Messages

[Now you have a position where blaming Israel about apartheid, white phosphorous, genocide, sieges, child murder- all things Israel does- is antisemitic]

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.

Are you really that f**king thick?

It specifically states criticism of Israel is not by definition antisemitic, provided those criticisms could be and are levelled at other states. The obvious implication being that if you want to criticise Israel for something that you wouldn't or don't do with any other state, you're actively choosing to do it because of, you know, all the Jews that are there.

It then specifically claims that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism is antisemitic. Which I disagree with. Interesting that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism would be considered criticism given how many far right tramps there are on the board in this discussion.

It's not that complicated.

The definition was written in 2014 before Israel went fascist.
Now you have a position where blaming Israel about apartheid, white phosphorous, genocide, sieges, child murder- all things Israel does- is antisemitic. It gives them carte blanche.

Israel only went fascist in 2014? Really?

Antisemitic according to who? Governments and other national and international institutions (a UN commission, for example) have labelled it a genocide.

Given we've been talking about the IHRA definition, I don't recall it (although I may be wrong) coming out and saying that claiming Israel is committing genocide is antisemitic.

Nor for that matter, for all his wriggling and hormones, has Keir Starmer.

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

Is that the same as "criticism of Israel is antisemitic"? No, it's not.

What has how the IHRA definition being used as a shield by whoever got to do with what the definition says? Who's arguing whether it hasn't.

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd maybe cop on to the fact that my original point was that the assertion that, and I'm admittedly paraphrasing here, "sure Jews can't be victims of antisemitism because most of them are Ashkenazi and they aren't even a Semitic people".

Whatever the intricacies, correct or otherwise, of the IHRA or any other definition, EVERYONE understands that antisemitism = anti-Jew.

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.

Are you really that f**king thick?

It specifically states criticism of Israel is not by definition antisemitic, provided those criticisms could be and are levelled at other states. The obvious implication being that if you want to criticise Israel for something that you wouldn't or don't do with any other state, you're actively choosing to do it because of, you know, all the Jews that are there.

It then specifically claims that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism is antisemitic. Which I disagree with. Interesting that comparing Israeli policy to Nazism would be considered criticism given how many far right tramps there are on the board in this discussion.

It's not that complicated.

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.

Genuinely have no idea if your account has been taken over by a bot.

Not familiar with that song. Who's it by?

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.

I could be wrong, but around the time Corbyn was being ousted by Starmer et al for being 'anti-semitic' yourself and a few others were widely accepting of this definition?

You'd absolutely be wrong. If you actually go back and look and what we exchanged, along with the gaaboard's star in-no-way an anti-Semite seafoid was a discussion of differing interpretations of the IHRA's definition. You may recall his repeated inability to actually quote the definition itself, as opposed to simply Google whatever quackery he was able to find on challenged on some of his nonsense.

But sure seeing as you reckon you've found your gotcha moment, why don't you go ahead and link my post where I say I accept the definition?

you have to be persecuting Semites before you can be called an anti-semite.

Ashkenazi's aren't semites but you knew that anyway.

Is there any particular reason to be this f**king pedantic?

Antisemitism is widely understood (dare I say largely accepted, even on this board) to refer to discrimination against/persecution of Jews. Jews are not a homogenously ethnic group.

Nobody, unless they are deliberately going out of their way to be obtuse, considers antisemitism to be an attack on, say, Levantine Christians. You have to resort to your good old-fashioned racism for that.

do you accept the ihra definition?

Whether I do or I don't (I don't) is completely irrelevant to whether anyone with half a functioning brain cell (a high bar on the board, I know) understands that antisemitism = anti-Jew.

The problem with the IHRA definition (as you well know) is that it clearly tries to label actions or beliefs that aren't necessarily anti-Jew as such.

Do you understand the difference?

you have to be persecuting Semites before you can be called an anti-semite.

Ashkenazi's aren't semites but you knew that anyway.

Is there any particular reason to be this f**king pedantic?

Antisemitism is widely understood (dare I say largely accepted, even on this board) to refer to discrimination against/persecution of Jews. Jews are not a homogenously ethnic group.

Nobody, unless they are deliberately going out of their way to be obtuse, considers antisemitism to be an attack on, say, Levantine Christians. You have to resort to your good old-fashioned racism for that.

I see the lads warmed up for their clash of the titans fixture with Grenada by putting Real Murcia's B team to the sword.

Top stuff.

Rayner reckons she's been completely exonerated by HMRC over her little stamp duty snafu, and is claiming there was no deliberate intent to avoid tax, nor was she careless or reckless.

So why did she so shamelessly lie about the legal advice she claimed to have received?

Fifteen to One is a by a distance the best quiz show format TV has produced. Just question after question after question but in no way boring.

The reboot they attempted was god awful.

I've been busy ok

First Renshaws, now this. Don't know how much more of this I can take

Mornings after this would have been perfect for it!

Ah man, come on. Frasier is one of the greatest sitcoms ever. It always got so much less love than Friends but was 100x times the show.