The UK Labour Party

[Deerstalker]

Why does every thread come back to "Zionism" ? Does it keep you up at night ?

[Snapchap]

Why does every thread come back to "Zionism" ? Does it keep you up at night ?

It's hardly a stretch to wind up talking about zionism in a thread about Starmer and the Labour Party now, is it? Maybe you missed the link:

https://www.declassifieduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/All-Party-Israel-Lobby-Full-List-Edited.pdf

[gallsman]

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.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

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?

[playwiththewind1st]

Sorry to interrupt, but as this is the UK Labour Party thread, I thought I might mention that Streeting has just gone.

Now....back to the studio, for an extended Jewish / Zionist discussion.

[gallsman]

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?

[PadraicHenryPearse]

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 made the claim that antisemitism is widely understood. It isn't as you pointed out some issues with IHRA definition and if that is how someone determines antisemitism then it isn't just about being anti-Jew.

in my experience it is typically zionists (jewish or otherwise) that cast a wide net of what is and isn't antisemitism beyond what 'anyone with a half functioning brain' would consider antisemitism. Greta was anti semtic for have a blue octopus Teddy in a picture.

some on here considered the renaming of a park antisemitic....

[bennydorano]

Sorry to interrupt, but as this is the UK Labour Party thread, I thought I might mention that Streeting has just gone.

Now....back to the studio, for an extended Jewish / Zionist discussion.

I wish him well. Striking before Burnham can get back in as an MP. Unfortunately for Streeting he is apparently unpopular with the voting Labour members and likely to be defeated by any Leftish Candidate. With no Burnham, likely Rayner and possibly even Miliband will go again. I'd prefer Streeting.

[johnnycool]

Out of curiosity, do some posters on here have a full time "Jew radar" on the go, or how do you seem to be able to identify politicians in all countries as being in Israel's palm, with such conviction?

Maybe yis are just more well read than I am.

Follow the money.

Labour Friends of Israel is a good start.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/All-Party-Israel-Lobby-Full-List-Edited.pdf

ANTI-SEMITE!!

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

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

I was being tongue-in-cheek. I refer you to post #593.

I was indeed being pedantic with my comment about Ashkenazi's not being semites and Gallsman comment about it being "widely understood" is accepted at being anti jew, if being incorrect is probably the accepted understanding, yet the IHRA description of anti-semitism bundles any criticism of Israel as also being anti-semitic.

Those who felt the need to bundle the state of Israel as being an entirely Jewish entity and hence criticism is anti-semitic have done more harm to the Jewish people than they envisaged.

There are plenty of Jewish groups who support and attend the Pro Palestine marches in both London and NYC, so where do they stand on the anti-semitic scale?

[Armagh18]

Out of curiosity, do some posters on here have a full time "Jew radar" on the go, or how do you seem to be able to identify politicians in all countries as being in Israel's palm, with such conviction?

Maybe yis are just more well read than I am.

Follow the money.

Labour Friends of Israel is a good start.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/All-Party-Israel-Lobby-Full-List-Edited.pdf

ANTI-SEMITE!!

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

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

I was being tongue-in-cheek. I refer you to post #593.

I was indeed being pedantic with my comment about Ashkenazi's not being semites and Gallsman comment about it being "widely understood" is accepted at being anti jew, if being incorrect is probably the accepted understanding, yet the IHRA description of anti-semitism bundles any criticism of Israel as also being anti-semitic.

Those who felt the need to bundle the state of Israel as being an entirely Jewish entity and hence criticism is anti-semitic have done more harm to the Jewish people than they envisaged.

There are plenty of Jewish groups who support and attend the Pro Palestine marches in both London and NYC, so where do they stand on the anti-semitic scale?

They're not really Jewish apparently!

[tonto1888]

Out of curiosity, do some posters on here have a full time "Jew radar" on the go, or how do you seem to be able to identify politicians in all countries as being in Israel's palm, with such conviction?

Maybe yis are just more well read than I am.

Follow the money.

Labour Friends of Israel is a good start.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/All-Party-Israel-Lobby-Full-List-Edited.pdf

ANTI-SEMITE!!

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

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

I was being tongue-in-cheek. I refer you to post #593.

I was indeed being pedantic with my comment about Ashkenazi's not being semites and Gallsman comment about it being "widely understood" is accepted at being anti jew, if being incorrect is probably the accepted understanding, yet the IHRA description of anti-semitism bundles any criticism of Israel as also being anti-semitic.

Those who felt the need to bundle the state of Israel as being an entirely Jewish entity and hence criticism is anti-semitic have done more harm to the Jewish people than they envisaged.

There are plenty of Jewish groups who support and attend the Pro Palestine marches in both London and NYC, so where do they stand on the anti-semitic scale?

They're not really Jewish apparently!

or not the right type of Jewish person

[Franko]

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?

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?

[OakLeaf]

Sorry to interrupt, but as this is the UK Labour Party thread, I thought I might mention that Streeting has just gone.

Now....back to the studio, for an extended Jewish / Zionist discussion.

I wish him well. Striking before Burnham can get back in as an MP. Unfortunately for Streeting he is apparently unpopular with the voting Labour members and likely to be defeated by any Leftish Candidate. With no Burnham, likely Rayner and possibly even Miliband will go again. I'd prefer Streeting.

To be fair he says he doesn't want to trigger a leadership election immediately. He wants a process which gives all of the best candidates a chance to enter, presumably including Burnham. I didn't expect that but its a good thing.

[playwiththewind1st]

The whole thing has now turned into a complete fiasco. It sums up why people are so wound up by the insulation & introspection of the Westminster bubble. It looks like we are in for a prolonged spell of Labour in-fighting, in which the problems that beset everyone will be ignored.

The Labour Party has always been far too broad of a church, which generally leads to vicious splits between the right & left wings.

It has always been a notable feature of nearly every Labour government that there has to be a serious fallout between 2 major personalities, leading to ongoing political paralysis.

[gallsman]

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?