General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it, here it is:

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1200353236198346757

What Corbyn says there is not remotely anti-Semitic.

In fact conflating all Jews with Israel is anti-Semitic.

It's a literal neo-Nazi "talking point".

I see sheep

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i see footage has been uncovered showing Corbyn calling into question Israel's right to exist.
any wonder Jewish voters are not very supportive of him and his party.

This Corbyn anti-semite agenda is total horse-****.

Not wanting Palestinians to be systematically ethnically cleansed and instead supporting their right to exist is a reasonable position in my view. But nono that makes Corbyn a 'terrorist' lover.

Luckily it's quite easy to see through. In any case only a handful of rich tory supporting Jews are interested.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

I favour a one state federal solution to the Israel/Palestine situation, along the lines of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Am I therefore an anti-Semite?

Any chance of an answer, Letwin Larry or eskimohunt?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything, it shows the level of contempt that the Labour Party has for many northern Labour voters.

As soon as Corbyn looks to lose, it's only now that the've decided to care about these voters.

It's quite shameful.

Seriously?

As opposed to the contempt that the Tories treat the Scots, or the unemployed, or single mothers, or muslims, or EU citizens?

Or even the contempt they show the very pillars of the state. They wer found to be in contempt of parliament afterall!

And how about JRM contempt for the people of Grenfell?

Or how about the people of NI.

I see sheep

I see sheep wrote: »

This Corbyn anti-semite agenda is total horse-****.

Not wanting Palestinians to be systematically ethnically cleansed and instead supporting their right to exist is a reasonable position in my view. But nono that makes Corbyn a 'terrorist' lover.

Luckily it's quite easy to see through. In any case only a handful of rich tory supporting Jews are interested.

There's plenty of room in Jordan - which is a Palestinian country in all but name - for anyone who defines themselves as Palestinian.

Palestinians won't get any Israeli land. It ain't going to happen. Jordan should house Palestinians and that is the end of the problem.

They started the war in 1948 - and lost. They must accept the consequences instead of pretending to be eternal victims. As soon as Israel handed them land - in the form of Gaza - it was transformed into a launch pad for missiles, and whose voters chose Islamic Jihad.

Once they did this, they lost any sympathy from me.

But yes, stating that Israel does not have a right to exist is de facto anti-Semitism.

That's what Corbyn states in that video - and, as Piers Morgan noted, this is anti-Semitism in action.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it, here it is:
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1200353236198346757

Notice that Corbyn does not say that any of these things is untrue, he says there is a bias towards saying them.

I'll bet when someone digs out the unedited clip, the full sentence will read something like:

I think there is a bias towards saying that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East, Israel has a right to exist, Israel has it's security concerns, and a bias against saying that the Palestinians also have rights and security concerns.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously?

As opposed to the contempt that the Tories treat the Scots, or the unemployed, or single mothers, or muslims, or EU citizens?

Or even the contempt they show the very pillars of the state. They wer found to be in contempt of parliament afterall!

And how about JRM contempt for the people of Grenfell?

Or how about the people of NI.

More whataboutery, rather than dealing with and accepting my substantive point.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

There's plenty of room in Jordan - which is a Palestinian country in all but name - for anyone who defines themselves as Palestinian.

Palestinians won't get any Israeli land. It ain't going to happen. Jordan should house Palestinians and that is the end of the problem.

They started the war in 1948 - and lost. They must accept the consequences instead of pretending to be eternal victims. As soon as Israel handed them land - in the form of Gaza - it was transformed into a launch pad for missiles, and whose voters chose Islamic Jihad.

Once they did this, they lost any sympathy from me.

But yes, stating that Israel does not have a right to exist is de facto anti-Semitism.

That's what Corbyn states in that video - and, as Piers Morgan noted, this is anti-Semitism in action.

No it's not. It's anti-Israel not anti-Jewish. Corbyn did not state anything anti-Jewish. That is your interpretation of what he said not what he said at all. This is all your opinion and not a fact at all.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Notice that Corbyn does not say that any of these things is untrue, he says there is a bias towards saying them.

I'll bet when someone digs out the unedited clip, the full sentence will read something like:

I think there is a bias towards saying that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East, Israel has a right to exist, Israel has it's security concerns, and a bias against saying that the Palestinians also have rights and security concerns.

Thats my reading too. Denying israels right to exist is antisemitism but corbyn clearly does not actually state that in video qouted above, no matter how much his ardent enemies will it. You can try to infer his meaning but that does not make it fact.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Deleted post.

What exactly did Corbyn say there that was anti-Semitic?

If I advocated a one state federal system along the lines of Bosnia-Herzegovina, would that be anti-Semitic?

Would that be "denying Israel's right to exist"?

What about Palestine's "right to exist"?

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

No it's not. It's anti-Israel not anti-Jewish. Corbyn did not state anything anti-Jewish. That is your interpretation of what he said not what he said at all. This is all your opinion and not a fact at all.

Well it's right there in the IHRA definitions. And the thing is, it's quite easy to be critical of the Israeli government or Israeli government policy without having to cross the line there.

sid waddell

The IHRA definitions should not be regarded as the last word.

The very well known US journalist Peter Beinart is a Jew and he sees problems in the IHRA definitions, in fact he calls them "a tragic mistake" (in the first few paragraphs here).

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it's right there in the IHRA definitions. And the thing is, it's quite easy to be critical of the Israeli government or Israeli government policy without having to cross the line there.

Going by the IHRA definitions here:
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

Can you point to the definition that says you cannot question the state of Israel?

The only statement there that could be interpreted as supporting your claim is: "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic". However, there are plenty of nations in the world where its existence is questioned. There's nothing anti-semetic about it by the definitions you have referred me too.

bren2001

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you just don't get it do you?
rightly or wrongly many Jewish people suffer from a siege-mentality bordering on paranoia. i wont go into the historical reasons for this, but just google Tisha B'Av and you might gain some understanding.

anything or anybody (especially a politician likely 'er remotely likely to be PM)calling into question the state of Israel's existence is going to be perceived as not just anti-semetic, but tantamount to a threat.

again i dont expect you to get it straightaway, but please try to educate yourself.

I'm just going by the IHRA guidelines. That's all.

Zubeneschamali

bren2001 wrote: »

Can you point to the definition that says you cannot question the state of Israel?

Corbyn did no such thing in that clip.

hotmail.com

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some of them are.
Some of them are wetter than a weekend in Skegness.
What is indisputable is the current incarnation of the Conservative Party is not a welcoming place for the damp ones.

You really should have checked before referencing Thatcher and making grandiose claims- that is also indisputable.

Of course there's a hard core element of the Tory Party that would love to charge for the NHS.

Oh my Thatcher comment. I didn't realise Boards was a court room.

Joe_ Public

What date is that video from? Looks a good few years old at first glance. The UK didnt adopt the ihra guidelines until 2016, so not sure they could be applied to that interview retrospectively.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What date is that video from? Looks a good few years old at first glance. The UK didnt adopt the ihra guidelines until 2016, so not sure they could be applied to that interview retrospectively.

Since he doesn't break them, it doesn't matter.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What date is that video from? Looks a good few years old at first glance. The UK didnt adopt the ihra guidelines until 2016, so not sure they could be applied to that interview retrospectively.

It surely can't be long before Corbyn is outed as a cheat because he picked up a backpass while playing as a goalkeeper in the 1988 Tory v Labour annual football match.

Fr Tod Umptious

sid waddell wrote: »

It surely can't be long before Corbyn is outed as a cheat because he picked up a backpass while playing as a goalkeeper in the 1988 Tory v Labour annual football match.

Backpass rule did not come in until around 1992 or so.

sid waddell

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Backpass rule did not come in until around 1992 or so.

I know, that's the point

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

Going by the IHRA definitions here:
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

Can you point to the definition that says you cannot question the state of Israel?

The only statement there that could be interpreted as supporting your claim is: "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic". However, there are plenty of nations in the world where its existence is questioned. There's nothing anti-semetic about it by the definitions you have referred me too.

In your reply that I quoted, you bolded the following from the other poster "But yes, stating that Israel does not have a right to exist is de facto anti-Semitism."

To which you replied:

No it's not. It's anti-Israel not anti-Jewish

In the IHRA definitions:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

In your reply that I quoted, you bolded the following from the other poster "But yes, stating that Israel does not have a right to exist is de facto anti-Semitism."

To which you replied:



In the IHRA definitions:

You've selectively quoted the line. It gives an example: e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Corbyn doesn't say Israel shouldn't exist because of some anti-Jewish sentiment. He doesn't say it's a racist endeavor. He doesn't mention the word Jewish at all. (He doesn't actually question the state of Israel at all).

As correctly pointed out, the clip is actually about the pressure on the BBC.

Harry Palmr

The Andrew Marr show says Johnson cannot go that programme as a way of avoiding Andrew Neil.

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

You've selectively quoted the line. It gives an example: e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Corbyn doesn't say Israel shouldn't exist because of some anti-Jewish sentiment. He doesn't say it's a racist endeavor. He doesn't mention the word Jewish at all. (He doesn't actually question the state of Israel at all).

As correctly pointed out, the clip is actually about the pressure on the BBC.

I'm not talking about the clip. I didn't even watch it. I am purely dealing with your post and what you said in reply to eskimohunt. I have no axe to grind on that front. Just that what you said is incorrect.

And I was not selectively quoting. I quoted the actual definition. The example is at the lower end of the scale. Are you seriously suggesting that denying the right of the state of Israel to exist is not denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination?

Joe_ Public

Saw this earlier and instinctively thought nobody can believe this is anything but a vile prank, but if Stanley Johnson is right about the British people being uneducated idiots, then can imagine a few falling into the trap. Twitter is a sewer, you cant police this kind of stuff.

https://twitter.com/brokenbottleboy/status/1200459650761670656?s=20

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not talking about the clip. I didn't even watch it. I am purely dealing with your post and what you said in reply to eskimohunt. I have no axe to grind on that front. Just that what you said is incorrect.

And I was not selectively quoting. I quoted the actual definition. The example is at the lower end of the scale. Are you seriously suggesting that denying the right of the state of Israel to exist is not denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination?

He didn't deny anything, he questioned it.

If I question the existence of Northern Ireland, am I anti-protestant? If I question the existence of the Vatican City, am I anti-catholic? If I disagree with the Catalonians that they should be independent from Spain am I anti-catholic?

No because there are some legitimate reasons to questions the existence of some states. Most of the arguments won't be convincing but they are not inherently racist. Israel is no different and the legitimacy of the state can be questioned like every other country in the world. Questioning the state of Israel is not inherently anti-semetic. There could be some other credible arguments.

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

He didn't deny anything, he questioned it.

If I question the existence of Northern Ireland, am I anti-protestant? If I question the existence of the Vatican City, am I anti-catholic? If I disagree with the Catalonians that they should be independent from Spain am I anti-catholic?

No because there are some legitimate reasons to questions the existence of some states. Most of the arguments won't be convincing but they are not inherently racist. Israel is no different and the legitimacy of the state can be questioned like every other country in the world. Questioning the state of Israel is not inherently anti-semetic. There could be some other credible arguments.

I know you quoted it, but it's clear you didn't read it. Hope this helps:

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not talking about the clip. I didn't even watch it. I am purely dealing with your post and what you said in reply to eskimohunt. I have no axe to grind on that front. Just that what you said is incorrect.

I quoted exactly what you said and exactly what you helpfully highlighted you were replying to. I called you on what you wrote and explained why it was against the IHRA definitions. That's the beginning and end of it.

CelticRambler

And yet again, the Tories have been successful in getting people (on this forum) talking about anything other than their policies. :rolleyes:

I caught the tail end of the Johnson-Gove press conference earlier today, and only the tail end so I don't know the context. However, I was struck by the formate of the "any questions" bit at the end: lump all the questions in together so that Johnson could avoid answering those that might make him feel uncomfortable. On the specific question of tax, NI and fuel duty, I didn't time it, but I think he managed to devote about 15 seconds to his/the Tory policy before veering off into the now familiar "under Corbyn" defence for about a minute and a half.

At this stage, I think anyone who votes Conservative (or for Johnson in particular) is utterly stupid and has no interest in or respect for the democratic and political institutions of Great Britain. To vote for a party that cannot justify itself on any basis other than not being the opposition, whose leader cannot engage in normal and constructive dialogue with the media, and which appears to have no shame in using any and every "dirty trick" in the negative campaigning book is - to my mind - effectively condoning the dissolution of functional democracy.

I'll keep half an ear on the UK news over the next couple of weeks and I'll stay up for the election results, for the entertainment value, but I've completely lost interest in the campaign now.

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

I know you quoted it, but it's clear you didn't read it. Hope this helps:


I quoted exactly what you said and exactly what you helpfully highlighted you were replying to. I called you on what you wrote and explained why it was against the IHRA definitions. That's the beginning and end of it.

The IHRA defintion of anti-semitism does not say you cannot question the state of Israel. There are a million plausible reasons as to why you can question that state that has nothing to do with religion. That is the beginning and end of it.

You've given no credible reason as to why questioning the state of Israel is inherently anti-semitic.