Are labour antisemitic?

[otolith]

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

They've removed the examples because they think those behaviours are acceptable and have collectively indulged in them in the past.

[LoonyTunes]

psi310398 said:

LoonyTunes said:

One mans Whataboutism is another man's Comparison - but it really is the buzz word on PH right now isn't it?

Again - tell me what you think they should have done to address it but haven't. And we're not talking about the code here.

At the very least JC should have put his hands up and said that he had made some errors of judgement in the past, which he would not repeat; that he regretted the offence he had caused to many; and that, for the avoidance of doubt, he explicitly supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party, backed up by prompt action when it surfaces. A public call to his attack dogs to lay off the Luciana Bergers and Margaret Hodges of the Party wouldn't go amiss, either.

But, to his credit in an odd way I suppose, he can't because he doesn't believe it.

I'll take just one of your points above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45077647

Sorry but I think we are done now.

[warch]

Corbyn has been a long time critic of Israel and their treatment of Palestinians under various regimes. Unfortunately for some, any criticism whatsoever of Israel is considered to be anti-semetic.

There are in fact Jewish groups who are critical of Israel who have come out in support of Jeremy Corbyn, who I believe is not ant-semetic and in fact deserves considerable credit for sticking by his opinions, regardless of whether they are potentially politically toxic.


On a related note he is also pro Brexit which I am definitely not, but at least he has maintained this stance since at least the mid-80s, and hasn't adopted this position for political benefit unlike say Theresa May or Boris Johnson.

[psi310398]

LoonyTunes said:

I'll take just one of your points above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45077647

Sorry but I think we are done now.

Not quite - a Tweet which fails to address the nub of the matter - the definition of anti-semitism - does not answer anything.

"I condemn what I define, but nobody else defines, as anti-semitism" is not the get out of jail free card you seem to imagine it to be.

Those are weasel words in the context of the debate.

[LoonyTunes]

otolith said:

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

They've removed the examples because they think those behaviours are acceptable and have collectively indulged in them in the past.

If you say so.

[Burwood]

LoonyTunes said:

otolith said:

LoonyTunes said:

Labour has created it's own code which it feels better suits the anti-semitism issue. It will likely adopt the IHRA's definition at some point but the two codes are almost only separated by the examples given of anti-semitism in the codes.

They've removed the examples because they think those behaviours are acceptable and have collectively indulged in them in the past.

If you say so.

I spoke to my left wing Lawyer friend and her banker husband last night (dyed in the wool labour). Their son just joined the Tory Party and is studying Politics at Exeter. I laughed. But the interesting bit was they can no longer bear Corbyns antics and have switched to LibDem. Labour will self destruct some time next year.

[LoonyTunes]

psi310398 said:

LoonyTunes said:

I'll take just one of your points above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45077647

Sorry but I think we are done now.

Not quite - a Tweet which fails to address the nub of the matter - the definition of anti-semitism - does not answer anything.

"I condemn what I define, but nobody else defines, as anti-semitism" is not the get out of jail free card you seem to imagine it to be.

Those are weasel words in the context of the debate.

You can't even follow your own argument

You wanted him to say that he "supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party".

My link shows him doing that.

We are done now

[irocfan]

LoonyTunes said:

You can't even follow your own argument

You wanted him to say that he "supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party".

My link shows him doing that.

We are done now

Wow, said like a proper primary school teacher. That'll learn him!

[psi310398]

LoonyTunes said:

You can't even follow your own argument

You wanted him to say that he "supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party".

My link shows him doing that.

We are done now

Ah, another example of the refreshing openness to debate of JC's supporters...but I won't argue any further.

[Henners]

irocfan said:

LoonyTunes said:

You can't even follow your own argument

You wanted him to say that he "supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party".

My link shows him doing that.

We are done now

Wow, said like a proper primary school teacher. That'll learn him!

Its the Labour way, I am correct, cos I say so...

[LoonyTunes]

irocfan said:

LoonyTunes said:

You can't even follow your own argument

You wanted him to say that he "supported zero tolerance for anti-semitism within the Party".

My link shows him doing that.

We are done now

Wow, said like a proper primary school teacher. That'll learn him!

I doubt it.

[ukwill]

LoonyTunes said:

irocfan said:

And here is the problem - labour (and corby in particular) seem to think that they know better than Jews (and indeed the rest of the world) what is/isn't offensive/upsetting to Jews....

They would argue their definitions go further and add more protection for Jews. It may not be what you want exactly but if you feel that is actually anti-semitic then I can't agree.

They might. But to anyone not in the cult, they see it for what it is. They’ve brought all this on themselves, and it’s entirely because of who is now in charge (and I don’t just mean Corbyn). The only reason they didn’t adopt the IHRA definition (that dozens of other civilised nations around the planet have somehow managed to do) is because they themselves would fall foul of it.

Look at the state of them right now - busy making pedantic non-arguments about wreath laying at terrorist memorials. If there were pictures of May doing the same at the memorial of some far rightwing terrorist group, Labour and the cult on social media would be in meltdown.

What Ive never really understood about Labour is the absolute obsession with Israel. There are conflicts the world over, many have been going on for several decades - yet your average labour activist is obsessed over fking Israel. Talk to them about Assad and Yarmouk and not a peep... s.

[warch]

ukwill said:

What Ive never really understood about Labour is the absolute obsession with Israel. There are conflicts the world over, many have been going on for several decades - yet your average labour activist is obsessed over fking Israel. Talk to them about Assad and Yarmouk and not a peep... s.

Israel and in particular its relationship with the US and her allies could be said to be at the heart of many issues in modern world politics. Personally I would say, yes there is something to be said about an often very right wing country treating a significant number of their population who are of a different religion extremely badly (to say the least), especially as they are able to do so without fear of criticism or reprisal from the US.


This isn't a purely religious thing either, there are Jewish organisations who are opposed to the way Israel treats Palestinians too, but that's off message for anti Corbynites.

[Johnnytheboy]

warch said:

Israel and in particular its relationship with the US and her allies could be said to be at the heart of many issues in modern world politics.

If you are an obsessive left-wing loon.

Look around the world, countries are doing nasty things to their neighbours or their own populations and yet the Left doesn't give a hoot.

I don't remember the Left getting their knickers in a twist about Libya under Gaddafi, or Iraq under Saddam.

Iran are pretty awful to their population.

Myanmar/Burma aren't being too nice to their Muslim minority, nor are China for that matter.

I could go on but you get my point.

Israel are the big baddies because they are allied to America, and America are The Baddies.

[edh]

Here's some interesting context - a lengthy article on the BDS movement and Israel's response

BDS: how a controversial non-violent movement has transformed the Israeli-Palestinian debate
Israel sees the international boycott campaign as an existential threat to the Jewish state. Palestinians regard it as their last resort.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-b...

This is a much broader issue than Margaret Hodge's long standing dislike of Corbyn, or the group of labour mp's trying to "take back control" of "their party".

[otolith]

Johnnytheboy said:

Israel are the big baddies because they are allied to America, and America are The Baddies.

There are people who fail to see nuance in complicated political situations and boil it down to which side they're on. I think there's an element of that in Labour.

[warch]

Johnnytheboy said:

warch said:

Israel and in particular its relationship with the US and her allies could be said to be at the heart of many issues in modern world politics.

If you are an obsessive left-wing loon.

Look around the world, countries are doing nasty things to their neighbours or their own populations and yet the Left doesn't give a hoot.

I don't remember the Left getting their knickers in a twist about Libya under Gaddafi, or Iraq under Saddam.

Iran are pretty awful to their population.

Myanmar/Burma aren't being too nice to their Muslim minority, nor are China for that matter.

I could go on but you get my point.

Israel are the big baddies because they are allied to America, and America are The Baddies.

I think the difference between Israel and all the other countries where nasty things occur is that Israel is supposed to be one of our allies (via the US).

Corbyn tends to take an anti war, anti violence stance. During the 80's he was a staunch critic of all of the sides in The Troubles in Northern Ireland for example. He has similarly supported the aims of HAMAS in the past but now says he regrets his association with them.

[otolith]

Corbyn would say things like "I condemn the violence by all sides" but his sympathies were clearly with the Irish Republican cause.

[warch]

otolith said:

Corbyn would say things like "I condemn the violence by all sides" but his sympathies were clearly with the Irish Republican cause.

Yes I think that's right, probably because he thought that reunification was a key to ending The Troubles, which is probably a bit naïve to say the least.

I agree with whoever posted that some people tend to oversimplify complicated international issues, but disagree that this is a unique problem with the current Labour party. A good example of this has been the recent situation in Syria, whereby taking sides either meant siding with Assad or effectively siding with terrorists. The U.S. spent years propping up Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

[Tankrizzo]

Folks, didn't you hear?

We are done now.