• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

the dza said:
So let's say Labour take the definition as is (despite those unworthy Jewish groups also being against it, for the reason that they feel it conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism). And then someone in the Labour Party (likely on the left) makes a legitimate criticism of Israel. What will happen? The people in the party against Corbyn will start foaming at the mouth, calling for action against those members because "well, we as a party have accepted the definition as written! This IS anti-Semitism!" So then they have to turf out members for no good reason or, not take action against them and have the faux outrage warriors (who are motivated primarily by being anti-Corbyn) dominating the next media cycle for Corbyn's failure to combat anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't be branded as antisemites because that's not in the definition. The only thing that comes close is the (correct) assertion that implicating all Jewish people with the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.

the dza said:
I'll say it again, the wrong type of Jew. The only Jewish people allowed to be listened to are those who take any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and anyone who contradicts them, even if they are Jewish, are anti-Semites.
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with whether they're Jewish or not and everything to do with what their organisation is there to do.

Not everyone involved in the IHRA is Jewish, but everyone in the IHRA is there to fight antisemitism. It's not the being Jewish that matters (although that lends more credibility), it's being an organisation set up to fight anti-Semitism.
 
the dza said:
Says it right there on the bbc news website, front page: "Labour takes action against MP Hodge: "Dame Margaret Hodge is reported to have called Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitic'."

View attachment 4741
Click to expand...
That's my point. When the story was being reported as Hodge attacking Corbyn yesterday, the BBC was silent.

Now that she is being reprimanded they're reporting the story. To report it now paints the picture of the poorly behaved MP. Reporting it yesterday makes Corbyn look (rightly, IMO) as if he's not doing enough to rid his party of an anti-Semitism problem.
 
scaramanga said:
They wouldn't be branded as antisemites because that's not in the definition. The only thing that comes close is the (correct) assertion that implicating all Jewish people with the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Click to expand...

So the aforementioned Jewish groups have it all wrong and had no need to attach themselves as signatories to the statement they put out? Because they said:

The letter calls on their governments to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which it says “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.”

Or are they being anti-Semitic for thinking that this is the case?
 
scaramanga said:
That's my point. When the story was being reported as Hodge attacking Corbyn yesterday, the BBC was silent.

Now that she is being reprimanded they're reporting the story. To report it now paints the picture of the poorly behaved MP. Reporting it yesterday makes Corbyn look (rightly, IMO) as if he's not doing enough to rid his party of an anti-Semitism problem.
Click to expand...

They weren't being silent, they put the story on their flagship news/political program and talked about it (including whether she swore or not), soon after it broke yesterday evening. Today, they have it on the front page of their news website and they have the reprimand as part of the story because that became part of the story today, but they still include (as part of the headline) that she called Corbyn an anti-Semite.
 
the dza said:
They weren't being silent, they put the story on their flagship news/political program and talked about it (including whether she swore or not), soon after it broke yesterday evening. Today, they have it on the front page of their news website and they have the reprimand as part of the story because that became part of the story today, but they still include (as part of the headline) that she called Corbyn an anti-Semite.
Click to expand...
Yet nothing whatsoever on their website until today.
 
the dza said:
So the aforementioned Jewish groups have it all wrong and had no need to attach themselves as signatories to the statement they put out? Because they said:

The letter calls on their governments to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which it says “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.”

Or are they being anti-Semitic for thinking that this is the case?
Click to expand...
They've got it wrong.

Have you read the definition? They've so clearly got it wrong that it shouldn't even be a discussion.
 
scaramanga said:
They've got it wrong.

Have you read the definition? They've so clearly got it wrong that it shouldn't even be a discussion.
Click to expand...

I gather Margaret Hodge has read the definition. She writes in the Guardian about it today:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...emy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-margaret-hodge

To give just one example of what the changes do, a Labour party member who calls Zionists “Nazis” could face expulsion, but may find themselves merely warned. This means that in 2018 a party member can call a Jew a Nazi and might not face the severest punishment.

_________

Imagine that, someone likening the behaviour of someone, who happens to be Jewish, to a Nazi. I guess that makes this guy the wrong sort of Jew:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...li-society-to-pre-holocaust-germany-1.5379620

In an unusual speech in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day on Wednesday evening, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen.Yair Golan likened recent developments in Israeli society to processes that unfolded in Europe before the Holocaust.


"If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it's the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then – 70, 80 and 90 years ago – and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016."

_______________

What a phucking anti-Semite. Someone should put that Israeli General straight.
 
milo said:
It's not difficult. There is an agreed international definition that is widely in use. Labour should sign up to it and set up a process for independent investigations into claims of anti-Semitism by Labour members.

If they did this they would have a clearer moral position to highlight and criticise the far more widespread Islamophobia in the Conservative Party and on the right.
Click to expand...

For all my argumentative quntyness (I like arguing with Scara) they will probably end up doing this, because in light of the mini sh1t-storm they have created, even someone like Jon Lansman (Jewish founder of Momentum) has said to just do that and squash it (last I read anyway).
 
Islamaphobia is absolutely acceptable because there is none of the hereditary component that is included in the term "Jewish." Being a muslamic infidel is entirely by choice. A stupid choice and one that deserves ridicule. Being Jewish (in all but the strict religious sense) is hereditary and not something over which a person has a choice.
 
scaramanga said:
Islamaphobia is absolutely acceptable because there is none of the hereditary component that is included in the term "Jewish." Being a muslamic infidel is entirely by choice. A stupid choice and one that deserves ridicule. Being Jewish (in all but the strict religious sense) is hereditary and not something over which a person has a choice.
Click to expand...

Prejudice is prejudice
 
the dza said:
I gather Margaret Hodge has read the definition. She writes in the Guardian about it today:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...emy-corbyn-labour-antisemitism-margaret-hodge

To give just one example of what the changes do, a Labour party member who calls Zionists “Nazis” could face expulsion, but may find themselves merely warned. This means that in 2018 a party member can call a Jew a Nazi and might not face the severest punishment.

_________

Imagine that, someone likening the behaviour of someone, who happens to be Jewish, to a Nazi. I guess that makes this guy the wrong sort of Jew:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...li-society-to-pre-holocaust-germany-1.5379620

In an unusual speech in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day on Wednesday evening, IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen.Yair Golan likened recent developments in Israeli society to processes that unfolded in Europe before the Holocaust.


"If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it's the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then – 70, 80 and 90 years ago – and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016."

_______________

What a phucking anti-Semite. Someone should put that Israeli General straight.
Click to expand...
People did, he responded thus:

Golan clarified overnight on Thursday that he had no intention to compare between the IDF and Israel and processes that took place in Germany 70 years ago.

Such a comparison is absurd and baseless, and there was no intention to create such a comparison or criticize the political leadership, said a statement. The IDF is a moral army that maintains purity of arms and human dignity, it added.
Click to expand...
 
scaramanga said:
Of course he can. He hasn't called a single Jewish person a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Even worse, he was inferring that Israel was starting to look like Nazi Germany. The back-tracking, or, "doing a Trump" as it's now known is just too little, too late. Lib Dems can have him. He can drive the mini bus to Parliament for their MPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back