) speaking out about Russia's foray into Crimea, and if he did somewhere, with his likely usual weasel wording of condemning all violence, it was a very small squeak compared with the ongoing and very vocal denouncement of Israel. I am not exonerating Israels actions. Why don't the left wing take up some of the other similar global causes such as the incredible suppression in North Korea where 100,000's of civilians are prisoners of conscience and their relatives too. Or maybe the brutal autocracy of Venezuela that has ruined the standard of living and economy for the entire population?
It's just always Israel from what I can make out, whilst explaining that it isn't anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. Plenty of other similar global wrongs to highlight & protest over but they just don't seem bothered about those.
This is pure opinion and I am sure many will disagree but without wanting to appear to use whataboutery or tu quoque, I think that Israel acts a certain way for a reason, whether justifiable or not, and there are plenty of other countries acting similarly for far less justifiable reasons that seem to escape the same level of condemnation.
It's all Corbyn's fault of course
Funnest one recently was Piers Morgan & Owen Jones on the trump protests (I paraphrase)
Piers: If you're so keen on protests, why weren't you out there when MBS came to London!
Owen: I organised the protests!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff