Jeremy Corbyn

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Droid, you've posted garbage by Fisk which has no purpose but to obfuscate the truth and distract attention from the paramount culpability of the regime (with the usual 'just asking questions' disclaimer), played the beancounter with kilodeaths regarding a conflict in which one side has *always* been the main aggressor and has the blood of well over 90% of the civilian dead on its hands, and then had the gall to call the piece quoted by Dan 'repulsive' because it calls out the hypocrisy of the Israel-fixation you subscribe to.

Your high horse in non-existent.
 
Last edited:

droid

Well-known member
With all due respect Tea, youve shown yourself time and again to be deeply dishonest, ignorant & nasty in your arguments, consistently misrepresentative, and to be frank, congenitally incapable of understanding nuance, subtlety, or indeed, basic English.

Back on the ignore list.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Droid: I wouldn't endorse everything Sam says, there - he's very hyperbolic. But it's an interesting take, and one born out of - to me - a very understandable anger. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that everyone involved in advocacy for Palestinians is "phoney" but here is a sense that Syrian deaths don't count for many on the Left and in these circles. The best example I can think of Vanessa Beeley, who has progressed from the Palestinian cause to full time smearer of war zone first responders and no. 1 Assad fan girl (meeting him was "the proudest moment of her life"). See also Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and others.

In the meantime, the state of this: https://www.theredroar.com/2018/05/stroud-greens-corbynites-stand-up-for-assad/
 

droid

Well-known member
Blumenthal is relentlessly skeptical of Western narratives, and with good cause. He has also done a lot to expose the outright racism and brutality of Israeli society and suffered for it. Personally I find his perspective on Syria & Russia extremely problematic, but that doesn't necessarily negate the good work he's done in other areas.

The point Im trying to make is that it is entirely possible to 'expose' the hypocrisy in the position of any activist. There is always a better cause out there. Air pollution kills 9.5 million people a year and climate change is on course to cause humanitarian disasters which will make the Holocaust look like a footnote. Does that make you a hypocrite for focussing on Syria when there are far greater problems in the world?

It's easy to spin purity tests for activism, but I would suggest that all it really achieves is the alienation of potential supporters.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I could at least respect his honesty if he said "It's too late, Russia is heavily involved now, we can't risk a direct confrontation which could rapidly escalate, sucks for all the non-combatants caught up in it but there you go". I mean, that would make some sort of sense even if it stopped short of condemning Russia's deliberate targeting of civilians, which he's never going to do in a million years beyond meaningless noises about "violence on all sides".

But instead he keeps promoting the false idea that a "diplomatic solution" exists, when it very obviously doesn't. Any attempt at a UN resolution would be immediately vetoed by Russia, and even if by some miracle one were to be passed, Assad would obviously ignore it in the absence of any serious military presence to make him comply. That is where the cynicism comes in.

I still think Corbyn is a true believer in the necessity and justification of Russian power as a counterbalance to American power in the world.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
I could at least respect his honesty if he said "It's too late, Russia is heavily involved now, we can't risk a direct confrontation which could rapidly escalate, sucks for all the non-combatants caught up in it but there you go". I mean, that would make some sort of sense even if it stopped short of condemning Russia's deliberate targeting of civilians, which he's never going to do in a million years beyond meaningless noises about "violence on all sides".

But instead he keeps promoting the false idea that a "diplomatic solution" exists, when it very obviously doesn't. Any attempt at a UN resolution would be immediately vetoed by Russia, and even if by some miracle one were to be passed, Assad would obviously ignore it in the absence of any serious military presence to make him comply. That is where the cynicism comes in.

I still think Corbyn is a true believer in the necessity and justification of Russian power as a counterbalance to American power in the world.

Yeah, I agree. There's a few people I read who regularly write approvingly about "the emergence of a multi-polar world".
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
A true believer can't be cynical. The cynical ones are the lapsed believers, though.

His recent post about Israel is another case in point. I don't doubt that he's genuinely horrified by this latest atrocity - who couldn't be? - but the cynicism is there in the vague call for "action" against Israel. What sort of "action", and by whom, does he have in mind? (I mean, how many UN resolutions has Israel ignored now? 65?) He's not an idiot, he knows full well that meaningful consequences for this sort of thing are impossible while Israel enjoys the unique patronage and favouritism of the USA, just as the Syrian regime is protected by Russia from any substantial punishment by Western militaries.

But, again, it plays well to the crowd.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
@Tea : I think cynicism would be better applied to those who don't call out the terrorism of the Israeli government, no?

The main problem I have with criticisms of Corbyn is that they lapse into 'let's just criticise everything he does' very quickly. Play the ball, for goodness' sakes.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
His stance on Gaza or Israel won't get him majorities anyways. Meaningful domestic politics will, maybe.

Well, I'm not sure about that. If it was about actual domestic policy, I think he'd have won a while ago. As long as that policy can be misrepresented (or obfuscated through scandal) by a ruling-class-funded media terrified of any actual reversal of the excesses of corporatism/neoliberalism (or whatever we call the dominant ideology - sure as hell ain't pure capitalism), then it won't matter.

While I support many of the criticisms of Corbyn over Syria (and his lamentable failure to update his view of foreign policy), it's clear that basic human dignity at home or abroad can never be addressed by any party supporting that dominant ideology.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
@Tea : I think cynicism would be better applied to those who don't call out the terrorism of the Israeli government, no?

What Israel has done, and has been doing for decades, is brutal and should be condemned - that's not up for question. The problem is the extreme selectivity of many people's outrage. Israel is hardly the only state in the world that routinely brutalizes people, in fact it's by a long way not the most violent and oppressive state in the Middle East or even (since 2011) the biggest killer of Palestinians. But from the way a lot of Western leftists carry on, you'd think Israel was the world's unique acme of evil.

I have in the past had some sympathy with the point droid made on the last page, namely that Israel is a democracy and an ally of most of the major Western powers, most importantly the USA, so it makes sense to concentrate criticism on Israel rather than on totalitarian states that are for the most part pariahs as far as the West is concerned (e.g. Syria, Iran, Saddam-era Iraq etc.). But I'm not sure this really makes sense. Netanyahu doesn't give any more of a shit about some protesters in London than Assad and Putin do about the Syrian anti-regime activists Dan knows, and neither does Trump. They might be a minor irritation to Theresa May, but they're hardly going to persuade her to break with the USA and enact any kind of serious sanctions on Israel. In fact I see she's gone as far as to call for an "independent inquiry" and asked Israel to "exercise restraint" - which will surely bother the Israeli government about as much as Corbyn's "violence on both sides" warblings bother Assad.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
What *might* make some difference in Syria would be a serious economic punishment of Russia, which has vast amounts of capital invested in London. But it's inconceivable that the government would do anything that could have such severe consequence for so many wealthy people.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Quite, but this is another inconceivable policy, by your own admission - so what's the difference? (Same goes for any economic punishment of America as punishment for Trump's lunacy. I'm pretty sure that America has vast amounts of capital invested in the UK too. But inconceivable to do anything with that.)

Agree very much with the point about selectivity of outrage, and this applies to the vast majority of what has been levelled against Corbyn recently. The most amazing of which were the anti-Semitism allegations - wait a minute, Tories are telling other people what racism is? etc

Regarding outrage over the democratically-elected Israeli government and its actions - part of it is because it is allowed to transgress and ignore world opinion, in a way that many other governments are not. It's partly a backlash against terribly selective reporting by the mainstream media and terribly selective criticism by the UK government. e.g. 58 Palestinians massacred and Theresa May says it is 'deeply troubling'.
 

droid

Well-known member
Israel is an integrated part of the world economy. They participate in global trade, receive investment from multinationals, their academics and industry attend conferences & exchange information, they have cultural & political links and global access is vital for their economy, they import and export, their citizens move relatively freely, they sell and buy billions in arms every year. In fact they are extremely dependent on extra-regional trade.

In that sense there are non-violent actions that would deeply affect Israel. Western sanctions, embargoes, boycotts & divestment have the potential to do serious damage to the Israeli economy without a shot being fired, which is why BDS is a criminal offence in Israel and they have been waging a Hasbara offensive against the movement since it was conceived.

There are effective actions that could be taken without significant cost, and as its clear that Israel will not change its behaviour and that the US has no interest in changing its behaviour then the onus is on Europe and the rest of the world to take action.

Israel can win as many wars as they like but they can lose only once, and if they continue to act without restraint then one day there will be serious consequences.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Agree very much with the point about selectivity of outrage, and this applies to the vast majority of what has been levelled against Corbyn recently. The most amazing of which were the anti-Semitism allegations - wait a minute, Tories are telling other people what racism is? etc

At the risk of rehashing this again, the fact that the Tories are making political capital out of Labour's anti-Semitism problems obviously doesn't make the problem itself go away (Labour are, after all, giving the Tories a kicking over the Windrush immigrants scandal, as they should be!), and it's the anti-Semitism claims that aren't from Tories - that are in some cases coming from long-established Labour voters and even party members - that we should be listening to.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
The Windrush scandal is to do with racist government policy. Very different.

Yes, all instances of racism should be investigated. All instances of racism are not investigated. Selective outrage again. It's not about defending Labour or Corbyn, who I don't think have handled the situation well at all; it's about the agenda being totally set by a rabid right-wing media, followed by lots of centrists who want Corbyn gone for reasons entirely unconnected with combating anti-Semitism.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The Windrush scandal is to do with racist government policy. Very different.

Well Labour doesn't have much of an opportunity to be making government policy at the moment, does it?

Yes, all instances of racism should be investigated. All instances of racism are not investigated. Selective outrage again. It's not about defending Labour or Corbyn, who I don't think have handled the situation well at all; it's about the agenda being totally set by a rabid right-wing media, followed by lots of centrists who want Corbyn gone for reasons entirely unconnected with combating anti-Semitism.

Well the Tory-leaning nature of most of the UK's national newspapers is unfortunately a fact of life that, for now, we must live with. For all that, a fact doesn't stop being a fact if it's articulated by a Tory MP or printed in the Telegraph, and Labour is never going to fix this problem for as long as the default response from many on the left is a sentence that starts "But the Tories...!" or "But the right-wing media...!". It's also an error to ignore all the words that have been written or spoken about the issue by people with good leftist credentials.

And I think your line about "lots of centrists who want Corbyn gone for reasons entirely unconnected with combating anti-Semitism" is mistaken, too. Many aspects of what for want of a better word might as well be called 'Corbynism' are absolutely of a piece with anti-Semitism: a general geopolitical isolationism (anti-EU, anti-NATO), a favourable view of Russia, a position of inflexible and absolute moralism regarding Israel/Palestine contrasted to a weirdly woolly relativism vis-a-vis Syria (and an outright pro-Russia stance on Ukraine/Crimea) and an unfortunately very conspiratorial sort of populist anti-capitalism. In a sense he's a victim of his own success because many of these traits are far more strongly displayed by a lot of his supporters than they are even by The Absolute Boy himself.

I mean, Corbyn has actually recently issued condemnations of anti-Semitism in particular in the party (i.e. not just the same old "all racism is bad" line), and even the Momentum leadership has admitted anti-Semitism is a widespread problem in Labour and that more needs to be done to tackle it. But I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a lot of his more ardent fans suspect they've been forced to do this because of pressure from, you know, Them.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
My point: that Labour policy is not anti-Semitic. Conservative policy is racist; it is integral to the party at all levels.

Second paragraph makes zero sense. You're now saying selective outrage is completely OK as long as it's focused on Corbyn, apparently? This morning you hated selective outrage.

Third para - have you followed UK politics at all since 2015? I'm blatantly not mistaken. The idea that the whole scandal comes from actual concerns about racism and concerns for the well-being of Jewish people (that mysteriously previously were nowhere to be seen) is beyond laughable. The rest of your paragraph seems to be an unhinged conspiracy theory, and I wish you luck with finishing it.

Well Labour doesn't have much of an opportunity to be making government policy at the moment, does it?

Well the Tory-leaning nature of most of the UK's national newspapers is unfortunately a fact of life that, for now, we must live with. For all that, a fact doesn't stop being a fact if it's articulated by a Tory MP or printed in the Telegraph, and Labour is never going to fix this problem for as long as the default response from many on the left is a sentence that starts "But the Tories...!" or "But the right-wing media...!". It's also an error to ignore all the words that have been written or spoken about the issue by people with good leftist credentials.

And I think your line about "lots of centrists who want Corbyn gone for reasons entirely unconnected with combating anti-Semitism" is mistaken, too. Many aspects of what for want of a better word might as well be called 'Corbynism' are absolutely of a piece with anti-Semitism: a general geopolitical isolationism (anti-EU, anti-NATO), a favourable view of Russia, a position of inflexible and absolute moralism regarding Israel/Palestine contrasted to a weirdly woolly relativism vis-a-vis Syria (and an outright pro-Russia stance on Ukraine/Crimea) and an unfortunately very conspiratorial sort of populist anti-capitalism. In a sense he's a victim of his own success because many of these traits are far more strongly displayed by a lot of his supporters than they are even by The Absolute Boy himself.

I mean, Corbyn has actually recently issued condemnations of anti-Semitism in particular in the party (i.e. not just the same old "all racism is bad" line), and even the Momentum leadership has admitted anti-Semitism is a widespread problem in Labour and that more needs to be done to tackle it. But I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a lot of his more ardent fans suspect they've been forced to do this because of pressure from, you know, Them.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think some Jewish people are concerned about the wellbeing of Jewish people. Maybe some of them might be worth listening to about anti-Semitism. I dunno, just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Top