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

[ragingpup]

I work with evidence. So, as Lloyd Grossaman would say in his mid-Atlantic accent, let’s look at the evidence on Corbyn and anti-Semitism.

Of course it isn’t antisemitic to criticise some of the actions of the Israeli government, but what Corbyn does goes a little bit beyond that doesn’t it? Referring to Hamas – an organisation committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and who regularly launch rockets into residential areas – as ‘friends’ and inviting them to Parliament goes a bit beyond criticising the settling of the West Bank. What does Corbyn think should happen to the 8 million people - many of the Jews, but by no means all - who live in Israel, if his friends were to get their way?

Attending a wreath laying for Black September terrorists who attacked Israeli athletes in Munich goes a bit beyond criticising the de-facto blockade of the Gaza strip even if he was ‘present but not participating’, as the final excuse for that one goes.

Care has to be taken with drawing conclusions from Corbyn’s association with terror organisations who primarily target Israel, however, as he has also, of course, associated with Republican terrorists in Ireland who, as far as we know, have no beef with Jews, but prefer to shoot and blow up Protestants, people who paint Union Jacks on the sides of their houses and the British state.

Where it starts to get interesting is Corbyn’s defence of the anti-Semitic mural that hit the news earlier this year. That mural is antisemitic upon the shortest of inspections and has nothing at all to do with Israel or the Palestinians. I recall that we went through several different versions of the Corbyn excuse for that (as he and his advisors realised that the earlier versions wouldn’t hold water), but the final version was one that he didn’t look properly before commenting i.e. his brain was present, but not participating. That excuse admits of two explanations – he is lying and either didn’t care or agreed with the antisemitic nature of the mural or that he is very stupid. If any Corbyn supporter can think of a third explanation, I’d love to hear it as neither of my options are one that would make me want him as Prime Minister.

Branding UK Zionists as lacking a sense of irony despite having lived in the country for a long time is more interesting still, not least because the comment demonstrates that he sees those people as ‘separate’ from the UK population. To illustrate that point, consider what would happen if IBS had started a thread in which such a sweeping and negative generalisation was made about UK Muslims by another poster. It is beyond doubt that certain other posters would be all over it- going ‘waaah’ to the mods - complaining about right wing views on the site.

With the evidence above, I think it impossible to say with certainty that Corbyn is an antisemite, but I think it impossible to completely clear him of the charge too.

I agree that the antisemitism issue has been used a stick to beat Corbyn over the head with, but it was Corbyn who carefully polished the stick before handing it to his critics.

The real issue with Corbyn is summed up in this opinion piece from the Independent, which sets out the way he has become morally compromised by his rather blinkered and, frankly, naïve approach to the world. It’s a good read:


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a7875451.html

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??

[frogmiller]

Unless Corbyn talks with the leaders of any faction it wouldn't get the air time he thinks/thought is needed to open up dialog.

it's a good post Ragingpup. Corbyn is between a rock and a hard place in the way you've set out your views. I don't think that he could ever sde with the Palestinians if he wants to be the Prime Minister.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

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.

[nakedtruth]

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.

I wonder which football club Corbyn supports?

[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.

[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.

[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...

[KerrAvon]

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...

Why would you draw a distinction between the Zionists in the room and UK Zionists generally? By definition, they all hold Zionist views.

Maduro has maintained the Socialist policies of Chavez and it is their actions together that have reduced the country to where it is – poverty for the many, not the few. There is a lesson there somewhere. It is a lesson that has been delivered many times since Marx ‘invented’ Socialism, but some people just don’t seem to get it.

I too would love to know what Corbyn’s views on Maduro are, but despite being someone who you say has historically ‘argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed’ he really didn’t want to talk about Maduro when given the chance last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...government-may


What’s your excuse for his reticence?

I noticed that you passed over Cuba too, you sly old fox. Why can’t a man who has, according to you historically ‘argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed’ bring himself to criticise the actions of the Castro dynasty? What is the approved Corbynista excuse for that?

[WanChaiMiller]

Israel is a racist Apartheid regime? Good grief. And you wonder why Labour has got into such a mess over antisemitism when its supporters are willing to express such nonsensical views.

Israel is a secular parliamentary democracy with a free press and judiciary that has delivered the best living standards in the Middle East for its citizens, Jewish or otherwise. To compare it with an apartheid regime is plain silly.

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.

[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?