Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    27 Mar '18 04:45
    “The Labour leader is shocked by pockets of anti-semitism in the Labour party.”

    Interesting.
    So, I looked into the allegations:

    Example 1.
    The first was against the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.
    It was revealed that the year before she became the MP, she shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".


    This isn’t anti-semitism. This is taking sides in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict.

    Example 2:
    A number of other posts emerged, with her comparing Israel to the Nazis and saying "the Jews are rallying".

    Not sure what to think of it.
    Israel refers to themselves as a Jewish nation. So, to equate Israel with Judaism isn’t anti-semitic. Comparing a country to Hitler’s nazism isn’t anti-semitic either. Comparing. jewish state to nazism... is... uh... provocative... the two statements together are teetering on the brink of generalising populations. Not sure it’s anti-semitism, though.

    Example 3:
    Mr Livingstone appeared on BBC Radio London defending the MP and said he had never heard anyone in the Labour Party say anything anti-Semitic.
    He added: "When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
    This led to widespread criticism of Mr Livingstone, with Labour MP John Mann accusing him of being a "Nazi apologist" in front of a media scrum.


    This isn’t anti-semitic. Not very constructive (albeit historically correct, although Hitler’s intentions may have been more coincidental, than planned... not sure) though.

    Example 4:
    Around the same time, allegations of anti-Semitism arose from the Oxford University Labour Club.
    They claimed that members of the club had discussed Zionists rigging British elections, frequently used the term "Zio" and said that European attacks on Jews were justified because of Gaza.


    Nothing anti-semitic here.
    Paranoid (although after the Russian election tampering scandal, anything’s possible) and the use of “Zio” is rather bizarre.
    The last part of the example is definitavely anti-Jewish and can obviously be seen as incitement to hatred and violence. Unacceptable.

    All in all, it seems to me that some people use exaggerated language to make their political points. Most politicians do, but when it comes to Israel, suddenly, everyone has to be careful.

    Obviously comparing Israel to Nazism is a tactic to rile the bastards. I don’t think it’s helpful when said from a prominent party platform.

    Justifying aggression on whole groups of people... obviously wrong (on so many levels). I do wonder in which context it was said, though.
    I find it hardly likely that an Oxford labour club would come away with rubbish like that.

    Mainly, what I see is critisism of Israel being interpretted as being the same as anti-Judaism (which it is not) and being called anti-semitic (which it is not... Palestians are semitic too).

    To claim opposition to Israel is anti-semitic is exactly the same as comparing Israel to nazi-Germany: it’s propaganda and deflects from the issues at hand.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43539774
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    27 Mar '18 11:221 edit
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    “The Labour leader is shocked by pockets of anti-semitism in the Labour party.”

    Interesting.
    So, I looked into the allegations:

    Example 1.
    [i]The first was against the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.
    It was revealed that the year before she became the MP, she shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US un ...[text shortened]... aganda and deflects from the issues at hand.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43539774
    I see political doublespeak isn't confined to the halls of Congress in the USA.
  3. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    27 Mar '18 13:07
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    “The Labour leader is shocked by pockets of anti-semitism in the Labour party.”

    Interesting.
    So, I looked into the allegations:

    Example 1.
    [i]The first was against the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.
    It was revealed that the year before she became the MP, she shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US un ...[text shortened]... aganda and deflects from the issues at hand.



    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43539774
    Okay, to start with, to pre-empt the wise-ass remarks about how Arabs are Semites, I'm using "anti-Semitic" as a proxy for "anti-Jewish." If anyone doesn't like that, take it up with popular culture, which created this association.

    ===Example 1.
    The first was against the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.
    It was revealed that the year before she became the MP, she shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".

    This isn’t anti-semitism. This is taking sides in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. ===

    Agree. Stupid point that only an idiot would be serious about, but not anti-Semitic.

    ===Example 2:
    A number of other posts emerged, with her comparing Israel to the Nazis and saying "the Jews are rallying". ===

    Absolutely anti-Semitic. Israel is obviously not comparable to the Nazis and making such an over-the-top contrived comparison can only be motivated by anti-Semitism. If someone said Islam = Naziism, you would ascribe racist intent to the speaker. Yes, technically, Israel and Judaism is not the same thing, but being hysterical over the top anti-Israel is almost certainly motivated, at least in part, by anti-Semitism in the same way that excessive over-the-top criticism of the people who live in many major American inner cities is probably informed by racism. Would you buy it if I said "The people in south central LA are thugs and welfare queens. I have nothing against black people. I'm just against people in south-central LA" would you buy it? Didn't think so.

    ===Example 3:
    Mr Livingstone appeared on BBC Radio London defending the MP and said he had never heard anyone in the Labour Party say anything anti-Semitic.
    He added: "When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."===

    The statement itself may not be ant-Semitic, but it's hard for me to imagine that someone who doesn't hate Jews using Hitler's election and platform as a means to irk Jews. If your mother died from breast cancer and I said "Well, breast cancer research has led to scientific breakthroughs, so breast cancer furthers your goal of scientific research, it's just unfortunate that it went crazy and killed your mom." at the very least, I'd be an a-hole.

    ===Example 4:
    Around the same time, allegations of anti-Semitism arose from the Oxford University Labour Club.
    They claimed that members of the club had discussed Zionists rigging British elections, frequently used the term "Zio" and said that European attacks on Jews were justified because of Gaza.===

    Of course this is anti-Semitic. Dredging up old canards about Jews' outsized influence on politics and world affairs is the classic first step in an action against Jews. Even the most abysmally historically ignorant people have to know that.
  4. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    28 Mar '18 05:12
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Okay, to start with, to pre-empt the wise-ass remarks about how Arabs are Semites, I'm using "anti-Semitic" as a proxy for "anti-Jewish." If anyone doesn't like that, take it up with popular culture, which created this association.

    ===Example 1.
    The first was against the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah.
    It was revealed that the year before she became the ...[text shortened]... an action against Jews. Even the most abysmally historically ignorant people have to know that.
    I can’t agree with you on the second to last point.
    Comparing zionism / Israel / Various moslim countries with nazi Germany is bad taste (maybe... can also be funny), but I don’t see anything inherently racist / anti-Jew in it.

    I really think Livingston got it by the media, because he’s openly pro-Palestinian. Lots of people don’t like that.

    Now, it would be easy to call out the Pro-Israel lobby on this, but I can only imagine a lot of governments / companies / media have interests in Israel and prefer not to see a rational debate on the issue.

    People using exaggerated comparisons though, don’t do the argument any good either.
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    28 Mar '18 09:18
    When a British MP says something derogatory about Jews in UK that will be anti-Semitic.
    Statements about Israel - no matter how inflammatory - are not.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    28 Mar '18 11:501 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    When a British MP says something derogatory about Jews in UK that will be anti-Semitic.
    Statements about Israel - no matter how inflammatory - are not.
    People use proxies for the targets of their prejudices all the time, usually to maintain plausible deniability.

    As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se. Does anyone doubt that he harbors at least some prejudice against them? He simply uses Mexico and other Latin countries as proxies.
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    28 Mar '18 16:02
    Originally posted by @sh76
    People use proxies for the targets of their prejudices all the time, usually to maintain plausible deniability.

    As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se. Does anyone doubt that he harbors at least some prejudice against them? He simply uses Mexico and other Latin countries as proxies.
    He doesn’t complain about Spain. I think it’s the Amerindians he doesn’t like.

    Peter Navarro is Hispanic and works for Trump.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    28 Mar '18 19:591 edit
    Originally posted by @sh76
    People use proxies for the targets of their prejudices all the time, usually to maintain plausible deniability.

    As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se. Does anyone doubt that he harbors at least some prejudice against them? He simply uses Mexico and other Latin countries as proxies.
    "As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se."
    --Sh76

    In fact, Donald Trump accused an American judge of being biased (or incompetent) only
    because he's of Mexican heritage, not because he is (or was) a Mexican citizen.
    That shows Donald Trump's bigotry against ethnicity / heritage, NOT nationality.

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

    "Donald Trump's racial comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University case"

    Even Paul Ryan condemned Donald Trump at that time (2016).

    ""Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition
    of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable."
    --Paul Ryan (criticizing Donald Trump)
  9. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    28 Mar '18 20:30
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se."
    --Sh76

    In fact, Donald Trump accused an American judge of being biased (or incompetent) only
    because he's of Mexican heritage, not because he is (or was) a Mexican citizen.
    That shows Donald Trump's bigotry against ethnicity / heritage, NOT nationality.

    http ...[text shortened]... be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable."
    --Paul Ryan (criticizing Donald Trump)
    And again, he used the term "Mexican," not "Hispanic."

    He was probably using Mexican as a proxy for Hispanic, further reinforcing my point.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    28 Mar '18 20:455 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    And again, he used the term "Mexican," not "Hispanic."

    He was probably using Mexican as a proxy for Hispanic, further reinforcing my point.
    What point? Does Sh76 believe that the term 'Mexican' screams 'foreigner' and appeals
    to American xenophobia in a way that the term 'Hispanic' does not? Could not even most
    Americans recognize that it's absurd to refer to a judge IN the US system as a foreigner?

    Even Paul Ryan apparently recognized at that time (though he may prefer to deny it now
    out of political expediency) that Donald Trump's comment was racist. Is Sh76 attempting
    to argue that it was not racist?

    By the way, it has been brought to my attention that there's an American television advertisment
    (for ancestry . com?) featuring an American woman who says: "When I've been asked,
    'What's my nationality?', I've always said 'Hispanic'." Obviously, she's very confused
    about what 'nationality' means. 'Hispanic' is NOT a nationality. Hispanic people belong
    to many nationalities. There's no such thing as a 'Hispanic passport'. This is an example
    of many ignorant Americans confusing or conflating nationality, race, ethnicity, heritage.

    There was a MSNBC headline, "American Beats Kwan", referring to figure skater Michelle Kwan
    (a nine-time US national champion), who was born in the USA and has been a lifelong US citizen.
    But she's of Chinese heritage, and US citizens of East Asian heritage are typically perceived
    and treated as 'perpetual foreigners' in the USA unless--for US propaganda purposes--they
    are suddenly claimed to be 'Americans' when they win Olympic medals or Nobel Prizes.
  11. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    28 Mar '18 20:45
    Originally posted by @sh76
    People use proxies for the targets of their prejudices all the time, usually to maintain plausible deniability.

    And people accuse others of using proxies all the time.
    Mostly unjustified.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    28 Mar '18 21:13
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59 to Sh76
    And people accuse others of using proxies all the time.
    Mostly unjustified.
    During the Cold War, Israeli propaganda liked to accuse Palestinian resistance of being a proxy for Communism.
    Now, given that the USA has less fear of Communism, Israeli propaganda prefers to accuse
    Palestinian resistance of being a proxy for pan-Islamic jihadism.

    In reality, the Palestinian resistance is essentially nationalist, though Palestinians may have
    other beliefs in addition (such as the nominal Marxism of the PFLP or the Islamism of Hamas).
    I don't know of many, if any, Palestinians fighting for pan-Islamic jihadist causes outside of Palestine.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56354
    29 Mar '18 05:23
    Originally posted by @sh76
    People use proxies for the targets of their prejudices all the time, usually to maintain plausible deniability.

    As far as I can remember, Trump has never said anything bad about Hispanics per se. Does anyone doubt that he harbors at least some prejudice against them? He simply uses Mexico and other Latin countries as proxies.
    Ken Livingstone is a socialist who's fiercely critical of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. I say socialist, I would rather describe him as a left-wing Social democrat with a good streak of what's right and what's wrong about him.

    I can't imagine him having any form of prejudice against Jews.
    The mere concept doesn't make sense.

    He even has connections with left-wing Israeli parties (or he did so in the 80's).
    In fact, I believe he doesn't even oppose the existence of the State of Israel, but singles out the right-wing policies of the governments there.

    The Labour leadership wanted shot of him, because his comments were controversial, and damaging to their election campaigns. This all whipped up by the right-wing media (like the Telegraph, the Sun, etc.) because, hell, they don't like left-wingers.

    Now. This is where it actually gets interesting.
    Check out BICOM, Labour Friends of Israel and Conservative Friends of Israel.
    The last one there is described by a Channel 4 documentary into lobby groups as: "beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups."

    But, LFoI has serious former members: Blair, for example.

    BICOM is the same sort of lobby group, but directed at the media.
    And BICOM is exceptionally interesting for this debate.
    They have a sub-organisation called: "We believe in Israel".
    Now, BICOM and "We believe in Israel" are obviously pro-Zionism (they have Christian Zionistic tendencies) and oppose, with venom, anti-Semitism (with which they actually mean anti-Judaism). They say.

    What they actually do is defend Israel in every aspect of its existence.
    Just read articles on the "We believe in Israel" website, articles like: Anti-Israel hate must stop.
    So, they deliberately blur the line between anti-Israel political opinion and anti-Jewish sentiment.

    By doing so, they're making criticism of Israel equal to anti-Semitism.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Mar '18 19:42
    Originally posted by @shavixmir to Sh76
    Ken Livingstone is a socialist who's fiercely critical of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. I say socialist, I would rather describe him as a left-wing Social democrat with a good streak of what's right and what's wrong about him.

    I can't imagine him having any form of prejudice against Jews.
    The mere concept doesn't make sense.

    ...[text shortened]... ti-Jewish sentiment.

    By doing so, they're making criticism of Israel equal to anti-Semitism.
    "They're making criticism of Israel equal to anti-Semitism,"
    --Shavixmir

    This is a common tactic by supporters (particularly Americans) of Israel.
    The pro-Israeli troll Phranny, for instance, has accused me of hating all Jews.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    30 Mar '18 17:092 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76
    And again, he used the term "Mexican," not "Hispanic."

    He was probably using Mexican as a proxy for Hispanic, further reinforcing my point.
    Hispanics talk smack about Mexicans all the time. They are brutal savages. We're not offended.

    YouTube : Montezuma Cortes rap
Back to Top