General Election 2019 - Page 21 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

General Election 2019


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Regarding that IHRA definition thing, if I understand it correctly, criticising Israel (the nation) for its treatment of Palestinians is classed as anti-semitic.  That to me seems a ridiculous assertion.  Many people within Israel itself are opposed to the persecution of Palestinians - are they then by definition anti-semitic?  It's not a matter of anti-semitism at all; it's a matter of common decency.   And that's before we get to the fact that Palestinians & Arabs (or some of them at least) are themselves semitic peoples.

You're not understanding it correctly.  The IHRA working definition of anti-semitism which is the commonly agreed standard doesn't mention Palestine at all - why would it.  It mentions a number of things regarding comments on the State of Israel as being anti-Semitic such as describing the State of Israel as a racist endeavour or saying that all Jews are responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.  Where it specifically mentions criticism of the State of Israel being anti-Semitic is when that is compare to the actions of the Nazis and that's one of the things that Hanvey has admitted doing.  Open and shut case.

Now of course pro-Israeli proponents will try and muddy the waters and portray *any* criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic which is why politicians and aspiring politicians need to be very careful with their language so that their words cannot be misconstrued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

I'm not sure that the Soros cartoon without any context could be seen as Anti Semitic 

Think it's more to do with who the author is and that was his intent  

 

Image result for soros cartoon

I wonder where the inspiration for this cartoon came from.  Notice any similarities to this one from Nazi-controlled Serbia in 1941.

https://images.app.goo.gl/aEKArFWT4FfDMdZD9

 

image.jpeg

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

image.png.d19639de460e8b373c31a29670c2db16.png

It's amazing hasbara that the 2nd point is in contravention of IHRA when actual holocaust survivors or the orphans of those exterminated have said it too. As a political statement against the action of the Israeli government and obviously meaning nothing against their own identities.

Even Israeli medal winner and Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni

On Soros no point investigating him on anything, if you bring it up everyone been conditioned to bark regardless of the content. So never really looked into him or what he uses his resources for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Must be the only puppet inspiration ever 

Specifically, a shady Jewish figure pulling the strings of two generals though?

This was a fairly common Nazi propaganda meme used in WW2.   I think you're kidding yourself if you can't see the parallel between the two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Yes it was anti-Semitic.  To pictured Soros acting as a puppet master which is an anti-Semitic trope going back to 19th century.

He apparently made a comment comparing the actions of the Israeli state in Palestine to those of the Nazis in WW2, which is so textbook that it's actually in the IHRA definition. 

The definition is clearly flawed though. I'll give you quotes and mask who said them and using the IHRA definition you tell me if they're anti-semitic or not. To give you a hand in guessing names i'll only use people interred by the nazi's during world war 2 and you tell me which one is anti-semitic.

1." “The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here [in Israel], the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people."

2." Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the ‘Jewish problem’ would have ended only with the ‘voluntary’ expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians."

"

3."“The Zionist movement of Europe played a very important role in the mass extermination of Jews. Indeed, I believe that without the cooperation of Zionists it would have been a much more difficult task….

[The Zionists] said that we are not Czechoslovaks or we are not Germans, we are not French, we are Jews and we must, as Jews, go back to our country, to Israel or to Palestine and found our state …

Then came the Nuremberg Law, which was a law, issued by a nominally civilized state [Nazi Germany], which said that Jews do not belong to Europe, but to Palestine. …

So, on one platform, Nazism and Zionism had something in common: they both preached that Jews don’t belong to Europe but to Palestine. ..."  Not Ken Livingstone.

4." “[During the war] it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel… But today, even acknowledged historians speak out loud about the way that some of the Zionists living in Palestine exploited the Holocaust politically! … [The first Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion believed that the worse it is for the Jews in Europe, the better for Israel.

5.I as a Holocaust survivor cannot live with the fact that the State of Israel is imprisoning an entire people behind fences. …  It's just immoral.

What happened to me in the Holocaust wakes me up every night and I hope we don't do the same thing to our neighbours. … [I compare] what I went through during the Holocaust to what the besieged Palestinian children are going through.

 

I actually have a lot lot more quotes but i think these cover a range of topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phart said:

The definition is clearly flawed though. I'll give you quotes and mask who said them and using the IHRA definition you tell me if they're anti-semitic or not. To give you a hand in guessing names i'll only use people interred by the nazi's during world war 2 and you tell me which one is anti-semitic.

1." “The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here [in Israel], the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people."

2." Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the ‘Jewish problem’ would have ended only with the ‘voluntary’ expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians."

"

3."“The Zionist movement of Europe played a very important role in the mass extermination of Jews. Indeed, I believe that without the cooperation of Zionists it would have been a much more difficult task….

[The Zionists] said that we are not Czechoslovaks or we are not Germans, we are not French, we are Jews and we must, as Jews, go back to our country, to Israel or to Palestine and found our state …

Then came the Nuremberg Law, which was a law, issued by a nominally civilized state [Nazi Germany], which said that Jews do not belong to Europe, but to Palestine. …

So, on one platform, Nazism and Zionism had something in common: they both preached that Jews don’t belong to Europe but to Palestine. ..."  Not Ken Livingstone.

4." “[During the war] it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel… But today, even acknowledged historians speak out loud about the way that some of the Zionists living in Palestine exploited the Holocaust politically! … [The first Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion believed that the worse it is for the Jews in Europe, the better for Israel.

5.I as a Holocaust survivor cannot live with the fact that the State of Israel is imprisoning an entire people behind fences. …  It's just immoral.

What happened to me in the Holocaust wakes me up every night and I hope we don't do the same thing to our neighbours. … [I compare] what I went through during the Holocaust to what the besieged Palestinian children are going through.

 

I actually have a lot lot more quotes but i think these cover a range of topics.

Are any of these from non-Jews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conspiracy about NGO's being used by wealthy individuals comes from Bill Clinton's Mentor and University Proffessor Carrol Quiggley and his book Tradegy and Hope. Then further compounded by his follow up the anglo-american establishment. Both of which allege Cecil Rhodes used his power to set up secret societes (See Milner group) to steer countries.

 

Now i imagine it's easier to say folk get it from anti-semitic posters against the bolshveits in the early 19th century. As opposed to the Magnus Opum of a distinguished Harvard educated historian writing on his area of expertise.

I've read Quiggley not really seen any posters from the 19th century ever nor could one till the last 20 odd years when the internet was invented. Tradegy and Hope was written in 1966.

Now Tradegy and Hope has been cited out of context by conspiracy theorists for decades, i personally think it's the source of the small groups of men control the world type ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

Are any of these from non-Jews?

I don't know what creation myth they ascribed to. But we're citing the IHRA and how it's textbook. So using the textbook tell me who is anti-semitic. Surely the IHRA is self contained it has no nuance it's just textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't mad posters like that part of the zeitgeist look at what soap companies were coming up with at the time. Which shows why folk shouldn't be posting them at all really, cause some of the views then were so outlandish compared to now. Look at this advert for soap.

c2be7d5f7b7ba38680e6df33c9b23642.jpg

racist-pears-advert-A674MA.jpg

 

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, phart said:

I don't know what creation myth they ascribed to. But we're citing the IHRA and how it's textbook. So using the textbook tell me who is anti-semitic. Surely the IHRA is self contained it has no nuance it's just textbook.

First of all, Judaism is a religion, Jewish is a race.  Someone can be ethnically Jewish and not ascribe to Judaism, similarly someone can be an adherent of Judaism and not be ethnically Jewish.  

On the surface - and without seeing the context of the statements - these are all anti-Semitic comments in and of themselves, whether the intent is anti-Semitic is another matter and in that context who made them is important as that takes you down another path which is if someone of a particular race or religion makes comments - that if made by someone of a different race or religion would be considered as racist or sectarian - towards their own particular race/religion are they being racist or sectarian.  This is best characterised as "why am I a racist if I call a black man a N***** when he can describe another black man in the same using the same word and not be racist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, phart said:

Weren't mad posters like that part of the zeitgeist look at what soap companies were coming up with at the time. Which shows why folk shouldn't be posting them at all really, cause some of the views then were so outlandish compared to now. Look at this advert for soap.

c2be7d5f7b7ba38680e6df33c9b23642.jpg

racist-pears-advert-A674MA.jpg

 

Got any contemporary example of similar images and we can discuss whether they're appropriate in the present day - not that these were appropriate then but they were of their time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaid said:

You're not understanding it correctly.  The IHRA working definition of anti-semitism which is the commonly agreed standard doesn't mention Palestine at all - why would it.  It mentions a number of things regarding comments on the State of Israel as being anti-Semitic such as describing the State of Israel as a racist endeavour or saying that all Jews are responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.  Where it specifically mentions criticism of the State of Israel being anti-Semitic is when that is compare to the actions of the Nazis and that's one of the things that Hanvey has admitted doing.  Open and shut case.

Now of course pro-Israeli proponents will try and muddy the waters and portray *any* criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic which is why politicians and aspiring politicians need to be very careful with their language so that their words cannot be misconstrued. 

Thanks for clarifying that for me, AAID.  I do though, without making direct comparison, find it ironic that Israel (the state) acts in the way it does, given that the modern state of Israel was created following the atrocities of the 30s and 40s.  Have often thought that a Jewish homeland should maybe have been created not in the Middle East, but in Germany itself as part of the reparations.  Almost as if those who created Israel in 1948 regarded the then residents of the land as inferior beings - which is probably why they saw no problem in displacing them.  They created a situation which will never be sorted out fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, aaid said:

First of all, Judaism is a religion, Jewish is a race.  Someone can be ethnically Jewish and not ascribe to Judaism, similarly someone can be an adherent of Judaism and not be ethnically Jewish.  

Not sure I agree with you about "Jewish" being a race.  My grandfather was Jewish but not semitic (born in Lithuania which at the time was in the Russian empire).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Not sure I agree with you about "Jewish" being a race.  My grandfather was Jewish but not semitic (born in Lithuania which at the time was in the Russian empire).

Jewish is a distinct ethnic group or race in the same way as Irish or Scottish is.   Despite being geographically disparate due waves of migrations over the centuries, there was a huge tendency towards endogamy - essentially intermarriage - which meant that the ethnicity remained intact over the centuries and wasn't assimilated into the wider genetic mix of the regions they lived.   

It splits down further into Sephardic, which was those Jews who inhabited the Iberian peninsula and North Africa and Ashkenazi, which was primarily northern and eastern European, which I imagine was what your grandfather was.   These days, Ashkenazi Jews form the vast majority of all Jews.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the General Election.

Apparently Boris Johnson was due to be on Andrew Marr this coming Sunday.  The BBC however have pulled that until he agrees a date to do Andrew Marr.  Fair play to the BBC for having the bollocks to do that but it does show you that the politicians view Andrew Marr as a bit of a soft touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aaid said:

Jewish is a distinct ethnic group or race in the same way as Irish or Scottish is.   Despite being geographically disparate due waves of migrations over the centuries, there was a huge tendency towards endogamy - essentially intermarriage - which meant that the ethnicity remained intact over the centuries and wasn't assimilated into the wider genetic mix of the regions they lived.   

It splits down further into Sephardic, which was those Jews who inhabited the Iberian peninsula and North Africa and Ashkenazi, which was primarily northern and eastern European, which I imagine was what your grandfather was.   These days, Ashkenazi Jews form the vast majority of all Jews.

 

I thought we were told that "Scottish" was not a race, and the same for Irish?  Actually when you think about it, the only real race is "human".  Everything else is just evolution causing regional differences in different parts of the planet.

Edited by Alibi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alibi said:

I thought we were told that "Scottish" was not a race, and the same for Irish?  Actually when you think about it, the only real race is "human".  Everything else is just evolution causing regional differences in different parts of the planet.

I suppose you then get into the question of how do you define what a race is.   However that would only be relevant if people didn't make judgements about others solely on the basis of those regional differences in evolution.

The main proponents of people who state that Scottish is not a race are - IMHO - those people who are trying to push a pro-union agenda in that there is no difference between the peoples of the UK.

Talking purely about ethnicity, maybe I should've said Scottish and Irish, DNA testing companies find it very difficult to differentiate between the two and so you will often see "Scottish and Irish" used to define ethnicity.  There is though distinct differences between that and England and Wales which similarly is difficult to differentiate.    What relevance that has in the modern day but the two big genetic mixes in the British Isles are Irish and Scottish and English and Welsh and they're different.   Of course, most of us will have a mix of the two - and you'll have about 25% Ashkenazi - assuming your grandfather was 100% Ashkenazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aaid said:

First of all, Judaism is a religion, Jewish is a race.  Someone can be ethnically Jewish and not ascribe to Judaism, similarly someone can be an adherent of Judaism and not be ethnically Jewish.  

On the surface - and without seeing the context of the statements - these are all anti-Semitic comments in and of themselves, whether the intent is anti-Semitic is another matter and in that context who made them is important as that takes you down another path which is if someone of a particular race or religion makes comments - that if made by someone of a different race or religion would be considered as racist or sectarian - towards their own particular race/religion are they being racist or sectarian.  This is best characterised as "why am I a racist if I call a black man a N***** when he can describe another black man in the same using the same word and not be racist".

There's only one race and that's the human. All these other things are subjective definitions by humans that don't have any real objective criteria for taxonomy.

 

This is what you said earlier.

"  Where it specifically mentions criticism of the State of Israel being anti-Semitic is when that is compare to the actions of the Nazis and that's one of the things that Hanvey has admitted doing.  Open and shut case. "

I'm horrified to learn that Marek Edelman was an anti-semite. Man this anti-semitism textvook open and shut cases it's almost like the definitions are ridiculous when applied.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, phart said:

There's only one race and that's the human. All these other things are subjective definitions by humans that don't have any real objective criteria for taxonomy.

The logical implication of that is that there is no such thing as racism, do you agree with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

The logical implication of that is that there is no such thing as racism, do you agree with that?

That's not the logical implication at all, but nice sophistry.

The thing i'm saying is race is subjective not objective.

So racism is subjective not objective , which is true.

A poor effort, want to try the actual meat of the diuscussion now and your claiming of an open and shut case and the terrible hidden anti-semitism of Marek Edelman (and other holocaust survivors, let's piss all over them with insinuations of textbook anti-semitism cause they compared Israeli government actions with Nazi government actions) That's the real implication of that statement of yours.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...