BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 09:37 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context. The person in question is dedicated to non-violence. The facets of Hamas and Hezbollah which she finds hard to reconcile with their militancy developed UNDER OCCUPATION, AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF OCCUPATION. . Your intent was clear. Go and make an honest man of yourself for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:14 AM

Hey, Bubo & CowFart! Your hero Trump strikes again.

Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday named David M. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right, as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, elevating a campaign adviser who has questioned the need for a two-state solution and has likened left-leaning Jews in America to the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Mr. Friedman has made clear his disdain for those American Jews — especially those connected to J Street — who support a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians. Writing in June on the website of Arutz Sheva, an Israeli media organization, Mr. Friedman compared J Street supporters to "kapos," the Jews who cooperated with the Nazis during the Holocaust.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, raised the kapos comparison and asked if he stood by it. Mr. Friedman did not back away. "They're not Jewish, and they're not pro-Israel," he said, according to the people in the room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:43 AM

You put up a quote that was totally out of context.

It's there for all to see and make their own judgement on who's being honest.

So, she says that these Islamist terrorist groups are "social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left" but questions, with weasel words, whether they might use options other than violence - pretty hypocritical of her don't you think. I suppose that by her and your rationalization ISIS is also a progressive social movement of the "Left". She severely discredits the "progressive Left" but fits perfectly the definition of "regressive Left", a term coined to describe those just like her. I note she also supports the anti-Semitic BDS movement - that fits right in there.

No comment on the Labour party's adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism? Will you accept it too or will you stand on your principles and break with them and maybe join a party that is more aligned with your position, like say the Bee Enn Pee perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM

Hey Smeg, your hero David Duke strikes again:

"There is a problem in America with a very strong, powerful tribal group that dominates our media and dominates our international banking," Duke said Wednesday at a debate at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, according to CNN. "I'm not opposed to all Jews. I think there's a lot of great Jews."

The Republican candidate, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, was responding to a question by the moderator about why he had referred to journalists reporting on a tape on which Donald Trump admitted to sexual assault as "CNN Jews."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/david-duke-jews-dominate-media-international-banking/

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

Duke my hero, Bubo? rather like Eichmann being yours, methinks.

But Duke IS a buddy of your boy Trump.

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

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:32 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas that believes in, or have any interest in a "Two State Solution"?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:54 AM

Greg can you give the name of anyone in the Palestine Authority or indeed in Hamas...

Sure, with a little research I can. In the meantime, I can give ya the names of thousands of Jews, citizens of Israel, and members of the Knesset. Will that suffice for now?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

Trump is "my boy" as much as Duke is yours.

Oh yes? Considering Ambassador Friedman's & Trump's pronouncements they both sound just like you, Bubo! What's not for you to like??

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

So you're assuming that a two-state solution is the answer, huh? Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one? Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders. Israel's ever-expanding settlements make the concept of a contiguous Palestinian state next to impossible. In fact, because of unconditional US support both militarily and in the UN, Israel never has to give an inch. You will not see a two-state solution in your lifetime. In fact, it will never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

No GregF just answer the question you have been asked, that will do nicely.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

Naw, T-Bird. Thanks for the invitation to dance, but I've got your routine down pat. Pounding salt down a rat hole would be more productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:09 PM

Well do you see Israel trying to work towards one?

Erm, yes

In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO.
In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO.
In 1967, The Palestinians were offered a state (Khartoum), they said NO.
In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO.
In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO.
In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO.
Each time it was offered and they refused, they resorted to violence against Israel. What do you think the Palestinians really want?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:11 PM

Israel will not agree to the 1967 borders.

Erm, no such thing as 1967 borders, just more Made Up Shit®

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:36 PM

Pray tell how occupying big lumps of what could become Palestine, to such an extent that it would be impossible to make a single tract of land, is working towards a two-state solution. You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards. The demographics are working against the Jewish state (would you like to condemn Arab shagging as antisemitic? Didn't see it in your " definition!" 😂) and Israeli actions are making a single stat e the only viable outcome. That's reality, bobad. You and I will not live to see it and there mucho blood to be shed until both sides realise that they're all actually human beings and that their religions are shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:18 PM

So, you admit to lieing about Israel not trying to work toward a two state solution and about the 1967 "borders"......nice to see some honesty from you for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:03 PM

Onl half the story Bobad

"In 1937, the Palestinians were offered a state (Peel Commision), they said NO."
The Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[4] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan. Yet the principle of partition is generally thought to have been "accepted" or "not rejected outright" by any major faction: the delegates empowered the leadership to pursue future negotiations.[4][7][8][9] The Jewish Agency Council later attached a request that a conference be convened to explore a peaceful settlement in terms of an undivided Palestine.[4] According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it 'as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine.'[10][4]

"In 1947, The Palestinians were offered a state (UN Partition), they said NO."
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, despite its perceived limitations.[5][6] Arab leaders and governments rejected it[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[8] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

"In 2000, the Palestinians were offered a state (Camp David), they said NO."
Public opinion towards the summit[edit]
The Palestinian public was supportive of Arafat's role in the negotiations. After the summit, Arafat's approval rating increased seven percentage points from 39 to 46%.[47] Overall, 68% of the Palestinian public thought Arafat's positions on a final agreement at Camp David were just right and 14% thought Arafat compromised too much while only 6% thought Arafat had not compromised enough.[47]
Barak did not fare as well in public opinion polls. Only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Barak compromised too much.[48] A majority of Israelis were opposed to Barak's position on every issue discussed at Camp David except for security.[49]
"In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO."
At the start of the Taba Summit, Israel held on three main points:[3]
no right of Palestinian refugees to return to inside the State of Israel
no Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif
big settlement blocs (containing 80% of Jewish residents of the West Bank and Gaza) will be under Israeli sovereignty

In 2001, the Palestinians were offered a state (TABA), they said NO.
The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:[10] They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
Sharon Government's negation of the talks[edit]
The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 6 February 2001. Sharon's new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.[11] Immediately after the elections and before the change of government, an 8 February 2001 statement published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that:
Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak clarified this evening that the ideas which were brought up in the course of the recent negotiations conducted with the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, including those raised at the Camp David Summit and by President Clinton towards the end of his term in office, are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.

"In 2008, the Palestinians were offered a state (Olmert offer), they said NO."
Olmert's 2008 peace offer was a further improvement over previous proposals, yet Olmert refused to give Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas a copy of the Israeli map, which outlined the future borders of both states, unless Abbas first initialed it. Furthermore, Abbas was told by Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni not to accept the Olmert offer. The Palestinians planned on continuing negotiations after Olmert left office but were stuck with Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as Ross well knows, has been relentless in sabotaging negotiations, putting up roadblock after roadblock, or should I say settlement after settlement.

"In 2015, the Palestinians were offered a state (French sponsored UN offer), they said NO."
The initial Israeli reaction was that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not discuss the eventuality of a peace conference unless France withdraws its ultimatum of recognizing Palestine as a state (in case the initiative is rejected). Furthermore, officials in the prime minister's office made it clear to the French that negotiations would have to be bilateral and unconditional. An international gathering without setting pre-conditions for negotiation could launch direct negotiations, as did the Madrid Conference of 1991 in which Netanyahu participated as deputy foreign minister.
The Palestinian position, as expressed to the French, is that the conference has to be based on the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, referring to the 1967 lines as future borders and to East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Establishing the Arab initiative as the basis for a peace conference would also bring about the support of most of the Arab League member states for a Palestinian diplomatic move.
AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT _ U.S. VETO
STOP BLAMING PALESTINE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:33 PM

Well, bobad, your response to my post is puzzlingly unconnected with it. No-one is in the slightest bit interested in a two-state solution on the terms being offered. The twain will not meet. Do try to tap into the realpolitik just for once. Israel's intransigence and expansionist policies have permanently put paid to a two-state solution. That is the reality. As a matter of fact, and I may lose friends here by saying it, I don't think it was ever the right solution and I'm damn sure it will never happen. Nothing will change until the US stops giving Israel its unconditional support. Support, yes. Unconditional support, a recipe for conflict for ever more. Which seems to be what the US will settle for. Proxy conflict. Peace at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 02:57 AM

"You're way out of date. The notion is belly up. One day, Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state. Far better for it to be negotiated, but that isn't on the cards." - Steve Shaw

Good, there we have an honest enough admission that the concept of "Two State" solution from the "Palestinian" perspective is the hogwash it always in reality has been.

Whether or not the "Arabs and Jews are going to live together in one state" remains to be seen, but the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah and Islamic Jihad and their clearly declared policies cast grave doubt on the issue, particularly Mr. Shaw, as you state so clearly, none of them are even remotely interested in any form of negotiation (The three NOs of the Khartoum Conference - "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...")

Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68 years - nothing has changed and it increasingly looks as though nothing will every change - this "conflict" has plagued the world for far too long so next time it kicks off as it undoubtedly will, just let them fight it out to a finish once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:37 AM

"Both sides have had every opportunity to sort this out over the past 68" years - nothing has changed
Exept a lot more people have been slaughtered, a lot more Palestinians have been driven out of their homes, an ethnic cleansing programme has been put into motion and the Israelis have put themselves above all criticism be declaring that all such is antisemitic.
Incidentals, I know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:51 AM

The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down - unreasonable bastards that they ate!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:21 AM

"The one thing that hasn't changed is that Israel refuses to return Palestinian land or allow the refugees to return to their homes - that was a feature of every one of Bobads list of negotiations that the Palestinians turned down" - Jim Carroll

Certainly not a feature in 1937 Jim, or in 1947. I say that as there were no "refugees" in 1937 and 1947 - there wasn't even an Israel.

The Arabs decision to reject a two state solution and go to war in 1948 meant that there are no defined borders for a Jewish State and an Arab State within the confines of the internationally defined borders of 1923 Mandated Territory of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:57 AM

Thought you said "over the last sixty years" - maybe yo meant 60 years prior to 1947 - should have made that clear
The state solutions prior to independence involved vacating occupied land - no responsible leadership would accept that imposed from the outside by a dying Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:20 AM

The two-state solution has been rejected by Palestinians because the terms on offer were skewed against them. The two-state solution has been implicitly rejected by Israel by their actions in annexing land for settlements and by their intransigence over borders. Israel sees no need to compromise, so that's that. One day, there will have to be a single state whether Israel wants that or not and the demographics will eventually determine the outcome. Not in our lifetimes. Your suggestion that we leave them to tear each other to pieces is diabolical. The chaos in the Middle East is our doing and there are far too many countries on both sides of the argument with their fingers well and truly in the pie. Leaving them to it would end in World War Three.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 07:41 AM

Nothing at all was "imposed from the outside by a dying Empire".

The Mandate and the territory it covered were defined by the League of Nations. That Mandate expired in March 1948 in the run up to the expiry date the United Nations attempted and failed to reach a settlement based on a two-state solution.

Lead to World War Three Shaw - very much doubt it - everybody is so used to the shenanigans of the area that we are all now numb to it - Arab/Israeli conflict WGAF. Their spat is a cancer that has affected the world, let them sort it out themselves once and for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how €3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?

Yeah. Do all that then leave 'em to it. But do all that first, then it will be a mere regional war. Don't do all that and it's WWIII. Try to remember that Israel is a nuclear power. Get real, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:30 AM

Got my dollars and euros mixed up there. It's my eyesight, doc.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"League of Nations."
Negotiating with a dying Empire to persuade the Arabs to leave the land they had occupied for many centuries
That's what I said.
Since then, the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands to Ghetto size and are shrinking it even further, driven out millions of its occupants and refused them the right to return and have carried out regular murderous incursions into the patch that is now Gaza.
And people call the defence of those actions "terrorism!!
Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:10 AM

the Israelis have shrunk the Palestinian lands

Lie!

The Jewish homeland was shrunk by 77% to create the "Palestinian lands" - the remainder, except for Gaza which was given by Israel to the "Palestinians", is Israel under international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 11:13 AM

I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings.

Of course you would "assume" something like that because that is what creeps like you do.

I suggest you do yourself a favour and look up the history of the usage of that term, it would make you look less stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:08 PM

Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says
If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:19 PM

Sorry,
Jim,
Quite honestly, I couldn't give two shits what you are now claiming you said -it's all on record
The fact that you are still claiming Israel was not responsible for what she says

If it is on record, produce a single example of me dismissing her.

What she says supports Israel's version of events, as did all they eye witnesses at the time.

Since then the propaganda machine can produce as many "eye witnesses" as anyone could want telling another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:22 PM

Here we have it - the Palestinians were interlopers in lands they had occupied for millennia and every critisism of Israel is "propaganda" even when it's made by Jews
Two mindless fanatics for the price of one
Aren't we blessed on Mudcat to have t two such deep thinkers!!
Feckin' madmen - the pair of them - I wonder if they have mummified corpses of their mothers locked away in the attic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:31 PM

The word Palestinian is a word that everyone else manages to use without putting speech marks round it. Clearly, you are so afflicted with hate that you can't bring yourself to utter the word normally like everybody else. You've been taking lessons from ache, haven't you, what with his homosexual "marriage" and sexual minority "rights." Two of a kind, why am I not surprised! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 08:28 AM

"Ok. So tell us how we are going to stop military aid to the Palestinians from surrounding countries. Explain how Hezbollah will be persuaded to leave off. Advise us as to how $3 billion in US military aid to Israel will be withheld. Any idea how Russia will be kept out?"

What you are describing there Shaw was the status quo from 1956 onward. The situation has got slightly worse for the "Palestinians" (Who by the way are a 1970 invention and creation of Yasser Arafat - if you look at it logically by 1970 the Jews of Israel were as much "Palestinian" as any Arab from the region) because the Israelis are now no longer surrounded by rich Arab front line states - Both Egypt and Jordan have signed bilateral treaties with Israel and both have held. that leaves Lebanon and Syria. Both those countries have more than enough problems of their own to worry about taking on Israel and the IDF. Russia is no position to assist, either economically or militarily. The USA has a binding bilateral defence treaty with Israel that guarantees that country's sovereignty dating back to 1948 - tell me on what grounds should that binding treaty be cast aside? The state of Israel has been under constant attack and threat of attack since 1948 - the Arabs could have opted for peace at any time they wished, they chose not to do so, they chose war and must pay the price and accept the consequences of having done so. The Arabs of Palestine who chose to wage war and lost have as much right of return and title to their former possessions as the Jacobites in the 18th century, if you wage and risk all in war and lose the stakes are extremely high, and if you think for one second that real life is like a computer game that is automatically reset to the previous start position then you are a fool living in cloud cuckoo-land.

On two occasions (1967 and in 1973) Israel was under dire threat and the odds were firmly in favour of the Arab armies ranged against Israel - they were an nuclear power then weren't they Shaw? Why did they not use their weapons then? If faced with total annihilation why should they not use the threat of nuclear attack to deter their enemies? The USA does, the Russians do, we do as do the French.

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 10:22 AM

"I note your use of quotes. I assume it means that you don't regard Palestinians as actual human beings."

I of course have absolutely no control whatsoever of what you wish to idiotically "assume" but the reasons I always refer to "Palestinians" because they are a political construct of a ruthless, thoroughly corrupt and totally dishonest leader Yasser Arafat - even as I type there are still hundreds if not thousands trying to trace the $millions he stole from the Arabs of Palestine, they have been doing so since Arafat died. The territory of Palestine was defined by the League of Nations in 1920. It was redefined in 1923 when 77% of the territory was hived off for the sole settlement by the Arabs of the region. Since Arafat departed the scene the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned - instead you applaud them and cheer on their efforts.

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:45 PM

lands they had occupied for millennia

Lol......your ignorance would be astonishing if it weren't so often on display.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:54 PM

Well done bobad, saved me the bother of pointing that fact out to the amazingly ill-informed Mr. Carroll, who is like Rafferty's pig whose "ignorance would have disgraced any cannibal".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:32 PM

"saved me the bother"
Oh dear, we really are a sore loser. aren't we (and pompous with it) - what with your "to licence or not to licence" and "got any gum chum" contradictions.
Never mind - at least you have Mudcat's own vitriol- spitting troll to keep you warm
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark.

Almost in the same breath:

the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned

No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:03 PM

Just by way of clarification to the intellectually challenged, I put homosexual "marriage" in quotation marks, as I, along with the vast majority of people worldwide and millions of people in the UK, do not recognise such a sexual relationship as marriage.
I would also remind IC's that this relationship is not regarded as legal in part of the UK itself.

There are laws, some which I approve of and some that I do not and I shall defend that position for what is left of my life.

I opposed the law on the criminalisation of homosexuality, and I shall continue to oppose the legislation regarding homosexual "marriage".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:57 PM

Michael Gove hits it out of the park:

For those on the left addicted to guilt-tripping and grievance-mongering, who believe that poverty is a consequence of western exploitation and that bourgeois ethics lead to oppression, the existence of a political entity that is a runaway success precisely because it is a bourgeois-minded, capitalist-fuelled, western-oriented nation state is just too much to bear. Their ideological prejudices have collided with a stubborn, undeniable, fact.

So what do they do? Keep the prejudices, of course, and try to get rid of the fact. Try to undermine, delegitimise and reduce support for Israel. Make it the only country in the world whose right to exist is called continually into question. Make the belief in that state's survival, Zionism, a dirty word. Denounce, as the NUS president has, a British university for being a "Zionist outpost". And instead call organisations pledged to eliminate Israel such as Hezbollah and Hamas "friends", as Jeremy Corbyn has.

Antizionism is not a brave anti-colonial and anti-racist stance, it is simply antisemitism minding its manners so it can sit in a seminar room. And as such it deserves to be called out, confronted and opposed.

Left's hatred of Israel is racism in disguise

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:15 PM

Right- Mr Gove - Boris' lapdog, creationist symptathizer, Freedom of Information Act dodger, foe of the NHS, supporter of the invasion of Iraq - he'seven less credible than YOU are, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:38 PM

Bloody Nora, bobad. Gove is a laughing stock in this country. Yesterday's man, totally loopy. Do yourself a favour and do your homework before you post. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 08:46 PM

Well yeah, he has you pegged to a tee Shaw so what else can you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 09:05 PM

He doesn't know me from Adam. And in any case I tend not to worry about complete lunatics who "have me pegged to a tee," whatever that means. Life's too short. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:34 AM

I think what Bobad means, is that Mr Gove's article has exposed weaknesses in your usual rant?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:38 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

1: Teribus responding to Jim's criticism of Israel (not Jews):

"That Jim according to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the British Government is an anti-Semitic remark."

From the IHRA definition, adopted by the British Government and as used by UK Police Forces since 2015 in defining anti-Semitic race hatred.

Here is what Jim Carroll posted:

Jim Carroll - 17 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

"Israel is now indistinguishable from the regime that slaughtered six million Jews and the rest of the world looks on in silence"

Here is the IHRA Definition of what is considered to be anti-Semitic behaviour:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.


2: Almost in the same breath:

"the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other, launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of - these are the people you wholeheartedly support - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and should be roundly condemned" - Teribus

"No messing here. That is hate speech and Islamophobia of the very worst kind." - Steve Shaw

Really Steve where in that quoted passage have I referred to Islam? As I haven't nothing contained in that quote could ever be considered "Islamophobic". But to analyse what I did say:

(a) "the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best - they fight each other"

Mere observation and actual fact previously commented on by T.E. Lawrence and others. Do you wish to dispute that? Would you like me to furnish you examples of this almost incessant internecine conflict between the Arabs in the region since 1920? Easily enough done.

(b) "launching their political opponents from the roof-tops of multi-storey buildings and renege regularly on promises of holding elections whilst holding onto the reins of power and stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of "

Referring to the so-called leaders of the "Palestinians" in Gaza. Do you deny that Hamas in their 2007 "spat" with Fatah that Hamas and Fatah followers were thrown from the roofs of multi-storied buildings in Gaza? Do you deny that promised elections have not been held? The last elections run by the Palestine National Authority in the West Bank or by Hamas in Gaza were in 2006, tell us all Steve why no further elections have been held and who is responsible for that? What organisation and who in that organisation controls the aid money that is given to the Palestine National Authority and to Hamas? Considering that they have received more in foreign aid than the whole of Europe received after the Second World War these Arab "leaders" appear to have done very little with it apart from making themselves extremely rich - they are the scum of the earth Shaw and you are one of their biggest apologists, you applaud them all the way whilst criticising Israel thereby making yourself guilty of anti-Semitic behaviour in as much that you are - Applying double standards by requiring of it {Israel} a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation..

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:31 AM

"IHRA"
By the fact that Israel has chosen to ignore the item in that definition, that which makes associating the actions of Israel anti-Semitic, neither the IHRA, or any other "accepted" definition of anti-Semitism are valid other than discriminating against the Jewish people
What I said has been said over and over again by Jews throughout the world – they are dismissed as "self-hating" – I stand with them, not the terrorist State of Israel's manipulation of the death of millions of people at the hands of the Nazis
This definition is being used to prevent Israel from standing trials for crimes against humanity and war crimes – so far blocked by U.S. vetoes.
Israeli policy is directly responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism in two ways – by identifying their behaviour with the Jewish People, among some, they have turned opposition to Israeli policy into opposition to The Jews as a whole.
The fact that Israel had peddled the idea that to attack Israeli policy is "antsemitic" means that the estimation of a rise in anti-Semitism now counts attacks on Israel as being anti-Semitic – The Jewish People get it with both barrels.
The only anti-Semitism on this forum comes from the likes of Bobad, who vitriolically describes any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic and from Keith, who envisages a Jewish Parliamentary plot to keep silent about so-called Labour antsemitism
Teribus can shove his accusations of anti-Semitism up his hole – if there is any room for it alongside his head, which appears to be permanently lodged there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:24 AM

So what I said was neither "Islamophobic" nor was it "hate speech". I was merely stating well established, documented and recognised facts relating to the "Leaders" of the "Palestinians".

Sure. A reminder (and you were not talking about their leaders, by the way - go and check yourself out):

"... the Arabs of Palestine have done what they do best...stealing as much as their grasping hands can get hold of...they are the scum of the earth..."

Just wondering what would come raining down on anyone who generalised in that way about the Jews of Israel. Never mind. I'll let you wallow in your "definition" as you hone your double standard.