Grendel
Well-Known Member
The hard left has always had an issue with jews - livingstone felt the wrath of the jewish commumity in his GLC days. To claim he is not anti semite would be absurd and corbyn is a prodigee of livingstone
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (188 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
The hard left has always had an issue with jews - livingstone felt the wrath of the jewish commumity in his GLC days. To claim he is not anti semite would be absurd and corbyn is a prodigee of livingstone
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
She already did, sounds like she's not overly keen on white people.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Is a two state solution blaming everything on the Jews?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So has the hard right. In fact, the far right literally wrote the book on anti-Semitism.
By the way it's spelt 'protege'
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
That’s a fucking stretch to get that out of my post.... love to see your working out there.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Interlude
A wistful me on a gun turret, golan heights, 85
A wistful me on a gun turret, golan heights, 85
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So he’s conflating the actions of what are probably British born people with the ‘primitives’ from the Middle East.....
Keep digging.
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Fabricant - worst barnet in politics?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I assume you think Luciana Berger made uo her claims of anti semitism?
its you and your party thats digging
This whole discussion was started when Evo showed a video you dismissed with no
knowledge as fake. It seems to now be on the national news...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Starmer believes its genuine?
Four men arrested in anti-Semitism video investigation
Police arrest four men in connection with a video appearing to show anti-Semitic abuse shouted from a car.
www.google.co.uk
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The person sent to prison for giving Berger AS abuse was a white supremacist, Neo Nazi fuckhead.
Man who harassed MP Luciana Berger online is jailed for two years
If there are Labour supporters (or supporters of any political party) guilty of giving her or others AS abuse then why have they not been charged and punished. I’d be all for that, as I’m sure you would too.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Well one of us is wrong. If it’s me I’ll happily put my hands up. If it turns out it is fake, will Starmer, Patel and everyone else that has something to say apologise for pedalling inaccuracies?
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
G certainly wont
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
How could it be fake?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The claim was that it was a stock video with an audio recorded over the top. If it’s not fake then the people involved need to be charged with inciting hatred.
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Even if the voice over is fake, why do you suppose they were driving around a Jewish part of London?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just listen to yourself so shes a liar ok
Mr corbyn of course has been thrown out the party which i assume you support?
Luciana Berger accuses Jeremy Corbyn of anti-Semitism
Luciana Berger, who resigned from Labour after suffering anti-Semitic abuse, was asked whether she thinks Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic.
www.bbc.co.uk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
where was this claimed?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Where did I say she’s a liar??Just listen to yourself so shes a liar ok
Mr corbyn of course has been thrown out the party which i assume you support?
Luciana Berger accuses Jeremy Corbyn of anti-Semitism
Luciana Berger, who resigned from Labour after suffering anti-Semitic abuse, was asked whether she thinks Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic.www.bbc.co.uk
There is a simple way to get to the bottom of this. If he is anti-Semitic then he will have made AS comments, which are out there in the public domain, and then he can be charged with a hate crime.
Why won’t anyone take him to court on it if he’s so guilty?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Havent you accused Boris Johnson of racism?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
More whataboutery from you.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
It was a comment on the same tweet, that's all.
For me, the protest-led violence elsewhere is more disturbing than just a lowlife in a beemer shouting filth.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
no he hasnt been charged with a hate crime.
At least you like me do not think Mr Johnson is a racist and you have never accused him of such.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Didn’t Boris Johnson write that Jews control the media and fix elections? Amongst other anti-Semitic stereotypes he wrote.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Corbyn at Saturday's rally, with a nice back drop of a blow up caricature of a jew with devil horns.
Nice one mate.
Nice one mate.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
He hasn't tweeted about todays anti semitism , instead doubled down half hour ago about Palestine.
Same with dianne Abbott
Many Labour MPs tweeted support for the protests yesterday , some attended
Every time people tell Labour what they are doing wrong ..they keep doing it .
Let the party die , infact no , sit back and watch it die
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Yeah he did.
Can we talk about Boris Johnson’s anti-Semitism now, please? – The Oxford Student
Image description: screen on truck reads “Holocaust deniers harboured by Labour”. Edited over the top is Jeremy Corbyn’s outline, over which is placed a prohibition symbol, as well as Boris Johnson’s outline, over which is placed a question mark. CW: discussion of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic...
www.oxfordstudent.com
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Middle Eastern armed conflicts involving Israel inevitably produce outpourings of cliché and muddled thinking: talk of “cycles of violence”, calls for both sides to “exercise restraint” and for immediate ceasefires. Most convey no more than virtue-signalling moral equivalence.
Allegedly improper evictions of Arab tenants in East Jerusalem did not cause Hamas’s recent missile and drone attacks against Israel, nor did “longstanding historical grievances”, nor “frustration and alienation,” nor “the Arab street”. All these together cannot justify terrorism against innocent civilians, let alone the roughly 1,500 missiles launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip. Hamas, and now perhaps Hezbollah (missiles were recently fired from Lebanon) knew that their aggression would prompt vigorous Israeli retaliation.
More is at stake. Iran and its terrorist surrogates concluded that this was a propitious moment to go for Israel’s throat. Why, and why now?
Tehran desperately wants relief from the economic sanctions imposed by Washington after US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Chaos in Israel suits its purposes. Hamas, hoping to eclipse the Palestinian National Authority as the main Arab voice in Gaza and the West Bank, had its own reasons to follow Iran’s lead.
Israel is currently seized by unprecedented political gridlock. Even if Benjamin Netanyahu were rejected as prime minister, no potential successor could afford to be less hard-line on Iran than he. So while Israeli parties that appeal to Arab voters might have benefited in the near term by supporting a new Israeli government, the interests of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are better served by continued turmoil.
In fact, the hostilities may have ended deal-making on a possible new Israeli coalition. Significant violence between Arabs and Jews inside Israel itself could mean long-term instability, which only benefits terrorists and radicals across the Middle East. Breakthroughs like the Emirati and Bahraini diplomatic recognition of Israel are now highly unlikely for the foreseeable future – another win for Iran. And while Israel is preoccupied, Iran is likely planning more clandestine shipments of weapons and supplies to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
Viewing America’s return to the nuclear deal in near-theological terms, President Biden feels pressured by Iran’s impending June elections. Iran sees that he faces major domestic political problems caused by vehement opposition from Israel and Gulf Arabs to any lessening of US pressure on Tehran. Distracting Jerusalem reduces its ability to influence Washington in these nuclear negotiations.
Whether Iran instigated the current conflict, or merely aggravated it, we do not yet know, but the consequences are the same regardless. How should Israel and the wider West respond?
Negotiations are not the answer. Israel, justified by its right to self-defence, would be wiser to eliminate Hamas as a military force now, once and for all. It had a similar opportunity to destroy Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, which was indeed Israel’s declared objective. Failing to follow through, however, left Hezbollah the dominant force in Lebanon, and allowed Iran to expand its presence in Syria. Hezbollah is a greater threat today than 15 years ago. Israel should not ignore this lesson.
Moreover, what is the value of negotiated commitments from terrorists? In his fireside chat of December 29 1940, best known for describing America as “the arsenal of democracy”, President Franklin D Roosevelt said: “No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.” Some things never change.
Negotiations with overzealous enemies only make sense when they are one-way. In the American Civil War, General Ulysses S Grant’s initials were said to stand for “unconditional surrender”, his trademark demand of defeated Confederate forces. And that was against fellow Americans. Israel can negotiate details of a Hamas surrender, but not whether there will in fact be one.
Iran and Hamas crossed a red line this time. Israel knows what it must do.
John Bolton is a former US national security adviser
Allegedly improper evictions of Arab tenants in East Jerusalem did not cause Hamas’s recent missile and drone attacks against Israel, nor did “longstanding historical grievances”, nor “frustration and alienation,” nor “the Arab street”. All these together cannot justify terrorism against innocent civilians, let alone the roughly 1,500 missiles launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip. Hamas, and now perhaps Hezbollah (missiles were recently fired from Lebanon) knew that their aggression would prompt vigorous Israeli retaliation.
More is at stake. Iran and its terrorist surrogates concluded that this was a propitious moment to go for Israel’s throat. Why, and why now?
Tehran desperately wants relief from the economic sanctions imposed by Washington after US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Chaos in Israel suits its purposes. Hamas, hoping to eclipse the Palestinian National Authority as the main Arab voice in Gaza and the West Bank, had its own reasons to follow Iran’s lead.
Israel is currently seized by unprecedented political gridlock. Even if Benjamin Netanyahu were rejected as prime minister, no potential successor could afford to be less hard-line on Iran than he. So while Israeli parties that appeal to Arab voters might have benefited in the near term by supporting a new Israeli government, the interests of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are better served by continued turmoil.
In fact, the hostilities may have ended deal-making on a possible new Israeli coalition. Significant violence between Arabs and Jews inside Israel itself could mean long-term instability, which only benefits terrorists and radicals across the Middle East. Breakthroughs like the Emirati and Bahraini diplomatic recognition of Israel are now highly unlikely for the foreseeable future – another win for Iran. And while Israel is preoccupied, Iran is likely planning more clandestine shipments of weapons and supplies to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
Viewing America’s return to the nuclear deal in near-theological terms, President Biden feels pressured by Iran’s impending June elections. Iran sees that he faces major domestic political problems caused by vehement opposition from Israel and Gulf Arabs to any lessening of US pressure on Tehran. Distracting Jerusalem reduces its ability to influence Washington in these nuclear negotiations.
Whether Iran instigated the current conflict, or merely aggravated it, we do not yet know, but the consequences are the same regardless. How should Israel and the wider West respond?
Negotiations are not the answer. Israel, justified by its right to self-defence, would be wiser to eliminate Hamas as a military force now, once and for all. It had a similar opportunity to destroy Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War, which was indeed Israel’s declared objective. Failing to follow through, however, left Hezbollah the dominant force in Lebanon, and allowed Iran to expand its presence in Syria. Hezbollah is a greater threat today than 15 years ago. Israel should not ignore this lesson.
Moreover, what is the value of negotiated commitments from terrorists? In his fireside chat of December 29 1940, best known for describing America as “the arsenal of democracy”, President Franklin D Roosevelt said: “No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb.” Some things never change.
Negotiations with overzealous enemies only make sense when they are one-way. In the American Civil War, General Ulysses S Grant’s initials were said to stand for “unconditional surrender”, his trademark demand of defeated Confederate forces. And that was against fellow Americans. Israel can negotiate details of a Hamas surrender, but not whether there will in fact be one.
Iran and Hamas crossed a red line this time. Israel knows what it must do.
John Bolton is a former US national security adviser
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Was just telling my missus what happened today and my youngest just said with genuine worry ..."are we Jewish dad"
"No darling we are not"
That's actually quite chilling.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
So this is fact is it? Or just conjecture?
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Eh? It's a political insight/view. Certainly, it's pretty much an accepted fact that Iran is arming Hamas with low flying missiles now capable of reaching TA. Again to be clear, this isn't about the rights and wrongs of land ownership and occupation, but about the proxies involved in all wars. It goes back to my point about Irish Republicanism - it's one thing to believe in an outcome, another to always support the means. Nothing is simple and straightforward, nothing is black and white.
Last edited by a moderator: