The recent surge in polling will make sure he won't become PM.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
The recent surge in polling will make sure he won't become PM.
Including by a number of Jewish groups. But maybe they're the wrong sort of Jews, like the group Corbyn met or Jon Lansman or Michael Rosen.
Not sure who wants that more, the Tories or Oscie.
I've attacked the Tories many times. Your political compass seems to be stuck on 'disinterested, unless anyone dissed Corbyn'
IDS 
I try to stay away from this discussion because it's really non of my business but i do find the uproar on the removal of the examples to be a bit fabricated especially from Hodge. Labour and the NEC have clearly taken a positive step in drafting the defintions in the first place and the result of the NEC was to put it back out to consultation.
The hard left who oppose the actions of israel and the jewish groups that protect Israel's interest seem to be at battle with the NEC caught in the middle.
Sajid Javid apparently wants to give a substantial amount of money to a charity of Corbyn's choosing.
I know the membership of this site is predominantly left leaning, but it's a bit much that his party is currently debating how racist they are allowed to be, and not a whimper.
Yet anything that anyone in the Tory party does, is immediately jumped upon.
It really is a rather sorry state of affairs.
Perhaps someone can point me in the direction where this important debate is taking place?
Yet anything that anyone in the Tory party does, is immediately jumped upon.
It really is a rather sorry state of affairs.
Perhaps someone can point me in the direction where this important debate is taking place?
https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/30jewishgroupsbds/
it's hard for people to whimper if the argument is that criticising Israel is antisemitic
I rest my case.
no doubt resting it on isreal like an antisemite, how dare you, colin
That’s a very broad brush approach to the issue. I’ve been the victim of anti-semitism on countless occasions, and it’s very often cloaked as an anti-Israel criticism.
If I was British, I wouldn’t really expect someone who considers Hamas friends to understand anti-semitism better than me.
I have not really followed the anti-Semitism story. What reason did the NEC give for changing the definition?
I must admit optics don't look good but Labour must fight any attempt to label IsraeI criticism as anti-Semitic.
I must admit optics don't look good but Labour must fight any attempt to label IsraeI criticism as anti-Semitic.
Sure, that's dog-whistling and it is bad. But a completely and utter ban on criticising Israel is mad.
They changed one thing, allowing criticism of Israel. Because it's ridiculous to ban all criticism of a country.
Sorry about your experiences but it is important to emphasise that they are two different things. Anti semitism is a cancer but and I'll expect all anti semetics to be anti Israel but debate can't be shut down by labelling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
I'll have to look at the definition but I find it incredible that the definition covered any criticism of Isreal that's not linked to Jews.
The link you posted links to the IHRA definition which states:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
It then lists some instances when criticism of Israel can be regarded as antisemitic. Nowhere does it state that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
The specific change is that the definition doesn't allow parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany whereas Labour kind of does. So, if I were to say that the current treatment of Palestinians is reminiscent of early Nazi Germany where Jewish people were second class citizens that could be used as slaves and for human experimentation I'd be in breach of the IHRA but not the labour definition. Obviously politicians shouldn't be drawing these comparisons but it's a bit mad that an average member who gets angry next times the Israeli army rains hell on Gaza and compares them to Nazis on twitter would get kicked out of the party.
Thanks. I wanted to see that.
Eh, that’s quite different from what you’ve been posting above.
And really, this is the hill they want to die on? The right to compare the world’s only Jewish state to Nazi Germany?
I'd also have done away with this rule:
Israel is very much a racist endeavor and has just enshrined it into law. Jewish people obviously have a right to be there given most of them aren't old enough to remember a time it didn't exist. But Palestinian people also have a right to be there and should have the right to return. Until they do, and so long as the government continues it's policies it's going to be little more than South Africa with bigger bombs.
Are there many states in the world whose ‘racism’ as you see it invalidates its peoples’ right to self-determination? Or only Israel?
China, India* and Russia occupy territory that doesn't want to be occupied, off the top of my head mostly due to racist reasons**. Myanmar's genocide. America and the UK too but the reasons are more abstract.
*i realise the mood isn't as clear cut in kashmir as it is in ukraine or taiwan but still
**i realise that the people running the show don't actually give a feck and just want money/power, but their justifications "one china" etc. are racist
But I don't think that should have anything to do with it. If Israel is the only country doing something the criticism doesn't become antisemitic.
He said this:
"But Palestinian people also have a right to be there and should have the right to return."
You read it as:
"invalidates its peoples’ right to self-determination"
Which is convenient, since it makes clear that that right to self-determination is in conflict with others' (extremely basic) rights, and thus explains why people have the opposing view of that conflict.
oi I added a disclaimer
You’re answering me as if you don’t understand what “right to self-determination” means, but I know you do. I’m quite sure you don’t believe that the Burmese, Chinese, Indians and Russians should be denied the right to self-determination on the basis of the policies of the states that claim to embody their self-determination.
Basically, if you believe that the South Sudanese, East Timorese, Eritreans, Scots, Kurds, Catelonians, Irish, Turks, etc. etc. etc. (and of course Palestinians)...and everybody else except the Jews have the right to self-determination, then what the feck can you call that but antisemitic?
That’s not the part of his answer I have a problem with. I can accept the argument against the Jews exercising their right to self-determination in all of Palestine, at the expense of the Palestinian right. And I can understand why Palestinians themselves generally reject the idea of Jewish self-determination in any part of Palestine, although there’s no good reason why non-Palestinians should. The ruling under discussion which @Silva would drop concerns the denial of Jewish self-determination altogether.
Your right to swing your fist ends at another mans nose. When your self-determination explicitly includes stamping the rights of others, it's not mere self-determination.
Why should one people who claim the land be given special treatment when both have a reasonable claim, which brings me back to me original point. Israel is a very racist endeavour.
Also your second paragraph is a gross mischaracterisation. The Chinese can do what they want, just not in Tibet or other occupied nations. The Russians can do what they want, just not in Georgia, etc. But Israel is in a unique position where there are two peoples who want to live there. And if a majority of Jewish Israeli's demand special status in the land, I'm going to oppose it.
Last edited:
Self-determination is a very basic principle that is not abrogated by the policies undertaken in its pursuit or in its name. Otherwise there would be dozens of peoples around the world who would be potentially denied it - and who could possibly be the judge determining the point at which a states’ policies cross the line and remove the right of self-determination from a particular people?
There are dozens of places where two or more different peoples’ rights have come into conflict and a peaceful settlement has proven elusive. But for whatever reason we tend not to need rules stating that denying the right of Turks to self-determination because of what it has meant for Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Cypriots is anti-Turkish; or that denying the right of the Sinhalese to self-determination because of what is has meant for Sri Lankan Tamils is anti-Sinhalese - it would seem to be a given.
Also I need to correct myself here. Before listing its examples the IHRA definition actually states:
“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:”
So it’s not even saying that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or denying the right of Jews to self-determination is necessarily antisemitic, just that it might be depending on the circumstances. I’m not sure how any reasonable person could have a problem with that.
Are you kidding? The Turkish government and some Turkish people will call you racist if you question their treatment of the Kurds. They even called Merkel racist last year for saying they're not getting into the EU.
The Chinese will call you racist if you question the One China policy.
etc. etc.
No idea what your point is.
Criticising racist nations isn't racist, despite claims from these nations.
I’m starting to think maybe you don’t understand what the denial of self-determination implies.
No, I get it. And if Jewish self-determination means Palestinians not having the right to return, I'll happily deny it to them.
I don't remember a Tamil claim to any part of Sri Lanka other than the north. I think the actions of Sri Lanka in bombing and politically repressing the Tamil population are condemnable, but the fundamental conflict which exists in the single territory of Israel/Palestine isn't the same - Sinhalese self-determination isn't (in theory) totally at odds with Lankan Tamil self-determination.
See, this is the line from the site:
So, @Silva and I are now anti-semites.
Now, I don't think that calling the Zionist project a racist endeavour is denying the right to self-determination (with plenty of historical backing), but that is their definition, their example. The way it is worded I don't understand how "context" becomes relevant. The thought itself = against self-determination = anti-Semitism.
After re-reading, "the existence of a state of Israel as racist" - ya I don't think any potential Israel would be racist. But the Zionist state that exists in our world is. So, is that anti-semitic, and should people with that view be removed from the Labour party?
Aren't you racist then?