UKH

Just posting because I've not heard any media clamour about this, pity it wasn't Labour because then we might have.

The Tories were the only governing conservative party in western Europe to vote en masse in support of Viktor Orban’s far-right government, an analysis of votes by The Independent has found.

The Conservatives whipped their 19 MEPs to oppose action against Hungary, with just one defiantly voting for the motion. 

Imagine what we'd be witnessing if these we Labour MEPs?

I guess actual overt support for anti-Semites is fine as long as those anti-Semites are also violently Islamophobic. All part of Brexit dividend, say hello to our new friends   

But it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, you know?

I didn't say it wasn't, just wondering where the outrage is? Or even a mention on the TV or radio?

I know why Krikoman wants to make this about anti-semitism, but as whataboutery it's not very successful. If the idea is to say: "look the Momentum loons, those strange things Corbyn has said and the unpleasant people he has invited to Parliament aren't that bad because the Tories are as bad or worse when it comes to insensitivity to Jewish people", you aren't really saying Corbyn or some of his supporters aren't flirting with anti-semitic ideas! Indeed, when Orban is criticised by Jewish groups it is often along the same lines - particularly his continual attacks on Soros are really just nothing more that dog whistle Jew-hatred. 

The thing is Fidesz (Orban's party) isn't Jobbik. Jobbik is the uniforms, (poor) goose stepping and local militia setting up. Fidesz has actually gone the other way (like lots of other mainly western European populist and far right parties) of becoming rather philo-semitic. They've spent lots of money on renewing synagogues and the like in Budapest and sucking up to the Hungarian Jewish community. Lots of Jewish Hungarians and Jews elsewhere seem mightily suspicious of this, but Orban has close relationships to Netanyahu and the Likud-led government in Israel, which he uses to deny anti-semitism.

This isn't really anything new, when I was still a researcher I started reading up on philo-semitism (fascinating!) because 10-12 years ago that trend was already clearly visible with parties like Vlaams Belang in Belgium and whatever Wilders was calling his party in the NL at the time.

The Tory MEPs deserve condemnation for backing an anti-Liberal populist with totalitarian leanings. That is slap-in-the-face bloody obvious and needs calling out. But I would say it's very foolish politics to say the Tories are consorting with anti-semites if you mean Orban and Fidesz, because if he is anti-semite there can be no real defence of Corbyn in that regard.

I've seen it covered in the Guardian & Le Monde as well as the Independent

Lazy of me to not have dug deeper but my point was that the UK govt are now reduced, by Brexit, to cosying up to wannabe dictators when the PM is not dancing for trade deals with developing nations.

I imagine kikoman's point is that the Labour anti-Semitism row has survived more newscycles than any story I can remember where as this and the Tories own problems with racism nary get a mention.

Now I've looked at it deeper it doesn't appear that many Jews see Orban as a genuine or sincere friend and lots of them are labelling him an anti-Semite

Totally agree on the Tories dubious allies but actually that's been going on for years. IIRC Cameron brought the Tory MEPs out of the mainstream centre right grouping in the European Parliament, alongside parties like Merkel's CDU, and started a new right grouping with all sorts of odd balls, mainly from Eastern Europe. That wasn't the populist/far right grouping but still, some of those Eastern European MEPs had some pretty 'odd' ideas for sure. In fact, it might have included Fidesz MEPs.

But obviously that wasn't enough for the likes of Rees Mogg and co, so Cameron came up with the simply fantastic idea of having the referendum...

And yeah - I read a couple of interesting Haaretz articles on Hungarian Jews, and totally agree - most seem very sceptical of Orban with the exception of a small but vocal orthodox grouping. Interestingly though I remember when Wilders was reinventing himself as Israel's greatest friend in Europe, and Vlaams Belang were doing similar, their biggest critics and sceptics were Dutch and Belgian Jews.

It appears the Board of Deputies don't agree with you though. And he has said some pretty shitty things about a number of peoples not just Jews. He deserves little support, if only for his attitude towards a free press, if they want to stay in Europe.

It wasn't whataboutery, I was merely pointing out the difference between the media's "outrage" depending upon the party involved.

I also thought it might be interesting for people here to know what happened, because it hasn't been that widely reported, to be honest.

Like I said, it's been covered, but not that widely, I heard nothing on the radio or TV about it, and there certainly hasn't been clamour to vilify the MEPs or the Tory party.

May's quote that she didn't know about the vote, would have been the main 6 o'clock leader if it had been JC.

The bloke's been openly, not the "he met someone who might be anti-Semitic", anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim too. Is suppose he's an equal opportunity hater at least!

Does anybody understand why this makes sense either tactically or strategically?

General protest against the EU involving itself with member states? I don't see it, voting for the motion and explaining domestically that EU law requires the EU to impact member states' policy is actually a useful argument for leaving the EU.

Trying to get Hungary (and Poland) on UK's side in the council? The goodwill lost by voting against a proposal widely supported surely is more important than that. Also the governments of Hungary and Poland are nationalist, so they will do what is good for them, not what is good for the UK, no matter what.

Trying to block decision making in the EU by supporting disagreements? This just reinforces the fraction in the EU that thinks "good riddance" when brexit comes up.

It all seems so inept....

The Bavarians (CSU) didn't cover themselves with glory either.

Who? Orban? If so where? Whilst Fidesz has been busy rewriting Hungarian WWII history, like the current Polish government, sympathetically to the pro-Nazi regime of that time, I haven't seen any thing saying Orban has been personally anti-Semitic. Did you seen that Haaretz op-ed called something like Clever Antisemtism and Stupid Antisemitism? He called Orban the clever antisemite and our own JC the stupid one. :-/

Sorry for not replying earlier, I've actually been climbing.

You might be right about Orban, I was pretty sure I'd read a quote from him regarding Jews, but can't find it. He's certainly seems to admire some unsavoury characters from Hungary's past, and his spat with Soros, could be deemed as either personal or more wide ranging, depending on your point of view.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Hungarys-Viktor-Orban-fosters-antisemitism-56...

My point really isn't just about his anti-Semitism, but more generally his anti- just about everyone (Muslim's are a "rust" eating away at society), freedom of speech, and open journalism. I'm not sure we should be supporting this type of leader, and for what purpose?

If it's this, "long-standing principle of a number of MEPs from different countries", than that makes no sense either, surely the EU was set up to, amongst other things, ensure the freedom of speech for all it's citizens, equality amongst all peoples and human rights. They've stopped a number of countries joining because some of these issues aren't met, Turkey for one. So what they (the Tory MEPs) seem to be saying is, "to join you have to have these standards, but after you're in you can do what the f*ck you like and we won't interfere".

The main jist of the OP was to compare, what would have happened had this been Labour MEPs, it would have been JC's fault and another example of anti-Semitism running rife within Labour. We'd have had another week or so with people coming out condemning Labour and it's members, what we got was very little.

I'm with TobyA. What happened with the conservative party position on this is really disgusting (the whip and the MEPs following it) but for me any antisemitism issue that is there is very much one step removed and secondary (unlike in the labour party where there is a direct UK problem and a serious risk of major electoral damage directly, due to Corbyn and the NEC's poor leadership) . I do agree that the lack of UK critical news coverage on the MEP vote is very disappointing. The tory MEP  idea seems to be that to defend free speech we don't support the EU when they take actions against scummy governments who attempt to seriously restrict free speech and the independant judicial process; both fundamental to any modern democracy.

The Telegraph view on this seems a highly suspect attempt at obfuscation and blame deflection.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/13/downing-street-tells-tory-m...

I think we need more articles like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/tory-meps-orban-hunga...

This is one of the most shameful episodes in our country's recent history. Do not be under any illusions about Orban and Fidesz. Viktor Orbán is a sort of intelligent Trump. He is very effective at manipulating the population through appealing to its very worst inclinations. When I visited Hungary just after it became free , thirty years ago , people were asking me how we dealt with the Jewish problem in Britain. They shook their heads when I cited Adolf Hitler as an example of someone who was infamous rather than famous. When I look at stuff èon Facebook from Hungary there are examples of vile anti-semitism and a yearning for the pre-1919 borders . Viktor Orbán is just another oligarch crook stealing EU money and distributing it amongst his friends and relatives . To think a mainstream UK political party is supporting him is an absolute disgrace. How low we are sinking... 

That’s your mistake - “how did we deal with the Jewish problem in the U.K. “ answer, “we were nice to them and welcomed them into our society which is open and diverse and better and stronger because of it. I’d have shook my head if you started blathering about Adolf Hitler too.

He doesn't have much influence on what other people ask him though does he?

The fact people think that's a reasonable question might highlight a couple of issues there.

Oh don’t get me wrong, antisemitism in Eastern Europe was and probably still is a massive problem (nearly as bad as the Labour Party), but so was racism in the U.K. in the 1960’s and 70’s  - but things don’t change by beating people over the head and citing Hitler as a bad person. The example of the U.K. until recently was pretty good with regard to integrating different cultures and races into our wider society, sadly Labour and more particularly their leader have put us back by a good 30 years in our efforts at tolerance and diversity.

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? YouGov polls appear to show that labour supporters are significantly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than both the general population and conservative supporters. They also show that anti-Semitic views have decreased in the labour support since Corbyn became leader - if he's taking his supporters forward in this regard, who is he taking backwards?

https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-polls-show-anti-semitism-in-labour-has-ac...

What have labour supporters got to do with it - your leadership doesn’t listen to them, they have their own socialist agenda driven by the extremists in Momentum who want to mobilise 4 million anti Israel/anti Jewish votes to their cause - not actually unlike the German national socialists did in the 1930’s by demonising the Jews - had Israel existed in the 1930’s let’s speculate which country would have been top of their hit list? Just how long did it take for Corbyn and his supporters to accept the IHRA definition (if indeed they actually do). 

Normal decent British people (of whatever political hue) are not antisemitic, they do not support terrorists, but that’s not the issue, the current Labour leadership is and does, and he is anti Israel - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it’s a duck. 

Your post is nothing but offensive rubbish and you know it.

It would be better if you deleted it.

Why does this remind me of dogs?

I have no idea.

No it’s not - you’d do well to accept how disgusting your leader actually is.

Why are you conflating criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism? 

Did you read the link I posted?

Quite a substantial minority of British people agreed with the anti-Semitic statement that "Jews chase money more than other people".

Clearly we do still have a problem with anti-Semitism in this country, and sweeping that under the carpet so we can point the finger at labour will not help address that problem

It was nonsense. You'd do well to accept that supporting the rights of Palestinians is not the same as supporting terrorism, and that opposing Israeli policy is not the same as antisemitism. It doesn't wash. And when you add, "it's like the nazis" to something that isn't, you lose all credibility. 

For someone who I assume is not Jewish, you seem to be s little obsessed about asserting or denying pockets of anti-semitism.

Yes Cander that's all very good. You clearly have very strong feelings about anti semitism in the UK Labour Party. What are your thoughts about Viktor Orbán and Fidesz in Hungary? Also what do you think about the Tory MEPs being whipped to support Fidesz? I'm sure you'll express yourself with a candour and clarity I can only dream of 

By the way way most Hungarians are not fascists  Their refusal to endorse Orbán's anti refugee referendum with a 50% quorum was very heartening. What do you think? 

Good article on the debacle here: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09/14/week-in-review-tories-buckle-to-...

An interesting quote from Orban in a article it links to in the Independent where he refers to Brexit negotiations. My guess is the tories were told to vote fascist to avoid the Hungarians raising any difficulties with Brexit.

We live in a complicated world.

It's not that complicated. There's good and there's evil . Orbán is just another gangster  The Tories should be ashamed  

I mentioned demonising Jews to gain popularity - that is precisely what Corbyn and his supporters are doing, and I drew a very clear parallel between the two which I consider to be valid. Supporting the Palestinian power equates to the destruction of Israel because that’s what the Palestinians/Hamas wants. Which equates to more Jewish deaths. Corbyn knows this as well as anyone does. Don’t try and separate Jewishness and Israel/Zionism - that is exactly what the anti semites want and it’s not valid. 

20% of Israel’s population is Arabic, and as citizens they vote, and receive the same protection under the law as any other Israeli citizen, which given Israel is the Jewish homeland is considerably more than a Jew would receive in the Arabic world 

“once upon a time the Middle East was full of Jews,

Algeria had 140,000 jews - Algeria where are your jews

Egypt had 75,000 jews - Egypt where are your jews

Syria had thousands of Jews - where are your jews

Iraq had over 135,000 jews - where are your jews”

Hillel Neuer the director of the UN human rights watch.

They left because of persecution. 

As a nation we should never give support or succour to the people who want to rid Israel/Palestine of the Jews - the Labour Party needs to look at its self, how it treats Jewish members, how it deals with enemies of the Jewish state (because their aim is not a cozy power sharing deal - it is the destruction of the only effective democracy in the Middle East). 

I’m beyond appalled at what has happened to the Labour Party, the list of Jewish Labour MPs is almost endless, and they’ve been thrown overboard by Corbyn and his fellow travellers. It’s shameful.

The IRHA definition gives the following as an example of anti-Semitism:

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

Are the IHRA on your list of anti-Semites?

You are.

No they're not. What you're suggesting is completely ridiculous and bares no relation to what has happened in reality. Corbyn has said over and over again that he believes Jewish people are absolutely equal to every other ethnic and/or religious group. It is true that there is antisemitism in Corbyn's followers, but they are not demonising Jews to gain popularity. Every time an example of antisemitism is exposed, or indeed concocted, Corbyn's popularity plummets. In world world are you living where antisemitism is a vote winner? You are out of touch with reality.

All total rubbish. Firstly "the Palestinian power" is a vague expression that I do not understand. If you support Hamas, then yes, I agree, that amounts to supporting the destruction of Israel, and to support Hamas you have to be a mad racist and religious extremist. But to support the rights of Palestinians, as I do, and as Corbyn does, this is completely compatible with recognising Israel's right to exist, and with being opposed to racism in all its forms.

You are simply wrong, both factually, and morally, to say that there is no distinction between Jewishness and Israel/Zionism. There are thousands of Jews all over the world who oppose Israel/Zionism: what are you saying to these people? Are they not Jewish?

The Israeli state is a political entity, and it has policies which can and must be judged as to whether they are justified and morally permissible - as all political entities must be judged. It is a moral choice whether one supports or opposes the policies of the Israeli state. The Jewish people are an ethnic and religious group. It is wrong to prejudge Jewish people by virtue of their Jewishness, to discriminate against them, because racism is an immoral behaviour that leads to appalling harm.

Political entities and their policies must be judged, and criticised, and changed when they are immoral and racist, as are the policies of the Israeli state towards the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza. Jewishness is an aspect of people (one that they do not choose, it is not a moral choice) and it is not a political entity. Jewishness and the political position of Zionism are conceptually completely different things.

I am very, very familiar with this tediously dishonest and totally invalid tactic. You need to stop believing that criticism of the political entity Israel is racism against Jewish people. It is not. It is possible for criticism of Israel to be motivated by racism against Jews, and if you think that Corbyn's criticism, or indeed mine, is motivated by racism, then you must show why you think that. Otherwise, you're simply making an unjustified accusation of racism, and that's a horrible thing to do, and those who do this should be ashamed. 

I do not criticise Israel's policies towards Arabs within Israel. Israel's treatment of the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza however, is despicable and racist and must change. 

Can you see that the problem that I have, and the Jeremy Corbyn has, isn't with Jews, or with the existence of Israel, it's with Israel's policy in the West Bank and Gaza. It isn't racist, it's anti-racist. It has nothing to do with people's Jewishness - it is motivated by disgust toward's Israel's vile, racist policies.

I don't think you're able to see how dispicable and racist the policies of the Israel are, and I think that this is because you're blinded to it by in-group loyalty. So ask yourself this question: what would Israel have to do to the people of the West Bank in order for you to say it was wrong? What would cross the line?

And? To what point is this a response? How does this relate to the discussion? Are you implying that because Jews have been horrifically persecuted throughout history, in the ME and obviously elsewhere, that this lends Jewish people some different moral status? Or that because Jews have been persecuted, this means that Israel can implement any vile racist policy it wishes against Arabs with impunity? That Israel is simply above criticism? 

I don't know what you mean by "as a nation". I agree that the Labour party should not support those who want to rid Israel/Palestine of the Jews - it doesn't. But you seem to also want the Labour party to support the state of Israel, despite its vile, racist policies regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Labour should not support Israel, it should condemn Israel until those policies are changed.

Do you really believe that, or is it just easier to make the accusation than to try to answer any of the questions I've asked?

For someone who's quick to condemn Corbyn for any inkling of anti-Semitism and who'll champion the vaguest of smears against him, you seem very cool about the lack of media coverage of this.

My OP was more about the lack of media clamour, and you've sort of proved a point to be honest. Had this been Labour MPs you'd have had your green pen out quicker that you can say anti-Semitism.

Mike Highbury's comment is the same, not about what the OP was about, but again directed at what Labour "might or could" do?

Both these comments are very telling.

I originally thought that, but then in effect the Tories voted against 2/3 of the voters, so don't they run the risk of pissing that 2/3s off for the sake of not pissing Hungary off?

Are you OK with giving support and succour to nations that want to rid Palestine of Palestinians? Because this is what's is happening now, not what you're being told might happen.

The bloke that drafted the IHRA definitions, Kenneth S. Stern has distance himself from using it to "prove" anti-Semitism, he'd condemned it's use because parts of it stifle freedom of speech!

So considering the bloke that wrote it has some misgivings about it, don't you think it's right and proper that we should question it too.

You may not know that of course, because, unlike anti-Semitism in Labour, it's not been given any air-time.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/why-the-man-who-drafted-the-ih...

here's his letter.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&...

So for give me, but what makes you more of an authority on the IHRA than the bloke who wrote it?

You are seeing (or rather missing) what you want to.  The MEP Orban thing was widely covered.  What was missing was any serious reaction from Labour, or indeed sensible Conservative, politicians, which is disappointing but perhaps not surprising as they are both fixated on fighting internal battles and brexit.

Not at the time of the OP, in fact it's not been widely published elsewhere since.

I have the radio on nearly all day most days and heard very little about it until recently, I watch the TV and news and struggled to see it mentioned there either, it has been covered since, at the weekend on the Politics show I think. I've not seen any mention of the BoD condemning the votes, apart from on their web site. I'm pretty certain if this was Labour we'd have heard from them personally.

I tend to measure what media "we" are given from what my mam knows, i.e. general media, TV, Radio and newspapers, she doesn't do much internet.

So she "knows" Corbyn is bad and he's anti-Semitic, but she know sweet FA about the Tory MEPs voting with Hungary.

You keep posting those links but I think you are somewhat misrepresenting what his Congressional testimony is about. It is specifically about using the definition in Title VI cases (no discrimination in federally funded projects), seemingly within US universities, and it is about how the definition crashes into academic free speech and presumably the first amendment of the US Constitution. He might agree with what you claim he is saying, but you can't presume that from that testimony.

I think they're worried that if they voted to discipline Hungary then Hungary would do all in its power to bugger up whatever deal the UK negotiates on Brexit.

More importantly of course, is his comment that the document had never been intended as a legal definition of anti Semitism and was issued for the purposes of data classification.

Also that some interpretations of the document would make the author anti Semitic. It's a deeply flawed document and no one should have adopted it as a definition.

Vice versa I think. Orban was already supportive of Brexit, this was just Tories thanking him.

I thought he was arguing that freedom of speech might be curtailed, if your relying on the IHRA definitions and the examples to pin-point what is and what isn't anti-Semitism.

Is academic free speech something different to what we all should have?

The whole IHRA document was meant for data collection, not to define exactly what anti-Semitism is an isn't.

The point is though, people, and by people I include the media, are holding the IHRA up as if it was the gospel according to King David, and it's far from that, there are issues which should be questioned and discussed, they aren't, and anyone proffering up the IHRA and complaining it should be accepted in full, is disingenuous at best. There are Jewish group around the world, and the main drafter, who think it's not fit for this purpose.

By the way I may keep posting these links, but there haven't been many who've answered them.

Again though my main point is, "normal" people don't even know there's any objections to the IHRA or that the bloke who wrote them has any misgivings about them. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Interesting adopting the IHRA, and then trying to discuss it might open you up to charges of anti-Semitism.

Having just re-read Stern's letter, are you taking the piss , in implying he wrote this letter simply to cover Universities? It's a very interesting point of view to believe he wrote it to mean universities only.

Considering his past, the examples and his sources, I don;t see how you could say this, unless you wanted to.

Reading up more on it, firstly it seems Stern didn't write exactly the IHRA definition that is now so under contention, he drafted an earlier version for the EUMC, a now defunct EU body. The IHRA later took the EUMC's working definition. And Stern's congressional testimony is completely about US campus wars and the attempts by the Congress to use the definition in extending title VI protection to Jewish students on campuses - i.e. to use the definition in the crafting of legislation for extending Title VI protections. More from Stern here: https://academeblog.org/2017/05/05/how-legislative-efforts-to-define-antise... and here: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/06/12/criticism-anti-semitism-awa... I've done some moderate googling to see if any UK journo had picked up the phone and called Mr Stern to see what he thinks about the Labour Party's current tribulations and whether he thinks the working definition could be used with a party disciplinary mechanism to identify anti-semitism or not (originally the EUMC wanted a definition in order to classify certain crimes as anti-semitic or not), but oddly as far as I can see, no one has. I'm tempted even to try dropping him a line myself via the contact page on Foundation of which he is an executive director!

If you read his contribution here: http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/proceeding-all_3.pdf from a few years ago he talks, I think with satisfaction, of how widely the definition is being used, but notes then about the dangers of being used to close down free speech in academic contexts.

Did you come across this early pamphlet of his BTW: "Anti-Zionism: The Sophisticated Anti-Semitism"? http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/737.PDF I think the Corbynistas should be careful on building their defence on Mr Stern's congressional testimony only!

Agreed, he drafts the first iteration of it, which has later been amended. Still it's widely acknowledged he did most of the donkey work.

And Stern's congressional testimony is completely about US campus wars .....

Are you suggesting Stern is only concerned with freedom of speech on campus? I find this very difficult to accept, since many of his examples are "real life" examples. I'll grant you that he does make the distinction regarding intent but I'm not sure he's sayiong such and such is OK on campus but not in general discussion.

Good idea

Again, you seem to conclude his concerns about freedom of speech are limited to campus.

I'm not convinced of this, later writing, ones less than nearly 30 years old, make the distinction, between the "religious" Zionism and the "expansionist" Zionism, expressly some Jewish groups who are anti-Zionist, yet they're still Jews. The recent "Nation State Law" passed by Israel, also undermines his objection to apartheid, when applied to Israel. So things change, the definition of some words change and laws and regimes change. What was true 30 years ago isn't necessarily true now.

I don't actually think Corbynistas, as you call them need a defence. there are some people in Labour who are anti-Semitic, no doubt. But there are some people in life who are anti-Semitic, it's what we do about them that's the real issue. Blaming Corbyn for every anti-Semitic person, or comment more to the point (there are a number of idiots who might say stupid stuff without realising), is simply stupid.

Since the IHRA definition was only meant to be a way to collect data, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to have it held up as gospel.

Whatever the truth is, it would have been interesting, and prudent, to have someone, someone who's job it is to interview people or who's spouting the IHRA definitions are sacrosanct, to at least have asked the opinion of the drafter of the "rules".

From what I've read from Stern, he's not asking for more laws to protect Jews, we already have those, and I doubt very much whether he's keen of stifling freedom of speech, except for the "I can say what I like" cases, where it's bigotry and hate, disguised as "discussion".

I do think Stern's congressional testimony is clearly about the dangers of using the definition in Title VI cases under US law, specifically public universities. He does seem to have a very clear idea that universities are somehow distinct and special spaces for free debate and criticism of all and any ideas. But he seems to be perfectly happy with the long list of worldwide agencies and institutions who have adopted the working definition in things like law enforcement training but also various political entities. Ultimately the Labour Party needs some way to say whether something a member does or says could be deemed anti-Semitic. That's why they originally looked to the working definition. But of course these things are never that simple.

BTW, did you watch the thing on BBC (probably still on iPlayer) called something like "We are British Jews"? It was really interesting and covered a lot of this ground. I'm sure I saw the big bald chap from the programme in a news photo of an anti-Corbyn demo recently, so his view obviously didn't change that much.

That me and you can discuss what we think Stern is all about is great.

That no one in the media seems to have done the same is disgraceful.

That Labour were vilified and condemned for attempting to do so even worse, especially for those within the Labour party itself.

I did and thought it was excellent. I was worried during the first episode, because they seemed to gloss over a lot of the "bad" things Israel does to Palestinians and Gaza. I can't remember what specifically, but it was  a little light on detail and history for me.

I felt for the poor girl, trying to simply get people to listen to her, but she was great.

As for the big bald bloke, I'm pretty certain I had a discussion with him on Westminster Bridge, he was busy calling everyone on a pro-Palestinian march, anti-Semitic. He later conceded that I wasn't, which was nice, and maybe a few others, out of the 50,000 or so might not be either.

The two blokes at the end were the best, and we need more of them, or even just more people to see them. The situation it is now is only making things worse and perpetuating the hate on both sides. Khan Al-Ahmar is a great example of what's wrong and apparently no one cares.

I found this quote attributed to Orban quite easily:

“They do not fight directly, but by stealth; they are not honourable, but unprincipled; they are not national, but international; they do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland, but feel that the whole world is theirs. They are not generous, but vengeful, and always attack the heart – especially if it is red, white and green [the colours of the Hungarian flag].”

He is talking about Hungarian Jews and it is blatant anti-semitism whatever definition you use. It is very clear that Jeremy Corbyn has very said anything even slightly similar to this.

I have to agree. Makes you wonder how there's very little noise about this.

I agree with imagery being very reminiscent of anti-Semitic imagery Nick, but on what basis do you say he is talking about Hungarian Jews? I found the full speech on the Hungarian Government website http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/o... and he clearly isn't overtly talking about Hungarian Jews - its his continuing obsession with Soros. I can see why Hungarian Jews (or Jews from other countries) might shudder reading that passage because it echoes anti-Semitic tropes so clearly, but then we get back to the problem of some Corbyn supporters telling British Jews that they shouldn't feel offended by Corbyn's comment on Zionists not exhibiting a British sense of irony!

I think Orban would simply say he is describing what he sees as Soros's fifth column inside Hungary, the liberal opposition parties. Have a look at the election advert photo in this article: https://freedomhouse.org/blog/his-own-words-preoccupations-hungary-s-viktor...

The fact Soros is Jewish though, would mean something very different if it was Corbyn saying it.

I do take you point though, but his other utterances tend to belie his true self. He might just be an equal-opportunities hater.

Noting what Toby A says, 'I can see why Hungarian Jews (or Jews from other countries) might shudder reading that passage because it echoes anti-Semitic tropes so clearly', I can assure you that Jews in Britain are making a fair bit of noise about this. And, whilst not Jewish, David Aaronovitch et al have been writing about this all year.

While I agree with you, and am aware for the limited press coverage, it's not really the issue is it?

Like I said my litmus test is my mam, who watches the TV news and listens to the radio and to my shame, for the last few years reads the DM (mainly for the crosswords and other puzzles - but i'm convinced there's something in the ink, and merely touching the rags means you're contaminated). She also reads the Sunday Times!

Te issue is the lack of publicity for these 13 MEPs.

On a different note, and because no one is likely to find it anywhere else :-

Wednesday 19th September 2018: Today, BBC Radio 4, 4 September 2018

In this edition of Today it was stated that the IHRA definition of antisemitism had “been accepted by almost every country in the world”. In fact, 31 member countries of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) supported the adoption of a non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism to guide the organisation in its work on 26 May 2016. 

To date, according to the IHRA, the working definition has been adopted and endorsed by the following governments and bodies: The United Kingdom (12 December 2016),  Israel (22 January 2017), Austria (25 April 2017) Scotland (27 April 2017), Romania (25 May 2017), City of London (8 February 2017), Germany  (20 September 2017), Bulgaria (18 October 2017), Lithuania (24 January 2018), and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (6 March 2018).

No "sorry" or correction on the program, AFAIK. But hey, take what we can get I suppose.

I agree with you. What the Tories did was wrong.

what pisses me off is that you have now succeeded, through a series of posts,  in keeping a thread of some kind up for about three months now that opens the doors for anti israel and anti Semitic posters to demonstrate their prejudices and ignorance.

Well if nothing else, it let's us know who they are.

The other option is to keep quiet and say nothing, which sort of plays into the Israeli governments hands.

Besides that, there may be people who read this, who know nothing of the way the MEPs voted, like I said, it hasn't exactly been shouted from the roof tops, like it would have been if one Labour MEP had voted the same way.

So I'm sorry you see my post as inviting anti-Semites to post their prejudice and ignorance, but that's their problem, and one which we can all call out and maybe change their views. To do nothing is to be complicit.

I'm pretty certain, if these were Labour MEPs you, and others, wouldn't be taking such a measured, if still critical, response.

Mike Highbury, still managed to try and insinuate Labour "might" do the same.

Once again though it wasn't really about the subject matter, rather than the media's response, and the double standards and hypocrisy of it all.

Edit: I can't see much prejudice and anti-Semitism in this thread, maybe you should point it out.

Having just re-read most of the thread, I challenge you to point out who and where anyone's been anti-Semitic in the thread?

To be honest, you've not added much to the thread, other than sniping and questioning people right to discuss "certain" subjects.

"For someone who I assume is not Jewish, you seem to be s little obsessed about asserting or denying pockets of anti-semitism." This for instance seems to suggest I was wrong about calling out the MEPs vote, based on anti-Semitism and racism (not just towards the Jews). Yet you then gone on the agree with me.

You can't have it both ways.

See the bottom of the page, Solidarno?? it's not.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-conservative-meps-get-thank-let...