UKC

/ Jewish Groups attack Corbyn

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jim 1003 - on 26 Mar 2018

The letter - drawn up by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council - said there has been a "repeated institutional failure" to properly address anti-Semitism.

19
MonkeyPuzzle - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

Well this is the laziest OP I can actually remember on this site. Congratulations.

4
Stuart en Écosse - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

Does the Sunday Sport still exist? If so keep your eyes peeled. At some point it will have a headline that Corbyn is an extra-terrestrial reptile, with a crudely photoshopped pic of him swallowing a baby whole as irrefutable proof. 

6
Michael Hood - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you agreeing with your post (ie: the anti semitism in the Labour party is institutional and therefore JC needs to do more to get rid of it) or disagreeing with it?

1
Bob Kemp - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

> Does the Sunday Sport still exist? If so keep your eyes peeled. At some point it will have a headline that Corbyn is an extra-terrestrial reptile, with a crudely photoshopped pic of him swallowing a baby whole as irrefutable proof. 

Unfortunately Corbyn doesn’t seem to need other people to smear him - he can do it himself by his mealy-mouthed failure to deal with problems like this. This is a worthwhile subject for discussion, even if the OP is only interested in Corbyn-bashing for the sake of it. 

13
Trevers - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/978014010032508929

The statement is here, in case anyone wants to read it.

1
summo on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Unfortunately Corbyn doesn’t seem to need other people to smear him - he can do it himself by his mealy-mouthed failure to deal with problems like this. This is a worthwhile subject for discussion, even if the OP is only interested in Corbyn-bashing for the sake of it. 

It's not Corbyn bashing. The guy is an incompetent party leader, a very incompetent leader of the opposition. He has missed more tory open goals than imaginable. His reaction to this issue, is just like his Brexit stance, or the Russian poisoning.. a career back bencher who has spent 40years of his life complaining about others, but isn't capable of leading and doing better himself.

12
Bob Kemp - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's not Corbyn bashing. The guy is an incompetent party leader, a very incompetent leader of the opposition. He has missed more tory open goals than imaginable. His reaction to this issue, is just like his Brexit stance, or the Russian poisoning.. a career back bencher who has spent 40years of his life complaining about others, but isn't capable of leading and doing better himself.

"A Corbyn-Basher replies..."

I have many criticisms of JC, including on this issue, but the OP couldn't even be bothered to make a coherent argument about Corbyn, anti-Semitism and the Labour Party. It was just left here as a kind of casual smear. 

8
summo on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> "A Corbyn-Basher replies..."

He's like one of those arcade games with a dozen different topics/holes, his head will pop waiting to be bashed, usually through his own lack of action. It will be there for a little while and disappear before popping up again. Wonder what event or subject he will fail to grasp next. 

3
Jim 1003 - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> "A Corbyn-Basher replies..."

> I have many criticisms of JC, including on this issue, but the OP couldn't even be bothered to make a coherent argument about Corbyn, anti-Semitism and the Labour Party. It was just left here as a kind of casual smear. 

It wasn't actually, it was merely a statement of facts, albeit slightly startled he could be so racist. Meetings with Hamas etc, at least he acknowledges that was an error, not surprising as it is a proscribed organisation. The man's an idiot...

7
Jon Stewart - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> slightly startled he could be so racist. Meetings with Hamas etc, at least he acknowledges that was an error, not surprising as it is a proscribed organisation. The man's an idiot...

You're not making a coherent argument. As I've said on the other thread (maybe check if there's already a thread?) there's plenty of evidence that Corbyn is incompetent, and none that he's racist.

7
Bob Kemp - on 26 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

It does seem that every time a news item that's unfavourable to Corbyn you're right there with a post about it. It's not merely a statement of fact, it's a statement of fact with a particular point to make. You've got an agenda.

Post edited at 22:40
2
Jim 1003 - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You're not making a coherent argument. As I've said on the other thread (maybe check if there's already a thread?) there's plenty of evidence that Corbyn is incompetent, and none that he's racist.

I think it would be surprising if there was absolute evidence any MP was a racist! They would be dismissed immediately, the concern about Corbyn is his association with groups that are clearly racist, and also the carry on over the mural. He's not likely to declare himself as racist is he? But he condones and meets with racist groups and  enemies of the country. I see most of our allies are now expelling Russian spys....I'm surprised Jeremy is not on his platform complaining about this. You seem quite naive in your assumptions....get a grip...

Post edited at 10:21
6
Jon Stewart - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

I seem niave? So it's naive to believe that JC takes an anti-Israeli stance because he opposes the oppression of the Palestians, rather than because he is racist against Jews? And that if you are part of the the Palestian solidarity movement then by definition you will be in contact with groups who are accused of antisemitism? Of those accusations, some but my no means all will be justified, mostly where anti-Israeli nationalism spills over into antisemitic language; and there will also be some more serious antisemitism where it really is the hatred of Jews that motivates the position on Palestine. 

So which assumptions are naive? And which exactly do you believe JC is guilty of:

 - a part of the Palestian solidarity movement and being accused of antisemitism by association

 - using antisemitic language motivated by opposition to Israeli policy

 - genuine antisemitism motivated by a hatred of Jews?

You seem to have a single fixed agenda and make a continuous stream of poorly reasoned, fallacious arguments to support it. 

3
Stuart en Écosse - on 27 Mar 2018
Trevers - on 27 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> I think it would be surprising if there was absolute evidence any MP was a racist! They would be dismissed immediately.

Seems not - Boris Johnson is still in his job.

Jim 1003 - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I seem niave? So it's naive to believe that JC takes an anti-Israeli stance because he opposes the oppression of the Palestians, rather than because he is racist against Jews? And that if you are part of the the Palestian solidarity movement then by definition you will be in contact with groups who are accused of antisemitism? Of those accusations, some but my no means all will be justified, mostly where anti-Israeli nationalism spills over into antisemitic language; and there will also be some more serious antisemitism where it really is the hatred of Jews that motivates the position on Palestine. 

> So which assumptions are naive? And which exactly do you believe JC is guilty of:

>  - a part of the Palestian solidarity movement and being accused of antisemitism by association

>  - using antisemitic language motivated by opposition to Israeli policy

>  - genuine antisemitism motivated by a hatred of Jews?

> You seem to have a single fixed agenda and make a continuous stream of poorly reasoned, fallacious arguments to support it. 

Well, what about his support for the mural that caused a lot of offence, it's clearly racist....had you forgotten about that, it's absent from your post? My agenda is highlighting racist behaviour, yours is defending it.

Post edited at 08:46
5
Jon Stewart - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Well, what about his support for the mural that caused a lot of offence, it's clearly racist....had you forgotten about that, it's absent from your post?

I've commented on the mural on other threads. It's completely ridiculous to believe that Corbyn recognised the racist sentiment and endorsed it: if that was his motivation, he'd have kept it secret. His endorsement was for the anti-banker/pro-worker sentiment and he made a fool of himself by failing to notice what to others was quite clearly racist imagery. 

> My agenda is highlighting racist behaviour, yours is defending it.

Cobblers. Given that I'm not a corbyn supporter, do you think my agenda is just purely racist? That wherever I see racism, I'll defend it because I think we should have more racism in our society?

You're just saying that I'm defending racism as a form of insult, and everyone reading this can see that.

As for your agenda, if we look back over your posts, will we see a strong anti racist theme, or perhaps a strong anti corbyn theme?

You're completely unconvincing I'm afraid. 

2
Eric9Points - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

I don't see you highlighting racist behaviour in the tory party.

If you're not aware of any maybe I should start a thread or two? I'm sure you'd be eager to contribute.

1
Baron Weasel - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> It's not Corbyn bashing. The guy is an incompetent party leader, a very incompetent leader of the opposition. He has missed more tory open goals than imaginable. His reaction to this issue, is just like his Brexit stance, or the Russian poisoning.. a career back bencher who has spent 40years of his life complaining about others, but isn't capable of leading and doing better himself.


Well said that man! This is exactly why Labour Party membership is falling so fast while Conservative Party Membership is now the biggest of any political party in Europe... Or, is that the other way round?!?

1
Baron Weasel - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I don't see you highlighting racist behaviour in the tory party.

> If you're not aware of any maybe I should start a thread or two? I'm sure you'd be eager to contribute.


Stop being such a picaninnie with a water melon smile..

3
krikoman - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Well, what about his support for the mural that caused a lot of offence, it's clearly racist....had you forgotten about that, it's absent from your post? My agenda is highlighting racist behaviour, yours is defending it.


What do you say to the Jewish people who joined the Labour party because of Corbyn?

You're using a very broad brush to suggest everyone, and that includes the Labour Jewish members, think the Labour party is the party of anti-Semites.

 

1
krikoman - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> Stop being such a picaninnie with a water melon smile..


Not your best effort, I'd be deleting that if I was you.

2
Baron Weasel - on 28 Mar 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Whatever, I was just highlighting some of the real racism found in British politics ;-)

fred99 - on 29 Mar 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> What do you say to the Jewish people who joined the Labour party because of Corbyn?

How many have since left, or are now thinking of leaving ?

This is simply yet another group that Corbyn (and more generally his "fan club") have p*ssed off since gaining control of the Labour Party. This is another incident that makes it more likely that the Conservatives will win election after election.

3
krikoman - on 29 Mar 2018
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> Whatever, I was just highlighting some of the real racism found in British politics ;-)

Ah! Sorry, were you quoting? if so some of these "" might have helped.

Sorry to be a grammar pedant. But I'd forgotten all about Boris.

In that case you make a good point. Where's the protest outside Tory HQ over that, or a resignation  / sacking perhaps?

 

Post edited at 12:21
krikoman - on 30 Mar 2018
In reply to fred99:

> How many have since left, or are now thinking of leaving ?

> This is simply yet another group that Corbyn (and more generally his "fan club") have p*ssed off since gaining control of the Labour Party. This is another incident that makes it more likely that the Conservatives will win election after election.


I can't give you figures, can you ?

I can only say that the Jewish people I know who joined Labour, as still members. A small sample I'll admit, but that all I have to go on. The thing is we're not hearing their voices, much in the media. I posted a link from JewishVoice UK and got lambasted because they are Labour supporters, apparently!!

But that's precisely the point, are you and the rest of the media, telling us people's politics is more important than their religion on the one hand, yet completely reversing that on the other?

 

1
Jim 1003 - on 31 Mar 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I've commented on the mural on other threads. It's completely ridiculous to believe that Corbyn recognised the racist sentiment and endorsed it: if that was his motivation, he'd have kept it secret. His endorsement was for the anti-banker/pro-worker sentiment and he made a fool of himself by failing to notice what to others was quite clearly racist imagery. 

> Cobblers. Given that I'm not a corbyn supporter, do you think my agenda is just purely racist? That wherever I see racism, I'll defend it because I think we should have more racism in our society?

> You're just saying that I'm defending racism as a form of insult, and everyone reading this can see that.

> As for your agenda, if we look back over your posts, will we see a strong anti racist theme, or perhaps a strong anti corbyn theme?

> You're completely unconvincing I'm afraid. 

Trouble is, it's not about me it, it's Corbyn's  behaviour which has caused offence to Jews, and most decent people. It's not me that needs to be convincing, it's Corbyn,...he's the leader of the opposition ....  

Post edited at 00:00
5
rocksol - on 01 Apr 2018
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

I suggest you read an article in Sunday Times about anti semitism in Labour Party. Oh and by the way the Tories get a slagging in the same edition 

1
Jon Stewart - on 01 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Trouble is, it's not about me it

My post *is* about you! 

 

1
ripper - on 01 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> I think it would be surprising if there was absolute evidence any MP was a racist! They would be dismissed immediately, the concern about Corbyn is his association with groups that are clearly racist, and also the carry on over the mural. He's not likely to declare himself as racist is he? But he condones and meets with racist groups and  enemies of the country. I see most of our allies are now expelling Russian spys....I'm surprised Jeremy is not on his platform complaining about this. You seem quite naive in your assumptions....get a grip...


"I'm surprised Jeremy is not on his platform complaining about this"

So let me get this straight - you're now castigating Corbyn for doing something which you yourself state that he hasn't done?

get a grip....

 

birdie num num - on 01 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

Jeremy doesn't really do anything much...

Yes, yes..he's been surfing on the wave of his rise in popularity leading up to the election...

that he lost..and the subsequent opportunities of Grenfell, and Brexit...

but the crest has collapsed now, and it's just rumbling surf, losing momentum on a shelving beach.

a bit of beige sun-bleached driftwood

3
Jim 1003 - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My post *is* about you!

But nobody is interested in me or the garbage top 40 posters like you spend hours  posting, they are interested in Cornyn's anti-semitic behaviour as leader of the opposition...and the fact he doesn't do anything to sort it out...

3
Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

I never implied that they were. 

You said that your agenda was anti-racist, and mine was to defend racism. And that's a load of old shit, and you know it. That's all!

Jim 1003 - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The facts are that Corbyn has behaved in a racist way, I highlighted this, you defended him...many would perceive that as also racist.

1
Jim 1003 - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I never implied that they were. 

> You said that your agenda was anti-racist, and mine was to defend racism. And that's a load of old shit, and you know it. That's all!

The facts are that Corbyn has behaved in a racist way, I highlighted this, you defended him...many would perceive that as also racist, I would stop digging if were you....

4
MonkeyPuzzle - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

You don't like Corbyn, saying he's racist fits your agenda, you've failed to establish any meaningful evidence of Corbyn being racist and now you're trying to tell someone that to argue against you is racist in itself. It's like you're ticking off shitty internet arguments 101.

Post edited at 18:35
Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> The facts are that Corbyn has behaved in a racist way, I highlighted this, you defended him...many would perceive that as also racist, I would stop digging if were you....

Are you playing for laughs? 

Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

If you actually look at what's going on, and what people are saying, you'll see that there aren't any credible accusations of corbyn being racist. The people criticising him are saying that he has failed to deal with antisemitism in the Labour Party - this is a fair accusation.

Either show us some evidence of corbyn being racist, or otherwise please consider shutting the f*ck up! 

1
Jim 1003 - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If you actually look at what's going on, and what people are saying, you'll see that there aren't any credible accusations of corbyn being racist. The people criticising him are saying that he has failed to deal with antisemitism in the Labour Party - this is a fair accusation.

> Either show us some evidence of corbyn being racist, or otherwise please consider shutting the f*ck up! 

Hmm, a well reasoned argument, how much more evidence do you want, a memebership form for the holocaust denial society.... 

Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Hmm, a well reasoned argument, how much more evidence do you want, a memebership form for the holocaust denial society.... 

Whatever you can find. Let's see it. 

1
Graeme Alderson on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

What we would like to see is some evidence that Corbyn is racist and/or anti-Semitic. What we don't want is some evidence that someone who supports Corbyn is a racist/anti-Semite.

Because they aren't the same thing. Geddit?

Are you going to start a thread about the odious being called J R-M for his links to the far right anti-Semitic group Traditional Britain Group (see the link https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10230962/Jacob-Rees-Moggs-shock-at-dinner-with-group-that-want-to-repatriate-black-Britons.html ).

No, thought not. how much more evidence do you want, a memebership form for the holocaust denial society?

 

Post edited at 21:30
2
jondo - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

>What we don't want is some evidence that someone who supports Corbyn is a racist/anti-Semite.

why not ?

if an anti semite supports corbyn, has official roles in labor , and is not dealt with, it is very significant and says a lot about JC's competence.

Post edited at 21:53
Graeme Alderson on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

Sorry jondo but you need to add some punctuation to your answer.

> if an anti semite supports corbyn,

well whoopy do, what's that got to do with Corbyn, or any other person. 

>has official roles in labor , and is not dealt with, it is very significant and says a lot about JC's competence.

well that is a totally different question, as you well know. Please provide links as to where Labour (note the spelling please) party officials are anti-Semitic.

 

2
Jim 1003 - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Do you keep up to date with the news, Momentum have now said there is anti- semitism in Labour, and there may well be a police enquiry. Waken up!

Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

I would add that it appears rife on UKC to....

Post edited at 23:07
1
Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> if an anti semite supports corbyn, has official roles in labor , and is not dealt with, it is very significant and says a lot about JC's competence.

Yes, exactly.

It says a lot about his competence. 

Did I miss the episode of human history when being incompetent and being antisemitic became the same thing? All I'm asking here is that people demonstrate a modicum of simple honesty, and if they can manage it, a little bit of clarity too. Is this really too much to ask?

I'm not asking anyone to support corbyn (I don't!). Just meet me at the starting line? 

1
Jon Stewart - on 02 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> I would add that it appears rife on UKC to....

That's easy then. Just re-post the antisemitic stuff. And if you can't, I'll just continue to assume that you're a tit who doesn't know anything. 

2
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Sorry jondo but you need to add some punctuation to your answer.

Ha, ha.

> well whoopy do, what's that got to do with Corbyn, or any other person. 

Has a lot to do with what JC as an elected leader is projecting.

> >has official roles in labor , and is not dealt with, it is very significant and says a lot about JC's competence.

> well that is a totally different question, as you well know. Please provide links as to where Labour (note the spelling please) party officials are anti-Semitic.

Seriously?! Read the news...

Even momentum has come out with a statement admitting there is widespread anti semitism in labour. (Hope it satisfies your spelling needs).

https://news.sky.com/story/momentum-admits-anti-semitism-is-a-bigger-problem-in-labour-than-it-realised-11314572

 

P.s. whoopy do should be spelled whoopy-do.

Post edited at 04:51
1
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Yes, exactly.

> It says a lot about his competence. 

> Did I miss the episode of human history when being incompetent and being antisemitic became the same thing? All I'm asking here is that people demonstrate a modicum of simple honesty, and if they can manage it, a little bit of clarity too. Is this really too much to ask?

> I'm not asking anyone to support corbyn (I don't!). Just meet me at the starting line? 

I never said on any thread that i have proof that JC is anti semitic. I said he is incompetent , and that for whatever reasons has not dealt with the rampant anti semitism in labour.

Post edited at 04:48
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

For instance, what kind of message does this send ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/03/labour-mps-hit-irresponsible-corbyn-attending-seder-hosted-far/

To me it sounds like JC is yet again trying to make the problem disappear by saying to the public look, Jews can also be political extremists, here is a group that call for the destruction of israel, they're not anti Semitic so anything these nuts say is fine, right?

This same group said that Jewish critisizers of JC are 'not real jews'.

He is the anti thesis of a leader of a mainstream party.

Post edited at 05:15
1
Mike Highbury - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> I never said on any thread that i have proof that JC is anti semitic. 

But, unlike you, I'm pretty confident that he is.

3
Jim 1003 - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> That's easy then. Just re-post the antisemitic stuff. And if you can't, I'll just continue to assume that you're a tit who doesn't know anything. 

Hmmm, I'm not a top 40 poster  who spends all day on the computer, there's plenty evidence out there, have a look yourself, you've already mentioned the mural, so I'm assuming you know where the evidence is but possibly you are anti semitic yourself so keep on arguing...I see, like most Corbyn supporters, you quickly resort to abuse from the safety of your keyboard.

Post edited at 08:53
11
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

You said that antisemitism appeared to be rife on this website. So, repost the antisemitic stuff. Or, I will continue to assume that you are a tit. 

I'm not calling you a tit for no reason. You keep saying stuff that's factually wrong, so I keep asking you to back it up. And you can't, because it's a load of shite. Do you expect to be able to call people racist (from the safety of your keyboard) and not be asked, relatively politely in this context, to justify it?

1
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> I never said on any thread that i have proof that JC is anti semitic. I said he is incompetent , and that for whatever reasons has not dealt with the rampant anti semitism in labour.

But you said so in response to a direct request for evidence of JCs antisemitism. The question is whether you were deliberately or accidentally muddying the waters. 

1
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> But you said so in response to a direct request for evidence of JCs antisemitism. The question is whether you were deliberately or accidentally muddying the waters. 

What waters?

Labour has a big anti semitism problem. Period. 

It's leader is incompetent and refuses to seriously tackle the problem. 

Why he is so doesn't really matter. 

What he should have done, had he wanted to meet Jewish groups, is invite all of them whether he likes their politics or not, instead of showing up at some seder of an extreme left group which he feels connected to for obvious reasons. 

As I said, complete incompentence.

Post edited at 11:37
6
ripper - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

Got to love today's instalment of the saga in the papers, which appear to be castigating Corbyn for supporting a Jewish event held by the wrong kind of Jews...

Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> What waters?

The point of discussion was whether there was evidence that JC is antisemitic, as J1001 had claimed.

Graham and I were patiently waiting for this evidence to be presented, but you've derailed this simple and important line of enquiry. You get me?

> Why he is so doesn't really matter. 

I think it's very important. If you accuse someone of being a racist as J1001 did, you back it up, or you shut the f*ck up. "Actually, it doesn't really matter if he's a racist or not" is not a good answer!

1
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> But, unlike you, I'm pretty confident that he is.

Yeah, but your definition for an antisemite seems to be something like "anyone who disagrees with Mike Highbury".

Let's see if I get an accusation of antisemitism for that...go on, you know you want to!

1
krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

I don't think you care much about JCs anti-Semitism or not to be honest, you simply don't like JC and that's enough for you, and many others to jump on a mural painted 6 years ago, to do damage to Labour.

Where was you're outrage then? Six years ago, you could have posted on here about anti-Semitism alive and well in the UK, but you and almost everyone else didn't. Most people didn't know of the existence of this mural. So forgive me your faux outrage and lusting for blood, you could have done it then but like most people you didn't. I looked and can't find any threads on UKC relating to this mural from the time it was painted, that's how much we all cared about it then.

The danger in all of this, and it is a massive danger, is that you're actually bolstering the "real" anti-Semites, the one's who abuse Jews, daub graffiti on synagogues, and deny the holocaust. Most people know what they are, calling them this or that doesn't make then what you call them. What this does do is fuel the anger and hatred that's already there. Even haters of Corbyn, will fight back against "others" meddling in "British" life, without even pausing to consider the irony of it.

There's anti-Semitism on all sides of the political spectrum, we should be rooting it out, but let's make sure the aspersions we're dishing out are deserved and not part of someone's agenda. Be careful you're not being played.

1
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The point of discussion was whether there was evidence that JC is antisemitic, as J1001 had claimed.

> Graham and I were patiently waiting for this evidence to be presented, but you've derailed this simple and important line of enquiry. You get me?

> I think it's very important. If you accuse someone of being a racist as J1001 did, you back it up, or you shut the f*ck up. "Actually, it doesn't really matter if he's a racist or not" is not a good answer!

Its a good answer if what is important are his actions , which seem to make the problem of anti semitism in labour worse. 

If you think JC's feelings about Jews are more important than his actions then you have it wrong imo. 

Besides, If it was a simple line of inquiry then you lot wouldn't be arguing about it on a long thread.

3
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

> Got to love today's instalment of the saga in the papers, which appear to be castigating Corbyn for supporting a Jewish event held by the wrong kind of Jews...

Nice way you present it... 

Instead of holding an event for all jews in labour, he attends a seder held by his 'type of jews'. 

5
krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> But, unlike you, I'm pretty confident that he is.


Do you realise how offensive that is? To call someone anti-Semitic, especially someone who quite clearly has fought against racism for most of his life.

Never mind that, do you realise how offensive it is to call anyone anti-Semitic, when you have no evidence of it. It's not much difference to what you are actually complaining about in the first place.

You should look to yourself first before accusing people of racism.

1
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Its a good answer if what is important are his actions , which seem to make the problem of anti semitism in labour worse. 

Your point is completely valid. But I'm trying to deal with some tit who's calling me a racist - this is the simple line of discussion (posts of Monday tea time).

1
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Instead of holding an event for all jews in labour, he attends a seder held by his 'type of jews'. 

I don't understand what's wrong with supporting jews you agree with and opposing jews you disagree with. Sorry.

And if he had done as you say and held an event for "all jews" then someone, Mike Highbury for example, would still have found a way to make out that it was antisemitic. I mean look, the guy can't get dressed in the morning without inadvertently making a statement that he hates Britain, or Jews, or probably f*cking lesbians or something, he's never going to win. He should probably just piss off and let someone more competent take charge.

 

1
ripper - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Nice way you present it...  You're clearly not seeing the irony.

> Instead of holding an event for all jews in labour, he attends a seder held by his 'type of jews'. 

As I understand it, this was an event in his own constituency - so he attends, in his capacity as local MP, and what? You read the fact that it's an event held by Jewish left-wingers as more 'evidence' that Corbyn is an anti-Semite? I honestly don't get it.

 

Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

As I understand it, this is the problem:

He apparently couldn't see, or didn't care, that meeting with people who say the allegations are a load of crap will be interpreted as a public statement along the lines of: "I said I was going to deal with those allegations, but really I think they're a load of crap". Which of course has been the reaction.

2
ripper - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sorry, but implying that someone is anti-Semitic while using the fact that they attended and supported a local Jewish event as evidence still seems like the most desperate straw-clutching to me.

Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

> Sorry, but implying that someone is anti-Semitic while using the fact that they attended and supported a local Jewish event as evidence still seems like the most desperate straw-clutching to me.

Certainly does.

1
Eric9Points - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

> Sorry, but implying that someone is anti-Semitic while using the fact that they attended and supported a local Jewish event as evidence still seems like the most desperate straw-clutching to me.


Well it's barking mad isn't it but what would you expect from Guido Fawkes?

It gets worse though, a new scandal is about to break: http://www.southendnewsnetwork.net/news/new-corbyn-row-as-source-confirms-labour-leader-had-curry-with-skeletor-in-1991/

 

1
krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

 

> And if he had done as you say and held an event for "all jews" then someone, Mike Highbury for example, would still have found a way to make out that it was antisemitic. I mean look, the guy can't get dressed in the morning without inadvertently making a statement that he hates Britain, or Jews, or probably f*cking lesbians or something, he's never going to win. He should probably just piss off and let someone more competent take charge.

Well if nothing else it would have been "Corbyn snubs Jewish group. - Corbyn so anti-Semitic he can't even be see in the company of his Jewish supporters".

Since they are in Islington, it might simply be he wanted to get home quickly so he could watch the new Family Guy. not realising it wasn't a new episode but a repeat of an old one.

Since it was local and they are supporters of Labour, it's hardly "news" or difficult to work out.

You also might need to factor in the stubbornness of not changing plans to suit the media, there's something to be said for standing up to your own principles.

1
Mike Highbury - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman: Since it was not in his constituency why didn't he accept my invitation to a proper family Seder complete with stress, rows and a v. generous Celebrant? I feel bound to add that, to keep them quiet, we got the youngsters pissed even before they sat down. 

 

Post edited at 14:01
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't understand what's wrong with supporting jews you agree with and opposing jews you disagree with. Sorry.

It's wrong because the anti semitic problem in labour is against all jews and not only the far left type of jew JC seems to like. If he wanted to say something against anti semitism he would arrange an event inclusive to all jewish groups regardless of political affiliation.

> And if he had done as you say and held an event for "all jews" then someone, Mike Highbury for example, would still have found a way to make out that it was antisemitic. I mean look, the guy can't get dressed in the morning without inadvertently making a statement that he hates Britain, or Jews, or probably f*cking lesbians or something, he's never going to win. He should probably just piss off and let someone more competent take charge.

It doesn't matter if someone would still hate JC , the whole point is to combat anti semitism and not gain ''likes".

1
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

> As I understand it, this was an event in his own constituency - so he attends, in his capacity as local MP, and what? You read the fact that it's an event held by Jewish left-wingers as more 'evidence' that Corbyn is an anti-Semite? I honestly don't get it.

No, i read it as evidence that he is not serious in tackling the problem, which has a scope beyond politics. 

 

 

Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

Sorry I just can't see jc reaching out to the type of blindly pro-isreali staunch tory Jews that make up a very sizable proportion of British jews. He hates their guts - but not because they're Jewish! - and he won't suck up to them. 

1
ripper - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> No, i read it as evidence that he is not serious in tackling the problem, which has a scope beyond politics. 


What, because lefty Jews are the 'wrong sort' of Jews? Are you saying supporting one Jewish event is somehow more pro- (or, indeed, anti-) semitic than supporting another one? That's a hair's breadth from saying there are 'good' Jews and 'bad' ones, isn't it?

2
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to ripper:

> What, because lefty Jews are the 'wrong sort' of Jews? Are you saying supporting one Jewish event is somehow more pro- (or, indeed, anti-) semitic than supporting another one? That's a hair's breadth from saying there are 'good' Jews and 'bad' ones, isn't it?

where did i say it's anti semitic, thats you putting words in my mouth a second time in this thread. 

its just extreme anti israel. 

instead of addressing the anti semitism problem, hes just turning it into an anti israel thing by meeting with a far left anti israel jewish group... 

2
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry I just can't see jc reaching out to the type of blindly pro-isreali staunch tory Jews that make up a very sizable proportion of British jews. He hates their guts - but not because they're Jewish! - and he won't suck up to them. 

the very fact that you call it 'sucking up to them' is the problem with tackling anti semitism. 

turning the issue into a political one like you and JC are doing means it will never be managed in labour.

4
Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> the very fact that you call it 'sucking up to them' is the problem with tackling anti semitism. 

The reason that it will prove impossible to tackle is because the threshold for offence seems to be only barely above saying nothing at all. You either say or do precisely what the mainstream Jewish lobby demand, or you're branded antisemitic. 

That's not helpful to Jewish people.

 If you're not a blindly pro-Isreali, staunch tory Jew, then you're an antisemite, and doesn't matter what you say or do, you'll never get away from those charges.

Look, you're really not going to like this next bit at all, so steel yourself.

The threshold for racism against Jews is, as I say, a matter of failing to do precisely what is demanded by those who feel offended. But what about the threshold for racism perpetrated *by* Jews? Is that set at a similarly microscopic, marginal level? 

Now I'm not going to tar all Israelis, let alone all Jews, with the right-wing religious expansionist Israeli brush. But it's a matter of fact that those on the religious right who support the settlement programme hold big sway in Isreal, yes? I'm talking about people who believe that their holy book tells them that they have a God-given right to land which is not theirs. That they are morally correct, as directed by their version or their god, to take that land away from those who live on it and depend on it. That the Arabs have no right to the land, because it belongs to Jews by the word of god.

These people - and I'm not talking about all Isrealis, I'm talking about the religious right - are common or garden racists, and their actions are brutally, explicitly racist. Just hold that in your head, and come to terms fully with what racism means in this context. The violence. The destruction of lives. And yes, there is equal racism from the other side. Now, contrast that level of vile, despicable racism with the attitude you express towards antisemitism in the Labour party, where you're doling out criticism for being friends with the wrong sort of Jews. 

Are you experiencing any cognitive dissonance at all?

 

krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> turning the issue into a political one like you and JC are doing means it will never be managed in labour.

Unfortunately, that's what's happening. The ordinary man in the street are being told, Labour are bad because they are anti-Semitic. That's the headline, that's being shouted out.

That's what,s been dragged up from a Mural that's six years old, even though it made very few waves six years ago.

It's almost as if it's the most important piece of anti-Semitic art in the last hundred years!

Even the most sceptical Corbyn hater has to question, why now?

And if I was Jewish I'd be pretty pissed off, this didn't get this type publicity when it was first painted.

Pissed off or very suspicious, probably both.

 

MG - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> That's what,s been dragged up from a Mural that's six years old, even though it made very few waves six years ago.

You keep bringing this up when you know it was only brought to light recently by a labour MP.  This in the context of ongoing concerns over antisemitism within Labour being ignored and, more, the recommendations of an investigation in to this also being ignored. It’s not random mud slingingy political opponents, it’s justifiable concern over the labour leadership’s abilities and priorities by labour members and MPs (and now even Momentum).

1
krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to MG:

> You keep bringing this up when you know it was only brought to light recently by a labour MP.  This in the context of ongoing concerns over antisemitism within Labour being ignored and, more, the recommendations of an investigation in to this also being ignored. It’s not random mud slingingy political opponents, it’s justifiable concern over the labour leadership’s abilities and priorities by labour members and MPs (and now even Momentum).


I realise the furore is recent, my point being the mural hasn't changed, and I'm interested in the outrage against the mural and the outrage against the Labour party. The two are being conflated, especially in the media. There's also an assumption that there are "good" and "bad" Jews on different sides of the argument here.

Considering many Jews seem to have difficultly on what is and what isn't anti-Semitic, it's hardly difficult to seem how the general public can always decide what's what.

Part of the reason for my recent posts is to check, myself, against what I think is anti-Semitic.

 

 

 

Mike Highbury - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Let's see if I get an accusation of antisemitism for that...go on, you know you want to!

It's hard, so very hard, because when you post like that I want to play more like Lamela and less like Kane.

paul mitchell - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

What is the Board of Deputies doing about the genocide and land grab in  Palestine/Gaza? Corbyn is small beer compared to that injustice.

Jon Stewart - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> It's hard, so very hard, because when you post like that I want to play more like Lamela and less like Kane.

Over my head I'm afraid. It's either football or old testament, dunno which!

Mike Highbury - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart: Never mind. The Tanakh and the OT are not synonymous, have a different order and broad meaning, BTW.

 

krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

> What is the Board of Deputies doing about the genocide and land grab in  Palestine/Gaza? Corbyn is small beer compared to that injustice.


If you want to see some racism, and I'm sure most of us don't, but simply for educational purposes, browse a few Pro-Israel web sites!!

I've come across a few today trying to find out a bit more about Jewdas, Sussex friends of Israel seem to be in the same breath blaming the Palestinians for getting shot, while denying there's been any deaths at all.

There are others which are trying to demonstrate the protesters shot we're actually on the Israeli side of the fence rather than 300 meters away from it. Even the videos released by the IDF show people being shot some way away from the fence.!

krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

From David Schneider

"Boo! Corbyn needs to get out and meets some Jews!”

[Corbyn spends Passover with some Jews at Jewdas]

“Boo! Not those Jews!”

jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The reason that it will prove impossible to tackle is because the threshold for offence seems to be only barely above saying nothing at all. You either say or do precisely what the mainstream Jewish lobby demand, or you're branded antisemitic. 

> That's not helpful to Jewish people.

>  If you're not a blindly pro-Isreali, staunch tory Jew, then you're an antisemite, and doesn't matter what you say or do, you'll never get away from those charges.

> Look, you're really not going to like this next bit at all, so steel yourself.

> The threshold for racism against Jews is, as I say, a matter of failing to do precisely what is demanded by those who feel offended. But what about the threshold for racism perpetrated *by* Jews? Is that set at a similarly microscopic, marginal level? 

> Now I'm not going to tar all Israelis, let alone all Jews, with the right-wing religious expansionist Israeli brush. But it's a matter of fact that those on the religious right who support the settlement programme hold big sway in Isreal, yes? I'm talking about people who believe that their holy book tells them that they have a God-given right to land which is not theirs. That they are morally correct, as directed by their version or their god, to take that land away from those who live on it and depend on it. That the Arabs have no right to the land, because it belongs to Jews by the word of god.

> These people - and I'm not talking about all Isrealis, I'm talking about the religious right - are common or garden racists, and their actions are brutally, explicitly racist. Just hold that in your head, and come to terms fully with what racism means in this context. The violence. The destruction of lives. And yes, there is equal racism from the other side. Now, contrast that level of vile, despicable racism with the attitude you express towards antisemitism in the Labour party, where you're doling out criticism for being friends with the wrong sort of Jews. 

> Are you experiencing any cognitive dissonance at all?

not at all, your whole post is about justifying anti semitism.

not any way around that unfortunately.

i imagine the number of settlers you have met or talked to about this is exactly zero. (and i am far of supporting the settlement project , but beside the point).

blaming the victim (british jews) , because you hate settlers in israel.

you take the problem of anti semitism in britain and go on a whataboutery campaign regarding settlers... 

I guess it says a lot about you after all.. hopefully you reach the conclusion what exactly is says by yourself  :

>  If you're not a blindly pro-Isreali, staunch tory Jew, then you're an antisemite, and doesn't matter what you say or do, you'll never get away from those charges.

keep moving folks, nothing to see here.. no anti semitism.. Luciana Berger.. 20,000 hate and death threats... who ? ... move along folks...

dislike away UKC !

Post edited at 19:26
5
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> Unfortunately, that's what's happening. The ordinary man in the street are being told, Labour are bad because they are anti-Semitic. That's the headline, that's being shouted out.

the headlnies say labour, including momentum, admit there is a big anti semitism problem in their ranks, are you saying that is false ? 

> That's what,s been dragged up from a Mural that's six years old, even though it made very few waves six years ago.

the mural is just an example, you seem pretty fixated on that.

> It's almost as if it's the most important piece of anti-Semitic art in the last hundred years!

its far from it.

> Even the most sceptical Corbyn hater has to question, why now?

again, almost everyone in labour leadership thinks there is a problem, why dont you argue with them ?

> And if I was Jewish I'd be pretty pissed off, this didn't get this type publicity when it was first painted.

> Pissed off or very suspicious, probably both.

your paranoia level is pretty high.

 

Post edited at 19:14
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> From David Schneider

> "Boo! Corbyn needs to get out and meets some Jews!”

> [Corbyn spends Passover with some Jews at Jewdas]

> “Boo! Not those Jews!”

[Corbyn spends Passover with some Jews at Jewdas who are a far left fringe group that repeatedly call for the destruction of israel, and do not represent in any way shape or form the mainstream jewish population who is deeply offended by the antisemitism in labour, let alone represent the major jewish groups in labour , and act which even from a self interest pov makes no sense on JC's part even if he did not want to address anti semitism.]

Post edited at 19:20
jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

 

> Considering many Jews seem to have difficultly on what is and what isn't anti-Semitic, it's hardly difficult to seem how the general public can always decide what's what.

most things in life aren't black and white, yet many cases are clear. 

because there are grey areas, you are repeatedly using that in your threads to try to show that there isn't a problem , or that is exaggerated.

 

jondo - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

> If you want to see some racism, and I'm sure most of us don't, but simply for educational purposes, browse a few Pro-Israel web sites!!

> I've come across a few today trying to find out a bit more about Jewdas, Sussex friends of Israel seem to be in the same breath blaming the Palestinians for getting shot, while denying there's been any deaths at all.

> There are others which are trying to demonstrate the protesters shot we're actually on the Israeli side of the fence rather than 300 meters away from it. Even the videos released by the IDF show people being shot some way away from the fence.!

of course you would link the discussion about anti semitism in britain with current affairs in israel. 

classic . 

just shows that the whole discussion is pointless. 

and as usual you show no understanding about what is going on there, but that's A DIFFERENT THREAD. 

a thread i would gladly not participate as it will a copy paste back and forth of 100's of previous ones...

 

Mike Highbury - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo: 

> [Corbyn spends Passover with some Jews ...

Third night Seder which is for these lefty-communal events, of course.

Rather, it's that JC, once again, prefers spending his time in comfortable, familiar surroundings, rather than than building a relationship with the wider Jewish community. He isn't, as JS remarks above or somewhere else in these threads, a politician.

 

 

1
krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> of course you would link the discussion about anti semitism in britain with current affairs in israel. 

> classic . 

But the web sites are in Britain, same as the sites that are being called anti-Semitic.

Granted  they are about the situation in Israel, but they are posted by British people on British web sites. So it's not that far removed from what we're talking about, now is it?

> just shows that the whole discussion is pointless. 

It might well prove that yes, because as soon as it's about stuff you don't like you go into defence mode.

> and as usual you show no understanding about what is going on there, but that's A DIFFERENT THREAD. 

I can't start any more, apparently, the two I've started already are too much for some people!!

> a thread i would gladly not participate as it will a copy paste back and forth of 100's of previous ones...

 

krikoman - on 03 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> the headlnies say labour, including momentum, admit there is a big anti semitism problem in their ranks, are you saying that is false ? 

No I'm not, but you knew that.

> the mural is just an example, you seem pretty fixated on that.

I was soliciting some people opinions that's all, I notice you didn't feel you could contribute to the original post of that thread.

> its far from it.

Exactly!! That was my point.

> again, almost everyone in labour leadership thinks there is a problem, why dont you argue with them ?

I'm not arguing with anyone, to be honest, I've asked about people thoughts on a picture and their thoughts on what anti-Semitism is to them.

You've even contributed and shared your thoughts, strangely some of them I didn't expect, so once again you've you've educated me a bit. You there's a glaring dicotomy in what you've shared.

> your paranoia level is pretty high.

I don't see why, there's a lot of people conflating a number of issues here, and it's not all about anti-Semitism.

In it's simplest form JC met some Jews, but they weren't good enough! It didn't matter, nor has it been reported much, that they were local to where he lives or that it was in his own time, not part of anything to do with Labour business. But that doesn't seem to matter to anyone. What's important is the noise that's being made.

To be honest, it appear to me that the mural has only become important within the last week, and for the previous six years no one's really cared. That's what I'd be angry about.

I'd also be questioning my own honesty, is /was it upsetting to me or am I now upset because everyone else is?

 

winhill - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

>  Please provide links as to where Labour (note the spelling please) party officials are anti-Semitic.

What do mean 'officials'?

Shawcroft went over a council candidate and hundreds of investigations have taken place, Livingstone remains suspended.

Khadim Hussain, a former Lord Mayor and Labour councillor in Bradford was suspended for reposting “your school education system only tells you about Anne Frank and the six million Zionists that were killed by Hitler”

He resigned from the party a week later. But this is over 2 years ago now, you seem well behind The Times (geddit) to the point of wilful denial.

Another councillor, ex Big Brother sleb Beinazir Lasharie was suspended for posting this: 

“ISIS: Israeli Secret Intelligence Service”

“Many people know about who was behind 9/11 and also who is behind Isis. I’ve nothing against Jews ... just sharing it!”

When questioned she said: “I’ve seen compelling evidence that links Zionists to ISIS.”

Leaving aside a moment the racism of muslims who insist that bad things muslims do are done by Jews, she was suspended, re-educated and re-admitted and is now Deputy Mayor of Ken & Chelsea! This is because muslim groups have weaponised race over Grenfell and demanded muslim representation at higher levels.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/khadim-hussain-former-lord-mayor-of-bradford-suspended-by-labour-party-over-anti-semitism-a6948856.html

Jim 1003 - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You said that antisemitism appeared to be rife on this website. So, repost the antisemitic stuff. Or, I will continue to assume that you are a tit. 

> I'm not calling you a tit for no reason. You keep saying stuff that's factually wrong, so I keep asking you to back it up. And you can't, because it's a load of shite. Do you expect to be able to call people racist (from the safety of your keyboard) and not be asked, relatively politely in this context, to justify it?

I think anybody who is, or has been, a top 40 poster, like yourself, is by definition, a tit, a wanker, and a saddo....

Post edited at 00:14
3
Michael Hood - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

You might be getting perilously close to the top 40

But f**k me it's all getting a bit bitter on this and other similar threads.

Ignoring all the interpersonal relationships stuff that seems to be developing on these threads, there seems to be a fair bit of common ground about JC...

Does JC believe he's anti-Semitic - Nope

Has JC done some things that some people would take as anti-Semitic - Yep

Has JC done anything that everybody would take as anti-Semitic - Nope

Has JC associated with people/groups who are anti-Semitic or who have anti-Semitic members - Yep

Has JC dealt properly/effectively with concerns about Antisemitism in the Labour party - Nope

Has JC (maybe) only just woken up to the seriousness of the concerns about Antisemitism in the Labour party - it appears so

Has JC shown proper leadership about this issue - Nope

 

The problems with this issue are greatly complicated because it's so grey and also because it gets so conflated with anti-Israel, anti-Zionism, current affairs, Israeli government policy, etc. etc.

Can I ask people to please try and avoid conflation by starting extra threads where necessary - I think Krikoman has done this (and then received some abuse for doing so), and also, try and keep to the issues and leave the relationship development out of it.

1
Jon Stewart - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003

:> I think anybody who is, or has been, a top 40 poster, like yourself, is by definition, a tit, a wanker, and a saddo....

You'd better shut the f*ck up then eh? Don't want to look like a tit, do you?

Jon Stewart - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Michael Hood:

Sorry I couldn't resist calling Jim a tit again.

But I agree with your summary of the common ground, more or less, and it is helpful to spell it out clearly like that, so thanks.

krikoman - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

> .. a tit, a wanker, and a saddo....

 

Soapy tit wank, Mmmmmmm

 

doz generale - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

This anti-Semitism piece is clearly a carefully orchestrated smear campaign conveniently timed for the upcoming May local elections. It also seems to be disproportionately taking center stage in the news media over things like Cambridge analytica and the continuing brexit negotiations.  

2
Stuart en Écosse - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to doz generale:

> This anti-Semitism piece is clearly a carefully orchestrated smear campaign conveniently timed for the upcoming May local elections. It also seems to be disproportionately taking center stage in the news media over things like Cambridge analytica and the continuing brexit negotiations.  

Exactly.

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/jeremy-corbyn-passover-jewdas-good-news

Mike Highbury - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to doz generale:

> This anti-Semitism piece is clearly a carefully orchestrated smear campaign conveniently timed for the upcoming May local elections. It also seems to be disproportionately taking center stage in the news media over things like Cambridge analytica and the continuing brexit negotiations.  

Is it possible that the Jews could have orchestrated such a thing?

3
jondo - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

 

> In it's simplest form JC met some Jews, but they weren't good enough! It didn't matter, nor has it been reported much, that they were local to where he lives or that it was in his own time, not part of anything to do with Labour business. But that doesn't seem to matter to anyone. What's important is the noise that's being made.

It's not about them not being good enough, it's about JC's poor decision making, he could have met with jews across the various groups in labour including these far lefties, the point is he should have been inclusive , and that doesn't mean ''sucking up to tory jews' like some suggested here.

> To be honest, it appear to me that the mural has only become important within the last week, and for the previous six years no one's really cared. That's what I'd be angry about.

And trumps affair with stormy daniels just recently surfaced,so what?

 

 

Post edited at 12:07
doz generale - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Is it possible that the Jews could have orchestrated such a thing?

I would say that the Jewish Labour members have genuine concerns but the disproportionate media coverage, focus on Corbyn and the timing is probably not down to them. 

Michael Hood - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to doz generale: given that most of the media is conservative, it's not surprising that they give more focus to anti Labour stories than anti Conservative ones.

 

Eric9Points - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

You mean the ones on the board of deputies that are in the conservative party?

I'd be surprised if they hadn't done their utmost to stick the boot in. Wouldn't you be surprised?

ripper - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Michael Hood:

> given that most of the media is conservative, it's not surprising that they give more focus to anti Labour stories than anti Conservative ones.


And the sections that aren't Conservative are generally Blairite, so just as (or even more) likely to stick the boot in.

krikoman - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> And trumps affair with stormy daniels just recently surfaced,so what?

But the mural was in plain sight for a number of years!!

No one paid people to keep their gob shut about it or cover it over. It was there for plenty of time for people to get outraged about, but they didn't, they are doing it now!

While I agree there's a difference with what Labour have done about anti-Semitism and this mural, that's not how it's being reported in the media. It's been over simplified and conflated with a number of other issues.

krikoman - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Is it possible that the Jews could have orchestrated such a thing?

You might be a little closer than you want to be, of course you need to be more specific,"Is it possible that the Israeli government could have orchestrated such a thing?"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/israel-embassy-scandal-shai-masot-resigns-threat-take-down-mps-labour-nus-critical-pro-palestinian-a7524446.html

But that could never happen, could it?

 

rocksol - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

No it absolutely couldn't. All this has been fermenting for years as people perceive that if they show an allegiance to the hard left they can with impunity post what they like. Especially so since Corbyns rise up the ranks. I don't believe Corbyn is racist per se, but he cannot bring himself to castigate friends and purge them from the party. This has led to record levels of people leaving Labour in the last few weeks and is doing untold damage to his prospects. Keep it up!

2
krikoman - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to rocksol:

> This has led to record levels of people leaving Labour in the last few weeks and is doing untold damage to his prospects. Keep it up!

And yet the Jewish membership of Labour has risen 5.4%, so not everyone is being scared off are they.

 

Jon Stewart - on 04 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> not at all, your whole post is about justifying anti semitism.

That's how I expected you to see it. But what do you think my motivation is for "justifying antisemitism"? This is a genuine question, I want to understand how you see it, because I think you're a reasonable person and I simply don't see it that way.

> i imagine the number of settlers you have met or talked to about this is exactly zero. (and i am far of supporting the settlement project , but beside the point).

You're correct, I haven't talked to any settlers. I don't know how the individuals on the ground see it. But I have spent a lot of time listening to politicians and spokespeople from the Israeli religious right, and I despise their racism, their moral cowardice and their rock-bottom intellectual dishonesty. I don't understand how reasonable people could ever contribute to, or wilfully benefit from such a project, but I'm not attacking individual settlers, I'm attacking the movement and the philosophy behind it. Which is a philosophy of cold, hard, racism.

> blaming the victim (british jews) , because you hate settlers in israel.

The criticism I am aiming at British Jews is not that they are responsible or deserving for antisemitism, and I don't think I've shown that in anything I've written. The criticism is that some Jews are being *unreasonable*. The fact that going to a seder night with Jewish friends attracts the criticism "this just shows you don't care about antisemitism" proves beyond all doubt that the critics are unreasonable. 

That's my charge against those who are having a go at Corbyn about the Jewdas thing. It's unreasonable and it reflects the position "if you don't do exactly as I say (and probably even if you do), I'm going to call you an antisemite". 

> you take the problem of anti semitism in britain and go on a whataboutery campaign regarding settlers... 

There's a very specific reason I bring up the racist settlement programme. When it comes to being offended by antisemitism, then there is rightly and understandably, a great solidarity amongst Jews. The group identity seems paramount. Now, if, within that group there is a strong and influential racist element (and there is, the whole world can see it, it's visible from space for god's sake), then I think when it comes to talking about racism, the existence of that element is relevant and needs to be acknowledged. 

Surely you want to be able to argue from a solid position that doesn't try to conceal glaring double standards? The level of sensitivity, the demands that must be met so as not to somehow collude with antisemites is unreasonable. And it becomes darkly comical when the Jewish community itself has such a problem with a violent, racist element within it. And if you don't view the religious right as a problem, then how could you possibly be in any position to make allegations of racism against anyone?

> keep moving folks, nothing to see here.. no anti semitism.. Luciana Berger.. 20,000 hate and death threats... who ? ... move along folks...

Try to be honest and accurate. You're implying that I want to dismiss or deny the antisemitism directed towards Luciana Berger (or anyone), but there's no evidence of this. When I ask you directly to be reasonable, you are. But when I say something you don't like, you fly off the handle and start making totally unjustified allegations.

I'm very interested to have the conversation like this - I'll answer honestly any questions you have about my position. But I won't let it slide when people make unpleasant and unjustified allegations against me.

 

Post edited at 23:28
aln - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Brilliantly and intelligently well argued Jon, but it won't matter, an accusation of anti semitism will be along some time soon. 

1
jondo - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to aln:

> Brilliantly and intelligently well argued Jon, but it won't matter, an accusation of anti semitism will be along some time soon. 

Interesting the only post you write on this thread is by trying to put words in my mouth...

 

jondo - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> That's how I expected you to see it. But what do you think my motivation is for "justifying antisemitism"? This is a genuine question, I want to understand how you see it, because I think you're a reasonable person and I simply don't see it that way.

Only you know your own motivation... probably political?

> You're correct, I haven't talked to any settlers. I don't know how the individuals on the ground see it. But I have spent a lot of time listening to politicians and spokespeople from the Israeli religious right, and I despise their racism, their moral cowardice and their rock-bottom intellectual dishonesty. I don't understand how reasonable people could ever contribute to, or wilfully benefit from such a project, but I'm not attacking individual settlers, I'm attacking the movement and the philosophy behind it. Which is a philosophy of cold, hard, racism.

I don't think at the core of the religious settlers is a racist philosophy. There are racists there like in many religious groups across all religions. 

> The criticism I am aiming at British Jews is not that they are responsible or deserving for antisemitism, and I don't think I've shown that in anything I've written. The criticism is that some Jews are being *unreasonable*. The fact that going to a seder night with Jewish friends attracts the criticism "this just shows you don't care about antisemitism" proves beyond all doubt that the critics are unreasonable. 

It shows JC is incompetent at understanding the problem and to adress it properly.

> That's my charge against those who are having a go at Corbyn about the Jewdas thing. It's unreasonable and it reflects the position "if you don't do exactly as I say (and probably even if you do), I'm going to call you an antisemite". 

No , i didn't call JC an anti-Semite see paragraph above.

> There's a very specific reason I bring up the racist settlement programme. When it comes to being offended by antisemitism, then there is rightly and understandably, a great solidarity amongst Jews. The group identity seems paramount. Now, if, within that group there is a strong and influential racist element (and there is, the whole world can see it, it's visible from space for god's sake), then I think when it comes to talking about racism, the existence of that element is relevant and needs to be acknowledged. 

No matter how i turn it around its an attempt by you to deflect the issue of anti semitism in Britain. And even somehow create more incitement by saying british jews support racism.

> Surely you want to be able to argue from a solid position that doesn't try to conceal glaring double standards? The level of sensitivity, the demands that must be met so as not to somehow collude with antisemites is unreasonable. And it becomes darkly comical when the Jewish community itself has such a problem with a violent, racist element within it. And if you don't view the religious right as a problem, then how could you possibly be in any position to make allegations of racism against anyone?

The only double standard here is your own. I assume you would gladly talk unconditionally about islamophobia and how bad it is regardless of the british muslim populations support of murderous and extremely racist arab  regimes , and those regimes control a whole country and aren't just a group within a group.

> Try to be honest and accurate. You're implying that I want to dismiss or deny the antisemitism directed towards Luciana Berger (or anyone), but there's no evidence of this. When I ask you directly to be reasonable, you are. But when I say something you don't like, you fly off the handle and start making totally unjustified allegations.

Fly of the handle? You said if you're not a 'staunch tory jew' then you're blamed for anti semitism. Thats quite dismissive of any allegations of anti semitism, not in the least anti semitism directed at a labour mp from within her own party.

> I'm very interested to have the conversation like this - I'll answer honestly any questions you have about my position. But I won't let it slide when people make unpleasant and unjustified allegations against me.

I can't see how its unjustified. You imply british jews have it coming since they support israel and should stfu since there are some settlers that appear racist.

Then you say that anyone who doesn't agree with tory Jews is branded anti semitic.

 

Post edited at 06:06
1
aln - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Interesting the only post you write on this thread is by trying to put words in my mouth...

Eh? I didn't reply to you, or say anything about you or your posting. Paranoia much? 

jondo - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to aln:

So just referring to Jews in general?

Timmd on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> Whatever, I was just highlighting some of the real racism found in British politics ;-)

I thought you were. Boris Johnson wrote that about Africans, along the lines of them smiling at the white man who comes down from the sky in the big bird. I think the context was pygmy people being killed, but that's besides the point, he was still being pretty racist.

Post edited at 16:14
aln - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> So just referring to Jews in general?

Lol. I didn't do that either. 

rocksol - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Is this the ultra left wing faction who think singing f*ck the police and f*ck the army is a legitimate and traditional part of Passover celebrations joined for their strange interpretation by JC

grooved rib - on 05 Apr 2018
Jon Stewart - on 05 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Only you know your own motivation... probably political?

Well, I'm not a Labour voter nor a Corbyn supporter. The motivation comes from firmly held secular values and a deep dislike of the tribalism evolution so helpfully endowed human beings with, and which imprisons and rots the 'souls' of those who succumb to it.

> I don't think at the core of the religious settlers is a racist philosophy. There are racists there like in many religious groups across all religions. 

This is a fundamental disagreement. Among the Abrahmic faiths, Judaism and Islam both contain specific notions that encourage hatred of the other. Christianity, in all its crapness, doesn't at least target a particular tribe to be at war with. But some Jews and some Muslims take seriously the bits of their holy texts that tell them to hate, or abuse the other tribe with whom they compete for resources in the Middle East.

It's not like any racism found anywhere else - it's specific racism towards literal neighbours: it's god apparently intervening in a human dispute over physical resource. It's horrifying, on both sides.

> No , i didn't call JC an anti-Semite see paragraph above.

Yes, and that's why I'm bothering to continue the discussion - you have a reasonable side!

> No matter how i turn it around its an attempt by you to deflect the issue of anti semitism in Britain. And even somehow create more incitement by saying british jews support racism.

Above, it seems to me that you're denying, dismissing and minimising the horrific racism of the Israeli religious right. They're on your team, they're part of your tribe, so you're unable to see the vile racism for what it is. 

Some British Jews support the settlement programme, and as such, they're cheerleaders for racists and should be treated with absolute disdain and disgust for this reason. Others have every bit as much moral fibre as any good Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist you could care to meet. I will judge people by what they believe, what they say and do. I won't judge them by which tribe they are part of.

> The only double standard here is your own. I assume you would gladly talk unconditionally about islamophobia

So there is a double standard between what I've said and something you made up which you think I'd probably say? That argument is a non-starter. 

> Fly of the handle? You said if you're not a 'staunch tory jew' then you're blamed for anti semitism. Thats quite dismissive of any allegations of anti semitism, not in the least anti semitism directed at a labour mp from within her own party.

That doesn't follow. If you show me a specific allegation of antisemitism e.g. towards Lucian Berger, I'll tell you what I think of it. If I think it's trumped-up political nonsense, I'll say so. Or if I think it's real racism, I'll say so. I'm not going to genersalise and say "The Labour Party is antisemitic" or "there is no antisemitism among Corbyn supporters" - both these statements are plainly false. I admit that "if you're not a 'staunch tory jew' then you're blamed for anti semitism" is an exaggeration, and as such I should have been more accurate. To phrase the point more carefully "there is nothing that those who oppose Israeli policy can realistically do to convince right-wing Jews that they are politically opposed and have no racist motivation"

> I can't see how its unjustified. You imply british jews have it coming since they support israel and should stfu since there are some settlers that appear racist.

I didn't say that. I said that the racism inherent in the settlement programme is so severe, so widespread and so influential among the Jewish community that the refusal to acknowledge this is a glaring double standard which makes the cries of offence at "meeting the wrong kind of Jews" ring somewhat hollow.

 

Post edited at 22:54
jondo - on 06 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Well, I'm not a Labour voter nor a Corbyn supporter. The motivation comes from firmly held secular values and a deep dislike of the tribalism evolution so helpfully endowed human beings with, and which imprisons and rots the 'souls' of those who succumb to it.

I disagree that tribalism in itself ''rots souls", it simply means you have a cultural identity , and does not imply the way you treat others outside your tribe. There are plenty of rotting souls that have secular values as you call them.

I don't see myself as a jew as a fundamental being , btw,   just human. 

> This is a fundamental disagreement. Among the Abrahmic faiths, Judaism and Islam both contain specific notions that encourage hatred of the other. Christianity, in all its crapness, doesn't at least target a particular tribe to be at war with. But some Jews and some Muslims take seriously the bits of their holy texts that tell them to hate, or abuse the other tribe with whom they compete for resources in the Middle East.

You have a misunderstanding as to both Judaism and Islam, and perhaps Christianity as well. The way people practice their religion is far more important than what is written in part of the texts as stories as in the torah. And btw I'm completely secular. 

> It's not like any racism found anywhere else - it's specific racism towards literal neighbours: it's god apparently intervening in a human dispute over physical resource. It's horrifying, on both sides.

It seems your image of israeli religious jews comes from some news reports. You generalise them to be some generic person you have in your head.. Seems you don't know many, if any at all. 

> Above, it seems to me that you're denying, dismissing and minimising the horrific racism of the Israeli religious right. They're on your team, they're part of your tribe, so you're unable to see the vile racism for what it is. 

Im not at all minimising racism. I oppose it.. I just think that the settlement program in itself is not racist. Sure there are some people there with extreme politics who don't like Arabs. 

The effects of the program were that it had denied some of the Palestinians a decent economic life and other rights for complex reasons like escalating violence . If it was racist inherently as you put it,  you wouldn't have any factories in the west bank that employ jews and Palestinians on equal terms. 

> Some British Jews support the settlement programme, and as such, they're cheerleaders for racists and should be treated with absolute disdain and disgust for this reason. Others have every bit as much moral fibre as any good Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist you could care to meet. I will judge people by what they believe, what they say and do. I won't judge them by which tribe they are part of.

See paragraph above.

Plus you treat people with absolute disgust for some political opinion and embrace people that agree with you.... Hope you don't consider yourself to be some secular Buddhist or something, because that sounds like the opposite.

> So there is a double standard between what I've said and something you made up which you think I'd probably say? That argument is a non-starter. 

It was more of a question.

> That doesn't follow. If you show me a specific allegation of antisemitism e.g. towards Lucian Berger, I'll tell you what I think of it.

There was so much , no need to show something special.

>If I think it's trumped-up political nonsense, I'll say so. Or if I think it's real racism, I'll say so.I'm not going to genersalise and say "The Labour Party is antisemitic" or "there is no antisemitism among Corbyn supporters" - both these statements are plainly false.

Good. 

 

>I admit that "if you're not a 'staunch tory jew' then you're blamed for anti semitism" is an exaggeration, and as such I should have been more accurate. To phrase the point more carefully "there is nothing that those who oppose Israeli policy can realistically do to convince right-wing Jews that they are politically opposed and have no racist motivation"

Thats also a generalisation  

> I didn't say that. I said that the racism inherent in the settlement programme is so severe, so widespread and so influential among the Jewish community that the refusal to acknowledge this is a glaring double standard which makes the cries of offence at "meeting the wrong kind of Jews" ring somewhat hollow.

I disagree that thinking a piece of land belongs to you is in itself  racist. You seem to have a strange notion of racism. 

I would say thinking a piece of land like the west bank belongs to you alone  when there are other people living there as well, is highly unrealistic,   non pragmatic, and socially unjust. 

But also thinking that settlers that have been in the west bank since the 60's should be forcibly removed is also a problem. 

That's why the two state solution stated that the main population centers in the west bank would remain intact and compensated by land exchange to the Palestinians, while all those hilltop settlements whose location is problematic would be removed. 

 

 

Post edited at 02:07
1
Jim 1003 - on 06 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

A good summary of John Stewarts garbage, God save from those that spend all day posting pish....

3
Stuart en Écosse - on 06 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

His name is Jon, but you know that, don't you.

I'm guessing you are disappointed that your thread has sparked a lot of mostly reasonable discussion instead of a braindead and witless slanging match.

FWIW I disagree with Jondo on most of this but at least he/she makes an effort to engage and add something to the discussion. Next time you start a thread, even if with an admittedly vague OP, try putting it in context by suffixing it with "and anyone who thinks otherwise smells of poo."

Post edited at 12:21
Jon Stewart - on 06 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

Thanks for continuing the conversation. I don't agree with you, but I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint and appreciate you taking the time. I think this is a great example of a place where the internet is the opposite of 'echo chamber' and is instead a place where people who probably wouldn't talk in the pub or whatever openly discussing their genuinely held views - and that's a great thing!

> I disagree that tribalism in itself ''rots souls", it simply means you have a cultural identity , and does not imply the way you treat others outside your tribe. There are plenty of rotting souls that have secular values as you call them.

This is a fascinating subject. I'm not saying that group cultural identity necessarily rots souls or can only be a bad thing. And as you say, there are plenty of secular ways to rot one's soul too - consumerism is great way to start. I think that tribalism and racism are pretty much synonymous (given that race can't be defined any more accurately than tribal identity), and as such tribalism is a type of human behaviour that causes untold harm and has no benefits.

Group cultural identity can, logically at least, exist without tribalism. It could I suppose lead to lots of good consequences and no harm at all. However, what I see in the real world is that strongly held group cultural identity tends to be intertwined with toxic tribalism and harmful behaviours. This isn't to say that all Jews or all Muslims, or all of any cultural, racial or religious group indulge in harmful tribalism; but extremist Islam, and extremist Judiasm in the form of the Israeli religious right are both examples of where strong group identity leads to violent racism.

I'm not saying that group cultural identity is harmful in itself, I'm saying if it's something that's important to you, you have have a duty to ensure that you're not supporting, indulging or apologising for the harmful tribalism that exists in the name of that cultural identity. And I'm sorry to say that your apologist attitude towards the settlement programme seems to me to be precisely this. 

> I don't see myself as a jew as a fundamental being , btw,   just human. 

You're talking my language!

> The way people practice their religion is far more important than what is written in part of the texts as stories as in the torah.

I agree. I'm talking exactly about the way people practice their religion, i.e. the fact that some Muslims choose to take seriously the words in their holy texts that specifically incite hatred of Jews, and the racist ideology justified by citing the Torah which motivates the settlement programme. I don't care what it actually says in these ancient scripts, what I care about is what people do in the real world. And the way the extremists practice their religion with respect to the contest over the resources of the land of the West Bank is horrifying. I can't interpret the ancient riddles in the Koran and Torah, the words mean nothing to me (that's because they're bollocks, by the way). But I can see the way people practice their religion, and it makes me feel sick.

> It seems your image of israeli religious jews comes from some news reports. You generalise them to be some generic person you have in your head.. Seems you don't know many, if any at all. 

I'm not talking about individual Israelis here, I'm talking about the political position espoused by the Israeli state, on the basis of what representatives of the Isreali state (often that prick to end all pricks Regev) say themselves through the media. It's the political position, the underlying philosophy that supports it, and the actions that follow from it I am arguing against.

> Im not at all minimising racism. I oppose it.. I just think that the settlement program in itself is not racist.

I genuinely cannot understand what a non-racist justification for the settlement programme might look like. I'm baffled by how you can view such explicitly and brutally racist actions as not being racist. I just don't understand how it's possible to see the settlement programme as anything other than one tribe saying to another: we have the right to take these resources from you by virtue only of our tribal identity.

> If it was racist inherently as you put it,  you wouldn't have any factories in the west bank that employ jews and Palestinians on equal terms. 

That's not evidence that the settlement programme is not racist. The existence of a specific non-racist event occurring in the West Bank has nothing to say about the why the settlement programme exists and how it has been realised.

> Plus you treat people with absolute disgust for some political opinion and embrace people that agree with you.... Hope you don't consider yourself to be some secular Buddhist or something, because that sounds like the opposite.

If someone shares what I consider to be decent values, i.e. that they aim to achieve the best outcomes and the least harm for humankind, then regardless of their politics I will respect them. Some right wing people argue, half-convincingly, that their preferred economic models are the best way to achieve the same aims I want to see met. But if someone's a racist, they clearly don't share decent values, and I will treat them with disdain and disgust. And no, I'm certainly no Buddhist of any kind, I'm a secular, atheist, rationalist, materialist...not into hippy bullshit of any kind (although I don't consider meditation to be hippy bullshit).

> I disagree that thinking a piece of land belongs to you is in itself  racist. 

Thinking that a piece of land belongs to you *by virtue of your race*, rather than the person of another race who lives on it, not racist? Really? As I said, I just can't understand how this point of view works. How can declaring the rights of your race to be greater than that of another be anything other than cold, hard racism?

> But also thinking that settlers that have been in the west bank since the 60's should be forcibly removed is also a problem. That's why the two state solution stated that the main population centers in the west bank would remain intact and compensated by land exchange to the Palestinians, while all those hilltop settlements whose location is problematic would be removed. 

Certainly is a problem! I'm in no position to take a detailed view on what should be done in the cases of individual settlements, should other agreements come into being, but I'm certainly in a position to take the view that supporting the settlement programme, i.e. the expansion rather than contraction of settlements, is a morally repugnant, racist political position. 

Post edited at 21:52
TobyA on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

When do you stop though? If supporting the extension of settlements now is a "morally repugnant, racist political position", is supporting settlements that have been there for the best part of 40 years a "morally repugnant, racist political position"?

I suspect there is some racism involved in these issues but that race isn't necessarily a very helpful prism to view it through or an important motivation, because the question is a 'right' to land: to live on it, exert control over it, to use it. Maybe it is 'racist' for Ashkenazi Jews to say they have a right to take the land in parts of, say Hebron, but where should they live? Most of us say it's fine for them to live in Tel Aviv but what's really the difference besides 30 years? Should their claim not be on land near Vilnius or Minsk?

Soon we get to whether Aussies cheering at the Commonwealth Games are taking a "morally repugnant, racist political position" as they are the descendants of settlers, a settlement that included genocidal violence of a type not seen in the foundation and extension of Israel.

Israel's occupation of the West Bank and it's non-occupation of Gaza causes terrible suffering, and the Palestinians have legitimate rights that are being ignored but until there are calls for a one state solution, expressed as a civil rights claim, I don't think saying this is racist helps much.

In your rationalist, materialist, atheist utopia people won't form groups because they'll all think like you! ;-) But until that joyous day we have to deal with conflict claims to group rights.

 

Post edited at 08:00
jondo - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I'm not talking about individual Israelis here, I'm talking about the political position espoused by the Israeli state, on the basis of what representatives of the Isreali state (often that prick to end all pricks Regev) say themselves through the media.

Regev is a woman (maybe prick isn't the right term) , probably the most ridiculed and hated politician in Israel. Can't stand her myself.   

> I genuinely cannot understand what a non-racist justification for the settlement programme might look like. I'm baffled by how you can view such explicitly and brutally racist actions as not being racist. I just don't understand how it's possible to see the settlement programme as anything other than one tribe saying to another: we have the right to take these resources from you by virtue only of our tribal identity.

Because there is nothing in the settlement program that talks about another race or ethnicity being inferior. The settlement program in itself was a process that had various motivations,  some were religious  others purely strategic, in fact most of the settlements were built by secular left wing governments!  so I'm not trying to convince you that settlements don't end up being bad for Palestinians, rather that it's much more complex than the way it's presented or compared wrongfully  to 70's South Africa .   

> If someone shares what I consider to be decent values, i.e. that they aim to achieve the best outcomes and the least harm for humankind, then regardless of their politics I will respect them. Some right wing people argue, half-convincingly, that their preferred economic models are the best way to achieve the same aims I want to see met. But if someone's a racist, they clearly don't share decent values, and I will treat them with disdain and disgust. And no, I'm certainly no Buddhist of any kind, I'm a secular, atheist, rationalist, materialist...not into hippy bullshit of any kind (although I don't consider meditation to be hippy bullshit).

I disagree with your definition of racism mainly. Pretty much in any war each group tries to compete with another for resources and thinks only about its own self preservation   doesn't mean they are racist. Racism means that you have an ideology of superiority .  

> Thinking that a piece of land belongs to you *by virtue of your race*, rather than the person of another race who lives on it, not racist? Really? As I said, I just can't understand how this point of view works. How can declaring the rights of your race to be greater than that of another be anything other than cold, hard racism?

It's not necessarily racism, more like fantasy or some belief in biblical rights. It can be racism if within that belief indeed you think that others are worth less just because they don't share your religion or ethnicity .   I'm not denying that there are racists everywhere, including within socialist progressive Labour or lib dem groups in the UK. 

 

 

TobyA on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

Jon probably means Mark Regev, currently Israeli ambassador to the Court of St James's (i.e. ambassador in the UK).

Jon Stewart - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> Jon probably means Mark Regev, currently Israeli ambassador to the Court of St James's (i.e. ambassador in the UK).

I do indeed. And he is the prick to end all pricks. 

"On the contrary. on the contrary!", he would no doubt say. "It is not me that is the prick to end all pricks, The Hamas charter states that...". 

- Yes, but with the greatest of respect Mr Regev [actually, none at all] we're not talking about the Hamas charter, we're talking about the fact that you're the prick to end all pricks. Look at everything you've ever said. It's indisputable that there are no more prickish bell-ends than you alive on this planet today. You are the prick to end all pricks.

"But the Hamas charter"

- You're a prick. Now f*ck off.

Sorry, did I get carried away?

Post edited at 19:40
1
Stuart en Écosse - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Sorry, did I get carried away?

Au contraire, you barely scratch the surface.

jondo - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

dont know what your problem is , or that other guy here.. 

ambassadors are supposed to defend their countries even if you think israel is worse than the worst serial killer (clearly you think that) they still should have a lawyer in court to represent them. 

that is one of the roles of an ambassador. 

clearly you dont know regev personally, so i assume your prickiness obsession is to do with israel and not even the israeli government. 

(you dont even hate the russian ambassador on that level as you clearly state, a country that plants chemical weapons in civilian areas here...)

just plain hate for a country. 

enjoy wallowing. 

Post edited at 20:05
3
Jon Stewart - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> When do you stop though? If supporting the extension of settlements now is a "morally repugnant, racist political position", is supporting settlements that have been there for the best part of 40 years a "morally repugnant, racist political position"?

If you read my post, you'll see that I considered this question, which Jondo had raised, and plumped for "supporting the settlement programme, i.e. the expansion rather than contraction of settlements". So, I've anticipated and answered your question. To be slightly more specific, if you really need me to be, then my view is that to see a demand to dismantle old settlements as unreasonable is defensible position. But it's a position to be taken from the back-foot: "It was wrong to build this here, but now that it's been here for 50 years...".

> I suspect there is some racism involved in these issues but that race isn't necessarily a very helpful prism to view it through or an important motivation, because the question is a 'right' to land: to live on it, exert control over it, to use it. Maybe it is 'racist' for Ashkenazi Jews to say they have a right to take the land in parts of, say Hebron, but where should they live? Most of us say it's fine for them to live in Tel Aviv but what's really the difference besides 30 years? Should their claim not be on land near Vilnius or Minsk?

You're going to have to build a very specific case for a specific claim to a very specific piece of land before it becomes intelligible to me. By virtue of being an Ashkenazi Jew, you don't in my view, have any claim to anything. You are a human being, and you need to negotiate your path in the world on that basis. It boggles the mind that some bullshit claim about your genetics and what happened to your descendants 2000 years ago might even be regarded as anything other than the ramblings of someone with a mental health condition. I don't have any rights to any land anywhere. I have UK citizenship. I own a flat in Sheffield (not really, the bank owns it). I can't just build a house wherever I like on the basis of my race or tribal identity. I can't conceive of a more ridiculous notion than claiming that I've got the rights to some land somewhere on the basis of my genetics or tribal identity.

> Soon we get to whether Aussies cheering at the Commonwealth Games are taking a "morally repugnant, racist political position" as they are the descendants of settlers, a settlement that included genocidal violence of a type not seen in the foundation and extension of Israel.

No we don't. I've already addressed this point, twice. Do Australians support the *expansion* of Australia onto other people's land? No. Are they descended from people who settled on others' land, people who took a morally repugnant, racist political position? Yes they are. Do I hold them accountable? No. You have not exposed an inconsistency in my position. It is the support of the expansion of settlements that I describe as racist and there is absolutely no parallel with Australia because Australia is not engaging in the stealing of another group's resources and the destruction of their lives. It was done long ago. It was wrong. Those alive today cannot be held accountable. Is that sufficiently clear?

Making this ridiculous comparison makes you appear to be arguing from a weak position, one that can't be substantiated by decent arguments- so you're forced resort to this nonsense. It's not a runner.

> Israel's occupation of the West Bank and it's non-occupation of Gaza causes terrible suffering, and the Palestinians have legitimate rights that are being ignored but until there are calls for a one state solution, expressed as a civil rights claim, I don't think saying this is racist helps much.

Perhaps it doesn't help - but it's true. It's so obviously racist to assume rights to resources by virtue only of your race that claims that "it's not very helpful" don't really make much of an impact.

> In your rationalist, materialist, atheist utopia people won't form groups because they'll all think like you! ;-) But until that joyous day we have to deal with conflict claims to group rights.

Roll on that day. But in the mean time, it is possible to argue for policies that recognise people's right to a group identity within their own private lives, but which ignore as irrelevant group identity when it comes to the practical rights they enjoy as citizens of nation states.

 

1
Jon Stewart - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> ambassadors are supposed to defend their countries even if you think israel is worse than the worst serial killer (clearly you think that) they still should have a lawyer in court to represent them. 

My question is, why does the Israeli government send us that mouldy ballbag to appear on our TV screens? Is that the best they've got? Or is that all we're worth? Or is it so they don't have to look at the f*cker?

If you want to defend the Israeli government, don't just slag me off for hating Israel. Send me a clip of somebody - anybody! -doing a decent job of defending the policies. Or do it yourself if the politicians whose job it is to do so don't have sufficient ability, despite being paid to do so. 

And as for the Russian ambassador - how would you know what I think about him? We have never discussed Russia! This tactic (you've tried it before, on Islamophobia) won't fly.

Post edited at 21:17
2
Ex Poster 666 on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

Personally, I'm sick to f*cking death of tiny minorities kicking up loads of shit.
They [Jews] seem to have a good long track record of doing so.

If that makes me an anti-semite, then I'm an antit-semite.

Suck it up Jews.

9
Jon Stewart - on 07 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> Because there is nothing in the settlement program that talks about another race or ethnicity being inferior.

The settlement movement exists because of the religious motivation. That religious motivation hinges on a belief that the Jews have a god-given right to the land known now as the West Bank. That god-given right (which is of course a right that people have assigned to themselves) is the right for one tribal group to trample upon the rights of another, by virtue of their race and nothing else. Just explain again how this isn't racist? One race has elevated rights, the other is oppressed by that group. Not racist?

You seem to have an impossibly high threshold for racism here - saying that one racial group has the right to resources currently under the control of another group is just such an explicit statement of racist intent that I just feel like you're telling me the world isn't round or that pigs can fly, actually. 

It's this religious motivation that I have described as racist from the start. I understand that settlements were built by secular groups, and that not all settlers are religiously motivated: I would be interested to hear how they justify their actions. It looks to me like opportunism - there are material gains to be had by teaming up with the religiously motivated racist nutjobs, so let's pile in and take what we can get.

> I disagree with your definition of racism mainly. Pretty much in any war each group tries to compete with another for resources and thinks only about its own self preservation   doesn't mean they are racist.

I think wars over territory between competing groups are racist, actually. I'm arguing against tribal warfare, you seem to be trying to justify Israeli policy be appealing to it! "Well you know, it's just a bit of tribal warfare, it's just normal human behaviour, nothing wrong with it - we want our tribe to have all the resources, they want their tribe to, usual thing. It not racist you know!". That harmful, violent tribalism is racism, and it is, I believe an evolved instinct. A bit like rape and other violent crimes, it is to be expected of human beings. But the job of politics, of states, should be to diminish the expression of this natural instinct so that less harm in the world occurs. The Israeli state, and indeed Hamas, seem hellbent on encouraging it.

Human beings are capable of philosophy, and art, and science. We can do better than this.

> Racism means that you have an ideology of superiority .  

Exactly. For example, "we have been given the right to this land by god". How could this not be an ideology of superiority? Unless you're suggesting that the belief is that god gave the jews the right to the land on the west of the river Jordan, but he also gave the muslims the right to somewhere equally nice? Or that he did give only the jews that right to a certain geographical area, but it wasn't because they're superior, he actually decided by a fair lottery system and the muslims were just unlucky?

Post edited at 22:59
1
TobyA on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I've got no WiFi currently so am tapping this out on a phone, so I can't join you in the slightly sixth form debating style of your response. You own a flat in Sheffield because you are British. You couldn't just go and buy a flat in Toronto or Mumbai because your family heritage doesn't give you citizenship rights there.

Your dismissal of comparing what happened in Australia to Israel/Palestine is odd. You say you don't hold Australians now accountable for what happened before (although lots were alive during the era of the white Australia policies, like forced removal - state kidnapping - of black children from their parents), so why are Israelis culpable for the results of the 67 war - the settlements? The Arab states attacked, they lost, Israel ended up controlling the West Bank Gaza and Sinai. If you just say shit happened in the past, move on, in Australia - why not in the West Bank?

I don't believe that, I think the fact that Palestinians having lived there for a long time give them some sort of claim to self determination. But then you get exactly into messy claims to land and self determination based on history and group identity. There is plenty of racism to go around, but saying 'people like me have always lived here I should be able to live here' is how our species has developed, it's not necessarily racist.

Post edited at 08:07
3
jondo - on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> Personally, I'm sick to f*cking death of tiny minorities kicking up loads of shit.

> They [Jews] seem to have a good long track record of doing so.

> If that makes me an anti-semite, then I'm an antit-semite.

> Suck it up Jews.

Yep, you are anti semite. Suck cock. 

jondo - on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> My question is, why does the Israeli government send us that mouldy ballbag to appear on our TV screens? Is that the best they've got? Or is that all we're worth? Or is it so they don't have to look at the f*cker?

> If you want to defend the Israeli government, don't just slag me off for hating Israel. Send me a clip of somebody - anybody! -doing a decent job of defending the policies. Or do it yourself if the politicians whose job it is to do so don't have sufficient ability, despite being paid to do so. 

Not slagging you off, just pointed out that you clearly hate Israel with a passion.. Evidently by the psychological projection of that hate on the ambassador which has done nothing to you, except doing his job. 

> And as for the Russian ambassador - how would you know what I think about him? We have never discussed Russia! This tactic (you've tried it before, on Islamophobia) won't fly.

Hahaha, tactic... YOU said that he is the biggest prick and no one else comes close to that, hence Russian ambassador is less of a prick. 

BTW your comment on ashkenazi Jews is very racist  

OK, TobyA seems willing to argue with you. I'm off this thread which as usual has become an Israel and Israeli racist hate thread. Good job in leading that trend. 

 

3
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to jondo:

> I'm off this thread which as usual has become an Israel and Israeli racist hate thread. Good job in leading that trend. 

OK - thanks for getting as far as you did. The points I feel have been left outstanding are as follows:

1. My motivation for hating Mark Regev. It isn't a generalised hatred of Israel or Israelis, it is the for following reasons: 

a) The political position he defends

b) The manner in which he defends it (everything I've heard him say publicly has been a lesson in intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice)

c) The fact that his head looks like a mouldy ballbag

2. What constitutes the non-racist explanation for support of the settlement programme

3, What the hell is going on with your definition of racism. I'm racist for saying that Ashkenazi Jews are humans like everyone else (how, why, what are you on about?), but the religious supporters of the settlement programme who believe that god gave Jews special rights to resources that justify trampling on the lives of other groups isn't racist. This goes back to my original accusation that supporters of Israeli policy have an impossibly low threshold for racism against Jews, and impossibly high threshold for racism perpetrated by Jews. You've done a brilliant job of demonstrating just how true this is, so thanks.

1
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2018
In reply to TobyA:

> Your dismissal of comparing what happened in Australia to Israel/Palestine is odd.

It's entirely logical and consistent with a secular ethical framework, as I've already demonstrated and will be happy to do so as many times as you ask me to, in as much detail as you want.

> You say you don't hold Australians now accountable for what happened before (although lots were alive during the era of the white Australia policies, like forced removal - state kidnapping - of black children from their parents), so why are Israelis culpable for the results of the 67 war - the settlements?

You're making a straw man argument, as follows:

I said, carefully and specifically, that my criticism is directed not at Israelis in general (as in your presentation above), but at those who support the expansion rather than contraction of the settlement programme.

The care I took to define the target of criticism was to preemptively refute the accusation that I just hate Israel or Israelis (which Jondo came out with all the same) or Jews. And so that parallels with past colonialism by Britain or elsewhere could not be drawn (which you came out with all the same).

The parallel you drew was " Aussies cheering at the Commonwealth Games ". 

How could that possibly analogous to those who support the expansion rather than contraction of the settlement programme? You've misrepresented my position in order to attack it.

> The Arab states attacked, they lost, Israel ended up controlling the West Bank Gaza and Sinai. If you just say shit happened in the past, move on, in Australia - why not in the West Bank?

I would be saying exactly that, had Israel annexed the West Bank and given the people there Israeli citizenship and equal rights. But there was a problem with this, wasn't there? Something about the land that Israel didn't really like, in its current state? Oh yeah, a million or so Arabs living on it, that's it!

> There is plenty of racism to go around, but saying 'people like me have always lived here I should be able to live here' is how our species has developed, it's not necessarily racist.

This is our fundamental disagreement. I see the type of tribalism you describe as "not necessarily racist" and seem to be defending as morally permissible as being a human instinct that is impossible for policy to satisfy. There is no workable system of granting people rights to resources based on their tribal identity. Borders are as they are for reasons of history, most of which are unethical, because human beings are naturally tribal, war-like creatures who team up and try to kill people whose genetic make-up is sufficiently distant to their own. This is how evolution made us. However, we also developed a splendid neocortex that enables us to be better than our primate ancestors by understanding ourselves.

So, we can develop ways of thinking about policy that have shared aims for humanity, not just for our tribe. This is a possibility. Satisfying every tribe's desire to have all the land and resources they want for themselves and not for other groups is not a possibility. How would the groups be defined? How would the land be divided? It's a ridiculous concept, one which embraces tribal warfare as the best way of organising governance. As a political philosophy, it has nothing to recommend it, because it so clearly leads to harm and militates against human wellbeing.

Post edited at 12:21
1
aln - on 12 Apr 2018
In reply to Jim 1003:

What a ridiculous post. Jon is one of the posters on here who takes time to make intelligent considered replies to threads. Whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter, to say he's "posting pish" makes you look like a fool. 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.