Politics

[ewerk 30612]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

It was how he addressed that question during the televised debates at the last election 

Condemn, not condone.  

[ewerk 30612]

2 minutes ago, Sonatine said:

 

The spirit of Boris lives on.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Condemn, not condone.  

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Look, I haven’t had a cup of coffee today yet, ok?

[Alex 35083]

1 hour ago, Sonatine said:

 

Rayvin makes that mistake all the time

[Rayvin 5223]

4 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

Let me address this.

 

Why couldn’t labour just accept the IHRA definition? Critics will say it’s so they can evade expelling antisemites in the party.

As for the creation of Israel as a national homeland for the jews, why is it a racist endeavour and under what circumstances  would it be acceptable to say it is?

That Israel is a disgustingly racist country now is without a doubt but it has a right to exist just like all the other countries that were created (after liberation from their colonial masters). Look at the Indian sub continent and the enmity between India and Pakistan - created/given statehood and now at each other’s throats. Almost every country in Africa subdivided by men with maps and pens, sitting around large tables in the early twentieth century.

The people who had to live in different cultural groups - the Sunnis and the Shia, the Muslims v the Hindus etc etc. They had to accept the state they were given. Why have Iran and Iraq hated each other and been at war for years? These were all countries that were “created”. Why are they not racist endeavours? 

The only country whose inception is deemed a racist endeavour by the left is Israel because Jews are not recognised as a nation but as a religion and therefore are undeserving of a place to call home. This is fundamentally wrong and it’s what makes the issue of Israel antisemitic - not criticism of what the state is doing now.

Ian Austin’s grandparents were literally murdered in the Holocaust and now he’s being “investigated” by the Labour Party for criticising it on antisemitism. While Livingstone was allowed to remain for way too long before he was eventually ousted for being a total embarrassment.

Why couldn’t labour just consult the Jewish community and accept its definition? Its code was designed to address the antisemitism question within the party, wasn’t it? Why is it that the Jews are the ones who are being investigated? Why not just accept the international standards, end this PR disaster and move on?

This post is getting into tldr fish territory. But read the latest by Jonathan Friedland. It’s illuminating  

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/jewish-anger-labour-listen-antisemitism-opinion

 

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist.

 

I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it.

 

I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level.

 

Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it.

 

I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Rayvin

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

37 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist.

 

I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it.

 

I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level.

 

Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it.

 

I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

 

You do know that Britain opposed the creation of an Israeli state after WW2 and due to the Jewish uprising and the weakened state post WW2 handed over the issue to the UN.

[Rayvin 5223]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

You do know that Britain opposed the creation of an Israeli state after WW2 and due to the Jewish uprising and the weakened state post WW2 handed over the issue to the UN.

 

True, the last comment there was more about Britain's role in the Middle East generally. We did promise Israel to the Jews though, with Balfour. I would argue this was the same racist sentiments that eventually won out, even if we did climb down from there.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

True, the last comment there was more about Britain's role in the Middle East generally. We did promise Israel to the Jews though, with Balfour. I would argue this was the same racist sentiments that eventually won out, even if we did climb down from there.

 

And you're completely ignoring the rest of the history of the Jewish people in Israel which stretches back a little before WW2.

[Rayvin 5223]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

And you're completely ignoring the rest of the history of the Jewish people in Israel which stretches back a little before WW2.

 

Which history specifically? I know that Zionist terrorism was a thing in the run up to WW2 as Jewish people tried to take Jerusalem by force, but I don't really know what the demographic make up of the society was. If you mean that it was originally the homeland of Jewish people until conquest and imperialism took it away, then I am aware of that, and would simply point out that one act of racism doesn't negate another.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by Rayvin

[NJS 4386]

There are displaced "tribes" who've been shit upon and usurped from their natural territories all around the world. I think the Jews think they have a special case due to their "divine right" definition.

 

I have no problem in saying that makes their case less viable in my opinion but its their treatment of Palestinians even to this day that should make people more courageous in speaking out against them. 

 

I also think considering what happened to them, such an easy attitude to oppression is hard to take as well. Of course making that allusion isnt allowed either. 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

7 hours ago, Sonatine said:

 

 

He's so dense that light bends round him.

[ewerk 30612]

Quote

A recording has emerged of a Jeremy Corbyn ally claiming Jewish "Trump fanatics" are behind recent claims of anti-Semitism that have dogged the party.

In the audio, obtained by the Jewish Chronicle, National Executive Committee member Peter Willsman is heard telling a meeting that he would be "amazed" if anyone there had seen examples of anti-Semitism within the party.

"They can falsify social media very easily," Mr Willsman says.

"And some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump. They're Trump fanatics and all the rest of it."

Mr Willsman went on to say he would not be "lectured by Trump fanatics" who he claimed were making up claims "without any evidence at all".

He added: "So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis 'where is your evidence of severe and widespread anti-Semitism in this party?'"

And of course there has been no action taken against him. This is a hole which Labour continue to dig for themselves.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

That’s a good post, @rayvin. I’m going to have a stab at addressing it a little later. Meanwhile, I couldn’t agree more with Ewerk. Labour had an opportunity to put this thing to bed but continue to fuck it up - it’s almost as if Corbyn is determined never to govern. 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

And of course there has been no action taken against him. This is a hole which Labour continue to dig for themselves.

There's also this belter of an interview that has emerged, where Corbyn blames an Islamist attack in Egypt on "the hand of Israel", while later in the same show he sits in silence as a Hamas terrorist, who was convicted for his role in the bombing of a cafe in Jerusalem that killed seven people, while he talks about his time in an Israeli jail. 

I know it's a few years back, when most people would laugh at the notion that he might one day ever lead the party, but you have to question his thinking when he agreed to appear on Press TV,  The Iranian state-owned propaganda vehicle, which has given airtime to a broad church of antisemites, conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers. 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

On 30/07/2018 at 13:00, Rayvin said:

 

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist.

when the decision to create a homeland for the jews was made, it included two states, one for the jews and one for the palestinians. prior to that, there was no palestine, it was part of the ottomon empire and the land was conceded to the UN after WWI (or league of nations as it was then). in fact, no independent arab or palestinian state has ever existed in palestine. and palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the koran - it's referred to as "the holy land"  

the land offered to the jews in balfour declaration was tiny, about the size of wales. the arabs didn’t accept it and after israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 all israel’s neighbours declared war.  jordan annexed the land that had been given to the palestinians and called it transjordan, turning that country into a giant refugee camp (the refugees were not of israel’s making at that time and nothing to do with israel. during the war of independence, many israeli arabs were persuaded by the arab countries to leave israel and many were driven out by israeli forces - at the same time something like 250,000 jews from iraq, yemen, egypt, syria, morocco, tunisia and so on, were expelled from those countries.)

having said all of that, is splitting up the territorial spoils of war or conquest racist? i think you're probably right and that it is on the basis that one tribal group will generally be happier with the outcome than the other. whether it's jews and palestinians in israel, aborigines in australia, india/pakistan etc etc. so if we get into the semantics, then yes, labour was right. but was leaving out the racist endeavour line the smart thing to do in the midst of an antisemitism storm? of course it fucking wasn't. 

I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it.

israel has a powerful (and now lunatic) ally in the US but all its arab neighbours had an equally powerful ally in the ussr. israel settled its refugees, educated them, gave them work and so on. the arab nations, for political reasons kept them (and still do) in refugee camps. have you ever heard of refugees of any other nation that have not been allowed to assimilate in their host country and are still referred to as refugees 70 years later? the palestinians are very useful political pawns for the arab countries. it’s obscene.

to NJS's point about divine right to the land, there are religious dickheads who believe this is to be the case and they make me sick. these are the same douchebags who insist the land is theirs alone and build settlements in the occupied territories. as they long as they wield influence over a government as disgusting as netanyahu's there will never be peace.

but israel is the ancestral home of the jewish people - it was a jewish kingdom until the romans came along. even after the romans destroyed the second temple in jerusalem, jews remianed in the land and settlements date back to the 11th century in places like rafah, ashkelon and jaffa. it was never an exclusively arab country. tens of thousands of jews lived in what is today israel, prior to the zionist movement. when jews began to immigrate there in great numbers in the late 19th century, there were around a couple of hundred thousand arabs there. there are jewish buildings in jerusalem that go back hundreds and hundreds of years. this isn't a piece of land that was plucked out of thin air and given to a random group with zero claim to it. 

israel is part of jewish people's identity - and picking up on friedland's piece, this goes for non-religious jews, of which there are many because, of course, being jewish isn't just a religion. i've never stepped foot in a synagogue in my life, other than to attend my grandparents' funerals, and yet i am jewish.

I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level.

corbyn is on record as saying the creation of israel was a crime, which of course it wasn't. it was mandated by the league of nations - see the boring history bit above. is corbyn an antisemite? unlike many jews, who are genuinely worried about the direction the political party, which many of them see as their natural home, is going, i honestly don't believe he is. i do think he's a fool though, and while i loved the policies in the last labour manifesto, i doubt we will ever get to see him implement them. 

Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it.

he is being investigated for abusive conduct, which he denies. he says he was involved in an exchange with the party chair over labour's new code, which he says is antisemtic. he also questioned why he labour party doesn't deal with the people responsible for racism as quickly as they dealt with the people who are upset about it. 

I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

i couldn't find evidence of Labour MPs refusing to accept Israel’s right to exist, but there are numerous party activists and labour councillors who are virulently anti semitic. look up jacqui walker. naz shah, who is now an MP after she apologised for tweets and facebook posts where she called for israeli jews to be shipped away from israel across to brooklyn. i'm amazed she was allowed back in, frankly. as long as labour tolerates people like shah, or livingstone, who should have been booted out long before he was, then the antisemitism storm will continue to overshadow labour's good work in other areas. 

my honest view: jewish people are highly sensitive to issues around antisemitism and you don't need to be a genius to understand why - it's on the rise again, in tandem with the global populist movement. the labour party returning to socilaist principles is potentially the best thing politically to happen in my lifetime. corbyn's was the most progressive manifesto since attlee introduced the nhs, and yet he seems intent on fucking it up.

why can't he play the game? why can't he just condemn the ira, instead of this "i condemn all forms of terrorism' bullshit? why can't he listen to the jewish people? a jewish group has threatened to sue labour over this, ffs. he is turning them away from the party. yes, to the outside world, jews might seem overly-hysterical, but look at the rise of strong-man populist leaders around the world, the rise of antisemitic abuse and attacks - the parallels with WWII and the holocaust are frightening lots of jewish people.

friedland was bang on, if they wanted to redraw the definition of antisemitism, why not, yknow, speak to some jews about it first? and why even bother leaving bits out of a globally recognised definition in the first place? why is the labour party more qualified to define antisemitism than the jewish community? can you imagine if they tried to redefine sexism without consulting any women?

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21924]

i'm going to go all rayvin and apologise for that tldr of a post  

[Alex 35083]

Should've just given the Jews Bavaria tbh

[Gemmill 44886]

 

[ewerk 30612]

I don't think anything he said there should be a surprise. Yes, there are bots and trolls out there trying to make Labour look bad. There are also Labour members making Labour look bad. 

None of that excuses Willsman, if you listen to the audio there's anger in his voice and a seeming disbelief that any anti-semitism exists in the party.

And yet that idiot above dilutes any point he may be making by continuing to support him.

Edited August 1, 2018 by ewerk

[Dr Gloom 21924]

blind to antisemitism is how i would put it too.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/peter-willsman-antisemitism-labour?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

labour isn't dominated by antisemites, it exists on the fringes but ignoring this is a problem is head in the sand stuff. it's about managing the media narrative and the fact this story won't die is an utter PR failure on labour's part. 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Dr Gloom

[ewerk 30612]

Bring back Alistair Campbell!

[Dr Gloom 21924]

 

corbyn should get on the phone to malcom tucker 

[Rayvin 5223]

@Dr Gloom

 

Yeah fair enough - I won't go through point by point as I think some of those have reached natural endings, but the last bit you mentioned where you said the bit about not consulting actual Jews - it's my understanding that they did. They just didn't consult Jews with pro-Israel sympathies? Good post btw.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5223]

5 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

This guy is really good - another tweet thread he has covers that Labour has adopted the phrasing for the definition of anti-semitism word for word from the IHRA, and his contention is that the bits that they've changed were done because the IHRA document is non legally binding, and the code of conduct -is- legally binding. They can't have woolly examples, and need clarity. Maybe this guy is a very good PR person, or maybe this is a media witch hunt again.