This is a strange conclusion to make. If he genuinely supported the IRA cause then he wouldn’t have advocated peace talks between the belligerent factions, instead he would have doubled down on the violent struggle, mirroring the sentiment of the IRA’s supporters. Likewise for Hamas.His relationships with these people, whether its Hamas or the IRA, are because he supports their cause. It's false to pretend that it was all a push to secure peace. You don't help secure peace by exclusively showing support to one side.
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions. Something Corbyn had advocated prior to their resolution despite being seen as unpopular at the time.What do you mean with this bit? What “strides in peace” have been made thanks to Corbyn? Genuinely curious because I don’t actually know a lot about him.
Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions. Something Corbyn had advocated prior to their resolution despite being seen as unpopular at the time.
Spot on. Violence whether terrorist or state initiated will never lead to peace. We've been fighting Muslims since the Crusades - it doesn't work. Jeremy Corbyn is an idealist and, imo, a genuinely decent human being who would at least give dialogue a chance - current and past Governments don't want dialogue because it would mean concessions.We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.
Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Been googling Jezza and Norn Iron and came up with this. I’m not sure he can be talked up as an advocate of dialogue when he only engages with people on one side of a particular issue. For me it’s the people who take the much more difficult step of actively engaging with people who have an opposing ideology to their own that deserve the credit for breakthroughs like the Good Friday Agreement.
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions.
That didn’t happen because Corbyn persuaded the rival factions to come to the table.
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.
Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Every Corbynites favourite Labour leader, Tony Blair, played a far more instrumental role, surely?
Obviously. There’s a lot more could be said about the conditions which ultimately brought the IRA to the table, but as they’ve nothing to do with Corbyn they’re best left for the relevant thread.
Corbyn’s brand of ‘dialogue’ is to talk to and promote the cause of the side he deems less powerful, exclusively so. I’ve yet to come across an example of him meeting/attending rallies/engaging with any Loyalists or Israelis he disagrees with.
A shocking state of things when the most likeable and human-like person in either of the two main parties has a penchant for terrorists.
He wrote afterwards about the wreath laid for “others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991“, so the only way he wouldn’t have known is by being completely uninterested in who these ‘others’ were, and by being completely ignorant of the episode in question - not something I find credible for someone with his level of involvement in activism in this conflict.
It’s definitely possible he didn’t know initially that the Black September guys were buried there, and subsequently he felt pressured into this situation, not wanting to offend his hosts. It would also explain why he felt the need to join in ‘prayer’ with them, despite being an atheist apparently. However, this is not the explanation he’s chosen to provide.
I find it more likely that Corbyn doesn’t really consider these people ‘terrorists’ but rather part of a legitimate struggle whose more violent tendencies ought to be seen as a consequence of the brutality of Israel and the West. And that there was nothing about his career up to 2014 which would have suggested to him that such a visit may not have been a wise move.
If Thornberry became leader and got rid of McDonnell she'd be odds on for the next PM IMO
Certainly he believes the Palestinian cause to be legitimate but I can't honestly believe Corbyn reckons the kidnapping, torture and murder of athletes is a legitimate tactic and that its perpetrators are worthy of honour.
Im not sure she would be able to get rid of mcdonnell (at least in the short term... momentum etc) but yeah certainly wouldn't hurt her chances (provided she does not go crazy and pick someone like abbot)
Longer term as well I think its unlikely May survives and I think Thornberry would contrast well against a Johnson or Mogg - sadly though I expect Corbyn to be in charge at the next election and I have no doubt he will find some way to loose as he just does not resonate with enough of the electorate (no doubt momentum will blame blair for that as well)
I don’t think he necessarily views those actions as legitimate, just that he sees them as basically unfortunate episodes which are ultimately the product of Israeli actions and Zionism itself. In this sense, he sees the perpetrators as victims, no less than the dead athletes.
Oh come on, you can just as easily turn this statement around in support of the actions of the Israeli government against Palestinian civilians.
I don’t think he necessarily views those actions as legitimate, just that he sees them as basically unfortunate episodes which are ultimately the product of Israeli actions and Zionism itself. In this sense, he sees the perpetrators as victims, no less than the dead athletes or the Palestinians killed in ‘85.
He gave that speech about a week after the bombing and his polling numbers went up - and this was before we learned that the UK government sent him to fight in Libya and brought him back.I think he would hold similar views to those he expressed regarding the Manchester bombing. That while their actions were ultimately a consequence of British foreign policy this in no way mitigates the terrorist's guilt and they should be reviled regardless.
Been googling Jezza and Norn Iron and came up with this. I’m not sure he can be talked up as an advocate of dialogue when he only engages with people on one side of a particular issue. For me it’s the people who take the much more difficult step of actively engaging with people who have an opposing ideology to their own that deserve the credit for breakthroughs like the Good Friday Agreement.
In the case of something like the Iraq war it’s clear as daylight - it was clear it was a disastrous campaign and by that token Corbyn was dignified in his vehement opposition to it back in 2002/3.I find this a disingenuous argument when it comes to interventions because we can never know what the consequences of non-intervention would have been.
Pity for Thornberry.Im not sure she would be able to get rid of mcdonnell (at least in the short term... momentum etc) but yeah certainly wouldn't hurt her chances (provided she does not go crazy and pick someone like abbot)
Longer term as well I think its unlikely May survives and I think Thornberry would contrast well against a Johnson or Mogg - sadly though I expect Corbyn to be in charge at the next election and I have no doubt he will find some way to loose as he just does not resonate with enough of the electorate (no doubt momentum will blame blair for that as well)
I’m not accrediting Corbyn for it, rather how his willingness to speak to adversarial factions preceded the government eventually doing so which in hindsight has now been regarded as the dignified thing to do.That didn’t happen because Corbyn persuaded the rival factions to come to the table.
He gave that speech about a week after the bombing and his polling numbers went up - and this was before we learned that the UK government sent him to fight in Libya and brought him back.
It’s not whataboutery, rather a comparison to what a genuine endorsement of terrorism would look like. If Corbyn advocated sending weapons and fighter jets to Hamas the same way the British government does so for the Saudis then you have grounds for accusing him of endorsement.Whataboutery.
There is no denying that arms sales in whatever capacity are contentious.
Corbyn was not on the right side of history. He was not instrumental in any peaceful progress with the troubles. If his genuine concern is for peace then he wouldn't have taken any side. As far as I can see he positively came down on the side of the IRA.
It’s not whataboutery, rather a comparison to what a genuine endorsement of terrorism would look like. If Corbyn advocated sending weapons and fighter jets to Hamas the same way the British government does so for the Saudis then you have grounds for accusing him of endorsement.
Also I don’t buy your notion of staying neutral to advocate peace. To assume a passive role would do nothing but advocate the status quo. And it’s not about ‘taking sides’ either. You can propose dialogue with factions without swearing your allegiance to them.
Agreed. The trouble is by default we’re not seeing both sides. In the case of Northern Ireland the default sentiment from Britain’s perspective was to always endorse the loyalist stance for obvious reasons, meaning that the opposing viewpoint was always going to be distorted or drowned out. Hence it was imperative there be some initiative to reach out to the other side.You have to see both sides of the argument though. Corbyn only sees one side. The protestants in NI and the Israelis are human beings too. With aspirations and a desire to live peacefully. If you are going to make a positive contribution to peace you need to talk to both sides. Lining up with one cause will get you nowhere.
Benjamins intervention hasn't gone quite how he hoped
I’m fascinated to know what you think Corbyn will do as PM that you have to be so afraid of?Both aspire to be the Prime Minister of the UK
If it is true Liv, and the signs are that he did know the Munich lot were in there, then for me this is different order of magnitude to Boris's comments.
Very little would change with Emily Thornberry as leader. She’s ideologically aligned with Corbyn, backed by Momentum and, if memory serves, is not a member of Labour Friends of Israel which would leave her facing the same opposition from within her party from Jess Philips et al.Pity for Thornberry.
She'd be in an ideal position if she was leader by the middle of 2019.
Trump will lose the house in the midterms.
He is odds-on not to win a 2nd term (and maybe impeached before that).
The UK economy will totally tank if we get a hard Brexit as is the want of Mogg and Johnson.
Then the love-affair with this ideological populist bollocks will hopefully end.
There would be a desire to return to more centrist politics and a pragmatic/realistic approach to the economy.
A GE would be called and she'd walk it.
He has sympathy for the oppressed in whatever circumstance. That is because his policies are founded in the ideology he clearly supports which depends on having oppressed people.I’m fascinated to know what you think Corbyn will do as PM that you have to be so afraid of?
After all his comments on foreign policy and the fact he’s so obviously a pacifist, what is it you’re scared of?
I mean, the most likely thing he’d do would be to begin nuclear disarmament for the U.K., yet you seem to be under the illusion he supports terrorist violence?
oh my god, what a dickHe has sympathy for the oppressed in whatever circumstance.
