Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[trustbutverify]

I think you certainly could get clearer than that. His wording is terrible but your conclusion is assuming the least charitable interpretation and reiterating it in even strong terms.

That may not have been accidental.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is Livingstone, not Corbyn.

I don't know how to make this more clear to you. You are taking his own absurd definition of an antisemite and then assuming he's correct in saying he isn't one. One more time:

His definition of an antisemite is someone who hates all Jews, not just those in Israel.

Why does he add 'not just those in Israel'? Because that's the viewpoint he associates with himself and he's making the point that he's not an antisemite. He doesn't say, 'The Israeli government', he says 'Jews in Israel.' But it's OK, he doesn't hate every single Jew in the world so he can't be an antisemite, right kids?

Hey, I hate all blacks in the UK. But I'm not racist because a real racist hates all blacks no matter where they're from.

Are you convinced by my protestations?



No, you would use the term 'ruling political forces'. Now that is really very simple.



No, see, I say anybody who does these things is an antisemite. It is you who states that the leftists who do these things are not antisemites. I don't make the same claim for rightists or anybody else, I apply the criteria equally.

I don't really see the value in the analysis but since we are doing it the first part of his statement surely is correct? An anti Semite would hate all Jews. Or at least have very few exceptions. No?

Equally an anti Semite would hate Jews in Israel because they are Jews.

I thinks it's a but of a jump to say he is a self-confessed anti Semite Jew hater based on some clumsy wording. He might well be one but you need more than that to convict.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That may not have been accidental.

Possibly not. But it may have been.

Is there anything in his actions that suggest he is anti Semitic? Has he done anything to deny rights to Jews? Or to attempt to? Or anything else of that Ilk?

I mean we do know there are racists and anti semites in the trump administration and Theresa may says they're our friends. Is that kind of thing ok?

 

[jimbob]

Possibly not. But it may have been.

Is there anything in his actions that suggest he is anti Semitic? Has he done anything to deny rights to Jews? Or to attempt to? Or anything else of that Ilk?

I mean we do know there are racists and anti semites in the trump administration and Theresa may says they're our friends. Is that kind of thing ok?

I don't know about you, but if I'd been in public life and had unjust accusations of antisemitism levelled at me or my comrades, I'd be pretty careful in what I said.

On its own, it could have been clumsy, but taken with everything else, at best, he seems rather blase about prominent supporters making antisemitic statements if they're also anti American.


I think this puts it well (my highlighting)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ill-be-cheered-by-racists-and-terrorists.html

Which is why I’m happy to acknowledge that those of his supporters protesting vociferously that their champion is not an anti-semite are correct. Jeremy Corbyn does not personally indulge in prejudice. But he does indulge prejudice. He associates with anti-semites and other extremists. He provides a platform for anti-semites and other extremists – Dyab Abou Jahjah is on record as saying Corbyn helped make his recent visit to the UK possible. And he shares platforms with anti-semites and other extremists.


Corbyn and his supporters have attempted to defend his actions in a number of ways. One is to scream “smear” a lot. A second is to claim no anti-semitism or extremism was expounded by these men in his presence. And I suppose it is conceivable he may have been duped by the odd Holocaust denier or Blood Libeler. But it is odd he has only become aware of their duplicity just at the point when he is running for the Labour leadership.

 

[baron]

I don't really see the value in the analysis but since we are doing it the first part of his statement surely is correct? An anti Semite would hate all Jews. Or at least have very few exceptions. No?

Probably correct. But an intelligent and shrewd antisemite would not outright admit such a thing, instead they would obfuscate just enough to permit denial under pressure whilst still making it plain what they think. Livingstone is a lifelong politician renowned for his articulation and acumen. The idea he would make a clumsy statement laying himself open to accusations of antisemitism by accident is absurd.

 

[Craig B]

Probably correct. But an intelligent and shrewd antisemite would not outright admit such a thing, instead they would obfuscate just enough to permit denial under pressure whilst still making it plain what they think. Livingstone is a lifelong politician renowned for his articulation and acumen. The idea he would make a clumsy statement laying himself open to accusations of antisemitism by accident is absurd.

Eh, what happened to the basic English comprehension you were banging on about? It's all been obfuscated away, has it? You remind me of Stalin, who observed at a Communist Party plenum in 1937

"... the Trotskyite wreckers, as people with a Party card having access to all places in our institutions and organizations, were a real windfall for the intelligence services of foreign states.... No wrecker will engage in wrecking all along the line if he wants to avoid being exposed in the shortest possible time. On the contrary, the real wrecker has from time to time to show successes in his work, for this is his only means of keeping himself going as a wrecker, of winning the confidence of people and of continuing his wrecking work....​

There was no evidence of wrecking. Why not? Because the evil conspirator wreckers were cunningly hiding their real activities. Shows how untrustworthy they really are, doesn't it? Like the wily leftist antisemites cleverly hiding their tracks by not doing antisemitic things. The cunning fiends!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Probably correct. But an intelligent and shrewd antisemite would not outright admit such a thing, instead they would obfuscate just enough to permit denial under pressure whilst still making it plain what they think. Livingstone is a lifelong politician renowned for his articulation and acumen. The idea he would make a clumsy statement laying himself open to accusations of antisemitism by accident is absurd.

Renowned for his articulation and acumen?

Evidence? I must have the wrong man.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't know about you, but if I'd been in public life and had unjust accusations of antisemitism levelled at me or my comrades, I'd be pretty careful in what I said.

On its own, it could have been clumsy, but taken with everything else, at best, he seems rather blase about prominent supporters making antisemitic statements if they're also anti American.


I think this puts it well (my highlighting)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ill-be-cheered-by-racists-and-terrorists.html

At the risk of indulging whataboutery I wonder why this is worse than May indulging Trump while he is actively implementing his Muslim ban.

As for being careful about what he said ... Presumably that's the whole point of the unjust allegations of anti semitism? To shut him up?

 

[baron]

Eh, what happened to the basic English comprehension you were banging on about? It's all been obfuscated away, has it? You remind me of Stalin, who observed at a Communist Party plenum in 1937

"... the Trotskyite wreckers, as people with a Party card having access to all places in our institutions and organizations, were a real windfall for the intelligence services of foreign states.... No wrecker will engage in wrecking all along the line if he wants to avoid being exposed in the shortest possible time. On the contrary, the real wrecker has from time to time to show successes in his work, for this is his only means of keeping himself going as a wrecker, of winning the confidence of people and of continuing his wrecking work....​

There was no evidence of wrecking. Why not? Because the evil conspirator wreckers were cunningly hiding their real activities. Shows how untrustworthy they really are, doesn't it? Like the wily leftist antisemites cleverly hiding their tracks by not doing antisemitic things. The cunning fiends!

I'm still waiting for you to explain why 50+ Labour party members were expelled for anitsemitism if, as you allege, they are not have never expressed any antisemitic views. All these people, including big names, are roundly accused of antisemitism, including by people of the same political persuasion, and you come up with the nonsense statement that it's all unfounded. Maybe this will surprise you, but 99.9% of people are never in their lifetime accused of antisemitism. Can you guess why? That's right, because they have never expressed views that anybody can reasonably associate with vilification of Jews. Accusations of this type are not something that happen randomly, they normally have some basis.

And it didn't go unnoticed that you ignored my reply to you, preferring instead to make a straw man out of a tenuously related reply to another poster. Yes, it's very easy to obfuscate language yet be clear in meaning. Just like when a new member, in his or her first post on this forum, states something like, "I'm not racist but I just wondered why the figures show that blacks are more violent than whites." It's pretty clear that the person doesn't want to have a balanced discussion based on evidence and is instead making a point, and I'm sure you'd state as much on their thread, but apparently you are unwilling to apply the same common sense analysis to antisemitic sentiment expressed by leftists. I wonder why that is.

 

[baron]

Renowned for his articulation and acumen?

Evidence? I must have the wrong man.

Of course you're right, he's as thick as two short planks and has no communication skills whatosever. He became Mayor of London by accident, you know, nobody could understand a word he said.

 

[Craig B]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why 50+ Labour party members were expelled for anitsemitism if, as you allege, they are not have never expressed any antisemitic views. All these people, including big names, are roundly accused of antisemitism, including by people of the same political persuasion, and you come up with the nonsense statement that it's all unfounded. Maybe this will surprise you, but 99.9% of people are never in their lifetime accused of antisemitism. Can you guess why? That's right, because they have never expressed views that anybody can reasonably associate with vilification of Jews. Accusations of this type are not something that happen randomly, they normally have some basis.

They are based on the fact that accusations of antisemitism are the one and only tactic employed by defenders of Zionism. Personally I have been accused of antisemitism on this spurious ground many times. So I must be one too, eh? Here's an exercise for you. What was the occasion of the accusations in these cases? Beating up Jews? Desecrating synagogues or Jewish cemeteries, or doing the other things we find frequently among fascists or the extreme right? I bet all the accusations against these fifty people involved Israel, or were in association with some person connected to the issue of Zionism. I bet not one of these alleged antisemites was accused of desecrating a synagogue, or beating a Jew, or anything like that. But have a look and let me know. DId anyone abuse the residents of Golders Green or Stoke Newington? No?

What you should be waiting for is jimbob to justify this statement with the evidence appropriate to such a grave accusation, or indeed with any evidence whatever.

... fellow travellers who are holocaust deniers. (Why that is hard left, I'm not entirely sure, but it's fairly common in the far left).​

ETA. By the standards of Zionist apologists I'm not only antisemitic, but genocidal. Read this

Crucially, however, Zionism is not just a theoretical construct. If it was, it would be perfectly legitimate to oppose it, but since 1948, Zionism has also been a political reality. That reality is Israel. Opposing the state of Israel, the practical manifestation of Zionism, is to oppose the democratic wishes of nine million people and endorse the destruction of a vibrant living Jewish state. That’s not theoretical, it’s genocidal​

 

[baron]

They are based on the fact that accusations of antisemitism are the one and only tactic employed by defenders of Zionism.

So it would be a fair summary to say you believe that the 50+ Labour party members suspended for antisemitism were not antisemites, or at the very least willing to associate with and tacitly condone same, and instead were the victims of a Zionist conspiracy. Would that apply to all the rightists accused of antisemitism too, or are they just plain bigots?

Personally I have been accused of antisemitism on this spurious ground many times.

'Many times'? Really? I don't support many of the actions of the Israeli government yet I have never been accused of antisemitism or of being against Jews in any way. Could that be because I find it easy to distinguish between Jews and the Israeli government? That I don't 'slip up' and accidentally refer to 'hating Jews in Israel' as opposed to 'hating the Israeli government'?

Here's an exercise for you. What was the occasion of the accusations in these cases? Beating up Jews? Desecrating synagogues or Jewish cemeteries, or doing the other things we find frequently among fascists or the extreme right?

I doubt any of them were so crass as to do that. They realise that a swastika on a wall will achieve nothing, whereas weasel words about 'Jews in Israel' and 'Jews not welcome in the UK' will reach a more sympathetic audience.

I bet all the accusations against these fifty people involved Israel, or were in association with some person connected to the issue of Zionism. I bet not one of these alleged antisemites was accused of desecrating a synagogue, or beating a Jew, or anything like that. But have a look and let me know. DId anyone abuse the residents of Golders Green or Stoke Newington? No?

Yep, because the definition of 'antisemite' is 'Someone who beats up Jews'.

What you should be waiting for is jimbob to justify this statement with the evidence appropriate to such a grave accusation, or indeed with any evidence whatever.

... fellow travellers who are holocaust deniers. (Why that is hard left, I'm not entirely sure, but it's fairly common in the far left).​

You dismiss every case as the result of a Zionist conspiracy so I'm unclear what evidence you're awaiting. Maybe a video of Livingstone or Galloway dressed in Nazi uniform painting a big red swastika on the wall of Marble Arch Synagogue? Even then I bet you'd find an excuse for their actions.

ETA. By the standards of Zionist apologists I'm not only antisemitic, but genocidal. Read this

Crucially, however, Zionism is not just a theoretical construct. If it was, it would be perfectly legitimate to oppose it, but since 1948, Zionism has also been a political reality. That reality is Israel. Opposing the state of Israel, the practical manifestation of Zionism, is to oppose the democratic wishes of nine million people and endorse the destruction of a vibrant living Jewish state. That’s not theoretical, it’s genocidal​

There's some mileage in that. People who call for Israel to be destroyed are clearly not talking about reform in the Israeli government.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course you're right, he's as thick as two short planks and has no communication skills whatosever. He became Mayor of London by accident, you know, nobody could understand a word he said.

Or there could be a middle ground between incoherent and flawlessly accurate. You know the one that contains about 99.9 percent of human beings??

Roll eyes yourself.

ETA. I just googled Ken Livingston gaffe. I suggest everyone else do the same nd assess if the man is reknown for his articulation and acumen and carefully picks his words to communicate exactly his underhanded intent.

We might also consider barons apparent argument that it is easier for an antisemite to be elected mayor of London than someone who occasionally misspeaks

 

[Craig B]

... There's some mileage in that. People who call for Israel to be destroyed are clearly not talking about reform in the Israeli government.

But people who oppose Zionism are clearly genocidal. I see. Better get them out of the Labour Party then. Have a nice day.

 

[baron]

Or there could be a middle ground between incoherent and flawlessly accurate. You know the one that contains about 99.9 percent of human beings??

Roll eyes yourself.

Yep, because a London Mayor is no better or worse than the average man on the street when it comes to oratory and self-expression. again.

ETA. I just googled Ken Livingston gaffe. I suggest everyone else do the same nd assess if the man is reknown for his articulation and acumen and carefully picks his words to communicate exactly his underhanded intent.

So if he made a simple grammatical mistake why did he not immediately say, "Oh, I made a simple grammatical mistake. I actually meant to say 'Israeli government', not 'Jews in Israel'"?

We might also consider barons apparent argument that it is easier for an antisemite to be elected mayor of London than someone who occasionally misspeaks

Consider away. Let me know your conclusions.

 

[baron]

But people who oppose Zionism are clearly genocidal. I see. Better get them out of the Labour Party then. Have a nice day.

If that's what you take from my comment then fine. And have a nice day back, and I hope you don't get accused too much of antisemitism (I know I won't be accused at all).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yep, because a London Mayor is no better or worse than the average man on the street when it comes to oratory and self-expression. again.



So if he made a simple grammatical mistake why did he not immediately say, "Oh, I made a simple grammatical mistake. I actually meant to say 'Israeli government', not 'Jews in Israel'"?



Consider away. Let me know your conclusions.

Interesting that you consider 99.9 percent of people to be average. Any other gems to add to your argument?

Again. Google his track record. He has history of engaging mouth before brain and being pilloried for it.

 

[baron]

Interesting that you consider 99.9 percent of people to be average. Any other gems to add to your argument?

Oh I see. When you said he's in "a middle ground between incoherent and flawlessly accurate. You know the one that contains about 99.9 percent of human beings" you didn't mean he's in, you know, a middle ground, you meant he's at the top 1% of that group! It all makes sense now. See, I thought you were saying he was nothing special in this field when all along you were simply asserting he was better than 98.9% of people, not 99.9%. Thanks for pointing out my silly error.

Again. Google his track record. He has history of engaging mouth before brain and being pilloried for it.

You didn't answer my question, but if you post a couple of these 'gaffs' to illustrate your point I'll take a look at them.

 

[dudalb]

If that's what you take from my comment then fine. And have a nice day back, and I hope you don't get accused too much of antisemitism (I know I won't be accused at all).

Problem with Anti Zionism is that that horse left the barn around 1948.
Now if you want to criticize current Israeli policy, that is one thing. I don't like Bibi very much and think the settlement policy is idiotic. But to strongly imply that Israel should be destroyed, then dodge the question of what would happen to the Five or Six Millioin Jews living in Israel is another.

 

[baron]

Now if you want to criticize current Israeli policy, that is one thing. I don't like Bibi very much and think the settlement policy is idiotic. But to strongly imply that Israel should be destroyed, then dodge the question of what would happen to the Five or Six Millioin Jews living in Israel is another.

Well quite, yet we're expected to believe that people, including experienced politicians, get confused about this and 'accidentally' make comments about 'Jews' when they mean 'the Israeli government'.