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

I still think I must be living in some sort of alternate reality. This isn't that hard. The graveyard where Corbyn was is small, the canopied bit even smaller. The entirety of it is displayed in the available photographs. There is literally only one place he could possibly have been standing while he was photographed handling the wreath and offering prayer. That place is by the plaque at the foot of the graves containing the remains of the founder of Black September and his associates.

I've no doubt his primary motive in going to this place was to honour the dead killed by Israeli air attack, but there is equally no doubt in my mind that he was intimately involved in honouring these terrorists. The only question I have is whether or not he knew who these people were. Personally I doubt he did.
 
Livvie said:
I would prefer a Prime Minister who doesn't automatically think that we are right all the time. Corbyn is different in that he doesn't. The facts are that the Tories are trying to malign Jeremy Corbyn with lies and half-truths, especially since they had such a shock in the last GE. He may have known the militants were buried there - the question is, whether he was laying a wreath for them, or for innocent civilians killed in air strikes.

If we are ever going to have peace in the ME - and a subsequent end to terrorism - we can't keep behaving as though we hold the moral high ground. I don't know if anything can make this country safer - I tend to believe that Jeremy Corbyn is more likely to do that than May, Johnson or Mogg...
Click to expand...

Trouble with Corbyn is that he thinks that we are wrong almost all of the time. I do agree that you sometimes need to talk to your enemies to get progress with highly contentious issues. But Corbyn takes a very bias position - unlike people like Mo Molem.
 
A shocking state of things when the most likeable and human-like person in either of the two main parties has a penchant for terrorists.
 
His relationships with these people, whether its Hamas or the IRA, are because he supports their cause. It's false to pretend that it was all a push to secure peace. You don't help secure peace by exclusively showing support to one side.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I still think I must be living in some sort of alternate reality. This isn't that hard. The graveyard where Corbyn was is small, the canopied bit even smaller. The entirety of it is displayed in the available photographs. There is literally only one place he could possibly have been standing while he was photographed handling the wreath and offering prayer. That place is by the plaque at the foot of the graves containing the remains of the founder of Black September and his associates.

I've no doubt his primary motive in going to this place was to honour the dead killed by Israeli air attack, but there is equally no doubt in my mind that he was intimately involved in honouring these terrorists. The only question I have is whether or not he knew who these people were. Personally I doubt he did.
Click to expand...
Even if he did, I think Jeremy Corbyn believes in dialogue in order to prevent terrorism - if that means showing understanding for the root cause of the problem, he'll do it. Of course there was no justification for the murder of the athletes but it's not a black and white situation is it and Israel's actions haven't exactly been innocent in the past decade. They can't always play the victim card. Does it make someone anti-semitic for not supporting Israel, no matter what?
 
Honest John said:
Trouble with Corbyn is that he thinks that we are wrong almost all of the time. I do agree that you sometimes need to talk to your enemies to get progress with highly contentious issues. But Corbyn takes a very bias position - unlike people like Mo Molem.
Click to expand...

I think our history is very doubtful, if not shameful. We are wrong most of the time!
 
Oscie said:
His relationships with these people, whether its Hamas or the IRA, are because he supports their cause. It's false to pretend that it was all a push to secure peace. You don't help secure peace by exclusively showing support to one side.
Click to expand...

He's just a typical radical lefty. He'll back any side railing against a perceived oppressor regardless of the merits of the argument. His opposition to the operations in Bosnia is a prime example of this.

He has poor judgement and time and time again he's proven to be a 'useful idiot' to these groups and that if you give him the benefit of the doubt on these alignments.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
The only question I have is whether or not he knew who these people were. Personally I doubt he did.
Click to expand...

He wrote afterwards about the wreath laid for “others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991“, so the only way he wouldn’t have known is by being completely uninterested in who these ‘others’ were, and by being completely ignorant of the episode in question - not something I find credible for someone with his level of involvement in activism in this conflict.

It’s definitely possible he didn’t know initially that the Black September guys were buried there, and subsequently he felt pressured into this situation, not wanting to offend his hosts. It would also explain why he felt the need to join in ‘prayer’ with them, despite being an atheist apparently. However, this is not the explanation he’s chosen to provide.

I find it more likely that Corbyn doesn’t really consider these people ‘terrorists’ but rather part of a legitimate struggle whose more violent tendencies ought to be seen as a consequence of the brutality of Israel and the West. And that there was nothing about his career up to 2014 which would have suggested to him that such a visit may not have been a wise move.
 
Livvie said:
Even if he did, I think Jeremy Corbyn believes in dialogue in order to prevent terrorism - if that means showing understanding for the root cause of the problem, he'll do it. Of course there was no justification for the murder of the athletes but it's not a black and white situation is it and Israel's actions haven't exactly been innocent in the past decade. They can't always play the victim card. Does it make someone anti-semitic for not supporting Israel, no matter what?
Click to expand...

Well of course not and I reckon much of the criticism Israeli policies receive is justified. There is a difference, though, between offering honest criticism, desiring dialogue, demonstrating understanding, and offering up prayers at the feet of notorious terrorists. It's indefensible in my view that one does this and then lies about it - which is what Corbyn is doing.
 
altodevil86 said:
A shocking state of things when the most likeable and human-like person in either of the two main parties has a penchant for terrorists.
Click to expand...
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.

Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
 
Kaos said:
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.

Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Click to expand...

What do you mean with this bit? What “strides in peace” have been made thanks to Corbyn? Genuinely curious because I don’t actually know a lot about him.
 
Oscie said:
His relationships with these people, whether its Hamas or the IRA, are because he supports their cause. It's false to pretend that it was all a push to secure peace. You don't help secure peace by exclusively showing support to one side.
Click to expand...
This is a strange conclusion to make. If he genuinely supported the IRA cause then he wouldn’t have advocated peace talks between the belligerent factions, instead he would have doubled down on the violent struggle, mirroring the sentiment of the IRA’s supporters. Likewise for Hamas.

Terrorist sympathisers tend not to advocate peaceful talks or dialogue.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What do you mean with this bit? What “strides in peace” have been made thanks to Corbyn? Genuinely curious because I don’t actually know a lot about him.
Click to expand...
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions. Something Corbyn had advocated prior to their resolution despite being seen as unpopular at the time.
 
Kaos said:
Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Click to expand...

I find this a disingenuous argument when it comes to interventions because we can never know what the consequences of non-intervention would have been.
 
Kaos said:
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions. Something Corbyn had advocated prior to their resolution despite being seen as unpopular at the time.
Click to expand...

Not really how I remember the Northern Ireland peace process tbh. I mean, I they were definitely achieved through diplomacy but I don’t remember that being an unpopular solution. Just a difficult one to implement. Was Corbyn directly involved in getting anyone round the table? I’ve not heard much about his role in any of what happened but that might just be my Ireland-centric version of events.
 
Israeli Ambassador deliberately planning to paint JC as anti semitic.



Israel is trying to manipulate British politics just like Russia did in America.
 
Kaos said:
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.

Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Violence whether terrorist or state initiated will never lead to peace. We've been fighting Muslims since the Crusades - it doesn't work. Jeremy Corbyn is an idealist and, imo, a genuinely decent human being who would at least give dialogue a chance - current and past Governments don't want dialogue because it would mean concessions.
 
Been googling Jezza and Norn Iron and came up with this. I’m not sure he can be talked up as an advocate of dialogue when he only engages with people on one side of a particular issue. For me it’s the people who take the much more difficult step of actively engaging with people who have an opposing ideology to their own that deserve the credit for breakthroughs like the Good Friday Agreement.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Been googling Jezza and Norn Iron and came up with this. I’m not sure he can be talked up as an advocate of dialogue when he only engages with people on one side of a particular issue. For me it’s the people who take the much more difficult step of actively engaging with people who have an opposing ideology to their own that deserve the credit for breakthroughs like the Good Friday Agreement.
Click to expand...

I believe the same could be said with the Israeli issue:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semitism-crisis
 
Kaos said:
The troubles in Northern Ireland we’re ultimately alleviated by diplomacy and peace negotiations between the adversarial factions.
Click to expand...

That didn’t happen because Corbyn persuaded the rival factions to come to the table.
 
Kaos said:
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.

Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
Click to expand...

Whataboutery.

There is no denying that arms sales in whatever capacity are contentious.

Corbyn was not on the right side of history. He was not instrumental in any peaceful progress with the troubles. If his genuine concern is for peace then he wouldn't have taken any side. As far as I can see he positively came down on the side of the IRA.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Every Corbynites favourite Labour leader, Tony Blair, played a far more instrumental role, surely?
Click to expand...

Obviously. There’s a lot more could be said about the conditions which ultimately brought the IRA to the table, but as they’ve nothing to do with Corbyn they’re best left for the relevant thread.

Corbyn’s brand of ‘dialogue’ is to talk to and promote the cause of the side he deems less powerful, exclusively so. I’ve yet to come across an example of him meeting/attending rallies/engaging with any Loyalists or Israelis he disagrees with.
 
2cents said:
Obviously. There’s a lot more could be said about the conditions which ultimately brought the IRA to the table, but as they’ve nothing to do with Corbyn they’re best left for the relevant thread.

Corbyn’s brand of ‘dialogue’ is to talk to and promote the cause of the side he deems less powerful, exclusively so. I’ve yet to come across an example of him meeting/attending rallies/engaging with any Loyalists or Israelis he disagrees with.
Click to expand...

But that's a necessity of left wing politics. It's the ultimate taboo to talk about it, especially on a forum like this, but the need for oppressed people is a key justification for an otherwise unpalatable basis for an ideology.
 
2cents said:
He wrote afterwards about the wreath laid for “others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991“, so the only way he wouldn’t have known is by being completely uninterested in who these ‘others’ were, and by being completely ignorant of the episode in question - not something I find credible for someone with his level of involvement in activism in this conflict.

It’s definitely possible he didn’t know initially that the Black September guys were buried there, and subsequently he felt pressured into this situation, not wanting to offend his hosts. It would also explain why he felt the need to join in ‘prayer’ with them, despite being an atheist apparently. However, this is not the explanation he’s chosen to provide.

I find it more likely that Corbyn doesn’t really consider these people ‘terrorists’ but rather part of a legitimate struggle whose more violent tendencies ought to be seen as a consequence of the brutality of Israel and the West. And that there was nothing about his career up to 2014 which would have suggested to him that such a visit may not have been a wise move.
Click to expand...

Certainly he believes the Palestinian cause to be legitimate but I can't honestly believe Corbyn reckons the kidnapping, torture and murder of athletes is a legitimate tactic and that its perpetrators are worthy of honour. I reckon your second paragraph approximates to the truth but Corbyn's always enjoyed my full support so my impression might be no better than fan fiction. My guess is that he was primarily motivated by remembering those killed in the Israeli air strike and this was front and centre of any efforts to persuade him to go. The finer details of who else was interred was somewhat glossed over as "more martyrs murdered by Mossad" and Corbyn was more than happy to go along with this.
 
Honest John said:
If Thornberry became leader and got rid of McDonnell she'd be odds on for the next PM IMO
Click to expand...

Im not sure she would be able to get rid of mcdonnell (at least in the short term... momentum etc) but yeah certainly wouldn't hurt her chances (provided she does not go crazy and pick someone like abbot)

Longer term as well I think its unlikely May survives and I think Thornberry would contrast well against a Johnson or Mogg - sadly though I expect Corbyn to be in charge at the next election and I have no doubt he will find some way to loose as he just does not resonate with enough of the electorate (no doubt momentum will blame blair for that as well)
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Certainly he believes the Palestinian cause to be legitimate but I can't honestly believe Corbyn reckons the kidnapping, torture and murder of athletes is a legitimate tactic and that its perpetrators are worthy of honour.
Click to expand...

I don’t think he necessarily views those actions as legitimate, just that he sees them as basically unfortunate episodes which are ultimately the product of Israeli actions and Zionism itself. In this sense, he sees the perpetrators as victims, no less than the dead athletes or the Palestinians killed in ‘85.
 
sun_tzu said:
Im not sure she would be able to get rid of mcdonnell (at least in the short term... momentum etc) but yeah certainly wouldn't hurt her chances (provided she does not go crazy and pick someone like abbot)

Longer term as well I think its unlikely May survives and I think Thornberry would contrast well against a Johnson or Mogg - sadly though I expect Corbyn to be in charge at the next election and I have no doubt he will find some way to loose as he just does not resonate with enough of the electorate (no doubt momentum will blame blair for that as well)
Click to expand...

There's an awful lot of them who just love a (perceived) antisemite.
 
2cents said:
I don’t think he necessarily views those actions as legitimate, just that he sees them as basically unfortunate episodes which are ultimately the product of Israeli actions and Zionism itself. In this sense, he sees the perpetrators as victims, no less than the dead athletes.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, you can just as easily turn this statement around in support of the actions of the Israeli government against Palestinian civilians.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Oh come on, you can just as easily turn this statement around in support of the actions of the Israeli government against Palestinian civilians.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing in support of Corbyn, just describing how I think he approaches these things.
 
2cents said:
I don’t think he necessarily views those actions as legitimate, just that he sees them as basically unfortunate episodes which are ultimately the product of Israeli actions and Zionism itself. In this sense, he sees the perpetrators as victims, no less than the dead athletes or the Palestinians killed in ‘85.
Click to expand...

I think he would hold similar views to those he expressed regarding the Manchester bombing. That while their actions were ultimately a consequence of British (Israeli) foreign policy this in no way mitigates the terrorist's guilt and they should be reviled regardless. Granted this relies on him not knowing who 'those killed by Mossad' actually were.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
I think he would hold similar views to those he expressed regarding the Manchester bombing. That while their actions were ultimately a consequence of British foreign policy this in no way mitigates the terrorist's guilt and they should be reviled regardless.
Click to expand...
He gave that speech about a week after the bombing and his polling numbers went up - and this was before we learned that the UK government sent him to fight in Libya and brought him back.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Been googling Jezza and Norn Iron and came up with this. I’m not sure he can be talked up as an advocate of dialogue when he only engages with people on one side of a particular issue. For me it’s the people who take the much more difficult step of actively engaging with people who have an opposing ideology to their own that deserve the credit for breakthroughs like the Good Friday Agreement.
Click to expand...

Part of that, I imagine, is that to speak to Loyalists or hear pro-Loyalist arguments he needn't leave parliament, he'll have spoken to these people hundreds of times in the 35 years he's been an MP. If you wanted to hear a Republican perspective on Northern Ireland as a British politician in the 80s you had to go out and purposefully seek it out. Similarly, as representatives of a key Western ally in the Middle East, Israeli ambassadors and politicians have access to the British political system that Palestinian advocates don't. You don't exactly have to actively seek people out in order to understand a pro-Loyalist or pro-Israel perspective, they're both status-quo positions in the political system he's worked in for over three decades.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I find this a disingenuous argument when it comes to interventions because we can never know what the consequences of non-intervention would have been.
Click to expand...
In the case of something like the Iraq war it’s clear as daylight - it was clear it was a disastrous campaign and by that token Corbyn was dignified in his vehement opposition to it back in 2002/3.
 
sun_tzu said:
Im not sure she would be able to get rid of mcdonnell (at least in the short term... momentum etc) but yeah certainly wouldn't hurt her chances (provided she does not go crazy and pick someone like abbot)

Longer term as well I think its unlikely May survives and I think Thornberry would contrast well against a Johnson or Mogg - sadly though I expect Corbyn to be in charge at the next election and I have no doubt he will find some way to loose as he just does not resonate with enough of the electorate (no doubt momentum will blame blair for that as well)
Click to expand...
Pity for Thornberry.

She'd be in an ideal position if she was leader by the middle of 2019.

Trump will lose the house in the midterms.

He is odds-on not to win a 2nd term (and maybe impeached before that).

The UK economy will totally tank if we get a hard Brexit as is the want of Mogg and Johnson.

Then the love-affair with this ideological populist bollocks will hopefully end.

There would be a desire to return to more centrist politics and a pragmatic/realistic approach to the economy.

A GE would be called and she'd walk it.
 
2cents said:
That didn’t happen because Corbyn persuaded the rival factions to come to the table.
Click to expand...
I’m not accrediting Corbyn for it, rather how his willingness to speak to adversarial factions preceded the government eventually doing so which in hindsight has now been regarded as the dignified thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.