o/t Does anyone seriously believe Corbyn is an anti-semite?

[frogmiller]

Why?

If others can post political drivel on a football message board then why shouldn't I?

Maybe it's Leeds that Corbyn supports?

O/T means other topics. Basically it means it's a none football topic.

If you don't like none football topics then don't read them.

If you deliberately ruin topics then it is clearly against the rules!

If you would like to continue to keep having a dig at the rules and pressing my buttons then I have some of my own that I can press!

[the_idiotb_stardson]

You criticise Naked Frog yet you do not criticise IBS who does not even give an opinion on the matter and he started the thread. At best he just nods sagely in agreement with Monty and kerr. Can you tell me what his opinion is on the matter because i aint a clue!

Lets examine his best effort at an opinion.

Totally agree monty.

It suits Israel down to the ground to an conflate anti Israeli-government stance with anti-semitism.


By the way it's a tactic the left also use. Witness the threads on this message board. You know you have scored a point when the only reply is 'you are a racist, you are a bigot", without any reasoned argument to back that up.

I remember playing top trumps as a kid.....the race card in this day and age....is the one to silence all criticism and quash any real debate. It's a shame because as an ex- Marxist, I still believe in the dialectic approach to argument. Two conflicting theories will eventually produce a higher stage of reasoning....sadly many issues will never progress beyond the current stagnation because they don't want a debate

The only thing I can make from this is that he agrees with Monty and later on Kerr but I don't know why because he doesn't say why. Its interesting in the end that the right wing Kerr floats his boat though. Note he doesn't come out on the side of pup or wanchai who put a counter view though he applauds them for a valiant effort.

Some have criticised me for putting the yawn sign up early on but to me this has still been a predictable thread with the same right wing protagonists pouring out long paragraphs of unsubstantiated rubbish.

What have we learned then? Nowt much, This is basically an anti corbyn/ anti left thread the vehicle for it being the debate about anti semitism in the labour party.

Its a loaded thread and quite deliberate and while i appreciate the efforts of wanchai and Pup to put in counter arguments i would argue they really shouldn't give the time of day to the likes of IBS.


He manages early on to make a snide remark about the "race card" here and I wonder if that is the real agenda here to stir up a racist argument, He can't do it openly because he is smart enough to know he's been hauled over the coals for recycling these kinds of arguments before.

When IBS starts a thread and puts in his view before he hides behind views of others I will be happy to counter his argument. I suspect the reason why he doesn't is because he is not capable of forming an argument because he knows he would lose it with out his right wing backers.

Thanks for yet another contribution to one of my threads Roly.

[frogmiller]

Rolymiller.
In theO/S IBS wrote


it's one of the most blatant smear campaigns I have ever seen

He is clearly written against the treatment of Carbyn

[rolymiller]

Just read about your fascinating posts IBS. Look forward to some more yawns...

[rolymiller]

Rolymiller.
In theO/S IBS wrote


it's one of the most blatant smear campaigns I have ever seen

He is clearly written against the treatment of Carbyn

...and yet he agrees with with the very openly anti corbyn stance of kerr? At least we know where we stand with Kerr. So where does he stand exactly? I'm puzzled?

[the_idiotb_stardson]

...and yet he agrees with with the very openly anti corbyn stance of kerr? At least we know where we stand with Kerr. So where does he stand exactly? I'm puzzled?

£100 quid to charity if you can find the sentence where I say "I agree" with Kerr

[WanChaiMiller]

I think that the idea that Corbyn polished the stick used to beat him with has some truth (although not a pretty image!) Historically he has argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed and this includes people who were at odds with the UK state such as Irish Republicans. It brings some questions to mind in relation to the British v Irish and Israel v Palestine conflicts:

1. Have the British/Israeli governments historically carried out policies that are contrary to the interests to large numbers of people native to those lands?

2. Did/do the British/Israeli governments carry out their own historical atrocities against the native peoples in order to maintain these policies?

3. Did/do the native people have a just argument against these policies/actions that stand up to attempted objective scrutiny?

4. Do some of these native people have the right to carry out counter terrorist activities against innocent civilians to further their opposition to there perceived oppression?

5. Does arguing the cause of the native peoples by default mean that you are in approval of the terrorist activity in 4?

Hopefully no one will say Yes to 4!

But obviously Corbyn has historically sided with the Irish/Palestinian people and as such is tarred with their terrorist wings, especially when the historical atrocities of their 'opposing' governments are filtered out by the press, as are the fact that peaceful resolutions were reached in the UK that still evade us in Israel/Palestine. Maybe the opposing factions there could learn from how peace was achieved in Ireland? And in South Africa when that former actual terrorist went on to lead his country and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Aren't your comments on Corbyn's history here a little un-nuanced and lacking overall perspective?

For me, I am disappointed that Corbyn became so 'political' when under pressure on the 'wreath' - I would much rather he stay vocal and proud in his support for Palestine against (as Wanchai points out briefly above) an Israeli state that not only took a huge slice of former Palestinian territory in 1948 but has since gone on into Internationally recognised unacceptable occupation of lands allocated to Palestine in the carve up rather than backtracking and playing politics. It doesn't suit him.

Finally, I'm disappointed that you've taken the standard line on 'Irony-gate' as a "sweeping and negative generalisation". Please watch the video of the speech here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45301548

Please talk me through your reasoning as to how Corbyn's referral to the "Zionists who were in the audience..." (referring to a small group of pro-Zionists who were present at a speech by a pro-Palestian representative) lacking historical awareness and didn't understand English irony = a sweeping, negative generalisation, cos I just don't get it. He was referring to a small number of pro Zionist people in a room when a speech was being made, and subsequently protested. So who is the generalisation about? How does this relate to other Jews, Zionists or otherwise??

Spot on.

[rolymiller]

So lets have your opinion then IBS so we can see if I am being harsh. Lets see if it is not like Kerr's. I'm particularly interested in your views about Palestinian territory by the way.

[rolymiller]

Tic toc as Gino used to say (now HE was a good fisherman, you would do well to copy his style!)....its cheating to wait for Monty and Kerr to prompt you, you know. I don't want their views, I want yours please. You will have to give your own views on the contentious palestinian territory issue by the way because Kerr dunt think its worthy of a mention in this argument. Dunno why think its pretty relevant.

[KerrAvon]

It is (an Apartheid regime) and has been from the day it was created. A bit if history always helps in understanding how we got to the current situation.

The country was created by forcibly evicting the original Palastinian inhabitants rendering them stateless and homeless, moving them to a completely different region and replacing their old home territory with Jews. Too right Palestinians are a bit p*ssed off.

The architects of Israel, Imperial Britain and the USA, in the period around the middle of the last century, as the Empire was breaking up, had the notion that humanity would be best served by living in separate communities. They drew lines in the sand to create separate states and separated different races/cultures to its own territory; that we would all move forward living in total harmony.

The reality is completely different. They created fault lines and conflicts across regions that have endured to this day (as we found in Israel, South Africa, Iran/Iraq, USA, Ireland and India/Pak).

Israel is a classic one culture state. The definition of Apartheid from google dictionary: 'a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.' Cant see how it is anything else.

I’m afraid that you need to check your history. A few points:

Palestine has never existed as a state. It is a part of the world that was part of one empire or another throughout history When the Ottoman empire was dismantled at the end of WW1, it became a British protectorate, which it remained until the creation of Israel in 1948.

The Jewish population of the area known as Palestine had been growing from the middle of the 19th century or so as the diaspora grew weary of being killed off in one pogrom or another. The rate of Jewish emigration to Palestine accelerated with the rise of Nazism in Europe and, not unsurprisingly, after WW2 ended.

Israel was created by the UN (Resolution 181), which proposed the creation of what, in essence, would have been the two state solution now seen as the only way to resolve the conflict in the region. Jerusalem – which is the centre of three religions - was to have been placed under international control. The Jewish authorities accepted the proposal whereas the Arab side did not, preferring instead to declare war on Israel on the day it was created.

Israel has been attacked by its neighbours on two further occasions since 1948, with the West Bank and Golan heights being effectively annexed - for security reasons initially - after the 1967 war.

As for the notion that the British government at the time of the creation of Israel had apartheid views – that’s interesting in a ridiculous sort of way. It was, of course, a Labour government led by Clem Atlee and one that didn’t seem to realise that it believed in racial separation given that it was pursuing policies that brought the first of the Windrush generation to the UK 38 days after the day on which Israel came into being

It should be noted that the pogroms and the rise of Nazism that drove the diaspora to return to Palestine were, in turn driven, in part, by the type of prejudiced caricature of Jews that appears in the mural that Corbyn defended and which you ignored in response to my post.

With the greatest of respect, your black and white, one sided, VI Form debating society view of things is just plain wrong and neatly demonstrates why Labour has found itself in such a pickle over antisemitism. Yes, some atrocities were committed against Arab Palestinians and some were driven from their homes during the 1948 war and Israel continues to behave at times in way that is unlikely to secure lasting peace, but, as I stated, Israel is a secular parliamentary democracy with a free press and an independent judiciary that has bucked the trend in the region by delivering prosperity for its people, including the 20% or so who are ethnic Arabs and who can partake in elections and return Arab representatives the Knesset. How is that an Apartheid system?