Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[bimble]

Have you watched the whole speech?

No where in press reports is it mentioned the beginning where he is praising contribution of Jewish people to early Labour movement.

How is that at all relevant to what I asked you?

 

[The39thStep]

I see on Twittwr London Labour Youth members have now set up a safe space at their conference after some complained that Eddie Dempsey who had been asked to speak should have been no platformed for 'anti semitism'.

 

[Knotted]

The alternative to accepting that he knew what he was saying is that he's just so inept that he should keep his mouth shut at all times in case he accidentally praises racist murals or accidentally puts air quotes round "English" when referring to the nationality of strictly political Zionists.

The fact is that his statist leanings leave him adopting the position that "my enemy's enemies are my friends", so the impulse is to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism when it crops up in critcism of the actions and policies of the Israeli state. Its true that criticising the actions and policies of the Israeli state is not in itself anti-Semitic. It's also true that many supporters of the Israeli state want to draw that equivalence. But instead of challenging both that simplification and the antisemitism, he chose to turn a blind eye to the latter. With the effect that he's wallowed in it so long he can no longer see it.

I don't think Corbyn sees the world in terms of enemies nevermind my enemies enemy. It's more a flabby UN internationalism where each nation's regime has deserved rights.

My diagnosis is threefold.

1) He'll tag along non-judgementally with anyone supporting various lefty causes.

2) The gentrified Labour Party do not have a working class based understanding of anti-racism. His response to criticism was just political correctness - oops I shouldn't use "Zionist" as a pejorative. Missing the point completely, but it is part and parcel of Labour's response to accusations of anti-semitism. In my estimation Labourites tend to see racism as a problem when it is either really overt or effects them electorally (in which case anti-racism is mixed with and confused with currying favour with various communal leaders). Corbyn is at the end of the day a creature of the gentrified Labour Party.

3) Neither the above nor any other explanations explain the precise nature of his remarks. I can't avoid the conclusion that Corbyn has some suppressed anti-Jewish ideas.

 

[Quote]

None of these people in the media or the Labour right give a shit about anti-semitism, it’s just being used to get Corbyn out and Labour back on their middle-of-the-road ‘slightly more worthy version of the Conservatives’ Blairite agenda.

Anti-semitism is just the one smear that stuck (of the millions used), now we’re going to hear it again and again either until these twats get what they want and Corbyn goes or they form their own hopeless, happy-clappy sandal-wearing centrist party, standing for nothing and no-one (except the continument of their own careers...)

 

[danny la rouge]

None of these people in the media or the Labour right give a shit about anti-semitism

Nobody's saying they do.

 

[bimble]

Nobody's saying they do.

Exactly. The daily mail ffs.

 

[agricola]

Some of the papers have identified one Richard Millett (edit: English, son of the founder of Milletts, has degree from SOAS in Middle Eastern politics) as being one of the group Corbyn was apparently referring to. His blog is certainly an interesting read, especially the mention of a row with Wes Streeting (in person and online) at a meeting of Labour Friends of Palestine.

 

[Knotted]

Millett's a nutcase Israel advocate, who has defended anti-semitism (christ killers) directed against anti-zionist Jews. That the individuals Corbyn directed his remarks towards are loonatics in their own right and most likely are ironically challenged is neither here nor there of course.

 

[Grump]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Call me naive but that analysis does seem a bit simplistic. I don't think he stupid and I'm not convinced he says things just to get plaudits. How can you back this up?

Anybody aspiring to be the PM who thinks that making deliberately offensive remarks about Jews (and it was about Jews, not 'Zionists') is acceptable is an idiot. And Corbyn has a long history of only talking to people who agree with him or who he feels are an audience receptive to his views. It was clear in the last election campaign that he was only prepared to talk to audiences of party supporters who would cheer everything he said. It is has also been commented on many times that his supposed philosophy of talking to people involved in conflicts to help bring about reconciliation is one sided, he talks to Palestinians, the IRA, ETA and so on, but not yo those on the other side.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is has also been commented on many times that his supposed philosophy of talking to people involved in conflicts to help bring about reconciliation is one sided, he talks to Palestinians, the IRA, ETA and so on, but not yo those on the other side.

Why do you think he should have spoken to the british, zionist entity or spanish governments?

 

[agricola]

Millett's a nutcase Israel advocate, who has defended anti-semitism (christ killers) directed against anti-zionist Jews. That the individuals Corbyn directed his remarks towards are loonatics in their own right and most likely are ironically challenged is neither here nor there of course.

It does seem to have been an event and an audience that it was best to miss though.

 

[Grump]

Why do you think he should have spoken to the british, zionist entity or spanish governments?

If you claim you are speaking to organisations such as the PLO or the IRA in order to help create understanding between antagonists and build bridges then yes, I do think speaking to the other side might possibly be a good idea. After all, the Good Friday Agreement came about because the British government, the Irish Government, the IRA and the Unionists were all involved. I despise Tony Blair but he at least was prepared to talk to people he disagreed with, unlike Corbyn who appears only to want to perform in front of an audience he knows will pat him on the head.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you claim you are speaking to organisations such as the PLO or the IRA in order to help create understanding between antagonists and build bridges then yes, I do think speaking to the other side might possibly be a good idea. After all, the Good Friday Agreement came about because the British government, the Irish Government, the IRA and the Unionists were all involved. I despise Tony Blair but he at least was prepared to talk to people he disagreed with, unlike Corbyn who appears only to want to perform in front of an audience he knows will pat him on the head.

There were contacts between the government and the IRA for years, it's all documented. Did jc really need to talk to people who were already talking to the IRA? It's ludicrous.

 

[Grump]

There were contacts between the government and the IRA for years, it's all documented. Did jc really need to talk to people who were already talking to the IRA? It's ludicrous.

I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.

rather clueless to suggest I work outside my working hours. I don't know (and nor do you) what contact he's had with hmg, the ze government or the Spanish authorities.

 

[brogdale]

I don't think you quite grasp the point. It is about his aversion to talking to anyone who won't agree with him rather than any specific organisation. His stated reason for talking to certain organisations is to build understanding between entities in conflict. If that is what you wish to do then you should speak to both sides. If I were you I would go and stamp some books or whatever it is you do for a living.

Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.

 

[danny la rouge]

Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.

Hello! You're alive!

 

[Grump]

Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.

Interesting notion that in order to speak to someone with whom you disagree you have to pretend to be in HMG. I speak to people I disagree with all if the time and have never pretended to be in the cabinet.

 

[kebabking]

Expecting a (then) backbench, 'activist' MP to behave as though he were representing the Government is arrant tosh.

So he was freewheeling it then - no idea what other was being said, and by whom to whom, through other channels, just blundering around like some deluded ego in a corderoy jacket thinking he brings peace by talking peace to people who humour him?

So he's either a moron with cat shit for brains trying to bring 'peace' by a method that has never worked ever, or he's a massively deluded ego who casts aside the collected experience of those who have negotiated/encouraged/cajoulled peace because he thinks is that his mighty powers of persuasion will work all by themselves - even when he only talks to one of the sides in the conflict?

Excellent, truly a great moral and intellectual giant of our age...

 

[Toast Rider]

I have to ask: this comment about English zionists. I can certainly accept it could be made from a racist perspective. But does it have to be? Is it really the only way to analyse what he said? The atmosphere right now is so febrile I for one don't really know if it's even possible to analyse every statement that comes from the guy objectively. Not that we shouldn't try.

And if not Corbyn to lead, then who?

 

[Wilf]

I've no problem with the fact he didn't bother doing tight lipped statesmanlike balance in his days as a backbencher (even if it's now coming back to haunt him having his every speech from the last 30 years analysed by the Daily Mail). It's what he actually said and his relationship to the wider 'milieu' already mentioned that's the issue.

 

[agricola]

So he was freewheeling it then - no idea what other was being said, and by whom to whom, through other channels, just blundering around like some deluded ego in a corderoy jacket thinking he brings peace by talking peace to people who humour him?

So he's either a moron with cat shit for brains trying to bring 'peace' by a method that has never worked ever, or he's a massively deluded ego who casts aside the collected experience of those who have negotiated/encouraged/cajoulled peace because he thinks is that his mighty powers of persuasion will work all by themselves - even when he only talks to one of the sides in the conflict?

Excellent, truly a great moral and intellectual giant of our age...

Or he could just be an MP, behaving in the way that most MPs of his (and this) generation behave.

 

[brogdale]

Interesting notion that in order to speak to someone with whom you disagree you have to pretend to be in HMG. I speak to people I disagree with all if the time and have never pretended to be in the cabinet.

It would be, if that's what had been said.

 

[Pickman's model]

Or he could just be an MP, behaving in the way that most MPs of his (and this) generation behave.

But he has no moat the cleaning of which he could claim on expenses

 

[yield]

And if not Corbyn to lead, then who?

I don't believe in the parliamentary road to socialism.

A closet leftist like Lisa Nandy, who actually believes in it, would be best to lead the Labour party and she'd unite it too.

 

[Toast Rider]

I'm not sure I believe in it either, but I do believe in ousting the Tories.

 

[Gramsci]

How is that at all relevant to what I asked you?

What you asked was this.

if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem

I think if he had said Zionists were a bunch of wankers who didnt understand history he would still be accused of being anti semitic.

 

[xarmian]

Gramsci if he’d just said the zionists were wankers who don’t understand history have no sense of humour whatever, that would have been fine.
Why do you think he talked of them as not being properly English despite having lived here for years probably their whole lives.
That’s the bit. Can you see why it’s a problem?

It was clumsy and badly delivered but he was referring to their apparent difficulty as native English speakers in understanding "English irony" as used by a non-native speaker. He seems to be saying he doesn't believe their grasp of English is as poor as they were making out when they were "berating" Hassassian. He was also trying to compliment Hassassian who had spoken just before him.

The full video is timestamped on theJC and Millett's blog has a report of the meeting he was referring to but I don't know if the criticisms of Hassassian afterwards are reported anywhere.

The words he chose are blind to Jewish sensitivities and the history of persecution based on insider-outsider status. That blindness is something Corbyn is often guilty of and that's not acceptable. But he wasn't saying they weren't properly English, he was saying they were.

 

[tim]

But he has no moat the cleaning of which he could claim on expenses

He could have at least submitted a receipt for a Roundup Sprayer

He can be ruthless when it comes to weeds and bugs!

 

[Knotted]

Everybody here will have seen this. When somebody picks up ideas from the political milieu they are absorbed in, they become full of it. They don't shut up about it and they double down when criticised. This is true of Corbyn as it is for anyone else, but not with this overt anti-semitism, which is very rare ie. there are only two examples of it. That speech was not an example of politicised racism but a goofy contrast of the good foreigner who makes an effort to understand our ways and the bad foreigner who doesn't. This is common garden bigotry that Corbyn surely knows should not normally be voiced in public, but nevertheless in part form his understanding of the world. I suspect he has had these views since childhood and hasn't exorcised them despite the countless anti-racist meetings he has attended.

I don't buy the millieu thesis. It's surely the other way round. He finds himself in this millieu because he is comfortable with it, not because he is blind to its excesses which he then absorbs drip by drip. He sees the excesses, probably thinks they go a bit too far but also probably thinks there is a kernel of truth to them.