Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Corbyn turns down invitation from Holocaust Museum

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malebo55)
    uh oh

    be prepared to be labelled many bad things, it is OP's favourite tactic
    I literally have no idea who you are. I guess you remember me though
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zetamcfc)
    AlexanderHam Why is this really such an issue?
    Why is it a problem when Corbyn, who already has issues with Jewish people, turns down an invitation he easily could have found time for, and which would go some way to beginning to repair that breach and put some trust in the relationship?

    I don't know, no obvious reason I can see :rolleyes: Do you think it's okay that Corbyn praised and befriended an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be exterminated? If you don't have a problem with that, then I can totally understand why you wouldn't want Corbyn to go to the Holocaust Museum
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why is it a problem when Corbyn, who already has issues with Jewish people, turns down an invitation he easily could have found time for, and which would go some way to beginning to repair that breach and put some trust in the relationship?
    This is a very fair point to which there is no easy answer for Corbyn.

    I don't know, no obvious reason I can see :rolleyes: Do you think it's okay that Corbyn praised and befriended an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be exterminated?
    This is just snide hyperbole - yes he did call them friends, yes that was ridiculous, but he has also distanced himself from that. I guess it's the accumulation of many dubious actions that make some people think he's just a downright anti-Semite which has started this witch-hunt against him to try and discredit him at any possible opportunity (hence your 11 recent threads about Corbyn).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why is it a problem when Corbyn, who already has issues with Jewish people, turns down an invitation he easily could have found time for, and which would go some way to beginning to repair that breach and put some trust in the relationship?

    I don't know, no obvious reason I can see :rolleyes: Do you think it's okay that Corbyn praised and befriended an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be exterminated? If you don't have a problem with that, then I can totally understand why you wouldn't want Corbyn to go to the Holocaust Museum
    Ah. So you, as a Jew do not like him because he doesn't like the Jewish state because of the killing Palestinians, right?

    I'm not sure he has issues with Jewish people on the whole, merely issues with certain people in the Israeli government who happen to be Jewish. However it would be interesting if you found a source clearly indicating that he was a vehement anti-Semite who loathed and hated Jews. But I'm not sure is such a thing actually exists.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Raed Salah's UK ban: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13969105

    And Corbyn's opinion of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqt910HbybM

    Ibrahim Hewitt who sounds like a pleasant enough chap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Hewitt#Controversy

    And Corbyn's opinion of him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-g5jmXLRUM

    Stephen Sizer banned from social media by the church: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ddle-East.html

    And Corbyn's defence of him: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...-a2414491.html

    But hey it's all just a smear campaign I suppose. He has some dodgy friends to put it mildly.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's close to retirement, let him enjoy his jam making
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    There's isn't a witch hunt going on here at all, none of this is a secret if people can be bothered to look.
    Members of the cult believe it's a "smear" to make reference to things Corbyn actually said and did.

    It reminds me of that old joke about the political candidate saying to his opponent, "If you stop telling lies about me I'll stop telling the truth about you"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    "meh, meh, conspiracy"

    "meh, meh, establishment"

    There's isn't a witch hunt going on here at all, none of this is a secret if people can be bothered to look.
    But the mad thing about it is there are anti-Israel lobbyists who are not openly-antisemitic holocaust deniers for him to latch onto like he has done this lot. So he could have easily pushed his anti-Israel agenda without associating with these people. Yet he went with them anyway. You can't defend that and brush it under the carpet as "smears".

    Do you think the Corbyn crowd would see a Tory MP constantly defend, praise, donate to, host events with, attend AGMs for and brown nose Neo-Nazis on the basis that Nazis are against homophobia (the Nazis were) ans dismiss it as a "smear"? Of bloody course they wouldn't. Corbyn has consistently done all of the above with holocaust deniers who have openly stated they hate Jews and blame all the world's problems on them (actually Jews, not Israel or "Zionists" before anyone says it). Again, Corbyn didn't even need to do any of this to lobby against Israel. But he did anyway. Over and over and over again for years. For people to brush it off and defend this behavior is laughable and given their tendency to promote him as this "good" and "honest" guy it shows a level of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy that has made their movement such a joke.

    These people act like the only way you can't like Corbyn is da media. Yeah, but only if you have no problem with endorsing holocaust denial and racism while screaming about racism when it's against minority groups your clique pretend to care about. He's a fraud and his supporters are zombies, the vast majority of them not even knowing who he was before two years ago. Notice how most people who did know about him before then - ie his colleagues in Labour - can't get rid of him fast enough. But I suppose people who can't even be bothered to read about his three decades-long career in Parliament before anointing him The Chosen One and who only joined the Labour Party ten minutes ago (if at all) know better, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why Corbyn should visit a country which he dislikes and which dislikes him? I don't see any political reason.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Funny old world isn't it. The Tories end up looking like the nasty party and Labour end up looking like the Nazi party.👍😊
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malebo55)
    This is just snide hyperbole - yes he did call them friends, yes that was ridiculous, but he has also distanced himself from that. I guess it's the accumulation of many dubious actions that make some people think he's just a downright anti-Semite
    He didn't just call them "friends" and "honoured guests", he *praised* their quote "dedication to peace and social justice".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zetamcfc)
    Ah. So you, as a Jew
    Ahh, it didn't take you long Adolf. By the way, I'm not Jewish. Interesting that you think only a Jewish person could care about people calling for all Jews worldwide to be killed.

    do not like him because he doesn't like the Jewish state because of the killing Palestinians, right?
    I don't like him because he supports and defends an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed. From what you've said, you think that's absolutely okay.

    Anyway, it's my policy not to interact with Nazis. **** off now. Added to my ignore list
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Ahh, it didn't take you long Adolf. By the way, I'm not Jewish. Interesting that you think only a Jewish person could care about people calling for all Jews worldwide to be killed.



    I don't like him because he supports and defends an organisation that called for all Jews worldwide to be killed. From what you've said, you think that's absolutely okay.

    Anyway, it's my policy not to interact with Nazis. **** off now. Added to my ignore list
    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: This guy.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The question is why is it such a big deal to not attend? If someone asked me to visit the Holocaust museum, maybe I don't want to go, maybe I couldn't be arsed, or the travel is too long or I have other plans. Declining doesn't make him an anti-semite.

    Tbf, from a purely PR point of view, I'd probably have put something in to quell the anti-semitism surrounding him (unfairly IMO) but declining isn't a big deal.

    Why on earth must judaism and Israel be the main thing in Corbyns head, Junior Doctors going on strike, unions up in arms, we're still negotiating the details of Brexit, he's got an incomplete cabinet and he's fighting to stay in his democratic position as leader of Labour (despite the incredible party purging) and YET, you think he should be talking about Judaism.

    Come on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    The question is why is it such a big deal to not attend?
    Because he has a problem with Jews. If you befriend and support an organisation that calls for all Jews on earth to be killed, you have a problem. He is clearly disinclined to do anything to do with that.

    Why on earth must judaism and Israel be the main thing in Corbyns head
    They didn't ask him to bring a sleeping bag and go into permanent residence at the Museum. They simply invited him to visit. He gave a completely bogus and dishonest answer, claiming he has no time when he is well-known to have a very poor work ethic and doesn't spend much time in the office, that he has gone on repeated holidays over the last 12 months, so clearly he does have the time.

    Furthermore Israel and Judaism has been the main thing on Corbyn's mind for the last 30 years. When I did a word search on his constituency website earlier this year, there were 149 hits for Israel and 140 for Islington. Here is the evidence;

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYW0uQxWQAAyyv3.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYW0uQbWwAQg4O1.jpg

    Of course now they have scrubbed the website of pretty much all content so nothing is left which could be used against him (which, in fairness, would be a considerable amount given pretty much everything he says is completely idiotic and be used against him)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You're confused. That charter is the current Hamas charter, it has never been superceded and in fact as recently as a few years ago they expressly refused to repeal that clause from it.
    You've simply repeated your previous post. Again, Hamas does not have a 'current charter'. The 1988 Charter has never officially been given binding status. There were discussions within Hamas in the 1990s about the prospect of amending the charter so it could be adopted as a formal binding manifesto. This course of action was rejected, and Hamas' formal positions moved on, for example in the form of electoral manifestos.

    And yet hard left nuts regularly point to the fact that Jews only owned 10% or something thereabouts of the land in Palestine/Israel before 1948 to justify the Jews getting nothing. Just holding you to your own standard
    It was you who introduced this standard into this debate, not me.

    Also, how/where exactly have I justified "the Jews getting nothing", bearing in mind you're supposedly contrasting this to mcneil98's characterisation of Zionism as the idea of Israel 'belonging' to the Jewish people collectively (which was where this point initially came from)?

    This conspiracy theory has been completely debunked.
    What 'conspiracy theory'? Are you saying it isn't a real document? Or simply that its stats are incorrect (which would be an argument I've not seen before, but hardly a 'conspiracy theory')?

    So sad for Egypt then that their own incompetence and belligerence led to them getting hit so hard.
    So you're not actually disputing the point then? Good.

    It's unfortunate that you're so ignorant on this subject. You can actually go and read the Israeli cabinet papers, like I have, and then you will be in a better position to understand a subject you clearly do not. Anyone who does read the account of the diplomatic efforts by Eban and Harman, of the cabinet meetings and the intelligence assessments can see very clearly just how grave the Israeli government perceived the situation to be. The Israelis never would have mobilised its reserves which in a such small country with universal military service means the economy basically shutting down (which it did from mid-May), if they thought there was no danger.

    In fact, we now know that Nasser had planned a limited attack on Eilat on the 27th of May, called Operation Asad, and was warned off it by Kosygin. Levi Eshkol was indecisive and circumspect about attacking first, and he'd always favoured diplomacy. Anyone who has read anything about the run up to the war will know how hard Eshkol and Eban tried to find a diplomatic solution, which the Egyptians completely spurned. The Israeli generals said 'If we attack first we can definitely win, but we have to go now; we have to go first, and we have to be mobilised when we do it, and we can't wait until the Egyptians have fully fortified their forces in the Sinai into defensive positions'. The reason was that the Israelis' relative deficiency in manpower meant they would only get one shot at a first attack, not two or three, and if that attack failed they would be wide open. On the other hand, they couldn't win a defensive war either, the only way to overcome Egypt and Syria's massive advantage in manpower, tanks and aircraft was a first strike. In other words, they were in an impossible situation which Nasser had manoeuvred them into, which they didn't seek but which they had to deal with.

    By the end of May Israel was already experiencing shortages of oil and essential foodstuffs because of the blockade. Israeli hospitals were told in late May, before the decision to go, to prepare for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, and local authorities started digging mass graves. Anyone who bothers to go and read the cabinet papers can see the Israeli government's deliberations and approach was completely reactive and in response to the situation in which they found themselves, a situation they didn't want to be in. And anyone who does read those papers can see that the Israeli cabinet was in a state of high neurosis, with people shouting at each other and banging the table, others (like Moshe Shapira) in tears, and many in the country terrified by the repeated statements (by late May, being made every day) by Arab leaders that now was the time to wipe out Israel and fix the "stain of 1948", statements like these;
    If you say you've been to the archives, I'll believe you, but there's nothing here which hasn't simply been said in secondary sources.

    Well, there is, in a couple of places, but these appear to be your errors rather than new information:
    - Nasser did not plan Asad (or Dawn or Fajr as it's more commonly known in some accounts - technically Asad was a previous plan, replaced by Dawn, but they're similar and often just lumped together), General Amer did. Nasser's involvement was peripheral at best, non-existent at worst. Indeed, it's possible that Nasser didn't even know about the plan (though he did have a general idea that many of his generals wanted to strike first) until a meeting on 25 May, in which he told Amer to abort the plan and, according to some evidence, was furious with him. Though it's possible that Amer dragged his feet about carrying out this order. But even if Nasser had supported, or at least tactictly accepted, the offensive plan right up to the morning of 27 May when he was warned by the Soviet ambassador, it's hard to see how this supports the idea that Egypt was on the brink of attacking Israel on or shortly after 5 June, nine days later.
    - If you have other evidence I'm happy to consider it, but I can't find any evidence of the Moshe Shapira crying story. I think you may have your Shapiras mixed up with his namesake Ya'akov Shimshon Shapira, who did break into tears in a meeting during the crisis - though not at a cabinet meeting, but a private meeting with Eshkol in the latter's office, which General Ezer Weizman burst into. Though the question of which Shapira it was and where exactly he did it is hardly a crucial one.

    Now, to the argument itself. To clarify, I'm not advocating the radical view propounded by some of the Arab states that Israel was always intent on a war of expansion and the defence story was just a fraudulent cover. While, once the war had begun, the acquisition of territory evolved as an aim, it was not a pre-existing motive (or at least, not a significant one). I think the arguments about 'defence' and 'security' from Israeli political and military leaders were sincere. What I would say, however, is that their notions of 'defence' and 'security' were considerably broader than their legal rights. The military top brass in particular have often conceptualised 'defence' along the lines of the 'Iron Wall' thesis advanced by Avi Shlaim, as fundamentally including things like a continual military advantage over the Arab states, and a constant image of strength and deterrence, and thus saw Nasser's attempts to chip away at these as an existential threat.

    The claim that Egypt 'completely spurned' a diplomatic solution is simply untrue. In addition to his previously mentioned willingness to allow the ICJ to arbitrate, he also:
    - was willing to revive EIMAC, which had fallen apart in the mid-1950s (Israel rejected these suggestions);
    - agreed to U Thant's proposal for a two-week moratorium on Tiran, and the dispatching of a UN envoy to mediate (Israel rejected both aspects of this proposal);
    - agreed to send his Vice President Zakaria Mohieddin to Washington for negotiations - while not certain of success, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk said he believed a negotiated solution through this was definitely possible. Israel, however, launched its attack two days before Mohieddin was due to arrive.

    And far from believing that Israel could not win if Egypt attacked first, various sources suggest quite the opposite. US intelligence estimated that Israel would easily win even if Egypt struck first, though it would of course take slightly more time and casualties than if Israel struck first. Yigal Allon declared that he had "total faith in the IDF's ability to beat the Egyptians"; Uzi Narkiss said of the Arab armies that "one pin will burst them"; Ariel Sharon said that "The army is ready as never before to repel an Egyptian attack [and]... to wipe out the Egyptian army." Mossad chief Meir Amit declared "If [Nasser] strikes first, he's finished."

    Even those senior IDF figures who claimed at the time that Israel would only win if it struck first, like Mattiyahu Peled and Ezer Weizman, later admitted that they had been bluffing to try to convince the waverers in the government into action; Weizmann conceded that "there was no threat of destruction" and that Egypt would have "suffered a complete defeat" even if it did start the war. Peled was even more clear-cut:

    "To pretend that the Egyptian force concentrated on our border were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Zahal."


    It's very clear from the papers that the intelligence advice to the cabinet after May 22nd was that Nasser was willing to go into a general conflagration and perhaps even willing to start one himself
    Several examples contradict this. The US intelligence report of 26 May, which was passed on to Israel, concluded that Egypt did not intend to attack. The IDF's intelligence chief Aharon Yariv described the Egyptian troops in Sinai as in "total chaos" in late May, and estimated it would be 2-3 weeks before they could be in a position to launch an attack (assuming they wanted to). Meir Amit said after the war that "Egypt was not ready for a war; and Nasser did not want a war".

    As well as the later explicit admissions by Eban and Begin, among others, that Nasser did not want war.

    and that even if he didn't Israel was in an impossible position because of the blockade and the fact they couldn't stay mobilised forever, but demobilising might invite an attack.
    Possibly, but in the absence of any specific information indicating that Egypt was in some way waiting for Israel to demobilise before launching an attack, then all there is to go on here is a situational argument - that the crisis had pushed Nasser into a corner, and that the pressures on him would have effectively required him to go on the offensive if he got the opportunity due to Israel demobilising. I'm not entirely convinced by this (it could be argued that an Israeli backdown would have given Nasser the PR fait accompli victory he wanted), but let's accept it for the sake of argument. This would only really hold if you were also arguing that Israel bore no responsibility at all (or at least, considerably less than Egypt) for the accentuation of the crisis and tensions; the fact that in the lead-up to the war, both Dayan and Ben-Gurion heavily laid into Rabin for what they perceived as his contribution to the rising tensions, would seem to disconfirm this. You could argue that relative willingness to discuss a diplomatic solution would affect who is more responsible, but I've already discussed this point above.

    That a military blockade is an act of war is not disputed by any serious or knowledgeable person.
    The issue was not military blockade, but Israel's right of passage through the Straits. Israel maintained it was an international waterway which they had a right to free passage through, while Egypt maintained that it was a territorial waterway which they held certain rights over. There were admissions both Thant at the time and Hammarskjold during the Suez Crisis, among others, that the legal status of the Straits was unclear. Again, I would note that it was Egypt who offered to let the ICJ decide the case, and Israel that rejected it. It should also be noted that this was a two-part question - i) was the closure illegal, and ii) if so, did that illegality legitimise a full-scale attack by Israel on Egypt?

    Israel was pretty much alone in a Yes-Yes position. Even the US only held a Yes-No position - the Eisenhower administration had been relatively clear in 1956 that even though Egypt's Tiran closure had been illegal, that did not legitimise the Israeli attack, which they openly considered an act of aggression.

    And in any case, any country is entitled to identify whatever it likes as a casus belli.
    It can identify whatever it likes, that doesn't give it any legal auhority or weight. If Russia had declared that they'd regard the overthrow of Yanukovych as a casus belli, it wouldn't have made the invasion of Crimea any less illegal.

    Also, just a final remark, the various instances of fallacy of opposition in your post are petty and well below a serious level of debate, for the sake of which it would be appreciated if you stop. Normally I don't bother commenting on that kind of thing, but it's been particularly noticeable here. To clarify, what I mean by this is:
    - Assertion or implication that a claim or argument you object to must have come from [insert a fringe, extreme unreliable/noncredible source (or at least one you regard as such)]. If you actually, sincerely, want to know the source(s) for a particular claim, either because you're not sure of its reliability, or want to check it more fully, you can ask for it.
    - Assertion that anyone who is unbiased/serious/fully informed/etc must inevitably essentially agree with your opinion, and that any substantial disagreement must indicate ignorance of the topic and or intense bias to the point of non-credibility. There are many accounts within the historiographical literature which do indeed disagree with you. There are those which more or less agree with you as well - that's historical debate for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He's got things on, ini.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: September 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.