[i] he Labour Party absolutely has a problem with anti-senitism and Jews
Another made up #jamba-fact which you keep repeating without any actual evidence...[/i]
Well, I guess if this is happening..
[b][i]Labour are in a very very deep hole here and Kenjamba is furiously [s]digging[/s]masturbating[/i]
It leaves very little time for research.. 😀
@ Junkyard 'my wife is a Jew' sits happily alongside 'some of my best friends are gay/black' as the crappest justification ever for what you often indulge in. The 'what' being perfectly explained by Freedland in the article mentioned above.
Of course people who hate Jews often find themselves in relationships with a Jew. An excellently well made point 🙄
It was evidence of the fact i dont hate jews. I can justify my views on israel with relation to what it does and international norms and human rights. If only you could defend her on the same grounds you would not have to lazily say racist at me.
I dont have a problem with Jews, or my other race*, but I do have a problem with what Israel does. Deal with that rather than the absurd racism digs.
* lots of posts on here knock yourself out trying to find something that is not a criticism of israel and /or a defence of multiculturalism.
I dont have a problem with Jews, or my other race, but I do have a problem with what Israel does. Deal with that rather than the absurd racism digs.
Problem is, as their position in indefensible, they just resort to shouting anti-Semite rather than try and actually rationally defend the murder of women and children for [s]sport [/s]defence.
Loving footflaps' linked article, hosted on 'electronic intifada' and blaming 'the Israel lobby' for whipping up the hysteria. None so blind eh?
mefty - MemberHe didn't do anything of the sort, he was merely referring to a story written by Tim Shipman in 2009 and the story was true and was confirmed by the White House after previously denying it. See here and if you prefer another source here
He wasn't "merely referring", he was using it to justify why he thinks Obama is pro-In. Though he never did get round to explaining why he thinks saying "stay in the EU" is anti-British. I guess that's just a "no true scotsman" fail there.
The article you link doesn't say what you imply; a bust of Churchill was loaned to Bush and returned (this was arranged before Obama moved in, incidentall) but the earlier bust given to Johnson replaced it. I shouldn't need to explain why that debunks the story that he sent away a bust of churchill because he dislikes Britain.
I don't think it'd cut much ice if Shah said she was merely referring to someone else's facebook post and Livingstone said he was merely referring to a book he read, and therefore it's all fine.
He wasn't "merely referring", he was using it to justify why he thinks Obama is pro-In.
So, you're suggesting that people can make a simple factual statement, that on the face of it wouldn't be racist, but that the overtones and context in which they use that statement can make it deeply offensive and racist?
Interesting...
So Livingstone won't apologise
What can he apologise for? What he said wasn't racist so he can't apologise for that. If he apologises for any other aspect of his words it won't satisfy the people who want an apology.
Perhaps the media and his colleagues should appologise for making a mountain out of a [s]molehill[/s] completely flat bit of land.
ninfan - MemberSo, you're suggesting that people can make a simple factual statement, that on the face of it wouldn't be racist, but that the overtones and context in which they use that statement can make it deeply offensive and racist?
Johnson was never criticised for saying Obama was kenyan, as I've already covered and as I'm sure you understand. He was criticised for weaving Obama's ethnicity into a false explanation of why he'd made a statement about europe, which Johnson wanted to pretend was anti-British. It's because he is black innit.
I think declaring it to be definitely racist is a reach; I think similiarly to Shah's posts, it could simply be stupid and ignorant, and tbh the context supports that since his entire theory was absolute gibberish. But what I'm taking issue with here isn't Boris but your depiction of what Boris was criticised for, which isn't just whataboutery, it's false whataboutery.
Any chance that we can stop debating this fabricated nonsensical farce?
We're expected to be stupid enough to be distracted by it, and just look at us bleating along like good little citizens
Can we not get back to the real topic that they really don't want us thinking too sensibly about which is the EU
He wasn't "merely referring", he was using it to justify why he thinks Obama is pro-In.
No he wasn't - read the article it is [url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7095695/UK-and-America-can-better-friends-than-ever-Mr-Obama-if-we-LEAVE-the-EU-says-Boris-Johnson.html ]here[/url], his basic argument was that it is hypocritical for the US to encourage us to stay when they guard their sovereignty so rigorously.
The article you link doesn't say what you imply; a bust of Churchill was loaned to Bush and returned (this was arranged before Obama moved in, incidentall) but the earlier bust given to Johnson replaced it.
The [url= http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-case-of-the-two-churchills ]New Yorker[/url] article is pretty clear, there were two almost identical busts, one lent and one owned. The owned one stayed where it was in the private side of the White House. The borrowed one was returned when Oval office was redecorated for Obama and as I understand it was replaced by a bust of Martin Luther King - it is hardly a big issue but the story was true, albeit too much has been read into it.
he Labour Party absolutely has a problem with anti-senitism and JewsAnother made up #jamba-fact which you keep repeating without any actual evidence...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36168553 ]Labour don't seem quite as confident as you...
[/url]
mefty - MemberThe New Yorker article is pretty clear, there were two almost identical busts, one lent and one owned. The owned one stayed where it was in the private side of the White House.
OK, I'm wrong in that minor detail, but it still proves the point exactly as well. The entire theory about Obama cleansing the white house of british regalia is completely false. And yet Boris still regurgitates it, in the title of the article. Now why do we think he did that? Maybe he wrote all the rest then realised he was under the word limit and had to squeeze in a quick Obama anecdote? And it just so happened that the anecdote he innocently chose was one that depicts him as someone that dislikes Britain because of his ethnicity. That'll be right.
But anyway, this is all getting further distracted from my point, which is a rebuttal of Ninfan's whataboutery suggestion that Johnson was criticised for simply saying Obama is Kenyan. Which I'm sure is just as innocent.
Oh, sorry, I thought the 'point' was that Ken had a long history of making clever comments about Jews.
And yet Boris still regurgitates it, in the title of the article.
He didn't, the title of the article is
UK and America can be better friends than ever Mr Obama... if we LEAVE the EU
Um, no. That was the Sun's headline- "Boris Johnson: UK and America can be better friends than ever Mr Obama... if we LEAVE the EU". The title of the article is "Something mysterious happened when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009."
But let's not worry too much about that, since again it makes no difference to the actual argument.
That's probably fair, I read it as the first line.
EDIT: ...which I think it probably is as the Sun seems to embolden the first sentence of every article.
Well with [i]that[/i] resolved, I'm sure it can only be a matter of time before we agree on everything else 😆
@footflaps, @eden (and others) why don't you read the piece @mefty linked to, or the numerous other articles written or follow the news ? I've been posting on Labour's problems with anti-semtism for more than year now and the issue is now finally being covered by the mainsteam media and we have 3 - three ! - investigations commissioned by Labour in just a few weeks.
@outofbreath - if you are being asked 16 times to apologise on air and the shadow chancellor is telling you tooyou'd think theynare doing somfor a reason. He was asked to apologise for causing offence, he apologised to zcornyn but absolutely made a point of not apologising to the Jewish community.
On the Boris / Churchill bust issue you need to hear Obama's full reply at the press conference - he dealt with the issue very eloquently - having heard that I am 100% on Obama's side on this, Boris made a fool of himself
---------------------
Junkyard in many respects this derserves its own post. You have strong views on Israel but not for one second do I think you are anti-semitic or a Jew hater and I don't say that just as you told us last year your wife was Jewish. From what we see here I cannot imagine would would harras Jews going about their daily business by singing Rockets over Tel-Aviv, you understand and demonstrate the difference between a strong dislike for Isreali government policies and the Jewish people. I think for people here to suggest otherwise is a disgrace.
Sorry I have edited - see above, but I can understand why you thought it and wouldn't raise it.
Problem is, as their position in indefensible, they just resort to shouting anti-Semite rather than try and actually rationally defend the murder of women and children for sport defence.
Israel's position is absolutely defensible which is just one of the reasons they enjoy the international support that they do. Hamas deliberately fires rockets from civilian areas not least as civilian casualties and the associated PR further their aims. No rockets, no violence would mean no armed responce and no casualties.
Ken said something. Someone got offended. So f***** what. Nothing happens when you get offended. You don't wake up with leprosy the next day because you got offended or anything else like that.
People need to MTFU and STFU and get in with their lives and stop being such fannies.
^^ this has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the just got in from the pub pissed and started ranting on the internet party
SO if they accept land grabs, illegal settlement and Israel putting them on a diet - code for near starvation diet as Israel controls the flow of all goods in and out, economic embargo then they can have peace?
Why are they so unwilling to do this?
What laws and international norms are you using to justify this and ignoring UN resolutions?
Oh yes you blame the palestinians dont you 🙄
Its definitely their fault when Israel bombs a un school and kill civilians definitely I mean they make Israel do this dont they but nothing israel does makes them bomb them that is just terrorism
Bith sides are doing bad things FFS this is indisputable but you can only see one side
They get "our" support [ i have missed the appeals to authority nice to see a return] in much the same way Saudi gets "our" support or The govt sucks up the chineses. Its a sign of a morally bankrupt foreign policy, borne of expediency not principle rather than proof that they, or we, are right in what we/they do.
What has @edward said which has so upset you Junky ?
The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ? How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ? The 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians do they, why is that ?
What has @edward said which has so upset you Junky ?
When did you stop beating your wife?
The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ?
You really should google things before you press send.
RI YADH: The Kingdom has decided to increase the financial aid to Palestine by raising its monthly aid to the Palestinian Authority’s budget from $14 million to $20 million.
The substantial increase brings Saudi Arabia’s yearly aid for Palestine to $240 million, thus matching the United Kingdom’s annual budget aid for the Palestinian Authority.
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/783426
The Popular Committee for Assisting Palestinian Mujahideen and The Support Committee for the Al-Quds Intifada and The Al-Aqsa Fund
Probably not what you ment by help though
Within days of Palestinians announcing they would join the International Criminal Court (ICC), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his country would stop transferring customs revenue to the Palestinian Authority. The punitive move was expected to lead to a crisis for the Palestinian leadership as government services would collapse across the West Bank without the funds. But the Palestinian Authority had an unexpected back-up plan. The Arab League has agreed to provide emergency funds to cover the VAT-taxes frozen by Israel. This Arab League safety net will help the Palestinians avoid the expected temporary bankruptcy and allow them to move forward with pressing for war crimes at the ICC. In fact, financial support from the Arab League was a key component, along with joining the ICC, of long-term strategy to pressure Israel into negotiations.Joining the ICC was regarded as the Palestinians’s “nuclear option,” a last-ditch measure to pressure Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state. Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon said this week the Palestinian application to join the ICC would be ratified on April 1, 2015. From that time on, the Palestinians would be eligible to pursue legal action against Israel.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/punitive-palestinians-financial/
Nice response from Israel there - probably the palestinians fault there and how nice of them to withold the money to the, - again probably fine under international law and what civilised nations do and totally justifiable.
I am not sure what you meant by "diddly squat" could you use a more precise term as clearly they do rather a lot
DId you mean they dont do enough? It would help a lot if you were a little more accurate in your claim/slur.
How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ?
They have a nation why would they do this- are you suggesting all palestinians should leave?
Imagine if i asked why the US dont give all the Israelis citizenship and why they dont all just move away . That would be racist now wouldn't it. Facepalm and oh the irony. Oh the irony.
The 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs don't call themselves Palestinians do they, why is that ?
Oh dear
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2013 was estimated at 1,658,000, representing 20.7% of the country's population.[2] The majority of these identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship
It also gave this a s a further breakdown
An IDI Guttman Study of 2008 shows that most Arab citiens of Israel identify as Arabs (45%). While 24% consider themselves Palestinian, 12% consider themselves Israelis, and 19% identify themselves according to religion
So the least popular choice for an arab in israel is Israeli. I am pretty confident that was not meant to be your point. WHat was your point meant to be ?
^^ this has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the just got in from the pub pissed and started ranting on the internet partySO if they accept land grabs, illegal settlement and Israel putting them on a diet - code for near starvation diet as Israel controls the flow of all goods in and out, economic embargo then they can have peace?
With respect, I think the point that was made was that Ken's comments might have caused controversy but in themselves they have not caused or condoned bad things. Admittedly, I have only read the last page so apologies if I've come in halfway through.
"@outofbreath - if you are being asked 16 times to apologise on air and the shadow chancellor is telling you tooyou'd think theynare doing somfor a reason. He was asked to apologise for causing offence, he apologised to zcornyn but absolutely made a point of not apologising to the Jewish community."
Typically the "request for apology" is used as a tool to get someone to accept the straw man is true. I think this is one of those cases. If he says sorry, it will be interpreted by many as admitting his comment was racist, which it wasn't.
On J-Y...As much as the above post counts as anti-Semitic remarks according to the Jewish council's defination of what constitutes anti-Semitism,IE criticism of the [b]actions[/b] of the state of Israel. Hating the actions of the state of Israel only makes somebody a good egg as far as I am concerned. Attempting to turn this noble sentiment into racism and to try to shut the poster up by calling them a racist makes you a bit of a chugger. Carrying on digging is pretty funny though.
Pretty sure this (which played a big part in starting the whole furore) isn't antisemitic:
[img] 
[/img]
The Arab world is spectacularly wealthy, how come they do diddly squat to help the Palestinians financially ? How come they don't welcome them and offer citizenship ?
So when Naz Shah proposed relocating Israel to the US she was denounced as anti-Semitic, but when you propose relocating Palestine to Saudi you are just making a sensible suggestion.
#jambaplanet
I'm confused
Was there an agreement called Ha'avara between German Jews and the Third Reich
[url= http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html ]null
"Between 1933 and 1941, some 60,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine through the Ha'avara and other German-Zionist arrangements, or about ten percent of Germany's 1933 Jewish population. (These German Jews made up about 15 percent of Palestine's 1939 Jewish population.) Some Ha'avara emigrants transferred considerable personal wealth from Germany to Palestine. As Jewish historian Edwin Black has noted: "Many of these people, especially in the late 1930s, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes......"
Pretty sure this (which played a big part in starting the whole furore) isn't antisemitic:
Ethnic cleansing Jews isn't antisemitic? Who'd have thought?
Presumably if the ethnic cleaning plan isn't at all antisemitic but merely technocratic, then the better course of action would be to relocate the Palestinians to the US. There are fewer Palestinians in ex-Mandatory Palestine than Israelis, and more Arabic speakers in the US than Hebrew-speakers, so the deportees will feel right at home.
So Ken is right then?
Wikipedia on [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement ]Haavaara[/url]
It looks like Hitler supported it too, according to Wikipedia:
"Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.[9]"
I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.
I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.
Because it doesn't really matter if something is technically true in order for the use of the information to be inflammatory and racist
see Nick Griffin's rantings as an example
[url= http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/04/30/nobody-bothered-to-check-who-created-that-anti-semitic-image-naz-shah-retweeted-did-they/ ]Nobody bothered to check who created that “anti-Semitic” image Naz Shah retweeted, did they?[/url]
You know that image that got Naz Shah suspended from the Labour Party?The really offensive, anti-Semitic image that proposes relocating the nation of Israel from the Middle East to the American Midwest?
This one:
[img]
/p>It seems nobody bothered to check on the person who originally published it.
So let me put you out of your misery.
The map was posted in Norman Finkelstein Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict?, on Monday, August 4, 2014, on his blog.
Professor Finkelstein is described by that hideously inaccurate Wikipedia as “an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust, an interest motivated by the experiences of his parents who were Jewish Holocaust survivors.”
That’s right – it was posted by a Jewish gentleman.
Not only that; he’s the son of two Jewish people who survived the Shoah.
It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn’t it?
He’s currently working on a book – his 11th – with Palestinian political analyst Mouin Rabbani, entitled How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
Cant they just move the Palestinians to Iran, there is lots of space there too, and it would save the Iranians a fortune in those rockets they supply Hamas with?
What with the Israelis being moved to Utah we can then give the land to the Scientologists and get them out of our hair, I mean its just people.
Oh..:)
See JHJ, it's all part of the conspiracy...
I suppose the pro Hamas tweets she made were backed by the Jews as well?
I suppose it's also racist to star that Lehi proposed to fight alongside Natzi Germany, against the British?
Abbott on Marr this morning.
Apparently she was campaigning against anti semitism before it was fashionable.
#hipster
You couldn't make it up!
The original anti-Semitic idea was by the Jewish son of a survivor of the Holocaust.
.i said much the same thing then as now tbh. all arseholes. nobody's obstructing ken's freedom of speech btw, just his membership of a political party.(and let's be honest, he's not been suspended for antisemitism. he's been suspended for being an arsehole
By virtue of him being suspended then that is an obstruction of free speech. Besides, all the debate has been on antismetism really.
.
You couldn't make it up!
The original anti-Semitic idea was by the Jewish son of a survivor of the Holocaust.
Yeahbut. Finkelstein is a bit, ummm, controversial. He is on record as a supporter of Hamas for example and has been banned from entering Israel.
I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not.
Wiki is not sufficient as a source for broadcast media, it is often wrong which it is apparently in this case according Simon Schama, who is supposed to be quite good at History.
mefty - Member
"I can't see why the BBC can,t do a Wikipedia search to see if Kens statement was true or not."
Wiki is not sufficient as a source for broadcast media, it is often wrong which it is apparently in this case according Simon Schama, who is supposed to be quite good at History.
The BBC don't need Wiki - they manufacture most of their facts.
Is it true, or did you hear it on the BBC?
