Should Labour Adopt The I H R A Definition Of Anti Semitism Lest They Be Damned To "eternal Shame"?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45073081

[Gromit]

That have adopted the definition, but not all the examples.
The omitted examples will hamper free speech about Israel, not Jews.

[Zacs-Master]

I’ve wanted to ask you this for a while. Are you Jewish and is your AB name a hint I.e. Torah Torah Torah?

[jourdain2]

I agree with Tom Watson on this, so, yes, Labour should adopt the definition. It is the only thing which could defuse the situation and I suspect that even that may be 'too little, too late' given the deafening silence arising from the majority of the Labour Shadow Cabinet. We haven't even heard the considered opinion of Diane Abbot and she seems to offer it on every other subject.


It has come to something when I feel as if I ought to add 'I am not Jewish' to a reply to a thread. :(

[ToraToraTora]

everyone on this site knows I hate all religion ZM surprised you don't know that.

[Zacs-Master]

Thanks. It just seemed to fit.

[Gromit]

A lot of organisations (other than the Labour Party) have opted not to endorse the ICHC full examples. then soo be it.

If the Israeli state bombs someones house, then bullsozes it to the ground, then it is fair to compare it to Nazis Germany.
But under example 8 and nine of this so called definition, to compare the terrible State of Israeli’s atocities to the actions of Germany during WWII is antisemitic. It isn’t.
If the modern State of Israel wants to stop any such comparison, it should stop being evil to its Arab neighbours and adhere to internationallaw (which it often doesn’t).
To rely on dubious examples of antisemitism to stiffle criticism of its own dreadful behaviour to its enemies, is disingenuous. And well done the Labour Party for not falling for that cheap trick.

[ToraToraTora]

It's in the hands of it's neighbours gromit, all they have to do is stop lobbing their penny bangers over the fence and their houses will remain un bulldozed. Simples!

[Gromit]

You have a point Tora. But Israel’s response is always disproportionate. The missles fire at Israel in 2008 where literally ‘firework bangers’. Not smart or guide, likely to hit anything. But they did cause terror. 1 person was slightly imjurred. The response was over 2000 people killed, the majority of who were not combatants, but civilians. Evil by anyones measure.

[jourdain2]

It appears that I am the only one who has actually answered the question. Have you all ever thought about stopping squabbling?

(OK, I'm running for cover with my hands over my head!)

[ToraToraTora]

yes gromit, how stupid would you need to be to do that when you know what the response would be?

[naomi24]

Gromit, //A lot of organisations (other than the Labour Party) have opted not to endorse the ICHC full examples.//

Which organisations?

[ludwig]

No, they should be honest and argue the case for not wanting to adopt it in full, as gromit is doing.

They should say that they think it is flawed and explain why. Trouble is not all of them agree on that.

[youngmafbog]

I agree Ludwig, but they should have done that right from the very beginning.

They didnt, JC seems to have obfuscated and now finds himself and the Party in the brown sticky stuff. I think they will struggle now whatever action is taken.

[naomi24]

//They should say that they think it is flawed and explain why.//

I don’t think they can do that without exposing their anti-Semitism. If they could, I imagine they would. That's the simplest solution.