Verbal

Christ almighty. You do know that Stalin and Hitler were different people. Right? Just in case... Stalin - communist (the Great Terror) Hitler - Nazi (Holocaust).

With a few horrific exceptions, left anti-Semitism attempts to steer clear of using the word ‘Jews’, always – as Corbyn does – using the word ‘Zionists’ instead. They then play their favourite word game – claiming that being anti-Zionist is not being anti-Semitic, and that to claim otherwise is a ‘smear’ and an attempt to shut down debate. That, in the vast majority of cases, is nonsense. Let’s compare Zionism with apartheid. The latter is explicitly a white supremacist creed: blacks should have ‘separate development’ because they are intellectually inferior. The most extreme form of Zionism – the kind you hear among the settlers – is not much different. It is explicitly a nasty form of racism. However, unlike apartheid, Zionism is a very broad ideology which encompasses people across a wide political spectrum. The minimal definition for a Zionist is someone who believes that the state of Israel has a right to exist. That view is held by about 98% of Jewish Israelis and the vast majority of Jews elsewhere. Of course there are a few Jews who are opposed to the state of Israel’s right to exist, but they are a tiny minority (usually found on platforms with Corbyn, as it happens). So what does it mean when Corbyn complains of ‘Zionists’? He’s talking about Jews. He makes that plain by his sneering reference to their not being in some way native to Britain, and how they lack a capability to understand ‘irony’. He’s playing to his audience (which naturally includes those who advocate terror and deny the Holocaust). And it’s music to their ears because it’s dog-whistle Jew-hating – these Jew weirdos, ‘thankfully silent’, who don’t get irony. The depressing reality is that it’s so EASY to criticise Israeli governments without resorting to straight-up (or barely disguised) Jew hating. When people protested and campaigned against the apartheid regime is South Africa, they attacked with the word, meaning and practice of ‘apartheid’. No one was thinking up irrelevant comparators, not least because, in Israel, it deflects from the specific horrors of the Netanyahu gang. But also because it tarnishes the vast majority of Jews, in whose name Netanyahu is not acting, but who believe nonetheless in the right of Israel to exist. So, no, I’m not going to give Corbyn a free pass. He’s a Jew hater in the old Stalinist sense – Uncle Joe loved nothing more to cap a few thousand Jews with the claim that they had loyalties to another state. Corbyn’s ‘irony’ comment belongs to the same species of rhetoric – those damned Jews don’t ‘get’ us because no matter how long they’ve been here they’ll never really assimilate to our way of thinking. I say all of this as someone who thinks of himself as pro-Palestinian – something, incidentally, I act upon, unlike a few on here who pipe up with their little pearls of wisdom.

So now we know (as if anyone couldn't guess)... Jezza is a flat-out Jew hater. 'Zionists' - a euphemism for Jews in this country - are an alien breed in Britain, unable to assimilate even simple national traits as irony. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

This is the work of the self-styled 'cyber-communist', Richard Barbrook, he of the pork-pie hats. http://theconversation.com/corbyns-digital-meh-nifesto-is-too-rooted-in-the-past-to-offer-much-for-the-future-65003

Part and parcel of what, exactly?

Williamson himself is now in hot water (or maybe lukewarm water, given this is Corbyn's party) for enthusiastically endorsing a speech given by an Assad-loving conspiracy theorist who is on record as describing murdered Labour MP Jo Cox as a 'warmongering al Qaeda advocate.' Venessa Beeley is a hero among the most cretinous extremists in the Corbyn cult because of her Assad-sponsored endorsement of mass murder: her campaign against the White Helmets (also 'al Qaeda') and her convenient description of all people within Islamist-controlled areas in Syria as 'legitimate targets'. Her Jew-hating also makes her particularly popular amongst the more lunatic cultists: she's described France as being ruled by 'Zionists'. Williamson is now being 'looked into'. But he's a Corbyn loyalist so nothing will come of it. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-mp-chris-williamson-vanessa-beeley_uk_5b7adee4e4b018b93e963784

The probation service is privatised. A vast loss-making, target-missing, care-avoiding private enterprise.

Are the Corbynista cultists being ironic when they mock Hodge's Nazi comparisons? Or do they just lack self awareness?

1. Not 'near' - next to. And they were in a shared endeavour, a small group of men, laying a wreath at a plaque commemorating leading members of Black September. 2. Given Corbyn's detailed knowledge of Palestinian politics, how both knew perfectly well that he was laying a wreath honouring Black September leaders and that he was standing next to and talking with a senior PFLP leader. 3. Corbyn has a long and thoroughly consistent history of only sharing platforms with people he agrees with. Still waiting to hear how the expenses scandal he's also now embroiled in will play out.

Just when you think it couldn't get any worse... One of the men Corbyn stood with while he did/did not lay a wreath was a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Just a month after Corbyn shared the wreath-laying with this man, and stood miming his prayer for the fallen of Black September, the PFLP claimed responsibility for the axe murder of a British rabbi in Jerusalem.

Brexit, as we'll look back on it from our sunlit uplands...a brief but apposite documentary on how we got where we always knew we'd go.

And so the vastly incompetent cover-up continues. Corbyn has not made a declaration on the Commons register for his 2014 trip to the Black September memorial and wreath-laying ceremony in which he both didn't lay a wreath and was photographed laying a wreath (is this some Jezza version of Schrodinger's cat?) His office say this is because the cost is 'below the reporting threshold'. Unless St Jez hitch-hiked to Tunis and stayed in a tent, that's impossible. I suspect it's going to take no more than a few days to unearth the truth about where the money came from, and it'll be yet another clusterfu ck.

Yet there are three photographs. The first one shows him actually holding the wreath. The second shows the wreath in position behind the tombstone commemorating three Black September leaders who organised the Munich massacre. And the third, hilariously, shows Corbyn attempting to mime a Muslim prayer. He knew exactly what he was doing. It's a transparent lie. He's not interested in 'dialogue' between opposing sides in conflict - only in standing on platforms with people he agrees with. As these people have included Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, reactionary terrorist groups like Hamas and the provos, and the media platforms of the clerical-fascist regime in Iran and the violent gangsters around Putin, you get a measure of our supposed future prime minister.

Saint Jez is in even more trouble now. The Mail's expose about his wreath-laying could easily, and lazily, be dismissed as a 'classic MSM smear'. But Corbyn has now been caught in a hugely damaging lie. His reaction to the Mail article is to say that he was definitely not laying a wreath to anyone but the victims of the Israeli bombing, on 1 October 1986, of the PLO HQ in Tunis. But that's not what he said himself, in an article he personally wrote for the Morning Star immediately after the ceremony. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-98de-palestine-united-1 Who were these 'others'? Members of the Black September leadership directly involved in the planning and execution of the massacre at Munich (a massacre conducted with arms supplied by German neo-Nazis). Damning details here: https://twitter.com/JBickertonUK/status/1028325785889894401

It's substantial enough, not least because 20% of the country's population is Arab. Then there's Labour (even Gabbay's version) plus a number of smaller parties in a ferociously complicated party-political system. This, though, is impressive -if only St Jez and his anti-Semitic acolytes could build some support and solidarity around it... https://twitter.com/stephane_ulrich/status/1028337699743309826

I suspect the high numbers reflect the Corbynista flashmobbing from supporters of the anti-Semitic gerontocracy around Corbyn.

Leaving aside hypo's preposterous claims about Islamophobia being invented yesterday 'by Islamists', and his desire to play the white man, I just wonder how long it's going to take before the physical assaults against Muslim women begin. I would be surprised if BoJo hasn't wound up his 'base' into a vengeful rage.

There must be a reason he's suddenly keeping shtum about the pound's trading value. Whatever might that be? Still, if the pound has by some weird accident crashed against the dollar, it must be soaring against that failed Euro, right?

Why does that not surprise me?

No definitions are perfect but you're in some danger of Jewsplaining with this. It's become accepted practice - and with good reason - to allow the victims of racism to say what that racism is and how it impacts them. Besides, both your points relate to Israel, which is where Labour gets mostly into its tangles (although some Corbynistas are just out-and-out Jew-haters in the Hitler mould). And it's weird because criticising Israel without being anti-Semitic is incredibly easy. You just don't make lazy comments about the 'Zionists' doing this and that, for the simple reason that 'the Zionists' encompasses about 99% of all Jews. As for 1. Please see my earlier post on where this accusation comes from: it is a classic anti-Semitic trope with a murderous past, espeically on the Left. Clearly, if someone declares they are more 'loyal' to Israel than to the UK then to say they are is not an accusation. But to accuse him/her/them of it is anti-Semitic. You can't generalise this to 'the Jewish people' without giving a free pass for actual Jew-haters to make individual accusations (as many Corbynistas do). Also, talking of loose drafting, what is a 'Jewish' citizen' - there's some place called Jewville? And 2. The Nazi comparison thing has a blatantly obvious subtext, and I'm surprised you don't see that. As awful as Israeli government policy currently is, I don't think anyone is claiming with any evidence that there are gas chambers in Hebron busily wiping out all Palestinians. The Nazi comparison is designed to wound Jews - hence it's anti-Semitic. In any case, nothing about Netanyahu's behaviour requires comparison - it is singularly and uniquely awful. Even from the tactical point of view, the Nazi comparison conceals far more than it reveals - it's terrible politics, and has only one benefit, which is to allow the accuser to vent virtuously and impotently. I'm more surprised that for all the virtue signalling among Corbynistas - all those declaring their 'solidarity' - that no one has offered the technical (legal drafting) assistance to Palestinians so that they have their own codified definition of racism against them as an ethnic and religious group. Reading through the controversy as it's gone on all these months, it's striking how little Corbynistas seem to know of the Middle East itself. If you've never been there, I can tell you it's TINY. (You can stand on a rather nice beach in Aqaba and take in the view of four countries with less than a 180-degree turn - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel). If you know how small it is, you can more easily imagine why land is so ferociously fought over. And if you can more easily imagine that, then it's also easier to understand why there will be no lasting peace that doesn't involve the Israelis. So what political supporters of the Palestinians need to do - and have signally failed to do - is to enlist Israeli popular opinion, at least of the very substantial minority of Israelis who do seek a lasting peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and are appalled by the Netanyahu gang. Can you see Corbyn ever doing that? He couldn't even write a simple letter to the Israeli Labour party - long affiliated with the Labour party in the UK - when they invited him over. Can you see Corbynistas doing it? They are the quickest to condemn and vilify the minute anyone departs from the holy vow that Jews/Israel are merely the enemy. Just look at the furore over the preposterously bewigged gerontocrat Peter Willsman.

Well, well, well. It is interesting. And you have completely misunderstood it. Stern's point, even in the selected quotes, is that the IHRA definition was never intended to chill free speech. He was NOT advocating amending the definition but rather protesting against the way some University campuses in the US and the UK have used it to ban certain ideas. The example he gives - equating the Israeli state with apartheid ideology - is indeed not 'banned' by the definition, even though it's been interpreted that way by a few. To get the full sense of what Stern is saying, in a very nuanced and well argued submission, you need to read it in full. Here it is: https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Stern-Testimony-11.07.17.pdf But the essence of it is this: You also seem to be a little lost on what the IHRA definition actually is. Here it is: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism And yes, the Corbynista 'redefinition' makes adjustments to get the most common form of Corbynist anti-Semitism off the hook - especially the accusation that Jews have a greater loyalty to Israel than to their own country.

Given the content of this thread, you might want to look up the meaning of 'libel'.

Yet that's exactly what he did, with his longest stint in a first team, at Fulham. He played very successfully in a back four that tightened up when he was added to it. He was a key ingredient in the 23-game winning streak that started when he and Mitrovic joined.

The initial idea for giving his new 'some Jews are fine' speech was to do it at the Jewish Museum on Friday night. Brilliant.

It is anti-Semitic, plain and simple, and it's worrying, but utterly predictable, that you don't see that. I happen to know the JLM well. As an organisation, it's one of the longest-affiliated of groups to the Labour party and can date its commitment to socialist internationalism back to the 1930s. It has long supported the two-state solution, the Oslo Accords, and protested violence and human rights abuses directed at Palestinians. It's also the organisation that had this said about it in the official minutes of the Birkenhead CLP “Diversity and equality training to be offered by the NEC. The proposed training by the Jewish Labour Group is not going ahead due to possible links with ISIS and the Israeli government." These kinds of anti-Semitic slurs are so common now, but to attack the JLM in particular - and it's been the target of abuse of months now by Labour activists - is not just anti-Semitic. It's deeply corrosive within the Labour party itself. Anyone looking in from the outside would think that the real Trojan horses were occupied by the anti-Semites in Labour. They are destroying the party from within, while they cling to their Jew-hating fantasies about how fellow Labour activists are Israeli government agents and apologists for ISIS. Have the balls to face up to this, instead of using weasel words about how all parties have a problem. Start with this: how do you justify equating the JLM with 'Israeli lobby groups'? My reading of this is that you clearly need some of that equality and diversity training from the ISIS/Mossad agents of JLM.