BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:05 PM

Now if you can do it without insults, why cannot others?.

Can't be arsed?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

Rag, you resort to personal abuse and lying smears because you can not defend your case intelligently.
You lose.

Jim,
You have ben told why they considered it serious - why will yopu not respond to that fact

Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave.
I believe they were being honest about what they see as a serious problem for their party.
Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!
Do you not see how deranged that theory is Jim?
Do not expect anyone to take it seriously. Not even Steve and Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM

Jim so sad you feel insulted. I feel insulted at being labelled a misogynist and Assad supporter. Do not label people erroneously and perhaps they would not feel the need to draw attention to your own shortcomings. You started this pathetic little game, perhaps you should stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:05 PM

Iains - Not getting at you or Jim here. Honestly. But your last comment reminded me of something I say over and over again. It does not matter who started the fight. It is the one who ends it that will be seen as the better person. Who is it to be?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

"Jim so sad you feel insulted."
Please don't be upset on my behalf - I live by the golden rule that says, before beeing insulted, always take into consideration the person insulting you.
I didn't say I felt insulted - I said you insulted me and then whinged about Dave (probably the least insulting person in this discussion insuting you.
From the first time we encountered each other, you have implied I am ignorant, or naive, ot believe anthing I am told, or fail to look at both sides of the argument..... in fact, a whole string of insults and talking down to (happy to dig them out for you if it will help jog your memory.
You insult and whinge about being insulted - which makes you a hypocrite and you use your insulting in place of responding to the points put before you (particularly about your support for Assad's crimes against humanity), which makes you dishonestly evasive.
I really have no problem insulting or being insulted by someone who behaves like that.
I have no recollection of calling you a misogynist - I don't even recall the subject coming up, so feel free to remind me and if I did so unjustly, I will apologise.
"Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave."
Then prove those reasons wrong by disproving them - simple as that
Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?
Please don't tell me you already have - you haven't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 02:56 PM

"Your case is that they are all lying to destroy their party and further the aims of Israel!"
And to nail yet another of your lies
I actually said that Israel has moved the goalposts and declared that to criticise their policies is "Antisemitic"
Some Jews go along with that - if that is what the Labour Party is being accused of, we need to know - as far as I am concerned, that is a misinterpretation of the term antisemitic
Do not make up yet more lies - you have enough to answer for as it is.
Do you really want to celebrate the birthday of the baby Jesus with all these lies hanging over your head!!
Now - WHY DID THE JEWISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT NOT GO PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT KIND OF ANTISEMITISM THEY WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 03:07 PM

Jim

"Now - you said you had explained why The Jewish members of parliament did not go public by describing the antisemitism they had been subjected to on this thread
Can you link me to it please?"

I think you are getting your threads confused

I keep my vies on Israel strictly to myself. I do not discuss the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 01:54 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?


UN Ruling

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:22 AM

Iains
Try moving up a posting and read what I have just written.
I put forward the point that Israel has now decared that all criticism of its policies towards Gaza are Antisemitic, and it is possible that this is the antisemitism the Labour Party is being accused of - in which case, there is no basis for those accusations - people, Civil Rights organisations, churches, humanists...... Jews, Israelis included - and non Jews alike, are appalled at the behavior of Israel, comparing it to that of the Nazis.
These attacks on Labour began within a matter of four weeks of Jeremy Corbyn announcing his intention to support the boycott of Israeli goods - a coincidence?
The accusations died down and no proof had been found of a major problem with antisemitism, but where renewed again when a Labour delegation, led by the vice-chairman of 'The Friends of Israel' returned from a visit there - another coincidence?
Israel is spending many millions in a propaganda campaign to combat the boycott B.D.S. - it is now recognised (again, within and without Israel, by Jews and non-Jews) that the accusations against Labour are part of that propaganda campaign and have been since Jeremy Corbyn made his announcement.
At no time has anybody proved a major problem, nor have they described the form that this antisemitism has taken.
The Israeli has had all the facts of the enquiries into antisemitism in the Labour party via leaked reports, yet they haven't specified what this antisemitism is.
We can only conclude that it is 'critiscism of Israel'
The only reason Israel hasn't been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the International courts is that the United States has prevented charges being brought by enacting many United Nations vetoes.
"I think you are getting your threads confused"
I think you are nor reading what has been written
If you will look, I put up, in inverted commas, "Because I disagree with whatever reason you gave", which was a quote from Keith.
Any remarks I made in my posting regarding Israel were addressed to him, not you.
Try to keep up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 03:54 AM

INCIDENTALLY
Have a good one y'all, d'you hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Iains
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:35 AM

Your post : 23 Dec 16 - 02:43 PM

Bit in red nothing to do with me. The top part is. Therefore the thread is mixed.

Anyway not going to argue the toss.

I wish you a happy Xmas and health, wealth and happiness for the new year.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 04:52 AM

Sigh
If you care to go through the forum you will find that posters address numbers of people on a single posting - that is why I put up Keith's quote and replied to it
That is how it is done around here, please get used to it.
Best wishes to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 05:15 AM

BDS SMEARS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 07:02 AM

Jeremy Corbyn a politician with marked anti-imperialist leanings.

Anybody told this dinosaur that it has been a long, long time since we had an empire. But this is the man who has a stated aim in clearing Trotsky's name and restoring his reputation to such an extent that he's left the Labour Party to navigate on autopilot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:20 AM

If he is so inept I wonder why the right wing press are so intent on trying to destroy his reputation? Fear that he may move the country a little more to the left after all? If he was so useless I would have thought they would have welcomed him with open arms but I suspect that they think he may have something after all. Just my 2p.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 08:32 AM

Oh dear, oh dear ............... Is even the UN Anti-Semitic now?

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Admits UN Biased Against Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:02 AM

Your headline is not exactly what he says in his speech, is it.

He says there is a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel. He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

He does not say that those resolutions, reports and conferences are erroneous merely that there are many of them.

DUH!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:26 AM

To quote from his speech: During the past ten years I have argued that we must never accept the bias against Israel within UN bodies

What part of that did you not understand or are you just lying because he says something that you don't want to admit exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:30 AM

Not at all Bobad, but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

but I think you will find your quote is somewhat selective.

It is not at all - it is you being selective in what you want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:54 AM

My friend, Fred Maroun's take on the resolution:

When will the UNSC finally denounce Palestinian settlements in Israel?

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution, shamefully unopposed by the United States, and even more shamefully supported by the United Kingdom and France, denouncing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, known for much longer as Judea and Samaria.

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, justified the U.S. position by saying that, "One has to make a choice between settlements and separation". This logic is mind-boggling. Why is the presence of Jews in what may become one day a Palestinian state an obstacle to the establishment of a Palestinian state? Wouldn't a Palestinian state be able to handle the presence of a minority of Jews?

The suggestion that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state is particularly absurd considering that not a single Jew lived on those lands between 1948 and 1967 and yet no Palestinian state was created.

Although the UNSC will never admit it, we all know that the only reason there is no Palestinian state is because Arabs decided long ago that they would never take a step that would enshrine the existence of an Israeli state. Creating a Palestinian state next to Israel would be such a step.

Saying that "one has to make a choice between settlements and separation" is just as absurd as saying that the presence of Arabs in Israel is an obstacle to the existence of Israel. If the U.S. feels this way, why does it not introduce a resolution at the UNSC denouncing Palestinian presence in Israel? That would be a stupid resolution, but it would not be any more stupid than the resolution that the government of President Barack Obama refused to veto.

Such a resolution would of course be rejected, not only because the U.S. would not present it, but also because no one else would support it, and rightfully so. No one would support a resolution that forbids a minority from living on a land, especially a land where their ancestors have lived for generations. No one would support such an extreme case of ethnic cleansing. Or would they? After all, they just did exactly that!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 09:55 AM

I also note you did not respond to the link I placed, I wonder why.

Personally I have no particular axe to grind in this debate, there are many wrongs on both sides of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Dec 16 - 10:20 AM

Your "friend" is deluded. There is no appetite on either side for a two-state solution and never has been. There has not ever been one minute's-worth of meaningful talks in that direction. The reason for that is that Israel never has to negotiate, never has to consider giving a single inch. Successive Israeli regimes and their supporters complain that the Arabs have missed opportunities to attain their state, yet it's they who constantly work against its possibility. The settlement expansion into occupied territory has the aim of breaking up the land that a separate state would require. In order to create that situation, Israel would need to give up the settlements, otherwise a contiguous tract of land would be near-impossible to achieve. The settlements are on the best land, and Israel will not give them up. The people who live in them would not want to be part of an Arab state in which they were by far the wealthiest citizens. The Arabs would be none too keen on that either. Have a little word in your "friend's" shell-like and tell him to get real.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:07 AM

Corbyn's leadership has been slated by President Obama.
"Jeremy Corbyn has been forced to defend his record after Barack Obama said he is further to the left than Bernie Sanders and as distant from centre ground politics as Donald Trump's Republicans.
Mr Obama indicated that Mr Corbyn had become Labour's leader after it "disintegrated" following election defeat and that the British party is still in a "very frail state".

"Mr Obama said he was not worried about the potential  "Corbynisation" of the Democrats in the wake of their defeat at the hands of Donald Trump."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-jeremy-corbyn-interview-labour-disintegrate-corbynisation-a7497011.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:16 AM

Ah - but did he mention or explain Labour's Antisemitism
You say you are not fanatical Anti-Labour yet you dredge up a comment by the President of the United States
Wonder what the Preident of Mongolia thinks?
Feckin' obsessive, I call it
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:30 AM

Well said, Jim. Yes Keith. Obsessive in dragging up absolutely anything that you think could cast Labour in a negative light. Boring, Keith. You're yesterday's man. Just stick to defending Farage with your mates Teribus and Ache. You're on safe and cosy ground there. It is brilliant that Obama has finally stuck one on Netanyahu isn't it. A bit too little, a bit too late, but Trump had better be careful not to polarise US opinion if he really means it about Israel. I wonder whether he really cares. Or knows anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 06:41 AM

Keith's Crusade appears to have hit rock bottom Steve
Want to see bet whether he says Obama is and expert on British politics and knows nothing of Israeli politics, or whether he chooses not to respond
I think the betting shops are open today!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 09:34 AM

When Obama commented on the Brexit debate, you all thought it highly relevant!
This thread is a discussion about the Labour Party, and of course views expressed by the President of the USA on that subject are relevant.

Jim,
Care toi comment on Obama's refusal to veto Israel's condemnation in the U.N. - did he get that right or wrong?
No comment eh?

Yes, I am happy to comment Jim.
I think that he has broken an unwritten rule that after an election old Presidents to not instigate anything controversial, and/or against the views of the President elect.
I also think that before the election he would never have made a move so unpopular with the electorate.

In short I view it as cynical opportunism.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:28 PM

"In short I view it as cynical opportunism."
So not only are you declaring for Trump (good to know) but you are condemning all the other democratic countries of the same cynical opportunism?
Hope you have the same respect for all the other things Trump promised - as I have no doubt you do.
Can you show us the "unwritten law" - whoops, sorry, it hasn't been written, so, like your Labour antisemitism, it doesn't exist so a decent retiring President was able to do the right thing .
Sorry Keith
Your boat's well and truely sunk
And you call be obsessed!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:36 PM

Err, Keith, he hasn't instigated anything controversial. He's made things LESS controversial by finally aligning his country with the rest of international opinion about settlements at long last. I'm really glad that he's removed that particular controversy and only sorry that he didn't do it earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:44 PM

Jim,

So not only are you declaring for Trump (good to know) but you are condemning all the other democratic countries of the same cynical opportunism?

No.
USA is the only country that has changed its view on this, and outgoing Presidents are not supposed to do that.
How does saying that make me "declaring for Trump?"
Just another lie about me Jim.

It may be an unwritten rule that outgoing Presidents do not behave like that, but none previously has.

like your Labour antisemitism, it doesn't exist

According to the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan, the leader of the Scottish party and many others, it does exist Jim.
Why would anyone take you seriously against all that Jim?
You make yourself ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 12:48 PM


Err, Keith, he hasn't instigated anything controversial.

Of course he has, silly!
Have you not listened to any world news recently?

This is the first time USA, including under Obama, has failed to use its veto to protect Israel.
A highly controversial policy instigated by an outgoing President rejected by his electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:41 PM

Allying toerags except you and Israel eh
I agree about the u.S.being the only one to change its mind - the rest of the civilised world has always thought Israel shit, which is why they nave NEVER defended her
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:43 PM

The controversial thing was the routine and unconditional veto that the US, which does not even value the UN, gifted Israel every time there was condemnation from the rest of the UN. That controversy has now been resolved, not once and for all obviously, but it's the right move. Morally right, Keith. Morally right and bloody overdue. Your attitude as an apologist for the extreme right-wing regime in Israel is just sour grapes.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:45 PM

And what's this nonsense about his being rejected by the electorate? Last I heard, Obama wasn't on the ballot paper. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 01:48 PM

A shameful act by a petulant president who wouldn't stop the genocide in Syria but sees fit, in a final act of revenge against Netanyahu and Trump, to allow to pass, by a notoriously anti-Israel UN, a resolution to deny Jews houses on their ancestral land. Here's what the hypocrite had to say on the issue of UN resolutions against Israel during his previous re-election campaign:

Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us --- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:38 PM

Steve,
Your attitude as an apologist for the extreme right-wing regime in Israel is just sour grapes.

I am not. I just put there side of the story.
What is wrong with that?

And what's this nonsense about his being rejected by the electorate? Last I heard, Obama wasn't on the ballot paper

Obama told the electorate to vote for Clinton.
He told them it was "her turn."
He told them Trump did not have what it takes.
The electorate rejected him.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 02:40 PM

...their side..

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 16 - 05:04 PM

The electorate rejected Trump by three million votes. Not one sinlgle vote was cast against Obama. He wasn't on the ballot psper.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:45 AM

Obama told the electorate to vote for Clinton.
He told them it was "her turn" to be President.
He told them Trump did not have what it takes to be president.
The electorate rejected all that and elected Trump instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 07:15 AM

"I am not. I just put there side of the story."
What's the difference?
You have consistenly denied every scrap of evidence of their crimes, when you were presented with dozens of links to evidence - from Human Rights organisations, from Jewish Groups, from newspapers like Haaretz and even the Times of Israel, you dismissed them as "propaganda"
You are an arch supporter of State Terrorism
You accuse us of antisemitism, yet you blame British Jewish politicians of refusing to speak publicly on antisemitism "for the love of their party - 'Jewish plots' such as you claim exists in Britain ate typical of antisemitism.
Your interest has always been the extremist - on its way to being a FASCIST regime,
PART TWO
You are happy to vilify Jews who don't share your affection for this extremist state
Your blind faith in these thugs has become legendary on this forum.
And now you are besmearing a man who is probably the most liberally fair man to have ever served as head of a Western state because he thinks that Israel should stop stealing the land one of Israel's early leaders admitted to stealing:
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?.
You are really prepared to wade through sewers for these people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:18 AM

"I am not. I just put there side of the story."
What's the difference?

Why do you not want to have their side of the story given Jim?
Because it is far more believable than all that stuff you find on propaganda sites!
Who believes all that stuff. Not any decent democratic government however much they disapprove of the settlements.
Just some of the most despicable regimes in the world.

You accuse us of antisemitism,

No. I merely pointed out that some of your statements are anti-Semitic by the accepted definition.

Once again, everything you say about me in this latest, vile, personal attack is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:39 AM

"Why do you not want to have their side of the story given Jim?"
I have read their side of the story - it sums up as "we didn't do it"
You do not give their side of the story - you dismiss everything that contradicts what they say as "propaganda"
That is not debate - it's stonewalling.
"You accuse us of antisemitism,"
At one time or another, you, Bobad and Teribs have accused me and others of antisemitism, yet you are the only one to have openly stereotyped Jews in an antisemitic manner - the only one - I defy youto produce another example.
Jewish plots of the type that accuse Jews of keeping silent over the type of antisemitism that is claimed of being carried out by Labour Party members is comparable to the Nationalist Socialists of Germany's depiction of the Jews as a secretive threat to their country - that is how you have described Jewish parliamentarians - suppressing the facts of antisemitism.
You choose to put the well-being of the Israeli regime above that of the Jewish people as a whole.
I don't tell lies Keith and I'm sick and tired of being accused of doing so by two people whose track record of dishonesty is breathtaking.
Debate decently or stay away - you wreck threads in your desire to say "You lose, I win" - that is not what this forum is about
If you think this is lie - go count the numbert of times you have said it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 09:59 AM

By the way,
Will you please stop saying I do not want to know the other side of the story
I grew up in a household that was devoted to the dream of Israel (I know Mike G. M. grew up with the same dream)
Both of us came to the same conclusion that what has happened under various right-wing regimes has destroyed that dream.
Israel has fallen into the hands of people who are behaving just like those who sent six million Jews to the gas-chambers.
The basic difference between you and me is that your support is for those people while mine is for the welfare of the Jewish people as a whole.
I don't believe in the "self-haring Jew" slogan Israel has adopted   - you accused me of inventing it – now you just ignore it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 10:13 AM

Yo, Bubo!! Apparently the majoity of U.S. Jews are serlf-hating anti-semites by your definition!

***

"There's a very clear values clash going on," said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah, a rabbinical human rights organization. "On the one hand, we have a small but vocal minority of American Jews who believe that supporting Israel means supporting the right-wing agenda, the current government. And on the other, there is a larger percentage of American Jews who are committed to Israel and committed to democracy and want to see it as a safe place that reflects our values."

"These days the right wing has a louder voice in Israel, and, in some ways, it also has a louder voice in America, because the people who are most actively and publicly Jewish, sectarian Jewish, share the right wing point of view, and are very pro-settlement," said Samuel Heilman, a sociology professor of at Queens College specializing in Jewish life. "But it's not the mainstream point of view."

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry's speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. "On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/american-jews-john-kerry-israel.html

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 01:31 PM

There are horrific injustices all over the world, including and especially in the Muslim world, but those are ignored by an institution obsessed with Israel.

Why Did Obama Pander to the UN's Stunning Anti-Israel Bias?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 02:31 PM

Jim,
you are the only one to have openly stereotyped Jews in an antisemitic manner - the only one - I defy youto produce another example.

I defy you to quote me doing it.
Like everything else you accuse me of, just another lie.

Why will you not discuss the issues instead of just attacking me?
Because you can't Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 03:04 PM

"I defy you to quote me doing it."
You said the Jewish members of Parliament would not take their accusations further because of the love for their party
I've put this up twice already and have referred to it at least ten times - you have never denied it - you are not really going to start now, are you?
"Why will you not discuss the issues instead of just attacking me?"
I must have put up several dozen links, all pertaining to our argument - those you haven't dismissed as propaganda you have ignored
You, in return, have put up nothing.
I don't lie - you have never proven a lie by me - it has become your standard defence, just as Israel's has become "antisemitism"
You are a very stupid man to deny something that you have put up for all to see.
You are a dishonest, reactionary bore
I really do think we have finished here (unless, of course, you would like to put up proof of the Antisemitism you have claimed)
Go live with your Christian concience Keith - I'm damned if I could
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 16 - 04:19 PM

Well you see, bobad, yer man in the link fails to realise that THE problem in the Middle East is not "Israel" but the fact that the Israeli regime is happy to be the proxy West in the region and more than happy to have a massive amount of US military and political aid. The upshot is that the Russians have adopted Islamist states in the region as their proxy. The place is a powder keg, not least because Israel has nukes, and Israel is in the thick of it. There will be no peace in the region until the Israeli regime is brought to heel, made to realise that Israel is a tiny country in a diverse region of very big neighbours. The UN has targeted Israel time and time again simply because the US has protected Israel from condemnation time and time again. Open your eyes. And I'd point out to you that yer man is in vehement disagreement with both you and Keith:

"In truth, I believe Israeli settlements to be illegal under international law, built on occupied land, and that Netanyahu has been uncooperative while in office..."

He is also deluded about a future Palestinian state which contains Israeli settlements. The settlements are on the best land and their occupants would be by far the wealthiest in the new state. Anyone who thinks that is viable, from either side of the argument, is in cloud cuckoo land. The region is heading inexorably for a single state. Ultimately, as I heard someone saying today, the choice for Israel will then be either to give up democracy or give up being a Jewish state. Israel's hubris-filled leaders are being incredibly short-sighted. A two-state solution requires settlement land to be handed back. That's the reality whatever your personal ideology tells you. And reality also dictates that it will never happen.