JMW wrote:All of them would rather have the Tories in than Corbyn.
Yossarian wrote:I’m genuinely a bit concerned by all this conspiracy stuff. I mean, as I say, I don’t doubt that there are people taking advantage of the situation, but the idea that there’s some concerted media narrative being pushed by everyone from the news media to individual celebrities on Twitter all in order to undermine Corbyn over something which doesn’t even exist is genuinely a bit nuts, IMO.
So you don't think making a big deal of the Tories' racism and anti-Semitism would help get them out of power? Even though they don't actually say these things out loud, because presumably they know how massively unpopular that would be for them?Yossarian wrote:Of course not, but I have no interest in the Conservatives changing, all I want is for them to lose power and never regain it. Why would I waste my time trying to reform a party that I never want to see in power?
JonB wrote:So you don't think making a big deal of the Tories' racism and anti-Semitism would help get them out of power? Even though they don't actually say these things out loud, because presumably they know how massively unpopular that would be for them? This is an absolutely baffling response.Yossarian wrote:Of course not, but I have no interest in the Conservatives changing, all I want is for them to lose power and never regain it. Why would I waste my time trying to reform a party that I never want to see in power?
So, because they didn't adopt the IHRA defintion as it was, which would have basically made criticising Israel impossible, they're trolling Jews?monkey wrote:So Corbyn wants to loosen the stranglehold on discussing this without all the usual confounding that happens between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. But if you look at the omissions that Tin posted there’s some pretty clear ways to undermine and troll Jewish people that have now been removed. Just seems like a mess and whatever Corbyn has been trying to achieve hasn’t worked.
WTF? They don't get anything like the same coverage.Yossarian wrote:These things aren’t ignored though, are they? They get coverage, the Tories are just better at shutting stuff down with decisive action, something that, as monkey touched on, Corbyn isn’t quite so good at.
Eh? No I’m saying it opens Jewish people up to trolling. Not that Corbyn is doing it.JonB wrote:So, because they didn't adopt the IHRA defintion as it was, which would have basically made criticising Israel impossible, they're trolling Jews?monkey wrote:So Corbyn wants to loosen the stranglehold on discussing this without all the usual confounding that happens between anti-Israel and anti-semitism. But if you look at the omissions that Tin posted there’s some pretty clear ways to undermine and troll Jewish people that have now been removed. Just seems like a mess and whatever Corbyn has been trying to achieve hasn’t worked.
Along with that definition the IHRA gave a number of examples of antisemitism. These were not part of the definition per se, but are widely regarded as such. Labour did include some, but not all of these examples in their document.
I've done a quick comparison, and the examples Labour omitted are:
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
JonB wrote:OK. I misread the first part. But actually it doesn't open up Jewish people to trolling. And nost of the things Tin calls omissions are in fact explicitly mentioned, so I'm not sure what that list is about. Also, I've just got to laugh at the idea that Corbyn produced the huge controversy here. Incredible. Edit: controversy not conspiracy.
Right. So not 'omitted' then.tin_robot wrote:What the list is about - the discrepancies between the IHRA and Labour examples have been cited by some as evidence that Labour has refused to accept that these are examples of anti-semitism. Many of them are, indeed, touched on in the paper in full, often in a more nuanced way, but also often explicitly citing how you might still criticise Israel where appropriate.
This is the text of the Nazi example.Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Labour 'omitted' (alright not the best word for it) this from the things that are definitely anti-Semitic and placed it later on with some additional stuff.Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
It's not that you can't, it's that you really really shouldn't because people are going to get offended and you're going to make yourself and the Party look bad. All reasonably fair imo. Any country on Earth would get compared to the Nazis if they were shooting unarmed civilians and categorising the rights of their citizens on the basis of their ethnicity. The problem being that I'm not a Jewish person who has to get daily blasts of this crap when I go online and these people want to feel protected and that the Labour party is on their side.Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of
historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli
state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent.
Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and
Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in
particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as
prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party within Clause 2.I.8.
Yossarian wrote:There’s an opinion piece on all of this on the Graun, part of our efforts to undermine Corbyn and work with the rest of the MSM and Jewish figures to smear him as antisemitic in order to keep the Tories in power, natch, this time by employing careful reverse psychology. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic
What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre.monkey wrote:Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.
Don't take it personally.Yossarian wrote:There’s an opinion piece on all of this on the Graun, part of our efforts to undermine Corbyn and work with the rest of the MSM and Jewish figures to smear him as antisemitic in order to keep the Tories in power, natch, this time by employing careful reverse psychology. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic
He caused it, rather than produced it himself. But yes. This is a reworking of some technical guidelines. Everyone lost their shit because they don't trust that he is an honest broker. He's failed to convince people, either because he isn't an honest broker or he's shit. I think he's well-intentioned, and orbiting around the right way to handle it but still, ultimately, shit. Let's face it, he's there because of his politics, or because of what his politics aren't. He's not there because he's got a load of outstanding qualities that make him a suitable leader.JonB wrote:What you said is that "he’s produced ... a huge controversy, loads of negativity and accusations of bad faith on his part." Not that he's been partly responsible for it, or didn't help himself at times etc., but that he personally produced the controversy, negativity, and accusations of bad faith. To say that requires ignoring a hell of a lot of other factors in this, from elements in his own party to the opposition in power and much of the media. I find it bizarre. Edit: Just seen your last post - 'that is politics'. Strange, because I've never seen anything like it in the UK before.monkey wrote:Silly of me to think handling this issue competently might have produced a better outcome.
Brexit? Austerity? Selling off the NHS? Lots of stuff.monkey wrote:What have they got to do with anything?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!