Labour Party purge/staff cuts.

bear66

Well-known member
It's all about how far back do you go. But, I cannot see any point in me arguing on here, I will always be shouted down. As I said it's probably my age. The West's treatment of Jews in some people's lifetime is beyond disgraceful.
At least there are moral Jews who weren't alive but recognise the dreadful way the Palestinians were treated 70 years ago and the dreadful way expulsions are still happening today.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
At least there are moral Jews who weren't alive but recognise the dreadful way the Palestinians were treated 70 years ago and the dreadful way expulsions are still happening today.
As I said we will never agree. Where would you have allowed the Jews to go 70 years ago after a Western country murdered them on mass. Children with no parents, brothers without sisters.

As I said above I would never listen to a Western voice, yesterday, today or tomorrow.
 

Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret

Well-known member
Personally I think the left should forget about Israel and concentrate on the UK. It seems bizarre to me that a country halfway around the world should have such an impact when we have so many problems over here. I mean there's bad stuff going on all around the globe.
 

Lefty

Well-known member
Do you not think perhaps this exact description could be applied to centrists also though @Lefty? Consider the stuff flung at Corbyn and the left of the party over the last 6 years. Racist, anti semite, Czechoslovakian spy, IRA terrorist sympathiser, Putin stooge, etc, etc.

You are psychologically incapable of accepting Corbyn, his advisors and the far left, who all fell out with each other, again, and were too inept to shut some of this rubbish down. No blame whatsoever, eh? Plenty of praise for Corbyn and criticism of his opponents on this thread by me and in the balanced, well researched books investigating the Corbyn project linked to, but when it comes to criticism of him, you and a few others, after well over 200 posts, not to mention many other threads, well, at this point it's certainly a well deserved

IMG_0565.JPG
 

bear66

Well-known member
As I said we will never agree. Where would you have allowed the Jews to go 70 years ago after a Western country murdered them on mass. Children with no parents, brothers without sisters.

As I said above I would never listen to a Western voice, yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Britain could have done its bit.

Astonishingly, Britain’s postwar record isn’t much better. Although the immediate aftermath of the second world war saw the arrival of a large number of refugees, very few were Jewish Holocaust survivors. British postwar immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews (and non-white immigrants) because it didn’t consider them assimilable.

Similarly, cabinet minutes of 1945 claimed that “the admission of a further batch of refugees, many of whom would be Jews, might provoke strong reactions from certain sections of public opinion. There was a real risk of a wave of anti-semitic feeling in this country.” Yet they had no compunction in admitting the entire Ukrainian membership of the Galician division of the Waffen-SS.


Link
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
So @Lefty just to clarify, misrepresenting a political opponent is something only the "far left" and far right do? Nobody else does that?

but when it comes to criticism of him

I wasn't responding to criticism of him. You didn't like someone elses post and then declared what you didn't like as something the whole "far left" (and far right) do.

See my post #162 where I criticise Corbyn and post #189 where I praise Starmer. Maybe you're the one putting people in to boxes that suit your confirmation bias and unable to psychologically cope with criticism.

It's a thread about the Labour party having to sack a quarter of it's staff cause they've lost so much funding and blown through the savings and you're banging on about Kinnock speeches from 35 years ago and accuse me of whataboutery! 🤣 🤣 🤣
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
Britain could have done its bit.

Astonishingly, Britain’s postwar record isn’t much better. Although the immediate aftermath of the second world war saw the arrival of a large number of refugees, very few were Jewish Holocaust survivors. British postwar immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews (and non-white immigrants) because it didn’t consider them assimilable.

Similarly, cabinet minutes of 1945 claimed that “the admission of a further batch of refugees, many of whom would be Jews, might provoke strong reactions from certain sections of public opinion. There was a real risk of a wave of anti-semitic feeling in this country.” Yet they had no compunction in admitting the entire Ukrainian membership of the Galician division of the Waffen-SS.


Link

I completely agree, look at my past messages.

You still haven't answered where you would have sent the survivers.

Do you honestly see Jews who have a different view point to you as immoral?

They see Israel as their home.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
So @Lefty just to clarify, misrepresenting a political opponent is something only the "far left" and far right do? Nobody else does that?



I wasn't responding to criticism of him. You didn't like someone elses post and then declared what you didn't like as something the whole "far left" (and far right) do.

See my post #162 where I criticise Corbyn and post #189 where I praise Starmer. Maybe you're the one putting people in to boxes that suit your confirmation bias and unable to psychologically cope with criticism.

It's a thread about the Labour party having to sack a quarter of it's staff cause they've lost so much funding and blown through the savings and you're banging on about Kinnock speeches from 35 years ago and accuse me of whataboutery! 🤣 🤣 🤣
F me, was it 35 years ago.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Interesting you used the word moral Jews are you saying the rest are immoral?
I was referencing the standpoints in the arguments in the post I put up. Some people believe there is a moral responsibility to Palestinian refugees, others choose tp take a legalistic approach.

Opponents of Palestinian return have rejoinders to these documents. They argue that general assembly resolutions aren’t legally binding. They claim that since Israel was only created in May 1948, and Palestinian refugees were never its citizens, they would not be returning to “their country”. But these are legalisms devoid of moral content.
 

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
“I asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet for sharing the article,” Starmer said. “I didn’t do that because she is antisemitic, I did it because she shared the article which has got, in my view, antisemitic conspiracy theories in it.

My primary focus is on rebuilding trust with the Jewish communities. I didn’t think sharing that article was in keeping with that primary objective.”
The problem with that is that the article didn't contain anti-Semitism it contained criticism of israeli security forces. Conflating Judaism with the state of Israel is anti-Semitic. It also doesn't address why Rachel Reeves was promoted to the cabinet. Rewarding somebody who wets her knickers over famous anti-Semite Lady Astor, is a funny way to rebuild trust with the Jewish communities, unless of course he only means certain Jewish communities. Which brings me to Trevor Chinn's donation of £50.000 - which Starmer went to great lengths to conceal even when pressed in TV interviews. Between 2015 and 2019 Chinn also funded Tom Watson - who famously used his position as deputy leader to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity - to the tune of £60,000. Another beneficiary of Chinn's largesse was the above mentioned Rachel Reeves.

You do acknowledge that Chinn's funding bought influence because as you concede, "They are getting a return, he is VISIBLY tackling antisemitism in the Party" but of course Trevor Chinn is a zionist and zionists do not represent or even support all Jews and are even hostile to some. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. So now we have groups and individuals being booted out of a Socialist party because they are suddenly too far left for the party that many of them have been members of for decades before Keir Starmer even joined. Something that never happened under Corbyn.

If Keir Starmer wishes to build a broad church whilst simultaneously purging the party of those who he deems to be far left (whatever he means by that) then what will be the parameters of this broad church, slightly left of centre to far right?
 
Last edited:

bear66

Well-known member
I completely agree, look at my past messages.

You still haven't answered where you would have sent the survivers.

Do you honestly see Jews who have a different view point to you as immoral?

They see Israel as their home.
We could have taken them all in if we chose. As could the USA. Palestine had been allowing immigration from 1933, but were against a mass exodus of 250,000 people at one time post-war.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
The problem with that is that the article didn't contain anti-Semitism it contained criticism of israeli security forces. Conflating Judaism with the state of Israel is anti-Semitic. It also doesn't address why Rachel Reeves was promoted to the cabinet. Rewarding somebody who wets her knickers over famous anti-Semite Lady Astor is a funny way to rebuild trust with the Jewish communities, unless of course he only means certain Jewish communities. Which brings me to Trevor Chinn's donation of £50.000 - which Starmer went to great lengths to conceal even when pressed in TV interviews. Between 2015 and 2019 Chinn also funded Tom Watson - who famously used his position as deputy leader to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity - to the tune of £60,000. Another beneficiary of Chinn's largesse was the above mentioned Rachel Reeves.

You do acknowledge that Chinn's funding bought influence because as you concede, "They are getting a return, he is VISIBLY tackling antisemitism in the Party" but of course Trevor Chinn is a zionist and zionists do not represent or even support all Jews and are even hostile to some. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. So now we have groups and individuals being booted out of a Socialist party because they are suddenly too far left for the party that many of them have been members of for decades before Keir Starmer even joined. Something that never happened under Corbyn.

If Keir Starmer wishes to build a broad church whilst simultaneously purging the party of those who he deems to be far left (whatever he means by that) then what will be the parameters of this broad church, slightly left of centre to far right?
You should put the same effort into finding the shenanigans of the Tory party.
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
We could have taken them all in if we chose. As could the USA. Palestine had been allowing immigration from 1933, but were against a mass exodus of 250,000 people at one time post-war.
I am sure that no country has taken more refugees than the US.

Incidentally where are the Jews in Syria? In Egypt? In Iran ? In Iraq? In Jordan? I can tell you back in Israel, in total over 1 million in 20 years.


Here is my position. You and me have zero right, in our warm safe houses how to tell a granny and grandad, assuming they survived a nightmare, if they have a right to live in Jerusalem.

For the fourth time I would tell any westerner to go F themselves.
 

bear66

Well-known member
I am sure that no country has taken more refugees than the US.

Incidentally where are the Jews in Syria? In Egypt? In Iran ? In Iraq? In Jordan? I can tell you back in Israel, in total over 1 million in 20 years.


Here is my position. You and me have zero right, in our warm safe houses how to tell a granny and grandad, assuming they survived a nightmare, if they have a right to live in Jerusalem.

For the fourth time I would tell any westerner to go F themselves.
I have no right. But the Palestinians have rights to a country that was taken off them by the United Nations after Truman tried to force a two state solution that the existing state objected to.

A link on the USA's approach here
 

Same_as_before

Well-known member
I have no right. But the Palestinians have rights to a country that was taken off them by the United Nations after Truman tried to force a two state solution that the existing state objected to.

A link on the USA's approach here
How far back do you want to go? The French right to the UK?
You seem to ignore the Holocaust, I can't. A bit more recent history.

Their homes in Germany, Holland, France, Italy never mind the Slavic countries had been taken off them.
 
Top
X