UKH

So bad, it's only taken 5 years for it to become "news"

WTF?

5 years ago he wasn't scrutinized like now so it wasn't news. 

Are you defending what he said? Even believing Corbyn's claims it's pretty unpleasant (essentially telling people they aren't English because have different political views).

"I could shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" seems to apply here too. 

If Boris, May, farage, Clegg, salmond...  anyone other than Labour had said It, you'd be all over it like rash, but because it's come out of the mouth of your messiah it's some how irrelevant. 

The fact he said it as an elected member of parliament is bad enough? 

Still you don't think someone, would have been offended enough for it to make the news then?

If it was so offensive, surely the Rabbi would have commented about this before.

Once again though, they seem to be conflating Zionists with Jews, which I think we've covered before, and they're not the same thing.

I have to say this, again, this isn't going to help the curse of anti-Semitism, people aren't stupid and there'll be a backlash probably not from the left but the far right.

Like I said so bad it's take 5 years to become news.

Doesn't it make you suspicious in the slightest?

No. Batty left wing MP saying something unpleasant isn't newsworthy. Potential PM saying the same is. One of these remarks from Corbyn's background would probably not be newsworthy either. Dozens of them is. 

If Jonathon Sacks said that about me I’d be taking a pretty hard look at myself in the mirror and I’m damn sure my parents would not be proud of me. JC needs to sort this bullshit out - it’s not going to go away.

Yeah. How could Labour be so daft to have him as a leader unless they really wanted the Tories in power until after Brexit. Then when he has served his purpose, out he goes? 

Also, I dont  think this is about being offended. It is about the attitude Corbyn has to groups he disagrees with. He doesn't just disagree,  he sees them as less than English. For Jews particularly, I'd imagine that is bloody scary. 

The thing is though, we're constantly being being told we have to be careful with our language, separating Jews, from Zionists, from the Israeli government, and yet Sacks thinks it as OK to intimate Corbyn's remarks are about Jews and doesn't feel it necessary to make any distinction, although Corbyn mentioned Zionists, the good Rabbi sees fit to only mention Jews.

So it's fine for certain people to tell me I have to clarify who I'm talking about, but it doesn't have to apply the other way around.

More bullshit "news" more bullshit reports of this "news", the hypocrisy is outstanding!

But as I stated above, this isn't going to make the life of British Jews any better.

I think I'll take the view of Sacks on that over yours. 

Why wasn't this given wall to wall TV and Radio news?

It appears this is exactly what's happening.

"Israel embassy scandal: Shai Masot resigns after discussing 'take down' of pro-Palestinian British politicians"

While all things Israel maybe fascinating to you they aren't to most people, and they have little impact in the UK. That's why. 

You think him calling out something from 5 years ago, and using language that conflates Zionists with Jews is useful? That stating what Corbyn said, relates to ALL Jews is useful? When it so obviously wasn't, at least not unless you want it too. He should have been as careful about his language as critics of the Israeli governments are asked to be. More so because I assume he knows the difference, where as people simply protesting on humanitarian grounds may not. The fact he didn't, speaks volumes about what some people would rather happen, namely get rid of Corbyn by any means, and let's not worry about real issues.

People who know the difference aren't going to be impressed, the already anti-Semitic faction in the UK will see it as "Jews" interfering in "our British" politics.

Are you sure it's about Israel?

"Israel embassy scandal: Shai Masot resigns after discussing 'take down' of pro-Palestinian British politicians"

Did you miss the British politicians bit?

If Jonathon Sacks said that about me I’d be rolling my eyes and thinking "when will that unctuous tw*t say something that isn't fatuous nonsense and that's remotely worth listening to?". 

What he said is absolute garbage. Has he got any idea what Enoch Powell actually said?

1. Zionism is a political position, and we should all be absolutely free to criticise it without fear of being labelled racist. Decreeing that "zionist" is actually a racist slur to Jews in general is to attempt to remove the language in order to silence criticism of the political ideology. It's utterly dishonest; those who play this game should be ashamed and they should instead stand up to defend their political beliefs rather than slinging mud at their opponents.

2. Zionism is Israeli nationalism. If you're going to support Israeli nationalism, then the implication that you're not displaying cultural Britishness in your actions should be expected.

JC's remark was not racist because a) it relates to a political position and not an ethnic group and b) that political position is one of Israeli nationalism, which isn't a very British idea, by definition.

Jonathan Sacks can only be relied upon to spout vacuous crap. The idea that we should listen to him is a joke.

He didn't say anything unpleasant and the chief rabbi is talking out of his arse.

They seem to be running out of mud to sling on this particular issue.

Absolutely. And a deliberate tactic.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/aug/24/bds-how-a-controversial-...

well worth a listen 

I think in any contest to be the most offensive I'd like to nominate Sir Nicholas Fairburn, erstwhile representative of the good people of Perth & Kinross. https://bigrab.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-nicholas-fair...

Unfortunately some people do use 'Zionist' as code for Jew. They're dishonest, not the people who call them out for it. 

Could somebody explain to me what the actual context of the comment is, and what Corbyn's explanation for it is? I haven't been able to find a level-headed explanation of what happened anywhere.

I can just about tolerate Thought for the Day with most speakers. Sacks has me reaching for the off button quicker than when I hear the Archers theme.

Apparently it was aimed a specific group of English Zionists so that makes it alright. Even if you believe that, I don't see how it's alright. 

I'm not saying that makes it alright, but I can't really work out how offensive it is or isn't without a clearer picture. I don't fall into either category of believing that Corbyn is Hitler/Stalin rolled into one, or that he's the second coming of JC, so it's rather difficult to work out quite what he actually meant.

So show me why you think corbyn meant "jew" when he said "zionist". Otherwise, given that JC has a clear political opposition to both zionism and racism, I'll continue to work on the justified belief that when he said "zionist" he meant "zionist". That would appear to be consistent with all the available facts, whereas believing that he said "zionist" when he meant "jew" is inconsistent with the available facts, but perfectly consistent with a pro-isreali, demonise everyone who supports Palestinian rights as racist, political position.

Complete bollocks. 

Jon - it is simply not going to go away - Jonathon Sacks is a good man and insulting and denigrating him simply doesn’t wash.

I was going to continue about my support for Israel- but it’s a futile discussion with the left. Actually the more I think about it the more I agree with Jonathon Sacks. Vilifying minority’s- it’s just not acceptable.

I wouldn't have thought you'd go for putting words into people's mouths. I said "Unfortunately some people do use 'Zionist' as code for Jew." I didn't say Corbyn was one of those, although some people seem to think that the 'irony' case was one where he was doing so. I do think he has to update his his use of language to reflect the fact that the whole area is a minefield these days. 

I certainly read your post as suggesting Corbyn was such a person. If you didn't mean it that way then it  was very poorly worded.

There is not a single person on this earth who occupies a top job in a hierarchy of organised religion who I can possibly view with anything other than suspicion and disdain. That you should just baldly state "he's a good man" with no attempt to provide a reason for me to believe this (given that I've been hearing his vacuous, sloppy, meaningless pseudo-spiritual drivel my entire adult life) only serves to solidify my belief that there *are* no reasons to think he is a "good man".

Well carry on thinking about it in your own head and tell yourself how right you and Jonathan Sacks are, without engaging. That would, after all, be easier, wouldn't it?

Given the context, you made that implication:

JC is a man using "zionist" and is being accused of meaning "Jews".

JS is a man "calling him out".

The implication can't be wriggled out of, sorry.

That's ridiculous. I didn't say anything or mean anything of the sort. I am very happy to criticise Jeremy Corbyn on a variety of grounds. If I wanted to say he used 'Zionist' as code for 'Jew', I would, directly. I wouldn't try and sneakily imply it. But I didn't. 

If you think that 'some people' equals 'Jeremy Corbyn' it would be poorly worded. But it doesn't. 

Well fine, but it was bloody clumsy to write something which so obviously implied something you didn't mean, as Dave Kerr's post (and as it happens the "likes") demonstrate. As such, it's unfair to say that I'm being "ridiculous" as that looks like everyone else is mad, but you're sane

You made the inference, not me. And 'likes' are no indicator of truth. 

[Edit] I should add that I've no intention of implying everyone else is mad - even if on here it sometimes looks like they are!

I did not imply that. I implied that they were an indication of perception - which they are.

Sorry, I don't just want try to get the last word, but that point has a certain clarity that I couldn't resist.

It's not that bit. It's the bit where you say "They're dishonest, not the people who call them out for it."

Sacks has been calling Corbyn out for his use of the term Zionist so it should be pretty clear why myself and others thought your 'some people' referred to Corbyn.

Okay... peace?

Peace.

In this country, most (if not nearly all) Zionists are Jewish which JC would have been well aware of. So JC's remark is basically saying that some English jews are not so English. That may not have been his intent but it's certainly how his remark is being perceived.

At the moment all the sayings of Jeremy are being gone over with a fine tooth comb and some are coming back to bite him. Whether that's justified is debatable but it's not surprising given how the UK media operates. He certainly should have been more careful with his words but given that until recently he was only ever going to be an activist MP it's not surprising that he wasn't.

But, and this is where his leadership is distinctly lacking, why doesn't he take the actions that would put this issue to bed and make sure that the Labour party is free from anti-Semitism.

Also, Zionism in this country is not the same as Israeli nationalism although there is a significant overlap. Also Zionism isn't binary, there are a whole range of views that would be called zionist. Like many political issues/parties it's a broad church (can I use that here )

I also feel that, in the modern age, if a group of people tell you they feel discriminated against, and clearly mean it, you have to take that very seriously, not say that you are offended etc.  How this hasn't filtered through to JC and the Labour Party is a mystery.  To which, the easy answer is, they are anti Semitic.  

I'm not sure I really believe that in the round but it does seem this goes beyond having sympathy for the Pakestinians.

Exactly. This is a planned coordinated attack on Corbyn and the labour party but the ammunition they are using appears to be dud.

It isn't dud because Corbyn and/or Labour aren't sending out any alternative message.

If Corbyn, McDonnell etc.. were appearing in mainstream media, press, tv political programmes like QT, AQ, newsnight etc.. every other week, with a clear stance on Brexit and many other things then all this jewish noise would be wiped out. 

The Tories are sitting ducks right now and all Labour and the lib dems can do is look inwards or day dream. I can't believe the lib dems are thinking of adopting Millar. 

What on earth is this supposed to be? Some kind of calm, reasoned, nuanced position? 

Don't you know anything about debate on the Internet?

But, one of those actions is accepting that "criticising Israel is antisemitism" definition, which he absolutely should not do. There isn't really a sensible way out IMO. 

'Like many political issues/parties it's a broad church '

Broad synagogue, I think is the expression you are looking for.

I think your little exchange is an excellent example of the problem with the whole 'Zionist'/Jew distinction.  It depends on being sure about not only what someone said, but what they meant, often without sufficient context.  

It's as much about thoughtcrime as hate speech. 

I agree with most of what you've written.

What's happened has made too many people too defensive, which is what I was alluding to above, this constant digging up of tenuous Corbyn anti-Semitism, is hardening peoples attitudes and is giving a free pass to "really" anti-Semitism. It's true the process is too slow but let's get rid of people for true anti-Semitism, not what some people what us to see as anti-Semitism.

This is also true, but Sacks knows this, possibly more than most people, and yet in his piece he didn't mention Zionists only Jews. Why does it have to be you that explains this, he should have made the distinction. What he's done is made out all Jews are Zionists (in the political sense of the word) and that simply isn't true. If I was Jewish I think I'd be pretty angry about this. The trouble is any Jewish person who would is angry , won't get a voice, so the general public won't be privy to this information.

Very true, the issue I have is Sacks knows this, he knows this more than anyone and yet chose not to explain the distinction. Which in my book is more telling than something that was said 5 years ago when most people wheren't aware of having to so particular with your language. Zionist = expansionist = illegal settler.

I realise there are multitude of definitions for Zionist, but I think most of us know, or at least think we know, Corbyn meant the one I've just outlined above. Certainly Sacks would know this.

I absolutely agree. It's a very difficult area. If there's a problem with Corbyn it's that he should have better skills at negotiating this area than Jon and I! He has to move on from being a fringe gadfly to being a mainstream party leader and potential Prime Minister. 

I agree. There's been an awful lot of crying wolf going on recently, all of which plays into the hands of real anti-semites.

It's made worse by the fact that the words and actions of certain prominent Jewish figures (e.g. Hodge, Sacks, the editors of the Jewish newspapers that ran those ridiculous headlines) have played directly to certain anti-semitic tropes about powerful conspiracy, controlling the media, blindly supporting Israeli policy, playing the anti-semitism card etc. If they wanted to whip up a bit of anti-semitism, they couldn't have planned things better.

Ultimately, it's incredibly polarising. If you believe the headlines (and why wouldn't the casual observer, it's been a steady slow drip for months), then it's further evidence that Corbyn and his lot are a nasty bunch. If you reject the headlines, then it's further evidence of a conspiracy to undermine Corbyn and any criticism of Israel. It forces people into one camp or another, creates hostility and leaves little room in the middle for nuance.

Corbyn himself has been far from helpful. I've never known a senior politician to so consistently mince their words.

This, exactly.

It's a pity the gravity of Mr Sacks' accusation is negated by his political allegiances, "In September 2008 Sacks was ranked as number 30 in the Telegraph's Top 100 right wingers. Iain Dale, the author of the list, wrote that: 'Jonathan Sacks is one of the few genuinely spiritual leaders to have an influence on modern day politics- especially thinking on the right - and is the only religious representative in this list."

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Jonathan_Sacks

I’m genuinely baffled by this stuff. The notion that any party should throw people out for thinking that Israel is inherently a racist endeavour, for instance, strikes me as simply ridiculous. And so does Jews complaining that hard words about Zionists are a comment on all Jews. What am I missing?

jcm

Just to point out to everyone that is ready to wet their pants over this... he was specifically talking about a small group of zionists that had recorded a pro palistinian talk. He didn’t make reference to zionists in general- just those zionists that were in the hall at the time. He didn’t comment on a whole group of people- just that group of people, about 6 of them. Get a grip. 

3rd and 4th paras particularly.  And this predates several more recent episodes

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/jews-furious-corbyn-e...

Some Jews, not all of them!!!

But this doesn't address what La Benya has posted above, which is the real crux of the problem, a small "incident" has been manipulated and blown out of proportion, and is now major "news".

When it's, in fact, bullshit, and should be called out as such.

Sacks is playing into the hands of real anti-Semites and I can't believe he's doing so. His language was so vague when he knows how important it is to be exact. IT could be said that he's more racist than Corbyn, lumping all Jews with the few Jews Corbyn was directing his point at i.e. Zionist protesters at the meeting. Again though this point ISN'T being made in the media, or even on here taken note of.

It's a sign of our politics that winning is everything, not how you get there.

Terribly sorry, just can't seem to manage this extreme position thingy. Must be the drugs

But, the definition of anti-Semitism, that clause doesn't stop criticism of Israel (although some are interpreting it as such). It just means you have to be careful and precise about your language when you do if you want to avoid being anti-Semitic.

Of course even if you are careful and precise, some will still say that you're anti-Semitic.

In the light of full disclosure I have absolutely no idea what everyone is going on about.

Is this something that happened in the papers?

Do you think Sacks, has been careful and precise with his language?

Here or in the media?

This is the issue https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/corbyns-comments-most-offe...

It's been TV and Radio news for two day now.

It's from 5 years ago, and Corbyn was taking about / to some Zionist (in the political sense of the word) protesters who were at the meeting. It's been dug up, and Sacks has decided JC is anti-Semitic and as bad as Enoch, even though it's taken 5 years to surface.

Can't think why it's more newsworthy than the visionary,  strategic policy announcements Labour are making

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1033990751078809600

Ah with you now. another non-story pops up.

Ok, I've just tried to see exactly what JC & JS said (not all of it), relying on the Guardian link you posted at 16:39.

Firstly, JCs statement is anti-Semitic. He may not have meant it to be, but it is. The crux bit is "and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, don’t understand English irony either."

Why did he say that? He was effectively saying that those Zionists, who he knew were likely to be Jewish, were immigrants that didn't understand our values.

He was saying I'm more English than you. That's pretty offensive, and knowing that the recipients were likely to be Jewish, that's anti-Semitic.

Why didn't he just say "and secondly, don't understand irony either." That would have been perfectly sufficient to make his point.

Also, why would he think that people who follow a political movement (his now definition of his use of Zionism) as opposed to people in a racial/religious grouping, are less English than him.

Also, what is English irony, is there another type, Scottish or Welsh maybe. Unnecessary unless he's just rubbing in the I'm more English than you bit.

Now, JS's response. He doesn't usually just wade into these things so I do think what he said will have been carefully considered. He will also have considered that it's got to the point where he has to speak out. Using the term Jews rather than Zionists is because JC's statement implied that he meant Jews.

Note also that he doesn't say that what JC said is as bad as Enoch. He said it's the worst since (which is quite different) although of course everyone is ignoring that distinction. He compares it with Enoch because this is a senior politician who has said things that basically disenfranchise some of his constituency (I don't mean his MP's constituency).

Now, the question is, is any of this from 5 years ago relevant. That of course depends on what JC says. If he now said "I didn't have any anti-Semitic intent but I can see that what I said then was wrong and that people would find it offensive" then I think that particular incident would be buried. If he basically says "I stand by what I said" then in my view, he's an anti-semite.

I don't like whataboutery and I don't have time to check the validity of this, but.

"Rabbi Sacks led a march through Palestinian east Jerusalem which Haaretz described as “a gender-segregated, extreme-right, pro-occupation religious carnival of hatred” in which participants chant “Death to the Arabs” and “Al Aqsa will be burned down.”"

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/rabbi-sacks-why-are-you-cheerleading-for-an...

Well put. 

From what I've read, the "joke" about these English residents he refers to not getting English irony is that the speech these people had missed the irony in was delivered by a Palestinian, i.e. a non-English person. So, he wasn't saying "I'm more English than you", he was poking fun at English/naturalised English people missing irony (the supposedly defining English style) delivered by someone non-English. The joke, unfunny as it is, only works with a specifically English target, and not with a specifically Jewish one.

You’re really clutching at straws

That makes sense. Do we know who these supposed zionists were, at whom fun was being poked?

Nope I think it's the JC can do no wrong people who are clutching at straws.

I understand what you're saying but in that case why didn't he say along the lines of "what I find funny, is that you (those Zionists) who are presumably English, didn't get the irony, which is quintessentially English humour, delivered by a Palestinian"

Also, has JC come out with this "joke" explanation?

Well put.

Because he could manage to put his foot in his mouth even if he had both legs taped together.

Jibe, joke, my word. Read it here (excuse the Grauniad): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/corbyn-english-irony-video...

I think the guys an incompetent mess. Doesn’t mean I automatically jump on every stupid bandwagon going. 

There are far better things to get worked up about than someone pointing out a few zionists are idiots that don’t get irony. 

Isn't it rather difficult to make a judgement either way without knowing the full details of all the speeches, etc. that led up to Corbyn's comments?
Saying that and from his comments alone, he does come across as being a bit over the top in his praise for the Palestinian speaker, whilst at the same time appearing to take some delight in denigrating the 'Zionists' that he was referring to.
Evidence of antisemitism from Corbyn?  Probably not.  
Evidence of being against Zionism?  Perhaps and you have to be very careful in how you word things for the two not to be conflated.
As a backbencher, he could get away with such stuff without anyone really noticing. 
Would he say similar things today?  I would suggest not as he probably now realises that he can't just say what he likes without it being analysed by the media and interpreted as they wish.
Should he make a better effort at actually explaining and apologising?  Of course he should.
Will he?  No, because I honestly don't believe he sees the bigger picture and responsibility of what he is currently is and what he could potentially become and still seems to be stuck in Student Politics land.  

Another  thread  full of non Jews explaining why Jews have no idea what is anti semitism. Are we going to now have a thread of whites explaining why blacks misunderstand racism? Followed by one of men saying that women cannot recognize sexism ?

Another way to look at it is a thread full of non- reactionary people explaining why a load of idiots have no idea what they’re talking about. Oh, and some of them happen to be Jews and non- Jews. 

Sorry, should I adopt the IHRA definition including all its working examples in its entirety?

Totally agree with you on the first sentence. It's entirely context dependent.

To use the term 'zionist' to refer to Jews in general is definitely anti-semitic. I don't believe that was what Corbyn meant in this situation.

So the question then is, are the people who Corbyn referred to as "zionists", actually zionist? Would they self-identify as "zionist"? Would they regard "zionist" as an insult?

Those are questions I'm not qualified to answer, not having a deep understanding of the history of Israel and Palestine, and of course not having any insight into the minds of those people. It's even more convoluted given how "zionist" is something of a dirty word in general now.

Richard Millett is one of the people to whom the comments refer. I can't say whether he's a zionist, or would describe himself as such. But, from his own blog, he appears to be something of an agitator. Therefore, I'm not best inclined to simply take his word on this verbatim:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/and-i-only-asked-why-jews-cant-live-next-to...

I also agree with your last sentence. I don't think Corbyn is personally anti-semitic, but he's far too mired with this whole thing to make any progress or ever be trusted on the issue, even if his explanations make perfect sense.

No.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is outlawing a completely general political and philosophical position that land should not be divided and governed on the basis of ethic and/or religious groups. Under this definition, I can't express my completely general, non-racist political (actually anti-racist) position, because apparently it's antisemitic. This needs to be ditched before anyone with intellectual rigour and sufficient moral courage to stand up to bullies should ever sign up to it.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

This one is just pure bollocks. It's a clause that says "every time you criticise Israel, I'll say it's a double standard (you didn't also say the thing that I now decree you must have said in order to avoid my boobie trap) so you're antisemitic". It's dishonest, and it should not be accepted. I can appreciate that to someone who hasn't had this tactic used against them a thousand times, what I'm saying might appear paranoid, but believe me, I know this trick inside out, and so does JC.

No it isn't. What you're saying reads to me like it took real effort to find a way to construe something as racist and be offended by it. That's not what racism is - it isn't something you actively look for, it's something that expresses an attitude that one's own race is superior to another. That's not present in JC's comment, and the more about the context you consider, the further removed it is from anything approaching racism. 

I find the active seeking of offence to be an ugly trait and we would all do best to avoid being drawn into it.

As I said, they're Israeli nationalists he was talking about. That's why, and it's fair.

No it didn't. He said zionists because that's who he was talking about. JS, as well as being a smug self-aggrandising bastard, also holds deep political convicitons in direct opposition to JC. Don't you think that's the more likely reason he "spoke out" in favour of the community so cruelly oppressed and denigrated by JC's shocking, inflammatory hate speech. And twisted his words to refer to "Jews" as if that's what he'd said. Christ in a onesie, that guy's a real dick.

Because either way it's screeching, attention seeking, politically motivated mock-offence bollocks of the very highest order. I'm disgusted by it.

He phoned James O'Brian on LBC the other day, and in the conversation stated that he doesn't believe the illegal Israeli settlements are illegal, so I think it's fair to say he's an expansionist Zionist, and not a huge leap of faith to assume that the others in the small group he was in were too. 

The idea that if you refer to a small group of Zionists by that name you are anti-semitic is bizarre. Nothing would have been made of the same comment aimed at a small group of "lefties" in a largely right wing audience, or vice versa. 

Does that mean then, that nobody who is vocally supportive of Palestinian rights, and against Israel's illegal settlements, can ever be trusted? Because that's all JC has done to get "far too mired"...

It's not referring to Zionists as Zionists that is the problem. It's the inference they are less than  English. 

Anyone remember the "Tebbit Test"?

That's only being 'inferred' by people who don't know the context of his comments (see my post at 18.06 yesterday) or by those who it suits to infer that.

There are 101 reasons that Corbyn should do one, but pretending every time he's said the word 'Zion' is him hating Jews is getting f*cking tedious.

I had to read a bit more about Jonathan Sacks, after wondering how he managed to extrapolate all that from the words of Corbyn.  It would appear he does it a lot.  

I think you're right in that it was a clumsy thing to say and has the potential to offend in what is obviously a pretty highly-charged situation.  And you're right that anyone with an ounce of political wit, not to mention common courtesy, would just apologise while making the point that this was some time ago when the subject wasn't quite such a linguistic minefield.

The real English irony is that Corbyn, a well-read man who has spent his whole life doing little else but talking is so bad at it.  He just seems incapable of saying almost anything clearly and unambiguously.  His language is stilted and has hardly progressed beyond the level of a school debating society.  He's obviously completely lost by the deep textual analysis being (perhaps sometimes unfairly) applied to what he may or may not have meant in something he said a decade ago.  And he does seem to have a problem with retracting anything and apologising.

Sacks, on the other hand, is erudite, precise and mellifluous.  His words are chosen with care and intent and he is unlikely to offend anyone accidentally.  I've always thought of him as personable and reasonable and an excellent spokesman for his faith, so I'm rather surprised by his recent comments.      

That's not correct.  I've listened to the full speech and still think what he's is unpleasant.  I think he knew it himself at the time actually which is why he added the "...for all their lives..." bit.  As I said above, if this was a one-off, I'd think nothing of it, but it isn't.. There are repeated examples as the Hadley Freeman article I linked above shows.  I don't think Corbyn has malice towards Jews but his long association with all sorts of groups that do means he is blind his words and actions and the scope they give for people who are malicious to act.

I'm adding that to Dany Dyers Brexit quote, as one hitting the nail firmly on the head.

And if we all keep quiet we learn nothing!!

There are people commenting here who hate Corbyn, so  no matter what he said they'd be against him, there are people  who don't understand the situation, there are people who don't understand the difference between Zionists and Jews, there are people who don't understand the difference between different "types" of Zionism, and there are people who are looking for some form of balance view, there are people who have viewed the thread and not commented.

Isn't it better these problems are discussed? And by discussing them realise there might be a difference between Zionism and "Jews", or one persons Zionism and another.

You've been quite vociferous in previous threads about people being precise and mindful of there language, how do people learn about what's acceptable?

Your attitude is part of the problem, you're basically telling people to mind there own business and "we know best" but you can't even agree amongst yourselves most of the time. In all of this there are Jews who support Corbyn, there are still Jews in the Labour party and Jews are still going, so something isn't gelling with your view.

Of course you can dismiss these sometimes prominent people by telling us their your idiot neighbour, when they actually living in a different constituency and you don't know them at all.

You either want people to understand and learn and treat people with respect or you want people to keep schtum and believe everything we're being told.

I stand by what I first posted, if what JC had said was so bad we wouldn't have had to wait 5 years for it to become "news" and the good Mr. Sacks would have commented on it previously.

There are more non-Jewish Zionists than Jewish ones. 40 million "Christians" in the USA for a start and the only thing they laugh at is the notion that the world is more than 6000 years old.

I've seen the "settlements" on Palestinian land and the Wall. What the Israelis are doing is a disgrace. By the way I don't hate Jews. I hate Nazism. Is it possible to be clearer . Israel should be a secular state with all citizens having equal rights. 

Are you sure it's about Israel?

"Israel embassy scandal: Shai Masot resigns after discussing 'take down' of pro-Palestinian British politicians"

Did you miss the British politicians bit?

Doesn't this seem to be exactly what is happening?

Are you happy that an outside force is directing our politics in the UK?

This was nearly two years ago, perhaps the media should revisit this and have it on the radio and TV headlining for two days.

If Corbyn was being caught out for what he's saying now then fair enough, to twist what was said 5 years ago, and try and make this appear he was taking about ALL British Jews or simply ALL Jews, is disingenuous and somewhat sinister.

Just because you hate him doesn't mean you should be happy or even neutral about what's happening.

He may or may not be incompetent, the people can find that out by either voting for him or not. But let's not vilify him on falsities. Lie I said previously, people can see through this, and the constant "cry wolf" isn't going to help anti-Semitism in our society, it'll make it worse.

What's your time limit? How long has to elapse before any racist utterings I may make become unmentionable under Kikoman's statute of limitations?

As noted earlier in the thread, the context was that a Palestinian representative had made a speech in which he had (in JCs opinion, it matters not whether that opinion was correct or not) demonstrated his wit by including a very "English" sense of irony.

The only inference i would take from that (in context) is "you've been owned by the away team at your home ground".  

Imagine Barnier came here and demonstrated a very "English" sense of irony in a speech, and a pro-remain MP made a similar comment regarding a small group of brexiters in the audience.  

Would that be considered racist or xenophobic against the British? Would it be implying that the brexiters were somehow less English, or just that they were thick?

It can only take on a more sinister undertone if you believe the person making the speech meant "Jewish" when they said "Zionist"... an odd leap to make when one of the group it was aimed at has come on national radio since and clearly expressed expansionist zionist thinking, and said that JC knew them well as they had moved in the same circles for years.

No I didn't miss any of that.  I just don't think its a significant story  If Israel (like Russia) appeared to be making a concerted effort to distort UK politics. I would.  Similarly if Corbyn's remarks were a one-off I wouldn't think them significant but as they are part of pattern, I do.

I don't hate him.  I think he is an incompetent, biased fool.

Seems fair enough, since as a non Jew its me that gets accused of antisemitism for even farting in the general direction of an Israeli flag.  I just accept that I must be anti Semitic now and just ignore the term as irrelevent.  To you the term may have some relevent meaning but to me personally  its a totally de-valued term.

I do think it would be pretty unpleasant.  However, it would be less significant because there isn't a  several thousand year history of claiming brexiteers aren't truly part of the country they live in, which then often leads to oppression or genocide, as there is with Jews.  I understand the distinction between Jews and Zionists but think this is an excuse in this instance.  Why?  Because I don't think Corbyn would have implied opponents were less than English if they were any other political group.  Intentionally or not, he was picking up of this longstanding view of Jews (in this case Zionists) not being truly part of the nation they live in.

But the issue is not really Israel per se, all citizens in Israel do have equal rights (although we'll have to wait and see whether the recent law makes a practical difference to that).

It's the fact that the West Bank is essentially stateless but largely under Israeli control, being neither part of a two state solution or a single state solution. So the laws and rules that govern it are different.

If you think there should be a secular single state solution then that's ok, but it's unlikely to be achieved with the current outlook of both sides.

And, as a point of information (for others even if you know)  most of the wall is actually a fence which has been highly effective in reducing the number of terrorist attacks that originated from the West Bank. The wall bits are generally where there is significant risk from sniper attacks.

There's no doubt that some sections of the barrier (wall/fence) have been very devisive, but the worst injustices have been reversed by the Israeli supreme court. Overall the country (or at least the government) has effectively decided that the security gains are worth the amount of injustices. Unfortunately for the affected Palestinians, they're the "poor" in this situation who receive the vast majority of those injustices.

As for the settlements, the original ones after 67 were essentially security outposts and I can see the necessity of those.

The "expansionist" settlements are basically a balancing act by right wing governments. On the one side you have population pressures and the desire to stay in power relying on right wing support which wants settlements. On the other you have international and (some) internal disapproval which does have some effect (when the USA shouts about it, expansion tends to stop, for a while).

The whole situation is so complex that nobody can really see a reliable way out with the result being that the unsatisfactory status quo is basically maintained.

I don't have a time limit, but let's get some perspective here "worst since Enoch" and we're only just hearing about it?

Johnson's "piccaninnies" and "watermelon smiles", is a little worse that Corbyn picking on a few agitators at a meeting.

It's the exaggeration which annoys me, and the fact Sacks has been so loose with his language in describing the situation, yet he'd be the first to condemn such loose language for people talking about the Israeli government.

The traffic seem only one way, simply type on UKC becomes a chore, because you don't want to offend. If were talking about attack in Gaza, I can't say Israel, I have to write the Israeli government, otherwise people become offended, when in fact I'm giving them the acknowledgement that they are clever enough to know who I'm talking about.

There's been a constant drip drip of racist slurrs against Corbyn, and it's because the things they tried first didn't work, add to that the confession on camera of Mr. Masot, which received little TV or radio publicity, and it's very hard to deny, there maybe outside influences at work here, even if you're not one of the tin foil hat brigade.

But that what happening many people are simply shutting the real anti-Semitism out because it's being drowned in the background chatter. This isn't what most people want, I think some people are prepared to accept this, so long as they win though.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-court-recognises-settlement-priv...

But this is the court, not the government, and it's an opening of the floodgates, possibly / probably.

FFS!! Why Jews? Why not some Jews, you're doing exactly the same as Sacks, and what people talking about the Israeli government and condemned for, lumping groups of people together!!

If it's Jews, how come all the Jews in Labour haven't left, how come there are still Jews supporting Corbyn? How come there are Jews defending Corbyn? How come he still has Jewish friends?

If you'd stated what you said above about some negative aspect of the Israeli government you'd have people calling you an anti-Semite. It can't be selective just because it suits you.

If you have got a time limit pack in going on about it being 5 years ago.

That was 16 years ago, jesus, give the man a break.

I don't think that's the case, i think you can easily say the attack was by Israel.

24 hour news outlets constantly looking for "news" to fill the space. If St Theresa had had the same meetings as a backbencher that JC had I'd expect that to be reported too.

I don't know what most people want, i know quite a lot don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine and would be quite happy if it was never mentioned in the news again.

You don't seem to have read what I wrote.  I don't think historically oppression of Jews has focused on subsets of them.

It's pretty difficult to be critical of Zionists without being critical of some Jews, because they tend to be Jews. I don't like Pegida, but it's seems it's okay to be rude about Germans.

This isn't what I meant at all. I simply meant that, for right or wrong, following years of negative press, Corbyn won't be trusted over the issue again, regardless of the truth of the situation. Emphasis on won't, instead of can't.

I agree that the label of "zionist" applies to Milletts in its correct sense. I've dug deeper through his blogs and it's generally unpleasant reading.

But he was talking to a subset not about, namely the few disrupting the meeting, the few pro-Zionists!

There were, I would imagine a fair number of other Jews in the audience (there usually is) not there to disrupt the meeting but to support the Palestinians. Do you think they were as outraged as Mr. Sacks?

You seem to be able to on one hand decide Corbyn meant all Jews and yet discount any Jew from agreeing with him. It's a two way street.

Exactly, but it's some Jews not only is MG leaving this out, but Sacks did too.

For MG that's forgiveable, maybe he's not aware, but for Sacks it isn't because he's been one of them telling us how careful we have to be, with our language.

I'd look back at some of the other thread if I was you?

Neither do I really, it's more of a hope, that we become a fairer and more tolerant society, obviously many don't give a toss, some will actively resist. I was speaking out of hope.

You choice is obviously up to you, but how do you suggest the news decide on what to publish, no Rohingya, no news about famines in Africa, no global warming, maybe no bad news at all. I don't see how you can simply not look and pretend it's not happening, but we're all different I suppose.

Can you stop saying this?  I've explained several times now that is not what I am saying.

It's not criticism that's the problem (and I agree some Jews do use any criticism to shout antisemitism to shut things down on occasion).  It's the implication of being less than English.

The implication is that it's ironic that English and naturalised English people didn't pick up on the peculiarly English irony in a non-English person's speech. People you don't consider as English not picking up on an English sense of irony is not something really worth mocking, is it?

"Unbelievably, that Tibetan guy doesn't even like a pint of bitter, ha ha! Whatever next?"

I have? I think you're wrong? Or at least a little over sensitive.

I'm not the one suggesting that certain stories are suppressed (because they're old), you're the one complaining about the reporting, do we have to have an equal number of column inches per country, maybe rank it by population and have lots of Chinese and Indian news? Most foreign news stories are reported as world news, JC's comments on I/P get reported as uk news because he's leader of the opposition.

I'm neither, check Jondo's contributions and a couple of others., in fact I argued the point at some stage that Israel was a "special" case because people had to be so careful about their speech, which you wouldn't have to normally consider, because people would and should understand to whom you were referring.

I don't think anyone here hates Corbyn. But they do think he is completely unsuited to the role of leader of the opposition  which regardless of who you side with in parliament is bad thing for good policy making and bad for UK democracy in general. 

The Tories have a wafer thin majority, but it doesn't matter when they aren't effectively challenged on anything. I suspect you have dislike of Tories and their policy, but instead of blaming the may bot, Boris etc.. I'd blame Corbyn for letting them go unchallenged for 2 years.

Corbyn preaching to his little local clique at home, Glastonbury, etc.. isn't going to do anything to take the Tories to task. He needs to sort out his shadow cabinet, his media and get out there in the mainstream. 

Question: why are you using the phrase "English and naturalised English people"? Why not just "English people"?

I realise that you may not be the originator of this and may just be passing it on, but where has the "naturalised" bit crept into the JC's not so bad side of the debate.

Did JC know that some of those Zionists were not UK born, or did he assume so. In which case that's a fairly bad assumption for a politician to make with the implications of racism and in this case anti-Semitism.

Personally I'd be fairly ok with this "incident" if JC just said "frankly they were just getting on my tits and I wanted to deliver a put-down. Might not have used the most appropriate language though".

Obviously if this happened a lot you'd have to question his judgement or emotional resistance to opposition.

People, media etc. refer to Israel, rather than the Israeli government, all the time. If you feel you can't do the same that's unfortunate but it doesn't actually mean you can't do it.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-israel-has-to-talk-to-ham...

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/israel-options-gaza-1806121551013...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/gaza-protests-israel-occupation-norman-f...

Re: that court judgement, I understand why they've not torn down the settlement but I would expect the Palestinian land owner to at least be compensated with the fair price of that land as if it had been sold for that settlement's establishment.

Let's hope that is what'll happen but it'll be difficult to find in the media.

Also, I can see it becoming a legal precedent for government approved settlements. Hopefully it won't be extended to unofficial settlements which really should be dismantled.

Purely to cover both possible inferences from "having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives" as said by Corbyn.

My word, not his. I may be using it incorrectly

We'll never know that, will we?

Agree on both counts.

Late to this thread, been away on hols but, to answer that, 

I f*cking do.

He is just your average uneducated, terrorist sympathizing, free loading, commie. Live and let live.  

I realise that, but that doesn't stop people insinuating you're anti-Semitic, which usually derails the discussion you're having, so it does matter, probably depending on the people involved.

And you still think this is OK, we're taking your land, but we'll pay you for it. Presumable wether you like it or not, shouldn't the land owner have some say in that?

There shouldn't be any "hope" in it really.

It's difficult to see it not being extended to unofficial settlements, the government could be doing something about them now, but it isn't.

You don't see this as a logical outcome of the outrage/identity politics game? Last week it was Muslims turn to be outraged by rather meaningless rubbish. Next week, who knows. But both sides of the political spectrum have seen the points that can be scored so now are all playing the game.

You can't utilise outrage over pretty benign actions and not expect your political opponents to do the same. The whole thing smacks of the political B.S. that blights the US. 

Hugely hypocritical of Corbynites to be claiming unfair storms-in-teacups. 

Yes, I didn't take from your comments that it was your belief that he couldn't be trusted - but I took the implication that we have to accept that he won't be trusted?

That seems to me a dangerous thing to accept - as it's essentially saying if you fling enough shit you can bring any pricipled politician down, regardless of whether there any truth in it - and that we cannot have a PM who is pro Palestinian rights. 

Once again:

As noted earlier in the thread, the context was that a Palestinian representative had made a speech in which he had (in JCs opinion, it matters not whether that opinion was correct or not) demonstrated his wit by including a very "English" sense of irony.

The only inference i would take from that (in context) is "you've been owned by the away team at your home ground".  

Whatever you think of the joke, and whether or not you think it was OK to make it at the expense of the group in the audience, it's a perfectly reasonable explanation of what was said, and one that fits the person who said it (a guy who has literally spent his whole life campaigning for the rights of minorities, up to and including getting arrested for it) much better than the alternative explanation.

Once again, except for the fact that he implied that they might be immigrants and therefore less English.

But, this is a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Straws again. 

I didn't say I thought it was ok, I said I understood why they've not torn down the settlement, relocated the settlers and given the land back to the Palestinian owner. That would be rather severe on the settlers if they've not actually done anything wrong (within the system).

There's probably a lot of context we don't know that may be significant. When did the land owner present his claim and proof of ownership (relative to the building of the settlement)?

Did the settlers or government (who's job is it anyway) exercise due diligence to try and find who owned the land?

Is there some kind of statute of limitations in which you have to present ownership within a certain time once somebody lays claim to "ownerless" land (similar to what we have in the UK)?

Etc.

The most practical thing is to properly compensate the owner.

The danger is that the precedent becomes a wedge that gets used on looser criteria.

Except this isn't political party politics, it's the media and of course interested parties, like Sacks.

Yes but it's a storm in a teacup that's made headlines for two days again!!

And if it's such a storm in a tea cup, why has Sacks decided it's the worst since Enoch, it's clearly bullshit. I could probably find worse stuff from all parties MP with a little searching (I'll leave the Greens out of that sweeping statement).

Like I've said my worry is it'll gradually decrease the resistance against anti-Semitism within society, the constant cry wolf.

How does saying someone's probably been here all their lives imply they haven't been?

I don't think you know who's getting outraged by what, and you're just assuming that it must be Corbynites who were outraged by Boris' burka bashing  - when if memory serves correctly Warsi was among those leading the charge.

That was a load of politically motivated shite - Boris is a danger to many. And this is a load of politically motivated shite too (I think Frank Field actually admitted he was "looking for an excuse"...how convenient). It's not just Tory against Labour, it's every bit as much about factions within each. 

Uniting everyone involved in both "outrages" is a depressing lack of sincerity.

Well obviously the 5 years was because 5 years ago Corbyn was an undistinguished and obscure back bencher whose hobby, rather than collecting bus tickets, was embracing those wanted to kill the Jews of Israel. Now that he is still undistinguished but scure ( I assume this is the opposite of obscure),  his murky past is slowly emerging.

And I would ask for respect for Rabbi Sacks. I have met him, heard him, and read him. He is phenomenally intelligent and learned, outside and inside of Judaism. Suggest you read this profile from the New Statesman ( the mag, not the oversized boulder problem)  

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/rabbi-jonathan-sacks-hate-...

Does this not carry any weight with yourself, or does only the New Statesman count?

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/rabbi-sacks-why-are-you-cheerleading-for-an...

I think we could say the hate never ends with the people to whom hate is visited upon first, for any race / group of people, not just for Jews.

"The majority of Israelis, even though they’ve given up on peace, if there were even a single sliver of light somewhere, they’d come back to it, because Jews did not wish to come back to their land to make any other people suffer and that goes very deep in the Jewish heart.” I'd say this is wishful thinking rather than based in facts, otherwise there'd be more outcry about illegal settlements both in Israel itself and from Jews outside of Israel. The problem being the Jews that do complain about them are labelled as traitors, "bad Jews" or weird sects.

The west overtaking China was little to do with "individual responsibility" or, "strong internalised moral code" but more likely our discovery of glass, with which we could make spectacles, enabling us to work longer in dim light, and read longer into later life, whereas the Chinese continued with porcelain, which isn't the best for make specs out of.

I'd say hate, deteriorates all of society for every one within it. Extrapolate that out and any injustice in the world makes the world a less ideal place to live. There just been a program about "Re-education Camps in China" with quite possibly over 1 million inmates.

I'm sorry, I don't quite see the relevance of this Chinese stuff to the thread. It seems to be a non sequitur. Have I missed something?

I suspect you didn't care either way and the thought never crossed your mind before the recent events. You are just worried your beloved leader will be moved on. 

It’s not so much wishful thinking as not even thinking at all. Of course Israelis want peace. What they don’t intend is to alleviate the suffering which the establishment of Israel caused other people, however ‘deep in the Jewish heart’ Mr Sacks may think that wish is.

In other words, the route to peace in Israel’s mind does not involve alleviating the suffering of others but rather those others sucking it up and moving on. What Sacks is quoted as saying is a total non-sequitur, the sort of politically-motivated waffle which would cause anyone to lose respect for the speaker instantly.

jcm

Well you suspect wrong, as the father of a mixed race son, racism in all it's forms are abhorrent to me and degenerate our society.

I agree. But it looks like you voted for the wrong leader then. 

Also this:

https://forward.com/opinion/406716/rabbi-jonathan-sacks-has-abdicated-his-m...

Sacks mentions the west overtaking China in the link MikeTS posted, citing individual responsibility as it foundation.

The second China bit, is simply an example of how hate permeates the world we live in, it's not good for anyone. Again Sacks was making the point, hate against the Jews ends up affecting everyone, my point was hate against anyone end affecting our society.

If you believe the hype, then yes it does.

Considering he's fought against injustices and for human rights for most of his life, it's a bit of an anathema for him to be branded an anti-Semite. I might be wrong, but it doesn't fit with his history. If this were so I don't think he'd have so many Jewish friends or supporters, but we don't get to hear those voices, very often.

here's one youtube.com/watch?v=jxjpK2ZC3FU&

Just scanned the link, very interesting and thoughtful.

Thanks.

Do you think it's a good thing for our democracy to have leaders overthrown on such spurious grounds?

I want Corbyn to move along, yet I'm convinced that he's innocent in this case and don't want him removed on such a basis.

If a prospective leader is found to be lying, then good riddance. Especially one whose whose mantra was honest and open politics.

I didn't touch the wreath... oh ok I did.

There were no seats on the train... oh ok, there were seats free.

And on it goes. It's almost comical.

Sure, although those are beyond the context of this discussion. Like I said, I want Corbyn gone. Although I'm wondering which senior politician would pass your standard.

Not many... although with Corbyn he is like a kid, it is trickle flow with a truth, a bit nearer the real events day by day. Just chancing what he can get away with, before he grasps he is in the 21st century and is surrounded by electronic evidence, realising everyone knew he was lying from the off. 

That's an excellent point, so where's the electronic evidence of what was said at this meeting, and where's Frank Field's evidence of bullying?

Meanwhile https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-p...

Agreed. But, I'm still sick to death with this anti-semitism crap, the only purpose of which seems to be rooting out the leader, but which is having a damaging effect on our politics and our society.

Well the original problem was anti-Semitism in the Labour party which does seem to be there.

Because that's not been effectively dealt with, JC as leader comes under the microscope for "why's he not dealt with it?".

One of the strands of that is wondering whether JC is actually anti-Semitic. So everything he's ever done or said is now being examined under that lens.

Because there's nothing more newsworthy around at the moment, it stays in the media's view for longer.

Personally I don't know whether JC is anti-Semitic or not. I'm pretty sure that JC doesn't consider himself anti-Semitic and has no intention to be. Some of his sayings and actions can be construed as anti-Semitic, especially when we're using a more rigorous standard than we might have done 5 years ago.

Meanwhile the more important issue of making sure that all forms of racism (and other unjustified discrimination) are driven out of the Labour party is being ignored.

To some extent this concentration on individuals especially the leader is due to the trans-atlantic migration of presidential style politics as initiated over here by Tony Blair (must wash my mouth out now )

Agreed, but not just the Labour party, in society as a whole, unfortunately. Do you think the Labour party is any worse than the rest of society? Does focusing on the Labour party detract from the problem not just of anti-Semitism but of all racism in our society?

I fear you're right here, but we don't really know how it's being delt with at present, without a time machine he can hardly go back and refine his language to make sure everyone knows he's not being anti-Semitic.

Labour being villified for not signing up to the IHRA proposals isn't and indication of anti-Semitism, I think it's more an indication of the caution they have to use becaus ethey know they'll be under scrutiny.

Which reminds me, you never did give an answer to whether you thought the IRHA was a good measure of what's anti-Semitic, (not on the whole, but all the examples. Having read it a few times I can see that signing up to it would leave people open to charges of anti-Semitism, for what most people would regard as not being anti-Semitic. It's let's say 95% OK.

I'm still not convinced Corbyn is "individual" politics, I know some people accuse me of being a disciple, but it not him rather a chance, quite possibly the last chance, for people to really back a political ethos. I like Corbyn because of his policies and the general direction he'd like to take the party and the country. I've not seen this for a very long time. The Blair of which you speak made all the right sounds but let people down badly, especially from a socialist point of view. It became obvious he didn't listen to the people who put him in power, after 11 years of Thatcher and then Major, Labour voters were hoping for a little more connection with our PM. IT didn't happen, so we've now had a very long time of "others" telling "us" what's best for "us". Corbyn's USP is it's different to everything else on offer, which is why 500,000 joined the Labour party, but also why a lot of the PLP and other MPs hate him.

Hope your mouth is better.

I'll have to read the IRHA definition examples again but my impressions were that they were rather open to interpretation which would lead to a rather too large grey area where some would say it's anti-Semitic and others wouldn't. This seemed to apply particularly to the criticism of Israel one.

I didn't mean that JC was into "individual" politics, I meant that we as a society, are more into the presidential, sound-bite stuff rather than really examining issues.

I always used to think that Thatcher was a good strong leader but that her policies were awful.

I think JC's attempts to change the political culture were refreshing but again, wrong policies and in with the wrong crowd.

I'm quite happy for a swing to the left but not too far.

As for Blair, con lite.

I've seen the wall. The "settlements" are hillforts. There are plenty of right-on Israelis but unfortunately the Trump supporting, Jerusalem has been our capital for 3000 years, chosen people types are dominant and if the loons in the US Bible belt get their way we may indeed be sliding towards Armageddon ;to their delight. 

Agreed.

I agree, this is a question of vital importance. Obviously if he is anti-Semitic, he has no place being leader, or even an MP.

I personally don't think he is, but I do think he has something of a blind spot here in his judgement of the character of others, due to his opposition to Israeli expansionism. That is of course a serious concern in itself, unless he can show he's got his act together.

In the meantime, I'm sick of these politically motivated smears, including this current one (I'm not sure about the wreath-laying). As I've said before, it only polarises people, breeds mistrust on both sides, and degrades our understanding of the issue. There are a lot of people who know better who are behaving cynically and shamelessly.

IMHO Corbyn does not think he is anti semitic. He does not have the beliefs or rhetoric of, say, Nazis. But he is in thrall, almost romantically, to a world view that is problematic. That there is a dominant capitalist class  oppressing minorities worldwide. Which is why he has supported the Cuban, Venezuelan and Palestinian leadership. These leaders have caused their own people immense suffering. However, since they are not part of the oppressive class he recognizes, he gives them a free pass. Specifically, with Israel, he counts the country as a member of the oppressing group, along of course with the US and most western nations including the UK. And he wants to move the UK out of this group.

The same view of oppressors and oppressed applies within the UK. There are oppressed minorities, many based upon race, so by being anti racist he is opposing the oppressing class. The Jews for him are a problem in this view since they are a strongly bound ethnic group that is arguably not oppressed in the UK. There is a lot of hateful rhetoric against them, but in terms of economics and civil rights they more than hold ther own and can defend themselves, as he sees it. And most Jews are (low key) Zionists, in the 2000 year old sense of seeing themselves as descended from a displaced indigenous people of the Middle East.

So there is a difficult contradiction between between his anti racist and his anti Israel position.

So to square the circle, what he Is saying to the UK Jews is basically this. ‘You have a choice. You can be on the side of the oppressed or the oppressor. To be on the correct side you must adopt the cause of the oppressed in the Middle East, i.e. the Palestinians, denounce Israel completely, and support those organizations like Hezbullah and Hamas that want to destroy it. If the Jews do not, I will exclude them from anti racist protection since this makes them members of the oppressing class.’

This is why his demeaning language about Zionists is significant to UK Jews. It reeks of the classic anti Semitic meme of divided loyalty. That to be truly British and so be a supporter of oppressed groups worldwide, you have to be both anti Zionist and anti Israel - there is no acceptable middle position.

I missed this interview where he spoke so candidly. Can you post a link please?

My major source is this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn

especially the end part about International affairs and is my gloss of his actions and quotes.

His and his supporters attempt to exclude illegitimate criticism of Israel from the IHRA definition of anti semitism of course is current public record.

The gloss about Jewish perception of course is not his perspective but my attempt to explain Rabbi Sacks and many other Jewish commentators. 

And from discussions with what you might call Corbynists who propose new Marxism and the ideology of intersectionality.

And I can recognize sarcasm when I see it.

Has he ever given such an interview?
On anything...

That's a fair comment but he was clear about who he considered to be good Jews when he spoke of the Jewish tradition and how it was reflected in those Jews who supported the Palestinians in Gaza as opposed to the beastly Zionists. 

To clarify: they want to allow these four IHRA illustrative examples as legitimate criticism- accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than their own nations, holding Israel to standards not expected of other democratic countries, claiming the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor,  and comparing Israeli actions to the Nazis.

So basically... you made the whole thing up based on your own perception and internal bias. Ok good, glad we cleared that up. 

actually, no. As explained to me by Corbanistas, who expounded neo Marxism and Intersectionality, and why this makes Corbyn so important to them. The evidence about whom he supports and what he says about these unsavory friends is public record, as referenced in the wiki. 

This is so depressing - you don't need to believe yourself that Corbyn is anti-semitic, or that his meetings with people from or close to various armed groups around the world where anything other than what he says they were - part of his search for peace - but can't you see why the things he has said worries/upsets/angers many British Jews? Are you that willingly blind to how other groups in society, be that ethnic minorities, religious minorities, LGBTQ, even women, and so on might perceive a situation as more threatening or worrying that you do?

Possibly. In this case though, really?

I also don’t like people making sweeping statements as fact when really they’re just making assumptions based on their own prejudices. 

Its all just clutching at straws. Desperately trying to add 2 and 2 together to equal 317. 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

...it might just maybe be a duck.

Corbyn made a comment about some British Jews suggesting they were in some way not sufficiently English enough. I would have thought that for anyone with a basic knowledge of history, that would strike them as a really insensitive thing to do. It was Corbyn who said it, it's not anyone's "assumption" or "prejudice".

A more competent politician would not have allowed  this issue to dominate the agenda when there are far more important issues that the Labour party should be addressing.

And around we go again... that’s not what happened. 

You're clutching at straws again

So are you suggesting that Frank Field is a Tory stooge ?

Here is a blog by Robert Cohen with a Jewish but non-Zionist viewpoint:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/2018/09/sacks-v-corbyn-why-...

Supposing instead of the Zionist protesters at this meeting, they were EDL protesters. Would we still be having this conversation?

Would Corbyn have been disparaging to every white person in the UK.

Would someone have dug this up from 5 years ago as proof Corbyn is a racist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, hypocrite?

Like I said earlier, it's particularly bad coming from Sacks, because he knows all of that, so it looks like he no has an agenda, not based on truth but on his preference.

Miko Peled

https://www.mintpressnews.com/anti-semitism-jeremy-corbyn/248433/

There is a Labour Party meeting to discuss why Corbyn is not anti Semitic. When will they hold it? On Yom  Kippur, the day when most Jews, even non religious one, fast and stay home. You couldn’t make this sh@t up!

https://forward.com/fast-forward/409467/event-trying-to-show-labour-party-i...

Doesn't say in the report who this group is.

Well I read it and found little sense in it. He is arguing against the tired ‘anti israel is anti semitism’ strawman I think. It is a strawman because no serious person, as best I know, holds this position. I am British and Israeli and a proud Zionist. Still I criticize Israeli policy all the time. And I have no problem with legitimate criticism of either Britain or Israel.

What is said, by the likes of Rabbi Sacks is that the MANNER and CONTEXT of such criticism can be anti Semitic. Which is why the four examples in the IHRA definition are important. And why it is significant that the Labour Party left them out. For example, manner -  comparing Israel to the Nazis is offensively anti Semitic because, apart from being untrue, it is deliberately cutting into the wound of the horror that the Nazis inflicted on Jews. And context - criticizing Israel for doing things that are nothing like as bad as done by other countries, but not calling out those countries, is selecting 6 million Jews out of the other 8 billion for condemnation:  how can this not be anti Semitic?

You have to wonder why the deniers of anti semitism do not accept that are fighting a strawman.

I have no frigging idea when Yom Kippur is, and care even less. I don't know when Ramadan is either. If I was asked to host a meeting with Jews or Muslims I would easily make the same 'mistake'. 

I happen to know when Christmas and Easter are, and I'm relaxed about that because of course their Christian significance was grafted on to a pre-existing Northern European culture of recognising the turning of the year and the start of spring. 

Methinks you are looking for offence when none was intended.

Click the link listed speakers. It takes you to FB page with full details. Feel free to go

In my 15 years in this forum I think this is the most offensive post I have read. And UKC sets a high bar for offensiveness.

Which bit?

What if those other countries are not democratic? 

"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." is in the  IHRA definition.

It's both a double standard and completely normal to hold democracies to a higher standard than dictatorships.

You seem to get outraged very easily.

As a Zionist, could you tell me when the expansion of Israel and the expulsion of indigenous people will reach the limit you are happy with. Which definition of Zionist are you using?

This week settlers have burnt Palestinian Olive trees, Blocked a Palestinian road, the army have stolen fruit and veg from a Palestinians road side stall, then when they'd had their fill drove over it and destroyed it. All of this might, just might, be forgiven if any action was taken against the perpetrators, but we all know it won't be.

When a girl gets 6 months for slapping a soldier and a soldier get 9 months for killing and wounded man, the cries of "no apartheid here" are as empty as the people blockading Gaza's hearts.

http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=780916

I have.

There's no mention of who is organising it. If it were an official Labour event it would have said so.

Regardless, I'd go for cock up rather than conspiracy.

'And context - criticizing Israel for doing things that are nothing like as bad as done by other countries, but not calling out those countries, is selecting 6 million Jews out of the other 8 billion for condemnation:  how can this not be anti Semitic?'

WTF? 'We're bad, but we're not as bad as some others so give us a break?' Not much of a defence, frankly. And I wonder if you realise just how egregious the Israel/Palestine split looks from the outside - Israel forging ahead with economic prosperity (earned by hard work, imagination and initiative, no doubt) and territorial land grabs, at the same time as building a f*cking wall to keep the original inhabitants out and leave them fester in their own midden.  And yes I know Israel supplies aid and water, what they don't supply is any vision of a future - just the same ever diverging fortunes.

And what's this paranoid cr*p about not calling out other countries - doesn't Saudi get criticised ever? Does that make their critics 'anti Arab'? Doesn't Myanmar? So the critics are 'anti-Burmese'?

Crikey. Why, exactly? Should I know every religion's calendars - or are some more important than others?

I've no Idea either and don't care. Sorry if that's offensive to you. 

Amen to that, brother Trevers.

Oh sweet Jesus.... 

Do you just go around you whole life, screw faced, shouting ‘that offends me’ at every passer by?

oYur offence offends me... so, where does that leave us? Both offended for no reason  

And it’s the liberal loony left that are meant to be the snowflakes. 

Corbyn probably meant no offence to all Jews with his comment, it doesn't mean it wasn't offensive. If you were organising something specifically to engage Muslims, might you not check with a Muslim friend or acquaintance what days might not be good for them?

Go on then, you explain what happened.

What, like Muslims who refuse to shake hands!?

Are you saying Corbyn organised this meeting?

Err, no. This was to do with Rob's comment on not knowing when Yom Kippur is. 

Whats a Yom Kippur? Sounds like yummy kipper to me. I like kipper.

Wow

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/03/labour-activist-in-antisem...

This is The Thick of it stuff

You appear to conflating the Labour party with a meeting *about* the Labour party, Palestine and anti semitism with the Labour party when there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the meeting had a formal link to the party.

Not sure why you chose to insert JC's name into that post. Seemed curious to me. 

Because I'm part of the Blairite, counter-revolutionary resistance forces determined to bring down the Messiah down? I presume that's what the deselection committee would say.

You're assuming Corbyn organised it though, do we know who did organise it?

Has it anything to do with the Labour party, other than has Labour in the title?