That said, the political ground is absolutely fertile for a new party. Rubbish Conservative Government, horrendous Labour Opposition, Lib Dems still practically invisible. If ever there were a time for a new party, it's now.
I disagree. It seems like the political ground should be absolutely febrile for a new party. But despite that it doesn't even look plausible. People are willing to express unhappiness, but is anyone bold enough to put in the work and take the action and the huge gamble to set up a new party? The closest to being willing has been John Woodcock, and its still not that close.
If it really were a time for a new party we'd have got one by now. But we haven't. Therefore I can only conclude that political wonks like us would like one, but no one else does. They just like dreaming about it.
No, I'm talking about a few Jewish people at the top of Momentum as well as Lansman as the head of it, this isn't just one person in Labour these are some of the key people driving the current leadership and party, who for reference have had the anti semitic trope about them being a shadowy group controlling things from the background thrown at them excessively, some from anti semitic conspiracy minded centrist cranks no doubt.
They've also been subjected to abuse based on their Jewishness for being left wing, bad jews I believe the term is, the good jews don't get abused because they do what they should but others target these people because they don't play along with the game the centrists and right want them to play, they aren't acting like they want Jews to act.
There is a woman on twitter, who isn't Jewish who is part of some Labour anti-Semitism thing. I witnessed her the one time abusing a young Jewish woman and demanding various answers off her about how she could be Jewish and support this or be friends with this person until eventually the young woman got so annoyed with it that she muted her. She went back to her group talking about how people were rude to her for abusing this young Jewish woman and was congratulated and reassured that she was doing the right thing.
I'm sick of this anti-Semitism thing being used as an excuse to attack Jewish Labour members, it is just as racist to attack Jewish supporters of Corbyn based on their Jewishness as it is to attack Jewish people who aren't Corbyn supporters based on their Jewishness.
Also your whole premise is a conspiracy theory, though it is no surprise centrists coming up with crazy theories to discredit the left...
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Also, antisemitism was found to be mainly on the Far right of the political spectrum, while on the far left, it is the same as the left, centre and moderate right, at about 3.6%. ___________________________________________________________________________
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally,settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
Precisely.
It's certainly not hard to avoid. A telling point for me is that Chakrabarti report says something along the lines that members should 'resist the use of Hitler and Nazi metaphors'. Why is it so hard to resist? Why is it an urge they need to resist in the first place?
The Nazis killed millions of Jews systematically in order to wipe them from the face of the earth. There are no Jews in the UK - or anywhere in Europe, for that matter - who will not have relatives killed by the Nazis. All my Jewish friends do. For all its faults, and my God there are plenty, Israel is not seeking to do what the Nazis did. In fact, even under Netanyahu - a despicable individual leading a despicable government - Israel does not even come close to emulating the Nazis. Anyone who equates the two is clearly being anti-Semitic.
"Equating" sounds like it means "saying they are as bad as the Nazis", which is obviously ridiculous and may indeed suggest the speaker is an anti-semite, rather than just a fuckwit.
But the text that @bprh47bridge posted up-thread says
drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
In the US discussion of Trump's immigration policies people often draw comparisons to the Nazis. The Nazis used a lot of techniques in pursuit of their authoritarian and racist goals and sometimes authoritarian and/or racist governments use the same techniques. When they do, I think it's right to say so.
Obviously this comparison can be over-used and is often made stupidly, but policing that should be the job of normal social sanctions (Godwin's Law etc) not party rules that call you a racist and get you thrown out.
No-one is unaware of what the Nazis did to the Jews. No-one is unaware that Israel is a Jewish state. It is more than rhetoric to use the term Nazi in any discussion of Israeli policy.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
One post I read said the IHRA definition should be implemented because it was accepted by the Board of Deputies for Jewish people.
Should we also implement a standard on Islamophobia agreed by the Chief Imam of Makkah ? I, for one, would not immediately agree with that one. In fact, my question will be , who is he ? Just like the BoD. To me they should, of course, have an opinion like everyone else. But no statement should be there just because the BoD is OK with it. That cannot be a condition.
Isn't it the case that today , just like the Church of England of old, that the BoD is the Tory party in prayer in a Synagogue ?
I take it the I in IHRA stands for International. Who agreed the statement of behalf of the International community ? How was that body made up ?
Finally, I would take many of these criticisms of Corbyn more seriously if any of the these people also showed the slightest sympathy for Palestinians, whose lands were seized without reparations, illegal [ in international law ] settlements built on their lands. Orchards, which provided their livelihood destroyed to build these wretched settlements.
One or two will have a sentence buried in an avalanche of attack on Corbyn. The others won't even bother.
Huge injustices including the murder of 6m Jews took place in Europe barely 75 years ago. But I am not sure why Palestinians should pay for that.
In reality, the summary is, that Israel cannot be criticised even in the month when it flagrantly created a law which said only Jews have the right of self-determination in Israel. So much for equality ?
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
Which is why Labour has fully adopted it and only modified examples that include Israel. Holocaust denial or Jews drinking blood are not mentioned at all in the bits Labour have changed.
That said, the political ground is absolutely fertile for a new party. Rubbish Conservative Government, horrendous Labour Opposition, Lib Dems still practically invisible. If ever there were a time for a new party, it's now.
I’ve become very cyncial about a new party. A lot of the time it seems to be FBPE/Stop Brexit types who are convinced their preferred version of 1990s Blairite social democracy is going to attract masses of support. The discussion needs to actually confront what is ‘centrist’ in 2018 and not just assume that centrism is a fixed thing that never changes.
William Hague wrote a pretty interesting piece on the talk surrounding a new centrist party in the Telegraph recently.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It's, at best, just plain laziness. We see it every time, arguments that you cannot criticise Israel without being called antisemitic, and it is simply not true. I've no doubt some legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy have, on occasion, being unfairly called anti-semitic. But there are any number of times that policy can and has been criticised without being called out as anti-semitic. It should not be controversial to note that people using antisemtiic tropes to criticise them use that same defence as cover.
Jezziah. Labour policy is for a Two State Solution. Which by its definition means the Labour Party supports a secure and peaceful Israeli state as much as it does a secure and peaceful Palestinian state.
Do you agree? from your last rant I do hope you don't drop into the "Israel shouldn't exist" group of members...
I'm not set on what it has to be but a two state solution is one possibility I would be happy with. Israel's existence isn't so much a thing for me but that is more to do with me being quite left wing and not thinking countries are an all time must exist thing regardless of the country. In terms of the people, the Israelis then I don't wish to see a single one of them killed or have to leave the area for any potential solution.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
David Baddiel has been exceptionally good at trying to explain the problem to many idiots on Twitter, with mostly good humour.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Before opining on the matter perhaps you might learn a few historical facts, such as the fact that the international community voted to give the Palestinians a state at the same time as it did so for Jews, the fact that Jews had been living in that area for years and years and had bought land which had bern freely sold to them by Arabs living there, that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930’s consciously allied itself with the Nazis (Google Amin al-Husseini), that the Palestinians stupidly refused the offer of a state instead and chose war and lost.
There is no-one on here who does not want the Palestinians to have a homeland and a state. But I (and I hope others) of us do not want the price of that to be the extinction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews (something wanted by Hamas, for instance) or the expulsion of Jews (something done by every Arab state in the 1930’s and 1940’s, without compensation or restitution and without any intention of allowing Jews to return, something conveniently forgooten by those who claim Palestinians are the only victims). Incidentally, Jews lived in Iraq for far longer than any of those other groups over which the Left cries crocodile tears and yet the total destruction of that community is something which excites no pity or interest. Such double standards from those claiming to be concerned about peoples’ loss of homes.
What I read was a long rant about the groups you were interested in and some crocodile tears about the Palestinians.
The UN 'having a vote' does not suddenly make it morally right to take Palestinians land. Many dark things have been done by a vote or by people voted in. A vote in itself does not give it morality.
Much of the Palestinian land was bought from absent landlords, you can imagine the problems it could cause it modern day Britain imagine the scenario in a much more rural agricultural Palestine were very few people owned the land they worked or the house they lived in.
Not that you give a damn, they deserved to lose their land in your eyes which is why you fail every time to come up with a good reason.
To say the whole Palestine/Israel business is a mess is to gravely understate the situation. Decisions have been made and acted upon for reasons which had no connection with the interests of the people of the region. The principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ has been used to ‘justify’ all sorts of things. Is there a way forward which satisfies everyone, even in part; TBH I don’t think there is!
Probably not for a long long time. The water in Gaza is said to become undrinkable in around 2020 so I suppose the Israelis could get something of a victory.... depending what victory is...
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the endroundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
On a split, there are two separate questions - whether it's tactically wise, or if it's morally and rationally unavoidable.
The reason up until now a split has never really been on the cards is that tactically it's an a huge gamble compared to the hope that Labour somehow snaps out of its Corbynista madness and returns to a degree of sanity - and for MPs and members who are appalled by Corbyn the rational thing has been to stay and fight their corner until the zealots get tired, people grow up a bit, realise they've been had and someone on the loyalist soft left emerges as a successor and gradually ditches the Dear Leader's more morally abhorrent attachments. Tactically, that's long been a smarter course than jumping ship because it's much more likely than founding a new party, usurping Labour and consigning Corbyn to the wilderness where he belongs.
However, there comes a point where tactical considerations go out the window because Corbyn and his acolytes are intent on demanding deference to views a large number of Labour MPs find abhorrent and mad. At that point, tactical considerations are moot because the only way to ensure political survival is to fight and go with the longshot. That's why the attacks on Hodge and Austin by the leadership may be a turning point. It's crystallised what MPs have long suspected but daren't contemplate out of horror - that there really is no way back and the party as it existed for 100 years is now finished as they will be targeted if they dissent against the transformation of the party into a hard left revolutionary one.
It's a bit like Brexit. A lot of people who've long thought it catastrophic have said "well it has to happen though, will of the people, we'll muddle through" have now realised the urgency their views entail.
I disagree with your point about ideas though - there's arguably a lot more plausible concrete ideas on things like infrastructure spending, NHS and tax reform, devolution circulating around centre-left circles than around either Corbyn or the government. The big problem is that it's a Catch-22 - those things can't be put to the public and win you support until you form a serious new party as a vehicle for them, but no one wants to take the leap until they know the support is there.
I'm sick of this anti-Semitism thing being used as an excuse to attack Jewish Labour members, it is just as racist to attack Jewish supporters of Corbyn based on their Jewishness as it is to attack Jewish people who aren't Corbyn supporters based on their Jewishness.
Also your whole premise is a conspiracy theory, though it is no surprise centrists coming up with crazy theories to discredit the left...
Taking your tinfoit hat off for a second, have you considered that there isn't a conspiracy? There are just people of differing views arguing over them and jostling for position. People with differing views to your cultism isn't a conspiracy, its having different views.
Putting it simply, the Corbyn cult requires siege mentality. Jeremy is the only way to save the party and thus the country, and all of the people expressing even the slightest constructive criticism are part of the vast neo-liberal elite determined to stop him.
Its nonsense. We had a significant step to the left under "Red Ed" Milliband the suspiciously Jewish son of a traitor, we had a significant chunk of our actual policies in development even under Brown (British jobs the latest example), and the idea that any "plot" against JC is people determined to install David Milliband or some other Blairite is delusional madness. Or would be if people hadn't already fallen under the Black Sleep of the Kali Mar...
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
On a split, there are two separate questions - whether it's tactically wise, or if it's morally and rationally unavoidable.
The reason up until now a split has never really been on the cards is that tactically it's an a huge gamble compared to the hope that Labour somehow snaps out of its Corbynista madness and returns to a degree of sanity - and for MPs and members who are appalled by Corbyn the rational thing has been to stay and fight their corner until the zealots get tired, people grow up a bit, realise they've been had and someone on the loyalist soft left emerges as a successor and gradually ditches the Dear Leader's more morally abhorrent attachments. Tactically, that's long been a smarter course than jumping ship because it's much more likely than founding a new party, usurping Labour and consigning Corbyn to the wilderness where he belongs.
However, there comes a point where tactical considerations go out the window because Corbyn and his acolytes are intent on demanding deference to views a large number of Labour MPs find abhorrent and mad. At that point, tactical considerations are moot because the only way to ensure political survival is to fight and go with the longshot. That's why the attacks on Hodge and Austin by the leadership may be a turning point. It's crystallised what MPs have long suspected but daren't contemplate out of horror - that there really is no way back and the party as it existed for 100 years is now finished as they will be targeted if they dissent against the transformation of the party into a hard left revolutionary one.
It's a bit like Brexit. A lot of people who've long thought it catastrophic have said "well it has to happen though, will of the people, we'll muddle through" have now realised the urgency their views entail.
I disagree with your point about ideas though - there's arguably a lot more plausible concrete ideas on things like infrastructure spending, NHS and tax reform, devolution circulating around centre-left circles than around either Corbyn or the government. The big problem is that it's a Catch-22 - those things can't be put to the public and win you support until you form a serious new party as a vehicle for them, but no one wants to take the leap until they know the support is there.
Yep, the ideas claim is a bit of a red herring. There are plenty. Philip Collins wrote a great piece in the The Times last week about how small "c" conservative and non-radical Corbynism actually is, which is no surprise given how it is rooted in nostalgia for mid-20th century outcomes.
One can savagely criticise Israel (many Jews do) without having to argue that Hitler had a point, that Jews drink blood, or that the holocaust is an invention of the zionists (all of which points have been made by Labour councillors, including my own).
I also really don't see why you can't be hyper-critical of Israeli policy, without having to resort to the term 'Nazi'. It is either an indication of a lack of command of the english language or the user really does have an agenda about trying to equate the two.
Precisely.
It's certainly not hard to avoid. A telling point for me is that Chakrabarti report says something along the lines that members should 'resist the use of Hitler and Nazi metaphors'. Why is it so hard to resist? Why is it an urge they need to resist in the first place?
Same reason we have Godwins law, people aren't brilliantly versed historically and the Nazis are the most obvious bad guys that everyone knows. I think people are convinced that when they make their example and 'prove' that something the thing they oppose matches what the Nazis did then that thing and their opponents are proved as bad people. Which isn't to justify it, people should at least be warned or given some training on it if they don't understand it is wrong.
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
^This. There is a Corbyn cult. But its not exclusive to him. I have some friends who are self described Blairite Clintonites and defend both of them regardless of fact or logic. Same with Farage worshippers who insist he is a non-establishment figure.
Jeremy is largely honest decent and principled. He is also not a leader hence his struggle transitioning from a lifetime of carrying the banner (placard) of various causes into making the kind of tough decisions that actual leadership demands.
Pointing this out - or that Clinton was shrill and self-aggrandising etc etc - just provokes shrieking accusations that you are the enemy...
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
Yes there is. If a country exists, then for any way that I can think of to cause it to cease to exist, the the country has a right for that thing not to happen to it. The things you say "sound related" sound that way because they are related.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
On a split, there are two separate questions - whether it's tactically wise, or if it's morally and rationally unavoidable.
snip
However, there comes a point where tactical considerations go out the window because Corbyn and his acolytes are intent on demanding deference to views a large number of Labour MPs find abhorrent and mad. At that point, tactical considerations are moot because the only way to ensure political survival is to fight and go with the longshot. That's why the attacks on Hodge and Austin by the leadership may be a turning point. It's crystallised what MPs have long suspected but daren't contemplate out of horror - that there really is no way back and the party as it existed for 100 years is now finished as they will be targeted if they dissent against the transformation of the party into a hard left revolutionary one.
It's a bit like Brexit. A lot of people who've long thought it catastrophic have said "well it has to happen though, will of the people, we'll muddle through" have now realised the urgency their views entail.
I disagree with your point about ideas though - there's arguably a lot more plausible concrete ideas on things like infrastructure spending, NHS and tax reform, devolution circulating around centre-left circles than around either Corbyn or the government. The big problem is that it's a Catch-22 - those things can't be put to the public and win you support until you form a serious new party as a vehicle for them, but no one wants to take the leap until they know the support is there.
Those ideas don’t seem particularly new, they sound like reheated 1990s social democracy, which is my point. Sure, the LDs have polices that aren’t on Brexit. But Stop Brexit is the main centrepiece of their vision. It’s the same with many moderates.
You also have to ask if these ideas are so plausible and concrete (a why didn’t we hear about them from the centrist candidates in 2015 (b. Why are centrists unable to persuade Labour members to coming round to these ideas? Centre left parties throughout Europe have been doing badly, while the hard/radical Left have being gaining more support. That it’s happened here in its own way cannot be a coincidence.
The point that this has moved to a moral issue is one I’m aware of, but the reality that Labour is now in the hands of Corbyn and co long term has been there since June 2017. That is not a new development nor new realisation. Likewise, the demands MPs embrace views they find ‘mad’ or ‘abhorrent’ has always been there - that’s why Corbyn has had so much trouble keeping a cabinet together, and why they tried to get rid of him in 2016.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
Yes there is. If a country exists, then for any way that I can think of to cause it to cease to exist, the the country has a right for that thing not to happen to it. The things you say "sound related" sound that way because they are related.
Do you think that a country should be able to merge itself with another country by referendum?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
I think that's missing the point somewhat. Countries exist now, there's no need to talk about the ones which existing deserving not to exist. Do most people who talk about a specific country not having a right to exist treat the issue the way you have, by saying no countries have a 'right' to exist? It doesn't seem typical. They mean a specific country does not have that right in their eyes.
I'm sick of this anti-Semitism thing being used as an excuse to attack Jewish Labour members, it is just as racist to attack Jewish supporters of Corbyn based on their Jewishness as it is to attack Jewish people who aren't Corbyn supporters based on their Jewishness.
Also your whole premise is a conspiracy theory, though it is no surprise centrists coming up with crazy theories to discredit the left...
Taking your tinfoit hat off for a second, have you considered that there isn't a conspiracy? There are just people of differing views arguing over them and jostling for position. People with differing views to your cultism isn't a conspiracy, its having different views.
Putting it simply, the Corbyn cult requires siege mentality. Jeremy is the only way to save the party and thus the country, and all of the people expressing even the slightest constructive criticism are part of the vast neo-liberal elite determined to stop him.
Its nonsense. We had a significant step to the left under "Red Ed" Milliband the suspiciously Jewish son of a traitor, we had a significant chunk of our actual policies in development even under Brown (British jobs the latest example), and the idea that any "plot" against JC is people determined to install David Milliband or some other Blairite is delusional madness. Or would be if people hadn't already fallen under the Black Sleep of the Kali Mar...
The repeated claims of the far left as somehow the home of anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory, especially when the statistics show it is a false claim.
I don't think Corbyn has ever really had an opportunity to not have a siege mentality. Do you remember the start of his leadership?
I know the media always (usually) go after Labour leaders but it went to extremes with Corbyn and the claims themselves became more and more ludicrous.
Corbyn fans do go very far in defending him but this has been a direct reaction to the amount of scorn poured on him by the media. I remember watching political programs which generally are supposed to be balanced but you would have everyone on there criticising Corbyn with nobody advancing his viewpoint. The right wing papers went for it more than ever but even the few left wing papers did as well. If the idea was to make people defensive of Corbyn it was a very good strategy, I suspect they hoped for the opposite though.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
I'm afraid you do not know your history. The far left opposed the Attlee government, just like it opposed every Labour government there has ever been. Corbyn, McDonnell and co opposed Miliband, even though he was against the Iraq war. In fact, many of Corbyn's team were so appalled by the prospect of a Miliband government that they actually campaigned against it. And, of course, they opposed every Labour leader before him - including all those who were in power long before the Iraq invasion.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
Yes there is. If a country exists, then for any way that I can think of to cause it to cease to exist, the the country has a right for that thing not to happen to it. The things you say "sound related" sound that way because they are related.
Czechoslovakia no longer exists. Who was responsible for violating its right to exist, and who had a corresponding duty to keep it in existence?
I’ll believe Labour moderates will break away when I see it....In other words, it’s like a duplicate version of the LDs atm.
On a split, there are two separate questions - whether it's tactically wise, or if it's morally and rationally unavoidable.
The reason up until now a split has never really been on the cards is that tactically it's an a huge gamble compared to the hope that Labour somehow snaps out of its Corbynista madness and returns to a degree of sanity - and for MPs and members who are appalled by Corbyn the rational thing has been to stay and fight their corner until the zealots get tired, people grow up a bit, realise they've been had and someone on the loyalist soft left emerges as a successor and gradually ditches the Dear Leader's more morally abhorrent attachments. Tactically, that's long been a smarter course than jumping ship because it's much more likely than founding a new party, usurping Labour and consigning Corbyn to the wilderness where he belongs.
However, there comes a point where tactical considerations go out the window because Corbyn and his acolytes are intent on demanding deference to views a large number of Labour MPs find abhorrent and mad. At that point, tactical considerations are moot because the only way to ensure political survival is to fight and go with the longshot. That's why the attacks on Hodge and Austin by the leadership may be a turning point. It's crystallised what MPs have long suspected but daren't contemplate out of horror - that there really is no way back and the party as it existed for 100 years is now finished as they will be targeted if they dissent against the transformation of the party into a hard left revolutionary one.
It's a bit like Brexit. A lot of people who've long thought it catastrophic have said "well it has to happen though, will of the people, we'll muddle through" have now realised the urgency their views entail.
I disagree with your point about ideas though - there's arguably a lot more plausible concrete ideas on things like infrastructure spending, NHS and tax reform, devolution circulating around centre-left circles than around either Corbyn or the government. The big problem is that it's a Catch-22 - those things can't be put to the public and win you support until you form a serious new party as a vehicle for them, but no one wants to take the leap until they know the support is there.
Given how dire Labour are it will only mean two smaller bunches of useless cretins as opposed to the current large one.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Wonder what The Jezziah thinks regarding Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara...
No-one is unaware of what the Nazis did to the Jews. No-one is unaware that Israel is a Jewish state. It is more than rhetoric to use the term Nazi in any discussion of Israeli policy.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, it's OK to talk about the various Nazi parallels for things Trump does, but the thought is that if Israel does exactly the same things, the same person would be a racist to say the same thing about it, because of the historical background?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
Yes there is. If a country exists, then for any way that I can think of to cause it to cease to exist, the the country has a right for that thing not to happen to it. The things you say "sound related" sound that way because they are related.
Do you think that a country should be able to merge itself with another country by referendum?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
That's at least partly because there's no Mayism. May is an administrator. She'd have been an excellent pencil monitor or the pillar of a branch of the WI. She doesn't appear to have any ideas of her own, more a dogged tenacity once she's been persuaded to a particular course.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
The thread doesnt seem to mention right-wing Labour MP Ian Austin launched into a verbal tirade against fellow MP – and party Chair Ian Lavery – in the division lobby of the House of Commons just before the parliamentary recess.
So loud and aggressive was the prolonged outburst that MPs heard it before they saw it, with Austin calling Lavery a ‘w*nker’ and a ‘f*cking b*stard’:
It appears right wing Labour types require anger management lessons
Be careful. You will be listed as an anti-semite. The irony in all of this is the term "semite" itself has been hijacked.
It is defined as:
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
It’s very easy to criticise the Israeli government and president Netanyahu, many people on the left and right of British politics do it all the time.
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
I don't know if you're saying I'm the kind of person you're talking about but no country has a right to exist.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
Yes there is. If a country exists, then for any way that I can think of to cause it to cease to exist, the the country has a right for that thing not to happen to it. The things you say "sound related" sound that way because they are related.
Do you think that a country should be able to merge itself with another country by referendum?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
There was an embryonic cult of Theresa early on in her premiership. (Remember when Tory MPs started calling her 'Mummy' and Gibraltar was going to be her Falklands?) It didn't last.
With regard to a two state solution, this is the problem:
The Israelis, as a Professor at the Hebrew University once told me, want three things. They want a state that is Jewish, democratic and from the river (Jordan) to the sea. But - only two of those are possible. If it is to be Jewish and democratic, they have to let go of the West Bank, because otherwise it will be at least 50% Muslim and more than 50% Arab (including Christians, c. 3%). If they want it to be from the river to the sea and Jewish, it cannot be democratic - this is of course more or less what hey have now and its actions to sustain that (blockades, settlements, land grabs, walls, military operations etc) is why Israel is so heavily criticised around the world. If it is from the river to the sea and democratic, it won't be Jewish, and the odds are it would be a strongly Muslim state with close links to Iran (ironically, this would be due to Israel's own actions in radicalising huge swathes of Palestinians).
What do the Palestinians want? Well, some might accept a state based in the West Bank and Gaza. But there are issues. One is that the two are cut off, and therefore access would be difficult between them. It would however be essential as Gaza is the largest city, the only port and has the only airport (or at least, would have the only airport if the Israelis hadn't bombed it and kept it constantly out of action). The other is that the people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank can't stand the sight of each other. They behave very differently in just about everything - including towards Israel. The West Bank and Fatah would be willing to consider an accommodation if they were certain the Israelis were negotiating in good faith (a big 'if' under the circumstances but better than sour cynicism). Gaza and Hamas are not (see below). Israel would however still control all water supplies, all airspace, all coastal access and most of the infrastructure. Under the circumstances Palestine could easily be a vassal state of the Knesset, North Cyprus to Israel's Turkey. Moreover given how corrupt their governing parties are, the limits Israel has placed on education and economic development and the few natural resources (realistically some quite poor farmland and the mineral salts of the Dead Sea) there is not the basis for a stable or prosperous state to be founded. Indeed, a united Palestine has all the makings of a failed state, which Israel would surely just invade again with the tacit backing of Jordan and Egypt - leaving the Palestinian people much worse off and without allies.
No-one is unaware of what the Nazis did to the Jews. No-one is unaware that Israel is a Jewish state. It is more than rhetoric to use the term Nazi in any discussion of Israeli policy.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying, it's OK to talk about the various Nazi parallels for things Trump does, but the thought is that if Israel does exactly the same things, the same person would be a racist to say the same thing about it, because of the historical background?
I think that it is possible to be lazy and make throwaway remarks about the Trump and the Nazis, though it is not something I would do. I think that given the history, equating the Israelis with the Nazis is always a deliberate choice. And if a Jew chooses to do it that would be very different to a gentile choosing to do it.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
@TheJezziah I have gottten the impression that one of the reasons why there’s such a defence of Corbyn by many is that they see him as the chance to swing Labour to the left for the long term. That if Corbyn goes, then that opens the way for a more moderate or Corbynsceptic leadership.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attac
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
It would have done if she had won that massive majority that looked on the cards. I recall stating prior to the calling of the GE that her popularity seemed to be real, though I didn't quite get it, as her polling was high well after a honeymoon period, and there was some evidence she seemed to be picking up support from people not traditionally Tory voters. You had some defenders even saying how the fact she doesn't dye her hair was illustrative of one reason normal people liked her, being authentic. And how she was really a leaver all along. But it never got into full swing, and having failed against Corbyn and having to pursue policies which would alienate one wing of the party of the other, she cannot get that following now.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
And we know some Bernie supporters ....., but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
Ironically, I am NOT a Corbynista. I have had two opportunities to vote for him and I did not do so in either. In 2015, my first preference was Cooper followed by Burnham. I did not put down a 3 or 4.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
There have always been options for people if they did not think the Labour party was a party of the left. If enough people felt that way then smaller parties would have risen with enough time and hard work.
I find it hard to believe the left has never had a voice, unless someone is coopting one particular strand of opinion as being the only thing which is the true left.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Given that the only significant political force in England opposing the Iraq war was the LibDems, I don't think whatever drove Blair, New Labour and a majority of its MPs to support that war can be blamed on their being centerist.
The repeated claims of the far left as somehow the home of anti Semitism is a conspiracy theory, especially when the statistics show it is a false claim.
I don't think Corbyn has ever really had an opportunity to not have a siege mentality. Do you remember the start of his leadership?
I know the media always (usually) go after Labour leaders but it went to extremes with Corbyn and the claims themselves became more and more ludicrous.
Corbyn fans do go very far in defending him but this has been a direct reaction to the amount of scorn poured on him by the media. I remember watching political programs which generally are supposed to be balanced but you would have everyone on there criticising Corbyn with nobody advancing his viewpoint. The right wing papers went for it more than ever but even the few left wing papers did as well. If the idea was to make people defensive of Corbyn it was a very good strategy, I suspect they hoped for the opposite though.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
So we start and end with "the coup". Lets set aside that a vocal advocate of annual leadership elections is Jeremy Corbyn and look at the main allegation - a mass conspiracy of "the 172" who resigned on a pre-agreed schedule. Have you ever spoken to any of them? I have. And the reasons for resignation had been brewing for months - shadow ministers being blocked out of conversations with the leader by his personal team, having their brief's policy undermined and in some cases directly contradicted by the leader on one of his lets make it up on the spot moments.
In that first year aside from the 30 or so refusenik MPs everyone else was mucking in, with constructive suggestions about how someone who had never led and had to be arm twisted into running could step up and make the role his. After the 2nd leadership contest most of his presentational issues have been successfully resolved, now its the internal infighting shenanigans that pull us down.
As for the media, the notion that Corbyn has been uniquely attacked is so absurd as to be funny. So are the endless accusations of bias from people who are so biased they think that only pro-Corbyn propaganda would be fair and accurate. Hence the need for #wearehismedia clickbait "news" sites like Shitebox which circulate absolute lies about the party to fuel hatred amongst poorly informed newer members against their own parties.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Genuine question, I remember typing out an answer at one point and later looking for it and not finding it so apologies if I didn't as you asked yesterday.
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Although not nearly enough to compensate for their loss of territory to the Soviet Union, who also tried with rather more lasting succcess to crush the Poles in 1939.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
And Momentum haven't said that).
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
Ironically, I am NOT a Corbynista. I have had two opportunities to vote for him and I did not do so in either. In 2015, my first preference was Cooper followed by Burnham. I did not put down a 3 or 4.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
Totally agree with that. This is the great lesson Corbyn has taught the Labour party. The problem is the fact that he spent 40 years sharing platforms with anti-Semites, various terrorist groups and anyone else who wished the West harm. That does not have to be a part of being left wing.
The UK is rapidly becoming a country with no one capable of governing. On the right we have the Conservatives, the traditional party of government, tearing itself to pieces over Europe. On the left we have the Labour party seemingly at the point of splitting, in part, and unbelievably, over an argument about whether it is anti-semitic to call jews nazis or not.
Add in to the mix, the decline of Liberals, and the imminent arrival on the scene of the English Patriots Party of Banks, Robinson and Farage and you have a recipe for years of chaos.
Is there any way out of this mess?
Eventually, one emerges. The UK seemed ungovernable between the late Sixties and the Miners's Strike. Then things settled down for 25 years or so.
Wasn’t anywhere near as bad as this.
It was worse. Industrial conflicts were terrible, governments were rudderless, and the violence in Northern Ireland was appalling. But, for most people life was good. They weren't directly affected. For most people, life is good now, despite having an inept government and a horrible Opposition.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
The thread doesnt seem to mention right-wing Labour MP Ian Austin launched into a verbal tirade against fellow MP – and party Chair Ian Lavery – in the division lobby of the House of Commons just before the parliamentary recess.
So loud and aggressive was the prolonged outburst that MPs heard it before they saw it, with Austin calling Lavery a ‘w*nker’ and a ‘f*cking b*stard’:
It appears right wing Labour types require anger management lessons
Be careful. You will be listed as an anti-semite. The irony in all of this is the term "semite" itself has been hijacked.
It is defined as:
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
To be fair , Austin shouting abuse at a colleague and Hodge swearing at her boss seems bad behaviour.
I am sure where I worked there would be some sort of investigation.
Hard to think of an area of the public sector , where it would be deemed as acceptable.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
And we know some Bernie supporters ....., but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
With Corbyn for me it is the first time the left has had a voice, so that is exciting. I imagine for many who have had parties to vote for over the years it does seem strange that people would care about having an option.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
Ironically, I am NOT a Corbynista. I have had two opportunities to vote for him and I did not do so in either. In 2015, my first preference was Cooper followed by Burnham. I did not put down a 3 or 4.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
I voted for Jezza in 2015 - at the cost of £3, natch In 2016, I didn't bother, because a) the fee was much higher ("you miser, Sunil!"), and b) I knew Owen would lose
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attac
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
snip
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
It would have done if she had won that massive majority that looked on the cards. I recall stating prior to the calling of the GE that her popularity seemed to be real, though I didn't quite get it, as her polling was high well after a honeymoon period, and there was some evidence she seemed to be picking up support from people not traditionally Tory voters. You had some defenders even saying how the fact she doesn't dye her hair was illustrative of one reason normal people liked her, being authentic. And how she was really a leaver all along. But it never got into full swing, and having failed against Corbyn and having to pursue policies which would alienate one wing of the party of the other, she cannot get that following now.
LOL, politics really does drive people nuts - can’t believe there were people out there who really thought she’s be considered more authentic because she doesn’t dye her hair!
That’s a mad idea. There’s only two things that will sort housing, which are building more houses and getting interest rates off the floor. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges, and suggestions such as this that will promote price inflation in housing are actively counter-productive.
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I think there's a chance. Cable was stopgap anyway, if Brexit happens on schedule may as well be time for a new leader for the next phase of the country. If May lasts 5 minutes past the exit deadline I will be surprised, if she even makes it that far. Corbyn? He has the best chance. Labour will probably be leading pretty comfortably in the polls up to the end of Brexit as if there is a deal the Tories will have lost quite a bit of support from no dealers and hard brexiters, so he would look like a viable PM.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attac
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
snip
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
It would have done if she had won that massive majority that looked on the cards. I recall stating prior to the calling of the GE that her popularity seemed to be real, though I didn't quite get it, as her polling was high well after a honeymoon period, and there was some evidence she seemed to be picking up support from people not traditionally Tory voters. You had some defenders even saying how the fact she doesn't dye her hair was illustrative of one reason normal people liked her, being authentic. And how she was really a leaver all along. But it never got into full swing, and having failed against Corbyn and having to pursue policies which would alienate one wing of the party of the other, she cannot get that following now.
LOL, politics really does drive people nuts - can’t believe there were people out there who really thought she’s be considered more authentic because she doesn’t dye her hair!
Not the sole reason, that was just an example of her general authentic nature which people liked.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
Gaslighting rubbish. I've never denied any Jewish person's right to support Jeremy Corbyn or accuse them of being 'Bad Jews' for doing so. What you're doing is denying the majority their views on the basis that it's not a unanimous one. And those who are Jewish ad strongly disagree are perfectly entitled to complain that they're misguided to do so or that they are missing some vital point, fact or empirical evidence that the should give greater weight too.
As for that being a conspiracy theory, it's not, but a well documented strand within hard left thinking that's run through Stalinism right through to the new left to people like Galloway. It's not a grand conspiracy - quite the opposite in fact - just a pollution of thought that keeps rearing its ugly head. You could argue it's an ugly, racially tinted manifestation of an earlier problem with revolutionary thought going back to Saint-Just that sees any form of dissent from the ideal as suspect. That it exists as a strand of far left thinking not even disputed even by Corbyn himself - who acknowledged that there was a problem with the 'socialism of fools'. What he, and Jewish Corbynite figures like Lansman or Rhea Wolfson deny is that Corbynism has an inherent unspoken attachment to that strand of thinking, that it relies too readily on people with those prejudices for some of its most strident support, that the cult of the leader is spreading such views (even unintentionally), nor that Corbyn's well documented missteps (ones he has admitted are "regrettable") in speaking warmly of people with unacceptable views are indicative of a greater problem of blindness to a particular type of prejudice rather than momentary and excusable aberrations. Many others disagree, as they're perfectly entitled to.
What's at issue is not whether left-wing anti-Semitism is a thing - it clearly is, as Labour and Corbyn admit. The issue is whether Corbyn's actions and politics have worsened and spread those toxic views - something which it's perfectly possible for Jewish people to disagree over, but which has become a major issue for the majority of British Jews and their leaders because of the way earlier complaints were mishandled and ignored.
He could've put this whole thing largely to bed two years ago by making a speech explaining past actions, outlining why he'd perhaps been blind to anti-Semitism in the past, what he was going to do as a person and leader to ensure he did not in future, and how the party would go above and beyond in rooting out a problem he himself acknowledges. There's been nothing but words and arrogance since.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Wonder what The Jezziah thinks regarding Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara...
Not a subject I know a lot about tbh but from the little I know I'll say bad.
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I don't know how you find the time and energy. You must really be committed to the party and its ideals.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him y
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
I think there's a chance. Cable was stopgap anyway, if Brexit happens on schedule may as well be time for a new leader for the next phase of the country. If May lasts 5 minutes past the exit deadline I will be surprised, if she even makes it that far. Corbyn? He has the best chance. Labour will probably be leading pretty comfortably in the polls up to the end of Brexit as if there is a deal the Tories will have lost quite a bit of support from no dealers and hard brexiters, so he would look like a viable PM.
I can't see how Corbyn gets replaced this side of a GE. So, I think, that is wishful stuff from Britain's biggest railway buff.
What do the Palestinians want? Well, some might accept a state based in the West Bank and Gaza. But there are issues. One is that the two are cut off, and therefore access would be difficult between them. It would however be essential as Gaza is the largest city, the only port and has the only airport (or at least, would have the only airport if the Israelis hadn't bombed it and kept it constantly out of action).
The 1947 Plan would have interconnected the three Arab state areas and the three Jewish state areas. The only exception was Jaffa, which would have been an Arab exclave. And of course Jerusalem and Bethlehem would have been neutral.
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
If Labour loses the future of the country will be decided by people like Johnson, Rees Mogg and Gove - the kind of people who hang out with a white supremacist. That's why it is so important to do all we can to ensure that the far left does not take total control of the Labour party. Given the choiuce between two extremes, many voters will totally disengage, while most of the rest will end up reluctantly backing the one that has not spent decades sharing platforms with individuals who, and backing causes that, actively wish the UK harm.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
Hamas is the joker in the pack here, however. Serious as these problems are, with time and goodwill they could be addressed. The Israelis, who have conceded the principle of compensation in the past without actually conceding the cash, might be persuaded to cough up for some nation building in advance of independence. Jordan has alternative sources of water, and so does Israel itself. An independent co-operation in air traffic might be arranged. However, and this is the punch, Hamas doesn't want any of this. It wants the whole of the old Mandate of Palestine, and no Jews. In fact, therefore, it will not be party to any agreement that nudges Israel and Palestine nearer peace, because that makes such an outcome much less likely. So they continue to fire rockets and attack Israel from Gaza.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
You wrote about the depopulation of Gaza by denying them water without the slightest bit of sympathy for the people living there. How cold hearted can you get ?
I'm talking about the fact that the Israeli goal seems to be ethnic cleansing.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
The generally held view that Boris has been tested in high office and seen to have failed having passed him by.
I have not read the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Indeed, I have not read the Labour party version either.
In what way, are the two significantly different ?
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him your wallet but if someone comes up to you trying to rob you then you will defend yourself. You could argue that given my example you are to blame for getting beaten up and losing the phone, which you are in a roundabout way.
Or to take it back to the actual thing I don't think any people would have done any differently in the Palestinians situation, it is hard to blame them for not taking a deal others wouldn't have and for defending themselves when others would have.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Jews on the move to Israel from 1945 onwards, a result of western guilt, Stalinist ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe?
Soviets quite happy to flog arms to the Israelis from 1948, was it a way to destabilise Western allies, client states nearby?
It would be only fair to point out at this juncture that the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland happened under the democratic government of Benes and before the Communist coup that brought Gottwald to power.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
The generally held view that Boris has been tested in high office and seen to have failed having passed him by.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
@TheJezziah I have gottten the impression that one of the reasons why there’s such a defence of Corbyn by many is that they see him as the chance to swing Labour to the left for the long term. That if Corbyn goes, then that opens the way for a more moderate or Corbynsceptic leadership.
Probably a lot more so before the 2017 election, people feel a lot more confident now.
But yes that is probably a huge part of it. I guess one way to imagine it would be how well defended a lone Brexiteer with just a few allies* would be. If Brexit was mainly caught up in one person and one small part of the Conservative party that had been under attack. Corbyn doesn't just represent Corbyn, although I have become attached to him as well, Corbyn represents the left in many eyes. Which is why smears become particularly hurtful, it isn't Corbyn being smeared it is my whole political viewpoint... which was probably true to an extent for a time, it was Corbyn being left wing that was under attack. It has become harder to disconnect the attacks which aren't. The lack of obvious Corbyn replacement also probably leads to being more forgiven of flaws (or defensive) as you can't just upgrade.
*Which was the case for a long time but isn't now.
Yesterday's waffling lead about another GE from our own Nick missed that vital ingredient - a single idea around which Labour could endeavour to build a bigger tent.
As I said here over a year ago, the moment when Labour decides throw its entire weight behind a vote on the final deal will be key.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
I do hope not. 'JC' and 'Jezziah' have a nice ring to them, but 'BJ' and 'Boriah' don't work for salvation puns.
Although of course 'BJ' stands for one activity Boris has been accused of, and 'Boriah' is quite close to 'pariah,' which is what he has become in the PCP...
So we've had reference to "the coup" from Jezziah. What next - that people like me want to lose? Because i hear this a lot. That our MPs councillors and CLP execs are engaged in a conspiracy to lose their own seats just to spite Corbynites. I've sat in angry meetings where angry new members who shout at people like David Baddiel on twitter but do nothing else accuse members who campaign every single week for Labour MPs and councillors actually want us to lose.
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
I don't know how you find the time and energy. You must really be committed to the party and its ideals.
I'm a socialist. There are millions of poor bastards out there who haven't been as lucky as I have who no matter how hard they work are still struggling to make a living that pays the bills. The sick and disabled being brutalized by a Tory party utterly uncaring and unmoved by their suffering. I want a Labour government and a Labour council, because even one being distracted by this nonsense is better than any Tory government.
And I agree with Philip Collins Times article - Corbynism isn't offering any radical solutions to the structural failings and growing inequality in our society. The battle isn't "lets renationalise United Utilities" its how do we provide incteasingly expensive care to a population growing more aged by it whilst work incteasingly doesn't pay and is threatened by automation and the internet.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Did I answer this post?
Purely in terms of land you would have to say undoubtedly yes, with a simple calculation of what they have now versus what they were offered in the plan.
I would be reluctant to criticise though as I imagine if say a good part of Britain was given away to a foreign people then I imagine British people and probably myself would fight back against that even if that possibly meant we could lose more land by doing so.
I think the subtext of what Sunil is saying is that the Palestinians are responsible for their treatment by the Israelis so don't criticise Israel. That's why he added it to a comment about criticism of Israel.
To give an example it is sort of like a mugger beating you up and taking your wallet and your phone, or instead you freely give him you wallet.
If you know the end result you would give him y
Is this a reasonable analogy?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
Really ? I seem to think Israel was imposed upon the Palestinians [ interestingly not supported by the British particularly with the terrorist bombing of King David's Hotel ] because of Western guilt associated with WW2.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
How did the 1948 war start, surby? Who accepted the 1947 plan? Who rejected it?
Ta!
The 1947 "plan" itself was the imposition.
The General Assembly voted, 33-13, in favor of partition, with 10 members, including Britain, abstaining. The six Arab nations in the General Assembly staged a walkout in protest. The New York Times reported: “The walkout of the Arab delegates was taken as a clear indication that the Palestinian Arabs would have nothing to do with the Assembly’s decision. The British have emphasized repeatedly that British troops could not be used to impose a settlement not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, ...”
Looks like the Hungarian weather forecast is about right, it’s going to be a hot and sunny race. With one hour to go it’s 35° with the track over 50°C.
Looking at bets (all these on Betfair) Hamilton to win at 2.52 looks good given that he starts on pole, Vettel is also odds against at 2.9. No SC at 2.32 also looks good, there weren’t any in the dry support races. Verstappen is a lay for a podium at 3.75, as is Ricciardo for top 6 at 1.54. To lead the first lap, Bottas at 6.4 is better value than Hamilton at 1.6.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, There can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
I do hope not. 'JC' and 'Jezziah' have a nice ring to them, but 'BJ' and 'Boriah' don't work for salvation puns.
Although of course 'BJ' stands for one activity Boris has been accused of, and 'Boriah' is quite close to 'pariah,' which is what he has become in the PCP...
Yesterday's waffling lead about another GE from our own Nick missed that vital ingredient - a single idea around which Labour could endeavour to build a bigger tent.
As I said here over a year ago, the moment when Labour decides throw its entire weight behind a vote on the final deal will be key.
I think they are headed that way. They don't want to vote for any Tory deal, but I can see them not wanting to vote it down and accidentally lead to no deal either, so just say you back the people to choose.
Labourites - avoid being labelled as anti-semites by spending your time criticising the Tories rather than being fixated about Israel-Palestine.
Good advice; however, there's about as much chance of the Corbynite tendency shutting up about Israel as there is of the Tory hardline Eurosceptics shutting up about Europe - at least, unless the UK does finally leave the EU, de facto as well as de jure (and no attempt is made to rejoin again,) in which case the matter will be resolved.
We all, I think, appreciate the arc of reasoning that the Far Left has travelled this past seven decades, starting with simple humanitarian concerns for displaced Palestinians, then with the Arab-Israeli conflict developing into a Cold War proxy battle between the Capitalist West and the Soviet bloc, to supporting radical Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (regardless of their appallingly barbarous early medieval attitudes to virtually everything) because they were "freedom fighters" battling the Western Axis of Evil, through the protests against the (mostly disastrous) Western military interventions in Muslim majority countries, and finally to the point where we are now where Muslims are so lionised that all criticism of them, their faith and the way it is practised is labelled Islamophobia and shouted down, and fictitious theories of Jewish conspiracy are openly promulgated as if Josef Goebbels had risen from the grave.
The Far Left is now so invested in this subject that it will keep on obsessing over Israel-Palestine forever, unless Israel is wiped from the map. Wishing that it would do otherwise won't, of course, make a jot of difference to this.
Do you agree or disagree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs to reject the 1947 Partition Plan?
Funnily enough, the far left only seems to be interested in how Palestinians are treated by the Israelis. There seems to be far less concern for them when they are in other countries. Why is that, do you think?
Maybe people are right and the 'far left' are as racist as everyone makes out and care as little about the Israelis as others do for the Palestinians?
Opponents of the far left on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the far left’s long history of sharing platforms and marching in solidarity with anti-Semites. It’s really not about nationalising railways.
Opponents of the centrists on the left tend to be opponents precisely because of the centrists long history of occupying and killing Muslims. It's not really about nationalising the railways.
Given that the only significant political force in England opposing the Iraq war was the LibDems, I don't think whatever drove Blair, New Labour and a majority of its MPs to support that war can be blamed on their being centerist.
The Lib Dems were possibly being opportunistic although I don't doubt some genuinely did oppose. The rebellion in the Labour party definitely had a left lean and the support a right, obviously exceptions but the more right wing the more likely to vote for it.
I don't think a more left wing Labour party would have done it.
One thing I will say is that Corbynistas (at least on twitter, anyway) do seem to try to argue that moderate MPs always defend Israel. It’s not true though - those such as Streeting (from what I’ve seen on his twitter feed) have been pretty critical of Netanyahu‘s government.
They attacked David Baddiel over his appearance on Frankie Boyle. They then accused him of writing that Tracey Ullman sketch. They then accused him of being an Israeli stooge. His replies with some very sweary denunciation of Israel only proved his complicity in the conspiracy (false flag...)
All on Twitter.
I remember them going nuts over him appearing on Frankie Boyle. I mean, they can’t accuse Frankie Boyle of being a Blairite....
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre. While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
And we know some Bernie supporters were pretty passionate in defence of their guy as well! I've never quite understood it. I get a certain level of passion in support of a political leader, but sometimes the person who inspires it, and the extent of it, seems so bizarrely over the top. It gets particularly intense when you have people (I'll use Corbynites as an example, but yes others do it too) who are so angry and passionate in defence that they are actually in disagreement with the person they are seeking to defend - like when Corbyn says there has been an issue with anti-semitism and it isn't a smear to say that (though he would surely disagree with the extent and Labour's response being appropriate), and yet some supporters still insist it is all a smear (even Momentum haven't said that).
Interestingly, Theresa May doesn’t seem to have a cult following though (at least as far as I can see).
HYUFD?
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
The generally held view that Boris has been tested in high office and seen to have failed having passed him by.
Indeed so. Even if he’s up against Anna Soubry he’ll struggle to get my vote.
He’s now obsessed with the idea that Boris is the saviour of the Conservative Party.
I do hope not. 'JC' and 'Jezziah' have a nice ring to them, but 'BJ' and 'Boriah' don't work for salvation puns.
Although of course 'BJ' stands for one activity Boris has been accused of, and 'Boriah' is quite close to 'pariah,' which is what he has become in the PCP...
Cough
I did think of your initials (unfortunately after posting) Mr Owls, but don't worry, i would never compare you to Boris Johnson. There are some things no decent person would do.
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Well, Hitler's whole casus belli was that he demanded Poland cede the Polish Corridor. He tried to crush Poland, but Germany eventually had to cede territory to Poland.
Comments
If it really were a time for a new party we'd have got one by now. But we haven't. Therefore I can only conclude that political wonks like us would like one, but no one else does. They just like dreaming about it.
They've also been subjected to abuse based on their Jewishness for being left wing, bad jews I believe the term is, the good jews don't get abused because they do what they should but others target these people because they don't play along with the game the centrists and right want them to play, they aren't acting like they want Jews to act.
There is a woman on twitter, who isn't Jewish who is part of some Labour anti-Semitism thing. I witnessed her the one time abusing a young Jewish woman and demanding various answers off her about how she could be Jewish and support this or be friends with this person until eventually the young woman got so annoyed with it that she muted her. She went back to her group talking about how people were rude to her for abusing this young Jewish woman and was congratulated and reassured that she was doing the right thing.
I'm sick of this anti-Semitism thing being used as an excuse to attack Jewish Labour members, it is just as racist to attack Jewish supporters of Corbyn based on their Jewishness as it is to attack Jewish people who aren't Corbyn supporters based on their Jewishness.
Also your whole premise is a conspiracy theory, though it is no surprise centrists coming up with crazy theories to discredit the left...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-cleans-up-his-twitter-feed-after-fresh-antisemitic-link-fwqgxdwzr
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Also, antisemitism was found to be mainly on the Far right of the political spectrum, while on the far left, it is the same as the left, centre and moderate right, at about 3.6%.
___________________________________________________________________________
Only a certain type of person then immediately moves on to denying Israel’s right to exist, or makes comparisons to Nazis. If they just talked about Netanyahu and his government there wouldn’t be a problem and we’d all have better things to discuss on a Sunday morning.
Obviously this comparison can be over-used and is often made stupidly, but policing that should be the job of normal social sanctions (Godwin's Law etc) not party rules that call you a racist and get you thrown out.
No-one is unaware of what the Nazis did to the Jews. No-one is unaware that Israel is a Jewish state. It is more than rhetoric to use the term Nazi in any discussion of Israeli policy.
William Hague wrote a pretty interesting piece on the talk surrounding a new centrist party in the Telegraph recently.
Countries have rights to other things that sound related like the right not to be invaded by other countries, but there is no right to existence.
I found the whole thing with them accusing Baddiel of writing the Ullman sketch bizarre.
While Corbynistas among the worst when it comes to anyone criticising their dear leader (alongside Trump supporters) I have noticed that with the rise of social media it seems there are many groups of people deeply sensitive to any criticism of their leader/ideology. Hilary Clinton’s supporters for example seem to act like she’s the second coming of Christ and see anyone who preferred Bernie as some kind of terrible disgrace.
The reason up until now a split has never really been on the cards is that tactically it's an a huge gamble compared to the hope that Labour somehow snaps out of its Corbynista madness and returns to a degree of sanity - and for MPs and members who are appalled by Corbyn the rational thing has been to stay and fight their corner until the zealots get tired, people grow up a bit, realise they've been had and someone on the loyalist soft left emerges as a successor and gradually ditches the Dear Leader's more morally abhorrent attachments. Tactically, that's long been a smarter course than jumping ship because it's much more likely than founding a new party, usurping Labour and consigning Corbyn to the wilderness where he belongs.
However, there comes a point where tactical considerations go out the window because Corbyn and his acolytes are intent on demanding deference to views a large number of Labour MPs find abhorrent and mad. At that point, tactical considerations are moot because the only way to ensure political survival is to fight and go with the longshot. That's why the attacks on Hodge and Austin by the leadership may be a turning point. It's crystallised what MPs have long suspected but daren't contemplate out of horror - that there really is no way back and the party as it existed for 100 years is now finished as they will be targeted if they dissent against the transformation of the party into a hard left revolutionary one.
It's a bit like Brexit. A lot of people who've long thought it catastrophic have said "well it has to happen though, will of the people, we'll muddle through" have now realised the urgency their views entail.
I disagree with your point about ideas though - there's arguably a lot more plausible concrete ideas on things like infrastructure spending, NHS and tax reform, devolution circulating around centre-left circles than around either Corbyn or the government. The big problem is that it's a Catch-22 - those things can't be put to the public and win you support until you form a serious new party as a vehicle for them, but no one wants to take the leap until they know the support is there.
Putting it simply, the Corbyn cult requires siege mentality. Jeremy is the only way to save the party and thus the country, and all of the people expressing even the slightest constructive criticism are part of the vast neo-liberal elite determined to stop him.
Its nonsense. We had a significant step to the left under "Red Ed" Milliband the suspiciously Jewish son of a traitor, we had a significant chunk of our actual policies in development even under Brown (British jobs the latest example), and the idea that any "plot" against JC is people determined to install David Milliband or some other Blairite is delusional madness. Or would be if people hadn't already fallen under the Black Sleep of the Kali Mar...
Labourites - avoid being labelled as anti-semites by spending your time criticising the Tories rather than being fixated about Israel-Palestine.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-hasn-t-come-up-with-one-radical-idea-2gfh29l0c
Especially as the Tories have left the equivalent of an open goal and 50 penalties lined up for taking.
Jeremy is largely honest decent and principled. He is also not a leader hence his struggle transitioning from a lifetime of carrying the banner (placard) of various causes into making the kind of tough decisions that actual leadership demands.
Pointing this out - or that Clinton was shrill and self-aggrandising etc etc - just provokes shrieking accusations that you are the enemy...
Those ideas don’t seem particularly new, they sound like reheated 1990s social democracy, which is my point. Sure, the LDs have polices that aren’t on Brexit. But Stop Brexit is the main centrepiece of their vision. It’s the same with many moderates.
You also have to ask if these ideas are so plausible and concrete (a why didn’t we hear about them from the centrist candidates in 2015 (b. Why are centrists unable to persuade Labour members to coming round to these ideas? Centre left parties throughout Europe have been doing badly, while the hard/radical Left have being gaining more support. That it’s happened here in its own way cannot be a coincidence.
The point that this has moved to a moral issue is one I’m aware of, but the reality that Labour is now in the hands of Corbyn and co long term has been there since June 2017. That is not a new development nor new realisation. Likewise, the demands MPs embrace views they find ‘mad’ or ‘abhorrent’ has always been there - that’s why Corbyn has had so much trouble keeping a cabinet together, and why they tried to get rid of him in 2016.
I don't think Corbyn has ever really had an opportunity to not have a siege mentality. Do you remember the start of his leadership?
I know the media always (usually) go after Labour leaders but it went to extremes with Corbyn and the claims themselves became more and more ludicrous.
Corbyn fans do go very far in defending him but this has been a direct reaction to the amount of scorn poured on him by the media. I remember watching political programs which generally are supposed to be balanced but you would have everyone on there criticising Corbyn with nobody advancing his viewpoint. The right wing papers went for it more than ever but even the few left wing papers did as well. If the idea was to make people defensive of Corbyn it was a very good strategy, I suspect they hoped for the opposite though.
Also we did actually have a coup there isn't just delusions of Corbyn supporters.
Compare it to how despondent those who feel they don't have a choice feel, it is that uplifting to suddenly have a choice.
Also on the Baddiel Ullman sketch writing, the guy who said it meant that the show was so bad it was as if it was written by Baddiel himself, in the same way you claim your football clubs striker is a donkey. Your striker isn't a donkey, just so bad it appears that way, Baddiel didn't write the sketch it was just so bad it appeared that way.
Although obviously it wasn't helped that I think Galloway and maybe some others on the left also took it the wrong way and then spread it, so you had the crazy conspiracy of the left think Baddiel wrote Ullmans sketch just because he is a Jew take hold which is then used as proof of the whole anti semitism story. It gets a little tiring having to find out the truth behind all the smears...
It is defined as:
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/29/housing-renting-mortgages-loans-home-ownership-first-time-buyers
The Israelis, as a Professor at the Hebrew University once told me, want three things. They want a state that is Jewish, democratic and from the river (Jordan) to the sea. But - only two of those are possible. If it is to be Jewish and democratic, they have to let go of the West Bank, because otherwise it will be at least 50% Muslim and more than 50% Arab (including Christians, c. 3%). If they want it to be from the river to the sea and Jewish, it cannot be democratic - this is of course more or less what hey have now and its actions to sustain that (blockades, settlements, land grabs, walls, military operations etc) is why Israel is so heavily criticised around the world. If it is from the river to the sea and democratic, it won't be Jewish, and the odds are it would be a strongly Muslim state with close links to Iran (ironically, this would be due to Israel's own actions in radicalising huge swathes of Palestinians).
What do the Palestinians want? Well, some might accept a state based in the West Bank and Gaza. But there are issues. One is that the two are cut off, and therefore access would be difficult between them. It would however be essential as Gaza is the largest city, the only port and has the only airport (or at least, would have the only airport if the Israelis hadn't bombed it and kept it constantly out of action). The other is that the people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank can't stand the sight of each other. They behave very differently in just about everything - including towards Israel. The West Bank and Fatah would be willing to consider an accommodation if they were certain the Israelis were negotiating in good faith (a big 'if' under the circumstances but better than sour cynicism). Gaza and Hamas are not (see below). Israel would however still control all water supplies, all airspace, all coastal access and most of the infrastructure. Under the circumstances Palestine could easily be a vassal state of the Knesset, North Cyprus to Israel's Turkey. Moreover given how corrupt their governing parties are, the limits Israel has placed on education and economic development and the few natural resources (realistically some quite poor farmland and the mineral salts of the Dead Sea) there is not the basis for a stable or prosperous state to be founded. Indeed, a united Palestine has all the makings of a failed state, which Israel would surely just invade again with the tacit backing of Jordan and Egypt - leaving the Palestinian people much worse off and without allies.
And that, of course, means that the Israelis who might negotiate for peace are increasingly marginalised, and the headbangers (Netanyahu and before him, Sharon) are the ones who get popularity. If the Palestinians won't settle for less than wiping us off the map, the Israelis seem to reason, let's use our military strength to get our revenge in first and make a Palestinian state impossible. If Gaza were to become depopulated - and thanks to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli control of the (inadequate) water supply and the Israeli stranglehold on the economy, that is a realistic short-term possibility - the demographic balance sinks heavily away from the Palestinians, and the West Bank will be unviable as a separate state and have to accept full vassalage.
So the two state solution due to the actions of both sides is unfortunately a non-starter.
If I had an alternative solution, I wouldn't be posting on PB, I'd be the UN's leading arbitrator.
The Arab countries tried to crush Israel at birth (ie. 1948), but their gamble failed, and in time the Israelis gained territory from them.
The Germans tried to crush Poland in 1939, but their gamble failed, and in time the Poles gained territory from them.
In the second leadership election, I did not vote at all. That was not so much about Corbyn, more my complete disrespect for Owen Smith. I didn't even know who he was.
But, I will say something about Corbyn. The 2017 election showed us that Labour should not be ashamed about putting forward a Left agenda. It was clearly popular and a lot of demons have been exorcised.
I find it hard to believe the left has never had a voice, unless someone is coopting one particular strand of opinion as being the only thing which is the true left.
In that first year aside from the 30 or so refusenik MPs everyone else was mucking in, with constructive suggestions about how someone who had never led and had to be arm twisted into running could step up and make the role his. After the 2nd leadership contest most of his presentational issues have been successfully resolved, now its the internal infighting shenanigans that pull us down.
As for the media, the notion that Corbyn has been uniquely attacked is so absurd as to be funny. So are the endless accusations of bias from people who are so biased they think that only pro-Corbyn propaganda would be fair and accurate. Hence the need for #wearehismedia clickbait "news" sites like Shitebox which circulate absolute lies about the party to fuel hatred amongst poorly informed newer members against their own parties.
That isn't a conspiracy. Its policy.
https://jonathanboff.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/sleepwalking-to-war-britain-in-1914-and-1939/
RN was prepared in 1914 almost from the moment things kicked off in Sarajevo.
And then hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrived from Europe who took their land and still does so today. What is the position regarding immigrants in the UK today for many right wing people ?
I am sure where I worked there would be some sort of investigation.
Hard to think of an area of the public sector , where it would be deemed as acceptable.
In 2016, I didn't bother, because a) the fee was much higher ("you miser, Sunil!"), and b) I knew Owen would lose
Ta!
But its ok. If we lose we can just declare victory like we did in the general election last year and the locals this year. Shitebox will even produce a nice "info"graphic proving that we did much much better than Blair ever did. Pointing out the basic mathematical and logical fails in such things being definitive proof that you hate Him.
As for that being a conspiracy theory, it's not, but a well documented strand within hard left thinking that's run through Stalinism right through to the new left to people like Galloway. It's not a grand conspiracy - quite the opposite in fact - just a pollution of thought that keeps rearing its ugly head. You could argue it's an ugly, racially tinted manifestation of an earlier problem with revolutionary thought going back to Saint-Just that sees any form of dissent from the ideal as suspect. That it exists as a strand of far left thinking not even disputed even by Corbyn himself - who acknowledged that there was a problem with the 'socialism of fools'. What he, and Jewish Corbynite figures like Lansman or Rhea Wolfson deny is that Corbynism has an inherent unspoken attachment to that strand of thinking, that it relies too readily on people with those prejudices for some of its most strident support, that the cult of the leader is spreading such views (even unintentionally), nor that Corbyn's well documented missteps (ones he has admitted are "regrettable") in speaking warmly of people with unacceptable views are indicative of a greater problem of blindness to a particular type of prejudice rather than momentary and excusable aberrations. Many others disagree, as they're perfectly entitled to.
What's at issue is not whether left-wing anti-Semitism is a thing - it clearly is, as Labour and Corbyn admit. The issue is whether Corbyn's actions and politics have worsened and spread those toxic views - something which it's perfectly possible for Jewish people to disagree over, but which has become a major issue for the majority of British Jews and their leaders because of the way earlier complaints were mishandled and ignored.
He could've put this whole thing largely to bed two years ago by making a speech explaining past actions, outlining why he'd perhaps been blind to anti-Semitism in the past, what he was going to do as a person and leader to ensure he did not in future, and how the party would go above and beyond in rooting out a problem he himself acknowledges. There's been nothing but words and arrogance since.
Soviets quite happy to flog arms to the Israelis from 1948, was it a way to destabilise Western allies, client states nearby?
And yet you still criticise me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Gateway_Bridge
The Palestinians were the ones having land taken, to use your German Poland example should Poland have ceded territory to Germany and would they only have themselves to blame if they didn't and ended up losing even more land?
Probably a lot more so before the 2017 election, people feel a lot more confident now.
But yes that is probably a huge part of it. I guess one way to imagine it would be how well defended a lone Brexiteer with just a few allies* would be. If Brexit was mainly caught up in one person and one small part of the Conservative party that had been under attack. Corbyn doesn't just represent Corbyn, although I have become attached to him as well, Corbyn represents the left in many eyes. Which is why smears become particularly hurtful, it isn't Corbyn being smeared it is my whole political viewpoint... which was probably true to an extent for a time, it was Corbyn being left wing that was under attack. It has become harder to disconnect the attacks which aren't. The lack of obvious Corbyn replacement also probably leads to being more forgiven of flaws (or defensive) as you can't just upgrade.
*Which was the case for a long time but isn't now.
Yesterday's waffling lead about another GE from our own Nick missed that vital ingredient - a single idea around which Labour could endeavour to build a bigger tent.
As I said here over a year ago, the moment when Labour decides throw its entire weight behind a vote on the final deal will be key.
Although of course 'BJ' stands for one activity Boris has been accused of, and 'Boriah' is quite close to 'pariah,' which is what he has become in the PCP...
And I agree with Philip Collins Times article - Corbynism isn't offering any radical solutions to the structural failings and growing inequality in our society. The battle isn't "lets renationalise United Utilities" its how do we provide incteasingly expensive care to a population growing more aged by it whilst work incteasingly doesn't pay and is threatened by automation and the internet.
Looking at bets (all these on Betfair) Hamilton to win at 2.52 looks good given that he starts on pole, Vettel is also odds against at 2.9. No SC at 2.32 also looks good, there weren’t any in the dry support races. Verstappen is a lay for a podium at 3.75, as is Ricciardo for top 6 at 1.54. To lead the first lap, Bottas at 6.4 is better value than Hamilton at 1.6.
We all, I think, appreciate the arc of reasoning that the Far Left has travelled this past seven decades, starting with simple humanitarian concerns for displaced Palestinians, then with the Arab-Israeli conflict developing into a Cold War proxy battle between the Capitalist West and the Soviet bloc, to supporting radical Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (regardless of their appallingly barbarous early medieval attitudes to virtually everything) because they were "freedom fighters" battling the Western Axis of Evil, through the protests against the (mostly disastrous) Western military interventions in Muslim majority countries, and finally to the point where we are now where Muslims are so lionised that all criticism of them, their faith and the way it is practised is labelled Islamophobia and shouted down, and fictitious theories of Jewish conspiracy are openly promulgated as if Josef Goebbels had risen from the grave.
The Far Left is now so invested in this subject that it will keep on obsessing over Israel-Palestine forever, unless Israel is wiped from the map. Wishing that it would do otherwise won't, of course, make a jot of difference to this.
I don't think a more left wing Labour party would have done it.