The depths of Britain's Labor (they say Labour) party anti-Semitism

We are not obligated to take claims of caring about “Palestinian human rights” at face value from people who:

  1. Belong to leftist groups whose scorn for the concept of human rights worldwide is active and consistent - the loudest advocates for “Palestinian human rights” are also the biggest supporters of the bloodthirsty Maduro, Putin, Kim, Xi, Khameini, and Assad regimes. There is no such concept as “human rights” in Marxism, a philosophy that rejects the notion that individual human freedom has any value or even meaning, and the actual people claiming that their motivation re: the fate of Jews in the Middle East is “Palestinian human rights” defend every genocide, every dictator, and every human rights violation in the world as a righteous act of “anti-imperialism.”
  2. Actively defend the slaughter of Palestinians in particular and Muslims more generally when done by people they support. The biggest killer of Palestinians for the past 10 years has been the Assad regime, but you not only don’t support even treating a totalitarian, mass grave-generating successor to Hitler on par with what you want done to relatively democratic and cautious Israel, you support him and oppose any effort at all to control his genocidal activities. The worst things that have happened to Muslims in modern history were the genocides in Bosnia and the ongoing Holocaust in Xinjiang, and again the left alternately denies and supports these atrocities. Don’t claim that you actually care about the lives or rights of these groups when you obviously do not.

The leftist support of Arab terrorism (what you actually support, not “Palestinian human rights”) and opposition to Jewish community existence (what you actually oppose, not “the Israeli government”) goes back to Cold War loyalties. The Soviet bloc found that Jews in their prison countries were not a compliant group of people because they maintained loyalty to their religion and their community in a system where loyalty to anything but the state was a threat, around the same time that they found financing and supplying Arab terrorists was an effective strategy for weakening the West. So, the Arab bloc became pro-Soviet, forcing Israel to align with the West. The Communists’ useful idiots abroad of course fell in line, and in 1967 “anti-Zionism,” a term coined by the Polish government to justify its purge of Jews, suddenly became mandatory for leftists in the English-speaking world.

Here we are 50+ years later and the momentum has taken on a life of its own, with leftists lusting for the destruction of Israel and conservatives pledging their support of it even though neither really knows why.

This is not to say that everything Israel’s government does is acceptable to me. But I’m not obligated to believe your claims about your own motivations when they don’t jive with reality, and I can object to more than one thing at a time.

Let’s posit that China is the world’s major violator of human rights at this time on a number-of-cases basis. This is of course true, though of course many of the people who are very concerned about “Palestinian human rights” will argue it. If I said that the solution to the Chinese government’s human rights record was to dissolve the country of China, give control of the entire land to Falun Gong or some putative organization whose stated goal is to kill as many Han Chinese as possible, boycott interaction with anyone who speaks Chinese, and morally allow for the slaughter of any Chinese person anywhere in the world by anyone who deems themselves a “human rights activist,” then you would conclude two things about my plan:

  1. It’s morally insane.
  2. It’s not a serious proposal to fix the issue of human rights in China since the entity whose behavior we have to change (the Chinese government and its popular support) would never entertain as much as negotiating with it for a moment, let alone actually implement it.

This is where we are with Israel. The open goal of Fatah and Hamas is to exterminate, at a minimum, every Jew in what is known today as Israel. As part of this goal they frequently target Jews outside of Israel as well. Movements such as BDS whose stated objective is to dissolve Israel and put the land in charge of Arab terrorist organizations are not morally defensible and are not serious attempts to change the Israeli government’s behavior, they are simply pretexts for supporting atrocities.

Here is what your “not anti-Semitic” “human rights movement” actually does:

Terrorizes children playing outside a synagogue in Michigan while yelling about “Jewish Power Corrupts” and “Resists Jewish Power”

Murders people at kosher supermarkets in Paris

Refuses to recommend Jewish students from the U.S. to study in Israel

Demands that British supermarkets remove kosher sections

Demonstrate against Jews owning cafes in San Francisco

Interrogates a Jewish student about Israel before allowing her to join a student council in California

Blows up Jewish community centers in Argentina and targets Jewish institutions worldwide on a constant basis

Worships at the grave of a terrorist who killed 17 Jews in Germany

And of course,

Perpetrates the most common kind of hate crime in the U.S., not that you would know it from the way racial politics are generally covered in the news.

By the way, national origin discrimination has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The only reason that we need to remind people that they may not participate in it with regards to Israel is that it’s the only country that people who claim to be “human rights activists” insist on breaking the law regarding. If people were refusing to hire or do business with Pakistanis then a pledge to respect civil rights law regarding Pakistan would be equally appropriate.

This is the face of “pro-Palestinian activism” that’s about the “Israeli government’s human rights record” - constant violence and discrimination against all Jews everywhere, who are presumed collectively guilty of every real and imagined crime of the Israeli regime, and the lying, morally abhorrent BDS movement, which claims on one hand not to target anything but the government and on the other gives is full support to locking out any Israeli, and often any Jew despite no connection to Israel, from any institution it controls.

This not even to plumb the depths of dishonest word usage and conspiratorial thinking, in which many people who claim no ill will towards “the Jews” define “Jews” in some wildly nonstandard way (including as blacks, Arabs, or as those who agree with their own politics) while maintaining that they only wish to harm “Zionists” which is a notion broadly construed enough to include “anyone who goes to a synagogue in Michigan.” The more someone foams at the mouth when discussing “Zionists” the more their definition of “Zionist” converges with what a normal person calls a “Jew” - funny, that.

BDS activist Shalija Patel, in a rare moment of honesty, revealed who the legitimate targets of “anti-
Zionist” violence are:

every single Israeli, from birth to death

I guess we should be thankful that she doesn’t include random Jews walking the streets of New York and London in her conception of who can justifiably be killed. Of course, we know she does, she just hasn’t openly said it yet.

Now, if you want me to believe that you aren’t on her team? No BDS, no support for Hamas, no equivocation on people like Corbyn who literally worship the murderers of Jews as mere “Palestinian rights activists”, and maybe some concern for the piles of dead Palestinians that Syria is creating. That’s a good faith starting point. Until then you’re just another Cold War relic supporting Władysław Gomułka’s paranoia and not even able to explain why beyond shouting slogans.

Some Palestinians want that, and some don’t.

It’s a mistake to imagine that all Palestinians, or all Palestinian political parties, have the same opinions and goals. Like every other nation, they have a range of different views.

Well, I certainly am not in favor of killing all, or any, of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel. But I think it wouldn’t be unfair to the rights of either people to have one democratic state on all the territory, with all its inhabitants having equal rights as citizens and constitutional protections for the liberties of all. However, a one-state solution is not the only possible fair solution IMO.

Hmmm, I don’t think it would be consistent or just to impose a unilateral condition of pacifism on only one state in such a situation. If things were set up so that both Israel and the nascent Palestine had to sign a mutual non-aggression pact, that would seem more even-handed. But whether or not a sovereign state has the option of going to war does not IMO determine whether the inhabitants of its territory have a right to a sovereign state in the first place.

That likewise seems to me a very exceptionalist approach. Mind you, I strongly condemn all acts of terror of all kinds, by whomever committed for whatever reason. But I think it’s going too far to say that the existence of terrorism within a population means that the entire population deserves to be stateless and rightsless unless and until it eradicates all terrorist activities within it.

I mean, I totally do not support the terror tactics of, for instance, the Kosovo Liberation Army in its separatist movement from Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But that doesn’t mean that I think that Kosovar people even at that time weren’t entitled to the basic human right of being full citizens of some state or other in their ancestral land. Same for the horrific terrorism of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, which I don’t think could justify considering every Sri Lankan Tamil a stateless person with no rights of citizenship. Same for terrorist activities in, say, Northern Ireland, or in pre-independence Israel itself.

With or without war, with or without terrorism, Palestinian people are people, and therefore AFAICT are entitled to be fully rights-bearing citizens of some sovereign nation somewhere in their ancestral land. Individuals committing terrorist acts should be punished, and nations engaging in military aggression should be combated and defeated, of course. But I don’t think it’s defensible to say that any people have automatically forfeited their human rights to a nationality and the freedoms of citizenship until and unless they totally eradicate war and terrorism in their society.

…I care about Palestinian human rights.

Do you take me at face value?

In case it wasn’t obvious I also think that Palestinian terrorist groups should cease to exist, the political parties that run all of their government should be replaced by non-terrorist aligned parties and they should recognize that Israelis are a national group that has equal human rights.

I don’t need to do this in a specific order. This is a civil war that has been going on for decades between two political factions that both suck. I don’t need to solve their problems. I can point out that they suck. I can point out that one side sucks without mentioning the other. I can point out that one side sucks without explaining what I would do if I was placed in their predicament of a neverending cycle of human rights abuses because I’m not the one who feels the need to continue to commit human rights abuses and deny people’s sovereignty.

All Palestinians want that? Every single one? Without exception?

Do you appreciate the irony of saying this in the context of an argument that criticism of the Israeli government is necessarily anti-Semitic?

Yeah, this seems like a bad position for any American who identifies as right-of-center to take after last Wednesday.

I was trying to figure out how to express this; you said it perfectly.

Even apart from that, the insistence that a nation not be criticized for human rights violations until after another group is criticized for human rights violations is nonsensical.

I mean,…

The topic of the thread is Labour anti-Semitism. I do not accept that the praising of murderous terrorism up to and including worshipping at the grave of one of the Munich massacre proponents, collaborating with the Iranian government, engaging in national origin discrimination against individual Israeli people and businesses, and generalized obvious racism including Holocaust denial and Jewish power conspiracy theories, which have been endemic in the Corbyn wing of the Labour party for years, constitute “criticism of human rights violations” on the part of the Israeli government.

When will we accept that “criticism of Israel” is not anti-Semitism? At any time when the former is in fact done without the latter. Corbyn and his followers have failed this test so consistently and spectacularly that they no longer earn the benefit of any doubt. There are consistent voices for human rights in the Middle East, usually at the level of individual journalists since institutions tend to be captured by one political faction or another, who manage to critique Israel without being anti-Jewish. These people generally dislike Corbynism as much as Israeli partisans do because of Corbyn’s cozy relationship with the world’s worst human rights violators.

Sweet, we agree!

Of course not every individual is a terrorist.
But we judge a society by the leaders they elect, and public statements those leaders make.Also by the support the population shows for those leaders, and whether there is any organized opposition to those leaders.
The leaders of the Palestinians are proudly opposed to the existence of Israel…so, yes they are racist.
And the population who elected them have not protested those racist statements, and have not attempted to stop the use of terrorism.
So, no matter how many good people there are in Palestine…they have no power to affect the society they live in.
. (Just like in the American civil war, the few abolitionists in the South had no power to change the evil society they lived in. And --(Godwin alert!) --there were plenty of good individuals in Germany in 1938.)
So yes, we can certainly apply the word “racist” to a given society when its government behaves in clearly racist ways, and there is no opposition to that racism from the good people who live there and would prefer to change it.

Specific example: the fact that all the schools in Palestine are named after children who blew themselves up with a suicide bomb and killed dozens of innocent Israelis. When the American government suggested that as a symbolic gesture, they change the names of the schools and stop glorifying terror…the Palestinian negotiators stormed out of the room, proudly saying that their martyrs are national heroes.

“which have been endemic in the Corbyn wing of the Labour party for years,”

No they haven’t, it’s mostly a beat up by extremists on the right. The sort who equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and also by opportunistic Tories and right wing Labor traitors.

And many poor Labor voting saps fall for it, as you can see from some comments above.

And here’s the same game that Corbyn and his acolytes played for decades.

Bombing a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires is “criticism of Israel.”
Castrating and then murdering Jewish athletes in Germany is “criticism of Israel.”
Denying the Holocaust is “criticism of Israel.”
Assaulting anyone wearing a long black coat on the streets of Brooklyn is “criticism of Israel.”
Refusing to hire someone for a job in England or do business with them in Texas because of the country of their birth is “criticism of Israel.”
Trading cartoons of hook-nosed caricatures out of Der Stürmer on every party Facebook group is “criticism of Israel.”
Blaming Jews for 9/11 and Grenfell is “criticism of Israel.”
Blowing up supermarkets, pizza parlors, and buses in Israel, well that’s an easy one, I mean it happened IN ISRAEL, it’s obviously “criticism of Israel.”

Then when called out on this absolutely despicable behavior, ask why the international Jewish conspiracy is censoring “criticism of Israel” while proclaiming yourself the most “anti-racist” person of all time.

The voters in the UK rejected it. The Equality and Human Rights Commission rejected it. The Labour Party’s own mainstream rejected it. But you’re going to ride this train all the way to the end because that’s how important supporting annihilationist anti-Semitic terrorism is to you.

…there certainly seems to be a game being played here. But I wouldn’t say that game is being played by Corbyn and his acolytes. The strawman game here seems to be quite strong.

Do you think we should judge America by the racist, misogynist xenophobic leaders they elect and we should judge Israel by the corrupt Prime Minister the people elected, and we should judge the people of the UK by the utter buffoon that is driving the country off the cliff?

Because we can do that, if you like. Netanyahu keeps getting elected, as you know. And Boris won the last election. Trump lost: but he still has the support of millions of people. So it only seems fair that if you want to paint a broad brush with one society then we apply that broad brush to every society.

Is there any substantive, non-mouth frothing criticism of Corbyn other than for strategic mis-steps?

You quoted one sentence of mine, but you ignored my second sentence in that paragraph
I said " we judge a society by the leaders they elect, and public statements those leaders make.Also by the support the population shows for those leaders, and whether there is any organized opposition to those leaders"

Trump,Boris, etc, face a lot of opposition from their own society, so we can’t use a broad brush and condemn the entire country
.Germany in 1938–not so much. The entire society was evil, even if 15 or 20% of the individuals were not.
Iran and N Korea are headed by crazy men with nukes,…Of course most Iranian and NK citizens are stable and normal people, but their society is a danger to the rest of the planet.

When discussing politics and war, we discuss the society as a whole, not individuals.
I work with plenty of Palestinians who are, surprise,surprise…nice people who love their children.But they live in a society which is attempting to kill me and my children. So, yes, I condemn their society as a whole. Because a society is represented by its leaders. Leaders who give the orders to shoot missiles at my bedroom, --and get no opposition from the citizens they rule.

Trump, Boris and Netanyahu get a LOT of opposition from half their citizens, and they take that opposition into account before acting. So their societies have a form of checks and balances which other societies do not.

(Sorry for the rant–this is supposed to be a thread about Corbyn.)

“nice people who love their children.But they live in a society which is attempting to kill me and my children. So, yes, I condemn their society as a whole.”

Yeah that’s how most of the world feels about Israel and we’re right.

…I know what you said. It wasn’t ignored.

It was an assertion without evidence. It was a caveat that was deliberately cherry-picked so that you could cast judgement on the Palestinian people as a whole. Collective guilt, one could say.

And if you think that Donald Trump gives a damn about “what the opposition thinks” and that he takes that into account before acting then you haven’t seen what has happened in America over the last four years.

You do realize that many Palestinian people think they are subjugated by a society that is attempting to kill them and their children as well?

It even turns out this is part of an organised campaign to silence critics of Israel. Poor Corbyn was another victim and the innocent lamb Labor supporters or England were fleeced of a great leader.

Yes, yes, we get it. Nothing is anti-Semitism, up to and including Holocaust denial and supporting the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews. It’s all “criticism of Israel” and the only people who disagree are the vast Jewish conspiracy that is oppressing you. You don’t have to post it every 30 seconds.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party has found that moving on from a psychotic focus on harming Jews and aiding foreign dictators and instead presenting a normal program for a Western social-democratic political party has brought them to par with the Conservative government in popularity and poised to win the next election after years of irrelevance under Corbyn, so they are in no hurry to return to being captured by a cult of far-left terrorism cheerleaders.