• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Israel-Palestine

What's 'the other way' from being anti-semitic, then?

Can you swing 'too far the other way' from being homophobic or sexist too?
 
prawnking said:
What's 'the other way' from being anti-semitic, then?

Can you swing 'too far the other way' from being homophobic or sexist too?
Click to expand...
You know by this he meant Israel Government appeaser, even if the wording was a bit clunky. Posting in bad faith weakens the discussion
 
You're presuming a lot here, and the casual, dismissive approach to anti-semitism during the discussion isn't something I'm going to ignore.

'You know what he meant' doesn't wash, I want to know what he thinks he meant.

I was 'a bit clunky' about the word Fenian a few weeks back, and I'm of Irish Catholic descent, and I still apologised and explained when other posters were offended.

Fuck the blasé approach to AS on here.

As I posted earlier, a 1,350% increase in hate crimes against Jewish people since the war started, the majority of the forum may be ignorant and indifferent to this, that's your choice, it isn't mine
 
Discussing Starmer's very careful use of language, with him being very mindful of the way elements of the Party have been correctly portrayed over the last few years is a fair discussion. You then choosing to conflate that with anti semitic attacks is just trying to score cheap Internet points and is just weird. You are doing exactly what Williamson and his ilk do, just from the opposite perspective
 
Tony Towner said:
Discussing Starmer's very careful use of language, with him being very mindful of the way elements of the Party have been correctly portrayed over the last few years is a fair discussion. You then choosing to conflate that with anti semitic attacks is just trying to score cheap Internet points and is just weird. You are doing exactly what Williamson and his ilk do, just from the opposite perspective
Click to expand...

Erm... The discussion wasn't about Starmer's use of language, it was originated by a clip of Steve Reed being interviewed and asserting Israel's right to self-defence under international law (which is correct), and how the UK would have the same right, if attacked in a similar scenario.

And look at who posted that clip FFS, hardly an impartial party looking for a balanced discussion 😅
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Its probably a simplistic comparison, but we have been in this position to a degree haven't we?

The IRA repeatedly attacked Britain, we didn't carpet bomb vast swathes of Ireland by way of defence?
Click to expand...
The IRA weren't the government of the day in Ireland and they didn't want the extermination of the British.

We did send in the army so whilst not carpet bombing we weren't all sweetness and light.

But you are right in that it is simplistic and not really a credible comparison.
 
prawnking said:
Erm... The discussion wasn't about Starmer's use of language, it was originated by a clip of Steve Reed being interviewed and asserting Israel's right to self-defence under international law (which is correct), and how the UK would have the same right, if attacked in a similar scenario.

And look at who posted that clip FFS, hardly an impartial party looking for a balanced discussion 😅
Click to expand...
Do you think what Israel are doing is proportionate and in self defence?
 
Johnny75 said:
Do you think what Israel are doing is proportionate and in self defence?
Click to expand...

Well, legally it is, as confirmed the other day in the House of Lords by Lord Guglielmo Verdirame KC, professor and barrister in public international law:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717617740561678605

An interesting speech. Of course I'd rather there was a ceasefire, but a lot of that would seem to benefit Hamas, and would mean essentially they get to commit an atrocity like 7th Oct and get away with it. The pre-requisite of a ceasefire and any chance at a peaceful resolution should be the return of all hostages, imo
 
Alan said:
I don’t need some thinktank to define it for me.
Click to expand...

Not even the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (which 31 governments, including our own in the UK, are members of)? 😅

I guess all those pesky Jews around the world don't know as much about it as you.

Interesting how in most other cases of discrimination, liberal people would listen to those affected (black people, women, LGBTQ) and gracefully accept their perspective
 
Show me actual anti-Semitism in this thread. You don’t get the Hitler quote freebie as we already know I don’t see it as anti-Semitic to call out Netanyahu’s fascist cuntery.

We haven’t even gestured at being anti-Semitic here, and as you eagerly point out, I’m pretty sensitive to once/twice-removed prejudice.
 
prawnking said:
Well, legally it is, as confirmed the other day in the House of Lords by Lord Guglielmo Verdirame KC, professor and barrister in public international law:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717617740561678605

An interesting speech. Of course I'd rather there was a ceasefire, but a lot of that would seem to benefit Hamas, and would mean essentially they get to commit an atrocity like 7th Oct and get away with it. The pre-requisite of a ceasefire and any chance at a peaceful resolution should be the return of all hostages, imo
Click to expand...
Oh legally I get they're acting within international law it was more your opinion.

I'm not sure on a ceasefire, but I think the bombing of civilian targets needs to stop, that is what the Russians did in Ukraine to international outage. The ground offensive could be worse for civilians currently being held as human shields by the terrorists of Hamas.
 
Their response specifically to 7 October is within international law.

Their actions since 1967 are in my opinion pushing the boundaries of the Geneva convention.

And we may not have carpet bombed in Ireland but we did inter thousands without trial.
 
True, but orator is a recognised authority in international law rather than the man on the Clapham omnibus
 
I would have to read the case it originated in to get the bus number. My law degree was a long time ago!
 
prawnking said:
What's 'the other way' from being anti-semitic, then?

Can you swing 'too far the other way' from being homophobic or sexist too?
Click to expand...
That maybe labour aren't calling for a ceasefire for fear of being seen as antisemitic and don't want to be seen as critical of Israel. Given the history of the party I think it's a reasonable discussion point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top