Me and millions* of Jews, apparently.
*idk how many but millions has a nice sound to it
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
*idk how many but millions has a nice sound to it
I thought we already determined that the Jews are racist. I wasn't sure of you
And if Turkish self-determination means (surviving) Armenians and Greeks (and their descendants) not having the right to return, no more Turkey yeah? This principle could be applied to dozens of cases around the world.
And if the Palestinian right of return means no Jewish self-determination, what to do then?
Of course they’re not exactly the same, but Jewish self-determination in Palestine needn’t be (in theory) totally at odds with Palestinian self-determination - that’s the entire point of the proposed two-state solution.
But let’s say you’re right - you’d also have to concede that Palestinian self-determination is totally at odds with Jewish self-determination. So where does that leave you exactly? The primary statements we have of Palestinian self-determination are no less racist (and in one case notoriously more so) than their Zionist counterparts, so how then are we to determine whose right to self-determination is more deserving of our support or indifference? The only consistent answers are that both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are equally deserving of the right, or neither are.
Berbatrick said:
I read it differently, as someone denying Jewish self-determination due to the inherently racist nature of Israel (any Israel, hence the big, fat deliberate ‘a’ which you’ve noted). The italicized part is the context - it amounts to someone saying that the Jews have no right to self-determination because the very idea of a Jewish state, whatever its policies, is racist.
I would personally change the ruling to “Denying the Jewish people and only the Jewish people the right to self-determination...” because it’s possible to be against the principle of self-determination in general (see below*), or to deny it to a select group of peoples based on the dastardly acts committed in their name (which seems to be @Silva’s approach, although it’s hard to tell).
*An alternative denial of Jewish self-determination which can not in any context be read as antisemitic might go “the Jews have no right to self-determination because no peoples do, because self-determination is an inherently nationalistic idea and nationalism is inherently racist.”
Why would Armenians and Greeks have the right to return to Turkey? They have their nations, Greece and Armenia and little reason to claim the land. If means the continued lack of freedom for the Kurds, then their self-determination can do one.
The reason why Palestinians should have the right to the land is because they have an equally compelling claim to it. If their self-determination is Jewless then too bad for them cos Jews live there too.
The Israel that was created and that exists is inherently racist. It was created by a bunch of a racist, colonialist cnuts and airdropped into the middle of an existing population who continue to be subjugated. It may be the single most boneheaded way a nation was created, the arrogance alone is breathtaking.
There's also little point in talking about a hypothetical Israel, because there's only the one that exists whose citizens were randomly born into. And as it exists, it's ridiculously, almost cartoonishly racist.
But also, yeah, abolish borders altogether that would be better
Last edited:
So the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, or in Jordan, or pretty much anywhere, would immediately invalidate the Palestinian right of return to Israel (as the existence of Greece and Armenia does for the claims of their respective refugees from Turkey)? In that case it seems strange to make the RoR a condition for granting or denying Jewish self-determination, since it may potentially be invalidated without any change in Israeli policy whatsoever.
Whatever the truth of any of this, it doesn’t seem to be the type of statement that is a target of the ruling in question. The point of the hypothetical ‘a state of Israel’ in the ruling seems to me to be that there are people out there who claim that the very idea of a Jewish state is racist and by extension beyond the pale. And like I said, if they feel that way only in regards to the idea of a Jewish state and not any other ethnically-defined state then it’s hard to imagine any other reason for it other than antisemitism.
The Turks don't have a reasonable claim to Greece, or Armenia or the Kurdish regions they currently occupy. And Israeli's only have an equally reasonable claim to the land as Palestinians.
How many ethnically defined states are there? And has there ever been a point in history where defining a state along racial lines has led to good things? If you show me another country enshrining race into their law, I'll be happy to write something mean on the internet.
Last edited:
Again I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but it doesn’t matter, I’m just interested to see the principles by which you deem it fit to deny or grant the fundamental right of self-determination to various peoples.
Silva said:
There would seem to be quite a few. In Israel’s neighborhood alone pretty much every state defines itself as Arab (including the prospective Palestinian state). Most European states bear the name of a group that has historically been ethnically-defined, and it’s only in the general post-1945 peace that has prevailed that most (but not all) of them seem to have developed a more civic-based idea of nationalism (not that they don’t continue to struggle with the inherent tension between their ethnic and civic identities, increasingly so recently). Under the right conditions there seems to me to be little preventing a Jewish state from evolving on a similar trajectory.
Whether it’s a good or bad thing would seem to depend on the alternatives at hand. At the time most of these states were created the only alternative was empire. We often hear from critics of British and French policy in the Middle East that their carving up of the region was too arbitrary, and that the new states should have reflected the ethnic and/or sectarian composition of the region - that critique would seem to reflect the idea that more ethnically homogenous states are more stable (this is not an argument I necessarily share). Funnily enough these types are often the biggest critics of Israel and Lebanon, the two states which were carved out for specific ethnic/sectarian groups. In any case there is something perverse about Europeans condemning the very idea of Jewish nationalism, given their historical role in fomenting it.
Last edited:
I've not really been following this antisemitism thing that closely... but from what I saw on the BBC news, is it really that Jewish people are upset that people can be a bit more critical of Israel?
Well it's mainly down to the removal of a few specific examples related to israel yeah. Whilst these specific word for word examples have been removed (really was little need to do so) they're covered elsewhere in the text anyway.
It's mainly coming across as vocal interest groups weaponising the issue. Hodge using the above to call Corbyn an anti-semite when it was an NEC decision and has even been put back out to consultation seems ridiculous.
So it's basically people getting their panties in a twist over a bunch of technicalities?
Sounds like politics to me.
If Corbyn sees an open goal he always manages to run the other way, kick his own goalkeeper in the head and score an own goal with his arse.
Every time!
He's been silent on brexit for months and now he chooses to side with Jacob Rees Medieval.
I'm actually beginning to think he has been paid off to be this bad at the job, as anyone with any integrity would have resigned a long time ago.
I agree about the own goal but prob worth reading the article as he doesn't say that headline or the MEPs claims. Just trying to point how the devalued pound should have been a benefit to manufacturers (which is a bit bollocks overall) and putting blame in gov for it not being so.
This has to be the worst portrait of the causes for modern Jewish immigration to Palestine I've read on here so far. The hostile ignorance on display is a bit frightening, because all information is easily available and you actively choose to believe that this is the historical truth instead.
This is the most ignorant and, if you seriously believe this, the most offensive thing I've seen on this forum.
Israel was formed to create a country for people who were systematically massacred on an unimagineable scale. It was created for them to feel safe because a future for them in Europe was not possible.
Labour are 5 points a head in the polls. You dork.
Even in the postwar context it was mental. It's not the fault of anyone today given the oldest people who would have been alive were children. But who does that?
I'm very disappointed in Corbyn if i'm being honest. Ok he's been true to his own beliefs, I can respect that. But being a Remain voter i'm totally fecked off with Labours Brexit position. He seems perfectly happy to see the country go to tits as long as he's not the one doing it.
For now, Lib Dems will probably get a 2-3 point boost from hard remainers after this speech. Everytime either party tries to be more clear/harder/softer etc. on Brexit they lose a couple of points.
wow....a whole 5% lead over the most shambolic government in history.
A chronically divided conservative party that is busy ripping itself apart.
A non-existant threat from the Liberal party, or UKIP
The country on the brink of making a cataclysmically bad brexit choice, threatening economic prosperity, a hard won peace in Northern Ireland.
NHS crippled by tory cuts and the removal of migrant labour
Nasty viscous right wing politics on the upturn...
And Jeremy can produce a 5% lead - that will mean he too would be marooned in a minority government that can do nothing.
Just imagine if Labour had a leader with mass market appeal that could actually get a workable majority and implement massive social change for the good of the nation, rather than one that looks like a provincial philosophy lecturer struggling to come to grips with running the local allotment societies AGM.
yeah, let's just take one of those off the shelf
For fecks Jeremy, that's that's the fault of UK governments not poor EU countries.
Suits his aims to be in charge of a 65 million strong commune.
What economic prosperity?
Minimum wage and I guess median income in UK is pretty abysmal and you pay half your income to live in terrible housing with ridiculous plumbing and heating that escapes right through the walls and roofs. Something went wrong a long time ago.
Minimum wage and I guess median income in UK is pretty abysmal and you pay half your income to live in terrible housing with ridiculous plumbing and heating that escapes right through the walls and roofs. Something went wrong a long time ago.
UKIP are actually having a bump in the polls mainly due to May not so ultra hard brexit stance. In recent polling
.Around 30-40% would consider voting for a right wing anti islam and immigrate party.
.A large percentage of voters would rather have the break up of the UK than stopping Brexit.
Again for the millionth time there isn't this giant pool of liberal remain voters that would put Labour 10 - 20 points a head.
This is part where are ask you for a alternative and you fail to give me one.
That's still the fault of UK governments, it's ridiculous to put it in a speech about the benefits of Brexit when you can make things in or out of the EU.
But he does repeatedly say this in the speech
https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyns-build-britain-speech-eef-technology-hub/
I see he still has visions of his kind of brexit. The man is going to be seriously disappointed. Stick a fork in him.
There is no version of brexit that helps the working class in this country.
There is no version of brexit that helps the working class in this country.
As a veteran of the Online Posting Wars 2012-18 with over 300 confirmed brain-melting arguments...
I've never seen the distinction made between the actual and theoretical Israels. Harsh criticism of the Zionist project or the founding of Israel, the state that exists today, is taken as anti-Semitic. Saying you support a one-state solution with equal rights is anti-Semitic.*
And to the best of my knowledge the same applies in real life too.
I will add that it is infuriating to see this same actual state of Israel pal around with anti-Semites, arm literal neo-Nazis, accuse Jewish critics of being false Jews or worse. The silence from almost everyone other than the left about this, the timing of these periodic eruptions (first lead in the polls for months), makes me think that the criticism directed at Corbyn is purely political, against the left, for a diplomatically stronger Israel.
*Not saying that myself, but giving examples of what I've often seen.
(edited)
Last edited:
I can’t comment on your online experiences outside the Cafe, though what you say rings true in some online circles I’m familiar with and with some people I know personally too. I can only comment on how I interpret that particular ruling, given the ‘contextual’ caveat provided in the text. An example of the type of discourse it could be used to guard against might be the case of the antisemitic jazz musician Gilad Atzmon (he’s come up in this thread previously), who’s entire shtick is to point at the ‘racism’ of Israel and argue on that basis that Jews cannot be trusted with power; that Israel is inevitable product of an inherent Jewish tribalism; basically that no other Israel could exist other than the one that does; and that therefore Jews should be denied the right to self...you know where it’s going. Or it could apply to Islamist critiques of Israel which tend to see the inherent corrupt nature of the Jews reflected in the ‘racist’ state of Israel.
Berbatrick said:
I can accept that there may be an element of opportunism at play here of course, but “purely political...”, nah. There is a genuine concern held by many if not most politically-aware British Jews about Corbyn’s Labour Party that many of Corbyn’s cult followers are too quick to dismiss as fabricated. In fact the idea that British Jews have concocted this grievance on behalf of Israel contains a seed of antisemitism itself.
Oh sweet. Oscie has a 'cult' buddy.
You should report this post if you feel that strongly about it.
Ok well how about Kier Starmer or Yyvette Cooper or Jess Phillips?
Waits for them to be derided as "blairite" or linked to Iraq by corbynistas!
It's the new normal. Socialists now clink glasses and celebrate when a Tory wins a general election. An opposition against a government in mid-term who has suffered resignations, chaos and is split enjoying what currently stands according to an aggregate of polls a lead of less than 1 point, is now something to be cheered.
It's the new normal and if you don't like that someone will be along in a minute to make a point where they'll use the word 'neoliberalism' and not really understand what it means.
People who'll mock one person's supporters for believing that their guy does nothing wrong it's just fake media and conspiracy, whilst insisting their guy does nothing wrong it's just fake media and conspiracy. New normal.
The only thing the cultists will care about if Brexit goes tits up is whether or not they can find anyone to sit down and listen to them give their speech about how much they opposed the Iraq war or, failing that, anyone interested in them pretending that somehow Ed Miliband was marginally to the left or Norman Tebbit, or something.
Such a neoliberal post.
I think the correct response is "didn't you vote lib dem?"