BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:51 AM

So the close to one-half the members of the Knesett who voted against the "legalization"[sic] bill are antisemitic, self-hating Jews?

Thousands of Israelis disagree with you, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

Land in Judea and Samaria, whether occupied or not was retitled as "privately owned" by Jordan during it's illegal occupation. Jordan renounced all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988. The lands of Judea and Samaria were returned to the previous legal owners (see uti possidetis iuris).

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 11:00 AM

http://www.trtworld.com/mea/israeli-parliament-legalises-illegal-settlements-on-palestinian-land-248273

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:58 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/bill-to-legalize-west-bank-settlements-advances-in-israel.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:54 AM

There are no illegal settlements

Thousands of Israelis disagree with you on this, Bubo.

'nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:35 AM

I suppose the significant numbers of persons in the Israeli government and Israeli citizens who oppose these illegal settlements are antisemites, self hating Jews or both, eh?

I suppose they are either ignorant of the law or history or both.

As to the term "self-hating Jews", the ones I see using it most are either Jews or Jew haters in mockery, interesting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:29 AM

Rather like the illegal settlements that the government of Israel has planted all over the place

There are no illegal settlements - unless of course one assumes that Jews should not own property or build in those areas because they are Jews. Every current Jewish "settlement" is on land owned by Jews before 1948 or purchased after 1967. Settlements that tried to set up on land that was not Jewish owned have been dismantled. We continue to hear the term "illegal", but "legal and illegal" has to be more that political desires and interests. It has to refer to law. And, frankly, law established during the illegal Jordanian occupation of the area in which jewish property was confiscated and retitied, and current PA regulations that ban sales or ownership of property by Jews is not valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:26 AM

Israel has absolute legal authority to relocate the inhabitants of the illegal Bedouin "villages". The Bedouin are squatters on land to which they have no title, land which they colonized during Ottoman and British rule. The land which they occupy is Israeli state land.

Israel claims that the Bedouin will be better off in towns which have services such as running water, electricity, paved roads and schools which their "villages" lack.

The legality of Israel's decision to relocate the Bedouin is unassailable, the rightness or morality of the decision is a matter of opinion. I wonder if those who oppose the Bedouin relocation would also oppose the Palestinian Authorities demand that the Israelis residing in the "West Bank" be relocated.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 10:18 AM

"unrecognised villages"

Rather like the illegal settlements that the government of Israel has planted all over the place, eh Bubo?

I suppose the significant numbers of persons in the Israeli government and Israeli citizens who oppose these illegal settlements are antisemites, self hating Jews or both, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

Then there's the forced "relocation" of the Bedouin in the Negev, bulldozing homes in "unrecognised villages." The express reason for this, no point denying it, was to ensure that Arabs could never outnumber Jews in the Negev.

Netanyahu wasn't indulging in a "tasteless joke" either. Was he, Keith?

Anyone else think that inventing official-sounding terms such as "unrecognised villages" to cover up ethnic cleansing has a ring of apartheid about it? How about "separate development?"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 08:36 AM

"More Carroll Made Up Shit®"
More antisemitic Bobad bile
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:26 AM

Another bunch of "self-hating Jews" - eh?

More Carroll Made Up Shit®

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 07:03 AM

It seems to me it's about time we looked at this claim anyway
Keith is obviously not going to respond to what is being called for regarding deporting Palestinians, so we must take by his silence that it's happening and he has no problem with it (when has he ever had any problem with anything that is done to the Palestinians in Israel)
The proposal that the Israelis move to the U.S. (whatever its intention) was aimed at the idea that this was done voluntarily and those who wished to move out of choice.
I's true that, in the unlikely event that ti would ever be taken seriously, it is the Jews who would take it up - so what?
Where is it "antisemitic" to suggest that ISRAEL should resite in the U.S.?
The European definition specifies attacks on Jews, not Israelis - but that definition has long become invalid since Israel has made all criticism of Israeli policy "antisemitic" - where does it say that in the definition?
You can't have a pick-'n-mix definition - some bits you adhere to, other bits you ignore totally for political purposes.
The ideal solution, of course, is that all communities in Israel learn to live together in peace and none be driven out - that has nothing to do with being Muslim or Jew - that is simple humanity.
When South Africa ditched Apartheid, there was no suggestion that one the whites should find somewhere else to live - that would be ethnic cleansing
What is happening in Israel is ETHNIC CLEANSING , and it's been going on for a long, long time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:20 AM

Thanks, Steve. It is appreciated but not really necessary. We don't want to give the impression of an 'old boys club' after all, do we ;-)

Anyway, yes, out of any group there are going to be a proportion of antisemites, Islamphobes, racists, misogynists and any amount of other people harbouring unsavoury prejudices. The Labour party will be no different. There is also the vast majority of people that are good, caring and fair minded. If we accept that, then tarring any group of people with a negative label because of the actions of a tiny few is wrong. Much was made the other day of my misuse of the term 'endemic' yet, shorty after, a link was provided, by bobad, to an article saying there was 'rampant' antisemitism in the Labour party. Something which I do not believe.

Antisemitism is a problem wherever it occurs, as are any other forms of racism. If we accept that across the whole population there is a percentage of antisemites then it does not make sense that they are more prevalent in any one large organisation unless that organisation is one that has antisemitism as part of its constitution, which I am pretty sure the Labour part does not. I fully understand what you are saying about there being no antisemitic quotes from the people concerned but, to be honest, I am unsure of that. I am sure some of the quotes and actions could and have been construed as antisemitic and the people responsible should and have atoned for their mistakes.

What I have asked, many times, and had no answer to is why it should be more prevalent in the left wing of politics than anywhere else. Remember this was not an issue until the Labour party moved slightly to the left. Because of that I am suspicious. The only genuine evidence we have for 'rampant antisemitism' in any political party is from the extreme right in the middle of the 20th century. Why would it be that only the left wing is antisemitic, as has been suggested above? Things don't 'just happen'. There is a reason behind everything and, if the left wing does have antisemitic leanings, then why have they only just been discovered?

I have also been accused of arguing from ignorance and many other things before but I am not arguing. Just questioning. In any such discussion people will present their own 'spin'. Significant points will be astutely ignored. Inconvenient facts will be obfuscated with trivia. We have all done it and, as passions rise, it gets worse. I am making a deliberate attempt to not get caught up in that. Don't get me wrong, I am still as passionate about issues. Like you, this particular subject has been lifelong. My Grandfather, a Cossack and committed Christian who became a Russian Orthodox priest, endangered his life assisting Jews in his home town of Bialystok during the Nazi occupation. Now, I am not my Grandad, but his stories have been with me since childhood. I have a very close relation who is Jewish, a left wing activist and incensed by the treatment of Labour in the media.

We will get to the bottom of this eventually and Labour will weather the storm. They will come out of it stronger and better equipped to repel any future onslaught from their enemies. I suggest that the other political parties should ready themselves for when their time comes. Enough from me.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:12 AM

From Jim's second link:

Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

The poll, with 5,601 in-person interviews of Israeli adults, conducted between October 2014 and May 2015, found that Israeli Jews increasingly believe the West Bank settlements help, rather than hurt, Israel's security – and most (61%) believe Israel was given by God to the Jewish people.

Well, Keith, it looks like Israel is half-full of mirror images of Naz Shah, only they AREN'T joking, are they?

Amazing what decades of anti-Palestinian propaganda can do...

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 06:02 AM

"Steve, yes it was intended as a joke, but an anti-Semitic joke."
In fact it was made by a strong advocate of Israel who made that point when he wes confronted with the afct that the idea came from him
Norman Finklestein
Stop making on-the-spot excuses for something you have no knowlege of and addreaes the facts.
Now, tell us what's the difference between calling for the deportation of the Israelis and the calling for the deportation of the Palestinians?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM

"Evidence Dave" my arse. I've repeatedly asked YOU for ANTISEMITIC QUOTES, not your jaded and threadbare attacks on the party you're determined to demonise at all costs, and you never give me any. Not a one. Because you can't. And I've explained the whole thing to you at length. You are a total sham. Thank you for confirming everything I've accused you of being. A sad obsessive who never listens, who appeals to authority as a substitute for developing your own opinions. Dishonest, hypocritical, hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:48 AM

Steve, yes it was intended as a joke, but an anti-Semitic joke.
Suggesting the transportation of Jews as a final solution to a problem is offensive, anti-Semitic and not at all funny.

Dave, Your link was about a Muslim leader suggesting Tories investigate Islamophobia.
A bit like Israel complaining about anti-Semitism in Labour.
Jim thought it should be dismissed and I never referred to it.

All the complaints about Labour anti-Semitism came from within Labour.
There have been no complaints of intolerance from any of the many Tory Jews or Muslims.
If we are widening the intolerance away from just anti-Semitism, remember the complaints from within Labour of homophobia and misogyny.

BBC, "Over 40 female Labour MPs have written to party leader Jeremy Corbyn urging him to do more to tackle abuse of MPs."

Where are the internal complaints of intolerance from any other party except Labour Dave.
There is a plethora of evidence from within Labour of prejudice and intolerance, but none from any other party.

Evidence Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 16 - 04:22 AM

" just another far left extremist group that promotes anti-Israel BDS campaigns on U.S. campuses"
Another bunch of "self-hating Jews" - eh?
You really couldn't make this up.
"The MP for Bradford West remains suspended from the party for sharing a post on Facebook that called for the transportation of Israel to America, and adding the words "problem solved"
That was a joke suggestion made by Jewish writer, Norman Finkelstein - Shah apologied and accepted it was anti semitic - end of story.
Is there any difference in the suggestion and THIS suggestion made by Minister of Justice and lawyer, Tzipi Livni ?
The difference to me appears to be one is made by an Israeli, the other by a British politician
I don't recall Livni ever withdrawing it.
How about THIS nine month old demand.
Or this headline from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz - can't link to the article without subscription:
"Israelis Excel at Camouflaging the Expulsion of Palestinians
Here is an inventory of the methods of expulsion in their various concealments.
Amira Hass Oct 20, 2014 4:01 PM
Arabs driven out of Israel make up the largest number of REFUGEES on the PLANET
The other difference between Sha's statement and these (and many more) is that hers was taken from a joke and put forward as a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem, all of these are aimed at forcing an entire people out of theit rightful homes - and to agree HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED
If one is antisenmitic, the other is Islamophobic in the extreme and is aimed at ethnic cleansing
This is about Arabs - and you know it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:55 PM

Not Jeith. You know who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:52 PM

You couldn't make it up, could you, bobad? Except that YOU do. Enjoy your fantasy bubble.

Dave, we stupidly let ourselves get drawn into these sterile arguments. Some git or other out of half a million Labour members may well say "something antisemitic." I won't deny that. Oddly, however, out of all the antisemitism hawks on this forum, not a single one has ever quoted a single antisemitic remark made by a Labour member. And I mean "quoted" before the usual shitbags start quoting the "appalled NEC," etc. etc. I bloody hate antisemitism and have fought it all my life. You too, I reckon, up there in Prestwich, where there are thousands of Jews and where antisemitism is unfortunately rife (I know, I lived there and still go up there six or seven times a year), as well as me in east London in the 70s where antisemitism was a massive local issue which we fought against like buggery in our trade unions. The same East End that saw off Mosley and his bunch of fascists in spite of the police and the army (used to get pissed a couple of times a week in an amazing pub in the next street). In the words of John Seymour, the working class in the East End may not have had much time for the Jews but they bloody well weren't going to help anyone to send them to the gas chambers. Right-wing arseholes like Keith, bobad and Teribus haven't got a bloody clue, all theory, their crusade against the wrong sort of antisemitism aimed at the the wrong sort of people and all based on theory and stuff they read on Israeli websites. It took you to give chapter and verse on Naz Shah's remarks, not one of those tits, in spite of my asking Jeith again and again for quotes. Know why he didn't cough up? Because he knew damn well that none of her remarks were antisemitic in the REAL sense. Sword of truth in your hand, Dave. Good man!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

"Jewish Voice for Peace unequivocally condemns Canary Mission, a malicious website that seeks to vilify principled activists for Palestinian human rights with targeted campaigns of misinformation, bigotry and slander."

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)is just another far left extremist group that promotes anti-Israel BDS campaigns on U.S. campuses, in academic associations, unions, churches, and in corporate stockholder meetings by deploying the language of demonization and delegitimization. JVP also acts to provide a façade of Jewish legitimacy to these campaigns. Moderate Jews consider their activities to be anti-Semitic. Small wonder that they would demonize a group that opposes the Fascistic tactics of the Brown Shirts of the far left.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM

Does it not seem very strange that that there is no antisemitism in the Conservative party and yet there is Islamophobia as detailed in the link I gave above?

What conclusion are we to draw from this?

Is Labour is the party of Islam while Conservatives support other religions?

Maybe Islamophobia is not considered as racist as antisemitism in some quarters?

Particularly the popular press?

Do we know how many Jewish members of the Labour party have reported antisemitism both before and after Corbyn was elected as leader?

Why are some sources saying that Labour has a 'rampant' problem with antisemitism yet others are denying that it is endemic?

So many questions. So few answers...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:11 PM

Well, Keith, I'm getting to the end of my tether with you. You pile dishonesty on dishonesty. I did not "forget" to mention anything at all because the intention of my post was never to give chapter and verse on what she's said - it's all out there, it stinks and why would I deny it? - but to highlight your misrepresentations. Anyone can look at the poster and tweets online in a trice and I referred to it several times in my post. Unlike you, I do not try to hide inconveniences to my argument. In your case, you hide the whole of decades of Israeli regime atrocities from YOUR arguments, so don't bloody give me that load of hypocritical tosh if you don't mind.

As for bollocks I knew it was about Jews, etc., let me tell you something. It was a JOKE (a very misplaced and unfunny one). There was no real plan put forward to relocate anyone to anywhere else, was there, unless you've got Asbergers and want to take everything literally. I do wonder. It was very silly loose talk. No-one was doing the nuts and bolts of a serious proposal. It was a load of whimsy, frustration at the terrible behaviour of the Israeli regime during the last Gaza onslaught. She didn't say Jews, Finkelstein didn't say Jews, but Keith the bloody mind-reader is looking at the output of a right pair of clots and extrapolating "Jews" from what they posted. You desperately WANT it to be about Jews because that fits your stupid let's-tar-as-many-Labourites-with-antisemitism-as-we-can crusade, but, Keith darling (as you called Jim so you won't mind if I call you it too), there's no point. Dream on. What a pity dead horses don't fight back. Maybe this one will roll on top of you instead. Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:37 PM

Dave,
Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others?

Yes Dave, but there is no case.
All parties have Jewish members, but it is only those in Labour who have been reporting anti-Semitism.

There is ample evidence for Labour having a serious problem, but none at all for any other party.
If you know of any please share, but neither Steve nor Jim have come up with anything.
I know evidence is important to you so you must take seriously the complete absence on one side against the plethora against Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 02:30 PM

Steve,
Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to.

You admit that she condoned it, but forgot that she added "Problem solved" to it.

You say it was not about transporting the Jews.
You pretend to believe that moving out the indigenous Arabs was part of solving that "problem."
Bollocks. You know she meant the Jews.
She admitted it anyway.

"The MP for Bradford West remains suspended from the party for sharing a post on Facebook that called for the transportation of Israel to America, and adding the words "problem solved".

But, appearing at Sinai Synagogue in Leeds on Sunday night, she insisted her views had changed since the 2014 post as a result of engaging with the local Jewish community – something she insisted set her apart from her predecessor George Galloway.

"I looked at myself and asked whether I had prejudice against Jewish people. But I realised I was ignorant and I want to learn about the Jewish faith and culture. I do not have hatred for Jewish people."

So, it was about the Jews and you knew it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 11:57 AM

" "pro Palestinian" activists groups like Canary Mission expose for their Fascistic tactics."
I think you miss the point about Canary Mission - read it again.

"Jewish Voice for Peace unequivocally condemns Canary Mission, a malicious website that seeks to vilify principled activists for Palestinian human rights with targeted campaigns of misinformation, bigotry and slander."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 11:55 AM

Israelis are silencing free speech of Palestinians permanently - by killing them off - men women and children.
Shouting supporters of a terrorist State measures pretty small next to that.
ISRAELI CENSORSHIP of PALESTINIAN JOURNALISTS
How free is that speech?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:16 AM

And here's an example of the "pro Palestinian" activists groups like Canary Mission expose for their Fascistic tactics.

Students are shouting down pro-Israel speakers — and silencing free speech

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

Little wonder that Bobad failed to identify it

More Carroll Made Up Shit®"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:04 AM

What evidence have I that other parties need to conduct their own enquiries? Well, to ensure that I am not accused of quoting biased comment, now about this article in the Jewish News?

bobad - no it isn't.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 10:01 AM

"What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?"
If a major party is publicly accused of racism or bigotry by a community leader it is not only beholden on that party to either disprove that accusation or carry out an enquiry - that responsibility is magnified 100 times if the party in question is the one governing Britain.
It is in their own interests to do so - unless the accusations are grounded in fact, of course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

"My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, "
This uncreited information came from
CANARY MISSION
Little wonder that Bobad failed to identify it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

"Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same?

With regard to (a) How many other people who are members of any political party have publicly resigned because they feel intimidated attending meetings of their own political party? Documented cases of this from members of the Labour Party.

Those documented cases were Jewish students at Oxford who were intimidated and made to feel unsafe at meetings of the OULC. That is what (a) had to do with anti-Semitism.

With regard to (b) How many constituency party organisations have been suspended and prohibited from holding meetings by the governing bodies of those political parties? As much connected with (c) as with (a) This had to do with intimidation, misogyny, racism and homophobia uncovered by Shami Chakrabarti's Party wide investigation which was commissioned because of what Baroness Royall's Inquiry discovered. That was the link between (b) and anti-Semitism

With regard to (c) Baroness Royall was tasked with looking into anti-Semitism (Racism by Labour's definition) within the Oxford University Labour Club. Her findings resulted in 11 recommendations some of whom she detailed as requiring urgent and immediate action - what other political party has had to do the same? Baroness Royall's report was taken so seriously by Labour's NEC that a second investigation was commissioned to look into allegations of misogyny, intimidation, racism and homophobia throughout the entire Party structure - what other political party has found the need to do that? Those actions were not taken because there was no evidence of those charges to be found - you do not attempt to suppress a report that exonerates your organisation, I would rather have thought that you'd trumpet it to the world - Labour's NEC didn't do that - WHY?

Labour's NEC commissioned Baroness Royall's Inquiry because Oxford University was going to carry out their own Inquiry and it looked as though the House of Commons was about to do the same. Labour's NEC wisely took the tack that if they got the ball rolling on their own they would have a better chance of controlling whatever the Inquiry turned up - which is what they attempted to do with Baroness Royall's report.

What evidence do YOU have that other political parties need to conduct such inquiries?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:46 AM

the anti Corbyn press

So I guess that any press that reports on Labour's anti-Semitism is "anti Corbyn" press by definition, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Did someone suggest, quite rightly that I used the term 'endemic' with reference to antisemitism in the Labour party where no one else had suggested that? I wonder where I got the idea from? Maybe some of the wording in the anti Corbyn press? From the link bobad provided...

Most recently, Corbyn has come under fire for his failure to properly address rampant Jew-hatred and antisemitic anti-Zionism within his own party.

I would hate to get hung up on semantics but are endemic and rampant not synonymous in this context? I have apologised for using the term and said I will not use it again. But maybe now people can understand my mistake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 09:27 AM

Here's why Keith can't be trusted.

"In one of her statements she suggested that Israeli Jews be transported away from the Middle East."

It was a post that she shared but which was not "one of her statements." In fact, the poster with Israel shown plonked in the middle of the US was concocted by Norman Finkelstein. The comments on the poster are his, including the one that Keith is ascribing to Naz Shah. . By the way, Finkelstein is a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, both victims of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps. So she condoned it but did not suggest it and it did not originate with her.   Next, the wording did not refer to "Israeli Jews." The poster said "Relocate Israel into the United States." Nowhere on the poster is the word "Jews" used, though "Jewish state" is referred to. As I've said many times, Israel, though it likes to refer to itself as "the Jewish state," is actually under three-quarters Jewish. "Israeli Jews transported away from the Middle East" is a direct lift by Keith from Guido Fawkes' reinterpretation of the statement on his blog, with Keith's addition of the word "Jews," and is a pretty poor and tendentious mischaracterisation of the original. I assume that any relocation of "Israel" unqualified would include all its citizens - unless otherwise stated, which it wasn't.   

It is absolutely typical of Keith, a major element of his modus operandi in fact, to make these sly little changes in quotes and passages. The changes are always, without fail, attempts to shift the agenda in his favour. You may think that the above tinkerings I've highlighted are pretty insignificant - except that they are not, are they? They represent an underhand kind of spin and they tend to accumulate unless they are constantly questioned. Well I don't want to spend half my time here being on the lookout for this kind of devious and dishonest behaviour. It sours the whole forum and wasting time on it is very polarising. You can rattle on all you like about insults, sweariness, name-calling, etc., but this despicable and disreputable behaviour is at the root of much, if not all, of that.

As for Naz reposting the poster, which clearly meant that she agreed with it, does that make her antisemitic? No it does not. It makes her very foolish and insensitive and I don't like the poster and I wish she hadn't done what she did. But she wasn't antisemitic in doing so for the following reasons. First, the poster was drawn up by a Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors and whose extensive scholarship on Middle East politics can't be denied, whatever you think of him. I fully expect someone or other to pop up and claim that he's a self-hating Jew, though I'd point out that he's a fierce defender of tbe state of Israel. Second, the poster is clearly a reaction to the policies of the Israeli regime, not an attack on the characteristics of Jewish people. I regard it as ill-conceived and put out there with no regard for outcomes. But it falls at the first hurdle when it comes to antisemitism. Woolly definitions that are intended to prevent criticism of Israel are worse than useless and will do nothing to further the fight against antisemitism.

Finally, remarks emanating from Naz Shah and the Labour NEC after the event were attempts to close the issue and move on. Arguing that she said she was antisemitic so it must be true are perfectly ridiculous if you also accept that she was an utterly stupid bugger to endorse the poster in the first place. It's quite clear that the retraction and apologies were efforts to save her own arse and move on. Typical politician. So stop pretending that she suddenly had a saintly moment once confronted with her idiocy, eh?

I have yet to see a single quote from any Labour Party member that is antisemitic. If you have any, bring them on. But make it chapter and verse or just don't bother. Don't behave like Keith because we'll chuck it straight back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 08:44 AM

My, my, so Mr. Corbyn who was too busy to visit Israel's Holocaust memorial, has found the time to hang out with Khomeinists, Press TV and Israel-hating extremists this week.

UK Labour Leader Corbyn Attends London Launch of Anti-Israel Book Authored by 'Students for Justice in Palestine' Founder

"The fact that Britain's opposition leader took the time to attend Bazian's event and show solidarity with one of the most notorious fathers of anti-Israel agitation in academia indicates that Bazian's influence is increasing,"

The meeting should "alarm" Britain's Jewish community, Canary Mission said, as Corbyn is showing "open support for the demagogic founder of SJP, who once called for an intifada in the US and created the most influential student vehicle for the delegitimization of the Jewish people's history and very identity."

The Algemeiner

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 07:43 AM

"Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others?"
Can't speak for others Dave - I think I said that at the very beginning.
I agree entirely with your summing up.
It is noteworthy that last April the Conservatives were accused of Islamophobia by leading Muslims in Britain and members of their own party.
They have done precisely nothing to deal with the charge.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:57 AM

Any problem with antisemitism is serious by definition. My mind is far from closed on the subject but I have yet to be convinced that the level of antisemitism in the Labour party is any higher than in any other large organisation. The simple fact that they have admitted that there is a problem, of any level, means that they have gone further towards addressing the issue that any of the other political parties.

Have you considered that it may be your mind that is closed to the idea that the Labour party is no better or worse that the others? Or that things are not as black and white as many posters on here seem to state? No need to respond, just have a think about it.

As to what I believe and what I do not believe. How do you know? There are many things that I believe and still question to gain a better understanding and there are many things that I do not believe that I do not feel the need to question at all. You can no idea what they are and, unless I tell you, never will. Feel free to PM.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:50 AM

" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"
That was a reference to your support Keith and it was directly targeted at you, Bobad and Teribus.
Labour politicians believe what they believe - they have not "infiltrated" the Labour Party, as you suggest I said - they are part of the left-right makeup of the party and are entitled to their views.
None of them are "secretly loyalW to israel - you have made that up - how could the vice craiman of Labour's friends of Israel be "secretly loyal" to Israel - feckin' lying idiot!
And you call me a liar!!!!
You, on the other hand, or not a member of the labour party and have used a bunch of accusations and presented them as facts to undermine democratically elected politicians to prove that the Labour Party is antisemitic - without evidence.
I have no doubt that some Jewish members of the Labour Party do genuinely regard criticism of Israel as antisemitism and I have no doubt that this is the type of "antisemitism" Labour is being accused of - if it is, we need to know.
Do not call me a liar again - I don't tell lies, unlike...... well, every dog recognises its own shit.
"And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?""
You have been given over a dozen examples of how the Israeli Lobby works - internationally - you dismissed it as "propaganda" even though it was based on iron clad research
You are now behaving like the trapped rat that you are and going for every throat within reach
Stop it now!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:39 AM

Meanwhile, Labour have gone from second to fourth place at Sleaford.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:33 AM

Jim,
"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith

It is not a lie Jim.
You,08 Dec 16 - 07:32 AM
" THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF A FOREIGN POWER (Israel) INTERFERING WITH DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRITISH POLITICIANS (Labour Party)FOR THEIR OWN ENDS - WITH A SMALL GROUP OF BRITISH QUISLINGS SUPPORTING THEM"

Dave finds that so believable that he requires no evidence to justify it.
I think it is ludicrous.

Dave, Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.
No-one within Labour has denied that, while numerous senior people have attested to that fact including the entire NEC and, separately, the Deputy Leader and the Mayor of London.

If you refuse to believe them how can we hope to convince you?
You have closed your mind.

And yet you believe without question Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

And Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
And his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Your mind is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:27 AM

Hope you realise I wasn't criticising you Steve - we've all been victims of falling down Keith's rabbit-holes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 06:01 AM

Well of course I was using Keith's Wheatcroft fiasco as a typical example of how he blunders then refuses to retract, not wishing to reopen the whole thing. The whole thing is there in a thread, chapter and verse, for anyone who'd like to put themselves through torture for half an hour. There's more evidence in his posting since my last post of his sadly obsessive behaviour. Fifty percent right means fifty percent wrong. Glad you admitted that on Keith's behalf. Keith never did. As I've said here many times, the unspoken protocol here when you admit to making a mistake, as we all do occasionally, is that the rest of us then let it drop. Someone who can't hold their hands up when they blunder is not to be trusted. As for my post containing no discussion, Keith, your posts are not part of any discussion because you don't listen to other people, you adhere obsessively to a predigested point of view, you are in denial all the time and you constantly try to set traps and refuse to let dead horses lie in peace. You are an impediment to discussion. The sooner the rest of us realise that you are just a slightly wacky, shallow, sidelined also-ran and refuse to engage in your pathetic trickery the better. We're fools to ourselves when we engage you and we are giving you a totally false sense of your own importance. And it's not as if the whole world is listening, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:32 AM

"What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?
Will you please stop repeating this lie Keith
I have not made any such claim - support for the Israeli regime has always been present - they have nort infiltrated the Labour Party - it has always been there and since Corbyn became leader the Israeli's have called on their support to oppose B.D.S.
My use of teh term 'Quisling' was aimed at you, who have supported attacks on democratically elected labour politicians.
Don't you dare involve me in your antisemitic smears of Jewish labour politicians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:25 AM

"Good heavens Shaw, still banging on about this two years down the line eh? You must be really short of ammunition. "
This is exactly what you do on this forum Teribus - you are still fighting world war one from two years back, still telling us that the result of the Irish Famine had nothing to do with British policy from about four years ago and still claiming that the ammunition sold to Syria was the wrong size to be used by Assad's snipers....... all to recoup long lost arguments and prove those who argue with you are stupid liars and purveyors of "made-up shit"
And you are still talking down to people from your superior position as a mental midget.
It happens every time a thread grinds to a stalemate - you and your mates go at your opponents like a pack of rats at the throat - Keith has just had another try at smearing my with his own antisemitism, as he has done at least once before.
Let's move back to the subject and leave Wheatcroft, Clark and Taylor to the clay of history.
I don't agree that the Labour Party report was indicative of serious antisemitism in the Labour party - if it had been we would have been told of what that antisemitism was in great detail - by the victims of that antisemitism, by the Israeli press who were out to get Corbyn for his support of B.D.S. (especially as these accusations have their roots in Israel and are even accepted by the Israeli press as being about criticism of Israeli policy) - and most of all, by the right-wing press, which has been the sworn enemy of Corbyn from day one.
Other than one member's possible lapse of judgement, no description of the offence Labour has been accused of has been forthcoming - that is how serious these charges are.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, by definition, as much as the Israeli regime might like it to be.
B.D.S. is not antisemitic either - as far as I am concerned, it is on par with the South African boycott that helped to bring the Apartheid regime to its knees - mor power to it's elbow, as far as I am concerned - I'll donate to it and listen to what it has to say, and take part in its demonstrations, given the opportunity.
Of course there is antisemitism in the Labour Party - and every of the political party -
Labour has a long history of opposing it and the Left movement in Britain was built with the assistance of emigré Jews fleeing the European pogroms.
If the three people here still claim there to be a serious problem with Labour, they need to produce the facts of it in detail and not a string of accusations from people like Tom Watson, Vice Chairman of Labour's Friends of Israel and a vociferous opponent of B.D.S. and the right wing opponents of Corbyn.
What form does this antisemitism take and how many are involved? -
That is the only way we can possibly make a judgement on whether there is a serious problem - accusations from tainted claimants don't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:24 AM

Keith, sorry, I am not ignoring you. I thought I had addressed this question before and I was trying to find a way of answering again without repeating myself. I can't so I will just say that I do indeed find nothing in Jim or Steve's posts that "excites my sceptical curiosity". I am not saying that I either agree or disagree with their statements. In truth it is a some of each. Now, if you like, you can take it as a compliment to your journalistic ability to engender further thought or I can just confirm what I have said before. I need to ask you a lot of questions because a lot of the time your points are unclear to me.

Hope this helps

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 04:17 AM

I must have misinterpreted your post as being rancourous then, Teribus. If you say it was not, I will accept that and put it down to my misunderstanding. Nothing disingenuous at all.

Addressing your points of evidence a, b and c.

a) What has this to do with antisemitism?
b) Ditto
c) Labour did not 'have' to undertake the investigations. They did so voluntarily. They have since undertaken a programme of improvement. Will the other parties do the same? I am reminded of the old joke about an ex inmate of a lunatic asylum being abused for having undertaken treatment. His response is to remind the abusers that he now has a paper to prove that he is sane whereas they have no such thing :-)

In conclusion, no, I do not believe that the Labour party is any better or worse than any other (previous exclusion apply). They have simply been more open.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 16 - 03:58 AM

Steve, Your 8.55PM post is pure and baseless personal attack and no discussion.

Dave, I do not mind responding to all the probing questions you ask about everything Teribus and I post, but I have to ask, is there nothing in the posts of Jim or Steve that ever excite your sceptical curiosity?
What about Jim's claim that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by "Quislings" secretly loyal to the current Israeli government with a mission to destabilise by creating false accusations of anti-Semitism?

Or Steve's claim that governments, especially that of the US, are secretly controlled by a "Pro-Israel lobby?"
Or his claim that Shah had not been anti-Semitic but lied that she had for career purposes.

Do such claims from them not require evidence too?
We have supplied all the evidence you requested, what about them?