The UK Labour Party

[OakLeaf]

If Starmer is deposed that will be the 6th or 7th PM in 10 years, a Banana Republic would be embarrassed with that stat. How can any long term forward planning be done? The UK is in a doom cycle. If and when Reform get their day, they will be much worse. It'll probably take until then for the masses to really understand how much of a colossal failure Brexit has been.

That's it in a nutshell. That point could be 4-6 years away, unless something drastically changes.

[Franko]

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Yeah you're all over the place here.

You stated that 'It says nothing about criticising Israel being antisemitic'.

Then proceed to outline that one of your issues with the definition is that it prevents contemporary Israeli state policy being compared with that of the Nazis... as to criticise it in such a way would make one... antisemitic.

Someone with a brain the size of yours should surely be able to figure out that both of these statements cannot be true simultaneously.

[Baile Brigín 2]

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Hold up. The definition does or doesn't reference criticism of Israel? You are claiming both.

[Wildweasel74]

6th or 7th, there good ole democracy for you. Putin been running his show 22 out 25yrs with a puppet to the fore for the other 3.

[gallsman]

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Hold up. The definition does or doesn't reference criticism of Israel? You are claiming both.

The definition does REFERENCE criticism of Israel. Well done.

It DOES NOT say "criticism of Israel is antisemitic", which is what was and is repeatedly claimed.

Do you understand the difference? I most certainly did not claim that it both does and doesn't reference criticism of Israel.

Hold up indeed.

[Lowkey]

The IHRA definition is here if anyone wants to read it.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

The following is an extract from a piece by Norman Finkelstein warning the Labour Party against adopting the IHRA definition. The full piece is here.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/08/28/excl-finkelstein-critiques-ihra-definition-and-rejects-it-whole/

WHY THE LABOUR PARTY SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE IHRA DEFINITION OR ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
By Norman G. Finkelstein*

...........The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes 11 illustrative examples. Fully seven of them home in on criticism of Israel. If the Labour Party adopts these taboos, respected scholarship will be suppressed while Israel will become the beneficiary of a pernicious double standard. Consider these examples culled from the IHRA text:

*"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." - But, according to Israel's leading historian, Benny Morris, "transfer [i.e., expulsion] was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism," while according to Israeli writer Ari Shavit, in his widely acclaimed bestseller, My Promised Land, "If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be." The upshot is, if Israel's founding necessarily entailed ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, then realization of the Jewish people's right to self-determination must have been a racist endeavor.

*"Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." - But, far from holding Israel to a more stringent standard, overwhelmingly its critics have targeted Israel's immunity to any standard. For example, since 1979 the UN Security Council has repeatedly condemned Israel's policy of building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory as a "flagrant violation" of international law, while in 2004 the International Court of Justice unanimously declared Israeli settlements "in breach of international law." Yet, Israel persists in its settlement policy, while the UN, although repeatedly imposing sanctions on other member states, has not imposed any on Israel, even as its settlement policy constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


*"Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis." - But Israeli hasbara (propaganda) itself promiscuously exploits the "blood libel" charge (i.e., that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes) in order to silence critics by reversing its sting. Thus, mere mention of Palestinian children killed by Israel typically prompts accusations of a "Global Blood Libel against Israel."


*"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." - But, on the one hand, Israelis across the political spectrum freely make such bone-chilling analogies, while, on the other hand, Israel has itself routinely depicted its antagonists, be it Nasser's Egypt or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, be it Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, as reincarnations of Hitler and Nazi-like. Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has—in certifiably mad defiance of every scrap of evidence—declared that Iran might pose an even greater threat to humanity than did Hitler and that not Hitler but a Palestinian leader masterminded the Holocaust.


*"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." - But, by representing itself as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, Israel itself collectively implicates Jews in its actions, just as Netanyahu collectively implicates Jews when he touts himself as the "representative of the entire Jewish people".

In sum, these examples of antisemitism allegedly hiding behind criticism of Israel comprise factually accurate depictions by Israel's critics (first bulleted example), factually inaccurate depictions of Israel's critics by its watchdogs (second bulleted example), and questionable practices of which Israel is as, if not more, culpable than its critics (third, fourth, and fifth bulleted examples). If the Labour Party adopts them, it will become a willing dupe of Israeli hasbara; it will disgrace the Party's noble traditions; and it will betray Jeremy Corbyn's promise to set the Party on a new-old path of upholding Truth and Justice, wherever it may lead and whatever the price.

[thewobbler]

Oh ffs, another thread destroyed it seems.

[Lowkey]

Oh ffs, another thread destroyed it seems.

We're posting about Labour Party policy that has self-evidently had a colossal effect on how the party is run and who it is run by.

It's incredibly easy to throw out a bitchy little comment like yours. It would be far less easy for you to construct an argument as to why adopting the IHRA definition has not had a major impact on how the Labour Party is run, but I look forward to reading it.

[LC]

The IHRA definition is here if anyone wants to read it.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

The following is an extract from a piece by Norman Finkelstein warning the Labour Party against adopting the IHRA definition. The full piece is here.

https://skwawkbox.org/2018/08/28/excl-finkelstein-critiques-ihra-definition-and-rejects-it-whole/

WHY THE LABOUR PARTY SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE IHRA DEFINITION OR ANY OTHER DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM
By Norman G. Finkelstein*

...........The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes 11 illustrative examples. Fully seven of them home in on criticism of Israel. If the Labour Party adopts these taboos, respected scholarship will be suppressed while Israel will become the beneficiary of a pernicious double standard. Consider these examples culled from the IHRA text:

*"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." - But, according to Israel's leading historian, Benny Morris, "transfer [i.e., expulsion] was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism," while according to Israeli writer Ari Shavit, in his widely acclaimed bestseller, My Promised Land, "If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be." The upshot is, if Israel's founding necessarily entailed ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, then realization of the Jewish people's right to self-determination must have been a racist endeavor.

*"Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." - But, far from holding Israel to a more stringent standard, overwhelmingly its critics have targeted Israel's immunity to any standard. For example, since 1979 the UN Security Council has repeatedly condemned Israel's policy of building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory as a "flagrant violation" of international law, while in 2004 the International Court of Justice unanimously declared Israeli settlements "in breach of international law." Yet, Israel persists in its settlement policy, while the UN, although repeatedly imposing sanctions on other member states, has not imposed any on Israel, even as its settlement policy constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


*"Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis." - But Israeli hasbara (propaganda) itself promiscuously exploits the "blood libel" charge (i.e., that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes) in order to silence critics by reversing its sting. Thus, mere mention of Palestinian children killed by Israel typically prompts accusations of a "Global Blood Libel against Israel."


*"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." - But, on the one hand, Israelis across the political spectrum freely make such bone-chilling analogies, while, on the other hand, Israel has itself routinely depicted its antagonists, be it Nasser's Egypt or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, be it Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, as reincarnations of Hitler and Nazi-like. Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has—in certifiably mad defiance of every scrap of evidence—declared that Iran might pose an even greater threat to humanity than did Hitler and that not Hitler but a Palestinian leader masterminded the Holocaust.


*"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." - But, by representing itself as the Nation-State of the Jewish people, Israel itself collectively implicates Jews in its actions, just as Netanyahu collectively implicates Jews when he touts himself as the "representative of the entire Jewish people".

In sum, these examples of antisemitism allegedly hiding behind criticism of Israel comprise factually accurate depictions by Israel's critics (first bulleted example), factually inaccurate depictions of Israel's critics by its watchdogs (second bulleted example), and questionable practices of which Israel is as, if not more, culpable than its critics (third, fourth, and fifth bulleted examples). If the Labour Party adopts them, it will become a willing dupe of Israeli hasbara; it will disgrace the Party's noble traditions; and it will betray Jeremy Corbyn's promise to set the Party on a new-old path of upholding Truth and Justice, wherever it may lead and whatever the price.

Finkelstein was always a straight talker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7FJ9y8m4M

[Lowkey]

Excellent clip that, LC.

Yeah I think his points in the IHRA piece are incisive and most importantly, very specific. I don't often post lengthy extracts in forums like this, but I took a bit of time to find that particular one, having read through a lot of criticism of the IHRA definition that was a bit vague.

It'll be interesting to see if any of the anti-Semitism police on here actually engage in good faith with the points Finkelstein raised.

[RedHand88]

Do we not have an Israel thread for all this crap? It's annoying the same 3 or 4 people polluting every thread with it over and over perpetually. Not everyone is going to agree with your POV. Accept it and move on.

Back to labour.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Burnham doesn't win the by election? They did really really badly there in the council elections last week. Different kettle of fish in a general of course with a potential future leader on the ballot, but he has a huge gap to close. It may be a bridge too far?
How do Makerfield voters feel about their constituency being used like this by the Burnham side of Labour?

[Armagh18]

Do we not have an Israel thread for all this crap? It's annoying the same 3 or 4 people polluting every thread with it over and over perpetually. Not everyone is going to agree with your POV. Accept it and move on.

Back to labour.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Burnham doesn't win the by election? They did really really badly there in the council elections last week. Different kettle of fish in a general of course with a potential future leader on the ballot, but he has a huge gap to close. It may be a bridge too far?
How do Makerfield voters feel about their constituency being used like this by the Burnham side of Labour?

It would be some crisis for Labour if he didn't and you'd have the Reformatories calling for a general election if so.

 Be interesting to see if the MP's who said Sunak had no mandate from the people to lead the country are backing Burnham...

[Lowkey]

Do we not have an Israel thread for all this crap? It's annoying the same 3 or 4 people polluting every thread with it over and over perpetually. Not everyone is going to agree with your POV. Accept it and move on.

 

If a hurling, football or any other non-related thread is derailed by it then fair enough, that's out of order, but shouting it down here is like saying, "I want to focus on Mark's behaviour, which is increasingly dysfunctional. I don't want to hear another word about his heroin addiction."

[Baile Brigín 2]

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Hold up. The definition does or doesn't reference criticism of Israel? You are claiming both.

The definition does REFERENCE criticism of Israel. Well done.

It DOES NOT say "criticism of Israel is antisemitic", which is what was and is repeatedly claimed.

Do you understand the difference? I most certainly did not claim that it both does and doesn't reference criticism of Israel.

Hold up indeed.

It says certain criticism of Israel is, and has unquestionably been used as a shield