Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Strontium]

The easy counterpoint is that Corbyn thinks that talking is better than killing, and really the only way to solve things. So you need to bring those people into talks, particularly if you don't agree with them.

Your claim was that he agreed with them. I think that's a pretty big jump to make - unless you have evidence of Corbyn espousing similar "abhorrent views"?

You're not getting it. I never said Corbyn agreed with them on absolutely everything, in fact I specifically said he agreed with them on a narrow range of things, which is why he was sharing a platform with them.

 

The point I was making is he was happy to associate with terror sympathisers, people who advocate murdering gay folk etc simply because their interests happened to align on whatever pet concern happened to be exercising leftists at the time.

 

Let's humour the idea that Corbyn, as a backbench MP, would have anything to do with winning the peace. He met the IRA and their representatives a lot, how many times did he meet protestant terrorists? He consorted with Islamist groups aligned against Israel, how many times did he talk to Israel? In fact he actively campaigned against a visit to the UK by the Israeli foreign minister, such is his unwillingness to engage with both sides.

 

The idea that you can have a peaceful resolution to a conflict without talking with both sides is risible. Corbyn is not some honest broker seeking a resolution, reluctantly sharing a platform with terrorists to that end, he's a partisan who was happy to overlook abhorrent views because he agreed with the people who held them.

[Strontium]

Abhorrent to you, maybe.

 

To the people - including many victims of oppression - who freely vote for Sinn Fein, Hamas and Hezbollah, they're clearly not abhorrent.

 

As for the European Referendum, why would he stand shoulder-to-shoulder with people who have a completely different vision of Europe than he does? They are the neoliberal pricks who made the EU so unpopular in the first place.

Thanks for making my point so stunningly.

[Strontium]

As you didn’t answer my question regarding what he specifically agrees with, I heartily disagree with you previous statement. The idea that he agrees with these people on everything is ridiculous.

Good job I didn't say that then, or anything remotely like it.

[mars]

This seems far too sensible.

[Numero Veinticinco]

You said he was happy to share a platform because he agrees with them. I asked what he specifically agreed with, but you didn’t give any specifics. It’s very hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion without knowing what exactly you are accusing him of believing. You seem to be saying he agrees with terrorist murder, but without wanting to actually say what he agrees with.

 

If you don’t answer that question, on the names you offered, I’ve no choice but to guess.

[Rushies tash]

It's a bit more than guilt by association. He sat alongside these people because he agreed with them, and he was willing to overlook their shortcomings, because he agreed with them.

  

Good job I didn't say that then, or anything remotely like it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

This seems far too sensible.

Very good, thanks for posting.

[Strontium]

You said he was happy to share a platform because he agrees with them. I asked what he specifically agreed with, but you didn’t give any specifics.

Good grief. Look, he agreed with them all on different things. I'm sure you don't expect me to dredge up details of every meeting he's ever had and list them here? It's largely irrelevant to my point, which is that he was meeting these people and treating them as comrades in the first place.

[Strontium]

 

Thanks for proving my point, appreciated.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Good grief. Look, he agreed with them all on different things. I'm sure you don't expect me to dredge up details of every meeting he's ever had and list them here? It's largely irrelevant to my point, which is that he was meeting these people and treating them as comrades in the first place.

You said he met these evil people because he agrees with them. It’s hardly unfair or irrelevant to ask what he is supposed to agree with.

 

But it’s clear you won’t back up what you’ve said, so I’m happy to dismiss it as bollocks.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

And other politicians have met Netanyahu and treated him like a comrade. A de facto war criminal and leader of a nation which systematically breaks numerous international laws.

 

What's your point?

[Strontium]

You said he met these evil people because he agrees with them. It’s hardly unfair or irrelevant to ask what he is supposed to agree with.

 

But it’s clear you won’t back up what you’ve said, so I’m happy to dismiss it as bollocks.

I'm happy to back up any and everything I write. Which of the people Corbyn has met would you like me to Google for you?

[Rushies tash]

Thanks for proving my point, appreciated.

All I did was point out what you posted. But you're welcome.

[Strontium]

All I did was point out what you posted. But you're welcome.

Yes, and the absence of the word "everything" in my posts proved I'd never made the claim.

[Captain Turdseye]

Yes, and the absence of the word "everything" in my posts proved I'd never made the claim.

Any chance of you starting a ‘Should Vince Cable remain as Lib Dem leader?’ thread and having a discussion in there with the other members of your party on the forum?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Yes, and the absence of the word "everything" in my posts proved I'd never made the claim.

Pathetic.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I'm happy to back up any and everything I write. Which of the people Corbyn has met would you like me to Google for you?

I don't want you to Google anything for me. I want you to back up what you've said. I'm going to lay it out, yet again, in the hope that this time you can list the specific things he agrees with from the people you listed. Here goes, for the final time.

 

He sat alongside these people because he agreed with them, and he was willing to overlook their shortcomings, because he agreed with them.

 

 

If I might ask and hope for an answer, what people and what views specifically? You're making quite a claim there, so I think it's fair for you to back it up and clarify on specifics.

 

 

Sinn Fein. Hamas. Hezbollah. Paul Eisen. Dyab Abou Jahjah. Abdallah Djaballah. Leila Khaled.

Therefore I would like you to answer the question 'what views specifically' does he, as you claim, 'agree with'. I would like you to back up your claim regarding things he agreed with in that list of names/groups you mentioned. I think it's fairly clear what I'm after. You said he agrees with that list of people, I'm asking what exactly does he agree with.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

On a separate note (and to move back to genuine contribution to the thread, rather than disingenuous trolling), it's worth having a little read up on Hajo Meyer and digging deeper into the finer details behind the claimed comparison of the Israeli government to Nazis.

 

Pretty much all context has been removed from his claim. People have largely jumped right in at the deep end and automatically gone to the extreme, holocaust/genocidal aspects of the Nazis.

 

In his books and speeches, it appears to come across fairly clearly that Meyer isn't trying to compare the war crimes and murders committed by Israel to the atrocity that was the holocaust. He's not comparing Israel's actions to Hitler's "endgame." He makes it clear in some of his writings that his comparison is one of Israel's current policies to the initial instances of Nazi persecution of German Jews.

 

He expands on this in his theory of "sequential traumatizing of Jews" which is explained as such:

 

"Meyer developed a theory based on the work of Hans Keilson regarding "sequential traumatizing," according to which Jewish collective remembering in a ritual setting of numerous past traumatic events befalling the community. Meyer argues that the current government of Israel has used this re-traumatization of Jews with regard to the Holocaust, in order to indoctrinate and inculcate loyalty to Israel against its enemies. He applied this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that Israel dehumanizes Palestinians the same way that Nazi Germany dehumanized Jews..[8][15] He expanded on this sense of an analogy in the following terms:

 

'I cannot help but hear echoes of the Nazi mythos of "blood and soil" in the rhetoric of settler fundamentalism which claims a sacred right to all the lands of biblical Judea and Samaria. The various forms of collective punishment visited upon the Palestinian people — coerced ghettoization behind a "security wall"; the bulldozing of homes and destruction of fields; the bombing of schools, mosques, and government buildings; an economic blockade that deprives people of the water, food, medicine, education and the basic necessities for dignified survival — force me to recall the deprivations and humiliations that I experienced in my youth.'[16]

 

For me, he raises some valid points or, at the least, points that warrant consideration. His claims are actually miles away from the ambiguous "compares Israel to Nazis" sensationalist headlines which permit for all sorts of agenda driven interpretations. Perhaps he could've expanded on his claim if he wasn't being shouted down by the pro-Israel, silence all criticism mob in the crowd at the Corbyn/Ellman attended meeting and his views wouldn't now be so unfairly represented.

[Section_31]

On a separate note (and to move back to genuine contribution to the thread, rather than disingenuous trolling), it's worth having a little read up on Hajo Meyer and digging deeper into the finer details behind the claimed comparison of the Israeli government to Nazis.

 

Pretty much all context has been removed from his claim. People have largely jumped right in at the deep end and automatically gone to the extreme, holocaust/genocidal aspects of the Nazis.

 

In his books and speeches, it appears to come across fairly clearly that Meyer isn't trying to compare the war crimes and murders committed by Israel to the atrocity that was the holocaust. He's not comparing Israel's actions to Hitler's "endgame." He makes it clear in some of his writings that his comparison is one of Israel's current policies to the initial instances of Nazi persecution of German Jews.

 

He expands on this in his theory of "sequential traumatizing of Jews" which is explained as such:

 

"Meyer developed a theory based on the work of Hans Keilson regarding "sequential traumatizing," according to which Jewish collective remembering in a ritual setting of numerous past traumatic events befalling the community. Meyer argues that the current government of Israel has used this re-traumatization of Jews with regard to the Holocaust, in order to indoctrinate and inculcate loyalty to Israel against its enemies. He applied this to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that Israel dehumanizes Palestinians the same way that Nazi Germany dehumanized Jews..[8][15] He expanded on this sense of an analogy in the following terms:

 

'I cannot help but hear echoes of the Nazi mythos of "blood and soil" in the rhetoric of settler fundamentalism which claims a sacred right to all the lands of biblical Judea and Samaria. The various forms of collective punishment visited upon the Palestinian people — coerced ghettoization behind a "security wall"; the bulldozing of homes and destruction of fields; the bombing of schools, mosques, and government buildings; an economic blockade that deprives people of the water, food, medicine, education and the basic necessities for dignified survival — force me to recall the deprivations and humiliations that I experienced in my youth.'[16]

 

For me, he raises some valid points or, at the least, points that warrant consideration. His claims are actually miles away from the ambiguous "compares Israel to Nazis" sensationalist headlines which permit for all sorts of agenda driven interpretations. Perhaps he could've expanded on his claim if he wasn't being shouted down by the pro-Israel, silence all criticism mob in the crowd at the Corbyn/Ellman attended meeting and his views wouldn't now be so unfairly represented.

 

The issue is that it's not confined to reasoned debate within the Jewish community, it's clearly and obviously being used by enemies of Corbyn, whether internal or external, as the only thing they've been able to get hold of that has some traction. Like the Borg, probing for weaknesses in the Shields. 95%, 72%, 35%. Shields failing, Corbyn done, David Miliband to the rescue. All is well with the world again. 

[mattyq]

This, for me, sums it up very well

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-jewish-holocaust-survivor-abuse-a8474846.html

[Strontium]

Therefore I would like you to answer the question 'what views specifically' does he, as you claim, 'agree with'. I would like you to back up your claim regarding things he agreed with in that list of names/groups you mentioned. I think it's fairly clear what I'm after. You said he agrees with that list of people, I'm asking what exactly does he agree with.

I should think it's obvious what he agrees with them about. If it's really necessary for me to state the obvious, then that's bizarre, but if you insist.

 

Sinn Fein - want a united Ireland

Hamas - want an end to Israeli occupation (to say the least)

Hezbollah - broadly similar to Hamas

Paul Eisen - Corbyn was a backer of his pro-Palestinian group

Dyab Abou Jahjah - Corbyn invited him to speak against the Iraq War

Abdallah Djaballah - another anti-Israeli preacher

Leila Khaled - also anti-Israel

[cloggypop]

Any chance of you starting a ‘Should Vince Cable remain as Lib Dem leader?’ thread and having a discussion in there with the other members of your party on the forum?

They haven't got anybody else to do it. They are hoping that Gina Miller will be interested but have to open up the leadership firstly to non MPs and secondly to people who aren't actually a member of the party.

[A Red]

I think if Corbyn knew the position he would be in now, he probably wouldnt have met with some of the groups he did. He was a trendy left wing rebel and probably had sympathies with said groups but didnt think he would ever be in a position of authority.

 

I also think he was a bit of a fan boy to the likes of Adams

 

JC: Before we go any further, you know, for the record, did you ever authorise the bombing or killing of anyone?

 

GA: No

 

JC: I knew it!!! Great, thanks for that. Who does your beard? I love your beard , its so bushy and black just like your hair, do you use products?Every picture I have of you on my wall it looks so perfect. 

 

GA: err....Look Jeremy....................

 

JC: Jeremy!! sounds like Gerry Gerry, in fact if you just changed a few letters.............

 

GA: Good bye

[Numero Veinticinco]

I should think it's obvious what he agrees with them about. If it's really necessary for me to state the obvious, then that's bizarre, but if you insist.

It isn't bizarre or obvious what YOU meant when you said he was meeting with evil people because he agreed with them. It's obvious what he agrees with them about, which is absolutely nothing nefarious; which, of course, is the obvious implication of what you said. That's why I wanted you to list them, because it destroys your clear hidden subtext. Not saying it allows you to slink away. It's a dirty trick, and very blatant.

[Strontium]

It isn't bizarre or obvious what YOU meant when you said he was meeting with evil people because he agreed with them. It's obvious what he agrees with them about, which is absolutely nothing nefarious; which, of course, is the obvious implication of what you said. That's why I wanted you to list them, because it destroys your clear hidden subtext. Not saying it allows you to slink away. It's a dirty trick, and very blatant.

What hidden subtext? Madness. Sorry, but you're imagining it. I have absolutely no reason to believe that Corbyn wants to execute gays or destroy Israel even if some of his mates do, and nor does anyone sane for that matter. My point, which has been clear since minute one, isn't that he shares any nefarious beliefs with these people, but that he shares/d a platform with them.