This is a bit silly, but the appropriate analogy would be:
Silva: That picture of menacing Muslim hordes she criticized is the most benign shit. As if that would amount to any existential threat.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Silva: That picture of menacing Muslim hordes she criticized is the most benign shit. As if that would amount to any existential threat.
Isn't that part of the problem though? Shouldn't there be a British political voice that can represent the Palestinian voice?
if theresa may went around talking about how muslims are persecuted and about islamaphobia it would genuinely be funny and i'd be exaggerating that shit, like, thanks t may inshallah we get our brothers and sisters safe, this is a completely believable and in character thing for you to be going on about, guess i'll vote for enoch now
Last edited:
May - the worst Conservative leader ever.
Corbyn - the worst Labour leader ever.
Voters = puzzled = Liberal / Greens / Brexit all gaining in popularity. Where does it end?
American style Republican right vs Democratic left.
Corbyn - the worst Labour leader ever.
Voters = puzzled = Liberal / Greens / Brexit all gaining in popularity. Where does it end?
American style Republican right vs Democratic left.
There are loads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Palestine_&_the_Middle_East
They have a curious approach though
So none of these MP's have be accused of being antisemitic?
I'm trying to understand who's been able to be pro-palestine without being accused of antisemitism, it seems the two things can't be true at the same time - but I could be wrong.
Well, if you propose a 'final solution' to the Israel - Palestine issue then you're going to get called antisemitic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
Is this 'Final Solution' widely heard of? I've never heard of it (admittedly I don't keep up to date with Nazi propaganda) if you say the words 'final solution' when referring to the Israel/Palestine conflict, does that automatically make you antisemitic?
In the context of the screenshot you posted, it seemed that their proposal seemed to mean 'final solution' literally, as in - there's no more debate to be had, both sides can coexist with this solution we are putting forward.
It's, at best, unbelievably ignorant to use the term in that context...at best.
Yes. Although it would be spectacularly dumb and/or brazen for somebody who actually is anti-semitic to intentionally use the phrase on twitter under a labour party moniker and hope good would come of it.
Makes sense, that group comes across clumsy & ignorant in their entire approach towards the issue, at best.
Plus the facebook group appears to be inactive, probably best for everyone that it remains that way.
It's extremely well known by anyone with a basic level of knowledge of European history. It's absolutely incredible that they'd put out a tweet like that.
But there are plenty of other times that members of that group have put their foot in it, not least when Corbyn publicly defended an artist that had painted an antisemitic (Jewish conspiracy) mural.
yes - very
Cant believe anybody could have even a cursory knowledge of WW2 without knowing about it
e.g. let me google that for you
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=final solution&s=g
first link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
second
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/final-solution-overview
third
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-final-solution/
and this could go on and on and on
How likley is it that somebody who is delaing with media relations for Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East is unaware of this?
I had no idea about final solution but I also have to say I'm not the brightest either
In that case then it's incredibly stupid of them, and the criticism isn't a surprise.
This comes across quite condescending tbh.
I'm trying to ask questions on perspectives of actual people, not google results, particularly as this is a topic i'm not familiar with.
The friends of Labour Palestine thing seems to be absolutely moronic but not outright convincing that Labour MP’s are anti-semetic.
‘Criticism’ of Israel goes beyond that directed at those other states, certainly far beyond the call to end arms sales. They do not have their entire right to exist as a state constantly challenged, they do not have their national movements demonized to anywhere near the same degree. Whatever criticisms are directed at the specific policies of these states, the left seems to have made its peace with their continued existence.
Silva said:
Right, so it's not a matter of principle but rather power relations, and there are conceivable circumstances under which you guys would become supporters of Zionism and learn to overlook its uglier manifestations. Although presumably (in @Silva's case anyway) these circumstances don't include the conditions European Jews found themselves in during the first half of the 20th century.
In any case, I said above "What you probably shouldn’t do is play down, indulge, or in Corbyn’s case commemorate, all ugly manifestations of Palestinian nationalism while concurrently demonizing all manifestations, ugly or otherwise, of Zionism."
This doesn't mean abandoning the Palestinians for the sake of a purely egalitarian approach. It means recognizing that an entirely sympathetic attitude towards the claims and actions of one side, coupled with an entirely dismissive attitude towards the claims and actions of the other is likely to be perceived as support for the total victory of one side over the other, and not a means of finding a negotiated settlement with its implied recognition of both national claims. And if Palestinian victory is indeed what you're advocating for (I believe it is what Corbyn and his side of things are advocating for), then it is extremely important to understand exactly what the implications of Palestinian victory will be in terms of how Palestinian nationalism imagines the future of Palestine to look like, and in terms of how Israeli Jews are likely to respond to it.
From what I remember, many members of the Labour Friends of Palestine are concurrently members of the Labour Friends of Israel.
Currently no prominent politician in this country who isn’t themselves Jewish, could be outspoken in support of Palestine without being accused of anti-semitism or of promoting it. They would be accused of it as a way of delegitimising their views.
It happens in the States too. You’ll even see articles online accusing Bernie Sanders of it and he is Jewish himself.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
it's rare you find yourself in a protracted debate about whether qatar is racist or not because there's fewer people in the west defending them any of those countries and if people were you ask you the same questions i.e "does saudi arabia have an inalienable right to exist" you'd get the same confused "uh yeah, no, idk" aggregate answers
what are you talking about, peace would be total victory not the domination of jews by palestianians, that there are dominationists in palestinian nationalism is irrelevant while they're getting so completely owned
nelson mandella wasn't always a peace loving reconciliationist but i'm not about to criticise his actions under apartheid either
the "other countries don't get this criticism" is the most disingenuous one imo, other countries don't get the hardline defence, when khaggoshi was murdereded you didn't have a million media personalities falling over themselves to talk about saudi arabia defending itself - if there was a hardline defence of these actions by other countries there would be more and harsher criticism, if the myanmar genocide had people defending it would be significantly more fleshed out in the western media and would get more prominent placing, if iran had people writing about how them having nukes would actually be a good thing you'd get more criticism of their nuclear program
the overwhelming majority of the threads here for example are about america and the uk, because they have the most criticism and defence from the posters, it's not because we're uniquely against america, it's just what causes the most traffic
the overwhelming majority of the threads here for example are about america and the uk, because they have the most criticism and defence from the posters, it's not because we're uniquely against america, it's just what causes the most traffic
In Israel/Palestine there are two national movements with exclusivist claims to the entire land. They have different national languages, religions, have different names for every hill and village, different national heroes to go on their currency and name their streets after, different national anthems to express the national will, different national holidays. They have entirely different ideas about the nature of the country and the principles by which it should be run.
This is not a civil rights issue. Without a one-state solution where both sides are willing to relegate their national identities and aspirations to a civil sphere with no political implications, or a two-state solution where they agree to split the land and separate from each other as much as possible into two ethnically-defines states (which was the logic behind the UN partition plan and Oslo), then victory for one side means defeat for the other. If you think the Palestinian side of this equation is irrelevant, that all the Palestinians have been fighting for is ‘equality’, then you probably don’t take the Palestinians seriously as a nation, and you certainly don’t understand the conflict and how it has developed.
It’s not ‘criticism’ I’m talking about. Israel is deserving of much criticism. It’s the total mass campaign aimed at delegitimizing an entire national movement, while concurrently supporting a rival national movement.
Supporters of Kurdish rights are likely to be very critical of Turkish/Iraqi/Iranian/Syrian actions. I certainly am. You will rarely if ever, however, hear us declare that Turkey must be dismantled, that Turkish nationalism is necessarily racist and basically evil, that Turkish national aspirations are illegitimate, that Turkish concerns regarding Kurdish militancy are irrelevant, and that the only solution is the triumph of Kurdish nationalism over its Turkish counterpart. Most of us are able to recognize that whatever the position of dominance the Turks hold over the Kurds, the national aspirations of both peoples need to be accommodated for any type of lasting peace to be achieved.
I agree with this, I mean clearly the actions of some MP's on social media is very questionable regarding this 'Final Solution' stuff (& more i'm sure)
But I don't think i've ever seen a prominent British politician support Palestine without being accused of antisemitism.
Fair enough.... I'm shocked people could not be aware of the final solution... Hopefully you can see it was a totally innapropriate thing to publish though
I was just arguing the point that it isn't really a surprise that this group of politicians get called antisemitic in this trigger happy Twitter era of slurs, plenty of them thoroughly deserve it in that context. If they really hold a deep seated hated of the Jewish people is a different matter.
Of course, very stupid thing to do.
So is it PC gone mad by the twitter mob or genuinely deserved? To me that there is clearly an issue as there is generally no smoke without fire but it has been overblown by the media. But happy to be proven wrong and call Corbyn a genuine anti-semite if he is one.
how different is all of this to south africa under apartheid? it was a country of multiple languages and cultures where one people subjugated the rest and caused militant action from people who wanted to kill them all and drive them out of the country
and there is a total mass campaign aimed at legitimising every little thing israel does, it's not a disproportionate campaign otherwise it would go the same as, say
when these come up, there are significantly fewer western people on either side, not because israel gets it specially, but because it's a more western centric dispute and more people have their finger in the pie, if one of those countries had the same level of western support they'd get the same level of criticism, if we were currently selling the Syrian government chemical weapons there'd be more said and written about Syria - but it's less western centric and less will be said and written about it
see also, people talking about the UK supporting SA in Yemen, it gets some very strong criticism but because there's so few people defending UK actions it gets zero traffic here, if we had oscie still around talking about how selling weapons is good for the economy there'd be more said but he's not around and no one says it
There’s a couple of things to consider though. Pretty much every mainstream British politician supports in principle the creation of a Palestinian state. So we need to understand what exactly is meant by ‘support for Palestine’, just as we need to consider what is meant by ‘criticism of Israel.’ They will not mean the same things to all people.
Also, while it’s true that the charge of antisemitism is often flung around with no care, we need to consider why it is taken more seriously in some cases than in others. In Corbyn’s case, the type of activism he has engaged in on behalf of the Palestinians for his entire life has involved associating with and working for antisemites, explaining away or rationalizing their actions, and indulging in conspiratorial explanations for events in the Middle East which resemble antisemitic tropes. These have all been documented throughout this thread. So it makes people less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on matters such as disciplinary procedures targeting antisemites within his party, and on the issue as a whole.
When Corbyn defended the artist that painted that Jewish conspiracy mural I don't see how he could complain when people started calling him an antisemite. If you're a public figure acting in a racist way then you are going to get panned for it even if he was just being thick.
It is overblown by the media and it is being used as a tool to undermine him but they're handling it pathetically and throwing fuel on the fire. I don't think there's any Israeli conspiracy at play here, just an inept politician determined to hang himself.
I dont think you've understood my point. European jews pre ww2 advocating for Zionism is exactly the type of group that would get a sympathetic response from me. I wouldnt be in favor of this ultimate goals but I would recognize them as the oppressed and overlook some political differences I had for the larger purpose of supporting the oppressed against their oppressors. But once they were somewhat free from that yoke and started to claw back rights for themselves I would be less sympathetic of undemocratic and violent policies and hope the newfound security would lead to a more peaceful and pluralistic society. But when they became the oppressors themselves I would lose all sympathy for them.
No arguments from me that Labour have made a pigs ear of it. But the fact that it’s been overblown goes beyond them just making a mess of it. I doubt most people can even think of the mural artist that Corbyn defended.
I would not enjoy living in a country run by Islamists and I would not find any political common ground with them. But I still support Palestinian freedom from oppression.
Very different. On the one hand, European Jews arrived in Palestine escaping almost certain death. This was certainly the case after 1933 when most of them arrived (pre-48). Without their arrival, most would likely have perished in the camps and the creation of Israel would have been impossible. As a consequence, Mizrahi Jews would have languished under Arab nationalist dictatorships or been forced to migrate to the West. They did not arrive in a alien land specifically targeted for settlement by a colonial empire, they had millennia-long religious, cultural and emotional ties to the land, and made the move entirely on their own initiative. The fate of white Europeans - Dutch and British - who chose not to settle in South Africa was, well, uninteresting let’s say. To those who did not go, it remained an alien land.
On the other hand, the response of the ANC to white dominance was to come up with an inclusivist national liberation program in which white South Africans were assured of absolute equality in a multi-ethnic, denationalized state. The Palestinians have not come up with a comparable program. Their national identity is defined as Arab and Islamic, and so is tied to the rest of the region with strong exclusivist bonds which offer nothing to Israeli Jews beyond the prospect of at best languishing as a religious minority in a wider Arab sea - given the fate of other minorities in the region, it’s not an enticing prospect.
On this forum I have stated many times that the Palestinians should launch a movement for full equality within one-state. Campaign for Israeli citizenship, attempt to form bonds with Israeli minorities and liberals, etc. I don’t see how any reasonable person could oppose such a movement in principal, whatever doubts they might have regarding its implementation. At the same time, I doubt it will happen anytime soon, for the reason given above.
Turkey is a member of NATO ffs. Born in genocide, a military occupying a good portion of an EU member-state, oppressing Kurds at home, bombing and ethnically cleansing them in Iraq and Syria.
I love Turkey by the way.
I don’t want to sound patronizing, but this is a really easy position to take from Montana. In the region, most regard the conflict in zero-sum terms.
I have no doubt that the (very real) antisemitism issue within the Labour party is being exaggerated and weaponised for political purposes. However, Labour have mishandled the issue so badly that they're now at point where trying to downplay the issue (even in the correct belief that others are exaggerating it) is counterproductive. Their criticism of the Panorama piece could be entirely valid but it will still be read by many as a paranoid attempt to avoid responsibility, a reaction that comes directly from the party's failure at controlling the narrative surrounding them.
So is that what you've done then? Thrown your lot in with Israel and dismissed the Palestinian suffering because its zero sum?
Even if we take your zero sum evaluation at face value, the logical next step would be to argue for a two state solution.
More specifically, how is the situation different to before the reconciliation movement. I agree with the one state stuff as I've written here before. But I don't see how there's much of a difference the current conflict to SA in the decade or two before reconciliation. I don't think there's anything in particular that makes the same outcome impossible, but as it stands, I'd rather criticise the winners than the losers of the conflict. Militant Mandela was better than the Apartheid police
I should have specified, from western people in discourse, Turkey is pretty unanimously viewed with suspicious and critically, but because there's no hardline defenders of their actions, there's no protracted debates. Oppose this to American action which gets hardline defence, and the frustration of seeing people defend Americas military and government leads to western calls of death of america
Sorry I’m not sure how this relates to my own positions on the conflict. I’m in Ireland, I can take a wishy-washy position just like you. Here it is: I’m fully supportive of the principal of self-determination for both peoples in however they can both be accommodated together. My preference would be for them to be able to co-exist together in a single state, but I see no prospect of that happening in the current context or any scenario I can envisage in the next few decades. I also see no prospect for a two-state solution right now given the practicalities involved and the incompatible demands of each side, and the forces at work in the wider region. I do not believe, however, that this is all solely Israel’s fault or entirely down to the power imbalance. I take Palestinian hopes and aspirations as seriously as I do Zionist hopes and aspirations. I listen to their visions for the future and I don’t believe that, at this moment, there is much if any place for accommodation there. I feel similarly about the current mood among Israeli Jews by the way.
So my own position is currently quite limited, I’d like to see moves from the ground up to encourage empathy and understanding of the rival narratives. It doesn’t mean that Palestinians must become Zionists or vice versa, but I think it’s the minimal requirement before any concrete peace deal can be achieved.
To bring the conversation back on topic, it is the total lack of empathy vis-a-vis the Zionist narrative and claims - which are inextricably tied up with the modern Jewish historical experience - from the Corbyn side of things which I find so frustrating, since it automatically alienates so many decent people with direct ties to the conflict, while attracting the worst sorts with no ties.