Labour Party and anti semitism

the LP is only trying to 're define' things because much of what Corbyn said in the recent past [as well as the old past] would very likely fall into antisemitism.Ditto for a lot of his far left activists and supporters, who Corbyn is unwilling to
rein in.

If someone is a Zionist and proud of the fact then there is no reason why someone should not call them that.

However, the membership does not seem to encompass the majority of Jewish people in this country.

It's like calling you a 'communist' when you say you are not one trisher. You say that it was your grandfather who was, so it would be fair to call him a communist and you are proud that he was.

I hope ycswim

But there are British Zionists and they refer to themselves as British Zionists zionist.org.uk
Is it only non-Jewish people who are not allowed to call them this?

Why do the leaders of the Labour Party dismiss Corbyn’s slur - British Zionists’ with. - he said it before he was leader !

Thank you Bubbe - I was just reading about that fact yesterday which I found very interesting.

Thank you Bubbe. I thought it was the former , So understandably the Jewish community are angry when Corbyn spoke of British Zionists.

Annie The meaning of a British Zionist has evolved.

Zionism was initially a dream brought to political awareness in the late 1800s. It was for the Jewish people to have their own nation state where if they chose to live there, they could be safe and free from anti-semitism and persecution. Anyone who agreed with this was would refer to themselves as a Zionist. (Jew and non-Jew alike).

Nowadays, the term Zionist and its various derivations e.g Zio, is generally used as a term of sneering abuse by those who wish to bully Jews and anyone one else who feels that Israel has a right to be.

What is a British Zionist ?

That is plainly ridiculous. Corbyn has never ben anti-semitic has the best record on dealing with racism of possibly any MP
A really interesting article by someone whose grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. He disagrees completely with Margaret Hodge
www.opendemocracy.net/uk/shaun-lawson/enough-of-these-disgraceful-slurs-against-jeremy-corbyn

Margaret Hodge at the Jewish Labour Movement Conference today on anti semitism in the party

‘Corbyn cannot solve the problem , he is the problem

ps Jacob's conflict was with Esau.

oops - sorry you're right.
Eldest son lives in Kuwait and has arab friends there. I had a chat with one of them about the Arab/Jew conflict. He told me that the version of the OT that they read says that it was Ishmael who God told to sacrifice in the Akeida.
Also the similarity between the arab and hebrew languages. Though the scripts seem different, there are similarities.

Esau was the brother of Jacob. Both were sons of Isaac. Ishmael, I have read, was the first son of Abraham.

Fennel, it was Isaac not Jacob. Jacob was the son of Isaac.

The NEC are to vote on the omissions in the IHRA, Corbyn can relax

I still do not understand why criticism is being targetted at the Labour Party for considering amendments to the IHRA definition of anti-semitism when an all party select committee enquiring into anti-semitism recommended additional clauses
24. We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:
• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
25. We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.
There have also been a number of criticisms by lawyers about the wording (including some Jewish ones). It seems odd that the UK government should not adopt the committee's recommendations.And even odder that the Labour Party should be vilified for doing what was recommended.

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The bit in bold has been omitted by whom?

Then the document goes on to say (outside this definition)

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity

This above is BEFORE that quite from Brown posts by POGS so why did he leave out that bit?

Here is the definition that I have found which I think is the one under discussion.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That’s Corbynites for you. Envy and hate spreading like a cancer

I listened to Gordon Brown, then read the comments under the Facebook link. There was the occasional “well said Gordon” but a torrent of abuse from people accusing him of being blue labour, being paid blood money by the Israeli government etc etc .
I despair that the part I’ve voted for fifty years has become a place where vitriolic abuse is directed towards anyone who dares to criticise the current leadership.

I thought his speech was great, he was armed with facts, I know he and Sarah’s charity works in Palastine. It was such a joy to listen to a true socialist again. He is a good man

Did anybody watch SKY News showing Gordon Brown live speaking at the Jewish Labour Conference earlier today?

He spoke very well.

He said:

The definition, which has been signed by 31 countries, states that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

"I’ve read the document and it’s absolutely clear. And people are not telling the truth when they say something else "

The document says specifically in its first paragraph that criticism of Israel is not to be taken as anti-Semitism. It says specifically that you can criticise the government. That you can support the Palestinian cause for a two state solution, but you must never allow the discrimination and prejudice that is part of the definition’s desire to remove"

I like the " And people are not telling the truth when they say something else ". This is the fall back position for those who defend the Labour Party not adopting the internationally recognised definition of anti-Semitism in it's present form.

Oh dear, Maw - I phrased it badly.
I'll send a pm to tell you what it was. I don't think it was antisemitic.
But I did have an upsetting experience when we lived here in the '90s. I was sitting on a wall watching workmen dealing with a major water leak. 2 little boys came and sat beside me, I started to talk to them. The older one said "don't talk to her, she's a Jew" and they both ran away.
Maybe from what their parents said.

Fennel I am shocked and saddened that you have already experienced anti-Semitism in your new home in the NE(?unless I am wrong)
N Bucks is hardly the back of beyond but I have never ever heard anti-Semitic sentiments uttered in the 34 years we have lived here.
What is England coming to?