And the antisemites are…?

Written By: - Date published: 9:30 am, September 5th, 2018 - 65 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, democracy under attack, discrimination, International, israel, Jeremy Corbyn, labour, Media, Palestine, Politics, Propaganda, religion, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uk politics - Tags: , , ,

As expected, the full adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemistism has done nothing whatsoever to dampen criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and the more social democratic faction or camp within UK Labour.

Apparently, even though the IRHA’s definition is meant to be a working definition – ie, something to be refined and worked on, issuing an accompanying statement that (as a party spokesperson puts it) “ensures this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians”, is just more grist for the mill.

So who are these spokespeople and supporters of those who would presume to speak for all Jews when they slam into UK Labour and those aligned with Jeremy Corbyn in particular? Well, according to the Canary, some of them run with the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson). Among others of very dubious provenance who protested outside UK Labour Party HQ, there was Gemma Sheridan. According to the Canary, she’s a member of the neo-Nazi Jewish Defence League that’s banned as a terrorist group in the USA.

There’s much that could be said about all of this – from Benjamin Netanyahu’s happy accommodation of, well, here’s a video presentation by Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept…

But maybe, the likes of this statement from Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS) who are…well, it seems they are nothing beyond a facebook page with less than 1000 followers. The Independent quotes their criticism of the NEC in full. The wording is somewhat revealing.

It [the NEC] has ignored the requests of the Jewish community and denied the fundamental right of that community to define its own discrimination.

So the entire Jewish community has been ignored. That’s what we’re to take from that quote. The Jewish community speaks with one voice and has a singular focus and a shared perspective. Hmm.

Here’s a photo from another of yesterday’s demonstrations that would seem to put the lie to any such assertion or assumption.

 

Judaism encompasses a very broad spectrum of thought and belief. There is no way whatsoever that anyone, nor any group, can sanely claim to speak for “the Jewish Community”. It’s not stopping the British Press from suggesting otherwise though. In quote after quote, whether from individuals or groups like the strangely invisible LAAS, the British Press is presenting statements that would purport to speak for all Jews. It’s a nonsense. And besides the plethora of Jewish voices not being heard and not reported on, there are, of course the various Palestinian groups and communities in the same boat.

As to why the British Press (and TV media too) might be running as a herd when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn, UK Labour and claims of antisemitism, well Johnathan Cook has an interesting piece that was published a little under two weeks ago. It’s well worth reading. In part, it runs…

The Israeli foreign affairs ministry employs staff of the country’s embassy in London, which was at the centre of suspicions of meddling in UK politics provoked by an Al Jazeera undercover documentary aired last year.

Eitay Mack, an Israeli lawyer, has written to both ministries requesting information on Israel’s contacts and possible funding of anti-Corbyn activities by pro-Israel lobby groups in the UK. The letter specifically seeks information on possible ties with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel.

It also requests information on any efforts by the two Israeli ministries and the Israeli embassy to influence journalists and civil society groups in the UK.

It will be interesting to what, if anything, results from those requests. In the meantime, anyone accessing British media will have to put up with the never ending “Get Corbyn!” saga.

65 comments on “And the antisemites are…? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Adrian Thornton 1
    5 September 2018 at 10:03 am

    Thanks for the update Bill.

    Personally I view this Corbyn anti Semitic bullshit as just a continuation of the British political and media establishment war on what they rightly perceived as a direct threat to their privilege, and of course their owners and donors business interests.

    The pro Zionist lobby and their supports have just been the right people at the right time for those interests to use in their smear campaign, as it is obvious that both their objectives happen to converge on the same person.

    As Norman Finkelstein has rightly pointed out, if you want to see what will happen to any real progressive politician (or movement) who looks like they have any chance of getting near the doors of power…just watch what is happening to Corbyn, they will fight as a dirty a fight as we have ever seen in politics, and it will surely get dirtier.

    Here is a new piece by Finkelstein on Corbyn…
    ‘THE CHIMERA OF BRITISH ANTI-SEMITISM, AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT IT IF IT WERE REAL’
    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/25/finkelstein-on-corbyn-mania/

    • Bill 1.1
      5 September 2018 at 10:38 am

      That Finkelstein piece is (as usual) very good. Thanks.

      He’s right that being “fat and bald” is more of a cross to bear in Britain than being Jewish.

      And he’s also right to say that if UK Labour was antisemitic and Britain awash with antisemites, then the last thing the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Labour Friends of Israel, LAAS or any of the rag tag of current and ex Rabbi’s like Jonathan Sacks would do, is shout[..] from the rooftops that Corbyn was a “fucking anti-Semite.” Because UK Labour would rake in votes in that scenario.

      The problem with Finkelstein is that he expects readers will be capable of engaging their brain.

      • Adrian Thornton 1.1.1
        5 September 2018 at 11:45 am

        I am not so sure that people aren’t engaging their brains, but I do think that the UK media establishment assumes they aren’t (engaging their brains), judging by the polls which have hardly moved since this anti Semitic campaign began.

        I really believe that more citizens than ever take what they hear in the MSM with a grain of salt, well at the very lest are wary of taking it on face value alone.
        Now this is not to say that this relentless negative press on Corbyn hasn’t
        effected him/Labour over all, of course it has, just imagine where Labour would be now in the polls if they were all united behind Corbyn, and the media was a least neutral in tone…the Tories would now be absolutely fucked in the polls that much is for sure.

        Now here is some really good news for Corbyn and Labour UK…

        “Labour NEC results: when will Corbyn’s opponents accept it’s over?”
        https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/labour-nec-results-when-will-corbyns-opponents-accept-its-over/

        “Momentum candidates sweep Labour NEC elections”
        https://www.thepeoplesnewsonline.co.uk/single-post/2018/09/03/momentum-candidates-sweep-labour-nec-elections/

        The other good news is apparently there is a big split in the New Labour Blairite factions..the ones who want to stay in Labour and fight it out, and the one who want to leave and start something new.

        It might be raining here right now, but I think I can see a ray of sunshine….

    • Dennis Frank 1.2
      5 September 2018 at 10:40 am

      Excellent essay by Finkelstein, thanks. “Jews themselves believe in their group superiority. Isn’t that why they kvell over the Jewish pedigree of the seminal figures of modernity—Marx, Einstein, and Freud—as well as 20 percent of Nobel laureates? What a Jewish child inherits is “no body of law, no body of learning, and no language, and finally, no Lord,” eminent Jewish novelist Philip Roth once observed, “but a kind of psychology: and the psychology can be translated in three words—‘Jews are better.’” A prominent Jewish-American scholar shamelessly gushed: “Jews would have been less than human had they eschewed any notion of superiority altogether,” and “it is extraordinarily difficult for American Jews to expunge the sense of superiority altogether, however much they may try to suppress it.”[6] A popular American publication, in an article under the headline “Are Jews Smarter?,” pondered the genetic evidence.[7]”

      “Lest this be pigeonholed as a peculiarly American-Jewish conceit, prominent Anglo-Jewish author Howard Jacobson speculates that at the heart of anti-Semitism lies Gentile ressentiment [sic: resentment?] of Jewish smarts: “Freud argues that Jews . . . over-evolved their mental and intellectual side. . . . We all have our arrogances and that is a Jewish arrogance. But the idea of the Jew as over-evolved mentally is one of the reasons humanity is in a constant argument with us. We gave the world ethics, morals, the mental life, for which the physical world will never forgive us.”[8] If it’s anti-Semitism to believe that “Jews think they are better than other people,” then most Jews would appear to be infected by this virus.”

      If a doctrine can be validated by evidence, this Jewish writer has here proven that a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority is valid. He hasn’t just proven that Jews are racist as per dictionary definition of the term, but seems also to have proven that they are anti-semitic. Quite a substantial intellectual achievement!!

  2. SPC 2
    5 September 2018 at 10:04 am

    Before the de-selection of some of the Blairites as membership democracy flows down down from the leadership vote to candidate votes, maybe the party could with some unity announce that from the UK’s .7% of GDP aid budget there is sufficient money to replace

    1 money no longer provided to the PA by the USA
    2 and the UNRWA by the USA

    As well as a loan to the PA equivalent to the money collected on behalf of the PA by Israel but is yet to be handed over.

  3. greywarshark 3
    5 September 2018 at 10:35 am

    I think Jews should be able to know that they are safe from repeats of past outrages. They want to ensure that this is true by measures to protect and defend, but have to control the idea of pre-emptive attack and displaying to vulnerable others like the Palestinians, shadowing those of the past on the Jewish people. Some Jews are stressing themselves with anti-semitic PC interrogation and analysis, and place Zionism at the side, in the same niche that all religions have for their OTT believers.

    I have just been reading again the story of the Dutch people who tried to keep Anna Frank’s family and others safe until someone sold their whereabouts for money – some small sum worked out on a per Jew basis. I have Victor Klemperer’s dairies also, who reckoned he was the last Jew left in Dresden when it was bombed. I have seen the pictures of naked bodies thrown into pits, read about prisoners set to stripping the bodies of clothes, hair, gold teeth. It is demeaning to me as a human to read this and I now believe that we all contain the spark of viciousness that can turn us to monstrous behaviour, or we can be coerced into it by vicious people so as to protect our own vulnerable ones.

    These are the words expressing what we all need to feel now:

    Don McLean Lyrics “And I Love You So”
    And I love you so
    The people ask me how
    How I’ve lived till now
    I tell them “I don’t know”

    I guess they understand
    How lonely life has been
    But life began again
    The day you took my hand

    And yes I know how lonely life can be
    The shadows follow me
    And the night won’t set me free
    But I don’t let the evening get me down
    Now that you’re around me

    And you love me too
    Your thoughts are just for me
    You set my spirit free
    I’m happy that you do

    The book of life is brief
    And once a page is read
    All but love is dead
    This is my belief

    And yes I know how loveless life can be
    The shadows follow me
    And the night won’t set me free
    But I don’t let the evening bring me down
    Now that you’re around me

    And I love you so
    The people ask me how
    How I’ve lived till now
    I tell them “I don’t know”
    https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/donmclean/andiloveyouso.html

  4. Kevin 4
    5 September 2018 at 10:43 am

    “the fundamental right of that community to define its own discrimination”

    Is it just me, or is that beyond belief?

    • Barfly 4.1
      5 September 2018 at 3:07 pm

      Well…..it is entirely believable that Zionists are demanding that – I believe it’s bullshit but it’s the world we live in 🙁

  5. roy cartland 5
    5 September 2018 at 11:31 am

    In that Mehdi Hassan video Bibi defended* H!tler – just wow.

    * Made excuses on behalf of, downplayed, softened the crimes of.

    • Bill 5.1
      5 September 2018 at 12:25 pm

      Yup. Well, maybe more that he blamed the Palestinians for suggesting a programme of extermination.

      I suspect that might have been the statement referenced by Ken Livingston when he was was dragged over the coals for saying that Hitler had shown support for Zionism. But I don’t know.

        • greywarshark 5.1.1.1
          5 September 2018 at 1:18 pm

          That seemed to work well for the wise and those who could leave Germany from 1933 on. And they had support from Jews around the world with anti-Nazi Don’t buy German goods to back it up. They cared about each other.

          Kristallnacht happened in November 1938 and was a terrible signal for what was to come and followed years of wide repression. Jews were oppressed so minutely they could not even keep pets, and had to give up their loved animals.

        • Bill 5.1.1.2
          5 September 2018 at 6:13 pm

          And yet Livingston was eventually forced to resign from the UK Labour Party for referencing the same historical fact that Netanyahu also referenced (though he added that twisted shit about the Mufti of Jerusalem)

    • joe90 5.2
      5 September 2018 at 12:34 pm

      It was the Muslims!.

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler’s mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

      In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here (to Palestine).’ According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

  6. Jum 6
    5 September 2018 at 12:15 pm

    Oh for a world without religious crap. And in the end, it’s always about control over women.

    • greywarshark 6.1
      5 September 2018 at 12:55 pm

      Oh women, women. Always putting themselves first and foremost. Always wanting to be the biggest victims. /sarc

      It’s money and power over others that men want to have and control. They already have control over women (they think).

  7. Professor Longhair 7
    5 September 2018 at 12:54 pm

    These antisemitism claims have as much weight as Trump’s allegations that Obama was Kenyan. Obama foolishly gave in and presented his birth certificate to those jackals.Let’s hope that Corbyn is made of sterner stuff.

    • Adrian Thornton 7.1
      5 September 2018 at 3:31 pm

      @Professor Longhair…or as much weight as the unsubstantiated allegations of Russia doing enough cyber espionage to change the course of the US elections.

    • Wayne 7.2
      5 September 2018 at 4:51 pm

      However, at the Council meeting Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act. His own Council had to shoot that idea down.

      Interesting that this even became public. I would have thought a party Council meeting was held in private, ie no media. So someone in the Council, or a senior party employee leaked this titbit.

      • Ed 7.2.1
        5 September 2018 at 5:05 pm

        Pay attention.
        UK Labour is riddled with Blairite 5th columnists.
        They will be dealt with and removed.
        Despite months of lies and smears, Corbyn’s Labour gets 41%.
        The NEC is now under socialist control.

        • Wayne 7.2.1.1
          5 September 2018 at 5:31 pm

          As I understand the reporting of the meeting, it was the socialist members of the NEC who opposed Corbyn’s view.

          I agree, it is probable that Labour will win the next election with Corbyn as PM. Of course the trick is to win the election after that. However, even a one term government can make permanent changes. Witness the Attlee administration of 1945 to 1951, and the creation of the NHS.

      • Bill 7.2.2
        5 September 2018 at 6:08 pm

        And Mr Wayne Mapp seemingly making shit up again and/or lying through his fucking teeth again with –

        However, at the Council meeting Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act. His own Council had to shoot that idea down.

        Because, back in the real world – (from the Guardian link in the post)

        The spokesperson said Corbyn had made an additional statement to the meeting describing action being taken against antisemitism and expressing solidarity with the Jewish community and the importance of the protection of Palestinian rights.

        Labour said Corbyn’s page-and-a-half long statement was welcomed by the NEC “as an important contribution” to the consultation on the subject, but sources added that the committee had refused to endorse it and it had to be withdrawn.

      • Morrissey 7.2.3
        5 September 2018 at 7:55 pm

        A former National Party minister writes, in a carefully assumed tone of stunned disbelief admixed with feigned high seriousness: “Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act.”

        Of course it was, and is, partly a racist act. As was the ripping away of California and Texas and Arizona from Mexico. As was the creation of Australia. As was the vanquishing and prolonged humiliation of the people of the Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki.

        It is perfectly reasonable and justifiable to talk about such matters. But this old National Party minister’s idea of education is the sort promulgated by non-scholars and pseudo-scholars like Michael Gove and David Starkey.

  8. Wayne 8
    5 September 2018 at 6:44 pm

    Thanks Stunned Mullet for the links. I should really work out how to do them myself.

    Bill, while I occasionally misremember things from several years ago, I don’t in relation to something in todays news or otherwise recent. Think about that before you make your usual accusation about me.

    Dennis, I personally think it is pretty amazing that a party would reject a paper (as opposed to something raised in a general discussion on the topic) prepared by the leader.

    • Bill 8.1
      5 September 2018 at 6:59 pm

      Two of those links were already in the post, and the third one is The Telegraph one that I’d already found. And (as you can read in my comment above), it does not say or even suggest that ” Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act”

      Your original comment is a lie. As is this nonsense that claims my default position around disagreement is to accuse people of lying. You want to play some tatty and nasty “victim” card? Then please fuck off and do it elsewhere. Thank you.

      • Stunned Mullet 8.1.1
        5 September 2018 at 7:16 pm

        ‘it does not say or even suggest that ” Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act”’

        “The Labour leader called for the party on Tuesday to adopt a personal statement which would have permitted activists to describe “Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist”.”

        • Bill 8.1.1.1
          5 September 2018 at 7:26 pm

          Oh god. The stupid, it hurts. A reporter giving their interpretation of a statement is not the same thing as the statement they are giving an opinion on. I produced the supposed quoted part of the statement used by The Telegraph. It does not accord with what Wayne claims. Further, apart from being in quote marks, there is nothing offered by The Telegraph with regards its authenticity.

      • te reo putake 8.1.2
        5 September 2018 at 7:25 pm

        Bill, it may not be a lie. It’s being reported this morning (UK time) that Corbyn wanted an amendment adopted that said “it should not be regarded as anti-Semitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist.”

        I guess the full text of Corbyn’s proposal will eventually come to light, but if that sentence is in it, then Wayne is correct.

        • Bill 8.1.2.1
          5 September 2018 at 7:33 pm

          Wayne isn’t correct in saying “Corbyn wanted to be able to argue (presumably in public) that the very formation of Israel was a racist act”

          That doesn’t accord with the quoted piece of text in The Telegraph, that I’m reproducing yet again, and in full and without the full stop you’ve placed half way through a sentence.

          According to The Telegraph, there was a leaked version of his proposed additional statement (not “amendment), that read –

          [It should not be] regarded as anti-Semitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict

          • te reo putake 8.1.2.1.1
            5 September 2018 at 7:44 pm

            So what? If Corbyn did want the text amended to allow for the claim that Israel was racist from the start, then Wayne is correct, even if the Telegraph link doesn’t confirm it.

            The point is that if Corbyn tried to have this included, he’s a doofus (in a political sense). As I said, the real version (or versions) will come to light eventually.

            This what another paper says Corbyn’s additional statement says in full:

            “It cannot be considered racist to treat Israel like any other state or assess its conduct against the standards of international law.

            “Nor should it be regarded as anti-Semitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

            Again, if it’s true that Corbyn put this up, Wayne is correct.

            Edit: The Guardian are also saying that this is the Corbyn statement:

            “It cannot be considered racist to treat Israel like any other state or assess its conduct against the standards of international law.

            Nor should it be regarded as antisemitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

            • Dennis Frank 8.1.2.1.1.1
              5 September 2018 at 7:54 pm

              First sentence works just fine, see below for the problematic second..

            • Morrissey 8.1.2.1.1.2
              5 September 2018 at 8:06 pm

              What is wrong with describing Israel, or any other state that acts like Israel does, as racist?

              • Ed …
                5 September 2018 at 8:08 pm

                Netanyahu doesn’t like it?

              • te reo putake …
                5 September 2018 at 8:16 pm

                Nothing wrong at all with that, Morrissey. That’s not my point. Corbyn seems determined to make matters worse at every opportunity. As I wrote the other day, all he had to do was cop it sweet and then move on to winning the next election.

                But nooooo, lets make the Labour party’s supposed anti-Jewish bias the lead story in the media for another day.

                The man is an idiot.

                • Bill …
                  5 September 2018 at 8:29 pm

                  So forty people meet and agree that the UK Labour Party will adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and people are already using it as a stick to call for Corbyn to publicly apologise for past actions that fall under the newly adopted code. The Board of Deputies of British Jews (refer to quote from the Cook article at the foot of the post)….

                  “The adoption of the internationally recognised definition by itself can only be the beginning. Action is what matters,” said Marie van der Zyl, the board’s president. “In addition, Jeremy Corbyn needs to apologise for past antisemitic comments and affiliations.”

                  He could have walked into that room with or without any suggestions, and the result would have been the same.

                • marty mars …
                  5 September 2018 at 9:08 pm

                  yep I agree – he is an idiot – principled and sincere – and still an idiot.

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 September 2018 at 7:37 am

                    Sorry, Marty, but could you please explain why Corbyn “is an idiot.” While I understand the motivation for the Blairites to launch this attack on him, I am confused as to why you and others would amplify it. The whole “argument”—if something so bizarre and irrational can be so termed—seems to be… what, exactly?

                    I am also distressed to see you weaponizing the words “principled” and “sincere” like you have. This is what Jim Mora regularly does on his dog of a radio show: “virtuous” and “well-intentioned” and “well-meaning” are used without exception to demean and undermine people who speak up for the poor, or the victims of crime. Why would you call someone “principled” and “sincere” at the same time as you call him “an idiot”?

                    Could you, and perhaps Te Reo, tell us why Corbyn “is an idiot”?

                    • marty mars …
                      6 September 2018 at 7:39 am

                      apology accepted

                    • Morrissey …
                      6 September 2018 at 7:48 am

                      Snide deflection won’t do it, Marty. I’ve asked you a serious question, and so far you seem unable to formulate a competent response.

                    • marty mars …
                      6 September 2018 at 7:52 am

                      I choose not to answer – my opinion is mine – are you okay with that or should I join some groupthinkcultmind like you want.
                      That is my polite response – further responses will not be as polite so fuck off eh?

                    • marty mars …
                      6 September 2018 at 8:03 am

                      I see you’ve added to your initial comment.

                      Those terms were sincere compliments – not everyone is like you morrie – some of us say what we think without spin or insincerity. Up your game idiot.

                    • Professor Longhair …
                      6 September 2018 at 8:41 am

                      Looks like this tick “mars” has no idea.

                    • marty mars …
                      6 September 2018 at 9:19 am

                      Morrie’s minor sock puppet stfu

            • Bill 8.1.2.1.1.3
              5 September 2018 at 8:21 pm

              If the discriminatory impacts are racist, then it’s not antisemitic to say so. That’s all that statement is getting at.

              You may agree or disagree with that, but regardless, it does not in any way suggest or imply (as per Wayne’s assertion) that “the very formation of Israel was a racist act”.

              The “because of their discriminatory impact” is the crucial qualifying clause of that second sentence.

              • te reo putake …
                5 September 2018 at 8:53 pm

                Bill, it literally lines up with what Wayne said. Corbyn appears to have proposed a statement that literally says that the foundation of Israel was racist. Yes, it goes on to say why that might be, but like it or not Wayne was correct, even if his wording wasn’t exactly what Corbyn wrote. (Bugger the Telegraph btw – the circulation is plummeting and the Barclay twins are apparently trying to flog it off before it dies)

                If the reported statement is accurate (and multiple outlets are quoting exactly the same words) then taking a pedantic approach to criticism of the statement doesn’t make it any better. The optics are awful.

                Corbyn seems hellbent on leading Labour to another glorious defeat, when winning is so much easier. I can’t for the life of me work out why Corbyn can’t just shut up and let the Tories tear themselves apart.

                • Bill …
                  5 September 2018 at 11:10 pm

                  “literally lines up with” + “appears to have proposed” = wanting to have your cake and eat it, no?

                  The caveat “because of their discriminatory impact” isn’t about “why that might be” but about limiting or delineating any justification for referring to the Israeli state as being racist.

                  Awful optics? Well, depends on the distortion of the lens applied, innit? And the British press will most assuredly apply a distorted lens.

                  Regardless, UK Labour will win the next UK election despite the gaggle of Blairites and other liberal fucks who, in league with fellow travelers in mainstream media and elsewhere, want Corbyn to be gone.

                  It’s true that they’re quite efficient at shutting out UK Labour’s message with nonsense distractions like the antisemitic stuff, and there isn’t much Corbyn or anyone can do about that.

                  But like I said previously, I suspect most of the people who matter (ie – the voters) don’t give a toss about any of the manufactured hysteria (in line with US voters and “Russiagate”).

                  And yeah, yeah, I know. You don’t speak Russian, so wouldn’t know nuffin about any of that 😉

          • Dennis Frank 8.1.2.1.2
            5 September 2018 at 7:52 pm

            Huh. If Corbyn really did write such convoluted text, he’s in dire need of an editorial rewrite. Perhaps this thought appeared in the minds of the NEC folk “Please no, not more illiterate crap from Jeremy. Gah!”

            Also, does he really believe that the British support for giving the jews back their original homeland a century ago was due to their racial superiority? Surely it was out of a misconceived perception of rectifying an historical wrong by creating another. I see no valid basis for claiming foundation was racist, unless he means the jews see themselves as a superior race.

            Finkelstein provided enough evidence of that to make people think so, but generalising that all jews think so has no valid basis. In which case he’s muddling instead of being specific, which just makes things worse for him!

            • greywarshark 8.1.2.1.2.1
              6 September 2018 at 11:23 am

              Surely the British did what they could for the hounded and desperate Jewish people who needed a place of sanctuary. If not the British who then? And the British had shown anti-Jewish and fascist bias through their bloody aristocracy, the Mitton girls or whatever their name, and the
              abdicated King who they were lucky enough to be able to sideline because he fell in love with a divorced USA woman.

              The Brits had power over Palestine and would have been under pressure to act. The Jewish people were more intellectually advanced, powerful and moneyed than any black race that had bad things happen to them. So they had superior advantage viewed dispassionately. But looking at events, the pressure for action would have been on British, they had the means with their Palestine connection, and perhaps were the most vulnerable. They had to redeem themselves for not being as supportive as they could earlier, and there were Jewish people in the USA which had turned its hand to helping Britain and defeating Germany and its rvil schemes; the war was over but the aftermath continued for the Jews.

              • Dennis Frank …
                6 September 2018 at 12:25 pm

                You’ve described well the view I took when first considering the situation in the sixties. I now see it as antiquated, inasmuch as it fails to integrate the dispossession of the Palestinians.

    • Dennis Frank 8.2
      5 September 2018 at 7:15 pm

      Just click on the website ident at the top of your browser, ctrl C to copy, then click on where you want to put it, ctrl V to paste it there, after which the site create the link automatically. Some folks here know how to create a link to a destination site in part of your own text, but not me!

      Nats are probably more old-fashioned around leader protocols. That would account for your amazement. But I’d expect such a paper to be tabled for future discussion, and an elementary courtesy would be to send each NEC member a file copy so they could read it onscreen or print it out to edit. If that hasn’t happened, he lacks basic political competence or needs to tell his secretary to get their act together.

      • greywarshark 8.2.1
        6 September 2018 at 11:32 am

        Dennis I note how far down your reply has gone from near the top of 8. If you replied to 8 after someone else had already replied and been allocated 8.1, then your comment gets allocated another sub-number ie 8.2.

        But then all the others who have replied under 8.1 go first and you get pushed down. You should have replied to Bill at 8.1 but noted at the top of your comment, that you were replying to Wayne ie @Wayne. Then you wouldn’t have dropped so far away from the context. No one reading your comment at 8.2 can relate to the one you were replying to. I set myself the task of tracing it by looking for earlier time on the right date, from yesterday.

        • Dennis Frank 8.2.1.1
          6 September 2018 at 12:27 pm

          Yeah, I appreciate your diligence, but it’s the way this site is constructed, huh? Nothing I can do about that. But surely you knew that effect is normal here?

      • veutoviper 8.2.2
        6 September 2018 at 12:45 pm

        “Some folks here know how to create a link to a destination site in part of your own text, but not me!”

        Dennis, FAQs at the top of the page provides instructions on how to do things here, including How to insert links in your own text.

        https://thestandard.org.nz/faq/comment-formatting/#linking

        Personally I don’t use this way of including links as I don’t tend to click on links unless I know what site it is going to land me on for reasons such as security and avoidance of picking up viruses, corruption of my computer etc.

    • Muttonbird 8.3
      5 September 2018 at 7:29 pm

      What machine are you using, Wayne? I’ll give you a crash course.

  9. Wayne 9
    5 September 2018 at 7:05 pm

    Bill

    You can’t admit you are wrong can you, you simply double down on your own lie.

    As if abuse is a sufficient answer to the Telegraph article.

    • Bill 9.1
      5 September 2018 at 7:20 pm

      Use the reply buttons in future. You know how.

      And sorry, but I’m not playing silly buggers with you this evening Wayne. You put a spin on an already “somewhat less than concrete” piece of reporting from The Telegraph. I’ve already pointed out that not only did the Telegraph piece not say as you claimed, but that it couldn’t offer any authentication for it’s own (supposedly) quoted source.

      As I wrote at the very beginning of the post (and as you have so amply demonstrated) – As expected, the full adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemistism has done nothing whatsoever to dampen criticism of Jeremy Corbyn …

      • Morrissey 9.1.1
        5 September 2018 at 8:33 pm

        Bill, he’s abusing you for not bowing down to the….Telegraph. The man is a humor-free zone, without a sense of irony or absurdity. I would have found such blithering stupidity amusing at one time, but up close like this it’s menacing and ugly.

  10. sumsuch 10
    5 September 2018 at 11:17 pm

    The main problem with Israel is conquest in the modern age. Italy and Germany, late conquerors as well, also encountered it.

    Zionism is now viciousness with mortgages and 3 generations. Like us a lot but without the former, here it’s been delighted into chronicness.

    Hence, I’m for the underdog. The idealism means nothing now if it ever did, apart from hope.

  11. RedLogix 11
    6 September 2018 at 1:00 am

    It seems appropriate to link to this wise and measured piece:

    And although the Third Reich destroyed my world, it was a German woman who saved my life by introducing me to the men who would recruit me into the Polish underground. No nation has a monopoly on virtue – something that many people, including many of my fellow Israeli citizens, still struggle to understand.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/05/survived-warsaw-ghetto-wartime-lessons-extremism-europe