Ganging up

Anybody who thinks corbyn is an anti semite is a f-idiot.

The holocaust was the worst crime of the 20th century, millions of Jews, communists, trade unionists, gypsies, disabled people and others were bussed to concentration camps and gassed to death after years of oppression. Anybody who disputes this should be educated in the facts of what happened, take them to the auscwitz tour if necessary and if they continue to display ignorance due to reactionary prejudices they have no place in democratic institutions built to combat these prejudices. And this applies to Islamophobia as well. Education should be the priority but if people refuse to engage they should be shown the door.

What is wrong is to use this genocide, or any other genocide for which there have been many in the century, to gain political capital, remove people from positions because of other political differences, smear political opponents, say to Jewish people they're not 'proper Jews' if they criticise Israel and so on. All this has been happening in and around the Labour Party since 2015.

I don't really disagree with anything you wrote here, but two points:
No one is smearing Alan whatever. It's not a valid defence to "just want to discuss things" when he posted what he did.
Secondly, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge specific policies of the state of Israel, but it's not reasonable to wish for Israel to disappear. One is a productive criticism, the other is denying the right of Jewish people to have a country. It shouldn't be necessary to spell that out, but in many cases, unfortunately, it is.

13 Palestinian protesters, many around the age of 20, shot dead since Friday so yeah quite important people are able to challenge Israeli govt.
Saying Israel shouldn't exist is essentially a point of historical debate, there is nothing anti semitic about it. My personal view is a single state solution by the name of Israel-Palestine which respects the rights of dispossessed Palestinians and the rights of Israelis who have made it their home. The 2 state solution is basically what is in place now, an apartheid state.

You have provided no evidence - just a bunch of lies and assumptions in an attempt to derail the thread.

This is simply not true.

Such views are depressingly common though. Richard Leonard, the Scottish Labour leader, just tweeted the following:



These are 2 out of the 3 replies he received:



Some have a complete inability to seperate 'jews', from 'Israel' and one can't be mentioned without the other.

Explain.

To deny Jewish people the right to an independent state that is secure is an antisemitic stance.
And of course you can believe in that right and also believe that the Palestinian people have a right to an independent and secure state as well.
So criticism of the current solution, criticism of specific Israeli policy, to me, is perfectly fine and not antisemitic at all. In fact, I think it's important that we should be able to criticise policy without facing charges of antisemitism.
But to completely deny Jewish people the right to a country is not acceptable.

The first statement implies its not possible for Jewish people to be safe in other countries - the answer to fighting racism and bigotry isn't to move the oppressed groups out of the country to a new country. Secondly it implies there is a greater force that can deny or grant the right of a new country, which ofc there was - the British empire which controlled Palestine. In 1917 the Balfour declaration gave the zionist movement permission to set up a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine, on condition they didn't infringe on the civil rights of the Palestinians. Cue humanitarian disaster, human rights abuses, refugee crisis etc.
So yes, on a theoretical abstract level, give every religion/culture/group its own state if they wish. The problem is we live in a world carved up by empires which makes the idea impossible.

Saying 'Jews should leave Israel and the land be given back to the Palestinians' is anti-semitic - it is racist always to demand a particular group leave a country.
Saying 'Israel shouldn't exist or hasn't the right to exist' may be offensive to some and inflammatory, but it is a legitimate political view that has its roots in the historical set up of the state.
Which is why my view is a single state solution - a secular state which allows for all religions to be practised etc..

It absolutely does not imply any such thing. For what it's worth, I also believe Palestinians should enjoy the same right, e.g. a secure independent state.

Ok, so what are the legitimate reasons for a religion having the right to an independent state? Must Jews and Arabs have their own state? Are Jews allowed to live in the Arab state and vice versa? Sounds like a recipe for sectarian disaster which is ofc what happened.

this, in a nutshell, is the problem



Now there could be a case for redistributing land to allow for 2 states with an equal access to resources etc. The reality is, particularly in the shadow of the United States, this is a fantasy. So why not shoot for an ideal - one nation.

And now you're linking RT...

That's about the same as linking Fox news. Do you have any source criticism?

It's worse than linking fox news, and that's really saying something.

It's equivalent to linking Fox, BBC etc as corporate state media. Why not hear the debate and do some research on the points they make?

The source material for the discussion is largely what is available in the British media in the last few weeks. One which I don't think was discussed in this but has come to my mind:
The policeman, a detective first on the scene which alone is very odd, was poisoned at the house yet the couple were found on a bench.
The problem is that there isnt a single journalist asking remotely decent questions, the reports are shockingly bad, including guardian, indy etc.

Only someone who either hasn't listened to the discussion or is so brainwashed to think the level of this debate is anything close to American corporate media would say this.

This clip is both hilarious and informative.

The sheeplike and docile don't have the confidence to assess ideas on their own merit.
They shout Russian shill! State TV! etc to avoid addressing the substantive arguments.

speaking of hilarious and informative

Being critical of outlets like RT isn't the same as being ovine.

RT give a platform to Brits that the mainstream want to silence. I think that's a very good thing

Aaah, the classic ones. Chomsky quotes, talking about sheeps, US lead media, alternative source etc. instead of assessing the real problem which in this case is that RT is biased as hell and doesn't fill any kind of standards that one should put on a news source.

OK, John from Lensk