Are labour antisemitic?

[ukwill]

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Interesting, lets see how true both of thse points are:

1. Can you show me the actual phrase in the ‘charter’ that calls for ALL Jews to be killed.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
....
Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
...
Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.
...
Some of Article 7 is hilarious:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

So much more batst crazy stuff in it. All absolutely lapped up by keffiyeh wearing lefties who “really want peace” - bleating on about a two state solution, when Hamas has never and will never accept such a thing.

All of that relates to the state of Israel and the jews who fight for it.

It is not a call for ALL Jews (everywhere) to be killed.

The latest charter (2017) states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they "stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region". The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam.

In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."

I’ve no intention in a semantic debate over just how many jews a Terrorist Organization wants to kill, or where they have to be for them to be considered targets. That’s for cranks on social media. Mahmoud Zahar said jews *everywhere* are a target about a decade ago.

The problem Hamas have is they are never consistent - the only consistency they have, is being inconsistent. Before the ink dried on their latest Charter, Yahya Sinwar said their current debate was “when to wipe out Israel”.

The bit about Hamas being humanistic and tolerant of other religions is fking hilarious. We’re talking about a terrorist group, not a new centrist party.

[gadgetmac]

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Interesting, lets see how true both of thse points are:

1. Can you show me the actual phrase in the ‘charter’ that calls for ALL Jews to be killed.

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
....
Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.
...
Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.
...
Some of Article 7 is hilarious:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

So much more batst crazy stuff in it. All absolutely lapped up by keffiyeh wearing lefties who “really want peace” - bleating on about a two state solution, when Hamas has never and will never accept such a thing.

All of that relates to the state of Israel and the jews who fight for it.

It is not a call for ALL Jews (everywhere) to be killed.

The latest charter (2017) states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they "stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region". The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam.

In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.

In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."

I’ve no intention in a semantic debate over just how many jews a Terrorist Organization wants to kill, or where they have to be for them to be considered targets. That’s for cranks on social media. Mahmoud Zahar said jews *everywhere* are a target about a decade ago.

The problem Hamas have is they are never consistent - the only consistency they have, is being inconsistent. Before the ink dried on their latest Charter, Yahya Sinwar said their current debate was “when to wipe out Israel”.

The bit about Hamas being humanistic and tolerant of other religions is fking hilarious. We’re talking about a terrorist group, not a new centrist party.

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

[ukwill]

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

[gadgetmac]

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

During the war many Brits would have been saying similar about the Germans.

[irocfan]

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

During the war many Brits would have been saying similar about the Germans.

so once again the Nazi comparison is being made

[gadgetmac]

irocfan said:

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

During the war many Brits would have been saying similar about the Germans.

so once again the Nazi comparison is being made

...and I deliberately said German too because during the war the distinction between the two wasn’t generally being made...

[The Dangerous Elk]

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

During the war many Brits would have been saying similar about the Germans.

Really ? Try stopping and thinking for a bit...

Do you think "many Brits would have" been thinking the genocide of the German people was what they wanted ?

If you do you are thick.

[gadgetmac]

The Dangerous Elk said:

gadgetmac said:

ukwill said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, hamas are no angels thats for sure. But to say they are out to kill ALL jews (genocide) is equally wrong.

And as history has shown, that entirely depends on who you speak to in Hamas.

During the war many Brits would have been saying similar about the Germans.

Really ? Try stopping and thinking for a bit...

Do you think "many Brits would have" been thinking the genocide of the German people was what they wanted ?

If you do you are thick.

I wouldn’t be as thick as you though as you can’t see the parallel between how the thinking might be similar in the two examples during a time of perceived oppression.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Stretched thinking (at its worst, like this is) has little place in a sensible discussion and zero value or relevance.

[gadgetmac]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Stretched thinking (at its worst, like this is) has little place in a sensible discussion and zero value or relevance.

Judging by the others replies to your posts on other threads your presence on the PH forums "has little place in a sensible discussion and zero value or relevance" but hey ho, we are where we are.

[The Dangerous Elk]

gadgetmac said:

Judging by the others replies to your posts on other threads your presence on the PH forums "has little place in a sensible discussion and zero value or relevance" but hey ho, we are where we are.

Sweet of you to look. Now defend your statement that many Brits wished for the genocide of the German people.

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Monday 20th August 09:21

[gadgetmac]

The Dangerous Elk said:

gadgetmac said:

Judging by the others replies to your posts on other threads your presence on the PH forums "has little place in a sensible discussion and zero value or relevance" but hey ho, we are where we are.

Sweet of you to look. Now defend your statement that many Brits wished for the genocide of the German people.

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Monday 20th August 09:21

Jesus, now I see why.

Try reading my post again.

Saying you want the Germans dead in a time of war doesn't equate to you wanting the genocide of the German people including the old, the disabled, women, children, new borns etc. When you say it you are using the blanket term to describe the part of the enemy that is trying to oppress or wage war on you.

Likewise Hamas wanting to kill 'ALL' Jews. It's a figure of speech.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Not in the case of Hamas it is not.

[avinalarf]

Hasn't this Topic reached its "useful" conclusion ?
Interesting POV's, some apposite and a few not so, have been expressed and now we're going around in circles.
Those with " skin in the game" will probably feel more passionate about this subject than those for whom the subject is more an academic or semantic exercise.

Edited by avinalarf on Monday 20th August 10:23

[Russian Troll Bot]

Apparently Unite are seeking legal advice over this, could be very interesting to see them defend McClusky's comments in court

[Supercilious Sid]

Russian Troll Bot said:

Apparently Unite are seeking legal advice over this, could be very interesting to see them defend McClusky's comments in court

I kind of hope UNITE win. If calling someone racist is deemed to be defamatory then maybe a few of the idiots who fling that term around may think before they type.

[psi310398]

Supercilious Sid said:

I kind of hope UNITE win. If calling someone racist is deemed to be defamatory then maybe a few of the idiots who fling that term around may think before they type.

I know what you mean but I rather hope UNITE goes ahead and loses on the basis that the allegation was justified. Then calling someone anti-semitic or racist may be indeed be deemed to be defamatory but people need not fear calling anti-semitism or racism out when appropriate.

[Russian Troll Bot]

psi310398 said:

Supercilious Sid said:

I kind of hope UNITE win. If calling someone racist is deemed to be defamatory then maybe a few of the idiots who fling that term around may think before they type.

I know what you mean but I rather hope UNITE goes ahead and loses on the basis that the allegation was justified. Then calling someone anti-semitic or racist may be indeed be deemed to be defamatory but people need not fear calling anti-semitism or racism out when appropriate.

Should a union really be using its member's money to protect the personal views of the man who runs it?

[jfire]

Are these people perhaps just anti-West?

I note Corbyn blamed foreign policy on the Manchester attack, while ISIS' own propaganda says they want to destroy us regardless.

[Gameface]

Labour body adopts anti-Semitism definition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45414656