Well if you define anti semitism as any criticism of Israel then what do you expect?
Why are you so obsessed with Corbyn? Why do you fear him? He’ll never be in power. It’s just deflection from the Israeli state’s disgraceful treatment of Palestinians.
My God, you are thick.
It is perfectly possible to criticise Israel without supporting and hanging around with people who;
This quite neatly sums it up;
“He never sees or understands the anti-Semitism, whether it is from overseas terrorist groups or local Facebook groups. Now, he belatedly acknowledges a mural was anti-Semitic. Like so much else in this area, it is far too little, far too late, with no serious attempt to understand or tackle the damage to Jews and the Labour Party.”
“Hizbollah commits terrorist atrocities against Jews, but Corbyn calls them his friends and attends pro-Hizbollah rallies in London. Exactly the same goes for Hamas. Raed Salah says Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood. Corbyn opposes his extradition and invites him for tea at the House of Commons. These are not the only cases. He is repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly anti-Semitic views, but claims never to hear or read them.”
You’ve drank the soup in a big way.
There you go again. Corbyn Anti-semitism Corbyn Anti-semitism Corbyn Anti-semitism Corbyn Anti-semitism
Deflection from the human rights abuses comitted by the Israeli state.
Keep on dancing monkey. 
How is it deflection?
Where have I defended Israel?
I haven’t read the last 59 posts.
Is Tim deflecting again?
More deflections than a TV deflector candidate in an Irish General Election circa 1997.
I never made any posts about support for Israel.
The two lapdogs there can like one another’s posts all they want but it doesn’t change the facts on who Corbyn associated with.
I have said it before here but the right wing in the US do often use being a critic of Israel or critical with the concept of Zionism (there is a line of course) as a faux anti Semitic trope. I have also said before that I think Corbyn lies in those camps - but that he associates himself with people who are complete nut jobs and proper anti semites. When called out, he pretends like he wasn’t aware of their pasts.
As they do in the UK, and it’s not just the “right-wing”.
Joan Ryan has proven form in it.
Euan Philipps is viciously anti-Corbyn and spokesperson for Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
Here he is today calling a Jewish Corbyn supporter a “blackshirt”.
Tough one for the anti-Corbynites here.
But I guess the way they’ll rationalise it to themselves is as follows:
If Philipps is not disciplined for anti-Semitism, that’s anti-Semitic (though no doubt Phillipps would then continue in his role as spokesperson of Labour Against Anti-Semitism, despite his anti-Semitism).
But if he is disciplined for anti-Semitism, that would be anti-Semitic.
You know, there’s a lot to be said for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
On a side note, I’m surprised that the name Shamima is not more popular among newborn baby girls in parts of Limerick.
Unfortunately, it’s the same shite can be said for each of them.
For the moment, I stay. No reason you should care, but here’s the story of the Conservative Party and me. I joined the Tories 50 years ago this September. Not CUCA (Cambridge University Conservative Association) which was all public-school boys, soft focus, sharp elbows and dry sherry. Arriving from Africa I found the British class system weird and repellent, and still do; so I joined something called PEST (Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism), a sort of centre-left Conservative ginger group led by a chap in a white polo-neck sweater.
He came and went. Tory leaders and prime ministers came and went. I was impressed by some, depressed by others. In and out of government the party swung somewhat left, somewhat right, then somewhat left again; and from the sidelines I variously cheered, ground my teeth or just hung on.
And now? I’m grinding my teeth and hanging on. I do so out of a bit of cowardice, a bit of scepticism and a bit of hope. Cowardice because I honestly don’t think I’d be joining the Tories today if I were 19. Hope because there is a good case for a young person to join and all is not lost if enough sane men and women stay and fight. Scepticism because it remains to be seen whether The Independent Group (TIG) of despairing former Labour and former Tory MPs constitutes more than a howl of pain and protest. I’m not sure that once antisemitism is routed from Labour and Brexit settled one way or the other, the political instincts of TIG MPs will add up to a party. Or should.
Why the “or should”? Because the case has yet to be made that what we want from a realignment of British politics is one sane party in the middle flanked by two mad ones of left and right. The Tory breakaways have been quoting with approval Sir John Major’s speech in Glasgow on Tuesday, in which he attacked the rise of extremism in both main parties, and ripped into the prime minister’s kidnap by the Brexit hardline European Research Group. He’s right, but he also said this: “When I refer to ‘the Centre’, I don’t mean some amorphous new party of ‘moderates’ and ‘centrists’ [for even if it formed a government] … what would unfold when it fell out of favour? … Our electorate needs a choice between parties that are demonstrably rational, realistic — and sane.” So though I admire beyond measure what the 11 (as I write) have done, I still can’t guess where the logs are going next.
In her outstanding interview with my Times colleague Matt Chorley (if you haven’t heard the Red Box podcast already, you really must) Anna Soubry berates moderate colleagues who do as I am doing – praise her, urge her on, then shrink back, reluctant to follow.
So we do — but maybe because we have not yet despaired. Or not quite. In the Labour Party the biggest problem, though almost intractable, is simpler, and even some of Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing colleagues know it. Their leader is a politician of low intellectual calibre which, alloyed with rigid and obstinately held ideological beliefs, renders him stupefied, or stupid, or both.
As to the Conservative Party, I am beginning to change my view of the big problem. I’ve always said it was the referendum result; and joked that although Theresa May obviously isn’t any good, the Archangel Gabriel could not have salvaged much improvement on the awful deal she’s hawking to her scared and exhausted Tory troops.
But as the months have ground on I’ve been at first shocked but finally persuaded that not Brexit alone, but also she personally, is the problem.
Time and again I’ve protested that she may not be the answer but she didn’t create this mess: she’s just an unimaginative, unremarkable, perhaps wooden but dogged politician, overly cautious and rather shy. Time and again my informants — MPs, former MPs, civil servants, special advisers — tell me, eyes flashing, that I’ve got it wrong and the public have it wrong, and she’s so much worse than that. She’s not normal. She’s extraordinary. Extraordinarily uncommunicative; extraordinarily rude in the way she blanks people, ideas and arguments. To my surprise there is no difference between the pictures of her that Remainers and Brexiteers paint.
Theresa May, they tell me (in a couple of cases actually shouting) is the Death Star of modern British politics. She’s the theory of anti-matter, made flesh. She’s a political black hole because nothing, not even light, can escape. Ideas, beliefs, suggestions, objections, inquiries, proposals, projects, loyalties, affections, trust, whole careers, real men and women, are sucked into the awful void that is Downing Street — and nothing ever comes out: no answers, only a blank so blank that it screams. Reputations (they lament) are staked on her, and lost. Warnings are delivered to her, and ignored. Plans are run by her, unacknowledged. Messages are sent to her, unanswered. She has become the unperson of Downing Street: the living embodiment of the closed door.
And I am, finally, persuaded. Persuaded that Theresa May has not simply failed to unite two wings of my party, but that her premiership has driven them apart, into anger and despair; helped to turn a disagreement into a schism. Before healing becomes possible (one told me) she, and all who wait upon her and have surrounded her, must be hounded out of the party’s cockpit, and every trace of the era of her leadership expunged. Another, careless of the proprieties, told me the political massacre should be on a Rwandan scale. For the first time I understood the passion, if not the logic, behind the self-defeating challenge to her leadership the Brexiteers mounted last December.
I do not exaggerate the violence of the imagery into which her Tory critics fly at the very mention of her name. And perhaps because I’ve been so reluctant to believe this picture, you will now believe my report.
We may have six months left to save the party, not least from its present leader. It is still — just — possible the Tories could become again a party where cards like Jacob Rees-Mogg and cads like Boris Johnson could stay but to which brave Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could return. If these three and more can frighten Conservatism into re-imagining the party as it was when I joined in 1969, then I wish the expeditionaries all luck — and a safe return. If not, millions like me will be joining them.
There seems to be some consensus
Does this mean he didn’t mean his previous apology?
its a Jewish conspiracy!
I havent followed this at all — Is it a case that Corbyn and some of his crew are anti Israel rather than anti-semetic ?
Corbyn tried to have this tacked onto the IHRA definition.
This is a viewpoint that is intellectually easy to arrive to and I imagine most have thought of it. The idea of a State of substance for any religion would seem to be anathema to someone who believes in the separation of Church and State. However, it completely lacks historic regard for the treatment of the Jewish people and their wish to have a safe homeland given their historic persecution. It’s basiscally a viewpoint that lacks real deep thought and isn’t surprising for Corbyn.
He is also rightly, in many instances, critical of Israel’s behaviour.
I don’t think the above makes Corbyn anti Semitic, but it seems he is susceptible to listening to people who are pure anti semites. I’ve posted the record - he has been member of social media groups where anti Semitism was ripe, he has been at numerous events organized by anti semites, invited anti semites to Parliament and social gatherings, defended anti Semitic murals, he has defended terrorist and anti Semitic groups describing same as his “brothers”, he has appeared on and been paid by Iranian State tv and has allowed thinly veiled anti Semitism to run amuck in elements of the Party he leads. Until he became leader he got away with these things as the fringe anti war lad on the backbenches. When he got the leadership and these things started to come out he either pretended these were nuanced things or that he “wasn’t aware” of the anti Semitic connections of his past.
His defenders are very quick to point out State hypocrisies, ie Theresa May smiling away with Saudi Arabia. But all States are hypritical in a way, there are shades of grey. The degree of that and the underlying principles are important. I personally think that selling arms to Saudi Arabia goes beyond reasonable behaviour by a State but the other argument is that it creates jobs in the U.K. and that Saudi Arabia are an ally (of sorts) of NATO in the ME. May had a decision to make there as leader of the country and not as an individual, rightly or wrongly.
Corbyn has had a mostly responsibility proof ability to meet and interact with who he wanted. He has consistently given deeply unpleasant characters a propoganda boost and this has carried over to the leadership of his party.
Informative.
The foundation of the state of Israel is the second biggest act of anti-Semitism committed in the 20th century.
Picture the scene in the aftermath of WWII, the brits and the septics are discussing what to do with all the displaced Jewish people after the war.
“We don’t want them over here, guys”
“Well we bally well don’t want them either. What’s to be done?”
.
.
.
.
“Hang on, what if we…”
What if we what, don’t fucking leave on a cliffhanger!
