Thought for the Day

My opinion is you just don't read anything that outlines the behavior of actual people in your party. You seemed to have no clue who any of the Councilors and officials were when I posted them in the other thread. Do you know who the JDL is? They are a terrorist organization that has murdered a bunch of people. Did they lead the push to get the IHRA adopted or did most (though not all) mainstream Jewish organizations?

No person likes to be vilified for who they are. I would no more tolerate being called Shylock than I would being called Hasbara or being told I'm paid by a foreign government.

If I were claiming a few people represented the entire party it would be different from dozens of people making the worst comments I've seen. The Republican party in my country does not have as many officials who have made such baldly anti-Semitic comments as I've outlined.

As for AOC, I've never heard her say anything anti-Semitic.

Something like 70% of Jews in the United States vote for the Democratic party, of which AOC is a member. I read a recent statistic that 94% of Jewish people would not vote for Labour.

You could choose to believe that there are all sorts of nefarious things going on behind the scenes and some conspiracy to demonize Labour or you can realize that it's never an accident when dozens of people from Councilors, to Mps to party officials have made comments ranging from those about Rothschild bankers, to debunked theories about Jewish genetic origins, to Holocaust denial, to violent threats against Jews. It runs the gamut of every type and form of anti-semitism...

"Gideon Bull denied calling a Jewish councillor a Shylock directly, but admitted using the word during a private meeting.
The Haringey councillor, who was standing in Clacton, Essex, said he did not realise the Shakespearean character was a Jew".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50344324

Julius Caesar- woz e that mafia geezer in Chicago?

If the defenses are true and this is now just a word in common parlance, the use of a conspicuously Jewish character who enforced debts by removing flesh to mean parsimonious is a sign of ingrained anti-semitism. It can be possible without being plausible but the defenses are often worse than the initial offense.

When Peter Willsman said that 68 Rabbis were working for the Israeli embassy, he also had a lot of support and solidarity. People were posting clips from the Al Jazeera documentary showing an Israeli named Shai Masot boasting about his influence over British politics. It is concerning that a lot of people think a single Israeli individual filmed in a bar is evidence that 68 British Rabbis are working for Israel.

I see a similar train of thought with Williamson’s claim about the JDL. I’m curious what role they play in the British Parliamentary process? They are a dangerous terrorist organization. It’s hard for me to believe that they, along with Britain First, were the prime movers to enact a definition of anti-semitism that has mainstream though not unanimous Jewish support. I’m concerned I will soon see a video of someone from JDL saying something positive about it as proof while sneezing.

There is a difference between a defense being possible and being plausible. If it is possible, Labour defenders will pretend it’s plausible. In aggregate, the picture is not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

"Gideon Bull denied calling a Jewish councillor a Shylock directly, but admitted using the word during a private meeting.
The Haringey councillor, who was standing in Clacton, Essex, said he did not realise the Shakespearean character was a Jew".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50344324

Julius Caesar- woz e that mafia geezer in Chicago?

---

As I read it, she informed him it was offensive to her, and he apologised.

The term shyylock's always been a name for a tallyman...Regardless of religion.
But, indeed, to deny knowing the character in the book was jewish, was, foolish to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Something like 70% of Jews in the United States vote for the Democratic party, of which AOC is a member. I read a recent statistic that 94% of Jewish people would not vote for Labour.

---

Yah, right, and the other 30% are the wrong type of jews!
Like the 200 academics who wrote an open letter in the Guardian decrying the weaponizaton of anti-semitism against Labour.
Who ever ever quotes the JVL (an organiztion where you have to be jewish and labour)? No one.
Who quotes the JLM (An organization you need to be neither jewish or labour)? Every fucker!

But yeah, statistics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

As for AOC, I've never heard her say anything anti-Semitic.

---

Did I say she had?
Did i even imply it?
The answer to both's no.
What I said is the same thing's happened to her, lies, smears, quotes taken out of context.

Like I said, you want to to stop antisemitism?
Not just pay it lip service. end it.
(Not just in the labour party (0.005% of half a million members), but through out the country as a whole)?
Really?
Stop weaponizing it and educate people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

When Peter Willsman said that 68 Rabbis were working for the Israeli embassy, he also had a lot of support and solidarity. People were posting clips from the Al Jazeera documentary showing an Israeli named Shai Masot boasting about his influence over British politics. It is concerning that a lot of people think a single Israeli individual filmed in a bar is evidence that 68 British Rabbis are working for Israel.

---

Not just a single israeli though, was he. A single Israeli wording for the Israeli government.

And here we go...Now for the big one.

If you think Israel isn't involved in British politics, you're either stupid, naive, a dupe, or a plant.
Up to you, choose any two.


We're done here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Not just a single israeli though, was he. A single Israeli wording for the Israeli government.

---

What does he have to do with British Rabbis? That's my point. What does the JDL have to do with the IHRA? If you can use the existence of this one person to justify any statement about members of the Jewish community we're in trouble.

Does Israel play a role in British politics? I'm sure. Do you need evidence to accuse any person of being on their payroll? You should have it. Does the existence of one person lobbying for their government mean that anyone who criticizes you guys should be called a lobbyist? Again, I would think not.

I don't trust the figures that have been provided about the prevalence of Labour anti-Semitism, much like you don't find a single pollster in Britain trustworthy. I don't trust them simply because I would expect Councilors and others running for office to be less likely to be anti-Semitic than the average person.

I also think the "wrong type of Jew" line of reasoning is wrongheaded. No individual speaks for the community. That is true whether that Jewish person has a minority or in the majority viewpoint.

The reason the majority is often cited is that it is a better reflection of the average view, though this too is a reduction. The majority can be wrong, but there is no reason to reflexively hold up a small number of individuals who agree with you as being invariable truth-tellers. Someone can respond that most Jewish people disagree and then you have to look at the evidence itself.

About that. I can't be responsible for those saying AOC is anti-Semitic any more than I can about some people who said Obama was. I can say I don't think a lot of people feel that way but I don't know. I've talked about things I thought were anti-Semitic and I've tried to include only those statements that seemed unambiguous to me.

Let's be done here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Like I said, you want to to stop antisemitism?
Not just pay it lip service. end it.

---

I'm sure you've had some good ideas but you'll have to excuse me if I don't think you have the antidote to antisemitism. My neighbor a few years ago said he had a billion dollar idea and he's still my neighbor and he doesn't have a million dollars.

What do you guys say over there? I'll take it on board?

Of course, I also disagree with the premise that I'm weaponizing it so there's that impasse too.:)