Jeremy Jew hater

[Sprotyrover]

All this furore over the so called new membership of the Labour Party can be easily resolved,all you have to do is look at the social media accounts of the individuals concerned and their true political views will become apparent.

[wesisback]

Interesting choice of thread title. Any evidence for Jeremy being a jew hater?

[Sad-Rovers]

Him being aligned with terrorist groups with the avowed intention of driving all the Jews into the sea?

[wilts rover]

Is that different to supporting the rights of an oppressed population against a goverment that has illegally occupied their land and carries out military acts against civilians - in defiance of 45 UN Resolutions at the last count - and an understanding that this conflict is the main catalst to the wider terrorism in the Middle East - or is that the same thing?

[BobG]

Thank you Wilts. One of the things that still staggers me about the Israelis is how they managed, within the space of a generation, to transform the support of almost the entire world in 1967 into the loathing that most people outside the USA have felt for them for the last 20 years and more. A despicable bunch puts it rather too politely tbh.

BobG

[Sprotyrover]

Corbyn is aspiring to  be  Primeminister of a country where the views of all persons are considered and respected in a Democratic way, there is no place for a person who has the same views as the pre World War Two German government as to a race of people who have a legitimate claim to live in the Palestine. Now that point of view applies to the Palestinians and also the Jews, it is no longer in his remit to take sides in such matters he must be totally impartial, something I doubt he can ever do.

[wilts rover]

Just like Tony Blair was impartial over the actions Sadam Hussein took in his country - and David Cameron over what Assad was doing in Syria?

I refer you to the 45 resolutions passed by the 'impartial' members of the United Nations against the illegal actions of the state of Israel. Why are they allowed to take sides if politicans are not allowed to state their views?

Could you please show me where Jeremy Corbyn has 'shown the same views as the pre World War Two German government'? Unless you think condeming a national government for illegal occupation of territory and military action against stone strowing civilians is the same as genocide - then you needn't bother replying.

Yes Bob agreed. Middle Eastern politics is hugely complex and complicated and it is easy to forget that not all Israelis agree with their government actions. Yitzak Rabin showed how dangerous that view is in that country and I notice his son speaking out against Trump today.

[Sprotyrover]

I don't entirely agree with Israeli tactics but being a student of history I am well aware of the attempt to annihilate the Jews in Palestine prior to world war 2.
The Palestinians started the aggression and have always come off second best.
The Palestinian terrorist factions currently operating in that region are not the sort of people,we can call friends,they most certainly are not.
Having said that I am no fan of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian teenagers who throw stones at them.

[wilts rover]

Ahh, so these Arab fighters that the Americans are training over there then - can you confirm that they are pro-Israel rather than pro-Palestinian?

http://aranews.net/2016/05/us-led-coalition-spokesman-confirms-training-arab-fighters-join-battle-raqqa/

Unless of course you are telling me that these Arab fighters are 'not the sort of people we can call friends' and that the Americans are training our enemies?

Forgive my historical ignorance, but wasn't Palestine a British mandate prior to World War II (and just after it when the Irgun began their terrorist campaign against us)? So we were complicite in this attempted annihilation were we? Please tell me more?

[Sprotyrover]

The yanks never learn, do they! I bet they wouldn't be arming those militias if Assad wasn't pro Putin.
It's called the great game!

[Sprotyrover]

Wilts look up the 'Balfour Declaration ' of 1917 and its consequences

[wesisback]

You still haven't found a single point of reference regarding Corbyn's hating of jews.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Calling Corbyn a "Jew hater" is silly. There's a big difference between being strongly against the Israeli establishment and being a hater of Jews.

That said, there is a consistent theme in the political views of Corbyn and McDonnell over more than 3 decades. They have been strong supporters of armed struggle. One of the Hezbollah members whom Corbyn called a "friend" has regularly gone on record supporting armed struggle to eliminate Israel. McDonnell (ignoring his stupid "jokes" about shooting Thatcher and his lauding of IRA "heroes") was against the Good Friday Agreement because it "wasn't what freedom fighters had given their lives for". Corbyn was on the editorial board of the Labour Briefing magazine when it published letters lauding the IRA attempt to assassinate the British Cabinet in Brighton.

So it's a tad hypocritical to say the least to imply that the Labour leadership are "let's all hold hands and drink lemonade" peaceful conciliators.

And why would you anyway? One of the supposed attractive aspects of the Corbyn/McDonnell axis is their consistently held views. So embrace your man. He's been consistent in these views for decades.

[wilts rover]

He is struggling to reconcile the Arab Revolt of 1936-37 to the economic and social consequences caused by the increase of Jewish migration to Palestine following Hitler's rise to power in Germany, so dont expect anything of any value. For clarification I quote from the excellent 'Israel's Secret Wars; A History of Israel's Intelligence Service' by Ian Black and Benny Morris

'Zionist land purchases continued apace....In 1935 62000 Jews entered Palestine, the highest annual number since 1920 (when the British mandate began). By 1936 there were 400000 Jews in the country, slightly more than a third of the total population. And 40 per cent of the Jews - about 150000 - had been there five years or less'.

You wrote that rubbish in your post 7 and you are telling me to look up the Balfour Decleration. You need to look it up! Or stick to looking for Roman fords in Stainforth.

A land without a people, for a people without a land.

[wilts rover]

I would agree Billy, Corbyn has been extremly consistently in taking up the cause of the underdog and challenging oppression. The passage of time - and Sproty's history books - will tell if that is right or not:

7. Talking to Sinn Fein: In the 1980s, along with Tony Benn and other Labour MPs, Jeremy drew intense criticism for engaging in dialogue with Sinn Fein and inviting its representatives to the House of Commons. The government claimed it ‘would not talk to terrorists’ but we now know that by 1989, it was secretly engaged in talks. Sinn Fein has been a major party of the Northern Ireland government since 1998 and even the Queen and Prince Charles have now met with its leading figures.

https://theworldturnedupsidedownne.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/15-times-jeremy-corbyn-was-on-the-right-side-of-history/

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. You are ignoring what I posted and playing politics. I thought you were above those games. I appreciate that young Wesley goes off on one when someone addresses the facts around the Corbyn team, but he's young and impetuous. I thought you were someone who tried to find the truth.  So, address the points.

McDonnell was quoted in An Phoblacht in 1998 saying, "An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years."

Corbyn was on the editorial board of a newsletter which, after the Brighton bombing, published a reader's letter that said, "What do you call four dead Tories? A start!"

Take it head on. Don't dance round it with comments about "challenging oppression". This is the background of the two most powerful people in the Labour Party. Explicit support for armed uprising in the UK.

[Copps is Magic]

Editorial board? I don't know anything about this publication you are referring to but the editorial boards I am familiar with (in academia) are not there to review and make decisions on individual articles, but instead to guide the general direction of the publication. I somehow doubt that, in reality, Corbyn even knew about this letter before it was published - at a time, it should be added, when he was an MP - so presumably any REAL incitement of political violence against opponents would have been taken seriously.

You're going to say something like he damn well should have or he wasn't doing his job. Fair dos - but do remember to apply this same scrutiny to other politicians. I'll suggest a few of your own criteria - over 30 years in the past, something they didn't say themselves, something written in a publication they were associated with.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

No. Nothing like academic journals. Not remotely.

The editorial boards of small circulation political magazines are the ones who sit down and personally choose what content they publish. I used to have a similar role myself with a Labour students pamphlet. We'd get submissions ranging from the erudite through the illiterate, to the offensive and libellous. In choosing what to publish, you are putting your own values out there.

There are only two answers to this.

1) Yes, that was published on Corbyn's watch and he stands by the decision to publish it.

2) Yes, that was published on Corbyn's watch and he deeply regrets being so stupidly wrong in his judgement as to give space to a letter that supported the attempt to assassinate Cabinet ministers.

Anything else is Trumpian "What? ME?!?" bullshittery.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And then there's McDonnell's comments on the Good Friday Agreement. Not pleasant is it, a Westminster MP coming out against the peace process because it didn't come up to the requirements of people who had taken up arms against the British state?

[Copps is Magic]

It comes down to whether you genuinely believe that these comments where aimed at inciting (or celebrating) political violence or not? Do you?

It sounds to me like a misguided attempt to appease Irish republicans. It comes off to me like a man deeply against any form of perceived (neo)colonialism and 'big' power in all forms. It's a mistake, but one that isn't necessarily sinister. I think the man was probably committed to a peaceful political solution.

It's no greater quandary to me than, say,  erm... us selling arms to Saddam then suddenly realising a few years later - 'No wait, we didn't actually like him'. Were we 'friends' with Saddam then? The last time I read up on Iraq's history, Saddam had a pretty consistent record of killing his own people. In fact, I think it was at his very inauguration (or whatever it was called) at which he literally hand-picked political opponents for execution.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

I usually don't flatter myself to assume what people are actually thinking when they speak. I prefer to look at the actual words they use. It's normally cleaner that way.

Have a look for yourself what McDonnell actually said.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/3069

Now, he "wanted peace, but...". Nite the "but". Not "we want peace full stop."

He also insisted on a United Ireland as the outcome. Which was not remotely on the cards in 1998. At least, not peacefully.

There's no interpretation of those words other than as support for armed struggle in the absence of a united Ireland. Not only dangerous, but totally on the wrong side of the argument.

To address your last point, if you REALLY can't see the issue here being one of a top level politician having offered support for armed insurrection within the UK (and not only on that occasion) then there's little point us discussing this further.

[Copps is Magic]

To address your last point, if you REALLY can't see the issue here being one of a top level politician having offered support for armed insurrection within the UK (and not only on that occasion) then there's little point us discussing this further.

If us supporting a mass-murdering dictator is trivial to you then you are right, there is no point discussing this further. Almost like there is a bigger threat of Islamic than ...

Sorry, I had the cheek to interrupt your diatribe against Corbyn there for a minute. You were saying. McDonnell supports an armed insurrection in the UK. Big claims these.

[Copps is Magic]

..big claims partly founded, it would seem, on the semantics of a sentence that also contains a claim to peace.

[idler]

The Labour Party are unlikely to have a majority for some time whoever is the leader but in my opinion the longer Corbyn remains leader the longer before Labour start on the road to recovery.

[Sprotyrover]

Anybody who has seen the film the lives of others will no doubt be waiting with baited breath for the STASI files on Jeremy and Diane's East German 'Holiday' to be 'leaked' 😂

[BillyStubbsTears]

Copps

"We want peace, but..." See the "but". That is crucial. What he is saying, unequivocally is "We want peace but in terms that we dictate (or actually, terms that were dictated by the heroes who gave their lives for the cause in the armed struggle)."

Having just mentioned those who gave their lives in the armed struggle in the previous sentence, what possible interpretation is there other than "We want peace, but if it's not on the terms that we want, there will not be peace"?

I await your logical somersaults to put a different spin on that.

And as I said, it's not the only comment of his on that theme. How about this one (once he realised that he was on the wrong side of history on the Good Friday Agreement and began to support it).

"It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.”

He kind of apologised for this a year ago. Except of course he DIDN'T apologise for saying it. Or believing it. He apologised "for any offence it may have caused." Presumably he still believes that "the peace we now have is due to the actions of the IRA."

[wilts rover]

Wilts

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. You are ignoring what I posted and playing politics. I thought you were above those games. I appreciate that young Wesley goes off on one when someone addresses the facts around the Corbyn team, but he's young and impetuous. I thought you were someone who tried to find the truth.  So, address the points.

McDonnell was quoted in An Phoblacht in 1998 saying, "An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years."

Corbyn was on the editorial board of a newsletter which, after the Brighton bombing, published a reader's letter that said, "What do you call four dead Tories? A start!"

Take it head on. Don't dance round it with comments about "challenging oppression". This is the background of the two most powerful people in the Labour Party. Explicit support for armed uprising in the UK.

Billy, if you choose to post comment on what the leader of the Labour Party and Shadow Chancellor said regarding the Irish troubles and Thatcherite destruction of British society in the 1980's in a topic entitled 'Jeremy Jew Hater' - then apologies but I feel I am able to reply to it in any way I see fit - especially at 11.20 in the evening.

Was there an armed insurrection with thousands of masked Trotskyites going around lynching members of the Tory Party from their own flagpole after that letter appeared? Or was it rather tastless 'joke' expessing the frustration at what people felt at the time - and later? Certain posters on this forum have expressed rather similar comments about members of the Thatcher government at the time too haven't they? Would you like them banned from posting for holding those views?

Former senior members of the IRA (allegedly) who were (allegedly) involved in the murder of British citizens are now in the elected representatives of the relatives of their victims and hold senior government positions able to direct the lives of them and other British citizens. They could if they wished participate in affairs to direct your life. Times change - get over it. Life for us all is a lot better for the decisions that have been made.

Yes of course 'the peace we now have is due to the actions of the IRA'. Do you think it was done without them and they just decided to go along with it for the sake of it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

As intellectual gymnastics goes, that's some effort. You appear quite determined to avoid the bleeding obvious points, so I'll spell them out.

1) There is no correlation whatsoever between someone posting a tasteless joke on here (and I've done so myself numerous times) and the man who would be PM having been involved in an editorial decision that CHOSE to publish a joke about murder and attempted murder of Government members. Of course he had a right to make that choice. That's not the point. The point is, the rest of the country has a right to assess the thinking behind that sort of judgement.

2) Your insistence on ignoring the substance of  McDonnell's comments is breathtaking. When he said "the peace we have is due to the actions of the IRA", the "actions" he was alluding to weren't them getting on the bus to Stormont for tea and biscuits. The "actions" are described there in his own words. "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice".

 He is unambiguously praising the taking up of arms against the UK state as a means to an end. How can you possibly argue any differently?

3) Ah yes. But you're NOT arguing differently are you? Because you then say that people who have supported armed insurrection can be rehabilitated. (Why would you raise that point if you didn't accept the argument that McDonnell had held those views?) But in now making this argument, you utterly miss the blindingly obvious points. Sinn Fein are NOT trying to form the Government of the country against which they supported armed insurrection. McDonnell and Corbyn ARE. McGuinness and Adams have a constituency that supported the armed struggle and agreed with it. Corbyn and McDonnell do not. McGuinness and Adams can be proud of their role and reap an electoral reward for it. Corbyn and McDonnell don't have that luxury.

[wilts rover]

1) I have already given you my answer to that. To what extent were the feelings behind that 'joke' prelevant across Britain in 1984? That tells you if it is relevant for the time. Because it will have no relevance whatsover in 2020. Corbyn needs to make himself relevant to people who believe in his policies, not the followers of Margaret Thatcher - unlike Blair in 1997 who invited her for tea.

2) It's you who wishes to ignore the obvious - and the 300 years of conflict and history that goes with it. All the actions by everyone lead to the Peace Process - you might not have liked some of them (and I was very close to one of them) but everyone had to agree to stop. Most did. Did anyone take up arms again after McDonnell's speech? Then maybe he is cleverer than you.

3) McGuinness (and Adams until he stepped down from the Assembly) spend very large amounts of British taxpayers money every year. Both of them have met members of the royal family - a senior member of which they may/or may have not been involved in assasinating. Does that mean that the Government & the Queen agree with their actions? No it means that political realities shift over time.

Can terrorists be rehabilitated? Dunno, ask anyone who ever met Nelson Mandela - or members of the first Israeli Governments.

Edited after reading the news headlines in which I see that your candidate favours negotiating with ISIS. Good luck to both of you on that one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

Pointless. And very typical of the approach of the Left keepers of the flame.

You haven't engaged with a single substantive point I made. I actually agree with most of the points you make, but they are not the issue. Go back and have a read of my previous post, then ask yourself why you ignored what I said and responded with a whole string of irrelevant points of your own.

No. Hang on. Don't bother. You've already said that there's no point debating. What was it?


2) "There is no point in having a debate as there is no middle ground to debate to. Either start up your tank or start running, those are the options."

Every day that goes by, the whole clusterf**k is looking more and more like a set of Citizen Smith mid-life crises dragging along a few hundred thousand starry eyed kids who want their own "Yes we can" moment and will ignore any reasoned discussion that suggests they might be wrong.

Happy days.