Corb Blimey!

[Satchmo Distel]

Lipstadt can be very perceptive (e.g. on Trump) but she also says outrageous shit like this:

Moreover, the way it’s being used, it degrades the African American experience, because African Americans who have been stopped by police officers who engaged in racist behavior and shot them, were shot for being black. Here [in Israel and the Palestinian Territories], maybe you shouldn’t be shot for throwing a stone, but you’ve done something, you’ve thrown a stone, you’ve pulled a knife. It degrades the experience of the discrimination directed against African Americans.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-t...-up-for-facts/

[MsD]

Deborah Lipstadt has a new book out called Antisemitism: Here and Now. I've not read any reviews yet and, to my shame, I only know of Lipstadt's work through the news of the Irving trial. Has it come across anyone's radar here? My worry is that I'd get halfway through the book, having agreed with everything up to that point, before coming across a sentence that mirrors what ad hoc has described and feeling sick.

I’ve read some of her work, particularly the bits that pertain to Corbyn, and was quite shocked that as an academic, she was just writing her perceptions based on no evidence whatsoever.

[ursus arctos]

Issac Chotiner had an interview with her in the New Yorker recently.

She seems a bit confused.

In the book, you write, “The negation of Jewish nationhood is a form of anti-Semitism, if not in intent, then certainly in effect.” Why do you think this is the case? And by “Jewish nationhood” do you mean a state where Jews are a majority, or do you mean a religious state, or both?

No, I certainly don’t mean a religious state. I mean a state where Jews are, as long as they maintain it, a majority, that they . . . You know, it would never be an artificial majority, in other words. “Uh-oh, those other people are multiplying too fast, get rid of them”—never that. But both a democratic state and, it is to be hoped, a state in which Jews are a majority, where the state acknowledges its identity as a Jewish state while giving all minority groups within that state full and equal rights and equal protection. No rights by sufferance or rights by kindness. Rights by rights. And it’s a tricky thing. I am very much a believer that Jews have a legitimate right to a state, and they have to maintain that state, and that state has to be a democratic state.

I acknowledge that—what is it, “foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of small minds and politicians”?—that if someone was opposed to a Jewish state in 1944, in 1945, I wouldn’t have said, “Oh, that’s anti-Semitic.” Never, because that was not the vision in the Jewish community, and there was a real debate. Immediately after the war, there was a consensus in the Jewish community that the Jews should have a state. That consensus came about very quickly when people realized what happened. But [before that] there were Jews who didn’t believe there should be a Jewish state.

But today we’re talking about a state with six million Jews in it. We’re talking about a functioning, existing state. And to people who say, “Well, it shouldn’t be there, it should be done away with, it should be eliminated”—first of all, on a practical level, where are these people going to go? Don’t tell me about a Muslim state with a large Jewish minority, either a one-state solution or Jews going into a neighboring Muslim state, because there is no place that I look, certainly in the Arab world, and even in the non-Arab world, where you see states with religious minorities that live in safety and in peace and are thriving.

But I do think that the B.D.S. movement, at its heart—when you see what is really behind it, and the people who have organized it—is intent on the destruction of the State of Israel. If you look at the founding documents of the groups that first proposed B.D.S., they called for a full right of return, and, essentially, in practical terms, they’re calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. I think the ultimate objective of B.D.S. is not B.D.S. itself. If that were the case, we would all have to give up our iPhones, because so much of that technology is created in Israel. I think the objective of B.D.S., and especially the people who are the main organizers and supporters, is to make anything that comes out of Israel toxic, and I think they have had some success. So I see that, but I do not think that any kid who supports B.D.S. is ipso facto an anti-Semite. I think that’s wrong. It’s a mistake. And it’s not helpful.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Well she can go fuck herself then, innit.

[Diable Rouge]

Watson's project is to be called the Future Britain Group.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Are some people getting confused but on the radio this evening the Corbyn Hodge debate was phrased not in anti semitism but with a guest saying Hodge had accused Corbyn of racism. This was radio 4 PM btw.

[Lucy Waterman]

She did, didn't she? Last summer.

[ursus arctos]

Friends of Hodge denied reports she swore at the Labour leader, but acknowledged she had called him “an anti-Semitic racist”.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Corbyn might be many things but a racist he is not. This vilification of him resulting in him being attacked outside the mosque at the weekend is going to continue I fear until something awful happens. I just don't get how the media is allowed to continually pour petrol onto flames and then stand back and pretend they did nothing.
Hodge is playing to that with her choice of words.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Is that the quote LW mentioned?

[ursus arctos]

Yes, from July

[Antepli Ejderha]

Yes, from July

Thanks UA, is there anything you don't know?

[DCI Harry Batt]

There is not.

[Nefertiti2]

this could go in many threads. Lets post it here. Jamie Stern- Weiner. Israeli British scholar who has the balls to go where others do not.

https://twitter.com/jsternweiner/status/1103711682625499136

[Flynnie]

AOC throwing Omar under the bus was discussed at length in today’s Chapo. It’s easily the most concerning thing she’s done in Congress.

[E10 Rifle]

Thought for the day: Larry David wouldn't last five minutes in today's Labour party, given the abuse aimed at "self-hating" and "wrong kind of" Jewish people in it at the moment

[ad hoc]

A better idea of the extent of the antisemitism in labour https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org...ind-the-stats/

[Lurgee]

Muralgate seems to be getting another airing.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Was it yesterday that Baroness Warsi again brought up the issue of Islamaphobia in the Conservative Party, and how much coverage did that get? Yet the demonisation of Corbyn continues.

[Nefertiti2]

This analysis is quite good

[slackster]

Tory Peter Oborne, again, takes a look at the latest hatchet job on Corbyn & questions the media on it’s failings in this respect. Don’t suppose the Daily Mail will run this in his regular column for them, though.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinio...r-leader-truth

[ad hoc]

https://twitter.com/MichaelRosenYes/status/1106854070864801792

[Lurgee]

This, from a letter written to Jeremy Corbyn about the re-admission of Chris Williamson, is truly bizarre:

“It is clear to us that the Labour party’s disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference. This must stop. We need a truly independent process.”

So a "truly independent process" is one where an independent decision is made by the people who have scrutinised the case and are empowered to make that decision; and then it is overruled because some people don't like it?

Williamson is a tool, but Watson et al are derranged.

[Lang Spoon]

Isn't the re admission down to Keith fucking Vaz overruling recommendations rather than the LOTO office?

[Snake Plissken]

Oh, don't try to bring accuracy into it. That letter is brilliant.

“It is clear to us that the Labour party’s disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference. This must stop. We need a truly independent process,” the statement said.

“We call on Jeremy Corbyn to show leadership by asking for this inappropriate, offensive and reputationally damaging decision to be overturned and reviewed.

"The disciplinary process should be independent and free from interference. We call on Corbyn to interfere with the disciplinary process".

Vaz, by the way, has said the decision of the three man panel should be reconsidered. One of the panel voting to approve the decision was... Keith Vaz.

What is it about the Sensibles that makes them so... stupid?