@Stoner thnaks for that link, I had been checking all day for the publication of report. Sadly we have not had the publication. From Junky's link (thanks also for posting)
Jeremy Newmark, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, said after the report's publication that he had met Baroness Royall and "I share her frustration that the full content of her report was suppressed by the NEC".Labour MP John Mann, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: "For those who thought there wasn't an antisemitism issue in the Labour Party, this report shows there definitely is."
What is clear is that the report, as much as we have seen, has been rewritten since its original submission as it refers to events which post date it. There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.
The Guardian commentary is all about whether the recommendation that those found guilty of anti-semitism should not receive a life ban and its relevance to Livingstone. I actually think that is a discussion for another time. What was important now was to learn whether anti-semitism at the OULC was confirmed and in which instances and who was responsible.
Junky I read this and your post a a while ago, I decided it was best not to comment. Do you think in light of the seriousness of this your last sentence in particular and a "smiley" where appropriate ?
I don't think the issue between Tarzan and Bo jo was that serious
Forgive me for not giving it enough gravitas and not taking it seriously
Junky accepted and appreciated. Boris has been an idiot (other stronger words possible)
The Chilcot report will be published on July 6th I wonder when Shamri's report will be [s]published[/s] burried ?
There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.
Or that since a new report is on the way they want to issue one definitive one.
Still, it makes you think.
I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you
I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you
There are two explanations for this, that the Labour executive recognise the extent and seriousness of the prblem and the need to extend the scope of the investigation. Or secondly that what was uncovered is highly damaging and need to be subverted or at least watered down.
Or, indeed, none of the above
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/labour-antisemitism-party-jewish-chakrabarti
DrJ that piece from Royal doesn't say anything. I mean to say Labour isn't institutionally anti-semitic is a pretty obvious statement, hardly needed an inquiry for that. My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party. It is not that Jews don't "always" feel welcome in the Labour Party, that's double-speak as the issue is far more serious than that.
Still, it makes you think.
A clear - to me - attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise this very serious issue. Genuinely depressing. Really extremely depressing.
I think we can both be confident it wont satisfy you
A reporting into OULB published in a timely basis which discussed the various allegations and whether they where found true or nor with the names of any individuals found guilty of such behaviour followed by action (or not) from the Labour Party as appropriate. That would have been sufficient. Depending on the results of that a further more broad reaching investigation may have been conducted.
As I asked before, with Chilcot being published on July 6th I wonder when Shamri's report will see the light of day ? If that's at a time when the press isn't full of Chilcot speculation or picking over the contents I'll hold my hand up. I remain highly sceptical and as above very very depressed about the state of affairs.
jambalaya - Member
DrJ that piece from Royal doesn't say anything that I want it to
My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party. It is not that Jews don't "always" feel welcome in the Labour Party, that's double-speak as the issue is far more serious than that.
How is it double speak?
"don't always" can mean they feel welcome 1% of the time or 99% of the the time
I replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting
jambalaya - MemberI replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting
Poor lamb, you must feel awful that it failed to give the results you expected. What a strange life, to be depressed because your glorious dream of antisemitism has been dashed.
Poor lamb
More snide remarks. Northward you and this attitude are part of the problem.
Read John Mann's comments again, they know they problem exists, they know it's serious. They are covering it up.
My accusation is that the problem with anti-semitism is endemic in the Labour Party.
That accusation is not supported by the facts and is entirely motivated by your own bias. Its false one can find just as many - ie barely any- in the Tory party...I am sure you will be giving them the same concern as you do this..you know for balance.
.
A clear - to me - attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise this very serious issue. Genuinely depressing. Really extremely depressing.
Yes if only everyone would join in your barrel scraping RW driven lefty hating jew bashing corby despising witch hunt 🙄
Just like zac did in the london election its a crude and blatant dog whistle campaign
Oh and he mocked you there nothing else
I am not responding to your fantasies anymore as the problem is your perception of reality not reality
EDIT:
you and this attitude are part of the problem
What about folk who say Islam is the greatest threat we face and insist, factually incorrectly, that Muslims dont need to obey the law?
Are they part of the problem ?
That is a shameful thing to say about a valued forum member like NW - like anyone thinks he is a racist or part of the problem- and is a disgusting smear; you should be ashamed of yourself.
I think the whole kipper movement has emboldened racists and bigots in this country
Boris or Ken using lazy Nazis comparisons not really racist but a symptom of the underlying issues
The PM was happy to describe migrants as a swarm, nicely dehumanising them, the brexit movement seems to be about scapegoating immigrants and eurocrats etc
Zac Goldsmith and Sir Linton Crosby appeared to revel in using racist smears against Saqiq Kahn
There seems to be a racism problem at Oxford uni, that for some reason they don't want to crack down on, when so many of our politicians are products of the Oxford privileged few it's no wonder that politics is so rotten, even the PM bemoaned the fact that Oxford had only 57 black students in its last intake
jambalaya - MemberMore snide remarks. Northward you and this attitude are part of the problem.
I don't think you know what snide means. Snide is indirect and sneaky, my post was neither.
I remain, as ever, delighted to be part of your problem.
A clear - to me - attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise this very serious issue. Genuinely depressing. Really extremely depressing.
Not at all - rather an attempt to ridicule and thus trivialise your attitude to debate, which is to grab any issue that seems to cast Labour and JC in a bad light and then distort it to suit your agenda to the point of just inventing stuff.
DrJ stop trying to cast this as a party political,issue, in doing so you are part of the problem
Here are a selection of quotes from Senior Labour Party figures commenting on the issue (Tom Watson and Baroness Royall) and the OU Jewish Society as well as a Parliamentary declaration signed by Gordon Brown - this has been a long standing issue which has gotten much worse under Corbyn for the very obvious reason that his stance on meeting terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hamas as well as his support for the dangerous mish-mash coalition of Stop the War has emboldened anti-semites to be more public, more active or indeed to join the party. Plus of course we have the statement from John Mann Chairman of the All-Party Group Against Anti-Semitism, I repeat it again
[b]John Mann[/b]
For those who thought there wasn't an antisemitism issue in the Labour Party, this report shows there [b]definitely is:[/b]
[b]Baroness Royall[/b] on her report: "There is too often a culture of intolerance where Jews are concerned and there are [b]clear incidents of antisemitism[/b]"
I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.
[b]Tom Watson[/b]
As Labour’s Deputy Leader, I will fight to ensure that Britain's Jews always feel safe as a key part of this country and my party.[b] I will fight to ensure that Zionism is not used as a term of abuse. Or as a code word for Jews. [/b]I will fight to ensure that the right to Jewish national self-determination is preserved and respected. Jews are the target of antisemitism – but I will fight to ensure that they are not left to oppose it alone. I am committed to that fight. Whatever it takes.
[b]The Oxford University Jewish society[/b] said: "We remain concerned at the [b]lack of any specificity[/b] regarding the events investigated. Some of these allegations are shocking and severe.
We are deeply disappointed that there have now been two reports into OULC, and both times the [b]Labour Party has refused to publish any detail on specific incidents.[/b]
By suppressing these reports, the Party threatens to undermine its credibility when it comes to tackling anti-semitism within the Labour movement."
2009 London Declaration, signed by the then [b]Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, [/b]
“Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and [b]target the state of Israel as a Jewish collectivity[/b];
Its a cover-up, the reports have confirmed numerous instances of anti-semitism including by members of Momentum Corbyn's campaign group within the Labour Party.
jambalaya - MemberI replied as I wanted you to know I'd read your post as a courtesy but I am genuinely too depressed about this situation to continue posting
If only that were true....
The only person you're convincing is yourself!
DrJ stop trying to cast this as a party political,issue, in doing so you are part of the problem
Yes anyone who is not a frothing RW Zionist labour hater is definitely part of the problem.
For someone who sails very close to the line re Islam* its is indeed depressing you think you can lecture us on tolerance whilst using this non issue as a way for you to vent your labour hating bile,
* anyone who said Jews were our greatest threat and did not have to obey the law would be anti semitic in your eyes - they would in mine to be clear - but you can say this about islam and that's s fine. Makes you think - if only you would think 🙄
For the record Livingstone appeared before Parliamentary select commitee invesitgating anti-semitism to explain himself
Chukka Umana is on the committee,
In a fractious exchange, Umunna, the Labour MP for Streatham told Livingstone: “By needlessly and repeatedly offending Jewish people in this way, you’ve not only betrayed our Labour values, you betray your legacy as mayor, because all you are now going to be remembered for is becoming [b]a pin-up for the kind of prejudice that our party was built to fight against. That’s a huge shame and it’s an embarrassment.[/b]”Earlier, Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said that he had heard Livingstone’s comments about Hitler and Zionism with “complete disbelief” and regarded them as “hateful”.
Accusing Livingstone of bigotry and of being “plainly antisemitic”, he said: “His views are utterly repellant to our community. If Livingstone had made his remarks about any other group, he would be labelled as a political pariah, and that’s what I think he is.”
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/ken-livingstone-i-didnt-say-hitler-was-a-zionist ]Guardian Link[/url]
Isn't that supposed to be a forum to investigate what was said and why it was said, not what Chuka thinks personally about Ken?
He sat there and figuratively drove a knife into Kens chest, and twisted it. Oppotunistic agenda?
I can only imagine if he had said, as you did about muslims that jews are the greatest threat to our way of life and they dont have to obey the law
Ken is a dick, his comment was stupid and it gave fuel to false flag fliers like yourself but anti semitism is a BS claim what he said was either true or it was false it was not anti semitic.
OH and for balance the title of the article is
[b]Ken Livingstone: 'I didn't say Hitler was a Zionist'[/b]
You then ignored EVERYTHING TO CHERRY PICK THe bad bit you big ball of bias you:roll:
the full article to your quote
Ken Livingstone has robustly defended his claim that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism, saying he had been deliberately misrepresented by people who wanted to discredit Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
“If I had said Hitler was a Zionist, I would apologise for that because it’s rubbish,” said the former mayor of London when faced with hostile questioning by MPs.
“If I’d said it, I would agree it was abhorrent. But I didn’t say it. I was stating a simple historical fact.”
But Labour MP Chuka Umunna said Livingstone’s comments had made him a “shame and embarrassment” to the party.
In evidence to the home affairs select committee, Livingstone said that in a radio interview with Vanessa Feltz he had said that Hitler had supported Zionism in the early 1930s as a way of ridding Germany of thousands of Jews. That was not the same as saying Hitler was a Zionist, he added.
He told MPs who are investigating antisemitism: “If I could go back in time and avoid referring to Hitler and Zionism in Vanessa Feltz’s interview, I would. I would go back and remove it because it allowed all the anti-Jeremy people in the Labour party to start whipping this up as an even bigger issue.
“I regret using it because it became this hysterical issue in the midst of our campaign to do well in the local elections and the next day virtually every front page was about me and antisemitism.”
Livingstone’s comments about Hitler and Zionism came amid a spate of suspensions of Labour party officials and activists for making allegedly antisemitic comments on social media. The former mayor was suspended from the party.
Since then, Livingstone told MPs, that “I can’t get down the street without people stopping me and saying we know what you said is true, don’t give in”. Those supporting him were “disproportionately” Jewish, he added.
He conceded that Jewish people had been offended by his remarks “because they have been told a lie”.
He added: [b]“A handful of Labour MPs used this issue, deliberately lied about what I said, and smeared me because they wished to undermine the leader of the Labour party. It’s that simple. And they should be the ones who are suspended.”
[/b]
[b]Livingstone repeated earlier claims that in his 47 years in the Labour party, he had not encountered antisemitism or racism. “Let’s be honest, if you’re a bigot, the Labour party is not the natural place for you to sign up,” he said.
He had been accused of antisemitism because of his long record of criticism of Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, he said. “Criticising Israel does not mean you’re a Jew-hater.”[/b]
Several times he came close to an apology of sorts. “If anyone’s been hurt by what I said, of course I’m sorry. But I came into politics to tell the truth, and I’ve never knowingly lied.”
[quote=Junkyard ]Several times he came close to an apology of sorts. “If anyone’s been hurt by what I said, of course I’m sorry. But I came into politics to tell the truth, and I’ve never knowingly lied.”
Ah, the politicians apology
So if Ken is referring to the Haavara agreement, and this wiki page is accurate :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
where exactly is Ken wrong?
So - He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler [i]was[/i] a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler [i]supported[/i] zionism 🙄
How many angels [i]can[/i] dance on a pinhead?
I haven't watched it all, because it made me want to smash things:
He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler was a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler supported zionism
but what is technically innaccurate about that?
from what I can see he supported zionism with that agreement because it was a means to an end, not because he was a zionist. And that's what Ken said.
ninfan - MemberSo - He won't apologise because he never claimed that Hitler was a zionist, he only claimed that Hitler supported zionism
How many angels can dance on a pinhead?
It is two different things, to be fair. To give another example, Andrew Wylie started the campaign Tories For Corbyn, he supported Corbyn's campaign for Labour leader but certainly isn't a Corbynist, he supported something he completely disagrees with for his own reasons. You can support a cause without being part of it or even identifying with it.
It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind. OTOH I'm yet to see a compelling explanation of why his comments are deemed to be antisemitic. Chukka's "It just is, it's obvious" is no better or worse than most.
It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind
This, Livingstone is one of those politicians who seem to sometimes forget that there's a camera pointing at him (perhaps that's what happens when you've been the public glare so long, who knows...), and news editors who will take what he sort of sounds like he's saying and run with it.
It surely must be covered in "Politician 101" : Hitler- how NOT to talk about him...
sometimes forget that there's a camera pointing at him
@nick in my view he knows exactly when the camera is pointing at him, in fact he positively courts the attention. He was well aware Labour was embroilled in an anti-semitism row after Oxford Uni Labour Club incidents - he was on the radio to speak about it - and he did all he could to inflame the situation. He intended to be as offensive as he could be in as public a way as possible.
[quote=Northwind ]It still doesn't explain why the hell he started dribbling on about Hitler in the first place mind. OTOH I'm yet to see a compelling explanation of why his comments are deemed to be antisemitic.
A good summary. Stupid comment he's a idiot for making - and he should make a proper apology because it clearly is going to offend a lot of people. But not anti-semitic - it doesn't have to be to be offensive. TBH those making a big deal out of claiming it is anti-semitic are just as big idiots (that or they're just as publicity hungry as him).
Surprise surprise this thread has popped up again, and surprise surprise; the same certain individuals are back to continue pushing their own agenda on here...
"I haven't watched it all, because it made me want to smash things:"
It's ok; Chuka Umunna has that effect on most people. Vile, slimy, self-serving *. The sooner Labour kick the likes of him and John Mann out, the better. To say that Livingstone is an 'embarrassment' to Labour; Ken has been campaigning against racism, homophobia and injustice his entire political career. Umunna is a Blairite right-wing ex-City boy who has zero interest in anything other than furthering his own career and lining his own pockets. It's people like Umunna that are an embarrassment to the Left, not Livingstone.
And what the * is Jonathan Arkush doing on that panel? The Board of Deputies is a right-wing organisation which presents itself as 'representing British Jewery', which is a false and dishonest claim. The BoD supports the illegal occupation of Palestine, and defends the Israelis government and military's actions. Arkush is a nasty little right-wing stooge who will look for any opportunity to smear the Left, and should have no place in what should be a balanced and open inquiry.
Well, Ken won't apologise for something he didn't say. I think all his haters and opponents are simply going to have to accept that and move on. We all know exactly why such a big fuss was made of Ken's comments, and it failed to cause the damage to Labour that the Right had hoped for.
Meanwhile; Israel has appointed an extreme right-winger as Defence Minister, a vile man who has called for the beheading of Palestinians and for them to be forcibly expelled from their homeland. I don't hear Umunna, Arkush and co talking about that.
@clod - Board of Deputies - you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title. Quite an important word that Jewish. Whether you consider it a left or right wing organisation is irrelevant. What Ken is going to have to accept is that the Labour Party have kicked him out for his remarks, I see no way back for him ever.
As for the Israeli government's appointment that's a side effect of coalition politics, what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic. Thes inquiry is not a discussion of what is happening in Israel and neither is Shakri's investigation (the third one and very likely it will try and be buried by Labour under cover of Chilcott being released)
Northward, I will have a crack at answering that. Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis. That is very offensive to Jewish people and it is offensive to me as well. He has done so by quoting one book fro one author as his justification and source and setting that against the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic.
Just not true what has happened is that RW zionist realise they cannot morally nor legally defend what Israel does so they shout racist whenever anyone criticises Israel
Again imagine if a left winger described Jews as you describe islam those espousing questionable and racist views are not on the left they are in the mirror.
Your false flag operation ,on here, has failed no one has fallen for it
He intended to be as offensive as he could be in as public a way as possible
He was quite shit then as there are literally thousands of ways to do that more effectively than he chose such as actually being anti semitic...or possibly what you said is wrong.
"you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title"
No I haven't.
"what is true is that very many in the left in the UK have totally confused being against Isreali politics with being anti-semitic."
No they haven't.
"Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis."
No he wasn't, and you know this. So stop trying to claim it as fact!
"Thes inquiry is not a discussion of what is happening in Israel"
Well it ****ing should be, because innocent people are being forced from their homes, being falsely imprisoned, and being tortured and killed. Which is what angers many people, myself and Ken Livingstone included. That's what Ken's comments are all about. We're fed up with Britain etc turning a blind eye to Israeli government and military oppression of Palestinian people, and as long as that continues, we'll continue to oppose and be critical of Israeli government policy. Bleating on about non-existent 'anti-Semitism' the way you, Arkush and others are, is to deliberately distract people's attention from what's going on. Well, sorry, but we can see what's going on, and your attempts to create a smokescreen aren't working.
Junky Ken is trying to be smart, say something offensive but have a defensive. He is very deliberate in his actions.
Clod. It's called the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Just maybe we may get a decent review from Shamri and get to see it in full but I doubt it. I've seen first hand examples of how campaigners on the left have been anti-semitic. Britain, the EU and the US do no such thing as turn a blind eye to Israel. What they do is understand and support Israel's right to exist and its right to security. This isn't a thread about Israel,mwe have had plenty of those. This is a thread about anti-semitism in the Labour Party and Ken Livingston is particular. What you are suggesting Clod is that investigating and exposing anti-semitism should be secondary to critising Isreal and by suggesting such you are attempting to brish over what is a very seriois and imo material issue
Just to be clear I don't care where this anti-semitism exists, there is no left/right agenda here whatsoever. Remember it was John Mann's reaction which really brought this to the public's attention
"Clod. It's called the Board of Deputies of British Jews."
I know. I've already mentioned this on page one of this thread:
So, please explain how I've '[b]deliberately[/b] removed the word 'Jewish' from his job title' (which is 'director', surely?).
"Britain, the EU and the US do no such thing as turn a blind eye to Israel. "
Wow.
"What they do is understand and support Israel's [s]right to exist and its right to security[/s] desire for expansionism and the massive market for weapons, which benefits western economies by billions of pounds, which in turn benefits politicians/shareholders in those industries."
I believe that's called 'Fixing It For You'.
"This is a thread about anti-semitism in the Labour Party and Ken Livingston is particular"
We've already established Ken said nothing that is actually anti-Semitic. What you're ignoring, is the root of criticism of Israel/Zionism, stems from that nation's horrific and disgusting treatment of innocent people.
'Defending their right to exist' my arse. Tell me what this has to do with 'defending their right to exist':
Ken is a dick who said something stupid. End of Everything else is about you are your loathsome agenda of hate.
I've seen first hand examples of how campaigners on the left have been anti-semitic.
No you have not you have erroneously interpreted criticism of Israel and her policies as this whilst expressing islamaphobic beliefs yourself that you would be livid about were they said about jews
No one on the left has been anywhere near as offensive about Jews as you have been about Islam Heal thyself of thy on hatred it I starting to consume you.
"What you are suggesting Clod is that investigating and exposing anti-semitism should be secondary to critising Isreal and by suggesting such you are attempting to brish over what is a very seriois and imo material issue"
That's completely untrue, anyone on this forum can see that, you are just making shit up to support your own pathetically weak argument. That's actually offensive.
jambalaya - MemberNorthward, I will have a crack at answering that. Livingstone was very much trying to infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler and the Nazis.
Thanks for at least making the attempt- but you must be aware of how weak this argument is? Saying "Hitler supported zionism" simply doesn't infer that Zionism was aligned with Hitler- support [i]from[/i] someone doesn't align you with them. David Cameron supports Villa, that doesn't mean Villa are aligned with the Conservative Party. OR West Ham for that matter.
Incidentally, Jonathan Arkush is on record on behalf of the Board of Deputies that the definition of anti-semitism should include anti-israel sentiment. That's a big deal- and relevant both when considering what it really means when he says someone is an antisemite, and when considering his personal position and the position of the Board of Deputies in the wider debate.
Oh, on that note,
jambalaya - Member@clod - Board of Deputies - you have deliberately removed the word Jewish from his job title. Quite an important word that Jewish.
You may just not be aware of this but they generally refer to themselves as the Board of Deputies- take a look at their website if you doubt it. (I used to deal with the Board of Deputies Charitable Foundation). Might be worth considering just how quickly you leapt to this conclusion...
Northwind one of the recommendations of the first Labour report into anti-semitism is that the Party adopt a definition of anti-semitism based on what the recipient feels. So its not up to Ken, its up to what Jewish people think as to whether there is an accusation to answer. Labour thought so thats why Ken's suspended. This plus he has long term "form" here.
Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic as it lumps in all Israeli's (80% being Jewish) together. Its like seeking to discriminate against Brits/UK because you don't like one specific government.
Board of Deputies of British Jews - thats what is says on the website, each member being put forward by their local synagogue. Cross Party. Seems like the pefrect representatives on a Parliamentary Committee investigation anti-semirism
"Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic "
You seem incapable of answering questions put to you, regarding your absurd and offensive statements, yet come up with even more rubbish.
BoD, as I've already pointed out, is a right-wing organisation which supports Israeli expansionism and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people. I know many Jewish people, and most of them are deeply critical of the BoD, and angry that this organisation claims to represent all British Jews. It doesn't. Why haven't other Jewish groups been asked to attend? Don't they have an equal voice?
You seem incapable of answering questions put to you, regarding your absurd and offensive statements, yet come up with even more rubbish.
I believe the answer to all 'awkward' questions is "you are being anti-Semitic".....
So its not up to Ken, its up to what Jewish people think as to whether there is an accusation to answer.
Cool I know a muslim who thinks what you said about islam was nothing short of racism. its not up to you to decide if it was or it wasn't you just have to accept it was and apologise
Will you ?
I feel certain you wont be racist and say only Jewish people can do this and you will accept all faiths can do this and therefore now you are a racist...its a compelling argument isn't it
Anti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic as it lumps in all Israeli's (80% being Jewish) together.
Utter nonsense its not anti semitic and it says nothing about the make up of Israel or its people - you overestimated the Jewish % btw it 75%
China repressesses it people and does not allow them freedom I deplore the way they treat their citizens
Did i just "insult" all chinese and be racist?
To claim I did is idiotic and you really should be able to work out that deeply complex question
Its like seeking to discriminate against Brits/UK because you don't like one specific government
WTF are you on about with discrimination ? Its about expressing views about countries actions. A person can criticise say the foreign policy of this country or our actions without
1) discriminating
2) being a racist
YOu have to be trolling with this it is an argument that makes no sense
you criticised israel,so you criticised all jews, so you are racist because one Jew said so.
Its BS
jambalaya - MemberAnti Israel sentiment including BDS is absolutely anti-semitic
And there we have it- a very overdue admission from you of why you see anti-semitism everywhere.
Especially ironic considering that up the page you were accusing "The Left" of confusing the two, now you say they're the same thing.
