Fresh antisemitism scandal to rock Corbyn's Labour

Post Reply New Topic

She sounds like a bad liar to me.

I would have thought that some of these tweets may actually be illegal, especially the Hitler one.

Now, Labour: you know what you have to do. Kick this woman out immediately, remove your party designation from her as a councillor, and never let her back in. We in UKIP recently had an official who abused a Jewish party activist - we immediately suspended and later banned him. You need to do the same. Racism isn't acceptable.

The problem is, of course, that Labour's own leader is very comfortable in the company of antisemites, Holocaust deniers, and other scum.

(Anyway, she's dropped the ball a bit there. Surely, as a Muslim, Muhammad is the greatest man in history?)

It amazes me that people who post tweets like that are able to become a councillor (or retain their position) in the first place.

Please elaborate(?).

Look it up. Paul Eisen, Dyab Abou Jahjah, Raed Salah etc etc.

Why would the Hitler one be illegal? It is not illegal even in Germany, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. Not that I agree with her.

Things that are illegal are making threats, inciting hatred or violence.

OK, perhaps not.

Having said that, it's worth looking up Corbyn's history of cosying up to Islamists, antisemites, Holocaust deniers and other bigots. Being photographed with Hamas officials, speaking at Hezbollah/Iranian rallies, that sort of thing.

You raise an interesting point. I'm a Corbyn fan, but upon doing some research, I can't reasonably defend him. There are a handful of people that he's supported who do have questionable motives. Some are innocent, and are being unfairly labelled, while others are just fools to have said what they did; they should be more careful about what they say in public, especially in their positions. On this same token, Corbyn would do better not to associate with such controversial people, whether he believes them innocent or not, for the sake of limiting negative repercussions to his reputation.

The trouble with politics, is people find it so much easier to hate than to care. The second someone is accused of something, and there is some scrap of "evidence" (I use the term lightly) to prove it, their careers/reputations are over. In the case of Paul Eisen for example, he merely questioned if it was a full blown holocaust or just circumstantial extermination. He wasn't a "denier", but a "revisionist". He wanted to study the events and assess for himself - not a crime if you ask me, but the rational/scientific approach. However, it seems you cannot question the events without being labelled a "holocaust denier".

To quote the man himself: "Now the net is just full of it—"Eisen the Holocaust denier", "Eisen the racist", "Eisen the Nazi", "Eisen the anti-Semite" and all apparently disseminated by people who have neither met nor spoken to me. And, I'm sure in most cases, have not read anything I have written except for selected quotes presented out-of-context to them by others. As I came wearily to say; if someone would tell me what a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, and a racist is, then I would gladly say whether I am one."

Corbyn and Labour in general are not people I follow, but I am not all that surprised. I think being anti-Israel is often confused with being anti-semitic and this is what most of these incidents are about (putting aside anti-Israel sentiments from Muslims which is often a simpler "dey took are land" argument).
Israel is a hard minded conservative place on social issues, perhaps liberal compared to their muslim neighbours, but still far too right wing for the Left in the UK. There's a strong marriage culture, a high birth rate kept up with natalist policies, borders are heavily defended, illegal immigrants are described as "invaders", the government even discourages miscegenation with the native Palestinians, I heard recently they banned a book along these lines. Force directed against the nation is responded to with extravagant force. The Israelites have decided (more or less correctly in my opinion) that this is the way to survive as a culture and a nation and the Left hate them for it.

I know most people think it's about the poor Palestinians being ethnically cleansed, but if Israel were the Soviet Union 2.0 or some other communist asylum seeking utopia. the Left would forgive them in a heartbeat, as they did the USSR, which some of them are still wistfully nostalgic about to this day.

From what I've heard, Israel is a very liberal country, comparable to Europe in many ways. It brought in LGBT-friendly policies years before Britain did, for example.



The reason that Israelis have gone right in recent decades is because the Left in Israel have completely failed to get to grips with many issues in Israeli society, particularly that regarding negotiations with the Palestinians. The Left just wants to roll over and give the Arabs everything they want, and the Israeli public reject that. The European Left hates the Israeli Left more than anything though, as they think that to be Left-wing you have to be anti-Zionist. Israel was originally very much a social democratic country up until the late 1970s - remember all the kibbutzim there were?



I don't see a problem with that, if they can support their children.

Birth rate is similar for both Jews and Arabs in Israel, so I gather.



As they have to be when they're a country where your neighbours would see you annihilated.

Plus they have the basket case that is Hamastan to contend with.



That's exactly what they are. It's what I call the current Islamic invaders to Europe.



The Palestinians (by which I guess you mean Arabs) are not indigenous. They invaded and colonised the land.

It's like calling non-Native Americans or non-Aboriginal Australians indigenous or native. They're not.



No, they didn't. What actually happened was that the school curriculum in Israel removed it from the required reading list. You can buy the book all over Israel or lend it from Israeli libraries.

Israel is a liberal democracy. It doesn't ban things unless it has a very good reason to, the same as in other liberal democracies.



It is met with a force proportionate to the threat.



Try not to use the term 'Israelites'. 'Israelite' refers to the people of Ancient Israel. The modern term you're looking for is 'Israeli'.



It's funny you should say that - there was a lot of 'anti-Zionist'/antisemitic persecution in Soviet Russia in the 1950s. A lot of Jews were murdered. It's well worth reading about.

I'll leave you with an excellent link that's well worth reading:

Not the best example of an ideal left wing state I'd say, the LGBT stuff is irrelevant in the long run and the smarter radicals know this. What matters is the nuclear family, the state of marriage among the childrearing middle classes and the Left are rather hostile to all these things, everything else is superfluous. It doesn't mean a whole lot on its own, the early Soviet years weren't really gay pride parades either, yet the USSR is still viewed more fondly than Israel.



None of us are truly native I suppose and all land is technically colonised, I only meant they were there when the newcomers arrived.



Fair enough, I had only heard about it from 4th or 5th hand sources, it still says something about their government. The words "threat to Jewish identity" were thrown around, true or not. It's not difficult to imagine the outrage from the Left that that kind of language, applied to certain groups would provoke in the UK .



I know hehehe. In-joke.



Interesting link, I'll give it a proper read tomorrow. The problem could well be deeper but author does say early on that the way Israel conducts itself and Zionist thinking that supports it is a big part of it. He specifically mentions nationalism, a word that no doubt sends shivers down the spines of Corbynites.


Not the best ideological bed friend of an open borders multicultural lefty. You've got to remember that Labour is overpopulated with the sort of person who decides whether you are good or evil by the opinion you hold. Disagree with them and you designated evil or psychologically damaged at best. It's not hard to see how it might lead to anti-semitism.

That's because the people UKIP appeals to won't allow those policies to take place.

When Godfrey Bloom was praising Marine Le Pen, where were you calling for his head on WP (whenever she was asked in an interview why UKIP never joined Wilders and her in the new EFD group, she genuinely looked confused as to why they didn't)? You can't have it both ways. It really must be election season if you're back shilling for the party.

No, but then Israel never claimed to be "the ideal left-wing state". It is like other countries, getting along with a market economy. It was much more leftist before the late 1970s though - social democratic and socialist parties used to dominate Israel's political landscape.



It gives you an idea though that it's generally a socially liberal country.

Only the ultra-Orthodox and some Arabs really have a problem with gay people.



I agree with you on that.

Ideology is everything to these people. Left-wing Zionists (outside of Israel) are relatively rare, but they do exist.



Not really. Some people are settled, not necessarily colonised. It depends how violent the colonisation was, if people were displaced.

The Jews were displaced from their land and scattered. They came back to the Land of Israel to reclaim it.



Not really, the book was meant to be rather controversial. I don't know exactly why that is, but the book has not been banned. I would expect similar books to be banned in western democracies, if they were controversial.



OK, fair enough.



No, nationalism is fine as long as you are considered one of the oppressed, or you have a far-Left view on the world. That's why (eliminationist) 'Palestinian' Arab nationalism is fine and something to be celebrated, but Jewish nationalism and the connection to the Land of Israel is not.

Jewish nationalism is the only nationalism that is not allowed to exist.

The Jews need a country of their own - a strong country of their own - because other people cannot be trusted not to persecute them. Whether it's European racists and antisemites or Islamic caliphs, the Jews are rarely allowed to live as genuine equals.

The main policy I was referring to is making gay sex legal - Israel legalised homosexual activity six or seven years before the UK.

That depends on who you ask in UKIP. The older generation tend to be more socially conservative and against gay marriage, the younger generation are more liberal and don't really care as long as gay people are happy. Farage was doing a balancing act between the two camps. You can sort of tell that if you look at the manifesto.

Anyway, I'm in support of gay marriage, though I like the idea of the Portuguese system, which is, as far as I can tell, gender-neutral - i.e. it doesn't matter your gender, you can have civil partnerships of any mix of gender, and then you can have the service blessed in the church. That seems pretty good to me.

As for Farage, I believe he is personally in support of gay marriage.



I wasn't here for a long time. I got bored of WP.

As for Bloom - I found him amusing at times, and I liked his lack of professional polish, but a guy like him can ultimately damage a party trying to professionalise.

I liked Rob Ford for much the same reasons. I hope he is at peace, wherever he is.



The EFD was UKIP's group. You are presumably referring to the European Alliance for Freedom (EAF), which she wanted UKIP to join.

Because the FN are racists. They have moderated themselves somewhat, but they are still toxic, as are some of the other parties they chose. I know that UKIP did not get along very well with the Lega Nord when they were in the EFD together, as the LN were constantly in the habit of making racist comments.

I must admit to having quite a soft spot for the PVV, and I admit to liking the idea of "minder Marokkanen", partially "minder criminele Marokkanen":



I hope Wilders is acquitted in the disgusting show trial he is being forced to take part in.



Meer of minder?

(Only the multicultural left and Moroccans actually want more.)

Well the point I was trying to make (poorly) is that LGBT rights don't necessarily make a country socially liberal and therefore acceptable in the eyes of a modern Lefty. LGBT people have seen varying levels of acceptance all over the world over recorded history. We just associate anti-gay attitudes with our own past and our past with conservative values. There are hardcore muslim countries that hang gay people, there's another where buggering young boys is par for the course, there's another where not only are transgender people officially recognised, the state employ them in an amusing way.


I know this was the prime justification for the foundation of Israel, but it doesn't wash with me. The Jews are not unique in the level of persecution they faced and despite the events of the 20th century in particular, they aren't the most victimised group. Know how I know? Because they are still here. We pretend as though systematic extermination of a group of people only happened once in history, in Europe. But there are countless groups who have literally been wiped off the face of the earth by their neighbours (some by the Jews themselves, according to their holy books), where the destruction was so complete, that if there were any survivors they shed all traces of their culture and heritage and accepted the game was over.
Most persecuted extant group? Maybe, just maybe, but I'm sure there are many peoples still around who think they should get their own state too. I doubt we'd say yes to them all.
I can just about get my head around the Jews needing their own state, though I am skeptical as above, but the plot of land they chose? knowing how the Muslims felt about it? It was probably the most foolish piece of statecraft in the history of the world.



As you said in a previous post, immigration is invasion.



Nah I don't buy this. Not after all this time anyway, the Pandora's box of land claims you'd be opening if we accepted this would be immense. I don't fancy giving England back to the Romans, nor to some red headed descendants of the people the Romans displaced, then Vikings, then the Saxons, Normans... etc. There comes a point where invaders become owners, that was certainly true of the Arabs when Israel came along. Where that magical point is, I'm not sure. However, before you get annoyed: I think Israel has already passed it or at least is rapidly approaching that point. However stupid the foundation of Israel was, it is now a fait accompli, the Palestinians will just have to deal with it.



Really? I can't see it myself, the notion of any western government removing a book about an illicit affair between a Muslim and a Christian from an approved reading list, because it "threatens Christian identity" is ludicrous. It would be the biggest political shitstorm...

Edit:

I don't think they are happy about white nationalism or English or British nationalism either. To say they want Israel gone or crippled beyond recognition is true, but saying they want a strong Palestinian nationalist state in its place is wrong. Truly the only nationalism they ever supported was Soviet nationalism.