[OT] The fish rots from the head

There is a strong strand of pro-Israeli propaganda which calls jewish critics of Israeli policies "self-hating jews". Most of Corbyn's "anti-semitic" friends are in fact critics of Israel's policy rather than racists, although I realise that may not apply to all of them. Currently Israel is desperately trying to discourage Hamas from coming round to a position of recognising the Israeli state, as their failure to do so is the main propaganda weapon Israel has against them. It is a shame they don't have the confidence to call the Israeli bluff.

So you went to a meeting set up to discredit the Labour party leadership, and you heard people doing so. Perhaps a bit one-sided?

No - I went to a meeting where people are afraid the Labour party leadership is acting against them in a concerted way.

Given a LOAD of people I saw were wearing "Labour" stickers, why would they do that? It wasn't like there were a load of Tories trying to bring down Labour using Corbyn as the focus - nor that there's a "leader in waiting" around the corner.

What you say makes no sense.

"According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 2001..."

I would have thought that would have been sufficient "propaganda" for not liking Hamas?

Quite. Yet where is the outcry in the meja when the same sort of thing happens to those from the Muslim world?

I'm not trying to support either - just curious.

Not liking them, yes, but a larger number of projectiles have been launched, and much better aimed, in reply, so it is not necessarily conclusive. Demanding destruction of a state and strongly implying genocide is a lot more conclusively beyond the pale.

Your denial of what I say makes less sense. No doubt there were some genuinely concerned members of the Labour party there. But there were also some people who think, no doubt from honest conviction, that support for Israel, and American imperial policy, is a lot more important than which political party succeeds in the UK.

So what's your position in respect of Israel's deliberate flouting of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and UN Security Council Resolution 446 ?

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 specifically prohibits countries from moving population into territories occupied in a war. The reason it was thought necessary to spell this out, is because this was precisely the reason Germany invaded and laid waste to her neighbours in the East - so as to provide Germany with Lebensraum which could be settled with pure bred Germans. It was precisely because this idea was so associated with Nazi Germany that it became so abhorrent to most people. "Most people" in this instance including the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the Contracting Parties to the Convention.

Everyone that is except the state of Israel, who not for the first time are claiming a free pass to do as they wish, regardless of world opinion.

Who needs "propaganda". The facts can be left to speak for themselves, surely ?

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979, 1980,[10][11][12]and 2016.[13][14] UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup.

michael adams

...

At no point last night did I hear that any of this was about Israel.

I think you brought Israel into this?

This seemed to very much be about British Jews and senior Labour leadership (elected and unelected).

Since when was there a freedom not to be offended?

Then the person who infringed that freedom should be punished for it. Not everyone and everything that might have "led" to it.

It might help, if some examples were actually provided of what's being complained of.

As far as Corbyn and the mural are concerned, I personally can see why some people could find it highly offensive - more especially as a piece of public art. Which justified its removal. Howver in this instance Corbyn apears to be more a victim of trying to appear with-it, doubtless in reponse to prodding from his advisors, by being persuaded to post inane but right on comments in reponse to the drivel posted on Facebook. Without having much of a clue as to what he's actually reponding to.

michael adams

...

Chris Hogg posted

What examples do you have of Corbyn, or other senior Labour members, criticising Jews merely because they are Jewish?

And incidentally, I notice you sneaked in "or tolerate criticism of" there. Tolerating criticism, even unfair criticism, is *not* generally considered unacceptable. People can tolerate whatever they choose. Sometimes you have to, just to get anything done at all, or even just to stay alive. We've all done it.

No, we didn't. So that's that straw man disposed of then.

What *did* you hear then? Exactly what is it that some Labour leader has done or said that your friends considered "anti-semitic"? Be specific.

The arch comrade speaks out for Corbyn

But not for the jews.

WALCYA

I assume that you've never been subjected to racist comments and insults, then?

But what about the perpetrator's right not to be punished? I'm just pointing out that freedom is not an absolute right and one person's freedom to do something may infringe someone else's freedom not to have it done.

As a non-contentious example, consider planning laws. People often want to extend their property in such a way as to intrude on other people's use of their land. There's a balance that needs to be struck between the opposing rights.

Interesting you now apparently think a religion/origin so important. What changed your mind?

From: The Natural Philosopher Subject: Re: OT: Britain begins Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:20 Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y

The legal system The House of lords Public schools Parliamentary democracy A tradition of honor and respectability. To name but a few.

Just to put the record straight:

corbyn was contacted by the Jewish Chronicle in 2015 about his Facebook comment when it was brought to their attention. He chose to ignore them.

So based on his recent response (before his spin doctors put the "right words" in his mouth), he is also a liar.

Stupid reply.

Stupid reply.

Duh.

Yes, but in that situation both parties have acknowledged rights. That's not the case with the right to free speech. There is a such a right. There isn't a right to not be offended.

I've no intention of "speaking out" for anyone stupid enough to make a fool of themselves on Facebook, Twitter or any other social medium.

In fact I find it highly suprising that you yourself don't devote all of your time to posting your inanities on either Facebook or Twitter given the volume of opiniated drivel you come out with.. Apparently you could have loads of "friends", "followers" and all sorts. Whereas on here everybody either just ignores you or just laughs at you.

Go on. Why not give it a try ? You know it makes sense.

So which word or word in the two sentences "

" I personally can see why some people could find it highly offensive - more especially as a piece of public art. Which justified its removal."

Are you having the most difficulty with ?

michael adams

...