RugbyRebels

What YOU say.

Digby wrote:Astonishing briefing from Corbyn earlier, comparing the Israeli state to ISIS,

What HE said.

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”

It's a bit like you claiming to have an economics degree isn't it?

Just an out and out falsehood.

Give up, troll.

It is possible to allow that Corbyn wasn't comparing the two, but really in a structured speech (at an event to discuss the report you weren't anti-semitic) to give two examples in such fashion is inviting people to draw the comparison. Jeremy has left some wiggle room that he didn't expressly state an opinion, but really this is what he likes, taking the left position and prodding those he doesn't like trying to get into a spat on old school left Vs right issues. I'd note again there's just no need for the speech to have gotten close to what he said, and actually take away the offensive and he could have made more serious criticisms of Israel that would be more listened to rather than allowing any sensible comments (and who knows there may have been one) to be drowned out.

It's not interesting to see a major political leader speak in such fashion, other than for its repugnancy, and it's way off the standard required to lead the modern labour party if they want to win any seats in an election. Granted I'd perfer the Labour party were more akin to social democrats than lefty Labour, and would spend their time working through and debating the detailed implementation of policy with others in the centre ground, but even if they want to stay on the left they'd do better to avoid nauseating. And it does feel nauseating, even to someone like me who'd often think Israel's actions beyond the pale, and who's nowhere close to running around shouting 'kachol v'lavan' (the blue and white, i.e. the colours of the flag) and if it's that to me and I'm in the group you need people to move to vote for you, well you're going nowhere.

Do you really think what he said was in any way incorrect?

If something is correct, it cannot possibly be racist. Sorry about that, but the reaction to this is the problem, not what was said.

You can't be racist against a religious group anyway, whether it be Jews, Muslims or otherwise. Criticizing Israel is about as anti-Jewish as criticizing Iran is anti-Muslim.

I find it mildly amusing that there is a thread not far from here suggesting that one of the reasons this gaff is dead is that most topics veer wildly off into an argument about Israel and/or Zionism.

Can't blame anyone for this one really, the leader of the Labour Party brought it up.

Digby wrote:It is possible to allow that Corbyn wasn't comparing the two, but really in a structured speech (at an event to discuss the report you weren't anti-semitic) to give two examples in such fashion is inviting people to draw the comparison. Jeremy has left some wiggle room that he didn't expressly state an opinion, but really this is what he likes, taking the left position and prodding those he doesn't like trying to get into a spat on old school left Vs right issues. I'd note again there's just no need for the speech to have gotten close to what he said, and actually take away the offensive and he could have made more serious criticisms of Israel that would be more listened to rather than allowing any sensible comments (and who knows there may have been one) to be drowned out.

It's not interesting to see a major political leader speak in such fashion, other than for its repugnancy, and it's way off the standard required to lead the modern labour party if they want to win any seats in an election. Granted I'd perfer the Labour party were more akin to social democrats than lefty Labour, and would spend their time working through and debating the detailed implementation of policy with others in the centre ground, but even if they want to stay on the left they'd do better to avoid nauseating. And it does feel nauseating, even to someone like me who'd often think Israel's actions beyond the pale, and who's nowhere close to running around shouting 'kachol v'lavan' (the blue and white, i.e. the colours of the flag) and if it's that to me and I'm in the group you need people to move to vote for you, well you're going nowhere.

People often blame the entire Islamic culture and people on the actions of a few terrorists.

Recently, within Labour, there have been a number of Anti-Semitic comments that have been born out of a dislike of the actions of the State of Israel.

He is not even comparing Israel to ISIS (even though it would be in many ways valid), just comparing the justification of each's actions to people widely condemning a race/culture. It quite clearly, to me at least, seems to be an indication to people inside and outside his party that he will not tolerate sweeping generalisations, but that that should not exclude people making justified comments on Israel.

"If you are going to have a go, make sure it is specifically about Israel and not Jewish people"

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:I find it mildly amusing that there is a thread not far from here suggesting that one of the reasons this gaff is dead is that most topics veer wildly off into an argument about Israel and/or Zionism.

Can't blame anyone for this one really, the leader of the Labour Party brought it up.

Oh Corbyn is not a good politician, this was a stupid thing to say at a silly time from a political point of view.

Very different to being wrong, however.

Lizard wrote:It's not fair to equate Israel to ISIS because Israel has modern guided weapons systems, white phosphorus and an Air Force so it doesn't need to undertake suicide bomb attacks.

Equating Israel to ISIS is vicious slander. ISIS should sue immeditely!

rowan wrote:

Lizard wrote:It's not fair to equate Israel to ISIS because Israel has modern guided weapons systems, white phosphorus and an Air Force so it doesn't need to undertake suicide bomb attacks.

Equating Israel to ISIS is vicious slander. ISIS should sue immeditely!

what's the penalty for slander under Sharia law? Oh wait, I think I can guess.

jared_7 wrote:
"If you are going to have a go, make sure it is specifically about Israel and not Jewish people"

Not really as it's too simplistic to say Israel, yes they've done some vile things but it's not wholly an evil entity, far from it. Whereas there aren't really the words for ISIS.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:

Lizard wrote:It's not fair to equate Israel to ISIS because Israel has modern guided weapons systems, white phosphorus and an Air Force so it doesn't need to undertake suicide bomb attacks.

Equating Israel to ISIS is vicious slander. ISIS should sue immeditely!

what's the penalty for slander under Sharia law? Oh wait, I think I can guess.

About the same as the penalty for throwing stones in the general direction of Israeli soldiers, I believe.

So a country which allows freedom of the press, parliamentary democracy etc is comparable to a Proto state where any dissent is met with increasingly brutal methods of execution. Only in the head of Corbyn and his accolytes.

Israel isn't perfect, but it's no worse than many other countries who get no where near the same level of criticism.

Digby wrote:It is possible to allow that Corbyn wasn't comparing the two, but really in a structured speech (at an event to discuss the report you weren't anti-semitic) to give two examples in such fashion is inviting people to draw the comparison. Jeremy has left some wiggle room that he didn't expressly state an opinion, but really this is what he likes, taking the left position and prodding those he doesn't like trying to get into a spat on old school left Vs right issues. I'd note again there's just no need for the speech to have gotten close to what he said, and actually take away the offensive and he could have made more serious criticisms of Israel that would be more listened to rather than allowing any sensible comments (and who knows there may have been one) to be drowned out.

It's not interesting to see a major political leader speak in such fashion, other than for its repugnancy, and it's way off the standard required to lead the modern labour party if they want to win any seats in an election. Granted I'd perfer the Labour party were more akin to social democrats than lefty Labour, and would spend their time working through and debating the detailed implementation of policy with others in the centre ground, but even if they want to stay on the left they'd do better to avoid nauseating. And it does feel nauseating, even to someone like me who'd often think Israel's actions beyond the pale, and who's nowhere close to running around shouting 'kachol v'lavan' (the blue and white, i.e. the colours of the flag) and if it's that to me and I'm in the group you need people to move to vote for you, well you're going nowhere.

Classic piece of copy and pasted concern trolling there.

Sandydragon wrote:So a country which allows freedom of the press, parliamentary democracy etc is comparable to a Proto state where any dissent is met with increasingly brutal methods of execution. Only in the head of Corbyn and his accolytes.

Israel isn't perfect, but it's no worse than many other countries who get no where near the same level of criticism.

Hasbara 101.

So a country which allows freedom of the press, parliamentary democracy etc is comparable to a Proto state where any dissent is met with increasingly brutal methods of execution. Only in the head of Corbyn and his accolytes.

No offence, but you sound like the people who used to defend Apartheid South Africa. I'd say Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians, including periodic bombings of civilian areas such as the one which slaughtered 2000 civilians a couple of years ago, far exceeds anything ISIS has even had time to do on the brutality front.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/pr-c ... up-part-i/

Good piece.

rowan wrote:
No offence, but you sound like the people who used to defend Apartheid South Africa. I'd say Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians, including periodic bombings of civilian areas such as the one which slaughtered 2000 civilians a couple of years ago, far exceeds anything ISIS has even had time to do on the brutality front.

Yeah but ..........

rowan wrote:So a country which allows freedom of the press, parliamentary democracy etc is comparable to a Proto state where any dissent is met with increasingly brutal methods of execution. Only in the head of Corbyn and his accolytes.

No offence, but you sound like the people who used to defend Apartheid South Africa. I'd say Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians, including periodic bombings of civilian areas such as the one which slaughtered 2000 civilians a couple of years ago, far exceeds anything ISIS has even had time to do on the brutality front.

Oh, the apartheid accusation. Not very original. The differences between South Africa and Israel are significant, but it's a useful stick to beat Israel with.

2000 civilians is nothing compared to ISIS or the Syrian government for that matter. Or the Russians in Chechnya.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/pr-c ... up-part-i/

Why is the organisation a surprise? Labour MPs have been waiting for a while to rep,ace a leader they regard as incompetent. The referendum was all the proof they needed that Corbyn was not a leader of a major political party. T not now, then when?

Skullduggery aside, if Corbyn were a competent political leader, this would not be happening.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:So a country which allows freedom of the press, parliamentary democracy etc is comparable to a Proto state where any dissent is met with increasingly brutal methods of execution. Only in the head of Corbyn and his accolytes.

No offence, but you sound like the people who used to defend Apartheid South Africa. I'd say Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians, including periodic bombings of civilian areas such as the one which slaughtered 2000 civilians a couple of years ago, far exceeds anything ISIS has even had time to do on the brutality front.

Oh, the apartheid accusation. Not very original.

2000 civilians is nothing compared to ISIS or the Syrian government for that matter. Or the Russians in Chechnya.

The Apartheid 'accusation' wasn't meant to be original. It's a widely accepted fact. * the massacre of 2000 civilians a couple of years ago was just the latest instance of 'mowing the lawn' - as the Israelis themselves refer to it. Israel has actually ethnically cleansed an entire native population by way of such massacres on a regular basis over the past 7 decades.

ISIS was set up by the US, deliberately, inadvertently or otherwise, and has continued to work with at least one NATO member long after it become apparent they were terrorists. The Syrian government is locked in a civil war with terrorists sent in by the US and its allies, who include the charming Turks and Saudis. Next to the latter, Assad is a choir boy. The Russians did in Chechnya what the US has done in dozens of countries since WWII with its 70-plus military inventions resulting in approximately 20 millions deaths - including 8 million Muslims since the beginning of the 90s.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/pr-c ... up-part-i/

Why is the organisation a surprise? Labour MPs have been waiting for a while to rep,ace a leader they regard as incompetent. The referendum was all the proof they needed that Corbyn was not a leader of a major political party. T not now, then when?

Skullduggery aside, if Corbyn were a competent political leader, this would not be happening.

All that damning information about a blatant assault on the democratic process by big money interests and you dismiss it as mere 'skullduggery' (oh what jolly japes) and then blame it on the target.

And you can't figure out why I identify you as a fascist.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/pr-c ... up-part-i/

Why is the organisation a surprise? Labour MPs have been waiting for a while to rep,ace a leader they regard as incompetent. The referendum was all the proof they needed that Corbyn was not a leader of a major political party. T not now, then when?

Skullduggery aside, if Corbyn were a competent political leader, this would not be happening.

Well I'm not one of those who takes such choreographed political manoeverings at face value, so it's no surprise to me. But to many who are easily convinced by the dominant news narrative presented by our corporate media apparatus, it might surprise them to realise that actually, all of this furore is purely a planned attempt to anti-democratically depose the elected leader of the Labour party, and not in any way sincere.

You seem essentially to be arguing that these machievellian machinations indicate that Corbyn is not a suitable leader, but is that really the sort of leadership that is desirable? The leadership of manipulation is as healthy for democracy as a manipulative parent is for a child. What we need is a mature respectful honest leadership, not one based on lies and manipulation.

This disdain for participatory democracy is to be expected of the New Labour careerist clique. They ought to be deselected by the membership at the earliest opportunity. The constituency labour parties of these MPs are already incensed. https://www.theguardian.com/membership/ ... byn-labour

I'm not familiar with how the UK Labour Party picks it's candidates to run for Parliament. I understand that the regular membership, including unions (right?) chose Corbyn. Labour MPs didn't prefer him. So how did a party with members and a leader of one mind, end up with a majority of MPs of a different mind? Surely, even if Corbyn goes, the membership could ensure wholesale change in their candidates next election to get rid of the anti-corbynistas?

Lizard wrote:I'm not familiar with how the UK Labour Party picks it's candidates to run for Parliament. I understand that the regular membership, including unions (right?) chose Corbyn. Labour MPs didn't prefer him. So how did a party with members and a leader of one mind, end up with a majority of MPs of a different mind? Surely, even if Corbyn goes, the membership could ensure wholesale change in their candidates next election to get rid of the anti-corbynistas?

Jeremy Corbyn has not advocated mandatory reselection for Labour MPs now that he is Labour leader - a demand that he, along with Tony Benn and other members of the CLPD, had made in the 1980s - but because of the Conservative government's constituency boundary redrawing, all MPs intending to stand again will in fact face reselection before the next General Election anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_ ... _Democracy