Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Silva said:
Myanmar, China, India and Russia occupy territory that doesn't want to be occupied, off the top of my head. America and the UK too but the reasons are more abstract.
Click to expand...

You’re answering me as if you don’t understand what “right to self-determination” means, but I know you do. I’m quite sure you don’t believe that the Burmese, Chinese, Indians and Russians should be denied the right to self-determination on the basis of the policies of the states that claim to embody their self-determination.

Basically, if you believe that the South Sudanese, East Timorese, Eritreans, Scots, Kurds, Catelonians, Irish, Turks, etc. etc. etc. (and of course Palestinians)...and everybody else except the Jews have the right to self-determination, then what the feck can you call that but antisemitic?

berbatrick said:
He said this:
"But Palestinian people also have a right to be there and should have the right to return."

You read it as:
"invalidates its peoples’ right to self-determination"


Which is convenient, since it makes clear that that right to self-determination is in conflict with others' (extremely basic) rights, and thus explains why people have the opposing view of that conflict.
Click to expand...

That’s not the part of his answer I have a problem with. I can accept the argument against the Jews exercising their right to self-determination in all of Palestine, at the expense of the Palestinian right. And I can understand why Palestinians themselves generally reject the idea of Jewish self-determination in any part of Palestine, although there’s no good reason why non-Palestinians should. The ruling under discussion which @Silva would drop concerns the denial of Jewish self-determination altogether.
 
2cents said:
You’re answering me as if you don’t understand what “right to self-determination” means, but I know you do. I’m quite sure you don’t believe that the Burmese, Chinese, Indians and Russians should be denied the right to self-determination on the basis of the policies of the states that claim to embody their self-determination.

Basically, if you believe that the South Sudanese, East Timorese, Eritreans, Scots, Kurds, Catelonians, Irish, Turks, etc. etc. etc. (and of course Palestinians)...and everybody else except the Jews have the right to self-determination, then what the feck can you call that but antisemitic?
Click to expand...
Your right to swing your fist ends at another mans nose. When your self-determination explicitly includes stamping the rights of others, it's not mere self-determination.

Why should one people who claim the land be given special treatment when both have a reasonable claim, which brings me back to me original point. Israel is a very racist endeavour.

Also your second paragraph is a gross mischaracterisation. The Chinese can do what they want, just not in Tibet or other occupied nations. The Russians can do what they want, just not in Georgia, etc. But Israel is in a unique position where there are two peoples who want to live there. And if a majority of Jewish Israeli's demand special status in the land, I'm going to oppose it.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
Your right to swing your fist ends at another mans nose. When your self-determination explicitly includes stamping the rights of others, it's not self-determination.
Click to expand...

Self-determination is a very basic principle that is not abrogated by the policies undertaken in its pursuit or in its name. Otherwise there would be dozens of peoples around the world who would be potentially denied it - and who could possibly be the judge determining the point at which a states’ policies cross the line and remove the right of self-determination from a particular people?

There are dozens of places where two or more different peoples’ rights have come into conflict and a peaceful settlement has proven elusive. But for whatever reason we tend not to need rules stating that denying the right of Turks to self-determination because of what it has meant for Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Cypriots is anti-Turkish; or that denying the right of the Sinhalese to self-determination because of what is has meant for Sri Lankan Tamils is anti-Sinhalese - it would seem to be a given.
 
2cents said:
It then lists some instances when criticism of Israel can be regarded as antisemitic.
Click to expand...

Also I need to correct myself here. Before listing its examples the IHRA definition actually states:

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:”

So it’s not even saying that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or denying the right of Jews to self-determination is necessarily antisemitic, just that it might be depending on the circumstances. I’m not sure how any reasonable person could have a problem with that.
 
2cents said:
Self-determination is a very basic principle that is not abrogated by the policies undertaken in its pursuit or in its name. Otherwise there would be dozens of peoples around the world who would be potentially denied it - and who could possibly be the judge determining the point at which a states’ policies cross the line and remove the right of self-determination from a particular people?

There are dozens of places where two or more different peoples’ rights have come into conflict and a peaceful settlement has proven elusive. But for whatever reason we tend not to need rules stating that denying the right of Turks to self-determination because of what it has meant for Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Cypriots is anti-Turkish; or that denying the right of the Sinhalese to self-determination because of what is has meant for Sri Lankan Tamils is anti-Sinhalese - it would seem to be a given.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? The Turkish government and some Turkish people will call you racist if you question their treatment of the Kurds. They even called Merkel racist last year for saying they're not getting into the EU.

The Chinese will call you racist if you question the One China policy.

etc. etc.
 
Silva said:
Are you kidding? The Turkish government and some Turkish people will call you racist if you question their treatment of the Kurds. They even called Merkel racist last year for saying they're not getting into the EU.
Click to expand...

No idea what your point is.
 
Silva said:
Criticising racist nations isn't racist, despite claims from these nations.
Click to expand...

I’m starting to think maybe you don’t understand what the denial of self-determination implies.
 
2cents said:
Self-determination is a very basic principle that is not abrogated by the policies undertaken in its pursuit or in its name. Otherwise there would be dozens of peoples around the world who would be potentially denied it - and who could possibly be the judge determining the point at which a states’ policies cross the line and remove the right of self-determination from a particular people?

There are dozens of places where two or more different peoples’ rights have come into conflict and a peaceful settlement has proven elusive. But for whatever reason we tend not to need rules stating that denying the right of Turks to self-determination because of what it has meant for Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Cypriots is anti-Turkish; or that denying the right of the Sinhalese to self-determination because of what is has meant for Sri Lankan Tamils is anti-Sinhalese - it would seem to be a given.
Click to expand...

I don't remember a Tamil claim to any part of Sri Lanka other than the north. I think the actions of Sri Lanka in bombing and politically repressing the Tamil population are condemnable, but the fundamental conflict which exists in the single territory of Israel/Palestine isn't the same - Sinhalese self-determination isn't (in theory) totally at odds with Lankan Tamil self-determination.


2cents said:
Also I need to correct myself here. Before listing its examples the IHRA definition actually states:

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:”

So it’s not even saying that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or denying the right of Jews to self-determination is necessarily antisemitic, just that it might be depending on the circumstances. I’m not sure how any reasonable person could have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

See, this is the line from the site:
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
Click to expand...

So, @Silva and I are now anti-semites.
Now, I don't think that calling the Zionist project a racist endeavour is denying the right to self-determination (with plenty of historical backing), but that is their definition, their example. The way it is worded I don't understand how "context" becomes relevant. The thought itself = against self-determination = anti-Semitism.

After re-reading, "the existence of a state of Israel as racist" - ya I don't think any potential Israel would be racist. But the Zionist state that exists in our world is. So, is that anti-semitic, and should people with that view be removed from the Labour party?
 
Silva said:
No, I get it. And if Jewish self-determination means Palestinians not having the right to return, I'll happily deny it to them.
Click to expand...

And if Turkish self-determination means (surviving) Armenians and Greeks (and their descendants) not having the right to return, no more Turkey yeah? This principle could be applied to dozens of cases around the world.

And if the Palestinian right of return means no Jewish self-determination, what to do then?

berbatrick said:
I don't remember a Tamil claim to any part of Sri Lanka other than the north. I think the actions of Sri Lanka in bombing and politically repressing the Tamil population are condemnable, but the fundamental conflict which exists in the single territory of Israel/Palestine isn't the same - Sinhalese self-determination isn't (in theory) totally at odds with Lankan Tamil self-determination.
Click to expand...

Of course they’re not exactly the same, but Jewish self-determination in Palestine needn’t be (in theory) totally at odds with Palestinian self-determination - that’s the entire point of the proposed two-state solution.

But let’s say you’re right - you’d also have to concede that Palestinian self-determination is totally at odds with Jewish self-determination. So where does that leave you exactly? The primary statements we have of Palestinian self-determination are no less racist (and in one case notoriously more so) than their Zionist counterparts, so how then are we to determine whose right to self-determination is more deserving of our support or indifference? The only consistent answers are that both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are equally deserving of the right, or neither are.

Berbatrick said:
See, this is the line from the site:


So, @Silva and I are now anti-semites.
Now, I don't think that calling the Zionist project a racist endeavour is denying the right to self-determination (with plenty of historical backing), but that is their definition, their example. The way it is worded I don't understand how "context" becomes relevant. The thought itself = against self-determination = anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

I read it differently, as someone denying Jewish self-determination due to the inherently racist nature of Israel (any Israel, hence the big, fat deliberate ‘a’ which you’ve noted). The italicized part is the context - it amounts to someone saying that the Jews have no right to self-determination because the very idea of a Jewish state, whatever its policies, is racist.

I would personally change the ruling to “Denying the Jewish people and only the Jewish people the right to self-determination...” because it’s possible to be against the principle of self-determination in general (see below*), or to deny it to a select group of peoples based on the dastardly acts committed in their name (which seems to be @Silva’s approach, although it’s hard to tell).

*An alternative denial of Jewish self-determination which can not in any context be read as antisemitic might go “the Jews have no right to self-determination because no peoples do, because self-determination is an inherently nationalistic idea and nationalism is inherently racist.”
 
2cents said:
And if Turkish self-determination means (surviving) Armenians and Greeks (and their descendants) not having the right to return, no more Turkey yeah? This principle could be applied to dozens of cases around the world.

And if the Palestinian right of return means no Jewish self-determination, what to do then?
Click to expand...
Why would Armenians and Greeks have the right to return to Turkey? They have their nations, Greece and Armenia and little reason to claim the land. If means the continued lack of freedom for the Kurds, then their self-determination can do one.

The reason why Palestinians should have the right to the land is because they have an equally compelling claim to it. If their self-determination is Jewless then too bad for them cos Jews live there too.

2cents said:
I read it differently, as someone denying Jewish self-determination due to the inherently racist nature of Israel (any Israel, hence the big, fat deliberate ‘a’ which you’ve noted). The italicized part is the context - it amounts to someone saying that the Jews have no right to self-determination because the very idea of a Jewish state, whatever its policies, is racist.

I would personally change the ruling to “Denying the Jewish people and only the Jewish people the right to self-determination...” because it’s possible to be against the principle of self-determination in general (see below*), or to deny it to a select group of peoples based on the dastardly acts committed in their name (which seems to be @Silva’s approach, although it’s hard to tell).

*An alternative denial of Jewish self-determination which can not in any context be read as antisemitic might go “the Jews have no right to self-determination because no peoples do, because self-determination is an inherently nationalistic idea and nationalism is inherently racist.”
Click to expand...
The Israel that was created and that exists is inherently racist. It was created by a bunch of a racist, colonialist cnuts and airdropped into the middle of an existing population who continue to be subjugated. It may be the single most boneheaded way a nation was created, the arrogance alone is breathtaking.

There's also little point in talking about a hypothetical Israel, because there's only the one that exists whose citizens were randomly born into. And as it exists, it's ridiculously, almost cartoonishly racist.

But also, yeah, abolish borders altogether that would be better
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
Why would Armenians and Greeks have the right to return to Turkey? They have their nations, Greece and Armenia. If means the continued lack of freedom for the Kurds, then their self-determination can do one.

The reason why Palestinians should the right to the land is because they have an equally compelling claim to it. If their self-determination is Jewless then too bad for them cos Jews live there too.
Click to expand...

So the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, or in Jordan, or pretty much anywhere, would immediately invalidate the Palestinian right of return to Israel (as the existence of Greece and Armenia does for the claims of their respective refugees from Turkey)? In that case it seems strange to make the RoR a condition for granting or denying Jewish self-determination, since it may potentially be invalidated without any change in Israeli policy whatsoever.

Silva said:
The Israel that was created and that exists is inherently racist. It was created by a bunch of a racist, colonialist cnuts and airdropped into the middle of an existing population who continue to be subjugated. It may be the single most boneheaded way a nation was created, the arrogance alone is breathtaking.

There's also little point in talking about a hypothetical Israel, because there's only the one that exists whose citizens were randomly born into. And as it exists, it's ridiculously, almost cartoonishly racist.
Click to expand...

Whatever the truth of any of this, it doesn’t seem to be the type of statement that is a target of the ruling in question. The point of the hypothetical ‘a state of Israel’ in the ruling seems to me to be that there are people out there who claim that the very idea of a Jewish state is racist and by extension beyond the pale. And like I said, if they feel that way only in regards to the idea of a Jewish state and not any other ethnically-defined state then it’s hard to imagine any other reason for it other than antisemitism.
 
2cents said:
So the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, or in Jordan, or pretty much anywhere, would immediately invalidate the Palestinian right of return to Israel (as the existence of Greece and Armenia does for the claims of their respective refugees from Turkey)? In that case it seems strange to make the RoR a condition for granting or denying Jewish self-determination, since it may potentially be invalidated without any change in Israeli policy whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The Turks don't have a reasonable claim to Greece, or Armenia or the Kurdish regions they currently occupy. And Israeli's only have an equally reasonable claim to the land as Palestinians.

2cents said:
Whatever the truth of any of this, it doesn’t seem to be the type of statement that is a target of the ruling in question. The point of the hypothetical ‘a state of Israel’ in the ruling seems to me to be that there are people out there who claim that the very idea of a Jewish state is racist and by extension beyond the pale. And like I said, if they feel that way only in regards to the idea of a Jewish state and not any other ethnically-defined state then it’s hard to imagine any other reason for it other than antisemitism.
Click to expand...
How many ethnically defined states are there? And has there ever been a point in history where defining a state along racial lines has led to good things? If you show me another country enshrining race into their law, I'll be happy to write something mean on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
The Turks don't have a reasonable claim to Greece, or Armenia or the Kurdish regions they currently occupy. And Israeli's only have an equally reasonable claim to the land as Palestinians.
Click to expand...

Again I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but it doesn’t matter, I’m just interested to see the principles by which you deem it fit to deny or grant the fundamental right of self-determination to various peoples.

Silva said:
How many ethnically defined states are there? And has there ever been a point in history where defining a state along racial lines has led to good things?
Click to expand...

There would seem to be quite a few. In Israel’s neighborhood alone pretty much every state defines itself as Arab (including the prospective Palestinian state). Most European states bear the name of a group that has historically been ethnically-defined, and it’s only in the general post-1945 peace that has prevailed that most (but not all) of them seem to have developed a more civic-based idea of nationalism (not that they don’t continue to struggle with the inherent tension between their ethnic and civic identities, increasingly so recently). Under the right conditions there seems to me to be little preventing a Jewish state from evolving on a similar trajectory.

Whether it’s a good or bad thing would seem to depend on the alternatives at hand. At the time most of these states were created the only alternative was empire. We often hear from critics of British and French policy in the Middle East that their carving up of the region was too arbitrary, and that the new states should have reflected the ethnic and/or sectarian composition of the region - that critique would seem to reflect the idea that more ethnically homogenous states are more stable (this is not an argument I necessarily share). Funnily enough these types are often the biggest critics of Israel and Lebanon, the two states which were carved out for specific ethnic/sectarian groups. In any case there is something perverse about Europeans condemning the very idea of Jewish nationalism, given their historical role in fomenting it.
 
Last edited:
I've not really been following this antisemitism thing that closely... but from what I saw on the BBC news, is it really that Jewish people are upset that people can be a bit more critical of Israel?
 
Annihilate Now! said:
I've not really been following this antisemitism thing that closely... but from what I saw on the BBC news, is it really that Jewish people are upset that people can be a bit more critical of Israel?
Click to expand...

Well it's mainly down to the removal of a few specific examples related to israel yeah. Whilst these specific word for word examples have been removed (really was little need to do so) they're covered elsewhere in the text anyway.

It's mainly coming across as vocal interest groups weaponising the issue. Hodge using the above to call Corbyn an anti-semite when it was an NEC decision and has even been put back out to consultation seems ridiculous.
 
Smores said:
Well it's mainly down to the removal of a few specific examples related to israel yeah. Whilst these specific word for word examples have been removed (really was little need to do so) they're covered elsewhere in the text anyway.

It's mainly coming across as vocal interest groups weaponising the issue. Hodge using the above to call Corbyn an anti-semite when it was an NEC decision and has even been put back out to consultation seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So it's basically people getting their panties in a twist over a bunch of technicalities?

Sounds like politics to me.
 
Oscie said:
Click to expand...

If Corbyn sees an open goal he always manages to run the other way, kick his own goalkeeper in the head and score an own goal with his arse.

Every time!

He's been silent on brexit for months and now he chooses to side with Jacob Rees Medieval.

I'm actually beginning to think he has been paid off to be this bad at the job, as anyone with any integrity would have resigned a long time ago.
 
buchansleftleg said:
If Corbyn sees an open goal he always manages to run the other way, kick his own goalkeeper in the head and score an own goal with his arse.

Every time!

He's been silent on brexit for months and now he chooses to side with Jacob Rees Medieval.

I'm actually beginning to think he has been paid off to be this bad at the job, as anyone with any integrity would have resigned a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I agree about the own goal but prob worth reading the article as he doesn't say that headline or the MEPs claims. Just trying to point how the devalued pound should have been a benefit to manufacturers (which is a bit bollocks overall) and putting blame in gov for it not being so.
 
Silva said:
The Israel that was created and that exists is inherently racist. It was created by a bunch of a racist, colonialist cnuts and airdropped into the middle of an existing population who continue to be subjugated. It may be the single most boneheaded way a nation was created, the arrogance alone is breathtaking.
Click to expand...
This has to be the worst portrait of the causes for modern Jewish immigration to Palestine I've read on here so far. The hostile ignorance on display is a bit frightening, because all information is easily available and you actively choose to believe that this is the historical truth instead.
 
Silva said:
The Israel that was created and that exists is inherently racist. It was created by a bunch of a racist, colonialist cnuts and airdropped into the middle of an existing population who continue to be subjugated. It may be the single most boneheaded way a nation was created, the arrogance alone is breathtaking.

There's also little point in talking about a hypothetical Israel, because there's only the one that exists whose citizens were randomly born into. And as it exists, it's ridiculously, almost cartoonishly racist.
Click to expand...

This is the most ignorant and, if you seriously believe this, the most offensive thing I've seen on this forum.

Israel was formed to create a country for people who were systematically massacred on an unimagineable scale. It was created for them to feel safe because a future for them in Europe was not possible.
 
buchansleftleg said:
If Corbyn sees an open goal he always manages to run the other way, kick his own goalkeeper in the head and score an own goal with his arse.

Every time!

He's been silent on brexit for months and now he chooses to side with Jacob Rees Medieval.

I'm actually beginning to think he has been paid off to be this bad at the job, as anyone with any integrity would have resigned a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Labour are 5 points a head in the polls. You dork.
 
Synco said:
This has to be the worst portrait of the causes for modern Jewish immigration to Palestine I've read on here so far. The hostile ignorance on display is a bit frightening, because all information is easily available and you actively choose to believe that this is the historical truth instead.
Click to expand...

Nikhil said:
This is the most ignorant and, if you seriously believe this, the most offensive thing I've seen on this forum.

Israel was formed to create a country for people who were systematically massacred on an unimagineable scale. It was created for them to feel safe because a future for them in Europe was not possible.
Click to expand...

Anti-semitic, offensive posts in a thread full of Corbynites? Surely not!
 
I'm very disappointed in Corbyn if i'm being honest. Ok he's been true to his own beliefs, I can respect that. But being a Remain voter i'm totally fecked off with Labours Brexit position. He seems perfectly happy to see the country go to tits as long as he's not the one doing it.
 
Sweet Square said:
Labour are 5 points a head in the polls. You dork.
Click to expand...
wow....a whole 5% lead over the most shambolic government in history.
A chronically divided conservative party that is busy ripping itself apart.
A non-existant threat from the Liberal party, or UKIP
The country on the brink of making a cataclysmically bad brexit choice, threatening economic prosperity, a hard won peace in Northern Ireland.
NHS crippled by tory cuts and the removal of migrant labour
Nasty viscous right wing politics on the upturn...

And Jeremy can produce a 5% lead - that will mean he too would be marooned in a minority government that can do nothing.

Just imagine if Labour had a leader with mass market appeal that could actually get a workable majority and implement massive social change for the good of the nation, rather than one that looks like a provincial philosophy lecturer struggling to come to grips with running the local allotment societies AGM.
 
For the last 40 years, a magical kind of thinking has dominated the way Britain is run. We’ve been told that it’s good - advanced even - for our country to manufacture less and less and instead rely on cheap labour from abroad to produce imports, while we focus on the City of London and the finance sector.
Click to expand...
For fecks Jeremy, that's that's the fault of UK governments not poor EU countries.
 
RedSky said:
I'm very disappointed in Corbyn if i'm being honest. Ok he's been true to his own beliefs, I can respect that. But being a Remain voter i'm totally fecked off with Labours Brexit position. He seems perfectly happy to see the country go to tits as long as he's not the one doing it.
Click to expand...
Suits his aims to be in charge of a 65 million strong commune.
 
What economic prosperity?
Minimum wage and I guess median income in UK is pretty abysmal and you pay half your income to live in terrible housing with ridiculous plumbing and heating that escapes right through the walls and roofs. Something went wrong a long time ago.
 
buchansleftleg said:
wow....a whole 5% lead over the most shambolic government in history.
A chronically divided conservative party that is busy ripping itself apart.
A non-existant threat from the Liberal party, or UKIP
The country on the brink of making a cataclysmically bad brexit choice, threatening economic prosperity, a hard won peace in Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
UKIP are actually having a bump in the polls mainly due to May not so ultra hard brexit stance. In recent polling

.Around 30-40% would consider voting for a right wing anti islam and immigrate party.

.A large percentage of voters would rather have the break up of the UK than stopping Brexit.

Again for the millionth time there isn't this giant pool of liberal remain voters that would put Labour 10 - 20 points a head.

buchansleftleg said:
Just imagine if Labour had a leader with mass market appeal that could actually get a workable majority and implement massive social change for the good of the nation, rather than one that looks like a provincial philosophy lecturer struggling to come to grips with running the local allotment societies AGM.
Click to expand...
This is part where are ask you for a alternative and you fail to give me one.
 
Silva said:
That's still the fault of UK governments, it's ridiculous to put it in a speech about the benefits of Brexit when you can make things in or out of the EU.
Click to expand...
But he does repeatedly say this in the speech

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyns-build-britain-speech-eef-technology-hub/

In the same period the Ministry of Defence awarded contracts elsewhere worth over £1.5 billion pounds even though we are under no obligation under either European or international law to open up defence contracts to overseas bidders.
Click to expand...

Too often, we have been told by Conservatives who are ideologically opposed to supporting our industries that EU rules prevent us from supporting our own economy.

But if you go to Germany you’ll struggle to find a train that wasn’t built there, even though they’re currently governed by the same rules as us.
Click to expand...

When the steel crisis hit in 2016 Italy, Germany and France all intervened legally under existing state aid rules but our government sat back and did nothing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.