Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-15-2018, 10:43 AM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
Corbyn continues his lunacy by seeming to rule out a Norway style option for Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other

This man lives in a bizarre unicorn fantasy world. All he believes is that hard left anti-EU nonsense spewed by Tony Benn and ilk during the 1970s.
  #52  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Corbyn continues his lunacy by seeming to rule out a Norway style option for Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e_iOSApp_Other.
And if you read past the title:
Quote:
Several Labour MPs in the room said Corbyn had not been definitive in his opposition to EEA membership, and did not categorically rule it out, but Mann said the strength of feeling in the room from other speakers against the option had “killed it off”.

“It was more than half the people that spoke, it was quite a significant moment in my view,” Mann said. “It was people who have not spoken out before, from areas like mine. They have never voted in favour of Brexit before, they voted remain.”
  #53  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:25 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
I did read the entire article, but Corbyn has always seemed quite set in his ways. I don't think he thinks in what might be right for the UK or understands that politics is the art of the possible. I see him patting MPs on the head that disagree with him and then plotting his revenge on those that dare to have other opinions.
  #54  
Old 06-13-2018, 10:13 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
Good! Corbyn suffers yet another rebellion over his Brexit foolishness. It’s time for another leadership challenge.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/eu...-rebellion-and
  #55  
Old 06-14-2018, 03:29 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Just as the Tories are gearing up for one too.
  #56  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:00 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It’s time for another leadership challenge.
I think the election method Labour currently uses is highly unlikely to produce any other result.
  #57  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:08 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Today's Telegraph cartoon describes May as 'near extinction'.

So who would replace Corbyn? And how would they fare against May's likely successor, Javid?
  #58  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:15 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
I confess, as bumbled as the Tory end vision for Brexit is, as least I can sort of understand what they are aiming for. The Lib-Dems even more so.

Labour? not a bloody clue, and every time Keir Starmer explains it I think I lose a little more brain-matter. I think their policy-making unit is based on riddle of the the two guards. Except, instead of a tiger behind one of the doors there is a coherent Brexit policy and there are three doors not two, and two of them are guarded by John McDonnell and Diane Abbot, Diane always tells the truth as Jeremy would see it and John always tells a lie but that is actually the fault of the capitalist running-dogs and so what he actually says is true. The third door is locked and Jeremy had the key in his cardigan but that on the nail in the shed in his allotment.

There are plenty of competent politicians in Labour's ranks that the wider voting public would listen to and warm to. Unfortunately none seem be in charge.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #59  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:13 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I confess, as bumbled as the Tory end vision for Brexit is, as least I can sort of understand what they are aiming for.
I can sum up May's (lack of) vision in one word: fudge.
  #60  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:15 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I can sum up May's (lack of) vision in one word: fudge.
The Lib Dem's would be a box of Thornton's continentals, Labour's would be.....?

....I'm struggling here .......Licorice allsorts? 4oz of chocolate limes? (a combination that makes no sense and was clearly designed by committee)
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #61  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:18 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Deep fried Mars Bar? Oh wait, that's the SNP.
  #62  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:21 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Deep fried Mars Bar? Oh wait, that's the SNP.
Perhaps it is Schroedinger's cake. One that is both eaten and uneaten at the same time.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #63  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:38 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 78,307
Just as Corbyn is simultaneously both the next Prime Minister and someone who will never, ever hold that office?
  #64  
Old 06-14-2018, 11:07 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
and someone who will never, ever hold that office?
We can but hope.
  #65  
Old 06-14-2018, 01:09 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
The current state of UK Politics is maddening. I think Labour did about as well as they possible could under Corbyn at the last general election. Exceeding expecations (and a horrible Tory campaign with magic money trees) is nice, but it doesn't get you into power. Labour needs to take to more seats in Scotland, and unless the SNP implodes, I don't see that happening. Meanwhile, the divisions in Labour continue to get worse as it is almost impossible to remove Corbyn, maybe it really is time for a party split even if it ends up just like the SDP did.
  #66  
Old 06-14-2018, 01:49 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 78,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
...Labour needs to take to more seats in Scotland....
I don't quite get this.
  #67  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:39 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
I don't quite get this.
It's a typo. Labour needs to win more seats in Scotland to have any chance of winning a general election.
  #68  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:48 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It's a typo. Labour needs to win more seats in Scotland to have any chance of winning a general election.
Actually, no they don't. Blair won without Scotland, for instance. Seats in Scotland help, of course, but the SNP has co-opted the socialist Left and the Tories up here are to the left of Westminster and are explicitly the Unionist party so Labour need to give some really good reasons for people to vote for them.
  #69  
Old 06-15-2018, 05:35 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I confess, as bumbled as the Tory end vision for Brexit is, as least I can sort of understand what they are aiming for.
Totally agree with what you say about Labour, but quoting this bit in the hope of enlightenment!

As far as I can see, some Tories want something like no deal/hard Brexit/"the EU can go whistle" while others are rebelling to vote for EEA membership and/or the chance to force the government to abandon no-deal at the last minute. In between is May, who tacks to one side or the other dependent on who's threatened to resign most recently. I've got no idea what "the Tories" as a single entity want.* What do you see their end goal as?


*(The question of whether they can get is a whole other can of worms, of course.)
  #70  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:08 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
What do you see their end goal as?
As I think Theresa may said in March, out of the single market, out of the customs union, new trade deals with the rest of the world and a new agreement to engage with Europe. Free movement and immigration comes under full UK control.
That's my understanding of it anyway. There are some in the party that are wanting it to be a bit softer, some that are holding her to those promises and that's where the friction is currently playing out.

Labour? those frictions seem to be as deep if not deeper and I can't easily decode exactly what the party line is in practical terms.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #71  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:07 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
As I think Theresa may said in March, out of the single market, out of the customs union, new trade deals with the rest of the world and a new agreement to engage with Europe. Free movement and immigration comes under full UK control.
That's my understanding of it anyway. There are some in the party that are wanting it to be a bit softer, some that are holding her to those promises and that's where the friction is currently playing out.

Labour? those frictions seem to be as deep if not deeper and I can't easily decode exactly what the party line is in practical terms.
Ye-es - but with all the recent talk about "a" customs "partnership" which would have the same practical effect as being in the customs union, vs a "max fac" technology option which would mean actually having different customs rules, it's not clear what the actual aim is - maximum alignment with EU, at the cost of rule-taking, or more friction at the borders but greater freedom to make customs policy. Until we know which way they're going to jump on that, "out of the customs union" is a fudge. Which is fine, up to a point, but that point is fast approaching.

(You can say the same about "out the single market" - there has been talk of aligning standards to meet e.g. Rules of Origin requirements, but I've no idea if anyone's actually decided on that.)

Labour, AFAIK, are officially saying that they want "a" customs union, but out the single market and no FoM. Plus it'll be "jobs-first", whatever that means. But where they or the Tories actually plan to end up is anyone's guess.
  #72  
Old 07-18-2018, 07:44 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
It looks like Labour is trying to prove they can match the Tories for each step into dysfunction.

John Woodcock resigns from Labour and says the party has been taken over by the hard left. He’s correct, but it’s always nice to see someone calling Corbyn out
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ks-resignation

Labour MP Margaret Hodge calls Corbyn an anti-Semitic racist to his face.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...was-right-call
  #73  
Old 08-12-2018, 01:56 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
There has been coverage of the anti-Semitism row in the Labour Party twice this week in major USA media.

The New Yorker

New York Times opinion page

It is pretty rare for an opposition UK party to get any coverage in the USA unless there is a major scandal.

Of course, Corbyn being Corbyn and completely inflexible will not change. And, he'll continue his coup to remake the Labour Party in a 1970's image that Tony Benn would be proud of.
  #74  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:20 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,346
I gave up on that New Yorker piece with the line, "But there are things you do not need to look at to see." Yes, just close your eyes and "see" that the anti-racist left are really Nazis! Of course!
  #75  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:57 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
It looks like Labour is trying to prove they can match the Tories for each step into dysfunction.

John Woodcock resigns from Labour and says the party has been taken over by the hard left. He’s correct, but it’s always nice to see someone calling Corbyn out
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...ks-resignation

Labour MP Margaret Hodge calls Corbyn an anti-Semitic racist to his face.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...was-right-call
Did the fact that Hodge is a Zionist and a major apologist of Israeli occupation get reporters?
  #76  
Old 08-13-2018, 06:25 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Did the fact that Hodge is a Zionist and a major apologist of Israeli occupation get reporters?
All of the people trying to label Corbyn as an anti-semite have a pretty obvious bias (Tom Watson - funded by Trevor Chinn (Labour Friends of Israel), Margaret Hodge - member of Labour Friends of Israel, etc)

Al Jazeera did a good documentary on just how pervasive the Israel lobby are in British politics ( https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/ ), and it gives a good explanation on why there's so much eagerness to ruin a potential PM who's known to support a Palestinian state.
  #77  
Old 08-13-2018, 09:03 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
All of the people trying to label Corbyn as an anti-semite have a pretty obvious bias (Tom Watson - funded by Trevor Chinn (Labour Friends of Israel), Margaret Hodge - member of Labour Friends of Israel, etc)

Al Jazeera did a good documentary on just how pervasive the Israel lobby are in British politics ( https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/ ), and it gives a good explanation on why there's so much eagerness to ruin a potential PM who's known to support a Palestinian state.
Oh, come on.

Given Corbyn has:
  • appeared at conferences alongside anti-semites;
  • *hosted* conferences featuring anti-semites;
  • invited anti-semites to the Houses of Parliament;
  • claimed he saw "the hand of Israel" in an Islamist terror attack in Egypt;
  • fucked up the launch of his own party's report into anti-semitism so badly that not only did a Jewish MP get harassed *at the event* to the point where she left in tears but he himself was photographed laughing and joking *afterwards* with the guy who harassed her;
  • been patron of not one but two organisations (STWC and PSC) which have been shown to have their own massive and obvious anti-semitism problems.
  • laid wreaths at the graves of the Munich terrorists;
  • presided over a Labour Party that is increasingly hostile to Jews;
  • fought bitterly to avoid adopting the full IHRA definition plus examples when there were considerable benefits to doing so without ever explaining why exactly...

we really, really, don't need to conjure up conspiracies to explain why people might consider him to be an anti-semite. I mean, maybe they're wrong! He might just be really, really unlucky. But the suggestion that anyone who's drawing inferences from the above must have their judgement clouded by Israeli money or that this is all just conjured up in a desperate attempt to silence his views on Palestine doesn't really hold water.
  #78  
Old 08-14-2018, 03:06 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
  • appeared at conferences alongside anti-semites;
  • *hosted* conferences featuring anti-semites;
  • invited anti-semites to the Houses of Parliament;
  • claimed he saw "the hand of Israel" in an Islamist terror attack in Egypt;
  • fucked up the launch of his own party's report into anti-semitism so badly that not only did a Jewish MP get harassed *at the event* to the point where she left in tears but he himself was photographed laughing and joking *afterwards* with the guy who harassed her;
  • been patron of not one but two organisations (STWC and PSC) which have been shown to have their own massive and obvious anti-semitism problems.
  • laid wreaths at the graves of the Munich terrorists;
  • presided over a Labour Party that is increasingly hostile to Jews;
  • fought bitterly to avoid adopting the full IHRA definition plus examples when there were considerable benefits to doing so without ever explaining why exactly...
With no insult aimed at you, lists like the above are to me indicative of the ongoing smear campaign that's being orchestrated. The above claims are all heavily contentious, and often based on some very hypocritical logic. Let me outline where I have issues:

For starters, let's start with the hypocritical logic. IHRA defines as anti-semitical blaming Jews for the actions of Israel, which is obviously reasonable. However, here one of the examples of Corbyn being anti-semitical is he's heavily critical of Israel's policies, for example his comment that Israel may have attempted to destabilise Egypt. I find it concerning that people are trying to play both sides of the argument here. You're anti-semitical if you criticise Jews for what Israel does, but if you criticise Israel you're also anti-semitical.

Then we have the circular logic that groups who are opposed to Israel's policies in Palestine often have links to people who are anti-semites, so therefor supporting them means you must be anti semitical. By my reckoning, that's 5 out of your 9 points. Often this is just outrageously wrong - for example, the conference I think you're referring to where Hajo Meye compared Israel's Palestinian policies to the Nazis. I really do not accept that a Jewish holocaust survivor is an anti-semite, and associating with him indicates Corbyn must also be an anti-semite. On other occasions, the logic is that Corbyn has had several meetings with known enemies of Israel, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. By this logic Clinton was clearly an enemy of the UK when he invited Sin Fein to the White House in 92. I do not understand how anyone can see a way forward in the Palestine that does not involve meeting with the major political parties of the Palestinians?

Then you have seriously dubious events, such as Ruth Smeeth's tears at the anti-semitism event. Ruth Smeeth, former director of PR for the Israeli lobbying organisation Bicom. A woman renowned to be tough as hell, and a hard operator who gets what she wants. Driven to public tears by Marc Wadsworth's comments that he'd seen the Telegraph and Smeeth sharing a press release, and had made an anti-semitical slur that no-one else witnessed. You'll excuse me if I find that really, really convenient for people who are trying to argue that Corbyn encourages anti-semitism.

The munich wreath incident I'm still reading about, but as far as I've seen so far the logic is that he was at a wreath laying ceremony for victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike on the PLO's office in Tunis, but this is a terrible thing because some of the members of Black September are buried at the same cemetery. Guilt by association really does seem to be a common theme here.

The final point is the one that concerns me most. He's anti-semitical because he does not agree with the IHRA's definition of anti-semitism. Well I guess I'm guilty too because I really would not agree that "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" means you're an anti-semite. I can entirely see why Hajo Meye made the comparison, because when you're talking about sustained campaigns aimed to wipe out an entire group there's usually one obvious benchmark to apply. And again, it's the whole double standard. You mustn't judge Jews by the actions of the nation...but if you make a comparison of the nation that's too close to the bone, you're also judging Jews.

So like I say, I go through lists like the above and I can't help but notice just how well orchestrated the campaign is to attack Corbyn, and then wonder just how much of that is linked to the possibility of the UK getting a PM who is heavily critical of Israel's Palestinian policies.
  #79  
Old 08-14-2018, 08:00 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
With no insult aimed at you, lists like the above are to me indicative of the ongoing smear campaign that's being orchestrated. The above claims are all heavily contentious, and often based on some very hypocritical logic. Let me outline where I have issues:

For starters, let's start with the hypocritical logic. IHRA defines as anti-semitical blaming Jews for the actions of Israel, which is obviously reasonable. However, here one of the examples of Corbyn being anti-semitical is he's heavily critical of Israel's policies, for example his comment that Israel may have attempted to destabilise Egypt. I find it concerning that people are trying to play both sides of the argument here. You're anti-semitical if you criticise Jews for what Israel does, but if you criticise Israel you're also anti-semitical.
"I think I see the hand of Israel" isn't criticising Israel for it's actions though, is it? It's inventing Israeli actions with no evidence in order to paint it as a shadowy and malevolent power that must, must, surely be behind every bad thing that happens in the Middle East. It's witless conspiracism that just so happens to absolve other actors in the region of any moral responsibility for atrocities and throw it all at the door of Israel. He has no inkling of any evidence of Israeli involvement, but he's ready to suspect it because he knows, deep down, that the Israelis are the bad guys.

Quote:
Then we have the circular logic that groups who are opposed to Israel's policies in Palestine often have links to people who are anti-semites, so therefor supporting them means you must be anti semitical. By my reckoning, that's 5 out of your 9 points.
A record of continually associating with people who are anti-semites and never, ever speaking up against their slurs when you encounter them doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-semitic - it could just mean that you either can't recognise anti-semitism when you see it or that you don't think it worth speaking up against. None of these reflect well on Corbyn, that principled champion of the downtrodden. It's quite possible - and even principled - to call out your allies when you think they've crossed a line. Corbyn never has. Why not?

Quote:
Often this is just outrageously wrong - for example, the conference I think you're referring to where Hajo Meye compared Israel's Palestinian policies to the Nazis. I really do not accept that a Jewish holocaust survivor is an anti-semite, and associating with him indicates Corbyn must also be an anti-semite.
The conference, which, again, he was hosting, was subtitled "From Auschwitz to Gaza" which might be considered problematic regardless of who was speaking. Corbyn may have felt he couldn't contradict Hajo Meyer but he didn't have any problems stopping Rubin Katz (also a Holocaust survivor) from speaking from the floor at the same event, having apparently assured him he'd get a chance to speak. He didn't make any comments when another speaker who was not a Holocaust survivor likened the Jews to Nazis later at the same event. He has a well established pattern of keeping schtum when people he otherwise agrees with come out with material he later claims to have found objectionable and this event bears that out.

Quote:
On other occasions, the logic is that Corbyn has had several meetings with known enemies of Israel, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. By this logic Clinton was clearly an enemy of the UK when he invited Sin Fein to the White House in 92. I do not understand how anyone can see a way forward in the Palestine that does not involve meeting with the major political parties of the Palestinians?
One - Clinton was President and actually in a position to move the peace process forward. When Corbyn met terrorists, he was an insignificant backbencher with no ability to influence the peace process in any way. Two - Clinton also met with people from NI and the UK. Corbyn has never invited representatives of Israel to HoC, never spoken alongside supporters of Israel at rallies, but has turned down invitations (plural) to Yad Vashem, and also to meet with Israeli politicians. Talking to Palestinian political parties (which is a hell of euphemism for Hamas, by the way, and doesn't cover Iran-backed Hezbollah at all) may be part of a peace process, but clearly so is talking to Israel and Corbyn, pursuer of dialogue that he is, refuses to do so. Three - Clinton was - quite rightly - severely criticised for his invite to Adams at the time and it did damage his perception in the UK as an honest broker. And that was just one incident! Imagine if he'd had a long history of issuing invites to IRA members, calling them "brother" and attending memorials to terrorists. How would that have affected the peace process?

Quote:
Then you have seriously dubious events, such as Ruth Smeeth's tears at the anti-semitism event. Ruth Smeeth, former director of PR for the Israeli lobbying organisation Bicom. A woman renowned to be tough as hell, and a hard operator who gets what she wants. Driven to public tears by Marc Wadsworth's comments that he'd seen the Telegraph and Smeeth sharing a press release, and had made an anti-semitical slur that no-one else witnessed. You'll excuse me if I find that really, really convenient for people who are trying to argue that Corbyn encourages anti-semitism.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is that's its possible that a Jewish MP really did care about the issue of anti-semitism in her party; isn't the unfeeling battleaxe she's painted as; and was shocked and distressed when an event that should have been about laying these concerns to rest turned out to be mobbed by uninvited activists, one of whom made a point of singling her out and accusing her of being in collusion with a media conspiracy because she was handed the activist's press release by a Telegraph journalist; and further upset when her party leader failed to do anything about it. "Even apparently tough people can have emotions" is a much, much easier notion for me to believe than "Ruth Smeeth, having been accused of colluding with the media, was unmoved by this but immediately realised it formed a pretext for her to pretend to be upset so that she could support Israel by undermining Jeremy Corbyn, who she quite rightly feared would save the Palestinians which she, for some reason or other, doesn't want to see happen."

Quote:
The munich wreath incident I'm still reading about, but as far as I've seen so far the logic is that he was at a wreath laying ceremony for victims of the 1985 Israeli airstrike on the PLO's office in Tunis, but this is a terrible thing because some of the members of Black September are buried at the same cemetery. Guilt by association really does seem to be a common theme here.
He wrote an account of the event shortly after. In it he states that they laid wreaths for those who died in the 1985 attack "and on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991". That's him saying that the wreaths were for Black September members involved in Munich. Guilt by association doesn't come into it. He knew exactly who the wreaths were being laid for and said so quite happily in print. Now, it may be that it never occured to him to consider whether it was appropriate to lay wreaths at the graves of people behind the murder and castration of civilians for political ends. I think it quite likely that the question never crossed his mind. But he did it. Because they had been killed by Mossad, therefore they were noble victims of the oppressor and it was as simple as that.

The victims of the 1985 airstrike who had wreaths laid at their graves were also terrorists.

Quote:
The final point is the one that concerns me most. He's anti-semitical because he does not agree with the IHRA's definition of anti-semitism. Well I guess I'm guilty too because I really would not agree that "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" means you're an anti-semite. I can entirely see why Hajo Meye made the comparison, because when you're talking about sustained campaigns aimed to wipe out an entire group there's usually one obvious benchmark to apply. And again, it's the whole double standard. You mustn't judge Jews by the actions of the nation...but if you make a comparison of the nation that's too close to the bone, you're also judging Jews.
Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, and the settlements, are frequently appalling, with systematic human rights violations and probable war crimes. But you've smuggled an assumption in there that Israel is in the middle of a "sustained campaign to wipe out an entire group". If that were true, there wouldn't be any Palestinians left by now. If you had to choose between being a Jew in Poland in 1938, or a Palestinian at any point since 1948, you'd pick option B out of pure survival instinct. Israel is not conducting genocide and it's actions - though often abhorrent - are not equivalent to the Nazi's. In the light of that, likening the victims of the Holocaust to the oppressors is not just unfair but twisted and cruel and - because that cruelty depends on its targets' Jewishness to gain its power - anti-semitic.

Quote:
So like I say, I go through lists like the above and I can't help but notice just how well orchestrated the campaign is to attack Corbyn, and then wonder just how much of that is linked to the possibility of the UK getting a PM who is heavily critical of Israel's Palestinian policies.
That's where we differ. Because I go through lists like the above and I can't help but notice just how easy it is to find Corbyn being at best weak on anti-semitism and at worst supporting terrorists who really would happily finish what the Nazis started, and then wonder how much of that is linked to the possibility that he is incapable of conceiving of Israel and/or the Jews as anything other than the imperialist oppressors.

There are a lot of people opposed to Corbyn's policies, and I'm quite sure that a lot of them are (using the ammunition he's spent his life stockpiling for them) attacking him for reasons that aren't, primarily, about their personal horror at racism in the UK's institutions (because if not, boy do they have a lot to talk about). But the ammunition is there for them to use. And I have got past the point, personally, of putting it down to his little peccadilloes, or trying to discount criticism because it comes from the wrong people. He fights every kind of racism except anti-semitism, he pals around with terrorists without ever advancing the cause of peace so much as an inch, and when he's confronted with it he either lies or falls back on pathetic disingenuities like "I was present but I wasn't involved". Enough.
  #80  
Old 08-14-2018, 10:07 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
The victims of the 1985 airstrike who had wreaths laid at their graves were also terrorists.
I'm going to partially retract this bit. I'd originally thought wreaths were laid at the specific graves of Force 17 commanders , not at a general memorial which includes civilians.

So some of those victims were also terrorists, and Corbyn didn't or couldn't work out if it was worth differentiating.
  #81  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:07 PM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
So some of those victims were also terrorists, and Corbyn didn't or couldn't work out if it was worth differentiating.
Excuse a partial response, but it's late and I'm off to bed soon...

...but I'm still waiting for confirmation on just who is buried there:

https://evolvepolitics.com/there-wer...orbyn-visited/

"As documented by the acclaimed book One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre, by Simon Reeve, the 8 terrorists who committed the Munich Massacre were:

Luttif Afif – Killed by West German Police at the scene
Yusuf Nazzal – Killed by West German Police at the scene
Afif Ahmed Hamid – Killed by West German Police at the scene
Khalid Jawad – Killed by West German Police at the scene
Ahmed Chic Thaa – Killed by West German Police at the scene
Mohammed Safady – Captured by West German Police
Adnan Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police
Jamal Al-Gashey – Captured by West German Police


...Of the 8 terrorists listed above who perpetrated the atrocity, NONE are buried at the cemetery in Tunis that Corbyn visited:

Luttif Afif – Buried at Sidi Munaidess Cemetery, Libya
Yusuf Nazzal – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya
Afif Ahmed Hamid – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya
Khalid Jawad – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya
Ahmed Chic Thaa – Buried at Sid Munaidess Cemetery, Libya
Mohammed Safady – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave
Adnan Al-Gashey – Allegedly killed by Mossad, unknown grave
Jamal Al-Gashey – Was reportedly still alive in 1999"

Of course that's just one cite, but certainly I think there's enough confusion over who's buried there to prevent jumping to any conclusions yet.
  #82  
Old 08-15-2018, 09:05 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Here's a piece on it from the Guardian.

In short, he's spent his life taking sides and frequently of those who are enemies of the UK. The wreath laying was entirely in character and he can either be honest about his motivations and actions or not. Either will give him grief because his loyalties are a matter of record but by doing neither he looks impotent.

He is and was a shit choice for Labour leader.
  #83  
Old 08-15-2018, 02:15 PM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
he's spent his life taking sides and frequently of those who are enemies of the UK.
Could you please list those enemies. Is Eastasia on the list?
  #84  
Old 08-16-2018, 02:27 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Could you please list those enemies. Is Eastasia on the list?
Ask the author of the article, he's the one making the claim. He doesn't use the word "enemy" but he does say that Corbyn in the past has been on the side of the PLO and the IRA. I'm happy for you to supply a equally succinct word that describes those organisations if you can think of one.

I can't complain that you chose a 1984 reference as I do it often enough but it is a little ironic seeing as Corbyn is engaged (badly) in doublethink (he both laid a wreath and didn't at the same time) and given his (not so distant) past associations I think the book is relevant for his words and actions.
  #85  
Old 08-16-2018, 03:49 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Ask the author of the article, he's the one making the claim. He doesn't use the word "enemy" but he does say that Corbyn in the past has been on the side of the PLO and the IRA
Except that's not actually what the article says, is it:

"Instead, in Israel/Palestine his position was not that of a healing conciliator of two warring peoples, but rather “to eradicate Zionism”, to cite the stated goal of the Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine of which he was a sponsor. In Northern Ireland, he was for republicanism and against unionism, taking part for example in a 1987 ceremony to honour not all victims of terrorism, but eight IRA gunmen killed by the SAS. As he put it at the time: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”

I was not aware that we were at war with Ireland or the Palestine, or had classed them as our enemies.
  #86  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:11 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Except that's not actually what the article says, is it:

"Instead, in Israel/Palestine his position was not that of a healing conciliator of two warring peoples, but rather “to eradicate Zionism”, to cite the stated goal of the Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine of which he was a sponsor. In Northern Ireland, he was for republicanism and against unionism, taking part for example in a 1987 ceremony to honour not all victims of terrorism, but eight IRA gunmen killed by the SAS. As he put it at the time: “I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland.”

I was not aware that we were at war with Ireland or the Palestine, or had classed them as our enemies.
I paraphrased the article to get the gist across (which is only good mannners), the long version directly from the article is certainly more descriptive but really not any kinder to Corbyn.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with an organisation for them to be an enemy. "political enemies" are a dime a dozen. But like I said. I used "enemy" as a shorthand for the status of relationships between the UK and the PLO or republican terrorists.

If I asked you to use a single word to describe the UK's view of the IRA (instead of "enemy" ) what would you use? I'm open to suggestions but bearing in mind that the IRA had the premeditated intent of killing UK soldiers, politicians and innocent citizens.....I'm struggling to think of a term that isn't at least a little bit pejorative.
  #87  
Old 08-16-2018, 11:43 AM
JBGUSA JBGUSA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: New York City area
Posts: 278
He also laid a wreath at the tomb of Munich massacre killers from Black September. Quite the Jew-hater apparently.
  #88  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:41 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBGUSA View Post
He also laid a wreath at the tomb of Munich massacre killers from Black September. Quite the Jew-hater apparently.
This is a fantastic example of just what is meant by a smear campaign.

As already posted above, he did not lay a wreath for any of the Munich terrorists, and indeed they're not even buried at he cemetery in question. However for those who want to damn the man, it really did happen and proves he hates jews.
  #89  
Old 08-17-2018, 01:48 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
This is a fantastic example of just what is meant by a smear campaign.

As already posted above, he did not lay a wreath for any of the Munich terrorists, and indeed they're not even buried at he cemetery in question. However for those who want to damn the man, it really did happen and proves he hates jews.
You are right that he didn't directly lay a wreath for the Munich terrorists. However, it is not clear exactly what he did do, what wreath he laid and for whom (and wreaths were laid for problematic characters to say the least) and for his inability to know or care about the difference is a problem for him. As is the knowledge that his past pronouncements put him on the side of the PLO and IRA etc. Those are a matter of record and so it is a problem for him when he tries to claim that he would have nothing to do with honouring terrorists. He would, he has and now he is a bind because his deeply felt principles are in conflict with what he knows the public think is acceptable.

His problem, one of his own historic making and one he needs to be fully honest about. That was what the article said. Neither it or I thinks he hates Jews but I am pretty certain that he prefers the PLO over the Israeli state.
  #90  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:08 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I paraphrased the article to get the gist across (which is only good mannners), the long version directly from the article is certainly more descriptive but really not any kinder to Corbyn.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with an organisation for them to be an enemy. "political enemies" are a dime a dozen. But like I said. I used "enemy" as a shorthand for the status of relationships between the UK and the PLO or republican terrorists.

If I asked you to use a single word to describe the UK's view of the IRA (instead of "enemy" ) what would you use? I'm open to suggestions but bearing in mind that the IRA had the premeditated intent of killing UK soldiers, politicians and innocent citizens.....I'm struggling to think of a term that isn't at least a little bit pejorative.
There comes a point where "paraphrase" becomes "misrepresents".

For example, leaping from "“I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland" to "he supports the IRA".

The phrase I'd use for the IRA, by the way, is "the IRA". Personally I'd hope for a bit more nuance in political thought than Them/Us/Goodies/Baddies, especially when you're talking about topics such as independence. Arlene Foster was able to attend the funeral of Martin McGuinness, as indeed was Bill Clinton. Do you view that as supporting enemies of the UK?
  #91  
Old 08-17-2018, 02:12 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I am pretty certain that he prefers the PLO over the Israeli state.
Cite please. And can I ask why you refer to the PLO, rather than the Palestinian people, yet the Israeli State rather than for example Likud. It's akin to me saying you prefer the Lib Dems to the United Kingdom.
  #92  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:37 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,799
The actual perpertrators of Munich aren't buried in the cemetery. The people who gave the orders are.

The four graves in question are those of:

Salah Khalaf, a founder of Black September;
Fakhri al-Omri, senior member of Black September;
Atef Bsieso, planner of Munich,
Hayel Abdel-Hamid, close adviser to Khalaf.

This Twitter thread provides exhaustive sources for these men's invovlement in Black September. Including an interview with another founder of BS who names Khalaf as co-founder and intimately involved in Munich planning (for which the interviewee remains unapologetic).

It's also notable that these graves are separate from the memorial to the victims of the 1985 airstrike. That's entirely appropriate, as this is not how they died. These are the specific graves Corbyn was thinking of in 2014 when he wrote up his account of the meeting saying wreaths were laid "on the graves of others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991" and they are the graves right next to which he is photographed holding a wreath.
  #93  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:11 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
There comes a point where "paraphrase" becomes "misrepresents".
and I was nowhere near it. What I wrote said pretty much what the article said and I provided a link to anyone willing to read the whole thing.

Quote:
For example, leaping from "“I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland" to "he supports the IRA".
and you can show me where I made that leap and which of my posts you took that quote from? Just so we are all being careful not to misrepresent eh?

Quote:
The phrase I'd use for the IRA, by the way, is "the IRA".
which is just dodging and everyone can see it. The IRA were very clearly and by their own definition an enemy of the UK. If they were not engaged in a war against the UK then their declaration that it was over is meaningless no?

Quote:
Personally I'd hope for a bit more nuance in political thought than Them/Us/Goodies/Baddies, especially when you're talking about topics such as independence.
So tell that to Corbyn not me, ask him to pull his foot out his mouth and express his thoughts clearly and in line with what we know his record suggests........if he can.

Quote:
Arlene Foster was able to attend the funeral of Martin McGuinness, as indeed was Bill Clinton. Do you view that as supporting enemies of the UK?
What was McGuinnness's position at the point of his death? Was he still involved in an active armed campaign against the UK or was he involved in peaceful political efforts for change?
  #94  
Old 08-17-2018, 10:26 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Cite please.
I have no cite and I don't claim it as a fact but I believe it to be true. He could come out and change my mind tomorrow but his past decades of words and deeds, thus far, lead me to believe that he is on the Palestinian side against Israel.

Again, fine. It is a valid position but he is utterly shite at navigating his response when called on it.

Quote:
And can I ask why you refer to the PLO, rather than the Palestinian people, yet the Israeli State rather than for example Likud. It's akin to me saying you prefer the Lib Dems to the United Kingdom.
The PLO was the organisation mentioned most prominently in the article, Israel as a state was also mentioned. Likud not at all.
  #95  
Old 09-12-2018, 10:41 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,306
Looks like Corbyn wants his terrorist buddies around him even if they can’t pass a background check.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...iament-despite
  #96  
Old 09-13-2018, 03:53 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,450
What an idiot Corbyn is.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017