President-elect Trump

[glatt]

BEZOS!!!

*shakes fist at the sky*



Do it. It's fun.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Glinda

The dude is 88 years old. Who they gonna blame when he croaks?

Its called extremism. Keep throwing names on the wall until something sticks. The Don tried to do it with Birthing. It failed He tried immigrants. Then found massive support from low educated extremists who are threatened by those more productive immigrants

In the UK, Labour is using anti-semitism. That appears to be working for them.

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by tw

In the UK, Labour is using anti-semitism. That appears to be working for them.

The Labour/anti-Semitism story is an important one, but one you appear to have entirely misunderstood.

I'm seeing a pattern.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

The Labour/anti-Semitism story is an important one, but one you appear to have entirely misunderstood.

A vague statement without anything that provides perspective and without supporting facts, then it is a classic example of fake news. An honest statement always explains the what and whys. That soundbyte is classic emotion. Post in adult manner. Explain what that statement means and why it has credibility.

Using only emotions rather than facts to make a conclusion is why fake news exists. Since that conclusion is only one sentence, then it is obviously a lie. Explain a conclusion derived from facts; not fake news from emotions.

[BigV]

tw, you're full of bullshit.

[BigV]

Now prove my one sentence conclusion false by posting some sense.

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by tw

A vague statement without anything that provides perspective and without supporting facts, then it is a classic example of fake news. An honest statement always explains the what and whys. That soundbyte is classic emotion. Post in adult manner. Explain what that statement means and why it has credibility.

Using only emotions rather than facts to make a conclusion is why fake news exists. Since that conclusion is only one sentence, then it is obviously a lie. Explain a conclusion derived from facts; not fake news from emotions.

You appear to require higher standards from me than you set for yourself.

In the UK, Labour is using anti-semitism. That appears to be working for them.

Maybe you would be good enough to explain to us how Labour is "using" anti-Semitism and how that is "working for them" to provide some credibility.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

You appear to require higher standards from me than you set for yourself.

So again posted is nothing to support an emotional opinion that is even contradicted by Tony Blair in a recent interview. It is called throwing shit at the wall to discover what sticks. Labour has got itself stuck into anti-Semitism since 2015, in part, because Corbyn is a power broker - not a leader.

A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims

Some of this was cited elsewhere including the Brexit thread.

An adult reply, as requested, would have included at least one fact to justify that one sentence emotion. Still not posted, apparently, because you were told what to think. And did not bother to first learn facts.

You could prove me wrong by finally posting a fact. I don't expect it. I expect to read more insults and naysay replies.

Corbyn, who actually favors Brexit, is simply playing power games at the expense of the British economy. Britain has a serious leadership problem. Anti-Semitism is simply more morass that Corbyn has gotten Labour sucked into.

[DanaC]

The anti-semitism thing in the Labour party is a complex issue. It's been bubbling for some time.

IMO this is not Corbyn using the anti-semitism accusations for his own purposes, it is the opposing wing of the party using anti-semitism as a way to undermine and diminish him and his wing within the party.

They have tried everything. From the first notions of him running for leader and realised he might have popular appeal they set out to oppose him - and from the moment he won the leadership they tried to undermine him.

There is and has been for many years an internal war in the party between what could be described as left-v-right, or traditionalist-v modernising tendencies- though it doesn't break down quite as simply as that. There are in most branches two distinct factions. This is mirrored at the highest level - and both sides engage in a combination of very localised disputes (which faction controls the vote on this or that local issue) and national positions and policies - they connect up and down the chain, with regional organisers calling in their faction members on tnis or that campaign issue, andd local leaders calling in their faction to attend meetings when their votes are needed, to dirty tricks on the council party group, and leaks to the press to ensure their people get the right committee seats - and on up to the district, the national committee, the parliamentary party and the shadow cabinet.

I was a participant in that war at multiple levels for a good few years. I know how the party works.

Yes there will have been incidents of anti-semitism - it's gonna happen in a large enough organisation. And there may also have been people for whom anger at Israel's actions in Palestine have drifted into a more general disdain for Israel as a country and an assumption of every Jewish person they meet that they they are somehow connected to the issue.

But there is also a tendency for anybody who criticises Israel to be labelled an anti-semite - and there is also a tendency for those who oppose Israel's stance and sympathise with the Palestinians to concentrate on the left, while there is a similar tendency for those who are more supportive of Israel to concentrate on the right (of the party - not of the political spectrum). Again, this is not universally so - it is only a tendency; however it does mean, I think that the same people calling any critic of Israel an anti-semite also tend to be among those who hate Corbyn and his wing of the party

I believe a relatively small problem of slightly increased incidents of genuine anti-semitism (as mirrored in the country at large) has been grasped by a bunch of political opportunists who have tried every other way to upset Corbyn's grasp on the party and failed - this is the thing that looked like it might stick. At the point it was all starting to die back and give way to other matters they leapt on it again.

They would rather shatter the party into a thousand pieces than let the left lead it.

The left can be just as vicious and inward looking, with plots and pub room strategy meetings - in my experience though - the attempts to destroy a right wing leader of the party tend to get put to the side during campaigning and if that leader is the one taking us into an election. I have never known the right not try to sabotage a left wing leader regardless of the political landscape they are in.

That is what the anti-semitism row is about in my opinion.

[Undertoad]

After a long-running row, Labour has adopted, in full, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, and accompanying examples, of anti-Semitism.

It included an extra statement saying this should not undermine free speech on Israel. Jeremy Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as racist - but this was not accepted by the party's ruling executive.

Critics have said the addition of a "caveat" undermines the international definition - but Labour says it is intended to reassure members that they can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic.

What did the definition say before they put the asterisk on it?

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

If you can't adopt that very simple statement, while still finding plenty of room to criticize Israel, I have one word.





Really?

[Happy Monkey]

You can easily adopt the statement, while finding room to criticize Israel. But someone who wants to say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic (I remember long ago Radar made that exact claim) can also use that statement. It's a pretty vague statement; it doesn't say what the "certain perception" is or what, other than hatred, it may be expressed as.

The first accompanying example says that manifestations (ie, rhetorical manifestations from the definition sentence) might target the state of Israel.

It does provide a caveat, that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic", so the issue is in how you parse that. Is it a problem to criticize Israel for doing something unless you first find another country doing the same thing and criticize them simultaneously?

I would say no, and have no problem with providing an asterisk to make that clear, especially if you anticipate that a significant number of people would say yes.

However, I am basing that solely on the words in the definition and examples. I have no exposure to Corbyn and make no claims on what his motivations are, though I'll tend to trust DanaC over tw on the issue.

[DanaC]

The party didn't object to the definition itself but the specific wording and examples used to underpin and explain it - in particular the one HM references above

Some argue that people who object to 'zionism' are anti semitic

There are plenty of Jewish people who object to the definition and its examples as an attack on free expression and strangling of debate over the situation in Palestine

At one point corbyn attended an event hosted by a group of leftwing Jews who were opposed to political zionism and the centrality of the faith within the Israeli body politic - for which he faced further accusations of anti semitism

[Undertoad]

Is it a problem to criticize Israel for doing something unless you first find another country doing the same thing and criticize them simultaneously?

Is it a problem that enormous one-sided attention is paid to Israel by Europe when actual genocides are happening elsewhere and nobody bats an eye? Why do you figure they do that? It's problematic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Brits are in the same boat we are, forgetting Israel is an ally, not a friend.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Brits are in the same boat we are, forgetting Israel is an ally, not a friend.

That statement so accurately demonstrates the 'morass'.

DanaC's 'zionist' example further exemplifies this problem, in part, because so many want soundbyte answers. 'Zionism' now must be followed by many paragraphs delineating which 'zionism' word is being used. The actual word or a perversion now promoted by extremists?

Extremists so pervert so many words that NYC did not want the word Freedom on their new WTC building. The word 'Freedom' has been perverted like the expression "French Fries" once was (because France so accurately identified George Jr as lying about Saddam's WMDs).

Remember, it was never about liberals verses conservatives. It has been about extremists verses moderates. Extremist conservatives blame (invent) extremists liberals so as to not admit to the existence of their real enemy: honest people - moderates.

Extremists who want to "wreck shit" will even subvert the meaning of what was once an obvious word - zionism. And so we now have anti-semitism promoted everywhere - even where it normally would not exist. And worse. Even condoned in Charlottesville NC by a racist American president.

Corbyn's lack of leadership (a desire for power instead of leadership) explains this 'morass' that the Labour party now finds itself.