Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:37:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The Weaponisation of anti-Semitism

Started by holyzombiejesus, July 15, 2019, 01:03:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

holyzombiejesus

Thought this should have it's own thread as it's clutters up the Corbyn thread.

This is as good a place as any to start...

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2019-07-11/panorama-hatchet-job-labour-antisemitism-bbc/

With Panorama's hatchet job on Labour antisemitism, BBC has become the Tory's attack dog

It is difficult to describe as anything other than a hatchet job the BBC Panorama special this week that sought to bolster claims that the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has become "institutionally antisemitic".

The partisan tone was set from the opening shot. A young woman whose name was not revealed tearfully claimed to have been abused with antisemitic taunts at a Labour Party conference.

The decision not to disclose the interviewee's identity is understandable. It would have discredited the whole narrative Panorama was trying so hard to build.

The woman's name is Ella Rose, a senior official in the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), an organisation representing Jewish and non-Jewish members of Labour at the forefront of attacks on Corbyn. Rose has a secret past too: she once worked at the Israeli embassy in London.

Self-fulfilling prophecy
Two years ago she and other JLM officials were exposed collaborating with Shai Masot, an Israeli embassy official. He had to be hurriedly removed from the UK after an undercover Al Jazeera documentary showed him plotting with activists in the Labour and Conservative parties to discredit British politicians seen as a threat to Israel.

Most observers believe that Masot was operating within the embassy as part of Israel's strategic affairs ministry, which in turn has been running black ops against western critics of Israel. Corbyn, we can safely assume, is high on that list.

Rose is on record as saying she was a close friend of Masot's.

Her emotional, quavering voice as she spoke to Panorama presented a very different image from her appearances in Al-Jazeera's undercover footage. There she is shown threatening to use physical violence – employing Krav Maga, a martial arts technique developed by the Israeli army – against another Jewish party member prominent in support of Corbyn.

Panorama chose to follow in the footsteps of the rest of the British media in ignoring Al Jazeera's revelations, even though they provide vital context for challenging claims of a supposedly growing "antisemitism crisis" in Labour. For the past three years, the media have produced little more than anecdotal evidence, like Ella Rose's, to support this narrative.

In a self-fulfilling prophecy, however, the more the media has fear-mongered about antisemitism in Labour – despite the absence of objective data to back up such claims – the more polls have shown British Jews panicking at the propsect of Corbyn reaching power.

The Panorama investigation, titled "Is Labour Anti-Semitic?", will undoubtedly have further stoked such fear by interviewing a handful of disgruntled former employees involved in the party's handling of antisemitism complaints.

Bitter feuds
Stripped of context, these testimonies offer a superficially plausible argument that the Labour leadership sought to minimise, or even indulge, antisemitism in the party. But the comments made by these ex-staff have to be viewed in terms of a wider power-play raging in Labour since Corbyn was elected leader.

The party has been riven by bitter, very public feuds between an old guard, which dominated under Tony Blair, and the rapid rise of the party's left wing under Corbyn, buoyed by massive support from the wider membership.

Panorama referenced these rifts only to dismiss them as a conspiracy theory. Instead, the programme refashioned the split as a culture war between those presented as anti-racist centrists, like the disputes team's former staff, and a supposed influx of anti-Israel, Jew-hating "Marxists" cultivated by Corbyn.

The mass purge
Some of the former members of the disputes staff interviewed by Panorama appear to have served effectively as a Trojan horse within Labour's head office, assisting the Blairites in damaging Corbyn.

Though it was not mentioned by Panorama, these staff members were caught repeatedly violating the party rulebook by excluding thousands of Corbyn supporters during the two leadership contests, in 2015 and 2016. These mass purges had nothing to do with antisemitism. People were ousted for "offences" such as retweeting posts by the Green Party or, in one case, praising the band the Foo Fighters.

It was the enormous backlog created by these exclusions that overwhelmed the party machinery, leaving it incapable of handling disciplinary matters involving antisemitism.

Labour officials note that, even after Corbyn was secure as leader, the obstruction continued. A small number of staff – the people Panorama interviewed – actively blocked the rapid resolution of high-profile antisemitism cases, dragging them out to embarrass the leadership.

Since a new general secretary, Jennie Formby, was brought in and a new and larger disputes team appointed, including staff with legal training, the speed of handling antisemitism complaints is reported to have increased four-fold.

The paradox is that those telling Panorama that Labour is "institutionally antisemitic" are the very people who failed to deal effectively with antisemitism complaints when they were in charge.

Fears of a stitch-up
The most astounding and intentional ommission from the programme, however, are the countervailing voices in support of Corbyn. The Labour leader himself and senior staff like his chief strategist, Seumas Milne, declined to be interviewed. That is understandable. They had strong grounds to suspect that Panorama planned a stitch-up.

Interviews of Labour leaders denying "institutional antisemitism" set against footage of tearful Jewish party members like Ella Rose speaking of abuse would have been a bad look.

But what was undoubtedly inexcusable was Panorama's failure to interview even one of the many Jewish Labour members who deny the antisemitism narrative, or to note that many of the most high-profile party members suspended or expelled for antisemitism are, in fact, themselves Jewish.

Jewish members expelled
One of the explusions briefly mentioned by Panorama was Jackie Walker, who is herself Jewish, as well as black.

The fact that Jewish activists have been disciplined for their criticisms of Israel or disputing the Labour antisemitism narrative suggests that the furore, in part at least, represents the redrawing of battle-lines within the Jewish community about who gets to speak for Jews about Israel.

This was vital, but missing, context for understanding one of Panorama's central charges: that Corbyn's inner circle had interfered in the complaints process by offering advice to the disputes team.

What Panorama failed to mention was that the advice was actually sought by the disputes staff. And it related to the need to handle sensitively the issue of the party being seen to take disciplinary action against Jewish members accused of antisemitism by other Jewish members.

Labour administrators were effectively being asked to take sides in an ideological fight between different kinds of Jewish activists – hardline Zionists and anti-Zionists.

'Wrong kind of Jews'
Why, one can reasonably ask, did Panorama ignore Jewish Voice for Labour in this supposed "investigation" of Labour and anti-semitism? The group was specifically set up by Jewish members to counter the claims being made by activists like Rose.

Groups like the Jewish Labour Movement have implied that Jewish supporters of Corbyn are the "wrong kind of Jews" – an extremely ugly insinuation that Panorama appeared to endorse by entirely sidelining them. This was one of the reasons the Labour leadership censured the programme-makers in a 50-page document presented to BBC boss Tony Hall, in which it argued that Panorama had "pre-determined the outcome of its investigation".

As Corbyn's office noted, Panorama had cherrypicked and distorted evidence, presented only one side of the story, and relied almost exclusively on staff who have very large axes to grind.

Score-settling may make for lively TV, but it is execrable journalism.

As a public service broadcaster, the BBC is subject to an editorial policy requiring it to be impartial. Its guidelines also state that audiences should not be able to infer "the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on 'controversial subjects' in any other area."

But the fact that Panorama made no attempt at even-handedness or fairness in its programme on Labour should have come as no surprise. The man in charge of the investigation was John Ware, a former Sun journalist. He cannot be considered dispassionate either about Corbyn or the prospects of Labour defeating the Conservative Party at a general election, which may be just around the corner.

Strident supporter of Israel

Two years ago, Ware wrote a lengthy article for a right-wing magazine warning of the danger of Corbyn reaching power. He was a politician, wrote Ware, "whose entire political career has been stimulated by disdain for the West, appeasement of extremism, and who would barely understand what fighting for the revival of British values is really all about".

Shortly after Corbyn's leadership election victory in 2015, Ware headed a Panorama documentary that sought to malign the new leader.

Ware is also a strident supporter of Israel and of its state ideology, Zionism. In a 2005 edition of Panorama he suggested that Muslims in Britain who spoke out about Israel's crimes against Palestinians were "extremists".

In an article in the Jewish Chronicle last year Ware concluded that anti-Zionism had "morphed into anti-Semitism – itself a Corbyn legacy".

But that claim – that criticism of Israel is equivalent to antisemitism – needed to be interrogated rather than, as it was, assumed to be true by the Panorama special. It lies at the heart of both the split between the right and left wings of Labour, and the divisions within Labour's Jewish membership.

'Witch-hunt against Muslims'
Equally disturbing is Ware's apparent view that some kinds of racism matter far more than others. This appears to be what he means by "British values".

While he has repeatedly expressed concern about criticism of Israel, and has himself conflated it with antisemitism, his work has shown an apparent indulgence of Islamophobia. Over nearly two decades Ware has produced reports for the BBC that have antagonised Britain's Muslim community.

In 2003 David Blunkett, Labour's home secretary of the time and no ally of Corbyn's, compared a programme by Ware on asylum seekers to the notoriously racist hate speech of Enoch Powell back in the 1960s.

Two years later the Muslim Council of Britain accused a Panorama documentary headed by Ware of amounting to a "witch-hunt against British Muslims".

Islamophobia 'rational'
In 2013 Ware claimed that Islamophobia, or what he called the "I-word", was stopping people – though not himself, it seems – from talking about Muslim "extremism". Ware argued that Islamophobia, unlike antisemitism, was rational and justified – or in his words, hatred of Muslims was simply "reactive".

He wrote in the Jewish Chronicle newspaper: "It is surely Muslim radicals who have brought it [anti-Muslim bigotry] on their fellow Muslims – by their promotion of Islam as a political ideology, and by invoking Islamophobia to close down criticism of this ideology."

Imagine how that would sound if one replaces "radical Muslims", "political Islam" and "Islamophobia" with the equivalents of "Israel zealots", "hardline Zionism" and "anti-semitism". Let's try it:

"It is surely Israel zealots who have brought it [anti-Jewish bigotry] on their fellow Jews – by their promotion of hardline Zionism as a political ideology, and by invoking anti-semitism to close down criticism of this ideology."

Suggesting that Jews are to blame for the racism they face because some extremists among them are fanatical supporters of Israel and its oppression of Palestinians would surely amount to antisemitism in most people's view.

Skewed political priorities
The relevance of this is that Ware and the BBC made a highly politicised decision to choose to focus exclusively on Labour and antisemitism, while ignoring the well-documented racism of the Conservative Party. That choice matches Ware's own skewed political priorities.

The BBC's flagship political documentary assumed that Labour suffers from an "antisemitism crisis" so severe that it needed to be the sole focus of an investigation into racism in British politics.

The decision to ignore the more visible issue of racism in the Conservative Party smacks of dangerous interference by the state broadcaster in the democratic process.

Panorama's choice is even more astonishing given that the objective data – again overlooked by the programme – indicates that Labour has much less of a racism problem than the ruling Conservative party.

A survey this week confirmed what was already widely known: that Islamophobia – racism towards Muslims and Arabs – is rampant in Conservative ranks. A YouGov poll showed an astounding 56 per cent of party members believe Islam threatens the "British way of life".

The Tory party's former chair, Sayeeda Warsi, has long been ringing the alarm about senior officials, warning that they are indifferent to, or supportive of, Islamophobia in the party.

Rampant Tory racism
In addition to rampant Islamophobia, figures show that the Conservatives also have a greater problem than Labour with antisemitism.

While Corbyn has been critical of antisemitic world leaders, the Conservative leadership has been cosying up to figures like Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister, who is known for his Jew-baiting and expressions of support for former Hungarian pro-Nazi leaders.

Boris Johnson, the Conservative MP widely expected to become the next prime minister when Theresa May steps down, has a long track record of making inciteful, racist statements.

Anti-semitism data ignored
While the Conservatives' undeniable racism problem has failed to attract any sustained media attention, the Labour Party's much less serious antisemitism problem has been blown out of all proportion.

The Panorama team ignored the most elementary facts undermining the now-pervasive narrative of a Labour "antisemitism crisis".

First, surveys show Labour voters are less likely to hold antisemitic views than the wider general public or Conservative voters, and the proportion of Labour supporters expressing such views has fallen dramatically under Corbyn. The data clearly refute suggestions that Corbyn has made the party more attractive to antisemites.

Second, Labour's disciplinary process has found that instances of discernible antisemitism is marginal, at 0.06 per cent of its half a million members. And that is after Corbyn's political enemies have been scouring party members' accounts seeking evidence of antisemitism.

And third, much of the media coverage has attributed often anonymous hate speech on social media targeting Jews, including Labour MPs, to Labour activists when no evidence exists to support such attribution. The politicised climate is such now that far-right antisemitism is also being blamed on Corbyn.

Questions for the BBC
Corbyn's critics, of course, have been trying to deflect criticism of the BBC, Panorama and Ware by arguing that Labour's complaint is some kind of Trumpian attack on journalism. That is patent nonsense.

The BBC is a public service broadcaster paid for by British taxpayers. Its credibility and legitimacy depends on it being seen to maintain strict neutrality and a commitment to evidence, not become a media attack dog in the hands of the ruling party.

The question is why did the BBC's flagship political investigations show decide that the marginal problem of racism in Labour was a much more urgent matter than the provable and significant racism in the Conservative Party?

Unlike Labour, the Conservatives are actually in power and, through policy-making, are in a position to improve or damage the fabric of life for minority communities in Britain.

This isn't about protecting Corbyn. It is an expectation that the BBC sticks by its commitment to assess dispassionately British political life rather than interfere, as it did with the Panorama special, in an overt, partisan manner.

biggytitbo

Weaponised anti-semitism is anti-semitism.

holyzombiejesus

Not if it's not anti-semitism. The anti-semitic issue is being used by enemies of Corbyn when in many cases there has been no anti-semitism. You know this.

biggytitbo

Triviliasing antisemitism by exploiting, exaggerating  or fabricating it for tawdry political advantage is a form of antisemitism is what I mean.

Funcrusher

The sheer sanity restoring tonic of reading that Jonathan Cook piece cannot be overstated.

holyzombiejesus

Yeah, I want to share it with everyone I know. I feel like the scales have fallen from my eyes to an extent over the last week or so. I always knew things were stacked against us but seeing how the likes of Oberman and Riley are operating, sharing lawyers with the 'whistleblowers', the general lack of any examples of the anti-Semitism that they are receiving, the double standards by which Corbyn is judged. Even today on Radio 4, one of their reporters misstated the % of Labour members accused of making anti Jewish comments, exaggerating the actual number X 10 (never underestimating of course). The only succour I get from this is that the vast vast majority of people I see alluding to the issue are witless dickheads who use it for point scoring and generally don't give a fuck about anti-Semitism or Labour anyway.

holyzombiejesus

Quote from: biggytitbo on July 15, 2019, 05:31:16 PM
Triviliasing antisemitism by exploiting, exaggerating  or fabricating it for tawdry political advantage is a form of antisemitism is what I mean.

Ah, sorry.

Zetetic

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on July 15, 2019, 05:53:19 PMEven today on Radio 4, one of their reporters misstated the % of Labour members accused of making anti Jewish comments, exaggerating the actual number X 10 (never underestimating of course).
Mind you, i's bloody stupid to keep pushing "0.06%" as a talking point since a) it's difficult to remember precisely, b) completely fails to give a sense of scale, and c) comes across obfuscatory.

If the point is "Out of 500,000 members, at most only 300 have had any such complaint made against them since September 2015." then say that. (Is it 300?)

Don't convert it to a rate, and in particular don't convert it to a rate where you have to remember how many zeroes are after the decimal point...


holyzombiejesus

Quote from: Zetetic on July 15, 2019, 06:03:10 PM
Mind you, i's bloody stupid to keep pushing "0.06%" as a talking point since a) it's difficult to remember precisely, b) completely fails to give a sense of scale, and c) comes across obfuscatory.

If the point is "Out of 500,000 members, at most only 300 have had any such complaint made against them since September 2015." then say that. (Is it 300?)

Don't convert it to a rate, and in particular don't convert it to a rate where you have to remember how many zeroes are after the decimal point...

Or, if you're a reporter working on one of the BBC's flagship news programmes, check your figures before spouting bullshit on air.

biggytitbo

Cook has been a consistent sane voice throughout this whole psyop, which unfortunately appears to have escalated into a real crisis purely through the collective willpower of his political opponents and media opponents.

Buelligan

Quote from: Zetetic on July 15, 2019, 06:03:10 PM
Mind you, i's bloody stupid to keep pushing "0.06%" as a talking point since a) it's difficult to remember precisely, b) completely fails to give a sense of scale, and c) comes across obfuscatory.

If the point is "Out of 500,000 members, at most only 300 have had any such complaint made against them since September 2015." then say that. (Is it 300?)

Don't convert it to a rate, and in particular don't convert it to a rate where you have to remember how many zeroes are after the decimal point...

I think it's more understandable to talk about this in terms of the size of Wales or the Albert Hall, so one could say that if the Albert Hall was full (capacity of 5544), you'd find you had, give or take, 3 and a sixth possible racists in there.  Or out of the whole population of Wales, only the people of Rhyl might be even slightly antisemitic.

Buelligan

Remember, 3 and one sixthish.



That doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

Zetetic

I can begin to make sense of how seriously you meant this, but I am quite enamoured with the Albert Hall suggestion.




As ever, probably unfairly, I find it easy to worry at what 'we' could be doing better: I can't make the BBC man say what I want, but I might be able to make it harder for him misrepresent the situation.

Buelligan

I'm glad you're enamoured of it, I think it just makes it feel more real and understandable to ordinary people like I am.  The Rhyl one's fairly accurate numerically too though.

Blumf

Quote from: Buelligan on July 15, 2019, 06:47:42 PM
out of the whole population of Wales, only the people of Rhyl might be even slightly antisemitic.

Castellnewydd Emlyn (Eng: Newcastle Emlyn) actually.

(pop Wales = 3.125 million * 0.06% = 1875, pop Castellnewydd Emlyn = 1,883)

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Buelligan on July 15, 2019, 07:45:07 PM
I'm glad you're enamoured of it, I think it just makes it feel more real and understandable to ordinary people like I am.  The Rhyl one's fairly accurate numerically too though.

You could say, given the population of Rhyl, it would be the population of Rhyl that were racist.

Buelligan

Quote from: Blumf on July 15, 2019, 07:48:09 PM
Castellnewydd Emlyn (Eng: Newcastle Emlyn) actually.

(pop Wales = 3.125 million * 0.06% = 1875, pop Castellnewydd Emlyn = 1,883)

I know it very well.  I'm absolutely sure they're not all antisemites there.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Rhyl's a different matter as The Pig has said.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Blumf on July 15, 2019, 07:48:09 PM
Castellnewydd Emlyn (Eng: Newcastle Emlyn) actually.

(pop Wales = 3.125 million * 0.06% = 1875, pop Castellnewydd Emlyn = 1,883)

Was that from Question of Sport back in the 80s?

Coleman: "which football team had the largest number of racist fans according to a recent survey?"

Hughes: "Millwall?"

Coleman: "Newcastle, Emlyn"

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Buelligan on July 15, 2019, 07:51:43 PM
I know it very well.  I'm absolutely sure they're not all antisemites there.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Probably not the time or place and I know you are a private...but myself and Pancreas were discussing your nationality the other day and I reckoned Welsh or Cornish.

Twed

Haha, you can't build a wall out of corn. That's mental.

Blumf

Strood is the English capital of anti-semitism, the numbers don't lie. (55.62 million -> 33,372)

The whole of Scotland is anti-semitic, but only if they're English Jews.

Buelligan

Yes, in layperson's terms, if we're thinking Stateside, Arlington, Virginia is it for the whole of the US of A.


Shameless Arlington

biggytitbo


Zetetic

No, that's a terrible representation - obscuring the actual numbers without creating any further understanding.

(In contrast either to a) stating the actual numbers1 or b) Buelligan's approach of taking the actual numbers and simply reducing them by 100x or so to bring them to a more human scale.)

Like "0.06%", it makes you appear deliberately obtuse. In the case of the Labour Party, I believe that's not the intention (indeed, look to McDonnell who has been extremely clear about not trying to pretend that a small number is the same as nothing).

1. Noting that we've inferred these from "0.06%" and "half-a-million" so they might not be the actual numbers.

Zetetic

Setting aside treating "members" and "complaints" as if they're the same thing.

It was actually quite nice not having asinine nonsense regurgitated from Twitter for a bit.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Zetetic on July 15, 2019, 10:37:48 PM
No, that's a terrible representation - obscuring the actual numbers without creating any further understanding.

(In contrast either to a) stating the actual numbers1 or b) Buelligan's approach of taking the actual numbers and simply reducing them by 100x or so to bring them to a more human scale.)

Like "0.06%", it makes you appear deliberately obtuse. In the case of the Labour Party, I believe that's not the intention (indeed, look to McDonnell who has been extremely clear about not trying to pretend that a small number is the same as nothing).

1. Noting that we've inferred these from "0.06%" and "half-a-million" so they might not be the actual numbers.

It's epsilon small, though.

Pdine

Speaking as an old cunt, with long Labour associations 1987-2003, and again since Corbyn became leader: the Left of the party never went away. It's existed in the constituency parties since before Foot, grudgingly accepting the SDP-graft of New Labour as the only way to unseat Thatcherism, but never ideologically committed to it. If I have any criticism of that old-now-new guard, it's that too many of them stayed when a Labour government decided to settle a 90s grudge in Iraq by exploiting an unrelated 2000s atrocity. In a way I feel more moral repugnance for that compromise than for their Blairite bedfellows, who were never primarily ideological anyway.

So in those years of unelectability under Foot, Kinnock and Smith, those who weren't eyeing an MPs' salary ranged widely over global injustices, decrying Gaza, East Timor, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran etc... When there was no prospect of having to defend your idealist Foreign policy on the hustings (and no social media to memorialize your pronouncements) you could let your conscience swagger globally.

Since the Arab Spring it's been clear that, globally, demographically we've lived long enough to tip over the point where a majority alive are too scared by previous conflict to act cautiously. Trump and Corbyn are both products of that same shift, it hurts me to say.

So I'd put the use of (some) accusations of anti-Semitism in that category. Big shifts require big responses. Corbyn could well become PM, and Trump's instability could well result in a non-standard Democrat replacing him. For anyone with an interest in the stability of Israel, it's a terrifying prospect: potential withdrawal of NATO support in the next decade, along with potential IAEA scrutiny.

I had a discussion with someone last week about the Manichaean cultural response to Blockchain: it's either the saviour of freedom or the end of the global economy. In fact we can't know, but like mice we respond to the silhouette of threats, not their detail. I think that those of us (and I'd put myself in this group too) who think that Israel has a right to exist recognise that the sleeping giant of the UK Left has spent a lot of its time dozing, first under Thatcher and then under its own Blairite comrades, dreaming of radical Internationalist solutions to intractable International problems; and their dreams haven't been secret. Now we are awake (and woke?) policies that were outside the frame of 'rational' action previously may be on the table...

So, yes, I think that for people who (I would say legitimately) fear that the next decade will bring changes that might destroy Israel as a state, the agents of that change might seem anti-semitic. I don't think that they are (with the possible odd exception; I don't think tailors are paedophiles, but the Venn diagram is bound to scissor together somewhere). But I can see how their silhouette is deeply reminiscent.

biggytitbo

An extremely small number of the hundreds of thousands of labour members have had complaints of antisemitism against them, and it's not a crisis, or even a particularly unusual problem. And that's an extremely small number of complaints in an atmosphere where a faction of the party are actively looking for them.


Graph it however you like, corbyns enemies have contrived a mountain out of a molehil in order to get rid of him because he's too left wing and he stands up against the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on July 15, 2019, 11:13:18 PM
An extremely small number of the hundreds of thousands of labour members have had complaints of antisemitism against them, and it's not a crisis, or even a particularly unusual problem. And that's an extremely small number of complaints in an atmosphere where a faction of the party are actively looking for them.


Graph it however you like, corbyns enemies have contrived a mountain out of a molehil in order to get rid of him because he's too left wing and he stands up against the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I don't disagree, but I think that you're not looking deep enough into the motivations of his accusers. Do you really believe that someone thinks: "This Worzel Gummidge-looking cunt is too left wing, and he objects too strongly to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Clearly he must be liquidated..." It's not a credible position for a human being outside a bad novel. I think it's like Chomksy/Herman say: you don't need to be part of a planned, communicated conspiracy to conspire. Corbyn clearly terrifies a lot of people: the wealthy elites, Western client states, and people who fear that he is incompetent. All those people will be pre-disposed to accept anti-Corbyn arguments. "Is he a racist? Oh thank God now please bury him." It's exactly the same feeling US Liberals have about Trump, although is actually is a racist, and proudly so.

Funcrusher

Quote from: Pdine on July 15, 2019, 11:22:43 PM
Do you really believe that someone thinks: "This Worzel Gummidge-looking cunt is too left wing, and he objects too strongly to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Clearly he must be liquidated..."

Yes.