Politics General Election 2017

[Wij]

I wouldn't categorise it as guilty by association. He praised people he either knew were specifically anti-semitic (not just anti-Israel) or should have known if he'd done the least bit of effort to check.

 

[Job]

Oh yes the right is on a roll.

Boris called burqua wearing women bank robbers and pill boxes in the Telegraph.
How times have changed that he thinks he can get away with such a direct attack on british muslims.
Obviously a lot of liberals are losing their shit.

 

[Scouse]

I wouldn't categorise it as guilty by association. He praised people he either knew were specifically anti-semitic (not just anti-Israel) or should have known if he'd done the least bit of effort to check.

"Least bit of effort".

I reckon he attends hundreds of speaking engagements. He'll not personally vet each attendees entire history - he'd certainly not have had the resources to do so whilst he was just some insignificant backbencher. (That'll be way different now he's leader of the labour party).

This shit is just like the twatter storms - the creation of a difficult to live to standard then retrospectively trawl through anything they ever said or did, ever, to find something that someone they were with said and then attribute those opinions to them as if people standing near each other must hold identical beliefs.

Not saying there's nothing to answer, or that we shouldn't dig shit on our political leaders - but that article, digging up the "friends" of hamas quote, again, is just more shit stirring because Israel, IMO...

 

[Wij]

That's bollocks. The article states him saying lots of nice things about Raed Salah. You can't tell me he didn't know anything about him. He talks about him like he has been an admirer and yet plenty was known about him. This from 2011 is when he was banned from entering the UK because he praised Bin Laden and spread the blood-libel conspiracy amongst other things.

Questions over Sheikh Salah's ban

It's possible to criticise Israel without saying nice things about anti-semites.

 

[Scouse]

I don't buy it @Wij. It's just too murky and muddy - how are you to decide what's been said or not? The story you posted itself shows he denies the blood libel statements and that he was arrested and subsequently released in Israel for it for lack of evidence.

When such mudslinging is going on - because shit sticks - you have to be wary.

This is what I think is going on with Corbyn and Labour and the IHRA definitions etc. Shit is being slung, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He's not an antisemite but he's clearly got issues with Israel.

Israel doesn't like that. A large number of influential Jewish leaders and organisations don't like that. The lobby has historical form for campaigning in exactly this way - US politics is pretty badly influenced by it (unless we're saying that isn't true?).

Unless someone can link to Corbyn saying antisemitic things then I think it's a shit-slinging issue.

For the record - I think the existence of Israel as a "Jewish" state IS "racist" (although I have a problem with the term racist being used in this context). Recent events with Israel passing "racist" laws are evidence. If Labour passed the definitions of this alliance as-is anyone who said that would immediately be labelled an antisemite. Which is a joke.

 

[Wij]

I don't buy it @Wij. It's just too murky and muddy - how are you to decide what's been said or not? The story you posted itself shows he denies the blood libel statements and that he was arrested and subsequently released in Israel for it for lack of evidence.

When such mudslinging is going on - because shit sticks - you have to be wary.

This is what I think is going on with Corbyn and Labour and the IHRA definitions etc. Shit is being slung, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He's not an antisemite but he's clearly got issues with Israel.

Israel doesn't like that. A large number of influential Jewish leaders and organisations don't like that. The lobby has historical form for campaigning in exactly this way - US politics is pretty badly influenced by it (unless we're saying that isn't true?).

Unless someone can link to Corbyn saying antisemitic things then I think it's a shit-slinging issue.

For the record - I think the existence of Israel as a "Jewish" state IS "racist" (although I have a problem with the term racist being used in this context). Recent events with Israel passing "racist" laws are evidence. If Labour passed the definitions of this alliance as-is anyone who said that would immediately be labelled an antisemite. Which is a joke.

The article claiming he spoke about blood-libel was made in Haaretz, Israel's most left-wing, Arab-friendly mainstream publication. They wouldn't have posted something like that just to fan the flames. They are against that. They must have had good evidence but of course he denied it.

What isn't up for debate is Salah's claim that all the Jews evacuated the twin towers because they had an idea it was going to happen but didn't tell the non-Jews. That's in print with his name on. Corbyn just didn't have enough curiosity to wonder why he was banned from the UK?

Again he could be critical of Israel whilst still having a bit of discernment about his fellow-travellers. The defence is what? He doesn't do detail? His foreign policy is one-dimensional and he can't process that he can agree with someone on one issue without that meaning they must be great people?

I find it amusing that this former conscience of the Labour party who protested against the moral compromises of his former leadership has his supporters outraged that some people might do the same to him.

 

[Scouse]

Again - has his supporters outraged...

...so what? Is it him who's outraged.

Fair enough on your points. Without asking him why he's chosen on balance to support someone who's said things we'll never know. Perhaps he was getting his hands dirty in defence of the arab population of Israel without agreeing with all of this guys views?

Does that mean that Corbyn is antisemitic? Does it mean that only people with bob-on views and who've taken bob-on actions for their entire lives are to have their causes supported? Mandela?

Politics is messy. Corbyn is getting a kicking because he supports the Palestinians. I've not seen any argument that shows he's a "clear and present danger to the safety of UK jews" or whatever diatribe was printed.

Notwithstanding the fact that of course antisemitism exists, and is probably on the rise (due in no small part to the continued actions of the wayward state at the centre of this controversy) - I think all of Labours current problems ultimately boil down like that....

...If they accepted IHRA in full - which would be wrong IMO as it's a massive win for Israel and another shield for state institutionalised racism to continue on - then the battlefront would just move somewhere else.

 

[Wij]

It forms a pattern with Corbyn. He often seems not to be curious at all about the views or actions of anyone on the 'anti-imperialist' bus. Whether it's praising the Venezuelan regime until recently or parroting Russian talking points about Ukraine. Typical of the STWC folks who are now happily defending Assad.

I don't like people like that. I don't like Chomsky for the same reasons. I think they are self-righteous cunts who put their ideological purity before other peoples' lives.

 

[Scouse]

I think they are self-righteous cunts who put their ideological purity before other peoples' lives.

Who's lives? The Palestinians?

I do take your point. But both sides of that particular debate aren't squeaky clean. No side is.

 

[Gwadien]

Israelis are removing Palestinians in the name of Judaism.

How can you not expect the Palestinians to use their massive faith as their counter attack?

 

[Wij]

Ok but this isn't about the Israeli Palestine conflict per se. You can be critical of Israel without sucking up to antisemites and terrorists.

We'd need a whole new thread on the conflict itself :/

 

[Scouse]

Ok but this isn't about the Israeli Palestine conflict per se. You can be critical of Israel without sucking up to antisemites and terrorists.

I agree on your second point - but the bruhaha around Labour is absolutely about that.

There's very little shit on Corbyn in relation to the amount of Palestinian activism he's been involved in. The fact that labour has 250-odd cases of antisemitism being investigated out of half a million members - .0005 of it's membership - doesn't suggest to me that it's got a deep-seated and severe antisemitism problem.

Labour's got a being-battered-by-the-Israel-lobby problem. Which is a problem for all of us - because it's meant that during one of the most crucial times in our history - the aftermath of a financial crisis and Brexit - they're so busy dealing with this crap that they can't put up a proper fucking opposition to government, which the whole country desparately needs.

 

[Job]

Well Boris has had a go at Muslims...are the jews next?

 

[Gwadien]

Ok but this isn't about the Israeli Palestine conflict per se. You can be critical of Israel without sucking up to antisemites and terrorists.

We'd need a whole new thread on the conflict itself :/

It ultimately is though.

From what I took from that article was Corbyn supported a group once, said group later said some anti-Semitic stuff whilst having Corbyn listed as a supporter on their website or something, unknowingly apparently.

I just honestly find it bizarre that openly supporting Israel which causes so much death and consistently breaks UN rules is OK, but even questioning them is not okay.

It's not okay.

Okay?

 

[Wij]

It ultimately is though.

From what I took from that article was Corbyn supported a group once, said group later said some anti-Semitic stuff whilst having Corbyn listed as a supporter on their website or something, unknowingly apparently.

I just honestly find it bizarre that openly supporting Israel which causes so much death and consistently breaks UN rules is OK, but even questioning them is not okay.

It's not okay.

Okay?

That's not how it was. Read it again.

 

[Wij]

I agree on your second point - but the bruhaha around Labour is absolutely about that.

There's very little shit on Corbyn in relation to the amount of Palestinian activism he's been involved in. The fact that labour has 250-odd cases of antisemitism being investigated out of half a million members - .0005 of it's membership - doesn't suggest to me that it's got a deep-seated and severe antisemitism problem.

Labour's got a being-battered-by-the-Israel-lobby problem. Which is a problem for all of us - because it's meant that during one of the most crucial times in our history - the aftermath of a financial crisis and Brexit - they're so busy dealing with this crap that they can't put up a proper fucking opposition to government, which the whole country desparately needs.

You can't blame anyone else for being unable to oppose except Corbyn. He is mostly anonymous. Shit like this is about the only time you hear from him.

 

[Wij]

Well Boris has had a go at Muslims...are the jews next?

Boris is filth. Not exactly news.

 

[Job]

Ah denial.
Its gone down with quite a whimper actually...barely a complaint from senior politicians who should be going ballistic.
Hes also trying to be the next PM....pretty devisive campaign so far.

 

[Scouse]

You can't blame anyone else for being unable to oppose except Corbyn. He is mostly anonymous. Shit like this is about the only time you hear from him.

It's airtime in the press. If the only thing he ever gets asked about is antisemitism then any other core message gets lost.

"I'd like to talk about this..."

"Yeah, but we found someone you stood next to in 2002 that hates Jews! - WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?!"

 

[Job]

If British jews hadnt been so xenophobic and racist since the war, they would have long died out as an identifiable group.
They are strangely a good advert for both those thought crimes....if you want your culture to survive then put enormous pressure on your offspring to marry within the group and reject other cultural influences.
London jews actually wanted a wall around their community with guards and barriers.

 

[Wij]

It's airtime in the press. If the only thing he ever gets asked about is antisemitism then any other core message gets lost.

"I'd like to talk about this..."

"Yeah, but we found someone you stood next to in 2002 that hates Jews! - WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?!"

That's complete denial. You can't blame the press for all of Corbyn's failings. The other week when the government was in complete disarray with ministers resigning and scandals and massive uselessness Corbyn chose not to have a go at any of the open goals in PMQs. He used all 5 of his questions to talk about bus timetables. Maybe that is important-ish but it was hardly at the top of the public's mind. If he actually wanted to grab some good headlines and look decisive it would have been easy.

He's whipped his MPs to vote with the Conservatives time and again or at least abstain. The Conservatives are a minority government but they are defeated on almost nothing.

He fiddles while Rome burns. The press concentrates on the anti-semitism thing partly because nothing else interesting or noteworthy comes from him.

 

[Bodhi]

Boris is filth. Not exactly news.

Boris is bang on in this context. Whilst I agree that people should be free to wear anything they please in public, asking people to remove head gear that makes them look like bank robbers might be prudent, I don't know, when going into a bank?

If people want to wear an incredibly patriarchal (one time that word is actually relevant) oppressive headgear then I do not have an issue, however if people want to take the piss out of them for doing so, I am all good with that too. After all mocking religion is a particularly British thing we've been doing for years (Life of Brian, Billy Connolly, etc etc).

 

[Job]

Obviously Islam is a hot potato and can be used by politicians on both sides at anytime to increase favour with an electorate...Boris..and all those behind him have decided that now is the time to take on the left.
Islamic politcians coming forward just plays into his hands.. the world is changing and the left are very weak indeed.
Completely their own fault I would say, but their decades of incompetence has merely built the right into a monster.

 

[Wij]

Boris is bang on in this context. Whilst I agree that people should be free to wear anything they please in public, asking people to remove head gear that makes them look like bank robbers might be prudent, I don't know, when going into a bank?

If people want to wear an incredibly patriarchal (one time that word is actually relevant) oppressive headgear then I do not have an issue, however if people want to take the piss out of them for doing so, I am all good with that too. After all mocking religion is a particularly British thing we've been doing for years (Life of Brian, Billy Connolly, etc etc).

In much of that I agree. Covering your face was almost unheard of across much of the Muslim world until the 80s when the influence spread from Saudi and the new regime in Iran. I think it's very silly and fundamentally sexist.

However, Boris knew what he was doing when he wrote the article. He popped those phrases in to appeal to a certain crowd more than he did to stick up for the rights of Muslim women.

 

[Scouse]

However, Boris knew what he was doing when he wrote the article. He popped those phrases in to appeal to a certain crowd more than he did to stick up for the rights of Muslim women.

This.

And that crowd is responding.

 

[BloodOmen]

Accurate.

 

[Scouse]

The press concentrates on the anti-semitism thing partly because nothing else interesting or noteworthy comes from him.

I think that's a fair point @Wij. But I don't think it's the whole story by a long shot.

The Israeli lobby can count on blind support from the Tories, but Labour clearly want to criticise awful Israeli policy.

I mean, if antisemitism is such a thing in Labour - despite them adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and saying the examples they've adopted "probably indicate antisemitism" (rather than "may") - why aren't the Tories getting an absolute pasting if this is the case?

Labour's actually looking at it seriously, the tories are paying lip service, and doing whatever is politically expedient. Whilst bashing muslims, which is OK, of course...

 

[Bodhi]

In much of that I agree. Covering your face was almost unheard of across much of the Muslim world until the 80s when the influence spread from Saudi and the new regime in Iran. I think it's very silly and fundamentally sexist.

However, Boris knew what he was doing when he wrote the article. He popped those phrases in to appeal to a certain crowd more than he did to stick up for the rights of Muslim women.

The article wasn't any more inflammatory than Sadiq wondering "what was going on in those homes" in the run up to his election.

Sadiq Khan says there is 'question to be asked' about use of hijabs in London

However if you were to say he used those phrases to wind up a certain crowd, then yes I'd fully agree. And he's done that rather well.

 

[Bodhi]

I think that's a fair point @Wij. But I don't think it's the whole story by a long shot.

The Israeli lobby can count on blind support from the Tories, but Labour clearly want to criticise awful Israeli policy.

I mean, if antisemitism is such a thing in Labour - despite them adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and saying the examples they've adopted "probably indicate antisemitism" (rather than "may") - why aren't the Tories getting an absolute pasting if this is the case?

Labour's actually looking at it seriously, the tories are paying lip service, and doing whatever is politically expedient. Whilst bashing muslims, which is OK, of course...

Labour, looking at antisemitism seriously.

You're funny.

 

[Scouse]

Labour, looking at antisemitism seriously.

You're funny.

That's not an argument.

You're not funny.