Depends if you held out hope he might come back in the polls. Corbyn can only hope Bojo does even worse - what a car crash interview, although I think he polarises so much that it will hardly affect either his supporters or detractors. I doubt it will get many on the fence voters excited though.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Depends if you held out hope he might come back in the polls. Corbyn can only hope Bojo does even worse - what a car crash interview, although I think he polarises so much that it will hardly affect either his supporters or detractors. I doubt it will get many on the fence voters excited though.
Or people who really, REALLY don't trust what Jeremy Corbyn says about jews. That lack of trust is really what this is about.
A lack of trust based on what? He is a politician who, for all his many faults, has campaigned for his entire career against racial bigotry. He has openly stated in unequivocal terms his disgust with anti-semitism and has an active record of supporting the Jewish community in his ward. He has presided over the removal of people from the party including his prominent long term colleague Ken Livingstone. On what is this belief that Corbyn is antisemitic based? I've been trying to understand this for a long time and I appear to be completely missing the point.
1. Backing an offensive antisemitic mural
2. Laying wreaths on the graves of anti semitic killers
3. Hanging around with anti jewish terrorists
4. Wriggling away from the IHRA's definition of antisemitism until pressured to
5. EHR investigation into Corbyn's labour party around institutional antisemitism
It's enough to make jewish people not trust him and immediate suspect the worst, whether he (or labour) is actually anti semitic or not.
Anyone that posts rubbish like that simply doesn’t understand.
There are ‘rules’ to follow when holding every lens of every Jewish person. I hold pretty liberal open minded and defensible views on Israel and Palestine. I hold literally no views on Jews as a religion. No more than I do Catholics or Muslims anyway.
Yet simply holding an opinion on that makes me an anti-Semite in the eyes of my (Jewish) friends mum. My friend agrees broadly with my take on the region.
It’s a very messy issue. Views on Israel as a country, the warring factions and the ownership of land are exactly that. They get rolled up into something bigger for some odd reason. A criticism of the country is not a criticism of the race, religion. Not at all.
Corbyn has done THOUSANDS more things to show he’s pro inclusion and diversity. He’s an absolute tool, but the media drive to paint him dark is ridiculous. Yet people lap it up.
Why share this bollocks? Britain first hashtag?
This is a ridiculous post.
I enjoy reading youtube comments and stuff like this
I'm not making this stuff up mate.
OK, maybe I don't understand. So what about people who might - like, actual jews perhaps, you know, the people who are the targets of antisemitism and presumably know it when they see it? Here's what the Jewish Chronicle said.
- Throughout his career, he [Corbyn] has allied with and supported antisemites such as Paul Eisen, Stephen Sizer and Raed Salah.
- He has described organisations like Hamas, whose founding charter commits it to the extermination of every Jew on the planet, as his “friends”.
- He has laid a wreath to honour terrorists who have murdered Jews.
- Mr Corbyn and his allies have actively impeded action against the racists.
- [He has] given support to fringe organisations set up solely to deny the existence of Labour antisemitism.
Every statement was sourced. But again, I am not trying to prove that Corbyn is an anti semite - probably the most charitable way I can put it is he's an old man with a giant blind spot. But I am trying to explain why jews might not trust him
Fair enough.
Some Jewish people may not trust him. But plenty do and have come out to support him. Problem is that those people are not plastered all over the media.
The fact that you are talking mainly about this issue instead of multiple racist statements from Boris Johnson which have been linked to an increase in hate crime, the Tory led windrush scandal and Grenfell is ridiculous.
Not to mention the Tories massive failings across 10 years including lying to the queen to unlawfully suspend parliament in an attempt to subvert democracy, record poverty levels and policies which will increase child poverty and failing to release the report on Russian funding for their party.
One thing at a time mate. This is the Corbyn thread after all.
Some serious straw-clutching here to put it generously.
Corbyn has never 'allied' with anti-semites, on the contrary if you studied his history he's campaigned vigorously all forms of bigotry, including anti-semitism. He's also known to be a prominent anti-war activist and advocate of Palestinian rights. Unfortunately, when you're involved in such broad movements you're going to inevitably find yourself in proximity to bigoted and extremist morons who piggyback on the same movements to promote their nonsense. And while his use of the words 'friends' is in poor taste, what the accusation always misses is the context of which it was being used - as a diplomatic means of attempting to bring factions around the table for peace talks. Speaking of context, you threw in the wreath-gate debacle. Again, he wasn't in Tunisia on some 'terrorist-honouring' pilgrimage but a conference on the Palestinian situation, also attended by the US attorney general at the time I should add. The memorial service was for those killed by Israel's bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunisia, yet the whole thing was twisted to paint it as a memorial service for the Munich bombers, largely after the Daily feckin Mail of all sources decided to lead with the 'story'. He's not actively impeded racists - he's suspended/banned plenty of party members, including his long-term colleague Ken Livingstone. And I'm not entirely sure which fringe anti-semitic organisations Corbyn has offered his support to either.
As for your last point - the difference is Corbyn has never 'taken the piss out of jews', and his track record of fighting all forms of bigotry dignifies that. Boris on the other hand has overtly taken the piss out of Muslims, black people and homosexuals amongst others to which he's refused to directly apologise for. If you were genuinely concerned about anti-semitism then perhaps take a look at Boris' disconcerting praise and associations for the likes of Viktor Orban and Steve Bannon.
Point is you are so keen to criticise Corbyn you don't apply any balance. But I'm sure you'll take the time to digest the following, one thing at a time?
40 things which indicate that Jeremy Corbyn is definitely not an anti-semite and detail his long record of challenging anti-semitism.
1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street in defence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms.
2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstration to protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population.
3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK
4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack
5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning an anti-Semitic attack on a London Synagogue
6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning terrorist attacks on two synagogues
7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials
8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims
9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News”for its pioneering investigation into the spread of Antisemitism on Facebook
10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site.
11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question.
12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule.
13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press.
14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport.
15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football.
16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz.
17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population.
18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community.
19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp when Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers.
20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the Labour Antisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC.
21. On 28 February 2016, five months after becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Baroness Royall to investigate antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club.
22. On 27 April 2016 Corbyn suspended an MP pending an investigation into antisemitism.
23. A day later, Corbyn suspended the three times Mayor of London after complaints of antisemitic comments. Party.
24. On 29 April 2016, Corbyn launched an inquiry into the prevalence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. In spite of later changes in how the inquiry was reported, it was initially praised by Jewish community organisations.
25. In Corbyn’s first seven months as leader of the Labour Party, just ten complaints were received about antisemitism. 90% of those were suspended from the Labour Party within 24 hours.
26. In September 2017, Corbyn backed a motion at Labour’s annual conference introducing a new set of rules regarding antisemitism.
27. In the six months that followed the introduction of the new code of conduct, to March 2018, 94% of the fifty-four people accused of antisemitism remained suspended or barred from Labour Party membership. Three of the fifty-four were exonerated.
28. When Jennie Formby became general secretary of the party last year, she appointed a highly-qualified in-house Counsel, as recommended in the Chakrabarti Report.
29. In 2018, Labour almost doubled the size of its staff team handling investigations and dispute processes.
30. Last year, to speed up the handling of antisemitism cases, smaller panels of 3-5 NEC members were established to enable cases to be heard more quickly.
31. Since 2018, every complaint made about antisemitism is allocated its own independent specialist barrister to ensure due process is followed.
32. The entire backlog of cases outstanding upon Jennie Formby becoming General Secretary of the Labour Party was cleared within 6 months of Jennie taking up her post.
33. Since September 2018, Labour has doubled the size of its National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – its senior disciplinary panel – from 11 to 25 members to enable it to process cases more quickly.
34. Under Formby and Labour’s left-run NEC, NCC arranged elections at short notice to ensure the NCC reached its new full capacity without delay.
35. Since later 2018, the NCC routinely convenes a greater number of hearing panels to allow cases to be heard and finalised without delay.
36. In 2018, the NEC established a ‘Procedures Working Group’ to lead reforms in the way disciplinary cases are handled.
37. The NEC adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and all eleven examples of antisemitism attached to it.
38. A rule change agreed at Conference in 2018 means that all serious complaints, including antisemitism, are dealt with nationally to ensure consistency.
39. Last year, Jennie Formby wrote to the admins and moderators of Facebook groups about how they can effectively moderate online spaces and requested that any discriminatory content be reported to the Labour Party for investigation.
40. Since last year, no one outside Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit can be involved in decision-making on antisemitism investigations. This independence allows decisions free from political influence to be taken.
I see the astroturfers are out in force.
Please. This anti war activist invited two members of the IRA to Parliament two weeks after they attempted to assassinate the British PM. If he'd wanted to support peaceful republicanism, which many others honourably did, he'd have supported the SDLP.
That must be why we see this noble peacemaker so often talking to violent people whose causes he disagrees with (ie never).
" In 2014, Jeremy Corbyn was pictured holding a wreath in front of a plaque commemorating three Palestinians – including Salah Khalaf, who Israel says was linked to the 1972 Munich massacre. In a later interview, Mr Corbyn said that he did lay “a wreath in memory of all those who have died”. According to a Daily Mail reporter who visited the cemetery, the available photos of Mr Corbyn holding a wreath show him 15 yards away from the memorial plaque for the 1985 victims – but directly in front of the plaque for Salah Khalaf and others.
"Speaking to Channel 4 News on Tuesday, Mr Corbyn’s language seemed to suggest that Salah Khalaf, an alleged founder of Black Deptember, was amongst those for whom he laid a memorial wreath." Source - Channel 4.
Shall we see what the EHRC says before getting too confident about that?
This post is from last week, but the issue is lingering on, and imo some rather important things haven't been mentioned so far, so I guess it's fine to respond. I'll try to explain what I believe to be historical reasons for a general alertness over this specific type of pronunciation. My opinion on the Corbyn "incident" at the end.
First of all, I don't think @Classical Mechanic has been correct in his interpretation here. I don't think that associating Epsteins Jewishness with his crimes was intended, or even an unconscious subtext. Just my gut feeling based on the video snippet, but I'm rather sure about it.
I also think @Zlatattack is wrong in assuming the point of contention is a perceived "disrespectful" mispronunciation of a name of foreign origin (and a case of some Jews demanding privileged treatment over other minorities).
It's not too easy to think of an apt analogy for clarity, but a rough equivalent might be a white person inappropriately calling a black man "boy". If you're aware of the history of that word in the context of black history, you just don't do that. Even if it's just a glitch, some people will be on alert and pay close attention to what that person's up to. And they're right, even if the questions of severity and motive still remain to be answered, and may lead to a .
When done publicly, such a wording will likely draw criticism, especially when coming from someone who's already in hot water over related issues. This will in turn trigger responses saying it's absolutely nothing, and complainers should stop being so damn touchy. You'll know the inevitable backwash of ignorance and hostility that will go along with it. But informed people will be aware that a whole history of stereotypization and persecution can very well be evoked by an innocent-looking three letter word, depending on context. When used in a specific way, it symbolically sets black people back to being subordinate to white people, targeting the liberation they have gained since then.
It's basically the same with the "re-Judaization" of assimilated Jewish names. This has been a tool of antisemitic othering for a very long time. Antisemites used and still use it to mark the targeted person's supposedly alien nature, and to uncover the "hidden Jew" behind a seemingly assimilated citizen. The underlying logic behind antisemites exposing a Jew's "real name" is to make the whole history of Jewish assimilation and emanicipation null and void. And everyone with a grasp of Jewish history knows what that means.
A recent example would be Trump demonstratively calling Jon Stewart "Jonathan Leibowitz". (Stewart's response.) Now, I'm sure Corbyn didn't do something like this there. It's one of those things where purpose makes the difference. In general, I think critics accusing him of that kind of antisemitism are on the wrong track.
So what do I make of it? While there has certainly been justified criticism of Corbyn, this case rather looks like an unfortunate blunder to me. It surely warrants a critical mention/correction, because, as I said, if you're conscious about these things you just don't do that. And the context I tried to give above is why reflexive dismissals of such complaints are ignorant - at best. But I also see it as a minor issue, and not a case of dog-whistling, which is why I think scandalizing it wasn't the way to go. Especially in the toxic British media landscape. But my guess is that this particular episode will have resonated much less with British Jews than other ones. They're not a uniform "community" anyway, and the whole range of opinions will exist about it, in whatever proportions.
You realise the British government ultimately did the same thing, which eventually led to a path of peace.
Who would you have him speak to? The Israeli government? I'm sure they'd love to entertain a Western politician who takes issue with their racist and colonialist actions, and why would they if they already have the current government giving them carte blanche to do as they please. We don't need to hear the Israeli perspective because its already echoed by our politicians and much of the media, their perspective is hardly one that lacks any voice.
Again, he was at the memorial site for the victims of the 1985 bombing along with other dignitaries(the purpose of his visit), yes the terrorists in question were also buried there, but unlike the Daily Mail's sensationalist take on it, he wasn't there to honour them:
Yes we've all seen what they've said. Apparently making 'disproportionate' criticisms towards the state of Israel constitutes objective anti-semitism, but making direct insults aimed at ethnic minorities isn't. You have Boris' own adviser making dog-whistling anti-semitic insinuations in his recent blog posts (to deafening silence as expected), and yet you're still firmly clutching at straws devoid of any context to dignify this smear job. @Fluctuation0161 has already given you dozens of examples which completely dismiss any notion of him holding bigoted views, yet you're opting to ignore them while clinging to the same exhausted tropes.
No response to my previous post @nickm ?
Maybe you are not interested in discussion. Only perpetuating smears.
Maybe you are not interested in discussion. Only perpetuating smears.
Don't hold your breath. I doubt he even believes the smears.
For the EHRC to launch a formal investigation (look it up if you can be bothered) they need to have seen evidence of criminal discrimination by the organisation
They also have to believe that it is not an isolated incident and the organisation has not taken sufficient steps to solve this, and furthermore that not only is a successful prosecution likely on the evidence they have seen but also to pursue it is in the public interest.
Only at that point do they start the formal process to see just how bad it really is
Previous examples of politcal parties having reached that evidence level are the BNP oh and that it they are the only other political party to have a formal investigation besides the current one into Labour
so yeah thats a little more than you suggest
the EHRC will have Jezbollah and his antisemitic buddies on toast if even 1% of whats been reported to date is true (and rightly so)... Im looking forward to the report and subsequent prosecutions
I haven't had time to wade thru your 40 point post, tbh. But I'm already loving number 1, which says Corbyn can't be antisemitic because his mum wasn't (conveniently forgetting Corbyn's brother's views on Jews).
Last edited:
Apparently the BBC are biased for saying Israel has the right to exist .... according to Jezbollah
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ays-BBC-biased-saying-Israel-right-exist.html
https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/prev...721065969/636x382_MP4_2967318532721065969.mp4
From one of his paid giggs for Iranian State TV
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ays-BBC-biased-saying-Israel-right-exist.html
https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/prev...721065969/636x382_MP4_2967318532721065969.mp4
Swear Rachel Riley used to support Labour? Corbyn shouldn’t be Labour leader in my opinion but the policies they’re proposing are the best for this country. And he’s not anti-Semitic this is getting bonkers now
what's wrong with questioning the right to existence of a squatter state
Because it's a favourite pastime of antisemites.
But it is a state founded on land literally stolen from indigenous peoples
Like USA or Australia?
Seriously though I don't think its anti semitic to question it, but these the times we living in now. You cannot question those things without that smear unfortunately
I wonder if the opposite is anti Palestine...
Try numbers 2 - 40. You might learn something instead of simply regurgitating your old posts. You seem to have plenty of time for that.
Last edited:
Someone asked why Jews might not trust Corbyn. I answered, including what some prominent jews have themselves said. I am glad you managed to dig up in response, what's mostly a bunch of parliamentary motion based virtue signalling which must have taken him around 10 minutes in total to sign across his career. It's like signing a petition or tweeting support. I'm sure even Boris Johnson, who everyone thinks is a racist, must have signed a few, albeit probably by accident.
Now look - I am not saying Corbyn is an anti semite. Many who know him well, including those on the opposite side of the political divide, say he isn't. BUT I do think he's shown a lack of sensitivity, he hasn't listened to jewish complaints as he might have listened if it was another ethnic group, he has a history of dubious relationships which leaves him open to the charge, and I suspect he doesn't see jews as oppressed minorities in the same way as he does other groups. Plus he's not very good at leadership. Add that up and that's how you get this sense of Corbyn being accused of anti semitism. But even if he isn't, all those other things are still valid criticisms of his suitability to be PM.
Corbyn wasn't involved in the peace process and he wasn't an honest broker in any 'path to peace'. And the British Government is the British Government. Who else is going to represent Britain in peace talks to end a war? I just don't get this line of reasoning. He believed in Sinn Fein's cause, and that's why he was close to them.
If he was a genuine honest broker, then yes he would meet with all sides. You can't only listen to one side in a conflict if you want to end it. He absolutely should have spoken to the Israelis. He should have spoken to the Irish Loyalists. He was not interested in understanding their points of view. Genuine peacemakers do try to understand all points of view (even if they don't agree with them).
Boris shouldn't be PM either. He's even worse than Corbyn. But this is a thread about Corbyn.
Last edited:
In all seriousness, what land wasn't "stolen" from it's previous occupiers.
If you go back far enough the existence of the Muslim faith is due to military conquest of North Africa and Spain, where exactly do you draw the line?
The state of Israel was established after years of struggle with the agreement of the international community, they have then had to fight to maintain their independence in the 70 years since then. It's definitely legitimate to question whether their methods have become cruel, whether they have become indifferent to the suffering of others or what a just and lasting solution should look like (one state/two states etc), as many do within Israel, but to question Israel's right to exist is not legitimate at all so must be classed as antisemitic.
Thought Jews had been in Israel for millennia?
Questioning anything related to Israel can never, in any way, be classed as antisemitic. Israel and the religion of Judaism are not the same thing.
My understanding is they lived in what was then Judea before the Romans removed them and renamed the area. Could be wrong though. @2cents will be able to give an answer I’m sure.
I don't think that's what Corbyn is doing in that clip. Criticism of Israel "being a democracy", having a "right to exist" and having "security concerns" in a vacuum is one thing, but criticising the BBC for using them as the primary lens through which the violence and oppression visited on Palestinians is viewed quite another.
This is so obviously false that I'm not even sure if responding with the most blatant counterexamples of Nazis and Islamists would be appropriate. (Not that the issue stops there.)
Obviously. No Jewish person or institution ever was the same thing as the religion of Judaism. That doesn't mean they can't be targeted for being Jewish.
Half the countries in the World are made up. As previously mentioned, Australia, New Zealand, the whole of the Americas. The greater part of Africa. etc, etc
Try looking at the reasons Israel was formed in the first place, which was for far better objectives than any of the above, which were literally stolen for no other reason than for exploiting the indigenous population.
Although the clip is clearly cut so as to remove the context, you are going along way to give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt. It would still be difficut to justify what he's saying in any context.
Made up context: The democratically elected leadership of Israel re-emphasised its right to exist yesterday in a security operation which saw several suspected Hamas operatives eliminated, along with their immediate families.