The UK Labour Party

[johnnycool]

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?

could be why starmer isnt gonna block him from running this time round

Streeting nailing his colours to the mast:

https://x.com/i/status/2054902031349870838
 

[bennydorano]

He'll be delighted to see that circulating as his biggest problem is that he is very much viewed as a Blairite / right of the party.

Tweet reply nails it:
"He is such an opportunist piece of shit, devoid of any conviction."

[seafoid]

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.

the explation says general criticism of Israel is OK but nothing that points Israel out is. So you now havve genocide which Isrzel denies and bringing it up is antisemitic

Allister Heath is a Zionist
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/06/antizionism-totalitarian-conspiracy-theory-rotting-west/

Antizionism claims Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians, a new lie that it kills children (the original blood libel), enforces apartheid (a new untruth) and betrays every tenet of woke "social justice" ideology.
Crucially, all of these claims are axiomatically unchallengeable under the totalitarian, anti-rational premises of "postcolonialism"

[seafoid]

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.

The economy is banjaxed. 0.8% growth this year. Some official called 0.6% growth in the first quarter"robust"

That is pretty decent growth for the UK, and its genuine growth. There were quite a few very positive economic factors in recent months- all likely to be derailed by the Iran war unfortunately.

it's very poor, Benny. Most of it goes to the rich. Nothing for ordinary people. Growth has been poor since 2007.  Growth in the 70s was 3%.

[bennydorano]

As opposed to the Corporate Tax haven money in ROI going where?

[seafoid]

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

The definition is deliberately vague. Israel gets mentioned in the explanation but not in the definition.

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

Examples
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

[seafoid]

Starmer was elected to boost the economy and stop the political chaos that defined the Tories pre 2024.
And he did nothing for the economy plus this week was total chaos.
So he is on a very shaky scraw.

[bennydorano]

Starmer was elected to boost the economy and stop the political chaos that defined the Tories pre 2024.
And he did nothing for the economy plus this week was total chaos.
So he is on a very shaky scraw.

As I wrote previously, lost among the Zionists chit chat- There were quite a few very positive economic factors in recent months (UK)- all likely to be derailed by the Iran war unfortunately.

Starmer is goosed tho, even if he wins a leadership election. Iran situation going to hamstring him as well.

[seafoid]

Starmer was elected to boost the economy and stop the political chaos that defined the Tories pre 2024.
And he did nothing for the economy plus this week was total chaos.
So he is on a very shaky scraw.

As I wrote previously, lost among the Zionists chit chat- There were quite a few very positive economic factors in recent months (UK)- all likely to be derailed by the Iran war unfortunately.

Starmer is goosed tho, even if he wins a leadership election. Iran situation going to hamstring him as well.

Yeah. Starmer did nothing for the first year which was  mistake. He's not really a politician imo.
Iran will probably cause inflation and mess up Rachel Reeves projections. The UK is a mess at the moment.

[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.

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.

[seafoid]

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.

[gallsman]

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.

[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.

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.

[seafoid]

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.

I don't think it was fascist in 2014. You didn't have 93% support for carpetbombing Gaza. Fascism is a process and they weren't as far along the process.


Here is an example of antsemitism re genocide.. Allister Heath is a senior Zionist close to the Chief rabbi who is also an extremist.

Apartheid, shooting kids in the head and genocide are facts. If you bring this up you are antisemitic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/06/antizionism-totalitarian-conspiracy-theory-rotting-west/
Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories always rest on incendiary libels designed to depict Jews as uniquely, unforgivably evil and to fuel violence against them.
Antizionism claims Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians,
a new lie that it kills children (the original blood libel),
enforces apartheid (a new untruth)
and betrays every tenet of woke "social justice" ideology.

Crucially, all of these claims are axiomatically unchallengeable under the totalitarian, anti-rational premises of "postcolonialism". Jews are redefined not as refugees (often from Arab lands) but, in an act of gross inversion, as "white settler colonisers". They are oppressors, by definition, genocidal, self-evidently, and can never be victims. One doesn't need to prove this; asserting it is sufficient.

[Armagh18]

As opposed to the Corporate Tax haven money in ROI going where?

Bike sheds