• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments

QuadpolarNutjob

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News

fairly clear pro-jewish bias in the BBC, look at this article drumming up a fervor over...nothing.

'Mr Corbyn had said: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states or organisations."'

that's it^

that is the basis of the outrage.
 
Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News

fairly clear pro-jewish bias in the BBC, look at this article drumming up a fervor over...nothing.

'Mr Corbyn had said: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states or organisations."'

that's it^

that is the basis of the outrage.

It does appear he was making a parallel between the two groups.
 
He is correct.... what the hell is the outrage? Should the Vatican be blamed for the actions of radical Christians?
 
Chief Rabbi condemns 'offensive' Corbyn anti-Semitism comments - BBC News

fairly clear pro-jewish bias in the BBC, look at this article drumming up a fervor over...nothing.

'Mr Corbyn had said: "Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states or organisations."'

that's it^

that is the basis of the outrage.

The guy is a left leaning social democrat and they are shifting en block away from Israel.
 
He's just trying to get people to remember his name tomorrow.

Outrage is perishable - you got to use it while it's fresh.
 
He is correct.... what the hell is the outrage? Should the Vatican be blamed for the actions of radical Christians?

One must be tricky with analogies because they can be easily misread, deliberately or accidentally. This particular analogy could be misread of a comparison of the Israel to ISIS, rather than a statement that members of a class are not individually responsible for the actions of other members of that class. For example, there has been plenty of DP outrage when posters such as myself have pointed out that it's disgusting rank hypocrisy for people to act like all muslims are responsible for the acts of muslim terrorists, but not act like all Christians are responsible for the acts of Christian murderers. Etc.

Corbyn may, of course, be deliberately playing into that. If you set up the analogy so that it has an innocent meaning and a culpable meaning, you create a situation where anyone objecting to your statement because they interpreted it as having the culpable meaning can be counter-attacked as reactionary. Maybe accuse them of being "politically correct". Etc.
 
Last edited:
He is correct.... what the hell is the outrage? Should the Vatican be blamed for the actions of radical Christians?

That wasn't the point. This was a backhanded slap in the face of Israel, which he compared to ISIS.

Here is the equivalency:

1) Muslims in general are not like ISIS.

2) Jews in general are not like Israel.

This was a deliberate smear of Israel, and it's drumming up a furor because it was blatant anti-Semitism, disguised as an innocent statement which anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bag of hammers can easily see through.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't the point. This was a backhanded slap in the face of Israel, which he compared to ISIS.

Here is the equivalency:

1) Muslims in general are not like ISIS.

2) Jews in general are not like Israel.

This was a deliberate smear of Israel, and it's drumming up a furor because it was blatant anti-Semitism, disguised as an innocent statement which anyone with an IQ greater than that of a bag of hammers can easily see through.

Where did he compare Israel to ISIS?

First the word "compare" or any equivalent was never said.
Second the word ISIS was never said.

So how can he be comparing them?

As for being a smear against Israel..no.. it was as smear against the Israeli government and Bibi.

As for being anti-Semitism.. hell no. Being critical of Israeli government policy is NOT Anti-semitism. I know fully that the usual pro-Israel suspects want to paint any criticism like this, but that is why we have to stand against it. Listen I dont like him by any means, but what he said was accurate. Could he have added "blame Christians for the acts of Brevik" or something similar.. sure, that would be better, but it does not change the fact that he is accurate.
 
Where did he compare Israel to ISIS?

First the word "compare" or any equivalent was never said.
Second the word ISIS was never said.

So how can he be comparing them?

As for being a smear against Israel..no.. it was as smear against the Israeli government and Bibi.

As for being anti-Semitism.. hell no. Being critical of Israeli government policy is NOT Anti-semitism. I know fully that the usual pro-Israel suspects want to paint any criticism like this, but that is why we have to stand against it. Listen I dont like him by any means, but what he said was accurate. Could he have added "blame Christians for the acts of Brevik" or something similar.. sure, that would be better, but it does not change the fact that he is accurate.

We're talking about the person who called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends and never apologized for it. We're talking about the representative of the radical and looney far-left that walks hand in hand with radical Islam and specifically with Jew hatred.

Whatever you're trying to twist his words to be like it doesn't change the fact that an analogy has been made that doesn't leave much room for doubt about the intention behind it. You said it would be the same if he said that Christians are not automatically supporters of Brevik, I could agree with that although I didn't know that Brevik claimed to act on the values of Christianity the same way radical Islamists claim to act on the values of Islam so it's not a perfect analogy. However that is a comparison between a group's relations with a terrorist from the same group and another group's relations with a terrorist from that group. Very unlike the comparison here between a group's relations with a terrorist from that group and another group's relations with a Democratic state. When you make an analogy like "I don't think all Persian citizens get behind Iranian global terrorism just as I also don't think that all Danish citizens get behind Denmark's immigration policies", you're comparing, yes comparing, Danish immigration policies with Iranian support for terrorism. You're bringing Danish immigration policies to the discussion as something that could be seen as equally wrong or at the very least on the same level of wrongness as the Iranian support for terrorism, and that's absurd.

I don't think Corbyn is an antisemite, I think he's just quite insane and I think he has no real or actual connection with reality or with the ground his feet stand on, as pointed out by many already, but let's not try and paint his words to be different than they are just to score points for your obssession with Israel.
 
Last edited:
Where did he compare Israel to ISIS?

First the word "compare" or any equivalent was never said.
Second the word ISIS was never said.

So how can he be comparing them?

As for being a smear against Israel..no.. it was as smear against the Israeli government and Bibi.

As for being anti-Semitism.. hell no. Being critical of Israeli government policy is NOT Anti-semitism. I know fully that the usual pro-Israel suspects want to paint any criticism like this, but that is why we have to stand against it. Listen I dont like him by any means, but what he said was accurate. Could he have added "blame Christians for the acts of Brevik" or something similar.. sure, that would be better, but it does not change the fact that he is accurate.

What a wonderful demonstration of sophistry.
 
We're talking about the person who called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends and never apologized for it. We're talking about the representative of the radical and looney far-left that walks hand in hand with radical Islam and specifically with Jew hatred.

And so what. What he said here was not wrong.

Whatever you're trying to twist his words to be like it doesn't change the fact that an analogy has been made that doesn't leave much room for doubt about the intention behind it. You said it would be the same if he said that Christians are not automatically supporters of Brevik, I could agree with that although I didn't know that Brevik claimed to act on the values of Christianity the same way radical Islamists claim to act on the values of Islam so it's not a perfect analogy.

He called himself a Christian crusader..

I don't think Corbyn is an antisemite, I think he's just quite insane and I think he has no real or actual connection with reality or with the ground his feet stand on, as pointed out by many already, but let's not try and paint his words to be different than they are just to score points for your obssession with Israel.

My obsession with Israel? I could care less about Israel or the Palestinians. I just refuse to condemn a man for saying the right thing. You dont blame a whole religion or people for that acts of individuals... that is all he said, nothing more nothing less.
 
And so what. What he said here was not wrong.

It most definitely was wrong.

He called himself a Christian crusader..

He did, but did he choose his victims based on the Bible? It's not a perfect analogy. I did accept that analogy though, so it's irrelevant, I expect you to respond to the fact he didn't choose a person like Brevik but rather a democratic state with a Jewish character as if it's just as bad to support Israel as it is to support "Islamist organizations".

My obsession with Israel? I could care less about Israel or the Palestinians. I just refuse to condemn a man for saying the right thing. You dont blame a whole religion or people for that acts of individuals... that is all he said, nothing more nothing less.

That is absolutely not the issue discussed here or the problem with his remarks, you've completely failed to respond to the argument brought before you about the analogy made between a group's relations with a terrorist from the same group and a group's relations with a state.
 
So you blame whole nations and religions for the actions of the very few... okay.. at least we see your true colours now.

So you supported Hitler and the Nazis, at least we're seeing your true colors now.
 
Where did he compare Israel to ISIS? First the word "compare" or any equivalent was never said.
Second the word ISIS was never said.

So how can he be comparing them?

As for being a smear against Israel..no.. it was as smear against the Israeli government and Bibi.

As for being anti-Semitism.. hell no. Being critical of Israeli government policy is NOT Anti-semitism. I know fully that the usual pro-Israel suspects want to paint any criticism like this, but that is why we have to stand against it. Listen I dont like him by any means, but what he said was accurate. Could he have added "blame Christians for the acts of Brevik" or something similar.. sure, that would be better, but it does not change the fact that he is accurate.

See post #8

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...yn-anti-semitism-comments.html#post1066023370
 
Back
Top Bottom