BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 02:28 PM

I am sure someone said that the people who are affected should be able to say what is offensive or not. I am officially a Christian so I should be able to say what is offensive to Christians or not. What I said was not offensive. I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith.

WTF are you on about Keith?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:02 PM

From Haaretz April 11th
Let's see if our two fanatics have the balls to respond to it
Jim Carroll

In Defense of Ken Livingstone
By FSOI Vice-Chair Jonathan Rosenhead.
Republished from Haaretz.
Ken Livingstone, enfant terrible of the British political left, was arraigned before a Labour Party tribunal last week for things he said in a radio interview in April last year. (He has been suspended from membership since that time.) The outcome of the hearing has produced a mighty uproar.
The affair has its origins in a surge of accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Labour Party members in the early months of 2016. One casualty had been Labour MP Naz Shah, who at the time of the 2014 conflict in Gaza had tweeted extensively and not wisely. (She was then not yet an MP.) Livingstone rode in to her defense, and it was an interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio that led to the case against him.
One of Shah's re-tweets had been a quote from Martin Luther King: "Remember that everything that Hitler did in Germany was legal." Feltz asked Livingstone a question about Hitler, seemingly to pick up this point, but he misunderstood the thrust and responded with some views on Hitler's interactions with European Zionist leaders in the 1930s, which he had written about decades earlier. This response turned out to be a gratuitous own goal, with escalating demands that he be expelled –which peaked last week when the Labour Party tribunal failed to sack him, but 'only' extended his suspension.
It is a shame that Colin Shindler gave such a one-dimensional account of the Jewish community component of this furor. Shindler paints a picture of a British Jewish population all but united behind Israel and against Livingstone, except for a few "marginal" and "highly unrepresentative" types. Like me.
I need to declare an interest. Although my previous direct contact with Livingstone was limited to a conversation while walking down two flights of stairs after a public meeting some years ago, I was one of five Jewish Labour Party members who gave evidence for the defense at Ken's hearing a week ago. We testified in particular on the allegation that his remarks had been anti-Semitic. The oldest of us had got out of Germany as a child in 1937, with his parents lucky enough to make it two years later. My own back story is less dramatic. I grew up in a thoroughly Zionist family in Liverpool. I spent the summer of 1956 in Israel on the Jewish Agency's Summer Institute project. I celebrated without any doubts Israel's military victories from 1948 through to 1967. Many others have since then, like me, been forced by Israel's continuing treatment of the Palestinians to rethink and regret our former position.
It is true as Shindler says that the great majority of us (around 90 percent, according to a reputable 2015 survey) express some degree of attachment to Israel. Indeed I do myself. However what he glosses over is that more than 40 percent of respondents, when specifically asked, declined to describe themselves as Zionists. Those who self-describe as Zionist have actually decreased from 72 percent to 59 percent in just five years. My own subjective experience is that of those who still do identify as Zionists a substantial proportion express criticisms, some verging on disillusion, with the actual policies of successive Israeli governments.
It gets worse. What the survey calls "dovishness" increases the younger you are, and the more education you have. Among under-30s, the percentage who say they would support sanctions against Israel if they thought it would get Israel to negotiate for real with the Palestinians rises to 41%.
It is not only Shindler who paints a picture of a united Jewish community "up in arms" because the "anti-Semite" Livingstone has not been expelled. On the day of his non-expulsion Haaretz reported the Jewish Leadership Council as blasting the Labour Party. An article by Daniella Peled quoted incandescent condemnation by the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Holocaust Education Trust. The UK's Jewish communal organizations have indeed been jumping up and down and making a lot of noise, in unison. But this apparent unanimity is a construct.
These organizations effectively blanket out any coverage of this dissident, alternative Jewish perspective. It is as if the Jewish organizations which take a skeptical or downright critical view of Israel – Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Free Speech on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jewish Socialist Group and others – do not exist.
So what did Livingstone say that makes his expulsion so compulsive? He said, in his now infamous radio interview, that when Hitler became chancellor "his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism…" This Transfer (Ha'avarah) Agreement is, perhaps unfortunately, solidly based in fact – and many more people probably know that now than did before Livingstone's gratuitous history lesson. The agreement was based on a unity of purpose (but not of motivation) between the Nazi regime and a range of European Zionist organizations, which lasted through to 1937. The Nazis wanted Jews out of Germany, and Zionists wanted Jews to settle Palestine. As a quid pro quo for the arrangement Zionists called off the economic boycott of Germany and gave other assistance to the faltering German economy.
How could this statement of facts be seen as anti-Semitic? One neat solution found by Livingstone's enemies was to misquote it, either as "Hitler and the Zionists collaborated"; or even as "Hitler was a Zionist." The host on a BBC radio program swore blind to me that Livingstone had said just that.
Quoting historical facts can hardly be anti-Semitic, which is presumably why the Labour Party didn't even charge him with it. The allegation was, rather, of "bringing the Party into disrepute" – a nicely vague and plausible accusation, for which he received a two-year suspension. No penalty was imposed on all those MPs and other Labour worthies from the right of the Party who seemingly thought they might be able to get rid of one of the Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's most effective supporters. They brought the party into disrepute but, of course, were not charged.
There are multiple casualties in all this. Foremost there is the truth, bent and misused for partisan purposes. Second, the Labour Party, brought even lower in popular esteem by the continuing disloyal attempts to unseat a leader with a radical mandate – and one who supports the Palestinian cause. Third, the fight against anti-Semitism. Until recently there was no doubt about what the concept meant, and that it was anathema to all but an unsavory fringe. Individuals and organizations who think that it can be raised into both a shield against criticisms of Israel, and a weapon for taking back control of the Labour Party, are trying to politicize the notion of anti-Semitism. Only the real anti-Semites will benefit from the resulting confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 09:23 PM

Great piece of writing, Jim. Wish I'd seen that before.



Wait for it.......

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I said nothing about how offensive your posts were to Christians, just that they single out Christianity for ridicule and mockery.
I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.
Different morality Dave.

Jim,
"The Labour Party disagrees with you."!
When did they tell you that Keith

I have posted reams of quotes from senior and prominent Labour people saying it.
You say they are all wrong or lying.
I think you are.

Steve,
They think Livingstone should be expelled for his comments about Hitler and Zionism, not Naz Shah's remark.

No.
McDonnell said, "This argument about historical fact is not the issue, the issue is that you(Livingstone) deployed it to justify what was an anti-Semitic statement by Naz Shah"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:47 AM

I am sure that the last 2 sentences are what some have been saying throughout this whole sorry thread but others have said that no one else thinks that. Ah well, I guess if no one thinks that I must have just not read it. Or maybe Jonathan Rosenhead is either not alive, not a qualified historian or not published in mainstream bookshops. Or Free Speech on Israel is a radical organisation that no one should take notice of. No need to wait, Steve. I think the predictions are accurate

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

"A different morality indeed Dave, Yours is shit"

Sounds like personal abuse to me. Coming from someone who has frequently objected to such comments it is a little bigoted to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:27 AM

Keith
I knew you would totally disregard what a Jew said about Livingstone and go for self serving politicians
You are a fascist with more than a a hint of antisemitism thrown in
Are politicians lying - do bears shit in the woods?
You have had an outline of why these events are taking place - the political in-fighting, the opposition to BDS - all you have got are the unqualified accusations of self-serving politicians.
If they are not lying they are not making sense - you do not accuse anybody of anything without specifying what you are accusing them of - natural justice - common sense...... whatever you care to call it.
Please respond to what the article says - it is specific, it makes historical points from a Jewish point of view, and, as far as I'm concerned, it makes sense.
Ignore it and you again expose yourself as a fanatical right-wing hater of everything decent (Sabra Shatila and your persistent racism against Muslims, Irish "brainwashed" children and "slave-owning Travellers" has done that more than efficiently) - your choice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:48 AM

I do find your explanation that it is OK to attack Christians but not those of other faiths because of what you might be accused of offensive.

That was not the explanation and well you know it. It was that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

Different language

I also said "I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith." but you chose to reinterpret that in your own way.

Different planet.

At least you are saying different morality rather than shit or no morality. Was that the lessom you learned on good Friday?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 04:56 AM

Correction Dave, he stated "Different morality indeed Dave, YOURS IS SHIT"

Bigoted, pure and simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:04 AM

No, fair's fair Raggy - He did drop the 'yours is shit' on 15 Apr 17 at 03:46 AM. I guess being reminded that Jesus said 'forgive them for they know not what they are doing' may have helped

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:17 AM

I can guarantee that the professor would not be as forgiving.

I take umbrage that he objects to personal abuse when aimed at himself but he is quite capable of abusing others and seems to believe it is OK if he does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 05:26 AM

Had Ken Livingstone simply said that he didn't agree with the way Naz Shah was treated, there would be no problem. Had he simply said that he thought she'd said nothing antisemitic, the same - no problem. Read my lips, Keith. He is in trouble because he said that Hitler supported Zionism. It's very silly when you twist things around for absolutely no good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

Jim,
I knew you would totally disregard what a Jew said about Livingstone and go for self serving politicians

Jim, this is about the Labour Party, and only concerns the Labour Party.
Others may have many and various opinions, but only opinions from within the Labour Party actually matter.

Dave,
That was not the explanation and well you know it. It was that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

I would defend any faith from such an attack.
Why do you only and always attack Christianity?
Because you feel safe from getting something nasty in return.
That is you morality, and I think it is shit.

Rag, I do not do gratuitous personal abuse.
I refer to specific behaviour and describe the morality that allows it to be shit.
Do you approve of that behaviour?

Steve,
Read my lips, Keith.

No. Your opinion is worth nothing against those of people like McDonnell, Abbott, Watson, Khan, and Thornberry on Labour Party matters.
Read their lips.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 08:02 AM

"Rag, I do not do gratuitous personal abuse. I refer to specific behaviour and describe the morality that allows it to be shit"


No. You described Dave's morality as shit. Can you not even understand your own posts.


"A different morality indeed Dave, Yours is shit"


No mention of behaviour at all.

Ergo gratuitous personal abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:02 AM

Livingstone isn't newly arrived at his anti-Semitism. In 1982, when he was at the time the editor of a Workers Revolutionary Party front paper, published a cartoon of Menachem Begin giving a straight armed salute, wearing an SS uniform and standing on a pile of Palestinian skulls. In 1984, as leader of the Greater London Council, he accused the Board of Deputies of British Jews of being 'dominated by reactionaries and neo-fascists'. In 1984, as mayor of London, he welcomed Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi to City Hall. Qaradawi is a defender of Palestinian suicide bombing as a 'martyrdom operation' and 'evidence of God's justice', and has issued a fatwa permitting the killing of pregnant Israeli women. Livingstone called him 'a progressive figure'. In 2005, he accused a Jewish reporter of being "like a German war criminal". He has presented programs for the Iranian state propaganda channel Press TV and has said that Jews were rich and so were not likely to vote Labour anyway. He has spent half a century pushing the anti-Semitic canard that equates Zionism with Nazism. Yet unbelievably, in this day and age, there are still some who rise to his defense. Disgusting!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:27 AM

Rag,
You described Dave's morality as shit.

Yes, and I specified exactly what I thought was shit.

He said he would not attack other faiths because he might get something nasty in return, but attacked Christians because that is safe.
That is shit morality, and saying that is not vacuous name calling or gratuitous personal abuse.
I identified the behaviour I hold to be shit.

He also claimed that he thought I would only criticise him for attacking other faiths but not my own.
Does anyone believe that?

He also identified me by name as someone holding Good Friday special and sacred, and later on that Good Friday launched his ridiculing and mocking attack on my faith.
He made it personal.
The morality behind that is shit too Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:34 AM

Jim, from your paste-in,
"The affair has its origins in a surge of accusations(from within Labour) of anti-Semitism against prominent Labour Party members in the early months of 2016"

Not made up by anyone here then!

"Livingstone rode in to her(Shah's) defense, and it was an interview with Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio that led to the case against him."

So it was not about Hitler's antics in the 30s, it was about defending Shah's anti-Semitism.

I am off for a couple of days.
Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 09:37 AM

Absolute bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 03:55 AM

Why do you only and always attack Christianity?...

...He said he would not attack other faiths because he might get something nasty in return, but attacked Christians because that is safe.

That is not what I said though is it Keith? Do you not just read what I put? Have you already made your mind up what I said anyway regardless of what is actualy there in black and white? Why do you keep misrepresenting people?

I did not attack other faiths either did I? Can you point to such an attack? I may have linked a disrespectful article and asked if anyone had seen my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross. Are those attacks? I doubt anyone else would say so. Even you said they were funny, remember? But if they were attacks you have still misrepresented why I did not say similar about other faiths. Maybe you need to see important things in bold type nowadays so I will try that.

I said that you would use anything I may say about Jews or Muslims to further your agenda.

I also said "I cannot comment whether anything would be offensive to Jews or Muslims because I am not of that faith." but you chose to reinterpret that in your own way.

Different language
Different morality
Different planet

How you have the brass neck to deliberately and blatantly misinterpret like that at your most holy time of year and then say my morality is shit is beyond me. But everyone can see what you do so it will be no surprise to anyone.

Enjoy your fantasies, whatever they may be.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 04:06 AM

A couple of little holes in your thread here Keith. I suspect most had noticed but just in case you had forgotten...

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 10:21 AM

Dave, I enjoyed your piece mocking the core beliefs of Christianity.
Ha ha ha.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Apr 17 - 01:03 PM

Dave, so singling out Christianity for ridicule on the most sombre day in the Christian calendar is OK, but not any other faith or you might be accused of prejudice!
That is milder persecution than Christians endure in say the Middle East and Pakistan, but persecution none the less.

A different morality indeed Dave.
Yours is shit.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 03:46 AM

Dave, I said nothing about how offensive your posts were to Christians, just that they single out Christianity for ridicule and mockery.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 15 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

I would defend any faith from such an attack.

So, do you find the article I linked offensive or funny? Do you think it is persecution or humour? In a nutshell, it is make your fucking mind up time.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 04:33 AM

"Jim, this is about the Labour Party, and only concerns the Labour Party."
That is thee most stupid attempt to back out of an argument you have ever attempted
You and your mate have made it about Israel, about Travellers........ about whatever ethnic group or race you fancied to target, and now you have been presented with facts that you are totally incapably of addressing, you now attempt your old "thread drift" ploy
Unbelievable
B.D.S. has been a part of this from day one -
The accusations started within weeks of Corbyn's announcement of support for the boycott and were revived each time one of the "Friends of Israel" was called to headquarters to receive further orders
You dismiss Jews as having no voice in "antisemitism" - how antisemitic are you going to get - must add that one to the list !!!
If it was only a case for "the Labour party" then you really do have no case
The attacks come from the Parliamentary Labour Party, who make up only a minutel fragment of the membership - Corbyn has a significant majority of support of the Labour Party members - they are the ones who count, not the self serving professionals who look on politics as a career move.
Answer the article if your contempt for the views of Jewish people is not too great to allow you to do so.
Ther is no significant problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party and there never will be until it is enumerated and fully described.
Your contemptuous view of the Jewish members of Labour who "chose not to go to the press when Corbyin did nothing, because of their love for the Party", confirms what an appalling bigot you really are
Is there no ethnic or cultural group safe from your hatred and contempt?
Have a nice Easter and be nice to your God now - d'you hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 05:37 AM

Another interesting and factual account to be ignored by some. This time by Leon Rosselson so at home in both political threads and on a folk music forum.

Is Zionism Antisemitic?

Enjoy

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 05:57 AM

That should get some knickers twisted

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 06:19 AM

Brilliant work, Dave. Let's see these cabal bigots pick the bones out of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 07:23 AM

MANY JEWS HAVE NO DOUBT IT IS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 17 - 10:30 AM

I think that the most important of those bullet points at the start of Jim's linked article is the one that states that Zionism endangers all Jews worldwide. If only some of the clowns who post here could see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 01:56 PM

Dave, your posts were amusing but offensive to most Christians.
We Christians have no right not to be offended, but I noted that, as ever, you always and only mock and ridicule Christianity.

When I questioned that you said you were afraid of me criticising you for mocking faiths other than mine.
I do not believe that, but I do think you fear criticism.
That is the morality I find shitty.
OK Dave?

Jim, this discussion is about Labour and what goes on within Labour.
No-one knows more about that than Labour people.
Quoting others is irrelevant, which is why I have resisted posting the views of members of rival parties, though there have been plenty.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 02:02 PM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 16 Mar 17 - 12:26 PM

As the subject of recism and bigotry seems to be OK with Keith, with his permission, of course, perhaps this articcle from todat's Irish Times might be acceptable
What do people think - does it pass the censor's blue pencil, or aren't there enough "decent countries in the U.N.?
Jim Carroll

Middle East
ISRAEL IMPOSES 'APARTHEID REGIME' ON PALESTINIANS, SAYS UN
A UN agency published a report yesterday accusing Israel of imposing an "apartheid regime" of racial discrimination on the Palestinian people, and said it was the first time a UN body had clearly made the charge


You forgot to report this Jim,
The secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) on Friday rejected a report, authored by UN officials, that accused Israel of establishing an "apartheid regime," prompting the resignation of the head of the agency that authored it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 02:42 PM

"The secretary-general of the United Nations (UN) on Friday rejected a report"
Desn't make it untrue Keith - it's has been a commonly accepts belief for several years no
You were quick enough to reject what the United Nations said when they condemned Israel - even described them as "antisemitic"
Now you are just picking out the bits that you like
Life's not like that
Still insisting we can't suggest what a Jew has said, antisemite that you are.
"No-one knows more about that than Labour people."
Yup - and the majority of the party back Corbyn - you choose the views of a tiny minority who have an interest in getting rid of him
That seems fair!!!!!!!!!!!
No charges, no case
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 02:47 PM

When I questioned that you said you were afraid of me criticising you for mocking faiths other than mine.
I do not believe that, but I do think you fear criticism.
That is the morality I find shitty.
OK Dave?

No, it is not OK at all. I did not say anything like that and well you know it! I said if I said anything offensive to anyone else you would use that for your own agenda. That is not fear, it is common sense. Yes, it would be shitty if I feared criticism but again, that is blatantly untrue. If I feared criticism, why the hell would I post anything on here? Whether you believe that or not is entirely up to you just as it is entirely up to me to believe that you are deluded.

OK Keith?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 03:23 PM

Professor, you have every right to be offended. I have every right not to give a ****.

I am sick and tired of religious zealots of whatever persuasion telling me what I can or cannot do because it offends their religion.

If you cannot deal with that, tough shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 04:41 PM

Views on "Zionism" would carry a great deal more weight were they made by messrs Rosselson, Lerner & Lendman if they were all Israeli citizens. Alas they are not, which is why I suppose that they can feel free to espouse the views they do knowing full well residing as they do in England, California and Chicago respectively none of them or their families will pick up the tab should things go pear shaped.

Rosselson's, "There are no 57 varieties of Zionism" is patently as wrong minded as is him applying what the thinking of the founders and early pioneers of the movement thought over a hundred years ago to the situation and circumstances of today, over the course of time things evolve and things change.

Lerner & Lendman can chatter on about "Apartheid Walls", etc, but they were not in the line of fire of "Palestinian" snipers nor would they have been likely to find themselves in close proximity to suicide bombers that the existence of the Wall prevented. Also liked their idea about negotiating with the "Palestinians" - Only snag there of course is that for any negotiations to take place there have to be at least two parties willing to negotiate and that rules out Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, perhaps Lerner & Lendman could clue us in on who the Israelis should then negotiate with and what they would negotiate as no-one on the Palestinian side has the slightest interest in any form of a "Two-State Solution" - their aim is the destruction of the internationally recognised sovereign State of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish population, Lerner & Lendman wouldn't of course be affected.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 06:21 PM

What a pile of utter nonsense. As you say, things evolve. Your mindset never does. The suggestion that the only people who should have a say on Zionism are the people who live in Israel is about as stupid as saying that only the people who live in North Korea should be allowed an opinion on their regime's policies. Idiotic, and I think you know it. And if you really think that the wall was all about Palestinian snipers, you really are in cloud cuckoo land. You're a sucker for that good old Israeli propaganda, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 17 - 07:10 PM

And apropos of negotiations, every negotation attempt has been a charade and in every case for one reason: the Israeli regime never has to give an inch. No matter what their depredations, no matter what their outrages are in Lebanon and Gaza, no matter how much they discriminate against non-Jews in Israel. They have the unconditional backing, in terms of trade and military aid, of the United States. They know that, no matter how much land they steal for settlements, no matter how much they repress a million and a half people in Gaza, no matter how many cluster bomblets they leave scattered over Lebanon, no matter how many children they kill in Gaza, the US will never do more than give them a little slap on the wrist. Hardly grounds for reasonable negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:04 AM

"The suggestion that the only people who should have a say on Zionism are the people who live in Israel is about as stupid as saying that only the people who live in North Korea should be allowed an opinion on their regime's policies." - Shaw

Did I say that? Is the Government of Israel "Zionist"? Last time I looked it wasn't, "The Zionist Union" was the main opposition party. Political parties in the Knesset describe them selves as being "Secular", "Zionist Labour", "Religious Zionist", "Liberal Zionist", Arab - One thing is certain Shaw, there are many and varied types of "Zionist" organisations in Israel and throughout the world - Not just one as Leon Rosselson stated. Tell me Shaw how many political parties are there represented in Gaza or in the Palestine Authority? Do they actually have an elected opposition, or did they all fly off the roofs of high-rises ten years ago? Tell me do you think the "Palestinians" will ever be given another chance to vote in an election? If so when do you think it might happen? Within our lifetime?

And yes Shaw the only people who do get a direct say in the policies of individual governments throughout the world are the electorates of those countries. As stated in my post Rosselson, Lerner and Lendman have got some bloody nerve advocating and dictating, from the safety of their homes in the UK and in the USA, policies that the Government of Israel should adopt that could well result in the mass slaughter of it's Jewish population.

The Wall and the drop in Israeli deaths can be easily checked Shaw:

"The barrier was built during the Second Intifada that began in September 2000, and was defended by the Israeli government as necessary to stop the wave of violence inside Israel that the uprising had brought with it. The Israeli government argues in defence of the wall, that between 2000 and July 2003 (completion of the "first continuous segment"), 73 suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, while from August 2003 to the end of 2006, only 12 attacks were carried out

Excuse me please, teacher Sir, but that is a reduction to 1/6th of the pre-wall number of incidents. Or if you would prefer it a reduction from an average of two suicide bombings a month over a three year period to one suicide bombing every three months over a similar three year period. Seems like one hell of an improvement and pretty effective to me Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:06 AM

Jim,
Yup - and the majority of the party back Corbyn - you choose the views of a tiny minority who have an interest in getting rid of him

Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC.

Who do you quote?
A non-Party member who lives in Israel!!

Dave,
OK Keith?

No.
It is a FACT that you always and only single out Christianity for mocking, ridicule and attack.
That is shitty morality. It makes you a bigot.

The reason you give, that I might use any attack on other faiths against you, but not attacks on mine, is not believable.
If you are being dishonest, that is also shitty morality.

Your Good Friday posts were made after you identified me by name as one to whom Good Friday is special and sacred.
That makes it personal, and even more shitty.
Despicable Dave.

Steve,
the Israeli regime never has to give an inch.

They have given hundreds of miles in exchange for peace.
Half of Egypt and all of Gaza.

However, giving back Gaza brought them nothing but more indiscriminate attacks on their people.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:16 AM

"They have given hundreds of miles in exchange for peace.
Half of Egypt and all of Gaza."

Oh the irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 04:18 AM

"Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC."
All from politicians the majority of arguably the largest political Party in Europe backs Corbyn
Your handful of career politicians - all linked to ether the anti BDS campaign of the in-fighting that is happening represent nobody but their own professional or political interests.
These are the facts of Israel's Apartheid - ANOTHER JEW, I'M AFRAID
"Views on "Zionism" would carry a great deal more weight were they made by messrs Rosselson, Lerner & Lendman if they were all Israeli citizens."
What??????????
That statement is antisemitic in the extreme - depriving the world-wide Jewish people a voice on a political movement that represents the world's Jews and putting it in the hands of an extremist right wing country in the process of ethnically cleansing not Jews
Absolutely insane - fascism at its worst
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:09 AM

This forum stands in danger of becoming extremely antisemitic – not only are the opinions of Jews on anti-Semitism, unimportant compared to those of a handful of British politicians, bu now we have a proposal that only Israelis are the only ones allowed to express a view on Zionism
Come back Adolf – all is forgiven
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:42 AM

He didn't say there was only one type of Zionist organisation. He simply said that Zionism is Zionism. There isn't only one type of left-wing or right-wing organisation either. As for your little litany of party names and what they mean, you forgot to add that the Labour Party is the organisation that supports women in maternity wards.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 05:42 AM

It is a FACT that you always and only single out Christianity for mocking, ridicule and attack.
That is shitty morality. It makes you a bigot.

No it doesn't. I have already said umpteen times that I was brought up as Christian and can say what is offensive and what is not in that particular branch of fantasy. I know little about other religions so I am not qualified to say what is offensive or not in those.

Enough of this nonsense anyway. You have chosen to make personal attacks on me so I am sure you will excuse me if I do the same. When you least expect it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:02 AM

As for your doughty defence of the apartheid wall, Teribus, try reading beyond the first few lines of the wiki entry if you can muster the energy. Even the Israelis acknowledge that the wall is by no means the main factor behind the drop in suicide bombings. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh, Teribus? The wall has annexed (aka stolen) thousands of acres of the West Bank, including stranding tens of thousands of Palestinians, divided farms, almost cut off villages, split families and made travelling extremely difficult for Palestinians. Your "security barrier" is my enforced future state boundary. It has been condemned nem con by the UN General Assembly and by the International Court of Justice. Not even Keith's decent democracies will stand up for it, will they?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:21 AM

I do not make personal attacks Dave, I am responding to your attack on Christianity that you chose to make personal to me.

It is perfectly possible for an ignorant person to attack any faith if they choose to.
You choose to always and only attack Christians.
That makes you a bigot Dave, and that is not a gratuitous personal attack, but a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:26 AM

"Not true. I have posted a wide range of views including McDonell and the entire NEC."
All from politicians the majority of arguably the largest political Party in Europe backs Corbyn

I am able to quote prominent Labour people on this issue, you are not.

You have to resort people who are not only not members, but do not even live in this country!

This issue is about the British Labour Party, and I quote people who actually know what is going on inside.
You can't!
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:46 AM

Stop being an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 06:51 AM

If an attack is aimed at a person rather than an idea it is a personal attack, Keith. The clue is in the name. What I did was neither an attack nor personal. I linked an article written by someone else that made fun of a Christian tradition and asked if anyone had seem my impression of Jesus on a rubber cross. Neither of those can be be deemed as attacks on any person by anyone but the terminally deranged. You chose to respond to that by saying I was a bigot and my morality was shit. Which do you think is closest to the definition of personal attack?

Here - have a few more.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 07:14 AM

"You lose."
A regression to imbecility again Keith
Until you specify what you are accusing Labour of, you are not even in the race
You are now a declared antisemite - another one bites the dust and its' not even one o'clock yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 07:48 AM

no matter how much land they steal for settlements,

Ah yes the well worn anti-Semitic trope from the well worn anti-Semite.

Let me remind you again Shaw:

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 retitled, and current PA regulations that ban sales or ownership of property by Jews is not valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 08:04 AM

"There are no illegal settlements -"
According to international law there are
The Israeli regime had driven out
According to the United Nations there were 5,149,742 Palestinian refugees driven out of their rightful home - ethnic cleansing on a massive scale
Totally unprecedented
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 17 - 09:06 AM

The "West Bank" is not, nor was it ever, "Palestinian" land. Under the principle of international law, uti possidetis juris, it is a part of Israel. Israel has been trying to relinquish it to the Arabs but has been rebuffed by their "leaders" every time it has made an offer. If the Arabs keep insisting that all of Israel is "Palestinian" land they will never have a state of their own in the "West Bank".