You seem to be a bit mixed-up.
I can see the difference, as I explained.
Most members of the public can see the difference.
Keen defenders of the Israeli government, however, absolutely cannot see the difference, and will and do suggest that any criticism of Israeli government actions on the grounds that it is being âracistâ is itself âracistâ. This isnât a theory, this is well-demonstrated by various accusations being thrown around for a long time. We all know there are some people (many of them not Jewish, in fact the keenest ones are a subset of American Christianity, particularly end-times and Dominionist types), who will defend absolutely any and all actions of the Israeli government, no matter how unpleasant, by any means they have available.
On top of that, youâre ignoring the fact that a lot of Labour party members, and socialist in general, and even some neoliberals, see the act of forming Israeli as colonialism of an extreme form, and colonialism is inherently racist. So can they call it colonialism? By the logic of that part of the IHRA, no, they cannot. Thatâs kind a huge problem if youâre actually a socialist, and actually opposed to colonialism, that you have to make an exception for a nuclear-armed country engaged in a campaign of extremely shitty behaviour to people who are, undeniably (though it is often denied, by extremists) the ânativesâ of the area.
Thatâs very true. Virtually all of Israelâs most extreme modern problems come back to Netanyahu and/or the disastrous fail that is the design of the Knesset.
Such as? You only list one that doesnât work:
No, youâre straightforwardly wrong, because sheâs talking about incidents from the past. Sheâs very specific. Read what she actually said. How could adopting the IHRA now stop incidents from happening in the past? Thatâs doesnât add up.
She said: âUntil he does that, incidents such as his presence at the laying of wreaths at the graves of those responsible for torturing and murdering innocent Jewish Israeli athletes in Munich will continue to emerge.â
These are all incidents from the past. They couldnât âemergeâ if they were new.
So what are the other âmanyâ interpretations? I notice no-one else has attempted to suggest that there are any. To be clear I think sheâs full of shit as usual in suggesting this is some sort of conspiracy (I think itâs much more straightforward than that), but thatâs par for the course with her.
Youâre proving my point here. I never said anything of the sort, and have scoffed at her claims, but you, instead of going with what I actually said, claim Iâm saying thereâs âJewishâ conspiracy (which is complete horseshit - even if they were a conspiracy, about 99% of the people involved would be non-Jewish) to oust Corbyn. Many Jewish leaders openly oppose Corbyn - by definition thatâs not a conspiracy, because itâs in the open. And trawling through everything heâs done in the last few decades in a desperate attempt to paint him as a Hitler 2.0 isnât a conspiracy, itâs pathetic and obvious. For it to be a conspiracy it would need a shadowy group or a mastermind, and secret meetings and so on. Thatâs not whatâs happening. Just various people trawling through stuff trying to find anything that looks bad. Thereâs no masterplan. Thereâs no conspiracy. Just various dudes. The majority of whom I think would be white, nominally Christian, Tories.
