UKC

Cohen, again, puts things well and gets to the nature of Corbyn and allies

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-slipperiness-of-jeremy-corbyn/

Yawn....

Thanks for that insight.

Any comment on the points raised?

I saw Janet Daley was cranking up to full speed as well

Be careful, anti semitism is a minefield.

This just sounds like another anti Corbyn rant to me with very little to support it. Yes, Jeremy was a member of a Facebook group that also contained anti semites but that doesn't mean he is one himself. I don't think he is, I don't think he has a racist bone in his body and anti semitism is really just a branch of racism. What Jeremy does believe is that Israel is wrong to ill treat the Palestinians, to steal their land, to steal their water and to trample over their human rights and for that he is branded an anti semite by those who wish to shut him up and Mr Cohen is one of those people.

Yes I can just about be bothered. Cohen is dredging up the tiniest, ambiguous news item to desperately try to discredit Corbyn and the Labour Party on an issue that is really dead. Corbyn may have an issue with the way that the Israeli state has conducted itself, as I do. That doesn’t make them or me anti-Semitic.

Snap!

I'm not convinced. At best he's unhealthily tolerant of a racists close around him, as part of his "campism"

Which racists?

Cohen is as unconvincing here as ever. He is a bore.

He's comparing Corbyn's alleged antisemitism with Trump's racism, and it's bullshit. The racist vote in the US is worth courting, and Trump knows it. Do you or Cohen honestly believe that the antisemitic vote is going to win you an election in the UK?

Corbyn has made a fool of himself over the mural, which it sounds to me was indeed an overtly racist piece of propaganda/"art". But really, do we believe that his motivation was a hatred of Jews? Is that credible? 

A huge problem in politics is that arguments are made using the standard black-and white fallacy, dividing people a la George W Bush - "you're either with us or you're against us". If you believe that Israel's treatment of the Palastian people is wrong, then in this "you're either with us or you're against us" scheme, you're antisemitic. Or at the very least you're allied with antisemites, just as you must also be a terrorist sympathiser and friends with Hamas. I think it's rich for Cohen to talk of "sneakiness".

Corbyn is usually foolish and very often wrong. But Cohen's charges are just the same old divisive crap I've heard a thousand times before and it doesn't get any more convincing with each repetition.

I very much doubt that Corbyn is anti-Semitic to the point of hatred.  However, is there perhaps an element of Corbyn's ideology that ties parts of the Jewish community with what he believes is wrong with the banking system and that is why he didn't initially see anything wrong with the mural?
Being cynical, I would say that Corbyn thought at the time that the mural was a correct representation of UK/World banking, but has changed his mind in retrospect so as to not lose votes...

whether he is anti semitic or not i dont know, he hasnt displayed anti semitic behaviour in any classic sense of the word.

what he also hasn't done , is deal well with anti semitic behavior within his own party. 

he has also gone far more pro Palestinian than past labour policy. has called hamas and hizbollah his 'friends'. and has failed to condemn specifically terror attacks against israelis. 

i don't think his pro palestinian stance is only due to the current israeli leadership. it is related to his far left tendencies that view israel as an example of imperialism. many of his camp think israel is a relic of the past that should be eradicated.

anti israeli and anti semitic are two things that are SOMETIMES linked. someone can be anti israel and not be anti semitic, and the opposite. for instance, there are many european far right parties that are anti semitic but pro israel. 

Livingston is the standout example (I know he has now been removed but he wasn't for ages).

There's certainly a strand of opinion that combines anti Israeli sentiment with anti semitism, another that sees Russia as "good" because of its communist history, and another that sees the US and hence Americans as "bad". See Twitter to get a feel for this. I think Cohen is right, Corbyn panders to these views to get votes. Possibly he isn't personally racist but those around are and he tolerates all this to get votes.

I'd say it was wilful blindness to the message.

   What are you actually arguing: that Corbyn explicitly acts against the antisemitic strand within his party just as he does other forms of racism. or just that he isn't actively antisemitic himself? Or something else?

It seems more than a little unfair to hold Corbyn responsible for Livingstone. Livingstone was a member of the Labour party for almost fifty years. I can't even be bothered to work out how many leaders that makes who didn't expel him. Corbyn suspended him after less than a year in charge and has since turned it into a permanent suspension.

Still trying to prove the left are anti-Semitic, FFS!!!

Get a grip, speak out about Israel isn't the same thing.

Ahed Tamimi get 8 months for slapping a soldier, when she thought her brother had just been killed by the IDF, while the "soldier " who killed a wounded Palestinian, gets the same sentence and the Israeli who burned a baby alive has served even less is out roaming the streets.

If you're happy with that state of affairs then keep bandying anti-Semitism labels about, if not stand up and condemn the Israeli actions yourself.

There's anti-Semitism in all parties, indeed in general, life. It's disgraceful and unacceptable, but let's not pretend it';s the preserve of the left, or that prejudice is a burden only for the Jews. Prejudice exist for many people and we should all call it out wherever it is.

Where was Cohen on this subject?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-americans-to-mon...

Or you for that matter

https://972mag.com/what-justice-looks-like-for-those-who-kill-palestinians/133994/https://972mag.com/what-justice-looks-like-for-those-who-kill-palestinians/...

Are words worse than actions?

I wonder what would happen if someone slapped a us marine, royal marine, or... usa cop  ?

the tamimi family are professional provocateurs , i.e they get paid to pull of those media covered stunts. just like the PA pays terrorists to ram and stab israelis. (don't deny documented facts).

quite ironic considered 'tamim' means innocent in Hebrew.

which israeli burned a baby alive and is roaming around ? 

plenty of examples of western soldiers in afghanistan and iraq who got no sentences or reduced ones. take double standards elsewhere. 

its possible to be against the BDS without 'labeling anti semitism' ? 

though the left has its own brand. all over europe the left allied itself with poor muslim migrants and appealed to their support of palestine over israel. (votes, nudge nudge ? )

Since he primarily comments on UK politics and liberalism, why would you expect him to write about that.(Grade A whataboutery though).

You do know that Cohen isn't Jewish?

why do people have to comment about what  religious nuts say ?

does a lack of comment mean people agree with them ? 

wtf, do you agree that kids should be raped because you don't comment on cases of christian pedophiles priests ?  

Nick Cohen was in my brothers year at school. His family were so left wing at the time it was unreal. My brother remembers they even refused to buy oranges from Israel  in support of some cause. 

Tend to find he is spot on in calling out wing issues .

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-apologises-for-pockets-of-anti-sem...

i mean he literally had years to deal with these 'pockets'. 

clearly was not a priority for him.

Really? To be honest I think the whole thing is overblown by people with other agendas. Of course there are anti semites in the party, every party contains it's fair share of nutters but if you're unhappy about the way Labour has dealt with racial issues then please be a bit more precise. All I hear are or read are innuendos and assertions.

What's actually important is that while the party, like all the other parties, contains anti semites it is not an anti semitic party, nothing like it, never has been, never will be. If you disagree please point me to a Labour party policy that you regard as anti semitic and please don't conflate that with critical of Israel and their persecution of the Palestinians.

Aye right. Jeremy did a lot of unwise things before he became leader. One of those was to share a platform with people from Hamas and Hizbollah. He was chairing the meeting and referred to them as his friends when introducing them. What do think he should said "and we have here a pair of murdering bastards from Hamas and Hizbollah"? I think not.

Maybe you can name a few names so we can debate this properly. The above just reads like muck throwing.

Corbyn's Labour, "For the many not the Jew"

I can't forget that he wouldn't share a platform with tory remainers . I think he played a major part in landing us all in this Brexit nightmare . His succession of faux pas are beginning to swing things round Theresa's way. I'm starting to feel he doesn't really know what he is doing. Young voters believed he was their best hope against Brexit  that's why they deserted the LibDems and the Greens. I fear they will be badly let down by Corbyn. 

I would expect some coverage, any coverage would be nice. If it was anywhere else besides Israel we'd have heard about those cases, instead you have to take an interest, you almost have to search then out, and it's not because of their rarity.

She did get a mention on Channel 4 news but it was fleeting and not followed up.

I didn't know that, and I'm not sure it matters, this is simply another attack on Jeremy Corbyn, but from a different angle.

It might be worth pursuing where this anti-Semitism comes from and why it's on the increase rather than pointing the finger at people who aren't really responsible for other people's actions, only what position they can hold within the party.

Want something to get you knickers in a twist over, "They've had years to sort this out"

"A recent report by Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organisation, showed that more than 92.6 percent of complaints Palestinians lodge with the Israeli police go without charges being filed."

And what do you say to Jewish Labour voters?

Are they the "bad" Jews I keep hearing about, the same "bad" Jews that want Palestinian rights. Or are they a different kind of "bad" Jew.

Sweeping statements tarring whole swathes of people does nobody any good, your as daft as Jondo, labelling all BDS members as anti-Semites. There's a massive number of Jewish members of the BDS campaign, are you happy simply to right them off?

Not only do many people right them off,because of their stance for Palestinian rights, but they are written of as Jews, simply because they disagree with the actions of the Israeli government.

I understand your sentiment, but factually that's complete bollocks. Israel-Palestine continues to get pretty decent coverage in international media. Correspondents are all based in Jerusalem, food is good, loads of talking heads on both sides to interview, both sides have media support machines pumping out stories etc.

The rohingas waited a decade before their suffering became apparent. Yemen continues to be all but ignored. Major parts of the Syrian war(s) get no attention. Somalia? CAR? Western Sahara? Venezuelan famine?

A further test of his slipperiness:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43536830

Why are we hearing about this now? This was news 6 years ago, so (and I'm really interested in the answer) why has this just come to light now?

Go on then, explain how Corbyn's behaviour over the mural is acceptable.
Unless of course you believe the BS about him not looking at it properly...

Because one of his MP's asked him about it.

  " The definition of a "racist incident" will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person" (McPherson report)

I'd like to test what people really think about Corbyn and his anti-Semitism.

Not the anti-Semitism that comes from, "well he supports Palestine, so he must be anti-Semitic" or "He called terrorist "friends" at some meeting or other" or even the " he questions the right of Israel to exist kid of anti-Semitism"

I'd like to test the Corby "hates Jews flavour of anti-Semitism"

Thumbs up for yes he hates Jews, thumbs down for no he doesn't hate Jews.

How about forgetting about his views on Israel/Palestine and instead answer the questions about Corbyn and the mural? 

  You are, unsurprisingly, completely missing the point. Cohen carefully describes him as being "slippery" rather than "antisemitic".

  Maybe this simple exercise will help. How would you feel if he hung out with the EDL, contributed to their chat rooms and praised their murals?

As others just said, you need to get past your obsession with Israel, which isn't what this is about.  It's about tolerating, turning a blind eye to, and pretending not to notice a range of deeply unpleasant people and lines of thought, while at the same time never offering any support to those in the line of fire. Anti-semitism and pro-Putinism are two mentioned in the article.   Chavez, Hezzbollah are others.

It is almost impossible to find explicit anti-semitism in the mainstream public domain now, because anti-semites know they will be jumped on immediately. So it is slippery as Cohen says. Code words for Jews are used. Like Zionists. Ór "legitimate criticism of Israel". Or, in the case of the mural, bankers with apparently large noses. Cues that everyone understands but are deniable.

And Corbyn's problem seems to be that he has been consistently deaf to this subtlety of discourse.  He gets off on freedom fighting rhetoric and is unable to see beyond this.

It does seem that you presumed he was, at least working on the presumption you realised Nick Cohen isn't Israeli either.

Why else would you expect Cohen to have anything to say on an Israeli domestic story about a racist religious leader. Perhaps a bit of reflextivity wouldn't go amiss here.

Why haven't you spoken out about the Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara and their imperialist oppression of the legitimate right to national self determination of the Sahrawi people? Are you actively anti-Sahrawi or just a shill for Mohammed VI and the kleptocrats that surround him?

his recent admission of 'pockets' of anti semitism accompanied with a 'deep apology' is enough evidence. he had a long time to deal with it but didnt., because he has some supporters who are anti semites, and a large muslim base which wouldnt be happy with a crackdown.

i do not claim labor is an anti semitic party, of course not. see my earlier post about the venn diagram of anti israel and anti semite. 

shouldnt have shared a forum with them in the first place. even only based on their human rights records , regardless of israel. 

muck shmuck. 

daft ? oooh. 

not all anti semites. 

all anti israel and would like it to cease to exist as the nation state of the jewish people. including yourself. being jewish doesnt mean you cant have that opinion. 

btw, hows that boycott going ? physical harassing people that buy hummus in mark and spencers working all right for you ? 

Cohen has always had it in for Corbyn, to the extent that he can't write a single article on any issue without a barbed attack on him.

Which doesn't exactly refute what is written in the article. But that's behind a paywall anyway. And knowing Cohen's clear bias against him, I can't really be bothered to look for ways around the firewall to find out what he has to say.

It's nothing to do with my obsession with Israel whatever that means.

I'd like to know whether people really think Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic, in the sense he hates Jews. It's a simple question? And everyone has an opinion so what's you view?

It's very easy bandying about accusations Jondo, seem to be able to decide who's what without actually knowing anything about them, and I'm not talking just about me here.

If were talking about deeply unpleasant people, how about you look at the Israeli government from the eyes of the Palestinians, for 70 years they've had land stolen from them, rights stolen from them and there's a siege in Gaza which has lasted for 12 years!

I'm not excusing any other, I just don't see how you, and it's not only you, constantly fail to see where the heart of the issue lies.

What do you say to Jewish members of BDS? or JVP? are they wrong to want peace? Are they wrong to blame Israel? Are they "bad" Jews for not following Bibi's line?

Are you sure?  No paywall for me.

Because if a religious leader had said the same in any other country it would have made TV news. It's an outrageous thing to say and it should be called out by anyone and yet it hasn't been.

I've explained above what I think Corbyn's position is.  He's unhealthily tolerant of a number of unpleasant trends, including antisemitism and so blind to them he in effect endorses them.  I don't think he is personally crudely antisemitic, no.

You are talking nonsense.  Has Cohen ever comment on the utterances of religious nuts?  If he has, it's not his normal subject.

There's a limit to the number of articles you can view in a week, I think.

Are you saying there are no anti-Zionist Jews?

or are you saying anti-Zionist Jews are anti-Semitic?

I realise that Zionism is a tricky word to pin down as it means different things to different people. But you know the context I'm using it in above.

As with most arguments / discussions regarding Israel / anti-Semitism people often end up arguing about semantics rather than the issues.

Being blanket covered as this or that, doen't really help, as much as people might like it to be that simple, it isn't and most people realise that.

Simply wanting freedom and human rights for Palestinians doesn't, as much as some people might want it to, mean you have to be anti-Semitic.

To be honest, this is the first I've heard of Cohen, I dislike the Spectator for it's bias, so tend to steer away from it anyway.

Who is Cohen, that we should take his word over people actions, anyhow.

He writes for the Observer too, if that's more to your taste.  

I'm certain it's not a coordinated attack ahead of local elections in just over a month. I'm sure it's not got the hand of Mandy or Blair at the tiller (Mandy having previously stated he works every day to get rid of Corbyn, Blair having stated he would rather the tories in power than Corbyn as PM)

I'm sure it has nothing to do with someone somewhere discussing where Corbyn is weak (and he IS weak on anti semitism although personally I see no evidence of him being weak to the same proportion as the attacks on him for it) and looking long and hard for something to whip up a storm about. The fact they had to go back to a Facebook post from 5 years ago perhaps tells us something.

I think I'm done with UK politics. This whole thing stinks of orchestrated PR. Maybe he hasn't done enough regarding anti-semitism, maybe he has. Debate it. Put views forward and counter them but throwing out carpet bomb attacks timed to cause damage is wrong. This isn't a left or right wing issue. It's to do with the horrendous way politics is done. But we all love it it and lap it up by the bucketful.

Crikey. You have not heard of Cohen!

Are you really a left winger  ?

It was brought up by Labour MPs

That's what's happening.

What do you know about the role of Buddhist monks stirring up anti Muslim hatred in Myanmar? I don't watch loads of TV news but I've not heard it mentioned. I listen to a lot of radio and haven't heard about it there either. 

Or indeed similar in Sri Lanka?

Do you know what leading imams next door in Egypt have said about Eritrean and other migrants passing through Egypt?

  Cohen is a high profile left wing journalist and author. He maintains left of centre of political and economic views but has recognised and highlighted the hypocrisy of the much of the left in proselytising about minority rights and expounding liberal views whilst siding with profoundly unliberal, homophobic and sexist elements. Corbyn fits the bill well which is why is so critical of him.

  That Cohen no longer subscribes to the full range of leftist cant is why he is regarded as an apostate and despised by its adherents.

I’m well aware of that. What’s your point?

Strong accusations are being thrown out and widely reported condemning Corbyn personally. How is that a debate?

It would be a debate, if certain people stuck to the main element of the thread (the mural) and didn't go off on a tangent and bring up the whole topic of Israel/Palestine, etc. ...

His views on Anti-Americanism in the Labour Party are fascinating.

It does seem to come on the heels of Owen smith losing his job.

That it's not just election games.

Well I think his views and those of his associates are highly relevant to elections.

After having skimmed a number of his articles, he does seem to have some sort of vendetta against Corbyn, no wonder MG and PP seem to love this left wing reporting.

I've looked through the archives and can't see any mention of this prior to today.

Why weren't you outraged 6 years ago?

He sometimes seems to contradict himself

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/banning-peoples-views...

Try reading his books... more interesting and thoughtful.

It's not a "vendetta against Corbyn". It's a consistent criticism of the hypocrisy of elements of the left of which Corbyn is a part and now a key part. If you think that alliances with authoritarian , illiberal anti-minority  bigots is a good thing then so be it.

  That you'd never even heard of him until now suggests you may not have thought much about the issue until now.

I do recognise him, now I've seen his photo, to be honest I wasn't keen on him or what he had to say.

His books might be great but I've got better things to spend my time on.

Thanks and that.

https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/corbyn-personally-joined-third-anti-semi...

Yes, I know it's Guido Fawkes, and they don't like Corbyn...but what do you think about this? 

Do you realise how offensive it is to call someone like Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite, when he's spent his life campaigning against racism and bigotry.

You're running around with your hands in the air screaming anti-Semitism because it suits you, otherwise you'd have been shouting about this 6 years ago.

My point was that this was yet another internal Labour party co-ordinate destabilising act. The fact I gave two examples of prominent Labour party members who have publicly declared they are working against Corbyn are perhaps a clue to that? I still do not know what your point is.

@FactorXXX I agree that it's difficult to debate here without digression. Online forums aren't geared up for nuance or focus. Perhaps that's part of the problem of the decrease in standards across the board as online forums of one sort or another are such a big part of political debate nowadays and they're a terrible vehicle for it. For what it's worth when I refer to 'debate' I'm talking about the larger world - what is going on in mainstream media or within actual political channels. I'm sure none of us think that a thread within a sub section of a rock climbing website is really going to effect the political climate of the UK.

But I acknowledge the nudge (all debates need a chair to bring them back in line) re: the mural. My read is: Corbyn is not terribly savvy or astute. He doesn't look for pitfalls or gotchas (or didn't in 2012). He glanced at the mural and didn't appreciate the full meaning or intent and simply gave a couple of lines of support in a fairly small way. Perhaps you could even argue that because he is not anti-semitic the standard symbols of anti-semitism or zionism were lost on him. You could even argue that a picture of a load of hook nose beardy's didn't ring alarms for him because he is a hook nose beardy. (Just not a vile Jewish caricature). In short I don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic. I don't think this mountain of a mole hill proves anything other than he isn't very observant. I think overall it is a an irrelevance and a distraction from many issues that do need talking about, including actual anti-semitism which is embedded in areas of all politics not just left wing.

I've looked and can't see any dates of that site of JC comments, so are you vilifying him for maybe joining a Facebook page called the Labour Party Supporter?  The anti-Semitic post may have been after he joined and left, who knows.

Are you suggesting though, that JC really agrees with tone of the link you posted? That he hates Jews? Because that's what it looks like, and to be honest it's very disingenuous, and I think you really know better.

"To join one anti-Semitic Facebook group may be regarded as an accident; to join two looks like carelessness; to join three looks like....anti-Semitism"

he does seem to be rather naive , i suspect his backers are so unbothered about it all it has bred some complacency on his part and given an open goal to his detractors.

Agreed. Again this is a terrible attempt at distraction and point scoring. All sorts of scenarios here. I could be accused of racism because that mate of mine from school keeps posting Britain First videos and it took me a few months to get the courage to block him and send him a message that I didn't think he was very nice. I've got numerous friends I don't follow. They might be posting nazi videos every day and I wouldn't know. If somebody ran a Facebook profile called the 'NorthernGrit supporter' I might carry on following anyway because I'd like to know what they were saying. I just don't think any of this amounts to evidence of anything substantial. Show me the evidence of his anti-semitism, of his policies that discriminate then that's something to work with. But this? No.....

I'm moderately sympathetic to Cohen and bought his book "What's Left", in hardback no less, when it came out. I actually tried to get funding to do a full research project on the British left's split over the Iraq war and engagement with Islamist groups, and to try and situate it in older Atlanticist Vs anti-American trends in the Labour movement. No takers unfortunately.

But your "much of the left" comment isn't true, not in the British context anyway. Under recent Labour governments it was anguished, as different "community leaders" rose and fell in favour. Cohen has long been interested in the marginal far left, but that happens to be where Corbyn and some of his team come from. The bemusement and anger that many rank and file Labour/Corbyn supporters are greeting this with is from a lack of understanding (the mural requires "reading" as academics say, pretty obvious if you are interested in such things but many would be completely oblivious to it) of leftwing anti semitism not because of anti semitism.

You've not only provided an apology that is as mealy mouthed as anything that Corbyn has ever said about his controversial affairs, but provided a host of reasons why he should never be PM!

 

Are you saying that you can't criticise the behaviour of one country unless you list all others behaving equally badly at the same time?

That he is not antisemitic, but he is incompetent. He's certainly shown his incompetence in dealing with this issue.

Dealing with continual accusations of antisemitism is par for the course for anyone who opposes the actions of the Israeli state. We'd have to look at the specific allegations to see which have substance. 

I guess a test is if Theresa May was found to be part of three facebook groups where members openly spouted white supremacy or Britain First propaganda (for want of a better example) would you adopt a similar attitude?

I don't know if JC is antisemitic or not, but he does seem to be linked constantly with people who espouse such stuff. Why is that? 

not if you take into account his obsession with israel. 

what ?

How do you know I haven't? You're judging me from my posts on UKC?

Do I have to condemn everywhere to be allowed to criticise Israel?

Do you not think Israel is a "special" case, considering the length of time is been going on?

Should I have not protested against apartheid SA in the 70s because of some other issue around the world?

Like apartheid, Israel is in that special niche where with a strong government, peace could probably be achieved and relatively quickly.

Like apartheid, the state is condoning illegal activity based on race, they could at the very least enforce it's own laws against it's own citizens, but chooses not to.

A better question might be knowing what Israel is doing, why aren't you condemning them. I'd suggest it's an easier to answer question that why aren't I speaking out about any number of other human rights violations around the world.

Like donating to a charity, I can't give to all of them, so like most things in life you choose where to put your efforts, you don't not give because you can't give to all.

Or is your question a attempt to insinuate I'm anti-Semitic? It's funny how easily some people throw that insult around, and it often comes from those who are the most easily offended.

Am I anti-Semitic because I'm pro-Palestine? Because that's what I've been accused of a number of times.

I happen to know I'm not anti-Semitic, and that's enough for me, but it does see to be easy for some people to label other people without seeing the irony in that.

seem to be able to decide who's what without actually knowing anything about them.

1. Please show your working. You cannot complain about the standard of debate and then make statements like that without appropriate counter argument. You should look at your own debating skills before criticising the debate itself.

2. I wasn't aware I was campaigning for Corbyn to be PM or that I ever stated that he should be? What you have done is assumed that because I have highlighted problems with the line of political narration that I am somehow on one side of a fence. Like most people I may more closely align with a particular strand of politics than another but that doesn't mean I cannot see fault in a particular party, policy or action from that strand nor can I not see logic in arguments from the counter side. Until there is the 'clairvoyantly gained opinions of NorthernGrit party' I cannot see that I will ever align fully with a particular political party. I've already stated I think the system is broken.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying and I think Krikoman gets it because he has chosen to ignore the point.

It's a fair point and if I'm honest if TM had been linked to three white supremacist groups I might be harder on her. I am trying to recognise where my own bias lays though, something which I believe more people should do. There is danger of derailment and whataboutery here though if I go further with this.

Anti-Semitism is such an odd and deeply rooted cultural phenomenon it's an special one. I would say I'm not racist but I'm pretty certain if I did one of those implicit bias tests from Harvard, I'm sure I would have anti black bias - the results show most black people who are minority citizens are biased against black people! I'm sure you think you're not anti Semitic and I know you wouldn't go yelling yid or worse at a dude in funny hat and side curls walking down a British street. But you did seem to expect Cohen was Jewish and therefore he should comment on a domestic Israeli story. 

See my reply above 14:34 Mon, don't think I ignored much, simply asked for clarification, even did most of the work for you.

Are you sure that isn't prejudice rather than being anti-Semitic?

There are two points there though:

1. Obviously Cohen's name, slightly Jewish so maybe I was projecting.
2. But Cohen has been writing about anti-Semitism for sometime, looking briefly at his articles, and yet there doesn't seem to be many criticising Israel. Maybe as a journalist him might like to comment of Israeli affairs as a backdrop to the charges of anti-Semitism levelled at pro-Palestine activists.

And of course you're right, we all have our little prejudices, or hunches if you like, that's what keeps us from walking into a lions den to simply find out if lions are dangerous.

I have to admit, when I meet Jewish people now, I often wonder if they are anti-Palestinians, or pro-settlement. It doesn't mean i'm anti-Semitic

Anti-Semitism isn't anything special, I've ended up in a fist fight, because I have a northern accent, it wasn't about where I came from, it was about some dickhead who wanted a fight. he simply chose to have a go because I was different. It wasn't because I'm touchy either, it was simply some bloke wanted to cause trouble and I stood out from the rest.

While I'm not belittling anti-Semitism of hate speech, look up David Muial, and tell me which is more important and how can this be justified?

Crumbs, I think you've just passed the test.

Are you saying you have no prejudices, or that you can't accept you have them and make a rational decision, knowing you do have them?

Surely the most dangerous person is the person who doesn't question their prejudices.

Or are you suggesting that any Jewish prejudice is anti-Semitism.

  I tend to agree, but that puts him, as on so many other issues, in the "useful idiot" camp. Useful idiots can also be dangerous idiots.

  I'm not running round screaming anything. I am agreeing with Cohen's view, which is not that Corbyn is an anti-semite himself but that he tolerates and is a fellow traveller with anti-semites. And I have been drawing attention to this aspect of the left for more than six years.

   The accusation is meant to be offensive because Corbyn's wilful blindness is pernicious and dangerous.

I'm not outraged.  The reason I wasn't bothered six years ago are a) I didn't know about it then b) at the time Corbyn was a loony-left backbencher, not leader of the opposition.

You've have clearly still not grasped what Cohen is aruging.  He's not arguing Corbyn shouldn't say what he thinks.  On the contrary, he is arguing we should listen to what Corbyn says (and doesn't say) to gauge is his views.

Unfortunately that isn't what's happening though is it? (anyone listening and gauging his views). Most people are shouting and pointing the finger.

It's become another witch-hunt to find some shit to stick to Labour.

"one must admire the incredible skills the media have in manipulating the population. They've managed to convince many that the most passionate anti-racist campaigner of the last 40 year, Jeremy Corbyn, is actually pro-racist and anti-Semitic." - Jewish Voice.

Isn't it time we demanded more?

No, it is.  I know people aren't drawing the same conclusions as you, but that doesn't mean they aren't listening and gauging views.

It appears that "Jewish Voice" is a Twitter feed of certain Corbyn supporters, so it's hardly surprising they think that.

In an imaginary world where Corbyn reinvented himself tomorrow, taking the tories to task, then starts digging up historical dirt on Boris, Gove and Brexit bulldog... only then Maybot does nothing. I presume you would take the same witch hunt view? 

Are they Jewish though?

This whole issue is the culmination of any criticism of Israel or Pro-Palestinian stance, being accused of anti-Semitism.  It will not end well and like the boy who cried wolf, will end up with people ignoring true anti-Semitism.

The last protest march for Palestine, had a alternative protest accusing everyone on the Palestinian march of being anti-Semites, all 50k of them, men, women, children, Muslim, Catholic and Jew.

When will being pro-Palestinian be seen as being pro human rights?

That's as maybe but nothing to do with this thread or the article in the OP.  Perhaps you could stop derailing the discussion at every opportunity?

Yes, if it's not true!!

Either JC's very good at subterfuge and has been for 40+ years, or it's bullshit.

What he's being accused of doesn't make sense! Not only does it not make sense it's highly offensive.

Actually it may well be entirely relevant. I'll post more later.

your problem is that you are not pro Palestinian. You are anti srael. You obsessively move the conversation to condemn israel. If you really were pro Palestinian then you would also condemn the Palestinian governments. This is from the latest amnesty international report on Palestine.

‘The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Hamas de facto administration in the Gaza Strip escalated their restrictions on freedom of expression. In both areas, security forces tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity. ,

,Women in both areas continued to face discrimination and violence. Courts in Gaza handed down death sentences and Hamas carried out public executions,

But you never reference this. Your’s is a classic  example of an anti Zionism position being really one of anti Semitism

You seem to have missed my many posts condemning Hamas but, let not let facts get in the way eh?

But let's take me out of the equation, is it possible to be pro-Palestinian and not be called anti-Semitic?

You don't get it? It's not what he has personal said over the previous 40 years, but what he consistently fails to acknowledge and deal with over the past 2 years as leader. The buck stops with him. 

See above. He refuses to reign in party members over this issue. He had no problem sacking a remain supporter from his shadow cabinet last week, which would imply he is siding with the Labour members who are anti semetic, by not dealing with this issue.

It's that, or he is totally incompetent, or doesn't carry any power, merely being a puppet leader for the party & momentum.

No I do get it, but that isn't what the media are saying, and haven't been since this morning. Since he's only been leader for two years, the main gist of this anti-Semitic thrust is coming from 6 years ago, four years before he became leader.

I understand fully what the issue is, but it's been twisted and conflated to just about say everyone in the Labour party are now anti-Semites. This accusation has been levelled at anyone who has spoken up for Palestine for the last ten years that I know of, so it's nothing new.

What is new is the fervour with which the media have chosen to ignore the "issue" and simply suggest Corbyn is anti-Semitic, or at best a sympathiser ( but I think we've heard that before too).

If you had consistent position of being equally strong in condemning non Israeli infringements of Palestinian rights

and

you argued more frequently that there are far more and worse egregious infringements of human rights elsewhere

and

you did not insert anti Israeli statements into loosely connected discussions 

then

......Yes

Why does something worse happening elsewhere excuse what's going on? OR why do I have to acknowledge anything to believe something isn't right? It's either right or it's wrong, what's going on elsewhere doesn't have to come into it.

Not that I don't, but really! You think I need to do this, to make you fell better about me?

Does Lillian count?

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/must-manipulation-history/

If you're referring to Corbyn, i said I don't know if hes antisemitic as i have no access to his brain , but i have no evidence that he hates jews , more like apeases his base which contains anti semites. 

If your refering to the BDS, then yes, everything about their activities is to isolate israel to the point that 'it changes' , that is becomes a state that is not associated with jews in particular. Hence if someone is active in the bds then they adhere to that agenda.

Funny, i  missed them as well. 

Perfectly possible. 

What about the Jews who are members of BDS?

I can't be arsed to dig them out, but you've accused me of being an anti-Semite, a Hamas and Hezbollah supporter before, more than once, and I've refuted that and condemned both, a number of times. But hay ho, if you don't remember.

well that's a start.

What about them? 

There are many ultra orthodox jews against the very existence of israel. Quite a few communist Jews are as well for obvious different reasons. Why being born in a religion has anything to do with how a person develops politically?

If i accused you of being an anti semite , i refuted that as i have no reason to believe you are. 

As for supporting hamas , if i said  that , it was based on specific posts. Probably about justifying terror attacks in some way or wanting unsupervised flow of goods into gaza. 

I know you are for Palestinians rights , and as much as you disbelieve it , i am too, but you often seem not to respects israelis right to not be attacked , or Israel's right to defend itself just like the uk would in a similar situation. 

Evidence of this statement please. Examples where JC has failed to acknowledge and deal with anti-semitism (genuine request)

He refuses to reign in party members... which ones? 

Undoubtedly Labour and the Jewish community have some problems but personally I don't think it comes down to a simple case of anti-semitism. We're talking about politics and politics and rhetoric is being pushed on both sides. I've just seen a statement claiming JC is a 'figurehead' for anti-semitism. I mean really? Is there anyone alive who actually believes that?

I've been asking around for specific examples of anti semitic behaviour in the Labour party. Eventually someone was kind enough to oblige me with a link to this website: https://antisemitism.uk/politics/ . People really need to have a look at what is being described as anti semitic. Apparently this statement is anti semitic,  “Israel decided that the [international aid] ship would not be allowed to sail to Gaza, Israel decided that the children and old and sick would continue to suffer and die, this is being done by the survivors of the Holocaust, it beggars belief that the Jewish people who suffered so much could treat innocent children this way but that’s what they are doing.”

Yes, there are examples of anti semitism on that web page but in each of those cases the people concerned, generally of the conspiracy theory/illuminati tendency, were suspended from the party. It is not known whether they were subsequently expelled.

Can I also paste a statement from Jewish Voice for Labour:

"We are Jews in the Labour Party currently actively campaigning for Labour in local elections.  We are appalled by the actions and statements of the Board of Deputies.  They do not represent us or the many Jews in the Party who share Jeremy Corbyn’s vision for social justice and fairness.  Jeremy’s consistent commitment to anti-racism is all the more needed now.

As the British people call time on May and the Tories, they are getting more desperate.  We would hope that any organisation claiming to represent Jews would be calling them to account when, to cite two examples in the last two months, the Prime Minister‘s ex Chief of Staff uses a national newspaper to dredge up an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and Havering Conservative party issues a dogwhistle leaflet hoping to mobilise racism in their local election campaign.  The Board of Deputies has been silent on both. It also says nothing on the global rise of the far right and the toxic anti-immigrant rhetoric of the tabloid press, despite the imperative from Jewish history to speak out against racism and fascism.

The Board of Deputies and those supporting them must be aware that this is an attempt to influence local elections and has nothing to do with the real and necessary task of challenging racism and anti-semitism at all levels of political life.  We call on them to stop playing politics and start representing what our community needs.  We believe that is best represented by the politics we fight for and hope to see win on May 3rd.

Signed..."

If you want to see the 30 odd signatures, click here: http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/jvl/a-jvl-statement-on-the-current-a...

Can I also point out that several members of the board of the Jewish Leadership council, are or have been major fund raisers and or members of the conservative party, Jonathan Arkush for one, Mark Adlestone another. Just check out the website and Google the names.

Let's face it, this is nothing but another tory smear campaign. The Czech spy one didn't work, the London council elections are getting dangerously close so they had to cobble something together in a desperate attempt to to revive their moribund campaign. It's dishonest, it's cynical, it's despicable.

..and finally, let me leave you with another everyday story from Palestine. The sort that causes outrage amongst members of the Labour party and for that matter, most decent and fair minded people in this country: https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=779970 and is no doubt another reason why the most inclusive and tolerant party in Britain is being smeared as racist.

If the apologists for the State of Israel want to bring an end to criticism of the country they feel allegiance to then all Israel needs to do is to stop stealing Palestinian land, stop stealing Palestianian water, stop trampling on Palestinian human rights and implement the UN resolutions.

Apologies for the funny fonts, my browser doesn't want to change them.

You've concocted your own definition or test for anitsemitism that suits your own very parochial agenda. As a formal logical fallacy, it's usually called "moving the goalposts". 

I suggest that a better test to judge if someone is antisemitic - rather than opposed to the actions of the Isreali state - is to see whether they indicate (however indirectly) that they have a problem with Jewish people *on the grounds of them being Jewish*. Those who meet this test are antisemitic rather than opposed to the actions of the Israeli state.

A good example of antisemitism that meets this (correct) test is from the painter of the infamous mural.

Of course it is, no anti-semitism in labour, nothing to see here, they're worse anyway, move along.

Some of your statements would be typical of the sort of excuse that Corbyn comes up with:

•  He glanced at the mural and didn't appreciate the full meaning or intent and simply gave a couple of lines of support in a fairly small way.
• Perhaps you could even argue that because he is not anti-semitic the standard symbols of anti-semitism or zionism were lost on him.

I find it hard to believe that Corbyn didn't know the full implications of the mural in question.  However, I don't think he did so out of a hatred of Jews, but more of a hatred of the banking system in the UK/World and that he sees parts of the Jewish community as being instrumental in that banking system. i.e. I don't personally believe that he's anti-Semitic, but I do believe that he finds elements of the Jewish community at polar opposites to his political ideology.

As for the reasons why he shouldn't be PM:

• Corbyn is not terribly savvy or astute
• I don't think this mountain of a mole hill proves anything other than he isn't very observant.

> 2. I wasn't aware I was campaigning for Corbyn to be PM or that I ever stated that he should be? 

Apologies, I assumed that you were pro-Corbyn.

“Israel decided that the [international aid] ship would not be allowed to sail to Gaza, Israel decided that the children and old and sick would continue to suffer and die, this is being done by the survivors of the Holocaust, it beggars belief that the Jewish people who suffered so much could treat innocent children this way but that’s what they are doing.”

Israel has repeatedly allowed aid ships to enter ashdod be checked and goods transferred to gaza. Comparing israelis to the actions of nazis is anti Semitic since it's so far removed from reality , it's hard to come up with other motive for this except for them being Jews.  

So the anti Semitic people in labor are just mentally unstable? Not classic anti semites or , so not pc to say,  some muslim council members in certain parts of the country?

So some story about a farmer attacked by settlers in a different region of the world is why labor is being smeared as racist? Makes sense...

Good thing you got the solution in a short paragraph without mentioning Palestinian leadership. You can replace Blair!

May i add , your own linkage of israel with the anti Semitic problem in labor in your very confused post demonstates part of the problem. Anti semitism? But but what about israel...?

Does that make then anti-Semitic?

Read this:

http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/must-manipulation-history/

Is she wrong? She seems to cover most of the things you've posted against.

No, why?

That rubbish is wrong on so many levels  i wouldn't even know how to begin a reply. 

Maybe if you posted links from less anti Israel websites you would be taken more seriously.

Meanwhile in france:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/europe/frances-jewish-leaders-...

You can't dodge the reality of the suffering of the people of Gaza due to Israeli policies restricting their access to resources. You might feel that the Israeli policies are justified by the risks to Israel posed by more open access, which is a reasonable point to  argue, but what you're saying looks to me like you're trying to minimise or deny the reality of the suffering the policy causes. And that's not a reasonable way to argue that Israeli policy is justified, it has some pretty nasty implications.

You read into the comment a comparison of Israelis to Nazis, but it's not actually there.

1.  Israel decided that the children and old and sick would continue to suffer and die

This may or may not be justified, according to how you view the risk to Israelis.

2. this is being done by the survivors of the Holocaust, and it beggars belief...

This isn't saying that the Israelis are "as bad as the Nazis" no matter how much you want it to say that so you can brand it antisemitic. Once you've branded it antisemitic, you've justified not listening to what's being said and you've de-legitimised everything that person has to say. The next stage of this tactic (I'm not accusing you of this step, but it links back to the OP and the slipperiness of Cohen) is to then spread this guilt of antisemitism by association to other political opponents.

I for one do not buy this line of reasoning for one second. It's dishonest.

Im not denying the suffering of the people or gaza. The difference between us that you place thr blame on israel while completely ignoring the fact that Gaza is ruled by a terror group that cares nothing about it's own people and has a main objective of destoying israel by any means.

That sounds like plain anti israeI propoganda to me straight from the PA offices in rammalah. And yes, it is a direct comparison to the holocaust.

It's completely comparing israel to nazis. If a different way was used to make the point perhaps more people would listen to it. People who are pro Palestinian always say jews use the holocaust to their advantage, but that is exactly what is being attempted here: Israelis are descendants of holocaust survivors , and they are doing something similar , and not only that, but the historical setting and reasons are similar... 

Where have I done that? I've said that the risk to Israel may justify the policy, and in doing so I am entirely acknowledging the terrorism coming from Gaza. I think you should make more effort to be accurate in your arguments.

That's simply untrue. It isn't a direct comparison - that would be "what Israel is doing is the same as/as bad as the holocaust". 

There is an implication that "they are doing something similar" - that Israeli policies cause appalling harm to innocent children, old and sick Palestinian people. Which is true, however you want to justify that. But clearly Israel suffers the threat of terrorism - and indeed the empty threat of destruction - from Hamas which is obviously completely different from the holocaust. 

Nowhere is there any implication that the historical settings and reasons are similar. Again, you should make more effort to be accurate in your arguments.

Personally I think it's unwise to make reference to the holocaust in any discussion of Israeli policy because it opens up this line of attack "you're saying Israel is as bad as the Nazis, that's antisemitic, all your arguments are now void" which can simply be avoided by keeping this out of the discussion.

Regardless of who you think's antisemitic, nothing changes about the actual moral question at stake: do the actions of Hamas justify Israeli policy?

Fair enough.

I have no desire to justify suffering of non involved civilians.

If that's your reason of not making holocaust comparisons then it's tactical rather than moral.

I think they do. 

Having said that there should be a joined concerted effort by Israel and Egypt to improve the quality of life for regular civilians in gaza.

Yes. I don't hold "one must not make comparisons to the holocaust" as a moral commandment or imperative. I can't however think of a time when it would be the right thing to do!

That's a clear statement of your position, which I respect. Much better than arguing about who or is or isn't antisemitic, or who it's wrong or right to compare Israel to. These issues obfuscate and pollute a valid discussion of whether policies can be justified.

Ok, but what I'm saying is there is a phenomenon called anti semitism which is unrelated to israel. It existed way before israel and has a way, like other social habits, to persevere over time. It sometimes latches onto the middle east issues in various ways but it shouldn't be treated as being essentially intertwined with israel by JC or other leaders, or the general public. 

If anyone is still following, this is a similar take to Cohen but gives more examples

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/jews-furious-corbyn-e...

Undeniably.

As I said on the other thread, there is 

1.  being a part of the Palestinian solidarity movement and being accused of antisemitism by association

2. using antisemitic language motivated by opposition to Israeli policy

3. genuine antisemitism motivated by a hatred of Jews

JC is guilty of 1., while other people across the Palestinian solidarity movement will be guilty of 2. and 3. And you don't have to look far before you come across people who seem to believe that there are only two possible positions: support for Isreal and 3.

I agree with most of your classification, unfortunately that is what happens when there are heated debates, people get put in fewer and fewer boxes. 

About JC, im not so sure, i  mean see the guardian link for the many examples. At best , i can say he's extremely incompetent. 

Corbyn was very slow to react and admit there was a problem in his party, and lost quite a few voters in the process. On the other hand, i don't expect JC or anyone else to completly eradicate something that has existed in european societies for millennia. He sure is a factor in his own party though, this tolerance and cooperation with holocaust denying tv channels to hosting terrorists on forums , that causes anti semitism to be tolerated around him because he is the elected leader.

I can't see what else you wrote, can be interpreted as meaning, and he didn't, he replied before you did.

Is she not Jewish, then because you don't like it?

Or are you saying it's made up? and she doesn't really exist?

Or is she simply anti-Semitic and we should discount her for that?

I see you post, and raise you a lynching of a Jew by Jews!!

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/10/19/israeli-guard-kills-eritrean-...

In you post it does say that the anti-Semitic angle is being investigated, what more can they do at present. It could simply be a robbery by some evil tw*t. Just because it's a Jewish lady doesn't mean it's a religious hate crime, it might well be, but we, and you, simply don't know.

At least we know my post is the truth as sadly it was videoed.

Saw this and thought I might post it, not sure if it's true and I don't have time to check.

Make of it what you will. I'm not defending him in anyway, but it might at least be nice to hear what he thinks the painting is about.

"Here are the words of the artist The US artist who painted the mural, Kalen Ockerman, has identified the men it depicts as, from left to right, “Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie & Warburg“.

Of the six men, only the first and last in the list were Jewish. One, Aleister Crowley, was noted for his anti-Semitic views."

What? No , just anti israel propoganda like the rest of that website. 

Can you cut the jewish anti semitism crap?

Wtf are you posting man? 

Do you actually know what happened there? 

Again your twisted lies aimed to 'prove' israelis are racists and killers.... 

Anti israel to the bone....

You might not be anti Semitic, but you sure have a negative opinion on israelis in general.

In the uk people have attacked terrorists as they should if they can stop an attack. 

You use this incident of a mistaken identity to lash at israelis. Beyond pathetic.

And btw he wasn't a jew as you claim for some dumb reason. Not that it is relevant for anything as your whole post is pointless.

My link was not as pointless. It was to demonstrate the widespread anti semitism in europe.. but continue denying labor have an anti semitism problem. Your leaders do not deny it at all if you read the news. 

You like yes/no questions. 

Then answer: does labor have an anti semitism problem? That's the topic of the thread, not Israel. 

But of course, you're ''not defending it in ANY way'..... 

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jeremy-corbyn-is-an-anti-racist-not-an-antis...

It might be simpler to just answer yes or no

You can stop trolling, as i said being anti Israel is not the same as being anti Semitic. See jon Stewarts post if you need help in understanding venn diagrams, as you have asked the same questions a million times despite being answered.

Who said he is an anti semite? 

You are not answering. 

Does labor have an anti semitism problem?

Its really not that complicated. Yes or no.

Not at all, you posted a murder an France, which at the moment has no link to anti-Semitism, simply the murder of a Jewish woman. But like the OP has linked this to anti-Semitism as a fact!!

While I agree (please note this, before casting aspersions again) there is an issue with anti-Semitism everywhere, you can't simply link the murder of a Jewish person to anti-Semitism. Otherwise you'd have to do the same to the bloke in Israel.

You continently left out government from you sentence.

See above.

So to stop someone you have to kill them?!?! That really is Israeli government policy.

Are you sure,  there are  Eritrean Jews in Israel you know. A lot of them are subjected to racist abuse.

If you read this report https://european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/report/antisemitism-uk-tenth-rep... it was found that Labour are no worse than any other mainstream party. That's not excusing any anti-Semitism but let's paint the whole picture not just the part that suits you?

Yes, probably, in the same way that there's an anti-Semitic and racism problem in the whole of society, I don't think it's any worse of better, for that matter in Labour. We could all do better probably. Have a look through some thread on UKC regarding Muslims and Islam for comparison.

Are we sure this isn't all part of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-p...

For which TM refused an inquiry.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/28/labour-mps-attending-antis...

Oh dear.....

To stop a terrorist in the midst of an sttack , you often have to kill them. 

There are Ethiopian jews in Israel. And not a 'lot'. Erithrean are mainly illegal migrants.

Ridiculous :

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-admits-hundreds-of-anti-semitism-c...

See link above. 

You should separate the now recognised anti semitism problem in labor from your anti israeli politics.

I hope they do.

That could be said of both sides, anti-Isreali Government politics should stop being called anti-Semitism, but even at the highest levels this isn't so, what's more it very rarely gets addressed or publicised.

The Israeli government gets conflated with Israel, which gets conflated with Jews and it can all be called anti-Semitic, by people who want it to be.

Again I'd like to ask, what you say to the Jews, that joined Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn?

I would say that they insist labor crack down seriously on anti semitism in its ranks. You are again trying to whitewash the problem by saying pro Israel supporters call anti Israel activities as anti semitism. 

Instead why don't you agree with JC and the rest of labor leadership that there is an anti semitism problem there. 

No one is asking you to stop being pro Palestinian. Seperate it. 

I think there's a problem with racism in society, not just anti-Semitism and not just in the Labour party, I think there probably is an issue in the Labour party, but I also think it's equally as bad in other parties, or in the general public.

I also think there is a certain element that are "looking" for anti-Semitism within the Labour party, while turning a blind eye to it elsewhere, which is much more dangerous.

I also think that, this should be viewed in the light of this:- (sorry to post it twice)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-p...

For which TM refused an inquiry.

I fail to see the relation. 

Anti semitism has existed for well over 1000 years...

The relation is that if Israel is meddling in UK politics, specifically the Labour party, what better way than to whip up the current furore and to keep it running as long as possible.

Why do you  keep trying to link everything to Israel/Palestine?  The issue isn't about that, it's about repeated tolerance of or tacit support for blatant anti-antisemitism (and other vices).  Another example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43578225

So you are denying there is an snti semitism problem in labor? Or it is all an israeli conspiracy? Even JC didn't go there....

See MG above.

Well because it is all part of it. If there was peace between Israel and Palestine, there wouldn't be any need for people to get involved in pro / anti groups there'd be less stupid and thoughtless remarks, so less accusations of anti-Semitism. There'd be less need for Israel to try and influence our own government and we could then deal with real anti-Semitism in our society. Not the often assumed anti-Semitism but he real I hate Jews type of anti-Semitism, that should have no place in society.

I'm not saying it wouldn't exist (A/S) but there'd be less chance of misinterpretation, it would be easier to spot and deal with.

Remember not everyone is as educated as you, people get angry at the injustices they see in Palestine, and sometimes say stupid shit, that they may or might not mean. It happens on both sides by the way, you only have to look at a few Haaretz forums, to see how racist both side can be. Worse still root out a few American we sites JVP usually has a few choice posts.

It all feeds down and people can lose sight of what's acceptable. Given the fact that a lot of the time, what is acceptable (criticism of the Israeli government or the IDF) will get you painted as an anti-Semite it's not hard to see how people on both sides get confused.

Not my test. I am elaborating a practical set of questions for krikoman, who did ask after all. And these are all variations of one of the standard definitions of critics of Israel. That is, do they hold Israel to a standard they do not apply elsewhere? If so, this suggests anti Semitism.

Which relates of course to the theme of this thread. That anti semites now are rarely explicit in public because they would get jumped on. Rather, they speak in codes and with insinuations, all of which are deniable. Slippery, like certain leading Labour politicians.

I think that this test is utterly bogus. It is impossible to "hold Israel to the same standard as that applied elsewhere". To do this one would have to find a state identical to Israel and hold the same opinions about it. That's impossible - there is nowhere that could be used as an example of a state sufficiently similar that it could be treated the same, held to the same standards (whatever that means).

No one can pass this test, and as such anyone who criticises Israel can be branded antisemitic under its definition. Who knows which other states it might be acceptable to compare Israel to, and hold to the same standards, to the satisfaction of Israelis? Maybe 80s South Africa? Guessing you don't like that suggestion? 

Next, you'll tell me about all the important heads of government that have agreed to this definition. Well if that makes it true, then you'd better start agreeing to all those antisemitic UN Resolutions, eh?

).

First you say it's impossible to accurately compare political situations across regions and eras, which I agree to mostly, then you compare Israel to apartheid South Africa ... 

How offensive a comparison that must be (for apartheid-era South Africa). 

I didn't make the comparison. I suggested it sarcastically to demonstrate that such comparisons, seemingly demanded by the bogus antisemitism test, don't work. 

Aren't we regularly being told, Israel isn't Judaism, Judaism isn't Zionism, Zionism isn't Israel, the IDF isn't Israel or representative of Judaism?

It seems to me that you're happy to conflate all of the above when is suits you, and in the same breathe deny any connection when it doesn't. Worse than that you're happy to label people anti-Semitic when it suits you.

If an Israeli is offended by it then they should reflect carefully upon it.

It's not the worst comparison I've heard Jews make about Israel.

It’s not my best witticism either, but at least try and dignify it with the correct interpretation. 

Would it be offensive to compare you to an idiot? 

Aha, well I'm not sure about anti semitic tests either, I think intuition works best in these cases. 

Who told you all that? 

And why do you use 'is' when other terms like 'part of' or 'representative of' are more appropriate ? 

Good point. Hence why when one ethnicity denies opportunities to another that intuitively passes the racism test. Even if some do the right thing so their factories are non-racist.

Is was on a Jewish web site, I can't remember which.

Once again, you're talking about semantics to deflect any semblance of discussion. As is almost ALWAYS the case, the real issue is being diverted away from and you end up talking about what words we are supposed to use.

The reality of life for Palestinians in Israeli is it's pretty shitty, and people are dying lossing their houses and land, while you're arguing about the words people are using to describe using to describe it. It doesn't really matter whether I use "part" of or "is", a lot of shit things are being done by the Israeli government. If you're trying to pretend you care even one iota, then you should start calling that out, instead of tell everyone that does call it out, they are using the wrong language!!

You seem to easily forgive the Israeli government for their actions, and yet MY language is something that needs to be picked apart, and called offensive!!

The problem though with intuition is that it is heavily influenced by political affiliation... 

It matters which words you use if it ends up meaning something else.... 

I didn't call it offensive  the sentences were incoherent  

On that basis claims of Corbyn antisemitism are bollocks to be ignored as political partisanship. 

That's your logic. 

that's not my logic. 

what i meant is that intuition is influenced by a prior opinion and perceptions,  and therefore should always be accompanied by common sense. 

under that scrutiny anti semitism in labour is still apparent. 

though you can believe whatever you want for your own reasons...

Certainly not mine.

As is the racism of one ethnicity treating another shittily.

As you can too for your reasons...

you mean palestinian school text books in which jews are compared to apes and pigs ? 

thread was about anti semitism in labour until you and others decided to change the topic to 'the racism of israel and israelis in general and the justification of backlash against british jews for their one sided support of israel'. 

Not wishing to be drawn into the wider debate, the Brexit thread is enough to keep me busy for now...

but- common sense? That’s different from prior opinion and perceptions? Really?

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_125365

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

(Ok so he probably didn’t actually say it word for word.... but the sentiment is felt to be faithful from what I can see)

i think you have made many interesting points on this and the other thread, but claiming intuition and common sense are much different isn’t a persuasive line to take...

Again Krikoman, you're either typing too fast and not noticing your mistakes or you don't really understand this situation you seem so obsessed. The reality of life for Palestinians in Israel is not it's pretty shitty. With their exemption from military service if they choose to, yet civil rights as Israeli citizens, their situation isn't particularly bad at all. Indeed compared to Palestinians in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and particularly Syria, being an Israeli Palestinian isn't too bad. It's the Palestinians in the occupied territories who do not have rights guaranteed under the Israeli constitution who often live in shitty circumstances.

What is your definition of common sense. It's not a notion that is defined like, say, first order logic... 

I would say common sense is the ability to take in facts, interpret them in a way that separates exaggerated  emotional responses and perceptions triggered by those facts that are related to other associated experiences. That is what makes the sense 'common" and not 'yours'.

Einstein said a lot of things, God not playing with dice among others  

It’s a good question. And yes, there’s no universal definition 

thats part of the problem. Whenever I see the expression used, it tends to be in the context of dressing up a particular viewpoint as self evident truth. Often the viewpoint is a fairly superficial one, along the lines of 

“Stop people using drugs? lock them up for longer, it’s common sense....”

i tend to think that most plausible solutions to real world problems tend to be counterintuitive, or at best complex, and ‘common sense’ suggestions are at best unhelpful; and have developed something of an allergic reaction to the term, leading me to a near Pavlovian reaction of challenging it when I hear it...

You are of course totally correct, Gazza isn't Israel and the occupied territories aren't Israel either.

So I was typing too fast, and I wasn't specific enough, but once again it's become about words rather than what you probably knew what I was talking about.

I'd also argue that it's not a bed of roses for Palestinians living in Israel either, trying to get to prayers can be a bit fraught at times, and there's the problem of being hounded out of your housing, if you happen to live in the wrong place.

It's not about being obsessed, it about a fair kick of the ball, and we all know that isn't happening.

The recent "conflict" in Gaza has proved just that, stones against snipers, tanks and helicopter isn't really a conflict is it?

Unless you help someone online by pointing out the wrong words. Then it's pedantry...apparently... 

But it didn't end up meaning something different.

Well I seemed to understand them perfectly, and to be honest so did you, all you did was elucidate a bit more.

If I say Boris isn't the government you  know what I mean, at least I would like to hope you do.

...and despite all this the latest Yougov poll shows Labour rising in popularity competed to last month. Which all goes to show how little interest most people take in politics.

This is so stupid it's utterly hilarious, you can't know what any of these words mean.

I don't think it's a huge mystery.

In the 60/70s people were  attracted by a traditional anti-americanism and Israel was painted as a UK/US neo-colonial project. No-one thought they would survive, so it was only after losing 3 wars that the Arabs had to even consider the possibility of a legitimate Israeli state.

The old school Stalinists in the Labour party faced the same dilemma. Corbyn said last week that denying Israel's Right to Exist was anti-semitic, so his new SPAD, Andrew Murray and Seamus Milne, Livingstone suddenly on the wrong side of racism. Murray of course has only been in the party for over a year, preferring different Communist outfits previously.

After losing the Yom Kippur war, the Arabs and Arafat reassessed but the Labour party didn't need to, as they didn't need a working relationship with Israel.

The Corbynites then formed a perfect storm by joining forces with the jew hating Muslimists at the MAB in 2001, to protest the (2nd) Iraq war as the Stop the War Coalition

Lindsay German famously said that women, gays, (Jews) would take a back seat whilst the war was to be opposed. In fact the war went ahead very quickly but StW and the Corbynites had moved to the right and didn't shift back.

The difference between anti-semitism and other forms of racism is the way Jews are blamed for all the world's ills, the Muslim jew hatred is something else in intensity, being blamed for 9/11, ISIS, Grenfell Tower described as a Jewish Sacrifice by one Labour activist. Zionists blamed for Grenfell by the IHRC, organisers of Al Quds day in London, where Corbyn is a regular visitor, where Hezbollah (an anti-semitic force under Corbyn's own terms) are widely praised.

Corbyn's had 18 (!) years of tolerating this extreme racism, which is half of his time as an MP, there is no way he would work with racists unless they are anti-semitic racists, hence the accusation that he treats Jews with bias and prejudice.

I am not sure if you are being devious or just stupid.

It is the same standard, not the same situation. For example, if  you are a public figure criticizing israel for its police shooting attackers with weapons, then you should be on record as criticising such incidents when it happens elsewhere. Or if you criticize Israel for defending its borders and its people, then you should ensure your own army does not defend your country. 

it is not my definition. This is a quote where ‘it’ is Israel. ‘Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’ It is a quote from European working definition of anti Semitism. Which the UK adopted. See the announcement https://holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/statement_on_working_d...

In the last few weeks Israel has shot and killed an unarmed, clearly marked journalist, along with shooting and injuring many other unarmed Palestinians.  This is nothing knew and in some ways quite mild for Israelis. Can you point to other countries doing this?  If you can, I expect those above will be quite happy to criticise them.    Thinking Israel is an aggressive, thieving, murderous country and the IDF a bunch of shits is quite different to opinions of Jews generally.  It's also quite compatible with thinking very little of Palestinian behaviour.

This thread is really pissing me off. Many of you are like Corbyn, non Jews who are ‘experts’ on what is ‘really anti Semitism’. How long would you last in public life or on a forum if you said ‘I am white but I, not blacks like you, know what racism is’. Or ‘I am a Christian and no, although you are a Muslim, I am the one who defines islamophobia’ or ‘I am a man, and you women don’t know what your talking about regarding sexual harassment’. 

Yet some of you have the gall to come on here and deny that Jews like me do not know what is anti Semitism  

It's not "gall" when you are trying to combine the definitions of anti-Israeli and antisemitic.  They are quite different things, and it really pisses me off when Israelis try and  merge them to justify their and their country's shitty behaviour..   You might note above I was the one pointing out and condemning  Corbyns' closeness to anti-antisemitism.

And in any case, if only Jews can decide, which Jews should we listen to since they all say different things?

Fine, I'll say the same thing with different words:

Mike TS's response did not relate to the question. In his answer to a different question than that posed, he created his own definition of one of the terms in the question (a definition not understood or accepted anywhere else) to suit his own purpose. As such, the answer wasn't valid.

So, if you or anyone can describe any action by Israel as "defending its borders and its people", then it's antisemitic to criticize that action (regardless of the notion of proportionality), if you come from a country with an army that defends your country. Have I got that right? 

Next, you'll tell me about all the important heads of government that have agreed to this definition. 

Well if that makes it true, then you'd better start agreeing to all those antisemitic UN Resolutions, eh?

And what do you call the Jewish people who speak out against what the Israeli government are doing?

Or this group? http://www.nkusa.org/

Are they "non Jews"?

Are only Jews allowed to have an opinion on what's right and wrong?

If this were true, how would you have criticised South African apartheid? Maybe you wouldn't!

What really really difficult for me is how you can make excuses or false accusations, if it really mattered to you you'd be joining the protests. What the IDF are doing isn't for Jews, it's for the people in power in Israel. There's enough of them telling the truth about what they are encouraged to do, you only have to open your eyes.

Your accusations of anti-Semitism are part of the problem, and it perpetuates the image of people hiding behind words to cover unacceptable actions.

Shame on you.

I don't know what you know about them but I think a cult split off from Judaism might be the best description. I first met people from that group at events organised by political Islamist groups in the mid 00s. I'd be careful about using NK as demonstrating anything about Judaism in general as you won't be taken very seriously by the other 99.9% of Jews. A bit like trying to argue Westboro Baptist Church represents 'Christianity' or shows what some Christians think...

The point remains that there are thousands of Jews who will criticise Israel, without meeting the requirements of who or what else you must criticise too in order not to be deemed antisemitic. 

The "you must also criticise..." definition of antisemitism is bogus and indeed has nothing to do with antisemitism at all. It's a tedious trick to smear those who criticise the actions of a government. But I don't see it ending any time soon, since there are no other arguments available to those who want to defend Israeli policy. 

My comments were just to Krikoman who brought up NK.

But on your point, I always understand the point as being NOT that you must criticise other countries to equally to Israel, but rather why is it that Israel gets held to standards that other states don't. Now, I've got some answers to that besides anti-Semitism, but clearly many Israelis and non-Israeli Jews feel anti-Semitism IS  a big part of that, something that the Corbyn wing of the Labour party now at least says it accepts. I think Krikoman is a good example of this and him and me have discussed recently - he seems very interested in Israel-Palestine as an issue and not so much in other international conflicts where human rights are at stake. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but definitely some Jewish people feel the reason that the one Jewish state is singled out like that is anti-semitism. Krikoman says of course it's not and defends his position on the basis of notions of justice or rights, but then you're just back to the question of where is the concern for non-Palestinians who are getting a crappy deal?

But they aren't the only one's who choose to speak out against Israeli actions, or to fight against them.

I take it they are still Jews? While I'm not suggesting they represent all Jews or even a majority, I think it would be difficult to call them anti-Semites or that they wouldn't know anything about it.

Appreciated. I responded to draw attention to the underlying point (which I am interested in), rather than see that be swept away in the detail (which I'm not so much).

One big reason is the support from the US and UK. We tend to shrug our shoulders at various shitty despotic regimes f*cking over some ethnic group or other we don't really know anything about. But when our own government, along with the world's most powerful nation and our closest ally back up this type of behaviour with both rhetoric and resources, it makes it our piss boil.

What muddies the waters horribly is when those who oppose Israeli policy use antisemitic language (or imagery), motivated by their views on Israel and not by their views on Jews generally, because they're too thick or too careless not to. That's shitty behaviour and totally plays into the hands of the "criticising Israel = antisemitic" lot. This, I believe, is a problem on the hard left. Plus there's genuine antisemitism too (that is, motivated by a hatred of Jews) - but it's been so conflated with stuff that isn't antisemitic at all that progress has probably gone backwards on rooting that out.

Are you demanding the Krikoman cares equally about *all* f*cked-on groups no matter how obscure or distant from western policy, or just that he cares about a couple more to show he's not antisemitic? Which groups should he choose to satisfy the requirement?

Totally agree with the gist of your message. All I would say is don't presume the UK's position is that ''soft" on Israel. An Israeli diplomat I got to know reasonably well in Helsinki said that the UK government was always (this would have been under Labour still but policy doesn't change so much) 'a firm friend inside the Green line and a strong critic beyond it'. From my guess at his personal politics (which I don't think many diplomats are nearly as good at hiding as they think thrt are!) I don't think he had much issue with that. At the UN the UK has coordinated it's position for about 30 years now with the EU. The EU doesn't always vote as a bloc but it often does. Obviously the rest of the EU states try to persuade the UK and France to vote on a community line on the Security Council, and there is a lot of evidence of the Europeanisation of UK policy. But of course on super high profile votes (Iraq war) the UK can still take the line it wants.

I do have concerns for other groups and other issues, but they may not all get an airing on UKC, but that's by the by. Simply because I, or anyone else, doesn't concern themselves with other issues, doesn't make them anti-Semitic, much as some people might want them to.

It might simply be a matter of time, or personal circumstances, or particular issues. For my part, it's was the first issue I've become actively involved in, since CND, SA apartheid and other stuff I can't remember off hand. I also think the longevity of the issue makes it slightly unique. Along with the seemingly unfailing support from the US and the UK, without which Israel would be forced to, at least attempt peace talks.

It would be relatively simple for the "west" to pressurise Israel to at least engage in some form of peace process, yet our governments choose not to.

While this could be said of most regimes, to an extent, let's say Yemen, I don't think Saudi Arabia would have trouble buying arms for elsewhere. Where as I think Israel would have trouble finding $4bn a year support from someone else.

I think my "fascination" if you like with Israel / Palestine is that it eminently fixable, but it would need a strong leader in Israel, and I mean strong in the moral sense not in the willingness to bomb and kill people.

You only have to look at Gaza to find almost no parallels in the world, which sort of proves my point. The simple fact there's been an "occupied zone" for 30+ years speaks volumes, I understand it's out of fear, but it's still a fact.

Then there's the petty (sometimes not so petty), yet state sanctioned (sanctioned might be the wrong word - but rarely prosecuted), day to day injustices against Palestinians. Polluting farms with sewage, demolishing houses, different laws and sentencing, it's all a bit one sided for my liking.

If I had to sum it up in a single word it would be fairness as simple as that. If you not being fair then things should change.

I agree totally with this, but it's often the case, you get one fcukwit, who will post some terrible comment which is immediately used to discredit the previous 5,000. It doesn't seem to matter that the poster could be poorly educated or from a country with next to no education system, or that however inflammatory or nasty the comments maybe it can't be seen for what it is, some idiot. Or that the other 5,000 posters are not guilty by association.

It really comes down to what was the conclusion of the "anti-Semitism" thread which from my point of view was intent.

My opposition to the Israeli government isn't to make Jews disappear, it's to give Palestinians the same opportunities as everyone else.

I always thought the answer here was fairly obvious.  Jews are like us, Israel is essentially a bunch of Europeans, and so they're held to European/American standards rather than the lower standards we hold others to.  It's racist, sure, but not against Israel/jews, it's racist against all the brown people that do worse and aren't expected to do any better.

Have you been to Israel? Plenty of Israeli Jews who don't meet that description - white/European.

No, but my sister goes fairly often and the photos she sends back seem pretty clear, mostly people look as I'd expect them to look.  Perception's key anyway, not reality, and everyone knows that jews moved there from all over Europe in the aftermath of WWII.

You simply don't understand logic and ethics.

This is nowhere as stunningly dumb as your efforts at formal logic but it is still dumb as f*ck.

Treating people equally is at the foundation of our notions of justice and ethics.

Your recently concocted idea that Judaism is 'racist' because it claims God gave them some land a good example of anti-semitic prejudice.

We (as in people who consider this for more than a nanosecond) have a well founded idea of ancestral lands and indigenous peoples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_domain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_land_rights

What we don't do is dismiss them as racist because of some obviously made up origin story.

Of course, you could try to retrospectively contrive your concept of 'racist' to include these groups as well but it will never look anything but anti-semitic because you're had to force the evidence to fit your definition.

This is the problem when you make shit up on the fly, you have nothing new or interesting to say about race, instead you get a cheap thrill from calling the most racially sinned against group racists. How daring.

No I didn't. I said that support for the expansion rather than contraction of the settlement programme was racist.

In any given case, regardless of the ethnicity and history of the groups involved, in thinking about policy, my approach would be to consider the relative harm and wellbeing that would result from different courses of action. 

I don't believe that attempts to right historical wrongs against groups can form any workable policy approach.

There is nothing special about any case by virtue of the ethnic group involved.

Do you not consider the Bedouin or Palestinians in your list of indigenous people?

How far back do you need / want to go?

Taken to extremes, we could all claim Africa for ourselves, most Americans would have to f*ck off somewhere else, along with most of Australia. Brazil back to Portugal and Spain.

You do seem to make the strangest of arguments to forgive the Israeli government any of their excesses.

To be honest it's as daft as calling everyone anti-Semites.

Really? So how do you explain say the successes of the Aboriginal lands rights movements in Australia? Or the creation of Nunuvat in Canada? Etc.

Those policies might be good ways to reduce suffering and maximise wellbeing; i.e. large benefits for those who get to live on land which has cultural significance to them, and small costs for others. The question is: what is the best solution to competing desires for resources? Cultural significance certainly has to be taken into account since it affects wellbeing, but there is no reason for it to be a trump card. And when you've got competing cultural significance, then it's screwed as an idea - you just have to go to war, which is the worst possible outcome.

Obviously I don't expect someone with a totally different moral outlook - someone who thinks that what their version of their version god said trumps all - to agree with this. It's based on an entirely rational philosophy.

I'm confused to what is rational about what you are saying. It seems you are arguing for some simple utilitarian approach but I'm not sure you can really explain what "well being" means, or indeed "suffering". And it would also seem to take you rapidly back to the group conflict you were trying to avoid. Utilitarianism seems attractive but actually can have some rather totalitarian outcomes if it doesn't incorporate some notion of rights. 

I can see why you might say it's idealistic and won't ever happen, but I don't see how it's irrational. Care to expand?

The principle behind the approach is utilitarian, but that doesn't make it simple. Trying to find the right policy that delivers the utilitarian maximum is unbelievably difficult, or more likely impossible. But that's not a problem. In policy, you're not trying to find the maximum, you're trying to do something within your powers that makes the world a bit less shit. The question addressed by the underlying utilitarian principle is "what do you mean by less shit?".The principle provides a rational guide to evaluate different realistic policy options. The policies of the Israeli state are obviously completely contrary to this principle because they appear to take into account only the wellbeing of Israelis and have almost no regard at all for the suffering of Palestians. (The so-called counter argument to this is "well actually, we could have caused a whole lot more suffering if we'd wanted to, by our standards we're showing restraint".)

Here's what wellbeing and suffering are: they're psychological states of human beings. Unless you're not conscious yourself, you know exactly what wellbeing and suffering are because you have experienced them first hand. Now that's not very useful when you're thinking about policy, so you need to know what the practical circumstances are like that are most likely to deliver the most wellbeing and the least suffering. You seem to think this is a problem, but it's frankly obvious.

If you want a good chance of experiencing wellbeing, then the kind of stuff you need is health (so access to good nutrition, clean water and sanitation, effective healthcare), safety (e.g. from external threats such as missiles being launched at you), freedom (e.g. to practice your religion or cultural life; to find and express love), opportunity to improve your circumstances (e.g. through education), satisfying and rewarding work, and equality (since our contentment with our lives is relative to those around us). We all know this, instinctively. Would we rather live in a well-functioning social democracy with a thriving economy which provides these things for everyone, or in the Congo (or Gaza)? This, surely, is why.

When it comes to conflict zones, we don't really need to go into detail on wellbeing, it's reducing the suffering that is the overriding priority. I don't see why you think I might have any problem explaining what suffering is, but physical pain, poverty, ill health and grief are significant forms of suffering. These are caused by bad policy (e.g. in Gaza, where both Hamas and Israel contribute to the suffering with policies guided by tribalism) and can be alleviated by better policies, ones which are guided by the utilitarian principle.

Why? I'm arguing for governance that allows each person to practice whatever cultural expression they wish, so long as it doesn't impact on others. The state supports people's freedoms to live their lives as they wish, provides them with services and security in exchange for taxes, and it doesn't give a monkeys about your ethnic or tribal identity. Why should such circumstances lead to group conflict - that's a claim with no justification.

Utilitarianism has many problems, particularly since it doesn't account at all for our evolved instincts to protect people with whom we share genes (family first, tribe second, screw the rest). For this reason and others it's impossible to practice at an individual level. But it does make a useful guide in evaluating policy options where in my view it is wrong to consider the content of others' genomes.

Rights can be useful as a way of encoding into law social principles that flow from a deeper ethical framework (e.g. a utilitarianism one, perhaps one which works better at the individual level). There's nothing fundamental about rights, as can be seen by the way that they're qualified and are argued over by lawyers. The point of rights is that they're universal (even if they're qualified). "Rights" to bits of lands according to your tribal identity cannot be universalised, and so cannot be rights. And elevating the "rights" of one tribe at the expense of another is racism. A person or group may want to live on a certain piece of land because of cultural significance to them, but that desire has to be considered in terms of its consequences, like any action. If it brings about better life satisfaction for those people and causes no harm, then what could be the problem? But if it causes suffering and denies access to resources for those already living there, then it's obvious morally repugnant.

While I've argued along utilitarian lines, Rawls' Theory Of Justice (which I haven't actually read!) would be another way to reach the same conclusions about good and bad policy.

Are you still sure that what I'm saying is "irrational"?

I may have misunderstood Toby's point but I think, at the extreme, it is something along the lines of:

If, hypothetically, torturing one person for the rest of their life in the most unpleasant way imaginable results unalloyed bliss and happiness for 1 million, doesn't pure utilitarianism suggest that one person should be tortured?  After all in comparison with the vast quantities of well-being produced, that one person's misery is utterly negligible.

Unless there is some idea of absolute rights - a minimum that can not be removed regardless of benefits elsewhere - utilitarianism seems to lead to this sort of grotesque conclusion.

I think that there's a good reason that we don't have to worry too much about this classic objection to utilitarianism: causing appalling suffering is not a mechanism by which you can generate bliss. I think that such minimum "rights" - or forbidden actions - naturally drop out of well-formulated policies guided by utilitarian principles. If you're thinking about making a million people blissfully happy by torturing someone slowly to death, you need to ask the question, "how could I make these people just as happy without torturing anyone slowly to death?". Human wellbeing by its very nature is not contingent on others' suffering - that's what being a social creature is all about - we are not involved in such zero-sum games.

Well I agree, of course, but then it isn't unalloyed utilitarianism.

We seem entirely happy to let many people suffer to maintain our lifestyles, so I think you are wrong there.

If you can make the million people just as happy another way, then you don't torture the one. But of course you can't make a million people happy by torturing someone to death (plus the harmful effects of torturing someone to death spread far beyond one person) - I don't think that the thought experiment tells us much about the value of utilitarianism.

We do seem to. But we don't get the pleasure of a cheap jumper *because of* the suffering of the poor bastard that made it. And actually, there isn't much pleasure to be had in a cheap jumper anyway - our lives would be just as fulfilling if we had less choice of clothes and had to wear them for longer before discarding them. It might look like we're gaining wellbeing from the suffering of others, but we're not - we're just getting a bit of material gain and convenience. Consumerism tells us that this is what brings us wellbeing, but of course it doesn't. Doing meaningful work, raising a family with good opportunities for the future, enjoying the company of friends, listening to the music you love, climbing on Scafell, these are the kinds of things that bring about wellbeing. And others don't have to suffer for us to experience them.

Says you. But your conception of wellbeing either needs to be totalitarian (wellbeing is what _you_ the Platonic philosopher king say it is) or it is indefinably vague. Wellbeing to others might be to pray at (or even just have the right to pray at) the surviving wall of the temple of your forefathers. Or it might be to pray at the mosque built on the site of where they believe their prophet tied up his winged horse during his night journey.

As you say, indefinably vague, though many have attempted to do so. Probably one of the best attempts in history remains Aristotle's analysis of 'eudaimonia'. Quite early in my undergraduate philosophy course I had to write an essay on it (48 years ago!):

http://gordonstainforth.apps-1and1.net/GSuploads/GStainforth-Eudaimonia1970...

Wellbeing is a pattern of neural activity in the brain of a person (actually, it's the subjective experience caused by it, but the difference isn't important here). There isn't a single way to achieve wellbeing, but that doesn't make it vague, nor does it demand totalitarianism. Any activity in pursuit of wellbeing is fine so long as it doesn't conflict with others' pursuits, and good policies support the individual's freedom to find what works best for them.

But we can and should go a bit further than just saying "anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt others". We can see, for example that being in good health, avoiding social isolation and feeling in control of one's circumstances are quite universal routes towards increased wellbeing. Policy should be geared towards achieving these universal "goods" while providing the freedom to pursue the personal and esoteric stuff like praying at old bits of wall or climbing on scafell. It's barking mad to prioritise these strange, irrational behaviours before the basic needs of safety and healthcare and freedom have been satisfied.

Your journalist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-says-slain-journali...

So the Israelis were lying then.

Thanks.

Proof?

Or just what you want to believe .  

It doesn't show they were lying, he may have a position within hamas and do other work. If he shared drone footage of soldiers movements, then that makes him a target . 

And besides that , Do you think hamas doesn't dress up as journalists and doctors? Doesn't use ambulances, schools  and UN installations?

Are you that badly informed ? 

I'm not really talking about eudaimonia, rather something a bit less ambitious. As I understand it, eudaimonia is a practical kind of nirvana, achieved as a result of practising virtues expertly. I'm talking about positive emotion that is deep and sustained, an ability to reflect honestly and think something like "I am happy with my life and I have great hope for the future". You don't need to be hugely virtuous to reach this state, but not living in war zone and having equal opportunities to those around you would certainly help.

I'd go a bit further too and say that if one was able to say "I am happy with my society and I have great hope for our future" that would be greater degree of wellbeing. If it was possible to reflect positively on the whole of humanity then that would be the next level up, but now we really are having a laugh... 

Palestinians aren't particularly poor for that region, few are going hungry unlike in Yemen or in parts of Africa. Their desire is to live where their grandparents did, that is what is denuding their well being. That simply conflicts with Israelis' desires to live where they now live. Palestinians' claims damages their well being. 

You seem to think there is a simple solution to those conflicting claims?

"If they run, they're Hamas. If they stay still, they're well trained Hamas."

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, and I don't really know where you're going with it. 

In the cases of Palestians whose lives are ruined by the expansion of the settlement programme, it's not about a "claim" based on where their grandparents lived, it's about carrying on living where they are already living. I would imagine that while they may want to live where their family has always lived, more than anything, they just want to live their lives without being denigrated to the status of second-class citizens by their richer and more powerful neighbours stealing their land and resources. What makes it theirs? The fact that they are living on and farming the land now.

Not in reality. There's a simple theoretical solution which might have been possible somewhere back down the line: to have one state that gives equal rights and has no regard for tribal identity. Didn't different ethnic and religious groups coexist there under the Ottoman rule? There's no Jewish state and Hamas don't get the destruction of Israel. They have to live together as if they were equal human beings. 

Bit late for that now, since if you let Gazans out of their prison camp then a sizable proportion of them will do their level best to kill as many Jews as they can, so I can't see a practical solution there. It might have been better not to have caused the decades of unimaginable suffering that incubated the violent racist extremism that as a threat to Israeli security seems pretty unassailable, but too late now. Perhaps in the West Bank by dismantling newer settlements, compensating those who have as individuals lost out economically due to the settlements, and delivering equal rights to all those who live there, a workable single state can be created at some time in the future? But a separate Palestinian State now looks totally impossible to me. 

Simple solution? Certainly not. But there is a consistent set of values which regards religion and tribal identity as private matters and not the basis of power, government and statehood. These values flow directly from a scientific understanding of the world and of ourselves. Had such values been followed in the big decisions affecting the governance of the region in the 20th century then there's no reason why there would be conflict there today. That doesn't help solve the problems of people living there now, but it's a view point on whether tribalism should be encouraged and defended in terms of "rights" to land or whether tribal identity should be viewed by policy makers and governments as a private matter only.

Quoting yourself are you? 

Now say the same about British troops in Afghanistan,, only do it with a sign on your back in a working class neighbourhood . 

While you and TobyA seem to have a respectable discussion , the fact that you are attacking settlement policies on an anti semitism in Britain  thread doesn't look good. That is not a good link between the two. You should discuss it in another thread imo. 

What's the definition of a terrorist?

Anyone who get's shot by the IDF.

more like anyone who opposes assad. 

but hey, i don't want to ruin your jerk off material.

or : whats the definition of a freedom fighter ? 

anyone who murders israelis, right ? 

Nice side step there, true to form, let's not confront the issue at hand, but look over there!!

just calling you out for what you are , a rabid anti israeli.

Unfortunately you're running true to form, you argue for a while, defended any and all Israeli action, then you don't address any point people bring up, finally insinuations of anti-Semitism! If you had any decent argument to back up your unending support it might make a difference, but you simply don't and what you expect of other is sadly lacking from the Israeli side.

No you didn't, this is just a big lie.

You started freestyling with this shit "I think wars over territory between competing groups are racist, actually"

It's this nonsense that demonstrates that you've decided to think about the subject right there on the thread, so you've joined a thread about about anti-semitism just to Jew-bait and you then have to make up random shit to try to justify it.

Even when you make up random shit on UKC a lot (which you do) when you do it to the Jews you run the risk of anti-semitism.

Go back and look then. It's not difficult. Taking a stroppy tone doesn't make what you're saying any more likely to be true. I was very specific about who I accused of being racist, and it wasn't all Israelis let alone all Jews. You seem absolutely desperate to label various people antisemitic, and it completely undermines any political point that you're attempting to make. And I don't even know what point that is, because your abilities seem to stretch no further than calling other people either stupid or antisemitic. 

Why don't you have a go at articulating your own position: what you think is right, and why you think it? The personal insults have absolutely no effect on me whatsoever, so I'm still interested in what you have to say (if only you would actually say something with some content). What elements of Israeli policy do your support, and which would you change? How do you justify support for any controversial policies? 

The position I'm arguing is that delineating tribal groups and seeking to satisfy their claims to resources and rights to be governed by their own group are practically unworkable, and ethically undesirable. I believe that tribal identity should be a private matter and that governments should be concerned with delivering services and distributing resources, blind of ethnicity and religion. People's freedoms to practice their religion and express their identity should be protected. But not for one group at the expense of another - governments should be neutral with respect to these private matters.

There are different ways to justify this approach, covered in discussion between Toby and I.

As such, I can't really disentangle tribal conflict from racism. How do you go to war with another tribe, but still consider them equal? I don't expect you to be able to explain this, but maybe you could direct me to someone who's good at explaining it? A clip on youtube or something. I find it stimulating to try to understand the opposing perspective, and I'm sure there's someone out there who can make a compelling case. I'm equally sure it isn't you.

That's a sentence without information content. Why don't you stop moaning about what other people say, stop assuming their motivations, and start asking questions to get to the bottom of what they think? Or actually set out what you believe in a way that you think is compelling - or just post a clip that says well what you'd like to say for others to comment on.

I sure run the risk of being called an antisemite! But because my beliefs are based on secular, scientific philosophy that has absolutely no preference for one race or another, I really don't care when people hurl unjustified accusations. They make no impact. You're not going to convince somebody who has thoroughly explained their reasons for opposing Israeli policy - that actually they're antisemitic. You're completely wasting your time. I think that's a good reason to stop doing it.

I agree with your sentiments Jon, but it does matter (maybe not to you -or me for that matter), but because it makes genuine instances of anti-Semitism less meaningful, "It's just the Jews moaning again"!!.

This isn't what anyone, who cares, wants it dilutes real racism towards Jews and it makes a mockery of anti-Semitism when accusations are bandied about over some petty indignation.

Let's save our condemnation for real anti-Semitism and let's use our heads a little, stop discussions ending up about semantics and let's really discuss the issues instead of the words we're "allowed" to use.

I've had perfectly good discussions with jondo and Toby. The crap that guy says can be ignored without consequence. 

I did, that's where the quote came from.

After your insanity on the Parkinson thread this is just rank drama queen hypocrisy and you can fcuk right off with it.

No they're not, you're an utter fantasist.

Tell us again what formal logical fallacies are and why you're accusing someone of making one.

That was so dumb it just literally wasn't true, like your claim to slavishly follow Harris but then you admit you've not even read the books! I really do think that you lack the nous to realise just how daft that really was.

You're becoming krikoman, penning gross mistakes that you don't know about unless they're kindly pointed out to you.

But these crackpot theories you espouse aren't going to cut it even at GCSE let alone any where else, and as you've got previous for anti-semitism, maybe just keep this crap off the Jew threads?

Which quote? 

Personal insults, won't respond.

My response was to reword my post so you could respond to the content. But you didn't, and now you've just repeated the insults. You're not engaging in the discussion.

I don't slavishly follow Harris and haven't claimed to (somewhere I said which things I agree with him on and which I disagree with). A lot of the ideas I've given here are taken from the Moral Landscape, which I am reading but haven't finished yet. But who cares what I've read or what I've taken from listening to lectures or podcasts. "You haven't read..." isn't a valid criticism.

Calling someone else stupid doesn't make you appear intelligent. You need to say something intelligent to achieve that.

You haven't successfully pointed out anything interesting. If you can clearly articulate something for me, maybe pointing out an inconsistency in what I've said, or whatever, I'll try to respond (actually, I'm going to have a lot less time, but if it's interesting then I'll get round to it).

I don't even know what you're talking about - what crackpot theories? You're unclear, you're making unsubstantiated accusations that are really quite unpleasant (what previous form?), and I can't see any value in anything you've said.

Don't you think it would be more dignified for you to engage in the discussion rather than repeating insults and unfounded accusations of racism?

Feel free to point out my mistakes at any time, I'm always willing to listen to reasoned conversation.

Which mistakes are you talking about, is it the mistake that no Israeli's have been injured or killed in the latest border shootings, or that none of the Palestinians were killed on the wrong side of the fence?

Or from the other thread that this didn't happen ? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-p...

Blah blah, anti semitism, blah blah. 

Keep up the praying for Israelis deaths... 

How do you think your professional regulator would consider your various comments on this and other subjects?

I'd hope his professional regulator wouldn't be interested in reviewing all his conversations unrelated to work in his own time on a climbers forum known for robust debate.

Regardless, as passive aggressive threats go, that's pretty low. 

What a shitty comment to make 

well done David- not only do you appear to have lost the argument; you also appear to be trying to lose any sympathy for your point of view 

Seems like you've got him there, with your powerful and incisive points.

Why not answer Kriko's questions, instead of making stuff up?

They wouldn't give a f*ck. 

And why should they? I'm pretty certain I know who DC is now, he's not "hidden" himself very well to be honest. I still don't see why they've suddenly changed persona, very strange.

Blah blah blah, keep dodging the questions, then making stuff up.

You did quite well on the anti-Semitism thread, but you seem to have reverted to type, which is a pity. Maybe a little introversion might enlighten yourself on why you always revert to people wanting to "kill all the Jews" or "wipe out Israel" when the questions get too difficult.

What questions  ?

Don't you side with Iran regarding Israel? 

Iran and hamas are strong allies . 

Iran wants Israel off the map  read some headlines. 

You keep saying this, but I don't see any evidence.

Just because you keep posting shit like this doesn't make it true.

If you can post one piece of evidence when I've supported either Hamas or Iran against Israel I gladly apologise, but like your insinuations of anti-Semitism, they are simple not true. How ever much you want them to be true, because it suits your agenda, of people attacking the Israeli government are attacking all Jews and are therefore anti-Semitic, that's what you want because that's how you dismiss it.

And that's how you turn you back on what Israel is doing, it's done in you name if you don't speak out against it or you choose to ignore or make excuse for it.

Again accusing me of calling people anti semitic ? How many lies can you tell? 

Why should you apologise for being anti Israel? its your right. 

What rubbish   How is something 'done in my name' if i do not support opinions like your own? 

Powerful testimony from Bassetlaw MP John Mann in Parliament this week, a Labour MP claiming that supporters of the Labour leader have telephoned his wife and threatened to rape her.

If Corbyn doesn't win an election his leadership will be remembered for this.

youtube.com/watch?v=izSFoAdFJkE&

Ruth Smeeth gets a standing ovation:

youtube.com/watch?v=IxrvBTR2u5M&

Luciana Berger gets applause for her bit too.

youtube.com/watch?v=o-ozLWh2Lyo&

Interesting article in this fortnight's "Private Eye" on antisemitism and sexism in Labour branches.

Its entitled;  "Meet the new nasty party", oh how I laughed.

All very powerful and they're right, no one should have to put up with that sort of shit.

My fear is, it's backfiring, with the general public.

My work place, for example 20 ish people who I neither work with nor interact much with( but work amongst some of the time) , most are pro-brexit mainly because of immigration, anti-refugee and want to "take back control", most dislike Corbyn too.

I've never heard anyone mention anti-Semitism, Israel or Jews for that matter.

Comment  heard the other day, "What the f*ck have they got to do with our politics?"

"I hate Corbyn but I don't see what right the Jews have to tell him what to do"

or the other one, "The Jews will see Corbyn off, funny how our lot couldn't do it."

I had to explain what it was about, "yeah, but that's bullshit and you like Corbyn anyhow, so why are you complaining?"

I'm not sure the message about anti-Semitism is getting across or that people have been accused of it for so long, in relation to Israel that it no longer has any meaning to most people. Maybe it's focusing it on one party rather than society, that's the issue.

What I do know, from my admittedly small sample things seem to be getting worse.

This exemplifies the original view.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/27/labour-activist-marc-wadsw...

Marc Wadsworth has been expelled, two senior Corbyn supporting MPs supported him and now there's a crowdfunding effort too try and get this to Court (a self inflicted wound regardless of the outcome) and Corbyn's office 'had a word'.

When will Ken Livingstone's case be heard?

Do you really think Ken is an anti-Semite?

Or do you think he said something stupid, that was anti-Semitic?

What about what he said, do you think was anti-Semitic?

Yes,.

Yes.

Try google, but from memory editing a magazine that showed he Israeli prime minister standing on a pile of bodies in a Nazi uniform giving a Naazi salute, defending Naz Shah, making reference to Jewish journalists as being like concentration camp guards, and then the rest of it.

If we're going over the Livingstone stuff again it's worth looking back to a year old Guardian editorial:

 In modern times it is not Labour’s normal practice to belittle the views of those who say they have been victims of racial prejudice, to query their motives and to reject the premises of their complaint. For good reasons, the party’s default position has become a determined readiness to define racism as its victims would like it to be defined. But there is arguably now an exception to this basic ethos of sensitivity: Jews. When the allegation is antisemitism and a Labour politician is being accused, the dynamic is often reversed. A presumption can take hold that the offence cannot have been committed because the left is opposed to all racism.

Warped logic then unfolds: anti-racists cannot be guilty of prejudice against Jews, so it follows that Jewish complaints about prejudice are dishonest. The offence is pushed back on to the people who thought they had been offended. It is reconfigured as a plot to discredit political foes; part of a hidden agenda connected to Israel-Palestine. This argument then feeds the idea that an accusation of antisemitism is a weapon deployed by Jews (usually for decorum’s sake recast as “Zionists”) for nefarious purposes. Thus the ancient racist narrative of kosher conspiracy and shadowy machination thrives even among those who imagine they are policing racism.

This pattern has played itself out in public view in the case of Ken Livingstone’s disciplinary hearing...Labour has heard every credible source say that one of its members has perpetrated and stoked prejudice against the Jewish community. It says his actions were wrong, but he is still in the party. An ugly conclusion is inevitable: Labour values Mr Livingstone’s membership over the fight against antisemitism. “Zero tolerance” was a lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/05/the-guardian-view-on-...

But Zionist, now means different thing to different people!

This is what I posted on the other thread.

Zoom to 7:29 and then let me know if this bloke is anti-Semitic.

The whole video is interesting but that's the vital sentence.

https://www.facebook.com/LRTurque/videos/2128370420720120/?hc_ref=ARSiB0B1G...

There are many Jews who use the word Zionist, to mean "Israeli expansionist tendencies" so is Zionist a "bad" word or not?

The bloke in the link is Jewish so is he being anti-Semitic?

Though most of these threads I've been trying to pick my way through what's acceptable and what isn't and to try and garner peoples opinions. Unfortunately most people simply want to insinuate I'm anti-Semitic, and that's all or they simply don't answer the question.

DCs reply to my question about Red Ken is a perfect example.

It's difficult for most people to understand because they don't associate with Jewish people hardly surprising since they only make up around 1% of the population of the UK.

My Jewish friends are all of the left persuasion so they tend to think roughly the same as me. None of them think Ken is anti-Semitic though, they agree that some of what he said was poorly worded, but not anti-Semitic. They aren't doing this because they support Labour over anti-Semitism by the way.

From my previous anti-Semitism thread, it seems many things I might think were anti-Semitic weren't, Jondo seemed to think Family Guy was fine, yet other stuff, which I might consider AS wasn't.