Anti semetism

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Simplistic Gibberish!.........You're ignoring the giant festering wound / Elephant in the room.
The treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state is at the root.
Tell me you're ok with the systematic slaughter & imprisonment (Gaza) of an entire people.....go on!

I'm not fine with the slaughter of anyone but the continued meddling in that area of the world by the UK and US is the main problem.

Idiot of the highest order, that's what you are.

[claret_in_exile]

No-one can seriously claim that the Palestinian issue is the cause of the majority of the wars in the Middle East. The Arab world themselves just use Palestine as a scapegoat - Palestinians are thought of as the gypsies of the Arab world and no-one actually wants to really help them (Jordan, Saud Arabia, Lebanon, Syria). It's a great crutch to enflame their citizens, but when it comes down to it, Arab governments could hardly care any less.

There are so many wars over there because of the Sunni/Shi'a split and because they're swimming in oil.

[Colburn_Claret]

Simplistic Gibberish!.........You're ignoring the giant festering wound / Elephant in the room.
The treatment of Palestinians by the Zionist state is at the root.
Tell me you're ok with the systematic slaughter & imprisonment (Gaza) of an entire people.....go on!

Surely the systematic slaughter and imprisonment of an entire people is what led to the creation of Israel in the first place.
In no way defending the Israelis, but Arabs have been feuding and fighting with other Arabs, for thousands of years. Its in their blood sadly, yet in no way the fault of Israel.
The Palestinian question is another topic completely.

[AndrewJB]

By referencing the “right wing press” I was merely quoting the resident corbynistas on here, who repeatedly denied there was an issue, blaming it on a witch hunt by the media.

Seems like there was something in it after all....

I don’t think anyone said there was nothing in it, but that it was being exaggerated and talked up as a means of attacking Corbyn. Papers claimed the party was “riddled with anti-Semites” - and that wasn’t found to be the case by the investigation. In fact rather than being anti-Semitic, the main issue is that things weren’t dealt with quickly enough. Once Corbyn supporters were elected to the party’s governing body, cases were dealt with much faster, and I’m told the enquiry mentions this.

[Colburn_Claret]

I don’t think anyone said there was nothing in it, but that it was being exaggerated and talked up as a means of attacking Corbyn. Papers claimed the party was “riddled with anti-Semites” - and that wasn’t found to be the case by the investigation. In fact rather than being anti-Semitic, the main issue is that things weren’t dealt with quickly enough. Once Corbyn supporters were elected to the party’s governing body, cases were dealt with much faster, and I’m told the enquiry mentions this.

Ask yourself, what was the issue that wasn't dealt with quickly enough?
Could it be antisemitism

Your just making yourself look silly trying to defend the indefensible.
The reports of antisemitism were coming from inside the party, not Tory head office, or Fleet St.

[AndrewJB]

Ask yourself, what was the issue that wasn't dealt with quickly enough?
Could it be antisemitism

Your just making yourself look silly trying to defend the indefensible.
The reports of antisemitism were coming from inside the party, not Tory head office, or Fleet St.

I’m not defending anything. Merely noting that the enquiry didn’t conclude that Labour was “full of anti-Semites,” as had been claimed. Is that not a reassuring thing, or were you hoping for evidence that the party was full of them?

As for the people in charge of handling complaints and discipline, yes, they have that to answer for.

[Rowls]

Your attempts to keep this thread on the path that you want are admirable (admittedly it's a little curious why you're only worried about doing it on this thread and none of the others on the board) but given the lack of reference to Jeremy Corbyn in the title or original post it seems a bit strange.

Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party at the time. These complaints of anti-semitism have coincided almost perfectly with his tenure as leader.

I get these insinuations that I'm only doing this for partisan political reasons but I've praised Sir Keir Starmer's handling of the affair since he took over so I'm not sure these accusations hold true.

[bobinho]

andrewjb, As well as answering for the anti-semitic attitudes of some of the party members, right? You seem more wrapped up in the party's reluctance/slowness to deal with it than the fact it existed in the first place.

Whether the party was full of them or not is really irrelevant... for there to be just the one is appalling, especially in a party that stands for inclusion of everyone and everything.

[aggi]

Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party at the time. These complaints of anti-semitism have coincided almost perfectly with his tenure as leader.

I get these insinuations that I'm only doing this for partisan political reasons but I've praised Sir Keir Starmer's handling of the affair since he took over so I'm not sure these accusations hold true.

But you yourself posted plenty of examples from before Corbyn was leader. You can see why it seems strange.

[Rowls]

These complaints clearly centre around the time Corbyn was labour leader.

The only thing that seems “strange” is in trying to deny it.

It is right and good that Labour are now beginning to properly address this problem and I applaud Keir Starmer for the stance he has taken.

Feel free to expand upon what is “strange” about this.

[Devils_Advocate]

What is strange is how we always politicise racism on both sides and fail to address it as a unified singular objective

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2020/august/ ... d-the-ehrc

Accusations of whataboutery and the 'start your own conversation about your brand of racism' is one of the biggest hurdles of making real forward progress

[aggi]

These complaints clearly centre around the time Corbyn was labour leader.

The only thing that seems “strange” is in trying to deny it.

It is right and good that Labour are now beginning to properly address this problem and I applaud Keir Starmer for the stance he has taken.

Feel free to expand upon what is “strange” about this.

Except loads of your examples, e.g

Jeremy Corbyn commenting on Facebook re: freedom of speech and anti-semitic graffiti
Jeremy Corbyn writing the foreword to an anti-semitic book
Richard Burgon saying "Zionism is the enemy of peace"
Naz Shah reposted an anti-semitic map on twitter

don't.

I find it strange that you're trying to blame it all on Corbyn (although he certainly didn't help) rather than a problem with the Labour Party.

[Rowls]

I am in no way “trying to blame it all on Corbyn”.

He is not directly responsible for Naz Shah’s comments or Richard Burgon’s comments.

But they happened on his watch and he didn’t deal with them effectively. This lack of action about dealing with anti-sémitism (and in these instances I feel we are justified in using that term directly as both Shah and Burgon admitted the offence and apologized) has since been uncovered to be systemic in the organization which Jeremy Corbyn led.

So it’s not “all his fault” but he is the one who bares the ultimate responsibility for how it was dealt with at the time.

Corbyn did an awful job with it. Starmer has started dealing with the mess much more effectively and decisively.

It’s a very basic idea which you seem to be struggling to grasp. That is the only thing which is “strange” here.

[Spijed]

I am in no way “trying to blame it all on Corbyn”.

He is not directly responsible for Naz Shah’s comments or Richard Burgon’s comments.

But they happened on his watch and he didn’t deal with them effectively. This lack of action about dealing with anti-sémitism (and in these instances I feel we are justified in using that term directly as both Shah and Burgon admitted the offence and apologized) has since been uncovered to be systemic in the organization which Jeremy Corbyn led.

So it’s not “all his fault” but he is the one who bares the ultimate responsibility for how it was dealt with at the time.

Corbyn did an awful job with it. Starmer has started dealing with the mess much more effectively and decisively.

It’s a very basic idea which you seem to be struggling to grasp. That is the only thing which is “strange” here.

Rowls, are you really horrified at what's happened in the Labour party or just see it as a way, like everyone else for a bit of points scoring?

Strange how this was only a problem to Conservative supporters just before election time and since the report has been published.

[AndrewJB]

andrewjb, As well as answering for the anti-semitic attitudes of some of the party members, right? You seem more wrapped up in the party's reluctance/slowness to deal with it than the fact it existed in the first place.

Whether the party was full of them or not is really irrelevant... for there to be just the one is appalling, especially in a party that stands for inclusion of everyone and everything.

Yes - one is too many, in any party or organisation, so the important thing is identifying and removing them. This is where the enquiry felt Labour were lacking. Surely you agree that it’s not a party’s fault if a racist joins it, but it is a party’s fault if that person shows themselves to be racist, and the party fails to act quickly?

[bobinho]

I absolutely agree Andrew.

I listened to radio 2 yesterday, and when Vanessa feltz kept quiet for long enough, Alastair Campbell (who i normally have zero tolerance for) seemed to find the right balance when he stated JC could have issued a statement condemning both the act, and the failure to deal with it followed by an apology for it happening on his watch, but instead he chose to focus on the numbers which presumably is what he thought was important.

I know we are in a mess right now due to BJ and his team bungling thru this but even you must be thankful we didn’t get JC in number 10?