He has a long history of associating with fairly extreme Palestinians, including laying a wreath in the grave of someone who iirc had been directly involved in anti Jewish violent action.

He appeared on Iranian TV including iirc fielding a very antisemitic caller question without criticism

He oversaw a period in the labor party in which accusations of Anti-Semitism were downplayed and supposedly independent investigations appear to have been leaned upon.

He is on camera talking about some British Jews in a way which indicated he thinks they're somehow not really British.

Navigating Palestinian/Israeli politics without associating with bad people on both sides can be tricky, but Corbyn has a long track record of blindness to the delicacies that is so long that suggestions of naivety simply don't hold water anymore. He might not be a frothing at the mouth Hitler style racist, but he oversaw an organisation that was institutionally racist and has a long history of at best poor judgement.

He's not the hill you want to die in.

also

in 1948 when israel fough their war for independence, it wasnt "white people against brown people". the native israel jews are -- semetic -- just like the palestenians!!

what? the palestenians are semetic? duh

Zionism is the belief that Jewish People deserve a state where they will be ensured their livelyhood

The other question i asked was about reparations.

do you belive that Black People and Indigenous people deserve reparations?

then i would ask

do Jewish people deserve reparations?
Germany does pay reparations to Israel by the way -- they pay reparations to the Jewish State due to the Nazi Atrocicities. It was very controversial to accept them, but Sharon decided the State would never succeed without them. So he accepted. And they still do. Jewish Cabs are all mercedes, mostly donated by Germany.

The Palestenian people deny Israel's right to exist. They dont believe they deserve a state. They and most of the regiion (until recently - with 3 recent peace deals and Saudi ready to sign one that is changing) - sided with the Palesteninians.

Mainly because they fought Israel, promised the Palestenians they woudl win and be able to get all the land, and when they lost they did not want to palestenians as refugees so they basically let them be the pwns in this fight

but the point of me bringing all this up is ---

i can respect you believing that Israel treats the Palesteninans bad
I can respect you thinking it is illegal for them to be controlling the west bank (it isnt, but that can be a long discussion if you really want to have it)

but i cant respect how you constantly do bash israel, but never admonish the Palestenian Authority or Gaza. When Israel gave up Gaza in 2006? -- things could have gotten much better. But no, Gaza secretly built bombs, became a terrorist state, teamed with hezbolla, shot stuff at israel daily, e unoccupied, and israel (and EGYPT WHICH NOBODY CARES ABOUT) were forced to control Gaza borders . Yes, EGYPT controls the border because they dont want Gaza terrorists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupa...Strip_by_Egypt

Being anti-Israel has become a progressive rite of passage and it is completely unfounded

Israel is the most free place in the middle east

Hadassah Hospital treats anybody for free -- Jew Muslim Dru, doesnt matter. The hospital still gets attacked but they contnue to treat all

The whole "women's march" movement mostly died down due to the anti-semetism at the top oif it. The leaders also claimed to be anti-israel not anti-semetic, but stopped allowing jews to participate

I'm very ignorant to all this, though, I did learn some about it while in Munich last year. I'm genuinely asking to try to learn perspectives.

Is the suggestion that to be consistent one would need to support reparation to Israel AND reparations to Black people?

Is there any discrepancy by feeling yes for one and no for the other?

i dont know if thats what im saying. Im not really in favor of personal reperations, but systemic reparations for Black and Native people are likely still needed because of a broken system. Im not trying to debate that tho

i just dont understand how filthy constantly complains about how white people mistreated black and native people, but he doesnt seem to care or want to know about the atrocities against jews in the middle east for centuries, or even what happened in the holocaust -- he only wants to talk aboiut how the palesteninians are oppressed.

The palestenians did get a state. Its now called Jordan. Jordan is the Palestenian people. The palestenian people in the west bank were told to stay there and they will be taken care of by jordan. Jordan granted them citizenship in the 1950s. then, after 1973 when they decided to withdraw from their "illegal occupation" of the west bank and israel began to "illegally occupy it", Jordan not only took away their citizenship, but refused to give them refugee status. So Jordan is responsible for the plight of the Palesteninan peoiple if anyone is.

But the focus is on Israel being a White imperialist nation and the Palestenians being the oppressed dark man. It's ridiculous

A lot has changed since 73. Israel has expanded its settlements to help protect themselves and to make sure they keep control of Jerusalem. We can debate the morals and legality of all that.

But Filthy basically says "if you are progressive, you cant hate Jews, you just need to hate Israel". it';s a ridiculous naive dumb statement

Israel is basically considered the bad guy for winning wars that they did not start

I will also say something that will be controversial in this thread

the whole dual loyalty argument

the argument was that Jews have dual loyalty and it was an insult and a way to say that they are not real Americans because their true loyalty lies with Israel! And it was used by anti-semites that way. I think many Jews do have a bit of dual loyalty, and that is okay. I am an American first but Israel is so important to me that i sometimes vote based on israel policy because i believe whoever is president here, i will be okay, but if someone extremely anti-israel became president and our israel policy completely shifted, israel can easily cease to exist.

but what has happened is, it has cause mostly leftist Jews to not want to admit they like Israel, because they dont want to be accused of that, and they dont speak up against the anti israel bias in the democratic party because they think it will make them look not progressive. so it has caused American reform Jews to stop being pro-Israel.

Makes me sad.

On a side note, I dont expect a Biden/Harris presidency to be starkly anti-israel which is why i dont even really care that much if they win. i dont think they will be as pro israel as trump has been, but i dont think they are moving the embassy back to tel aviv, i dont think they will unrecognize ISrael's sovereinty over The Golan Heights, i dont think they will cut aid.

I slightly worry about them abstaining from Anti Israel UN bs like Obama did in 2016 on his way out, and I slightly worry that if we get back into the Iran deal that some of these middle east peace deals could fall apart; but overall i do not think Biden and Harris are Anti-Israel and I think they will condemn domestic anti-semetism much better than trump has so i wont have a huge issue of them as president from that standpoint

I'll be honest, I'm not sure that agreeing to whatever the current Israeli government asks for is really in Israel's long term interests.

Why do you just assume it is fear of supporting Israel? What if a leftist Jewish person is actually just against what Israel is doing in many ways? Is that reasonable and possible to you?

Thanks for the post, though. That's why I asked my earlier question to you about Mexican-Americans who vote based on Mexico's interest. I liked your response to that, but many don't feel that way. They feel they are being anti-American.

lol well thank god for that

that's really important that they won't defy the UN security council and literally every other country in the world in allowing israel to keep it's imperialistic conquests

Timeline for Gilead and Trump administration lying to steal a billion dollars that I mentioned earlier:

Gilead found out the data from Solidarity trial on 9/23.
FDA found out about the data on 10/10.
Solidarity preprint out 10/15.
FDA approves Remdesivir 10/22.

This is incredibly unethical. Should be criminal, but I suspect it is working as intended in our system. They blew off the largest trial to date in order to make a billion dollars at our expense.

My family are progressive American reform Jews, and the above is complete horseshit.

You really need to watch what thoughts you assign to other people. That was some offensive garbage right there.

when i said mostly leftist jews, that didn't mean most leftist Jews. I just meant that the Jews I was refering to were leftist. I wasnt trying to say that all leftisit Jews are denying israel for that reason, i apologize if it camne out that way and I am not trying to disrespect you and your family at all


Chim

There are many Jews, as Cross pointed out, that do support Israel but do not support the current regime and settlements and of course that is a valid position to have. I do think many don't have a firm understanding of it, but thats irrelevant. But yes -- since the Oslo Accords and Rabin's murder and what happened with the Israeli government since, some American Jews disagree with the Israili government's politics just because of the politics. so if my statement sounded absolute, it shouldnt

I used to be very critical of the settlements by the way. Up until probably mid 2000s ... I got very interested in this stuff when Israel gave up Gaza, and i couldnt understand how giving up this tiny strip of land was so controversial and i began to read many books and watch seminars from that point on. It is extremely complicated.

but i do think even in my conservative shul, 90% of the congregants are Democrats, and in discussions I have had with them they admit they have shifted from thinking israel was always right to being very critical of the continued expansion of settlements.

Trump has done more pro israel things than any president ever, and will not gain significant Jewish votes from it. Which is fine. I do think people should always vote their own priorities, i dont judge that. I just think Israel is less of a priority for American Jews than it was in let's say -- 1995 when Congress bipartisinly passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act. The law was adopted by the Senate (93–5), and the House (374–37). The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995. The Act recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city.

So by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, all Trump did was fulfill the promise of a law passed bipartisanly by Congress 25 years ago, partially because of strong support of it from Jewish voters. but if trump hadnt moved it, and the vote was taken today, there is no way it would have passed the House. It probably wouldve passed the Senate with a little dem support, but no way it woudl have passed the house. But that is because priorities of Jewish voters regarding Israel have changed

I am not sure how Syria attacking Israel and losing the land to them is an imperialist conquest

This is what I was getting at - it seems really incorrect to assign motivations to others thoughts.

Surely it is possible for Jewish people to not be entirely "pro-Israel". Plenty of examples of them hating Netanyahu or being upset with things coming out of Israel, as an example. That doesn't make them less Jewish, or anti-semetic in their eyes. I was curious if it does in Mets' eyes.

It seemed like Mets was saying is the only reason Jewish people won't speak out as pro-Israel is because they are worried about not seeming progressive. That reasoning may exist, but it certainly can't be the reason for all of them. Thanks, Jenn, for confirming the other perspective.

edit: Thanks for clearing up your statement should not be absolute, Mets. I understand what you were saying now.

This is certainly true, in my estimation (though I am naive overall). Not sure if that is good or bad or whatever, though.

Given that he said conquests, plural, I'm going to assume that he didn't just mean the Golan Heights.

But since it appears to have just been a driveby that's speculation.

So the west Bank? In 48 Israel agreed to the position plan, the Arab world and the "Palestinians " did not. Then Jordan occupied it even though it was supposed to be Palestinians land. Nobody in the world called it illegal. Then when Israel took it over in 73 after a war, all of the sudden it was an illegal occupation and the future Palestinian homeland. When Jordan occupied it it was just part of Jordan!! But now it has been the Palestinian homeland since 48.

Isn't assigning motives to thoughts most of the rationale for labeling people for using "bad" words?

Guess you are totally unfamiliar with the UN resolution which arbitrates that kind of thing then.

We can debate their right to it but I was more laughing at the word imperialism

https://concernedwomen.org/why-israe...golan-heights/

Trump changes election night plans, cancels party at Trump International: report

I hope this means what I think it means.

He probably defaulted on all the vendors.

i think it just means that there woudl be more than 50 people and didnt want to get in a war with the local govt

Ah yes, his desire to host superspreader events is strong. Makes sense they'd move it to the White House to just do it all over agian.