Labour gone mad

In the I today - "Israeli law defines country as the nation state of the Jewish people".

"Critics say the law marginalises the country's Arab minority [around 20%]. One clause downgrades the Arabic language from official to "special" standing. It also declares that advancing Jewish settlement is a national interest."

And yet it is said to be "anti-semitic" to suggest that the State of Israel condones and reinforces discriminatory practices.

So lemongrove as you know so much would you consider a boycott of M&S anti-semitic or not? It is far too simple to just name call and to refuse to examine the complexities of the issue. Many have real concerns about the treatment of Palestinians (including numerous Jews) and using the slur of anti-semitism to stifle debate is unacceptable.

Being anti Israel/Anti Zionist does not make you anti Semitic. Simple.

It doesn’t matter what the LP do with refining or redesigning the definition, because many of them will still be just as anti-semitic afterwards.No doubt they are hoping to wriggle out of ever having to censure anyone again for anti-semitism, as they are changing the goalposts.Typical really.

" frustration towards those trying to use an all too real threat facing my community for their own political gain."
That's exactly how I think/feel.
Good article, PECS.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-labour-conference-jewish-supporter-vote-political-weapon-a7330891.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Under the IHRA ..drawn up and agreed by conservative and Zionist Jewish groups ... It makes anyone who compares the policies of the current Israeli government with those of apartheid SA anti semetic. Do you think that is right? Do you think people should be able to criticise right wing regimes without being accused of racism/ anti semitism. I oppose and petition against Saudi Arabia but am not anti Muslim. I supported an alternative government to Mugabe but am not anti Zimbabwean. The IHRA make opposition to Zionism anti semetic when in fact very many Jews do not agree with this political movement. The statement guidelines also suggest that Jewish people are all the same, which clearly they are not. That in itself is rather racist and has been argued by Jewish scholars that it plays into the hands of the far right. The far right support Zionism because they want Jewish people to all be in Israel and not in their countries. I believe that this is what Ken Livingstone clumsily referred to when he was accused of anti semitism.

I've just remembered another point in the IHRA definition - Judging the behaviour of Jews by a higher standard than that of other nations.
I can't decide what to make of that one.

True lemon, it does not need debating or redefining, the far left choose to do so to safeguard the anti semetics in the party.

PECS I say that Corbyn is central to the problem simply because he is a weak leader and has allowed Momentum and others of the hard left to run rings round him and dictate attitudes if not policy.Their attitudes are that Israel and Jewish people are bad .....not just Zionism.This colours all views of theirs and leads to anti-Semitism.

The anti-Semitism in the LP has increased under Corbyn’s watch this is the problem, in fact he is central to the problem.

It doesn’t need debating or altering or redefining, just accept the International definition.Job done.

It is of course entirely right that the Labour Party should discuss the issue. The point is that if you consider that such a discussion is the party gone mad, you must assume that the discussion is not worth having and either therefore that tr anti-semitism does not exist of that it is impossible to deal with. Actually of course it is a vitally important discussion and it must deal with the difficulties that supportiing the Palestinian people involves. One example might be the protests and boycott of M&S because of its support for Israel and Zionism, is it anti-semitic to take part? It and many other questions is something that should be debated openly and not swept under the carpet.

I am not sure of your argument about it’s racist to accuse an entire party of being racist

Racism, as you know, is when a more powerful majority mistreat/abuse etc a minority group based on their race/colour/creed etc.
If a political party espouses policies that discriminate against a less powerful group etc then it would be right to accuse them of being racist! e.g EDL

The NEC are elected by members. I recall having to vote as a party member. An elected committee is there to make decisions on behalf of the members. If your particular choices were not elected I can see you feel miffed but that is the way it works.

As the decision was taken by Corbyn and the Momentum run NEC many were not part of the decision making

As it’s racist to accuse an entire party of being racist when it a minority who are.

Many of those Jewish Labour MPs and Labour party members were part of the discussions. Jewish people are as different as any other group of people who share a faith/no faith. It would be a bit racist to think otherwise!

Anniebach sometimes it takes a brave person to challenge the establishment & the establishment is not always perfect! As I said the statement itself was not under discussion.. it was making additions/ alterations to the guidelines to interpret the statement clearly that were under discussion.

This will come as a surprise to you trisher but the entire Labour Party is not anti semetic , it has reared it’s head in the last three years. One only has to think of the Jewish MP’s who were once in the party and those who still are.

The old accusations of anti-semitism in the Labour party have once again been resurrected by someone who claims to love the party and yet who thinks it is anti-semitic. If you thought that surely you should remove yourself from an anti-semitic organisation, otherwise it might be assumed that you are anti-semitic like the other members. We could ask why the Conservatives are not debating the issue, it is easy enough to sign or agree to a definition whilst harbouring real racist opinions as many of them do.
As far as religious education is concerned I think we only have to look at N.Ireland to realise what religious education can lead to. There are of course faith schools but I can see no reason why they should be funded by the tax payer and of course they should be subject to inspection.

I suppose that is a philosophical question.

My point is if we allow one group to omit part of the curriculum what happens when another religious group 'don't agree' with e.g. tolerance and omit that aspect?
In the Jewish and Muslim schools that are feeling under threat from OFSTED it is about the limiting of experience of the students .. girls /boys not having equal access to the same education and redacting parts of text books and fiction and actively teaching negative attitudes to sexual orientation. I actually do not have a problem with these establishment being challenged.

So the UK Goverment, Scotland Parliament, Welsh Assembly, police ,crown prosecution service,the Judiciary, governments across the world are wrong and Corbyn and the Momentun run NEC has got it right

Pecs - your post of 21,12 -
As far as I know the Jewish teaching is only to omit those things they don't agree with.
Not to say they are wrong.
In my youth I went to a secular english grammar school and studied english literature at A level. One of our set books was The Faerie Queen by Edmund Spenser.
I found out later that a lot of it had been edited out because too sexually explicit for even 18 year olds.
How things have changed.

Annie I was referring to extreme interpretations of faith. I do not have a faith myself but have great respect for may of my family and friends who live their faith every day, quietly, practically and spiritually. It is only these schools for extreme groups that feel threatened because they promote an anti-equality agenda that is contrary to British Values.