wasn’t the problem.
A bomb goes off in Egypt while it is in the midst of massive civil unrest fuelled in part by jihadist groups.
Corbyn’s take: Who else could it be but Israel? It’s very unlikely Muslims would kill other Muslims during Ramadan. I think I see the hand of Israel in the whole destabilisation.
This isn’t mere speculation. He dismisses any idea that it could have been anyone but Israel (again, massive civil strife, jihadist groups involved) and without doing anything as banal as presenting any evidence, blames Israel not just for a specific incident but for all the unrest in Egypt. The kindest term for this is “witless conspiracism” and luckily we have a term for witless conspiracism that puts the blame on Jews. That term is anti-semitism.
Corbyn has always been noted for his support of unpopular causes, he advocated doing deals with the IRA so example - but is that beyond acceptability?
Eventually a deal was done, and IRA did have to be incuded and its hard to see how peace in Ireland could have been achieved without some sort of IRA involvement - and yet that involvement still leaves an unpleasant taste - in that sense Corbyn can point to a justification
Attending the funerals of convicted terrorists and murderers along with giving speeches in direct support of the IRA goes rather further than working in favour of peace in an unpopular cause, to me it amounts to giving an enemy comfort and is not far off traitorous.
It is not hard to find loads of stuff about the support by Corbyn of terroist groupings, indeed the hard part is in trying to find unbiased and objective sources but the fact remains that despite his denials of acrtual support, he still has a huge blind spot when it comes to public relations and how his attendance at terrorist conventions, events etc looks, in the world of extremist politics appearance is often the whole point.
In the above case it’s Labor vs the Greens with accusations of anti-Semitism being used purely as a political tactic.
Sometimes if you see a different context but the same behaviour you can understand your own situation.
Hoping some Brits can wipe the eel pie from their mouths, take a night off from dogging and reconsider their views on being befuddled by attacks on Corbyn.
If you think the Irish are the enemy despite continuing to occupy their country just say you are no friend of good working people.
I don’t know what something that happened in Australia in 2011 has to do with the question of anti-Semitism in the UK’s Labour Party in 2020 other than some theme you’re on about regarding how (((they))) are “doing the same shit,” whatever that may mean.
BDS is not “criticism of Israel,” it’s full-on endorsement of discrimination based on national origin and works hand-in-hand with terrorist organizations, and its goal is a Jew-free Middle East governed by a caliphate. It doesn’t like to talk about what steps must be taken to achieve that population cleansing, but we know. There is no such thing as a non anti-Semitic way to advocate for the actual BDS movement that exists in the real world.
Nice to make an assumption - at what point did I mention Irish being the enemy? I think you’ll find I mentioned the IRA few times, are those your ‘good Irish working people’
As for occupying ‘their country’ well there certainly was a real case for using that term some time ago, that time passed som time ago too - personally I think UK should have vacated Ireland a long whole ago instead of partition - but again its a long time ago.
It certainly was not ‘good Irish working people’ who put bombs into UK cities and in that context being seen alongside the funerals of such individuals who have carried out those atrocities is always going to be seen as giving comfort to an enemy.
Corbyn has defended his multiple meetings with IRA bombers, Holocaust deniers, blood libelers, people banned from the UK for terrorism of all stripes, representatives of dictatorial regimes, &c &c &c, by constantly appealing to the “need for dialogue” and claiming to be seeking compromises and solutions. But for Israel and Israel alone, he refuses to meet with any representatives and maintains a policy of no engagement whatsoever. He even said he would negotiate with ISIS, but he won’t speak to an Israeli. It’s an insane monomania on his part in which it seems only one place in the world can be beyond redemption.
History decides this - I attended more than one funeral of a convicted terrorist in the 80s, and gave speeches in support of a terrorist organization. Of course, that terrorist organization is now the government…
Yes they did a good job for their cause, although like any army they had their share of bloodthirsty wackos I’m sure.
They had a good crack at Thatcher and Major too.
Phoned up before a lot of the bombs even.
In some ways they embodied the British spirit of the Blitz, staying strong when faced with an enemy they were largely powerless to defeat.
This does seem rather… provocative. But rather than pursue that, instead I have a question for the OP: why did you start this thread?
Wow, you are directly expressing support and sympathy for an organisation whose members are defined as terrorists the world over - certainly for the period where they tried to murder the UK government.
The fact that they phoned in some of their bombs in public places makes them the good guys?
This is the group that had a mission to support terrorists in South America, and cooprdinated with other terrorist organisations the world over such as FARC and ETA.
It was incredibly difficult to craft the Good Friday Agreement and allow weapons to be largely taken out of commission.
I wonder how you’d feel about another group that has a political purpose, has little chance of success but has every intention of ending the term of office for its duly elected leader - are they freedom figthers too?
Your earlier postings in this thread take on a whole new light, care to explain what your view is of the complaints of Jewish members in the Labout party?
They said the same thing about Nelson Mandela. Who cares what colonialist oppressors name things?
So you equate Nelson Mandela with the IRA - interesting, I’m sure the IRA would be flattered
By golly, the usual, frothing pro-Israel and pro-apartheid drivel we get in Holland.
Maybe, just maybe, the whole country is deeply traumatized and entrenched. Maybe read Nir Baram or any other Israeli who can see past the Naqba/Holocaust dichotomy.
But I believe we were taking about the UK.
Given the ANC happily worked together with the IRA, yes, I think they (and he) would be.
Look at how happy they are…
Were the Jewish athletes competing in the Munich Olympics who were castrated, tortured, and slaughtered in an act celebrated by Corbyn “capitalist oppressors,” or just personally liable for every action of the Israeli government just like you believe every other Jew in the world to be?
The point of this thread was to understand why this all became such a big issue when England had so many important things to worry about and discuss. It was particularly worrying that Labour supporters were falling for the exaggerated claims, or themselves cynically using claims in their internal disputes.
There were plenty of sensible voices explaining what was going on at the time, this article is over two years old.
Unfortunately, Cook was a little too confident in British abilities to see through the barrage or propaganda from the anti-Corbyn press and establishment who had so much to lose if the national debate switched to issues he raised.