So he lied then

[Metoodear]

We’re are the calls for Corbyn and the rest of the any semites to step down

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/13/jeremy-corbyn-admits-present-wreath-laid-munich-massacre-terrorists/

The silence speaks for it self

Corbyn was very defensive today when asked perfectly legitimate questions about it. Eye rolling and sighing like a teenager.

the gut feeling I get from all this - he's naively tried to be respectful and hasn't grasped the significance.

To be fair to him, I think this is probably right.

The problem for me is that he has been this naive for his entire life - he's never moved on from a student level of political critique or understanding.

When cornered or caught out, he doubles down & refuses to acknowledge his shortcomings.

Not great for a backbencher, but absolutely disastrous for a leader.

so if this (and especially their own spokeman's remarks) are right, it appears that a pretty major decision was reached and the community's views not invited until after the outcry

It certainly seems that way. If it walks like duck...

Interestingly the Labour Party stated they agreed with the IHRA definition, when the UK government decided to formally adopt it - but the NEC subsequently decided to overturn this behind closed doors, to adopt their own definition, in 2018

A spokeswoman for Corbyn said he and Labour agreed with the IHRA’s definition. She said: “Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party share the view that language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews is antisemitism, and is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other form of racism.”

Source: www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/antisemitism-definition-government-combat-hate-crime-jews-israel

With regard to this decision by the NEC, JLM (the Jewish Labour Movement) wrote to Jennie Formby (cc-ing in the NEC)

“No code of conduct on antisemitism, developed in isolation, without the involvement of JLM or the wider Jewish community will maintain any confidence. This belligerent position on behalf of the party is also at odds with its own decision in December 2016 to adopt the full IHRA definition alongside the working examples.

The subsequent decision by the party to revisit the IHRA document, and amend its contextual examples, without consultation represents a backward step in the party’s handling of antisemitism."

We absolutely should keep asking questions, but they need to be far more specific and hard hitting. I suspect you'll still get evasion though.

It's not ok to be evasive, but no politician will tie themselves down if they can help it. Questions need to get more and more speficic like Paxman used to be - but for the large part political interviews are now media entertainment, not actually probing journalism.

The Jewish Labour Movement tried that (apparently)

JLM say they asked specifically to have a permanent representative on the Labour antisemitism working group, but that this had been rejected.

JLM claim they were told that only members of the ruling executive were allowed to take part in the working group - which JLM say was “completely undermined” by the inclusion of Baroness Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general and author of a report of antisemitism in Labour, who is not a member of the NEC.

JLM say that they made a formal complaint about NEC member Peter Willsman, who was recorded at a recent NEC meeting claiming the antisemitism row was the fault of Jewish “Trump fanatics”. Apparently, Labour officials declined to pursue any disciplinary action against him, saying his apology was the end of the matter.

JLM claim they also made a formal complaint about Labour MP Chris Williamson after accusing him of “regularly denying that antisemitism exists within Labour”.

They claim to have received no response regarding these formal complaints, and that they would not consider re-entering talks until they did.

But of course this is one side of the story. I'd be interested to hear the Labour POV on the dealings with JLM

Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jewish-labour-party-antisemitism-row-jeremy-corbyn-munich-movement-ihra-a8491376.html

The problem for me is that he has been this naive for his entire life - he's never moved on from a student level of political critique or understanding.

Maybe, and to an extent you can get away with that as a backbencher but no way as LOTO. His teenage style strops when anyone dares to question him backs it up also.

All this 'talking to both sides' is rubbish, because he doesn't. He just talks to who he agrees with.

Issue is he won't change. Partly because his core base won't allow him to. I can see big trouble if IHRA is adopted.

May I ask a question which is based entirely on my lack of knowledge rather than any agenda? Is the antisemitism issue something that has been levelled at the Labour party pre-Corbyn, or has it only arisen since he has become leader.

Am genuinely curious, no axe to grind.

Said AntiSemitism was around within the Labour Party (eg Ken Livingstone and George Galloway before he left ) but it has become much worse with hate messages and death threats etc since Corbyn became leader and Momentum took over. Twitter and Facebook have spread the antiSemitism virus - some posts and threads are horrific just now and mostly posted by Corbyn supporters.

Antisemitism has available been around in the party, as it has been in any political party, as it has been in society

In 1891, Keir Hardie's Labour Leader asserted that "hook-nosed Rothschilds" plotted imperialist wars."

In 2003, Labour MP Tam Dalyell claimed that "there is far too much Jewish influence in the United States" and that "a cabal of Jewish advisers" was directing American and British policy on Iraq.

But as sunshine highlighted, it wasn't until the last 2 years that Jewish MPs would receive thousands of messages of antisemitic abuse and death threats from Momentum supporters within Labour, or that there were sufficient incidents of alleged antisemitism that a party inquiry was deemed necessary in 2016 (which was presumably tipped over by the Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone incidents)

I am interested to know more so it's something I'm keen to read up on and educate myself about

*has always, not has available!

the gut feeling I get from all this - he's naively tried to be respectful and hasn't grasped the significance

On balance, and trying to give all the benefit of the doubt even though I can't stand the man, this is something I used to incline towards. But then I remember issues such as the fuss around Mear One's mural, and the resulting statement "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on"

We all can and do make mistakes, but isn't it a bit of a coincidence that so many of Corbyn's seem to affect a particular community?

I sincerely regret always reminds me of Bill Clinton's 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'!

unfortunately there has always been a problem with antisemitism that has reflected society

in recent years it was to the left of the party the issue now being that some feel they are now justified in being vocal and have spouted their views more openly knowing that those who are now leading the party would probably ignore what has been said as they certainly did with Ken Livingstone

Bill Clinton's 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'!

Also his statement before the grand Jury: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

It might almost be thought that JC has been taking lessons from him ...

We all can and do make mistakes, but isn't it a bit of a coincidence that so many of Corbyn's seem to affect a particular community?

I don't know - I'm wary of it - because the media can be extremely selective when they want to be, and will focus on specific mistakes that make someone appear one way, and not another.
Not saying you're wrong - I'm just constantly wary of only really having a very small window into his world and much of it is filtered by what the media choose to expose to us.

That said, he should be well aware of his image issues now, and it wouldn't take much for him to redress the balance a little. At this stage, he'd probably be accused of blatantly trying to repair the damage. Also, you'd think his PR team would be chomping at the bit to come up with a list of counter examples where he's been proactively supporting Jews, or perhaps in his case, Israel, as it 'seems' most of his troubles stem from his sympathy falling on the side of Palestine rather than Israel. Whether that's spilled over into anti Jewish sentiment, I don't know. I guess only he could truly know his heart.

you'd think his PR team would be chomping at the bit to come up with a list of counter examples ...

You're right of course, and this is precisely the point I made upthread - but I just don't see any examples being offered

The same thing applies to the endless media spin, and while I realise some wouldn't publish even a proven alternative view, there remain so many other ways of getting the message out

And it simply doesn't seem to be there

Latest article in the New Yorker

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semitism-crisis

Each of Corbyn’s attempts to respond to the issue has somehow managed to make things worse...

....two years later, Corbyn’s words on the subject have a rote quality and are losing their effect. After his most recent Guardian article was published, critics noticed that passages appeared to have been lifted from his last mea culpa, which was printed in the Evening Standard in April.

Some of the leader’s most wilful supporters aren’t listening, either. The day after Corbyn’s latest apology, Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, spoke of the Party’s “eternal shame” for this episode. A left-wing member of the Party’s national-policy forum, named George McManus, promptly wrote on Facebook that “Watson received £50,000+ from Jewish donors. At least Judas only got 30 pieces of silver.”

Another Facebook post. Another cheap shot at the Jews. It is almost impossible to imagine how an outbreak of anti-Semitism in a diverse, center-left political party could get any worse. It is even harder to see how Corbyn, who seems unable to account for his own role in such an eruption of ill feeling, can put an end to it. When I asked Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, whether there was anything that the Labour leader could do or say that would remedy the situation, he thought about it for a moment: “I think the answer to that question now literally, specifically now- think the answer is probably nothing.”

A left-wing member of the Party’s national-policy forum, named George McManus, promptly wrote on Facebook that “Watson received £50,000+ from Jewish donors. At least Judas only got 30 pieces of silver.”

I saw that (also repeated on Twitter) there was nothing to back up the accusation against Tom Watson. Meanwhile he has to watch the Labour Party tear itself apart due to complete mismanagement by Corbyn and his Momentum acolytes.

Originally post below the tweet from Wes Streeting MP

The reply from George McManus

"I'd like to apologise to Tom Watson and to the Jewish community for my drawing an analogy between him accepting money from Jewish donors and the biblical story of the betrayal by Judas

*To be fair to him, I think this is probably right.

The problem for me is that he has been this naive for his entire life - he's never moved on from a student level of political critique or understanding.*

I think there is a bit too much coincidental, repeated "naive" alignment with people with a taste for terrorism against Britain/Israel/the USA throughout his political career. There really is a great weight of the stuff.

I think he might just feel drawn to certain things and that wide-eyed naivete is his defence because it generally works. "Oh you, Jeremy, what a naughty boy"

It's actually pretty convincing until you conclude that someone always does this when they do something wrong, and is always getting themselves into scrapes that aren't their fault.

Those terrorists people are saying he laid a wreath to were buried in Libya. Miles away.

Owen Jones has written an excellent piece for the guardian explaining what anti semitism is while drawing attention to the how many Palestinians and Israelis have died

Fucking hell Corbyn supporters just don’t get it talk about an own goal

Those terrorists people are saying he laid a wreath to were buried in Libya. Miles away.

It's more complicated than that.

The group they belonged to (Black September) had members buried the cemetery, some of whom were alleged to have been part of the planning / organisation / sanctioning of the attack. So in that sense 'part of the group'. But it's a bit like the IRA, or Sinn Fein, hard to really know the real detail of links, and also subject to a lot of misinformation and propaganda.

Owen Jones has written an excellent piece

He seems to flip flop constantly. Tweeting about wreaths not killing people was a massive own goal.

OJ was passionate about leaving the EU not so long ago

The issue he so often complains about whataboutery he has done so perfectly well in his article

I've given up reading OJ simply because he chops and changes with the wind.