UK Labour Party reportedly suspends 50 members over anti-Semitic, racist comments

[gunner]

Would you be fine with creating a new country within the UK for Muslim war refugees?

How is that relevant to the topic?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

1.)Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.
2.)This is mainly an election strategy: How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis

 

[Apocalypse]

1.)Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.
2.)This is mainly an election strategy: How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis

1ׁׁ) No, criticism of Israel isn't automatically anti-Semitism, nor is any of this "criticism of Israel".
2) According to..? Your opinion piece from the electronic intifada (literally the most objective source you could come up with, a propaganda hate-site) doesn't refer to any actual evidence. So no.
Also, the fact you choose to focus on why are all those miserable comments and posts exposed now instead of the content of these remarks is a poor decision.

 

[Chagos]

Okay that sets a baseline.



Where does it say dismemberment? It says move only if I remember right. So move it to the US.. some state and force the people there to accept Israel as their new ruler. The world has done it before...



A public post 3+ years ago.. and it only now comes out just up to an election? You dont smell a rat?



Yes and it is debatable if they were anti-Semitic or not. That is the problem with how the term "anti-Semitic" has been used the last 30 years.. it can mean anything now days, just as the word terrorist.

As for the motive of the original post... that is clear as well. People were rightfully pissed over the Gaza war and what Israel was doing. Are they not allowed to protest that? Plus where is the outrage by the very same people who are claiming anti-Semitism over this post, when Israeli politicians (even in government) suggested that all Muslims be deported out of Israel?

Frankly, seeing how today is remembrance day, I'm not going to continue this.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

1ׁׁ) No, criticism of Israel isn't automatically anti-Semitism, nor is any of this "criticism of Israel".

Except the majority of it is.

2) According to..? Your opinion piece from the electronic intifada (literally the most objective source you could come up with, a propaganda hate-site) doesn't refer to any actual evidence. So no.

No actual evidence? The piece is literally littered with evidence and sources directly citing them... But its funny you question the objectivity of my source when the OP is FOX News and their source is the ****ing Daily Telegraph.. :lamo But I get it, lets not debate the substance of the piece from the "propaganda hate-site", lets just cover our eyes and ears and scream "NOOOO! ANTI-SEMITISM!".

Also, the fact you choose to focus on why are all those miserable comments and posts exposed now instead of the content of these remarks is a poor decision.

Thats funny because one of those "remarks" that is being exposed now is a FB post from 2014, this FB image was shared:

Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict‏ - Norman G. Finkelstein Norman G. Finkelstein
See its funny that this is only getting brought up now, and also that image is not anti-Semitic....

 

[Apocalypse]

Except the majority of it is.

That is factually not true. You are simply in the wrong.

No actual evidence? The piece is literally littered with evidence and sources directly citing them... But its funny you question the objectivity of my source when the OP is FOX News and their source is the ****ing Daily Telegraph.. :lamo But I get it, lets not debate the substance of the piece from the "propaganda hate-site", lets just cover our eyes and ears and scream "NOOOO! ANTI-SEMITISM!".

It's funny that you say I question it, I don't need to question it, this source is a well known propaganda site with a single intention to spread anti-Israeli nonsense and brainwash people, are you seriously claiming that the electronic intifada is objective? That's surprising even from you. FOX might not be objective but certainly they are when compared with such ridiculous sources, and the original source of the discussions are really the comments made by the Labour members. Also, notice how I've discussed your claim even though I pointed out the source's subjectivity, and didn't dismiss it as you claim, so the fact you've dedicated so many words to answering to the discussion about its subjectivity shows how you know very well that I am right about it and makes it a lot more embarassing for you.

So again, no, there is not a single piece of evidence on that opinion piece from the electronic intifada, your claims are bollocks and are meant to attack the reason why the posts of Labour members are being brought up so to not admit that they are immoral and wrong.

Thats funny because one of those "remarks" that is being exposed now is a FB post from 2014, this FB image was shared:

See its funny that this is only getting brought up now, and also that image is not anti-Semitic....

Thank you for proving my point that you seek to attack the reason they are brought up and not discuss their content which you obviously defend shamelessly.

 

[PeteEU]

Frankly, seeing how today is remembrance day, I'm not going to continue this.

Remembrance day? Cinco de Mayo is now a remembrance day? What remembrance day are you talking about?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

That is factually not true. You are simply in the wrong.

I am? Really? How so?

It's funny that you say I question it, I don't need to question it, this source is a well known propaganda site with a single intention to spread anti-Israeli nonsense and brainwash people, are you seriously claiming that the electronic intifada is objective? That's surprising even from you. FOX might not be objective but certainly they are when compared with such ridiculous sources,

Morning Star, The Spectator, The Independent, The Guardian, Oxford University Labour Club, BBC, Today, The Mirror, and more all cited in the article are "ridiculous sources". Im gonna guess you didnt even read the article.

Also, notice how I've discussed your claim even though I pointed out the source's subjectivity, and didn't dismiss it as you claim,

Discussed it? No you havent. All you have done is said, "doesn't refer to any actual evidence", and then played it off because you deem it to be a "propaganda hate site".

so the fact you've dedicated so many words to answering to the discussion about its subjectivity shows how you know very well that I am right about it and makes it a lot more embarassing for you.

:lamo No. Im just pointing out your hypocrisy which you essentially admitted to by simply saying "well yea FOX isnt subjective but your source is more less subjective!".

So again, no, there is not a single piece of evidence on that opinion piece from the electronic intifada, your claims are bollocks and are meant to attack the reason why the posts of Labour members are being brought up so to not admit that they are immoral and wrong.

Here, Ill point out one easy piece of evidence found in the article. How about the evidence that Jeremy Newmark, the head of the Jewish Labour Movement has a reputation of crying "anti-Semitism" at any criticism of Israel? "During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Newmark was left with egg on his face, however, when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts. The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.”
How about the evidence that the Jewish Labour Movement is an affiliate of the UK Labour Party, the Israeli Labor Party and the World Zionist Organization?
Or how about the evidence of the Vicki Kirby cropped tweet from 2011 which was used against Corbyn by many in the media during the Labour leadership election? "The hard-right gossip blogger known as Guido Fawkes, then proceeded to trawl through her entire Twitter backlog. He found a Tweet from 2011, a time when Kirby says she was not even in the Labour Party. Guido Fawkes then doctored a screenshot of the tweet, making it appear as if she had tweeted “What do you know abt Jews? They’ve got big noses and support spurs lol.” The screenshot of the Tweet on Guido’s site has clearly been cropped. But Kirby says this was one of a series of tweets of quotes from the 2010 comedy film The Infidel. Kirby provided The Electronic Intifada with evidence – a portion of a spreadsheet of her Twitter archive – showing that the original tweet concluded with the hashtag #TheInfidel. The writer of the film David Baddiel confirmed this on Twitter at the time, even tweeting this to a Guido Fawkes blogger. The wider press then ran with the story and started to use Kirby as a stick to beat Corbyn."

Thank you for proving my point that you seek to attack the reason they are brought up and not discuss their content which you obviously defend shamelessly.

How is that image anti-semitic?

 

[cpwill]

Remembrance day? Cinco de Mayo is now a remembrance day? What remembrance day are you talking about?

Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 

[Apocalypse]

I am? Really? How so?

The majority of it is not "criticism of the government of Israel", you are thereby wrong, as always. (Literally always)

Morning Star, The Spectator, The Independent, The Guardian, Oxford University Labour Club, BBC, Today, The Mirror, and more all cited in the article are "ridiculous sources". Im gonna guess you didnt even read the article.

I'm going to guess you don't know what you're talking about.
The opinion you've cited doesn't give any kind of evidence to its claim about who's being behind it, only pathetic agenda-driven speculations, and cannot be taken seriously.

Discussed it? No you havent. All you have done is said, "doesn't refer to any actual evidence", and then played it off because you deem it to be a "propaganda hate site".

By pointing out how it doesn't refer to any actual evidence I was actually referring to it, hence not dismissing it based on it being a propaganda hate site. You really should hire someone who'll explain these little things to you.

No. Im just pointing out your hypocrisy which you essentially admitted to by simply saying "well yea FOX isnt subjective but your source is more less subjective!".

You don't seem to know what hypocrisy is, and that's hardly what I said. FOX is a mainstream source, while not being objective (and all sources aren't to a certain degree) it cannot be compared with the objectivity of a blog of some anti-Israeli loons. This is a simple fact pointing not hypocrisy and the fact you even dare use the term when every position of yours relies on being hypocritical for it to be maintained is hysterical.

Here, Ill point out one easy piece of evidence found in the article. How about the evidence that Jeremy Newmark, the head of the Jewish Labour Movement has a reputation of crying "anti-Semitism" at any criticism of Israel?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The majority of it is not "criticism of the government of Israel", you are thereby wrong, as always. (Literally always)

Its not? Care to share these statements then?

I'm going to guess you don't know what you're talking about.
The opinion you've cited doesn't give any kind of evidence to its claim about who's being behind it, only pathetic agenda-driven speculations, and cannot be taken seriously.

The article literally names people who are behind it . From a point your ignored in quoting me, " How about the evidence that Jeremy Newmark, the head of the Jewish Labour Movement has a reputation of crying "anti-Semitism" at any criticism of Israel? "During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Newmark was left with egg on his face, however, when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts. The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.”

Hmmm that looks like a naming names.

By pointing out how it doesn't refer to any actual evidence I was actually referring to it, hence not dismissing it based on it being a propaganda hate site. You really should hire someone who'll explain these little things to you.

Then I guess I'll move to my second point. You must of not read the ****ing article because its littered with evidence.

You don't seem to know what hypocrisy is, and that's hardly what I said. FOX is a mainstream source, while not being objective (and all sources aren't to a certain degree) it cannot be compared with the objectivity of a blog of some anti-Israeli loons. This is a simple fact pointing not hypocrisy and the fact you even dare use the term when every position of yours relies on being hypocritical for it to be maintained is hysterical.

:lamo

Thanks for proving my point.

Here, Ill point out one easy piece of evidence found in the article. How about the evidence that Jeremy Newmark, the head of the Jewish Labour Movement has a reputation of crying "anti-Semitism" at any criticism of Israel? "During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Newmark was left with egg on his face, however, when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts. The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.”
How about the evidence that the Jewish Labour Movement is an affiliate of the UK Labour Party, the Israeli Labor Party and the World Zionist Organization?
Or how about the evidence of the Vicki Kirby cropped tweet from 2011 which was used against Corbyn by many in the media during the Labour leadership election? "The hard-right gossip blogger known as Guido Fawkes, then proceeded to trawl through her entire Twitter backlog. He found a Tweet from 2011, a time when Kirby says she was not even in the Labour Party. Guido Fawkes then doctored a screenshot of the tweet, making it appear as if she had tweeted “What do you know abt Jews? They’ve got big noses and support spurs lol.” The screenshot of the Tweet on Guido’s site has clearly been cropped. But Kirby says this was one of a series of tweets of quotes from the 2010 comedy film The Infidel. Kirby provided The Electronic Intifada with evidence – a portion of a spreadsheet of her Twitter archive – showing that the original tweet concluded with the hashtag #TheInfidel. The writer of the film David Baddiel confirmed this on Twitter at the time, even tweeting this to a Guido Fawkes blogger. The wider press then ran with the story and started to use Kirby as a stick to beat Corbyn."

 

[Apocalypse]

Its not? Care to share these statements then?

What, "Hitler supported Zionism" is cirticism of an Israeli government action now?
"Let's move Israel to the US" is criticism? Do you know what criticism even means? Do you just use words whenever you feel like it regardless of their meaning?

The article literally names people who are behind it . From a point your ignored in quoting me, " How about the evidence that Jeremy Newmark, the head of the Jewish Labour Movement has a reputation of crying "anti-Semitism" at any criticism of Israel? "During his tenure, the group invested huge efforts in an attempt to sue the University and College Union for “anti-Semitism” after some members proposed discussing the academic boycott of Israel. Newmark was left with egg on his face, however, when in 2013 a tribunal judge ruled against the case on all counts. The judge found it was “devoid of any merit” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judge criticized Newmark personally for a “disturbing” attempt to crush free speech in the union. He also found that that Newmark’s evidence to the tribunal was “preposterous” and “untrue.”

In case you didn't get it the first time (and you didn't) none of these are "evidence", these are opinions and empty speculations driven by an agenda.

Then I guess I'll move to my second point. You must of not read the ****ing article because its littered with evidence.

That is as much of a "point" as what you're referring to is "evidence".

 

[Fishking]

Would you be fine with creating a new country within the UK for Muslim war refugees?

All the countries in the ME are made up. Why do people like to go after one tiny little country out of them all and ignore the rest?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What, "Hitler supported Zionism" is cirticism of an Israeli government action now?

Thats just ignorance of basic history revolved around the Haavara Agreement.

"Let's move Israel to the US" is criticism? Do you know what criticism even means? Do you just use words whenever you feel like it regardless of their meaning?

Do you understand ironic criticism?

In case you didn't get it the first time (and you didn't) none of these are "evidence", these are opinions and empty speculations driven by an agenda.

Oh yes. A man who has history of falsely reporting anti-semitism and now who is leading the charge against "anti-semitism" in the Labour party isnt evidence in a thread about criticism of Israel=anti-semitism.

That is as much of a "point" as what you're referring to is "evidence".

:lamo

 

[Apocalypse]

Thats just ignorance of basic history revolved around the Haavara Agreement.

No it's not just "ignorance" it's a bit more vile than that but if you realize it's not "criticism of Israel" then you realize you are wrong.

Do you understand ironic criticism?

I fully understand that this is a lame attempt to hold to the false and absurd claim what was said counts as "criticism".

Oh yes. A man who has history of falsely reporting anti-semitism and now who is leading the charge against "anti-semitism" in the Labour party isnt evidence in a thread about criticism of Israel=anti-semitism.

Great evidence for all this being a plot by the Israeli lobby there.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No it's not just "ignorance" it's a bit more vile than that but if you realize it's not "criticism of Israel" then you realize you are wrong.

So ignorant criticism of history of Zionism and the creation of the state of Israel is now anti-semitic? Isnt Zionism a foundation to the founding of Israel? So ignorantly criticizing the history of the Zionist movement is now anti-semitism? So I guess you must be on this side of the debate: "The head of Progress proposed rule changes in the Mirror which would put “a modern understanding of anti-Semitism” into the party. “It is not acceptable to use the term ‘Zionism’ as a term of abuse,” the article stated, arguing for people who did so to be expelled.". :roll:

I fully understand that this is a lame attempt to hold to the false and absurd claim what was said counts as "criticism".

Im still waiting you to explain to me how this graphic is anti-semitic....

Great evidence for all this being a plot by the Israeli lobby there.

:doh Dear god. Jeremy Newmark chairperson of the Jewish Labour Movement. Jewish Labour Movement is "affiliated with Israeli Labor Party and the World Zionist Organization". Was "chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, an anti-Palestinian lobbying group". the Jewish Labour Movement is literally a organization to promote Zionism in the UK. And also dont forget, "The same day Ken Livingstone was suspended from the party, BICOM appealed to the mob, posting a tweet with the words: “save your pitch fork for Corbyn.”

 

[Wiggen]

Wonder when the Tories get around to doing the same... even though I suspect most of it is totally over reaction like the two more public examples are.. I mean it is hilarious that a several year old public facebook share done before said person ever got elected, suddenly just before a major election in London and locally.. it suddenly pops up and all hell breaks lose..

Well, since you don't believe anti-Semitism exists or has ever existed, your remarks are hardly surprising. She sounds like just your kind of politician.

 

[Wiggen]

So ignorant criticism of history of Zionism and the creation of the state of Israel is now anti-semitic? Isnt Zionism a foundation to the founding of Israel? So ignorantly criticizing the history of the Zionist movement is now anti-semitism? So I guess you must be on this side of the debate: "The head of Progress proposed rule changes in the Mirror which would put “a modern understanding of anti-Semitism” into the party. “It is not acceptable to use the term ‘Zionism’ as a term of abuse,” the article stated, arguing for people who did so to be expelled.". :roll:


Im still waiting you to explain to me how this graphic is anti-semitic....



:doh Dear god. Jeremy Newmark chairperson of the Jewish Labour Movement. Jewish Labour Movement is "affiliated with Israeli Labor Party and the World Zionist Organization". Was "chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, an anti-Palestinian lobbying group". the Jewish Labour Movement is literally a organization to promote Zionism in the UK. And also dont forget, "The same day Ken Livingstone was suspended from the party, BICOM appealed to the mob, posting a tweet with the words: “save your pitch fork for Corbyn.”

Anti-Zionism is just a tool used by the Far Right and the Far Left to engage in good old fashioned jew-baiting. It's been around for centuries - it just as a new name now.

 

[Wiggen]

It was a satirical joke facebook meme. A picture with a map of Israel superimposed on the USA, illustrating that AIPAC could set up their own country within their own country instead of occupying somebody elses.

Yes, the notion of rounding up millions of jews and 're-locating' them somewhere else so the non-jews in the area would feel better is a hilarious joke. It was certainly screamingly funny the last time it was done.

 

[Wiggen]

Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Since a lot of these people don't admit the Holocaust ever took place, you can't possible expect them to remember Holocaust Remembrance Day.

 

[Manc Skipper]

To put Ken's crimes into perspective before it gets too silly, He gave planning permission for this:

 

[Wiggen]

Remembrance day? Cinco de Mayo is now a remembrance day? What remembrance day are you talking about?

Embarrassing and insensitive. But then, that's you when Jews are the subject.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Anti-Zionism is just a tool used by the Far Right and the Far Left to engage in good old fashioned jew-baiting. It's been around for centuries - it just as a new name now.

Wow... You know there are many anti-zionist Jews?

 

[Wiggen]

All the countries in the ME are made up. Why do people like to go after one tiny little country out of them all and ignore the rest?

It's called 'anti-semitism'. Our European friends on the Far Left and the Far Right don't agree on much, but this is one subject on which they are united. After all, they've had a couple of thousand years to perfect it to an art.

 

[Wiggen]

Wow... You know there are many anti-zionist Jews?

Well, then that makes jew-baiting perfectly acceptable.:lamo