Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
GOP voters are welcome to stay behind Trump, its the non aligned voters that matter in giving the party a kicking mid term which they may well do.
The lifting of Russian national Maria Butina just as Trump was brown nosing Putin in Helsinki is more significant for the Congressional GOP than many realise.
On reflection , I maybe wasn't explicit enough.
Maria Butina's penetration of the GOP within Washington was significant.
On Topic "The big question will be how it impacts on the midterm elections at the start of November."
Normally speaking, mid-terms are for the more politically motivated party, which tends to be the party out of government normally, but for the past few cycles has been the GOP.
This year is really hard to read. 1. Trump supporters are still ramped up, and the more Trump is vilified, the more they'll rally to him. In some ways, it's almost like an attack on Trump is an attack on them personally, because they voted for him and so they own the outcome. So rather than admit fault, they'll double down, citing many of the reasons TimB noted, particularly the disruptor meme. 'If you want a disruptor and get a disruptor, he's sometimes going to disrupt in ways that you don't personally like, but that doesn't negate why you wanted and still want a disruptor' is the sort of argument I hear.
2. Democrats are really ramped up too. Outraged is the only word to describe it. Well, apoplectic is perhaps a second. I don''t think we'll see the usual fall off in Dem voting this mid-term
3. Lots of independents are appalled. Will they vote? I am not sure. I really believe that for independent women, what happens in the Supreme Court nomination process will have an impact.
If all this makes it hard to read how big the overall swing will be (though you have to believe it will be towards the Dems), it is even harder to know how this will effect individual House races, or indeed, the Senate races, given that so many of them are being fought on GOP-friendly turf.
What should happen, and what I want to happen, is that the GOP gets a right proper kick up the arse for its supine reactions to Trump's excesses. I just don't know that it will. It's not just the UK where politics are passing through crazy times.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
In 2008 Milne wrote of “the takeover of Palestinian land by overwhelmingly European settlers” when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
In 2008 Milne wrote of “the takeover of Palestinian land by overwhelmingly European settlers” when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
In 2008 Milne wrote of “the takeover of Palestinian land by overwhelmingly European settlers” when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain. The U.N is the international body it was pushed through by the members of that international body rather than the pusher of its creation.
America played a role closer to the date and everyone who voted for it (Russia being in favour was probably very useful) to an extent but I think most would agree Britain was the main player (in terms of countries and intentionally so, so not Nazi Germany)
You are right though that it was the U.N that actually created Israel.
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
In 2008 Milne wrote of “the takeover of Palestinian land by overwhelmingly European settlers” when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
CSU + AfD combined on 50% though, still 17% more than the SPD+Greens + Die Linke on 33% combined
I'm guessing Merkel wouldn't be happy with a CSU/AfD coalition agreement.
I think HYUFD overstates the likelihood of a CSU/AfD coalition. The CSU is the party of BMW, of Allianz and of Siemens.
That would lead to a CSU / CDU split. The CDU will take many seats in Bavaria, lose many in other Lands , mainly to SPD. The biggest loser will be the CSU. Their "guarantee" of winning Bavaria will go.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
You take away Britain and all its actions prior and there may well not even be a 1947 vote. I did mention America played a closer role to the date but taking all the events that led to its creation in totality rather than just simply the vote itself would put Britain out on top. Edit: That is with the disclaimers I used earlier.
Edit: also not that I don't enjoy a somewhat technical side point in conversations (I often genuinely do) but I assume the criticism of Milne's remarks as anti Semitic don't centre around wrongly thinking Britain did vote for the creation of Israel or that they did it themselves rather than an international body doing it...
___________________________________________________ “All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians. ___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majorit
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
You take away Britain and all its actions prior and there may well not even be a 1947 vote. I did mention America played a closer role to the date but taking all the events that led to its creation in totality rather than just simply the vote itself would put Britain out on top. Edit: That is with the disclaimers I used earlier.
Edit: also not that I don't enjoy a somewhat technical side point in conversations (I often genuinely do) but I assume the criticism of Milne's remarks as anti Semitic don't centre around wrongly thinking Britain did vote for the creation of Israel or that they did it themselves rather than an international body doing it...
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
You take away Britain and all its actions prior and there may well not even be a 1947 vote. I did mention America played a closer role to the date but taking all the events that led to its creation in totality rather than just simply the vote itself would put Britain out on top. Edit: That is with the disclaimers I used earlier.
Edit: also not that I don't enjoy a somewhat technical side point in conversations (I often genuinely do) but I assume the criticism of Milne's remarks as anti Semitic don't centre around wrongly thinking Britain did vote for the creation of Israel or that they did it themselves rather than an international body doing it...
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
The original comment was about 1947/48.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
You take away Britain and all its actions prior and there may well not even be a 1947 vote. I did mention America played a closer role to the date but taking all the events that led to its creation in totality rather than just simply the vote itself would put Britain out on top. Edit: That is with the disclaimers I used earlier.
Edit: also not that I don't enjoy a somewhat technical side point in conversations (I often genuinely do) but I assume the criticism of Milne's remarks as anti Semitic don't centre around wrongly thinking Britain did vote for the creation of Israel or that they did it themselves rather than an international body doing it...
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
The original comment was about 1947/48.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
Ah I see you are a wood from the trees PB-er.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
So you agree with my original point that his comments are not in fact anti Semitic.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
Trump and Putin's private meeting: "No American official has provided a detailed readout of the meeting, which took place with only two interpreters as witnesses. The White House indicated on Wednesday that a recording of the session didn't exist. But Trump's own intelligence chief could not rule out the possibility that Russia recorded the meeting."
Trump and Putin's private meeting: "No American official has provided a detailed readout of the meeting, which took place with only two interpreters as witnesses. The White House indicated on Wednesday that a recording of the session didn't exist. But Trump's own intelligence chief could not rule out the possibility that Russia recorded the meeting."
And a montage (the sound is a bit off) of Trump alternately denying he knows Putin and saying he has a great relationship with him, back and forth, over a number of years: https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1018878949412167688?
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
So you agree with my original point that his comments are not in fact anti Semitic.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
If an anti Semite says: "I think England should play three up front", "I think England should play three up front" is not an anti Semitic comment.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
So you agree with my original point that his comments are not in fact anti Semitic.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
It’s no doubt unfair, but the timing of your diatribes makes me think that you’ve just received the message telling you what to think and broadcast today. Causation, correlation and all that.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa.
Ahh my mistake, thank you.
Actually, again you are wrong (I'm being contrary this morning)! It isn't your mistake. It's Milne's mistake. As was his claim that Israel was created by Britain. In fact, after the Balfour declaration of 1917 and the work of Samuel from 1920 to 1925, Britain spent a lot of time in the 1930s trying to prevent the creation of a Jewish homeland, not particularly successfully. By the 1940s it seemed indeed to be taking a strongly pro-Arab position, to the extent that Irgun launched a terrorism campaign to drive them out. Not only did it not vote in the partition of Palestine by the UN, but its fighter planes were shot down by the Israelis as it tried to enforce no-fly zones over Arab areas, and it was the only non-Arab state to recognise the annexation of the West Bank by what is now Jordan.
So, let's go back to the main point. Milne was mistaken about the ethnic makeup and geographical origin of a large proportion of the Israeli Jews, and he falsely blamed Britain for the ongoing problems. Now, this might be because he's not very bright. But that's a dubious explanation. He appears to me to have brains. A much more plausible explanation is he didn't care about the facts, and just said whatever fitted his preconceived narrative - Jews=evil white snatchers of land and Britain=dishonest imperialists who ruined the whole planet. (I've noticed, as an aside, that he has similar blind spots over the ex-Soviet bloc - he spent a lot of time at one point talking wistfully about the high standard of living and guaranteed rights and freedom people had in East Germany, which was patently bollocks).
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
The original comment was about 1947/48.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
Ah I see you are a wood from the trees PB-er.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
Does anybody care what some clown thinks about what was or was not said about something from 1947, do you guys have a life at all.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
The original comment was about 1947/48.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
Ah I see you are a wood from the trees PB-er.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
Does anybody care what some clown thinks about what was or was not said about something from 1947, do you guys have a life at all.
You are asking people who spend much of their free time on an internet politics forum if they have a life.
Really, Malcolm, I'm disappointed by your lapse of good taste. It's not polite to draw attention to these things.
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
CSU + AfD combined on 50% though, still 17% more than the SPD+Greens + Die Linke on 33% combined
You mean CDU + AfD ? CSU is not that big a party. It wins big in Bavaria because of its historic alliance with the CDU.
Yes CDU/CSU are generally acts one party with CDU being by far the largest part. "The CSU contests elections only in Bavaria, while the CDU operates in the other 15 states of Germany."
F1: just checked the forecast. The penny bets won't come off as it's very sunny today, but the forecast for both qualifying and the race has diminished. About 50/50 for rain in qualifying, with a lower chance of rain during the race.
There were lots of factors that created it if you were to give credit to a single country most then it would be Britain.
Britain abstained in the 1947 vote.
"Somewhat technical side point"
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
The original comment was about 1947/48.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
Ah I see you are a wood from the trees PB-er.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
Does anybody care what some clown thinks about what was or was not said about something from 1947, do you guys have a life at all.
You are asking people who spend much of their free time on an internet politics forum if they have a life.
Really, Malcolm, I'm disappointed by your lapse of good taste. It's not polite to draw attention to these things.
Malcolm who, as we speak, is in the remote Watakuku valley searching for a cancer cure, has asked one of his valets to post while he is away.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
So you agree with my original point that his comments are not in fact anti Semitic.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
It’s no doubt unfair, but the timing of your diatribes makes me think that you’ve just received the message telling you what to think and broadcast today. Causation, correlation and all that.
The assumption that I could be considered either important and/or convincing enough to be told what to do is enough of a compliment in itself that I can happily take the accusation.
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the blame for Israel's creation is certainly true. It is hard to imagine the U.N vote taking place with Britain's actions.
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the blame for Israel's creation is certainly true. It is hard to imagine the U.N vote taking place with Britain's actions.
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
F1: just checked the forecast. The penny bets won't come off as it's very sunny today, but the forecast for both qualifying and the race has diminished. About 50/50 for rain in qualifying, with a lower chance of rain during the race.
Given the heat, Vettel might just be worth a punt for the first practice session ?
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
So you agree with my original point that his comments are not in fact anti Semitic.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
If an anti Semite says: "I think England should play three up front", "I think England should play three up front" is not an anti Semitic comment.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the blame for Israel's creation is certainly true. It is hard to imagine the U.N vote taking place with Britain's actions.
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
Maybe the Democrats and Tories too if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 Democratic candidate and Mogg the next Tory leader
Seehofer has been disavowed by his party's PM in Bavaria, who says that arguing at national level is unhelpful and in future the party will concentrate on local issues. Contrary to some expectations, the AfD has not benefited from the controversy, with the (pro-immigration) Greens rather mysteriously the main beneficiary. The Chairman of the Catholic Bishops' Conference has said that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity and implied that the CSU (Christian Social Union) is not living up to its name.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
Seamas Milne’s anti-Semitism is more about his public support for Hamas and his proclivity to campaign alongside people who wish death on all Jews.
I've never understood from a propaganda point of view why people don't make more of the left's support for anti apartheid terrorists who would kill white people, like their support of Palestinian terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of Jewish people their support of South African terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of White people...
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
Apartheid in Israel. Who would have guessed? You can understand why Jeremy might find it easier to walk through the eye of a needle than comment on Netanyahu's Likud government and stay on the right side of the IRHA's definition of antisemitism
Well I will risk it. This new law is an utter disgrace. I am all for Israel being a homeland for Jews but to downgrade the 20% of the population who are not Jews, to treat them as less worthy of being citizens in their home, to downgrade Arabic is utterly wrong. Both wrong and stupid. What an utterly foolish and immoral thing for Israel to do.
And no I am not being anti-semitic in saying this and, yes, the IRHA’s definition does not prohibit this criticism.
I agree with all you've said except the last line. The IRHA says
*"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."
Though one could put up a defence in a court of law I would be very surprised if a Labour tribuneral would be allowed to give a member the benefit of the doubt in today's febrile atmosphere.
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
I would suggest that the Labour Party had been subsumed into a personality cult and many loyal members, supporters and voters ultimately rejected it by 2010 and '15. Now the party is being reclaimed and it is the remnants of the old order who are now out of step with the new, and maybe they should be considering their positions. All organisations have to change, even political parties. Sometimes it works, as in the dramatic rise of the LibDems under Ashdown and Kennedy, then the coup of Clegg leading to the fall. Such is the democracy and form of government that we have. And the Conservative Party is not immune either as anyone who reads the histories of the party can testify.
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the blame for Israel's creation is certainly true. It is hard to imagine the U.N vote taking place with Britain's actions.
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
I would think that most people at the time would not have considered Jews to be interlopers in Palestine.
Also, people at the time were pretty relaxed about what we would call ethnic cleansing, which happened in many places after the end of WW2.
Does that make his remn people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the blame for Israel's creation is certainly true. It is hard to imagine the U.N vote taking place with Britain's actions.
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
What if the Muslims had been in Britain 5,000 years ago and continuously since as a settled community?
Why not - Russia (Crimea), China (Tibet), India (Kashmir), Turkey (Kurdistan), or even Denmark (Greenland), Sweden (Sapmi).
None of this is to excuse the bantustanism of the West Bank, just a genuine question.
I assume scholars have answered this question somewhere.
Labour has loads of campaigns going on for various causes around the world, the opposition generally don't accuse us of being racist for the other ones though.
Or if you want to take me as an individual I support efforts to combat global warming. I don't usually spend any time arguing about this, mostly because I am not any kind of climate scientist or expert, but partially because I'm never claimed (or people who believe like me) claimed to be anti semitic for my views on the matter, so it tends to arouse my passions a bit less.
Similarly I have had very small conversations (not on here) about Russia's treatment of the Chechens. Once again I was on safe ground though as me and people who thought like me weren't declared anti semites for our views so it didn't get much attention and it didn't arouse passions.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
It's a lose-lose for Labour I think. Adopting a standard you don't agree with is not a good idea either, it would only lead to more trouble later.
[It's also worth pointing out that there are some Jewish organizations who don't agree with the definition].
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
I would suggest that the Labour Party had been subsumed into a personality cult and many loyal members, supporters and voters ultimately rejected it by 2010 and '15. Now the party is being reclaimed and it is the remnants of the old order who are now out of step with the new, and maybe they should be considering their positions. All organisations have to change, even political parties. Sometimes it works, as in the dramatic rise of the LibDems under Ashdown and Kennedy, then the coup of Clegg leading to the fall. Such is the democracy and form of government that we have. And the Conservative Party is not immune either as anyone who reads the histories of the party can testify.
The Conservative party is not currently being subsumed into a personality cult. It has, however, been subsumed into the death cult of Brexit. Hence the party of business is now the party of “fuck business”, a reversal every bit as startling as Republicans seeing Russia as their new BFF.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
It's a lose-lose for Labour I think. Adopting a standard you don't agree with is not a good idea either, it would only lead to more trouble later.
[It's also worth pointing out that there are some Jewish organizations who don't agree with the definition].
Until you have the moral authority to participate in the debate, you adopt the standard definition.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
What happened in Palestine around that time was just part of a series of wider people movements, many of which were forced and caused horrible hardships. There were also genocides going on at that time (and sadly since).
Given the massive tumult in the region before and after WW1, it seems odd that the left concentrates only on the Palestinians, and not on other groups that were forcibly dispossessed or murdered.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
Edit: I know all about is one the biggest overstatements I have made in my time here. I know of it would be far more accurate.
What happened in Palestine around that time was just part of a series of wider people movements, many of which were forced and caused horrible hardships. There were also genocides going on at that time (and sadly since).
Given the massive tumult in the region before and after WW1, it seems odd that the left concentrates only on the Palestinians, and not on other groups that were forcibly dispossessed or murdered.
It is the blind spot (to put it kindly) of some on the left, including our friend @TheJezziah. They dance around on the top of the pin telling us that this comment or that comment is not anti-semitic and missing the broader context that a bunch of anti-semites going out of their way to make specific and laboured non anti-semitic comments does not negate the anti-semitism of their Party.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
Maybe the Democrats and Tories too if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 Democratic candidate and Mogg the next Tory leader
Three things that aren't going to happen in a single sentence must be a record even for you?
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
Not on the basis of the terrible argument put forward so far I don't.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
So you’re telling Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
I think that's a very perceptive post. I would add that it has a lot of the allure of South Africa . An enfeebled indiginous underdog suffering daily degradation at the hands of their oppressors and with the backing of powerful international right wing forces. As a concept is is not comparabe to any other I can think of.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
Maybe the Democrats and Tories too if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 Democratic candidate and Mogg the next Tory leader
Three things that aren't going to happen in a single sentence must be a record even for you?
It's 1984. Suddenly Russia is our friend, the EU is our enemy. It was always this way. There has been no change.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
There was a small Jewish population there throughout but before there started to be Jewish immigration to the area on the basis of founding Israel in the future very late 18 early 19th Century (very light at first) Jewish people were actually a very small minority to other groups in the area.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
Not on the basis of the terrible argument put forward so far I don't.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
It isn't the world's greatest argument.
If someone is an anti-semite then as I said, there is a discussion to be had which has it that everything and anything they say is anti-semitic.
But again you are looking at the trees, rather than admiring the wood. The fact that we are trying to determine whether an anti-semite has said something anti-semitic or not is more telling about the Labour Party than I think you realise.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
So you’re telling Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism.
I think my post above pretty much covers it. Labour can't really tell groups, especially ones that exist mostly outside of it what to think on anything.
What they can do it setup rules that the people in their organisation have to follow.
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
In Nineteenth Century Palestine only about 5% of the population of what is now Israel were Jewish. That started to change with the first waves of Zionist settlers in 1881, while still Ottoman.
The Bible is a ludicrous way to argue how land disputes should be settled. You could make the case that either the land should be returned to the Canaanites, or alternatively to the Romans by right of conquest.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
This is near-exactly right. Near-exactly because the added dimension to the issue is that plenty on the Left supported Israel in its early days, what with the commune living and ideals. What the Left have never forgiven, however, is the transformation of Israel from those early, weak, needy days, to becoming as you say a strong, western imperial power just like all the other class enemies.
It is why there is so much vitriol against them (cf. the vitriol displayed by the Left against hitherto poor, working class people, who get rich); they feel betrayed that the Jews didn't stay weak and needy and no longer needed saving.
And yes, pace the anti-semitism issue, Jews and Israel are interchangeable.
Beyond belief. This is the party that revered Ronnie Reagan. I am speechless.
I'm guessing here but maybe they just feel no-one else is speaking to them. Until they do, Trump will have their undying loyalty.
I get some of this. The rust belt. The lost jobs. The coal mines gone. The opioids. The crap wages at the Walmart (if you are lucky to even get a job). Even the worry about Mexican migration.
But Russia? Russia is our new best friend? Russia is better than France or Germany or the UK? Better than NATO? Or even more, better than the FBI, the CIA and the US military?
What the actually f***?
The Republican Party is a personality cult and Republicans has purged the disloyal being left with an insanely tribal base. It's where Labour is going.
Maybe the Democrats and Tories too if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 Democratic candidate and Mogg the next Tory leader
I'll grant you two of those (in the rather unlikely scenario of either achieving the position), but Warren hardly has a 'personality cult', and is a long way from 'insanely tribal'.
She'd probably be quite at home on the right of the Labour party.
Mr. B, problem with it being so tight at the top is the odds are going to be pretty damned short. Anyway, it's a credible bet, but I'm going to sit it out (which can only help its chances of coming off ).
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
This is near-exactly right. Near-exactly because the added dimension to the issue is that plenty on the Left supported Israel in its early days, what with the commune living and ideals. What the Left have never forgiven, however, is the transformation of Israel from those early, weak, needy days, to becoming as you say a strong, western imperial power just like all the other class enemies.
It is why there is so much vitriol against them (cf. the vitriol displayed by the Left against hitherto poor, working class people, who get rich); they feel betrayed that the Jews didn't stay weak and needy and no longer needed saving.
And yes, pace the anti-semitism issue, Jews and Israel are interchangeable.
Hence why the Jewish vote in the UK has switched from leaning Labour 50 years ago to now being even more strongly Tory than the Anglican vote
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
So you’re telling Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism.
I think my post above pretty much covers it. Labour can't really tell groups, especially ones that exist mostly outside of it what to think on anything.
What they can do it setup rules that the people in their organisation have to follow.
Through his actions or inactions Corbyn condones anti-Semitism
Through his actions or inactions Corbyn condones Russian military aggression
Through his actions or inactions Corbyn condones hard brexit and all the damage that will bring to British jobs
Through their feeble inactions the Parliamentary Labour Party supports all of the above
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
In Nineteenth Century Palestine only about 5% of the population of what is now Israel were Jewish. That started to change with the first waves of Zionist settlers in 1881, while still Ottoman.
The Bible is a ludicrous way to argue how land disputes should be settled. You could make the case that either the land should be returned to the Canaanites, or alternatively to the Romans by right of conquest.
Right of conquest is not the same as historic homeland otherwise Italy could have a claim on Britain
Mr. B, problem with it being so tight at the top is the odds are going to be pretty damned short. Anyway, it's a credible bet, but I'm going to sit it out (which can only help its chances of coming off ).
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
I think that's a very perceptive post. I would add that it has a lot of the allure of South Africa . An enfeebled indiginous underdog suffering daily degradation at the hands of their oppressors and with the backing of powerful international right wing forces. As a concept is is not comparabe to any other I can think of.
Hamas are extremists, Assad is a psychopath, Stalin is one of the worlds greatest (in terms of numbers) murderers in the world.
I accept the geopolitical realities of the world being a dark place where it is often a choice of bad vs bad.
Hamas are terrible but I support the cause of Palestinian freedom, could speak similarly about South Africa in the past.
Stalin was a terrible man but we had to stop Hitler who was arguably a fair bit worse.
I'm least sure on this one but hypothetically it was only a choice between Assad and ISIS then I think most people would accept we back Assad over ISIS.
I make similar allowances for our support and friendship with bad people across the world, we don't for example keep friendly relations with the Saudi leadership because we love their approach and their views (or at least I hope not) to women and various other groups they treat in substandard ways.
I just don’t see how the Labour party thinks it has the moral authority to tell Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism given its recent track record, as acknowledged by its leader.
I think you are confused, Labour isn't telling Jews what constitutes anti-semitism.
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
Are you really suggesting that Labour is explicitly saying that some forms of anti-Semitism are acceptable?
No I am saying people can believe whatever they want.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
So you’re telling Jews what constitutes anti-Semitism.
I think my post above pretty much covers it. Labour can't really tell groups, especially ones that exist mostly outside of it what to think on anything.
What they can do it setup rules that the people in their organisation have to follow.
According to the IRHA definition of anti semitism (and not included in the Labour Party one):
It is anti-semitic to deny “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
Yet yesterday the Knesset decided that Israel is a racially defined state. So under the IRHA definition the Knesset is anti-semitic!
There is much to admire about Israel and its society, but yesterday it showed its ugly side.
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
Edit: I know all about is one the biggest overstatements I have made in my time here. I know of it would be far more accurate.
Every religion has a a place where it is a majority, Christianity in Europe, North and Latin America and Oceania, Islam in the Middle East and North Africa, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Thailand etc.
Israel is the one place on earth Jews know they can be safe as a majority
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
Not on the basis of the terrible argument put forward so far I don't.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
It isn't the world's greatest argument.
If someone is an anti-semite then as I said, there is a discussion to be had which has it that everything and anything they say is anti-semitic.
But again you are looking at the trees, rather than admiring the wood. The fact that we are trying to determine whether an anti-semite has said something anti-semitic or not is more telling about the Labour Party than I think you realise.
So if someone isn't an anti semite, such as Milne, then everything they say isn't anti semitic.
The smoke without fire logic falls down very quickly when we consider what the racists says about all Muslims being terrorists and Jewish people being lizards. People make moronic claims all the time, unless they can prove the truth to their claims then they are just another person howling rubbish in the wind.
FWIW my opinion is that both Milne and Corbyn hate Israel as they see it as an extreme example of western imperialism backed fairly unconditionally by the US. They support the likes of Hamas because they see them as freedom fighters against oppression and the left has a long history of not looking under the fingernails of such organisations to see whether their own behaviour is morally clean.
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
Not on the basis of the terrible argument put forward so far I don't.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
It isn't the world's greatest argument.
If someone is an anti-semite then as I said, there is a discussion to be had which has it that everything and anything they say is anti-semitic.
But again you are looking at the trees, rather than admiring the wood. The fact that we are trying to determine whether an anti-semite has said something anti-semitic or not is more telling about the Labour Party than I think you realise.
So if someone isn't an anti semite, such as Milne, then everything they say isn't anti semitic.
The smoke without fire logic falls down very quickly when we consider what the racists says about all Muslims being terrorists and Jewish people being lizards. People make moronic claims all the time, unless they can prove the truth to their claims then they are just another person howling rubbish in the wind.
There is a hard question about whether these guys are doing the US a service - if only by preventing for a time Trump appointing someone more sympathetic to his lunacies to national security posts - and how much they are simply enabling Trump by putting their best gloss on his actions.
A difficult one to answer - but in the case of the Congress, and in particular the Senate, there is no such excuse.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom .
One doesn't have to rely on the Bible, though. There's plenty of evidence that Jews lived in Palestine continuously from Hellenistic times.
In Nineteenth Century Palestine only about 5% of the population of what is now Israel were Jewish. That started to change with the first waves of Zionist settlers in 1881, while still Ottoman.
The Bible is a ludicrous way to argue how land disputes should be settled. You could make the case that either the land should be returned to the Canaanites, or alternatively to the Romans by right of conquest.
Right of conquest is not the same as historic homeland otherwise Italy could have a claim on Britain
Historic homeland is a nonsense. Unless you want to return the entirety of Australasia and the Americas to their original inhabitants. It is also an intrinsically racist concept as you could make the same case that Ethnic Britons should have more rights to their homeland on these isles than more recent arrivals.
We cannot undo history, and I support the existence of Israel as a state, but I do so because of 20th Century realities, not because of the Old Testament.
I'd have to disagree with you on Britain, not on the individual events, British policy wobbled around at various times depending on what they wanted and from whom at any particular moment. But the overall point that Britain takes a large share of the Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
That you see the fact of Israel’s creation as a subject for “blame” rather gives your real position away.
It was mainly Europeans that committed genocide on the Jewish people and had mistreated them for hundreds of years.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
Except Israel has been the ancient homeland of the Jews and the only land Jews can truly call their own for thousands of years, just read the Bible.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
I know all about the ancient Israeli kingdom but I do not support a claim based on a kingdom that ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
Edit: I know all about is one the biggest overstatements I have made in my time here. I know of it would be far more accurate.
Every religion has a a place where it is a majority, Christianity in Europe, North and Latin America and Oceania, Islam in the Middle East and North Africa, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Thailand etc.
Israel is the one place on earth Jews know they can be safe as a majority
There is often lots of good logic behind why the Israelis deserve somewhere particular for them all to live, but very rarely is there any on why many of the Palestinians deserved to lose theirs.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
So you agree that the person who makes the comment is an anti-semite. Plus good point; there is also a valid argument which says that anything an anti-semite says is, because it is the product of an anti-semitic mind, anti-semitic.
Not on the basis of the terrible argument put forward so far I don't.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
It isn't the world's greatest argument.
If someone is an anti-semite then as I said, there is a discussion to be had which has it that everything and anything they say is anti-semitic.
But again you are looking at the trees, rather than admiring the wood. The fact that we are trying to determine whether an anti-semite has said something anti-semitic or not is more telling about the Labour Party than I think you realise.
So if someone isn't an anti semite, such as Milne, then everything they say isn't anti semitic.
The smoke without fire logic falls down very quickly when we consider what the racists says about all Muslims being terrorists and Jewish people being lizards. People make moronic claims all the time, unless they can prove the truth to their claims then they are just another person howling rubbish in the wind.
How do you know that Milne is not anti-semitic?
Ducks spring to mind, here.
Well considering the standard was implying he was and that was the best they could come out with.
It is sort of a default, if I meet someone I won't think their racist until I have proof otherwise.
Seamas Milne’s anti-Semitism is more about his public support for Hamas and his proclivity to campaign alongside people who wish death on all Jews.
I've never understood from a propaganda point of view why people don't make more of the left's support for anti apartheid terrorists who would kill white people, like their support of Palestinian terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of Jewish people their support of South African terrorist groups shows their racist hatred of White people...
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
Comments
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/mariia-butina-nra-republican-party-russian-used-sex-to-manipulate-filings-say.html
Normally speaking, mid-terms are for the more politically motivated party, which tends to be the party out of government normally, but for the past few cycles has been the GOP.
This year is really hard to read.
1. Trump supporters are still ramped up, and the more Trump is vilified, the more they'll rally to him. In some ways, it's almost like an attack on Trump is an attack on them personally, because they voted for him and so they own the outcome. So rather than admit fault, they'll double down, citing many of the reasons TimB noted, particularly the disruptor meme. 'If you want a disruptor and get a disruptor, he's sometimes going to disrupt in ways that you don't personally like, but that doesn't negate why you wanted and still want a disruptor' is the sort of argument I hear.
2. Democrats are really ramped up too. Outraged is the only word to describe it. Well, apoplectic is perhaps a second. I don''t think we'll see the usual fall off in Dem voting this mid-term
3. Lots of independents are appalled. Will they vote? I am not sure. I really believe that for independent women, what happens in the Supreme Court nomination process will have an impact.
If all this makes it hard to read how big the overall swing will be (though you have to believe it will be towards the Dems), it is even harder to know how this will effect individual House races, or indeed, the Senate races, given that so many of them are being fought on GOP-friendly turf.
What should happen, and what I want to happen, is that the GOP gets a right proper kick up the arse for its supine reactions to Trump's excesses. I just don't know that it will. It's not just the UK where politics are passing through crazy times.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/milne-israel-stance-obstructs-labour-a3891156.html
___________________________________________________
“All Milne’s [past] comments would likely have led to suspension and expulsion under that definition,” a Labour source tells us.
In 2008 Milne wrote of “the takeover of Palestinian land by overwhelmingly European settlers” when describing the foundation of Israel. Milne has made multiple other similar comments over the years.
Two years ago a secret recording of Milne was obtained in which he referred to the foundation of Israel as a “crime” by the British government which, he argued, forced out Palestinians.
___________________________________________________
I'm fairly sure (happy to be corrected though) that those who created Israel and moved there over the years have been overwhelmingly European, even the majority of those who emigrated there before WW2 were recently from Europe.
Giving other peoples land away is pretty criminal, it doesn't actually break any international laws (or it didn't) so it doesn't meet the usual definition of the word but I'm sure any Palestinian would describe their land being taken away as criminal. I might use the words, bad/mistake/stupid which I think would mean the same thing.
So if the evening standard and the Labour source are accurate I have just engaged in anti semitism?
This to me, if accurate, would confirm complaints that it would actually stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and could be used as a weapon against critics of Israeli policy.
I am more than happy to adopt measures which are related to hatred against Jews which is what Labour has done, what they haven't done is adopted some of the problematic examples related to Israel which if the above sources are accurate is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
America played a role closer to the date and everyone who voted for it (Russia being in favour was probably very useful) to an extent but I think most would agree Britain was the main player (in terms of countries and intentionally so, so not Nazi Germany)
You are right though that it was the U.N that actually created Israel.
Edit: also not that I don't enjoy a somewhat technical side point in conversations (I often genuinely do) but I assume the criticism of Milne's remarks as anti Semitic don't centre around wrongly thinking Britain did vote for the creation of Israel or that they did it themselves rather than an international body doing it...
This is the issue when it comes down to it because the problem for many left wingers at the heart of it centre around the creation of the State of Israel.
For them that is the original sin and hence discussions about anti Semitism inevitably return to 1947/1948 and the respective reactions to those events.
It was then, and events over the subsequent 20 years, that the Jews went from being the plucky outsiders who the left could help, to the imperialist capitalist oppressors the likes of which Milne et al hate.
You would in fact be wrong about the ethnic origin of Israelis. Just under half were European, about the same number from Arab countries (who of course kicked their Jews out because of the creation of Israel and the start of the war) and the balance from Africa. So a very substantial proportion but not the 'overwhelming majority.'
Today I believe it has tipped more towards European Jews, following a wave of immigration from the former Soviet bloc since 1991, so it now runs at around 55-60% of European descent up to the third generation.
Be useful to also see what general approval/disapproval ratings are, and if they've changed at all since the Helsinki conference.
If you are going to accuse someone of being anti Semitic for a comment about an event that happened in 1947/48 then what happened in 1947/48 is a pretty key part of that discussion.
I notice you don't actually want to discuss if the comment itself is anti Semitic, because it clearly isn't, instead you go on a rant about how the left and Milne is anti Semitic.
Maybe instead of actual arguments in future I should just go on rants about how the right hate Muslims so of course they support the occupation of Palestine. The Topping strategy for when the point is actually unarguable.
The broader point being the very fact that we are discussing whether this or that particular comment by Milne was or wasn't anti Semitic betokens a much deeper malaise on the left when it comes to the Jews.
I just thought we could jump to the central issue but it seems you prefer to admire those trees.
Step 2) translate the tweet
https://twitter.com/torshin_ru/status/698742761160368128?s=19
Step 3) Look at all his other tweets and translate them.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
"No American official has provided a detailed readout of the meeting, which took place with only two interpreters as witnesses. The White House indicated on Wednesday that a recording of the session didn't exist.
But Trump's own intelligence chief could not rule out the possibility that Russia recorded the meeting."
Could be useful for blackmail.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/trump-putin-summit-one-on-one/index.html
https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/1020146311704825856?s=19
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/1018878949412167688?
So, let's go back to the main point. Milne was mistaken about the ethnic makeup and geographical origin of a large proportion of the Israeli Jews, and he falsely blamed Britain for the ongoing problems. Now, this might be because he's not very bright. But that's a dubious explanation. He appears to me to have brains. A much more plausible explanation is he didn't care about the facts, and just said whatever fitted his preconceived narrative - Jews=evil white snatchers of land and Britain=dishonest imperialists who ruined the whole planet. (I've noticed, as an aside, that he has similar blind spots over the ex-Soviet bloc - he spent a lot of time at one point talking wistfully about the high standard of living and guaranteed rights and freedom people had in East Germany, which was patently bollocks).
Does that make his remarks racist, viz. anti-Semitic? Well, let's say that's one explanation. There are others but this one is simple and elegant and covers the known facts. He may not even realise that he's wrong. However, I have to say it seems to me to be a legitimate line of attack on him.
It is doubly frustrating when people invent things around these matters as it makes them look dishonest and weakens their case by default, when actual there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate ways to criticise Israel based on the facts. Settlements. Road blocks. Denial of citizenship. Denial of building permits. Veto over infrastructure projects. Control of international crossings. Why make stuff up when there are all these things to go after?
In a sense it isn't important because he is a paid employee of Labour not a key elected figure unlike say Naz Shah or Jenny Formby. But it's a bit disturbing, don't you think?
Really, Malcolm, I'm disappointed by your lapse of good taste. It's not polite to draw attention to these things.
"The CSU contests elections only in Bavaria, while the CDU operates in the other 15 states of Germany."
It may not have been like America as one of the countries that helped largely secure the vote when it came to the U.N. but it would not have got to that stage without Britain's actions. You could probably call Britain the main player in making it happen.
Turning around once you have largely created the situation and washing your hands of it does not absolve blame in the slightest.
Do you have a link to the ethnic origins at Israel's foundation?
Did try have a quick look but couldn't find it myself, weak google skills!
I am sure an opponent of the left would find it elegant to sum up a left wingers views as anti Semitic but it does require more than that for me personally.
Not sure what the name drop of Naz Shah is about but she supported Yvette Cooper for the leadership.
And my further conclusion that this shows the flaw in the IHRA that it would lead to legitimate criticism of Israel being deemed anti Semitism, if the source is accurate. Even if the source is not accurate in his use of it as anti Semitic under IHRA it shows how it could be used as a weapon against those critical of Israel.
The fact that Milne saying comments that aren't anti Semitic proves there is a deeper malaise in the left with Jewish people is something of a topic change again, the Topping strategy...
Edit: As to the rest of your comment people have to defend against ridiculous accusations all the time, Muslims have to say they are not all terrorists and Jewish people that they are not lizards is only proof of how moronic other people are not proof that Jewish people and Muslims somehow bring it on themselves.
If an anti Semite says: "I think England should play three up front", "I think England should play three up front" is not an anti Semitic comment.
Yes but when an article claims he is anti Semitic based on saying "England should play three up front" then not only is that not anti Semitic but it raises doubts about about the idea of him being anti semitic.
Also it bring into question rules which claim people who say "England should play three up front" are anti semitic.
Bit iffy, I think.
My real position is the innocent Palestinians should not have had their land taken away as a result of that.
It is similar to my real position that if a Muslim group suffered a terrible genocide in the Middle East at the hands of those in the Middle East and then tried to setup a country here inside Britain then I would oppose that.
I was just pointing out even with the rise in the Green vote the combined left vote is still well below the combined right vote in Bavaria
I don't think this makes them anti-semitic per se but it does mean that they spend a lot of time with people who are and sit on platforms listening to their anger and frustration. But it means no more to them than supporting the likes of Chavez in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba. It is enough that these groups all fight against western and in particular US dominance.
But there are a lot more white voters!
Some people will try and make the silly claim that the lefts support wasn't racist against whites but considering we know their support for Hamas in similar circumstances is based on racism then it must be that....
Why not - Russia (Crimea), China (Tibet), India (Kashmir), Turkey (Kurdistan), or even Denmark (Greenland), Sweden (Sapmi).
None of this is to excuse the bantustanism of the West Bank, just a genuine question.
I assume scholars have answered this question somewhere.
*"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."
Though one could put up a defence in a court of law I would be very surprised if a Labour tribuneral would be allowed to give a member the benefit of the doubt in today's febrile atmosphere.
Palestinians historically came from Jordan
Also, people at the time were pretty relaxed about what we would call ethnic cleansing, which happened in many places after the end of WW2.
Or if you want to take me as an individual I support efforts to combat global warming. I don't usually spend any time arguing about this, mostly because I am not any kind of climate scientist or expert, but partially because I'm never claimed (or people who believe like me) claimed to be anti semitic for my views on the matter, so it tends to arouse my passions a bit less.
Similarly I have had very small conversations (not on here) about Russia's treatment of the Chechens. Once again I was on safe ground though as me and people who thought like me weren't declared anti semites for our views so it didn't get much attention and it didn't arouse passions.
[It's also worth pointing out that there are some Jewish organizations who don't agree with the definition].
It is telling its members what they can be kicked out for as anti semitism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
What happened in Palestine around that time was just part of a series of wider people movements, many of which were forced and caused horrible hardships. There were also genocides going on at that time (and sadly since).
Given the massive tumult in the region before and after WW1, it seems odd that the left concentrates only on the Palestinians, and not on other groups that were forcibly dispossessed or murdered.
Also as an atheist I do not support biblical claims.
Not that I imagine that if said Muslim group had an ancient and religious claim on British land it would make any difference to people's opposition to them setting up a country here.
Edit: I know all about is one the biggest overstatements I have made in my time here. I know of it would be far more accurate.
To use Topping's example, if people wanted to believe that saying England should play three up front is racist they could.
Labour rules would not reflect this so it wouldn't be something you could be kicked out the party for but any group which choose to believe that could do so.
He seems to be an anti semite because of comments that aren't anti semitic but he said them so they are anti semitic...
It isn't the world's greatest argument.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1020043060510507008?s=19
But again you are looking at the trees, rather than admiring the wood. The fact that we are trying to determine whether an anti-semite has said something anti-semitic or not is more telling about the Labour Party than I think you realise.
The odds are almost tempting.
What they can do it setup rules that the people in their organisation have to follow.
The Bible is a ludicrous way to argue how land disputes should be settled. You could make the case that either the land should be returned to the Canaanites, or alternatively to the Romans by right of conquest.
It is why there is so much vitriol against them (cf. the vitriol displayed by the Left against hitherto poor, working class people, who get rich); they feel betrayed that the Jews didn't stay weak and needy and no longer needed saving.
And yes, pace the anti-semitism issue, Jews and Israel are interchangeable.
She'd probably be quite at home on the right of the Labour party.
Through his actions or inactions Corbyn condones Russian military aggression
Through his actions or inactions Corbyn condones hard brexit and all the damage that will bring to British jobs
Through their feeble inactions the Parliamentary Labour Party supports all of the above
(edit) Bottas re-signed by Mercedes.
I accept the geopolitical realities of the world being a dark place where it is often a choice of bad vs bad.
Hamas are terrible but I support the cause of Palestinian freedom, could speak similarly about South Africa in the past.
Stalin was a terrible man but we had to stop Hitler who was arguably a fair bit worse.
I'm least sure on this one but hypothetically it was only a choice between Assad and ISIS then I think most people would accept we back Assad over ISIS.
I make similar allowances for our support and friendship with bad people across the world, we don't for example keep friendly relations with the Saudi leadership because we love their approach and their views (or at least I hope not) to women and various other groups they treat in substandard ways.
Trump will probably let him have a play with the nuclear football, as they are mates.
If so, then I see why you're tempted, the odds do look too long.
It is anti-semitic to deny “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
Yet yesterday the Knesset decided that Israel is a racially defined state. So under the IRHA definition the Knesset is anti-semitic!
There is much to admire about Israel and its society, but yesterday it showed its ugly side.
Israel is the one place on earth Jews know they can be safe as a majority
Edited extra bit: it's for 2019, with an option for 2020.
The smoke without fire logic falls down very quickly when we consider what the racists says about all Muslims being terrorists and Jewish people being lizards. People make moronic claims all the time, unless they can prove the truth to their claims then they are just another person howling rubbish in the wind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44871742
Ducks spring to mind, here.
A difficult one to answer - but in the case of the Congress, and in particular the Senate, there is no such excuse.
We cannot undo history, and I support the existence of Israel as a state, but I do so because of 20th Century realities, not because of the Old Testament.
It is sort of a default, if I meet someone I won't think their racist until I have proof otherwise.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/hezbollahs-1992-attack-in-argentina-is-a-warning-for-modern-day-europe/274160/