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

[rolymiller]

...and posters wonder why I nod off on these threads...(sigh)

Wow Kerr has just posted. No copying!

[KerrAvon]

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??

Please see above for some history for you.

It’s pleasing to see that you are not repeating the Momentum approved apology for Corbyn that he meets with terrorists (and was present, but not participating at a wreath laying for one group of the same) in the interests of pursuing peace and, instead, acknowledge the fairly obvious truth that he does it because he 'sides with them’. Very refreshing, I have to say

Where it gets a bit awkward for you is the notion that ‘historically he has argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed’. Really? So why does he find himself unable to voice any criticism for the Socialist regime in Venezuela that locks up or kills its political opponents and is making a pretty good job of starving the population of what should be a wealthy and prosperous country? Is it that he thinks that oppression at the hands of Socialists is ok? What about the Cubans who are denied free and fair elections, a free press (who need Mods to go waaah to when you have secret police to silence your opponents?) and a free judicial system? Is their oppression ok because the Castro clan are Socialists?

Yes, I’ve seen the ‘irony’ speech. How you can fail to be appalled by it is beyond me, but I’ve noted before that being a member of Momentum seems to require people to suspend all sense of reason. Don’t you find it worrying that he is clearly seeing British Zionists as being apart from the rest of the population? Don’t you find the end rather chilling when he talks about how he can help the people he calls Zionists learn a couple of lessons? Probably not given that you defended his statement that ‘change was coming’ for the free press that we enjoy in this country.

[KerrAvon]

Dear Mods,

Please can you tell me who to go 'waaah' to in respect of Roly’s posts on this thread? I’ve never done it before.

If he doesn’t want to contribute, as he initially claimed, he doesn’t have to. Instead, he is going some way to wrecking what should be an interesting thread with his personal attacks and rather childish interjections. Do we really have to put up with that?

I await your response (but am certainly not holding my breath for it).

Kind regards

Kerravon

[KerrAvon]

Just as an aside. This is a cracking thread and I have learnt so much. Kerr's post has really challenged my views.

Some great replies to Kerr as well.

A big hand for frog who has moderated the thread and other threads very well indeed.

This learning curve would not have happened if the debate had been closed down.

Thank you for your kind words, IBS.

[rolymiller]

Why? I am just asking for IbSs opinions on his own thread. If he doesn't want to comment that is his right. Same for you. Do I not have a right to ask somebody a question on here? Come on free country/ judiciary and all that. I am a bit puzzled why you are having a go at me though because I can't see where I have offended you. And why am I spoiling the debate? I am taking part in it at the moment hence why I am keen on others views including your own. Frog himself asked what my opinion was. I just want to have a debate with IBs. How can I do that if I don't understand his opinion? The fact that I am encoraging him to put his opinion across before I review what he says then put mine has got to be the democratic thing to do surely? Isn't this sort of what happens in court?

What would you say if I tried to stop you posting on here?

[ragingpup]

Please see above for some history for you.

Yes, I’ve seen the ‘irony’ speech. How you can fail to be appalled by it is beyond me, but I’ve noted before that being a member of Momentum seems to require people to suspend all sense of reason. Don’t you find it worrying that he is clearly seeing British Zionists as being apart from the rest of the population? Don’t you find the end rather chilling when he talks about how he can help the people he calls Zionists learn a couple of lessons? Probably not given that you defended his statement that ‘change was coming’ for the free press that we enjoy in this country.

I notice that you are not answering my question: as I said, Corbyn clearly states that "Zionists who were in the audience" (referring quite clearly to the Zionists who were in the audience! How do you take from that quote that he somehow sees all British Zionists as being apart from the population? Please quote directly from the film where he says that, as I can't see it.

I'm not a member of Momentum.

I too would be interested in hearing Corbyn's views on Venezuala's current regime. I know he admired Shavez and welcomed his successor, but I'd be interested to know why his successor has taken the country in the direction it has gone (very different to what Shavez stood for) and Corbyn's feelings on it. But as well as hoisting him up on the fire for constant anti-semitism and terrorist sympathising, I don't see why we shouldn't hold him to account on South American countries too...

[ragingpup]

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?

Ok - I'll run with that. In the historical struggle between two cultures in one territory, you begin your account in 1918 and the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, of whose people had lived in the whole area for several hundred years. You talk as if this was ground zero, and the history before that wasn't and isn't an issue.

Which religion were the Ottoman people?

I would agree that Jews had been settling back into Palestine for years leading up to the 1st war and beyond but this occured without significant conflict between the two religions. It was only when the carve up happened in 1948, and a chunk of former Palestinian land was suddenly designated as 'Israel', with official borders etc that severe issues came, not least by way of resentment from the Muslim people who had existed there for centuries! Surely that's an important aspect to write into your account?

[nakedtruth]

Thank you for your kind words, IBS.

You actually fell for that?

[frogmiller]

Dear Mods,

Please can you tell me who to go 'waaah' to in respect of Roly’s posts on this thread? I’ve never done it before.

If he doesn’t want to contribute, as he initially claimed, he doesn’t have to. Instead, he is going some way to wrecking what should be an interesting thread with his personal attacks and rather childish interjections. Do we really have to put up with that?

I await your response (but am certainly not holding my breath for it).

Kind regards

Kerravon

Bloody hell Kerr! I have tried to stop the stupid petty posts but unfortunately they have fallen on deaf ears.



I

[rolymiller]

One for you Kerr and all tied up with the thread start in my opinion (and not being childish or offensive) you posted this:

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

Do you not think that it is very glib to talk about atrocities in this way? Does a state who you admit behaves badly and i would argue murderously badly be a truly democratic state? What would you say if the British government did something similar in say Ireland? Could we just write it off as being a bit naughty? What democratic processes allows such atrocities to take place? Surely truly democratic proesses would stop this happening. Or are you saying the majority of ordinary Israelis voted for this so its ok?