I’m not a Corbyn fan by any means but is there actual evidence for this? My take on it is he sympathises with the causes of certain terrorist groups, but not their methods.
Nobody can know what is going on in Cobryn’s head or his level of decency or indecency. We only know what he does and says.
[quote]
Jeremy Corbyn has defended his record of support for Sinn Féin and denied that he supported the IRA or honoured republican violence. The Labour leader told the Andrew Neil Interviews on the BBC on Friday night that all his engagement with Northern Ireland was in pursuit of peace.
[quote]
Republican here means he doesn’t like the royal family, nothing to do with US politics.
Being friendly toward terrorists, regardless of the reason, is generally a bad look politically. Corbyn’s actions around the Skripal poisoning is kind of similar. He never said Russia should be allowed to murder people on UK soil, he just didn’t come out strongly against it because he likes Russia. (This hurt Labour’s support among voters, who weren’t happy about Russian government agents committing murder on UK soil.)
John McDonell supports the same policies as Corbyn, generally (he’s a committed left wing Labour MP) but he was a much better politician.
At best you can say Corbyn was a terrible politician. He was capable of making himself look like he supported the IRA, Russia, and anti-Semitism even if he never supported any of those things, and none of those topics really had much to do with his policies (so he could have avoided all of those topics). Labour will probably do far better with a leader like Keir Starmer or McDonnell, both of whom are capable of demonstrating political sense.
Doesn’t seem too sensible for Stamer to collude with Torries.
I wouldn’t expect Starmer (or McDonnell) to collude with Tories. They’re left wingers. I just expect them to be smart enough not to willingly walk through a minefield.
So far both have demonstrated political common sense on at least some occasions. (I know too little about McDonnell to be sure that he’s always rational.)
It’s just the UN but the article demonstrates the ability of journalists to see the issues involved when Russia is involved. But we don’t see many articles calmly explaining how left wing Jewish people are smeared or called “not real Jews” (see above) just for defending human rights and fighting white supremicy in Israel.
Typical mix of Israeli flags and pro holocaust messages amoung the Trump LARP putschers the other day.
Isarel and right wing extremism go hand in hand, whether it’s admiration of a model white ethno state, weird biblical shit about Armageddon, on hatred of Arabs and Muslims or just because they are happy all the Jewish people are in one place, American anti Semites often love Israel.
If you have absolutely NO ancestral, cultural, or religious connection to Judaism, have never stepped foot in a synagogue in your life, have never claimed to be Jewish by any definition at any time prior to age 60, and in some cases openly admit that you are choosing to identify as Jewish solely to complain about Israel, then you are not a real Jew.
I don’t respect the artificial taboo on calling out fake Jews that you and the rest of the left-wingers obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories are attempting to create.
(ZS is here quoting The Jewish Chronicle).
I’m not sure where JC is getting that claim from. Here’s another article from them.
The accusation you quoted seems to be deeply distorting and denying Ms. Manson’s identity.
Very strange of her to give the quote, in that case.
I also reserve the right to say that, even if someone has ethnic ancestry and can claim to be a Jew, they are not a particularly good one if they advocate for the mass death of Jews. And that’s fundamentally the issue here - the left largely does not care about human rights in general or Palestinian rights in particular (all of these people mentioned are huge boosters of the Assad regime in Syria which kills more Palestinians every year than Israel can manage in decades) and their claims about what they want to happen in the Levant and why are not to be taken at face value by anyone outside of their little cult.
No objective observer can conclude that the solution to issues with the Israeli government’s human rights record should be to dissolve the country, give control of the land to Hamas, and let the chips fall where they may in terms of what genocides may come. No one can look at the way Corbyn and Walker and the rest of the Momentum wing of Labour have lauded those who kill Jews in Germany, Argentina, and England and conclude that this is just about Israel.
Left-wing “anti-Zionism” is fundamentally entwined with the vision of a world in which there is no living Jew between Istanbul and Lahore, and those Jews elsewhere are a permanent political underclass who are presumed guilty of financing the slave trade, corrupting the good Christian youth, etc and remain unmolested only by acts of undeserved grace. The tired metaphysical argument about whether “anti-Zionism without anti-Semitism” is possible is irrelevant to the fact that, in the world in which we actually live, the actual character of “anti-Zionist” movements always involves debate over what percentage of actually living Jews need to be gassed to achieve the desired political end, and an obsession with unhinged notions of Jewish power that magically is the root cause of every bad thing in the life of an average person in London.
Thanks, this is why we need to ignore the false allegations of anti-Semitism. To religious extremists, there is no possible debate and they will smear anyone:
“the actual character of “anti-Zionist” movements always involves debate over what percentage of actually living Jews need to be gassed to achieve the desired political end”
crikey!
Hey, you don’t have to reserve the right: you can say whatever nonsense you’d like. But this sort of misrepresentation of someone isn’t just nonsense: it’s loathsome nonsense bordering on blood libel.
You and Sarah Palin should probably do a little more research on what the phrase “blood libel” means.
Wikipedia says:
The term ‘blood libel’ has also been used in reference to any unpleasant or damaging false accusation, and as a result, it has acquired a broader metaphorical meaning. However, this wider usage of the term remains controversial, and Jewish groups object to it.[9][10][11]
His usage seems cromulent, although I get why Jewish groups wouldn’t want to embiggen use of the phrase.
Found a cartoonist you might like Zoster.
Thanks, but I’m good on my research. Blood libel is the charge that Jews kills Christians as part of their religion–in effect, that Jews advocated the mass death of Christians.
You didn’t make that accusation. You accused a Jew of advocating the mass death of Jews. It was, as I said, bordering on blood libel. I stand by what I said.
If you think I was insufficiently precise in my charge, perhaps you could model the precision you’d like to see going forward.
I’m Jewish and I think the region Israel currently occupies should either consist of one democratically elected state with equal citizenship rights for everyone within it or two. Israel completely failing to allow either of those options to occur is their problem to solve not anyone else’s, and people boycotting them because of their untenable position on the matter is completely reasonable.
This is patently ridiculous on it’s face though. The Isreali government is a political organization, not a race. I don’t care about the racial makeup of the individual members of a political organization, if that organization abuses its power and does bad things to a sufficient degree, then that organization does not deserve to continue existing. When I criticize the Chinese Communist Party, it’s not “genocidal racism” to say that it ought to be abolished because of all the horror, abuse and suffering it causes. Likewise, when considering the abuse of power by the Isreali government against the Palestinians, it’s not racism to say that those abuses undermine the legitimacy of that organization.
My criticisms of the CCP or the Isreali government or any other organization would be exactly the same if they were made up entirely of white americans, or arab muslims, or martians. Race isn’t even a factor, but the effort to construe it as such is disgusting and intellectually dishonest.
There are plenty of racist jerkoffs who want harm to the Jewish people for no discernible reason other than irrational hatred. The 20th century proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt. But to try to paint all criticism of an organization as being mostly fueled by genocidal intent? That’s so absurd it’s offensive! And more to the point, it makes legitimate accusations against people who in fact do harbor irrational hatred less credible, as it becomes impossible to discern signal from noise.
You have completely and totally misunderstood the nature of the Middle East. The Israeli government is, of course, as you say, a political organization; But it exists to represent a nation, a people, an ethnic group, and, yes, a ‘race’ called the Jewish people.
The enemies of Israel who oppose it do not just oppose the political organization called the government, which is comprised of 120 representatives who sit in the Israeli Parliament.: they oppose the ENTIRE EXISTENCE of the nation of Israel.
Of course not–because when you criticize the Chinese Communist Party, you are not in any way attacking the existence of the Chinese nation…you are simply urging a change in policies of its government.
And if you want to criticize the Israeli government–that’s fine, there are lots of Israelis who will welcome you. Elections are being held on March 23-there are many protests taking place
every day., with hundreds and thousands of people who agree with you, and you are welcome to join us, …
The problem is if you extend your criticism of Israeli government policy to include support for the Palestinian enemy who wants to destroy not just the government , but the entire nation of Israel.
That’s when you cross the line into racism.
There are 120 members of Parliament in Israel. Approximately 40 of them oppose the policies of the Israeli government, and you are welcome to join them in criticizing Israel. But you must do so by supporting one of the parties represented by those 40 Israeli citizens.
But if you choose to express your criticism by supporting the Palestinians , you are a racist, because the Palestinian leadership is openly and proudly racist, committed to destroying the Israeli nation.
Most western liberals who are support Palestinian rights are very naive about this, and honestly do not realize that their ideals of peace and equality are actually encouraging racism. They don’t understand that they are supporting groups such as ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas,Islamic Jihad–all of which are proudly racist.
You are welcome to criticize the Israeli government, just like the Chinese government. You should be careful not to let your criticism spill over into racism.
The Chinese nation will still exist no matter what decisions its government makes. The Israeli nation will be wiped off the map and several million Jews will be murdered if its government makes the wrong decisions.
Please… express your criticism carefully.
In your opinion, is there a way to express a view such as that of DeadTreasSecretaries, namely that Israel is obligated by democracy and human-rights principles to honor the rights of Palestinians within their historical homeland—either in the form of full and equal citizenship within a single democratic state consisting of all the territory currently under Israel’s control, or in the form of a sovereign state of their own in the current occupied territories removed from Israeli control—without being racist?
Because it sounds as though you’re saying that any assertion that Palestinians have an equal claim with Israelis to rights and sovereignty within their ancestral lands is automatically racist against Jews, because that’s “supporting the Palestinians”. So is there a way to say “The Israeli government must respect the right of Palestinian people to be either equal citizens in a single Israeli-Palestinian nation-state, or citizens of a sovereign nation-state on territory now controlled by Israel”, without in your opinion being racist against Jews?
The Palestinians are not just asking for a “sovereign state on territory now controlled by Israel”–they are demanding a sovereign state on ALL the land
they want, and that means DESTROYING Israel. And killing all its Jewish inhabitants.
So to answer your question: yes, there is a way to make your statement without being racist. You simply have to say that you support the rights of the Palestinians to a peaceful state alongside Israel. Which means that you must state “FIRST,we, Kimstu and DeadTreasSec, call on the Palestinians to admit that it is their full and sole responsibility to announce publicly that they renounce all intentions to destroy Israel.Second, because the Palestinians have spent the past couple decades shooting missiles at Israel and planting bombs on busses, we call on the Palestinians to prove their intentions, by dismantling their terror infrastructure. After that,–and only after that— I Kimstu will support them in their sovereign state.”
Anything else means that you are supporting parties which are willing to commit genocide. So , yes, just saying “the Palestinians have a right to be independent in their homeland”–is racist. It sounds good to western ears, but it is a dangerous half-truth—if you don’t add your demand that the Palestinians first cease their racism, declare peace, and back it up with actions that promote peace.