The 2019 General Election - Campaign Debate and Discussion

[DarloRich]

....and yet, the chief Rabbi, like everyone making accusations before him, fails to cite specific instances nor to say whether this anti-Semitic behaviour has been reported and prosecuted by the police (since it is illegal). First and foremost, this is a legal matter, yet we hear nothing on that. If it has been reported and not prosecuted, that is a failing of the police not the Labour leadership.

Let that sink in for a moment, rather than trying to block attributing any counter-argument to Corbyn fan-boyism and 'whataboutery'.

PS : Please try to remember that there is almost no mention of the offensive, racist ways that the Tory Party leader refers to Muslim women etc ...

Really? You haven't seen any antisemitic behaviour from any labour people during the tenure of the sainted Jeremy? Really? Come on now!

It is clear many Corbyn fans have little or no experience of left wing political groups. Antisemitism has long been an issue for the more crackpot end of left politics. Of course many dress it up as anti Zionism but the meaning and language are clear. The sad thing is these crackpots now control the labour party.

Btw There is the whataboutery express - bang on time. No self reflection, no consideration that there might be any validity in the argument just an immediate what about this or that in an attempt to deflect focus away from the issue. It is tiresome

Get your own house in order before attacking others.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Today the chief Rabbi has said that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit for high office. Let that sink in for a moment. A senior religious figure has expressly stated a political candidate is not fit for high office. That must be unprecedented in recent political history. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068

Of course to Corbyn fan boys it will be all MSM smears and Jews ( sorry Zionists) attacking the sainted Jeremy Best stand clear of the yellow line: the whataboutery express will be along shortly!

The chief Rabbi is a Conservative supporter and personal friend of Boris Johnson. He previously was the government of Isreal's official representative in Ireland. He is not an apolitical figure. You are right that a senior religious figures directly intervening in politics during a general election campaign is unprecedented in recent times: by convention they are supposed to stay neutral. I'd suggest that it is Ephraim Mirvis who is the one who is not fit for high office.

 

[DarloRich]

The chief Rabbi is a Conservative supporter and personal friend of Boris Johnson. He previously was the government of Isreal's official representative in Ireland. He is not an apolitical figure. You are right that a senior religious figures directly intervening in politics during a general election campaign is unprecedented in recent times: by convention they are supposed to stay neutral. I'd suggest that it is Ephraim Mirvis is the one who is not fit for high office.

Right. Once again no self reflection or consideration that there may be merit in the accusations. Just an attack on the credibility of the (Jewish) accuser and a hint at conspiracy. No thought that, do you know what, perhaps Jeremy hasn't dealt with this situation as well as he could.

 

[433N]

Really? You haven't seen any antisemitic behaviour from any labour people during the tenure of the sainted Jeremy? Really? Come on now!

It is clear many Corbyn fans have little or no experience of left wing political groups. Antisemitism has long been an issue for the more crackpot end of left politics. Of course many dress it up as anti Zionism but the meaning and language are clear. The sad thing is these crackpots now control the labour party.

Btw There is the whataboutery express - bang on time. No self reflection, no consideration that there might be any validity in the argument just an immediate what about this or that in an attempt to deflect focus away from the issue. It is tiresome

Get your own house in order before attacking others.

All you have written is nonsense. I have used no 'whataboutery', I have not attacked others.

I have reflected and accept there may be instances of antisemitic behaviour. On reflection, antisemitic behaviour should be reported to the police and it should be prosecuted as such.

I am sorry that your hatred for Corbyn allows you to completely ignore this.

 

[DarloRich]

All you have written is nonsense. I have used no 'whataboutery', I have not attacked others.

I have reflected and accept there may be instances of antisemitic behaviour. On reflection, antisemitic behaviour should be reported to the police and it should be prosecuted as such.

I am sorry that your hatred for Corbyn allows you to completely ignore this.

so to be clear: It isnt up to the Labour party to flush out wrong uns. Instead they should pass everything onto the police and wash their hands of the issue? if the police take no action you think it is ok for these people to continue in the Labour party spouting their filth? You cant, really, be that naive surely.

BTW you have followed the general whataboutery approach: You immediately try to move the argument onto the Tories. It is simply deflection away from the problems Labour under Corbyn have in this area. These problems have come about because Mr Corbyn is, at best, a bridge over which the crackpot hard left loonies have been able to reenter and then take control of the labour party.

In the past when I went to party meetings the crackpots were I the corner muttering about the Jews and Rothschild conspiracies. Now they are on the stage with the microphone.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Right. Once again no self reflection or consideration that there may be merit in the accusations. Just an attack on the credibility of the (Jewish) accuser and a hint at conspiracy. No thought that, do you know what, perhaps Jeremy hasn't dealt with this situation as well as he could.

Are you saying that this particular accuser's credebility is not open to scrituny? Maybe Corbyn was a little slow to recognise and act against the tiny proportion of Labour Party members who held antisemitic views. That is the worst that can be said about him. To accuse him of "a new poison - sanctioned from the very top - has taken root in the party" is hyperbole beyond the facts.

 

[DarloRich]

Are you saying that this particular accuser's credebility is not open to scrituny? Maybe Corbyn was a little slow to recognise and act against the tiny proportion of Labour Party members who held antisemitic views. That is the worst that can be said about him. To accuse him of "a new poison - sanctioned from the very top - has taken root in the party" is hyperbole beyond the facts.

We shall have to disagree. There has been and remains a problem within Corbyns Labour with antisemitism. He hasn't done enough , fast enough to attack the problem. I expect it is hard for Jews to take his words seriously when he attends wreath laying ceremonies for Palestinian terrorist murders and invites them to tea at Westminster and calls them his friends. It isnt as if these people espouse a creed built on the complete destruction of the state of Israel or anything!

 

[433N]

so to be clear: It isnt up to the Labour party to flush out wrong uns. Instead they should pass everything onto the police and wash their hands of the issue? if the police take no action you think it is ok for these people to continue in the Labour party spouting their filth? You cant, really, be that naive surely.

Stop the 'naive' rubbish and stop the obfuscation.

Yes, I do think Labour, and those accusing them of antisemitism, should pass all evidence they have on antisemitic incidents on to the police, to put it simply for you : IF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY THE POLICE. Rather than hearsay, I want to hear about this. i.e. facts (remember those ?) , the veracity of which have been investigated, hopefully independently. The seriousness of these allegations are such that we should hear their substance ; particular if it isn't to just look like a political smear campaign.

I don't think it's ok for the police not to take action if a (hate) crime has been committed. Labour should too, of course, but if antisemitic incidents are being reported and not prosecuted then that is a failing of the police.

Remember that bandying around unproven allegations may prejudice any future fair trial of the perpetrators and may leave the accusers open to legal action over slander.

I don't think any of this is unreasonable, nor do I think that anyone requesting such should be labelled a 'Corbyn fanboy' or an advocate of 'whataboutery'

BTW you have followed the general whataboutery approach: You immediately try to move the argument onto the Tories... blah blah blah.

I put in a brief comment as a 'PS' ... you know, one of those things that is not meant to detract or deflect from the main premise of an argument. You don't half take leave of your senses when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn . Do try to stay rational ; you are starting to sound like one of those old men who shouts at birds.

 

[ainsworth74]

Another gentle reminder that it might be a good idea to take a breath now and again before replying. I can understand that politics in general can be very emotive and that characters like Corbyn and Johnson can elicit very strong responses but we do need to try and keep things civil and in line with Forum Rules.

No-one has broken any rules yet but if things keep heating up I worry that people may, in the heat of the moment, break some rules accidentally!

 

[DarloRich]

Stop the 'naive' rubbish and stop the obfuscation.

Yes, I do think Labour, and those accusing them of antisemitism, should pass all evidence they have on antisemitic incidents on to the police, to put it simply for you : IF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH BY THE POLICE. Rather than hearsay, I want to hear about this. i.e. facts (remember those ?) , the veracity of which have been investigated, hopefully independently. The seriousness of these allegations are such that we should hear their substance ; particular if it isn't to just look like a political smear campaign.

I don't think it's ok for the police not to take action if a (hate) crime has been committed. Labour should too, of course, but if antisemitic incidents are being reported and not prosecuted then that is a failing of the police.

Remember that bandying around unproven allegations may prejudice any future fair trial of the perpetrators and may leave the accusers open to legal action over slander.

I don't think any of this is unreasonable, nor do I think that anyone requesting such should be labelled a 'Corbyn fanboy' or an advocate of 'whataboutery'

So to be clear: You think that antisemitism should only be dealt with by the police and that if they feel no prosecution is merited no action should be taken by the Labour Party? Could you confirm that?

Further, are you saying that only actionable antisemitic behaviour should be challenged? What should the labour party do if comments or behaviour fails to reach the required threshold for criminal action but look or feel antisemitic in nature?

Finally, do you accept that Mr Corbyn could have dealt with this problem better, more forcefully and quicker than he has done?

EDIT - I hadn't read the above statement by @ainsworth74 when posting so I will leave it there.

 

[433N]

So to be clear: You think that antisemitism should only be dealt with by the police and that if they feel no prosecution is merited no action should be taken by the Labour Party? Could you confirm that?

No, I can't confirm that.
Why would the police feel that no prosecution is merited in a case of antisemitism ?

Further, are you saying that only actionable antisemitic behaviour should be challenged? What should the labour party do if comments or behaviour fails to reach the required threshold for criminal action but look or feel antisemitic in nature?

No.

Presumably Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis doesn't believe that the findings of the Chakrabati report have been fully and unhesitatingly implemented as he said that he felt they should have been at the time of its publication (otherwise why would he raise the issue now) ... so they could start there.

Finally, do you accept that Mr Corbyn could have dealt with this problem better, more forcefully and quicker than he has done?

What do you mean by 'better' ? Plus see above. Are you saying that Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite ? Do you think that there is anything that he could have done that would have made this all go away quickly ? Do you think there was institutional antisemitism when Ed Milliband was leader (only 2015 remember) ?

Anyway, I am a novice in these matters. If you could provide me with a link to a documentary record of these cases of antisemitism and the deficiencies in dealing with them, I would be much obliged (preferably documentation without politically-charged explanatory commentary).

 

[AlterEgo]

Today the chief Rabbi has said that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit for high office. Let that sink in for a moment. A senior religious figure has expressly stated a political candidate is not fit for high office. That must be unprecedented in recent political history. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068

Of course to Corbyn fan boys it will be all MSM smears and Jews ( sorry Zionists) attacking the sainted Jeremy Best stand clear of the yellow line: the whataboutery express will be along shortly!

Corbyn's Marxists plan to "increase the independence" (ha) of the EHRC, a total dog-whistle if ever there was one. An appalling shower of people. Appalling. As bad as the Tories.

....and yet, the chief Rabbi, like everyone making accusations before him, fails to cite specific instances nor to say whether this anti-Semitic behaviour has been reported and prosecuted by the police (since it is illegal).

Being an anti-Semite or any other form of racist in itself isn't illegal. For example, tolerating an anti-Semitic heckle and then chatting to that heckler after the hustings isn't illegal, is it?

First and foremost, this is a legal matter

No it is not.

Let that sink in for a moment, rather than trying to block attributing any counter-argument to Corbyn fan-boyism and 'whataboutery'.

PS : Please try to remember that there is almost no mention of the offensive, racist ways that the Tory Party leader refers to Muslim women etc ...

"I'm about to engage in whataboutery but I am IMMUNE because I just told people they couldn't accuse me of it".

Of course, Boris and the Tories have a similar problem, but we weren't talking about that. If your pitch is "we don't like the Jews, but look at the Tories, they hate Muslims" I'm afraid it's not really a vote winner.

What the line "well, Boris hates Muslims but hey we only hear about Jeremy's Jewish problem" amounts to another dog-whistle.

I really hope all of the parties gain zero seats. We are screwed.

 

[AlterEgo]

The chief Rabbi is a Conservative supporter and personal friend of Boris Johnson. He previously was the government of Isreal's official representative in Ireland. He is not an apolitical figure. You are right that a senior religious figures directly intervening in politics during a general election campaign is unprecedented in recent times: by convention they are supposed to stay neutral. I'd suggest that it is Ephraim Mirvis who is the one who is not fit for high office.

"Aha, look, a Jew using his power to influence things."

Where is the evidence they are personal friends? Go on, pull out the source - I know where it appeared.

A poll cited in the New Statesman said the vast majority of Jews believe Labour is an inherently anti-Semitic party. If a poll said the same thing about Muslims and the Tories then people would accept their experience at face value.

 

[433N]

(antisemitic behaviour ) ... First and foremost, this is a legal matter

No it is not.

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

.. so, yes, it really is.

A poll cited in the New Statesman said the vast majority of Jews believe Labour is an inherently anti-Semitic party. If a poll said the same thing about Muslims and the Tories then people would accept their experience at face value.

... or they might see that Labour have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism whereas the Tory Party refuses to adopt the definition of islamophobia produced by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims.

 

[433N]

Of course, Boris and the Tories have a similar problem, but we weren't talking about that.

We should be talking about both . Why aren't we ? I haven't seen many discussions of islamaphobia in the Tory Party in the Daily Mail ; our 'free' press.

'whataboutery' seems to be the new rally call for right wing outrage ... it seems to have replaced 'it's political correctness (gone mad)'

 

[AlterEgo]

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

.. so, yes, it really is.

Have you read that act? Have you seen what is against the law? Why did you not respond to my other comments? It is perfectly legal to be an anti-Semite and do certain things which are, on the face of it, anti-Semitic.

 

[433N]

Why did you not respond to my other comments?

Because you disparage what people say using sarcasm (the lowest form of wit) and refer to 'dog-whistles' which shows a certain level of paranoia over motives. Both of these things are not conducive to reasoned debate, so I'll pass.

 

[DarloRich]

Why would the police feel that no prosecution is merited in a case of antisemitism ?

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

.. so, yes, it really is.

I think you might be struggling a bit here. Have you perhaps read the act in detail and some of the associated case law?

Can you not see how some behaviour might fail to meet the required criminal standard required to bring a charge under the above act but be behaviour that a civilised political party and its members might deem unacceptable?

... or they might see that Labour have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism whereas the Tory Party refuses to adopt the definition of islamophobia produced by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims.

lets not pretend that Corbyn or his labour leadership chums readily accepted the IHRA defintion. They tried VERY hard to weasel out of it with a clever form of words. It took a long and heated NEC meeting to make them see sense.

Yes the definition was accepted. It wasn't accepted easily or quickly. It could and should have been accepted much sooner. Corbyn wanted to water the definition down to allow more overt criticism of the state of Israel and by extension Jews.

This report form the evil Guardian is of use : https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full

findings of the Chakrabati report

A widely ridiculed sham report for which the author received a nice gong! Lets see what the Equality and Human Rights Commission say. They might absolve the Labour party of any issues.

What do you mean by 'better' ? Plus see above. Are you saying that Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite ? Do you think that there is anything that he could have done that would have made this all go away quickly ? Do you think there was institutional antisemitism when Ed Milliband was leader (only 2015 remember) ?

Lets take this in turn:

better/faster - Corbyn could and should have responded faster to the obvious issues. he should have mandated a firmer response and a zero tolerance approach. He didn't. he vacillated and often, when push came to shove, sided with his chums. Expulsions for the likes of Williams and Livingstone had to be dragged out of him.

Is Corbyn antisemitic - honestly I don't know. He certainly doesn't help himself when you look at his past actions! I think he is a bridge over which all kinds of crackpots have crossed back into Labour and as i have said i think he has been weak dealing with this subject.

Anyway, I am a novice in these matters. If you could provide me with a link to a documentary record of these cases of antisemitism and the deficiencies in dealing with them, I would be much obliged (preferably documentation without politically-charged explanatory commentary).

It is clear you are novice at this. May I suggest looking at the cases of:

Chris Williamson: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...bid-over-labour-party-antisemitism-suspension
Pete Willsman: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ssy-labour-antisemitism-claims-peter-willsman
Jackie Walker: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ackie-walker-for-leaked-antisemitism-comments
Ken Livingstone: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ingstones-suspension-over-antisemitism-claims

There are 4 high profile examples of the problem. All were key supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. I have tried to only use the Guardian as a source in the hope that will be acceptable. This article gives some general sign posts to key issues: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/26/antisemitism-labour-everything-you-need-to-know and points out Corbyn himself has form in this area.

There are several social media accounts who highlight these issues and call out Labour members over antisemitism. Some of the statements they link to are frankly obscene and don't deserve repetition.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because you disparage what people say using sarcasm (the lowest form of wit) and refer to 'dog-whistles' which shows a certain level of paranoia over motives. Both of these things are not conducive to reasoned debate, so I'll pass.

Ah right, the old reasoned debate line, from someone who put something which was not even relevant as a rebuttal in massive font. For the avoidance of doubt, you can be racist enough, anti-Semitic enough, misogynistic enough, or homophobic enough not to commit a crime, but still render your party unelectable. I am sure you would argue that while Boris isn't in prison for writing about the letter-box Muslims it still makes him unfit to be PM.

Another one to come back to after Election Day. Labour will not gain power. Again. This is a shame, because many liberal or social democrats won't vote for Labour for one reason; Corbyn.

I want a proper social democratic party back so badly I am prepared to abstain and allow Boris in. I don't care that it means Brexit.

 

[433N]

... from someone who put something which was not even relevant as a rebuttal in massive font.

... apart from it is relevant. Taken from (https://antisemitism.uk/law/offences/) under section 29A Public Order Act 1986 as amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 the following antisemitic acts ARE criminal offences ...

- fear or provocation of violence
- intentional harrassment , alarm or distress
- behaviour likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress

For the avoidance of doubt, you can be racist enough, anti-Semitic enough, misogynistic enough, or homophobic enough not to commit a crime, but still render your party unelectable.

Strawman alert : I never said you couldn't.

I am sure you would argue that while Boris isn't in prison for writing about the letter-box Muslims it still makes him unfit to be PM.

Yes, I do think it precludes him from high office. What sort of man aims to belittle and humiliate some of the weakest members of society who do not have a platform to respond. It is the lowest of the low. Perhaps you don't think so and so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I want a proper social democratic party back so badly I am prepared to abstain and allow Boris in. I don't care that it means Brexit.

So you see yourself as a social democrat who won't vote for the Liberal Democrats and would prefer 'Boris'. You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I want a proper social democratic party back so badly I am prepared to abstain and allow Boris in. I don't care that it means Brexit.

That seems a very strange approach to me. I'm pretty sure that a Boris majority Government is not going to make it any significantly more likely that the UK will gain a social democratic party. And it will of course guarantee that Boris leads the UK in a direction that is about as far removed from social democracy as you can get while still being, notionally, a modern Western democracy.

Given that there is virtually no chance of a Labour majority Government, I would have thought that, if you want something resembling a social democratic Government, then your best option would be to vote tactically for whoever is best placed to challenge the Tories in your constituency - on the basis that a Parliament in which the LibDems hold the balance of power is likely to result in a Government being forced to pursue roughly centre-left policies.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Kantar polling show Tory 36 Labour 35 according to LBC
As an aside, you have until 2359 tonight to register to vote!!!!
If you take out the weighting and use the raw figures... otherwise it's Tory 43 Labour 32

 

[Tetchytyke]

Today the chief Rabbi has said that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit for high office. Let that sink in for a moment. A senior religious figure has expressly stated a political candidate is not fit for high office.

Is this the same Chief Rabbi who, only a few weeks ago, was calling Boris Johnson and Benjamin Netanyahu "good friends" and celebrating both their leaderships?

Interestingly Rabbi Mirvis doesn't seem to have an issue with the following bigotry-free statements:
"Picanninies with watermelon smiles";
"Letterboxes";
"Tank-topped bum-boys".

Just fancy that!

You'll be mentioning the Jewish Chronicle's editorial too, no doubt. The paper's editor, Stephen Pollard, is a Daily Mail commentator who doesn't believe we should pay tax for things like schools or hospitals, believes in a flat tax, and hates the BBC.

Or shall we talk about the Jewish Leadership Council, led until recently by Mick Davis, the Tory Party treasurer?

I've not got a lot of time for Corbyn, but let's not pretend these attacks are anything otherthat political hatchet jobs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just an attack on the credibility of the (Jewish) accuser and a hint at conspiracy.

I don't consider there to be a "conspiracy". But it is a salient point to note that all the Jewish people decrying this supposed anti-Semitism are heavily linked with a) the Conservatives, b) the Netanyahu government, or c) both.

Netanyahu's biggest success has been to move the discourse so that any criticism of what can only be described as Israeli war crimes is "anti-Semitic".

There are plenty of anti-Semites on the hard left, just as there are on the hard right. Labour should have been tougher on them. I think some of Corbyn's power base are anti-Semitic and that's why his response has been tepid.

But please don't insult our intelligence by claiming Rabbi Mirvis- close personal friend of Johnson and Netanyahu- is an independent and impartial observer. The real issue is that he- along with the likes of Stanley Fink and Mick Davis- simply disagree with Corbyn's politics.

I'd have more respect for them if they were honest about their motivation.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Let me get this line set.

Does anyone actually believe supporting Palestinians equates to anti-Semitism?

 

[AlterEgo]

... apart from it is relevant. Taken from (https://antisemitism.uk/law/offences/) under section 29A Public Order Act 1986 as amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 the following antisemitic acts ARE criminal offences ...

- fear or provocation of violence
- intentional harrassment , alarm or distress
- behaviour likely to cause harrassment, alarm or distress

...

Strawman alert : I never said you couldn't.

It's not a straw man; you countered an earlier argument that "Labour has an anti-Semitism problem" by asking where the prosecutions are, and for a list of alleged crimes. I'm explaining that it's not illegal to simply *be* an anti-Semite or a racist, merely that certain actions against protected groups may be.

I'm glad you now seem to accept that it's possible for a political party to have a discrimination problem without someone producing a big long list of people that got arrested.

So you see yourself as a social democrat who won't vote for the Liberal Democrats and would prefer 'Boris'. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Um...Lib Dems aren't social democrats. Labour is (nominally) a social democratic party.

That seems a very strange approach to me. I'm pretty sure that a Boris majority Government is not going to make it any significantly more likely that the UK will gain a social democratic party. And it will of course guarantee that Boris leads the UK in a direction that is about as far removed from social democracy as you can get while still being, notionally, a modern Western democracy.

I don't think Boris is anything but a classical liberal. My problem with him is he's a liar and an opportunist and people who really ought to be able to trust him, can't. He and Corbyn are equally bad for very different reasons. My preference is for Labour to be annihilated in the election and their strategy and outlook to be comprehensively destroyed. I have very little hope that the hardliners in control of the Party will relinquish their ideological throne without a crushing electoral defeat. I also wish the Tory party would be burnt to the ground too, but for other reasons.

Given that there is virtually no chance of a Labour majority Government, I would have thought that, if you want something resembling a social democratic Government, then your best option would be to vote tactically for whoever is best placed to challenge the Tories in your constituency - on the basis that a Parliament in which the LibDems hold the balance of power is likely to result in a Government being forced to pursue roughly centre-left policies.

My constituency is Tory, but they hold it with only 3% over Labour.

I will not vote for Labour; I don't vote for Marxists or masters of identity politics. I also don't vote for Tories, on principle.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Um...Lib Dems aren't social democrats. Labour is (nominally) a social democratic party.

No - Labour is meant to be a socialist party. It was founded on that basis and that is how it should be.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't consider there to be a "conspiracy". But it is a salient point to note that all the Jewish people decrying this supposed anti-Semitism are heavily linked with a) the Conservatives, b) the Netanyahu government, or c) both.

Where do you get that idea from?

But please don't insult our intelligence by claiming Rabbi Mirvis- close personal friend of Johnson

Source please.

 

[AlterEgo]

No - Labour is meant to be a socialist party. It was founded on that basis and that is how it should be.

I was waiting for someone to say that. And you have described the problem contemporary Labour has in a nutshell. Far too many people pushing for ideological purity. Labour's always been a coalition of leftists of various flavours from its inception.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Where do you get that idea from?

Mirvis being the de facto Israeli ambassador in Ireland for years, him being gushing in his praise of BoJo, and him arguing that anyone who sees the current Israeli regime as "apartheid" is being anti-Semitic.

None of this is new. Ed Miliband- an actual real Jewish person- was similarly targeted the second he chose to decry Israeli human rights abuses in Palestine.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/how-did-labour-lose-trust-britain-s-jews

Meanwhile last year the Board of Deputies could only muster mild "disappointment" at Johnson cavorting with Victor Orban, a man who personally attacked an actual Holocaust survivor with jibes about hooked noses.