BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 16 - 10:51 AM

Would you care to identify these pro Israeli Government regime supporters, who are acting to silence criticism of Israel, Mr.Punk?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:25 AM

.. ditto.. your calls for 'evidence'...

again, a deflecting and distracting tactic.... !!!!!

Why should your opponents bother wasting their time and debating focus.. you are already more than aware of the evidence yourself...

That is, if I am correct in crediting you with some political intelligence and awareness.....???????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jeri
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:43 AM

The tactic is often called "trolling".

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:45 AM

You called Richard antisemitic. That is a very bad thing to call someone. It is a personal attack even if it's true. It is name-calling. It means the same as Jew-hater. When it isn't true, which it isn't, it's a hundred times worse. I've scoured this thread end to end. There has been no antisemitism posted whatsoever. If you disagree, then you clearly haven't a clue what antisemitism is. Feel free to dredge up alleged examples from this thread and I'll cheerfully take them to pieces for you. No worries. You had no right to call Richard that, now here you are sanctimoniously lamenting the fact that we don't especially care to engage with "issues" raised by the biggest confounded bigot on this forum, a forum cheat to boot, with whom you have shown yourself to be in bed. Go on, I dare you. Read all of his posts in this thread. Then come back and tell us all what a fine, upstanding man he is.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 16 - 12:28 PM

Troll:

Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.


If asking someone to back their claims with evidence is trolling then I plead guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 16 - 12:36 PM

You're guilty all right, of calling reasonable people Jew-haters, of misrepresentation, of arch bigotry, of cowardice, of sniping from behind the wall and of posting under multiple identities. Apart from that, you're a real little innocent, aren't you. Sweetness and light personified.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:19 PM

There has been no antisemitism posted whatsoever. If you disagree, then you clearly haven't a clue what antisemitism is.

We disagree on that.
Richard claimed that the Jews on the board had a "vested interest" in gaining more "influence" for themselves.

That is anti-semitic, however much you deny it.
Richard has not tried to defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:20 PM

Bob = 😇 ... yeah... as innocent as a cat that did a shit on top of your bedroom wardrobe and tried to blame the short legged dog in the kitchen downstairs.... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:21 PM

EUMC on anti-semitism,
"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."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:32 PM

Keith - please keep it in perspective..


if you want to see real antisemitism on an internet board..
go take a peek at "What do u think of half-jews, quarter-jews etc?"

One of the top of the list links provided by google when I recently searched for up to date info on my status/identity as a quarter jew by bloodline... 😒

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:55 PM

Richard did not say " the Jews on the board." That is a bare-faced lie. Completely disgraceful, and defamatory to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:19 AM

The board was mostly composed of Jewish groups, which Richard identified.
It makes no sense to suggest that the single non-Jewish group might have a vested interest in manipulating the criteria of anti-semitism to increase its influence.

Pfr, I acknowledge that this is not blatant anti-semitism which does exist.
I acknowledged that Richard did not recognise it as anti-semitic. Steve does not either.
It is a matter of opinion, but by EU criteria it is anti-semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:29 AM

Well think for yourself for a change and desist from throwing unjustified accusations around. The EU also specifies the size of duck eggs, the maximum curvature of cucumbers, and gives farmers money for growing weeds.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:36 AM

It is not an unjustified accusation that, by the criteria agreed by the EU, 28 democratic nations, that Richards statement was antisemitic.

You are entitled to your belief that you know better.

Do you endorse Richard's statement Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 06:16 AM

The issue is whether the criteria are being manipulated. In my mind, they are, wholesale, by groupings the world over. In fact, it would be totally naive to deny that. It is the reason we're haggling over what antisemitism really is. Why you think the two Labour politicians in the firing line are antisemitic, when patently they are not. The real, core definition is deadly simple: antisemitism is attacking Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS. Not because they live in Israel or north Manchester. Not because of their political views. Not because of their religion. Not because they sometimes group together to form lobbies. Not because some of them hate Arabs. Not because the Israeli regime represses Palestinians. I want justice for Palestinians and for the Arab citizens of Israel. That is not remotely antisemitic. I don't think a state that is less than three-quarters Jewish should be calling itself a Jewish state. It is not antisemitic to say that: it is a considered opinion for which I've given my reasons. Not because some Jews are rich. Of course, some unjustified prejudices can be rolled together into an antisemitic whole: "Look at that typical Jew, rolling in money because he's so mean with it." It is NOT antisemitic to say that AIPAC consists largely of Jews who are pursuing a pro-Israel agenda. It happens to be a fact. Of course, like any fact it can be used tendentiously. Let's keep our antennae tuned for that, the honest thing to do. It's not even antisemitic to say that AIPAC enjoys undue and undemocratic influence over politicians in a supposedly democratic country (and I do say the same about the gun lobby and multinational corporations. I suppose bobad will be here any minute to tell us that I only mean the ones controlled by Jews). If you think that Richard made a factually incorrect statement, challenge it and correct it if you can and hold the slurs. Do not put words into his mouth as you did with Geoffrey Wheatcroft, and as you're doing with Richard in this instance, just to suit your own agenda, which is to use every means at your disposal, both honest and dishonest, to suppress any criticism of Israel. If you think that anything that I've said is OK is actually antisemitic, as opposed to factually incorrect, then you've fallen, possibly willingly in your case, into the trap of believing that widened definition.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:46 AM

The issue is whether the criteria are being manipulated. In my mind, they are, wholesale, by groupings the world over.

Groupings of Jews Steve?
The groups accused by Richard were not "Zionists," just Jews.

You are entitled to your own view of what constitutes antisemitism, and I am entitled to point out that the universally accepted view is different.

By the criteria accepted by all the nations of the EU, Richard's statement about Jewish groups was anti-semitic.

You are entitled to believe that you know better, and I am entitled to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:54 AM

.. so basically then.. any good decent anti racist folk can accidently fall into a trap of being unintentionally antisemitic;
and as a consequence be torn to shreds and publicly pilloried by any harsh unforgiving hostile activists & lobbyists predetermined to find opponents to discredit ..

.. just because of changes to arcane definitions dictated by specialist elite bodies of academics and bureaucrats that most folk have never heard of...

.. unfair old world.. innit...!!!??? 😣

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:16 AM


.. so basically then.. any good decent anti racist folk can accidently fall into a trap of being unintentionally antisemitic;

No. They can be antisemitic without seeing it.

and as a consequence be torn to shreds and publicly pilloried by any harsh unforgiving hostile activists & lobbyists predetermined to find opponents to discredit ..

I have not done that.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:18 AM

"Groupings of Jews Steve?
The groups accused by Richard were not "Zionists," just Jews"

Some may be groupings of Jews, Some may be a mixture of Jews and non-Jews. Some may be groups of Israel supporters of no particular ethnicity. Some may be all Jews but who don't agree among themselves (lots of Jews do not support the Israeli regime's actions apropos of Palestinians, for example). It is what they say and do and advocate that is the issue, Keith. Suppose I said to you that YOU are calling Israel a grouping of Jews. After all, you defend to the hilt the fact that Israel calls itself a Jewish state. A grouping of Jews if ever I saw one, a rather large grouping at that. Let's suppose a grouping of Jews, who made no secret of the fact that they are Jews, advocated a particular policy. I then said to you that that grouping of Jews are advocating...whatever it is. I might want to put it that way if the grouping were, say, acting in an overtly pro-Israel manner. It would be slightly ludicrous to lose courage and say "that grouping of people" instead of "Jews," for fear of being branded antisemitic by the likes of you and your disreputable friend. If the group were advocating planting a bed of pink geraniums instead of red ones in the local park, and I gratuitously called them Jews, you would doubt my motives, rightly so. Being Jewish has nothing to do with the colour of geraniums. It might have something to do with policy regarding Israel. In the post above you are trying to put words in my mouth, like you did with Richard, like you did with Geoffrey Wheatcroft. Well that doesn't work with me. I'm far too straightforward for that. You wanted me to say groupings of Jews so that you can call me antisemitic. Well I could say to you that you're calling Israel a grouping of Jews, so you're antisemitic. But you didn't actually say those words, did you, and I'm not going to make that unjustified extrapolation. The same one YOU'VE made with Richard and Wheatcroft, and that you're trying on me. Tough. Find someone else to practise your inane trickery on.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:33 AM

"Anti" means against, opposing. If you are antisemitic you are against Jews because they are Jews. You can't be accidentally opposed to Jews. It's a conscious decision. Yes you can make remarks that sound antisemitic if you're not careful, just like you can make sexist remarks even though you're not wanting to be consciously sexist. It's a hard grind is watching your every word. In my Catholic schoolyard days disparaging language regarding Jews was rife. If I wouldn't give you a sweet I was called a Jew for being tight. If I'd cheated you out of something, I was accused of jewing you. The Catholics who ran the place never corrected us, to their profound discredit. It takes years to readjust your mindset away from stuff like that. My mum is one of the most anti-racist people I know and always has been, but she still talks about "the coloureds." Arguing for a bit more political correctness is fine. Setting draconian linguistic traps for people, just because you want to protect Israel from perfectly valid criticism, is diabolically wicked. If the cap fits, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:50 AM

Amen to all of that, Steve. Absolutely correct, as always.

And, of course, when your mother was in her formative years, and when I was in mine for that matter, 'coloured' and 'negro' were in general use as the polite terms of reference for people who were dark-skinned, usually of African or Afro-Caribbean origins. 'Black' was, in those days, generally regarded as being as insulting as 'n****r'.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:16 AM

I've mentioned this before on a previous mudcat thread..

my old mum is as sweet loving caring a person as you could ever hope to meet.. not a nasty bone in her body.

She is innately highly intelligent, but never had much formal education due to wartime evacuation, leaving school to care for older family members,
and a life time of menial cleaning and unqualified care worker jobs.

Her Dad, who deserted her at an early age, was a fairly well off Jewish man, probably too afraid of his family and culture
to marry the pretty poor gentile girl he got pregnant..

[who knows the real history.. cue Mills and Boon version..]

Anyway, my mum is not resentful.. she's quite proud of being half jewish [even if by some technical formulations she might not be...???]

But I cringe at the thought of any 'real' jews overhearing her talking out in public...

For example, one of her favourites at shop checkout counters...

"Oh I love a good bargain, it must be the jew in me.."

Stooping to pick up any coins she sees on the pavement "It's in my blood, it's the jew in me"

She sincerely believes these stereotype myths, not with any prejudice, but with pride.

Who am I to tut tut and try to ideologically re-educate her..???

or even explain 'real' proper jews might definitely not value her as one of their own.


Real life can be far too complex for 'weaponised' artificial technical academic definitions... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:43 AM

Amen to all that, too! 🙂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 03:35 PM

Richard said,
"Have a look, Keith, at the composition of the advisory board of the panel that adopted the obviously and irrationally over-expansive definition of antisemitism that you like. All have a vested interest in an over-broad definition."

His exact words.
The composition of the board was provided by him in a link.
Mostly Jews.

Note his description of the criteria accepted by the EU!
What "vested interest" did they have?

He then said,"And the vested interest of the members of that board is that the the wider the definition of antisemitism, the more influence they can gain."

More influence?
What influence?

The accusation of antisemitism within Labour have all come from within Labour.
The media is just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:33 PM

The vested interest is preventing valid criticism of Israel. The influence means influencing people to attack critics of Israel by being able to call them antisemitic. All to do with politics, nothing to do with ethnicity. That's what you don't understand, Keith. That antisemitism is attacking Jews BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS, not attacking them because of their politics or public statements or behaviour. You may never see it, you being you, but at the very least you should refrain from calling people antisemitic when all they are doing is criticising the politics, policies, statements or behaviour of people who may be Jews. Or not. Even you admit that the committee was "mostly" Jews. Yes, I did notice that.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 04:29 AM

That's what you don't understand, Keith.

The EUMC board were describing anti-semetism, not Israel.
The criteria they agreed, endorsed by all the nations of the EU, show the views expressed by Richard to be anti-semetic.

You think you know better.
I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 21 May 16 - 08:22 AM

The Ottawa Protocol, comprised of 250 parliamentarians from 46 countries reaffirmed the EUMC working definition of Antisemitism at a conference in Ottawa in November, 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 16 - 09:10 AM

Keith - You are not listening to us in that there are degrees of antisemitism - say a scale from 0 - 100 -
and the 'crime' you accuse Richard of is at the very lowest end of the scale as far as any sensible reasonable person would consider it....

Once you accuse any folk of unintentional / unaware antisemitism and use exactly the same word to describe it
as we might to call out white supremesist neo n@zis thugs who absolutely hate all jews and 'half & quarter' jews
you are guilty of unintelligent inconsiderate name calling verging on slander.

You can also be seen as a rather silly hysterically over reacting person out of touch with the real world
'crying wolf' at the slightest imagination of antisemitic language or behaviour...

It doen't matter what abstract definition you resort to, in the real world you can make yourself look a real plonker !!!

.. and if you are not careful, a malicious one at that...............



THINK for a minute or 2 about this..
How would you like it if you were out for a quiet pleasant drink
and the pub bully [some local petty official] suddenly yelled out in front of every body
making a big fuss calling you a paedo !!!
You are completely innocent, but he has a grudge against you and deliberately followed you around town
until he could get a phone cam photo of you walking past a group of school kids at a bus stop...

That's kind of like what pro Israeli Regime extremists are constantly trying to do to their opposition,
and more than definitely what lies behind the recent wave of attacks on Corbyn and the Labour party...



Now keith, whatever your intention for opening this thread, I personally have found it very interesting
and a stimulation for parts of my mind and knowledge that have been dormant and gone rusty for far too long;
due to all the shit life can through at a bloke to distract him from serious thinking - so sincere thank you......


However tech problems have rendered this thread so slow to respond and open
that it is becoming near impossible to follow and contribute.

Dont know if it's mudat or my Chrome install...???????

But I'll persevere for the time being...............


[not spell checked or previewed - because mudcat is as slow as a constipated turn these days..]

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 09:42 AM

As far as I can discern, the document to which you persistently refer was never an official EU document and was set aside three years ago. Please demonstrate that it is a valid piece of evidence to support your case. Show me that it has, as you say, been agreed and endorsed by the member nations. I can't find this anywhere. In addition, I've read it through. There are parts of it with which I disagree, so I'm glad it was set aside. It's flawed, in my opinion, containing statements that would serve to restrict legitimate criticism of Israeli actions.

I don't usually worry about spellings on forums, but as this is one of your pet subjects I suggest that you spell "antisemitic" correctly in future.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 09:52 AM

I tried on and off for four hours to get that post to take.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:23 AM

"turn"... ??? "turd".. see what I mean.....



bobad - oh.. Canada.. ok..

Ten signs you might be getting slandered by accusations of anti-Semitism

Scott Weinstein - steering committee member for Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Pfr,
Keith - You are not listening to us in that there are degrees of antisemitism - say a scale from 0 - 100 -

I did listen and I agree and said so.
I did not attack Richard except to say,

"Richard, I am sure you deny your antisemitism even to yourself, but it was revealed in your post where you accused the EUMC board members, mostly Jewish, of having a "vested interest" in widening the definition of antisemitism to gain more "influence." "

The subject was then dropped for two weeks until Steve decided to make an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: bobad
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:57 AM

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, or their right to even live, with Israel emerging as the targeted collective Jew among the nations

Irwin Cotler



Compared to most previous anti-Jewish outbreaks, this [new anti-Semitism] is often less directed against individual Jews. It attacks primarily the collective Jews, the State of Israel. And then such attacks start a chain reaction of assaults on individual Jews and Jewish institutions…In the past, the most dangerous anti-Semites were those who wanted to make the world Judenrein, 'free of Jews.' Today, the most dangerous anti-Semites might be those who want to make the world Judenstaatrein, 'free of a Jewish state.

Per Ahlmark, former deputy prime minister of Sweden



Oh, Canada indeed

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:36 AM

Please demonstrate that it is a valid piece of evidence to support your case. Show me that it has, as you say, been agreed and endorsed by the member nations.

the most widely used definition of contemporary antisemitism is the Working Definition produced in 2005 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), an EU body which monitors racism and antisemitism in EU Member States (the EUMC has since been succeeded by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)).

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a "working definition on antisemitism" which is now the standard definition used around the world, from the European Parliament, to the UK College of Policing, to the US Department of State.

The (US)State Department report on Global Antisemitism in 2008 included the following: The EUMC's working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report
The Working Definition of Antisemitism was cited by the US State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in testimony given to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (in Helsinki) in 2011, and is currently endorsed on the State Department's 'Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism' page.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism was endorsed by the London Declaration of the Inter Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism in 2009.
In 2010, the UK All-Party Inquiry into antisemitism recommended that the Working Definition of Antisemitism should be adopted and promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies.
The UK National Union of Students renewed their support for the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2013.
An official document published by the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recommends the Working Definition of Antisemitism as a valuable hate crime data collection tool for law enforcement agencies, and for educators.
The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe )Parliamentary Assembly has formally recognized the Working Definition of Antisemitism.
The professional body in the UK for policing now includes the definition in their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (2014).

See also Bobad's report "
The Ottawa Protocol, comprised of 250 parliamentarians from 46 countries reaffirmed the EUMC working definition of Antisemitism at a conference in Ottawa in November, 2010."

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:43 AM

Keith - yes.. I am aware you did acknowledge the difference, and that was a positive signal from you..

But it just seems to me, that since then you had either forgotten you said it, or were carrying on as if you hadn't...???

This thread of yours has inspired me to start googling around this issue,
and I am very encouraged to find many links supporting and confirming the suspicions I had arrived at
regarding a strategic ambush on the Labour party so soon to an election.

Many links, from so many disparate sources....

Also links highlighting disagreement and division between opposed factions within the worldwide jewish community..

I might have some jewish blood and an affinity for jewish and Israeli music and movies, but I am not a jew.
I don't know if you or bobad are or not..

But if we were, I guess I'd be in a more liberal and concilatory faction from the both of you.....????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:44 AM

Steve,
" It's flawed, in my opinion, "

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 04:01 PM

The document has not been officially adopted by the EU and has not been endorsed by the 28 member states. In fact, it was shelved, officially, in 2013. You are trying to mislead the people on this forum about the status of this document.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:09 PM

From the openDemocracy website, the article Shifty Antisemitism Wars.

In 2005, a draft, working definition of antisemitism was circulated by the European Union's Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). To the dismay of its critics, the document confused genuine antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and was repeatedly, and erroneously, promoted by Israel advocacy groups as the EU definition of antisemitism.

By 2013, the EUMC's successor body, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), had abandoned the politicised definition as unfit for purpose. Just this week, in response to a motion passed at NUS conference, the FRA explicitly denied having ever adopted the definition.

Erroneously, Keith. Get it? This document that you keep pushing down our throats was never ratified by the EU, never ratified by the 28 member states, as you claimed, and was officially shelved in 2013. The document you've relied on has no force in the EU, contrary to what you claim. Dismissed by the EU, but used by you to brand Richard antisemitic. Keith, you knew all this, therefore it seems that you have been lying to us. Your lengthier than usual post above was a dead giveaway, a desperate scrabble. Your central point that this document has any credibility in the EU has come crashing around your ears. Don't try to obfuscate, Keith. I can be devastatingly direct when confronting dishonesty when I want to be.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:12 PM

That article was recent, by the way. April, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:46 AM

The plot appears to be thickening back at the ranch, where the Israeli leadership appears to be turning in on itself - first a senior Army officer, now a leading Minister - all "self-hating Jews", presumably.
Jim Carroll

ISRAELI MINISTER WARNS OF INSIDE 'EXTREMISTS'
Respected moderate Ya'alon quits Likud party after Netanyahu plan to replace him
Mark Weiss   in Jerusalem .

A day after being informed he will be replaced as defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon has resigned and quit the Knesset parliament, warning that Israel has been taken over by "dangerous and extremist elements".
Widely respected as a con¬scientious and responsible minister and a moderate in prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party, Mr Ya'alon was informed he was being replaced by Avigdor Lieberman, under a deal to bring Mr Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party into power.
; Speaking yesterday, Mr Ya'alon announced he was taking a time-out from politics because he had lost faith in Mr Netanyahu, but plans to return to public life in the future.
"Unfortunately, both Israel and Likud have been taken over by dangerous extremists, undercutting our home and threatening those in it.

'Depths of the crisis'
"This is not the Likud party I joined, and the vast majority of Likud voters - the sane and responsible public - would be wise to understand the depths of the crisis and the violent spirit that has overtaken the Govement;"
He noted that he worked harmoniously with Mr Netanahu for a long time, including during the Gaza war.
"But to my great regret, I have found myself lately in deep disagreement over professional and ethical issues with the prime minister. I have fought with all my strength against radicalisation, violence and racism in Israeli society, which percolates also into the Israel Defence Forces."
Mr Ya'alon recently angered Mr Netanyahu when he called for a soldier who shot and killed a wounded Palestinian man after an alleged stabbing incident to be brought to justice and when he defended a senior general who compared recent trends in Israel to pre-war Germany.
Mr Netanyahu expressed regret that Mr Ya'alon turned down his offer to become foreign minister.
"The change in portfolios did not stem from a crisis of faith between us, it stemmed from the need to expand the coalition in order to bring stability to Israel," he said, rejecting the allegation that Likud had been taken over by extremists.
"The Likud believes in democracy. The Likud is a liberal nationalist movement that is obligated to preserving Israel as Jewish and democratic state and represents the main strain of thought among the people."
Mr Ya'alon will be replaced in the Knesset by American-born Yehuda Glick. Mr Glick narrowly survived an assassination attempt in 2014 after being shot and seriously wounded by a Palestinian gunman.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:51 AM

YISRAEL BEITEINU
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:20 AM

The criteria are still on the EUMC website.
FRA may say they have not adopted it, but they have produced no alternative definitions.

The EUMC criteria are the only ones in use and if you read my earlier post, and Bobad's, you will see that acceptance of them is universal.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:17 AM

1. The EUMC has not existed for the last nine years. It was superseded by the FRA.

2. The document on antisemitism was NEVER endorsed by the EU.

3. The document was NEVER recommended for endorsement to member states.

4. It is UNTRUE to state, as you did, that all 28 member states endorsed the document. They did not.

5. The document is defunct. It was set aside, OFFICIALLY, in 2013.

6. If the FRA say they have not adopted it, they have not adopted it. It does not become "adopted" just because they haven't adopted an alternative.

7. Are you really trying to tell us that this set of criteria that are "in use" (which they are not, even though certain organisations may have latched on to them) are the only definition around of antisemitism? Why, you'd think that no-one down the millennia had ever brought up the matter and tried to define it. The truth of the matter is, Keith, that the definition of antisemitism is in dispute and always has been. Pro-Israel factions do not get to have the final say. They are entitled to their input just the same as any other interested parties, including people who may wish to legitimately criticise the Israeli regime. And it is not antisemitic to say that.

The thing is, Keith, you've been dribbling out this false information to us for days, taking us for fools. Not only that, you've used an officially defunct document to brand Richard Bridge antisemitic. You've been caught out once again. Busted, can't be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 07:32 AM

I note also that the London Declaration and the Ottawa Protocol both endorse this document that its own originators have now dismissed out of hand:

2010 London Declaration:

"Governments must expand the use of the EUMC 'Working Definition of antisemitism' to inform policy of national and international organisations and as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies"

Ottawa Protocol (among other references):

"Universities should use the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism as a basis for education, training and orientation."

Well I wonder whether either of these organisations has reconvened in the light of the abandoning of the document they wanted to lean on so heavily. Actually, had I been of suspicious mind I could even have detected sinister undertones in those two quotes.

Do you know why the document is no longer accepted, Keith? Because of concerns that certain statements therein could be construed as attempts to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, that's why. And that's why, contrary to your claim, it is not universally accepted. There is much good stuff in there but the baby had to be thrown out with the bathwater, which had an unpleasant stench about it.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:25 AM

Because of concerns that certain statements therein could be construed as attempts to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, that's why.

So not relevant to Richard's breach of the criteria.

Three years ago there was a flurry of uncorroborated reports that the criteria were being dropped.
Today there is no evidence that it ever happened.
if you search for EU antisemetism criteria, you are directed to the original EUMC criteria on an EU page.
There is nothing on any EU page to suggest that they are no longer in force, and as you have been shown, they have been adopted by numerous organisations and states beyond the EU.

If they are no longer recognised, please direct us to an EU body that says so.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:37 AM

.. or we could just forget about any disputed long winded obscure defining guidelines
and simply rely on our own experience, knowledge, and reasoning
to judge what is acceptable language and behaviour in most everyday social communications and interactions...

After all, I thought conservative right wingers were very fond of a common sense approach
rather than doctrinaire ideological EU dictates.....????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:49 AM

For Christ's sake, Keith, they were never "in force" in the first place. There is no "no longer" about it. They were never more than a work in progress, never adopted by the EU, never ratified by any EU state, adopted only by groups who wanted to suppress criticism of Israel. This is all over the internet and you can google as well as I can. You are making a complete fool of yourself by clinging on to this, and you know it, trying to cover up for your ineptitude typified by your flogging this very dead horse. As for groups adopting it, well you can adopt anything you like, but that does not make the document any more official. All that does is say that here we are, this piece of paper reflects our opinion. Trying to give yourself a bit more credence by falsely claiming that you're adhering to an official EU document is just downright dishonest. Not an attribute that seems to trouble you much, evidently.

From wiki.

In 2005, the EUMC published a working definition of antisemitism, whose stated purpose was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism." In November 2013 the definition was removed from the organisation's website in 'a clear-out of non-official documents'. A spokesperson stated that the document had never been viewed as a valid definition and that "We are not aware of any official definition".

The spokesperson was from the FRA, the EU body that superseded the EUMC nine years ago. Read and learn, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:51 AM

It isn't even disputed, pfr. Except by Keith. As the yanks would say, go figure. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 03:14 PM

". or we could just forget about any disputed long winded obscure defining guidelines
and simply rely on our own experience, knowledge, and reasoning"
Seems fair enough to me as Israel has more-or-less hijacked the definition and those who go along with them - - well, go along with them, as can be seen here.
those defending Israel
Israel has moved so far to the right that even senior ministers and Generals are becoming alarmed at what's happened.
I would hesitate to compare what is happening now, but as Israel has made all definitions unusable - why not?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: (UK) Whither the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:16 AM

They were never more than a work in progress, never adopted by the EU, never ratified by any EU state,

They were.
Show me anything from the EU that says they were not and are not.

Meanwhile, this thread is about problems within Labour.

"Alice Perry's NEC report: Corbyn, fighting prejudice and listening to voters online
23RD MAY, 2016 3:22 PM"

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for."
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/