Naz Shah suspended from Parliament for anti Jewish rants.

[MikeFrank]

The council elections, if Labour bombs, may be explained away by this issue. I don't think it will have a much of an effect. Labour will bomb because they are becoming a protest party. I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP overtake them in the next ten years to become the second party.

 

UKIP are gaining some respectably whereby they were constantly rubbished by the other parties and the media. Funnily enough other parties are beginning to accept many of their policies as what the electorate want.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2016 at 10:03 ----------

 

As for the Israel issue most ordinary people don't care. Its a minor territory dispute on the other side of the world.

[unbeliever]

As for the Israel issue most ordinary people don't care. Its a minor territory dispute on the other side of the world.

 

Talk to some proper lefties.

A lot of them will assert with great confidence the myth that the Israel/Palestine issue is the sole or primary reason for the conflict between the west and the muslim world.

[El Cid]

Talk to some proper lefties.

A lot of them will assert with great confidence the myth that the Israel/Palestine issue is the sole or primary reason for the conflict between the west and the muslim world.

 

The rich G8 nations are the countries that are responsible for the state of the globe, you can be positive or negative about that.

The rich G8 influence peace and war; it would be ridiculous to say that the poor countries had the most influence.

[unbeliever]

The rich G8 nations are the countries that are responsible for the state of the globe, you can be positive or negative about that.

The rich G8 influence peace and war; it would be ridiculous to say that the poor countries had the most influence.

 

I have no idea what this is supposed to tell us. Other than that you are distrustful of the rich.

[Margarita Ma]

Actually I'm debating the point of this thread which is that Naz Shah got suspended (not expelled) from the Labour Party for anti-semitic tweets. This was followed up by Ken Livingstone getting suspended (not expelled) from the Labour Party for supporting her position. I'm not particularly interested in you twisted history lesson on behalf of the Anti-Semitic Party. I'm interested in the anti-semites in the Labour Party and what they are doing about them. It seems there are a few on here who clearly think the anti-semites are correct and are ranting about anything other than the suspensions.

 

Do I think it will have any effect on the forthcoming election? Well you clearly do. Which is why you want to talk about anything other than that.

 

I have presented fact. and came to a conclusion that the events that took place did so because it was advantageous both of the parties engaged in the agreement. Neither side comes out of that particular wash squeaky clean. there was not much of a choice involved for the Jews in the matter except get out if you can or arm yourselves and have a civil war. Not much of a choice at all when you are outnumbered 100 to 1. That does not change the facts Hitler came around to the agreement to obtain money for his purpose and get rid of a few Jews along the way. How is that twisted ? The fact that only Rich Jews would be able to put up a Thousand Pounds Sterling how is that twisted. Are you saying that there were no poor Jews? Or that the agreement did not exist or that it did not support the exodus of those who wished to take their wealth or most of it with them. The Nazi party prevented Jews from mass emigration and withdrawing their wealth from the country. The agreement allowed some rich Jews to emigrate for a fee/ fine by depositing/extorting money in exchange for being able to take goods with them, which had become the property of the German government through appropriation when people declared the intention of leaving.

But You do not wish to acknowledge or even investigate for yourself So now you have rejected documented historical fact and resort to name calling.

Perhaps Naz Shah should have been more politically astute, I certainly see a lot of support on behalf of the USA for Israel which is odd given that many Jews were turned away from their shores when in desperate need just as others turned away. I find the "poor me I am always under attack" syndrome sickening when Israel constantly sits watching as Jewish 'Settlers' turn people out of their homes bulldoze them and leave them without shelter and a means to earn a living. Just as I find the "You don't understand our culture" of Muslims who are criticised for their honour killings and forced marriages sickening.

You have not been discussing the suspension of Naz Shah at all which would be a conversation about whether or not she should have been subjected to suspension and I believe you said earlier sacked from her job) and the merits or not of that (but having a sly underhanded dig at the Labour party. Now this has been pointed out you resort to the sort of name calling My ex Mother in Law resorted to when I left my first husband because of his behaviour. This name calling is beneath contempt.

PS.

Just to clarify things : because someone reads a publication does not mean that they agree with what is written.

I have also read many other books which give many other views on many other subjects and do not necessarily agree with them either.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Margarita Ma
PS.

[Ridgewalk]

Poeple should be reflective enough to acknowledge that when they describe opinions they don't agree with as "on a rant" "ranting" that it is a subjective judgement. It is used as an insult not an argument to make a point

[foxy lady]

I have presented fact. and came to a conclusion that the events that took place did so because it was advantageous both of the parties engaged in the agreement. Neither side comes out of that particular wash squeaky clean. there was not much of a choice involved for the Jews in the matter except get out if you can or arm yourselves and have a civil war. Not much of a choice at all when you are outnumbered 100 to 1. That does not change the facts Hitler came around to the agreement to obtain money for his purpose and get rid of a few Jews along the way. How is that twisted ? The fact that only Rich Jews would be able to put up a Thousand Pounds Sterling how is that twisted. Are you saying that there were no poor Jews? Or that the agreement did not exist or that it did not support the exodus of those who wished to take their wealth or most of it with them. The Nazi party prevented Jews from mass emigration and withdrawing their wealth from the country. The agreement allowed some rich Jews to emigrate for a fee/ fine by depositing/extorting money in exchange for being able to take goods with them, which had become the property of the German government through appropriation when people declared the intention of leaving.

But You do not wish to acknowledge or even investigate for yourself So now you have rejected documented historical fact and resort to name calling.

Perhaps Naz Shah should have been more politically astute, I certainly see a lot of support on behalf of the USA for Israel which is odd given that many Jews were turned away from their shores when in desperate need just as others turned away. I find the "poor me I am always under attack" syndrome sickening when Israel constantly sits watching as Jewish 'Settlers' turn people out of their homes bulldoze them and leave them without shelter and a means to earn a living. Just as I find the "You don't understand our culture" of Muslims who are criticised for their honour killings and forced marriages sickening.

You have not been discussing the suspension of Naz Shah at all which would be a conversation about whether or not she should have been subjected to suspension and I believe you said earlier sacked from her job) and the merits or not of that (but having a sly underhanded dig at the Labour party. Now this has been pointed out you resort to the sort of name calling My ex Mother in Law resorted to when I left my first husband because of his behaviour. This name calling is beneath contempt.

PS.

Just to clarify things : because someone reads a publication does not mean that they agree with what is written.

I have also read many other books which give many other views on many other subjects and do not necessarily agree with them either.

 

I have no interest in debating whichever version of history you are promoting. Nor am I interested in your version of historical "facts". I'm discussing Naz Shah, her anti-semitic tweets, Ken Livingstone and the suspension of both them and others from the Labour Party.

Now either Corbyn is right or wrong to suspend them. Many of his MPs say he didn't go far enough and should have expelled them. Indeed according to The Times, several prominent backers are withdrawing financial support from the Labour Party, and several front bench Labour MPs preparing to resign.

 

It will be interesting to see how that pans out. Will they wait until the coming elections, or use them as an excuse to try to bring down the party leadership?

[milquetoast1]

I have no interest in debating whichever version of history you are promoting. Nor am I interested in your version of historical "facts".

 

Isn't it quite amusing that to defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism, Ken Livingston and his friends are referring to anti-Semitic literature and anti-Semetic versions of the "truth".

[foxy lady]

Isn't it quite amusing that to defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism, Ken Livingston and his friends are referring to anti-Semitic literature and anti-Semetic versions of the "truth".

 

I suppose if it's all you have, although there are plenty desperate to be taken in by it.

[MikeFrank]

Another 3 Labour councillors suspended. It runs through the party like a stick of rock. No doubt they'll be apologising soon.

 

I don't believe the apologies, they're just trying to save their bacon.